I'm glad to see that this service offers an upstream that's greater than the competition, but look at the relation between the upload speed and download speed. 1.3 Mb/s vs. 24 Mb/s? What the hell. It's even more lopsided than it is for me. Can't we get a decent upload stream?
Does anybody know of a cable company (or even DSL) that offers parity or at least near-parity between up & down-stream speeds? I mean, without having to invest in a T1, of course.
I feel like I got a case of the upstream blues. Uploading speed is vastly underrated, in my opinion. Many multiplayer games thrive with high upload speeds, and any bittorrent user knows that uploading is what makes the world go 'round. And what if I want to run an FTP site or host my own website - am I forever constrained to pedestrian speeds? Is there any momentum for increased upload speeds, or am I the only one who feels constrained upspeed pain (CPS)?
Isn't there a support group I could join or something?::sobs::
RIAA goons like Bronfman: "We're not greedy. We just want all that money Apple is making. We don't want to do any extra work or promotion. Just send us more cash."
The premise is that cursing is a natural aspect of human communication. Yet no where does the article attempt to explain why some might want to curb it. In fact, the article seems to portray those people as oppressive and uninformed somehow
So, how would you propose curbing swear words without being oppressive and uninformed? Personally, I don't care what your hang-ups are. You can be the biggest prude in the world, but don't get on my case because you have issues with harmless words. You don't like it? Change the channel/walk away. Apologies for being rough, but I take my freedom of speech very seriously. Limiting the speech of others is oppressive, no matter how you cut it.
Often, the objective of cursing is to bring the other party into the same emotional state as the curser (otherwise the curse word would be considered ineffective to begin with). Like in animals, a stage like this is always the precursor for physical confrontantions.
Incorrect. If you would've read the article fully, you would've seen that researchres have noticed that swearing, like that among young male groups, is actually a form of social-superglue; that is to say: bonding. When I have a tough day I can talk to my friends about it and swear as an indication of how serious and deeply angry I am at the situation. Swearing alerts my friends that I'm upset and they will often harmonize by becoming angry too, at whatever has wronged me.
In essence, swear words such as "fuck" can convey deep, dirty, dark thoughts and emotions that more "sophisticated" can't manage. "Fuck" is a deep and primal word, that resonates strongly. I bet you shuddered slightly as you read it (if you could stand to). The more primitive things about humans (the fact that we shit, we fuck, we suck, we piss (not in that order):-) are not wrong; just different and more... offensive, I guess. To the senses, to the illusion of civilization... but that's all it is. You can't cover up the basic fact that humans are animals with all of the well-meaning bullshit in the world. Might as well just accept it.
Actually, I talk about 3rd parties all the time. Most of the time people look at me like I'm a loony. They've been so conditioned than there are only TWO candidates that they probably freak out when they get to the voting booth and discover a few extra names. "Those are just in there to trick me, right? Now, what was his name.... uh... Bust? Busk? Boost? uhh....."
That doesn't stop me though. Although I have noticed that people who suggest we try something different than the status quo are routinely modded down on/.
Do you actually believe because these people have all this "stuff", i.e. crap... they are any more happier than you or I?
Of course the rich aren't really happier because of their wealth. Mo' money, mo' problems, as far as I'm concerned. But there is one thing that makes them happy, makes them fulfilled and fixes many of their problems: Power.
They say power is the ultimate aphrodisiac. And - this is America after all - everything is for sale; power can be purchased.
Being able to control the fates of thousands of worker drones - to make them happy or make them sad as you wish - that must be very satisfying, especially for megalomaniacs and psychopaths. CEOs are given power first and foremost - that is why Bill Gates goes to bed with a smile on his face.
I guess I should be explicitly clear - I am in favor of not only giving ordinary workers more money, but also more power. This actually benefits the CEOs because workers are more productive when they feel like they matter. Turnover also decreases. So much of capitalism actually seems to be done out of spite. Many company policies are blatantly counter-productive and humiliating. I think that's because certain elements in management (the psychopaths I mentioned earlier) value control over success. They would rather have their personal power than see the companies earnings go up. For a somewhat glib example, see Catbert the evil HR director in Dilbert. However, there is a movement afoot to free us from the office psychopaths. Check out this article.
For example, if I get frustrated with my IT job, I could probably get a job working the register at McDonalds.
I doubt it. If you handed them your normal resume they would immediately assume that you'd quit the second a better job came around. You'd have to omit anything past high school to get that job. And if you're not 14 McDonalds isn't interested. They'd much rather pay $4.25 an hour (in MN you don't get full minimum wage ($5.15) until you turn 16, I think).
I think the grandparent poster is overreaching a bit by calling it "enslavement." It's more like indentured servitude which can be terminated by either party at any time. Of course, when you've been laid off/fired from a job and the rent is due, it can freak a person out. Starvation is suddenly a possibility. In America. In a land of plenty. It's some scary shit.
I think what's going on here is a massive awakening of the (overworked, stressed-out) working drones to the inequities of capitalism. During the Cold War we had a justification for working hard and increasing efficiency. We had to beat the Soviets and construct a more efficient economic machine. What's our motivation now? To make the CEO uber-wealthy? To increase stockholder wealth? Sorry, but as a guy who doesn't own much stock, this is not very motivating.
Look, we are in a world of abundance and capitalism does not have to be so cruel and ruthless. We can erect a better economic safety-net. We can feed and clothe everyone in the USA (while leaving the amenities for the ambitious) with only a small dip in our economy (it would actually increase our assets and maybe GDP). I challenge the capitalist apologists out there: Why? Why does capitalism have to be so cruel? Can't we take care of the poor and still leave room for competition? Can't we protect the environment and still turn a profit?
If the answer is "no" then perhaps we should start looking for a new system. Communism is too inefficient. Capitalism is too cruel. What next?
Man... get a grip. And instead of your whining about it, how about a solution to it? Yeah... I didn't think so.
Oh, and like you're any better? What have YOU done to make the world a better place? Grandparent poster is as least trying to spread awareness. Perhaps if you educated yourself you would realize that you're in economic bondage (unless, of course, you happen to be a CEO posting to/.). And while even the peasants in America have it pretty good, that's because we are near the top of the pyramid. Look at the ass end of capitalism for a more enlightening view. While I'm sure some of the South American banana-pickers love their jobs, I'm also sure there are many of them who would rather be developing software if they could only get an education, a computer and a chance.
Your argument, and I quote, "...but they are derelict in their duties if they do not do everything in their power to make obscene amounts of money for their "tremendously rich" stockholders." implies that the "tremendously rich" are the only reason corporations exist. As I pointed out, the public at large has a majority interest, and eliminating such ownership reduces their participation in the matter and in the process.
Yes, you made up some statistics and then didn't back them up. When I challenged you on that you said:
As to the stats, Google your own research and add up your own numbers for a change.
No. You are the one making these claims, it's your responsibility to back them up. As for me, I did do some googling and I came up with this interesting tidbit:
The wealthiest 1 percent of shareholders currently own just under 45 percent of all stocks, by value. That's over seven times more than the combined value of the shares held by the entire bottom 80 percent of people who own stock. This bottom 80 percent owns just 5.8 percent of the nation's total stock value.
So, basically, you're just wrong. You live in fantasy-land, where poor people are rolling around in Microsoft stock. Keep dreaming. Oh, and here's the link. I'm still waiting for your link, but somehow I doubt it will arrive since your numbers and your beliefs are based on fantasy. You desperately wish that the current system was fair, but it is not. What I find interesting is that the bottom 80% are people who actually own stock. There are many people out there who don't own stock in a single company. To try and find out what percentage of people owned stock I did some more research since you are too lazy and dishonest, and I found this:
What did happen is that the percentage of households with some ownership of stocks, including mutual funds and pension accounts like 401(k)s, did go up very dramatically over the last 20 years. In 1983, only 32 percent of households had some ownership of stock.By 2001, the share was 51 percent. So there has been much more widespread stock ownership, in terms of number of families.But a lot of these families have very small stakes in the stock market. In 2001, only 32 percent of households owned more than $10,000 of stock, and only 25 percent of households owned more than $25,000 worth of stock. So a lot of these new stock owners have had relatively small holdings of stock. There hasn't been much dilution in the share of stock owned by the richest 1 or 10 percent. Stock ownership is still heavily concentrated among rich families. The richest 10 percent own 85 percent of all stock.
So, only around 50% of the population actually owns any stock. That seems to directly contradict what you wrote earlier, and I quote: "public at large owns about 60% of all the stocks in this country." The only thing I wonder is whether you were mistaken or lying.
And just to return the favor, you sound like a common, garden-variety anarchist, forever ranting against the "system", and always advocating the destruction of that which he's unable to understand, to be replaced by a uptopian... something, that he's always not quite able to elucidate.
For the record, I am not an anarchist, but being called one is a refreshing change from being called a commie. I guess it's clear that you are totally wrong by now, even to you. You are the one who does not understand the system. The fact is, I do understand the system, and that's why I want to change it. Your ignorance (and others like you), appalling enough as it is, results in the perpetuation of an unfair and unjust system that could be either scrapped completely or radically reformed. I would prefer we start over, but that does not seem feasible at the moment. I think we should at least try to g
Corporations made it possible for the common man to get involved in ownership of a large company, which was previously limited to only the super-rich
Please see my other comments in this thread, where I state that what I, and others of similar thought, are looking for is not regression to communism or monarchy or::shiver:: feudalism, but to progress beyond capitalism to the next stage in humanity's evolution. I'm thinking 21st century here. Capitalism has at least spread the wealth more than most other economic systems, but at a terrible price. It remains to be seen whether we can save our planet in time. The tremendous economic devastation that has accompanied capitalism's expansion has put us in a very precarious spot. We may need to make short term sacrifices in order to save our world - clearly, I would rather just move forward, but the problems of capitalism need to be remedied before we can effectively move on.
You posit a socialist world
No I don't, and I'm really getting tired of this attitude. NOWHERE did I embrace any form of communism or even socialism. I think a bit of socialism is a nice counterbalance to capitalism, but it's not really what I have in mind. Again, read my other comments in this thread.
Greed runs the world. Bitch about it all you like, but this is the way it always has been and always will be. The only way to be safe from greed is to be greedy yourself.
This is really sad. I feel sad for you and anybody else who has given in. But mostly, I feel sad for the less fortunate, the people in developing countries who feel the full brunt of your fear and greed. They will be the ones who suffer the most because you're too afraid to try something new.
But, I'm not going to let you get away with your short-sightedness that easily. Besides the obvious Mother Theresa rebuttal, let me challenge you to justify and explain the phenomenon of open source and the free software movement in the context of a world ruled by greed.
20th century economics has taught us that governments cannot control the economy, they can only guide it
So explain China. It seems to me that the government is very much in control, and they have the power to slit their collective throat if the market forces threaten to topple the power structure. Politics does exercise some control over the market. You're right in that the market is a force unto itself, but that force can be shaped and channeled. For instance, the illegal drug trade - there is a demand and so a black market exists, but the government has the power to force that market underground and remove it from the mainstream market at large. I may be splitting hairs here, but it sounds like control to me. Guiding is what the government should be doing (I don't believe in prohibition).
It is folly to try and "dream of a better system" because the system dictates itself.
This is where you are wrong. Was it folly for Renaissance-era merchants to dream of a better system than feudalism? Was it folly for Soviet dissidents to dream of a better system? The system can be changed! It absolutely can be. You are 100% wrong.
Spoken like a true idiot. All stockholders are not "tremendously rich"
Ad hominem attack. You lose. Furthermore, I never said all stockholders are tremendously rich, and I'm not even sure where you got that. Sounds like a straw-man argument to me.
In fact, the public at large owns about 60% of all the stocks in this country in direct ownership, mutual funds, retirement funds, and pension funds
Citation, please. Right now I'm thinking that about 73.2% of all statistics are completely made up.:-)
So let's do away with savings accounts, mutual funds, pension funds, health, life, home, and car insurance, and all those other things made possible by stockholder ownership in those nasty, greedy, hateful corporations. Hell, half the U.S. population won't mind having their savings and retirement accounts wiped away
Straw-man argument. Go back and quote where I said I wanted to steal everybody's investment. You call me an idiot, but guess what - I'm calling you an intellectually dishonest asshole. And I'm the one who's right.
Idiot.
Hmm.... good point. Yes, that's certainly going to make me change my views. Now, where's the rest of your argument... oh, you don't have one? No surprise there. You sound like someone who's desperately afraid of change.
You have a lot to learn about the world, the country you live in, the countries you don't live in, and human nature in general.
So do you. However, I have been making points and exploring new ground intellectually, while you deride my relative youth (your assumption) and make absolutely no contribution to the discussion except for straw-man arguments. At least if it gets cold I can light them on fire for warmth, I suppose.
Spoken like someone who's never been outside the US in his/her life.
Spoken like someone who is afraid to tackle my arguments head on. I have been outside of this country. And you have not rebutted a single thing I said.
Go visit North Korea, Cuba, or one of the former Soviet states and then tell me how the environment looks over there. If you think "corporations" make you weep... all I can is, you need to get out more.
Hmm.... so the only other solution than capitalism is communism, huh? You are a tool. Did you read anything that I wrote? I'm aiming for what is beyond capitalism - the next step. Communism is clearly a failure (and was never implemented fully anyway). Both systems are bad for the environment, and both are repressive - communism is just more obviously repressive. Capitalism is much more subtle and insidious, but it at least allows for greater freedom.
If you've finished attacking me, you might want to consider some possible alternatives; something that hasn't been done before. I think the answer is largely political. If we used a direct democracy approach, with a firm structure for protecting minority opinion we'd see a less oppressive system, methinks. We could vote on laws, rather than voting on greedy politicians who vote on laws for us (or 'for themselves', more accurately). I think it's time we progressed beyond greed as a motivating factor, since it is so obviously divisive. But if you think capitalism is the pinnacle of human endeavor, please tell me why.
Maybe you want to live in a world without corporations, but count me out of it.
You assume there will be a world left to live in if the corporations continue to run amok. The environmental devastation alone is enough to make me weep.
Grandparent poster was not explicit enough in his condemnation of corporations, though he implied it: For-profit corporations should be abolished, unless they undergo a serious priority rearrangement. Currently, their only motivation is profit - not only that, but they are derelict in their duties if they do not do everything in their power to make obscene amounts of money for their "tremendously rich" stockholders. Such as system is not sustainable.
Unless you'd like a future where everything is basically owned and run--to a far greater extent than it already is--by a very small number of tremendously rich individuals, corporations are a good thing.
Um.... you mean it could get worse? I mean, certainly it's getting worse already, and at a fantastic rate, but surely you can't be suggesting that it could get even worse in whatever future the grandparent poster envisions. That sounds like a strawman argument to me. You're deliberately misrepresenting his goals in the most fantastic way - he hasn't even stated what he wishes to have instead of corporations! Naturally, you assume it would be something just like the current system, but worse. Brilliant!
Without the great pools of capital that corporations provide, a whole lot of things that we enjoy and make life more enjoyable would disappear.
Guess what - we're humans and we've always formed ourselves into groups of various sizes, and pooled our resources. Getting rid of corporations in no way changes that. You must have the imagination of a gnat. Can't you think of a way to get things done with out relying on for-profit monstrosities?
Non-profit corporations are great. They do good work every day, which is more than I can say for most for-profit corps. I would be fine without for-profits, as long as we can keep the cooperation and resources of large groups. I see no reason why innovation would have to cease or regress. On the contrary, an economy freed of the need for short-term thinking could arguably come up with vastly superior technology, which would increase our abundance to such a level that the need for a complex economy is drastically reduced. Imagine if we could invent replicators. It would change everything. The corporations would hate the freedom and power it would give to consumers so they would try to suppress it. At some point (:::cough-DRM-cough:::) for-profit corporations become more of a millstone around our necks than a saving grace. We are approaching that time rapidly. Your ideas seem to be based on fear of the future and fear of the unknown, and certainly, fear of people who do not see the value in the old ways. Such beliefs are extremely common, but they must give way to the future and its promise, or we shall all perish as the unfettered greed of capitalism tears our fragile earth apart.
It has not yet cleared the Senate, and when it does, the bills will need to be reconciled:
A competing bill also has been approved by the Senate Intelligence Committee, which would give the FBI expanded powers to subpoena records without the approval of a judge or grand jury. That ensured further Senate talks on the terrorism-fighting measure. The House legislation will also have to be reconciled with whatever emerges from the Senate.
So, let's use this time effectively. Get the word out, and contact your senator. The PATRIOT Act will probably pass, but we can at least try to get ammendments to it that will protect civil liberties while still allowing different law enforcement agencies to work with each other. While I would prefer not to have the PATRIOT act pass, we'd be better off with a bill that protects privacy and prevents racial profiling.
Personally, I think we should allow it to expire and start over. Many bits are useful, but let's have more emphasis on protecting American rights/liberties. And come on - who named this thing? What an awful, divisive name; it implies that anyone who opposes it is unpatriotic, which is complete horseshit. Name the act for what it does, not for cheap political points.
Here is but one example of the government attacking a group of peaceful protesters with choke-holds and other violent means. A completely unnecessary show of force, if you ask me.
This new weapon will be abused; it's simply a matter of time. It's an unfortunate reality that the authorities tend to have less respect for peaceful dissent than most citizens. We have the right to protest, but the government does not seem to protect that right very vigilantly. In fact, the actions of the current regime are closer to that of a dictatorship. The future of America looks dark.
With how easy it is to record on a VCR, it's no surprise that people like them. DVD recorders are more expensive, to my knowledge, lack the "it just works" thing when it comes to recording shows. I think that is why we've seen TiVo become so successful. Once your TiVo can spit out a DVD in a few minutes people might consider ditching their VCR.
Beyond that, there's a huge installed base of VHS tapes. Why get rid of the player? It doesn't make any sense unless you're a geek who's obsessively ripped all of his VHS tapes to DVD-Rs. But there's nobody here who would do that....
Parent makes a great point about people who have tats & mods being more accepting. I don't have any myself, and I don't really understand the motivation, but who am I to judge?
I've been shocked at the initial wave of intolerance from the posters. How many people posted an "authoritive list of rules to proper business dress" as if they were just up on Mt. Sinai talking to the God of Business.
We are ants, living according to the accepted norms of our society, decided collectively many years ago, and in a constant state of flux. We all live in a culture, and each culture has determined its own fashion rules, and each society's rules are just as stupid and random as the next's. It's all arbitrary. As other posters have pointed out, in some cultures, it's considered incorrect not to have piercings. Some would call those "lesser" cultures, but maybe we're the ignorant ones. How can you be sure you're not lowering yourself when you preach against the evils of tatoos and mods, as many of you have.
I'm disgusted by the prejudice and intolerance in here. If I were your boss and you had just patronizingly explained proper business attire to a fellow employee because of his personal choice to modify his appearance (does plastic surgery count as a mod?), I would tell you to leave and not come back.
I know about a great investment opportunity in Nigerian gold which involves extremely complex financial transactions to offshore accounts! It's certainly not a pyramid scheme and it comes with a free nasal spray!
Humor impaired moderators: the preceding was an attempt at humor.
With Open Source, that model doesn't work as well.
You've stumbled upon the best argument against IT unions, in my opinion. How could we guarantee that the union would always be platform-agnostic? If a union were started tomorrow, who's to say it wouldn't become aligned with Microsoft on at least one major IT issue, and become co-opted based on that? And what if the majority of the union members use Microsoft's software for at least one part of their job - I mean, MS makes tons of stuff, some of it useful. When Microsoft gets involved, they play for keeps; they're not satisfied with second-best and it's in their corporate DNA to assimilate all that they can. Suddenly, this hypothetical union is split down the middle.
Unions for IT workers might be a great idea, but I don't think the time is right; there's too much uncertainty about the market, the platforms, and even the nature of capitalism itself (see the IP Wars).
That said, I think there is still a place for geek community organizations that look out for the rights of socially inept computer nerds. Also, has anybody proposed some sort of Programmer's Guild that would form a barrier between programmers and the unwashed masses, yet still allow money and software to flow back and forth? I can see 50 programmers getting paid to work on the most popular feature requests of 5,000 users who "subscribe" to the guild in exchange for free (as in speech) software. The 5,000 subscribers pay money to get their feature requests/app ideas implemented, while the 50 programmers get paid like a regular 9 to 5 job, but keep the open source spirit and work on whatever fascinates them (which would hopefully be something practical at least some of the time), taking into account the feature requests of the subscribers. Could such a system work?
Now, I'm sorry, but you guys are obviously devolving into a fucking police state! Thomas Jefferson must be spinning in his grave
Dude, Jefferson is not just spinning in his grave, he's doing fucking backflips. When they passed the Real-ID he did a 720 degree half-gainer, leading into a double back-flip handspring, during which he did a mid-air pirouette. From there, he progressed to the parallel bars.
Let me tell you, at the end of that routine, he was dead-tired.
"Generally, our current focus is on home entertainment," Whitworth told TMO.
This is a good idea. Get the technology to a robust place, and then worry about making it portable; of course, it's already in cars, but cars a lot bigger than iPods.
Overall, the idea is great. I'd love to have satellite radio in my iPod, I'm just not keen on paying for it. Also, will it drain more battery power than playing a song off the HD, or less?
If it's seemlessly built into the iPod, and the interface can be accessed from the iPod's screen I don't see anything holding this back except the monthly fee.... which is necessary to provide many stations commercial-free. I just wish there was another way.
And please learn what "fascism" and "treason" actually mean before you go throwing the words around.
I think he knows exactly what those words mean. Do you?
Fascism is a system of government controlled by (or at least, for the benefit of) corporations. It is often called corporatism, in fact. It is a system wherein the lines between government and corporations blur so much they effectively cease to exist.
Grandparent poster is bemoaning the fact that the government is doing the corporations' bidding without looking out for the rights of the people. Treason is (in this context) betraying the principles of the republic in order to enforce the whims of a multi-national corporation.
FYI, the USA has been a fascist country for over 50 years. It doesn't mean we don't have a democracy; it's still just barely hanging on. The fascists in our midst will kill what remains of democracy at the first opportunity. That's treason.
Also, I think it's clear that file trading will soon be made illegal, straight up. This will create more criminals, which is good for the fascists because it allows them to strip our civil liberties in the name of upholding the rule of law. Look at the "Drug War" for an example. You don't really think they intend to "win" the war do you? It's just an excuse to eliminate our 4th amendment rights, amongst others. They've already won.
The War on Drugs, the War on Terrorism, the War on Piracy.... are you sensing a trend? Don't be fooled into thinking that everybody in this country is a liberty-loving democracy fan. Many people have a very twisted idea of freedom. For them, freedom is "the power to do whatever I want and control the lives of others." People like this are attracted to offices of power, such as government, business and religion. They look just like you and me, and they proclaim their patriotism at every opportunity, but in fact, they seek to do away with all of our liberties in the name of the Almighty Dollar.
Honestly, what's with all the bitching and whining? I just saw Sith and it was fucking good. Yes, there are a few plot holes and the dialogue can seem clunky.
It's a children's movie! Chill out, people.
Can we look at the bright side for just a moment? The acting is better, the special effects are better, the story is better and the movie is almost pure action. Where's the problem?
Lucas was holding out on us. The first two prequels were just warm-ups. This is the real deal.
Besides, there's something that everybody is missing. I've been reading these SW articles for months now, and nobody has pointed out one of the best things about this movie. Sure, go to see SW for the lightsabers, for the explosions and all the cool CGI and aliens. But what makes it all worthwhile, cohesive and convincing to me, is the work of one man:
John Williams.
His music is brilliant and evocative. The music tells the story here - this is a space opera, after all. It sounds like slashdotters have spent too much time listening to Lucas' dialogue and not to the real voice of the film - the score. I beseech you - let the music tell the story. Williams has completed his masterwork in this movie, just as Lucas has. Together they form an incredible story/symphony that should not be missed. Everything is explained in the music. To those of us who know the motifs it is obvious from the first scene of Episode I who Darth Sidious truly is.
If you haven't seen this movie, don't listen to the braying, ungrateful trolls on slashdot. See it for yourself - and hear it for yourself as well.
[obligatory reference to lameness of above post] [pedantic criticism of minor points] [withering sarcasm] [general complaint about/.] [attempt to stay ontopic] [implies poster is 15 and lives in basement] [failure to understand humor in any of its many forms] [stupid sig]
Slashdot Mirror
Does anybody know of a cable company (or even DSL) that offers parity or at least near-parity between up & down-stream speeds? I mean, without having to invest in a T1, of course.
I feel like I got a case of the upstream blues. Uploading speed is vastly underrated, in my opinion. Many multiplayer games thrive with high upload speeds, and any bittorrent user knows that uploading is what makes the world go 'round. And what if I want to run an FTP site or host my own website - am I forever constrained to pedestrian speeds? Is there any momentum for increased upload speeds, or am I the only one who feels constrained upspeed pain (CPS)?
Isn't there a support group I could join or something? ::sobs::
Sounds like that reporter was smokin' crack.
:-)
[rimshot]
Oh come on! For once, it's ontopic!
here's the quick version:
Apple: "You guys are greedy."
RIAA goons like Bronfman: "We're not greedy. We just want all that money Apple is making. We don't want to do any extra work or promotion. Just send us more cash."
So, how would you propose curbing swear words without being oppressive and uninformed? Personally, I don't care what your hang-ups are. You can be the biggest prude in the world, but don't get on my case because you have issues with harmless words. You don't like it? Change the channel/walk away. Apologies for being rough, but I take my freedom of speech very seriously. Limiting the speech of others is oppressive, no matter how you cut it.
Often, the objective of cursing is to bring the other party into the same emotional state as the curser (otherwise the curse word would be considered ineffective to begin with). Like in animals, a stage like this is always the precursor for physical confrontantions.
Incorrect. If you would've read the article fully, you would've seen that researchres have noticed that swearing, like that among young male groups, is actually a form of social-superglue; that is to say: bonding. When I have a tough day I can talk to my friends about it and swear as an indication of how serious and deeply angry I am at the situation. Swearing alerts my friends that I'm upset and they will often harmonize by becoming angry too, at whatever has wronged me.
In essence, swear words such as "fuck" can convey deep, dirty, dark thoughts and emotions that more "sophisticated" can't manage. "Fuck" is a deep and primal word, that resonates strongly. I bet you shuddered slightly as you read it (if you could stand to). The more primitive things about humans (the fact that we shit, we fuck, we suck, we piss (not in that order) :-) are not wrong; just different and more ... offensive, I guess. To the senses, to the illusion of civilization... but that's all it is. You can't cover up the basic fact that humans are animals with all of the well-meaning bullshit in the world. Might as well just accept it.
That doesn't stop me though. Although I have noticed that people who suggest we try something different than the status quo are routinely modded down on /.
Of course the rich aren't really happier because of their wealth. Mo' money, mo' problems, as far as I'm concerned. But there is one thing that makes them happy, makes them fulfilled and fixes many of their problems: Power.
They say power is the ultimate aphrodisiac. And - this is America after all - everything is for sale; power can be purchased.
Being able to control the fates of thousands of worker drones - to make them happy or make them sad as you wish - that must be very satisfying, especially for megalomaniacs and psychopaths. CEOs are given power first and foremost - that is why Bill Gates goes to bed with a smile on his face.
I guess I should be explicitly clear - I am in favor of not only giving ordinary workers more money, but also more power. This actually benefits the CEOs because workers are more productive when they feel like they matter. Turnover also decreases. So much of capitalism actually seems to be done out of spite. Many company policies are blatantly counter-productive and humiliating. I think that's because certain elements in management (the psychopaths I mentioned earlier) value control over success. They would rather have their personal power than see the companies earnings go up. For a somewhat glib example, see Catbert the evil HR director in Dilbert. However, there is a movement afoot to free us from the office psychopaths. Check out this article.
I doubt it. If you handed them your normal resume they would immediately assume that you'd quit the second a better job came around. You'd have to omit anything past high school to get that job. And if you're not 14 McDonalds isn't interested. They'd much rather pay $4.25 an hour (in MN you don't get full minimum wage ($5.15) until you turn 16, I think).
I think the grandparent poster is overreaching a bit by calling it "enslavement." It's more like indentured servitude which can be terminated by either party at any time. Of course, when you've been laid off/fired from a job and the rent is due, it can freak a person out. Starvation is suddenly a possibility. In America. In a land of plenty. It's some scary shit.
I think what's going on here is a massive awakening of the (overworked, stressed-out) working drones to the inequities of capitalism. During the Cold War we had a justification for working hard and increasing efficiency. We had to beat the Soviets and construct a more efficient economic machine. What's our motivation now? To make the CEO uber-wealthy? To increase stockholder wealth? Sorry, but as a guy who doesn't own much stock, this is not very motivating.
Look, we are in a world of abundance and capitalism does not have to be so cruel and ruthless. We can erect a better economic safety-net. We can feed and clothe everyone in the USA (while leaving the amenities for the ambitious) with only a small dip in our economy (it would actually increase our assets and maybe GDP). I challenge the capitalist apologists out there: Why? Why does capitalism have to be so cruel? Can't we take care of the poor and still leave room for competition? Can't we protect the environment and still turn a profit?
If the answer is "no" then perhaps we should start looking for a new system. Communism is too inefficient. Capitalism is too cruel. What next?
Oh, and like you're any better? What have YOU done to make the world a better place? Grandparent poster is as least trying to spread awareness. Perhaps if you educated yourself you would realize that you're in economic bondage (unless, of course, you happen to be a CEO posting to /.). And while even the peasants in America have it pretty good, that's because we are near the top of the pyramid. Look at the ass end of capitalism for a more enlightening view. While I'm sure some of the South American banana-pickers love their jobs, I'm also sure there are many of them who would rather be developing software if they could only get an education, a computer and a chance.
Yes, you made up some statistics and then didn't back them up. When I challenged you on that you said:
As to the stats, Google your own research and add up your own numbers for a change.
No. You are the one making these claims, it's your responsibility to back them up. As for me, I did do some googling and I came up with this interesting tidbit:
So, basically, you're just wrong. You live in fantasy-land, where poor people are rolling around in Microsoft stock. Keep dreaming. Oh, and here's the link. I'm still waiting for your link, but somehow I doubt it will arrive since your numbers and your beliefs are based on fantasy. You desperately wish that the current system was fair, but it is not. What I find interesting is that the bottom 80% are people who actually own stock. There are many people out there who don't own stock in a single company. To try and find out what percentage of people owned stock I did some more research since you are too lazy and dishonest, and I found this:
So, only around 50% of the population actually owns any stock. That seems to directly contradict what you wrote earlier, and I quote: "public at large owns about 60% of all the stocks in this country." The only thing I wonder is whether you were mistaken or lying.
And just to return the favor, you sound like a common, garden-variety anarchist, forever ranting against the "system", and always advocating the destruction of that which he's unable to understand, to be replaced by a uptopian... something, that he's always not quite able to elucidate.
For the record, I am not an anarchist, but being called one is a refreshing change from being called a commie. I guess it's clear that you are totally wrong by now, even to you. You are the one who does not understand the system. The fact is, I do understand the system, and that's why I want to change it. Your ignorance (and others like you), appalling enough as it is, results in the perpetuation of an unfair and unjust system that could be either scrapped completely or radically reformed. I would prefer we start over, but that does not seem feasible at the moment. I think we should at least try to g
Please see my other comments in this thread, where I state that what I, and others of similar thought, are looking for is not regression to communism or monarchy or ::shiver:: feudalism, but to progress beyond capitalism to the next stage in humanity's evolution. I'm thinking 21st century here. Capitalism has at least spread the wealth more than most other economic systems, but at a terrible price. It remains to be seen whether we can save our planet in time. The tremendous economic devastation that has accompanied capitalism's expansion has put us in a very precarious spot. We may need to make short term sacrifices in order to save our world - clearly, I would rather just move forward, but the problems of capitalism need to be remedied before we can effectively move on.
You posit a socialist world
No I don't, and I'm really getting tired of this attitude. NOWHERE did I embrace any form of communism or even socialism. I think a bit of socialism is a nice counterbalance to capitalism, but it's not really what I have in mind. Again, read my other comments in this thread.
Greed runs the world. Bitch about it all you like, but this is the way it always has been and always will be. The only way to be safe from greed is to be greedy yourself.
This is really sad. I feel sad for you and anybody else who has given in. But mostly, I feel sad for the less fortunate, the people in developing countries who feel the full brunt of your fear and greed. They will be the ones who suffer the most because you're too afraid to try something new.
But, I'm not going to let you get away with your short-sightedness that easily. Besides the obvious Mother Theresa rebuttal, let me challenge you to justify and explain the phenomenon of open source and the free software movement in the context of a world ruled by greed.
20th century economics has taught us that governments cannot control the economy, they can only guide it
So explain China. It seems to me that the government is very much in control, and they have the power to slit their collective throat if the market forces threaten to topple the power structure. Politics does exercise some control over the market. You're right in that the market is a force unto itself, but that force can be shaped and channeled. For instance, the illegal drug trade - there is a demand and so a black market exists, but the government has the power to force that market underground and remove it from the mainstream market at large. I may be splitting hairs here, but it sounds like control to me. Guiding is what the government should be doing (I don't believe in prohibition).
It is folly to try and "dream of a better system" because the system dictates itself.
This is where you are wrong. Was it folly for Renaissance-era merchants to dream of a better system than feudalism? Was it folly for Soviet dissidents to dream of a better system? The system can be changed! It absolutely can be. You are 100% wrong.
Ad hominem attack. You lose. Furthermore, I never said all stockholders are tremendously rich, and I'm not even sure where you got that. Sounds like a straw-man argument to me.
In fact, the public at large owns about 60% of all the stocks in this country in direct ownership, mutual funds, retirement funds, and pension funds
Citation, please. Right now I'm thinking that about 73.2% of all statistics are completely made up. :-)
So let's do away with savings accounts, mutual funds, pension funds, health, life, home, and car insurance, and all those other things made possible by stockholder ownership in those nasty, greedy, hateful corporations. Hell, half the U.S. population won't mind having their savings and retirement accounts wiped away
Straw-man argument. Go back and quote where I said I wanted to steal everybody's investment. You call me an idiot, but guess what - I'm calling you an intellectually dishonest asshole. And I'm the one who's right.
Idiot.
Hmm.... good point. Yes, that's certainly going to make me change my views. Now, where's the rest of your argument... oh, you don't have one? No surprise there. You sound like someone who's desperately afraid of change.
Straw-man. Yawn.
You have a lot to learn about the world, the country you live in, the countries you don't live in, and human nature in general.
So do you. However, I have been making points and exploring new ground intellectually, while you deride my relative youth (your assumption) and make absolutely no contribution to the discussion except for straw-man arguments. At least if it gets cold I can light them on fire for warmth, I suppose.
Spoken like someone who is afraid to tackle my arguments head on. I have been outside of this country. And you have not rebutted a single thing I said.
Go visit North Korea, Cuba, or one of the former Soviet states and then tell me how the environment looks over there. If you think "corporations" make you weep... all I can is, you need to get out more.
Hmm.... so the only other solution than capitalism is communism, huh? You are a tool. Did you read anything that I wrote? I'm aiming for what is beyond capitalism - the next step. Communism is clearly a failure (and was never implemented fully anyway). Both systems are bad for the environment, and both are repressive - communism is just more obviously repressive. Capitalism is much more subtle and insidious, but it at least allows for greater freedom.
If you've finished attacking me, you might want to consider some possible alternatives; something that hasn't been done before. I think the answer is largely political. If we used a direct democracy approach, with a firm structure for protecting minority opinion we'd see a less oppressive system, methinks. We could vote on laws, rather than voting on greedy politicians who vote on laws for us (or 'for themselves', more accurately). I think it's time we progressed beyond greed as a motivating factor, since it is so obviously divisive. But if you think capitalism is the pinnacle of human endeavor, please tell me why.
You assume there will be a world left to live in if the corporations continue to run amok. The environmental devastation alone is enough to make me weep.
Grandparent poster was not explicit enough in his condemnation of corporations, though he implied it: For-profit corporations should be abolished, unless they undergo a serious priority rearrangement. Currently, their only motivation is profit - not only that, but they are derelict in their duties if they do not do everything in their power to make obscene amounts of money for their "tremendously rich" stockholders. Such as system is not sustainable.
Unless you'd like a future where everything is basically owned and run--to a far greater extent than it already is--by a very small number of tremendously rich individuals, corporations are a good thing.
Um.... you mean it could get worse? I mean, certainly it's getting worse already, and at a fantastic rate, but surely you can't be suggesting that it could get even worse in whatever future the grandparent poster envisions. That sounds like a strawman argument to me. You're deliberately misrepresenting his goals in the most fantastic way - he hasn't even stated what he wishes to have instead of corporations! Naturally, you assume it would be something just like the current system, but worse. Brilliant!
Without the great pools of capital that corporations provide, a whole lot of things that we enjoy and make life more enjoyable would disappear.
Guess what - we're humans and we've always formed ourselves into groups of various sizes, and pooled our resources. Getting rid of corporations in no way changes that. You must have the imagination of a gnat. Can't you think of a way to get things done with out relying on for-profit monstrosities?
Non-profit corporations are great. They do good work every day, which is more than I can say for most for-profit corps. I would be fine without for-profits, as long as we can keep the cooperation and resources of large groups. I see no reason why innovation would have to cease or regress. On the contrary, an economy freed of the need for short-term thinking could arguably come up with vastly superior technology, which would increase our abundance to such a level that the need for a complex economy is drastically reduced. Imagine if we could invent replicators. It would change everything. The corporations would hate the freedom and power it would give to consumers so they would try to suppress it. At some point (:::cough-DRM-cough:::) for-profit corporations become more of a millstone around our necks than a saving grace. We are approaching that time rapidly. Your ideas seem to be based on fear of the future and fear of the unknown, and certainly, fear of people who do not see the value in the old ways. Such beliefs are extremely common, but they must give way to the future and its promise, or we shall all perish as the unfettered greed of capitalism tears our fragile earth apart.
A competing bill also has been approved by the Senate Intelligence Committee, which would give the FBI expanded powers to subpoena records without the approval of a judge or grand jury. That ensured further Senate talks on the terrorism-fighting measure. The House legislation will also have to be reconciled with whatever emerges from the Senate.
So, let's use this time effectively. Get the word out, and contact your senator. The PATRIOT Act will probably pass, but we can at least try to get ammendments to it that will protect civil liberties while still allowing different law enforcement agencies to work with each other. While I would prefer not to have the PATRIOT act pass, we'd be better off with a bill that protects privacy and prevents racial profiling.
Personally, I think we should allow it to expire and start over. Many bits are useful, but let's have more emphasis on protecting American rights/liberties. And come on - who named this thing? What an awful, divisive name; it implies that anyone who opposes it is unpatriotic, which is complete horseshit. Name the act for what it does, not for cheap political points.
This new weapon will be abused; it's simply a matter of time. It's an unfortunate reality that the authorities tend to have less respect for peaceful dissent than most citizens. We have the right to protest, but the government does not seem to protect that right very vigilantly. In fact, the actions of the current regime are closer to that of a dictatorship. The future of America looks dark.
Just imagine if you got one of these things implanted in your brain and it didn't work at all - that would be extremely depressing. :-)
Beyond that, there's a huge installed base of VHS tapes. Why get rid of the player? It doesn't make any sense unless you're a geek who's obsessively ripped all of his VHS tapes to DVD-Rs. But there's nobody here who would do that....
I've been shocked at the initial wave of intolerance from the posters. How many people posted an "authoritive list of rules to proper business dress" as if they were just up on Mt. Sinai talking to the God of Business.
We are ants, living according to the accepted norms of our society, decided collectively many years ago, and in a constant state of flux. We all live in a culture, and each culture has determined its own fashion rules, and each society's rules are just as stupid and random as the next's. It's all arbitrary. As other posters have pointed out, in some cultures, it's considered incorrect not to have piercings. Some would call those "lesser" cultures, but maybe we're the ignorant ones. How can you be sure you're not lowering yourself when you preach against the evils of tatoos and mods, as many of you have.
I'm disgusted by the prejudice and intolerance in here. If I were your boss and you had just patronizingly explained proper business attire to a fellow employee because of his personal choice to modify his appearance (does plastic surgery count as a mod?), I would tell you to leave and not come back.
Humor impaired moderators: the preceding was an attempt at humor.
You've stumbled upon the best argument against IT unions, in my opinion. How could we guarantee that the union would always be platform-agnostic? If a union were started tomorrow, who's to say it wouldn't become aligned with Microsoft on at least one major IT issue, and become co-opted based on that? And what if the majority of the union members use Microsoft's software for at least one part of their job - I mean, MS makes tons of stuff, some of it useful. When Microsoft gets involved, they play for keeps; they're not satisfied with second-best and it's in their corporate DNA to assimilate all that they can. Suddenly, this hypothetical union is split down the middle.
Unions for IT workers might be a great idea, but I don't think the time is right; there's too much uncertainty about the market, the platforms, and even the nature of capitalism itself (see the IP Wars).
That said, I think there is still a place for geek community organizations that look out for the rights of socially inept computer nerds. Also, has anybody proposed some sort of Programmer's Guild that would form a barrier between programmers and the unwashed masses, yet still allow money and software to flow back and forth? I can see 50 programmers getting paid to work on the most popular feature requests of 5,000 users who "subscribe" to the guild in exchange for free (as in speech) software. The 5,000 subscribers pay money to get their feature requests/app ideas implemented, while the 50 programmers get paid like a regular 9 to 5 job, but keep the open source spirit and work on whatever fascinates them (which would hopefully be something practical at least some of the time), taking into account the feature requests of the subscribers. Could such a system work?
Dude, Jefferson is not just spinning in his grave, he's doing fucking backflips. When they passed the Real-ID he did a 720 degree half-gainer, leading into a double back-flip handspring, during which he did a mid-air pirouette. From there, he progressed to the parallel bars.
Let me tell you, at the end of that routine, he was dead-tired.
This is a good idea. Get the technology to a robust place, and then worry about making it portable; of course, it's already in cars, but cars a lot bigger than iPods.
Overall, the idea is great. I'd love to have satellite radio in my iPod, I'm just not keen on paying for it. Also, will it drain more battery power than playing a song off the HD, or less?
If it's seemlessly built into the iPod, and the interface can be accessed from the iPod's screen I don't see anything holding this back except the monthly fee.... which is necessary to provide many stations commercial-free. I just wish there was another way.
I think he knows exactly what those words mean. Do you?
Fascism is a system of government controlled by (or at least, for the benefit of) corporations. It is often called corporatism, in fact. It is a system wherein the lines between government and corporations blur so much they effectively cease to exist.
Grandparent poster is bemoaning the fact that the government is doing the corporations' bidding without looking out for the rights of the people. Treason is (in this context) betraying the principles of the republic in order to enforce the whims of a multi-national corporation.
FYI, the USA has been a fascist country for over 50 years. It doesn't mean we don't have a democracy; it's still just barely hanging on. The fascists in our midst will kill what remains of democracy at the first opportunity. That's treason.
Also, I think it's clear that file trading will soon be made illegal, straight up. This will create more criminals, which is good for the fascists because it allows them to strip our civil liberties in the name of upholding the rule of law. Look at the "Drug War" for an example. You don't really think they intend to "win" the war do you? It's just an excuse to eliminate our 4th amendment rights, amongst others. They've already won.
The War on Drugs, the War on Terrorism, the War on Piracy.... are you sensing a trend? Don't be fooled into thinking that everybody in this country is a liberty-loving democracy fan. Many people have a very twisted idea of freedom. For them, freedom is "the power to do whatever I want and control the lives of others." People like this are attracted to offices of power, such as government, business and religion. They look just like you and me, and they proclaim their patriotism at every opportunity, but in fact, they seek to do away with all of our liberties in the name of the Almighty Dollar.
Honestly, what's with all the bitching and whining? I just saw Sith and it was fucking good. Yes, there are a few plot holes and the dialogue can seem clunky.
It's a children's movie! Chill out, people.
Can we look at the bright side for just a moment? The acting is better, the special effects are better, the story is better and the movie is almost pure action. Where's the problem?
Lucas was holding out on us. The first two prequels were just warm-ups. This is the real deal.
Besides, there's something that everybody is missing. I've been reading these SW articles for months now, and nobody has pointed out one of the best things about this movie. Sure, go to see SW for the lightsabers, for the explosions and all the cool CGI and aliens. But what makes it all worthwhile, cohesive and convincing to me, is the work of one man:
John Williams.
His music is brilliant and evocative. The music tells the story here - this is a space opera, after all. It sounds like slashdotters have spent too much time listening to Lucas' dialogue and not to the real voice of the film - the score. I beseech you - let the music tell the story. Williams has completed his masterwork in this movie, just as Lucas has. Together they form an incredible story/symphony that should not be missed. Everything is explained in the music. To those of us who know the motifs it is obvious from the first scene of Episode I who Darth Sidious truly is.
If you haven't seen this movie, don't listen to the braying, ungrateful trolls on slashdot. See it for yourself - and hear it for yourself as well.
[obligatory reference to lameness of above post] [pedantic criticism of minor points] [withering sarcasm] [general complaint about /.] [attempt to stay ontopic] [implies poster is 15 and lives in basement] [failure to understand humor in any of its many forms] [stupid sig]