First of all, mods, that shouldn't be "-1 flamebait". Second, Erich, it's refreshing to see that even people with 3-digit userids get suckered into confrontations with trolling ACs.
...I hope no one buys the stuff and they get caught. This kind of theft is certainly less harmful than stealing someone's life savings, but it's still criminal, and I'd still like to see justice done.
I'm reminded of a meme that's missing from the currently active slashdot poll, namely "RTFA".
From the article:
...We have been told that the thief was apprehended by LAPD and the FBI with the help of a member of the online press that had been offered the stolen property. Sources tell us that an undercover sting operation was set in motion late last night with the help of the unnamed member of the online press...
...From what I have seen first hand of scholars in the middle east, pursuing "knowledge" is mandatory, not just commendable. Please provide evidence to make the discussion more interesting.
While I have admittedly never been on a tour of the middle east in which I had the opportunity to interact with scholars there (I've been, but not that kind of trip), that's not a factor in whether or not my earlier questions have merit.
The statement was that Islam had nothing to do with the sorry state of scientific progress in the *current* Islamic world. Is still think it's fundamentally incorrect to say that Islam (or Christianity, or Judaism, or any other religion) had *nothing* to do with stifling scientific progress in the Islamic world.
If a certain adherence to a religious tenet (of any faith) means that scientific progress is hampered (or that the living conditions of those following that tenet change in a way that prevents the progress of science), then religion is stifling scientific progress.
Maybe if you could tell me which part of that you disagree with, I could explain myself better.
I submit to you that Islam and Christianity both did plenty to stifle scientific progress simply because some scientific discovery was at odds with the religion in some way.
You're right, the scientific establishment has plenty of religion in its family tree (Copernicus, Georges Lemaître, and countless others were entrenched in both camps), but that's beside the point.
The fact that the Islamic world was ahead of the west for quite some time isn't a refutation of the original argument (that Islam ended up hampering scientific progress). Likewise, the argument that the Christian world is ahead of the east (man, I have writing that) isn't an affirmation of Christianity enabling scientific discovery.
What, pray tell, do you believe led to the decline of scientific progress in that part of the world, if not oppressive religion in the form of (in this case) Islam?
While I didn't speak to that specifically, I did talk about not wanting my job to be commoditized. When that's the case (a particular type of job becomes a commodity), then yes, a power imbalance can develop. If we're talking white-collar IT jobs (decent salary, knowledgeable workers required), then it's very difficult for that type of imbalance to develop. There have been attempts to push us there (ala H1-B hokey-pokey), but unless the level of professional skill and talent required to be an effective programmer/analyst/technician goes down for some reason, white collar IT is not in the same situation as other job fields that have unionized.
I just don't see how a union or regulation would improve things for me, or make it possible for me to be better compensated than I can do for myself.
Collective bargaining tends to improve things for employees who have limited options or few skills that they can use as leverage in salary negotiations, but that ain't me, and I don't think that's the situation of most white-collar IT workers.
There's also the quantity of cheap workers available. They're lots of people available in China, but most of them can't write code. Many of them aren't what we'd call literate.
That sounds like agreement, then. Like I said, cost is only part of the equation.
Yeah, the whole H1B scam - I'll buy it when people offer more money or cut back on what they plan to do.
Again...we agree...
This is true until you aren't in demand. Then they have all the power and dictate what you will make.
Okay, but demand is a function of the market. If I'm worth hiring at a certain salary, then I'm worth hiring. If I'm not, then I'm not. If the wal-mart is selling apples for 2 bucks a pound, and kroger is selling them for 5 bucks a pound, Kroger doesn't complain to the government that the public should *have* to pay 5 bucks a pound for apples. We'd think it was ludicrous. For some reason, people fail to transfer that logic to the job market.
In the job market, employers shop for employees. They may have very specific requirements, or they may not. Those requirements dictate how much they are willing to spend on employees to fill those jobs. If demand is low, there will be more supply and the cost to fill that job will go down. If demand is high, it goes up.
In any other market, low demand leads to a decrease in supply until the market equalizes. With jobs, we look at a specific industry, say "hey, it should be worth MORE than that", and try and get the government involved. The rational thing would be to try and build up supply in other under-served areas of the market, but I guess being rational is beside the point.
They *don't* have all the power. The only way that's possible is with government dictating the terms, because business has much more ability to influence government policy than individuals do.
You have no worth - you make what you can negotiate.
I do have a worth, in terms of money, that's a function of what someone is willing to pay for me to do something and what I want to be paid for doing something. Saying that I make what I can negotiate is a way of rephrasing that. I *like* making what I can negotiate. It means that the effort I have put forth gets rewarded on terms that are acceptable to me.
Okay...two quick points: one, I was trying to clarify the OP's point to an AC that snap-answered, two, no, they won't do it regardless of what's asked for by employees.
One of the unique things about the labor market today is the fact that it's become global, especially in computer-related jobs (and particularly so in those that don't require a direct physical presence in the US). Employees have to factor in a lot of things when deciding whether to outsource, from cost, to skillset, to ability to communicate, to availability, to quality of work...
The fact that someone in China, India, or Costa Rica costs a fraction of his American counterpart in terms of salary (a statistic that's becoming less true in India these days), is only part of the equation. If you're talking about a monolithic corporation with tons of money to throw at QA before release, they might do some outsourcing. If you're talking about a tiny company that makes a niche product, QA may not be that important (but then, they probably can't afford you). Most of the companies we're talking about are in the middle of those two, and can't afford to have issues with timing, quality, communication, or anything else cause problems for the people that purchase their software.
Back to my earlier point about government interference, raise your hand if you've heard on the news about the "critical shortage of IT workers in the US". Who would correct such a problem? The US government. How? By increasing the number of H1-B visas so that companies can hire more foreign workers, bring them to the US, and get around most of the problems associated with an offshore workforce.
Without the government interfering in this way (the flip side of mandatory overtime), things are better for *me*, because I have more opportunity. Without the government dictating my ability to negotiate compensation, things are better for *me* because I have more leverage.
Yes, for the unmotivated, the prospect of getting paid more than the average just because of a long day or three sounds good. For *me*, the prospect of being commoditized and having someone who plays Quake III for an extra 2 hours a day sucking up money I might have seen in my paycheck for managing to get my job done within normal working hours is highly irritating.
The reason people in computer professions (ones with decent skill) make a decent salary is that they are motivated and do a good job. That translates into a good salary. At some amount above 50k/year, you have to learn what you are worth and negotiate with your employer if you think you're putting in more than you're getting back. That's not the government's responsibility, that's *your* responsibility.
I'm far from being fatalistic, I just want to be able to make what I'm worth without everybody in the world trying to decide on that for me.
The OP's point was that we don't want to make a change that will push *more* jobs to India and China. If you don't like straight salary, then become a consultant. If you're good (or can pass yourself off as good and get away before they figure out you're not), you can make plenty of money, and you can bill for the hours you work.
Having government dictate the terms of my employment doesn't sound like a great plan to me. It's not as if they know what my time's worth. I have plenty of choices...I can go for stability in a straight salary job with employer-paid insurance, or I can go it alone, and try to make some more money, if I believe I stand a chance.
What, exactly, is the big problem that's just waiting to be fixed?
Tell that to the tens of millions of souls who died in World War 2, a segment of history that your argument leaps right over. Humanity worked out the Geneva Conventions (especially the Third) precisely about this and the issue of torture after that massive and horrible war made clear that any other way of dealing with humanitarian concerns in wars was brutal, stupid, and ineffective....
I'm acutely aware of the large number that died in The War, and I have had enough first-hand familiarity with the various articles of Geneva that apply to a US serviceman to understand the reasons that it is both a good and necessary thing.
I don't know if you were talking about me or about someone in government, but I never said or implied that we are in more danger from radicals (disaffected or not) than from Axis or Soviet powers in years gone by.
...The torture and the suspension of habeas corpus authorized by the Bush administration directly tread on the Geneva Conventions...
The applicability of habeas corpus to the individuals concerned is the point of this discussion. The torture of those individuals wasn't a topic of discussion, but I'll respond to it anyway.
Insofar as the relevant Articles of Geneva dictate the treatment of prisoners, the assumption is that in order to get the benefit of that agreement, you must abide by it. That means that combatants fight as armies, wear some type of uniform that identifies them as a member of that army, and reciprocate in the treatment prescribed.
I find it difficult to argue that persons not identifying themselves as soldiers (but nonetheless fighting against our soldiers), and who have no obvious plan to treat our soldiers in accordance with the Articles of Geneva are protected by it...they certainly do not appear to be abiding by it. If you have a different view, then I can understand how you might make the statement that our current President is not acting in accordance, either, but I haven't heard you say anything that remotely indicates what should afford enemy combatants Geneva Protections.
...our government has neglected HUMINT in favor of whizbang technological solutions like Carnivore and WarrantlessWiretappingTM (sponsored by AT&T). If we had a decent set of informants, operatives, sympathizers and soldiers that spoke languages like Pashtun and Farsi, we'd have a hell of a lot better idea of who's on what team when we move into a country...
On that point, I agree with you 100 percent.
...There's nothing tough-minded about torture or undemocratic no-habeas courts....
Agreed, although tough-mindedness isn't the point. National security should be the point, if we're talking about anything even approaching torture.
...The toughest guy on the playground isn't the bully, it's that quiet, strong dude who sticks up for the little guy - even when the little guy is a pissant...
Now *that* gives me hope. If more people lived their lives thinking that, and realizing that they could be the strong, quiet dude, there'd be a lot less trouble and unnecessary pain. I'm not saying that I'm your stereotypical "quiet, strong dude", but I've stared down some stereotypical bullies in exactly that type of situation. At least once in a foreign land that rhymes with "I snack".
Your last sentence is one of the most concise, clear, rational metaphors related to the current conflict I've seen in a long time. I still believe that we're doing the most correct thing that we can, right now, but I'm actually thoughtful about the difference between US foreign policy and Al Qaeda policy because of reading it.
It's not difficult to see that we're talking about the Constitution of the United States of America, rather than the "Constitution of the Earth". Were it the latter, the argument that it applies to non-citizens equally would make sense, but (political jokes aside), the United States' laws do not govern all the citizens of our planet. Likewise (and logically), they also do not *protect* all the citizens of our planet.
Purpose is important. If your argument (whoever you are) is that the purpose of Habeas Corpus was to provide alleged unlawful combatants, alleged saboteurs, and alleged terrorists (assuming those same are not US citizens) legal recourse to challenge their imprisonment, then I can't really make an argument that'll convince you. I prefer to think that that right was meant to prevent the government from taking action against its own citizens and preventing them from reasonably exercising their right to redress a grievance with that same government.
It's easy to get caught up in feeling that it's wrong to imprison *any* person indefinitely without the prospect of a trial, but we are, in fact, talking about military prisoners, and the old way of doing things was typically to execute them (especially spies, saboteurs, and those engaging in war in such a way that they were easily mistaken for civilians). I'd say this is an improvement over that policy, from a human rights standpoint.
I respect your opinion, but not necessarily your reasoning.
This is nothing but an excuse for bad parents not to do parenting...
Assuming the parent thinks that everyone else should take care of their kid and they don't have to, sure.
...If parents were actually paying attention to what their children were doing, this kind of idiotic policy wouldn't be necessary...
First of all, that was half of my point. Second, I mentioned the fact that my kids wouldn't have a problem with it because if their grades aren't good, they're grounded from games and doing homework instead
...Instead, morons like you keep enabling the bad parenting and blaming their failures on everyone else. How about we stop taking our social clues from people who can't afford shoes and still cook their food in the dirt*?...
You're posting anonymously, so I can't *prove* by referencing any of your past posts that you better represent the level of intelligence you're tyring to label me with. Instead, I'll point out that you're ranting about shortcomings in my parenting ability while ignoring the fact that I've pointed out that I personally wouldn't let things get to the point where such a game-selling policy would affect my children. How about we stop blindly raving about what we think somebody might have said because we only paid attention to the first sentence or two and we're too busy waiting to click the "post anonymously" checkbox.
...Lets stick with what made us the best in the first place: "It takes PARENTS to raise a child."...
It does, indeed take parents to raise a child. In fact, I like that saying better. However, lets not say "not my problem" when we see other people's kids doing stupid things. Again, I don't think it was the manager's place to institute a policy like that. Again, I support GameStop's right to fire him, and again, if the guy opened a game store right down the block, I'd probably give him some of my business.
...You're right about one thing: this is neither reward nor punishment. It is negative reinforcement, which is almost never a good idea...
I take it you don't believe in grounding kids, then. I respect your difference of opinion...whoever you are.
You know what? There's an old saying: "It takes a village to raise a child"
Fat jokes aside, that's substantially true. It seems to me that before everyone went lawsuit-happy, other adults that didn't even *know* a kid would tell them to stop doing something (assuming they were being miscreants), and maybe even drag them home by the ear to their parents.
Now, we have one of the very first responses to an article about a guy that was worried about kids wasting too much time on video games and not enough on homework displaying an attitude that suggests that he not only doesn't have children, but that he doesn't give a crap about how any prospective children he might have will do in school.
I love that idea...of course, if my kids aren't getting good grades, they're usually doing a lot of homework and complaining that dad gets to play video games, but they have to do homework...
It probably doesn't make good business sense, especially in this day and age, for a manager to try and make that kind of decision on his own, and I have no problem with GameStop for firing him...social engineering isn't his job. I get that. On the other hand, if said manager opened a similar store nearby on his own, and with the same policy, I'd probably shop there instead of GameStop.
If you think this is a reward or punishment, you're nuts. And "socialists" would have made a lot more sense than "communists" in your bold declaration.
If you're quibbling, I'll jump and disagree with your disagreement. I loved super paper mario...the thousand-year-door about put me off of paper mario (aka "Here, fight this mini-battle") , but the series has been redeemed, thanks to Count Bleck and the pixls.
Thank god this is Slashdot, and not real life. I barely even feel the mocking laughter.
You beat me to it. That's immediately what I thought. They can't combat piracy effectively, there are other OSs out there that work just as well, and it's getting harder and harder to sell copies of their software, so this makes perfect sense.
My guess is that the more you spend for your copy of Windows in the future, the fewer ads you'll see (or the more ads you'll be able to disable).
I don't like it at all, and I'd rather have my OS be free as in "free" than add supported (or to pay for it and not see ads at all, in a setting where windows is required), but I can see how it might be attractive to certain individuals.
The plantiffs asked the judge to make them turn on logs. This is equivalent to asking for a longer data retention of data already being generated.
Well, no, it's not. Making them turn on logs means that they are recording data in nonvolatile storage (I mentioned this in my original post).
Here's an example of why simply telling them to turn on logs isn't what she's doing: If they turned on logging to, say, a ramdisk, they would, indeed, be logging, and a power failure would, indeed mean that the data was no longer available. Regardless of whether logging to a ramdisk meets the legal definition of "stored" data, it doesn't match up with the spirit of the law, and it's the same reasoning that the judge is using.
I'm guilty of pedantry just as much as the next geek, but the judge's reasoning seems to go beyond reasonable...of course, the article leaves a lot of room for speculation, but from present information, the ruling doesn't seem to be based on a solid understanding of the technology, IMVHO.
While it's fun to believe that techies and law go together like swimming pools and high-tension power lines, It's equally likely that judges are technically illiterate to a certain extent. (See, I can get creative with a Scott Bradner signature line, too;) )
The site also argued that the log data wasn't available, since it existed only in RAM, and as such, was never stored.
The magistrate judge didn't buy that argument, and in her opinion reaffirming the magistrate's order, neither did Judge Florence-Marie Cooper. Judge Cooper took issue with TorrentSpy's argument that data in RAM is not "stored." She noted RAM's function as primary storage and that the storage of data in RAM--even if not permanently archived--makes it electronically stored information governed by federal discovery rules.
If the judge didn't "buy" their argument that log data in RAM wasn't available, then I have serious reservations about either her understanding of the technology or her ability to comprehend the argument.
If she was/is saying (as it sounds like from the article) that TorrentSpy was still on the hook to provide it even if not permanently archived (i.e. only ever stored in RAM), then yes, she's saying "Bring me a copy of the ram!".
Hopefully there are no unexpected power failures...
Seriously, though, this is silly. If the judge actually understood what was being requested and how the technology involved works, shouldn't she have ordered them to log the requested data to non-volatile storage?
Beyond that, if her understanding of things is poor enough to precipitate this type of order, what does that mean for the rest of the case? I'd hate to have a ruling like this be used as precedent for *other* cases when the reasoning behind the specific order is shaky.
It's like if the document-burning company knows that there's a chance that a housekeeping person will burn the documents anyway, and at random, and can't be fired or removed from access to the documents (if we want to play the analogy game), but the judge orders them to not burn the documents anyway. What happens if they catch fire?
I'd have to say "too bad" to Mr. Bay, seeing as the last paragraph of the article mentions that Universal backs HD-DVD exclusively...I'm not sure what percentage of all "major" motion pictures in existence fall under the umbrella of Universal + Paramount, but that's got to be a significant slice of the pie. Maybe he won't direct a "Transformers 2", but I'm thinking they can probably scare up a director worthy of the task, if it comes to that.
I'd watch for Blockbuster to change their "Blu-Ray only" stance in the future once customers realize that they can't rent a significant number of new titles there because of them being in the wrong format.
Not saying that Blu-Ray can't pull a rabbit out of the hat and come back from this, but it does seem to be a big setback for the format and its current supporters.
Must be an alternate universe week where nobody's ever read Dilbert (or at least *one* of us would have a +1 funny).
Cow-orkers are a solitary group. They began as lonely ranch-hands with far too little human contact. Through a closely guarded secret society, they passed down their traditions and methods of orking cows.
It's been said that on some nights, when the wind is just right and if you're very quiet, you can hear them orking to this very day...
Not only that, but what about media that's created by you and me? Unless they're talking about invasively watching every bit of data going across my LAN, analyzing it, and comparing it against some database of file data they keep somewhere outside of my LAN, how do they know which files to disallow?
They're either going to attempt to block everything (which means including stuff they don't own or control), or they're gonna try to get inside my house (which means they'll have to keep me from using open-source networking equipment so they can sneak something in to the code). "Fuck off" is a sentiment I heartily agree with on this one.
...Now, lets say that our intelligent services assert (rightly or wrongly) that the group is secretly planning to perform some attack in the future... ...Congrats! You've just gotten your assets frozen too!... ...Are you still sure that you're not uncomfortable with the scope of the order?
I think I understand, but it sounds mainly as if you're uncomfortable with the current government, and the ability of our intelligence services to determine whether or not a person or persons are planning to perform some sort of attack.
Based on what I have seen thus far in that regard (namely the small number of US citizens reportedly arrested for activity of that type), I'd have to say, yes, I'm still comfortable with the scope.
If we suddenly start seeing situations like the one you just described, then I will loudly exclaim that it's unfair and work to eliminate the process, but I don't see our government wishing to look that foolish once an incident like that hits the news.
Were we talking about the various and sundry thought crimes that are already prosecuted, I'd probably agree with you, but the burden of proof (secretly tallied though it may be) seems to be quite a bit higher in this executive order than it is for something like a hate crime (I always thought it odd that assault, murder, etc weren't enough to get someone locked up without deciding what the person was thinking first).
Here's a (roughly) parallel judicial idea: Murder is illegal, and conspiracy to commit murder is illegal. We have different punitive results for those crimes vs. the ones we're discussing, but if you helped your friend move a dumpster without asking what was in it, you might still very well be guilty of accessory to murder if there was a body in it.
I'm as comfortable dealing with the executive order's consequences as I am in dealing with the ones in my previous example.
On the whole, we both feel that there is the responsibility for both the banks to provide accuracy and customers to check their transactions.
The morale of my point is if both business and customers were more honest, jail-time wouldn't happen, and things would likely get fixed quickly and quietly, with little to no issue for other customers.
I don't disagree at all with either of those statements. I find them sensible and appropriate.
My entire point has been that if we're talking "fault" (and setting aside "responsibility"), as in "it's X's fault that the ATM is giving out too much/little money", then X would be the bank, just as if the statement were "it's X's fault that the human teller is giving out too much/little money", which sounds like the same thing as the bank's stance, according to your report of what happened if the count was short.
Slashdot Mirror
First of all, mods, that shouldn't be "-1 flamebait". Second, Erich, it's refreshing to see that even people with 3-digit userids get suckered into confrontations with trolling ACs.
I tip my hat to you, sir!
...actually, there's already a site like that. It's called "slashdot.org".
Oh, and "In soviet russia, slashdot complains about YOUR stories".
I'm reminded of a meme that's missing from the currently active slashdot poll, namely "RTFA".
From the article:
While I have admittedly never been on a tour of the middle east in which I had the opportunity to interact with scholars there (I've been, but not that kind of trip), that's not a factor in whether or not my earlier questions have merit.
The statement was that Islam had nothing to do with the sorry state of scientific progress in the *current* Islamic world. Is still think it's fundamentally incorrect to say that Islam (or Christianity, or Judaism, or any other religion) had *nothing* to do with stifling scientific progress in the Islamic world.
If a certain adherence to a religious tenet (of any faith) means that scientific progress is hampered (or that the living conditions of those following that tenet change in a way that prevents the progress of science), then religion is stifling scientific progress.
Maybe if you could tell me which part of that you disagree with, I could explain myself better.
*total* crap?
I submit to you that Islam and Christianity both did plenty to stifle scientific progress simply because some scientific discovery was at odds with the religion in some way.
You're right, the scientific establishment has plenty of religion in its family tree (Copernicus, Georges Lemaître, and countless others were entrenched in both camps), but that's beside the point.
The fact that the Islamic world was ahead of the west for quite some time isn't a refutation of the original argument (that Islam ended up hampering scientific progress). Likewise, the argument that the Christian world is ahead of the east (man, I have writing that) isn't an affirmation of Christianity enabling scientific discovery.
What, pray tell, do you believe led to the decline of scientific progress in that part of the world, if not oppressive religion in the form of (in this case) Islam?
While I didn't speak to that specifically, I did talk about not wanting my job to be commoditized. When that's the case (a particular type of job becomes a commodity), then yes, a power imbalance can develop. If we're talking white-collar IT jobs (decent salary, knowledgeable workers required), then it's very difficult for that type of imbalance to develop. There have been attempts to push us there (ala H1-B hokey-pokey), but unless the level of professional skill and talent required to be an effective programmer/analyst/technician goes down for some reason, white collar IT is not in the same situation as other job fields that have unionized.
I just don't see how a union or regulation would improve things for me, or make it possible for me to be better compensated than I can do for myself.
Collective bargaining tends to improve things for employees who have limited options or few skills that they can use as leverage in salary negotiations, but that ain't me, and I don't think that's the situation of most white-collar IT workers.
That sounds like agreement, then. Like I said, cost is only part of the equation.
Again...we agree...
Okay, but demand is a function of the market. If I'm worth hiring at a certain salary, then I'm worth hiring. If I'm not, then I'm not. If the wal-mart is selling apples for 2 bucks a pound, and kroger is selling them for 5 bucks a pound, Kroger doesn't complain to the government that the public should *have* to pay 5 bucks a pound for apples. We'd think it was ludicrous. For some reason, people fail to transfer that logic to the job market.
In the job market, employers shop for employees. They may have very specific requirements, or they may not. Those requirements dictate how much they are willing to spend on employees to fill those jobs. If demand is low, there will be more supply and the cost to fill that job will go down. If demand is high, it goes up.
In any other market, low demand leads to a decrease in supply until the market equalizes. With jobs, we look at a specific industry, say "hey, it should be worth MORE than that", and try and get the government involved. The rational thing would be to try and build up supply in other under-served areas of the market, but I guess being rational is beside the point.
They *don't* have all the power. The only way that's possible is with government dictating the terms, because business has much more ability to influence government policy than individuals do.
I do have a worth, in terms of money, that's a function of what someone is willing to pay for me to do something and what I want to be paid for doing something. Saying that I make what I can negotiate is a way of rephrasing that. I *like* making what I can negotiate. It means that the effort I have put forth gets rewarded on terms that are acceptable to me.
One of the unique things about the labor market today is the fact that it's become global, especially in computer-related jobs (and particularly so in those that don't require a direct physical presence in the US). Employees have to factor in a lot of things when deciding whether to outsource, from cost, to skillset, to ability to communicate, to availability, to quality of work...
The fact that someone in China, India, or Costa Rica costs a fraction of his American counterpart in terms of salary (a statistic that's becoming less true in India these days), is only part of the equation. If you're talking about a monolithic corporation with tons of money to throw at QA before release, they might do some outsourcing. If you're talking about a tiny company that makes a niche product, QA may not be that important (but then, they probably can't afford you). Most of the companies we're talking about are in the middle of those two, and can't afford to have issues with timing, quality, communication, or anything else cause problems for the people that purchase their software.
Back to my earlier point about government interference, raise your hand if you've heard on the news about the "critical shortage of IT workers in the US". Who would correct such a problem? The US government. How? By increasing the number of H1-B visas so that companies can hire more foreign workers, bring them to the US, and get around most of the problems associated with an offshore workforce.
Without the government interfering in this way (the flip side of mandatory overtime), things are better for *me*, because I have more opportunity. Without the government dictating my ability to negotiate compensation, things are better for *me* because I have more leverage.
Yes, for the unmotivated, the prospect of getting paid more than the average just because of a long day or three sounds good. For *me*, the prospect of being commoditized and having someone who plays Quake III for an extra 2 hours a day sucking up money I might have seen in my paycheck for managing to get my job done within normal working hours is highly irritating.
The reason people in computer professions (ones with decent skill) make a decent salary is that they are motivated and do a good job. That translates into a good salary. At some amount above 50k/year, you have to learn what you are worth and negotiate with your employer if you think you're putting in more than you're getting back. That's not the government's responsibility, that's *your* responsibility.
I'm far from being fatalistic, I just want to be able to make what I'm worth without everybody in the world trying to decide on that for me.
You're not even in the same argument.
The OP's point was that we don't want to make a change that will push *more* jobs to India and China. If you don't like straight salary, then become a consultant. If you're good (or can pass yourself off as good and get away before they figure out you're not), you can make plenty of money, and you can bill for the hours you work.
Having government dictate the terms of my employment doesn't sound like a great plan to me. It's not as if they know what my time's worth. I have plenty of choices...I can go for stability in a straight salary job with employer-paid insurance, or I can go it alone, and try to make some more money, if I believe I stand a chance.
What, exactly, is the big problem that's just waiting to be fixed?
Why am I replying to yet another AC?
You're officially "friended", by the way...well spoken.
I'm acutely aware of the large number that died in The War, and I have had enough first-hand familiarity with the various articles of Geneva that apply to a US serviceman to understand the reasons that it is both a good and necessary thing.
I don't know if you were talking about me or about someone in government, but I never said or implied that we are in more danger from radicals (disaffected or not) than from Axis or Soviet powers in years gone by.
The applicability of habeas corpus to the individuals concerned is the point of this discussion. The torture of those individuals wasn't a topic of discussion, but I'll respond to it anyway.
Insofar as the relevant Articles of Geneva dictate the treatment of prisoners, the assumption is that in order to get the benefit of that agreement, you must abide by it. That means that combatants fight as armies, wear some type of uniform that identifies them as a member of that army, and reciprocate in the treatment prescribed.
I find it difficult to argue that persons not identifying themselves as soldiers (but nonetheless fighting against our soldiers), and who have no obvious plan to treat our soldiers in accordance with the Articles of Geneva are protected by it...they certainly do not appear to be abiding by it. If you have a different view, then I can understand how you might make the statement that our current President is not acting in accordance, either, but I haven't heard you say anything that remotely indicates what should afford enemy combatants Geneva Protections.
On that point, I agree with you 100 percent.
Agreed, although tough-mindedness isn't the point. National security should be the point, if we're talking about anything even approaching torture.
Now *that* gives me hope. If more people lived their lives thinking that, and realizing that they could be the strong, quiet dude, there'd be a lot less trouble and unnecessary pain. I'm not saying that I'm your stereotypical "quiet, strong dude", but I've stared down some stereotypical bullies in exactly that type of situation. At least once in a foreign land that rhymes with "I snack".
Your last sentence is one of the most concise, clear, rational metaphors related to the current conflict I've seen in a long time. I still believe that we're doing the most correct thing that we can, right now, but I'm actually thoughtful about the difference between US foreign policy and Al Qaeda policy because of reading it.
I'd say that's implied.
It's not difficult to see that we're talking about the Constitution of the United States of America, rather than the "Constitution of the Earth". Were it the latter, the argument that it applies to non-citizens equally would make sense, but (political jokes aside), the United States' laws do not govern all the citizens of our planet. Likewise (and logically), they also do not *protect* all the citizens of our planet.
Purpose is important. If your argument (whoever you are) is that the purpose of Habeas Corpus was to provide alleged unlawful combatants, alleged saboteurs, and alleged terrorists (assuming those same are not US citizens) legal recourse to challenge their imprisonment, then I can't really make an argument that'll convince you. I prefer to think that that right was meant to prevent the government from taking action against its own citizens and preventing them from reasonably exercising their right to redress a grievance with that same government.
It's easy to get caught up in feeling that it's wrong to imprison *any* person indefinitely without the prospect of a trial, but we are, in fact, talking about military prisoners, and the old way of doing things was typically to execute them (especially spies, saboteurs, and those engaging in war in such a way that they were easily mistaken for civilians). I'd say this is an improvement over that policy, from a human rights standpoint.
I respect your opinion, but not necessarily your reasoning.
Assuming the parent thinks that everyone else should take care of their kid and they don't have to, sure.
First of all, that was half of my point. Second, I mentioned the fact that my kids wouldn't have a problem with it because if their grades aren't good, they're grounded from games and doing homework instead
You're posting anonymously, so I can't *prove* by referencing any of your past posts that you better represent the level of intelligence you're tyring to label me with. Instead, I'll point out that you're ranting about shortcomings in my parenting ability while ignoring the fact that I've pointed out that I personally wouldn't let things get to the point where such a game-selling policy would affect my children. How about we stop blindly raving about what we think somebody might have said because we only paid attention to the first sentence or two and we're too busy waiting to click the "post anonymously" checkbox.
It does, indeed take parents to raise a child. In fact, I like that saying better. However, lets not say "not my problem" when we see other people's kids doing stupid things. Again, I don't think it was the manager's place to institute a policy like that. Again, I support GameStop's right to fire him, and again, if the guy opened a game store right down the block, I'd probably give him some of my business.
I take it you don't believe in grounding kids, then. I respect your difference of opinion...whoever you are.
You know what? There's an old saying: "It takes a village to raise a child"
Fat jokes aside, that's substantially true. It seems to me that before everyone went lawsuit-happy, other adults that didn't even *know* a kid would tell them to stop doing something (assuming they were being miscreants), and maybe even drag them home by the ear to their parents.
Now, we have one of the very first responses to an article about a guy that was worried about kids wasting too much time on video games and not enough on homework displaying an attitude that suggests that he not only doesn't have children, but that he doesn't give a crap about how any prospective children he might have will do in school.
I love that idea...of course, if my kids aren't getting good grades, they're usually doing a lot of homework and complaining that dad gets to play video games, but they have to do homework...
It probably doesn't make good business sense, especially in this day and age, for a manager to try and make that kind of decision on his own, and I have no problem with GameStop for firing him...social engineering isn't his job. I get that. On the other hand, if said manager opened a similar store nearby on his own, and with the same policy, I'd probably shop there instead of GameStop.
If you think this is a reward or punishment, you're nuts. And "socialists" would have made a lot more sense than "communists" in your bold declaration.
Thank god this is Slashdot, and not real life. I barely even feel the mocking laughter.
My guess is that the more you spend for your copy of Windows in the future, the fewer ads you'll see (or the more ads you'll be able to disable).
I don't like it at all, and I'd rather have my OS be free as in "free" than add supported (or to pay for it and not see ads at all, in a setting where windows is required), but I can see how it might be attractive to certain individuals.
Well, no, it's not. Making them turn on logs means that they are recording data in nonvolatile storage (I mentioned this in my original post).
Here's an example of why simply telling them to turn on logs isn't what she's doing: If they turned on logging to, say, a ramdisk, they would, indeed, be logging, and a power failure would, indeed mean that the data was no longer available. Regardless of whether logging to a ramdisk meets the legal definition of "stored" data, it doesn't match up with the spirit of the law, and it's the same reasoning that the judge is using.
I'm guilty of pedantry just as much as the next geek, but the judge's reasoning seems to go beyond reasonable...of course, the article leaves a lot of room for speculation, but from present information, the ruling doesn't seem to be based on a solid understanding of the technology, IMVHO.
While it's fun to believe that techies and law go together like swimming pools and high-tension power lines, It's equally likely that judges are technically illiterate to a certain extent. (See, I can get creative with a Scott Bradner signature line, too;) )
If the judge didn't "buy" their argument that log data in RAM wasn't available, then I have serious reservations about either her understanding of the technology or her ability to comprehend the argument.
If she was/is saying (as it sounds like from the article) that TorrentSpy was still on the hook to provide it even if not permanently archived (i.e. only ever stored in RAM), then yes, she's saying "Bring me a copy of the ram!".
Hopefully there are no unexpected power failures...
Seriously, though, this is silly. If the judge actually understood what was being requested and how the technology involved works, shouldn't she have ordered them to log the requested data to non-volatile storage?
Beyond that, if her understanding of things is poor enough to precipitate this type of order, what does that mean for the rest of the case? I'd hate to have a ruling like this be used as precedent for *other* cases when the reasoning behind the specific order is shaky.
It's like if the document-burning company knows that there's a chance that a housekeeping person will burn the documents anyway, and at random, and can't be fired or removed from access to the documents (if we want to play the analogy game), but the judge orders them to not burn the documents anyway. What happens if they catch fire?
I'd have to say "too bad" to Mr. Bay, seeing as the last paragraph of the article mentions that Universal backs HD-DVD exclusively...I'm not sure what percentage of all "major" motion pictures in existence fall under the umbrella of Universal + Paramount, but that's got to be a significant slice of the pie. Maybe he won't direct a "Transformers 2", but I'm thinking they can probably scare up a director worthy of the task, if it comes to that.
I'd watch for Blockbuster to change their "Blu-Ray only" stance in the future once customers realize that they can't rent a significant number of new titles there because of them being in the wrong format.
Not saying that Blu-Ray can't pull a rabbit out of the hat and come back from this, but it does seem to be a big setback for the format and its current supporters.
Cow-orkers are a solitary group. They began as lonely ranch-hands with far too little human contact. Through a closely guarded secret society, they passed down their traditions and methods of orking cows.
It's been said that on some nights, when the wind is just right and if you're very quiet, you can hear them orking to this very day...
Cow-orkers aren't to be trusted, I mean the damage they do to livestock *alone* is just terrib...
oh..."co-workers"...nevermind.
They're either going to attempt to block everything (which means including stuff they don't own or control), or they're gonna try to get inside my house (which means they'll have to keep me from using open-source networking equipment so they can sneak something in to the code). "Fuck off" is a sentiment I heartily agree with on this one.
I think I understand, but it sounds mainly as if you're uncomfortable with the current government, and the ability of our intelligence services to determine whether or not a person or persons are planning to perform some sort of attack.
Based on what I have seen thus far in that regard (namely the small number of US citizens reportedly arrested for activity of that type), I'd have to say, yes, I'm still comfortable with the scope.
If we suddenly start seeing situations like the one you just described, then I will loudly exclaim that it's unfair and work to eliminate the process, but I don't see our government wishing to look that foolish once an incident like that hits the news.
Were we talking about the various and sundry thought crimes that are already prosecuted, I'd probably agree with you, but the burden of proof (secretly tallied though it may be) seems to be quite a bit higher in this executive order than it is for something like a hate crime (I always thought it odd that assault, murder, etc weren't enough to get someone locked up without deciding what the person was thinking first).
Here's a (roughly) parallel judicial idea: Murder is illegal, and conspiracy to commit murder is illegal. We have different punitive results for those crimes vs. the ones we're discussing, but if you helped your friend move a dumpster without asking what was in it, you might still very well be guilty of accessory to murder if there was a body in it.
I'm as comfortable dealing with the executive order's consequences as I am in dealing with the ones in my previous example.
I don't disagree at all with either of those statements. I find them sensible and appropriate.
My entire point has been that if we're talking "fault" (and setting aside "responsibility"), as in "it's X's fault that the ATM is giving out too much/little money", then X would be the bank, just as if the statement were "it's X's fault that the human teller is giving out too much/little money", which sounds like the same thing as the bank's stance, according to your report of what happened if the count was short.