And why shouldn't Heinz have factories in other countries? They do sell that item in those countries.
I'm not saying Heinz should or shouldn't outsource. That's a decision that is best left to Heinz's shareholders. John F. Kerry however has made part of his campaign a rant against outsourcing. I am just saying that if he is so anti-outsourcing, he should prove it by not taking contributions from or earning cash from companies which outsource.
Um... you don't think that little dot-bomb bust we had 4 years might have been responsible for the jump in unemployment we had then? Besides, unemployment in the USA has been going down, not up for the past few months now. And to put it in an even better perspective, it is at the same rate now that it was when Clinton ran for re-election in 1996, but of course no one complained about "high" unemployment back then.
And if you think Kerry is going to do anything about outsourcing, then perhaps he should demonstrate some leadership on that issue by selling all of his stock in the Heinz company, which rakes in millions of dollars a year due to outsourced labor abroad. Or he should reject all contributions from the Hollywood Left, which has been outsourcing jobs to Canada for many years now.
Moore was booed by a bunch of fellow artists and entertainment industry people... for criticizing Bush in public, and he was somewhat cut off by the producers/network
And there were also people who applauded him. The point is though that a bunch of government thugs didn't go and shoot him on stage or drag his butt to jail for making the remarks. Of course, CBS and the AMPAS has every right to govern the course of action at their own events and if they drowned him out, that's their call and not the government's.
There's some major markets where CC controls ALL the commercial stations, if I'm not mistaken.
There are also many major markets in which the same company owns all of the newspapers and purposefully drowns out conservative opinions which do not agree with their agendas. But you don't hear people complaining about that. If people do not like the actions of CC with respect to the Dixie Chicks, they can always boycott CC.
The point is not that they're being censored, but that it's being made inadvisable to criticize Bush, for fear of your product being pulled or people not wanting to be associated with you.
But once again it isn't the government that is driving this. There are a lot of people who will not patronize companies and other entities which are critical of the administration and that is their God-given right to do so. The only reason Hollywood tries to tread cautiously in that regard is because of concerns over their bottom line. It has nothing to do with free speech. There is nothing chilling about Americans voluntarily choosing who they will and will not patronize based on their own political opinions. That is the essence of what this country is all about.
If people are afraid to speak up for whatever reason your constitution becomes nothing more but another piece of paper.
You are correct. I don't see that as a problem in the USA though, given how openly people who are opposed to the Bush Administration make their opinions known.
Of course it's censorship. It just isn't (exactly) government censorship (although it comes close, given that Disney says the reason for not distributing the film was a political consideration).
The only wrath that Disney was going to encounter had it distributed the movie would have been legions of angry people voluntarily refusing to do business with Disney or any of its affiliates, which could affect Disney's bottom line. Of course a company like Disney, with its then-embattled CEO Michael Eisner couldn't afford to take a risk like that.
I ask again, so what if Disney refused to distribute the movie? There will be many other companies that would be more than happy to distribute it. And even if there weren't, its not like Moore is poor and cannot start his own company to distribute it. Moore isn't going to jail for making the movie and doesn't have to worry about his freedom because he made it, which is exactly what the First Amendment guarantees.
What galaxy do you live in, and in what cluster. Apparently the drugs are good there.
And then liberals wonder why no one takes them seriously...
So what if he was? Don't people also have the right to disagree with that Moore said at the Oscars? As I mentioned before, freedom is a 2 way street.
Weren't the Dixie Chicks pulled off Clear Channel for making anti-Bush statements oversees??
Once again, a business refusing to promote certain speech is not censorship. There were plenty of other stations which could have played the Dixie Chicks if they wanted to. And their fans could still go buy their CDs at the record stores or from mail order if they liked. The government didn't go and censor them at all.
A colleague of mine actually told me that she is afraid to show her political leanings because she knows that her boss doesn't share them and she's afraid that she wouldn't get a promotion if he knew.
But that does not violate her right to free speech. All the First Amendment guarantees is that the government cannot put you in jail for engaging in dissention. It doesn't require or guarantee that other people have to promote your speech (as in the case with Disney not distributing Moore's movie) nor does it prevent anyone from going apeshit over you job-wise because of it.
The USA is by no means the only place in which this kind of behavior is common, in Greece for example, it is common and accepted that bureaucrats who are of the opposition party are relegated to the worst government jobs (the technical term for this is the "icebox" but it loses a lot in transition.)
Ok, that is known. The problem is, are people 'using' that right or are they too afraid to do so? (they have interest not to, or being characterized unamerican so on)
Of course they are using it, people here protest the war all the time. In Philadelphia, the mayor's office was even allowing protesters to lay in the streets and block traffic during rush hour. Do a google search and I am sure you will find numerous websites in the USA that are critical of the Bush Administration. Unless someone claims they are going to shoot the guy, it is perfectly legal to make such speech.
Of course, if other people want to think that protesters are anti-American scum, then that is their right as well. Freedom is a 2 way street you know. For example, I think the guy who wrote this is a total asshole, but being the USA, he has a right to be a total asshole and to be criticized for being such.
And his latest movie can not be distributed to US cinemas as far as i know.
Disney choosing to not distribute Moore's work is not censorship. The only reason Disney not distributing the film is that they are afraid that people who hate Michael Moore's guts will go ahead and boycott other Disney products in retaliation, which as free people we have the right to do. Miramax went ahead and bought back the rights and is currently seeking their own distributor. Even Moore himself admitted that he knew for over a year Disney wasn't going to distribute his film. But in the end, I am sure he will have no problems whatsoever finding a distributor. Mayhe he could do what Mel Gibson did with The Passion of The Christ and form his own company to distribute the film.
I don't live in the US, so i can verify his claims. From what i read and hear, however, it does seem that criticism against Bush is generally regarded as not a wise move, and is to be avoided.
Well, I do live in the US, and I can plainly tell you that whatever news source is telling you that criticizing Bush is "to be avoided" is full of BS. You have a God-given right to criticize the government and no one can change that.
If you don't believe me, just pull up a tape of Michael Moore's speech at the Oscars.
Microsoft USB wireless adapters actually work very well with the Redhat and Fedora Core Linux distributions... if you use the open source Linux-Wlan NG drivers. I would seriously recommend them to anyone who wants to use 802.11b with Linux.
no company would ever have enough of the game to be able to pirate it (at least not without it being obvious who did the pirating)
But even if you knew who pirated your code, how would you be able to stop them if they are in a country which has a legal system that looks the other way towards crimes like these? They'd have your code, you'd know they would have your code, and there'd be nothing you could do about it. Even if it was not enough code to finish a working product, that is still a significant investment on your part that has gone down the drain.
Personally, I am hoping more incidents like these occur and that enough people take action against these companies to reduce this practice.
But with the high piracy rates of Asia/Eastern Europe, I'm not sure I'd trust anyone with a large chunk of the code.
Oh well, let them have their games pirated. With all the money they are supposedly "saving" in development costs, I'm sure the impact will be minimal!
I always wondered how companies balance the benefits of outsourcing with risks like these. I can understand for some business application which will be around for a few years, you can always make up for pirating because most of your customers will buy the application. But with games, which have a "lifespan" of a few months or so, a good number of pirated copies floating around online could destroy the profitability of a project. Couple that with the fact that its probably impossible to seek legal recourse in a foreign country, you are pretty much screwed if your product ends up on KaZaA for free.
But hey, these companies chose to outsource, let them get screwed when some rogue coder steals their product.
I'm interested in using my phone as a modem for my laptop
If you have a Nokia phone with an IR adapter you can use either your laptop's IR port or a USB-to-IR adapter to use your cell phone as a modem. I did this with my Nokia 6340i with Cingular using both the IR port and the data cable. Both connections only get you a 9600bps connection though (or maybe I am doing something wrong?). The only issue with this is that I think this only works on GSM networks... I could connect in some of the bigger towns with what I thought was GSM service, but there were many areas with analog coverage and I think TDMA coverage that I could not connect in (I did this during a cross country trip). As for billing, the usage comes out of my regular minute allotment for the month.
AT&T apparently doesn't not have such an agreement, so even though your phone can see the T-Mobile/Cingular tower, it isn't allowed to use it.
In the Philadelphia metro area, AT&T and Cingular roam on each other's networks. Since AT&T is a newcomer here, and Cingular is more established, you are more likely to see an "Extended Area" display on your AT&T Wireless phone which is roaming on a Cingular tower than you are to see a "Cingular Extend" display on your Cingular phone which is roaming on an AT&T Wireless tower.
When I was an AT&T Wireless subscriber a few years back, I found this out because the only time I would get full signal strength in my area was when the "Extended Area" message was displayed on my phone. When I dialed 611 I got a Cingular operator.
The situation is the exact opposite in most of Pennsylvania outside of the Philadelphia area, in which AT&T Wireless has excellent coverage and Cingular uses their network to plug gaps in their coverage areas there.
There likely is a way to force the phone to use that tower, but if you manage to get it to work you will pay for it.
On my old Nokia 51xx phone from AT&T Wireless, I could get it forcibly roam on Cingular's network by wrapping my hand around the top part of the phone until the signal died. Since AT&T Wireless' signal strength is so piss poor here, it was really easy to kill the signal by doing this. Once the signal died, I would get full strength on the "Extended Area" system. At that point, I could go into the "System Selection" menu on the phone, and then specity a manual selection for the "Extended Area" system. The oddest part was that after a week or so, the phone would magically switch back to the AT&T Wireless system. I did not incur any extra charges because I used the phone only in my local calling area.
I agree. People who are too lazy to go and look at the price of ink, which is right next to the printer they want to buy, are hardly victims of abuse. It really is not that hard to look at the number of pages printed and the cost of the ink and do the math to find out you are being ripped off.
but isn't what he does known as <fingerquotes>syndication</fingerquotes&g t;
Rush Limbaugh always announces when he is broadcasting from the EIB Southern Command as well. When I read the article, I didn't see any reason for his name and what he did to be mentioned because its clearly not relevant to what the original DJ was doing.
finally got encryption (albeit 64bit) working with the orinoco_cs driver
I was able to get 128-bit encryption to work with the Linux-Wlan-NG Prism2 driver with the WPC-11 and the Proxim cards. It was just a settings change in the one config file they provide for you.
Likewise, I've also been able to use the Linux-WLAN-NG drivers to make various wireless adapters work under Redhat Linux versions 7.2 and 9. The devices that I have actually used successfully are:
Proxim RangeLan-DS PC Card (oddly enough I can't get this card to work under Windows 98 or XP)
Linksys WPC-11 v.3 PC Card
Microsoft(!) MN-510 USB wireless adapter (works pretty well with Kismet)
I noticed that the README file included in the download mentioned a "BroadCom" wireless card. I'm curious as to whether or not this is the newer Linksys PCI wireless card (WMP11) which used to work with Linux-WLAN-NG before they changed the friggin' chipset from Prism2 to Broadcom.
Most kids at that age are smart enough to know when they are being jacked, even if they didn't, they would only be under the spell until the "prizes" ran out.
I believe that the side-effect you mention is really the worst part of all of this. By linking "good behavior" to prizes, you remove all incentive to "do the right thing" simply because "its right" and not for any kind of compensatory reason. People with this mentality could just as easily be bribed to do the "bad thing" as they could to do the "good thing."
This shows once more that Microsoft has become too dominant.
Sorry, but this has little to do with Microsoft per se, but rather, it has everything to do with the fact that Microsoft is @Stake's biggest customer. Any company would fire any employee on the spot if they embarrassed their biggest client. In just about every employment agreement that exists, there are indeed provisions that allow for immediate dismissal if you as an employee take such actions. Even if no such provision existed, did this guy think he was going to last very long if he publically blasted Microsoft while working for @Stake with @Stake taking money from (along with probably signing all sorts of NDAs and other confidentiality agreements) Microsoft?
Along the same veins as this situation, look at what has happened to Kobe Bryant since he was accused (not convicted) of sexual assault. He has been dropped from several of his promotional contracts because of what has happened. I'm quite sure that each of these contracts have provisions for termination that include doing anything that could possibly but the endorsee in a bad light.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, but can it go Plad!
Only if it makes it to ludicrous speed first!
Ah. Their only product is the delivery of voice calls and faxes, using... um... telephones. But they're not a telephone company.
They're not! They're "The Broadband Phone Company!"
Better make sure it doesn't install any crapware on your computer!
GENESIS?!?! Genesis allowed is not!
And why shouldn't Heinz have factories in other countries? They do sell that item in those countries.
I'm not saying Heinz should or shouldn't outsource. That's a decision that is best left to Heinz's shareholders. John F. Kerry however has made part of his campaign a rant against outsourcing. I am just saying that if he is so anti-outsourcing, he should prove it by not taking contributions from or earning cash from companies which outsource.
like rising unemployment because of outsourcing
Um... you don't think that little dot-bomb bust we had 4 years might have been responsible for the jump in unemployment we had then? Besides, unemployment in the USA has been going down, not up for the past few months now. And to put it in an even better perspective, it is at the same rate now that it was when Clinton ran for re-election in 1996, but of course no one complained about "high" unemployment back then.
And if you think Kerry is going to do anything about outsourcing, then perhaps he should demonstrate some leadership on that issue by selling all of his stock in the Heinz company, which rakes in millions of dollars a year due to outsourced labor abroad. Or he should reject all contributions from the Hollywood Left, which has been outsourcing jobs to Canada for many years now.
Moore was booed by a bunch of fellow artists and entertainment industry people ... for criticizing Bush in public, and he was somewhat cut off by the producers/network
And there were also people who applauded him. The point is though that a bunch of government thugs didn't go and shoot him on stage or drag his butt to jail for making the remarks. Of course, CBS and the AMPAS has every right to govern the course of action at their own events and if they drowned him out, that's their call and not the government's.
There's some major markets where CC controls ALL the commercial stations, if I'm not mistaken.
There are also many major markets in which the same company owns all of the newspapers and purposefully drowns out conservative opinions which do not agree with their agendas. But you don't hear people complaining about that. If people do not like the actions of CC with respect to the Dixie Chicks, they can always boycott CC.
The point is not that they're being censored, but that it's being made inadvisable to criticize Bush, for fear of your product being pulled or people not wanting to be associated with you.
But once again it isn't the government that is driving this. There are a lot of people who will not patronize companies and other entities which are critical of the administration and that is their God-given right to do so. The only reason Hollywood tries to tread cautiously in that regard is because of concerns over their bottom line. It has nothing to do with free speech. There is nothing chilling about Americans voluntarily choosing who they will and will not patronize based on their own political opinions. That is the essence of what this country is all about.
If people are afraid to speak up for whatever reason your constitution becomes nothing more but another piece of paper.
You are correct. I don't see that as a problem in the USA though, given how openly people who are opposed to the Bush Administration make their opinions known.
Of course it's censorship. It just isn't (exactly) government censorship (although it comes close, given that Disney says the reason for not distributing the film was a political consideration).
The only wrath that Disney was going to encounter had it distributed the movie would have been legions of angry people voluntarily refusing to do business with Disney or any of its affiliates, which could affect Disney's bottom line. Of course a company like Disney, with its then-embattled CEO Michael Eisner couldn't afford to take a risk like that.
I ask again, so what if Disney refused to distribute the movie? There will be many other companies that would be more than happy to distribute it. And even if there weren't, its not like Moore is poor and cannot start his own company to distribute it. Moore isn't going to jail for making the movie and doesn't have to worry about his freedom because he made it, which is exactly what the First Amendment guarantees.
What galaxy do you live in, and in what cluster. Apparently the drugs are good there.
And then liberals wonder why no one takes them seriously...
And was he not booed?
So what if he was? Don't people also have the right to disagree with that Moore said at the Oscars? As I mentioned before, freedom is a 2 way street.
Weren't the Dixie Chicks pulled off Clear Channel for making anti-Bush statements oversees??
Once again, a business refusing to promote certain speech is not censorship. There were plenty of other stations which could have played the Dixie Chicks if they wanted to. And their fans could still go buy their CDs at the record stores or from mail order if they liked. The government didn't go and censor them at all.
A colleague of mine actually told me that she is afraid to show her political leanings because she knows that her boss doesn't share them and she's afraid that she wouldn't get a promotion if he knew.
But that does not violate her right to free speech. All the First Amendment guarantees is that the government cannot put you in jail for engaging in dissention. It doesn't require or guarantee that other people have to promote your speech (as in the case with Disney not distributing Moore's movie) nor does it prevent anyone from going apeshit over you job-wise because of it.
The USA is by no means the only place in which this kind of behavior is common, in Greece for example, it is common and accepted that bureaucrats who are of the opposition party are relegated to the worst government jobs (the technical term for this is the "icebox" but it loses a lot in transition.)
Ok, that is known. The problem is, are people 'using' that right or are they too afraid to do so? (they have interest not to, or being characterized unamerican so on)
Of course they are using it, people here protest the war all the time. In Philadelphia, the mayor's office was even allowing protesters to lay in the streets and block traffic during rush hour. Do a google search and I am sure you will find numerous websites in the USA that are critical of the Bush Administration. Unless someone claims they are going to shoot the guy, it is perfectly legal to make such speech.
Of course, if other people want to think that protesters are anti-American scum, then that is their right as well. Freedom is a 2 way street you know. For example, I think the guy who wrote this is a total asshole, but being the USA, he has a right to be a total asshole and to be criticized for being such.
And his latest movie can not be distributed to US cinemas as far as i know.
Disney choosing to not distribute Moore's work is not censorship. The only reason Disney not distributing the film is that they are afraid that people who hate Michael Moore's guts will go ahead and boycott other Disney products in retaliation, which as free people we have the right to do. Miramax went ahead and bought back the rights and is currently seeking their own distributor. Even Moore himself admitted that he knew for over a year Disney wasn't going to distribute his film. But in the end, I am sure he will have no problems whatsoever finding a distributor. Mayhe he could do what Mel Gibson did with The Passion of The Christ and form his own company to distribute the film.
I don't live in the US, so i can verify his claims. From what i read and hear, however, it does seem that criticism against Bush is generally regarded as not a wise move, and is to be avoided.
Well, I do live in the US, and I can plainly tell you that whatever news source is telling you that criticizing Bush is "to be avoided" is full of BS. You have a God-given right to criticize the government and no one can change that.
If you don't believe me, just pull up a tape of Michael Moore's speech at the Oscars.
Microsoft USB wireless adapters actually work very well with the Redhat and Fedora Core Linux distributions... if you use the open source Linux-Wlan NG drivers. I would seriously recommend them to anyone who wants to use 802.11b with Linux.
no company would ever have enough of the game to be able to pirate it (at least not without it being obvious who did the pirating)
But even if you knew who pirated your code, how would you be able to stop them if they are in a country which has a legal system that looks the other way towards crimes like these? They'd have your code, you'd know they would have your code, and there'd be nothing you could do about it. Even if it was not enough code to finish a working product, that is still a significant investment on your part that has gone down the drain.
Personally, I am hoping more incidents like these occur and that enough people take action against these companies to reduce this practice.
But with the high piracy rates of Asia/Eastern Europe, I'm not sure I'd trust anyone with a large chunk of the code.
Oh well, let them have their games pirated. With all the money they are supposedly "saving" in development costs, I'm sure the impact will be minimal!
I always wondered how companies balance the benefits of outsourcing with risks like these. I can understand for some business application which will be around for a few years, you can always make up for pirating because most of your customers will buy the application. But with games, which have a "lifespan" of a few months or so, a good number of pirated copies floating around online could destroy the profitability of a project. Couple that with the fact that its probably impossible to seek legal recourse in a foreign country, you are pretty much screwed if your product ends up on KaZaA for free.
But hey, these companies chose to outsource, let them get screwed when some rogue coder steals their product.
I'm interested in using my phone as a modem for my laptop
If you have a Nokia phone with an IR adapter you can use either your laptop's IR port or a USB-to-IR adapter to use your cell phone as a modem. I did this with my Nokia 6340i with Cingular using both the IR port and the data cable. Both connections only get you a 9600bps connection though (or maybe I am doing something wrong?). The only issue with this is that I think this only works on GSM networks... I could connect in some of the bigger towns with what I thought was GSM service, but there were many areas with analog coverage and I think TDMA coverage that I could not connect in (I did this during a cross country trip). As for billing, the usage comes out of my regular minute allotment for the month.
AT&T apparently doesn't not have such an agreement, so even though your phone can see the T-Mobile/Cingular tower, it isn't allowed to use it.
In the Philadelphia metro area, AT&T and Cingular roam on each other's networks. Since AT&T is a newcomer here, and Cingular is more established, you are more likely to see an "Extended Area" display on your AT&T Wireless phone which is roaming on a Cingular tower than you are to see a "Cingular Extend" display on your Cingular phone which is roaming on an AT&T Wireless tower.
When I was an AT&T Wireless subscriber a few years back, I found this out because the only time I would get full signal strength in my area was when the "Extended Area" message was displayed on my phone. When I dialed 611 I got a Cingular operator.
The situation is the exact opposite in most of Pennsylvania outside of the Philadelphia area, in which AT&T Wireless has excellent coverage and Cingular uses their network to plug gaps in their coverage areas there.
There likely is a way to force the phone to use that tower, but if you manage to get it to work you will pay for it.
On my old Nokia 51xx phone from AT&T Wireless, I could get it forcibly roam on Cingular's network by wrapping my hand around the top part of the phone until the signal died. Since AT&T Wireless' signal strength is so piss poor here, it was really easy to kill the signal by doing this. Once the signal died, I would get full strength on the "Extended Area" system. At that point, I could go into the "System Selection" menu on the phone, and then specity a manual selection for the "Extended Area" system. The oddest part was that after a week or so, the phone would magically switch back to the AT&T Wireless system. I did not incur any extra charges because I used the phone only in my local calling area.
tell me... how does this amount to "abuse"?
I agree. People who are too lazy to go and look at the price of ink, which is right next to the printer they want to buy, are hardly victims of abuse. It really is not that hard to look at the number of pages printed and the cost of the ink and do the math to find out you are being ripped off.
but isn't what he does known as <fingerquotes>syndication</fingerquotes&g t;
Rush Limbaugh always announces when he is broadcasting from the EIB Southern Command as well. When I read the article, I didn't see any reason for his name and what he did to be mentioned because its clearly not relevant to what the original DJ was doing.
finally got encryption (albeit 64bit) working with the orinoco_cs driver
I was able to get 128-bit encryption to work with the Linux-Wlan-NG Prism2 driver with the WPC-11 and the Proxim cards. It was just a settings change in the one config file they provide for you.
Likewise, I've also been able to use the Linux-WLAN-NG drivers to make various wireless adapters work under Redhat Linux versions 7.2 and 9. The devices that I have actually used successfully are:
I noticed that the README file included in the download mentioned a "BroadCom" wireless card. I'm curious as to whether or not this is the newer Linksys PCI wireless card (WMP11) which used to work with Linux-WLAN-NG before they changed the friggin' chipset from Prism2 to Broadcom.
Most kids at that age are smart enough to know when they are being jacked, even if they didn't, they would only be under the spell until the "prizes" ran out.
I believe that the side-effect you mention is really the worst part of all of this. By linking "good behavior" to prizes, you remove all incentive to "do the right thing" simply because "its right" and not for any kind of compensatory reason. People with this mentality could just as easily be bribed to do the "bad thing" as they could to do the "good thing."
the statements that he makes therein are pretty damn obvious, and he's spoken out about this type of thing before
You honestly think this guy is going to cast himself as being in the wrong here? I doubt that.
he got canned by the sleazeball company for doing his job.
Looks like @Stake didn't think so.
This shows once more that Microsoft has become too dominant.
Sorry, but this has little to do with Microsoft per se, but rather, it has everything to do with the fact that Microsoft is @Stake's biggest customer. Any company would fire any employee on the spot if they embarrassed their biggest client. In just about every employment agreement that exists, there are indeed provisions that allow for immediate dismissal if you as an employee take such actions. Even if no such provision existed, did this guy think he was going to last very long if he publically blasted Microsoft while working for @Stake with @Stake taking money from (along with probably signing all sorts of NDAs and other confidentiality agreements) Microsoft?
Along the same veins as this situation, look at what has happened to Kobe Bryant since he was accused (not convicted) of sexual assault. He has been dropped from several of his promotional contracts because of what has happened. I'm quite sure that each of these contracts have provisions for termination that include doing anything that could possibly but the endorsee in a bad light.