Wow, where did you get that it has to be a time sucking event? Skimming a paragraph of text may be enough to decide. Some things should have higher priorities than other. Why do you dumbasses try to take general statements that aren't meant to cover every conceivable extreme to the exterem? Christ on a pony...
If something as trivial as a web browser is how you evaluate your life, then I think THAT'S a problem.
Not nearly as big of a problem as people that take a general statement not tied to one specific kind of product and trying to make it look silly by tying the statement to one particular kind of product. Those people seem to lack basic critial thinking and comprehension skills, and are poor debaters.
Well, feature-wise yes BR might just now be up to HD DVD, but IIRC, doesn't having a blue laser mean it can store more data than an HD-DVD? That's why I really wanted BR to win; so that when burners for computers come out, we can have discs that store a huge amount of data beyond what HD DVDs would.
You'd have a point if the article also said they barely used a web browser. I don't think there'd be much of an article though if that were true. I gathered that the people DO use their browser quite a bit, just refuse to evaluate options.
Pretty arrogant to assume I've never grown my own food. We did, and I found it was time consuming, required a lot of land, and didn't really work so well in the winter. Also, I found it very difficult to grow bananas outside of a tropical climate.
Well, I am over 30, and I don't see just brushing off something because it's new. It's not wise to ignore that newer windows may be much more energy efficent than my current ones, although my current ones do keep the cold out. That doesn't mean I shouldn't bother investigating new windows. Of course the difference is that new doors and windows in my house cost a lot more than a browser.
Nothing to do with being satisified, it has to do with being afraid of change. If you're so afraid of change that it holds you back from something that very well might improve your life, I think that's a problem. His browsing was handled by Netscape fully, but perhaps he didn't realize that NOT upgrading was why many sites didn't work anymore. Also, in the case of a browser, upgrading is so trival, and the basics have not changed, it doesn't make sense to not even evaluate a newer browser. VS2003 allowed me to program "just fine," but now that I've used many of the features only in 2008, I don't think I could say 2003 would work "just fine" anymore. Of course I would never know if I never tried VS2008, or even looked into it.
I bill $130 an hour. How many hours would it take to be as proficient in Open Office as I am in Word, or better yet Excel, I wonder? I would suggest that to be as proficient in either would likely take between 60 and 100 hours. Just a couple of weeks of training, which is far less than a single college course, but even if the training were free, it has an opportunity cost of around $10,000. For a "free" upgrade.
First off, I was talking about a web browser, not office software. Second, your point is obsurd; 100% of the hours available to you you're not going to make billable. You're likely going to take 1/3 of those for sleeping, and probably another 1/3 live your life, and that's assuming you work every Saturday and Sunday. So those hours you wouldn't normally bill anyway are not part of your opportunity cost. Also, since you probably use those programs on the job, you'll likely be paying yourself to learn something new. Finally, I would think that no matter what field you are in, if you stop learning, you're going to become obsolete. So you'll need to take some time, whether billable or not, to learn.
Besides, not all construction is replacement. If you add a deck or a sunroom, or remodel the basement, you're looking at new things. Of course, like all analogies - mine is nowhere near 1:1. The point is that new things take time and effort (and often money), and we all can't be abreast of the latest (or even recent) developments in all fields. There aren't enough hours in the day. To think everyone will find interest in _your_ field or hobby is a bit vain.
I realize not all construction is replacement; if its new, there's less cost than replacing something existing. But we're not talking about construction, we're talking about people using older browsers. The cost there is minimal, since even modern browsers have Back, Forward, Stop and Refersh, and some way to track favorite sites. Not exactly a huge learning curve, and you can decide to look at the new features at any time.
I never said people can or should keep up with the latest everything, but they should be on the look out for something new and at least look into it a little. As in construction, sometime cost up front saves you more down the line. Like when the cost of maintaining my old car outweighed the cost of just getting a new one.
No, I realize all those things would be good, and I would like to rebuild the house to include them.
Except that I don't have hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Oh, and its nothing like a new browser, which is free and should take minimal time to "learn." If I could rebuild my house with all that stuff for such a minimal cost, I certainly would.
Well, how did he know it was still "working for him" if he never even tried a newer browser? Maybe if he tried a newer one, he'd find that it offers more benefits than his current one. Growing all my own food would "work for me" too, but not as well as going to the grocery store.
It's interesting to note that every single example in the article is over the age of 50. So why don't want just say what it is; old people are scared of change.
Ya, reading this, I think you are right.. we're in agreement, but both not very clear.:-) Your posts make sense to me now. Thanks for sticking with it and explaining rather then going right to flaming.
Being worried about a Veto in the context of what I said would appear that you would talking about an absolute veto.
I wasn't worried about an absolute veto, just pointing out that the Constitution explicity provides a veto mechanism.
And yes, The president's role is as a sanity check for the laws being passed. His position it to be a final arbitrator on what laws get passed. So if he signs them when they don't have enough congressional vote for an override, they are likely not important enough to be passed. If they were, then congress would simply override his veto which is another sanity check.
Well, I disagree. He's a sanity check, sure, but if he agrees with the majority in the Houses, I don't see why that would be less valid of a law. What you're basically advocating is the President not having any role and all laws need 2/3 majority to pass. In effect, removing the sanity check.
So no, it isn't that they shouldn't be law except for the president signing them, it is that the one rejected shouldn't be laws without enough members of congress thinking they are important enough to override the president's veto.
Now you have me confused; when did a rejected (or vetoed) bill become law but wasn't overriden during a revote?
I said rights. And again, it is because of the way you worded it, I read too far into what you were saying.
No problem.
But in reality, the bounds that are over stepped where done so in the 30's with the new deal.
Well, your talking about congress as a whole right? Congress can bypass the veto by a two thirds vote. So while the president can veto something, it doesn't mean is can't become law. Quite frnakly, if something didn't have enough support to bypass a veto, then it probably isn't in our best interest having it as a law.
I never said "absolute veto." Veto != absolute veto. Given your last comment, I would have to think you believe most laws should not be laws, but they are because the president didn't happen to veto them.
Well, no actually. The government isn't overstepping it's bounds as much as it is the percieved bounds. The percieved bounds are what is getting trampled on. And when I say percieved, I actually mean bounds and rights people think they have because some law apparently granted it to them. But the problem with a law granting rights and limiting government actions is that another law can move those boundaries again. Just look at some of the European countries who are getting the same shit done but don't have a constitution to reconcile the laws with. Now as soon as someone is effected by the new laws, they can challenge them on their constitutionality. If that prevails, then the laws are null and void, or at least the sections that trample on protected rights. Most often these percieved boundries are taken out of context by people with something to lose or who have spent very little time in exploring what rights they actually have. Judging from your comment on Veto power, I suspect you might fall into one of those categories.
I actually am very familiar with the area of rights. No where did I saw that a law grants rights, and I don't see where you'd come to that conclusion. Quite the opposite; the government may only do what spelt out in the Constitution, because the government derives it's right to rule from the concent of the people. Anything more and the government is overstepping its bounds (as laid out in the Constitution). Of course the fact that people may agree with the current doesn't change that it's technically not legal.
Well I wouldn't have said anything except we are talking about the Seven Deadly Sins. So without that line, you end up not having seven, you have a lesser number, with others being redundent.
Well, first off, the cops can respond if they choose. They can exercise their free speech as well.
The example you post is silly; people will judge the comments too, they just won't blindly agree with them.
As far as cops having sucky jobs and "wondering if they'll be shot." Well, my only response is they choose that line of work. Given that I've been directly bullied by cops, and that none have ever directly protected me, I can't say that I really want them around anyway. Not talking about detectives.. I'm talking about the more or less useless ones that drive around randomly or park near an interstate with a radar gun.
Now congress can limit powers of each branch but they can only do so in accordance with the constitution.
Except the constitution says the president has veto power.
And with very rare exceptions, an attack on the constitution or the branches of the government would want people to get new meat in washington as soon as possible.
Sorry, but have you seen what's been going on here? Our government already oversteps its bounds, and people are asking for more.
True, but the traditional definition of the sin was literally eating and drinking too much, and the traditional definition of greed was accumulation of material things. Related, but not quite the same.
Slashdot Mirror
Wow, where did you get that it has to be a time sucking event? Skimming a paragraph of text may be enough to decide. Some things should have higher priorities than other. Why do you dumbasses try to take general statements that aren't meant to cover every conceivable extreme to the exterem? Christ on a pony...
If something as trivial as a web browser is how you evaluate your life, then I think THAT'S a problem.
Not nearly as big of a problem as people that take a general statement not tied to one specific kind of product and trying to make it look silly by tying the statement to one particular kind of product. Those people seem to lack basic critial thinking and comprehension skills, and are poor debaters.
Well, feature-wise yes BR might just now be up to HD DVD, but IIRC, doesn't having a blue laser mean it can store more data than an HD-DVD? That's why I really wanted BR to win; so that when burners for computers come out, we can have discs that store a huge amount of data beyond what HD DVDs would.
You'd have a point if the article also said they barely used a web browser. I don't think there'd be much of an article though if that were true. I gathered that the people DO use their browser quite a bit, just refuse to evaluate options.
Pretty arrogant to assume I've never grown my own food. We did, and I found it was time consuming, required a lot of land, and didn't really work so well in the winter. Also, I found it very difficult to grow bananas outside of a tropical climate.
Well, I am over 30, and I don't see just brushing off something because it's new. It's not wise to ignore that newer windows may be much more energy efficent than my current ones, although my current ones do keep the cold out. That doesn't mean I shouldn't bother investigating new windows. Of course the difference is that new doors and windows in my house cost a lot more than a browser.
Nothing to do with being satisified, it has to do with being afraid of change. If you're so afraid of change that it holds you back from something that very well might improve your life, I think that's a problem. His browsing was handled by Netscape fully, but perhaps he didn't realize that NOT upgrading was why many sites didn't work anymore. Also, in the case of a browser, upgrading is so trival, and the basics have not changed, it doesn't make sense to not even evaluate a newer browser. VS2003 allowed me to program "just fine," but now that I've used many of the features only in 2008, I don't think I could say 2003 would work "just fine" anymore. Of course I would never know if I never tried VS2008, or even looked into it.
I bill $130 an hour. How many hours would it take to be as proficient in Open Office as I am in Word, or better yet Excel, I wonder? I would suggest that to be as proficient in either would likely take between 60 and 100 hours. Just a couple of weeks of training, which is far less than a single college course, but even if the training were free, it has an opportunity cost of around $10,000. For a "free" upgrade.
First off, I was talking about a web browser, not office software. Second, your point is obsurd; 100% of the hours available to you you're not going to make billable. You're likely going to take 1/3 of those for sleeping, and probably another 1/3 live your life, and that's assuming you work every Saturday and Sunday. So those hours you wouldn't normally bill anyway are not part of your opportunity cost. Also, since you probably use those programs on the job, you'll likely be paying yourself to learn something new. Finally, I would think that no matter what field you are in, if you stop learning, you're going to become obsolete. So you'll need to take some time, whether billable or not, to learn.
Besides, not all construction is replacement. If you add a deck or a sunroom, or remodel the basement, you're looking at new things. Of course, like all analogies - mine is nowhere near 1:1. The point is that new things take time and effort (and often money), and we all can't be abreast of the latest (or even recent) developments in all fields. There aren't enough hours in the day. To think everyone will find interest in _your_ field or hobby is a bit vain.
I realize not all construction is replacement; if its new, there's less cost than replacing something existing. But we're not talking about construction, we're talking about people using older browsers. The cost there is minimal, since even modern browsers have Back, Forward, Stop and Refersh, and some way to track favorite sites. Not exactly a huge learning curve, and you can decide to look at the new features at any time.
I never said people can or should keep up with the latest everything, but they should be on the look out for something new and at least look into it a little. As in construction, sometime cost up front saves you more down the line. Like when the cost of maintaining my old car outweighed the cost of just getting a new one.
No, I realize all those things would be good, and I would like to rebuild the house to include them.
Except that I don't have hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Oh, and its nothing like a new browser, which is free and should take minimal time to "learn." If I could rebuild my house with all that stuff for such a minimal cost, I certainly would.
Huh? The "cost" is clicking a button and waiting a few minutes. Not exactly a high cost.. browser layouts haven't changed that much since NS 4.
Well, how did he know it was still "working for him" if he never even tried a newer browser? Maybe if he tried a newer one, he'd find that it offers more benefits than his current one. Growing all my own food would "work for me" too, but not as well as going to the grocery store.
It's interesting to note that every single example in the article is over the age of 50. So why don't want just say what it is; old people are scared of change.
Ya, reading this, I think you are right.. we're in agreement, but both not very clear. :-) Your posts make sense to me now. Thanks for sticking with it and explaining rather then going right to flaming.
Being worried about a Veto in the context of what I said would appear that you would talking about an absolute veto.
I wasn't worried about an absolute veto, just pointing out that the Constitution explicity provides a veto mechanism.
And yes, The president's role is as a sanity check for the laws being passed. His position it to be a final arbitrator on what laws get passed. So if he signs them when they don't have enough congressional vote for an override, they are likely not important enough to be passed. If they were, then congress would simply override his veto which is another sanity check.
Well, I disagree. He's a sanity check, sure, but if he agrees with the majority in the Houses, I don't see why that would be less valid of a law. What you're basically advocating is the President not having any role and all laws need 2/3 majority to pass. In effect, removing the sanity check.
So no, it isn't that they shouldn't be law except for the president signing them, it is that the one rejected shouldn't be laws without enough members of congress thinking they are important enough to override the president's veto.
Now you have me confused; when did a rejected (or vetoed) bill become law but wasn't overriden during a revote?
I said rights. And again, it is because of the way you worded it, I read too far into what you were saying.
No problem.
But in reality, the bounds that are over stepped where done so in the 30's with the new deal.
I agree.
Who would be those other developers?
Not sure of your point, perhaps you missed the sarcasm in my post?
Well, your talking about congress as a whole right? Congress can bypass the veto by a two thirds vote. So while the president can veto something, it doesn't mean is can't become law. Quite frnakly, if something didn't have enough support to bypass a veto, then it probably isn't in our best interest having it as a law.
I never said "absolute veto." Veto != absolute veto. Given your last comment, I would have to think you believe most laws should not be laws, but they are because the president didn't happen to veto them.
Well, no actually. The government isn't overstepping it's bounds as much as it is the percieved bounds. The percieved bounds are what is getting trampled on. And when I say percieved, I actually mean bounds and rights people think they have because some law apparently granted it to them. But the problem with a law granting rights and limiting government actions is that another law can move those boundaries again. Just look at some of the European countries who are getting the same shit done but don't have a constitution to reconcile the laws with. Now as soon as someone is effected by the new laws, they can challenge them on their constitutionality. If that prevails, then the laws are null and void, or at least the sections that trample on protected rights. Most often these percieved boundries are taken out of context by people with something to lose or who have spent very little time in exploring what rights they actually have. Judging from your comment on Veto power, I suspect you might fall into one of those categories.
I actually am very familiar with the area of rights. No where did I saw that a law grants rights, and I don't see where you'd come to that conclusion. Quite the opposite; the government may only do what spelt out in the Constitution, because the government derives it's right to rule from the concent of the people. Anything more and the government is overstepping its bounds (as laid out in the Constitution). Of course the fact that people may agree with the current doesn't change that it's technically not legal.
He doesn't have "absolute veto" powers, but he does have veto powers, whether or not they used the term.
Well I wouldn't have said anything except we are talking about the Seven Deadly Sins. So without that line, you end up not having seven, you have a lesser number, with others being redundent.
Besides, someone was pedantic to me.. so there.
Right, because the site ALSO had pictures, and undercover cops use their REAL names. We should keep this site shut down then.
Why shouldn't we publish their names? After all, can't they find YOUR name (and address) by punching up your license plate number?
I thought a number of posters here held that because the plate is in full view, it's fair game. Well, so are police badge numbers.
Which is, in my opinion, another reason people should be defending themselves, not handing it off to a third, typically uninterested, party.
Well, first off, the cops can respond if they choose. They can exercise their free speech as well.
The example you post is silly; people will judge the comments too, they just won't blindly agree with them.
As far as cops having sucky jobs and "wondering if they'll be shot." Well, my only response is they choose that line of work. Given that I've been directly bullied by cops, and that none have ever directly protected me, I can't say that I really want them around anyway. Not talking about detectives.. I'm talking about the more or less useless ones that drive around randomly or park near an interstate with a radar gun.
Now congress can limit powers of each branch but they can only do so in accordance with the constitution.
Except the constitution says the president has veto power.
And with very rare exceptions, an attack on the constitution or the branches of the government would want people to get new meat in washington as soon as possible.
Sorry, but have you seen what's been going on here? Our government already oversteps its bounds, and people are asking for more.
True, but the traditional definition of the sin was literally eating and drinking too much, and the traditional definition of greed was accumulation of material things. Related, but not quite the same.
I would think greed would be more fitting. Glutteny has to do with overconsuming food and drink.