No matter how much money you have, you still get just one vote.
Please. Cheney. Bush. Halliburton. Brown [bostonherald.com]. Money has everything to do with it.
Which one of those got more than one vote? In what case was it not simply the addition of lots of single votes that elected the president after JFK's victory in 1960 (good to do away with that example of election fraud right away... besides, it was Chicago, who doesn't expect the dead to vote early and often there).
After world war two the victors sat down and decided what was good for Germany and what was not. The Americans were most vocal in that process. They don't have a bill of rights because you didn't want them to.
What were they supposed to do? Start a war to break free from their oppressors? (I.e. you lot). That would go down real well with the likes of you...
So.... you are asking whether or not, after starting two World Wars in less than 50 years, the Germans should have gone off and started another world war because they didn't like the outcome of their most recent one?
If the Germans didn't want to lose a war and have foreigners write them up a new constitution, why did they go off on their little march of European domination?
Also, regardless of whether their position as no-bid contractor was legitimate, do you believe they did a job that was worth the trust inherent in such a contract? Do you believe they were held accountable for their results?
These are relevant questions, but unrelated to the question about corruption in the assigning of the Haliburton contract. I am not knowledgable about the details of Haliburton's performance, or of what should be expected in the circumstances, so I am in no way capable of offering an opinion of value on this.
On the original topic, I am having trouble seeing why people think there was corruption involved in the Haliburton contract. If it was a poor assignment, think it was much more about incompetence of government process (I like the maxim about that).
On the corruption side, everyone points to Cheney. But why? He nor any family member has any stake in Haliburton. His pension is covered by insurance. They could go either belly up or become the largest corporation in the world, and either way it would have no effect on him. In spite of years of accusations, no one has even been able to produce a motive for this alledged corruption, let alone some proof it occured.
On the incompetence side, Haliburton is a major oil-field services company with a history of government contracts. The government's bid process is long and messy. So, is it hard to imagine that, in the very fast pace of the Iraq rebuild ramp-up (especially considering that Iraq's government and military was successfully toppeled far faster than even the biggest optimist's hope), some people thought this was a way to move fast and avoid some usual bueracracy?
I'm not judging whether or not that was a good decision. But all of these accusations of corruption with Cheney and Haliburton just seem unfounded to me.
I've found that printers typically only last a year
I've had an HP 4000 since 1997. I've printed lots, and I've never had a problem. I know someone who still has an HP 4si (circa 1993). Its not cheap to buy a quality laser printer, but, since I've only bought one printer in 8 years, I think it works out cheaper to buy quality.
Or, as with anything else, you get what you pay for.
Perhaps about Brazil - I've never been, so I knew I was out on a limb. You've corrected me. But it've spents lots of time (months) in both India and France, and I stick by my claims very firmly on those.
I think you mean you can do that by being any colour darker than bright white.
Do you think its contradiction to you or merely irony that the newly crowned Miss England is dark-skinned, Muslim, and Asian.
Other than the US and UK, can you imagine any other country being so open and tolerant that someone the locals wouldn't call "native" would get to be Miss <Fill in the Country>. (yes, I know the white people in the US aren't the natives.. I said "someone the locals...").
Seriously. Would India ever have a white, English Miss India? Can you imagine Brazil having a black African as Miss Brazil? Would the French seriously have anyone, well, not "of French stock" (to use their phrase).
I've been living in the UK (London) for almost a year, and I'm the first to talk about the shocking crime rate, but, come on, it's a long stretch to say the shooting proves an intolerent country, or even an intolerant police force.
And that would be different than every other consultant/customer relationship how?
Because many consultants are hard-working, honest, and do bring in unique expertise?
I know it's not in fashion to say, but many people become consultants because they are really good at some specific thing. I once had some serious Oracle scaling issues in an application, and hired an Oracle consultant (independent, not employed by Oracle). He fixed me right up, although my team of certified and expienced DBAs could not (and they were really sharp - this was the only major issue we had they didn't solve).
Now, it turns out this guy was one of the lead architects of the original Oracle SMP on UNIX implementation. Before that, we worked at Bell Labs on A/SMP research. You felt smarter just from being around this guy, but he never treated anyone like they were anything other than his equal.
And he was a highly paid, full-suit-and-tie wearing consultant.
Hence windows must also be a tool to infringe piracy.
I think the legal term that applies to that line of reasoning is "substantial non-infringing uses." For instance, knives can be used to kill people by stabbing, but they are used much more often in cooking, so they are legal. Bullets can be used to kill people by shooting, but are used far more often in target shooting and hunting, so they are legal. Nuclear bombs always (ok, almost always) are used to kill people, so they are illegal.
All right, a little over the top, but I hope you see my point. No reasonable critic of Kazaa has argued that it never ever has legal uses. The argument generally goes along the lines that the vast majority of traffic is of a copyright-infringing or otherwise illegal nature.
If the balance tipped so that (beware: made up numbers ahead) 95% of traffic was completely legal because, for instance, the copyright owner placed the works in the public domain, but 5% was infringing, it would be hard to make the argument to destroy Kazaa (although people would certainly try, as they do with every technology).
Now, does any reasonable person doubt in their gut that the majority of megabytes the information transferred on Kazaa is copyrighted and distribution is happening with explicit permission of the copyright owner? I was a heavy Napster user before the courts ruled it illegal, and I remember the "but there are legal uses of Napster" arguments to... but I remember exactly how much of each kind of material was available.
The way to save Kazaa is to somehow 1) raise the amount of legal transfers and 2) lower the amount of illegal transfers. Anything else is arguing legal technicalities. I have no idea how to do either one, but I'm sure someone smarter than me will.
n addition, it's very probable that most of those jobs are for non-critical, non-core projects. This frees up the local developers to work on more important projects.
Did you realize what you just gave away ? It's called racial elitisim, but now with a nationalistic fringe attitude.
Sorry to tell you this, as you are from an "offshoring destination", but this is a standard sales pitch FROM the offshore companies. Look at any of the India majors: TCS, Wipro, INFY, Satyam, whatever. You will see in their standards sales presentations talks about "freeing up local staff by moving non-core projects to low-cost geographies." Are you accusing them of reverse-racial-elitism?
In fact, the first time I did offshoring in the 1990's (put on flamesuit) it was specifically for that purpose. The sales person from the major offshore vendor told me that I should re-deploy my most skilled and experienced staff by letting the offshore company take over the routine, boring, or easy work. Made sense to me, and I did exactly that (no one lost their job, in other words, I just created more "capacity").
The idea of moving local staff from non-core projects to strategic projects through offshoring was invented by the offshore majors; don't blame the locals for repeating what they said.
The tech industry is the last big job boom America will ever see except in the low paying service industry
Same was said during the phase of factory automation in the 1930's - 1940's. There was even legislation proposed to outlaw factory automation (can't seem to find link, however, sorry, someone have it?). Then America rocketed to the front of world economy in the post-WW2 boom of the 1950's. Predicting the future is a risky business.
I just read a story in the past 2 months about European drug makers outsourcing R&D to the US - not because of costs, but to get at better talent. The next "big boom" is probably Biotech. The US is also a HUGE exporter of services. If the US outlawed the import/export of services (so software jobs would stop going to China/India), the US would be the loser. Any idea the amount of engineering, research, civil design, and international legal work is outsourced to the US? What about R&D? As examples, do you know that both Japan's giant NTT and France Telecom run R&D labs in the US?
I struggle to have an opinion about whether or not the "software boom" is over, or just had a blip. History teaches me that any attempt I or anyone else make to predict it either way will be about as accurate as flipping a coin.
I was promised flying cars by now (1950), the Soviets owning most of the world (1965), and Japan was supposed to have taken over the US (1985). I guess now I should fret about China and India.
I've done a lot of hiring work in the past, and will tell you straight that a degree gives you a huge level of credibility over someone who claims "x years of experience".
Well I do a lot of hiring now, and manage a large technical organization, and I say it depends on the field. In hiring engineers (real ones... not "software":), a degree really, really matters. No one is going to have some guy without a degree design a bridge or a building.
I think computer software is different because of how fast the technology has been moving. Not only is experience better than a degree (with both being ideal), but people with a degree don't need it in CS. In fact, I prefer people with math degrees who learned languages "on the job." I've also had very good luck with mechanical engineers (I think it's the same thought process in mechanical as in software... ie, chain reactions).
If you look at the past, you'll see it's the same in all professions. When a field of study is new, experience is far more important than formal education, since the formal education rarely keeps up with a fast moving technology (in University, I learned assembler on a mainframe that hadn't been manufactured in over a decade).
As the pace of change in a given technology slows down, as it always does, formal education catches up, and then you will see much more entry-level quality out of those who have a CS degree than either those who don't have a degree or have it in a different field.
Is the USA really in such a state that law and order are maintained only by the presence of police?
Hardly unique to the US. I'm an American, but living in London. People are mugged and stabbed right in front of others in the UK... no one does anything.
I know a lady who was with her two small children and was shoved down in a fast food resturant full of customers and employees so some guy could steal her purse. No one lifted a finger.
Don't think indifference to the pain of others is unique to the US.
In fact (and this is far off topic), I've been to a couple dozen countries and most US states, and the only place in the world I've seen people defend each other, including strangers, is the central part of the US. Try to push over a lady and mug her in a McD's in Iowa... you'll find, at best, your ass kicked, and, at worst, some customer shooting you. You may think it's harsh, but at least people are looking out for each other.
Good question. The slow response is what angers me at the Federal government's handling. I still defend the local authorities. In the small town outside New Orleans where my mom lives, I know for a fact the local guys are doing the best they can (and doing a good job at that).
If you know what it was like to live your whole life poor, you'd understand what happens in your mind when the "all rules off" mode sets in.
Don't preach to me. I grew up in one of those poor south Louisiana families. I don't even have to know you to be pretty sure I've known a lot more poverty in my life than you. In spite of that, my parents gave me a sense of right and wrong, and I know exactly what I would do in a situation like this (I've been in similiar situations in 2 countries). Let's not confuse poverty with thuggery... I was poor, not criminal. The criminals in New Orleans are criminals, no matter their race, class, or economic status.
Plus you've got to figure, mob mentality. You can't blame an individual for doing what the crowd is doing.
That's a poor excuse. I've been smack in the middle of a full-on riot, complete with tear gas, looting, and everything else you can think of. The so-called "mob" was a small minority of the people caught in the situation. The "mob" that will steal, rape, murder, etc, have a criminal mentality anyway and are using the situation as an excuse. Don't try to mix up the criminal element with the innocent by claiming "mob mentality."
But you're idea of treating looters like "the common criminals they are" really scares me. How do you treat criminals?
Why does it scare you? People stealing TVs are stealing. "Wal-Mart has insurance" is hardly an excuse. Do you have insurance? Can I rob you?
I don't treat criminals any particular way, as I am not in law enforcement or the criminal justice system. I'm just saying that the looters (except the ones taking vitally needed food and water) should be treated like any other time those crimes are committed.
What makes me sick is that people out there are so loyal to the President they fail to acknowledge that he failed us
Please read what I said. I said people going for points in either direction. I am not supporter of the present administration. I don't like politics when people are dying. You spend every single bit on available energy and resources on fixing the situation... then you can look for political answers. We need priorities.
Australia, with an economy a twentieth the size of the US sent three times as much.
I don't understand. I read here that the Australia gave $860M, while the US gave only $350M, but that the US also put up $950M in long-term aid. That would make the US the highest contributor, right?
As far as other support, how would suggest countries send in fresh water? fly it over from europe? ship it from Japan?
Could they just do it the same way the US got freshwater to Indonesia after the tsunami?
The people to blame for that are those in power in Washington DC.
Wow. Seriously.
The person to blame for rape is the rapist. Not some politician.
The person to blame for murder is the murder. Not someone in DC.
The person to blame for looting is the looters. The only exception here is the "theft" of food and water from damaged stores in the name of survival. Stealing TVs hardly falls in this category.
Interesting theory you have, but it removes responsibility from criminals. I would love to see it in court: "Your Honour, I know I raped and then killed that 14 year old girl, but am I really to blame, or the guys in power in DC? I submit to you I should be acquitted of this crime - and all the others I stand accused of - 'cause it's really the fault of the politicians."
Are you serious? Most of my (large) family live in New Orleans and the surrounding parishes, and I speak with them as often as possible (sometimes the phone lines are too jammed to get through). You should get some real information.
The police and authorities are not treating people all the same. There is no firing into crowds, and that sort of thing. No doubt the authorities are overwhelmed and need all the outside help they can get, but they are coping as best they can. If people are shooting, looting (not food - TV's, etc), causing violence and intimidation, they are being treated like the common criminals they are. If they are people in distress who need help, everyone is trying to get help to them.
As an aside, anyone trying to score poliltical points in either direction on the back of this disaster should be taken out back for summary execution. Sorry, I'm pretty close to this, and politics has no place until after this is sorted.
A question though: I am living outside the US, so I don't know if any offers of foreign aid have come in. Not just money, but doctors, freshwater, etc. With the level of support sent by the US to disasters around the world (like the Boxing Day Tsunami), I wonder if the rest of the world is trying to help the US now?
an EULA that restricts your rights too far is not valid, even if you signed it
That seems to me to prevent people from voluntarily entering into binding contracts, and as such is a government interference in freedom and commerce.
I, for one, don't want to government walking around declaring contracts I've made with another party as void because something is "too far." What if I sell my house to someone, and then the government comes back and says I charged too much (even though the person agreed to pay that amount) and makes me refund to what the government thinks is fair value?
Sorry, you can keep your government interference into private affairs, such as contracts entered into freely between two parties.
I'd like to take a moment
and thank the United States, along with other countries all over the world, for STILL depending on the archaic power production form known as "Coal power plants".
Why the US? You should be focusing on China and India. While the US did not sign Kyoto, it is still taking some steps on the environment (amazing considering the prevailing attitude of the party in power). China and India signed the Kyoto treaty - in which they made no committments (not sure why signing was a big deal, honestly, since they don't have to do anything).
Kyoto was intended to keep polution at 1990 levels (I would argue to reduce it from there - but just keeping it there was a start). China and India are countries of 1.3 and 1.0 billion people where pollution is skyrocketing, and no one is talking about it. The pollution in some cities in China and its health effects are astouding - nothing in the modern US or Western Europe compares. Why can't we agree that ALL countries need to go back to 1990 levels - and then work to reduce from there.
The big unspoken reason the US rejected Kyoto was it put US manufactures at a disadvantage versus ones in China (and India, but less of a consideration), because of different environmental requirements. You must have a level playing field to compete, and the US rejected Kyoto's attempt to create a system that favoured China.
If you look at the trends out to 2050 and 2100, the US is NOT the problem - it's China and India.
I'm actually more worried about the Japanese. They are going to beat us economically and just buy our entire country. Oh, wait, that was what we believed in the 1980's.
Then, what I'm really scared of is the domino effect of communism. Our system is obsolete, communism is the future, and I'm scared. Oh, wait, the 1970's.
Actually, the Soviet's are better at us in everything. We have no chance. They have more war heads. Wake up, people! We're losing! In 50 years, its a Soviet World! Oh, wait, that was the 1960's - 1980's.
I don't mean to act this way, but do American's have to have someone about to catch up to keep motivated? Am I the only one that has trouble believing the China story based on fundamentals? Like:
1: Imbalance of girls vs. boys due to one-child policy and preference of boys. This is the sort of thing that causes civil war (30M inbalance now)
2: Running a trade surplus. That is TERRIBLE for a developing economy. It shows lack of investment. They should be running a debt to build infrastructure.
3: Excessive corruption, which is, in effect, a large tax.
4: Banking system which is less stable than most realize.
5: And, my favorite - they are falling for the same trick America used to bankrupt the Soviets (turning a military rivalry into an economic one). They have said "if America builds a missle defense shield, we will build enough missiles to overwhelm it." That is what America wants, because missiles are not cheap to build. Are they really dumb enough to fall for the same trick? By their own admission, yes.
So, I am not one to discount threats, but can we keep things a little in proportion and have some view of history?
You never know about people's motives in harmless crimes like this.
So he was poor. The crime was harmess. The others involved have better attorneys.. He needed the money. You paint a very sympathetic picture.
However, for any society to live under the rule of law, its citizens do not get to select which laws they obey, and which their circumstances mean don't apply.
My first job out of school in 1993 paid $25k ($32k today, considering inflation), and I had student loans, rent, a car note, insurance, etc. I got by, without resorting to credit cards, and even managed to save a very small amount as a cushion. I didn't think it was within my rights to improve my situation by illegal means, but I guess if guys like you were in power, I could have just robbed the local bank and said "hey, I'm poor and need the money" if caught.
All the victim lost was the time that he had put into aquiring in game goods.
Many people work for hourly or daily wages (as opposed to being on a set salary). They are not paid by what they produce (that would be "piece work"), but are simply paid for attendance (if they don't produce, they are fired, but they are still paid for the time they attended). So, it is very easy to draw a straight time between time and a finite amount of money for a good portion of the world's population.
I personally think that investing that much time to acquire an in-game item is insane, and to me it has no value at all, but what gives me the right to judge? The question is, did someone invest a lot of time (which has value) to acquire something which they had a reasonable expectation to retain and lost through illegitamite means?
If the answer is "yes", then it may be at least a civil action (I'm not familar enough with the laws of Japan to offer an opinion on criminality).
On-line games should do what banks in the USA do. Before anyone can open a checking account in most USA banks, the bank will call the CHECKS system.
I think that is a terrific idea. Can you imagine if griefers/cheaters/exploiters found themselves unable to play online games - PC, PS2, whatever.
Of course, a lot of logisitcs involved (like identity), and of course some rules to make sure that people on the list really belong, and that there is an appeals process, but...
Then we have an online version of the old saying: "Your rights end and the next Player Character's Virtual nose"
Slashdot Mirror
No matter how much money you have, you still get just one vote.
Please. Cheney. Bush. Halliburton. Brown [bostonherald.com]. Money has everything to do with it.
Which one of those got more than one vote? In what case was it not simply the addition of lots of single votes that elected the president after JFK's victory in 1960 (good to do away with that example of election fraud right away... besides, it was Chicago, who doesn't expect the dead to vote early and often there).
What were they supposed to do? Start a war to break free from their oppressors? (I.e. you lot). That would go down real well with the likes of you...
So.... you are asking whether or not, after starting two World Wars in less than 50 years, the Germans should have gone off and started another world war because they didn't like the outcome of their most recent one?
If the Germans didn't want to lose a war and have foreigners write them up a new constitution, why did they go off on their little march of European domination?
These are relevant questions, but unrelated to the question about corruption in the assigning of the Haliburton contract. I am not knowledgable about the details of Haliburton's performance, or of what should be expected in the circumstances, so I am in no way capable of offering an opinion of value on this.
On the original topic, I am having trouble seeing why people think there was corruption involved in the Haliburton contract. If it was a poor assignment, think it was much more about incompetence of government process (I like the maxim about that).
On the corruption side, everyone points to Cheney. But why? He nor any family member has any stake in Haliburton. His pension is covered by insurance. They could go either belly up or become the largest corporation in the world, and either way it would have no effect on him. In spite of years of accusations, no one has even been able to produce a motive for this alledged corruption, let alone some proof it occured.
On the incompetence side, Haliburton is a major oil-field services company with a history of government contracts. The government's bid process is long and messy. So, is it hard to imagine that, in the very fast pace of the Iraq rebuild ramp-up (especially considering that Iraq's government and military was successfully toppeled far faster than even the biggest optimist's hope), some people thought this was a way to move fast and avoid some usual bueracracy?
I'm not judging whether or not that was a good decision. But all of these accusations of corruption with Cheney and Haliburton just seem unfounded to me.
I've had an HP 4000 since 1997. I've printed lots, and I've never had a problem. I know someone who still has an HP 4si (circa 1993). Its not cheap to buy a quality laser printer, but, since I've only bought one printer in 8 years, I think it works out cheaper to buy quality.
Or, as with anything else, you get what you pay for.
Perhaps about Brazil - I've never been, so I knew I was out on a limb. You've corrected me. But it've spents lots of time (months) in both India and France, and I stick by my claims very firmly on those.
Do you think its contradiction to you or merely irony that the newly crowned Miss England is dark-skinned, Muslim, and Asian.
Other than the US and UK, can you imagine any other country being so open and tolerant that someone the locals wouldn't call "native" would get to be Miss <Fill in the Country>. (yes, I know the white people in the US aren't the natives.. I said "someone the locals...").
Seriously. Would India ever have a white, English Miss India? Can you imagine Brazil having a black African as Miss Brazil? Would the French seriously have anyone, well, not "of French stock" (to use their phrase).
I've been living in the UK (London) for almost a year, and I'm the first to talk about the shocking crime rate, but, come on, it's a long stretch to say the shooting proves an intolerent country, or even an intolerant police force.
Because many consultants are hard-working, honest, and do bring in unique expertise?
I know it's not in fashion to say, but many people become consultants because they are really good at some specific thing. I once had some serious Oracle scaling issues in an application, and hired an Oracle consultant (independent, not employed by Oracle). He fixed me right up, although my team of certified and expienced DBAs could not (and they were really sharp - this was the only major issue we had they didn't solve).
Now, it turns out this guy was one of the lead architects of the original Oracle SMP on UNIX implementation. Before that, we worked at Bell Labs on A/SMP research. You felt smarter just from being around this guy, but he never treated anyone like they were anything other than his equal.
And he was a highly paid, full-suit-and-tie wearing consultant.
I think the legal term that applies to that line of reasoning is "substantial non-infringing uses." For instance, knives can be used to kill people by stabbing, but they are used much more often in cooking, so they are legal. Bullets can be used to kill people by shooting, but are used far more often in target shooting and hunting, so they are legal. Nuclear bombs always (ok, almost always) are used to kill people, so they are illegal.
All right, a little over the top, but I hope you see my point. No reasonable critic of Kazaa has argued that it never ever has legal uses. The argument generally goes along the lines that the vast majority of traffic is of a copyright-infringing or otherwise illegal nature.
If the balance tipped so that (beware: made up numbers ahead) 95% of traffic was completely legal because, for instance, the copyright owner placed the works in the public domain, but 5% was infringing, it would be hard to make the argument to destroy Kazaa (although people would certainly try, as they do with every technology).
Now, does any reasonable person doubt in their gut that the majority of megabytes the information transferred on Kazaa is copyrighted and distribution is happening with explicit permission of the copyright owner? I was a heavy Napster user before the courts ruled it illegal, and I remember the "but there are legal uses of Napster" arguments to... but I remember exactly how much of each kind of material was available.
The way to save Kazaa is to somehow 1) raise the amount of legal transfers and 2) lower the amount of illegal transfers. Anything else is arguing legal technicalities. I have no idea how to do either one, but I'm sure someone smarter than me will.
Did you realize what you just gave away ? It's called racial elitisim, but now with a nationalistic fringe attitude.
Sorry to tell you this, as you are from an "offshoring destination", but this is a standard sales pitch FROM the offshore companies. Look at any of the India majors: TCS, Wipro, INFY, Satyam, whatever. You will see in their standards sales presentations talks about "freeing up local staff by moving non-core projects to low-cost geographies." Are you accusing them of reverse-racial-elitism?
In fact, the first time I did offshoring in the 1990's (put on flamesuit) it was specifically for that purpose. The sales person from the major offshore vendor told me that I should re-deploy my most skilled and experienced staff by letting the offshore company take over the routine, boring, or easy work. Made sense to me, and I did exactly that (no one lost their job, in other words, I just created more "capacity").
The idea of moving local staff from non-core projects to strategic projects through offshoring was invented by the offshore majors; don't blame the locals for repeating what they said.
Same was said during the phase of factory automation in the 1930's - 1940's. There was even legislation proposed to outlaw factory automation (can't seem to find link, however, sorry, someone have it?). Then America rocketed to the front of world economy in the post-WW2 boom of the 1950's. Predicting the future is a risky business.
I just read a story in the past 2 months about European drug makers outsourcing R&D to the US - not because of costs, but to get at better talent. The next "big boom" is probably Biotech. The US is also a HUGE exporter of services. If the US outlawed the import/export of services (so software jobs would stop going to China/India), the US would be the loser. Any idea the amount of engineering, research, civil design, and international legal work is outsourced to the US? What about R&D? As examples, do you know that both Japan's giant NTT and France Telecom run R&D labs in the US?
I struggle to have an opinion about whether or not the "software boom" is over, or just had a blip. History teaches me that any attempt I or anyone else make to predict it either way will be about as accurate as flipping a coin.
I was promised flying cars by now (1950), the Soviets owning most of the world (1965), and Japan was supposed to have taken over the US (1985). I guess now I should fret about China and India.
Well I do a lot of hiring now, and manage a large technical organization, and I say it depends on the field. In hiring engineers (real ones... not "software" :), a degree really, really matters. No one is going to have some guy without a degree design a bridge or a building.
I think computer software is different because of how fast the technology has been moving. Not only is experience better than a degree (with both being ideal), but people with a degree don't need it in CS. In fact, I prefer people with math degrees who learned languages "on the job." I've also had very good luck with mechanical engineers (I think it's the same thought process in mechanical as in software... ie, chain reactions).
If you look at the past, you'll see it's the same in all professions. When a field of study is new, experience is far more important than formal education, since the formal education rarely keeps up with a fast moving technology (in University, I learned assembler on a mainframe that hadn't been manufactured in over a decade).
As the pace of change in a given technology slows down, as it always does, formal education catches up, and then you will see much more entry-level quality out of those who have a CS degree than either those who don't have a degree or have it in a different field.
How about this. Read the last paragraph. Care to respond?
Hardly unique to the US. I'm an American, but living in London. People are mugged and stabbed right in front of others in the UK... no one does anything.
I know a lady who was with her two small children and was shoved down in a fast food resturant full of customers and employees so some guy could steal her purse. No one lifted a finger.
Don't think indifference to the pain of others is unique to the US.
In fact (and this is far off topic), I've been to a couple dozen countries and most US states, and the only place in the world I've seen people defend each other, including strangers, is the central part of the US. Try to push over a lady and mug her in a McD's in Iowa... you'll find, at best, your ass kicked, and, at worst, some customer shooting you. You may think it's harsh, but at least people are looking out for each other.
Good question. The slow response is what angers me at the Federal government's handling. I still defend the local authorities. In the small town outside New Orleans where my mom lives, I know for a fact the local guys are doing the best they can (and doing a good job at that).
If you know what it was like to live your whole life poor, you'd understand what happens in your mind when the "all rules off" mode sets in.
Don't preach to me. I grew up in one of those poor south Louisiana families. I don't even have to know you to be pretty sure I've known a lot more poverty in my life than you. In spite of that, my parents gave me a sense of right and wrong, and I know exactly what I would do in a situation like this (I've been in similiar situations in 2 countries). Let's not confuse poverty with thuggery... I was poor, not criminal. The criminals in New Orleans are criminals, no matter their race, class, or economic status.
Plus you've got to figure, mob mentality. You can't blame an individual for doing what the crowd is doing.
That's a poor excuse. I've been smack in the middle of a full-on riot, complete with tear gas, looting, and everything else you can think of. The so-called "mob" was a small minority of the people caught in the situation. The "mob" that will steal, rape, murder, etc, have a criminal mentality anyway and are using the situation as an excuse. Don't try to mix up the criminal element with the innocent by claiming "mob mentality."
But you're idea of treating looters like "the common criminals they are" really scares me. How do you treat criminals?
Why does it scare you? People stealing TVs are stealing. "Wal-Mart has insurance" is hardly an excuse. Do you have insurance? Can I rob you?
I don't treat criminals any particular way, as I am not in law enforcement or the criminal justice system. I'm just saying that the looters (except the ones taking vitally needed food and water) should be treated like any other time those crimes are committed.
What makes me sick is that people out there are so loyal to the President they fail to acknowledge that he failed us
Please read what I said. I said people going for points in either direction. I am not supporter of the present administration. I don't like politics when people are dying. You spend every single bit on available energy and resources on fixing the situation... then you can look for political answers. We need priorities.
I don't understand. I read here that the Australia gave $860M, while the US gave only $350M, but that the US also put up $950M in long-term aid. That would make the US the highest contributor, right?
As far as other support, how would suggest countries send in fresh water? fly it over from europe? ship it from Japan?
Could they just do it the same way the US got freshwater to Indonesia after the tsunami?
Wow. Seriously.
The person to blame for rape is the rapist. Not some politician.
The person to blame for murder is the murder. Not someone in DC.
The person to blame for looting is the looters. The only exception here is the "theft" of food and water from damaged stores in the name of survival. Stealing TVs hardly falls in this category.
Interesting theory you have, but it removes responsibility from criminals. I would love to see it in court: "Your Honour, I know I raped and then killed that 14 year old girl, but am I really to blame, or the guys in power in DC? I submit to you I should be acquitted of this crime - and all the others I stand accused of - 'cause it's really the fault of the politicians."
Makes a load of sense...
Are you serious? Most of my (large) family live in New Orleans and the surrounding parishes, and I speak with them as often as possible (sometimes the phone lines are too jammed to get through). You should get some real information.
The police and authorities are not treating people all the same. There is no firing into crowds, and that sort of thing. No doubt the authorities are overwhelmed and need all the outside help they can get, but they are coping as best they can. If people are shooting, looting (not food - TV's, etc), causing violence and intimidation, they are being treated like the common criminals they are. If they are people in distress who need help, everyone is trying to get help to them.
As an aside, anyone trying to score poliltical points in either direction on the back of this disaster should be taken out back for summary execution. Sorry, I'm pretty close to this, and politics has no place until after this is sorted.
A question though: I am living outside the US, so I don't know if any offers of foreign aid have come in. Not just money, but doctors, freshwater, etc. With the level of support sent by the US to disasters around the world (like the Boxing Day Tsunami), I wonder if the rest of the world is trying to help the US now?
That seems to me to prevent people from voluntarily entering into binding contracts, and as such is a government interference in freedom and commerce.
I, for one, don't want to government walking around declaring contracts I've made with another party as void because something is "too far." What if I sell my house to someone, and then the government comes back and says I charged too much (even though the person agreed to pay that amount) and makes me refund to what the government thinks is fair value?
Sorry, you can keep your government interference into private affairs, such as contracts entered into freely between two parties.
Why the US? You should be focusing on China and India. While the US did not sign Kyoto, it is still taking some steps on the environment (amazing considering the prevailing attitude of the party in power). China and India signed the Kyoto treaty - in which they made no committments (not sure why signing was a big deal, honestly, since they don't have to do anything).
Kyoto was intended to keep polution at 1990 levels (I would argue to reduce it from there - but just keeping it there was a start). China and India are countries of 1.3 and 1.0 billion people where pollution is skyrocketing, and no one is talking about it. The pollution in some cities in China and its health effects are astouding - nothing in the modern US or Western Europe compares. Why can't we agree that ALL countries need to go back to 1990 levels - and then work to reduce from there.
The big unspoken reason the US rejected Kyoto was it put US manufactures at a disadvantage versus ones in China (and India, but less of a consideration), because of different environmental requirements. You must have a level playing field to compete, and the US rejected Kyoto's attempt to create a system that favoured China.
If you look at the trends out to 2050 and 2100, the US is NOT the problem - it's China and India.
I'm actually more worried about the Japanese. They are going to beat us economically and just buy our entire country. Oh, wait, that was what we believed in the 1980's.
Then, what I'm really scared of is the domino effect of communism. Our system is obsolete, communism is the future, and I'm scared. Oh, wait, the 1970's.
Actually, the Soviet's are better at us in everything. We have no chance. They have more war heads. Wake up, people! We're losing! In 50 years, its a Soviet World! Oh, wait, that was the 1960's - 1980's.
I don't mean to act this way, but do American's have to have someone about to catch up to keep motivated? Am I the only one that has trouble believing the China story based on fundamentals? Like:
1: Imbalance of girls vs. boys due to one-child policy and preference of boys. This is the sort of thing that causes civil war (30M inbalance now)
2: Running a trade surplus. That is TERRIBLE for a developing economy. It shows lack of investment. They should be running a debt to build infrastructure.
3: Excessive corruption, which is, in effect, a large tax.
4: Banking system which is less stable than most realize.
5: And, my favorite - they are falling for the same trick America used to bankrupt the Soviets (turning a military rivalry into an economic one). They have said "if America builds a missle defense shield, we will build enough missiles to overwhelm it." That is what America wants, because missiles are not cheap to build. Are they really dumb enough to fall for the same trick? By their own admission, yes.
So, I am not one to discount threats, but can we keep things a little in proportion and have some view of history?
So he was poor. The crime was harmess. The others involved have better attorneys.. He needed the money. You paint a very sympathetic picture.
However, for any society to live under the rule of law, its citizens do not get to select which laws they obey, and which their circumstances mean don't apply.
My first job out of school in 1993 paid $25k ($32k today, considering inflation), and I had student loans, rent, a car note, insurance, etc. I got by, without resorting to credit cards, and even managed to save a very small amount as a cushion. I didn't think it was within my rights to improve my situation by illegal means, but I guess if guys like you were in power, I could have just robbed the local bank and said "hey, I'm poor and need the money" if caught.
Damn. I wasn't sure whether to laugh of cry (ok, I laughed).
To quote Jon Lovitz in A League of Their Own: "Wow. If I had your life.... I'd shoot myself! You wait here, I'll go find you a gun."
Many people work for hourly or daily wages (as opposed to being on a set salary). They are not paid by what they produce (that would be "piece work"), but are simply paid for attendance (if they don't produce, they are fired, but they are still paid for the time they attended). So, it is very easy to draw a straight time between time and a finite amount of money for a good portion of the world's population.
I personally think that investing that much time to acquire an in-game item is insane, and to me it has no value at all, but what gives me the right to judge? The question is, did someone invest a lot of time (which has value) to acquire something which they had a reasonable expectation to retain and lost through illegitamite means?
If the answer is "yes", then it may be at least a civil action (I'm not familar enough with the laws of Japan to offer an opinion on criminality).
I think that is a terrific idea. Can you imagine if griefers/cheaters/exploiters found themselves unable to play online games - PC, PS2, whatever.
Of course, a lot of logisitcs involved (like identity), and of course some rules to make sure that people on the list really belong, and that there is an appeals process, but...
Then we have an online version of the old saying: "Your rights end and the next Player Character's Virtual nose"
its called SPAM