You seem to be implying that under a communist workers would somehow be paid a fair wage. All historical evidence indicates that you're deluded.
I implied no such thing: There's actually only one completely non-exploitative labor arrangement I can think of, and that is the work the laborer does for themselves (cooking your own dinner, cleaning your own home, etc).
First thing - the Economic Policy Institute is clearly a political think tank rather than a pure research institution. Biased.
That it comes from a political think tank does not imply that it's wrong. That's the thing about research: the key question isn't "Who said it?" but "Are other people's results consistent with this result?" It's possible for an amateur working out of his backyard to be right, and possible for a respected electrochemist to be wrong.
These are their metrics: salary, rate of patent production, Ph.D. dissertation awards, alma mater university rank, employment in R&D
That's exactly what I would look at if I were trying to figure out sort the population of H1B visa holders between the immensely and uniquely talented scientists and engineers that have no viable replacements among US citizens versus poor schlubs churning out bad PHP or Java for $35-40K a year. What would you suggest looking at to make that determination instead?
Anyone who works for a company is an indentured servant. Do you really think companies pay you what you're worth? No. They pay you what they think they can get away with.
That's not indentured servitude, that's wage labor under capitalism. And yes, wage labor under capitalism is exploitative - you're being paid less than your contributions, but have some semblance of security of a bi-weekly paycheck.
First off, historically speaking indentured servants in the Virginia colony were routinely beaten, abused, starved, and often dead before their indenture was up. The primary differences between the indentured servants in Virginia and the slaves was that the servants were white and might eventually be freed. Once freed, indentured servants would usually try to settle west of the land that was already taken up by plantations and the like (fighting of American Indians to do so), and many of their descendants are still there in Appalachia.
So while not quite historically accurate, the use of the phrase "indentured servant" makes more sense for H1Bs than it does for citizens. Citizens are free to leave their employment at any time. H1Bs who leave their job also must leave the country. That threat allows employers to over-work H1B applicants and pay them less than they would citizens.
I do not see any Congressman voting for any measure that would limit his pay.
Congress cannot make any decisions about the pay of the current Congress, thanks to the 27th Amendment. That includes giving themselves a pay cut. The way the public punishes Congress for giving themselves a raise is to vote them out of office.
There's no obvious measure of "innovation", so there's no way to say which tech companies are the most "innovative". All the word "most" is is totally pointless speculation.
There are ways in which hardware OEMs are innovative. There are ways that OS vendors are innovative. There are ways that databases are innovative. There are ways that financial software are innovative. There are ways that game companies are innovative. I could keep going with every sector in "tech".
But it doesn't really matter, because "innovation" isn't really what helps users. What helps users is solving their problem, which is sometimes innovative and sometimes mind-numbingly dull. It isn't even what helps tech companies: What helps tech companies is enough hype to get the market's attention combined with solving their users' problems enough to keep the revenue flowing.
Not even remotely close to accurate. It spends approximately $3.8 trillion in total this year, and of that about $900 billion was originally going to be borrowed.
It's great to try to ensure all Americans have healthcare options available to them. But nobody has really tried, yet, to do anything about the massive (and constantly rising) COSTS of healthcare, which SOMEBODY gets the bill for, whether it's an uninsured individual or the insurance company covering that individual by govt. mandate.
Actually, RomneyObamaCare (I call it that because Obama basically took Mitt Romney's plan in Massachusetts and made it national) has various attempts to do just that, to curb the growth in medical costs, most notably in reducing spending on unnecessary procedures. It's unclear if they'll work, but we haven't even had a chance to find out yet.
The approach that was dismissed as unrealistically liberal, Medicare for All, did in fact mean that everyone would have had the benefit of Medicare's tough negotiating. It was a non-starter because the insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies, and hospitals all opposed that.
Microsoft's OEM stranglehold is so 1998. Now the Linux kernel is everywhere surely we now have a much stronger case against Balmer and his shills.
See, you're misunderstanding that: Microsoft made two mistakes that caused that lawsuit. The first was browser bundling. The second was failing to grease the right palms in Washington. They learned their lesson, began giving out the campaign donations, and all of a sudden the case went from seriously considering the breakup of the OS and application divisions to a settlement that amounted to a slap on the wrist.
My take is that we're probably going to end up with instructions on how to disable secure boot, but it may involve soldering or other physical modifications.
One of us misread the thread. I was following it like this:
We can talk about prosecuting Manning after Bush and Obama are in the Hague for war crimes.
What war crimes?
And hence answered that question.
As far as war crimes Manning exposed, the "Collateral Murder" video was of US troops directly firing on civilians who were attempting to rescue people who were wounded, which violates the Geneva Conventions in two ways: You can't legally shoot civilians, and you can't shoot people who are rescuing wounded.
And, how do you define speedy? He had 22 charges against him; that means the government had about 6 weeks to prepare to prosecute each of those charges. 6 weeks isn't a whole lot of time.
The point of the speedy trial clause is that the government is supposed to create a case against you, and then arrest you, rather than the other way around.
Dick Cheney is by far the easiest to go after: Torture of prisoners, specifically waterboarding, which the US declared a crime against humanity when the Japanese did it to our soldiers. Evidence: He announced that he'd done so on national television.
George W Bush: Probably torture as well. Aggression (attacking a country without reason to believe that country is attempting to attack you), which we killed several Germans for doing at Nuremberg. Ordering the bombing of civilian targets in Iraq.
Barack Obama: Ordering "double-tap" drone strikes, where a strike occurs, and 15-20 minutes later a second strike occurs that kills anyone who tried to save the wounded from the first strike. Ordering drone strikes on funerals, which is specifically prohibited.
The "different standards" in this case are UCMJ Article 10, which states: "When any person subject to this chapter is placed in arrest or confinement prior to trial, immediate steps shall be taken to inform him of the specific wrong of which he is accused and to try him or to dismiss the charges and release him."
The military justice system actually has a more stringent speedy trial standard than civilian law.
Could someone who knows more about military strategy explain to me for what purposes these kinds of planes are needed?
As far as I can tell, the goal is to be able to deal with the Russian and Chinese air forces if those countries chose to attack us. Of course, there are other ways of preventing those kinds of attacks, like diplomacy and trade, but we don't have time for cheap and sensible solutions!
Yeah, because what we really need in IT are more compliance checklists
Yes, we do, because it's abundantly clear that there are lots of IT organizations that can't meet the basic requirements of doing the job properly.
and more lawyers
Yes, to deal with the cases where IT organizations skimp or lie about meeting the requirements.
and more absolute rules
Yes, so they know when they're in compliance and when they aren't. For example, a rule that "No password may be stored in clear text." is quite absolute, and also appears to be quite necessary.
If it weren't a financial system that everyone in Australia is required by law to use, I'd be fine with the standards being looser, because then the damage would be less.
And how long will it be until extremists design and assemble a lethal and unstoppable virus this way and trigger a global epidemic that wipes out humanity in the name of Allah?
Al Qaida and their friends do not want the entire world to die, they want the entire world to live under Muslim religious law. A global epidemic doesn't help them reach their goals, because that would kill off good Muslims as much as anyone else.
In other words, they're fanatics, and not generally suicidal. They think more like Vo Nguyen Giap than like Dr Evil.
It sounds like we're operating from two completely different goals: My goal is to have a great operating system that's basically free and can run well on servers, desktops, laptops, phones, toasters, etc. Your goal seems to be extract as much revenue as possible from customers, advertisers, sponsors, etc for an organization that builds that operating system.
If your definition of "success" is defined by a quarterly earnings report, then yes, this will lead to Ubuntu's ultimate failure. If your definition of "success" is satisfied users, then the benefits of the Ubuntu project will last long after Canonical is consigned to the dustbin.
I don't have to concern myself with Ubuntu anymore. They've had their run, and have pretty clearly jumped the shark. And thankfully, because most of their work is on GPL'd code, we can abandon the organization entirely without losing any of the work that they did.
In other words, Mr Shuttleworth, so long and thanks for all the fish.
It did have something to do with iceberg detection. The ship responded as quickly as it could have once the iceberg was spotted, but the only way they had to do that was to have a couple of guys in the front watching for them, and they didn't see it until it was too late.
Ah yes: Heaven - where the police are British, the chefs are French, the lovers are Italian, the cars are made by the Germans, and it's organized by the Swiss. Hell - where the police are German, the chefs are British, the lovers are Swiss, the cars are made by the French, and it's organized by the Italians.
Slashdot Mirror
Blaming the John makes sense: Without demand, the rest of the supply chain dries up.
You seem to be implying that under a communist workers would somehow be paid a fair wage. All historical evidence indicates that you're deluded.
I implied no such thing: There's actually only one completely non-exploitative labor arrangement I can think of, and that is the work the laborer does for themselves (cooking your own dinner, cleaning your own home, etc).
First thing - the Economic Policy Institute is clearly a political think tank rather than a pure research institution. Biased.
That it comes from a political think tank does not imply that it's wrong. That's the thing about research: the key question isn't "Who said it?" but "Are other people's results consistent with this result?" It's possible for an amateur working out of his backyard to be right, and possible for a respected electrochemist to be wrong.
These are their metrics: salary, rate of patent production, Ph.D. dissertation awards, alma mater university rank, employment in R&D
That's exactly what I would look at if I were trying to figure out sort the population of H1B visa holders between the immensely and uniquely talented scientists and engineers that have no viable replacements among US citizens versus poor schlubs churning out bad PHP or Java for $35-40K a year. What would you suggest looking at to make that determination instead?
Anyone who works for a company is an indentured servant. Do you really think companies pay you what you're worth? No. They pay you what they think they can get away with.
That's not indentured servitude, that's wage labor under capitalism. And yes, wage labor under capitalism is exploitative - you're being paid less than your contributions, but have some semblance of security of a bi-weekly paycheck.
First off, historically speaking indentured servants in the Virginia colony were routinely beaten, abused, starved, and often dead before their indenture was up. The primary differences between the indentured servants in Virginia and the slaves was that the servants were white and might eventually be freed. Once freed, indentured servants would usually try to settle west of the land that was already taken up by plantations and the like (fighting of American Indians to do so), and many of their descendants are still there in Appalachia.
So while not quite historically accurate, the use of the phrase "indentured servant" makes more sense for H1Bs than it does for citizens. Citizens are free to leave their employment at any time. H1Bs who leave their job also must leave the country. That threat allows employers to over-work H1B applicants and pay them less than they would citizens.
If you can give me a decent selection of companies that curb executive compensation, I'll invest. Unfortunately, they're all doing it.
I believe you have that backwards: The problem is that nobody is curbing executive pay, not that they all are.
I do not see any Congressman voting for any measure that would limit his pay.
Congress cannot make any decisions about the pay of the current Congress, thanks to the 27th Amendment. That includes giving themselves a pay cut. The way the public punishes Congress for giving themselves a raise is to vote them out of office.
Old useless equipment + sledgehammer + $3 to take a few swings = money for charity
There's no obvious measure of "innovation", so there's no way to say which tech companies are the most "innovative". All the word "most" is is totally pointless speculation.
There are ways in which hardware OEMs are innovative. There are ways that OS vendors are innovative. There are ways that databases are innovative. There are ways that financial software are innovative. There are ways that game companies are innovative. I could keep going with every sector in "tech".
But it doesn't really matter, because "innovation" isn't really what helps users. What helps users is solving their problem, which is sometimes innovative and sometimes mind-numbingly dull. It isn't even what helps tech companies: What helps tech companies is enough hype to get the market's attention combined with solving their users' problems enough to keep the revenue flowing.
$13 TRILLION dollars a year in deficit spending
Not even remotely close to accurate. It spends approximately $3.8 trillion in total this year, and of that about $900 billion was originally going to be borrowed.
It's great to try to ensure all Americans have healthcare options available to them. But nobody has really tried, yet, to do anything about the massive (and constantly rising) COSTS of healthcare, which SOMEBODY gets the bill for, whether it's an uninsured individual or the insurance company covering that individual by govt. mandate.
Actually, RomneyObamaCare (I call it that because Obama basically took Mitt Romney's plan in Massachusetts and made it national) has various attempts to do just that, to curb the growth in medical costs, most notably in reducing spending on unnecessary procedures. It's unclear if they'll work, but we haven't even had a chance to find out yet.
The approach that was dismissed as unrealistically liberal, Medicare for All, did in fact mean that everyone would have had the benefit of Medicare's tough negotiating. It was a non-starter because the insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies, and hospitals all opposed that.
Microsoft's OEM stranglehold is so 1998. Now the Linux kernel is everywhere surely we now have a much stronger case against Balmer and his shills.
See, you're misunderstanding that: Microsoft made two mistakes that caused that lawsuit. The first was browser bundling. The second was failing to grease the right palms in Washington. They learned their lesson, began giving out the campaign donations, and all of a sudden the case went from seriously considering the breakup of the OS and application divisions to a settlement that amounted to a slap on the wrist.
My take is that we're probably going to end up with instructions on how to disable secure boot, but it may involve soldering or other physical modifications.
One of us misread the thread. I was following it like this:
We can talk about prosecuting Manning after Bush and Obama are in the Hague for war crimes.
What war crimes?
And hence answered that question.
As far as war crimes Manning exposed, the "Collateral Murder" video was of US troops directly firing on civilians who were attempting to rescue people who were wounded, which violates the Geneva Conventions in two ways: You can't legally shoot civilians, and you can't shoot people who are rescuing wounded.
And, how do you define speedy? He had 22 charges against him; that means the government had about 6 weeks to prepare to prosecute each of those charges. 6 weeks isn't a whole lot of time.
The point of the speedy trial clause is that the government is supposed to create a case against you, and then arrest you, rather than the other way around.
I'm sure many would think the crazy Austrian was the innovator there but most of his stuff he ripped off of Mussolini.
Both those guys ripped off Franco in Spain too.
What war crimes?
Dick Cheney is by far the easiest to go after: Torture of prisoners, specifically waterboarding, which the US declared a crime against humanity when the Japanese did it to our soldiers. Evidence: He announced that he'd done so on national television.
George W Bush: Probably torture as well. Aggression (attacking a country without reason to believe that country is attempting to attack you), which we killed several Germans for doing at Nuremberg. Ordering the bombing of civilian targets in Iraq.
Barack Obama: Ordering "double-tap" drone strikes, where a strike occurs, and 15-20 minutes later a second strike occurs that kills anyone who tried to save the wounded from the first strike. Ordering drone strikes on funerals, which is specifically prohibited.
The "different standards" in this case are UCMJ Article 10, which states:
"When any person subject to this chapter is placed in arrest or confinement prior to trial, immediate steps shall be taken to inform him of the specific wrong of which he is accused and to try him or to dismiss the charges and release him."
The military justice system actually has a more stringent speedy trial standard than civilian law.
"Lethargic"? Try "unconstitutional" or "illegal", per the Sixth Amendment:
"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial ..."
Could someone who knows more about military strategy explain to me for what purposes these kinds of planes are needed?
As far as I can tell, the goal is to be able to deal with the Russian and Chinese air forces if those countries chose to attack us. Of course, there are other ways of preventing those kinds of attacks, like diplomacy and trade, but we don't have time for cheap and sensible solutions!
Yeah, because what we really need in IT are more compliance checklists
Yes, we do, because it's abundantly clear that there are lots of IT organizations that can't meet the basic requirements of doing the job properly.
and more lawyers
Yes, to deal with the cases where IT organizations skimp or lie about meeting the requirements.
and more absolute rules
Yes, so they know when they're in compliance and when they aren't. For example, a rule that "No password may be stored in clear text." is quite absolute, and also appears to be quite necessary.
If it weren't a financial system that everyone in Australia is required by law to use, I'd be fine with the standards being looser, because then the damage would be less.
Alternate translation: "We don't care. We don't have to. We're the Cable Company."
You don't want a real mermaid: Let Shel Silverstein explain why.
And how long will it be until extremists design and assemble a lethal and unstoppable virus this way and trigger a global epidemic that wipes out humanity in the name of Allah?
Al Qaida and their friends do not want the entire world to die, they want the entire world to live under Muslim religious law. A global epidemic doesn't help them reach their goals, because that would kill off good Muslims as much as anyone else.
In other words, they're fanatics, and not generally suicidal. They think more like Vo Nguyen Giap than like Dr Evil.
It sounds like we're operating from two completely different goals: My goal is to have a great operating system that's basically free and can run well on servers, desktops, laptops, phones, toasters, etc. Your goal seems to be extract as much revenue as possible from customers, advertisers, sponsors, etc for an organization that builds that operating system.
If your definition of "success" is defined by a quarterly earnings report, then yes, this will lead to Ubuntu's ultimate failure. If your definition of "success" is satisfied users, then the benefits of the Ubuntu project will last long after Canonical is consigned to the dustbin.
I don't have to concern myself with Ubuntu anymore. They've had their run, and have pretty clearly jumped the shark. And thankfully, because most of their work is on GPL'd code, we can abandon the organization entirely without losing any of the work that they did.
In other words, Mr Shuttleworth, so long and thanks for all the fish.
It did have something to do with iceberg detection. The ship responded as quickly as it could have once the iceberg was spotted, but the only way they had to do that was to have a couple of guys in the front watching for them, and they didn't see it until it was too late.
Ah yes:
Heaven - where the police are British, the chefs are French, the lovers are Italian, the cars are made by the Germans, and it's organized by the Swiss.
Hell - where the police are German, the chefs are British, the lovers are Swiss, the cars are made by the French, and it's organized by the Italians.