Old people. They get to set the standard, because they vote and nobody has the balls to contradict them. As long as old people are self interested, and as long we remain a democracy, we'll just have to deal with it.
Dude. The 1800's called. They want social Darwinism back. Seriously, Darwinism as a social construct is long dead, with good reason. It is well accepted that it is a moral duty for society to take care of the old, just as it takes care of the young. In the past, this was a contract between individuals and their children, now it is a contract between generations. Besides, consider the alternative to social security --- civil unrest. These people may be too old to work, but do you think they'll just lie down and die? When old people make up such a large part of the population, one that has a lot of power, their dissatisfaction threatens the very foundation of your society. Social security is basically a payoff to the old people so you can continue to do productive work in peace.
As long as you have people, you have people who are willing to work for their next meal.
What kind of dumbass are you? The problem here is that there *aren't* enough people. Let's say you've got 10 70 year olds and 1 20 year old in the jungle. The 70 year olds are too old to do things for themselves, and the 20 year old can't provide for all the 70 year olds by himself. That's a labor shortage --- a natural one. This is precisely the problem Japan is facing, they don't have enough people to do the work that needs to be done, and their population contains too many old people that need to be supported.
When you have to traverse four degrees of inference to support a particular point about a book, it's time to rethink your premise. It's just mental mastrubation to try to defend inaccuracies in the Bible by drumming up convoluted and tenuous arguments.
The Bible is not the infallible word of God, and Christians do not claim that it is. It is a work written by men, and if error, rather than hidden meaning, is the clearest explanation for a troublesome statement, it is no slight upon the religion to simply accept that statement as being erroneous.
Textile workers in Bangladesh, Indonesia, etc, make 10-30 cents an hour. Here, they'd make at least minimum wage, and when you throw in the exorbitant cost of maintaining an American worker (not just wage, but the social security contribution, adherence to OSHA regulations, union maintainence, etc, etc), and you're talking a wage rate 20-30 times higher. There is no Walmart could afford to sell shirts at $13.50, or jeans at $9.85. American-made versions of these garments cost $30 or more.
I think it's a strech to say most people just buy things because of vanity. Frankly, the people I'm talking about can't afford to do that. If they were vain, they wouldn't be shopping at WalMart! It is a basic human need to feel pride in providing for one's family. When your kids are wearing raggedly clothes with holes in them, that need cannot be met.
So you're willing to pay 10x as much for shirts, shoes, food, electronics, etc? Do you realize how many people that would hurt? There are many people (many times the size of the IT industry), who can afford to live decently because of the cheap prices offered by globalization. It's not a matter of having lots of trinkets, but a matter of being able to buy your kids shoes when they need them, instead of having to wear each pair bare. These people usually work in service jobs, and would see absolutely zero benefit from ending globalization, but they'd certainly feel the hurt when they couldn't walk down to Walmart and buy a dress shirt for $13.67.
I dunno, my Japanese cars are better than American ones ever were, and how much more tightly built do you need your shoes to be anyway? As soon as something isn't novel anymore, there is no point in getting an expensive American to do it when a cheap foreigner could do it for 1/10 the cost. Let me ask you a question: do you shop at mom & pop specialty food shops or Giant? Because if you're willing to trade some quality for convenience and cost savings, why would you expect other people not to?
It's because XP problems are often totally random. See, one of the fundemental issues with XP is it thinks its smarter than you. That means, that under certain conditions, it does some totally weird things. For example, I recently tried to figure out why one of my XP machines suddenly became unable to connect to our wireless network. It'd go into a continuous cycle of getting and losing the connection once every few seconds.
Long story short, it turns out this "bug" was actually a feature. You see, if Windows XP is connected to a network that isn't broadcasting its SSID, and it sees one that is, it'll try to disconnect and join the other one. This happens even if the non-broadcasting connection is the only one in your "preferred networks" list. What had happened, of course, is that our neighbor had just got a wireless network, and forgot to turn of SSID broadcasting like you're supposed to. This particular machine was the only one within range, and as a result, freaked out.
Come to think of it, this is probably the same problem that plagued another one of my XP machines. I spent months trying to figure out why it'd randomly drop its connection, and finally gave up, assumed it was a hardware problem, and replaced the PCI wifi adapter with a small USB keychain one. Since it worked, I assumed that the USB dongle got better reception. Now I realize that the problem was just the opposite --- since the USB dongle got *worse* reception, it was out of range of a competing network.
I have lost tens of hours to this single damn bug, as well as $60 bucks buying new hardware I didn't need. All because some idiot programmer at Microsoft thought he could make a piece of software smarter than me. Whoever wrote the "Wireless Network ZeroConfiguration" for XP deserves a special place in hell!
The thing is, that nobody really compiles with the Intel C++ compiler. Certainly, nearly all Linux software is compiled with GCC, while nearly all Windows software is compiled with Visual C++. In practice, not using Intel C++ *does* level the playing field.
That's really not an even comparison. Binary versions of the GIMP aren't designed to run on any distro but the one it was compiled for. Quake 3, like Flash or Photoshop on Windows, are designed to run on a variety of OS versions. Linux could easily have Windows-like binary compatibility. Apps, like Windows apps, would have to be distributed with all their dependencies. But given that 99% of Linux software is open source, why deal with the bloat that comes along with such a model, when you can simply download packages targetted for your distribution?
Re:They're improving the file dialogs...
on
GTK 2.6.0 Released
·
· Score: 1
In every X toolkit (and in Windows and OS X), menus are seperate windows.
Yes. The better the US economy does, the better you live. If H1-Bs help American companies do better, then ultimately you benefit. Consider the alternative: American companies are barred from hiring H1-Bs or outsourcing, their costs soar, and foreign companies (who won't tie their hands that way), eat our companies for lunch. Does that sound like a better alternative?
The actual number is 128k/year, for a single wage earner. The number is slightly higher (something like 160k/year) for households. Almost no households have 3 wage earners, and two person households almost always have one person making significantly less than the other.
"Their fair share" of taxes woud be precisely how much they recieve in government services. The rich do recieve more in government services, but not enough to outweight the higher (in total dollars) amount they pay in taxes. Let's not twist the definition of "fair" here. In any case, we're talking about redistributing income, by being unfair to the rich. I think this is a fine thing, to tell the truth, but let's call a spade a spade, shall we?
Better for everyone. Our poor are richer than those in any other country in the world. Sure, they are poor *relative* to the rich, but most poor people in this country can afford clean water, decent food, and even some entertainment. They certainly aren't working 16 hours a day in the field just so they can half-feed their 5 kids. We have it incredibly good in this country, and most of it is thanks to capitalism. The rich will always be a lot richer. That's a fact of life. But capitalism keeps pulling the bottom run of the ladder up.
H1-Bs are not immigrants. They can't collect social security bcause they don't live here permanently. If they do decide to live here permanently, they have to become a US Citizen, and at that point, they are equal to everyone else anyway.
It is a basic principle of our Constitution that the majority does *not* have the right to take rights away from the minority. Choosing who you bring into your company is a pretty damn basic right, and the majority cannot take it away. Nor is there any need to for them to take it away. If there are people who don't like the hiring practices of certain companies, then by all means, they should start their own business that has hiring practices they agree with. If their idea about American citizens being better workers in the long run than new immigrants really does hold water, then they'll quickly overtake the original companies. If it doesn't hold water, than it was a dumb idea anyway, and deserves not to be implemented.
Nobody has a right to a job. The only way that could happen is if employers were stripped of the right to control what jobs they offer and to whom. In a free society, that's just illogical. What you do have the right to do, however, is persue your own happiness. If you don't like the jobs employers are offering, do something about it. Start your own business, and hire people how *you* see fit. It is only if we as Americans have run out of things to do that such a strategy is unfeasible, and if that is the case, we've got far bigger problems than H1-Bs.
What makes you not free to move to other countries in search of employment? It is far easier for an American to move elsewhere than it is for someone to move to America. I know it's a popular (and incorrect) Slashdot myth that says that India won't take foreign workers, but for god's sake actually travel the world and see for yourself. There are many parts of the world where waving an American passport will get you whisked to the front of a customs line. Don't tell me that they keep you from trying to move there.
I am by no means a "turn the clock back" capitalist, but it's quite a leap to go from pollution controls to denying employers the fundemental right to decide who to employ. How is that different from the Soviet era practice of telling businesses what to produce and when to produce it?
We have those laws to the detriment of our economy, and contrary to our basic principles. If there is one thing economists agree on, it is that a freer economy is generally a better economy.
While our laws exist to protect our interests, it is in our interest to allow skilled workers from elsewhere into our country. Asserting otherwise is fairly ridiculous.
Slashdot Mirror
Says who?
Old people. They get to set the standard, because they vote and nobody has the balls to contradict them. As long as old people are self interested, and as long we remain a democracy, we'll just have to deal with it.
Dude. The 1800's called. They want social Darwinism back. Seriously, Darwinism as a social construct is long dead, with good reason. It is well accepted that it is a moral duty for society to take care of the old, just as it takes care of the young. In the past, this was a contract between individuals and their children, now it is a contract between generations. Besides, consider the alternative to social security --- civil unrest. These people may be too old to work, but do you think they'll just lie down and die? When old people make up such a large part of the population, one that has a lot of power, their dissatisfaction threatens the very foundation of your society. Social security is basically a payoff to the old people so you can continue to do productive work in peace.
As long as you have people, you have people who are willing to work for their next meal.
What kind of dumbass are you? The problem here is that there *aren't* enough people. Let's say you've got 10 70 year olds and 1 20 year old in the jungle. The 70 year olds are too old to do things for themselves, and the 20 year old can't provide for all the 70 year olds by himself. That's a labor shortage --- a natural one. This is precisely the problem Japan is facing, they don't have enough people to do the work that needs to be done, and their population contains too many old people that need to be supported.
Japan has a fertility rate of 1.38 per woman. The fact that Japan's population will shrink is not a side-effect of crack --- it's basic mathematics.
As the article notes, Japan has a labor shortage right now. So these folks aren't out of a job, they'll most likely just be moving to another one.
When you have to traverse four degrees of inference to support a particular point about a book, it's time to rethink your premise. It's just mental mastrubation to try to defend inaccuracies in the Bible by drumming up convoluted and tenuous arguments.
The Bible is not the infallible word of God, and Christians do not claim that it is. It is a work written by men, and if error, rather than hidden meaning, is the clearest explanation for a troublesome statement, it is no slight upon the religion to simply accept that statement as being erroneous.
Textile workers in Bangladesh, Indonesia, etc, make 10-30 cents an hour. Here, they'd make at least minimum wage, and when you throw in the exorbitant cost of maintaining an American worker (not just wage, but the social security contribution, adherence to OSHA regulations, union maintainence, etc, etc), and you're talking a wage rate 20-30 times higher. There is no Walmart could afford to sell shirts at $13.50, or jeans at $9.85. American-made versions of these garments cost $30 or more.
I think it's a strech to say most people just buy things because of vanity. Frankly, the people I'm talking about can't afford to do that. If they were vain, they wouldn't be shopping at WalMart! It is a basic human need to feel pride in providing for one's family. When your kids are wearing raggedly clothes with holes in them, that need cannot be met.
So you're willing to pay 10x as much for shirts, shoes, food, electronics, etc? Do you realize how many people that would hurt? There are many people (many times the size of the IT industry), who can afford to live decently because of the cheap prices offered by globalization. It's not a matter of having lots of trinkets, but a matter of being able to buy your kids shoes when they need them, instead of having to wear each pair bare. These people usually work in service jobs, and would see absolutely zero benefit from ending globalization, but they'd certainly feel the hurt when they couldn't walk down to Walmart and buy a dress shirt for $13.67.
I dunno, my Japanese cars are better than American ones ever were, and how much more tightly built do you need your shoes to be anyway? As soon as something isn't novel anymore, there is no point in getting an expensive American to do it when a cheap foreigner could do it for 1/10 the cost. Let me ask you a question: do you shop at mom & pop specialty food shops or Giant? Because if you're willing to trade some quality for convenience and cost savings, why would you expect other people not to?
It's because XP problems are often totally random. See, one of the fundemental issues with XP is it thinks its smarter than you. That means, that under certain conditions, it does some totally weird things. For example, I recently tried to figure out why one of my XP machines suddenly became unable to connect to our wireless network. It'd go into a continuous cycle of getting and losing the connection once every few seconds.
Long story short, it turns out this "bug" was actually a feature. You see, if Windows XP is connected to a network that isn't broadcasting its SSID, and it sees one that is, it'll try to disconnect and join the other one. This happens even if the non-broadcasting connection is the only one in your "preferred networks" list. What had happened, of course, is that our neighbor had just got a wireless network, and forgot to turn of SSID broadcasting like you're supposed to. This particular machine was the only one within range, and as a result, freaked out.
Come to think of it, this is probably the same problem that plagued another one of my XP machines. I spent months trying to figure out why it'd randomly drop its connection, and finally gave up, assumed it was a hardware problem, and replaced the PCI wifi adapter with a small USB keychain one. Since it worked, I assumed that the USB dongle got better reception. Now I realize that the problem was just the opposite --- since the USB dongle got *worse* reception, it was out of range of a competing network.
I have lost tens of hours to this single damn bug, as well as $60 bucks buying new hardware I didn't need. All because some idiot programmer at Microsoft thought he could make a piece of software smarter than me. Whoever wrote the "Wireless Network ZeroConfiguration" for XP deserves a special place in hell!
Um, you're about 4 years late. Sun is shipping servers based on the Athlon64 architecture now. AMD is no longer for 14 year olds.
The thing is, that nobody really compiles with the Intel C++ compiler. Certainly, nearly all Linux software is compiled with GCC, while nearly all Windows software is compiled with Visual C++. In practice, not using Intel C++ *does* level the playing field.
In reviewing the 3.8GHz P4, Anand did a comparison of the CPU with a bunch of Intel and AMD CPUs. The Athlon 3400+ only lost to a 3.6GHz P4 twice, by one fps each time. It even beat the 3.8GHz P4 in nearly every benchmark. Given that the 3.6GHz P4 is nearly twice as much as a 3400+, and a full $200 more than the 3500+, the choice (for gamers), is a no-brainer.
That's really not an even comparison. Binary versions of the GIMP aren't designed to run on any distro but the one it was compiled for. Quake 3, like Flash or Photoshop on Windows, are designed to run on a variety of OS versions. Linux could easily have Windows-like binary compatibility. Apps, like Windows apps, would have to be distributed with all their dependencies. But given that 99% of Linux software is open source, why deal with the bloat that comes along with such a model, when you can simply download packages targetted for your distribution?
In every X toolkit (and in Windows and OS X), menus are seperate windows.
Yes. The better the US economy does, the better you live. If H1-Bs help American companies do better, then ultimately you benefit. Consider the alternative: American companies are barred from hiring H1-Bs or outsourcing, their costs soar, and foreign companies (who won't tie their hands that way), eat our companies for lunch. Does that sound like a better alternative?
The actual number is 128k/year, for a single wage earner. The number is slightly higher (something like 160k/year) for households. Almost no households have 3 wage earners, and two person households almost always have one person making significantly less than the other.
"Their fair share" of taxes woud be precisely how much they recieve in government services. The rich do recieve more in government services, but not enough to outweight the higher (in total dollars) amount they pay in taxes. Let's not twist the definition of "fair" here. In any case, we're talking about redistributing income, by being unfair to the rich. I think this is a fine thing, to tell the truth, but let's call a spade a spade, shall we?
Better for everyone. Our poor are richer than those in any other country in the world. Sure, they are poor *relative* to the rich, but most poor people in this country can afford clean water, decent food, and even some entertainment. They certainly aren't working 16 hours a day in the field just so they can half-feed their 5 kids. We have it incredibly good in this country, and most of it is thanks to capitalism. The rich will always be a lot richer. That's a fact of life. But capitalism keeps pulling the bottom run of the ladder up.
H1-Bs are not immigrants. They can't collect social security bcause they don't live here permanently. If they do decide to live here permanently, they have to become a US Citizen, and at that point, they are equal to everyone else anyway.
It is a basic principle of our Constitution that the majority does *not* have the right to take rights away from the minority. Choosing who you bring into your company is a pretty damn basic right, and the majority cannot take it away. Nor is there any need to for them to take it away. If there are people who don't like the hiring practices of certain companies, then by all means, they should start their own business that has hiring practices they agree with. If their idea about American citizens being better workers in the long run than new immigrants really does hold water, then they'll quickly overtake the original companies. If it doesn't hold water, than it was a dumb idea anyway, and deserves not to be implemented.
Nobody has a right to a job. The only way that could happen is if employers were stripped of the right to control what jobs they offer and to whom. In a free society, that's just illogical. What you do have the right to do, however, is persue your own happiness. If you don't like the jobs employers are offering, do something about it. Start your own business, and hire people how *you* see fit. It is only if we as Americans have run out of things to do that such a strategy is unfeasible, and if that is the case, we've got far bigger problems than H1-Bs.
What makes you not free to move to other countries in search of employment? It is far easier for an American to move elsewhere than it is for someone to move to America. I know it's a popular (and incorrect) Slashdot myth that says that India won't take foreign workers, but for god's sake actually travel the world and see for yourself. There are many parts of the world where waving an American passport will get you whisked to the front of a customs line. Don't tell me that they keep you from trying to move there.
I am by no means a "turn the clock back" capitalist, but it's quite a leap to go from pollution controls to denying employers the fundemental right to decide who to employ. How is that different from the Soviet era practice of telling businesses what to produce and when to produce it?
We have those laws to the detriment of our economy, and contrary to our basic principles. If there is one thing economists agree on, it is that a freer economy is generally a better economy.
While our laws exist to protect our interests, it is in our interest to allow skilled workers from elsewhere into our country. Asserting otherwise is fairly ridiculous.