There is an answer to this question that is very relevant to the topic article and it's all about viewpoint.
Viewpoint is what people in this country, and seem to be looking for. People here seem to like their facts pre-digested so that instead of thinking for themselves, someone has already done the thinking for them. Much of the public wants a well understood perspective on the news as well as on their politicians. They want their information fed with an angle attached. Normal journalism is about presenting facts and letting you come to your own conclusions.
Fact 1: Joe lied to us.
Fact 2: Joe is asking us to trust him.
Normal journalism ends there and leaves it to you to make the conclusion. Conclusion: I should not trust Joe because he lied to us once already.
Viewpoint/angle is all about making the conclusion jump for you. Fox News' angle is to say, especially if Joe is a Democrat, "You're a liar we're not going to trust you!" Jon Stewart presents both fact clips and says "Have you heard the story about the boy who cried wolf?" and gets a laugh. Both approaches are presenting the facts with a spin. Both shows pre-digest and present you with the opinion you should have. Some even argue that this is just a way of embracing the inherent bias in any journalistic piece.
Bush is the candidate who predigests the information for the American people and comes from the viewpoint of Fox News of telling you what you're opinion is. John Kerry is actually more of a pure journalist in that he knows all the facts but has never given us the confidence that he knows how to come to a conclusion. All Presidents need to come to a conclusion about matters. Bush does it in a second, Kerry never seems to, so he comes across as flip-flopping. Just like most people in this country like to be told what to think since they're not comfortable doing that themselves, people like that Bush does the thinking for them and tells them what to think. It's comforting.
Whether his conclusions are correct are up for debate. I personally think that his Iraq philosophy was not inherently flawed, the plan to get it done it turns out was. I like his vision, he's not smart enough to accomplish it though. I'm not convinced Kerry has a vision. Average intelligence man with a plan or smart man without, which do you choose? I'm still undecided.
I see what you are saying but in this case total revenue of advertising is worth at the least the value of the airtime so those two terms in the equation could cancel out.
Let's think about this. Do they? They estimate that Simpsons merchandising and syndication value is 1 billion. They earned 30k per episode for the first ten years and 125k per episode for the last five. That's 660k(10)+2.75m(5)=13.875m+6.6m=20.475m per actor for the last 15 years. At 6 actors, that's around 120m FOX has paid out with these actors having helped generated a billion dollars in value. Say the animation costs and writing costs are double this, which they probably are not since animators and writers are paid relatively poorly, then the total cost of production is 360m for FOX with an asset worth 1 billion. Out of all the players in the production only the voice actors have any bargaining chips. All the other people are even more easily replaceable. The market value of their services is clearly more than they are getting paid, so they should fight for more.
This is not an issue of they already get paid enough. If they don't get paid the money, it doesn't stay in the consumer's pocket, it stays in FOX's pocket. FOX by refusing to pay is being just as greedy if not more than the voice-actors.
I sympathize with many of your ideas, but fundamentally they are not tenable in the long term. Violence begets violence, hate begets hate and the only way to stop the vicious cycle is to turn the other cheek. Violence on either side must be condemned as well as American support of fundamentally flawed governments for the sake of oil. The way the terrorists deliver their message is wrong, but unless we discuss the root of the terroristic cause, it'll not stop. Having the approach to terrorism that Israel has had for the past fifty years will only put America in the same position Israel is in fifty years from now. There is a better way. Without discussion we won't find it.
>> "There will be peace when the Arabs love their children more than they hate ours." - Golda Meir
Do you think killing Yassin gave the Palestinians a reason to love their children more or hate Israeli children more?
>> If the Arabs put down their weapons today there would be no more violence. If the Israelis put down their weapons today there would be no more Israel.
We need both sides to put down their weapons. Only a dispassionate, non-violent, democracy/education-oriented approach to all of middle-east foreign policy from all world powers will get us there.
I'm neither a jew-basher or anti-semitic. I'm simply expressing an opinion that you'd be surprised how many rational non-racist people in this country share but because of political correctness gone awry don't feel liberty to discuss.
In many ways discussion of foreign policy in the middle east is a politically motivated discussion instead of rationally motivated discussion. Some of that political motivation is the fear of being called those two terms you used against me. When Howard Dean used the term "even-handed" to describe his approach to the Middle East peace process he was flogged by the media instead of being discussed by the media. I have my opinions but as a rational person, they are subject to change given better discussion and more complete perspectives. Those perspectives include the full substance of the messages that Al-Qaeda puts out. That's what I don't think we have.
The American news media never discusses the content of Bin Laden's or Al-Zawahiri's messages. When they say, "Unless you stop your support of Israel we will attack America until the end, praise Allah." The media only reports the half sentence "We will attack America until the end, praise Allah." The motivation of the terrorists is never given and when it is discussed it's always turned into, "They just hate Americans." There is not a word about why. All Al Qaeda's messages have to do with American support of Israel and propping up patsy governments in the region. That foreign policy discussion is one I would love this country to have...but it doesn't look like it's going to happen. For more than the last thirty years Israel has fought terrorists like Al-Qaeda and just recently the terrorists have begun to focus on the source of Israel's power, America. Is the supporting of Israel really worth the instability of America and so many countries around the world? Some may say that having this discussion gives the terrorist attacks validity/currency. I think not having the discussions only makes terrorist attacks more certain to occur.
Not every court decision is the end of the line and many are just passing the buck back to the parties involved to make clearer their ideas instead of leaving the issues vague out of laziness or lack of desire to offend.
And while the national crime rate rose 2 percent from 2000 to 2001, Chicago rates have dropped 16 percent in the last three years. So all this information can and does prevent crime and save lives
The two statistics aren't even correlated. The rate rose 2 percent from 2000 to 2001. The rates dropped 16 percent in the last three years which are the years 2001-2004. The two stats don't even match up in the period they are measuring.
Lack of correlation certainly does not imply causation.
Wrong. Since the all these appliances are AC, the voltage is varying which has to do with electrical energy, not magnetic. There will therefore be a magnetic field induced. The poster was implying that hair dryers transmit electrical energy through the air like a microwave to dry hair which is absolutely untrue. The electrical energy is converted to heat and then transmitted through the air as hot air.
The article is about the magnetic field induced by said appliances. Hair driers do not transmit electrical energy through the air. So there is no appreciable power being "put into the air." There is an appreciable magnetic field generated by these devices because of their power usage. This study also applies to people who stick their heads in their computer cases for the joy of it, or use their laptop as a pillow. I don't think conclusions can be drawn from this study as to the effects of cell phones on brain cells.
Anything you do that questions their authority provokes a canned response: time to harass you, arrest you, or otherwise ensure you know they're the one with the power.
This is no deep observation. What are they supposed to do to assert their authority, lecture you? No. When you question my penis size, I have two choices, show you the penis in question or just verbally defend myself. I'd choose to show you my penis and with your attitude I'd probably billy club you over the head with it. With my penis size I'd have to knock you to the ground and pelvic thrust your head, and I'd do it too. I know judo.
Don't ever question authority...especially that of my penis.
If it was an option, wouldn't it have happened? If you were told take that paycut, you would have been horrified. A job you were getting 60k for two years ago now you're getting 30k. On top of that in India these people are making more than their peers, so they are happy to be working there and the position is competitive, but here people would be pissed that they had to take it and would be looking to move up all the time. These people in India are moving up, we'd be moving down. Which employee would you rather have? Not to mention that they realize an overall cost saving of that much. How much of that is saved in infrastructure costs and how much is salary? Salary has to be a percentage of that, not the whole number.
Very true. If you watched the 60 minutes piece on this, the average company will realize an average savings of 50% on those areas that are properly outsourced. Are you willing to take a paycut of 50% just so you can be employed? Doubtful.
Commoditization of products and service helps everyone except those who are caught in the lurch. Slashdot happens to be the forum for many caught in this transition, and your feelings are understandable. But...globalization allows for commoditization. Without it you wouldn't be able to afford that lightning fast computer you have on your desktop, nor would ipods be possible.
Just recently the Fannie May chocolate factory in Chicago closed down after decades of providing low-skill employment to many in the city. The day it shut down the local news had some features on the plight of those workers. I feel bad for them but really I only care about the answer to the question, "Where's the candy?" not "Where's the candy coming from."
These so-called high-tech jobs are becoming low-skill jobs relative to ten years ago. Want the jobs to stay here? Then the next logical step is unionizing. Is that what people here want?
I don't. There are unseen greener pastures out there. Let's try to find them.
Buddhism attempts to reject the existence of the self, and the mind, and speaks against the validity of desires. But in doing so, it uses those very things. A Buddhist says "I want to seek Nirvana" - and destroys the fundamental tenets of his own faith in the process.
A Buddhist says nothing, not even that they are a Buddhist.
If you do not have your self, what do you have? A mass of carbon and water and heavy elements acting like a computer, accepting input and spitting out whatever society and environment has programmed?
What you have is total emptiness. The only way of seeing truth is ridding yourself of all biases, i.e. emptiness. Buddhists wouldn't see themselves as a mass of carbon, I assume they would see nothing. They're goal I assume would not be to write their own software but to get rid of all their software.
Slashdot Mirror
There is an answer to this question that is very relevant to the topic article and it's all about viewpoint.
Viewpoint is what people in this country, and seem to be looking for. People here seem to like their facts pre-digested so that instead of thinking for themselves, someone has already done the thinking for them. Much of the public wants a well understood perspective on the news as well as on their politicians. They want their information fed with an angle attached. Normal journalism is about presenting facts and letting you come to your own conclusions.
Fact 1: Joe lied to us.
Fact 2: Joe is asking us to trust him.
Normal journalism ends there and leaves it to you to make the conclusion.
Conclusion: I should not trust Joe because he lied to us once already.
Viewpoint/angle is all about making the conclusion jump for you. Fox News' angle is to say, especially if Joe is a Democrat, "You're a liar we're not going to trust you!" Jon Stewart presents both fact clips and says "Have you heard the story about the boy who cried wolf?" and gets a laugh. Both approaches are presenting the facts with a spin. Both shows pre-digest and present you with the opinion you should have. Some even argue that this is just a way of embracing the inherent bias in any journalistic piece.
Bush is the candidate who predigests the information for the American people and comes from the viewpoint of Fox News of telling you what you're opinion is. John Kerry is actually more of a pure journalist in that he knows all the facts but has never given us the confidence that he knows how to come to a conclusion. All Presidents need to come to a conclusion about matters. Bush does it in a second, Kerry never seems to, so he comes across as flip-flopping. Just like most people in this country like to be told what to think since they're not comfortable doing that themselves, people like that Bush does the thinking for them and tells them what to think. It's comforting.
Whether his conclusions are correct are up for debate. I personally think that his Iraq philosophy was not inherently flawed, the plan to get it done it turns out was. I like his vision, he's not smart enough to accomplish it though. I'm not convinced Kerry has a vision. Average intelligence man with a plan or smart man without, which do you choose? I'm still undecided.
I see what you are saying but in this case total revenue of advertising is worth at the least the value of the airtime so those two terms in the equation could cancel out.
Let's think about this. Do they? They estimate that Simpsons merchandising and syndication value is 1 billion. They earned 30k per episode for the first ten years and 125k per episode for the last five. That's 660k(10)+2.75m(5)=13.875m+6.6m=20.475m per actor for the last 15 years. At 6 actors, that's around 120m FOX has paid out with these actors having helped generated a billion dollars in value. Say the animation costs and writing costs are double this, which they probably are not since animators and writers are paid relatively poorly, then the total cost of production is 360m for FOX with an asset worth 1 billion. Out of all the players in the production only the voice actors have any bargaining chips. All the other people are even more easily replaceable. The market value of their services is clearly more than they are getting paid, so they should fight for more.
This is not an issue of they already get paid enough. If they don't get paid the money, it doesn't stay in the consumer's pocket, it stays in FOX's pocket. FOX by refusing to pay is being just as greedy if not more than the voice-actors.
Probably not. Barnum's Corollary: If a sucker is born every minute now, a sucker will be born at least every minute in the future.
Not to mention having a high IQ is far less correlated with being a sucker than being born in the suburbs.
I sympathize with many of your ideas, but fundamentally they are not tenable in the long term. Violence begets violence, hate begets hate and the only way to stop the vicious cycle is to turn the other cheek. Violence on either side must be condemned as well as American support of fundamentally flawed governments for the sake of oil. The way the terrorists deliver their message is wrong, but unless we discuss the root of the terroristic cause, it'll not stop. Having the approach to terrorism that Israel has had for the past fifty years will only put America in the same position Israel is in fifty years from now. There is a better way. Without discussion we won't find it.
>> "There will be peace when the Arabs love their children more than they hate ours." - Golda Meir
Do you think killing Yassin gave the Palestinians a reason to love their children more or hate Israeli children more?
>> If the Arabs put down their weapons today there would be no more violence. If the Israelis put down their weapons today there would be no more Israel.
We need both sides to put down their weapons. Only a dispassionate, non-violent, democracy/education-oriented approach to all of middle-east foreign policy from all world powers will get us there.
I'm neither a jew-basher or anti-semitic. I'm simply expressing an opinion that you'd be surprised how many rational non-racist people in this country share but because of political correctness gone awry don't feel liberty to discuss.
In many ways discussion of foreign policy in the middle east is a politically motivated discussion instead of rationally motivated discussion. Some of that political motivation is the fear of being called those two terms you used against me. When Howard Dean used the term "even-handed" to describe his approach to the Middle East peace process he was flogged by the media instead of being discussed by the media. I have my opinions but as a rational person, they are subject to change given better discussion and more complete perspectives. Those perspectives include the full substance of the messages that Al-Qaeda puts out. That's what I don't think we have.
The American news media never discusses the content of Bin Laden's or Al-Zawahiri's messages. When they say, "Unless you stop your support of Israel we will attack America until the end, praise Allah." The media only reports the half sentence "We will attack America until the end, praise Allah." The motivation of the terrorists is never given and when it is discussed it's always turned into, "They just hate Americans." There is not a word about why. All Al Qaeda's messages have to do with American support of Israel and propping up patsy governments in the region. That foreign policy discussion is one I would love this country to have...but it doesn't look like it's going to happen. For more than the last thirty years Israel has fought terrorists like Al-Qaeda and just recently the terrorists have begun to focus on the source of Israel's power, America. Is the supporting of Israel really worth the instability of America and so many countries around the world? Some may say that having this discussion gives the terrorist attacks validity/currency. I think not having the discussions only makes terrorist attacks more certain to occur.
Not every court decision is the end of the line and many are just passing the buck back to the parties involved to make clearer their ideas instead of leaving the issues vague out of laziness or lack of desire to offend.
And while the national crime rate rose 2 percent from 2000 to 2001, Chicago rates have dropped 16 percent in the last three years. So all this information can and does prevent crime and save lives
The two statistics aren't even correlated. The rate rose 2 percent from 2000 to 2001. The rates dropped 16 percent in the last three years which are the years 2001-2004. The two stats don't even match up in the period they are measuring.
Lack of correlation certainly does not imply causation.
Wrong. Since the all these appliances are AC, the voltage is varying which has to do with electrical energy, not magnetic. There will therefore be a magnetic field induced. The poster was implying that hair dryers transmit electrical energy through the air like a microwave to dry hair which is absolutely untrue. The electrical energy is converted to heat and then transmitted through the air as hot air.
The article is about the magnetic field induced by said appliances. Hair driers do not transmit electrical energy through the air. So there is no appreciable power being "put into the air." There is an appreciable magnetic field generated by these devices because of their power usage. This study also applies to people who stick their heads in their computer cases for the joy of it, or use their laptop as a pillow. I don't think conclusions can be drawn from this study as to the effects of cell phones on brain cells.
Anything you do that questions their authority provokes a canned response: time to harass you, arrest you, or otherwise ensure you know they're the one with the power.
This is no deep observation. What are they supposed to do to assert their authority, lecture you? No. When you question my penis size, I have two choices, show you the penis in question or just verbally defend myself. I'd choose to show you my penis and with your attitude I'd probably billy club you over the head with it. With my penis size I'd have to knock you to the ground and pelvic thrust your head, and I'd do it too. I know judo.
Don't ever question authority...especially that of my penis.
The last line of the complaint is: "SCO demands trial by jury on all issues so triable."
The issues are so complicated and convoluted that, sadly, this trial may come down to "He said, she said."
If it was an option, wouldn't it have happened? If you were told take that paycut, you would have been horrified. A job you were getting 60k for two years ago now you're getting 30k. On top of that in India these people are making more than their peers, so they are happy to be working there and the position is competitive, but here people would be pissed that they had to take it and would be looking to move up all the time. These people in India are moving up, we'd be moving down. Which employee would you rather have? Not to mention that they realize an overall cost saving of that much. How much of that is saved in infrastructure costs and how much is salary? Salary has to be a percentage of that, not the whole number.
Very true. If you watched the 60 minutes piece on this, the average company will realize an average savings of 50% on those areas that are properly outsourced. Are you willing to take a paycut of 50% just so you can be employed? Doubtful.
Commoditization of products and service helps everyone except those who are caught in the lurch. Slashdot happens to be the forum for many caught in this transition, and your feelings are understandable. But...globalization allows for commoditization. Without it you wouldn't be able to afford that lightning fast computer you have on your desktop, nor would ipods be possible.
Just recently the Fannie May chocolate factory in Chicago closed down after decades of providing low-skill employment to many in the city. The day it shut down the local news had some features on the plight of those workers. I feel bad for them but really I only care about the answer to the question, "Where's the candy?" not "Where's the candy coming from."
These so-called high-tech jobs are becoming low-skill jobs relative to ten years ago. Want the jobs to stay here? Then the next logical step is unionizing. Is that what people here want?
I don't. There are unseen greener pastures out there. Let's try to find them.
Buddhism attempts to reject the existence of the self, and the mind, and speaks against the validity of desires. But in doing so, it uses those very things. A Buddhist says "I want to seek Nirvana" - and destroys the fundamental tenets of his own faith in the process.
A Buddhist says nothing, not even that they are a Buddhist.
If you do not have your self, what do you have? A mass of carbon and water and heavy elements acting like a computer, accepting input and spitting out whatever society and environment has programmed?
What you have is total emptiness. The only way of seeing truth is ridding yourself of all biases, i.e. emptiness. Buddhists wouldn't see themselves as a mass of carbon, I assume they would see nothing. They're goal I assume would not be to write their own software but to get rid of all their software.