Yesterday I received a DVD in the mail from an obscure group known as the "Clarion Fund." It was a hatchet job meant to scare people about the evils of muslim extremism.... The shocking part was that they somehow had my full name on the address label.... The joys of living in the swing state of VA....
This was reported on a little while ago in at least one online publication. It was called "Obsession".
I think when we get around to admitting that we're horribly racist and xenophobic in America, we'll be better off than that "open to everyone" crap we try to peddle to the rest of the world.
The very idea (demonstrably false though it may be) that a major party candidate is a Muslim shouldn't be a detractor from them holding the presidency, but as it has been used as a smear...
I received the "Obsession" DVD in the mail also. I watched the entire thing. I saw not one reference to the upcoming US election, nor any specific party or candidate. I agree the attempt by some on the extreme-right to label Obama as Muslim as a scare tactic is wrong, but the "Obsession" DVD carried no such message concerning Obama or the Democrats. Were there any errors of fact in the "Obsession" video? Were the film clips of Hitler meeting with the Mufti fakes? Were any of the WW2 historical facts reported in error? Were the pictures of the propaganda used by radical Islamic groups that were compared to (and were nearly identical to) Nazi propaganda made up or faked?
Is it not permissible for those to whom the threat posed by extreme Islamic radicals is an important issue, to publicize their positions during an election? Isn't that sort of the point of free speech, that people may voice their political and policy views to try to inform other voters about issues they feel are important? Or has the subject of radical Islam become so "PC-adverse" that any attempt to air views that don't minimize or dismiss it are not to be tolerated?
Perhaps the negative reaction to the DVD by those on the "left" is based more on not wanting to deal with the issue mostly based on the fact that historically the Democrats are viewed as the less-strong party when it comes to national security and foreign policy regarding dealings with foreign hostiles, and that citizens being reminded of the threats the world faces is bad for the Democrat election chances?
http://tripsforjudges.org/ [tripsforjudges.org] says otherwise. They just hide the income in different ways.
Corporate special interests are wining and dining judges at fancy resorts under the pretext of "educating" them about complicated legal issues. Nothing for FREE, a July 2000 report by Community Rights Counsel (CRC), showed that these junkets appear to be working as their sponsors intend, encouraging rulings that strike down environmental protections and line the pockets of junket sponsors. CRC's most recent report, Tainted Justice, released in March 2004, expands on Nothing for FREE.
You see, it works just like the "Fact-finding" junkets that Congress take each summer and around all the major vacation periods.
I'm sure that those kinds of things (junkets, dinners, etc) go on, but if those types of influence are going on, I feel relatively certain that the types of things I outlined in my post probably go on also. One is not mutually exclusive of the other, rather, I'd opine that the existence of one form of influence would tend to make more likely the existence of the other forms of influence, especially for those judges not so easily "bought". I don't know for certain that this judge was influenced, or by which method (carrot [bribe] or stick [blackmail/threat]) but something seems "fishy" here if TFS and TFA are factual, correct, and in-context. Interesting link, good find. Thanks.
How much did this judge get paid for his decision? Because there's no way an honest man could've come to such a conclusion.
The judge likely got paid nothing. Bribes are too obvious and easy to trace. Don't forget, the RIAA/Media Sentry do investigations for a living. They also had, what, a year? A lot of dirt can be dug up in a year. It's quite possible that the RIAA/Media Sentry lawyers and/or private investigators pretexted or pressured sources to obtain the judges' internet and phone records, copies of his credit card charges, and even taken a look at his family too.
Maybe they found one of the judges' children or grandchildren had used P2P to illegally share copyrighted material without permission. Maybe the judge had some charges on his plastic at a strip club. Bribed people will flip on the briber if pressured. Those acting to keep secret their own or loved ones' indiscretions are much more reliable and likely to keep quiet, and that kind of pressure much harder to prove.
All I'm seeing is the "unpatriotic" banner being waved by the left in America, when they AREN'T asking, "Why are companies leaving America, and why do they have hard-to-touch bank accounts offshore?" Somewhere there's a BAD disconnect - that we could minimize what many banks are going through by doing something that would ENCOURAGE people keeping their money there rather than seeing large companies as something to tax and take from because they somehow "owe" it.
The left NEVER asks what is wrong with their system - they just ask what is wrong with everyone else. We need to ask, "what would it take for you to keep your money in America," rather than proclaiming from the rooftops that they're leaving and should be punished for it.
You can see their thinking concerning a solution to the problem of businesses fleeing punishing taxation and regulation in the US when you look to the recent actions taken and being proposed in the area of pressuring foreign governments to adopt US-friendly laws and "harmonizing" policies concerning copyright and software/business method patents and the enforcement of same.
Don't let those who can achieve and prosper by their ingenuity and labor do so, thereby enriching others and providing examples of how to excel, but beat everyone down to the lowest common denominator. Make the people dependent on governmental largess, where they can maintain their power by being the party to offer to return the largest crumbs back to the ones that baked the loaves which they confiscated in the first place.
You have convinced me. We must not give up fighting the US.
I realize you're trying to be all snarky and witty and all, but in a way I agree.
We in the US must never give up fighting against any enemy that wishes to take our freedoms, foreign or domestic. Fortunately, domestically, we're still at the "soap box", "ballot box", and "jury box" phases and haven't moved to the "ammo box" phase as we did once before during the US Civil War.
As for others outside the US, I'd hope you'd assist the good freedom-loving people of the US, where you could, to help us convince the US politicians that attempting to extend our stupid mistakes like infinite copyrights, DMCA-type laws, and ridiculous patents on software and business methods, is *not* what the US should be about. We should be setting an example for the world in this area rather than attempting to force the rest of the world to follow the US in crippling its' own peoples' freedoms and future in the name of profit.
But what makes you think America doesn't have the whole world in its pocket already?
Oh, I don't know...maybe I took a look around?
I mean, seriously. Russia and China are in the US' pocket? The countries in the Mideast? If you believe that, you really need to do a little research in world current affairs. Currently, most of the European Union countries hate us. Personally, I think it has much to do with the US killing many politicians' and countries' in the EUs' Golden Goose by taking out Saddam, who was funneling massive amounts of money to EU countries' coffers through weapons and war materials sales to Iraq (against UN sanctions) and also to EU politicians through the corrupt UN "Oil for Food" program.
However, compare Spain's reaction to terrorism to that of the US, and it's clear who is, *today*, the preferable country.
You're serious!?!? Give the killers what they want, that's what you're advocating here!?!? They kill innocent people and your reaction is "give them what they demand"? What about the next time and next thing they want? The time after that? Why should they stop if it gets them what they want? What if they want you and your family dead, or your countrymen? What if they demand you live by their laws? Will you give up your freedom and your life to appease them, or is it only ok as long as it's someone elses' freedoms and/or lives that you don't personally care about?
While the "far exceeding" part is a bit debatable, if it is so it's only because humanity itself has advanced throughout time, and the US is the newest "world's largest superpower", so it's clear that they ought to be more civilized than the rest.
Why would you think that in the space of a few hundred years that human nature would have radically changed when it hasn't for thousands of years up to now, or this just a rationalization for your personal bias and bigotry?
The worst? hardly, most people would agree the Roman Empire was even worse, but two simple facts are that a) the US is *NOT* a good country to have as a superpower, not even for US citizens, and b) they are the superpower we have to deal with in our lifetimes. Combine the two, and you'd see why Bush is criticized so much, and Louis XIV isn't: the latter has been out of his country's government for centuries (by virtue of being dead, mostly), while the former isn't.
Ah, so it's not the fact that the US is so bad, it's the fact that you have to live with the reality that the US is the current superpower and your country of choice isn't. The US *is* better to have as the major superpower both for its' citizens and the world, especially considering the likely alternatives of Russia or China. Saying that it's not a good thing for US citizens would be true only if you consider US citizens being better off dead or under the thumb of a foreign power.
You seem to have a lot of hatred and biases. Maybe you should seek help. It's affecting your perception of reality and your ability to use reason and logic.
I'd say that most other countries, if given the power that the US has been wielding for the past 60 years or so, would have been on a total blitzkrieg-like war campaign to completely conquer the world. How do you think things in the world would be if the US had collapsed and the USSR had been left as the sole superpower? Or China?
Or Spain? or France? or Australia? or Ireland? or Canada? or Brazil? or Portugal? or Finland? or Sweden?
The USSR and China are as representative of "most other countries" as Bush is a representative of the whole human race, thank God. And yes, I believe that all the countries I've named, and many others that I didn't, would've done a much better job than the US being "the world's biggest superpower".
Well, Spain, France and Portugal actually *were* all superpowers at one time, and proved they were quite fine with starting wars of aggression and invading other countries, committing genocide, and generally being very, very bad actors indeed, far exceeding the US in greed and ruthlessness. Every other country that could have been considered a "superpower" throughout history has behaved much worse than the US.
The other countries you've named have never had any really comparable power to exert. However, every other country that has achieved "superpower" status in the past has acted much worse than the US has in its' period of "superpower" status. Why is it that the US is looked upon as the worst country to ever hold "superpower" status when history plainly shows this is not so?
Since I'm Chinese, I can tell you what I *think* would happen if China became the world superpower. It would spread its culture and have its army sit around its borders (as opposed to flying to the other side of the globe to take out some "bad guy"). Sure there will be border or ethnic conflicts but outright invasions would be unlikely. And why do I think that? Because that's essentially what happened for the past 2000 years in China.
Well, except for Tibet. Oh, and Taiwan if China didn't think it would start a world war. Let's not forget the proxy wars in Korea and Vietnam. China has tried to maintain the appearance of "sitting behind it's borders" for the last 50 to 75 years (with notable exceptions) basically because it has lacked the technology and industrial infrastructure to compete militarily with the West.
Having large standing armies, armed with basically WW2-era weapons technology for the most part, going up against a modern industrial/technological/military power would only create a huge Chinese body count.
However, on those occasions when China has felt confident the West either didn't care enough, or were unable due to other matters/conflicts, to contest it exerting power outside its' borders it hasn't hesitated to do so when it had something to gain.
With China rapidly building up it's industrial and military might, I'm sure China will be playing an increasing role militarily and economically outside it's borders as time goes on, especially as world resources like oil become scarcer while China grows in industrial might, requiring larger and larger amounts of these resources to maintain itself and fuel growth.
I'd rather countries simply pursue their own interests and power instead of pretending to be "good guys". Pursuing their interests and power usually means trade and cooperation rather than war. It's *only* when people "pretend to be good" that they can do real harm. Recall the wars in history. How many were *not* carried out in the name of some "good"?
Although it's true that many wars were started due to religious reasons, most wars have been about countries pursuing their "interests and power" by invading their neighbors and taking their real estate and resources. Not "*only*", as you state, when countries "pretend" to be "good". You talk of China "spreading its' culture"...how would China accomplish this in countries that didn't want Chinese culture and preferred China leave them alone? The same way China "educated" the students in "proper" Chinese culture at Tiananmen Square?
I actually think China and the Chinese people are fascinating with a rich history, wonderful, generous, and kind people, and a unique and beautiful culture. If Chinese leaders would allow the people of China more freedom to determine their own lives, the ability to determine who leads them, and give them a real voice in the government and its' policies, China would become a beacon to the world and second to none by any measure one could apply.
When you kill all of the secularists, the only ones left will be the fundamentalists.
Apparently you're not aware of how the US military, especially the Marine Corp, operates. They're job is to kill people and break things. They don't discriminate, they're equal-opportunity. When it comes to anyone, fundamentalists or secularists, taking up arms against them it's "kill 'em all and let Allah sort 'em out"!
You make it sound like Iran in the 50's or something. Its not like we led a coup against a secularist leader who dared to nationalize their nation's oil...
oh wait... well at least Mossadegh was elected, whereas Hussein killed his way to the top of the Ba'ath party.
Yes, and every other country and people throughout history has done bad things to other people and countries, especially if you're looking at it from the losing side. That's human nature. Life, the world, and the people in it generally aren't fair. Countries change allies, make new friends and new enemies. Interests shift. The US and Russia were allies in WW2.
At least the US has tried, for the most part, to be a force for good in the world when it could without damaging it's own interests too badly. Most other countries don't, haven't, don't care what happens to any other peoples/countries, don't even pretend to try to be "good guys", and ruthlessly pursue their own interests and power.
I'd say that most other countries, if given the power that the US has been wielding for the past 60 years or so, would have been on a total blitzkrieg-like war campaign to completely conquer the world. How do you think things in the world would be if the US had collapsed and the USSR had been left as the sole superpower? Or China? Maybe the US isn't all sweetness and light and kumbaya, but trust me...it could be much worse! Could it be better? Sure. But let's try to have a little perspective here, although I know that US-bashing is the cool thing to do, especially here.
Yeah, I know this will get modded to extinction for violating the group-think and group-hate. Someone has to say it though, and I've got the karma.
Cheers!
Strat
Thanks for proving me right! US-haters with mod points...priceless!
As to the US's foreign policies having set the stage for much of the troubles, I agree that it hasn't helped. I think the Mideast would still be a tinderbox of trouble for the world though, even if the West hadn't screwed up. However, hindsight is 20/20, and we now face what we face regardless of how it came to be. History can't be changed and allowing them to kill everyone now because we were wrong in the past isn't a solution either.
They want to reason with us, and we stick our noses in the air. That doesn't sound like we're the good guys - it makes us sound just as warmongering and pompous as you try to make our enemies sound.
I have to disagree here. The only thing I've seen them demand is our deaths. That's not something to negotiate about. How would that work? We go to a meeting, and they say: "We want to kill all of you and we will unless something forcefully prevents us because we've come to believe that's what Allah wants". What can you offer against what they believe is the Will Of God?
Lets not forget, its hard to call us a civilized nation when we're the only one on earth to drop not one, but two nuclear explosives on a nation - after an extensive firebombing campaign none the less! I mean, how can you make firebombing acceptable when it directly targets civilians?
I don't know, but you should have been around to ask the Nazis in WW2, as they were the ones that started the tactic of actively bombing civilian population centers by firebombing London in the early days of WW2 before the US officially entered the war, followed by V1 and V2 attacks on civilians later in the war.
During WW2, the Allies first targeted and bombed only German cities and infrastructure that were strategic production and transportation centers for war materials. As the war dragged on, civilian centers were targeted in an attempt to sap their will to continue dragging out the war and increasing the death toll on all sides. The same tactic was used on Japan late in the war after we'd actually fought our way close enough to be able to bomb them at all (remember the Doolittle Raid?), after targeting production and transportation centers failed.
As to dropping the atomic bomb on Japan, after the battles in the South Pacific, where it was shown that Japanese soldiers would fight practically to the last man, along with the infamous Kamikaze attacks, US leaders were convinced that the number of deaths resulting from an invasion of the Japanese home islands would be catastrophic for both sides.
Although the death and destruction were horrific, the dropping of the bombs are widely and generally believed by most reasonable people to have actually prevented far, far higher numbers of deaths by orders of magnitude. If the Japanese had surrendered immediately, the second bomb wouldn't have been dropped. Some say that it was a communications delay, but time was critical and messages took a long time to traverse half the planet in those days, especially when any communications concerning first atomic bombs had to be kept ultra-secret.
The US has done more to promote freedom and fairness in the world than any other country in history. If you doubt this, go visit the graveyards in France and throughout the battleground countries of WW2 Europe where you'll see markers stretching out of sight belonging to the horrific numbers of US soldiers that gave their lives to free Europe from the Nazis. Russia fought, yes. However, they were directly invaded. The US was not.
The US *could* have declined to enter WW2 (at least until the point that Germany turned its' sights on the US mainland after conquering Europe & the UK and left no choice) and many people at the time in the US were against getting involved in a foreign war, much as today.
The US is governed by people, with all their faults and foibles, so it's unreasonable to expect perfection or 20/20 foresight. It's unfair to cherry-pick a few incidents here and there to condemn & demonize the US as selfish warmongers without looking at the whole of US history.
When you kill all of the secularists, the only ones left will be the fundamentalists.
Apparently you're not aware of how the US military, especially the Marine Corp, operates. They're job is to kill people and break things. They don't discriminate, they're equal-opportunity. When it comes to anyone, fundamentalists or secularists, taking up arms against them it's "kill 'em all and let Allah sort 'em out"!
You make it sound like Iran in the 50's or something. Its not like we led a coup against a secularist leader who dared to nationalize their nation's oil...
oh wait... well at least Mossadegh was elected, whereas Hussein killed his way to the top of the Ba'ath party.
Yes, and every other country and people throughout history has done bad things to other people and countries, especially if you're looking at it from the losing side. That's human nature. Life, the world, and the people in it generally aren't fair. Countries change allies, make new friends and new enemies. Interests shift. The US and Russia were allies in WW2.
At least the US has tried, for the most part, to be a force for good in the world when it could without damaging it's own interests too badly. Most other countries don't, haven't, don't care what happens to any other peoples/countries, don't even pretend to try to be "good guys", and ruthlessly pursue their own interests and power.
I'd say that most other countries, if given the power that the US has been wielding for the past 60 years or so, would have been on a total blitzkrieg-like war campaign to completely conquer the world. How do you think things in the world would be if the US had collapsed and the USSR had been left as the sole superpower? Or China? Maybe the US isn't all sweetness and light and kumbaya, but trust me...it could be much worse! Could it be better? Sure. But let's try to have a little perspective here, although I know that US-bashing is the cool thing to do, especially here.
Yeah, I know this will get modded to extinction for violating the group-think and group-hate. Someone has to say it though, and I've got the karma.
From TFA: One important tidbit, little noticed yet, pointed out by Excess Copyright: âoedistribution to an investigator, such as MediaSentry, can constitute unauthorized distribution.â
So apparently an investigator downloading DOES constitute as infringement.
Let me see if I can help.
If the parts quoted above in bold-type were changed to read:
"..an investigator legally licensed to operate as a private investigator in your state.."
The US has already been punished for interfering with offshore gambling. I believe one country was given the right to ignore US copyrights as repayment for actions by the US... This is definatly going to get pulled to federal court and dismissed.. the precedent here would be disasterous
This is why Slashdotters should be encouraging this, not criticizing it!
Imagine the WTO ruling that no member country had to honor US copyrights as retaliation/punishment?
Free proprietary games, free proprietary software & operating systems..music..books...plus, so many countries doing this at once that the US wouldn't have near enough bombs, missiles, ships, or soldiers to dare trying strong-arm tactics!
What a circus that would be! As an added bonus, maybe it would keep politicians busy enough for a while to not be able to pass more stupid crap to remove more freedoms and money from the people.
That's ridiculous. I play guitar professionally and play a $400 guitar through a $300 PodXT Live. No one in the audience complains that I sound "digital" or don't have enough "warmth" in my tone. My band makes between $600 and $1400 a night - a couple months of weekend gigging pays for my gear.
That depends on what you call "professionally", what type of music you're playing, and the type and size venues and audiences you play to. I'd do pretty much the same as you if I were doing contemporary covers in the average local bar.
I play blues, mostly in hardcore blues clubs, for audiences that are mostly hardcore blues fans who know, care, and *can* tell the difference in sound between a PodXT and a Fender Super Reverb or Marshall. I also play at festivals with up to 10-15 thousand people, and do occasional openers for national acts.
I use the best, most appropriate, and sensible tools for the job I'm doing just as you are. You don't bring a knife to a gunfight or a bicycle to a motorcycle race.
They are located on 'Wacker' Street! That explains it all...
Yes!! We could've alerted the Blues Brothers if Jake were still alive!!
"Well, this is definitely Lower Wacker Drive. If my estimations are correct, we should be very close to the Honorable Richard J. Daley Plaza." Jake: "That's where they've got that Picasso." Elwood: "Yep."
That's the best part of $10,000 for just *ONE* guitar players
No it's not. Use Craigslist and go to pawn shops. My brother used to get Fender Stratocasters for $100-$250, slightly battered. Why are you paying top dollar for equipment that is being hauled around and fucked up? Nobody will notice if your guitar is slightly out of tune.
(thinking of an example of a new Gibson Les Paul and a 50 watt Marshall half-stack).
Don't buy top-of-the-line equipment! If you're a good guitar player you'll sound fine on a $150 Yamaha that you bought at Wal-mart.
Heck, just a new set of tubes for a guitar amp can easily run $200-$300!
Stop being a primadonna and insisting on tube amps. Get a cheap-ass solid-state amp. You don't need to make the crowd's ears bleed.
That's not counting effects pedals and/or rackmount effects/processors,
You should keep this stuff at a minimum due to the aforementioned "hauling around and getting fucked up" problem.
Yeah, and 640K should be enough for anyone! Why, you should just use a 486 you can get cheap at a yard sale and 98ME or 3.1 For Workgroups! Stop being such a primadona!
nstead of trying to broadcast digital signals over the air, the US should have handled the digital transition this way. On February 17th, 2009, BROADCAST TV IS GOING DOWN. PERIOD. END OF STORY.
Do you live in the US? I ask this because you seem not to realize just how many people this would effectively end TV for, for the foreseeable future. You have to realize that the US is really big. There's just no way to cover the huge areas currently served with OTA with satellite and cable without years of infrastructure construction and massive amounts of money, and even then, there would still be a non-trivial number left out.
Maybe satellite, if they launched a a good number of new satellites, but that's not likely to be feasible economically for a while considering the space shuttles' retirement. Plus, TV satellites are very expensive even with the shuttle available, and there's also considerable lead-time to design and build a satellite.
Sorry, but that just wouldn't be feasible currently.
I'll take a reliable employee that shows up every day on time, but is only average, or even a little under-average
You will?
Hmmmmmm.. I was manager of an IT department and had an even split of both types of people.
One type was always early, always studiously reviewing policies and eating a brown-bag lunch at their desk so they could "keep working". Unfortunately, most of these people were also quite "average" and maybe even slightly "below-average" in competency. Their solutions were mechanical and I found, by their nature, they learned things in a linear way. I would have to train them, step by step, and provide documentation of every single procedure, down to the "don't forget to click on OK at the end" level.
The other type was frequently late, frequently took 2 hour lunches, but were absolutely brilliant at the work they needed to do. I had 3 of these people who got WAY more done in their 6 hour work day than the other folks finished in their 9 hour work day. The solutions were more intuitive and generally saved us time in the long run. They learned on the fly and were generally the folks who WROTE the documentation for the "punctual" folks.
I kept both types of people around because they each have qualities that benefit the department.
The on time people were answering the phones handling routine procedures, etc, the brilliant, but late folks handled tricky problems and discovered new features.
So... unless you run a team full of data entry clerks or factory-line button-pushers, I think you're selling yourself short by being rigid on punctuality over competence... OMG, the idle CSS is so fucked...
I understand and agree that in the area you were in, that was a practical outlook and I'd probably have had a similar outlook in your place.
However, in my post I specifically was referring to "Most non-office/labor/factory" type employees and my take on that area. In that area, reliability is important to planning workflow and production goals. I took that non-office/labor/factory tack because most people are probably going to end up working in that general type of field, at least at first after high school if not longer if they don't move on immediately to college, and being reliable is a definite plus to a manager/supervisor in that type of work.
Yes, I cringed when I saw how the Idle pages were rendering, especially the reply pages.
I find the player is more important than the gear. Granted, nobody sounds good on a trashy guitar, but if it's well taken care of, it doesn't really matter if it was $300 or $3000.
Yes, that's quite true. I myself usually play gigs with a $400 G&L Tribute Legacy Premium. I think it's actually as good an instrument as a Fender American Stratocaster, maybe better in some ways. One thing I've found to be true is that one can play a less-expensive guitar through a great-sounding amp and sound very good, but even a really great-sounding guitar will sound like crap through a bad-sounding amp.
When people just starting out ask me, I tell them to buy a decent mid-price good-playing guitar and have someone set it up for them, but buy as high-quality an amp as possible. Better to have a great-sounding 5 watt amp than a poor or mediocre 30 or 50 watt amp, especially if you're not going to be gigging.
Actually, unless you're playing death-metal, thrash, etc you don't need a lot of power. The amp I built to do blues gigs with is a 20 watt (2 x EL84's) cathode-biased single-channel head with just a "Tone" control and "Volume" control. You wouldn't believe how loud a 20 watt tube amp can be through a couple of efficient 70 watt ceramic-magnet 12-inch speakers. I played a gig with my 5-piece high-energy blues band (2 guitars, sax, bass, drums) this past July 4th at an outdoor festival in front of 10-15 thousand people with that 20 watt amp and it was plenty loud, with volume to spare.
Being lower-powered, I can actually crank the amp up until it "sings" without being too loud on stage. Far too many guitarists IMO buy entirely too much amp power-wise for their playing situation and then regret that they can't turn the amp up to where it sounds good, and end up using a distortion pedal. Why spend the $$$ on a tube amp if you can't turn it up enough to realize all the benefits?
But if the job was output based, would you really care? Say you pay coders $X per year to put out $X lines of good code, would you care if one guy can do it in 20 hours a week if it gets the same results as someone who comes in from 8 to 5 M-F?
That's why I specified the type of work I did in my post. Even in your scenario I probably would still care, as I'd want to have that guy there to ask questions of, or to inform of changes, or to have talk to a customer or vendor rep. that was in the office if I needed him to, or any number of other similar reasons. If all I wanted was generic code, I'd just contract it out and avoid the employment costs and liabilities altogether.
Um... do you think Clapton, Van Halen, pick your guitar-god, would sound like crap on a $1,000.00 guitar and a $500.00 amp. No.
Its the guitarist more than the guitar.
You do not have to own a Les Paul and a Marshall to be a good guitarist
I absolutely agree. But they sound much better on the better instruments/amps.
Most musicians aren't at that level, and having good equipment most definitely does help. Besides, as I stated in another post in this thread, there's a ton of very well-equipped bands competing for an ever-shrinking number of gigs. Why would a veteran bar/club owner, being able to choose among many very well-equipped bands, hire the band playing bargain-basement equipment? It's not fair, but the very first thing you learn is that this business is anything but fair.
And if you are going into bars and playing gigs with a tube amp, well, you deserve to shell out big bucks as you are an elitist twerp.
Umm, no...I design and build tube amps as my main business, so I built my own and the other guitar players' amps. *I* won't pay Marshall or Fender the megabucks they demand, as I make a better (IMO) product for a fraction (my cost) of what they want. The older vintage Marshalls and Fenders are vastly superior tone-wise to what they make currently.
Besides, I think it's a myth that tube amps are sooo delicate. They're not! At least not if they're good quality. By good quality tube amp I don't mean some printed-circuit-board construction, made-in-China POS. I've had more reliability problems with solid-state amps than tube amps. Bars/clubs have notoriously bad wiring, and you may be plugged into the same electrical circuit as the cooler or other similar equipment, with the compressor causing huge spikes on the line every time it starts and stops. This is deadly for solid-state stuff. Tube amps will generally take much more of this type abuse.
If you'll be taking a tube amp on the road, simply put industrial/military-version tubes in it that are designed to take physical/electrical abuse. There are tons of old tube amps around and still kicking butt from the '50s. How many solid-state amps are still working and being gigged with regularly from the late '60s/'70s? You generally end up replacing solid-state amps many times over the lifetime of a good tube amp. You buy a good tube amp once, and pass it on to your grandkids when you die unless you decide to sell it, and you'll get a lot more of your money back if you do..you may even make money! That won't happen with a solid-state amp...you'll get a small fraction of your cost if you're lucky.
Besides, I play original blues, and dedicated blues fans (again, IMO and experience) are much more knowledgeable and discerning than the average college kid out to slam jager-shots, get wasted, and hook up at the local dive on a Saturday night. You just try taking a Line-6 modeling amp into a hardcore blues club! At least in the blues clubs around here, you'd get laughed out of there before you even made it to the stage!
Slashdot Mirror
Yesterday I received a DVD in the mail from an obscure group known as the "Clarion Fund." It was a hatchet job meant to scare people about the evils of muslim extremism.... The shocking part was that they somehow had my full name on the address label.... The joys of living in the swing state of VA....
This was reported on a little while ago in at least one online publication. It was called "Obsession".
I think when we get around to admitting that we're horribly racist and xenophobic in America, we'll be better off than that "open to everyone" crap we try to peddle to the rest of the world.
The very idea (demonstrably false though it may be) that a major party candidate is a Muslim shouldn't be a detractor from them holding the presidency, but as it has been used as a smear...
I received the "Obsession" DVD in the mail also. I watched the entire thing. I saw not one reference to the upcoming US election, nor any specific party or candidate. I agree the attempt by some on the extreme-right to label Obama as Muslim as a scare tactic is wrong, but the "Obsession" DVD carried no such message concerning Obama or the Democrats. Were there any errors of fact in the "Obsession" video? Were the film clips of Hitler meeting with the Mufti fakes? Were any of the WW2 historical facts reported in error? Were the pictures of the propaganda used by radical Islamic groups that were compared to (and were nearly identical to) Nazi propaganda made up or faked?
Is it not permissible for those to whom the threat posed by extreme Islamic radicals is an important issue, to publicize their positions during an election? Isn't that sort of the point of free speech, that people may voice their political and policy views to try to inform other voters about issues they feel are important? Or has the subject of radical Islam become so "PC-adverse" that any attempt to air views that don't minimize or dismiss it are not to be tolerated?
Perhaps the negative reaction to the DVD by those on the "left" is based more on not wanting to deal with the issue mostly based on the fact that historically the Democrats are viewed as the less-strong party when it comes to national security and foreign policy regarding dealings with foreign hostiles, and that citizens being reminded of the threats the world faces is bad for the Democrat election chances?
Cheers!
Strat
http://tripsforjudges.org/ [tripsforjudges.org] says otherwise. They just hide the income in different ways.
Corporate special interests are wining and dining judges at fancy resorts under the pretext of "educating" them about complicated legal issues. Nothing for FREE, a July 2000 report by Community Rights Counsel (CRC), showed that these junkets appear to be working as their sponsors intend, encouraging rulings that strike down environmental protections and line the pockets of junket sponsors. CRC's most recent report, Tainted Justice, released in March 2004, expands on Nothing for FREE.
You see, it works just like the "Fact-finding" junkets that Congress take each summer and around all the major vacation periods.
I'm sure that those kinds of things (junkets, dinners, etc) go on, but if those types of influence are going on, I feel relatively certain that the types of things I outlined in my post probably go on also. One is not mutually exclusive of the other, rather, I'd opine that the existence of one form of influence would tend to make more likely the existence of the other forms of influence, especially for those judges not so easily "bought". I don't know for certain that this judge was influenced, or by which method (carrot [bribe] or stick [blackmail/threat]) but something seems "fishy" here if TFS and TFA are factual, correct, and in-context. Interesting link, good find. Thanks.
Cheers!
Strat
How much did this judge get paid for his decision? Because there's no way an honest man could've come to such a conclusion.
The judge likely got paid nothing. Bribes are too obvious and easy to trace. Don't forget, the RIAA/Media Sentry do investigations for a living. They also had, what, a year? A lot of dirt can be dug up in a year. It's quite possible that the RIAA/Media Sentry lawyers and/or private investigators pretexted or pressured sources to obtain the judges' internet and phone records, copies of his credit card charges, and even taken a look at his family too.
Maybe they found one of the judges' children or grandchildren had used P2P to illegally share copyrighted material without permission. Maybe the judge had some charges on his plastic at a strip club. Bribed people will flip on the briber if pressured. Those acting to keep secret their own or loved ones' indiscretions are much more reliable and likely to keep quiet, and that kind of pressure much harder to prove.
Cheers!
Strat
All I'm seeing is the "unpatriotic" banner being waved by the left in America, when they AREN'T asking, "Why are companies leaving America, and why do they have hard-to-touch bank accounts offshore?" Somewhere there's a BAD disconnect - that we could minimize what many banks are going through by doing something that would ENCOURAGE people keeping their money there rather than seeing large companies as something to tax and take from because they somehow "owe" it.
The left NEVER asks what is wrong with their system - they just ask what is wrong with everyone else. We need to ask, "what would it take for you to keep your money in America," rather than proclaiming from the rooftops that they're leaving and should be punished for it.
You can see their thinking concerning a solution to the problem of businesses fleeing punishing taxation and regulation in the US when you look to the recent actions taken and being proposed in the area of pressuring foreign governments to adopt US-friendly laws and "harmonizing" policies concerning copyright and software/business method patents and the enforcement of same.
Don't let those who can achieve and prosper by their ingenuity and labor do so, thereby enriching others and providing examples of how to excel, but beat everyone down to the lowest common denominator. Make the people dependent on governmental largess, where they can maintain their power by being the party to offer to return the largest crumbs back to the ones that baked the loaves which they confiscated in the first place.
Cheers!
Strat
In Soviet Russia, Elvis passports clone YOU!
Sorry, it was just too tempting.
Elvis has left the building
Elvis has left the building
And the other Elvis has left the building
There, fixed that for you.
Cheers!
Strat
You have convinced me. We must not give up fighting the US.
I realize you're trying to be all snarky and witty and all, but in a way I agree.
We in the US must never give up fighting against any enemy that wishes to take our freedoms, foreign or domestic. Fortunately, domestically, we're still at the "soap box", "ballot box", and "jury box" phases and haven't moved to the "ammo box" phase as we did once before during the US Civil War.
As for others outside the US, I'd hope you'd assist the good freedom-loving people of the US, where you could, to help us convince the US politicians that attempting to extend our stupid mistakes like infinite copyrights, DMCA-type laws, and ridiculous patents on software and business methods, is *not* what the US should be about. We should be setting an example for the world in this area rather than attempting to force the rest of the world to follow the US in crippling its' own peoples' freedoms and future in the name of profit.
Cheers!
Strat
But what makes you think America doesn't have the whole world in its pocket already?
Oh, I don't know...maybe I took a look around?
I mean, seriously. Russia and China are in the US' pocket? The countries in the Mideast? If you believe that, you really need to do a little research in world current affairs. Currently, most of the European Union countries hate us. Personally, I think it has much to do with the US killing many politicians' and countries' in the EUs' Golden Goose by taking out Saddam, who was funneling massive amounts of money to EU countries' coffers through weapons and war materials sales to Iraq (against UN sanctions) and also to EU politicians through the corrupt UN "Oil for Food" program.
Cheers!
Strat
However, compare Spain's reaction to terrorism to that of the US, and it's clear who is, *today*, the preferable country.
You're serious!?!? Give the killers what they want, that's what you're advocating here!?!? They kill innocent people and your reaction is "give them what they demand"? What about the next time and next thing they want? The time after that? Why should they stop if it gets them what they want? What if they want you and your family dead, or your countrymen? What if they demand you live by their laws? Will you give up your freedom and your life to appease them, or is it only ok as long as it's someone elses' freedoms and/or lives that you don't personally care about?
While the "far exceeding" part is a bit debatable, if it is so it's only because humanity itself has advanced throughout time, and the US is the newest "world's largest superpower", so it's clear that they ought to be more civilized than the rest.
Why would you think that in the space of a few hundred years that human nature would have radically changed when it hasn't for thousands of years up to now, or this just a rationalization for your personal bias and bigotry?
The worst? hardly, most people would agree the Roman Empire was even worse, but two simple facts are that a) the US is *NOT* a good country to have as a superpower, not even for US citizens, and b) they are the superpower we have to deal with in our lifetimes. Combine the two, and you'd see why Bush is criticized so much, and Louis XIV isn't: the latter has been out of his country's government for centuries (by virtue of being dead, mostly), while the former isn't.
Ah, so it's not the fact that the US is so bad, it's the fact that you have to live with the reality that the US is the current superpower and your country of choice isn't. The US *is* better to have as the major superpower both for its' citizens and the world, especially considering the likely alternatives of Russia or China. Saying that it's not a good thing for US citizens would be true only if you consider US citizens being better off dead or under the thumb of a foreign power.
You seem to have a lot of hatred and biases. Maybe you should seek help. It's affecting your perception of reality and your ability to use reason and logic.
Best wishes for a speedy recovery! :)
Cheers!
Strat
I'd say that most other countries, if given the power that the US has been wielding for the past 60 years or so, would have been on a total blitzkrieg-like war campaign to completely conquer the world. How do you think things in the world would be if the US had collapsed and the USSR had been left as the sole superpower? Or China?
Or Spain? or France? or Australia? or Ireland? or Canada? or Brazil? or Portugal? or Finland? or Sweden?
The USSR and China are as representative of "most other countries" as Bush is a representative of the whole human race, thank God. And yes, I believe that all the countries I've named, and many others that I didn't, would've done a much better job than the US being "the world's biggest superpower".
Well, Spain, France and Portugal actually *were* all superpowers at one time, and proved they were quite fine with starting wars of aggression and invading other countries, committing genocide, and generally being very, very bad actors indeed, far exceeding the US in greed and ruthlessness. Every other country that could have been considered a "superpower" throughout history has behaved much worse than the US.
The other countries you've named have never had any really comparable power to exert. However, every other country that has achieved "superpower" status in the past has acted much worse than the US has in its' period of "superpower" status. Why is it that the US is looked upon as the worst country to ever hold "superpower" status when history plainly shows this is not so?
Cheers!
Strat
Since I'm Chinese, I can tell you what I *think* would happen if China became the world superpower. It would spread its culture and have its army sit around its borders (as opposed to flying to the other side of the globe to take out some "bad guy"). Sure there will be border or ethnic conflicts but outright invasions would be unlikely. And why do I think that? Because that's essentially what happened for the past 2000 years in China.
Well, except for Tibet. Oh, and Taiwan if China didn't think it would start a world war. Let's not forget the proxy wars in Korea and Vietnam. China has tried to maintain the appearance of "sitting behind it's borders" for the last 50 to 75 years (with notable exceptions) basically because it has lacked the technology and industrial infrastructure to compete militarily with the West.
Having large standing armies, armed with basically WW2-era weapons technology for the most part, going up against a modern industrial/technological/military power would only create a huge Chinese body count.
However, on those occasions when China has felt confident the West either didn't care enough, or were unable due to other matters/conflicts, to contest it exerting power outside its' borders it hasn't hesitated to do so when it had something to gain.
With China rapidly building up it's industrial and military might, I'm sure China will be playing an increasing role militarily and economically outside it's borders as time goes on, especially as world resources like oil become scarcer while China grows in industrial might, requiring larger and larger amounts of these resources to maintain itself and fuel growth.
I'd rather countries simply pursue their own interests and power instead of pretending to be "good guys". Pursuing their interests and power usually means trade and cooperation rather than war. It's *only* when people "pretend to be good" that they can do real harm. Recall the wars in history. How many were *not* carried out in the name of some "good"?
Although it's true that many wars were started due to religious reasons, most wars have been about countries pursuing their "interests and power" by invading their neighbors and taking their real estate and resources. Not "*only*", as you state, when countries "pretend" to be "good". You talk of China "spreading its' culture"...how would China accomplish this in countries that didn't want Chinese culture and preferred China leave them alone? The same way China "educated" the students in "proper" Chinese culture at Tiananmen Square?
I actually think China and the Chinese people are fascinating with a rich history, wonderful, generous, and kind people, and a unique and beautiful culture. If Chinese leaders would allow the people of China more freedom to determine their own lives, the ability to determine who leads them, and give them a real voice in the government and its' policies, China would become a beacon to the world and second to none by any measure one could apply.
Cheers!
Strat
When you kill all of the secularists, the only ones left will be the fundamentalists.
Apparently you're not aware of how the US military, especially the Marine Corp, operates. They're job is to kill people and break things. They don't discriminate, they're equal-opportunity. When it comes to anyone, fundamentalists or secularists, taking up arms against them it's "kill 'em all and let Allah sort 'em out"!
You make it sound like Iran in the 50's or something. Its not like we led a coup against a secularist leader who dared to nationalize their nation's oil...
oh wait... well at least Mossadegh was elected, whereas Hussein killed his way to the top of the Ba'ath party.
Yes, and every other country and people throughout history has done bad things to other people and countries, especially if you're looking at it from the losing side. That's human nature. Life, the world, and the people in it generally aren't fair. Countries change allies, make new friends and new enemies. Interests shift. The US and Russia were allies in WW2.
At least the US has tried, for the most part, to be a force for good in the world when it could without damaging it's own interests too badly. Most other countries don't, haven't, don't care what happens to any other peoples/countries, don't even pretend to try to be "good guys", and ruthlessly pursue their own interests and power.
I'd say that most other countries, if given the power that the US has been wielding for the past 60 years or so, would have been on a total blitzkrieg-like war campaign to completely conquer the world. How do you think things in the world would be if the US had collapsed and the USSR had been left as the sole superpower? Or China? Maybe the US isn't all sweetness and light and kumbaya, but trust me...it could be much worse! Could it be better? Sure. But let's try to have a little perspective here, although I know that US-bashing is the cool thing to do, especially here.
Yeah, I know this will get modded to extinction for violating the group-think and group-hate. Someone has to say it though, and I've got the karma.
Cheers!
Strat
Thanks for proving me right! US-haters with mod points...priceless!
As to the US's foreign policies having set the stage for much of the troubles, I agree that it hasn't helped. I think the Mideast would still be a tinderbox of trouble for the world though, even if the West hadn't screwed up. However, hindsight is 20/20, and we now face what we face regardless of how it came to be. History can't be changed and allowing them to kill everyone now because we were wrong in the past isn't a solution either.
They want to reason with us, and we stick our noses in the air. That doesn't sound like we're the good guys - it makes us sound just as warmongering and pompous as you try to make our enemies sound.
I have to disagree here. The only thing I've seen them demand is our deaths. That's not something to negotiate about. How would that work? We go to a meeting, and they say: "We want to kill all of you and we will unless something forcefully prevents us because we've come to believe that's what Allah wants". What can you offer against what they believe is the Will Of God?
Lets not forget, its hard to call us a civilized nation when we're the only one on earth to drop not one, but two nuclear explosives on a nation - after an extensive firebombing campaign none the less! I mean, how can you make firebombing acceptable when it directly targets civilians?
I don't know, but you should have been around to ask the Nazis in WW2, as they were the ones that started the tactic of actively bombing civilian population centers by firebombing London in the early days of WW2 before the US officially entered the war, followed by V1 and V2 attacks on civilians later in the war.
During WW2, the Allies first targeted and bombed only German cities and infrastructure that were strategic production and transportation centers for war materials. As the war dragged on, civilian centers were targeted in an attempt to sap their will to continue dragging out the war and increasing the death toll on all sides. The same tactic was used on Japan late in the war after we'd actually fought our way close enough to be able to bomb them at all (remember the Doolittle Raid?), after targeting production and transportation centers failed.
As to dropping the atomic bomb on Japan, after the battles in the South Pacific, where it was shown that Japanese soldiers would fight practically to the last man, along with the infamous Kamikaze attacks, US leaders were convinced that the number of deaths resulting from an invasion of the Japanese home islands would be catastrophic for both sides.
Although the death and destruction were horrific, the dropping of the bombs are widely and generally believed by most reasonable people to have actually prevented far, far higher numbers of deaths by orders of magnitude. If the Japanese had surrendered immediately, the second bomb wouldn't have been dropped. Some say that it was a communications delay, but time was critical and messages took a long time to traverse half the planet in those days, especially when any communications concerning first atomic bombs had to be kept ultra-secret.
The US has done more to promote freedom and fairness in the world than any other country in history. If you doubt this, go visit the graveyards in France and throughout the battleground countries of WW2 Europe where you'll see markers stretching out of sight belonging to the horrific numbers of US soldiers that gave their lives to free Europe from the Nazis. Russia fought, yes. However, they were directly invaded. The US was not.
The US *could* have declined to enter WW2 (at least until the point that Germany turned its' sights on the US mainland after conquering Europe & the UK and left no choice) and many people at the time in the US were against getting involved in a foreign war, much as today.
The US is governed by people, with all their faults and foibles, so it's unreasonable to expect perfection or 20/20 foresight. It's unfair to cherry-pick a few incidents here and there to condemn & demonize the US as selfish warmongers without looking at the whole of US history.
Cheers!
Strat
When you kill all of the secularists, the only ones left will be the fundamentalists.
Apparently you're not aware of how the US military, especially the Marine Corp, operates. They're job is to kill people and break things. They don't discriminate, they're equal-opportunity. When it comes to anyone, fundamentalists or secularists, taking up arms against them it's "kill 'em all and let Allah sort 'em out"!
You make it sound like Iran in the 50's or something. Its not like we led a coup against a secularist leader who dared to nationalize their nation's oil...
oh wait... well at least Mossadegh was elected, whereas Hussein killed his way to the top of the Ba'ath party.
Yes, and every other country and people throughout history has done bad things to other people and countries, especially if you're looking at it from the losing side. That's human nature. Life, the world, and the people in it generally aren't fair. Countries change allies, make new friends and new enemies. Interests shift. The US and Russia were allies in WW2.
At least the US has tried, for the most part, to be a force for good in the world when it could without damaging it's own interests too badly. Most other countries don't, haven't, don't care what happens to any other peoples/countries, don't even pretend to try to be "good guys", and ruthlessly pursue their own interests and power.
I'd say that most other countries, if given the power that the US has been wielding for the past 60 years or so, would have been on a total blitzkrieg-like war campaign to completely conquer the world. How do you think things in the world would be if the US had collapsed and the USSR had been left as the sole superpower? Or China? Maybe the US isn't all sweetness and light and kumbaya, but trust me...it could be much worse! Could it be better? Sure. But let's try to have a little perspective here, although I know that US-bashing is the cool thing to do, especially here.
Yeah, I know this will get modded to extinction for violating the group-think and group-hate. Someone has to say it though, and I've got the karma.
Cheers!
Strat
From TFA: One important tidbit, little noticed yet, pointed out by Excess Copyright: âoedistribution to an investigator, such as MediaSentry, can constitute unauthorized distribution.â
So apparently an investigator downloading DOES constitute as infringement.
Let me see if I can help.
If the parts quoted above in bold-type were changed to read:
"..an investigator legally licensed to operate as a private investigator in your state.."
Then it would be correct.
Cheers!
Strat
The US has already been punished for interfering with offshore gambling. I believe one country was given the right to ignore US copyrights as repayment for actions by the US... This is definatly going to get pulled to federal court and dismissed.. the precedent here would be disasterous
This is why Slashdotters should be encouraging this, not criticizing it!
Imagine the WTO ruling that no member country had to honor US copyrights as retaliation/punishment?
Free proprietary games, free proprietary software & operating systems..music..books...plus, so many countries doing this at once that the US wouldn't have near enough bombs, missiles, ships, or soldiers to dare trying strong-arm tactics!
What a circus that would be! As an added bonus, maybe it would keep politicians busy enough for a while to not be able to pass more stupid crap to remove more freedoms and money from the people.
Go, clueless Kentucky courts!
Cheers!
Strat
That's ridiculous. I play guitar professionally and play a $400 guitar through a $300 PodXT Live. No one in the audience complains that I sound "digital" or don't have enough "warmth" in my tone. My band makes between $600 and $1400 a night - a couple months of weekend gigging pays for my gear.
That depends on what you call "professionally", what type of music you're playing, and the type and size venues and audiences you play to. I'd do pretty much the same as you if I were doing contemporary covers in the average local bar.
I play blues, mostly in hardcore blues clubs, for audiences that are mostly hardcore blues fans who know, care, and *can* tell the difference in sound between a PodXT and a Fender Super Reverb or Marshall. I also play at festivals with up to 10-15 thousand people, and do occasional openers for national acts.
I use the best, most appropriate, and sensible tools for the job I'm doing just as you are. You don't bring a knife to a gunfight or a bicycle to a motorcycle race.
Cheers!
Strat
They are located on 'Wacker' Street!
That explains it all...
Yes!! We could've alerted the Blues Brothers if Jake were still alive!!
"Well, this is definitely Lower Wacker Drive. If my estimations are correct, we should be very close to the Honorable Richard J. Daley Plaza." Jake: "That's where they've got that Picasso." Elwood: "Yep."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wacker_Drive
Cheers!
Strat
That's the best part of $10,000 for just *ONE* guitar players
No it's not. Use Craigslist and go to pawn shops. My brother used to get Fender Stratocasters for $100-$250, slightly battered. Why are you paying top dollar for equipment that is being hauled around and fucked up? Nobody will notice if your guitar is slightly out of tune.
(thinking of an example of a new Gibson Les Paul and a 50 watt Marshall half-stack).
Don't buy top-of-the-line equipment! If you're a good guitar player you'll sound fine on a $150 Yamaha that you bought at Wal-mart.
Heck, just a new set of tubes for a guitar amp can easily run $200-$300!
Stop being a primadonna and insisting on tube amps. Get a cheap-ass solid-state amp. You don't need to make the crowd's ears bleed.
That's not counting effects pedals and/or rackmount effects/processors,
You should keep this stuff at a minimum due to the aforementioned "hauling around and getting fucked up" problem.
Yeah, and 640K should be enough for anyone! Why, you should just use a 486 you can get cheap at a yard sale and 98ME or 3.1 For Workgroups! Stop being such a primadona!
nstead of trying to broadcast digital signals over the air, the US should have handled the digital transition this way. On February 17th, 2009, BROADCAST TV IS GOING DOWN. PERIOD. END OF STORY.
Do you live in the US? I ask this because you seem not to realize just how many people this would effectively end TV for, for the foreseeable future. You have to realize that the US is really big. There's just no way to cover the huge areas currently served with OTA with satellite and cable without years of infrastructure construction and massive amounts of money, and even then, there would still be a non-trivial number left out.
Maybe satellite, if they launched a a good number of new satellites, but that's not likely to be feasible economically for a while considering the space shuttles' retirement. Plus, TV satellites are very expensive even with the shuttle available, and there's also considerable lead-time to design and build a satellite.
Sorry, but that just wouldn't be feasible currently.
Cheers!
Strat
I'll take a reliable employee that shows up every day on time, but is only average, or even a little under-average
You will?
Hmmmmmm.. I was manager of an IT department and had an even split of both types of people.
One type was always early, always studiously reviewing policies and eating a brown-bag lunch at their desk so they could "keep working". Unfortunately, most of these people were also quite "average" and maybe even slightly "below-average" in competency. Their solutions were mechanical and I found, by their nature, they learned things in a linear way. I would have to train them, step by step, and provide documentation of every single procedure, down to the "don't forget to click on OK at the end" level.
The other type was frequently late, frequently took 2 hour lunches, but were absolutely brilliant at the work they needed to do. I had 3 of these people who got WAY more done in their 6 hour work day than the other folks finished in their 9 hour work day. The solutions were more intuitive and generally saved us time in the long run. They learned on the fly and were generally the folks who WROTE the documentation for the "punctual" folks.
I kept both types of people around because they each have qualities that benefit the department.
The on time people were answering the phones handling routine procedures, etc, the brilliant, but late folks handled tricky problems and discovered new features.
So... unless you run a team full of data entry clerks or factory-line button-pushers, I think you're selling yourself short by being rigid on punctuality over competence. .. OMG, the idle CSS is so fucked...
I understand and agree that in the area you were in, that was a practical outlook and I'd probably have had a similar outlook in your place.
However, in my post I specifically was referring to "Most non-office/labor/factory" type employees and my take on that area. In that area, reliability is important to planning workflow and production goals. I took that non-office/labor/factory tack because most people are probably going to end up working in that general type of field, at least at first after high school if not longer if they don't move on immediately to college, and being reliable is a definite plus to a manager/supervisor in that type of work.
Yes, I cringed when I saw how the Idle pages were rendering, especially the reply pages.
Yikes!
Cheers!
Strat
I find the player is more important than the gear. Granted, nobody sounds good on a trashy guitar, but if it's well taken care of, it doesn't really matter if it was $300 or $3000.
Yes, that's quite true. I myself usually play gigs with a $400 G&L Tribute Legacy Premium. I think it's actually as good an instrument as a Fender American Stratocaster, maybe better in some ways. One thing I've found to be true is that one can play a less-expensive guitar through a great-sounding amp and sound very good, but even a really great-sounding guitar will sound like crap through a bad-sounding amp.
When people just starting out ask me, I tell them to buy a decent mid-price good-playing guitar and have someone set it up for them, but buy as high-quality an amp as possible. Better to have a great-sounding 5 watt amp than a poor or mediocre 30 or 50 watt amp, especially if you're not going to be gigging.
Actually, unless you're playing death-metal, thrash, etc you don't need a lot of power. The amp I built to do blues gigs with is a 20 watt (2 x EL84's) cathode-biased single-channel head with just a "Tone" control and "Volume" control. You wouldn't believe how loud a 20 watt tube amp can be through a couple of efficient 70 watt ceramic-magnet 12-inch speakers. I played a gig with my 5-piece high-energy blues band (2 guitars, sax, bass, drums) this past July 4th at an outdoor festival in front of 10-15 thousand people with that 20 watt amp and it was plenty loud, with volume to spare.
Being lower-powered, I can actually crank the amp up until it "sings" without being too loud on stage. Far too many guitarists IMO buy entirely too much amp power-wise for their playing situation and then regret that they can't turn the amp up to where it sounds good, and end up using a distortion pedal. Why spend the $$$ on a tube amp if you can't turn it up enough to realize all the benefits?
Cheers!
Strat
But if the job was output based, would you really care? Say you pay coders $X per year to put out $X lines of good code, would you care if one guy can do it in 20 hours a week if it gets the same results as someone who comes in from 8 to 5 M-F?
That's why I specified the type of work I did in my post. Even in your scenario I probably would still care, as I'd want to have that guy there to ask questions of, or to inform of changes, or to have talk to a customer or vendor rep. that was in the office if I needed him to, or any number of other similar reasons. If all I wanted was generic code, I'd just contract it out and avoid the employment costs and liabilities altogether.
Cheers!
Strat
Um... do you think Clapton, Van Halen, pick your guitar-god, would sound like crap on a $1,000.00 guitar and a $500.00 amp. No.
Its the guitarist more than the guitar.
You do not have to own a Les Paul and a Marshall to be a good guitarist
I absolutely agree. But they sound much better on the better instruments/amps.
Most musicians aren't at that level, and having good equipment most definitely does help. Besides, as I stated in another post in this thread, there's a ton of very well-equipped bands competing for an ever-shrinking number of gigs. Why would a veteran bar/club owner, being able to choose among many very well-equipped bands, hire the band playing bargain-basement equipment? It's not fair, but the very first thing you learn is that this business is anything but fair.
Cheers!
Strat
And if you are going into bars and playing gigs with a tube amp, well, you deserve to shell out big bucks as you are an elitist twerp.
Umm, no...I design and build tube amps as my main business, so I built my own and the other guitar players' amps. *I* won't pay Marshall or Fender the megabucks they demand, as I make a better (IMO) product for a fraction (my cost) of what they want. The older vintage Marshalls and Fenders are vastly superior tone-wise to what they make currently.
Besides, I think it's a myth that tube amps are sooo delicate. They're not! At least not if they're good quality. By good quality tube amp I don't mean some printed-circuit-board construction, made-in-China POS. I've had more reliability problems with solid-state amps than tube amps. Bars/clubs have notoriously bad wiring, and you may be plugged into the same electrical circuit as the cooler or other similar equipment, with the compressor causing huge spikes on the line every time it starts and stops. This is deadly for solid-state stuff. Tube amps will generally take much more of this type abuse.
If you'll be taking a tube amp on the road, simply put industrial/military-version tubes in it that are designed to take physical/electrical abuse. There are tons of old tube amps around and still kicking butt from the '50s. How many solid-state amps are still working and being gigged with regularly from the late '60s/'70s? You generally end up replacing solid-state amps many times over the lifetime of a good tube amp. You buy a good tube amp once, and pass it on to your grandkids when you die unless you decide to sell it, and you'll get a lot more of your money back if you do..you may even make money! That won't happen with a solid-state amp...you'll get a small fraction of your cost if you're lucky.
Besides, I play original blues, and dedicated blues fans (again, IMO and experience) are much more knowledgeable and discerning than the average college kid out to slam jager-shots, get wasted, and hook up at the local dive on a Saturday night. You just try taking a Line-6 modeling amp into a hardcore blues club! At least in the blues clubs around here, you'd get laughed out of there before you even made it to the stage!
Cheers!
Strat