"Yes, they are working 20-hour days and living in shared cabins. But before they moved to the plantation, they were savages, making no money, and living in squalor.
So while I wouldn't trade my life for theirs (as an understatement), their lives (and the lives of their families) are appreciably BETTER - not worse - due to Col. Sanders' plantation."
Apple has little moral high ground to stand on when it comes to exploiting cheap labor.
So for how long did you know that Obama supported the war in Iraq and/or illegal wiretapping? Why didn't you share his REAL intentions with those of us who were under the impression that he would CHANGE those policies?
Unfortunately, most discussions about charitable undertakings end there. Projects like OLPC make people FEEL like they are making a difference, regardless of whether or not any measurable long term benefit is actually being achieved.
Just look at the trillions of dollars that have been flushed down the proverbial toilets of many developing and third-world countries. Certainly the intent of such aid is noble, but what has it accomplished besides distracting us from the factors that prevent real change from happening?
I know that asking such questions often makes one a pariah in the eyes of narcissists more interested in self-gratification than actually helping people who need it. But when are people going to realize that sending money or goods to countries ruled by corrupt governments only benefits the corrupt governments?
Unfortunately, I think there are going to be powerful dark forces at work to try get the Republicans back in again. People are easily swayed. Another terrorist attack in the USA I think could sway the elections.
Good thing we have groundless conspiracy theories and paranoid speculation to counter the administration's own dire predictions.
We all remember 4 years ago when partisan fanatics were predicting that Bush would declare some kind of national emergency and cancel the election in order to maintain power, right? How did that prediction turn out?
"You can use your car for anything you want... as long as you don't use it to go to work, or drive long distances. That's rough on the engine."
Another ridiculous car analogy. Except you don't own the car; you're just paying to ride in it.
What would you say if you paid for a seat on a charter bus, and 2 people filled 20 of the seats with all the shit they wanted to take with them, and everyone else had to squeeze into the remaining seats. I for one would be a pretty pissed-off ticket-holder.
I'd be fine with this if it lead to a savings for people who don't hog huge amounts of bandwidth. That's not to assume, of course, that that's Comcast's intent...
Relying on people to reduce overall energy consumption, let alone while population is constantly growing, is not a viable energy policy. For every family that consciously conserves, there are 3 that couldn't care less. Any realistic energy solution has to acknowledge that fact.
"Versus building windmills, hydro plants and solar farms."
And how do you overcome BANANA environmentalists that stand in the way of ALL energy development. They especially tend to hate hydro plants because what they do to local aquatic ecosystems.
I also noticed you omitted Nuclear plants from your alternatives, but that's a whole different case of willful ignorance.
Greenpeace wants alternatives, not technology that might arrive in 10+ years, only to prolong the existing energy production system.
We've been waiting a lot more than 10 years for feasible renewable energy sources, but that hasn't stopped the likes of Greenpeace from pushing them, to the exclusion of viable alternatives already at our disposal.
Powell's Books (who claims to be the largest independant new and used bookstore in the world) as well as Dark Horse Comics (publisher of Frank Miller graphic novels) as well as many other bookstores claim that the new law would be impossible for these businesses to comply with.
Somewhere, a 5th grade English teacher is sobbing uncontrollably.
My generation has really taken to heart the old adage "It's easier to beg forgiveness than to ask permission". Just another symptom of our society's growing sense of entitlement and disrespect of others' personal property and privacy.
Anyone illiterate enough to unknowingly leave their AP open to the world probably left it as the default SSID of "linksys", and if it's still like that when you find it, it would be a courtesy to attempt to log into it with the default password ("admin")...
That's exactly what I'm talking about, though. While I'm sure your intentions are good, you are still intruding onto somebody else's property without permission. It doesn't matter whether or not you're detected, it's' still rude.
It's like checking your neighbor's front doors to see if they're locked, and if they're unlocked, going inside and locking it for them.
Perhaps you could talk to your neighbor and ask them if they'd like help securing their router. That would be the courteous thing to do.
That's all well and good of you to do that, but that doesn't mean that everyone should just assume they have permission.
Your neighbor who simply unknowingly left his AP open may not be so generous, and would be irritated to find people have been freeloading off his service. That's not unreasonable either.
I guess things like asking permission and common courtesy are just passe anymore. Definitely a sign of this latest generation that has grown up with little respect for other people's property.
My response was solely to the GGP's assertion that people don't have enough common sense to determine when a service is free. And in some cases, granted, it's not clear.
Do you know what a courteous, respectful person does when the owner's intent is not clear? ASK!
If a neighbor appears to be disposing of an old computer by leaving it on the curb, I don't just assume it's free for anyone to take. I ask them if it's OK to take it. It doesn't take much effort, it eliminates any doubt or miscommunication, and it separates me from freeloaders and inconsiderate douchebags with a sense of entitlement.
It's like connecting to a neighbor's unsecured wireless access point without permission. Is it hacking? No. Illegal? No. Rude? Absolutely.
Slashdot Mirror
A lot of educated people will probably disagree with you
Which is why "educated" isn't synonymous with "intelligent" or "rational".
Same argument, 150 years ago:
"Yes, they are working 20-hour days and living in shared cabins. But before they moved to the plantation, they were savages, making no money, and living in squalor.
So while I wouldn't trade my life for theirs (as an understatement), their lives (and the lives of their families) are appreciably BETTER - not worse - due to Col. Sanders' plantation."
Apple has little moral high ground to stand on when it comes to exploiting cheap labor.
I'm sure you can rationalize how keeping them there over an undefined period of time makes them safer than getting them all the hell out of there.
Obama doesn't support the war in Iraq.
So then why won't he even pledge to bring the troops home during his entire first term (should he be elected)?
So for how long did you know that Obama supported the war in Iraq and/or illegal wiretapping? Why didn't you share his REAL intentions with those of us who were under the impression that he would CHANGE those policies?
I think the intent of the OLPC is good...
Unfortunately, most discussions about charitable undertakings end there. Projects like OLPC make people FEEL like they are making a difference, regardless of whether or not any measurable long term benefit is actually being achieved.
Just look at the trillions of dollars that have been flushed down the proverbial toilets of many developing and third-world countries. Certainly the intent of such aid is noble, but what has it accomplished besides distracting us from the factors that prevent real change from happening?
I know that asking such questions often makes one a pariah in the eyes of narcissists more interested in self-gratification than actually helping people who need it. But when are people going to realize that sending money or goods to countries ruled by corrupt governments only benefits the corrupt governments?
Unfortunately, I think there are going to be powerful dark forces at work to try get the Republicans back in again. People are easily swayed. Another terrorist attack in the USA I think could sway the elections.
Good thing we have groundless conspiracy theories and paranoid speculation to counter the administration's own dire predictions.
We all remember 4 years ago when partisan fanatics were predicting that Bush would declare some kind of national emergency and cancel the election in order to maintain power, right? How did that prediction turn out?
"You can use your car for anything you want... as long as you don't use it to go to work, or drive long distances. That's rough on the engine."
Another ridiculous car analogy. Except you don't own the car; you're just paying to ride in it.
What would you say if you paid for a seat on a charter bus, and 2 people filled 20 of the seats with all the shit they wanted to take with them, and everyone else had to squeeze into the remaining seats. I for one would be a pretty pissed-off ticket-holder.
I'd be fine with this if it lead to a savings for people who don't hog huge amounts of bandwidth. That's not to assume, of course, that that's Comcast's intent...
Relying on people to reduce overall energy consumption, let alone while population is constantly growing, is not a viable energy policy. For every family that consciously conserves, there are 3 that couldn't care less. Any realistic energy solution has to acknowledge that fact.
If they listened to environmentalists, emissions could be cut for a fraction of the cost
Care to back up that claim with some kind of reference?
It makes the people doing it feel good. That's all it does and all it needs to do.
You mean like diverting food production to fuel, and buying mercury-filled light bulbs?
"Versus building windmills, hydro plants and solar farms."
And how do you overcome BANANA environmentalists that stand in the way of ALL energy development. They especially tend to hate hydro plants because what they do to local aquatic ecosystems.
I also noticed you omitted Nuclear plants from your alternatives, but that's a whole different case of willful ignorance.
Sell me a "carbon-neutral" energy source, and I'll sell you some coastal property in Montana.
Greenpeace wants alternatives, not technology that might arrive in 10+ years, only to prolong the existing energy production system.
We've been waiting a lot more than 10 years for feasible renewable energy sources, but that hasn't stopped the likes of Greenpeace from pushing them, to the exclusion of viable alternatives already at our disposal.
"Welcome to the era of capitalist hacking."
What does the theft of personal information have to do with the private ownership and exchange of wealth?
That entire summary was a train wreck of poor spelling, punctuation, and grammar. What exactly are the "editors" being paid for?
Powell's Books (who claims to be the largest independant new and used bookstore in the world) as well as Dark Horse Comics (publisher of Frank Miller graphic novels) as well as many other bookstores claim that the new law would be impossible for these businesses to comply with.
Somewhere, a 5th grade English teacher is sobbing uncontrollably.
My generation has really taken to heart the old adage "It's easier to beg forgiveness than to ask permission". Just another symptom of our society's growing sense of entitlement and disrespect of others' personal property and privacy.
And for the vast majority of us who don't spend $14M on our homes, who gets to pay for the installation of rooftop solar panels and related materials?
Anyone illiterate enough to unknowingly leave their AP open to the world probably left it as the default SSID of "linksys", and if it's still like that when you find it, it would be a courtesy to attempt to log into it with the default password ("admin")...
That's exactly what I'm talking about, though. While I'm sure your intentions are good, you are still intruding onto somebody else's property without permission. It doesn't matter whether or not you're detected, it's' still rude.
It's like checking your neighbor's front doors to see if they're locked, and if they're unlocked, going inside and locking it for them.
Perhaps you could talk to your neighbor and ask them if they'd like help securing their router. That would be the courteous thing to do.
And you know how you could have avoided all of that?
By asking someone.
You really shouldn't be surprised to get that kind of reaction when you simply assume permission like that.
That's all well and good of you to do that, but that doesn't mean that everyone should just assume they have permission.
Your neighbor who simply unknowingly left his AP open may not be so generous, and would be irritated to find people have been freeloading off his service. That's not unreasonable either.
I guess things like asking permission and common courtesy are just passe anymore. Definitely a sign of this latest generation that has grown up with little respect for other people's property.
How are any of these things relevant to your ability to perform a job you are already doing or have applied to do?
I'd say one's (in)ability to positively represent themself and demonstrate good judgement are very relevant to a company's hiring practices.
My response was solely to the GGP's assertion that people don't have enough common sense to determine when a service is free. And in some cases, granted, it's not clear.
Do you know what a courteous, respectful person does when the owner's intent is not clear? ASK!
If a neighbor appears to be disposing of an old computer by leaving it on the curb, I don't just assume it's free for anyone to take. I ask them if it's OK to take it. It doesn't take much effort, it eliminates any doubt or miscommunication, and it separates me from freeloaders and inconsiderate douchebags with a sense of entitlement.
It's like connecting to a neighbor's unsecured wireless access point without permission. Is it hacking? No. Illegal? No. Rude? Absolutely.