It's not harder, people are just lazy. The worst part is, music CDs and games are in the same part of the store, and many of the Wal-Marts I've been to have a strict enforcment of carding for "mature" rated games. How carding for "explicit content" CDs is legitimately harder is anyone's guess.
I'm in what I'm guessing you consider the service sector (retail), and in the store I work at, it's not uncommon to see purchases of $2000+. Now, people aren't generally going to pay that with cash, they use a credit card. Most of us make a habit of simply asking for ID from every customer that gives us their credit card.
The point I was trying to make is that there isn't a gene that says "you are this race," but that there are certain characteristics that are associated with certain "races" that are determined by genes.
The main example I had in mind was being Native American. One of the factors for being considered a Native American is that you have to have a certain percentage of the heritage. Well, unless you can prove that you are Running Deer's great granddaughter by finding documentation that he was the father of your father's mother, then the only other thing you could rely on is DNA. If you can match up your DNA with a registered person of a Native American tribe, then you can be considered Native American. But what does a person usually have to start with for the idea of even being Native American? One of the things I've heard is being able to tan dark easily.
Race is a matter of simplifying things. Just like any other classification in the animal kingdom. Why is there no "breed" for cats with white fur and blue eyes? If you know enough about cats, then you know that the feline with short, bluish-gray fur is at least part Russian Blue, but what if it has the stripes of a Tabby? Well, there's no "breed" for short, blue-furred, striped cats, it's simply a mixed breed. The same goes for people. Everyone's of mixed race, but the degrees to which those characteristics manifest in the DNA can help determine what those "races" consist of.
Yes, "race" is a social concept, but so is breed, species, class, phylum, and even kingdom. When it comes down to it, we're all just a bunch of cells, not much different from the cat on your lap, or the dog at your feet, or the plants in your yard. What do humans use to set everything apart and organize everything? Characteristics. Whether we have vertebrae, an exoskeleton, are warm-blooded, have hair, can fly, can breathe underwater... What difference is there between the social concept known as "race" and the one known as "species"?
Personally, I don't believe it is. A religion, yes. A nationality, yes. A culture, yes. But not a race. There are no distinct sets of physical characteristics that can easily set them apart from others of similar races. In the same sense, being an American does not necessarily mean you're white and/or Christian.
An elaboration would be appreciated, since I don't understand where you're coming from here (and yes, I do know what inflection is, though my Latin is lacking, so perhaps you know something I don't).
Erm, sorry man, I'm having trouble wrapping my head around that idea. Maybe I'm just stuck in my ways. I grew up hearing a lot of "my daddy, my daddy's daddy, my daddy's daddy's daddy..." stories. Shedding the family name feels like I'm saying "I don't want to be associated with you, dad."
Basically, when a couple gets married in the United States (and other countries that have the same tradition), the wife typically drops her maiden name and takes her husband's name. Assuming she's not using it as her middle name (or hyphenates it, as some people do chose to do), she's "shedding the family name." Wouldn't/shouldn't that have the same effect of "I don't want to be associated with you"? Perhaps the area you live in sees more women with their maiden names as middle names, or they hyphenate their maiden with their married names, but in the places I've lived, this is rarely the case. It just seems more logical to me that, if the last name is supposed to honor the family (which is understandable), then a person's last name should have their family name and their married name, to honor both their blood family and their new family.
In the logic that a person takes a family name to honor their mate's family (or that shedding one's family name "dishonors" their family, in a sense), then chosing to take one name over the other is more like chosing to save one person over another. Combining the names, then, would/could be more like saving both people, because it honors both families by including elements of both names.
If you want to get technical, Mike Ginelli, Craig Fass, and Brian Turtle should be screaming prior art, since they actually came up with the show, though Kevin Bacon could probably do so as well since he was a key part of it.
Also, Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon predates SixDegrees.com by three years, so the OP was more correct.
Part of the reason to take the family name is to honor the parents.
Does that mean one of the couple in the case of a "traditional" marriage (i.e. - one taking the other's name) is being dishonorable to their/their mate's parents? If changing your name to your mate's was to honor their parents, then you'd be dishonoring your own parents, however, if you kept your name, you'd be dishonoring your mate's parents. It would seem more logical to change the family name altogether (perhaps in such a way to include both family names) if honor was the case.
Although there is no gene/set of genes that determine "race" because it is a social concept, the term is most likely used when a certain combination of genes that is prevalent in a "race" is found in a person. Take, for example, an Asian person. Usually, the first things that come to mind at the term "Asian" is the almond-shaped eyes, straight black hair, "yellow" skin color, and perhaps skeletal structure (size, build, etc). If a person visibly possesses these characteristics, they are deemed to be Asian or of Asian decent. Although someone may not show it visibly, biologists could conclude that someone is of Asian decent because they possess the genes that could have given them these characteristics.
The thing is, race isn't just skin color, which both you and the replier to your original post seem to have neglected. Many features, or ranges of features define a race. Among those features are usually skeletal structure (again, size, build, etc, and also things like the shape of the skull), skin color (melonen content, levels of certain colors to make the apparant color), eye color, and hair color and texture (this is neglecting biological phenomina, such as albinism, in which case you could say that the lightest "black" person is lighter than the lightest "white" person, but these tests could also be useful to determine if you are a carrier of such recessive genes). A person's genes determine all of this, and it does so with so many different factors (I think there's something like 7 different genes that determine eye color) that it could actually make it easier to do some sort of lineage trace. We already have the human genome mapped, so it's not that much of a stretch to be able to trace back at least as far back as we can get DNA samples. Whether they've actually done it as stated in some of the links posted here is a different story, but it's definitely feasible.
It would be interesting to see, too. Maybe have an option to send a sample of blood to somewhere like National Geographic when you donate blood and a couple weeks later, you get the "results" of it: a breakdown of your DNA, basically (and in Laman's terms, of course), including genetic suseptibilities to various diseases or allergies or whatnot, and perhaps a way to track your lineage using your "profile" (much like they seem to already do on the National Geographic website). It would be beneficial, in my opinion at least, to know some of the possible genetic disorders you are at risk for passing down and it would definitely be interesting to find out who your ancestors are and where they came from. And beyond a personal level, it could also be useful in finding out when and how the different "races" came about. Everyone knows the general where and why of it (dark skin typically means tropical or sub-tropical regions and acts as natural sunblock, etc), but not necessarily the how and when (what caused the skull/skeletal structure to change in people of this region and not of that one?), especially if we all share a common ancestor.
It'd be a huge project to undertake to be able to get enough people for it to be really accurate, but it'd be fun to watch it expand and see it unfold and become more and more accurate and more and more enlightening.
For the record, my examples are real people. The company President is my mom's boss, and yes, he does get $64k a year from the Trump Towers apartment he inherited from his step-mother, and his wife is a co-owner of the company. And the people on my mom's level (accountants with at least an Associate's) make between $8 and $10 an hour working full time, and this is a major company with international clients. I'm not saying he's a bad person, because he's not, but I don't agree with the pay scale in the company.
The school superintendent is one that's notorius in parts of the state of New York for shutting down schools and consolidating them, he became the superintendent of the school district I attended in high school and had the school I went to (K-12, ~250 students, one of the two self-sufficient high schools in the district of 5 high schools, it was also the farthest out, the next school in the district was about 20 miles away) shut down, and was quite shady and borderline illegal about it, spreading lies about the condition of the school and the education received. From what I hear, he tried doing the same thing to one of the other schools, but was met with more opposition this time and was stopped. The people in the district are trying to find a way to get him out of there and nullify his contract which states that if he were to be fired, he'd get 90% of his pay (his pay is somewhere between $120k and $150k).
I'm not saying that all rich people or execs are bad people (the school I went to and the local library were prime examples of the benefits of The Gates Foundation -- the school got 20-25 new computers, and the library got 3 or 4 new computers [it's a small library and didn't need many]; though I don't really agree with the way Microsoft works, especially when dealing with competition), but power and money does corrupt and people in high positions can fall victim to the effects. And it's not usually the people themselves I don't like, it's the way a company, in general, is run. Most companies are run by the people at the top, the ones who aren't on the floor any more and no longer see what's going on on a daily basis. Yet the execs still think they know what's best for the company. So, when a decision is made that affects the lower levels, especially when the lower levels aren't involved in the decision, the people on the bottom are going "what are they thinking? This doesn't make sense." I don't think all execs are evil...I just think most of them are clueless...
As far as who is at or below the poverty line, I've been one of them that was at least close. Like I said, my mom (who finished high school, has a college degree, works full time, and supported a family) has a wage of a little less than $9/hr. My step-dad is physically disabled and can't work, so he's on social security (he does have to pay child support and had one of his kids living with him when we met him, he was easily below the poverty line at that time). That gave them roughly $18k/yr to work with for the three of us (after the child support). There were times where we barely had the money for my mom to have enough gas to get to work (which was about 30 miles away as they live in a rural area). After I moved out for college, the first job I was able to get was a Burger King, making $6/hr. I was in a situation where I was in college and had no car (I live about 15 miles away from the school because of the nature of the city), so I couldn't work more than part time, but I had to work because I had a $300 rent payment (off-campus housing) and enjoyed being able to eat (I was a 17-year-old high school graduate, I had to fight the fact that most people look at the age without looking at education status and immediately want a work permit).
I'm not trying to "cry poor" because I know I'm not the worst off (and technically speaking, we weren't at/below poverty in the arrangement we were in, though if one of his kids had moved in, we would have been), but I know how hard it was trying to make ends meet in situati
Okay, I'll give you the outsourcing ones, though it's interesting to see some of the other effects of outsourcing (like the requirement to know Mandarin Chinese for various positions at Blizzard).
I don't quite agree with your point on minimum wage, though. Although it may be beneficial for the most part, for the points you've stated, there are far too many companies that would take advantage of it, and unfortunately, there are people that have to support at least themselves on a minimum wage (or close to minimum wage) job and aren't in a position to find a different job or work two jobs. I think the only reason why many companies don't pay people minimum wage is that it's an insult to do so, so they make themselves look better by keeping hold of the fact that they pay more than minimum wage (even if it's only a quarter or two more). I, personally, enjoy knowing that even if I have to work the worst job I could ever work, I'm going to come home with at least a certain amount of money in each paycheck. Try paying rent, utilities, a car payment, and insurance on a minimum wage job...now try it on a job that pays less because there is no minimum wage. True, we wouldn't have to pay minors or retired people as much (though that'll bring up so many issues from activists about age discrimination it's almost scary), but we'll be supporting the people that are stuck in the middle age groups with those wages because they'll have to be on something like Welfare and be receiving food stamps because every penny they earn goes just to paying the bills because they can't get a second/different job.
Personally, I find it sickening enough knowing how much some of these execs make and how much they give themselves bonuses and what their employees make without any sort of, or very minimal, bonuses (I'm not saying all companies are like that, but when the President of the company makes $64k/year from renting out an apartment he owns, over and above what he gets from the company he runs while his degreed employees are making less than $10/hr; or the Superintendent of a school district is making $150k/year as he's shutting down schools because there's "insufficient funding to keep them open" or neglecting to allow valuable upgrades to learning materials because of "insufficient funds"; that's just disgusting).
The thing is, consumer electronics isn't like a restaurant, you have the ability to shop around for the best deals and buy what you want, where and when you want (unless you live in an area where there's only one CE store, but that's usually quickly followed by competition). Granted, Apple is set up in such a way that it doesn't matter where you get your Apple product, it will be the same price (or close to it) no matter where you go (except maybe eBay). I know what a particular store's markup is for things like USB cables and various accessories and I wouldn't buy most of that stuff at full price if I can help it since it's something like 500% (being an employee has its perks), on the other hand, there are things like base systems and consoles that are marked up a negligible amount, if at all. Now, I know not everyone has the luxury of working for or knowing a good friend that works for a big consumer electronics chain, so not everyone knows what the markups are. We're also told not to reveal the employee cost of anything, for this reason. Everyone knows that items are marked up huge amounts, but they only speculate what those amounts are. Also, many people neglect the fact that there are other costs in making a product. Ok, so with the help of machines, an iPod can be created for a dollar because the parts are ordered/created en masse, but you've also got other costs. Electricity (and other utilities used), maintainence, employee wages/salaries, various middlemen in the production process, tech support (both end-user for the product and in-house for departments like accounting, shipping, R&D, etc), among other things.
I do agree with you on that the OP should not have told people how much he made, but I think it would be the same idea with Apple, especially if/when coupled with other information, such as the manufacturers of the boards, processors, etc.
You both have some good points here (even if the discussion is a little offtopic). Though I do have a question for you: Is there really that much different going on in Europe than there is in America (except, perhaps childbearing rates).
Considering our elderly, which is now becoming the Baby Boomer generation, is putting an increasing strain on our Social Security measures. It wouldn't suprise me if we went into some form of recession in the next decade or two (despite how "up" things are looking now, remember the roaring 20s right before the Depression), we're about due for another one. Not to mention the ever-rising prices of everything, and yet federal minimum wage is still less than $6 an hour. Something's bound to give eventually. Keep in mind too, that if Europe goes into a recession (depending on how much and what parts of Europe and how bad the recession is), it could send America into one as well.
The fact that we have to work over 40 hours a week to make ends meet and anyone with a well-paying job (especially in the Tech field) has to worry about being outsourced and anyone with a job has the prospect of downsizing or budget cuts constantly looming over their head (whether or not they want to admit to it), should be indicative that something's not quite right.
I've seen bad addicts of both games and alcohol, and neither are very pretty...
I think a lot of people look at countries like China and think that they're so bad off because they're looking at them from the view of a citizen in a "rich" country (US, western Europe, etc). In reality, they might not think anything of their living conditions. Ok, so you have to work 12 hours a day to make ends meet...don't many Americans do that as well? Ok, so they get $5USD a day for working those 12 hours, but a loaf of bread costs them $.5USD (these numbers are purely hypothetical, I don't know exactly what people get paid in China, nor what the exact conversion rate is, but the point isn't in the details anyway). It's like someone that lives in a big city and has a job that pays $25/hour decides to quit his job and move out into the country. Suddenly, he's only making $10/hour. But on the other hand, his rent is no longer $950/month, but $350/month. Is he really worse off in the country than he was in the city?
I'm not saying China's a utopia, but perhaps to the people that grew up there, that's "just the way things are." And many people believe that the goverment does what it does to protect the people.
The so-addicted-they-have-a-fridge-next-to-them-and-us e-a-bottle-to-relieve-themselves aside, games usually provide safe areas in which a player can leave for a while. There's also enough downtime in or before group battles (at least in the RPG-style MMOs) to practically make dinner and eat it. And thankfully, most people are considerate enough to go away from keyboard between battles and not during.
And if you own more than one account, you have entirely too much time and/or money on your hands...
Unfortunately, LiveJournal is one of the better ones out there. I've had an account there for three years now, and when I joined, LiveJournal still had the "by invite only" policy. They dropped that policy sometime afterward, then recently implemented the Sponsored+ account option. Although it does mean putting up with ads when reading straight from other people's weblogs, I still have the option not to have them on my own, which means I don't have to put up with them when reading other people's entries from my friends page. Even when I do read from others' pages, the ads aren't generally all that bad, especially compared to the eye-sores that many sites have.
That's like saying a child who gets molested by an adult is consenting to it because they don't know any different and don't know it's wrong and therefore don't fight back or say no. Or, on a more politically correct and technological level, does that mean if you invited your friend over for a visit and they installed a bunch of crap on your computer without you knowing it, that you gave them consent to do so simply because you allowed them into your house and didn't explicity forbid them from touching your computer? Or that no one has any case against hackers because the victim has left a port open for other purposes or without knowledge of it being there and the hacker exploited it and gained access?
Yes, you may have authorized to have the ads viewable, but you didn't authorize the download and installation of questionable software that you didn't know was attached to said ad.
I don't really think the Silithid as a whole resemble Zerg beyond the whole "invading bug that everyone hates" thing and the ground around their hives resemble creep. The creatures themselves, though, aren't really Zerg-like in my opinion. Though, thinking on it, it wouldn't surprise me if they based the Silithid off the Zerg. Then their whole affiliation with the Anubis-like creatures kinda throws things a little off as well.
Ah, true, true. Although many assume the whole "rewound time" thing, Blizzard could play on it for sure. That's one of the many details in the storyline that I've forgotten.
A lot of the suffixes are pretty much straight from Diablo, but the nameing scheme of using a prefix and/or suffix to determine the enchant is still there, since things like Angel's and Archangel's is either useless or far too powerful in the WoW context.
Not all of the Tier sets escalate in power, but that seems to be more of a design error (see Earthfury vs. Ten Storms sets, many people view Earthfury better than Ten Storms), but I do see your point here. There's lightyears between the 1-just-turned-60 and Epic 60. There've been a number of times where I've been going somewhere to level and get attacked by a 60 in Tier 2 and Legendary (typically the Hand of Rag). I'm usually dead before I can dismount. Then there's the case of Alterac Valley, where a level 51 gets thrown in with 60s and pretty much become free honor and targets.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not harder, people are just lazy. The worst part is, music CDs and games are in the same part of the store, and many of the Wal-Marts I've been to have a strict enforcment of carding for "mature" rated games. How carding for "explicit content" CDs is legitimately harder is anyone's guess.
I'm in what I'm guessing you consider the service sector (retail), and in the store I work at, it's not uncommon to see purchases of $2000+. Now, people aren't generally going to pay that with cash, they use a credit card. Most of us make a habit of simply asking for ID from every customer that gives us their credit card.
Like I said, people are lazy... =/
My response to driptray's reply should be close enough to what I would respond to you that I'll just notify you of that one for the time being.
The point I was trying to make is that there isn't a gene that says "you are this race," but that there are certain characteristics that are associated with certain "races" that are determined by genes.
The main example I had in mind was being Native American. One of the factors for being considered a Native American is that you have to have a certain percentage of the heritage. Well, unless you can prove that you are Running Deer's great granddaughter by finding documentation that he was the father of your father's mother, then the only other thing you could rely on is DNA. If you can match up your DNA with a registered person of a Native American tribe, then you can be considered Native American. But what does a person usually have to start with for the idea of even being Native American? One of the things I've heard is being able to tan dark easily.
Race is a matter of simplifying things. Just like any other classification in the animal kingdom. Why is there no "breed" for cats with white fur and blue eyes? If you know enough about cats, then you know that the feline with short, bluish-gray fur is at least part Russian Blue, but what if it has the stripes of a Tabby? Well, there's no "breed" for short, blue-furred, striped cats, it's simply a mixed breed. The same goes for people. Everyone's of mixed race, but the degrees to which those characteristics manifest in the DNA can help determine what those "races" consist of.
Yes, "race" is a social concept, but so is breed, species, class, phylum, and even kingdom. When it comes down to it, we're all just a bunch of cells, not much different from the cat on your lap, or the dog at your feet, or the plants in your yard. What do humans use to set everything apart and organize everything? Characteristics. Whether we have vertebrae, an exoskeleton, are warm-blooded, have hair, can fly, can breathe underwater... What difference is there between the social concept known as "race" and the one known as "species"?
Personally, I don't believe it is. A religion, yes. A nationality, yes. A culture, yes. But not a race. There are no distinct sets of physical characteristics that can easily set them apart from others of similar races. In the same sense, being an American does not necessarily mean you're white and/or Christian.
An elaboration would be appreciated, since I don't understand where you're coming from here (and yes, I do know what inflection is, though my Latin is lacking, so perhaps you know something I don't).
Erm, sorry man, I'm having trouble wrapping my head around that idea. Maybe I'm just stuck in my ways. I grew up hearing a lot of "my daddy, my daddy's daddy, my daddy's daddy's daddy..." stories. Shedding the family name feels like I'm saying "I don't want to be associated with you, dad."
Basically, when a couple gets married in the United States (and other countries that have the same tradition), the wife typically drops her maiden name and takes her husband's name. Assuming she's not using it as her middle name (or hyphenates it, as some people do chose to do), she's "shedding the family name." Wouldn't/shouldn't that have the same effect of "I don't want to be associated with you"? Perhaps the area you live in sees more women with their maiden names as middle names, or they hyphenate their maiden with their married names, but in the places I've lived, this is rarely the case. It just seems more logical to me that, if the last name is supposed to honor the family (which is understandable), then a person's last name should have their family name and their married name, to honor both their blood family and their new family.
In the logic that a person takes a family name to honor their mate's family (or that shedding one's family name "dishonors" their family, in a sense), then chosing to take one name over the other is more like chosing to save one person over another. Combining the names, then, would/could be more like saving both people, because it honors both families by including elements of both names.
If you want to get technical, Mike Ginelli, Craig Fass, and Brian Turtle should be screaming prior art, since they actually came up with the show, though Kevin Bacon could probably do so as well since he was a key part of it.
Also, Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon predates SixDegrees.com by three years, so the OP was more correct.
Part of the reason to take the family name is to honor the parents.
Does that mean one of the couple in the case of a "traditional" marriage (i.e. - one taking the other's name) is being dishonorable to their/their mate's parents? If changing your name to your mate's was to honor their parents, then you'd be dishonoring your own parents, however, if you kept your name, you'd be dishonoring your mate's parents. It would seem more logical to change the family name altogether (perhaps in such a way to include both family names) if honor was the case.
mater : mother.
certus : undoubted, certain, sure, settled, resolved, decided / definite
mas maris m. [the male; manly , vigorous].
All translations from http://archives.nd.edu/latgramm.htm
Although there is no gene/set of genes that determine "race" because it is a social concept, the term is most likely used when a certain combination of genes that is prevalent in a "race" is found in a person. Take, for example, an Asian person. Usually, the first things that come to mind at the term "Asian" is the almond-shaped eyes, straight black hair, "yellow" skin color, and perhaps skeletal structure (size, build, etc). If a person visibly possesses these characteristics, they are deemed to be Asian or of Asian decent. Although someone may not show it visibly, biologists could conclude that someone is of Asian decent because they possess the genes that could have given them these characteristics.
The thing is, race isn't just skin color, which both you and the replier to your original post seem to have neglected. Many features, or ranges of features define a race. Among those features are usually skeletal structure (again, size, build, etc, and also things like the shape of the skull), skin color (melonen content, levels of certain colors to make the apparant color), eye color, and hair color and texture (this is neglecting biological phenomina, such as albinism, in which case you could say that the lightest "black" person is lighter than the lightest "white" person, but these tests could also be useful to determine if you are a carrier of such recessive genes). A person's genes determine all of this, and it does so with so many different factors (I think there's something like 7 different genes that determine eye color) that it could actually make it easier to do some sort of lineage trace. We already have the human genome mapped, so it's not that much of a stretch to be able to trace back at least as far back as we can get DNA samples. Whether they've actually done it as stated in some of the links posted here is a different story, but it's definitely feasible.
It would be interesting to see, too. Maybe have an option to send a sample of blood to somewhere like National Geographic when you donate blood and a couple weeks later, you get the "results" of it: a breakdown of your DNA, basically (and in Laman's terms, of course), including genetic suseptibilities to various diseases or allergies or whatnot, and perhaps a way to track your lineage using your "profile" (much like they seem to already do on the National Geographic website). It would be beneficial, in my opinion at least, to know some of the possible genetic disorders you are at risk for passing down and it would definitely be interesting to find out who your ancestors are and where they came from. And beyond a personal level, it could also be useful in finding out when and how the different "races" came about. Everyone knows the general where and why of it (dark skin typically means tropical or sub-tropical regions and acts as natural sunblock, etc), but not necessarily the how and when (what caused the skull/skeletal structure to change in people of this region and not of that one?), especially if we all share a common ancestor.
It'd be a huge project to undertake to be able to get enough people for it to be really accurate, but it'd be fun to watch it expand and see it unfold and become more and more accurate and more and more enlightening.
For the record, my examples are real people. The company President is my mom's boss, and yes, he does get $64k a year from the Trump Towers apartment he inherited from his step-mother, and his wife is a co-owner of the company. And the people on my mom's level (accountants with at least an Associate's) make between $8 and $10 an hour working full time, and this is a major company with international clients. I'm not saying he's a bad person, because he's not, but I don't agree with the pay scale in the company.
The school superintendent is one that's notorius in parts of the state of New York for shutting down schools and consolidating them, he became the superintendent of the school district I attended in high school and had the school I went to (K-12, ~250 students, one of the two self-sufficient high schools in the district of 5 high schools, it was also the farthest out, the next school in the district was about 20 miles away) shut down, and was quite shady and borderline illegal about it, spreading lies about the condition of the school and the education received. From what I hear, he tried doing the same thing to one of the other schools, but was met with more opposition this time and was stopped. The people in the district are trying to find a way to get him out of there and nullify his contract which states that if he were to be fired, he'd get 90% of his pay (his pay is somewhere between $120k and $150k).
I'm not saying that all rich people or execs are bad people (the school I went to and the local library were prime examples of the benefits of The Gates Foundation -- the school got 20-25 new computers, and the library got 3 or 4 new computers [it's a small library and didn't need many]; though I don't really agree with the way Microsoft works, especially when dealing with competition), but power and money does corrupt and people in high positions can fall victim to the effects. And it's not usually the people themselves I don't like, it's the way a company, in general, is run. Most companies are run by the people at the top, the ones who aren't on the floor any more and no longer see what's going on on a daily basis. Yet the execs still think they know what's best for the company. So, when a decision is made that affects the lower levels, especially when the lower levels aren't involved in the decision, the people on the bottom are going "what are they thinking? This doesn't make sense." I don't think all execs are evil...I just think most of them are clueless...
As far as who is at or below the poverty line, I've been one of them that was at least close. Like I said, my mom (who finished high school, has a college degree, works full time, and supported a family) has a wage of a little less than $9/hr. My step-dad is physically disabled and can't work, so he's on social security (he does have to pay child support and had one of his kids living with him when we met him, he was easily below the poverty line at that time). That gave them roughly $18k/yr to work with for the three of us (after the child support). There were times where we barely had the money for my mom to have enough gas to get to work (which was about 30 miles away as they live in a rural area). After I moved out for college, the first job I was able to get was a Burger King, making $6/hr. I was in a situation where I was in college and had no car (I live about 15 miles away from the school because of the nature of the city), so I couldn't work more than part time, but I had to work because I had a $300 rent payment (off-campus housing) and enjoyed being able to eat (I was a 17-year-old high school graduate, I had to fight the fact that most people look at the age without looking at education status and immediately want a work permit).
I'm not trying to "cry poor" because I know I'm not the worst off (and technically speaking, we weren't at/below poverty in the arrangement we were in, though if one of his kids had moved in, we would have been), but I know how hard it was trying to make ends meet in situati
Okay, I'll give you the outsourcing ones, though it's interesting to see some of the other effects of outsourcing (like the requirement to know Mandarin Chinese for various positions at Blizzard).
I don't quite agree with your point on minimum wage, though. Although it may be beneficial for the most part, for the points you've stated, there are far too many companies that would take advantage of it, and unfortunately, there are people that have to support at least themselves on a minimum wage (or close to minimum wage) job and aren't in a position to find a different job or work two jobs. I think the only reason why many companies don't pay people minimum wage is that it's an insult to do so, so they make themselves look better by keeping hold of the fact that they pay more than minimum wage (even if it's only a quarter or two more). I, personally, enjoy knowing that even if I have to work the worst job I could ever work, I'm going to come home with at least a certain amount of money in each paycheck. Try paying rent, utilities, a car payment, and insurance on a minimum wage job...now try it on a job that pays less because there is no minimum wage. True, we wouldn't have to pay minors or retired people as much (though that'll bring up so many issues from activists about age discrimination it's almost scary), but we'll be supporting the people that are stuck in the middle age groups with those wages because they'll have to be on something like Welfare and be receiving food stamps because every penny they earn goes just to paying the bills because they can't get a second/different job.
Personally, I find it sickening enough knowing how much some of these execs make and how much they give themselves bonuses and what their employees make without any sort of, or very minimal, bonuses (I'm not saying all companies are like that, but when the President of the company makes $64k/year from renting out an apartment he owns, over and above what he gets from the company he runs while his degreed employees are making less than $10/hr; or the Superintendent of a school district is making $150k/year as he's shutting down schools because there's "insufficient funding to keep them open" or neglecting to allow valuable upgrades to learning materials because of "insufficient funds"; that's just disgusting).
The thing is, consumer electronics isn't like a restaurant, you have the ability to shop around for the best deals and buy what you want, where and when you want (unless you live in an area where there's only one CE store, but that's usually quickly followed by competition). Granted, Apple is set up in such a way that it doesn't matter where you get your Apple product, it will be the same price (or close to it) no matter where you go (except maybe eBay). I know what a particular store's markup is for things like USB cables and various accessories and I wouldn't buy most of that stuff at full price if I can help it since it's something like 500% (being an employee has its perks), on the other hand, there are things like base systems and consoles that are marked up a negligible amount, if at all. Now, I know not everyone has the luxury of working for or knowing a good friend that works for a big consumer electronics chain, so not everyone knows what the markups are. We're also told not to reveal the employee cost of anything, for this reason. Everyone knows that items are marked up huge amounts, but they only speculate what those amounts are. Also, many people neglect the fact that there are other costs in making a product. Ok, so with the help of machines, an iPod can be created for a dollar because the parts are ordered/created en masse, but you've also got other costs. Electricity (and other utilities used), maintainence, employee wages/salaries, various middlemen in the production process, tech support (both end-user for the product and in-house for departments like accounting, shipping, R&D, etc), among other things.
I do agree with you on that the OP should not have told people how much he made, but I think it would be the same idea with Apple, especially if/when coupled with other information, such as the manufacturers of the boards, processors, etc.
You both have some good points here (even if the discussion is a little offtopic). Though I do have a question for you: Is there really that much different going on in Europe than there is in America (except, perhaps childbearing rates).
Considering our elderly, which is now becoming the Baby Boomer generation, is putting an increasing strain on our Social Security measures. It wouldn't suprise me if we went into some form of recession in the next decade or two (despite how "up" things are looking now, remember the roaring 20s right before the Depression), we're about due for another one. Not to mention the ever-rising prices of everything, and yet federal minimum wage is still less than $6 an hour. Something's bound to give eventually. Keep in mind too, that if Europe goes into a recession (depending on how much and what parts of Europe and how bad the recession is), it could send America into one as well.
The fact that we have to work over 40 hours a week to make ends meet and anyone with a well-paying job (especially in the Tech field) has to worry about being outsourced and anyone with a job has the prospect of downsizing or budget cuts constantly looming over their head (whether or not they want to admit to it), should be indicative that something's not quite right.
Hehe... looks like someone's been playing a little too much WoW...? :D Never underestimate the value of those vending machines...
You sure [Car Keys] is only blue? I figured it'd be purple or orange...
/drool
I suppose the [Car] that completes the set would be purple, huh? And the set bonus that comes with it....
I've seen bad addicts of both games and alcohol, and neither are very pretty...
I think a lot of people look at countries like China and think that they're so bad off because they're looking at them from the view of a citizen in a "rich" country (US, western Europe, etc). In reality, they might not think anything of their living conditions. Ok, so you have to work 12 hours a day to make ends meet...don't many Americans do that as well? Ok, so they get $5USD a day for working those 12 hours, but a loaf of bread costs them $.5USD (these numbers are purely hypothetical, I don't know exactly what people get paid in China, nor what the exact conversion rate is, but the point isn't in the details anyway). It's like someone that lives in a big city and has a job that pays $25/hour decides to quit his job and move out into the country. Suddenly, he's only making $10/hour. But on the other hand, his rent is no longer $950/month, but $350/month. Is he really worse off in the country than he was in the city?
I'm not saying China's a utopia, but perhaps to the people that grew up there, that's "just the way things are." And many people believe that the goverment does what it does to protect the people.
Heh, you sound like me... A female that's been known to game 8 hours a day (sometimes even 12 or more)...and engaged to a geek. :P
The so-addicted-they-have-a-fridge-next-to-them-and-us e-a-bottle-to-relieve-themselves aside, games usually provide safe areas in which a player can leave for a while. There's also enough downtime in or before group battles (at least in the RPG-style MMOs) to practically make dinner and eat it. And thankfully, most people are considerate enough to go away from keyboard between battles and not during.
And if you own more than one account, you have entirely too much time and/or money on your hands...
Unfortunately, LiveJournal is one of the better ones out there. I've had an account there for three years now, and when I joined, LiveJournal still had the "by invite only" policy. They dropped that policy sometime afterward, then recently implemented the Sponsored+ account option. Although it does mean putting up with ads when reading straight from other people's weblogs, I still have the option not to have them on my own, which means I don't have to put up with them when reading other people's entries from my friends page. Even when I do read from others' pages, the ads aren't generally all that bad, especially compared to the eye-sores that many sites have.
That's like saying a child who gets molested by an adult is consenting to it because they don't know any different and don't know it's wrong and therefore don't fight back or say no. Or, on a more politically correct and technological level, does that mean if you invited your friend over for a visit and they installed a bunch of crap on your computer without you knowing it, that you gave them consent to do so simply because you allowed them into your house and didn't explicity forbid them from touching your computer? Or that no one has any case against hackers because the victim has left a port open for other purposes or without knowledge of it being there and the hacker exploited it and gained access?
Yes, you may have authorized to have the ads viewable, but you didn't authorize the download and installation of questionable software that you didn't know was attached to said ad.
I don't really think the Silithid as a whole resemble Zerg beyond the whole "invading bug that everyone hates" thing and the ground around their hives resemble creep. The creatures themselves, though, aren't really Zerg-like in my opinion. Though, thinking on it, it wouldn't surprise me if they based the Silithid off the Zerg. Then their whole affiliation with the Anubis-like creatures kinda throws things a little off as well.
But the Zerg are still cooler.
Ah, true, true. Although many assume the whole "rewound time" thing, Blizzard could play on it for sure. That's one of the many details in the storyline that I've forgotten.
A lot of the suffixes are pretty much straight from Diablo, but the nameing scheme of using a prefix and/or suffix to determine the enchant is still there, since things like Angel's and Archangel's is either useless or far too powerful in the WoW context.
Not all of the Tier sets escalate in power, but that seems to be more of a design error (see Earthfury vs. Ten Storms sets, many people view Earthfury better than Ten Storms), but I do see your point here. There's lightyears between the 1-just-turned-60 and Epic 60. There've been a number of times where I've been going somewhere to level and get attacked by a 60 in Tier 2 and Legendary (typically the Hand of Rag). I'm usually dead before I can dismount. Then there's the case of Alterac Valley, where a level 51 gets thrown in with 60s and pretty much become free honor and targets.
I'll have to check into Hellgate as well.
0.0 All the more reason for me to find those disks...