America was not created to guarantee that everyone, no matter how lazy and uneducated they may be, can get by just fine.
America was not created to give those with every advantage in life the guarantee of keeping that advantage. Remember that "All men are created equal". We have no nobility here in America, although Paris Hilton comes close. Luckily, there's still an estate tax to limit her advantage over the rest of us and balance that inequality out.
He or she has done the hard work
Hahahaha! Good one!
The founder of the company did the hard work. The CEO comes in after all that and pushes the founder away. That CEO hasn't done anything for the company at that point but win the popularity game that is corporate politics. The CEO is crowned king of his little empire. The CEO is the ultimate, modern-day fascist.
you vote on your boss by choosing where to work
Yes, slave, vote on who your master is. Vote on which emperor you will bow before. Vote on the person to take the profits you generate to give themselves a million dollar bonus.
the problem is that by artificially propping up families that shouldn't have happened in the first place we are teaching the children that they don't have to make responsible decisions either.... because the government will bail them out. This creates a vicious cycle where people become more and more dependent upon the government... leading us toward a complete socialism.
(Also note, that I don't necessarily think that socialism is bad... it's just not the society _I_ want to live in... and there are plenty of socialist societies to go around... so stop messing with my capitilistic society!)
Wow, you say that as if we're not the wealthiest society in the world. You say that as if there is a shortage of money and capital, where somehow we couldn't change the structure of our society such that people actually got paid a livable wage for an honest day's work. You say that as if corporations, which are completely undemocratic social structures, don't actually set the wage structure according to their needs of taking the profit employees earn and giving the CEO another million dollar raise. You say that as if corporations don't themselves participate in corporate welfare of IP, copyright, and patent controls, imported H1-B labor to subvert the labor force, tax breaks and giveaways, etc, etc.
From my point of view, we already live in a socialist society, one set up explicitly to benefit corporations.
If the parents couldn't support children they should have made the right decisions and (gasp!) _not had kids_! Responsible decisions? What the hell are those? It is not my job to go around and fix everyone else's problems because they weren't responsible with their lives.
And let's see, screw the parents and screw the kids that are already alive and kicking? Wow, that sounds familiar. Are you sure you're not quoting Charles Dickens? You sure sound a hell of a lot like Scrooge. Maybe they should just die and "remove the surplus population."
"I don't make merry myself at Christmas and I can't afford to make idle people merry. I help to support the establishments I have mentioned: they cost enough: and those who are badly off must go there."
"Many can't go there; and many would rather die."
"If they would rather die," said Scrooge, "they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population."
The capitalist sorting machine tends to err toward not distributing to those who do not produce wanted work. The resulting split of rich/poor, and the fact that everyone can't have a car, house, and cable, is not exploitation as much as the bias of the sorting system against people who cannot, for any type of reason, produce wanted work.
Say like, Paris Hilton? We certainly wouldn't know crap about her were she not some rich debutante with absolutely no value to society.
Are you stupid? The man did not say that all pay should be equal. He said that the variance, the difference, between the low end and the high end should be reduced. Everyone in the wealthiest nation in the world should have enough to "pay for housing, utilities, health care, transportation, and a little extra for some fun." Basically, we should not be complete slaves to our economic conditions. In other words, we should be FREE and have the full rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
These ideas are not communist. They're as democratic and American as mom and the flag and apple pie.
The CEOs that run the corporations decide what people get paid. In fact, the CEOs even decide their own level of compensation since they control the board of directors and who gets accepted on there. You want a raise? Ask your boss. He'll look at his budget, which was handed down to him from his boss, which was given to him from his boss, all the way up to the CEO. You have no control over this organization. You did not vote in your boss. The CEO takes the money that you earn and gives most of it to himself. The corporation is not a democracy. It's a dictatorship.
In fact, the corporation is so decidedly undemocratic since they decide what you can or can not say, even in your time off. They decide who you can or can not associate with, even in your time off. They decide what you can or can not do, even in your time off. The corporation is so undemocratic and so un-American that's it's completely laughable that anyone uses the "Communist" card to defend corporate policies of screwing the janitors making minimum wage in order to give the CEO another million dollars.
That's bullshit. When we buy a CD or a DVD, we don't sign any contract. There's no a shrinkwrap EULA on the outside when opening them. There's no special button on our CD or DVD players to "Click to accept the license". And if there's nothing on paper, then these companies can't bitch for breach of contract or whatever.
The one thing we can not do is copy the content and resell it: the true definition of piracy. That's the one thing IP gives them the right, to sell the content. However, that right is not theirs forever. Further, they have no right to dictate anything else regarding the property once we have bought it.
All these other rights these companies are now claiming is a load of crap. It's a simple bait and switch after close to a hundred years of the public buying their wares. If these companies expected the perpetual right to control and dictate the terms of use of the music on our CDs, records, tapes, and DVDs, then they should have said something when we bought them. THEY certainly did not have to sell their wares. Caveat venditor.
The content on the disk IS ours. We can listen to the content whenever and whereever we want. We can copy the content to another medium. We can give that copied content to friends. We can separate that content and recombine it into mix tapes or CDs. We can even -gasp- sell the original disk the content came on. Hell, if we sell the original, there's nothing that says we can't keep all the copies and mix tapes.
Me: The people eventually forced the government to step in and change all that. And our businesses have become the best in the world despite all these "hostile" regulations regarding workers.
You: Virtually all the improvements in working conditions, limiting working hours to 40 hours a week, and eliminating child labor, happened before government legislated on those issues. They came as a result of technological improvements, the demand for skilled labor, and as a result of organized labor and collective bargaining.
No, in most cases, businesses were forced to change by the government working under the duress of the people, either working alone or in unions.
That is pro-government mythology that you learned in your government provided education.
First off, you are making the assumption that you know how I have been educated. Second off, were that assumption true, it certainly does not invalidate my points. Dismissing my points based on this line of argument is a logical fallacy. That certainly brings your education into question, although I won't use that to dismiss your points.
Wait a second... a minute ago you were telling us that it was the government protecting us from corporations by passing regulations, and now you are saying the government is owned by the corporations.
Yes, because the amazing thing is that our government has been around over 200 years! Times change. And with it, our government and those in it also change.
If our government is owned by corporations, then where did the 100,000 (low estimate) pages of federal regulations come from? And why do regulations, and the cost of compliance, keep increasing in the United States?
Let's see, there are a handful of legislators who actually care about the peoples' interests and attempt to pass laws that help them, even if that comes at a cost to business. But then there are the majority of legislators who care more for the corporate interests who pay for their campaigns. These legislators certainly have business interests at heart, so the increasing regulations under them have more to do with corporate profit than increasing the cost of compliance. The ratio of these two groups change over time. And the laws passed depend on that ratio.
...destroying jobs and economic growth by regulation is in the self-interest of those corporations that "own" the government.
Well, there is one answer. Tell me, who really benefits from all the regulations surrounding say, giving cable companies monopoly control of their areas? Who benefits from regulations that allow for media consolidation? Who benefits from the regulations that protect the telephone companies, drug companies, oil companies, food companies, etc? Corporations in every instance, to the detriment of the citizens.
And further tell me, what is the effect of destroying jobs? Well, that means more workers scrounging for fewer jobs. That means wages decrease. That means companies can squeeze more money or work out of their remaining workforce. That means companies have more power. That means corporations can exert more time and energy and money influencing government.
When corporations lobby the government, they lobby for MORE REGULATION!!!
Well, gee, if you're going to admit my point, then that certainly diminishes your point of the US being "hostile to buisness and industrial production". If the government is doing EXACTLY what business wants, then they certainly are NOT being hostile to it.
The astounding thing is that the corporations know how to get suckers like you to believe that you are somehow "stopping the excesses of capitalism" by passing regulations that give those with vast amounts of capital great advantage... and choke those without capital out of the market.
No, "suckers" like me know the difference between good regulation and bad regulation. We know that a lot of the laws and regulation
I would say that the U.S. government and political system is creating a situation where the U.S. is so hostile to buisness and industrial production that it creates every incentive for outsourcing. If you see buisness as inherently bad, if you see factories as scourges on the earth, and create a whole slew of legislation, laws, restrictions, inspections, designed to restrict, punish, and discourage industrial production and productivity, well then how can you be suprised when people aren't in a big hurry to get the hell out?
The government is there to protect us from the excesses of capitalism. That is because corporations in the past worked us 7 days a week and 12 hours a day, including children. That is because corporations used to dictate that you live in the corporate housing and buy from the corporate stores and made sure that your pay never exceeded your rent nor your grocery bills, all in an attempt to make you their virtual slaves. That is because corporations used to hire armed thugs to intimidate or kill anyone who even thought about improving conditions for corporate workers. The people eventually forced the government to step in and change all that. And our businesses have become the best in the world despite all these "hostile" regulations regarding workers.
But, let's see how the situation actually is today... The President is a former corporate businessman with an MBA. The Vice-President is the former CEO of Halliburton. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is a former corporate lawyer. The congressional leaders of both political parties are owned by corporations. In fact, corporations are known to write the bills that Congress passes into law. If the "U.S. is so hostile to buisness", then I certainly do NOT see it.
The reality is that corporations have the government in their pockets. The corporations decide what laws get passed and which fail. That is why you can no longer declare bankruptcy, because the credit card companies didn't like that. That is why you can't buy drugs from Canada where they are cheaper, because the drug companies didn't like that. That is why auto emission standards haven't improved in decades, because the oil companies didn't like that. That is why we haven't had an increase in the minimum wage in 9 years, because no company wants that.
No, your reason for why companies choose to outsource rather than automate is completely incorrect.
...while the Indians are poorer than Americans, imagining someone here living on $1 a day doesn't tell you how an Indian living on $1 a day is doing.
That's why if you continue reading, they spell out exactly how someone living on $1 a day in India lives:
Malnutrition affects half of all children in India, and there is little sign that they are being helped by the country's market reforms, which have focused on creating private wealth rather than expanding access to health care and education. Despite the country's growing economy, 2.5 million Indian children die annually, accounting for one out of every five child deaths worldwide; and facilities for primary education have collapsed in large parts of the country (the official literacy rate of 61 percent includes many who can barely write their names). In the countryside, where 70 percent of India's population lives, the government has reported that about 100,000 farmers committed suicide between 1993 and 2003.
Feeding on the resentment of those left behind by the urban-oriented economic growth, communist insurgencies (unrelated to India's parliamentary communist parties) have erupted in some of the most populous and poorest parts of north and central India. The Indian government no longer effectively controls many of the districts where communists battle landlords and police, imposing a harsh form of justice on a largely hapless rural population.
The potential for conflict -- among castes as well as classes -- also grows in urban areas, where India's cruel social and economic disparities are as evident as its new prosperity. The main reason for this is that India's economic growth has been largely jobless. Only 1.3 million out of a working population of 400 million are employed in the information technology and business processing industries that make up the so-called new economy.
So, the children of the Indian poor die in large numbers. And if they live, they're not likely to do any better than their parents due to the creation of private wealth over public works. This has created an environment perfect for communist insurgencies, which India is particularly vulnerable to considering it borders China. China has a history of infiltrating and influencing it's neighbors. We know they did so both in North Korea and North Vietnam.
Sounds like more than just "scaremongering" to me.
Ha! THAT is the wrong thing to say to a bunch of Americans on an American website. We had a little thing over here called a revolution to get rid of those pesky monarchs. We've already changed English spellings before. And we're likely to change them again, without permission from any queen.
The problem was that this icon was created at home, on his home computer, in his own time. The icon was not brought to school, although he apparently showed it to other students, who then mentioned it at school. The court viewed the icon itself as the threat, not the talk regarding the icon, although the icon never even left the house.
So, the effect of this ruling is that the government is telling you what you can not say in your own house.
It never ceases to amaze me how, globally, we have virtually free movement of capital, a moderately free movement of goods, but a heavily restricted movement of people.
So, you would prefer that governments treated people like money or goods? I'm sorry, but there is a good reason that we treat these things differently. I suggest you re-evaluate your statement.
Who wants a lightening fast immigration system? Not the employers...that's for sure.
What are you talking about?! The employers are the ones pushing for guestworker programs like the illegal immigration amnesty bill and H1-Bs. Microsoft came out this year stating their number one legislative goal was expansion of the number of H1-Bs. Your statement makes absolutely NO sense.
Both humans and animals are completely too specialized for life on earth. Because of that, it's highly unlikely we'll ever see our universe populated by humans. Our short life spans makes any trip outside the solar system completely unlikely. Even if we do make it to another solar system after a 500 year trip, we require a very specific environment to truely thrive. We need an earth-like environment. We need a good variety of both plants and animals. We need a good variety of bacteria. Hell, to successfully move, we need a noah's ark to take us there.
If we really want to see human progeny or intelligent life expand out into the universe, then we need to get AI working, stuff that into self-sufficient, self-replicating robots, and throw them out into the universe. They will be able to easily travel between stars by simply shutting down for a limited time. Robots can survive in almost every place in the universe that humans cannot, so they're almost guaranteed to thrive regardless of whether their destination has an earth-like planet or not.
I mean c'mon, having thousands of border patrol officers isn't enough, we need to get citizens to sit in front of their computers and watch for people trying to sneak in?
No, because we also have thousands of miles of border that needs to be secured 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, and in 8 hour shifts.
No, because we do not want to build the simplest of measures to slow people down from coming into our country: the fence.
No, because we have 3 million people coming across the Mexican border per year.
Personally, I'm against such a closed-border policy as we already have. I think that in itself is wrong and fosters/reflects a really unhealthy cultural attitude within our society.
We are a soverign nation. We have the right to protect our borders, just like every other country in the world. We have a right to decide which immigrants come here and which immigrants do not, just like every other country in the world. The "unhealthy" attitude here is yours since it goes against every other country in the world.
And we are a democracy. Our people decide our government policies. Our people decide who enters government and represents us. These illegal immigrants or foreigners are now asserting that they have rights. Some are actually voting. Electoral votes based on the census is already skewing towards California, giving that state more power. The census is based on number of people, not number of citizens. These foreigners are therefore altering the structure of our government. And each one that votes, illegally or not, makes your vote and your voice count less.
It's the fact that this act seems to encourage individuals to sit at their computers watching for people crossing the border illegally and be government informants. I mean, how is anyone going to tell that some illegal immigrant is a "terrorist"? They can't.
These people do not have to determine why someone is crossing the border illegally. These people do not have to determine who is crossing the border illegally. They just need to tell that anyone is crossing the border illegally, since that act itself is illegal!
And what are the chances that this is actually going to catch any terrorists? Probably close to nil.
And what are the chances that these people crossing the border are law-breakers in one form or another? Probably close to 100%.
Do you know how many people we have patroling the Canadian border?
No idea. And I don't care. The problem we are having is not as apparent on the Canadian side. Further, the government of Canada actually helps us patrol the border. That is in stark difference to the Mexican side where the government there actually encourages illegal immigration into the US.
Do you honestly think that terrorists will try to hop the Mexican border rather than simply forge a fake passport or come in from Canada?
I think terrorists will actually get a visa and come straight to the US because of our lax rules written by people like you.
Known terrorists on US watch lists will have to find another way in. And frankly, the easiest way in is through places where the smuggling networks are already set up and the government encourages the activity: Mexico.
And what kind of people do you think are actually going to waste their time with this border-watch nonsense?
The same people who sit on neighborhood watches, watching for crime from their own houses.
Sure it's just enforcing our borders, but the social consequences of encouraging people to rat out a really quite benign segment of our society just because they were born in a different country and wanted to make a better life for themselves here is much more detrimental to our society than any terrorist attack.
I'm sorry, these people are not "benign". These foreigners steal jobs that would otherwise go to Americans. As such, they de
I blame liberals for protecting our freedoms selectively based on political expediency.
Let's see, the conservative Republicans have controlled Congress since 1994. The conservative Republicans have controlled the White House since 2000. And the conservative Republicans have had control of the Supreme Court since what, 1969. So, of course, the current state of affairs is all the liberal Democrats' fault for only "selectively" protecting freedoms.
The liberal Democrats have done what they could given their level of power. However, the agenda in Congress has been set by conservative Republicans for the last 12 years. The agenda in the White House has been set by conservative Republicans for the last 6 years. And the agenda at the Supreme Court has been set by conservative Republicans for the last 37 years.
We can no longer rely on liberals to fight for true freedom. Liberals have won the right to dress funny in public schools, have sex with whomever they want and read and write about everything that they care about. But everything else is slipping away.
This looks like another conservative tirade which assumes conservatives are better.
Let's not forget it is the conservatives, mostly Christian right-wing conservatives, who are attacking science in general. Liberals do not cut science funds in order to give tax cuts to millionaires. Liberals do not care whether scientists use stem cells. Liberals do not care for teachers teaching creationism. Liberals do not impose their personal views on the facts we teach in health class. No, those are things conservatives care about, imposing their personal views in place of scientific thought in general.
Science can not exist in a society where we willingly trade freedom for security. Given that it is the conservatives in the White House and Congress who have been throwing away our freedoms to "improve" security since 9/11, it is completely laughable that you would blame liberals for this problem.
Football players can get scholarships and therefore a free degree.
SOME football players can get scholarships, usually only the very best. Most sports players do not. A far higher percentage of the students who didn't focus primarily on sports do better.
Also, getting IN to college doesn't necessarily mean they get out. Nor does it mean they actually learn anything or receive a useful degree. But, that's another argument.
They can also get good jobs through nepotism.
Yes, they can IF their family is in the correct places. However, since ANYONE can get a job through nepotism, this comment is really here nor there.
On the other hand many nerds end up doing menial jobs.
You may think working in a law office is menial, but it certainly pays the bills. Same with accounting or engineering.
You'd be surprised how many lawyers played football in high school, and how many burger flippers sat at the computer all day.
I ran track for a single year in high school. However, I was still a nerd and I didn't dedicate my life to sports. I doubt all these lawyers you talk about who are supposedly former football players dedicated their high school lives to their sport.
As for the nerd comment, not everyone who sits in front of a computer is a nerd.
Well, football has always been (and will always be?) the most important part of some students' academic life for years. But I don't think that's the main issue. To me, it's a question of two things: student work ethic and curriculum.
The student work ethic is fine, as evidenced by the amount of time, effort, and dedication put into sports. Students have no problem dedicating themselves to sports while letting their grades slide. Why? Football and other sports are highly valued in the high school setting. Academics actually come a distant second in this environment. Jocks and cheerleaders rule the school, while nerds and geeks are considered losers.
The sad thing is that many high school sports stars really think they will go professional. Their school, parents, and friends feed this dream, neglecting the reality that they have a better chance of winning the lottery. Their future is the same as that of Al Bundy.
Only years later will nerds and geeks realize that they really are the winners once they become doctors and lawyers. Jocks realize they really are the losers pretty fast considering the best job they can get after high school is at McDonalds. Cheerleaders always do well considering the world loves pretty women, even if they're stupid. Ironically though, many cheerleaders will end up leaving the jocks and marrying the nerds they used to put down.
But in high school, the students don't know any of that. The teachers need to teach the students about more than just their subject. The teachers need to add real life to the curriculum as well.
First off, Firefox is not a Google product. Firefox as an independent group chose to use Google, which has more to do with Google being the superior search engine. IE7 and MSN are both Microsoft products. MSN Search is certainly not better than Google. The use of MSN in IE7 points to a business decision by Microsoft rather than a decision to go with the best technology.
Secondly, Google is not the only pre-loaded choice in Firefox. Five other search possibilities come pre-loaded. IE7 only comes pre-loaded with one choice.
And lastly, Google nor FireFox are convicted monopolists, but Microsoft is. This is just more of the same from Microsoft.
I seriously doubt that a for-profit business like Microsoft actively encourages the piracy of their products. There was never a replacement for Microsoft's OS products on the Intel platform until Linux matured just a few years ago. Before then, if the average person wanted to use a cheap Intel machine, then they had to use Microsoft's OS. (Some would argue that there's still no choice for the average user.) That is part of the reason why monopoly charges were brought against Microsoft in the first place.
It just doesn't make any sense that they would want Windows and DOS illegally copied when they were the only practical OS for Intel-based machines.
In fact, there is official effort to pressure people to quit engineering their freshman year by front-loading hard classes and showing no mercy when grading.
I've seen that first-hand at several good schools. At least part of the reason is that while tuition is the same for all students, the costs vary by program. The costs of engineering school are much more expensive than business school due to the costs of buying and maintaining all the expensive engineering equipment. Business students are simply more profitable than engineering students.
GP: 3. Popular culture that denigrates "geeks" and "nerds" and makes it a social crime to get A's? Check.
You: Hello, Bill Gates, world's richest man. Uh, Steve Jobs. Those names are known.
Doesn't matter. The average person doesn't know Bill Gates is the world's richest man. In 1998, I actually got into an argument with a rather hot secretary over who made more money: Bill Gates or Michael Jordan. She just couldn't accept the fact that Bill Gates had about a thousand times more money than Michael Jordan at the time.
The average person (you know, the one who graduates high school and never even attempts college) will never accept the fact that a geek like Bill Gates makes more money than a super-stud jock like Michael Jordan. You can show them all the facts and figures you want, but it will never sink in.
Slashdot Mirror
America was not created to guarantee that everyone, no matter how lazy and uneducated they may be, can get by just fine.
America was not created to give those with every advantage in life the guarantee of keeping that advantage. Remember that "All men are created equal". We have no nobility here in America, although Paris Hilton comes close. Luckily, there's still an estate tax to limit her advantage over the rest of us and balance that inequality out.
He or she has done the hard work
Hahahaha! Good one!
The founder of the company did the hard work. The CEO comes in after all that and pushes the founder away. That CEO hasn't done anything for the company at that point but win the popularity game that is corporate politics. The CEO is crowned king of his little empire. The CEO is the ultimate, modern-day fascist.
you vote on your boss by choosing where to work
Yes, slave, vote on who your master is. Vote on which emperor you will bow before. Vote on the person to take the profits you generate to give themselves a million dollar bonus.
the problem is that by artificially propping up families that shouldn't have happened in the first place we are teaching the children that they don't have to make responsible decisions either.... because the government will bail them out. This creates a vicious cycle where people become more and more dependent upon the government... leading us toward a complete socialism. (Also note, that I don't necessarily think that socialism is bad... it's just not the society _I_ want to live in... and there are plenty of socialist societies to go around... so stop messing with my capitilistic society!)
Wow, you say that as if we're not the wealthiest society in the world. You say that as if there is a shortage of money and capital, where somehow we couldn't change the structure of our society such that people actually got paid a livable wage for an honest day's work. You say that as if corporations, which are completely undemocratic social structures, don't actually set the wage structure according to their needs of taking the profit employees earn and giving the CEO another million dollar raise. You say that as if corporations don't themselves participate in corporate welfare of IP, copyright, and patent controls, imported H1-B labor to subvert the labor force, tax breaks and giveaways, etc, etc.
From my point of view, we already live in a socialist society, one set up explicitly to benefit corporations.
If the parents couldn't support children they should have made the right decisions and (gasp!) _not had kids_! Responsible decisions? What the hell are those? It is not my job to go around and fix everyone else's problems because they weren't responsible with their lives.
And let's see, screw the parents and screw the kids that are already alive and kicking? Wow, that sounds familiar. Are you sure you're not quoting Charles Dickens? You sure sound a hell of a lot like Scrooge. Maybe they should just die and "remove the surplus population."
"I don't make merry myself at Christmas and I can't afford to make idle people merry. I help to support the establishments I have mentioned: they cost enough: and those who are badly off must go there."
"Many can't go there; and many would rather die."
"If they would rather die," said Scrooge, "they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population."
The capitalist sorting machine tends to err toward not distributing to those who do not produce wanted work. The resulting split of rich/poor, and the fact that everyone can't have a car, house, and cable, is not exploitation as much as the bias of the sorting system against people who cannot, for any type of reason, produce wanted work.
Say like, Paris Hilton? We certainly wouldn't know crap about her were she not some rich debutante with absolutely no value to society.
Are you stupid? The man did not say that all pay should be equal. He said that the variance, the difference, between the low end and the high end should be reduced. Everyone in the wealthiest nation in the world should have enough to "pay for housing, utilities, health care, transportation, and a little extra for some fun." Basically, we should not be complete slaves to our economic conditions. In other words, we should be FREE and have the full rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
These ideas are not communist. They're as democratic and American as mom and the flag and apple pie.
The CEOs that run the corporations decide what people get paid. In fact, the CEOs even decide their own level of compensation since they control the board of directors and who gets accepted on there. You want a raise? Ask your boss. He'll look at his budget, which was handed down to him from his boss, which was given to him from his boss, all the way up to the CEO. You have no control over this organization. You did not vote in your boss. The CEO takes the money that you earn and gives most of it to himself. The corporation is not a democracy. It's a dictatorship.
In fact, the corporation is so decidedly undemocratic since they decide what you can or can not say, even in your time off. They decide who you can or can not associate with, even in your time off. They decide what you can or can not do, even in your time off. The corporation is so undemocratic and so un-American that's it's completely laughable that anyone uses the "Communist" card to defend corporate policies of screwing the janitors making minimum wage in order to give the CEO another million dollars.
That's bullshit. When we buy a CD or a DVD, we don't sign any contract. There's no a shrinkwrap EULA on the outside when opening them. There's no special button on our CD or DVD players to "Click to accept the license". And if there's nothing on paper, then these companies can't bitch for breach of contract or whatever.
The one thing we can not do is copy the content and resell it: the true definition of piracy. That's the one thing IP gives them the right, to sell the content. However, that right is not theirs forever. Further, they have no right to dictate anything else regarding the property once we have bought it.
All these other rights these companies are now claiming is a load of crap. It's a simple bait and switch after close to a hundred years of the public buying their wares. If these companies expected the perpetual right to control and dictate the terms of use of the music on our CDs, records, tapes, and DVDs, then they should have said something when we bought them. THEY certainly did not have to sell their wares. Caveat venditor.
The content on the disk IS ours. We can listen to the content whenever and whereever we want. We can copy the content to another medium. We can give that copied content to friends. We can separate that content and recombine it into mix tapes or CDs. We can even -gasp- sell the original disk the content came on. Hell, if we sell the original, there's nothing that says we can't keep all the copies and mix tapes.
No, in this case, the problem isn't the filthy lib'rals, but them thar activist judges!
Me: The people eventually forced the government to step in and change all that. And our businesses have become the best in the world despite all these "hostile" regulations regarding workers.
...destroying jobs and economic growth by regulation is in the self-interest of those corporations that "own" the government.
You: Virtually all the improvements in working conditions, limiting working hours to 40 hours a week, and eliminating child labor, happened before government legislated on those issues. They came as a result of technological improvements, the demand for skilled labor, and as a result of organized labor and collective bargaining.
No, in most cases, businesses were forced to change by the government working under the duress of the people, either working alone or in unions.
That is pro-government mythology that you learned in your government provided education.
First off, you are making the assumption that you know how I have been educated. Second off, were that assumption true, it certainly does not invalidate my points. Dismissing my points based on this line of argument is a logical fallacy. That certainly brings your education into question, although I won't use that to dismiss your points.
Wait a second... a minute ago you were telling us that it was the government protecting us from corporations by passing regulations, and now you are saying the government is owned by the corporations.
Yes, because the amazing thing is that our government has been around over 200 years! Times change. And with it, our government and those in it also change.
If our government is owned by corporations, then where did the 100,000 (low estimate) pages of federal regulations come from? And why do regulations, and the cost of compliance, keep increasing in the United States?
Let's see, there are a handful of legislators who actually care about the peoples' interests and attempt to pass laws that help them, even if that comes at a cost to business. But then there are the majority of legislators who care more for the corporate interests who pay for their campaigns. These legislators certainly have business interests at heart, so the increasing regulations under them have more to do with corporate profit than increasing the cost of compliance. The ratio of these two groups change over time. And the laws passed depend on that ratio.
Well, there is one answer. Tell me, who really benefits from all the regulations surrounding say, giving cable companies monopoly control of their areas? Who benefits from regulations that allow for media consolidation? Who benefits from the regulations that protect the telephone companies, drug companies, oil companies, food companies, etc? Corporations in every instance, to the detriment of the citizens.
And further tell me, what is the effect of destroying jobs? Well, that means more workers scrounging for fewer jobs. That means wages decrease. That means companies can squeeze more money or work out of their remaining workforce. That means companies have more power. That means corporations can exert more time and energy and money influencing government.
When corporations lobby the government, they lobby for MORE REGULATION!!!
Well, gee, if you're going to admit my point, then that certainly diminishes your point of the US being "hostile to buisness and industrial production". If the government is doing EXACTLY what business wants, then they certainly are NOT being hostile to it.
The astounding thing is that the corporations know how to get suckers like you to believe that you are somehow "stopping the excesses of capitalism" by passing regulations that give those with vast amounts of capital great advantage... and choke those without capital out of the market.
No, "suckers" like me know the difference between good regulation and bad regulation. We know that a lot of the laws and regulation
I would say that the U.S. government and political system is creating a situation where the U.S. is so hostile to buisness and industrial production that it creates every incentive for outsourcing. If you see buisness as inherently bad, if you see factories as scourges on the earth, and create a whole slew of legislation, laws, restrictions, inspections, designed to restrict, punish, and discourage industrial production and productivity, well then how can you be suprised when people aren't in a big hurry to get the hell out?
The government is there to protect us from the excesses of capitalism. That is because corporations in the past worked us 7 days a week and 12 hours a day, including children. That is because corporations used to dictate that you live in the corporate housing and buy from the corporate stores and made sure that your pay never exceeded your rent nor your grocery bills, all in an attempt to make you their virtual slaves. That is because corporations used to hire armed thugs to intimidate or kill anyone who even thought about improving conditions for corporate workers. The people eventually forced the government to step in and change all that. And our businesses have become the best in the world despite all these "hostile" regulations regarding workers.
But, let's see how the situation actually is today... The President is a former corporate businessman with an MBA. The Vice-President is the former CEO of Halliburton. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is a former corporate lawyer. The congressional leaders of both political parties are owned by corporations. In fact, corporations are known to write the bills that Congress passes into law. If the "U.S. is so hostile to buisness", then I certainly do NOT see it.
The reality is that corporations have the government in their pockets. The corporations decide what laws get passed and which fail. That is why you can no longer declare bankruptcy, because the credit card companies didn't like that. That is why you can't buy drugs from Canada where they are cheaper, because the drug companies didn't like that. That is why auto emission standards haven't improved in decades, because the oil companies didn't like that. That is why we haven't had an increase in the minimum wage in 9 years, because no company wants that.
No, your reason for why companies choose to outsource rather than automate is completely incorrect.
That's why if you continue reading, they spell out exactly how someone living on $1 a day in India lives:
So, the children of the Indian poor die in large numbers. And if they live, they're not likely to do any better than their parents due to the creation of private wealth over public works. This has created an environment perfect for communist insurgencies, which India is particularly vulnerable to considering it borders China. China has a history of infiltrating and influencing it's neighbors. We know they did so both in North Korea and North Vietnam.
Sounds like more than just "scaremongering" to me.
Ha! THAT is the wrong thing to say to a bunch of Americans on an American website. We had a little thing over here called a revolution to get rid of those pesky monarchs. We've already changed English spellings before. And we're likely to change them again, without permission from any queen.
The problem was that this icon was created at home, on his home computer, in his own time. The icon was not brought to school, although he apparently showed it to other students, who then mentioned it at school. The court viewed the icon itself as the threat, not the talk regarding the icon, although the icon never even left the house.
So, the effect of this ruling is that the government is telling you what you can not say in your own house.
I expect it'll be overturned on appeal.
Because the data shows that is exactly what companies do.
It never ceases to amaze me how, globally, we have virtually free movement of capital, a moderately free movement of goods, but a heavily restricted movement of people.
So, you would prefer that governments treated people like money or goods? I'm sorry, but there is a good reason that we treat these things differently. I suggest you re-evaluate your statement.
Who wants a lightening fast immigration system? Not the employers...that's for sure.
What are you talking about?! The employers are the ones pushing for guestworker programs like the illegal immigration amnesty bill and H1-Bs. Microsoft came out this year stating their number one legislative goal was expansion of the number of H1-Bs. Your statement makes absolutely NO sense.
Both humans and animals are completely too specialized for life on earth. Because of that, it's highly unlikely we'll ever see our universe populated by humans. Our short life spans makes any trip outside the solar system completely unlikely. Even if we do make it to another solar system after a 500 year trip, we require a very specific environment to truely thrive. We need an earth-like environment. We need a good variety of both plants and animals. We need a good variety of bacteria. Hell, to successfully move, we need a noah's ark to take us there.
If we really want to see human progeny or intelligent life expand out into the universe, then we need to get AI working, stuff that into self-sufficient, self-replicating robots, and throw them out into the universe. They will be able to easily travel between stars by simply shutting down for a limited time. Robots can survive in almost every place in the universe that humans cannot, so they're almost guaranteed to thrive regardless of whether their destination has an earth-like planet or not.
The interesting thing is that it let you also see which Democrats were listening to their constituencies vs the Democrats courting future voters.
I mean c'mon, having thousands of border patrol officers isn't enough, we need to get citizens to sit in front of their computers and watch for people trying to sneak in?
No, because we also have thousands of miles of border that needs to be secured 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, and in 8 hour shifts.
No, because we do not want to build the simplest of measures to slow people down from coming into our country: the fence.
No, because we have 3 million people coming across the Mexican border per year.
Personally, I'm against such a closed-border policy as we already have. I think that in itself is wrong and fosters/reflects a really unhealthy cultural attitude within our society.
We are a soverign nation. We have the right to protect our borders, just like every other country in the world. We have a right to decide which immigrants come here and which immigrants do not, just like every other country in the world. The "unhealthy" attitude here is yours since it goes against every other country in the world.
And we are a democracy. Our people decide our government policies. Our people decide who enters government and represents us. These illegal immigrants or foreigners are now asserting that they have rights. Some are actually voting. Electoral votes based on the census is already skewing towards California, giving that state more power. The census is based on number of people, not number of citizens. These foreigners are therefore altering the structure of our government. And each one that votes, illegally or not, makes your vote and your voice count less.
It's the fact that this act seems to encourage individuals to sit at their computers watching for people crossing the border illegally and be government informants. I mean, how is anyone going to tell that some illegal immigrant is a "terrorist"? They can't.
These people do not have to determine why someone is crossing the border illegally. These people do not have to determine who is crossing the border illegally. They just need to tell that anyone is crossing the border illegally, since that act itself is illegal!
And what are the chances that this is actually going to catch any terrorists? Probably close to nil.
And what are the chances that these people crossing the border are law-breakers in one form or another? Probably close to 100%.
Do you know how many people we have patroling the Canadian border?
No idea. And I don't care. The problem we are having is not as apparent on the Canadian side. Further, the government of Canada actually helps us patrol the border. That is in stark difference to the Mexican side where the government there actually encourages illegal immigration into the US.
Do you honestly think that terrorists will try to hop the Mexican border rather than simply forge a fake passport or come in from Canada?
I think terrorists will actually get a visa and come straight to the US because of our lax rules written by people like you.
Known terrorists on US watch lists will have to find another way in. And frankly, the easiest way in is through places where the smuggling networks are already set up and the government encourages the activity: Mexico.
And what kind of people do you think are actually going to waste their time with this border-watch nonsense?
The same people who sit on neighborhood watches, watching for crime from their own houses.
Sure it's just enforcing our borders, but the social consequences of encouraging people to rat out a really quite benign segment of our society just because they were born in a different country and wanted to make a better life for themselves here is much more detrimental to our society than any terrorist attack.
I'm sorry, these people are not "benign". These foreigners steal jobs that would otherwise go to Americans. As such, they de
I blame liberals for protecting our freedoms selectively based on political expediency.
Let's see, the conservative Republicans have controlled Congress since 1994. The conservative Republicans have controlled the White House since 2000. And the conservative Republicans have had control of the Supreme Court since what, 1969. So, of course, the current state of affairs is all the liberal Democrats' fault for only "selectively" protecting freedoms.
The liberal Democrats have done what they could given their level of power. However, the agenda in Congress has been set by conservative Republicans for the last 12 years. The agenda in the White House has been set by conservative Republicans for the last 6 years. And the agenda at the Supreme Court has been set by conservative Republicans for the last 37 years.
We can no longer rely on liberals to fight for true freedom. Liberals have won the right to dress funny in public schools, have sex with whomever they want and read and write about everything that they care about. But everything else is slipping away.
This looks like another conservative tirade which assumes conservatives are better.
Let's not forget it is the conservatives, mostly Christian right-wing conservatives, who are attacking science in general. Liberals do not cut science funds in order to give tax cuts to millionaires. Liberals do not care whether scientists use stem cells. Liberals do not care for teachers teaching creationism. Liberals do not impose their personal views on the facts we teach in health class. No, those are things conservatives care about, imposing their personal views in place of scientific thought in general.
Science can not exist in a society where we willingly trade freedom for security. Given that it is the conservatives in the White House and Congress who have been throwing away our freedoms to "improve" security since 9/11, it is completely laughable that you would blame liberals for this problem.
Football players can get scholarships and therefore a free degree.
SOME football players can get scholarships, usually only the very best. Most sports players do not. A far higher percentage of the students who didn't focus primarily on sports do better.
Also, getting IN to college doesn't necessarily mean they get out. Nor does it mean they actually learn anything or receive a useful degree. But, that's another argument.
They can also get good jobs through nepotism.
Yes, they can IF their family is in the correct places. However, since ANYONE can get a job through nepotism, this comment is really here nor there.
On the other hand many nerds end up doing menial jobs.
You may think working in a law office is menial, but it certainly pays the bills. Same with accounting or engineering.
You'd be surprised how many lawyers played football in high school, and how many burger flippers sat at the computer all day.
I ran track for a single year in high school. However, I was still a nerd and I didn't dedicate my life to sports. I doubt all these lawyers you talk about who are supposedly former football players dedicated their high school lives to their sport.
As for the nerd comment, not everyone who sits in front of a computer is a nerd.
Well, football has always been (and will always be?) the most important part of some students' academic life for years. But I don't think that's the main issue. To me, it's a question of two things: student work ethic and curriculum.
The student work ethic is fine, as evidenced by the amount of time, effort, and dedication put into sports. Students have no problem dedicating themselves to sports while letting their grades slide. Why? Football and other sports are highly valued in the high school setting. Academics actually come a distant second in this environment. Jocks and cheerleaders rule the school, while nerds and geeks are considered losers.
The sad thing is that many high school sports stars really think they will go professional. Their school, parents, and friends feed this dream, neglecting the reality that they have a better chance of winning the lottery. Their future is the same as that of Al Bundy.
Only years later will nerds and geeks realize that they really are the winners once they become doctors and lawyers. Jocks realize they really are the losers pretty fast considering the best job they can get after high school is at McDonalds. Cheerleaders always do well considering the world loves pretty women, even if they're stupid. Ironically though, many cheerleaders will end up leaving the jocks and marrying the nerds they used to put down.
But in high school, the students don't know any of that. The teachers need to teach the students about more than just their subject. The teachers need to add real life to the curriculum as well.
Let's see...
First off, Firefox is not a Google product. Firefox as an independent group chose to use Google, which has more to do with Google being the superior search engine. IE7 and MSN are both Microsoft products. MSN Search is certainly not better than Google. The use of MSN in IE7 points to a business decision by Microsoft rather than a decision to go with the best technology.
Secondly, Google is not the only pre-loaded choice in Firefox. Five other search possibilities come pre-loaded. IE7 only comes pre-loaded with one choice.
And lastly, Google nor FireFox are convicted monopolists, but Microsoft is. This is just more of the same from Microsoft.
I seriously doubt that a for-profit business like Microsoft actively encourages the piracy of their products. There was never a replacement for Microsoft's OS products on the Intel platform until Linux matured just a few years ago. Before then, if the average person wanted to use a cheap Intel machine, then they had to use Microsoft's OS. (Some would argue that there's still no choice for the average user.) That is part of the reason why monopoly charges were brought against Microsoft in the first place.
It just doesn't make any sense that they would want Windows and DOS illegally copied when they were the only practical OS for Intel-based machines.
In fact, there is official effort to pressure people to quit engineering their freshman year by front-loading hard classes and showing no mercy when grading.
I've seen that first-hand at several good schools. At least part of the reason is that while tuition is the same for all students, the costs vary by program. The costs of engineering school are much more expensive than business school due to the costs of buying and maintaining all the expensive engineering equipment. Business students are simply more profitable than engineering students.
GP: 3. Popular culture that denigrates "geeks" and "nerds" and makes it a social crime to get A's? Check.
You: Hello, Bill Gates, world's richest man. Uh, Steve Jobs. Those names are known.
Doesn't matter. The average person doesn't know Bill Gates is the world's richest man. In 1998, I actually got into an argument with a rather hot secretary over who made more money: Bill Gates or Michael Jordan. She just couldn't accept the fact that Bill Gates had about a thousand times more money than Michael Jordan at the time.
The average person (you know, the one who graduates high school and never even attempts college) will never accept the fact that a geek like Bill Gates makes more money than a super-stud jock like Michael Jordan. You can show them all the facts and figures you want, but it will never sink in.