I don't know about you, but I live in the US. In Michigan no less! And I have awesome health care. Myself and my family are well taken care of, the doctor's are great, and although more expensive than I wish I had to pay, is still MUCH better than: a) nothing and b) government regulated medicine.
All of our children had to be delivered by c-section. So even tho I had to pay 400 bucks a month for my premiums, I'm still TENS of THOUSANDS of dollars ahead. And our doctors are damn good. Why do you think that Canadians with their socialized medicine want to come to American to have procedures done? Here's two of the answers: 1) Our doctors are better and 2) Our doctors will do it quickly, instead of the however many months or years it will take to get into a doc in Canada.
That's all, it doesn't require cameras, just that they can prove who is doing the work. It could be as simple as still requiring the student to go to a proctor to take an exam.
There's nothing like trying to make something seem worse than it is. This poster is just like the media.
Here's the answer. If you are going to take a class where they require you have a camera on you in the house and you don't like that, take the class somewhere else.
I think it's obvious that's not what he meant. What he meant was that there is 1 cop for every 300 people in this country and that if you want protection, you'll likely have to provide it yourself. Cops can help and absolutely do, especially in your example, but how does a cop who is patrolling the streets help me in my house when I have an intruder? I can call the cops, but I'm on my own for the next 5 minutes. If you think that a cop will always be there to protect you, you obviously have your head in the sand.
So? Your investment and choices in life are not your company's responsibility to deal with.
How does that have anything to do with what he was talking about? He was saying that for someone who has responsibilities, you can't just tell them to "take this job and shove it.". He wasn't implying that due to having a family and a mortgage was the companies fault.
And I agree with him. If I don't like the job I'm at and feel that I'm treated unfairly, I'm still not leaving until I've secured some other position that allows me to provide for my family.
If you can't remain employeed, then you shouldn't be digging yourself into massive debt and expecting someone else to deal with your poor choices.
Once again, where did he say that he was expecting someone else to deal with his (we'll exclude the word poor since you don't have any idea) choices. Please understand what you are replying to before you click submit.
Unions were absolutely necessary when they were started. Corporations were taking advantage of the working man. But the tables have turned and unions are taking advantage of the corporations and the consumers. I work at a university where we have unions for trades, professors, and custodial. They can all go rot as far as I'm concerned. There's constant talk of privatization because of two facts: it would cost less and more would get done. I'd rather have my job depend on how good I am at it. Then the responsibility lies on me. Not on some schmuck that doesn't have to work and earns a 6 figure salary from all the dues. He only has to make a big stink at contract negotiation time and then when a grievance gets up to high. No thanks.
The real problem is that it's illegal to abuse monopoly powers by using your (otherwise legal) monopoly in one industry to force users to adopt your inferior product in another industry.
Yet, Microsoft is NOT forcing anyone to adopt it. If you want to change it, you can. If someone is so unlikely to switch that's a laziness/ignorance issue on the part of the end user, not Microsoft.
Regardless of who is making money on what here's the bottom line:
Firefox defaults to Google, but you can change it. IE7 defaults to MSN, but you can change it.
Microsoft has issues, but this isn't one of them. Spend your energy on legitimate claims.
Exactly right- the only people who truly don't believe that human beings evolve are the same ones who still believe the mark of Cain to be black skin.
Wrong. I don't believe that the mark of Cain is black skin. Nor do I believe that humans evolve or evolved. Creation is Biblical, black skin being the mark of Cain is NOT Biblical.
That comparison you gave can be translated as: Those that believe in Creationism are all racist Klu Klux Klan members.
That is merely you trashing someone who believes in Creation rather than just trying to have an intelligent argument.
Thank you, I knew that someone had to have a "In other news" post. Saved me from doing the "water is wet" one myself. I knew I could count on Slashdot readers!
You should be ashamed that you call yourself a Christian. You can't be a Christian and not believe in Creation. This is an irreconciable difference. You can not believe that Christ is who he says he is without taking the Bible literally. If you don't believe that, then you can't be a Christian and you shouldn't call yourself one.
And any church that is teaching ID instead of Creationism shouldn't be calling itself a Christian church either.
How in the world could you be a Christian and not take the Bible literally? If you don't think that what is in the Bible is literal, you CAN'T be a Christian.
Of course, it'd probably be best if fundmentalists actually talked to, say, the rabbis who wrote the whole thing down.
How exactly is that going to happen? Since this was all written down thousands of years ago, how is someone going to talk to those rabbis? WABAC perhaps?
I would agree if the app was being developed against a non-changing set of technologies. If there are not any other changes that need to be accounted for, then at some point the app should be completely secure. Unfortunately, that doesn't work when it comes to software. There will always be a new version of something that new functionality is needed for (XML, Java, CSS, etc). If a program does not keep updating and incorporating the latest technologies, especially if it's a web browser, then it would quickly become unusable. Can you use any old version of IE and still be able to do EVERYTHING on the web? No. The same way that I would guess if you keep the current version of Mozilla without ever upgrading, 10 years from now you won't be able to do 90% of what is available on the web.
I don't want to completely argue with you, I believe that most of your points are valid. But I don't agree with this one:
Is there any consideration given to the fact that Internet Explorer is a decade old and integral to the OS, and STILL routinely has extremely critical vulnerabilities, and may have an untold number of yet-to-be-discovered critical vulnerabilities?
10 years from now, the latest Mozilla version will probably have critical vulnerabilities. Each new version will have different technologies to deal with as well as have new developers/programmers involved. If one thing is constant in programming any app, as time goes on and new versions come out, there are always new bugs and problems. Mozilla won't be immune to those.
We are talking about tens of thousands of people at their 5 spots. If you think you can get tens of thousands of people through those spots in 5 days I'd be very interested to see how you plan to do that.
That doesn't make any sense. Why would you only do it for 3 days and then "evaluate" whether you'll charge or not.
Why in the world wouldn't you offer it for at least a week or two before evaluating? So if you are stuck in the disaster area and want to get a hold of someone that way, you've only got until Friday. After that you are out of luck or you might have to pay.
I think it's good they are helping out, but that's almost a cheap way to get some good press.
If you are a company like that and you really want to help, then go in whole-heartedly.
I would have to agree. It's hard enough for me to sit still now as an adult, as a middle schooler I never would have sat in front of a screen for that long.
I also thought of something else. If both parents are working, there is no way you can leave an elementary/middle school child alone for that long. And half the high schoolers I grew up with (I can probably include myself in that) were NOT mature enough to handle being alone ALL DAY and have to be doing schoolwork.
I can see having a one day a week class at home via a live webcast. The teacher can still take attendance and the kids can still get the knowledge. Unfortunately, this is only feasible if every single kid has access to broadband. And, even with all the advances, there are a LOT of people out in the country that can't even get cable TV much less broadband.
Now, this might work in the inner city, but at that point you'd have to subsidize the cost of broadband for all those people that can't afford it. And saving 4 days of bus driving a month compared to making up for 100 or 200 kids worth of broadband at 15-50 bucks a month isn't a savings.
It would be good to save 1/5 of the gas (or more) that's needed for the buses, but that's not going to happen in the near future.
But to run the latest mainframes, IBM and its customers need a few thousand youngsters to replenish the ranks.
At this sentence, my first thought was that if IBM wants to make sure there are people to support/run/develop on their mainframes, then why don't they start providing more training? If the colleges won't do it, then they need to take matters into their own hands. And then I came across this sentence:
Companies are taking matters into their own hands. Whitaker learned her trade at age 18, through an intensive six-month training course sponsored by Total System Services, her future employer.
Which is great, but I still think that it should be IBM doing the training. If they want to make sure that companies keep buying their mainframes, then they should make sure that there are trained people out there that can go work for a company that is buying a mainframe. It seems completely in their best interest to provide the training at a reasonable cost to get those few thousand youngsters into the ranks.
Slashdot Mirror
It's called childhood. After school, weekends, and the summer.
I don't know about you, but I live in the US. In Michigan no less! And I have awesome health care. Myself and my family are well taken care of, the doctor's are great, and although more expensive than I wish I had to pay, is still MUCH better than: a) nothing and b) government regulated medicine.
All of our children had to be delivered by c-section. So even tho I had to pay 400 bucks a month for my premiums, I'm still TENS of THOUSANDS of dollars ahead. And our doctors are damn good. Why do you think that Canadians with their socialized medicine want to come to American to have procedures done? Here's two of the answers: 1) Our doctors are better and 2) Our doctors will do it quickly, instead of the however many months or years it will take to get into a doc in Canada.
That's all, it doesn't require cameras, just that they can prove who is doing the work. It could be as simple as still requiring the student to go to a proctor to take an exam. There's nothing like trying to make something seem worse than it is. This poster is just like the media. Here's the answer. If you are going to take a class where they require you have a camera on you in the house and you don't like that, take the class somewhere else.
I think it's obvious that's not what he meant. What he meant was that there is 1 cop for every 300 people in this country and that if you want protection, you'll likely have to provide it yourself. Cops can help and absolutely do, especially in your example, but how does a cop who is patrolling the streets help me in my house when I have an intruder? I can call the cops, but I'm on my own for the next 5 minutes. If you think that a cop will always be there to protect you, you obviously have your head in the sand.
Your comment was ludicrous.
So, as God, you lie to the people when they are too stupid, and then when they are supposedly 'smart' enough, you let them figure it out themselves.
I'm afraid that's an idiotic suggestion.
So? Your investment and choices in life are not your company's responsibility to deal with.
How does that have anything to do with what he was talking about? He was saying that for someone who has responsibilities, you can't just tell them to "take this job and shove it.". He wasn't implying that due to having a family and a mortgage was the companies fault.
And I agree with him. If I don't like the job I'm at and feel that I'm treated unfairly, I'm still not leaving until I've secured some other position that allows me to provide for my family.
If you can't remain employeed, then you shouldn't be digging yourself into massive debt and expecting someone else to deal with your poor choices.
Once again, where did he say that he was expecting someone else to deal with his (we'll exclude the word poor since you don't have any idea) choices. Please understand what you are replying to before you click submit.
Unions were absolutely necessary when they were started. Corporations were taking advantage of the working man. But the tables have turned and unions are taking advantage of the corporations and the consumers. I work at a university where we have unions for trades, professors, and custodial. They can all go rot as far as I'm concerned. There's constant talk of privatization because of two facts: it would cost less and more would get done. I'd rather have my job depend on how good I am at it. Then the responsibility lies on me. Not on some schmuck that doesn't have to work and earns a 6 figure salary from all the dues. He only has to make a big stink at contract negotiation time and then when a grievance gets up to high. No thanks.
The real problem is that it's illegal to abuse monopoly powers by using your (otherwise legal) monopoly in one industry to force users to adopt your inferior product in another industry.
Yet, Microsoft is NOT forcing anyone to adopt it. If you want to change it, you can. If someone is so unlikely to switch that's a laziness/ignorance issue on the part of the end user, not Microsoft.
Regardless of who is making money on what here's the bottom line:
Firefox defaults to Google, but you can change it.
IE7 defaults to MSN, but you can change it.
Microsoft has issues, but this isn't one of them. Spend your energy on legitimate claims.
Best. Post. Ever.
which is another QED about Creationism being religious despite its thin veil of scientific terminology.
Did you mean ID instead of Creationism? Creationism is all about God. ID is the watered down PC version.
Exactly right- the only people who truly don't believe that human beings evolve are the same ones who still believe the mark of Cain to be black skin.
Wrong. I don't believe that the mark of Cain is black skin. Nor do I believe that humans evolve or evolved. Creation is Biblical, black skin being the mark of Cain is NOT Biblical.
That comparison you gave can be translated as: Those that believe in Creationism are all racist Klu Klux Klan members.
That is merely you trashing someone who believes in Creation rather than just trying to have an intelligent argument.
It's an "Inbox" now!
Thank you, I knew that someone had to have a "In other news" post. Saved me from doing the "water is wet" one myself. I knew I could count on Slashdot readers!
I'm almost ashamed to be a Christian
You should be ashamed that you call yourself a Christian. You can't be a Christian and not believe in Creation. This is an irreconciable difference. You can not believe that Christ is who he says he is without taking the Bible literally. If you don't believe that, then you can't be a Christian and you shouldn't call yourself one.
And any church that is teaching ID instead of Creationism shouldn't be calling itself a Christian church either.
How in the world could you be a Christian and not take the Bible literally? If you don't think that what is in the Bible is literal, you CAN'T be a Christian.
Of course, it'd probably be best if fundmentalists actually talked to, say, the rabbis who wrote the whole thing down.
How exactly is that going to happen? Since this was all written down thousands of years ago, how is someone going to talk to those rabbis? WABAC perhaps?
Is it some UK term that I'm missing? Or is he just proving he is part of the statistics in his report?
I would agree if the app was being developed against a non-changing set of technologies. If there are not any other changes that need to be accounted for, then at some point the app should be completely secure. Unfortunately, that doesn't work when it comes to software. There will always be a new version of something that new functionality is needed for (XML, Java, CSS, etc). If a program does not keep updating and incorporating the latest technologies, especially if it's a web browser, then it would quickly become unusable. Can you use any old version of IE and still be able to do EVERYTHING on the web? No. The same way that I would guess if you keep the current version of Mozilla without ever upgrading, 10 years from now you won't be able to do 90% of what is available on the web.
I don't want to completely argue with you, I believe that most of your points are valid. But I don't agree with this one:
Is there any consideration given to the fact that Internet Explorer is a decade old and integral to the OS, and STILL routinely has extremely critical vulnerabilities, and may have an untold number of yet-to-be-discovered critical vulnerabilities?
10 years from now, the latest Mozilla version will probably have critical vulnerabilities. Each new version will have different technologies to deal with as well as have new developers/programmers involved. If one thing is constant in programming any app, as time goes on and new versions come out, there are always new bugs and problems. Mozilla won't be immune to those.
We are talking about tens of thousands of people at their 5 spots. If you think you can get tens of thousands of people through those spots in 5 days I'd be very interested to see how you plan to do that.
This relief will be free until Sept 2
That doesn't make any sense. Why would you only do it for 3 days and then "evaluate" whether you'll charge or not. Why in the world wouldn't you offer it for at least a week or two before evaluating? So if you are stuck in the disaster area and want to get a hold of someone that way, you've only got until Friday. After that you are out of luck or you might have to pay.
I think it's good they are helping out, but that's almost a cheap way to get some good press.
If you are a company like that and you really want to help, then go in whole-heartedly.
I can see your point. It would probably be useful for a lecture, but not a truly interactive setup.
And I can't tell you how exciting 6 hours of just lecture over my computer sounds...I feel sorry for my children already.
I would have to agree. It's hard enough for me to sit still now as an adult, as a middle schooler I never would have sat in front of a screen for that long.
I also thought of something else. If both parents are working, there is no way you can leave an elementary/middle school child alone for that long. And half the high schoolers I grew up with (I can probably include myself in that) were NOT mature enough to handle being alone ALL DAY and have to be doing schoolwork.
I can see having a one day a week class at home via a live webcast. The teacher can still take attendance and the kids can still get the knowledge. Unfortunately, this is only feasible if every single kid has access to broadband. And, even with all the advances, there are a LOT of people out in the country that can't even get cable TV much less broadband.
Now, this might work in the inner city, but at that point you'd have to subsidize the cost of broadband for all those people that can't afford it. And saving 4 days of bus driving a month compared to making up for 100 or 200 kids worth of broadband at 15-50 bucks a month isn't a savings.
It would be good to save 1/5 of the gas (or more) that's needed for the buses, but that's not going to happen in the near future.
But to run the latest mainframes, IBM and its customers need a few thousand youngsters to replenish the ranks.
At this sentence, my first thought was that if IBM wants to make sure there are people to support/run/develop on their mainframes, then why don't they start providing more training? If the colleges won't do it, then they need to take matters into their own hands. And then I came across this sentence:
Companies are taking matters into their own hands. Whitaker learned her trade at age 18, through an intensive six-month training course sponsored by Total System Services, her future employer.
Which is great, but I still think that it should be IBM doing the training. If they want to make sure that companies keep buying their mainframes, then they should make sure that there are trained people out there that can go work for a company that is buying a mainframe. It seems completely in their best interest to provide the training at a reasonable cost to get those few thousand youngsters into the ranks.
Doh! You are right, I mistyped, I meant 7 minutes. Man I hate that!