You called the investment a "sunk cost" I was describing it as an investment that has paid off. I would agree the situation is different but only for the few people that invest in an education in an area that has been on it's way out for years. As a whole the US has benefit much more than the investment we've put into the education. I may even be convinced we are better off than last time because I think the public is just more educated in general, which can't be a bad thing.
~139M working and the Census Bureau says there's ~292M people. that means about 48% are working. 48% of 40 is ~19M. With these numbers job growth is off ~10%. Can anyone point out how much the job count can swing from year to year?
Sorry for just being an echo of what you are saying but it's good to hear almost exactly how I feel about tech wages (which includes me).
My company is only 5 people but we all know that tech is overvalued and because of our perception we haven't given ourselves raises in two years. Normally you could add value to increase your revenue, but these are the days of lower costs not added value.
I hope, for your sake, your company feels the same way you do.
His argument might be flawed but yours assumes the worker has $30k worth of investment yet to recover and that the education he now has will have no value in his next job.
Our economy has had so much benefit from these tech jobs that I think we have recovered the cost of the education many times over. I also believe that those benefits have been wasted on Starbucks and SUVs (needed for groceries of course).
Are you saying we should read the article to assess whether it's worth reading? Or are you saying we should assume that since it's posted to/. that it's worth reading?
Does it seem to you that he thinks they can just be more flexible mix and matching their products and compete with Linux in the markets Linux is already winning? I only hope that all of Microsoft thinks this way.
A graded taxation system guarantees that the people taking the most out of the system; i.e. those who have resources enough to put extra strain on governmental processes, pay proportionately more for the right to do so.
Huh? I would like you to try using math to calculate those proportions because I don't see how it could support your statement.
Since you mentioned roads I'll use it. Two people I will call Tax20 and Tax30 for their respective tax percentage. In one instance I will say they drive cars that have an equal cost to operate and have an equal toll an the road. If they both do $100 of driving that gets them the same distance doing the same wear on the roads Tax 30's income tax has already paid $30 on that $100 where Tax20 has only paid $20.
Now let's argue that Tax30 would tend to buy a huge beast of a vehicle with poor mileage that weighs twice as much. I'll even say that this vehicle does 3 times the damage to the roads and environment (even though I believe 98% of the environmental damage comes from cars older than 10yrs which Tax30 would tend not to own) and I will say the vehicle operating cost is 3 times the Tax20 car. I won't even count the extra taxes on oversize/luxury/gas/insurance (just the tax portions) that Tax30 will spend, and Tax 30 will have paid $90 for the same distance as Tax20 who only spent $20.
Say then that Tax20 used all his money to buy this same beast... he will have paid $60 for the same distance. Tax20 probably couldn't afford it so Tax30 will have paid $30 more just for the privilege of more easily being able to buy a bigger or better vehicle and have to accept that he is taxed 4.5x what Tax20 pays (with his normal car) to go the same distance because of it.
Was I not conservative enough with my numbers? comments welcome. Also, this is really only meant as an analysis of income tax so it should be able to be applied to anything you spend incometaxed money on.
If the public internet is truly a commons then there should be a social agreement to how you can interact with it as there is with any commons. That agreement should be well defined. Like with roads, if you speed often or above a certain rate you may lose your right to drive a car on that commons for a time or maybe even permanently. Why shouldn't there be a similar rule for using the internet? If you get caught a few times running an open relay on the internet you risk being fined or lose some access to the internet.
Contrary to what you believe, providing a bunch of choices doesn't please everybody, it just confuses and spreads energy across various, conflicting projects.
This is true if all you're trying to reach is consistency with limited development resources. When something needs to be done in the free software world it gets done. Sometimes at a staggering pace. (I have a long opinion on this if you're interested) Because of this I don't think resources is the problem. I agree consistency can and does help for wide acceptance but to argue that this is all we need or even most important is nonsense to me because I would argue that there are distributions that have achieved a solid level of consistency with a low to mid level success. Just not a high level of success.
Along the same line of thinking, why can't there be additional heatsink on the back? Does heat magically radiate only up from the processor? Right now the air on the back side is insulated by the board. Why not run a small heatpipe through the board and radiate some in the cool air underneath? This would especially be useful for processors that sit vertically.
GM/Vauxhall/Opel are touting headlights that swivel as you turn corners as a great new thing, but that's just playing catch-up to Citroen who had those on the DS nearly 40 years ago.
Don't forget the "Tucker" by Preston Tucker in 1948(?)
so why do you only mention Linux, and act as if GTK is the only GUI toolkit that is used together with Linux? I mean, isn't the whole point of Linux to have more choice and freedom?
I really don't think he was arguing against choice and freedom. Maybe just complaining about the choices available which is why he was properly modded as a troll.
I don't get your response. First you complain that he should have called it the state of the Gnome/GTK UI then you complain about him not mentioning other toolkits. I interpreted his reference to "Linux GUI" to include any options he has seen for Linux as being in a bad state. It doesn't surprise me comming from someone named Overly Critical Guy.
Wow, he seems to be deciding the fate of the lawsuit based purely on SCO past success (really what good are all those settlements?) Regardless of IBM's track record and regardless of the merits of the case... I hope that's not all the judge goes on.
...he lets others make up their own damn minds. He doesn't own any companies, and he lets others use his ideas with only the agreement to give credit where credit is due,...
Often people choose Bill Gates way because alternatives have been eliminated. People are choosing the Linus way because they want to. Which power would you rather have?
The power is not in the man, but in the ideas.
It's not a list of powerful ideas. It's a list of powerful men. Because of what Linus has come up with in the past thousands+ will stop and listen to what he has to say about anything. I definitely consider that power in the man. I would give him that power BECAUSE he proved to me Free software is a great idea, not because Free software is a great idea. Although I agree the idea of free software can change peoples minds about how it should work which is definitely power in the idea.
(or is it indemnity?) I didn't see anybody point out that the indemnity is limited to only SCO's claims. I would assume at least some of the code IBM contributed was theirs to contribute, and if there truly is SCO code in Linux, anyone running the SCO code with the other GPL code is in violation of the license. So even though HP will protect you from SCO it sounds like IBM (and any other contributor) would then have grounds to sue you but HP will only protect you from SCO.
You would cutoff your nose despite your face... or something like that.
You gotta ask yourself, Who benefits by having free software written for a certain platform. I believe SCO does benefit by having GCC work on their platform, but, I believe when someone uses GCC on SCO free software benefits more.
It doesn't even directly insult SCO. It insults SCO users for deciding to use SCO. Those users may be trying to pick a side and now they have to choose from one side with questionable ethical practices and another side who insults them just for picking SCO in the first place. I'm not so sure I would pick either side (Linus anyone?)
Slashdot Mirror
You called the investment a "sunk cost" I was describing it as an investment that has paid off. I would agree the situation is different but only for the few people that invest in an education in an area that has been on it's way out for years. As a whole the US has benefit much more than the investment we've put into the education. I may even be convinced we are better off than last time because I think the public is just more educated in general, which can't be a bad thing.
But they don't feel an obligation to protect them from extortion.
taken from http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm
~139M working and the Census Bureau says there's ~292M people. that means about 48% are working. 48% of 40 is ~19M. With these numbers job growth is off ~10%. Can anyone point out how much the job count can swing from year to year?
My company is only 5 people but we all know that tech is overvalued and because of our perception we haven't given ourselves raises in two years. Normally you could add value to increase your revenue, but these are the days of lower costs not added value.
I hope, for your sake, your company feels the same way you do.
Our economy has had so much benefit from these tech jobs that I think we have recovered the cost of the education many times over. I also believe that those benefits have been wasted on Starbucks and SUVs (needed for groceries of course).
Are you saying we should read the article to assess whether it's worth reading? Or are you saying we should assume that since it's posted to /. that it's worth reading?
Does it seem to you that he thinks they can just be more flexible mix and matching their products and compete with Linux in the markets Linux is already winning? I only hope that all of Microsoft thinks this way.
Huh? I would like you to try using math to calculate those proportions because I don't see how it could support your statement.
Since you mentioned roads I'll use it. Two people I will call Tax20 and Tax30 for their respective tax percentage. In one instance I will say they drive cars that have an equal cost to operate and have an equal toll an the road. If they both do $100 of driving that gets them the same distance doing the same wear on the roads Tax 30's income tax has already paid $30 on that $100 where Tax20 has only paid $20.
Now let's argue that Tax30 would tend to buy a huge beast of a vehicle with poor mileage that weighs twice as much. I'll even say that this vehicle does 3 times the damage to the roads and environment (even though I believe 98% of the environmental damage comes from cars older than 10yrs which Tax30 would tend not to own) and I will say the vehicle operating cost is 3 times the Tax20 car. I won't even count the extra taxes on oversize/luxury/gas/insurance (just the tax portions) that Tax30 will spend, and Tax 30 will have paid $90 for the same distance as Tax20 who only spent $20.
Say then that Tax20 used all his money to buy this same beast... he will have paid $60 for the same distance. Tax20 probably couldn't afford it so Tax30 will have paid $30 more just for the privilege of more easily being able to buy a bigger or better vehicle and have to accept that he is taxed 4.5x what Tax20 pays (with his normal car) to go the same distance because of it.
Was I not conservative enough with my numbers? comments welcome. Also, this is really only meant as an analysis of income tax so it should be able to be applied to anything you spend incometaxed money on.
If the public internet is truly a commons then there should be a social agreement to how you can interact with it as there is with any commons. That agreement should be well defined. Like with roads, if you speed often or above a certain rate you may lose your right to drive a car on that commons for a time or maybe even permanently. Why shouldn't there be a similar rule for using the internet? If you get caught a few times running an open relay on the internet you risk being fined or lose some access to the internet.
Contrary to what you believe, providing a bunch of choices doesn't please everybody, it just confuses and spreads energy across various, conflicting projects.
This is true if all you're trying to reach is consistency with limited development resources. When something needs to be done in the free software world it gets done. Sometimes at a staggering pace. (I have a long opinion on this if you're interested) Because of this I don't think resources is the problem. I agree consistency can and does help for wide acceptance but to argue that this is all we need or even most important is nonsense to me because I would argue that there are distributions that have achieved a solid level of consistency with a low to mid level success. Just not a high level of success.
Along the same line of thinking, why can't there be additional heatsink on the back? Does heat magically radiate only up from the processor? Right now the air on the back side is insulated by the board. Why not run a small heatpipe through the board and radiate some in the cool air underneath? This would especially be useful for processors that sit vertically.
GM/Vauxhall/Opel are touting headlights that swivel as you turn corners as a great new thing, but that's just playing catch-up to Citroen who had those on the DS nearly 40 years ago.
Don't forget the "Tucker" by Preston Tucker in 1948(?)
so why do you only mention Linux, and act as if GTK is the only GUI toolkit that is used together with Linux? I mean, isn't the whole point of Linux to have more choice and freedom?
I really don't think he was arguing against choice and freedom. Maybe just complaining about the choices available which is why he was properly modded as a troll.
I don't get your response. First you complain that he should have called it the state of the Gnome/GTK UI then you complain about him not mentioning other toolkits. I interpreted his reference to "Linux GUI" to include any options he has seen for Linux as being in a bad state. It doesn't surprise me comming from someone named Overly Critical Guy.
Wow, he seems to be deciding the fate of the lawsuit based purely on SCO past success (really what good are all those settlements?) Regardless of IBM's track record and regardless of the merits of the case... I hope that's not all the judge goes on.
Often people choose Bill Gates way because alternatives have been eliminated. People are choosing the Linus way because they want to. Which power would you rather have?
It's not a list of powerful ideas. It's a list of powerful men. Because of what Linus has come up with in the past thousands+ will stop and listen to what he has to say about anything. I definitely consider that power in the man. I would give him that power BECAUSE he proved to me Free software is a great idea, not because Free software is a great idea. Although I agree the idea of free software can change peoples minds about how it should work which is definitely power in the idea.
(or is it indemnity?) I didn't see anybody point out that the indemnity is limited to only SCO's claims. I would assume at least some of the code IBM contributed was theirs to contribute, and if there truly is SCO code in Linux, anyone running the SCO code with the other GPL code is in violation of the license. So even though HP will protect you from SCO it sounds like IBM (and any other contributor) would then have grounds to sue you but HP will only protect you from SCO.
Wow that's some protection... Thanks HP.
You would cutoff your nose despite your face... or something like that.
You gotta ask yourself, Who benefits by having free software written for a certain platform. I believe SCO does benefit by having GCC work on their platform, but, I believe when someone uses GCC on SCO free software benefits more.
It doesn't even directly insult SCO. It insults SCO users for deciding to use SCO. Those users may be trying to pick a side and now they have to choose from one side with questionable ethical practices and another side who insults them just for picking SCO in the first place. I'm not so sure I would pick either side (Linus anyone?)