My statement does require some brain power yes. You often hear "the US government condemed such and such an action today." Do you think the FCC and DoE had any say in the matter? Or can you correctly figure out that it was US diplomats? The Chinese DoC would obviously not be involved one way or another, and you understand what parts of the government were involved. That's not biased, its common sense.
I'm not sure what connotation you place with student, but its definition is someone who is undergoing formilized education. Also, what else would you call protesters? They were not armed, so insurgants or other similar terms don't apply. Rioters doesn't apply either, because they weren't causing random damage (or any damage, from what I understand). Also rioters don't have any political agenda, which the students there DID have. Not even the Chinese government disputes that.
actually, it can be said that statement has bias in it. first, you're implicating "the chinese government". who is that? the communist party as a whole? the military? the soldiers themselves who fired on the protesters?
I'm not implying the government, I explictly said it. I think you need to learn what bias is, because its not about splitting hairs. Goverment includes the military, I belive that's obvious. If I had said the Chinese military had killed them, its also likely they weren't under orders from the government.
which brings me to the second point: student protesters. what were they protesting? you only protest if something is wrong, right?
A group only protests if they believe something is wrong, yes. Does that automatically mean the protesters had valid points? No, not at all.
your "bias-free" sentence, which states nothing but the facts, absolutely has the underlying message: the chinese government [which is controlled by the opressive communist party] killed [innocent] student protesters [who wanted a better life] at Tiananmen Square in 1989 [and they were wrong for doing so]."
Did I write the parts in brackets? No? Then you're interjecting your own bias into my statement. YOU think that's what I said. Its not. There is a reason I didn't include those words. For whatever reason people today feel there's always something between the lines when there isn't. It really needs to stop.
of course, that's probably because the facts themselves carry a bias.
Facts don't have a bias; people add their bias when interperating facts.
Yep- that's exactly right. Assuming of course, you're able to save the money you do make- and aren't just spending it at the company store with inflated prices.
There's nothing in the article to suggest that this company is inflating prices though. In fact, the article seems to indicate that the company subsidizes food, meaning the food the company sells is cheaper than could be gotten at a non-company market. I also imagine that since the company is a HUGE buyer of food, economics of scale would also seem to indicate that it can buy more food cheaper than if the individual went to the market. I imagine also that the price of rice in China is already fairly low, since they grow so much of it there.
I guess what I'm getting at is that I'm inclinded to believe the artcile which claims the company is making life better for the Chinese.
It works the same way in the US too; if I didn't have healthcare, dental, vision, and life insurances, a 401(k) plan, etc., I'd expect more hard cash too. Same goes for any lack of sick or vacation time. My various insurances limit what doctors / providers I can go to, how often I can go, if I need referals or not.
I can see how this setup would be useful for getting started; save the money you do make, since your basic needs are met. Once you save more, you can move on to better things.
I wasn't commenting on Ohio Arts or any other Chinese company; I don't know how good (or bad) they are to their employees. But this particular company seems to treat their employees better than others, so seems to be stepping in the right direction.
I guess you just suck at your job them, as myself and thousands of other developers are using VS just fine.
No, keep your troll stories to yourself plese. You had outlook stories yet decided to bring VS into the mix for really no reason at all. Its not even remotely related..
All content contains a bias. Knowing that is a good starting point for interpreting the content. This project is fine, as far as it goes. But implying (as you seem to) that somehow Wikipedia wonks are more trustworthy and less biased than other editors is, well, silly.
I don't buy that. I can say "the Chinese government killed student protesters at Tiananmen Square in 1989." There is no bias in that statement, its just a fact. Much of Wikipedia conforms to listing of dry facts, and areas that are speculating typically say its speculation, or section or entire articles are marked as "neutrality disputed" or unverified, etc.
The only reason we can see spin being added or taken away is exactly because the whole editing process is open, and we can all see how minor (or major) tweaks change the tone of an article from dry fact to spin.
I once had an office mate that would email me a simple yes/no question if I was in the restroom at the time rather than wait 30 seconds to ask me in person- and then ask me to check my email when I returned from said restroom. And it wasn't important so as to need a paper trail, it had to do with something like did I get some memo.
To me that's where IM fits in; quick, trivial questions.
I find a phone call much less distracting. For a phone call, I have to stop typing, look away from the computer and answer it. I can't easily go back to work, the call takes up more time than reading an email quickly.
Its true; alot of stress is self created. Especially those people that get offended so easily.
I think though this shows that people can't properly prioritize what they need to do. I personally look at each email as it comes in, but I don't get a constant stream. Those that do should check less frequently, and prioritize the important ones from less important emails. Most email clients have ways to mark emails so that you can set a follow up deadline and such. Its just a matter of learning how to deal properly.
Who said anything about money or lawyers? Animal abuse by a kid (actually, I believe most people) is a sign that the person was or is being abused. It warps the mind. Expecting that people behave "normally" when raised in an atmosphere of abuse is just ignorant.
What good is a minimum wage when most of the manufactors aren't following it? There's another company paying $0.24 an hour. Again, you need to do some more research.
Also, its not just minimum wage; they get free board, CHEAPER food than they could buy elsewehre (because the company helps pay for it), and free healthcare. Those aren't insignficant perks either; I'd have quite a bit more if someone was helping me pay for my food, pay my mortgage and for my healthcare.
Did you even read my post? Here's the problem with the coal miners you refered to: "Under this system workers were not paid cash."
You realize that the yuan is the OFFICAL money of China, right? Its not company credits. So I don't quite see your parallel; these workers are earning and keeping money, the lodging and health care don't come off their paycheck. Its QUITE different from your wiki link...
If a kid starts punching kittens, its probably because the parents abuse the child in some way. So yes, it is too bad the media doesn't blame the parents, because thats where blame belongs 100% of the time.
So go do some research to find out. The article makes it sound like they are paid in yuan. The food is also much cheaper than if they bought it offsite.
It seems conditions are worlds better than other employers in China, and they'd probably rather work for this company than not have a job at all.
Unlike the military, they are free to find employment elsewhere, and they don't have to worry about being shipped around the world to be blown up by some insurgants.
If you ignore the stupid/. editoral and read the blog, its actually questioning why its ok for some companys to have some open and closed source but not others. The example in the blog was SugarCRM, which was 100% closed, and opened PART of its code. Counter that with RH taking its code and closing it (but complying with the GPL still in all its releases).
Its not that SugarCRM will ever totally open, nor will RH totally close... the author seems to imply that both will continue with some open, some closed source. I think its a valid question... why not continue to critise SugarCRM for not opening the rest, and praise RH for not closing more?
They get paid $0.60 an hour (a lot in China), but they also get to live rent free, their food is subsidized, and they have free health care. They also get overtime pay and actually do get raises. I wouldn't mind that deal, if I were just starting out of high school and needed to work.
Except this isn't forcing everyone to use a certain graphics card. It means all graphics cards that implement DX10.1 need to implement a minium of X features. Just like all computers must have a certain amount of RAM, disk space, keyboard, etc. to function with Vista (or any OS).
As a consumer you just need to buy any card that supports DX10.1, and developers that decide to target DX10.1 will KNOW certain features are available, instead of the "check to see if feature X is present, implement workaround if it isn't."
I don't steal, but I'd also not be able to watch HD movies if I installed an HD drive into my PC. Why should I have to spend even more money on a new video card and monitor because some asshole companies assume I'm a thief?
Slashdot Mirror
My statement does require some brain power yes. You often hear "the US government condemed such and such an action today." Do you think the FCC and DoE had any say in the matter? Or can you correctly figure out that it was US diplomats? The Chinese DoC would obviously not be involved one way or another, and you understand what parts of the government were involved. That's not biased, its common sense.
I'm not sure what connotation you place with student, but its definition is someone who is undergoing formilized education. Also, what else would you call protesters? They were not armed, so insurgants or other similar terms don't apply. Rioters doesn't apply either, because they weren't causing random damage (or any damage, from what I understand). Also rioters don't have any political agenda, which the students there DID have. Not even the Chinese government disputes that.
I would think so; humans don't really like to have their life ended.
actually, it can be said that statement has bias in it. first, you're implicating "the chinese government". who is that? the communist party as a whole? the military? the soldiers themselves who fired on the protesters?
I'm not implying the government, I explictly said it. I think you need to learn what bias is, because its not about splitting hairs. Goverment includes the military, I belive that's obvious. If I had said the Chinese military had killed them, its also likely they weren't under orders from the government.
which brings me to the second point: student protesters. what were they protesting? you only protest if something is wrong, right?
A group only protests if they believe something is wrong, yes. Does that automatically mean the protesters had valid points? No, not at all.
your "bias-free" sentence, which states nothing but the facts, absolutely has the underlying message: the chinese government [which is controlled by the opressive communist party] killed [innocent] student protesters [who wanted a better life] at Tiananmen Square in 1989 [and they were wrong for doing so]."
Did I write the parts in brackets? No? Then you're interjecting your own bias into my statement. YOU think that's what I said. Its not. There is a reason I didn't include those words. For whatever reason people today feel there's always something between the lines when there isn't. It really needs to stop.
of course, that's probably because the facts themselves carry a bias.
Facts don't have a bias; people add their bias when interperating facts.
Yep- that's exactly right. Assuming of course, you're able to save the money you do make- and aren't just spending it at the company store with inflated prices.
There's nothing in the article to suggest that this company is inflating prices though. In fact, the article seems to indicate that the company subsidizes food, meaning the food the company sells is cheaper than could be gotten at a non-company market. I also imagine that since the company is a HUGE buyer of food, economics of scale would also seem to indicate that it can buy more food cheaper than if the individual went to the market. I imagine also that the price of rice in China is already fairly low, since they grow so much of it there.
I guess what I'm getting at is that I'm inclinded to believe the artcile which claims the company is making life better for the Chinese.
It works the same way in the US too; if I didn't have healthcare, dental, vision, and life insurances, a 401(k) plan, etc., I'd expect more hard cash too. Same goes for any lack of sick or vacation time. My various insurances limit what doctors / providers I can go to, how often I can go, if I need referals or not.
I can see how this setup would be useful for getting started; save the money you do make, since your basic needs are met. Once you save more, you can move on to better things.
I wasn't commenting on Ohio Arts or any other Chinese company; I don't know how good (or bad) they are to their employees. But this particular company seems to treat their employees better than others, so seems to be stepping in the right direction.
I guess you just suck at your job them, as myself and thousands of other developers are using VS just fine.
No, keep your troll stories to yourself plese. You had outlook stories yet decided to bring VS into the mix for really no reason at all. Its not even remotely related..
Doesn't php have connection pooling? Jeez.
All content contains a bias. Knowing that is a good starting point for interpreting the content. This project is fine, as far as it goes. But implying (as you seem to) that somehow Wikipedia wonks are more trustworthy and less biased than other editors is, well, silly.
I don't buy that. I can say "the Chinese government killed student protesters at Tiananmen Square in 1989." There is no bias in that statement, its just a fact. Much of Wikipedia conforms to listing of dry facts, and areas that are speculating typically say its speculation, or section or entire articles are marked as "neutrality disputed" or unverified, etc.
The only reason we can see spin being added or taken away is exactly because the whole editing process is open, and we can all see how minor (or major) tweaks change the tone of an article from dry fact to spin.
Hmm... should have just setup and exchange server. You're pretty much notified immedately when there is new mail. No need for Send / Receive.
I once had an office mate that would email me a simple yes/no question if I was in the restroom at the time rather than wait 30 seconds to ask me in person- and then ask me to check my email when I returned from said restroom. And it wasn't important so as to need a paper trail, it had to do with something like did I get some memo.
To me that's where IM fits in; quick, trivial questions.
I find a phone call much less distracting. For a phone call, I have to stop typing, look away from the computer and answer it. I can't easily go back to work, the call takes up more time than reading an email quickly.
Heh.. nice attempt at a troll. Its too bad you're offtopic, it makes it obvious you're trolling.
Why not just flag it for follow up or something similar so you don't forget about it?
Its true; alot of stress is self created. Especially those people that get offended so easily.
I think though this shows that people can't properly prioritize what they need to do. I personally look at each email as it comes in, but I don't get a constant stream. Those that do should check less frequently, and prioritize the important ones from less important emails. Most email clients have ways to mark emails so that you can set a follow up deadline and such. Its just a matter of learning how to deal properly.
Who said anything about money or lawyers? Animal abuse by a kid (actually, I believe most people) is a sign that the person was or is being abused. It warps the mind. Expecting that people behave "normally" when raised in an atmosphere of abuse is just ignorant.
What good is a minimum wage when most of the manufactors aren't following it? There's another company paying $0.24 an hour. Again, you need to do some more research.
Also, its not just minimum wage; they get free board, CHEAPER food than they could buy elsewehre (because the company helps pay for it), and free healthcare. Those aren't insignficant perks either; I'd have quite a bit more if someone was helping me pay for my food, pay my mortgage and for my healthcare.
Did you even read my post? Here's the problem with the coal miners you refered to: "Under this system workers were not paid cash."
You realize that the yuan is the OFFICAL money of China, right? Its not company credits. So I don't quite see your parallel; these workers are earning and keeping money, the lodging and health care don't come off their paycheck. Its QUITE different from your wiki link...
We haven't had a war on our soil since the civil war.. so I'm not sure what you're getting at.
If a kid starts punching kittens, its probably because the parents abuse the child in some way. So yes, it is too bad the media doesn't blame the parents, because thats where blame belongs 100% of the time.
So go do some research to find out. The article makes it sound like they are paid in yuan. The food is also much cheaper than if they bought it offsite.
It seems conditions are worlds better than other employers in China, and they'd probably rather work for this company than not have a job at all.
Unlike the military, they are free to find employment elsewhere, and they don't have to worry about being shipped around the world to be blown up by some insurgants.
If you ignore the stupid /. editoral and read the blog, its actually questioning why its ok for some companys to have some open and closed source but not others. The example in the blog was SugarCRM, which was 100% closed, and opened PART of its code. Counter that with RH taking its code and closing it (but complying with the GPL still in all its releases).
Its not that SugarCRM will ever totally open, nor will RH totally close... the author seems to imply that both will continue with some open, some closed source. I think its a valid question... why not continue to critise SugarCRM for not opening the rest, and praise RH for not closing more?
I guess you didn't read the article.
They get paid $0.60 an hour (a lot in China), but they also get to live rent free, their food is subsidized, and they have free health care. They also get overtime pay and actually do get raises. I wouldn't mind that deal, if I were just starting out of high school and needed to work.
Except this isn't forcing everyone to use a certain graphics card. It means all graphics cards that implement DX10.1 need to implement a minium of X features. Just like all computers must have a certain amount of RAM, disk space, keyboard, etc. to function with Vista (or any OS).
As a consumer you just need to buy any card that supports DX10.1, and developers that decide to target DX10.1 will KNOW certain features are available, instead of the "check to see if feature X is present, implement workaround if it isn't."
I don't steal, but I'd also not be able to watch HD movies if I installed an HD drive into my PC. Why should I have to spend even more money on a new video card and monitor because some asshole companies assume I'm a thief?