Yeah... that's sort of what I was thinking too. If companies actually start taking Facebook seriously (as in hiring someone with a specific job title that involves taking charge of Facebook marketing as a duty), this expenditure would make perfect sense. If you've got to pay a person's salary to go online and interact with potential and existing customers, why wouldn't you invest a little in the "back end" of that strategy too -- ensuring what was posted gets more eyeballs?
My only question would be whether it's priced correctly, and I don't think we'll know until a bunch of companies give it a try and decide it either paid off, or didn't. If they all quit paying after giving it a good try, then FB will have to re-think the strategy. To be fair though, something like this could easily become a "bad value" for a company through no fault of Facebook's whatsoever. Social marketing is different than regular advertising because it's interactive. When you run an ad on television or place an ad in a magazine, it's a simple 1-way communication. Content is presented and the main concern is convincing the viewer to view it. On a social network, the type of responses given to questions and comments posted below the initial advertising/marketing content are often MORE important than the original marketed concept.
First of all, most of the researchers studying climate, I'd say, are primarily motivated to report all of the details they come up with of negative implications of the situation (from doing extensive computer modeling, making charts with predictions based on previously gathered data put in a sequence, etc.). Understandable, but that can be a "can't see the forest for the trees" situation. Does anyone know for CERTAIN what the eventual outcome will be? No... but throughout history, scientists have been making predictive models and been largely incorrect.
For example, back in WWII, the military consulted with scientists when developing the atomic bomb, and were warned that detonating a nuclear bomb in the air could cause the upper layers of the atmosphere to catch on fire and literally burn away, pretty much ending life as we know it. The military obviously decided to ignore that advice and continued testing their nuclear weapons anyway -- and it turns out that no, those scientists predicted incorrectly. On a more mundane, daily basis, I get weather forecasts that are almost invariably wrong. Expect rain on Thursday? Nope... it's bright and sunny all day! Highs in the low 90's? Nope, 104! Despite all the research going into weather prediction, I can give a guess that's as good as anything they come up with for the next day's forecast, and beyond that -- nobody seems to provide anything much better than random guesses.
Where you and I disagree seems pretty simple. You feel it's got to be worthwhile to "do something" vs. "sitting back and doing nothing". I, on the other hand, feel that most of us think a little bit too highly of ourselves and our ability to "save the planet" or "save us from ourselves" in various situations. I'm not denying the fact that our collective choices for generating energy appear to be resulting in some climate changes. But I'm questioning how rational it is to believe that when we can't even come up with an accurate weather forecast a WEEK out from a given day, we somehow have the ability to reverse these temperature increases in time to prevent the proposed catastrophes we predicted MIGHT happen otherwise.
Trying to do something would be a simple "no brainer" if the stakes weren't so high. The proposed solutions involve HUGE expenditures, an assumption that the rest of the civilized world will agree to implement similar plans at correspondingly HUGE expenditures, and in some cases (such as dumping chemicals in the oceans to encourage more algae growth?), questionable side-effects that aren't being taken into account. (What would such a change do to the aquatic life, for example?) A demand to a near immediate halt to energy production done with oil and coal puts many people out of work, causes costs to skyrocket to build alternatives in a short time-frame, and could basically destabilize an entire economy. Would it even work though? Probably not if other countries just say, "Cool! Cheaper oil and coal for us to use now that the USA doesn't want it anymore!")
From what I've seen, you also have the issues where real CPAs prefer software to "speak their own language", while most small to medium size business owners just want a solution they can use every day without too much hassle, and can hand the data off to the accountant at tax time every year.
I work at a company who standardized on ACCPAC accounting software back when it was a DOS based program. These days, it's a huge, bloated, slow Windows-based part of a Sage ERP solution - but we still use it.
It's clearly far more powerful and flexible than Quickbooks, but at the same time, less user-friendly and a much bigger financial commitment to license properly.
After all these years, it seems accounting packages still wind up in one of two categories: easy to use, friendly packages with very limited expandability, and huge,complex packages that ONLY accounting majors really understand how to use properly.
In the more user-friendly, less costly, and easy for non-accountants to use category, you've got programs like MYOB and Quickbooks, but not a whole lot else....
The parent poster is putting forth a sound theory, but I'm going to have to disagree with it.
Ultimately, the problem is, I don't think most people see the tablet form-factor as ideal. It's great in certain scenarios, which happen to be the ones traditional desktop or portable computers fail at. (I'm talking about such things as trying to use one while lying in bed, or while standing up and walking around. I'm also talking about comfortably reading for extended periods of time while seated in any random chair or couch.)
Since the iPad is the established "standard" in this area, with a massive ecosystem of software apps built up for it, there's little reason to switch from it. But that also means there's probably little reason to duplicate the hardware with ANOTHER tablet form-factor device. The Ultrabooks on the market still fulfill the tasks we've been doing for years with slightly larger notebook computers. They've got actual keyboards built in and their screens fold up at various angles for easy reading while you sit the entire thing on a flat surface. They've got battery life equivalent to the iPads and other such tablets, too, so that's been addressed. They'll even run the SAME operating system Microsoft is pushing for the new Surface tablets. So where's the real motivation to migrate to the Surface?
People who "switched to SUVs" almost always did so because they found a larger vehicle useful, and the trend was to move away from such options as full-size conversion vans or full-size station wagons.
It's ridiculous to pretend that before the SUV, everyone only drove small, economic vehicles.
What's actually happening now is we're seeing the fuel economy improve on such vehicles, since high sales volume leads to justification to invest more R&D in improving them. My Jeep Patriot 4x4 with an automatic (technically CVT) transmission got an average of 26-27MPG. That's really not too horrible for a box-shaped 4 wheel drive SUV.
The fact that modern economy cars give more leg room or more comfortable back seats than in the past isn't that relevant. What about pet owners, for example? A lot of SUV drivers I know have 1 or 2 large dogs they need to transport around regularly, and they want that enclosed space in the back of an SUV, vs. dogs laying across back seats intended for humans.
You may be correct about the whole "global weirding" thing... but where's the evidence that us spending billions on "drastically reducing our consumption of carbon" would provide benefits in a reasonable time-frame??
That's the "sticking point" I see that's not adequately studied or addressed. It's too easy to spread fear around, and motivate people to "Start acting now!" (which usually equates to convincing government to fork over big subsidies to specific industries who claim to sell some of the solutions).
Let's not forget, for example, that this is GLOBAL warming we're talking about (even if it's popular now to call it "climate change" instead). It's not USA warming. With nations like China having far larger populations than the U.S. does, I fail to see how even a drastic reduction on the part of the U.S. would necessarily turn the problem around before it can cause the negative impact people are trying to prevent? You'd have to get the entire world on-board with these drastic changes, and I don't imagine some of the biggest contributors will show much interest.
On top of that, it seems to me like cleaner alternative forms of energy are going to come about as a natural progression of things, regardless of trying to "force" them to come about with legislation. We're fairly certain we're not going to see the price of oil dropping significantly in the future. Long before we actually use it all up, we'll hit the point where extracting it is simply a costly enough process that other alternatives start making more economic sense. Many places already want to move away from burning coal, simply because it creates pollution in the vicinity of where it's burnt (AND because cleaner burning natural gas is currently cheaper and more plentiful). This would hold true even if the climate change theory never even existed.
I'm not one of the "deniers", but I *do* know from history that government often rushes to provide solutions without realizing all of the ramifications of implementing those new changes and laws. I'd say that in most cases, it turns out we were better off without the artificial interference. (Remember the "oxygenated gasoline" mandate not that long ago, that demanded people use the alternate mix of fuel because it didn't cause as much air pollution? Not long after it was put into law, they discovered the oxygenated mix had an increased tendency to leech into ground-water and cause pollution that way, AND it gave cars less miles-per-gallon than the traditional mixture, meaning people burnt more of it. So essentially, we were better off not mandating the change at all.)
I strongly believe our plant is pretty capable of balancing things out in the long run. We only have so many natural resources of a given type to utilize, and the basics laws of physics make certain guarantees too (such as us being unable to create or destroy matter... the finite amount we have is simply converted from one substance to another). I think I'd rather trust that than making drastic lifestyle changes that could horribly impact the quality of our lives. Scientists just decided in the last decade or less that humans created this scenario over 200-some years that we THINK we can MAYBE reverse in short order by giving up our primary forms of energy. THAT sounds less that convincing.
The fact is, most people still haven't really grasped this reality. Especially when you're talking to older people, who probably don't really do much to cross a police officer's path these days (and when they were "wild and crazy" as teens or young adults, things were different than today), they think you're over-reacting. They may even give you examples of people they know personally in the police force who "aren't like that at all".
Truth is, many cops aren't psychopaths on a power trip. But it doesn't really matter when you've got a good sized minority who are. You wind up having to treat EACH encounter as though you're expecting the worst.
The other problem is, even the "good cops" out there have LOADS of leeway to do as they please in any given situation. And actually, being human and having this kind of power handed to you leads to temptation to do some very illogical and unjust things. (If you want a real basic and relatively harmless example? I'm on a car enthusiast's forum for a sports car I own, and there are several cops on the forum who own the same car. We've had a few discussions about people who were caught speeding in their cars, and someone asked one of the cops point blank, "Would you arrest me or let it slide if you caught me driving the same car you have?" He said, "I'd probably just let you go with a warning, as long as you didn't have an outstanding warrant." Obviously, that's misuse of power, if he's going to apply the law with bias, just because he likes a certain car you happened to be breaking a traffic law in. But that's the kind of discretion they have.) Of course, I've known a few cops over the years myself, all of whom drive with radar detectors and have "muscle cars" which we can be 99.9% sure they're not simply driving at or below the legal speed limits at all times.... Hypocritical, isn't it, to punish others for the same behaviors they exhibit in their personal lives? But then, we've got cops on motorcycles issuing violations for failure to wear a seatbelt too.
I completely agree, and was just talking to my wife about the same thing a few weeks ago.
My dad collected guns (though he wasn't a hunter), and always had at least a few in our basement, sitting in a wooden gun cabinet. They were readily accessible, but I never touched any of them because he made it clear they had to be handled safely/properly. When I was old enough, he bought me a BB gun to practice target shooting with in our back yard. (We had a big hill in back which made the perfect backstop for the BBs.) He taught me some of the basics of gun safety at that time, and I wound up becoming interested enough in target shooting that he bought me 5 or 6 other BB and pellet pistols and rifles over the years, after that.
I never really did get that interested in shooting anything other than those BB and pellet guns, but I did eventually upgrade to "competition grade" models similar to what's used in Olympic target shooting.
But really, the problem I see today is with so many "anti-gun" households around, you can practically count on the fact that your kid has at least a few friends who have NOT ever learned a thing about gun safety. That plus a little peer pressure could lead to some bad scenarios, and you can't pretend you're capable of teaching everyone he/she pals around with how to treat guns with respect.
That's one reason I don't have any firearms in my home today. I like the idea of having at least one for personal protection/home defense, but until the kids are older, I just don't like the potential risks involved. And locking everything down in hard-to-open safes makes it rather worthless in an emergency where you need quick access to it.
(Not yet published, but will probably go "live" on www.techcitement.com later today) I didn't really come here to promote my article though....
I was just going to comment that while it's probably true that Mac users often confuse tradition for the "best" way to accomplish something in their OS, it's also true that in the case of OS X Lion, an awful lot was removed..... In some cases, I think these deletions were unjustified and let people to a poor user experience, despite many benefits with the upgrade.
Examples that come to mind?
1. iCal losing its sidebar 2. Contacts losing the 3 column view 3. Loss of expose functionality to ungroup a selection
Combine that with some of the more justified but troublesome deletions, including removal of Rosetta for PPC application support, and Apple easily built a scenario where users happy with OS X 10.6 "Snow Leopard" considered "Lion" to be the Mac equivalent of Windows Vista... an upgrade they'd rather skip.
To me, Mountain Lion looks like Apple's refining of Lion based on some of the user feedback, plus completion of "half baked" concepts it was clear were rushed to market the last time around. (I'm thinking of such things as storing notes inside the Mail application, vs. creating an independent app for them as they did now.)
Sure, if you're advocating the use of open source software vs. commercial alternatives, you might just be able to make a strong case that 'You get what you pay for!" is a lie.
But like most sayings, it's not meant to cover all situations. It's just a general piece of commentary. On the whole, I think there's truth to it, to a point, and then it decreases. Statistically, from looking at many, many product reviews from such sources as Consumer Reports, it's said that *generally*, the best value is found somewhere in the middle. For example, if your local Home Depot sells 3 different models of shovels -- the mid-priced one is probably the smartest buy. (Chances are, the high-end one is similar to the mid-grade one in overall quality. The justifications for paying more tend to be such things as offering a more comfortable handle or some small ergonomic benefit. And if you look at those improvements objectively, they probably cost very little to add to the product, vs. its actual markup, which may be a good 50% more than the mid-priced option.)
So if you're addressing someone looking for the "cheapest option" (as so many Americans do), it's not a bad slogan to try to get them to move up a notch in quality.
If you wish, you can choose any number of jobs'/careers where you won't be expected to stay in touch via cellphone or email 24 hours/7 days. It's not like it's impossible to stay gainfully employed in America today without a "constant on" situation via gadgets you carry around.
What's really happened, in many cases, is that people saw the advantages and accepted the down-sides, but turned around and complained about those down-sides at every opportunity. (You know... the good old "I want to have my cake and eat it too!" thing.)
For example, in my own situation, I work as a systems/network administrator. At some point in time, I asked if the company would supply me with an iPhone because in the past, I already carried one that I bought and paid for each month on a personal plan. Obviously, the trade-off here was the understanding that with it, I'd now be more able to quickly respond to emails or calls, or even text messages. Instead of me carrying around a phone that was basically "off limits" to other employees, my number was now listed in the company directories.
It's a pretty good trade, in my opinion. Yes, my boss may call once in a while on a weekend asking if I can help walk him through a computer problem at home (and in those cases, I may or may not take any given call and it's really not anything he takes issue with when I don't). But I've always been responsible for keeping the computer equipment and network up as part of my job, so honestly, I'd rather get a quick phone call when something's down than find out after I get in the office during my "regular hours" and I've got 20 people complaining about it instead of one person. Meanwhile, I save a lot of money on cellular service and can still use the phone for all my personal things (within reason, obviously - but I do have unlimited data on it).
And sure, society is, by and large, more "connected" with mobile devices than ever before. But it's ridiculous, IMO, to call it a "disease". Again, we CHOOSE this lifestyle and many of us pay extra to keep it. Unlike my parents who used to pretty much cross out 1-2 hours of each day of their lives watching TV news or reading the morning paper to keep informed, I just get the news flashes, piecemeal, from my mobile devices as they happen -- and can actively (not passively like TV) select the news I want to read more about.
My personal thought is, who cares? You get what you pay for, right? Services like Khan Academy are great if they're helping people learn things they wouldn't otherwise take an interest in learning about, or if it enables learning they were interested in but couldn't afford traditional methods of education.
If you're already IN a traditional classroom environment, then no - I'm not sure Khan Academy lessons are so great. I mean, you have to ask, as a paying student, why you're paying your hard-earned money to get a personal classroom experience with supposed educational professionals, who turn around and ask you to sit through canned Khan presentations instead of presenting the material themselves.
As for the "precise explanation of mathematical concepts to be mere nitpicking"? Maybe it is, really? By that, I mean, most people are really only interested in learning math as long as it allows them to accomplish something. The minority who find the theory itself fascinating and want to learn more math for the sake of learning it are the ones who will probably move beyond whatever Khan Academy teaches, and consult other sources.
If you know enough math to get correct answers to the problem you encounter as part of your daily life or job, then that's likely ALL the math you really need to know.
You sure do have some simplistic assumptions about what libertarians think.....
EG. "Libertarians are opposed to the collecting and spending of tax dollars for any reason except for the protection of private property." Really? So you feel their party platform advocates taxation specifically for the purpose of private property protection? That's simply incorrect. It's far more accurate to say they're interested in a minimal government which only performs the duties outlined in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. That includes such things as production of a central currency and ensuring the protection of the nation's borders... not just ensuring a police force is funded to protect your personal possessions from theft or vandalism.
And by extension, there's no fundamental reason a libertarian would find his/her philosophy invalidated if "climate change" was proven to be real. Again, it's more of the original question I asked in my first post on this topic. How do we know we're capable of legislating/mandating changes which would be effective in fixing the problem in a useful time-frame? The United States can't control what the rest of the world does with energy production. If China decides to burn a bunch of coal for the next 75 years because they need the energy and they're unconcerned about the air pollution it creates? What good is it for Americans to suffer higher taxes and more expensive energy costs in the name of "trying to control climate change with cleaner alternatives"?
Libertarians feel people look to their government far too often to give them solutions to their problems (or perceived problems), vs. attempting to deal with the problems themselves first. I'm pretty certain, for example, that when farmers realize they're struggling to keep their crops alive due to a warming climate -- they're not going to sit around, doing things the same way they've always done them and putting blind faith in the idea things will "turn around" on their own. Like all intelligent human beings, they'll look for solutions. Maybe we'll start growing more crops underground using artificial lighting powered by solar panels on the surface, where the crops themselves used to be? I don't know... but I have faith in people to come up with solutions to their own dilemmas. And I know it's usually a less efficient way of doing things to wait for somebody else to solve your problems for you.
You're clearly missing my point then. I'm talking about a long term view. If you're doing the exit interview in the first place, you already decided to leave - so even if the problems were fixed quickly, it wouldn't make a difference to you in the short term.
My point is, you never know if years later, you might want to work at the same company again? I've worked for 2 or 3 places where former employees came back. In one case, the guy had retired, but decided to come back out of retirement and asked if the company would consider re-hiring him.
If you helped contribute to a positive change or improvement at the place upon your exit, it will simply make it that much better if you do decide you'd like to take a job there again someday.
I don't think it's taking on any risk if you're tactful in your exit interview. It sounds like some of you are just hot-heads who probably deserve not to have the jobs you're complaining about, if you can't even figure out how to explain both the pros and cons of your workplace to an H.R. person without it sounding like you're a danger to re-hire!
If you want to know why "libertarian groups are funding anti-climate change campaigns", that would seem pretty obvious. The pro climate-change groups are generally pushing for governmental solutions. Libertarians are trying to REDUCE the size and scope of government as much as possible, so clearly, they wouldn't side with any group advocating more government spending on programs, hiring more govt. employees to oversee it, etc.
I don't think libertarians are "anti science" or simply of a mindset that they don't want to get stuck paying for damage they cause. I think they're simply of the opinion that it's BAD policy to spend millions of tax dollars on whichever random solutions a committee decides would be worth trying next, as they screw around with such unknowns as dumping chemicals in the oceans to promote algae growth....
Now, I do appreciate the work one of the parent posters did, citing many references regarding possible reduction in food supply from global warming... I admit that's a very real potential downside. On the other hand, does it take into account potential new farmable land that would result from increased temperatures closer to the poles, where it was never an option before? I'm no scientist, obviously, but I know the laws of physics still apply. For every action, there is still an equal and opposite reaction. How much land is there on earth that's currently colder or cooler than what we'd find ideal? Is it possible there's as much as would suffer real damage from getting too warm/hot?
If you really might be interested in ever working at the place again, someday, then sure -- make sure your exit interview reflects the positives you saw in the company. If not though? I really don't believe most places would bother doing exit interviews at all if they never paid any attention to what was said in them. (Yeah, I know some of you insist these are only to make some busy work for the H.R. department. But at least in the small to medium-size companies I've worked for, H.R. was quite busy just navigating all the red tape involved in the company's health insurance program, plus any 401K or other benefits programs, not to mention all the "little stuff" they were asked to do each day, like adding up hours on people's time-cards and recording the data in Excel spreadsheets used by managers, or handing out paychecks each week, or keeping up with people's vacation requests. I don't think they needed more "busy work"!)
I doubt it will do anything but potentially burn a bridge if you "vent", ranting and raving about how horrible the place was. They're more likely to remember you as that "bitter guy who we're all glad left this place" than anything else.
BUT, I do think if you're honest, but diplomatic and professional in your exit interview, you could definitely still single out problem managers or bad policies, explaining why they posed problems for you (while still talking about anything good you noted while working there). I know such comments DO get kept on file and help build a case against certain employees over time.
For example, I once knew a guy who was considered a "lifer" at the company he was in. It was clear HE intended to stay until the day he retired, and he seemed to have enough respect with the owners so they regarded him as an asset worth keeping. In reality, he constantly requested assistants or interns to help him with his job and in case after case, those people were fired by him or voluntarily quit, because they couldn't stand him any longer. Even managers in one of the other buildings would talk about him behind his back regularly, asking how it was possible he needed extra help to do his job, yet a simple request they asked him to do would take days or weeks to accomplish. By doing it themselves, it got done far more quickly.
I know for a fact he was blasted repeatedly in exit interviews - and all of those people probably decided their comments had no effect, since he still had a job after they were gone. But guess what? When the economy slowed down, he was one of the first people they decided they'd have to do without due to budget cuts. (And while they'd never admit it officially? Off the record, H.R. expressed a lot of unhappiness with the guy's attitude and failure to "straighten up" after warning him.)
Change can be maddeningly slow in companies, especially when they're afraid of lawsuits and/or it's a matter of convincing a whole group of managers to get on the same page about what starts out as someone's opinion. But in the long haul, yes, I think those negative exit interview comments have a cumulative effect.
Then I'm not seeing a huge problem with a "Go Cheney!" right here?
Here's the thing... While most people seem to be fixated on battling back and forth about whether or not "climate change" is really happening (vs. any noted changes just being part of some natural cycle of events, and/or possibly inaccurate data) -- it seems to me the real questions get pushed by the wayside.
EG. If everything said and predicted about warming caused by burning fossil fuels is completely correct, that still does NOTHING to show that it's actually worthwhile to actively take steps to reverse the situation. I think it's pretty outlandish to claim that some government regulation and a push to use "cleaner" fuels would magically turn around warming of the atmosphere caused by 200+ years of burning coal, oil, natural gas, etc. world-wide. Even if you could completely halt all burning of fossil fuels tomorrow? What kind of negative impact would that have on modern society -- and how quickly would it correct the warming problem?
EVERY single time I ask these types of questions, I get the same old trite replies of, "Well... it's obvious if we got into the situation by doing this bad stuff, we're better off to stop doing the bad stuff as quickly as possible!" IMO, there's SO much good that's come of utilizing this energy, you've got to have a REALLY awful scenario to justify putting a stop to it. Worst case scenarios I've read discuss what amounts to some re-arranging of where our coastlines start and where the climate will be more or less comfortable. And considering it's going to happen relatively gradually (not overnight in some big surprise event where you wake up and ea whole city is wiped out), it sounds like humanity can largely adapt.
I'm pretty certain we DO only have a limited amount of oil we can get out of the ground at anything resembling a cost-effective rate. So again, where's the problem with that? Let people use/buy up the stuff as long as it's viable, and before long, we'll be effectively out of it and no longer need to worry about its contribution to climate change.
See, this issue is a lot bigger than Facebook, IMO. I'm not sure you have any right to control how other people choose to display or label photographs they possess, even IF they happen to have your face in them?
So you can get angry about it all you want, but you don't really have any leverage to force someone to comply with you removal request.
Note: I'm not saying this is necessarily how it should be, but merely that it would appear to be the way it works currently. After all, photographers who you pay to photograph you (school portraits, etc. etc.) still claim a legal right to those images. They say it's illegal for you to so much as make your own duplicates of the set of prints you paid them for.
You know something? The more I read about Kim Dotcom, the more I get the idea "shady character" doesn't really fit him neatly. He reminds me much more of some of the "old school" computer geeks I knew from back in the mid 1980's and still run into occasionally. Many of them have a burning desire to make something of their lives... to do something memorable, within the realm of what their talents are. They're a little eccentric or "off beat" by mainstream society's standards, sure. And maybe some of them are a bit guilty of being a little too materialistic. (But some of that simply comes with the territory of being interested in technology, IMO. If you spend much of your time working with computers and tech. - you develop an appreciation for all of those physical gadgets and devices that other people may not really have. It extends out towards all manner of complex machines and devices, too. Lots of I.T. hardware guys I know also get very interested in sports cars, for example. Even though they're not "gear heads" in the sense of putting in thousands of hours in someone's garage taking apart engines and transmissions? They appreciate the work that goes into building such a machine, and desire one of their own -- the same way they want the fastest PC out there, even if they don't really have a NEED for one that performs quite that well.)
Dotcom strikes me as all of the above, with a need to be recognized.... to be a "celebrity" of sorts, within his own circle of fellow geeks at least. (The fact he'd change his last name to Dotcom, alone, tells you how much he wants to be noticed as a "guru" in his field of interest.)
He was recently seen in photos hanging out with Steve Wozniak... with Woz having nothing but good things to say about him. That's not quite what I'd expect if the guy was just your run of the mill online scammer, trying to make his fortune at everyone else's expense.
It's govt. and big media wanting you to think of this guy as something like a foreign leader of a drug cartel....
I understand your frustration, but at the same time? If you would resell your used Apple Mac gear every 2-3 years, you'd find that it fetches incredibly good resale value compared to most PC hardware.... Since I both prefer Mac systems/OS X *and* don't want to get stuck with systems unable to run their latest OS offerings, I try to regularly rotate out my systems. I typically get back as much as 2/3rds. of what I paid for them, new, and then it's really not that big an expense to pay the difference to always have something current.
First of all, I really appreciate the effort you put into your reply. That may be one of the most intelligent responses I've ever gotten on a message board when having this sort of debate/discussion!
You probably noticed that in my criticism of Obama's presidency, I didn't even touch on the healthcare issue. That's because to a large extent, I agree with you. It's a topic charged with so much political mud-slinging, it's hard to step back from the mess and try to sort it all out rationally. As you say, it's largely a plan proposed by the Republicans (and specifically, by the guy now trying to challenge the plan as presidential contender!).
I guess my biggest problems with it as it now stands are as follows though:
1. Yes, the mandate portion is a problem (and I don't really care WHICH party came up with it first). I really believe almost all of the other big changes/points people like about the whole plan could have remained in place if the Supreme Court ruled the individual mandate part unconstitutional. In fact, insurance companies were ALREADY voluntarily agreeing to insure kids through age 26, no matter WHAT happened with the healthcare law, because it proved to be so popular with customers. By giving the individual mandate a green light, they created this "it's a tax, but no, it's not really a TAX you see" double-speak. I really do get the dilemma the Justices faced with this one. (How can you say Federal govt. doesn't have the legal power to mandate you pay for your healthcare insurance, when you've already decided it's ok to do so for Medicare, by way of a mandatory payroll deduction from each paycheck?) But maybe that just means we needed to dig a little deeper, and start questioning the way that whole system works? IMO, the Medicare and social security system is severely broken too -- and constitutes part of what needs addressing to truly fix the nation's healthcare problems.
2. The healthcare act is an absolutely HUGE piece of legislation, and it's really not a fair explanation of what it does to simply list off the 5 or 6 "bullet points" people like to hear about what it claims to change. There are certainly other "devils in the details" of that multi-hundred page law that we've not yet even begun to realize. Off the top of my head, I can think of one potential issue right away. Many of our hospitals are essentially owned or partnered up with the Catholic church -- a group strongly opposing the idea of paying for health insurance giving its employees free birth control. As a former Catholic myself (born and raised a Catholic but decided to reject it as an adult), I'm just as likely as a lot of other people to laugh it off and say, "Pppftt.... Time they get out of the dark ages anyway, isn't it?" But at the same time, I realize this is still a serious issue for these people. Government is directly interfering with their religious beliefs, and if some kind of exception isn't made? I could easily see the Church deciding they can no longer support these hospitals and medical facilities -- which means a big loss for everyone.
3. I've always thought a big, and necessary part of healthcare reform comes by way of addressing medical malpractice lawsuits -- and Obama seemed afraid to so much as touch any of that. That's actually one area where I'm not surprised the Republicans wouldn't tread, but you'd hope a Democrat might be more likely to go there. I know a number of doctors who have to pay so much for malpractice insurance, it results in adding at least 1/3rd. to the prices they'd otherwise charge their patients. That wouldn't have to be the case if it was regulated on both sides of the fence -- meaning caps on what insurers could charge a doctor (especially one with no prior claims) AND caps on awards possible to award in court cases. IMO, we all know that medicine offers us no guarantees. Almost all of it involves various levels of risk -- and eventually, some people will wind up with the short end of the stick. I don't think it really makes sense to raise the costs of healthcare
Very good (and interesting) point you make, which I suspect most people aren't even aware of.
BUT, I'd also say that practically-speaking, I'm not sure how big a concern this really is for most folks? If law enforcement is interested enough in your mail content to get a subpoena to download/view it, there's a REALLY good chance that in today's legal climate, they'd have absolutely no problem getting a warrant for it either.
If you have concerns the law might look in on some "sensitive" email content, you really shouldn't be considering using a web-based mail service like Google in the first place. You can bet all that mail you told it to delete isn't truly deleted for a LONG time after you requested it. It's still on the host's archival backups someplace, and a warrant can force their hand to restore it.
What you SHOULD be doing is encrypting your mail conversations with something like PGP.....
I'd agree with you, except for the fact Microsoft replaced Outlook Express with Windows Live Mail. Sure, it doesn't typically come pre-installed with a given copy of Windows (though that depends on what some of the OEMs decided to put into their pre-loaded image), but you can download it for free from Microsoft Updates as part of the whole "Windows Live" bundle of free add-on programs.
Windows Live Mail even auto-migrates an existing Outlook Express mail configuration if you like.
1. Thunderbird, IMO, could improve greatly with a UI redesign. It's a good program -- don't get me wrong. But to just declare that it's "about as good as it can get" and give up most of the support for the project seems a bit arrogant to me. I hate change for the sake of change (which is really what I felt most of Microsoft Office 2007 gave people vs. version 2003, with everything moved around to different places as the "ribbon bar" menu was created). But especially for Windows users, Thunderbird mail client has the look of some sort of project ported over from Linux. A lot of little things like the graphics for the buttons and even the default fonts used just don't have the polish of a client like Outlook.
2. I haven't yet seen a mail client yet for a PC that really does IMAP the way I'd like to see it implemented. That is to say, presenting all of the folders just like users are used to seeing and working with them when they use a standard POP3/SMTP client. Google makes a confusing mess for most users when they connect Gmail with IMAP to clients like Outlook, and all I ever hear about using Thunderbird instead is "you trade a few of those issues off for many other new ones".
3. Sure, webmail is growing in popularity all the time. But it's not really ideal for people who need to work with a lot of mail attachments. With a full blown client, you can simply double-click on attachments and immediately open them to view/print them - even if the files are for less common applications you might be using (various CAD packages, etc.). Webmail forces the extra step of downloading the attachment someplace on your local PC, before you can go find where you saved it and open it. It's also a lot slower, at times. I know with my Yahoo web-mail for example, sometimes I click to simply re-read a message I viewed earlier and I may get as much as a 10 second pause before the page refreshes, depending on their server load.
4. Your final reason would basically be telling me I need to rewrite Thunderbird myself, if I want the above things.... Since I'm not a software developer, that's a really TALL order and it's just not likely to happen. That doesn't mean I haven't worked in I.T. for over 20 years though and set applications up for many different people besides just myself, where I see some of these needs. That's really the problem with open source at the end of the day. It's great if you're a developer... but the vast majority of people running a given piece of code are its end-users. If the devs can't/won't/don't take a keen interest in updating their code based on what the USERS want, it may as well not exist as a mainstream application after a while.
Part of me just can't let some of these claims you're making rest, without some sort of rebuttal.
Sure, I agree that Obama is proud of what he's accomplished (or tried to accomplish, depending on the situation). But at the same time, these accomplishments are being questioned by nearly half of the American people, according to most polls. These certainly aren't "clear win" items where the vast majority agrees it moves America forward!
The military situation is a prime example! We're STILL at war, though most people can't really tell you anything concrete that we've accomplished so far. All we seem to hear is more of the same propaganda about "Helping keep us free from the terrorists!" (Those who read Orwell's 1984 or watched the movie "Brazil" will recognize this tactic immediately for what it is.) What I *do* know is, we've sent more American citizens home in body bags or with missing limbs or at least with post-traumatic stress disorder than we've had so much as remotely THREATENED by the terrorists. Never-mind the COST of the war, which puts our nation many billions of dollars further in debt, at a time when we can ill afford it. Obama insinuated that if he was elected in '08, he'd bring the troops home and put and end to what W started. For anyone who voted for him expecting that to happen (you know, maybe as part of that whole "hope and change" thing he went on about?), it was a total FAIL!
You want another example of Obama's good intentions not producing real results? Take his energy policies.... In his zealousness to promote all things "Green", we've watched company after company take government funds to the tune of millions of dollars, produce none of the products they promised, and turn around and file for bankruptcy. He managed to shutter the last U.S. based company producing incandescent light-bulbs too, while convincing the public to switch mostly to CFL's -- exclusively foreign-made lights with inferior lighting properties and containing hazardous mercury inside. And that's progress??
And right now, this whole "gay rights" thing sure is getting a lot of attention, but IMO - that's such a side issue. Obama's wishy-washy responses throughout his presidency on gay marriage were nothing to praise the man about anyway.
Let me be clear... I don't consider myself a Republican at all. I'm very much independent. But an honest, unbiased analysis of things leads me to conclude that wherher we have Romney as our next president OR Obama for another 4 years, we're in trouble as a nation. Obama couldn't end a senseless war he inherited in *4* years, and Romney is already talking about spending much MORE on military buildup if he's elected. War-mongers, the whole lot.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah... that's sort of what I was thinking too. If companies actually start taking Facebook seriously (as in hiring someone with a specific job title that involves taking charge of Facebook marketing as a duty), this expenditure would make perfect sense. If you've got to pay a person's salary to go online and interact with potential and existing customers, why wouldn't you invest a little in the "back end" of that strategy too -- ensuring what was posted gets more eyeballs?
My only question would be whether it's priced correctly, and I don't think we'll know until a bunch of companies give it a try and decide it either paid off, or didn't. If they all quit paying after giving it a good try, then FB will have to re-think the strategy. To be fair though, something like this could easily become a "bad value" for a company through no fault of Facebook's whatsoever. Social marketing is different than regular advertising because it's interactive. When you run an ad on television or place an ad in a magazine, it's a simple 1-way communication. Content is presented and the main concern is convincing the viewer to view it. On a social network, the type of responses given to questions and comments posted below the initial advertising/marketing content are often MORE important than the original marketed concept.
I don't think I'm twisting logic at all here....
First of all, most of the researchers studying climate, I'd say, are primarily motivated to report all of the details they come up with of negative implications of the situation (from doing extensive computer modeling, making charts with predictions based on previously gathered data put in a sequence, etc.). Understandable, but that can be a "can't see the forest for the trees" situation. Does anyone know for CERTAIN what the eventual outcome will be? No... but throughout history, scientists have been making predictive models and been largely incorrect.
For example, back in WWII, the military consulted with scientists when developing the atomic bomb, and were warned that detonating a nuclear bomb in the air could cause the upper layers of the atmosphere to catch on fire and literally burn away, pretty much ending life as we know it. The military obviously decided to ignore that advice and continued testing their nuclear weapons anyway -- and it turns out that no, those scientists predicted incorrectly. On a more mundane, daily basis, I get weather forecasts that are almost invariably wrong. Expect rain on Thursday? Nope... it's bright and sunny all day! Highs in the low 90's? Nope, 104! Despite all the research going into weather prediction, I can give a guess that's as good as anything they come up with for the next day's forecast, and beyond that -- nobody seems to provide anything much better than random guesses.
Where you and I disagree seems pretty simple. You feel it's got to be worthwhile to "do something" vs. "sitting back and doing nothing". I, on the other hand, feel that most of us think a little bit too highly of ourselves and our ability to "save the planet" or "save us from ourselves" in various situations. I'm not denying the fact that our collective choices for generating energy appear to be resulting in some climate changes. But I'm questioning how rational it is to believe that when we can't even come up with an accurate weather forecast a WEEK out from a given day, we somehow have the ability to reverse these temperature increases in time to prevent the proposed catastrophes we predicted MIGHT happen otherwise.
Trying to do something would be a simple "no brainer" if the stakes weren't so high. The proposed solutions involve HUGE expenditures, an assumption that the rest of the civilized world will agree to implement similar plans at correspondingly HUGE expenditures, and in some cases (such as dumping chemicals in the oceans to encourage more algae growth?), questionable side-effects that aren't being taken into account. (What would such a change do to the aquatic life, for example?) A demand to a near immediate halt to energy production done with oil and coal puts many people out of work, causes costs to skyrocket to build alternatives in a short time-frame, and could basically destabilize an entire economy. Would it even work though? Probably not if other countries just say, "Cool! Cheaper oil and coal for us to use now that the USA doesn't want it anymore!")
From what I've seen, you also have the issues where real CPAs prefer software to "speak their own language", while most small to medium size business owners just want a solution they can use every day without too much hassle, and can hand the data off to the accountant at tax time every year.
I work at a company who standardized on ACCPAC accounting software back when it was a DOS based program. These days, it's a huge, bloated, slow Windows-based part of a Sage ERP solution - but we still use it.
It's clearly far more powerful and flexible than Quickbooks, but at the same time, less user-friendly and a much bigger financial commitment to license properly.
After all these years, it seems accounting packages still wind up in one of two categories: easy to use, friendly packages with very limited expandability, and huge,complex packages that ONLY accounting majors really understand how to use properly.
In the more user-friendly, less costly, and easy for non-accountants to use category, you've got programs like MYOB and Quickbooks, but not a whole lot else....
The parent poster is putting forth a sound theory, but I'm going to have to disagree with it.
Ultimately, the problem is, I don't think most people see the tablet form-factor as ideal. It's great in certain scenarios, which happen to be the ones traditional desktop or portable computers fail at. (I'm talking about such things as trying to use one while lying in bed, or while standing up and walking around. I'm also talking about comfortably reading for extended periods of time while seated in any random chair or couch.)
Since the iPad is the established "standard" in this area, with a massive ecosystem of software apps built up for it, there's little reason to switch from it. But that also means there's probably little reason to duplicate the hardware with ANOTHER tablet form-factor device. The Ultrabooks on the market still fulfill the tasks we've been doing for years with slightly larger notebook computers. They've got actual keyboards built in and their screens fold up at various angles for easy reading while you sit the entire thing on a flat surface. They've got battery life equivalent to the iPads and other such tablets, too, so that's been addressed. They'll even run the SAME operating system Microsoft is pushing for the new Surface tablets. So where's the real motivation to migrate to the Surface?
People who "switched to SUVs" almost always did so because they found a larger vehicle useful, and the trend was to move away from such options as full-size conversion vans or full-size station wagons.
It's ridiculous to pretend that before the SUV, everyone only drove small, economic vehicles.
What's actually happening now is we're seeing the fuel economy improve on such vehicles, since high sales volume leads to justification to invest more R&D in improving them. My Jeep Patriot 4x4 with an automatic (technically CVT) transmission got an average of 26-27MPG. That's really not too horrible for a box-shaped 4 wheel drive SUV.
The fact that modern economy cars give more leg room or more comfortable back seats than in the past isn't that relevant. What about pet owners, for example? A lot of SUV drivers I know have 1 or 2 large dogs they need to transport around regularly, and they want that enclosed space in the back of an SUV, vs. dogs laying across back seats intended for humans.
You may be correct about the whole "global weirding" thing ... but where's the evidence that us spending billions on "drastically reducing our consumption of carbon" would provide benefits in a reasonable time-frame??
That's the "sticking point" I see that's not adequately studied or addressed. It's too easy to spread fear around, and motivate people to "Start acting now!" (which usually equates to convincing government to fork over big subsidies to specific industries who claim to sell some of the solutions).
Let's not forget, for example, that this is GLOBAL warming we're talking about (even if it's popular now to call it "climate change" instead). It's not USA warming. With nations like China having far larger populations than the U.S. does, I fail to see how even a drastic reduction on the part of the U.S. would necessarily turn the problem around before it can cause the negative impact people are trying to prevent? You'd have to get the entire world on-board with these drastic changes, and I don't imagine some of the biggest contributors will show much interest.
On top of that, it seems to me like cleaner alternative forms of energy are going to come about as a natural progression of things, regardless of trying to "force" them to come about with legislation. We're fairly certain we're not going to see the price of oil dropping significantly in the future. Long before we actually use it all up, we'll hit the point where extracting it is simply a costly enough process that other alternatives start making more economic sense. Many places already want to move away from burning coal, simply because it creates pollution in the vicinity of where it's burnt (AND because cleaner burning natural gas is currently cheaper and more plentiful). This would hold true even if the climate change theory never even existed.
I'm not one of the "deniers", but I *do* know from history that government often rushes to provide solutions without realizing all of the ramifications of implementing those new changes and laws. I'd say that in most cases, it turns out we were better off without the artificial interference. (Remember the "oxygenated gasoline" mandate not that long ago, that demanded people use the alternate mix of fuel because it didn't cause as much air pollution? Not long after it was put into law, they discovered the oxygenated mix had an increased tendency to leech into ground-water and cause pollution that way, AND it gave cars less miles-per-gallon than the traditional mixture, meaning people burnt more of it. So essentially, we were better off not mandating the change at all.)
I strongly believe our plant is pretty capable of balancing things out in the long run. We only have so many natural resources of a given type to utilize, and the basics laws of physics make certain guarantees too (such as us being unable to create or destroy matter ... the finite amount we have is simply converted from one substance to another). I think I'd rather trust that than making drastic lifestyle changes that could horribly impact the quality of our lives. Scientists just decided in the last decade or less that humans created this scenario over 200-some years that we THINK we can MAYBE reverse in short order by giving up our primary forms of energy. THAT sounds less that convincing.
The fact is, most people still haven't really grasped this reality. Especially when you're talking to older people, who probably don't really do much to cross a police officer's path these days (and when they were "wild and crazy" as teens or young adults, things were different than today), they think you're over-reacting. They may even give you examples of people they know personally in the police force who "aren't like that at all".
Truth is, many cops aren't psychopaths on a power trip. But it doesn't really matter when you've got a good sized minority who are. You wind up having to treat EACH encounter as though you're expecting the worst.
The other problem is, even the "good cops" out there have LOADS of leeway to do as they please in any given situation. And actually, being human and having this kind of power handed to you leads to temptation to do some very illogical and unjust things. (If you want a real basic and relatively harmless example? I'm on a car enthusiast's forum for a sports car I own, and there are several cops on the forum who own the same car. We've had a few discussions about people who were caught speeding in their cars, and someone asked one of the cops point blank, "Would you arrest me or let it slide if you caught me driving the same car you have?" He said, "I'd probably just let you go with a warning, as long as you didn't have an outstanding warrant." Obviously, that's misuse of power, if he's going to apply the law with bias, just because he likes a certain car you happened to be breaking a traffic law in. But that's the kind of discretion they have.) Of course, I've known a few cops over the years myself, all of whom drive with radar detectors and have "muscle cars" which we can be 99.9% sure they're not simply driving at or below the legal speed limits at all times.... Hypocritical, isn't it, to punish others for the same behaviors they exhibit in their personal lives? But then, we've got cops on motorcycles issuing violations for failure to wear a seatbelt too.
Power corrupts .... It's really that simple.
I completely agree, and was just talking to my wife about the same thing a few weeks ago.
My dad collected guns (though he wasn't a hunter), and always had at least a few in our basement, sitting in a wooden gun cabinet. They were readily accessible, but I never touched any of them because he made it clear they had to be handled safely/properly. When I was old enough, he bought me a BB gun to practice target shooting with in our back yard. (We had a big hill in back which made the perfect backstop for the BBs.) He taught me some of the basics of gun safety at that time, and I wound up becoming interested enough in target shooting that he bought me 5 or 6 other BB and pellet pistols and rifles over the years, after that.
I never really did get that interested in shooting anything other than those BB and pellet guns, but I did eventually upgrade to "competition grade" models similar to what's used in Olympic target shooting.
But really, the problem I see today is with so many "anti-gun" households around, you can practically count on the fact that your kid has at least a few friends who have NOT ever learned a thing about gun safety. That plus a little peer pressure could lead to some bad scenarios, and you can't pretend you're capable of teaching everyone he/she pals around with how to treat guns with respect.
That's one reason I don't have any firearms in my home today. I like the idea of having at least one for personal protection/home defense, but until the kids are older, I just don't like the potential risks involved. And locking everything down in hard-to-open safes makes it rather worthless in an emergency where you need quick access to it.
(Not yet published, but will probably go "live" on www.techcitement.com later today) I didn't really come here to promote my article though....
I was just going to comment that while it's probably true that Mac users often confuse tradition for the "best" way to accomplish something in their OS, it's also true that in the case of OS X Lion, an awful lot was removed..... In some cases, I think these deletions were unjustified and let people to a poor user experience, despite many benefits with the upgrade.
Examples that come to mind?
1. iCal losing its sidebar
2. Contacts losing the 3 column view
3. Loss of expose functionality to ungroup a selection
Combine that with some of the more justified but troublesome deletions, including removal of Rosetta for PPC application support, and Apple easily built a scenario where users happy with OS X 10.6 "Snow Leopard" considered "Lion" to be the Mac equivalent of Windows Vista ... an upgrade they'd rather skip.
To me, Mountain Lion looks like Apple's refining of Lion based on some of the user feedback, plus completion of "half baked" concepts it was clear were rushed to market the last time around. (I'm thinking of such things as storing notes inside the Mail application, vs. creating an independent app for them as they did now.)
Depends on the context.
Sure, if you're advocating the use of open source software vs. commercial alternatives, you might just be able to make a strong case that 'You get what you pay for!" is a lie.
But like most sayings, it's not meant to cover all situations. It's just a general piece of commentary. On the whole, I think there's truth to it, to a point, and then it decreases. Statistically, from looking at many, many product reviews from such sources as Consumer Reports, it's said that *generally*, the best value is found somewhere in the middle. For example, if your local Home Depot sells 3 different models of shovels -- the mid-priced one is probably the smartest buy. (Chances are, the high-end one is similar to the mid-grade one in overall quality. The justifications for paying more tend to be such things as offering a more comfortable handle or some small ergonomic benefit. And if you look at those improvements objectively, they probably cost very little to add to the product, vs. its actual markup, which may be a good 50% more than the mid-priced option.)
So if you're addressing someone looking for the "cheapest option" (as so many Americans do), it's not a bad slogan to try to get them to move up a notch in quality.
If you wish, you can choose any number of jobs'/careers where you won't be expected to stay in touch via cellphone or email 24 hours/7 days. It's not like it's impossible to stay gainfully employed in America today without a "constant on" situation via gadgets you carry around.
What's really happened, in many cases, is that people saw the advantages and accepted the down-sides, but turned around and complained about those down-sides at every opportunity. (You know... the good old "I want to have my cake and eat it too!" thing.)
For example, in my own situation, I work as a systems/network administrator. At some point in time, I asked if the company would supply me with an iPhone because in the past, I already carried one that I bought and paid for each month on a personal plan. Obviously, the trade-off here was the understanding that with it, I'd now be more able to quickly respond to emails or calls, or even text messages. Instead of me carrying around a phone that was basically "off limits" to other employees, my number was now listed in the company directories.
It's a pretty good trade, in my opinion. Yes, my boss may call once in a while on a weekend asking if I can help walk him through a computer problem at home (and in those cases, I may or may not take any given call and it's really not anything he takes issue with when I don't). But I've always been responsible for keeping the computer equipment and network up as part of my job, so honestly, I'd rather get a quick phone call when something's down than find out after I get in the office during my "regular hours" and I've got 20 people complaining about it instead of one person. Meanwhile, I save a lot of money on cellular service and can still use the phone for all my personal things (within reason, obviously - but I do have unlimited data on it).
And sure, society is, by and large, more "connected" with mobile devices than ever before. But it's ridiculous, IMO, to call it a "disease". Again, we CHOOSE this lifestyle and many of us pay extra to keep it. Unlike my parents who used to pretty much cross out 1-2 hours of each day of their lives watching TV news or reading the morning paper to keep informed, I just get the news flashes, piecemeal, from my mobile devices as they happen -- and can actively (not passively like TV) select the news I want to read more about.
My personal thought is, who cares? You get what you pay for, right? Services like Khan Academy are great if they're helping people learn things they wouldn't otherwise take an interest in learning about, or if it enables learning they were interested in but couldn't afford traditional methods of education.
If you're already IN a traditional classroom environment, then no - I'm not sure Khan Academy lessons are so great. I mean, you have to ask, as a paying student, why you're paying your hard-earned money to get a personal classroom experience with supposed educational professionals, who turn around and ask you to sit through canned Khan presentations instead of presenting the material themselves.
As for the "precise explanation of mathematical concepts to be mere nitpicking"? Maybe it is, really? By that, I mean, most people are really only interested in learning math as long as it allows them to accomplish something. The minority who find the theory itself fascinating and want to learn more math for the sake of learning it are the ones who will probably move beyond whatever Khan Academy teaches, and consult other sources.
If you know enough math to get correct answers to the problem you encounter as part of your daily life or job, then that's likely ALL the math you really need to know.
You sure do have some simplistic assumptions about what libertarians think.....
EG. "Libertarians are opposed to the collecting and spending of tax dollars for any reason except for the protection of private property." Really? So you feel their party platform advocates taxation specifically for the purpose of private property protection? That's simply incorrect. It's far more accurate to say they're interested in a minimal government which only performs the duties outlined in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. That includes such things as production of a central currency and ensuring the protection of the nation's borders ... not just ensuring a police force is funded to protect your personal possessions from theft or vandalism.
And by extension, there's no fundamental reason a libertarian would find his/her philosophy invalidated if "climate change" was proven to be real. Again, it's more of the original question I asked in my first post on this topic. How do we know we're capable of legislating/mandating changes which would be effective in fixing the problem in a useful time-frame? The United States can't control what the rest of the world does with energy production. If China decides to burn a bunch of coal for the next 75 years because they need the energy and they're unconcerned about the air pollution it creates? What good is it for Americans to suffer higher taxes and more expensive energy costs in the name of "trying to control climate change with cleaner alternatives"?
Libertarians feel people look to their government far too often to give them solutions to their problems (or perceived problems), vs. attempting to deal with the problems themselves first. I'm pretty certain, for example, that when farmers realize they're struggling to keep their crops alive due to a warming climate -- they're not going to sit around, doing things the same way they've always done them and putting blind faith in the idea things will "turn around" on their own. Like all intelligent human beings, they'll look for solutions. Maybe we'll start growing more crops underground using artificial lighting powered by solar panels on the surface, where the crops themselves used to be? I don't know ... but I have faith in people to come up with solutions to their own dilemmas. And I know it's usually a less efficient way of doing things to wait for somebody else to solve your problems for you.
You're clearly missing my point then. I'm talking about a long term view. If you're doing the exit interview in the first place, you already decided to leave - so even if the problems were fixed quickly, it wouldn't make a difference to you in the short term.
My point is, you never know if years later, you might want to work at the same company again? I've worked for 2 or 3 places where former employees came back. In one case, the guy had retired, but decided to come back out of retirement and asked if the company would consider re-hiring him.
If you helped contribute to a positive change or improvement at the place upon your exit, it will simply make it that much better if you do decide you'd like to take a job there again someday.
I don't think it's taking on any risk if you're tactful in your exit interview. It sounds like some of you are just hot-heads who probably deserve not to have the jobs you're complaining about, if you can't even figure out how to explain both the pros and cons of your workplace to an H.R. person without it sounding like you're a danger to re-hire!
If you want to know why "libertarian groups are funding anti-climate change campaigns", that would seem pretty obvious. The pro climate-change groups are generally pushing for governmental solutions. Libertarians are trying to REDUCE the size and scope of government as much as possible, so clearly, they wouldn't side with any group advocating more government spending on programs, hiring more govt. employees to oversee it, etc.
I don't think libertarians are "anti science" or simply of a mindset that they don't want to get stuck paying for damage they cause. I think they're simply of the opinion that it's BAD policy to spend millions of tax dollars on whichever random solutions a committee decides would be worth trying next, as they screw around with such unknowns as dumping chemicals in the oceans to promote algae growth....
Now, I do appreciate the work one of the parent posters did, citing many references regarding possible reduction in food supply from global warming... I admit that's a very real potential downside. On the other hand, does it take into account potential new farmable land that would result from increased temperatures closer to the poles, where it was never an option before? I'm no scientist, obviously, but I know the laws of physics still apply. For every action, there is still an equal and opposite reaction. How much land is there on earth that's currently colder or cooler than what we'd find ideal? Is it possible there's as much as would suffer real damage from getting too warm/hot?
If you really might be interested in ever working at the place again, someday, then sure -- make sure your exit interview reflects the positives you saw in the company. If not though? I really don't believe most places would bother doing exit interviews at all if they never paid any attention to what was said in them. (Yeah, I know some of you insist these are only to make some busy work for the H.R. department. But at least in the small to medium-size companies I've worked for, H.R. was quite busy just navigating all the red tape involved in the company's health insurance program, plus any 401K or other benefits programs, not to mention all the "little stuff" they were asked to do each day, like adding up hours on people's time-cards and recording the data in Excel spreadsheets used by managers, or handing out paychecks each week, or keeping up with people's vacation requests. I don't think they needed more "busy work"!)
I doubt it will do anything but potentially burn a bridge if you "vent", ranting and raving about how horrible the place was. They're more likely to remember you as that "bitter guy who we're all glad left this place" than anything else.
BUT, I do think if you're honest, but diplomatic and professional in your exit interview, you could definitely still single out problem managers or bad policies, explaining why they posed problems for you (while still talking about anything good you noted while working there). I know such comments DO get kept on file and help build a case against certain employees over time.
For example, I once knew a guy who was considered a "lifer" at the company he was in. It was clear HE intended to stay until the day he retired, and he seemed to have enough respect with the owners so they regarded him as an asset worth keeping. In reality, he constantly requested assistants or interns to help him with his job and in case after case, those people were fired by him or voluntarily quit, because they couldn't stand him any longer. Even managers in one of the other buildings would talk about him behind his back regularly, asking how it was possible he needed extra help to do his job, yet a simple request they asked him to do would take days or weeks to accomplish. By doing it themselves, it got done far more quickly.
I know for a fact he was blasted repeatedly in exit interviews - and all of those people probably decided their comments had no effect, since he still had a job after they were gone. But guess what? When the economy slowed down, he was one of the first people they decided they'd have to do without due to budget cuts. (And while they'd never admit it officially? Off the record, H.R. expressed a lot of unhappiness with the guy's attitude and failure to "straighten up" after warning him.)
Change can be maddeningly slow in companies, especially when they're afraid of lawsuits and/or it's a matter of convincing a whole group of managers to get on the same page about what starts out as someone's opinion. But in the long haul, yes, I think those negative exit interview comments have a cumulative effect.
Then I'm not seeing a huge problem with a "Go Cheney!" right here?
Here's the thing... While most people seem to be fixated on battling back and forth about whether or not "climate change" is really happening (vs. any noted changes just being part of some natural cycle of events, and/or possibly inaccurate data) -- it seems to me the real questions get pushed by the wayside.
EG. If everything said and predicted about warming caused by burning fossil fuels is completely correct, that still does NOTHING to show that it's actually worthwhile to actively take steps to reverse the situation. I think it's pretty outlandish to claim that some government regulation and a push to use "cleaner" fuels would magically turn around warming of the atmosphere caused by 200+ years of burning coal, oil, natural gas, etc. world-wide. Even if you could completely halt all burning of fossil fuels tomorrow? What kind of negative impact would that have on modern society -- and how quickly would it correct the warming problem?
EVERY single time I ask these types of questions, I get the same old trite replies of, "Well ... it's obvious if we got into the situation by doing this bad stuff, we're better off to stop doing the bad stuff as quickly as possible!" IMO, there's SO much good that's come of utilizing this energy, you've got to have a REALLY awful scenario to justify putting a stop to it. Worst case scenarios I've read discuss what amounts to some re-arranging of where our coastlines start and where the climate will be more or less comfortable. And considering it's going to happen relatively gradually (not overnight in some big surprise event where you wake up and ea whole city is wiped out), it sounds like humanity can largely adapt.
I'm pretty certain we DO only have a limited amount of oil we can get out of the ground at anything resembling a cost-effective rate. So again, where's the problem with that? Let people use/buy up the stuff as long as it's viable, and before long, we'll be effectively out of it and no longer need to worry about its contribution to climate change.
See, this issue is a lot bigger than Facebook, IMO. I'm not sure you have any right to control how other people choose to display or label photographs they possess, even IF they happen to have your face in them?
So you can get angry about it all you want, but you don't really have any leverage to force someone to comply with you removal request.
Note: I'm not saying this is necessarily how it should be, but merely that it would appear to be the way it works currently. After all, photographers who you pay to photograph you (school portraits, etc. etc.) still claim a legal right to those images. They say it's illegal for you to so much as make your own duplicates of the set of prints you paid them for.
You know something? The more I read about Kim Dotcom, the more I get the idea "shady character" doesn't really fit him neatly. He reminds me much more of some of the "old school" computer geeks I knew from back in the mid 1980's and still run into occasionally. Many of them have a burning desire to make something of their lives ... to do something memorable, within the realm of what their talents are. They're a little eccentric or "off beat" by mainstream society's standards, sure. And maybe some of them are a bit guilty of being a little too materialistic. (But some of that simply comes with the territory of being interested in technology, IMO. If you spend much of your time working with computers and tech. - you develop an appreciation for all of those physical gadgets and devices that other people may not really have. It extends out towards all manner of complex machines and devices, too. Lots of I.T. hardware guys I know also get very interested in sports cars, for example. Even though they're not "gear heads" in the sense of putting in thousands of hours in someone's garage taking apart engines and transmissions? They appreciate the work that goes into building such a machine, and desire one of their own -- the same way they want the fastest PC out there, even if they don't really have a NEED for one that performs quite that well.)
Dotcom strikes me as all of the above, with a need to be recognized.... to be a "celebrity" of sorts, within his own circle of fellow geeks at least. (The fact he'd change his last name to Dotcom, alone, tells you how much he wants to be noticed as a "guru" in his field of interest.)
He was recently seen in photos hanging out with Steve Wozniak ... with Woz having nothing but good things to say about him. That's not quite what I'd expect if the guy was just your run of the mill online scammer, trying to make his fortune at everyone else's expense.
It's govt. and big media wanting you to think of this guy as something like a foreign leader of a drug cartel ....
I understand your frustration, but at the same time? If you would resell your used Apple Mac gear every 2-3 years, you'd find that it fetches incredibly good resale value compared to most PC hardware.... Since I both prefer Mac systems/OS X *and* don't want to get stuck with systems unable to run their latest OS offerings, I try to regularly rotate out my systems. I typically get back as much as 2/3rds. of what I paid for them, new, and then it's really not that big an expense to pay the difference to always have something current.
First of all, I really appreciate the effort you put into your reply. That may be one of the most intelligent responses I've ever gotten on a message board when having this sort of debate/discussion!
You probably noticed that in my criticism of Obama's presidency, I didn't even touch on the healthcare issue. That's because to a large extent, I agree with you. It's a topic charged with so much political mud-slinging, it's hard to step back from the mess and try to sort it all out rationally. As you say, it's largely a plan proposed by the Republicans (and specifically, by the guy now trying to challenge the plan as presidential contender!).
I guess my biggest problems with it as it now stands are as follows though:
1. Yes, the mandate portion is a problem (and I don't really care WHICH party came up with it first). I really believe almost all of the other big changes/points people like about the whole plan could have remained in place if the Supreme Court ruled the individual mandate part unconstitutional. In fact, insurance companies were ALREADY voluntarily agreeing to insure kids through age 26, no matter WHAT happened with the healthcare law, because it proved to be so popular with customers. By giving the individual mandate a green light, they created this "it's a tax, but no, it's not really a TAX you see" double-speak. I really do get the dilemma the Justices faced with this one. (How can you say Federal govt. doesn't have the legal power to mandate you pay for your healthcare insurance, when you've already decided it's ok to do so for Medicare, by way of a mandatory payroll deduction from each paycheck?) But maybe that just means we needed to dig a little deeper, and start questioning the way that whole system works? IMO, the Medicare and social security system is severely broken too -- and constitutes part of what needs addressing to truly fix the nation's healthcare problems.
2. The healthcare act is an absolutely HUGE piece of legislation, and it's really not a fair explanation of what it does to simply list off the 5 or 6 "bullet points" people like to hear about what it claims to change. There are certainly other "devils in the details" of that multi-hundred page law that we've not yet even begun to realize. Off the top of my head, I can think of one potential issue right away. Many of our hospitals are essentially owned or partnered up with the Catholic church -- a group strongly opposing the idea of paying for health insurance giving its employees free birth control. As a former Catholic myself (born and raised a Catholic but decided to reject it as an adult), I'm just as likely as a lot of other people to laugh it off and say, "Pppftt.... Time they get out of the dark ages anyway, isn't it?" But at the same time, I realize this is still a serious issue for these people. Government is directly interfering with their religious beliefs, and if some kind of exception isn't made? I could easily see the Church deciding they can no longer support these hospitals and medical facilities -- which means a big loss for everyone.
3. I've always thought a big, and necessary part of healthcare reform comes by way of addressing medical malpractice lawsuits -- and Obama seemed afraid to so much as touch any of that. That's actually one area where I'm not surprised the Republicans wouldn't tread, but you'd hope a Democrat might be more likely to go there. I know a number of doctors who have to pay so much for malpractice insurance, it results in adding at least 1/3rd. to the prices they'd otherwise charge their patients. That wouldn't have to be the case if it was regulated on both sides of the fence -- meaning caps on what insurers could charge a doctor (especially one with no prior claims) AND caps on awards possible to award in court cases. IMO, we all know that medicine offers us no guarantees. Almost all of it involves various levels of risk -- and eventually, some people will wind up with the short end of the stick. I don't think it really makes sense to raise the costs of healthcare
Very good (and interesting) point you make, which I suspect most people aren't even aware of.
BUT, I'd also say that practically-speaking, I'm not sure how big a concern this really is for most folks? If law enforcement is interested enough in your mail content to get a subpoena to download/view it, there's a REALLY good chance that in today's legal climate, they'd have absolutely no problem getting a warrant for it either.
If you have concerns the law might look in on some "sensitive" email content, you really shouldn't be considering using a web-based mail service like Google in the first place. You can bet all that mail you told it to delete isn't truly deleted for a LONG time after you requested it. It's still on the host's archival backups someplace, and a warrant can force their hand to restore it.
What you SHOULD be doing is encrypting your mail conversations with something like PGP.....
I'd agree with you, except for the fact Microsoft replaced Outlook Express with Windows Live Mail. Sure, it doesn't typically come pre-installed with a given copy of Windows (though that depends on what some of the OEMs decided to put into their pre-loaded image), but you can download it for free from Microsoft Updates as part of the whole "Windows Live" bundle of free add-on programs.
Windows Live Mail even auto-migrates an existing Outlook Express mail configuration if you like.
1. Thunderbird, IMO, could improve greatly with a UI redesign. It's a good program -- don't get me wrong. But to just declare that it's "about as good as it can get" and give up most of the support for the project seems a bit arrogant to me. I hate change for the sake of change (which is really what I felt most of Microsoft Office 2007 gave people vs. version 2003, with everything moved around to different places as the "ribbon bar" menu was created). But especially for Windows users, Thunderbird mail client has the look of some sort of project ported over from Linux. A lot of little things like the graphics for the buttons and even the default fonts used just don't have the polish of a client like Outlook.
2. I haven't yet seen a mail client yet for a PC that really does IMAP the way I'd like to see it implemented. That is to say, presenting all of the folders just like users are used to seeing and working with them when they use a standard POP3/SMTP client. Google makes a confusing mess for most users when they connect Gmail with IMAP to clients like Outlook, and all I ever hear about using Thunderbird instead is "you trade a few of those issues off for many other new ones".
3. Sure, webmail is growing in popularity all the time. But it's not really ideal for people who need to work with a lot of mail attachments. With a full blown client, you can simply double-click on attachments and immediately open them to view/print them - even if the files are for less common applications you might be using (various CAD packages, etc.). Webmail forces the extra step of downloading the attachment someplace on your local PC, before you can go find where you saved it and open it. It's also a lot slower, at times. I know with my Yahoo web-mail for example, sometimes I click to simply re-read a message I viewed earlier and I may get as much as a 10 second pause before the page refreshes, depending on their server load.
4. Your final reason would basically be telling me I need to rewrite Thunderbird myself, if I want the above things.... Since I'm not a software developer, that's a really TALL order and it's just not likely to happen. That doesn't mean I haven't worked in I.T. for over 20 years though and set applications up for many different people besides just myself, where I see some of these needs. That's really the problem with open source at the end of the day. It's great if you're a developer ... but the vast majority of people running a given piece of code are its end-users. If the devs can't/won't/don't take a keen interest in updating their code based on what the USERS want, it may as well not exist as a mainstream application after a while.
Part of me just can't let some of these claims you're making rest, without some sort of rebuttal.
Sure, I agree that Obama is proud of what he's accomplished (or tried to accomplish, depending on the situation). But at the same time, these accomplishments are being questioned by nearly half of the American people, according to most polls. These certainly aren't "clear win" items where the vast majority agrees it moves America forward!
The military situation is a prime example! We're STILL at war, though most people can't really tell you anything concrete that we've accomplished so far. All we seem to hear is more of the same propaganda about "Helping keep us free from the terrorists!" (Those who read Orwell's 1984 or watched the movie "Brazil" will recognize this tactic immediately for what it is.) What I *do* know is, we've sent more American citizens home in body bags or with missing limbs or at least with post-traumatic stress disorder than we've had so much as remotely THREATENED by the terrorists. Never-mind the COST of the war, which puts our nation many billions of dollars further in debt, at a time when we can ill afford it. Obama insinuated that if he was elected in '08, he'd bring the troops home and put and end to what W started. For anyone who voted for him expecting that to happen (you know, maybe as part of that whole "hope and change" thing he went on about?), it was a total FAIL!
You want another example of Obama's good intentions not producing real results? Take his energy policies.... In his zealousness to promote all things "Green", we've watched company after company take government funds to the tune of millions of dollars, produce none of the products they promised, and turn around and file for bankruptcy. He managed to shutter the last U.S. based company producing incandescent light-bulbs too, while convincing the public to switch mostly to CFL's -- exclusively foreign-made lights with inferior lighting properties and containing hazardous mercury inside. And that's progress??
And right now, this whole "gay rights" thing sure is getting a lot of attention, but IMO - that's such a side issue. Obama's wishy-washy responses throughout his presidency on gay marriage were nothing to praise the man about anyway.
Let me be clear... I don't consider myself a Republican at all. I'm very much independent. But an honest, unbiased analysis of things leads me to conclude that wherher we have Romney as our next president OR Obama for another 4 years, we're in trouble as a nation. Obama couldn't end a senseless war he inherited in *4* years, and Romney is already talking about spending much MORE on military buildup if he's elected. War-mongers, the whole lot.