So you link to The Federalist Papers? Essays that advocate the stronger central government of the Constitution because the Articles of Confederation, which placed states rights before federal, was a failure.
Now I think you're right, I could stand to brush up on them, I haven't read them all, but is that really what you wanted to link to? Not to mention it only represents the opinions of three of our founders, but I digress.
After the Constitution was drafted many present were thoroughly disgusted with the compromises therein and were convinced it would be as big a failure as the Articles of Confederation before it. Many were considering not signing the document thus dissolving the convention and with it, most likely, The Union. Benjamin Franklin wrote a speech and gave it to a friend to read to everyone present.
It reflects the founders dissatisfaction with the document, but reassured them of the need for it and the government it would create. Here is a clicky thing if you would like to read it. Here's the final sentence if you can't be bothered:
"On the whole, Sir, I cannot help expressing a Wish, that every Member of the Convention, who may still have Objections to it, would with me on this Occasion doubt a little of his own Infallibility, and to make manifest our Unanimity, put his Name to this instrument."
Everyone present signed that piece of parchment. Not because they believed the document to be perfect, but knowing themselves to be imperfect and had confidence that the government it would create empowered the citizenry shape their government to better govern them. To turn our backs on the government by saying that everything they do is wrong or doomed to failure is another step in the march toward despotism.
In the late 70's people believed the US would be crushed and the Soviets were not doing as badly as one might think. They did have a huge amount of oil and natural gas, the attitude among many were that they were a healthier economy than us.
Funny, I could have swore Reagan was president in the 80s not the 70s. In addition, while we knew of their natural resource reserves we also had taken in enough defectors to know what the state of their economy was. The fear the populous had of the Russians had lingered on after the "Red Scare" and savvy politicians knew how to exploit it.
Unchecked... Umm House of commons/lords means anything to you? The monarchy in England was under check for nearly a half millennium before the revolution.
Perhaps you should look into what the House of Lords was, I'll give you a hint the last word is Lords. As for the House of Commons at the time their power was far less than that of the house of Lords, not to mention most (if not all) of that representation still consisted of nobles and those with "old money".
The founders fought against a lack of representation *not* against hereditary rule. Many, *MANY*, people wanted George Washing to be a king in a constitutional monarchy not much different than the English monarchy and anyone who has studied Franklin knows that until he was humiliated in England by his enemies he was quite content to stay a part of great Brittan on the condition of representation and equality with English citizens.
Before you chastise others by telling them to 'buy a clue' maybe you should read a book.
When you say *MANY* people, how many of those people are included in the "founding fathers?" Much of the citizenry wanted a king, but I don't know how many (if any) of the founders did. But I should step back here and say that it is almost always absurd to talk about the "founding fathers" as a singular unit. They were a group of people with many different opinions and ideas. Whenever anyone talks about the founding fathers, they are using them as a vehicle for their own ideas, or some pundit's opinion that they've grafted onto that body.
As for Franklin and book reading, might I recommend to you, Benjamin Franklin: An American Life. It's funny you should bring him up now since he was one of the most vocal opponents of hereditary power among the founders (which is ironic because he secured the governorship of New Jersey for his son while in London, but nobody's perfect). Also, it's interesting you don't mention a book that might enlighten me, do you know of one that isn't pure propaganda? I'd recommend reading to anyone unless it's the latest work of fiction by Anne Coulter, Bill O'Reilly, or Michael Moore in that case you would be better off smoking some crack. It's also funny you'd bring him up just before claiming I don't read since very few people, outside of colonial historians, could claim to have read as much on, or by, Franklin as I have.
Anyway, you refer to the "Hutchinson Affair" and I'm not sure why. I'm sure everyone that fought the British had some revelation or series of them that turned them against the crown at some point, Franklin came to that table later than some others, why does that matter? He always had problems with the parliamentary system but felt confident enough in it to fight for change from the inside, until being insulted by the Solicitor General wounded his pride enough to openly support revolution.
But what does any of this have to do with Ronald Reagan whipping up anti-government sentiment? If I asked you what the 9 scariest words in the English language are, would you know what I was talking about? I would guess that you would, and if so it's because his name is synonymous with anti-government sentiment.
Actually that idea was popularized by the founding fathers who knew that Government sucked so bad that it needed a leash
That's true, the founding fathers fought a revolution against bad governments and once they ousted the British they invented the monarchy and named George Washington the ruler of the land and all our presidents since then have been his descendants.
RR was trying to bankrupt the Soviet government not the US government something he successfully did.
Also true, the soviets were doing so well under communism it seemed no one could stop them. Only the keen intellect of Ronald Reagan was able to find a way to undermine that fundamentally sound Marxist economy.
Conservative ideology is the ultimate proof of Orwells maxim, Ignorance is Strength.
The founding fathers fought against unchecked hereditary power and created the government you hate so much. Communism defeated itself. Take some of those trickle down dollars and buy a clue.
I just wasted about 15 minutes of my life looking over this thread and I have to say I'm fascinated.
> Moderately funny comment
>> Strange non sequitur attempt at political humor
>>> Openly racist, long-winded slur
>>>> Stupid attempt at humor after making said slur
>>>>> Masturbatory over-analysis of thread
This analysis was made after looking through the racist poster's previous comments to see that he isn't a perennial troll, but has made several Insightful and Informative posts recently.
What does it all mean? Why did I bother posting this? Shouldn't I get some work done?
I'm glad someone brought this up. It's sad how often people misinterpret the results of a study to make them say what they want to hear.
That said, the reason game developers feel the need to push violence isn't to make the game more fun but to help market the games. It's no secret sensationalism sells.
Thinking about it that way really makes you wonder about all the free publicity Jack Thompson helped generate for violent games. He was their best friend in reality. Of course he did it to draw attention to himself more than anything, so I don't suppose he really cared.
You mean, "after agreeing to renounce his citizenship", right?
Sure, but then again do you think he had a choice?
Regardless of this and most of your other rebuttals I'll cede them to you, that's why I included the links to the wikipedia articles. I wasn't about to write out their entire life stories so feel free to get additional information.
My apologies about Walker Lindh, I was confused because he and Hamdi were held together in Afghanistan. You pWnz00red! me.
Yaser Esam Hamdi - American Citizen, Enemy Combatant. The Supreme Court denied the executive request to hold him indefinitely without trial. He was handed over to Saudi Arabia after being stripped of citizenship.
John Walker Lindh - American Citizen, Enemy Combatant. Entered a guilty plea on 2 of his 10 charges; carrying weapons and serving in the Taliban army. Currently serving 20 years in an American prison.
The most disturbing case, however, is that of Jose Padilla, who was never held in Guantanamo, to our knowledge, but is an American citizen arrested in the United States and declared an enemy combatant. He very likely was an "evil doer(TM)" but the way his case was handled was disturbing to say the least.
When your government has the right to listen in on your communications, interpret them as they see fit, and make you disappear without justifying the cause to anyone but themselves you've set up a powerful system for abuse. If not by those that set it up, by someone that takes the reigns of power down the road.
Seeing movies produced by following the "formula", do you want automated games? Do you even want a "formula" for "fun" game design?
Isn't this what EA already does? Oh wait, I'm confusing "fun" with "profitable."
A profitable game is even more likely to generate a sequel than a profitable movie. And sequels are just a reimplementation of the formula provided by the original. To say nothing of all the copycat games that come out once a new game style becomes popular, i.e. profitable.
So the formulas already exist. It's just a matter of automating the production.
As for the rest of your comment; I'm not quite sure what I did to upset you so. I don't have the time to read your whole essay, just one small point:
I do apologize for the tone of my earlier response, web anonymity and Slashdot grandstanding may have gotten the best of me. In addition, I get frustrated with the people that bring up "good hackers" or "hacker ethics" every time a story breaks about a major system being compromised.
That said, if you can't be bothered to read the entirety of my previous post, you obviously aren't interested in listening to any opinion that doesn't already agree with your own, so what's the point in writing at all?
I'll try to keep this brief as to not overwhelm you and waste a minimum of our time.
You make two statements in your last post that would seem to imply that you either don't understand what I wrote, or don't want to understand.
First, you point out that you, "said nothing about the law." Which was exactly my point.
Second, you say that I'm implying. "that not having "good" hackers will make the "bad" hackers go away." Which is a misrepresentation of what I said, probably stemming from that fact that you didn't read "my whole essay."
I considered modding you down, but decided to comment instead.
I understand your sentiment, but what you're ultimately suggesting is that we eliminate access to the internet for any country with a cheap labor pool. This punishes the citizens of those countries more than it does the execs of the major corporations that exploit them.
This story is about an international communications issue. If you want to talk about labor issues I would say this:
There are many powerful people trying to make protectionism a dirty word, if we want to fight them we have to be specific in our demands on who deserves Free Trade agreements or gets Preferred Trade Status. Protecting workers rights "over there" means increasing labor costs "over there" and makes them less appealing than local workers when you factor in communications and shipping costs (environmental protections should also figure into that equation). When they can treat their employees humanely, pay them a living wage, stop tainting the local water supply and still afford to send products to our markets cheaper than we can, then they deserve those jobs and we don't.
The problem is that we've spotted our competitors a huge advantage by not holding them to any of the standards we hold ourselves to. Which means we tied our own hands, or maybe slit our own throats.
It's less an artificial distinction than a misnomer. The words manufacturing and/or service should never be follower by the word "jobs." You're right that all jobs are services, but the distinction over what is produced is an important one.
Manufacturing creates capital, which is something of quantifiable and transferable value. Services are of subjective value and are nontransferable.
The value of a pair of pants can be calculated and tracked, from the value of it's resources say $1.00 worth of cotton then sold for anything from $15.00 to $200.00 depending on the brand. The cost of labor, transportation, retail markup, etc. is a distribution of the wealth generated by the creation of that product and the profit remainder goes to the shareholders.
On the other hand, the value of a service, such as education, cannot be quantified. We know education has great value and we can estimate the earning power of individuals with varying levels of education in different disciplines, but it still has no resale value once completed.
The problem with the service based economy is no quantifiable wealth is generated. Salaries paid represent the circulation of money already within the system. The money you paid came from your employer, who got their money from their customers who got it from their employer etc. But all money in a healthy system should be traceable back to wealth created by the manufacture of some durable good (there is an offshoot here for food (farming) but that's more complicated).
The loss of manufacturing jobs, and capabilities, is a problem in the United States but the real problem is that the source of money has long ceased to come from the production of goods but instead arises from debt. Wages (labor costs) have not kept up with productivity and demand has been artificially inflated by leveraging debt. Anyone that has 47 minutes really should watch this video Money as Debt.
It's a little over dramatic and the creator has some pretty crazy ideas at the end, but it is a good presentation explaining the current system.
That was terribly funny, but also terribly stupid.
I must say you're awfully good looking, but you smell horrible.
The analogy simply doesn't hold. You know quite well how secure your home is.
I can see you've put a lot of thought into this... I'll type slowly for you.
People who like to defend the romantic image of the hacker usually make two mistakes.
One; they assume the crux of the argument is security when it's actually law.
Two; they assume intent should be accounted for after the fact.
The legality of the activity is determined by the possible intent of the actor. When an unauthorized person attempts to bypass a security measure the law is forced to assume they are doing so with malicious intent because they are subverting the means put in place to prevent just that action.
Breaking into a house is identical to breaking into a computer system in that respect.
If a crime could only be charged AFTER a person has circumvented security, so they could be sure of intent, what kind of outcomes would that invite before a charge could be filed?
Seriously, read that last sentence again and think about it.
On the other hand, if there are security issues with IT infrastructure, you probably don't know about them.
Considering this is Slashdot, I would certainly hope most of us would have a better idea of the security of our computer systems/networks than the security of our parent's basement.
It's not very useful for you if somebody tells you that your door locks suck; having crappy locks may even be a conscious decision on your part.
Really? This is what you're going with? Tell me, why exactly would I want crappy locks on my doors? If you're referring to the fact that I don't choose to wrap the house in razor wire and dig a moat, then yes I have taken a laissez-faire approach to domestic security. The reason none of us need to go that far is because breaking into a house in unconditionally illegal and there are LEGAL mechanisms in place to protect me and provide recourse if that should happen. That is the primary deterrent that keeps people from walking around and "checking" their neighbor's locks to make sure they're secure.
It is, however, very useful for you if somebody points out security issues with your computer systems. Having security holes in your system is never (well, rarely) a conscious decision.
Yes it is useful, and there are means to do that which don't involve breaking into someone else's systems and compromising potentially sensitive information--even if only to one person. The difference is that between a hacker and a security consultant.
If a bank's systems are hacked by anyone outside the organization, regardless of what they do with the information, they are required to inform their customers that their data has been compromised. People close accounts, money is lost and there are repercussions that go beyond the romantic image of the lone hacker who's sticking it to the man, but will never know the soft touch of a woman.
If a "nice" hacker had alerted twitter to this issue, the current situation would never have occurred.
Fine, let's assume we live in a world that values the noble efforts of hackers and someone hacked Twitter and alerted them to this problem before an evil cracker used this exploit for his nefarious designs. So we've created an atmosphere where everyone feels secure walking around "checking the locks" as I said earlier.
Are you going to feel more secure knowing there are a lot of people trying to find ways into your system and that some of them are aren't the good kind of hackers and you have no way of knowing what kind of hacker they are until AFTER they've gotten into your system?
As an admin, if you see suspicious activity on your server logs do you want that activity stopped or should yo
First of all, it was the (grand)parent comment that coined the term "Hacker Ethics."
Secondly, the problem with your argument is in actual usage. People that engage in cracking call themselves hackers because calling yourself a cracker implies you married your sister and spend most of your time playing banjo on the porch.
That reminds me of the time I thought I heard a noise at night and I walked into my kids room and there was this guy standing there looking at my 8 month old daughter sleeping. Scared the shit out of me. I was about to either kick his ass, or shit myself when he told me to calm down. He was an Ethical Burglar(TM).
He had used some pretty basic lock picking methods to break in and just wanted me to know my family was at risk and that we should cage ourselves in our own home so that the marauding Visigoths couldn't break in and kill us all.
I thanked him for his generous service and he said it was no problem. On his way out he looked at my house one more time and mentioned that he might come back another time and set the place on fire, so we should probably get a coating of asbestos or something to be ready for that.
I only wish we had more of these ethical hackers and burglers to keep up safe.
The argument that the owner wouldn't spend the money to expand is just as specious as the argument that people would buy more pizzas.
You've made it specious by using the words *would and wouldn't* instead of *should and shouldn't* A business owner certainly could expand his business based on money pumped in, or taxes reduced by, government. That would just be a really stupid way to make business decisions since that has no bearing on the demand for your product.
The way the system is supposed to work is if you can make a compelling business argument for expanding your business you should have that opportunity to do so with credit. Which is what makes this whole debate strange. If we want to talk about stimulating business growth we should be talking about the current frozen credit markets, not business taxes or taxes on upper income people (which are all too often confused).
Just let the people keep their money and spend it where THEY see fit instead of trying to prop up the pizza delivery business.
That's the interesting part of this debate. It's really a debate over who those people are that should be allowed to keep their money and what the value is of what they do with it. His point about building up demand with tax credits or rebates or reductions or whatever to lower-income families, who will immediately spend the money, has a little more merit because that money comes right back into circulation. But since it represents a momentary infusion of cash and not a correction to any fundamental problem I'm still not particularly fond of it.
It would be nice to have an intelligent discussion about the nature of taxes and monetary policy, but it has simply become to politically charged, and the waters muddied, by too many falsehoods and talking points and an absurdly over complicated bureaucracy.
The problem that no one seems interested in talking about is that the entire system is predicated on too much debt at every level. As I said earlier the system requires a certain amount of credit but we're over extended and while many are trying to unfreeze the credit markets there aren't many plans out there being all that selective about how or where that's done.
In Slashdot terms the system needs a rewrite and everyone's still talking about patches--except for the flat/fair taxers and they're crazy.
One thing is certain, though, however it happened, the news did not come to be seen as "truth" because of some discussion involving the Authors of the Constitution.
However it happened? I suppose that's the real issue here. It never really definitively happened. We've gone through various cycles of sensational journalism or partisan journalism followed by a backlash and a desire to, "clean up journalism." The timing and extent of these movements used to vary from region to region, and those regions grew as communications improved and newspapers consolidated, and radio stations sprouted up and consolidated and TV news came on the scene followed by cable news then the 24 hour news cycle. Now we have so few options covering the entire world 24 hours a day we're all swimming in the same pool when the tide turns.
Getting back to your point about "Authors of the Constitution" though.
The original newspapers and pamphleteers in this country, or colony for that matter, were exceptionally biased and much of what they printed wasn't necessarily true. A great deal of propaganda was used to whip up anti-royal sentiment. Unnamed sources were common and even Benjamin Franklin started writing under pseudonyms, and in gossipy tones, while a 13-year-old apprentice with his brother's newspaper.
Conversely, Thomas Jefferson's wrote extensively on the need for, rights of, and responsibilities incumbent on the press as a check on government's power. Additionally he was an advocate for literacy so that the entire populous could read and understand the news. Unfortunately, he didn't write much about partisan influences on newspapers because parties didn't hold a lot of power until shortly after his death when parties began to provide the election ballots, so called party tickets.
We're on the verge of another media shift now and I don't see openly partisan propaganda as a step up from the imperfect impartial media ethics of 15 years ago. But that's why I'm writing this now and I'm grateful for the opportunity to do so.
One: I don't recall saying we should take away anyone's right to say anything.
Two: Open bias is a nice way to say propaganda. Americans used to mock Pravda, now we embrace it as an "honest" opinion.
I'm more than happy that bloggers and people willing to shell out for printing or air time can put their opinions out there for the world to read/hear. Commentary has always played a large part in forming public opinion, but when it comes to "The News" I want information, not someone trying to sell me something.
If you are honestly listening to the propaganda from both sides and combining them to form your own opinion then good for you (that's pretty much what you have to do in today's political climate). But I would rather watch an unbiased news source and determine for myself when, and why, they stray from center. That would give us the same result without sifting through all the hysterical whining and outrageous accusations.
The pretense of neutrality is never going to be executed to perfection but setting it as a goal, or even just paying lip service to it, is going to hold an organization closer to the center then open bias which seems to push itself to extremes over time.
Simply put, slanting your coverage of the news to attract an audience that you in turn sell to advertisers isn't a system designed to produce an informed electorate. The "Free Press" was envisioned as a way for the populous to monitor and judge government actions, not takes sides and deliver messages for the red team or the blue team.
The incessant whining about liberal or conservative bias in supposedly unbiased news sources, while merited in many cases, has less to do with fairness and more to do with keeping people away from what they don't want you to hear.
I don't have any easy answers to the problem, just that it's up to the populous to decide what's in our best own interest. I'm in the minority when I say an imperfect unbiased press is worth saving. We'll see where the alternative gets us. I can't wait until we have a dozen more Bill O'Reillys and Keith Olbermans shouting at each other on TV. And the din of a billion bloggers and podcasters exaggerating the already exaggerated claims. We'll have really good information to base our decisions to go to war and found our economic programs on then won't we?
I actually agree with you, but the problem is very few people (probably less than 1%) are going to do that. Rush Limbaugh provided the theory and FOX news and Malcom Gladwell have proven beyond a doubt that people will pay attention to, and believe, what affirms their own biases and ignore dissenting opinions. There isn't a statistically significant population of people out there with the time, initiative, and/or intellectual capacity to subjectively analyze opposing views and form an honest opinion.
The desire for an unbiased news core came from an understanding that it was a lesser of two evils.
People are way too worked up over this in regards to functionality, IMHO. It's just some 3D eyecandy over the top of a basic virtual desktop setup. Don't a number of OSS window managers offer 3D cube styled virtual desktop environments already? Most of them map to the outside of a cube this one just maps to the inside.
I am hopeful this fixes the dock. Apple made the dock a lot less useful with 10.5, stacks being the most useless "innovation." By adding some depth to the stack it might become useful.
On the other hand I am against software patents, of any kind, and would hope this would be unenforceable under some of the newer precedents that have been set (Bilski?).
Good point. You should also make sure they pay you back for that second ice cream and charge them a reasonable interest rate until they do, compounded daily of course. That way if they don't have the required funds in the piggy bank when they get home they will be saddled with debt. I wouldn't recommend prepossessing anything of theirs as collateral, that would be cruel, just string them along with minimal payments and subtle threats until you've made enough money to put them through college. Then they'll understand the American way of easy credit.
It occurs to me, after reading the replies, that I may have been too strict in my interpretation of the word "contract." Whether it's a proposal, estimate, statement of work, or a contract I think we all agree that legal liability isn't necessarily as important as clearly describing the project and making sure everyone is on the same page before work begins. Doing so should give you a good sense of who you're dealing with and protect you from problems down the road. Regardless of what you call it, you need to do some preparatory work before you jump into a job with a new client.
Also, I like this post's point about referrals. I haven't developed a referral network for when I'm overbooked and it would be a nice insurance policy against those occasional quiet times. He's definitely right that there is more than enough work to go around. Unfortunately, I tend to be a bit reclusive and have lost touch with all my old dot.com buddies. I should probably look them up again.
I second this. As someone that had trouble getting paid when I started out, I have to acknowledge it was my own fault for doing work for either friends, or friends of friends that were just starting out. Or sometimes taking a chance on a shady character or bad referral. Unless you want to spend a lot of time and money in court, signed contracts won't help you.
In addition signed contracts will scare off more legitimate customers and cost you more time than they are worth. Just make sure you are dealing with a company that is a viable business, write a good bid/estimate, use common sense and MOST IMPORTANTLY require a fractional payment up front (1/3 for large jobs and 1/2 for small jobs.).
Also, to elaborate on your question about fixed bids versus hourly rates, the answer is both. Most clients are going to want an estimate and you are going to be stuck to something near that number after you pull it out of your ass. So keep track of your hours so you can make better estimates in the future. And make sure both you and your client understand expectations and deliverables so you can increase the dollar amount *WHEN* your client starts moving the goal posts. You'll also want an hourly rate for any down-the-road maintenance or ancillary services you might provide. After a few years in business 80% of my income comes from 4 clients that provide me with a steady stream of work, billed at an hourly rate. Those clients started off as fixed bid projects that grew and grew until I was an important enough part of their business that they had to keep me around. And I don't know about you, but I would rather have a steady stream of work from known clients I trust than be making cold calls or spending money advertising to find new work. Which reminds me, the other 20% of my work comes from referrals from those 4 clients.
First rule of freelancing: When you find good paying clients, treat them like gold and they will return the favor.
Slashdot Mirror
So you link to The Federalist Papers? Essays that advocate the stronger central government of the Constitution because the Articles of Confederation, which placed states rights before federal, was a failure.
Now I think you're right, I could stand to brush up on them, I haven't read them all, but is that really what you wanted to link to? Not to mention it only represents the opinions of three of our founders, but I digress.
After the Constitution was drafted many present were thoroughly disgusted with the compromises therein and were convinced it would be as big a failure as the Articles of Confederation before it. Many were considering not signing the document thus dissolving the convention and with it, most likely, The Union. Benjamin Franklin wrote a speech and gave it to a friend to read to everyone present.
It reflects the founders dissatisfaction with the document, but reassured them of the need for it and the government it would create. Here is a clicky thing if you would like to read it. Here's the final sentence if you can't be bothered:
"On the whole, Sir, I cannot help expressing a Wish, that every Member of the Convention, who may still have Objections to it, would with me on this Occasion doubt a little of his own Infallibility, and to make manifest our Unanimity, put his Name to this instrument."
Everyone present signed that piece of parchment. Not because they believed the document to be perfect, but knowing themselves to be imperfect and had confidence that the government it would create empowered the citizenry shape their government to better govern them. To turn our backs on the government by saying that everything they do is wrong or doomed to failure is another step in the march toward despotism.
In the late 70's people believed the US would be crushed and the Soviets were not doing as badly as one might think. They did have a huge amount of oil and natural gas, the attitude among many were that they were a healthier economy than us.
Funny, I could have swore Reagan was president in the 80s not the 70s. In addition, while we knew of their natural resource reserves we also had taken in enough defectors to know what the state of their economy was. The fear the populous had of the Russians had lingered on after the "Red Scare" and savvy politicians knew how to exploit it.
Unchecked... Umm House of commons/lords means anything to you? The monarchy in England was under check for nearly a half millennium before the revolution.
Perhaps you should look into what the House of Lords was, I'll give you a hint the last word is Lords. As for the House of Commons at the time their power was far less than that of the house of Lords, not to mention most (if not all) of that representation still consisted of nobles and those with "old money".
The founders fought against a lack of representation *not* against hereditary rule. Many, *MANY*, people wanted George Washing to be a king in a constitutional monarchy not much different than the English monarchy and anyone who has studied Franklin knows that until he was humiliated in England by his enemies he was quite content to stay a part of great Brittan on the condition of representation and equality with English citizens.
Before you chastise others by telling them to 'buy a clue' maybe you should read a book.
When you say *MANY* people, how many of those people are included in the "founding fathers?" Much of the citizenry wanted a king, but I don't know how many (if any) of the founders did. But I should step back here and say that it is almost always absurd to talk about the "founding fathers" as a singular unit. They were a group of people with many different opinions and ideas. Whenever anyone talks about the founding fathers, they are using them as a vehicle for their own ideas, or some pundit's opinion that they've grafted onto that body.
As for Franklin and book reading, might I recommend to you, Benjamin Franklin: An American Life. It's funny you should bring him up now since he was one of the most vocal opponents of hereditary power among the founders (which is ironic because he secured the governorship of New Jersey for his son while in London, but nobody's perfect). Also, it's interesting you don't mention a book that might enlighten me, do you know of one that isn't pure propaganda? I'd recommend reading to anyone unless it's the latest work of fiction by Anne Coulter, Bill O'Reilly, or Michael Moore in that case you would be better off smoking some crack. It's also funny you'd bring him up just before claiming I don't read since very few people, outside of colonial historians, could claim to have read as much on, or by, Franklin as I have.
Anyway, you refer to the "Hutchinson Affair" and I'm not sure why. I'm sure everyone that fought the British had some revelation or series of them that turned them against the crown at some point, Franklin came to that table later than some others, why does that matter? He always had problems with the parliamentary system but felt confident enough in it to fight for change from the inside, until being insulted by the Solicitor General wounded his pride enough to openly support revolution.
But what does any of this have to do with Ronald Reagan whipping up anti-government sentiment? If I asked you what the 9 scariest words in the English language are, would you know what I was talking about? I would guess that you would, and if so it's because his name is synonymous with anti-government sentiment.
Actually that idea was popularized by the founding fathers who knew that Government sucked so bad that it needed a leash
That's true, the founding fathers fought a revolution against bad governments and once they ousted the British they invented the monarchy and named George Washington the ruler of the land and all our presidents since then have been his descendants.
RR was trying to bankrupt the Soviet government not the US government something he successfully did.
Also true, the soviets were doing so well under communism it seemed no one could stop them. Only the keen intellect of Ronald Reagan was able to find a way to undermine that fundamentally sound Marxist economy.
Conservative ideology is the ultimate proof of Orwells maxim, Ignorance is Strength.
The founding fathers fought against unchecked hereditary power and created the government you hate so much. Communism defeated itself. Take some of those trickle down dollars and buy a clue.
I just wasted about 15 minutes of my life looking over this thread and I have to say I'm fascinated.
> Moderately funny comment
>> Strange non sequitur attempt at political humor
>>> Openly racist, long-winded slur
>>>> Stupid attempt at humor after making said slur
>>>>> Masturbatory over-analysis of thread
This analysis was made after looking through the racist poster's previous comments to see that he isn't a perennial troll, but has made several Insightful and Informative posts recently.
What does it all mean? Why did I bother posting this? Shouldn't I get some work done?
Oh the humanity!
I'm glad someone brought this up. It's sad how often people misinterpret the results of a study to make them say what they want to hear.
That said, the reason game developers feel the need to push violence isn't to make the game more fun but to help market the games. It's no secret sensationalism sells.
Thinking about it that way really makes you wonder about all the free publicity Jack Thompson helped generate for violent games. He was their best friend in reality. Of course he did it to draw attention to himself more than anything, so I don't suppose he really cared.
You mean, "after agreeing to renounce his citizenship", right?
Sure, but then again do you think he had a choice?
Regardless of this and most of your other rebuttals I'll cede them to you, that's why I included the links to the wikipedia articles. I wasn't about to write out their entire life stories so feel free to get additional information.
My apologies about Walker Lindh, I was confused because he and Hamdi were held together in Afghanistan. You pWnz00red! me.
Yaser Esam Hamdi - American Citizen, Enemy Combatant. The Supreme Court denied the executive request to hold him indefinitely without trial. He was handed over to Saudi Arabia after being stripped of citizenship.
John Walker Lindh - American Citizen, Enemy Combatant. Entered a guilty plea on 2 of his 10 charges; carrying weapons and serving in the Taliban army. Currently serving 20 years in an American prison.
The most disturbing case, however, is that of Jose Padilla, who was never held in Guantanamo, to our knowledge, but is an American citizen arrested in the United States and declared an enemy combatant. He very likely was an "evil doer(TM)" but the way his case was handled was disturbing to say the least.
When your government has the right to listen in on your communications, interpret them as they see fit, and make you disappear without justifying the cause to anyone but themselves you've set up a powerful system for abuse. If not by those that set it up, by someone that takes the reigns of power down the road.
Seeing movies produced by following the "formula", do you want automated games? Do you even want a "formula" for "fun" game design?
Isn't this what EA already does? Oh wait, I'm confusing "fun" with "profitable."
A profitable game is even more likely to generate a sequel than a profitable movie. And sequels are just a reimplementation of the formula provided by the original. To say nothing of all the copycat games that come out once a new game style becomes popular, i.e. profitable.
So the formulas already exist. It's just a matter of automating the production.
I can't believe I didn't think of this one first. I have no mod points so I can only reply:
Well played sir! ...well played.
Female astronauts have no problem, they have blood in their head during normal sex too.
Well something had to fill the cavity...
*rimshot*
Thank you, thank you. Remember to tip your waitstaff. Drive safe.
As for the rest of your comment; I'm not quite sure what I did to upset you so. I don't have the time to read your whole essay, just one small point:
I do apologize for the tone of my earlier response, web anonymity and Slashdot grandstanding may have gotten the best of me. In addition, I get frustrated with the people that bring up "good hackers" or "hacker ethics" every time a story breaks about a major system being compromised.
That said, if you can't be bothered to read the entirety of my previous post, you obviously aren't interested in listening to any opinion that doesn't already agree with your own, so what's the point in writing at all?
I'll try to keep this brief as to not overwhelm you and waste a minimum of our time.
You make two statements in your last post that would seem to imply that you either don't understand what I wrote, or don't want to understand.
First, you point out that you, "said nothing about the law." Which was exactly my point.
Second, you say that I'm implying. "that not having "good" hackers will make the "bad" hackers go away." Which is a misrepresentation of what I said, probably stemming from that fact that you didn't read "my whole essay."
I considered modding you down, but decided to comment instead.
I understand your sentiment, but what you're ultimately suggesting is that we eliminate access to the internet for any country with a cheap labor pool. This punishes the citizens of those countries more than it does the execs of the major corporations that exploit them.
This story is about an international communications issue. If you want to talk about labor issues I would say this:
There are many powerful people trying to make protectionism a dirty word, if we want to fight them we have to be specific in our demands on who deserves Free Trade agreements or gets Preferred Trade Status. Protecting workers rights "over there" means increasing labor costs "over there" and makes them less appealing than local workers when you factor in communications and shipping costs (environmental protections should also figure into that equation). When they can treat their employees humanely, pay them a living wage, stop tainting the local water supply and still afford to send products to our markets cheaper than we can, then they deserve those jobs and we don't.
The problem is that we've spotted our competitors a huge advantage by not holding them to any of the standards we hold ourselves to. Which means we tied our own hands, or maybe slit our own throats.
It's less an artificial distinction than a misnomer. The words manufacturing and/or service should never be follower by the word "jobs." You're right that all jobs are services, but the distinction over what is produced is an important one.
Manufacturing creates capital, which is something of quantifiable and transferable value. Services are of subjective value and are nontransferable.
The value of a pair of pants can be calculated and tracked, from the value of it's resources say $1.00 worth of cotton then sold for anything from $15.00 to $200.00 depending on the brand. The cost of labor, transportation, retail markup, etc. is a distribution of the wealth generated by the creation of that product and the profit remainder goes to the shareholders.
On the other hand, the value of a service, such as education, cannot be quantified. We know education has great value and we can estimate the earning power of individuals with varying levels of education in different disciplines, but it still has no resale value once completed.
The problem with the service based economy is no quantifiable wealth is generated. Salaries paid represent the circulation of money already within the system. The money you paid came from your employer, who got their money from their customers who got it from their employer etc. But all money in a healthy system should be traceable back to wealth created by the manufacture of some durable good (there is an offshoot here for food (farming) but that's more complicated).
The loss of manufacturing jobs, and capabilities, is a problem in the United States but the real problem is that the source of money has long ceased to come from the production of goods but instead arises from debt. Wages (labor costs) have not kept up with productivity and demand has been artificially inflated by leveraging debt. Anyone that has 47 minutes really should watch this video Money as Debt.
It's a little over dramatic and the creator has some pretty crazy ideas at the end, but it is a good presentation explaining the current system.
That was terribly funny, but also terribly stupid.
I must say you're awfully good looking, but you smell horrible.
The analogy simply doesn't hold. You know quite well how secure your home is.
I can see you've put a lot of thought into this... I'll type slowly for you.
People who like to defend the romantic image of the hacker usually make two mistakes.
One; they assume the crux of the argument is security when it's actually law.
Two; they assume intent should be accounted for after the fact.
The legality of the activity is determined by the possible intent of the actor. When an unauthorized person attempts to bypass a security measure the law is forced to assume they are doing so with malicious intent because they are subverting the means put in place to prevent just that action.
Breaking into a house is identical to breaking into a computer system in that respect.
If a crime could only be charged AFTER a person has circumvented security, so they could be sure of intent, what kind of outcomes would that invite before a charge could be filed?
Seriously, read that last sentence again and think about it.
On the other hand, if there are security issues with IT infrastructure, you probably don't know about them.
Considering this is Slashdot, I would certainly hope most of us would have a better idea of the security of our computer systems/networks than the security of our parent's basement.
It's not very useful for you if somebody tells you that your door locks suck; having crappy locks may even be a conscious decision on your part.
Really? This is what you're going with? Tell me, why exactly would I want crappy locks on my doors? If you're referring to the fact that I don't choose to wrap the house in razor wire and dig a moat, then yes I have taken a laissez-faire approach to domestic security. The reason none of us need to go that far is because breaking into a house in unconditionally illegal and there are LEGAL mechanisms in place to protect me and provide recourse if that should happen. That is the primary deterrent that keeps people from walking around and "checking" their neighbor's locks to make sure they're secure.
It is, however, very useful for you if somebody points out security issues with your computer systems. Having security holes in your system is never (well, rarely) a conscious decision.
Yes it is useful, and there are means to do that which don't involve breaking into someone else's systems and compromising potentially sensitive information--even if only to one person. The difference is that between a hacker and a security consultant.
If a bank's systems are hacked by anyone outside the organization, regardless of what they do with the information, they are required to inform their customers that their data has been compromised. People close accounts, money is lost and there are repercussions that go beyond the romantic image of the lone hacker who's sticking it to the man, but will never know the soft touch of a woman.
If a "nice" hacker had alerted twitter to this issue, the current situation would never have occurred.
Fine, let's assume we live in a world that values the noble efforts of hackers and someone hacked Twitter and alerted them to this problem before an evil cracker used this exploit for his nefarious designs. So we've created an atmosphere where everyone feels secure walking around "checking the locks" as I said earlier.
Are you going to feel more secure knowing there are a lot of people trying to find ways into your system and that some of them are aren't the good kind of hackers and you have no way of knowing what kind of hacker they are until AFTER they've gotten into your system?
As an admin, if you see suspicious activity on your server logs do you want that activity stopped or should yo
First of all, it was the (grand)parent comment that coined the term "Hacker Ethics."
Secondly, the problem with your argument is in actual usage. People that engage in cracking call themselves hackers because calling yourself a cracker implies you married your sister and spend most of your time playing banjo on the porch.
Yeah, Hacker Ethics, that's it.
That reminds me of the time I thought I heard a noise at night and I walked into my kids room and there was this guy standing there looking at my 8 month old daughter sleeping. Scared the shit out of me. I was about to either kick his ass, or shit myself when he told me to calm down. He was an Ethical Burglar(TM).
He had used some pretty basic lock picking methods to break in and just wanted me to know my family was at risk and that we should cage ourselves in our own home so that the marauding Visigoths couldn't break in and kill us all.
I thanked him for his generous service and he said it was no problem. On his way out he looked at my house one more time and mentioned that he might come back another time and set the place on fire, so we should probably get a coating of asbestos or something to be ready for that.
I only wish we had more of these ethical hackers and burglers to keep up safe.
The argument that the owner wouldn't spend the money to expand is just as specious as the argument that people would buy more pizzas.
You've made it specious by using the words *would and wouldn't* instead of *should and shouldn't* A business owner certainly could expand his business based on money pumped in, or taxes reduced by, government. That would just be a really stupid way to make business decisions since that has no bearing on the demand for your product.
The way the system is supposed to work is if you can make a compelling business argument for expanding your business you should have that opportunity to do so with credit. Which is what makes this whole debate strange. If we want to talk about stimulating business growth we should be talking about the current frozen credit markets, not business taxes or taxes on upper income people (which are all too often confused).
Just let the people keep their money and spend it where THEY see fit instead of trying to prop up the pizza delivery business.
That's the interesting part of this debate. It's really a debate over who those people are that should be allowed to keep their money and what the value is of what they do with it. His point about building up demand with tax credits or rebates or reductions or whatever to lower-income families, who will immediately spend the money, has a little more merit because that money comes right back into circulation. But since it represents a momentary infusion of cash and not a correction to any fundamental problem I'm still not particularly fond of it.
It would be nice to have an intelligent discussion about the nature of taxes and monetary policy, but it has simply become to politically charged, and the waters muddied, by too many falsehoods and talking points and an absurdly over complicated bureaucracy.
The problem that no one seems interested in talking about is that the entire system is predicated on too much debt at every level. As I said earlier the system requires a certain amount of credit but we're over extended and while many are trying to unfreeze the credit markets there aren't many plans out there being all that selective about how or where that's done.
In Slashdot terms the system needs a rewrite and everyone's still talking about patches--except for the flat/fair taxers and they're crazy.
One thing is certain, though, however it happened, the news did not come to be seen as "truth" because of some discussion involving the Authors of the Constitution.
However it happened? I suppose that's the real issue here. It never really definitively happened. We've gone through various cycles of sensational journalism or partisan journalism followed by a backlash and a desire to, "clean up journalism." The timing and extent of these movements used to vary from region to region, and those regions grew as communications improved and newspapers consolidated, and radio stations sprouted up and consolidated and TV news came on the scene followed by cable news then the 24 hour news cycle. Now we have so few options covering the entire world 24 hours a day we're all swimming in the same pool when the tide turns.
Getting back to your point about "Authors of the Constitution" though.
The original newspapers and pamphleteers in this country, or colony for that matter, were exceptionally biased and much of what they printed wasn't necessarily true. A great deal of propaganda was used to whip up anti-royal sentiment. Unnamed sources were common and even Benjamin Franklin started writing under pseudonyms, and in gossipy tones, while a 13-year-old apprentice with his brother's newspaper.
Conversely, Thomas Jefferson's wrote extensively on the need for, rights of, and responsibilities incumbent on the press as a check on government's power. Additionally he was an advocate for literacy so that the entire populous could read and understand the news. Unfortunately, he didn't write much about partisan influences on newspapers because parties didn't hold a lot of power until shortly after his death when parties began to provide the election ballots, so called party tickets.
We're on the verge of another media shift now and I don't see openly partisan propaganda as a step up from the imperfect impartial media ethics of 15 years ago. But that's why I'm writing this now and I'm grateful for the opportunity to do so.
One: I don't recall saying we should take away anyone's right to say anything.
Two: Open bias is a nice way to say propaganda. Americans used to mock Pravda, now we embrace it as an "honest" opinion.
I'm more than happy that bloggers and people willing to shell out for printing or air time can put their opinions out there for the world to read/hear. Commentary has always played a large part in forming public opinion, but when it comes to "The News" I want information, not someone trying to sell me something.
If you are honestly listening to the propaganda from both sides and combining them to form your own opinion then good for you (that's pretty much what you have to do in today's political climate). But I would rather watch an unbiased news source and determine for myself when, and why, they stray from center. That would give us the same result without sifting through all the hysterical whining and outrageous accusations.
The pretense of neutrality is never going to be executed to perfection but setting it as a goal, or even just paying lip service to it, is going to hold an organization closer to the center then open bias which seems to push itself to extremes over time.
Simply put, slanting your coverage of the news to attract an audience that you in turn sell to advertisers isn't a system designed to produce an informed electorate. The "Free Press" was envisioned as a way for the populous to monitor and judge government actions, not takes sides and deliver messages for the red team or the blue team.
The incessant whining about liberal or conservative bias in supposedly unbiased news sources, while merited in many cases, has less to do with fairness and more to do with keeping people away from what they don't want you to hear.
I don't have any easy answers to the problem, just that it's up to the populous to decide what's in our best own interest. I'm in the minority when I say an imperfect unbiased press is worth saving. We'll see where the alternative gets us. I can't wait until we have a dozen more Bill O'Reillys and Keith Olbermans shouting at each other on TV. And the din of a billion bloggers and podcasters exaggerating the already exaggerated claims. We'll have really good information to base our decisions to go to war and found our economic programs on then won't we?
I actually agree with you, but the problem is very few people (probably less than 1%) are going to do that. Rush Limbaugh provided the theory and FOX news and Malcom Gladwell have proven beyond a doubt that people will pay attention to, and believe, what affirms their own biases and ignore dissenting opinions. There isn't a statistically significant population of people out there with the time, initiative, and/or intellectual capacity to subjectively analyze opposing views and form an honest opinion.
The desire for an unbiased news core came from an understanding that it was a lesser of two evils.
People are way too worked up over this in regards to functionality, IMHO. It's just some 3D eyecandy over the top of a basic virtual desktop setup. Don't a number of OSS window managers offer 3D cube styled virtual desktop environments already? Most of them map to the outside of a cube this one just maps to the inside.
I am hopeful this fixes the dock. Apple made the dock a lot less useful with 10.5, stacks being the most useless "innovation." By adding some depth to the stack it might become useful.
On the other hand I am against software patents, of any kind, and would hope this would be unenforceable under some of the newer precedents that have been set (Bilski?).
--
Carry on.
Good point. You should also make sure they pay you back for that second ice cream and charge them a reasonable interest rate until they do, compounded daily of course. That way if they don't have the required funds in the piggy bank when they get home they will be saddled with debt. I wouldn't recommend prepossessing anything of theirs as collateral, that would be cruel, just string them along with minimal payments and subtle threats until you've made enough money to put them through college. Then they'll understand the American way of easy credit.
Damn, we're gonna be great parents.
It occurs to me, after reading the replies, that I may have been too strict in my interpretation of the word "contract." Whether it's a proposal, estimate, statement of work, or a contract I think we all agree that legal liability isn't necessarily as important as clearly describing the project and making sure everyone is on the same page before work begins. Doing so should give you a good sense of who you're dealing with and protect you from problems down the road. Regardless of what you call it, you need to do some preparatory work before you jump into a job with a new client.
Also, I like this post's point about referrals. I haven't developed a referral network for when I'm overbooked and it would be a nice insurance policy against those occasional quiet times. He's definitely right that there is more than enough work to go around. Unfortunately, I tend to be a bit reclusive and have lost touch with all my old dot.com buddies. I should probably look them up again.
I second this. As someone that had trouble getting paid when I started out, I have to acknowledge it was my own fault for doing work for either friends, or friends of friends that were just starting out. Or sometimes taking a chance on a shady character or bad referral. Unless you want to spend a lot of time and money in court, signed contracts won't help you.
In addition signed contracts will scare off more legitimate customers and cost you more time than they are worth. Just make sure you are dealing with a company that is a viable business, write a good bid/estimate, use common sense and MOST IMPORTANTLY require a fractional payment up front (1/3 for large jobs and 1/2 for small jobs.).
Also, to elaborate on your question about fixed bids versus hourly rates, the answer is both. Most clients are going to want an estimate and you are going to be stuck to something near that number after you pull it out of your ass. So keep track of your hours so you can make better estimates in the future. And make sure both you and your client understand expectations and deliverables so you can increase the dollar amount *WHEN* your client starts moving the goal posts. You'll also want an hourly rate for any down-the-road maintenance or ancillary services you might provide. After a few years in business 80% of my income comes from 4 clients that provide me with a steady stream of work, billed at an hourly rate. Those clients started off as fixed bid projects that grew and grew until I was an important enough part of their business that they had to keep me around. And I don't know about you, but I would rather have a steady stream of work from known clients I trust than be making cold calls or spending money advertising to find new work. Which reminds me, the other 20% of my work comes from referrals from those 4 clients.
First rule of freelancing:
When you find good paying clients, treat them like gold and they will return the favor.
Good Luck!
Watch it!!! You could poke an eye out with that thing!