A more accurate statistic is total compensation, which includes the employer's share of health insurance and other such expenses. Total compensation is rising, although granted not at a terribly high rate.
Frankly I find it a little scary that our government now wants us to hand over our money to corperations and allow them to generate our retirement wealth.
Actually, they want to give you the *choice* of diverting some of your payroll taxes to a personal account that you would actually own, as opposed to the current system where you get nothing except a vague promise that the government will tax the hell out of future generations and maybe give you some of it.
The current administration almost seems like they would force us at gun point to hand over our money to the rich
Um, that's what the current SS system does. Warren Buffett receives welfare checks funded by regressive taxes on burger flippers.
But my view on investing is that it's a game for the rich. The rich benefit greatly in the game, while the poor really cant play the game to its fullest.
To its fullest, no. But dollar cost averaging with even a small periodic investment works surprisingly well. And a large percentage of the poor would be able to do that if they didn't have 15% of their income seized to perpetuate a vote-buying Ponzi scheme.
What's so wrong with full employment and preserving meaningful physical labour.
For starters, physical labor sucks. Do you really want to be a coal miner?
It's a conscious choice of choosing less speed, automation and wealth, so that people can be occupied and feel fulfilled with the little jobs they do and do well.
Wow. Please sign me up for the complete opposite of that. If my work isn't useful, I'd much rather be told that so I can find something else to do than be deceived into an inflated sense of self-worth. And I'm curious, at what point do you draw the line at which automation is prohibited? Shall we get rid of computers so we can restore secretarial pools?
That's what utopia is like
No, that's what your idea of utopia is like, and it appears to be a form of Marx's "workers paradise". In my utopia, essential products like food and shelter are virtually free, and people can do what they want to rather than being herded into make-work feel-good "jobs".
The value of a share is decided by how much you wish to pay for it. It's just a piece of paper with very little intrinsic value, or at least typically _much_ less actual value than its price. The actual price is a gambling and hype game that has _nothing_ to do with that real value of the assets behind it
Not really. The theoretical value of a stock is the expected present value of all future income streams, generally dividends plus the potential sale of the company. Certainly in the short term prices can diverge wildly from this theoretical value, but in the long term it mostly evens out. (The tech bubble is a perfect example of both). Look at companies like Microsoft, Intel, Apple, Dell, and Cicso: they're generally trading at between 20 and 40 times earnings, with "safe" companies like MSFT on the low side and companies with greater growth potential like AAPL on the high side. The market is more rational than you think.
All you need to do to get a date is to come across as a cocky, arrogant, rude asshole whenever you talk to women. I don't pretend to understand why, but women eat that shit up.
Millions of years of evolution. It makes you look like an alpha male who will lead the tribe and be able to provide well for her children. Sadly while I understand this effect I can't actually pull it off, ergo my presence on Slashdot on a Friday night.
46. The beheading and murder of United States Citizens in Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and other countries have been videotaped, converted to MPEG and other images for viewing on the public Internet through the use of OSS and Linux software and computer technology developed and purloined by Linux and OSS members and illegally exported from the United States.
This guy makes Darl look like the poster child for mental health.
Use Pacifist or extract it from the package directly with pax. It's a single.app bundle so there's no reason it should have an installer, but for some reason lots of Unix and Windows ports insist on using them.
Perhaps you should look at the number of jobs enabled by free software such as Apache, gcc, and Perl, and reconsider your statement. In the meantime please stop making conservatives look like idiots. We already have Santorum for that.
If you don't think the occupation and asset seizure is worth your career, your education, your reproductive organ's attachment to your nether regions, or your very life -- then you have no right to support this war, demand its continuation, or demand that OTHERS SERVE IN YOUR PLACE.
Who's demanding anything? The only ones who want to force anyone to serve are your friends in the Democratic party. Us free-market types believe in paying soldiers sufficiently well so that enough people will voluntarily sign up.
JOIN. Or oppose the war. You have no other options, Young Republicans.
Donate all your assets to the poor, or oppose welfare. That's an idiotic argument, but still better than yours, because people actually are forced to pay for welfare, while nobody is forced to serve in the military.
And I don't think you've noiticed, but free speech is a whole lot less free in the present USA. And it's that non-serving, lying, hypocritical, corrupt man who you call president who is the frontman for the guy who has made that repressive climate happen in the US.
I love self-negating arguments like this. The stormtroopers will no doubt be showing up at your door any minute.
And finally as for "provides excellent job skills for many": NO!. The military teaches yuou one thing: how to kill people.
Good grief. The military uses quite a bit of technology these days, and such technology very often has useful applications in other areas. You know, like the *Internet*.
You are essentially saying you should not pay these guys be cause they are trying to make some kind of profit (use loosely).
No. I'm saying they're not the victims you're trying to portray them as. They've chosen a business model that relies on customers doing something they have no legal (or in my view moral) requirement to do.
When a store has a loss-leader and you buy the product at a discoutn you are not taking advantage - you are paying their requested price.
And when I go to a website with ads I also pay their requested price of $0. In both cases the requested price is insufficient for them to profit, so they have to hope that I voluntarily engage in activities that are more beneficial to them (buyinging stuff with high markups, clicking on ads). In both cases I fail to see why I'm under any sort of obligation to do so.
The $8 covered their cost.
If it did, it wouldn't be a loss-leader. But to make it even more clear, consider the common "free after rebate" deals. Is it unethical to send the rebate form in? After all, that lets you get something for nothing.
A moral obligation is definitly in place - give something back to the people who provided you with a free service.
Why? They're not (typically) providing the service out of the goodness of their hearts; they're trying to maximize their gain, the same as I am. Consider my previous examples. Am I obligated to not pay off my credit card balance every month? Is it morally wrong to take advantage of a store's loss-leaders?
Soon they won't have to volunteer. Soon they will be drafted.
For the 84th time, there will not be a draft in the US, barring exceptional circumstances like an invasion of the mainland. First, the military doesn't want it. Second and probably more important, any politician who voted for a draft would be ending his career.
Just because you can do it, does not make you right.
It doesn't make it wrong either. There is no agreement between me and Slashdot or NBC that I will view their ads. Both of them supply the ads and *hope* that I will watch them. In the same way, my credit card company hopes I won't pay my balance in full, and Best Buy hopes I'll buy more than their loss-leader free-after-rebate spindle of CDs. But in no case does such a business model impose any obligation on me to do what they would prefer that I do.
Yes, but not by much. The Republicans don't have a large majority, so the "average" member (probably median would be more accurate) is still going to be close to the center.
Sounds like it's a.pkg, that's a file for the Macs built-in package management tool, similar to an.deb or an.rpm. A reasonable way to go about it - is still considered better to do a proper.app but if for some reason it's absolutely essential that the install spread files around the filesystem this is the way to do it
Yeah, although the silly thing is that the NeoOffice application *is* a single.app wrapper. There's no reason for it to be using an installer.
registers them all in the database for a clean uninstall.
Actually there's no built-in facility in OS X to do uninstalls. There should be, but it wouldn't be much of an issue if more developers would follow Apple's advice and use.app wrappers, which is almost always possible. (Apple itself is one of the largest offenders in this area).
One of these days I'll actually get the whole package downloaded, and then we'll see how it runs.;)
Pretty well so far, based on playing with it for 15 minutes. It's handled several complex Word and Excel files with no problems except for macros.
And if the only packages out there cost 1000+$ I would have easly sold what I wrote for say 5$ a copy so there would have been "cheep" web hosting solutions out there.
And when the guys selling the expensive packages would complain that you're devaluing the market, what would your response be? That's competition, right? Why is it ok for a competing product to be $5 but not $0?
With Pearl on the market there is not enough room left for somone to make cheep software that does about the same thing.
There is however lots of room for developers who *use* Perl to create custom solutions, which would not exist if it weren't free.
You'll note the suspicious lack of "Freedom of Speech".
Gosh, and it doesn't say anything about the freedom to eat chocolate either. It does however say "Liberty".
Something else to note is that the US Constitution went into effect in 1789. Yet the First Ammendment (the right to free speech) was not added until 1791!
Statist fallacy #43. Neither the Constitution nor the Bill of Rights grants rights to citizens. They grant powers to *government*, and in theory government can act only in accordance with those powers. Sadly, the delineation of certain specific rights had led many people to believe that they have *only* those rights, and government can do anything as long as it doesn't infringe them. Alexander Hamilton warned of this:
I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colourable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why for instance, should it be said, that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretence for claiming that power. (Alexander Hamilton, Federalist, no. 84, 575-581, 28 May 1788)
I guess I wasn't clear, but the US (government) shouldn't be telling other countries what to do when they have problems of their own to fix.
This is the enlightened multicultural version of "let he who is without sin cast the first stone". No government is or will ever be perfect, so your view amounts to forbidding criticism of any other government ever, and that's just silly. Yes, the US government sometimes violates the rights of its citizens, and yes, it's gotten worse after 9/11, but it is *nowhere near* as bad as tyrannies like China, Saudi Arabia, and North Korea.
Sorry but those who don't have their "fuck you" money are being hurt by Open Source software.
You are a troll or severely logic-impaired. Thought experiment: suppose Apache, gcc, and Perl never came into existence, and anybody who wanted set up a website had to pay thousands of dollars for the software just to get started. Would the demand for programmers be more or less?
The only SF author I know of who writes FTL stories and doesn't totally ignore what relativity says about the consequences of FTL is Charles Stross (see Singularity Sky).
Speaking of whom, check out his latest novel Accelerando, available free under a Creative Commons license. I'm about halfway through and am enjoying it quite a bit.
because they even migrated the ObjC collection classes (there was no need for this, really, they could have used the Java collection classes)
Possibly, but the WO collection classes do have advantages. For example, you can do 'personArray.valueForKey("name")' which will return an array created by calling the "name" method on every element of personArray. And as of WO 5.3 the collection classes implement the java.util.Collection interfaces, which I agree they should have done from the start.
ight now you can build WARs but I'll bet you dollars to donuts they will incorporate some Mac only framework (most likely coredata) into it by the time the next version comes out.
Unlikely; CoreData is Objective C and essentially a subset of WebObjects's EOF designed specifically for desktop apps.
Slashdot Mirror
And secondly, real incomes are falling
A more accurate statistic is total compensation, which includes the employer's share of health insurance and other such expenses. Total compensation is rising, although granted not at a terribly high rate.
Frankly I find it a little scary that our government now wants us to hand over our money to corperations and allow them to generate our retirement wealth.
Actually, they want to give you the *choice* of diverting some of your payroll taxes to a personal account that you would actually own, as opposed to the current system where you get nothing except a vague promise that the government will tax the hell out of future generations and maybe give you some of it.
The current administration almost seems like they would force us at gun point to hand over our money to the rich
Um, that's what the current SS system does. Warren Buffett receives welfare checks funded by regressive taxes on burger flippers.
But my view on investing is that it's a game for the rich. The rich benefit greatly in the game, while the poor really cant play the game to its fullest.
To its fullest, no. But dollar cost averaging with even a small periodic investment works surprisingly well. And a large percentage of the poor would be able to do that if they didn't have 15% of their income seized to perpetuate a vote-buying Ponzi scheme.
What's so wrong with full employment and preserving meaningful physical labour.
For starters, physical labor sucks. Do you really want to be a coal miner?
It's a conscious choice of choosing less speed, automation and wealth, so that people can be occupied and feel fulfilled with the little jobs they do and do well.
Wow. Please sign me up for the complete opposite of that. If my work isn't useful, I'd much rather be told that so I can find something else to do than be deceived into an inflated sense of self-worth. And I'm curious, at what point do you draw the line at which automation is prohibited? Shall we get rid of computers so we can restore secretarial pools?
That's what utopia is like
No, that's what your idea of utopia is like, and it appears to be a form of Marx's "workers paradise". In my utopia, essential products like food and shelter are virtually free, and people can do what they want to rather than being herded into make-work feel-good "jobs".
The value of a share is decided by how much you wish to pay for it. It's just a piece of paper with very little intrinsic value, or at least typically _much_ less actual value than its price. The actual price is a gambling and hype game that has _nothing_ to do with that real value of the assets behind it
Not really. The theoretical value of a stock is the expected present value of all future income streams, generally dividends plus the potential sale of the company. Certainly in the short term prices can diverge wildly from this theoretical value, but in the long term it mostly evens out. (The tech bubble is a perfect example of both). Look at companies like Microsoft, Intel, Apple, Dell, and Cicso: they're generally trading at between 20 and 40 times earnings, with "safe" companies like MSFT on the low side and companies with greater growth potential like AAPL on the high side. The market is more rational than you think.
All you need to do to get a date is to come across as a cocky, arrogant, rude asshole whenever you talk to women. I don't pretend to understand why, but women eat that shit up.
Millions of years of evolution. It makes you look like an alpha male who will lead the tribe and be able to provide well for her children. Sadly while I understand this effect I can't actually pull it off, ergo my presence on Slashdot on a Friday night.
Use Pacifist or extract it from the package directly with pax. It's a single .app bundle so there's no reason it should have an installer, but for some reason lots of Unix and Windows ports insist on using them.
Perhaps you should look at the number of jobs enabled by free software such as Apache, gcc, and Perl, and reconsider your statement. In the meantime please stop making conservatives look like idiots. We already have Santorum for that.
if you do not like any of their terms, leave the website and never return
Fine. Now show me where I agreed to view or click on the ads.
They have the ads in hope that you will view it, and sometimes click-through it.
And as I've said, their hope imposes no obligation on me. The seller of a free-after-rebate product hopes that I won't send the rebate in. So what?
If you don't think the occupation and asset seizure is worth your career, your education, your reproductive organ's attachment to your nether regions, or your very life -- then you have no right to support this war, demand its continuation, or demand that OTHERS SERVE IN YOUR PLACE.
Who's demanding anything? The only ones who want to force anyone to serve are your friends in the Democratic party. Us free-market types believe in paying soldiers sufficiently well so that enough people will voluntarily sign up.
JOIN. Or oppose the war. You have no other options, Young Republicans.
Donate all your assets to the poor, or oppose welfare. That's an idiotic argument, but still better than yours, because people actually are forced to pay for welfare, while nobody is forced to serve in the military.
And I don't think you've noiticed, but free speech is a whole lot less free in the present USA. And it's that non-serving, lying, hypocritical, corrupt man who you call president who is the frontman for the guy who has made that repressive climate happen in the US.
I love self-negating arguments like this. The stormtroopers will no doubt be showing up at your door any minute.
And finally as for "provides excellent job skills for many": NO!. The military teaches yuou one thing: how to kill people.
Good grief. The military uses quite a bit of technology these days, and such technology very often has useful applications in other areas. You know, like the *Internet*.
You are essentially saying you should not pay these guys be cause they are trying to make some kind of profit (use loosely).
No. I'm saying they're not the victims you're trying to portray them as. They've chosen a business model that relies on customers doing something they have no legal (or in my view moral) requirement to do.
When a store has a loss-leader and you buy the product at a discoutn you are not taking advantage - you are paying their requested price.
And when I go to a website with ads I also pay their requested price of $0. In both cases the requested price is insufficient for them to profit, so they have to hope that I voluntarily engage in activities that are more beneficial to them (buyinging stuff with high markups, clicking on ads). In both cases I fail to see why I'm under any sort of obligation to do so.
The $8 covered their cost.
If it did, it wouldn't be a loss-leader. But to make it even more clear, consider the common "free after rebate" deals. Is it unethical to send the rebate form in? After all, that lets you get something for nothing.
A moral obligation is definitly in place - give something back to the people who provided you with a free service.
Why? They're not (typically) providing the service out of the goodness of their hearts; they're trying to maximize their gain, the same as I am. Consider my previous examples. Am I obligated to not pay off my credit card balance every month? Is it morally wrong to take advantage of a store's loss-leaders?
Soon they won't have to volunteer. Soon they will be drafted.
For the 84th time, there will not be a draft in the US, barring exceptional circumstances like an invasion of the mainland. First, the military doesn't want it. Second and probably more important, any politician who voted for a draft would be ending his career.
Just because you can do it, does not make you right.
It doesn't make it wrong either. There is no agreement between me and Slashdot or NBC that I will view their ads. Both of them supply the ads and *hope* that I will watch them. In the same way, my credit card company hopes I won't pay my balance in full, and Best Buy hopes I'll buy more than their loss-leader free-after-rebate spindle of CDs. But in no case does such a business model impose any obligation on me to do what they would prefer that I do.
The average member of Congress is on the right.
Yes, but not by much. The Republicans don't have a large majority, so the "average" member (probably median would be more accurate) is still going to be close to the center.
Sounds like it's a .pkg, that's a file for the Macs built-in package management tool, similar to an .deb or an .rpm. A reasonable way to go about it - is still considered better to do a proper .app but if for some reason it's absolutely essential that the install spread files around the filesystem this is the way to do it
.app wrapper. There's no reason for it to be using an installer.
.app wrappers, which is almost always possible. (Apple itself is one of the largest offenders in this area).
;)
Yeah, although the silly thing is that the NeoOffice application *is* a single
registers them all in the database for a clean uninstall.
Actually there's no built-in facility in OS X to do uninstalls. There should be, but it wouldn't be much of an issue if more developers would follow Apple's advice and use
One of these days I'll actually get the whole package downloaded, and then we'll see how it runs.
Pretty well so far, based on playing with it for 15 minutes. It's handled several complex Word and Excel files with no problems except for macros.
And if the only packages out there cost 1000+$ I would have easly sold what I wrote for say 5$ a copy so there would have been "cheep" web hosting solutions out there.
And when the guys selling the expensive packages would complain that you're devaluing the market, what would your response be? That's competition, right? Why is it ok for a competing product to be $5 but not $0?
With Pearl on the market there is not enough room left for somone to make cheep software that does about the same thing.
There is however lots of room for developers who *use* Perl to create custom solutions, which would not exist if it weren't free.
Gosh, and it doesn't say anything about the freedom to eat chocolate either. It does however say "Liberty".
Something else to note is that the US Constitution went into effect in 1789. Yet the First Ammendment (the right to free speech) was not added until 1791!
Statist fallacy #43. Neither the Constitution nor the Bill of Rights grants rights to citizens. They grant powers to *government*, and in theory government can act only in accordance with those powers. Sadly, the delineation of certain specific rights had led many people to believe that they have *only* those rights, and government can do anything as long as it doesn't infringe them. Alexander Hamilton warned of this:
Sadly, he was correct.
I guess I wasn't clear, but the US (government) shouldn't be telling other countries what to do when they have problems of their own to fix.
This is the enlightened multicultural version of "let he who is without sin cast the first stone". No government is or will ever be perfect, so your view amounts to forbidding criticism of any other government ever, and that's just silly. Yes, the US government sometimes violates the rights of its citizens, and yes, it's gotten worse after 9/11, but it is *nowhere near* as bad as tyrannies like China, Saudi Arabia, and North Korea.
Sorry but those who don't have their "fuck you" money are being hurt by Open Source software.
You are a troll or severely logic-impaired. Thought experiment: suppose Apache, gcc, and Perl never came into existence, and anybody who wanted set up a website had to pay thousands of dollars for the software just to get started. Would the demand for programmers be more or less?
The only SF author I know of who writes FTL stories and doesn't totally ignore what relativity says about the consequences of FTL is Charles Stross (see Singularity Sky).
Speaking of whom, check out his latest novel Accelerando, available free under a Creative Commons license. I'm about halfway through and am enjoying it quite a bit.
because they even migrated the ObjC collection classes (there was no need for this, really, they could have used the Java collection classes)
Possibly, but the WO collection classes do have advantages. For example, you can do 'personArray.valueForKey("name")' which will return an array created by calling the "name" method on every element of personArray. And as of WO 5.3 the collection classes implement the java.util.Collection interfaces, which I agree they should have done from the start.
ight now you can build WARs but I'll bet you dollars to donuts they will incorporate some Mac only framework (most likely coredata) into it by the time the next version comes out.
Unlikely; CoreData is Objective C and essentially a subset of WebObjects's EOF designed specifically for desktop apps.
it's incredible to me that other big projects (e.g. Firefox) are treading the same doomed path today.
That's why Camino exists.