I agree with you... in principle. If you want competence, you should expect to pay for it. That's pretty basic to a culture like ours, and certainly the education of our children would be worth that investment if it were true. No argument there.
However, I look at what my county takes in from property taxes and how much they spend on every aspect of "education" except the teachers. I look at how much I pay in property tax, and see that over half of it is earmarked for the school system. Forget roads, public works, police, firemen, emergency services, government facilities of all kinds: the school system gets the lion's share. It's absolutely incredible, and it overshadows every other itemized governmental expense on my tax bill. This is an example of won't somebody please think of the children! carried to an extreme.
I will tell you this: my wallet is already open wide enough, thank you very much. I get even more pissed off when I see some of the wealthier towns around here using public money to build grade schools that aren't needed based upon population figures, just to keep the riff-raff (that is, black and Hispanics) from going to school with their kids. It's insane.
When school administrations stop abusing their control over school finances, when the teacher's union(s) are willing to accept that their members should be paid based upon their competence, when seniority has more to do quality instruction than time on the job, I'll consider forking over some more dough. Schools are fiefdoms run by administrative empire builders, and I'm sorry, but the welfare of the student is not the top priority anymore. Too many children are graduating high school as functional illiterates in this country for me think otherwise.
Schools are already being given enough to do their jobs well, but the money doesn't go where it's most needed. Consequently, I'll vote against any referendum that wants to put more of my tax dollars into education. The system is too badly managed, badly damaged, for improvement to come from the mere application of money, and that applies to more than just education. Serious structural changes are needed, and I don't see them happening anytime soon.
On the other hand, part of what makes that difference is that there are a lot more options available on which to spend your monthly income than there used to be. For example, compare your bills to someone "making less than half that." Right off the bat I'll bet you have a cellular phone, broadband Internet, satellite or cable TV... those alone can run an extra three grand a year. Possibly you have an extra phone line or two with some fancy services. Maybe you have a more expensive car than you really need: that can be an extra five or ten grand a year. Perhaps your mortgage is a bit more of a stretch that it should be. That sucks up a big chunk of that difference between you and those less fortunate than you (I'm using "you" instead of "typical middle-class American".)
So yes, it's certainly true that our buying power is less than it used to be, no question. But some large companies have found that they can convince untold millions of us to given them billions of dollars for products and services than didn't use to exist, and which most of us could (and did, for centuries) live without. Okay, maybe that broadband connection is worth the money, but most of us would get along fine without cable, satellite, cellular phone or that extra bedroom. Millions of us still do. And if we put that money into something worthwhile, maybe our 401(k) plans at work or some other investment, we'd be a whole lot better off in the long run. But the long run is something most of us don't think about too often, it seems.
I think also there's a bit of confusion about what the term "disposable income" really means. It doesn't mean "I don't need to use it on my mortage and utility payments this month so I can spend it on something else immediately" but that's what a lot of people seem to think it means.
For my part I have a cell phone and a broadband connection, but I dropped the cable TV. Comcast was getting out of hand and I watch very little TV anyway, and I also dropped their Digital Phone service (went from $49.95/month to $86+ for two lines in only two years) and switched to AT&T's CallVantage service ($25/mo for one line.) I dumped the extra money into my 401(k)... I'll be glad I did some day.
I think the GP was referring to the Starship Enterprise.
But I tend to agree, let the early adopters pay a premium, pay back the development costs, help Apple work out the bugs and design issues, and then lower the price for the masses.
Worked for Microsoft, except for the "bugs and design issues" part.
but when an OS comes with some perfectly good features it's some kind of big deal to just install and use something else?
Because, for a substantial portion of Microsoft's user base, it really is a big deal to install and use something else. All of the crap that has been going on about "unbundling this" and "media-player that" is not directed at the small segment of the population to whom installing a new piece of software is trivial. It's about the untold millions of users who can't tell their brower's URL field from Google's search box. Whether or not it is even worth worrying about those people is another question.
It's also about Microsoft achieving de facto dominance in other areas (such as multimedia) because it ships software that, by default, will be used by the bulk of Windows users. So this really isn't an issue of Microsoft telling you that you can't install competing applications (or a car dealer telling you that you can't put in a different stereo) it's more a matter of user inertia. In both scenarios people will tend to use whatever features that already happen to be there, and may not even be aware that there are other possibilities.
On a side note, it's really rather funny to see that all the hatred for Microsoft on Slashdot suddenly vanish as soon as it's Microsoft vs. the EU - then suddenly, defending a fellow US-American company suddenly seems to become more important than pointing out how much Microsoft as a convicted monopolist engaged in illegal anti-competitive tactics is hurting innovation/the industry/society.
Microsoft may be run by corporate asses, but hey... they're our corporate asses, so there. If the converse were true, I have zero doubt that European Slashdotters would be vigorously defending their own obnoxious, overbearing convicted monopolist. I'd be surprised if you didn't. However, if you're asking the American tech crowd who they would like to see suffer more, Microsoft or the EU, well, maybe you don't want to ask that. The answer is by no means clear and besides, if the European Union does manage to seriously affect Microsoft's bottom line, they'll just try to make up the lost profits here in the States (although one has to wonder how much more squeezing of its customer base Microsoft can get away with before mass migration to alternatives occurs all on its own.)
When all is said and done, however, I think we're all just jealous that our own government didn't have the collective cojones to stand up to Microsoft and say "Cut it out! No, I don't want to hear it. Just CUT... IT... OUT!" Now, I'd be hard pressed to say which organization is more susceptible to undue corporate influence, the European Union or the United States Federal Government: both have serious problems in that regard. I'm encouraged because at least, in this case, the EU appears to be taking the correct stance. Hopefully there's real intent to open up the software market so that Europe can see some real competition. If so... more power to 'em.
If not, just keep enjoying that Microsoft addiction. It's worse than smoking, and in either case the longer you wait to start quitting, the harder it is to break free.
And somewhere on Earth, in an unknown fortress, a stranger from planet Jadar knows fear...
More likely it'll go something like this:
"Ship, I thought you told me Jadarite couldn't occur naturally in this system? Nevermind, forget it. Just power up the main engines and take us up, we're leaving... no point in hanging around this planetary loony bin any longer. The last thing we need are these flaky locals taking pot shots at us again with Jadarite bullets. Those things really sting."
You get booted if you have a clue, period. Doesn't matter whether the case involves technical issues or not. Neither the prosecution nor the defense want intelligent, educated individuals on juries. They really don't, in spite of any claims they make make to the contrary, and the reason for that is simple. People that are actually capable of juggling numbers, analyzing statistical claims, and generally seeing through the ridiculous arguments both sides may try to present are simply not wanted.
I was called to jury duty about ten or twelve years ago. I really didn't have any idea what to expect, but I was prepared to be a responsible citizen. What I did not expect was to be booted from nearly a dozen courtrooms because I answered honestly when asked, "What do you do for a living?"
"I'm an engineer, Your Honor." I would say. In every single case, the instant those words came out of my mouth a peremptory challenge was issued for my dismissal. I tried varying it a little, "I'm a software engineer" or "I'm a programmer." No dice. I didn't really understand what was going on until later (I kinda took it personally, at the time) when an attorney relative of mine said that that was just how the system worked. One judge asked me what kind of TV shows and books I read. I said, well, I tend to like science fiction. He laughed and asked me if I meant Star Trek and Doctor Who, that kind of thing. I said, "Yes, Your Honor." Everyone else in the courtroom also laughed, but within five seconds the defense attorneys had conferred and the lead counsel spoke into his mike, "Ah, Your Honor, we'd like to dismiss this juror." Fuck. It wasn't so much that I wanted to spend some unknown number of days (or months, or years) serving as a juror but by the end of the day I was getting pretty pissed at the time I'd wasted, when I'd had virtually zero chance of ever being selected in the first place.
I was more than a little disturbed when I saw the caliber of people that managed to survive the selection process. Housewives, bartenders, gardeners, people from all walks of life who shared one thing in common: lack of intelligence and education. I'm not picking on my fellow citizens, so don't misunderstand me here: I got to know a number of them in the hours I spent waiting for my next rejection. Most seemed to be very decent human beings... but I had no confidence in their being able to come to a rational judgment, or be able to see through an emotional play or some other courtroom con job. All the other people like me that had technical, scientific or engineering qualifications were dismissed (at least, as many of us as could be using peremptory challenges.)
The system (at least in the area where I live) apparently selects for the least educated, least intelligent, most easily swayed individuals for jury duty. I hope I never land in court, where my fate revolves around the understanding of a complex technical issue. I'd probably never see the light of day again.
The only good news was that by the time they let us leave, I discovered the local McDonald's was still open and I used the eight bucks they gave me to buy a Big Mac meal with a large Coke.
Sales records and data retention for (ahem)security purposes aren't the same thing. Sure, you have to keep track of sales because, if nothing else, it's how you determine how much tax you pay. Keeping track of every user that drops in just because the government wants to be able to scroll through your logs and see what each user might have been doing is something entirely different.
Yeah, you guys have some good stuff. I have a friend in Germany... beer there is also something to write home about. Matter of fact, he's been telling me I should come visit him sometime, says it would be worth it for the beer alone.
No, I don't think Google's data mine fuels fear so much as it fuels envy. Just think of the corporations and government agencies and... well, just about everyone who would like a fat pipe right into the GFS root. Yeah. I know I would.
I've always maintained that when you start concentrating something, anything, at a certain point it becomes dangerous... if nothing else, to the status quo. Now, having said that, there is Bill Gates, who has accumulated a lot of money, and is doing his level best to maintain the status quo. But he's still dangerous, and Google in it's own way is no less dangerous, just for having collected all that stuff. Google may never again do anything evil... but that accumulated data is still there. It would be hard to get rid of it even if we wanted to, seeing as how it's distributed all around the planet. Worse from a privacy perspective, it looks like it's about to be combined with DoubleClick's database. That's really a terrifying amount of information to be in anyone's hands, however honorable they may be.
For now we're probably safe enough, but Page and Brin won't be around forever, and those who eventually end up in charge of their brainchild may not have the same scruples.
On another note, that might make an interesting story... a post-apocalyptic setting where the survivors are literally mining ancient datacenters for knowledge that would help them rebuild. Oh, I've read some novels with a plotline similar to that, but it would be fun to have the protagonists digging up an old Google facility, maybe firing it up by reactivating a nearby hydroelectric power plant.
The lye in ordinary soap dissolves a layer of your skin, and all the various microbes simply wash away with it. Soap does kill some organism, of course, but it's not an antiseptic as such.
You probably didn't read the part where I said, The courts determine when and if we can do that. No reason that I should have expected you to have, I suppose. It's much more fun to just jump on someone after reading the first sentence with which you disagree.
And there's a HUGE difference between the government flatly telling a citizen "THAT SPEECH IS NOT PERMITTED" vs. a private individual filing suit against another and having his day in court. The Founders understood that very clearly, and it was the former which concerned them the most.
Right now, most of us in the United States (those of us that even bother to notice) are, in fact, more concerned about our government suppressing information than we are about other people suing us for libel/slander. The Founders were right, as usual.
We really need to listen to them more. They still have a lot to say.
On the other hand, one has to weigh the amusement/entertainment factor against the resulting Federal terrorism charges and corresponding prison sentence.
There's also programs that use the idle thread to put the CPU to sleep when it's not in use: CPUIdle is a good one, even if you do have to pay for it. That's probably a better option if you're running an always-on system like a server.
Well, I'm American myself and there really aren't too many good domestic beers here either. Well, that's not entirely true, there are a number of microbreweries in my area that turn out some excellent stuff. The big boys are all pretty marginal though.
In my book, the following Holy crap is she smokin' link is definitely preferable to a house that gives every impression of having been screwed by a sperm whale.
Slashdot Mirror
Or perhaps heading out to a shooting range to squeeze one off.
linux distro's being the one that springs immediately to mind.
Some of us download Microsoft Windows distros the same way. Of course, the idea is the same.
I agree with you ... in principle. If you want competence, you should expect to pay for it. That's pretty basic to a culture like ours, and certainly the education of our children would be worth that investment if it were true. No argument there.
However, I look at what my county takes in from property taxes and how much they spend on every aspect of "education" except the teachers. I look at how much I pay in property tax, and see that over half of it is earmarked for the school system. Forget roads, public works, police, firemen, emergency services, government facilities of all kinds: the school system gets the lion's share. It's absolutely incredible, and it overshadows every other itemized governmental expense on my tax bill. This is an example of won't somebody please think of the children! carried to an extreme.
I will tell you this: my wallet is already open wide enough, thank you very much. I get even more pissed off when I see some of the wealthier towns around here using public money to build grade schools that aren't needed based upon population figures, just to keep the riff-raff (that is, black and Hispanics) from going to school with their kids. It's insane.
When school administrations stop abusing their control over school finances, when the teacher's union(s) are willing to accept that their members should be paid based upon their competence, when seniority has more to do quality instruction than time on the job, I'll consider forking over some more dough. Schools are fiefdoms run by administrative empire builders, and I'm sorry, but the welfare of the student is not the top priority anymore. Too many children are graduating high school as functional illiterates in this country for me think otherwise.
Schools are already being given enough to do their jobs well, but the money doesn't go where it's most needed. Consequently, I'll vote against any referendum that wants to put more of my tax dollars into education. The system is too badly managed, badly damaged, for improvement to come from the mere application of money, and that applies to more than just education. Serious structural changes are needed, and I don't see them happening anytime soon.
Why should they waste their time and taxpayer dollars when IBM and Novell are going to do their job for them?
On the other hand, part of what makes that difference is that there are a lot more options available on which to spend your monthly income than there used to be. For example, compare your bills to someone "making less than half that." Right off the bat I'll bet you have a cellular phone, broadband Internet, satellite or cable TV ... those alone can run an extra three grand a year. Possibly you have an extra phone line or two with some fancy services. Maybe you have a more expensive car than you really need: that can be an extra five or ten grand a year. Perhaps your mortgage is a bit more of a stretch that it should be. That sucks up a big chunk of that difference between you and those less fortunate than you (I'm using "you" instead of "typical middle-class American".)
... I'll be glad I did some day.
So yes, it's certainly true that our buying power is less than it used to be, no question. But some large companies have found that they can convince untold millions of us to given them billions of dollars for products and services than didn't use to exist, and which most of us could (and did, for centuries) live without. Okay, maybe that broadband connection is worth the money, but most of us would get along fine without cable, satellite, cellular phone or that extra bedroom. Millions of us still do. And if we put that money into something worthwhile, maybe our 401(k) plans at work or some other investment, we'd be a whole lot better off in the long run. But the long run is something most of us don't think about too often, it seems.
I think also there's a bit of confusion about what the term "disposable income" really means. It doesn't mean "I don't need to use it on my mortage and utility payments this month so I can spend it on something else immediately" but that's what a lot of people seem to think it means.
For my part I have a cell phone and a broadband connection, but I dropped the cable TV. Comcast was getting out of hand and I watch very little TV anyway, and I also dropped their Digital Phone service (went from $49.95/month to $86+ for two lines in only two years) and switched to AT&T's CallVantage service ($25/mo for one line.) I dumped the extra money into my 401(k)
I think the GP was referring to the Starship Enterprise.
But I tend to agree, let the early adopters pay a premium, pay back the development costs, help Apple work out the bugs and design issues, and then lower the price for the masses.
Worked for Microsoft, except for the "bugs and design issues" part.
but when an OS comes with some perfectly good features it's some kind of big deal to just install and use something else?
Because, for a substantial portion of Microsoft's user base, it really is a big deal to install and use something else. All of the crap that has been going on about "unbundling this" and "media-player that" is not directed at the small segment of the population to whom installing a new piece of software is trivial. It's about the untold millions of users who can't tell their brower's URL field from Google's search box. Whether or not it is even worth worrying about those people is another question.
It's also about Microsoft achieving de facto dominance in other areas (such as multimedia) because it ships software that, by default, will be used by the bulk of Windows users. So this really isn't an issue of Microsoft telling you that you can't install competing applications (or a car dealer telling you that you can't put in a different stereo) it's more a matter of user inertia. In both scenarios people will tend to use whatever features that already happen to be there, and may not even be aware that there are other possibilities.
Microsoft certainly won't mention them.
On a side note, it's really rather funny to see that all the hatred for Microsoft on Slashdot suddenly vanish as soon as it's Microsoft vs. the EU - then suddenly, defending a fellow US-American company suddenly seems to become more important than pointing out how much Microsoft as a convicted monopolist engaged in illegal anti-competitive tactics is hurting innovation/the industry/society.
... they're our corporate asses, so there. If the converse were true, I have zero doubt that European Slashdotters would be vigorously defending their own obnoxious, overbearing convicted monopolist. I'd be surprised if you didn't. However, if you're asking the American tech crowd who they would like to see suffer more, Microsoft or the EU, well, maybe you don't want to ask that. The answer is by no means clear and besides, if the European Union does manage to seriously affect Microsoft's bottom line, they'll just try to make up the lost profits here in the States (although one has to wonder how much more squeezing of its customer base Microsoft can get away with before mass migration to alternatives occurs all on its own.)
... IT ... OUT!" Now, I'd be hard pressed to say which organization is more susceptible to undue corporate influence, the European Union or the United States Federal Government: both have serious problems in that regard. I'm encouraged because at least, in this case, the EU appears to be taking the correct stance. Hopefully there's real intent to open up the software market so that Europe can see some real competition. If so ... more power to 'em.
Microsoft may be run by corporate asses, but hey
When all is said and done, however, I think we're all just jealous that our own government didn't have the collective cojones to stand up to Microsoft and say "Cut it out! No, I don't want to hear it. Just CUT
If not, just keep enjoying that Microsoft addiction. It's worse than smoking, and in either case the longer you wait to start quitting, the harder it is to break free.
Steve Jobs' saying, that "real artists ship," is right on the money.
...", well, I'm not sure what they do. Art, I suppose.
I'd say it's more like "commercial artists ship", and "real artists
And somewhere on Earth, in an unknown fortress, a stranger from planet Jadar knows fear...
More likely it'll go something like this:
"Ship, I thought you told me Jadarite couldn't occur naturally in this system? Nevermind, forget it. Just power up the main engines and take us up, we're leaving... no point in hanging around this planetary loony bin any longer. The last thing we need are these flaky locals taking pot shots at us again with Jadarite bullets. Those things really sting."
It's the greenish glow. It's all about the glow.
You get booted if you have a clue, period. Doesn't matter whether the case involves technical issues or not. Neither the prosecution nor the defense want intelligent, educated individuals on juries. They really don't, in spite of any claims they make make to the contrary, and the reason for that is simple. People that are actually capable of juggling numbers, analyzing statistical claims, and generally seeing through the ridiculous arguments both sides may try to present are simply not wanted.
... but I had no confidence in their being able to come to a rational judgment, or be able to see through an emotional play or some other courtroom con job. All the other people like me that had technical, scientific or engineering qualifications were dismissed (at least, as many of us as could be using peremptory challenges.)
I was called to jury duty about ten or twelve years ago. I really didn't have any idea what to expect, but I was prepared to be a responsible citizen. What I did not expect was to be booted from nearly a dozen courtrooms because I answered honestly when asked, "What do you do for a living?"
"I'm an engineer, Your Honor." I would say. In every single case, the instant those words came out of my mouth a peremptory challenge was issued for my dismissal. I tried varying it a little, "I'm a software engineer" or "I'm a programmer." No dice. I didn't really understand what was going on until later (I kinda took it personally, at the time) when an attorney relative of mine said that that was just how the system worked. One judge asked me what kind of TV shows and books I read. I said, well, I tend to like science fiction. He laughed and asked me if I meant Star Trek and Doctor Who, that kind of thing. I said, "Yes, Your Honor." Everyone else in the courtroom also laughed, but within five seconds the defense attorneys had conferred and the lead counsel spoke into his mike, "Ah, Your Honor, we'd like to dismiss this juror." Fuck. It wasn't so much that I wanted to spend some unknown number of days (or months, or years) serving as a juror but by the end of the day I was getting pretty pissed at the time I'd wasted, when I'd had virtually zero chance of ever being selected in the first place.
I was more than a little disturbed when I saw the caliber of people that managed to survive the selection process. Housewives, bartenders, gardeners, people from all walks of life who shared one thing in common: lack of intelligence and education. I'm not picking on my fellow citizens, so don't misunderstand me here: I got to know a number of them in the hours I spent waiting for my next rejection. Most seemed to be very decent human beings
The system (at least in the area where I live) apparently selects for the least educated, least intelligent, most easily swayed individuals for jury duty. I hope I never land in court, where my fate revolves around the understanding of a complex technical issue. I'd probably never see the light of day again.
The only good news was that by the time they let us leave, I discovered the local McDonald's was still open and I used the eight bucks they gave me to buy a Big Mac meal with a large Coke.
Sales records and data retention for (ahem)security purposes aren't the same thing. Sure, you have to keep track of sales because, if nothing else, it's how you determine how much tax you pay. Keeping track of every user that drops in just because the government wants to be able to scroll through your logs and see what each user might have been doing is something entirely different.
Would it be ok to solicit the help of our intelligence agencies, me wonders?
Sure it would, because then we'd know for sure who was doing the tampering.
It's may be true that you fancy barbie dolls and collect stamps ...
Who told you that? Damn.
Yeah, you guys have some good stuff. I have a friend in Germany ... beer there is also something to write home about. Matter of fact, he's been telling me I should come visit him sometime, says it would be worth it for the beer alone.
No, I don't think Google's data mine fuels fear so much as it fuels envy. Just think of the corporations and government agencies and ... well, just about everyone who would like a fat pipe right into the GFS root. Yeah. I know I would.
... if nothing else, to the status quo. Now, having said that, there is Bill Gates, who has accumulated a lot of money, and is doing his level best to maintain the status quo. But he's still dangerous, and Google in it's own way is no less dangerous, just for having collected all that stuff. Google may never again do anything evil ... but that accumulated data is still there. It would be hard to get rid of it even if we wanted to, seeing as how it's distributed all around the planet. Worse from a privacy perspective, it looks like it's about to be combined with DoubleClick's database. That's really a terrifying amount of information to be in anyone's hands, however honorable they may be.
... a post-apocalyptic setting where the survivors are literally mining ancient datacenters for knowledge that would help them rebuild. Oh, I've read some novels with a plotline similar to that, but it would be fun to have the protagonists digging up an old Google facility, maybe firing it up by reactivating a nearby hydroelectric power plant.
I've always maintained that when you start concentrating something, anything, at a certain point it becomes dangerous
For now we're probably safe enough, but Page and Brin won't be around forever, and those who eventually end up in charge of their brainchild may not have the same scruples.
On another note, that might make an interesting story
The lye in ordinary soap dissolves a layer of your skin, and all the various microbes simply wash away with it. Soap does kill some organism, of course, but it's not an antiseptic as such.
WTFC.
No ... "The Sterile".
You probably didn't read the part where I said, The courts determine when and if we can do that. No reason that I should have expected you to have, I suppose. It's much more fun to just jump on someone after reading the first sentence with which you disagree.
And there's a HUGE difference between the government flatly telling a citizen "THAT SPEECH IS NOT PERMITTED" vs. a private individual filing suit against another and having his day in court. The Founders understood that very clearly, and it was the former which concerned them the most.
Right now, most of us in the United States (those of us that even bother to notice) are, in fact, more concerned about our government suppressing information than we are about other people suing us for libel/slander. The Founders were right, as usual.
We really need to listen to them more. They still have a lot to say.
On the other hand, one has to weigh the amusement/entertainment factor against the resulting Federal terrorism charges and corresponding prison sentence.
There's also programs that use the idle thread to put the CPU to sleep when it's not in use: CPUIdle is a good one, even if you do have to pay for it. That's probably a better option if you're running an always-on system like a server.
Well, I'm American myself and there really aren't too many good domestic beers here either. Well, that's not entirely true, there are a number of microbreweries in my area that turn out some excellent stuff. The big boys are all pretty marginal though.
In my book, the following Holy crap is she smokin' link is definitely preferable to a house that gives every impression of having been screwed by a sperm whale.