This might stimulate nerds and developers
on
MySQL FS
·
· Score: 2
The everyday user won't exactly go nuts over it, though.
The site gives the example "imagine marketroids browsing through the directories to directly access columns and entries" (or words to that effect)
No way. Hey, don't get me wrong, I LIKE that idea, and it gives me a pretty cool idea for a couple of projects that I'm working on, but think carefully about it: any sufficiently useful database for a large company is also sufficiently large that a directory tree is absolutely the slowest and most confusing way to access data held within a database.
For example, let's look at two examples:
input SQL directly: "update employees set salary = '100000' where employee_id = '325'"
browse directory tree: "okay, double-click on "Databases", double-click on "Human-Resources", double-click on "Employees", scroll down until you see "325", double click on "325", then double-click on "Salary". Change the number to "100000"
It's not bad, but it's not as good. Plus, with good programmers (and good communication between programmers and management), the SQL is so abstracted out, it makes no difference. It gets condensed to a list of names and a checkbox next to the names. Those that get "checked" get a raise to $100,000.
To be truly useful to non-programmers (or non-analytical thinkers, if you will), the MySQL-FS would have to abstract out so much of the Database, you're back to a filesystem and a set of scripts to update a MySQL database.
It's cool, but it's not for your regular joe. Beyond a couple of levels, the average computer user gets lost in a heirarchal filesystem -- assuming they don't fill it up with "Untitled Folders" and such.
Simple answer: I don't look at the record. I have never done it, and I will avoid it as much as I can (fortunately, I can, as I only recrut coders, not people that needs military-grade accreditation)
And that is your right -- I am in the position now that I tend to hire friends, so I don't look at their record either. (Actually, my business partner has what might be construed as a "shady" background -- it doesn't bother me, because I know him) Would I be offended if a client dug through his record and declined to hire us because of it? Yes, I would, but I'd be offended at myself because I didn't sufficiently convice the client that, even if we had Charles Manson on payroll, we're still the company to hire.
France may be the only country where graphology (analyse of writing -- don't know if this is the english term) is used when recruiting. I strongly oppose to this. The arguments used by my associates is similar to the ones you use (ie: first, it lowers the risk and second, it can be used to choose between two equivalent people).
Just "handwriting analysis" in the States. I've never heard of anybody using this in employment proceedings (tho I'm sure there's SOMEBODY who does), although it is frequently used on TV shows by police detectives:)
I would oppose it as well (it certainly isn't scientific to judge a person's character from the loops and whorls of handwritting). However, I wouldn't oppose a business's CHOICE to use it. That's where we might differ. If a company decides to use a divining rod to choose employees, that's their right.
(now we get into the sticky subject of "what if they use graphology to discriminate based on skin color or sex"? I don't have an answer for that. The true libertarian in me (not the Libertarian) says "Freedom of association! If somebody's so shallow and stupid as to dislike people based on their skin color, let 'em be shallow and stupid!" Hey, I don't claim to be a nice guy... Speaking of slippery slopes, where does the concept of Civil Rights stop? Blacks and homosexuals and Jews are great, but do we extend it to pedophiles? Deranged people? Clinically insane? Murderers? Rapists? or am I now being stupid? (don't answer that:) )
I don't think so. If spray bombing is enough to be unemployable...
First, I like that term, "spray bombing".. it makes the act of graffiti sound so... military.
Not unemployable -- I don't mean to imply that. Just not as preferable as somebody who didn't commit it. (at least to me)
I'll admit -- destruction and/or defacement of private property is a particular hot-button of mine. I've had a window broken out of my car (no theft, just somebody throwing rocks) and our business has had a word or two painted on the side of the building. I've always found it to be a heinous act of destruction, and it really bothers me. What's strange is that some of the graffiti in some of the seedier parts of town I find to be genuine artwork, and if I owned the building we're in, I'd allow people to do all the art they wanted (barring dirty words and exposed genitalia -- I do have SOME standards)
I fear a society where, at the first fault you are digitally marked for the rest of your life, would get lower wages, etc, etc. (Note that I believe that this is the sad future we are preparing for ourselves, and really can't understand when someone speak/act as if it was a good thing...).
I dunno -- it's separate issues. 1) the freedom of choice to not hire people with records, and 2) the availability/accessibility of said records.
(1) I can agree with. (2) I'm not so sure of. Seems like a good thing (I'd want to know if there are convicted rapists living in my neighborhood), but at the loss of what freedoms? (we usually don't know until the freedoms are already taken away)
For now, I'll take the weasel-way out and say "If you do the deed, don't cry about the consequences, since you should take responsibility for your actions."
So it was a good katz article, which is not a so frequent thing...
Now you're picking on Katz:)
I must say, Fred, this has been very enjoyable. We may agree to disagree, but you have made me think a bit deeper about my previously held opinions. In my book, that makes you the "winner".
(it's funny -- I usually just pass right over Katz's articles. They're usually so stupid and ill-thought out, arguing with them is like kicking a dead dog. Dunno why I stopped to read this one.)
I'm not against lawsuits -- they actually are one of the best methods by which corporations can be kept in line, instead of massive governmental control.
Plus, that 30% settlement money doesn't just sit around in a pile, the lawyers pay employees, buy yachts, buy computers, pay nerds to run the computers systems, etc. It's a form of wealth redistribution.
I just find it pathetic that a law firm thinks so little of itself (or has such a limited imagination) that it does things like this...
Can't argue with that -- it's a fact of life. I don't like it either.
I hope I have the intestinal fortitude to be able to tell the difference between a rich guy who gets off because his daddy is big and important and the guy who got screwed by some racist nitwit cop.
Mmm. I am only attacking your way of reasonning. Basically, the idea that you want to unrealistically lower the risk at employment time. It is a very sloppery path. Statistically, employing white people is safer than black, so your reasonment can easily lead to racial discrimination.
Please don't talk about slippery slopes and then make "logical inferences". That's a very sloppy way of thinking.
Thank you, I already have my own business.
Then, you're in the club! Here's your decoder ring, here's the secret handshake...
The 'real world' is not limited to the united states. Where I live (France), employment discrimination is plainly illegal (but is practiced). Even if ideals are not fully applied they still have value. Even if racial equality (again -- I should come with a better example:-) ) is 'unrealistic in the real world', discrimination is illegal. Personally, I find this a good thing.
You're avoiding the argument -- still. You have two guys in front of you. One has a record, one doesn't. Which do you hire? Simple question. Racial discrimination doesn't come into the equation, and by playing the "race card" you're employing the most despicable debate tactic imaginable.
At a fundamental and abstract level, I reject your way of reasoning, mainly because you are punishing twice for the same fault. Furthermore, one punishment is done by justice, and the other one is social lynching.
Lastly, for a religious person, you seem to totally distruss redemption. Unfortunate...
Punishing? Maybe. I don't see it that way. If I hire the guy with a criminal record and he becomes the best worker imaginable, I've made a good risk. If he cleans me out, I've made a bad one. However I choose which risk to take, and for you, or anybody, to hold me in contempt if I choose to take the lesser risk (by hiring the guy with the clean record) is deplorable.
Social lynching? That's a bit of a stretch, don't you think? It's the mirror image of me saying that hiring the clean-record guy is a Moral Imperitive. It's a risk-assesment, nothing more. Let me turn the question around on you. Should you PREFER ex-cons in the hiring process?
I don't distrust redemption. However, when you bring religion into the argument, you're applying two different types of redemption: social and spiritual. Which do you think I distrust?
I might just hire the guy with the record. I might not. If I take the lesser risk, does that mean I distrust redemption? I guess it does to you. Does that mean you only hire ex-cons?
I see now where my error lies. I shouldn't have said "you SHOULD prefer the guy without the criminal record". Instead, I should have stated "Should you be held in contempt if you prefer to have an employee with a clean record?".
Tho, we've wandered far afield from Katz's article now. But, I'm enjoying it anyway...
Absolutley. Thank god we live in a country where a youthful indescretion like being arrested for cocaine posession (allegedly) can be overlooked
and that person can wipe his slate clean and someday become the leader of the free world.
... and thank God we live in a country where if you get BJs from interns half your age and lie under oath about it, every feminist organization will rush to your defense!
... and thank God we live in a country where if you're the son of a President, that's all it takes for a major political party to hug you to its white-bread, golf-playing bosom!
... and thank God that the only Presidential candidate who promised nothing but individual freedom and liberty (and, thus, responsibility) got only 373,000 votes!
You expect to be rewarded, in the form of employment, for behavior that has nothing to do with employment? Why don't you try building up your
skills and knowledge and get hired based on real merits? Let me guess -- you were an only child, or a tattle-tale, or (more likely) both.
Crikey, how do you parse that from what I wrote? Let me try to put it another way:
If offered the choice between two candidates, Harry One and Larry Two, where Harry One has a spotless record, and Larry Two has a couple of minor transgressions, which would you hire? I would hire Harry -- because I trust him more. Why? He's a better risk than Larry.
What if Larry is more qualified? I'd interview both and see if our personalities match up.
What if Harry is brand-new-out-of-school, but Larry's got 10 years experience? I'd prefer Larry, regardless of past history.
Regarding only-child/tattletale, you really ought to not make assumptions because you run a real risk of coming out looking like a blockhead. I have 3 siblings. Tattletales don't last long in my family. You stand up for your siblings or you'll find your GI Joes without arms and legs come Monday morning.
So, since we're making snap judgements, I guess you're a pedophile in hiding, trying to avoid a palimony suit from your sister while finger-banging your grandmother, and you want everybody to "accept you as you are".
Good for you. But if there's a reward for that, it comes from your parents, and certainly not from the government. What you do on your own time
is your business, and what I do is mine. The government is not here to babysit us.
Geezum crow, where did that come from? I guess we're still stuck on "expecting a reward". I expect neither the government or my parents to reward me for what is decent and proper behavior. Does that satisfy you? I expect NOTHING from NOBODY -- I get what I can earn, and nothing more.
Because it's none of your damn business. Nor is it the employer's business, or any other person or organization. What happens between a
person and the law is between that person and the law, and nobody else.
If I'm hiring somebody to be a cashier, I damn well SHOULD know if they are a repeat-offender thief! Should I then be able to take out a full-page ad telling everybody in the world "Hey! Joe Smith is a THIEF!"? No!
If you have a daughter (if($daughter) {ereg_replace("if", "when", $rant)}), will you still think that "what happens is between the person and the law" when you go looking for a day-care center? Or will you just hope that they haven't hired any pedophiles?
Absolutely not. The point that the record should have been sealed is the entire matter.
I don't think I made myself clear here (mea culpa). I was trying to separate the two issues for a hypothetical situation. I didn't do a very good job of it.
Let's assume, however, that this guy does live in a state where misdemeanors committed as a minor are sealed, except for certain cases where damage was done that ammounted to more than $2000, and his spray-painting cost $3000 to repair/clean up. If the employer doesn't like the fact that this guy did this, it's his choice to not hire him, and he has cause -- his employees reflect upon his business.
Your conformist attitude sickens me. It's people like you that are turning this world into a place where every movement you make is logged, and
the concept of privacy is laughed at. Will you keep the same attitude a few years from now, when you won't even be able to buy milk at the
grocery store without being logged? And before you dismiss that possibility, note that here in FL at certain liquor stores you can't buy anything
(even cheese) without having your ID scanned.
Conformist? I don't want conformity! Where in the hell do I say I want conformity! I want respect for property -- is that too much to ask?
For the record, I'm a die-hard, voting, volunteering Libertarian. Do I do drugs? No! If drugs become legal, will I do them? No! Do I want a nanny state? NO!
Should a criminal record be public? No, but they should be accessible in certain circumstances. Who decides what circumstances? Depends on the record -- federal crimes are dictated by federal authorities, state by state authorities, local by local authorities. If I am able to access a person's record, do I have the right to blab it? No! If I do so, it should be punishable.
Grow up and mind your own business. The purpose of government is not to babysit the people. Let me guess... you also support drug prohibition,
social security, and welfare. Oh, sure, they all work in theory. Problem is, not everybody thinks the way you do, nor are the obliged to.
I answer most of this above -- I got further afield than I intended to. Do not put words into my mouth. My premise was simple enough, you expanded it to mean things that I never said, never intended, never implied.
You apparently think that I pry into the doings of my employees -- an assertion that I can wholeheartedly deny, mostly because my employees are people that I've know for years. At this point, we don't even have an employment application!
Read my original post again, and try to see it without your pre-formed opinions of what you THINK I said. Then we can talk again.
If someone did stupid at age of 16, then paid its tribute to society, he should get out clean. Your
way of thinking make me sick. Who are you ? A uber-citizen because you never get caught ?
What are you, a psychic? What makes you say I "never got caught"? I never got caught because I never did anything illegal!
Know what I was doing when I was 16? Playing with BBS's, reading, playing music, swimming. I never even so much as egged a car or TP'ed a yard. Why? Because I have respect for people's property, a value instilled in me by my religion and my parents.
Being a colossal prick doesn't add weight to your argument -- first, you put words into my mouth with a poor strawman argument, i.e.
Statistically, black people are more likely to commit crimes in the US (or at least, they are more likely to get caught). I guess, it segregastion is
good business practice after all...
Please study my original post carefully and tell me where I say that segregation is good? (Oh, and segregation means "separation". The word you're looking for is prejudice) This is such a weak-ass strawman I don't even have to knock it over but I will.
Are you a business owner? I am. I run a small design/technology business in what most of the USA would consider "the hood" -- i.e. mostly black, mostly poor. Do I have a problem with it? No. We're neighbors. Would I hire any of my neighbors? Sure -- if they can do the work. Would I hire a punk kid who's got a few arrests on his record? Not if there's an equally qualified kid who doesn't. Why? Cause I'm not in the business of reforming "troubled kids". I'm in the business to make a living for me and my employees.
Your
way of thinking make me sick.
Your way of thinking is compassionate and heartful, but unrealistic in the real world. When you start your own business, you can hire every reformed convict you want. But don't tell me that I have to out of some mealy-mouthed sentimentality.
"[...] But jeez, it was a spray-painting incident. I guess in certain quarters, I'm unemployable for the rest of my life."
Not to sound like a complete shit, but what about those of us who DIDN'T vandalize somebody else's property?
If there are enough people who didn't do such a thing when they were young to pick from, why take even a minimal risk with somebody who did? I spent my teenage years quietly doing what I was supposed to do, obeying my parents, trying to work hard, and learning everything I could. Why SHOULDN'T I be preffered over somebody who spray painted "SuX0R my B4LLz" on the side of a building?
Now, the point that he was a minor and the record should have been sealed is a different matter. (of course, it could depend on the state as to whether the record is sealed or not, or to the amount of damage the vandalism caused) If that is the case, then the guy shouldn't have any problems, and should count himself lucky for that fact.
But to wave the "wild and crazy youth" flag and expect everybody to salute it is poor thinking. There are enough people who were mature enough at 16 to understand that other people's property is to be respected, not trashed. And they SHOULD be preffered over a reformed hooligan.
Course, that's just my opinion
Re:The question is not whether there is a problem
on
Information Poisoning
·
· Score: 2
Try to name a problem government has solved:
Okay, the Jacklegs-In-Blue-Suit-White-Shirt-Red-Tie shortage is doing a lot better now...
Do me a favor and define education. Is it training for a job? Is it the study of ancient cultures? Is it broadening your horizons? Is it advancing your career?
One thing I do know is education is not a system by which you can sit idly in a classroom and have knowledge poured into your head. It requires work and perseverance and dedication on the part of the student. Some people are not wired that way (for good or ill). Do we pay for them to sit dumbly in a Renaissance French Poetry class?
For the consumer, it won?t matter if he downloads 50 megabytes of garbage or 50 megabytes of the latest Garbage album - he?ll pay the same amount.
Suddenly, the era of the "Epic Ballad" (Rush's 2112, for example) are dead.
"Why download 2112 -- that'll cost me $X. Prime Mover is a great song, I'll get that instead, and it'll only cost me $X/2!"
The idea has merit conceptually, but just changes the problems. (Oh, you can also kiss goodbye Wagner's Ring Cycle (which, actually, is okay with me). It takes 4 days to perform.)
My complicated and difficult solution is to let the market decide, i.e. let the bands and artists and symphonies and video producers decide how they want to protect their work (or not, as the case may be), but not forcing a single standard down our throats. In a couple of years, a winner will shake out.
How long after the Xbox is released will it be running a.NET client?
Something to think about -- Microsoft has the cash on hand to take a bath on the console sales (think $150-$250), which prices it below the PS2 (its nearest competitor). I remember reading (somewhere) that there was a PSX in 3 out of 4 homes in the USA. Imagine that kind of saturation with the Xbox.
Now, think of.NET running on the Xbox. Suddenly, all these el-cheapo consoles are full-bore computers with MSN satellite or DSL broadband connections with MSN email addresses, MSN Instant Messenger and MSNBC running in a window in the corner while you're using MSPhonePad to dial up your friend to arrange a network game of MS FlightSim...
Hrmm... suddenly MSFT at 49 11/16 is pretty darn cheap, DOJ or no DOJ.
I want to sit where ever I am and be free (and not have people
tripping over the damn wire, or the dog pulling it out in the middle of a 1 hour GT2 endurance race).
I assume you mean wireless controllers? No thank you. I've already paid $XXX for the console and $XX for games -- I don't want a recurring cost as well for batteries. (Rechargable you say? Okay, the console better come with recharable batteries AND a charger -- again, I've already paid $XXX...)
Nor have I ever been impressed with the performance of wireless controllers. Bleargh!
my student loan (thanks to our previous government's decision to cut grants for higher education in the
UK) and my girlfriend's loan
Ahh, I see. The government should pay for your higher education so that you can get a higher-paying job than a grade-school graduate...
I suppose the argument can be made that the gov't paying for education results in a populace with higher wages (thus higher tax revenues)... but then the counter argument can be made, if the gov't wasn't paying for so many graduates, imagine how much less expensive higher ed could be?
You are aware that the USSR wasn't communism, right? I never purported anything Marx said to be even remotely feasible; that said, I still think
it's a lovely plan for a utopian society (would you rather have your psx2 or would you rather sleep well at night knowing that your neighbors and
their kids aren't slowly starving themselves to death because of an imbalanced distribution of wealth?) but, as you correctly point out, human
nature's a bitch; same goes for capitalism.
Technically, no, it's not. It's Marxism-Leninism, which is Communism++ (mooshy "feel good" plastic-banana commune society plus central control to force that commune to work together). Since force is the only way to make communism happen (human nature prevents it from spontaneously forming, see "The Tragedy of the Commons" argument), Marxism-Leninism is how you get to Communism -- assuming you can get the central control to absolve themselves of power.
Okay, I'll put it like this: Is capitalism perfect? No. Is it the best we've got? Yes. Capitalism works because it DOES take human nature into account. We have unlimited wants, but a limited supply. Marx gets that far correctly. However, he misunderstands and alternately confuses "wants" with "needs", and assumes everybody has the same "wants". This is provably untrue -- I want a nice girlfriend, that gay guy wants a nice boyfriend (as a simple example), or I want the cash for 100 shares of Apple stock on loan so I can sell short, that guy simply wants 100 shares of Apple at any price (a more complicated example).
Your "slowly starving to death" example is severely flawed. Are people starving in America? Probably -- but you have to look pretty hard to find them. Food is plentiful and cheap in America. Were people starving in the USSR? You bet -- the kind of low-grade malnutrition that afflicts most of the world, not a mass die-off of thousands of people, granted. But slowly starving to death they were.
Regarding the most attrocious comment you made ("imbalanced distribution of wealth") -- are you kidding? What's the correct balance? Who decides? What criteria are used? What's wealth? It must sound great to you, but realize this: I have greater aspirations than a double-wide in Arkansas (which is what an even distribution of wealth in America would mean). Just because YOU have no vision or drive doesn't mean you have the right to trample on mine.
You are still under the misapprehension that capitalism is "get what you can grab from somebody else", i.e. wealth is a zero-sum game. It just isn't so -- wealth is defined differently for different people in different ways. Yes, there is a finite ammount of gold (or pick your precious metal of choice). Gold is just one type of wealth. Is there a finite ammount of love? Charity? Cheap thrills? Adrenaline rushes? Religious fervor? These are also types of wealth -- and captitalism allows for it. Communism (or Marxism-Leninism, if you prefer) doesn't. (In fact, religion is generally de-emphasized (if not outright disallowed) under Marxism-Leninism. You can't have competition for the Politburo, or their power is lessened)
I can only figure you to be a young idealist, perhaps still living at home. Get out in the world for a bit. Better still, start and run your own business for a few years. You'll get a better idea of human nature, and maybe understand the benefits of pure capitalism and freedom then.
Oh, and your "HURR HURR HURR I READ A BOOK" comment shows a remarkable lack of life experience. Is a book a perfect replacement for real experience? No. Is it better than "this is what it is, because I think that's what it is" (which is your argument). Yes. I haven't lived under Marxism-Leninism (unless you believe my more extreme libertarian friends and say that we're already living in it), and I doubt you have either. But I have at least read the philosophy on which it is based, as well as the counter argument. You're just spouting off slogans and solipcisms based on your limited understanding of the facts. And it shows.
I wouldn't say that -- Marx's "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" sounds pretty nasty to me. I only get what I need? When do I get my Playstation 2? I don't? Sucks to that...
Have you read Das Kapital? I recommend it, if only to see what we narrowly missed with the fall of the USSR. Marx was both a poor economist and a poor judge of human nature.
Capitalism is about moving things from lesser value to higher value. For example, you're a wheat farmer, I'm a chicken farmer. I give you a chicken for a bundle of wheat. Chickens aren't as valuable to me as wheat is, since I've got a few hundred around. Wheat is growing into your bedroom window, you're glad to get rid of some of it. We've just increased each other's wealth, and nobody's worse off for it.
Money is just an easier way of carrying around a sackful of chickens.
It seems like corporations have no desire other
than to strip us of what few remaining freedoms we have, and the government is doing nothing to check their power scramble.
You expect the government to guarantee freedom and liberty? I sincerely hope that's a joke...
Any government (or, really, any group of people gathered in sufficient numbers) will take every opportunity to garner more power for themselves -- it's human nature. Take a look at your company's IT department for confirmation ("Yeah, we need to go with Windows NT, sotto voce: so we'll be guaranteed a job").
You never want the people with all the money and all the guns to be the same people (see puppet dictatorships in some of the more squallid sectors of our planet). With unheard of money coming in from taxes, and a military (paid for by same taxes), the government has both.
We're lucky in America that the founders thought little enough of governments that they specifically limited it's power -- and it worked pretty well. It took almost 150 years before the government managed to sneak off with our liberties.
Personally, I believe our problem stems from the vanished wilderness. 100 year ago, if you didn't like how things were going in town, you hitched up your wagon and headed west, where freedom and liberty was still available for those with the desire to seek it out. Now, you can travel from New York to Los Angeles in a car without needing an oil change, and there's nowhere left to go to "get away" (except a few _really_ undesirable places like, say, the tundra of Alaska).
You have a few choices to deal with this, and one of them is not bashing "evil corporations" (remember, a business has to sell the Vietnam War to you, the government can just enforce conscription and ship your ass over there):
Give the government less money and expect less from it and vote that way
Accept that you're going to lose a few freedoms in exchange for governmental "security"
Utilize our evil, corrupt, morally bankrupt capitalist system to make a ton of cash and buy freedom (in the form of anonymity, or a small island in continental waters)
Remember this -- as long as government has the power to take your freedoms, the ones with the dough will abuse that government to take more freedoms from you (vis, the DMCA, UCITA, et al). Without the power of government to enforce these crappy freedom-losing laws, the MPAA-crew can't chase you down, hang you up by your ankles and shake all the money out of your pocket. You have to reach in yourself and give it to them.
(i.e. vote Libertarian next election cycle, unless you're really attached to governmental largesse)
Try this Amptron product. You may not be able to buy it direct from Amptron. I've seen a dealer here and there reselling them.
It may be more than you're willing to pay (in the $500US range once you put a proc,RAM,HD in), but you have a real-live computer once you're finished. Maybe even an Indrema killer.
Email is still the killer app. What launched our current Info-economy was the rise of ISPs, not the Web. The Web helped bring people in, no doubt, but they stayed because of email, not some kid's "Welcome to my Home page on The wWeb" Geocities site, complete with BLINK tags and a poorly captured QuickCam image of his cat.
I read a lot of comments saying "Consoles are dead (and good riddance!)", but I have a different take.
The thing people like about a console is that you plug it in, and it works. It's simple to operate (though, the games may not be), it's non-threatening (one or two controllers, with a few buttons and a joystick).
The downside is that it's limiting (no keyboard, no high-rez screens, no connectivity) -- dowsides that are being alleviated with the Indrema or (maybe) the PS2.
But look at your modern computer -- no longer a box of bits you put together yourself from bought and found parts (/.ers excepted). It's a nice, friendly box you buy from a nice, friendly guy at CompUSA that you take home, plug up and (most of the time) works. Computers are becoming more consolish every day, while consoles are becoming more computerish every day.
The juxtaposition of these two axis will create some bastard box with the computer's "eyes and nose" and the console's "hair and bone structure" -- and it may not do all that well. (Vis a vis, the 3DO or Apple's Pippen, the first generation of bastard boxes) For example, the Pippen was a great idea -- a computer or game platform, reasonably priced. Computer labs should have been filling up with those things, since they were so easy to set up, nearly impossible to infect with a virus, and w-a-y cheaper than a full computer (at the time). I think Apple sold ten of them. It was a so-so computer, a so-so game platform (and marketed like a leper whore).
Will gaming die out? Not likely -- people by nature loved to be entertained, and as long as games provide entertainment, they'll sell. Where will these games play? It's too early to tell -- I think consoles will move to the top of your TV and will be TiVO/PS2/WebTV bastardizations, until the tech improves to where it will be included in every TV. But that's nothing more than a guess.
One more item -- the great console crash of the early 80's was partially due to market saturation (everybody who wanted one already had a 2600), paritally due to home-computing's rise (C64, Apple ][ ), and partially due to cable TVs rise ("you wanna play Pitfall?" "Nah, let's see if we can find some boobies on Cinemax").
Slashdot Mirror
The everyday user won't exactly go nuts over it, though.
The site gives the example "imagine marketroids browsing through the directories to directly access columns and entries" (or words to that effect)
No way. Hey, don't get me wrong, I LIKE that idea, and it gives me a pretty cool idea for a couple of projects that I'm working on, but think carefully about it: any sufficiently useful database for a large company is also sufficiently large that a directory tree is absolutely the slowest and most confusing way to access data held within a database.
For example, let's look at two examples:
It's not bad, but it's not as good. Plus, with good programmers (and good communication between programmers and management), the SQL is so abstracted out, it makes no difference. It gets condensed to a list of names and a checkbox next to the names. Those that get "checked" get a raise to $100,000.
To be truly useful to non-programmers (or non-analytical thinkers, if you will), the MySQL-FS would have to abstract out so much of the Database, you're back to a filesystem and a set of scripts to update a MySQL database.
It's cool, but it's not for your regular joe. Beyond a couple of levels, the average computer user gets lost in a heirarchal filesystem -- assuming they don't fill it up with "Untitled Folders" and such.
And that is your right -- I am in the position now that I tend to hire friends, so I don't look at their record either. (Actually, my business partner has what might be construed as a "shady" background -- it doesn't bother me, because I know him) Would I be offended if a client dug through his record and declined to hire us because of it? Yes, I would, but I'd be offended at myself because I didn't sufficiently convice the client that, even if we had Charles Manson on payroll, we're still the company to hire.
Just "handwriting analysis" in the States. I've never heard of anybody using this in employment proceedings (tho I'm sure there's SOMEBODY who does), although it is frequently used on TV shows by police detectives :)
I would oppose it as well (it certainly isn't scientific to judge a person's character from the loops and whorls of handwritting). However, I wouldn't oppose a business's CHOICE to use it. That's where we might differ. If a company decides to use a divining rod to choose employees, that's their right.
(now we get into the sticky subject of "what if they use graphology to discriminate based on skin color or sex"? I don't have an answer for that. The true libertarian in me (not the Libertarian) says "Freedom of association! If somebody's so shallow and stupid as to dislike people based on their skin color, let 'em be shallow and stupid!" Hey, I don't claim to be a nice guy... Speaking of slippery slopes, where does the concept of Civil Rights stop? Blacks and homosexuals and Jews are great, but do we extend it to pedophiles? Deranged people? Clinically insane? Murderers? Rapists? or am I now being stupid? (don't answer that :) )
First, I like that term, "spray bombing".. it makes the act of graffiti sound so... military.
Not unemployable -- I don't mean to imply that. Just not as preferable as somebody who didn't commit it. (at least to me)
I'll admit -- destruction and/or defacement of private property is a particular hot-button of mine. I've had a window broken out of my car (no theft, just somebody throwing rocks) and our business has had a word or two painted on the side of the building. I've always found it to be a heinous act of destruction, and it really bothers me. What's strange is that some of the graffiti in some of the seedier parts of town I find to be genuine artwork, and if I owned the building we're in, I'd allow people to do all the art they wanted (barring dirty words and exposed genitalia -- I do have SOME standards)
I dunno -- it's separate issues. 1) the freedom of choice to not hire people with records, and 2) the availability/accessibility of said records.
(1) I can agree with. (2) I'm not so sure of. Seems like a good thing (I'd want to know if there are convicted rapists living in my neighborhood), but at the loss of what freedoms? (we usually don't know until the freedoms are already taken away)
For now, I'll take the weasel-way out and say "If you do the deed, don't cry about the consequences, since you should take responsibility for your actions."
Now you're picking on Katz :)
I must say, Fred, this has been very enjoyable. We may agree to disagree, but you have made me think a bit deeper about my previously held opinions. In my book, that makes you the "winner".
(it's funny -- I usually just pass right over Katz's articles. They're usually so stupid and ill-thought out, arguing with them is like kicking a dead dog. Dunno why I stopped to read this one.)
Umm... okay
I'm not against lawsuits -- they actually are one of the best methods by which corporations can be kept in line, instead of massive governmental control.
Plus, that 30% settlement money doesn't just sit around in a pile, the lawyers pay employees, buy yachts, buy computers, pay nerds to run the computers systems, etc. It's a form of wealth redistribution.
I just find it pathetic that a law firm thinks so little of itself (or has such a limited imagination) that it does things like this...
Can't argue with that -- it's a fact of life. I don't like it either.
I hope I have the intestinal fortitude to be able to tell the difference between a rich guy who gets off because his daddy is big and important and the guy who got screwed by some racist nitwit cop.
Please don't talk about slippery slopes and then make "logical inferences". That's a very sloppy way of thinking.
Then, you're in the club! Here's your decoder ring, here's the secret handshake...
You're avoiding the argument -- still. You have two guys in front of you. One has a record, one doesn't. Which do you hire? Simple question. Racial discrimination doesn't come into the equation, and by playing the "race card" you're employing the most despicable debate tactic imaginable.
Punishing? Maybe. I don't see it that way. If I hire the guy with a criminal record and he becomes the best worker imaginable, I've made a good risk. If he cleans me out, I've made a bad one. However I choose which risk to take, and for you, or anybody, to hold me in contempt if I choose to take the lesser risk (by hiring the guy with the clean record) is deplorable.
Social lynching? That's a bit of a stretch, don't you think? It's the mirror image of me saying that hiring the clean-record guy is a Moral Imperitive. It's a risk-assesment, nothing more. Let me turn the question around on you. Should you PREFER ex-cons in the hiring process?
I don't distrust redemption. However, when you bring religion into the argument, you're applying two different types of redemption: social and spiritual. Which do you think I distrust?
I might just hire the guy with the record. I might not. If I take the lesser risk, does that mean I distrust redemption? I guess it does to you. Does that mean you only hire ex-cons?
I see now where my error lies. I shouldn't have said "you SHOULD prefer the guy without the criminal record". Instead, I should have stated "Should you be held in contempt if you prefer to have an employee with a clean record?".
Tho, we've wandered far afield from Katz's article now. But, I'm enjoying it anyway...
File this under To Be Ignored
... and thank God we live in a country where if you get BJs from interns half your age and lie under oath about it, every feminist organization will rush to your defense!
... and thank God we live in a country where if you're the son of a President, that's all it takes for a major political party to hug you to its white-bread, golf-playing bosom!
... and thank God that the only Presidential candidate who promised nothing but individual freedom and liberty (and, thus, responsibility) got only 373,000 votes!
(the [Ll]ibertarian speaking now)
Okay, in order:
Crikey, how do you parse that from what I wrote? Let me try to put it another way:
Regarding only-child/tattletale, you really ought to not make assumptions because you run a real risk of coming out looking like a blockhead. I have 3 siblings. Tattletales don't last long in my family. You stand up for your siblings or you'll find your GI Joes without arms and legs come Monday morning.
So, since we're making snap judgements, I guess you're a pedophile in hiding, trying to avoid a palimony suit from your sister while finger-banging your grandmother, and you want everybody to "accept you as you are".
Geezum crow, where did that come from? I guess we're still stuck on "expecting a reward". I expect neither the government or my parents to reward me for what is decent and proper behavior. Does that satisfy you? I expect NOTHING from NOBODY -- I get what I can earn, and nothing more.
If I'm hiring somebody to be a cashier, I damn well SHOULD know if they are a repeat-offender thief! Should I then be able to take out a full-page ad telling everybody in the world "Hey! Joe Smith is a THIEF!"? No!
If you have a daughter (if($daughter) {ereg_replace("if", "when", $rant)}), will you still think that "what happens is between the person and the law" when you go looking for a day-care center? Or will you just hope that they haven't hired any pedophiles?
I don't think I made myself clear here (mea culpa). I was trying to separate the two issues for a hypothetical situation. I didn't do a very good job of it.
Let's assume, however, that this guy does live in a state where misdemeanors committed as a minor are sealed, except for certain cases where damage was done that ammounted to more than $2000, and his spray-painting cost $3000 to repair/clean up. If the employer doesn't like the fact that this guy did this, it's his choice to not hire him, and he has cause -- his employees reflect upon his business.
Conformist? I don't want conformity! Where in the hell do I say I want conformity! I want respect for property -- is that too much to ask?
For the record, I'm a die-hard, voting, volunteering Libertarian. Do I do drugs? No! If drugs become legal, will I do them? No! Do I want a nanny state? NO!
Should a criminal record be public? No, but they should be accessible in certain circumstances. Who decides what circumstances? Depends on the record -- federal crimes are dictated by federal authorities, state by state authorities, local by local authorities. If I am able to access a person's record, do I have the right to blab it? No! If I do so, it should be punishable.
I answer most of this above -- I got further afield than I intended to. Do not put words into my mouth. My premise was simple enough, you expanded it to mean things that I never said, never intended, never implied.
You apparently think that I pry into the doings of my employees -- an assertion that I can wholeheartedly deny, mostly because my employees are people that I've know for years. At this point, we don't even have an employment application!
Read my original post again, and try to see it without your pre-formed opinions of what you THINK I said. Then we can talk again.
What are you, a psychic? What makes you say I "never got caught"? I never got caught because I never did anything illegal!
Know what I was doing when I was 16? Playing with BBS's, reading, playing music, swimming. I never even so much as egged a car or TP'ed a yard. Why? Because I have respect for people's property, a value instilled in me by my religion and my parents.
Being a colossal prick doesn't add weight to your argument -- first, you put words into my mouth with a poor strawman argument, i.e.
Please study my original post carefully and tell me where I say that segregation is good? (Oh, and segregation means "separation". The word you're looking for is prejudice) This is such a weak-ass strawman I don't even have to knock it over but I will.
Are you a business owner? I am. I run a small design/technology business in what most of the USA would consider "the hood" -- i.e. mostly black, mostly poor. Do I have a problem with it? No. We're neighbors. Would I hire any of my neighbors? Sure -- if they can do the work. Would I hire a punk kid who's got a few arrests on his record? Not if there's an equally qualified kid who doesn't. Why? Cause I'm not in the business of reforming "troubled kids". I'm in the business to make a living for me and my employees.
Your way of thinking is compassionate and heartful, but unrealistic in the real world. When you start your own business, you can hire every reformed convict you want. But don't tell me that I have to out of some mealy-mouthed sentimentality.
Not to sound like a complete shit, but what about those of us who DIDN'T vandalize somebody else's property?
If there are enough people who didn't do such a thing when they were young to pick from, why take even a minimal risk with somebody who did? I spent my teenage years quietly doing what I was supposed to do, obeying my parents, trying to work hard, and learning everything I could. Why SHOULDN'T I be preffered over somebody who spray painted "SuX0R my B4LLz" on the side of a building?
Now, the point that he was a minor and the record should have been sealed is a different matter. (of course, it could depend on the state as to whether the record is sealed or not, or to the amount of damage the vandalism caused) If that is the case, then the guy shouldn't have any problems, and should count himself lucky for that fact.
But to wave the "wild and crazy youth" flag and expect everybody to salute it is poor thinking. There are enough people who were mature enough at 16 to understand that other people's property is to be respected, not trashed. And they SHOULD be preffered over a reformed hooligan.
Course, that's just my opinion
Okay, the Jacklegs-In-Blue-Suit-White-Shirt-Red-Tie shortage is doing a lot better now...
This proposal is a tragedy to personal liberties and freedoms (and rates pretty high on the Suck-o-Meter), and your efforts thus far are admirable.
So, I want to know, what can we do to help? Letter writing, calls, faxes? Stand around and go "Brrbbrrbb" with our lips?
How can we aid your efforts in the most effective way?
Do me a favor and define education. Is it training for a job? Is it the study of ancient cultures? Is it broadening your horizons? Is it advancing your career?
One thing I do know is education is not a system by which you can sit idly in a classroom and have knowledge poured into your head. It requires work and perseverance and dedication on the part of the student. Some people are not wired that way (for good or ill). Do we pay for them to sit dumbly in a Renaissance French Poetry class?
From the article:
Suddenly, the era of the "Epic Ballad" (Rush's 2112, for example) are dead.
"Why download 2112 -- that'll cost me $X. Prime Mover is a great song, I'll get that instead, and it'll only cost me $X/2!"
The idea has merit conceptually, but just changes the problems. (Oh, you can also kiss goodbye Wagner's Ring Cycle (which, actually, is okay with me). It takes 4 days to perform.)
My complicated and difficult solution is to let the market decide, i.e. let the bands and artists and symphonies and video producers decide how they want to protect their work (or not, as the case may be), but not forcing a single standard down our throats. In a couple of years, a winner will shake out.
How long after the Xbox is released will it be running a .NET client?
Something to think about -- Microsoft has the cash on hand to take a bath on the console sales (think $150-$250), which prices it below the PS2 (its nearest competitor). I remember reading (somewhere) that there was a PSX in 3 out of 4 homes in the USA. Imagine that kind of saturation with the Xbox.
Now, think of .NET running on the Xbox. Suddenly, all these el-cheapo consoles are full-bore computers with MSN satellite or DSL broadband connections with MSN email addresses, MSN Instant Messenger and MSNBC running in a window in the corner while you're using MSPhonePad to dial up your friend to arrange a network game of MS FlightSim...
Hrmm... suddenly MSFT at 49 11/16 is pretty darn cheap, DOJ or no DOJ.
I assume you mean wireless controllers? No thank you. I've already paid $XXX for the console and $XX for games -- I don't want a recurring cost as well for batteries. (Rechargable you say? Okay, the console better come with recharable batteries AND a charger -- again, I've already paid $XXX...)
Nor have I ever been impressed with the performance of wireless controllers. Bleargh!
If you WANT wireless, buy them as accessories.
Ahh, I see. The government should pay for your higher education so that you can get a higher-paying job than a grade-school graduate...
I suppose the argument can be made that the gov't paying for education results in a populace with higher wages (thus higher tax revenues)... but then the counter argument can be made, if the gov't wasn't paying for so many graduates, imagine how much less expensive higher ed could be?
Technically, no, it's not. It's Marxism-Leninism, which is Communism++ (mooshy "feel good" plastic-banana commune society plus central control to force that commune to work together). Since force is the only way to make communism happen (human nature prevents it from spontaneously forming, see "The Tragedy of the Commons" argument), Marxism-Leninism is how you get to Communism -- assuming you can get the central control to absolve themselves of power.
Okay, I'll put it like this: Is capitalism perfect? No. Is it the best we've got? Yes. Capitalism works because it DOES take human nature into account. We have unlimited wants, but a limited supply. Marx gets that far correctly. However, he misunderstands and alternately confuses "wants" with "needs", and assumes everybody has the same "wants". This is provably untrue -- I want a nice girlfriend, that gay guy wants a nice boyfriend (as a simple example), or I want the cash for 100 shares of Apple stock on loan so I can sell short, that guy simply wants 100 shares of Apple at any price (a more complicated example).
Your "slowly starving to death" example is severely flawed. Are people starving in America? Probably -- but you have to look pretty hard to find them. Food is plentiful and cheap in America. Were people starving in the USSR? You bet -- the kind of low-grade malnutrition that afflicts most of the world, not a mass die-off of thousands of people, granted. But slowly starving to death they were.
Regarding the most attrocious comment you made ("imbalanced distribution of wealth") -- are you kidding? What's the correct balance? Who decides? What criteria are used? What's wealth? It must sound great to you, but realize this: I have greater aspirations than a double-wide in Arkansas (which is what an even distribution of wealth in America would mean). Just because YOU have no vision or drive doesn't mean you have the right to trample on mine.
You are still under the misapprehension that capitalism is "get what you can grab from somebody else", i.e. wealth is a zero-sum game. It just isn't so -- wealth is defined differently for different people in different ways. Yes, there is a finite ammount of gold (or pick your precious metal of choice). Gold is just one type of wealth. Is there a finite ammount of love? Charity? Cheap thrills? Adrenaline rushes? Religious fervor? These are also types of wealth -- and captitalism allows for it. Communism (or Marxism-Leninism, if you prefer) doesn't. (In fact, religion is generally de-emphasized (if not outright disallowed) under Marxism-Leninism. You can't have competition for the Politburo, or their power is lessened)
I can only figure you to be a young idealist, perhaps still living at home. Get out in the world for a bit. Better still, start and run your own business for a few years. You'll get a better idea of human nature, and maybe understand the benefits of pure capitalism and freedom then.
Oh, and your "HURR HURR HURR I READ A BOOK" comment shows a remarkable lack of life experience. Is a book a perfect replacement for real experience? No. Is it better than "this is what it is, because I think that's what it is" (which is your argument). Yes. I haven't lived under Marxism-Leninism (unless you believe my more extreme libertarian friends and say that we're already living in it), and I doubt you have either. But I have at least read the philosophy on which it is based, as well as the counter argument. You're just spouting off slogans and solipcisms based on your limited understanding of the facts. And it shows.
Mode32 is the extention yer looking for.
I wouldn't say that -- Marx's "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" sounds pretty nasty to me. I only get what I need? When do I get my Playstation 2? I don't? Sucks to that...
Have you read Das Kapital? I recommend it, if only to see what we narrowly missed with the fall of the USSR. Marx was both a poor economist and a poor judge of human nature.
Wow -- you need to put away the keyboard and mouse and go read Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations
Capitalism is about moving things from lesser value to higher value. For example, you're a wheat farmer, I'm a chicken farmer. I give you a chicken for a bundle of wheat. Chickens aren't as valuable to me as wheat is, since I've got a few hundred around. Wheat is growing into your bedroom window, you're glad to get rid of some of it. We've just increased each other's wealth, and nobody's worse off for it.
Money is just an easier way of carrying around a sackful of chickens.
If Adam Smith is too thick for you to read, try P.J. O'Rourke's Eat the Rich
You expect the government to guarantee freedom and liberty? I sincerely hope that's a joke...
Any government (or, really, any group of people gathered in sufficient numbers) will take every opportunity to garner more power for themselves -- it's human nature. Take a look at your company's IT department for confirmation ("Yeah, we need to go with Windows NT, sotto voce: so we'll be guaranteed a job").
You never want the people with all the money and all the guns to be the same people (see puppet dictatorships in some of the more squallid sectors of our planet). With unheard of money coming in from taxes, and a military (paid for by same taxes), the government has both.
We're lucky in America that the founders thought little enough of governments that they specifically limited it's power -- and it worked pretty well. It took almost 150 years before the government managed to sneak off with our liberties.
Personally, I believe our problem stems from the vanished wilderness. 100 year ago, if you didn't like how things were going in town, you hitched up your wagon and headed west, where freedom and liberty was still available for those with the desire to seek it out. Now, you can travel from New York to Los Angeles in a car without needing an oil change, and there's nowhere left to go to "get away" (except a few _really_ undesirable places like, say, the tundra of Alaska).
You have a few choices to deal with this, and one of them is not bashing "evil corporations" (remember, a business has to sell the Vietnam War to you, the government can just enforce conscription and ship your ass over there):
Remember this -- as long as government has the power to take your freedoms, the ones with the dough will abuse that government to take more freedoms from you (vis, the DMCA, UCITA, et al). Without the power of government to enforce these crappy freedom-losing laws, the MPAA-crew can't chase you down, hang you up by your ankles and shake all the money out of your pocket. You have to reach in yourself and give it to them.
(i.e. vote Libertarian next election cycle, unless you're really attached to governmental largesse)
Try this Amptron product. You may not be able to buy it direct from Amptron. I've seen a dealer here and there reselling them.
It may be more than you're willing to pay (in the $500US range once you put a proc,RAM,HD in), but you have a real-live computer once you're finished. Maybe even an Indrema killer.
Email is still the killer app. What launched our current Info-economy was the rise of ISPs, not the Web. The Web helped bring people in, no doubt, but they stayed because of email, not some kid's "Welcome to my Home page on The wWeb" Geocities site, complete with BLINK tags and a poorly captured QuickCam image of his cat.
I read a lot of comments saying "Consoles are dead (and good riddance!)", but I have a different take.
The thing people like about a console is that you plug it in, and it works. It's simple to operate (though, the games may not be), it's non-threatening (one or two controllers, with a few buttons and a joystick).
The downside is that it's limiting (no keyboard, no high-rez screens, no connectivity) -- dowsides that are being alleviated with the Indrema or (maybe) the PS2.
But look at your modern computer -- no longer a box of bits you put together yourself from bought and found parts (/.ers excepted). It's a nice, friendly box you buy from a nice, friendly guy at CompUSA that you take home, plug up and (most of the time) works. Computers are becoming more consolish every day, while consoles are becoming more computerish every day.
The juxtaposition of these two axis will create some bastard box with the computer's "eyes and nose" and the console's "hair and bone structure" -- and it may not do all that well. (Vis a vis, the 3DO or Apple's Pippen, the first generation of bastard boxes) For example, the Pippen was a great idea -- a computer or game platform, reasonably priced. Computer labs should have been filling up with those things, since they were so easy to set up, nearly impossible to infect with a virus, and w-a-y cheaper than a full computer (at the time). I think Apple sold ten of them. It was a so-so computer, a so-so game platform (and marketed like a leper whore).
Will gaming die out? Not likely -- people by nature loved to be entertained, and as long as games provide entertainment, they'll sell. Where will these games play? It's too early to tell -- I think consoles will move to the top of your TV and will be TiVO/PS2/WebTV bastardizations, until the tech improves to where it will be included in every TV. But that's nothing more than a guess.
One more item -- the great console crash of the early 80's was partially due to market saturation (everybody who wanted one already had a 2600), paritally due to home-computing's rise (C64, Apple ][ ), and partially due to cable TVs rise ("you wanna play Pitfall?" "Nah, let's see if we can find some boobies on Cinemax").
Niggly Software
TCP/IP specs, BIND, ipfilter
Jiggly Software
xv,mpeg_play (for viewing pr0n)
Stupid Software
VB, Perl (oh, how the flames roll in...:)
Sexy Software
AI^H^H CD-ROM^H^H^H^H^H^H Web Brows^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H B2C^H^H^H B2B^H^H^H P2P^H^H^H uhh... Gnutella?
Pain in the Ass Software
office integration suites
Soul-sucking, Time-stealing, My-project-will-be-three-months-late Software
Everquest, Quake, Half-Life, Tetris, xboing
Brain-bangingly Tiresome Software
Oracle
Vapor Software
a real GUI for Unix, a command line for Macs, a crash-resistant Windows