They could just tax businesses based on the number of employees that work on-site. No individual tracking necessary and the businesses would have an incentive to increase telecommuting when possible. This would reduce fuel consumption, reduce pollution, and improve the general welfare for the public by giving them more free time as well as time with their families.
I would prefer that they put the car tax on employers. I would guess that the majority of driving is to and from work. So, tax the employers on the number of employees that work on site. This would encourage employers to offer telecommuting when possible. Telecommuting not only improves the general welfare of the the community by giving families more time to spend together, it reduces the amount of fuel burned, as well as wear and tear on the road.
No one is complaining about the taxes. They are complaining about changing the law in a way that could easily lead into tracking the movements of individuals. Perhaps, you see the Slashdot Libertarians as simple-minded because you don't understand what they are saying.
That is the OP's point. Today, (some) Greenpeacers will see this as a good thing because it is a means to their ends. The OP is trying to warn them away by pointing out that their beloved leaders may not always be the ones in power. If and when that change happens, the Greenpeacers will be very unhappy with the outcome. It is now, while their beloved leaders are in power that they need to stop this kind of intrusion because if the balance of power does ever shift, it will be too late.
It could be worse. It could be as encompassing as a "Business Degree". I remember when I was younger, I would ask my peers that were getting Business Degrees, "What are you planning on doing when you graduate." 9 times out of 10, the answer would be "Go into business!"
The best development groups I have worked in had some people that were focused on the technology, others that knew the business, and everyone having an understanding that it is all important with a willingness to share. I have seen a lot of projects fail because someone highly technical does not respect the less technical team members who bring the business knowledge to the table.
There are very few problems that "or necessarily understand" should ever apply to. 99.9% of the time, if the problem can't be explained to a lower level individual, it is a poor solution. Part of solving problems is making sure that if you get hit by a bus, someone else can step in an maintain what you built.
It could be worse. The company I work for thinks it's a good idea to get rid of all the people who have experience with their code base, and replace them with people who don't for the same amount of money. Then they get upset when the new people don't know the code within a week of starting.
This is an example of how anti-intellectualism gets rationalized in the US. Neither nashv nor the AC stated any opinion. They both made statements of fact. One, the other, or both could be factually wrong, and you clearly think that the AC is factually wrong as you specifically say so. A statement of fact that is wrong is not an opinion.
The anti-intellectual rational goes like this:
The opposite of opinion is fact.
Thus the opposite of fact is opinion.
A fact is also something that is correct.
Something that is incorrect is the opposite of something that is correct.
Thus, the opposite of something that is correct is the opposite of a fact.
The opposite of fact is opinion.
Something that is incorrect is an opinion.
Opinions can't be wrong by their very nature. Thus something that is incorrect must be correct!!!
The problem is that everyone, and I mean EVERYONE, breaks copyright law. It is only a question of who it gets enforced against, and when it gets enforced. If copyright were universally enforced, society would come crashing down around us. At the very least, it would look very different than what we live in today.
you are redistributing something to which you have no right to do so
This is a worthless point. You have no right because a law was made. Saying that it should be illegal because you have no right because it is illegal because you have no right is a circular argument. The counter argument is, abolish copyright and then you do have a right to redistribute.
Search is the primary interface for Unity. Apple convinced Mac users that doing a search for everything you want to access is better than an organized menu, and Ubuntu is trying to mimic that.
Of course, Android isn't perfect. I can point out lots of things that could be improved. It just happens to be the best option available today. That is the way it is with virtually every product. There are very few perfect products in any market.
I just posted that above. I regularly see 2 year olds navigate the Android UI without problem. If this guy finds it "impossible", then he is too stupid to be part of the conversation.
He lost me at "Not to mention a UI that’s impossible to navigate."
If this guy finds a UI that 2 year olds all over the planet have no problem navigating, "Impossible to navigate", then he is too stupid to be part of the conversation.
Not producing for Android at all is most certainly dropping more than 25% of your potential customers. Saying that you will drop 70% of your customers because you cant drop 25% is MBA logic.
To be fair, it isn't exactly the same. With Dos, you didn't have any hardware abstraction, so it was much much harder to do than on an Android phone where all of the hardware is abstracted and you only have to deal with carrier software changes.
Slashdot Mirror
They could just tax businesses based on the number of employees that work on-site. No individual tracking necessary and the businesses would have an incentive to increase telecommuting when possible. This would reduce fuel consumption, reduce pollution, and improve the general welfare for the public by giving them more free time as well as time with their families.
I would prefer that they put the car tax on employers. I would guess that the majority of driving is to and from work. So, tax the employers on the number of employees that work on site. This would encourage employers to offer telecommuting when possible. Telecommuting not only improves the general welfare of the the community by giving families more time to spend together, it reduces the amount of fuel burned, as well as wear and tear on the road.
No one is complaining about the taxes. They are complaining about changing the law in a way that could easily lead into tracking the movements of individuals. Perhaps, you see the Slashdot Libertarians as simple-minded because you don't understand what they are saying.
That is the OP's point. Today, (some) Greenpeacers will see this as a good thing because it is a means to their ends. The OP is trying to warn them away by pointing out that their beloved leaders may not always be the ones in power. If and when that change happens, the Greenpeacers will be very unhappy with the outcome. It is now, while their beloved leaders are in power that they need to stop this kind of intrusion because if the balance of power does ever shift, it will be too late.
My memory may be fuzzy on this, but I believe that professional BetaMax is not the same standard as consumer BetaMax.
It could be worse. It could be as encompassing as a "Business Degree". I remember when I was younger, I would ask my peers that were getting Business Degrees, "What are you planning on doing when you graduate." 9 times out of 10, the answer would be "Go into business!"
The best development groups I have worked in had some people that were focused on the technology, others that knew the business, and everyone having an understanding that it is all important with a willingness to share. I have seen a lot of projects fail because someone highly technical does not respect the less technical team members who bring the business knowledge to the table.
It only seems like mind reading if you are a "I-can't-do-it-unless-you-show-it-to-me-first" type.
We still have PaperBoys. It is just that the colleges have now sucked up a bunch of the loot that the testing centers used to have all to themselves.
There are very few problems that "or necessarily understand" should ever apply to. 99.9% of the time, if the problem can't be explained to a lower level individual, it is a poor solution. Part of solving problems is making sure that if you get hit by a bus, someone else can step in an maintain what you built.
It could be worse. The company I work for thinks it's a good idea to get rid of all the people who have experience with their code base, and replace them with people who don't for the same amount of money. Then they get upset when the new people don't know the code within a week of starting.
In the US, you have to be licensed to be an Electrician. You can't just quit you coding job and start installing electrical wiring.
This is an example of how anti-intellectualism gets rationalized in the US. Neither nashv nor the AC stated any opinion. They both made statements of fact. One, the other, or both could be factually wrong, and you clearly think that the AC is factually wrong as you specifically say so. A statement of fact that is wrong is not an opinion.
The anti-intellectual rational goes like this:
The opposite of opinion is fact.
Thus the opposite of fact is opinion.
A fact is also something that is correct.
Something that is incorrect is the opposite of something that is correct.
Thus, the opposite of something that is correct is the opposite of a fact.
The opposite of fact is opinion.
Something that is incorrect is an opinion.
Opinions can't be wrong by their very nature.
Thus something that is incorrect must be correct!!!
The problem is that everyone, and I mean EVERYONE, breaks copyright law. It is only a question of who it gets enforced against, and when it gets enforced. If copyright were universally enforced, society would come crashing down around us. At the very least, it would look very different than what we live in today.
you are redistributing something to which you have no right to do so
This is a worthless point. You have no right because a law was made. Saying that it should be illegal because you have no right because it is illegal because you have no right is a circular argument. The counter argument is, abolish copyright and then you do have a right to redistribute.
My mistake. I should have read better.
Search is the primary interface for Unity. Apple convinced Mac users that doing a search for everything you want to access is better than an organized menu, and Ubuntu is trying to mimic that.
This 4 year old and 5 year old would disagree with you:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gOh-Bg7jsrY
Of course, Android isn't perfect. I can point out lots of things that could be improved. It just happens to be the best option available today. That is the way it is with virtually every product. There are very few perfect products in any market.
Google Play offers the equivalent, and you don't ever have to connect your phone to your computer to use it.
I just posted that above. I regularly see 2 year olds navigate the Android UI without problem. If this guy finds it "impossible", then he is too stupid to be part of the conversation.
He lost me at "Not to mention a UI that’s impossible to navigate."
If this guy finds a UI that 2 year olds all over the planet have no problem navigating, "Impossible to navigate", then he is too stupid to be part of the conversation.
Not producing for Android at all is most certainly dropping more than 25% of your potential customers. Saying that you will drop 70% of your customers because you cant drop 25% is MBA logic.
To be fair, it isn't exactly the same. With Dos, you didn't have any hardware abstraction, so it was much much harder to do than on an Android phone where all of the hardware is abstracted and you only have to deal with carrier software changes.
Yes. Yes it does.