User's should be able to make an informed decision about what they are willing to give up in exchange for valuable service. Some of that might be privacy.
The real thing to fear is what happens if Amazon.com were to violate the provisions contained within its privacy agreement or if it were to attempt to distort or hide the nature of that agreement or in some other way not properly acquire informed consent from the user. For that, user's have the court system at their disposal for adjudication under the contractual obligations set out within the privacy policy and the legal system under which the privacy policy is executed.
It's in Amazon's best interest to protect consumer data for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that the consumer data they hold has value. Outside of that, if they prove to be a less than trustworthy vendor people will avoid using the service.
I'm glad the company I work for employs a firewall admin who believes in freedom of choice and personal responsibility. If A9 were a security threat for the company then I could understand blocking it. But, please, that's a stretch that goes beyond reason.
Personally, I'd consider the admin who blocks a site like A9 more of a privacy threat than A9.
And explain to me why Apple is any different in this case? Why isn't there an uproar? Why not hand wringing? For all intents and purposes they have a monopoly on the portable music player market at this moment. So, why should they be allowed to do something like this? Why shouldn't they be forced to expose their underlying protocols? Aren't they preventing consumers the right to choose which protocol for music encryption they want to use? Aren't they inhibiting music producers from exploring the use of alternate DRM technology?
Access and protection of intellectual property rights are a fundamental human rights issue. Without them, there's no such thing as privacy. Obviously, IP rights do not preclude any individual from forgoing their IP rights and making their IP public property. Even the GPL, at its core, is fundamentally reliant upon the vigorous enforcement of IP rights (otherwise I wouldn't have to worry about the requirement to return my changes to the community).
The EU is walking on very shaky ground. The distinction is a very blurry line. Where will it end?
If I shoot someone and kill them because I intended to kill them, it's murder.
If you shoot someone and kill them because you intended to kill them, it's murder.
Right?
So, if one company packages a media player with its os in order to sell more copies it's an act of evil and something to joke about because "media players aren't part of the OS!".
But if another company does it, man it's genious!
I dunno... it sounds like a double standard to me. It sounds like a loser whining because someone else did a better job than him.
If everyone hates MS and if it sucks sooo much, why do people use it? Perhaps because, even though it is FARRRR from perfect (not even in the same universe as "alright"), it's still better than the alternatives?
Does this mean that Linux vendors will no longer be able to ship a pre-installed media player? What about Apple Quick Time? Will it have to be removed from OS X?
Or does the "level playing field" only apply to Microsoft?
I agree that the "against pollution or against jobs" dichotomy is screwed up.
But then, so is the "for Kyoto or for pollution" dichotomy.
The Kyoto treaty DOES NOTHING to reduce green house gas emissions. Kyoto is a payoff to third-world dictators disguised as "environmental policy".
What is says is "if you're a third world country you can produce as much green house gasses as you want, if you're an industrialized nation you have to pay third world countries for the right to produce green house gasses."
What would the net result be? Let's build more factories in Brazil so we can further destroy the Amazon jungle. Better yet, let's take money out of the US economy where people work hard to create value for the world and give it to some third-world dictator. Good idea.
Now, I realize that you'll tear apart my argument because "George Bush is evil" and "the US economy doesn't create any value to the world." Obviously those aren't valid arguments any way you slice it. First, George Bush has nothing to do with Kyoto being a bad idea. He's also hardly the only person in the US that opposes it. Also, if you don't think the US economy does anything good for the world, you have a very limited viewpoint. We aren't saints, but we're hardly devils.
Where do you get the idea that super high wage earners affect the cost of living in any measurable way?
Do you have numbers to back this claim? Please, provide some evidence for this.
Because Bill Gates has billions of dollars, TV sets (a non-essential good) are more expensive? HAVE YOU BEEN TO BEST BUY RECENTLY??
Cars? How about this: BMW 325 can be had for only $28K. How about the new Hyundai luxury vehicles that can be had for less than $25K?
Look at all the crap in your house and explain to me why Bill Gates personal wealth matters at all in your own purchasing power. If anything, his immense wealth acts as an investment into the rest of society that ends up reducing your purchasing power.
Compare the lifestyle of the average US citizen today to that of one even 50 years ago. Explain to me how we've lost purchasing powner and quality of life because of technology.
One good thing computers do is enable us to find information really easily. Obviously, you aren't going to benefit from technology because you are lazy.
The US Census Bureau publishes median household incomes:
http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/histinc/h08.ht ml
And if you check out that data you'll see that median household incomes have risen every single year since 1984 (the earliest year in that series).
You guys aren't arguing with facts, you're arguing with prejudices that are both inconsistent (you're deriding technology on the INTERNET) and silly.
Good ad hominem remark... really makes your argument stand out... I have a job, so, um, I don't have time to listen to Mr. Limbaugh's day-time radio show...
Fraud is fraud, whether a market is regulated or not. The difference is that when regulators commit fraud they also happen to be the police...
California institutes price controls on the retail cost of electricity. California is on the hook to pay the difference between the spot market rate and what they are charging their customers.
As a result, you are only paying for a fraction of the electricity you use when you pay your monthly bill. The rest of your bill is paid through taxes. This creates artificially inelastic demand for electricity. Generally this means that poor people and corporations that don't pay much in state taxes for various reasons are using electricity at cut-rate prices while upper-middle class entrepreneurs that are rich enough to be in a high tax bracket but not rich enough to evade their taxes efficiently cover the costs. It also means that future generations will pay for the electricity you use when they pay off the bonds sold by California to cover the costs.
If you paid the real market cost of electricity, turning off your computer wouldn't be stupid. If you were actually paying the market price, you might actually understand the system. Heck, you might even negotiate a long-term contract to avoid such short-term spikes--even avoiding the dangers of the spart market altogether!
Also, if you are implying that greedy lawmakers only take bribes from big corporations, you really need to re-think where you are pointing the "stupid"-finger. I would agree, though, corporations shouldn't be allowed to give campaign money because they don't vote.
Regardless, the situation in California was going on well before these market manipulators began to take advantage of the system. Read this: http://econ-www.mit.edu/faculty/pjoskow/files/CAMa rketMeltdown.pdf
or this: http://www-hoover.stanford.edu/research/conference s/calelectricity/borensteinslides.pdf
Or even for something contrarian read here: http://www.pkarchive.org/column/022602.html
Mr. Krugman and you are both falling to the same fallacie... Krugman states "Eventually you hear that wholesale prices were deregulated, but retail prices weren't -- which is true, but doesn't have much to do with what went wrong." and then goes on to say "Now the truth is that California's deregulation probably was flawed, but the flaw was in trusting markets too much, not too little. As Mr. Wolak points out, California's system differed from other deregulations mainly in offering remarkably few safeguards against market manipulation. And the state paid an enormous price for its gullibility."
What Mr. Krugman fails to see, is that the Market itself has a tremendous, built-in safegurd against market manipulation. Unfortunately, because retail prices where regulated while wholesale prices were not, this safeguard was removed. If these energy companies had had to answer to screaming customers, or a real demand function, they would not have been able to exploit the system as they were, for as long as they were.
Here in the Northeast a lot of people have oil heat, which trades on the open market freely. I have oil heat. And every year I sign a long-term contract for the price of oil so that I am not affected by the seasonal spike in oil prices. If for some reason oil prices get too high, I lower the temperature a few degrees to preserve oil. Overall, I pay less than someone who is using electric heat... amazing isn't it?
Sad? Why? Because you can't face the fact that you are unemployable at the rate you were formerly being paid for the work you were formerly doing? You should be so lucky! Look, when you get a new job doing something that adds more value to the economy than your last one, and you become enlightened to the fact that this makes it not only better for yourself, but everyone else around you, you'll thank the guy that fired you.
Look at the economies of Germany and France if you want a vision of what unions will get you. You think unemployment is bad now....
I'm a white, caucasion, male programmer. I was born in Fort Knox, KY to a white, caucasion, male soldier and a white, caucasion, female homemaker.
What war? OUR jobs?
People like you make this country weak. Pick yourself up and act like a man.
When the price gets too high, you can always unplug the damn computer, my friend...
The problem is that the prices in California were fixed, so they never did get too high, and no one ever turned off their computers. Of course, someone still had to pay those bills, and it turned out to be the California Tax Payers....
You can say what you will about Enron "exploiting the system", it doesn't change the fact that the California legislature put exploitable rules in place.
Again, it's just soooo much cooler to blame the corporate exploiters. I agree with the other poster who said that he hopes this rate hike goes through, forcing companies to leave California. Good thing no one in California reads about what's going on in Germany...
Oh yeah, I forgot to blame those "filthy dot heads"!
Give me a break, you racist pig! Let the jobs go to India. Do you really want to be employed doing something that should be paying $300/month? I doubt it. *YOU* really want to be doing something that should be paying *$3000/month* OR MORE. And in order to do that you need to pay attention to your education and your experience.
You got into this industry for what reason? Because of the great technological advancements you could be a part of? Of course... that's why you stuck to programming in COBOL for 30 years...
Blaming Indians and the companies that employ them for the fact that you didn't bother to expand your skill set won't get you a job. It'll just make you bitter.
If job security is what you are looking for, there are plenty of stable opportunities available at 7-11. But then, you've probably got your "little reasons" for not wanting those jobs either...
It's not their fault they have no fiscal discipline!
Get with the friggin' program!
It's the fault of the evil corporatists who exploit the citizens of california by providing them with high paying jobs and great products and merchandise, forcing them into a culture of consumerism. It's the fault of the wealthy exploiters who evade their tax obligations! It's the fault of McDonald's because they sold hamburgers to people who consumed them and got fat and have health problems! The citizens didn't know that eating 3 fatty burgers a day and a large Chocolate Shake with every meal could kill! They were innocent!
It's the fault of the gun companies because they sold guns to the criminals--forcing them to commit crimes and thus forcing california to build prisons!
If only California were more like Europe. Stupid American capitalist bastard! You are so simple! You just don't get it!
Blame someone else, that way you look really intellectual!
I hate to tell you this, but you are completely wrong.
The cause of so much violence is poor leadership, lax morals, the advent of a philosophy that tells people they are not responsible for their actions.
You didn't kill him, the gun did.
You didn't kill him, the guy who sold you the gun (who also sells guns to millions of other people who didn't kill anyone)--he killed him.
You didn't gamble all your money away, drink too much, hit your wife, and sodomize your daughter. It was the dirty corporate scum who exploited you by paying you, out of the kindness of their filthy hearts, 10 times what they could pay someone in Costa Rica--who needs it much worse than you do--for the same job.
You didn't choose to eat too much at McDonald's, McDonald's used mind control techniques to make you eat too much at McDonald's.
You didn't fail out of school, it was the elitist punk who studied too much and went to Harvard that made you fail out of school.
Because the government spends all its time trying to tell you how to act all day long, it doesn't have time to punish the real criminals, or even defend its own borders. Because you let the government make all your decisions for you, you aren't responsible for any of the outcomes of your actions.
When you take control of someone's life, you are committing a crime worse than murder.
Europe deserves what it gets. France, Germany and Belgium will be Third World countries by the end of this century. If the US isn't careful to not follow their example, we won't be far behind.
Of course, you probably think I'm some simple-minded, hate-filled warmonger. The fact of the matter is that I'm college educated (graduated with honors), give money to charities (probably more than you do), and generally don't like war or violence--I don't even own any guns. It makes me sad to see a continent with such a proud history--a history that is really my own as well--fall into such disrepair. Even in America, it makes me sad to see such a powerful country fall apart.
I fight every chance I get to promote the ideals that will save us; while people like you roll over and let it all slip away.
It's easy to take Europeans' freedom because they tend to roll over and take it from anybody that'll give it to 'em.
The same argument goes for gun control as it does for drug control. People shouldn't be arrested, convicted, hassled, jailed, tortured, abused, or whatever because they possess, use, sell or otherwise traffic in drugs. People SHOULD be arrested, convicted, hassled, jailed, whatever because they kill someone while driving under the influence, operating heavy machinery while under the influence, make fiduciary or medical decisions while under the influence, etc.
Same thing with guns. You punish the act. Laws should not seek to control behavior by limiting freedom. They should seek to control behavior by punishing specific things. It makes the law much less complex, easier to enforce, easier to understand and easier to promote.
American's get riled up over gun control because American's did, at one point, know what it is like to be ruled by a foreign power, to be denied basic freedoms. Europeans were for centuries the one's who ruled colonial powers. Don't get all high and mighty, because Europe is just as guilty, if not more so.
I think watching France and Germany self-destruct is a great new spectator sport. It'll be interesting to see how and when they come to their senses.
I completely agree with this. As long as the modules in question and the redisplay/use of the information did not violate the stated copyrights, then nothing wrong was done.
As for treating the cause and not the symptom, how many slashdotter's will decry this act, but still support gun control?
On about page 3 of the article the author is discussing idempotent errors (like assigning a variable to itself). The author points out macros as being a particularly rich source of "false positives" because the expansion and be reduced to an idempotent statement.
As an example he refers to the following line:
"x = ntofs(x)"
which on some machines will reduce down to x=x. The author states that such things were ignored.
It would seem to me that this is still an error, and that the way to resolve it would be to redesign the macro to be something like:
ntofs(x,x)
or
ntofs(x)
that would expand to nothing on machines where x is already in network order. At the very least, this would improve performance on those machines (provided the compiler doesn't make a similar check and remove such lines on its own). Regardless, I would think that would be a better way to resolve the "bug" than to just ignore it.
Actually HR is pretty good. They see they've received a resume from you twice and that the second one contains information that seems to make you "the right candidate" only a few weeks after you submitted one that indicated you "weren't a good fit". This makes them suspicious of you and so they throw away your resume.
And can you blame them? Can you honestly go away for 3 weeks or even 6 months and come back with a TRUE knowledge of a new technology? Sufficient to be successful in a job from day 1? Compared to someone who's been working with that same technology in a real job for those same 6 months or even longer? I doubt it quite strongly. If you disagree, maybe you should read some of the posts about MCSEs in the story about Linux costing less...
Yes, I agree, we should tax like the European Emperors do so that we can live in third world countries like they do.
It's good to have universal health care, especially when that health care sucks.
It's good to have universal pensions, especially when they pay so little and people become dependent on them, and thus the state, and not themselves. They owe their lives to the state. They owe their very existence on this earth to the state.
It's good to have powerful Labor Unions, because then you have extremely high unemployment like in France and Germany.
Yes, I agree, all these things are good.
I have to be really honest, I've never been caught in a backup on the turnpike for more than 10 or 15 minutes when approaching an exit. EasyPass really simplifies that situation. I realize EasyPass as it exists today is unacceptable for privacy reasons. However, if it were reimplemented using Stored Value technology then we could get around that.
I'm really glad we don't have an Emporer (although that is arguable as well... All Hail Bush! j/k).
I live near Philadelphia, and we have this thing called the Pennsylvania Turnpike. You get a ticket when you enter the Turnpike, and you pay a toll when you exit based upon how far you drive. It's completely anonymous because it is cash-based.
Granted, there's the new EasyPass which could be used nefariously, but you still have the cash option.
To the best of my knowledge the money earned from the tolls is used only for the maintenance of the Turnpike, as well as police enforcement, emergency response and anything else related to it. So, it basically takes the major state-wide highway system out of the budget of the state. This doesn't necessarily resolve paying welfare or anything like that, but it makes for one fewer thing for the state to have to deal with. Does this punish fuel efficient drivers? Not really, because they make out on cheaper gas taxes. Does this punish local residents? Not really, because everybody who uses the road has to pay. Does this solve world hunger? No. But neither will anything else government does.
I hated the Turnpike concept when I got here, now I think it's the best. It doesn't solve the problems of maintaining local roadways, but it does solve the highway funding problem.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't own any and I agree with him.
User's should be able to make an informed decision about what they are willing to give up in exchange for valuable service. Some of that might be privacy.
The real thing to fear is what happens if Amazon.com were to violate the provisions contained within its privacy agreement or if it were to attempt to distort or hide the nature of that agreement or in some other way not properly acquire informed consent from the user. For that, user's have the court system at their disposal for adjudication under the contractual obligations set out within the privacy policy and the legal system under which the privacy policy is executed.
It's in Amazon's best interest to protect consumer data for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that the consumer data they hold has value. Outside of that, if they prove to be a less than trustworthy vendor people will avoid using the service.
I'm glad the company I work for employs a firewall admin who believes in freedom of choice and personal responsibility. If A9 were a security threat for the company then I could understand blocking it. But, please, that's a stretch that goes beyond reason.
Personally, I'd consider the admin who blocks a site like A9 more of a privacy threat than A9.
Check out this link:
4 66 .html
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20041214-4
And explain to me why Apple is any different in this case? Why isn't there an uproar? Why not hand wringing? For all intents and purposes they have a monopoly on the portable music player market at this moment. So, why should they be allowed to do something like this? Why shouldn't they be forced to expose their underlying protocols? Aren't they preventing consumers the right to choose which protocol for music encryption they want to use? Aren't they inhibiting music producers from exploring the use of alternate DRM technology?
Access and protection of intellectual property rights are a fundamental human rights issue. Without them, there's no such thing as privacy. Obviously, IP rights do not preclude any individual from forgoing their IP rights and making their IP public property. Even the GPL, at its core, is fundamentally reliant upon the vigorous enforcement of IP rights (otherwise I wouldn't have to worry about the requirement to return my changes to the community).
The EU is walking on very shaky ground. The distinction is a very blurry line. Where will it end?
If I shoot someone and kill them because I intended to kill them, it's murder.
If you shoot someone and kill them because you intended to kill them, it's murder.
Right?
So, if one company packages a media player with its os in order to sell more copies it's an act of evil and something to joke about because "media players aren't part of the OS!".
But if another company does it, man it's genious!
I dunno... it sounds like a double standard to me. It sounds like a loser whining because someone else did a better job than him.
If everyone hates MS and if it sucks sooo much, why do people use it? Perhaps because, even though it is FARRRR from perfect (not even in the same universe as "alright"), it's still better than the alternatives?
Nah... of course not!
Does this mean that Linux vendors will no longer be able to ship a pre-installed media player? What about Apple Quick Time? Will it have to be removed from OS X?
Or does the "level playing field" only apply to Microsoft?
What about Mac OS X? What about, uh, Linux? FreeBSD?
Or do they stop existing when you start bitching about microsoft?
I agree that the "against pollution or against jobs" dichotomy is screwed up.
But then, so is the "for Kyoto or for pollution" dichotomy.
The Kyoto treaty DOES NOTHING to reduce green house gas emissions. Kyoto is a payoff to third-world dictators disguised as "environmental policy".
What is says is "if you're a third world country you can produce as much green house gasses as you want, if you're an industrialized nation you have to pay third world countries for the right to produce green house gasses."
What would the net result be? Let's build more factories in Brazil so we can further destroy the Amazon jungle. Better yet, let's take money out of the US economy where people work hard to create value for the world and give it to some third-world dictator. Good idea.
Now, I realize that you'll tear apart my argument because "George Bush is evil" and "the US economy doesn't create any value to the world." Obviously those aren't valid arguments any way you slice it. First, George Bush has nothing to do with Kyoto being a bad idea. He's also hardly the only person in the US that opposes it. Also, if you don't think the US economy does anything good for the world, you have a very limited viewpoint. We aren't saints, but we're hardly devils.
Where do you get the idea that super high wage earners affect the cost of living in any measurable way?
Do you have numbers to back this claim? Please, provide some evidence for this.
Because Bill Gates has billions of dollars, TV sets (a non-essential good) are more expensive? HAVE YOU BEEN TO BEST BUY RECENTLY??
Cars? How about this: BMW 325 can be had for only $28K. How about the new Hyundai luxury vehicles that can be had for less than $25K?
Look at all the crap in your house and explain to me why Bill Gates personal wealth matters at all in your own purchasing power. If anything, his immense wealth acts as an investment into the rest of society that ends up reducing your purchasing power.
Compare the lifestyle of the average US citizen today to that of one even 50 years ago. Explain to me how we've lost purchasing powner and quality of life because of technology.
Okay,
t ml
One good thing computers do is enable us to find information really easily. Obviously, you aren't going to benefit from technology because you are lazy.
The US Census Bureau publishes median household incomes:
http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/histinc/h08.h
And if you check out that data you'll see that median household incomes have risen every single year since 1984 (the earliest year in that series).
You guys aren't arguing with facts, you're arguing with prejudices that are both inconsistent (you're deriding technology on the INTERNET) and silly.
ps. Sorry I forgot to log in the first time...
The whole thing about them being legally obligated to deliver mail is the silliest thing I've ever heard. Leave it to the Germans to enact such a law.
Better to just not deliver ANY mail than to deal with that requirement.
Good ad hominem remark... really makes your argument stand out... I have a job, so, um, I don't have time to listen to Mr. Limbaugh's day-time radio show... Fraud is fraud, whether a market is regulated or not. The difference is that when regulators commit fraud they also happen to be the police... California institutes price controls on the retail cost of electricity. California is on the hook to pay the difference between the spot market rate and what they are charging their customers. As a result, you are only paying for a fraction of the electricity you use when you pay your monthly bill. The rest of your bill is paid through taxes. This creates artificially inelastic demand for electricity. Generally this means that poor people and corporations that don't pay much in state taxes for various reasons are using electricity at cut-rate prices while upper-middle class entrepreneurs that are rich enough to be in a high tax bracket but not rich enough to evade their taxes efficiently cover the costs. It also means that future generations will pay for the electricity you use when they pay off the bonds sold by California to cover the costs. If you paid the real market cost of electricity, turning off your computer wouldn't be stupid. If you were actually paying the market price, you might actually understand the system. Heck, you might even negotiate a long-term contract to avoid such short-term spikes--even avoiding the dangers of the spart market altogether! Also, if you are implying that greedy lawmakers only take bribes from big corporations, you really need to re-think where you are pointing the "stupid"-finger. I would agree, though, corporations shouldn't be allowed to give campaign money because they don't vote. Regardless, the situation in California was going on well before these market manipulators began to take advantage of the system. Read this: http://econ-www.mit.edu/faculty/pjoskow/files/CAMa rketMeltdown.pdf
or this: http://www-hoover.stanford.edu/research/conference s/calelectricity/borensteinslides.pdf
Or even for something contrarian read here: http://www.pkarchive.org/column/022602.html
Mr. Krugman and you are both falling to the same fallacie... Krugman states "Eventually you hear that wholesale prices were deregulated, but retail prices weren't -- which is true, but doesn't have much to do with what went wrong." and then goes on to say "Now the truth is that California's deregulation probably was flawed, but the flaw was in trusting markets too much, not too little. As Mr. Wolak points out, California's system differed from other deregulations mainly in offering remarkably few safeguards against market manipulation. And the state paid an enormous price for its gullibility."
What Mr. Krugman fails to see, is that the Market itself has a tremendous, built-in safegurd against market manipulation. Unfortunately, because retail prices where regulated while wholesale prices were not, this safeguard was removed. If these energy companies had had to answer to screaming customers, or a real demand function, they would not have been able to exploit the system as they were, for as long as they were.
Here in the Northeast a lot of people have oil heat, which trades on the open market freely. I have oil heat. And every year I sign a long-term contract for the price of oil so that I am not affected by the seasonal spike in oil prices. If for some reason oil prices get too high, I lower the temperature a few degrees to preserve oil. Overall, I pay less than someone who is using electric heat... amazing isn't it?
Sad? Why? Because you can't face the fact that you are unemployable at the rate you were formerly being paid for the work you were formerly doing? You should be so lucky! Look, when you get a new job doing something that adds more value to the economy than your last one, and you become enlightened to the fact that this makes it not only better for yourself, but everyone else around you, you'll thank the guy that fired you.
Look at the economies of Germany and France if you want a vision of what unions will get you. You think unemployment is bad now....
I'm a white, caucasion, male programmer. I was born in Fort Knox, KY to a white, caucasion, male soldier and a white, caucasion, female homemaker. What war? OUR jobs? People like you make this country weak. Pick yourself up and act like a man.
When the price gets too high, you can always unplug the damn computer, my friend...
The problem is that the prices in California were fixed, so they never did get too high, and no one ever turned off their computers. Of course, someone still had to pay those bills, and it turned out to be the California Tax Payers....
You can say what you will about Enron "exploiting the system", it doesn't change the fact that the California legislature put exploitable rules in place.
Again, it's just soooo much cooler to blame the corporate exploiters. I agree with the other poster who said that he hopes this rate hike goes through, forcing companies to leave California. Good thing no one in California reads about what's going on in Germany...
Oh yeah, I forgot to blame those "filthy dot heads"!
Give me a break, you racist pig! Let the jobs go to India. Do you really want to be employed doing something that should be paying $300/month? I doubt it. *YOU* really want to be doing something that should be paying *$3000/month* OR MORE. And in order to do that you need to pay attention to your education and your experience.
You got into this industry for what reason? Because of the great technological advancements you could be a part of? Of course... that's why you stuck to programming in COBOL for 30 years...
Blaming Indians and the companies that employ them for the fact that you didn't bother to expand your skill set won't get you a job. It'll just make you bitter.
If job security is what you are looking for, there are plenty of stable opportunities available at 7-11. But then, you've probably got your "little reasons" for not wanting those jobs either...
It's not their fault they have no fiscal discipline!
Get with the friggin' program!
It's the fault of the evil corporatists who exploit the citizens of california by providing them with high paying jobs and great products and merchandise, forcing them into a culture of consumerism. It's the fault of the wealthy exploiters who evade their tax obligations! It's the fault of McDonald's because they sold hamburgers to people who consumed them and got fat and have health problems! The citizens didn't know that eating 3 fatty burgers a day and a large Chocolate Shake with every meal could kill! They were innocent!
It's the fault of the gun companies because they sold guns to the criminals--forcing them to commit crimes and thus forcing california to build prisons!
If only California were more like Europe. Stupid American capitalist bastard! You are so simple! You just don't get it!
Blame someone else, that way you look really intellectual!
I hate to tell you this, but you are completely wrong.
The cause of so much violence is poor leadership, lax morals, the advent of a philosophy that tells people they are not responsible for their actions.
You didn't kill him, the gun did.
You didn't kill him, the guy who sold you the gun (who also sells guns to millions of other people who didn't kill anyone)--he killed him.
You didn't gamble all your money away, drink too much, hit your wife, and sodomize your daughter. It was the dirty corporate scum who exploited you by paying you, out of the kindness of their filthy hearts, 10 times what they could pay someone in Costa Rica--who needs it much worse than you do--for the same job.
You didn't choose to eat too much at McDonald's, McDonald's used mind control techniques to make you eat too much at McDonald's.
You didn't fail out of school, it was the elitist punk who studied too much and went to Harvard that made you fail out of school.
Because the government spends all its time trying to tell you how to act all day long, it doesn't have time to punish the real criminals, or even defend its own borders. Because you let the government make all your decisions for you, you aren't responsible for any of the outcomes of your actions.
When you take control of someone's life, you are committing a crime worse than murder.
Europe deserves what it gets. France, Germany and Belgium will be Third World countries by the end of this century. If the US isn't careful to not follow their example, we won't be far behind.
Of course, you probably think I'm some simple-minded, hate-filled warmonger. The fact of the matter is that I'm college educated (graduated with honors), give money to charities (probably more than you do), and generally don't like war or violence--I don't even own any guns. It makes me sad to see a continent with such a proud history--a history that is really my own as well--fall into such disrepair. Even in America, it makes me sad to see such a powerful country fall apart.
I fight every chance I get to promote the ideals that will save us; while people like you roll over and let it all slip away.
It's easy to take Europeans' freedom because they tend to roll over and take it from anybody that'll give it to 'em. The same argument goes for gun control as it does for drug control. People shouldn't be arrested, convicted, hassled, jailed, tortured, abused, or whatever because they possess, use, sell or otherwise traffic in drugs. People SHOULD be arrested, convicted, hassled, jailed, whatever because they kill someone while driving under the influence, operating heavy machinery while under the influence, make fiduciary or medical decisions while under the influence, etc. Same thing with guns. You punish the act. Laws should not seek to control behavior by limiting freedom. They should seek to control behavior by punishing specific things. It makes the law much less complex, easier to enforce, easier to understand and easier to promote. American's get riled up over gun control because American's did, at one point, know what it is like to be ruled by a foreign power, to be denied basic freedoms. Europeans were for centuries the one's who ruled colonial powers. Don't get all high and mighty, because Europe is just as guilty, if not more so. I think watching France and Germany self-destruct is a great new spectator sport. It'll be interesting to see how and when they come to their senses.
I completely agree with this. As long as the modules in question and the redisplay/use of the information did not violate the stated copyrights, then nothing wrong was done.
As for treating the cause and not the symptom, how many slashdotter's will decry this act, but still support gun control?
Just a curious question...
Perhaps he moved someone's cheese...
On about page 3 of the article the author is discussing idempotent errors (like assigning a variable to itself). The author points out macros as being a particularly rich source of "false positives" because the expansion and be reduced to an idempotent statement.
As an example he refers to the following line:
"x = ntofs(x)"
which on some machines will reduce down to x=x. The author states that such things were ignored.
It would seem to me that this is still an error, and that the way to resolve it would be to redesign the macro to be something like:
ntofs(x,x)
or
ntofs(x)
that would expand to nothing on machines where x is already in network order. At the very least, this would improve performance on those machines (provided the compiler doesn't make a similar check and remove such lines on its own). Regardless, I would think that would be a better way to resolve the "bug" than to just ignore it.
Just my USD $0.02
And can you blame them? Can you honestly go away for 3 weeks or even 6 months and come back with a TRUE knowledge of a new technology? Sufficient to be successful in a job from day 1? Compared to someone who's been working with that same technology in a real job for those same 6 months or even longer? I doubt it quite strongly. If you disagree, maybe you should read some of the posts about MCSEs in the story about Linux costing less...
It's pretty bad when you can FEEL the state line with Nevada.
If that's what we have to look forward to, then I'd rather see everyone drive cross-country in 4x4's--even if it does require more gasoline.
It's good to have universal health care, especially when that health care sucks.
It's good to have universal pensions, especially when they pay so little and people become dependent on them, and thus the state, and not themselves. They owe their lives to the state. They owe their very existence on this earth to the state.
It's good to have powerful Labor Unions, because then you have extremely high unemployment like in France and Germany.
Yes, I agree, all these things are good.
I have to be really honest, I've never been caught in a backup on the turnpike for more than 10 or 15 minutes when approaching an exit. EasyPass really simplifies that situation. I realize EasyPass as it exists today is unacceptable for privacy reasons. However, if it were reimplemented using Stored Value technology then we could get around that.
I'm really glad we don't have an Emporer (although that is arguable as well... All Hail Bush! j/k).
I live near Philadelphia, and we have this thing called the Pennsylvania Turnpike. You get a ticket when you enter the Turnpike, and you pay a toll when you exit based upon how far you drive. It's completely anonymous because it is cash-based. Granted, there's the new EasyPass which could be used nefariously, but you still have the cash option. To the best of my knowledge the money earned from the tolls is used only for the maintenance of the Turnpike, as well as police enforcement, emergency response and anything else related to it. So, it basically takes the major state-wide highway system out of the budget of the state. This doesn't necessarily resolve paying welfare or anything like that, but it makes for one fewer thing for the state to have to deal with. Does this punish fuel efficient drivers? Not really, because they make out on cheaper gas taxes. Does this punish local residents? Not really, because everybody who uses the road has to pay. Does this solve world hunger? No. But neither will anything else government does. I hated the Turnpike concept when I got here, now I think it's the best. It doesn't solve the problems of maintaining local roadways, but it does solve the highway funding problem.
Dude, this is a geek web site... You can be funny, you just have to accept that people are going to nitpick your accuracy....