I believe the public sector should be expanded - and expanded greatly - the line about "less goverment" typically really means "different government", with responsibilities and arenas of influence shifted to different levels (preferrably easier-to-influence smaller governments, state or local, if you're a part of Big Corporate America), as Noam Chomsky has pointed out.
Besides, despite the collapse of Eastern European Communism and the supposed triumph of capitalism over socialism, the capitalist system proves itself a failure time and again; regular billion dollar corporate bailouts, major accounting scandals, major agricultural subsidies every year and the fact that the western economy can be brought to its knees if consumers stop buying crap (remember last year, post 9/11, when it was patriotic to go out and spend big for christmas, to spend spend spend in general? quite a change from the WWII patroitism of making do with less and general rationing) - all this points to more government, not less. Major corporations demonstrate over and over that they can't be trusted to police themselves, so governments must spend tax dollars to constantly peer over their shoulders. Yes, socialist governments have shown corruption and general idiocy, but I'd rather see corruption and idiocy performed in the name of the general population and not in the name of the shareholders.
I am not for full-blown surrender to commmunism, but I believe we should face facts and accept that the government, the freely elected government, needs to play a greater role in the economy and in providing services to the population.
Having said all that, I think I'd prefer to work in the private sector - I prefer an informal small-business setting and that is unlikely in the public sector; the type of work I do typically flounders in a large, structured, hierarchal environment (corporate or public).
"Stavros Antifakos, of the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich, has designed "clever" furniture pieces with built-in microprocessors that could relieve the confusion, anger and frustration of putting them together."
No amount of money or technology will stop people from being morons and not reading simple assembly instructions. This sounds like a solution that stretches a lot to correct a minor perceived problem.
Wouldn't it be easier (and cheaper for everyone involved, including the customer) for furniture manufacturers to just suggest that people uncomfortable with assembling their own items hire someone to spend an hour or so doing it for them? I'm curious how much R&D money has been sunk into this project.
"Eber, who fled the 'stifling' style of his native France more than 20 years ago, is wearing a diamond tennis bracelet, a feathered cowboy hat, and a long chestnut ponytail. His first move after arriving here was to borrow the money for a brand-new Rolls-Royce. 'It was the best thing I ever did,' explains Eber. 'In Beverly Hills, if people believe you are doing well, then you are doing well.'"
I'm never going to profess to be an expert on this topic, but here's my take on it:
It's not illegal for me to refer you to Joe's Pizza. I could also tell you where Joe's Pizza is and supply you with directions. I could also tell you where to find the Joe's Pizza menu (for example's sake, on the counter by the cash register, in the restaurant).
So where's the difference if:
My website refers you to Joe's Pizza website, and I supply you with directions (which in the context of the internet is providing a URL) and I tell you where to find Joe's Pizza menu (propviding a deep link).
If Joe doesn't want you coming in his restaurant, he can deny you entry, and it's the same with the website, but is there any legal ground for a person or business to prevent another person or business from making references, regardless of whether they are hypertext links or word of mouth? Couldn't this almost be a constitutional issue?
One of the (sarcastic) positive reviews, from Mr. Laughing-too-hard, had this to say:
"What did you expect?" The CDex people are such huge respecters of copyright, they have precious little moral high ground to stand on to complain. Of course, they could report the NeoNapster kids to the RIAA for suspected DMCA violation...;) What goes around comes around, I suppose.
http://download.com.com/3302-2140-10132447.html? ob =0&pn=1&fb=1
I have to admit I kinda agree with it - kinda like the whole kazaa thing a while ago regarding unpaid licensing fees - what goes around comes around.
If I may quote a posting already listed as a troll:
"people who tend to use these new PDA technologies are seriously missing out on the more traditional forms of human contact."
I believe there is a lot of truth to this, and anyone who takes a good hard look at culture in San Francisco will see it. There are a lot of people here who know lots of people and always have a party to go to but their best friends are the ones they left behind in other towns and cities, the ones they met before social connectivity ruled their lives. Also, the connected culture, as illustrated in the article, is a culture of following, of never really going anywhere without prior review and approval - where is the discovery, adventure and education in that?
The fact that it is becoming normal to be frequently interupted by cell phone ringing and ignored by the people around you while they chat on cell phones could produce a social backlash. It has on a minor scale, but those who choose not to be totally connected by refusing PDAs and cell phones are more of an ignored anomoly right now.
It will be interesting to look back in ten or twenty years and see how much of this is just a trend for the moment (CB radio - what?) and how much sticks - tv is generally accepted as vacuous entertainment with few redeeming qualities and it's still going strong.
Once again I marvel at how the US stands for the ideals of fairness, justice and opportunity for all except when it comes to foreign countries or people from foreign countries.
This applies to everything from the issuing (or not issuing) of H1-Bs to the treatment of prisoners from Afghanistan to domestic trade subsidies and tariffs on foreign goods.
So much for the triumph of Democracy and Capitalism - maybe the old communists are having a good laugh at the US right about now?
Is that baby on the site the smartest man alive? It has a very big head. It is also wearing what appears to be a baby bikini, which would raise some questions about its manhood.
Yes, i agree with this being manipulation - from reading the article it just sounds like sour grapes from MS - they want Apple to push OSX but they don't want them taking away windows users - perhaps MS engineers can make that work, but in reality...
It is pointed out that MS doesn't usually directly detract from partners in its marketing as Apple is now, but this is a case of two partners in direct competition in the OS market. I'm guessing this a somewhat unique situation as far as corporate partnerships go, and in the OS market (realistically) what is out there for the average home user? Windows and MacOS - Microsoft would probably look better just keeping quiet about their grudges and continuing with Mac software development (just a month or two ago, word out of the MacBU was that everything was peachy), but I don't expect they will.
Okay, so I've never been to the Hotel Pennsylvania, nor even to NYC, but i was listening to/singing along with that song in the car on the way to work this morning - thanks for the info - I've always been a little curious about that one.
Slashdot Mirror
In the article it's described not as an optical illusion - it was a spectral illusion.
I can now go to my grave knowing that at least once in my life I used the term "spectral illusion" in a serious discussion.
I believe the public sector should be expanded - and expanded greatly - the line about "less goverment" typically really means "different government", with responsibilities and arenas of influence shifted to different levels (preferrably easier-to-influence smaller governments, state or local, if you're a part of Big Corporate America), as Noam Chomsky has pointed out.
Besides, despite the collapse of Eastern European Communism and the supposed triumph of capitalism over socialism, the capitalist system proves itself a failure time and again; regular billion dollar corporate bailouts, major accounting scandals, major agricultural subsidies every year and the fact that the western economy can be brought to its knees if consumers stop buying crap (remember last year, post 9/11, when it was patriotic to go out and spend big for christmas, to spend spend spend in general? quite a change from the WWII patroitism of making do with less and general rationing) - all this points to more government, not less. Major corporations demonstrate over and over that they can't be trusted to police themselves, so governments must spend tax dollars to constantly peer over their shoulders. Yes, socialist governments have shown corruption and general idiocy, but I'd rather see corruption and idiocy performed in the name of the general population and not in the name of the shareholders.
I am not for full-blown surrender to commmunism, but I believe we should face facts and accept that the government, the freely elected government, needs to play a greater role in the economy and in providing services to the population.
Having said all that, I think I'd prefer to work in the private sector - I prefer an informal small-business setting and that is unlikely in the public sector; the type of work I do typically flounders in a large, structured, hierarchal environment (corporate or public).
No amount of money or technology will stop people from being morons and not reading simple assembly instructions. This sounds like a solution that stretches a lot to correct a minor perceived problem.
Wouldn't it be easier (and cheaper for everyone involved, including the customer) for furniture manufacturers to just suggest that people uncomfortable with assembling their own items hire someone to spend an hour or so doing it for them? I'm curious how much R&D money has been sunk into this project.
I read about this guy in an article in National Geographic...
"Eber, who fled the 'stifling' style of his native France more than 20 years ago, is wearing a diamond tennis bracelet, a feathered cowboy hat, and a long chestnut ponytail. His first move after arriving here was to borrow the money for a brand-new Rolls-Royce. 'It was the best thing I ever did,' explains Eber. 'In Beverly Hills, if people believe you are doing well, then you are doing well.'"
He's a hairdresser.
Things aren't much different in the real world.
coo... roocoocoocooroocoocooooo!!!
:)
Of course I have to ask Lost Canadian Abroad: are you sure it wasn't CAN$15,000 vs. US$5,000? If so then the spread ain't so wide :)
I'm never going to profess to be an expert on this topic, but here's my take on it:
It's not illegal for me to refer you to Joe's Pizza. I could also tell you where Joe's Pizza is and supply you with directions. I could also tell you where to find the Joe's Pizza menu (for example's sake, on the counter by the cash register, in the restaurant).
So where's the difference if:
My website refers you to Joe's Pizza website, and I supply you with directions (which in the context of the internet is providing a URL) and I tell you where to find Joe's Pizza menu (propviding a deep link).
If Joe doesn't want you coming in his restaurant, he can deny you entry, and it's the same with the website, but is there any legal ground for a person or business to prevent another person or business from making references, regardless of whether they are hypertext links or word of mouth? Couldn't this almost be a constitutional issue?
One of the (sarcastic) positive reviews, from Mr. Laughing-too-hard, had this to say:
;) What goes around comes around, I suppose.
? ob =0&pn=1&fb=1
"What did you expect?"
The CDex people are such huge respecters of copyright, they have precious little moral high ground to stand on to complain. Of course, they could report the NeoNapster kids to the RIAA for suspected DMCA violation...
http://download.com.com/3302-2140-10132447.html
I have to admit I kinda agree with it - kinda like the whole kazaa thing a while ago regarding unpaid licensing fees - what goes around comes around.
If I may quote a posting already listed as a troll:
"people who tend to use these new PDA technologies are seriously missing out on the more traditional forms of human contact."
I believe there is a lot of truth to this, and anyone who takes a good hard look at culture in San Francisco will see it. There are a lot of people here who know lots of people and always have a party to go to but their best friends are the ones they left behind in other towns and cities, the ones they met before social connectivity ruled their lives. Also, the connected culture, as illustrated in the article, is a culture of following, of never really going anywhere without prior review and approval - where is the discovery, adventure and education in that?
The fact that it is becoming normal to be frequently interupted by cell phone ringing and ignored by the people around you while they chat on cell phones could produce a social backlash. It has on a minor scale, but those who choose not to be totally connected by refusing PDAs and cell phones are more of an ignored anomoly right now.
It will be interesting to look back in ten or twenty years and see how much of this is just a trend for the moment (CB radio - what?) and how much sticks - tv is generally accepted as vacuous entertainment with few redeeming qualities and it's still going strong.
Once again I marvel at how the US stands for the ideals of fairness, justice and opportunity for all except when it comes to foreign countries or people from foreign countries.
This applies to everything from the issuing (or not issuing) of H1-Bs to the treatment of prisoners from Afghanistan to domestic trade subsidies and tariffs on foreign goods.
So much for the triumph of Democracy and Capitalism - maybe the old communists are having a good laugh at the US right about now?
Is that baby on the site the smartest man alive? It has a very big head. It is also wearing what appears to be a baby bikini, which would raise some questions about its manhood.
goo-goo-ga-ga!
Yes, i agree with this being manipulation - from reading the article it just sounds like sour grapes from MS - they want Apple to push OSX but they don't want them taking away windows users - perhaps MS engineers can make that work, but in reality...
It is pointed out that MS doesn't usually directly detract from partners in its marketing as Apple is now, but this is a case of two partners in direct competition in the OS market. I'm guessing this a somewhat unique situation as far as corporate partnerships go, and in the OS market (realistically) what is out there for the average home user? Windows and MacOS - Microsoft would probably look better just keeping quiet about their grudges and continuing with Mac software development (just a month or two ago, word out of the MacBU was that everything was peachy), but I don't expect they will.
Okay, so I've never been to the Hotel Pennsylvania, nor even to NYC, but i was listening to/singing along with that song in the car on the way to work this morning - thanks for the info - I've always been a little curious about that one.
What I really want to see is robot hockey!