Ubuntu is installed on my eleven year old's box (dual-boot Win98) and he loves it. Its easy enough that his nine year old brother gets on and plays bzflag, heroes, neverputt and even uses mozilla to play games at nick.com. The eleven year old uses OpenOffice, Blender, Stellarium, Scribus, and Inkscape. He cranks out his mp3's and shoutcast using xmms.
I have a 10 year old and 5 year old. They both use Debian 3.1 on the machine they share. My 10 year old loves the facts that there were so many free games to install on the OS and she can choose from a ton of "pretty" desktop themes. The only issue we ran in to was when she was running out of room (one 10 gig hard drive) and wanted a little more space. To my amazement, she just asked if we can "delete windows" because she didn't use it any more. I removed Windows, but still ended up throwing in another hard drive because hdd's are so cheap nowadays. On another note, I'll be installing Ubuntu on my friend's machine (dual boot with XP). I showed my machine to her daughter and she liked the eye candy as well. The only questions she had was "can I use the yahoo IM client and AIM?" - showed her Gaim - she was amazed that it handled both clients and more. "Can I still use Word and Excel?" - showed her OpenOffice - looked good to her. Lastly, "does it got any cool games?" - showed her the games area on my menu - definitely caught her attention.
Linux not for kids my ass.
I agree, it's as silly as saying Windows is not for kids. However, now with Edubuntu, it would seem to me that Linux is (and can more easily be) geared more for kids than Windows.
I haven't had too many issues with rebates, however, one in particular really chapped my ass. I bought a 512mb stick of RAM from Beast Buy - the RAM was made by KByte. The rebate was direct from the manufacturer. I read the fine print and it allowed one rebate per household.
I ended up buying two because, well, I needed two. I sent out the rebate with the receipt, UPC, rebate form, etc and they sent me a postcard back stating that "You could only claim the rebate on one item". Well no shit, that's what I did to begin with. So basically, because they saw two sticks of ram purchased on the receipt, some jackass decided not to bother counting to 1 to find out how many rebate forms and UPC codes I had put in the envelope. It was a $60.00 rebate too. Needless to say, I will never buy anything from KByte again since THEY were the ones coordinating the rebate.
Rebates I have claimed in the past directly from the manufacturers include: Sony (before $sys$...never again!), PNY, Mag, Nvidia, Creative Labs, Maxtor, Western Digital, Compaq, Garmin, and a few others. KByte is the only one I've ever really had an issue with that I can recall.
I have, however, had great luck with direct Best Buy mail-in rebates. I have never been denied a rebate by Best Buy themselves. In fact, I have three on the way back to me after the after Thanksgiving sale - I bought three 1gb PNY flash drives for $120.00 total, but each with a $20.00 mail in rebate. So I end up paying a total of $60.00 (plus tax on the $120.00) for three 1gb flash drives.
As another poster had said, I really don't like the idea of giving them my address and all that, but of course how else can you get a mail in rebate. I still would rather just get the instant rebate. Yeah, it can be a pain, but I'll jump through the hoops every once in a while for a really really good deal.;)
Price of gasoline during the Katrina aftermath: $2.99
Price of gasoline now: $2.29
Price change: -23%
Hang on...gasoline in 2001 was $1.49. The price of gas just before and during labor day weekend: $3.39. That's gouging. They certainly have you trained into thinking that $2.29 is an acceptable price for gasoline. That's what happens when they gouge the hell out of you and back off just a hair. One year ago you would've shit if you saw that price.
Gas where I'm at is still $2.49/gallon - it's amazing how that is considered "cheap". Point is, we're still getting gouged. See previous post in this thread about gas companies turning a 75% profit.
and according to experts and IT pros, those prices aren't going to come down any time soon.
Let's be realistic, they won't come down...ever. If they can get another 20% (example) out of you this year, do you think they're going to drop it 20% next year after the "crisis"? 10% even? No way. Just like any other energy business that is at a near-monopoly level (gasoline), they can raise it whenever they feel like it and blame it on whatever they want. What are you going to do, go to the competition? In the area I live in (Midland, Michigan) and the surrounding cities (Saginaw, Bay City, Flint, etc) we get ONE choice for gas and electricity - Consumer's Energy. That's it. You don't like their service or prices? Tough shit. You're stuck. There have been "alternative companies" in the past, but all they do is resell energy for Consumers Energy - it's all going through the same pipes and wires.
Now I'm not of the opinion that ALL drugs should be legalized, but I think if a particular drug can be shown to not have a strong physical addiction effect then it should be legal. Weed for example
Ok, you can stop there. Disclaimer: I don't smoke weed. Tried it a few times years ago, didn't care for it.
However, I do agree that weed is pretty much a harmless drug. My original post was intended more for the hardcore drugs such as crack, cocaine, chrystal meth, and the like. It is my opinion that weed is very similar to alcohol in the sense that it's more of a recreational drug than anything.
I think two of the biggest reasons why weed hasn't really been legalized is 1) it's harder for the gov't to control and tax - it's easy for individuals to grow their own. 2) Smokin' and driving (think drinking and driving) - it would be very difficult for the cops to prove you were still under the influence of marijuana as far as I know. Unless of course he's got a half eaten taco bell burrito in one hand with liquid cheese on their face and a bunch of empty taco bell wrappers on the floor of their car, but even then, you should see the floors of my van;P
Then there's the argument that marijuana is a gateway drug. Yeah, maybe, but when I think of it that way I can't help but to think that maybe alcohol is a gateway to smoking? Or vice versa? Nope, I don't believe so. I've also been told cigarettes are a gateway into marijuana too. This is extremely laughable because I can tell you I smoked for 10 years before I quit and tried weed maybe three times.
Anyway, I see where you're coming from and I agree with you with everything except for the homeless part - they can only really help themselves. Again, just my humble opinion:)
That's how they plan on beating Google. By killing them. The only thing I can't figure out is how to kill a search engine. Perhaps throwing chairs at their fiber backbone? Maybe a few more chairs thrown around in their server farm?
I'm very good at my current job, but my manager wants me to learn more about my job. What's the point? I know my job better than anyone else including him. I have no drive or motivation to do so either. My last raise was 2.75% which may seem like a lot to some, but I waited 18 months for it. Here's a nice slap with a cluestick:
1) Gas prices have gone up a LOT more than 2.75% in the last 18 months. 2) Natural gas (Consumer's Energy) has gone up a LOT more than 2.75% in the last 18 months. 3) Our health "benefit" premiums have gone up WAY more than 2.75% in the last 18 months. 4) Tuituion at school has gone up more than 2.75% in the last 18 months. 5) Day care has gone up more than 2.75% in the last 18 months. 6) School lunches have gone up more than 2.75% in the last 18 months. 7) Grocery and clothing prices have gone up more than 2.75% in the last 18 months. 8) Car and home insurance rates have gone up more than 2.75% in the last 18 months. 9) Hell, the cost of a McDonald's extra value meal has gone up more than 2.75% in the last 18 months.
and the biggest slap with the cluestick goes to (drum roll):
10) The company's profits have gone up a HELL OF A LOT more than 2.75% in the last 18 months (I know, I work in a financial area of the company).
So what the hell? Your profits aren't down, business has been up, volume has way more than recovered since 9/11 (which was the original blame for all business' woes whether it really was or not). The scapegoat of a poor economy and a poor job market are no longer valid. The company isn't "hurting" any more. So why shit on your employees?
Here's why - because they're a large corporation who could really give a flying fuck about their employees. Seriously. They'll put on the politically correct speeches about "we're for family" and "our employees mean a lot to us" garbage, but they never put their money where their mouth is. Our "health benefits" are absolute crap. After paying the high premiums, I can't afford to go to the hospital because of the outrageous co-pays. My theory behind the horrible insurance is the fact that our company is Canadian-based. In Canada, they don't have to worry about paying for health care premiums because their health care system is integrated into the government and paid for by taxes. This way EVERYONE gets health care. If they are to stay competitive in the United States, they HAVE to offer health benefits, but they don't have to offer GOOD benefits...just enough to keep someone there. It makes perfect business sense, but you're pissing off your employees. Is it worth the hassle of creating employees that resent you for your greedy business tactics? I would think not.
The US incarcerates people largely to punish them for stuff they do to themselves. If someone is strung out on meth or heroin, they are only a problem to me if they steal something to support their habit
If they are found OD'd and alive on the street, they get taken to a hospital. Do you think they have insurance? Probably not. If they do, they make my insurance rates go up. If they don't, they eat away at my tax dollars which could be better spent on Michigan's schools (thanks to Gov. Granholm for cutting school dollars). Call me cold, but I'm trying to look at this logically rather than emotionally.
I guess another way to look at it is they could stab/shoot you for the money in your wallet too. That's fairly direct. The laws are put into place to help protect you from what someone under a brain-altering drug could very likely do to you even though they might not normally do such a thing if they were sober. IMHO, the laws aren't there to protect the addict from themselves, but rather protecting others from them.
Point is, they may not be directly hurting you, but they could be indirectly hurting you.
I understand the way you're thinking - it's sort of like tacking on a sentence for a "hate crime". Why add years for someone being pissed off at someone else when they did something just because they were another race/gender/color/etc? Just enforce the laws that are already in place and call it good. Don't add laws that could pertain to any crime already in place to increase the sentence for no apparent reason. My guess is that it's to be used as "plea bargaining material" so they at least get *some* sentence if they have a really slimey lawyer. Still, that doesn't make it right.
I do agree with you that some of these sentences for non-violent crimes are way too much though. I don't think first time drug offenses, for someone not intending to distribute, should be able to carry a sentence longer than 1 year (3 months at the most really).
Since you seem to like to use analogies, going by your thought process:
CR: We have statistics showing increased temperatures globally, increased incidence and severity of extreme weather events, etc...
BC: that's just statistics, corelation doesn't prove causation, people were getting killed in storms decades ago... blah blah blah...
Sales of new SUVs tripled from 1997 to 2003. Gas prices doubled over the course of 2001 to 2005. Hence, sales of new SUVs triple versus their current sales from 2003 to 2009, and gas prices will double again versus its current price by 2009. Hey, the data is there, so it must be true, right?
Yeah, the Africa thing was stretching it, but why pick that one versus the record high and lows? Especially the record high? After all, the greenhouse gasses are making temperatures rise aren't they? In case you don't feel like reading my previous post:
Highest temperature ever recorded: On September 13, 1922, the temperature reached a fiery 136F (about 58C) at Al Aziziyah, Libya, in Africa. (The highest temperature recorded in North America occurred in Death Valley, California. On July 10, 1913, the temperature soared to 134F, or about 57C.)
Ok, forget Africa, there's California. 1913. Was that global warming? Then there's:
On April 12, 1934, at Mount Washington, New Hampshire, the wind blew for five minutes at 188 miles per hour (about 303 kph), with gusts up to 231 miles per hour (372 kph), faster than in a powerful hurricane.
Hmm...we're having tons of hurricanes, but they're not in the middle of New Hampshire obviously. Those wind speeds are darn near a hurricane and in a place that hurricanes just generally don't occur. Hmm...1934. Was that global warming?
Not sure what the "Big Carbon" thing was about (though I'm assuming large corporate polluters), but let me assure you that I don't think pollution is a good thing. In fact, the company I work for is one of the largest recyclers in the world. And no, they aren't one of the biggest pollutors in the world too... (thought I'd nip that one in the bud)
Africa is the driest place in the world. During one 59-year period, it received an average of only 3/100 inch (about 0.76 mm) of rain per year. (The driest place in the United States is Death Valley, California, which receives less than 2 inches, or about 5 cm, of rain annually).
Mount Waialeale, on the island of Kauai in Hawaii, is the wettest place in the world, receiving an average rainfall of 460 inches (about 1,168 cm) per year--more than an inch per day. The most rainfall ever recorded in 24 hours was 73.62 inches (about 187 cm), which fell on March 15-16, 1952, on an island in the Indian Ocean. The most rainfall ever recorded in one year was 1,041.78 inches (about 2,646 cm). It fell on Cherrapunji, India, from August 1860 to July 1861.
The most snow recorded in 24 hours was 76 inches (about 193 cm), or more than 6 feet. It blanketed Silver Lake, Colorado, on April 14-15, 1921. The most snow recorded during one year was 1,122 inches (about 2,850 cm). It fell at Rainier Paradise Ranger Station in Washington State in 1971-1972.
Measuring 17.5 inches (44.5 cm) around, the largest hailstone fell in Coffeyville, Kansas, on September 3, 1970. It weighed 1.67 pounds (0.76 kg).
On April 12, 1934, at Mount Washington, New Hampshire, the wind blew for five minutes at 188 miles per hour (about 303 kph), with gusts up to 231 miles per hour (372 kph), faster than in a powerful hurricane.
Strongest tornado? It was Hurricane Gilbert, a category 5 storm that struck the West Indies and Mexico in 1988 and killed about 300 people. Weaker hurricanes that hit more populated areas have killed many more people.
Lowest temperature ever recorded: On July 21, 1983, the temperature dropped to a frigid -128.6F (-89.2C) at Vostok Station in Antarctica. (The lowest temperature in the United States occurred at Prospect Creek, Alaska. On January 23, 1971, the temperature there fell to -80F, or about -62C.)
Highest temperature ever recorded: On September 13, 1922, the temperature reached a fiery 136F (about 58C) at Al Aziziyah, Libya, in Africa. (The highest temperature recorded in North America occurred in Death Valley, California. On July 10, 1913, the temperature soared to 134F, or about 57C.)
Out of all of those records, a lot are scattered throughout this century, but it appears that a considerable amount of records happened in the 20s and 30s. Was it global warming then?
Yes, we're going to see some "OMG! There are so many storms this year! It's global warming! Oh noes!!1!". It's inevitable with an article like this, so I'd just like to give my two cents on these multitude of storms and "global warming":
What gets me is all of these "record breaking lows/highs" and along with it comes "it hasn't been this hot/cold/stormy/etc since (insert 30 to 70 year old year here)". Well what was the excuse back then? Seasons and temperatures fluctuate all the time. Records aren't broken every day, nor every year...they just get randomly broken.
So please explain to me why exactly, when referring to 1933, there were 21 storms back then - was it global warming? No.
Before you mod this flamebait or troll, I'm just trying to make a logical point. I'm not a believer or non-believer of global warming, I just get sick of the years-ago referrals as if it were significant without someone thinking it out logically and using it for their "global warming" agenda.
I did some research on Windows boot times as well for school. I always wondered if something like boot time was considered in TCO, so I ran some quick numbers myself.
Just running some quick, conservative numbers, here is how much Windows boot time is costing my company:
My company has more than 160 facilities with more than 37,000 total employees. Approximately half of those 37,000 employees use a PC to do their jobs on a daily basis, but for the sake of argument, let's just say only one third of those employees use one - 12,333 employees. Now multiply 12,333 times the boot time of 5 minutes (yes, that's conservative) and what do you get? 1,027.75 hours of boot time each day, 5,138.75 hours of boot time each week (based on a 5 day work week), and 231,243.75 hours each year based on 225 working days (which is based on 365 days minus 110 days for weekends minus 30 days for vacation and holidays). And yes, everyone shuts down their PC when they leave for the day.
1,027.75 hours of boot time each day would be $15,416.25
5,138.75 hours of boot time each week would be $77,081.25
231,243.75 hours each year would be $3,468,656.25
Coincidentally, if you want to read more, my research post went up today on my blog (shameless plug).
Many slashdotters think its really kewl to block ads, but ads pay for the sites you are viewing, ads pay for slashdot (not nearly enough of us subscribe to keep this site running).
I block all ads except google's. They're non-intrusive. Period.
My site isn't paid for by ads - it's paid for by me going to work every day and earning a living and paying for my DSL bill. It will still be there tomorrow with or without ad revenue. Teh intarweb won't shut down tomorrow because I'm not clicking on an ad. It won't if nobody on slashdot clicks on any ad either.
By us not clicking on the crappy flash ads -- that sends a message. Blocking it does not.
My message to intrusive advertisers using flash, sounds, and other annoying bullshit in a more readable easy to read ASCII form:..!.,
...and that's the way I'd rather see ads - easily readable non-intrusive text form. Google has gotten the hint at least.
To sum it up - I wouldn't click on the flash ads anyways, so blocking them saves me and my machine wear and tear. Either way, they won't be clicked.
If he's only 11 why is he sitting at home drinking vodka????
More importantly, what is he doing acting as a CEO for a decent sized corporation? Hmm...maybe that wouldn't be so bad for corporations. Then the CEO couldn't be personally sued for the company going down the tubes a'la Enron because they would be too young to be tried as an adult.
Crap...maybe I shouldn't give them any more ideas. I'll shut up now.
I had one of those and used a 6GB laptop hard drive. After only two weeks and one instance of plopping it in my desk, it killed the hard drive. That clicking noise is just an evil sound...
They would be much better if there was some better kind of padding or buffer between the drive and the case. Yeah, the small case is nice, but it leaves your hard drive exposed to abuse as if there wasn't a case there.
Dr Evil: You know, I have one simple request. And that is to have sharks with frickin' laser beams attached to their heads! Now evidently my cycloptic colleague informs me that that cannot be done. Ah, would you remind me what I pay you people for, honestly? Throw me a bone here! What do we have?
The most storms ever recorded was 21 in 1933, before they started giving them official names. The connection between this record-breaking storm year and global warming remains controversial.
What gets me is all of these "record breaking lows/highs" and along with it comes "it hasn't been this hot/cold/stormy/etc since (insert 30 to 70 year old year here)". Well what was the excuse back then? Seasons and temperatures fluctuate all the time. Records aren't broken every day, nor every year...they just get randomly broken.
So please explain to me why exactly, when referring to 1933, there were 21 storms back then - was it global warming? No.
Before you mod this flamebait or troll, I'm just trying to make a logical point. I'm not a believer or non-believer of global warming, I just get sick of the years-ago referrals as if it were significant without someone thinking it out logically.
Slashdot Mirror
I have a 10 year old and 5 year old. They both use Debian 3.1 on the machine they share. My 10 year old loves the facts that there were so many free games to install on the OS and she can choose from a ton of "pretty" desktop themes. The only issue we ran in to was when she was running out of room (one 10 gig hard drive) and wanted a little more space. To my amazement, she just asked if we can "delete windows" because she didn't use it any more. I removed Windows, but still ended up throwing in another hard drive because hdd's are so cheap nowadays. On another note, I'll be installing Ubuntu on my friend's machine (dual boot with XP). I showed my machine to her daughter and she liked the eye candy as well. The only questions she had was "can I use the yahoo IM client and AIM?" - showed her Gaim - she was amazed that it handled both clients and more. "Can I still use Word and Excel?" - showed her OpenOffice - looked good to her. Lastly, "does it got any cool games?" - showed her the games area on my menu - definitely caught her attention.
Linux not for kids my ass.
I agree, it's as silly as saying Windows is not for kids. However, now with Edubuntu, it would seem to me that Linux is (and can more easily be) geared more for kids than Windows.
I ended up buying two because, well, I needed two. I sent out the rebate with the receipt, UPC, rebate form, etc and they sent me a postcard back stating that "You could only claim the rebate on one item". Well no shit, that's what I did to begin with. So basically, because they saw two sticks of ram purchased on the receipt, some jackass decided not to bother counting to 1 to find out how many rebate forms and UPC codes I had put in the envelope. It was a $60.00 rebate too. Needless to say, I will never buy anything from KByte again since THEY were the ones coordinating the rebate.
Rebates I have claimed in the past directly from the manufacturers include: Sony (before $sys$...never again!), PNY, Mag, Nvidia, Creative Labs, Maxtor, Western Digital, Compaq, Garmin, and a few others. KByte is the only one I've ever really had an issue with that I can recall.
I have, however, had great luck with direct Best Buy mail-in rebates. I have never been denied a rebate by Best Buy themselves. In fact, I have three on the way back to me after the after Thanksgiving sale - I bought three 1gb PNY flash drives for $120.00 total, but each with a $20.00 mail in rebate. So I end up paying a total of $60.00 (plus tax on the $120.00) for three 1gb flash drives.
As another poster had said, I really don't like the idea of giving them my address and all that, but of course how else can you get a mail in rebate. I still would rather just get the instant rebate. Yeah, it can be a pain, but I'll jump through the hoops every once in a while for a really really good deal. ;)
Wow, I thought this was going to be some sort of new Russian Reversal "no carrier" pun, but apparently not. ;)
Yeah, but cron jobs can be ran as root, so I'm sure that would trump any other permissions...unless I'm missing something.
Anywho...it was just a quick fix until a patch is created (assuming that the machine owner isn't a programmer).
Set up a cron to run at 1 minute intervals to rm -rf /tmp/lupii
Quite simple really.
Now if they'd just patent and produce toothpaste flavored orange juice, I'd be completely content with the variety of drinks available.
Price of gasoline now: $2.29
Price change: -23%
Hang on...gasoline in 2001 was $1.49. The price of gas just before and during labor day weekend: $3.39. That's gouging. They certainly have you trained into thinking that $2.29 is an acceptable price for gasoline. That's what happens when they gouge the hell out of you and back off just a hair. One year ago you would've shit if you saw that price.
Gas where I'm at is still $2.49/gallon - it's amazing how that is considered "cheap". Point is, we're still getting gouged. See previous post in this thread about gas companies turning a 75% profit.
Let's be realistic, they won't come down...ever. If they can get another 20% (example) out of you this year, do you think they're going to drop it 20% next year after the "crisis"? 10% even? No way. Just like any other energy business that is at a near-monopoly level (gasoline), they can raise it whenever they feel like it and blame it on whatever they want. What are you going to do, go to the competition? In the area I live in (Midland, Michigan) and the surrounding cities (Saginaw, Bay City, Flint, etc) we get ONE choice for gas and electricity - Consumer's Energy. That's it. You don't like their service or prices? Tough shit. You're stuck. There have been "alternative companies" in the past, but all they do is resell energy for Consumers Energy - it's all going through the same pipes and wires.
It sucks, but that's the way it is.
Ok, you can stop there. Disclaimer: I don't smoke weed. Tried it a few times years ago, didn't care for it.
However, I do agree that weed is pretty much a harmless drug. My original post was intended more for the hardcore drugs such as crack, cocaine, chrystal meth, and the like. It is my opinion that weed is very similar to alcohol in the sense that it's more of a recreational drug than anything.
I think two of the biggest reasons why weed hasn't really been legalized is 1) it's harder for the gov't to control and tax - it's easy for individuals to grow their own. 2) Smokin' and driving (think drinking and driving) - it would be very difficult for the cops to prove you were still under the influence of marijuana as far as I know. Unless of course he's got a half eaten taco bell burrito in one hand with liquid cheese on their face and a bunch of empty taco bell wrappers on the floor of their car, but even then, you should see the floors of my van ;P
Then there's the argument that marijuana is a gateway drug. Yeah, maybe, but when I think of it that way I can't help but to think that maybe alcohol is a gateway to smoking? Or vice versa? Nope, I don't believe so. I've also been told cigarettes are a gateway into marijuana too. This is extremely laughable because I can tell you I smoked for 10 years before I quit and tried weed maybe three times.
Anyway, I see where you're coming from and I agree with you with everything except for the homeless part - they can only really help themselves. Again, just my humble opinion :)
That's how they plan on beating Google. By killing them. The only thing I can't figure out is how to kill a search engine. Perhaps throwing chairs at their fiber backbone? Maybe a few more chairs thrown around in their server farm?
Perhaps now would be a good time for Google to start researching what to do if Steve Ballmer decides to kill you.
I'm very good at my current job, but my manager wants me to learn more about my job. What's the point? I know my job better than anyone else including him. I have no drive or motivation to do so either. My last raise was 2.75% which may seem like a lot to some, but I waited 18 months for it. Here's a nice slap with a cluestick:
1) Gas prices have gone up a LOT more than 2.75% in the last 18 months.
2) Natural gas (Consumer's Energy) has gone up a LOT more than 2.75% in the last 18 months.
3) Our health "benefit" premiums have gone up WAY more than 2.75% in the last 18 months.
4) Tuituion at school has gone up more than 2.75% in the last 18 months.
5) Day care has gone up more than 2.75% in the last 18 months.
6) School lunches have gone up more than 2.75% in the last 18 months.
7) Grocery and clothing prices have gone up more than 2.75% in the last 18 months.
8) Car and home insurance rates have gone up more than 2.75% in the last 18 months.
9) Hell, the cost of a McDonald's extra value meal has gone up more than 2.75% in the last 18 months.
and the biggest slap with the cluestick goes to (drum roll):
10) The company's profits have gone up a HELL OF A LOT more than 2.75% in the last 18 months (I know, I work in a financial area of the company).
So what the hell? Your profits aren't down, business has been up, volume has way more than recovered since 9/11 (which was the original blame for all business' woes whether it really was or not). The scapegoat of a poor economy and a poor job market are no longer valid. The company isn't "hurting" any more. So why shit on your employees?
Here's why - because they're a large corporation who could really give a flying fuck about their employees. Seriously. They'll put on the politically correct speeches about "we're for family" and "our employees mean a lot to us" garbage, but they never put their money where their mouth is. Our "health benefits" are absolute crap. After paying the high premiums, I can't afford to go to the hospital because of the outrageous co-pays. My theory behind the horrible insurance is the fact that our company is Canadian-based. In Canada, they don't have to worry about paying for health care premiums because their health care system is integrated into the government and paid for by taxes. This way EVERYONE gets health care. If they are to stay competitive in the United States, they HAVE to offer health benefits, but they don't have to offer GOOD benefits...just enough to keep someone there. It makes perfect business sense, but you're pissing off your employees. Is it worth the hassle of creating employees that resent you for your greedy business tactics? I would think not.
If they are found OD'd and alive on the street, they get taken to a hospital. Do you think they have insurance? Probably not. If they do, they make my insurance rates go up. If they don't, they eat away at my tax dollars which could be better spent on Michigan's schools (thanks to Gov. Granholm for cutting school dollars). Call me cold, but I'm trying to look at this logically rather than emotionally.
I guess another way to look at it is they could stab/shoot you for the money in your wallet too. That's fairly direct. The laws are put into place to help protect you from what someone under a brain-altering drug could very likely do to you even though they might not normally do such a thing if they were sober. IMHO, the laws aren't there to protect the addict from themselves, but rather protecting others from them.
Point is, they may not be directly hurting you, but they could be indirectly hurting you.
I understand the way you're thinking - it's sort of like tacking on a sentence for a "hate crime". Why add years for someone being pissed off at someone else when they did something just because they were another race/gender/color/etc? Just enforce the laws that are already in place and call it good. Don't add laws that could pertain to any crime already in place to increase the sentence for no apparent reason. My guess is that it's to be used as "plea bargaining material" so they at least get *some* sentence if they have a really slimey lawyer. Still, that doesn't make it right.
I do agree with you that some of these sentences for non-violent crimes are way too much though. I don't think first time drug offenses, for someone not intending to distribute, should be able to carry a sentence longer than 1 year (3 months at the most really).
CR: We have statistics showing increased temperatures globally, increased incidence and severity of extreme weather events, etc... ... blah blah blah...
BC: that's just statistics, corelation doesn't prove causation, people were getting killed in storms decades ago
Sales of new SUVs tripled from 1997 to 2003. Gas prices doubled over the course of 2001 to 2005. Hence, sales of new SUVs triple versus their current sales from 2003 to 2009, and gas prices will double again versus its current price by 2009. Hey, the data is there, so it must be true, right?
Yeah, the Africa thing was stretching it, but why pick that one versus the record high and lows? Especially the record high? After all, the greenhouse gasses are making temperatures rise aren't they? In case you don't feel like reading my previous post:
Highest temperature ever recorded: On September 13, 1922, the temperature reached a fiery 136F (about 58C) at Al Aziziyah, Libya, in Africa. (The highest temperature recorded in North America occurred in Death Valley, California. On July 10, 1913, the temperature soared to 134F, or about 57C.)
Ok, forget Africa, there's California. 1913. Was that global warming? Then there's:
On April 12, 1934, at Mount Washington, New Hampshire, the wind blew for five minutes at 188 miles per hour (about 303 kph), with gusts up to 231 miles per hour (372 kph), faster than in a powerful hurricane.
Hmm...we're having tons of hurricanes, but they're not in the middle of New Hampshire obviously. Those wind speeds are darn near a hurricane and in a place that hurricanes just generally don't occur. Hmm...1934. Was that global warming?
Not sure what the "Big Carbon" thing was about (though I'm assuming large corporate polluters), but let me assure you that I don't think pollution is a good thing. In fact, the company I work for is one of the largest recyclers in the world. And no, they aren't one of the biggest pollutors in the world too... (thought I'd nip that one in the bud)
Africa is the driest place in the world. During one 59-year period, it received an average of only 3/100 inch (about 0.76 mm) of rain per year. (The driest place in the United States is Death Valley, California, which receives less than 2 inches, or about 5 cm, of rain annually).
Mount Waialeale, on the island of Kauai in Hawaii, is the wettest place in the world, receiving an average rainfall of 460 inches (about 1,168 cm) per year--more than an inch per day. The most rainfall ever recorded in 24 hours was 73.62 inches (about 187 cm), which fell on March 15-16, 1952, on an island in the Indian Ocean. The most rainfall ever recorded in one year was 1,041.78 inches (about 2,646 cm). It fell on Cherrapunji, India, from August 1860 to July 1861.
The most snow recorded in 24 hours was 76 inches (about 193 cm), or more than 6 feet. It blanketed Silver Lake, Colorado, on April 14-15, 1921. The most snow recorded during one year was 1,122 inches (about 2,850 cm). It fell at Rainier Paradise Ranger Station in Washington State in 1971-1972.
Measuring 17.5 inches (44.5 cm) around, the largest hailstone fell in Coffeyville, Kansas, on September 3, 1970. It weighed 1.67 pounds (0.76 kg).
On April 12, 1934, at Mount Washington, New Hampshire, the wind blew for five minutes at 188 miles per hour (about 303 kph), with gusts up to 231 miles per hour (372 kph), faster than in a powerful hurricane.
Strongest tornado? It was Hurricane Gilbert, a category 5 storm that struck the West Indies and Mexico in 1988 and killed about 300 people. Weaker hurricanes that hit more populated areas have killed many more people.
Lowest temperature ever recorded: On July 21, 1983, the temperature dropped to a frigid -128.6F (-89.2C) at Vostok Station in Antarctica. (The lowest temperature in the United States occurred at Prospect Creek, Alaska. On January 23, 1971, the temperature there fell to -80F, or about -62C.)
Highest temperature ever recorded: On September 13, 1922, the temperature reached a fiery 136F (about 58C) at Al Aziziyah, Libya, in Africa. (The highest temperature recorded in North America occurred in Death Valley, California. On July 10, 1913, the temperature soared to 134F, or about 57C.)
Out of all of those records, a lot are scattered throughout this century, but it appears that a considerable amount of records happened in the 20s and 30s. Was it global warming then?
Yes, we're going to see some "OMG! There are so many storms this year! It's global warming! Oh noes!!1!". It's inevitable with an article like this, so I'd just like to give my two cents on these multitude of storms and "global warming":
What gets me is all of these "record breaking lows/highs" and along with it comes "it hasn't been this hot/cold/stormy/etc since (insert 30 to 70 year old year here)". Well what was the excuse back then? Seasons and temperatures fluctuate all the time. Records aren't broken every day, nor every year...they just get randomly broken.
So please explain to me why exactly, when referring to 1933, there were 21 storms back then - was it global warming? No.
Before you mod this flamebait or troll, I'm just trying to make a logical point. I'm not a believer or non-believer of global warming, I just get sick of the years-ago referrals as if it were significant without someone thinking it out logically and using it for their "global warming" agenda.
Just running some quick, conservative numbers, here is how much Windows boot time is costing my company:
My company has more than 160 facilities with more than 37,000 total employees. Approximately half of those 37,000 employees use a PC to do their jobs on a daily basis, but for the sake of argument, let's just say only one third of those employees use one - 12,333 employees. Now multiply 12,333 times the boot time of 5 minutes (yes, that's conservative) and what do you get? 1,027.75 hours of boot time each day, 5,138.75 hours of boot time each week (based on a 5 day work week), and 231,243.75 hours each year based on 225 working days (which is based on 365 days minus 110 days for weekends minus 30 days for vacation and holidays). And yes, everyone shuts down their PC when they leave for the day.
1,027.75 hours of boot time each day would be $15,416.25
5,138.75 hours of boot time each week would be $77,081.25
231,243.75 hours each year would be $3,468,656.25
Coincidentally, if you want to read more, my research post went up today on my blog (shameless plug).
I block all ads except google's. They're non-intrusive. Period.
My site isn't paid for by ads - it's paid for by me going to work every day and earning a living and paying for my DSL bill. It will still be there tomorrow with or without ad revenue. Teh intarweb won't shut down tomorrow because I'm not clicking on an ad. It won't if nobody on slashdot clicks on any ad either.
By us not clicking on the crappy flash ads -- that sends a message. Blocking it does not.
My message to intrusive advertisers using flash, sounds, and other annoying bullshit in a more readable easy to read ASCII form: ..!.,
...and that's the way I'd rather see ads - easily readable non-intrusive text form. Google has gotten the hint at least.
To sum it up - I wouldn't click on the flash ads anyways, so blocking them saves me and my machine wear and tear. Either way, they won't be clicked.
More importantly, what is he doing acting as a CEO for a decent sized corporation? Hmm...maybe that wouldn't be so bad for corporations. Then the CEO couldn't be personally sued for the company going down the tubes a'la Enron because they would be too young to be tried as an adult.
Crap...maybe I shouldn't give them any more ideas. I'll shut up now.
That's not what they mean by wiping your data...
They would be much better if there was some better kind of padding or buffer between the drive and the case. Yeah, the small case is nice, but it leaves your hard drive exposed to abuse as if there wasn't a case there.
Number Two: Sea Bass.
Dr. Evil: [pause] Right.
Number Two: They're mutated sea bass.
Dr. Evil: Are they ill tempered?
Number Two: Absolutely.
Dr. Evil: Oh well, that's a start.
Thank you, I'll be here all day...
What gets me is all of these "record breaking lows/highs" and along with it comes "it hasn't been this hot/cold/stormy/etc since (insert 30 to 70 year old year here)". Well what was the excuse back then? Seasons and temperatures fluctuate all the time. Records aren't broken every day, nor every year...they just get randomly broken.
So please explain to me why exactly, when referring to 1933, there were 21 storms back then - was it global warming? No.
Before you mod this flamebait or troll, I'm just trying to make a logical point. I'm not a believer or non-believer of global warming, I just get sick of the years-ago referrals as if it were significant without someone thinking it out logically.
Ok, cancel the Michael Jackson jokes...he wouldn't be interested.
Oh come on, laugh!
Well what else are you going to do when you're sending out spam and surrounded by \/1AGR4?