It is quite funny how people complain about not being able to install non-apple approved software on an apple device. And yet, if you buy a Ford or Chevy, you would also find it very difficult to upgrade it with Toyota and Honda parts, but nobody complains that Ford has you locked in. And, yes, if you are skilled, you can upgrade your Ford or Chevy with Toyota and Honda parts, just like if you are skilled, you can install other apps or even OSs on an iPad.
It's alright for your car manufacturer or even microwave manufacturer to lock their consumer device, but some reason Apple is bad for doing it with their consumer device.
If a locked device is not to people's liking, then they should vote with their dollars and buy something else. Simple economics 101.
Yeah, well, Microsoft lets you do things with your computer that are UNSAFE, like install software NOT APPROVED by them. Can you believe how evil Microsoft is? And Google actually helps these "open source" pirates to steal our great ideas! Obviously, Apple is the good guy here. They're not anti-competitive - just innovative, trendy, and easy to use! None of that "freedom" nonsense. You'll use Apple and you'll like it. Trust us!
It seems, lately, that the greatest innovation to come from Apple is how to creatively use the broken patent system to thwart competition.
Unless the graph didn't fit the data in question. Maybe the girl in the story was correct and it had nothing to do with aesthetics and everything to do with accuracy.
True Story: -Engineers at my school had to take 15 units of Arts courses as part of their studies, and Economics 100 was one of the popular choices. We had an Econ 100 class that matched a hole in the 3rd year mech and EE schedule, as a result we had about 2/3 engineers and 1/3 Arts students.
One day the prof, a very smart man with a subtle sense of humor, drew a graph of some function on the board. He drew the x and y axes, a straight line with a 45 degree slope and labelled the x intercept "a" and the y intercept "b". One of the girls from Arts puts up her hand and says "I don't think it should be that steep". The prof erases the line, redraws it half as steep and labels the x intercept "a" and the y intercept "b". "How's that" he says."Much better" says Arts girl.
Every engineer in the place falls over laughing. We laugh even harder as we see the confused look on Arts girl's face as she tries to figure out what's so damned funny. The prof never cracks a smile.
And yet so many engineering students and doctors and other professional degrees can't even balance their own checkbook. All this shows is that the engineering students in question were really good at thinking they are superior to others, which is obviously an inferior attitude.
You are teaching them stats, not calculus, so you shouldn't approach it like it is calculus. Social Science majors know they need statistical analysis. So do business majors.
For the record, my son had a major in psychology and a minor in math. Soft sciences and hard sciences are mutually exclusive and people don't go into the soft sciences because they can't do hard science. People go into soft sciences for the same reason as people go into hard sciences -- because they are interested in the subject matter.
Teach the subject at the appropriate grade level and quit looking down your nose at non-math and physics majors. Teaching statistics might be below the level of a calculus professor, but maybe both student and teacher will learn something from this.
There are communist states that do not have a totalitariansim system. Fascism is an ideology, never said it wasn't, of course so are socialism and capitalism. For that matter so are communism, democracy and just about everything else in this discussion. It is how they are put into practice that determines determines their impact on one's life.
I never said that lions don't kill for non-eating purposes. However when they do kill for non-eating purposes, lions will still provide the kill for the pride and if a male, will eat first. Being killed by a lion because he is hunger versus being killed because you threatened him results in the same outcome -- you are dead and will be eaten (either now or saved for later).
Capitalism is the best system if your goal is to concentrate wealth into the fewest hands.
So African monarchies are capitalist, then? Because the royalty owns 99% of the wealth in the country, millions of times more than the common man?
On the other hand, if your goal is an equitable distribution of resources capitalism fails miserably.
I am quite sure I don't want an equitable distribution of resources. I want to do a better job than the next guy and I want to be more richly rewarded for doing it.
Most monarchies operate as a capitalist system of some sort as operating as a socialist state would tend to cost some of their wealth. That said, by definition, monarchies are above the law and can take whatever they choose, so whether the king or queen own the most has nothing to do with economic system.
With regards to your desire, to be more richly rewarded for your work, capitalism does not promote that unless you are the capitalist/owner and not the worker. Capitalism promotes keeping the worker in their place. On the other hand, socialism, while it doesn't promote it either, it also does not discourage it, so you might fair much better in a economy based on socialism. Fascism tends to reward the corporate state, so the few at the expense of the many. It is similar to capitalism in that regard. Like capitalism, it encourages the worker to stay in their place. The US is actually much closer to being a fascist state than adopting socialism, but you don't hear people rallying against that too much.
As can be found in the recent recession in the US, doing a better job is not any protection. Wall Street bankers lost millions, but hey didn't lose their jobs. On the other hand, people in those firms who were not part of the decision making process did lose theirs. Capitalism protects those at the top at the expense of everybody else. I just picked Wall Street, but it applies to just about every business. The two adages: "It takes money to make money", and "The rich get richer and the poor get poorer" are only truly applicable in capitalism. Remember, this is about economic systems, not governmental ones like communism.
Because you don't own the equipment or its software. And per the subscriber agreement you agreed to upon activating service, your provider retains the right to alter their service features and pricing.
That would be fine if they are providing the DVR, but the article specifically mentions them doing it to owner provided DVRs. Now, if they want to have a service agreement that bans such devices, that is there prerogative, but unless they do that, it is still technically a violation of the DMCA -- unless corporations are above the law.
If the employer doesn't want to pay for the talent, the employer can do without.
Except that is not what is going on. The employer in this case is telling the government that there aren't enough skilled workers (which is false) so they need to bring in more immigrants to do the work (at lower pay). Even if it were true that there were not enough skilled workers, in days gone by, the employer would train workers, but don't want to do that, today. Finally, being in a capitalist economy, it would seem that the shortage of skilled workers would drive up the wages to get people to move to those fields and the laws of supply and demand would prevail. Of course the problem with that approach is that it decreases profits which is why the companies want to import less costly immigrant labor.
Pretty much, the article hit the nail smack on the head. Your own experience you wrote about is evidence of that - you went to the job willing to provide the best package, those that didn't, you didn't consider.
According to many, yes. The only non-communist viewpoint is to want to take all the money from everyone in the country and give it to the richest people. After all, the richest people are also the smartest, wisest, and most moral people in the country. How else do you think they got rich, if not by being the superior human beings?
Again, communism is a form of government, it is not an economic system. Socialism would strive to spread the wealth equally. What you are describing, however, with the wealth going up to the top is actually a form a fascism, which seems to be alive and well in the USA (even if the trains don't run on time).
So now you're being a Communist to want a decent wage ommensurate with your skills?
Actually, having wages commensurate with job skill would be a capitalist notion, not a socialist one (Communism if a form of government that most often uses socialism as its economic form).
It is doubtful that either food or foreign aid helps these people. What they need is a functioning economy and a functioning society, and handouts create neither of them.
The way we could help them is remove subsidies from our agricultural products and remove trade barriers. But hell will freeze over before US and European farmers let that happen. It is politically much easier to first waste many billions on farm subsidies, then waste many more billions on "foreign aid".
I would agree with that. It's also important to keep in mind that the "family farm" is no more. Most of the billions in farm subsidies goes to large corporations. Today's farm subsidy program is just one more form of corporate welfare.
I'm not sure about lions, but wolves will kill coyotes that infringe on their territory, but they will not eat them. Coyotes will kill foxes that also compete for the same food source, and generally the coyotes will not eat the foxes. Killing your prey and killing your non-prey competitors are both common in the animal world. Animals, even predators, do not always eat everything they kill.
Lions eat what they kill. In the process of defending their territory, if the other animal is killed, the lion will drag it off and it will be consumed by the pride, later. Also, for lions, it is usually the female that does most of the hunting, although the males get to eat first. Lions tend to mark their territory with urine or scratching trees. Most other animals, in the wild, particularly other lions, not part of the pride, avoid these areas. If other lions do stray in, they usually fight, but not to the death. So wolves and coyotes are nothing like lions. But then again, dogs and cats are quite different, too.
"... former U.S. President Bill Clinton – now U.N. special envoy to Haiti – who publicly apologized this month for championing policies that destroyed Haiti's rice production. Clinton in the mid-1990s encouraged the impoverished country to dramatically cut tariffs on imported U.S. rice.
'It may have been good for some of my farmers in Arkansas, but it has not worked. It was a mistake,' Clinton told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on March 10. 'I had to live everyday with the consequences of the loss of capacity to produce a rice crop in Haiti to feed those people because of what I did; nobody else.'"
So... shooting trespassers is ok if we eat them afterwards?
If you want to equate shooting trespassers with lions killing for food. Of course, in the US, even if you aren't guilty for shooting the trespasser, cannibalism is illegal, so that wouldn't be a good strategy to use at all.
With something like this, he owns the land, not the island. That may sound stupid, but the island itself is part of Hawaii. For example - if the governor or legislature decides to build a highway across the island, they simply declare eminent domain and seize the land they need (paying for it at some "going rate"). However if he really owned the island, the government couldn't legally do that. So he is like any other landowner. The only difference is that he owns 98% of the land. All of the normal laws about land use still apply. If they have zoning there, it still applies. If they have laws like California does about maintaining free access to certain parts of beaches and waterways, those still apply. That's a far cry from what most people think of when they say someone owns an island. They generally think of it as the person being basically the sovereign there. And that is not true in this case. Larry isn't the king.
If all of the landowners in an area vote to secede, they can secede. When you are the only landowner, it is easy to get a majority vote.
We send rice directly to Haiti. All that did was destroy their rice farms. Meaning more poor people to go on food aid. We destroyed one of the larger parts of their economy with this aid.
Was that before or after all the natural disasters that hit Haiti? If it was post disasters, then it would be hard to claim that it was our aid and not the disasters that destroyed their agricultural economy. I'm seriously asking, not trying to be a smart*ss.
I have to disagree. A lion eating you because you infringed on his territory is remarkably similar to me shooting you for trespassing. We both mark our territorial boundaries and we both defend them. We can also both lose our territory if we fail to defend it.
Not true. A lion will eat what it kills, so the purpose is to provide food. The territory protection is secondary. So, unless you are going to eat the trespasser you shot they are not the same at all. Besides, human beings supposedly have the ability to use reason, where as animals rely on instinct. In other words, we have a choice for what we do or how we act. The lion can only act like a lion.
Slashdot Mirror
Which you were fully aware of when you bought it.
It is quite funny how people complain about not being able to install non-apple approved software on an apple device. And yet, if you buy a Ford or Chevy, you would also find it very difficult to upgrade it with Toyota and Honda parts, but nobody complains that Ford has you locked in. And, yes, if you are skilled, you can upgrade your Ford or Chevy with Toyota and Honda parts, just like if you are skilled, you can install other apps or even OSs on an iPad.
It's alright for your car manufacturer or even microwave manufacturer to lock their consumer device, but some reason Apple is bad for doing it with their consumer device.
If a locked device is not to people's liking, then they should vote with their dollars and buy something else. Simple economics 101.
Actually, Mac OS X is BSD, not Unix, anymore than Ubuntu is Unix instead of Linux. That said, ./configure does work.
Yeah, well, Microsoft lets you do things with your computer that are UNSAFE, like install software NOT APPROVED by them. Can you believe how evil Microsoft is? And Google actually helps these "open source" pirates to steal our great ideas! Obviously, Apple is the good guy here. They're not anti-competitive - just innovative, trendy, and easy to use! None of that "freedom" nonsense. You'll use Apple and you'll like it. Trust us!
It seems, lately, that the greatest innovation to come from Apple is how to creatively use the broken patent system to thwart competition.
Unless the graph didn't fit the data in question. Maybe the girl in the story was correct and it had nothing to do with aesthetics and everything to do with accuracy.
Implying that a girl is dumb or ignorant in math isn't really a good joke, math or otherwise.
True Story: -Engineers at my school had to take 15 units of Arts courses as part of their studies, and Economics 100 was one of the popular choices. We had an Econ 100 class that matched a hole in the 3rd year mech and EE schedule, as a result we had about 2/3 engineers and 1/3 Arts students.
One day the prof, a very smart man with a subtle sense of humor, drew a graph of some function on the board. He drew the x and y axes, a straight line with a 45 degree slope and labelled the x intercept "a" and the y intercept "b". One of the girls from Arts puts up her hand and says "I don't think it should be that steep". The prof erases the line, redraws it half as steep and labels the x intercept "a" and the y intercept "b". "How's that" he says."Much better" says Arts girl.
Every engineer in the place falls over laughing. We laugh even harder as we see the confused look on Arts girl's face as she tries to figure out what's so damned funny. The prof never cracks a smile.
And yet so many engineering students and doctors and other professional degrees can't even balance their own checkbook. All this shows is that the engineering students in question were really good at thinking they are superior to others, which is obviously an inferior attitude.
You are teaching them stats, not calculus, so you shouldn't approach it like it is calculus. Social Science majors know they need statistical analysis. So do business majors.
For the record, my son had a major in psychology and a minor in math. Soft sciences and hard sciences are mutually exclusive and people don't go into the soft sciences because they can't do hard science. People go into soft sciences for the same reason as people go into hard sciences -- because they are interested in the subject matter.
Teach the subject at the appropriate grade level and quit looking down your nose at non-math and physics majors. Teaching statistics might be below the level of a calculus professor, but maybe both student and teacher will learn something from this.
Communism is a form of government: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_state
There are communist states that do not have a totalitariansim system. Fascism is an ideology, never said it wasn't, of course so are socialism and capitalism. For that matter so are communism, democracy and just about everything else in this discussion. It is how they are put into practice that determines determines their impact on one's life.
I never said that lions don't kill for non-eating purposes. However when they do kill for non-eating purposes, lions will still provide the kill for the pride and if a male, will eat first. Being killed by a lion because he is hunger versus being killed because you threatened him results in the same outcome -- you are dead and will be eaten (either now or saved for later).
Kaspersky Says Lack of Digital Voting Will Be Democracy's Downfall
Good thing the US is a Republic and not a democracy, then.
Capitalism is the best system if your goal is to concentrate wealth into the fewest hands.
So African monarchies are capitalist, then? Because the royalty owns 99% of the wealth in the country, millions of times more than the common man?
On the other hand, if your goal is an equitable distribution of resources capitalism fails miserably.
I am quite sure I don't want an equitable distribution of resources. I want to do a better job than the next guy and I want to be more richly rewarded for doing it.
Most monarchies operate as a capitalist system of some sort as operating as a socialist state would tend to cost some of their wealth. That said, by definition, monarchies are above the law and can take whatever they choose, so whether the king or queen own the most has nothing to do with economic system.
With regards to your desire, to be more richly rewarded for your work, capitalism does not promote that unless you are the capitalist/owner and not the worker. Capitalism promotes keeping the worker in their place. On the other hand, socialism, while it doesn't promote it either, it also does not discourage it, so you might fair much better in a economy based on socialism. Fascism tends to reward the corporate state, so the few at the expense of the many. It is similar to capitalism in that regard. Like capitalism, it encourages the worker to stay in their place. The US is actually much closer to being a fascist state than adopting socialism, but you don't hear people rallying against that too much.
As can be found in the recent recession in the US, doing a better job is not any protection. Wall Street bankers lost millions, but hey didn't lose their jobs. On the other hand, people in those firms who were not part of the decision making process did lose theirs. Capitalism protects those at the top at the expense of everybody else. I just picked Wall Street, but it applies to just about every business. The two adages: "It takes money to make money", and "The rich get richer and the poor get poorer" are only truly applicable in capitalism. Remember, this is about economic systems, not governmental ones like communism.
Because you don't own the equipment or its software. And per the subscriber agreement you agreed to upon activating service, your provider retains the right to alter their service features and pricing.
That would be fine if they are providing the DVR, but the article specifically mentions them doing it to owner provided DVRs. Now, if they want to have a service agreement that bans such devices, that is there prerogative, but unless they do that, it is still technically a violation of the DMCA -- unless corporations are above the law.
If the employer doesn't want to pay for the talent, the employer can do without.
Except that is not what is going on. The employer in this case is telling the government that there aren't enough skilled workers (which is false) so they need to bring in more immigrants to do the work (at lower pay). Even if it were true that there were not enough skilled workers, in days gone by, the employer would train workers, but don't want to do that, today. Finally, being in a capitalist economy, it would seem that the shortage of skilled workers would drive up the wages to get people to move to those fields and the laws of supply and demand would prevail. Of course the problem with that approach is that it decreases profits which is why the companies want to import less costly immigrant labor.
Pretty much, the article hit the nail smack on the head. Your own experience you wrote about is evidence of that - you went to the job willing to provide the best package, those that didn't, you didn't consider.
According to many, yes. The only non-communist viewpoint is to want to take all the money from everyone in the country and give it to the richest people. After all, the richest people are also the smartest, wisest, and most moral people in the country. How else do you think they got rich, if not by being the superior human beings?
Again, communism is a form of government, it is not an economic system. Socialism would strive to spread the wealth equally. What you are describing, however, with the wealth going up to the top is actually a form a fascism, which seems to be alive and well in the USA (even if the trains don't run on time).
So now you're being a Communist to want a decent wage ommensurate with your skills?
Actually, having wages commensurate with job skill would be a capitalist notion, not a socialist one (Communism if a form of government that most often uses socialism as its economic form).
It is doubtful that either food or foreign aid helps these people. What they need is a functioning economy and a functioning society, and handouts create neither of them.
The way we could help them is remove subsidies from our agricultural products and remove trade barriers. But hell will freeze over before US and European farmers let that happen. It is politically much easier to first waste many billions on farm subsidies, then waste many more billions on "foreign aid".
I would agree with that. It's also important to keep in mind that the "family farm" is no more. Most of the billions in farm subsidies goes to large corporations. Today's farm subsidy program is just one more form of corporate welfare.
I have no idea where you get your information from but it is certainly not modern.
From my research grants to study the behaviour of lions and the impact on pride life when the dominant male is replaced.
Not true. A lion will eat what it kills.
I'm not sure about lions, but wolves will kill coyotes that infringe on their territory, but they will not eat them. Coyotes will kill foxes that also compete for the same food source, and generally the coyotes will not eat the foxes. Killing your prey and killing your non-prey competitors are both common in the animal world. Animals, even predators, do not always eat everything they kill.
Lions eat what they kill. In the process of defending their territory, if the other animal is killed, the lion will drag it off and it will be consumed by the pride, later. Also, for lions, it is usually the female that does most of the hunting, although the males get to eat first. Lions tend to mark their territory with urine or scratching trees. Most other animals, in the wild, particularly other lions, not part of the pride, avoid these areas. If other lions do stray in, they usually fight, but not to the death. So wolves and coyotes are nothing like lions. But then again, dogs and cats are quite different, too.
If all of the landowners in an area vote to secede, they can secede.
Then again there was that whole Civil War thing, which suggests that not everyone agrees about that principle.
Now wait. Everybody knows the US Civil War had to do with vampires. There's even a new documentary coming out in theaters about it.
Way before:
"... former U.S. President Bill Clinton – now U.N. special envoy to Haiti – who publicly apologized this month for championing policies that destroyed Haiti's rice production. Clinton in the mid-1990s encouraged the impoverished country to dramatically cut tariffs on imported U.S. rice.
'It may have been good for some of my farmers in Arkansas, but it has not worked. It was a mistake,' Clinton told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on March 10. 'I had to live everyday with the consequences of the loss of capacity to produce a rice crop in Haiti to feed those people because of what I did; nobody else.'"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/20/with-cheap-food-imports-h_n_507228.html
Ok, thanks. Just got to US policy that punishes the many for the needs of the few.
Why the fuck did you censor your shit there? Slashdot's a free fucking speech zone, you can fucking say all the shit you fucking want to.
But doesn't a free speech zone imply that I can censor myself, if I choose to?
So... shooting trespassers is ok if we eat them afterwards?
If you want to equate shooting trespassers with lions killing for food. Of course, in the US, even if you aren't guilty for shooting the trespasser, cannibalism is illegal, so that wouldn't be a good strategy to use at all.
With something like this, he owns the land, not the island. That may sound stupid, but the island itself is part of Hawaii. For example - if the governor or legislature decides to build a highway across the island, they simply declare eminent domain and seize the land they need (paying for it at some "going rate"). However if he really owned the island, the government couldn't legally do that. So he is like any other landowner. The only difference is that he owns 98% of the land. All of the normal laws about land use still apply. If they have zoning there, it still applies. If they have laws like California does about maintaining free access to certain parts of beaches and waterways, those still apply. That's a far cry from what most people think of when they say someone owns an island. They generally think of it as the person being basically the sovereign there. And that is not true in this case. Larry isn't the king.
If all of the landowners in an area vote to secede, they can secede. When you are the only landowner, it is easy to get a majority vote.
We send rice directly to Haiti. All that did was destroy their rice farms. Meaning more poor people to go on food aid. We destroyed one of the larger parts of their economy with this aid.
Was that before or after all the natural disasters that hit Haiti? If it was post disasters, then it would be hard to claim that it was our aid and not the disasters that destroyed their agricultural economy. I'm seriously asking, not trying to be a smart*ss.
I have to disagree. A lion eating you because you infringed on his territory is remarkably similar to me shooting you for trespassing. We both mark our territorial boundaries and we both defend them. We can also both lose our territory if we fail to defend it.
Not true. A lion will eat what it kills, so the purpose is to provide food. The territory protection is secondary. So, unless you are going to eat the trespasser you shot they are not the same at all. Besides, human beings supposedly have the ability to use reason, where as animals rely on instinct. In other words, we have a choice for what we do or how we act. The lion can only act like a lion.