Care to find me an example of a student legally carrying a concealed weapon that resulted in innocent people getting shot?
Based on a tiny sample size out of thousands of colleges and millions of students? The cops in my town have never shot an innocent man, or at least not in the last few decades. Therefore, cops never shoot innocent people.
Because schools are a 'gun-free' zone'. Who should be armed? The people who won't show up for 10 minutes? Or the people who are on the scene?
This is fucking crazy. Seriously man, arming students to fight crime makes Tom Cruise look sane.
First: we have a few dozen deaths per year from school shootings in a nation of 300 million people. The chances of you dying in a Columbine or Virginia Tech incident are astronomically small. If you're worried about your safety, you'd be better off wearing a crash helmet and a flame proof suit when you step into a car.
Second: innocent people are mistakenly shot to death by cops on a regular basis. Cops that have gear, training, and excellent communication networks. Now, you think regular citizens will do a better job because they're "on the scene" just by putting a gun into their hands? Citizens with no gear, training, or radio networks?
Take Virginia Tech for example. Say word had gotten out that the shooter was an Asian looking kid with a blue backpack. How many Asian looking students with backpacks are going to be at a university with over 25,000 students? Anyone from a Filipino to a Cherokee risks getting shot at. And what if these students are also packing and start shooting back?
This is hardly a far fetched scenario; I think arming students is a fantastically horrible idea, but my first reaction to hearing about Seung-Hui was to hope that someone would put the SOB in the ground ASAP. And I'm not a gun nut, and I've never been to Virginia Tech.
Arming students might prevent a few crimes, but it will also end up with innocent people getting shot. Or petty criminals getting executed by get-your-gun-off wackos, like that jackass in Texas who decided to kill two burglars robbing a neighbors house.
Might it have something to do with the fact that they have no content industry to protect in those countries?
More so that those countries see the Internet as infrastructure that needs to be developed just as much as highway or rail, and don't have the U.S. phobia of government involvement in industry.
it's the lack of competition. Your consumer typically has the choice of either cable internet or DSL, or just one of the above. The FCC change in allowing telecos to lease their lines for more than bulk rates was a big part of this.
Apple don't make it nice and simple to crack their computers open
They do on the current run of Macbook's, at least. Replacing a hard drive should take only a minute or two, as opposed to on the old iBook's where it was at least a half hour long operation.
What's unappealing to me about the Air is the lack of built in ethernet, after having gotten used to gigabit connections.
Hasn't anyone realized that whenever the government tries to do something involving technology it is us, the citizen that always, always, always loses?
Thanks for the boilerplate anti-government rant. Yes, because the space program was such a bust, not that it made thousands of workers good money and brought technological improvements that we enjoy to this day. Or the Internet, that was *such* a lame idea. Those Koreans really hate them 100 megabit connections to their homes for $20 a month. And the FCC has done such a piss poor job of keeping broadcasters and devices from interfering with eachother.
As soon as this country gets beyond childish soundbytes and slogans, the better off we'll be, as government action can be good for all players involved. Take HDTV for example - the technology has been around for decades, but has only really taken off in the last few years once standard out of 40+ was hammered out. Adoption was glacial, sets have been incredibly expensive. This is because no one but rich early adopters were willing to spend $4,000 on a TV that might make for a very large, very expensive boat anchor in a couple years.
Compare that to a hypothetical situation where the FCC was given the authority to force manufacturers to come to a standard. It would have been a win for consumers as they could buy an HDTV and know that it would still work in 5 years, barring malfucntion. It would have been a win for the industry as they could have been selling HDTV's at the current rate a decade ago. People could have been upgrading to HDTV's at the same time they were upgrading their video library from VHS to DVD. The switch to digital broadcasting would be far less painful as most Americans would already have a hi def set by now.
But nope, we "let the marketplace settle it", to the cost of both consumers and the marketplace.
If companies could not bring in foreign workers, then the market would be unfree.
Uh, no. My girlfriend is an immigrant, and I'm all for her having a job. But that's not what the H1-B visa program is: it's a temporary import of workers to alleviate a supposed shortage of qualified Americans, then they are sent back home. But of course you know this as a 1B yourself. The "shortage" excuse is proven to be a complete lie when companies still bring in H1-B's at the same time as they fire thousands of American workers.
So at least *I'm* not driving your wage
Of course you are. The reason this is such bullshit is because American workers have to compete with third world labor in a race to the bottom because of "supply and demand". But when the supply of labor is short in the U.S., rather than paying workers what they are worth, companies bring in people like you to drive down the cost of labor. Americans are getting the wrong end the stick on both ends.
You want to live and work in the U.S., more power to you. But get a damned green card and doing on a level playing field.
You elect the president too, look where that got half the country
Yeah, selected by 13% or less of the population. That's not going to happen in a union with a competitive election.
As an example, my father works in a union shop. His position is essentially a management position, but unlike all the other management positions in the company, it's not salaried. It's an hourly, union dues paying position. For the last 15 years, both the company and the people who have filled that position (2 others before my father) have been trying to convert the position to a salaried management position. The union has fought and successfully prevented this every single time.
No shit, Sherlock. Why would a union be interested in losing a high level union position? If your old man and the company want him to be salaried management, then promote him to a salaried management position. It's really not that hard.
It's said that the greatest trick the devil ever pulled was in fooling the world that he didn't exist. The devil has been one upped by the big business and the Republican party: they've fooled far to many Americans into thinking that standing up for themselves is a bad thing and that unions, regulations, lawsuits need to be eliminated. They're pissing on your head and telling you it's raining. Selling you a high priced shit sandwich and telling you how great it tastes.
The names change, but the cycles, and the fact that external forces affect technologists, do not.
The point was that additional forces are in play that didn't exist in the 60's.
Do you really think the next generation will be discussing these issues?
Unless the H1-B visa program is terminated and measures are taken to alienate offshoring: yes I do think they will be discussing the same issues.
It's important in career planning to take the long view.
And that's the problem with the H1-B visa. You can plan smart and focus on a career in a high demand area of the economy, only to find the industry your in bribes Congress into allowing tens of thousands of foreigners into the country to do the same job for far less money.
Spare me the elitism. You're going to miss your brother's wedding because you refuse to be searched and they refuse to let you on the plane? You're going to lose that job because you refuse to be searched and cost your company a million dollar contract by missing a meeting? Your mother was in a serious accident and has hours to live, and you aren't going to try and get back in time to say goodbye because you refuse to be searched? A bullshit choice is no choice at all, and not everyone can plan a weeks vacation for a two day trip so they can drive if they can't fly.
what we really would need is a peer reviewed scientific study on the subject, no?
Yup. And I doubt that the results would support your assertion that it happens often, and let me cut to the chase as to why:
In the Old Testament, people didn't believe in God just because they had been told what to believe, but because God's actions were like a tornado or an eclipse - a rare but indisputable event. People who were skeptical back then might see a flood or a plague or a miracle - things that don't happen today, or at least not a scale to where they can be verified or explained as natural events.
Agnostics or atheists don't believe in God because they either weren't raised Christians or made a decision not to believe because they haven't seen any evidence that God exists. And once they make that choice, I don't see why they would then become religious without significant evidence. I count myself as an agnostic, and until I see a burning bush, I don't see why God is any more real than Zeus or Osiris or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Now some people think they've seen a burning bush, and maybe they have, but they weren't large or verifiable events. For example, there's a signer from my town named Johnny Lang. He said it was hard to describe, but he basically became a born again Christian when he felt God's presence on a breeze in an alley, IIRC.
Then there's my girlfriend: her family are immigrants from Rwanda, who fled to Kenya during the genocide in the 90's. Her mother spent many years going to the American embassy to try and get her family here. She was walking to the embassy one morning for an appointment at 10 o'clock, when she suddenly felt the desire to stop in a cathedral and pray, even though her appointment was very important and she would miss it. At about 10:45 that day, Al Queda bombed the embassy, killing over 200 people.
Now if this happened to me, I would find that pretty damned convincing. But it didn't. So until I see that burning bush, I'm going to remain a skeptic, and I imagine a lot of other atheists/agnostics are in the same boat.
That's not a pro, that's a con. The income tax is the fairest tax of all.
You take home your whole paycheck.
Until you spend it.
-Prostitutes, drug dealers, and illegal immigrants will all have to pay their fair share now since they have to buy stuff, even if they aren't reporting income.
The first two should be legal (but regulated) in the first place. And the hysteria over illegal immigration is nothing more than the new "states rights" or "reverse discrimination" over affirmative action - a way for racists to bitch about brown people without sounding racist.
-Visitors to the country will be contributing to our tax system as well.
They already do that through sales taxes and putting money into our economy. Tourism is big business - making up most of the economy in some countries.
-The economy will improve.
100000000% wrong. What is a high consumption tax going to do? Reduce consumption. What do the manufacturing and service sectors of our economy depend on? Consumption. A high consumption tax would be an absolute disaster for our economy.
Cons: -people who paid taxes and then retire (no more income) will still have to pay taxes.
And the ones who have Roth IRA's will rogered but good, as they paid taxes on money going into their IRA's so they wouldn't have to pay taxes on the money when it came out of said IRA.
-there might be a black market of sales that people will use to avoid paying taxes.
You think? It'll be the 20's and Prohibition all over again, or the new War on Drugs - pushing large segments of society into becoming criminals.
The Fair Tax is the worst idea ever!!
Fixed that for you. Some more cons: when Fair Tax proponents tell you the rate is 23%, they are lying. It's actually 30% - the 23 comes from the fact that 30 cents is 23% of $1.30.
And even 30% is completely unrealistic. To be revenue neutral, it needs to be *at least* 44%.
Eliminating the income tax and the estate tax will create an aristocracy by wealth. Your descendants will have to struggle and sacrifice and earn their way through life, while the rich will be completely exempt from any of that.
Look for the income disparity to get far worse than it already is - and right now it's the worst it's been since the Great Depression. If the minimum wage had risen at the same rate as executive compensation, it would be over $50 an hour today.
Huckabee says he wants to get rid of the IRS. In reality he would be replacing it - with a MUCH larger bureaucracy to collect the taxes and punish the black market - and at 30% for all goods, there will be a hell of a black market.
I'm very frugal. Under the current way, by saving my money
And what's preventing you from saving money right now? Absolutely nothing whatsoever. You are free to keep your money in a savings account. Free to buy CD's. Free to buy mutual funds or dabble in the stock market. You can put your money into an IRA, tax free. Or you can get a Roth IRA and pay money on what you put in but have tax free money when it comes out, where it should have spent years earning interest.
As for your argument that it would allow the rich to get away from capital gains tax, it would also allow you to get away from that tax as well. I have my money in the stock market and I too get charged a capital gains tax even if for only 100 shares.
That's why we should either move to a progressive capital gains tax, or just count your gains as part of your income tax. This way your small time investor would be charged very little in taxes, while your billionaire hedge fund manager will have to pay at a rate higher than the currently ludicrous 15%.
While architecturally it was sufficient, I believe MS held off on 2k being the day of desktop NT kernel due to the lack of the 'compatibility' crud to help a lot of pre-2k apps work (i.e. fake outs to look like Win9x).
Also until they could put out a cheaper castrato, XP Home.
so calling Win2k the greatest MS OS at the expense of XP I would theoretically disagree with (I say as I type from an Ubunut box)
I call 2k their greatest OS because it had the best improvement to bloat ratio of any of their operating systems. 2k was an enormous improvement in usability over NT and an enormous improvement in stability & security over 9x. Unless you had some obscure compatibility issues that were solved by XP, the only thing it really had over 2k was instant user switching - at the cost of bloat, increased minimum requirements and the unholy Product Activation.
The 'retention' problem is not because this generation wants the kitchen sink; it's because these companies don't have any money to buy kitchens.
Horseshit - they don't have money for the little people because they keep giving the CEO and the board of directors a 20% annual pay increase regardless of their actual performance. If the minimum wage had risen at the same rate as executive compensation over the last few decades, it would be over $50 an hour.
30-50 years ago, if you went to college, chances are your parents were blue collar people who worked their asses off to save enough money to give you that opportunity, and you probably had to work your ass off to get more money and scholarships to make it. Yeah, there were a few kids of rich parents, but they were the minority.
30-50 years ago a high school education was sufficient to get a decent job and make enough money to support a family. That's not the case anymore - between the decline of unions and offshoring, much of the blue collar base has been destroyed. A college degree is what a high school diploma used to be - a necessary part of getting a decent job for any sizable percentage of the population.
In the People v. Dlugash, the Appellate Court of New York held that a defendant could be found guilty of attempted murder for shooting a dead body that the defendant thought was still alive (but that might be dead).
The medical examiners said the initial gunshot didn't kill the victim instantly, and might very well have been alive when Dlugash shot him in the head. If the victim had been indisputably dead at the time, it's unlikely the reasoning would have superseded the impossibility defense.
Thus, you hire a private investigator to go the dry cleaner and offer to rent the really nice suit.
No. Not really. Apparently you're brainwashed by union leaders whom you think can protect you and care for your "rights" as a worker. Why can't you stand alone? Is it because you're not good enough by yourself? I thought so.
I suppose I could see it that way, if I was an idiot cutting my nose off to spite my face. How much say does the average worker have over who the CEO is? Whereas you elect your union leaders. And standing by yourself *only* makes you expendable.
So are employers in many cases. There are plenty of companies in need of IT or programming services - an employee can find a job elsewhere rather than "take it or starve".
1) for someone who has a mortgage, a disability, or dependents, "just quit if you don't like your job" is not remotely that easy. 2) if there really were that many jobs available, people wouldn't be bitching because employers would be offering higher compensation to meet demand.
Slashdot Mirror
Care to find me an example of a student legally carrying a concealed weapon that resulted in innocent people getting shot?
Based on a tiny sample size out of thousands of colleges and millions of students? The cops in my town have never shot an innocent man, or at least not in the last few decades. Therefore, cops never shoot innocent people.
Because schools are a 'gun-free' zone'. Who should be armed? The people who won't show up for 10 minutes? Or the people who are on the scene?
This is fucking crazy. Seriously man, arming students to fight crime makes Tom Cruise look sane.
First: we have a few dozen deaths per year from school shootings in a nation of 300 million people. The chances of you dying in a Columbine or Virginia Tech incident are astronomically small. If you're worried about your safety, you'd be better off wearing a crash helmet and a flame proof suit when you step into a car.
Second: innocent people are mistakenly shot to death by cops on a regular basis. Cops that have gear, training, and excellent communication networks. Now, you think regular citizens will do a better job because they're "on the scene" just by putting a gun into their hands? Citizens with no gear, training, or radio networks?
Take Virginia Tech for example. Say word had gotten out that the shooter was an Asian looking kid with a blue backpack. How many Asian looking students with backpacks are going to be at a university with over 25,000 students? Anyone from a Filipino to a Cherokee risks getting shot at. And what if these students are also packing and start shooting back?
This is hardly a far fetched scenario; I think arming students is a fantastically horrible idea, but my first reaction to hearing about Seung-Hui was to hope that someone would put the SOB in the ground ASAP. And I'm not a gun nut, and I've never been to Virginia Tech.
Arming students might prevent a few crimes, but it will also end up with innocent people getting shot. Or petty criminals getting executed by get-your-gun-off wackos, like that jackass in Texas who decided to kill two burglars robbing a neighbors house.
With regularity, they date rape each other, unfortunately.
Feminist myth.
Might it have something to do with the fact that they have no content industry to protect in those countries?
More so that those countries see the Internet as infrastructure that needs to be developed just as much as highway or rail, and don't have the U.S. phobia of government involvement in industry.
The whole point of consumer broadband is to download media - there are no bandwidth hogs, only ISP's that oversell their connections. Period.
it's the lack of competition. Your consumer typically has the choice of either cable internet or DSL, or just one of the above. The FCC change in allowing telecos to lease their lines for more than bulk rates was a big part of this.
What parts do you need to get to, other than the ram and the hd?
Apple don't make it nice and simple to crack their computers open
They do on the current run of Macbook's, at least. Replacing a hard drive should take only a minute or two, as opposed to on the old iBook's where it was at least a half hour long operation.
What's unappealing to me about the Air is the lack of built in ethernet, after having gotten used to gigabit connections.
Hasn't anyone realized that whenever the government tries to do something involving technology it is us, the citizen that always, always, always loses?
Thanks for the boilerplate anti-government rant. Yes, because the space program was such a bust, not that it made thousands of workers good money and brought technological improvements that we enjoy to this day. Or the Internet, that was *such* a lame idea. Those Koreans really hate them 100 megabit connections to their homes for $20 a month. And the FCC has done such a piss poor job of keeping broadcasters and devices from interfering with eachother.
As soon as this country gets beyond childish soundbytes and slogans, the better off we'll be, as government action can be good for all players involved. Take HDTV for example - the technology has been around for decades, but has only really taken off in the last few years once standard out of 40+ was hammered out. Adoption was glacial, sets have been incredibly expensive. This is because no one but rich early adopters were willing to spend $4,000 on a TV that might make for a very large, very expensive boat anchor in a couple years.
Compare that to a hypothetical situation where the FCC was given the authority to force manufacturers to come to a standard. It would have been a win for consumers as they could buy an HDTV and know that it would still work in 5 years, barring malfucntion. It would have been a win for the industry as they could have been selling HDTV's at the current rate a decade ago. People could have been upgrading to HDTV's at the same time they were upgrading their video library from VHS to DVD. The switch to digital broadcasting would be far less painful as most Americans would already have a hi def set by now.
But nope, we "let the marketplace settle it", to the cost of both consumers and the marketplace.
If companies could not bring in foreign workers, then the market would be unfree.
Uh, no. My girlfriend is an immigrant, and I'm all for her having a job. But that's not what the H1-B visa program is: it's a temporary import of workers to alleviate a supposed shortage of qualified Americans, then they are sent back home. But of course you know this as a 1B yourself. The "shortage" excuse is proven to be a complete lie when companies still bring in H1-B's at the same time as they fire thousands of American workers.
So at least *I'm* not driving your wage
Of course you are. The reason this is such bullshit is because American workers have to compete with third world labor in a race to the bottom because of "supply and demand". But when the supply of labor is short in the U.S., rather than paying workers what they are worth, companies bring in people like you to drive down the cost of labor. Americans are getting the wrong end the stick on both ends.
You want to live and work in the U.S., more power to you. But get a damned green card and doing on a level playing field.
You elect the president too, look where that got half the country
Yeah, selected by 13% or less of the population. That's not going to happen in a union with a competitive election.
As an example, my father works in a union shop. His position is essentially a management position, but unlike all the other management positions in the company, it's not salaried. It's an hourly, union dues paying position. For the last 15 years, both the company and the people who have filled that position (2 others before my father) have been trying to convert the position to a salaried management position. The union has fought and successfully prevented this every single time.
No shit, Sherlock. Why would a union be interested in losing a high level union position? If your old man and the company want him to be salaried management, then promote him to a salaried management position. It's really not that hard.
It's said that the greatest trick the devil ever pulled was in fooling the world that he didn't exist. The devil has been one upped by the big business and the Republican party: they've fooled far to many Americans into thinking that standing up for themselves is a bad thing and that unions, regulations, lawsuits need to be eliminated. They're pissing on your head and telling you it's raining. Selling you a high priced shit sandwich and telling you how great it tastes.
The names change, but the cycles, and the fact that external forces affect technologists, do not.
The point was that additional forces are in play that didn't exist in the 60's.
Do you really think the next generation will be discussing these issues?
Unless the H1-B visa program is terminated and measures are taken to alienate offshoring: yes I do think they will be discussing the same issues.
It's important in career planning to take the long view.
And that's the problem with the H1-B visa. You can plan smart and focus on a career in a high demand area of the economy, only to find the industry your in bribes Congress into allowing tens of thousands of foreigners into the country to do the same job for far less money.
Spare me the elitism. You're going to miss your brother's wedding because you refuse to be searched and they refuse to let you on the plane? You're going to lose that job because you refuse to be searched and cost your company a million dollar contract by missing a meeting? Your mother was in a serious accident and has hours to live, and you aren't going to try and get back in time to say goodbye because you refuse to be searched? A bullshit choice is no choice at all, and not everyone can plan a weeks vacation for a two day trip so they can drive if they can't fly.
what we really would need is a peer reviewed scientific study on the subject, no?
Yup. And I doubt that the results would support your assertion that it happens often, and let me cut to the chase as to why:
In the Old Testament, people didn't believe in God just because they had been told what to believe, but because God's actions were like a tornado or an eclipse - a rare but indisputable event. People who were skeptical back then might see a flood or a plague or a miracle - things that don't happen today, or at least not a scale to where they can be verified or explained as natural events.
Agnostics or atheists don't believe in God because they either weren't raised Christians or made a decision not to believe because they haven't seen any evidence that God exists. And once they make that choice, I don't see why they would then become religious without significant evidence. I count myself as an agnostic, and until I see a burning bush, I don't see why God is any more real than Zeus or Osiris or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Now some people think they've seen a burning bush, and maybe they have, but they weren't large or verifiable events. For example, there's a signer from my town named Johnny Lang. He said it was hard to describe, but he basically became a born again Christian when he felt God's presence on a breeze in an alley, IIRC.
Then there's my girlfriend: her family are immigrants from Rwanda, who fled to Kenya during the genocide in the 90's. Her mother spent many years going to the American embassy to try and get her family here. She was walking to the embassy one morning for an appointment at 10 o'clock, when she suddenly felt the desire to stop in a cathedral and pray, even though her appointment was very important and she would miss it. At about 10:45 that day, Al Queda bombed the embassy, killing over 200 people.
Now if this happened to me, I would find that pretty damned convincing. But it didn't. So until I see that burning bush, I'm going to remain a skeptic, and I imagine a lot of other atheists/agnostics are in the same boat.
I'm sure you aren't into long discussions
:)
Says who?
Pros:
-No federal income tax!!
That's not a pro, that's a con. The income tax is the fairest tax of all.
You take home your whole paycheck.
Until you spend it.
-Prostitutes, drug dealers, and illegal immigrants will all have to pay their fair share now since they have to buy stuff, even if they aren't reporting income.
The first two should be legal (but regulated) in the first place. And the hysteria over illegal immigration is nothing more than the new "states rights" or "reverse discrimination" over affirmative action - a way for racists to bitch about brown people without sounding racist.
-Visitors to the country will be contributing to our tax system as well.
They already do that through sales taxes and putting money into our economy. Tourism is big business - making up most of the economy in some countries.
-The economy will improve.
100000000% wrong. What is a high consumption tax going to do? Reduce consumption. What do the manufacturing and service sectors of our economy depend on? Consumption. A high consumption tax would be an absolute disaster for our economy.
Cons:
-people who paid taxes and then retire (no more income) will still have to pay taxes.
And the ones who have Roth IRA's will rogered but good, as they paid taxes on money going into their IRA's so they wouldn't have to pay taxes on the money when it came out of said IRA.
-there might be a black market of sales that people will use to avoid paying taxes.
You think? It'll be the 20's and Prohibition all over again, or the new War on Drugs - pushing large segments of society into becoming criminals.
The Fair Tax is the worst idea ever!!
Fixed that for you. Some more cons: when Fair Tax proponents tell you the rate is 23%, they are lying. It's actually 30% - the 23 comes from the fact that 30 cents is 23% of $1.30.
And even 30% is completely unrealistic. To be revenue neutral, it needs to be *at least* 44%.
Eliminating the income tax and the estate tax will create an aristocracy by wealth. Your descendants will have to struggle and sacrifice and earn their way through life, while the rich will be completely exempt from any of that.
Look for the income disparity to get far worse than it already is - and right now it's the worst it's been since the Great Depression. If the minimum wage had risen at the same rate as executive compensation, it would be over $50 an hour today.
Huckabee says he wants to get rid of the IRS. In reality he would be replacing it - with a MUCH larger bureaucracy to collect the taxes and punish the black market - and at 30% for all goods, there will be a hell of a black market.
I'm very frugal. Under the current way, by saving my money
And what's preventing you from saving money right now? Absolutely nothing whatsoever. You are free to keep your money in a savings account. Free to buy CD's. Free to buy mutual funds or dabble in the stock market. You can put your money into an IRA, tax free. Or you can get a Roth IRA and pay money on what you put in but have tax free money when it comes out, where it should have spent years earning interest.
As for your argument that it would allow the rich to get away from capital gains tax, it would also allow you to get away from that tax as well. I have my money in the stock market and I too get charged a capital gains tax even if for only 100 shares.
That's why we should either move to a progressive capital gains tax, or just count your gains as part of your income tax. This way your small time investor would be charged very little in taxes, while your billionaire hedge fund manager will have to pay at a rate higher than the currently ludicrous 15%.
While architecturally it was sufficient, I believe MS held off on 2k being the day of desktop NT kernel due to the lack of the 'compatibility' crud to help a lot of pre-2k apps work (i.e. fake outs to look like Win9x).
Also until they could put out a cheaper castrato, XP Home.
so calling Win2k the greatest MS OS at the expense of XP I would theoretically disagree with (I say as I type from an Ubunut box)
I call 2k their greatest OS because it had the best improvement to bloat ratio of any of their operating systems. 2k was an enormous improvement in usability over NT and an enormous improvement in stability & security over 9x. Unless you had some obscure compatibility issues that were solved by XP, the only thing it really had over 2k was instant user switching - at the cost of bloat, increased minimum requirements and the unholy Product Activation.
The 'retention' problem is not because this generation wants the kitchen sink; it's because these companies don't have any money to buy kitchens.
Horseshit - they don't have money for the little people because they keep giving the CEO and the board of directors a 20% annual pay increase regardless of their actual performance. If the minimum wage had risen at the same rate as executive compensation over the last few decades, it would be over $50 an hour.
30-50 years ago, if you went to college, chances are your parents were blue collar people who worked their asses off to save enough money to give you that opportunity, and you probably had to work your ass off to get more money and scholarships to make it. Yeah, there were a few kids of rich parents, but they were the minority.
30-50 years ago a high school education was sufficient to get a decent job and make enough money to support a family. That's not the case anymore - between the decline of unions and offshoring, much of the blue collar base has been destroyed. A college degree is what a high school diploma used to be - a necessary part of getting a decent job for any sizable percentage of the population.
That is actually not correct.
Yes, it is.
There are several attempt crimes.
Not for copyright infringement there isn't.
In the People v. Dlugash, the Appellate Court of New York held that a defendant could be found guilty of attempted murder for shooting a dead body that the defendant thought was still alive (but that might be dead).
The medical examiners said the initial gunshot didn't kill the victim instantly, and might very well have been alive when Dlugash shot him in the head. If the victim had been indisputably dead at the time, it's unlikely the reasoning would have superseded the impossibility defense.
Thus, you hire a private investigator to go the dry cleaner and offer to rent the really nice suit.
Entrapment.
No. Not really. Apparently you're brainwashed by union leaders whom you think can protect you and care for your "rights" as a worker. Why can't you stand alone? Is it because you're not good enough by yourself? I thought so.
I suppose I could see it that way, if I was an idiot cutting my nose off to spite my face. How much say does the average worker have over who the CEO is? Whereas you elect your union leaders. And standing by yourself *only* makes you expendable.
People more powerful than you like the union leaders?
Stupid analogy. You mean your coworkers you elect as opposed to a CEO you have zero control over?
So are employers in many cases. There are plenty of companies in need of IT or programming services - an employee can find a job elsewhere rather than "take it or starve".
1) for someone who has a mortgage, a disability, or dependents, "just quit if you don't like your job" is not remotely that easy. 2) if there really were that many jobs available, people wouldn't be bitching because employers would be offering higher compensation to meet demand.
And then they wonder why their 22 year old CS grads only stick around for 6 months.
One word solution for your stated problems: unions.