For the record, I went to a private school and didn't have to say the pledge.
Unfortunately, yes we would still have this debate if Gee Dubya was not living in the White House. We have plenty of christian fundamentalists around without him. The problem is that they vote. Since they vote in reliable numbers, politicians feel they have to pander to them.
It is a shame really that so many people cannot see beyond their own back yard, so to speak. It's actually a symptom of exclusivist religion. If one believes that his religion has a monopoly on the Truth, as all the mainstream religions do, then any non-believers are automatically wrong. Since they are wrong, they can be pushed aside, ignored, ridiculed, killed, whatever. Because, you see, they are wrong. Tellingly, George W. Bush did put it best when he said, "I know what I believe. I will continue to articulate what I believe, and what I believe - I believe what I believe is right."
Don't get me started on Bush and God. Any leader who believes he has God's will behind him work will surely lead his people off a cliff. Bush is certainly doing this. Anyone who has God on his side cannot be wrong, almost by definition. A belief in one's own infallibility can only lead to ruin.
I get your point, and you are correct. Corporations have to make belt tightening decisions like any financial entity. I just bristle a bit when we apply the same cold calculus to a person's livelihood as we do to a can of food. This is why I added the anecdote about my previous employer. I would like to see some CEO's taking a pay cut before laying people off. I have heard of it happening, but it is rare. Or maybe the employee could be offered a pay cut. If it were done in good faith (i.e. without top management continuing to make millions) it might go over.
A can of food does not have a family to support. Though I agree with your assesment, I don't like to reduce people to producers or resources. I think it is detrimental to us as people and as a society. I have observed that business' overarching concern is to it's immediate bottom line and it bums me out. I guess thi si what makes me a damn liberal. Just my emotional $0.02.
LOL! I hear that it does stop at the Canadian border!;-P But seriously, this goes to one of the foundations of our society: behavior control through the threat of punishment. It is pervasive from child rearing to religion to social policy to foreign policy. We really want to believe that if we threaten someone enough, or hit them hard enough, that they will do as we want them to do. And in a limited way this does work. I do not go as fast as I would like to on the highway for fear of being caught. But, as soon as I think I am out of sight of John Law, I go as fast as I damn well please. So, we see the limit of this method.
It would be better to explain why a particular behavior is maladapted and does not serve the perpetrator or the victim (it disserves both, but this is not always obvious). This way people check their own behavior because they understand the real-world consequences their actions bring about, like creating a more violent or insecure society. But this is much more difficult and complicated. It also requires in depth analysis of the situation, which we, as a society, are not interested in by and large. So we will continue to threaten and punish and hope it works this time.
I think he was saying that they wouldn't have huge bay windows in Kansas because of the tornados. At least that's how I interpreted it. It made me cock my head too.
he was selling his labour at too high a price for what his employer could afford, exactly like the name brands are selling at too high a price for him to afford. The situations are exactly parallel.
Except that one is a can of food and the other is a person.
the recession is not Bush's fault, but Clinton's
This is debateable, and it is perhaps neither. But Bush hasn't done a whole lot to help. Giving more money to people who already have alot doesn't create better investment opportunities. And when companies get free money they just increase top management bonuses. Supply side economics is a myth. I was laid off about two years ago. I found a better job within a few months, so I was one of the lucky ones. But I must say that it was hard to believe that the company couldn't afford my $40,000 salary while the CEO was making $600,000 and had taken home $25 million in stock options the previous year. I understand that it is a matter of priorities, but don't tell me they have no choice.
I second Daveoj's sentiment. I know you said you have no IT budget, but there are IT outsourcing companies that are dying for your business. I am the sole admin for a 20 person satellite office and I have IT management companies calling all the time. They are not too expensive and can be bargained with these days. It sounds like it would be a big step up to just have someone come in for a day or two a month to keep an eye on things. If management balks, ask them how they would feel without health insurance. It's the same principle, and it's only a matter of time. Think no-one would want to hack you? If someone would hack my Quake server, they'll hack anything.
All that needs to be done here is for the HDD makers to make clear that the raw size of the disk is different than the formatted size, and that they cannot accurately tell you what size the disk will be once your computer is through having it's way with it. Just make clear that it is an approximation. "Individual results may vary."
Laws that follow morals are good things. Laws that "surrender to practicality" they way you would are flawed and hateful.
Whoa there! At risk of going off topic, are you sure you want laws based on morals? I know it's an age old question, but whose morals? Yours? Mine? George W.'s? John Ashcroft's?!? There are a select few things most of us can agree on from a moral standpoint (murder, rape, theft), but the vast majority of morality can have wild variation from person to person. I would much rather have my laws be practical than moral. If a law isn't practical, maybe it shouldn't be a law.
My $.02 on topic: Spam is a nuissance for most people. Stopping a nuissance is not worth giving up freedom for. Anonymity and spam is better than a lack of both. The spam blocker in my mail client (Mac mail) does a decent job.
I'll restate my point: for a nation that claims to place so much value in human life and personal liberty, we seem awfully intent on finding new and innovative ways of cleansing this planet of them both.
That's the irony of the US my friend. My favorite is how we constantly talk of peace, and yet have the strongest military in the world and, especially now, have little hesitation in using it. The technology in the article sounds like a useful tool. It's difficult to work for peace while preparing for war.
Microsoft recently released the Software Update Service for Windows 2000. You don't need AD to use it. You set a server on your network to grab the updates from M$ and it then updates your internal systems. It's a bare bones implementation, but at least you don't need to rely on users to patch systems. As you have seen, 100% compliance is impossible, and all you need is one hole... I am a SysAdmin in an all Windows shop; I keep my servers patched and my virus scanners up to date, and I haven't had a problem in the two years I have been in this position. It can be done.
I hear you. I am an amateur musician in a major metro as well. I have friends who have gone pro. You are correct to say that most actors are called waiters. My sister is trying to get into theater and it's difficult and alot of work. But why? Is it our "piracy" that causes this situation? No, it is the nature of the industry. The record and movie industries have been exploiting artists for decades. When sales were up, did we see the RIAA or MPAA members raise everyone's salaries? Did they pay artists more because business was good? No. I know, I know; the more CD's sold the more royalties go to the artists. The fact is that musicians regularly get short changed by their record companies, and have to sue for back royalties. The reason I have no sympathy for the RIAA or MPAA is that their arguement is disingenuous. Don't you think that they pay the people depicted in these ads as little as possible anyway? They screw actors and musicians regularly. This is Reaganomics in the entertainment industry, and I just don't buy it.
You see, the president has enough trouble sticking to the script he's been given. If you start introducing all these opposing viewpoints, you'll just confuse him. George likes his lines bold, and his contrasts stark. Can't have all these pesky constituants muddying the water!
Yes, I am also asking if it's worth the risk. It's certainly cool and all, but it's amazing to me what risks some people will take to do something just to do it. Best of luck to them tho'! They're gonna need it.
The dual 2.0 GHz will definitely be up there. It's not really a fair comparison though between a store bought PC and a custom built one. Any PC you build yourself will be cheaper than the same one from Dell or HP or whatever. Besides, the other major point is that you can't run OSX on your 2.8 GHz custom PC. You still gotta run Windows (Eeew!) or Linux (just fine, but not for the average home user). My main question is who's gonna buy my G4 933 so I can get a down payment on a G5!;-)
I must admit, I do not listen to AM talk. Though I do not need to to know that I would be happy if all of those people you mentioned fell off a cliff. Well, maybe Art Bell is okay...
This hits the nail on the head. I agree that the diversity in views on the news is the most essential thing that is being threatened here. I get alot of my news from the BBC and Al Jazeera (for crying out loud!). Especially when it comes to US foreign policy and relations. I just don't trust the major TV networks to present a complete picture. This is disappointing at best, and this legislation will not help. The article mentioned that the FCC's mail servers were brought to their knees by the email traffic, much of it opposed to further deregulation. If the FCC is really on the side of the public, why was this not given more credence?
Oh come on! Are you honestly saying that the only way to grow your business is to do a good job? Corporate malfeasance and dishonesty are all around us, yet these people continue to make money. You also assume that the only good programming is provided by large companies via syndication. What if the people in this little town like the programming Billy Bob provides? Our system of government is based on the idea (among others) that local control is important. What is good for New York may not be good for Denver. I know, you'll say that the programming will be tailored to the market, and to a certain extent it will. But if the same company owns a large portion of the local market, the locals have mostly that company's products to choose from.
I'm actually more concerned with the cross ownership of news outlets than entertainment. I don't listen to the radio all that much because I don't like alot of the music and they play the same stuff over and over. But a diversity of voices in the news is essential to an informed citizenry which is essential to an effective democracy. But when News Corp. can own two TV stations and newspapers in the same market, and has the advertizing budget to get most of the people to tune in and/or read, it can easily lead to a dearth of opposing viewpoints.
Actually, I think that is only part of the story. Another part of what people are concerned about is the diversity of opinion and taste in programming. This is about more than just giving people what they say they want. Diversity in programming is important because you don't know what you like until you try it! I didn't know I liked flamenco guitar untila friend played it for me. I may not know about a particular political theory until I happen to catch a news segement on it. It's fine to give people what they want, but we can also get to a point where we always want the same thing because we don't know what else is out there. In addition, speaking of the free market and all, we should also not be fooled into thinking that what makes money is necessarily good for society. What is on the radio is not actually a clear representation of what people want. It is a representation of what people have bought. That's not to say they don't like the music necessarily, but they might buy something different if given the chance. The chance is what is important. Lastly, I'm not sure it takes that much money to run a local radio station. Certainly is costs something, but that figure is much more when your CEO makes $2 million a year. Just to play on the/. milieu: 90% of computer users run Windows. Is that because of an informed decision, or a perceived lack of options?
Slashdot Mirror
WHOA!! C'mon man, I'm at work!
For the record, I went to a private school and didn't have to say the pledge.
Unfortunately, yes we would still have this debate if Gee Dubya was not living in the White House. We have plenty of christian fundamentalists around without him. The problem is that they vote. Since they vote in reliable numbers, politicians feel they have to pander to them.
It is a shame really that so many people cannot see beyond their own back yard, so to speak. It's actually a symptom of exclusivist religion. If one believes that his religion has a monopoly on the Truth, as all the mainstream religions do, then any non-believers are automatically wrong. Since they are wrong, they can be pushed aside, ignored, ridiculed, killed, whatever. Because, you see, they are wrong. Tellingly, George W. Bush did put it best when he said, "I know what I believe. I will continue to articulate what I believe, and what I believe - I believe what I believe is right."
Who can argue with that?
Don't get me started on Bush and God. Any leader who believes he has God's will behind him work will surely lead his people off a cliff. Bush is certainly doing this. Anyone who has God on his side cannot be wrong, almost by definition. A belief in one's own infallibility can only lead to ruin.
A can of food does not have a family to support. Though I agree with your assesment, I don't like to reduce people to producers or resources. I think it is detrimental to us as people and as a society. I have observed that business' overarching concern is to it's immediate bottom line and it bums me out. I guess thi si what makes me a damn liberal. Just my emotional $0.02.
It would be better to explain why a particular behavior is maladapted and does not serve the perpetrator or the victim (it disserves both, but this is not always obvious). This way people check their own behavior because they understand the real-world consequences their actions bring about, like creating a more violent or insecure society. But this is much more difficult and complicated. It also requires in depth analysis of the situation, which we, as a society, are not interested in by and large. So we will continue to threaten and punish and hope it works this time.
I think he was saying that they wouldn't have huge bay windows in Kansas because of the tornados. At least that's how I interpreted it. It made me cock my head too.
Except that one is a can of food and the other is a person.
the recession is not Bush's fault, but Clinton's
This is debateable, and it is perhaps neither. But Bush hasn't done a whole lot to help. Giving more money to people who already have alot doesn't create better investment opportunities. And when companies get free money they just increase top management bonuses. Supply side economics is a myth. I was laid off about two years ago. I found a better job within a few months, so I was one of the lucky ones. But I must say that it was hard to believe that the company couldn't afford my $40,000 salary while the CEO was making $600,000 and had taken home $25 million in stock options the previous year. I understand that it is a matter of priorities, but don't tell me they have no choice.
I second Daveoj's sentiment. I know you said you have no IT budget, but there are IT outsourcing companies that are dying for your business. I am the sole admin for a 20 person satellite office and I have IT management companies calling all the time. They are not too expensive and can be bargained with these days. It sounds like it would be a big step up to just have someone come in for a day or two a month to keep an eye on things. If management balks, ask them how they would feel without health insurance. It's the same principle, and it's only a matter of time. Think no-one would want to hack you? If someone would hack my Quake server, they'll hack anything.
All that needs to be done here is for the HDD makers to make clear that the raw size of the disk is different than the formatted size, and that they cannot accurately tell you what size the disk will be once your computer is through having it's way with it. Just make clear that it is an approximation. "Individual results may vary."
But dude!! Natalie Portman is hot! Wait... She's the one from the Fact of Life, right?
Good point James. Often, in the USA, we confuse the right to free speech with the right to be listened to (which we don't have).
Whoa there! At risk of going off topic, are you sure you want laws based on morals? I know it's an age old question, but whose morals? Yours? Mine? George W.'s? John Ashcroft's?!? There are a select few things most of us can agree on from a moral standpoint (murder, rape, theft), but the vast majority of morality can have wild variation from person to person. I would much rather have my laws be practical than moral. If a law isn't practical, maybe it shouldn't be a law.
My $.02 on topic: Spam is a nuissance for most people. Stopping a nuissance is not worth giving up freedom for. Anonymity and spam is better than a lack of both. The spam blocker in my mail client (Mac mail) does a decent job.
All the HTML I know I learned on Slashdot
That's the irony of the US my friend. My favorite is how we constantly talk of peace, and yet have the strongest military in the world and, especially now, have little hesitation in using it. The technology in the article sounds like a useful tool. It's difficult to work for peace while preparing for war.
Don't worry, they're both already run by criminals...
Microsoft recently released the Software Update Service for Windows 2000. You don't need AD to use it. You set a server on your network to grab the updates from M$ and it then updates your internal systems. It's a bare bones implementation, but at least you don't need to rely on users to patch systems. As you have seen, 100% compliance is impossible, and all you need is one hole... I am a SysAdmin in an all Windows shop; I keep my servers patched and my virus scanners up to date, and I haven't had a problem in the two years I have been in this position. It can be done.
I hear you. I am an amateur musician in a major metro as well. I have friends who have gone pro. You are correct to say that most actors are called waiters. My sister is trying to get into theater and it's difficult and alot of work. But why? Is it our "piracy" that causes this situation? No, it is the nature of the industry. The record and movie industries have been exploiting artists for decades. When sales were up, did we see the RIAA or MPAA members raise everyone's salaries? Did they pay artists more because business was good? No. I know, I know; the more CD's sold the more royalties go to the artists. The fact is that musicians regularly get short changed by their record companies, and have to sue for back royalties. The reason I have no sympathy for the RIAA or MPAA is that their arguement is disingenuous. Don't you think that they pay the people depicted in these ads as little as possible anyway? They screw actors and musicians regularly. This is Reaganomics in the entertainment industry, and I just don't buy it.
You see, the president has enough trouble sticking to the script he's been given. If you start introducing all these opposing viewpoints, you'll just confuse him. George likes his lines bold, and his contrasts stark. Can't have all these pesky constituants muddying the water!
Yes, I am also asking if it's worth the risk. It's certainly cool and all, but it's amazing to me what risks some people will take to do something just to do it. Best of luck to them tho'! They're gonna need it.
The dual 2.0 GHz will definitely be up there. It's not really a fair comparison though between a store bought PC and a custom built one. Any PC you build yourself will be cheaper than the same one from Dell or HP or whatever. Besides, the other major point is that you can't run OSX on your 2.8 GHz custom PC. You still gotta run Windows (Eeew!) or Linux (just fine, but not for the average home user). My main question is who's gonna buy my G4 933 so I can get a down payment on a G5! ;-)
I must admit, I do not listen to AM talk. Though I do not need to to know that I would be happy if all of those people you mentioned fell off a cliff. Well, maybe Art Bell is okay...
This hits the nail on the head. I agree that the diversity in views on the news is the most essential thing that is being threatened here. I get alot of my news from the BBC and Al Jazeera (for crying out loud!). Especially when it comes to US foreign policy and relations. I just don't trust the major TV networks to present a complete picture. This is disappointing at best, and this legislation will not help. The article mentioned that the FCC's mail servers were brought to their knees by the email traffic, much of it opposed to further deregulation. If the FCC is really on the side of the public, why was this not given more credence?
I'm actually more concerned with the cross ownership of news outlets than entertainment. I don't listen to the radio all that much because I don't like alot of the music and they play the same stuff over and over. But a diversity of voices in the news is essential to an informed citizenry which is essential to an effective democracy. But when News Corp. can own two TV stations and newspapers in the same market, and has the advertizing budget to get most of the people to tune in and/or read, it can easily lead to a dearth of opposing viewpoints.
Actually, I think that is only part of the story. Another part of what people are concerned about is the diversity of opinion and taste in programming. This is about more than just giving people what they say they want. Diversity in programming is important because you don't know what you like until you try it! I didn't know I liked flamenco guitar untila friend played it for me. I may not know about a particular political theory until I happen to catch a news segement on it. It's fine to give people what they want, but we can also get to a point where we always want the same thing because we don't know what else is out there. In addition, speaking of the free market and all, we should also not be fooled into thinking that what makes money is necessarily good for society. What is on the radio is not actually a clear representation of what people want. It is a representation of what people have bought. That's not to say they don't like the music necessarily, but they might buy something different if given the chance. The chance is what is important. Lastly, I'm not sure it takes that much money to run a local radio station. Certainly is costs something, but that figure is much more when your CEO makes $2 million a year. Just to play on the /. milieu: 90% of computer users run Windows. Is that because of an informed decision, or a perceived lack of options?
And those media outlets are being bought by Ma and Pa right? Or is Clearchannel the more likely buyer?
This is Al Gore isn't it? ;-)