I don't get it either. About the only thing that annoyed me was program launch time but seriously, at the start of a work day I open all my shit and then it's not an issue anymore.
The other annoying part about all this "bloat" talk is that you can do a fairly minimal install of KDE.
As a file manager Konq is VERY customizable. It can be everything from minimal to bloat central. I loved using KDE. I still run it on my FreeBSD box. I just made sure to use Qt/KDE apps as a whole. I wish they had a gecko based browser. I love Konq, but as a web dev I need to test under more than just Konq.
Because Intel is a hardware company, that's why. You know what an Intel branded PC running Windows is? A piece of a shit. Throw Linux on there and it's lackluster.
The most powerful and well designed hardware out there isn't worth anything without software.
I've said it elsewhere but I bet the actual Intel powered Macs are running things like EFI rather than a BIOS. I believe there was an article on Slashdot a few weeks ago about Apple being Intel's show pony and I think that idea was pretty close to right on.
I've been reading up here with a lot of the links that have been provided to various developers' mailing lists and such and honestly, we need to stop worrying about BIOS/OpenFirmware/Whatever because it's all speculation at this point. We won't know until the real machines are available. The dev kits are certainly not what the final systems will be.
My Magic 8 Ball seems to think EFI is what will be taking the place of the BIOS on the Intel powered Macs. To me that makes the most sense. Seriously, do you think Apple is just gonna drop all the cool things like booting from Firewire and such? (I dunno that you can't do this in a BIOS, but no one in the PC world seems to do it.)
I dunno. With the mixture of large corporations and corrupt politicians (I know, it's redundant) perhaps a more effective approach would be to "kill them all and let God sort them out." Sounds good to me.
I wish I still had the source. (Ironically, I got the link from a Slashdot post.) I think it was the article where they were talking about Apple being Intel's shoow pony. Whatever. It said that Apple was telling their developers to avoid BIOS and OpenFirmware specific code because they were undecided. EFI was mentioned. You can scan through those posts if you want.
I know exactly what you mean. I set up KDE for my mom on a laptop and she was able to use it just fine (having no prior experience). A preconfigured Linux system is easy for the average-Joe user to use. For the gurus it works to. The area that I find is the one that has the hardest time with Linux are the people somewhere in the middle.
The people who do their own hardware upgrades, replace the printers, get scanners, etc. If you're careful with your hardware purchases, you're okay. HAL and DBUS are really nice too for gaining the "it just works" syndrome. It's getting there. It's getting there.
I said it somewhere else in this thread... commercial apps. They're the only thing that drove me from Linux to Mac. (And Linux still runs on my servers and laptop.)
In terms of ease of use one of the biggest problems for Linux on the desktop is that the GUIs and DEs are just that, GUIs and DEs. They run in BSD, Linux, Solaris, . They're not being set up with a specific OS in mind which means a lot of GUI tools for doing things aren't there. SuSE has YaST and I know some of the other distros have their own tools, but often their integration leaves much to be desired.
What it boils down to is that for a successful desktop distro to come around (in my opinion anyway) it needs to choose a GUI and build everything around it, period. Ubuntu is an excellent example right now with their Gnome centric attitude.
Frankly, for everyday usability I'll take Gnome or KDE on just about any Linux distro over Windows. I recently got a Mac Mini because there are some commercial programs that Linux really doesn't have. (Illustrator anyone?) There are times when I find OS X's customization lacking, but it's a fair trade I think. No OS is perfect. However, I would rather program MY OWN Photoshop and/or Illustrator than go back to using Windows. That's just right out.
The commercial apps are Linux's biggest weakness. Not installation. Not ease of use. Hell, order a commerical copy of Crossover Office. Installation isn't any harder than Mac or Windows. I find that if you make sure that you're using programs from the same DE (don't try mixing and matching KDE and Gnome apps) that the Linux experience is VERY consistent and perfectly usable.
As to what is keeping commerial apps away from Linux, I dunno. I'm not an analyst or even someone with statistics in front of me. It could be market penetration (which is a painful catch-22). It could be the lack of a definitive GUI toolkit. It could be the fact that there's really no definitive distro. Working with Linux commercially is just not the same as any other OS because Linux != an OS.
This usability crap is an old myth. Anyone saying that it's a "hobbyist's" OS and nothing more is living in 1995. Both Gnome and KDE have come far along and work very well. Overall integration can be lacking, but it's moving along and it'll get there.
Schweet! Hey, thanks for the tip. I think I'm going going to make the templates. Although I'll make one in Pages rather than use the one in MS Word. It also means using less ink when printing my drafts for revision.
Anyway, yeah, Pages is excellent. (And there's no restriction on Office Student/Teacher? Interesting.)
Whatever though, seriously, that cool for you to take the time on that.
Your pricing comparison isn't quite right. There's a student/teacher variant of iWork too and it only runs about $50. Frankly, I don't give a rat's ass about presentation programs (although on the rare occasion I get a PowerPoint document, Keynote reads it just fine) and I paid full price for iWork. Pages was, for me, worth the $80.
I absolutely LOVE pages. It really tries to force you to think out your document semantically. As a CSS/XHTML freak I'm right at home with the way it works. Still, after working with it, it's still a little limited. (If someone knows how to do what I'm about to say can't be done, please let me know.)
I do legal work occasionally. I write my own motions and such. If you've ever seen legal documents they're numbered down the side (usually 1 - 28) in a double spaced manner. This numbering isn't really consistant with all the lines on the page since some of the document is double spaced but citations generally aren't. Also, even if one line is on a page, you want the numbers all the way down.
Right now I just print templates from another machine because Pages is really nice for writing up the document other than the numbers. I tried just importing one of my old Word files that did the same thing and... it wasn't pretty. However, I have a feeling that Pages is going to get much, much better over the next year or two.
Tell that to the 13 year old girls who are forced into becoming some 40 year old guy's fifth wife.
Whether it's one wife or 30 wives, 13 is wrong (in this day and age anyway). This isn't a polygamy issue. It's a pedophillia issue. The "forced to become wife" thing also has nothing to do with polygamy. It has to do with child abuse. If two chicks and I (let's say they're both 24) decide to shack up, no harm, no foul. Just because crackerjacks in southern Utah suffer from the brain damage that comes from imbreeding think having a 13-year-old wife is cool doesn't mean that polygamy is the problem, it means that their culture and values are a problem.
Not to mention that the mormon church was founded by a "HOLY PROPHET" who not only practiced polygamy, but who married 9 of his first 12 wives while they were still married to other men, and they CONTINUED to be married to other men. He kept this polygamy a secret until later, when it became a SACRED RITE.
Well, given the literature you take seriously, taking you seriously is a wasted endeavor. You don't happen to be a Fawn Brody fan, do you?
So yes, polygamy is still revelant to a church which claims authority from some polygamist.
Funny that. I suppose it's still relevant in all Christian sects as well as all Jewish sects considering they claim authority from a number of polygamists. Abraham and Jacob/Israel. Let us not forget that the holy line of Israelite royalty through Judah that Christ came through consisted of at least two other polygamists, David and Solomon.
Whatever, its a multimillion dollar business now, no need for Prophets when you've got Profit!
Yeah, last I heard the prophet was kicked out of the church and replaced with a board of directors.
And what the fuck? The joke is SERIOUSLY on me. I wrote this response only to just now realize it was an anonymous coward. Fucking-a.
My problem with your entire stance is that, last I checked, people should be allowed to be superficial. Freedom should apply to all. Deep and shallow. Open and bigoted. Stupid and brilliant.
Yes, they are paying your for your time and you owe them nothing. But, at the time you were hired they set rules that go along with payment. The contract between you and business doesn't extend purely to pay in and pay out. You have to meet certain working requirements.
If you're a law firm and one of your lawyers gauges his ears, dyes his hair 15 colors and gets naked women tatooed on his face then shows up to defend a client the next day... the client isn't going to be happy. Most of us (even me) are superficial on some level. Business deal with reality. Money comes from REAL people, not just idealists.
Pure ideals and utopias exist in exactly one place, theory. They are... a mental construct, if you will.
A business HAS to deal with the consequences of its actions just like a person. In this day and age if a business decides that it doesn't want to hire blacks, do you think it's going to last? Human rights apply to governments because you're born into a government. You didn't have a choice. Business is not the same because NO ONE is forcing you to work at any particular place. It's that simple. In theory (although that concept is dying in this rotting company) you ALWAYS have the right to start your own business and run it HOWEVER you want. The market wil dictate whether or not it'll last and compromise is almost inevitable.
Yes, the people that run businesses should be allowed to discriminate. Running my own business, I don't want someone else telling me who I can and cannot hire anymore than I want an employer telling me how I can dress. It's *my* business. Telling me how to run it is just as bad as telling someone how to dress. If I prefer to hire tattooed and pierced metalheads over tie-wearing pricks SOLELY because I think they're "cooler" then I should damn well be able to.
It's okay for a business to do what it wants in the "free market." It's also okay for people to do what they want in the "free market." Both of them should be limited by the natural consequences of that market. If NO ONE wants to do business with people who practice extreme fashion and body modification, you can't FORCE society to accept them or do business with them. Bigotry exists. People have the right to be bigots. Is it good? No. However, you can't "enforce" free thinking or "open mindedness." Enforcing that sort of thing kinda goes against its own ideals.
I can no more tell X company that it HAS to hire people with extreme styles anymore than I can tell X extreme style toting person that he HAS to buy some company's products.
So yeah, the short of it (in case anyone missed it) is this: businesses (as the property of a person or people) can be run however the people in charge want. A person or people can choose any extreme style they want. Both groups will have to deal with the consequences of those actions. That's all I said. I NEVER said it wasn't okay for people to do what they wanted. All I said was that they should be willing to accept the natural coonsequences of said actions. Geez.
(I'll keep it simple and not get into the fact that I believe any business that incorporates and gets special treatment from the government doesn't and shouldn't be allowed the same freedoms. Please, don't get the idea that I'm conservative prick. I'm just a run of the mill prick.)
This isn't about the consumers. This is about the rights of the people who own and run their businesses. The government has no right to come in and tell those ISPs that they have to do ANYTHING about porn. In Utah it seems like it would be a good business practice but it should not be required. It is an undue burden on businesses.
And seriously, this is going to go in exactly one direction. Businesses, if the law holds, are going to get sued over and over by stupid parents whose sweet, innocent see nipples. Then they'll demand the law gets tighter because the current one isn't enough.
Yeah, the the biggest problem. It's kind of like "terrorism" under the Patriot Act. "Well, these secret courts only apply to 'terrorists.'" Which sounds great up until they start branding every Tom, Dick and Harry out there as a terrorist for wire taps. These guys might be unsavory, but they're generally NOT terrorists.
The problem here is that whiny parents who want to have a career and children are looking for ways to make the rest of the world babysit their kids to their standards. If you want YOUR kids raised by YOUR standards then YOU need to do the raising part. It's that simple.
(And I was talking about the general "you" not the parent because I agree with him completely.)
It was funny. Blonde hotties are not exactly in short supply all over Utah now, but honestly, have you ever seen pictures of Brigham Young's wives? *shudders*
Who cares? The fact of the matter is that polygamy is not endorsed or allowed in the church, period. You get excommunicated if you practice it. Just because there are the purist wackos out there that have broken away from the church doesn't mean anything. They're polygamist freaks. Okay. I don't care if there are 1,000,000 of them.
(And seriously, can someone tell me why, in a day and age where we're talking about "gay marriage" and where it's perfectly legal to live with and reproduce with 20 women at a time if one were so inclined, polygamy is even a big deal? Seriously. Who gives a shit any more? It was a big deal back in the day where living with someone of the opposite sex out of wedlock was a scandal.)
I work with the ACLU regularly. I agree with them on many issues and disagree with them on some issues. While personally I'm an idealist, to get things done I ally with people on the issues we agree on and leave it at that.
Their stance on the second amendment is a logical farce. I agree with you completely. I simply wanted to caution people to work with the groups you can when you can.
Regardless of the ACLU's nonsensical stance on the second amendment, I agree with their position in this situation and here in Nevada they have been very, very helpful and suppportive in fighting the Patriot Act. I'll take the ACLU over Utah Politics as Usual any day of the week.
The ACLU is NOT the good guy. However, they're NOT the bad guy either. Use them when you can, fight them when they're wrong. The biggest problem I find with these discussions is that very few people play give and take with the ACLU. They're either "liberal devils" or "angels of liberty." (And they'll probably sue me for using religious imagry to portray them. Oh well.)
Promises options to consumers at the expense of businesses having one more rule to follow! That's the problem. You should listen to the Chumbawamba song "Ladies for a compassionate lynching" because that's Utah politics! All these little "help the consumer" rules are what eat small companies alive and pave the way for mega-corporations. It costs just as much for AOL or Earthlink to comply with this legislation as a small time ISP. The problem is, whatever the cost, it's a larger percentage from the small company.
There are more of these stupid laws EVERY YEAR. They hurt small businesses. If you're uncomfortable with porn, install blockers or ONLY do business with ISPs that comply to certain standards. That's the consumer's choice. No one is putting a gun to their head and telling them to get on the Internet or use a particular ISP. No one is hiding the filtering software from them.
This is just another case of "Soccer Moms" (and even worse this time, Utah Mormon Soccer Moms) taking the time to force other people to do the job they should be doing as a parent. It's not my ISP's job to filter my content. If I want it filtered by the ISP it's my job to find a company that will do so or find an alternative method to meet the end I desire.
This kind of legislation, when heaped up, eventually makes it too difficult for small business to stay in business and as such reduces our options to huge companies. It destroyss choice, it doesn't help it.
Screw Utah! And as a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints I don't mind saying that the ridiculousness that comes from that state is... well... ridiculous. They're their own subculture with so many rules and ideas that have nothing to do with religion's doctrine. It's laughable. It's annoying. (Worst is, more and more of them are migrating here to Las Vegas of all places. Heaven help Sin City from their divine wrath. Seriously, they're scarier than the casino industry.)
I'm late to this discussion, but I'll make my statement.
Businesses should be allowed to set whatever dress code they want. Don't like it? Don't work there. Given that I believe that businesses in general shouldn't have to hire anyone they don't want for any reason, I suppose I'm in a minority.
Seriously, be prepared to accept the consequences of your actions. It's that simple. I don't think anyone out there that gets a piercing or a tatoo or whatever doesn't know that a lot of people, right or wrong, have issues with that.
I have my ear pierced and while it's really no big deal nowadays, there are some places that it's an issue. You know what? I have no desire to deal with or work with a company that's that hung up on an earring. They're tight ass pricks. That's their right. It's my right not to want to deal with them and work elsewhere.
The biggest problem I have with the "different" or "extreme" crowd is that some of them think it's *their* right to do whatever they want and that everyone around them should just deal with it. Yeah? Fuck you guys. Do what you want. I'm all for it. However, quit telling *other* people who they should feel and think. Do what you but be willing to accept the fucking consequences.
Businesses exist, for the most part, to make money. If your cute little lip ring or tatoo impedes that, why should they hire you? Even if you're skilled, it's likely there's someone else who is just as skilled who isn't outside that business's comfort zone. And again, if someone is going to get that caught up over a lip ring, do you really *want* to work there? I wouldn't.
If your response is, "Well I *need* X job." Take your piercings out. If you've got tats it's likely you know the possible consequnces when you got them. If you didn't, you're probably not bright enough to be qualified for any place with a dress code. Beggars can't be choosers. Come on people, this is real life. I'm not telling anyone to give up their "individuality" or personal "expression." I'm not telling anyone to "grow up" because I personally have almost no issues with tats or piercings. (Although there is a point of excess that even bothers me. Deal with it.) Hell, I'm the kind of person who would lose clients before firing or not hiring someone based on appearance. However, that's *my* choice and it's not my place to other people hiring how they need to run *their* business.
The other reply pounded on the supply problem and I agree with it. The other serious reason for going Intel is laptops. I'll bet Apple's laptop to desktop ratio is even higher than say... Dell. It's the "surf the internet while drinking expensive, pretentious coffee" syndrome. Intel has a roadmap that is better suited to Apple's plans and they're the only one that can deliver on laptop chips.
Remember, it's the laptops that are gonna be the first to go x86.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't get it either. About the only thing that annoyed me was program launch time but seriously, at the start of a work day I open all my shit and then it's not an issue anymore.
The other annoying part about all this "bloat" talk is that you can do a fairly minimal install of KDE.
As a file manager Konq is VERY customizable. It can be everything from minimal to bloat central. I loved using KDE. I still run it on my FreeBSD box. I just made sure to use Qt/KDE apps as a whole. I wish they had a gecko based browser. I love Konq, but as a web dev I need to test under more than just Konq.
I can't fucking believe this got modded offtopic. It was hilarious.
Because Intel is a hardware company, that's why. You know what an Intel branded PC running Windows is? A piece of a shit. Throw Linux on there and it's lackluster.
The most powerful and well designed hardware out there isn't worth anything without software.
I've said it elsewhere but I bet the actual Intel powered Macs are running things like EFI rather than a BIOS. I believe there was an article on Slashdot a few weeks ago about Apple being Intel's show pony and I think that idea was pretty close to right on.
I've been reading up here with a lot of the links that have been provided to various developers' mailing lists and such and honestly, we need to stop worrying about BIOS/OpenFirmware/Whatever because it's all speculation at this point. We won't know until the real machines are available. The dev kits are certainly not what the final systems will be.
My Magic 8 Ball seems to think EFI is what will be taking the place of the BIOS on the Intel powered Macs. To me that makes the most sense. Seriously, do you think Apple is just gonna drop all the cool things like booting from Firewire and such? (I dunno that you can't do this in a BIOS, but no one in the PC world seems to do it.)
Yeah. That was pretty much my reaction. Seriously, I think the submitter has been in front of his computer too much.
I dunno. With the mixture of large corporations and corrupt politicians (I know, it's redundant) perhaps a more effective approach would be to "kill them all and let God sort them out." Sounds good to me.
I wish I still had the source. (Ironically, I got the link from a Slashdot post.) I think it was the article where they were talking about Apple being Intel's shoow pony. Whatever. It said that Apple was telling their developers to avoid BIOS and OpenFirmware specific code because they were undecided. EFI was mentioned. You can scan through those posts if you want.
I know exactly what you mean. I set up KDE for my mom on a laptop and she was able to use it just fine (having no prior experience). A preconfigured Linux system is easy for the average-Joe user to use. For the gurus it works to. The area that I find is the one that has the hardest time with Linux are the people somewhere in the middle.
The people who do their own hardware upgrades, replace the printers, get scanners, etc. If you're careful with your hardware purchases, you're okay. HAL and DBUS are really nice too for gaining the "it just works" syndrome. It's getting there. It's getting there.
I said it somewhere else in this thread... commercial apps. They're the only thing that drove me from Linux to Mac. (And Linux still runs on my servers and laptop.)
In terms of ease of use one of the biggest problems for Linux on the desktop is that the GUIs and DEs are just that, GUIs and DEs. They run in BSD, Linux, Solaris, . They're not being set up with a specific OS in mind which means a lot of GUI tools for doing things aren't there. SuSE has YaST and I know some of the other distros have their own tools, but often their integration leaves much to be desired.
What it boils down to is that for a successful desktop distro to come around (in my opinion anyway) it needs to choose a GUI and build everything around it, period. Ubuntu is an excellent example right now with their Gnome centric attitude.
Frankly, for everyday usability I'll take Gnome or KDE on just about any Linux distro over Windows. I recently got a Mac Mini because there are some commercial programs that Linux really doesn't have. (Illustrator anyone?) There are times when I find OS X's customization lacking, but it's a fair trade I think. No OS is perfect. However, I would rather program MY OWN Photoshop and/or Illustrator than go back to using Windows. That's just right out.
The commercial apps are Linux's biggest weakness. Not installation. Not ease of use. Hell, order a commerical copy of Crossover Office. Installation isn't any harder than Mac or Windows. I find that if you make sure that you're using programs from the same DE (don't try mixing and matching KDE and Gnome apps) that the Linux experience is VERY consistent and perfectly usable.
As to what is keeping commerial apps away from Linux, I dunno. I'm not an analyst or even someone with statistics in front of me. It could be market penetration (which is a painful catch-22). It could be the lack of a definitive GUI toolkit. It could be the fact that there's really no definitive distro. Working with Linux commercially is just not the same as any other OS because Linux != an OS.
This usability crap is an old myth. Anyone saying that it's a "hobbyist's" OS and nothing more is living in 1995. Both Gnome and KDE have come far along and work very well. Overall integration can be lacking, but it's moving along and it'll get there.
Schweet! Hey, thanks for the tip. I think I'm going going to make the templates. Although I'll make one in Pages rather than use the one in MS Word. It also means using less ink when printing my drafts for revision.
Anyway, yeah, Pages is excellent. (And there's no restriction on Office Student/Teacher? Interesting.)
Whatever though, seriously, that cool for you to take the time on that.
Your pricing comparison isn't quite right. There's a student/teacher variant of iWork too and it only runs about $50. Frankly, I don't give a rat's ass about presentation programs (although on the rare occasion I get a PowerPoint document, Keynote reads it just fine) and I paid full price for iWork. Pages was, for me, worth the $80.
I absolutely LOVE pages. It really tries to force you to think out your document semantically. As a CSS/XHTML freak I'm right at home with the way it works. Still, after working with it, it's still a little limited. (If someone knows how to do what I'm about to say can't be done, please let me know.)
I do legal work occasionally. I write my own motions and such. If you've ever seen legal documents they're numbered down the side (usually 1 - 28) in a double spaced manner. This numbering isn't really consistant with all the lines on the page since some of the document is double spaced but citations generally aren't. Also, even if one line is on a page, you want the numbers all the way down.
Right now I just print templates from another machine because Pages is really nice for writing up the document other than the numbers. I tried just importing one of my old Word files that did the same thing and... it wasn't pretty. However, I have a feeling that Pages is going to get much, much better over the next year or two.
So I just totally rambled and lost topic. Yay!
This is one of those days I wish I could take the mods over 5. I even have points today too. C'est la vie. Anyway, that was abso-fucking-lutely great.
Tell that to the 13 year old girls who are forced into becoming some 40 year old guy's fifth wife.
Whether it's one wife or 30 wives, 13 is wrong (in this day and age anyway). This isn't a polygamy issue. It's a pedophillia issue. The "forced to become wife" thing also has nothing to do with polygamy. It has to do with child abuse. If two chicks and I (let's say they're both 24) decide to shack up, no harm, no foul. Just because crackerjacks in southern Utah suffer from the brain damage that comes from imbreeding think having a 13-year-old wife is cool doesn't mean that polygamy is the problem, it means that their culture and values are a problem.
Not to mention that the mormon church was founded by a "HOLY PROPHET" who not only practiced polygamy, but who married 9 of his first 12 wives while they were still married to other men, and they CONTINUED to be married to other men. He kept this polygamy a secret until later, when it became a SACRED RITE.
Well, given the literature you take seriously, taking you seriously is a wasted endeavor. You don't happen to be a Fawn Brody fan, do you?
So yes, polygamy is still revelant to a church which claims authority from some polygamist.
Funny that. I suppose it's still relevant in all Christian sects as well as all Jewish sects considering they claim authority from a number of polygamists. Abraham and Jacob/Israel. Let us not forget that the holy line of Israelite royalty through Judah that Christ came through consisted of at least two other polygamists, David and Solomon.
Whatever, its a multimillion dollar business now, no need for Prophets when you've got Profit!
Yeah, last I heard the prophet was kicked out of the church and replaced with a board of directors.
And what the fuck? The joke is SERIOUSLY on me. I wrote this response only to just now realize it was an anonymous coward. Fucking-a.
Dude... this is freaky. Thanks for the link!
My problem with your entire stance is that, last I checked, people should be allowed to be superficial. Freedom should apply to all. Deep and shallow. Open and bigoted. Stupid and brilliant.
Yes, they are paying your for your time and you owe them nothing. But, at the time you were hired they set rules that go along with payment. The contract between you and business doesn't extend purely to pay in and pay out. You have to meet certain working requirements.
If you're a law firm and one of your lawyers gauges his ears, dyes his hair 15 colors and gets naked women tatooed on his face then shows up to defend a client the next day... the client isn't going to be happy. Most of us (even me) are superficial on some level. Business deal with reality. Money comes from REAL people, not just idealists.
Pure ideals and utopias exist in exactly one place, theory. They are... a mental construct, if you will.
A business HAS to deal with the consequences of its actions just like a person. In this day and age if a business decides that it doesn't want to hire blacks, do you think it's going to last? Human rights apply to governments because you're born into a government. You didn't have a choice. Business is not the same because NO ONE is forcing you to work at any particular place. It's that simple. In theory (although that concept is dying in this rotting company) you ALWAYS have the right to start your own business and run it HOWEVER you want. The market wil dictate whether or not it'll last and compromise is almost inevitable.
Yes, the people that run businesses should be allowed to discriminate. Running my own business, I don't want someone else telling me who I can and cannot hire anymore than I want an employer telling me how I can dress. It's *my* business. Telling me how to run it is just as bad as telling someone how to dress. If I prefer to hire tattooed and pierced metalheads over tie-wearing pricks SOLELY because I think they're "cooler" then I should damn well be able to.
It's okay for a business to do what it wants in the "free market." It's also okay for people to do what they want in the "free market." Both of them should be limited by the natural consequences of that market. If NO ONE wants to do business with people who practice extreme fashion and body modification, you can't FORCE society to accept them or do business with them. Bigotry exists. People have the right to be bigots. Is it good? No. However, you can't "enforce" free thinking or "open mindedness." Enforcing that sort of thing kinda goes against its own ideals.
I can no more tell X company that it HAS to hire people with extreme styles anymore than I can tell X extreme style toting person that he HAS to buy some company's products.
So yeah, the short of it (in case anyone missed it) is this: businesses (as the property of a person or people) can be run however the people in charge want. A person or people can choose any extreme style they want. Both groups will have to deal with the consequences of those actions. That's all I said. I NEVER said it wasn't okay for people to do what they wanted. All I said was that they should be willing to accept the natural coonsequences of said actions. Geez.
(I'll keep it simple and not get into the fact that I believe any business that incorporates and gets special treatment from the government doesn't and shouldn't be allowed the same freedoms. Please, don't get the idea that I'm conservative prick. I'm just a run of the mill prick.)
Wrong. Just wrong.
This isn't about the consumers. This is about the rights of the people who own and run their businesses. The government has no right to come in and tell those ISPs that they have to do ANYTHING about porn. In Utah it seems like it would be a good business practice but it should not be required. It is an undue burden on businesses.
And seriously, this is going to go in exactly one direction. Businesses, if the law holds, are going to get sued over and over by stupid parents whose sweet, innocent see nipples. Then they'll demand the law gets tighter because the current one isn't enough.
Yeah, the the biggest problem. It's kind of like "terrorism" under the Patriot Act. "Well, these secret courts only apply to 'terrorists.'" Which sounds great up until they start branding every Tom, Dick and Harry out there as a terrorist for wire taps. These guys might be unsavory, but they're generally NOT terrorists.
The problem here is that whiny parents who want to have a career and children are looking for ways to make the rest of the world babysit their kids to their standards. If you want YOUR kids raised by YOUR standards then YOU need to do the raising part. It's that simple.
(And I was talking about the general "you" not the parent because I agree with him completely.)
It was funny. Blonde hotties are not exactly in short supply all over Utah now, but honestly, have you ever seen pictures of Brigham Young's wives? *shudders*
Who cares? The fact of the matter is that polygamy is not endorsed or allowed in the church, period. You get excommunicated if you practice it. Just because there are the purist wackos out there that have broken away from the church doesn't mean anything. They're polygamist freaks. Okay. I don't care if there are 1,000,000 of them.
(And seriously, can someone tell me why, in a day and age where we're talking about "gay marriage" and where it's perfectly legal to live with and reproduce with 20 women at a time if one were so inclined, polygamy is even a big deal? Seriously. Who gives a shit any more? It was a big deal back in the day where living with someone of the opposite sex out of wedlock was a scandal.)
I work with the ACLU regularly. I agree with them on many issues and disagree with them on some issues. While personally I'm an idealist, to get things done I ally with people on the issues we agree on and leave it at that.
Their stance on the second amendment is a logical farce. I agree with you completely. I simply wanted to caution people to work with the groups you can when you can.
Regardless of the ACLU's nonsensical stance on the second amendment, I agree with their position in this situation and here in Nevada they have been very, very helpful and suppportive in fighting the Patriot Act. I'll take the ACLU over Utah Politics as Usual any day of the week.
The ACLU is NOT the good guy. However, they're NOT the bad guy either. Use them when you can, fight them when they're wrong. The biggest problem I find with these discussions is that very few people play give and take with the ACLU. They're either "liberal devils" or "angels of liberty." (And they'll probably sue me for using religious imagry to portray them. Oh well.)
Promises options to consumers at the expense of businesses having one more rule to follow! That's the problem. You should listen to the Chumbawamba song "Ladies for a compassionate lynching" because that's Utah politics! All these little "help the consumer" rules are what eat small companies alive and pave the way for mega-corporations. It costs just as much for AOL or Earthlink to comply with this legislation as a small time ISP. The problem is, whatever the cost, it's a larger percentage from the small company.
There are more of these stupid laws EVERY YEAR. They hurt small businesses. If you're uncomfortable with porn, install blockers or ONLY do business with ISPs that comply to certain standards. That's the consumer's choice. No one is putting a gun to their head and telling them to get on the Internet or use a particular ISP. No one is hiding the filtering software from them.
This is just another case of "Soccer Moms" (and even worse this time, Utah Mormon Soccer Moms) taking the time to force other people to do the job they should be doing as a parent. It's not my ISP's job to filter my content. If I want it filtered by the ISP it's my job to find a company that will do so or find an alternative method to meet the end I desire.
This kind of legislation, when heaped up, eventually makes it too difficult for small business to stay in business and as such reduces our options to huge companies. It destroyss choice, it doesn't help it.
Screw Utah! And as a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints I don't mind saying that the ridiculousness that comes from that state is... well... ridiculous. They're their own subculture with so many rules and ideas that have nothing to do with religion's doctrine. It's laughable. It's annoying. (Worst is, more and more of them are migrating here to Las Vegas of all places. Heaven help Sin City from their divine wrath. Seriously, they're scarier than the casino industry.)
I'm late to this discussion, but I'll make my statement.
Businesses should be allowed to set whatever dress code they want. Don't like it? Don't work there. Given that I believe that businesses in general shouldn't have to hire anyone they don't want for any reason, I suppose I'm in a minority.
Seriously, be prepared to accept the consequences of your actions. It's that simple. I don't think anyone out there that gets a piercing or a tatoo or whatever doesn't know that a lot of people, right or wrong, have issues with that.
I have my ear pierced and while it's really no big deal nowadays, there are some places that it's an issue. You know what? I have no desire to deal with or work with a company that's that hung up on an earring. They're tight ass pricks. That's their right. It's my right not to want to deal with them and work elsewhere.
The biggest problem I have with the "different" or "extreme" crowd is that some of them think it's *their* right to do whatever they want and that everyone around them should just deal with it. Yeah? Fuck you guys. Do what you want. I'm all for it. However, quit telling *other* people who they should feel and think. Do what you but be willing to accept the fucking consequences.
Businesses exist, for the most part, to make money. If your cute little lip ring or tatoo impedes that, why should they hire you? Even if you're skilled, it's likely there's someone else who is just as skilled who isn't outside that business's comfort zone. And again, if someone is going to get that caught up over a lip ring, do you really *want* to work there? I wouldn't.
If your response is, "Well I *need* X job." Take your piercings out. If you've got tats it's likely you know the possible consequnces when you got them. If you didn't, you're probably not bright enough to be qualified for any place with a dress code. Beggars can't be choosers. Come on people, this is real life. I'm not telling anyone to give up their "individuality" or personal "expression." I'm not telling anyone to "grow up" because I personally have almost no issues with tats or piercings. (Although there is a point of excess that even bothers me. Deal with it.) Hell, I'm the kind of person who would lose clients before firing or not hiring someone based on appearance. However, that's *my* choice and it's not my place to other people hiring how they need to run *their* business.
Okay... really... I'm done laughing. Finally. Ahem.
The other reply pounded on the supply problem and I agree with it. The other serious reason for going Intel is laptops. I'll bet Apple's laptop to desktop ratio is even higher than say... Dell. It's the "surf the internet while drinking expensive, pretentious coffee" syndrome. Intel has a roadmap that is better suited to Apple's plans and they're the only one that can deliver on laptop chips. Remember, it's the laptops that are gonna be the first to go x86.