True, but your hometown's bicycle race probably didn't have secret service agents planted all over the place, armed and ready to shoot at anyone crossing their lines.
Furthermore, isn't it interesting how selective we are about who we protect? Anyplace the current president goes, there's all of this security following him around, yet other qualified applicants wanting to take over his job go not only unprotected, but can even be arrested for trying to drum up support! I understand the need for security for the leader of a nation - but at the same time, I wonder if the course of history could be changed just as drastically by a successful assassination of "hopefuls"?
Actually, I think eWeek has been surprisingly generous in their Linux coverage and support over the years. I remember 3+ years ago when I was trying to get a few experimental things switched over to Linux from Windows in the workplace, eWeek was one of the few publications I could almost count on to at least say something positive about Linux in a given issue.
Granted, they've never been an especially "technical and in-depth" source of news. Rather, they seem to target more of the middle management and CIO types, trying to give them a "cliff notes" version of what's going on in computer technology. But to claim that eWeek thinks "open source = bad" is way off the mark, IMHO. It sounds more to me like someone was just trying to be creative with story headlines to get the maximum amount of attention.
I can't really speak for the folks who think driving a huge car is a "status symbol"... I suppose they've got the right to drive anything they like, really - but the era of "big cars make you look cool" pretty much ended in America in the 1970's, last I checked.
The reason *I* recently purchased an SUV (mid-size, mind you - not some HUGE model) was a need for room to transport things. I used to drive a Ford Ranger truck, but along with being far from a joy to drive (only a 4 cylinder, yet managed to still get pretty poor gas mileage) - you couldn't really put breakable items in the bed without LOTS of preparation. It was great when I wanted to haul a bunch of yard waste away, but not for daily computer on-site service calls.
I'd love to get 60mpg, but it's not really an option for me in one of these little 2-seater "Zap" branded vehicles. I've got a 2 year old daughter who needs a car seat, and I'd never be able to give anyone else a ride while I've got her, plus not nearly enough trunk space to store things like a spare 17" SVGA monitor and several milk crates full of spare PC parts.
I'm more interested in some of the projects I've seen to create hydrogen powered minivans and SUVs, really.
The debate may not be a "government operated" affair, but it's not the same thing as you or I holding a private party and choosing not to invite a few people. Government has been in full force, controlling/directing the way the debate will be carried out.
As just one example, I was trying to make a service call out in Chesterfield yesterday morning, and the entrance ramp from Interstate 270 onto Interstate 40 was blocked off by police. It caused me to be about 30 minutes late. Later in the evening, the radio was warning people not to even bother trying to drive anyplace that went near Washington University, since most of the roads in that area would be blocked off for the duration of the debate. (Show me any private party or business affair you know of where this level of government intervention is present?)
Considering the overall political climate though, Badnarik might have accomplished more by setting up a heavily publicized speech/dinner or something, scheduled for around the same time and vicinity as the debates. Might have worked out pretty well, giving the press a free meal and opportunity to listen to him voice his opinions - and timing it so it ended just in time for them to head over to the other debate to cover it too.
Well, for one thing, nobody is saying ISP's can't technically (and easily) read plain text emails stored on their systems.
The purpose of such a law would be to allow penalties/punishment in situations where it can be proven that an employee of an ISP read someone else's mai and used the information in some sort of harmful manner.
We've already got plenty of laws in place that work the same way. For example, there are laws against eavesdropping on cellular phone conversations, yet hundreds of thousands of police scanners are out there which let the user listen to these calls anyway. I don't think the intention of the law was to hunt down people listening to cellphones on their scanners, and arrest them. Rather, it gives the legal system a tool to use against someone who broke another law and used his/her eavesdropping abilities as part of the crime.
(I could see this coming into play in a blackmail case, among other possibilities.)
The argument that letting ISPs read mail helps fight spam is probably valid - except we don't allow mailmen to open up letters to help fight junk mail. (I don't know about you, but I've gotten quite a bit of sneaky postal junk mail guised as important letters....)
Ultimnately, I think this is honestly going to be one of those legal issues where the individual's ability to retain privacy while exchanging email won't really change either way. If ISP's are legally allowed to read your mail, then sure - you need to encrypt it somehow if you're afraid they might see something you don't want them to see. If they're not allowed to read your mail, then the same rule applies. (Most of us would rather prevent a problem from coming up in the first place than having to fight in court to correct it after the fact.)
I see similar behavior all the time with people playing the MMORPG's (Everquest, Shadowbane, etc.). I think this genre of games is a completely different "ball of wax" from the rest of the computer/console games out there.
For starters, they charge monthly access fees to play, so you can bet they're going to do everything possible to cater to addictive personalities and keep people hooked on playing. With traditional games, they get your money up-front, so they could care less whether you keep playing over and over, months down the road. (In fact, they'd probably prefer you get "burnt out" on it after a little while, so they can sell you the next iteration of the same title next year!)
The mere fact that you've paid your subscription fee motivates you to keep playing, even when it's not really "fun" to do so. You're trying to trudge through the boring stuff in order to "level" your character, so he/she can do the "fun stuff" before your subscription is up for yet another renewal.
Actually, I was under the impression that brake fade (assuming modern vehicles) has more to do with expansion of hoses and the like under heat stress than "gaseous buildup" between the brake pads and disc.
Modern brake pads don't outgas, as far as I'm aware. This is also why you'll see many autocross racers insisting that such things as cross-drlled rotors only serve to increase the likelihood of the rotor cracking - and don't give any real stopping advantage. (In the Toyota Supra forum I used to be a member of, the factory OEM brake rotors were the most often recommended ones for auto-x use. All the slotted and cross-drilled Brembo rotors and such were bought only for "show".)
The holes or slots were supposed to provide an escape route for the hot gasses coming off the pads, but the pad manfacturers say that's no longer necessary with the modern materials used in the production of the pads.
You're making a few huge assumptions with that logic.... For starters, you assume that humans are, by and large, relatively dumb pawns, there for manipulation by "capitalists" seeking cheap labor.
In the case of slavery, slave owners could artificially put "caps" on their slaves' ability to learn new things. It certainly wasn't the norm to send them off to colleges or universities to come back with degrees, or to give them private tutoring....
Once you're dealing with a free populace, individuals have the ability to learn new skills freely and thereby make themselves more valuable workers. In fact, they can go into business for themselves if nobody else will hire them - and might just become your biggest competitor in a given marketplace!
Even for those lacking the motivation/desire to learn more, the government has a number of checks and balances in place (minimum wage laws, overtime laws, etc.). So effectively, society has come to a decision on the smallest "fair" price a business can pay a person to work for them. Walmart works within these guidelines - so any complaint that they "don't pay enough" is really a complaint that government sets their standards for minimum wage too low.
As for your assertions that the post WWII generation doomed us to "toil and misery" by having too many kids - I counter that there is PLENTY of work to be done on this planet, and indeed, even in the United States alone. The key is making sure the environment is good for new businesses to thrive and grow - so they can generate more employment for people. A "business is evil" attitude can only bring more unemployment when you follow it to its logical conclusion....
In all honesty, I can see Jobs' point about PDAs. I've owned at least 4 of them over the years, and kept trying to really like them.... but in the end, each of them became little more than expensive toys. When the Palm first came out, people raved about how it was going to change the face of computing, and speculated that practically everyone would carry one around.
Well, that certainly didn't happen. Heck, the entire time I owned a Palm device, I think I only had one opportunity to "beam" someone's contact info from their organizer into mine as the "21st. century version of exchanging business cards". 99% of the time, when someone wanted to give me their info, they didn't have a PDA handy. So I'd just get a paper card or info scribbled on a piece of paper.
Half the time I owned my Palm IIIx, I'd go to use it only to find the batteries were about dead, because my wife got in the habit of playing card games on it at night before bed (with the backlight on the whole time, of course).
There still seem to be more than enough Newtons to go around, judging from eBay. (I've even seen a few "new in the box" ones auctioned there as recently as a month or two ago!) So if Jobs wants to blow off that whole market and leave it to others, I don't see why that's really such a big deal.
The only PDA I currently use is my Kyocera 7135 Smartphone - and honestly, the phone number info in its contact list is about the only crucial data I have in it. The rest is just stuff I use just because I can, like AvantGo -- but it's not a "critical application" by any means.
Ok, I have no argument with your statement.... but I don't think it really changes my original one either.
What I mean is, yes, the body may absorb sugars more quickly and attempt to store more of it due to the insulin release, but this is all a "technicality", ultimately. If a person ingests no more calories than they burn up, they're not going to have this spare energy for the body to store up as fat anyway.
It still comes back to my rather simple point... Obesity is due to taking in too many calories, compared to the number of calories used.
Arguments about sugar in foods leading to other problems like diabetes are another issue completely.
Personally, I'm of the opinion that variety and moderation are the key. I'm not a fan of Atkins or any other "diet" that restricts the types of foods you eat in favor of eating excesses of others. New studies are starting to show that Atkin's *is* effective for about a 6-8 month period of time, and then the weight loss stops. Eventually, long-term Atkins followers start complaining of symptoms such as aching joints, indicating their diet has depleted their body of some necessary vitamins or minerals....
While realizing that any business doing as much volume as WalMart is subject to numerous negative editorials and comments.... I still think the jury's out on how much relative good vs. damage a WalMart store really does.
In all honesty, wage issues are among the least of my concerns. As always, WalMart isn't holding a gun to anyone's head, forcing them to come work for them. People willingly apply for all of their positions, understanding what they're going to be paid and what the benefits are (or aren't!). They obviously comply with the minimum federal wage guidelines, or else they'd be forced to change. So where's the real problem?
Where WalMart concerns me more is with their business practices when purchasing. (They use some of the same "bullying" tactics used by other large chains like "Guitar Center", but on a much larger scale.) EG. They find a relatively small business making a desireable product, and approach them - promising to buy up huge numbers. The small business takes the bait, thinking "Hey, this one contract alone triples our total yearly business!" They sign, say, a 1 year contract - and then they're forced to invest heavily in more manufacturing capability to meet Walmart's large order. All is great until contract renewal time, when WalMart puts on the squeeze - saying "Now we won't buy anything from you again, unless you sell to us for, say, 15% less than last year!" The small business is caught between a rock and a hard place, since they're still trying to pay off their investment in expansion. If they tell WalMart to "go take a hike", they're basically signing their own bankruptcy paperwork - but if they agree, their profit margin is slim to none. Even if they can manage WalMart's discount demands, the same will happen again on the 3rd. round of contract negotiations - until finally, they have to dump WalMart and likely go under as a result.
Ultimately, businesses just need to learn how WalMart treats them, and turn down their initial offers -- but that doesn't mean I think WalMart deserves any praise for their tactics.
I can't argue with your personal observations. In fact, I'd tend to agree with you. When I said "great/notable", I'm talking about your Nobel prize winners, and inventors of concepts that changed history.... Not just your researcher who gets some interesting/important work done in his/her field.
For what it's worth though, I'd also say that folks gainfully employed in a research facility or "top university" are also earning a paycheck that provides them a fairly comfortable living. When you compare them to the "average person on the outside with a family", you have to figure that many of those "outsiders" are fighting a big financial battle too - and it puts a strain on their marriage/relationships.
Not only does time = money, but money = time too. If you can afford, for example, a live-in nanny, then you've exchanged some of your income for some more free time. (Not saying your colleagues have done this, necessarily, but I do see it often with folks juggling both a marriage/kids and a demanding career that would otherwise almost require a single person.)
How did the parent post get a +4 for Insightful, anyway? I guess there are at least 5 of you out there who believe this B.S. statement.
Seriously, sugar is hardly the problem with obesity in America. The problem is primarily one of poor eating habits, coupled with lack of exercise. (Not that anecdotes prove anything, but just to pull out one random example; I used to know a gal who was a strict vegetarian, and I *never* once saw her eat a piece of candy or "junk food" - yet she was overweight.)
If you consume more calories than you use, you gain weight. It's really that simple. It doesn't matter if those calories come in the form of sugar or "healthy foods". If you're eating more than you're burning off - you'll eventually get fat.
If sugary foods are contributing to the obesity problem, it's only in a more indirect way. (Snack foods tend to be "ready to eat" and conveniently packaged. When you can just grab it, unwrap it, and stuff it in your mouth - you're more likely to do so often, hence increasing your overall intake of calories.)
I already considered the FireFox browser, and it would indeed solve many of the issues. But it creates a slew of new ones. Some of the projects he's paid to work on for his employer include web-based tutorials using custom plug-ins and some fairly advanced code. They're "designed for IE 6", and don't always work quite right in FireFox.
I have FireFox on my own PC, and I've certainly found at least a handful of web sites that misbehave with it, forcing me to switch to IE now and then. It's a great web browser, but it's not 100% perfect either....
Without trying to sound rude, the people who "care about money because of kids, mortgages, other debts, etc. etc." aren't the target employees for a business that revolves around inventive new ideas.
As it's often been pointed out, there are practically no scientists out there who have achieved any great/notable work after they were married and had kids. This is no accident.
When you make the decision to start a family, you effectively trade off much of your former "free time" in an attempt to reap the benefits and experiences/insights gained from bringing a new child into the world and from forming a "life partnership" with someone else, to solve day-to-day matters together.
The "free time" you would have had before that is the commodity used by inventors and creative types to come up with innovative/original ideas and works.
No, you're probably a bit spoiled by being a Mac user - but you're not wrong at all!
As just one (of countless!) examples I run across in my line of work (on-site PC service), I was trying to help a guy out this afternoon who had spyware/virus problems crippling his Windows XP machine.
He's no dummy either. He has a PhD in Physics, and works from home as an editor for college textbooks.
This is about the 5th. time in 6 months or so that I've had to help him fix these types of issues. Originally, he was running Windows ME on his Gateway Pentium 4 system, and viruses pretty much made the computer unusable. I spent the better part of an afternoon removing the viruses and all the spyware I could find - but a lone remaining virus was a "downloader trojan horse" and apparently re-downloaded and installed numerous virii after I left.
After a second round of cleanup, I seemed to have it all fixed - but about a month later, it seems a few things got past his Symantec Personal Firewall and started causing tons of pop-up ads and other issues, so I was called out yet again!
Finally, he just asked us to wipe the drive and start fresh. We did, and made sure to do every possible Windows update, install the latest ZoneAlarm firewall, etc. etc.
So then, he decides to take the plunge and upgrade to Windows XP (since ME was a regularly crashing/blue-screening piece 'o junk anyway). We did that for him, and applied Service Pack 1 and everything else available at the time.
Well, after a couple weeks, voila - more rampant spyware/virii problems! He already tried both SpyBot and Ad-Aware SE 1.05, the very latest AVG Anti-Virus updates, and more, yet he couldn't eliminate the problems - and it was hindering him from doing his work.
I tried everything I could think of, including hours of manually deleting things. (XP likes to keep temporary files inside hidden sub-folders under the "Documents and Settings" directory, and I've found many viruses hide out in there, for example.) I got everything clean that I could find, and all the scanners report it clean, yet each time you launch Internet Explorer - it redirects you to some spyware/ad-ware web site and starts trying to install a bunch of garbage via Active-X!
Nobody should have to go through all of this B.S. just to get some work done from home! This is a disgrace. This guy isn't even "surfing porn sites" or any of the stuff people like to point fingers and accuse people of if their PC gets infected....
I've already suggested maybe he should make his next computer a Mac.... Several of his co-workers made the switch recently, already, and seem to be pleased. He's just concerned with the fact he owns so many PC only software packages and doesn't want to buy the same things over again to get a Mac native version....
This is true, but honestly, I think sometimes it's just a case of a few eccentric people who came before you ruining it for everybody.
Case in point. Not too far from where I live, there's a guy (fancies himself an artist, I suppose) who was known for his decorating up the front of his house in bright neon. He had neon lights surrounding his front windows and his street address lit up in neon over his door, etc. Later, he added on a room to one side of his place - and instead of creating a flat, level room as any sane person would do, he designed it so it slopes upward at about a 30-35 degree angle. (I guess the furniture in there is bolted down to the floor or something?)
After all of this, I'm fully expecting the municipality to impose some new rules on home remodeling and construction....
IMHO, "Everyone not open-minded enough to think for themselves may as well be dead."
Statements like the parent poster made condemn everyone who is not "saved by the sacrifice of Jesus" --- pretty close-minded thinking.
What about people who live a righteous, good life by all accounts - yet don't choose to follow the beliefs of any organized religion? Your statement appears to judge them "as good as dead", without regard for their lifestyle or actions.
Well, first off - I thought quite a bit about the whole "throwing one's vote away" thing, and for a time, I believed it was really a problem.
But upon further consideration, I don't buy into that argument anymore. For starters, the whole purpose of voting should be selecting the person you feel is best for the job. When people stop doing that and instead, place votes based on the "lesser of two evils" concept, they corrupt the whole democratic system. (It effectively ensures that only candidates aligning themselves with one of the two most popular lines of thought can ever get elected.)
But that aside, why do you say the L.P. doesn't have a "viable plan" for governing a large nation? The political plans laid out by the Democrats (such as Kerry's recently posted "plan" on his web site), as well as the Republican plans I've seen do little more than make very vague summaries of what they want to achieve - without going into any detail about how they plan to reach those goals.
These days, I think that's pretty much par for the course. The president is surrounded by so many political advisors, he's probably not even really sure himself how he's going to tackle specific problems until well after he's elected. (Let's face it. If *I* were suddenly made president, I'm sure quite a few of my personal ideas on ways to fix things would be critiqued and "modified" by advisors who would give me statistics and technicalities about why they weren'tt really viable.)
Given that, I don't think the Libertarians have presented any less of an overall "plan" than the major 2 parties have?
If anything, the L.P. probably scares some people simply because they propose more radical changes to the "status-quo" than the "Demicans" or "Republicrats" we've got running for office today. IMHO, it's not really sane to expect big improvements/changes while electing folks who keep trying to please everyone and walk on eggshells to ensure their changes don't topple any existing govt. programs or policies.
Personally, I think this speaks volumes about the powerful grip the "2 party system" has on the U.S.
Even the minority of people intelligent and insightful enough to realize that our personal liberties and freedoms are being tossed out like old trash whenever it's politically convenient are caught up in "are the Republicans or the Democrats worse about this?" debate!
BOTH modern Democrats and modern Republicans make me very nervous about this! Don't forget, they just recently asked both Kerry and Bush what their thoughts were on the "Patriot Act II" bill, and both pretty much said the same thing. They were completely for it. (Actually, Bush stated that he'd be for it with "a few small changes", while Kerry said he liked it as-is.)
The Libertarians out there keep asking each other "When are things going to get bad enough that people wake up and realize it's time for a 3rd. party?" IMHO, it's a good question - and if we don't collectively figure it out soon, we're headed right down a path to "Globalization" with a one-world government. (Think about it. The "socialist" governments are making more and more compromises, willingly or unwillingly, and becoming more "free". Meanwhile, it seems the U.S. is trying to adopt more "socialist policies" while allowing more foreigners to apply for our jobs. I think this "global agenda" is something both Democrats and Republicans are ultimately working towards - albeit at a slow, stuttering pace.)
Re:Kerry's Official Policy .....
on
The Jobs Crunch
·
· Score: 1
As another poster already said, what would 20% to 30% of Mexico's population do in the U.S. once they got here? If they aren't beneficiaries of any free hand-outs, that means they're going to have to find jobs. And if the jobs/infrastructure isn't here for them, then they're not going to be any better off than they were before they moved.
If I was one of them, seeing this, I'd probably go right back to Mexico, where everyone around me still spoke my native language at least.
At worst, a change in policy to "open borders but no welfare" would cause a temporary "glut" of immigrants -- but I wouldn't forsee drastic, permanent changes.
You know something? I *used* to do a little software development. I don't anymore. You know one big reason why? I realized that writing software (while not doing so as part of one's job description, working for someone else) is not and shouldn't be something that guarantees me "food on my table, clothes in my closet, and money to enjoy my life with".
If I develop an excellent piece of software on my own, then sure, there's a good likelihood I'll make some money from it. But screaming at all of the people "pirating" my software, trying to accuse them of "cheating me out of my money" is ridiculous. Quite simply, those folks are part of the same demographic as the rest of the population who DIDN'T think my product was worth paying for. (Would you think it right to FORCE some people to buy your software package, even if they weren't at all interested in it? Surely not, so what's the real difference? Technically, yeah - the people "pirating" the software are getting some benefits out of using it. But that doesn't change the bottom line. They (for any number of reasons) didn't wish to compensate you financially for that particular piece of code.)
IMHO, that's all part of the RISK of working for yourself - and it happens in all areas of life. If I open my own company to do people's taxes, maybe I won't have enough customers to remain profitable? I could sit around and complain that programs like TurboTax are stealing my business from me and should be outlawed, right? But that probably wouldn't be a real useful and constructive way to solve my problems.
If you can't make enough money to live comfortably doing software development, maybe it's time to change careers or find employment where you're guaranteed a regular paycheck for writing the code for that employer?
Kerry's Official Policy .....
on
The Jobs Crunch
·
· Score: 1
Bleah.... I started reading that PDF file with his policy plans, and quite frankly, I stopped after page 2, because at least half of it is "pie in the sky" generalities that I'd expect anyone running for president to claim as their "goals".
EG. His plan of "giving our nation independence from foreign oil". Umm, just how and in what timeframe does he plan to succeed in this goal? Just because you're the leader of a nation doesn't mean you can wave some type of magic wand and change the country's requirements for energy. This strikes me more as a "jab" at Bush, since Kerry knows he has business relationships with foreign oil interests. (If I were making these types of claims, I'd start listing line-item changes I wanted to implement to help achieve them, like incentives for construction of more nuclear power plants. But being a Democrat, his interests in pleasing the ecologists probably prevent him from going that far.)
As far as the issue of job loss in America goes, I think we need to eliminate the H1B work visas completely, except in individual cases where documentation is provided showing that all reasonable attempts to hire within the country for the position were made. If the only "qualified applicants" are foreigners, then fine. But it shouldn't just be leveraged as a tool to underpay skilled workers.
On the flip-side, I'd be all for opening up the borders to immigration, WITH the provision that under no circumstance do they receive any government benefits/welfare. If they come here, they're on their own, period. They weren't a U.S. citizen paying taxes into the system, so they shouldn't be able to collect any benefits back out of the system. If this were done, I think much of our immigration from Mexico problem would sort itself out on its own - and save us a lot of $'s on border patrols too.
Why is federal govt. so concerned with controlling marriage, yet not at all concerned with setting any "ground rules" for divorce?
A couple can get a marriage license in 10 minutes as long as they have $50 or less for the filing fees - but a divorce (especially if children are involved) turns into piles of legal issues that can take as long as years to get through.
Meanwhile, I hear very few complaints about government's handling of the whole marriage process (mistakes in issuing the licenses, or problems when someone needs their last name changed), but can barely find ANYONE who has been through a divorce who felt the whole thing was handled quickly and efficiently, and was relatively fair/equitable for all parties involved.
It strikes me as ridiculous that government would want to concern themselves with anything on the whole marriage side of the equation, when there's so much MORE that needs addressing on the divorce/seperation side!
Sure, that's the most important thing for making spyware more of a "non issue" -- but legislating it isn't going to change much of anything.
At last check, SpyBot - Seek and Destroy was looking for well over 17,000 known spyware/ad-ware type programs that could be on your machine, and many of them get installed by downloader viruses.
Even if legislation really was 100% effective at stopping anyone from ever writing another new piece of spyware tomorrow (as if!) - the existing 17,000 plus things out there would be grandfathered in as still legal and wouldn't stop wreaking havock.
Slashdot Mirror
True, but your hometown's bicycle race probably didn't have secret service agents planted all over the place, armed and ready to shoot at anyone crossing their lines.
Furthermore, isn't it interesting how selective we are about who we protect? Anyplace the current president goes, there's all of this security following him around, yet other qualified applicants wanting to take over his job go not only unprotected, but can even be arrested for trying to drum up support! I understand the need for security for the leader of a nation - but at the same time, I wonder if the course of history could be changed just as drastically by a successful assassination of "hopefuls"?
Actually, I think eWeek has been surprisingly generous in their Linux coverage and support over the years. I remember 3+ years ago when I was trying to get a few experimental things switched over to Linux from Windows in the workplace, eWeek was one of the few publications I could almost count on to at least say something positive about Linux in a given issue.
Granted, they've never been an especially "technical and in-depth" source of news. Rather, they seem to target more of the middle management and CIO types, trying to give them a "cliff notes" version of what's going on in computer technology. But to claim that eWeek thinks "open source = bad" is way off the mark, IMHO. It sounds more to me like someone was just trying to be creative with story headlines to get the maximum amount of attention.
I can't really speak for the folks who think driving a huge car is a "status symbol"... I suppose they've got the right to drive anything they like, really - but the era of "big cars make you look cool" pretty much ended in America in the 1970's, last I checked.
The reason *I* recently purchased an SUV (mid-size, mind you - not some HUGE model) was a need for room to transport things. I used to drive a Ford Ranger truck, but along with being far from a joy to drive (only a 4 cylinder, yet managed to still get pretty poor gas mileage) - you couldn't really put breakable items in the bed without LOTS of preparation. It was great when I wanted to haul a bunch of yard waste away, but not for daily computer on-site service calls.
I'd love to get 60mpg, but it's not really an option for me in one of these little 2-seater "Zap" branded vehicles. I've got a 2 year old daughter who needs a car seat, and I'd never be able to give anyone else a ride while I've got her, plus not nearly enough trunk space to store things like a spare 17" SVGA monitor and several milk crates full of spare PC parts.
I'm more interested in some of the projects I've seen to create hydrogen powered minivans and SUVs, really.
The debate may not be a "government operated" affair, but it's not the same thing as you or I holding a private party and choosing not to invite a few people. Government has been in full force, controlling/directing the way the debate will be carried out.
As just one example, I was trying to make a service call out in Chesterfield yesterday morning, and the entrance ramp from Interstate 270 onto Interstate 40 was blocked off by police. It caused me to be about 30 minutes late. Later in the evening, the radio was warning people not to even bother trying to drive anyplace that went near Washington University, since most of the roads in that area would be blocked off for the duration of the debate. (Show me any private party or business affair you know of where this level of government intervention is present?)
Considering the overall political climate though, Badnarik might have accomplished more by setting up a heavily publicized speech/dinner or something, scheduled for around the same time and vicinity as the debates. Might have worked out pretty well, giving the press a free meal and opportunity to listen to him voice his opinions - and timing it so it ended just in time for them to head over to the other debate to cover it too.
Well, for one thing, nobody is saying ISP's can't technically (and easily) read plain text emails stored on their systems.
The purpose of such a law would be to allow penalties/punishment in situations where it can be proven that an employee of an ISP read someone else's mai and used the information in some sort of harmful manner.
We've already got plenty of laws in place that work the same way. For example, there are laws against eavesdropping on cellular phone conversations, yet hundreds of thousands of police scanners are out there which let the user listen to these calls anyway. I don't think the intention of the law was to hunt down people listening to cellphones on their scanners, and arrest them. Rather, it gives the legal system a tool to use against someone who broke another law and used his/her eavesdropping abilities as part of the crime.
(I could see this coming into play in a blackmail case, among other possibilities.)
The argument that letting ISPs read mail helps fight spam is probably valid - except we don't allow mailmen to open up letters to help fight junk mail. (I don't know about you, but I've gotten quite a bit of sneaky postal junk mail guised as important letters....)
Ultimnately, I think this is honestly going to be one of those legal issues where the individual's ability to retain privacy while exchanging email won't really change either way. If ISP's are legally allowed to read your mail, then sure - you need to encrypt it somehow if you're afraid they might see something you don't want them to see. If they're not allowed to read your mail, then the same rule applies. (Most of us would rather prevent a problem from coming up in the first place than having to fight in court to correct it after the fact.)
I see similar behavior all the time with people playing the MMORPG's (Everquest, Shadowbane, etc.). I think this genre of games is a completely different "ball of wax" from the rest of the computer/console games out there.
For starters, they charge monthly access fees to play, so you can bet they're going to do everything possible to cater to addictive personalities and keep people hooked on playing. With traditional games, they get your money up-front, so they could care less whether you keep playing over and over, months down the road. (In fact, they'd probably prefer you get "burnt out" on it after a little while, so they can sell you the next iteration of the same title next year!)
The mere fact that you've paid your subscription fee motivates you to keep playing, even when it's not really "fun" to do so. You're trying to trudge through the boring stuff in order to "level" your character, so he/she can do the "fun stuff" before your subscription is up for yet another renewal.
Actually, I was under the impression that brake fade (assuming modern vehicles) has more to do with expansion of hoses and the like under heat stress than "gaseous buildup" between the brake pads and disc.
Modern brake pads don't outgas, as far as I'm aware. This is also why you'll see many autocross racers insisting that such things as cross-drlled rotors only serve to increase the likelihood of the rotor cracking - and don't give any real stopping advantage. (In the Toyota Supra forum I used to be a member of, the factory OEM brake rotors were the most often recommended ones for auto-x use. All the slotted and cross-drilled Brembo rotors and such were bought only for "show".)
The holes or slots were supposed to provide an escape route for the hot gasses coming off the pads, but the pad manfacturers say that's no longer necessary with the modern materials used in the production of the pads.
You're making a few huge assumptions with that logic.... For starters, you assume that humans are, by and large, relatively dumb pawns, there for manipulation by "capitalists" seeking cheap labor.
In the case of slavery, slave owners could artificially put "caps" on their slaves' ability to learn new things. It certainly wasn't the norm to send them off to colleges or universities to come back with degrees, or to give them private tutoring....
Once you're dealing with a free populace, individuals have the ability to learn new skills freely and thereby make themselves more valuable workers. In fact, they can go into business for themselves if nobody else will hire them - and might just become your biggest competitor in a given marketplace!
Even for those lacking the motivation/desire to learn more, the government has a number of checks and balances in place (minimum wage laws, overtime laws, etc.). So effectively, society has come to a decision on the smallest "fair" price a business can pay a person to work for them. Walmart works within these guidelines - so any complaint that they "don't pay enough" is really a complaint that government sets their standards for minimum wage too low.
As for your assertions that the post WWII generation doomed us to "toil and misery" by having too many kids - I counter that there is PLENTY of work to be done on this planet, and indeed, even in the United States alone. The key is making sure the environment is good for new businesses to thrive and grow - so they can generate more employment for people. A "business is evil" attitude can only bring more unemployment when you follow it to its logical conclusion....
In all honesty, I can see Jobs' point about PDAs. I've owned at least 4 of them over the years, and kept trying to really like them.... but in the end, each of them became little more than expensive toys. When the Palm first came out, people raved about how it was going to change the face of computing, and speculated that practically everyone would carry one around.
Well, that certainly didn't happen. Heck, the entire time I owned a Palm device, I think I only had one opportunity to "beam" someone's contact info from their organizer into mine as the "21st. century version of exchanging business cards". 99% of the time, when someone wanted to give me their info, they didn't have a PDA handy. So I'd just get a paper card or info scribbled on a piece of paper.
Half the time I owned my Palm IIIx, I'd go to use it only to find the batteries were about dead, because my wife got in the habit of playing card games on it at night before bed (with the backlight on the whole time, of course).
There still seem to be more than enough Newtons to go around, judging from eBay. (I've even seen a few "new in the box" ones auctioned there as recently as a month or two ago!) So if Jobs wants to blow off that whole market and leave it to others, I don't see why that's really such a big deal.
The only PDA I currently use is my Kyocera 7135 Smartphone - and honestly, the phone number info in its contact list is about the only crucial data I have in it. The rest is just stuff I use just because I can, like AvantGo -- but it's not a "critical application" by any means.
Ok, I have no argument with your statement.... but I don't think it really changes my original one either.
What I mean is, yes, the body may absorb sugars more quickly and attempt to store more of it due to the insulin release, but this is all a "technicality", ultimately. If a person ingests no more calories than they burn up, they're not going to have this spare energy for the body to store up as fat anyway.
It still comes back to my rather simple point... Obesity is due to taking in too many calories, compared to the number of calories used.
Arguments about sugar in foods leading to other problems like diabetes are another issue completely.
Personally, I'm of the opinion that variety and moderation are the key. I'm not a fan of Atkins or any other "diet" that restricts the types of foods you eat in favor of eating excesses of others. New studies are starting to show that Atkin's *is* effective for about a 6-8 month period of time, and then the weight loss stops. Eventually, long-term Atkins followers start complaining of symptoms such as aching joints, indicating their diet has depleted their body of some necessary vitamins or minerals....
While realizing that any business doing as much volume as WalMart is subject to numerous negative editorials and comments.... I still think the jury's out on how much relative good vs. damage a WalMart store really does.
In all honesty, wage issues are among the least of my concerns. As always, WalMart isn't holding a gun to anyone's head, forcing them to come work for them. People willingly apply for all of their positions, understanding what they're going to be paid and what the benefits are (or aren't!). They obviously comply with the minimum federal wage guidelines, or else they'd be forced to change. So where's the real problem?
Where WalMart concerns me more is with their business practices when purchasing. (They use some of the same "bullying" tactics used by other large chains like "Guitar Center", but on a much larger scale.) EG. They find a relatively small business making a desireable product, and approach them - promising to buy up huge numbers. The small business takes the bait, thinking "Hey, this one contract alone triples our total yearly business!" They sign, say, a 1 year contract - and then they're forced to invest heavily in more manufacturing capability to meet Walmart's large order. All is great until contract renewal time, when WalMart puts on the squeeze - saying "Now we won't buy anything from you again, unless you sell to us for, say, 15% less than last year!" The small business is caught between a rock and a hard place, since they're still trying to pay off their investment in expansion. If they tell WalMart to "go take a hike", they're basically signing their own bankruptcy paperwork - but if they agree, their profit margin is slim to none. Even if they can manage WalMart's discount demands, the same will happen again on the 3rd. round of contract negotiations - until finally, they have to dump WalMart and likely go under as a result.
Ultimately, businesses just need to learn how WalMart treats them, and turn down their initial offers -- but that doesn't mean I think WalMart deserves any praise for their tactics.
I can't argue with your personal observations. In fact, I'd tend to agree with you. When I said "great/notable", I'm talking about your Nobel prize winners, and inventors of concepts that changed history.... Not just your researcher who gets some interesting/important work done in his/her field.
For what it's worth though, I'd also say that folks gainfully employed in a research facility or "top university" are also earning a paycheck that provides them a fairly comfortable living. When you compare them to the "average person on the outside with a family", you have to figure that many of those "outsiders" are fighting a big financial battle too - and it puts a strain on their marriage/relationships.
Not only does time = money, but money = time too. If you can afford, for example, a live-in nanny, then you've exchanged some of your income for some more free time. (Not saying your colleagues have done this, necessarily, but I do see it often with folks juggling both a marriage/kids and a demanding career that would otherwise almost require a single person.)
How did the parent post get a +4 for Insightful, anyway? I guess there are at least 5 of you out there who believe this B.S. statement.
Seriously, sugar is hardly the problem with obesity in America. The problem is primarily one of poor eating habits, coupled with lack of exercise. (Not that anecdotes prove anything, but just to pull out one random example; I used to know a gal who was a strict vegetarian, and I *never* once saw her eat a piece of candy or "junk food" - yet she was overweight.)
If you consume more calories than you use, you gain weight. It's really that simple. It doesn't matter if those calories come in the form of sugar or "healthy foods". If you're eating more than you're burning off - you'll eventually get fat.
If sugary foods are contributing to the obesity problem, it's only in a more indirect way. (Snack foods tend to be "ready to eat" and conveniently packaged. When you can just grab it, unwrap it, and stuff it in your mouth - you're more likely to do so often, hence increasing your overall intake of calories.)
I already considered the FireFox browser, and it would indeed solve many of the issues. But it creates a slew of new ones. Some of the projects he's paid to work on for his employer include web-based tutorials using custom plug-ins and some fairly advanced code. They're "designed for IE 6", and don't always work quite right in FireFox.
I have FireFox on my own PC, and I've certainly found at least a handful of web sites that misbehave with it, forcing me to switch to IE now and then. It's a great web browser, but it's not 100% perfect either....
Without trying to sound rude, the people who "care about money because of kids, mortgages, other debts, etc. etc." aren't the target employees for a business that revolves around inventive new ideas.
As it's often been pointed out, there are practically no scientists out there who have achieved any great/notable work after they were married and had kids. This is no accident.
When you make the decision to start a family, you effectively trade off much of your former "free time" in an attempt to reap the benefits and experiences/insights gained from bringing a new child into the world and from forming a "life partnership" with someone else, to solve day-to-day matters together.
The "free time" you would have had before that is the commodity used by inventors and creative types to come up with innovative/original ideas and works.
No, you're probably a bit spoiled by being a Mac user - but you're not wrong at all!
As just one (of countless!) examples I run across in my line of work (on-site PC service), I was trying to help a guy out this afternoon who had spyware/virus problems crippling his Windows XP machine.
He's no dummy either. He has a PhD in Physics, and works from home as an editor for college textbooks.
This is about the 5th. time in 6 months or so that I've had to help him fix these types of issues. Originally, he was running Windows ME on his Gateway Pentium 4 system, and viruses pretty much made the computer unusable. I spent the better part of an afternoon removing the viruses and all the spyware I could find - but a lone remaining virus was a "downloader trojan horse" and apparently re-downloaded and installed numerous virii after I left.
After a second round of cleanup, I seemed to have it all fixed - but about a month later, it seems a few things got past his Symantec Personal Firewall and started causing tons of pop-up ads and other issues, so I was called out yet again!
Finally, he just asked us to wipe the drive and start fresh. We did, and made sure to do every possible Windows update, install the latest ZoneAlarm firewall, etc. etc.
So then, he decides to take the plunge and upgrade to Windows XP (since ME was a regularly crashing/blue-screening piece 'o junk anyway). We did that for him, and applied Service Pack 1 and everything else available at the time.
Well, after a couple weeks, voila - more rampant spyware/virii problems! He already tried both SpyBot and Ad-Aware SE 1.05, the very latest AVG Anti-Virus updates, and more, yet he couldn't eliminate the problems - and it was hindering him from doing his work.
I tried everything I could think of, including hours of manually deleting things. (XP likes to keep temporary files inside hidden sub-folders under the "Documents and Settings" directory, and I've found many viruses hide out in there, for example.) I got everything clean that I could find, and all the scanners report it clean, yet each time you launch Internet Explorer - it redirects you to some spyware/ad-ware web site and starts trying to install a bunch of garbage via Active-X!
Nobody should have to go through all of this B.S. just to get some work done from home! This is a disgrace. This guy isn't even "surfing porn sites" or any of the stuff people like to point fingers and accuse people of if their PC gets infected....
I've already suggested maybe he should make his next computer a Mac.... Several of his co-workers made the switch recently, already, and seem to be pleased. He's just concerned with the fact he owns so many PC only software packages and doesn't want to buy the same things over again to get a Mac native version....
This is true, but honestly, I think sometimes it's just a case of a few eccentric people who came before you ruining it for everybody.
Case in point. Not too far from where I live, there's a guy (fancies himself an artist, I suppose) who was known for his decorating up the front of his house in bright neon. He had neon lights surrounding his front windows and his street address lit up in neon over his door, etc. Later, he added on a room to one side of his place - and instead of creating a flat, level room as any sane person would do, he designed it so it slopes upward at about a 30-35 degree angle. (I guess the furniture in there is bolted down to the floor or something?)
After all of this, I'm fully expecting the municipality to impose some new rules on home remodeling and construction....
IMHO, "Everyone not open-minded enough to think for themselves may as well be dead."
Statements like the parent poster made condemn everyone who is not "saved by the sacrifice of Jesus" --- pretty close-minded thinking.
What about people who live a righteous, good life by all accounts - yet don't choose to follow the beliefs of any organized religion? Your statement appears to judge them "as good as dead", without regard for their lifestyle or actions.
Well, first off - I thought quite a bit about the whole "throwing one's vote away" thing, and for a time, I believed it was really a problem.
But upon further consideration, I don't buy into that argument anymore. For starters, the whole purpose of voting should be selecting the person you feel is best for the job. When people stop doing that and instead, place votes based on the "lesser of two evils" concept, they corrupt the whole democratic system. (It effectively ensures that only candidates aligning themselves with one of the two most popular lines of thought can ever get elected.)
But that aside, why do you say the L.P. doesn't have a "viable plan" for governing a large nation? The political plans laid out by the Democrats (such as Kerry's recently posted "plan" on his web site), as well as the Republican plans I've seen do little more than make very vague summaries of what they want to achieve - without going into any detail about how they plan to reach those goals.
These days, I think that's pretty much par for the course. The president is surrounded by so many political advisors, he's probably not even really sure himself how he's going to tackle specific problems until well after he's elected. (Let's face it. If *I* were suddenly made president, I'm sure quite a few of my personal ideas on ways to fix things would be critiqued and "modified" by advisors who would give me statistics and technicalities about why they weren'tt really viable.)
Given that, I don't think the Libertarians have presented any less of an overall "plan" than the major 2 parties have?
If anything, the L.P. probably scares some people simply because they propose more radical changes to the "status-quo" than the "Demicans" or "Republicrats" we've got running for office today. IMHO, it's not really sane to expect big improvements/changes while electing folks who keep trying to please everyone and walk on eggshells to ensure their changes don't topple any existing govt. programs or policies.
Personally, I think this speaks volumes about the powerful grip the "2 party system" has on the U.S.
Even the minority of people intelligent and insightful enough to realize that our personal liberties and freedoms are being tossed out like old trash whenever it's politically convenient are caught up in "are the Republicans or the Democrats worse about this?" debate!
BOTH modern Democrats and modern Republicans make me very nervous about this! Don't forget, they just recently asked both Kerry and Bush what their thoughts were on the "Patriot Act II" bill, and both pretty much said the same thing. They were completely for it. (Actually, Bush stated that he'd be for it with "a few small changes", while Kerry said he liked it as-is.)
The Libertarians out there keep asking each other "When are things going to get bad enough that people wake up and realize it's time for a 3rd. party?" IMHO, it's a good question - and if we don't collectively figure it out soon, we're headed right down a path to "Globalization" with a one-world government. (Think about it. The "socialist" governments are making more and more compromises, willingly or unwillingly, and becoming more "free". Meanwhile, it seems the U.S. is trying to adopt more "socialist policies" while allowing more foreigners to apply for our jobs. I think this "global agenda" is something both Democrats and Republicans are ultimately working towards - albeit at a slow, stuttering pace.)
As another poster already said, what would 20% to 30% of Mexico's population do in the U.S. once they got here? If they aren't beneficiaries of any free hand-outs, that means they're going to have to find jobs. And if the jobs/infrastructure isn't here for them, then they're not going to be any better off than they were before they moved.
If I was one of them, seeing this, I'd probably go right back to Mexico, where everyone around me still spoke my native language at least.
At worst, a change in policy to "open borders but no welfare" would cause a temporary "glut" of immigrants -- but I wouldn't forsee drastic, permanent changes.
You know something? I *used* to do a little software development. I don't anymore. You know one big reason why? I realized that writing software (while not doing so as part of one's job description, working for someone else) is not and shouldn't be something that guarantees me "food on my table, clothes in my closet, and money to enjoy my life with".
If I develop an excellent piece of software on my own, then sure, there's a good likelihood I'll make some money from it. But screaming at all of the people "pirating" my software, trying to accuse them of "cheating me out of my money" is ridiculous. Quite simply, those folks are part of the same demographic as the rest of the population who DIDN'T think my product was worth paying for. (Would you think it right to FORCE some people to buy your software package, even if they weren't at all interested in it? Surely not, so what's the real difference? Technically, yeah - the people "pirating" the software are getting some benefits out of using it. But that doesn't change the bottom line. They (for any number of reasons) didn't wish to compensate you financially for that particular piece of code.)
IMHO, that's all part of the RISK of working for yourself - and it happens in all areas of life. If I open my own company to do people's taxes, maybe I won't have enough customers to remain profitable? I could sit around and complain that programs like TurboTax are stealing my business from me and should be outlawed, right? But that probably wouldn't be a real useful and constructive way to solve my problems.
If you can't make enough money to live comfortably doing software development, maybe it's time to change careers or find employment where you're guaranteed a regular paycheck for writing the code for that employer?
Bleah.... I started reading that PDF file with his policy plans, and quite frankly, I stopped after page 2, because at least half of it is "pie in the sky" generalities that I'd expect anyone running for president to claim as their "goals".
EG. His plan of "giving our nation independence from foreign oil". Umm, just how and in what timeframe does he plan to succeed in this goal? Just because you're the leader of a nation doesn't mean you can wave some type of magic wand and change the country's requirements for energy. This strikes me more as a "jab" at Bush, since Kerry knows he has business relationships with foreign oil interests. (If I were making these types of claims, I'd start listing line-item changes I wanted to implement to help achieve them, like incentives for construction of more nuclear power plants. But being a Democrat, his interests in pleasing the ecologists probably prevent him from going that far.)
As far as the issue of job loss in America goes, I think we need to eliminate the H1B work visas completely, except in individual cases where documentation is provided showing that all reasonable attempts to hire within the country for the position were made. If the only "qualified applicants" are foreigners, then fine. But it shouldn't just be leveraged as a tool to underpay skilled workers.
On the flip-side, I'd be all for opening up the borders to immigration, WITH the provision that under no circumstance do they receive any government benefits/welfare. If they come here, they're on their own, period. They weren't a U.S. citizen paying taxes into the system, so they shouldn't be able to collect any benefits back out of the system. If this were done, I think much of our immigration from Mexico problem would sort itself out on its own - and save us a lot of $'s on border patrols too.
Why is federal govt. so concerned with controlling marriage, yet not at all concerned with setting any "ground rules" for divorce?
A couple can get a marriage license in 10 minutes as long as they have $50 or less for the filing fees - but a divorce (especially if children are involved) turns into piles of legal issues that can take as long as years to get through.
Meanwhile, I hear very few complaints about government's handling of the whole marriage process (mistakes in issuing the licenses, or problems when someone needs their last name changed), but can barely find ANYONE who has been through a divorce who felt the whole thing was handled quickly and efficiently, and was relatively fair/equitable for all parties involved.
It strikes me as ridiculous that government would want to concern themselves with anything on the whole marriage side of the equation, when there's so much MORE that needs addressing on the divorce/seperation side!
Sure, that's the most important thing for making spyware more of a "non issue" -- but legislating it isn't going to change much of anything.
At last check, SpyBot - Seek and Destroy was looking for well over 17,000 known spyware/ad-ware type programs that could be on your machine, and many of them get installed by downloader viruses.
Even if legislation really was 100% effective at stopping anyone from ever writing another new piece of spyware tomorrow (as if!) - the existing 17,000 plus things out there would be grandfathered in as still legal and wouldn't stop wreaking havock.