Not really. I've searched for a job for like 10 years in Pittsburgh and only even got one interview. I'm a highly talented computer programmer.
My company just hired a guy in his 50s for a Software engineer position.
Man, that's just cruel, trying to get him to move to Pittsburg when you've already filled that one position he interviewed for with some other old guy.
Except there aren't, that's the problem. There are four times as many unemployed people as there are jobs, so odds are you have to be in the top 25% of your field just to qualify for the lowest possible wage.
Right, because private airport security before TSA was so much more effective, as demonstrated by the way they caught those al-Qaida operatives in 2001.
Those al-Qaida operatives weren't carrying anything prohibited onto the plane.
And please, let's not bring out that tired "shouting 'fire!' in a crowded theater" thing in this thread. That's been rehashed to death on/. and elsewhere. This is about political speech.
Strat
So, like... shouting "fire" at a crowded political rally...?
I continue to be baffled at the "logic" of so many gun nuts.
Sorry you have trouble with logic.
As I understand it you'll get a government licence to drive a car,
But not to own it.
register the car with your state,
But only if you intend to bring it with you in public.
register your HOUSE when you buy it,
This is to protect the owner, from, say, illegal evictions. If you're saying that gun registration is to protect gun owners, then I think I get where your problems with logic come from.
buy a government licence for your friggin DOG,
Dogs have agency. Also, this depends entirely on what county you live in.
and another to go hunt ducks,
...in public, again...
and another to get married
Again, this is to protect and provide benefits to the married people.
but any suggestion that guns should be regulated in the same way as cars makes people go ballistic.
Most gun folks are fine with needing licences to operate their guns in public. In fact, in places like California, we'd be OVERJOYED if we could get our CCW shall-issue-style at the DMV, instead of basically not being able to get one at all unless you're rich, famous, or connected
What makes people who go ballistic is things like people saying "regulated in the same way as cars" without knowing how or why cars are regulated. For example.
Seems like guns are one of those things that any rational person would want to be licensed and regulated.
Problem with logic identified! You think logic means "people who agree with me" instead of what it actually means. Glad we've cleared this up.
(Oh yeah - been around gun collectors, hunters, and guns more than enough to like and appreciate them. Just think a lot of people are awful paranoid.)
"Some of my best friends are gun owners." Where have we heard this type of sentiment before...?
Sounds like pretty valuable information if you can link multiple crimes together just by looking at shell casings left at the scene.
Not vaulable at all, when the "linked" crimes were all committed by different people.
I once saw a study where a single firearm was implicated in twelve different, mostly unrelated crimes in the same city. The dealer would offer to take the "hot" gun off one criminal's hands and "get rid" of it for them; he'd then re-sell it to the next sucker...
IMHO there is a good argument that through conditioning, the use of this material could increase the likelihood of a person offending.
Sort of how increased availability of porn via the internet increased the number of rapes occurring? Except that, inconveniently, that isn't what actually happened?
No, but at the same time these are obviously just girls used to having it easy, complaining. They work 8 hour days, with 1/3 of the time being BREAK TIME. And when they are working all they have to do is stand and smile, and they think they have it hard and that they are doing real work.
Yeah, we all know that looking good is effortless and requires no extra time. Just ask anyone who's good-looking.
But the Chinese Halstatt does not have this quality that is special, the "hundreds of years old" bit, so nothing is actually lost from Halstatt in Austria, because the new one doesn't have the one actual thing that makes the old one special, its oldness.
An antique that's been carefully preserved for hundreds of years isn't valuable just because of the oldness, but because there probably isn't anything like it anymore. When people start making replicas, it increases access to the antique, at the cost of diluting the value of the original to some degree.
If that antique happens to be someone's home, and they derived siginificant value from being the nth generation of people to preserve that home, it's perfectly okay for them to be upset when someone starts offering replicas of it. That's their HOME, dude, at best it's stalker-creepy to be making detailed copies of it.
In much the same way that a company with a competing service (building sites for high-end media companies) is diluting the value of my work, right?
That depends. Is the way you build sites special and unique due to you spending hundreds of years developing your methods differently from everyone else? Is the other company's selling point that they now do it "exactly the way AC Media Development does, but cheaper?"
No, this isn't 'different' - access limitation exists in the sense that my company can only handle so many contracts at once.
It is different, because your company wasn't until very recently the single and only company building sites for high-end media companies.
The end result is also the same: Only a fool could claim there is anything to be 'affronted' about here. Halstatt cannot provided the access to Halstatt that being Halstatt clearly requires; a competitor is stepping in to pick up the slack.
That's an interesting point. I guess it's kind of like Elvis impersonaltors, only if Elvis was still alive.
The thing is, it's an unfair competition -- there's nothing Halstatt can do to adapt. At all. Because being exactly what it is is what makes Halstatt valuable in the first place.
From the quoted line above, you're assuming that there has been some legal shift during the last 15 years in the scope of what defines intellectual property.
Incorrect. I'm noting the inevitable fact that copies of data and access to that data are no longer one and the same, due to technological progress.
With the exception of some far reaching lower court copyright rulings regarding things (eg. 'likenesses' in photographic elements and techniques) that should properly not be the domain of copyright at all, I haven't seen any changes.
Irrelevant.
And your post emphasises my thesis that there seem to be more people out there desiring (or assuming) that anything that financially impacts someone else is somehow (or should be) protected (eg. your concept of 'access') and must be outlawed.
Assumptive, incorrect. I didn't do anything but explain why people in Halstatt aren't stupid for being upset. Nothing about laws in there.
It's not my concept of access, it's a physical fact. Only so many people can go to Halstatt at any one time, and it only exists in one place. That's what "access" means. In the dictionary.
Copyright refers specifically to copies, which grant access to a work to people who can't sit next to the original work. It's not normally a concept we apply to unique resources like places or people, because those things are rarely copied. When they are, though, they become individually less valuable (like, say, McDonald's restaurants). Copies of things increase access to what people want from those things, at the cost of each copy being worth less, including the original. This is an acceptable tradeoff if the value of increased access is greater than the value of uniqueness -- and it usually is, which is why copying technologies have been so popular for hundreds of years -- but it still sucks for the person who no longer has the unique resource.
Yet, taken to it's conclusion, you'd end up preventing competition in just about every field of endeavour. And this attitude creep is what I was referring to in my original post.
I'm just pointing out why people in Halstatt are legitimately pissed. The value of their unique resource has been diluted.
What is "access" but some form of intellectual property you've just invented?
"Just invented"? It's older than file permissions, it's older than locked doors. Any physical object has built-in limited access that is different from digital works.
In any case, I'm not sure how you can distinguish it from copyright.
Copyright doesn't enter into this discussion at all.
If going to the copy is just the same as going to the original (and the actual age doesn't enter into it), then the issue isn't access, it's copying.
Copying and access are closely related in the physical world, but in this case we're talking about access. Some things become more valuable as access to them is increasingly restricted, and access to a specific location is one of them.
These buildings and the landscape are so old that even if they ever existed under some sort of copyright or patent protection, they would no longer be covered now.
Like many people whose minds are stuck in the prior millenium, you're confusing "copies" with "access."
This isn't about copies, it's about access. Prior to this project, you had to go to Halstatt to see things and build memoires and take pictures to remind you of those memories of the time you had in Halstatt.
This is valuable, because access limitation is inherent. Moreso, if you're talking about access to a resource that is special because it's hundreds of years old, and it's not quite like any other resource.
It's not that China is encroaching on peoples "intellectual property" that's pissing people off, ultimately; it's that they're making an end-run around the access restriction that makes Halstatt valuable. It makes the original city less valuable just by existing.
If you were, say, a musical peformer, and China made a Tupac-style hologram of you, found someone to imitate your voice well enough to fool all but your most diehard fans, it likely wouldn't matter to you if they wrote all-original music for the hologram to perform; you'd be perfectly within your rights to be affronted, because they'd literally be diluting the value of your live performances. Would you still take it as flattery if some cost-cutting venue booked Chinese Holo-You instead of you?
A lot of people will be going to Fakehalstatt instead of going to Halstatt. Some portion of those will go there because they will never be able to afford to go to Actualhalstatt, to be fair.
no thank you. kids today don't need to learn how to shoot or how to blow shit up. they need to learn hygiene, nutrition, cooking, basic math skills so they don't get screwed at the store, and sex ed so they'll stop making so many goddamned babies.
This post represent everything that is wrong with modern science education.
"We can't let them learn anything they might use to hurt or offend someone.":"Well, let's see, that leaves out physics, chemistry, botany, anatomy, biology, zoology, archaeology, anthropology..."
"Screw all that crap! We should be teaching them how to be better consumers!"
Slashdot Mirror
RIGHT THERE in the "Today on Slashdot" column heading for 2011, while you were posting in this thread:
Man Robs Bank of $1 To Get Health Care in Jail.
Not really. I've searched for a job for like 10 years in Pittsburgh and only even got one interview. I'm a highly talented computer programmer.
My company just hired a guy in his 50s for a Software engineer position.
Man, that's just cruel, trying to get him to move to Pittsburg when you've already filled that one position he interviewed for with some other old guy.
there are jobs to be had..plenty of them.
Except there aren't, that's the problem. There are four times as many unemployed people as there are jobs, so odds are you have to be in the top 25% of your field just to qualify for the lowest possible wage.
In fact, more often than not, you have to have a job already in order to get a job.
Im seriously sick of hearing about this idiot.
Don't worry, once he runs out of options and gets on plane to Sweden, you'll never, ever hear of him again.
But the fact is they reported it to begin with. Why can we just ignore that?
Because they dropped the charges.
This is all as reported by the SWEDISH Press.
You sound like a tin foil hat wearing nut.
Because he can read Swedish?
This mental backflip was brought to you by CEOP, and the UK Criminal Justice System.
This mental whiplash was brought to me by you, sir. Well played!
Right, because private airport security before TSA was so much more effective, as demonstrated by the way they caught those al-Qaida operatives in 2001.
Those al-Qaida operatives weren't carrying anything prohibited onto the plane.
And please, let's not bring out that tired "shouting 'fire!' in a crowded theater" thing in this thread. That's been rehashed to death on /. and elsewhere. This is about political speech.
Strat
So, like... shouting "fire" at a crowded political rally...?
I continue to be baffled at the "logic" of so many gun nuts.
Sorry you have trouble with logic.
As I understand it you'll get a government licence to drive a car,
But not to own it.
register the car with your state,
But only if you intend to bring it with you in public.
register your HOUSE when you buy it,
This is to protect the owner, from, say, illegal evictions. If you're saying that gun registration is to protect gun owners, then I think I get where your problems with logic come from.
buy a government licence for your friggin DOG,
Dogs have agency. Also, this depends entirely on what county you live in.
and another to go hunt ducks,
...in public, again...
and another to get married
Again, this is to protect and provide benefits to the married people.
but any suggestion that guns should be regulated in the same way as cars makes people go ballistic.
Most gun folks are fine with needing licences to operate their guns in public. In fact, in places like California, we'd be OVERJOYED if we could get our CCW shall-issue-style at the DMV, instead of basically not being able to get one at all unless you're rich, famous, or connected
What makes people who go ballistic is things like people saying "regulated in the same way as cars" without knowing how or why cars are regulated. For example.
Seems like guns are one of those things that any rational person would want to be licensed and regulated.
Problem with logic identified! You think logic means "people who agree with me" instead of what it actually means. Glad we've cleared this up.
(Oh yeah - been around gun collectors, hunters, and guns more than enough to like and appreciate them. Just think a lot of people are awful paranoid.)
"Some of my best friends are gun owners." Where have we heard this type of sentiment before...?
Sounds like pretty valuable information if you can link multiple crimes together just by looking at shell casings left at the scene.
Not vaulable at all, when the "linked" crimes were all committed by different people.
I once saw a study where a single firearm was implicated in twelve different, mostly unrelated crimes in the same city. The dealer would offer to take the "hot" gun off one criminal's hands and "get rid" of it for them; he'd then re-sell it to the next sucker...
IMHO there is a good argument that through conditioning, the use of this material could increase the likelihood of a person offending.
Sort of how increased availability of porn via the internet increased the number of rapes occurring? Except that, inconveniently, that isn't what actually happened?
is wrong
Why? Serious question.
Want to create jobs, let businesses hire people without regulatory red tape and high costs (taxes).
Who will their customers be? Nobody has any money.
There's a wide gap between finding out something you didn't know, and finding something contrary to whatever you've known up until now.
Weird, something like half the first-page links are the same.
No, but at the same time these are obviously just girls used to having it easy, complaining.
They work 8 hour days, with 1/3 of the time being BREAK TIME.
And when they are working all they have to do is stand and smile, and they think they have it hard and that they are doing real work.
Yeah, we all know that looking good is effortless and requires no extra time. Just ask anyone who's good-looking.
They just need to get over themselves...
Easy for you to say, until the day you walk into work and find your desk occupied by the clone they made of you that works for less money.
Also, your example is one of likeness rights, which would generally fall under the blanket of 'intellectual property.'
Even without likeness rights, you'd have just cause to be upset if someone did it without permission. It's not about property, it's about identity
But the Chinese Halstatt does not have this quality that is special, the "hundreds of years old" bit, so nothing is actually lost from Halstatt in Austria, because the new one doesn't have the one actual thing that makes the old one special, its oldness.
An antique that's been carefully preserved for hundreds of years isn't valuable just because of the oldness, but because there probably isn't anything like it anymore. When people start making replicas, it increases access to the antique, at the cost of diluting the value of the original to some degree.
If that antique happens to be someone's home, and they derived siginificant value from being the nth generation of people to preserve that home, it's perfectly okay for them to be upset when someone starts offering replicas of it. That's their HOME, dude, at best it's stalker-creepy to be making detailed copies of it.
In much the same way that a company with a competing service (building sites for high-end media companies) is diluting the value of my work, right?
That depends. Is the way you build sites special and unique due to you spending hundreds of years developing your methods differently from everyone else? Is the other company's selling point that they now do it "exactly the way AC Media Development does, but cheaper?"
No, this isn't 'different' - access limitation exists in the sense that my company can only handle so many contracts at once.
It is different, because your company wasn't until very recently the single and only company building sites for high-end media companies.
The end result is also the same: Only a fool could claim there is anything to be 'affronted' about here. Halstatt cannot provided the access to Halstatt that being Halstatt clearly requires; a competitor is stepping in to pick up the slack.
That's an interesting point. I guess it's kind of like Elvis impersonaltors, only if Elvis was still alive.
The thing is, it's an unfair competition -- there's nothing Halstatt can do to adapt. At all. Because being exactly what it is is what makes Halstatt valuable in the first place.
From the quoted line above, you're assuming that there has been some legal shift during the last 15 years in the scope of what defines intellectual property.
Incorrect. I'm noting the inevitable fact that copies of data and access to that data are no longer one and the same, due to technological progress.
With the exception of some far reaching lower court copyright rulings regarding things (eg. 'likenesses' in photographic elements and techniques) that should properly not be the domain of copyright at all, I haven't seen any changes.
Irrelevant.
And your post emphasises my thesis that there seem to be more people out there desiring (or assuming) that anything that financially impacts someone else is somehow (or should be) protected (eg. your concept of 'access') and must be outlawed.
Assumptive, incorrect. I didn't do anything but explain why people in Halstatt aren't stupid for being upset. Nothing about laws in there.
It's not my concept of access, it's a physical fact. Only so many people can go to Halstatt at any one time, and it only exists in one place. That's what "access" means. In the dictionary.
Copyright refers specifically to copies, which grant access to a work to people who can't sit next to the original work. It's not normally a concept we apply to unique resources like places or people, because those things are rarely copied. When they are, though, they become individually less valuable (like, say, McDonald's restaurants). Copies of things increase access to what people want from those things, at the cost of each copy being worth less, including the original. This is an acceptable tradeoff if the value of increased access is greater than the value of uniqueness -- and it usually is, which is why copying technologies have been so popular for hundreds of years -- but it still sucks for the person who no longer has the unique resource.
Yet, taken to it's conclusion, you'd end up preventing competition in just about every field of endeavour. And this attitude creep is what I was referring to in my original post.
I'm just pointing out why people in Halstatt are legitimately pissed. The value of their unique resource has been diluted.
What is "access" but some form of intellectual property you've just invented?
"Just invented"? It's older than file permissions, it's older than locked doors. Any physical object has built-in limited access that is different from digital works.
In any case, I'm not sure how you can distinguish it from copyright.
Copyright doesn't enter into this discussion at all.
If going to the copy is just the same as going to the original (and the actual age doesn't enter into it), then the issue isn't access, it's copying.
Copying and access are closely related in the physical world, but in this case we're talking about access. Some things become more valuable as access to them is increasingly restricted, and access to a specific location is one of them.
These buildings and the landscape are so old that even if they ever existed under some sort of copyright or patent protection, they would no longer be covered now.
Like many people whose minds are stuck in the prior millenium, you're confusing "copies" with "access."
This isn't about copies, it's about access. Prior to this project, you had to go to Halstatt to see things and build memoires and take pictures to remind you of those memories of the time you had in Halstatt.
This is valuable, because access limitation is inherent. Moreso, if you're talking about access to a resource that is special because it's hundreds of years old, and it's not quite like any other resource.
It's not that China is encroaching on peoples "intellectual property" that's pissing people off, ultimately; it's that they're making an end-run around the access restriction that makes Halstatt valuable. It makes the original city less valuable just by existing.
If you were, say, a musical peformer, and China made a Tupac-style hologram of you, found someone to imitate your voice well enough to fool all but your most diehard fans, it likely wouldn't matter to you if they wrote all-original music for the hologram to perform; you'd be perfectly within your rights to be affronted, because they'd literally be diluting the value of your live performances. Would you still take it as flattery if some cost-cutting venue booked Chinese Holo-You instead of you?
A lot of people will be going to Fakehalstatt instead of going to Halstatt. Some portion of those will go there because they will never be able to afford to go to Actualhalstatt, to be fair.
no thank you. kids today don't need to learn how to shoot or how to blow shit up. they need to learn hygiene, nutrition, cooking, basic math skills so they don't get screwed at the store, and sex ed so they'll stop making so many goddamned babies.
This post represent everything that is wrong with modern science education.
"We can't let them learn anything they might use to hurt or offend someone." :"Well, let's see, that leaves out physics, chemistry, botany, anatomy, biology, zoology, archaeology, anthropology..."
"Screw all that crap! We should be teaching them how to be better consumers!"