But that's the price you have to pay if you want to get nekkid with one of those hot chicks in those flowery little dresses that ride around on bikes and tire swings and stuff in the commercials. Mmmm... herpes.
The curriculum in schools is influenced more and more by special interest groups, and less and less by educators. By the time you take out everything somebody doesn't want kids to learn, and put in everything somebody else feels they need to learn, you're left with a bunch of crap. This has the same effect on our kids as special interest groups do on politicians: they can't accomplish anything meaningful, but they're good at spending money.
Yeah, I think it was supposed to be funny (Spam comes in a can, right?), but it kind of backfired. I don't think the lowest form of humor belongs in the title of official government stuff.
I also think it's a bit foolish to demonize x10- x10 didn't put ads on the sites you visit--The site put ads there (well, apart from gator but that was a prior story). If you don't like the pop-under ads at a site, blame the site itself not the people paying the bills.
Wait, so using that same logic, I shouldn't be mad at Joe's Carpet Cleaning when I get a telemarking call on their behalf. I should blame the telemarketers? Or the phone company? Well, each of them plays a part, and I will certainly not knowingly do business with any company that uses telemarketers.
You're correct to point out that the site has a healthy share of the blame, but I'll remain hacked off at X10 as well.
Maybe that's why they're limiting it to the Fortune 1000 companies. A few Open Source advocates could get together and buy a fraudulent license for $699 and take SCO to court. A Fortune 1000 company probably isn't going to do something like that (most likely, they'll just ignore SCO altogether).
Just a hunch, but maybe they saw who was actually trying to buy single licenses and went "uh oh, let's come up with a reason we aren't going to sell it to them".
This is just great. Now when somebody asks me "have you ever used Netscape?" I have to explain myself. "Yes, but back in like 1995 when it was a cool alternative to Mosaic. Not that crappy cheap sub-AOL thing."
I don't really know much about how the industry works, but I suspect that telemarketers base their fees on how many phone numbers they call. (Does anyone have information on this?) So every bad number wastes money, but it wastes the money of whoever is hiring the telemarketer. The telemarketer figures out how much it costs to call so many numbers, and passes that on to the business that hired them.
So, if you take away a big portion of the phone numbers, there are less numbers to call in the geographical region of interest to, say, a carpet cleaning company. The telemarketer could hardly justify charging the same amount of money for calling less phone numbers, even if a higher percentage of the remaining phone numbers generated a positive response due to the residents being more receptive to telemarketing calls. So this would drive the costs (and the fees the telemarketers can collect from each client) down. As we are learning in today's "jobless recovery," more productivity means less jobs (at least in the short term).
This may be partially offset because the lower costs might encourage more businesses to use telemarketing, or the ones that already use it may do so more often or in a wider area. So people that aren't on the Do Not Call List will start getting more telemarketing calls. This might motivate more people to get on the list. After a while it will all settle down, but I think the end result is that the telemarketers will see a pretty significant decrease in sales.
Its the family of the victims doing the suing here, not the family of the teens.
That's good, because I can only imagine the kind of nonsense that could start. "Hey, kid, while still you're a minor, play this video game and go kill somebody. Then mommy and your stepdad can rake it in!"
Yeah, I have always heard a great deal of Walmart's success attributed to their superior logistics, distribution, inventory management, etc. Using RFID in their warehouses helps them do this more efficiently and keep their edge in this area.
Putting RFID in the individual packages doesn't really affect their distribution model too much, since they're scanning everything with bar codes in the checkout line anyway.
OK, but manadtory spending is at about $1.2 trillion, which includes social security, welfare, etc, including $445 billion for medicare and medicaid (combined). From the Congressional Budget Office.
I think including only the discretionary part of the health budget (leaving out the much larger medicare and medicaid numbers), and also ignoring the fact that most education funding comes from the states (and should), skews the numbers a little. But I guess that's what politics is all about.
But anyway, my initial point was not whether we're spending too much or too little on military, but that it's unrealistic to expect $200 billion to fix a $1.2 trillion problem that we're already throwing more than $400 billion at.
Hmmm... cut the military budget in half to get a national health care system? That would be a trick, since we already spend more on medicaid and medicare than we spend on the military.
Alternatively, you could take the same amount of effort to raise money for your local library so that it can pay for its own internet access. Then it wouldn't be subject to that law.
People make something, it ought to be presented to the public the way it was envisioned, and not the way people would like to pretend it was. Imagine if classics from Huckleberry Finn to the Bible had this happen in the name of political correctness. Oh wait they already have. If it's wrong to censor books or newspapers, than it's equally wrong to censor out the parts of movies we don't like. In short this boils down to revisionist history, something that I find abhorrant and morally destitute.
Wow, that's worded pretty strongly. To follow that logic, it's immoral to skip tracks you don't like on a CD... you must listen to the album in its entirety. Give me a break.
If somebody wants to watch a movie without a few scenes or words they find objectionable, that's their right. If they are content letting someone else choose the content to edit out, that's their business.
In short, I think it's wrong to force your choice of content (whether by inclusion or exclusion) on someone else.
Slashdot Mirror
But that's the price you have to pay if you want to get nekkid with one of those hot chicks in those flowery little dresses that ride around on bikes and tire swings and stuff in the commercials. Mmmm... herpes.
And here I thought he was spinning yarns.
Sounds like SCO is having a bad game of Jumanji.
"We now know exactly where all of our students are."
"That's really wonderful... uh... now what do we do with them?"
Wait, so using that same logic, I shouldn't be mad at Joe's Carpet Cleaning when I get a telemarking call on their behalf. I should blame the telemarketers? Or the phone company? Well, each of them plays a part, and I will certainly not knowingly do business with any company that uses telemarketers.
You're correct to point out that the site has a healthy share of the blame, but I'll remain hacked off at X10 as well.
Just a hunch, but maybe they saw who was actually trying to buy single licenses and went "uh oh, let's come up with a reason we aren't going to sell it to them".
So, if you take away a big portion of the phone numbers, there are less numbers to call in the geographical region of interest to, say, a carpet cleaning company. The telemarketer could hardly justify charging the same amount of money for calling less phone numbers, even if a higher percentage of the remaining phone numbers generated a positive response due to the residents being more receptive to telemarketing calls. So this would drive the costs (and the fees the telemarketers can collect from each client) down. As we are learning in today's "jobless recovery," more productivity means less jobs (at least in the short term).
This may be partially offset because the lower costs might encourage more businesses to use telemarketing, or the ones that already use it may do so more often or in a wider area. So people that aren't on the Do Not Call List will start getting more telemarketing calls. This might motivate more people to get on the list. After a while it will all settle down, but I think the end result is that the telemarketers will see a pretty significant decrease in sales.
That's good, because I can only imagine the kind of nonsense that could start. "Hey, kid, while still you're a minor, play this video game and go kill somebody. Then mommy and your stepdad can rake it in!"
Yes. A woman's thought process.
"Sorry, Adam. I didn't see that one coming either."
Disclaimer: I own stock in a major tobacco company.
Oh, crap...
Putting RFID in the individual packages doesn't really affect their distribution model too much, since they're scanning everything with bar codes in the checkout line anyway.
I think including only the discretionary part of the health budget (leaving out the much larger medicare and medicaid numbers), and also ignoring the fact that most education funding comes from the states (and should), skews the numbers a little. But I guess that's what politics is all about.
But anyway, my initial point was not whether we're spending too much or too little on military, but that it's unrealistic to expect $200 billion to fix a $1.2 trillion problem that we're already throwing more than $400 billion at.
Hmmm... cut the military budget in half to get a national health care system? That would be a trick, since we already spend more on medicaid and medicare than we spend on the military.
Alternatively, you could take the same amount of effort to raise money for your local library so that it can pay for its own internet access. Then it wouldn't be subject to that law.
Wow, that's worded pretty strongly. To follow that logic, it's immoral to skip tracks you don't like on a CD... you must listen to the album in its entirety. Give me a break.
If somebody wants to watch a movie without a few scenes or words they find objectionable, that's their right. If they are content letting someone else choose the content to edit out, that's their business.
In short, I think it's wrong to force your choice of content (whether by inclusion or exclusion) on someone else.