A generic code of conduct for all of the plants operated by a company (i.e. the same treatment, rights and possibly adjusted pay) is a very positive and heartening ideal. Treating workers in a foreign country the same as the workers in the company's home country (assuming the latter treatment is better) is, without hyperbole, one of the most important steps towards a fair world without resentment, and in which we can have a happy conscience. Imagine a clean electronics factory in a neighborhood that is otherwise strewn with rubble and terrorized by drug smugglers. It's hard to give a bad impression of the United States when their companies begin lifting people so substantially (and fairly) out of crippling poverty and other hardships.
I paint a pretty idyllic picture, and the reality wouldn't be perfect, but I imagine it would be better than our current situation, and as a side effect it would create a (possibly artificial) quasi-level playing field, so you wouldn't see jobs bittersweetly given (outsourced) to people in other countries just because their standard of living is so low.
If hardware were prohibitively expensive to such a degree that buying hardware precluded you from buying software, why would you then buy more purportedly-expensive hardware (e.g. CD and DVD writers) to get software for free? It seems to me that the cost of the pirating hardware offsets the price of the software; that is, software is so expensive, that many people simply can't afford to spend almost as much on software as they did for their hardware, over the lifespan of their computer.
Hardware is competitively priced because there are many chip licensees and other types of competitors, and people are willing to buy from an unknown company if the price is right and the reviews are positive (unlike in the OS market). Also, there are so many eyes on those prices that they can't even, for instance, get away with charging a few extra bucks for RAM.
People want high-end hardware so they can run the latest, most demanding software. So in one sense, they've already paid quite a substantial entrance fee for the software. Hardware alone is not worth much.
Open up an average Compaq desktop. Everything is very compartmentalized and stripped-down. They provide the user with only (some might say hardly) what they need: built-in video and sound; CPU; RAM; maybe one or two expansion slots, possibly in a riser to save vertical space. Now look at Windows, Office and DirectX. They are packed with features, many of which you do not require and are not necessary for the functioning of the operating system or application. All of that still cost Microsoft money, and you paid for it. Compare this to buying a top-flight 64-bit processor and a Radeon 9800 Pro graphics card, just to check email and browse the web.
A big reason retail computers are so expensive, is that they include Windows and possibly Office. Those costs are mandated and you usually can't get rid of them on the bulk-sale computers.
Exactly. If this guy goes to a sports bar, and is upset about there being a TV, he should leave and go somewhere else. If a "somewhere else" without a TV doesn't exist, I guess one of his options is to be socially disruptive and quasi-radical, but he also has the option of opening up a bar that doesn't have TVs. Or go to a coffee shop.
It seems to me that strong sound waves of low frequency would rarely wake you up, while less-strong sound waves of middle-to-high frequency would wake you up often. That is, I'd like to see whether a broken (or modified) muffler emitting a noise roughly equal in amplitude to a set of subwoofers emitting a 60Hz tone, would wake someone up more often than the speakers.
I think most of the people who argue so vociferously on either side of this issue, are not really upset about the noise (or the right to be loud).
You should check out Desktop Manager for OS X. It will even use those neat user-switching animations to switch desktops (e.g. the cube, etc.). I used it briefly, and it's cool, but I ditched the idea completely, simply because it's so easy to just do "Command+h" to hide the current application. Also, I do use Expose, and that helps.
I get so much doomsaying 24 hours a day that I had to isolate myself from even NPR for over a month. Now the sky is falling on Slashdot? I can't stand this feeling anxious for myself shit, it insults my intelligence. At least four context-less, timeline-less, drum-beating opinion pieces in less than that many days; this is almost getting childish.
An FBI spokesperson, Joe Parris, confirmed to Agence France-Presse that the FBI issued a subpoena to the provider who hosted the Indymedia servers in the U.K., but that it was "on behalf of a third country." (1) Daniel Zapelli, senior federal prosecutor for Geneva (Switzerland), confirmed that he has opened a
criminal investigation into Indymedia coverage of the 2003 G8 Summit in Evian. (2) Zapelli will provide details of that investigation at a press conference on Tuesday.
Federal prosecutor of Bologna (Italy) Marina Plazzi stated that she is investigating Italy Indymedia because it may "support terrorism." (3) Plazzi says she will provide more information on Thursday, October 14th.
One factor often left out of the "evil corporation" equation is the consumer. It's dangerous to believe you are safe; that there's a babysitter watching out for you.
If you really want to blame someone for pollution, nuclear disasters and destruction, and secret research projects, start with the government. Oh wait, you can't blame them: they have immunity!
If you bred a species of animal that contained the properties of more than one (such as the goats that give spider silk), do you believe there's any difference between doing that and trying to get the incompatible species to mate? Do you think nature prevents this for a reason?
Stated more provocatively, would you make a smart dog by mating with one?
Even if we're dead, it's still our problem. We couldn't worry about it, but it's still a problem that we created; what's important is not whether we still exist, but whether what we have created still exists.
I'm a little concerned about how the goal of most GM projects, that I know of, is to modify something so that it most benefits humans. Isn't that a bad idea? I mean, I know we're at the top of the "food chain," and we're clever and everything, but the world works because of cycles -- life and death; mutual symbiosis in one capacity or another. What if we modified everything and then we were suddenly rendered extinct? I have a feeling that if scientists tried to figure how to make a given organism more beneficial to its entire environment, they would come up with no major alterations.
Why can't you just tell everyone not to call you? Especially if you have subordinates. That's why you're in a position of authority: you're expected to delegate responsibility and make plans and decisions. Unless I'm missing something? My boss, and I, would never stand for this.
I got a "High Sierra" backpack from eBags, and I think I paid about $20 for it. It's a really good bag that I use to carry books, clothes, my laptop, iPod, more books, and whatever miscellaneous items I've deemed necessary. The bag has always protected them, and it has a good amount of stiff padding between my back and the contents of the backpack, which keeps the bag feeling comfortable and not awkward (e.g. items poking into my back). The bag has big zippers that seem pretty hardy; I don't think they'll be falling off.
I should note that this bag's primary mode of usage is "shove and zip." That is, I shove everything in there, and then zip it closed. I don't try to organize the contents of my backpack very much, even when I have the laptop in there, except to protect it. Though, I keep my laptop in a standard document holder while it's in the backpack, which fits it perfectly and protects it from scratches and things getting into the laptop.
I got my bag a year or two (or more!) ago, and I remember it being on sale, but perhaps that was the quasi-sale "every day" markdown that eBags prides themselves on. Still, any way you cut it, $20 was a bargain, especially considering how much some marginally-good backpacks cost.
I dunno.. a color LCD and the capability to view photographs? I didn't fall for that when I got a new phone; I doubt I'll fall for it now. If this product comes out bearing the rumored features (which I doubt), it will probably be the first Apple product to come out since 2002 that I don't want.
I like the idea that "grown ups" love wasting money and also love the hassle of wanting to show off photos, going home, hooking up their iPod, transferring the photos, coming back to the crowd, and finally, showing the photos off (with a microscope). Nobody bought those digital picture frames; why would people want this more? It doesn't even make sense: the iPod plays music, that's what people know it for. Now it's going to be some weird hybrid thing that also displays photos? Is that even a demand? And what ever will they put on the commercials? They cetainly won't be able to use those effective silhouettes; the commercials will be more complicated and won't have a coherent focus.
Isn't it generally a bad idea to mix stimulants with depressants?
Answer: Yes. More information: Combining Drugs and Alcohol. Whether you do yam-yam, llello, PCP, caffeine or hooch, you should probably either stop or cut way back. In addition, many of us have chemical balances way different from our friends. A good friend of mine just spent 24 hours on a bathroom floor in his own vomit because he did something he thought was safe because "another guy did it." This was regardless of the fact that he is 6-foot-5 and has a medium build.
They usually always leave them sitting by the barracks. Just sneak a Colonel Burton in there and we can be regaling each other with stories by nightfall!
This was never vaporware.. they were just compelled by the RIAA to wait to release the RadioShark until such time that the programming on the radio sucked enough that none of the filthy pirates wanted to jack it.
Slashdot Mirror
Isn't "Star Wars: Trivial Pursuit" redundant?
The card reads "In the Mos Eisley cantina scene in A New Hope in which Han Solo meets with, and kills, the bounty hunter Greedo, who shoots first?"
The back of the card (the answer) reads: "NO, YOU'RE WRONG!!!"
Is it a good idea to take an action that tells the world that not only do you not trust anyone, but you believe they're out to get you?
Thoreau said that it's not a good idea to look to an institution to reform or shape the morals of people; it's up to the people to reform themselves.
A generic code of conduct for all of the plants operated by a company (i.e. the same treatment, rights and possibly adjusted pay) is a very positive and heartening ideal. Treating workers in a foreign country the same as the workers in the company's home country (assuming the latter treatment is better) is, without hyperbole, one of the most important steps towards a fair world without resentment, and in which we can have a happy conscience. Imagine a clean electronics factory in a neighborhood that is otherwise strewn with rubble and terrorized by drug smugglers. It's hard to give a bad impression of the United States when their companies begin lifting people so substantially (and fairly) out of crippling poverty and other hardships.
I paint a pretty idyllic picture, and the reality wouldn't be perfect, but I imagine it would be better than our current situation, and as a side effect it would create a (possibly artificial) quasi-level playing field, so you wouldn't see jobs bittersweetly given (outsourced) to people in other countries just because their standard of living is so low.
Now, we just need to make this law.
If hardware were prohibitively expensive to such a degree that buying hardware precluded you from buying software, why would you then buy more purportedly-expensive hardware (e.g. CD and DVD writers) to get software for free? It seems to me that the cost of the pirating hardware offsets the price of the software; that is, software is so expensive, that many people simply can't afford to spend almost as much on software as they did for their hardware, over the lifespan of their computer.
Hardware is competitively priced because there are many chip licensees and other types of competitors, and people are willing to buy from an unknown company if the price is right and the reviews are positive (unlike in the OS market). Also, there are so many eyes on those prices that they can't even, for instance, get away with charging a few extra bucks for RAM.
People want high-end hardware so they can run the latest, most demanding software. So in one sense, they've already paid quite a substantial entrance fee for the software. Hardware alone is not worth much.
Open up an average Compaq desktop. Everything is very compartmentalized and stripped-down. They provide the user with only (some might say hardly) what they need: built-in video and sound; CPU; RAM; maybe one or two expansion slots, possibly in a riser to save vertical space. Now look at Windows, Office and DirectX. They are packed with features, many of which you do not require and are not necessary for the functioning of the operating system or application. All of that still cost Microsoft money, and you paid for it. Compare this to buying a top-flight 64-bit processor and a Radeon 9800 Pro graphics card, just to check email and browse the web.
A big reason retail computers are so expensive, is that they include Windows and possibly Office. Those costs are mandated and you usually can't get rid of them on the bulk-sale computers.
Exactly. If this guy goes to a sports bar, and is upset about there being a TV, he should leave and go somewhere else. If a "somewhere else" without a TV doesn't exist, I guess one of his options is to be socially disruptive and quasi-radical, but he also has the option of opening up a bar that doesn't have TVs. Or go to a coffee shop.
It seems to me that strong sound waves of low frequency would rarely wake you up, while less-strong sound waves of middle-to-high frequency would wake you up often. That is, I'd like to see whether a broken (or modified) muffler emitting a noise roughly equal in amplitude to a set of subwoofers emitting a 60Hz tone, would wake someone up more often than the speakers.
I think most of the people who argue so vociferously on either side of this issue, are not really upset about the noise (or the right to be loud).
You should check out Desktop Manager for OS X. It will even use those neat user-switching animations to switch desktops (e.g. the cube, etc.). I used it briefly, and it's cool, but I ditched the idea completely, simply because it's so easy to just do "Command+h" to hide the current application. Also, I do use Expose, and that helps.
I get so much doomsaying 24 hours a day that I had to isolate myself from even NPR for over a month. Now the sky is falling on Slashdot? I can't stand this feeling anxious for myself shit, it insults my intelligence. At least four context-less, timeline-less, drum-beating opinion pieces in less than that many days; this is almost getting childish.
The world wasn't made for us, and we're certainly not its only inhabitants. We're just a fork.
We already have enough problems with what exists already; we don't need to create more.
One factor often left out of the "evil corporation" equation is the consumer. It's dangerous to believe you are safe; that there's a babysitter watching out for you.
If you really want to blame someone for pollution, nuclear disasters and destruction, and secret research projects, start with the government. Oh wait, you can't blame them: they have immunity!
This story speaks more to GM than it does to chaos and time travel, if you ask me.
If you bred a species of animal that contained the properties of more than one (such as the goats that give spider silk), do you believe there's any difference between doing that and trying to get the incompatible species to mate? Do you think nature prevents this for a reason?
Stated more provocatively, would you make a smart dog by mating with one?
Would you buy a genetically altered egg to guarantee a certain type of child?
Would you abort a child that broke this guarantee?
Even if we're dead, it's still our problem. We couldn't worry about it, but it's still a problem that we created; what's important is not whether we still exist, but whether what we have created still exists.
I'm a little concerned about how the goal of most GM projects, that I know of, is to modify something so that it most benefits humans. Isn't that a bad idea? I mean, I know we're at the top of the "food chain," and we're clever and everything, but the world works because of cycles -- life and death; mutual symbiosis in one capacity or another. What if we modified everything and then we were suddenly rendered extinct? I have a feeling that if scientists tried to figure how to make a given organism more beneficial to its entire environment, they would come up with no major alterations.
Why can't you just tell everyone not to call you? Especially if you have subordinates. That's why you're in a position of authority: you're expected to delegate responsibility and make plans and decisions. Unless I'm missing something? My boss, and I, would never stand for this.
I got a "High Sierra" backpack from eBags, and I think I paid about $20 for it. It's a really good bag that I use to carry books, clothes, my laptop, iPod, more books, and whatever miscellaneous items I've deemed necessary. The bag has always protected them, and it has a good amount of stiff padding between my back and the contents of the backpack, which keeps the bag feeling comfortable and not awkward (e.g. items poking into my back). The bag has big zippers that seem pretty hardy; I don't think they'll be falling off.
I should note that this bag's primary mode of usage is "shove and zip." That is, I shove everything in there, and then zip it closed. I don't try to organize the contents of my backpack very much, even when I have the laptop in there, except to protect it. Though, I keep my laptop in a standard document holder while it's in the backpack, which fits it perfectly and protects it from scratches and things getting into the laptop.
I got my bag a year or two (or more!) ago, and I remember it being on sale, but perhaps that was the quasi-sale "every day" markdown that eBags prides themselves on. Still, any way you cut it, $20 was a bargain, especially considering how much some marginally-good backpacks cost.
I dunno.. a color LCD and the capability to view photographs? I didn't fall for that when I got a new phone; I doubt I'll fall for it now. If this product comes out bearing the rumored features (which I doubt), it will probably be the first Apple product to come out since 2002 that I don't want.
I like the idea that "grown ups" love wasting money and also love the hassle of wanting to show off photos, going home, hooking up their iPod, transferring the photos, coming back to the crowd, and finally, showing the photos off (with a microscope). Nobody bought those digital picture frames; why would people want this more? It doesn't even make sense: the iPod plays music, that's what people know it for. Now it's going to be some weird hybrid thing that also displays photos? Is that even a demand? And what ever will they put on the commercials? They cetainly won't be able to use those effective silhouettes; the commercials will be more complicated and won't have a coherent focus.
Isn't it generally a bad idea to mix stimulants with depressants?
Answer: Yes. More information: Combining Drugs and Alcohol. Whether you do yam-yam, llello, PCP, caffeine or hooch, you should probably either stop or cut way back. In addition, many of us have chemical balances way different from our friends. A good friend of mine just spent 24 hours on a bathroom floor in his own vomit because he did something he thought was safe because "another guy did it." This was regardless of the fact that he is 6-foot-5 and has a medium build.
They usually always leave them sitting by the barracks. Just sneak a Colonel Burton in there and we can be regaling each other with stories by nightfall!
This was never vaporware.. they were just compelled by the RIAA to wait to release the RadioShark until such time that the programming on the radio sucked enough that none of the filthy pirates wanted to jack it.