One thing you should do is become a proficient programmer. You should also go to college. However, don't get your hopes up. There are so few jobs in the gaming field, and so many eager candidates applying for them, that it's real unlikely you'll get such a job.
Seriously though, testing is one way to break into the field. During my college years, I spent my summers as a QA tester at Spectrum Holobyte/Microprose/Hasblow Interactive (don't blame me for the bugs, there's only so many I could find in 3 months time:) ), and a few of the designers and programmers there got their start in QA.
An elegant troll. He gets the history right enough to fool the moderators who fell asleep during high school European History class, but is still wrong enough to be, well, wrong.
Fortunately for us, all you need to do is say the magic words Neville Chamberlain and this troll crumbles to dust.
I still maintain Nader lied, because frankly I think he's too intelligent to actually believe that there is no difference between Maxine Waters and Strom Thurmond, or even Al Gore and George Bush. Certainly he knew there is difference enough for them not to be referred to as "Republican-Democrats" and "Democratic-Republicans." (his words, not mine)
Nader took the example of campaign finance, said (my opinionated paraphrasing) "See? The Democrats and Republicans are the same! If you want someone different, vote for me!" He completely omitted the differences on abortion, education, taxes, defense, foreign policy, the environment, judicial appointments, etc. that Democrats and Republicans differ and that he KNEW they differed.
Did I impugn anybody for voting for him? No. It's their right to vote their conscience, more power to them. Did I impugn him for running? No. He got on the ballot legally - that's all that matters. Did I claim that Gore or Bush are honest? Hell no, I'm not fucking braindead:)
I am claiming:
There is substantial difference between Democrats and Republicans
Nader is smart enough to realize there is substantial difference between Democrats and Republicans
Nader said there is no substantial difference between Democrats and Republicans
If there is a substantial difference, Nader knows this, and Nader said otherwise, then Nader lied
That's it.
My third point you accept as fact. The only way I can see your argument being true is if there is no difference between Democrats and Republicans (debatable) or if Nader doesn't realize there is a difference (I don't think it's debatable if (1) is true).
I'd think the biggest loophole would be Section 8, Clause 18, which states Congress has the authority to: To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
Pretty sweeping, if you ask me. Federal regulatory bodies get their constitutionality questioned all the time. A few during the New Deal Era got struck down, but most held up under judicial scrutiny. Just recently the Supreme Court ruled UNANIMOUSLY that the EPA has the authority to set clean air standards, even though the businesses that brought the suit questioned the constitutionality of delegated legislative power to an executive body. In fact, the opinion was written by strict constructionist Antonin Scalia.
The reason that Congress had to amend the Constitution for an income tax was because the Constitution said pretty clearly that income taxes as they are today were not allowed. From Section 9, Clause 4: No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.
There isn't any such clause in the Constitution that states No rules or laws regarding workplace safety shall be made at the federal level. So the Feds have a lot more wiggle room here.
And for the last time, there was public debate! There was public debate for the ergonomics rules, because the law required it. There was public debate on designating the national monuments, because the law required it. Just because they weren't broadcast live on all four major networks or even C-SPAN does not mean there wasn't public debate.
If you think the country is so far down the path to ruin that Scalia and Clarence Thomas are reading things into the Constitution that aren't there, I don't know what I can say to convince you.
Ok, I got tired of staring at my 1040. It is incorrect that these rules were unconstitutional because:
1. They aren't laws, they're rules. I can't explain the distinction well because IANAL.
2. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration was created by an act of Congress in 1970 and was given the authority to create workplace safety rules. Congress gave the executive branch the power in the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970. See
Section 6 where Congress authorizes the department to promulgate rules through publishing in the Federal Register (it took me a while to cut through the legalese). Congress often does things like this because if we had to legislate everything under the sun (like the maximum chlorine levels in drinking water, how much and what kinds of pesticide is allowed to be sprayed on food, how often to inspect slaughterhouses for disease, what drugs should be approved, etc.), nothing would get done. But it was Congress that gave the executive this authority, and Congress could take it away if it chose.
Besides, Congress did a smart thing and passed a law stating that Congress could repeal any regulation passed by the executive branch if both houses of Congress agree. So whether or not you agree with the rules, Clinton didn't tear through the Constitution to get them done. Even though this wasn't done in Congress, the law (OSHA 1970) requires that there be ample opportunity for public input, debate and review and there was in this case. A president couldn't use the OHSA legally to outlaw MP3's (Congress may have given the President authority in another area, but not here) but he can use it to implement safety rules. Executive orders are sweeping and Clinton abused them when Congress wouldn't let him have his way, but they really don't allow a President to do *whatever* he wants. There is a mechanism in the system to get regulations overturned in the legislative branch, and laws passed by Congress ALWAYS trump an executive order. I don't worry too much about the constitutional ramifications of the ergonomics rules.
That's not entirely true,
this transcript from an Nader interview on CNN shows Nader talking about how similar the Democratic and Republican parties had become. He emphasized where they were similar (pursuit of corporate money to finance campaings and all the corruption that stems from that) and wrote off what differences they had, even referring to them as Democrat-Republicans and Republican-Democrats. So Nader did try to paint Maxine Waters and Strom Thurmond as one and the same, since his campaign was also against our two party system of politics. I'm not anti-Nader by any means, but I do believe he was being dishonest on this point.
However, his interview also pointed out another similarity between Democrats and Republicans that I found interesting - the desire for both parties to keep third party candidates out of the debates. I guess bipartisanship is possible after all.:P
No, the "ergonomics" rules (passed by no legislature, with no public debate, but IMPOSED in an autocratic fashion by executive "fiat") were put in place to appease the Trial Lawyers.
I agree that trial lawyers have much to gain with new ergonomic regulations and probably helped push for them. But I have some issues with you assertion that it was pushed through solely because of the trial lawyers. Here's why:
1) If I accept that trial lawyers are the largest donors to the Democratic party (I don't know if this is true or not) then I also have to accdept that the trial lawyers donations' to the Democratic Party eclipse the donations by all other business donors, who were universally opposed to the rules. I find that hard to believe.
2) What I do know is the labor unions were also pushing hard for the rule, and were the people I heard crying the loudest when Bush repealed them.
As for public debate, the Occupational Health and Safety Administration held public hearings and debates for 10 years on the issue. Just because it wasn't done in the halls of Congress and they were considered too dull for even C-SPAN to carry doesn't mean they were done behind closed doors. I'd discuss the increased power of the executive branch and it's impacts on our system of checks and balances with you (and we'd probably agree on a lot), but it's April 14th and I haven't finished my taxes yet:)
Or maybe I'm putting too much faith in the sheep masses who keep voting for the same two (one) party system all the time.
I really wish people like Nader would stop insisting that there is no difference between Bush and Gore. I think Bush has proven in the first 100 days how far away from Gore he actually is on the environment, the abortion debate, worker safety, the energy crisis, gun regulations, Justice Department priorities (see Microsoft case), the worldwide AIDS epidemic, the degree of separation of church and state, acceptable levels of judicial activism, military intervention, school vouchers, taxes, and foreign policy. Dubya is not as moderate as he would have us believe during the election. About the only thing the parties have in common is the relentless pursuit of fundraising and the willingness to be corrupted by it.
But Democrats are also beholden to labor unions and environmental groups, and Republicans are beholden to the war hawks and religious right. The split among Democrats was shown during the WTO and NAFTA debates; the split among Republicans during this latest China mess
Yes, Clinton has NAFTA, the WTO, and Marc Rich to answer for. But do you honestly think the ergonomic rules, national monument designations, or arsenic rules were examples of Clinton bowing to the wishes of big business?
There are even difference within the Democratic and Republican parties. It would be intellectually dishonest to say Sen. John Breaux shared every view with Rep. Maxine Waters, or that Sen. Olympia Snowe was in lockstep with Sen. Strom Thurmond. Guess what? Nader LIED, like EVERY other politician does, in order to secure your vote. Don't get me wrong, a lot of what Nader said about corporate power in this country made a lot of sense, and I agreed with it. But if the best that the Greens can do is to mischaracterize 90% of the politicians as "one and the same," instead of convincing people of the strength of their platform, it's no wonder that they never get very far in national elections.
Unfortunately these two parties do agree on the topic of copyright in the digital age (because basically they listen to whatever the *AA tells them). It has a lot to do with money, but it also has a lot to do with the power the media conglomerates hold in this country. The companies that own the news organizations also own record companies and movie studios. Today we live in the age of television and 24 hour news coverage. Most are too afraid to do anything to hurt the media conglomerates' bottom line because politicians are so dependent upon positive media coverage.
As for many of the "sheep," copyright law isn't as important to them as it is to you or me. Most are more concerned with issues like abortion, education, and taxes. These are places where the parties differ.
Corporations don't abuse us. We abuse oursleves by keep buying thier products.
As a stock owner and a consumer, I have say on what a corp does. If I doesn't like what a company does, I don't have to buy thier products. I can support someone else.
So does that mean if Boeing parks a jumbojet factory right next to your house and starts dumping chemicals into your backyard, will you stop buying 747's and buy your aircraft from Airbus as a sign of protest? Or will you buy a pittance of the outstanding shares in the company and tell them to stop?
There are a lot of industries that are hard to impact as an end consumer (Boycott Regal Industrial I-Beam Corporation! They buy their iron from stripminers!). That's what government is for. That being said, if both government and corporations would keep their grubby mits off my personal information I'd be a happier person.
Look at the rioting in Cincinati. If policing were private, that would not have happened.
The rioting is not a result of "we hate the government" sentiment, this is a result of perceived racism of the Cincinnati Police Department by the African American community. Imagine what would happen if the business community of Cincinnati decided to employ a private security firm, and the rent-a-cops had this nasty habit of only fatally shooting black suspects. Most likely you'd get rioting in the streets. Your private vs. public distinction carries little weight.
Corporations have a record of non-abuse,...
Hmmm... where to begin with this? Oh yeah, the reason many corporations have a record of non-abuse these days is because they are cowed into line by those irritating government regulations. Even then some stuff slips through the cracks.
Remember the Cayahoga River? Those benign tire manufacturing corporations polluted the river so much that it CAUGHT FIRE. Even though the factories are closed, I don't think to this day the river has fully recovered.
Or what about the angelic Nike corporation? In Southeast Asia where they have less government regulations to be concerned with, they hire child labor to work in sweatshop conditions just so you can have Air Jordans.
Read a little history to see the plight of farm workers, coal miners, and factory workers in the earlier part of the 20th century to see where corporations have abused people in the absence of government regulation. It's true that an individual corporation doesn't have much power over society at large. But it is true (depending on the industry) that corporations hold a lot of sway over the people they employ, and a conglomerate of companies/massive monopoly can greatly affect society as a whole.
If you're looking for examples dealing solely with information trading, don't you think a corporation interested in cutting costs would love to get a hold of your medical records? That way, they can fire/not hire people based upon existing conditions, history of illness in the family, or genetic makeup? Rent the movie "Philadelphia" for an example of this.
...and are owned by the people.
Yes, a small subset of the general populace known as shareholders. And if the shareholders all live in New York City, and the poison dumping factories of the corporation live in Podunk, Nebraska, their concerns will tilted more towards the companies' growth and price-to-earnings ratio rather than the townspeople's rising cancer rates. And the people of Podunk have no recourse at all.
Not only that, but a large reason why the corporation system works is because of the presence of government. Investing would be a VERY risky business if not for insider trading laws and the required openness and truthfullness of Securities & Exchange Commissions filings. Do you see people investing BILLIONS of dollars in a company when there is no guarantee that the information the company gave about the prospects for growth and potential risks are accurate? Or even their balance sheet?
Government shouldn't rule our lives, but it does have it's place.
It wasn't meant as a complaint, it was a poorly-worded observation. Google's one of my favorite search engines too. Anything they can do to keep it free to the end user without sacrificing the quality is ok by me.
Next time I'll take more time in wording my comments:)
I think the point he was trying to make is they usually don't broadcast out of market baseball games over local radio. If you move, streaming audio over the internet (used) to be a great way to keep up on your favorite team.
I listened to the Golden State Warriors lose many a game via KNBR's online feed before the NBA slapped them down.
I believe Google gets paid by sites wishing to be listed first on a given search. For example, JustFlowers.com is on the top of every page when you search Google for 'flowers.'
Slashdot Mirror
One thing you should do is become a proficient programmer. You should also go to college. However, don't get your hopes up. There are so few jobs in the gaming field, and so many eager candidates applying for them, that it's real unlikely you'll get such a job.
Seriously though, testing is one way to break into the field. During my college years, I spent my summers as a QA tester at Spectrum Holobyte/Microprose/Hasblow Interactive (don't blame me for the bugs, there's only so many I could find in 3 months time :) ), and a few of the designers and programmers there got their start in QA.
An elegant troll. He gets the history right enough to fool the moderators who fell asleep during high school European History class, but is still wrong enough to be, well, wrong.
Fortunately for us, all you need to do is say the magic words Neville Chamberlain and this troll crumbles to dust.
I still maintain Nader lied, because frankly I think he's too intelligent to actually believe that there is no difference between Maxine Waters and Strom Thurmond, or even Al Gore and George Bush. Certainly he knew there is difference enough for them not to be referred to as "Republican-Democrats" and "Democratic-Republicans." (his words, not mine)
Nader took the example of campaign finance, said (my opinionated paraphrasing) "See? The Democrats and Republicans are the same! If you want someone different, vote for me!" He completely omitted the differences on abortion, education, taxes, defense, foreign policy, the environment, judicial appointments, etc. that Democrats and Republicans differ and that he KNEW they differed.
Did I impugn anybody for voting for him? No. It's their right to vote their conscience, more power to them. Did I impugn him for running? No. He got on the ballot legally - that's all that matters. Did I claim that Gore or Bush are honest? Hell no, I'm not fucking braindead :)
I am claiming:
There is substantial difference between Democrats and Republicans
Nader is smart enough to realize there is substantial difference between Democrats and Republicans
Nader said there is no substantial difference between Democrats and Republicans
If there is a substantial difference, Nader knows this, and Nader said otherwise, then Nader lied
That's it.
My third point you accept as fact. The only way I can see your argument being true is if there is no difference between Democrats and Republicans (debatable) or if Nader doesn't realize there is a difference (I don't think it's debatable if (1) is true).I'd think the biggest loophole would be Section 8, Clause 18, which states Congress has the authority to: To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof. Pretty sweeping, if you ask me. Federal regulatory bodies get their constitutionality questioned all the time. A few during the New Deal Era got struck down, but most held up under judicial scrutiny. Just recently the Supreme Court ruled UNANIMOUSLY that the EPA has the authority to set clean air standards, even though the businesses that brought the suit questioned the constitutionality of delegated legislative power to an executive body. In fact, the opinion was written by strict constructionist Antonin Scalia.
The reason that Congress had to amend the Constitution for an income tax was because the Constitution said pretty clearly that income taxes as they are today were not allowed. From Section 9, Clause 4: No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken. There isn't any such clause in the Constitution that states No rules or laws regarding workplace safety shall be made at the federal level. So the Feds have a lot more wiggle room here.
And for the last time, there was public debate! There was public debate for the ergonomics rules, because the law required it. There was public debate on designating the national monuments, because the law required it. Just because they weren't broadcast live on all four major networks or even C-SPAN does not mean there wasn't public debate.
If you think the country is so far down the path to ruin that Scalia and Clarence Thomas are reading things into the Constitution that aren't there, I don't know what I can say to convince you.
Ok, I got tired of staring at my 1040. It is incorrect that these rules were unconstitutional because:
1. They aren't laws, they're rules. I can't explain the distinction well because IANAL.
2. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration was created by an act of Congress in 1970 and was given the authority to create workplace safety rules. Congress gave the executive branch the power in the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970. See Section 6 where Congress authorizes the department to promulgate rules through publishing in the Federal Register (it took me a while to cut through the legalese). Congress often does things like this because if we had to legislate everything under the sun (like the maximum chlorine levels in drinking water, how much and what kinds of pesticide is allowed to be sprayed on food, how often to inspect slaughterhouses for disease, what drugs should be approved, etc.), nothing would get done. But it was Congress that gave the executive this authority, and Congress could take it away if it chose.
Besides, Congress did a smart thing and passed a law stating that Congress could repeal any regulation passed by the executive branch if both houses of Congress agree. So whether or not you agree with the rules, Clinton didn't tear through the Constitution to get them done. Even though this wasn't done in Congress, the law (OSHA 1970) requires that there be ample opportunity for public input, debate and review and there was in this case. A president couldn't use the OHSA legally to outlaw MP3's (Congress may have given the President authority in another area, but not here) but he can use it to implement safety rules. Executive orders are sweeping and Clinton abused them when Congress wouldn't let him have his way, but they really don't allow a President to do *whatever* he wants. There is a mechanism in the system to get regulations overturned in the legislative branch, and laws passed by Congress ALWAYS trump an executive order. I don't worry too much about the constitutional ramifications of the ergonomics rules.
That's not entirely true, this transcript from an Nader interview on CNN shows Nader talking about how similar the Democratic and Republican parties had become. He emphasized where they were similar (pursuit of corporate money to finance campaings and all the corruption that stems from that) and wrote off what differences they had, even referring to them as Democrat-Republicans and Republican-Democrats. So Nader did try to paint Maxine Waters and Strom Thurmond as one and the same, since his campaign was also against our two party system of politics. I'm not anti-Nader by any means, but I do believe he was being dishonest on this point.
However, his interview also pointed out another similarity between Democrats and Republicans that I found interesting - the desire for both parties to keep third party candidates out of the debates. I guess bipartisanship is possible after all. :P
I agree that trial lawyers have much to gain with new ergonomic regulations and probably helped push for them. But I have some issues with you assertion that it was pushed through solely because of the trial lawyers. Here's why: 1) If I accept that trial lawyers are the largest donors to the Democratic party (I don't know if this is true or not) then I also have to accdept that the trial lawyers donations' to the Democratic Party eclipse the donations by all other business donors, who were universally opposed to the rules. I find that hard to believe. 2) What I do know is the labor unions were also pushing hard for the rule, and were the people I heard crying the loudest when Bush repealed them.
As for public debate, the Occupational Health and Safety Administration held public hearings and debates for 10 years on the issue. Just because it wasn't done in the halls of Congress and they were considered too dull for even C-SPAN to carry doesn't mean they were done behind closed doors. I'd discuss the increased power of the executive branch and it's impacts on our system of checks and balances with you (and we'd probably agree on a lot), but it's April 14th and I haven't finished my taxes yet :)
I really wish people like Nader would stop insisting that there is no difference between Bush and Gore. I think Bush has proven in the first 100 days how far away from Gore he actually is on the environment, the abortion debate, worker safety, the energy crisis, gun regulations, Justice Department priorities (see Microsoft case), the worldwide AIDS epidemic, the degree of separation of church and state, acceptable levels of judicial activism, military intervention, school vouchers, taxes, and foreign policy. Dubya is not as moderate as he would have us believe during the election. About the only thing the parties have in common is the relentless pursuit of fundraising and the willingness to be corrupted by it.
But Democrats are also beholden to labor unions and environmental groups, and Republicans are beholden to the war hawks and religious right. The split among Democrats was shown during the WTO and NAFTA debates; the split among Republicans during this latest China mess
Yes, Clinton has NAFTA, the WTO, and Marc Rich to answer for. But do you honestly think the ergonomic rules, national monument designations, or arsenic rules were examples of Clinton bowing to the wishes of big business?
There are even difference within the Democratic and Republican parties. It would be intellectually dishonest to say Sen. John Breaux shared every view with Rep. Maxine Waters, or that Sen. Olympia Snowe was in lockstep with Sen. Strom Thurmond. Guess what? Nader LIED, like EVERY other politician does, in order to secure your vote. Don't get me wrong, a lot of what Nader said about corporate power in this country made a lot of sense, and I agreed with it. But if the best that the Greens can do is to mischaracterize 90% of the politicians as "one and the same," instead of convincing people of the strength of their platform, it's no wonder that they never get very far in national elections.
Unfortunately these two parties do agree on the topic of copyright in the digital age (because basically they listen to whatever the *AA tells them). It has a lot to do with money, but it also has a lot to do with the power the media conglomerates hold in this country. The companies that own the news organizations also own record companies and movie studios. Today we live in the age of television and 24 hour news coverage. Most are too afraid to do anything to hurt the media conglomerates' bottom line because politicians are so dependent upon positive media coverage.
As for many of the "sheep," copyright law isn't as important to them as it is to you or me. Most are more concerned with issues like abortion, education, and taxes. These are places where the parties differ.
So does that mean if Boeing parks a jumbojet factory right next to your house and starts dumping chemicals into your backyard, will you stop buying 747's and buy your aircraft from Airbus as a sign of protest? Or will you buy a pittance of the outstanding shares in the company and tell them to stop?
There are a lot of industries that are hard to impact as an end consumer (Boycott Regal Industrial I-Beam Corporation! They buy their iron from stripminers!). That's what government is for. That being said, if both government and corporations would keep their grubby mits off my personal information I'd be a happier person.
The rioting is not a result of "we hate the government" sentiment, this is a result of perceived racism of the Cincinnati Police Department by the African American community. Imagine what would happen if the business community of Cincinnati decided to employ a private security firm, and the rent-a-cops had this nasty habit of only fatally shooting black suspects. Most likely you'd get rioting in the streets. Your private vs. public distinction carries little weight.
Hmmm... where to begin with this? Oh yeah, the reason many corporations have a record of non-abuse these days is because they are cowed into line by those irritating government regulations. Even then some stuff slips through the cracks.
Remember the Cayahoga River? Those benign tire manufacturing corporations polluted the river so much that it CAUGHT FIRE. Even though the factories are closed, I don't think to this day the river has fully recovered.
Or what about the angelic Nike corporation? In Southeast Asia where they have less government regulations to be concerned with, they hire child labor to work in sweatshop conditions just so you can have Air Jordans.
Read a little history to see the plight of farm workers, coal miners, and factory workers in the earlier part of the 20th century to see where corporations have abused people in the absence of government regulation. It's true that an individual corporation doesn't have much power over society at large. But it is true (depending on the industry) that corporations hold a lot of sway over the people they employ, and a conglomerate of companies/massive monopoly can greatly affect society as a whole.
If you're looking for examples dealing solely with information trading, don't you think a corporation interested in cutting costs would love to get a hold of your medical records? That way, they can fire/not hire people based upon existing conditions, history of illness in the family, or genetic makeup? Rent the movie "Philadelphia" for an example of this.
Yes, a small subset of the general populace known as shareholders. And if the shareholders all live in New York City, and the poison dumping factories of the corporation live in Podunk, Nebraska, their concerns will tilted more towards the companies' growth and price-to-earnings ratio rather than the townspeople's rising cancer rates. And the people of Podunk have no recourse at all.
Not only that, but a large reason why the corporation system works is because of the presence of government. Investing would be a VERY risky business if not for insider trading laws and the required openness and truthfullness of Securities & Exchange Commissions filings. Do you see people investing BILLIONS of dollars in a company when there is no guarantee that the information the company gave about the prospects for growth and potential risks are accurate? Or even their balance sheet?
Government shouldn't rule our lives, but it does have it's place.
It wasn't meant as a complaint, it was a poorly-worded observation. Google's one of my favorite search engines too. Anything they can do to keep it free to the end user without sacrificing the quality is ok by me.
Next time I'll take more time in wording my comments :)
Argh, that's what I meant. No need for insults.
I think the point he was trying to make is they usually don't broadcast out of market baseball games over local radio. If you move, streaming audio over the internet (used) to be a great way to keep up on your favorite team.
I listened to the Golden State Warriors lose many a game via KNBR's online feed before the NBA slapped them down.
Some online advertising agency. A quick search on Google showed that it allows you to 'view broadcast quality media at tiny file sizes.'
Which would be wonderful if:
2. it was used for something besides popup ads.
3. if I thought it was something other than spyware.
I believe Google gets paid by sites wishing to be listed first on a given search. For example, JustFlowers.com is on the top of every page when you search Google for 'flowers.'
Another one to look out for is Onflow. It comes with an 'uninstall' program that I think downloads and reinstalls the latest version.
I only found it because of ZoneAlarm.