> I mean, making $100,000 and driving a Lambo would probably mean parking it in front of a 1 bedroom apartment... and hoping someone doesn't walk along and key it.
They can also tell you that today is your last day for no reason at all. Or worse, call you after you've left for the day and tell you not to come back.
In most states, any company can do that, whether you are contracted or not.
...but, I suspect you're right. This is a nice step to take, but it won't make much difference in the real world - MS Office is a de facto standard, which we call *all* access (even if we choose not to run Windows). For my part I'd rather fire up AbiWord to open an MS Word document than have to endure yet another PDF.
Exactly my point. In fact, personally, I would rather fire up Word to endure MS Word docs, if it meant I didn't have to keep this bloated piece of crap that Acrobat (Reader) has become.
MS Word may not be everyone's ideal office suite software, but it is software that I actually use, as opposed to Adobe's reader software that I can't use to do anything.
I hardly see how Open Office and PDF formats "guarantee" citizens will be able to view electronic documents in the future any more so than MS Office formats. For all anybody knows, in 5 years, all of these formats could be dead as new formats emerge. And guess, what--When that happens, there will be conversion tools for the next mainstream formats, too.
Do you really believe that the operators of these on-line "casinos" are above playing poker against you while they can watch your hands, or when they can tell the computer what to deal next? Yes, actually, I do believe that. I have friends who have won thousands playing online. Without cheating.
Another form of cheating that I know is going on (because I know someone who admits to doing it) is to play multiple hands in the same game against another player and share information about your hands. This is a great way to part the fools from their money, since having lots more information about the deck than non-cheating players geatly improves your odds. You know, for example, if the chance of drawing that fourth king is very high because it hasn't been dealt to the other hands you know about, or zero because it has. First of all, the probability of drawing the fourth king is NEVER very high in any form of poker I've ever played online. But more importantly, what you describe here is not the primary reason that this form of cheating works.
I'm seeing an obscene abundance of ignorant posts in this thread about how online poker players deserve to lose because a) "poker is just another form of gambling, and you're supposed to lose at gambling", and b) they're "dumb enough" to believe they can get a winnable game online. Well, the truth is, poker isn't gambling. Poker is a game of skill in which luck influences your short-term performance. A LOT of poor players ARE going to lose a lot of money. But the good players will win, and they will win consistently over time.
15 years on, and loads of people still play lemmings. The emulator scene for old 16 bit machines, and even old arcade machines is bigger than ever. All these people can't be wrong.
It's weird how "All these people can't be wrong" is an excuse for lousy graphics.
Yet if I said, "87 million PC users run Windows; All these people can't be wrong," there would be a bitchfest the likes of which humankind has never seen. Funny how this works...
I can't even figure how many of my college buddies used to get into bars with friends' photo driver's licenses just be wearing their hair the same way as the person in the photo and putting on glasses.
The photo is better than nothing, yes. But it still doesn't completely solve the problem.
Perhaps.
When I'm on the road and somebody pulls some idiot move on the road near me--e.g., weaving in/out of traffic at inappropriate times, turning out in front of people--literally 80%-90% of the time that I get a good look at the driver, he/she is on a cell phone.
This is a great study, but, additionally, I hold a theory that people who use tend to use cell phones while driving are just worse drivers, even when they're not on the phone.
SS is a Ponzi scheme based on an assumption that population will continue to grow, and because of that it will always be easy to borrow from your children since you'll have lots of them.
That's an interesting point. I would like to point out, though, that when people effectively utilize available retirement options (IRAs at the very least), they can reduce or eliminate the burden on their children by having already saved for their retirement.
The other thing about being retirment age and nearer to death is that "borrowing" money from your children is probably not borrowing after all.
Because most people have no idea how to save money for retirement. So a few people properly plan their retirement and do better than they would with Social Security, while everyone else blows their money on late night infomercial products or has it swindled away by private enterprises promising you will "Retire with a million dollars!". This puts an additional burden on the welfare system, and worse, these people are retired so they have no chance of going on welfare-to-work programs or similar things. The economic dead weight from letting people blow their retirement savings and then looking for a free handout would be tremendous.
I don't see the argument here. I thought Social Security was a form of insurance, not a way for stupid people to have income after retirement. I agree that many people lack the will to save for retirement. Many people also lack the will to keep themselves from committing murder, but we don't provide special treatment to them. What we have is a scenario in which the people with the motivation to learn reasonable personal finance skills are harmed because most people are too stupid to figure it out or would rather blow their week's paycheck at Wal*Mart every Friday than put some away for their golden years.
As a 22-year-old full-time worker with a company-sponsored savings plan and a Roth IRA, I would very contently keep the money they take out my check for SS and invest it in my 401(k) or IRA or elsewhere. The return on my investment would certainly promise to be greater than it will be on our current course.
One thing I will say, though, is that a couple years ago, one of my CS classes interviewed Stallman. He was a major asshole in every respect. He belittled students and teachers alike for asking "obvious" questions and for "wasting his time." This is no way to promote your ideas.
Slashdot Mirror
> I mean, making $100,000 and driving a Lambo would probably mean parking it in front of a 1 bedroom apartment... and hoping someone doesn't walk along and key it.
I highly doubt that.
They can also tell you that today is your last day for no reason at all. Or worse, call you after you've left for the day and tell you not to come back.
In most states, any company can do that, whether you are contracted or not.
...but, I suspect you're right. This is a nice step to take, but it won't make much difference in the real world - MS Office is a de facto standard, which we call *all* access (even if we choose not to run Windows). For my part I'd rather fire up AbiWord to open an MS Word document than have to endure yet another PDF.
Exactly my point. In fact, personally, I would rather fire up Word to endure MS Word docs, if it meant I didn't have to keep this bloated piece of crap that Acrobat (Reader) has become.
MS Word may not be everyone's ideal office suite software, but it is software that I actually use, as opposed to Adobe's reader software that I can't use to do anything.
I hardly see how Open Office and PDF formats "guarantee" citizens will be able to view electronic documents in the future any more so than MS Office formats. For all anybody knows, in 5 years, all of these formats could be dead as new formats emerge. And guess, what--When that happens, there will be conversion tools for the next mainstream formats, too.
Come on, on-line poker is for chumps.
Get real.
Do you really believe that the operators of these on-line "casinos" are above playing poker against you while they can watch your hands, or when they can tell the computer what to deal next?
Yes, actually, I do believe that. I have friends who have won thousands playing online. Without cheating.
Another form of cheating that I know is going on (because I know someone who admits to doing it) is to play multiple hands in the same game against another player and share information about your hands. This is a great way to part the fools from their money, since having lots more information about the deck than non-cheating players geatly improves your odds. You know, for example, if the chance of drawing that fourth king is very high because it hasn't been dealt to the other hands you know about, or zero because it has.
First of all, the probability of drawing the fourth king is NEVER very high in any form of poker I've ever played online. But more importantly, what you describe here is not the primary reason that this form of cheating works.
I'm seeing an obscene abundance of ignorant posts in this thread about how online poker players deserve to lose because a) "poker is just another form of gambling, and you're supposed to lose at gambling", and b) they're "dumb enough" to believe they can get a winnable game online. Well, the truth is, poker isn't gambling. Poker is a game of skill in which luck influences your short-term performance. A LOT of poor players ARE going to lose a lot of money. But the good players will win, and they will win consistently over time.
15 years on, and loads of people still play lemmings. The emulator scene for old 16 bit machines, and even old arcade machines is bigger than ever. All these people can't be wrong.
It's weird how "All these people can't be wrong" is an excuse for lousy graphics.
Yet if I said, "87 million PC users run Windows; All these people can't be wrong," there would be a bitchfest the likes of which humankind has never seen. Funny how this works...
...but if 35% are downloading legally, and 40% are downloading illegally, then what are the other 25% doing? goatse?
Who's to say he wasn't smoking crack?
I can't even figure how many of my college buddies used to get into bars with friends' photo driver's licenses just be wearing their hair the same way as the person in the photo and putting on glasses. The photo is better than nothing, yes. But it still doesn't completely solve the problem.
I just ran some maps through here and it's great! It is TONS easier to soak up the lay of the land than in MapQuest.
Perhaps. When I'm on the road and somebody pulls some idiot move on the road near me--e.g., weaving in/out of traffic at inappropriate times, turning out in front of people--literally 80%-90% of the time that I get a good look at the driver, he/she is on a cell phone. This is a great study, but, additionally, I hold a theory that people who use tend to use cell phones while driving are just worse drivers, even when they're not on the phone.
I wonder what the reaction time would be of an 80-year-old drunk driver talking on a cell phone...
Saying old people drive like drunkards...
SS is a Ponzi scheme based on an assumption that population will continue to grow, and because of that it will always be easy to borrow from your children since you'll have lots of them.
That's an interesting point. I would like to point out, though, that when people effectively utilize available retirement options (IRAs at the very least), they can reduce or eliminate the burden on their children by having already saved for their retirement.
The other thing about being retirment age and nearer to death is that "borrowing" money from your children is probably not borrowing after all.
Your 22-year-old naivete would make you a perfect fit for a position in the company of Enron and Worldcom execs.
Ah. And you're doing a lot of good trolling around and flaming with zero explanation behind your insult.
Because most people have no idea how to save money for retirement. So a few people properly plan their retirement and do better than they would with Social Security, while everyone else blows their money on late night infomercial products or has it swindled away by private enterprises promising you will "Retire with a million dollars!". This puts an additional burden on the welfare system, and worse, these people are retired so they have no chance of going on welfare-to-work programs or similar things. The economic dead weight from letting people blow their retirement savings and then looking for a free handout would be tremendous. I don't see the argument here. I thought Social Security was a form of insurance, not a way for stupid people to have income after retirement. I agree that many people lack the will to save for retirement. Many people also lack the will to keep themselves from committing murder, but we don't provide special treatment to them. What we have is a scenario in which the people with the motivation to learn reasonable personal finance skills are harmed because most people are too stupid to figure it out or would rather blow their week's paycheck at Wal*Mart every Friday than put some away for their golden years.
As a 22-year-old full-time worker with a company-sponsored savings plan and a Roth IRA, I would very contently keep the money they take out my check for SS and invest it in my 401(k) or IRA or elsewhere. The return on my investment would certainly promise to be greater than it will be on our current course.
One thing I will say, though, is that a couple years ago, one of my CS classes interviewed Stallman. He was a major asshole in every respect. He belittled students and teachers alike for asking "obvious" questions and for "wasting his time." This is no way to promote your ideas.