I used to work in restaraunts and washed dishes all day, not just for a half a day once a week. I made $3 an hour and had to work my ass off. At the end of the day I stunk like grease. The sad part is that I was only a teenager, so it didn't matter, but there are many people in this country working shitty jobs as busboys and dishwashers and they are adults (of course they are Mexican so I guess they don't matter either).
Cry me a river, at least you have a window and a chair and you probably make more than minimum wage.
I agree that changes to the current system will not be easy and there will be a tremendous push to not allow the system to change from those who stand to benefit from the status quo.
However, even though there will exist powerful forces against the change - change can still occur. As we evolve, and IF information can flow freely to the people, via the web I believe that change will be inevitable. You are basing your argument on what has happened over the course of the last couple of decades. What I am saying is that over the course of the NEXT couple of decades, our political system and the parties will undoubtedly change as a result of there be cheaper/easier access to lots of information.
Even if most people don't scour the Web looking for news, like I do, the average person will have easier access to more information. This will have an affect on politics, as long as the people still have the power to scare politicians at the voting boothes. I don't care how much money telemarketing companies paid lobbiests/politicians - the do not call list still was implemented because the people demanded it.
The more people know, the more outraged they become, and the more bitching they do. Politicians ultimately want to be re-elected and IF we have fair elections we can still vote the losers out of office.
That's my theory, I am trying to be optimistic which is not easy these days. Let's all make it happen and get involved because that CAN make a difference. Go to MoveOn.org and sign up for the mailing list and put pressure on the politicians.
I think Adams would have used digital cameras, when the need was great enough, but I doubt he would have loved digital cameras. Adams was a traditionalist, he didn't just embrace the latest gizmo. If you read his books: The Camera, The Negative, The Print you would probably get the same impression as I, that Adams was not overtly embracive of the latest technology "advances".
Digital photography certainly has its advantages, but when it comes to creating truly beautiful photos film is still the best medium. Adams would have not sacrificed quality for ease-of-use or to save a penny. He may use digital as an alternative to a pollaroid for testing shots - maybe.
Digital makes lots of sense for professional photographs that are selling prints and can save money on developing and have a quicker turn around (sometimes). It also works well for photojournalism. It's less appealing to people who want to capture a shot, with the best quality possible, and are not concerned with lots of special affects - they want a realistic representation of the subject.
You have to remember that taking beautiful black and white pictures is an artform and much of the art is in the dark room. You should also know that people like Adams are not shooting with a 35mm camera, large format cameras take amazing pictures that I doubt will be bested by a digital camera.
Undoubtedly there will be many posters saying that this will never happen and that the two-party system will live on forever - nothing will ever change.
I don't know if they are correct or if the author of the article is (you read the article right?). What I do know is that the potential of a shift from a duopoly to a three, or more, party system does seem to be occurring. The fact of the matter is that the country is NOT as evenly divided as some would like you to believe, with most people sitting in the center, political views of a country are way more complicated than that. There are millions and millions of voters, mostly under the age of 40, who have disengaged from the political process. These people haven't cared about politics, probably their whole lives, and a candidate like Dean is energizing these previously non-existent voices. The two-party system has created two very similar parties, that appear to most younger voters as just a bunch of idiots who only care about getting elected. Most people, including myself, are sick of just voting against the other candidate and are hungry for a candidate that we can actually support. For me that candidate is Dean or possibly Nader if he jumps in.
Does that mean Nader is going to win in '04, probably not. But as technology evolves and makes information all the more available to everyone, this will greatly increase the probablility of a third party emerging and winning elections.
One thing history has taught us is that change is inevitable - nothing will last forever. Does this mark the end of the Democratic or Republican parties? Probably not. But will the Democratic and Republican parties be recognizable 20 years from now? Probably not. Change is constant.
I have used a Canon AE-1 for about 10 years and it's a great camera. You can pick one up for about $150 and there are tons of aftermarket lens to purchase (Canon lens' are expensive). I just had an overhaul done to mine and it's like brand new.
AE stands for Auto-Exposure, and you can also set the camera to full-manual mode. You can't wrong with this camera.
Canon AE-1 Program is the same camera with the ability to program it (don't know what you can program, I assume settings).
I guess we are all supposed to work on the same projects and corridinate with the thousands of other developers in OSS community so we don't duplicate our work?
The fact that there are so many Linux distros, a number of web browsers, windows managers, email clients, etc is not a bad thing. Even if it were a bad thing, how would you stop people from creating another window manager or email client? Would you require all OSS projects to submit for approval in order to even get started, that's stupid.
Some people liken OSS to communism but I actually think it's much more like capitalism. The best software gets used more than the crappy stuff that often dies on the vine. The fact that OSS users have numerous options to choose from is a good thing. There is always this massive push to create a monoculture in every aspect of life (at least in the US), I truly do not understand people that don't like choice and are afraid of people that do things differently than than status quo - even if that means doing something that someone else has already done but doing it your way. Some may call that innovating, others call it a waste of time.
Other than the debate about software occurring in a public forum rather than a meeting room, I don't see much difference between closed and open software. Go to Amazon and search for an software application, there are a number of web browsers and word processors to choose from - is that bad? Choice is good.
The debate over whether OSS is good or bad, or whether OSS can compete with closed software seems pointless - but I participate anyway (hmm). It's obvious that OSS can create good software and that it can compete against/with closed software. Is OSS going to run MS and Apple out of business, no. Is success always marked by how much money or market-share you have, not if you don't have shareholders.
It's great that Google continues to tweak there search engine to produce the most accurate results. The people complaining are the commercial businesses that are relying on Google search results for free advertising. First off, these "businesses" should not be relying solely on Google search result hits for traffic to their sites, they have to advertising somewhere. Secondly, Google has every right, and duty, to continue battling against businesses from gaming the search results.
My sites have probably increased in position on Google because of these changes, but I don't plan on reducing my advertising budget.
It seems unbelievable that ATM's would be connected to the Internet or to a network that is not totally locked down with no access to/from the Internet.
I didn't read the article, so now you can make fun of me for being a fool but it seems ridiculous to have ATM's connected to a network that could possibly have a worm worming around it.
We are still trying to figure out how to make money on the Internet. Some day it may be feasible to mine the moon, asteroids, or Mars but is it even possible at this point? The last time I heard the are having trouble just getting a few pounds of supplies to the space station. How could they possibly get tons of metal and rock back to Earth? I guess that's going the other way and they can just build a some sort of big barge type thing and just crash it in Earth and hope it lands in Nevada and not the bottom of the Pacific.
As usual geeks are getting ahead of themselves. Space travel is not routine and until it becomes routine and therefore way cheaper there is no point in discussing how to make money from outer space. No point at all, I declare this convseration over. Good day sir.
I love the Subject. OSS zealots, like myself, tend to miss the point from time to time.
What people need to realize here is that technology does NOT always solve a problem. Even if it appears to solve the problem it may create numerous other problems. Why put the election results into the hands of a few campaign-funding corporations? Our government has a history of setting up phony elections to install leaders in other countries, why make it easy to do so here. Read here
or here. You can argue that Michael Moore is a wacko, he isn't, but history often has a way of telling us the truth behind the rhetoric.
The only reason anyone cares about doing computerized voting is because the companies that make voting machines want us to care. After the 2000 debacle, Diebold and others jumped on the opportunity to tell us how screwed up our voting system is and that voting with their crappy Windows CE and Access database would somehow solve the problem. The problems surrounding Florida and the 2000 election really had little to do with dangling chads and more to do with voter fraud and disenfranchisement. More about disenfranchised voters here and here.
The corporations that seek to make millions upon millions of dollars selling computerized voting machines are feeding our cultural desire for everything to be fast and computerized. They know we don't want to wait two or three days to have all the votes tallied by volunteers - that's just backwards. We need to use computers to do all that counting because that's what computers do well - counting that is. As usual we are solving the wrong problem with the wrong solution. There is no reason we can't vote with pencil and paper and have our votes counted and with proper exit polling we would know the winner of the horse race the same day. In a close race the results may not be certain for a couple of days, is that so aweful to wait 2 or 3 days to find out the winner and be certain he/she is in fact the winner.
We are so fickle in this country and have such a short attention span that we become easy prey for the corporations that seek to make millions and millions of dollars selling districts these inferior voting machines/computers that simply don't work and seem to invite fraud. Can we have a healthy democracy if we don't have a voting system that is accurate and can be trusted? I don't understand people who so quickly toss democracy into the gutter for the sake of convenience or a false sense of security, I think it's insulting to all the men and women who have died to protect our democracy. Let's get the voting process right in this country or we are going to be in serious trouble very quickly. All the people that were pissed after the 2000 debacle may not just sit on their hands next time and so oh well.
Read more about this topic herehere and here. This is a serious problem that we can't just sit by and watch play itself out - get involved.
Re:Translated for the America-Impaired
on
Who Needs Radio?
·
· Score: 0, Flamebait
NPR is liberal? I don't see it, although I am a liberal so I could be just blind to it's liberal leanings. When I read a Molly Ivins or Michael Moore article I have no trouble seeing their liberal slant - but NPR?
I think NPR simply reports the news as best they can and if being truthful is what makes you a liberal and being a liar makes you a right-winger, I guess you are right NPR and Fox News.
I often seek out liberal leaning "news" or articles but I never think, "I am going to turn on NPR and listen to their liberal ranting and raving." That's what Donahue was for - now we have Scarborough Country.
AOL could use Windows Messenger to popup a window that says, "You're computer has been infected with a virus. We are going to fix the problem, sit back and be quiet while we fix your OS. If you want to contact someone regarding this problem call: 1-800-MICROSOFT and tell them AOL is fixing my computer in reference to TID:0102930405895."
I would be concerned about this situation if it weren't AOL. AOL has the lowest common denominator users who don't know jack about their computer and need all the help they can get. If you don't want AOL messing with your computer, don't use AOL.
The reason you don't have to fear Linux zealots is because they are not religious fundamentalists. There is a huge difference. As history has taught us over and over and over again millions of people are willing to die, or kill, for their religion, especially those that are fundamentalists.
I have yet to see large scale killing over an industry or a product, which is what Open Source or Linux zealots spout off about. Of course, there will probably be some wacko who will take his Open Source opinions to far and kill someone, but he isn't going to be able to gets thousands of people to follow him to wage a war against Microsoft. It's just not going to happen.
What scares me is the overuse of the word terrorist. Now anyone who opposes anything strongly is considered a terrorist, unless they are Christian than they are doing the work of god. It's getting so its impossible for people in the US to protest peacefully and not so peacefully about anything without being labelled a terrorist, a communist, or an American hater. The fact is that you can't just stamp labels on people and claim that they are this or that, humans are oftentimes much more complicated than that and sometimes they are just idiots.
Here is an article titled "Firm's attempt to down hyperlinks an attack on free speech, says EFF" which discusses how Diebold is using the DMCA to force ISP's to remove links to internal memos that were leaked regarding Diebold's crappy software and business practices. You can read the internal memos, for now, here.
Here is an article titled "Firm's attempt to down hyperlinks an attack on free speech, says EFF" which discusses how Diebold is using the DMCA to force ISP's to remove links to internal memos that were leaked regarding Diebold's crappy software and business practices. You can read the internal memos, for now, here.
You are right about the stupidity, but I am thinking about you. You are correct, from a free-market standpoint, but reality needs to come into play once and awhile. According to your free-market view of the world those who need insurance probably won't get any and those that don't need insurance will get insurance. You are also right that we are not granted a right to insurance, but maybe we should be.
You are an obvious free-market zealot who can see know reason that inferior people, those who are sick or raised in poverty, should get any help. In your world if they couldn't make it in a free market society that's too bad. However, as anyone who has read any history at all, free-market societies won't succeed without some social programs to help those that are just fucked at birth and regulation to curb rampant greed (e.g. Enron). By social programs I mean: education, libraries, health care for all, etc. The haves can't just trample on the have-nots without eventually there being a revolution, there have been a few of those in history. In all societies there are more poor than rich and the rich can't just piss on the poor at will.
I am all for free-markets but we should have compassion for those that can't help themselves or that need a little assistance - some call that being humane or perhaps kind. I found your post to be sad, not 'insightful'.
"I pledge al..."
"Sit down Mikey, and do you math assignment."
"But the Supreme Court said I could..."
"Shut the hell up Mikey!", the teacher says as she slaps Mikey across the face with a ruler.
As you can tell I went to Catholic school where violence was part of the curriculum (sp?).
Everyone should know that the under god part of the pledge was added in the 50's when everyone was acting holier-than-thou, kind of like some people (I'm looking at you George) still act that way now that they have finished their boozing and coking. It should be removed. How hard is to understand, that church and state are supposed to be seperate and government organizations shouldn't be blathering on about god. That doesn't mean you can't believe in god, I just don't have to hear about it when I am in public school. Keep your pagan rituals at home.
but is the thought of a cellphone company losing customers something that the FCC should care about. With the current free-market-at-all-cost mentality in this country why would the FCC do anything to help force people to use one company over another.
The bottom line is that it is good for consumers to have the freedom to change carriers and bad for carriers to allow consumer to change more easily. Of course, the phone companies can just do a better job then their competitor and they won't have to worry about losing customers. Perhaps I am just oversimplifying things though.
Oh my gosh! Microsoft has abandoned innovation! What are we going to do now that Microsoft has stopped innovation? Will we be able to recover from this - WILL WE!?
Everytime I have to open IE for testing, I am amazed at how little has changed since really IE 4. I can't stand not using a tabbed browser.
The reality is that Microsoft never did innovate. Just because Bill Gates says they are innovating doesn't make it so. As with any industry often the most innovative ideas come from the little companies that have a reason to think outside the bun.
"Microsoft stops innovating." Everytime I type that I laugh and laugh. What's next? "Bodybuilder becomes president..."
It still is because I probably don't go to bars there that will implement this type silliness. Vancouver is an awesome city. You can get drunk off of really strong beer and smoke all the pot you want.
As for bars taking pictures of people, that's just stupid. I don't know about in Canada, but in Washington it's illegal to serve people that are visibly drunk. Rather than treating all your customers like criminals the bars should be hiring better bartenders and waitresses that can tell when someone is drinking too much. You are supposed observe the person's personality and when they start acting like assholes toss them out with the garbage, that's how it supposed to work. If they are just an asshole to begin with toss them out too, who needs 'em. If you can't handle your liquor don't drink with the big boys.
I have spent a considerable portion of my life in bars, and not always nice ones, and I have rarely ever seen a barfight. I know they happen but the fact is that the vast majority of people, probably over 95%, have never been involved in a bar fight. It doesn't take an expert to figure out who the troublemakers are - they are probably the same ones from last night.
I haven't read this book but I had the misfortune of purchasing the previous edition. It was a horrible book that provided such worthless information I was embarrassed to have purchased it. I usually sell my used books on Amazon so someone else can enjoy them but not this one. I tossed it into the fireplace. I couldn't subject someone else to this wretched book. It provided zero information that couldn't be found by searching Google.
I wish I had some way to keep english, and more broadly the US, from invading my culture and language. The US culture is spreading like small pox and essentially deteriating other cultures in the process. If I never see Jennifer Love Hewitt, Jennifer Lopez or an ad for a reality tv show I would gladly dance a jig.
Unfortunately I live in Seattle, WA and can only escape the US silliness of greed, corruption and unending bombardment of adverstisements by vacationing to other countries, which rarely happens because I have to work like a dog to pay for the glamourous lifestyle of an American (especially one who lives in Seattle; very glamorous for sure). It's not all bad though, I just woke up and haven't had my coffee yet so I am bitter.
Uh oh there's my coffee now, thanks Pierre. Can I get some freedom fries with that?
Thank you for saying that. I have been blathering on about this topic for years. People that keep complaining about Linux never making it as a desktop OS, don't get it. Linux is not a Windows clone and never will be. Linux, and almost all Open Source Software, does not have the same target audience as Windows and I hope it never does. Linux is for developers and technical people that care about different things than Windows users.
Can we stop talking about this now?
Any body with an ounce of integrity would
on
Do You Write Backdoors?
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
not put backdoors in the software they create. I look at this way, give the client what they want and don't worry about anything else.
Why open yourself up to potentially losing a client or just looking like an asshole just so you can do something that your client probably doesn't want you to do.
What happens when someone else find your back door and exploits it? What do you tell your client when they ask you about why there is a back door into their application?
It is quite possible that you will get sued. Aside from losing your business you will lose any integrity and should be ashamed of yourself for disrespecting your profession.
Good programmers are ethical and do what they are told.
Slashdot Mirror
I used to work in restaraunts and washed dishes all day, not just for a half a day once a week. I made $3 an hour and had to work my ass off. At the end of the day I stunk like grease. The sad part is that I was only a teenager, so it didn't matter, but there are many people in this country working shitty jobs as busboys and dishwashers and they are adults (of course they are Mexican so I guess they don't matter either).
Cry me a river, at least you have a window and a chair and you probably make more than minimum wage.
I agree that changes to the current system will not be easy and there will be a tremendous push to not allow the system to change from those who stand to benefit from the status quo.
/easier access to lots of information.
However, even though there will exist powerful forces against the change - change can still occur. As we evolve, and IF information can flow freely to the people, via the web I believe that change will be inevitable. You are basing your argument on what has happened over the course of the last couple of decades. What I am saying is that over the course of the NEXT couple of decades, our political system and the parties will undoubtedly change as a result of there be cheaper
Even if most people don't scour the Web looking for news, like I do, the average person will have easier access to more information. This will have an affect on politics, as long as the people still have the power to scare politicians at the voting boothes. I don't care how much money telemarketing companies paid lobbiests/politicians - the do not call list still was implemented because the people demanded it.
The more people know, the more outraged they become, and the more bitching they do. Politicians ultimately want to be re-elected and IF we have fair elections we can still vote the losers out of office.
That's my theory, I am trying to be optimistic which is not easy these days. Let's all make it happen and get involved because that CAN make a difference. Go to MoveOn.org and sign up for the mailing list and put pressure on the politicians.
I think Adams would have used digital cameras, when the need was great enough, but I doubt he would have loved digital cameras. Adams was a traditionalist, he didn't just embrace the latest gizmo. If you read his books: The Camera, The Negative, The Print you would probably get the same impression as I, that Adams was not overtly embracive of the latest technology "advances".
Digital photography certainly has its advantages, but when it comes to creating truly beautiful photos film is still the best medium. Adams would have not sacrificed quality for ease-of-use or to save a penny. He may use digital as an alternative to a pollaroid for testing shots - maybe.
Digital makes lots of sense for professional photographs that are selling prints and can save money on developing and have a quicker turn around (sometimes). It also works well for photojournalism. It's less appealing to people who want to capture a shot, with the best quality possible, and are not concerned with lots of special affects - they want a realistic representation of the subject.
You have to remember that taking beautiful black and white pictures is an artform and much of the art is in the dark room. You should also know that people like Adams are not shooting with a 35mm camera, large format cameras take amazing pictures that I doubt will be bested by a digital camera.
Undoubtedly there will be many posters saying that this will never happen and that the two-party system will live on forever - nothing will ever change.
I don't know if they are correct or if the author of the article is (you read the article right?). What I do know is that the potential of a shift from a duopoly to a three, or more, party system does seem to be occurring. The fact of the matter is that the country is NOT as evenly divided as some would like you to believe, with most people sitting in the center, political views of a country are way more complicated than that. There are millions and millions of voters, mostly under the age of 40, who have disengaged from the political process. These people haven't cared about politics, probably their whole lives, and a candidate like Dean is energizing these previously non-existent voices. The two-party system has created two very similar parties, that appear to most younger voters as just a bunch of idiots who only care about getting elected. Most people, including myself, are sick of just voting against the other candidate and are hungry for a candidate that we can actually support. For me that candidate is Dean or possibly Nader if he jumps in.
Does that mean Nader is going to win in '04, probably not. But as technology evolves and makes information all the more available to everyone, this will greatly increase the probablility of a third party emerging and winning elections.
One thing history has taught us is that change is inevitable - nothing will last forever. Does this mark the end of the Democratic or Republican parties? Probably not. But will the Democratic and Republican parties be recognizable 20 years from now? Probably not. Change is constant.
I have used a Canon AE-1 for about 10 years and it's a great camera. You can pick one up for about $150 and there are tons of aftermarket lens to purchase (Canon lens' are expensive). I just had an overhaul done to mine and it's like brand new.
AE stands for Auto-Exposure, and you can also set the camera to full-manual mode. You can't wrong with this camera.
Canon AE-1 Program is the same camera with the ability to program it (don't know what you can program, I assume settings).
I guess we are all supposed to work on the same projects and corridinate with the thousands of other developers in OSS community so we don't duplicate our work?
The fact that there are so many Linux distros, a number of web browsers, windows managers, email clients, etc is not a bad thing. Even if it were a bad thing, how would you stop people from creating another window manager or email client? Would you require all OSS projects to submit for approval in order to even get started, that's stupid.
Some people liken OSS to communism but I actually think it's much more like capitalism. The best software gets used more than the crappy stuff that often dies on the vine. The fact that OSS users have numerous options to choose from is a good thing. There is always this massive push to create a monoculture in every aspect of life (at least in the US), I truly do not understand people that don't like choice and are afraid of people that do things differently than than status quo - even if that means doing something that someone else has already done but doing it your way. Some may call that innovating, others call it a waste of time.
Other than the debate about software occurring in a public forum rather than a meeting room, I don't see much difference between closed and open software. Go to Amazon and search for an software application, there are a number of web browsers and word processors to choose from - is that bad? Choice is good.
The debate over whether OSS is good or bad, or whether OSS can compete with closed software seems pointless - but I participate anyway (hmm). It's obvious that OSS can create good software and that it can compete against/with closed software. Is OSS going to run MS and Apple out of business, no. Is success always marked by how much money or market-share you have, not if you don't have shareholders.
It's great that Google continues to tweak there search engine to produce the most accurate results. The people complaining are the commercial businesses that are relying on Google search results for free advertising. First off, these "businesses" should not be relying solely on Google search result hits for traffic to their sites, they have to advertising somewhere. Secondly, Google has every right, and duty, to continue battling against businesses from gaming the search results.
My sites have probably increased in position on Google because of these changes, but I don't plan on reducing my advertising budget.
It seems unbelievable that ATM's would be connected to the Internet or to a network that is not totally locked down with no access to/from the Internet.
I didn't read the article, so now you can make fun of me for being a fool but it seems ridiculous to have ATM's connected to a network that could possibly have a worm worming around it.
We are still trying to figure out how to make money on the Internet. Some day it may be feasible to mine the moon, asteroids, or Mars but is it even possible at this point? The last time I heard the are having trouble just getting a few pounds of supplies to the space station. How could they possibly get tons of metal and rock back to Earth? I guess that's going the other way and they can just build a some sort of big barge type thing and just crash it in Earth and hope it lands in Nevada and not the bottom of the Pacific.
As usual geeks are getting ahead of themselves. Space travel is not routine and until it becomes routine and therefore way cheaper there is no point in discussing how to make money from outer space. No point at all, I declare this convseration over. Good day sir.
I love the Subject. OSS zealots, like myself, tend to miss the point from time to time.
What people need to realize here is that technology does NOT always solve a problem. Even if it appears to solve the problem it may create numerous other problems. Why put the election results into the hands of a few campaign-funding corporations? Our government has a history of setting up phony elections to install leaders in other countries, why make it easy to do so here. Read here or here. You can argue that Michael Moore is a wacko, he isn't, but history often has a way of telling us the truth behind the rhetoric.
The only reason anyone cares about doing computerized voting is because the companies that make voting machines want us to care. After the 2000 debacle, Diebold and others jumped on the opportunity to tell us how screwed up our voting system is and that voting with their crappy Windows CE and Access database would somehow solve the problem. The problems surrounding Florida and the 2000 election really had little to do with dangling chads and more to do with voter fraud and disenfranchisement. More about disenfranchised voters here and here.
The corporations that seek to make millions upon millions of dollars selling computerized voting machines are feeding our cultural desire for everything to be fast and computerized. They know we don't want to wait two or three days to have all the votes tallied by volunteers - that's just backwards. We need to use computers to do all that counting because that's what computers do well - counting that is. As usual we are solving the wrong problem with the wrong solution. There is no reason we can't vote with pencil and paper and have our votes counted and with proper exit polling we would know the winner of the horse race the same day. In a close race the results may not be certain for a couple of days, is that so aweful to wait 2 or 3 days to find out the winner and be certain he/she is in fact the winner.
We are so fickle in this country and have such a short attention span that we become easy prey for the corporations that seek to make millions and millions of dollars selling districts these inferior voting machines/computers that simply don't work and seem to invite fraud. Can we have a healthy democracy if we don't have a voting system that is accurate and can be trusted? I don't understand people who so quickly toss democracy into the gutter for the sake of convenience or a false sense of security, I think it's insulting to all the men and women who have died to protect our democracy. Let's get the voting process right in this country or we are going to be in serious trouble very quickly. All the people that were pissed after the 2000 debacle may not just sit on their hands next time and so oh well.
Read more about this topic here here and here. This is a serious problem that we can't just sit by and watch play itself out - get involved.
NPR is liberal? I don't see it, although I am a liberal so I could be just blind to it's liberal leanings. When I read a Molly Ivins or Michael Moore article I have no trouble seeing their liberal slant - but NPR?
I think NPR simply reports the news as best they can and if being truthful is what makes you a liberal and being a liar makes you a right-winger, I guess you are right NPR and Fox News.
I often seek out liberal leaning "news" or articles but I never think, "I am going to turn on NPR and listen to their liberal ranting and raving." That's what Donahue was for - now we have Scarborough Country.
AOL could use Windows Messenger to popup a window that says, "You're computer has been infected with a virus. We are going to fix the problem, sit back and be quiet while we fix your OS. If you want to contact someone regarding this problem call: 1-800-MICROSOFT and tell them AOL is fixing my computer in reference to TID:0102930405895."
I would be concerned about this situation if it weren't AOL. AOL has the lowest common denominator users who don't know jack about their computer and need all the help they can get. If you don't want AOL messing with your computer, don't use AOL.
The reason you don't have to fear Linux zealots is because they are not religious fundamentalists. There is a huge difference. As history has taught us over and over and over again millions of people are willing to die, or kill, for their religion, especially those that are fundamentalists.
I have yet to see large scale killing over an industry or a product, which is what Open Source or Linux zealots spout off about. Of course, there will probably be some wacko who will take his Open Source opinions to far and kill someone, but he isn't going to be able to gets thousands of people to follow him to wage a war against Microsoft. It's just not going to happen.
What scares me is the overuse of the word terrorist. Now anyone who opposes anything strongly is considered a terrorist, unless they are Christian than they are doing the work of god. It's getting so its impossible for people in the US to protest peacefully and not so peacefully about anything without being labelled a terrorist, a communist, or an American hater. The fact is that you can't just stamp labels on people and claim that they are this or that, humans are oftentimes much more complicated than that and sometimes they are just idiots.
Here is an article titled "Firm's attempt to down hyperlinks an attack on free speech, says EFF" which discusses how Diebold is using the DMCA to force ISP's to remove links to internal memos that were leaked regarding Diebold's crappy software and business practices. You can read the internal memos, for now, here.
Here is an article titled "Firm's attempt to down hyperlinks an attack on free speech, says EFF" which discusses how Diebold is using the DMCA to force ISP's to remove links to internal memos that were leaked regarding Diebold's crappy software and business practices. You can read the internal memos, for now, here.
You are right about the stupidity, but I am thinking about you. You are correct, from a free-market standpoint, but reality needs to come into play once and awhile. According to your free-market view of the world those who need insurance probably won't get any and those that don't need insurance will get insurance. You are also right that we are not granted a right to insurance, but maybe we should be.
You are an obvious free-market zealot who can see know reason that inferior people, those who are sick or raised in poverty, should get any help. In your world if they couldn't make it in a free market society that's too bad. However, as anyone who has read any history at all, free-market societies won't succeed without some social programs to help those that are just fucked at birth and regulation to curb rampant greed (e.g. Enron). By social programs I mean: education, libraries, health care for all, etc. The haves can't just trample on the have-nots without eventually there being a revolution, there have been a few of those in history. In all societies there are more poor than rich and the rich can't just piss on the poor at will.
I am all for free-markets but we should have compassion for those that can't help themselves or that need a little assistance - some call that being humane or perhaps kind. I found your post to be sad, not 'insightful'.
"I pledge al..."
"Sit down Mikey, and do you math assignment."
"But the Supreme Court said I could..."
"Shut the hell up Mikey!", the teacher says as she slaps Mikey across the face with a ruler.
As you can tell I went to Catholic school where violence was part of the curriculum (sp?).
Everyone should know that the under god part of the pledge was added in the 50's when everyone was acting holier-than-thou, kind of like some people (I'm looking at you George) still act that way now that they have finished their boozing and coking. It should be removed. How hard is to understand, that church and state are supposed to be seperate and government organizations shouldn't be blathering on about god. That doesn't mean you can't believe in god, I just don't have to hear about it when I am in public school. Keep your pagan rituals at home.
but is the thought of a cellphone company losing customers something that the FCC should care about. With the current free-market-at-all-cost mentality in this country why would the FCC do anything to help force people to use one company over another.
The bottom line is that it is good for consumers to have the freedom to change carriers and bad for carriers to allow consumer to change more easily. Of course, the phone companies can just do a better job then their competitor and they won't have to worry about losing customers. Perhaps I am just oversimplifying things though.
Oh my gosh! Microsoft has abandoned innovation! What are we going to do now that Microsoft has stopped innovation? Will we be able to recover from this - WILL WE!?
Everytime I have to open IE for testing, I am amazed at how little has changed since really IE 4. I can't stand not using a tabbed browser.
The reality is that Microsoft never did innovate. Just because Bill Gates says they are innovating doesn't make it so. As with any industry often the most innovative ideas come from the little companies that have a reason to think outside the bun.
"Microsoft stops innovating." Everytime I type that I laugh and laugh. What's next? "Bodybuilder becomes president..."
It still is because I probably don't go to bars there that will implement this type silliness. Vancouver is an awesome city. You can get drunk off of really strong beer and smoke all the pot you want.
As for bars taking pictures of people, that's just stupid. I don't know about in Canada, but in Washington it's illegal to serve people that are visibly drunk. Rather than treating all your customers like criminals the bars should be hiring better bartenders and waitresses that can tell when someone is drinking too much. You are supposed observe the person's personality and when they start acting like assholes toss them out with the garbage, that's how it supposed to work. If they are just an asshole to begin with toss them out too, who needs 'em. If you can't handle your liquor don't drink with the big boys.
I have spent a considerable portion of my life in bars, and not always nice ones, and I have rarely ever seen a barfight. I know they happen but the fact is that the vast majority of people, probably over 95%, have never been involved in a bar fight. It doesn't take an expert to figure out who the troublemakers are - they are probably the same ones from last night.
I haven't read this book but I had the misfortune of purchasing the previous edition. It was a horrible book that provided such worthless information I was embarrassed to have purchased it. I usually sell my used books on Amazon so someone else can enjoy them but not this one. I tossed it into the fireplace. I couldn't subject someone else to this wretched book. It provided zero information that couldn't be found by searching Google.
Maybe the new version is better, but I doubt it.
I wish I had some way to keep english, and more broadly the US, from invading my culture and language. The US culture is spreading like small pox and essentially deteriating other cultures in the process. If I never see Jennifer Love Hewitt, Jennifer Lopez or an ad for a reality tv show I would gladly dance a jig.
Unfortunately I live in Seattle, WA and can only escape the US silliness of greed, corruption and unending bombardment of adverstisements by vacationing to other countries, which rarely happens because I have to work like a dog to pay for the glamourous lifestyle of an American (especially one who lives in Seattle; very glamorous for sure). It's not all bad though, I just woke up and haven't had my coffee yet so I am bitter.
Uh oh there's my coffee now, thanks Pierre. Can I get some freedom fries with that?
Thank you for saying that. I have been blathering on about this topic for years. People that keep complaining about Linux never making it as a desktop OS, don't get it. Linux is not a Windows clone and never will be. Linux, and almost all Open Source Software, does not have the same target audience as Windows and I hope it never does. Linux is for developers and technical people that care about different things than Windows users.
Can we stop talking about this now?
not put backdoors in the software they create. I look at this way, give the client what they want and don't worry about anything else.
Why open yourself up to potentially losing a client or just looking like an asshole just so you can do something that your client probably doesn't want you to do.
What happens when someone else find your back door and exploits it? What do you tell your client when they ask you about why there is a back door into their application?
It is quite possible that you will get sued. Aside from losing your business you will lose any integrity and should be ashamed of yourself for disrespecting your profession.
Good programmers are ethical and do what they are told.