I do SEO all day so I know a bit about it. We're both right though. Some idiots will keep posting, but most, the good ones, won't. They go out of their way to not become the targets of peoples frustration.
This is an interesting issue. Often the links in comments are better than the ones in the article. If they all contain this attribute than this important and valid links won't get credit. I'm going to code my blog so that anonymous posts get the nofollow attribute but the logged in users won't.
Your wrong. Blog spammers don't continue to hit blogs where their posts are deleted. I run a few blogs and boards and they will stop after they see that their posts are getting deleted. This is completely automated btw.
There is a very important point that no one has really talked about. Social Security is more than a retirement plan for the elderly. If you find yourself unable to work tomorrow, disease or freak accident, you will get social security. How are these people going to be taken care of under a "privatized" plan?
A 28 year old that is suddenly unable to work will get a few grand. Is this really what we want?
"
The firewire port is also not a "slight win" for anyone that likes to play with video, which is all parents in the US."
I think you must be living in a different US than me. Oh wait, your in the other half of the "two americas".
PageRank is primarily based on the number of links to your site. However, you can create a site that no one has every seen before and buy links for it. It will get a decent PageRank and could rank very well depending on the targeted keyword eventhough it is not popular.
I really thought this would be obvious. Nice non-use of your brain;)
There are more jobs out there than there are people filling them. Maybe not the jobs you and I prefer, but they are there. And if you need to eat, you would take one, just as I would.
First and foremost is the fact that this is simply untrue. There are far more people than jobs. Second, just because a shitty job exists doesn't mean you can get it. I was laid of from my well paid IT job at Worldcom/MCI after they went bankrupt. I searched for a job, in Los Angeles mind you, for 6 months and was told repeatedly that I was over qualified. One particular interview I had was for a job on a loading dock at a Macy's warehouse.
Frankly, there is a reason why the rich are rich: in the capitalistic system we live in, they get there by being the most efficent allocaters of capital.
Let's see. Most wealthy people are born wealthy. They don't allocate anything better than anyone else. George Bush would be a redneck living in a trailer just like where I grew up if he wasn't born into the family that he was born into.
Your either a troll, a teenager, or delusional. I'm going to guess that it's number 2.
"Look at the countries in Asia with free trade policies, and those which impose severe restrictions on trade"
This is my last post because you clearly can't stop taking my view, we should trade with countries that have reasonable standards, and turning it into "severe restrictions on trade" and "protecionism". I believe in free trade with countries that have decent standards. Isnt' it reasonable to ask that a country not employ sweatshops and child labor before we trade with them?
"Singapore, Malaysia, and Indonesia are in far better environmental shape than Vietnam and North Korea"
Maybe the wars we waged have something to do with the environmental conditions in Vietnam and Korea! How many tons of bombs and chemicals like agent orange did we drop on Vietnam?
That's naive. Countries that prevent labor unions are not countries that we should trade with. Countries that dump toxic waste into rivers are not countries that we should trade with. There is not free market incentive to change these things.
"I'd say that the more foreign trade any country has, the more money they'll have, which allows them to worry about issues beyond survival"
This doesn't represent reality. Large corporations are the ones that setup shop in these third world countries and their decision makers aren't in fear of starvation. They have the ability to do the right thing, but prefer to do what is best for their bottom line. I.e. dumping all their toxic waste in the river of some third world country because they can.
"What you are proposing is subsidising companies who don't outsource"
No I didn't.
Proposing that we not subsidize companies that outsource is not the same as proposing that we subsidize companies that don't outsource.
"It sounds like a lot when you hear the numbers totalled up, but in the grand scheme of things it's not that much."
Unless your one of the thousands laid off. I was a couple years ago and I still make about $10000 less than I did 4 years ago.
"Protectionism is always self-defeating in the end"
This annoys me more than anything. I do not have to be a protectionist to be critical of the situation. I can say that corporations should not get subsidies (our money) if they send jobs oversees. That's not protectionism. Another legitimate criticism is that we shouldn't trade "freely" with countries that don't allow unions, or that don't have reasonable labor and environmental standards.
We get a choice between Moron and his party 1 and the other Moron and his party 2.
Clearly you've never heard of a primary. The choices don't have to be moron 1 and moron 2. They can be who ever we want them to be. We being the collective people of America.
We lost because the majority of the citizens of vietname were against us. So we could have killed the majority of the population, which would have looked really bad, or pulled out. Even if we took the "shackles" off the military we coulnd't have won without commiting genocide.
The majority of the citizens of vietnam wanted a communist leader and were going to elect one in the elections we agreed to allow after vietnam kicked the french out. We went in to stop democracy from happening which will always fail in the long run unless you wipe out most of the population.
Ok, Your conclusion doesn't follow either. There is a big difference between locking you into their product (ipod) and encouraging you to use it. You can use the songs purchased from itunes on an mp3 player so you aren't being locked in. We need to stop using words with emotional baggage in ways that are inaccurate.
Jay
premise: apple makes me burn then rip to get an mp3
premise: I have a slow burner
conclusion: apple is restricting my use
Hm, I don't think your conclusion follows your premises.
"I have an Archos mp3 player. I can't put music I buy from iTunes on it even though I've purchased the music."
I think you are purposely misleading people here. Just burn the file from apple as a cd then rip as an mp3. I'm sure you realized this if not then....
Of course, this isn't user friendly, but you are implying that apple is trying to restrict you from doing this and that is false. The fact that they don't make it easy does not mean that they are trying to prevent this. You can do anything you want with the music pruchased from itune that you can do with a normal cd. There is just an extra step.
Slashdot Mirror
and if you trade links you now have to check that people aren't using nofollow links
I do SEO all day so I know a bit about it. We're both right though. Some idiots will keep posting, but most, the good ones, won't. They go out of their way to not become the targets of peoples frustration.
This is an interesting issue. Often the links in comments are better than the ones in the article. If they all contain this attribute than this important and valid links won't get credit. I'm going to code my blog so that anonymous posts get the nofollow attribute but the logged in users won't.
Your wrong. Blog spammers don't continue to hit blogs where their posts are deleted. I run a few blogs and boards and they will stop after they see that their posts are getting deleted. This is completely automated btw.
You miss the point. Blog spammers will stop hitting a blog if they aren't getting credit for the links in their rankings.
There is a very important point that no one has really talked about. Social Security is more than a retirement plan for the elderly. If you find yourself unable to work tomorrow, disease or freak accident, you will get social security. How are these people going to be taken care of under a "privatized" plan? A 28 year old that is suddenly unable to work will get a few grand. Is this really what we want?
None of the ones I know have digital camcorders and none of them put their videos on their computers to edit them.
" The firewire port is also not a "slight win" for anyone that likes to play with video, which is all parents in the US." I think you must be living in a different US than me. Oh wait, your in the other half of the "two americas".
They don't pay me to do that. I said that I work for a company that does this sort of thing.
PageRank is primarily based on the number of links to your site. However, you can create a site that no one has every seen before and buy links for it. It will get a decent PageRank and could rank very well depending on the targeted keyword eventhough it is not popular.
;)
I really thought this would be obvious. Nice non-use of your brain
"Google PageRank has always put the most popular sites first"
This is simply wrong. I work for a company that gets sites to rank on google and popularity is not a requirement.
I wish you remembered the name of the town as well. Are you sure they didn't just fake the stats as happens so often in the corporate numbers game?
Also, why can't giving bonuses for lower rates work just as well with regular police?
I wish I had mod points for you. Someone mod him up!!!
"Look at the countries in Asia with free trade policies, and those which impose severe restrictions on trade" This is my last post because you clearly can't stop taking my view, we should trade with countries that have reasonable standards, and turning it into "severe restrictions on trade" and "protecionism". I believe in free trade with countries that have decent standards. Isnt' it reasonable to ask that a country not employ sweatshops and child labor before we trade with them? "Singapore, Malaysia, and Indonesia are in far better environmental shape than Vietnam and North Korea" Maybe the wars we waged have something to do with the environmental conditions in Vietnam and Korea! How many tons of bombs and chemicals like agent orange did we drop on Vietnam?
That's naive. Countries that prevent labor unions are not countries that we should trade with. Countries that dump toxic waste into rivers are not countries that we should trade with. There is not free market incentive to change these things. "I'd say that the more foreign trade any country has, the more money they'll have, which allows them to worry about issues beyond survival" This doesn't represent reality. Large corporations are the ones that setup shop in these third world countries and their decision makers aren't in fear of starvation. They have the ability to do the right thing, but prefer to do what is best for their bottom line. I.e. dumping all their toxic waste in the river of some third world country because they can.
I respect that. What do you say about so called "free trade" with countries that have very poor labor and environmental standars?
Your creating a strawman rather than addressing my points and I'm tired of going in circles.
"What you are proposing is subsidising companies who don't outsource" No I didn't. Proposing that we not subsidize companies that outsource is not the same as proposing that we subsidize companies that don't outsource.
"It sounds like a lot when you hear the numbers totalled up, but in the grand scheme of things it's not that much."
Unless your one of the thousands laid off. I was a couple years ago and I still make about $10000 less than I did 4 years ago.
"Protectionism is always self-defeating in the end"
This annoys me more than anything. I do not have to be a protectionist to be critical of the situation. I can say that corporations should not get subsidies (our money) if they send jobs oversees. That's not protectionism. Another legitimate criticism is that we shouldn't trade "freely" with countries that don't allow unions, or that don't have reasonable labor and environmental standards.
We lost because the majority of the citizens of vietname were against us. So we could have killed the majority of the population, which would have looked really bad, or pulled out. Even if we took the "shackles" off the military we coulnd't have won without commiting genocide. The majority of the citizens of vietnam wanted a communist leader and were going to elect one in the elections we agreed to allow after vietnam kicked the french out. We went in to stop democracy from happening which will always fail in the long run unless you wipe out most of the population.
Ok, Your conclusion doesn't follow either. There is a big difference between locking you into their product (ipod) and encouraging you to use it. You can use the songs purchased from itunes on an mp3 player so you aren't being locked in. We need to stop using words with emotional baggage in ways that are inaccurate. Jay
premise: apple makes me burn then rip to get an mp3 premise: I have a slow burner conclusion: apple is restricting my use Hm, I don't think your conclusion follows your premises.
"I have an Archos mp3 player. I can't put music I buy from iTunes on it even though I've purchased the music." I think you are purposely misleading people here. Just burn the file from apple as a cd then rip as an mp3. I'm sure you realized this if not then ....
Of course, this isn't user friendly, but you are implying that apple is trying to restrict you from doing this and that is false. The fact that they don't make it easy does not mean that they are trying to prevent this. You can do anything you want with the music pruchased from itune that you can do with a normal cd. There is just an extra step.