About six years ago the company I work at hired a guy in the QA department. I worked with him on a project briefly. He was a friendly sort, but he tended to show up to work late, would fall asleep in meetings. Talking to him, he mentioned his home business and how grueling it was. He even talked about having a business plan and everything.
Well eventually this poor performance all caught up to him, and the project he was working on wanted him replaced. The manager spoke to him, and he asked for a few days off to get his head straight.
Come Monday he called to say he'd be out all week.
On Wednesday the police showed up looking for him.
Turned out he'd been running a brothel out of his home.
Fortunately nothing bad happened at work, other than the lousy work. But he also had a conviction from the past for striking a police officer. But nobody did a background check and they never realized this.
We also once had a guy who worked in the IT Operations area who was going around at night stealing things off of desks, taking them down to the mail room and putting them in FedEx containers and shipping them to his family in the Phillipines. Laptops, ipods, whatever. It was quite bold, especially to use our FedEx account for shipping.
From what you're saying, Costco is more profitable than Sam's Club because Costco's management understands the value of employees in the long term, while Sam's Club's management doesn't. This is an issue of management competence, not "Liberal" vs "Republican".
No, it's interesting, but it is exactly that. A difference between "Liberal" and "Republican" values.
Over the years, I've just found the debates interesting. Mainstreet liberals, that is the idiots you meet in the bar may complain about wage discrepancy and whatever, but what they are really complaining about is simply that companies don't value the employees. They treat 'em like dirt. Like the Northwest airlines employees who were laid off in North Dakota and sent a memo telling them to not be ashamed digging for clothes out of garbage cans.
When employees are valued, you don't see the complaints.
But Republican reaction to complaints is "Shut up! Shut up! Shut up! We are your masters, you should bow before us", i.e. the Wal-Mart model of employment.
Now you wouldn't think that would be the case, but look at the responses. Any time someone complains about the relationship between employee and employer, the typical Republican response is to tell them to shut up and quit whining.
But I think most people believe in a free market, and that means consumers and employees have a right to complain either about what they are buying, or their contract for labor.
There's no conflict between long term profits and making the world a better place. People have value. Those who understand that will be more profitable.
Right, and this is really the Liberal position. Conservatives today like to argue strawmen to bullshit you into thinking Liberals are really closet Communists who want the state to own all the businesses. So you should be scared of them, and adopt our Wal-Mart ways of employment to counter them.
Interestingly, that was also how the Nazis gained power in Germany. And with that, the thread has hit Godwin's.
Help me to understand why people on/., detecting that I am -horror-of-horrors- of a conservative bent, insist on putting words in my mouth.
Ahh, because... That's what you did to the parent poster. You wanted to argue a strawman, so I presented you with a strawman to dispute.
Apparently, you just can't help yourself:
Admit it, what bothers you is that the rich are getting richer faster than you are.
Admit what? Why do you think that bothers me? At what point did I say that bothers me? I don't recall ever saying that.
See, you just can't help but put words in peoples mouths and argue strawmen.
You probably want to tax them into the stone age and spread the money around to your friends and "the poor".
Really? Where did I say that?
There, how do you like it when somebody makes hackneyed assumptions about what you think based on the fact that you express "liberal" opinions?
But that is what you do, though. Isn't it? That's the only way Conservatives these days can feel intellectually superior, is if they argue against strawmen. Because straw doesn't fight back.
Flat income tax only works if you eliminate other taxes.
I don't favor things which can never be implemented in a proper and fair manner. That is, another proposal I see is to eliminate income taxes in favor of consumption taxes. Yet such a move would be difficult to enforce, creating a large black market economy and turning every citizen into a criminal. So I don't think it's a good idea.
There have been several articles in recent years about the difference between Sams Club and Costco. Sams Club follows the model of screw the workers, what matters is putting money in the factory owners pocketbook. Costco shares profit with the employees, by paying a decent wage. In the end, Costco has much higher employee retention, better customer service, and greatest customer loyalty... and is a more profitable in terms of Return on Equity.
Costco is a Liberal model. Sams Club is the Republican one.
Why is the Liberal model bad? Everybody benefits. Consumer, owner, employees.
Help me to understand why everybody benefiting drives you crazy.
I don't really care. As someone who drives a BMW, I'm hardly in a position to yell and scream about the proletariat.
However, it seems the real question that is on everybodies mind(at least in US politics) is:
If 2% of the population has 50% of the wealth, what is the appropriate level of taxation?
A> Since they are only 2% of the population, they should pay only 2% of total taxes. B> Since they have 50% of the wealth, they should pay 50% of the total taxes.
Doesn't have anything to do with redistribution. Adam Smith argued in Wealth of Nations that people should pay taxes in proportion to how they benefited from Government.
What does benefit mean? It means having a stable business environment, stable laws, enforcement of contracts, peace, etc.
I don't agree with partisan hacks on either side of the political spectrum who defend their liars just because they happen to espouse their warped political view that lying is good because the "ideology" is greater than truth.
I'm curious.
My political view was it was none of your fucking business. So how can a lie to a question that never should have been asked be at all important to my political views?
It seems to me that your problem isn't partisans, but that you lack any sense of right and wrong. Moral Relativism at it's worst... aka you listen to pundits and think you need to be outraged because some moron in the news media is. Whatever.
Calculating ROI is difficult in technology projects, because there's a factor which is difficult to measure. I'd call it Opportunity Cost, but perhaps there is another name.
That is, several questions come to mind:
- What's the cost for not being able to do something? That is, if there end solution doesn't support a given task, what's the cost? Perhaps they don't even know they could perform this task right now. - Imagine instead of spending time on this project, you did something else with your resources. What's the lost cost of not doing something else more meaningful? - Productivity of endusers? Many people look at the cost of upgrading an old desktop, but don't measure the cost of not upgrading.
There are plenty of questions like this that don't seem to be answered by any of these articles.
Like you, I consider myself agnostic on the global warming. But I'm a little confused at your response to the parent post. How does one offer "substantial evidence" when one feels that the evidence is inconclusive? What type of evidence would he offer?
It's the "only proves" statement. The limited amount of data doesn't prove anything. Whether it is short term climate change or long term climate change is part of the question which we have inconclusive data for. The data we have shows past results, but we cannot necessarily predict future performance. So from the data we cannot know if it is "only short term", or if it is something else.
The main problem with global warming isn't that there isn't some empirical data--it's that the inference isn't completely testable. Computer modeling of a chaotic system, no matter how good, is merely an approximation and will always fail to account properly for some number of factors. It's not that it's not valid, it's just not proof.
I do agree.
But there are other questions which also need to be asked, for example would global warming be bad? It may be that we are not warming per se, but rather we are coming out of an ice age. Namely what is referred to as the Little Iceage.
But these are all still questions. I just despise the certainty, because I don't think it exists.
Sounds more like someone from the left is starting the standard "out of context" smear campaign. They know he might run for President next time and are trying to eliminate him before he starts. Both sides do it and there is very little truth in any of it. Like everything else in politics, accuracy and honesty are not required.
The technical term is "Swiftboating".
Not that that will stop your whining. The right sure does like to whine.
It should be pointed that the few attempts at LEGISLATION that would curtail free speech was sponsored by Democrats.
Perhaps you could give us some examples?
A lot of folks forget that it was Edwin Meese, the Attorney General at the time and a Republican, wrote a legal opinion opposing the proposed PMRC legislation.
Ed Meese, the AG who had Playboy and Penthouse removed from store shelves? The man who didn't even think consenting adults could consent was in favor of kids having access to naughty music?
Perhaps you could provide us a link to his legal opinion?
He said parents were the bets people to decide whether children should be listening to Frank Zappa or whomever.
Labeling of music, movies, games, whatever is not censorship. It's informed parental consent.
If you argue that evidence of Global Warming only proves a short term warming trend and that it is inconclusive whether it is influence by man or if it represents a long term climate change people will call you delusional even though you are correct...
I'm pretty agnostic on the whole Global Warming debate, but it bothers me that the people who are so opposed to it argue on what they believe to be true, rather than what they think to be true. That is what you have done here. You've offered no substantial evidence to support your conclusions, rather you simply imply that all those opposed to your belief are morons.
So why are you so surprised when you are called delusional? You certainly don't offer anything to counter that impression.
He's whining about how young people are turning to get their op-ed info from Jon Stewart and Keith Olbermann and everybody else who isn't Bill O'Reilly. So now he's accusing people who don't buy into his world view of being divorced from reality. Whatever, Falafel Bill.
If O'Reilly wants to go after jihadists, he ought to do so in Counterstrike. It'll get him a lot closer to the "action" than being a member of the whining 101st chairborne.
Also scripted installs suck. best is to make a working machine and image the drive, time for install is cut way WAY down buy using image files.... Problem is that your hardware changes a bit from shipment to shipment... Linux can cope with this silently... Windows can not.
The simplest way to do this with Windows is using nLiteOS to build a custom installation(this is what I do at home), which allows you to add your own device drivers and tweak settings. That works for the simple situations, otherwise there are plenty of other advanced deployment options. Large corporations have many options that even involve remote delivery of the custom image, etc. At our company we have one image, independent of hardware model. It's quite easy to get a machine reimaged. Call the help desk, and they push it down across the network.
I was just surprised that you don't have this level of customization and management with Linux and instead you have to go around looking at different company distributions. I guess it's still maturing. Some day perhaps it will catch up with Windows.
You mean like Fedora Core 6? upon boot you get a "unsupported video mode" on all computers with a LCD and a nvidia 7600 video card... solution, boot into init3 install some obscure rpms, change the xorg.conf by and and reboot. Added 3 hours to the first install and 15 minutes to each one thereafter.
Can't you customize the Fedora install to have this stuff in place for you the first time you boot up?
That's surprising, because you can customize Windows to include updated device drivers, etc. to handle this situation.
disaster... although I can not understand how in the hell you can screw up so bad to get the cost per PC that high.
Not having a good inventory of what was on your network would lead to this kind of spending.
What!?! You've never hired people familiar with the platform you're deploying to deploy it?
How often do you see an ad like "Wanted: Systems installer for large Windows deployment. Must have five years experience deploying Windows Vista"?...Because they decided to stop paying both the experienced planners and the support company.
Perhaps they believed that Linux was free, and they didn't need pay for it?
I've been involved in numerous Windows roll outs, from Win95 on... As well as OS/2 and variations of Unix.
Claiming that it's the fault of incompetent staff isn't really an excuse. In every deployment I've seen, the staff has known nothing about the product when the deployment starts. You learn as you go. What you rely on is good whitepapers and documentation provided by the company on how they expect a rollout to occur. Along with some experience on proper communication, testing strategies, rollout scheduling, etc.
Furthermore in every deployment you encounter obstacles... problems interfacing with some piece of hardware or software. This could be a case of them encountering more obstacles than they assumed initially, and/or having no good reliable source for help to solve them quickly.
I realize this is/. and everybody here thinks they are smarter than everybody else in the world, but the real world doesn't work like that.
When the Constitution was written, each representative had around 50,000 constituents. Today it is roughly 600,000. Why? Because in 1911 Congress passed a law limiting the size of the House to a fixed 435 representatives. Prior to this, the size of the house was determined by the size of the US population.
Since 1911 the US has more than tripled it's population, yet the size of the House of Representatives has remained fixed.
How has Congress managed to keep up with the work load? simple: unelected staff members. The size of the House staff has increased since 1911, going from around 2-3 per house member to around 40.
People like to talk about solutions to this problem involving complex databases and citizen oversight, but we can accomplish much the same thing by reducing the number of unelected staff, and increasing the number of elected representatives while decreasing the size of their districts.
Such a move would also impact gerrymandering of districts, and campaign financing by forcing representatives to talk to the people rather than simply running television spots.
So I agree, we don't want anonymous committee staff. We want elected officials we can hold responsible.
The size of the House should be tripled to accomodate the growing population.
es, but they still have a scape goat if something goes wrong. They'll still blame Bush. Heck, Bush will be blamed for American short-comings for probably 2 presidential terms after him.
Oh, you mean like how the Republicans are still blaming Carter and Clinton for everything wrong today? I've always loved the whole "Clinton is to blame" rationalization, especially for things that happened long after he left office. Did you know Bill Clinton was responsible for North Korea detonating a nuke? He was also responsible for Iran starting to process nuclear material in 2005.
My favorite though is how this election loss was all the fault of the media for reporting bad news.
Personally I still blame Herbert Hoover. But that's just me.
First of all the headline is wrong. It's 'Democratic', not 'Democrat'. Your grammar is worse than mine, and mine is pretty bad.
But as far as internet policy concerns, it's hard to say what will change. The Democrats are generally better with small business, as the Republicans tend to favor the big donor moneyed set, so we'll see a bit more promotion of competition and open access to the "tubes" and such. Nasdaq tech companies certainly did much better in the 1990s then they have recently.
But are they going to favor changing copyright law and such? Doubtful. I hope they can roll back patent changes that allowed patenting of business processes and such, we'll see.
Honestly though, with the fucking mess Bush has created with our foreign policy, I doubt there's going to be much time spent on these types of low-priority domestic issues. It's going to be Iraq, Iraq, Iraq, some Afghanistan, and more Iraq for the next two years until we finally pull out of the Bush Folly.
that the RIAA CEO Mitch Bainwol was the chief of staff of Bill Frist (R-TN). Poor Democratic hater... you just can't win, can ya?
The really sad thing is those Reagan quotes have been more accurate than ever with regards to the Bush Republicans.
A few PJ O'Rourke quotes seem appropriate: * The Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it. * When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators. * Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys.
Most of my work experience is in Microsoft development, though not by choice. It was my first job out of college. In my own time, I run Linux, write in PHP, Perl, MySQL, etc. I don't like developing in.NET much, but I'm used to it, and the money's good.
I'm a.NET developer, and I suspect that I'd hate working with you.
It'd be whine whine whine whine, if I was using PHP I'd do it this way. And I'd spend all my time bitching at you if you'd just get off your fricking ass and stop playing half-life and spent some time reading and learning we could depend on you to get things done by yourself without whining.
Eventually I'd just start ignoring you, or worse I'd give you all the Access applications to support. You'd hate your job even more because you feel you never get anything challenging to work on, and then you'd whine to slashdot asking what you should do with your life.
Maybe this was cruel, but it is how things work in our world.
Slashdot Mirror
About six years ago the company I work at hired a guy in the QA department. I worked with him on a project briefly. He was a friendly sort, but he tended to show up to work late, would fall asleep in meetings. Talking to him, he mentioned his home business and how grueling it was. He even talked about having a business plan and everything.
Well eventually this poor performance all caught up to him, and the project he was working on wanted him replaced. The manager spoke to him, and he asked for a few days off to get his head straight.
Come Monday he called to say he'd be out all week.
On Wednesday the police showed up looking for him.
Turned out he'd been running a brothel out of his home.
Fortunately nothing bad happened at work, other than the lousy work. But he also had a conviction from the past for striking a police officer. But nobody did a background check and they never realized this.
We also once had a guy who worked in the IT Operations area who was going around at night stealing things off of desks, taking them down to the mail room and putting them in FedEx containers and shipping them to his family in the Phillipines. Laptops, ipods, whatever. It was quite bold, especially to use our FedEx account for shipping.
From what you're saying, Costco is more profitable than Sam's Club because Costco's management understands the value of employees in the long term, while Sam's Club's management doesn't. This is an issue of management competence, not "Liberal" vs "Republican".
No, it's interesting, but it is exactly that. A difference between "Liberal" and "Republican" values.
Over the years, I've just found the debates interesting. Mainstreet liberals, that is the idiots you meet in the bar may complain about wage discrepancy and whatever, but what they are really complaining about is simply that companies don't value the employees. They treat 'em like dirt. Like the Northwest airlines employees who were laid off in North Dakota and sent a memo telling them to not be ashamed digging for clothes out of garbage cans.
When employees are valued, you don't see the complaints.
But Republican reaction to complaints is "Shut up! Shut up! Shut up! We are your masters, you should bow before us", i.e. the Wal-Mart model of employment.
Now you wouldn't think that would be the case, but look at the responses. Any time someone complains about the relationship between employee and employer, the typical Republican response is to tell them to shut up and quit whining.
But I think most people believe in a free market, and that means consumers and employees have a right to complain either about what they are buying, or their contract for labor.
There's no conflict between long term profits and making the world a better place. People have value. Those who understand that will be more profitable.
Right, and this is really the Liberal position. Conservatives today like to argue strawmen to bullshit you into thinking Liberals are really closet Communists who want the state to own all the businesses. So you should be scared of them, and adopt our Wal-Mart ways of employment to counter them.
Interestingly, that was also how the Nazis gained power in Germany. And with that, the thread has hit Godwin's.
Help me to understand why people on /., detecting that I am -horror-of-horrors- of a conservative bent, insist on putting words in my mouth.
Ahh, because... That's what you did to the parent poster. You wanted to argue a strawman, so I presented you with a strawman to dispute.
Apparently, you just can't help yourself:
Admit it, what bothers you is that the rich are getting richer faster than you are.
Admit what? Why do you think that bothers me? At what point did I say that bothers me? I don't recall ever saying that.
See, you just can't help but put words in peoples mouths and argue strawmen.
You probably want to tax them into the stone age and spread the money around to your friends and "the poor".
Really? Where did I say that?
There, how do you like it when somebody makes hackneyed assumptions about what you think based on the fact that you express "liberal" opinions?
But that is what you do, though. Isn't it? That's the only way Conservatives these days can feel intellectually superior, is if they argue against strawmen. Because straw doesn't fight back.
Flat income tax only works if you eliminate other taxes.
I don't favor things which can never be implemented in a proper and fair manner. That is, another proposal I see is to eliminate income taxes in favor of consumption taxes. Yet such a move would be difficult to enforce, creating a large black market economy and turning every citizen into a criminal. So I don't think it's a good idea.
There have been several articles in recent years about the difference between Sams Club and Costco. Sams Club follows the model of screw the workers, what matters is putting money in the factory owners pocketbook. Costco shares profit with the employees, by paying a decent wage. In the end, Costco has much higher employee retention, better customer service, and greatest customer loyalty... and is a more profitable in terms of Return on Equity.
Costco is a Liberal model. Sams Club is the Republican one.
Why is the Liberal model bad? Everybody benefits. Consumer, owner, employees.
Help me to understand why everybody benefiting drives you crazy.
I don't really care. As someone who drives a BMW, I'm hardly in a position to yell and scream about the proletariat.
However, it seems the real question that is on everybodies mind(at least in US politics) is:
If 2% of the population has 50% of the wealth, what is the appropriate level of taxation?
A> Since they are only 2% of the population, they should pay only 2% of total taxes.
B> Since they have 50% of the wealth, they should pay 50% of the total taxes.
Doesn't have anything to do with redistribution. Adam Smith argued in Wealth of Nations that people should pay taxes in proportion to how they benefited from Government.
What does benefit mean? It means having a stable business environment, stable laws, enforcement of contracts, peace, etc.
Ahh, the moral corruption of the Republican party. When faced with the reality that you are wrong, you fall back to excuses.
I'm curious.
My political view was it was none of your fucking business. So how can a lie to a question that never should have been asked be at all important to my political views?
It seems to me that your problem isn't partisans, but that you lack any sense of right and wrong. Moral Relativism at it's worst... aka you listen to pundits and think you need to be outraged because some moron in the news media is. Whatever.
Calculating ROI is difficult in technology projects, because there's a factor which is difficult to measure. I'd call it Opportunity Cost, but perhaps there is another name.
That is, several questions come to mind:
- What's the cost for not being able to do something? That is, if there end solution doesn't support a given task, what's the cost? Perhaps they don't even know they could perform this task right now.
- Imagine instead of spending time on this project, you did something else with your resources. What's the lost cost of not doing something else more meaningful?
- Productivity of endusers? Many people look at the cost of upgrading an old desktop, but don't measure the cost of not upgrading.
There are plenty of questions like this that don't seem to be answered by any of these articles.
It's the "only proves" statement. The limited amount of data doesn't prove anything. Whether it is short term climate change or long term climate change is part of the question which we have inconclusive data for. The data we have shows past results, but we cannot necessarily predict future performance. So from the data we cannot know if it is "only short term", or if it is something else.
I do agree.
But there are other questions which also need to be asked, for example would global warming be bad? It may be that we are not warming per se, but rather we are coming out of an ice age. Namely what is referred to as the Little Iceage.
But these are all still questions. I just despise the certainty, because I don't think it exists.
The technical term is "Swiftboating".
Not that that will stop your whining. The right sure does like to whine.
Perhaps you could give us some examples?
Ed Meese, the AG who had Playboy and Penthouse removed from store shelves? The man who didn't even think consenting adults could consent was in favor of kids having access to naughty music?
Perhaps you could provide us a link to his legal opinion?
Labeling of music, movies, games, whatever is not censorship. It's informed parental consent.
I'm pretty agnostic on the whole Global Warming debate, but it bothers me that the people who are so opposed to it argue on what they believe to be true, rather than what they think to be true. That is what you have done here. You've offered no substantial evidence to support your conclusions, rather you simply imply that all those opposed to your belief are morons.
So why are you so surprised when you are called delusional? You certainly don't offer anything to counter that impression.
I saw this news about some movie with Jon Katz being played by Jeff Bridges.
But I'm having trouble figuring out how to filter stories written by or about Jeff Bridges from the front page.
It depends on the application. Screws are more brittle and the heads can shear off.
He's whining about how young people are turning to get their op-ed info from Jon Stewart and Keith Olbermann and everybody else who isn't Bill O'Reilly. So now he's accusing people who don't buy into his world view of being divorced from reality. Whatever, Falafel Bill.
If O'Reilly wants to go after jihadists, he ought to do so in Counterstrike. It'll get him a lot closer to the "action" than being a member of the whining 101st chairborne.
Also scripted installs suck. best is to make a working machine and image the drive, time for install is cut way WAY down buy using image files.... Problem is that your hardware changes a bit from shipment to shipment... Linux can cope with this silently... Windows can not.
The simplest way to do this with Windows is using nLiteOS to build a custom installation(this is what I do at home), which allows you to add your own device drivers and tweak settings. That works for the simple situations, otherwise there are plenty of other advanced deployment options. Large corporations have many options that even involve remote delivery of the custom image, etc. At our company we have one image, independent of hardware model. It's quite easy to get a machine reimaged. Call the help desk, and they push it down across the network.
I was just surprised that you don't have this level of customization and management with Linux and instead you have to go around looking at different company distributions. I guess it's still maturing. Some day perhaps it will catch up with Windows.
You mean like Fedora Core 6? upon boot you get a "unsupported video mode" on all computers with a LCD and a nvidia 7600 video card... solution, boot into init3 install some obscure rpms, change the xorg.conf by and and reboot. Added 3 hours to the first install and 15 minutes to each one thereafter.
Can't you customize the Fedora install to have this stuff in place for you the first time you boot up?
That's surprising, because you can customize Windows to include updated device drivers, etc. to handle this situation.
disaster... although I can not understand how in the hell you can screw up so bad to get the cost per PC that high.
Not having a good inventory of what was on your network would lead to this kind of spending.
What!?! You've never hired people familiar with the platform you're deploying to deploy it?
...Because they decided to stop paying both the experienced planners and the support company.
How often do you see an ad like "Wanted: Systems installer for large Windows deployment. Must have five years experience deploying Windows Vista"?
Perhaps they believed that Linux was free, and they didn't need pay for it?
I've been involved in numerous Windows roll outs, from Win95 on... As well as OS/2 and variations of Unix.
/. and everybody here thinks they are smarter than everybody else in the world, but the real world doesn't work like that.
Claiming that it's the fault of incompetent staff isn't really an excuse. In every deployment I've seen, the staff has known nothing about the product when the deployment starts. You learn as you go. What you rely on is good whitepapers and documentation provided by the company on how they expect a rollout to occur. Along with some experience on proper communication, testing strategies, rollout scheduling, etc.
Furthermore in every deployment you encounter obstacles... problems interfacing with some piece of hardware or software. This could be a case of them encountering more obstacles than they assumed initially, and/or having no good reliable source for help to solve them quickly.
I realize this is
When the Constitution was written, each representative had around 50,000 constituents. Today it is roughly 600,000. Why? Because in 1911 Congress passed a law limiting the size of the House to a fixed 435 representatives. Prior to this, the size of the house was determined by the size of the US population.
Since 1911 the US has more than tripled it's population, yet the size of the House of Representatives has remained fixed.
How has Congress managed to keep up with the work load? simple: unelected staff members. The size of the House staff has increased since 1911, going from around 2-3 per house member to around 40.
People like to talk about solutions to this problem involving complex databases and citizen oversight, but we can accomplish much the same thing by reducing the number of unelected staff, and increasing the number of elected representatives while decreasing the size of their districts.
Such a move would also impact gerrymandering of districts, and campaign financing by forcing representatives to talk to the people rather than simply running television spots.
So I agree, we don't want anonymous committee staff. We want elected officials we can hold responsible.
The size of the House should be tripled to accomodate the growing population.
Oh, you mean like how the Republicans are still blaming Carter and Clinton for everything wrong today? I've always loved the whole "Clinton is to blame" rationalization, especially for things that happened long after he left office. Did you know Bill Clinton was responsible for North Korea detonating a nuke? He was also responsible for Iran starting to process nuclear material in 2005.
My favorite though is how this election loss was all the fault of the media for reporting bad news.
Personally I still blame Herbert Hoover. But that's just me.
First of all the headline is wrong. It's 'Democratic', not 'Democrat'. Your grammar is worse than mine, and mine is pretty bad.
But as far as internet policy concerns, it's hard to say what will change. The Democrats are generally better with small business, as the Republicans tend to favor the big donor moneyed set, so we'll see a bit more promotion of competition and open access to the "tubes" and such. Nasdaq tech companies certainly did much better in the 1990s then they have recently.
But are they going to favor changing copyright law and such? Doubtful. I hope they can roll back patent changes that allowed patenting of business processes and such, we'll see.
Honestly though, with the fucking mess Bush has created with our foreign policy, I doubt there's going to be much time spent on these types of low-priority domestic issues. It's going to be Iraq, Iraq, Iraq, some Afghanistan, and more Iraq for the next two years until we finally pull out of the Bush Folly.
that the RIAA CEO Mitch Bainwol was the chief of staff of Bill Frist (R-TN). Poor Democratic hater... you just can't win, can ya?
The really sad thing is those Reagan quotes have been more accurate than ever with regards to the Bush Republicans.
A few PJ O'Rourke quotes seem appropriate:
* The Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it.
* When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators.
* Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys.
I'm a
It'd be whine whine whine whine, if I was using PHP I'd do it this way. And I'd spend all my time bitching at you if you'd just get off your fricking ass and stop playing half-life and spent some time reading and learning we could depend on you to get things done by yourself without whining.
Eventually I'd just start ignoring you, or worse I'd give you all the Access applications to support. You'd hate your job even more because you feel you never get anything challenging to work on, and then you'd whine to slashdot asking what you should do with your life.
Maybe this was cruel, but it is how things work in our world.