Then it seems to me it's up to U.S. consumers to take it upon themselves to buy only from U.S. companies that employ U.S. workers. You won't get the cheapest, but you'll get "the best".
It might take a while before the world economy settles down, but take heart, we won't all be living in squalor, fighting for bit parts in an Escape from NY scenario...:)
Only a percentage of their investments go to other countries, at least if their professional money managers are doing their jobs (hey, more jobs).
A well-diversified portfolio (something the average person thinks very little about) should only have a fractional amount (20% maybe) invested in foreign countries.
It's up to the shareholders and investors to demand what an individual company does. If the shareholders of IBM show up, in force, to demand that the company NOT ship tens of thousands of jobs overseas, IBM management wouldn't have much choice, now would they?
Well, "Evil" was in the subject line, I guess in your world-view, I'm evil.
There are so many things to say here, I don't even know where to begin. Let me just say briefly that I hold out hope for a higher standard of human, not the pathetic greediness that infects people and makes them cheat for a few more million.
As to your silly "sociopath" comment, my only point about the garage was this:
I don't subscribe to the pessismistic worldview of the average liberal / socialist (note the word 'average' back there). I see new cars, new homes, people buying all kinds of good stuff, which flies in the face of the people crying out that the U.S. is coming to an end.
I don't have a problem with what Keynes says there: it's probably true. What does a rich man do with his money? Save it. Invest it. Okay, follow the trail: Where does the money go that is saved / invested? Well, into an investment bank. Hmm... okay, people work there (making a salary). What do the people at the investment bank (for example obviously) DO with the money they've been given by a rich man?
THEY INVEST IT IN COMPANIES THAT HIRE WORKERS! WOOHOO! "The benefit of us all".
Well now, I will agree that Guinness is some pretty wonderful stuff. However, I must protest: The joy that is put upon mine countenance cannot be understated. Just the mere sight of a to-be-opened can of the draught brings a cheer to mine heart like none other.
Uh, yeah. Also, Murphy's finishes much better than Guinness, and is much smoother throughout.:)
It's hardly the end of capitalism. It might be the end of unchecked greed (which you anti-capitalists will say IS capitalism). I don't see very many people who "can no longer afford to buy" stuff. Go to Home Depot on any Saturday morning, the place is packed. Look on the highways, new cars are all over the place (maybe not in your garage, sorry).
I think the pessimism running unchecked around here is getting, well, out of control. The world is NOT coming to an end, sorry to break the news to you.
I could go on, but at some point, I figure, what the hell's the point, the anti-capitalists and pessimists will never be convinced.
Drink stouts. They generally have fewer calories, or so I've heard. (disclaimer: Like Pierre Salinger before me, I heard it online, so it must be true)
Guiness (good) O'Hara's (good) Murphy's (best, bar none)
You can usually find some good oatmeal stouts at your local wacko health food store.:)
For for the gods' sake, don't drink light beer... man... yuck...
I can order cable modem only from Cox, and could do so with Adelphia here in the states. Of course, they charge you additionally... surprisingly the same price as carrying the broadcast channels.
So now i have basic channels on cable, the modem, and everything else on Direc(Just as big thieves as cable co's)TV...
I'm not sure what your complaint is, and I'm sure I'll get deluged with a bunch of singular, "well I had a problem with X" responses...
But I've had no trouble with motherboards and linux. Just about every OTHER component in my systems, yeah, I've had issues, but not the mobo's. Soyo, Asus, Abit, ECS. I've tried a few of each of these boards, and maybe I'm not a "first-adopter" type, but I've never had issues...
I don't recall ever hearing anyone actually say "all government regulations are bad for you". However, I do think it's pretty obvious that we've tipped far to the side of too many reg's. Very much too far.
Interesting that you should mention that, considering I just hacked through my "underground" cable line going in the house last week... Some bits that really (insert epithets here):
1. "underground" should mean more than 4 freaking inches. 2. I was 6 feet south of the brightly colored line they so carefully sprayed on my lawn.
"Who said it would be secret?" Because I read the article:) and it mentioned all the fun stuff Gorman is going through, I assume they meant "more than just sensitive". I could be wrong.
My other "implication" indicates that the first responders would need the data BEFORE the disaster happens, not DURING or just AFTER. Obviously, when required, they just go. But to imply that they don't prepare ahead of time is just foolish, and probably insulting.
Well, that's just it: Classifying data is different from making it sensitive and just not handing it out to anyone. Plenty of data is already designated as "sensitive" (see HAZUS at FEMA for example).
Infrastructure data is often sensitive. First responders can certainly get it. However, if DoD and/or DHS go haywire and classify it, only those with Secret (or better) clearance level can get it.
And your average "first responder" fireman isn't going to possess a secret clearance...
As for currentness, you'd be surprised. Much of the interesting infrastructure (major emergency facilities, dams, etc) doesn't change very often.
The difficulty is that hysteria about terrorism is all the rage down here in DC now. Trying to talk calmly about alternatives, not to mention all the industries that will be damaged if too much data is taken offline, is all those of us with contacts in the government can do.
If you're cynical you won't buy it, but it's true: The average government worker (above, say, GS12) actually does give a shit about his job, and wants to get it right. Fight the hysteria with reason and we'll be okay.
(and if you're cynical, please don't bother responding, I've heard it all before...:))
Some people might wonder why in the world you'd need to have maps of electrical grids and fibre lines...
I'm working on the periphery of the emergency response industry, and suffice it to say, any infrastructure data is vital as hell for responding to major natural disasters like quakes, hurricanes and tornadoes.
Tossing all this "scary" data into the classified domain will hammer on emergency responders' ability to effectively map this stuff.
It's vital, and I think the anti-"security through obscurity" comment in the article hits the nail on the head...
Not really knowing all that much about the technology RFIDs use, this might be a stupid question (or I might be a stupid person:))...
Is it possible for end-users to easily disable an RFID? It seems to me some well-placed magnets, or hell, even the business end of a stable gun, should be able to knock out the RFID. How hard would it really be?
And yeah yeah, the evil government will make it illegal for us to do that. I'm honestly curious, not interested in conspiracy theory.
Re:Collecting specimins of ultra - rare fish?
on
New Deep Ocean Creatures
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
You do have a point. However, if there were only 5 or 10 on the planet, they weren't long for this earth anyway. Gene pool and all that...
Re:he's not there to look objectively at anything!
on
Bill Gates On Linux
·
· Score: 1
A tightrope yes, but if he talks down his own corporation, he's going to face innumerable shareholder lawsuits for destroying the value of the company.
Internally I guarantee they are planning in ways that are completely different from any public statement he might make about the competition. And if he isn't, he ought to get sued by the shareholders.
You are correct that he's not allowed to "mislead" shareholders, but "mislead" is a hard thing to define, don't you think?
Slashdot Mirror
It's exceedingly depressing to see that you think it's government's job to "create jobs" for us.
That said, the rest of your point is correct: technology should be making our lives EASIER, not more frenetic.
Now THAT is an indication of some true evil. Thank you for the link, I have it bookmarked so I can refer to it when I have children...
Then it seems to me it's up to U.S. consumers to take it upon themselves to buy only from U.S. companies that employ U.S. workers. You won't get the cheapest, but you'll get "the best".
:)
It might take a while before the world economy settles down, but take heart, we won't all be living in squalor, fighting for bit parts in an Escape from NY scenario...
Only a percentage of their investments go to other countries, at least if their professional money managers are doing their jobs (hey, more jobs).
A well-diversified portfolio (something the average person thinks very little about) should only have a fractional amount (20% maybe) invested in foreign countries.
It's up to the shareholders and investors to demand what an individual company does. If the shareholders of IBM show up, in force, to demand that the company NOT ship tens of thousands of jobs overseas, IBM management wouldn't have much choice, now would they?
Well, "Evil" was in the subject line, I guess in your world-view, I'm evil.
There are so many things to say here, I don't even know where to begin. Let me just say briefly that I hold out hope for a higher standard of human, not the pathetic greediness that infects people and makes them cheat for a few more million.
As to your silly "sociopath" comment, my only point about the garage was this:
I don't subscribe to the pessismistic worldview of the average liberal / socialist (note the word 'average' back there). I see new cars, new homes, people buying all kinds of good stuff, which flies in the face of the people crying out that the U.S. is coming to an end.
I don't have a problem with what Keynes says there: it's probably true. What does a rich man do with his money? Save it. Invest it. Okay, follow the trail: Where does the money go that is saved / invested? Well, into an investment bank. Hmm... okay, people work there (making a salary). What do the people at the investment bank (for example obviously) DO with the money they've been given by a rich man?
THEY INVEST IT IN COMPANIES THAT HIRE WORKERS! WOOHOO! "The benefit of us all".
Well now, I will agree that Guinness is some pretty wonderful stuff. However, I must protest: The joy that is put upon mine countenance cannot be understated. Just the mere sight of a to-be-opened can of the draught brings a cheer to mine heart like none other.
:)
Uh, yeah. Also, Murphy's finishes much better than Guinness, and is much smoother throughout.
It's hardly the end of capitalism. It might be the end of unchecked greed (which you anti-capitalists will say IS capitalism). I don't see very many people who "can no longer afford to buy" stuff. Go to Home Depot on any Saturday morning, the place is packed. Look on the highways, new cars are all over the place (maybe not in your garage, sorry).
I think the pessimism running unchecked around here is getting, well, out of control. The world is NOT coming to an end, sorry to break the news to you.
I could go on, but at some point, I figure, what the hell's the point, the anti-capitalists and pessimists will never be convinced.
Light beer?!?! Jesus Christ man!
:)
Drink stouts. They generally have fewer calories, or so I've heard. (disclaimer: Like Pierre Salinger before me, I heard it online, so it must be true)
Guiness (good)
O'Hara's (good)
Murphy's (best, bar none)
You can usually find some good oatmeal stouts at your local wacko health food store.
For for the gods' sake, don't drink light beer... man... yuck...
Guess we should all move to places where there the population density is above 0. :)
I can order cable modem only from Cox, and could do so with Adelphia here in the states. Of course, they charge you additionally... surprisingly the same price as carrying the broadcast channels.
So now i have basic channels on cable, the modem, and everything else on Direc(Just as big thieves as cable co's)TV...
I'm not sure what your complaint is, and I'm sure I'll get deluged with a bunch of singular, "well I had a problem with X" responses...
But I've had no trouble with motherboards and linux. Just about every OTHER component in my systems, yeah, I've had issues, but not the mobo's. Soyo, Asus, Abit, ECS. I've tried a few of each of these boards, and maybe I'm not a "first-adopter" type, but I've never had issues...
I don't recall ever hearing anyone actually say "all government regulations are bad for you". However, I do think it's pretty obvious that we've tipped far to the side of too many reg's. Very much too far.
This actually seems like a very slight devolving of federal power, a minute reduction in overall regulation. Which is always a good thing.
Why not try it, see what happens. It's not as if anything they allow now can't be changed later, if it turns out badly!
Why is everyone afraid of change? Afraid to try something different?
Does it happen to mention if that 9% are /more/ inclined to use Linux (perhaps as a measure of increased 'brand awareness') or less?
Wow, good job man. Managed to get in your digs at the 2000 election, Ashcroft, and the war on terror at the same time.
Someone mod this down, it's not funny any more. Beating a dead horse rings a bell.
Interesting that you should mention that, considering I just hacked through my "underground" cable line going in the house last week... Some bits that really (insert epithets here) :
1. "underground" should mean more than 4 freaking inches.
2. I was 6 feet south of the brightly colored line they so carefully sprayed on my lawn.
Bah...
"Who said it would be secret?" Because I read the article :) and it mentioned all the fun stuff Gorman is going through, I assume they meant "more than just sensitive". I could be wrong.
My other "implication" indicates that the first responders would need the data BEFORE the disaster happens, not DURING or just AFTER. Obviously, when required, they just go. But to imply that they don't prepare ahead of time is just foolish, and probably insulting.
Well, that's just it: Classifying data is different from making it sensitive and just not handing it out to anyone. Plenty of data is already designated as "sensitive" (see HAZUS at FEMA for example).
Infrastructure data is often sensitive. First responders can certainly get it. However, if DoD and/or DHS go haywire and classify it, only those with Secret (or better) clearance level can get it.
And your average "first responder" fireman isn't going to possess a secret clearance...
As for currentness, you'd be surprised. Much of the interesting infrastructure (major emergency facilities, dams, etc) doesn't change very often.
The difficulty is that hysteria about terrorism is all the rage down here in DC now. Trying to talk calmly about alternatives, not to mention all the industries that will be damaged if too much data is taken offline, is all those of us with contacts in the government can do.
:))
If you're cynical you won't buy it, but it's true: The average government worker (above, say, GS12) actually does give a shit about his job, and wants to get it right. Fight the hysteria with reason and we'll be okay.
(and if you're cynical, please don't bother responding, I've heard it all before...
Some people might wonder why in the world you'd need to have maps of electrical grids and fibre lines...
I'm working on the periphery of the emergency response industry, and suffice it to say, any infrastructure data is vital as hell for responding to major natural disasters like quakes, hurricanes and tornadoes.
Tossing all this "scary" data into the classified domain will hammer on emergency responders' ability to effectively map this stuff.
It's vital, and I think the anti-"security through obscurity" comment in the article hits the nail on the head...
Not really knowing all that much about the technology RFIDs use, this might be a stupid question (or I might be a stupid person :))...
Is it possible for end-users to easily disable an RFID? It seems to me some well-placed magnets, or hell, even the business end of a stable gun, should be able to knock out the RFID. How hard would it really be?
And yeah yeah, the evil government will make it illegal for us to do that. I'm honestly curious, not interested in conspiracy theory.
You do have a point. However, if there were only 5 or 10 on the planet, they weren't long for this earth anyway. Gene pool and all that...
A tightrope yes, but if he talks down his own corporation, he's going to face innumerable shareholder lawsuits for destroying the value of the company.
Internally I guarantee they are planning in ways that are completely different from any public statement he might make about the competition. And if he isn't, he ought to get sued by the shareholders.
You are correct that he's not allowed to "mislead" shareholders, but "mislead" is a hard thing to define, don't you think?
I gotta assume someone else has already brought this up, but come on! What else is the head of a major public corporation supposed to say?
"Yes, we think Linux is a serious threat to our core business". POW, stock prices get hammered, they get sued.
The guy has to be the leader of the company, he's not there to look objectively at anything!
I'm curious. Why do you fail to use Mozilla then? It doesn't install anything without asking.