No, I'm not saying that. What I'm saying is that I was not commenting at all on libraries in any of my posts because I haven't read the article yet. =)
That's not entirely a bad idea. I'm always a bit hesitant to require a company to provide something "for a resonable fee" because that is many times up to interpetation. But to require them to provide their database in a plain text format for a reasonable fee, but allow them to continue to provide the value added service of making it easily and quickly searchable seems fair. However, I think that if we are to demand electronic copies of case law, we should be looking to the government, not private corporations.
I don't think that this is a case of corporate welfare. Just because the company is using public data doesn't mean that they are gaining any benefits from the government that is exclusive to them. This data is publically available to everyone.
Why is it that so many proponents of OSS don't carry their philosophy over to free economic activity? Rather than complain about how Westlaw and Lexus Nexus should lower prices or give their information for free, why don't you start up your own searchable database? Why not get a group together to do so? That's how it works in capitalism folks.
If they truly are "gouging" us with prices, and the entire service could be offered considerably cheaper, then offer it yourself!
People don't understand that there was time, effort and money put into creating and maintaining these databases. The combination of an entitlement-oriented attitude and a lack of basic economic principles makes Slashdot seem like one big whine-fest sometimes.
The information is available to all with no cost (or whatever cost the government may charge), just not through these services. You are paying for convenience.
First, I like the idea of a gesture based back and forward button. I know I use those buttons often. However, they implented it using client-side Javascript code on the page, which seems strange. Also, they made the gesture a left-click and then a flick of the mouse either left or right. That also seems like a weird way to input the gesture. If you happen to be over a link when you left-clicked, it might follow through the link. I would rather see gesture only, or perhaps a right click and gesture.
It is a good idea though. I believe it says that Opera and a certain version of Netscape support it now.
Let me first say by saying I'm a big fan of Windows XP. I really love it.
However, there was an issue I had when I first installed it that bothered me a lot. When I first booted, I saw that there were a couple of programs running in the systray. Ok, fine, I'll see what they are and remove them if necessary. One of them was Windows Messenger. No problem, I'll just go into preferences and prevent it from loading on startup. Great! I reboot and it doesn't come up.
End of story? Of course not! I load Outlook Express and like magic, Windows Messenger loads. Huh? Time to search on Google and it seems that the Contacts Pane in Outlook uses Windows Messenger through DCOM to fill in information. Fine, there is a security policy you can set to completely disable Windows Messenger from running. Ok, I set that and now it can't run! I've won!
No, I haven't. Outlook Express now takes a good minute and a half or so to load. Because of the dependancy, it has to wait for a DCOM timeout or some other such nonsense. Back to Google. There is a registry hack that stops Outlook from trying to load Windows Messenger. Ok, after setting a group policy AND messing with the registry, I seem to have stopped Windows Messenger from both loading and messing up my system. (I think I heard later that there is actually a setting in Outlook Express to stop it from loading Windows Messenger and that the registry hack was just forcing that setting).
What if you want to completely remove it? Nope, it ain't under Windows Components to remove. Of course, with a registry hack, it's there and you can remove it. I didn't want to go that far because I'm sure in a year just about everyone will be using Windows Messenger because of Microsoft's behavior.
I have no problem with them bundling whatever they want but the user should be able to remove them or at least easily choose not to use them. Microsoft wants a bigger share of the IM market and it looks like they are going to resort to a rather anti-competative behavior to do so. I really like their operating systems, but sometimes the things they do really bother me.
I believe the code is up-up-down-down-left-right-left-right-B-A. Hitting start was just to start the game. Your code would probably work because the extra B-A-select-start wouldn't interfere with the code.
It's unbelievable the amount of ignorance that exists when it comes to the California energy crisis.
First, I would like some sort of explanation and proof that California's deficit is almost entirely to blame on the energy crisis? Is the fact that most states are experiencing deficits also do to the California energy crisis? Or, perhaps, it has something to do with the fact that our economy has slowed down. Or the fact that during the 90's the Californian State Government increased spending way past inflation.
Second, the "deregulation" scheme enacted by the legislature was hardly a joke. They did not setup anything even remotely recognizable as a free market system.
Third, GWB and FIRC ended up setting price controls.
Fourth, GW Bush was not and is no longer vested in energy corporations.
Do you wish for me to continue? I'm not some huge GWB or Republican drone or fan, I just hate seeing all the FUD that surrounds the entire energy issue.
We have a "clean" elections system here in Arizona thanks to the wisdom of the populace combined with the power of our direct vote on initiatives. I remember seeing a few Libertarian candidates accepting public money.
All I have to add is that, as a victim of identity theft, I disagree that credit reports are something we can control.
This I can understand, since I was the victim of identity theft a couple months ago around Christmas. Luckily, their information was slightly skewed on me so several places denied their applications, but they did succeed with a couple of cards. I'm working on clearing it up too.
I would assume though that when checking for employement, you can let the possible employer know about what happened. I'm sure most would be pretty reasonable about it.
Anyway, thanks for the discussion. My mind is not completely made up yet on the credit report thing but maybe sometime we can debate the drug test in a journal or something.:-)
You have very good points. You do want to make sure that have long-term investments over a long period of time. I didn't mean that you only want to be saving for a home and nothing else.
Thanks for the intelligent discussion. I'll definately take some of your advice to heart.
But we completely back to my original point. When you presume upon the future that you are going to be able to make the mortgage payments, you are putting yourself at risk for hurting your credit. Everyone on here is whining about how your credit can be our of your control because of job loss, people getting sick, etc., but really it's because people put themselves into debt into the first place that they can't get out of it once they are there.
Plus, you suggestion doesn't make much sense to me. If you are making the house payment, then you can't use that money to save now. My original proposition was to save/invest your house payment you would be making and then eventually you could purchase the house. You are saying to make the house payment and then put some extra money into investment to offset the cost of interest on your house payment. That would require that you have twice your house payment per month to do both things.
I apologize for making that accusation. You are correct in your assertion that as a society we've already made these kind of moral decisions in regards to hiring practices. But understand the difference between something one can't control: sex, age, race, etc and something someone can control like drug use and their credit history. That was really the point I am trying to make.
You moron, read the submission. It's a follow-up to the story posted. What is it about the desire of so many Slashdotter's to point out a story is a dupe?
Do us all a favor. Give back everything your parents gave you, give away everything you've ever bought on credit, quit your job, change your identity (and thus lose your education), and then tell me how easy it is to save.
It would be impossible to give away the work ethic, financial skills and the other intangible things my parents gave me. They sure didn't give me anything beyond that. No money for education, no money when I moved out, nothing. My family was quite "poor" financially growing up and they still are. However, saving was always something they could do. And it's something I can do, regardless of income. You see, there is a dirty little secret to saving vs. borrowing. If you can afford the credit card bill for that thing you watned to buy, then you can wait to buy that thing and instead save the money. You will end up having to save for a lot less time than you would end up paying because you are earning interest, not spending it. It's that simple.
I will repeat again, because I don't think it is clear enough: if you go into debt to purchase something because you can't afford the entire payment, but you can afford the monthly payments, put off making the purchase and instead save the money. Yes, there are some things that it might take a long time to save for, but it is possible with just about everything.
I know people who never had a mortgage, not because they were rich, but because they put off purchasing a home for 10 years to save for it instead. It is possible and you don't have to be "rich" to do it.
As for the argument over comparing drug use and credit, I completely agree with you. I don't think the two are comparable. However, I do think it is the employer's right to use whatever criteria they wish to decide when hiring someone. And I think that a credit report is very different from race, age, sex, etc. because you have some control over it.
We don't allow employers to ask about your age, religion, country of origin, or marital status, because these are irrelevancies used to discriminate. Drug screens and credit checks don't strike me as very different from those.
Yes, as a society we have said that those things that are out of your control, like age, race, gender, etc. should not be discriminated on. That's why it is illegal to discriminate based on those factors. However, it is perfectly within the right of an employer to choose whatever criteria he or she wishes when choosing an employee. If they think that your credit or drug use is relevant, they have that right to decide that. Just because you don't doesn't mean you have some right to force that belief upon them.
But society DOES require you to use credit, if you want an education, house, reliable car, or most utilities. And becasue of that, your credit rating should no more be of relevance to a non-financial job than you should be thrown into debtor's prison.
No, society does not require that of you at all. If you can't wait to save for an education, or save for a house, or save for a car, then do without them. It's an individual's problem if they are too compulsive to ever save for the things they want. Society DOES promote this sense of immediate self-gratification, but no where is this a requirement.
As for utilities, they will take a deposit if you have no or bad credit. This assures them that if you don't pay for a month (since you pay for the electricity AFTER you use it), they won't end up with the short end of the stick. I had to put deposits down on all sorts of things when I first started out on my own and had no problem with it. Eventually (usually after a year) they give it back once you've proved you are a reliable customer.
Problem: Some people don't make enough to live off of. Solution: Write a law that makes sure everyone makes at least $50K a year.
Problem: Not everyone has medical insurance. Solution: Write a law that makes sure all insurance companies cover everyone for free.
Problem: Not everyone can afford to own a car. Solution: Write a law to make sure the government buys everyone a car!
I'm guessing you see where I'm going with this. Whenever you mess with the law to try to make things "fair" you end up trampling on the rights of others. If I were a small business man, I should be able to require a credit check of the people I'm going to hire. I see no reason why that right should be taken away.
If someone has such a problem getting a job, do you think they should be standing on principle against a minor invasion of privacy and not get the job? The company can't do it without their permission, isn't that "fair" enough?
I simply told that them since the identity I was using when applying was stolen, I didn't think I should be held responsible for any bad credit on someone else's credit report.
Slashdot Mirror
No, I'm not saying that. What I'm saying is that I was not commenting at all on libraries in any of my posts because I haven't read the article yet. =)
That's not entirely a bad idea. I'm always a bit hesitant to require a company to provide something "for a resonable fee" because that is many times up to interpetation. But to require them to provide their database in a plain text format for a reasonable fee, but allow them to continue to provide the value added service of making it easily and quickly searchable seems fair. However, I think that if we are to demand electronic copies of case law, we should be looking to the government, not private corporations.
I don't think that this is a case of corporate welfare. Just because the company is using public data doesn't mean that they are gaining any benefits from the government that is exclusive to them. This data is publically available to everyone.
I'm sorry, I was not responding to the library's request, but to the people so far have posted and the submitter of the article.
Why is it that so many proponents of OSS don't carry their philosophy over to free economic activity? Rather than complain about how Westlaw and Lexus Nexus should lower prices or give their information for free, why don't you start up your own searchable database? Why not get a group together to do so? That's how it works in capitalism folks.
If they truly are "gouging" us with prices, and the entire service could be offered considerably cheaper, then offer it yourself!
I'm sure these three words strike absolute terror into the hearts of the owners of Lexus Nexus and WestLaw.
People don't understand that there was time, effort and money put into creating and maintaining these databases. The combination of an entitlement-oriented attitude and a lack of basic economic principles makes Slashdot seem like one big whine-fest sometimes.
The information is available to all with no cost (or whatever cost the government may charge), just not through these services. You are paying for convenience.
First, I like the idea of a gesture based back and forward button. I know I use those buttons often. However, they implented it using client-side Javascript code on the page, which seems strange. Also, they made the gesture a left-click and then a flick of the mouse either left or right. That also seems like a weird way to input the gesture. If you happen to be over a link when you left-clicked, it might follow through the link. I would rather see gesture only, or perhaps a right click and gesture.
It is a good idea though. I believe it says that Opera and a certain version of Netscape support it now.
Let me first say by saying I'm a big fan of Windows XP. I really love it.
However, there was an issue I had when I first installed it that bothered me a lot. When I first booted, I saw that there were a couple of programs running in the systray. Ok, fine, I'll see what they are and remove them if necessary. One of them was Windows Messenger. No problem, I'll just go into preferences and prevent it from loading on startup. Great! I reboot and it doesn't come up.
End of story? Of course not! I load Outlook Express and like magic, Windows Messenger loads. Huh? Time to search on Google and it seems that the Contacts Pane in Outlook uses Windows Messenger through DCOM to fill in information. Fine, there is a security policy you can set to completely disable Windows Messenger from running. Ok, I set that and now it can't run! I've won!
No, I haven't. Outlook Express now takes a good minute and a half or so to load. Because of the dependancy, it has to wait for a DCOM timeout or some other such nonsense. Back to Google. There is a registry hack that stops Outlook from trying to load Windows Messenger. Ok, after setting a group policy AND messing with the registry, I seem to have stopped Windows Messenger from both loading and messing up my system. (I think I heard later that there is actually a setting in Outlook Express to stop it from loading Windows Messenger and that the registry hack was just forcing that setting).
What if you want to completely remove it? Nope, it ain't under Windows Components to remove. Of course, with a registry hack, it's there and you can remove it. I didn't want to go that far because I'm sure in a year just about everyone will be using Windows Messenger because of Microsoft's behavior.
I have no problem with them bundling whatever they want but the user should be able to remove them or at least easily choose not to use them. Microsoft wants a bigger share of the IM market and it looks like they are going to resort to a rather anti-competative behavior to do so. I really like their operating systems, but sometimes the things they do really bother me.
I posted a link to this story earlier in the day in my journal. Interestingly enough, it is titled "The New Convergence".
I believe the code is up-up-down-down-left-right-left-right-B-A. Hitting start was just to start the game. Your code would probably work because the extra B-A-select-start wouldn't interfere with the code.
In that sentence, I did not and I no longer will contradict myself.
It's unbelievable the amount of ignorance that exists when it comes to the California energy crisis.
First, I would like some sort of explanation and proof that California's deficit is almost entirely to blame on the energy crisis? Is the fact that most states are experiencing deficits also do to the California energy crisis? Or, perhaps, it has something to do with the fact that our economy has slowed down. Or the fact that during the 90's the Californian State Government increased spending way past inflation.
Second, the "deregulation" scheme enacted by the legislature was hardly a joke. They did not setup anything even remotely recognizable as a free market system.
Third, GWB and FIRC ended up setting price controls.
Fourth, GW Bush was not and is no longer vested in energy corporations.
Do you wish for me to continue? I'm not some huge GWB or Republican drone or fan, I just hate seeing all the FUD that surrounds the entire energy issue.
We have a "clean" elections system here in Arizona thanks to the wisdom of the populace combined with the power of our direct vote on initiatives. I remember seeing a few Libertarian candidates accepting public money.
All I have to add is that, as a victim of identity theft, I disagree that credit reports are something we can control.
This I can understand, since I was the victim of identity theft a couple months ago around Christmas. Luckily, their information was slightly skewed on me so several places denied their applications, but they did succeed with a couple of cards. I'm working on clearing it up too.
I would assume though that when checking for employement, you can let the possible employer know about what happened. I'm sure most would be pretty reasonable about it.
Anyway, thanks for the discussion. My mind is not completely made up yet on the credit report thing but maybe sometime we can debate the drug test in a journal or something. :-)
It's $119 now? *sigh*
I convinced my wife after the $50 price drop to $150 that it would not go lower any time soon. I should have listened to her..
Oh, and I just bought SSMB like a month ago for $50 and now I see it's going to drop to $30. Why, God, why?
You have very good points. You do want to make sure that have long-term investments over a long period of time. I didn't mean that you only want to be saving for a home and nothing else.
Thanks for the intelligent discussion. I'll definately take some of your advice to heart.
But we completely back to my original point. When you presume upon the future that you are going to be able to make the mortgage payments, you are putting yourself at risk for hurting your credit. Everyone on here is whining about how your credit can be our of your control because of job loss, people getting sick, etc., but really it's because people put themselves into debt into the first place that they can't get out of it once they are there.
Plus, you suggestion doesn't make much sense to me. If you are making the house payment, then you can't use that money to save now. My original proposition was to save/invest your house payment you would be making and then eventually you could purchase the house. You are saying to make the house payment and then put some extra money into investment to offset the cost of interest on your house payment. That would require that you have twice your house payment per month to do both things.
I apologize for making that accusation. You are correct in your assertion that as a society we've already made these kind of moral decisions in regards to hiring practices. But understand the difference between something one can't control: sex, age, race, etc and something someone can control like drug use and their credit history. That was really the point I am trying to make.
You moron, read the submission. It's a follow-up to the story posted. What is it about the desire of so many Slashdotter's to point out a story is a dupe?
It would be impossible to give away the work ethic, financial skills and the other intangible things my parents gave me. They sure didn't give me anything beyond that. No money for education, no money when I moved out, nothing. My family was quite "poor" financially growing up and they still are. However, saving was always something they could do. And it's something I can do, regardless of income. You see, there is a dirty little secret to saving vs. borrowing. If you can afford the credit card bill for that thing you watned to buy, then you can wait to buy that thing and instead save the money. You will end up having to save for a lot less time than you would end up paying because you are earning interest, not spending it. It's that simple.
I will repeat again, because I don't think it is clear enough: if you go into debt to purchase something because you can't afford the entire payment, but you can afford the monthly payments, put off making the purchase and instead save the money. Yes, there are some things that it might take a long time to save for, but it is possible with just about everything.
I know people who never had a mortgage, not because they were rich, but because they put off purchasing a home for 10 years to save for it instead. It is possible and you don't have to be "rich" to do it.
As for the argument over comparing drug use and credit, I completely agree with you. I don't think the two are comparable. However, I do think it is the employer's right to use whatever criteria they wish to decide when hiring someone. And I think that a credit report is very different from race, age, sex, etc. because you have some control over it.
Yes, as a society we have said that those things that are out of your control, like age, race, gender, etc. should not be discriminated on. That's why it is illegal to discriminate based on those factors. However, it is perfectly within the right of an employer to choose whatever criteria he or she wishes when choosing an employee. If they think that your credit or drug use is relevant, they have that right to decide that. Just because you don't doesn't mean you have some right to force that belief upon them.
I'm getting so sick of this moronic attitude:
No, society does not require that of you at all. If you can't wait to save for an education, or save for a house, or save for a car, then do without them. It's an individual's problem if they are too compulsive to ever save for the things they want. Society DOES promote this sense of immediate self-gratification, but no where is this a requirement.
As for utilities, they will take a deposit if you have no or bad credit. This assures them that if you don't pay for a month (since you pay for the electricity AFTER you use it), they won't end up with the short end of the stick. I had to put deposits down on all sorts of things when I first started out on my own and had no problem with it. Eventually (usually after a year) they give it back once you've proved you are a reliable customer.
Problem: Some people don't make enough to live off of.
Solution: Write a law that makes sure everyone makes at least $50K a year.
Problem: Not everyone has medical insurance.
Solution: Write a law that makes sure all insurance companies cover everyone for free.
Problem: Not everyone can afford to own a car.
Solution: Write a law to make sure the government buys everyone a car!
I'm guessing you see where I'm going with this. Whenever you mess with the law to try to make things "fair" you end up trampling on the rights of others. If I were a small business man, I should be able to require a credit check of the people I'm going to hire. I see no reason why that right should be taken away.
If someone has such a problem getting a job, do you think they should be standing on principle against a minor invasion of privacy and not get the job? The company can't do it without their permission, isn't that "fair" enough?
I simply told that them since the identity I was using when applying was stolen, I didn't think I should be held responsible for any bad credit on someone else's credit report.
I love that episode!
Word
Dude, we gotta get going, our clothes are getting out of style.