I think he was confusing conservative with neo-conservative. These are two very different beasts.
True conservatives like the idea of less government. For neo-conservatives...well, let's just say that they go by the saying "the ends justify the means".
I would like to draw your attention to the eighth ammendment of the US Constitution:
"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."
You see, our forefathers were smart enough to include such things just in case someone like you (or some of those already in power) decide to do something incredibly...stupid.
Ironically enough, this is a smart economic move. Weare's beach is a fairly popular place in the summer, and few can forget the famous bike week.
My guess is Souter really isn't making much use of that land, and having a new hotel would increase tourism to the area. This would increase jobs and encourage growth as well.
There's also several nearby ski-resorts, so the place could be popular in winter as well (I've only been there in the warmer months so I don't know).
On a related note, I went into cardiac arrest when I was 2 as a result of a bee sting at a park. After 10 minutes of CPR, a nurse who had been at the scene where this happened pronounced me dead (much to the dismay of my mother).
A couple minutes later while everyone was giving condoloensces to my distraught mother, someone noticed I had gone missing. I was over on the swings as if nothing had happened.
Later, at the hospital, the doctors ran a bunch of tests and concluded I was fine.
There are some funny things that happen in life. For everything else there's ZoMbIe DoGs!
" If IBM is saving money, that money gets reallocated somewhere."
Yup.
"That may be more investment, better dividends, savings, or a combination of all."
Or, as is the case in many companys, bonuses for the board members. Dividends are a much shrinking commodity in the stock market. And usually if a company is slashing jobs (or replacing them) new investments and R&D are low priority.
"All these generate jobs. All of them."
Incorrect. Jobs are created in response to economic pressure for a business to grow. Whether it's from a grand new idea, or an increase in user base, jobs are created when there is an economic need for them.
If there isn't a need, jobs are not created. Period. In this case, there was economic pressure to cut costs, butthey still needed those jobs to be filled. So they slashed the higher paying jobs in Europe, and replaced them with lower paying jobs in India. Downsizing, without losing personel.
And if, in the future, they want to keep their labor margins high, the reinvest and open jobs in India. This creates a growing economy in India, but fewer jobs are offered elsewhere.
"The money that was being wasted paying overpriced technicians will be reallocated increasing the eficiency of the economy where IBM is based (last time I checked that is the US)."
Again you are confusing cost of living differences between countrys. Here's an example:
A tech in India is payed the equivalent of $20000 a year. That's about a third of what the average tech makes here. However, costs of housing, goods, and transportation are about a 1/6 of what they are in the US. So the Indian tech guy lives quite nicely, providing for his family and still having a chunk of change play with.
A tech in the US with the exact same qualifications making $20000 a year would not be living so nicely. In fact, in some areas of this country $20000 a year wouldn't be enough to live on (Try LA for example). And this isn't even including having a family.
But companies don't work that way. Companies invest in the areas where they see the most growth for the least investment. That's how they make profit.
The fact that IBM is based in the US is irrelevant. The growth potential and profit margins are elsewhere. There are no penalties for off-shoring, the cost is lower, and the growth is higher. So where do you think they are going to spend their dough?
"I am tired of people whinning when companies do what they do best: allocating efficently resources."
The most efficient business model is the small business model. A number of large businesses in, say the NASDAQ spend excess millions just because the company's inner workings have become so complex. But that's a different dicussion.
What people are "whinning" about is that the playing field isn't level. Two techs with the same qualifications in two different countries should cost the same. But they don't, due to the economical distribution of the world. The workers in the first-world countries simply can't compete with the workers in second and third world countries. You wouldn't be able to make a living.
In some cases, it's even impossible. For example, in the US we have a minimum wage. The US worker wouldn't be able to go lower on the pay scale, even if they wanted to.
"US people have one of the higest standard of living in the world (even the poor people, that live immensily better than poor people in poor countries) but keep whining about "their" jobs."
Again, I don't think your understanding what the complaint is. The complaint is that they have no way to compete. The US does not put up any "equalizing" incentives for companies not to outsource. Without that, the tech people in the US would have to work for an equivalent wage of a burger flipper at a McDonalds in order to compete against outsourced labor.
However, if the US would give tax breaks or labor tariffs to make the cost equivalent no matter where you tried to send jobs, then y
A curious kid gains administrative privileges and says, "Oh that's interesting. Maybe I should bring this up as a potential problem".
Kids blatantly using administrative priviliges, spreading the password, installing unsanctioned software, etc. are no longer curious. The are breaking the rules and regulations under which they agreed to use the computers.
There's a big differnce between finding a security hole and exploiting a security hole.
And as I've stated already in other responses, the felony charges are nothing more than media hype. These are minors, and absolute worse case may be ordered to community service, if they are prosecuted at all.
Most likely the school will discipline them and that will be the end of it.
The sensationalistic media would like you to believe otherwise, however.
As far as worse things they could have gotten into, you're right. They could have gained access to the school's administartive system and done something really malicious, like say downloading some kiddie porn pics to the principal's home directory.
Look, they're minors. All this talk about felonies and prison time is all media hype.
Worst case scenario, these kids may be assigned to community time or a fine. And when they turn 18, their records are cleaned.
Sure, this may have been "harmless", but that's not the point. They were given state property with state rules and restrictions. Those restrictions were put in placed so little Johnny wouldn't do things like download porn and then have the parents sue the school for millions of dollars.
Is it ok for someone to walk into your house and take something just because you left the front door unlocked?
That's right, they are. So in reality they won't see any jail time. In fact, they won't even be prosecuted. And even if they were, their records are "wiped clean" after they turn 18.
If anything, this will go down on their school records as a disciplinary action.
The fact that they're teenagers is irrelevant. Most teenagers have at least the basic idea of right and wrong. They were given state property with a set of retrictions and rules. They broke those rules, and there are consequences.
Whether you think those rules and consequences are wrong is another matter.
With a number as low as yours, I would expect a response that was a little more mature.
"Oh shut the FUCK up you idiot."
Case and point.
"Basically figuring out the BIOS password and they are looking at class 3 felonies?"
The kids are under 18 years old, so a class 3 felony isn't going to amount to much. And most likely, they won't even be prosecuted.
But you miss the point. Just because someone CAN do something doesn't mean they SHOULD do something. I don't go around breaking into peoples' houses just because I can circumvent their locks.
"Worst thing that should happen is: Well, Johnny, you are apparently not responsible enough to have one of the school's laptops in your possession."
That probably will be the extent of it, and maybe a suspension. It will probably go on their school record as a disciplinary action.
"End of story, not 'You little conniving fucker, you are an evil evil EVIL hacker and now you're going to pound-you-in-the-ass prison.'"
And as I stated before, they are minors. They won't be going to any prison.
"The punishment's gotta fit the crime."
And it will.
"(if you can even call it that...)"
It was a crime. They broke the law. You may not agree with the law, but that's a different subject.
If someone leaves their front door unlocked and you go in and steal their TV, good luck finding a judge who will support your view of "but it's their fault they left the front door unlocked".
That is unless, you think they INDUCED you to commit a crime...
If they figure it will cost more in legal fees than it will to write the check, they'll just write the check.
Happened to me. I was in a fender brush with some lady (not even a scuff mark on the fender of either car). A few days later a claim comes in for $5000 dollars. Insurance company says "We have photos, we know your claim is crap". Lady get's attorney that threatens court action.
Insurance company folds and pays the bitch.
Insurance companies don't care about you. They care about profit.
"Corporations work because they produce goods and services people are willing to buy."
And the economy works because people buy stuff. But if you take away what people need to make money (jobs), they aren't going to have money to buy stuff.
As companies look overseas for cheaper labor, people in the states will have fewer dollars to buy. Wouldn't this worry companies? Not really, because by offshoring the labor they are stimulating economies in those countries. In a large fledgling market (like India), the loss of sales in the US could be more than made up for by the gain in sales.
Slashdot Mirror
This guy got orafucked. Next. ~X~
Not to nitpick, but the mission was to help uncover the secrest of our solar system, not the universe.
~X~
IT sounded like this....
~X~
You think Asshole is better than Mr. Bush?
~X~
I think he was confusing conservative with neo-conservative. These are two very different beasts.
True conservatives like the idea of less government. For neo-conservatives...well, let's just say that they go by the saying "the ends justify the means".
~X~
I would like to draw your attention to the eighth ammendment of the US Constitution:
"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."
You see, our forefathers were smart enough to include such things just in case someone like you (or some of those already in power) decide to do something incredibly...stupid.
~X~
Ooops! My bad. You're right. I've been working a few too many late nights. :P
~X~
Ironically enough, this is a smart economic move. Weare's beach is a fairly popular place in the summer, and few can forget the famous bike week.
My guess is Souter really isn't making much use of that land, and having a new hotel would increase tourism to the area. This would increase jobs and encourage growth as well.
There's also several nearby ski-resorts, so the place could be popular in winter as well (I've only been there in the warmer months so I don't know).
What applies to one applies to all.
~X~
Sure...as long as I get to eat the crayon.
You don't happen to have any paste do you?
~X~
Look, if I went around saying a little green leperchaun taught me how to lift rocks with my mind they'd put me away!
~X~
Sherlock.
~X~
Peter Jackson: "The Ring is treacherous, but I'll hold you to your word."
New Line Smeagol: (quietly)"Stupid fat hobbit."
~X~
That's FREEDOM FUSION to you bud!
~X~
Obligatory Monty Python Tasteless Joke:
You'll be stone dead in a moment.
On a related note, I went into cardiac arrest when I was 2 as a result of a bee sting at a park. After 10 minutes of CPR, a nurse who had been at the scene where this happened pronounced me dead (much to the dismay of my mother).
A couple minutes later while everyone was giving condoloensces to my distraught mother, someone noticed I had gone missing. I was over on the swings as if nothing had happened.
Later, at the hospital, the doctors ran a bunch of tests and concluded I was fine.
There are some funny things that happen in life. For everything else there's ZoMbIe DoGs!
~X~
And all this is surpirsing....why?
~X~
" If IBM is saving money, that money gets reallocated somewhere."
Yup.
"That may be more investment, better dividends, savings, or a combination of all."
Or, as is the case in many companys, bonuses for the board members. Dividends are a much shrinking commodity in the stock market. And usually if a company is slashing jobs (or replacing them) new investments and R&D are low priority.
"All these generate jobs. All of them."
Incorrect. Jobs are created in response to economic pressure for a business to grow. Whether it's from a grand new idea, or an increase in user base, jobs are created when there is an economic need for them.
If there isn't a need, jobs are not created. Period. In this case, there was economic pressure to cut costs, butthey still needed those jobs to be filled. So they slashed the higher paying jobs in Europe, and replaced them with lower paying jobs in India. Downsizing, without losing personel.
And if, in the future, they want to keep their labor margins high, the reinvest and open jobs in India. This creates a growing economy in India, but fewer jobs are offered elsewhere.
"The money that was being wasted paying overpriced technicians will be reallocated increasing the eficiency of the economy where IBM is based (last time I checked that is the US)."
Again you are confusing cost of living differences between countrys. Here's an example:
A tech in India is payed the equivalent of $20000 a year. That's about a third of what the average tech makes here. However, costs of housing, goods, and transportation are about a 1/6 of what they are in the US. So the Indian tech guy lives quite nicely, providing for his family and still having a chunk of change play with.
A tech in the US with the exact same qualifications making $20000 a year would not be living so nicely. In fact, in some areas of this country $20000 a year wouldn't be enough to live on (Try LA for example). And this isn't even including having a family.
But companies don't work that way. Companies invest in the areas where they see the most growth for the least investment. That's how they make profit.
The fact that IBM is based in the US is irrelevant. The growth potential and profit margins are elsewhere. There are no penalties for off-shoring, the cost is lower, and the growth is higher. So where do you think they are going to spend their dough?
"I am tired of people whinning when companies do what they do best: allocating efficently resources."
The most efficient business model is the small business model. A number of large businesses in, say the NASDAQ spend excess millions just because the company's inner workings have become so complex. But that's a different dicussion.
What people are "whinning" about is that the playing field isn't level. Two techs with the same qualifications in two different countries should cost the same. But they don't, due to the economical distribution of the world. The workers in the first-world countries simply can't compete with the workers in second and third world countries. You wouldn't be able to make a living.
In some cases, it's even impossible. For example, in the US we have a minimum wage. The US worker wouldn't be able to go lower on the pay scale, even if they wanted to.
"US people have one of the higest standard of living in the world (even the poor people, that live immensily better than poor people in poor countries) but keep whining about "their" jobs."
Again, I don't think your understanding what the complaint is. The complaint is that they have no way to compete. The US does not put up any "equalizing" incentives for companies not to outsource. Without that, the tech people in the US would have to work for an equivalent wage of a burger flipper at a McDonalds in order to compete against outsourced labor.
However, if the US would give tax breaks or labor tariffs to make the cost equivalent no matter where you tried to send jobs, then y
A curious kid gains administrative privileges and says, "Oh that's interesting. Maybe I should bring this up as a potential problem".
Kids blatantly using administrative priviliges, spreading the password, installing unsanctioned software, etc. are no longer curious. The are breaking the rules and regulations under which they agreed to use the computers.
There's a big differnce between finding a security hole and exploiting a security hole.
And as I've stated already in other responses, the felony charges are nothing more than media hype. These are minors, and absolute worse case may be ordered to community service, if they are prosecuted at all.
Most likely the school will discipline them and that will be the end of it.
The sensationalistic media would like you to believe otherwise, however.
As far as worse things they could have gotten into, you're right. They could have gained access to the school's administartive system and done something really malicious, like say downloading some kiddie porn pics to the principal's home directory.
Would that be "bad enough" then?
~X~
Look, they're minors. All this talk about felonies and prison time is all media hype.
Worst case scenario, these kids may be assigned to community time or a fine. And when they turn 18, their records are cleaned.
Sure, this may have been "harmless", but that's not the point. They were given state property with state rules and restrictions. Those restrictions were put in placed so little Johnny wouldn't do things like download porn and then have the parents sue the school for millions of dollars.
Is it ok for someone to walk into your house and take something just because you left the front door unlocked?
~X~
"They're kids."
That's right, they are. So in reality they won't see any jail time. In fact, they won't even be prosecuted. And even if they were, their records are "wiped clean" after they turn 18.
If anything, this will go down on their school records as a disciplinary action.
The fact that they're teenagers is irrelevant. Most teenagers have at least the basic idea of right and wrong. They were given state property with a set of retrictions and rules. They broke those rules, and there are consequences.
Whether you think those rules and consequences are wrong is another matter.
~X~
With a number as low as yours, I would expect a response that was a little more mature.
"Oh shut the FUCK up you idiot."
Case and point.
"Basically figuring out the BIOS password and they are looking at class 3 felonies?"
The kids are under 18 years old, so a class 3 felony isn't going to amount to much. And most likely, they won't even be prosecuted.
But you miss the point. Just because someone CAN do something doesn't mean they SHOULD do something. I don't go around breaking into peoples' houses just because I can circumvent their locks.
"Worst thing that should happen is: Well, Johnny, you are apparently not responsible enough to have one of the school's laptops in your possession."
That probably will be the extent of it, and maybe a suspension. It will probably go on their school record as a disciplinary action.
"End of story, not 'You little conniving fucker, you are an evil evil EVIL hacker and now you're going to pound-you-in-the-ass prison.'"
And as I stated before, they are minors. They won't be going to any prison.
"The punishment's gotta fit the crime."
And it will.
"(if you can even call it that...)"
It was a crime. They broke the law. You may not agree with the law, but that's a different subject.
If someone leaves their front door unlocked and you go in and steal their TV, good luck finding a judge who will support your view of "but it's their fault they left the front door unlocked".
That is unless, you think they INDUCED you to commit a crime...
~X~
The helix nebulae is a well known astronomical object that has been noted well before the Hubble.
The Hubble just has a better view.
A decent amatuer telescope will allow you to see it.
~X~
What about "The Last Star Fighter"?
:)
For it's time, the death blossom was pretty damn cool.
~X~
Well...this one time at band camp.... :)
Had to say it.
~X~
Yep.
If they figure it will cost more in legal fees than it will to write the check, they'll just write the check.
Happened to me. I was in a fender brush with some lady (not even a scuff mark on the fender of either car). A few days later a claim comes in for $5000 dollars. Insurance company says "We have photos, we know your claim is crap". Lady get's attorney that threatens court action.
Insurance company folds and pays the bitch.
Insurance companies don't care about you. They care about profit.
~X~
"Corporations work because they produce goods and services people are willing to buy."
And the economy works because people buy stuff. But if you take away what people need to make money (jobs), they aren't going to have money to buy stuff.
As companies look overseas for cheaper labor, people in the states will have fewer dollars to buy. Wouldn't this worry companies? Not really, because by offshoring the labor they are stimulating economies in those countries. In a large fledgling market (like India), the loss of sales in the US could be more than made up for by the gain in sales.
In the end, the workers lose.
~X~