Social worker, teachers, and others doing the "noble work" are always underpaid. That's just the way it is. As long as people are willing to do that work for cheap, it will be done for cheap. Local governments don't care because they have to balance the budget, unlike the Feds.
I don't think anyone is disputing that.
Nevertheless, something other than material gain is usually driving those who pursue such careers. In a theoretical world where valuation is solely capitalistic, these individuals are consequently severely undervalued based on their importance to social development.
Even though our world isn't solely capitalistic, these individuals are still undervalued and should therefore have recompense to bring greater balance into social valuation.
Well, economically speaking the past few years have been pretty thin. If I hadn't made the strategic decision to head back to Minnesota several years ago there's no way I could have stayed afloat living in the bay area. California is not at all a cheap place to live, and I was always cutting it close out there. Lately I've been cutting it pretty close here, too. I don't even have insurance any more... knock on wood. Personally, absolutely. I've made friends all over the world. I hear from people every day who love Slackware and depend on it for critical tasks, and who don't want to run something else. Working on the project is exciting and fun, and the folks on the team are some of my best friends. It's just not possible to put a dollar value on that.
It's too bad the Bay Area is unaffordable for many of those who want to devote a significant amount of productivity towards open source projects.
I'd like to believe these projects could make much more money if only the right people knew about them, but we all know that's not the point in the first place.
Similar to social workers and others who do the noble work in our society, communities should devote resources to provide nice affordable housing for these people.
The problem, of course, is convincing local governments.
This isn't very surprising AMD/ATI have always had crappy drivers. I wish their fan base would stop apologising for them and demand AMD put more effort into their products.
While I'm an Nvidia person in recent years, ATI has done a lot over the past year to address a number of the concerns with their software/driver package (specific application profiles; greater customization, etc...)
And, as bad as their Linux support may be, it's far better than it used to be (remember trying to enable accelerated graphics on an ATI setup in Linux ~7 years ago?).
Come sir, you can't stuff up the blunderbuss unless the hars are working.
He's clearly using a Middle English approximation for 'Hussar' adapted to the modern verbiage, thus 'Har.' Everyone knows Hussars are the best for your blunderbuss, and the economy runs on blunderbusses and butter (butyrum, if you're the loquacious grandparent).
Because he's a really good host for the show and therefore not a "has been" but an "is now". Just like the guy who narrates for BBC/History Channel's "Life" and other docs.
I don't know if I'd equivocate David Attenborough with Alan Alda given the shape and span of their respective careers.
Nevertheless, I agree with you, their narration style is both informative and engaging, something few narrators achieve in modern broadcasting (unlike the vanilla quality of Oprah Winfrey and the others who narrate BBC's documentary series for an American audience).
Pretty much this. I moved out of state. I now live in Idaho and make half what I used to. However, my living expenses are about 1/8th of what they used to be. I was paying $2000+ in rent on average when I lived int he bay area. I now pay $300. I'll never go back. In just 2 years I have paid off every bill I had with the exception of one because I'm using it to build credit.
Add to this, the average cost of a house out here is just two years of my salary. My fiance and I will be buying in a few months with 40-50% down. I didn't understand how much better it was in other states until I moved to one.
Almost everyone realizes there's a premium price attached to living in the Bay Area. Some of us think it's worth it and others don't.
FWIW, I like Idaho a lot, but it's not so great if you prefer to live in a highly diverse area.
Fact of the matter is the whole freaking area is WAY overdue for a huge earthquake of the proportions that crashed and burned the city at the start of the 20th century. Until that occurs I have to wonder about putting my family in danger.
Sure, there is danger everywhere but ask any Geologist about the chances of a major earthquake in San Francisco and it's definitely not trivial.
So there's no way a successful and educated population can be diverse and creative. Got it. I do like to check in on ideologythink now and again.
Why not report on the apparent boon that's coming Oakland's way, what with the tide of diverse and creative refugee artist families heading their way.
Artists have been heading to Oakland for almost two decades now. Oakland is in the midst of full-fledged gentrification and is probably the most desirable place to live in the Bay Area for the under 30 set. So, yeah, it's getting more expensive.
If I were a starving artist, I'd look in Richmond for affordable housing.
At risk, many say, are the very qualities that have drawn generations of outsiders here, like the city's diversity and creativity. Families, black residents, artists and others will increasingly be forced across the bridge to Oakland, they warn.
Means:
The diversity and creativity formerly accumulated in SF will now spread throughout the SF Bay Area.
Why is this a bad thing?
The Bay Area is already pretty diverse. I guess everyone has different ideas when they mention 'diversity,' but, in 7 out of 11 Bay Area counties, caucasians are 48% of the population or lower.
I'll posit this - either both CO2 and O2 are pollutants because they are excrement of life (either plant based or animal based), or *neither* CO2 or O2 are pollutants because they are the engines of life (either plant based or animal based). Making the case that one is a pollutant, while the other is not, is difficult.
So, we'll put you in a room with 50% oxygen and 50% CO2.
Windows 8 will be just as relevant to the business market as they ever were once you disable the terrible new UI, and that's all that matters anyway (whether businesses choose to skip Windows 8 in favor of waiting for the next iteration is another possibility, but unrelated to all the tablet nonsense).
Atleast in the consumer preview, there is no way to disable metro, there is no start menu to fallback to..
"Cloud-based world"? Did the marketing team write that up?
Anyway, Windows 8 will do just fine, especially because Microsoft is falling all over itself trying to be tablet-friendly and all of the other bollocks that'll generally make it a pain in the ass.
But, as in many things related to the traditional desktop PC, the reports of its demise have been greatly exaggerated.
On a related note, Windows 8 will be just as relevant to the business market as they ever were once you disable the terrible new UI, and that's all that matters anyway (whether businesses choose to skip Windows 8 in favor of waiting for the next iteration is another possibility, but unrelated to all the tablet nonsense).
Indeed. Not only have we regressed in terms of respect for science, but also in terms of civil liberties and social justice. This country is sliding headlong towards another dark ages.
The children now love luxury; they have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place of exercise. Children are now tyrants, not the servants of their households. They no longer rise when elders enter the room. They contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up dainties at the table, cross their legs, and tyrannize their teachers. --Socrates
The debate over evolution should've been history a century ago.
When a segment of the population refuses to accept scientific evidence, how is more of such evidence going to convince them?
Why should it have been over a century ago. We now know that conceptually Darwin was right, but much of what he said, at least what is called Darwinism is no longer accepted by mainstream evolutionary scientists. It has been the discovery of DNA that has really led to leaps in evolutionary science. That tool was not available to Darwin, just like modern quantum theory wasn't available to Bohr.
The basis of knowledge will always shift depending on the tools available, but arguing with those who refuse to utilize any substantive tools whatsoever isn't a productive debate.
That's why the debate should've reached it's conclusion long ago.
Science is merely one method adhered to by a small subset of humans. There are other ways information and useful models are obtained, for example medicine does not proceed along purely scientific lines. Mathematics does not either, and yet useful systems are developed that have application sometimes centuries after invention come into being.
I don't want to belabor the point, but I'm not sure what 'purely scientific' means, considering there is no one method that is 'science,' but I believe I understand your comment: Even those who don't believe they are practicing a form of science, nevertheless come across information useful to a specific community or the community at large.
Again, I entirely agree with this, but I'm still not sure what that has to do with Moses, Jesus, et al. versus the dinosaurs.
science doesn't deal in Truth, and its viewpoints and theories change with time. As with any other human endeavor, science is fallible and uncertain. science evolves. science makes mistakes. science has scientists some of whom are driven by political or monetary agendas.
You're absolutely right, but I'm not sure what that has to do with the current state of the evolution debate.
The process of science is a method adhered to by imperfect humans, and one should probe the basis of current science under the very principles of that method, but people who deny all scientific evidence in favor of 3,000 year old myths don't have anything to do with that.
Slashdot Mirror
Social worker, teachers, and others doing the "noble work" are always underpaid. That's just the way it is. As long as people are willing to do that work for cheap, it will be done for cheap. Local governments don't care because they have to balance the budget, unlike the Feds.
I don't think anyone is disputing that.
Nevertheless, something other than material gain is usually driving those who pursue such careers. In a theoretical world where valuation is solely capitalistic, these individuals are consequently severely undervalued based on their importance to social development.
Even though our world isn't solely capitalistic, these individuals are still undervalued and should therefore have recompense to bring greater balance into social valuation.
Well, economically speaking the past few years have been pretty thin. If I hadn't made the strategic decision to head back to Minnesota several years ago there's no way I could have stayed afloat living in the bay area. California is not at all a cheap place to live, and I was always cutting it close out there. Lately I've been cutting it pretty close here, too. I don't even have insurance any more... knock on wood. Personally, absolutely. I've made friends all over the world. I hear from people every day who love Slackware and depend on it for critical tasks, and who don't want to run something else. Working on the project is exciting and fun, and the folks on the team are some of my best friends. It's just not possible to put a dollar value on that.
It's too bad the Bay Area is unaffordable for many of those who want to devote a significant amount of productivity towards open source projects.
I'd like to believe these projects could make much more money if only the right people knew about them, but we all know that's not the point in the first place.
Similar to social workers and others who do the noble work in our society, communities should devote resources to provide nice affordable housing for these people.
The problem, of course, is convincing local governments.
This isn't very surprising AMD/ATI have always had crappy drivers. I wish their fan base would stop apologising for them and demand AMD put more effort into their products.
While I'm an Nvidia person in recent years, ATI has done a lot over the past year to address a number of the concerns with their software/driver package (specific application profiles; greater customization, etc...)
And, as bad as their Linux support may be, it's far better than it used to be (remember trying to enable accelerated graphics on an ATI setup in Linux ~7 years ago?).
Tough crowd here, should have expected as much. Hope it was worth wasting a mod point on, whoever you are.
no, you just need clippy
If I use a wizard to find Clippy, will Bob take me to the SmartGlass Metro Cloud?
Or is that only if I'm using Windows Millenium?
Can I use Metro in the Cloud with SmartGlass, or will I need a wizard to help me?
More importantly, can they spell?
"Hars working", sheeesh.
Come sir, you can't stuff up the blunderbuss unless the hars are working.
He's clearly using a Middle English approximation for 'Hussar' adapted to the modern verbiage, thus 'Har.' Everyone knows Hussars are the best for your blunderbuss, and the economy runs on blunderbusses and butter (butyrum, if you're the loquacious grandparent).
Because he's a really good host for the show and therefore not a "has been" but an "is now". Just like the guy who narrates for BBC/History Channel's "Life" and other docs.
I don't know if I'd equivocate David Attenborough with Alan Alda given the shape and span of their respective careers.
Nevertheless, I agree with you, their narration style is both informative and engaging, something few narrators achieve in modern broadcasting (unlike the vanilla quality of Oprah Winfrey and the others who narrate BBC's documentary series for an American audience).
California property taxes [...] are the highest in the nation
No, they're not. And that statement proves you don't live here, as you clearly don't know what you're talking about.
There's a frightening possibility he does live here and doesn't know what he's talking about. I hope he doesn't vote.
When people start complaining about too much money coming into the city, you know something's gone awry.
That's just business as usual. Pay lip-service to the down-trodden while the wealthy line your pockets.
You don't see them actually taking action on this, do you? They're just keeping the malcontents complacent with platitudes, the tactic's old as Rome.
Pretty much this. I moved out of state. I now live in Idaho and make half what I used to. However, my living expenses are about 1/8th of what they used to be. I was paying $2000+ in rent on average when I lived int he bay area. I now pay $300. I'll never go back. In just 2 years I have paid off every bill I had with the exception of one because I'm using it to build credit.
Add to this, the average cost of a house out here is just two years of my salary. My fiance and I will be buying in a few months with 40-50% down. I didn't understand how much better it was in other states until I moved to one.
Almost everyone realizes there's a premium price attached to living in the Bay Area. Some of us think it's worth it and others don't.
FWIW, I like Idaho a lot, but it's not so great if you prefer to live in a highly diverse area.
Fact of the matter is the whole freaking area is WAY overdue for a huge earthquake of the proportions that crashed and burned the city at the start of the 20th century. Until that occurs I have to wonder about putting my family in danger.
Sure, there is danger everywhere but ask any Geologist about the chances of a major earthquake in San Francisco and it's definitely not trivial.
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/regional/nca/ucerf/
No matter where you live, you can always worry about something.
An earthquake that kills 75 people once in a lifetime? I'll take my chances...
So there's no way a successful and educated population can be diverse and creative. Got it. I do like to check in on ideologythink now and again.
Why not report on the apparent boon that's coming Oakland's way, what with the tide of diverse and creative refugee artist families heading their way.
Artists have been heading to Oakland for almost two decades now. Oakland is in the midst of full-fledged gentrification and is probably the most desirable place to live in the Bay Area for the under 30 set. So, yeah, it's getting more expensive.
If I were a starving artist, I'd look in Richmond for affordable housing.
At risk, many say, are the very qualities that have drawn generations of outsiders here, like the city's diversity and creativity. Families, black residents, artists and others will increasingly be forced across the bridge to Oakland, they warn.
Means:
The diversity and creativity formerly accumulated in SF will now spread throughout the SF Bay Area.
Why is this a bad thing?
The Bay Area is already pretty diverse. I guess everyone has different ideas when they mention 'diversity,' but, in 7 out of 11 Bay Area counties, caucasians are 48% of the population or lower.
Hmm, "Phantom Eye", provides "persistent monitoring". Yep, sounds like a bomber.
Uhhh, yeah... The demonstrator, with its 150-foot wingspan, is capable of carrying a 450-pound payload.
I'll posit this - either both CO2 and O2 are pollutants because they are excrement of life (either plant based or animal based), or *neither* CO2 or O2 are pollutants because they are the engines of life (either plant based or animal based). Making the case that one is a pollutant, while the other is not, is difficult.
So, we'll put you in a room with 50% oxygen and 50% CO2.
No problem, right?
Open a biology text book once in a while, you'll find that CO2 is not a pollutant, it is an essential nutrient for plant life.
By that logic, oxygen isn't a pollutant either. So, maybe you should breathe 100% oxygen for the rest of your life.
Windows 8 will be just as relevant to the business market as they ever were once you disable the terrible new UI, and that's all that matters anyway (whether businesses choose to skip Windows 8 in favor of waiting for the next iteration is another possibility, but unrelated to all the tablet nonsense).
Atleast in the consumer preview, there is no way to disable metro, there is no start menu to fallback to..
Until Microsoft gets their act together, I'd suggest this as a fix for the problem: http://sourceforge.net/projects/classicshell/files/
"Cloud-based world"? Did the marketing team write that up?
Anyway, Windows 8 will do just fine, especially because Microsoft is falling all over itself trying to be tablet-friendly and all of the other bollocks that'll generally make it a pain in the ass.
But, as in many things related to the traditional desktop PC, the reports of its demise have been greatly exaggerated.
On a related note, Windows 8 will be just as relevant to the business market as they ever were once you disable the terrible new UI, and that's all that matters anyway (whether businesses choose to skip Windows 8 in favor of waiting for the next iteration is another possibility, but unrelated to all the tablet nonsense).
Indeed. Not only have we regressed in terms of respect for science, but also in terms of civil liberties and social justice. This country is sliding headlong towards another dark ages.
The children now love luxury; they have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place of exercise. Children are now tyrants, not the servants of their households. They no longer rise when elders enter the room. They contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up dainties at the table, cross their legs, and tyrannize their teachers. --Socrates
That is to say, the age is always dark.
The debate over evolution should've been history a century ago.
When a segment of the population refuses to accept scientific evidence, how is more of such evidence going to convince them?
Why should it have been over a century ago. We now know that conceptually Darwin was right, but much of what he said, at least what is called Darwinism is no longer accepted by mainstream evolutionary scientists. It has been the discovery of DNA that has really led to leaps in evolutionary science. That tool was not available to Darwin, just like modern quantum theory wasn't available to Bohr.
The basis of knowledge will always shift depending on the tools available, but arguing with those who refuse to utilize any substantive tools whatsoever isn't a productive debate.
That's why the debate should've reached it's conclusion long ago.
Science is merely one method adhered to by a small subset of humans. There are other ways information and useful models are obtained, for example medicine does not proceed along purely scientific lines. Mathematics does not either, and yet useful systems are developed that have application sometimes centuries after invention come into being.
I don't want to belabor the point, but I'm not sure what 'purely scientific' means, considering there is no one method that is 'science,' but I believe I understand your comment: Even those who don't believe they are practicing a form of science, nevertheless come across information useful to a specific community or the community at large.
Again, I entirely agree with this, but I'm still not sure what that has to do with Moses, Jesus, et al. versus the dinosaurs.
science doesn't deal in Truth, and its viewpoints and theories change with time. As with any other human endeavor, science is fallible and uncertain. science evolves. science makes mistakes. science has scientists some of whom are driven by political or monetary agendas.
You're absolutely right, but I'm not sure what that has to do with the current state of the evolution debate.
The process of science is a method adhered to by imperfect humans, and one should probe the basis of current science under the very principles of that method, but people who deny all scientific evidence in favor of 3,000 year old myths don't have anything to do with that.
The debate over evolution should've been history a century ago.
When a segment of the population refuses to accept scientific evidence, how is more of such evidence going to convince them?
would you mind helping to explain why Intel's new ultrabooks typically cost $1k to $1.5k, if your $300 notebook is as good as you claim?
And are you really comparing a i3 with shitty graphics with an i7 with discrete graphics? Seriously?
Thanks.
Read the whole thread, I think you got lost somewhere. Thanks.