As long as regular people (corporations) are laying down the "tubes" the government will be there laying down the laws that let them see what goes in and comes out of those "tubes". Sure, we could have a 100% encrypted internet, that only trusted people could use. But there will come a day when sending encrypted data at all will be as obvious as painting a bulls-eye on your ass and mooning the police.
Oh yeah, this isn't the consumer electronics or entertainment industry, this is retail. They still usually compete with each other by strong-arming suppliers, eliminating competing mom and pop shops, short-changing local dealers in favor of products produced by slaver-labor overseas, and offering better products and services, rather than suing each other into oblivion. When will they ever learn, it's just easier to pay-off judges and senators.
Until they declare it illegal to resell DVDs or they tie the content to a specific piece of hardware for playback.
The bittorrent pirates couldn't dream of a better justification in the popular mind..... If the cartels clamp down too hard, no amount of PR will prevent it from being generally known that they are a bunch of assholes and control freaks who will never be satisfied.
I think you put way too much faith in the general public's attention span.
If the MAFIAA were to use their political clout and pass laws that made it illegal to watch a movie without a specific piece of hardware, which they have already done in a way, using region codes and forcing DRM on downloaded music, people will just sit back and take it, and continue to repeat the propaganda spoon-fed to them. "Its good for the economy, they have the right to make money in whatever way they want, pirates are bad, baaah baaah baaah baaah."
No one notices just how many liberties we have lost over the past 20 years (ironically, more and more so as technology has improved) because no one knows the technology well enough to know when a politician is passing yet another law to take their freedoms and property rights away. They think, "as long as I don't vote for those big-government Democrats, I'll be safe." If only it were that easy.
Try rewriting that in C, without goto, in an unconvoluted way. And don't exceed 3 levels of indentation, and don't create any additional functions.
/* Fewer lines of code, more readable.
* Local variables should be contained in a structure that can be passed by pointer.
* Most compilers will optimize this code to look exactly the your code above with GOTO's.
*/
struct local_variables {... };
typedef int (*local_var_update)(struct local_variables *);
void func() {
I looked into what might have been causing this, and a whole bunch of locale-related crap was staring me in the face despite that I wasn't printing any date or money objects.
My main point though, is that screaming "THE RAM USAGE IS TOO HIGH" is not effective. I have a lot of ram, and I want it to be used, just not wasted; and I want more control over it.
I agree with you, but that is really, really hard to implement. The best way I could think to control memory usage is to allow the garbage collector for the JavaScript engine and page rendering engine to be tuneable, collecting less frequently and caching just-in-time compiled code more often and for longer periods of time when you have lots of memory to spare.
But fooling around with those parameters requires a lot of experimentation and analysis of empirical data, and it is tough to make it work the same across all platforms. In the end, it is just one more choice that the majority of users don't care about, so its easier just to make it as memory-efficient as possible, and let the CPU work harder.
A mule has metabolism but cannot reproduce (being sterile due to a mismatch in the number of chromesomes from a donkey and a horse). A prion is probably not considered alive by most scientists, but it does reproduce and arguably has metabolism.
But a mule or a bulldog is the product of reproduction of living things, so I think it counts as being "alive" for that reason, it just can't evolve because although it may have the ability to mate, reproduction will always fail.
I do think metabolism is a good definition, as I'm finding it hard to think of examples of non-living things that undergo metabolism, but on the other hand, what is metabolism? Chemical reactions resulting in energy exchange?
That's precisely why I like the question, it's definition is very fuzzy and inclusive. I don't like to think that crystals are alive because they are so simple, but since there is a kind of "metabolism" and seed crystals give rise to similar crystals, it might be "alive" in that sense, kind of like a plant, the only difference is, it has no DNA or cells made of proteins.
Life needs to have BOTH metabolism and reproduction. Typical definitions also require proteins and DNA or RNA to be qualified as life. Fire, crystals, car batteries, and computers do not meet the definition.
But I personally don't like a definition of life that requires proteins and DNA/RNA. A more interesting question is, what is metabolism? How does something produce similar copies of itself? Which chemical reactions are considered metabolism, and where do we draw the line? Should we even restrict ourselves to chemical reactions? If atoms are just clusters of subatomic particles in some medium, then we may find other particle-like entities in other mediums that can formulate a kind of life cycle, with reproduction and metabolism, like electrical signals in a computer system. Are computer programs running in a functioning computer system alive? I like to think so.
Programming is not a fundamental skill in the same sense that mathematics, English, etc. are. It's a specific vocational skill.
I totally disagree. Almost every job has people using spreadsheets, at the very least for accounting. And using spreadsheets is, in a sense, the most basic form of programming. But I don't think we should teach every student to use a spreadsheet. I've never had use for spreadsheets because I know how to write a list of numbers into a text file, and sum the contents of that file with one line of code in my favorite programming language, and I do this so often I've setup my computer to make it happen faster than the time it takes for Excel load up.
Programming is no longer a vocational skill, it is a fundamental skill everyone needs to learn sooner or later. Almost every job uses some computer, though at this time, very few computers are programmable (cash registers, cell phones, etc.). But what if everyone knew how to write simple programs just as well as they knew how to add or subtract? What if in school they learned that if you are doing the same 5 things over and over again on your computer, it is better to write a script to do it for you, and then tell it to run 100 times in a row. If more people knew that this were possible, you might find more demand for simple shell interfaces in consumer computing devices.
Right now, everyone expects there to be an "App" for everything, not knowing most apps are GUI's attached to 3 or 4 lines of code in a programming language like Python or Ruby. If they knew they could do the same exact task that the app does, using nothing more than their wits, a Python or Bash interpreter, and 3 minutes of spare time, they would probably laugh at the ridiculously numerous, simplistic, needless "Apps" out there.
So now Firefox has a runaway version numbering scheme, and in the end they chose to do a long term support scheme. Instead of just sticking with an ordinary yearly release cycle, upping the major number every 2 years, and minor number every 3 months, now they just increment the major number and expect us to remember which ones are long term support releases. I stopped keeping track of what version they are on after Firefox 3.6.
Yet another fail for IT World as far as I can tell; I haven't read a single good or informative article from that site.
When I think "walled garden", I think all services work on a single, proprietary platform, and that platform is owned by one company that controls what services are allowed with that platform, and what services are not. So unless AT&T owned every cable in the world (or even every cable in the US), which they don't, and even if every cable in the world used a communications protocol owned by AT&T (which isn't the case) then there is no platform, and so there can't be any walled garden.
So this Brian Proffitt guy has blown things out of proportion. A better headline would have been, "AT&T Plans to Throw its Hat into the Cloud Computing Ring." This isn't a walled garden, it is more like, "Hey, we have built large systems interconnected computers before, lets do it again with the lovable OpenStack running on top of it and sell it to guys who want cloud services!"
Heat it in a solar oven, and then trap the CO2 in some other form: either condense/liquify it and transport it, or feed it to ester-producing bacteria.
Sure, that's a good point. So you favor more regulation and tariffs, and less free trade? I agree with that, but this can be done without union busting.
Suppose one allowed workers to collectively bargain and also allowed them to own enough stock in the company so that they have a say in outsourcing decisions when such choices must be made. This would prevent outsourcing (unless the workers wanted to give away their jobs) and also gives them incentive make the company successful, and could affect their bargaining strategies to be more favorable to the company.
But this cannot happen unless there are sensible tax laws that favor production at home rather than abroad, which is what TFA was on about.
If a business can't sustain itself in bargaining with a labor union...
Again, not to minimize a the problems collective bargaining can cause. Especially what happened in the UK in the 70's, it isn't pretty.
But like the other anonymous guy said, you need some kind of balance. If you want competition and the free market to thrive, then let workers organize and compete with the companies that put them to work for fair working conditions and wages, and the free market will take care of the rest. Without that balance, what workers are left with is legalized indentured servitude.
Yeah, because it's so much better to pull a nice union wage right up to the point where the company shuts its doors.
So you pull wage until the company shuts its doors, then you go and find another job, and the free market will take care of the rest? Right? Isn't that what the right wing hypocrites are always talking about, letting the free market do its thing? If the company cannot sustain a union, it had larger problems and wasn't fit to survive.
Any of you get the feeling that anything coming out of Washington DC these days causes problems? While many bitch that Obama is a socialist/marxist (even though nobody in this country can describe what these are) it seems these people are hell bent on creating a Soviet Russia of sorts. I say this because I heard it difficulties USSR scientists had because of restrictions on reading publications and getting published. This has gots to rank as my Bitch Of The Month.
This is the best comment on Slashdot I have seen in a month.
Why is it our "free market" with no regulations and low low taxes seems to look almost identical to the USSR? Oh yeah, because the right wing status quo is more anarchist than libertarian. No taxes, no government, no democracy, just let the whole country evolve naturally -- except that it seems to be evolving into the most socialist/fascist society in history. The only difference is, in the US when a bunch of wealthy elite socialists get together to create a "collective", they call it a "corporation" and pretend to compete with other "corporations" to give the illusion that we live in a free market economy.
He may claim to be a Christian, a few may believe he is actually a Muslim, but his true religion is Statism. A lust for power is part of this religion, but only part. It's not quite that simple. It also involves a genuinely-held belief that people are unable to manage their own affairs, that they need and should desire for their "betters" to decide what is good for them and what should be important to them, that only the collective matters, that individual life and individual thought and individual liberty are meaningless. It's a form of dehumanization in favor of institutionalization.
OK, now you are just parroting Rush Limbaugh, and every other right-wing conspiracy theorist out there. You apparently know the president really fucking well, don't you? Seriously, that's the best criticism you can offer us? You don't realize Obama has given your right-wing congress everything they have ever wanted and more? You don't realize he is as right wing as you are? Jesus fucking christ, you are a demagogue -- your religion may be American conservativism, but that doesn't mean everyone in America thinks of their politics as a religion the way you do, and that is probably true of the president as well.
If you understand what this really is, then you see why baser things like greed or desire for power are naive oversimplifications. Believe it or not, these people are not stupid. They know their policies cause more problems than they solve. They are not merely ignorant or misguided. People like Obama and most of Congress believe they are working towards some kind of greater good, that the damage they knowingly do to society will somehow be worth it when their utopia (really a dystopia) is finalized. The label "Marxist" is a feeble attempt to describe this quality.
I can sympathize with this point, but really, it is just another conspiracy theory. It's just stupid to think Obama is just some fascist emperor who is doing everything he can to attain power. That's just what Limbaugh and his ilk want you to believe. As if all of our problems are so fucking simple that it boils down to evil guys being in power, and that's the root of the probelm. That's bullshit and you ought to know better.
Other than a few rare exceptions, this does not merely describe Obama. It also describes nearly anyone capable of acquiring the funding and the political backing it takes to win a federal election. It's sort of like an elite club and anyone who would seriously change things or otherwise rock the boat isn't invited. During the history of this nation, what we have changed from the statesman to the politician to the career politician to the ruling class with an extremely high incumbency rate. Average Joes don't stand a chance of winning a federal election. Candidates don't emerge; they are groomed.
I agree with this 100%, but do you even agree with youreslf and what you are saying here? Would you apply this same logic to all the right-wing elitists you have ever voted for? Don't be naive, seriously, you have described here not just the majority of all democrats, but every Replublican candidate you have ever voted for. Why don't you vote for someone else for a change, like Ron Paul. Believe it or not, even the progressive Liberals are fighting on the right side of issues that you care about, just give them a chance. I really think you and I are not so terribly different, but I do think you are totally deluded. Stop listening to the right-wing propaganda machine and think for yourself.
So if your boss reduced your wages to $0.50 an hour tomorrow, you wouldn't object?
Not only that, but every employer in every company in your line of work reduced wages to $0.50 an hour at the same time, so leaving for a different job is out of the question. Then, as the businesses floundered, they started upping wages, but moving you into corporate owned housing which you rented out of your salary, preventing you from having enough free money to move to a different city and find a new job. Then the employers all started cutting corners in safety and working conditions, but you can't move elsewhere because you are too poor, and you can't complain because there is no union.
Anti-union types who are also middle class, mostly the religiously right-wingers, are so naive its pathetic. They so easily forget our recent history. That's not to forget the mob influence on unions, if people genuinely care about their livelyhoods, and the communities based on the jobs they all have, then they need a healthy union, free from the influence of corruption.
Just a casual look at the picture of the bike makes me really wonder about the chain and sprockets on the back. They are totally exposed, and very low to the ground. Seems like they would be damaged on a chunk of ice pretty quickly.
True. I would have avoided a chain drive all together. I would have a simple gearbox on the peddles, transfer power down a rotating shaft to a hub gear shifter on the rear wheel. Unless she is one of those people who really uses all 24 gear combinations on the sprocket cassettes, a 3-speed hub gear is all anyone will ever need... but I'm no pro.
If they are trying to reduce costs, do what all colleges in my community did: school-sponsored textbook resale, and define curriculum such that teachers need not change textbooks too often. If the curriculum doesn't change much from year to year, then 4-year-old text books are as good as new ones, especially if they are well cared for. Reducing resale value of beat-up textbooks gives financial incentive for the students to keep their textbooks pristine. The end result is fewer textbooks are bought from publishers, and everyone saves money.
The publishers may hate it, but if the community decides democratically that this is best for their students, what will be will be.
It's not about replicating sunlight. It's about making someone a metric fucktonne of money making LED simulated skies in ceiling panels.
Exactly. You can't expect a TV screen to replicate natural sunlight. The TV is dark and cold compared to the sun, and it won't make me feel any better. More windows and higher ceilings is the way to go -- to bad that is not an option for everyone.
Software architects at Diebold must surely know that adding a virtual machine increases the attack surface that is possibly exploitable by malicious hackers. This move cannot be to improve security. If I were a bank manager forced to utilize this implementation, I would immediately start looking for private engineering firms to search for back doors in this system.
Further, both are in flood zones, one is in a frequent hurricane zone (lightning/wind already took out our power systems once), and both are relatively east coast...really poor choices, geographically.
What are you talking about? The state representative who chose that location received a solemn promise of a stable consulting job at a tech company with an outrageously large salary, and as a result created jobs in his/her district by offering the most tax breaks to the private company to set up that data center in that flood zone. It is in a perfect location geographically.
Or when you said "perfect" you meant they could have found safer geographic location to run data processing equipment? Phffft. What do you know about politics?
Slashdot Mirror
As long as regular people (corporations) are laying down the "tubes" the government will be there laying down the laws that let them see what goes in and comes out of those "tubes". Sure, we could have a 100% encrypted internet, that only trusted people could use. But there will come a day when sending encrypted data at all will be as obvious as painting a bulls-eye on your ass and mooning the police.
Oh yeah, this isn't the consumer electronics or entertainment industry, this is retail. They still usually compete with each other by strong-arming suppliers, eliminating competing mom and pop shops, short-changing local dealers in favor of products produced by slaver-labor overseas, and offering better products and services, rather than suing each other into oblivion. When will they ever learn, it's just easier to pay-off judges and senators.
Until they declare it illegal to resell DVDs or they tie the content to a specific piece of hardware for playback.
The bittorrent pirates couldn't dream of a better justification in the popular mind. .... If the cartels clamp down too hard, no amount of PR will prevent it from being generally known that they are a bunch of assholes and control freaks who will never be satisfied.
I think you put way too much faith in the general public's attention span.
If the MAFIAA were to use their political clout and pass laws that made it illegal to watch a movie without a specific piece of hardware, which they have already done in a way, using region codes and forcing DRM on downloaded music, people will just sit back and take it, and continue to repeat the propaganda spoon-fed to them. "Its good for the economy, they have the right to make money in whatever way they want, pirates are bad, baaah baaah baaah baaah."
No one notices just how many liberties we have lost over the past 20 years (ironically, more and more so as technology has improved) because no one knows the technology well enough to know when a politician is passing yet another law to take their freedoms and property rights away. They think, "as long as I don't vote for those big-government Democrats, I'll be safe." If only it were that easy.
Try rewriting that in C, without goto, in an unconvoluted way. And don't exceed 3 levels of indentation, and don't create any additional functions.
/* Fewer lines of code, more readable. ... };
* Local variables should be contained in a structure that can be passed by pointer.
* Most compilers will optimize this code to look exactly the your code above with GOTO's.
*/
struct local_variables {
typedef int (*local_var_update)(struct local_variables *);
void func() {
local_var_update undo_op[4] = { undo_op1, undo_op2, undo_op3, undo_op4 };
struct local_variables vars = {
int i = 0, ret = 0;
while(i < 4) { if(! do_op[i](& vars)) { ret = -1; break; } i++; }
if(ret == 0) { return ret; }
while(i > 0) { undo_op[i](& vars); i--; }
return ret;
}
I looked into what might have been causing this, and a whole bunch of locale-related crap was staring me in the face despite that I wasn't printing any date or money objects.
Did you ever try to use the "strip" utility?
My main point though, is that screaming "THE RAM USAGE IS TOO HIGH" is not effective. I have a lot of ram, and I want it to be used, just not wasted; and I want more control over it.
I agree with you, but that is really, really hard to implement. The best way I could think to control memory usage is to allow the garbage collector for the JavaScript engine and page rendering engine to be tuneable, collecting less frequently and caching just-in-time compiled code more often and for longer periods of time when you have lots of memory to spare.
But fooling around with those parameters requires a lot of experimentation and analysis of empirical data, and it is tough to make it work the same across all platforms. In the end, it is just one more choice that the majority of users don't care about, so its easier just to make it as memory-efficient as possible, and let the CPU work harder.
A mule has metabolism but cannot reproduce (being sterile due to a mismatch in the number of chromesomes from a donkey and a horse). A prion is probably not considered alive by most scientists, but it does reproduce and arguably has metabolism.
But a mule or a bulldog is the product of reproduction of living things, so I think it counts as being "alive" for that reason, it just can't evolve because although it may have the ability to mate, reproduction will always fail.
I do think metabolism is a good definition, as I'm finding it hard to think of examples of non-living things that undergo metabolism, but on the other hand, what is metabolism? Chemical reactions resulting in energy exchange?
That's precisely why I like the question, it's definition is very fuzzy and inclusive. I don't like to think that crystals are alive because they are so simple, but since there is a kind of "metabolism" and seed crystals give rise to similar crystals, it might be "alive" in that sense, kind of like a plant, the only difference is, it has no DNA or cells made of proteins.
Life needs to have BOTH metabolism and reproduction. Typical definitions also require proteins and DNA or RNA to be qualified as life. Fire, crystals, car batteries, and computers do not meet the definition.
But I personally don't like a definition of life that requires proteins and DNA/RNA. A more interesting question is, what is metabolism? How does something produce similar copies of itself? Which chemical reactions are considered metabolism, and where do we draw the line? Should we even restrict ourselves to chemical reactions? If atoms are just clusters of subatomic particles in some medium, then we may find other particle-like entities in other mediums that can formulate a kind of life cycle, with reproduction and metabolism, like electrical signals in a computer system. Are computer programs running in a functioning computer system alive? I like to think so.
Programming is not a fundamental skill in the same sense that mathematics, English, etc. are. It's a specific vocational skill.
I totally disagree. Almost every job has people using spreadsheets, at the very least for accounting. And using spreadsheets is, in a sense, the most basic form of programming. But I don't think we should teach every student to use a spreadsheet. I've never had use for spreadsheets because I know how to write a list of numbers into a text file, and sum the contents of that file with one line of code in my favorite programming language, and I do this so often I've setup my computer to make it happen faster than the time it takes for Excel load up.
Programming is no longer a vocational skill, it is a fundamental skill everyone needs to learn sooner or later. Almost every job uses some computer, though at this time, very few computers are programmable (cash registers, cell phones, etc.). But what if everyone knew how to write simple programs just as well as they knew how to add or subtract? What if in school they learned that if you are doing the same 5 things over and over again on your computer, it is better to write a script to do it for you, and then tell it to run 100 times in a row. If more people knew that this were possible, you might find more demand for simple shell interfaces in consumer computing devices.
Right now, everyone expects there to be an "App" for everything, not knowing most apps are GUI's attached to 3 or 4 lines of code in a programming language like Python or Ruby. If they knew they could do the same exact task that the app does, using nothing more than their wits, a Python or Bash interpreter, and 3 minutes of spare time, they would probably laugh at the ridiculously numerous, simplistic, needless "Apps" out there.
So now Firefox has a runaway version numbering scheme, and in the end they chose to do a long term support scheme. Instead of just sticking with an ordinary yearly release cycle, upping the major number every 2 years, and minor number every 3 months, now they just increment the major number and expect us to remember which ones are long term support releases. I stopped keeping track of what version they are on after Firefox 3.6.
Yet another fail for IT World as far as I can tell; I haven't read a single good or informative article from that site.
When I think "walled garden", I think all services work on a single, proprietary platform, and that platform is owned by one company that controls what services are allowed with that platform, and what services are not. So unless AT&T owned every cable in the world (or even every cable in the US), which they don't, and even if every cable in the world used a communications protocol owned by AT&T (which isn't the case) then there is no platform, and so there can't be any walled garden.
So this Brian Proffitt guy has blown things out of proportion. A better headline would have been, "AT&T Plans to Throw its Hat into the Cloud Computing Ring." This isn't a walled garden, it is more like, "Hey, we have built large systems interconnected computers before, lets do it again with the lovable OpenStack running on top of it and sell it to guys who want cloud services!"
*CO2 floats away*
To where?
Heat it in a solar oven, and then trap the CO2 in some other form: either condense/liquify it and transport it, or feed it to ester-producing bacteria.
Sure, that's a good point. So you favor more regulation and tariffs, and less free trade? I agree with that, but this can be done without union busting.
Suppose one allowed workers to collectively bargain and also allowed them to own enough stock in the company so that they have a say in outsourcing decisions when such choices must be made. This would prevent outsourcing (unless the workers wanted to give away their jobs) and also gives them incentive make the company successful, and could affect their bargaining strategies to be more favorable to the company.
But this cannot happen unless there are sensible tax laws that favor production at home rather than abroad, which is what TFA was on about.
"Can't sustain a union?" We're doomed.
If a business can't sustain itself in bargaining with a labor union...
Again, not to minimize a the problems collective bargaining can cause. Especially what happened in the UK in the 70's, it isn't pretty.
But like the other anonymous guy said, you need some kind of balance. If you want competition and the free market to thrive, then let workers organize and compete with the companies that put them to work for fair working conditions and wages, and the free market will take care of the rest. Without that balance, what workers are left with is legalized indentured servitude.
Could be worse, could be Apple.
I hope more than anything that Apple doesn't take over the way Microsoft did. That's probably the best reason to use Android.
Yeah, because it's so much better to pull a nice union wage right up to the point where the company shuts its doors.
So you pull wage until the company shuts its doors, then you go and find another job, and the free market will take care of the rest? Right? Isn't that what the right wing hypocrites are always talking about, letting the free market do its thing? If the company cannot sustain a union, it had larger problems and wasn't fit to survive.
Any of you get the feeling that anything coming out of Washington DC these days causes problems? While many bitch that Obama is a socialist/marxist (even though nobody in this country can describe what these are) it seems these people are hell bent on creating a Soviet Russia of sorts. I say this because I heard it difficulties USSR scientists had because of restrictions on reading publications and getting published. This has gots to rank as my Bitch Of The Month.
This is the best comment on Slashdot I have seen in a month.
Why is it our "free market" with no regulations and low low taxes seems to look almost identical to the USSR? Oh yeah, because the right wing status quo is more anarchist than libertarian. No taxes, no government, no democracy, just let the whole country evolve naturally -- except that it seems to be evolving into the most socialist/fascist society in history. The only difference is, in the US when a bunch of wealthy elite socialists get together to create a "collective", they call it a "corporation" and pretend to compete with other "corporations" to give the illusion that we live in a free market economy.
He may claim to be a Christian, a few may believe he is actually a Muslim, but his true religion is Statism. A lust for power is part of this religion, but only part. It's not quite that simple. It also involves a genuinely-held belief that people are unable to manage their own affairs, that they need and should desire for their "betters" to decide what is good for them and what should be important to them, that only the collective matters, that individual life and individual thought and individual liberty are meaningless. It's a form of dehumanization in favor of institutionalization.
OK, now you are just parroting Rush Limbaugh, and every other right-wing conspiracy theorist out there. You apparently know the president really fucking well, don't you? Seriously, that's the best criticism you can offer us? You don't realize Obama has given your right-wing congress everything they have ever wanted and more? You don't realize he is as right wing as you are? Jesus fucking christ, you are a demagogue -- your religion may be American conservativism, but that doesn't mean everyone in America thinks of their politics as a religion the way you do, and that is probably true of the president as well.
If you understand what this really is, then you see why baser things like greed or desire for power are naive oversimplifications. Believe it or not, these people are not stupid. They know their policies cause more problems than they solve. They are not merely ignorant or misguided. People like Obama and most of Congress believe they are working towards some kind of greater good, that the damage they knowingly do to society will somehow be worth it when their utopia (really a dystopia) is finalized. The label "Marxist" is a feeble attempt to describe this quality.
I can sympathize with this point, but really, it is just another conspiracy theory. It's just stupid to think Obama is just some fascist emperor who is doing everything he can to attain power. That's just what Limbaugh and his ilk want you to believe. As if all of our problems are so fucking simple that it boils down to evil guys being in power, and that's the root of the probelm. That's bullshit and you ought to know better.
Other than a few rare exceptions, this does not merely describe Obama. It also describes nearly anyone capable of acquiring the funding and the political backing it takes to win a federal election. It's sort of like an elite club and anyone who would seriously change things or otherwise rock the boat isn't invited. During the history of this nation, what we have changed from the statesman to the politician to the career politician to the ruling class with an extremely high incumbency rate. Average Joes don't stand a chance of winning a federal election. Candidates don't emerge; they are groomed.
I agree with this 100%, but do you even agree with youreslf and what you are saying here? Would you apply this same logic to all the right-wing elitists you have ever voted for? Don't be naive, seriously, you have described here not just the majority of all democrats, but every Replublican candidate you have ever voted for. Why don't you vote for someone else for a change, like Ron Paul. Believe it or not, even the progressive Liberals are fighting on the right side of issues that you care about, just give them a chance. I really think you and I are not so terribly different, but I do think you are totally deluded. Stop listening to the right-wing propaganda machine and think for yourself.
So if your boss reduced your wages to $0.50 an hour tomorrow, you wouldn't object?
Not only that, but every employer in every company in your line of work reduced wages to $0.50 an hour at the same time, so leaving for a different job is out of the question. Then, as the businesses floundered, they started upping wages, but moving you into corporate owned housing which you rented out of your salary, preventing you from having enough free money to move to a different city and find a new job. Then the employers all started cutting corners in safety and working conditions, but you can't move elsewhere because you are too poor, and you can't complain because there is no union.
Anti-union types who are also middle class, mostly the religiously right-wingers, are so naive its pathetic. They so easily forget our recent history. That's not to forget the mob influence on unions, if people genuinely care about their livelyhoods, and the communities based on the jobs they all have, then they need a healthy union, free from the influence of corruption.
Just a casual look at the picture of the bike makes me really wonder about the chain and sprockets on the back. They are totally exposed, and very low to the ground. Seems like they would be damaged on a chunk of ice pretty quickly.
True. I would have avoided a chain drive all together. I would have a simple gearbox on the peddles, transfer power down a rotating shaft to a hub gear shifter on the rear wheel. Unless she is one of those people who really uses all 24 gear combinations on the sprocket cassettes, a 3-speed hub gear is all anyone will ever need... but I'm no pro.
If they are trying to reduce costs, do what all colleges in my community did: school-sponsored textbook resale, and define curriculum such that teachers need not change textbooks too often. If the curriculum doesn't change much from year to year, then 4-year-old text books are as good as new ones, especially if they are well cared for. Reducing resale value of beat-up textbooks gives financial incentive for the students to keep their textbooks pristine. The end result is fewer textbooks are bought from publishers, and everyone saves money.
The publishers may hate it, but if the community decides democratically that this is best for their students, what will be will be.
It's not about replicating sunlight. It's about making someone a metric fucktonne of money making LED simulated skies in ceiling panels.
Exactly. You can't expect a TV screen to replicate natural sunlight. The TV is dark and cold compared to the sun, and it won't make me feel any better. More windows and higher ceilings is the way to go -- to bad that is not an option for everyone.
Software architects at Diebold must surely know that adding a virtual machine increases the attack surface that is possibly exploitable by malicious hackers. This move cannot be to improve security. If I were a bank manager forced to utilize this implementation, I would immediately start looking for private engineering firms to search for back doors in this system.
By by "holy" shit, I mean literally.
This is the first ever religion I have actually wanted to join. Its probably the first religion ever that actually means something.
Further, both are in flood zones, one is in a frequent hurricane zone (lightning/wind already took out our power systems once), and both are relatively east coast...really poor choices, geographically.
What are you talking about? The state representative who chose that location received a solemn promise of a stable consulting job at a tech company with an outrageously large salary, and as a result created jobs in his/her district by offering the most tax breaks to the private company to set up that data center in that flood zone. It is in a perfect location geographically.
Or when you said "perfect" you meant they could have found safer geographic location to run data processing equipment? Phffft. What do you know about politics?