I can see the point in them, you can talk to people who you haven't seen for a while. Rather than needing an MSN, AIM, etc account to IM your friends, just find them on Facebook. Its easy to find the people who you want to talk to on FB and people generally check it more often than sign into Instant Messengers.
Plus, you have a lot more control over it than a cell phone, if you need to negotiate a meeting, its a lot better to just message them over Facebook because you can block them or delete them if need be. Good luck convincing that annoying person who got your number to stop calling you, but its easy to just block them on Facebook.
Why is this even needed? Seriously can anyone name a single benefit for the end user? No one cares what blogs you read, what sites you visit, etc. if someone really cared they'd just ask you.
This is a huge privacy risk and annoyance for no benefit
The people though who watch YouTube videos of things like that though are already the people who know we need to limit the power of the police force. The problem is, Joe 40 year old voter doesn't watch YouTube videos, might read a few liberal or conservative blogs, and watches lots of TV. They would watch shows like 24 and COPS but if there was a show on a major network showing abuses of police power almost exactly like COPS only then examining the cops and showing they were doing nothing wrong.
The average person who would watch YouTube footage of police abuse, Wikileaks coverage of governmental abuse and keeps up to date with general internet buzz already knows about abuses of power. Sadly though, there are a lot more 30-100 year olds out voting for more police power based on media brainwashing than 18-29 year olds who know about the abuses of power, thus those who care about removing abuses of power always get outvoted.
A) Elect the entire police force. Abuses are going to happen when the only people police officers have to report to is... Other police officers or at most the city council.
B) Record their every move. Everywhere a police officer goes they need to be recorded and that data needs to be released to the public. When the next tax increase issue comes up for election, citizens have the right to know that 90% of the time officers were sitting on their butts at the doughnut shop or enforcing non-violent, victimless crime laws.
The root part of the problem is our absurdness in our culture thinking that if you don't have something to hide then the police are our friends rather than the unelected, abusive, thugs they really are. Shows like 24 epitomize this, that police are hindered by laws and the "bad guys" get away the more we enforce the constitution. What we really need for change is showing the evils of the police department, sort of an anti-COPS show, showing abuses in the police system to innocent people.
Because we all know that English never evolves right? We all write like how Chaucer wrote.
Whan that Aprill, with his shoures soote
The droghte of March hath perced to the roote
And bathed every veyne in swich licour,
Of which vertu engendred is the flour;
That makes perfect sense to us, right?
Text speak is just a natural evolution of language. Why does it bother us so much? Do we really -lose- that much?
Throughout time there has been a gap between formal and informal language. For example, it used to be that rather than speaking Spanish, English, French, etc. you spoke Latin or wrote Latin if you were doing anything remotely formal. Today even, there is a distinction between formal and informal writing. But honestly, when we right informally, do we really -lose- anything? Its hard to find a case in where it makes a huge difference if you mean your or you're. If I say "your right" do we really have so much trouble mentally translating it to "you're right"? I don't know about you, but I along with most everyone who I've talked to, reads things "aloud" in their head. So it really doesn't matter too much if its "your" or "you're", "u" or "you" because they sound the same in their "mental voice" and they get the same meaning.
But they -are- reading when they are online. And writing too. They just aren't reading books. I can guarantee you that kids today read -far- more then the ones raised on TV in the 70s, 80s and early 90s and they probably write a ton more too. Think about it, I'm sure you read about the same if not more now than you did back when you were a kid. Between text messaging, Facebook, blogs, Wikipedia, etc. we are all reading more than we probably ever had to as a child.
It should be a cut-and-dry case for management though. Workers won't do the job they signed up to do, fire them. It doesn't matter if you were hired to flip burgers, do blood tests, be a code monkey or sort mail. If you don't do the job you were hired to do, you get fired.
How hard can it be? If they refuse to do the job or require stupid conditions (seriously? writing "please"?) in order to do it, just fire the people. Its not like there is a shortage of workers.
Really, let the free market (if we have one anyways, and no doubt the UK has screwed themselves already with NHS and the like....) rule and get rid of the worthless technicians. Its not too hard.
No https://www.startpage.com/ might, but if its ordinary HTTP, it can be detected by the ISP which is honestly more of a threat than Google logging searches.
Other than that, it's difficult to point to completely new uses for 4G phones -- things they can do that 3G phones can't.
Couldn't you say the same thing about Dial-Up? After all, its difficult to point to completely new uses for broadband, things they can do that dial-up connected computers can't. The point of 4G isn't to be "revolutionary", it wasn't claimed to be. It is simply trying to be faster. The same thing could have been said about EDGE to 3G.
Yeah, but the nice thing about corporations is that unless government interferes, you can -choose- not to use them. If because of these fees BP has higher priced oil than say Exxon, people will flock to Exxon and ignore BP.
Of course due to governments creating artificial monopolies, kickbacks, bailouts and the like this doesn't happen for many businesses.
How does this come as a surprise since the government limits BP's liability to just a drop in the bucket for them? Yeah, they are thinking about retroactively removing it, but seriously, anytime you reduce the liability to an artificially low number, you are just asking for trouble.
Isn't the point of governments to provide for their citizens according to Communism?
If you are going to establish a dictatorship with nearly unlimited power (like the Chinese system) shouldn't it be that government that provides from its citizens? Considering they don't allow for any civil freedoms, very limited economic freedoms, and a government who "owns" your children (via conscription) one would think the least they could do is provide enough water for its citizens.
If you have a limited government, the government should provide against force and fraud, nothing more. If you have a communist, socialist or unlimited government, the government should without a doubt provide for food, water and shelter for its citizens if they are unable to get it.
This isn't 900 AD, we have desalination that is efficient, we've got the 5th largest city in the US in the middle of a desert (Phoenix), water pipes to nearly anywhere in the country you want, islands that can survive purely on ocean water, etc.
So lets see here, your trying to prove a point against capitalism in China which is... Communist. Yeah, its not "true" communism but its sure not pure capitalism.
Next thing you know we're going to be blaming Apple for Microsoft security problems and PowerPC for flaws in x86.
So in other words you'd prefer to have a shortened lifetime living in the stone age then make a decent living with technology?
The fact is, China is pretty terrible for growing crops, its not too hard to import food or develop technology to help with agriculture.
Water is, for all intents and purposes, unlimited. If you don't have it, import it. The sea is filled with it, develop better methods of desalination and such.
Between the two, I think I'd rather work in an Intel factory than be a Chinese farmer.
The reason why companies outsource isn't because people are uber intelligent and great at their job in India, one needs only to call tech support to find that out. Its because Indian workers are cheap for the amount of education and such. Even a crappy American worker is paid minimum wage, in India, a great worker may only cost minimum wage in the US.
If you pay $20,000 for each worker in India and $50,000 for each worker in America, it simply makes sense to outsource.
Most of us go to where the jobs are. Google, Microsoft, Intel and Apple are all pretty large employers of creative people. If I can make $25K more per year if I move, chances are I'll move. So they end up having large concentrations of creative people because most people move where the jobs are. Good luck finding a high-paying, interesting tech job in rural America. Yes, you -can- "telecommute" but most of the time you get paid a lot less than if you go to the cube farm.
Anyone who expects a service to 100% protect them from identity theft is an idiot. Its just like a virus scanner, it might be helpful but its no substitute for common sense.
A lot of drugs can be cheaply created, even by developing countries if they have the correct formulation. The problem is, in order to get aid, most countries sign "treaties" saying they will "respect" western patents in exchange for free money.
But lets face it, Google, Apple, IBM, etc. are all very stable employers. Chances are they will exist in some form in 5 years. Why should I not have the right to move to a stable employer? Yeah, I can go to "anywhere" looking for a job but Google, Apple and IBM all pay very high wages and benefits. Why should I be locked out of the other 2 because I worked for one?
Yeah, and had the scare of their lives in the mid to late '90s when Apple was failing.
From the launch of Windows 95 till the success of the iPod and OS X in 2003, Apple was a joke. No one would have been advised to invest in it.
Yeah, the iPod and OS X and switching to x86 and iTunes have made Apple fashionable again, but for a while in the mid '90s, Apple was worthless. It lacked a decent OS, Windows was gaining, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
I can see the point in them, you can talk to people who you haven't seen for a while. Rather than needing an MSN, AIM, etc account to IM your friends, just find them on Facebook. Its easy to find the people who you want to talk to on FB and people generally check it more often than sign into Instant Messengers.
Plus, you have a lot more control over it than a cell phone, if you need to negotiate a meeting, its a lot better to just message them over Facebook because you can block them or delete them if need be. Good luck convincing that annoying person who got your number to stop calling you, but its easy to just block them on Facebook.
Why is this even needed? Seriously can anyone name a single benefit for the end user? No one cares what blogs you read, what sites you visit, etc. if someone really cared they'd just ask you.
This is a huge privacy risk and annoyance for no benefit
The people though who watch YouTube videos of things like that though are already the people who know we need to limit the power of the police force. The problem is, Joe 40 year old voter doesn't watch YouTube videos, might read a few liberal or conservative blogs, and watches lots of TV. They would watch shows like 24 and COPS but if there was a show on a major network showing abuses of police power almost exactly like COPS only then examining the cops and showing they were doing nothing wrong.
The average person who would watch YouTube footage of police abuse, Wikileaks coverage of governmental abuse and keeps up to date with general internet buzz already knows about abuses of power. Sadly though, there are a lot more 30-100 year olds out voting for more police power based on media brainwashing than 18-29 year olds who know about the abuses of power, thus those who care about removing abuses of power always get outvoted.
Simple solutions would be:
A) Elect the entire police force. Abuses are going to happen when the only people police officers have to report to is... Other police officers or at most the city council.
B) Record their every move. Everywhere a police officer goes they need to be recorded and that data needs to be released to the public. When the next tax increase issue comes up for election, citizens have the right to know that 90% of the time officers were sitting on their butts at the doughnut shop or enforcing non-violent, victimless crime laws.
...Just as tolerant as we are now.
The root part of the problem is our absurdness in our culture thinking that if you don't have something to hide then the police are our friends rather than the unelected, abusive, thugs they really are. Shows like 24 epitomize this, that police are hindered by laws and the "bad guys" get away the more we enforce the constitution. What we really need for change is showing the evils of the police department, sort of an anti-COPS show, showing abuses in the police system to innocent people.
Whan that Aprill, with his shoures soote The droghte of March hath perced to the roote And bathed every veyne in swich licour, Of which vertu engendred is the flour;
That makes perfect sense to us, right?
Text speak is just a natural evolution of language. Why does it bother us so much? Do we really -lose- that much?
Throughout time there has been a gap between formal and informal language. For example, it used to be that rather than speaking Spanish, English, French, etc. you spoke Latin or wrote Latin if you were doing anything remotely formal. Today even, there is a distinction between formal and informal writing. But honestly, when we right informally, do we really -lose- anything? Its hard to find a case in where it makes a huge difference if you mean your or you're. If I say "your right" do we really have so much trouble mentally translating it to "you're right"? I don't know about you, but I along with most everyone who I've talked to, reads things "aloud" in their head. So it really doesn't matter too much if its "your" or "you're", "u" or "you" because they sound the same in their "mental voice" and they get the same meaning.
But they -are- reading when they are online. And writing too. They just aren't reading books. I can guarantee you that kids today read -far- more then the ones raised on TV in the 70s, 80s and early 90s and they probably write a ton more too. Think about it, I'm sure you read about the same if not more now than you did back when you were a kid. Between text messaging, Facebook, blogs, Wikipedia, etc. we are all reading more than we probably ever had to as a child.
It should be a cut-and-dry case for management though. Workers won't do the job they signed up to do, fire them. It doesn't matter if you were hired to flip burgers, do blood tests, be a code monkey or sort mail. If you don't do the job you were hired to do, you get fired.
How hard can it be? If they refuse to do the job or require stupid conditions (seriously? writing "please"?) in order to do it, just fire the people. Its not like there is a shortage of workers.
Really, let the free market (if we have one anyways, and no doubt the UK has screwed themselves already with NHS and the like....) rule and get rid of the worthless technicians. Its not too hard.
Well of course! After all don't the terrorists hate us because we have freedom? Remove the freedom and the terrorists have no reason to attack us!
No https://www.startpage.com/ might, but if its ordinary HTTP, it can be detected by the ISP which is honestly more of a threat than Google logging searches.
Other than that, it's difficult to point to completely new uses for 4G phones -- things they can do that 3G phones can't.
Couldn't you say the same thing about Dial-Up? After all, its difficult to point to completely new uses for broadband, things they can do that dial-up connected computers can't. The point of 4G isn't to be "revolutionary", it wasn't claimed to be. It is simply trying to be faster. The same thing could have been said about EDGE to 3G.
Yeah, but the nice thing about corporations is that unless government interferes, you can -choose- not to use them. If because of these fees BP has higher priced oil than say Exxon, people will flock to Exxon and ignore BP.
Of course due to governments creating artificial monopolies, kickbacks, bailouts and the like this doesn't happen for many businesses.
How does this come as a surprise since the government limits BP's liability to just a drop in the bucket for them? Yeah, they are thinking about retroactively removing it, but seriously, anytime you reduce the liability to an artificially low number, you are just asking for trouble.
Isn't the point of governments to provide for their citizens according to Communism?
If you are going to establish a dictatorship with nearly unlimited power (like the Chinese system) shouldn't it be that government that provides from its citizens? Considering they don't allow for any civil freedoms, very limited economic freedoms, and a government who "owns" your children (via conscription) one would think the least they could do is provide enough water for its citizens.
If you have a limited government, the government should provide against force and fraud, nothing more. If you have a communist, socialist or unlimited government, the government should without a doubt provide for food, water and shelter for its citizens if they are unable to get it.
This isn't 900 AD, we have desalination that is efficient, we've got the 5th largest city in the US in the middle of a desert (Phoenix), water pipes to nearly anywhere in the country you want, islands that can survive purely on ocean water, etc.
So lets see here, your trying to prove a point against capitalism in China which is... Communist. Yeah, its not "true" communism but its sure not pure capitalism.
Next thing you know we're going to be blaming Apple for Microsoft security problems and PowerPC for flaws in x86.
So in other words you'd prefer to have a shortened lifetime living in the stone age then make a decent living with technology?
The fact is, China is pretty terrible for growing crops, its not too hard to import food or develop technology to help with agriculture.
Water is, for all intents and purposes, unlimited. If you don't have it, import it. The sea is filled with it, develop better methods of desalination and such.
Between the two, I think I'd rather work in an Intel factory than be a Chinese farmer.
The reason why companies outsource isn't because people are uber intelligent and great at their job in India, one needs only to call tech support to find that out. Its because Indian workers are cheap for the amount of education and such. Even a crappy American worker is paid minimum wage, in India, a great worker may only cost minimum wage in the US.
If you pay $20,000 for each worker in India and $50,000 for each worker in America, it simply makes sense to outsource.
Most of us go to where the jobs are. Google, Microsoft, Intel and Apple are all pretty large employers of creative people. If I can make $25K more per year if I move, chances are I'll move. So they end up having large concentrations of creative people because most people move where the jobs are. Good luck finding a high-paying, interesting tech job in rural America. Yes, you -can- "telecommute" but most of the time you get paid a lot less than if you go to the cube farm.
Anyone who expects a service to 100% protect them from identity theft is an idiot. Its just like a virus scanner, it might be helpful but its no substitute for common sense.
A lot of drugs can be cheaply created, even by developing countries if they have the correct formulation. The problem is, in order to get aid, most countries sign "treaties" saying they will "respect" western patents in exchange for free money.
But lets face it, Google, Apple, IBM, etc. are all very stable employers. Chances are they will exist in some form in 5 years. Why should I not have the right to move to a stable employer? Yeah, I can go to "anywhere" looking for a job but Google, Apple and IBM all pay very high wages and benefits. Why should I be locked out of the other 2 because I worked for one?
Yeah, and had the scare of their lives in the mid to late '90s when Apple was failing.
From the launch of Windows 95 till the success of the iPod and OS X in 2003, Apple was a joke. No one would have been advised to invest in it.
Yeah, the iPod and OS X and switching to x86 and iTunes have made Apple fashionable again, but for a while in the mid '90s, Apple was worthless. It lacked a decent OS, Windows was gaining, etc.
If this was Burger King not hiring former McDonalds employees, we wouldn't see the point, but when its software companies its ok?
I guess lack of coffee today has made me oblivious to blindingly obvious typos in my posts.