I don't think the point is to dissolve the US military force. The point is that we shouldn't need a BIGGER military force. Because that is the way it looks like it's headed.
"Hey, we have most of our troops commited to places X, Y and Z." "Hm, we got some left over in the US, why don't we commit them to place Q"
2 months later... "Hey, we don't have enough troops to defend our country, we need more people."
1 month after that.... "Hey, we have most of our troops commited to places X, Y and Z. Oh, and Q." "Hm, we got some left over in the US, why don't we commit them to place W".
Rinse, repeat.
The real argument is whether or not the current military actions are contributing to the national security. If they're not, the military shouldn't be there, simple as that.
Selective services already registers you (required by law) if you are a man between ages of 18 through 25. Even if you are a permanent resident. Or on a student visa. This merely widens the record keeping to include a wider age range and both sexes.
Here is a probably-dumb question... how do they push all the hundreds of channels to my cable box AND have enough bandwidth for my internet connection on the same copper wire? Hmmm? I always wondered on the actual technology and techniques behind that, but I was too lazy to investigate...
Actually, when I was there as a freshman (1997) the campus was in the middle of installing fiber to the dorms. I know 'cause I had the part time job (for a very short time) putting connectors on each of those glass fibers.
So fiber is there, at least to the dorms. I don't know if it's lit yet though.
The major discussion at Dartmouth when I left was: Why should we turn into a huge, hulking research university when people going there prefer the small teaching college that attracted the students and some of the faculty in the first place. There was some research going on, granted, but the debate was whether this research was the focus of the institution (like it is in many universities) or should the college be about teaching. Research is important to faculty growth and development, but when the faculty is researching full time, they are not teaching...
Now... I was a CS major at Dartmouth and am actually familiar with Prof. Kotz (who is the principal mover behind this project I'm sure). I suspect that the reason for the wireless network is not to say they were first to do it... it's to actually study what happens when you actually have 10k people using this network all the time.
Unfortunately the US economic collapse would plunge the world into recession. And I do mean the world. Many countries owe money to US, many depend on aid from US one way or the other, or trade, or some such thing. In this day and age, many US companies are owned, at least partially, by foreign companies. It's all interconnected.
In essence you'd be punishing 280 million people, hurting over 6 billion, all in order to exact revenge upon some couple of thousand (or 140 million if you say that half of US voted for them)
I find that it takes me about 30 seconds to find myself on the map, then maybe about another 2 minutes to find another route. I realize that I do usually own a good map, and that I know where I'm going.
I agree that GPS is useful for someone who travels (a lot) to places unknown, in the cities they don't know. But a great majority of people drive known routes, and/or are not in such a hurry they can't spare 5 minutes on the side of the road looking at a map.
GPS started, like the US interstate highway system, with military use in mind. People got along fine beforehand, and I trust they can survive without them as well.
Hate to break it to you but it's not the OTHER government's propaganda. Wake up and smell the freaking coffee. US pushes the little countries around, making them do their bidding, because it can, and it can afford to.
"We are the biggest importer of the country X main export? Well, if they don't do what we want, we'll stop trading with them...then see how they like it."
There are a lot of good things US does in the world, but with this administration, it seems, that the good is being done only to improve the US image in the world after something really bad has been done.
I think the point is that you usually go to a person to send a package. That person (a federal employee) has a reasonably good chance that he/she will recognize you within 30 days. Would you that all post office employees wear dark shades, or that they are blind, just because you don't wish to be recognized while sending a package?
Like it or not, there are some things that should not be sent by mail. Lets say that someone sends child pornography or something like that through one of these self service kiosks? If they sent it through the regular drop off point, and talked to a person, there is a chance of them being recognized. So now there is a way of doing that with a machine.
I think the bigger problem here is that we need these machines at all. Talk about lost jobs. But, government will rather spend money once on a machine, than keep paying a person to do the same job... pretty much like any place else.
Primary means of navigaion? Maybe for some illiterate dummy. I don't know what you use for navigation, but I still refuse to spend a money on GPS when I can buy a $2 map and get there just the same.
And to all those that say "Oh, no, the emergency services, blah, blah.." These people drive around the cities/towns just as much as cabbies do. They know their way around.
Jeez. From what you people are saying it seems that noone could go farther than the corner store without getting lost before the GPS was available.
Unfortunately there are some people who will hate you just for being American. It happens all over the world. During the 90's in ex-Yugoslavia, you didn't really go to Serbia from Croatia and vice-versa. There were people there who really hated you no matter who you were, as long as you came from the other country.
Like it or not, the US government represents you to the world. When the US government exerts pressure on some other government to get their way (Hm, lets encourage EU not to help country X because said country signed a certain treaty) the people of that country will naturally resent America. Not the US Government, but the US as a whole, including the people in it.
The problem with people skipping commercials is that eventually companies will not want to pay as much for commercial space. Which will mean lower revenue for the network, which will in turn lead to either A) more commercials per hour, or B) increased cost to cable customers.
The core problem here is that by being exposed to commercials you are partially paying for content being delivered to your box. By making it easier to skip commercials (not everyone wants to flip the channel or get up off the couch during commercial) you devalue the seconds devoted to advertising.
How should we solve this? I don't know. Premium channels avoid commercials by charging for content directly. Possible answer would be to make more channels "premium" as in: "Pay a buck more if you want Comedy Central". Cable companies might object to that since bundling unwanted channels makes you pay for content you are not using. I mean, can you really watch more than one channel at a time (if you have only one TV)?
What these big companies are getting is trained workers with skills they need, and they don't pay a dime for it. All the risk is on the student, because if they are the 301st member of the class and only 300 of the class gets hired, the student is out of $60k and with a Computer Science degree (although it sounds more like Software Developer degree, more technical than scientific). IE he has all the technical skills, but no personal skills and will have hard time rising into management.
If I remember correctly, corporation is obligated by law to be most profitable for the shareholder. They HAVE to do what brings in the most money, even if it is damaging to the environment or the local job market. That is, unless the shareholders actually vote NOT to do something. So if there is no law against dumping chemical xyz into the atmosphere, unless the shareholders vote NOT to do it (after first finding out about it and bringing it to a vote) it will be done. Similarly, the corporation is obligated to cut costs (since that boosts profit) and if it is more beneficial for them to outsource, they will. Thus, I believe the problem is that particular ancient law (brought about whenever the corporations were actually constructed as a legal "person").
The job of a salesman is to sell the product. Nothing else. They are not obligated to be nice to the customer, but it helps because people respond better to the nice salesman. However, there are very few people that can handle a personal verbal assault and still stand there smiling, saying "Thank you, come again."
Some real customer quotes (my comments in parentheses):
"I bought this computer three months ago, but I filed for chapter 11 a week ago. I want my money back."
"I bought this 51 inch TV a month ago, (just in time for SuperBowl), but I don't need it anymore. I want my money back."
"I bought this VCR here, but when I opened the (sealed) box it was (5 years old, wrong model) broken so I want my money back."
Customer service is very understanding up to a point. What customers often want, though, is free money. Because Best Buy is such a huge company they think they can get it whenever they whine a bit. (Think again if want to return your TV or computer to the mom&pop shop twice in a row).
I worked at Best Buy while looking for a full time programming job and I can tell you everything you want to know about the computer department.
It is true that the managers receive bonuses based on the performance of their departments but it is based by monthly performance, so if you don't want to buy a PSP and don't want to be badgered by pressured sales people, go to buy from beginning to mid month.
Also, as any customer service or sales representative will tell you, being hostile will get you nowhere. If you antagonize me or address me as if I am beneath you, you will not get any help from me. From someone else, you will get some lip back, because it is not a job people regret losing (low paying, crappy hours, dealing with customers like you).
Last but not least. PSP (at least in my store) was a good buy ON CERTAIN ITEMS. (like emachines) We had an extraordinary number of them returned due to problems and Best Buy does not deal with manufacturer warranties. The reason people tell you "You know that you can't bring it back here if it breaks" is because many idiots bring an item back without a service plan, past the return period, and demand Best Buy to repair or replace the item. It wears down everyone in the customer service and the tech department when the customer should know that they need to contact the manufacturer.
That said, I worked in a great store, while it was a great store. Rule of thumb is: Go to a newly opened Best Buy if possible, or one where there is a lot of competition. The managers there are more experienced and customer (as well as staff) oriented because they are either: a) training new staff or, b) trying to retain customer base.
Our good management went away after a while (promoted internally) and supervisors, while good sales people, moved up into management and just were not so good. After that our entire computer dept. left because we could not deal with the management.:(
After my stints in sales, and customer service, I was amazed at how many people can be just plain rude and hostile just because someone has to ask one question (I never repeatedly asked for PSP, but I was knowlegeable about computers and thus had a better sales record, and thus was retained as an employee) My dream is to make a "How to be a good customer" website, describing techniques of being nice AND getting what you want from the sales person (not mutually exclusive).
What the article says is that the proposed tax is for LICENSED software, which is currently not taxed. CUSTOM software is already subject to taxes (makes sense, if another company develops software for you it is a service so it is taxed as a service). Maybe the original post could be amended since the original poster did not know what he was talking about.
Originally, I am from Croatia, while it was still part of Yugoslavia. Trust me, I know what beligerent police is. And for all the complaining, Americans have it good.
Again, I am all for people's rights, as long as they don't infringe on someone elses. It is good that people can discuss the issues, especially in such a controversial case (good arguments exist on both sides of the case, otherwise it would not be all the way up at the Supreme Court level).
Crime prevention IS their job. By investigating a crime they will prevent the criminal from commiting that same crime again, either out of ignorance or because they got away with it. By following your argument we shouldn't have jails or police at all. Why have police if they only follow up? Why punish people at all if the crime cannot be prevented? The damage was already done, nothing we can do about it, we will just violate the criminals rights if we arrest him for the crime.
Belligerant drunk yahoos more often than not cause damage to others or themselves before someone points the cops to them. I shouldn't need a baseball bat to defend myself, I expect not to be living in a lawless state. But to have laws, which we impose onto ourselves, we choose to accept a few willing people to enforce those laws. I like going into grocery stores without bulletproof glass. I like being able to walk outside.
Police need more oversight, I agree. Police need more and better training, I agree. I am not saying the system is perfect, after all cops are just people. I am saying that the system is there for a much better reason than to violate our rights. Like it or not, people choose to have security. I believe that the person's right to life has priority over another person's right to be a beligerent yahoo with a bat (or a gun).
Trust, right. Because you don't trust someone in uniform. You don't trust someone because they are part of the government. If someone from outside looked into the United States and saw your comment, they'd think that people are getting beat up by cops on every corner, and that we are in a facist state.
While cops put their necks on the line, they do not give up their rights while wearing the uniform. I personally do not think that MY rights are more valuable than the next person's rights.
That said, I grant you that the cop did not react well to the situation. But neither did the suspect. Because he was a suspect at the time, the police did have a reason to suspect something was going on.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think the point is to dissolve the US military force. The point is that we shouldn't need a BIGGER military force. Because that is the way it looks like it's headed.
"Hey, we have most of our troops commited to places X, Y and Z."
"Hm, we got some left over in the US, why don't we commit them to place Q"
2 months later...
"Hey, we don't have enough troops to defend our country, we need more people."
1 month after that....
"Hey, we have most of our troops commited to places X, Y and Z. Oh, and Q."
"Hm, we got some left over in the US, why don't we commit them to place W".
Rinse, repeat.
The real argument is whether or not the current military actions are contributing to the national security. If they're not, the military shouldn't be there, simple as that.
Selective services already registers you (required by law) if you are a man between ages of 18 through 25. Even if you are a permanent resident. Or on a student visa. This merely widens the record keeping to include a wider age range and both sexes.
Funny how that works, considering that this country is very Christian.
I'd be interested to know if Kotz and co. thought about implementing wireless meshing to alleviate load off single AP onto other AP's in range...
Here is a probably-dumb question... how do they push all the hundreds of channels to my cable box AND have enough bandwidth for my internet connection on the same copper wire? Hmmm? I always wondered on the actual technology and techniques behind that, but I was too lazy to investigate...
Actually, when I was there as a freshman (1997) the campus was in the middle of installing fiber to the dorms. I know 'cause I had the part time job (for a very short time) putting connectors on each of those glass fibers.
So fiber is there, at least to the dorms. I don't know if it's lit yet though.
The major discussion at Dartmouth when I left was: Why should we turn into a huge, hulking research university when people going there prefer the small teaching college that attracted the students and some of the faculty in the first place. There was some research going on, granted, but the debate was whether this research was the focus of the institution (like it is in many universities) or should the college be about teaching. Research is important to faculty growth and development, but when the faculty is researching full time, they are not teaching...
Now... I was a CS major at Dartmouth and am actually familiar with Prof. Kotz (who is the principal mover behind this project I'm sure). I suspect that the reason for the wireless network is not to say they were first to do it... it's to actually study what happens when you actually have 10k people using this network all the time.
Research? What research? There is not much research going on at Dartmouth, unless they got a huge influx of researchers in last 4 years.
Unfortunately the US economic collapse would plunge the world into recession. And I do mean the world. Many countries owe money to US, many depend on aid from US one way or the other, or trade, or some such thing. In this day and age, many US companies are owned, at least partially, by foreign companies. It's all interconnected.
In essence you'd be punishing 280 million people, hurting over 6 billion, all in order to exact revenge upon some couple of thousand (or 140 million if you say that half of US voted for them)
Not the course I'd take.
I find that it takes me about 30 seconds to find myself on the map, then maybe about another 2 minutes to find another route. I realize that I do usually own a good map, and that I know where I'm going.
I agree that GPS is useful for someone who travels (a lot) to places unknown, in the cities they don't know. But a great majority of people drive known routes, and/or are not in such a hurry they can't spare 5 minutes on the side of the road looking at a map.
GPS started, like the US interstate highway system, with military use in mind. People got along fine beforehand, and I trust they can survive without them as well.
Hate to break it to you but it's not the OTHER government's propaganda. Wake up and smell the freaking coffee. US pushes the little countries around, making them do their bidding, because it can, and it can afford to.
"We are the biggest importer of the country X main export? Well, if they don't do what we want, we'll stop trading with them...then see how they like it."
There are a lot of good things US does in the world, but with this administration, it seems, that the good is being done only to improve the US image in the world after something really bad has been done.
I think the point is that you usually go to a person to send a package. That person (a federal employee) has a reasonably good chance that he/she will recognize you within 30 days. Would you that all post office employees wear dark shades, or that they are blind, just because you don't wish to be recognized while sending a package?
Like it or not, there are some things that should not be sent by mail. Lets say that someone sends child pornography or something like that through one of these self service kiosks? If they sent it through the regular drop off point, and talked to a person, there is a chance of them being recognized. So now there is a way of doing that with a machine.
I think the bigger problem here is that we need these machines at all. Talk about lost jobs. But, government will rather spend money once on a machine, than keep paying a person to do the same job... pretty much like any place else.
Primary means of navigaion? Maybe for some illiterate dummy. I don't know what you use for navigation, but I still refuse to spend a money on GPS when I can buy a $2 map and get there just the same.
And to all those that say "Oh, no, the emergency services, blah, blah.." These people drive around the cities/towns just as much as cabbies do. They know their way around.
Jeez. From what you people are saying it seems that noone could go farther than the corner store without getting lost before the GPS was available.
Unfortunately there are some people who will hate you just for being American. It happens all over the world. During the 90's in ex-Yugoslavia, you didn't really go to Serbia from Croatia and vice-versa. There were people there who really hated you no matter who you were, as long as you came from the other country.
Like it or not, the US government represents you to the world. When the US government exerts pressure on some other government to get their way (Hm, lets encourage EU not to help country X because said country signed a certain treaty) the people of that country will naturally resent America. Not the US Government, but the US as a whole, including the people in it.
The problem with people skipping commercials is that eventually companies will not want to pay as much for commercial space. Which will mean lower revenue for the network, which will in turn lead to either
A) more commercials per hour, or
B) increased cost to cable customers.
The core problem here is that by being exposed to commercials you are partially paying for content being delivered to your box. By making it easier to skip commercials (not everyone wants to flip the channel or get up off the couch during commercial) you devalue the seconds devoted to advertising.
How should we solve this? I don't know. Premium channels avoid commercials by charging for content directly. Possible answer would be to make more channels "premium" as in: "Pay a buck more if you want Comedy Central". Cable companies might object to that since bundling unwanted channels makes you pay for content you are not using. I mean, can you really watch more than one channel at a time (if you have only one TV)?
What these big companies are getting is trained workers with skills they need, and they don't pay a dime for it. All the risk is on the student, because if they are the 301st member of the class and only 300 of the class gets hired, the student is out of $60k and with a Computer Science degree (although it sounds more like Software Developer degree, more technical than scientific). IE he has all the technical skills, but no personal skills and will have hard time rising into management.
About outsourcing...
If I remember correctly, corporation is obligated by law to be most profitable for the shareholder. They HAVE to do what brings in the most money, even if it is damaging to the environment or the local job market. That is, unless the shareholders actually vote NOT to do something. So if there is no law against dumping chemical xyz into the atmosphere, unless the shareholders vote NOT to do it (after first finding out about it and bringing it to a vote) it will be done. Similarly, the corporation is obligated to cut costs (since that boosts profit) and if it is more beneficial for them to outsource, they will. Thus, I believe the problem is that particular ancient law (brought about whenever the corporations were actually constructed as a legal "person").
The job of a salesman is to sell the product. Nothing else. They are not obligated to be nice to the customer, but it helps because people respond better to the nice salesman. However, there are very few people that can handle a personal verbal assault and still stand there smiling, saying "Thank you, come again."
Some real customer quotes (my comments in parentheses):
"I bought this computer three months ago, but I filed for chapter 11 a week ago. I want my money back."
"I bought this 51 inch TV a month ago, (just in time for SuperBowl), but I don't need it anymore. I want my money back."
"I bought this VCR here, but when I opened the (sealed) box it was (5 years old, wrong model) broken so I want my money back."
Customer service is very understanding up to a point. What customers often want, though, is free money. Because Best Buy is such a huge company they think they can get it whenever they whine a bit. (Think again if want to return your TV or computer to the mom&pop shop twice in a row).
I worked at Best Buy while looking for a full time programming job and I can tell you everything you want to know about the computer department.
:(
It is true that the managers receive bonuses based on the performance of their departments but it is based by monthly performance, so if you don't want to buy a PSP and don't want to be badgered by pressured sales people, go to buy from beginning to mid month.
Also, as any customer service or sales representative will tell you, being hostile will get you nowhere. If you antagonize me or address me as if I am beneath you, you will not get any help from me. From someone else, you will get some lip back, because it is not a job people regret losing (low paying, crappy hours, dealing with customers like you).
Last but not least. PSP (at least in my store) was a good buy ON CERTAIN ITEMS. (like emachines) We had an extraordinary number of them returned due to problems and Best Buy does not deal with manufacturer warranties. The reason people tell you "You know that you can't bring it back here if it breaks" is because many idiots bring an item back without a service plan, past the return period, and demand Best Buy to repair or replace the item. It wears down everyone in the customer service and the tech department when the customer should know that they need to contact the manufacturer.
That said, I worked in a great store, while it was a great store. Rule of thumb is: Go to a newly opened Best Buy if possible, or one where there is a lot of competition. The managers there are more experienced and customer (as well as staff) oriented because they are either:
a) training new staff or,
b) trying to retain customer base.
Our good management went away after a while (promoted internally) and supervisors, while good sales people, moved up into management and just were not so good. After that our entire computer dept. left because we could not deal with the management.
After my stints in sales, and customer service, I was amazed at how many people can be just plain rude and hostile just because someone has to ask one question (I never repeatedly asked for PSP, but I was knowlegeable about computers and thus had a better sales record, and thus was retained as an employee)
My dream is to make a "How to be a good customer" website, describing techniques of being nice AND getting what you want from the sales person (not mutually exclusive).
What the article says is that the proposed tax is for LICENSED software, which is currently not taxed. CUSTOM software is already subject to taxes (makes sense, if another company develops software for you it is a service so it is taxed as a service). Maybe the original post could be amended since the original poster did not know what he was talking about.
Um, I don't know where your jaw is, but mine is attached to my skull.
I can demand whatever I want from you, it is within my rights. You don't have to provide it for me, and that is within your rights.
Originally, I am from Croatia, while it was still part of Yugoslavia. Trust me, I know what beligerent police is. And for all the complaining, Americans have it good.
Again, I am all for people's rights, as long as they don't infringe on someone elses. It is good that people can discuss the issues, especially in such a controversial case (good arguments exist on both sides of the case, otherwise it would not be all the way up at the Supreme Court level).
Crime prevention IS their job. By investigating a crime they will prevent the criminal from commiting that same crime again, either out of ignorance or because they got away with it. By following your argument we shouldn't have jails or police at all. Why have police if they only follow up? Why punish people at all if the crime cannot be prevented? The damage was already done, nothing we can do about it, we will just violate the criminals rights if we arrest him for the crime.
Belligerant drunk yahoos more often than not cause damage to others or themselves before someone points the cops to them. I shouldn't need a baseball bat to defend myself, I expect not to be living in a lawless state. But to have laws, which we impose onto ourselves, we choose to accept a few willing people to enforce those laws. I like going into grocery stores without bulletproof glass. I like being able to walk outside.
Police need more oversight, I agree. Police need more and better training, I agree. I am not saying the system is perfect, after all cops are just people. I am saying that the system is there for a much better reason than to violate our rights. Like it or not, people choose to have security. I believe that the person's right to life has priority over another person's right to be a beligerent yahoo with a bat (or a gun).
Trust, right. Because you don't trust someone in uniform. You don't trust someone because they are part of the government. If someone from outside looked into the United States and saw your comment, they'd think that people are getting beat up by cops on every corner, and that we are in a facist state.
While cops put their necks on the line, they do not give up their rights while wearing the uniform. I personally do not think that MY rights are more valuable than the next person's rights.
That said, I grant you that the cop did not react well to the situation. But neither did the suspect. Because he was a suspect at the time, the police did have a reason to suspect something was going on.