I've always wondered where the cost for bandwidth comes from. I've assumed it is related to equipment and line maintenance, costs for professionals to maintain the equipment and expand the networks, and new equipment and housing.
Can someone give me an idea of where the price for bandwidth ultimately comes from?
so your the dipshit that bitches when he "protests" *cough*riots*cough* and gets shot with bean bags and pepper sprayed...all you were doing was destroying property.
So you're the dipshit that repeats everything he learned about "anarchists" from CNN whenever someone feels comfortable mentioning his/her political learnings.
Assume all you want, but you may be shocked to discover I've never hit a cop or smashed a window during a demonstration--hell, I tend to record them more than anything.
You may be shocked to discover we're not all window-smashing kids.
Kinda sounds like there might be some 'winatude' also for the common people, if oil is such an essential resource as you say.
Unfortunately, it's also a limited resource. We don't know when it will run low, but that it will eventually start running low, based on our current rate of usage, is undeniable. Quite frankly, we'd be much better off if the species continued diversifying its needs--perhaps even simplifying to some degree, instead of constantly increasing the complexity of normal life and reliance on ever-rarer resources.
So you're saying that the White House had no reason to be concerned about Militant Islamists of the ilk that overthrew the Shah of Iran it and should not have tried to help to get rid of them.
Another case of "they weren't our bastards." The Shah wasn't exactly a shiny, happy benevolent dictator, but I guess since he was Washington's bastard it was OK.
But then, I tend to think it's the business of Iranians to decide how to run their lives, not people halfway around the world who may not have the best interests of the locals in mind.
A reformed and democratized Middle East is the most realistic approach to achieving this.
I don't see that coming out of the current US aggression. I see chaos and warlordism similar to that currently engulfing Afghanistan.
Better to do the job directly yourself, and 9/11 gave the White House the free hand to do just that. Bye-bye, bullshit dictatorships (that don't have nukes).
And anyone else that disagrees with Washington. Sorry, your country isn't run by freedom-loving saints, but power-loving opportunists--much like mine and everyone else's.
Actually, it's quite relevant. UNSCOM's purpose was to find any chemical, biological, and other proscribed weapons hidden away by Saddam, and destroy them. Its purpose was not to quietly funnel information about Iraq's military movements and government actions to Washington under the guise of inspections. That is generally considered spying. UNSCOM was disbanded because it was subverted for this purpose, instead of being an international disarmament team.
I'm an anarchist. Clinton would have received the same treatment, had I been politically awake then. As it is, he was as devious as Bush, just lacking the family history of involvement in political shenanigans and shady economic deals.
But given that it happened, how will refusing correct our mistake bring about this "peace" thing you seem to wish for?
That mistake was being corrected between 1995 and 1998. Then Saddam blocked access to inspectors, claiming some were spies. The UN pulled the inspectors out ahead of Desert Fox, which did jack and shit to get the inspections going again. It punished Saddam's regime, but did nothing else.
Interestingly, several US newspapers at the time ran articles claiming there were, in fact, CIA assets among UNSCOM. Whoops.
Quite frankly, I don't trust the Bush administration's motives. I don't think they'll "correct" the grave errors of the Reagan and Bush I administrations, as much as they'll simply make new mistakes under the guise of "liberating" Iraq. I think any ulterior motives on the part of the people planning this war will ultimately warp and corrupt any moves toward true self-determination made by the majority of the Iraqi peoples.
Now that Egypt is a more open and democratic society, archeologusts can, and have, move in and begin to resurrect the past and share it with the world.
What the fuck are you talking about? Egypt's current president-for-life, Hosni Mubarak, pretty much banned all of his opponents in the last "election". He's been running the country since Sadat was assassinated in '81. His regime regularly engages in suppression of political dissent, both from progressive elements and Islamist radicals. Protests take place on occasion, usually only if the cause is something Mubarak's government agrees with or can take advantage of.
They way to make gas prices go down would be to declare that Iraq is indeed disarming and allow them to resume oil exports. This is the fastest, cheapest way to get the oil.
Wrong. This is the fastest way to reduce oil prices somewhat. It does nothing to gain control of the oil, which is the point that the "no war for oil" people are trying to get across.
The head of the INC, who hasn't been in Iraq since 1956, is already talking with US oil companies for access to the oil fields after the war. Cheney and Bush are oil barons. If the price of oil goes up, their friends and families benefit, since most people will pay through the nose anyway. If the price drops after the war, even better; the oil families will still rake in the cash, and the OPEC dictatorships will see their own economic base weakened by a drop in prices. Either way, the situation is win-win for certain powerful people and organizations. Western life is tied to oil as a common, essential resource. It is the source of our fuel and some of our most common materials.
Oil may not be the only factor, but it is a factor. However, to believe that anyone currently running the show in Washington is seriously concerned about the lives of Iraqis is pure naivete. Quite a few of the people currently in power helped support Saddam's war machine during the Iran-Iraq war, looked the other way while both sides used chemical weapons, didn't make a noise about his development of chemical and biological weapons (may have quietly helped, in fact) and didn't give a rat's patoot about the megalomaniac until he invaded the wrong country. Invading Iran was fine. It's not enough to say Bush I wasn't president for the Iran-Iraq war and thus Saddam's actions then weren't his problem, as he was vice-president during that period.
One only need look at that infamous picture of Donald Rumsfeld shaking Saddam's hand to know where freedom and human rights rank compared to political expediency in the minds of the cabal currently running the US.
Not only is it not valid, it's not for mozilla either. the 'trick' only works on Netscape7... as mozilla doesn't use 'user' profiles. (there is only a default system profile, which doesn't read any local.css files, for security reasons)
Wrong, wrong, wrong.
I've been using a UserContent.css file since M17 that displays links italicized with no underlines. Under Unices, the file goes in $HOME/.galeon/mozilla/galeon/chrome. In Mozilla, the file goes into.mozilla/*.slt/chrome
Maybe under Win9x, user profiles aren't used, in which case the file would just go into the default chrome directory. There may already be a UserContent.css file there; edit that.
And if you run around with a beaker in your hand don't you risk spilling it on yourself?
That's why you be very careful.
As the shuttle moves through the air on its way up the acid would vaporize anyway.
The point is that the damage is done before launch. The damage is unnoticeable unless you look carefully, and if you do it close enough to launch time, the chances of the damage going unnoticed increase. In fact, the vaporization would be a good thing; less physical evidence to check for on the remaining chunks of spacecraft that reach the surface.
Anyone who sneaks all the way up to the shuttle just to toss a beaker! Why not sneak up to stick a block of C4?
Because a block of C4 probably wouldn't survive the trip up, and the cause of the destruction would be very easy to determine. The idea was to cause damage that would only become critical at a phase where close examination is practically impossible, leaving many questions as to what caused the failure. This lack of information is what triggers desperation among certain Soviet politicians, and leads into the book's main conflict. It was written a couple years prior to the fall of the Soviet government, so the book assumed the USSR would survive until the unspecified setting.
I couldn't believe they would pre-emptively publish this
I'm actually not surprised. Ever seen the infamous "DEWEY DEFEATS TRUMAN" image, with a triumphant Truman demonstrating the folly of preemptive publishing?
Now, it's just much, much easier to publish something for the world to see, on the assumption that current expectations will almost certainly come true.
I wouldn't be so quick to say something like that with a massive American fleet off my coast.
Yeah, not exactly a classy move, especially with international media all over the place just waiting for words like that.[0]
Still, it seems everyone, including Iraqis, see the potential invasion as practically a given, so some harsh statements don't shock me. Not that it justifies the cruel comments, but there's no sense acting shocked over predictable reactions.
[0] Then again, if international media reported some of the things said by Americans about other countries and civilians at sites like Fark, the image of the Ugly American would probably be confirmed for many people who tried to separate the government's actions from the people. I imagine many Iraqis are mourning the loss; it just doesn't make sensational news. Blah.
What about simple sabotage? Everyone is noting how complex a Space Shuttle is. Cut a line here or there. Change the adhesive used to attach the tiles.
Funny you mention that.
I once read a book[0] (several times) about the hijacking of a space shuttle by a very-deep-plant Russian agent. Part of the backplot involved a KGB officer sabotaging Russian space shuttles by tossing a beaker of acid on some of the tiles just before launch. The damage was unnoticeable on launch, but it would cause the craft to burn up and break apart on the way down, since the extreme friction during re-entry would cause the layer of tiles to come apart like a zipper.
While the book's disasters were caused by sabotage, a chunk of debris nailing the wing during launch could easily have caused cracks or damage that would cause catastrophic failure during re-entry.
Sometimes, bad things happen at strange times for stupid reasons. It's just life.
My thoughts are with those who put their lives on the line for space exploration. Pretty gutsy, strapping your ass to a rocket with no guarantee that you're going to see home ever again.
[0] Storming Intrepid, by Payne Harrison. I read it so many times, entire chapters fell out.
Alternativately, find an interesting political story that doesn't come out of the same old, tired, pseudo-radicalist mindset and attempt to provide the same standards of objectivity and balance that would be expected of a news organization.
You expect objectivity and balance from a news organization?
I know journalism classes talk a big game about "objectivity" these days, and most news organizations will pay lip service to the concept, but a cursory glance over the political content of most news media will immediately expose the editorial bias of the organization in question. I'm actually happier when a website or newspaper comes right out and admits its editorial slant, rather than letting it quietly run past the editorial page.
In particular, Fox News' "Fair and Balanced" slogan is practically begging to be refuted. Not that CNN or many other news networks are much better, Fox just happened to be the org that painted a huge bullseye on itself regarding objectivity.
If you're up for a slightly twisted view of things, along with some artsy-fartsy film tricks, dig around the alternative billboards in your area. There's some interesting stuff floating around out there. It may not change any minds (or it might!), but as cultural artifacts and Negativland-style low-budget social commentary efforts, many such flicks are worth seeking out.
Part of their guilt came from their prohibition against any store advertising CDs below a certain price. Strangely, I haven't seen much of a change.
Hmmmm... remember when Metallica released "The $5.98 EP: Garage Days Re-Revisited"? Supposedly, the rationale was that so music store owners couldn't raise the price, since the price was in the title.
I wonder if they could pull that off now? Not that they would want to, but was it their relative niche fanbase at the time that allowed them to get away with such a stunt? Or were vinyl and cassette prices close to US$5.98 anyway? I also wonder if music stores got any profit from that record at the time; the band may have inadvertently screwed smaller store owners in favour of their label, since I can't imagine the label (Elektra at the time, IIRC) giving up their own cut.
If they get it out by Feb. 26, I'll fall to my knees and thank the gods that I won't have to tell people anymore, "No, sorry, it won't be out until... ZORAN, WHEN DOES THE DAMN GAME COME OUT AGAIN???"
I'm not holding my breath, though.
OTOH, I'm glad to hear at least one game company is taking the time to make sure the nasty bugs really are squashed before release. I remember when I left the bleeding-edge gaming world years ago and showstopper bugs were common. Can you say "Battlecruiser 3000"?
Just a typo, but looks like there's a dyslexic editor on the Register's website. 5/1/2003 appears to be a bit too far into the future.
Only if you're in North America. In Europe and much of the world, dates are written day/month/year, instead of month/day/year.
Incidentally, it was a date-style conflict that convinced many people the anthrax letters from late 2001 were written by an American.
Re:DOW didn't do anything wrong; however...
on
Dow vs. Parody
·
· Score: 1
I never really liked Greenpeace, and this reminds me why.
Except this wasn't a Greenpeace action. This was 200 women, who live on the land contaminated by the Union Carbide accident, trying to get someone, anyone (preferably the company that purchased the polluter, and thus took up its liabilities and responsibilities) to put in some money and help clean up the land. The government clearly failed to do it, despite getting money from Dow already according to some other posters.
What else are they supposed to do? I don't think this is the first protest that has taken place, and if that land is still toxic waste, someone has clearly failed in their responsibility to clean it up. Why should the Indian government have to do it, when Union Carbide made the mess? Since Dow bought Union Carbide, isn't Dow responsible?
Milton Friedman forbid we hold corporations responsible for anything but making money...
Some people actually put some money away in savings.
As I was coming up the stairs from the laundry room to check for replies, this occured to me.
There's still a degree of privilege in being able to spend time making no money while still being able to buy groceries and pay the bills. Many, many people simply aren't making enough to save money for anything else--school, volunteering, retirement.
Of course, let's not even get into how many poor people are locked out of any job at all because of minimum wage...
Yeah, God and Milton Friedman forbid people be able to actually pay for food and housing at the same time.
Tell you what. Go find one of those sweet piecework jobs in the "export processing zones" of Indonesia, Sri Lanka, or even China, then come back and tell me how good a lack of living wage rules is.
Thing is, governments tend to aid and abet the abuse of employees by corporations. I don't know how to say this without sounding like a parlour pink, but there has already been a time when there weren't rules about minimum wages or working conditions, when capitalism was relatively unfettered. Organized labour brought an end to that era, with good reason. Concepts of socialism and anarchism came out of this time. Do you really want to see the abuses of those times back again? You'd be correct in saying people wouldn't stand for it, but the correction wouldn't be pretty and clean, like a simple stock transaction or purchasing boycott. Indeed, the "market correction" would likely take place in the form of the mass uprising governments and corporations have worried about since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution.
Remember back in the day when Sony fought like hell to make VCRs legal, saying consumers had a right to copy? At Sony Music, do they look back on those court cases and laugh?
I had a chance to visit Sony Music Canada's Toronto offices a year and a half ago for an AES conference on DVD-Audio and SACD (I was preparing for a project on the DVD-A format at the time). While wandering around the facility, I noticed a poster in the window of one office - "When you pirate MP3s, you're downloading Communism!"
I thought it was rather cute, and indicative of the mindset prevalent around one of the major media and consumer technology producers.
Slashdot Mirror
I've always wondered where the cost for bandwidth comes from. I've assumed it is related to equipment and line maintenance, costs for professionals to maintain the equipment and expand the networks, and new equipment and housing.
Can someone give me an idea of where the price for bandwidth ultimately comes from?
so your the dipshit that bitches when he "protests" *cough*riots*cough* and gets shot with bean bags and pepper sprayed...all you were doing was destroying property.
So you're the dipshit that repeats everything he learned about "anarchists" from CNN whenever someone feels comfortable mentioning his/her political learnings.
Assume all you want, but you may be shocked to discover I've never hit a cop or smashed a window during a demonstration--hell, I tend to record them more than anything.
You may be shocked to discover we're not all window-smashing kids.
Kinda sounds like there might be some 'winatude' also for the common people, if oil is such an essential resource as you say.
Unfortunately, it's also a limited resource. We don't know when it will run low, but that it will eventually start running low, based on our current rate of usage, is undeniable. Quite frankly, we'd be much better off if the species continued diversifying its needs--perhaps even simplifying to some degree, instead of constantly increasing the complexity of normal life and reliance on ever-rarer resources.
So you're saying that the White House had no reason to be concerned about Militant Islamists of the ilk that overthrew the Shah of Iran it and should not have tried to help to get rid of them.
Another case of "they weren't our bastards." The Shah wasn't exactly a shiny, happy benevolent dictator, but I guess since he was Washington's bastard it was OK.
But then, I tend to think it's the business of Iranians to decide how to run their lives, not people halfway around the world who may not have the best interests of the locals in mind.
A reformed and democratized Middle East is the most realistic approach to achieving this.
I don't see that coming out of the current US aggression. I see chaos and warlordism similar to that currently engulfing Afghanistan.
Better to do the job directly yourself, and 9/11 gave the White House the free hand to do just that. Bye-bye, bullshit dictatorships (that don't have nukes).
And anyone else that disagrees with Washington. Sorry, your country isn't run by freedom-loving saints, but power-loving opportunists--much like mine and everyone else's.
Family history.
Fam-i-ly his-tor-y.
See: Prescott Bush and Brown Brothers.
This is so irrelevant it's not funny.
Actually, it's quite relevant. UNSCOM's purpose was to find any chemical, biological, and other proscribed weapons hidden away by Saddam, and destroy them. Its purpose was not to quietly funnel information about Iraq's military movements and government actions to Washington under the guise of inspections. That is generally considered spying. UNSCOM was disbanded because it was subverted for this purpose, instead of being an international disarmament team.
I'm an anarchist. Clinton would have received the same treatment, had I been politically awake then. As it is, he was as devious as Bush, just lacking the family history of involvement in political shenanigans and shady economic deals.
But given that it happened, how will refusing correct our mistake bring about this "peace" thing you seem to wish for?
That mistake was being corrected between 1995 and 1998. Then Saddam blocked access to inspectors, claiming some were spies. The UN pulled the inspectors out ahead of Desert Fox, which did jack and shit to get the inspections going again. It punished Saddam's regime, but did nothing else.
Interestingly, several US newspapers at the time ran articles claiming there were, in fact, CIA assets among UNSCOM. Whoops.
Quite frankly, I don't trust the Bush administration's motives. I don't think they'll "correct" the grave errors of the Reagan and Bush I administrations, as much as they'll simply make new mistakes under the guise of "liberating" Iraq. I think any ulterior motives on the part of the people planning this war will ultimately warp and corrupt any moves toward true self-determination made by the majority of the Iraqi peoples.
Now that Egypt is a more open and democratic society, archeologusts can, and have, move in and begin to resurrect the past and share it with the world.
What the fuck are you talking about? Egypt's current president-for-life, Hosni Mubarak, pretty much banned all of his opponents in the last "election". He's been running the country since Sadat was assassinated in '81. His regime regularly engages in suppression of political dissent, both from progressive elements and Islamist radicals. Protests take place on occasion, usually only if the cause is something Mubarak's government agrees with or can take advantage of.
They way to make gas prices go down would be to declare that Iraq is indeed disarming and allow them to resume oil exports. This is the fastest, cheapest way to get the oil.
Wrong. This is the fastest way to reduce oil prices somewhat. It does nothing to gain control of the oil, which is the point that the "no war for oil" people are trying to get across.
The head of the INC, who hasn't been in Iraq since 1956, is already talking with US oil companies for access to the oil fields after the war. Cheney and Bush are oil barons. If the price of oil goes up, their friends and families benefit, since most people will pay through the nose anyway. If the price drops after the war, even better; the oil families will still rake in the cash, and the OPEC dictatorships will see their own economic base weakened by a drop in prices. Either way, the situation is win-win for certain powerful people and organizations. Western life is tied to oil as a common, essential resource. It is the source of our fuel and some of our most common materials.
Oil may not be the only factor, but it is a factor. However, to believe that anyone currently running the show in Washington is seriously concerned about the lives of Iraqis is pure naivete. Quite a few of the people currently in power helped support Saddam's war machine during the Iran-Iraq war, looked the other way while both sides used chemical weapons, didn't make a noise about his development of chemical and biological weapons (may have quietly helped, in fact) and didn't give a rat's patoot about the megalomaniac until he invaded the wrong country. Invading Iran was fine. It's not enough to say Bush I wasn't president for the Iran-Iraq war and thus Saddam's actions then weren't his problem, as he was vice-president during that period.
One only need look at that infamous picture of Donald Rumsfeld shaking Saddam's hand to know where freedom and human rights rank compared to political expediency in the minds of the cabal currently running the US.
The cynic in me says "Poster has bad credit."
Yep, and he'll really be able to improve that credit rating by not having a job so he can not pay off any outstanding credit card debt.
Not only is it not valid, it's not for mozilla either. the 'trick' only works on Netscape7... as mozilla doesn't use 'user' profiles. (there is only a default system profile, which doesn't read any local .css files, for security reasons)
.mozilla/*.slt/chrome
Wrong, wrong, wrong.
I've been using a UserContent.css file since M17 that displays links italicized with no underlines. Under Unices, the file goes in $HOME/.galeon/mozilla/galeon/chrome. In Mozilla, the file goes into
Maybe under Win9x, user profiles aren't used, in which case the file would just go into the default chrome directory. There may already be a UserContent.css file there; edit that.
And if you run around with a beaker in your hand don't you risk spilling it on yourself?
That's why you be very careful.
As the shuttle moves through the air on its way up the acid would vaporize anyway.
The point is that the damage is done before launch. The damage is unnoticeable unless you look carefully, and if you do it close enough to launch time, the chances of the damage going unnoticed increase. In fact, the vaporization would be a good thing; less physical evidence to check for on the remaining chunks of spacecraft that reach the surface.
Anyone who sneaks all the way up to the shuttle just to toss a beaker! Why not sneak up to stick a block of C4?
Because a block of C4 probably wouldn't survive the trip up, and the cause of the destruction would be very easy to determine. The idea was to cause damage that would only become critical at a phase where close examination is practically impossible, leaving many questions as to what caused the failure. This lack of information is what triggers desperation among certain Soviet politicians, and leads into the book's main conflict. It was written a couple years prior to the fall of the Soviet government, so the book assumed the USSR would survive until the unspecified setting.
I couldn't believe they would pre-emptively publish this
I'm actually not surprised. Ever seen the infamous "DEWEY DEFEATS TRUMAN" image, with a triumphant Truman demonstrating the folly of preemptive publishing?
Now, it's just much, much easier to publish something for the world to see, on the assumption that current expectations will almost certainly come true.
I wouldn't be so quick to say something like that with a massive American fleet off my coast.
Yeah, not exactly a classy move, especially with international media all over the place just waiting for words like that.[0]
Still, it seems everyone, including Iraqis, see the potential invasion as practically a given, so some harsh statements don't shock me. Not that it justifies the cruel comments, but there's no sense acting shocked over predictable reactions.
[0] Then again, if international media reported some of the things said by Americans about other countries and civilians at sites like Fark, the image of the Ugly American would probably be confirmed for many people who tried to separate the government's actions from the people. I imagine many Iraqis are mourning the loss; it just doesn't make sensational news. Blah.
What about simple sabotage? Everyone is noting how complex a Space Shuttle is. Cut a line here or there. Change the adhesive used to attach the tiles.
Funny you mention that.
I once read a book[0] (several times) about the hijacking of a space shuttle by a very-deep-plant Russian agent. Part of the backplot involved a KGB officer sabotaging Russian space shuttles by tossing a beaker of acid on some of the tiles just before launch. The damage was unnoticeable on launch, but it would cause the craft to burn up and break apart on the way down, since the extreme friction during re-entry would cause the layer of tiles to come apart like a zipper.
While the book's disasters were caused by sabotage, a chunk of debris nailing the wing during launch could easily have caused cracks or damage that would cause catastrophic failure during re-entry.
Sometimes, bad things happen at strange times for stupid reasons. It's just life.
My thoughts are with those who put their lives on the line for space exploration. Pretty gutsy, strapping your ass to a rocket with no guarantee that you're going to see home ever again.
[0] Storming Intrepid, by Payne Harrison. I read it so many times, entire chapters fell out.
Alternativately, find an interesting political story that doesn't come out of the same old, tired, pseudo-radicalist mindset and attempt to provide the same standards of objectivity and balance that would be expected of a news organization.
You expect objectivity and balance from a news organization?
I know journalism classes talk a big game about "objectivity" these days, and most news organizations will pay lip service to the concept, but a cursory glance over the political content of most news media will immediately expose the editorial bias of the organization in question. I'm actually happier when a website or newspaper comes right out and admits its editorial slant, rather than letting it quietly run past the editorial page.
In particular, Fox News' "Fair and Balanced" slogan is practically begging to be refuted. Not that CNN or many other news networks are much better, Fox just happened to be the org that painted a huge bullseye on itself regarding objectivity.
I haven't seen 9-11: (c)StA, despite being a GNN forum semi-regular, but I've had the opportunity to view other collage film efforts on the topic.
In particular, Plasticman and the Justice League by Toronto artist and slacker Jonathan Culp was quite hilarious and biting.
If you're up for a slightly twisted view of things, along with some artsy-fartsy film tricks, dig around the alternative billboards in your area. There's some interesting stuff floating around out there. It may not change any minds (or it might!), but as cultural artifacts and Negativland-style low-budget social commentary efforts, many such flicks are worth seeking out.
Part of their guilt came from their prohibition against any store advertising CDs below a certain price. Strangely, I haven't seen much of a change.
Hmmmm... remember when Metallica released "The $5.98 EP: Garage Days Re-Revisited"? Supposedly, the rationale was that so music store owners couldn't raise the price, since the price was in the title.
I wonder if they could pull that off now? Not that they would want to, but was it their relative niche fanbase at the time that allowed them to get away with such a stunt? Or were vinyl and cassette prices close to US$5.98 anyway? I also wonder if music stores got any profit from that record at the time; the band may have inadvertently screwed smaller store owners in favour of their label, since I can't imagine the label (Elektra at the time, IIRC) giving up their own cut.
Musings, musings...
If they get it out by Feb. 26, I'll fall to my knees and thank the gods that I won't have to tell people anymore, "No, sorry, it won't be out until... ZORAN, WHEN DOES THE DAMN GAME COME OUT AGAIN???"
I'm not holding my breath, though.
OTOH, I'm glad to hear at least one game company is taking the time to make sure the nasty bugs really are squashed before release. I remember when I left the bleeding-edge gaming world years ago and showstopper bugs were common. Can you say "Battlecruiser 3000"?
Just a typo, but looks like there's a dyslexic editor on the Register's website. 5/1/2003 appears to be a bit too far into the future.
Only if you're in North America. In Europe and much of the world, dates are written day/month/year, instead of month/day/year.
Incidentally, it was a date-style conflict that convinced many people the anthrax letters from late 2001 were written by an American.
I never really liked Greenpeace, and this reminds me why.
Except this wasn't a Greenpeace action. This was 200 women, who live on the land contaminated by the Union Carbide accident, trying to get someone, anyone (preferably the company that purchased the polluter, and thus took up its liabilities and responsibilities) to put in some money and help clean up the land. The government clearly failed to do it, despite getting money from Dow already according to some other posters.
What else are they supposed to do? I don't think this is the first protest that has taken place, and if that land is still toxic waste, someone has clearly failed in their responsibility to clean it up. Why should the Indian government have to do it, when Union Carbide made the mess? Since Dow bought Union Carbide, isn't Dow responsible?
Milton Friedman forbid we hold corporations responsible for anything but making money...
Some people actually put some money away in savings.
As I was coming up the stairs from the laundry room to check for replies, this occured to me.
There's still a degree of privilege in being able to spend time making no money while still being able to buy groceries and pay the bills. Many, many people simply aren't making enough to save money for anything else--school, volunteering, retirement.
Of course, let's not even get into how many poor people are locked out of any job at all because of minimum wage...
Yeah, God and Milton Friedman forbid people be able to actually pay for food and housing at the same time.
Tell you what. Go find one of those sweet piecework jobs in the "export processing zones" of Indonesia, Sri Lanka, or even China, then come back and tell me how good a lack of living wage rules is.
Thing is, governments tend to aid and abet the abuse of employees by corporations. I don't know how to say this without sounding like a parlour pink, but there has already been a time when there weren't rules about minimum wages or working conditions, when capitalism was relatively unfettered. Organized labour brought an end to that era, with good reason. Concepts of socialism and anarchism came out of this time. Do you really want to see the abuses of those times back again? You'd be correct in saying people wouldn't stand for it, but the correction wouldn't be pretty and clean, like a simple stock transaction or purchasing boycott. Indeed, the "market correction" would likely take place in the form of the mass uprising governments and corporations have worried about since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution.
a jobless friend of mine volunteered to work for free at a company that he desired employement with.
about 3 months later they hired him.
his work ethic got noticed, and a several people figured out he was too valuable to let go.
And how, exactly, did he pay for food and housing for those three months? Trust fund? Welfare? Lived at home?
I swear, the only thing modern North America is preparing everyone for is indentured servitude.
Remember back in the day when Sony fought like hell to make VCRs legal, saying consumers had a right to copy? At Sony Music, do they look back on those court cases and laugh?
I had a chance to visit Sony Music Canada's Toronto offices a year and a half ago for an AES conference on DVD-Audio and SACD (I was preparing for a project on the DVD-A format at the time). While wandering around the facility, I noticed a poster in the window of one office - "When you pirate MP3s, you're downloading Communism!"
I thought it was rather cute, and indicative of the mindset prevalent around one of the major media and consumer technology producers.