I'm usually more of a singles person than an album person.
Noooooooooooooooo...don't say that here, you'll just summon a horde of incredibly annoying self-annointed music geeks who will annoy us all by explaining how for the bands THEY like the whole album is good. If you're unlucky you'll get a few links to a bunch of truly awful whiny hipster bands with ironic band names who all sound pretty much the same, like they first picked up their instruments yesterday.
Re:Slashdot is packed with OLD people!?
on
Health Care Reform
·
· Score: 1
Most of slashdot is young enough that SS will be long gone by the time they turn 65. So WTF do you mean by "packed with the entitlement generation?"
SS will be there, they'll probably just have to scale back on how much it pays, and you won't get it until later in life, and they'll probably have to print more money (causing inflation) but something will get paid.
If you get a car (new or used) from a normal dealership, they don't have this ability (unless OnStar decides to start enforcing GMAC payments).
If you get a car new or used, you should try and get a better auto loan than you can typically get from the dealer. I'm assuming that even the sketchy places that use this blackbox technology only do it if they provide the loans, otherwise it's none of their business whether you're up to date or not on them.
Well considering that the term 'black' isn't considered to be really offensive, that a spanish speaking person would call an African-American 'black' should be no surprise.
I thought he used words that translated as "the blacks," which is kind of racist in English.
The Mexicans who do enter illegally aren't exactly "stealing" great jobs from American citizens. They're picking crops, cleaning houses, flipping burgers, etc. The real problem is that our legitimate businesses are legally shipping planeloads of cash overseas for crappy products and services. Do we really need a million plastic "movie tie-in" figurines to be given away with Happy Meals, or blankets with arms in them?
I've heard this come up and the speaker never really supports it but just assumes everyone's on board. I've been to parts of the country without a substantial immigrant population, and believe it or not those crops get picked, those houses get cleaned, and those burgers get flipped. Americans will do those jobs, though usually for a bit more money (which is to be expected when you have to pay those pesky income and social security taxes.)
Besides, I don't care. Look at my user number. I know first-hand how Slashdot has gone to hell over the last several years. There are plenty of whacked-out echo chambers on the 'Net, but this place is a pioneer in the field. The only reasons I still check here at all are a) force of habit and b) to laugh bitterly at you all
You think so? I've been on for 10 years now and I think the general level of echo-chamber-ness has actually decreased as the userbase gets a lot more diverse in terms of age and background.
There were other ways of successfully ending slavery, that did not involve killing a generation of young men and permanently polarizing the United States.
What would those be though? Slavery was deeply entrenched, and expanding rather than contracting. Sure, in another 50 years I can't see it having survived, but 50 years of slavery would have been too high of a cost for a less-powerful federal government now.
This sort of ends-justify-the-means, history-is-written-by-the-victors mentality is insufficient justification for what should have been and should still be war crimes.
You think destroying infrastructure used by the enemy is a war crime?
Slavery was a side issue because not every southerner owned slaves or had an incentive to protect slavery.
No, it wasn't. That's something that generations of southern historians have managed to convince too many people of. The Civil War is the only war I can think of where the losers actually got to write the history. Slavery was the driving issue of the Civil War, and the South's attempt to export it to the new territories.
Sherman was a war criminal who burned everything in sight just for the sake of causing damage.
No, he burned everyting in sight for the sake of ending the war. You think it's worse to kill people than it is to destroy property? Plus if you were a slaveholder in the south you deserved to be driven out of your homes and see it be burnt to the ground.
The north invaded our lands, killed many of our people, and destroyed most of our infrastructure. Who are they to judge us?
The south started the war and killed plenty of northerners.
Does anyone remember during our own elections where people would forward emails to all their friends quoting quoting quoting quoting some email with less-than-100%-factual claims from someone you've never heard of before?
I don't, but maybe that's because my friends aren't paranoid right-wing nutjobs.
Re:Not that I put a lot of trust in *our* reports
on
Iran Hacks US Spy Sites
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Nice headline. These idiots make it sound like the Basji took down the firewalls at Langley and laid waste to the CIA's cyberwar infrastructure. More appropriate headline: "Iranian script kiddies take down website; blame US".
An even more accurate headline: "Iranian government takes down human rights websites, accusing them of 'espionage'."
Class action lawsuits are *never* for the benefit of the actual aggrieved parties. They're simply cash cows for tort lawyers. Bill Lerach actually got caught *paying* people to be plaintiffs in shareholder class action suits - he went to jail for that, but how many others didn't?
Not true; "class actions" are simply lawsuits where one or more parties represents a class of persons because joining ALL those persons would be impractical. You can have class actions that have nothing to do with torts. And the idea that individual class members never benefit is just not so. I've seen class actions where individual class members received millions of dollars. It all comes down to what the nature of the underlying claim is, not whether it's a class action or not.
An artificial price ceiling means that you will have capped (not necessarily reasonably) priced services, but not available to everyone because less health care will be provided at an artificially low price.
My point was that for the TRAVELER, taxi service in NYC is relatively cheap and easy to find, despite the government control of supply and price caps. Sorry the facts interfere with your libertoonian ideology there.
Companies that provide services easily available to everyone have to have such a volume that they have shareholders. By definition, this means that consumers are not getting reasonably priced items (not the same thing as affordable). Either that, or they have government influence, paying them well above market value to produce (see corn, gasoline, utilities).
"By definition," having shareholders means that consumers aren't getting reasonably priced items? You have no idea what "by definition" means, do you? All businesses have shareholders. Every single one.
The taxi drivers expended a lot of social capital vigorously opposing and even striking over the GPS units, when everyone (taxi drivers included) knew that the GPS units would help keep the drivers honest. Now that fraud has been exposed, it will be even more difficult for the drivers to gain public support the next time they are angry about something.
Eh, the taxi drivers are in general have the T&LC's boot on their neck. Cab driving is too lucrative, and they're too disorganized, to ever successfully throw their weight around I think.
The government controls how many Medallions are in circulation, they put in an artificial ceiling. I predict the same thing happening when the government start managing health care.
You mean reasonably priced services easily available to everyone?
I had always assumed the cab industry in New York was so saturated with competition and so decentralized that price fixing like this wouldn't be possible; everyone would have to charge essentially the same rates or risk being driven (literally and figuratively) out of business.
Only yellow medallion cabs are allowed to pick up passengers; the price is supposed to be the same for any cab, and you don't know the total cost until you reach your destination (unless you're headed to an airport where there's a flat fee).
Actually not sure, I have a kindle but I've never tried using it as a general purpose browser, though I would presumethe LCD is better for web pages. I was mostly kidding, and trying to poke fun at the notion that because I use a screen for one purpose my preference for e-ink when reading novels is somehow hypocritical or incongruous or something.
Only I never said that people will NEVER read from an LCD all day long. I said e-ink provides a superior reading experience. Do you really not see a difference between those two arguments?
Slashdot Mirror
I'm usually more of a singles person than an album person.
Noooooooooooooooo...don't say that here, you'll just summon a horde of incredibly annoying self-annointed music geeks who will annoy us all by explaining how for the bands THEY like the whole album is good. If you're unlucky you'll get a few links to a bunch of truly awful whiny hipster bands with ironic band names who all sound pretty much the same, like they first picked up their instruments yesterday.
Most of slashdot is young enough that SS will be long gone by the time they turn 65. So WTF do you mean by "packed with the entitlement generation?"
SS will be there, they'll probably just have to scale back on how much it pays, and you won't get it until later in life, and they'll probably have to print more money (causing inflation) but something will get paid.
One of my favorite shows of all time, though most of the recent movies were kind of disappointing. The first one was good though.
If you get a car (new or used) from a normal dealership, they don't have this ability (unless OnStar decides to start enforcing GMAC payments).
If you get a car new or used, you should try and get a better auto loan than you can typically get from the dealer. I'm assuming that even the sketchy places that use this blackbox technology only do it if they provide the loans, otherwise it's none of their business whether you're up to date or not on them.
Well considering that the term 'black' isn't considered to be really offensive, that a spanish speaking person would call an African-American 'black' should be no surprise.
I thought he used words that translated as "the blacks," which is kind of racist in English.
The Mexicans who do enter illegally aren't exactly "stealing" great jobs from American citizens. They're picking crops, cleaning houses, flipping burgers, etc. The real problem is that our legitimate businesses are legally shipping planeloads of cash overseas for crappy products and services. Do we really need a million plastic "movie tie-in" figurines to be given away with Happy Meals, or blankets with arms in them?
I've heard this come up and the speaker never really supports it but just assumes everyone's on board. I've been to parts of the country without a substantial immigrant population, and believe it or not those crops get picked, those houses get cleaned, and those burgers get flipped. Americans will do those jobs, though usually for a bit more money (which is to be expected when you have to pay those pesky income and social security taxes.)
Agreed, even high quality CFLs gives off harsh light, and LEDs are even worse.
At least games don't use the developers and their friends' voices anymore. Good grief that was painful to listen to. Like the guards in Thief.
Besides, I don't care. Look at my user number. I know first-hand how Slashdot has gone to hell over the last several years. There are plenty of whacked-out echo chambers on the 'Net, but this place is a pioneer in the field. The only reasons I still check here at all are a) force of habit and b) to laugh bitterly at you all
You think so? I've been on for 10 years now and I think the general level of echo-chamber-ness has actually decreased as the userbase gets a lot more diverse in terms of age and background.
There were other ways of successfully ending slavery, that did not involve killing a generation of young men and permanently polarizing the United States.
What would those be though? Slavery was deeply entrenched, and expanding rather than contracting. Sure, in another 50 years I can't see it having survived, but 50 years of slavery would have been too high of a cost for a less-powerful federal government now.
This sort of ends-justify-the-means, history-is-written-by-the-victors mentality is insufficient justification for what should have been and should still be war crimes.
You think destroying infrastructure used by the enemy is a war crime?
Slavery was a side issue because not every southerner owned slaves or had an incentive to protect slavery.
No, it wasn't. That's something that generations of southern historians have managed to convince too many people of. The Civil War is the only war I can think of where the losers actually got to write the history. Slavery was the driving issue of the Civil War, and the South's attempt to export it to the new territories.
Sherman was a war criminal who burned everything in sight just for the sake of causing damage.
No, he burned everyting in sight for the sake of ending the war. You think it's worse to kill people than it is to destroy property? Plus if you were a slaveholder in the south you deserved to be driven out of your homes and see it be burnt to the ground.
The north invaded our lands, killed many of our people, and destroyed most of our infrastructure. Who are they to judge us?
The south started the war and killed plenty of northerners.
More like Gauntlet.
Does anyone remember during our own elections where people would forward emails to all their friends quoting quoting quoting quoting some email with less-than-100%-factual claims from someone you've never heard of before?
I don't, but maybe that's because my friends aren't paranoid right-wing nutjobs.
Nice headline. These idiots make it sound like the Basji took down the firewalls at Langley and laid waste to the CIA's cyberwar infrastructure. More appropriate headline: "Iranian script kiddies take down website; blame US".
An even more accurate headline: "Iranian government takes down human rights websites, accusing them of 'espionage'."
Better weaselly PR explanation: "Microsoft employees enjoy the iphone because it is a platform for the exciting apps Microsoft has developed."
Class action lawsuits are *never* for the benefit of the actual aggrieved parties. They're simply cash cows for tort lawyers. Bill Lerach actually got caught *paying* people to be plaintiffs in shareholder class action suits - he went to jail for that, but how many others didn't?
Not true; "class actions" are simply lawsuits where one or more parties represents a class of persons because joining ALL those persons would be impractical. You can have class actions that have nothing to do with torts. And the idea that individual class members never benefit is just not so. I've seen class actions where individual class members received millions of dollars. It all comes down to what the nature of the underlying claim is, not whether it's a class action or not.
An artificial price ceiling means that you will have capped (not necessarily reasonably) priced services, but not available to everyone because less health care will be provided at an artificially low price.
My point was that for the TRAVELER, taxi service in NYC is relatively cheap and easy to find, despite the government control of supply and price caps. Sorry the facts interfere with your libertoonian ideology there.
Companies that provide services easily available to everyone have to have such a volume that they have shareholders. By definition, this means that consumers are not getting reasonably priced items (not the same thing as affordable). Either that, or they have government influence, paying them well above market value to produce (see corn, gasoline, utilities).
"By definition," having shareholders means that consumers aren't getting reasonably priced items? You have no idea what "by definition" means, do you? All businesses have shareholders. Every single one.
Its a no skill job. you sit, you drive, you talk.
Well...driving in Manhattan does require a certain level of skill.
The taxi drivers expended a lot of social capital vigorously opposing and even striking over the GPS units, when everyone (taxi drivers included) knew that the GPS units would help keep the drivers honest. Now that fraud has been exposed, it will be even more difficult for the drivers to gain public support the next time they are angry about something.
Eh, the taxi drivers are in general have the T&LC's boot on their neck. Cab driving is too lucrative, and they're too disorganized, to ever successfully throw their weight around I think.
The government controls how many Medallions are in circulation, they put in an artificial ceiling. I predict the same thing happening when the government start managing health care.
You mean reasonably priced services easily available to everyone?
I had always assumed the cab industry in New York was so saturated with competition and so decentralized that price fixing like this wouldn't be possible; everyone would have to charge essentially the same rates or risk being driven (literally and figuratively) out of business.
Only yellow medallion cabs are allowed to pick up passengers; the price is supposed to be the same for any cab, and you don't know the total cost until you reach your destination (unless you're headed to an airport where there's a flat fee).
Good, keep those tourist dollars flowing into the city economy.
Actually not sure, I have a kindle but I've never tried using it as a general purpose browser, though I would presumethe LCD is better for web pages. I was mostly kidding, and trying to poke fun at the notion that because I use a screen for one purpose my preference for e-ink when reading novels is somehow hypocritical or incongruous or something.
Only I never said that people will NEVER read from an LCD all day long. I said e-ink provides a superior reading experience. Do you really not see a difference between those two arguments?