The only way to beat this is with money. A large scale boycott of big media would change everything, but that suggestion never gets any traction.
It's been almost 10 years since I purchased a CD, DVD, or a ticket to the movies. I say so in conversation whenever the topic comes up. I've suggested in on/. several times but it never seems to get any traction ('it's too hard, not enough people will participate so I won't either, etc).
Fools are always on slashdot bitching about the state of copyright law, all the while giving money to the greedy bastards that wrote those laws.
Stop worrying about whether enough people will support a boycott and just look at yourself. Find some personal integrity ffs.
Man, you didn't address anything I said. Owners of production vs. Capitalist...they are synonyms. Please don't find reasons to insert *ism, or magic unicorns into this discussion.
The middle class you describe are what I refer to as the bourgeois, when I say middle class essentially mean skilled labor. Which is most of the population.
I absolutely and clearly do not call for you to describe a perfect society. Please do not argue points I have not made. The book Animal Farm has no relation directly or indirectly to any argument I have made. To bring it into this discussion is a decent into dogma and ideology.
All economies (even communism) are perfect for someone. Which one is best for the average man? One with a free market to be sure, but if the only important component is that there is a free market, this economy will suck for most people.
1)"Free Market and capitalism and industrialism that even makes the middle class possible" and a healthly "labor class" if that term is more satisfying to you. Without the elements I described this class will not exist (in a state where it can also be described as a market), and by extension the wealth of the capitalists will be less than it can be. At no point do I say here that unicorns must exist, only that this class is required for a healthy economy. As I have changed the term 'middle class' to 'labor class' let me point out that this class must be healthy in that it is not only a provider of labor but can also be considered a market.
2)You did not address this point at all. (3) and (4) fall if you prove this premise wrong but you did not try.
I argue there was no middle class in the 19th century, but I'm sure we disagree on the definition of middle class. There were some robber barons surrounded by a small group of bourgeoisie, but the vast majority of the population were subsistence farmers or wage slaves in factories. It wasn't until the end of WWII that a real middle class existed.
It's true there was income tax after the FED was created, but laborers wages weren't taxed then as wages aren't real income. Only 'professionals' were taxed. Taxes on wages started after the ND.
The reason US economy was as successful as it was after the WWII was due to the fact US infrastructure wasn't destroyed in the war *and* that there was an educated, healthy middle class that could not only work in factories, but could also afford to purchase the goods produced in them. If not for the ND, that middle class would not have existed, nor would the post WWII prosperity you describe.
Education, health care, unemployment insurance, and pensions are necessary to maintain a healthy middle class, and this middle class is just as crucial to the overall economy as physical infrastructure. Without these social programs, or direct incentives for the capitalists to provide these things, the middle class as we know it now will cease to exist. A tax policy of only sales tax doesn't provide these incentives.
If you could describe an economy where the rules of the market provide for the health and maintenance (by this I mean education, health care, unemployment insurance, and pensions) of the middle class, people like me would engage more enthusiastically. The economy of the 19th century was Hell for the vast majority and I am not in a hurry to live like most people of my class did back then.
My position is not that lazy people should get free money, but that an illness or temporary unemployment should not be a disaster. It is unrealistic to say these people should provide their own hedges against these eventualities, or that they should have the intelligence and discipline to provide for their own pensions. Really, if most of the population were so capable, then most of the population would refuse to be mere laborers for the capitalists...
There are four overall premises I am making that you would have to defeat to change my mind about any of this:
1)A healthy middle class is a critical component to the larger economy, just as important as any infrastructure component. 2)The owners of production desire that most of this class be educated enough to work for them, but not so educated as to feel above their roles. 3)Given (2) above, this class will not have the capacity to provide for their pensions on their own, nor be able to adequately hedge against temporary setbacks. 4)The owners of production will not provide those items described in (3) above without direct and immediate incentives to do so.
First of all, these pretend social obligations (in the U.S. anyway) are not pretend, they are real, in that these social programs were the original justification for the government taxing wages earned by labor. I'm talking about the New Deal. Now that a few generations have passed, people like you like to preach about how parasitic the government and any/all recipients of entitlements are. You are forgetting that Pre-New Deal, the capitalists paid for everything.
Since the thirties, taxes on wages have crept up and up and taxes on the capitalists have gone down to almost nothing. In the 50's it was about a 50/50 split, now it's more like a 90/10 split. I do consider that the breadth of the government budget has significantly expanded due to previously non-existent social programs, but these are less than half of the total. Overall (today) it's a big net loss for the labor class and a big win for the capitalists.
If I understand your POV correctly, you are saying now that this shift in burden is so complete, you want to get rid of all the social programs and dramatically reduce the size (here I'm assuming you mean budget) of government, yet still keep the burden of payment on the labor class.
Fuck.That.Shit. I'm not paying for everything to get nothing in return. You want to go back to the days when we didn't have social programs? Okay then, when I trade $20 of labor for $20 I must not be taxed on that since I did not make any real income. In other words, the capitalists have to again foot the bill for everything. You have to pick one way or the other, you don't get to pick the best of two sides.
Secondly, not everything is best motivated by profit. I'm assuming that you're okay with socialized fire departments and socialized policing of your neighborhood? So then you agree that profit motive and "the Free Market" are not the ideal solutions to all problems right? Some things are a question of morals and ethics and not profit.
Third, the word struggle is inappropriately in quotes in your post. It is in fact a struggle in that, unchecked, the rich and powerful of the world would make slaves or serfs of the rest of us. It has been this way for the entirety of human history and it is only the acceptance (finally) that society as a whole does have obligations that has enabled a middle class to exist. What you are missing is the fact that if the world were they way you say it should be, you would be down here in the brick pits with the rest of us.
Finally, you are missing that these social programs that allow a middle class to exist are part of the equation. Without a middle class the world much less wealthy then it is today, the richest in the world would actually have less. By killing the social programs that created this economy you will ultimately kill the economy. These things are connected. If I only preach only about moral obligation, then yes I am being dogmatic, ideological. But if you preach only about production and consumption then you are too.
I'm right with you after reading this, it does seem too simplistic and intuitively I think it would 'get it wrong' too often. But the people who have actually tested this patch seem to love it so I'm going to reserve judgment until I've experienced this myself.
If what you say is true, that I would need to start every task from a shell and keep it open, I think I could manage that very well with yakuake.
I've spent time on work like this myself, even used code like this in production...it's really really hard to be sure you've got everything and don't have unnecessary deps, particularly when you've got scripts (that you didn't write) that call out scripts that call out scripts.
I know a few others that have invested time in this also, when you spend much time on a cluster that you don't own eventually you at least think about doing this.
Don't think I didn't notice that some crappy behaviors of Dolphin have infected Konqueror. For example, if my cursor is midway through a large directory, enter a sub-directory and then click 'back', my cursor should be where it was, not at the top. I could make a list, but even if it was a mile long I suspect your opinion would not change.
From your link: What is bloatware, exactly? The Jargon File snidely defines it as "software that provides minimal functionality while requiring a disproportionate amount of diskspace and memory.
No one is arguing for software that does less. People are arguing for efficiency and stability.
I *do* pay close to 40% in taxes. I'm in the sweet spot with no house and no kids and no wife and an expensive state. As for everything else you said, I have no idea why you think you need explain ss and medicare to me. I think you should read my post again. What I said is:
"If you don't think I should have these things, fine, gimme back my fuckin money and from now on we'll all pay 20% in taxes."
Understand? I'm not bitchin about paying taxes, and I'm not bitchin about social programs. I'm saying pick one side or the other. Either we have those social programs *OR* stay the hell outta my paycheck. *If* I'm going to be taxed like a socialist I want a little socialism for my money.
You know what, I've got no problem with living in a world like that, because I'll win in that world. But I don't, I live in a world where 40% of my check (not including sales tax!) is taken away because I earn a "wage" and the people that run things only have to pay 10% (or 2% if they're cheaters) because they earn "capital gains". In this world I want something back that affects me directly and personally, i.e. a retirement plan that is immune from market manipulation, health care even when I'm unemployed, etc. If you don't think I should have these things, fine, gimme back my fuckin money and from now on we'll all pay 20% in taxes.
I think it's bullshit that people want to have it both ways. Used to be "wages" weren't taxed, because if you traded 20 dollars worth of labor for 20 dollars, there's no "income". Now, they tax wages directly and we're all fine with that but we've forgotten that programs like social security and medicare were the explicit justification for that change. Before that the rich and powerful pretty much footed the entire bill, and now that wage earners have become accustomed to paying for everything "they" want to go back on their end of the deal.
Not sure how not wanting to be on the short end of a deal makes me liberal, but whatever.
The problem with "DevOps" is that that it is a large complicated re-articulation of common sense. In the environment you described (not in mine) developers have not enough perspective on managing systems because of this cultural divide. The solution is to hire and train some of your sysadmins from the dev pool begin cross training. Eliminate the divide. What these guys want to do instead is write books and give talks to phb's.
This kind of letter or video doesn't have to set any expectation. The content could be simply a story of her (the moms) own experience at that time the the child can take in and evaluate herself.
Saying "Sure I'll buy another Apple product one day" is not the same thing as saying "My next phone will be an iPhone, even though I have no idea what phones will be available on the market at that time."
Exactly. The brand, the style, and the little i, matter to you, in spite of your education. The rest of us use our phones, are satisfied or unsatisfied with them, but we don't love them. We will buy whatever we think is the best choice at the time we make that choice. We are not likely to say in a survey "Oh yes, I'm so going to buy another phone like this one!"
Slashdot Mirror
The only way to beat this is with money. A large scale boycott of big media would change everything, but that suggestion never gets any traction.
It's been almost 10 years since I purchased a CD, DVD, or a ticket to the movies. I say so in conversation whenever the topic comes up. I've suggested in on /. several times but it never seems to get any traction ('it's too hard, not enough people will participate so I won't either, etc).
Fools are always on slashdot bitching about the state of copyright law, all the while giving money to the greedy bastards that wrote those laws.
Stop worrying about whether enough people will support a boycott and just look at yourself. Find some personal integrity ffs.
Out of curiosity, what is wrong with craigslist that needs improvement? Is it too slow?
http://www.sgi.com/products/servers/altix/uv/
2,048 cores (256 sockets) and 16TB of memory, one OS image.
Hey Coward, insisting on honesty and integrity and being generally intolerant of corruption is not the opposite of being libertarian.
Man, you didn't address anything I said. Owners of production vs. Capitalist...they are synonyms. Please don't find reasons to insert *ism, or magic unicorns into this discussion.
The middle class you describe are what I refer to as the bourgeois, when I say middle class essentially mean skilled labor. Which is most of the population.
I absolutely and clearly do not call for you to describe a perfect society. Please do not argue points I have not made. The book Animal Farm has no relation directly or indirectly to any argument I have made. To bring it into this discussion is a decent into dogma and ideology.
All economies (even communism) are perfect for someone. Which one is best for the average man? One with a free market to be sure, but if the only important component is that there is a free market, this economy will suck for most people.
1)"Free Market and capitalism and industrialism that even makes the middle class possible" and a healthly "labor class" if that term is more satisfying to you. Without the elements I described this class will not exist (in a state where it can also be described as a market), and by extension the wealth of the capitalists will be less than it can be. At no point do I say here that unicorns must exist, only that this class is required for a healthy economy. As I have changed the term 'middle class' to 'labor class' let me point out that this class must be healthy in that it is not only a provider of labor but can also be considered a market.
2)You did not address this point at all. (3) and (4) fall if you prove this premise wrong but you did not try.
3)not addressed
4)not addressed
This is where they argue that the "pipes" need to be smarter and the terminals (our devices) dumber.
I argue there was no middle class in the 19th century, but I'm sure we disagree on the definition of middle class. There were some robber barons surrounded by a small group of bourgeoisie, but the vast majority of the population were subsistence farmers or wage slaves in factories. It wasn't until the end of WWII that a real middle class existed.
It's true there was income tax after the FED was created, but laborers wages weren't taxed then as wages aren't real income. Only 'professionals' were taxed. Taxes on wages started after the ND.
The reason US economy was as successful as it was after the WWII was due to the fact US infrastructure wasn't destroyed in the war *and* that there was an educated, healthy middle class that could not only work in factories, but could also afford to purchase the goods produced in them. If not for the ND, that middle class would not have existed, nor would the post WWII prosperity you describe.
Education, health care, unemployment insurance, and pensions are necessary to maintain a healthy middle class, and this middle class is just as crucial to the overall economy as physical infrastructure. Without these social programs, or direct incentives for the capitalists to provide these things, the middle class as we know it now will cease to exist. A tax policy of only sales tax doesn't provide these incentives.
If you could describe an economy where the rules of the market provide for the health and maintenance (by this I mean education, health care, unemployment insurance, and pensions) of the middle class, people like me would engage more enthusiastically. The economy of the 19th century was Hell for the vast majority and I am not in a hurry to live like most people of my class did back then.
My position is not that lazy people should get free money, but that an illness or temporary unemployment should not be a disaster. It is unrealistic to say these people should provide their own hedges against these eventualities, or that they should have the intelligence and discipline to provide for their own pensions. Really, if most of the population were so capable, then most of the population would refuse to be mere laborers for the capitalists...
There are four overall premises I am making that you would have to defeat to change my mind about any of this:
1)A healthy middle class is a critical component to the larger economy, just as important as any infrastructure component.
2)The owners of production desire that most of this class be educated enough to work for them, but not so educated as to feel above their roles.
3)Given (2) above, this class will not have the capacity to provide for their pensions on their own, nor be able to adequately hedge against temporary setbacks.
4)The owners of production will not provide those items described in (3) above without direct and immediate incentives to do so.
First of all, these pretend social obligations (in the U.S. anyway) are not pretend, they are real, in that these social programs were the original justification for the government taxing wages earned by labor. I'm talking about the New Deal. Now that a few generations have passed, people like you like to preach about how parasitic the government and any/all recipients of entitlements are. You are forgetting that Pre-New Deal, the capitalists paid for everything.
Since the thirties, taxes on wages have crept up and up and taxes on the capitalists have gone down to almost nothing. In the 50's it was about a 50/50 split, now it's more like a 90/10 split. I do consider that the breadth of the government budget has significantly expanded due to previously non-existent social programs, but these are less than half of the total. Overall (today) it's a big net loss for the labor class and a big win for the capitalists.
If I understand your POV correctly, you are saying now that this shift in burden is so complete, you want to get rid of all the social programs and dramatically reduce the size (here I'm assuming you mean budget) of government, yet still keep the burden of payment on the labor class.
Fuck.That.Shit. I'm not paying for everything to get nothing in return. You want to go back to the days when we didn't have social programs? Okay then, when I trade $20 of labor for $20 I must not be taxed on that since I did not make any real income. In other words, the capitalists have to again foot the bill for everything. You have to pick one way or the other, you don't get to pick the best of two sides.
Secondly, not everything is best motivated by profit. I'm assuming that you're okay with socialized fire departments and socialized policing of your neighborhood? So then you agree that profit motive and "the Free Market" are not the ideal solutions to all problems right? Some things are a question of morals and ethics and not profit.
Third, the word struggle is inappropriately in quotes in your post. It is in fact a struggle in that, unchecked, the rich and powerful of the world would make slaves or serfs of the rest of us. It has been this way for the entirety of human history and it is only the acceptance (finally) that society as a whole does have obligations that has enabled a middle class to exist. What you are missing is the fact that if the world were they way you say it should be, you would be down here in the brick pits with the rest of us.
Finally, you are missing that these social programs that allow a middle class to exist are part of the equation. Without a middle class the world much less wealthy then it is today, the richest in the world would actually have less. By killing the social programs that created this economy you will ultimately kill the economy. These things are connected. If I only preach only about moral obligation, then yes I am being dogmatic, ideological. But if you preach only about production and consumption then you are too.
I'm right with you after reading this, it does seem too simplistic and intuitively I think it would 'get it wrong' too often. But the people who have actually tested this patch seem to love it so I'm going to reserve judgment until I've experienced this myself.
If what you say is true, that I would need to start every task from a shell and keep it open, I think I could manage that very well with yakuake.
I've spent time on work like this myself, even used code like this in production...it's really really hard to be sure you've got everything and don't have unnecessary deps, particularly when you've got scripts (that you didn't write) that call out scripts that call out scripts.
I know a few others that have invested time in this also, when you spend much time on a cluster that you don't own eventually you at least think about doing this.
Adding a tick rate is so obviously the solution that the only reasonable explanation for it not being mandated already is corruption.
Farscape and Firefly
Don't think I didn't notice that some crappy behaviors of Dolphin have infected Konqueror. For example, if my cursor is midway through a large directory, enter a sub-directory and then click 'back', my cursor should be where it was, not at the top. I could make a list, but even if it was a mile long I suspect your opinion would not change.
From your link: What is bloatware, exactly? The Jargon File snidely defines it as "software that provides minimal functionality while requiring a disproportionate amount of diskspace and memory.
No one is arguing for software that does less. People are arguing for efficiency and stability.
KDE4 is KDE4 and you can spam all the discussions you want, this will not change.
Somebody wants to change their brand, it's on them to make it known to me. I'm not checking *pedia 'just in case'.
I *do* pay close to 40% in taxes. I'm in the sweet spot with no house and no kids and no wife and an expensive state. As for everything else you said, I have no idea why you think you need explain ss and medicare to me. I think you should read my post again. What I said is:
"If you don't think I should have these things, fine, gimme back my fuckin money and from now on we'll all pay 20% in taxes."
Understand? I'm not bitchin about paying taxes, and I'm not bitchin about social programs. I'm saying pick one side or the other. Either we have those social programs *OR* stay the hell outta my paycheck. *If* I'm going to be taxed like a socialist I want a little socialism for my money.
No redistribution of wealth, up or down
You know what, I've got no problem with living in a world like that, because I'll win in that world. But I don't, I live in a world where 40% of my check (not including sales tax!) is taken away because I earn a "wage" and the people that run things only have to pay 10% (or 2% if they're cheaters) because they earn "capital gains". In this world I want something back that affects me directly and personally, i.e. a retirement plan that is immune from market manipulation, health care even when I'm unemployed, etc. If you don't think I should have these things, fine, gimme back my fuckin money and from now on we'll all pay 20% in taxes.
I think it's bullshit that people want to have it both ways. Used to be "wages" weren't taxed, because if you traded 20 dollars worth of labor for 20 dollars, there's no "income". Now, they tax wages directly and we're all fine with that but we've forgotten that programs like social security and medicare were the explicit justification for that change. Before that the rich and powerful pretty much footed the entire bill, and now that wage earners have become accustomed to paying for everything "they" want to go back on their end of the deal.
Not sure how not wanting to be on the short end of a deal makes me liberal, but whatever.
The problem with "DevOps" is that that it is a large complicated re-articulation of common sense. In the environment you described (not in mine) developers have not enough perspective on managing systems because of this cultural divide. The solution is to hire and train some of your sysadmins from the dev pool begin cross training. Eliminate the divide. What these guys want to do instead is write books and give talks to phb's.
The DevOps thing is yet another crock of shit on par with 'managing programmers is like herding cats' and web2.0
In the last ten years there has been several articles about morphing metals, but they were actually about new kinds of morphing metals.
but I'll say it anyway. You asked for ideas, and this is one. I'll leave it to you to decide if it's a good one.
I've seen a tooth (that lasts close enough to forever) given to the children or grandchildren that is worn in a locket or kept in a box.
This kind of letter or video doesn't have to set any expectation. The content could be simply a story of her (the moms) own experience at that time the the child can take in and evaluate herself.
Invalid comparisons.
Saying "Sure I'll buy another Apple product one day" is not the same thing as saying "My next phone will be an iPhone, even though I have no idea what phones will be available on the market at that time."
I love my iPhone, despite it's faults...
Exactly. The brand, the style, and the little i, matter to you, in spite of your education. The rest of us use our phones, are satisfied or unsatisfied with them, but we don't love them. We will buy whatever we think is the best choice at the time we make that choice. We are not likely to say in a survey "Oh yes, I'm so going to buy another phone like this one!"