Yeah! This is 'Merica dammit! You'll consume the garbage you're fed or go without. Because in 'Merica, you only get two choices. If you don't like either, you're an unpatriotic sissy. Maybe even a commie and a socialist! Most definitely a "baby".
Their expenses are often easy to absorb, especially when compared to propping up big industry.
100k or so to fix a park? A couple million to cover police overtime?* Chump change compared to the hundreds of billions in taxpayer money we've shoveled into corporate coffers.
Corporate welfare, bailouts, whatever you want to call it, has cost the 99% far more than OWS ever will.
(* These were the estimates bandied about by the city I live in)
You sort of lost legitimacy when you generalized the entire community.
Your comment strikes me as rather useless to the conversation. You recognize the intellect of the community but feel the need to generalize it and be a pretentious and sarcastic wank. Surely such an intelligent group would see through your blather, which leaves me confused as to why you posted it in the first place.
I digress. As far as the parent comment...
Pointing out the hypocrisy of governments is something human beings have done for years. Political cartoons the most obvious form. So I'm really at a loss as to what your point is.
TL;DR Why not post an on topic argument or opinion rather than trying to sound like you're smarter than others.
Just to play devil's advocate, would not $40-80 billion on a space venture would create jobs, new technologies, new prosperity. Especially considering we spend well beyond that on bombs, tanks, and guns?
I have a hard time believing someone like Dell would offer locked down machines.
I worked at a uni for a spell with Linux labs on our standard Dell build. If they suddenly start saying "Windows only." they will be buying their 500-1,000 machines a year from whoever is selling unlocked boxes.
I mean look at places like Google, they have a "Zero Windows unless you have permission from the CIO." policy. I would think vendors would not be dumb enough to lock themselves out of that potential revenue.
Not saying I agree and that this doesn't need attention, but I get the feeling vendors are not that stupid. And MS themselves would draw the ire of the EU if not the US.
Perhaps Oracle or users who are impacted should do it? The kernel devs would be foolish to accept every janky piece of shit code and take on the task of fixing it.
Do it for a company with the deep pockets, like Oracle, and you'll have everyone else saying "WTF You did it for them and they can afford to fix it themselves!"
If this bites a user in the ass, let them fix it. If it bites Oracle, let them fix it.
I meant SEM/TEM scopes, not neutrons. I was giving my brain a break from work and wrote quickly, my bad.
Those were a few examples of the expenses the universities are taking on, it's still incomplete, the full scope is much larger. They're trying to push a cradle-to-grave link to their students. Whether I agree or not with this position is irrelevant, but it's what's happening. It's not about >5% benefiting from a fancy microscope, but using it to attract interest.
In short, they're playing the same gambling game the banks are. Right or wrong, it's what's happening and why I said earlier your picture of how universities work these days is incomplete.
I'm sorry, did you need a hug? It sounds like maybe you needed a hug, so I thought I'd offer.
IMO, Apple's usability policy is essentially "We've taken some half-baked ideas, baked them a little longer and put a nice price tag on it."
Expose, spaces, docks... all this existed before. Steve/Apple didn't create it, they commoditized it. That's what he did well, he commoditized things. He believed in what he was doing, but he didn't do anything thousands haven't done before.
The media was comparing SJ's contribution to society to Einstein. WTF?
Google Toure on Dylan Ratigan, his rant on 9/11 in the media. Did we want it, or was it simply easy for them to sell it to us? If they hadn't spent countless hours/days deifying him, would anyone have really cared? Or did they do it because it would bring in ratings? That's what the Steve Job's hoopla was about, IMO.
Congress isn't "giving" these corporations anything. It's being paid for by the corporations and the rest of us cannot afford to buy anything for ourselves.
I agree that TARP is anti-capitalist, but then we've not ever lived in a very capitalist society ever, I don't feel you ever really can have one. I also feel chipping away the inheritance tax is anti-capitalist. Capitalism is about encouraging people to get out there and perform a useful service. I feel like allowing the banks (and many corporations for that matter) to get as large as they are is anti-capitalist and anti-competitive.
I feel the welfare handouts for corps AND people are anti-capitalist as well. Receiving a check for squeezing 12 kids out of your clown car of a vag is not a valuable asset to society.
However, I am for public education and higher learning, healthcare and the like. If people are wanting to put into the machine, the machine should be setup to provide these things in order to turn out the best workers it can.
According to Cornell, yes. It's getting expensive to keep up with hiring better, more educated faculty, to maintain more expensive equipment to further their research and academic programs.
Neutron microscopes aren't something you can buy in Wal*Mart. Computer labs require a lob of energy and time to maintain. Updating buildings built decades ago is not cheap.
Whether their arguments are bullshit or not, I cannot speak to. Even still, is it really so shocking that modern society costs a lot? Progress costs money.
They have no workable solutions after less than one month. Oh no, shut it down.
Do you go into your job with a solution to all the problems you face everyday? Most places I've worked involve collaborating with colleagues, building a consensus and going from there.
I'm not saying it will or will not fizzle. I simply find that 1-month is not enough time to judge the effectiveness of a movement that is really only beginning to take hold at all. Rome wasn't built in a day.
Clearly you have little understanding of how a university works.
Just because you have a giant endowment doesn't necessarily mean you can write checks off of it. They're likely tied to stipulations regarding their use.
It's becoming more expensive because costs have gone up, more people are attending (in general due to population increases, more people are "college age" than before but also enrollment goes up when the economy goes down).
Second, the economic depression has been on for a while now and wiped out emergency funds and other savings they'd accrued. There was a lot of money lost in investments that are now worthless, largely thanks to the gambling by our financial industry, but not exclusively.
To be clear, I'm not saying there aren't areas where universities can do better to reduce costs. For example, the one I worked at for years was quite heavy on the administrative level, and could likely shed some of that to save money.
Finally, just because information is easier to come by doesn't mean it's all valuable. The more information there is, the more work involved in organizing the useful bits from the shit.
Our economy is a web of interconnections. It's not at all as simple as you make it sound.
This has been posted about the internet since this all began. The goal is rather obvious, to level the playing field, to reduce the influence of money in our political system and to weaken large corporate influence over our economy.
It's how they expect we go about doing that I'm foggy on.
Now they have to implement new computer systems to add 122k new codes, costing the healthcare providers money, pushing costs up, helping the insurance industry skim more?
Even with all that has come since - Facebook, Reddit, Twitter, Engadget, Anandtech, Arstechnica, etc. - the first thing I click in my bookmark bar every morning is/.
That's a much better idea. Let's "drill baby drill!" and pillage the only planet we know of where humans can survive so we can make money and have our fancy gizmos. Fuck later generations and their interest in having a healthy ecosystem in which to live.
If we wanted to truly be better, we'd invest money in new technologies that let us utilize resources w/o having to destroy everything to get at them. It would be difficult, sure, but we sent people to fucking moon just to rub it in the Soviets faces. I would find it difficult to believe we couldn't solve these problems in a responsible fashion. I imagine we would if we had someone like to Soviets around, another giant dick waving contest. Heaven forbid actually leaving the place better off than we found it for the next generation be reason enough.
Slashdot Mirror
What does bitching about people bitching about it make one?
Stop acting like a baby.
Yeah! This is 'Merica dammit! You'll consume the garbage you're fed or go without. Because in 'Merica, you only get two choices. If you don't like either, you're an unpatriotic sissy. Maybe even a commie and a socialist! Most definitely a "baby".
Suck it up, nancy boy!
Their expenses are often easy to absorb, especially when compared to propping up big industry.
100k or so to fix a park? A couple million to cover police overtime?* Chump change compared to the hundreds of billions in taxpayer money we've shoveled into corporate coffers.
Corporate welfare, bailouts, whatever you want to call it, has cost the 99% far more than OWS ever will.
(* These were the estimates bandied about by the city I live in)
You sort of lost legitimacy when you generalized the entire community.
Your comment strikes me as rather useless to the conversation. You recognize the intellect of the community but feel the need to generalize it and be a pretentious and sarcastic wank. Surely such an intelligent group would see through your blather, which leaves me confused as to why you posted it in the first place.
I digress. As far as the parent comment...
Pointing out the hypocrisy of governments is something human beings have done for years. Political cartoons the most obvious form. So I'm really at a loss as to what your point is.
TL;DR Why not post an on topic argument or opinion rather than trying to sound like you're smarter than others.
nuclear.
i just made windows safe for use.
The Obama Administration would never overstep the law and censor the Internet!
So they haven't fit a need for you, so wth, let's stop using wireless keyboards.
I see the mind-think agrees. Power to the majority I guess.
Professional is one of those words that, thanks to decades of abuse by advertisers, has lost it's meaning.
Just to play devil's advocate, would not $40-80 billion on a space venture would create jobs, new technologies, new prosperity. Especially considering we spend well beyond that on bombs, tanks, and guns?
We had wars to fight and bombs to drop instead.
I have a hard time believing someone like Dell would offer locked down machines.
I worked at a uni for a spell with Linux labs on our standard Dell build. If they suddenly start saying "Windows only." they will be buying their 500-1,000 machines a year from whoever is selling unlocked boxes.
I mean look at places like Google, they have a "Zero Windows unless you have permission from the CIO." policy. I would think vendors would not be dumb enough to lock themselves out of that potential revenue.
Not saying I agree and that this doesn't need attention, but I get the feeling vendors are not that stupid. And MS themselves would draw the ire of the EU if not the US.
Perhaps Oracle or users who are impacted should do it? The kernel devs would be foolish to accept every janky piece of shit code and take on the task of fixing it.
Do it for a company with the deep pockets, like Oracle, and you'll have everyone else saying "WTF You did it for them and they can afford to fix it themselves!"
If this bites a user in the ass, let them fix it. If it bites Oracle, let them fix it.
I meant SEM/TEM scopes, not neutrons. I was giving my brain a break from work and wrote quickly, my bad.
Those were a few examples of the expenses the universities are taking on, it's still incomplete, the full scope is much larger. They're trying to push a cradle-to-grave link to their students. Whether I agree or not with this position is irrelevant, but it's what's happening. It's not about >5% benefiting from a fancy microscope, but using it to attract interest.
In short, they're playing the same gambling game the banks are. Right or wrong, it's what's happening and why I said earlier your picture of how universities work these days is incomplete.
I'm sorry, did you need a hug? It sounds like maybe you needed a hug, so I thought I'd offer.
IMO, Apple's usability policy is essentially "We've taken some half-baked ideas, baked them a little longer and put a nice price tag on it."
Expose, spaces, docks... all this existed before. Steve/Apple didn't create it, they commoditized it. That's what he did well, he commoditized things. He believed in what he was doing, but he didn't do anything thousands haven't done before.
The media was comparing SJ's contribution to society to Einstein. WTF?
Google Toure on Dylan Ratigan, his rant on 9/11 in the media. Did we want it, or was it simply easy for them to sell it to us? If they hadn't spent countless hours/days deifying him, would anyone have really cared? Or did they do it because it would bring in ratings? That's what the Steve Job's hoopla was about, IMO.
Congress isn't "giving" these corporations anything. It's being paid for by the corporations and the rest of us cannot afford to buy anything for ourselves.
I agree that TARP is anti-capitalist, but then we've not ever lived in a very capitalist society ever, I don't feel you ever really can have one. I also feel chipping away the inheritance tax is anti-capitalist. Capitalism is about encouraging people to get out there and perform a useful service. I feel like allowing the banks (and many corporations for that matter) to get as large as they are is anti-capitalist and anti-competitive.
I feel the welfare handouts for corps AND people are anti-capitalist as well. Receiving a check for squeezing 12 kids out of your clown car of a vag is not a valuable asset to society.
However, I am for public education and higher learning, healthcare and the like. If people are wanting to put into the machine, the machine should be setup to provide these things in order to turn out the best workers it can.
According to Cornell, yes. It's getting expensive to keep up with hiring better, more educated faculty, to maintain more expensive equipment to further their research and academic programs.
Neutron microscopes aren't something you can buy in Wal*Mart. Computer labs require a lob of energy and time to maintain. Updating buildings built decades ago is not cheap.
Whether their arguments are bullshit or not, I cannot speak to. Even still, is it really so shocking that modern society costs a lot? Progress costs money.
http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/Nov06/tuition.so.much.sl.html
They have no workable solutions after less than one month. Oh no, shut it down.
Do you go into your job with a solution to all the problems you face everyday? Most places I've worked involve collaborating with colleagues, building a consensus and going from there.
I'm not saying it will or will not fizzle. I simply find that 1-month is not enough time to judge the effectiveness of a movement that is really only beginning to take hold at all. Rome wasn't built in a day.
Clearly you have little understanding of how a university works.
Just because you have a giant endowment doesn't necessarily mean you can write checks off of it. They're likely tied to stipulations regarding their use.
It's becoming more expensive because costs have gone up, more people are attending (in general due to population increases, more people are "college age" than before but also enrollment goes up when the economy goes down).
Second, the economic depression has been on for a while now and wiped out emergency funds and other savings they'd accrued. There was a lot of money lost in investments that are now worthless, largely thanks to the gambling by our financial industry, but not exclusively.
To be clear, I'm not saying there aren't areas where universities can do better to reduce costs. For example, the one I worked at for years was quite heavy on the administrative level, and could likely shed some of that to save money.
Finally, just because information is easier to come by doesn't mean it's all valuable. The more information there is, the more work involved in organizing the useful bits from the shit.
Our economy is a web of interconnections. It's not at all as simple as you make it sound.
This has been posted about the internet since this all began. The goal is rather obvious, to level the playing field, to reduce the influence of money in our political system and to weaken large corporate influence over our economy.
It's how they expect we go about doing that I'm foggy on.
A private citizen excluding someone they don't want to deal with from their groups is bullshit "cyber-bullying".
Excluding your constituents from the right of free speech is fucking fascism.
Now they have to implement new computer systems to add 122k new codes, costing the healthcare providers money, pushing costs up, helping the insurance industry skim more?
Even with all that has come since - Facebook, Reddit, Twitter, Engadget, Anandtech, Arstechnica, etc. - the first thing I click in my bookmark bar every morning is /.
I'm getting all misty.
That's a much better idea. Let's "drill baby drill!" and pillage the only planet we know of where humans can survive so we can make money and have our fancy gizmos. Fuck later generations and their interest in having a healthy ecosystem in which to live.
If we wanted to truly be better, we'd invest money in new technologies that let us utilize resources w/o having to destroy everything to get at them. It would be difficult, sure, but we sent people to fucking moon just to rub it in the Soviets faces. I would find it difficult to believe we couldn't solve these problems in a responsible fashion. I imagine we would if we had someone like to Soviets around, another giant dick waving contest. Heaven forbid actually leaving the place better off than we found it for the next generation be reason enough.
We simply give too many people money they don't deserve.
You focused on social welfare. What about corporate welfare?
Spielberg anyone?
Jaws -1975
Schindler's List - 1993
Jurassic Park - 1993
Saving Private Ryan - 1999
Munich - 2006
Plus everything in-between, that's 30 years of, give or take, of making movies people "must see."
Munich did not bring in the crowds like Jurassic Park, but it wasn't that kind of movie. It was still critically lauded and nominated for many awards.