What's wrong with that part of the decision? You can't expect to use a "public" computer AND have complete privacy. You want privacy, do it in your own home.
Your PC's power supply regulator is a lot more advanced than what you're going to get using those chips. I have a huge 12v powersupply that was used to power automotive equiment that had no fan whatsoever. I'm sure it got hot, but since it was never located anywhere near the items it was powering, no fan was necessary. If you come up with a PC case with an external power supply, I'd bet the power supply wouldn't need a fan at all.
In Western societies, decisions are made on the basis of input from those involved.
Wait...that sounds like a GOOD thing? GASP! You mean there's a tech article that points out a GOOD aspect of american society?! Excuse me while I wait for the end of the world to come in 5...4...3...2...1...
I watched "The Apprentice" and have found out the secret to success: "Show some skin and you can accomplish anything." However, it doesn't work too well if you're a guy.
No, but they'll find something else to charge you with. Remember the police in the Rodney King trial? They were innocent, but were tried in Federal court under different charges. Of course, then their's a civil trial where the burden of proof is less. So even if you are found innocent, you can still be sued for millions.
You should have asked to see a manager. Most big chains give a big discount on items that ring up wrong due to such an error. It's a pervasive store policy that most people don't even know exists.
Use Proxomitron and you can make your blocking (or bypassing) site-specific, or even page specific. Best of all, you can use it with any browser since it works as a proxy server on localhost.
Just because it's Google doesn't mean it's going to be good. Froogle hasn't impressed me at all. Dealing with Usenet used to be much better under Dejanews. Unless they can offer better spam filters that Yahoo, I'm not switching.
The "standards" for accessibility does not mean the same thing as "lynx compatible." For example, image alt tags don't help visually impaired folk that use text-to-speech converters. Conversely, tables can contain information that can be useful to visually impaired people, but have no benefits to lynx users.
I was working for the New York Transit Authority back when a fellow by the name of Red Balaklava claimed he would reveal "secrets" about the MetroCard system. I got sent as an "undercover agent" along with a few people from the contractor that produced all the MetroCard equipment. It was a big waste of time. Nothing was revealed other than a talk about how doors were designed on token booths and how it's a safety issue. As a matter of fact, he advised people at the conference that trying to hack the system to save a $1.50 (the fare at the time), is a waste of time.
I had to sit through other equally useless presentations, like how html code needs to be designed so it's compatible in lynx in order for libraries and poor people who can only afford 386 computers can surf the Internet. (I shit you not!) What I learned from the HOPE conference is that most "hackers" (if we can agree these were hackers) are paranoid and generally misinformed about a great many things. The successful ones are those that had access to equipment and inside information. This Red Balaklava guy was a token booth clerk in disguise (our security people recognized him under his ridiculous mask). However, he had no real knowledge of how the system worked other than what he gleaned from the patent office's description and his own speculation...which was inaccurate to say the least.
The word "objectively" is an adverb. You can say, "We must look at the facts objectively whether or not McDonald's hamburgers are good," but the statement, "McDonalds' hamburgers are objectively good" doesn't even make sense. Don't make up new meanings to words.
Then it sounds like you're saying that McDonald's hamburgers are objectively good. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this a rather outrageous statement?
That's exactly what I am saying. Therefore, I shall correct you: You are wrong.
If what you are really saying is that a lot of people are having a common
subjective experience that McDonalds' hamburgers are good, then you still
haven't described objective reality - you've just described a subjective reality
about which a lot of individual observers happen to agree.
To say that "since the majority of people who try McDonald's hamburgers
like them, then everyone should" is not a fair statement. To say
that, "since the majority of people who try McDonald's hamburgers like
them, then the possibility you will like them too, is very good."
That's an objective statement bore out of concrete facts.
That is, you are not disagreeing that the experience of McDonalds hamburgers
is subjective. You're just collecting data on how many people have one
experience, and how many have another. Which is certainly interesting, but
basically irrelevent to the discussion at hand.
You just summarized my point and repeated it, and then came to a conclusion
without any analysis. Sounds like you fit the profile of a
"deconstructionist" perfectly.
Not regarding the quote you attributed. That was referring to the fact
that "Other market forces have an effect on price, too." I
probably should have used a line break.
The point is, they *are* going to drop the price because the market for DVD
players is close to being perfectly competitive. How do you think they got this
cheap to begin with???
No shit. The difference is that with DVD players is that the components to
build them was extremely low for all parties, it was the Chinese companies that
decided to cut their margins and blow the Japanese makers out of the
market. The high prices were artificial. It wasn't like some
component maker in India said, "Hey, I call sell you electronics for 80%
less." and the Chinese took advantage of it. To extend this to you
latter comment, "It's just like finding a cheaper supplier for a DVD
player's laser, eventually, everyone will be using the cheaper
supplier." If every DVD manufacturer stopped buying their parts from
China and started buying them from another country, you don't think that's going
to negatively affect the Chinese electronics industry?
Company A can't keep it's workers on American salaries because Companies B
and C move theirs to India.
-------
Why would Company A *want* to keep its workers on American salaries? They should
do whatever it takes to maximize production and minimize costs. That's their
role in society.
Company A, B and C would sell their workers' souls to the devil if they thought it
would improve their stock price. So what? It's the employees that
are the ones who are going to suffer. That's what were talking
about. If Company A *can't* be employee friendly even if it *wanted* to
due to the huge disparity in salary.
Therefore, we need to modify the rules so the imbalance is kept in check.
-------
No we don't. The rules of capitalism are working just fine. A competitive market
is a self-correcting system. If companies find that the quality loss from
sending work to India costs more than they save by doing so, they'll move back
until an equilibrium is established. The last thing we need is more
protectionist crap. Economists even have a theory for why the public will
continue to eat up protectionism, even though it hurts the economy in the long
run.
It's not a self-correcting system. There's no rubberband effect that will
magically restore automobile production in Detroit like it was thirty years
ago. The only effect is what happened to Japan when they started to
benefit from the gains they made from selling cheap cars...other countries
undercut them and their economy has suffered because of it.
Protecting cheap labor from exiting the USA is dumb. There's no real return
on your investment. Protecting hi-tech jobs is smart.
-------
That's a really dumb distinction. The labor market consists of a range of
skills. A web scripting person might consider a factory worker to be unskilled
labor, while a physicist considers a web scripting person to be unskilled labor.
Where do we draw the line? We don't! Because there is no economic advantage, to
us, to protect jobs that other people can do better.
If you honestly can't see the difference between losing jobs that anyone can do
vs. losing jobs that bring growth to the economy (like technology), then your
sig fits you aptly.
However, most of what is interesting in the world is subjective. Is this a nice GUI? Subjective. Is this art good? Subjective. Is this food yummy? Subjective. Is this food good for me? Most likely subjective, unless it contains things that are poisonous to all humans, or contains no nutrients. I thrive on a vegetarian diet, and my wife is allergic to tofu (well, soy). Ultimately, food will kill you.
When examined in a microcosm, yes it's entirely subjective. However, when you pull back and look at these kinds of questions quantitatively, and the answer does reveal itself. You personally may not like McDonalds hamburgers, but somebody must think so, otherwise they would sell so many of them. Quantitative results also open the possibility of "fuzzy" answers like "mostly" and "a little" rather than a profound "yes" or "no."
If the entire market moves in a single direction (e.g., moving jobs to India), the effects on the marketplace between that and the effects of a monopoly are the same: no competition. Company A can't keep it's workers on American salaries because Companies B and C move theirs to India. There's no way Company A can compete if those are the "rules" of the game. Therefore, we need to modify the rules so the imbalance is kept in check. Protecting cheap labor from exiting the USA is dumb. There's no real return on your investment. Protecting hi-tech jobs is smart. It gives you an advantage in the global marketplace. It would be better to accomplish that with "carrots" instead of "sticks", but our options are pretty limited in this case.
Neoprotectionist policies help a few people out in the short run, but hurt everyone in the long run by imposing unnecessary costs on products.
Not necessarily. If a company sells a product for $100 and costs them $50 to make it, they're not going to drop the price if it suddenly only costs them $25 to produce. Other market forces have an effect on price, too. Look at DVD players. Why are they so cheap compared to other kinds of electronics? Because of demand for an inexpensive product and the lack of a monopoly on the technology. Don't forget, it's nobody's God given right to make a certain percentage of profit, either.
In order for a global economy to work, the trade between countries needs to be mutually beneficial. I'm not saying it needs to be a zero sum game, but when you're moving "good" jobs out your country and get nothing in return, it doesn't take a genius to see that something must be done. What about the low paying jobs lost to Mexico and China? Nobody really cares about those jobs.
This isn't a situation like the Industrial revolution where low skill operations were phased out of existance. We're talking about a brain drain. This is going to affect us many years later. Trouble is that everyone's so damn myopic about the effects, that if the government doesn't step in, we're going to low-bid ourselves right into a recession.
Slashdot Mirror
Do some research. The decision had EVERYTHING to do with it.
Thus we have the age old "right to privacy" that is not explicitly stated anywhere in the consititution, but is implied as per Roe vs. Wade.
What's wrong with that part of the decision? You can't expect to use a "public" computer AND have complete privacy. You want privacy, do it in your own home.
Your PC's power supply regulator is a lot more advanced than what you're going to get using those chips. I have a huge 12v powersupply that was used to power automotive equiment that had no fan whatsoever. I'm sure it got hot, but since it was never located anywhere near the items it was powering, no fan was necessary. If you come up with a PC case with an external power supply, I'd bet the power supply wouldn't need a fan at all.
In Western societies, decisions are made on the basis of input from those involved.
Wait...that sounds like a GOOD thing? GASP! You mean there's a tech article that points out a GOOD aspect of american society?! Excuse me while I wait for the end of the world to come in 5...4...3...2...1...
I watched "The Apprentice" and have found out the secret to success: "Show some skin and you can accomplish anything." However, it doesn't work too well if you're a guy.
You're doing the same thing as Google's News section? How do you expect to make money?
No, but they'll find something else to charge you with. Remember the police in the Rodney King trial? They were innocent, but were tried in Federal court under different charges. Of course, then their's a civil trial where the burden of proof is less. So even if you are found innocent, you can still be sued for millions.
That's why Titanic must be the greatest movie of all time. *cough*
Even better... The RFID is going to be shielded inside the *tin foil* hat. Thus, we get them for free!
You should have asked to see a manager. Most big chains give a big discount on items that ring up wrong due to such an error. It's a pervasive store policy that most people don't even know exists.
Use Proxomitron and you can make your blocking (or bypassing) site-specific, or even page specific. Best of all, you can use it with any browser since it works as a proxy server on localhost.
Just because it's Google doesn't mean it's going to be good. Froogle hasn't impressed me at all. Dealing with Usenet used to be much better under Dejanews. Unless they can offer better spam filters that Yahoo, I'm not switching.
Are there torrents available? That way, they don't have to pay for the bandwidth, and I don't feel guilty not donating.
The "standards" for accessibility does not mean the same thing as "lynx compatible." For example, image alt tags don't help visually impaired folk that use text-to-speech converters. Conversely, tables can contain information that can be useful to visually impaired people, but have no benefits to lynx users.
I was working for the New York Transit Authority back when a fellow by the name of Red Balaklava claimed he would reveal "secrets" about the MetroCard system. I got sent as an "undercover agent" along with a few people from the contractor that produced all the MetroCard equipment. It was a big waste of time. Nothing was revealed other than a talk about how doors were designed on token booths and how it's a safety issue. As a matter of fact, he advised people at the conference that trying to hack the system to save a $1.50 (the fare at the time), is a waste of time.
I had to sit through other equally useless presentations, like how html code needs to be designed so it's compatible in lynx in order for libraries and poor people who can only afford 386 computers can surf the Internet. (I shit you not!) What I learned from the HOPE conference is that most "hackers" (if we can agree these were hackers) are paranoid and generally misinformed about a great many things. The successful ones are those that had access to equipment and inside information. This Red Balaklava guy was a token booth clerk in disguise (our security people recognized him under his ridiculous mask). However, he had no real knowledge of how the system worked other than what he gleaned from the patent office's description and his own speculation...which was inaccurate to say the least.
It is if you assume it's base 13.
So you have to convert from one lossy codec to another? Not much of a choice, then.
The word "objectively" is an adverb. You can say, "We must look at the facts objectively whether or not McDonald's hamburgers are good," but the statement, "McDonalds' hamburgers are objectively good" doesn't even make sense. Don't make up new meanings to words.
Then it sounds like you're saying that McDonald's hamburgers are objectively good. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this a rather outrageous statement?
That's exactly what I am saying. Therefore, I shall correct you: You are wrong.
If what you are really saying is that a lot of people are having a common subjective experience that McDonalds' hamburgers are good, then you still haven't described objective reality - you've just described a subjective reality about which a lot of individual observers happen to agree.
To say that "since the majority of people who try McDonald's hamburgers like them, then everyone should" is not a fair statement. To say that, "since the majority of people who try McDonald's hamburgers like them, then the possibility you will like them too, is very good." That's an objective statement bore out of concrete facts.
That is, you are not disagreeing that the experience of McDonalds hamburgers is subjective. You're just collecting data on how many people have one experience, and how many have another. Which is certainly interesting, but basically irrelevent to the discussion at hand.
You just summarized my point and repeated it, and then came to a conclusion without any analysis. Sounds like you fit the profile of a "deconstructionist" perfectly.
We were talking DVD players. I quote:
Not regarding the quote you attributed. That was referring to the fact that "Other market forces have an effect on price, too." I probably should have used a line break.
The point is, they *are* going to drop the price because the market for DVD players is close to being perfectly competitive. How do you think they got this cheap to begin with???
No shit. The difference is that with DVD players is that the components to build them was extremely low for all parties, it was the Chinese companies that decided to cut their margins and blow the Japanese makers out of the market. The high prices were artificial. It wasn't like some component maker in India said, "Hey, I call sell you electronics for 80% less." and the Chinese took advantage of it. To extend this to you latter comment, "It's just like finding a cheaper supplier for a DVD player's laser, eventually, everyone will be using the cheaper supplier." If every DVD manufacturer stopped buying their parts from China and started buying them from another country, you don't think that's going to negatively affect the Chinese electronics industry?
Company A can't keep it's workers on American salaries because Companies B and C move theirs to India.
-------
Why would Company A *want* to keep its workers on American salaries? They should do whatever it takes to maximize production and minimize costs. That's their role in society.
Company A, B and C would sell their workers' souls to the devil if they thought it would improve their stock price. So what? It's the employees that are the ones who are going to suffer. That's what were talking about. If Company A *can't* be employee friendly even if it *wanted* to due to the huge disparity in salary.
Therefore, we need to modify the rules so the imbalance is kept in check.
-------
No we don't. The rules of capitalism are working just fine. A competitive market is a self-correcting system. If companies find that the quality loss from sending work to India costs more than they save by doing so, they'll move back until an equilibrium is established. The last thing we need is more protectionist crap. Economists even have a theory for why the public will continue to eat up protectionism, even though it hurts the economy in the long run.
It's not a self-correcting system. There's no rubberband effect that will magically restore automobile production in Detroit like it was thirty years ago. The only effect is what happened to Japan when they started to benefit from the gains they made from selling cheap cars...other countries undercut them and their economy has suffered because of it.
Protecting cheap labor from exiting the USA is dumb. There's no real return on your investment. Protecting hi-tech jobs is smart.
-------
That's a really dumb distinction. The labor market consists of a range of skills. A web scripting person might consider a factory worker to be unskilled labor, while a physicist considers a web scripting person to be unskilled labor. Where do we draw the line? We don't! Because there is no economic advantage, to us, to protect jobs that other people can do better.
If you honestly can't see the difference between losing jobs that anyone can do vs. losing jobs that bring growth to the economy (like technology), then your sig fits you aptly.
However, most of what is interesting in the world is subjective. Is this a nice GUI? Subjective. Is this art good? Subjective. Is this food yummy? Subjective. Is this food good for me? Most likely subjective, unless it contains things that are poisonous to all humans, or contains no nutrients. I thrive on a vegetarian diet, and my wife is allergic to tofu (well, soy). Ultimately, food will kill you.
When examined in a microcosm, yes it's entirely subjective. However, when you pull back and look at these kinds of questions quantitatively, and the answer does reveal itself. You personally may not like McDonalds hamburgers, but somebody must think so, otherwise they would sell so many of them. Quantitative results also open the possibility of "fuzzy" answers like "mostly" and "a little" rather than a profound "yes" or "no."
If the entire market moves in a single direction (e.g., moving jobs to India), the effects on the marketplace between that and the effects of a monopoly are the same: no competition. Company A can't keep it's workers on American salaries because Companies B and C move theirs to India. There's no way Company A can compete if those are the "rules" of the game. Therefore, we need to modify the rules so the imbalance is kept in check. Protecting cheap labor from exiting the USA is dumb. There's no real return on your investment. Protecting hi-tech jobs is smart. It gives you an advantage in the global marketplace. It would be better to accomplish that with "carrots" instead of "sticks", but our options are pretty limited in this case.
Neoprotectionist policies help a few people out in the short run, but hurt everyone in the long run by imposing unnecessary costs on products.
Not necessarily. If a company sells a product for $100 and costs them $50 to make it, they're not going to drop the price if it suddenly only costs them $25 to produce. Other market forces have an effect on price, too. Look at DVD players. Why are they so cheap compared to other kinds of electronics? Because of demand for an inexpensive product and the lack of a monopoly on the technology. Don't forget, it's nobody's God given right to make a certain percentage of profit, either.
In order for a global economy to work, the trade between countries needs to be mutually beneficial. I'm not saying it needs to be a zero sum game, but when you're moving "good" jobs out your country and get nothing in return, it doesn't take a genius to see that something must be done. What about the low paying jobs lost to Mexico and China? Nobody really cares about those jobs.
This isn't a situation like the Industrial revolution where low skill operations were phased out of existance. We're talking about a brain drain. This is going to affect us many years later. Trouble is that everyone's so damn myopic about the effects, that if the government doesn't step in, we're going to low-bid ourselves right into a recession.