And to take this problem further, why are kids thinking everything will be handed to them on a silver platter?
But I'm sure every generation for the past 200 years has said that, "Kids today aren't willing to work as hard". It can't have been true every time, or otherwise we would have died out by now.
Oh yeah, that would be where the parents come in. Somehow, at some point, maybe it was when both parents had to start working, it became better/easier to just give the kids what they wanted rather then laying down the law.
That makes a lot more sense than the usual assumption that it's just some failure of will on a large scale. The question is what do you do about it? Unless the economy gets so good that one parent can stay home it's not going to get better. And I think the chances of that are very, very slim.
Oooh, an undergrad, how impressive. Don't worry, I'll take it slow so you can keep up.
"Statist" isn't a term I'm going to take seriously. It's a libertarian insult, it's like when a communist calls someone a fascist; not any sort of rigorous term that has any meaning, just a tired old ad hominem, and a meaningless phrase.
It's quite amusing to hear a libertarian accusing someone else of whininess; whining is all libertarians do. Constant snivelling about how the big bad government is keeping them down, how they're just victims of the big, mean, statists. It doesn't surprise me you haven't finished college, it's an ideology for the young and ignorant.
And as for your accusations of "ad hominem attacks", if you'll look at the thread again you'll note that you're the one who started it.
Oh god, the little libertarian is all upset now. See, your use of the word "statist" already means I can't take you seriously. So why don't you enroll in community college and maybe take some courses in economics and history, and try to educate yourself so you won't keep embarassing yourself.
It's not just to recover R&D costs, it's also to cover the vast majority of games that bomb. There are definitely way too many games made these days, and I think a lot of companies would be better off if they took the Blizzard route rather than "Quick, crank out more WW2 FPSes" route.
Well, that just reinforces my point, not everyone is cut out to start a small business. Call me a bleeding heart liberal but I think if you're willing to work, you should be able to find a job, and not have to create your own.
99% of people have problems with their computers and you can make good money doing it if you're willing to do housecalls and be sociable (non-arrogant and helpful) so that people will continue to call you.
The problem is that this advice doesn't work on a grand scale. If your friend's out of work, suggesting he open his own company might be good advice, depending on where you are. Telling 5 million people who are out of work to open their own business, and the advice becomes meaningless. Small businesses, like large ones, are subject to market forces. A lot of places in this country just can't support some businesses. Some markets are just overcrowded. There's a reason most small businesses fail, and ending up jobless with massive debt is often how people who try to be entrepreneurs end up.
So if 5 million people suddenly open up small-scale tech support and consulting businesses, most of them are going to quickly go out of business.
They aren't betrying, or betraying for that matter, their country. What obligations do they have to their country? They pay their taxes, provide products and services, and the US economy would be worse off if the company didn't exist at all.
The companies were created thanks to this country, though. They succeeded thanks to the stability the US provides, the technological advances and trained graduates government-subsidized universities produce, and the American workers who actually, you know, designed and built the hardware that they sold.
They're certainly not betraying their people. By my estimation, "their people" are their stockholders. If their choices are outsource or lose to their competitors, there is no question. It's unfortunate, but what are they supposed to do?
It's not the only choice, that's the point. They could get rid of a lot of costs by simply reducing the ridiculously insane executive compensation--no, CEOs of corporations generally don't deserve the salaries they get, in most cases their jobs can be filled by any reasonably experienced executive.
The old "but American workers just aren't as smart/skilled/hard-working" idiocy. Repeat a lie enough and people start thinking it's the truth, which is pretty much what people like him do. It would make me boycott Intel, except I already don't because AMD is so much better.
Surely no one in the world would argue that any current version of FREE software would compare favorably in the eyes of a photoshop professional.
But they DO. There's a popular sentiment in the OSS world that the GIMP is a perfect replacement for photoshop, and it's just not true.
I mean, maybe someday, but not now.
I feel bad about saying this kind of stuff because the GIMP team has consistently done an amazing job, and I personally use GIMP over photoshop because of the price differential. I mean, I think that with the possible exception of GCC (and maybe the linux kernel itself) it's been the most successful OSS project to date. But it's annoying to see the OSS community take an untenable side of an argument just because they really, really want it to be true.
Here we are 24 years later, with computers that are twice as powerful as these, a hundred times as large, and so expensive that only the richest kings of Europe can afford them. Makes you think.
So what is mob opinion telling us today about nanotechnology? It's telling us that nanotechnology is horrible, and shouldn't be produced or used. Not that I agree.
Not at all. How can you have "mob opinion" when for the vast majority of people nanotechnology doesn't even show up on their radar. And for those who DO know about it most people seem to support it. I know the general desire on slashdot is to try to portray oneself as the underdog, but it's just not the case here. The people who HAVE criticized nanotechnology have tended to be scientists and engineers who see a genuine danger that they think needs to be taken into account.
Well said. The typical "libertarian" reply that because that the ACLU doesn't litigate over the 2nd amendment that NOTHING they do is worthwhile is illogical and like you said mainly a cover for people who just dislike them because they perceive the ACLU to be liberal.
Maybe, MAYBE you would have a reason not to support them if they actually litigated AGAINST your interests, but if they don't then what exactly is the problem? Any money you would donate would go towards things you would support, none would go against your interests, but because they don't spend money on every case you would want them to you're going to refrain from supporting them? It's stupid, it's illogical, and it's intellectual cowardice.
Wasn't it saying I was, and I guess if you take SCO's patent idiocy as a serious threat you might have a stake in seeing it. I was thinking the poster was talking about Linux succeeding on the market, which I guess he wasn't so my mistake.
Nah, just look at it this way: in general, the more someone complains about the legal system, the less they actually know about it. Anyone who thinks the Constitution has to be rewritten to get rid of procedural issues (that aren't actually, you know, in the Constitution in the first place) is seriously out of touch with reality.
It's like when people who have never been to court and don't even know any lawyers are rabidly anti-lawyer. They sort of mix a bunch of rumors, water-cooler conversations, and biased, one-sided newspaper articles into a big, illogical mess then invest their hearts and egos into it.
and for those of us who have a big stake in our beloved Operating System
Unless you work for Red Hat or you own a lot of stock in one of the linux companies, you don't "have a big stake". Let's be honest, here, 95% of the people here look at linux the way non-geeks look at their local sports team. A lot of emotional investment, but not much more than that.
we have been hearing the same stuff since the beginning of history.
So it will never be true? By that logic because a weatherman incorectly predicts rain for 3 days, if on the 4th day he predicts it again it's a 100% guarantee it won't happen?
This technology if successful will transform humanity, and we should try to achieve it. But to insist that we should just proceed without thinking about the consequences on the basis that "well that crossbow didn't destroy us" is a little naive.
If spammers really worry about this law (which they won't), all the must do is move their operations over seas. And in a spammer's case, moving over seas doesn't even involve literally moving himself / herself and family over there.
Nope, they'd have to move themselves physically. And even then it had better be a country without an extradition treaty with the US. And let's be honest, most spammers are small-time con artists, not the kind of people who would be willing (or able in a lot of circumstances) to relocate.
They're monitoring my car, not me. Legally there's a big difference. The court's generally held that people in vehicles have a significantly decreased expectation of privacy.
Slashdot Mirror
And to take this problem further, why are kids thinking everything will be handed to them on a silver platter?
But I'm sure every generation for the past 200 years has said that, "Kids today aren't willing to work as hard". It can't have been true every time, or otherwise we would have died out by now.
Oh yeah, that would be where the parents come in. Somehow, at some point, maybe it was when both parents had to start working, it became better/easier to just give the kids what they wanted rather then laying down the law.
That makes a lot more sense than the usual assumption that it's just some failure of will on a large scale. The question is what do you do about it? Unless the economy gets so good that one parent can stay home it's not going to get better. And I think the chances of that are very, very slim.
No, that honor goes to Atlas Shrugged.
Oooh, an undergrad, how impressive. Don't worry, I'll take it slow so you can keep up.
"Statist" isn't a term I'm going to take seriously. It's a libertarian insult, it's like when a communist calls someone a fascist; not any sort of rigorous term that has any meaning, just a tired old ad hominem, and a meaningless phrase.
It's quite amusing to hear a libertarian accusing someone else of whininess; whining is all libertarians do. Constant snivelling about how the big bad government is keeping them down, how they're just victims of the big, mean, statists. It doesn't surprise me you haven't finished college, it's an ideology for the young and ignorant.
And as for your accusations of "ad hominem attacks", if you'll look at the thread again you'll note that you're the one who started it.
Oh god, the little libertarian is all upset now. See, your use of the word "statist" already means I can't take you seriously. So why don't you enroll in community college and maybe take some courses in economics and history, and try to educate yourself so you won't keep embarassing yourself.
It's not just to recover R&D costs, it's also to cover the vast majority of games that bomb. There are definitely way too many games made these days, and I think a lot of companies would be better off if they took the Blizzard route rather than "Quick, crank out more WW2 FPSes" route.
http://www.aflcio.org/aboutunions/joinunions/myths .cfm
Have you ever dealt with a union? Do you have any idea how they operate? I'm guessing no.
Well, that just reinforces my point, not everyone is cut out to start a small business. Call me a bleeding heart liberal but I think if you're willing to work, you should be able to find a job, and not have to create your own.
Don't swallow the anti-union propaganda. Think for yourself.
99% of people have problems with their computers and you can make good money doing it if you're willing to do housecalls and be sociable (non-arrogant and helpful) so that people will continue to call you.
The problem is that this advice doesn't work on a grand scale. If your friend's out of work, suggesting he open his own company might be good advice, depending on where you are. Telling 5 million people who are out of work to open their own business, and the advice becomes meaningless. Small businesses, like large ones, are subject to market forces. A lot of places in this country just can't support some businesses. Some markets are just overcrowded. There's a reason most small businesses fail, and ending up jobless with massive debt is often how people who try to be entrepreneurs end up.
So if 5 million people suddenly open up small-scale tech support and consulting businesses, most of them are going to quickly go out of business.
Because we've read... Rand
Hahahahaha...oh wait, you were serious. My bad.
They aren't betrying, or betraying for that matter, their country. What obligations do they have to their country? They pay their taxes, provide products and services, and the US economy would be worse off if the company didn't exist at all.
The companies were created thanks to this country, though. They succeeded thanks to the stability the US provides, the technological advances and trained graduates government-subsidized universities produce, and the American workers who actually, you know, designed and built the hardware that they sold.
They're certainly not betraying their people. By my estimation, "their people" are their stockholders. If their choices are outsource or lose to their competitors, there is no question. It's unfortunate, but what are they supposed to do?
It's not the only choice, that's the point. They could get rid of a lot of costs by simply reducing the ridiculously insane executive compensation--no, CEOs of corporations generally don't deserve the salaries they get, in most cases their jobs can be filled by any reasonably experienced executive.
The old "but American workers just aren't as smart/skilled/hard-working" idiocy. Repeat a lie enough and people start thinking it's the truth, which is pretty much what people like him do. It would make me boycott Intel, except I already don't because AMD is so much better.
Surely no one in the world would argue that any current version of FREE software would compare favorably in the eyes of a photoshop professional.
But they DO. There's a popular sentiment in the OSS world that the GIMP is a perfect replacement for photoshop, and it's just not true.
I mean, maybe someday, but not now.
I feel bad about saying this kind of stuff because the GIMP team has consistently done an amazing job, and I personally use GIMP over photoshop because of the price differential. I mean, I think that with the possible exception of GCC (and maybe the linux kernel itself) it's been the most successful OSS project to date. But it's annoying to see the OSS community take an untenable side of an argument just because they really, really want it to be true.
One place?
Here we are 24 years later, with computers that are twice as powerful as these, a hundred times as large, and so expensive that only the richest kings of Europe can afford them. Makes you think.
So what is mob opinion telling us today about nanotechnology? It's telling us that nanotechnology is horrible, and shouldn't be produced or used. Not that I agree.
Not at all. How can you have "mob opinion" when for the vast majority of people nanotechnology doesn't even show up on their radar. And for those who DO know about it most people seem to support it. I know the general desire on slashdot is to try to portray oneself as the underdog, but it's just not the case here. The people who HAVE criticized nanotechnology have tended to be scientists and engineers who see a genuine danger that they think needs to be taken into account.
Well said. The typical "libertarian" reply that because that the ACLU doesn't litigate over the 2nd amendment that NOTHING they do is worthwhile is illogical and like you said mainly a cover for people who just dislike them because they perceive the ACLU to be liberal.
Maybe, MAYBE you would have a reason not to support them if they actually litigated AGAINST your interests, but if they don't then what exactly is the problem? Any money you would donate would go towards things you would support, none would go against your interests, but because they don't spend money on every case you would want them to you're going to refrain from supporting them? It's stupid, it's illogical, and it's intellectual cowardice.
Wasn't it saying I was, and I guess if you take SCO's patent idiocy as a serious threat you might have a stake in seeing it. I was thinking the poster was talking about Linux succeeding on the market, which I guess he wasn't so my mistake.
Nah, just look at it this way: in general, the more someone complains about the legal system, the less they actually know about it. Anyone who thinks the Constitution has to be rewritten to get rid of procedural issues (that aren't actually, you know, in the Constitution in the first place) is seriously out of touch with reality.
It's like when people who have never been to court and don't even know any lawyers are rabidly anti-lawyer. They sort of mix a bunch of rumors, water-cooler conversations, and biased, one-sided newspaper articles into a big, illogical mess then invest their hearts and egos into it.
ILLEGAL FUNCTION CALL
and for those of us who have a big stake in our beloved Operating System
Unless you work for Red Hat or you own a lot of stock in one of the linux companies, you don't "have a big stake". Let's be honest, here, 95% of the people here look at linux the way non-geeks look at their local sports team. A lot of emotional investment, but not much more than that.
we have been hearing the same stuff since the beginning of history.
So it will never be true? By that logic because a weatherman incorectly predicts rain for 3 days, if on the 4th day he predicts it again it's a 100% guarantee it won't happen?
This technology if successful will transform humanity, and we should try to achieve it. But to insist that we should just proceed without thinking about the consequences on the basis that "well that crossbow didn't destroy us" is a little naive.
I don't think you want a society where they instantly throw you in jail based on a few complaints submitted over the Internet.
And if you do, just wait a bit, we're almost there.
If spammers really worry about this law (which they won't), all the must do is move their operations over seas. And in a spammer's case, moving over seas doesn't even involve literally moving himself / herself and family over there.
Nope, they'd have to move themselves physically. And even then it had better be a country without an extradition treaty with the US. And let's be honest, most spammers are small-time con artists, not the kind of people who would be willing (or able in a lot of circumstances) to relocate.
They're monitoring my car, not me. Legally there's a big difference. The court's generally held that people in vehicles have a significantly decreased expectation of privacy.