Very idealistic of you but manufacturers will NEVER bear the cost, it will be passed on to the consumer who will then bitch and moan to their government representation that they are being gouged.
You are forgetting that under my (admittedly fantasy) scheme, clean products would end up less expensive, as fewer disposal costs would need to be passed on to the consumer. Instead of bitching to the government, consumers would simply buy the cheaper products, and let the manufacturer's of the dirty (now expensive) products die out.
We are also fighting to ensure the safety of our own populace and country. Notice, not a friggin thing has happened on our soil since taking the initiative to bring the war to their area.
Lisa: Dad, what if I were to tell you that this rock keeps away tigers.
Homer: Uh-huh, and how does it work?
Lisa: It doesn't work. It's just a stupid rock.
Homer: I see.
Lisa: But you don't see any tigers around, do you?
Look at it from the manufacturer's point of view. There's a chance that any piece of consumer electronics is now going to wear out and die even faster, causing people to buy replacements more frequently. Sounds like a great deal for the manufacturer with no downside. They don't have to pay to dispose of these things properly. And no, chucking your old electronics in the trash is not the proper way of disposing of them, unless you like cadmium, mercury, hexavalent chromium, and brominated flame retardants seeping into your drinking water.
Make manufacturers bear the ENTIRE cost of properly and safely disposing of their products, and overnight we'd have cleaner, greener, more long-lasting and durable products.
The very simple reason is that people who think are harder to govern than people who don't.
Not only that, but people who think are harder to market to. Commercial interests have a huge financial stake in making sure consumers accept what they are told without question and don't critically evaluate their choices.
Hahah you must be joking. Americans by and large have no idea what the "extreme left" even looks like. We don't have "extreme left" politicians here. As the other poster said, look at other countries in the world to see what extreme left looks like. Here in the USA, we have "right" and "extreme right" parties.
As much as i really WANT it to be true that gay marriage doesn't effect straight couples, I really think it does. Straight couples feel threatened by gay ones. Because of this, marriage can be looked at (by them) as something that is THEIRS. It is their own special little club, and only they are invited.
You keep making this generalization, but it's not true.
What you mean to say is, "Some straight couples feel threatened by gay ones." Particularly, the bigoted ones.
Show me one straight couple that is offended by the fact that two dudes from Boston they've never met are married, and I'll show you two couples who don't care in the slightest.
The same problem applies overall to the "Department of Defense". When was the last time the "Department of Defense" actually DEFENDED U.S. soil? Pearl Harbor? It seems all they do nowadays is attack... Maybe they should change their name back to the "War Department."
It has a lot to do with the tone of the writing. I consider anything written with the intent to alarm rather than to inform to be fear-mongering. Anything written with the intent of pushing a particular world view (political, economic, social) is propaganda.
The next time you read a "news" article, pay particular attention to the author's choice of adjectives. If you have a lot of free time, go through and highlight them all, and step back and take a look at what kind of editorial bias the author is (intentionally or not) inserting into what should be purely informative.
I never claimed they wrote their own news. What is interesting is out of all the stories they get from all their sources, look at which ones they choose to push as headline "news" and look at the headlines they give them.
It's very clear that they and the other "news" outlets are in the business of selling entertainment rather than delivering newsworthy information.
And that's just the headlines! Dig deeper into these news sites and find out how much passes as news. It's mostly shit like "Top 10 dog-friendly vacation destinations!" and "Brittney stubs her toe! What does this mean for fans?"
I think you're living in the wrong neighborhood if people are going to shoot at you if you walk through their property.
There's nothing about owning property in and of itself that depends on force, assuming the purchase or acquisition of that property was not coerced.
As for that "implicit agreement" I somehow made to pay taxes? If it's a voluntary agreement, show me where I can sign to disregard it, because it is very one-sided. If it is not, then it's a perfect example of something that's the opposite of liberty.
That's one of the many flaws in "social contract" theory. If your "social contract" were a real contract, at least in the U.S., the courts would disregard it for being a contract of adhesion and unconscionable.
Is it any wonder? Real news isn't even a large part of what passes for "newsertainment" these days. Let's take a look at and categorize the current headlines on some major US "news" web sites:
Taxation is essentially the use of force as a means of achieving political or social goals. (If you don't believe that, try refusing to pay taxes and tell me if men with guns eventually show up to put you in jail) This is pretty much the opposite of the meaning and spirit of liberty.
It has been somewhat of a running joke about how many forklift drivers who have applied.
Oh, a running joke!! Ha! Ha! It's so funny to see people who want to change their career to make better lives for themselves! That's fucking hilarious! OMFGHAHA, look at this guy's resume!! He thinks his years of experience doing physical labor qualifies him for a junior position in my company! What a luser!!@!
I'm sorry if that was not your intent, but in those first couple of sentences, you came across as pretty callous. Then I read this:
From what I have seen, experience usually counts more than education for entry level computer jobs.
I almost did a triple-take reading this one. What part of "entry level" don't you understand? If you are an experienced candidate, you are not looking for an entry level job. That's the point of taking an entry level job--to gain experience that you don't have so you can find a non-entry-level job. If someone has a year or so of experience programming, and he's applying to an entry level position, I would assume there's something wrong with him.
Here's another general bit of general advice for anyone trying to hire someone to fill an open position: If you have a job where the person is going to do tasks A, B, and C, don't ask for 5+ years of experience doing exactly tasks A, B, and C. If someone has that kind of experience, he's likely NOT looking to find yet another job where he does A, B, and C. Why would someone change jobs simply to do the exact same thing he did before?
To a H1B, it is still a LOT of $$, but, often they just live here in poor conditions and send money back home. They accept wages that would be very hard for a US family to get by on with a decent house and kids.
This last sentence contradicts the previous one!
So what you are saying is, the H1B worker can not only live with his salary, but has extra money to send back to his family, yet the American couldn't even get by with that very same salary?
Do you think it might just possibly be the fault of the American's lifestyle, and not the H1B system?
Think of it this way - you're going to have 20 years of fun - would you like them when you're young and virile, or old and dying?
If by "fun" you mean delaying your career/savings simply in order to live carefree and party, you might not have thought your plan through. Know that if you choose to have your fun when you're young, you might just end up having to choose between paying your rent and buying your medicine when you're old and dying.
I'd rather make the sacrifices NOW so I don't have to eat dog food to live when I'm 50.
I always thought showing Googlebot different content than you show actual users was against Google's acceptable use policy and is grounds for having your site removed from their index. This is called "cloaking" and is a well-known black-hat SEO spamming technique.
It's acceptable because, unless you have some kind of heroin-like addiction to YouTube, when your Internet connection goes down, nothing bad happens. Nobody dies. Nobody loses their job. Nobody loses money. You go outside for a bit and play with your dog.
Same for mobile phones, cable, and every other luxury communication service. If it goes down, it's no big deal. You go spend some quality time with people you love.
If I were worried about my site being shut down due to offending people with money/power, I sure wouldn't host it in the U.S. Find a country without DMCA takedowns, secret courts, and "terror" lawsuits that come with automatic gag orders, in other words, some place with more freedom than the U.S.
it would be a lot less costly to do the right thing for the customer now than to spend dollars on the back end trying to fix the problem.
Hahahahahha. That's one of the funniest things I've read all week. Many of us have worked in the software biz. How many times have we seen this wrong decision made over and over and over and over again?
To be clear, I'm in favor of legal immigration. I'm also in favor of making that easier to reduce wait times and backlogs.
If you are in favor of "legal immigration" as you put it, this implies that you support the laws that define what is legal and what is illegal. Currently this law does not allow anyone who wants to, to come here and work.
Therefore, assuming you are an American and a voter, then the statement "people like you have made it a crime to allow people to come here and work" is true.
In a representative government, anyone in favor of a law is indirectly responsible for the problems that law causes.
You're modded "funny" but sadly, a lot of people believe that nonsense.
It's like saying India is "annexing" us, because they send a lot of IT workers here. Total rubbish, but it appeals to the closet racists and nationalists that are all around us.
This is a good point. Most companies who SAY they are looking for "superstar" programmers really would do just fine with an above-average one. Logically, not everyone can have the top 0.5% employees.
So if you absolutely need a top 0.5% programmer, prepare to pay them well and treat them well, and respect them for being the top in their field. When it comes down to it, most companies aren't willing to do either of those three.
One could argue that you wouldn't want to work for an employer who is shortsighted and petty enough to base their hiring decisions on the results of a Google search or what the applicant has on his personal web page.
If that's how they hire you, imagine what the yearly performance reviews are going to be like. You're better off working for a different company.
Slashdot Mirror
Um, did you forget the point of the post you were replying to?
How about
d) Supported entirely by advertising dollars
or
e) Supported entirely by cable subscriptions, like the ORIGINAL PROMISE OF PAY TV.
Very idealistic of you but manufacturers will NEVER bear the cost, it will be passed on to the consumer who will then bitch and moan to their government representation that they are being gouged.
You are forgetting that under my (admittedly fantasy) scheme, clean products would end up less expensive, as fewer disposal costs would need to be passed on to the consumer. Instead of bitching to the government, consumers would simply buy the cheaper products, and let the manufacturer's of the dirty (now expensive) products die out.
We are also fighting to ensure the safety of our own populace and country. Notice, not a friggin thing has happened on our soil since taking the initiative to bring the war to their area.
Lisa: Dad, what if I were to tell you that this rock keeps away tigers.
Homer: Uh-huh, and how does it work?
Lisa: It doesn't work. It's just a stupid rock.
Homer: I see.
Lisa: But you don't see any tigers around, do you?
Homer: Lisa, I'd like to buy your rock.
Look at it from the manufacturer's point of view. There's a chance that any piece of consumer electronics is now going to wear out and die even faster, causing people to buy replacements more frequently. Sounds like a great deal for the manufacturer with no downside. They don't have to pay to dispose of these things properly. And no, chucking your old electronics in the trash is not the proper way of disposing of them, unless you like cadmium, mercury, hexavalent chromium, and brominated flame retardants seeping into your drinking water.
Make manufacturers bear the ENTIRE cost of properly and safely disposing of their products, and overnight we'd have cleaner, greener, more long-lasting and durable products.
The very simple reason is that people who think are harder to govern than people who don't.
Not only that, but people who think are harder to market to. Commercial interests have a huge financial stake in making sure consumers accept what they are told without question and don't critically evaluate their choices.
Hahah you must be joking. Americans by and large have no idea what the "extreme left" even looks like. We don't have "extreme left" politicians here. As the other poster said, look at other countries in the world to see what extreme left looks like. Here in the USA, we have "right" and "extreme right" parties.
As much as i really WANT it to be true that gay marriage doesn't effect straight couples, I really think it does. Straight couples feel threatened by gay ones. Because of this, marriage can be looked at (by them) as something that is THEIRS. It is their own special little club, and only they are invited.
You keep making this generalization, but it's not true.
What you mean to say is, "Some straight couples feel threatened by gay ones." Particularly, the bigoted ones.
Show me one straight couple that is offended by the fact that two dudes from Boston they've never met are married, and I'll show you two couples who don't care in the slightest.
The same problem applies overall to the "Department of Defense". When was the last time the "Department of Defense" actually DEFENDED U.S. soil? Pearl Harbor? It seems all they do nowadays is attack... Maybe they should change their name back to the "War Department."
It has a lot to do with the tone of the writing. I consider anything written with the intent to alarm rather than to inform to be fear-mongering. Anything written with the intent of pushing a particular world view (political, economic, social) is propaganda.
The next time you read a "news" article, pay particular attention to the author's choice of adjectives. If you have a lot of free time, go through and highlight them all, and step back and take a look at what kind of editorial bias the author is (intentionally or not) inserting into what should be purely informative.
I never claimed they wrote their own news. What is interesting is out of all the stories they get from all their sources, look at which ones they choose to push as headline "news" and look at the headlines they give them.
It's very clear that they and the other "news" outlets are in the business of selling entertainment rather than delivering newsworthy information.
And that's just the headlines! Dig deeper into these news sites and find out how much passes as news. It's mostly shit like "Top 10 dog-friendly vacation destinations!" and "Brittney stubs her toe! What does this mean for fans?"
I think you're living in the wrong neighborhood if people are going to shoot at you if you walk through their property.
There's nothing about owning property in and of itself that depends on force, assuming the purchase or acquisition of that property was not coerced.
As for that "implicit agreement" I somehow made to pay taxes? If it's a voluntary agreement, show me where I can sign to disregard it, because it is very one-sided. If it is not, then it's a perfect example of something that's the opposite of liberty.
That's one of the many flaws in "social contract" theory. If your "social contract" were a real contract, at least in the U.S., the courts would disregard it for being a contract of adhesion and unconscionable.
Is it any wonder? Real news isn't even a large part of what passes for "newsertainment" these days. Let's take a look at and categorize the current headlines on some major US "news" web sites:
CNN.com:
Iraq PM welcomes al-Sadr call; curfews ending
- News, borderline propaganda piece
Home inspection nightmares
- Not news. Fluff piece, mild fear-mongering
March Madness
- Not news. Fluff, Entertainment
Celebrity makeup bag
- Not news. Fluff, Entertainment
FOXNews.com:
Should She Stay or Go? (about Hillary Clinton)
- Not news. Right-wing propaganda piece
'Clear and Present Danger'
- Not news. Right-wing propaganda piece
'Muslims Have Overtaken Us'
- Not news. Right-wing propaganda piece
MSNBC.com:
Proposal would give Fed wide new powers
- Not news. Fear mongering (read it)
Another jobs loss may sink stocks again
- Not news. Editorial speculation.
How Clinton, McCain and Obama would tackle the U.S. economy
- Not news. Political propaganda.
Memphis advances to Final Four
- Not news. Fluff, Entertainment.
USAToday.com:
Al-Sadr pulls militia, offers Iraq deal
- News, borderline propaganda
CIA chief: Al-Qaeda has safe haven
- Not news. Propaganda, fear-mongering
'Killing Fields' survivor passes
- News.
Doubts raised about Vytorin, Zetia
- Not news. Speculative, fear-mongering
Taxation is essentially the use of force as a means of achieving political or social goals. (If you don't believe that, try refusing to pay taxes and tell me if men with guns eventually show up to put you in jail) This is pretty much the opposite of the meaning and spirit of liberty.
It has been somewhat of a running joke about how many forklift drivers who have applied.
Oh, a running joke!! Ha! Ha! It's so funny to see people who want to change their career to make better lives for themselves! That's fucking hilarious! OMFGHAHA, look at this guy's resume!! He thinks his years of experience doing physical labor qualifies him for a junior position in my company! What a luser!!@!
I'm sorry if that was not your intent, but in those first couple of sentences, you came across as pretty callous. Then I read this:
From what I have seen, experience usually counts more than education for entry level computer jobs.
I almost did a triple-take reading this one. What part of "entry level" don't you understand? If you are an experienced candidate, you are not looking for an entry level job. That's the point of taking an entry level job--to gain experience that you don't have so you can find a non-entry-level job. If someone has a year or so of experience programming, and he's applying to an entry level position, I would assume there's something wrong with him.
Here's another general bit of general advice for anyone trying to hire someone to fill an open position: If you have a job where the person is going to do tasks A, B, and C, don't ask for 5+ years of experience doing exactly tasks A, B, and C. If someone has that kind of experience, he's likely NOT looking to find yet another job where he does A, B, and C. Why would someone change jobs simply to do the exact same thing he did before?
To a H1B, it is still a LOT of $$, but, often they just live here in poor conditions and send money back home. They accept wages that would be very hard for a US family to get by on with a decent house and kids.
This last sentence contradicts the previous one!
So what you are saying is, the H1B worker can not only live with his salary, but has extra money to send back to his family, yet the American couldn't even get by with that very same salary?
Do you think it might just possibly be the fault of the American's lifestyle, and not the H1B system?
Think of it this way - you're going to have 20 years of fun - would you like them when you're young and virile, or old and dying?
If by "fun" you mean delaying your career/savings simply in order to live carefree and party, you might not have thought your plan through. Know that if you choose to have your fun when you're young, you might just end up having to choose between paying your rent and buying your medicine when you're old and dying.
I'd rather make the sacrifices NOW so I don't have to eat dog food to live when I'm 50.
I always thought showing Googlebot different content than you show actual users was against Google's acceptable use policy and is grounds for having your site removed from their index. This is called "cloaking" and is a well-known black-hat SEO spamming technique.
It's acceptable because, unless you have some kind of heroin-like addiction to YouTube, when your Internet connection goes down, nothing bad happens. Nobody dies. Nobody loses their job. Nobody loses money. You go outside for a bit and play with your dog.
Same for mobile phones, cable, and every other luxury communication service. If it goes down, it's no big deal. You go spend some quality time with people you love.
I think the acceptance of answering machines has more to do with society's growing narcissistic belief that you must be "reachable" at all times.
I, for one, do not have an answering machine or use voice mail, and I generally won't leave a message for someone if the call doesn't go thorough.
If I were worried about my site being shut down due to offending people with money/power, I sure wouldn't host it in the U.S. Find a country without DMCA takedowns, secret courts, and "terror" lawsuits that come with automatic gag orders, in other words, some place with more freedom than the U.S.
it would be a lot less costly to do the right thing for the customer now than to spend dollars on the back end trying to fix the problem.
Hahahahahha. That's one of the funniest things I've read all week. Many of us have worked in the software biz. How many times have we seen this wrong decision made over and over and over and over again?
To be clear, I'm in favor of legal immigration. I'm also in favor of making that easier to reduce wait times and backlogs.
If you are in favor of "legal immigration" as you put it, this implies that you support the laws that define what is legal and what is illegal. Currently this law does not allow anyone who wants to, to come here and work.
Therefore, assuming you are an American and a voter, then the statement "people like you have made it a crime to allow people to come here and work" is true.
In a representative government, anyone in favor of a law is indirectly responsible for the problems that law causes.
You're modded "funny" but sadly, a lot of people believe that nonsense.
It's like saying India is "annexing" us, because they send a lot of IT workers here. Total rubbish, but it appeals to the closet racists and nationalists that are all around us.
This is a good point. Most companies who SAY they are looking for "superstar" programmers really would do just fine with an above-average one. Logically, not everyone can have the top 0.5% employees.
So if you absolutely need a top 0.5% programmer, prepare to pay them well and treat them well, and respect them for being the top in their field. When it comes down to it, most companies aren't willing to do either of those three.
One could argue that you wouldn't want to work for an employer who is shortsighted and petty enough to base their hiring decisions on the results of a Google search or what the applicant has on his personal web page.
If that's how they hire you, imagine what the yearly performance reviews are going to be like. You're better off working for a different company.