It's not that you can't do any of those things, it's that you're being forced to.
Most of you are too young (or too forgetful) to know what life was like before Obama. But back in my youth people would have laughed at the idea that governments would ban fat. "Don't be fucking ridiculous," they said, "just because we want to ban smoking in restaurants doesn't mean fat is next." It's not so funny anymore, because it is actually happening.
It's not about hating on the government, it's about the fact that a government powerful enough to tell you what color you can paint your car is a government powerful enough to do any damned thing it wants to.
Just because he can't make a profit on the desktop, doesn't mean the desktop is irrelevant. Just because no one else can either, doesn't make desktops valueless. They're part of the computing infrastructure, and without them we can't get to certain other profits. Stores don't make any money on their parking lots, yet they still use them so that their customer can park. Same with desktops. Commercial distros might not make any money on GNOME or KDE, but they should still consider funding them because it expands the distros' market.
p.s. Oh, and if you're going to base your business decisions on trends, you need to look at ALL trends. Mobile devices are indeed booming, but so are large monitors. More and more people are going dual-screen and/or 20+" monitors. The desktop isn't dying, it's getting breathing room!
You work whenever you feel like it, and... the company pays you whenever you feel like it!
There's a reason firms are organized the way they are (and why they get all screwed up over a certain size). The yexist because the lower the transaction costs between the individual actors in the firm.
A number of tech companies including Microsoft, IBM, Oracle, Apple, and Intel have supported the rule changes, which would strengthen their positions and make it more difficult for small companies to create, protect, and bring to market disruptive technology.
If you want to support small companies and get more disruptive technologies to the market, ABOLISH PATENTS! Sheesh.
Handing out exclusive monopolies doesn't help small business, it props up big business and hinders innovation. The proponents say it foster innovation, but it only fosters getting to the first rung of the ladder. Once you have a monopoly on the first rung, everyone has to pay royalties to get to the second and third. Big businesses love patents, because they beat down their small business competitors, and prevent new ones from rising. (Actually, big businesses love most regulations, for exactly the same reason).
My cynical alter-ego says it's 'cuz too many politicians were getting tickets. Even with the good-ol-boy Mississippi network, the average pol still has to take time out of his day to get his tickets fixed.
Nonsense. There would have been pain, but the entire world economy would not have collapsed into nothing. Yes, a normal bankruptcy would have tied up their assets for a very long time, but we didn't have to have a normal bankruptcy, it could have been expedited. Get their good assets out and let the bad assets evaporate.
Of course, the bailouts should have stopped long before AIG. Every bailout postpones the inevitable and makes the ensuing bust that much worse. We've created a culture where financial managers are REWARDED for their bad decisions.
"Too big to fail" is the most dangerous government policy I have seen since that of "mutually assured destruction."
Cluestick: beside the fact that the bonuses are peanuts compared to the bailout, beside the fact that the bonuses were added *back* into the bailout by Congress, beside the fact that the bonuses are probably required by the employment contracts... the heart of the matter remains that AIG should never have been bailed out!
Do you think that these bonuses act as a reward for their management's bad behavior? Then what the fsck do you think the BILLIONS of bailouts are? It's a big giant signal to the financial market that no matter how big of a mess you make, the taxpayers will still bail you out. It's called "moral hazard", when markets have a disincentive to reduce risky behavior. We had a mild climate of moral hazard before the crash, but the bailout has pushed it over the top and into absurd extremes. The mismanagement of AIG has was not met with a market rejection, but with a huge 200 BILLION government reward.
When you praise your dog for shitting on the rug, don't be surprised that he keeps shitting on it.
We shouldn't be angry at AIG, they are only doing what we have trained them to do. We should be angry at our congressmen and past/current presidents for wasting 200,000,000,000 on tawdry corporate whore.
[Cut to suburban home basement. Room contains boxspring mattress, cinderblock and plank bookshelf, and cable spool table. On the floor is indoor/outdoor kitchen-print carpet. On the walls are a selection of tattered scifi movie posters, including Natalie Portman in torn jumpsuit poster from Episode II. Glow in the dark stars dot the ceiling, from which dangle several hand painted styrofoam "planets". There is a stack of obsolete game consoles in the corner. Computer in aluminum and plexiglass supertower case with purple lighting is next to table, on which are two unmatched LCD monitors. Pale overweight adolescent enters from stage left. He is wearing black jeans, and black tee-shirt with penguin and wildebeest motif. The hair is short spiked dyed pink, but black roots are prominent.]
Anybody working as the only developer in a company of less than 40 people.
Companies that small don't have know-how to outsource effectively. They may try it, but they won't be successful at it. So they'll rely on domestic contractors. Which is the service you provide.
p.s. The big threat of outsourcing isn't that we'll suddenly discover a new country with excellent developers and ridiculously cheap rates, but rather we'll discover how to effectively manage offshore teams. It's going to happen eventually, and no amount of whining is going to stop it.
We've got a horrible pricing model in the US. We should be paying for usage instead of an all-you-can-eat monthly fee. But the die has been set, and I don't see any way out of it. It's the tragedy of the commons writ large.
In one of my past companies, we would have taken "Josh" out back and beaten the shit out of him. I'm not saying it's right, I'm just saying that anti-social behavior can have its consequences.
Sure, he was whipsmart and could churn out code that saved the company millions
I call bullshit on this one. For every dollar he saves for the company, he's losing two. He should have been fired with the first crude teeshirt and harassed female. Undocumented code is bad code and it loses you money in the long run. Insulting coworkers and refusing to bathe drives productive employees elsewhere, and you lose money. There is no excuse for putting up with assholes in today's economic climate. If you feel sorry for him because he's never been laid, send him down to the mailroom to learn some humility.
Are you publicly funded? Are you not publicly funded? The press likes to think of themselves as above it all, but they are private businesses just like all the rest. They even try to make a profit. The presence of some bailout/stimulus funds does not suddenly make them a public agency.
The "estates" classification came from old France, in reference to the those who had seats in the Estates General, and later the House of Commons. They were Clergy, Nobility and Commoners. The press was the Fourth Estate, because they did not have seats. They were outside government. They were named that by Edmund Burke because in practice they had more political leverage than the other three.
...private defendants, that is, defendants not involved in the news business...
The press is not private? Unlike some other nations, the US still has freedom of the press, meaning the "news business" is not a government agency and ostensibly operates in the private sector. Some members of the "news business" may be publicly traded corporations, but to treat the industry as a whole as a collective public agency is a twisting of the language. And a slap in the face of the First Amendment.
Obama is a politician, thus he is lying. You do not get to be president by being a nice honest guy. You get there by backroom dealing, manipulations of the facts, and old fashioned snake-oil salesmanship.
Yeah, and look what happened to those who had the balls in the 1860's. The south was invaded and occupied. Tens of thousands of protestors in the north were imprisoned or deported. And the bloodiest war in all of human history. Just because some states had a "call to action" in protest of Federal government policies.
Slashdot Mirror
It has not been demonstrated that the color of vehicles, singly or collectively, damage the planet.
It's not that you can't do any of those things, it's that you're being forced to.
Most of you are too young (or too forgetful) to know what life was like before Obama. But back in my youth people would have laughed at the idea that governments would ban fat. "Don't be fucking ridiculous," they said, "just because we want to ban smoking in restaurants doesn't mean fat is next." It's not so funny anymore, because it is actually happening.
It's not about hating on the government, it's about the fact that a government powerful enough to tell you what color you can paint your car is a government powerful enough to do any damned thing it wants to.
Once again confirming that most California legislators are uanble to pass the Turing Test.
Just because he can't make a profit on the desktop, doesn't mean the desktop is irrelevant. Just because no one else can either, doesn't make desktops valueless. They're part of the computing infrastructure, and without them we can't get to certain other profits. Stores don't make any money on their parking lots, yet they still use them so that their customer can park. Same with desktops. Commercial distros might not make any money on GNOME or KDE, but they should still consider funding them because it expands the distros' market.
p.s. Oh, and if you're going to base your business decisions on trends, you need to look at ALL trends. Mobile devices are indeed booming, but so are large monitors. More and more people are going dual-screen and/or 20+" monitors. The desktop isn't dying, it's getting breathing room!
You work whenever you feel like it, and... the company pays you whenever you feel like it!
There's a reason firms are organized the way they are (and why they get all screwed up over a certain size). The yexist because the lower the transaction costs between the individual actors in the firm.
If you want to support small companies and get more disruptive technologies to the market, ABOLISH PATENTS! Sheesh.
Handing out exclusive monopolies doesn't help small business, it props up big business and hinders innovation. The proponents say it foster innovation, but it only fosters getting to the first rung of the ladder. Once you have a monopoly on the first rung, everyone has to pay royalties to get to the second and third. Big businesses love patents, because they beat down their small business competitors, and prevent new ones from rising. (Actually, big businesses love most regulations, for exactly the same reason).
You don't need cameras for that. You just need a cop giving out tickets. Hell, even a "scarecrow" decoy of a fake cop car will slow them down.
My cynical alter-ego says it's 'cuz too many politicians were getting tickets. Even with the good-ol-boy Mississippi network, the average pol still has to take time out of his day to get his tickets fixed.
Nonsense. There would have been pain, but the entire world economy would not have collapsed into nothing. Yes, a normal bankruptcy would have tied up their assets for a very long time, but we didn't have to have a normal bankruptcy, it could have been expedited. Get their good assets out and let the bad assets evaporate.
Of course, the bailouts should have stopped long before AIG. Every bailout postpones the inevitable and makes the ensuing bust that much worse. We've created a culture where financial managers are REWARDED for their bad decisions.
"Too big to fail" is the most dangerous government policy I have seen since that of "mutually assured destruction."
4. Reward AIG with 200,000,000,000 dollars and enshrine the systemic danger into law.
Cluestick: beside the fact that the bonuses are peanuts compared to the bailout, beside the fact that the bonuses were added *back* into the bailout by Congress, beside the fact that the bonuses are probably required by the employment contracts... the heart of the matter remains that AIG should never have been bailed out!
Do you think that these bonuses act as a reward for their management's bad behavior? Then what the fsck do you think the BILLIONS of bailouts are? It's a big giant signal to the financial market that no matter how big of a mess you make, the taxpayers will still bail you out. It's called "moral hazard", when markets have a disincentive to reduce risky behavior. We had a mild climate of moral hazard before the crash, but the bailout has pushed it over the top and into absurd extremes. The mismanagement of AIG has was not met with a market rejection, but with a huge 200 BILLION government reward.
When you praise your dog for shitting on the rug, don't be surprised that he keeps shitting on it.
We shouldn't be angry at AIG, they are only doing what we have trained them to do. We should be angry at our congressmen and past/current presidents for wasting 200,000,000,000 on tawdry corporate whore.
Slackware ended up being a good system too, and much earlier.
p.s. Debian 1.0 would have been released a year earlier, but they were still arguing whether the DFSG was in violation of the DFSG.
Oooh, I see we've offended the religious community!
[Cut to suburban home basement. Room contains boxspring mattress, cinderblock and plank bookshelf, and cable spool table. On the floor is indoor/outdoor kitchen-print carpet. On the walls are a selection of tattered scifi movie posters, including Natalie Portman in torn jumpsuit poster from Episode II. Glow in the dark stars dot the ceiling, from which dangle several hand painted styrofoam "planets". There is a stack of obsolete game consoles in the corner. Computer in aluminum and plexiglass supertower case with purple lighting is next to table, on which are two unmatched LCD monitors. Pale overweight adolescent enters from stage left. He is wearing black jeans, and black tee-shirt with penguin and wildebeest motif. The hair is short spiked dyed pink, but black roots are prominent.]
Adolescent: "I am Linux! Ph3&r me!"
[Cue jingle. Wipe to series logo.]
Never underestimate the desire of people to control the lives of others.
Companies that small don't have know-how to outsource effectively. They may try it, but they won't be successful at it. So they'll rely on domestic contractors. Which is the service you provide.
p.s. The big threat of outsourcing isn't that we'll suddenly discover a new country with excellent developers and ridiculously cheap rates, but rather we'll discover how to effectively manage offshore teams. It's going to happen eventually, and no amount of whining is going to stop it.
Art Major: Zero job prospects, but lots of hot chicks.
CS Major: Excellent job prospects, very few chicks.
Solution: CS Major and Art Minor!
We've got a horrible pricing model in the US. We should be paying for usage instead of an all-you-can-eat monthly fee. But the die has been set, and I don't see any way out of it. It's the tragedy of the commons writ large.
In one of my past companies, we would have taken "Josh" out back and beaten the shit out of him. I'm not saying it's right, I'm just saying that anti-social behavior can have its consequences.
I call bullshit on this one. For every dollar he saves for the company, he's losing two. He should have been fired with the first crude teeshirt and harassed female. Undocumented code is bad code and it loses you money in the long run. Insulting coworkers and refusing to bathe drives productive employees elsewhere, and you lose money. There is no excuse for putting up with assholes in today's economic climate. If you feel sorry for him because he's never been laid, send him down to the mailroom to learn some humility.
Yeah you're right. I mistyped. It was the bloodiest in US history, bloodier than all others combined, but it doesn't rank up there with some others.
Are you publicly funded? Are you not publicly funded? The press likes to think of themselves as above it all, but they are private businesses just like all the rest. They even try to make a profit. The presence of some bailout/stimulus funds does not suddenly make them a public agency.
The "estates" classification came from old France, in reference to the those who had seats in the Estates General, and later the House of Commons. They were Clergy, Nobility and Commoners. The press was the Fourth Estate, because they did not have seats. They were outside government. They were named that by Edmund Burke because in practice they had more political leverage than the other three.
The press is not private? Unlike some other nations, the US still has freedom of the press, meaning the "news business" is not a government agency and ostensibly operates in the private sector. Some members of the "news business" may be publicly traded corporations, but to treat the industry as a whole as a collective public agency is a twisting of the language. And a slap in the face of the First Amendment.
Q: How do you know when a politician is lying?
A: His lips are moving.
Obama is a politician, thus he is lying. You do not get to be president by being a nice honest guy. You get there by backroom dealing, manipulations of the facts, and old fashioned snake-oil salesmanship.
Yeah, and look what happened to those who had the balls in the 1860's. The south was invaded and occupied. Tens of thousands of protestors in the north were imprisoned or deported. And the bloodiest war in all of human history. Just because some states had a "call to action" in protest of Federal government policies.