I think you're helping to prove my point - if these jobs are so badly needed that people are "falling all over themselves to get and keep" them, working standards and conditions don't have to be at an acceptable level for them to want the jobs. I'm not saying the people aren't better off with the jobs, I'm saying that we should support companies that treat these folks EVEN BETTER, upwards of standards we have for ourselves, or would want to work in.
Just because something is better doesn't make it good.
I see what you mean. I meant that slaves, traditionally, get food and shelter (so it's better than being hungry and homeless), but they're still slaves. I find it hard to justify using what is effectively slave labor, and saying it's better than nothing, so it's ok.
Slavery is a step up from living on the streets homeless and hungry (or being beaten to death), but that doesn't make it moral, nor something I should support if given the choice. I keep hearing your reasoning to justify using third-world slave labor, and I still find it unsavory.
Why do you care so much if other people use a web service, update their friends/family/strangers with important or unimportant facts, and generally have a presence on the web? Does it REALLY affect you so much that you have to rant about it online? Do you have to resort to personal attacks on someone whom you've never met, never read, and don't care about?
I'll never understand the hate some people have about other people using the internet.
If you know what you're up against going in, it's no more a scam than a theater or other form of entertainment. I play games of chance knowing full well what the odds are, and realizing that most forms of entertainment require some sort of payment. If you don't like it, don't play - but it's hardly a "scam".
we all know how badly 99.999999999999999999999% of all spinoffs suck.
Yeah, like Mork & Mindy (and Happy Days, really), Frasier, The Simpsons, Daria, All the new Trek shows, and Stargate: Atlantis, among others. Those all suck.
Would you ban all franchises, then, on the same basis? Or perhaps a company that owns a hardware store on one end of town and a home decor store on the other?
I understand your point about music and commercials (though I honestly think you're not looking hard enough), and there's something to be said for one company having a monopoly on public opinion in a region. But it's quite another to say that no company should be able to own multiple smaller companies. It makes zero business sense, either in media or most any other industry.
None of this makes any difference if you don't watch the new stuff, and just keep your memories of the old stuff you like.
Speaking of memories, my friends who watched Star Trek the first time around (or early in reruns in the 70s) generally prefer it to any of the new shows. I grew up on TNG, DS9 and VOY. My friend's son likes Star Wars Episode 1 better than the first 3, because he saw it first. We all view the world with rose tinted glasses, and think the things we like are necessarily the best. That's fine - but let people enjoy the new stuff if they want - if we let the fans of old stuff decide, we wouldn't have ever had a TNG at all, and it's generally considered the best of the 5 series.
What if in 2050 every Star Trek movie ever made with Kirk now stars Chris Pine, through the magic of editing?
Well, that's really Paramount's decision - they own Star Trek, not us. Second, fan outrage brought the original versions back for Star Wars (mostly because Lucus saw more money there, I'm sure). Every episode of Star Trek currently exists on DVD as it originally aired. Through the magic of the internet, now they'll never go away, regardless of what products new are released. And you'll still be able to avoid/ignore any new franchise efforts, just as you can today.
Just don't go. Problem solved. Let the rest of us enjoy it. The end, everyone wins.
I've never understood why some people think their memories of some sort of media will be ruined if a new product, one they don't have to go see or experience, is released.
I really hope this isn't what my generation will be known for.
The sound of the word aside, I can't understand this elitist mentality I see here and other places with a computer-oriented crowd when it comes to blogging. Whenever you hear "blogging", think "allowing everyone to write on the web easily" - that's all it is. It's what we were promised in the early 90s, before most people even had computers - the ability to have our voices heard and self-publish.
For the first time in history, almost anyone can get their ideas out to the entire world from the safety of their own home. Unpopular ideas can heard and spread. There are rightfully concerns about factuality and objectivity, but that should have been true for all media. Regardless, 15 years after the internet came to the masses, anyone can still publish to world and be as easy to reach as any mass media organization.
I hope that this is what my generation is known for.
Is the computer really a "gadget" anymore? Laptops, perhaps, and handhelds most certainly, but the desktop computer is a pretty integral part of my household - "gadget", to me, is something that's fun but more interesting than necessary. It's possible it's all in the eye of the beholder, but my desktop (and more importantly, internet access) is just about as important as any other utility in my house.
I assume, however, that NH requires and issues drivers licenses? Has restaurant health codes? Anti-monopoly practices? Liquor and pornography laws? A whole slew of laws, rules and regulations, just like every other "nanny" state?
There's always going to be government involvement in our lives as long as we live in a large society. Assuming your state is "better" because of the things you've listed ignores all the specific laws and rules of all the other states on a host of other issues. People love to talk about "state's rights" until the voters decide on something unsavory.
I work for a newspaper that's actually doing well in the "internet age" - we do it with local news, the type you're not going to find online, with both police/crime reporting and human interest. You're grossly oversimplifying the issue.
It's a big issue, ignoring this commercial for "Fark" (which I hadn't heard mentioned in years).
Fark's not a household name, but it's not at all obscure. Where have you been hiding online that you haven't seen fark mentioned? Certainly not Slashdot.
There are very few US newspapers left with much news. The New York Times and the Wall Street Journal are about it.
There are 6,000 plus newspapers in the US, and even those owned by large corporations are still mostly run and staffed by locals who write about local news. Wire services are amazingly popular because people reading want a variety that almost no staffs can deliver (my paper, one of the largest in California, simply can't have offices in Iraq, Israel, London and Mexico City - but AP and Reuters can). Again, your statement is a gross oversimplification.
The San Jose Mercury News used to be one of the last remaining local papers with real reporting, but since Knight-Ridder sold it to some suburban throwaway publisher, it's had very little real content. Most of the reporters are gone.
I haven't read it since the sale, but I doubt highly that "most of the reporters are gone" (I didn't see anything in E&P to that effect). Do you have a source? Or are you talking out of your ass?
The real test is this: did the story originate with a press release or a press conference? If it did, it's publicity.
Wrong. Police hold press conferences regarding stories of interest. Organizations in the news hold press conferences and issues releases, and good journalists use them as a jumping-off point. Just because we hear about a story from the source doesn't make it publicity - I've seen plenty of good investigative journalism start from a question raised by a company statement, and that's absolutely NOT good publicity for the company.
Take a printed newspaper and mark the non-wire-service ads for which this is not the case. There won't be many such stories. In some papers, there won't be any.
Depends entirely on your paper. Like I said, we're cater to readers, and readers want more news from more locations than just about any staff, even a large one, can deliver. Some papers exist mainly to publish wire news, too. A human being writes wire copy too, and much of it is good reporting.
Newspapers are an interesting beast, but until I started in the industry, I didn't comprehend the ins and outs, and plenty of people online that like to think they're "in the know" simply aren't. There's much more than you seem to understand.
Not only that, our "advanced" species has only been emitting space-bound signals for 90 or so years of the 200,000 years or so we've been around. That's an infinitesimal amount of time.
If we found any species like us with cities/culture/tool making ability, it'd be amazing, even if they were far behind us in terms of development. At this point, any animal life outside this planet would be a life-changing find for us, so I think the "hoping for signals" was just a shot in the dark, and knowingly so.
No offense to the snobs here, but people who sell things for too much money LOVE y'all. Perhaps it's because I like my coffee sweet and creamy, but most of it is either strong, or weak, with varying levels of burnt taste - the minutia is lost on me, and that's ok. Enjoy your $1,000 breakfast beverage - I'll use my old stained drip roaster or a coffee bag.
Because when no one tries to change the situation, it WON'T change.
So he's still out there shooting?
I do believe the number of students killed was less than the number of students on campus, so clearly, everyone wasn't dead.
It can be good to be a hero. But police don't tell people "not to be a hero" because they don't want you involved, but because they know that it leads to unfortunate circumstances more often than not. Since neither of us was there, we don't know what happened, we don't know if this was tried or not, and we don't know if it resulted in anything positive. I'm wagering on "no", since he ended up committing suicide.
You forgot "you might miss, he'll see you, and you'll get shot long before you get a second throw off".
I've thankfully never been in such a situation, but I don't know if I'd be able to find something heavy, stand up, throw that thing across the room, and hope I don't get in his line of fire in the process.
The only thing Atheists have in common with other atheists is a shared non-belief in god(s). There's none of the shared dogma, history, important documents, important leaders, necessary life experiences, or unsubstantiated claims that religions have.
Atheists are also a very small minority in this country, while religious people, specifically Christians, are the vast majority, and in political control of all three branches of government. Those in control, especially when subjecting others to their beliefs, ALWAYS deserve to be questioned and "bashed", in a 'free speech' kinda way.
the majority religions still provide useful and positive services to their members
Lying to your members about the nature of the universe, and promising them eternal death/pain/whatever is NEVER positive, regardless of the good feelings these people get. Yes, most religious people are "good" people. So are most atheists. Someone who needs religion to be good isn't really good.
honestly, I think religion needs more bashing. It's still a driving force in our culture, and a destructive one at that. Many of us "serious" atheists believe this, and pandering to the people we consider a destructive force isn't doing anyone any good.
Your biases, stereotypes, and generalizations are showing.
This isn't exactly shocking for a county where our local Government...won't issue ID cards for those who have been prescribed medical marijuana...The state says its okay, but the county is claiming that since the federal government says no, they can't risk getting sued. States rights? Ha.
The "Local Government" you're referring to is the County Board of Supervisors - while yes, they are a "county government", they're not really much in the way of lawmakers - almost all laws residents of OC (and all California locations) are subject to are federal, state, and city. Last time I checked, the state is still subject to federal marijuana laws, regardless of what you, I, or any local government feels.
This county loves to be the uptight puritan neighbor to Los Angeles....This county is known for its unbelievable government and law enforcement.
Which governments are you talking about? In addition to the county supervisors, there are 34 city governments too, with politicians from all over the spectrum (relatively for the US, anyway). The "Uptight neighbor" stereotypes and the assumption that some sort of magical wall exists at the county line are laughable.
Recently an inmate was killed in the county jail after the staff told other inmates that he was a suspected child predator. The Sheriffs department insists they did no wrong in this, and there pat answer is more or less, "Who cares, he was a child predator?" and "You can't listen to criminals to tell you the truth, they're people who do things that are wrong anyway." All local press fails to point out that he was never even convicted.
All the local press? The OC Register, the LA Times, the OC Weekly, the SD Union Tribune and all the other smaller metro area papers? Every one? Amazing! Do a search for the man's name (John Derek Chamberlain) in those papers - they all note that he was a suspect. Believe me, as a staffer for the paper that's written the most about him, we (and all the papers) tend to be pretty careful in that regard. Your statement is flat-out wrong.
I don't mind a conservative government, and all, but here it's like being conservative just for the sake of being conservative, instead of any real reason behind the decisions of the local government. Law enforcement in Orange county seems to me, to serve mostly to harass the public, in hopes of catching some illegal immigrants along the way.
Which law enforcement are you talking about? Most cities in OC have their own police force - specific to the city. The rest are serviced by the OC Sheriff, about as close to a county law enforcement as we get. And having lived here 25+ years, it seems to me that cops here are pretty standard. The sheriff dept. has had its own issues, but that's been mostly management, not the cops on the street. I'm sure "all cops just serve to harass the public" is something you throw around to sound good.
P.S. In OC, if it had been a 30 y/o MILF in an SUV, she could have had the soap, had it tested positive for GHB, heck she probably could have had pure GHB and pot in the car, and still been able to drive off.
Slashdot Mirror
I think you're helping to prove my point - if these jobs are so badly needed that people are "falling all over themselves to get and keep" them, working standards and conditions don't have to be at an acceptable level for them to want the jobs. I'm not saying the people aren't better off with the jobs, I'm saying that we should support companies that treat these folks EVEN BETTER, upwards of standards we have for ourselves, or would want to work in.
Just because something is better doesn't make it good.
I see what you mean. I meant that slaves, traditionally, get food and shelter (so it's better than being hungry and homeless), but they're still slaves. I find it hard to justify using what is effectively slave labor, and saying it's better than nothing, so it's ok.
Slavery is a step up from living on the streets homeless and hungry (or being beaten to death), but that doesn't make it moral, nor something I should support if given the choice. I keep hearing your reasoning to justify using third-world slave labor, and I still find it unsavory.
Who pissed in your corn flakes?
Why do you care so much if other people use a web service, update their friends/family/strangers with important or unimportant facts, and generally have a presence on the web? Does it REALLY affect you so much that you have to rant about it online? Do you have to resort to personal attacks on someone whom you've never met, never read, and don't care about?
I'll never understand the hate some people have about other people using the internet.
If you know what you're up against going in, it's no more a scam than a theater or other form of entertainment. I play games of chance knowing full well what the odds are, and realizing that most forms of entertainment require some sort of payment. If you don't like it, don't play - but it's hardly a "scam".
we all know how badly 99.999999999999999999999% of all spinoffs suck.
Yeah, like Mork & Mindy (and Happy Days, really), Frasier, The Simpsons, Daria, All the new Trek shows, and Stargate: Atlantis, among others. Those all suck.
All you missed was the humor.
He was either lying or mistaken.
Would you ban all franchises, then, on the same basis? Or perhaps a company that owns a hardware store on one end of town and a home decor store on the other?
I understand your point about music and commercials (though I honestly think you're not looking hard enough), and there's something to be said for one company having a monopoly on public opinion in a region. But it's quite another to say that no company should be able to own multiple smaller companies. It makes zero business sense, either in media or most any other industry.
None of this makes any difference if you don't watch the new stuff, and just keep your memories of the old stuff you like.
Speaking of memories, my friends who watched Star Trek the first time around (or early in reruns in the 70s) generally prefer it to any of the new shows. I grew up on TNG, DS9 and VOY. My friend's son likes Star Wars Episode 1 better than the first 3, because he saw it first. We all view the world with rose tinted glasses, and think the things we like are necessarily the best. That's fine - but let people enjoy the new stuff if they want - if we let the fans of old stuff decide, we wouldn't have ever had a TNG at all, and it's generally considered the best of the 5 series.
What if in 2050 every Star Trek movie ever made with Kirk now stars Chris Pine, through the magic of editing?
Well, that's really Paramount's decision - they own Star Trek, not us. Second, fan outrage brought the original versions back for Star Wars (mostly because Lucus saw more money there, I'm sure). Every episode of Star Trek currently exists on DVD as it originally aired. Through the magic of the internet, now they'll never go away, regardless of what products new are released. And you'll still be able to avoid/ignore any new franchise efforts, just as you can today.
Just don't go. Problem solved. Let the rest of us enjoy it. The end, everyone wins.
I've never understood why some people think their memories of some sort of media will be ruined if a new product, one they don't have to go see or experience, is released.
Mod this up. Fantastically put.
I really hope this isn't what my generation will be known for.
The sound of the word aside, I can't understand this elitist mentality I see here and other places with a computer-oriented crowd when it comes to blogging. Whenever you hear "blogging", think "allowing everyone to write on the web easily" - that's all it is. It's what we were promised in the early 90s, before most people even had computers - the ability to have our voices heard and self-publish.
For the first time in history, almost anyone can get their ideas out to the entire world from the safety of their own home. Unpopular ideas can heard and spread. There are rightfully concerns about factuality and objectivity, but that should have been true for all media. Regardless, 15 years after the internet came to the masses, anyone can still publish to world and be as easy to reach as any mass media organization.
I hope that this is what my generation is known for.
Is the computer really a "gadget" anymore? Laptops, perhaps, and handhelds most certainly, but the desktop computer is a pretty integral part of my household - "gadget", to me, is something that's fun but more interesting than necessary. It's possible it's all in the eye of the beholder, but my desktop (and more importantly, internet access) is just about as important as any other utility in my house.
I assume, however, that NH requires and issues drivers licenses? Has restaurant health codes? Anti-monopoly practices? Liquor and pornography laws? A whole slew of laws, rules and regulations, just like every other "nanny" state?
There's always going to be government involvement in our lives as long as we live in a large society. Assuming your state is "better" because of the things you've listed ignores all the specific laws and rules of all the other states on a host of other issues. People love to talk about "state's rights" until the voters decide on something unsavory.
Where to start...
All else is publicity.
I work for a newspaper that's actually doing well in the "internet age" - we do it with local news, the type you're not going to find online, with both police/crime reporting and human interest. You're grossly oversimplifying the issue.
It's a big issue, ignoring this commercial for "Fark" (which I hadn't heard mentioned in years).
Fark's not a household name, but it's not at all obscure. Where have you been hiding online that you haven't seen fark mentioned? Certainly not Slashdot.
There are very few US newspapers left with much news. The New York Times and the Wall Street Journal are about it.
There are 6,000 plus newspapers in the US, and even those owned by large corporations are still mostly run and staffed by locals who write about local news. Wire services are amazingly popular because people reading want a variety that almost no staffs can deliver (my paper, one of the largest in California, simply can't have offices in Iraq, Israel, London and Mexico City - but AP and Reuters can). Again, your statement is a gross oversimplification.
The San Jose Mercury News used to be one of the last remaining local papers with real reporting, but since Knight-Ridder sold it to some suburban throwaway publisher, it's had very little real content. Most of the reporters are gone.
I haven't read it since the sale, but I doubt highly that "most of the reporters are gone" (I didn't see anything in E&P to that effect). Do you have a source? Or are you talking out of your ass?
The real test is this: did the story originate with a press release or a press conference? If it did, it's publicity.
Wrong. Police hold press conferences regarding stories of interest. Organizations in the news hold press conferences and issues releases, and good journalists use them as a jumping-off point. Just because we hear about a story from the source doesn't make it publicity - I've seen plenty of good investigative journalism start from a question raised by a company statement, and that's absolutely NOT good publicity for the company.
Take a printed newspaper and mark the non-wire-service ads for which this is not the case. There won't be many such stories. In some papers, there won't be any.
Depends entirely on your paper. Like I said, we're cater to readers, and readers want more news from more locations than just about any staff, even a large one, can deliver. Some papers exist mainly to publish wire news, too. A human being writes wire copy too, and much of it is good reporting.
Newspapers are an interesting beast, but until I started in the industry, I didn't comprehend the ins and outs, and plenty of people online that like to think they're "in the know" simply aren't. There's much more than you seem to understand.
Not only that, our "advanced" species has only been emitting space-bound signals for 90 or so years of the 200,000 years or so we've been around. That's an infinitesimal amount of time.
If we found any species like us with cities/culture/tool making ability, it'd be amazing, even if they were far behind us in terms of development. At this point, any animal life outside this planet would be a life-changing find for us, so I think the "hoping for signals" was just a shot in the dark, and knowingly so.
Seconded.
No offense to the snobs here, but people who sell things for too much money LOVE y'all. Perhaps it's because I like my coffee sweet and creamy, but most of it is either strong, or weak, with varying levels of burnt taste - the minutia is lost on me, and that's ok. Enjoy your $1,000 breakfast beverage - I'll use my old stained drip roaster or a coffee bag.
You first.
Because when no one tries to change the situation, it WON'T change.
So he's still out there shooting?
I do believe the number of students killed was less than the number of students on campus, so clearly, everyone wasn't dead.
It can be good to be a hero. But police don't tell people "not to be a hero" because they don't want you involved, but because they know that it leads to unfortunate circumstances more often than not. Since neither of us was there, we don't know what happened, we don't know if this was tried or not, and we don't know if it resulted in anything positive. I'm wagering on "no", since he ended up committing suicide.
You forgot "you might miss, he'll see you, and you'll get shot long before you get a second throw off".
I've thankfully never been in such a situation, but I don't know if I'd be able to find something heavy, stand up, throw that thing across the room, and hope I don't get in his line of fire in the process.
The only thing Atheists have in common with other atheists is a shared non-belief in god(s). There's none of the shared dogma, history, important documents, important leaders, necessary life experiences, or unsubstantiated claims that religions have.
Atheists are also a very small minority in this country, while religious people, specifically Christians, are the vast majority, and in political control of all three branches of government. Those in control, especially when subjecting others to their beliefs, ALWAYS deserve to be questioned and "bashed", in a 'free speech' kinda way.
the majority religions still provide useful and positive services to their members
Lying to your members about the nature of the universe, and promising them eternal death/pain/whatever is NEVER positive, regardless of the good feelings these people get. Yes, most religious people are "good" people. So are most atheists. Someone who needs religion to be good isn't really good.
honestly, I think religion needs more bashing. It's still a driving force in our culture, and a destructive one at that. Many of us "serious" atheists believe this, and pandering to the people we consider a destructive force isn't doing anyone any good.
Your biases, stereotypes, and generalizations are showing.
This isn't exactly shocking for a county where our local Government...won't issue ID cards for those who have been prescribed medical marijuana...The state says its okay, but the county is claiming that since the federal government says no, they can't risk getting sued. States rights? Ha.
The "Local Government" you're referring to is the County Board of Supervisors - while yes, they are a "county government", they're not really much in the way of lawmakers - almost all laws residents of OC (and all California locations) are subject to are federal, state, and city. Last time I checked, the state is still subject to federal marijuana laws, regardless of what you, I, or any local government feels.
This county loves to be the uptight puritan neighbor to Los Angeles....This county is known for its unbelievable government and law enforcement.
Which governments are you talking about? In addition to the county supervisors, there are 34 city governments too, with politicians from all over the spectrum (relatively for the US, anyway). The "Uptight neighbor" stereotypes and the assumption that some sort of magical wall exists at the county line are laughable.
Recently an inmate was killed in the county jail after the staff told other inmates that he was a suspected child predator. The Sheriffs department insists they did no wrong in this, and there pat answer is more or less, "Who cares, he was a child predator?" and "You can't listen to criminals to tell you the truth, they're people who do things that are wrong anyway." All local press fails to point out that he was never even convicted.
All the local press? The OC Register, the LA Times, the OC Weekly, the SD Union Tribune and all the other smaller metro area papers? Every one? Amazing! Do a search for the man's name (John Derek Chamberlain) in those papers - they all note that he was a suspect. Believe me, as a staffer for the paper that's written the most about him, we (and all the papers) tend to be pretty careful in that regard. Your statement is flat-out wrong.
I don't mind a conservative government, and all, but here it's like being conservative just for the sake of being conservative, instead of any real reason behind the decisions of the local government. Law enforcement in Orange county seems to me, to serve mostly to harass the public, in hopes of catching some illegal immigrants along the way.
Which law enforcement are you talking about? Most cities in OC have their own police force - specific to the city. The rest are serviced by the OC Sheriff, about as close to a county law enforcement as we get. And having lived here 25+ years, it seems to me that cops here are pretty standard. The sheriff dept. has had its own issues, but that's been mostly management, not the cops on the street. I'm sure "all cops just serve to harass the public" is something you throw around to sound good.
P.S. In OC, if it had been a 30 y/o MILF in an SUV, she could have had the soap, had it tested positive for GHB, heck she probably could have had pure GHB and pot in the car, and still been able to drive off.
You watch WAY too much TV, dude. Lay off the Fox.