I can easily agree with your points, and you're right - immigrants are treated like shit in the EU (though more out of fear of what happens to the local culture/economy/etc than out of any generic racism or hatred). Compounding this is the fact that most of the EU member nations do not guarantee many of the basic protections that we enjoy here (well they do, but such protections are not as inviolable and enshrined-from-the-start as they are here - e.g. freedom of speech, religion, etc.)
Compounding things further, there is still the issue of non-integration. To be fair, each EU nation has a specific culture, which is generally held in higher regard than the desires of newly-minted citizens (unlike the US, where we generally don't have a 'culture' per se, let alone give it primacy.) Thing is, if you want to *stay* in France, Germany, the UK, etc, one would think that integration would be a top priority, if only for success and stature within your local society.
To be fair again, the US has a bit of a problem with integration, specifically with Latino populations. But again, a Latino enclave doesn't use religion as a basis to set their own laws or to kill anyone who mocks them in the public arena... France on the other hand...
You confuse instinct with circumstance. Most single mothers go out there and work because circumstances say that they have to. Most two-job families see both parents working because financial circumstance demands it.
Funny how single moms manage to do both, isn't it?
...usually because they have to, not because they want to. I was raised by a single mother who would have vastly preferred to have not had to hold a full-time job.
You've only proven that religion can be co-opted to justify barbarism... yay? Now show me where Christianity itself justifies such acts (hint: it doesn't.)
The Q'uran on the other hand not only condones, but encourages such acts. Therein lies the difference.
Marxism is a religion in a way - it requires faith (in humanity) to operate without corruption or brutality, since it requires folks to always live and work with society's greater good in mind. The very phrase "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" requires a lack of greed, sloth, or lust (for power) to operate. History has shown that it is just as prone to failure as most other human endeavors, including religion.
Capitalism on the other hand? It doesn't require any faith to work... in fact it specifically relies on the basest elements of humanity (namely, self-interest) to operate at all.
That's the thing - it isn't that they put their careers "over" their families - they do it because of their families. That woolly mammoth isn't gonna kill itself, you know (or the modern equivalent? 'That mortgage ain't gonna pay itself.')
Most guys would love to stay home all day and help raise the kids, enjoying every moment - instead they have to get out there and make double-damned certain that the wife and kids were provided for, and kept secure, safe, fed, and warm. That's the hard-wiring I'm talking about. Some guys manage to do it (e.g. stay-at-home dads) - good for them! (no, really - I'd be totally envious of such a situation.) Most guys however don't get to do that - they have to get out there and work for the long haul, for the family.
That's why I specifically wrote "sucking it up" - not because they want to, but because they have to.
Now we can have the obligatory "Islam sucks" conversation, which will lead to the inevitable "all religion sucks" conversation, both of which are infinitely more enjoyable than simply leaving it at "Crazy people suck."
Actually, France has been dealing with a growing problem; namely, radical Islamists who have been busy turning entire neighborhoods within France into Sharia-run enclaves. No desire to integrate into society, and indeed, they'd prefer France become a caliphate.
Moderate voices, or efforts by moderate muslims to clamp down on this mess? Nowhere to be found.
The UK has been seeing a rise of this as well, and Germany has recently seen backlashes by neo-nationalist elements against similar problems found there.
Long story short, this is a hell of a lot more complex than you make it out to be, and points to a growing problem throughout the EU. The US sees only a small fraction of this issue (see also the town of Dearborn, MI) by comparison.
Dunno about these days, but they've often told entire R&D groups that they don't have enough money to keep the group going, and so everyone in that group went into the pool to find another job in the company (you get 3 months - after that you're basically unemployed).
...and at least some assurance that motherhood wouldn't throw them completely off their career track.
And therein lies the rub. Unless he mandates a hysterectomy before hiring at Intel, that biological clock will be there, ticking. There isn't shit that you (or the Intel Corporation) can do about it, either. I know quite a few women in tech (including Intel employees) - the highly successful ones are childless, and have no inclination of having kids (the only exception is a former manager of mine - and she has an MBA, not a CompSci degree). The reason why? They forewent the child-rearing thing and went all-in when it came to technology - just like the guys do.
When you bear a child, your priorities change - hard. All the sudden, that project/application/datacenter/whatever doesn't seem so damned important anymore, and your life's focus changes. It's not sexist to say that women in general are affected by this a hell of a lot more than men are. Guys are generally used to sucking it up and getting on with the business of focusing back on that whole hunter-gatherer thing - it's how we're wired. There are exceptions in either direction of course, but they're not the general rule. Generally, the business of getting that little snot factory raised, educated, nurtured, and prepared for the world becomes a woman's focus much quicker than it does for a guy.
Even with compromises (day care, schools, etc), it still changes the top priority for most (not all - most) women. This in turn throws the statistics off pretty hard for careers that require constant education and constant renewal.
Ditto here. Having once lived in an area where CenturyStink was your only option (Northern Oregon Coast), paying $70/mo. for often-down 3mbps DSL was bad... real bad. When they bought Qwest and borked their billing, it got worse.
Charter arrived in my neighborhood just in time for me to dump CenturyLink once and for all.
It already has those rights. You can, as a Dish subscriber, view any channel right now over the Internet.
Considering that their introductory price is $20/mo. for a sat. dish parked on your roof, there's essentially no difference right now, save that with this new service, you don't have to have hardware bolted to your house.
...because children are an emotional cudgel with which folks try to beat down logical arguments. Folks treat it like some sort of trump card in a debate.
A: "...but your proposal is unconstitutional because it directly violates..."
B: "...DEAD CHILD! YOU WANT DEAD CHILDREN YOU EVIL FUCK! HEY EVERYONE! THIS GUY WANTS TO KILL CHILDREN!"
You don't get it. He's trying to force them to charge him. Because everything he's doing is protected by the constitution. If they did charge him, he'd get whichever law they tried to use struck down. He's trying to "Draw the foul" and he knows it.
I don't see this as a bad thing, truth be told. Bad laws are still bad laws, even if they're not challenged.
Better to strike down a bad law now with someone determined to do so, than to have some innocent schmuck get slapped with it later who is either incapable or unwilling to fight back against it.
It's pretty much the same setup as the XBox, I suspect - sell the hardware at a loss, and hope to make it up in apps and API subscription fees. If that's indeed the case, it'll take years to recoup the costs, if at all (it took like what, 8 years before XBox even made a profit, and IIRC they still have yet to see a complete ROI?)
I do wonder though if folks will treat this like an introductory phone, then save up for an Android...
There is one workaround for this. If it's a security bug, public disclosure with a working demonstration/exploit on the right boards will get their attention awful damned fast, and you'll know when a fix is posted.
Funny part is, usually it still takes (relatively) longer for the proprietary shop to come up with a workaround/fix than it does a given OSS community.
Depends on the theater. If it's part of a big corporate chain, odds are good that you're gonna get Hollywood-style and nothing else. If it's an independent theater, then you'd be right, but how many of those are there? Even here in PDX there simply are not a whole lot of them about.
In the various documentaries I have seen regarding the First Great Depression, the movies were regarded as an inexpensive form of entertainment. Admission for a nickel ($.05). Granted, those were the days before television, so if you wanted to watch something, you had to go to the theaters. During the Second Great Depression, folks can stay at home to get a similar level of entertainment.
Agreed. Back then, only the middle-class or better had radios, and TV didn't exist. Also consider that with no competition and even in good times, going to the movies used to be a massive social event. Folks would dress up in their best for a Friday-night premiere showing, much like the upper crust did when they went to the opera, ballet, etc. Also consider that back then, going to the movies was very similar to what their grandparents did when they in turn went to a vaudeville show. You went to see and be seen, as much as you went to the movie itself. It was just as important to BS in the lobby with friends and neighbors while smoking during intermission (...don't know what those were? Rent an old cinematic-length movie sometime, e.g. Dr Zhivago) as it was to see the latest bit of entertainment.
Society has changed in more ways than that now: increased societal isolation, coupled with a massive network of entertainment in all conceivable varieties being funneled into individual homes (or with the smartphone, in your pocket). Yeah, why bother going to a big, dark room with a bunch of half-mannered strangers you don't know or care about?
It still fits, especially when you consider that, instead of putting the blame where it rightly belongs (mostly folks watching movies at home via PPV/Netflix/iTMS/etc), you just know the fsckers are going to shout the "P" word and demand that BitTorrent be made illegal or somesuch.
Personally, I think it has to do with a lot of factors, even outside of the Netflix effect; chief among them is that most movies sucked pretty hard this year, with very few good ones coming out. The same old formulaic bullshit just isn't going to pull in the ducats, you know?
To top that off, I noticed something else: There are some damned good (and compelling) shows coming out of television these days. It used to be that TV had crappy SFX and production values, while the movies had the best-of-breed in SFX, acting, production, etc. Nowadays, you can rarely tell the difference in many cases - when you have masterful series coming out of the networks which have nearly the same cinematic and production quality of the studios, then why bother with whatever the studios have to offer? There's still the adverts in most cases (outside of HBO/Cinemax/etc), but there are a zillion technologies which can neatly get around that, so...
That's the funny part - you never know where you're going to wind up.
I originally figured that as a flightline grunt in the Air Force, I'd never, ever have to see a combat zone. Then this happened, they send a few of us and our jets to Howard AFB, and that's where a young kid with a uniform and a multimeter discovered that Panama is a really, really tiny country.
While the operation was short and sweet, the odds of sent to some war zone isn't as remote as it seems. With respect to OP, consider that satellites have built-in lag, and that undersea cables can easily be cut. Suddenly, your hacker corps has to go to where they can get a network connection...
1) You can (even in uniform) refuse an "unlawful" order, according to the UCMJ. If you can successfully point it out in a courts martial, it can include things like refusing an order to torture someone, shooting unarmed children, and similar things. It is also why the "I was just following orders" spiel is not a defense in court should you commit an atrocity and get hauled before a tribunal for it. This link looks like a good civilian-ready primer on how that works.
2) It doesn't require a uniform to perform immoral or unlawful acts, and sometimes you don't want the actors wearing one. See also certain military "contractors" in recent years.
Slashdot Mirror
I can easily agree with your points, and you're right - immigrants are treated like shit in the EU (though more out of fear of what happens to the local culture/economy/etc than out of any generic racism or hatred). Compounding this is the fact that most of the EU member nations do not guarantee many of the basic protections that we enjoy here (well they do, but such protections are not as inviolable and enshrined-from-the-start as they are here - e.g. freedom of speech, religion, etc.)
Compounding things further, there is still the issue of non-integration. To be fair, each EU nation has a specific culture, which is generally held in higher regard than the desires of newly-minted citizens (unlike the US, where we generally don't have a 'culture' per se, let alone give it primacy.) Thing is, if you want to *stay* in France, Germany, the UK, etc, one would think that integration would be a top priority, if only for success and stature within your local society.
To be fair again, the US has a bit of a problem with integration, specifically with Latino populations. But again, a Latino enclave doesn't use religion as a basis to set their own laws or to kill anyone who mocks them in the public arena... France on the other hand...
You confuse instinct with circumstance. Most single mothers go out there and work because circumstances say that they have to. Most two-job families see both parents working because financial circumstance demands it.
Funny how single moms manage to do both, isn't it?
...usually because they have to, not because they want to. I was raised by a single mother who would have vastly preferred to have not had to hold a full-time job.
You've only proven that religion can be co-opted to justify barbarism... yay? Now show me where Christianity itself justifies such acts (hint: it doesn't.)
The Q'uran on the other hand not only condones, but encourages such acts. Therein lies the difference.
Turkey... barely.
Marxism is a religion in a way - it requires faith (in humanity) to operate without corruption or brutality, since it requires folks to always live and work with society's greater good in mind. The very phrase "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" requires a lack of greed, sloth, or lust (for power) to operate. History has shown that it is just as prone to failure as most other human endeavors, including religion.
Capitalism on the other hand? It doesn't require any faith to work... in fact it specifically relies on the basest elements of humanity (namely, self-interest) to operate at all.
That's the thing - it isn't that they put their careers "over" their families - they do it because of their families. That woolly mammoth isn't gonna kill itself, you know (or the modern equivalent? 'That mortgage ain't gonna pay itself.')
Most guys would love to stay home all day and help raise the kids, enjoying every moment - instead they have to get out there and make double-damned certain that the wife and kids were provided for, and kept secure, safe, fed, and warm. That's the hard-wiring I'm talking about. Some guys manage to do it (e.g. stay-at-home dads) - good for them! (no, really - I'd be totally envious of such a situation.) Most guys however don't get to do that - they have to get out there and work for the long haul, for the family.
That's why I specifically wrote "sucking it up" - not because they want to, but because they have to.
Now we can have the obligatory "Islam sucks" conversation, which will lead to the inevitable "all religion sucks" conversation, both of which are infinitely more enjoyable than simply leaving it at "Crazy people suck."
Actually, France has been dealing with a growing problem; namely, radical Islamists who have been busy turning entire neighborhoods within France into Sharia-run enclaves. No desire to integrate into society, and indeed, they'd prefer France become a caliphate.
Moderate voices, or efforts by moderate muslims to clamp down on this mess? Nowhere to be found.
The UK has been seeing a rise of this as well, and Germany has recently seen backlashes by neo-nationalist elements against similar problems found there.
Long story short, this is a hell of a lot more complex than you make it out to be, and points to a growing problem throughout the EU. The US sees only a small fraction of this issue (see also the town of Dearborn, MI) by comparison.
Dunno about these days, but they've often told entire R&D groups that they don't have enough money to keep the group going, and so everyone in that group went into the pool to find another job in the company (you get 3 months - after that you're basically unemployed).
...and at least some assurance that motherhood wouldn't throw them completely off their career track.
And therein lies the rub. Unless he mandates a hysterectomy before hiring at Intel, that biological clock will be there, ticking. There isn't shit that you (or the Intel Corporation) can do about it, either. I know quite a few women in tech (including Intel employees) - the highly successful ones are childless, and have no inclination of having kids (the only exception is a former manager of mine - and she has an MBA, not a CompSci degree). The reason why? They forewent the child-rearing thing and went all-in when it came to technology - just like the guys do.
When you bear a child, your priorities change - hard. All the sudden, that project/application/datacenter/whatever doesn't seem so damned important anymore, and your life's focus changes. It's not sexist to say that women in general are affected by this a hell of a lot more than men are. Guys are generally used to sucking it up and getting on with the business of focusing back on that whole hunter-gatherer thing - it's how we're wired. There are exceptions in either direction of course, but they're not the general rule. Generally, the business of getting that little snot factory raised, educated, nurtured, and prepared for the world becomes a woman's focus much quicker than it does for a guy.
Even with compromises (day care, schools, etc), it still changes the top priority for most (not all - most) women. This in turn throws the statistics off pretty hard for careers that require constant education and constant renewal.
Ditto here. Having once lived in an area where CenturyStink was your only option (Northern Oregon Coast), paying $70/mo. for often-down 3mbps DSL was bad... real bad. When they bought Qwest and borked their billing, it got worse.
Charter arrived in my neighborhood just in time for me to dump CenturyLink once and for all.
It already has those rights. You can, as a Dish subscriber, view any channel right now over the Internet.
Considering that their introductory price is $20/mo. for a sat. dish parked on your roof, there's essentially no difference right now, save that with this new service, you don't have to have hardware bolted to your house.
...because children are an emotional cudgel with which folks try to beat down logical arguments. Folks treat it like some sort of trump card in a debate.
A: "...but your proposal is unconstitutional because it directly violates..."
B: "...DEAD CHILD! YOU WANT DEAD CHILDREN YOU EVIL FUCK! HEY EVERYONE! THIS GUY WANTS TO KILL CHILDREN!"
You don't get it. He's trying to force them to charge him. Because everything he's doing is protected by the constitution. If they did charge him, he'd get whichever law they tried to use struck down. He's trying to "Draw the foul" and he knows it.
I don't see this as a bad thing, truth be told. Bad laws are still bad laws, even if they're not challenged.
Better to strike down a bad law now with someone determined to do so, than to have some innocent schmuck get slapped with it later who is either incapable or unwilling to fight back against it.
$100 would be a pittance for a hit.
Depends on the country, I suspect. Some complete 3rd-world craphole would probably consider $100USD to be a hefty sum.
It's pretty much the same setup as the XBox, I suspect - sell the hardware at a loss, and hope to make it up in apps and API subscription fees. If that's indeed the case, it'll take years to recoup the costs, if at all (it took like what, 8 years before XBox even made a profit, and IIRC they still have yet to see a complete ROI?)
I do wonder though if folks will treat this like an introductory phone, then save up for an Android...
There is one workaround for this. If it's a security bug, public disclosure with a working demonstration/exploit on the right boards will get their attention awful damned fast, and you'll know when a fix is posted.
Funny part is, usually it still takes (relatively) longer for the proprietary shop to come up with a workaround/fix than it does a given OSS community.
Depends on the theater. If it's part of a big corporate chain, odds are good that you're gonna get Hollywood-style and nothing else. If it's an independent theater, then you'd be right, but how many of those are there? Even here in PDX there simply are not a whole lot of them about.
In the various documentaries I have seen regarding the First Great Depression, the movies were regarded as an inexpensive form of entertainment. Admission for a nickel ($.05). Granted, those were the days before television, so if you wanted to watch something, you had to go to the theaters. During the Second Great Depression, folks can stay at home to get a similar level of entertainment.
Agreed. Back then, only the middle-class or better had radios, and TV didn't exist. Also consider that with no competition and even in good times, going to the movies used to be a massive social event. Folks would dress up in their best for a Friday-night premiere showing, much like the upper crust did when they went to the opera, ballet, etc. Also consider that back then, going to the movies was very similar to what their grandparents did when they in turn went to a vaudeville show. You went to see and be seen, as much as you went to the movie itself. It was just as important to BS in the lobby with friends and neighbors while smoking during intermission (...don't know what those were? Rent an old cinematic-length movie sometime, e.g. Dr Zhivago) as it was to see the latest bit of entertainment.
Society has changed in more ways than that now: increased societal isolation, coupled with a massive network of entertainment in all conceivable varieties being funneled into individual homes (or with the smartphone, in your pocket). Yeah, why bother going to a big, dark room with a bunch of half-mannered strangers you don't know or care about?
Lol
It still fits, especially when you consider that, instead of putting the blame where it rightly belongs (mostly folks watching movies at home via PPV/Netflix/iTMS/etc), you just know the fsckers are going to shout the "P" word and demand that BitTorrent be made illegal or somesuch.
Personally, I think it has to do with a lot of factors, even outside of the Netflix effect; chief among them is that most movies sucked pretty hard this year, with very few good ones coming out. The same old formulaic bullshit just isn't going to pull in the ducats, you know?
To top that off, I noticed something else: There are some damned good (and compelling) shows coming out of television these days. It used to be that TV had crappy SFX and production values, while the movies had the best-of-breed in SFX, acting, production, etc. Nowadays, you can rarely tell the difference in many cases - when you have masterful series coming out of the networks which have nearly the same cinematic and production quality of the studios, then why bother with whatever the studios have to offer? There's still the adverts in most cases (outside of HBO/Cinemax/etc), but there are a zillion technologies which can neatly get around that, so...
With Github and Sourceforge cut off, that's about what, 1/4 of their coding output right there?
Theirs are all pointed at Pakistan... long story as to why.
You do NOT want an 11B touching a keyboard - ever. Trust me on this one.
That's the funny part - you never know where you're going to wind up.
I originally figured that as a flightline grunt in the Air Force, I'd never, ever have to see a combat zone. Then this happened, they send a few of us and our jets to Howard AFB, and that's where a young kid with a uniform and a multimeter discovered that Panama is a really, really tiny country.
While the operation was short and sweet, the odds of sent to some war zone isn't as remote as it seems. With respect to OP, consider that satellites have built-in lag, and that undersea cables can easily be cut. Suddenly, your hacker corps has to go to where they can get a network connection...
Sort of.
1) You can (even in uniform) refuse an "unlawful" order, according to the UCMJ. If you can successfully point it out in a courts martial, it can include things like refusing an order to torture someone, shooting unarmed children, and similar things. It is also why the "I was just following orders" spiel is not a defense in court should you commit an atrocity and get hauled before a tribunal for it. This link looks like a good civilian-ready primer on how that works.
2) It doesn't require a uniform to perform immoral or unlawful acts, and sometimes you don't want the actors wearing one. See also certain military "contractors" in recent years.