I don't believe that is true. I think the far-right politicians in Canada could teach Bush a thing or two about being right wing (which is why Canadians have been rather fearful of electing them)... only they can't fully excercise their beliefs in government as they know they will be out of work (as politicians) at the next general election if they did (which is why Prime Minister Harper is keeping a tight reign on his core MPs and not allowing them to talk unscripted to the media). Many are very devout Christians, and many are very right wing, and there are several I would bet are almost Libertarian in view. Canada may have single payer health insurance, but we are a lot more capatilistic and market driven than most in the U.S. think... not as much as the U.S. but very close, and certainly much more so than Europe.
Remember the Progressive Conservatives (PCs) who had the largest majority ever elected to Canadian parliment under Prime Minister Mulroney (1980s). He turned hard to the right and did as he pleased. The upshot was that he pissed the population off so bad that they were reduced to 2 seats in parliment after the next election. The PCs could not even be recognized as a political party in parliment (they have to sit as independents until they elected something over 10 MPs). The new Conservative Party of Canada (which is way further to the right than the old PCs) seem to have learned from that. They know they have to moderate themselves, especially at this time since they only have a minority government. However, I would bet that if they had a majority, they would drift pretty hard right closer to their roots. And personally, I think that might be good thing as Canada has drifted way too far to the left in my opinion. If they did get out of control, like before, the citizens would elect them out of existance the following election. But by that time, things might be more balanced to the middle for a few years before they go hard left again (and hopefully we would have a triple-e senate by that time!).
What I find interesting is that even if Canadians were so sick of the Liberal Party after their ~14 year corruption riddled reign they actually elected any sort of right wing party. And what's more interesting is the Conservatives are gaining ground in Quebec (since they are supporting a more autonomous roll for that province... one thing I don't like about them... I like a strong central government), which would mean that they have a very good shot at getting a majority government next time. Finally as right wing as they are, I personally don't think the Conservatives are puppets of Bush. They may agree with him on quite a number of issues, but I think they understand that they represent Canada and its interests, not the U.S.A.'s. But at the same time, they understand that we have to work closely with the U.S. as friends since that is where most of our income comes from. You don't bite the hand that feeds you, unless you first find someone else to feed you. They are right next door and anyone else are many thousands of miles away. You do the math.;-)
And you sound too old... and maybe a little bitter. Is this a way of telling everyone that you wished you were a "sufficently self centered and... are pathetic middle aged man sponging off his parents and frittering away all his time on their broadband connection"?
I worked for about 5 years total on TN visas in the 'States. That is a NAFTA free trade treaty and applies to Canadian and American professionals allowing them to work in America and Canada respectively. I paid unemployment insurance, social security tax and the company covered health care benefits. I had better healthcare coverage in the U.S. than I do in Canada by the way... as long as I was employed... ).
I am pretty sure the U.K. has a rule for some types of emegrants that says if you keep employed, keep your nose clean, and pay your own way, you can stay for up to five years (which may be extended... and you can apply for citizenship after around five years).
Here is one of the paragraphs from the Immigration and Nationality Directorate:
...(v) will be able to maintain and accommodate himself and any dependants adequately without recourse to public funds; and...
It would be OK if this created a level playing field, but it does not (at least not when hiring foreign IT workers to work in the U.S.). Workers who are laid off on who were on a work visa need to find another job within one month or clear out of the U.S. If they find another job, the new company they work for will need to spend the money to get the sponsorship moved to them. Put together the fact that finding a job in under a month and that many companies don't want to spend the money on the lawyers fees for the sponsorship, getting laid off usually means having to leave the country. So what's it all mean? Knowing this, many times companies hire the foreign IT workers for often times less than they would pay U.S. workers, knowing that they can treat the foreign workers like indentured servants. Work hard, lots of overtime, and for less money, or we will lay you off, and you'll have to leave the country. This can be quite a hardship... and ergo no level playing field. An American employee will no longer have an income (usually) if laid off, but they don't have to immediately uproot everything and move their home overseas.
When the government gives out the H1-B they should recognize that they are really saying 'we have a shortage of IT workers'. That should mean that it shouldn't matter what company the foreign IT worker works for. I.e. if they are given a visa it should be a 6 year work visa and the worker should be free to move from company to company and stay in the U.S. for 6 years regardless of whether they are employed or not (but they should not be eligible for welfare or unemployment). That way if company A treats them like shit, they can get another job (without sponsorship hassles) at company B who will treat them better. This would provide incentive for company A to pay more and treat the employee better. This would benefit the American workers in that there would be less incentive for company A to hire the foreign worker since they will have to provide the same or similar pay and benefits as if they had just hired an American worker. Otherwise the foreign work, like an American worker, can leave for company B. Then the only business justification the American company would have to bring someone in from overseas would be if they really were more qualified in some respect than an American worker. Of course the company is then free to possibly outsource directly to China or India, but that is another matter.
Perhaps they should create a contest for "most creative way to destroy SCO" or something like that instead. It'd be much more fun. (Although seeing who actually enters this contest might be interesting.)
Statistics are fun to play with, of course, but note that Apache's market share is approximately 30% higher than IIS's at the moment.
Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. - George Santayana (1863-1952)
Remember who won the great Novell versus Microsoft NT War? The result did not necessarily reflect which company had the most robust network server either.
IANAL... He means like when squatters take over a building. If they stay there long enough with no arguments or reaction from the real owner, the squatters might be able to make an argument that they are the owners or resident... or something like that. And the owner would then have trouble removing them if he later wanted to do something with the property. If the owner had placed 'no trespassing' signs, he would have a good argument to kick the squatters out. When someone hijacks a property.
So two people modded my comment as flamebate. I don't get it, it was a quote that seemed relavent to the conversation. I guess they were either heartless 25 year olds, or brainless 35 year olds. Sheesh!
What would worry me even more is if they started moving towards a bastardized old school "inquisitorial system", and start keeping people in remand for a long periods of time for trivial matters. Say they catch you j-walking (or something equally trivial): you are arrested, your DNA is taken, and then they start fishing to see what else they can charge you with. Things start to get blurry and you end up with some sort of Guantanamo Bay situation. Don't get me wrong, I don't like terrororists. But I also don't like secret police and secret trials... that gets too close to Nazi Germany, and Soviet (and some might increasingly say the new Putin-ized) Russia.
appropriation
1. The act of appropriating.
2.
a. Something appropriated, especially public funds set aside for a specific purpose.
b. A legislative act authorizing the expenditure of a designated amount of public funds for a specific purpose.
Didn't seem worthwhile adding... the noun just points back to the verb.
Try looking it up in a dictionary instead to see the real definition:
adjective
Suitable for a particular person, condition, occasion, or place; fitting.
tr verb
1. To set apart for a specific use: appropriating funds for education.
2. To take possession of or make use of exclusively for oneself, often without permission: Lee appropriated my unread newspaper and never returned it.
verb
1 : to set apart for or assign to a particular recipient, purpose, or use
2 : to take or make use of without authority or right --appropriation/&-"prO-prE-'A-sh&n/ noun
I don't think they were taking possession of or making use of exclusively for themselves. But maybe we should use: "to take or make use of without authority or right." Or... since it was on Miro's birthday, maybe it was appropriate ("Suitable for a particular person, condition, occasion, or place; fitting.") to show homage to something the good people at Google appreciated. So let's look at homage:
1. Ceremonial acknowledgment by a vassal of allegiance to his lord under feudal law.
2. Special honor or respect shown or expressed publicly. See Synonyms at honor.
Hmmmmm... Don't see any vassals or lords around here, so considering this was done on a specific occasion (Miro's birthday), by people who seemed to want to show their appreciation of the work, it seems to me like maybe homage is the keyword here. Sooooo... I would personally have to say that unless the ARS want to show how much they dislike people showing appreciation for their members work they should shut the fuck up. This sounds like a case of people who think themselves too good for the common folk. Or more likely, the families of dead artists who only understand the royalties from art, and not art, are a tad too greedy (e.g...."The Artists Rights Society, a group that represents the Miro family and more than 40,000 visual artists and their estates...")
Hey, but then maybe the 'estate' doesn't understand that not everyone knows who Miro was. And now, just maybe, more people will know about him. And giving the estate the benefit of the doubt, they will be happy that more people will appreciate him. Or in my eyes, they will probably be more happy since the estate may make more money... now that more people know who he was thanks to Google.
Einstein frequently wore a suit and tie, or at least a sweater and tie or a sport coat.
And he was known to have gone on at least one trip where he forgot his clothes, and a coat... he just didn't think about bringing them. His hosts had to get him some spares. It was noted that his second wife often was the one who helped him 'get it together'. Dressed properly etc. and pointed him in the right direction in social situations (in fact, she often ran interferance for him... would talk to people/fans/reporters/etc. so he would not have to). Of course in math and physics he charted his own course. But he was usually involved in this kind of thinking, societal thinking came second. Combing his hair, shaving, dressing in style... they weren't as important to him it seemed. At least from the biography I read.
That dude has like the longest Yacht... because-they-dont-know-how-they-should-burn-their -money...
An old adage says that yachts are for people who have so much money, they don't know what else to spend it on.
So I don't think it matters what side of the coin they are on, executives, in this case the end users executives, would rather spend their money on their own (albeit smaller) yachts than on an expensive closed source RDBMS. If they can get the same functionality and (some say lack of) support as Oracle with a BSD or GPL licensed RDBMS, then eventually they will move there.
Maybe the 'PR guy' did sit beside him when this statement was crafted; as a way to self justify to investors and the general public that they should get out of R&D and just do consulting.
Doesn't Go Daddy make a lot of money on the (in my opinion) shitty practice of after market domain name sales (registering a domain name that you will never use in order to sell it at a profit to someone who does need it or will use it)? Seems to me he is one who shouldn't point fingers... even if I don't like the Verisign deal either.
Actually Canada is part of the Americas. Specifically North America. But we're not part of the United States of America. We are not Americans. You probably just offended a tonne of other Canadians by saying we could be considered Americans. We define what we call ourselves, and we don't consider ourselves Americans, even though they are our closest friend, are our neighbour, and we are the worlds biggest trading partners ($US1.5B to $US2B/day).
Now that said, I personally don't get too worked up over others trying to call me American, but I do want to correct them. I actually like America... I lived in Missouri for 5 years (hence 'theshowmecanuck' for the 'show me' state), and wouldn't have stayed there that long if I didn't like it. But I am Canadian, not American. Mind you, there are some Canadians who forget the 'War of 1812' ended 192 years ago, and do get quite upset over being called American (or anything else American). I don't get it myself. We have differences, but who doesn't.
Slashdot Mirror
Licky clinky
I don't believe that is true. I think the far-right politicians in Canada could teach Bush a thing or two about being right wing (which is why Canadians have been rather fearful of electing them)... only they can't fully excercise their beliefs in government as they know they will be out of work (as politicians) at the next general election if they did (which is why Prime Minister Harper is keeping a tight reign on his core MPs and not allowing them to talk unscripted to the media). Many are very devout Christians, and many are very right wing, and there are several I would bet are almost Libertarian in view. Canada may have single payer health insurance, but we are a lot more capatilistic and market driven than most in the U.S. think... not as much as the U.S. but very close, and certainly much more so than Europe.
Remember the Progressive Conservatives (PCs) who had the largest majority ever elected to Canadian parliment under Prime Minister Mulroney (1980s). He turned hard to the right and did as he pleased. The upshot was that he pissed the population off so bad that they were reduced to 2 seats in parliment after the next election. The PCs could not even be recognized as a political party in parliment (they have to sit as independents until they elected something over 10 MPs). The new Conservative Party of Canada (which is way further to the right than the old PCs) seem to have learned from that. They know they have to moderate themselves, especially at this time since they only have a minority government. However, I would bet that if they had a majority, they would drift pretty hard right closer to their roots. And personally, I think that might be good thing as Canada has drifted way too far to the left in my opinion. If they did get out of control, like before, the citizens would elect them out of existance the following election. But by that time, things might be more balanced to the middle for a few years before they go hard left again (and hopefully we would have a triple-e senate by that time!).
What I find interesting is that even if Canadians were so sick of the Liberal Party after their ~14 year corruption riddled reign they actually elected any sort of right wing party. And what's more interesting is the Conservatives are gaining ground in Quebec (since they are supporting a more autonomous roll for that province... one thing I don't like about them... I like a strong central government), which would mean that they have a very good shot at getting a majority government next time. Finally as right wing as they are, I personally don't think the Conservatives are puppets of Bush. They may agree with him on quite a number of issues, but I think they understand that they represent Canada and its interests, not the U.S.A.'s. But at the same time, they understand that we have to work closely with the U.S. as friends since that is where most of our income comes from. You don't bite the hand that feeds you, unless you first find someone else to feed you. They are right next door and anyone else are many thousands of miles away. You do the math. ;-)
And you sound too old... and maybe a little bitter. Is this a way of telling everyone that you wished you were a "sufficently self centered and ... are pathetic middle aged man sponging off his parents and frittering away all his time on their broadband connection"?
I think what they meant was, "imagine what it would be like to have a distro that wasn't full of bloat."
You may now begin telling us how #insert_your_favourite_distro_here# is bloat free. :-)
I also should mention that I did not include the fact that I paid U.S. federal and state income tax as well... but that should go without saying.
I worked for about 5 years total on TN visas in the 'States. That is a NAFTA free trade treaty and applies to Canadian and American professionals allowing them to work in America and Canada respectively. I paid unemployment insurance, social security tax and the company covered health care benefits. I had better healthcare coverage in the U.S. than I do in Canada by the way... as long as I was employed... ).
I am pretty sure the U.K. has a rule for some types of emegrants that says if you keep employed, keep your nose clean, and pay your own way, you can stay for up to five years (which may be extended... and you can apply for citizenship after around five years).
Here is one of the paragraphs from the Immigration and Nationality Directorate:
It would be OK if this created a level playing field, but it does not (at least not when hiring foreign IT workers to work in the U.S.). Workers who are laid off on who were on a work visa need to find another job within one month or clear out of the U.S. If they find another job, the new company they work for will need to spend the money to get the sponsorship moved to them. Put together the fact that finding a job in under a month and that many companies don't want to spend the money on the lawyers fees for the sponsorship, getting laid off usually means having to leave the country. So what's it all mean? Knowing this, many times companies hire the foreign IT workers for often times less than they would pay U.S. workers, knowing that they can treat the foreign workers like indentured servants. Work hard, lots of overtime, and for less money, or we will lay you off, and you'll have to leave the country. This can be quite a hardship... and ergo no level playing field. An American employee will no longer have an income (usually) if laid off, but they don't have to immediately uproot everything and move their home overseas.
When the government gives out the H1-B they should recognize that they are really saying 'we have a shortage of IT workers'. That should mean that it shouldn't matter what company the foreign IT worker works for. I.e. if they are given a visa it should be a 6 year work visa and the worker should be free to move from company to company and stay in the U.S. for 6 years regardless of whether they are employed or not (but they should not be eligible for welfare or unemployment). That way if company A treats them like shit, they can get another job (without sponsorship hassles) at company B who will treat them better. This would provide incentive for company A to pay more and treat the employee better. This would benefit the American workers in that there would be less incentive for company A to hire the foreign worker since they will have to provide the same or similar pay and benefits as if they had just hired an American worker. Otherwise the foreign work, like an American worker, can leave for company B. Then the only business justification the American company would have to bring someone in from overseas would be if they really were more qualified in some respect than an American worker. Of course the company is then free to possibly outsource directly to China or India, but that is another matter.
My 22 cents worth... slag away at it if you want.
Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. - George Santayana (1863-1952)
Remember who won the great Novell versus Microsoft NT War? The result did not necessarily reflect which company had the most robust network server either.
IANAL... He means like when squatters take over a building. If they stay there long enough with no arguments or reaction from the real owner, the squatters might be able to make an argument that they are the owners or resident... or something like that. And the owner would then have trouble removing them if he later wanted to do something with the property. If the owner had placed 'no trespassing' signs, he would have a good argument to kick the squatters out. When someone hijacks a property.
Now THAT might just be a flame. ;-)
--At times attributed to any of Winston Churchill, George Bernard Shaw or Benjamin Disraeli.
What would worry me even more is if they started moving towards a bastardized old school "inquisitorial system", and start keeping people in remand for a long periods of time for trivial matters. Say they catch you j-walking (or something equally trivial): you are arrested, your DNA is taken, and then they start fishing to see what else they can charge you with. Things start to get blurry and you end up with some sort of Guantanamo Bay situation. Don't get me wrong, I don't like terrororists. But I also don't like secret police and secret trials... that gets too close to Nazi Germany, and Soviet (and some might increasingly say the new Putin-ized) Russia.
1. The act of appropriating.
2.
a. Something appropriated, especially public funds set aside for a specific purpose.
b. A legislative act authorizing the expenditure of a designated amount of public funds for a specific purpose.
Didn't seem worthwhile adding... the noun just points back to the verb.
adjective /&-"prO-prE-'A-sh&n/ noun
Suitable for a particular person, condition, occasion, or place; fitting.
tr verb
1. To set apart for a specific use: appropriating funds for education.
2. To take possession of or make use of exclusively for oneself, often without permission: Lee appropriated my unread newspaper and never returned it.
verb
1 : to set apart for or assign to a particular recipient, purpose, or use
2 : to take or make use of without authority or right --appropriation
I don't think they were taking possession of or making use of exclusively for themselves. But maybe we should use: "to take or make use of without authority or right." Or... since it was on Miro's birthday, maybe it was appropriate ("Suitable for a particular person, condition, occasion, or place; fitting.") to show homage to something the good people at Google appreciated. So let's look at homage:
1. Ceremonial acknowledgment by a vassal of allegiance to his lord under feudal law.
2. Special honor or respect shown or expressed publicly. See Synonyms at honor.
Hmmmmm... Don't see any vassals or lords around here, so considering this was done on a specific occasion (Miro's birthday), by people who seemed to want to show their appreciation of the work, it seems to me like maybe homage is the keyword here. Sooooo... I would personally have to say that unless the ARS want to show how much they dislike people showing appreciation for their members work they should shut the fuck up. This sounds like a case of people who think themselves too good for the common folk. Or more likely, the families of dead artists who only understand the royalties from art, and not art, are a tad too greedy (e.g. ..."The Artists Rights Society, a group that represents the Miro family and more than 40,000 visual artists and their estates...")
Hey, but then maybe the 'estate' doesn't understand that not everyone knows who Miro was. And now, just maybe, more people will know about him. And giving the estate the benefit of the doubt, they will be happy that more people will appreciate him. Or in my eyes, they will probably be more happy since the estate may make more money... now that more people know who he was thanks to Google.
Is this kind of like a 'needle gun' from the Dorsai series of books?
67.8% of all statistics are made up on the spot.
Well considering how many Slashdot posters said they related to this article, maybe "Subtlety" is not such a good idea.
But some of them sure tried.
I told you a million times... we DON'T exaggerate on /.
And he was known to have gone on at least one trip where he forgot his clothes, and a coat... he just didn't think about bringing them. His hosts had to get him some spares. It was noted that his second wife often was the one who helped him 'get it together'. Dressed properly etc. and pointed him in the right direction in social situations (in fact, she often ran interferance for him... would talk to people/fans/reporters/etc. so he would not have to). Of course in math and physics he charted his own course. But he was usually involved in this kind of thinking, societal thinking came second. Combing his hair, shaving, dressing in style... they weren't as important to him it seemed. At least from the biography I read.
An old adage says that yachts are for people who have so much money, they don't know what else to spend it on.
So I don't think it matters what side of the coin they are on, executives, in this case the end users executives, would rather spend their money on their own (albeit smaller) yachts than on an expensive closed source RDBMS. If they can get the same functionality and (some say lack of) support as Oracle with a BSD or GPL licensed RDBMS, then eventually they will move there.
Maybe the 'PR guy' did sit beside him when this statement was crafted; as a way to self justify to investors and the general public that they should get out of R&D and just do consulting.
Doesn't Go Daddy make a lot of money on the (in my opinion) shitty practice of after market domain name sales (registering a domain name that you will never use in order to sell it at a profit to someone who does need it or will use it)? Seems to me he is one who shouldn't point fingers... even if I don't like the Verisign deal either.
Now that said, I personally don't get too worked up over others trying to call me American, but I do want to correct them. I actually like America... I lived in Missouri for 5 years (hence 'theshowmecanuck' for the 'show me' state), and wouldn't have stayed there that long if I didn't like it. But I am Canadian, not American. Mind you, there are some Canadians who forget the 'War of 1812' ended 192 years ago, and do get quite upset over being called American (or anything else American). I don't get it myself. We have differences, but who doesn't.