The individual employer is rich and owns the means of production whereas the individual worker is poor and does not own the means of production, so even if you have one voice speaking together for all the workers, you still do not have a voice more powerful than the employers. Strike pay, where it exists, may mitigate for the rich versus poor disparity, but it is very temporary because the unions still don't own the means of production.
It is only in the US with its comparatively low rate of unionisation that people have such a passionate aversion to unions, and I don't know enough detail about current US unions to know if it is something peculiarly pathological about them or simply that the politics of the country is far more uncomfortable about collective worker bargaining. One thing I do recognise in the US is a peculiar desire to bring others down rather than try to achieve what they have: IOW, if a union job brings someone good pay and good pension, why don't you fight for those same privileges?
You are on nerd site complaining that someone is "raging" that it is harder than it once was to control external homebrew electronics from a home computer. Why don't you propose that we all get iPads?
I don't know about you, but I have used enough peripherals over the past decade to find that USB is nothing like as reliable as the serial port. It is not just the frustration from a hardware point of view of having to put this huge chunk of complex asymmetrical electronics on any device, but the need to write or supply a complex third-party driver instead of just implementing a simple serial protocol.
And, guess what, almost any USB dongle which supposedly implements a serial port is going to miss out on all the features of a real serial port, using something other than the native 20-year-old full featured and stable driver in OS-of-your-choice... because goodness knows when you're making life difficult for yourself with a complex-but-rubbish bus (and USB is awful when compared to alternatives with similar aims - it's just that Intel have the uncanny ability to spam the world with crap) it would be a waste of money to fully implement what should be a much simpler serial port on the other end.
What sort of amendment to the First Amendment would you have in mind to prevent collective bargaining by employees with their more powerful employers^W^W^W^W^W^W^W^W^Wprotection rackets?
And is it the fact that the gap between the richest and the new middle class has coincided with the reduction of union power that makes you happiest, or the simple fact that when someone is yellow and lives on the other side of the world you can forget how they are being treated entirely?
But statistically, higher IQ (we're talking better than Mensa level, not dime-a-dozen IQs of 120 or so) tends to correlate with higher ethical standards,
LOL! It might correlate with being more sure of your system of ethics because you are already being told that you are so great in other fields, but my experience in life has been that the more intelligent person is, the more of an asshole he is.
(The exceptions are in the minority but invariably quite depressive. It's like they know that nature built them with the power to tower over others but they just don't want to do something so mean.)
Is this like the controller I'd connect to the BBC Master 128s as a preteen to control stupid lego toys after I'd done all my scholarship exams (when I wasn't causing mischief on the 8086 with the OMG sound card), only infinitely more complicated because some cuntbucket decided computers are for CONSUMING not PRODUCING so we don't need simple, educational things like User Ports or even Serial Ports any more?
What every young, unrepresentative group of loud, idealistic men don't realise is that most people just want peace, a job and a house. And, if you spend your time employed rather than campaigning for the abandonment of the intellectual property concept, you will have enough money to pay for it anyway. And what you cannot pay for, you put on credit. And debt doesn't really matter... continue working hard and you can pay fast enough that no-one takes your stuff away... your government is not going to let civilisation collapse even if everyone else is in debt too.
Life has been easy for quite a while. And of course I want to exploit you if I have the intelligence to do so. And I want to protect my legal rights to make it possible, not to share. Then I'm even more secure and my surroundings even more luxurious.
...read it in the bath, drop it, write anything anywhere on the page, lend it to a friend, hold two or three pages open at once and see parts of all of them simultaneously, read it anywhere without worrying about becoming a target for thieves...
I'll still prefer the feel and longevity guarantee of a real book (how's that BBC Domesday Project reader getting on?).
The firm most likely to sell e-books still mostly doesn't, while every other bookshop on the planet sells almost exclusively real books. I am glad.
Despite your spin, what I get out of your description is that (1) you put adverts on all pages over 4 days old; (2) you are well aware that the kind of person who clicks on adverts doesn't care much about the content; yet (3) you have built a site in such a way as to entice enough of this type of person that you receive respectable ad revenue anyway.
You seem to be annoyed about agreeing with me: the content seeker is not the advert follower, so anyone optimising for revenue from the latter is going to take away from the former.
That's/. wisdom:-). I think the more widely accepted wisdom is that no publisher is quite sure he writes good enough material that anyone actually wants to pay for it.
Let's not jump to conclusions just because you think the world revolves around The Big Guys.
The biggest guy is the ad broker; below that are those who can capture the attention of the public, the advertisers. If you have a chip on your shoulder about "the big guys", you couldn't be much more self-defeating than allowing them to erect a banner on your front yard.
You not so burdened, of course, because by admitting that you require advertising revenue to produce your site you are also admitting that you tailor your website to the kind of people who will (not block, take notice of, and) click on adverts.
It is definitely a possibility, although it is tempting to avoid consuming individual nuggets of information on a micro-payment basis unless you already "know" it's going to be useful, i.e. it tells you what you want to hear. Faced with a decent quality publication you have paid for in full, you can enjoy various viewpoints rather than being tempted just to fund/read the ones you like. Hm.
I intended a bit of sarcasm in repeating the myth that Murdoch is some sort of business failure, but I am not sure he has succeeded in convincing himself, let alone others, that he yet has a viable subscription model except when there is already a substantial off-line media subscriber base. IOW, those 1.61 million include people getting the site for free because they already subscribe to the paper paper.
There's also the Appleqsue danger of using the launch period frenzy, including any temporary special offers, to completely overstate the long-term impact of your product on the market. (You'd think they heralded the resurrection, but after nearly 4 years iOS browser market share sits around 1.1%.)
and there is no useful (i.e. non-light-entertainment) content created primarily through advertising revenue. Slashdot developers who have made their money over the last decade producing tat by not overestimating the intelligence of the general public cannot bear to admit this, but you simply cannot produce high-calibre content when your primary aim is to suck in as many as possible of the kind of people who take notice of adverts.
Murdoch, often maligned for his lack of business sense but mysteriously still richer than all of us, seems to have tried and failed at pushing the subscription model. Obviously there are other viable models for producing information on the web such as government sponsorship (BBC, academia) and well organised groups of hobbyists (e.g. ham radio), but how will the sites who do not already have a dedicated subscription base through off-line heritage sustain themselves? Or maybe the answer is that they will not, the moment they take their eye off the advertiser as customer and start worrying directly about satisfying the desire for the reader to intellectually advance himself.
If there is one thing you should have learned from those VoA broadcasts on more frequencies and with greater power than your jammers could muster, the correct method of winning information wars is not to restrict but to drown out with an even louder voice.
The US government has understood for over 200 years that it doesn't really matter what people say as long as you have a handle on the means to speak over them. This is following the British principle on which the US was founded: the best way to keep people in order is to give the appearance of propriety.
The free exchange of information must be preserved because it stops people getting curious about what is hidden. Allow so much noise to flow but make sure the ruling voice is coherent and you have already won.
Someone merely with a good memory remembers your address.
A stalker hangs outside your house then pounces you with, "I've been watching you!" as if your front porch were simply on his route home.
You are a stalker and a hypocrite, a stereotypical sort who preaches selflessness while providing his name twice in his missives, a proto-troll who begins with a hyper-politically correct invective asserting that good grammar is a sign of compassion and rounds off his rhetorical Happy Meal by suggesting that the other house is a "retard".
He's been accused of it multiple times and bought parents off.
Some people respond to blackmail by paying off the blackmailer, and sometimes it encourages more people to engage in blackmail against them.
He admitted on national TV that he shares his bed with 12 year olds.
Yes, just the sort of thing a sneaky paedophile would do...?
But that doesn't ring any alarm bells for you?
Of course I wonder why this is all happening, and consider all the options... it would be unhealthy not to be curious about such a frequently covered news item.
Because there are rumours that she is a witch, and she openly admits to doing at least one thing that a witch might do, does this mean she is a witch?
You need evidence. You need evidence because one day someone will accuse you of something like that and you will be desperately trying to convince everyone that it isn't true, and that evidence is not the plural of rumour.
As a young man I hung out in a social group which didn't care much for standard social etiquette. Sometimes we would all fall asleep under the covers of the same bed or floor together, male and female, single and partnered. It wasn't an orgy (honest, officer), nor a drunken heap (I still don't drink)... I guess it was a classical sleepover, but with everyone 16+ and within a few years of age of each other. Just because the age gap has widened in MJ's case, it doesn't suddenly make something/more/ sexual... at least, not automatically in my mind.
One great thing about everyone working in the same building is that you get to communicate. Reuse can occur where appropriate, not by third-party mandate.
Slashdot Mirror
The individual employer is rich and owns the means of production whereas the individual worker is poor and does not own the means of production, so even if you have one voice speaking together for all the workers, you still do not have a voice more powerful than the employers. Strike pay, where it exists, may mitigate for the rich versus poor disparity, but it is very temporary because the unions still don't own the means of production.
It is only in the US with its comparatively low rate of unionisation that people have such a passionate aversion to unions, and I don't know enough detail about current US unions to know if it is something peculiarly pathological about them or simply that the politics of the country is far more uncomfortable about collective worker bargaining. One thing I do recognise in the US is a peculiar desire to bring others down rather than try to achieve what they have: IOW, if a union job brings someone good pay and good pension, why don't you fight for those same privileges?
You are on nerd site complaining that someone is "raging" that it is harder than it once was to control external homebrew electronics from a home computer. Why don't you propose that we all get iPads?
I don't know about you, but I have used enough peripherals over the past decade to find that USB is nothing like as reliable as the serial port. It is not just the frustration from a hardware point of view of having to put this huge chunk of complex asymmetrical electronics on any device, but the need to write or supply a complex third-party driver instead of just implementing a simple serial protocol.
And, guess what, almost any USB dongle which supposedly implements a serial port is going to miss out on all the features of a real serial port, using something other than the native 20-year-old full featured and stable driver in OS-of-your-choice... because goodness knows when you're making life difficult for yourself with a complex-but-rubbish bus (and USB is awful when compared to alternatives with similar aims - it's just that Intel have the uncanny ability to spam the world with crap) it would be a waste of money to fully implement what should be a much simpler serial port on the other end.
What sort of amendment to the First Amendment would you have in mind to prevent collective bargaining by employees with their more powerful employers^W^W^W^W^W^W^W^W^Wprotection rackets?
And is it the fact that the gap between the richest and the new middle class has coincided with the reduction of union power that makes you happiest, or the simple fact that when someone is yellow and lives on the other side of the world you can forget how they are being treated entirely?
But statistically, higher IQ (we're talking better than Mensa level, not dime-a-dozen IQs of 120 or so) tends to correlate with higher ethical standards,
LOL! It might correlate with being more sure of your system of ethics because you are already being told that you are so great in other fields, but my experience in life has been that the more intelligent person is, the more of an asshole he is.
(The exceptions are in the minority but invariably quite depressive. It's like they know that nature built them with the power to tower over others but they just don't want to do something so mean.)
Is this like the controller I'd connect to the BBC Master 128s as a preteen to control stupid lego toys after I'd done all my scholarship exams (when I wasn't causing mischief on the 8086 with the OMG sound card), only infinitely more complicated because some cuntbucket decided computers are for CONSUMING not PRODUCING so we don't need simple, educational things like User Ports or even Serial Ports any more?
Define "right".
Define "earn".
Well, they'd go through a judge, who would naturally already have an account.
Weiner exposed a vulnerability in CP (and any "possession", especially when virtual) law.
The worst punishment goes to the guy who picked from the Tree.
What sucks enough must blow.
[prompt]
Except that no-one considers representative democracy to be the pinnacle of technical/scientific methodology ;-).
What every young, unrepresentative group of loud, idealistic men don't realise is that most people just want peace, a job and a house. And, if you spend your time employed rather than campaigning for the abandonment of the intellectual property concept, you will have enough money to pay for it anyway. And what you cannot pay for, you put on credit. And debt doesn't really matter... continue working hard and you can pay fast enough that no-one takes your stuff away... your government is not going to let civilisation collapse even if everyone else is in debt too.
Life has been easy for quite a while. And of course I want to exploit you if I have the intelligence to do so. And I want to protect my legal rights to make it possible, not to share. Then I'm even more secure and my surroundings even more luxurious.
...read it in the bath, drop it, write anything anywhere on the page, lend it to a friend, hold two or three pages open at once and see parts of all of them simultaneously, read it anywhere without worrying about becoming a target for thieves...
I'll still prefer the feel and longevity guarantee of a real book (how's that BBC Domesday Project reader getting on?).
The firm most likely to sell e-books still mostly doesn't, while every other bookshop on the planet sells almost exclusively real books. I am glad.
Despite your spin, what I get out of your description is that (1) you put adverts on all pages over 4 days old; (2) you are well aware that the kind of person who clicks on adverts doesn't care much about the content; yet (3) you have built a site in such a way as to entice enough of this type of person that you receive respectable ad revenue anyway.
You seem to be annoyed about agreeing with me: the content seeker is not the advert follower, so anyone optimising for revenue from the latter is going to take away from the former.
That's /. wisdom :-). I think the more widely accepted wisdom is that no publisher is quite sure he writes good enough material that anyone actually wants to pay for it.
Let's not jump to conclusions just because you think the world revolves around The Big Guys.
The biggest guy is the ad broker; below that are those who can capture the attention of the public, the advertisers. If you have a chip on your shoulder about "the big guys", you couldn't be much more self-defeating than allowing them to erect a banner on your front yard.
You not so burdened, of course, because by admitting that you require advertising revenue to produce your site you are also admitting that you tailor your website to the kind of people who will (not block, take notice of, and) click on adverts.
It is definitely a possibility, although it is tempting to avoid consuming individual nuggets of information on a micro-payment basis unless you already "know" it's going to be useful, i.e. it tells you what you want to hear. Faced with a decent quality publication you have paid for in full, you can enjoy various viewpoints rather than being tempted just to fund/read the ones you like. Hm.
I intended a bit of sarcasm in repeating the myth that Murdoch is some sort of business failure, but I am not sure he has succeeded in convincing himself, let alone others, that he yet has a viable subscription model except when there is already a substantial off-line media subscriber base. IOW, those 1.61 million include people getting the site for free because they already subscribe to the paper paper.
There's also the Appleqsue danger of using the launch period frenzy, including any temporary special offers, to completely overstate the long-term impact of your product on the market. (You'd think they heralded the resurrection, but after nearly 4 years iOS browser market share sits around 1.1%.)
and there is no useful (i.e. non-light-entertainment) content created primarily through advertising revenue. Slashdot developers who have made their money over the last decade producing tat by not overestimating the intelligence of the general public cannot bear to admit this, but you simply cannot produce high-calibre content when your primary aim is to suck in as many as possible of the kind of people who take notice of adverts.
Murdoch, often maligned for his lack of business sense but mysteriously still richer than all of us, seems to have tried and failed at pushing the subscription model. Obviously there are other viable models for producing information on the web such as government sponsorship (BBC, academia) and well organised groups of hobbyists (e.g. ham radio), but how will the sites who do not already have a dedicated subscription base through off-line heritage sustain themselves? Or maybe the answer is that they will not, the moment they take their eye off the advertiser as customer and start worrying directly about satisfying the desire for the reader to intellectually advance himself.
If there is one thing you should have learned from those VoA broadcasts on more frequencies and with greater power than your jammers could muster, the correct method of winning information wars is not to restrict but to drown out with an even louder voice.
The US government has understood for over 200 years that it doesn't really matter what people say as long as you have a handle on the means to speak over them. This is following the British principle on which the US was founded: the best way to keep people in order is to give the appearance of propriety.
The free exchange of information must be preserved because it stops people getting curious about what is hidden. Allow so much noise to flow but make sure the ruling voice is coherent and you have already won.
Someone merely with a good memory remembers your address.
A stalker hangs outside your house then pounces you with, "I've been watching you!" as if your front porch were simply on his route home.
You are a stalker and a hypocrite, a stereotypical sort who preaches selflessness while providing his name twice in his missives, a proto-troll who begins with a hyper-politically correct invective asserting that good grammar is a sign of compassion and rounds off his rhetorical Happy Meal by suggesting that the other house is a "retard".
Thank you, my homeboy, and good day.
While you are correct, /. is comprised of a shocking number of aspiring and succeeding Chairman Bobs.
He's been accused of it multiple times and bought parents off.
Some people respond to blackmail by paying off the blackmailer, and sometimes it encourages more people to engage in blackmail against them.
He admitted on national TV that he shares his bed with 12 year olds.
Yes, just the sort of thing a sneaky paedophile would do...?
But that doesn't ring any alarm bells for you?
Of course I wonder why this is all happening, and consider all the options... it would be unhealthy not to be curious about such a frequently covered news item.
Because there are rumours that she is a witch, and she openly admits to doing at least one thing that a witch might do, does this mean she is a witch?
The man was a pedophile.
You need evidence. You need evidence because one day someone will accuse you of something like that and you will be desperately trying to convince everyone that it isn't true, and that evidence is not the plural of rumour.
As a young man I hung out in a social group which didn't care much for standard social etiquette. Sometimes we would all fall asleep under the covers of the same bed or floor together, male and female, single and partnered. It wasn't an orgy (honest, officer), nor a drunken heap (I still don't drink)... I guess it was a classical sleepover, but with everyone 16+ and within a few years of age of each other. Just because the age gap has widened in MJ's case, it doesn't suddenly make something /more/ sexual... at least, not automatically in my mind.
One great thing about everyone working in the same building is that you get to communicate. Reuse can occur where appropriate, not by third-party mandate.