I did speak to this in an earlier comment. I think it's a closely related, but separate issue. I agree with you, this isn't cool (influencing legislation through bribery, legal or not.)
Even said though, there a lot of people making money on office productivity apps other than microsoft. I regularly buy software of this type, and I don't use any microsoft products.
So, you are assuming that wealth is distributed along some merit based system based on hard work and brains? So, how do explain the railroad moguls who built their fortunes by exploiting immigrant Chinese labor, and forcing small farmers off their land with hired guns and goon squads? How about the textile families who forced women, immigrants, and children to work 10 - 15 hours a day, six days a week for most of the late 19th and early 20th century? How about the British colonial officials who were carried around on litters to supervise the production of Indian tea?
Unless it was slave labour (yes I know a lot of it was,) then I have absolutely no problem with it. Other than slavery, people make a choice to work for you. You may pay them crappy, or require they work long hours, but it's still their choice.
I addressed paris hilton in an earlier comment on this thread.
I never said it was easy. I agree it is difficult to become wealthy. But what of it? Do you expect great success (however you measure it,) to be easy?
I don't make the assumption that people want to be multi-billionaires, or even wealthy. I make the assumption that people want to live comfortably. Maybe that's a bad assumption on my part, but it's my goal. This is far far easier to achieve than it is to achieve great wealth.
I do affirm socio-economic distinctions. I see nothing wrong with them. The same way I realize not everyone is born with the same abilities, looks, lifespan, etc. Just because there are distinctions doesn't mean that there's something wrong with one of the groups. You just mentioned many teachings that emphasize wealth as an affliction rather than a benefit. I completely respect that choice and view people that choose to live that way as equals. The same way I would view someone down on their luck and struggling as an equal. You do make one good point inadvertently. It's not all about ability or hard work. There's luck involved. Being at the right place at the right time, taking advantage of opportunities, etc.
You take quite a cynical view. I guess I'm a bit more of an optimist. Yes it's very true that people will abuse power, opportunity, etc. Slavery is an excellent example, and yes many people's fortunes were built on that. At the same time there are countless examples of Americans making their fortune through their own hard work, cleverness, even genius. Please don't lump all successful people in with the successful criminals.
I have no opposition to those that do go for the impractical and enjoy it, good for them. It's at their own peril though, and their own discretion. I spend a lot of money on high tech gizmos now and then, but I view them as tools. I spend money on movies which seem frivolous, but I use them as escapist/relaxation items (same as books.) Any of my so called "disposable" income--after savings--goes to enjoying life: Good food, travel, or spent on friends and family.
I see absolutely no value in ornamentation, status symbols, etc. Japanese culture a lot of times closely matches my own values. It's interesting to see just HOW MUCH they can take a meal and savour it and enjoy it. How good it is just to spend time with friends out at a festival, etc. It really makes you re-evaluate what is important.
I favour a flat tax personally. Disproportionately wealthy people will still pay disproportionately more taxes, but it would be just. I think tax breaks on ways you benefit the country is a really fabulous idea. Boost the economy of a small town by creating many jobs for residents, get a credit. Choose to do your business in an environmentally friendly way, get a credit. A lot of these sort of things are already in place. We'd have to be careful in specifying them, but it seems a very good way of promoting beneficial behaviour.
I think this is the first good point I've seen raised against me.
I agree with you to a point. I think we've gone far from our roots here in the US, and that campaign financing, corporate lobbying, etc has gotten ridiculous. It is as you say, disproportionate.
On the one hand, of course the super wealthy have more power, and I think that's alright to some extent. For example: I think it's fine for them to buy up all the land they can afford should they choose. It would be wrong if they forced you to sell if you did not want to and could afford to keep it.
I would like to see a lot of reform in our government in regards of the rich buying legislation. I'm not sure how to prevent that exactly. I think a big part of the problem is outright corruption, accepting bribes (legal or otherwise.) I would love to see us move back to a democratic republic where votes count more than dollars. The issues are closely related, but not the same.
Yes there's always exceptions, but I don't think I'm really very rare as many of my friends are the same, or almost the same case. I think it's just a matter of taking responsibility, and a lot of hard work. I've not seen anything at all that has made me question that.
I'm not saying it's not incredibly difficult. I'm saying I don't see anything wrong with that.
No, but Conard Hilton was, and arguably some people in between.
I'd say she's at least got some bit of intelligence somewhere because she's doing well exploiting america's sordid tastes to further her career. Maybe that's just her agents!
I call bullshit on her. I've done it myself. Of course it's not easy, but who said it was supposed to be? Life isn't fair--but there's nothing wrong with that.
I am a libertarian, but far from the trailer park. That is near where I started though. I've made a life for myself and am now wealthy. Through my own efforts.
Coming up from next to nothing and achieving so much, I really fail to see what all this garbage about wealth distribution and "ruling class" is.
This is to be expected. People work disproportionately as well. High intelligence is distributed in a very similar curve.
The real reason that it seems to be getting more and more exaggerated is because the overall wealth/economy of the nation has continued to grow. This means that more people are able to afford to survive, to get health care, to be in a place where they can fill out these census instead of working their arses off or just trying to stay warm. Think back to the 1900s, or even late 1800s. People that were just scraping by would often not even survive. But really that's all besides the point.
Who cares if we have ridiculously rich people? What does it matter? It doesn't stop you from achieving your goals, you have to work to get there and earn your way the same. Just because there are enormously wealthy people doesn't mean you're prevented from acquiring wealth yourself. in fact, it makes you all the more likely to be able to get rich. These people if they want to stay wealthy, or grow their funds, must use it in some way. Maybe just earning interest in a bank, maybe investing in startup companies. Either way that money becomes a tool banks/companies can use to generate more wealth, and you can get in on that.
Quit being so classist. Just because others have done well doesn't mean you can't, but you surely can't if all you do is gripe about how you deserve more money without doing anything to earn it.
Consumers pay extra for it, and stop watching as much SD content, so stop watching the ads being shown on those broadcasts...
Pretty simple business model if you ask me. Similar to DVD and VHS. VHS works... why change? Because it's older messier technology that consumers don't want anymore.
Did this years ago. Too bad the project was abandoned. It could monitor one computer, or many. It never had a good client really to do it remotely, but it was pretty cool in a server room. I ran it at an ISP around 98, 99 I think.
They keep getting hurt on this. If I were them I'd stop taking preorders entirely for systems. First microsoft breaks agreement and ships less, making customers furious at gamestop, now Sony.
Of course sony isn't going to catch flack from the customers for this, because of the immediacy of gamestop being "at fault" in their eyes.
If this guy created a theory, and no one else has done work to collaborate it or contradict it, why is it a problem?
I'd say have a tag or a notice on the page stating that, but otherwise I'd say it's a good resource. There's thousands of doctors and scientists with good (and bad) ideas that will never be heard. This is one way their work might attract attention and interest, and then further work can be accomplished either confirming or denying the theories.
Isn't that how science works? Sure this isn't the same level as peer reviewed publications... it's the same process though, just a different audience.
This is not a failing in the world, it's a failing in Linux. Maybe failing is too strong a word. Linux was never intended for the audience we're speaking for, despite a lot of people wanting to apply it to them.
Linux was created for computer enthusiasts. While that group has grown enormously over the past few decades it does not make it "normal people." Linux is great for someone who wants to buy a computer, and play with it, learn how everything works in it etc. It's great in specific tasks, server or scientific uses, but any time you're working in that kind of environment you have dedicated staff to manage the computers, or already know how to do it yourself.
This is the exact same problem that's faced linux since I started using it in 1994. Linux is orders of magnitude better than it was then, but it's not really made much progress in being able to be a system for your standard computer user.
It works great if it's pre-installed for people, with the software they will need in say an office environment.
It does not work for an average user at home who wants to turn the machine load a disc, wait, answer a few questions, and then be able to get to work.
My wife and I each had v180's and they both died within 3 months of being new. Same death as well, the microphone broke or shorted in some way so the other end of the call could hear only LOUD static.
Slashdot Mirror
Again, I never said it wasn't difficult. And I never said it was even possible in every case.
I think the majority of cases it is possible, if enormously difficult.
I don't have a problem with that. I think the alternatives are far worse.
I did speak to this in an earlier comment. I think it's a closely related, but separate issue. I agree with you, this isn't cool (influencing legislation through bribery, legal or not.)
Even said though, there a lot of people making money on office productivity apps other than microsoft. I regularly buy software of this type, and I don't use any microsoft products.
So, you are assuming that wealth is distributed along some merit based system based on hard work and brains? So, how do explain the railroad moguls who built their fortunes by exploiting immigrant Chinese labor, and forcing small farmers off their land with hired guns and goon squads? How about the textile families who forced women, immigrants, and children to work 10 - 15 hours a day, six days a week for most of the late 19th and early 20th century? How about the British colonial officials who were carried around on litters to supervise the production of Indian tea?
Unless it was slave labour (yes I know a lot of it was,) then I have absolutely no problem with it. Other than slavery, people make a choice to work for you. You may pay them crappy, or require they work long hours, but it's still their choice.
I addressed paris hilton in an earlier comment on this thread.
I never said it was easy. I agree it is difficult to become wealthy. But what of it? Do you expect great success (however you measure it,) to be easy?
I don't make the assumption that people want to be multi-billionaires, or even wealthy. I make the assumption that people want to live comfortably. Maybe that's a bad assumption on my part, but it's my goal. This is far far easier to achieve than it is to achieve great wealth.
I do affirm socio-economic distinctions. I see nothing wrong with them. The same way I realize not everyone is born with the same abilities, looks, lifespan, etc. Just because there are distinctions doesn't mean that there's something wrong with one of the groups. You just mentioned many teachings that emphasize wealth as an affliction rather than a benefit. I completely respect that choice and view people that choose to live that way as equals. The same way I would view someone down on their luck and struggling as an equal. You do make one good point inadvertently. It's not all about ability or hard work. There's luck involved. Being at the right place at the right time, taking advantage of opportunities, etc.
You take quite a cynical view. I guess I'm a bit more of an optimist. Yes it's very true that people will abuse power, opportunity, etc. Slavery is an excellent example, and yes many people's fortunes were built on that. At the same time there are countless examples of Americans making their fortune through their own hard work, cleverness, even genius. Please don't lump all successful people in with the successful criminals.
You are exactly right. Thank you.
I very much agree with this sentiment.
I have no opposition to those that do go for the impractical and enjoy it, good for them. It's at their own peril though, and their own discretion. I spend a lot of money on high tech gizmos now and then, but I view them as tools. I spend money on movies which seem frivolous, but I use them as escapist/relaxation items (same as books.) Any of my so called "disposable" income--after savings--goes to enjoying life: Good food, travel, or spent on friends and family.
I see absolutely no value in ornamentation, status symbols, etc. Japanese culture a lot of times closely matches my own values. It's interesting to see just HOW MUCH they can take a meal and savour it and enjoy it. How good it is just to spend time with friends out at a festival, etc. It really makes you re-evaluate what is important.
Another good point.
I favour a flat tax personally. Disproportionately wealthy people will still pay disproportionately more taxes, but it would be just. I think tax breaks on ways you benefit the country is a really fabulous idea. Boost the economy of a small town by creating many jobs for residents, get a credit. Choose to do your business in an environmentally friendly way, get a credit. A lot of these sort of things are already in place. We'd have to be careful in specifying them, but it seems a very good way of promoting beneficial behaviour.
I think this is the first good point I've seen raised against me.
I agree with you to a point. I think we've gone far from our roots here in the US, and that campaign financing, corporate lobbying, etc has gotten ridiculous. It is as you say, disproportionate.
On the one hand, of course the super wealthy have more power, and I think that's alright to some extent. For example: I think it's fine for them to buy up all the land they can afford should they choose. It would be wrong if they forced you to sell if you did not want to and could afford to keep it.
I would like to see a lot of reform in our government in regards of the rich buying legislation. I'm not sure how to prevent that exactly. I think a big part of the problem is outright corruption, accepting bribes (legal or otherwise.) I would love to see us move back to a democratic republic where votes count more than dollars. The issues are closely related, but not the same.
Yes there's always exceptions, but I don't think I'm really very rare as many of my friends are the same, or almost the same case. I think it's just a matter of taking responsibility, and a lot of hard work. I've not seen anything at all that has made me question that.
I'm not saying it's not incredibly difficult. I'm saying I don't see anything wrong with that.
You are right, it was an oversimplification. And you're exactly right about interest rates, and managing to scrap and save trying to get by.
I've been there. It's hard. But so what? Work harder, be more clever, break through.
No, but Conard Hilton was, and arguably some people in between.
I'd say she's at least got some bit of intelligence somewhere because she's doing well exploiting america's sordid tastes to further her career. Maybe that's just her agents!
I call bullshit on her. I've done it myself. Of course it's not easy, but who said it was supposed to be? Life isn't fair--but there's nothing wrong with that.
I am a libertarian, but far from the trailer park. That is near where I started though. I've made a life for myself and am now wealthy. Through my own efforts.
Coming up from next to nothing and achieving so much, I really fail to see what all this garbage about wealth distribution and "ruling class" is.
This is to be expected. People work disproportionately as well. High intelligence is distributed in a very similar curve.
The real reason that it seems to be getting more and more exaggerated is because the overall wealth/economy of the nation has continued to grow. This means that more people are able to afford to survive, to get health care, to be in a place where they can fill out these census instead of working their arses off or just trying to stay warm. Think back to the 1900s, or even late 1800s. People that were just scraping by would often not even survive. But really that's all besides the point.
Who cares if we have ridiculously rich people? What does it matter? It doesn't stop you from achieving your goals, you have to work to get there and earn your way the same. Just because there are enormously wealthy people doesn't mean you're prevented from acquiring wealth yourself. in fact, it makes you all the more likely to be able to get rich. These people if they want to stay wealthy, or grow their funds, must use it in some way. Maybe just earning interest in a bank, maybe investing in startup companies. Either way that money becomes a tool banks/companies can use to generate more wealth, and you can get in on that.
Quit being so classist. Just because others have done well doesn't mean you can't, but you surely can't if all you do is gripe about how you deserve more money without doing anything to earn it.
Consumers pay extra for it, and stop watching as much SD content, so stop watching the ads being shown on those broadcasts...
Pretty simple business model if you ask me. Similar to DVD and VHS. VHS works... why change? Because it's older messier technology that consumers don't want anymore.
Web 2.0 barely exists. It's a nebulous term given to some vague graphic stylings and a more social/interactive nature.
Why are we assigning version numbers to things that don't even have a strict definition?
I don't need any company, government, or blogger to tell me what settings I should be using on my computer. It's configured one way for a purpose.
Did this years ago. Too bad the project was abandoned. It could monitor one computer, or many. It never had a good client really to do it remotely, but it was pretty cool in a server room. I ran it at an ISP around 98, 99 I think.
They keep getting hurt on this. If I were them I'd stop taking preorders entirely for systems. First microsoft breaks agreement and ships less, making customers furious at gamestop, now Sony.
Of course sony isn't going to catch flack from the customers for this, because of the immediacy of gamestop being "at fault" in their eyes.
You offer someone money for a job. They don't have to take the job, or the money.
If they do, you're both gaining value. You're getting what you want done, they're getting the money.
Wheres' the problem here?
Sounds like a great idea to me.
If this guy created a theory, and no one else has done work to collaborate it or contradict it, why is it a problem?
I'd say have a tag or a notice on the page stating that, but otherwise I'd say it's a good resource. There's thousands of doctors and scientists with good (and bad) ideas that will never be heard. This is one way their work might attract attention and interest, and then further work can be accomplished either confirming or denying the theories.
Isn't that how science works? Sure this isn't the same level as peer reviewed publications... it's the same process though, just a different audience.
1) The inquirer? Seriously?
/. I can drag things to.
2) The article isn't even coherent. None of what's said here make any logical sense, and even less legal sense.
I need a trash bin on the side of
This is not a failing in the world, it's a failing in Linux. Maybe failing is too strong a word. Linux was never intended for the audience we're speaking for, despite a lot of people wanting to apply it to them.
Linux was created for computer enthusiasts. While that group has grown enormously over the past few decades it does not make it "normal people." Linux is great for someone who wants to buy a computer, and play with it, learn how everything works in it etc. It's great in specific tasks, server or scientific uses, but any time you're working in that kind of environment you have dedicated staff to manage the computers, or already know how to do it yourself.
This is the exact same problem that's faced linux since I started using it in 1994. Linux is orders of magnitude better than it was then, but it's not really made much progress in being able to be a system for your standard computer user.
It works great if it's pre-installed for people, with the software they will need in say an office environment.
It does not work for an average user at home who wants to turn the machine load a disc, wait, answer a few questions, and then be able to get to work.
My wife and I each had v180's and they both died within 3 months of being new. Same death as well, the microphone broke or shorted in some way so the other end of the call could hear only LOUD static.
I don't really lose any money on games since I can ebay them for close to what I paid.