Really? So you mean that all of those race-specific physical characteristics don't exist and 'the evil white man' forced them on the world? That's the dumbest fucking thing I've ever heard.
Question - you say you're 'supporting a child and wife".......is there a reason your wife can't get a job, especially if she has enough education to rack up $60k in debt (which, depending on school, could easily mean she has a bachelors and a masters)?,/p>
You say you're not sure why you should feel sorry for his hypothetical couple - I'm definitely never sorry for a couple complaining about money when the wife refuses to work (it's a different story if there's a valid reason that she can't work).
Well there's that, but the flip side of it that (from talking to girls on dating sites) I find more likely is that girls say what they think guys want to hear. For instance, if you look at what people ACTUALLY do, very few women care for football - yet the overwhelming majority of girls on dating sites say they love football because they know the typical guy likes football. I've also met girls who put on dating sites that they don't want kids or are undecided about kids when they really do want them, but they know that a lot of guys don't want kids and figure they'll lie now, get married, then sucker him into having kids.
First off, I said that is "appears" that only 1% are justified. I didn't say "exactly" or "approximately" because I doubt there are any actual statistics on the percent of justified lawsuits vs bullshit lawsuits.
Just because someone is a corporate lawyer and not a trial lawyer, you think that they A) don't make big money and B) don't go after innocent people? I also love how, in typical lawyer fashion, you decide that anyone who's being prosecuted is automatically guilty.
When you graduate high school and start getting your information from sources other than other slashdot posters, come back and we can talk.
Ah, childish insults and ignoring the fact that virtually EVERYONE in society (regardless of age and education) despises lawyers, not just high school kids. I have to say, do you use those petty insults and avoid the issue at hand at work?
Your first paragraph is a good statement. However, your second is pure FUD. Especially the line "It should not be so difficult for ordinary people to make $75k." It's not difficult at all if you just put out an average amount of effort. Shit, I know a surprisingly large number of people with just a 2-year associates degree who make $100k+ (in a city with middle of the road wages) because they showed that they had a good work ethic and got promotions. Also, your claims of "so few make that much" are crap because you forget that (with the exception of the people with poor work ethic and low education at the bottom of the salary ladder) wages increase with age. Yea, very few 22 year olds will make $75k. However, a lot of people over 35 are making that much, even if they only have a little education beyond high school. Your FUD just screams that it's a euphemism for "companies shouldn't discriminate against lazy workers and should pay them more without them earning it".
Are you kidding me? Where the hell do you live that you don't know multiple people making that much? I live in a very middle of the road area cost and salary wise (Cincinnati, OH) and the overwhelming majority of people 40+ make $70k+ a year.
The mean and median salary in the US is around $45k a year - however, that factors in a LOT of people who have no education and make minimum wage. If you only look at people with an associates degree and up, you'd see the mean and median salary swing up very quickly. And while I'm normally the last person to be a dick and say "citation needed", I don't believe your 73rd percentile stat at all given that the mean and median (so 50th percentile) are roughly $45k.
I personally make around $35k as a young single person with no debt, and feel rich, fwiw. I can't even spend it all--- after $1k/month on rent for a nice apt near the beach, and another $1k on food/car/entertainment, my expenses are pretty much covered.
Yea, I'm about the same age, single, and make the same amount of money - yet I'm well aware that I'm not rich and sure as hell don't feel it. You stated spending $1k on rent and $1k on other bills and entertainment - that means that you save $0 (or close enough to zero). That's the major cause of the current recession - the fact that people didn't save and used credit cards to spend way more than they earned (at least you're not doing that). If you don't save, all it takes is on major surgery or one major failure on your car and you're a few thousand in debt - which with your stated budget, you'd have a very hard time paying off. What if you get laid off? How are you planning on paying for your retirement? Even if SS wasn't bankrupt, it still wouldn't pay you anything close to $2k a month. That's a huge reason why they listed $75k as the number for "happiness" because it means you can buy (within reason) anything you want and still save a decent amount of money for the future or emergencies.
While I'm glad that you don't feel poor, the fact that you think $35k a year is great money is blissful ignorance and is going to bite you in the ass someday - hard.
*Disclaimer* I know I'll get modded to oblivion for this, but I feel it needs to be said.
Considering the fact that it appears to be only say 1% of lawsuits are actually justified and lawyers charge an insane amount (despite the acknowledged over supply of lawyers), I think I speak for most of society when I say I don't feel sorry for you in the slightest.
The overwhelming majority of lawyers go into it because they want to make a lot of money by financially raping people who've done nothing wrong. There's a reason most people despise lawyers and refer to them as things like leeches and bloodsuckers.
Here's a question for you - was getting a masters degree something that you had a reasonable expectation to improve your career? Did you get a masters in your field or is it some generic MBA?
Yes, getting advanced degrees improves careers and salaries. However, there's a catch - it only improves them if the degree actually makes a difference in your field. I know people doing the same job as I do who have PhD's (I'm just starting my masters) and they make the same money I do (granted, none of us are in our chosen field, but the point remains that an advanced degree doesn't automatically mean a higher salary).
How does any government ever "secure" something? By adding multiple layers of bureaucracy and requiring multiple forms of identification to use the service.
No, they're not automatically baseless. However, it's the timing of these charges that strongly suggests the US government is behind it. When you piss off a powerful and corrupt government and then only a matter of days later get charged with a serious crime, it's almost always because you're being set up.
I know nothing about Assange, but I do know about governments. The track record of every government in history strongly supports the theory that this is a set up.
No, they specifically mention "foreign oil". I'd be much more accepting if they said "oil" in general because then the two views (getting off oil and not supporting drilling for oil in the US) would match. Instead we have this huge hypocrisy that severely harms the US.
I'm all for getting off oil (not because I give a crap about the environment, I just want to see OPEC lose their power and then we'll stop sucking up to them and letting them literally get away with murder).
Not until the FBI and others figure out exactly what checks and balances are needed to keep another disaster of the scale of Deepwater Horizon from happening again.
Anything you do comes with risks. Should we stop nuclear power because there might be another bad meltdown? No. You take what precautions you can and move along and keep updating the precautions as you go.
First off, the fact that the UN expects union dues is utterly ridiculous. Secondly, look at any action (humanitarian, military, whatever) that the UN does - the overwhelming majority of it's money and other resources come straight out of US taxpayers pockets.
I hope the U.N. isn't there for you when you need it.
The only way the UN could be there for me is if I moved out of the US. The UN pretty much only exists anymore to rape the US for the rest of the world's benefit. It's utter bullshit that we're trillions and trillions of dollars in debt, yet every time someone sneezes in another country the US is expected to hand out billions and billions of dollars for them.
So because a copyright troll sued a conservative it is somehow benign or OK?
Nobody actually said that except you. Btw, Righthaven sued plenty of left wing sites too. They are apparently averaging several lawsuits per day so I don't really think there is a political agenda here.
Actually if you read the above comments, there's a few people saying that it's perfectly ok because she's a conservative - which is pretty much par for slashdot anymore.
She's got a lot of bad ideas, but some (one of which you try to list as a negative) are quite good.
1) Eliminating the Department of Education and having states deal with education. Considering that the bureaucracy of the Department of Education itself consumes a great deal of the education budget instead of it being put towards schools, this is a fantastic idea. We need better schools and incompetent bureaucrats in Washington are not the way to improve schools.
2) Pulling out of the UN. Since the UN wants to always extort money from the US for every project under the sun and constantly tries to weaken the sovereignty of the US, we'd be much better off if we pulled out. True, the rest of the world would lose their sugar daddy who pays for all of their programs, but that's the whole point of a countries government - to look out for their citizens, not the rest of the world.
3) Abolishing the IRS and switching to a set consumption tax instead of the colossal mess that is the current tax system would do amazing things for the economy, not to mention make citizens better off.
4) Phase out Social Security. Social Security does not work, hence why it's bankrupt. It was never planned to work - it was planned to just be an extra tax for more revenue, that's why when they first started it the age required to get it was higher than the average life expectancy. Setting up a voluntary system where people could have the government direct part of their earnings into private investment accounts (and those who don't want it could have the extra money to invest as they chose) is a much better system than our proven to fail system we currently have.
5) End the ban on offshore drilling / drilling in ANWR. Sorry, but one thing that's always pissed me off is how Democrats get up and say "We need to stop relying on foreign oil!" and then at the same time support laws preventing us from using the oil on our own soil. Don't say we need to be independent and then refuse to let us use the resources we have in our own country and force us to rely on others.
So yes, the rest of her ideas I either find irrelevant or stupid. That's why I support neither Democrats or Republicans - they both have a few good ideas that are overshadowed by a lot of idiotic ones.
You blame it on businesses, but the only reason it sells is because the average person would rather buy a cheap POS than spend more money to get a quality product. I used to work retail and I can't count how many people would buy something just because "It's so cheap!" and I'm standing there trying not to say "It's so cheap because it's utter shit and only a moron would buy it".
So the natural outcome of achieving the dream of 100% automation of all work is that everybody starves?
All manual work may be automated, and that's a major reason for the decline of manufacturing in the US - because it's too expensive to pay people in a high-wage country to do menial labor like that. However, work in general (math, engineering, research, etc) can never be automated and replace humans.
It seems that the benefits of increased productivity have accrued to only a small segment of the population. Most of the people whose productivity has increased are stuck with stagnant wages.
Wrong. Economic data has shown that everyone's productivity has grown, though some more than others. Even the low-wage mechanics are much more productive now due to improved tools and computers for tracking everything and ordering parts. Yes, some people have a larger increase in productivity than others, but that's simply a matter of how technology can improve your work. You can't do nearly as much to increase the productivity of someone making sandwiches as you can an engineer designing a car.
It seems you have made it all the way into grad school without realizing that when the economy only serves a small portion of the population, things eventually get quite ugly.
The economy serves everybody, or are you so truly delusional that you think only a small portion of the population eats, works, and purchases goods and services?
But what would I know? I'm just an engineer that knows that systems (mechanical or economic) that harm the people they're supposed to serve are bad and must be revised until they work right.
Exactly - what would you know about Economics - you're an Engineer. I'm not arrogant enough to think I know how to build a car / building / bridge better than you, yet because you hear someone say "people who make money are evil" once, you're arrogant enough to think you know more about my field than I do.
That's actually been openly acknowledged by Economists many times for why governments follow horrible economic policies so often - because every idiot thinks that they know the best way to run the economy instead of listening to the experts in the field.
You've made no actual points in your "argument". All you've done is spread the typical FUD that "capitalism is evil because some people work harder / have better paying fields of specialization".
I'm going to skip using my mod points to respond to your BS. There's nothing about our economic system that "forces" both parents to have a job - if that was true, then when we were much more capitalist, it would've been common for women to work instead of staying at home. What changed is that people wanted a much higher standard of living (bigger houses, more / nicer cars, fancy clothes, 60" tv's, etc) and in order to pay for all of that, both people need a job. It's also why there are plenty of homes that still have one parent who stays home and in exchange they don't have a massive house and 3 brand new cars.
Given our current unemployment rate, it's obvious that society has no pressing need for people to put in that many hours. Salaries have plummeted compared to the GDP/capita.
It's called "increased productivity" and it's the driving force behind all wage increases and economic recoveries. Companies cut labor to save money and then require the remaining employees to be more productive - this allows them to cut costs at a higher rate than production falls. It's also why hiring is the LAST thing that happens during an economic recovery, because companies rely on the increased productivity until they have no choice for increasing production but to hire more workers, since they don't want to hire new workers and then the economy dips again and they're stuck holding the bill.
But what would I know, I'm only in grad school for Economics......
And governments are sold every election. Your "point" is irrelevant. That's why dealing with private companies is always less hassle than dealing with government agencies - because the government has nothing to lose by people being unhappy.
I find it interesting that people are complaining about Flash on Android - it runs perfectly on my Evo running Froyo. Perhaps it's a matter of running Flash on certain Android phones that are either 1) underpowered or 2) the company that made the phone didn't do such a great job in their implementation of 2.2.
You're forgetting that companies have (some) reason to want to keep users privacy and make them happy for fear of losing their business. Governments don't have to worry about losing your business because you're forced with threat of jail / violence if you do not do as they order.
Oh, and remember, if you're not with the government, you must be a terrorist.
Too bad our rulers forget that the US was founded by "terrorists". Hell, modern day France only exists because of "terrorists" who dragged the government out in the streets and killed them.
I'm all for trying to do things peacefully and win people over with rational arguments. However, history has shown plenty of times that rational arguments don't mean shit to the people in power and that the only way to depose tyrants is with violence. I watch as the US government gets worse and worse each day with blatantly ignoring the constitution and openly acknowledging that they look down on the "peasants" that they rule and wonder how much longer before people start shooting.
That's why when I was getting my bachelors in Economics and taking a class on Economic Development, everyone refused to read the one textbook since it was written by the UN and every chapter boiled down to "All of the worlds problems would go away if we just let the UN control everything".
Sorry, but as someone who spent their childhood in a library, I can say that libraries are NOT a great place to learn in general. IF you have countless hours to spend or IF you know which book to get in the first place, then sure, they're good. However, to just go to a library and try to learn X is horrible because you'll spend countless hours just trying to find something relevant to what you're trying to learn.
Back in the old days when I was stuck just digging through books in a library to do research, I always hated it. Now that I'm in grad school, I actually enjoy it because the biggest hassle (digging through all sorts of irrelevant books trying to find something relevant) is gone, thanks to the internet.
I'm a huge fan of reading and very big on people educating themselves - however, public libraries are no longer relevant and are simply another tax added to citizens who'll never use it.
It's my understanding that only OS X has these horrible performance issues with Flash. I suggest getting a real computer and leave the shiny Mac to the people who can't figure out how the difference between a web browser and "the interwebs" (and if you've ever been in an Apple store, you know that they specifically target that type of person).
I've never met a person (in real life) who's had issues with Flash.
Slashdot Mirror
Really? So you mean that all of those race-specific physical characteristics don't exist and 'the evil white man' forced them on the world? That's the dumbest fucking thing I've ever heard.
Question - you say you're 'supporting a child and wife".......is there a reason your wife can't get a job, especially if she has enough education to rack up $60k in debt (which, depending on school, could easily mean she has a bachelors and a masters)?,/p>
You say you're not sure why you should feel sorry for his hypothetical couple - I'm definitely never sorry for a couple complaining about money when the wife refuses to work (it's a different story if there's a valid reason that she can't work).
Well there's that, but the flip side of it that (from talking to girls on dating sites) I find more likely is that girls say what they think guys want to hear. For instance, if you look at what people ACTUALLY do, very few women care for football - yet the overwhelming majority of girls on dating sites say they love football because they know the typical guy likes football. I've also met girls who put on dating sites that they don't want kids or are undecided about kids when they really do want them, but they know that a lot of guys don't want kids and figure they'll lie now, get married, then sucker him into having kids.
First off, I said that is "appears" that only 1% are justified. I didn't say "exactly" or "approximately" because I doubt there are any actual statistics on the percent of justified lawsuits vs bullshit lawsuits.
Just because someone is a corporate lawyer and not a trial lawyer, you think that they A) don't make big money and B) don't go after innocent people? I also love how, in typical lawyer fashion, you decide that anyone who's being prosecuted is automatically guilty.
When you graduate high school and start getting your information from sources other than other slashdot posters, come back and we can talk.
Ah, childish insults and ignoring the fact that virtually EVERYONE in society (regardless of age and education) despises lawyers, not just high school kids. I have to say, do you use those petty insults and avoid the issue at hand at work?
Your first paragraph is a good statement. However, your second is pure FUD. Especially the line "It should not be so difficult for ordinary people to make $75k." It's not difficult at all if you just put out an average amount of effort. Shit, I know a surprisingly large number of people with just a 2-year associates degree who make $100k+ (in a city with middle of the road wages) because they showed that they had a good work ethic and got promotions. Also, your claims of "so few make that much" are crap because you forget that (with the exception of the people with poor work ethic and low education at the bottom of the salary ladder) wages increase with age. Yea, very few 22 year olds will make $75k. However, a lot of people over 35 are making that much, even if they only have a little education beyond high school. Your FUD just screams that it's a euphemism for "companies shouldn't discriminate against lazy workers and should pay them more without them earning it".
Are you kidding me? Where the hell do you live that you don't know multiple people making that much? I live in a very middle of the road area cost and salary wise (Cincinnati, OH) and the overwhelming majority of people 40+ make $70k+ a year.
The mean and median salary in the US is around $45k a year - however, that factors in a LOT of people who have no education and make minimum wage. If you only look at people with an associates degree and up, you'd see the mean and median salary swing up very quickly. And while I'm normally the last person to be a dick and say "citation needed", I don't believe your 73rd percentile stat at all given that the mean and median (so 50th percentile) are roughly $45k.
I personally make around $35k as a young single person with no debt, and feel rich, fwiw. I can't even spend it all--- after $1k/month on rent for a nice apt near the beach, and another $1k on food/car/entertainment, my expenses are pretty much covered.
Yea, I'm about the same age, single, and make the same amount of money - yet I'm well aware that I'm not rich and sure as hell don't feel it. You stated spending $1k on rent and $1k on other bills and entertainment - that means that you save $0 (or close enough to zero). That's the major cause of the current recession - the fact that people didn't save and used credit cards to spend way more than they earned (at least you're not doing that). If you don't save, all it takes is on major surgery or one major failure on your car and you're a few thousand in debt - which with your stated budget, you'd have a very hard time paying off. What if you get laid off? How are you planning on paying for your retirement? Even if SS wasn't bankrupt, it still wouldn't pay you anything close to $2k a month. That's a huge reason why they listed $75k as the number for "happiness" because it means you can buy (within reason) anything you want and still save a decent amount of money for the future or emergencies.
While I'm glad that you don't feel poor, the fact that you think $35k a year is great money is blissful ignorance and is going to bite you in the ass someday - hard.
*Disclaimer* I know I'll get modded to oblivion for this, but I feel it needs to be said.
Considering the fact that it appears to be only say 1% of lawsuits are actually justified and lawyers charge an insane amount (despite the acknowledged over supply of lawyers), I think I speak for most of society when I say I don't feel sorry for you in the slightest.
The overwhelming majority of lawyers go into it because they want to make a lot of money by financially raping people who've done nothing wrong. There's a reason most people despise lawyers and refer to them as things like leeches and bloodsuckers.
Here's a question for you - was getting a masters degree something that you had a reasonable expectation to improve your career? Did you get a masters in your field or is it some generic MBA?
Yes, getting advanced degrees improves careers and salaries. However, there's a catch - it only improves them if the degree actually makes a difference in your field. I know people doing the same job as I do who have PhD's (I'm just starting my masters) and they make the same money I do (granted, none of us are in our chosen field, but the point remains that an advanced degree doesn't automatically mean a higher salary).
How does any government ever "secure" something? By adding multiple layers of bureaucracy and requiring multiple forms of identification to use the service.
No, they're not automatically baseless. However, it's the timing of these charges that strongly suggests the US government is behind it. When you piss off a powerful and corrupt government and then only a matter of days later get charged with a serious crime, it's almost always because you're being set up.
I know nothing about Assange, but I do know about governments. The track record of every government in history strongly supports the theory that this is a set up.
No, they specifically mention "foreign oil". I'd be much more accepting if they said "oil" in general because then the two views (getting off oil and not supporting drilling for oil in the US) would match. Instead we have this huge hypocrisy that severely harms the US.
I'm all for getting off oil (not because I give a crap about the environment, I just want to see OPEC lose their power and then we'll stop sucking up to them and letting them literally get away with murder).
Not until the FBI and others figure out exactly what checks and balances are needed to keep another disaster of the scale of Deepwater Horizon from happening again.
Anything you do comes with risks. Should we stop nuclear power because there might be another bad meltdown? No. You take what precautions you can and move along and keep updating the precautions as you go.
First off, the fact that the UN expects union dues is utterly ridiculous. Secondly, look at any action (humanitarian, military, whatever) that the UN does - the overwhelming majority of it's money and other resources come straight out of US taxpayers pockets.
I hope the U.N. isn't there for you when you need it.
The only way the UN could be there for me is if I moved out of the US. The UN pretty much only exists anymore to rape the US for the rest of the world's benefit. It's utter bullshit that we're trillions and trillions of dollars in debt, yet every time someone sneezes in another country the US is expected to hand out billions and billions of dollars for them.
So because a copyright troll sued a conservative it is somehow benign or OK? Nobody actually said that except you. Btw, Righthaven sued plenty of left wing sites too. They are apparently averaging several lawsuits per day so I don't really think there is a political agenda here.
Actually if you read the above comments, there's a few people saying that it's perfectly ok because she's a conservative - which is pretty much par for slashdot anymore.
She's got a lot of bad ideas, but some (one of which you try to list as a negative) are quite good.
1) Eliminating the Department of Education and having states deal with education. Considering that the bureaucracy of the Department of Education itself consumes a great deal of the education budget instead of it being put towards schools, this is a fantastic idea. We need better schools and incompetent bureaucrats in Washington are not the way to improve schools.
2) Pulling out of the UN. Since the UN wants to always extort money from the US for every project under the sun and constantly tries to weaken the sovereignty of the US, we'd be much better off if we pulled out. True, the rest of the world would lose their sugar daddy who pays for all of their programs, but that's the whole point of a countries government - to look out for their citizens, not the rest of the world.
3) Abolishing the IRS and switching to a set consumption tax instead of the colossal mess that is the current tax system would do amazing things for the economy, not to mention make citizens better off.
4) Phase out Social Security. Social Security does not work, hence why it's bankrupt. It was never planned to work - it was planned to just be an extra tax for more revenue, that's why when they first started it the age required to get it was higher than the average life expectancy. Setting up a voluntary system where people could have the government direct part of their earnings into private investment accounts (and those who don't want it could have the extra money to invest as they chose) is a much better system than our proven to fail system we currently have.
5) End the ban on offshore drilling / drilling in ANWR. Sorry, but one thing that's always pissed me off is how Democrats get up and say "We need to stop relying on foreign oil!" and then at the same time support laws preventing us from using the oil on our own soil. Don't say we need to be independent and then refuse to let us use the resources we have in our own country and force us to rely on others.
So yes, the rest of her ideas I either find irrelevant or stupid. That's why I support neither Democrats or Republicans - they both have a few good ideas that are overshadowed by a lot of idiotic ones.
Natural light?! Turn in your nerd card right now! Nerds don't get this shade of white from natural light my friend!
You blame it on businesses, but the only reason it sells is because the average person would rather buy a cheap POS than spend more money to get a quality product. I used to work retail and I can't count how many people would buy something just because "It's so cheap!" and I'm standing there trying not to say "It's so cheap because it's utter shit and only a moron would buy it".
So the natural outcome of achieving the dream of 100% automation of all work is that everybody starves?
All manual work may be automated, and that's a major reason for the decline of manufacturing in the US - because it's too expensive to pay people in a high-wage country to do menial labor like that. However, work in general (math, engineering, research, etc) can never be automated and replace humans.
It seems that the benefits of increased productivity have accrued to only a small segment of the population. Most of the people whose productivity has increased are stuck with stagnant wages.
Wrong. Economic data has shown that everyone's productivity has grown, though some more than others. Even the low-wage mechanics are much more productive now due to improved tools and computers for tracking everything and ordering parts. Yes, some people have a larger increase in productivity than others, but that's simply a matter of how technology can improve your work. You can't do nearly as much to increase the productivity of someone making sandwiches as you can an engineer designing a car.
It seems you have made it all the way into grad school without realizing that when the economy only serves a small portion of the population, things eventually get quite ugly.
The economy serves everybody, or are you so truly delusional that you think only a small portion of the population eats, works, and purchases goods and services?
But what would I know? I'm just an engineer that knows that systems (mechanical or economic) that harm the people they're supposed to serve are bad and must be revised until they work right.
Exactly - what would you know about Economics - you're an Engineer. I'm not arrogant enough to think I know how to build a car / building / bridge better than you, yet because you hear someone say "people who make money are evil" once, you're arrogant enough to think you know more about my field than I do.
That's actually been openly acknowledged by Economists many times for why governments follow horrible economic policies so often - because every idiot thinks that they know the best way to run the economy instead of listening to the experts in the field.
You've made no actual points in your "argument". All you've done is spread the typical FUD that "capitalism is evil because some people work harder / have better paying fields of specialization".
I'm going to skip using my mod points to respond to your BS. There's nothing about our economic system that "forces" both parents to have a job - if that was true, then when we were much more capitalist, it would've been common for women to work instead of staying at home. What changed is that people wanted a much higher standard of living (bigger houses, more / nicer cars, fancy clothes, 60" tv's, etc) and in order to pay for all of that, both people need a job. It's also why there are plenty of homes that still have one parent who stays home and in exchange they don't have a massive house and 3 brand new cars.
Given our current unemployment rate, it's obvious that society has no pressing need for people to put in that many hours. Salaries have plummeted compared to the GDP/capita.
It's called "increased productivity" and it's the driving force behind all wage increases and economic recoveries. Companies cut labor to save money and then require the remaining employees to be more productive - this allows them to cut costs at a higher rate than production falls. It's also why hiring is the LAST thing that happens during an economic recovery, because companies rely on the increased productivity until they have no choice for increasing production but to hire more workers, since they don't want to hire new workers and then the economy dips again and they're stuck holding the bill.
But what would I know, I'm only in grad school for Economics......
And governments are sold every election. Your "point" is irrelevant. That's why dealing with private companies is always less hassle than dealing with government agencies - because the government has nothing to lose by people being unhappy.
I find it interesting that people are complaining about Flash on Android - it runs perfectly on my Evo running Froyo. Perhaps it's a matter of running Flash on certain Android phones that are either 1) underpowered or 2) the company that made the phone didn't do such a great job in their implementation of 2.2.
You're forgetting that companies have (some) reason to want to keep users privacy and make them happy for fear of losing their business. Governments don't have to worry about losing your business because you're forced with threat of jail / violence if you do not do as they order.
Oh, and remember, if you're not with the government, you must be a terrorist.
Too bad our rulers forget that the US was founded by "terrorists". Hell, modern day France only exists because of "terrorists" who dragged the government out in the streets and killed them.
I'm all for trying to do things peacefully and win people over with rational arguments. However, history has shown plenty of times that rational arguments don't mean shit to the people in power and that the only way to depose tyrants is with violence. I watch as the US government gets worse and worse each day with blatantly ignoring the constitution and openly acknowledging that they look down on the "peasants" that they rule and wonder how much longer before people start shooting.
That's why when I was getting my bachelors in Economics and taking a class on Economic Development, everyone refused to read the one textbook since it was written by the UN and every chapter boiled down to "All of the worlds problems would go away if we just let the UN control everything".
Sorry, but as someone who spent their childhood in a library, I can say that libraries are NOT a great place to learn in general. IF you have countless hours to spend or IF you know which book to get in the first place, then sure, they're good. However, to just go to a library and try to learn X is horrible because you'll spend countless hours just trying to find something relevant to what you're trying to learn.
Back in the old days when I was stuck just digging through books in a library to do research, I always hated it. Now that I'm in grad school, I actually enjoy it because the biggest hassle (digging through all sorts of irrelevant books trying to find something relevant) is gone, thanks to the internet.
I'm a huge fan of reading and very big on people educating themselves - however, public libraries are no longer relevant and are simply another tax added to citizens who'll never use it.
It's my understanding that only OS X has these horrible performance issues with Flash. I suggest getting a real computer and leave the shiny Mac to the people who can't figure out how the difference between a web browser and "the interwebs" (and if you've ever been in an Apple store, you know that they specifically target that type of person).
I've never met a person (in real life) who's had issues with Flash.