The problem is that you can only help the development of 'economically challenged regions' by taking money from economically more successful regions, and thus crippling the very sections of the economy that had the capacity to grow the overall economy the most and take the world forward in new ways. This is basically analogous to spending most your education budget on getting all the special and sub-IQ kids up to a level where they can perform around average, while leaving no resources to develop your best and brightest students to their maximum capability. Pushing the best and brightest to their max potential will get you much further than pushing burger flippers to be just slightly smarter burger flippers.
Um, you yourself said it's a "pretend free market" and not an actual free market (the two could hardly be more opposite). Then you immediately conclude that the free market failed. Huh? A 'pretend free market' qualifies as a free market about as much as me pretending to have sex with my hand would qualify as sex.
/. isn't full of 'raging zealots', I see that claimed quite often but I've seen no evidence to back it up, it's a myth... there are a few, but most people here are fairly reasonable, certainly no more 'zealot-y' than any other online forum, and almost certainly less so. GP is probably a paid shill or works for Oracle. I do suspect there's a fair share of shills here, but they aren't zealots.
So according to jimicus, by merely looking at pictures of spaghetti bolognaise, I can personally raise the demand for spaghetti bolognaise and cause suppliers to appear to fulfill that demand. Just by looking at pictures on my own computer in my own home. Powerful concept. Pity it makes no sense.
I've been using the 'definition' link *very* regularly for many years... it's been my primary dictionary - Firefox, Ctrl+K, enter word, and click 'definition'.
It makes sense that Google wants to do this, and Google generally do good stuff... but I'm really slowly just starting to feel a bit like, 'OK Google, enough, you don't have to be part of *everything* I try do in life'. Am not saying they've done anything wrong; maybe there really is just a tendency for people to not like one company to get too big.
Even if that was the case (which it isn't), then the crime would be called "creating a demand for child pornography" not "possession of child pornography". That isn't the purpose of these laws.
Bull, that is only true if you are purchasing it... and if you post an ad saying you'll pay for it. Viewing it in your own home does absolutely jack shit to anyone or anything. A crime must have a victim, period.
The actual job description of any government employee is "create more unnecessary work for government employees". At anyone's expense. Once you understand this, a lot of other things start to make sense.
Yes, but at what point do we stop with all this overreaching by authorities and say "F- you, get out of my life and back off with the BS laws"? How long do we keep tolerating this, and how far do we let it go?
The worst part is the attitude of the FBI here... not "gee the system is fscked", but just "hand yourself in to the nearest authorities if this happens to you, you guilty citizen". Ridiculous... if I'm not harming anyone, then nobody has any business what bits lie in the deleted areas of my hard disk, least of all some useless morons who happen to be employed by government.
Precisely, and furthermore, it's a plain old hiring rule that people who are willing to be 'headhunted' *to* you are just as likely to let themselves be headhunted *from* you the moment they get a still better offer; by poaching, you're specifically selecting for that type of personality that is essentially a 'salary whore', and likely to not stay with you long enough to be worth your while. Loyalty is not a totally dead concept, in spite of popular opinion these days - employers value knowing that you're likely to remain 'invested' with them for a reasonable length of time (especially as most tech people take weeks to months to reach the point where they've generated enough value for the employer to break even on the investment in them).
Put simply, employers hate job-hoppers, and poaching selects for job-hoppers.
You think that the number of computers the district has had has been 5000 every year since 1999? It's rather doubtful that in 1999 they didn't have only a tiny fraction of that 'back then'.
It's also incredibly doubtful that the majority of them ran anywhere remotely near 24/7.
Actually if RTA you'll see he claimed the previous administration had given him permission. This seems plausible enough to me. He should've gotten it in writing though.
$1.6 million is likely a horrible overestimate, but at least 'several hundred thousand' dollars seems plausible. Everyone here is calculating '5000 machines multiplied by 10 years'... but come on, they've had exactly 5000 computers since 1999? I don't think so; it's pretty much a certainty in 1999 they had far fewer computers. And most of them would not have been on anywhere near 24/7.
The Tate Modern sucks (seriously - unless you happen to like modern art or ugly buildings), but I wholly recommend the National Gallery if you want to see 'real', beautiful art.
The Cartoon Museum is cool if that's your sort of thing.
My observation has generally been that the richer a country, the more parochial and insular the media. A country's media tends to ignore countries poorer than it, with the apparent view (from the media and the readers) that it's what's happening in comparatively wealthier countries that "matters". I've found many news sources in South Africa give you a very good overview of what's happening in most of the world - but a poor overview of what's happening in poorer countries in Africa and elsewhere. So places like the UK, US, Germany, France etc. with very strong economies, they tend to mostly look inward and maybe a little bit at each other sometimes, but seem blind that most of the rest of the world even exists.
There is pretty much no such thing as journalism with zero bias; it's up to the reader to be intelligent, capable of thinking for himself, and 'subtracting' the bias. That is almost independent of whether or not the journalism contains a lot of useful 'journalistic value'. Your quote has little bias, it contains pretty much facts - the value judgment is there on the facts, but you're allowed to disagree with it. They're not lying though. Journalism is fact-finding and fact publishing. Writers usually inject value judgments, but true bias/propaganda consists of (a) *hiding* facts or (b) lying. Consider the low-scale white genocide going on in South Africa today... you probably don't know about it because journalists CONCEAL those facts - THAT is true bias and bad journalism, and it's incredibly widespread
One of the things that struck me most when I was in the UK was how parochial, insular and mediocre the media was in general... and what also struck me was how, if you live in the UK, you're so awash in this bad media that 99% of people don't and can't even realize it, because that becomes your 'benchmark'. If that's all you've ever known, you'll think it's good. I've stayed in many countries, and the UK media was honestly the worst I've seen so far. If you want to know what's really going on in the world while there, forget it. And nobody there seems to care. So it's no surprise I get labelled "troll", no doubt by some naive brits who took offense... yet I don't completely blame them, because they just don't know better.
"Earlier this week, the MDC warned that Zanu-PF militia had launched a campaign of violence against it, reminiscent of last year's post-election violence.... The BBC's southern Africa correspondent Karen Allen says this diplomatic snub reveals the tussle for power between two sides in an increasingly unhappy marriage."
Now think about what is *actually* going on, and how tough you think the BBC is on the Zimbabwean government in their article. And this is the *Zimbabwean* government that the BBC pussyfoots around, afraid to tread on toes.
And News24 is a very liberal, biased source itself - it's already highly watered down there.
I presume the self-referential hypocritical irony in your post was unintentional. I also take it you don't actually watch or read the BBC on anything that matters at all (either that, or you don't compare it to what's actually going on in the world).
What a strange strategy; I vote mainly based on a candidate's policy positions and track record. But hey, I suppose you could go on other random, arbitrary things.
Yeah, because in the old days sailors never got sick and/or died on the way... we waited until the medical issues of travelling for months on ships were made 100% safe. Man, when did humans become such a bunch of pansies.
If anyone thinks the BBC is an example of a media organization that is critical of any government, then we're in much more trouble than we care to realise.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem is that you can only help the development of 'economically challenged regions' by taking money from economically more successful regions, and thus crippling the very sections of the economy that had the capacity to grow the overall economy the most and take the world forward in new ways. This is basically analogous to spending most your education budget on getting all the special and sub-IQ kids up to a level where they can perform around average, while leaving no resources to develop your best and brightest students to their maximum capability. Pushing the best and brightest to their max potential will get you much further than pushing burger flippers to be just slightly smarter burger flippers.
free market = fail.
Um, you yourself said it's a "pretend free market" and not an actual free market (the two could hardly be more opposite). Then you immediately conclude that the free market failed. Huh? A 'pretend free market' qualifies as a free market about as much as me pretending to have sex with my hand would qualify as sex.
/. isn't full of 'raging zealots', I see that claimed quite often but I've seen no evidence to back it up, it's a myth ... there are a few, but most people here are fairly reasonable, certainly no more 'zealot-y' than any other online forum, and almost certainly less so. GP is probably a paid shill or works for Oracle. I do suspect there's a fair share of shills here, but they aren't zealots.
So according to jimicus, by merely looking at pictures of spaghetti bolognaise, I can personally raise the demand for spaghetti bolognaise and cause suppliers to appear to fulfill that demand. Just by looking at pictures on my own computer in my own home. Powerful concept. Pity it makes no sense.
I've been using the 'definition' link *very* regularly for many years ... it's been my primary dictionary - Firefox, Ctrl+K, enter word, and click 'definition'.
It makes sense that Google wants to do this, and Google generally do good stuff ... but I'm really slowly just starting to feel a bit like, 'OK Google, enough, you don't have to be part of *everything* I try do in life'. Am not saying they've done anything wrong; maybe there really is just a tendency for people to not like one company to get too big.
Even if that was the case (which it isn't), then the crime would be called "creating a demand for child pornography" not "possession of child pornography". That isn't the purpose of these laws.
Bull, that is only true if you are purchasing it ... and if you post an ad saying you'll pay for it. Viewing it in your own home does absolutely jack shit to anyone or anything. A crime must have a victim, period.
You'd think they'd be busy with real crime.
The actual job description of any government employee is "create more unnecessary work for government employees". At anyone's expense. Once you understand this, a lot of other things start to make sense.
Yes, but at what point do we stop with all this overreaching by authorities and say "F- you, get out of my life and back off with the BS laws"? How long do we keep tolerating this, and how far do we let it go?
The worst part is the attitude of the FBI here ... not "gee the system is fscked", but just "hand yourself in to the nearest authorities if this happens to you, you guilty citizen". Ridiculous ... if I'm not harming anyone, then nobody has any business what bits lie in the deleted areas of my hard disk, least of all some useless morons who happen to be employed by government.
Precisely, and furthermore, it's a plain old hiring rule that people who are willing to be 'headhunted' *to* you are just as likely to let themselves be headhunted *from* you the moment they get a still better offer; by poaching, you're specifically selecting for that type of personality that is essentially a 'salary whore', and likely to not stay with you long enough to be worth your while. Loyalty is not a totally dead concept, in spite of popular opinion these days - employers value knowing that you're likely to remain 'invested' with them for a reasonable length of time (especially as most tech people take weeks to months to reach the point where they've generated enough value for the employer to break even on the investment in them).
Put simply, employers hate job-hoppers, and poaching selects for job-hoppers.
You think that the number of computers the district has had has been 5000 every year since 1999? It's rather doubtful that in 1999 they didn't have only a tiny fraction of that 'back then'.
It's also incredibly doubtful that the majority of them ran anywhere remotely near 24/7.
Actually if RTA you'll see he claimed the previous administration had given him permission. This seems plausible enough to me. He should've gotten it in writing though.
$1.6 million is likely a horrible overestimate, but at least 'several hundred thousand' dollars seems plausible. Everyone here is calculating '5000 machines multiplied by 10 years' ... but come on, they've had exactly 5000 computers since 1999? I don't think so; it's pretty much a certainty in 1999 they had far fewer computers. And most of them would not have been on anywhere near 24/7.
The Tate Modern sucks (seriously - unless you happen to like modern art or ugly buildings), but I wholly recommend the National Gallery if you want to see 'real', beautiful art.
The Cartoon Museum is cool if that's your sort of thing.
Slashdot's preview didn't match what got posted. That was supposed to be: I didn't know this was a problem that needed solving.
"How many times have you bit into a piece of fruit only to find that you're also chomping on a sticker label?"
Honestly? Never. Ever. I didn't know this was a problem tha
My observation has generally been that the richer a country, the more parochial and insular the media. A country's media tends to ignore countries poorer than it, with the apparent view (from the media and the readers) that it's what's happening in comparatively wealthier countries that "matters". I've found many news sources in South Africa give you a very good overview of what's happening in most of the world - but a poor overview of what's happening in poorer countries in Africa and elsewhere. So places like the UK, US, Germany, France etc. with very strong economies, they tend to mostly look inward and maybe a little bit at each other sometimes, but seem blind that most of the rest of the world even exists.
There is pretty much no such thing as journalism with zero bias; it's up to the reader to be intelligent, capable of thinking for himself, and 'subtracting' the bias. That is almost independent of whether or not the journalism contains a lot of useful 'journalistic value'. Your quote has little bias, it contains pretty much facts - the value judgment is there on the facts, but you're allowed to disagree with it. They're not lying though. Journalism is fact-finding and fact publishing. Writers usually inject value judgments, but true bias/propaganda consists of (a) *hiding* facts or (b) lying. Consider the low-scale white genocide going on in South Africa today ... you probably don't know about it because journalists CONCEAL those facts - THAT is true bias and bad journalism, and it's incredibly widespread
One of the things that struck me most when I was in the UK was how parochial, insular and mediocre the media was in general ... and what also struck me was how, if you live in the UK, you're so awash in this bad media that 99% of people don't and can't even realize it, because that becomes your 'benchmark'. If that's all you've ever known, you'll think it's good. I've stayed in many countries, and the UK media was honestly the worst I've seen so far. If you want to know what's really going on in the world while there, forget it. And nobody there seems to care. So it's no surprise I get labelled "troll", no doubt by some naive brits who took offense ... yet I don't completely blame them, because they just don't know better.
Compare this for example:
http://www.news24.com/Content/Africa/Zimbabwe/966/835600d1e53b4d2ca19c6bc23859c73e/31-10-2009-07-52/Tensions_rise_in_Zimbabwe
with this:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/8331633.stm
"Earlier this week, the MDC warned that Zanu-PF militia had launched a campaign of violence against it, reminiscent of last year's post-election violence. ...
The BBC's southern Africa correspondent Karen Allen says this diplomatic snub reveals the tussle for power between two sides in an increasingly unhappy marriage."
Now think about what is *actually* going on, and how tough you think the BBC is on the Zimbabwean government in their article. And this is the *Zimbabwean* government that the BBC pussyfoots around, afraid to tread on toes.
And News24 is a very liberal, biased source itself - it's already highly watered down there.
I presume the self-referential hypocritical irony in your post was unintentional. I also take it you don't actually watch or read the BBC on anything that matters at all (either that, or you don't compare it to what's actually going on in the world).
What a strange strategy; I vote mainly based on a candidate's policy positions and track record. But hey, I suppose you could go on other random, arbitrary things.
Yeah, because in the old days sailors never got sick and/or died on the way ... we waited until the medical issues of travelling for months on ships were made 100% safe. Man, when did humans become such a bunch of pansies.
If anyone thinks the BBC is an example of a media organization that is critical of any government, then we're in much more trouble than we care to realise.
They long since stopped being watchdogs for the government anyway. When I watch things like http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=54162036 it's more obvious than ever.