I have no complaint and no argument with those who would punish the criminal. And from what I see, the system works (Adelphia guys going to trial, Enron peeps in jail, etc).
Sorry to say, no libertarian worth talking to suggests that NO government at all would be useful. We generally feel that currently there is TOO MUCH government.
As for unions, I have no problem with them at certain points of time (the uneducated past) or in certain industries (food service, particularly dangerous ones like mining). However, if you have an education, you have no excuse for allowing an employer to exploit you: and it's not the government's job to babysit you. Sorry.
Holy shit. You get in the upper half of all wage earners in the richest nation on the planet before you're 30, and because your stock options don't get you retirement-making money you think you can complain?
Come on, man, if you aren't happy with what your company is doing, you have the ability to start your own!
People act like the big business owners all cheated to get there... or that everyone has to be a big business owner or they're losers.
You class-envy types amaze me. You'd rather rail about the success of upper management and complain about your conspiracy theories than try to get up there yourself.
We weren't sold a bunch of lies: Unions/are/ a bad idea these days. Look at the industries where unions are still in charge, compare them to non-unionized industry, and tell me which is better off? Union? No thank you.
Gigs, I think it all comes down to whether or not people are optimistic or not.
I find that the optimists look at the "IT outsourcing problem" as a challenge and an opportunity.
The pessimists whine about corporate greed and profits (great point about the paycheck fairy, btw, I'll plug you in as a 'friend', if that does anything...) and how unfair life is.
The problem is, the pessimists will never look at any potential for a bright side. They just want some government official to come help them instead (or maybe the paycheck fairy).
And it has nothing to do with age, micromoog's little attack notwithstanding.
Nobody is forcing you to click through this, read the posted stuff, or make a comment. If even the mere image of "SCO" on your retina makes you cringe, I'm sorry to hear it.
While I agree in principle with your complaint... it's a free site and you're free to ignore bits you don't like! How hard is it??
Uh, wait. You have 50k worth of gear? What's your address again?:)
I think there are such solutions, I've seen voltage "cleaners" used on solar power units for a couple years now. Advertised as a "pure sine wave", which I don't pretend to know a lot about...
Well, seeing as how you can't seem to reply to anything I say with anything less than insults now, I have to assume I've won the argument.
I can keep on winning, if you'd like:
1. I work for a living. Apparently you can sit on/. all day long and wait for a response to come in. Good for you.
2. My mother has helped me quite a few times in my life, but not recently. Thanks for asking though.
3. Use of language correctly doesn't make one "seem" worldly, but incorrect usage certainly makes one seem the reverse. Perhaps my use of (more or less) correct grammar threatens you?
"Chump", "illeterate", "incestuos". Wow, quite creative, and quite well-spoken. I bow before your superior intellect.
I'm sorry my use of the English language to formulate coherent arguments has confused you to the point that the only thing you can do is write insults in return. Pathetic. I'm curious, how old are you? You could be as old as, oh, 18 or so, but I'm guessing not even that.
Otherwise, the general intellectual state of Canadians and leftists is worse than I thought. Have a nice life, loser.
I'm not calling you a name, I'm clarifying your own political leanings for you. You think you're a libertarian, but that's clearly not the case.
Raising money = free speech. "It should be earned though". How does a politician earn money? Three ways that I can see:
1. Ask for it. This is quite obviously a free speech issue, and you don't see it. 2. Work for it. Well then, only rich guys can run for office... which you obviously don't like either. 3. Have the government give it to them. This is quite obviously the socialist route, which is fine if that's what you're into.
I'm not calling you a socialist to be hurtful. I have a couple very good friends who happen to be socialist. I just want you to admit to yourself that what you suggest (some apparently magical government formula that decides who can speak about elections, when, and how much they're allowed to spend to do it) is patently socialistic by its very nature. You're no libertarian, kiddo.
If you can't see that, then I could use other names on you (idiot, ignorant, illiterate, just to be alliterative and name a few).
And last I checked, (a) the President was elected, and (b) noone has been "hearded off as an evil doer" for their free speech right.
However, according to your world view, speaking freely about candidates (including paying someone else to do the speaking for you) should be illegal.
"Wacko right winger" is pretty good though, but again, completely silly. Nothing I've said has anything to do with being right wing. For the record, my pro-drug, pro-abortion, atheist self would likely be unwelcome in the average right-wing party. But so it goes.
Politician A needs money to get around his state, pay for political ads, and pay staffers to help him get elected. Where the hell do you think that money comes from? The government? Socialism, period.
Afterward, it is not a contribution to help a like-minded individual get elected, it is a bribe. Failure to understand the difference demonstrates a lack of experience or education. First book you might want to read is The Prince, by an Italian guy named Machiavelli. Maybe you've heard of it.
As for your crack about me potentially saying something is "wrong [because] it says so in the Bible"... a more ardent atheist doesn't exist. But nice try.
Unlike you, I am capable of making an analogy (you might want to look that up on dictionary.com).
As for the first amendment rights: Let me try one last time to get it through your thick skull. Your idea of campaign finance is apparently to have the government pay for all electioneering (long word there, look it up). If I want to help "my candidate" (whoever the hell that might be) get elected, and I'm not allowed, that's infringing on my rights as enumerated in the First Amendment. Please go read it again if you're still confused. If you support such a law, you're against the First Amendment. It's really quite simple.
Uneducated buyers. There's nothing sinister going on there. When you buy something, you go with what you're familiar with. If you're the guy who makes the decision on what other people will buy, you go with what you're familiar with.
Of course, MS probably has plenty of marketers going in and buying lunch for Army Generals, to get them "familiar" with their shit.
There's nothing (but money) stopping RH and the gang from doing the same.
Sorry I just don't choose to be cynical about it. Call me hopeful.:)
Well, alright, civil discourse be damned. You, my friend, are one stupid fucking canuck.
I'm sorry my English has left you in the dust of your own illiteracy. Do you think that chuch-goers, when presented with their church acting politically in ways they don't agree with, would just stand by and stay in the same church, with their mouths shut? Don't be stupid. Catholics, for instance, went off and turned into Episcopals. Who are now going to split themselves in twain again.
Go reread what I wrote you stupid cum guzzler. I was asking YOU the question about free speech. If you make a law that restricts what I can say about politicians, and when I can say it (which is entirely what campaign finance laws boil down to), then you are (a) a Socialist, and (b) fucking with my first amendment rights.
Well, that's particularly cynical. I like to believe that at least is some circumstances a failed product will NOT be "mandated" by any agency.
The Tampa police already gave them a shot, and even though they apparently liked the company originally, that wasn't enough to save them. So I'd like to think that the company will be having trouble making future sales, at least until they figure out how to make it actually work...
And so, given that times would likely be tight in the company, I wouldn't want to work there.
And that's about all that has to be said about the project, though we'll get plenty of people complaining about the privacy concerns.
What's more interesting to me than the fact that it doesn't work is that the guys interviewed (policemen, IIRC) didn't know WHY it didn't work.
And they didn't waste entirely too much money, the company gave it up for a free trial. I wouldn't want to be working for that company any more though.:)
Hardly a flame war, you'll have to be more acidic for that.:)
As to your questions: Why make laws abridging someone's free speech?
Millionaire oilmen DON'T need money from church groups, but the church groups POOL their monies together to get someone ("their guy") elected who agrees (for the most part) with their views. The oilman goes out and says, "Hey, give me money and I'll do what you want!" How is that 'evil'? The church-goers can't afford to spend the money campaigning, so they do so by proxy: by giving their money to someone with whom they agree.
Same thing with the NRA: They get $X from each member, all of whom, by choosing to be members, agree with the political leanings of the group at large. If members didn't agree, they didn't have to sign up in the first place. And the NRA just uses the effects of networking to be able to wield a larger stick than any single member could. How is that bad?
Finally, how can you call yourself a Libertarian when you want the government to tell us when we're allowed to spend money on political candidates? Thinking like that is very socialist in nature, which is why I tossed that term in there. Sorry if it offended you.
Interesting that people seem to think it's the BSA's "right" to perform some kind of raid. Let them try to come onto my private property without police assistance and there would be hell to pay.
Apparently your juices are congealing. Ha, pancreas joke.
What will you say when you are not allowed to speak about an issue, or a candidate you hate, because of your laws?
But you say, "No, I'm protected by free speech, I can say what I want about that a-hole".
But what if you want to put together a web site advocating someone. Or fighting against someone. The "laws" that your precious socialistas put together make that kind of thing a "campaign contribution" and ban it. Even if it's just with your own money and you have no official connection to a candidate.
Check it out, it happened in the US sometime in the last couple years. I don't have the energy to look it up for you.
One thing WM does that I can't find in any other manager yet is the ability to have everything on one desktop disappear when I move to the next.
I do all my editing in one desktop/workspace, then flip over to the next one to view changes in a browser. Very convenient.
I like to have icons for editing stuff (text editors, etc) on workspace 1, and icons for browser stuff (galeon, moz, etc) on workspace 2. No damn panel that has the same launchers no matter where you are...
Well, I suppose it's possible. However, let's look at the evidence:
1. Dude showing off his "cool" computer shit. 2. Girls _generally_ don't care about machinery, and when they do, they don't _generally_ care about eye candy. 3. This is a linux desktop bit, dude into linux isn't _generally_ going to have more than one chick to check it out.
There, I think I insulted enough people for one message.....
Slashdot Mirror
There should be a new scale: The probability that a particular NEO will cause an article to be written up in main stream newspapers.
Seems like every year or less another "near miss" gets some play in the papers.
Who knows, maybe it's the same 3 or 4 objects that keep getting reporting on all the time...
I have no complaint and no argument with those who would punish the criminal. And from what I see, the system works (Adelphia guys going to trial, Enron peeps in jail, etc).
Sorry to say, no libertarian worth talking to suggests that NO government at all would be useful. We generally feel that currently there is TOO MUCH government.
As for unions, I have no problem with them at certain points of time (the uneducated past) or in certain industries (food service, particularly dangerous ones like mining). However, if you have an education, you have no excuse for allowing an employer to exploit you: and it's not the government's job to babysit you. Sorry.
Holy shit. You get in the upper half of all wage earners in the richest nation on the planet before you're 30, and because your stock options don't get you retirement-making money you think you can complain?
/are/ a bad idea these days. Look at the industries where unions are still in charge, compare them to non-unionized industry, and tell me which is better off? Union? No thank you.
Come on, man, if you aren't happy with what your company is doing, you have the ability to start your own!
People act like the big business owners all cheated to get there... or that everyone has to be a big business owner or they're losers.
You class-envy types amaze me. You'd rather rail about the success of upper management and complain about your conspiracy theories than try to get up there yourself.
We weren't sold a bunch of lies: Unions
Gigs, I think it all comes down to whether or not people are optimistic or not.
I find that the optimists look at the "IT outsourcing problem" as a challenge and an opportunity.
The pessimists whine about corporate greed and profits (great point about the paycheck fairy, btw, I'll plug you in as a 'friend', if that does anything...) and how unfair life is.
The problem is, the pessimists will never look at any potential for a bright side. They just want some government official to come help them instead (or maybe the paycheck fairy).
And it has nothing to do with age, micromoog's little attack notwithstanding.
I think the point really is, most of us don't consider the lack of a "single unified default" to BE a problem.
There's no way in hell every distrib is going to settle on one. I, for one, welcome the diversity.
Don't all you (collective you, not you in particular, AC) environmental weenies whine about bio-diversity being a good thing?
Mmmmmmmmm in-fliiiight maaaagazinesssssss ahhhhhhhh *droool*
Nobody is forcing you to click through this, read the posted stuff, or make a comment. If even the mere image of "SCO" on your retina makes you cringe, I'm sorry to hear it.
While I agree in principle with your complaint... it's a free site and you're free to ignore bits you don't like! How hard is it??
Uh, wait. You have 50k worth of gear? What's your address again? :)
I think there are such solutions, I've seen voltage "cleaners" used on solar power units for a couple years now. Advertised as a "pure sine wave", which I don't pretend to know a lot about...
Hmmm took you a few hours to respond there, chicken shit. Must have had to go ask your mommy (the state, apparently) for permission...
Well, seeing as how you can't seem to reply to anything I say with anything less than insults now, I have to assume I've won the argument.
/. all day long and wait for a response to come in. Good for you.
I can keep on winning, if you'd like:
1. I work for a living. Apparently you can sit on
2. My mother has helped me quite a few times in my life, but not recently. Thanks for asking though.
3. Use of language correctly doesn't make one "seem" worldly, but incorrect usage certainly makes one seem the reverse. Perhaps my use of (more or less) correct grammar threatens you?
"Chump", "illeterate", "incestuos". Wow, quite creative, and quite well-spoken. I bow before your superior intellect.
I'm sorry my use of the English language to formulate coherent arguments has confused you to the point that the only thing you can do is write insults in return. Pathetic. I'm curious, how old are you? You could be as old as, oh, 18 or so, but I'm guessing not even that.
Otherwise, the general intellectual state of Canadians and leftists is worse than I thought. Have a nice life, loser.
"This interview happened right before before SCO made themselves look like fools."
:)
So what, like months ago??
I'm not calling you a name, I'm clarifying your own political leanings for you. You think you're a libertarian, but that's clearly not the case.
Raising money = free speech. "It should be earned though". How does a politician earn money? Three ways that I can see:
1. Ask for it. This is quite obviously a free speech issue, and you don't see it.
2. Work for it. Well then, only rich guys can run for office... which you obviously don't like either.
3. Have the government give it to them. This is quite obviously the socialist route, which is fine if that's what you're into.
I'm not calling you a socialist to be hurtful. I have a couple very good friends who happen to be socialist. I just want you to admit to yourself that what you suggest (some apparently magical government formula that decides who can speak about elections, when, and how much they're allowed to spend to do it) is patently socialistic by its very nature. You're no libertarian, kiddo.
If you can't see that, then I could use other names on you (idiot, ignorant, illiterate, just to be alliterative and name a few).
And last I checked, (a) the President was elected, and (b) noone has been "hearded off as an evil doer" for their free speech right.
However, according to your world view, speaking freely about candidates (including paying someone else to do the speaking for you) should be illegal.
"Wacko right winger" is pretty good though, but again, completely silly. Nothing I've said has anything to do with being right wing. For the record, my pro-drug, pro-abortion, atheist self would likely be unwelcome in the average right-wing party. But so it goes.
Wow are you clueless. Totally clueless.
Politician A needs money to get around his state, pay for political ads, and pay staffers to help him get elected. Where the hell do you think that money comes from? The government? Socialism, period.
Afterward, it is not a contribution to help a like-minded individual get elected, it is a bribe. Failure to understand the difference demonstrates a lack of experience or education. First book you might want to read is The Prince, by an Italian guy named Machiavelli. Maybe you've heard of it.
As for your crack about me potentially saying something is "wrong [because] it says so in the Bible"... a more ardent atheist doesn't exist. But nice try.
Unlike you, I am capable of making an analogy (you might want to look that up on dictionary.com).
As for the first amendment rights: Let me try one last time to get it through your thick skull. Your idea of campaign finance is apparently to have the government pay for all electioneering (long word there, look it up). If I want to help "my candidate" (whoever the hell that might be) get elected, and I'm not allowed, that's infringing on my rights as enumerated in the First Amendment. Please go read it again if you're still confused. If you support such a law, you're against the First Amendment. It's really quite simple.
What the hell does "What's ammater" mean?
Uneducated buyers. There's nothing sinister going on there. When you buy something, you go with what you're familiar with. If you're the guy who makes the decision on what other people will buy, you go with what you're familiar with.
:)
Of course, MS probably has plenty of marketers going in and buying lunch for Army Generals, to get them "familiar" with their shit.
There's nothing (but money) stopping RH and the gang from doing the same.
Sorry I just don't choose to be cynical about it. Call me hopeful.
Well, alright, civil discourse be damned. You, my friend, are one stupid fucking canuck.
I'm sorry my English has left you in the dust of your own illiteracy. Do you think that chuch-goers, when presented with their church acting politically in ways they don't agree with, would just stand by and stay in the same church, with their mouths shut? Don't be stupid. Catholics, for instance, went off and turned into Episcopals. Who are now going to split themselves in twain again.
Go reread what I wrote you stupid cum guzzler. I was asking YOU the question about free speech. If you make a law that restricts what I can say about politicians, and when I can say it (which is entirely what campaign finance laws boil down to), then you are (a) a Socialist, and (b) fucking with my first amendment rights.
Wake up and learn to read.
Well, that's particularly cynical. I like to believe that at least is some circumstances a failed product will NOT be "mandated" by any agency.
The Tampa police already gave them a shot, and even though they apparently liked the company originally, that wasn't enough to save them. So I'd like to think that the company will be having trouble making future sales, at least until they figure out how to make it actually work...
And so, given that times would likely be tight in the company, I wouldn't want to work there.
And that's about all that has to be said about the project, though we'll get plenty of people complaining about the privacy concerns.
:)
What's more interesting to me than the fact that it doesn't work is that the guys interviewed (policemen, IIRC) didn't know WHY it didn't work.
And they didn't waste entirely too much money, the company gave it up for a free trial. I wouldn't want to be working for that company any more though.
Hardly a flame war, you'll have to be more acidic for that. :)
As to your questions: Why make laws abridging someone's free speech?
Millionaire oilmen DON'T need money from church groups, but the church groups POOL their monies together to get someone ("their guy") elected who agrees (for the most part) with their views. The oilman goes out and says, "Hey, give me money and I'll do what you want!" How is that 'evil'? The church-goers can't afford to spend the money campaigning, so they do so by proxy: by giving their money to someone with whom they agree.
Same thing with the NRA: They get $X from each member, all of whom, by choosing to be members, agree with the political leanings of the group at large. If members didn't agree, they didn't have to sign up in the first place. And the NRA just uses the effects of networking to be able to wield a larger stick than any single member could. How is that bad?
Finally, how can you call yourself a Libertarian when you want the government to tell us when we're allowed to spend money on political candidates? Thinking like that is very socialist in nature, which is why I tossed that term in there. Sorry if it offended you.
Very interesting point. I think it all boils down to human emotion, something that sounds a little like this:
"We hate you we hate you we hate we-- Ooooooooooo"
Because we're human, so few of us actually have convictions, or actually stand up for them when the evil-doers hold out a particularly tasty cookie.
Just keep peeling the scab off the wound, eventually someone will pay attention.
Interesting that people seem to think it's the BSA's "right" to perform some kind of raid. Let them try to come onto my private property without police assistance and there would be hell to pay.
Apparently your juices are congealing. Ha, pancreas joke.
What will you say when you are not allowed to speak about an issue, or a candidate you hate, because of your laws?
But you say, "No, I'm protected by free speech, I can say what I want about that a-hole".
But what if you want to put together a web site advocating someone. Or fighting against someone. The "laws" that your precious socialistas put together make that kind of thing a "campaign contribution" and ban it. Even if it's just with your own money and you have no official connection to a candidate.
Check it out, it happened in the US sometime in the last couple years. I don't have the energy to look it up for you.
What kind of marketing geniuses came up with the "newcard" name anyway?
I mean, what the hell will the jackasses do in a couple years when it's no longer "new" and they want create another "new" card tech?
I suppose the answer is obvious: The "Nextgencard"!
It's to the point that I don't really care about the technology any more, such a shame.
One thing WM does that I can't find in any other manager yet is the ability to have everything on one desktop disappear when I move to the next.
I do all my editing in one desktop/workspace, then flip over to the next one to view changes in a browser. Very convenient.
I like to have icons for editing stuff (text editors, etc) on workspace 1, and icons for browser stuff (galeon, moz, etc) on workspace 2. No damn panel that has the same launchers no matter where you are...
My dad used to ask me, "Who said life was fair?"
Well, I suppose it's possible. However, let's look at the evidence:
1. Dude showing off his "cool" computer shit.
2. Girls _generally_ don't care about machinery, and when they do, they don't _generally_ care about eye candy.
3. This is a linux desktop bit, dude into linux isn't _generally_ going to have more than one chick to check it out.
There, I think I insulted enough people for one message.....