If Saudi Arabia was actually pursuing nuclear weaponry, I'd agree with you. As it is, I don't think they even have a nuclear power program (could be wrong, but I don't recall seeing anything concerning KSA and nuclear anything...)
India and Pakistan have that, they both have nukes, and yet for some reason they prefer to talk now instead of fight.
Not a bad idea in some instances after all...
/P
Re:End embargoes only when it's good for US busine
on
India Joins Nuclear Market
·
· Score: 2, Informative
*bzzzt* - Russia was admitted to the original Non-Prof club during the Cold War by treaty, when they had a nuclear weapons fleet that matched the US'. When the Cold War ended, they had tens of thousands of nuclear warheads (up to many multiple megatons for some of 'em) and a damaged economic infrastructure (at the time) that lent itself all too easily towards selling a few of the warheads on the down-low.
We basically got very nice with Russia to prevent some jackass from buying/stealing a nuke or two and then using them somewhere else.
India has had nuclear weaponry since the 1960's (or '70s?). Iran probably doesn't have a nuclear weapon, and North Korea may or may not have one.
Besides, when given a choice between a relatively peaceful nation that already has nuclear weapons (and the means to deliver them), and arguably hostile regimes who are trying to lay hands on one?
India is already capable of building nuclear weapons, and are (theoretically) more than able to sell that tech to the highest bidders if they desired (I honestly don't see them doing so - just saying they can).
I'd be a hell of a lot more worried about Iran (which has arguably sponsored terrorism) than India (which has been nothing but friendly towards anyone who isn't Pakistan, and the latter for obvious reasons). While yes things may change, I just don't see India as being the type to sell nuclear anything, to anyone, in the foreseeable future.
Iran OTOH? Well, what are the non-proliferation folks doing about that? Not much, from the looks of it. If they want to concentrate their efforts in any particular direction, I'd have them staring a bit more to the west of India...
...from the looks of it, it seems that the outfit is just as rapacious and extortionist as their US counterparts, but aren't anywhere near as stupid (e.g. I suspect that they don't hire inept unlicensed private investigators, spread easily disproven propaganda, etc). It's almost as if they've learned from their counterparts over here.
OTOH, they likely still rely on stupid 'evidence' such as IP addys, so (and I'm saying this completely ignorant of how UK civil torts work) there may be a chance of defending oneself there if one is truly innocent.
So we shouldn't unionize to prevent a trend that is already happening?
No, we shouldn't - for the same reason that firefighters hold for not throwing gasoline onto a burning house.
You said it yourself as per outsourcing: "they dip their toe into it". As it stands right now, the pains of outsourcing are about on balance with the benefits of doing so (depending of course on where the company focuses its measure of success).
Right now, the cultural/language barriers, the slipped deadlines, the mis-read milestones, the usually uncomfortable time zone shift, failed expectations, the general lack of quality in the final product...
...those things are just enough to get companies to not really do much more than experiment with offshoring, versus the benefits of keeping the work local. Many have brought jobs back after realizing just how big the mistakes were (e.g. Dell and HP's business customers will never hear a foreign accent anymore - after losing buckets of business money, etc...)
If you make the benefits of keeping jobs local less attractive (collective bargaining, a sharp increase in costs, threats of strike, etc), then you upset the balance, and in many cases force the decision to offshore the work.
There is also the question of how many jobs are lost due to the union wage scales eating into the overall budget. Hiring a new employee suddenly gets a lot more expensive, etc.
IT can be done almost entirely remotely. Even at the workstation level, a blown machine can be replaced, RMA'd, and done with little-to-no skill whatsoever (think of a pro version of "Geek Squad").
Sorry man, but I honestly don't see unionization as any sort of answer.
...and this is coming from a former but still proud Ironworker, nearly 20 years and two careers ago. (For any others who may be or were: Yes, I still have all of my fingers, though I still bear severe damage on one of 'em).
Tangents aside: Some industries have a use for a union. Some unions actually do look out for the profession as well as the individual (see also Ironworkers). Some unions also insure that what they're asking for doesn't harm the industry (again, see above). Information Technology is not one of those industries.
Most do, some do not. And overall, to be honest, I'll take the adverts over having to pay for the privilege of owning a television, and paying up by governmental force. It's drop-easy to excise them from my computer (or skip right past them with the DVR), where at least I still have a choice in the matter.
Actually, the Beeb does get money from the US viewer: BBC America (among others) is considered a semi-premium channel in most cable and satellite packages, which means the rights are paid for by either Cable/Sat corp or by the viewer directly. Also, there are some rather distinctly American-oriented commercials (for instance: how many UK car commercials tout miles-per-gallon fuel efficiencies, and displays the sales prices in dollars?)
1) What about the BBC radio shows that are older than any conceivable copyright (is it 1926 in the UK as well)? I doubt they'll distribute any, but public domain is public domain.
2) Who on this planet is going to pay for the dubious pleasure of hearing such eardrum-torturing melodies as the intro music to, oh, "Absolutely Fabulous" (Red Dwarf, okay... Dr. Who's original intro score, definitely. But let's face it, there's likely to be an ocean of crap surrounding the rare gems, y'know?)
3) Any hope of the more historical stuff (e.g. Churchill's broadcast speeches) ever just being distributed for, you know, free?
I guess it was easier for them to issue a blanket charge instead of trying to suss out between stuff they own the whole copyright to (which is funded by the British "telly tax"), and stuff that they only have partial copyright to (e.g. stuff they hired an outside artist or corp to compose and produce).
Still dumb, but that's what happens when a multi-billion-pound corporation gets lazy.
In at least one case I can think of, no one else will do it. My soon-to-be-former hardware-based employer is a great example (I got a better offer, and went for it). The folks I'm about to leave behind uses Linux very, very heavily. Their entire software backend to the product is written with (and for) Linux.
Linux made perfect sense for them since they're selling hardware, Linux/FOSS means it won't cost a mint to license out, and it means a HUGE amount of flexibility for the programmers.
...so it's not just reputation or charity that factors in. It's also the more hard-nosed business reasons: cost, flexibility, stability, etc.
Exactly. Make damned sure they blast all accounts, ssh keys, whatever in your presence, and have a piece of paper waiting for them to sign on your way out the door once they complete the dismantling.
I usually take it one step further: I insist on them transferring my/home directory to a sysadmin-only storage spot if they want to save the stuff, then (either way) nuke the HDD's on my desktop, with both of us present to see it happen.
This way they cannot come back and claim anything without compelling proof.
What, we lose emails when its convenient for the politician to have that happen?
(what?)
Okay, kidding... in all seriousness, any sysadmin that 'flexes' such 'power' will more often than not find himself out of a job. Same with programmers, and etc.
(Now the nerds who invent really cool shit or discover awesome things? They are the ones who create some pretty immense world-moving power, even though most of them never realize it in their lifetimes).
For the first in many elections, I'm actually sitting in the middle. The others were pretty easy choices for a classical liberal such as myself. This whole "compassionate conservatism" thing has soured me though (because it translated to: "spend assloads of money on pet projects like the other party does when they get the chance!")
Obama makes a pretty compelling case. Only question I have is, how is he going to pull it off? Even his own party will not want to slow down their pet projects, now that they own Congress. McCain (yes) makes a compelling case as well, but Congress will pretty much oppose him from Day One. Until last night the two had (at least somewhat) refrained from going into attack mode, which was IMHO pretty damned refreshing (instead they let their parties do it for them, which is pretty traditional and expected).
On the negatives? It seems that the only real 'weapon' Obama and the Democrats have is "oh he's just like Bush". Heh - anyone who saw the 2000 GOP primaries already knows better. National Healthcare? Umm, sure, but as someone who is married to a veteran, I get to see the VA Medical system up-close, and I fear (literally) that we'll all end up enduring that kind of system, whether we like it or not. The UK's NHS and Canada's equivalent are indications that yes, it will do just that. McCain's negatives? he doesn't seem to inspire. At all. He uses Vietnam like a verbal crutch at times.
If Obama takes a hard left after being elected, he'll only get two years to do it before Congress gets swept back to the right like it did in 1994 when Clinton tried it (and caused the end of 30+ years of Democrat rule). If McCain tries anything dumb, the current Congress will do its level best to block it.
So if anyone comes up preaching for their choice, they'd better have some facts ready, and I don't mean the soundbites they've been spoon-fed, either.
If you really are that eager to get folks to vote, then don't talk about what this or that candidate will do... have a non-partisan discussion with potential voters about the issues the two gents represent. Brainstorm your own solutions, and see what makes the most sense.
AVOID PROPAGANDA. At all costs. Obama won't bring us dancing Unicorns that fart gold dust, and McCain won't strangle Bin Laden with his bare hands and single-handedly save the world. Any "solution" presented by either candidate --for any problem-- should be logically picked apart without mercy (e.g. when Obama says we should be killing Bin Laden in his cave, realize that this likely means invading Pakistan). Pick part everything he said in his speech. Then do the same when McCain gets up to talk in Minnesota. Do it without emotion or passion - this is your ass, your future on the line here, whether you realize it or not.
If we can get enough people to get in there and sift the bullshit from the gold, then politicians will very likely be forced to stop sending out nearly as much bullshit when they speak.
That, I believe, is how (sort of) you can get folks to participate, and we'll be all the healthier for it.
Culture obviously plays into whether or not folks would be willing to live in something that is hyper-dense or not.
OTOH, something that doesn't seem to be taken into account is, what happens when families change? A single guy only needs 'x' amount of space. Now when that single guy gets married*, has 4 kids, and a parent becomes decrepit/disabled and decide to move in...? Obviously there's going to be a lot of change in how much space the guy can be comfortable living in, no matter what culture we're talking about here.
Also, what happens when some fatal communicable disease starts making the rounds? shutting folks into their 'homes' will only work for so long before even the most gregarious human being starts to get cabin fever (for lack of a better term).
There's also the chance that the local economy could contract as well - you can only fit so much stuff into one space, and it's not like, say, Home Depot could do a whole lot besides sell wallpaper, paint, and light fixtures to the folks (just as example).
Some folks here will happily cry against the "McMansion!" and think they're being the smartest guy in the room, but consider this: those things do get sold for a reason, especially as our society gets more and more 'crowded'... Suburbs, as much as they're derided, are actually a compromise between the comfort of wide-open spaces (and a buffer from 'the world'), and the conveniences of living in a city.
From that point, it begins digging deeper into some fundamental human psychology - how does a human being deal with being more and more crowded in society?
* yes, we could pack the city with programmers and handily solve the marriage problem, but we're talking people here...
Slashdot Mirror
If Saudi Arabia was actually pursuing nuclear weaponry, I'd agree with you. As it is, I don't think they even have a nuclear power program (could be wrong, but I don't recall seeing anything concerning KSA and nuclear anything...)
India and Pakistan have that, they both have nukes, and yet for some reason they prefer to talk now instead of fight.
Not a bad idea in some instances after all...
*bzzzt* - Russia was admitted to the original Non-Prof club during the Cold War by treaty, when they had a nuclear weapons fleet that matched the US'. When the Cold War ended, they had tens of thousands of nuclear warheads (up to many multiple megatons for some of 'em) and a damaged economic infrastructure (at the time) that lent itself all too easily towards selling a few of the warheads on the down-low.
We basically got very nice with Russia to prevent some jackass from buying/stealing a nuke or two and then using them somewhere else.
India already has nuclear weapons, and has had them for decades.
Err, what?
India has had nuclear weaponry since the 1960's (or '70s?). Iran probably doesn't have a nuclear weapon, and North Korea may or may not have one.
Besides, when given a choice between a relatively peaceful nation that already has nuclear weapons (and the means to deliver them), and arguably hostile regimes who are trying to lay hands on one?
In short - you must be joking, man.
India is already capable of building nuclear weapons, and are (theoretically) more than able to sell that tech to the highest bidders if they desired (I honestly don't see them doing so - just saying they can).
I'd be a hell of a lot more worried about Iran (which has arguably sponsored terrorism) than India (which has been nothing but friendly towards anyone who isn't Pakistan, and the latter for obvious reasons). While yes things may change, I just don't see India as being the type to sell nuclear anything, to anyone, in the foreseeable future.
Iran OTOH? Well, what are the non-proliferation folks doing about that? Not much, from the looks of it. If they want to concentrate their efforts in any particular direction, I'd have them staring a bit more to the west of India...
I must be... when did Apple start making a console?
(...and when you get done showing me that, someone show where the other three horsemen of the apocalypse are?)
(yes, I own a Mac. It ain't exactly a popular gaming platform...)
...from the looks of it, it seems that the outfit is just as rapacious and extortionist as their US counterparts, but aren't anywhere near as stupid (e.g. I suspect that they don't hire inept unlicensed private investigators, spread easily disproven propaganda, etc). It's almost as if they've learned from their counterparts over here.
OTOH, they likely still rely on stupid 'evidence' such as IP addys, so (and I'm saying this completely ignorant of how UK civil torts work) there may be a chance of defending oneself there if one is truly innocent.
'course, it'll still be pricey as hell, etc.
So we shouldn't unionize to prevent a trend that is already happening?
No, we shouldn't - for the same reason that firefighters hold for not throwing gasoline onto a burning house.
You said it yourself as per outsourcing: "they dip their toe into it". As it stands right now, the pains of outsourcing are about on balance with the benefits of doing so (depending of course on where the company focuses its measure of success).
Right now, the cultural/language barriers, the slipped deadlines, the mis-read milestones, the usually uncomfortable time zone shift, failed expectations, the general lack of quality in the final product...
If you make the benefits of keeping jobs local less attractive (collective bargaining, a sharp increase in costs, threats of strike, etc), then you upset the balance, and in many cases force the decision to offshore the work.
There is also the question of how many jobs are lost due to the union wage scales eating into the overall budget. Hiring a new employee suddenly gets a lot more expensive, etc.
IT can be done almost entirely remotely. Even at the workstation level, a blown machine can be replaced, RMA'd, and done with little-to-no skill whatsoever (think of a pro version of "Geek Squad").
Sorry man, but I honestly don't see unionization as any sort of answer.
Tangents aside: Some industries have a use for a union. Some unions actually do look out for the profession as well as the individual (see also Ironworkers). Some unions also insure that what they're asking for doesn't harm the industry (again, see above). Information Technology is not one of those industries.
Most do, some do not. And overall, to be honest, I'll take the adverts over having to pay for the privilege of owning a television, and paying up by governmental force. It's drop-easy to excise them from my computer (or skip right past them with the DVR), where at least I still have a choice in the matter.
Actually, we still have local broadcast channels that cost nothing - perfectly free. The Portland Metro (Oregon) area has about six or seven of them.
Actually, the Beeb does get money from the US viewer: BBC America (among others) is considered a semi-premium channel in most cable and satellite packages, which means the rights are paid for by either Cable/Sat corp or by the viewer directly. Also, there are some rather distinctly American-oriented commercials (for instance: how many UK car commercials tout miles-per-gallon fuel efficiencies, and displays the sales prices in dollars?)
1) What about the BBC radio shows that are older than any conceivable copyright (is it 1926 in the UK as well)? I doubt they'll distribute any, but public domain is public domain.
2) Who on this planet is going to pay for the dubious pleasure of hearing such eardrum-torturing melodies as the intro music to, oh, "Absolutely Fabulous" (Red Dwarf, okay... Dr. Who's original intro score, definitely. But let's face it, there's likely to be an ocean of crap surrounding the rare gems, y'know?)
3) Any hope of the more historical stuff (e.g. Churchill's broadcast speeches) ever just being distributed for, you know, free?
I guess it was easier for them to issue a blanket charge instead of trying to suss out between stuff they own the whole copyright to (which is funded by the British "telly tax"), and stuff that they only have partial copyright to (e.g. stuff they hired an outside artist or corp to compose and produce).
Still dumb, but that's what happens when a multi-billion-pound corporation gets lazy.
You do know that squirrels aren't considered primates, right? :)
Not quite (on the DNA point)... humans IIRC have the largest genital-to-body-mass ratio of any primate.
Otherwise, I hold forth the theory that the whole penis size thing was secretly started by women who resented being judged by their breast sizes.
In at least one case I can think of, no one else will do it. My soon-to-be-former hardware-based employer is a great example (I got a better offer, and went for it). The folks I'm about to leave behind uses Linux very, very heavily. Their entire software backend to the product is written with (and for) Linux.
Linux made perfect sense for them since they're selling hardware, Linux/FOSS means it won't cost a mint to license out, and it means a HUGE amount of flexibility for the programmers.
Exactly. Make damned sure they blast all accounts, ssh keys, whatever in your presence, and have a piece of paper waiting for them to sign on your way out the door once they complete the dismantling.
I usually take it one step further: I insist on them transferring my /home directory to a sysadmin-only storage spot if they want to save the stuff, then (either way) nuke the HDD's on my desktop, with both of us present to see it happen.
This way they cannot come back and claim anything without compelling proof.
So, err, when did Geraldine Ferraro run for President?
...so IOW you're going to take a cigar into your, err... where?
What, we lose emails when its convenient for the politician to have that happen?
(what?)
Okay, kidding... in all seriousness, any sysadmin that 'flexes' such 'power' will more often than not find himself out of a job. Same with programmers, and etc.
(Now the nerds who invent really cool shit or discover awesome things? They are the ones who create some pretty immense world-moving power, even though most of them never realize it in their lifetimes).
Seconded. Big-Time.
For the first in many elections, I'm actually sitting in the middle. The others were pretty easy choices for a classical liberal such as myself. This whole "compassionate conservatism" thing has soured me though (because it translated to: "spend assloads of money on pet projects like the other party does when they get the chance!")
Obama makes a pretty compelling case. Only question I have is, how is he going to pull it off? Even his own party will not want to slow down their pet projects, now that they own Congress. McCain (yes) makes a compelling case as well, but Congress will pretty much oppose him from Day One. Until last night the two had (at least somewhat) refrained from going into attack mode, which was IMHO pretty damned refreshing (instead they let their parties do it for them, which is pretty traditional and expected).
On the negatives? It seems that the only real 'weapon' Obama and the Democrats have is "oh he's just like Bush". Heh - anyone who saw the 2000 GOP primaries already knows better. National Healthcare? Umm, sure, but as someone who is married to a veteran, I get to see the VA Medical system up-close, and I fear (literally) that we'll all end up enduring that kind of system, whether we like it or not. The UK's NHS and Canada's equivalent are indications that yes, it will do just that. McCain's negatives? he doesn't seem to inspire. At all. He uses Vietnam like a verbal crutch at times.
If Obama takes a hard left after being elected, he'll only get two years to do it before Congress gets swept back to the right like it did in 1994 when Clinton tried it (and caused the end of 30+ years of Democrat rule). If McCain tries anything dumb, the current Congress will do its level best to block it.
So if anyone comes up preaching for their choice, they'd better have some facts ready, and I don't mean the soundbites they've been spoon-fed, either.
If you really are that eager to get folks to vote, then don't talk about what this or that candidate will do... have a non-partisan discussion with potential voters about the issues the two gents represent. Brainstorm your own solutions, and see what makes the most sense.
AVOID PROPAGANDA. At all costs. Obama won't bring us dancing Unicorns that fart gold dust, and McCain won't strangle Bin Laden with his bare hands and single-handedly save the world. Any "solution" presented by either candidate --for any problem-- should be logically picked apart without mercy (e.g. when Obama says we should be killing Bin Laden in his cave, realize that this likely means invading Pakistan). Pick part everything he said in his speech. Then do the same when McCain gets up to talk in Minnesota. Do it without emotion or passion - this is your ass, your future on the line here, whether you realize it or not.
If we can get enough people to get in there and sift the bullshit from the gold, then politicians will very likely be forced to stop sending out nearly as much bullshit when they speak.
That, I believe, is how (sort of) you can get folks to participate, and we'll be all the healthier for it.
The Stealther extension for Firefox already does the privacy thing, and has done so for longer than IE 8.
(Speakin' of which, I wonder if the old Anonym.OS live cd is still useable...)
Since when does staff have unfettered access to user passwords? The absolute most that the help desk can do is reset the thing, not view it.
Seriously - they got bigger problems than being insulted via password if the friggin' help desk can call up passwords at will and whim.
Culture obviously plays into whether or not folks would be willing to live in something that is hyper-dense or not.
OTOH, something that doesn't seem to be taken into account is, what happens when families change? A single guy only needs 'x' amount of space. Now when that single guy gets married*, has 4 kids, and a parent becomes decrepit/disabled and decide to move in...? Obviously there's going to be a lot of change in how much space the guy can be comfortable living in, no matter what culture we're talking about here.
Also, what happens when some fatal communicable disease starts making the rounds? shutting folks into their 'homes' will only work for so long before even the most gregarious human being starts to get cabin fever (for lack of a better term).
There's also the chance that the local economy could contract as well - you can only fit so much stuff into one space, and it's not like, say, Home Depot could do a whole lot besides sell wallpaper, paint, and light fixtures to the folks (just as example).
Some folks here will happily cry against the "McMansion!" and think they're being the smartest guy in the room, but consider this: those things do get sold for a reason, especially as our society gets more and more 'crowded'... Suburbs, as much as they're derided, are actually a compromise between the comfort of wide-open spaces (and a buffer from 'the world'), and the conveniences of living in a city.
From that point, it begins digging deeper into some fundamental human psychology - how does a human being deal with being more and more crowded in society?
* yes, we could pack the city with programmers and handily solve the marriage problem, but we're talking people here...