Humm, ya, unions suck dont they. Thats why companies merge and lay off thousands of workers, oh wait, unless they are union. The IT workers are dropped quick, the union workers sue and get their jobs back...
Americans are idiots, they refuse to realize unions where created for saftey and fair wages...
I have to disagree with you there. While there are plenty of unions still around who still do what they were originally intended to, there are also quite a few unions out there who screw themselves out of existance (and quite a few of them that are horribly corrupt).
Three examples: The steel workers unions, the textile workers unions and the airline unions. The former of the two push for legislation and tariffs on imported goods that screws their entire industry in the long run (under the guise of protecting their jobs). Finally, the airline workers union(s) have really screwed themselves. These are groups that have been bitterly entrenched with their management for years and years. They have consistently made unreasonable demands on management when the airlines weren't even able to turn a profit. Management refused (yeah, those guys aren't the best either) to budge, and the unions have refused to make concessions. In the end, stubborness on both sides has helped to screw the United workers out of their pensions (a portion of which will be insured by the federal government -- so you and I get to bail them out). BTW -- airlines have massive layoffs too.
I mean, there are so many stories of greedy unions making power grabs...remember the California grocery store workers strike? Remember what that was over? They were upset about having to share some of the costs of the rising cost of healthcare. They were pissed about having to pay a relatively tiny monthly cost (IIRC, it was $20/mo, but I could be way off) for healthcare, as well as a co-pay. I've been working tech gigs for about a decade now, and I have to say that this kind of coverage is unheard of. It sounded to me like a bunch of entitled whiners.
Are unions all bad? Definitely not -- there are certainly cases where they are necessary and helpful. On the other hand, there are also cases where they're a bunch of jackasses who let themselves get screwed by a power grab, a sense of entitlement, or just some well-meaning blow hard. For me, I'd rather negotiate my wages on my own rather than depend on some union's collective bargaining agreement which will change my compensation negotiations from a friendly discussion of what it will take to hire me into a horrible bureaucratic review. It will turn merit-based compensation increases and bonuses into meager negotiated salary increases (usually below inflation) and cookie-cutter benefits packages. Screw that. I'm an individual and I'm good at what I do. Furthermore, I'm prefectly content to work more than 40 hours a week, do great work, and demand compensation to keep my head in the game.
Unionizing tech workers on the low-level will only increase the cost to hire these people, and decrease their productivity (40 hours a week). What does this mean? Higher cost-per-hour workers, which is a near guarantee for outsourcing. A big fat no thankyou.
On a personal level, if you're so dissatisfied with your job, instead of feeling entitled to satisfaction, why not find a job that you will like?
(BTW, turbos were originally invented for diesels used in long hauls, not for sports cars.)
Not to knitpick or anything, but turbo chargers were originally designed for airplane engines, not diesels. These have been in service since WWII. The idea was that the air was thinner at altitude, and with forced induction, you could increase the air pressure in the engine and thus fly higher.
Turbos didn't make it to sports cars until the 70's, but I believe that they became popular in diesels around the same time they were first applied to passenger cars in the 60's with GM's A-body cars (1962 Corvair and Olds Cutlass). However, manufacturers have become much better at applying turbos to cars, making them cheaper and far more reliable -- and they are now frequently available in non sports cars, where buyers want more power out of a small, inexpensive, fuel efficent motor.
Side rant: People say there's no replacement for displacement, but that is a purely ignorant statement. Horsepower is a function of peak torque and RPM. If you can raise RPMs then you can get more horsepower. Gearing this down provides torque. This is why Japanese vehicles have traditionally had 5-speeds; more gears means you can stay in your powerband.
Side rant to your side rant: I wouldn't call the axiom that there's no replacement for displacement an ignorant statement. Sure, you can take a smaller, high compression 4-banger and build it with tolerances to allow for a 10K RPM redline. You'll get high horsepower...which is alright for a track car. However, on the street, it's another story altogether.
My physics are pretty weak, but horsepower is simply calculated from torque -- it's torque over time. These motors produce less torque overall, and don't have a great powerband, thus it must be wound out to go anywhere. Many drivers don't like the world to know when they're trying to bust ahead of someone at a stoplight. The fact is that a larger engine has more coupling power (torque) on tap at any given point in the rev range. They have a greater power band, and are thus more desirable for many folks. Gearing is usually unable to translate into a meaningful performance gain without a very expensive transmission, since a manual tranny takes about a half-second to shift. That's a half second of acceleration lost per shift (most racers will quote a second lost per shift).
Before we get into it over this, let me say that I drive a lightweight car with a very small, high compression 4-cyl motor that need to be revved all the way to go anywhere. I'm with you on the small motor thing, but I think that this is a driver preference thing. I'm just saying that for many (and mostly those in the NA, heavier car camp), there really is no replacement for displacement. They're no more ignorant than you or I are.
Not that I disagree at all, but there is a common assumption or mis-conception that you seem to be repeating here, unless you have a separate source. A lower accident rate does not mean a lower death rate or vice versa. It might be true in this case, I'm not sure.
I saw the numbers on this a few years back, as well as NHTSA's (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration) analysis and wrote a paper for it as an undergrad. Here's a short rundown (and the numbers are available on the NHTSA website...somewhere): In '96 the national maximum speed limit was revoked by the Republican congress. NHTSA freaked out and predicted highway mayhem. Before they had the definitive numbers (NHTSA and other organizations use total deaths and injuries per VMT (million Vehicle Miles Traveled).
Because NHTSA cannot ever admit that their conjectures were incorrect (ever), they produced some hokie numbers before the deaths and injuries per VMT were released. What they showed was that the fatalities, as a percentage, increased on the interstate highways, and decreased on the non-interstate highways. This is not a hugely significant finding, because as of 1996, the vast majority of highway crashes happen on non-interstate highways (I'm talking 85-95% here).
When the fatality rate information was released, it showed that the fatality and injury rate per million VMT had decreased (IIRC, by a number that was barely statisticly significant -- about 4%). The total vehicle deaths had decreased only slightly, but not by a number that was statistically significant. My belief was that with more cars on the road travelling at a greater speed, there will be more miles travelled, and thus more accidents, but as a percentage (and a whole number), more people would get to their destination safely.
Of course, I'm not sure if the standard for vehicle crashworthiness had drastically changed over that year, but I'm guessing that it hadn't.
I'm sure that you'll be quick to point out that I don't have data on accidents per VMT. You're right, it's difficult to draw an accurate corelation. However, given NHTSA's writing their paper before the less partial data was in, they were in an even worse position to draw up a judgement -- and they still did. FWIW, in my research for this paper, I found a request for information from NHTSA from police departments, hospitals, and emergency workers asking for data showing a corelation between increased highway fatalities/injuries/incidents and increased speed limits. In other words, the taxpayer funded administration who reports their findings to DOT and congress to recommend highway regulation is not imaprtial. In fact, they have a big axe to grind (in this case, the old saying that "speed kills"). IMO, the grandparent poster is slightly ahead of our government.
I was talking to someone at work about it and they thought that maybe today's engines are tuned so well and change with different environments that it doesn't make a difference. It only makes a difference if you are stopped a lot like in traffic jams.
Driving style does make a difference, and engines aren't tuned that well. Like you said, your tests weren't entirely scientific, so there may or may not be something to it. As an extreme example, when I put my 28 MPG street car on a race track I regularly get 6-10 MPG. Perhaps in one test, you were hauling your family and all of their stuff, making for a heavier car. Or perhaps it was colder one day than the next, changing performance characteristics of your engine.
What it comes down to is that accelerating quickly uses more fuel (you're opening your throttle up all the way, allowing more air and fuel to move the mass of your vehicle more quickly). The different between "normal" and wide open throttle acceleration numbers can depend a bit on how much power your car has on tap (loosely, how much air and fuel you're able to move through the motor), and I believe that you'll see the numbers that you're expecting on a higher performance car. For example, if you have a turbo charged car, staying off of boost should increase your gas mileage.
We most likely will not know if God does or does not exist. But intelligent design cannot be considered part of science until and unless every facet of the theory is held up to scientific investigation, which God can't be, as of yet.
I think that you're onto something, but I have one minor exception: creationists and ID folks use of the term "theory" is not applicable in a scientific sense and tends to blur the discussion. Intelligent Design is not a theory in the scientific sense. A theory is a scientific hypothesis that stands up to experimental testing, but has not been directly observed. As far as I know, Intelligent Design is not a theory, it's still a hypothesis.
Modern/popular use of English has frequently (and mistakenly) interchanged the use of the words theory and hypothesis. While theory can have both meanings, the use of the two different meanings are not interchangable in a scientific context -- which only blurs meanings. It further shows that the people pushing the "theory" of ID (and putting notices in biology school books that there are other "theories" about our origins) are just ignorant of scientific principles. I don't have a problem with people learning about creationism or ID...I just have a problem with it being taught in a scientific context. It's simply not science.
I was being consistent. Let me try to clarify for you. You don't get cheaper phones (or rates) without signing a contract. If you don't sign a contract, you pay retail for your phone. Also, the infrastructure is privately financed and owned...so they make the rules. When you own your own nationwide wireless infrastructure, you can dictate billing and service terms to customers. It's that simple.
To take it a step further, the contracts do more than just pay for the phones. With a contract, mobile phone companies (or any company) can book their dollars early, because you've signed a contract guaranting their revenue. Enough of these contracts will allow the phone companies to look better on paper, which makes their shares more valuable, and allows them to get a big credit line (if needed). This way, they can spend billions on their networks.
But you don't get any sort of discounted rate after your contract expires...Can you explain this without using the phrase "evil cellphone companies"?
Yeah, they're a business trying to turn a buck. I don't find it evil, especially since I like their service. It doesn't have to make sense to you, and if it's too unfair for you that they want to make a buck, don't patronize their business. These are all publicly traded companies, and they're required by law to publicly post audited financials...so if you're really curious and want to see who makes how much, and how much they really draw in annually, go nuts. I don't care that much. Service terms requiring me to sign a contract to get the service I want doesn't dissuade me from doing personal business with a vendor. It does, however prevent me from selecting a provider for my work...in fact, I turned away a few providers bidding on our RFP because they required a contract on individual phones -- I didn't find it reasonable for me to have to manage those individual contracts. Does that make it an "evil" business practice? No. It just didn't meet my needs.
Does my personal cell phone company have practices that I dislike? Sure...but overall, the service that they provide to me is worthwhile, and I will continue to pay for it.
er, I think you mean "It's a rather effective form of theft", except of course you have a ToS which legalises it.
No, that ain't theft. If people willingly come back and pay, it anything but theft. If SA took people's credit card numbers and arbitratily started charging people for bad postings, that would be theft. It's a private site, and they can do with it what they please. Don't like it, don't subscribe. Besides, what's wrong with turning a profit? Anything wrong with turning a greater profit?
You greatly underestimate the stupidity of the average capitalist consumer.
Is it stupidity, or they just value the service more than you and are willing to go through what you're not? Are the companies greedy, or just trying to turn a buck? Have you looked at their SEC filings to see how much they're really making? Don't they have a right to charge whatever they want, since they've invested billions in their infrastructure, or do you just deserve the service for free?
Wireless companies are a little more willing to beat up on individual consumers than businesses. However, in order the subsidize their phones, they have to lock consumers into a contract. Terminating your contract early without cause is a breach of contract. Otherwise, providers would either have to charge an insane amount of money for the phones, or simply lose gobs of money on them. Since they're a business, they won't jsut eat those dollars and not turn a profit. Besides, most will allow you to go contract-free, but you won't qualify for discounted phones or their most aggressive rates. Some providers have business level agreements (for multiple phones) where contracts aren't required (like Nextel and Cingular/ATTWS). Others have these requirements. That's where capitalism comes into play -- you have a choice, and if you don't like your choices and don't want to play, you don't have to.
I wasn't specifically referring to Google at this point, and of course any private firm that offers shares, is doing so because it hopes to IPO one day.
Right on - however, buyouts and dividens are also motivation for taking on private stock options. Buyouts are typically more common for small businesses than an IPO.
If you want to grow a company to be very big very fast, like Google, you are going to have to go public, period. There is no other way to raise that much cash that fast. No bank is going to lend you the money, they aren't in the business of funding business plans anymore, they have moved on to secured lending like mortgages and car loans. VCs will fund you but they only do it to cash out in one fell swoop later, which requires an IPO. They also won't give you the sheer volume of cash needed to get big fast.
You make an interesting point, however, I understand that Google's IPO was for different reasons. Google had grown so large as a private company, that they were at the stage where they would be begin to be regulated similarly to a publicly traded company (releasing audited financials, etc). Google didn't really need those IPO dollars in order to continue to grow -- as it turns out, they were already cash heavy.
I do think that your comment applies, but more at the part where Google was trying to come up with a strategic plan for what to do with all of the cash the IPO would generate. I think that this stage probably happened after they realized that staying private wasn't going to be quite as beneficial.
Also note that your employees, the best ones, are constantly being lured away by the thought if stock options from a competitor. Compensation is important, and its easier to let the investing public do the heavy lifting.
They didn't offer shares to their employees when they were private? I don't know, but I'd be surprised if they didn't.
I went to an American college to get a CS degree. I do not know how CS degrees are structured in Canada, but here in the home of the War On Drugs, CS degrees tend to be conceptual. I found that even the practical stuff I did (programming) was completely different than the stuff I did in my professional career.
That being said, the difference between studying hardware and software does not generally apply to university -- it applies to trade school. In a university setting, people who want to get into hardware generally get into engineering, which seems different from what you want to do. For the hardware stuff, check out a place like DeVry Institute.
My advice for a college student: Figure out what you love doing and figure out how to study it while balancing the university's core curriculum. If you have to do internships and independant studies to get there, go for it. (Internships tend to make you more employable once you're out of school). Ultimately, you're going to learn most of what you need in the field, as well as in continuing education courses after university. With your degree, you will come out with general conceptual knowledge (usually about programming language paradigms and data structures), decent coding skills, and a piece of paper that will get you in a door for a job interview.
I can't think of too much to add to your.bashrc and.profile, but if these are former GUI users, used to the modern graphical world and the modern Internet(s) -- you may want to make their world a little more famaliar by making some ASCII porn available. Perhaps you could make a symlink to iexplore.exe which will simply cat some ASCII porn out for them. If ANSI color terminals available, you can even make it a little more elaborate.;)
Yellow dog linux: http://www.terrasoftsolutions.com/
Yeah, I used their Linux distro back in the day. I'm not going want to make any qualitative judgements, since I haven't used their distro since 2000. However, comparing them to larger companies who either build/support distributions or support Linux on commercial hardware (Red Hat, Novell/SUSE, Dell, IBM, Sun) -- these guys all use x86-based hardware. This is what my point was. Not only do they choose it based on its cost, but this platform (due to its longevity and wide availability due to market dominance) is what Linux was originally developed for. Furthermore, Linux has seem more development on the x86 platform than any other. That is what I had based my statement on.
Mac's are much better for running Linux on than PC's due to better supported and more stable hardware.
I haven't run any Mac Linuxes for a long time, so my knowledge on this could easily be dated, but IIRC, Apple hardware is not better supported for Linux use than Wintel hardware. It could be better supported (due to the common hardware that you pointed out earlier), but due to the cost and wide availability of commodity X86 hardware, it's historically been the best supported hardware on the market for Linux.
I don't begrudge them of their money, nor do I begrudge them of their ability to send up satellites on their whim. However, I wonder what the general public is going to benefit from all this private space "littering". Is the benefit from space travel and those little bits of metal flying around the planet only available to those who pay a fee to private companies?
If it were up to me, I think satellites would only be owned by government bodies so that the services that were provided by these planetary companions would be made available to all citizens.
You make an interesting point, but after considering it carefully, I respectfully disagree with everything you just said.
They provide a service that I'm willing to pay for -- media content delivery. If you don't want it, don't pay for it. I don't want the government launching these satellites, because I don't want the government controlling the content. Furthermore, since governments don't own satellite airspace, governments don't get to license it. This leads me to some other questions for you: Because airplanes fly over your airspace, should they be made available to all citizens? It's really only wealthy citizens, businesses, and governments who can own and operate these vehicles -- very similar to satellites. What's the ultimate difference between a company launching a dozen satellites in geosynchronous orbit versus building a vast terrestrial distribution network? Should only governments be allowed to build these networks? In both cases (satellite and wired), the businesses own the infrastructure, and the consumer simply pays for service. It covers both media licensing and distribution costs. This way, the networks are able to get around government censorship of what they broadcast -- terrestrial television and radio broadcasts are still subject to this censorship. I generally do not patronize those services due to this censorship. Personally, I find the censorship far more obscene than the content they are trying to protect me from.
As far as the service rendered, it's entertainment. Does it benefit us? It depends on how much you value entertainment. One man's junk is another man's gold. When we buy it, it's a choice. When the government provides it, we're all paying for it whether we like it or not.
Finally, as far as I know, the sky is open to anyone who wants to put something up there (providing that they acquire the necessary licenses from whatever applicable aerospace governing administration for their launch vehicle). There are two problems: building these communication devices is very expensive and putting them in place is extremely expensive. The only groups who seem to have the cash to do such a thing are goverments and businesses. It sounds an awful lot like you're begrudging them of their money and their ability to send up satellites on their whim.
You're asking for quite a bit. A few people here have pointed out that FX 55 does not support a multi-cpu configuration (so you're already asking for a custom CPU/chipset), however, taking it a step further, the development process that goes into hardware development (especially for mainboards) is astounding. From reference chipset design (as well as testing and manufacture), to OEM's implementing that design (again, testing and manufacture). It's a big deal, and the process costs millions from end-to-end.
If you can afford this kind of solution, and are willing to take it on for personal use, I think that you're right that the discussion is quickly exceeding the more-money-than-brains department and entering the more-money-than-god department. Hell, if you can justify the cost of not only one, but two FX55's for a personal machine, you may already be in the more-money-than-brains department.
Check out the AMD roadmaps at Anandtech.com. You may just want to wait for the next FX chip release with dual cores, and an NF4 SLI nForce chipset. The dual core chip is as close as you'll get to true SMP, SLI will provide your 2 x16 PCI-e slots, the NF4 will provide support for dual-channel memory. These systems also come with SATA raid support, but IMO, an external controller is best (especially if you can find one with a battery backed cache). You'll have plenty of cash leftover for a badass liquid cooling system to overclock the crap out of that sucker. You will lose the exclusivity of having a super-custom system that nobody else can get, but hey -- it'll still be badass, and you will save $millions over custom hardware development.
As an alternative, if you're after exclusivity, you can start a hardware review website, gather a large readership, and then ask manufacturers for pre-releases of the latest greatest hardware for testing purposes. You'll get better-than-consumer support, and will have a machine that none of your friends will be able to buy for at least a few months.
I am a musician myself and am under the camp that music should be free and people get paied for doing SHOWS.
Are you a professional musician, or do you have a day job? What is your album distribution like? Who sells them? Not trying to get in your face, but it's good to qualify that if you're going to use it for the discussion.
Many professional musicians don't really make money on albums anyway unless they've picked up very widespread distribution. Most local and regional bands I know lose money on albums (unless they're sold by the band at shows along with other merchandise), but use them to promote tours, which is where they (local and regional bands) earn their living.
However, if a band reaches critical mass amongst commercial listeners, they have to lay out a sizable chunk of change (usually a loan) to finance the production, distribution, and promotion costs of an album. It's a huge risk. The point is that those bands are the ones that stand to lose everything, and piracy can really hurt them (especially considering the chunk that comes out of their sales to finance the album).
Is this aspect of the "system" fucked? In some cases, sure. My point is that these arguments are never very cut-and-dried, because the business of music is as varied as the genres invloved. I'm actually pretty optimistic about the future, since new use of technology is allowing musicians to bypass record companies and produce albums by themselves cheaply and efficiently, allowing for "organic" distribution, rather than a hit-or-miss attempt at market saturation (like covertly paying radio stations to play your single and boost album sales).
Personally, I think that that similar to the American radio business, record labels will (in a sense) create a need for a competing market. Radio consolidation has irritated many listeners with syndicated, unmanned stations, and increased the ad/content ratio. Further, they've bent over for the FCC. This will really push the satellite radio market. Similarly, tactics from record companies will put the spotlight on independant labels, as well as prompt more bands to handle their own recording and distribution, sometimes turning to new uses of technology, such as digital distibution. As the costs of production, distribution, and promotion drop, the need for a large, central recording industry will drop as well. In the end, I think that we'll both agree that culture will win out.
They're only "activist" if they don't decide in your favor, at least as far as Rightists in the U.S. are concerned.
Thank you! I'm glad that someone else is dismissing the term "activist judge" as a conservative rallying cry. As much as I support queer rights (as well as human rights in general), the first time I heard the term "activist judge", I understood the concern that federal judges may not have been deciding on an issue of law, rather, may have tried to decide on the right thing to do. I'm not saying that I agreed with the conservative sentiment, but I understand the concern and the potential appearance of the decision.
However, when the term was used again in the Terri Schaivo case by Bill Frist and Tom DeLay, it was so obviously bullshit that (IMO) it totally devalued their original use of the term...especially because (historically, at least) the legislative and executive branches of the government don't get to make a law for one person that only affects one person. (Sorry, the Terri Schaivo case a big trolling point and I hate to bring it up, but it's the only other time I've heard the term "activist judge" used -- I won't talk about it any further outside of this context.)
The thing that I really take away from it is that no matter what side of an issue you sit on, it just doesn't seem right to break the system to get your way, because ultimately, someone else will justify breaking the system to get their way and you may not like it. Was the system broken by anyone in the LGBT case? I honestly don't know, but at the time, the concern was valid, and deserved some consideration. Interestingly enough, (and depending on your point of view) my comment about breaking the system could be applied to both sides of either case where the term "activist judge" was thrown around. I guess it just comes down to a golden rule: "Don't be a dick." I guess we have quite a few politicians who could care less about that.
Well, you've got a good point. However, the definition that states "the act of taking something [exclusive distribution rights, in this case] from someone [the copyright owner] unlawfully" does seem to fit. Do you agree?
Good point. I could see how it may be constrewed that way, but IMO, it's sort of a stretch. I guess the point that I failed to make was: Why don't we call it what it is?
1. (Law) The act of stealing; specifically, the felonious taking and removing of personal property, with an intent to deprive the rightful owner of the same; larceny.
n : the act of taking something from someone unlawfully; "the thieving is awful at Kennedy International" [syn: larceny, thievery, thieving, stealing]
Personally, I find both arguments here flawed. Property is a concept, and can be extended to intellectual property. Semantically, however, unauthorized copying of IP does not fit the dictionary definition of theft. It may be a breach of agreement, or it may dilute the value of IP, but it simply doesn't fit any definition of 'theft' that I've ever seen. When a con artist is tried, are they tried for theft or fraud? There is a difference (especially in the common case of a dirty salesperson and the issue in question is 'fradulent conveyence'). Someone is deprived of property, but no theft has occured.
I suppose to quell the./ blow-hards, I have to drop a disclaimer in here as well. My objections to the aforementioned definition does not necessarily imply that I condone IP piracy.
Slashdot Mirror
I have to disagree with you there. While there are plenty of unions still around who still do what they were originally intended to, there are also quite a few unions out there who screw themselves out of existance (and quite a few of them that are horribly corrupt).
Three examples: The steel workers unions, the textile workers unions and the airline unions. The former of the two push for legislation and tariffs on imported goods that screws their entire industry in the long run (under the guise of protecting their jobs). Finally, the airline workers union(s) have really screwed themselves. These are groups that have been bitterly entrenched with their management for years and years. They have consistently made unreasonable demands on management when the airlines weren't even able to turn a profit. Management refused (yeah, those guys aren't the best either) to budge, and the unions have refused to make concessions. In the end, stubborness on both sides has helped to screw the United workers out of their pensions (a portion of which will be insured by the federal government -- so you and I get to bail them out). BTW -- airlines have massive layoffs too.
I mean, there are so many stories of greedy unions making power grabs...remember the California grocery store workers strike? Remember what that was over? They were upset about having to share some of the costs of the rising cost of healthcare. They were pissed about having to pay a relatively tiny monthly cost (IIRC, it was $20/mo, but I could be way off) for healthcare, as well as a co-pay. I've been working tech gigs for about a decade now, and I have to say that this kind of coverage is unheard of. It sounded to me like a bunch of entitled whiners.
Are unions all bad? Definitely not -- there are certainly cases where they are necessary and helpful. On the other hand, there are also cases where they're a bunch of jackasses who let themselves get screwed by a power grab, a sense of entitlement, or just some well-meaning blow hard. For me, I'd rather negotiate my wages on my own rather than depend on some union's collective bargaining agreement which will change my compensation negotiations from a friendly discussion of what it will take to hire me into a horrible bureaucratic review. It will turn merit-based compensation increases and bonuses into meager negotiated salary increases (usually below inflation) and cookie-cutter benefits packages. Screw that. I'm an individual and I'm good at what I do. Furthermore, I'm prefectly content to work more than 40 hours a week, do great work, and demand compensation to keep my head in the game.
Unionizing tech workers on the low-level will only increase the cost to hire these people, and decrease their productivity (40 hours a week). What does this mean? Higher cost-per-hour workers, which is a near guarantee for outsourcing. A big fat no thankyou.
On a personal level, if you're so dissatisfied with your job, instead of feeling entitled to satisfaction, why not find a job that you will like?
Not to knitpick or anything, but turbo chargers were originally designed for airplane engines, not diesels. These have been in service since WWII. The idea was that the air was thinner at altitude, and with forced induction, you could increase the air pressure in the engine and thus fly higher.
Turbos didn't make it to sports cars until the 70's, but I believe that they became popular in diesels around the same time they were first applied to passenger cars in the 60's with GM's A-body cars (1962 Corvair and Olds Cutlass). However, manufacturers have become much better at applying turbos to cars, making them cheaper and far more reliable -- and they are now frequently available in non sports cars, where buyers want more power out of a small, inexpensive, fuel efficent motor.
Side rant to your side rant: I wouldn't call the axiom that there's no replacement for displacement an ignorant statement. Sure, you can take a smaller, high compression 4-banger and build it with tolerances to allow for a 10K RPM redline. You'll get high horsepower...which is alright for a track car. However, on the street, it's another story altogether.
My physics are pretty weak, but horsepower is simply calculated from torque -- it's torque over time. These motors produce less torque overall, and don't have a great powerband, thus it must be wound out to go anywhere. Many drivers don't like the world to know when they're trying to bust ahead of someone at a stoplight. The fact is that a larger engine has more coupling power (torque) on tap at any given point in the rev range. They have a greater power band, and are thus more desirable for many folks. Gearing is usually unable to translate into a meaningful performance gain without a very expensive transmission, since a manual tranny takes about a half-second to shift. That's a half second of acceleration lost per shift (most racers will quote a second lost per shift).
Before we get into it over this, let me say that I drive a lightweight car with a very small, high compression 4-cyl motor that need to be revved all the way to go anywhere. I'm with you on the small motor thing, but I think that this is a driver preference thing. I'm just saying that for many (and mostly those in the NA, heavier car camp), there really is no replacement for displacement. They're no more ignorant than you or I are.
I saw the numbers on this a few years back, as well as NHTSA's (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration) analysis and wrote a paper for it as an undergrad. Here's a short rundown (and the numbers are available on the NHTSA website...somewhere): In '96 the national maximum speed limit was revoked by the Republican congress. NHTSA freaked out and predicted highway mayhem. Before they had the definitive numbers (NHTSA and other organizations use total deaths and injuries per VMT (million Vehicle Miles Traveled).
Because NHTSA cannot ever admit that their conjectures were incorrect (ever), they produced some hokie numbers before the deaths and injuries per VMT were released. What they showed was that the fatalities, as a percentage, increased on the interstate highways, and decreased on the non-interstate highways. This is not a hugely significant finding, because as of 1996, the vast majority of highway crashes happen on non-interstate highways (I'm talking 85-95% here).
When the fatality rate information was released, it showed that the fatality and injury rate per million VMT had decreased (IIRC, by a number that was barely statisticly significant -- about 4%). The total vehicle deaths had decreased only slightly, but not by a number that was statistically significant. My belief was that with more cars on the road travelling at a greater speed, there will be more miles travelled, and thus more accidents, but as a percentage (and a whole number), more people would get to their destination safely.
Of course, I'm not sure if the standard for vehicle crashworthiness had drastically changed over that year, but I'm guessing that it hadn't.
I'm sure that you'll be quick to point out that I don't have data on accidents per VMT. You're right, it's difficult to draw an accurate corelation. However, given NHTSA's writing their paper before the less partial data was in, they were in an even worse position to draw up a judgement -- and they still did. FWIW, in my research for this paper, I found a request for information from NHTSA from police departments, hospitals, and emergency workers asking for data showing a corelation between increased highway fatalities/injuries/incidents and increased speed limits. In other words, the taxpayer funded administration who reports their findings to DOT and congress to recommend highway regulation is not imaprtial. In fact, they have a big axe to grind (in this case, the old saying that "speed kills"). IMO, the grandparent poster is slightly ahead of our government.
Driving style does make a difference, and engines aren't tuned that well. Like you said, your tests weren't entirely scientific, so there may or may not be something to it. As an extreme example, when I put my 28 MPG street car on a race track I regularly get 6-10 MPG. Perhaps in one test, you were hauling your family and all of their stuff, making for a heavier car. Or perhaps it was colder one day than the next, changing performance characteristics of your engine.
What it comes down to is that accelerating quickly uses more fuel (you're opening your throttle up all the way, allowing more air and fuel to move the mass of your vehicle more quickly). The different between "normal" and wide open throttle acceleration numbers can depend a bit on how much power your car has on tap (loosely, how much air and fuel you're able to move through the motor), and I believe that you'll see the numbers that you're expecting on a higher performance car. For example, if you have a turbo charged car, staying off of boost should increase your gas mileage.
As always, YMMV :)
I think that you're onto something, but I have one minor exception: creationists and ID folks use of the term "theory" is not applicable in a scientific sense and tends to blur the discussion. Intelligent Design is not a theory in the scientific sense. A theory is a scientific hypothesis that stands up to experimental testing, but has not been directly observed. As far as I know, Intelligent Design is not a theory, it's still a hypothesis.
Modern/popular use of English has frequently (and mistakenly) interchanged the use of the words theory and hypothesis. While theory can have both meanings, the use of the two different meanings are not interchangable in a scientific context -- which only blurs meanings. It further shows that the people pushing the "theory" of ID (and putting notices in biology school books that there are other "theories" about our origins) are just ignorant of scientific principles. I don't have a problem with people learning about creationism or ID...I just have a problem with it being taught in a scientific context. It's simply not science.
As an American, my response is: There are people abroad? ;)
Not flamebait. It's a play on Godwin's Law and Internet argument "rules". I thought it was pretty good.
I was being consistent. Let me try to clarify for you. You don't get cheaper phones (or rates) without signing a contract. If you don't sign a contract, you pay retail for your phone. Also, the infrastructure is privately financed and owned...so they make the rules. When you own your own nationwide wireless infrastructure, you can dictate billing and service terms to customers. It's that simple.
To take it a step further, the contracts do more than just pay for the phones. With a contract, mobile phone companies (or any company) can book their dollars early, because you've signed a contract guaranting their revenue. Enough of these contracts will allow the phone companies to look better on paper, which makes their shares more valuable, and allows them to get a big credit line (if needed). This way, they can spend billions on their networks.
Yeah, they're a business trying to turn a buck. I don't find it evil, especially since I like their service. It doesn't have to make sense to you, and if it's too unfair for you that they want to make a buck, don't patronize their business. These are all publicly traded companies, and they're required by law to publicly post audited financials...so if you're really curious and want to see who makes how much, and how much they really draw in annually, go nuts. I don't care that much. Service terms requiring me to sign a contract to get the service I want doesn't dissuade me from doing personal business with a vendor. It does, however prevent me from selecting a provider for my work...in fact, I turned away a few providers bidding on our RFP because they required a contract on individual phones -- I didn't find it reasonable for me to have to manage those individual contracts. Does that make it an "evil" business practice? No. It just didn't meet my needs.
Does my personal cell phone company have practices that I dislike? Sure...but overall, the service that they provide to me is worthwhile, and I will continue to pay for it.
No, that ain't theft. If people willingly come back and pay, it anything but theft. If SA took people's credit card numbers and arbitratily started charging people for bad postings, that would be theft. It's a private site, and they can do with it what they please. Don't like it, don't subscribe. Besides, what's wrong with turning a profit? Anything wrong with turning a greater profit?
Is it stupidity, or they just value the service more than you and are willing to go through what you're not? Are the companies greedy, or just trying to turn a buck? Have you looked at their SEC filings to see how much they're really making? Don't they have a right to charge whatever they want, since they've invested billions in their infrastructure, or do you just deserve the service for free?
Wireless companies are a little more willing to beat up on individual consumers than businesses. However, in order the subsidize their phones, they have to lock consumers into a contract. Terminating your contract early without cause is a breach of contract. Otherwise, providers would either have to charge an insane amount of money for the phones, or simply lose gobs of money on them. Since they're a business, they won't jsut eat those dollars and not turn a profit. Besides, most will allow you to go contract-free, but you won't qualify for discounted phones or their most aggressive rates. Some providers have business level agreements (for multiple phones) where contracts aren't required (like Nextel and Cingular/ATTWS). Others have these requirements. That's where capitalism comes into play -- you have a choice, and if you don't like your choices and don't want to play, you don't have to.
Right on - however, buyouts and dividens are also motivation for taking on private stock options. Buyouts are typically more common for small businesses than an IPO.
Who did she play in Dead Like Me?
You make an interesting point, however, I understand that Google's IPO was for different reasons. Google had grown so large as a private company, that they were at the stage where they would be begin to be regulated similarly to a publicly traded company (releasing audited financials, etc). Google didn't really need those IPO dollars in order to continue to grow -- as it turns out, they were already cash heavy.
I do think that your comment applies, but more at the part where Google was trying to come up with a strategic plan for what to do with all of the cash the IPO would generate. I think that this stage probably happened after they realized that staying private wasn't going to be quite as beneficial.
They didn't offer shares to their employees when they were private? I don't know, but I'd be surprised if they didn't.
LOL! Dust off and nuke the site...it's the only way to be sure.
I went to an American college to get a CS degree. I do not know how CS degrees are structured in Canada, but here in the home of the War On Drugs, CS degrees tend to be conceptual. I found that even the practical stuff I did (programming) was completely different than the stuff I did in my professional career.
That being said, the difference between studying hardware and software does not generally apply to university -- it applies to trade school. In a university setting, people who want to get into hardware generally get into engineering, which seems different from what you want to do. For the hardware stuff, check out a place like DeVry Institute.
My advice for a college student: Figure out what you love doing and figure out how to study it while balancing the university's core curriculum. If you have to do internships and independant studies to get there, go for it. (Internships tend to make you more employable once you're out of school). Ultimately, you're going to learn most of what you need in the field, as well as in continuing education courses after university. With your degree, you will come out with general conceptual knowledge (usually about programming language paradigms and data structures), decent coding skills, and a piece of paper that will get you in a door for a job interview.
I can't think of too much to add to your .bashrc and .profile, but if these are former GUI users, used to the modern graphical world and the modern Internet(s) -- you may want to make their world a little more famaliar by making some ASCII porn available. Perhaps you could make a symlink to iexplore.exe which will simply cat some ASCII porn out for them. If ANSI color terminals available, you can even make it a little more elaborate. ;)
Yeah, I used their Linux distro back in the day. I'm not going want to make any qualitative judgements, since I haven't used their distro since 2000. However, comparing them to larger companies who either build/support distributions or support Linux on commercial hardware (Red Hat, Novell/SUSE, Dell, IBM, Sun) -- these guys all use x86-based hardware. This is what my point was. Not only do they choose it based on its cost, but this platform (due to its longevity and wide availability due to market dominance) is what Linux was originally developed for. Furthermore, Linux has seem more development on the x86 platform than any other. That is what I had based my statement on.
I haven't run any Mac Linuxes for a long time, so my knowledge on this could easily be dated, but IIRC, Apple hardware is not better supported for Linux use than Wintel hardware. It could be better supported (due to the common hardware that you pointed out earlier), but due to the cost and wide availability of commodity X86 hardware, it's historically been the best supported hardware on the market for Linux.
You make an interesting point, but after considering it carefully, I respectfully disagree with everything you just said.
They provide a service that I'm willing to pay for -- media content delivery. If you don't want it, don't pay for it. I don't want the government launching these satellites, because I don't want the government controlling the content. Furthermore, since governments don't own satellite airspace, governments don't get to license it. This leads me to some other questions for you: Because airplanes fly over your airspace, should they be made available to all citizens? It's really only wealthy citizens, businesses, and governments who can own and operate these vehicles -- very similar to satellites. What's the ultimate difference between a company launching a dozen satellites in geosynchronous orbit versus building a vast terrestrial distribution network? Should only governments be allowed to build these networks? In both cases (satellite and wired), the businesses own the infrastructure, and the consumer simply pays for service. It covers both media licensing and distribution costs. This way, the networks are able to get around government censorship of what they broadcast -- terrestrial television and radio broadcasts are still subject to this censorship. I generally do not patronize those services due to this censorship. Personally, I find the censorship far more obscene than the content they are trying to protect me from.
As far as the service rendered, it's entertainment. Does it benefit us? It depends on how much you value entertainment. One man's junk is another man's gold. When we buy it, it's a choice. When the government provides it, we're all paying for it whether we like it or not.
Finally, as far as I know, the sky is open to anyone who wants to put something up there (providing that they acquire the necessary licenses from whatever applicable aerospace governing administration for their launch vehicle). There are two problems: building these communication devices is very expensive and putting them in place is extremely expensive. The only groups who seem to have the cash to do such a thing are goverments and businesses. It sounds an awful lot like you're begrudging them of their money and their ability to send up satellites on their whim.
You're asking for quite a bit. A few people here have pointed out that FX 55 does not support a multi-cpu configuration (so you're already asking for a custom CPU/chipset), however, taking it a step further, the development process that goes into hardware development (especially for mainboards) is astounding. From reference chipset design (as well as testing and manufacture), to OEM's implementing that design (again, testing and manufacture). It's a big deal, and the process costs millions from end-to-end.
If you can afford this kind of solution, and are willing to take it on for personal use, I think that you're right that the discussion is quickly exceeding the more-money-than-brains department and entering the more-money-than-god department. Hell, if you can justify the cost of not only one, but two FX55's for a personal machine, you may already be in the more-money-than-brains department.
Check out the AMD roadmaps at Anandtech.com. You may just want to wait for the next FX chip release with dual cores, and an NF4 SLI nForce chipset. The dual core chip is as close as you'll get to true SMP, SLI will provide your 2 x16 PCI-e slots, the NF4 will provide support for dual-channel memory. These systems also come with SATA raid support, but IMO, an external controller is best (especially if you can find one with a battery backed cache). You'll have plenty of cash leftover for a badass liquid cooling system to overclock the crap out of that sucker. You will lose the exclusivity of having a super-custom system that nobody else can get, but hey -- it'll still be badass, and you will save $millions over custom hardware development.
As an alternative, if you're after exclusivity, you can start a hardware review website, gather a large readership, and then ask manufacturers for pre-releases of the latest greatest hardware for testing purposes. You'll get better-than-consumer support, and will have a machine that none of your friends will be able to buy for at least a few months.
Are you a professional musician, or do you have a day job? What is your album distribution like? Who sells them? Not trying to get in your face, but it's good to qualify that if you're going to use it for the discussion.
Many professional musicians don't really make money on albums anyway unless they've picked up very widespread distribution. Most local and regional bands I know lose money on albums (unless they're sold by the band at shows along with other merchandise), but use them to promote tours, which is where they (local and regional bands) earn their living.
However, if a band reaches critical mass amongst commercial listeners, they have to lay out a sizable chunk of change (usually a loan) to finance the production, distribution, and promotion costs of an album. It's a huge risk. The point is that those bands are the ones that stand to lose everything, and piracy can really hurt them (especially considering the chunk that comes out of their sales to finance the album).
Is this aspect of the "system" fucked? In some cases, sure. My point is that these arguments are never very cut-and-dried, because the business of music is as varied as the genres invloved. I'm actually pretty optimistic about the future, since new use of technology is allowing musicians to bypass record companies and produce albums by themselves cheaply and efficiently, allowing for "organic" distribution, rather than a hit-or-miss attempt at market saturation (like covertly paying radio stations to play your single and boost album sales).
Personally, I think that that similar to the American radio business, record labels will (in a sense) create a need for a competing market. Radio consolidation has irritated many listeners with syndicated, unmanned stations, and increased the ad/content ratio. Further, they've bent over for the FCC. This will really push the satellite radio market. Similarly, tactics from record companies will put the spotlight on independant labels, as well as prompt more bands to handle their own recording and distribution, sometimes turning to new uses of technology, such as digital distibution. As the costs of production, distribution, and promotion drop, the need for a large, central recording industry will drop as well. In the end, I think that we'll both agree that culture will win out.
Thank you! I'm glad that someone else is dismissing the term "activist judge" as a conservative rallying cry. As much as I support queer rights (as well as human rights in general), the first time I heard the term "activist judge", I understood the concern that federal judges may not have been deciding on an issue of law, rather, may have tried to decide on the right thing to do. I'm not saying that I agreed with the conservative sentiment, but I understand the concern and the potential appearance of the decision.
However, when the term was used again in the Terri Schaivo case by Bill Frist and Tom DeLay, it was so obviously bullshit that (IMO) it totally devalued their original use of the term...especially because (historically, at least) the legislative and executive branches of the government don't get to make a law for one person that only affects one person. (Sorry, the Terri Schaivo case a big trolling point and I hate to bring it up, but it's the only other time I've heard the term "activist judge" used -- I won't talk about it any further outside of this context.)
The thing that I really take away from it is that no matter what side of an issue you sit on, it just doesn't seem right to break the system to get your way, because ultimately, someone else will justify breaking the system to get their way and you may not like it. Was the system broken by anyone in the LGBT case? I honestly don't know, but at the time, the concern was valid, and deserved some consideration. Interestingly enough, (and depending on your point of view) my comment about breaking the system could be applied to both sides of either case where the term "activist judge" was thrown around. I guess it just comes down to a golden rule: "Don't be a dick." I guess we have quite a few politicians who could care less about that.
Good point. I could see how it may be constrewed that way, but IMO, it's sort of a stretch. I guess the point that I failed to make was: Why don't we call it what it is?
You're quoting definitions, but have left out a definition for theft.
1. (Law) The act of stealing; specifically, the felonious taking and removing of personal property, with an intent to deprive the rightful owner of the same; larceny.
n : the act of taking something from someone unlawfully; "the thieving is awful at Kennedy International" [syn: larceny, thievery, thieving, stealing]
Personally, I find both arguments here flawed. Property is a concept, and can be extended to intellectual property. Semantically, however, unauthorized copying of IP does not fit the dictionary definition of theft. It may be a breach of agreement, or it may dilute the value of IP, but it simply doesn't fit any definition of 'theft' that I've ever seen. When a con artist is tried, are they tried for theft or fraud? There is a difference (especially in the common case of a dirty salesperson and the issue in question is 'fradulent conveyence'). Someone is deprived of property, but no theft has occured.
I suppose to quell the ./ blow-hards, I have to drop a disclaimer in here as well. My objections to the aforementioned definition does not necessarily imply that I condone IP piracy.