I'm saying Al Gore is an idiot because of all the days he can highlight "Global Warming" he did it on the coldest day of the year. Pretty smart....yep, that Al Gore is a real brain trust. Understand, or did I use words that were too big for you?
Pfft.. 79% of people think that McDonald's hamburgers are good too.
Percentages mean nothing. For years, the vast majority of doctors thought they knew what caused ulcers. One guy, ONE GUY, was laughed out of a conference for suggesting that ulcers could be caused by a bacteria.
Guess what? He was right. That's a standing fact. So, this whole "the majority is right" argument is complete crap. The majority thought that the world was flat at some point too.
Just saying over and over and over again that "we're right about global warming" doesn't make it right, particularly when there are many scientists that don't agree, despite of "percentages".
Al Gore giving speeches on Global Warming on the coldest day of the year in New York a few years back. He looked like an idiot.
The comical thing about this is that the first study showed it DID help people... Now that there's a study that says it DOESN'T, people come out of the woodwork to say "SEE? SEE? I TOLD YOU!" Where the heck were they when the first study came out?
I'm not one, but I have to wonder, why is it so important to people to "convince" them of anything?
I keep hearing from people that we should just live, and let live. Why is it so important to some people that we let them be, but when it comes to others it so damn important to convince them that they're wrong....especially when it doesn't effect them in any way?
You know why this isn't true? Because if it were true, the liberals would be caving like a house of cards, just like they did when REAL facists started screaming about cartoons. "Oh, you don't want us to publish these? Sure! No problem!"
It amazes me that people will go off on these little fantasies about how things are 'facist" in this country, but when it comes to standing up to the real thing, they fold or try and ignore it.
Now, I'm the last guy that thinks drug companies are "nice guys" in the prices they charge, but in patent cases, I have to side with them.
They spend MILLIONS of dollars developing drugs. At least they have some right to patent what they created, because they actually created something. I'm not going into whether they SHOULD or not. That's what the law is right now, and it should probably be changed. I'm getting off track here.
Software companies with "patents" like these have spent little or no time "developing" anything. I mean..."One click"? "Buy It Now"? That's what you get when you have marketing people patenting things.
Today they add almost no value to the economic equation. That means they're basically parasites.
You're confusing individual copyright holders with the middlemen that some of them are tied to. Big difference.
Take comic strips for example. The vast majority of new comic strips (within the last 15 years), have artists that own their own copyrights. (That didn't used to be the case).
If you're saying the middle men don't add anything to the equation, well, that's wrong too. They do... it's just they don't add as much as they THINK they do.
Again, comic strips... The syndicates that 50% of the sale. The other 50% goes to the author.
Is that worth it? In this day and age on the web, hell no. In the past, when individual salesmen had to go around selling to each paper (and, yes, some still do that), then that's arguably with the "worth it" category, since that's how the newspaper business works.
Some of the copyright holders are corporations themselves, which paid the salaries of the folks that wrote the software for the months/years it took to write that software. If you're saying THAT'S unfair.... well....
Unfortunately, this is merely a puff piece trying to gloss over the radicialization of Islam. Many of those folks ARE pieceful, but they're being lead by a bunch of lunatics that want to bomb everything in sight.
Oh, and they missed using Jets to bring down major buildings in New York. Although, to be fair, Tom Clancy came up with that idea earlier.
And they missed killing people for writing things they don't like (Rushdie) and drawing things they don't like (the recent editorial comic scare), but again, they didn't invent that either... they just revived it.
Sounds like the speeches I heard in San Francisco last time I was there. "You don't agree with us, therefore you're a idiot that doesn't deserve to live!" Yeah, everything's fine if you agree with them...but if you don't, look out..
Wait...you actually think that the signing you're doing for perscription drugs means they're NOT tracking what you're using? Wake up.
What amazes me is that there's a HUGE meth problem that's growing in this country, and there's a minority of people that don't want to do anything to help cut this off at the source. I lived in two states that didn't have this law, and passed it within the last three years. The meth labs in those states have gone down dramatically.
This law is a good thing.
"Show my 'papers'"
Heh....Stuff like that really undermines your argument. People that are concerned about meth didn't sit around and complain. They got the law passed. And it's a good thing too.
No one is chopping off hands or shooting suspects. You know, making analogies like that makes whatever point you're trying to make sound really, really stupid.
Signing for Sudafed is just like signing for prescriptions. No difference, except now it's harder for Meth heads to get their hands on it.
"It in no way applies to reporters _ in any way, shape or form," said Mike Dawson, a senior policy adviser to DeWine, responding to an inquiry Friday afternoon. "If a technical fix is necessary, it will be made."
"It in no way applies to reporters _ in any way, shape or form," said Mike Dawson, a senior policy adviser to DeWine, responding to an inquiry Friday afternoon. "If a technical fix is necessary, it will be made."
Looks like the submitter of the article didn't read to the 3rd paragraph.
The company is stupid for not requiring backups. The guy's an idiot for using his position to start his own business, and using the company're property to do it. He screwed over all his co-workers by doing that, because it takes away from the company's viability.
I'm really surprised they actually needed the guy's laptop to support their position in all this, they should be able to prove it without that. Going after him because he deleted files is just a vindictive ploy after they realized they had no way of proving what he was doing.
Sounds like the guy AND the people at the company are both guilty of being freaking morons.
I mean really.... all of the sudden "Wipe"-like programs are going to be off corporate computer systems? Yeah, good luck with that. That's the stupidest damn thing I've read all day.... and I've been reading/., so that's saying something.
And since you brought up Bush and Reagan.... What did Clinton do during his reign?
Oh, that's right.... The Dot Com bubble. No investigations into the MASSIVE corruption that was going on in the industry, only to leave place like Enron to be cleaned up during the next administration. If there's any blame to be had, lay it right at Clinton's feet, because that's where it belongs.
Your entire argument is so childlike, it's amazing.
The only people I've ever met that want unions are people that can't cut it in the industry. They don't perform, or they would rather complain about the "unfairness" of making big bucks in the software industry. Unions only penalize top performers, and reward people that don't perform.
Software engineers aren't factory workers. They gain nothing by getting unionized. They're skilled workers, and if they don't like the conditions they're working in, they can leave. If someone's working 60 hours a week on a regular basis, they're idiots for staying at that job. There are tons of jobs in the computer industry.
I've seen union corruption first hand. It's impossible to fire employees that aren't doing their job. Auto plants are renowned for this.
Take McCormick Place in Chicago. Complete union shop. If you go into there for a tradeshow, you literally can't move a computer or plug one in without a union guy charging you to do it. You can't bring in your own monitor from your car to use it. You can't connect it to your own computer. Union guy has to do it. If you do it, and they find out, they'll literally shut down the power to the whole floor until you give in. It's one of the reasons many computer trade shows don't go there any more.
The other argument is that it makes everything "fair" and "equal". Well, that's a cop-out too. Everyone in the software industry is NOT equal. Better performers should, and DO get the rewards for working hard. People that don't perform SHOULD NOT be rewarded, and AREN'T. Unions stop that from happening, all the the name of being "fair". That's a bullshit argument.
Bottom line, software folks are too smart to fall for all the lies that unions come up with, and thank goodness for that.
Thanks for putting that at the beginning of your posting, because it meant I could stop reading right there. It's like when the liberals on the Supreme Court said it was OK for local governments to make land grabs for "the good of the community", and people posted here that "WELLL.....they were appointed by blah blah blah, so they're not REAL liberals or Democrats".
Take some freaking personal responsibility and suck it up when your side does something stupid. If you don't like the guy on your side, vote him out of office.
Just sitting there and saying "Well, he's not REALLY a Democrat" just makes you look foolish.
If you'd actually had to deal with unions, you wouldn't be so gung-ho about it. You also wouldn't be living in the fantasy world where all the things you say would come to pass under a union.
When unions were first started in this country, they served a useful purpose. That has long since passed.
If you're not getting raises and bonuses, then you're in the wrong job...or you're not doing yours as well as others are.
If you read through the whole article to the end, they give a counter example of Boeing being more fair because of unions. Up until that point, I thought it was an article without an axe to grind. That thing was just a puff piece to show the "goodness of being unionized". Right there, I wrote off the whole article, since the writer has an agenda. It should have been an editorial, since that's what those are supposedly for.
The big problem with unionizing is that what happened to the other industries will happen to high tech.... I'm not talking about layoffs, strikes, or anything like that. I'm talking about people that don't do their job.
It'll be a WHOLE lot harder to get someone fired for goofing around. For those of you in the automotive industry, you know what I'm talking about. Down on the floor, you look at someone the wrong way, they file a report. You catch someone not doing their job, no hope firing them on the spot, because the union steps in, and that's it. It's become part of the culture there. Not everyone is that way, of course, but the slackers are taking advantage of the system.
Can you imagine if that happened in high tech? I mean, we all work with some goofballs, but at least there's a chance they'll get canned, or move on after low performance reviews.
With a union, there would be almost no hope for that.
Another thing is that while you would probably get a raise every year, there's much much less of a chance that working really hard on a great new idea for the company will land you that promotion, big raise and big bonus. Nope....You're unionized now fella. Gotta do what's good for the union. No promotion, big raise or big bonus for you! The union's taken care of everything. You get the same as everyone else in your grade scale. It's like the old Dilbert comic "I get paid the same, no matter what I do".
If there's one sure why to drive the industry into the ground, that'd be it.
I'm surprised you got modded up without substantiating your statements with even 1 fact.
Uh...have you actually READ/. before? This happens all the time.... You might not have noticed it before because the unsubstantiated statements were the ones that you agreed with....
Any browser number out there is misleading anyway, Firefox, IE, or otherwise. It's the number of users that matters.
Think of how many computers each person uses, and how many firefox initial installations that counts for. Then add the upgrades, which are sometimes new downloads.
They should just keep improving the browser, and let their work speak for itself. It's been working well so far.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm saying Al Gore is an idiot because of all the days he can highlight "Global Warming" he did it on the coldest day of the year. Pretty smart....yep, that Al Gore is a real brain trust. Understand, or did I use words that were too big for you?
R L&_udi=B6V6R-4JJGCC0-2&_coverDate=03%2F24%2F2006&_ alid=384954258&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_qd=1&_c di=5821&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1 &_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=59b54a6291e61ddd4124 69654bad6004#SECX14
Check this out:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleU
it was actually WARMER during the last interglacial period.
One scientific study that YOU happen to agree with doesn't prove squat.
Did that precious report in the original posting say anything about that? Nope. Not a thing. Real objective.
Pfft.. 79% of people think that McDonald's hamburgers are good too.
Percentages mean nothing. For years, the vast majority of doctors thought they knew what caused ulcers. One guy, ONE GUY, was laughed out of a conference for suggesting that ulcers could be caused by a bacteria.
Guess what? He was right. That's a standing fact. So, this whole "the majority is right" argument is complete crap. The majority thought that the world was flat at some point too.
Just saying over and over and over again that "we're right about global warming" doesn't make it right, particularly when there are many scientists that don't agree, despite of "percentages".
Al Gore giving speeches on Global Warming on the coldest day of the year in New York a few years back. He looked like an idiot.
I think the implication of this are obvious. Let me be the first to say:
I, for one, welcome our Nickelodeon overlords.
The comical thing about this is that the first study showed it DID help people... Now that there's a study that says it DOESN'T, people come out of the woodwork to say "SEE? SEE? I TOLD YOU!" Where the heck were they when the first study came out?
Get a grip people.
It's Christian Scientist.
I'm not one, but I have to wonder, why is it so important to people to "convince" them of anything?
I keep hearing from people that we should just live, and let live. Why is it so important to some people that we let them be, but when it comes to others it so damn important to convince them that they're wrong....especially when it doesn't effect them in any way?
Mind your own damn business, people!
hellbent on creating some degree of facism
You know why this isn't true? Because if it were true, the liberals would be caving like a house of cards, just like they did when REAL facists started screaming about cartoons. "Oh, you don't want us to publish these? Sure! No problem!"
It amazes me that people will go off on these little fantasies about how things are 'facist" in this country, but when it comes to standing up to the real thing, they fold or try and ignore it.
Oh, please. Believing stuff stone cold single-sourced from Wiki? Not a good idea, my friend. Not a good idea.
Now, I'm the last guy that thinks drug companies are "nice guys" in the prices they charge, but in patent cases, I have to side with them.
They spend MILLIONS of dollars developing drugs. At least they have some right to patent what they created, because they actually created something. I'm not going into whether they SHOULD or not. That's what the law is right now, and it should probably be changed. I'm getting off track here.
Software companies with "patents" like these have spent little or no time "developing" anything. I mean..."One click"? "Buy It Now"? That's what you get when you have marketing people patenting things.
Geesh.
You're confusing individual copyright holders with the middlemen that some of them are tied to. Big difference.
Take comic strips for example. The vast majority of new comic strips (within the last 15 years), have artists that own their own copyrights. (That didn't used to be the case).
If you're saying the middle men don't add anything to the equation, well, that's wrong too. They do... it's just they don't add as much as they THINK they do.
Again, comic strips... The syndicates that 50% of the sale. The other 50% goes to the author.
Is that worth it? In this day and age on the web, hell no. In the past, when individual salesmen had to go around selling to each paper (and, yes, some still do that), then that's arguably with the "worth it" category, since that's how the newspaper business works.
Some of the copyright holders are corporations themselves, which paid the salaries of the folks that wrote the software for the months/years it took to write that software. If you're saying THAT'S unfair.... well....
As if there's not enough trouble already with identity fraud & getting Social Security numbers of folks.
What dingbat at the IRS thought this was a good idea?
You know, one side effect of this is that it might accelerate the Flat Tax.
And a bunch of low level grunts complaining about those in charge. ;-)
Unfortunately, this is merely a puff piece trying to gloss over the radicialization of Islam. Many of those folks ARE pieceful, but they're being lead by a bunch of lunatics that want to bomb everything in sight.
Oh, and they missed using Jets to bring down major buildings in New York. Although, to be fair, Tom Clancy came up with that idea earlier.
And they missed killing people for writing things they don't like (Rushdie) and drawing things they don't like (the recent editorial comic scare), but again, they didn't invent that either... they just revived it.
Sounds like the speeches I heard in San Francisco last time I was there. "You don't agree with us, therefore you're a idiot that doesn't deserve to live!" Yeah, everything's fine if you agree with them...but if you don't, look out..
What amazes me is that there's a HUGE meth problem that's growing in this country, and there's a minority of people that don't want to do anything to help cut this off at the source. I lived in two states that didn't have this law, and passed it within the last three years. The meth labs in those states have gone down dramatically.
This law is a good thing.
Heh....Stuff like that really undermines your argument. People that are concerned about meth didn't sit around and complain. They got the law passed. And it's a good thing too.
No one is chopping off hands or shooting suspects. You know, making analogies like that makes whatever point you're trying to make sound really, really stupid.
Signing for Sudafed is just like signing for prescriptions. No difference, except now it's harder for Meth heads to get their hands on it.
3rd paragraph:
"It in no way applies to reporters _ in any way, shape or form," said Mike Dawson, a senior policy adviser to DeWine, responding to an inquiry Friday afternoon. "If a technical fix is necessary, it will be made."
Move along.
Looks like the submitter of the article didn't read to the 3rd paragraph.
The company is stupid for not requiring backups. The guy's an idiot for using his position to start his own business, and using the company're property to do it. He screwed over all his co-workers by doing that, because it takes away from the company's viability.
/., so that's saying something.
I'm really surprised they actually needed the guy's laptop to support their position in all this, they should be able to prove it without that. Going after him because he deleted files is just a vindictive ploy after they realized they had no way of proving what he was doing.
Sounds like the guy AND the people at the company are both guilty of being freaking morons.
I mean really.... all of the sudden "Wipe"-like programs are going to be off corporate computer systems? Yeah, good luck with that. That's the stupidest damn thing I've read all day.... and I've been reading
And since you brought up Bush and Reagan.... What did Clinton do during his reign?
Oh, that's right.... The Dot Com bubble. No investigations into the MASSIVE corruption that was going on in the industry, only to leave place like Enron to be cleaned up during the next administration. If there's any blame to be had, lay it right at Clinton's feet, because that's where it belongs.
Your entire argument is so childlike, it's amazing.
The only people I've ever met that want unions are people that can't cut it in the industry. They don't perform, or they would rather complain about the "unfairness" of making big bucks in the software industry. Unions only penalize top performers, and reward people that don't perform.
Software engineers aren't factory workers. They gain nothing by getting unionized. They're skilled workers, and if they don't like the conditions they're working in, they can leave. If someone's working 60 hours a week on a regular basis, they're idiots for staying at that job. There are tons of jobs in the computer industry.
I've seen union corruption first hand. It's impossible to fire employees that aren't doing their job. Auto plants are renowned for this.
Take McCormick Place in Chicago. Complete union shop. If you go into there for a tradeshow, you literally can't move a computer or plug one in without a union guy charging you to do it. You can't bring in your own monitor from your car to use it. You can't connect it to your own computer. Union guy has to do it. If you do it, and they find out, they'll literally shut down the power to the whole floor until you give in. It's one of the reasons many computer trade shows don't go there any more.
The other argument is that it makes everything "fair" and "equal". Well, that's a cop-out too. Everyone in the software industry is NOT equal. Better performers should, and DO get the rewards for working hard. People that don't perform SHOULD NOT be rewarded, and AREN'T. Unions stop that from happening, all the the name of being "fair". That's a bullshit argument.
Bottom line, software folks are too smart to fall for all the lies that unions come up with, and thank goodness for that.
Thanks for putting that at the beginning of your posting, because it meant I could stop reading right there. It's like when the liberals on the Supreme Court said it was OK for local governments to make land grabs for "the good of the community", and people posted here that "WELLL.....they were appointed by blah blah blah, so they're not REAL liberals or Democrats".
Take some freaking personal responsibility and suck it up when your side does something stupid. If you don't like the guy on your side, vote him out of office.
Just sitting there and saying "Well, he's not REALLY a Democrat" just makes you look foolish.
If you'd actually had to deal with unions, you wouldn't be so gung-ho about it. You also wouldn't be living in the fantasy world where all the things you say would come to pass under a union.
When unions were first started in this country, they served a useful purpose. That has long since passed.
If you're not getting raises and bonuses, then you're in the wrong job...or you're not doing yours as well as others are.
And the best part of this is, he beat the Democrats TWICE! :-)
If you read through the whole article to the end, they give a counter example of Boeing being more fair because of unions. Up until that point, I thought it was an article without an axe to grind. That thing was just a puff piece to show the "goodness of being unionized". Right there, I wrote off the whole article, since the writer has an agenda. It should have been an editorial, since that's what those are supposedly for.
The big problem with unionizing is that what happened to the other industries will happen to high tech.... I'm not talking about layoffs, strikes, or anything like that. I'm talking about people that don't do their job.
It'll be a WHOLE lot harder to get someone fired for goofing around. For those of you in the automotive industry, you know what I'm talking about. Down on the floor, you look at someone the wrong way, they file a report. You catch someone not doing their job, no hope firing them on the spot, because the union steps in, and that's it. It's become part of the culture there. Not everyone is that way, of course, but the slackers are taking advantage of the system.
Can you imagine if that happened in high tech? I mean, we all work with some goofballs, but at least there's a chance they'll get canned, or move on after low performance reviews.
With a union, there would be almost no hope for that.
Another thing is that while you would probably get a raise every year, there's much much less of a chance that working really hard on a great new idea for the company will land you that promotion, big raise and big bonus. Nope....You're unionized now fella. Gotta do what's good for the union. No promotion, big raise or big bonus for you! The union's taken care of everything. You get the same as everyone else in your grade scale. It's like the old Dilbert comic "I get paid the same, no matter what I do".
If there's one sure why to drive the industry into the ground, that'd be it.
Uh...have you actually READ
Any browser number out there is misleading anyway, Firefox, IE, or otherwise. It's the number of users that matters.
Think of how many computers each person uses, and how many firefox initial installations that counts for. Then add the upgrades, which are sometimes new downloads.
They should just keep improving the browser, and let their work speak for itself. It's been working well so far.