Yes, the problem is real and they need to find a solution, but this isn't it. What about bi-annual inspections that look at your odometer readings or something non-invasive like that. If that's unacceptable to them or to the people, then they need to find something else. Or simply raise the gas tax accordingly. That's the best way to do it. Let's do some math. We'll keep simple, rounded numbers.
Gas Price (Tax Incl.)- $1.00 / gallon Gas Tax - $.40 Car A - Guzzler - 20 mi/gal - 10 gallon tank Car B - Hybrid - 40 mi / gal - 10 gallon tank
After 400 miles of driving, the guzzler has paid $20 in gas, while the hybrid has only paid $10. Now, as more hybrids hit the road, up the gas tax to $.60 and gas is no $1.20. After another 400 miles, the guzzler has paid $24.00 while the hybrid has paid $12.00.
So the guzzler is paying twice as much of the tax increase as the hybrid. It increases the revenue for the state while continuing to encourage people to drive hybrids. There are already hybrid SUVs on the roads and, whithin the next few years, you'll probably see hybrid versions of most vehicle-types. Hybrid owners will complain that they're now paying more taxes, but the truth is, they're still paying significantly less in taxes than they would be if there had been no tax increase and they didn't own a hybrid. The people who own gas guzzlers are still disproportionately taxed - as they should be since most gas guzzlers weigh more and put more wear and tear on the roads (at least until we get more hybrid SUVs) and they create far more pollution.
The short version of what I read was "Hey, lots of people like making games and are OK with long hours, so it's OK to exploit them."
This seems a bit like saying, "Hey, the crack addicts obviously like doing crack, so the drug dealers are simply providing a service to them." Taking advantage of someone is taking advantage of someone, regardless of whether or not they enjoy it.
**What's constant over the decades is the fact that plenty of people are willing to work unusually long hours to make video games (and other software). If game programmers see no glory in that sacrifice, why on earth did they get into video games?**
Yes, but what's changed is the number of hours, and the benefits received for working those hours (i.e. comp time, overtime, bonuses, etc)
"I'd like to see a break out of voting irregularities by county nation wide"
Done. At least for a lot of them:
http://www.dkosopedia.com/index.php/Voter_Registra tion_Fraud_Clearinghouse
I think candidates who use Gentoo should automatically receive public funds, because Gentoo is the best distro. **Shameless plug in an unrelated topic**
Coming from a non-partisan voter-rights group and if they were concentrating on the topic in general terms I could agree. But done during or after the vote and directed only at Republicans, I'd have to say it is bad politics. Once again, let me stress that I am apparently a Democrat (my current interests seem to fall in their corner for the time being) and I have serious issues with the GOP and Bush Administration at the moment. But this looks a lot like the tactics that I am routinely bashing the GOP for using (such as paying companies to collect voter registrations and then shredding the democratic ones)
If there is no evidence of voter intimidation, why would you issue a press release saying that the Republicans have done stuff in the past and here are the things to look for etc.? Why would you start having leadership comment on it to the press? That's the kind of thing that you do when there IS evidence of voter intimidation, not when there IS NOT any evidence. Basically, if there isn't any evidence that the other side did anything wrong, just try to convince people that they "might have done it". Very Rove of them.
I guess you missed the following in your thorough reading of the manual.
"If no signs of intimidation have emerged yet, launch a "pre-emptive strike"
If you bother to read the rest, it basically says that, if there is no evidence that voters were intimidated, do everything you can to "suggest" that they were. It's the same crap that Bush pulled with Iraq and 9/11. Sure he never SAID that they were linked, but he did enough "suggesting" of it to convince a large segment of the American population through lumping the two together. If you continually mention the two in the same sentence, people will begin to associate them. As for the Drudge being biased, no s**t. But being biased doesn't necessarily make you wrong. I tend to be biased against Bush (based on his long track record of crap), but that doesn't mean that everything I say should be discounted. If you have evidence to the contrary, bring it to the table.
Now, I will give one concession on the subject. The info on the page is labelled 2.
I'd like to know what the surrounding points are. You could be totally right. If anyone has a complete copy of the manual to post, I would love to see it. I do find it extremely suspect that this is the ONLY page they put on the site
I think you have got it backwards. What Drudge is saying is that Democrats are wanting to say that THEY were intimidated, regardless of whether or not it exists. For the record, I am a Democrat and will be voting Democrat. But if this manual is real, I have to say that I am ashamed to be associated with whoever wrote it or intended to follow it.
I think that makes you an agnostic, not an atheist. Not looking for a long argument, just pointing out what I believe to be the correct terminology. I could be wrong.
Tom: "Terrorists could use this to pinpoint places to strike."
Powell: "Tom, I have a Hammond Street Guide to Washington D.C. in my back seat that they could use for that. Let's be realis..."
Tom: "George, Dick, how in the hell did he get out of the basement? Agents Smith and Johnson, please escort Mr. Powell back to his cell. And get the CEO of Hammond on the phone."
News Reporter: "Quickie Marts all over the country were raided by the FBI today in a massive crackdown on the selling of maps. Store clerks were rounded up and shipped to Guantanamo to possibly face charges of providing material aid to terrorists...or was that tourists. Either way, if they're ever actually charged, I'm sure the secret tribunal will execute justice...or was that Lady Justice...to the fullest extent possible."
"Should it matter how the defendant looks? If we have a system where looks matter, then we need a new system. "
Then we need a new system. Actually, we need new citizens. The majority of people rarely think in depth. That's a large part of the problem with the current system. This technology is only going to make things worse. Hell, look at the OJ, Michael Jackson, and Scott Peterson trials. Few people at home watching the news stop to realize that they're not getting the whole story. Just the more sensational parts. But that's good enough for them. They're ready to cont the defendants as guilty, because that's what is being "suggested" by the media. Do I know whether or not they did it? No. I have no idea. But I at least realize that I'm usually only getting the worst parts of the story. It's like hearing all of the prosecution's testimony and then a 1 paragraph summarization of the defense's arguments. And as for appearance, do you think as many people would think Michael Jackson was guilty if he didn't dress in such a bizarre manner?
Like I said, I can't vouch for them outside of the call center environment. The above poster is in a "creative" environment rather than a static, redundant one like a call center. I can see AOL being much better where he's at.
Depends. I worked as a call center tech from 1997-1999. I'll outline the problems that I had. First, you are nothing more than a number (or numbers). You are employee 28645. You must maintain an average call time of no more than 7 min 30 sec, an idle time of 3% or less, and lose no more than 15 minutes off of the phones in an 8 hour shift. That is all they care about. Oh, and maintain good customer service stats at the same time. It's like the real-life interpretation of a Dilbert comic. You have to fix the customers problems and make them happy. But don't take more than a daily average of X number of minutes. This sucks when someone who has had AOL for years calls with a problem that takes hours to fix. You can A. Spend time fixing it and screw yourself on call time or B. Dump the call to save your call time and hope that they aren't one of the few callers who get a "how did we do?" e-mail that will lower your customer service scores. I quit because I got sick of conflicting signals I kept getting from management. "We're all about servicing the customers". But that was only if you could do it in the correct amount of time. They wanted satisfied customers, but didn't want to spend any time with them. Oh, and they put the responsibility for resolvong that paradox on your shoulders. If you fail, you're fired. I had one of the highest customer satisfaction scores in my call center. Because I fixed peoples' problems on the first call, rather than giving BS and dumping calls and forcing them to wait on hold 3 times to get a solution (something like 90% and 95% when the call center averages were around 60% and 65%). But that killed me on call times. If a customer called in with problem A and I knew that down the road they were also going to run into problem B, I would fix both problems, while most people who valued their jobs would fix problem A and let them call in again in a week when they ran into problem B. This could all be solved if management could pull their heads out of their butts and realize that one 10 minute call that fixes a problem costs less than three 5 minute calls. And the customer leaves happier. Save your sanity. Tear up the application.
They were called SecureID. I had one when I worked there (traumatic life-altering mistake). It is a very secure system. I wish I could tie it to my e-mail or perhaps for a login to VPN to my home network. Anyone know if it's possible to use SecureIDs for your own personal home system (certainly at a price)
Just create a virus that starts up before Norton, etc. and opens 3 copies of itself. Windows will take care of the rest.
Windows: "Norton, SpyBot, go the hell away. I'm busy running SpyProg, VirOS, and CrazyPop. You'll have your turn after the next drive format."
Re:basic... very basic.
on
You've Got PC
·
· Score: 1
Yes, let's compare on the basis of service. First try and call AOL to get them to fix something that has gone wrong with their software. Now, after 30 minutes on hold, getting dumped back into the hold queue twice by unscrupulous phone reps,then getting a guy on the phone who has had a few weeks of basic computer training and has to hit an average 7 minute call time to keep his job (QoS doesn't matter at AOL, only call times - worked there a long time ago) thus affording him just enough time to give you a BS answer to get you off of the phone, THEN tell me they have great service.
Now, are these also the people that you want in charge of fixing HARDWARE problems on your computer? I didn't think so.
Here's the problem, and you can all scream "tinfoil hat", but it's already being done with other commonly owned devices - once people get used to the idea of having a black box that records speeds, turns, etc. (whatever would be useful info in the event of a crash), people will come along and say, hey, I bet we could integrate it with GPS and automatically ticket people who speed (something car rental companies are already starting to do). Then somewhere down the line, someone else will say, "hey since we already have GPS, why don't we keep track of the cars. We'll just record their current position every 5 minutes or so if the car is turned on. Then if something bad happens, we can pinpoint whose cars were near the scene. That would have been really useful in the DC area sniper shooting if the shooters' car had the box installed." Cell phones are already required to work with GPS for 911 emeergency reasons. It's not exactly a stretch to think that the gov't would like to see the same thing happen for cars. But I'm sure no one would EVER prey on Americans' fears to get this done, nor would anyone EVER abuse the system.
They seem to be doing a good job with Ximian, Evolution, and the Exchange Connector. SUSE continues to be a stable OS that is only getting better. Novell was nothing more than an End of Life Micro$oft in the 80s, but appears to be turning itself around. Sure, it may not have the choice, but I'd rather have them in charge of the Ximian/SUSE products than Sun any day of the week.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, the problem is real and they need to find a solution, but this isn't it. What about bi-annual inspections that look at your odometer readings or something non-invasive like that. If that's unacceptable to them or to the people, then they need to find something else. Or simply raise the gas tax accordingly. That's the best way to do it. Let's do some math. We'll keep simple, rounded numbers.
Gas Price (Tax Incl.)- $1.00 / gallon
Gas Tax - $.40
Car A - Guzzler - 20 mi/gal - 10 gallon tank
Car B - Hybrid - 40 mi / gal - 10 gallon tank
After 400 miles of driving, the guzzler has paid $20 in gas, while the hybrid has only paid $10.
Now, as more hybrids hit the road, up the gas tax to $.60 and gas is no $1.20. After another 400 miles, the guzzler has paid $24.00 while the hybrid has paid $12.00.
So the guzzler is paying twice as much of the tax increase as the hybrid. It increases the revenue for the state while continuing to encourage people to drive hybrids. There are already hybrid SUVs on the roads and, whithin the next few years, you'll probably see hybrid versions of most vehicle-types. Hybrid owners will complain that they're now paying more taxes, but the truth is, they're still paying significantly less in taxes than they would be if there had been no tax increase and they didn't own a hybrid. The people who own gas guzzlers are still disproportionately taxed - as they should be since most gas guzzlers weigh more and put more wear and tear on the roads (at least until we get more hybrid SUVs) and they create far more pollution.
Gotta love workplace filtering
The short version of what I read was "Hey, lots of people like making games and are OK with long hours, so it's OK to exploit them." This seems a bit like saying, "Hey, the crack addicts obviously like doing crack, so the drug dealers are simply providing a service to them." Taking advantage of someone is taking advantage of someone, regardless of whether or not they enjoy it. **What's constant over the decades is the fact that plenty of people are willing to work unusually long hours to make video games (and other software). If game programmers see no glory in that sacrifice, why on earth did they get into video games?** Yes, but what's changed is the number of hours, and the benefits received for working those hours (i.e. comp time, overtime, bonuses, etc)
They existed Long Ago in a Galaxy Far, Far Away
"I'd like to see a break out of voting irregularities by county nation wide" Done. At least for a lot of them: http://www.dkosopedia.com/index.php/Voter_Registra tion_Fraud_Clearinghouse
The software hashes YOU!!!
I think candidates who use Gentoo should automatically receive public funds, because Gentoo is the best distro. **Shameless plug in an unrelated topic**
Where is the "vi or emacs?" question? What a waste of time.
Coming from a non-partisan voter-rights group and if they were concentrating on the topic in general terms I could agree. But done during or after the vote and directed only at Republicans, I'd have to say it is bad politics. Once again, let me stress that I am apparently a Democrat (my current interests seem to fall in their corner for the time being) and I have serious issues with the GOP and Bush Administration at the moment. But this looks a lot like the tactics that I am routinely bashing the GOP for using (such as paying companies to collect voter registrations and then shredding the democratic ones)
If there is no evidence of voter intimidation, why would you issue a press release saying that the Republicans have done stuff in the past and here are the things to look for etc.? Why would you start having leadership comment on it to the press? That's the kind of thing that you do when there IS evidence of voter intimidation, not when there IS NOT any evidence. Basically, if there isn't any evidence that the other side did anything wrong, just try to convince people that they "might have done it". Very Rove of them.
I guess you missed the following in your thorough reading of the manual. "If no signs of intimidation have emerged yet, launch a "pre-emptive strike" If you bother to read the rest, it basically says that, if there is no evidence that voters were intimidated, do everything you can to "suggest" that they were. It's the same crap that Bush pulled with Iraq and 9/11. Sure he never SAID that they were linked, but he did enough "suggesting" of it to convince a large segment of the American population through lumping the two together. If you continually mention the two in the same sentence, people will begin to associate them. As for the Drudge being biased, no s**t. But being biased doesn't necessarily make you wrong. I tend to be biased against Bush (based on his long track record of crap), but that doesn't mean that everything I say should be discounted. If you have evidence to the contrary, bring it to the table. Now, I will give one concession on the subject. The info on the page is labelled 2. I'd like to know what the surrounding points are. You could be totally right. If anyone has a complete copy of the manual to post, I would love to see it. I do find it extremely suspect that this is the ONLY page they put on the site
I think you have got it backwards. What Drudge is saying is that Democrats are wanting to say that THEY were intimidated, regardless of whether or not it exists. For the record, I am a Democrat and will be voting Democrat. But if this manual is real, I have to say that I am ashamed to be associated with whoever wrote it or intended to follow it.
Server Error in '/.' Application.
I think that makes you an agnostic, not an atheist. Not looking for a long argument, just pointing out what I believe to be the correct terminology. I could be wrong.
Tom: "Terrorists could use this to pinpoint places to strike." Powell: "Tom, I have a Hammond Street Guide to Washington D.C. in my back seat that they could use for that. Let's be realis..." Tom: "George, Dick, how in the hell did he get out of the basement? Agents Smith and Johnson, please escort Mr. Powell back to his cell. And get the CEO of Hammond on the phone." News Reporter: "Quickie Marts all over the country were raided by the FBI today in a massive crackdown on the selling of maps. Store clerks were rounded up and shipped to Guantanamo to possibly face charges of providing material aid to terrorists...or was that tourists. Either way, if they're ever actually charged, I'm sure the secret tribunal will execute justice...or was that Lady Justice...to the fullest extent possible."
"Should it matter how the defendant looks? If we have a system where looks matter, then we need a new system. " Then we need a new system. Actually, we need new citizens. The majority of people rarely think in depth. That's a large part of the problem with the current system. This technology is only going to make things worse. Hell, look at the OJ, Michael Jackson, and Scott Peterson trials. Few people at home watching the news stop to realize that they're not getting the whole story. Just the more sensational parts. But that's good enough for them. They're ready to cont the defendants as guilty, because that's what is being "suggested" by the media. Do I know whether or not they did it? No. I have no idea. But I at least realize that I'm usually only getting the worst parts of the story. It's like hearing all of the prosecution's testimony and then a 1 paragraph summarization of the defense's arguments. And as for appearance, do you think as many people would think Michael Jackson was guilty if he didn't dress in such a bizarre manner?
Like I said, I can't vouch for them outside of the call center environment. The above poster is in a "creative" environment rather than a static, redundant one like a call center. I can see AOL being much better where he's at.
If you're not doing call center work, they might be a good company. I can't really vouch for anything outside of their call center environment.
Depends. I worked as a call center tech from 1997-1999. I'll outline the problems that I had. First, you are nothing more than a number (or numbers). You are employee 28645. You must maintain an average call time of no more than 7 min 30 sec, an idle time of 3% or less, and lose no more than 15 minutes off of the phones in an 8 hour shift. That is all they care about. Oh, and maintain good customer service stats at the same time. It's like the real-life interpretation of a Dilbert comic. You have to fix the customers problems and make them happy. But don't take more than a daily average of X number of minutes. This sucks when someone who has had AOL for years calls with a problem that takes hours to fix. You can A. Spend time fixing it and screw yourself on call time or B. Dump the call to save your call time and hope that they aren't one of the few callers who get a "how did we do?" e-mail that will lower your customer service scores. I quit because I got sick of conflicting signals I kept getting from management. "We're all about servicing the customers". But that was only if you could do it in the correct amount of time. They wanted satisfied customers, but didn't want to spend any time with them. Oh, and they put the responsibility for resolvong that paradox on your shoulders. If you fail, you're fired. I had one of the highest customer satisfaction scores in my call center. Because I fixed peoples' problems on the first call, rather than giving BS and dumping calls and forcing them to wait on hold 3 times to get a solution (something like 90% and 95% when the call center averages were around 60% and 65%). But that killed me on call times. If a customer called in with problem A and I knew that down the road they were also going to run into problem B, I would fix both problems, while most people who valued their jobs would fix problem A and let them call in again in a week when they ran into problem B. This could all be solved if management could pull their heads out of their butts and realize that one 10 minute call that fixes a problem costs less than three 5 minute calls. And the customer leaves happier. Save your sanity. Tear up the application.
They were called SecureID. I had one when I worked there (traumatic life-altering mistake). It is a very secure system. I wish I could tie it to my e-mail or perhaps for a login to VPN to my home network. Anyone know if it's possible to use SecureIDs for your own personal home system (certainly at a price)
All the plug-in does is puts a "Windows Update" option in the menus. When you click on it, it launches IE and points it to the Windows Update Site.
Just create a virus that starts up before Norton, etc. and opens 3 copies of itself. Windows will take care of the rest. Windows: "Norton, SpyBot, go the hell away. I'm busy running SpyProg, VirOS, and CrazyPop. You'll have your turn after the next drive format."
Yes, let's compare on the basis of service. First try and call AOL to get them to fix something that has gone wrong with their software. Now, after 30 minutes on hold, getting dumped back into the hold queue twice by unscrupulous phone reps,then getting a guy on the phone who has had a few weeks of basic computer training and has to hit an average 7 minute call time to keep his job (QoS doesn't matter at AOL, only call times - worked there a long time ago) thus affording him just enough time to give you a BS answer to get you off of the phone, THEN tell me they have great service. Now, are these also the people that you want in charge of fixing HARDWARE problems on your computer? I didn't think so.
Here's the problem, and you can all scream "tinfoil hat", but it's already being done with other commonly owned devices - once people get used to the idea of having a black box that records speeds, turns, etc. (whatever would be useful info in the event of a crash), people will come along and say, hey, I bet we could integrate it with GPS and automatically ticket people who speed (something car rental companies are already starting to do). Then somewhere down the line, someone else will say, "hey since we already have GPS, why don't we keep track of the cars. We'll just record their current position every 5 minutes or so if the car is turned on. Then if something bad happens, we can pinpoint whose cars were near the scene. That would have been really useful in the DC area sniper shooting if the shooters' car had the box installed." Cell phones are already required to work with GPS for 911 emeergency reasons. It's not exactly a stretch to think that the gov't would like to see the same thing happen for cars. But I'm sure no one would EVER prey on Americans' fears to get this done, nor would anyone EVER abuse the system.
They seem to be doing a good job with Ximian, Evolution, and the Exchange Connector. SUSE continues to be a stable OS that is only getting better. Novell was nothing more than an End of Life Micro$oft in the 80s, but appears to be turning itself around. Sure, it may not have the choice, but I'd rather have them in charge of the Ximian/SUSE products than Sun any day of the week.