Because outsourcing is moving up the chain. First the unskilled labour, then the skilled professionals, and finally the rest of the company (aside from sales and the CXX's).
If you have different political views you could undermine the government / elected officials through what you pick up behind closed doors and then expose.
You can't possibly expect a civil servants political views to always align with those of the government unless you assume they change them every time a different political party comes into power. Would you overturn the civil service every time an election is held? And unless you civil service is composed entirely of apolitical workers, you can't expect them all to be 'neutral' outside of the office.
Contrast that with the products of Microsoft, Oracle
Apples to apples, I don't believe either of those companies provide an 'Express' version of the ERP software (Oracle/JDE/PeopleSoft/Dynamics AX/NAV). As an independent, it's always been frustrating to try to evaluate new releases from those vendors.
Basically, if they do nothing they find money for zero work
You seem to forget there's one more phone available, likely at a reduced price. That's not to say every stolen phone ends up being sold, but many are. So $Phonemaker doesn't end up with the money in that case.
He committed no violence. And as a veteran, I'm sure he had a belly full of violence in his life and is more than likely sick of it. I'm inclined to believe that a veteran - especially one that has saw combat - would be much less inclined towards violence than the general population.
While overall the armed forces are less likely than civilians to offend, they are three times more likely to be convicted of violent offences; 20% of younger males (under 30) have been convicted of violence compared with 6.7% of civilians. Those who served in combat in Iraq or Afghanistan were 53% more likely to offend violently than those not on the frontline. Those with multiple experiences of combat had a 70%-80% greater risk of being convicted for acts of violence.
That doesn't mean that I agree with 'profiling' veterans, just that your assumption may be off.
You may want to listen to the content of that 'endless discussion' sometime. There's very few significant topics that weren't addressed somewhere in the Star Trek franchise. And it had a somewhat novel way of addressing them - often from the point of view on non-humans. Sure, that had been done before - but not on that scale.
Very few entertainment franchises, and certainly none as successful as Star Trek, have addressed the breadth of topics that it has.
Can you tell me what's wrong with pretty colors and snappy writing?
Because it's Star Trek, and we expect some depth. The franchise that provided thought provoking (though occasionally asinine) entertainment. That's the core of the franchise, not snappy-but-shallow dialogue and big action. The only thing retained are the characters, or at least a one-dimensional simulation of them.
Change the characters and the name and it's a fine popcorn movie.
The analogy, therefore, is not between OSC and a bartender who hangs dehumanizing flags in his bar, but between OSC and a bartender who treats gay patrons as decently as straight patrons, but went to Liberty University and gives money to Focus on the Family.
*Of course, I do not mean to imply that the moral and ethical question is one of popularity. Only to indicate that OSC's views are not so far outside the the mainstream as to merit the kind of abusive comparisons to fringe groups as have been made here. OSC wants to keep the status quo on marriage. The KKK wants to lynch homosexuals. There is a difference.
OSC isn't simply opposed to SSM.... he believes they are 'abnormal', belong in prison, prone to paraphilia and a product of rape and incest. In several jurisdictions it's considered hate speech - though I don't subscribe to the idea of criminalizing speech. And your comparison was entirely fair - the KKK doesn't actually publicly endorse lynching homosexuals any longer but do state that it should be a crime. Just like OSC.
His opposition to SSM is irrelevant. I don't give a hoot if he's for or against it, to be honest. That's a difference of opinion. I do care, however, if he denigrates a segment of the population based on how or with whom they choose to pair up. And I state my objection with my wallet.
The analogy, therefore, is not between OSC and a bartender who hangs dehumanizing flags in his bar, but between OSC and a bartender who treats gay patrons as decently as straight patrons, but went to Liberty University and gives money to Focus on the Family.
I believe you're splitting hairs. Both the bartender and the artist are using forums which leverage their respective professions and positions (the bar and the blog) to garner an audience. The bartender may attend to the homosexual in a polite and appropriate manner, but he's still engaging in what, in a few jurisdictions, would be labelled hate speech. And my comparison is not at all off the mark with OSC as he has stated that homosexuals are a product of rape and incest, are prone to paraphilia, belong in prison and are abnormal. There's actually quite a bit more but I'll only reiterate what's only been said here since I'd rather not expend further energy echoing his thoughts.
Suffice to say, this isn't simply a matter of OSC wanting to keep the status quo on marriage. In fact, for many (myself included) his opposition to SSM is irrelevant - it's the denigration of a specific group for how and with whom they choose to pair off. I'd suggest if you think that's the sole reason OSC has people riled up you may want to do a little more research.
If you regard the bartender as homophobic, does that mean you wouldn't pay him for beer (since, believing and saying things you consider reprehensible, you've deemed him unfit to receive money)?
You seem to be missing a rather large point - the bartender is unlikely to use his position to promote his views in the way that Card can. However, if the bartender is flying a flag in his bar that proudly proclaims "Faggots aren't human" or other reprehensible statements, than absolutely he's unfit to receive my money. Would you happily hand over your money in that case? Surely there's some viewpoint you find reprehensible - would you willingly immerse yourself in it simply because the wings are good?
The artist or celebrity that uses their position to promote any viewpoint should indeed be regarded in light of those views. That's not to say their art, or service, should be regarded as such, but it should by all mean affect what I do with my money.
And let's not forget it was Card that made a choice to use his position to promote such views and used his position as an artist to gain exposure for them. So why should the 'art' be separate?
You seem to be talking about art, while the GP is referring to money. Apparently the GP does indeed appreciate the art but would rather not give his money to an artist he doesn't deem fit to receive it.
Actually, GP isn't. If you look at the survey, it's things like 'trading personal information for more relevant advertising' or 'deals for nearby businesses'. In other words, giving away privacy for coupons.
There always have been. We're social creatures. Try living in total isolation from society in, say, the 1800s. It was hard to completely disappear even then
There's a considerable difference between being 'tracked' by individuals we are socially connected to and entities we aren't. The reclusive uncle who had some odd reading habits wasn't at risk of being rounded up in the way that he might be with the latter.
Stuxnet was possible because Iran was using outside (German) technology for their nuclear program which they developed with the assistance of the Russians, so I'm pretty sure they're open to outside help. Based on the results, though, I wouldn't blame them for being a little leery.
Exactly where did you get the idea that the "playing field" should be or ever has been "level"? Seriously. Do you think that all people are of equal ablity, interest, education, and talent? You have access to paint, brushes, and canvases. The quality of the tools varies with price. Do you honestly think you could create a painting using the most expensive tools that would be better than what Van Gogh created with the paints he created at home?
You seem to be confusing 'tools' with 'talent'. The premise is fairly simple - if everyone has access to the same tools, there will be far more users of those tools and overall far better work being done. Your example is missing the point - painting materials generally aren't expensive and therefore don't present an economic barrier. However, there's many examples of fields where the tools are prohibitively expensive and do provide a barrier. In some cases, those costs are kept artificially high thanks to patents.
Suggesting that someone else's work should be free so you can use it to compete with someone else is just arogance and selfishness.
So I assume you've found a way to pay for all the 'free' work that's gone into enabling you to wag your proverbial finger on the internet? Are you paying by the bit or a flat rate, and who do you send the cheque to? I'm looking forward to getting a few royalty cheques my way...
Levels the playing field. If everyone has access to the same tools, anyone can produce a competitive product - good for innovation, job creation, etc, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
Social programs
Because outsourcing is moving up the chain. First the unskilled labour, then the skilled professionals, and finally the rest of the company (aside from sales and the CXX's).
One or two nutjobs? Really?
It was on the front page of Fox News, so Joe Six-Pack likely noticed.
If you have different political views you could undermine the government / elected officials through what you pick up behind closed doors and then expose.
You can't possibly expect a civil servants political views to always align with those of the government unless you assume they change them every time a different political party comes into power. Would you overturn the civil service every time an election is held?
And unless you civil service is composed entirely of apolitical workers, you can't expect them all to be 'neutral' outside of the office.
Ah, good info on the Oracle stuff. In a former life I had partner access and never bothered looking after I lost it... thanks!
Just can't bring myself to fork over for the MSDN sub though. Dynamics is only available at the Premium level ($6k) as far as I can tell.
Contrast that with the products of Microsoft, Oracle
Apples to apples, I don't believe either of those companies provide an 'Express' version of the ERP software (Oracle/JDE/PeopleSoft/Dynamics AX/NAV). As an independent, it's always been frustrating to try to evaluate new releases from those vendors.
Basically, if they do nothing they find money for zero work
You seem to forget there's one more phone available, likely at a reduced price. That's not to say every stolen phone ends up being sold, but many are. So $Phonemaker doesn't end up with the money in that case.
He committed no violence. And as a veteran, I'm sure he had a belly full of violence in his life and is more than likely sick of it. I'm inclined to believe that a veteran - especially one that has saw combat - would be much less inclined towards violence than the general population.
Statistics disagree
While overall the armed forces are less likely than civilians to offend, they are three times more likely to be convicted of violent offences; 20% of younger males (under 30) have been convicted of violence compared with 6.7% of civilians. Those who served in combat in Iraq or Afghanistan were 53% more likely to offend violently than those not on the frontline. Those with multiple experiences of combat had a 70%-80% greater risk of being convicted for acts of violence.
That doesn't mean that I agree with 'profiling' veterans, just that your assumption may be off.
You may want to listen to the content of that 'endless discussion' sometime. There's very few significant topics that weren't addressed somewhere in the Star Trek franchise. And it had a somewhat novel way of addressing them - often from the point of view on non-humans. Sure, that had been done before - but not on that scale.
Very few entertainment franchises, and certainly none as successful as Star Trek, have addressed the breadth of topics that it has.
Can you tell me what's wrong with pretty colors and snappy writing?
Because it's Star Trek, and we expect some depth. The franchise that provided thought provoking (though occasionally asinine) entertainment. That's the core of the franchise, not snappy-but-shallow dialogue and big action. The only thing retained are the characters, or at least a one-dimensional simulation of them.
Change the characters and the name and it's a fine popcorn movie.
The analogy, therefore, is not between OSC and a bartender who hangs dehumanizing flags in his bar, but between OSC and a bartender who treats gay patrons as decently as straight patrons, but went to Liberty University and gives money to Focus on the Family.
*Of course, I do not mean to imply that the moral and ethical question is one of popularity. Only to indicate that OSC's views are not so far outside the the mainstream as to merit the kind of abusive comparisons to fringe groups as have been made here. OSC wants to keep the status quo on marriage. The KKK wants to lynch homosexuals. There is a difference.
OSC isn't simply opposed to SSM.... he believes they are 'abnormal', belong in prison, prone to paraphilia and a product of rape and incest. In several jurisdictions it's considered hate speech - though I don't subscribe to the idea of criminalizing speech. And your comparison was entirely fair - the KKK doesn't actually publicly endorse lynching homosexuals any longer but do state that it should be a crime. Just like OSC.
His opposition to SSM is irrelevant. I don't give a hoot if he's for or against it, to be honest. That's a difference of opinion. I do care, however, if he denigrates a segment of the population based on how or with whom they choose to pair up. And I state my objection with my wallet.
The analogy, therefore, is not between OSC and a bartender who hangs dehumanizing flags in his bar, but between OSC and a bartender who treats gay patrons as decently as straight patrons, but went to Liberty University and gives money to Focus on the Family.
I believe you're splitting hairs. Both the bartender and the artist are using forums which leverage their respective professions and positions (the bar and the blog) to garner an audience. The bartender may attend to the homosexual in a polite and appropriate manner, but he's still engaging in what, in a few jurisdictions, would be labelled hate speech. And my comparison is not at all off the mark with OSC as he has stated that homosexuals are a product of rape and incest, are prone to paraphilia, belong in prison and are abnormal. There's actually quite a bit more but I'll only reiterate what's only been said here since I'd rather not expend further energy echoing his thoughts.
Suffice to say, this isn't simply a matter of OSC wanting to keep the status quo on marriage. In fact, for many (myself included) his opposition to SSM is irrelevant - it's the denigration of a specific group for how and with whom they choose to pair off. I'd suggest if you think that's the sole reason OSC has people riled up you may want to do a little more research.
If you regard the bartender as homophobic, does that mean you wouldn't pay him for beer (since, believing and saying things you consider reprehensible, you've deemed him unfit to receive money)?
You seem to be missing a rather large point - the bartender is unlikely to use his position to promote his views in the way that Card can. However, if the bartender is flying a flag in his bar that proudly proclaims "Faggots aren't human" or other reprehensible statements, than absolutely he's unfit to receive my money. Would you happily hand over your money in that case? Surely there's some viewpoint you find reprehensible - would you willingly immerse yourself in it simply because the wings are good?
The artist or celebrity that uses their position to promote any viewpoint should indeed be regarded in light of those views. That's not to say their art, or service, should be regarded as such, but it should by all mean affect what I do with my money.
And let's not forget it was Card that made a choice to use his position to promote such views and used his position as an artist to gain exposure for them. So why should the 'art' be separate?
You seem to be talking about art, while the GP is referring to money. Apparently the GP does indeed appreciate the art but would rather not give his money to an artist he doesn't deem fit to receive it.
You are looking at it completely wrong.
Actually, GP isn't. If you look at the survey, it's things like 'trading personal information for more relevant advertising' or 'deals for nearby businesses'. In other words, giving away privacy for coupons.
The UK economy has grown massively since the 1980's
Not on balance. It's grown like most of the west has - borrowing massive amounts from the private sector to be paid back by future generations.
There always have been. We're social creatures. Try living in total isolation from society in, say, the 1800s. It was hard to completely disappear even then
There's a considerable difference between being 'tracked' by individuals we are socially connected to and entities we aren't. The reclusive uncle who had some odd reading habits wasn't at risk of being rounded up in the way that he might be with the latter.
Not shirts... handkerchiefs
Not sure if MMO's fall under S&M or Bondage.
Stuxnet was possible because Iran was using outside (German) technology for their nuclear program which they developed with the assistance of the Russians, so I'm pretty sure they're open to outside help. Based on the results, though, I wouldn't blame them for being a little leery.
Well, those of us who have successfully managed to stay off facebook can...
Exactly where did you get the idea that the "playing field" should be or ever has been "level"? Seriously. Do you think that all people are of equal ablity, interest, education, and talent?
You have access to paint, brushes, and canvases. The quality of the tools varies with price. Do you honestly think you could create a painting using the most expensive tools that would be better than what Van Gogh created with the paints he created at home?
You seem to be confusing 'tools' with 'talent'. The premise is fairly simple - if everyone has access to the same tools, there will be far more users of those tools and overall far better work being done. Your example is missing the point - painting materials generally aren't expensive and therefore don't present an economic barrier. However, there's many examples of fields where the tools are prohibitively expensive and do provide a barrier. In some cases, those costs are kept artificially high thanks to patents.
Suggesting that someone else's work should be free so you can use it to compete with someone else is just arogance and selfishness.
So I assume you've found a way to pay for all the 'free' work that's gone into enabling you to wag your proverbial finger on the internet? Are you paying by the bit or a flat rate, and who do you send the cheque to? I'm looking forward to getting a few royalty cheques my way...
Levels the playing field. If everyone has access to the same tools, anyone can produce a competitive product - good for innovation, job creation, etc, etc.
Ah, had to RTFA and watch the damn video... but apparently it was a drug test kit from the police station.
They have a home drug test kit that tests for prescription drugs? Is there such a thing?
I thought those kits tested for illegal drugs. Isn't that the whole point of them?