Yeah, the interface is slow as fuck. It's especially terrible when there's more than one of you playing and you want to take turns doing the skiing or whatever. It needs at least a party mode or something, changing users is interminable.
I tried that and came to a strong conclusion: the cat lands on its feet and the toast is butter-side up. Regardless, I did not eat the toast afterwards.
Umm, have you been looking at gas prices, house prices, etc?
Gas, down from $4 to under $2, oil down to under $40, the property market deflating as people can't get the stupid mortgages anymore.
No, we are seeing "Market levels" come down, that is a different story.
Well, that's progress. Once upon a time computers cost millions, now everyone can afford one. Once upon a time, average programmers commanded six-figure salaries and options packages, now everyone can afford them.
No, we are seeing "Market levels" come down, that is a different story.
Maybe lower wages will make Americans stop their medical industry holding them to ransom.
Let me rephrase...the distribution problems are caused by governments or thugs with guns acting in the place of governments.
You either get one or the other. There's a thing called a 'power vacuum', and it's why libertarian dogma is pretty ridiculous and unworkable. If you have a small government, you'll just get a bigger something else.
But if your pay is lower, then prices will go down accordingly. If American workers see their wages come down to market levels, then no-one will be able to afford $14k health insurance, so tthat will come down to a reasonable price like in the rest of the developed world.
In other words, the United States (for all it's pluses and minuses) got Microsoft/Dell/etc going, why aren't they giving back to the United States?
You mean, other than the billions and billions of dollars they've generated for the American economy, as well as billions of taxes to fund America's wars and other projects?
Unless you mean that if a country is started in America, it is not allowed to hire any dirty foreign brown people. I thought we'd got past that xenophobic attitude.
As for Microsoft, or any employer, *all* H1Bs should be dispensed with *before* any american gets laid off.
That assumes that all workers are seamlessly interchangeable. Let's suppose you have 5,000 H1Bs doing complicated work on the kernel of Windows 7. Then you have 5,000 Americans inventing catchphrases for the talking paperclip. If MS decide to cut costs my abolishing the paperclip division, they can't move those workers over to the H1B work because they're just not qualified for it.
What do you mean? Land in America is dirt cheap. People don't grow fruit in their gardens because the industrial revolution means most people don't have to farm anymore.
What do you think will happen to the price of food when wages double? There's a reason that work doesn't pay much, the only reason Mexicans do it is because it's illegal to use trained monkeys.
And this, in a nut-shell, is why libertarianism is an absolutely boneheaded philosophy. Who cares if it works, 'they tuk urr freedommmm'... If you don't like taxes go and live on an abandoned oil rig somewhere with all the other troglodytes.
If there is room on the front page for eighty thousand articles about World of Warcraft, or Apple or Google, then there's room for the occasional article about something else.
I can't help but notice that you're completely overlooking the main difference, which is that the private sector can only pool money from those who choose voluntarily to participate, whereas the taxes which fund government projects are extracted from supporters and detractors alike. This is no trivial matter; refusing to address it undermines your entire case.
That's exactly the benefit of government funding, that private investors only want investments that provide instant, guaranteed big profits, and aren't willing to invest in long-term projects.
Another upside of government investment is that they can invest in things that benefit society as a whole, whereas private investors are only interested in investments that benefit themselves, personally. The tragedy of the commons sums up the failure of capitalism, and why socialism is so important. People working together for the benefit of all achieve more than people trying to better themselves even if it fucks over everyone.
The only reason to turn the project over to the government is to impose involuntary costs and/or regulations on those with a lesser degree of political influence, so that some can benefit at others' expense.
I can't remember the last time I saw a TV where you had to set the time yourself, nowadays they just get the time from the TV signal. The real reason TVs are inefficient, is not because of technical reasons, but simply that manufacturers and consumers don't give a shit. Of course those same consumers will be the first to moan about their electricity bill.
That would be taking responsibility. Instead blame the corporations and the government black helicopters for forcing you to buy things you might actually want and derive pleasure from.
The people who come up with these franchise cash-in games should be fired.
Alas, they went with the guaranteed seller that will no doubt create an impressive revenue spreadsheet, netting the project manager a bonus and a shot at doing another cash-in game next quarter.
They should be fired for making something that sells well and generates profit for their employer?
I don't really know who you are to say what games people should and shouldn't buy.
Why should they want to earn less money? It's their company and their money, and they can spend it on what they like. I'm sure whenever you own a company, you'll spend your life savings employing people you don't need, just out of the good of your heart.
People's spending before was based on credit and rising property prices. Now property is down, and the credit has dried up, people cannot spend at the levels they were spending before. The economy was over-inflated, it's merely returning to its natural level.
Plus you can't expect people to spend money when they don't know if they'll have a job next week.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, the interface is slow as fuck. It's especially terrible when there's more than one of you playing and you want to take turns doing the skiing or whatever. It needs at least a party mode or something, changing users is interminable.
I tried that and came to a strong conclusion: the cat lands on its feet and the toast is butter-side up. Regardless, I did not eat the toast afterwards.
Let's see:
1. Common sense
2. Understanding modern technology
3. Not trying to pass tyrannical legislation
4. Not sucking up to big business
This man won't last five minutes in this Labour government.
Gas, down from $4 to under $2, oil down to under $40, the property market deflating as people can't get the stupid mortgages anymore.
Well, that's progress. Once upon a time computers cost millions, now everyone can afford one. Once upon a time, average programmers commanded six-figure salaries and options packages, now everyone can afford them.
Maybe lower wages will make Americans stop their medical industry holding them to ransom.
You either get one or the other. There's a thing called a 'power vacuum', and it's why libertarian dogma is pretty ridiculous and unworkable. If you have a small government, you'll just get a bigger something else.
But if your pay is lower, then prices will go down accordingly. If American workers see their wages come down to market levels, then no-one will be able to afford $14k health insurance, so tthat will come down to a reasonable price like in the rest of the developed world.
You mean, other than the billions and billions of dollars they've generated for the American economy, as well as billions of taxes to fund America's wars and other projects?
Unless you mean that if a country is started in America, it is not allowed to hire any dirty foreign brown people. I thought we'd got past that xenophobic attitude.
The only fun parts are taking off and landing, everything in between is sheer tedium.
That assumes that all workers are seamlessly interchangeable. Let's suppose you have 5,000 H1Bs doing complicated work on the kernel of Windows 7. Then you have 5,000 Americans inventing catchphrases for the talking paperclip. If MS decide to cut costs my abolishing the paperclip division, they can't move those workers over to the H1B work because they're just not qualified for it.
What do you mean? Land in America is dirt cheap. People don't grow fruit in their gardens because the industrial revolution means most people don't have to farm anymore.
What do you think will happen to the price of food when wages double? There's a reason that work doesn't pay much, the only reason Mexicans do it is because it's illegal to use trained monkeys.
And this, in a nut-shell, is why libertarianism is an absolutely boneheaded philosophy. Who cares if it works, 'they tuk urr freedommmm'... If you don't like taxes go and live on an abandoned oil rig somewhere with all the other troglodytes.
Or that wikipedia is more people's first port of call for finding out what something is?
I'd be happy with a PC that doesn't still draw power even when turned off completely.
If there is room on the front page for eighty thousand articles about World of Warcraft, or Apple or Google, then there's room for the occasional article about something else.
Actually, it's the fault of retarded traders. I don't see why the SEC should step in to protect any sheep that walked off a cliff.
That's exactly the benefit of government funding, that private investors only want investments that provide instant, guaranteed big profits, and aren't willing to invest in long-term projects.
Another upside of government investment is that they can invest in things that benefit society as a whole, whereas private investors are only interested in investments that benefit themselves, personally. The tragedy of the commons sums up the failure of capitalism, and why socialism is so important. People working together for the benefit of all achieve more than people trying to better themselves even if it fucks over everyone.
Everyone benefits from reduced carbon emissions.
Even if they did tackle them, so what? If I wanted simplistic morality plays rammed down my throat I'd watch Star Trek: TNG.
I can't remember the last time I saw a TV where you had to set the time yourself, nowadays they just get the time from the TV signal. The real reason TVs are inefficient, is not because of technical reasons, but simply that manufacturers and consumers don't give a shit. Of course those same consumers will be the first to moan about their electricity bill.
That would be taking responsibility. Instead blame the corporations and the government black helicopters for forcing you to buy things you might actually want and derive pleasure from.
Who mentioned anything about file names?
That's not simulating Mars, it's simulating 18th century sailing.
They should be fired for making something that sells well and generates profit for their employer?
I don't really know who you are to say what games people should and shouldn't buy.
Why should they want to earn less money? It's their company and their money, and they can spend it on what they like. I'm sure whenever you own a company, you'll spend your life savings employing people you don't need, just out of the good of your heart.
People's spending before was based on credit and rising property prices. Now property is down, and the credit has dried up, people cannot spend at the levels they were spending before. The economy was over-inflated, it's merely returning to its natural level.
Plus you can't expect people to spend money when they don't know if they'll have a job next week.