Oh, except that the minimum wage means they don't get paid at all, not that they are paid more for the same jobs.
That is an assmption, which turns out to not be true in about any place on this planet that uses minimum wage. Argument ignored untill substantiated by proof.
Why not a minimum wage of $20/hour? $50/hour? $100/hour? If we can increase compensation for work just by passing a law, why be so miserly?
Because that has nothing to do with living wage or minimum wage anymore maybe? All you are doing for now however is telling yourself absurdities in order to discredit an idea that you do not even seem to understand to begin with.
I'm just thankful no one in California's legislature has found out about Google's exploitative practices... or that they did find out and realize how stupid it would be to prevent this exploitative practice.
Ah ok, so you really od not understand it. Please shutup and learn to use your brains.
You may not realize this, but a giving a grant to a project is not exactly the same as paying a wage.
While you are right that the grantparent is insightfull, your statement about whatever Californian laws is rubbish, no wage was payed here to begin with.
Seeing how over 12% of the population of the USA lives on or below the local poverty line, I think it is actually time to impose a minimum wage countrywide. If you believe it is better to have a substantial number of people working fulltime and yet still have to rely on 'donations' or subsidies to even get enough to feed themselves then fine, but don't think it strange when people call you short sighted because the indirect cost of no minimum wage is a lot higher for society as a whole (due to social support, increased criminality and such)
- The US, and the massive US military-industrial complex many despise, was essentially solely responsible for creating the internet (note: I am talking about the *internet*, not the world wide web, which itself would not have existed were it not for the internet)?
Why is there no understanding in the US that Germany and the UK have been responsible for building practical jet engines and rockets, and leave them in control over production of those?
Unrelated? not exactly. Yes, you are right about where it started, but what we have now has little in common with how it started other then the underlying protocol. Infrastructure is for a large part not in the USA, not US owned either. Many things that build on top of the original arpanet weremnot American inventions and were done without American investment. Sure, the USA also contributed in that time, bit when looking at the modern Internet, it is a lot more complicated then you described.
- Aside from the politics and issues surrounding.xxx, that the US has proven itself to be a capable caretaker of the internet and the root servers (several of which are outside of the US, albeit under ultimate control of the US)?
Ah yes.. it would not have anythign to do with the US government on one side trying to give the impression that they will not involve themselves with such things as telling ICANN what to do, and then the next moment turn around and do exactly the thing they said they would not do. This is why the 'lack of trust' thingy has become such a big issue for this.
As to why the article does not mention those things? because a true patriotic American (tm) knows those of course!
They see Dad riding a bike or working on the car and they want to try. How often are their attempts at emulating the actions of an experienced person successful?
Very often because the purpose is not to get the same result but to learn what it is about.
Would you really allow your child to poke around the engine compartment of your car?
Depends a bit on age, but when not too young, and while supervised, yes, definitely. Nothing like learning from hands-on experience.
There is a reason why important jobs generally require years of experience...not just an education
You forget that this serves as a very practical way to keep peopel out who are not desirable to the current 'elite'. That is not the only reason, the one you name is a reason as well, but it is a very important part of the whole thing.
Yes, but only barely, only because he will leave halfway during his term, and there was no viable alternative. Many a Brit considers him a liar over this gulf war issue, and does not trust him anymore.
John Howard? Are they really taking hits? Is it "other nations" that distrust the U.S., or (loud)political factions within those nations?
Loud and rather large factions.. A substantial majority of the Brits and SPannish never ever wanted their country to participate in the Iraq invasion, One of the members of the Dutch government explicitly said that with hindsight, the Iraq invasion and our participation was a huge mistake, and so on and so on.
So, it is a bit more then small but loud factions, in almost all cases it is substantial majority of the population, some members of the governments of those countrties etc.
I bet it was partly luck that they got all the parameters right that quickly (eventho they could not finish the first properly built pyramid supposedly due to lack of time).
They did have a timetable for building it, quite a tight one with an unknown deadline.. It had to be finished before the farao died.
They did not manage from what we know, mostly due to the first attempts failing.
With regards to others trying before them.. That is quite possible, even more so since we don't know much if anythign about 90% of the time that modern humans spent on this planet. That said, just looking at the failed attempts we know about suggests that they are pretty difficult to hide, even after 2000+ years of trying by the desert, vandalism and partial dismanteling... those things are somewhat huge..:)
doubt the egyptians made some bold statement early in stone architecture that they'd build the pyramid at Giza in 100 years.
Not exactly like that no, but to give an idea of the timespan involved here, they went from anunderground burrial chamber with a 'stepped pyramid' on its top (a fairly simple building) to the Pyramid of Cheops in approx 3 generations. The actual construction and architecture related technology developed for as far as we know within one single generation due to a farao having some daring desires with regards to his tomb. Getting to something that was stable enough (tho not a proper pyramid yet) took at least three tries. (two of the spectacular failures of pyramid construction are from his reign)
The generation after him built the great pyramid.
It'd be impossible to know if the techniques they were using would scale properly, not to mention simple economic factors of food availability.
Well, considering the thing above, it took less then 100 years, and mostly the persistance of a single farao. It wasn't his bold statement as much as his bold desire and a vision.
The entire Roman Empire and the Notre Dame Cathedral are two examples that would disagree with you. Sure some buildings in both cases were not bigger than the pyramids but they had a little bit better architecture, wouldn't you say?
Better architecture? maybe, but a pyramid is not as straightforward as it looks with regards to architecture either.
The two basic problems for designing and building one are:
- creating internal spaces that would not collapse under the intense weight on top of it - getting the slope of the sides right (get it wrong either way and they will collapse, keep in mind this is almost all done with stones that are not or only weakly interconnected vertically)
Those things were not solvable with the experience from smaller scale stone buildings and resulted in some of the most spectacular failures in pyramid building.
Building one also requires a fair amount of accuracy, and the precision with which the successfull ones are built is amazing.
At any rate, the romans were in awe of the scale and construction of the big pyramids, while having done quite a few 'firsts' themselves that are very impressive in their own right. I don't think I am going to disagree with them there:)
Also, I am not entirely sure if I find that huge corridor in the big pyramid less impressive in architecture then the Notre Dame:)
With regards to the Spynx, we don't exactly know. There are things suggesting it is much older, but the official story is that it is as old as the pyramids approx. Either way, the Sphynx is amazing in its own right, but it is more a sculpture then a building technically. I strongly dount that there is much of a relation between how it was made and how the pyramids were made beyond the basic concept of working and shaping a piece of stone (or milions of it in case of a pyramid)
And how do we know they didn't try progressively larger stone buildings?
What is know from documentation (Egyptians did write, and tho not everythign has been preserved, they did also write about their technology and history) as well as found evidence is that pyramids were not the first substantial stone structures they built, and they did not start out building the big pyramid from scratch.
There are examples of failed pyramids, and there is very good reason to believe that first of all, the attempted as well as the finished pyramids were substantially bigger then anything built before them (and actually, only in recent times humans built anything that would match them in size), and were pushing the limits of building technology at the time (they would have done that untill about 150-200 years ago and maybe even more recently).
So, while they did not start building them without any previous experience in stone building in general, the known number of failures, documentation and archeological evidence seem to suggest that pyramids were pretty much developed with trial and error, over a relatively short time (a few generations), and by attempting to build soemthing way beyond the known possibilities of technology at the time.
Cathedrals and castles in Europe were all built after we had built much smaller and simple things like houses, for hundreds of years. They used known techniques, they planned everything out, etc.
To todays standards they planned relatively little, and mostly worked from experience. That said, you are right that there was a lot of experience by that time. Regardless, many a cathedral used for its time new techniques.
Your argument fails with regards to Egypt and the early buildings there. They were the first in known history to build huge stone buildings, and while they did not achieve the pyramids at the first try, you can't exactly say that they were basing themselves on long standing tradition and experience while building them.
Integration of calender and email is extremely usefull. Having a PDA and being able to sync to it makes it even more usefull. gmail does neither and somewhat stands in the way of the later.
Re:Great! When will it be out of beta?
on
Email Turns 34
·
· Score: 1
While not free and a bit less 'slick' with regards to user interface (no 'AJAX'), I am quite happily running a webmail service for myself, family and friends. No ads, no company datamining our mail, superior spam filtering, unlimited amount of email accounts, can act as imap/pop3 client and server, real folders and decent search facilities etc.
What gmail got right is its user interface, at least with regards to responsiveness and simplicity. Functionally, gmail is lacking.
Actually, securityfocus links to the slashdot article as 'news'. Usually that is the other way around.. so I guess in this case Slashdot was not that slow, and actually managed to post something that 'matters'.:)
Even more damning was the response of Al Jean, executive producer of The Simpsons. He said: "If Homer doesn't drink and eat bacon and generally act like a pig, which I guess is also against Islam, then it's not Homer."
Sums it up quite nicely I think.. not having seen this of course.
To expand a little bit on your explanation, they indeed use a 'smartcard'. The smartcard gets 'unlocked' by your PIN code and has its own private key indeed (that concerns the part used for authentication, not for the 'ellectronic cash' part).
The 'chipknip' electronic payment system can also be used in phonebooths, and that is abotu the only place I ever saw anyone use it.
The variation my bank is using (European bank..) uses the exact same atm card, combined with a small pocket-size 'calculator' with card-reader, keyboard and display.
You enter the numbers the website produces into it, and enter the result back into your computer manually.
The devices are freely available from any of their offices by just producing a bankcard just in case you lost or forgot yours (and yeah, that means having to goto the bank indeed, but you get it inmediately when there)
Think such a setup solves most of the concerns people in this discussion have been voicing..
Ah ok, in that case cf is the smarter choice indeed it seems. I have seen quite a few cameras with SD but the majority seems to use cf indeed.
Guess reading about voice recorders and media thats interchangable with cameras I assumed that you wanted to use the voice recordings on the camera,, which made me think it was a camera phone since most 'photo' cameras I have seen can't do anything too usefull with sound:)
Yeah, this is obviously less of a problem when you have control over that domain (ie, its your own domain).
There are two remaining issues however...
First of all, by doing that you allow anyone wo uses gmail to impersonate your domain and pass SPF checks. This may be a bit of an issue considerign the number of users on a webmail service like googlemail.
Second, many people are not in control over the domain where the forwarding is done. I'm pretty sure that when a provider cares to setup SPF to begin with, they will not be too enthousiastic about this idea, see the previous issue.
Which works untill the domain you use as sender address happens to have SPF or senderid setup. Of course then it only fails when sending mail to places that actually check on those, but you'll be surprised how many people do that nowadays.
ideally - cf, so that it is interchangebale with photocameras
Many 'cameraphones' use SD or MMC, not CF (tho I bet yours does:)
At any rate, I found I use a wireless connection (wifi, bluetooth, IR) for exchanging info wiht my phone more then that I use a removable memory card.. its usually just a lot easier that way.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, except that the minimum wage means they don't get paid at all, not that they are paid more for the same jobs.
... or that they did find out and realize how stupid it would be to prevent this exploitative practice.
That is an assmption, which turns out to not be true in about any place on this planet that uses minimum wage. Argument ignored untill substantiated by proof.
Why not a minimum wage of $20/hour? $50/hour? $100/hour? If we can increase compensation for work just by passing a law, why be so miserly?
Because that has nothing to do with living wage or minimum wage anymore maybe? All you are doing for now however is telling yourself absurdities in order to discredit an idea that you do not even seem to understand to begin with.
I'm just thankful no one in California's legislature has found out about Google's exploitative practices
Ah ok, so you really od not understand it. Please shutup and learn to use your brains.
You may not realize this, but a giving a grant to a project is not exactly the same as paying a wage.
While you are right that the grantparent is insightfull, your statement about whatever Californian laws is rubbish, no wage was payed here to begin with.
Seeing how over 12% of the population of the USA lives on or below the local poverty line, I think it is actually time to impose a minimum wage countrywide. If you believe it is better to have a substantial number of people working fulltime and yet still have to rely on 'donations' or subsidies to even get enough to feed themselves then fine, but don't think it strange when people call you short sighted because the indirect cost of no minimum wage is a lot higher for society as a whole (due to social support, increased criminality and such)
- The US, and the massive US military-industrial complex many despise, was essentially solely responsible for creating the internet (note: I am talking about the *internet*, not the world wide web, which itself would not have existed were it not for the internet)?
.xxx, that the US has proven itself to be a capable caretaker of the internet and the root servers (several of which are outside of the US, albeit under ultimate control of the US)?
Why is there no understanding in the US that Germany and the UK have been responsible for building practical jet engines and rockets, and leave them in control over production of those?
Unrelated? not exactly. Yes, you are right about where it started, but what we have now has little in common with how it started other then the underlying protocol. Infrastructure is for a large part not in the USA, not US owned either. Many things that build on top of the original arpanet weremnot American inventions and were done without American investment. Sure, the USA also contributed in that time, bit when looking at the modern Internet, it is a lot more complicated then you described.
- Aside from the politics and issues surrounding
Ah yes.. it would not have anythign to do with the US government on one side trying to give the impression that they will not involve themselves with such things as telling ICANN what to do, and then the next moment turn around and do exactly the thing they said they would not do. This is why the 'lack of trust' thingy has become such a big issue for this.
As to why the article does not mention those things? because a true patriotic American (tm) knows those of course!
They see Dad riding a bike or working on the car and they want to try. How often are their attempts at emulating the actions of an experienced person successful?
Very often because the purpose is not to get the same result but to learn what it is about.
Would you really allow your child to poke around the engine compartment of your car?
Depends a bit on age, but when not too young, and while supervised, yes, definitely. Nothing like learning from hands-on experience.
There is a reason why important jobs generally require years of experience...not just an education
You forget that this serves as a very practical way to keep peopel out who are not desirable to the current 'elite'. That is not the only reason, the one you name is a reason as well, but it is a very important part of the whole thing.
Didn't Tony Blair get re-elected?
Yes, but only barely, only because he will leave halfway during his term, and there was no viable alternative. Many a Brit considers him a liar over this gulf war issue, and does not trust him anymore.
John Howard? Are they really taking hits? Is it "other nations" that distrust the U.S., or (loud)political factions within those nations?
Loud and rather large factions.. A substantial majority of the Brits and SPannish never ever wanted their country to participate in the Iraq invasion, One of the members of the Dutch government explicitly said that with hindsight, the Iraq invasion and our participation was a huge mistake, and so on and so on.
So, it is a bit more then small but loud factions, in almost all cases it is substantial majority of the population, some members of the governments of those countrties etc.
Your username seems kindof appropriate..
How do you know they didn't just get lucky?
:)
I bet it was partly luck that they got all the parameters right that quickly (eventho they could not finish the first properly built pyramid supposedly due to lack of time).
They did have a timetable for building it, quite a tight one with an unknown deadline.. It had to be finished before the farao died.
They did not manage from what we know, mostly due to the first attempts failing.
With regards to others trying before them.. That is quite possible, even more so since we don't know much if anythign about 90% of the time that modern humans spent on this planet. That said, just looking at the failed attempts we know about suggests that they are pretty difficult to hide, even after 2000+ years of trying by the desert, vandalism and partial dismanteling... those things are somewhat huge..
It is not the job of a company to be the employee's nanny. I don't know where you people get this idea
Ever heard about a guy named Henry Ford?
doubt the egyptians made some bold statement early in stone architecture that they'd build the pyramid at Giza in 100 years.
Not exactly like that no, but to give an idea of the timespan involved here, they went from anunderground burrial chamber with a 'stepped pyramid' on its top (a fairly simple building) to the Pyramid of Cheops in approx 3 generations. The actual construction and architecture related technology developed for as far as we know within one single generation due to a farao having some daring desires with regards to his tomb. Getting to something that was stable enough (tho not a proper pyramid yet) took at least three tries. (two of the spectacular failures of pyramid construction are from his reign)
The generation after him built the great pyramid.
It'd be impossible to know if the techniques they were using would scale properly, not to mention simple economic factors of food availability.
Well, considering the thing above, it took less then 100 years, and mostly the persistance of a single farao. It wasn't his bold statement as much as his bold desire and a vision.
The entire Roman Empire and the Notre Dame Cathedral are two examples that would disagree with you. Sure some buildings in both cases were not bigger than the pyramids but they had a little bit better architecture, wouldn't you say?
:)
:)
Better architecture? maybe, but a pyramid is not as straightforward as it looks with regards to architecture either.
The two basic problems for designing and building one are:
- creating internal spaces that would not collapse under the intense weight on top of it
- getting the slope of the sides right (get it wrong either way and they will collapse, keep in mind this is almost all done with stones that are not or only weakly interconnected vertically)
Those things were not solvable with the experience from smaller scale stone buildings and resulted in some of the most spectacular failures in pyramid building.
Building one also requires a fair amount of accuracy, and the precision with which the successfull ones are built is amazing.
At any rate, the romans were in awe of the scale and construction of the big pyramids, while having done quite a few 'firsts' themselves that are very impressive in their own right. I don't think I am going to disagree with them there
Also, I am not entirely sure if I find that huge corridor in the big pyramid less impressive in architecture then the Notre Dame
With regards to the Spynx, we don't exactly know. There are things suggesting it is much older, but the official story is that it is as old as the pyramids approx. Either way, the Sphynx is amazing in its own right, but it is more a sculpture then a building technically. I strongly dount that there is much of a relation between how it was made and how the pyramids were made beyond the basic concept of working and shaping a piece of stone (or milions of it in case of a pyramid)
And how do we know they didn't try progressively larger stone buildings?
What is know from documentation (Egyptians did write, and tho not everythign has been preserved, they did also write about their technology and history) as well as found evidence is that pyramids were not the first substantial stone structures they built, and they did not start out building the big pyramid from scratch.
There are examples of failed pyramids, and there is very good reason to believe that first of all, the attempted as well as the finished pyramids were substantially bigger then anything built before them (and actually, only in recent times humans built anything that would match them in size), and were pushing the limits of building technology at the time (they would have done that untill about 150-200 years ago and maybe even more recently).
So, while they did not start building them without any previous experience in stone building in general, the known number of failures, documentation and archeological evidence seem to suggest that pyramids were pretty much developed with trial and error, over a relatively short time (a few generations), and by attempting to build soemthing way beyond the known possibilities of technology at the time.
Cathedrals and castles in Europe were all built after we had built much smaller and simple things like houses, for hundreds of years. They used known techniques, they planned everything out, etc.
To todays standards they planned relatively little, and mostly worked from experience. That said, you are right that there was a lot of experience by that time. Regardless, many a cathedral used for its time new techniques.
Your argument fails with regards to Egypt and the early buildings there. They were the first in known history to build huge stone buildings, and while they did not achieve the pyramids at the first try, you can't exactly say that they were basing themselves on long standing tradition and experience while building them.
Integration of calender and email is extremely usefull. Having a PDA and being able to sync to it makes it even more usefull. gmail does neither and somewhat stands in the way of the later.
While not free and a bit less 'slick' with regards to user interface (no 'AJAX'), I am quite happily running a webmail service for myself, family and friends. No ads, no company datamining our mail, superior spam filtering, unlimited amount of email accounts, can act as imap/pop3 client and server, real folders and decent search facilities etc.
What gmail got right is its user interface, at least with regards to responsiveness and simplicity. Functionally, gmail is lacking.
Actually, securityfocus links to the slashdot article as 'news'. Usually that is the other way around.. so I guess in this case Slashdot was not that slow, and actually managed to post something that 'matters'. :)
I just wonder, how big an idiot do you have to be to not know the difference between countries and companies that happen to be in those countries?
Even more damning was the response of Al Jean, executive producer of The Simpsons. He said: "If Homer doesn't drink and eat bacon and generally act like a pig, which I guess is also against Islam, then it's not Homer."
Sums it up quite nicely I think.. not having seen this of course.
To expand a little bit on your explanation, they indeed use a 'smartcard'.
The smartcard gets 'unlocked' by your PIN code and has its own private key indeed (that concerns the part used for authentication, not for the 'ellectronic cash' part).
The 'chipknip' electronic payment system can also be used in phonebooths, and that is abotu the only place I ever saw anyone use it.
The variation my bank is using (European bank..) uses the exact same atm card, combined with a small pocket-size 'calculator' with card-reader, keyboard and display.
You enter the numbers the website produces into it, and enter the result back into your computer manually.
The devices are freely available from any of their offices by just producing a bankcard just in case you lost or forgot yours (and yeah, that means having to goto the bank indeed, but you get it inmediately when there)
Think such a setup solves most of the concerns people in this discussion have been voicing..
Ah ok, in that case cf is the smarter choice indeed it seems. I have seen quite a few cameras with SD but the majority seems to use cf indeed.
:)
Guess reading about voice recorders and media thats interchangable with cameras I assumed that you wanted to use the voice recordings on the camera,, which made me think it was a camera phone since most 'photo' cameras I have seen can't do anything too usefull with sound
Yeah, this is obviously less of a problem when you have control over that domain (ie, its your own domain).
There are two remaining issues however...
First of all, by doing that you allow anyone wo uses gmail to impersonate your domain and pass SPF checks. This may be a bit of an issue considerign the number of users on a webmail service like googlemail.
Second, many people are not in control over the domain where the forwarding is done. I'm pretty sure that when a provider cares to setup SPF to begin with, they will not be too enthousiastic about this idea, see the previous issue.
Which works untill the domain you use as sender address happens to have SPF or senderid setup. Of course then it only fails when sending mail to places that actually check on those, but you'll be surprised how many people do that nowadays.
Many do indeed.. but then, I saw one with smartmedia pretty recently as well, thought that had died years ago..
ideally - cf, so that it is interchangebale with photocameras
:)
Many 'cameraphones' use SD or MMC, not CF (tho I bet yours does
At any rate, I found I use a wireless connection (wifi, bluetooth, IR) for exchanging info wiht my phone more then that I use a removable memory card.. its usually just a lot easier that way.
It will look about as good as VHS video.