How about 6 corporate overlords, as practically everything is a wholly-owned subsidiary of a handful of companies?
That's hyperbole. Just take the Fortune 500 for example; as a rule it excludes "U.S. companies owned or controlled by other companies, domestic or foreign, that file with a government agency."
There are no such illusions with the corporation
Who wants an illusion?
Anyway, just so I'm clear: I don't want to get rid of the government. It has its role. At the very least, it is beneficial by keeping check on corporate monopolies (in theory at least... if we could reduce or eliminate corporate lobbying, maybe it wouldn't just be theory).
The fallacy is in assuming [conservative group] doesn't like liberal ideas because of Obama. Or that [conservative group] doesn't like Obama because of liberal ideas.
In reality, the #1 reason [conservative group] doesn't like liberal ideas or Obama is because they're on the other team. Likewise, [liberal group] doesn't like conservative ideas or G. W. Bush for the same reason.
And probably the real truth is that conservative and liberal politicians like each other just fine, they just want to be on opposite teams so that they control the entire game.
No, Modern UI is exclusive to WinRT, unless you're talking about skinning a desktop application to look like a Modern UI application. But it won't be able to integrate with all the WinRT services or run in a metro frame (full-screen independent of the desktop).
There is an exception to this rule, the default web browser. Web browsers are the only apps (that I know of) that can hook into some of the Modern UI capabilities without having to be built for WinRT. You can also download them without going through the Windows Store. This is how Chrome is allowed to have a Modern UI mode. But it requires the application to be running as the default web browser, meaning it's not a feasible workaround for doing the same with other applications.
And the same people who cry about such "inequality" tend to be the most vocal about gambling. Somehow, the poor giving up anywhere from $1 to $100 (or more), so that one person can be added to the 1%, is their definition of true equality.
I take it back. It's not about math, it's mostly about polarizing politics that cause people to believe a lot of stupid things because they want to be identified with a few ideals. (The same applies on the other side of the aisle too... don't think I'm just picking on one group.)
The answer then seems simple: if you're going to regulate the rich, do so in a way that encourages them to spend. Don't just take their money because you assume they don't spend.
Providing jobs for the unskilled is not the problem with our economy. There are plenty of people who have the skills, the education, and/or past experience. Many have to settle for jobs that don't have anything to do with those skills.
As for the unskilled, I would say they have it better in this economy than someone who has skills but is looking for a job that doesn't need them. An MBA provides little or no value compared to an unskilled worker when applying for a job as a waiter, janitor, etc. And most MBAs don't want to work for the same wages as unskilled labor and they won't be as excited about the job opportunity.
And besides, once an unskilled person is hired, they become skilled quickly (else they won't be on the job long). Now that person has a better chance at getting another waiter/janitor job than anyone else, including the MBA.
This is why there is talk of the education bubble bursting soon. Too many skilled laborers and not enough skilled jobs.
Just my opinion, stocks can be and are often traded much too quickly. Stock trade isn't really much of an investment. The company sells its soul to people who care primarily about making a quick buck. "Buy low, sell high" they say... but that's not investment.
True investment is like planting a seed. It's long term, something to be nurtured with decisions primarily focused on years from now.
The stock market too often emphasizes decisions that will make a buck today no matter the cost tomorrow... well, because tomorrow I'll have sold my shares anyway.
Anyway... that was a bit of an aside from your main topic, but I see too often posts here or in other tech blogs that think a company that hasn't achieved 50% marketshare in their first year of a product to be a total failure. Several such "failures" have proven over time to be the best companies or provide the best products.
Tunnel 100 ft. below the reactor and build a huge leak-proof chamber. Use controlled detonation to collapse the reactor, building, and all into this chamber. Fill it with water and close/seal it off. Build something cool on top.
Why isn't it just illegal for employers and service providers to discriminate against people for every irrelevant thing?
Setting aside the Constitution for a moment, this probably isn't a great idea. How do we define "relevant"?
Could you kick someone out of your bar for getting naked and defecating in the middle of the room? He could claim that his religious beliefs led him to do so, and that those acts have nothing to do with buying drinks. (Well... I guess it could if you buy too many...)
I think I'd rather stick to letting the business owner have the responsibility of deciding matters of business, including whose business he wants. Let the chips fall where they may... people will see the discrimination and get offended and probably even make a case of it in the news. And I don't know of any business that is better off discriminating against good faith customers.
My experience is quite different. I know a lot of people who do both, including myself. And most architects worth their salt at least did programming in some former life.
I think the merit lies more in that smartphones have a lower risk-to-reward ratio since they are small and easy to steal, while being worth a lot on the black market. Technology provides a decent means to deter theft because without that reward, it doesn't matter much how easy phones are to steal.
Large-scale theft is a drain on consumers (cost of replacement or insurance costs) as well as society (cost of policing all the thefts), so government is going to get involved.
As for the "slew of lawsuits"... that should be more than enough incentive for the carriers to tighten their security.
Slashdot Mirror
You just couldn't read all three sentences, could you?
Or you are an idiot.
How about 6 corporate overlords, as practically everything is a wholly-owned subsidiary of a handful of companies?
That's hyperbole. Just take the Fortune 500 for example; as a rule it excludes "U.S. companies owned or controlled by other companies, domestic or foreign, that file with a government agency."
There are no such illusions with the corporation
Who wants an illusion?
Anyway, just so I'm clear: I don't want to get rid of the government. It has its role. At the very least, it is beneficial by keeping check on corporate monopolies (in theory at least... if we could reduce or eliminate corporate lobbying, maybe it wouldn't just be theory).
Greed
I'd rather have millions of corporate overlords than 1 government overlord.
I guess you didn't understand. These are all things that the AGW crowd is doing right here, right now, in this thread.
You want to talk about false cause, appeal to emotion, slippery slope, appeal to authority, bandwagon, or the Texas sharpshooter?
The fallacy is in assuming [conservative group] doesn't like liberal ideas because of Obama. Or that [conservative group] doesn't like Obama because of liberal ideas.
In reality, the #1 reason [conservative group] doesn't like liberal ideas or Obama is because they're on the other team. Likewise, [liberal group] doesn't like conservative ideas or G. W. Bush for the same reason.
And probably the real truth is that conservative and liberal politicians like each other just fine, they just want to be on opposite teams so that they control the entire game.
Modern UI is not exclusive to WinRT.
No, Modern UI is exclusive to WinRT, unless you're talking about skinning a desktop application to look like a Modern UI application. But it won't be able to integrate with all the WinRT services or run in a metro frame (full-screen independent of the desktop).
There is an exception to this rule, the default web browser. Web browsers are the only apps (that I know of) that can hook into some of the Modern UI capabilities without having to be built for WinRT. You can also download them without going through the Windows Store. This is how Chrome is allowed to have a Modern UI mode. But it requires the application to be running as the default web browser, meaning it's not a feasible workaround for doing the same with other applications.
Because math is too hard.
And the same people who cry about such "inequality" tend to be the most vocal about gambling. Somehow, the poor giving up anywhere from $1 to $100 (or more), so that one person can be added to the 1%, is their definition of true equality.
I take it back. It's not about math, it's mostly about polarizing politics that cause people to believe a lot of stupid things because they want to be identified with a few ideals. (The same applies on the other side of the aisle too... don't think I'm just picking on one group.)
And suppose they do.
The answer then seems simple: if you're going to regulate the rich, do so in a way that encourages them to spend. Don't just take their money because you assume they don't spend.
Providing jobs for the unskilled is not the problem with our economy. There are plenty of people who have the skills, the education, and/or past experience. Many have to settle for jobs that don't have anything to do with those skills.
As for the unskilled, I would say they have it better in this economy than someone who has skills but is looking for a job that doesn't need them. An MBA provides little or no value compared to an unskilled worker when applying for a job as a waiter, janitor, etc. And most MBAs don't want to work for the same wages as unskilled labor and they won't be as excited about the job opportunity.
And besides, once an unskilled person is hired, they become skilled quickly (else they won't be on the job long). Now that person has a better chance at getting another waiter/janitor job than anyone else, including the MBA.
This is why there is talk of the education bubble bursting soon. Too many skilled laborers and not enough skilled jobs.
Looks about right to me.
--
Verizon account executive
Just my opinion, stocks can be and are often traded much too quickly. Stock trade isn't really much of an investment. The company sells its soul to people who care primarily about making a quick buck. "Buy low, sell high" they say... but that's not investment.
True investment is like planting a seed. It's long term, something to be nurtured with decisions primarily focused on years from now.
The stock market too often emphasizes decisions that will make a buck today no matter the cost tomorrow... well, because tomorrow I'll have sold my shares anyway.
Anyway... that was a bit of an aside from your main topic, but I see too often posts here or in other tech blogs that think a company that hasn't achieved 50% marketshare in their first year of a product to be a total failure. Several such "failures" have proven over time to be the best companies or provide the best products.
So now that you have found the fatal flaw in my plan, I revise it:
Don't seal it off. Make it into a swimming pool.
(Or maybe just don't seal it off.)
Tunnel 100 ft. below the reactor and build a huge leak-proof chamber. Use controlled detonation to collapse the reactor, building, and all into this chamber. Fill it with water and close/seal it off. Build something cool on top.
So we don't count the lines of code
FTFY
if you're sensible you're going to orient your ribbon so it's the narrow end that's facing most probable impacts
That's what she said.
That was an exaggerated example. Your response doesn't speak to my point, but to a straw man.
Why isn't it just illegal for employers and service providers to discriminate against people for every irrelevant thing?
Setting aside the Constitution for a moment, this probably isn't a great idea. How do we define "relevant"?
Could you kick someone out of your bar for getting naked and defecating in the middle of the room? He could claim that his religious beliefs led him to do so, and that those acts have nothing to do with buying drinks. (Well... I guess it could if you buy too many...)
I think I'd rather stick to letting the business owner have the responsibility of deciding matters of business, including whose business he wants. Let the chips fall where they may... people will see the discrimination and get offended and probably even make a case of it in the news. And I don't know of any business that is better off discriminating against good faith customers.
My experience is quite different. I know a lot of people who do both, including myself. And most architects worth their salt at least did programming in some former life.
I think the merit lies more in that smartphones have a lower risk-to-reward ratio since they are small and easy to steal, while being worth a lot on the black market. Technology provides a decent means to deter theft because without that reward, it doesn't matter much how easy phones are to steal.
Large-scale theft is a drain on consumers (cost of replacement or insurance costs) as well as society (cost of policing all the thefts), so government is going to get involved.
As for the "slew of lawsuits"... that should be more than enough incentive for the carriers to tighten their security.
Single line if statement:
if (condition) statement;
Multi-line if statement without braces:
if (condition)
statement;
Multi-line if statement with braces:
if (condition)
{
statement;
}
There is no good excuse for choosing multi-line without braces over the one with braces.
This is exactly why I NEVER EVER use multiline if statements without braces.
Then why would you use Metro when you can use Powershell?
You complain as if there aren't enough options, but talk about all the options you have available.
But I bet a little war during the previous decade had a bit more to do with the economic issues of the time.