The article, and my post, was referring to high school students.
In the '80s, when I was in HS, the term politically correct didn't exist and wouldn't for some time. But I remember several discussions in several classes regarding the First Amendment rights of students. The upshot was that the Bill of Rights didn't entirely apply to students on school grounds, especially during school hours. Our school newspaper was subject to administration review/approval, we could not use profanity in school, and we could not wear t-shirts with alcohol company logos or profanity on them. Our lockers and belongings could be searched and/or siezed.
Again, "politically correct" wasn't yet defined and we were no more free than today's students to express certain ideas (i.e. a classmate was suspended for presenting a paper titled "Acid is Good For You").
Our school rules regarding student rights/privledges were actually very liberal compared to most other public and private schools at that time and we were well aware of that.
The parents do the same. Some want the Bible removed from the library because they are atheists.
Bad parenting does indeed screw kids up. But that's not an issue of political correctness or not, that's an issue of bad parenting.
BTW, I think your example is a straw man. If, in fact, there are atheists who believe in censorship, then they're as foolish as any theist who believes in censorship. Movements to ban your literary examples (Twain et al.) significantly pre-date the rise of "political correctness" in our country. On a wider scale, book-banning has been many a fool's errand since before public libraries came to exist.
BTW, I apologize to everyone for misspelling "blame" in my original post.
Things like opinions about peoples habits, the way they look, the way they act. All of it.
Okay, let's say you have some opinion "x" regarding something in your list there. So you're arguuing that one of the following is true:
1) "I wish I could say "x" but I will get censored for being politically incorrect." 2) "I wish I could say "x" but I won't because I'll be critized for being politically incorrect."
I don't buy either one.
Many pundits, commentators, comedians, politicians, clergy and other public opinion leaders express a lot "politically incorrect" opinions as a matter of doing business. Hell, some of them make their whole living being politically incorrect on purpose.
And if you're worried that people will label you sexist, racist, or whatever-ist for expressing a given opinion, I would ask, "Why do you have reason to worry?" Point being, if you're conscious that people will interpret you that way, but you don't think you should be interpreted that way, then you should say it, and be prepared to defend it logically, respectfully and honestly. If you can do that, then the "politically incorrect" label is meaningless. If your defense is illogical, disrespectful, or dishonest, then hey, the shoe fits and you should wear it.
It takes courage to express yourself publicly. Even if you do it respectfully and honestly, there is a chance people will criticize you. That comes with the territory.
The ability to criticize anybody about anything gets pushed to the wayside due to not being "Politically Correct" because anything that is not "Politically Correct" is an "unpopular opinion" by definition.
Who is preventing unpopular opinions from being expressed?
RTFA. The British press clearly used prejudiced analysts, who believed they were criticizing Blair. Blair is unpopular, this was just a "pig-pile on the PM" attempt.
OTOH, had the analysts been told it was Bill's note, they'd probably have claimed a whole different list of negative traits.
Actually, it's PHBs and cheapskates who miscalculate the cost of "won't work as well".
The most ardent Windows folks I know are not PHBs, they're LAN admins. Well, to be fair, they're probably "cheapskate" LAN admins.
Eliminating bottlenecks, troubleshooting, and clunky workflow saves Mac users a ton of labor. If you factor the cost of even a few hours spent troubleshooting dodgy Windows-based technologies, the Mac comes out ahead, even with the premium up-front cost.
We totally agree on this. As I said, for my money Macs are a great value. While Macs cost more upfront, they're much more "worry free" long term, and they're top-performing tools in the applications I require--even more so with OSX and its development toolkits.
Part of my point was that Apple over-estmates how many of us fairly weight labor in the value equation. The majority of buyers will always marginalize labor value as soon as the first stage of sticker-shock sweeps over them.
And it'll take *a lot* of Windows frustration, fist-pounding and despair before they'll turn their heads back towards Apple, because they're desperate to salvage their original investment.
Honestly, most of the Windows users I know don't stress their computers much (written schoolwork, mild surfing, & gaming) so they never really reach a pain threshold. The Windows "power users" I know are, I must assume, numb to the pain by now.:-)
Of course, the standard PC answer is to any Mac innovation is "Who cares? If it's of any real importance PCs will have it in a year anyway. And it will be cheaper." To which the Mac answer is, "Yeah, and it won't work as well."
As a lifelong Apple customer, I say this without a hint of troll:
Apple often miscalculates the value delta between "cheaper" and "won't work as well". People will find a way to deal with the latter, if the former is significantly true.
The "as well" chasm must be wide and painful before most people will throw money at it.
For my money Macs are a great value. But I don't suspect that's true for everyone.
Yes, PC2Phone is a flavor of VoIP. What most people mean when they talk about VoIP though is phone-to-phone methods.
There are many of those too. Here's a partial list:
* IP Phone --> IP Network --> IP Phone * IP Phone --> IP Network --> PSTN --> POTS Phone * POTS Phone --> VoIP Adapter --> IP Network --> IP Phone * POTS Phone --> VoIP Adapter --> IP Network --> VoIP Adaptor --> POTS Phone * POTS Phone --> VoIP Adapter --> IP Network --> PSTN --> POTS Phone
BTW, the industry terms for "VoIP adaptor" are Analog Telephone Adapter (ATA), or Integrated Access Device (IAD). And there's always some media gateway (MGW) between the PSTN and IP networks.
Well, I think that replacing the PSTN phone is more of a means to an end, and not the goal itself. The *reason* people are seeking options to their "PSTN" phone service is to save money.
One way to avoid cost is to avoid long distance charges, and costly "feature packages" from your LEC. And one way to avoid those costs is use some flavor of VoIP.
It's got nothing to do with Cisco (or $vendor) gear vs. Linux/OSS firewall solutions.
When most people discuss "hardware" firewalls they're talking about a network device whose sole purpose is to statefully inspect all packets and filter "bad" packets.
This can be a PIX, Checkpoint, Watchguard, Lucent Brick, Fortinet, or whatever. Or it could be a "hardened" Linux box with no other services running on it. In fact, some of the aforementioned are just that, in fancier duds.
"Software" firewalls are applications/services running on hosts that also run other applications/services or are otherwise generic workstations.
Some of the nicer 'hardware' firewalls on the scene right now are asic-based, which fits even more into the 'hardware' definition.
Personally, I run with a little Fortinet Fortigate 50. The only flaw I've encountered with it is that I have to/enunciate clearly/ when telling others about it.
Man, did you get hammered with the UPS replies.:^)
What they, and you, also missed is that the average cordless phone also rolls over dead with no wallpower. Consumers are used to this. My parents, in their 60s, don't expect their phones to work when the power is out anymore.
The days of drawing *all* your current from the RBOC/LEC FXS jack are disappearing quickly into the sunset, so power is a nonstarter in the IP/POTS debate.
And, for SOHO-grade IPT, network stability is not nearly the factor you made it out to be either, since the ATA (usually built into a wireless-g router) is usually plugged directly into a broadband 'modem'. As long as your SP carries the traffic, you're golden.
The ATA/Service Provider IPT-in-a-box solution is nearly, but not quite, as idiot proof as any feature-rich cordless sold at your big box superstore.
Yep. I guess not being on the CC for every NASA Hubble memo & report might just leave us out of the loop on some parts of NASA internal discussions. Not surprising.
You don't think that perhaps, "Lauch a new one," was their first choice, and the maintenance requests were initiated because it was the cheaper, easier, more reliable, and more likely to get approved option?
would involve zero risk.
You mean, "except for total loss due to [insert unrecoverable failure of lauch system or vital telescopic system or basic design flaw here]", right?
True, with the exception that they count on both retail and OEM sales to make their quarterlies. I'm generally not a fan of boycotts, though, for the reason you gave.
Yeah! It's the same as when the phone company went to touch tone and my pulse phones didn't work anymore! Oh, wait...
Look, your TV isn't going to be useless anytime soon. Heck, that day is so far out that it'll probably break before then anyhow.
Relax. No one has suggested that everyone discards their TV on any give date. The regulatory date given to TV stations to upgrade their signal doesn't mean they'll terminate analog broadcasts that day too.
I have an old TV that only has RF in, but this trivially cheap dongle let's me watch cable in the garage. I won't be taking it to the transfer station until it cacks.
And what does HD broadcasting have to do with DVD player/recorders? I don't get what your beef is.
I don't know where you've gotten this "No 911 with VoIP" idea from.
I work for a telco/ISP/VoIP provider, and we've offer 911 services standard with all VoIP services. It's the same E911 service that cell carriers are providing.
And most major VoIP industry players offer it as a standard, or at least optional, feature.
Cell carriers are legally bound to provide E911 services (stage 1). VoIP carriers are not, but most serious providers do anyway, to have feature parity with the POTS market.
Why don't we just send up a staffed mission, and have done with it once and for all?
How would that have solved this problem? A person screwed this experiment up from here by "forgetting". How does putting them in closer proximity to the probe make them less fallable?
Throughout history, explorers on Earth have set out knowing they might not return -- and many did not return.
There's a massively important gap between "knowing they might not return" and "knowing the won't return."
Even Christopher Columbus knew there was a risk that he could be wrong about the Earth being round.
Yes, but he also believed there would be a massive rewards for finding a shorter trade route to India.
Of course it's best if you can be a living legend, but if you have to settle for one out of two then it's surely better to be a dead legend than a living nobody
Surely? No. I don't think most people would define themselves this way.
So why not a one-way ticket to space?
Because our reasons for discovery and exploration are hardly ever altruistic pursuits of knowledge. They are self-interested pursuits of knowledge for personal, usually economic, gain. If there is no tangible benefit, most people aren't willing to risk their lives. It's a self-preservational instinct thing, I think.
Most of the work that has been out-sourced has been off-shored
Oh yeah? Got the data to back that up? Just because off-shoring is the popular economic bogeyman, doesn't mean it's more prevalent than hiring outside consultants to do inside work. That happens everyday, everywhere. Find me a company that doesn't have several contractors onsite, and I'll show you a truly small business.
(Yes I must be a red-neck I just started a sentence with OR).
Hardly. Using conjunctions to begin a sentence is a literary tool that many brilliant writers occasionally use. And apparently you do it too.
2) That's not a racist swill IMO, my wife is Chinese
Your post was based on diminutive stereotypes about a specific ethnicity and religion. What would you call it? Oh I see...
it's a joke, HAHA
Well, no one seems to have modded you 'funny'. You'd think someone would have by now, eh? I mean, if it truly was 'funny'.
We learn how to speak broken English Indian style.
Done! That sentence, in the context you've created, is broken English. You need a "should" or a "could" or an "ought to" in there for a complete thought.
And, the original post isn't about "off-shoring". It's about "out-sourcing" which can be just as domestic as any other B2B relationship.
So, Roscoe, howzabout next time you read for comprehension before posting some redneck racist swill about other people and their religion?
True, but it doesn't much matter. My point was that outsourcing companies don't have a vested interest in the long-term success of your project, in the way that hired programmers do
Well, then you certainly suck at making your point.
Look at your 'Subject'. You say "hire domestic programmers" which clearly implies that foreign programmers are less skilled and/or not conscientious employees. It certainly does NOT imply that he should "grow his staff programmer headcount."
Nothing in your original post made this distinction clear either. If your point was the latter, it was *completely* lost in your marginally xenophobic rhetoric.
Slashdot Mirror
The article, and my post, was referring to high school students.
;^)
In the '80s, when I was in HS, the term politically correct didn't exist and wouldn't for some time. But I remember several discussions in several classes regarding the First Amendment rights of students. The upshot was that the Bill of Rights didn't entirely apply to students on school grounds, especially during school hours. Our school newspaper was subject to administration review/approval, we could not use profanity in school, and we could not wear t-shirts with alcohol company logos or profanity on them. Our lockers and belongings could be searched and/or siezed.
Again, "politically correct" wasn't yet defined and we were no more free than today's students to express certain ideas (i.e. a classmate was suspended for presenting a paper titled "Acid is Good For You").
Our school rules regarding student rights/privledges were actually very liberal compared to most other public and private schools at that time and we were well aware of that.
The parents do the same. Some want the Bible removed from the library because they are atheists.
Bad parenting does indeed screw kids up. But that's not an issue of political correctness or not, that's an issue of bad parenting.
BTW, I think your example is a straw man. If, in fact, there are atheists who believe in censorship, then they're as foolish as any theist who believes in censorship. Movements to ban your literary examples (Twain et al.) significantly pre-date the rise of "political correctness" in our country. On a wider scale, book-banning has been many a fool's errand since before public libraries came to exist.
BTW, I apologize to everyone for misspelling "blame" in my original post.
Kno swet.
Blah! Mis-read the question!
I was going to say...:^)
Things like opinions about peoples habits, the way they look, the way they act. All of it.
Okay, let's say you have some opinion "x" regarding something in your list there. So you're arguuing that one of the following is true:
1) "I wish I could say "x" but I will get censored for being politically incorrect."
2) "I wish I could say "x" but I won't because I'll be critized for being politically incorrect."
I don't buy either one.
Many pundits, commentators, comedians, politicians, clergy and other public opinion leaders express a lot "politically incorrect" opinions as a matter of doing business. Hell, some of them make their whole living being politically incorrect on purpose.
And if you're worried that people will label you sexist, racist, or whatever-ist for expressing a given opinion, I would ask, "Why do you have reason to worry?" Point being, if you're conscious that people will interpret you that way, but you don't think you should be interpreted that way, then you should say it, and be prepared to defend it logically, respectfully and honestly. If you can do that, then the "politically incorrect" label is meaningless. If your defense is illogical, disrespectful, or dishonest, then hey, the shoe fits and you should wear it.
It takes courage to express yourself publicly. Even if you do it respectfully and honestly, there is a chance people will criticize you. That comes with the territory.
The ability to criticize anybody about anything gets pushed to the wayside due to not being "Politically Correct" because anything that is not "Politically Correct" is an "unpopular opinion" by definition.
Who is preventing unpopular opinions from being expressed?
I've never understood this argument. What is it that you would like to say, but you don't feel you can and still be politically correct?
RTFA. The British press clearly used prejudiced analysts, who believed they were criticizing Blair. Blair is unpopular, this was just a "pig-pile on the PM" attempt.
OTOH, had the analysts been told it was Bill's note, they'd probably have claimed a whole different list of negative traits.
Actually, it's PHBs and cheapskates who miscalculate the cost of "won't work as well".
:-)
The most ardent Windows folks I know are not PHBs, they're LAN admins. Well, to be fair, they're probably "cheapskate" LAN admins.
Eliminating bottlenecks, troubleshooting, and clunky workflow saves Mac users a ton of labor. If you factor the cost of even a few hours spent troubleshooting dodgy Windows-based technologies, the Mac comes out ahead, even with the premium up-front cost.
We totally agree on this. As I said, for my money Macs are a great value. While Macs cost more upfront, they're much more "worry free" long term, and they're top-performing tools in the applications I require--even more so with OSX and its development toolkits.
Part of my point was that Apple over-estmates how many of us fairly weight labor in the value equation. The majority of buyers will always marginalize labor value as soon as the first stage of sticker-shock sweeps over them.
And it'll take *a lot* of Windows frustration, fist-pounding and despair before they'll turn their heads back towards Apple, because they're desperate to salvage their original investment.
Honestly, most of the Windows users I know don't stress their computers much (written schoolwork, mild surfing, & gaming) so they never really reach a pain threshold. The Windows "power users" I know are, I must assume, numb to the pain by now.
Yes, that would be quite hot.
Since I don't understand if you're being facetious or not...
77F = 25C = 298.15K
96.8F = 36C = 309.15K.
Note that 309.15 - 298.15 = 11, just as 36 - 25 = 11.
No. 11K (kelvin) degrees. Still ouch.
x kelvin = x Celsius + 273.15
Of course, the standard PC answer is to any Mac innovation is "Who cares? If it's of any real importance PCs will have it in a year anyway. And it will be cheaper." To which the Mac answer is, "Yeah, and it won't work as well."
As a lifelong Apple customer, I say this without a hint of troll:
Apple often miscalculates the value delta between "cheaper" and "won't work as well". People will find a way to deal with the latter, if the former is significantly true.
The "as well" chasm must be wide and painful before most people will throw money at it.
For my money Macs are a great value. But I don't suspect that's true for everyone.
A 'delta' of 11K (elvin) == a delta of 11C (elsius)
K = C + 273.15
Yes, PC2Phone is a flavor of VoIP. What most people mean when they talk about VoIP though is phone-to-phone methods.
There are many of those too. Here's a partial list:
* IP Phone --> IP Network --> IP Phone
* IP Phone --> IP Network --> PSTN --> POTS Phone
* POTS Phone --> VoIP Adapter --> IP Network --> IP Phone
* POTS Phone --> VoIP Adapter --> IP Network --> VoIP Adaptor --> POTS Phone
* POTS Phone --> VoIP Adapter --> IP Network --> PSTN --> POTS Phone
BTW, the industry terms for "VoIP adaptor" are Analog Telephone Adapter (ATA), or Integrated Access Device (IAD). And there's always some media gateway (MGW) between the PSTN and IP networks.
Well, I think that replacing the PSTN phone is more of a means to an end, and not the goal itself. The *reason* people are seeking options to their "PSTN" phone service is to save money.
One way to avoid cost is to avoid long distance charges, and costly "feature packages" from your LEC. And one way to avoid those costs is use some flavor of VoIP.
No, no, no. They're just Asterisk-ing for a lawsuit.
Submit salary history with resume?
Wise folk ignore this request, thus maintaining parity with ones potential employer/oppressor.
It's got nothing to do with Cisco (or $vendor) gear vs. Linux/OSS firewall solutions.
/enunciate clearly/ when telling others about it.
When most people discuss "hardware" firewalls they're talking about a network device whose sole purpose is to statefully inspect all packets and filter "bad" packets.
This can be a PIX, Checkpoint, Watchguard, Lucent Brick, Fortinet, or whatever. Or it could be a "hardened" Linux box with no other services running on it. In fact, some of the aforementioned are just that, in fancier duds.
"Software" firewalls are applications/services running on hosts that also run other applications/services or are otherwise generic workstations.
Some of the nicer 'hardware' firewalls on the scene right now are asic-based, which fits even more into the 'hardware' definition.
Personally, I run with a little Fortinet Fortigate 50. The only flaw I've encountered with it is that I have to
Man, did you get hammered with the UPS replies. :^)
What they, and you, also missed is that the average cordless phone also rolls over dead with no wallpower. Consumers are used to this. My parents, in their 60s, don't expect their phones to work when the power is out anymore.
The days of drawing *all* your current from the RBOC/LEC FXS jack are disappearing quickly into the sunset, so power is a nonstarter in the IP/POTS debate.
And, for SOHO-grade IPT, network stability is not nearly the factor you made it out to be either, since the ATA (usually built into a wireless-g router) is usually plugged directly into a broadband 'modem'. As long as your SP carries the traffic, you're golden.
The ATA/Service Provider IPT-in-a-box solution is nearly, but not quite, as idiot proof as any feature-rich cordless sold at your big box superstore.
seems to ignore an obvious solution
Yep. I guess not being on the CC for every NASA Hubble memo & report might just leave us out of the loop on some parts of NASA internal discussions. Not surprising.
You don't think that perhaps, "Lauch a new one," was their first choice, and the maintenance requests were initiated because it was the cheaper, easier, more reliable, and more likely to get approved option?
would involve zero risk.
You mean, "except for total loss due to [insert unrecoverable failure of lauch system or vital telescopic system or basic design flaw here]", right?
You waste your time boycotting a brand name.
True, with the exception that they count on both retail and OEM sales to make their quarterlies. I'm generally not a fan of boycotts, though, for the reason you gave.
Yeah! It's the same as when the phone company went to touch tone and my pulse phones didn't work anymore! Oh, wait...
Look, your TV isn't going to be useless anytime soon. Heck, that day is so far out that it'll probably break before then anyhow.
Relax. No one has suggested that everyone discards their TV on any give date. The regulatory date given to TV stations to upgrade their signal doesn't mean they'll terminate analog broadcasts that day too.
I have an old TV that only has RF in, but this trivially cheap dongle let's me watch cable in the garage. I won't be taking it to the transfer station until it cacks.
And what does HD broadcasting have to do with DVD player/recorders? I don't get what your beef is.
I still think VOIP directories should be available through services like ddns. I don't have to subcribe to any service to do a DNS lookup
Your ISP runs a DNS service to support other services that they sell you. They do it because they want your money.
DNS is not "a public service." Except for, arguably, the roots.
I don't know where you've gotten this "No 911 with VoIP" idea from.
I work for a telco/ISP/VoIP provider, and we've offer 911 services standard with all VoIP services. It's the same E911 service that cell carriers are providing.
And most major VoIP industry players offer it as a standard, or at least optional, feature.
Cell carriers are legally bound to provide E911 services (stage 1). VoIP carriers are not, but most serious providers do anyway, to have feature parity with the POTS market.
Why don't we just send up a staffed mission, and have done with it once and for all?
How would that have solved this problem? A person screwed this experiment up from here by "forgetting". How does putting them in closer proximity to the probe make them less fallable?
Throughout history, explorers on Earth have set out knowing they might not return -- and many did not return.
There's a massively important gap between "knowing they might not return" and "knowing the won't return."
Even Christopher Columbus knew there was a risk that he could be wrong about the Earth being round.
Yes, but he also believed there would be a massive rewards for finding a shorter trade route to India.
Of course it's best if you can be a living legend, but if you have to settle for one out of two then it's surely better to be a dead legend than a living nobody
Surely? No. I don't think most people would define themselves this way.
So why not a one-way ticket to space?
Because our reasons for discovery and exploration are hardly ever altruistic pursuits of knowledge. They are self-interested pursuits of knowledge for personal, usually economic, gain. If there is no tangible benefit, most people aren't willing to risk their lives. It's a self-preservational instinct thing, I think.
1) That's some funny post you got there.
Glad you liked it.
Most of the work that has been out-sourced has been off-shored
Oh yeah? Got the data to back that up? Just because off-shoring is the popular economic bogeyman, doesn't mean it's more prevalent than hiring outside consultants to do inside work. That happens everyday, everywhere. Find me a company that doesn't have several contractors onsite, and I'll show you a truly small business.
(Yes I must be a red-neck I just started a sentence with OR).
Hardly. Using conjunctions to begin a sentence is a literary tool that many brilliant writers occasionally use. And apparently you do it too.
2) That's not a racist swill IMO, my wife is Chinese
Your post was based on diminutive stereotypes about a specific ethnicity and religion. What would you call it? Oh I see...
it's a joke, HAHA
Well, no one seems to have modded you 'funny'. You'd think someone would have by now, eh? I mean, if it truly was 'funny'.
We learn how to speak broken English Indian style.
Done! That sentence, in the context you've created, is broken English. You need a "should" or a "could" or an "ought to" in there for a complete thought.
And, the original post isn't about "off-shoring". It's about "out-sourcing" which can be just as domestic as any other B2B relationship.
So, Roscoe, howzabout next time you read for comprehension before posting some redneck racist swill about other people and their religion?
When they learned their lesson, they hired some domestic people to do it right.
Hm, I thought domestic vs. foreign "wasn't your point". So which matters more, IYHO, hiring domestic, or hiring in-house staff?
Just curious, because you're not being at all consistent.
True, but it doesn't much matter. My point was that outsourcing companies don't have a vested interest in the long-term success of your project, in the way that hired programmers do
Well, then you certainly suck at making your point.
Look at your 'Subject'. You say "hire domestic programmers" which clearly implies that foreign programmers are less skilled and/or not conscientious employees. It certainly does NOT imply that he should "grow his staff programmer headcount."
Nothing in your original post made this distinction clear either. If your point was the latter, it was *completely* lost in your marginally xenophobic rhetoric.