>That's exactly the comment I received in my first work talking to a mainframe guy when I sayed that my PC text editor was easier than the maiframe text editor: an uncomprehensible sequence of 1 character commands/data.
>I guess my hardware just isn't as compatible with linux as yours seems to be
Beats me! I do try to buy only fully GPL linux supported items. That means I always try to avoid anything made by NVidia. Binary only drivers are just asking for trouble. NVidia is very adamant about keeping anything they make very proprietary -- to the point that the nforce2 network adapter's drivers aren't integrated into the kernel (and never can be), which makes it useless if you want to upgrade the kernel (you'll lose network connectivity on the first boot).
>and secondly, that stream of numbers/letters is just as confusing as the configuration utility..
Bummer. For me, I figured it out on first use. But, trying to adjust the refresh rate of my monitor in windows (I have an ATI Radeon) is a confusing maze! Why are there two different places I have to set the refresh rate? Blech!
>The only one I've seen that I can make sense of is the one included with debian, anXious I think is what it's called, and even though I can figure it out, I'm still not sure of the refresh rates of my monitor
Never tried it. Your monitor refresh rates should be in the manual, but if they aren't, for modern monitors, 75 Hz Vertical and 90 - 150 Khz Horizontal aren't bad choices. X is no better at ruining your monitor than windows in this regard (choose 120 Hz Vertical refresh in windows on a monitor that doesn't support it and it'll fry just the same).
All in all, just choose the same refresh rates you're currently using.:-)
>maybe I'm just a complete loser
No, not at all.
>but sometimes these things need to be addressed..
Agreed. An automatic config utility that's standard and included WITH Xfree86 would be nice...
>along side a quick configuration tool that actually works
Hmm...
shepd@server:~$ xf86config
4 y
1 1
n
10 4
y 6
9
4 4
Is that really so tough? It's always worked for me...
Must avoid lameness filter!
Please try to keep posts on topic. Try to reply to other people's comments instead of starting new threads. Read other people's messages before posting your own to avoid simply duplicating what has already been said. Use a clear subject that describes what your message is about. Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive comments might be moderated. (You can read everything, even moderated posts, by adjusting your threshold on the User Preferences Page)
>If RIM software is so bad, why do they seem to be so popular?
We can ask the same question about windows and McDonalds... The answer isn't quality.;-)
>Our executives, half of which can hardly send email on their computer, have been wetting their pants and frothing at the mouth over the idea of getting these, even when it means a $6-8k investment in a year where $250 needs written approval.
It certainly isn't hard to use, and if the software worked without glitches, I'd have been much happier with mine. However, likely the most major problem is Blackberry's decision on firmware upgrades/updates at the time. The decision being that there wouldn't ever be any.
If you've got a lot of money to burn, it's a nice device. It's only major faults are price (which everyone can see, it's far too expensive) and poorly written software (something I experienced personally -- hard to show you it unless I take a screencap -- but being it isn't in use now, that's too much trouble).
>I used one for a couple of weeks recently (a T-Mobile one) with the desktop software. I didn't have any crashes or hangups, but I didn't do much with it besides send a few emails.
I talked with a RIM worker (since I live in K-W, it isn't hard to find one). When I told him about the trouble with my model, his answer was "Oh, that's the really old one. We've fixed the problems in the new models". Well, that's nice, but for a $400 device (at the time), you think they could offer the new firmware to me...
>I found the device overall limited in its ability to intelligently route mail; I either got everything including spam or just emails from select people, which seems kind of pointless.
Yes, there was no spam filtering (or at least, there wasn't any at the time). Unless you ran exchange, from what I could see there really wasn't a way to "intercept" the mail and scan it yourself, apart from keeping your RIM address a secret, and using another email address, filtering it, and forwarding all the mail left to the pager. A real PITA.
And no sane person would use their exchange software, being as it is (AFAIK) higher priced than exchange itself.
If the device you used was this one, I can understand it working well for you. That's the RIM of choice for people that work there.
It is. A local ISP in Canada is handling support calls for some US internet provider (which, I can't remember) because it works out cheaper that way. In "bulk" I believe you could get the minutes for something like 3 cents each...
In fact, I know a telemarketer that I applied for a job at (hey, I needed the money). They called to many provinces away. Yes, that is much further than calling most eastern places in the US from here.:-)
>I do dearly miss the previous generation of Blackberry with Mobitex network access.
As an unfortunate and early adopter of a RIM 950 pager (yes, the pager model) it regularly crashed at least once a week with some sort of system reset message (it's been years since I've used it, I think it said "system error 7" or something). Required a reset, and, as usual, all my stuff was lost (except, amazingly, my emails).
Apart from the software being so bad, the service being so expensive, and the unit being horribly overpriced, I loved it dearly. However, not dearly enough to keep paying $50 a month for email service.
>Mac doesn't have the money to do major product placement
Yeah, because Reese's Pieces are such a bigger money maker than Mac.;-)
>why dont we see massive product placement from M$?
When you have almost perfect market saturation (oh, let's say at least 85% of all home personal computers, and, say, 95% of home PCs that can run the OS), there's no point.
It'd be like Bell paying extra to get their name on a phone booth (then again, I can see that happening)...
>Nvidia has really given a lot of signals...that they're trying to distance themselves from Xbox2," Michael McConnell, an analyst for Pacific Crest Securities, said earlier this summer. "That relationship has really soured over the last year...Microsoft in general is just not a very nice partner to deal with. I think the whole experience left Nvidia with a bad taste in their mouth."
I wonder if that has anything to do with MS forcing Nvidia to destroy a batch of chips for no good reason?
I decided to log back on to friendster, check out what's going on.
My funny photos (all mine, taken by me, except one, which happens to be a photo of a chip bag) are all unapproved.
Well, FYVM Friendster. I'll not be logging back in there if you can't handle a picture of a can of food & a chip bag. Good God, even when I was in high school I could "express myself" more than that. Yikes! What's next? Approved names?
>That seems rather weird to me, considering that burning a CD in XP is as simple as dragging the files onto the CD drive and pressing "Burn to CD"...
I think the confusion comes from the fact windows makes copies of the files first, and, when worst comes to worst, won't properly delete them (oh, how many times has windows told my files in this temp directory are "In Use" -- by whom or what, beats me!), somtimes even after reboots (no, the machine was virus/trojan/worm/spyware free -- it seems to have a lot to do with the preview pane).
In Linux (and, in fact, Nero) no space (and time) wasting copies are necessary to be made, so there are never problems deleting the files. Also, built-in windows functions make it exceedingly confusing to burn Audio onto a CD, and, as far as I can tell, impossible to burn it properly (Disc at once) or along with data.
>Members are allowed to bring guests, and guests don't have to agree to anything. If the member buys something and gives/sells it to the guest, that guest should be legally allowed to leave without being checked.
Yes, but they could detain the Member until you brought the packages back to be inspected, assuming the agreement let them hold you indefinately until packages you purchased are inspected.
>Once the companies leave then a bust cycle will begin.
Why would a company leave during a positive cycle?
>There will be a prolonged period of unemployment and depression/recession. Eventually the standard of living will be pretty much where it was before.
For a short while. It seems most Free Markets have to go through growing pains such as these. Then things will improve, as they almost always do.
>This form of legalized slavery will start another chain reaction and before long a sizable chunk of the humans on this planet will be imprisoned and enslaved.
Eh? That doesn't make any sense. There's never been a single successful (as in, still running) enslave the majority of the population regime that I know of.
>People will be jailed for having one to two marijuana seeds for ten years and in prison they will work for AT&T making telemarketing calls. >Oh wait a minute that's already happening right here in the USA.
That's enslavement? Sure, it's a restrction of rights, but I think I'd rather not be allowed pot then have to work in a factory sewing together shoes for a few pennies a day.
But, as I read on, I see you're not talking about shoe sewing, you're talking about people having to make annoying phone calls. Oh, gag me with a spoon!
>I am sure these kinds of prison labor programs will be expanded hugely in the US and overseas.
Well, I'm not. In fact, I am sure that over time "prison labour campaigns" will disappear, as they have largely been shown to be inneffective. The fact that almost no exported goods from China are from these labour campaigns proves it.
The fact is prison labour can't even make decent mail bags, never mind complex electronics....Then again, perhaps I'm wrong. Maybe you were being facetious.
If you ask me, between being required to work your time off in safe conditions and being caged together where inmates beat on each other, I'll take the first one every time.
And, before you mention the article...
Behind the pros for the companies, there are some very big cons for the convicts. Substandard or sweatshop conditions are commonly reported. Prisoners are made to work overlong days, and put in overtime without compensation (Liu 16);
And this is different from your boss leaning on you... how?
If a prisoner refuses to work, they can't torture him into it. The worst that will happen is he'll have to complete his full sentence rather than get a slap on the wrist. That's the cost of choosing not to contribute to society.
some former inmate workers for CMT, a garment company, were able to file a lawsuit claiming that their 60-day training was unpaid, that they were given unrealistic quotas, and were instructed to replace Honduran tags in garments with "Made in USA" labels (16)
Oh God no! They made them sew LABELS on things? Woe is me!
As far as the unpaid training goes, I've seen companies go bust leaving people with 4 months unpaid. At least these inmates get to have jobs. Not that I don't wish them the best of luck suing their employer.
What would be minor issues in a non-prison workplace are punished extravagantly: pay is docked for "cussing" and telephone privileges are taken away.
ROTFLMAO! If you worked in MY store, and I caught you cussing at customers, I'd fire you on the spot. Period. No questions asked because it would be listed as a firable offense in your contract. How's that compared to losing telephone privileges and having your pay docked?
Pharmaceutical companies Parke-Davis and Upjohn were open about having "exploited the skills" of inmates by making them work 16-hour days (Sawyer 213).
Again, woe is me! Not a 16-hour day! I mean, my dad NEVER did that at his job, no, *never* (not). What a riot!
>Hey I have an idea. Why don't you take your hands off the keyboard and go and meet a real girl. Maybe get some sun, hell just go for a walk or something. Apparently your total lack of life and human interaction has lead you to believe that slashdot enemies list has some magical powers that will smite me. Maybe if you got laid for the first time in your life your outlook would change a bit.
You're getting a little worked up about this, aren't you?
Take a pill, man. If there's one thing a scientist told me, people only resort to profanity when they've nothing important left to say.
And remember, a scientist said it, so it MUST be true!
Anyways, since it seems you've taken that trip off the deep end, I'll just be ignoring your replies.
>This implies, along with your previous cato.org (a political organization with a very ideological axe to grind I might add) reference, that the academic scientific community as a whole is engaging in large scale manipulation of data and conclusions in order to justify increased research grants from the public sector.
A few bad apples do spoil the bunch, don't they?
Do they all do this? Certainly not. But, just as people lock their doors because there's one or two robbers in the neighbourhood, I remain eternally vigilant and sceptic about new scientific claims. I like to see more than just a few scientists agree nowadays before I'm happy. One scientific paper will never satisfy me, unless the results are something I could reproduce myself.
>I find that charge laughable at it's face.
So do I! Wholesale fraud is a long cry from what I'm speaking of. I'm simply sceptical on fresh scientific claims until I'm satisfied that I'm not being jerked about. Sure, the percentage might be low (oh, say 2% of all research is crooked) but it's enough for me not to trust it implicitly based on the fact a scientist said it was true. If that's good enough for you, that's great, but it isn't the way I work, and it isn't the way a good deal of your friends work.
I've met some scientists and professors, and I would even trust some of them to do my taxes properly (and that's a mathematician!).
>You have no evidence to substantiate that charge other than editorials by political 'think tanks' imbued by ideology rather than data.
Fine, you want to read the ruling without the choice pull-quotes. Here it is. I'm sure you'll come to the same conclusion. I can give you more data if you would like. I should even be able to find you the EPA's scientific findings that the judge said are way off base. Even prior to the trial, the inflated numbers aren't even all that scary, and required some serious marketing spin to get people to pay any attention. If you would like to check my journal, I've spent a little time researching this topic.
The basic summary is:
Because EPA exceeded its authority under the Radon Research Act and also failed the Act's procedural requirements, the court will direct the entry of judgment in favor of Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and vacate Chapters 1 thru 6 of and the Appendices to EPA's Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking: Lung Cancer and Other Disorders, EPA/600/6-90/006F (December 1992).
>But to claim wholesale conspiracy -- wow, that's rich
But I never did claim that! Please stop with the libel; it's making you look childish.
>There was a study done by a TEAM of scientists using strictly controlled methods. before this study was published other scientists in the same field peer reviewed it. So after doing the research, having their research be reveiwed by an editor, and finally going through a peer review process the thing was published.
And so are a lot of incorrect studies.
More importantly, most religious science is also published and peer reviewed, has gone through an editor, and uses strictly controlled methods (even stricter than the "usual" scientific methods, since it isn't allowed to violate anything in the religion's respective bible).
>If you are stupid fuck like yourself you believe the slashdot guy. Retards like you are positive that anonymous posts on slashdot are more likely to be right then actual scientists.
LOL.
Like I'm saying, you must believe the earth was made in 5-6 days by a malevolent being if you believe what you are saying.
>Scientists ignore laymens' opinion within their fields not because the layman might be right or wrong on the outcome of a specific issue, but because the layman has no concept of the data collection over time, or thought process and logic, which went into the final conclusion.
That's what they say.
However, when I see things like this, it makes me wonder how truthful they are. It makes me wonder whether the ignorance of the opinions of laymen on the subject (such as a judge's) is simply a way to pretend that the counter-evidence laid out before them doesn't exist.
Then I see things like this light article, and simply wonder why I should put faith in the conclusions of science without investigating them myself.
And that's what I did, I investigated what an 8% increase really means. It means 0.1% more women get breast cancer. And then I remember my stats and psychology classes that told me the margin of error on a self-test could be even worse than 8%.
And, to back up that the 0.1% (which is medically invalid to support a conclusion as bombastic as theirs) I checked the definition of sensational:
Arousing or intended to arouse strong curiosity, interest, or reaction, especially by exaggerated or lurid details: sensational journalism; a sensational television report.
Seems to fit quite handily with the lurid definition, IMHO. But you're free to believe what you will. However, it seems to me that releasing an insignificant finding such as what was found in that study, to the public under the guise of anti-light advice, is scientifically irresponsible behaviour. Behaviour, which, not surprisingly, is quite common considering the current scientific funding model. Now, where's my cold fusion?
If I believed scientists and people with degrees because they were scientists and had degrees, I'd have to believe my religious science teacher that the world was created in 5 or 6 days by a malcontent ethereal being.
How can so many scientists be so right (because they're scientists) but also be so conflicting? Why am I, an Atheist, not allowed to question their motives, since I don't call myself a scientist? Why do you think I should be blindly led by these "truth-sayers"?
I'm no sheep. Clearly, you are. Fortuantely for yourself, I suppose, you take comfort in the fact you'll be living with God/Allah/Whomever in the afterlife. Because all science is always right. Only the elite are right to question it.
>You are actually supporting my argument here. What do you need to make axes? Answer: A technology known as metalurgy. The adaption of early forms of technology forced people to do back-breaking work just to survive. For 99% of human evolution most of the forms of technology that we rely on today were absent.
Fine, whatever. Let's pretend people can't even make fire, if that's what floats your boat. Won't make any difference to my counter-argument.
>What are your sources of information?
Well, I'd quote my grade 6 science teacher, but I don't want to make you look foolish, so I'll find some web sources...
Remember, that's maximum. Our current maximum life expectancy is 112 years. Our average is generally 80 years (going up all the time).
Extrapolating, that puts the life expectancy of a neanderthal at 28 years, and the life expectancy of homo-sapiens at 35 years, meaning I'd probably be dead right now, along with most other people on the earth. I don't like those odds.
>Yes but only after life-expectancy was reduced by other technologies in the first place.
Okay, so very little technology to a little technology is detrimental to health. But a moderate to large amount of technology vastly improves health. And no technology is the "baseline" for health.
Seems to me as long as you avoid having very little technology, you're in good hands. But if you have a lot (as in, you can make axes, fire, etc) you're in an even better situation.
So why do I want no technology again? Seems I want every health advantage available to me.
>All of these diseases are the result of technology.
No argument here, although I remain sceptical that none of these existed in any form in cave men. However, we're taming these diseases, and even if the "cures" cause another set of diseases which show up even later in life (oh, say at 120 years old or some such ridiculous age like that) we're still WAY better off than ever before.
>I doubt the real reasons behind suicides are insignificant things like getting a B grade.
Then you need to see what happens to a lot of Japanese students. Heck, I've never been in Japan, and in my Canadian college a student committed suicide because he realized he couldn't hack it at his grades. This is the new-age problem.
>I am sure the real reasons are related to my arguements above.
Yes, they are. Education is borne from technology. You can't have one without the other. You could never get a failing grade (or even a B) if you were a cave man, due to a lack of schools. I hardly think blaming technology is a smart idea, though. That'd be like blaming the ground for breaking your nose when you fall.
Slashdot Mirror
Good lord, you mean they have like menus on the left, content in the middle, and bullshit on the right?
In that cast gamespot actually stole slashdot's layout.
>That's exactly the comment I received in my first work talking to a mainframe guy when I sayed that my PC text editor was easier than the maiframe text editor: an uncomprehensible sequence of 1 character commands/data.
;-)
Hey, after a month of using seu, I loved it!
Then again, after using RPG for a few months, I almost started to like it...
>I guess my hardware just isn't as compatible with linux as yours seems to be
:-)
Beats me! I do try to buy only fully GPL linux supported items. That means I always try to avoid anything made by NVidia. Binary only drivers are just asking for trouble. NVidia is very adamant about keeping anything they make very proprietary -- to the point that the nforce2 network adapter's drivers aren't integrated into the kernel (and never can be), which makes it useless if you want to upgrade the kernel (you'll lose network connectivity on the first boot).
>and secondly, that stream of numbers/letters is just as confusing as the configuration utility..
Bummer. For me, I figured it out on first use. But, trying to adjust the refresh rate of my monitor in windows (I have an ATI Radeon) is a confusing maze! Why are there two different places I have to set the refresh rate? Blech!
>The only one I've seen that I can make sense of is the one included with debian, anXious I think is what it's called, and even though I can figure it out, I'm still not sure of the refresh rates of my monitor
Never tried it. Your monitor refresh rates should be in the manual, but if they aren't, for modern monitors, 75 Hz Vertical and 90 - 150 Khz Horizontal aren't bad choices. X is no better at ruining your monitor than windows in this regard (choose 120 Hz Vertical refresh in windows on a monitor that doesn't support it and it'll fry just the same).
All in all, just choose the same refresh rates you're currently using.
>maybe I'm just a complete loser
No, not at all.
>but sometimes these things need to be addressed..
Agreed. An automatic config utility that's standard and included WITH Xfree86 would be nice...
>along side a quick configuration tool that actually works
Hmm...
shepd@server:~$ xf86config
4
y
1
1
n
10
4
y
6
9
4
4
Is that really so tough? It's always worked for me...
Must avoid lameness filter!
Please try to keep posts on topic.
Try to reply to other people's comments instead of starting new threads.
Read other people's messages before posting your own to avoid simply duplicating what has already been said.
Use a clear subject that describes what your message is about.
Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive comments might be moderated. (You can read everything, even moderated posts, by adjusting your threshold on the User Preferences Page)
>If RIM software is so bad, why do they seem to be so popular?
;-)
We can ask the same question about windows and McDonalds... The answer isn't quality.
>Our executives, half of which can hardly send email on their computer, have been wetting their pants and frothing at the mouth over the idea of getting these, even when it means a $6-8k investment in a year where $250 needs written approval.
It certainly isn't hard to use, and if the software worked without glitches, I'd have been much happier with mine. However, likely the most major problem is Blackberry's decision on firmware upgrades/updates at the time. The decision being that there wouldn't ever be any.
If you've got a lot of money to burn, it's a nice device. It's only major faults are price (which everyone can see, it's far too expensive) and poorly written software (something I experienced personally -- hard to show you it unless I take a screencap -- but being it isn't in use now, that's too much trouble).
>I used one for a couple of weeks recently (a T-Mobile one) with the desktop software. I didn't have any crashes or hangups, but I didn't do much with it besides send a few emails.
I talked with a RIM worker (since I live in K-W, it isn't hard to find one). When I told him about the trouble with my model, his answer was "Oh, that's the really old one. We've fixed the problems in the new models". Well, that's nice, but for a $400 device (at the time), you think they could offer the new firmware to me...
>I found the device overall limited in its ability to intelligently route mail; I either got everything including spam or just emails from select people, which seems kind of pointless.
Yes, there was no spam filtering (or at least, there wasn't any at the time). Unless you ran exchange, from what I could see there really wasn't a way to "intercept" the mail and scan it yourself, apart from keeping your RIM address a secret, and using another email address, filtering it, and forwarding all the mail left to the pager. A real PITA.
And no sane person would use their exchange software, being as it is (AFAIK) higher priced than exchange itself.
If the device you used was this one, I can understand it working well for you. That's the RIM of choice for people that work there.
>Maybe it is really cheap to call Canada->US?
:-)
It is. A local ISP in Canada is handling support calls for some US internet provider (which, I can't remember) because it works out cheaper that way. In "bulk" I believe you could get the minutes for something like 3 cents each...
In fact, I know a telemarketer that I applied for a job at (hey, I needed the money). They called to many provinces away. Yes, that is much further than calling most eastern places in the US from here.
>I do dearly miss the previous generation of Blackberry with Mobitex network access.
As an unfortunate and early adopter of a RIM 950 pager (yes, the pager model) it regularly crashed at least once a week with some sort of system reset message (it's been years since I've used it, I think it said "system error 7" or something). Required a reset, and, as usual, all my stuff was lost (except, amazingly, my emails).
Apart from the software being so bad, the service being so expensive, and the unit being horribly overpriced, I loved it dearly. However, not dearly enough to keep paying $50 a month for email service.
Lawsuits in motion releases a 386DX handheld.
Why am I not jumping up and down in the streets for joy?
Oh, right, it's a 386 and it's $400. I forgot for half a second.
Good point.
:-)
However, I'm pretty sure the computers in cartoons are usually designed to look like Macs. Perhaps I need to look at Toy Story again.
>Instead, get something like this.
Or, better yet, this!
Oh how do I love those desks, perfect for everything, and indestructible.
That last word would explain why nobody makes them anymore. Better for the economy to make sawdust ikea crap that needs to be junked every few years.
>Mac doesn't have the money to do major product placement
;-)
Yeah, because Reese's Pieces are such a bigger money maker than Mac.
>why dont we see massive product placement from M$?
When you have almost perfect market saturation (oh, let's say at least 85% of all home personal computers, and, say, 95% of home PCs that can run the OS), there's no point.
It'd be like Bell paying extra to get their name on a phone booth (then again, I can see that happening)...
HTH
>Nvidia has really given a lot of signals...that they're trying to distance themselves from Xbox2," Michael McConnell, an analyst for Pacific Crest Securities, said earlier this summer. "That relationship has really soured over the last year...Microsoft in general is just not a very nice partner to deal with. I think the whole experience left Nvidia with a bad taste in their mouth."
I wonder if that has anything to do with MS forcing Nvidia to destroy a batch of chips for no good reason?
I decided to log back on to friendster, check out what's going on.
My funny photos (all mine, taken by me, except one, which happens to be a photo of a chip bag) are all unapproved.
Well, FYVM Friendster. I'll not be logging back in there if you can't handle a picture of a can of food & a chip bag. Good God, even when I was in high school I could "express myself" more than that. Yikes! What's next? Approved names?
If I have seen further, it is by standing upon the shoulders of giants.
--- Isaac Newton
Just thought it would be worth mentioning. Then again, the laws of gravity have been against me lately...
>That seems rather weird to me, considering that burning a CD in XP is as simple as dragging the files onto the CD drive and pressing "Burn to CD"...
I think the confusion comes from the fact windows makes copies of the files first, and, when worst comes to worst, won't properly delete them (oh, how many times has windows told my files in this temp directory are "In Use" -- by whom or what, beats me!), somtimes even after reboots (no, the machine was virus/trojan/worm/spyware free -- it seems to have a lot to do with the preview pane).
In Linux (and, in fact, Nero) no space (and time) wasting copies are necessary to be made, so there are never problems deleting the files. Also, built-in windows functions make it exceedingly confusing to burn Audio onto a CD, and, as far as I can tell, impossible to burn it properly (Disc at once) or along with data.
>Members are allowed to bring guests, and guests don't have to agree to anything. If the member buys something and gives/sells it to the guest, that guest should be legally allowed to leave without being checked.
Yes, but they could detain the Member until you brought the packages back to be inspected, assuming the agreement let them hold you indefinately until packages you purchased are inspected.
>Once the companies leave then a bust cycle will begin.
...Then again, perhaps I'm wrong. Maybe you were being facetious.
Why would a company leave during a positive cycle?
>There will be a prolonged period of unemployment and depression/recession. Eventually the standard of living will be pretty much where it was before.
For a short while. It seems most Free Markets have to go through growing pains such as these. Then things will improve, as they almost always do.
>This form of legalized slavery will start another chain reaction and before long a sizable chunk of the humans on this planet will be imprisoned and enslaved.
Eh? That doesn't make any sense. There's never been a single successful (as in, still running) enslave the majority of the population regime that I know of.
>People will be jailed for having one to two marijuana seeds for ten years and in prison they will work for AT&T making telemarketing calls.
>Oh wait a minute that's already happening right here in the USA.
That's enslavement? Sure, it's a restrction of rights, but I think I'd rather not be allowed pot then have to work in a factory sewing together shoes for a few pennies a day.
But, as I read on, I see you're not talking about shoe sewing, you're talking about people having to make annoying phone calls. Oh, gag me with a spoon!
>I am sure these kinds of prison labor programs will be expanded hugely in the US and overseas.
Well, I'm not. In fact, I am sure that over time "prison labour campaigns" will disappear, as they have largely been shown to be inneffective. The fact that almost no exported goods from China are from these labour campaigns proves it.
The fact is prison labour can't even make decent mail bags, never mind complex electronics.
If you ask me, between being required to work your time off in safe conditions and being caged together where inmates beat on each other, I'll take the first one every time.
And, before you mention the article...
Behind the pros for the companies, there are some very big cons for the convicts. Substandard or sweatshop conditions are commonly reported. Prisoners are made to work overlong days, and put in overtime without compensation (Liu 16);
And this is different from your boss leaning on you... how?
If a prisoner refuses to work, they can't torture him into it. The worst that will happen is he'll have to complete his full sentence rather than get a slap on the wrist. That's the cost of choosing not to contribute to society.
some former inmate workers for CMT, a garment company, were able to file a lawsuit claiming that their 60-day training was unpaid, that they were given unrealistic quotas, and were instructed to replace Honduran tags in garments with "Made in USA" labels (16)
Oh God no! They made them sew LABELS on things? Woe is me!
As far as the unpaid training goes, I've seen companies go bust leaving people with 4 months unpaid. At least these inmates get to have jobs. Not that I don't wish them the best of luck suing their employer.
What would be minor issues in a non-prison workplace are punished extravagantly: pay is docked for "cussing" and telephone privileges are taken away.
ROTFLMAO! If you worked in MY store, and I caught you cussing at customers, I'd fire you on the spot. Period. No questions asked because it would be listed as a firable offense in your contract. How's that compared to losing telephone privileges and having your pay docked?
Pharmaceutical companies Parke-Davis and Upjohn were open about having "exploited the skills" of inmates by making them work 16-hour days (Sawyer 213).
Again, woe is me! Not a 16-hour day! I mean, my dad NEVER did that at his job, no, *never* (not). What a riot!
>Hey I have an idea. Why don't you take your hands off the keyboard and go and meet a real girl. Maybe get some sun, hell just go for a walk or something. Apparently your total lack of life and human interaction has lead you to believe that slashdot enemies list has some magical powers that will smite me. Maybe if you got laid for the first time in your life your outlook would change a bit.
You're getting a little worked up about this, aren't you?
Take a pill, man. If there's one thing a scientist told me, people only resort to profanity when they've nothing important left to say.
And remember, a scientist said it, so it MUST be true!
Anyways, since it seems you've taken that trip off the deep end, I'll just be ignoring your replies.
HAND!
>This implies, along with your previous cato.org (a political organization with a very ideological axe to grind I might add) reference, that the academic scientific community as a whole is engaging in large scale manipulation of data and conclusions in order to justify increased research grants from the public sector.
A few bad apples do spoil the bunch, don't they?
Do they all do this? Certainly not. But, just as people lock their doors because there's one or two robbers in the neighbourhood, I remain eternally vigilant and sceptic about new scientific claims. I like to see more than just a few scientists agree nowadays before I'm happy. One scientific paper will never satisfy me, unless the results are something I could reproduce myself.
>I find that charge laughable at it's face.
So do I! Wholesale fraud is a long cry from what I'm speaking of. I'm simply sceptical on fresh scientific claims until I'm satisfied that I'm not being jerked about. Sure, the percentage might be low (oh, say 2% of all research is crooked) but it's enough for me not to trust it implicitly based on the fact a scientist said it was true. If that's good enough for you, that's great, but it isn't the way I work, and it isn't the way a good deal of your friends work.
I've met some scientists and professors, and I would even trust some of them to do my taxes properly (and that's a mathematician!).
>You have no evidence to substantiate that charge other than editorials by political 'think tanks' imbued by ideology rather than data.
Fine, you want to read the ruling without the choice pull-quotes. Here it is. I'm sure you'll come to the same conclusion. I can give you more data if you would like. I should even be able to find you the EPA's scientific findings that the judge said are way off base. Even prior to the trial, the inflated numbers aren't even all that scary, and required some serious marketing spin to get people to pay any attention. If you would like to check my journal, I've spent a little time researching this topic.
The basic summary is:
Because EPA exceeded its authority under the Radon Research Act and also failed the Act's procedural requirements, the court will direct the entry of judgment in favor of Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and vacate Chapters 1 thru 6 of and the Appendices to EPA's Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking: Lung Cancer and Other Disorders, EPA/600/6-90/006F (December 1992).
>But to claim wholesale conspiracy -- wow, that's rich
But I never did claim that! Please stop with the libel; it's making you look childish.
>There was a study done by a TEAM of scientists using strictly controlled methods. before this study was published other scientists in the same field peer reviewed it. So after doing the research, having their research be reveiwed by an editor, and finally going through a peer review process the thing was published.
And so are a lot of incorrect studies.
More importantly, most religious science is also published and peer reviewed, has gone through an editor, and uses strictly controlled methods (even stricter than the "usual" scientific methods, since it isn't allowed to violate anything in the religion's respective bible).
>If you are stupid fuck like yourself you believe the slashdot guy. Retards like you are positive that anonymous posts on slashdot are more likely to be right then actual scientists.
LOL.
Like I'm saying, you must believe the earth was made in 5-6 days by a malevolent being if you believe what you are saying.
You're insane. See you on my foes list.
>Scientists ignore laymens' opinion within their fields not because the layman might be right or wrong on the outcome of a specific issue, but because the layman has no concept of the data collection over time, or thought process and logic, which went into the final conclusion.
That's what they say.
However, when I see things like this, it makes me wonder how truthful they are. It makes me wonder whether the ignorance of the opinions of laymen on the subject (such as a judge's) is simply a way to pretend that the counter-evidence laid out before them doesn't exist.
Then I see things like this light article, and simply wonder why I should put faith in the conclusions of science without investigating them myself.
And that's what I did, I investigated what an 8% increase really means. It means 0.1% more women get breast cancer. And then I remember my stats and psychology classes that told me the margin of error on a self-test could be even worse than 8%.
And, to back up that the 0.1% (which is medically invalid to support a conclusion as bombastic as theirs) I checked the definition of sensational:
Arousing or intended to arouse strong curiosity, interest, or reaction, especially by exaggerated or lurid details: sensational journalism; a sensational television report.
Seems to fit quite handily with the lurid definition, IMHO. But you're free to believe what you will. However, it seems to me that releasing an insignificant finding such as what was found in that study, to the public under the guise of anti-light advice, is scientifically irresponsible behaviour. Behaviour, which, not surprisingly, is quite common considering the current scientific funding model. Now, where's my cold fusion?
>Well, I have only one setence to say:
I'd better make that more than one sentence to say. Ho hum.
Well, I have only one setence to say:
If I believed scientists and people with degrees because they were scientists and had degrees, I'd have to believe my religious science teacher that the world was created in 5 or 6 days by a malcontent ethereal being.
How can so many scientists be so right (because they're scientists) but also be so conflicting? Why am I, an Atheist, not allowed to question their motives, since I don't call myself a scientist? Why do you think I should be blindly led by these "truth-sayers"?
I'm no sheep. Clearly, you are. Fortuantely for yourself, I suppose, you take comfort in the fact you'll be living with God/Allah/Whomever in the afterlife. Because all science is always right. Only the elite are right to question it.
>You are actually supporting my argument here. What do you need to make axes? Answer: A technology known as metalurgy. The adaption of early forms of technology forced people to do back-breaking work just to survive. For 99% of human evolution most of the forms of technology that we rely on today were absent.
Fine, whatever. Let's pretend people can't even make fire, if that's what floats your boat. Won't make any difference to my counter-argument.
>What are your sources of information?
Well, I'd quote my grade 6 science teacher, but I don't want to make you look foolish, so I'll find some web sources...
The existing evidence suggests that the maximum life expectancy of Neanderthals was probably late 30s to early 40s or perhaps younger, while for Homo sapiens at the time was perhaps around 50 years.
Remember, that's maximum. Our current maximum life expectancy is 112 years. Our average is generally 80 years (going up all the time).
Extrapolating, that puts the life expectancy of a neanderthal at 28 years, and the life expectancy of homo-sapiens at 35 years, meaning I'd probably be dead right now, along with most other people on the earth. I don't like those odds.
>Yes but only after life-expectancy was reduced by other technologies in the first place.
Okay, so very little technology to a little technology is detrimental to health. But a moderate to large amount of technology vastly improves health. And no technology is the "baseline" for health.
Seems to me as long as you avoid having very little technology, you're in good hands. But if you have a lot (as in, you can make axes, fire, etc) you're in an even better situation.
So why do I want no technology again? Seems I want every health advantage available to me.
>All of these diseases are the result of technology.
No argument here, although I remain sceptical that none of these existed in any form in cave men. However, we're taming these diseases, and even if the "cures" cause another set of diseases which show up even later in life (oh, say at 120 years old or some such ridiculous age like that) we're still WAY better off than ever before.
>I doubt the real reasons behind suicides are insignificant things like getting a B grade.
Then you need to see what happens to a lot of Japanese students. Heck, I've never been in Japan, and in my Canadian college a student committed suicide because he realized he couldn't hack it at his grades. This is the new-age problem.
>I am sure the real reasons are related to my arguements above.
Yes, they are. Education is borne from technology. You can't have one without the other. You could never get a failing grade (or even a B) if you were a cave man, due to a lack of schools. I hardly think blaming technology is a smart idea, though. That'd be like blaming the ground for breaking your nose when you fall.