It wasn't simply removed because the distributors feared pressure groups for commercial or other reasons; it was removed because it was banned by the government.
The European system is even more overtly designed to train good little workers. In many countries, you have to pick a career by the time you're 16, and rather than receiving any sort of further general education, you at the age of 16 start receiving specialized education to train you for that job.
Same with higher education: whereas in the US people who want to be doctors get a general undergraduate degree, and then go to med school, in Europe they go straight to med school.
As more and more people move out of rural areas, there's tons of available housing for dirt cheap. You can get a nice 3000-sq-ft home with hardwood floors in Nebraska for under $100k.
If you count all countries that ban candidates for their political views, Germany, Israel, and France get added to the list too (Germany and France have anti-Neo-Nazi-candidate laws, and Israel has anti-Zionist-extremist-candidate laws).
People on the internet, and Slashdot in particular, tend to lean more towards the European mainstream than the American mainstream.
Except, of course, on civil liberties issues, where Europe's left-fascism makes the police-state folk in the US Justice Department envious: the UK's got CCTVs everywhere, issues "antisocial behavior orders" prohibiting people from (in one instance) making sarcastic comments to their neighbors; France bans movies that criticize its bloody colonial wars, and so on.
Never, ever go to a huge research school for an undergrad. These schools exist for one reason: to produce research, and get research grants. Therefore, if you are an important professor, they care about you. If you are a grad student, they may care about you to some extent (depends on the program). If you are an undergrad student, they do not care about you.
If you want an education as an undergrad, you're much better off going to a smaller college with a small or non-existent graduate program: a college dedicated to education rather than research. Research and teaching are very different skills, and rarely are the professors at top research universities actually skilled at teaching, even if they were inclined to spend any time or effort doing so.
Schools with major sports programs generally make money from the programs. When 100,000 people buy $40 tickets to your football game, the money piles up. That's why schools care about it. They don't spend money on the sports teams; quite the opposite.
Out here in the real world, dwindling oil supplies and projections of increasing gaps between production and demand are the only goddamn things on the news.
3dfx had some commercials a few years ago that had a documentary-style voice talking about how advances in technology could help create a better tomorrow, more efficient farming that would feed the world, and so on, and then some guy says "hey, or we could use it for games!", and then they introduce the voodoo-whatever-number-it-was-at-the-time.
However, we can move some smaller number of people. Then within a generation, it will be equivalent to having moved a larger number of people, as all their offspring are now already off the earth to begin with.
There are better languages for this, like ChucK
on
Live Nightclub Hacking
·
· Score: 5, Informative
ChucK is a "concurrent, on-the-fly audio programming language", designed from the ground up precisely for this application: live programming of generative music.
My PowerBook has one mouse button. Unless I am mistaken, there is no way to add a second or third one. Therefore, I have to use command-click to open a link in a new window, when having additional buttons (instead of one unnecessarily gigantic one) would be much more convenient.
Also, I don't think it counts as power users. Most reasonably intelligent 60-year-olds can figure out two mouse buttons at least, once you explain to them that the left mouse button clicks on things, and the right mouse button brings up context menus, generally speaking.
1) Don't get drunk. I'm not saying don't drink, but don't get drunk. I believe the statistic goes that 1 in 5 girls are raped in college, and that alcohol is involved in most of the cases. Besides, don't you want to remember your fun and sexual experiences? I'm glad I remember mine.
This is a pretty misleading statistic. These days, "rape" is often defined as any sexual activity that is considered coerced, where what coersion consists of is very vague. It often includes things like a woman having sex while drunk--fully agreeing to it at the time, or maybe even initiating it--and then later claiming that the guy took advantage of her because she was drunk and therefore not thinking properly.
Sure, people do things they regret when they're drunk, but that's not rape. Hell, half the time in those cases both people are drunk. Did they mutually rape each other then?
I don't back up my media so I'll have the backup in case I lose the original: I back up my media so I don't lose the original. I use the backup CDs to play in my car for example, so that I won't have a CD-wallet with $1000 worth of CDs stolen out of my car (not to mention the CDs being scratched and whatnot).
Multiple mouse buttons are very useful for a few commonly-used actions. Middle-clicking to open a link in a new tab is one I use a lot, and the equivalent command-clicking on a Mac is much less convenient (requires me to set down my cup of coffee and use both hands just to open a simple link). The lack of a scroll wheel is pretty irritating too.
I do agree it's a danger, but the Republicans are no strangers to appointing judges with weird ideas of the law. Scalia in particular has a very odd view of the Bill of Rights, and his reading of restrictions on unreasonable searches and seizures and so on is, I think, much looser than the actual Constitution or its authors itended. For example, I doubt Mr. Jefferson intended intrusive drug tests of all children as a condition of going to school a "reasonable" search, but in Mr. Scalia's opinion the government interest in preventing drug use and attendant crime overrides any civil liberties issues. That sounds like an activist judiciary to me.
Actually most of the things I'm most worried about with Kerry are things I'm pretty sure he'd never be able to get through a Republican-controlled Congress.
Come to think of it, most things I dislike about the Democrats are more often the fault of their congresspeople than their presidents. Clinton was just fine with a Republican congress.
If you think four more years of Bush is scary, that's nice, but if you want us to vote for someone else, you need to make an argument for why four years of Kerry is better.
I'm quite sure that four more years of Bush would suck. But what I'm not sure of is that four years of Kerry wouldn't suck more. Unless someone is willing to at least do some minimal pro-Kerry arguing (i.e. "he's mediocre at worst"), then there's really no reason to vote for him.
No. He's just more likely to engage in protectionism than Bush.
This is what I don't get about the American left: they're supposedly against imperialism and ethnocentrism and inequality, but they're for protectionism. Protectionism seems pretty pro-inequality to me: the US is much richer than India, and the protectionists would like to keep it that way by preventing the Indians from getting their hands on any of our jobs. So they stay poor, and the US stays overpaid.
There's a lot of jobs being outsourced to people who are living fairly comfortably in other countries. Remember, not everyone lives as opulently as US/Europeans: not everyone owns TVs, or cars, or many other non-necessities (or goes out to eat all the time).
If I had gotten used to making $80,000/year by mowing lawns for $500/hour, and suddenly a bunch of people appeared willing to do it for $20/hour, I'd be out of luck, but it wouldn't be exploitation. And it sure as hell wouldn't make sense to keep paying me $80,000/year to mow lawns, because I wouldn't deserve $80,000/year for that.
The issue is that US programmers are asking for a lot more money for the same job as compared to Indian programmers. Why should we pay them this money, when others will do it cheaper? Just because they're in the same country, and we're patriotic? What if I was your neighbor, and offered to mow your lawn for $500/hour... would you hire me just to be nice, and support your neighbor, even though I was charging much more than other people?
In short, why shouldn't I pay the guy in India, who also needs a job?
Oh, you say you can find someone to do it for less, and will hire him instead...?
So if you won't pay me $500/hour to mow your lawn, because there's cheaper rates available, why should I pay American workers the high wages they're asking, when there's cheaper rates available? Do they somehow deserve my business more than some guy in another country does? Do US workers deserve to be richer than Indian workers?
Slashdot Mirror
It wasn't simply removed because the distributors feared pressure groups for commercial or other reasons; it was removed because it was banned by the government.
The European system is even more overtly designed to train good little workers. In many countries, you have to pick a career by the time you're 16, and rather than receiving any sort of further general education, you at the age of 16 start receiving specialized education to train you for that job.
Same with higher education: whereas in the US people who want to be doctors get a general undergraduate degree, and then go to med school, in Europe they go straight to med school.
As more and more people move out of rural areas, there's tons of available housing for dirt cheap. You can get a nice 3000-sq-ft home with hardwood floors in Nebraska for under $100k.
Iran, Myanmar, Zimbabwe, etc.
If you count all countries that ban candidates for their political views, Germany, Israel, and France get added to the list too (Germany and France have anti-Neo-Nazi-candidate laws, and Israel has anti-Zionist-extremist-candidate laws).
...is that those other countries ban the candidates who would've gotten the most votes before the election, so they don't appear on the ballot.
People on the internet, and Slashdot in particular, tend to lean more towards the European mainstream than the American mainstream.
Except, of course, on civil liberties issues, where Europe's left-fascism makes the police-state folk in the US Justice Department envious: the UK's got CCTVs everywhere, issues "antisocial behavior orders" prohibiting people from (in one instance) making sarcastic comments to their neighbors; France bans movies that criticize its bloody colonial wars, and so on.
Never, ever go to a huge research school for an undergrad. These schools exist for one reason: to produce research, and get research grants. Therefore, if you are an important professor, they care about you. If you are a grad student, they may care about you to some extent (depends on the program). If you are an undergrad student, they do not care about you.
If you want an education as an undergrad, you're much better off going to a smaller college with a small or non-existent graduate program: a college dedicated to education rather than research. Research and teaching are very different skills, and rarely are the professors at top research universities actually skilled at teaching, even if they were inclined to spend any time or effort doing so.
Schools with major sports programs generally make money from the programs. When 100,000 people buy $40 tickets to your football game, the money piles up. That's why schools care about it. They don't spend money on the sports teams; quite the opposite.
Out here in the real world, dwindling oil supplies and projections of increasing gaps between production and demand are the only goddamn things on the news.
3dfx had some commercials a few years ago that had a documentary-style voice talking about how advances in technology could help create a better tomorrow, more efficient farming that would feed the world, and so on, and then some guy says "hey, or we could use it for games!", and then they introduce the voodoo-whatever-number-it-was-at-the-time.
Only if you fly somewhere that uses GSM, of course. GSM isn't going to do you any good in CDMA countries like Japan.
Of people who read and write, more people use the Latin alphabet than any other alphabet.
However, we can move some smaller number of people. Then within a generation, it will be equivalent to having moved a larger number of people, as all their offspring are now already off the earth to begin with.
ChucK is a "concurrent, on-the-fly audio programming language", designed from the ground up precisely for this application: live programming of generative music.
My PowerBook has one mouse button. Unless I am mistaken, there is no way to add a second or third one. Therefore, I have to use command-click to open a link in a new window, when having additional buttons (instead of one unnecessarily gigantic one) would be much more convenient.
Also, I don't think it counts as power users. Most reasonably intelligent 60-year-olds can figure out two mouse buttons at least, once you explain to them that the left mouse button clicks on things, and the right mouse button brings up context menus, generally speaking.
1) Don't get drunk. I'm not saying don't drink, but don't get drunk. I believe the statistic goes that 1 in 5 girls are raped in college, and that alcohol is involved in most of the cases. Besides, don't you want to remember your fun and sexual experiences? I'm glad I remember mine.
This is a pretty misleading statistic. These days, "rape" is often defined as any sexual activity that is considered coerced, where what coersion consists of is very vague. It often includes things like a woman having sex while drunk--fully agreeing to it at the time, or maybe even initiating it--and then later claiming that the guy took advantage of her because she was drunk and therefore not thinking properly.
Sure, people do things they regret when they're drunk, but that's not rape. Hell, half the time in those cases both people are drunk. Did they mutually rape each other then?
I don't back up my media so I'll have the backup in case I lose the original: I back up my media so I don't lose the original. I use the backup CDs to play in my car for example, so that I won't have a CD-wallet with $1000 worth of CDs stolen out of my car (not to mention the CDs being scratched and whatnot).
Multiple mouse buttons are very useful for a few commonly-used actions. Middle-clicking to open a link in a new tab is one I use a lot, and the equivalent command-clicking on a Mac is much less convenient (requires me to set down my cup of coffee and use both hands just to open a simple link). The lack of a scroll wheel is pretty irritating too.
I do agree it's a danger, but the Republicans are no strangers to appointing judges with weird ideas of the law. Scalia in particular has a very odd view of the Bill of Rights, and his reading of restrictions on unreasonable searches and seizures and so on is, I think, much looser than the actual Constitution or its authors itended. For example, I doubt Mr. Jefferson intended intrusive drug tests of all children as a condition of going to school a "reasonable" search, but in Mr. Scalia's opinion the government interest in preventing drug use and attendant crime overrides any civil liberties issues. That sounds like an activist judiciary to me.
Actually most of the things I'm most worried about with Kerry are things I'm pretty sure he'd never be able to get through a Republican-controlled Congress.
Come to think of it, most things I dislike about the Democrats are more often the fault of their congresspeople than their presidents. Clinton was just fine with a Republican congress.
If you think four more years of Bush is scary, that's nice, but if you want us to vote for someone else, you need to make an argument for why four years of Kerry is better.
I'm quite sure that four more years of Bush would suck. But what I'm not sure of is that four years of Kerry wouldn't suck more. Unless someone is willing to at least do some minimal pro-Kerry arguing (i.e. "he's mediocre at worst"), then there's really no reason to vote for him.
No. He's just more likely to engage in protectionism than Bush.
This is what I don't get about the American left: they're supposedly against imperialism and ethnocentrism and inequality, but they're for protectionism. Protectionism seems pretty pro-inequality to me: the US is much richer than India, and the protectionists would like to keep it that way by preventing the Indians from getting their hands on any of our jobs. So they stay poor, and the US stays overpaid.
There's a lot of jobs being outsourced to people who are living fairly comfortably in other countries. Remember, not everyone lives as opulently as US/Europeans: not everyone owns TVs, or cars, or many other non-necessities (or goes out to eat all the time).
If I had gotten used to making $80,000/year by mowing lawns for $500/hour, and suddenly a bunch of people appeared willing to do it for $20/hour, I'd be out of luck, but it wouldn't be exploitation. And it sure as hell wouldn't make sense to keep paying me $80,000/year to mow lawns, because I wouldn't deserve $80,000/year for that.
The issue is that US programmers are asking for a lot more money for the same job as compared to Indian programmers. Why should we pay them this money, when others will do it cheaper? Just because they're in the same country, and we're patriotic? What if I was your neighbor, and offered to mow your lawn for $500/hour... would you hire me just to be nice, and support your neighbor, even though I was charging much more than other people?
In short, why shouldn't I pay the guy in India, who also needs a job?
I will mow your lawn for $500/hour.
Oh, you say you can find someone to do it for less, and will hire him instead...?
So if you won't pay me $500/hour to mow your lawn, because there's cheaper rates available, why should I pay American workers the high wages they're asking, when there's cheaper rates available? Do they somehow deserve my business more than some guy in another country does? Do US workers deserve to be richer than Indian workers?