I can't believe the 'insightful' moderation. Every time some people visibly make an effort to benefit themselves, to please them out of their own time and funds, be it with awesome aspirations to space travel, computer games or other entertainment, rodents like yourself infest this place. Even if you are of the left persuasion, which is perfectly fine in a plural society, you don't need to insist that the only things ever to be done must be caused by altruistic motives. Accept that people also need to live for themselves and cannot dedicate all their resources to your special utopia.
well, obviously the term sweatshop has a muddied definition. Low pay I disagree with. Wage should be determined by the market. But beatings and killings even are clearly crimes and have no place in business transaction. Where I come from, the term sweatshops is used to describe bad working condition (high hours, low wage etc), and I was only refering to that.
culture has nothing to do with it. Natural resources play a minor part. Yes, history is important. Authoritarian states are never wealthy. To much control just hinders production.
'The tranformation to an industrial based econom'y does not have an attribute by name of 'style' that can be filled with values 'eastern', 'western' etc. It just is and it has requirements, primarily on capital stock, organization and technology. Also economies have a trajectory and it, by default, points toward ever increasing wealth. I grant, there a factors that can retard this progress but for the most part, whenever mass labour (employment not work) occurs, coupled with mass production a drastic increase in living condition is the norm. And no, living isn't free. I'm no fan of government but they just cause living to cost more than it normaly would.
you had not much contact with computer noobs did you? Using any user interface will get you a long way toward the 'elite'. By the way, I see a prevailing meta trend in opinion that goes like this: 'if not everything that is desirable can be achieved at once, why bother?'. Everything is gradual. Not all problems can be solved at once. Learning to use a mouse IS a real challenge to some people. And they needn't be stupid.
obviously you can't fathom that economic progress is like a stair case. You can't get on top without climbing on stair a time. Sweatshops with shitty working conditions are not nice. No one is saying that. At the same time, they are infinatly better than the alternative. Also, they are the first step. The correct reaction is neither 'close the damn things and gas all nike managers' nor 'lets vote with our wallets and let them go broke'. Buy cheap stuff from firms that employ workers in third world nations. The economic pressure will force competitors to also move factories there. Then, 'there' more demand for labor is created, wages and working conditions go up. Bam, second stair. And after a few years, shit-hole countries like taiwan are actually not so shitty anymore. We had this already, in the 70ies, Asia and Africa where often mentioned at the same time when the topic was 'poorest of the poor'. Now look, Asia, not so bad anymore. And no, this was not accomplished by ATTAC or other anti-globalization groups or politicians. Just by economic forces.
No one choose to work in a sweatshop unless the gold that makes the rules forces them to. This is not left, this is not protectionism; this is genuine concern and a sense of fair play, which you seem to be incapable of.
It is left. It also is quite ignorant. Your vantage point is looking back at 150 years of industry and, comparativly, liberty. Some wealth has been produced over that time and manifests itself everywhere: machinery improving productivity, infrasturcture, education. The third world on the other hand, starts out with very little of this. At this stage, your occupation is one out of those:
- Chief or misc. government buerocrat
well, those are often doing quite well, even if the country is bad shape. I wonder why.
- Soldier
Up to a point they are mostly well fed and well off. If conditions change for the worse, often a 'revolution' happens and they switch place with the group above
- Merchant or craftsman
Very risky business that can go either way. Basically those are one-man style firms that bear all the risks of their endevours themselves.
-Farmers
The biggest portion of the populance farms for subsidence. As I pointed out above, this is no fun at all. Besides the fact that this is the hardest work we could imagine, the farmer bears all the risk. If the harvest goes bad, no food on the table. Productivity is so low that one farmer can hardly produce enough to keep himself and the family fed. Even if something is left, trading that won't buy him much in an economy that is not mass producing. The implications are clear: all tools and commodities like clothes (or funiture) must be crafted by the farmer or his family members, adding additional work to his already busy schedule.
Now, imagine you where that farmer and one of those terrible sweatshops opened near by. Would you go on working your farm on the verge of starvation or would you rather have a reliable, risk free income (and more of it). Would you take the job and work fewer hours and not have to bother with making your own tools? I do think so. And this is the reality in those countries: people fight over those jobs, precisely because they are better off taking them. Labour is not forced by the 'rule of gold', it comes about because of necessity. It's not nikes fault that people need food and clothes and education and health care to survive. Neither does 'nature' provide those for free. This is the true point that the left tends to forget: living is not free. The delta, the difference between living and starving must be provided and ultimatly can only be provided by work. The question comes down to wether you want to be your own employer without any capital (machinery ie.) and work your ass off without any gurantee that your work will pay or labour (be employed by someone else) and profit from the producivity that division of labour brings, have the company take all the risk (they don't know if their shoes will sell) and use their tools?
It is a true dichotomy. You just have the wrong perspective. First generation sweatshops in a given economy literally mean 'sweatshop or farming for subsidence'. Now if you think that farming for subsidence sounds like fun, consider 16 hours back breaking work, 100% risk ( harvest failure) and almost no surpluse income above what you need for a living. Point in case: Nike operates a factory (sweatshop) in vietnam, and even the socialist government there praises it as an ideal working place, with good pay and working conditions. Of course, by our standards, it's not peachy but you need to look at the median conditions in a given country. And working 4 hours less with 10% more income is a very good deal if you look at it from a relative viewpoint.
no, you got it wrong. If a business pays 3rd world people less than a reasonable first world wage and if the working condition don't approximate first world conditions, it must be a sweatshop and most definatly the people are being exploited. We don't need you interupting our world-pain session with your silly assertions that the job might even be fun and the wage a 100 times better than the next best job.
No, you are incorrect. Not all programming mistakes are securtiy holes in the traditional meaning of security. And by the way, saying 'oh well, you should test for it, so the language is not insecure' misses the point. There is no way that anyone could inject code in java written server programs and execute it, unless the java programs' purpose is explicitly to load classes and run them. In this sense, a whole category of security related mistakes just can't happen in java (or.net). If it can't happen, you wouldn't need to check them and unit test for them. ++productivity. ++languageSafety
oh thanks for defining how my life should be. Who made you god? Also: will I be locked up as insanse and delusional if I disagree with you (ärhm don't see the wisdom in you words) so that you might help me find the true path?
On a side note: Can you do what every scientist, thinker and philosopher failed to do for the last 5000 years? Can you find proove that reality is an objective thing outside your subjective mind? If not, could you clarify how one subjective reality (perceived world) is 'realer' than an other subjective reality (imagined world)? In other words, does it, outside a discussion of features, truly matter if I prefer one fictional life over another fictional life?
XML can be a scripting language. The webMethods integration server has been using one for years. You just need to define a xml schema, write a compiler/interpreter and there is a brand new XML scripting language. This is probably what they meant.
Regardless, I think this is pretty cool. Having 'content creation' applications within a game certainly would bring more people into the mod scene. People like me that don't really want to install the latest and createst C++ IDE, download the games mod SDK and spend years figuring out how the engine is supposed to work.
You think that the discs produce themselves? Blizard knew very well how many units went to stores, where preordered and how many accounts where registered.
WoW uses a shard design. It should be trivial to calculate the maximum possible number of players per server. We'll just call that number X. Now you know that 600.000 units where sold. 600.000 / X = number of servers. Clearly, the number of actual servers is well below that. How is throwing hardware (more shards) not going to solve the problem? And besides, each subscription is a contract and that means that blizard is legally bound to provide the agreed upon service. Queues and excessive downtime doesn't cut it.
How about I just stick with my common sense statment that goes like this: warm == good for farmers, cold == bad. How about we both take a look at what happened during the period of the little ice age when millions starved around the world due to massive harvest failures in connection with cold weather. How about you and your climate obsesed friend come up with any proof whatsoever that shows considerable global famine at a period where the climate was warmer than on avarage. How about we don't ignore that those famines that weren't artificially created as well as great plauges happened at times when it was colder than on average.
I find this to be a great twist in the english language: 'to be competetive' = 'being a bad looser'. Now, I can see shapes through the haze of history that would suggest how this phrase came about but still, it is deeply anchored in my mind that in fact the opposite is true. Graceful loosers are really the ones for competition.
Incidently, my brother with whom I live together is also this competetive. We ceased competing in RTS games after his rage left villages - villages I tell you! - in smouldering ruins.
take a look at history. You'll find that there were warmer periods, one of them called the 'roman climate optimum'. Those times are famous for the spectacular absence of famines because the greater humitity warmer weather brings makes deserts in the middle eastern region fertile, ie.
This must be the most boring bit of news I ever read in my life. Do I miss some extention in the geek gene that would make this appear to be spectacular to me?
Slashdot Mirror
I can't believe the 'insightful' moderation. Every time some people visibly make an effort to benefit themselves, to please them out of their own time and funds, be it with awesome aspirations to space travel, computer games or other entertainment, rodents like yourself infest this place. Even if you are of the left persuasion, which is perfectly fine in a plural society, you don't need to insist that the only things ever to be done must be caused by altruistic motives. Accept that people also need to live for themselves and cannot dedicate all their resources to your special utopia.
as I said, murder must not be a part of business.
well, obviously the term sweatshop has a muddied definition. Low pay I disagree with. Wage should be determined by the market. But beatings and killings even are clearly crimes and have no place in business transaction. Where I come from, the term sweatshops is used to describe bad working condition (high hours, low wage etc), and I was only refering to that.
culture has nothing to do with it. Natural resources play a minor part. Yes, history is important. Authoritarian states are never wealthy. To much control just hinders production.
'The tranformation to an industrial based econom'y does not have an attribute by name of 'style' that can be filled with values 'eastern', 'western' etc. It just is and it has requirements, primarily on capital stock, organization and technology. Also economies have a trajectory and it, by default, points toward ever increasing wealth. I grant, there a factors that can retard this progress but for the most part, whenever mass labour (employment not work) occurs, coupled with mass production a drastic increase in living condition is the norm. And no, living isn't free. I'm no fan of government but they just cause living to cost more than it normaly would.
you had not much contact with computer noobs did you? Using any user interface will get you a long way toward the 'elite'. By the way, I see a prevailing meta trend in opinion that goes like this: 'if not everything that is desirable can be achieved at once, why bother?'. Everything is gradual. Not all problems can be solved at once. Learning to use a mouse IS a real challenge to some people. And they needn't be stupid.
obviously you can't fathom that economic progress is like a stair case. You can't get on top without climbing on stair a time. Sweatshops with shitty working conditions are not nice. No one is saying that. At the same time, they are infinatly better than the alternative. Also, they are the first step. The correct reaction is neither 'close the damn things and gas all nike managers' nor 'lets vote with our wallets and let them go broke'. Buy cheap stuff from firms that employ workers in third world nations. The economic pressure will force competitors to also move factories there. Then, 'there' more demand for labor is created, wages and working conditions go up. Bam, second stair. And after a few years, shit-hole countries like taiwan are actually not so shitty anymore. We had this already, in the 70ies, Asia and Africa where often mentioned at the same time when the topic was 'poorest of the poor'. Now look, Asia, not so bad anymore. And no, this was not accomplished by ATTAC or other anti-globalization groups or politicians. Just by economic forces.
No one choose to work in a sweatshop unless the gold that makes the rules forces them to. This is not left, this is not protectionism; this is genuine concern and a sense of fair play, which you seem to be incapable of.
It is left. It also is quite ignorant. Your vantage point is looking back at 150 years of industry and, comparativly, liberty. Some wealth has been produced over that time and manifests itself everywhere: machinery improving productivity, infrasturcture, education. The third world on the other hand, starts out with very little of this. At this stage, your occupation is one out of those:
- Chief or misc. government buerocrat
well, those are often doing quite well, even if the country is bad shape. I wonder why.
- Soldier
Up to a point they are mostly well fed and well off. If conditions change for the worse, often a 'revolution' happens and they switch place with the group above
- Merchant or craftsman
Very risky business that can go either way. Basically those are one-man style firms that bear all the risks of their endevours themselves.
-Farmers
The biggest portion of the populance farms for subsidence. As I pointed out above, this is no fun at all. Besides the fact that this is the hardest work we could imagine, the farmer bears all the risk. If the harvest goes bad, no food on the table. Productivity is so low that one farmer can hardly produce enough to keep himself and the family fed. Even if something is left, trading that won't buy him much in an economy that is not mass producing. The implications are clear: all tools and commodities like clothes (or funiture) must be crafted by the farmer or his family members, adding additional work to his already busy schedule.
Now, imagine you where that farmer and one of those terrible sweatshops opened near by. Would you go on working your farm on the verge of starvation or would you rather have a reliable, risk free income (and more of it). Would you take the job and work fewer hours and not have to bother with making your own tools? I do think so. And this is the reality in those countries: people fight over those jobs, precisely because they are better off taking them. Labour is not forced by the 'rule of gold', it comes about because of necessity. It's not nikes fault that people need food and clothes and education and health care to survive. Neither does 'nature' provide those for free. This is the true point that the left tends to forget: living is not free. The delta, the difference between living and starving must be provided and ultimatly can only be provided by work. The question comes down to wether you want to be your own employer without any capital (machinery ie.) and work your ass off without any gurantee that your work will pay or labour (be employed by someone else) and profit from the producivity that division of labour brings, have the company take all the risk (they don't know if their shoes will sell) and use their tools?
It is a true dichotomy. You just have the wrong perspective. First generation sweatshops in a given economy literally mean 'sweatshop or farming for subsidence'. Now if you think that farming for subsidence sounds like fun, consider 16 hours back breaking work, 100% risk ( harvest failure) and almost no surpluse income above what you need for a living. Point in case: Nike operates a factory (sweatshop) in vietnam, and even the socialist government there praises it as an ideal working place, with good pay and working conditions. Of course, by our standards, it's not peachy but you need to look at the median conditions in a given country. And working 4 hours less with 10% more income is a very good deal if you look at it from a relative viewpoint.
no, you got it wrong. If a business pays 3rd world people less than a reasonable first world wage and if the working condition don't approximate first world conditions, it must be a sweatshop and most definatly the people are being exploited. We don't need you interupting our world-pain session with your silly assertions that the job might even be fun and the wage a 100 times better than the next best job.
run time enviroment? You mean, java specific or in general?
No, you are incorrect. Not all programming mistakes are securtiy holes in the traditional meaning of security. And by the way, saying 'oh well, you should test for it, so the language is not insecure' misses the point. There is no way that anyone could inject code in java written server programs and execute it, unless the java programs' purpose is explicitly to load classes and run them. In this sense, a whole category of security related mistakes just can't happen in java (or .net). If it can't happen, you wouldn't need to check them and unit test for them. ++productivity. ++languageSafety
- churn up 2GB swap in java (or something similar)
java.lang.StackOverflowError
oh thanks for defining how my life should be. Who made you god? Also: will I be locked up as insanse and delusional if I disagree with you (ärhm don't see the wisdom in you words) so that you might help me find the true path?
On a side note: Can you do what every scientist, thinker and philosopher failed to do for the last 5000 years? Can you find proove that reality is an objective thing outside your subjective mind? If not, could you clarify how one subjective reality (perceived world) is 'realer' than an other subjective reality (imagined world)? In other words, does it, outside a discussion of features, truly matter if I prefer one fictional life over another fictional life?
XML can be a scripting language. The webMethods integration server has been using one for years. You just need to define a xml schema, write a compiler/interpreter and there is a brand new XML scripting language. This is probably what they meant.
Regardless, I think this is pretty cool. Having 'content creation' applications within a game certainly would bring more people into the mod scene. People like me that don't really want to install the latest and createst C++ IDE, download the games mod SDK and spend years figuring out how the engine is supposed to work.
You think that the discs produce themselves? Blizard knew very well how many units went to stores, where preordered and how many accounts where registered.
WoW uses a shard design. It should be trivial to calculate the maximum possible number of players per server. We'll just call that number X. Now you know that 600.000 units where sold. 600.000 / X = number of servers. Clearly, the number of actual servers is well below that. How is throwing hardware (more shards) not going to solve the problem?
And besides, each subscription is a contract and that means that blizard is legally bound to provide the agreed upon service. Queues and excessive downtime doesn't cut it.
How about I just stick with my common sense statment that goes like this: warm == good for farmers, cold == bad. How about we both take a look at what happened during the period of the little ice age when millions starved around the world due to massive harvest failures in connection with cold weather. How about you and your climate obsesed friend come up with any proof whatsoever that shows considerable global famine at a period where the climate was warmer than on avarage. How about we don't ignore that those famines that weren't artificially created as well as great plauges happened at times when it was colder than on average.
I find this to be a great twist in the english language: 'to be competetive' = 'being a bad looser'. Now, I can see shapes through the haze of history that would suggest how this phrase came about but still, it is deeply anchored in my mind that in fact the opposite is true. Graceful loosers are really the ones for competition.
Incidently, my brother with whom I live together is also this competetive. We ceased competing in RTS games after his rage left villages - villages I tell you! - in smouldering ruins.
take a look at history. You'll find that there were warmer periods, one of them called the 'roman climate optimum'. Those times are famous for the spectacular absence of famines because the greater humitity warmer weather brings makes deserts in the middle eastern region fertile, ie.
could you point me at where exactly I misspelt something? I'm always happy to learn ...
This must be the most boring bit of news I ever read in my life. Do I miss some extention in the geek gene that would make this appear to be spectacular to me?
I don't know. I am suprised though that not a single nutter has connected the tsunami disaster with it, yet.
Gold :)
Yes, MS could be more secure. Less networking services on by default come to mind. But this is not what they are trying to sell.
yes, I want his software. Is the idea of trade really such a square peg that it doesn't fit in your minds round hole?
sometimes I just don't know when people are kidding .. maybe its harder to figure out speech subtilities in a second language ...