Personally, I think anyone who runs around doing things to get sued for attention is a moron.
I think you missed the point, somebody has to fight the battles of Free Speech and Fair Use, if 2600 doesn't do it, who will ? You ? or the guy who wrote the Peter Pan article ? Both you and he have made it very clear that you don't want to involve yourselves and you think it is stupid of someone else to involve themselves. So we can safely say neither of you will be fighting these battles anytime soon. Corly is certainly a bit of a clown, he does make himself a target, and very likely he is fighting battles he can't win. But at least he is man enough to stand up for what he believes in, so just maybe once the big corporations have finished gutting the Constitution, we will still have something vaguely resembling Fair Use and Free Speech.
I know I shouldn't feed the Trolls, but sometimes I can't help it.
In the PC world this is not the way things are. Dell smacked Compaq down from the number 1 spot, not because it has a better product, both companies provide virtually identical systems. Dell won by starting a price war, they kept lowering the price until Compaq, Gatway and all the other couldn't afford to lower thier prices anymore. This worked exceptionally well and Dell increased it market share because thier systems were a couple hundred dollars cheaper than everyone elses. Of course now Dell is paying for this, because they are working with a razor thin profit margin and is now having to cut costs in order to maintain earnings. This is why Dell has been laying off workers every couple of weeks and will probably continue to do so through the end of the summer when sales start picking up again.
In my experiance, it is not the system administraters who make the descisions on which Operating System to use. It is usually Managers and PHB's are the ones making these decisions, based not on Technical merits, but based on the current trend in Buzz words. I suspect most Engineers, programers and System Administraters, when left to thier own devices will not choose Win2K. This is why Linux has been infiltrating corporations through the back doors. If as you say, Linux is an inferior product, why is this happening ? Why don't they just buy another copy of Win2K and install it instead ? It could be the "Neat Toy" syndrome, but having been one of these people who has sneaked Linux in the backdoor, I can tell you I did it because Linux provided me and my department with a low cost, secure and reliable SQL implementation, which has been running flawlessly and has not been rebooted in over a year, The same I am afraid can not be said for the Win2K servers we use. At one point my Boss even noticed the system wasn't running Windows and confronted me about it, I gave her the cost projection of switching to Win2K and MS SQL 2K which included a harware upgrade and lost productivity due to system downtime, she backed down rather quickly. As bonus my next review included the fact that I had saved the company several thousand dollars due to my ability to think outside the box and taking the initiative in implementing new ideas.
Shouldn't you be happy you have a job in the first place? Corporations aren't hiring you just for fun, you know. They expect you to work for your pay! You should be posting anonymous. I would never hire someone like you to my company.
Let me clear things up for you. Yes Corporation who hire you have the right to expect thier employees to work, however in this case, his employer is not paying him for the the service he provides, ie being on call. He has the right to recieve a fair days pay for a fair days work and if he is not, then he has two options, quit and find another job or try to change his current employers policy. I personally feel it is better to try the latter and only the former if the employer is unreasonable and refuses to negotiate a fair settlement, such as half pay while on call, or being allowed to take the time worked off at another time and still get paid.
I know I will get flamed for this, because it sounds too much like a labor union, but remember there is strength in numbers. If you go it alone, you will probably be ignored, but if you can get a few or better yet all of your co-workers who are in the same situation to confront your employer at the same time, you are more likely to get results, after all 1 person is easy to replace, 10 are not.
For example, a doctor may earn substantially more than the average person, but he also spends an equally large amount on "lifestyle."
Now compare this Doctor to a minimum wage slave. Because the Doctor has more disposable income, this gives him access to far more power and influence than the guy who flips burgers for a living. The Doctor can take percentage of his income and leverage it, using the power and influence he has, into more money, power and influence. While the poor sucker working at Burger King, spends most if not all his money on survival. The reason for this is the basic nesseccities of life cost the same regardless of your income, a gallon of gas costs the same no matter what. This is also why economic down turns can have devistating effects on a poor person and almost no effect on a weathy one.
Case in point, If the person who makes 50K a year lost 90% of his net worth he will be homeless within a month and not be able to feed himself or his family. if someone making 500K a year lost 90% of his net worth, it would hurt, but he could still live on 45K a year. If a person who makes 50 million a year lost 90% of his net worth, he would still be wealthy at 4.5 million a year, and Bill Gates wouldn't even feel a difference in his lifestyle. If getting rich was as easy as buying a book, then everyone would be rich, as it is the only people who get rich off them are the people who write them.
We've had a few years where the uneducated public got into the stock market and really screwed things up.
I half agree with you here, there are members of the unwashed masses who got into the stock market and made very wise decisions, picking good stocks while they were low and sat on them, while avoiding to IPO rush. On the other hand there are the Day Traders, these are the people who tried to cash in on IPO's and make money on minute changes in the stock market, these people got what they deserved. It is an interesting stastic I read some time ago in Time Magazine, they said that 90% of Day Traders loose money, and the same 90% would have made money in 1999, if they had sat on the stocks they had in January all the way through December.
no mirage, but real creation of real wealth -- for the first time since the 1980's.
Maybe the 80's aren't such a good example, in the 90's we had Day Traders, but in the 80's we had Junk Bonds. Ever hear about the Savings and Loan bailout, that cost tax payers a few billion dollars. The only real fact about wealth which is not a mirage is the old saying "The Rich get richer and Poor get poorer". By its very nature money flows towards those who know how to get it and keep it (The Rich) and away from those who do not (The Poor). This fact has not changed regardless of which party is power or who the President is throughout the world and throughout history.
By rejecting the holy and spiritual basis for our Constitution, you reject the Constitution as well.
So what you are saying is you want to get rid of Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Speech. It sounds alot like you want to suspend the Constitution, that does not sound like a patriot to me. That sounds like a Facist.
By all reasonable standards, you are not a patriot, nor even a citizen
-- yet you demand the same rights and privileges as men who believe in the constitution.
We have earned our rights. The liberals have earned nothing.
You are wrong, if it were not for liberals fighting for freedom, we would have no freedom of religion, our children would be indoctrinated into christianity at very young age by forced prayer in school. There would be no freedom of speech, anything and everything that had anything to do with sex would be banned. It would illegal to be gay. The war on drugs would have turned our country into a military state and the constitution all but suspended. 99% of all the wealth would belong to 1% of the population and the rest of us would be working for 50 cents an hour in sweat shops. Women would be second class citizens, not only would abortion be illegal, so would any form of birth control.
To extend the rights of free men to conservatives is to institute a immoral military state.
I, for one, refuse to do so.
Yes this is flamebait and I am a troll, please moderate accordingly.
Slashdot Mirror
Personally, I think anyone who runs around doing things to get sued for attention is a moron.
I think you missed the point, somebody has to fight the battles of Free Speech and Fair Use, if 2600 doesn't do it, who will ? You ? or the guy who wrote the Peter Pan article ? Both you and he have made it very clear that you don't want to involve yourselves and you think it is stupid of someone else to involve themselves. So we can safely say neither of you will be fighting these battles anytime soon. Corly is certainly a bit of a clown, he does make himself a target, and very likely he is fighting battles he can't win. But at least he is man enough to stand up for what he believes in, so just maybe once the big corporations have finished gutting the Constitution, we will still have something vaguely resembling Fair Use and Free Speech.
I know I shouldn't feed the Trolls, but sometimes I can't help it.
In the PC world this is not the way things are. Dell smacked Compaq down from the number 1 spot, not because it has a better product, both companies provide virtually identical systems. Dell won by starting a price war, they kept lowering the price until Compaq, Gatway and all the other couldn't afford to lower thier prices anymore. This worked exceptionally well and Dell increased it market share because thier systems were a couple hundred dollars cheaper than everyone elses. Of course now Dell is paying for this, because they are working with a razor thin profit margin and is now having to cut costs in order to maintain earnings. This is why Dell has been laying off workers every couple of weeks and will probably continue to do so through the end of the summer when sales start picking up again.
In my experiance, it is not the system administraters who make the descisions on which Operating System to use. It is usually Managers and PHB's are the ones making these decisions, based not on Technical merits, but based on the current trend in Buzz words. I suspect most Engineers, programers and System Administraters, when left to thier own devices will not choose Win2K. This is why Linux has been infiltrating corporations through the back doors. If as you say, Linux is an inferior product, why is this happening ? Why don't they just buy another copy of Win2K and install it instead ? It could be the "Neat Toy" syndrome, but having been one of these people who has sneaked Linux in the backdoor, I can tell you I did it because Linux provided me and my department with a low cost, secure and reliable SQL implementation, which has been running flawlessly and has not been rebooted in over a year, The same I am afraid can not be said for the Win2K servers we use. At one point my Boss even noticed the system wasn't running Windows and confronted me about it, I gave her the cost projection of switching to Win2K and MS SQL 2K which included a harware upgrade and lost productivity due to system downtime, she backed down rather quickly. As bonus my next review included the fact that I had saved the company several thousand dollars due to my ability to think outside the box and taking the initiative in implementing new ideas.
I'm confused.
Shouldn't you be happy you have a job in the first place? Corporations aren't hiring you just for fun, you know. They expect you to work for your pay! You should be posting anonymous. I would never hire someone like you to my company.
Let me clear things up for you. Yes Corporation who hire you have the right to expect thier employees to work, however in this case, his employer is not paying him for the the service he provides, ie being on call. He has the right to recieve a fair days pay for a fair days work and if he is not, then he has two options, quit and find another job or try to change his current employers policy. I personally feel it is better to try the latter and only the former if the employer is unreasonable and refuses to negotiate a fair settlement, such as half pay while on call, or being allowed to take the time worked off at another time and still get paid.
I know I will get flamed for this, because it sounds too much like a labor union, but remember there is strength in numbers. If you go it alone, you will probably be ignored, but if you can get a few or better yet all of your co-workers who are in the same situation to confront your employer at the same time, you are more likely to get results, after all 1 person is easy to replace, 10 are not.
For example, a doctor may earn substantially more than the average person, but he also spends an equally large amount on "lifestyle."
Now compare this Doctor to a minimum wage slave. Because the Doctor has more disposable income, this gives him access to far more power and influence than the guy who flips burgers for a living. The Doctor can take percentage of his income and leverage it, using the power and influence he has, into more money, power and influence. While the poor sucker working at Burger King, spends most if not all his money on survival. The reason for this is the basic nesseccities of life cost the same regardless of your income, a gallon of gas costs the same no matter what. This is also why economic down turns can have devistating effects on a poor person and almost no effect on a weathy one.
Case in point, If the person who makes 50K a year lost 90% of his net worth he will be homeless within a month and not be able to feed himself or his family. if someone making 500K a year lost 90% of his net worth, it would hurt, but he could still live on 45K a year. If a person who makes 50 million a year lost 90% of his net worth, he would still be wealthy at 4.5 million a year, and Bill Gates wouldn't even feel a difference in his lifestyle. If getting rich was as easy as buying a book, then everyone would be rich, as it is the only people who get rich off them are the people who write them.
We've had a few years where the uneducated public got into the stock market and really screwed things up.
I half agree with you here, there are members of the unwashed masses who got into the stock market and made very wise decisions, picking good stocks while they were low and sat on them, while avoiding to IPO rush. On the other hand there are the Day Traders, these are the people who tried to cash in on IPO's and make money on minute changes in the stock market, these people got what they deserved. It is an interesting stastic I read some time ago in Time Magazine, they said that 90% of Day Traders loose money, and the same 90% would have made money in 1999, if they had sat on the stocks they had in January all the way through December.
no mirage, but real creation of real wealth -- for the first time since the 1980's.
Maybe the 80's aren't such a good example, in the 90's we had Day Traders, but in the 80's we had Junk Bonds. Ever hear about the Savings and Loan bailout, that cost tax payers a few billion dollars. The only real fact about wealth which is not a mirage is the old saying "The Rich get richer and Poor get poorer". By its very nature money flows towards those who know how to get it and keep it (The Rich) and away from those who do not (The Poor). This fact has not changed regardless of which party is power or who the President is throughout the world and throughout history.
By rejecting the holy and spiritual basis for our Constitution, you reject the Constitution as well.
So what you are saying is you want to get rid of Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Speech. It sounds alot like you want to suspend the Constitution, that does not sound like a patriot to me. That sounds like a Facist.
By all reasonable standards, you are not a patriot, nor even a citizen -- yet you demand the same rights and privileges as men who believe in the constitution.
We have earned our rights. The liberals have earned nothing.
You are wrong, if it were not for liberals fighting for freedom, we would have no freedom of religion, our children would be indoctrinated into christianity at very young age by forced prayer in school. There would be no freedom of speech, anything and everything that had anything to do with sex would be banned. It would illegal to be gay. The war on drugs would have turned our country into a military state and the constitution all but suspended. 99% of all the wealth would belong to 1% of the population and the rest of us would be working for 50 cents an hour in sweat shops. Women would be second class citizens, not only would abortion be illegal, so would any form of birth control.
To extend the rights of free men to conservatives is to institute a immoral military state. I, for one, refuse to do so.
Yes this is flamebait and I am a troll, please moderate accordingly.