I was actually going to point out that they aren't being paid the same wages as more developed countries. Because they don't live in more developed countries. It would be great if the countries were more developed, but driving away business isn't going to increase living standards at all. It would also be nice if companies paid significantly more than market wages, but if you force them to pay the same wages as they would in a developed nation, they simply wouldn't hire workers in developing nations at all. Just having some food is pretty terrible, but it's better than having no food or resorting to prostitution.
I don't think you got my point--something is better than nothing. How is something worse than nothing? Should nobody do anything at all unless they do it perfectly, lest they should be worse at what they do than others? I don't think that would be such a great world to live in.
What does Hitler have to do with this? If anything, you and I are more like Hitler than the sweatshops, because people's lives are improving more as a result of the sweatshops than what we do. For the record, I am against inhumane working conditions, but paying low wages isn't inhumane. After all, most people pay zero wages.
And what bias are you talking about? If you're saying that he is using/. to essentially advertise the WSJ, it might be a valid complaint, but it doesn't have anything to do with bias. Instead are you perhaps talking about the editors' bias in accepting his stories? He submits well-written stories which link to a reputable news source. Perhaps you don't think that the editors should accept stories whose primary source is a registration-only website, but again that has nothing do to with bias.
Re:Dvorak also said cable modems were stupid
on
Prepping For The 360
·
· Score: 1
A broken clock is still right twice a day, which is a lot more often than a few times a decade.
Apple didn't invent the GUI, but they actually made it mainstream. Xerox certainly did a lot of significant development on the GUI, but they didn't invent it, either.
What the hell? How does that line make the movie meaningless? The line is intended to tell you, the viewer, that, yes, it really did happen. She really did go through a wormhole, she really did meet an alien, she really did come back to the same space/time coordinates as when she left. What is the problem?
The whole point of the movie is that we don't know whether or not it really did happen. Or at least it is without that line. With it, there is no point.
SPOILER ALERT but it will only spoil mind-numbing, literally anger-inducing stupidity
Contact had possibly the worst ending in cinematic history. No, I don't mean how the alien was her father. I mean the "eighteen hours of static line." I don't doubt it is the worst line an any movie anywhere. It isn't that it's stupid, but rather if you accept that that line is part of the movie, then the whole movie is meaningless, no more profound than Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure (and arguably a bigger waste of time). Just a bunch of sound of images committed to film for no particular reason. I mean, people who didn't get the movie hated it anyway; why shit on Sagan's grave by making people who did get it hate it, and not even really doing anything for people who didn't?
I don't normally have this sort of attitude about movies, but I'd really like to meet whoever added that line and punch him in the face. It is just a movie, but isn't film supposed to be art? Contact was no Mona Lisa even without the ending, but the kind of asshole who butchered it would probably think nothing of walking up the Mona Lisa and drawing eyebrows on it in crayon.
This is really unfair to psychics, who have just as much scientific basis for their powers as lie detectors. Why replace a paying job with a machine? Obviously it's greed.
There's a pretty obvious difference between objecting to things which actually harm people, and objecting to things which help people for reasons unrelated to the well-being of people. I would be so bold as to say that an misanthropic system of morality is objectively wrong, since the purpose of morality is to guide our decisions in a beneficial way.
Anesthesia for women during childbirth was controversial. Organ transplantation was controversial. IVF was far more controversial when it was first developed than it is today. Today's affront against God is tomorrow's bygone advance in science. Reason wins in the long run because it works.
Slashdot Mirror
Do not taunt Xbox 360.
Better watch out for those pesky backspaces!
There is a 14th amendment, you know. In fact, it's newer than the 1st.
I was actually going to point out that they aren't being paid the same wages as more developed countries. Because they don't live in more developed countries. It would be great if the countries were more developed, but driving away business isn't going to increase living standards at all. It would also be nice if companies paid significantly more than market wages, but if you force them to pay the same wages as they would in a developed nation, they simply wouldn't hire workers in developing nations at all. Just having some food is pretty terrible, but it's better than having no food or resorting to prostitution.
Or not.
They've bent the truth enough in the past that they were asked to change their advertising by the ASA.
Crazy Frog could be popular here.
I don't think you got my point--something is better than nothing. How is something worse than nothing? Should nobody do anything at all unless they do it perfectly, lest they should be worse at what they do than others? I don't think that would be such a great world to live in.
It's already illegal in most states to watch videos or listen to music on headphones while driving already.
What does Hitler have to do with this? If anything, you and I are more like Hitler than the sweatshops, because people's lives are improving more as a result of the sweatshops than what we do. For the record, I am against inhumane working conditions, but paying low wages isn't inhumane. After all, most people pay zero wages.
And what bias are you talking about? If you're saying that he is using /. to essentially advertise the WSJ, it might be a valid complaint, but it doesn't have anything to do with bias. Instead are you perhaps talking about the editors' bias in accepting his stories? He submits well-written stories which link to a reputable news source. Perhaps you don't think that the editors should accept stories whose primary source is a registration-only website, but again that has nothing do to with bias.
A broken clock is still right twice a day, which is a lot more often than a few times a decade.
Apple didn't invent the GUI, but they actually made it mainstream. Xerox certainly did a lot of significant development on the GUI, but they didn't invent it, either.
Carl Bialik has actually submitted quite a few articles to /. in the past.
The whole point of the movie is that we don't know whether or not it really did happen. Or at least it is without that line. With it, there is no point.
Contact had possibly the worst ending in cinematic history. No, I don't mean how the alien was her father. I mean the "eighteen hours of static line." I don't doubt it is the worst line an any movie anywhere. It isn't that it's stupid, but rather if you accept that that line is part of the movie, then the whole movie is meaningless, no more profound than Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure (and arguably a bigger waste of time). Just a bunch of sound of images committed to film for no particular reason. I mean, people who didn't get the movie hated it anyway; why shit on Sagan's grave by making people who did get it hate it, and not even really doing anything for people who didn't?
I don't normally have this sort of attitude about movies, but I'd really like to meet whoever added that line and punch him in the face. It is just a movie, but isn't film supposed to be art? Contact was no Mona Lisa even without the ending, but the kind of asshole who butchered it would probably think nothing of walking up the Mona Lisa and drawing eyebrows on it in crayon.
Because obviously anything someone says on IRC is true.
Then again, I was being pretty dorky in the first place.
What's the sequence of the gene the prolongs life for you and me? CTGACTGCATC!
For legal reasons, it will be called the BHAnet instead.
This is really unfair to psychics, who have just as much scientific basis for their powers as lie detectors. Why replace a paying job with a machine? Obviously it's greed.
Whosh? No, that can't be right. I'm stumped.
There's a pretty obvious difference between objecting to things which actually harm people, and objecting to things which help people for reasons unrelated to the well-being of people. I would be so bold as to say that an misanthropic system of morality is objectively wrong, since the purpose of morality is to guide our decisions in a beneficial way.
Anesthesia for women during childbirth was controversial. Organ transplantation was controversial. IVF was far more controversial when it was first developed than it is today. Today's affront against God is tomorrow's bygone advance in science. Reason wins in the long run because it works.
I'm pretty sure that's not Intelligent Design you're thinking of there, bud.