That there is no fucking difference between Republicans and Democrats on this particular issues. There are some issues where they agree (use of drones, the insane desire to duplicate Europe's austerity mess, etc), and some where they differ (abortion access, contraception, gay rights, health care access and affordability, to name a few). It is because those real differences exist - and impact people - that we are forced to buy into the electoral circus.
How many lawyers and support staff worked on the lawsuit, and for how long? What kind of wages did lawyers make? I know it is *cool* to make fun of lawyers, but for the amount of work being done is it really that off the wall? As a web developer, I've seen half a million dollar redesigns, and the people on the project made anything from 30 to 80 an hour depending on their role. It might have been grossly high pay, but it might not have been for the actual work being done.
To add another little thought nugget - consider a lawyer who is making 120k and working an 80 hour week. Compare that to the web developer making 100k and working 50 hours a week. Who has the higher salary, really?
Very true, but how they respond might offer you some insight. Perhaps they are caught off guard, or are a bit *too* smooth. If you walk out of an interview with a gut feeling a company is not going to treat you right, and you are fortunate enough to have other options - listen to that feeling. I've learned that lesson the hard way.
Consider: A protected twitter account, a twitter account that is public, a posting on Facebook that is restricted to certain friends, a posting that is open to friends of friends, your school records, your medical records. In each instance, there is a varying degree of privacy expected. That degree of privacy ought to be the measure of how a court accesses the information, rather than the medium the information is stored in.
If that implication were to have any merit:
1. Obama would have had to have done this earlier.
2. We'd need evidence conservative voters respond to evidence rather than affiliation.
3. Voters would have to believe Obama was against the scanners - as far as I know he hasn't done anything to fight them. If anything, he's been yet another proponent. This is one thing that isn't likely to change at all based on who is in the oval office.
I should clarify, when I say checking cnn.com, I don't mean the article pages. I mean their homepage. "people are less likely than ever to bother checking the cnn.com homepage vs going directly to google news.". I had thought that was clear from the context, but it never hurts to spell things out.
"The only way to see the newspaper's side is if you imagine someone make a faux cnn homepage - listing only cnn articles and putting up advertising. That would seem fishy, wouldn't it?"
yes, but that's not happening here, so it isn't relevant.
Hahaha, sure it is. I'm pointing out a possible fear the newspapers have, and the one situation in which you could see their side of the story. I then proceed to explain why EVEN THAT scenario ends up being on google's side anyway.
Google is clearly in the right - it would break the internet if you couldn't link to articles on another site. That being said, the newspapers are correct in that they are losing traffic to their homepage - people are less likely than ever to bother checking cnn.com vs going directly to google news. What the newspapers fail to see is:
1. They gain far more traffic to article pages than they lose from their homepage.
2. Their homepages are not as inviting as google's - learn from that. Figure out why. Is it just choice, or is there more to it?
3. If they succeed, then sites that currently link to articles and drive traffic - not just google - would delist them. All that traffic coming from reddit, buzzfeed, blogspot, wordpress, facebook, twitter, etc - GONE.
The only way to see the newspaper's side is if you imagine someone make a faux cnn homepage - listing only cnn articles and putting up advertising. That would seem fishy, wouldn't it? But to make that side count - to give it the same weight as google's, you'd need to discount that google is a search engine, displays multiple pages, and gives far more than it takes. You'd need to ignore that enforcement only becomes possible if you end up hurting more than just google - and the impact that would have on the web would be devastating.
Here is where collective power would be of use. On the market side, we can exert pressure on paypal by making efforts to drive their customers to the competition (and reaching out to the competition to help them highlight their lack of this phrase). This approach does require there is actual viable competition, and that they don't pull the same crap (so in many markets it wouldn't be effective).
The second side is government. This is where regulation shines! Let's lobby Congress (and hell, local government) to pass laws forbidding private arbitration as a binding substitute for lawsuits. Let's use the power of the law to slap Paypal down and say "no, you are NOT allowed to do this to your customers".
I'm glad you asked, as this is an important point. Let's say you are hired at a great rate of pay (I'll just use 100k for this example). That's your pay when you work 40 hours. If you are working 80 hours without overtime, you are effectively cutting your rate in half. You are going from around 50/hr (50 * 40 hours * 50 weeks (2 weeks off unpaid) not considering benefits) to 25/hr. That's what I mean by lower pay. When you work unpaid overtime, you are giving yourself a paycut. Not to say this isn't a worthwhile sacrifice in certain situations. But there are definitely companies that encourage this behavior as a norm precisely so they can save money on staffing (as shortsighted as that is).
Bosses love to hear it. Employees like you are easier to exploit. More work for less pay. Employees like you also make it easier to pressure other employees into similar behavior.
There is a sharp difference between paying with currency, and paying with one's right to privacy. The fact that I got modded down (and you got modded up for confusing the issue) is lamentable. If we had landlords who offered free housing in exchange for spying on their tenants, there would be an uproar. In fact, that has happened: Florida, Massachusetts.
Its a terrible metaphor. A better metaphor would be living in an apartment for free, in exchange for letting the landlord collect information about you to sell to advertisers (and show you advertisements in your bathroom). The longer you live in that apartment, the more effort, time, and money it would take to move your belongings to another apartment. Now imagine each year, rather than raising the rent, the landlord starts making increasingly invasive demands. Now he wants to track what you buy at the grocery store. The following year he wants to replace the audio recording devices with a few video devices. Maybe he wants to collect info from your car/subway/bus usage. And so on. Suddenly that initial trust that caused you to move in has eroded, yet moving out is not a trivial decision.
This is why I am glad there are people who fight for privacy rights.
The behavior of the Church during (and leading up to) world war 2 was entirely more complex than standing squarely across the path of hitler's ambitions and campaigns: Wikipedia. Especially the words and actions of pope pius.
1. Using the words "utterly fail" doesn't matter when you are wrong: White House Budget. Yes, Congress enacts the budget. The President has the ability to use his office to shape the budget debate - a more powerful president can do so to a significant degree. A large part of the power that comes with the executive branch is the gravitas and social power it can potentially wield.
2. You are attempting to nitpick away from the point of my original post - that the parent post tried - and failed - to attack Obama's credibility and by extension offer cover to Romney's. Romney has worked hard at eroding any credibility he could have had on the budget through lies, obfuscation, and willful ignorance. Obama has, regardless of one's views of him as a politician and leader - maintained credibility. The only place he's arguably hurt his credibility is by buying into the conservative myth that austerity measures are either necessary or helpful (one need simply look at Europe to see what a catastrophic failure they have been). That is in an entirely different league from willfully and intentionally trying to hide the economic instability and class war engendering greed of the Romney/Ryan budget.
3. We keep getting shafted by politicians because we do not have an adequate feedback loop to punish the corrupt, we need to elect politicians as package deals (taking bad positions with the good), and we have a twisted two party system driven by corporate influence. Not because "99%" of the country believes campaign promises.
Still Obama. You don't seem to understand credibility vs ability. Romney's budgets in MA, and his proposed budgets for the US are full of lies that don't add up. Obama's budget - and his inability to find funding for planetary science (and fight those in both parties who oppose such funding) is an issue of ability. He's not making up numbers.
False. Total Expenditures for 2008 = 596 billion for both primary and secondary education. Of that, 506 billion was directly being spent by the districts (vs adult education, debt obligations, etc for the remainder).
Plus, I wonder how much you know about schools that you would suggest firing administrators entirely.
We've gotten to a sick point as a society. We know what works when it comes to education, it is no great mystery. Smaller classes, highly qualified and motivated teachers, involved parents. Instruction that imparts a love of learning and cultivates the desire to investigate the world around us.
Instead of providing this, we drain schools of funding and treat teachers with hatred and distrust. Students in low income schools are subjected to draconian learning environments where their future is ruled by testable metrics and a discipline fetish.
So doctors - despite knowing the significant risks of drugs that alter brain chemistry (especially with children) - are using their own tools to step in and help. Either they are way out of line, or they have hit the nail on the head by classifying academic performance as central to a child's long term health. Either way: they wouldn't be in this mess if we just invested in schools with a fraction of the enthusiasm with which we invest in bailing out banks and fighting wars.
I'd say that using my phone for music and video is what would turn it into a toy. I use it to make phone calls, text, and look things up (especially using maps) when I'm on the go. What carriers don't like is how little data I use, since that is rapidly becoming their new cash cow (even replacing texting).
With all the embarrassment from a snafu like this, Microsoft is sure to reform their ways. Starting with a complete rewrite of the DMCA-auto tool in something other than VB.net.
Hahaha, yeah nothing would fix the election like an uniformed population. Removing news coverage would just let the candidates escape the dumb things they say.
Slashdot Mirror
That there is no fucking difference between Republicans and Democrats on this particular issues. There are some issues where they agree (use of drones, the insane desire to duplicate Europe's austerity mess, etc), and some where they differ (abortion access, contraception, gay rights, health care access and affordability, to name a few). It is because those real differences exist - and impact people - that we are forced to buy into the electoral circus.
How many lawyers and support staff worked on the lawsuit, and for how long? What kind of wages did lawyers make? I know it is *cool* to make fun of lawyers, but for the amount of work being done is it really that off the wall? As a web developer, I've seen half a million dollar redesigns, and the people on the project made anything from 30 to 80 an hour depending on their role. It might have been grossly high pay, but it might not have been for the actual work being done.
To add another little thought nugget - consider a lawyer who is making 120k and working an 80 hour week. Compare that to the web developer making 100k and working 50 hours a week. Who has the higher salary, really?
Very true, but how they respond might offer you some insight. Perhaps they are caught off guard, or are a bit *too* smooth. If you walk out of an interview with a gut feeling a company is not going to treat you right, and you are fortunate enough to have other options - listen to that feeling. I've learned that lesson the hard way.
Consider: A protected twitter account, a twitter account that is public, a posting on Facebook that is restricted to certain friends, a posting that is open to friends of friends, your school records, your medical records. In each instance, there is a varying degree of privacy expected. That degree of privacy ought to be the measure of how a court accesses the information, rather than the medium the information is stored in.
If that implication were to have any merit:
1. Obama would have had to have done this earlier.
2. We'd need evidence conservative voters respond to evidence rather than affiliation.
3. Voters would have to believe Obama was against the scanners - as far as I know he hasn't done anything to fight them. If anything, he's been yet another proponent. This is one thing that isn't likely to change at all based on who is in the oval office.
Hahaha, sure it is. I'm pointing out a possible fear the newspapers have, and the one situation in which you could see their side of the story. I then proceed to explain why EVEN THAT scenario ends up being on google's side anyway.
I think you just missed my arguments.
Google is clearly in the right - it would break the internet if you couldn't link to articles on another site. That being said, the newspapers are correct in that they are losing traffic to their homepage - people are less likely than ever to bother checking cnn.com vs going directly to google news. What the newspapers fail to see is:
1. They gain far more traffic to article pages than they lose from their homepage.
2. Their homepages are not as inviting as google's - learn from that. Figure out why. Is it just choice, or is there more to it?
3. If they succeed, then sites that currently link to articles and drive traffic - not just google - would delist them. All that traffic coming from reddit, buzzfeed, blogspot, wordpress, facebook, twitter, etc - GONE.
The only way to see the newspaper's side is if you imagine someone make a faux cnn homepage - listing only cnn articles and putting up advertising. That would seem fishy, wouldn't it? But to make that side count - to give it the same weight as google's, you'd need to discount that google is a search engine, displays multiple pages, and gives far more than it takes. You'd need to ignore that enforcement only becomes possible if you end up hurting more than just google - and the impact that would have on the web would be devastating.
Here is where collective power would be of use. On the market side, we can exert pressure on paypal by making efforts to drive their customers to the competition (and reaching out to the competition to help them highlight their lack of this phrase). This approach does require there is actual viable competition, and that they don't pull the same crap (so in many markets it wouldn't be effective).
The second side is government. This is where regulation shines! Let's lobby Congress (and hell, local government) to pass laws forbidding private arbitration as a binding substitute for lawsuits. Let's use the power of the law to slap Paypal down and say "no, you are NOT allowed to do this to your customers".
Hahaha, judging by the modding on this and the grandparent - calling out sexism on slashdot = inviting downvotes.
False. Counter Examples: Rush Limbaugh, Ultra Orthodox Men, Russian Official, and so on.
I'm glad you asked, as this is an important point. Let's say you are hired at a great rate of pay (I'll just use 100k for this example). That's your pay when you work 40 hours. If you are working 80 hours without overtime, you are effectively cutting your rate in half. You are going from around 50/hr (50 * 40 hours * 50 weeks (2 weeks off unpaid) not considering benefits) to 25/hr. That's what I mean by lower pay. When you work unpaid overtime, you are giving yourself a paycut. Not to say this isn't a worthwhile sacrifice in certain situations. But there are definitely companies that encourage this behavior as a norm precisely so they can save money on staffing (as shortsighted as that is).
Bosses love to hear it. Employees like you are easier to exploit. More work for less pay. Employees like you also make it easier to pressure other employees into similar behavior.
Not entirely different. Again, there is a big difference between using currency and privacy to pay for housing.
There is a sharp difference between paying with currency, and paying with one's right to privacy. The fact that I got modded down (and you got modded up for confusing the issue) is lamentable. If we had landlords who offered free housing in exchange for spying on their tenants, there would be an uproar. In fact, that has happened: Florida, Massachusetts.
Its a terrible metaphor. A better metaphor would be living in an apartment for free, in exchange for letting the landlord collect information about you to sell to advertisers (and show you advertisements in your bathroom). The longer you live in that apartment, the more effort, time, and money it would take to move your belongings to another apartment. Now imagine each year, rather than raising the rent, the landlord starts making increasingly invasive demands. Now he wants to track what you buy at the grocery store. The following year he wants to replace the audio recording devices with a few video devices. Maybe he wants to collect info from your car/subway/bus usage. And so on. Suddenly that initial trust that caused you to move in has eroded, yet moving out is not a trivial decision.
This is why I am glad there are people who fight for privacy rights.
The behavior of the Church during (and leading up to) world war 2 was entirely more complex than standing squarely across the path of hitler's ambitions and campaigns: Wikipedia. Especially the words and actions of pope pius.
1. Using the words "utterly fail" doesn't matter when you are wrong: White House Budget. Yes, Congress enacts the budget. The President has the ability to use his office to shape the budget debate - a more powerful president can do so to a significant degree. A large part of the power that comes with the executive branch is the gravitas and social power it can potentially wield.
2. You are attempting to nitpick away from the point of my original post - that the parent post tried - and failed - to attack Obama's credibility and by extension offer cover to Romney's. Romney has worked hard at eroding any credibility he could have had on the budget through lies, obfuscation, and willful ignorance. Obama has, regardless of one's views of him as a politician and leader - maintained credibility. The only place he's arguably hurt his credibility is by buying into the conservative myth that austerity measures are either necessary or helpful (one need simply look at Europe to see what a catastrophic failure they have been). That is in an entirely different league from willfully and intentionally trying to hide the economic instability and class war engendering greed of the Romney/Ryan budget.
3. We keep getting shafted by politicians because we do not have an adequate feedback loop to punish the corrupt, we need to elect politicians as package deals (taking bad positions with the good), and we have a twisted two party system driven by corporate influence. Not because "99%" of the country believes campaign promises.
Still Obama. You don't seem to understand credibility vs ability. Romney's budgets in MA, and his proposed budgets for the US are full of lies that don't add up. Obama's budget - and his inability to find funding for planetary science (and fight those in both parties who oppose such funding) is an issue of ability. He's not making up numbers.
False. Total Expenditures for 2008 = 596 billion for both primary and secondary education. Of that, 506 billion was directly being spent by the districts (vs adult education, debt obligations, etc for the remainder).
Plus, I wonder how much you know about schools that you would suggest firing administrators entirely.
We've gotten to a sick point as a society. We know what works when it comes to education, it is no great mystery. Smaller classes, highly qualified and motivated teachers, involved parents. Instruction that imparts a love of learning and cultivates the desire to investigate the world around us.
Instead of providing this, we drain schools of funding and treat teachers with hatred and distrust. Students in low income schools are subjected to draconian learning environments where their future is ruled by testable metrics and a discipline fetish.
So doctors - despite knowing the significant risks of drugs that alter brain chemistry (especially with children) - are using their own tools to step in and help. Either they are way out of line, or they have hit the nail on the head by classifying academic performance as central to a child's long term health. Either way: they wouldn't be in this mess if we just invested in schools with a fraction of the enthusiasm with which we invest in bailing out banks and fighting wars.
I'd say that using my phone for music and video is what would turn it into a toy. I use it to make phone calls, text, and look things up (especially using maps) when I'm on the go. What carriers don't like is how little data I use, since that is rapidly becoming their new cash cow (even replacing texting).
Pay what you want, support charity, get your product built!
Pay what you want! If you paid for web development separately, it could cost thousands or even millions of dollars for larger corporate sites!
You choose how your purchase is divided: Developers, Charities, or even Us!
Can't wait for the upcoming "Humble Education Bundle" and "Humble Grocery Bundle". This is the future.
So if you say something explicitly in your terms of service, it becomes both legal and ethical?
With all the embarrassment from a snafu like this, Microsoft is sure to reform their ways. Starting with a complete rewrite of the DMCA-auto tool in something other than VB.net.
Hahaha, yeah nothing would fix the election like an uniformed population. Removing news coverage would just let the candidates escape the dumb things they say.