The corporation absolutely IS responsible. If the business was a sole proprietorship, you wouldn't see this as much. It is the status as a corporation that enables and encourages this behavior. The very point of a corporation is to protect individual human from responsibility.
The only argument against revoking corporate status is that someone innocent will be hurt financially. This argument is just as valid for a human as it is for a corporation. So, we should either abolish any punishments that would prevent individuals from earning money, or we should hold corporations accountable at the same level.
both hands on the steering wheel and can't respond as well to an emergency as if you did.
This is a poor argument. If you are arguing against cell phone use, you should never use it. Virtually no one drives with both hands consistently on the wheel, and a huge number of cars are physically impossible to drive keeping both hands on the wheel.
By using that argument, you make it clear that you are not being honest in your position, and thus reduce the value of any other points you might make.
First, the "But there are innocent people that depend on them for their livelihood" excuse is ridiculous. If we are going to use that logic, we should just get rid of all laws. They guy that breaks into your home, rapes your wife, and kills your dog on the way out may have an innocent child at home that depends on his livelihood. Letting corporations (and those that run them) get away with abusing millions of people just because they are rich is why they do it.
After that, letting the rich steal from the middle class and poor because they "might leave the country" is just as silly. These people and corporations are not a net benefit to the US. They are already siphoning money away from the US and sending it overseas. These people and corporations are a cancer to our economy. Sure it might hurt to lose a leg of our economy, but if you don't bite the bullet and eradicate the cancer early, it spreads and grows. You end up losing both legs and half your torso.
No, it really isn't. Running cable is expensive, but not that expensive. Companies do it all the time on large campuses. They just budget it under capital costs.
It doesn't matter if small cities contract out their piping work or do the work in house. Either way, they have a system in place to build and maintain 3 sets of pipe today. It is a problem that they already have a solution for.
This is what I have been advocating. Cities usually have a lot of experience with conduit underground. Most cities run three seperate systems of pipes. Water, sewer, and storm drains.
I would do similar, but I wouldn't trust the municipality to touch the fiber. Municipalities have little to no experience with Fiber. What they do have huge amounts of experience with is piping. Most municipalities run at least 3 different sets of pipes. 2 to every home, and 1 to most neighborhoods. Water, sewage, and storm drains. If municipalities would run a new set of pipes that were the size of sewer lines, they would have the infrastructure to lease space to dozens of competing businesses. New players could pull whatever cable they see fit at a price that dwarfs what it costs now, and if your cable is having problems, you can push the service provider to replace it, or go to a competitor. It would also allow businesses to run private connections between offices within the same city.
Has the conversation ever been about anything other than catastrophic AGW? Trying to claim that it wasn't is just lying to yourself. If the conversation was about whether the planet was going through a natural warming cycle, it wouldn't be a discussion at all. If the discussion were about the planet having warming and cooling trends, it wouldn't be discussion.
Have you ever met a single person ever that denied the planet had warming and cooling trends? Of course not. From the very beginning, it was understood by everyone that GW meant catastrophic global warming. Everyone understood AGW to mean catastrophic anthropomorphic global warming. Everyone understood that climate change meant catastrophic climate change. If it wasn't understood to be catastrophic, no one would care.
Any claim that there was ever a conversation that wasn't about catastrophic climate change is a very poor lie.
Not to mention, if we are going to play the "We don't have to fallow any treaties." line of thinking, then Antigua doesn't even need a WTO ruling. Our laws apply inside our borders, not in Antigua. The only reason Antigua would need a WTO ruling is if we are all going to abide by our treaties.
Tivo was obvious when they started designing the device. ATI as well as others were already selling devices with the same functionality. Tivo just packaged it up nicely in a consumer friendly box.
I am suggesting that the number of people that have a capable router, and have it already set up is a small enough group even here on Slashdot that suggesting it becomes bad advice. The cost difference between Printers with and without ethernet is pretty small compared to the cost in time it takes to deal with hacking a router, and that is if the person already has a capable router that they would want to hack.
They are not ditching Windows. They are making Linux a viable option. This is the first step on making Linux an equivalent platform. This is the next step on making Linux the preferred platform. THEN they can consider ditching Windows. Valve believes that Windows is currently the leading PC gaming platform. They also don't think it is a viable long term platform. Given those to assumptions, you neither ditch Windows today, nor do you just wait for your platform to collapse. You do just what Valve is doing, and build an alternative platform that is ready to take over when Windows fails. The best part for Valve is that if Windows stays as the dominant platform, they lose very little.
They plan on breaking this by taking the risk out of user adoption. In the past, if you wanted to buy a game, you bought the Windows version. If there was a Linux version, you would buy the Windows version anyway because even if you were running Linux that day, you didn't know when you would need to move back to Windows for a specific app. With Steam's model, you buy the game. Not the game on platform x. So, if you already bought a bunch of games that have Linux versions, you are going to be able to play them on the SteamBox day one. If you get a SteamBox, and it fails, you can play all the Linux games you bought on you Windows PC. In fact, you can play Linux games on your TV via Linux, on your laptop via Linux, and on your desktop via Windows. All with a single purchase.
Valve is taking the risk out of buying Linux games.
This isn't a problem. We need Stallman, and his extreme view on the subject. If he went pragmatic, the pragmatic view would be considered the extreme. The center would shift farther towards lock down and rent seeking. It is Torvalds that plays the part you would place Stallman in. We need both types.
The same cost rules really apply to photographic printing. If you do a lot of photographic printing, it will be cheaper to use a professional photo printing site. If you don't print photos very often, it will be cheaper to use a professional photo printing site.
Plus, not only can you use an online service like jabuzz, but if you need the picture right now, you can got to Costco, CVS, Walmart, Walgreens, or a dozen other places to get photos printed right away. And, that ~200 inkjet is never going to produce the quality of the ~20,000 machine the stores are running.
As for the ethernet port, jabuzz is correct. Ethernet is the preferred connection port for printers. Heck, we could do without USB on the printers as long as they have Ethernet.
I'm going to also put in a vote for Brother for laser printing. I have found that they are very durable, they work fine with the inexpensive third party toner, and they are inexpensive to buy. for the last 4 years, I have been using a Brother 7360N. It has been rock solid. It works with Windows/OSX/Linux. My wife was doing a lot of home loan document signings last year, so we went through a period where she was printing 300 to 400 pages a day with no problems. I get my toner at Supplies Outlet.
For color, unless you are printing photographs, I would recommend getting away from Inkjet. Even if you are, you might want to consider avoiding inkjet. Inkjet printers simply fail. They break if you use them too much. They break if you use them too little. They break if you use them just right. And, the ink is some of the most expensive stuff on the planet. Color laser doesn't bleed like inkjets, so you might see a bit more pixalization, but it is way cheaper to use laser, and the printers don't break as easy.
The final piece is the sheet fed scanner. If you are doing nothing but 8.5 x 11 sheets of paper, the Multi-function printers/scanners are fine. If you have odd sized paper, or you have a lot of scanning to do, so laber is more expensive than the scanner, I highly recommend the Fujitsu ScanSnap line of scanners. I scan every single receipt that I get. I used to try scanning them in my Brother MFC-7360n. It worked, but it was massively labor intensive. Long receipts would require cutting and pasting. The scans would either be all cockeyed, or even more labor was needed to line things up. I had to use the flatbed because the receipts would not run through the sheet feeder. I got the Fujitsu ScanSnap s1500 for ~$400 at Costco. It had a tough time convincing myself to spend that much money on a scanner, once I did I found it was well worth it. Scanning that used to take an hour, now took 10 minutes. It would take all different sized reciepts at the same time. It would automatically straighten the image, and it would auto-detect whether the scan needed to be b&w or color. There really is a difference between the scanner that comes in a $200 Multi-Function printer and the canner that costs ~400.
Employers can't just reduce salary. If they could, they already would. What they can do is reduce costs by encouraging telecommuting. As it stands, there is very little incentive for employers to deal with telecommuting. They could save a little bit of money in office space, but for many companies, this becomes more of a theoretical savings than a real one.
I already telecommute, and I can tell you, my life is definitely better for it.
It doesn't matter. Whoever has control today is not guaranteed to be the people who have control tomorrow. No matter who is in control, if you agree with this because they are one of 'your guys', you have a problem when the power structure shifts.
You are agreeing with me without even realizing it. Particle research is very likely going to be in that 0.1% of cases. Also, the "lower level" individual working in the research center IS going to be able to understand the solutions as long as the original problem solver isn't being too "clever" for their own good.
Pr0fessor was the one suggesting that the "lower level" individuals that are working with the problem solver could not understand the solution.
That's funny. When I drive through Oregon, waiting for the attendant to pump my gas is a real annoyance. I much prefer to just swipe my card, pump my gas and go.
So, tax the employers based on the number of on site employees. Businesses would be encouraged to expand telecommuting, so you reduce the road wear and fuel consumption by getting rid of a bunch of commuting. This would also have the added benefit of reducing your cost of living. You could either get the nicer house like your coworker while shortening your commute to the distance between your bedroom and home office, or, if your job cannot physically handle telecommuting, you get reduced housing costs because the people who could telecommute will frequently choose the nicer house father away, so the cost of housing goes down with the lowered demand.
Really, you would want it to be a tax on the (total number of employees - telecommuting local residence). This way, the employers are not encouraged to move the jobs out of the state.
Slashdot Mirror
The corporation absolutely IS responsible. If the business was a sole proprietorship, you wouldn't see this as much. It is the status as a corporation that enables and encourages this behavior. The very point of a corporation is to protect individual human from responsibility.
The only argument against revoking corporate status is that someone innocent will be hurt financially. This argument is just as valid for a human as it is for a corporation. So, we should either abolish any punishments that would prevent individuals from earning money, or we should hold corporations accountable at the same level.
both hands on the steering wheel and can't respond as well to an emergency as if you did.
This is a poor argument. If you are arguing against cell phone use, you should never use it. Virtually no one drives with both hands consistently on the wheel, and a huge number of cars are physically impossible to drive keeping both hands on the wheel.
By using that argument, you make it clear that you are not being honest in your position, and thus reduce the value of any other points you might make.
First, the "But there are innocent people that depend on them for their livelihood" excuse is ridiculous. If we are going to use that logic, we should just get rid of all laws. They guy that breaks into your home, rapes your wife, and kills your dog on the way out may have an innocent child at home that depends on his livelihood. Letting corporations (and those that run them) get away with abusing millions of people just because they are rich is why they do it.
After that, letting the rich steal from the middle class and poor because they "might leave the country" is just as silly. These people and corporations are not a net benefit to the US. They are already siphoning money away from the US and sending it overseas. These people and corporations are a cancer to our economy. Sure it might hurt to lose a leg of our economy, but if you don't bite the bullet and eradicate the cancer early, it spreads and grows. You end up losing both legs and half your torso.
No, it really isn't. Running cable is expensive, but not that expensive. Companies do it all the time on large campuses. They just budget it under capital costs.
It doesn't matter if small cities contract out their piping work or do the work in house. Either way, they have a system in place to build and maintain 3 sets of pipe today. It is a problem that they already have a solution for.
The claims that multiple competitors requires the street to be dug up for every competitor is a ridiculous red herring.
This is what I have been advocating. Cities usually have a lot of experience with conduit underground. Most cities run three seperate systems of pipes. Water, sewer, and storm drains.
I would do similar, but I wouldn't trust the municipality to touch the fiber. Municipalities have little to no experience with Fiber. What they do have huge amounts of experience with is piping. Most municipalities run at least 3 different sets of pipes. 2 to every home, and 1 to most neighborhoods. Water, sewage, and storm drains. If municipalities would run a new set of pipes that were the size of sewer lines, they would have the infrastructure to lease space to dozens of competing businesses. New players could pull whatever cable they see fit at a price that dwarfs what it costs now, and if your cable is having problems, you can push the service provider to replace it, or go to a competitor. It would also allow businesses to run private connections between offices within the same city.
Has the conversation ever been about anything other than catastrophic AGW? Trying to claim that it wasn't is just lying to yourself. If the conversation was about whether the planet was going through a natural warming cycle, it wouldn't be a discussion at all. If the discussion were about the planet having warming and cooling trends, it wouldn't be discussion.
Have you ever met a single person ever that denied the planet had warming and cooling trends? Of course not. From the very beginning, it was understood by everyone that GW meant catastrophic global warming. Everyone understood AGW to mean catastrophic anthropomorphic global warming. Everyone understood that climate change meant catastrophic climate change. If it wasn't understood to be catastrophic, no one would care.
Any claim that there was ever a conversation that wasn't about catastrophic climate change is a very poor lie.
Not to mention, if we are going to play the "We don't have to fallow any treaties." line of thinking, then Antigua doesn't even need a WTO ruling. Our laws apply inside our borders, not in Antigua. The only reason Antigua would need a WTO ruling is if we are all going to abide by our treaties.
What wold you do with a $2,000 per year raise?
Buy a car and quit taking the bus?
(Sorry, I couldn't resist.)
Tivo was obvious when they started designing the device. ATI as well as others were already selling devices with the same functionality. Tivo just packaged it up nicely in a consumer friendly box.
There was no Animated Series. It is a myth like claims of sequels to Highlander and prequels to Star Wars.
I am suggesting that the number of people that have a capable router, and have it already set up is a small enough group even here on Slashdot that suggesting it becomes bad advice. The cost difference between Printers with and without ethernet is pretty small compared to the cost in time it takes to deal with hacking a router, and that is if the person already has a capable router that they would want to hack.
That is a completely different thing, and I can agree with that.
They are not ditching Windows. They are making Linux a viable option. This is the first step on making Linux an equivalent platform. This is the next step on making Linux the preferred platform. THEN they can consider ditching Windows. Valve believes that Windows is currently the leading PC gaming platform. They also don't think it is a viable long term platform. Given those to assumptions, you neither ditch Windows today, nor do you just wait for your platform to collapse. You do just what Valve is doing, and build an alternative platform that is ready to take over when Windows fails. The best part for Valve is that if Windows stays as the dominant platform, they lose very little.
They plan on breaking this by taking the risk out of user adoption. In the past, if you wanted to buy a game, you bought the Windows version. If there was a Linux version, you would buy the Windows version anyway because even if you were running Linux that day, you didn't know when you would need to move back to Windows for a specific app. With Steam's model, you buy the game. Not the game on platform x. So, if you already bought a bunch of games that have Linux versions, you are going to be able to play them on the SteamBox day one. If you get a SteamBox, and it fails, you can play all the Linux games you bought on you Windows PC. In fact, you can play Linux games on your TV via Linux, on your laptop via Linux, and on your desktop via Windows. All with a single purchase.
Valve is taking the risk out of buying Linux games.
This isn't a problem. We need Stallman, and his extreme view on the subject. If he went pragmatic, the pragmatic view would be considered the extreme. The center would shift farther towards lock down and rent seeking. It is Torvalds that plays the part you would place Stallman in. We need both types.
That is great as a "nice to have" on the router, but it is bad advice as a solution over just buying a printer that has networking built in.
This is very good advice.
The same cost rules really apply to photographic printing. If you do a lot of photographic printing, it will be cheaper to use a professional photo printing site. If you don't print photos very often, it will be cheaper to use a professional photo printing site.
Plus, not only can you use an online service like jabuzz, but if you need the picture right now, you can got to Costco, CVS, Walmart, Walgreens, or a dozen other places to get photos printed right away. And, that ~200 inkjet is never going to produce the quality of the ~20,000 machine the stores are running.
As for the ethernet port, jabuzz is correct. Ethernet is the preferred connection port for printers. Heck, we could do without USB on the printers as long as they have Ethernet.
I'm going to also put in a vote for Brother for laser printing. I have found that they are very durable, they work fine with the inexpensive third party toner, and they are inexpensive to buy. for the last 4 years, I have been using a Brother 7360N. It has been rock solid. It works with Windows/OSX/Linux. My wife was doing a lot of home loan document signings last year, so we went through a period where she was printing 300 to 400 pages a day with no problems. I get my toner at Supplies Outlet.
For color, unless you are printing photographs, I would recommend getting away from Inkjet. Even if you are, you might want to consider avoiding inkjet. Inkjet printers simply fail. They break if you use them too much. They break if you use them too little. They break if you use them just right. And, the ink is some of the most expensive stuff on the planet. Color laser doesn't bleed like inkjets, so you might see a bit more pixalization, but it is way cheaper to use laser, and the printers don't break as easy.
The final piece is the sheet fed scanner. If you are doing nothing but 8.5 x 11 sheets of paper, the Multi-function printers/scanners are fine. If you have odd sized paper, or you have a lot of scanning to do, so laber is more expensive than the scanner, I highly recommend the Fujitsu ScanSnap line of scanners. I scan every single receipt that I get. I used to try scanning them in my Brother MFC-7360n. It worked, but it was massively labor intensive. Long receipts would require cutting and pasting. The scans would either be all cockeyed, or even more labor was needed to line things up. I had to use the flatbed because the receipts would not run through the sheet feeder. I got the Fujitsu ScanSnap s1500 for ~$400 at Costco. It had a tough time convincing myself to spend that much money on a scanner, once I did I found it was well worth it. Scanning that used to take an hour, now took 10 minutes. It would take all different sized reciepts at the same time. It would automatically straighten the image, and it would auto-detect whether the scan needed to be b&w or color. There really is a difference between the scanner that comes in a $200 Multi-Function printer and the canner that costs ~400.
Employers can't just reduce salary. If they could, they already would. What they can do is reduce costs by encouraging telecommuting. As it stands, there is very little incentive for employers to deal with telecommuting. They could save a little bit of money in office space, but for many companies, this becomes more of a theoretical savings than a real one.
I already telecommute, and I can tell you, my life is definitely better for it.
It doesn't matter. Whoever has control today is not guaranteed to be the people who have control tomorrow. No matter who is in control, if you agree with this because they are one of 'your guys', you have a problem when the power structure shifts.
You are agreeing with me without even realizing it. Particle research is very likely going to be in that 0.1% of cases. Also, the "lower level" individual working in the research center IS going to be able to understand the solutions as long as the original problem solver isn't being too "clever" for their own good.
Pr0fessor was the one suggesting that the "lower level" individuals that are working with the problem solver could not understand the solution.
That's funny. When I drive through Oregon, waiting for the attendant to pump my gas is a real annoyance. I much prefer to just swipe my card, pump my gas and go.
So, tax the employers based on the number of on site employees. Businesses would be encouraged to expand telecommuting, so you reduce the road wear and fuel consumption by getting rid of a bunch of commuting. This would also have the added benefit of reducing your cost of living. You could either get the nicer house like your coworker while shortening your commute to the distance between your bedroom and home office, or, if your job cannot physically handle telecommuting, you get reduced housing costs because the people who could telecommute will frequently choose the nicer house father away, so the cost of housing goes down with the lowered demand.
Really, you would want it to be a tax on the (total number of employees - telecommuting local residence). This way, the employers are not encouraged to move the jobs out of the state.