If you want to get a job you want your RHCE since that is what companies list.
If you want to get a job with IBM/Novell then an LPIC will do just fine. These are the only companies I have ever seen an LPIC listed as preferred or required for.
If you want to know which is a harder and more relevant cert it is the LPIC hands down. The LPIC actually certifies you know vendor neutral linux and how to do things the hard way. The RHCE can be passed without every touching linux, it is similar to the MCSE.
Highly regarded compared to? Certs do not just show you could take the test, but also that you studied for an passed the test. That means at one time you at least had cursory knowledge of the full breadth of a real job related subject.
They certainly are no substitute for job experience, but they are far more relevant than a degree.
It does make a difference WHICH certs you have. MCSE's aren't worth the paper they are written on. Current CISCO certs are in style.
"The fact that you are asking this indicates that you don't understand the question. The question isn't what piece of paper you have. The questions are can you do the job your potential employer needs done, the way he wants it done, and at a profit?"
What does that have to do with getting a job? You must be an employer.
"Last I checked once you serve your time for a crime you no longer have less rights than the rest of us (unless you were released early under the condition you agree to have less).
Might I suggest you "look" some more then.
Voting "Rights": * Only two New England states--Maine and Vermont--allow all felons to vote. * Twenty-eight states prohibit felons who are on probation from voting. * Thirty-two states prohibit felons who are on parole from voting. * The states that prohibit felons who have served their complete sentences from voting are hardly the old Confederacy: Only five of the thirteen states fall in that category."
You do know that parole, probation, court supervision, and house arrest are the exceptions I was referring to where a convict has signed away his freedom in exchange for early, delayed, or partial release?
Someone who is out on parole did NOT serve their time, instead they accepted an early release.
You also missed three stikes your out policies and sex offender registration. However, all of these "points" are red herrings, they are a distraction from the actual topic at hand.
Unless you can come up with some example of a reduction in privacy rights that is even vaguely related to the situation we are talking about; it would be much appreciated if you did not try to distract those of us who ARE discussing THIS issue.
"I see that, but it doesn't change anything - he still has, as a felon and involuntary resident, fewer rights than the rest of us."
Last I checked once you serve your time for a crime you no longer have less rights than the rest of us (unless you were released early under the condition you agree to have less).
As an involuntary resident he has the same rights you would have if you were elderly and your children felt you were senile and had you committed. People are involuntarily committed when they are believed to be a danger to themselves OR others; being convicted of a crime is not a requirement.
If the treatment center has the right to use something akin to palm reading in their treatment AND to stop their paitients from finding out why it is akin to palm reading, that applies to EVERYONE committed there; not just ex-cons.
The man is not a prisoner. He was convicted and served his term and then was released.
Iowa persued him again when he got out saying he was messed up in the head and now has him treated involuntarily for a mental disorder.
The issue raised here would apply to your teenage daughter if she overdosed on pills and the doctors involuntarily commited her as a danger to herself.
He is not an inmate. He did his crime AND he served his time. In this case Iowa very loosely skirted double jeopardy by persuing civil action against him after he was released.
The civil case got him ordered to treatment, so he is not a convict or serving time for criminal acts, he is being forced to seek treatment because he is messed up in the head.
A system which is not reliable whether you know how to cheat the system or not is simply unreliable. You do understand that polygraphs have as many false positives as negatives right?
Polygraphs are about as scientific as calling in Madam Vagooma and asking her to read the patient's palm to see if he will persue deviant behavior again.
"Iowa is attempting treatment, using the best we have."
Then Iowa needs to update its treatment a bit. Polygraphs have been known to be bunk for over a decade.
"No, it takes one 3 months got get a handle on the Windows GUI tools for Windows admin. That does not mean the admin understands anything about how his system works and why things are configured the way they are."
No actually it is quite possible to know everything about windows from top to bottom short of programming API's after about 3 months of exposure. You can manipulate almost every part of windows via the gui tools you mentioned. There is next to nothing that need be done with the CLI.
"Also, your statement that it takes a linux admin 5 years to get a firm handle on linux, wrongly assumes that all linux administrators are ex Windows boys."
No actually it does not. To be a windows admin, you need to understand windows. A linux system differs, there is a new scheme or system for every aspect of the system. Nothing is obvious or intuitive, instead everything is designed to be as functional as it can be AFTER learning.
I know this may come as a culture shock to you, but windows has strengths and linux has strengths. Denying the weaknesses that go along with those strengths does NOT help anyone. Linux and almost all open source software, trades off ease of learning and sometimes use for power and flexibility.
To perform intermediate level work on windows you can walk in the door with no knowledge and fake it. All you need to know is basic tcp/ip, a handful of gui tools, how to search the registry structure, the boot process and common file types. You also need to know how to click "ok". A domain and file and print sharing can be setup with no instruction and no prior knowledge beyond computer competency.
To perform the lowest level work with linux you need to know the scheme used to format fstab, mtab, init + runlevels, modules/modprobe.conf, sysconfig, passwd, groups, cron.*, ld.so.config,issue, hosts, and resolve.conf. They need to understand the loading and unloading of modules and be familiar with the exact module names they need to load for most hardware. They need to learn nfs, samba, apache, bind, postfix, and sendmail backwards and forward. They have to learn C, at least bash shell scripting, and perl. They have to learn pam, kerberos, and have familiarity with ldap. This is only scratching the surface of the things a linux administrator needs to know that a windows administrator does not.
Linux is a far more powerful , flexible, and secure system, after setup it needs little or no maintaince beyond resolving hardware issues. The downside is that setup from start to finish takes awhile, usually double the time for someone who knows what they are doing (but is performing a UNIQUE setup) compared an equivelent windows setup by a windows admin with equivelent knowledge. The admins also need to learn much more to reach that equivelent knowledge level.
A windows admin who has invested as much learning about the system as an LPIC-1 Certified Linux Tech is only likely to be found working on a global wan.
Not only that, the skillset required is much more extensive. A Linux admin has to be able to program for instance. Every component in a linux system requires far more pre-requisite knowledge and has a much steeper learning curve than it's windows counterpart.
It takes a linux admin 5yrs to get a firm handle on linux. It takes a windows admin about 3 months tops.
Like most things in life, you get what you pay for. Whether you go with the cheap admin or the system that requires cheap admins, you get lower quality either way.
Actually I believe what really happens is that some users have been burned by graphical tools on other platforms and/or cli users somehow believe that either you have gui tools or cli tools.
A graphical tool or wizard can read in a text configuration file, make changes to settings and output them to the original file. There is no reason we can't have the best of both worlds.
Is it so hard to avoid grammar trolling and pull the stick out of your ass, or are people too lazy there as well?
You do realize that the textbooks have to be modified to reflect usage, not the other way around? Actually if you looked at the REAL reference I would not be surpised if Oxford has already added this common usage of the words.
"You already admited that getting a cheaper home isn't an option for you."
lol, you make it sound as if getting a cheaper home is POSSIBLE.
"Smoking is also a source of income drain."
This point I will give you. If we had not been spending money on cigerettes we might have been able to budget. You make it sound like we choose to live beyond our means, this is not the case. If we added up fixed monthly expenses they added up to more than I made.
We had one several year old car, no radios or stereos, two televisions but they were gifts. We had no furniture because we lacked extra money to pay for it. No woodworking or power tools. I do have two self-built computers, but I am a Network/System administrator. Computers are not a luxery item, they are a job requirement. Actually I would argue that in a civilized world computers are just as essential as a first vehicle.
"What i'm talking about is the quality of life when comparing the two."
And I am saying that because the quality of life is low in a third world country you would have to be a fool to stay in one. All the resources are found in the 1st world nations and when comparing quality of life it must be with other 1st world nations.
"The amount of luxoury items "poor people" have is amazing when they cannot afford to feed themselves."
You also need to remember, assets are accumulated over a lifetime. Selling off your stuff is not a solution to an income which is insufficient to pay your bills. This is because the funds gained will quickly deplete and you will be in the same situation except without the assets. Just because I was in a position to accumulate assets yesterday, say working while living with mom or dad, or in the military. Does not mean I could do so now.
"I know a guy who laughed at me when i suggested he plant a garden to help out on the food bill"
Actually I think it is a good idea, the problem is that most broke people do not own any land.
While the average computer user may not know what linux is, they DO recognize the word nowdays.
I suspect it is the SCO thing, but where I used to be greated by blank looks when I mentioned linux; now I get greated with recognition and curiousity.
"Communism is an economic system enforced by the government. Socialism is a governmental system...I can see that our public education system is doing a fine fine job keeping our public completely clueless."
Apparently. You need to look up the definitions. Communism is not dependant on government control. Communism is a system in which everyone works and contributes to ensure the needs of everyone are met. It does not work because people are both greedy and lazy.
"The only thing destroying capitalism is the meddling of the government which skews the natural feedback of consumers to producers and employers."
The only meddling of government which occurs is the result of politicians being bribed by private industry to protect their interests.
"you've firmly closed your eyes and shoved your fingers in your ears while mumbling to yourself that the US is a capitalist Republic"
Capitalist yes, republic no. The US is a democratic republic but it is not the PEOPLE who select representatives, it is top 10% and their corporations who do so.
Really, majority rules is a bad idea anyway, it is the same thing as mob rules. But wealth should not be the requirement for a voice, intellect should.
Exactly, greed is the communism killer. Much as Generousity is the captitalism killer. Lets not forget that the communist system is the ideal and not the capitalist. The communist system is just a little too ideal to actually work.
"In a communist economy, such as ours,"
This is ridiculous, we are not even comparable with socialist society such as Europe, let alone communism. And Europe with a booming economy, large middle class, top technical and medical science in the world, and widespread education is doing a better job of it than we are.
"In a truly capitalist economy the government wouldn't be subsidizing the wealthy in their venture to exploit the poor."
Wrong, that is how a truely capitalist economy STARTS. Then corporations are invented by the wealthy, paper machines that exist only for the purpose of profit. These machines are granted rights as if they were people but not the liability that goes with them.
The machines do what they are designed to do, profit. Eventually the machines and their majority stockholders (the top 10% who clear the cream off the top of those pooling profits) take the next step, they buy policy and politicians because their goal is profit not ethics. This inevitably leads to our present circumstance.
You see the wealth continues to float to the top because profiting means simply spending less than you make. That means corporations NEVER put back as much as they take out. Ultimately corporations put these gains into the pockets of their top 10% stockholders, who also operate at a profit. This assures that when you buy a hot dog at the baseball stadium that money will ultimately end up in the hands of the top 10% and NEVER go back to a joe schmoe again. You get your paycheck, you buy corporate or the guy you buy from does and that money is lost forever to the lower and middle class.
This ultimately creates a larger gap and smaller middle class. It is inherient in the design.
Capitalism is the polar opposite of communism. Communism depends on generosity to work and man is not up to it. Capitalism depends on greed to work but is self destructive because the ultimate level of greed means destroying the free market.
"you should get some of it back in social security payment and medicade funding of medical treatments."
According to who? You obviously haven't paid attention to SS issues lately. Besides, what is not forseeably going to be there in the future still does not even add up to the interest I would have made on these funds.
"It definately isn't rich but it does fall comfortably in between."
Yeah, it falls at that level where your basic utilities + food + housing + gas + medical expenses + 2 smokers + Internet add up to more than you make in rural Illinois. I have lived in Miami and Small town midwest, the rent is slightly more for something smaller and in a poorer neighborhood in the city. In the midwest the price is only slightly less so the dollar amount does not change much, but it is bigger and in a nicer neighborhood. Since there are no smaller options or bad neighborhoods in a small town, the bottom line is not all that much different. We call this level where you can not maintain a reasonable standard of living in your society POOR.
"if you compare it to other countries, it can support a standard of living that is reserved for thie wealthy"
Lets be realistic. If a nation is not along roughly the same longitude range as US/Europe/Russia it really doesn't count in this case. That is where the abudance of natural resources are and that is where the wealthy nations are. There is a difference between poor by the civilized world's standard and that of people who willfully choose to live in a portion of the world which is itself poor. If you live in a 3rd world country and do not wish to starve, it is simply a matter of walking North (or south as the case may be).
If we are to compare apples to apples we must compare the poor of one 3rd world country to another and first world countries to another.
My dependent is not a child. It is my wife.;) For the rest I am only counting federal and the portion of federal they earmark for the Social Security Program.
"Also, I owe money... I hate refunds, otherwise known as interest free government loans."
Earned income tax is a loan. Refunds are simply getting back part of what you paid in. I always got a refund because when starting employment I mark a big fat 0 on estimated deductions. Although It could be doing better in an interest bearing account of my own, reality is that ends barely meet and the money would not be there come the end of the year.
Minimum wage is not a livable wage. I am not sure how old you are but in the past 5-10yrs costs of living have inflated drastically over paper inflation.
"I know people that have several dependents and have to work 2jobs for the husban and one job for the wife and still not make over $25,000/year."
Me too, they are POOR. While I would agree that $30,000-$40000 is the top end of the lower income class (for ONE person) it is most definately still the lower income class. Anywhere from $40,000-$70,000 could probably be considered middle class.
Simply because the number of poor relative to the number of wealthy grows by design in a capitalist economy hardly means that whatever is average is not poor.
"Now the near 30% you paid is probably as big of a mistake as making 27,000 and thinking you poor."
I wouldn't count state toward federal and paid no city tax. But I certainly count Social Security, just because the tax is earmarked does not mean it is any less of a tax.
"the poor are eligible for a "refund" larger than any taxes they might have paid"
Just how poor do you think someone has to be before they count as poor? The only ones who might get back more than they paid in are unwed mothers, everyone else gets a refund back that is LESS than they paid in. For example, I have a dependant and made $27,000ish gross last year. Let me be the first to tell you that I did NOT get a refund back for anywhere NEAR the 30% of that I paid in taxes.
"I don't really want to get into details of your post, as little of it merits response."
Then why are you responding? Please feel free to keep your opinion to yourself. Especially rhetoric like this, attempting to demean what I said adds no strength to your post.
"#1, which parts do you stock?"
ALL of them. 30% is roughly a third, that means if you are purchasing 1000 pcs you could have 300 pcs worth of parts or 300 of EVERY component in your machines. Some might want to weight the investment toward commonality of failure, getting more of the things with moving parts but that is preference.
"#2, what do you do when those parts are consumed and you can't get the same ones again,"
You do not have that many failures with properly built whitebox systems over the lifetime of the investment. Period. Even if you did manage to run out of a component it would be fans or ide drives and it doesn't matter if there is a variation in those components. Any quality HDD big enough to hold your image is as good as another. Any quality fan that keeps your system/cpu cool is as good as another.
"#3 Who services the machines...oh..that's right, internal staff or a paid repair firm."
Yup, same people who service the machines now, except now they don't have to take an additional 30m to an hour dealing with Dell each time.
"Corps don't like variable budget items. If you buy PCs for a 3-year lifecycle, and they are under warranty for that time, it's all pretty simple."
If you purchase all your replacement parts upfront and pay your technical staff on salary there is nothing variable about it. At least not more than you have now.
"And it's often necessary to lease machines with a $1 buyout at the end of the term for various financial reasons, most of which would be lost on the/. crowd."
Although I am not aware of the accounting practice your talking about in this case I doubt it would be lost on the slashdot crowd. Business and accounting are for math simpletons remember?;) Actually I was under the impression that leasing just means you can't take deductions for depreciation each year. Then again I seem to remember a cap on what you can take and pc's may devalue faster than the IRS allows for.
Most of the corps I have worked for have $1 profit corporations they "pay" for services. I wonder why you couldn't effectively lease them to yourself this way?
The truth is when you get to the bottom line is that it is not technicians who make technical purchase decisions for IT purposes. It is management who perhaps touched something vaguely technical 10yrs ago.
They purchase Dells because shit rolls downhill. If you buy whiteboxes the hill ends internally, if you buy Dell the hill ends at Dell. Resolution is easier and less expensive if you keep it internal, but your own ass is more secure if it ends with Dell.
Believe it or not those leasing companies and Dell both operate at a profit. They operate at a massive profit on those service contracts your so fond of. Every dollar they make is a dollar you lose.
Slashdot Mirror
I have passed both. The LPIC-1 requires a stronger and more thorough knowledge of Linux than the RHCE, let alone the LPIC-2.
If you want to get a job you want your RHCE since that is what companies list.
If you want to get a job with IBM/Novell then an LPIC will do just fine. These are the only companies I have ever seen an LPIC listed as preferred or required for.
If you want to know which is a harder and more relevant cert it is the LPIC hands down. The LPIC actually certifies you know vendor neutral linux and how to do things the hard way. The RHCE can be passed without every touching linux, it is similar to the MCSE.
Highly regarded compared to? Certs do not just show you could take the test, but also that you studied for an passed the test. That means at one time you at least had cursory knowledge of the full breadth of a real job related subject.
They certainly are no substitute for job experience, but they are far more relevant than a degree.
It does make a difference WHICH certs you have. MCSE's aren't worth the paper they are written on. Current CISCO certs are in style.
"The fact that you are asking this indicates that you don't understand the question. The question isn't what piece of paper you have. The questions are can you do the job your potential employer needs done, the way he wants it done, and at a profit?"
What does that have to do with getting a job? You must be an employer.
"Last I checked once you serve your time for a crime you no longer have less rights than the rest of us (unless you were released early under the condition you agree to have less).
Might I suggest you "look" some more then.
Voting "Rights":
* Only two New England states--Maine and Vermont--allow all felons to vote.
* Twenty-eight states prohibit felons who are on probation from voting.
* Thirty-two states prohibit felons who are on parole from voting.
* The states that prohibit felons who have served their complete sentences from voting are hardly the old Confederacy: Only five of the thirteen states fall in that category."
You do know that parole, probation, court supervision, and house arrest are the exceptions I was referring to where a convict has signed away his freedom in exchange for early, delayed, or partial release?
Someone who is out on parole did NOT serve their time, instead they accepted an early release.
You also missed three stikes your out policies and sex offender registration. However, all of these "points" are red herrings, they are a distraction from the actual topic at hand.
Unless you can come up with some example of a reduction in privacy rights that is even vaguely related to the situation we are talking about; it would be much appreciated if you did not try to distract those of us who ARE discussing THIS issue.
"I see that, but it doesn't change anything - he still has, as a felon and involuntary resident, fewer rights than the rest of us."
Last I checked once you serve your time for a crime you no longer have less rights than the rest of us (unless you were released early under the condition you agree to have less).
As an involuntary resident he has the same rights you would have if you were elderly and your children felt you were senile and had you committed. People are involuntarily committed when they are believed to be a danger to themselves OR others; being convicted of a crime is not a requirement.
If the treatment center has the right to use something akin to palm reading in their treatment AND to stop their paitients from finding out why it is akin to palm reading, that applies to EVERYONE committed there; not just ex-cons.
The man is not a prisoner. He was convicted and served his term and then was released.
Iowa persued him again when he got out saying he was messed up in the head and now has him treated involuntarily for a mental disorder.
The issue raised here would apply to your teenage daughter if she overdosed on pills and the doctors involuntarily commited her as a danger to herself.
He is not an inmate. He did his crime AND he served his time. In this case Iowa very loosely skirted double jeopardy by persuing civil action against him after he was released.
The civil case got him ordered to treatment, so he is not a convict or serving time for criminal acts, he is being forced to seek treatment because he is messed up in the head.
A system which is not reliable whether you know how to cheat the system or not is simply unreliable. You do understand that polygraphs have as many false positives as negatives right?
Polygraphs are about as scientific as calling in Madam Vagooma and asking her to read the patient's palm to see if he will persue deviant behavior again.
"Iowa is attempting treatment, using the best we have."
Then Iowa needs to update its treatment a bit. Polygraphs have been known to be bunk for over a decade.
"No, it takes one 3 months got get a handle on the Windows GUI tools for Windows admin. That does not mean the admin understands anything about how his system works and why things are configured the way they are."
No actually it is quite possible to know everything about windows from top to bottom short of programming API's after about 3 months of exposure. You can manipulate almost every part of windows via the gui tools you mentioned. There is next to nothing that need be done with the CLI.
"Also, your statement that it takes a linux admin 5 years to get a firm handle on linux, wrongly assumes that all linux administrators are ex Windows boys."
No actually it does not. To be a windows admin, you need to understand windows. A linux system differs, there is a new scheme or system for every aspect of the system. Nothing is obvious or intuitive, instead everything is designed to be as functional as it can be AFTER learning.
I know this may come as a culture shock to you, but windows has strengths and linux has strengths. Denying the weaknesses that go along with those strengths does NOT help anyone. Linux and almost all open source software, trades off ease of learning and sometimes use for power and flexibility.
To perform intermediate level work on windows you can walk in the door with no knowledge and fake it. All you need to know is basic tcp/ip, a handful of gui tools, how to search the registry structure, the boot process and common file types. You also need to know how to click "ok". A domain and file and print sharing can be setup with no instruction and no prior knowledge beyond computer competency.
To perform the lowest level work with linux you need to know the scheme used to format fstab, mtab, init + runlevels, modules/modprobe.conf, sysconfig, passwd, groups, cron.*, ld.so.config,issue, hosts, and resolve.conf. They need to understand the loading and unloading of modules and be familiar with the exact module names they need to load for most hardware. They need to learn nfs, samba, apache, bind, postfix, and sendmail backwards and forward. They have to learn C, at least bash shell scripting, and perl. They have to learn pam, kerberos, and have familiarity with ldap. This is only scratching the surface of the things a linux administrator needs to know that a windows administrator does not.
Linux is a far more powerful , flexible, and secure system, after setup it needs little or no maintaince beyond resolving hardware issues. The downside is that setup from start to finish takes awhile, usually double the time for someone who knows what they are doing (but is performing a UNIQUE setup) compared an equivelent windows setup by a windows admin with equivelent knowledge. The admins also need to learn much more to reach that equivelent knowledge level.
A windows admin who has invested as much learning about the system as an LPIC-1 Certified Linux Tech is only likely to be found working on a global wan.
Xen was around first. So it is Zen which must be renamed to ZINX.
Not only that, the skillset required is much more extensive. A Linux admin has to be able to program for instance. Every component in a linux system requires far more pre-requisite knowledge and has a much steeper learning curve than it's windows counterpart.
It takes a linux admin 5yrs to get a firm handle on linux. It takes a windows admin about 3 months tops.
Like most things in life, you get what you pay for. Whether you go with the cheap admin or the system that requires cheap admins, you get lower quality either way.
Actually I believe what really happens is that some users have been burned by graphical tools on other platforms and/or cli users somehow believe that either you have gui tools or cli tools.
A graphical tool or wizard can read in a text configuration file, make changes to settings and output them to the original file. There is no reason we can't have the best of both worlds.
Is it so hard to avoid grammar trolling and pull the stick out of your ass, or are people too lazy there as well?
You do realize that the textbooks have to be modified to reflect usage, not the other way around? Actually if you looked at the REAL reference I would not be surpised if Oxford has already added this common usage of the words.
"You already admited that getting a cheaper home isn't an option for you."
lol, you make it sound as if getting a cheaper home is POSSIBLE.
"Smoking is also a source of income drain."
This point I will give you. If we had not been spending money on cigerettes we might have been able to budget. You make it sound like we choose to live beyond our means, this is not the case. If we added up fixed monthly expenses they added up to more than I made.
We had one several year old car, no radios or stereos, two televisions but they were gifts. We had no furniture because we lacked extra money to pay for it. No woodworking or power tools. I do have two self-built computers, but I am a Network/System administrator. Computers are not a luxery item, they are a job requirement. Actually I would argue that in a civilized world computers are just as essential as a first vehicle.
"What i'm talking about is the quality of life when comparing the two."
And I am saying that because the quality of life is low in a third world country you would have to be a fool to stay in one. All the resources are found in the 1st world nations and when comparing quality of life it must be with other 1st world nations.
"The amount of luxoury items "poor people" have is amazing when they cannot afford to feed themselves."
You also need to remember, assets are accumulated over a lifetime. Selling off your stuff is not a solution to an income which is insufficient to pay your bills. This is because the funds gained will quickly deplete and you will be in the same situation except without the assets. Just because I was in a position to accumulate assets yesterday, say working while living with mom or dad, or in the military. Does not mean I could do so now.
"I know a guy who laughed at me when i suggested he plant a garden to help out on the food bill"
Actually I think it is a good idea, the problem is that most broke people do not own any land.
While the average computer user may not know what linux is, they DO recognize the word nowdays.
I suspect it is the SCO thing, but where I used to be greated by blank looks when I mentioned linux; now I get greated with recognition and curiousity.
bzzzzzzt wrong. That is what anyone with half a brain would say. The majority of people are fscking idiots.
"Communism is an economic system enforced by the government. Socialism is a governmental system...I can see that our public education system is doing a fine fine job keeping our public completely clueless."
Apparently. You need to look up the definitions. Communism is not dependant on government control. Communism is a system in which everyone works and contributes to ensure the needs of everyone are met. It does not work because people are both greedy and lazy.
"The only thing destroying capitalism is the meddling of the government which skews the natural feedback of consumers to producers and employers."
The only meddling of government which occurs is the result of politicians being bribed by private industry to protect their interests.
"you've firmly closed your eyes and shoved your fingers in your ears while mumbling to yourself that the US is a capitalist Republic"
Capitalist yes, republic no. The US is a democratic republic but it is not the PEOPLE who select representatives, it is top 10% and their corporations who do so.
Really, majority rules is a bad idea anyway, it is the same thing as mob rules. But wealth should not be the requirement for a voice, intellect should.
"Why does communism always fail? Greed"
Exactly, greed is the communism killer. Much as Generousity is the captitalism killer. Lets not forget that the communist system is the ideal and not the capitalist. The communist system is just a little too ideal to actually work.
"In a communist economy, such as ours,"
This is ridiculous, we are not even comparable with socialist society such as Europe, let alone communism. And Europe with a booming economy, large middle class, top technical and medical science in the world, and widespread education is doing a better job of it than we are.
"In a truly capitalist economy the government wouldn't be subsidizing the wealthy in their venture to exploit the poor."
Wrong, that is how a truely capitalist economy STARTS. Then corporations are invented by the wealthy, paper machines that exist only for the purpose of profit. These machines are granted rights as if they were people but not the liability that goes with them.
The machines do what they are designed to do, profit. Eventually the machines and their majority stockholders (the top 10% who clear the cream off the top of those pooling profits) take the next step, they buy policy and politicians because their goal is profit not ethics. This inevitably leads to our present circumstance.
You see the wealth continues to float to the top because profiting means simply spending less than you make. That means corporations NEVER put back as much as they take out. Ultimately corporations put these gains into the pockets of their top 10% stockholders, who also operate at a profit. This assures that when you buy a hot dog at the baseball stadium that money will ultimately end up in the hands of the top 10% and NEVER go back to a joe schmoe again. You get your paycheck, you buy corporate or the guy you buy from does and that money is lost forever to the lower and middle class.
This ultimately creates a larger gap and smaller middle class. It is inherient in the design.
Capitalism is the polar opposite of communism. Communism depends on generosity to work and man is not up to it. Capitalism depends on greed to work but is self destructive because the ultimate level of greed means destroying the free market.
"you should get some of it back in social security payment and medicade funding of medical treatments."
According to who? You obviously haven't paid attention to SS issues lately. Besides, what is not forseeably going to be there in the future still does not even add up to the interest I would have made on these funds.
"It definately isn't rich but it does fall comfortably in between."
Yeah, it falls at that level where your basic utilities + food + housing + gas + medical expenses + 2 smokers + Internet add up to more than you make in rural Illinois. I have lived in Miami and Small town midwest, the rent is slightly more for something smaller and in a poorer neighborhood in the city. In the midwest the price is only slightly less so the dollar amount does not change much, but it is bigger and in a nicer neighborhood. Since there are no smaller options or bad neighborhoods in a small town, the bottom line is not all that much different. We call this level where you can not maintain a reasonable standard of living in your society POOR.
"if you compare it to other countries, it can support a standard of living that is reserved for thie wealthy"
Lets be realistic. If a nation is not along roughly the same longitude range as US/Europe/Russia it really doesn't count in this case. That is where the abudance of natural resources are and that is where the wealthy nations are. There is a difference between poor by the civilized world's standard and that of people who willfully choose to live in a portion of the world which is itself poor. If you live in a 3rd world country and do not wish to starve, it is simply a matter of walking North (or south as the case may be).
If we are to compare apples to apples we must compare the poor of one 3rd world country to another and first world countries to another.
"Married couple, one child."
;) For the rest I am only counting federal and the portion of federal they earmark for the Social
My dependent is not a child. It is my wife.
Security Program.
"Also, I owe money... I hate refunds, otherwise known as interest free government loans."
Earned income tax is a loan. Refunds are simply getting back part of what you paid in. I always got a refund because when starting employment I mark a big fat 0 on estimated deductions. Although It could be doing better in an interest bearing account of my own, reality is that ends barely meet and the money would not be there come the end of the year.
Minimum wage is not a livable wage. I am not sure how old you are but in the past 5-10yrs costs of living have inflated drastically over paper inflation.
"I know people that have several dependents and have to work 2jobs for the husban and one job for the wife and still not make over $25,000/year."
Me too, they are POOR. While I would agree that $30,000-$40000 is the top end of the lower income class (for ONE person) it is most definately still the lower income class. Anywhere from $40,000-$70,000 could probably be considered middle class.
Simply because the number of poor relative to the number of wealthy grows by design in a capitalist economy hardly means that whatever is average is not poor.
"Now the near 30% you paid is probably as big of a mistake as making 27,000 and thinking you poor."
I wouldn't count state toward federal and paid no city tax. But I certainly count Social Security, just because the tax is earmarked does not mean it is any less of a tax.
Excuse me? Please qualify when you say "you". I said I had a dependant, not a child. And I PAID income tax.
"the poor are eligible for a "refund" larger than any taxes they might have paid"
Just how poor do you think someone has to be before they count as poor? The only ones who might get back more than they paid in are unwed mothers, everyone else gets a refund back that is LESS than they paid in. For example, I have a dependant and made $27,000ish gross last year. Let me be the first to tell you that I did NOT get a refund back for anywhere NEAR the 30% of that I paid in taxes.
"I don't really want to get into details of your post, as little of it merits response."
/. crowd."
;) Actually I was under the impression that leasing just means you can't take deductions for depreciation each year. Then again I seem to remember a cap on what you can take and pc's may devalue faster than the IRS allows for.
Then why are you responding? Please feel free to keep your opinion to yourself. Especially rhetoric like this, attempting to demean what I said adds no strength to your post.
"#1, which parts do you stock?"
ALL of them. 30% is roughly a third, that means if you are purchasing 1000 pcs you could have 300 pcs worth of parts or 300 of EVERY component in your machines. Some might want to weight the investment toward commonality of failure, getting more of the things with moving parts but that is preference.
"#2, what do you do when those parts are consumed and you can't get the same ones again,"
You do not have that many failures with properly built whitebox systems over the lifetime of the investment. Period. Even if you did manage to run out of a component it would be fans or ide drives and it doesn't matter if there is a variation in those components. Any quality HDD big enough to hold your image is as good as another. Any quality fan that keeps your system/cpu cool is as good as another.
"#3 Who services the machines...oh..that's right, internal staff or a paid repair firm."
Yup, same people who service the machines now, except now they don't have to take an additional 30m to an hour dealing with Dell each time.
"Corps don't like variable budget items. If you buy PCs for a 3-year lifecycle, and they are under warranty for that time, it's all pretty simple."
If you purchase all your replacement parts upfront and pay your technical staff on salary there is nothing variable about it. At least not more than you have now.
"And it's often necessary to lease machines with a $1 buyout at the end of the term for various financial reasons, most of which would be lost on the
Although I am not aware of the accounting practice your talking about in this case I doubt it would be lost on the slashdot crowd. Business and accounting are for math simpletons remember?
Most of the corps I have worked for have $1 profit corporations they "pay" for services. I wonder why you couldn't effectively lease them to yourself this way?
The truth is when you get to the bottom line is that it is not technicians who make technical purchase decisions for IT purposes. It is management who perhaps touched something vaguely technical 10yrs ago.
They purchase Dells because shit rolls downhill. If you buy whiteboxes the hill ends internally, if you buy Dell the hill ends at Dell. Resolution is easier and less expensive if you keep it internal, but your own ass is more secure if it ends with Dell.
Believe it or not those leasing companies and Dell both operate at a profit. They operate at a massive profit on those service contracts your so fond of. Every dollar they make is a dollar you lose.