I love how even when you tell the story you come off as the self important jerk. Hilarious.
Just because he required an interview for his course doesn't make him a jerk, it just means he wants people in the class who really want to be there. Similarly with his comment to you, I think he was looking for a little more then "I want to take it" as a reason for getting in.
Re:Sonds like a job for Judge Judy!
on
Online Revenge
·
· Score: 1
If you had actually read the page...
"Although the buyer paid the £375 total within a few days, it took me nearly two months before i bothered to post the laptop. What the buyer didn't know was that it differed slightly from its description on ebay. Rather than having 2Gb of RAM, it only had 512Mb. It also didnt have a DVD-RW as described. Perhaps most importantly of all, the laptop didn't actually work! haha genius! Selling a 'working' laptop that doesn't work! Despite polite requests from the seller, I denied anything was wrong and refused to refund his money, then i agreed to but of course didn't. Then I claimed to have moved to Dubai and hoped he'd forget about it."
Obviously you can't read, so I'll just say this again:
Just because these jobs might be better then the alternatives doesn't absolve the company of the moral responsiblity not to work these people like slaves just because it's "better then what they had before".
Read it slowly if you are having trouble understanding.
"There is no easy shortcut between being a developing nation with a subsistence agricultural economy and an information age economy. If the rise of the Asian economies in the 1980s-1990s proved one thing, it's that each and every one has to go through the same growing pains that the United States and Europe once went through. And sweatshops are a step along the way."
The first part may be true, but the poor working conditions these people are forced to endure is not neccessary step. I'm not against companies placing factories in developing nations and I do recognise the good they do for the economy. But just because people in the US and Europe went through a working in similar conditions doesn't mean we can't enforce something better now. If $2 a day is a good local wage, that's fine by me. 16 hour days, 6-7 days a week and unsafe working conditions? NOT ACCEPTABLE.
Most informed people who complain about sweatshops aren't complaining about what we might consider low wages. Rather, they are complaining about the long hours and poor working conditions. Just because these jobs might be better then the alternatives doesn't absolve the company of the moral responsiblity not to work these people like slaves just because it's "better then what they had before".
If these companies paid a fair wage and provided good working conditions, you would see very few people complaining.
Nobody is saying that the earth doesn't go through natural cycles. The concern is that our influence is increasing the negative effects of these cycles.
As for your idea that we (humans) can't affect the climate of earth, may I point out holes in the ozone layer?
"For as good as Google is (and they are good), history shows their business model not to last the long haul."
What history? If you are talking web, there really hasn't been much history yet. Certainly none that you can rely on to accurately predict the success of 'net based companies. Bubble companies died for the most part because either a) their product was vaporware or b) they didn't make money. Google has both of those covered. If you think they can be taken down by someone with a better product, welcome to every single business ever.
If you are talking non-web, there are lots of business models that rely on giving the product away for free and making money off of advertising. Namely TV and radio.
"i find it humorous that people so openly disregard anything from a person of faith. When in fact, evolution and those who belive it do so in faith."
1. People only disregard the opinions of people of 'faith' when they and try and use that faith to debunk scientific theories. 2. Evolution is proven. It's not faith.
"Have you ever actually done a carbon dating? have you done the experiments that diffrent scientists have done?"
Yes, and yes.
"I highly doubt it. You believe on faith that the scientists and the scientific process are delivering you honest and real answers."
No, it's not faith. You see, if you are so inclined, you can learn all about this stuff and prove it to yourself.
"When at times many other explanations could explain experimental results, those are discarded becasue they may lead to ID; wich as we all know is scientific suicide."
The bill doesn't tip the playing field at all. It only adds sexual orientation to a state law which already bars discrimination on the basis of race, religion, national origin, gender, marital status, and mental or physical handicap.
Summary: According to the election-year bluster of politicians and pundits, the outsourcing of American jobs to other countries has become a problem of epic proportion. Fortunately, this alarmism is misguided. Outsourcing actually brings far more benefits than costs, both now and in the long run. If its critics succeed in provoking a new wave of American protectionism, the consequences will be disastrous -- for the U.S. economy and for the American workers they claim to defend.
Daniel W. Drezner is Assistant Professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago and the author of "The Sanctions Paradox." He keeps a weblog at www.danieldrezner.com/blog; full references and data sources for this article can be found here.
THE TRUTH IS OFFSHORE
When a presidential election year coincides with an uncertain economy, campaigning politicians invariably invoke an international economic issue as a dire threat to the well-being of Americans. Speechwriters denounce the chosen scapegoat, the media provides blanket coverage of the alleged threat, and legislators scurry to introduce supposed remedies.
The cause of this year's commotion is offshore outsourcing -- the alleged migration of American jobs overseas. The depth of alarm was strikingly illustrated by the firestorm of reaction to recent testimony by N. Gregory Mankiw, the head of President George W. Bush's Council of Economic Advisers. No economist really disputed Mankiw's observation that "outsourcing is just a new way of doing international trade," which makes it "a good thing." But in the political arena, Mankiw's comments sparked a furor on both sides of the aisle. Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry accused the Bush administration of wanting "to export more of our jobs overseas," and Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle quipped, "If this is the administration's position, I think they owe an apology to every worker in America." Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert, meanwhile, warned that "outsourcing can be a problem for American workers and the American economy."
Critics charge that the information revolution (especially the Internet) has accelerated the decimation of U.S. manufacturing and facilitated the outsourcing of service-sector jobs once considered safe, from backroom call centers to high-level software programming. (This concern feeds into the suspicion that U.S. corporations are exploiting globalization to fatten profits at the expense of workers.) They are right that offshore outsourcing deserves attention and that some measures to assist affected workers are called for. But if their exaggerated alarmism succeeds in provoking protectionist responses from lawmakers, it will do far more harm than good, to the U.S. economy and to American workers.
Should Americans be concerned about the economic effects of outsourcing? Not particularly. Most of the numbers thrown around are vague, overhyped estimates. What hard data exist suggest that gross job losses due to offshore outsourcing have been minimal when compared to the size of the entire U.S. economy. The outsourcing phenomenon has shown that globalization can affect white-collar professions, heretofore immune to foreign competition, in the same way that it has affected manufacturing jobs for years. But Mankiw's statements on outsourcing are absolutely correct; the law of comparative advantage does not stop working just because 401(k) plans are involved. The creation of new jobs overseas will eventually lead to more jobs and higher incomes in the United States. Because the economy -- and especially job growth -- is sluggish at the moment, commentators are attempting to draw a connection between offshore outsourcing and high unemployment. B
I come from a family of teachers (at least 10 among family and close friends), so I know a ton of them and most seem to really enjoy their jobs. Sure they hate getting jerked around by the government, but other then that they seem pretty satisfied.
The good looking, intelligent girl over there at the bar that you'd really like to talk to doesn't care much whether you are famous amongst a group of geeks and neither does she even remotely fathom why you'd be famous for that stuff in the first place.
And she is supposed to be impressed by your meaningless job writing bullshit programs for a huge corporation where the execs make more money in a year then you see in a lifetime?
If she is intelligent, she is probably aware of the stranglehold corporations have on us. She would probably be impressed by someone who goes his own way.
On another note, using a sexual side to argue a point is really sleazy. You might as well argue that open source supports terrorism.
"But a computer expert in North Korea who has a number of personal computers and an internet connection can download the latest version of Linux, complete with multi-processing capabilities misappropriated from UNIX..."
Slashdot Mirror
I love how even when you tell the story you come off as the self important jerk. Hilarious.
Just because he required an interview for his course doesn't make him a jerk, it just means he wants people in the class who really want to be there. Similarly with his comment to you, I think he was looking for a little more then "I want to take it" as a reason for getting in.
If you had actually read the page...
"Although the buyer paid the £375 total within a few days, it took me nearly two months before i bothered to post the laptop. What the buyer didn't know was that it differed slightly from its description on ebay. Rather than having 2Gb of RAM, it only had 512Mb. It also didnt have a DVD-RW as described. Perhaps most importantly of all, the laptop didn't actually work! haha genius! Selling a 'working' laptop that doesn't work! Despite polite requests from the seller, I denied anything was wrong and refused to refund his money, then i agreed to but of course didn't. Then I claimed to have moved to Dubai and hoped he'd forget about it."
Obviously you can't read, so I'll just say this again:
Just because these jobs might be better then the alternatives doesn't absolve the company of the moral responsiblity not to work these people like slaves just because it's "better then what they had before".
Read it slowly if you are having trouble understanding.
"There is no easy shortcut between being a developing nation with a subsistence agricultural economy and an information age economy. If the rise of the Asian economies in the 1980s-1990s proved one thing, it's that each and every one has to go through the same growing pains that the United States and Europe once went through. And sweatshops are a step along the way."
The first part may be true, but the poor working conditions these people are forced to endure is not neccessary step. I'm not against companies placing factories in developing nations and I do recognise the good they do for the economy. But just because people in the US and Europe went through a working in similar conditions doesn't mean we can't enforce something better now. If $2 a day is a good local wage, that's fine by me. 16 hour days, 6-7 days a week and unsafe working conditions? NOT ACCEPTABLE.
Most informed people who complain about sweatshops aren't complaining about what we might consider low wages. Rather, they are complaining about the long hours and poor working conditions. Just because these jobs might be better then the alternatives doesn't absolve the company of the moral responsiblity not to work these people like slaves just because it's "better then what they had before".
If these companies paid a fair wage and provided good working conditions, you would see very few people complaining.
"...and outside of music it doesn't do anything particularly well. "
Tell me about it, the job it did washing my car sucked!
"I think it's dangerous to interact with him"
WHAT THE HELL?
This is gonna cost me karma, but you sir, are a gigantic moron!
Nobody is saying that the earth doesn't go through natural cycles. The concern is that our influence is increasing the negative effects of these cycles.
As for your idea that we (humans) can't affect the climate of earth, may I point out holes in the ozone layer?
let me know when you find a way to adapt to death
I had Dr. Rink as a prof for one of my undergrad courses, I remember him discussing electron spin resonance. Interesting stuff.
Yes, I have nothing else to contribute.
Those screens look like crap compared to how the game looks now. WoW is acutally really good looking with all the details maxed.
Even the screenshots on the offical WoW site don't always do it justice.
"For as good as Google is (and they are good), history shows their business model not to last the long haul."
What history? If you are talking web, there really hasn't been much history yet. Certainly none that you can rely on to accurately predict the success of 'net based companies. Bubble companies died for the most part because either a) their product was vaporware or b) they didn't make money. Google has both of those covered. If you think they can be taken down by someone with a better product, welcome to every single business ever.
If you are talking non-web, there are lots of business models that rely on giving the product away for free and making money off of advertising.
Namely TV and radio.
As others have pointed out, he doesn't actually have the rights to the work, DC does.
He still has to get paid when people use it, but he doesn't have control of how it gets used.
Sounds insane to me too.
"i find it humorous that people so openly disregard anything from a person of faith. When in fact, evolution and those who belive it do so in faith."
1. People only disregard the opinions of people of 'faith' when they and try and use that faith to debunk scientific theories.
2. Evolution is proven. It's not faith.
"Have you ever actually done a carbon dating? have you done the experiments that diffrent scientists have done?"
Yes, and yes.
"I highly doubt it. You believe on faith that the scientists and the scientific process are delivering you honest and real answers."
No, it's not faith. You see, if you are so inclined, you can learn all about this stuff and prove it to yourself.
"When at times many other explanations could explain experimental results, those are discarded becasue they may lead to ID; wich as we all know is scientific suicide."
Name one time.
"you mean like telling people the world is flat? Popular opinion does not a fact make."
evolution isn't an opinion.
Why is parent modded insightful?
The bill doesn't tip the playing field at all. It only adds sexual orientation to a state law which already bars discrimination on the basis of race, religion, national origin, gender, marital status, and mental or physical handicap.
I'd bet on managers pushing through the update before it was ready.
Read this:
LINK
The Outsourcing Bogeyman By Daniel W. Drezner
From Foreign Affairs, May/June 2004
Summary: According to the election-year bluster of politicians and pundits, the outsourcing of American jobs to other countries has become a problem of epic proportion. Fortunately, this alarmism is misguided. Outsourcing actually brings far more benefits than costs, both now and in the long run. If its critics succeed in provoking a new wave of American protectionism, the consequences will be disastrous -- for the U.S. economy and for the American workers they claim to defend.
Daniel W. Drezner is Assistant Professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago and the author of "The Sanctions Paradox." He keeps a weblog at www.danieldrezner.com/blog; full references and data sources for this article can be found here.
THE TRUTH IS OFFSHORE
When a presidential election year coincides with an uncertain economy, campaigning politicians invariably invoke an international economic issue as a dire threat to the well-being of Americans. Speechwriters denounce the chosen scapegoat, the media provides blanket coverage of the alleged threat, and legislators scurry to introduce supposed remedies.
The cause of this year's commotion is offshore outsourcing -- the alleged migration of American jobs overseas. The depth of alarm was strikingly illustrated by the firestorm of reaction to recent testimony by N. Gregory Mankiw, the head of President George W. Bush's Council of Economic Advisers. No economist really disputed Mankiw's observation that "outsourcing is just a new way of doing international trade," which makes it "a good thing." But in the political arena, Mankiw's comments sparked a furor on both sides of the aisle. Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry accused the Bush administration of wanting "to export more of our jobs overseas," and Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle quipped, "If this is the administration's position, I think they owe an apology to every worker in America." Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert, meanwhile, warned that "outsourcing can be a problem for American workers and the American economy."
Critics charge that the information revolution (especially the Internet) has accelerated the decimation of U.S. manufacturing and facilitated the outsourcing of service-sector jobs once considered safe, from backroom call centers to high-level software programming. (This concern feeds into the suspicion that U.S. corporations are exploiting globalization to fatten profits at the expense of workers.) They are right that offshore outsourcing deserves attention and that some measures to assist affected workers are called for. But if their exaggerated alarmism succeeds in provoking protectionist responses from lawmakers, it will do far more harm than good, to the U.S. economy and to American workers.
Should Americans be concerned about the economic effects of outsourcing? Not particularly. Most of the numbers thrown around are vague, overhyped estimates. What hard data exist suggest that gross job losses due to offshore outsourcing have been minimal when compared to the size of the entire U.S. economy. The outsourcing phenomenon has shown that globalization can affect white-collar professions, heretofore immune to foreign competition, in the same way that it has affected manufacturing jobs for years. But Mankiw's statements on outsourcing are absolutely correct; the law of comparative advantage does not stop working just because 401(k) plans are involved. The creation of new jobs overseas will eventually lead to more jobs and higher incomes in the United States. Because the economy -- and especially job growth -- is sluggish at the moment, commentators are attempting to draw a connection between offshore outsourcing and high unemployment. B
i hope you don't tell jokes like that offline.
"They have fought the War on Drugs with skill, so why not the War on Piracy?"
Oh yeah, the war on drugs has worked real well.
oooo, take THAT Taco!
That teacher statistic seems wrong to me.
I come from a family of teachers (at least 10 among family and close friends), so I know a ton of them and most seem to really enjoy their jobs. Sure they hate getting jerked around by the government, but other then that they seem pretty satisfied.
There is NO way those in-ear headphones are costing them even close to $40 to make. They sound absolutely dreadful.
Apple should have teamed up with Etymotic and made some high quality iPod in-ear headphones.
The good looking, intelligent girl over there at the bar that you'd really like to talk to doesn't care much whether you are famous amongst a group of geeks and neither does she even remotely fathom why you'd be famous for that stuff in the first place.
And she is supposed to be impressed by your meaningless job writing bullshit programs for a huge corporation where the execs make more money in a year then you see in a lifetime?
If she is intelligent, she is probably aware of the stranglehold corporations have on us. She would probably be impressed by someone who goes his own way.
On another note, using a sexual side to argue a point is really sleazy. You might as well argue that open source supports terrorism.
"But a computer expert in North Korea who has a number of personal computers and an internet connection can download the latest version of Linux, complete with multi-processing capabilities misappropriated from UNIX..."
owned!