"It's not about wages - it's about the "benefits" - like healthcare and pension costs"
If it is a payment that employees receive, it counts as a wage.
"When a company rehires it's own employee's through another company they avoid paying the benefits. No healthcare - No pension. That saves a whole lot o cash"
This behavior is a natural result of the government or others mandating benefits. The situation strongly encourages the company to avoid hiring such workers.
"As for the government's role - by ignoring the "perfectly legal" measures used by companies to save expenses they encourage the "race to the bottom"."
What is wrong with the government ignoring it when companies do what the government encourages them to do?
"Your response again shows your total ignorance of the Fairness Doctrine"
How so? Can you back up your blanket claim with any specifics?
"The Fairness Doctrine does not suggest/impose/recommend any form of censorship in any manner"
This is entirely false. Whenever the government gags someone or controls what they say, it is censorship. It is also false since you yourself have argued that the "Fairness Doctrine" should be used to censor what you perceive to be "right-wing media".
"It merely provides a mechanism whereby any disenfranchised party, regardless of ideology, has an opportunity to petition for equal time in the media"
Aside from the fact that this sentence is not true, it does show part of the mechanism of censorship involved in the "Fairness Doctrine". "Equal time" for your opponents goes against freedom of the press. Why can't you print/publish/say whatever you want, without the government forcing you to speak with the voice of what the government says is a "disenfranchised party"? Look up the meaning of censorship before you respond.
Another detail of how the Fairness Doctrine censors is that it discourages stations from airing anything political at all. Once they air something political, the government can come in and censor the content it deems "unfair" and force them to say stuff they do not agree with.. The Fairness Doctrine encourages radio stations to replace talk shows with music this way.
Also, you are totally unaware of the fact that "disenfranchised parties" views are aired a LOT more without the censoring "Fairness Doctrine". It is not just the Limbaughs that talk more, but the Diane Rheim's and the Pacifica's and the Al Franken's. Yes, the right wing talks more without the Doctrine. But so does the left wing.
Not that it matters. The First Amendment is entirely neutral to subjective matters as "balance" and "disenfranchised". It left such determination to the people, and said to keep the government out of it.
" Stop spreading lies about things you know nothing of."
I know more about the Fairness Doctrine than you ever will. So does Mario Cuomo. Do you want any more quotes from people who believe that freedom of the press must be protected even if the press says something that someone can arbitrarily call "unfair"?
By the way, thanks for entering me in your foes list just because I support freedom of the press. Why does it go against the grain for so many people to "let them say it if they want to say it"? How can anyone with any sense argue (as you do) that government gagging and controlling of political speech is not "censorship"?
I am guessing that if you actually thought matters through, and did some research, you might change your mind. Unless you really are a Fascist who open admits that they want opposing political views silenced. I'll give you the benefit of a doubt so far, but your paranoid and false claims about right-wing media do not bode well for the idea that you respect freedom of the press.
"Companies tend to have the nasty habit of using what they call contractors to get out of paying taxes and benifits that they really should be"
Is this any surprise? If the government makes you pay a higher tax for full-time employees, then this discourages hiring full-time employees. The same with imposition of benefits for such employees: it is the government providing a disincentive for hiring the kind of employees that would get these benefits.
Is it any surprise that the companies are responding to economic pressure from the government NOT to hire regular full-time workers?
"The suit seeks to represent 3,000 workers in Boise and elsewhere in the company and could involve as much as $300 million, according to the complaint." "
The protest will die down as soon as the contractors are offered HP's "4 30-lbs sacks of potatoes" bonus offered to the regular Idaho employees as a holiday bonus.
"Diversification into an extremely competitive market like handheld gaming without any previous experience is not a great idea, espiecally just before the next gen on handhelds"
Perhaps if Nokia had teamed up with this venture with another dormant/past company that did have experience, such as Atari or Sega?
They did not even get the phone buttons right. On the N-Gage (as with too many current Nokia phones) they are not in a straight, right-angled 9 x 3 array. This negates any "touch typing" and forces you to look at the keys. There is no good reason for this, it is a triumph of form over function. A regular 90-degree-angle array of phone buttons would have easily fit in the space on the N-Gage. Why make it difficult to enter phone numbers???
The power button problem is common to many other devices, including the iPod. The power and ease of use of the on-off switch has been lost on many designers.
More than 10 years ago, something similar happened on IRC. This was when most of IRC was "efnet", and it had only a couple thousand live users at once. There was a popular channel called #jeopardy, that had a well-designed automatic bot-run Jeopardy game anyone could drop in and play.
The real Jeopardy folks came along, and sooner than you can say "I'll take `Frivolous Lawsuits` for $100, Alex" they ordered #jeopardy to stop.
The #jeopardy folks changed a few names, called it #Risky Business (or #riskybus ?) and kept going for a while longer. You can see it here. The screen on the page looks rather Jeopardy-like. So far, I think they have avoided frivolous lawsuits from Tom Cruise.
"Those "freebies" you got still cost somebody something"
Did not take long to come up with another example: someone gets a nice new TV and they toss the perfectly good one out by the curb for anyone to take. It's a free lunch. I've seen it.
Or, a church has a Thursday night dinner. They end up with some leftover, which goes to the homeless shelter. Another free lunch, literally.
"Bullshit. You obviously know nothing about the Fairness Doctrine. Read about it before you make wildly erroneous claims."
I did. I've read it, and read about it for years. This is why I prefer the First Amendment to the censorship involved with the "Fairness Doctrine. I opposed it the first time I read it, since I realized that it ripped the heart out of any idea of "freedom of the press".
"a) mandate EQUAL TIME for multiple sides of important issues"
First, that is entirely incorrect. It mandated "Equal time" for what government censors THOUGHT were important issues. Second, that is censorship. If you are publishing something, whose business is it what views you decide to put on the editorial page? The same applies to TV/radio broadcasts. It is the heart of "freedom of the press". The publisher decides what is fair, not government censors.
"b) recognize that the holders of public broadcast licenses had an obligation to use these public licenses for the public interest (and therefore could not bury news that was of local interest)"
If you really think this is important, you would oppose the "Fairness Doctrine". The Fairness Doctrine forces the stations to serve government elites. Without it, they tend more to serve the public.
"It was NEVER about "censoring" the media."
It is 100% about censoring the media. Let's say that you wanted to run a "Nader 2008" blog. The government steps in and in the name of "Fairness" forces you to edit your postings and let Buchanan guys speak on your behalf. That is the exact sort of thing the fairness doctrine demands. The goverment would force stations to remove material 1) to make room or 2) because if they said something controversial the government would come down on them.
"in fact it's so heavily right wing and conservative that the notion of moderate media has been pushed far right of center"
In this you are clueless. Only Fox is right wing on TV. The others are a little to the left of center. FM talk radio is left wing, while AM radio is right wing. Another big point you miss is that the Fairness Doctrine never applied to cable TV or other closed-circuit media. This includes Fox News. Sorry to break it to you, but if you bring back the old Fairness Doctrine it would leave Fox News and its opinions you hate so much intact.
Do you want to expand it to cable? That would be a dangerous precedent, from government censoring airwaves to government censoring closed-circuit electronic communication.
Besides, you are now betraying the fact that your main idea is to censor. You want the "fairness doctrine" to silence those who do not have your political opinions. Again, refer to the Constitution. Political speech is not except from first amendment protection because it is of a "wing". You have certainly betrayed the fact that you are no-where near the center.
It certainly puts the lie to your claim that you are not about censorship, when you give vent to conspiracy theories about nonexistent media bias as a justification. It then becomes clear that you want the "Fairness Doctrine" as a means to silence the political opinion and views of your opponents. I have YET to see an argument by anyone in favor of it who does not support his argument for the Fairness Doctrine by mentioning expression of political views he/she does not like.
"And in the wake of the eradication of the Fairness doctrine we don't have more "fair" political discussion... "
We have a lot more political discussion, period. It is a lot more diverse, too. "Fair" does not matter. However, if it did, it is clear that more diverse viewpoints are being heard, and this is more fair to more groups. Read the Constitution. No-where does it demand that we censor political views that the government does not think is "fair". The writers of th
"In a thousand years, provided humanity hasn't wiped itself out by then, the internet archive (and by extension, ourmedia.org) will be what archaeologists use to learn about us"
Nah. I think that the first thing visting aliens will see will be the 400 km wide three-dimensional Goatse carved into the Tibetan plateau when some scriptkid hacks a spaceborne combat laser array sometime around 2070.
There is such thing as a free lunch. I've seen it in countless forms, including as an actual free lunch. One relevant example was a guy in Europe who provided free web hosting. No ads, no problems. You could even seamlessly connect your domain name there. Great support and everything. There is such thing as a free lunch.
"..THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS "FREE". Somebody pays, always. If not you directly, then you pay indirectly; if not now, then later, but you get nothing for free."
I think you are incorrect. There are just too many examples of getting things free and you never have to pay. The term "gift" comes to mind: gifts typically involve this.
"I found the woodburning kit a bit cumbersome and time consuming when burning music Cedars."
Get one with Digital Vine Drive instead. I prefer Apple's new iVy, with its cool looking bamboo-filliment display. You can even save songs to your iSeedPod from it.
"It's even more telling when you look into the White House's web site and their robots.txt Search Exclusions which basically deny Google and other indices the permission to archive content, and specifically if it relates to Iraq"
The choice to exclude is something made by Google. They can perfectly well include stuff despite "robots.txt". "Robots.txt" is something I've never liked the idea of anyway: if you posted it on the public Internet, and leave it up on the public Internet, what is the problem if it gets indexed?
"... none of it matters because now that the Fairness Doctrine has been eradicated, it's all about who has the most media influence."
The Fairness Doctrine was designed to censor media. With it gone, political discussion (including the diversity thereof) has flourished in the "mass media". Under this doctrine, the government imposed its own standard of "Fair". Now, fairness is left to the mind of the listener. With the Fairness Doctrine gone, anything is possible. I'm glad its gone. Government had no business censoring media in the name of "Fairness".
"You're right about the party thing, but America now only has one party, the Corporate Party."
That is weak thinking. The parties only look all the same if you look at it from an extreme wing.
"leeches, squirmy and icky, taking blood from hapless victims are good for you too! Sometimes a doctor will put one on you if they've reattached a body part (poor John Wayne Bobbit)."
Are you sure that the leech re-attached the body part? I could have sworn that I read before that the leech attached itself and acted as a replacement for the body part.
"What's the "GNU Public License"? After extensive web searching, I cannot find any evidence that a license with such a name exists"
There are more than 300,000 pages referring to "gnu public license", and that is just in Google. That is just with quotes, too! One of the links points to a good wikipedia article, as well.
".... Mac Mini after...so I got them a Microsoft keyboard and a Microsoft optical mouse. The irony is delicious"
The Mac did not start out as well, that is for sure. Remember the keyboard on the first Mac (now known as the "Mac Classic")? It was rudimentary and crude. It was worse than the Apple 2 keyboards and even the Vic-20 keyboard was a lot better. I think they spent their time concentrating on the mouse and the GUI. I also remember their "we're still behind the curve" late 1980s keyboards, with the hyroglyphics instead of "on", "off", etc.
If the Mac zealots think this is mere bashing, can you honestly say you would use the first Mac keyboard, instead of the one found on the IBM-XT, which is still state-of-the-art?
Slashdot Mirror
If it is a payment that employees receive, it counts as a wage.
"When a company rehires it's own employee's through another company they avoid paying the benefits. No healthcare - No pension. That saves a whole lot o cash"
This behavior is a natural result of the government or others mandating benefits. The situation strongly encourages the company to avoid hiring such workers.
"As for the government's role - by ignoring the "perfectly legal" measures used by companies to save expenses they encourage the "race to the bottom"."
What is wrong with the government ignoring it when companies do what the government encourages them to do?
How so? Can you back up your blanket claim with any specifics?
"The Fairness Doctrine does not suggest/impose/recommend any form of censorship in any manner"
This is entirely false. Whenever the government gags someone or controls what they say, it is censorship. It is also false since you yourself have argued that the "Fairness Doctrine" should be used to censor what you perceive to be "right-wing media".
"It merely provides a mechanism whereby any disenfranchised party, regardless of ideology, has an opportunity to petition for equal time in the media"
Aside from the fact that this sentence is not true, it does show part of the mechanism of censorship involved in the "Fairness Doctrine". "Equal time" for your opponents goes against freedom of the press. Why can't you print/publish/say whatever you want, without the government forcing you to speak with the voice of what the government says is a "disenfranchised party"? Look up the meaning of censorship before you respond.
Another detail of how the Fairness Doctrine censors is that it discourages stations from airing anything political at all. Once they air something political, the government can come in and censor the content it deems "unfair" and force them to say stuff they do not agree with.. The Fairness Doctrine encourages radio stations to replace talk shows with music this way.
Also, you are totally unaware of the fact that "disenfranchised parties" views are aired a LOT more without the censoring "Fairness Doctrine". It is not just the Limbaughs that talk more, but the Diane Rheim's and the Pacifica's and the Al Franken's. Yes, the right wing talks more without the Doctrine. But so does the left wing.
Not that it matters. The First Amendment is entirely neutral to subjective matters as "balance" and "disenfranchised". It left such determination to the people, and said to keep the government out of it.
" Stop spreading lies about things you know nothing of."
I know more about the Fairness Doctrine than you ever will. So does Mario Cuomo. Do you want any more quotes from people who believe that freedom of the press must be protected even if the press says something that someone can arbitrarily call "unfair"?
By the way, thanks for entering me in your foes list just because I support freedom of the press. Why does it go against the grain for so many people to "let them say it if they want to say it"? How can anyone with any sense argue (as you do) that government gagging and controlling of political speech is not "censorship"?
I am guessing that if you actually thought matters through, and did some research, you might change your mind. Unless you really are a Fascist who open admits that they want opposing political views silenced. I'll give you the benefit of a doubt so far, but your paranoid and false claims about right-wing media do not bode well for the idea that you respect freedom of the press.
Probably soon. This suit encourages HP to do without such employees.
Is this any surprise? If the government makes you pay a higher tax for full-time employees, then this discourages hiring full-time employees. The same with imposition of benefits for such employees: it is the government providing a disincentive for hiring the kind of employees that would get these benefits.
Is it any surprise that the companies are responding to economic pressure from the government NOT to hire regular full-time workers?
The protest will die down as soon as the contractors are offered HP's "4 30-lbs sacks of potatoes" bonus offered to the regular Idaho employees as a holiday bonus.
Perhaps if Nokia had teamed up with this venture with another dormant/past company that did have experience, such as Atari or Sega?
The power button problem is common to many other devices, including the iPod. The power and ease of use of the on-off switch has been lost on many designers.
I am not familiar with them. Did they have the wonderful "Model M" click?
"Did you know the flammable and inflammable mean the same thing? Boy, I learned that the hard way" - Woody Boyd, "Cheers".
The real Jeopardy folks came along, and sooner than you can say "I'll take `Frivolous Lawsuits` for $100, Alex" they ordered #jeopardy to stop.
The #jeopardy folks changed a few names, called it #Risky Business (or #riskybus ?) and kept going for a while longer. You can see it here. The screen on the page looks rather Jeopardy-like. So far, I think they have avoided frivolous lawsuits from Tom Cruise.
Did not take long to come up with another example: someone gets a nice new TV and they toss the perfectly good one out by the curb for anyone to take. It's a free lunch. I've seen it.
Or, a church has a Thursday night dinner. They end up with some leftover, which goes to the homeless shelter. Another free lunch, literally.
I did. I've read it, and read about it for years. This is why I prefer the First Amendment to the censorship involved with the "Fairness Doctrine. I opposed it the first time I read it, since I realized that it ripped the heart out of any idea of "freedom of the press".
"a) mandate EQUAL TIME for multiple sides of important issues"
First, that is entirely incorrect. It mandated "Equal time" for what government censors THOUGHT were important issues. Second, that is censorship. If you are publishing something, whose business is it what views you decide to put on the editorial page? The same applies to TV/radio broadcasts. It is the heart of "freedom of the press". The publisher decides what is fair, not government censors.
"b) recognize that the holders of public broadcast licenses had an obligation to use these public licenses for the public interest (and therefore could not bury news that was of local interest)"
If you really think this is important, you would oppose the "Fairness Doctrine". The Fairness Doctrine forces the stations to serve government elites. Without it, they tend more to serve the public.
"It was NEVER about "censoring" the media."
It is 100% about censoring the media. Let's say that you wanted to run a "Nader 2008" blog. The government steps in and in the name of "Fairness" forces you to edit your postings and let Buchanan guys speak on your behalf. That is the exact sort of thing the fairness doctrine demands. The goverment would force stations to remove material 1) to make room or 2) because if they said something controversial the government would come down on them.
"in fact it's so heavily right wing and conservative that the notion of moderate media has been pushed far right of center"
In this you are clueless. Only Fox is right wing on TV. The others are a little to the left of center. FM talk radio is left wing, while AM radio is right wing. Another big point you miss is that the Fairness Doctrine never applied to cable TV or other closed-circuit media. This includes Fox News. Sorry to break it to you, but if you bring back the old Fairness Doctrine it would leave Fox News and its opinions you hate so much intact.
Do you want to expand it to cable? That would be a dangerous precedent, from government censoring airwaves to government censoring closed-circuit electronic communication.
Besides, you are now betraying the fact that your main idea is to censor. You want the "fairness doctrine" to silence those who do not have your political opinions. Again, refer to the Constitution. Political speech is not except from first amendment protection because it is of a "wing". You have certainly betrayed the fact that you are no-where near the center.
It certainly puts the lie to your claim that you are not about censorship, when you give vent to conspiracy theories about nonexistent media bias as a justification. It then becomes clear that you want the "Fairness Doctrine" as a means to silence the political opinion and views of your opponents. I have YET to see an argument by anyone in favor of it who does not support his argument for the Fairness Doctrine by mentioning expression of political views he/she does not like.
"And in the wake of the eradication of the Fairness doctrine we don't have more "fair" political discussion... "
We have a lot more political discussion, period. It is a lot more diverse, too. "Fair" does not matter. However, if it did, it is clear that more diverse viewpoints are being heard, and this is more fair to more groups. Read the Constitution. No-where does it demand that we censor political views that the government does not think is "fair". The writers of th
Nah. I think that the first thing visting aliens will see will be the 400 km wide three-dimensional Goatse carved into the Tibetan plateau when some scriptkid hacks a spaceborne combat laser array sometime around 2070.
There is such thing as a free lunch. I've seen it in countless forms, including as an actual free lunch. One relevant example was a guy in Europe who provided free web hosting. No ads, no problems. You could even seamlessly connect your domain name there. Great support and everything. There is such thing as a free lunch.
Mabu may have a point. If someone gives you a free baboon, you end up paying dear.
I think you are incorrect. There are just too many examples of getting things free and you never have to pay. The term "gift" comes to mind: gifts typically involve this.
Get one with Digital Vine Drive instead. I prefer Apple's new iVy, with its cool looking bamboo-filliment display. You can even save songs to your iSeedPod from it.
The choice to exclude is something made by Google. They can perfectly well include stuff despite "robots.txt". "Robots.txt" is something I've never liked the idea of anyway: if you posted it on the public Internet, and leave it up on the public Internet, what is the problem if it gets indexed?
"Dude, you're getting a flaming hell"
"Commodore Vic-20: The Cinder Computer of the 1980s"
Microsoft: Embrace and incinerate.
Apple: Burn different.
Emachines: See what's new in blue flames.
Gateway 2000: Roast Beef
The Fairness Doctrine was designed to censor media. With it gone, political discussion (including the diversity thereof) has flourished in the "mass media". Under this doctrine, the government imposed its own standard of "Fair". Now, fairness is left to the mind of the listener. With the Fairness Doctrine gone, anything is possible. I'm glad its gone. Government had no business censoring media in the name of "Fairness".
"You're right about the party thing, but America now only has one party, the Corporate Party."
That is weak thinking. The parties only look all the same if you look at it from an extreme wing.
Are you sure that the leech re-attached the body part? I could have sworn that I read before that the leech attached itself and acted as a replacement for the body part.
Or the plot for "Batman 6".
There are more than 300,000 pages referring to "gnu public license", and that is just in Google. That is just with quotes, too! One of the links points to a good wikipedia article, as well.
I wondered what he was doing these days. Is Mimi still his secretary?
The Mac did not start out as well, that is for sure. Remember the keyboard on the first Mac (now known as the "Mac Classic")? It was rudimentary and crude. It was worse than the Apple 2 keyboards and even the Vic-20 keyboard was a lot better. I think they spent their time concentrating on the mouse and the GUI. I also remember their "we're still behind the curve" late 1980s keyboards, with the hyroglyphics instead of "on", "off", etc.
If the Mac zealots think this is mere bashing, can you honestly say you would use the first Mac keyboard, instead of the one found on the IBM-XT, which is still state-of-the-art?