Now, I pose the question. If our impact did not cause it, are we responsible to fix it? Even if our impact did cause it, what portion of what they are experiencing can be attributed to what we did? And what about the impact of the rest of the world (including those very same third world countries that are going to suffer the effects first, as you put it)? I'm not against sending aid to other countries that need it, but to declare the USA as "responsible", and potentially bankrupt a single country for a global problem, is ignorant at best...
It doesn't matter if the earth's climate is changing because of man or not. If no nations want to act to keep the earth habitable, the money they keep in their economies will mean jack shit when we're extinct. Choosing money over survival is what I call ignorant at best.
You claimed that I was somehow "spitting on democracy", by opposing a "public option". No law has been passed at this time, this seems to suggest that a majority of Americans have reservations about the bills that have been brought forward in Congress (the Administration and Congressional leadership originally set a deadline for passing healthcare reform before the August recess).
Oh how you misquote me, without actually even quoting me.
I'm sorry if you don't like the prospect of this health care reform, I really am, but don't spit in the face of democracy over it because you didn't get your way.
Note that I did not equate the opposition of a public option with anything. You spit in the face of democracy by suggesting that the policy goals of this administration are weakly supported even though they clearly have public support - they won the fucking election - or that this one health care reform bill is somehow going to circumvent all other democratic processes and take us down a slippery slope to your nightmare scenario of a single payer system. It's hysterical FUD and I won't abide it.
I see your comment about "if the bill passes", are you suggesting that people should just shut up and accept whatever bills are passed by "our representatives" without letting said representatives (and our fellow citizens) know what we think of the bills under consideration?
*sigh* Again, let me quote myself since you seem unable to do so.
If, as you say, 30% of the public wants a public option, then there should only be 30% of congressmen and representatives that support it and the rest should eat them alive and eject it from the bill. So far, that hasn't happened. That's how our system works. Again, I'm sorry you don't like it. Write your congressman or representative.
And again, if you don't like it, I can only offer my condolences and urge you to write to your congressman or representative.... If the bill passes with a public option, it's because our representatives acting on our behalf passed it as such.
And one more to grow on:
... the american people elected representatives whose agendas and views they supported, who they trusted would listen to their voices.... If the majority does not want a public option and it is created anyway,... the next time elections come around, we'll elect representatives that will promise to right the horrible wrongs of yesteryear and they'll go riding on the white horse of Truth, Justice, and the American Way to remove the public option from law.
I don't know why you bother responding if you're not going to read first.
I think it is disingenuous to suggest that the majority of the Congresspersons were elected for the express purpose of passing this bill.
Maybe if you stick enough words in my mouth you'll be able to convince yourself you are right. I never made any such claim. My claim is that the american people elected representatives whose agendas and views they supported, who they trusted would listen to their voices. If the majority wants no public option, then that should be reflected in the actions of their representatives. If the majority does not want a public option and it is created anyway, then we elected shitty representatives and we only have ourselves to blame. In that case, the next time elections come around, we'll elect representatives that will promise to right the horrible wrongs of yesteryear and they'll go riding on the white horse of Truth, Justice, and the American Way to remove the public option from law. Like I said, that's how our democracy works. And again, if you don't like it, I can only offer my condolences and urge you to write to your congressman or representative. You can argue till you are blue in the face that there is some enchanted mystical evidence delivered upon the chosen few to disseminate onto the world that the american people do not want a public option, but in the end that doesn't make a damn bit of difference. Reality doesn't care what evidence you have (and for some reason do not divulge). If the bill passes with a public option, it's because our representatives acting on our behalf passed it as such. It is not because an evil liberal socialist president and his evil liberal socialist cronies decided to pick on the poor god fearing capitalist patriot conservatives and take all their fancy health care away.
If the American people decide they want a single payer system, so be it. I believe that it would be a terrible mistake. The American people currently don't want a single payer system. Additionally, they have recognized that the current "public option" is an attempt to get a single payer system in by the back door and appear to have decided that they don't want that either.
As far as I can tell, all of the support for the "public option" comes from people who want a single payer system but have recognized that the American people will not accept one at this time. The evidence I have seen suggests that somewhere around 50% of the population doesn't want the "public option", while only somewhere around 30% do want it. So who is the one "spitting in the face of democracy"?
Who the fuck do you think is writing and modifying the damn bill? The same officials we elected to act on our behalf. If, as you say, 30% of the public wants a public option, then there should only be 30% of congressmen and representatives that support it and the rest should eat them alive and eject it from the bill. So far, that hasn't happened. That's how our system works. Again, I'm sorry you don't like it. Write your congressman or representative.
Could an American please explain to me why the majority of USA seems to oppose public healthcare?
According to economist Paul Krugman in The Conscience of a Liberal, the most likely answer to this question is "because it will help black people". He argues that this was the biggest reason Harry Truman, Richard Nixon, and Lyndon Johnson couldn't get health care plans through. And part of the reason why Bill Clinton couldn't, and probably bigger part of the reason Barack Obama's having a tough time.
Plus (like some of my sibling posters) a lot of folks put a Somebody Else's Problem field around 40-50 million people who lack health insurance, and the even larger number of folks who's health insurance companies cancel their coverage as soon as it comes time to pay major claims.
In my experience, the same people that are barking mad about public health care are also the religious zealots that want prayer in schools, the ten commandments in public buildings, and intelligent design in science class. Yet for all their "christian values", helping their fellow man in need is just too much to ask. Hands off my cash, Jack, your failing heart isn't my problem. Jesus loves me and gave me a PPO.
the legislation currently on the tables doesn't rule out free-market alternatives. It gives 1 more choice to you.
Are you aware that Obama and several others have said in the past (before he was elected), that the "public option" is intended to be the first step to getting the U.S. to a single (government) payer health care system?
So, as far as I can tell, the people promoting the "public option" all wish to migrate the U.S. to a single payer system, but do not believe that that is politically possible, but I am supposed to take their word for it that it will be designed merely to compete with existing health insurance. The public option combined with the regulations that will be put on private health insurance will ensure that private health insurance will be unable to compete with the government option and so private insurance will then gradually wither away.
Last I checked the bill does not call for the obliteration of publicly elected representatives. If the american public does not want a single payer system, it will elect representatives in goverment that will not create a public payer system. If the american public does want a single payer system, it will elect representatives that will create a single payer system. The choice of which system we have and which is the "good" one and which is the "bad" one is not yours or any other single person's to make. If we decide we want socialized health care, and it is enacted through the democratic system we have established in this country, then you and your friends that have been bitching about it will just have to accept that that is the way the rest of the nation wants things. Just like how right now I accept the fact that my dream of a socialized health care system in america probably will never happen because most americans are like you in their opinion that a single payer system is doomed to failure. However, as you should rightly recognize, a great deal of Americans are concerned about the lack of a public option to protect the public from the pitfalls of a purely capitalized health insurance industry that by its very nature cannot and will not service those that most need health care. I'm sorry if you don't like the prospect of this health care reform, I really am, but don't spit in the face of democracy over it because you didn't get your way.
You have to be pretty nerdy to consider installing windows on 15-20 of your closest friends laptops a "party."
FTFA:
But unlike the Tupperware model, there will be no literal selling. These parties are more about generating word-of-mouth buzz. And based on early reviews, at least, it appears that this version of Microsoft's flagship product will be somewhat more compelling than a plastic storage container.
It's much more than nerdy - it's lame, sad, pointless, and delusional. Not software is actually installed. No one actually gets to use the product. The "host" will have 15-20 friends crowd around his laptop with chips and funions and oooh and aaah while he.. does what exactly? Shows the latest screensaver? Types a word document? Plays a game or two of Minesweeper?
At least with the linux install parties you are obviously mocking, the attendees will walk away with something they wanted - a copy of Linux on their system, the knowhow to use it, and connections for community support. What would anyone walk away with from a Microsoft party? Apparently, just the warm fuzzy feeling that their host gets to keep that fancy copy of Windows 7 Ultimate Edition and maybe win a computer that can run the beast too. Oh yeah, and the host gets a 'PhotoPalooza', 'Media Mania', 'Setting up with Ease', or 'Family Friendly Fun' party pack! Boy-oh! Sounds about as exciting as attending a Happy Meal party where a dozen people watch their host devour a handful of chicken mcnuggets and play with his 'Night at the Museum 2' toddler toy. Thanks, I'll pass on that invite.
My initial thought on that is - why work harder. If all that is going to happen is that we're going to be made equal why work hard? I will do the bare minimum or less if it doesn't negatively impact me if all I can hope to achieve is to be equal.
Now many folks have a much better work ethic and probably would still work hard but it may be likely that many folks would not and do as little as possible.
But the same question in turn can be asked about capitalism. Why do you think someone in a capitalist economy is encouraged to work harder than anyone else? Work does not produce more rewards in capitalism, the leverage of capital does. Lending money at interest, for example, produces rewards for the lender with no relation to how hard he/she/they work/s. I think it's a common misconception that socialism entails that every worker is equal - they're not. In socialism, the means of producing and disseminating goods are publicly owned - factories, farms, stores, etc. The wages workers earn are determined by some merit, be it responsibility or technical competance or whatever - much the same as in a privately owned corporation might do in capitalism, though instead of the profits of the company going to shareholders, executives, and company jets, they go right back into the coffers of the state. Of course an obvious downside to this is that a free market doesn't control prices and the government is responsible for stabilizing every aspect of the economy. But the idea that workers in a socialist economy won't work hard because there are no rewards for harder/better/faster work is a glaring misconception.
It is DESIGNED to punish the poor or those that lose their job. It's being set up to "encourage" you to take all the crap they dish out at work so you dont lose that job and get blackballed.
But if you take that away, people will have less incentive to become rich! Because what with higher tax rates and euthanasia and the lack of freedom to own other people, it's just not worth it to be wealthy.
You forgot "everything going socialist" somewhere in that rhetoric.
When I buy a DVD, I want to be able to create a backup that I use and store the DVD in safe keeping. If they don't want me to do this, distribute your films on a more robust media.
If the film industry doesn't want to deal with viewers' pesky "fair use" rights, then really they should not distribute their films on any media and then they could have the fine grained control they want. After a few months of being in the red they will come back to their senses and realize that maybe their customers are important to their well-being after all.
Wow. Well stated. I think this may be an Intelligent Slashdot Post of the Year 2009 candidate.
Couldn't agree more. Many other countries are just now entering into this same folly whereby they push college heavily and are facing a glut of unemployed "educated" young people. Everyone is not cut out for technical work, even if they have a degree and middling grades. The world needs unskilled and skilled labor, it is not a dirty reprehensible thing to actually work for a paycheck. A trade would probably fit this girl in question better than a no-name IT degree. She isn't an excellent student, she probably isn't heavily vested and interested in IT, she probably has some skillset that would lend itself to a trade quite well.
We have to stop acting like college is some holy grail. It has been dumbed down to the point that anyone with the money and time (or ability to get a loan) will graduate and with increasingly meaningless areas of study and lack of actual skill.
You're very correct. I'm in the same age group of this person, and I can tell you my generation and probably those that follow us have overall been given the expectation of a college education and through that the expectation of a sexy job with 6 digit salary and benefits. So they find out IT business administration or marketing are high paying fields with no need for actual technical expertise and they flood in. I remember being stupefied at my own graduation that administration and marketing outweighed every other field of study accounting for about about 80% of the graduates. There are so many people flocking to the promise of plenty from administration and marketing, we'll soon have more administrators and marketers than there are people to do the actual work to be administered and marketed, if not already!
The harsh reality that college is a sham at this stage in our country will eventually sink in, you're smart.
I wouldn't go so far as to call it a sham. I think each generation shams itself into thinking more and more that they are entitled to good grades and that a degree entitles them to a job, as is certainly the case with the woman in the article. An education at a university says several things to an employer - first, you have a rounded education and you've been able to meet at least some standards and deadlines in your academic career; second, you have at least some basic understanding of the field in which you studied; third, you've demonstrated that you can put out and do unglamorous work to acheive a goal; and fourth, you might possibly be teachable, since you've apparently demonstrated a willingness to learn in school by choice, beyond mandated state K-12 education.
What screws a lot of people up, in my opinion, is how they present themselves on their resume and in their interviews. It takes more than listing your references, past jobs, and education. Your goal in your resume should be to present to each recipient the case that you are the best fit for the position they are trying to fill, you can't farm out a drab, inpersonal list of data and expect to stand out. You have to address the requirements of the job in your resume so the recipient at least knows you can meet some of their desired criteria. You have to elaborate on your job experience, summarizing your responsibilities and pointing out relevant acheivements. You have to include a well written cover letter that introduces you and describes your interest in the position. Between you and Candidate Y, the person that gets the job is the one that describes most aptly that they will fill the role with enthusiasm beyond that of filling a chair. It's painfully obvious to employers who is interested in the job and who is interested in the money the job pays. No one wants an empty shell that pulls a paycheck, they want to hire someone who has a genuine interest in their field that will provide results and improve over time that is worth the investment of that paycheck. A person that goes to school majoring in Business Administration in IT, makes unremarkable grades, sees attendence as some sort of exemplary behavior, and expects an employer to seek out her resume on an e-recruiting site is not enthusiastic about anything, and simply expects to be handed life on a platter, which is why this lady is suing her school and reveals the real reason she is unemployable. She does not want the opportunity of work, she just wants to be paid for going to work.
Radio Shack has had a disturbing trend of forgetting who its customers are in an attempt to gain more footing in the consumer electronics market. They've been scaling back their hobby electronics supplies and scaling up on over priced cell phones, TVs, and home audio equipment. It's becoming a second rate walmart electronics department, only without the movies or music or video games, and therefore becoming less and less relevant.
Ah, the struggling musician chestnut. Do you know what? Musicians should struggle, because teachers, nurses, scientists, construction workers, and every other fucker in the economy has to struggle. Musicians, for a brief period of modern history, were able to make income beyond that they were given for their performances. That era is coming to an end, and there is no a priori reason why it should not.
<voice type="neocon bloatbag">
What kind of socialist, troop-hating, liberal terrorist lover do you have to be to suggest that wealth should be distributed by merit in this most glorious capitalist nation! I'll not see our american family values attacked in such an unholy fashion!
Considering most people who have a gun for protection can barely use it on the range, you must be retarded to think they will hit anything when their blood is pumping.
I assume you have some concrete numbers that accurately detail this phenomenon of gun owners being inherently unable to operate their firearms, and you're not simply spouting a flagrantly ignorant assumption that you believe to be true but have never considered how utterly retarded it sounds when spoken aloud.
Its beyond me why people spend all that money on a gun when simply using it for home security would be better. God knows I havent heard of anyone who died from having a reenforced door or windows.
Yeah, because we all know that a reenforced door and windows keep those intruders out without exception right? And they even protect you when you are in your car, at the grocery store, at the ATM, or walking in a parking lot too! And if God knows you've never heard of anyone dying from home security improvements, he also knows you're a vacuous moron. People die every year from house fires that normally could have evacuated if their awesome security bars, reinforced doors, and reinforced windows hadn't stood between them and the safety of the outside of the house. But I guess at least they didn't get shot or robbed, right?
Even just the registered full auto sear for an AR-15 (which is literally a small part that any machinist could churn out of a block of metal for $50) will run you $8000 and up just because finding a part to LEGALLY convert your brand new AR15 rifle into a machine gun is worth that much to people.
And isn't that just a kick in the nuts? A gun toting thug that intends to kill rival gang members or commit armed robbery doesn't give a rats ass if he gets an extra charge for having an illegal class III weapon, and has no problem with putting an illegally fabricated auto sear into a gun or making any other illegal modification to a firearm, all he needs is access to a machine shop and a meth head that works there to make it in exchange for some dope. Hell, an electric motor and a paddle gear or a simple astable timer and a solenoid attached to a trigger can turn a weapon automatic, and that's even cheaper and easier than modifying the internals of the gun or fabricating parts for it. Automatic weapons are formidable weapons, but they're outright dangerous when the majority of people with access to them are also the most dangerous to society, while the prey of that majority is forbidden access to them.
No, this is subject to license negotiations. Ford probably went to Cummins and said "we need the best damn super-duty diesel engine in the world and you're it". Cummins retorts, "sure you can, and we'll give 'em to you for simple mention on every piece of advertisement you guys distribute." Ford could have said, "no thanks" and bought their engines from someone else.
There's no law that says you have to give commercial attribution.
Yes but the car analogy concerns the GPL. In the real world, yes, this is subject to licensing conditions, but software:car analogies always fall short. So let's rephrase. If I wanted to build a GNascar with GNU Craftsman GSockets, unless I intended to distribute the Gsockets with my Gnascar I would not need to credit GNU Craftsman. If I did intend to distribute the GSockets in my Gnascar, then I would be required to not grind off the GNU Nascar logo from the sockets and replace it with my own logo, include a copy of the GNU Nascar GSocket license in the glove box, and publish my GNascar design to a crappy website that I'll keep updated for about 2 months and then leave it for 8 years, has at least 5 broken links, and has a placeholder for a link to documentation I'll never really get around to making.
So if I build the next great NASCAR engine, I should credit Craftsman(TM) for making the sockets I used to assemble it?
If you intend on distributing Craftsman(TM) sockets with it in a production run, then yes. Ford had to credit Cummins Inc. when distributing their engines in Super Duty trucks, for example.
What are you really hoping to preserve? I just don't get it. I want *humans* in the present and future to survive and thrive and have a high standard of living, but I give not a shit for *humanity* doing the same.
Then what's the point of life, honestly, if it is not to survive? Some of us consider not just humanity but all life on this planet a precious expression of the universe and would prefer it not squandered on a single planet doomed to eventual death.
On the internet, very few people even type URLs anymore, they google everything. All that domain registration does is place a few letters in the address bar of people's browsers. We could probably go back to publishing dotted IP addresses and the common imbecile would not notice nor care, as long as google can find it.
The obvious non sequitur here is that in order to have your URL in a google search result, is has to have a high page ranking. To have a high page ranking, it has to have a lot of references made to it, which implies that it must be locatable without google and referenced elsewhere before it can be located with google. I would assume this to be much more likely in the case that your host was www.bobscomputerhardware.com versus 10.20.141.72. Also consider that www.bobscomputerhardware.com has some identifiability. Can you imagine how much more rampant online information scams would be if the only thing discerning a legitimate site to a scam knock-off was an IP address? It's pretty easy to see a link to www.somelegitimatebank.com.someotherdomain.ch and realize it's not really the somelegitimatebank.com domain, and people still fall for those links. You can't tell from an IP address alone that a URL is in the domain it is claimed to be.
Its great that you can get a linux update every day just about, thats neat and cool when you're sitting in dad's basement bored and lonely on a Friday night. You have fun updating your box. I on the other hand will do something else because I'm not constantly tracking changes and praying to god that those changes don't break something in the process.
When you say "doing something else", you do of course mean "being acquired by a botnet through a security hole that hasn't been patched because you don't like to do pesky updates", correct?
Slashdot Mirror
Now, I pose the question. If our impact did not cause it, are we responsible to fix it? Even if our impact did cause it, what portion of what they are experiencing can be attributed to what we did? And what about the impact of the rest of the world (including those very same third world countries that are going to suffer the effects first, as you put it)? I'm not against sending aid to other countries that need it, but to declare the USA as "responsible", and potentially bankrupt a single country for a global problem, is ignorant at best...
It doesn't matter if the earth's climate is changing because of man or not. If no nations want to act to keep the earth habitable, the money they keep in their economies will mean jack shit when we're extinct. Choosing money over survival is what I call ignorant at best.
You claimed that I was somehow "spitting on democracy", by opposing a "public option". No law has been passed at this time, this seems to suggest that a majority of Americans have reservations about the bills that have been brought forward in Congress (the Administration and Congressional leadership originally set a deadline for passing healthcare reform before the August recess).
Oh how you misquote me, without actually even quoting me.
I'm sorry if you don't like the prospect of this health care reform, I really am, but don't spit in the face of democracy over it because you didn't get your way.
Note that I did not equate the opposition of a public option with anything. You spit in the face of democracy by suggesting that the policy goals of this administration are weakly supported even though they clearly have public support - they won the fucking election - or that this one health care reform bill is somehow going to circumvent all other democratic processes and take us down a slippery slope to your nightmare scenario of a single payer system. It's hysterical FUD and I won't abide it.
I see your comment about "if the bill passes", are you suggesting that people should just shut up and accept whatever bills are passed by "our representatives" without letting said representatives (and our fellow citizens) know what we think of the bills under consideration?
*sigh* Again, let me quote myself since you seem unable to do so.
If, as you say, 30% of the public wants a public option, then there should only be 30% of congressmen and representatives that support it and the rest should eat them alive and eject it from the bill. So far, that hasn't happened. That's how our system works. Again, I'm sorry you don't like it. Write your congressman or representative.
And again, if you don't like it, I can only offer my condolences and urge you to write to your congressman or representative. ... If the bill passes with a public option, it's because our representatives acting on our behalf passed it as such.
And one more to grow on:
I don't know why you bother responding if you're not going to read first.
I think it is disingenuous to suggest that the majority of the Congresspersons were elected for the express purpose of passing this bill.
Maybe if you stick enough words in my mouth you'll be able to convince yourself you are right. I never made any such claim. My claim is that the american people elected representatives whose agendas and views they supported, who they trusted would listen to their voices. If the majority wants no public option, then that should be reflected in the actions of their representatives. If the majority does not want a public option and it is created anyway, then we elected shitty representatives and we only have ourselves to blame. In that case, the next time elections come around, we'll elect representatives that will promise to right the horrible wrongs of yesteryear and they'll go riding on the white horse of Truth, Justice, and the American Way to remove the public option from law. Like I said, that's how our democracy works. And again, if you don't like it, I can only offer my condolences and urge you to write to your congressman or representative. You can argue till you are blue in the face that there is some enchanted mystical evidence delivered upon the chosen few to disseminate onto the world that the american people do not want a public option, but in the end that doesn't make a damn bit of difference. Reality doesn't care what evidence you have (and for some reason do not divulge). If the bill passes with a public option, it's because our representatives acting on our behalf passed it as such. It is not because an evil liberal socialist president and his evil liberal socialist cronies decided to pick on the poor god fearing capitalist patriot conservatives and take all their fancy health care away.
If the American people decide they want a single payer system, so be it. I believe that it would be a terrible mistake. The American people currently don't want a single payer system. Additionally, they have recognized that the current "public option" is an attempt to get a single payer system in by the back door and appear to have decided that they don't want that either. As far as I can tell, all of the support for the "public option" comes from people who want a single payer system but have recognized that the American people will not accept one at this time. The evidence I have seen suggests that somewhere around 50% of the population doesn't want the "public option", while only somewhere around 30% do want it. So who is the one "spitting in the face of democracy"?
Who the fuck do you think is writing and modifying the damn bill? The same officials we elected to act on our behalf. If, as you say, 30% of the public wants a public option, then there should only be 30% of congressmen and representatives that support it and the rest should eat them alive and eject it from the bill. So far, that hasn't happened. That's how our system works. Again, I'm sorry you don't like it. Write your congressman or representative.
Could an American please explain to me why the majority of USA seems to oppose public healthcare?
According to economist Paul Krugman in The Conscience of a Liberal, the most likely answer to this question is "because it will help black people". He argues that this was the biggest reason Harry Truman, Richard Nixon, and Lyndon Johnson couldn't get health care plans through. And part of the reason why Bill Clinton couldn't, and probably bigger part of the reason Barack Obama's having a tough time.
Plus (like some of my sibling posters) a lot of folks put a Somebody Else's Problem field around 40-50 million people who lack health insurance, and the even larger number of folks who's health insurance companies cancel their coverage as soon as it comes time to pay major claims.
In my experience, the same people that are barking mad about public health care are also the religious zealots that want prayer in schools, the ten commandments in public buildings, and intelligent design in science class. Yet for all their "christian values", helping their fellow man in need is just too much to ask. Hands off my cash, Jack, your failing heart isn't my problem. Jesus loves me and gave me a PPO.
sans any existing dwindling market forces
the legislation currently on the tables doesn't rule out free-market alternatives. It gives 1 more choice to you.
Are you aware that Obama and several others have said in the past (before he was elected), that the "public option" is intended to be the first step to getting the U.S. to a single (government) payer health care system? So, as far as I can tell, the people promoting the "public option" all wish to migrate the U.S. to a single payer system, but do not believe that that is politically possible, but I am supposed to take their word for it that it will be designed merely to compete with existing health insurance. The public option combined with the regulations that will be put on private health insurance will ensure that private health insurance will be unable to compete with the government option and so private insurance will then gradually wither away.
Last I checked the bill does not call for the obliteration of publicly elected representatives. If the american public does not want a single payer system, it will elect representatives in goverment that will not create a public payer system. If the american public does want a single payer system, it will elect representatives that will create a single payer system. The choice of which system we have and which is the "good" one and which is the "bad" one is not yours or any other single person's to make. If we decide we want socialized health care, and it is enacted through the democratic system we have established in this country, then you and your friends that have been bitching about it will just have to accept that that is the way the rest of the nation wants things. Just like how right now I accept the fact that my dream of a socialized health care system in america probably will never happen because most americans are like you in their opinion that a single payer system is doomed to failure. However, as you should rightly recognize, a great deal of Americans are concerned about the lack of a public option to protect the public from the pitfalls of a purely capitalized health insurance industry that by its very nature cannot and will not service those that most need health care. I'm sorry if you don't like the prospect of this health care reform, I really am, but don't spit in the face of democracy over it because you didn't get your way.
You have to be pretty nerdy to consider installing windows on 15-20 of your closest friends laptops a "party."
FTFA:
But unlike the Tupperware model, there will be no literal selling. These parties are more about generating word-of-mouth buzz. And based on early reviews, at least, it appears that this version of Microsoft's flagship product will be somewhat more compelling than a plastic storage container.
It's much more than nerdy - it's lame, sad, pointless, and delusional. Not software is actually installed. No one actually gets to use the product. The "host" will have 15-20 friends crowd around his laptop with chips and funions and oooh and aaah while he .. does what exactly? Shows the latest screensaver? Types a word document? Plays a game or two of Minesweeper?
At least with the linux install parties you are obviously mocking, the attendees will walk away with something they wanted - a copy of Linux on their system, the knowhow to use it, and connections for community support. What would anyone walk away with from a Microsoft party? Apparently, just the warm fuzzy feeling that their host gets to keep that fancy copy of Windows 7 Ultimate Edition and maybe win a computer that can run the beast too. Oh yeah, and the host gets a 'PhotoPalooza', 'Media Mania', 'Setting up with Ease', or 'Family Friendly Fun' party pack! Boy-oh! Sounds about as exciting as attending a Happy Meal party where a dozen people watch their host devour a handful of chicken mcnuggets and play with his 'Night at the Museum 2' toddler toy. Thanks, I'll pass on that invite.
I think the entitled class had mod points. Seriously, troll? This is a valid observation. I'd rectify this if I had mod points today.
My initial thought on that is - why work harder. If all that is going to happen is that we're going to be made equal why work hard? I will do the bare minimum or less if it doesn't negatively impact me if all I can hope to achieve is to be equal. Now many folks have a much better work ethic and probably would still work hard but it may be likely that many folks would not and do as little as possible.
But the same question in turn can be asked about capitalism. Why do you think someone in a capitalist economy is encouraged to work harder than anyone else? Work does not produce more rewards in capitalism, the leverage of capital does. Lending money at interest, for example, produces rewards for the lender with no relation to how hard he/she/they work/s. I think it's a common misconception that socialism entails that every worker is equal - they're not. In socialism, the means of producing and disseminating goods are publicly owned - factories, farms, stores, etc. The wages workers earn are determined by some merit, be it responsibility or technical competance or whatever - much the same as in a privately owned corporation might do in capitalism, though instead of the profits of the company going to shareholders, executives, and company jets, they go right back into the coffers of the state. Of course an obvious downside to this is that a free market doesn't control prices and the government is responsible for stabilizing every aspect of the economy. But the idea that workers in a socialist economy won't work hard because there are no rewards for harder/better/faster work is a glaring misconception.
It is DESIGNED to punish the poor or those that lose their job. It's being set up to "encourage" you to take all the crap they dish out at work so you dont lose that job and get blackballed.
But if you take that away, people will have less incentive to become rich! Because what with higher tax rates and euthanasia and the lack of freedom to own other people, it's just not worth it to be wealthy.
You forgot "everything going socialist" somewhere in that rhetoric.
When I buy a DVD, I want to be able to create a backup that I use and store the DVD in safe keeping. If they don't want me to do this, distribute your films on a more robust media.
If the film industry doesn't want to deal with viewers' pesky "fair use" rights, then really they should not distribute their films on any media and then they could have the fine grained control they want. After a few months of being in the red they will come back to their senses and realize that maybe their customers are important to their well-being after all.
Wow. Well stated. I think this may be an Intelligent Slashdot Post of the Year 2009 candidate.
Couldn't agree more. Many other countries are just now entering into this same folly whereby they push college heavily and are facing a glut of unemployed "educated" young people. Everyone is not cut out for technical work, even if they have a degree and middling grades. The world needs unskilled and skilled labor, it is not a dirty reprehensible thing to actually work for a paycheck. A trade would probably fit this girl in question better than a no-name IT degree. She isn't an excellent student, she probably isn't heavily vested and interested in IT, she probably has some skillset that would lend itself to a trade quite well.
We have to stop acting like college is some holy grail. It has been dumbed down to the point that anyone with the money and time (or ability to get a loan) will graduate and with increasingly meaningless areas of study and lack of actual skill.
You're very correct. I'm in the same age group of this person, and I can tell you my generation and probably those that follow us have overall been given the expectation of a college education and through that the expectation of a sexy job with 6 digit salary and benefits. So they find out IT business administration or marketing are high paying fields with no need for actual technical expertise and they flood in. I remember being stupefied at my own graduation that administration and marketing outweighed every other field of study accounting for about about 80% of the graduates. There are so many people flocking to the promise of plenty from administration and marketing, we'll soon have more administrators and marketers than there are people to do the actual work to be administered and marketed, if not already!
The harsh reality that college is a sham at this stage in our country will eventually sink in, you're smart.
I wouldn't go so far as to call it a sham. I think each generation shams itself into thinking more and more that they are entitled to good grades and that a degree entitles them to a job, as is certainly the case with the woman in the article. An education at a university says several things to an employer - first, you have a rounded education and you've been able to meet at least some standards and deadlines in your academic career; second, you have at least some basic understanding of the field in which you studied; third, you've demonstrated that you can put out and do unglamorous work to acheive a goal; and fourth, you might possibly be teachable, since you've apparently demonstrated a willingness to learn in school by choice, beyond mandated state K-12 education.
What screws a lot of people up, in my opinion, is how they present themselves on their resume and in their interviews. It takes more than listing your references, past jobs, and education. Your goal in your resume should be to present to each recipient the case that you are the best fit for the position they are trying to fill, you can't farm out a drab, inpersonal list of data and expect to stand out. You have to address the requirements of the job in your resume so the recipient at least knows you can meet some of their desired criteria. You have to elaborate on your job experience, summarizing your responsibilities and pointing out relevant acheivements. You have to include a well written cover letter that introduces you and describes your interest in the position. Between you and Candidate Y, the person that gets the job is the one that describes most aptly that they will fill the role with enthusiasm beyond that of filling a chair. It's painfully obvious to employers who is interested in the job and who is interested in the money the job pays. No one wants an empty shell that pulls a paycheck, they want to hire someone who has a genuine interest in their field that will provide results and improve over time that is worth the investment of that paycheck. A person that goes to school majoring in Business Administration in IT, makes unremarkable grades, sees attendence as some sort of exemplary behavior, and expects an employer to seek out her resume on an e-recruiting site is not enthusiastic about anything, and simply expects to be handed life on a platter, which is why this lady is suing her school and reveals the real reason she is unemployable. She does not want the opportunity of work, she just wants to be paid for going to work.
Radio Shack has had a disturbing trend of forgetting who its customers are in an attempt to gain more footing in the consumer electronics market. They've been scaling back their hobby electronics supplies and scaling up on over priced cell phones, TVs, and home audio equipment. It's becoming a second rate walmart electronics department, only without the movies or music or video games, and therefore becoming less and less relevant.
Ah, the struggling musician chestnut. Do you know what? Musicians should struggle, because teachers, nurses, scientists, construction workers, and every other fucker in the economy has to struggle. Musicians, for a brief period of modern history, were able to make income beyond that they were given for their performances. That era is coming to an end, and there is no a priori reason why it should not.
<voice type="neocon bloatbag">
What kind of socialist, troop-hating, liberal terrorist lover do you have to be to suggest that wealth should be distributed by merit in this most glorious capitalist nation! I'll not see our american family values attacked in such an unholy fashion!
</voice>
Considering most people who have a gun for protection can barely use it on the range, you must be retarded to think they will hit anything when their blood is pumping.
I assume you have some concrete numbers that accurately detail this phenomenon of gun owners being inherently unable to operate their firearms, and you're not simply spouting a flagrantly ignorant assumption that you believe to be true but have never considered how utterly retarded it sounds when spoken aloud.
Its beyond me why people spend all that money on a gun when simply using it for home security would be better. God knows I havent heard of anyone who died from having a reenforced door or windows.
Yeah, because we all know that a reenforced door and windows keep those intruders out without exception right? And they even protect you when you are in your car, at the grocery store, at the ATM, or walking in a parking lot too! And if God knows you've never heard of anyone dying from home security improvements, he also knows you're a vacuous moron. People die every year from house fires that normally could have evacuated if their awesome security bars, reinforced doors, and reinforced windows hadn't stood between them and the safety of the outside of the house. But I guess at least they didn't get shot or robbed, right?
Even just the registered full auto sear for an AR-15 (which is literally a small part that any machinist could churn out of a block of metal for $50) will run you $8000 and up just because finding a part to LEGALLY convert your brand new AR15 rifle into a machine gun is worth that much to people.
And isn't that just a kick in the nuts? A gun toting thug that intends to kill rival gang members or commit armed robbery doesn't give a rats ass if he gets an extra charge for having an illegal class III weapon, and has no problem with putting an illegally fabricated auto sear into a gun or making any other illegal modification to a firearm, all he needs is access to a machine shop and a meth head that works there to make it in exchange for some dope. Hell, an electric motor and a paddle gear or a simple astable timer and a solenoid attached to a trigger can turn a weapon automatic, and that's even cheaper and easier than modifying the internals of the gun or fabricating parts for it. Automatic weapons are formidable weapons, but they're outright dangerous when the majority of people with access to them are also the most dangerous to society, while the prey of that majority is forbidden access to them.
That should read "I would be required to not grind off the GNU Craftsman logo"
No, this is subject to license negotiations. Ford probably went to Cummins and said "we need the best damn super-duty diesel engine in the world and you're it". Cummins retorts, "sure you can, and we'll give 'em to you for simple mention on every piece of advertisement you guys distribute." Ford could have said, "no thanks" and bought their engines from someone else. There's no law that says you have to give commercial attribution.
Yes but the car analogy concerns the GPL. In the real world, yes, this is subject to licensing conditions, but software:car analogies always fall short. So let's rephrase. If I wanted to build a GNascar with GNU Craftsman GSockets, unless I intended to distribute the Gsockets with my Gnascar I would not need to credit GNU Craftsman. If I did intend to distribute the GSockets in my Gnascar, then I would be required to not grind off the GNU Nascar logo from the sockets and replace it with my own logo, include a copy of the GNU Nascar GSocket license in the glove box, and publish my GNascar design to a crappy website that I'll keep updated for about 2 months and then leave it for 8 years, has at least 5 broken links, and has a placeholder for a link to documentation I'll never really get around to making.
So if I build the next great NASCAR engine, I should credit Craftsman(TM) for making the sockets I used to assemble it?
If you intend on distributing Craftsman(TM) sockets with it in a production run, then yes. Ford had to credit Cummins Inc. when distributing their engines in Super Duty trucks, for example.
Hopefully the orbiter will discover the lair of the Nazis on the moon and we can launch a preemptive nuclear strike before they come back in 2018.
What are you really hoping to preserve? I just don't get it. I want *humans* in the present and future to survive and thrive and have a high standard of living, but I give not a shit for *humanity* doing the same.
Then what's the point of life, honestly, if it is not to survive? Some of us consider not just humanity but all life on this planet a precious expression of the universe and would prefer it not squandered on a single planet doomed to eventual death.
On the internet, very few people even type URLs anymore, they google everything. All that domain registration does is place a few letters in the address bar of people's browsers. We could probably go back to publishing dotted IP addresses and the common imbecile would not notice nor care, as long as google can find it.
The obvious non sequitur here is that in order to have your URL in a google search result, is has to have a high page ranking. To have a high page ranking, it has to have a lot of references made to it, which implies that it must be locatable without google and referenced elsewhere before it can be located with google. I would assume this to be much more likely in the case that your host was www.bobscomputerhardware.com versus 10.20.141.72. Also consider that www.bobscomputerhardware.com has some identifiability. Can you imagine how much more rampant online information scams would be if the only thing discerning a legitimate site to a scam knock-off was an IP address? It's pretty easy to see a link to www.somelegitimatebank.com.someotherdomain.ch and realize it's not really the somelegitimatebank.com domain, and people still fall for those links. You can't tell from an IP address alone that a URL is in the domain it is claimed to be.
Its great that you can get a linux update every day just about, thats neat and cool when you're sitting in dad's basement bored and lonely on a Friday night. You have fun updating your box. I on the other hand will do something else because I'm not constantly tracking changes and praying to god that those changes don't break something in the process.
When you say "doing something else", you do of course mean "being acquired by a botnet through a security hole that hasn't been patched because you don't like to do pesky updates", correct?
People fuck up VB and C# apps just as much as the fuck up C and C++ apps. So they don't do it with a buffer overflow, they do it by shear stupidity.
I am picturing a bunch of VB programmers running down the hall with scissors... and the way it ends makes me smile...