I think that the unemployment figures in this country tend to be misleading. A person who has an office job during the day and a job in a department store at night, making dick at either is technically employed, but not doing well as your average every day tech worker. I think the point that was trying to be made is that companies and by extension, management demand a sort of employee loyalty from their workers even though they show no loyalty to their employees. They ask that a worker accept these lower wages for more work being done, but never come up front with the fact that the payoff will often be layoffs and firings. Who in their right mind would be loyal to a company like that?
I think that it is unfair of your employer to demand so much and reward you with so little. Before I ever entered the job market I decided that I would never let my work life interfere with my personal life since my personal life is so much more important to me. That's one of the reasons i got into the field--my skills now make me employable anywhere. This gives me a ton of flexibility. If I ever get married and my wife gets a job working somewhere and it requires that we move I can more easily make the sacrifice because I will be easily employed. My personal life will always take precendence over my professional life--no compromises.
While it is important to like what you do for a job, I think a lot of people have convinced themselves that the financial gain always promised with the long hours and poor wages will somehow fulfill them emotionally and mentally. But I see through that crap. The quality time spent with friends and loved ones is worth so much more to me than my paycheck ever is. Yes, it is nice to pay my rent and eat and buy stuff, but stuff will never take the place of those people in my life, and people who think that it can often live lives that aren't worth living.
I've actually come up with two other brilliant ideas that can help people to learn.
The first is a method of transferring characters onto sheets of paper in a logical manner and binding said sheets together.
The second is a building in which these books can be stored with some sort of cataloging system. The catalog makes it easy for these bound papers to be found by others, who can then use the papers on loan for a limited time.
Is it just me, or does the guy in that picture look like he just stepped on a nude beach, saw a really beautiful naked woman, sported some wood and then averted his eyes in an attempt to kill his raging hard-on?
You bring up some excellent rules for how people should conduct themselves, but I think the reason that a lot of people don't participate in a civilized discourse on the net is because there really is no online rhetoric that governs the discourse of the online world.
Think about it--while it is obvious that online communication differs from other forms of interpersonal commuication, has anyone really gone through and catalogued what makes online discourse so different from discourse between two people who are physically approximate to one another? Take a debate for example. Debates often take the same form as a discussion/flamewar on then net, with the different participants taking points and counterpoints, often with the hopeful goal of dialectical synthesis. But just as it is during a debate, often the two viewpoints are so far apart that dialectical synthesis is impossible to achieve. However, unlike a debate, the online discourse often degenerates into a series of ad hominem attacks and offtopic gibberish designed to push people's buttons. Why? Simple--because in an online discussion there is no accountability.
Think about last week's debates. Had GWB turned on Al Gore at one point and called him a "major-league asshole" when he couldn't rebut one of Gore's points with a factual response he would have dropped in the polls immediately. He would have been accountable for the fact that instead of answering a valid point, he had launched into an obvious ad hominem attack.
With online discourse there is no accountability. People use their supposed anonymity to say things that they would never have the balls to say in a public, physically approximate forum. They are unwilling to break the rules of verbal rhetoric that has existed since the beginnings of civilization because a.) it makes them look like an asshole to transgress the boundaries of verbal rhetoric and b.) it will usually lead to their getting their asses kicked. The moment that the discourse moves online though, these rules go out the window. There is no such thing as an online rhetoric and the supposed anonymity makes some people think that they have carte blanche to say whatever they want--often times the most ill thought and ignorant things.
The fact that there is no such thing as an online rhetoric and by extension a code of conduct is a real shame. When I used to teach English composition at BGSU, I forbade the Internet as a source for my students papers. Was it because the Internet isn't a good source? Of course not--the Internet can be a powerful research tool if used correctly. Unfortunately, my students were too narrow minded and ill trained in written rhetoric to realize that the Internet has no rhetoric at all.
Sorry to go off-topic a bit, but I felt I had to clear up a misconception.
It is well known that there is hardly any poverty in the US, despite what all those liberal "statistics" will tell you. If you take a look at so-called "poor" families, they majoritarily own cars, fair-sized TVs, refrigerators, etc.
It looks like we have another graduate of the Rush Limbaugh school of math, where we only account for a person's salary, but for nothing else. The thing that you seem to be forgetting is the debt to income ratio of the "poor" families. Sure they may have a car, tv, etc. but they are often paying for that, their credit card, their families, etc. By the time you factor all of that in, most of these people are in debt up to their ears.
Now I know what you are going to say--people don't need to buy all of that stuff, and in the case of a television, etc. there are people in this world that have their priorities mixed up. Unfortunately, these people are a minority of the working poor in this country. The working poor need to have things like cars. Have you ever tried to go anywhere in this country and live without a car? The only places that have public transportation worth a damn are the major cities and in this country public transportation has always been developed in response to poor traffic conditions, and not as a foresight.
The capitalist notion is always to use creative math to justify that free markets are good for everyone. But when you throw in the debt ratio (and statistics show that Americans are more in debt than they ever have been) the figures just don't add up.
Basically, if telling Time-Warner that demanding 75% of local ISPs profits is obscene (and it is) then good. If Ralph Nader (an American hero in my book) cost the American auto industry the "lead" because he exposed them as caring more about the bottom line than auto safety, even better. I'd much rather be cosidered a "Red" than a self-serving capitalist stooge any day of the week.
Totally off topic, but the Communist Manifesto was written in 1848. The Bolshevik revolution was in October of 1917, 8 months after a previous revolution in February of that year. Also the Bolsheviks had a "unique" (for lack of a better term) interpretation of Marx's socialist idealism--they set up the Communist government as a transition between Czarist Russia and the eventual government by the worker. But when Stalin took power it basically became a fascist dictatorship.
It's all about the context. Just like with the statement Red Hat has made. Did they start an Open Source revolution? In the corporate sector, sure. Did they start the Open Source movement itself? No way in hell.
Well, I'm white too, but I am realistic enough to know that people who live in the inner cities are not afforded the same opportunities as affluent whites from the suburbs.
I grew up as an affluent white in a suburb of Cleveland. I really never had to worry about having a roof over my head and where my next meal is coming from. I got to play around with computers as a kid because my parents could afford to send me to local community college's "College for Kids" program. But the fact of the matter remains that I was afforded opportunites that those in the inner city were not, pretty much because of the color of my skin (and to a lesser extent, my gender.)
While I commend your friend from breaking free from the inner city I would say that the anecdote you have provided only proves what I was trying to say above: that there is a problem in the American inner city and no supply of 486s, free ISPs and Linux cds is going to afford the people in inner cities the same opportunites as the majority of those who inhabit "virtual communties."
Sorry to go off topic, but I wanted to correct the misconception that those who complain about white privelege are automatically not white.
So it's not about money, but about controlling the music on their terms, eh?
Let's remember what sell out extrodinaire, Lars Ulrich, had to say about this whole thing when Metallica started this mess to begin with:
"We take our craft -- whether it be the music, the lyrics, or the photos and artwork -- very seriously, as do most artists. It is therefore sickening to know that our art is being traded like a commodity rather than the art that it is. From a business standpoint, this is about piracy -- a/k/a taking something that doesn't belong to you; and that is morally and legally wrong. The trading of such information -- whether it's music, videos, photos, or whatever - is, in effect, trafficking in stolen goods."
He is sickened by the fact that his "art" (and I use that term loosely) is being traded as a "commodity" even though that is what he wants! His music is traded as a "commodity" all the time by the RIAA! He just happens to get a cut when the RIAA is handling it. Its all "trafficking in stolen goods" to Lars! If that isn't about money I don't know what is!
According to Lars' logic, we should immediately shut down libraries and museums, because their systems of allowing the public free access to art, literature and music is "trafficking in stolen goods."
Let's not forget that Metallica has been burned by their selling out before. Remember when the Mighty Mighty Bosstones did a cover of "Enter Sandman"? Metallica hated that cover and desperately wanted to stop it from being released, but because they sold the rights to the song (a wierd thing for a band that doesn't care about money) they couldn't stop it, as the people who did own the rights didn't care (hell, they were going to make some money off of the Bosstones...)
Long story short--Metallica is all about the money. Lars so much as said it when they started this business. And they can claim that they aren't going after their fans all they want, but considering the lengths I had to go to to get this quote (it was not available on the Metallica web site, which is strange, considering that this is what they believe) i think that it is obvious what Metallica is all about. That quote shows them for the greedy ass holes that they are, and I think the fact that it isn't on their web site proves as much as well.
Any college radio station worth their salt wouldn't play Metallica or Dre to begin with, because both are completely corporate and as such have their own means of promotion.
Actually, having been into the college music scene for the past 5 years napster is completely useless to me because most of the bands I listen to release a 7" here or there and not many indie kids are into digitizing their vinyl collections. That's what we have record players for.
While I think it is excellent that they would like to do a Batman movie based off of Batman: Year One let's not forget that Frank Miller hasn't been at his best when writing Hollywood scripts. I remember being all excited when I heard he was writing Robocop 2, and that was utter crap (with a hanging ending to boot.) I am hoping that since the script is basically already written it will be better.
While I have read that people would like to see Dark Knight Returns as a film, would anyone be up for The Killing Joke? I think that that graphic novel is the finest Batman story written and I think if anyone could make a fabulous Batman movie it would be Alan Moore.
Thank god that the League of Extrodinary Gentlemen is being made...
Doesn't this work under the (I believe incorrect) assumption that the only reason to make music in the first place is to make money? IMO, this is why most commercial music sucks, because instead of doing something interesting, they decide to tow the line, sell out and play the same crap I heard on the radio yesterday (and the day before, and the day before...)
Not all bands make music to make money or get a following. There is a thriving college music scene out there, which actually came out of the commercial alternative radio era stronger than before those stations existed (mainly ebcause awful bands like Bush were relegated to commercial alternative and were not touched by college radio at all.) I think the best example of this is the band Pavement (you may remember the one or two times MTV played "Cut Your Hair.") In the early 90s, no one knew who pavement was. They were releasing 7"s on Drag City records and recording in their drummer's recording studio. (They had a deal where the drummer, Gary Young, could be in the band if he would let Pavement's other two members--Stephen Malkmus and Spiral Stairs--record for free.) After a while Pavement got really popular and created a real buzz with people who weren't a part of the scene, and pretty soon the majors came a callin'. Gary Young, who was the quintessential music sell out begged Malkmus and Spiral Stairs to sign with a major, but they refused. In their minds, THEY were Pavement and they weren't going to let a major label compromise their artistic integrity (something that Drag City would never do.)Instead, the signed with Matador records, who was able to distribute their records better than Drag City could at the time. Later on, Matador signed a huge distro deal with Capitol records. When Pavement was offered Capitol's resources for distribution, again they refused. (And in fact, the deal sucked so bad for Matador that they eventually opted out of it as well.)
The point is, there are many bands and labels out there who don't put out music as a means of putting dinner on the table. These people have real 40 hour a week jobs and make music because they enjoy doing it. They don't want fame, adulation or monetary success...they just want to play.
So if any band complains that Napster, Gnutella, etc. is screwing them out of compensation for their "art" (*cough*Metallica*cough*) they they are SELL OUTS. Plain and simple.
Slashdot Mirror
I think that the unemployment figures in this country tend to be misleading. A person who has an office job during the day and a job in a department store at night, making dick at either is technically employed, but not doing well as your average every day tech worker. I think the point that was trying to be made is that companies and by extension, management demand a sort of employee loyalty from their workers even though they show no loyalty to their employees. They ask that a worker accept these lower wages for more work being done, but never come up front with the fact that the payoff will often be layoffs and firings. Who in their right mind would be loyal to a company like that?
I think that it is unfair of your employer to demand so much and reward you with so little. Before I ever entered the job market I decided that I would never let my work life interfere with my personal life since my personal life is so much more important to me. That's one of the reasons i got into the field--my skills now make me employable anywhere. This gives me a ton of flexibility. If I ever get married and my wife gets a job working somewhere and it requires that we move I can more easily make the sacrifice because I will be easily employed. My personal life will always take precendence over my professional life--no compromises.
While it is important to like what you do for a job, I think a lot of people have convinced themselves that the financial gain always promised with the long hours and poor wages will somehow fulfill them emotionally and mentally. But I see through that crap. The quality time spent with friends and loved ones is worth so much more to me than my paycheck ever is. Yes, it is nice to pay my rent and eat and buy stuff, but stuff will never take the place of those people in my life, and people who think that it can often live lives that aren't worth living.
Brandt
The first is a method of transferring characters onto sheets of paper in a logical manner and binding said sheets together.
The second is a building in which these books can be stored with some sort of cataloging system. The catalog makes it easy for these bound papers to be found by others, who can then use the papers on loan for a limited time.
Boy, these computers make anything possible!
Brandt
Is it just me, or does the guy in that picture look like he just stepped on a nude beach, saw a really beautiful naked woman, sported some wood and then averted his eyes in an attempt to kill his raging hard-on?
Probably just me.
Brandt
You bring up some excellent rules for how people should conduct themselves, but I think the reason that a lot of people don't participate in a civilized discourse on the net is because there really is no online rhetoric that governs the discourse of the online world.
Think about it--while it is obvious that online communication differs from other forms of interpersonal commuication, has anyone really gone through and catalogued what makes online discourse so different from discourse between two people who are physically approximate to one another? Take a debate for example. Debates often take the same form as a discussion/flamewar on then net, with the different participants taking points and counterpoints, often with the hopeful goal of dialectical synthesis. But just as it is during a debate, often the two viewpoints are so far apart that dialectical synthesis is impossible to achieve. However, unlike a debate, the online discourse often degenerates into a series of ad hominem attacks and offtopic gibberish designed to push people's buttons. Why? Simple--because in an online discussion there is no accountability.
Think about last week's debates. Had GWB turned on Al Gore at one point and called him a "major-league asshole" when he couldn't rebut one of Gore's points with a factual response he would have dropped in the polls immediately. He would have been accountable for the fact that instead of answering a valid point, he had launched into an obvious ad hominem attack.
With online discourse there is no accountability. People use their supposed anonymity to say things that they would never have the balls to say in a public, physically approximate forum. They are unwilling to break the rules of verbal rhetoric that has existed since the beginnings of civilization because a.) it makes them look like an asshole to transgress the boundaries of verbal rhetoric and b.) it will usually lead to their getting their asses kicked. The moment that the discourse moves online though, these rules go out the window. There is no such thing as an online rhetoric and the supposed anonymity makes some people think that they have carte blanche to say whatever they want--often times the most ill thought and ignorant things.
The fact that there is no such thing as an online rhetoric and by extension a code of conduct is a real shame. When I used to teach English composition at BGSU, I forbade the Internet as a source for my students papers. Was it because the Internet isn't a good source? Of course not--the Internet can be a powerful research tool if used correctly. Unfortunately, my students were too narrow minded and ill trained in written rhetoric to realize that the Internet has no rhetoric at all.
Just my 2 cents.
Brandt
It is well known that there is hardly any poverty in the US, despite what all those liberal "statistics" will tell you. If you take a look at so-called "poor" families, they majoritarily own cars, fair-sized TVs, refrigerators, etc.
It looks like we have another graduate of the Rush Limbaugh school of math, where we only account for a person's salary, but for nothing else. The thing that you seem to be forgetting is the debt to income ratio of the "poor" families. Sure they may have a car, tv, etc. but they are often paying for that, their credit card, their families, etc. By the time you factor all of that in, most of these people are in debt up to their ears.
Now I know what you are going to say--people don't need to buy all of that stuff, and in the case of a television, etc. there are people in this world that have their priorities mixed up. Unfortunately, these people are a minority of the working poor in this country. The working poor need to have things like cars. Have you ever tried to go anywhere in this country and live without a car? The only places that have public transportation worth a damn are the major cities and in this country public transportation has always been developed in response to poor traffic conditions, and not as a foresight.
The capitalist notion is always to use creative math to justify that free markets are good for everyone. But when you throw in the debt ratio (and statistics show that Americans are more in debt than they ever have been) the figures just don't add up.
Basically, if telling Time-Warner that demanding 75% of local ISPs profits is obscene (and it is) then good. If Ralph Nader (an American hero in my book) cost the American auto industry the "lead" because he exposed them as caring more about the bottom line than auto safety, even better. I'd much rather be cosidered a "Red" than a self-serving capitalist stooge any day of the week.
Brandt
Totally off topic, but the Communist Manifesto was written in 1848. The Bolshevik revolution was in October of 1917, 8 months after a previous revolution in February of that year. Also the Bolsheviks had a "unique" (for lack of a better term) interpretation of Marx's socialist idealism--they set up the Communist government as a transition between Czarist Russia and the eventual government by the worker. But when Stalin took power it basically became a fascist dictatorship.
It's all about the context. Just like with the statement Red Hat has made. Did they start an Open Source revolution? In the corporate sector, sure. Did they start the Open Source movement itself? No way in hell.
Brandt
Well, I'm white too, but I am realistic enough to know that people who live in the inner cities are not afforded the same opportunities as affluent whites from the suburbs.
I grew up as an affluent white in a suburb of Cleveland. I really never had to worry about having a roof over my head and where my next meal is coming from. I got to play around with computers as a kid because my parents could afford to send me to local community college's "College for Kids" program. But the fact of the matter remains that I was afforded opportunites that those in the inner city were not, pretty much because of the color of my skin (and to a lesser extent, my gender.)
While I commend your friend from breaking free from the inner city I would say that the anecdote you have provided only proves what I was trying to say above: that there is a problem in the American inner city and no supply of 486s, free ISPs and Linux cds is going to afford the people in inner cities the same opportunites as the majority of those who inhabit "virtual communties."
Sorry to go off topic, but I wanted to correct the misconception that those who complain about white privelege are automatically not white.
Brandt
Here's what you have to do--
1. Go to your local salvation army and find a 486 that someone donated.
2. Get your hands on a copy of RedHat linux. (Don't worry kids--you can download it for free!)
3. Compile the linux kernel on your 486!
4. Dial in to the nearest free ISP (Never mind the fact that your single mom works 3 minimum wage jobs and still can't afford to pay for a phone!)
It's that simple!
Let's get real. The above would be funny if it weren't pathetic and true.
I love it when priveleged whites in the suburbs think that they live in the same America as those in the inner cities.
Brandt
So it's not about money, but about controlling the music on their terms, eh?
Let's remember what sell out extrodinaire, Lars Ulrich, had to say about this whole thing when Metallica started this mess to begin with:
"We take our craft -- whether it be the music, the lyrics, or the photos and artwork -- very seriously, as do most artists. It is therefore sickening to know that our art is being traded like a commodity rather than the art that it is. From a business standpoint, this is about piracy -- a/k/a taking something that doesn't belong to you; and that is morally and legally wrong. The trading of such information -- whether it's music, videos, photos, or whatever - is, in effect, trafficking in stolen goods."
He is sickened by the fact that his "art" (and I use that term loosely) is being traded as a "commodity" even though that is what he wants! His music is traded as a "commodity" all the time by the RIAA! He just happens to get a cut when the RIAA is handling it. Its all "trafficking in stolen goods" to Lars! If that isn't about money I don't know what is!
According to Lars' logic, we should immediately shut down libraries and museums, because their systems of allowing the public free access to art, literature and music is "trafficking in stolen goods."
Let's not forget that Metallica has been burned by their selling out before. Remember when the Mighty Mighty Bosstones did a cover of "Enter Sandman"? Metallica hated that cover and desperately wanted to stop it from being released, but because they sold the rights to the song (a wierd thing for a band that doesn't care about money) they couldn't stop it, as the people who did own the rights didn't care (hell, they were going to make some money off of the Bosstones...)
Long story short--Metallica is all about the money. Lars so much as said it when they started this business. And they can claim that they aren't going after their fans all they want, but considering the lengths I had to go to to get this quote (it was not available on the Metallica web site, which is strange, considering that this is what they believe) i think that it is obvious what Metallica is all about. That quote shows them for the greedy ass holes that they are, and I think the fact that it isn't on their web site proves as much as well.
Brandt
Any college radio station worth their salt wouldn't play Metallica or Dre to begin with, because both are completely corporate and as such have their own means of promotion.
Actually, having been into the college music scene for the past 5 years napster is completely useless to me because most of the bands I listen to release a 7" here or there and not many indie kids are into digitizing their vinyl collections. That's what we have record players for.
Love,
the indie rock fascist
While I think it is excellent that they would like to do a Batman movie based off of Batman: Year One let's not forget that Frank Miller hasn't been at his best when writing Hollywood scripts. I remember being all excited when I heard he was writing Robocop 2, and that was utter crap (with a hanging ending to boot.) I am hoping that since the script is basically already written it will be better.
While I have read that people would like to see Dark Knight Returns as a film, would anyone be up for The Killing Joke? I think that that graphic novel is the finest Batman story written and I think if anyone could make a fabulous Batman movie it would be Alan Moore.
Thank god that the League of Extrodinary Gentlemen is being made...
Doesn't this work under the (I believe incorrect) assumption that the only reason to make music in the first place is to make money? IMO, this is why most commercial music sucks, because instead of doing something interesting, they decide to tow the line, sell out and play the same crap I heard on the radio yesterday (and the day before, and the day before...)
Not all bands make music to make money or get a following. There is a thriving college music scene out there, which actually came out of the commercial alternative radio era stronger than before those stations existed (mainly ebcause awful bands like Bush were relegated to commercial alternative and were not touched by college radio at all.) I think the best example of this is the band Pavement (you may remember the one or two times MTV played "Cut Your Hair.") In the early 90s, no one knew who pavement was. They were releasing 7"s on Drag City records and recording in their drummer's recording studio. (They had a deal where the drummer, Gary Young, could be in the band if he would let Pavement's other two members--Stephen Malkmus and Spiral Stairs--record for free.) After a while Pavement got really popular and created a real buzz with people who weren't a part of the scene, and pretty soon the majors came a callin'. Gary Young, who was the quintessential music sell out begged Malkmus and Spiral Stairs to sign with a major, but they refused. In their minds, THEY were Pavement and they weren't going to let a major label compromise their artistic integrity (something that Drag City would never do.)Instead, the signed with Matador records, who was able to distribute their records better than Drag City could at the time. Later on, Matador signed a huge distro deal with Capitol records. When Pavement was offered Capitol's resources for distribution, again they refused. (And in fact, the deal sucked so bad for Matador that they eventually opted out of it as well.)
The point is, there are many bands and labels out there who don't put out music as a means of putting dinner on the table. These people have real 40 hour a week jobs and make music because they enjoy doing it. They don't want fame, adulation or monetary success...they just want to play.
So if any band complains that Napster, Gnutella, etc. is screwing them out of compensation for their "art" (*cough*Metallica*cough*) they they are SELL OUTS. Plain and simple.
Brandt