I don't agree with either assertion. From now and way back even to the Depression, it was government involvement that helped CAUSE all of our problems.
Please study economic history before invoking the Great Depression in discussing whether government caused problems. Lack of regulation was a major factor in causing the great depression.
I hate to nitpick item-by-item, but there's a lot of confusion in your post that I think you should research some of your assumptions more completely.
Whether it is government literally encouraging high-risk home loans in the last decade or so
You mean, encouraging high-risk home loans by deregulating the banking industry and reducing oversight of the consumer lending industry? It is reduced government that has led us to the current mess.
Hoover's progressive economic policies that rejected Coolidge's laissez-faire conservatism
Please. Hoover inherited a wobbling economy largely due to the policies of his laissez-faire predecessors who allowed rampant banking and finance abuses that served to profit only the financiers. Hoover's problem was that he did too little, too late to make the kind of impact necessary to stave off depression.
I understand the concept of strict Constitutionalism, and I know we'll never agree on a lot of things. My feeling is that the Constitution is held as sacred by so many people, when it is clear to me that a strict interpretation of the Constitution has failed, because we have failed to change the Constitution with the times. The world is remarkably different than it was 220 years ago, and some of the political theories that were new and popular at the time don't fit in with today's world. Due to advances in communication, etc, there are economies of scale unrealizable 30 years ago, let alone 220 years ago. If you want to literally follow the words written 220 years ago, you should think about what they envisioned as an ideal society, and whether that notion of an ideal society really fits in with what is desired now, and if it is even attainable.
C
Sort of sounds like a scare tactic; I can't imagine ISPs falling for it - aren't they 'common carriers' specifically so the responsibility for what people do with their network _doesn't_ fall on them?
ISPs are not common carriers. The reason they are not responsible for what people do on their netwoirk is that they supposedly cannot monitor what is being done on their network.
=> I would be willing to wager that most everyone commenting on this thread would consider that fair use.
So? The legal authorities are what matter, not slashdot commenters. If you're going to dispute this line item, please bother to do so from the vantage of the legal system, not the vantage of the average slashdotter.
If other countries want to sell their rum in the US under a protected trademark, they seem free to use a different trademark. Whether US trade sanctions against Cuba are moral or justified is a different issue from IP.
Perhaps you don't understand how trademark registrations work. A Cuban company can register a trademark in the EU. There are agreements in effect that impact how the US views trademarks registered in the EU. By not honoring those agreements for trademarks owned by Cuban companies, the US has violated the agreements. You're right, the morality of the sanctions is meaningless. However, the existence of the sanctions, and how the are implemented, is not meaningless -- and this is what has resulted in the finding that the US has violated international treaties.
=> Legal gambling outfits in the US follow strict gambling laws that regulate, among other things, machine calibration, payout ratios, etc. Online gambling from other countries is outlawed in the USA because the mechanisms to ensure fairness can not be physically confirmed by government representatives.
Utter bullshit. The US claims that it's a moral ban, and thus not subject to fair trade agreements. Please refer to the arguments presented to the WTO in this case. However, since the US allows online gambling, as well as meatspace gambling, the moral exclusion can't apply. Furthermore, adequate regulation and monitoring is not the actual reason for the online gambling ban -- the real reason is that the US gambling industry cried out for the regulation in order to protect their business. It's a protectionist ban, quite simply, and as such is in violation of treaties the US is a signatory to. So, officially, the reason for the ban is morality as argued to the WHO.
In short, when discussing a legal issue, please discuss within the context of the legal system, not in the context of what seems logical (since they are often in conflict:), or what you might have heard second-hand.
'Wal-Mart has no long-term care for an individual artist or marketing plan, unlike the specialty stores, which were a real business partner. At Wal-Mart, we're a commodity and have to fight for shelf space like Colgate fights for shelf space.'
Why are people constantly surprised by the fact that at some point, they need to pay the piper?
When you do business with Walmart, you should know that you're going to be asked to reduce your price. When you stop supporting mom-and-pop shops by not giving them the volume discounts you give to Walmart, to the point where Walmart has a potentially sufocating grip on your retail pipeline, then you're in trouble.
This is what happens when you dance with the devil... you find out he's clumsy and steps on your feet, and has bad breath to boot.
There's an op-ed piece written by the founder of Snapper that sheds a lot of light on why/how a manufacturer should choose not to do business with Walmart. Too busy to dreg up a link, but well worth the read, for anyone who cares enough to do a google search.
...for generating traffic for news.com or why on earth didn't you include the link to Mytopia?!!
Probably because if they provided a link to Mytopia directly, the editors would be accused of running a slashvertisement for Mytopia. Anytime there is an article about any commerical product, someone is going to cry "slashvertisement"... so now if they link to an article about the commerical product, someone cries "paid referral".
There's a simple solution, which you appear to have solved for yourself... type "mytopia" into your favorite search engine, and off you go...
Another note, is that the source site for a lot of slashdot articles might have trouble handling the slashdot effect. By direct linking only to a site like news.com, there's mitigation of that. Only people truly interested in the site are going to find & navigate to the actual site.
AFAICT, it's win-win for everyone. Site avoids a slahdotting, news.com gets more traffic, slashdot gets a little bit of info about the site from the linked article, trolls get to complain about the lack of a direct link, and karma whores get to refute the trolls in order to get insightful mods;)
Like how "CO2 causes man-made climate change", when, in fact, CO2, when the ocean...ya know...that 3/4 of the Earth's surface, spews CO2, it cools, not heats the surface air. It's an 'inconvenient truth', but is core to the problems with this, the world's biggest hoax.
Colling the atmosphere by venting of CO2 from ocean water is immaterial, since it does not change the net energy of the system (earth + atmosphere). In the long run, the extra CO2 in the atmosphere would result in more energy, and hence higher temperatures, in the atmosphere. And even if it did matter, then it would still be idiotic to wantonly release CO2 in to the atmosphere, since that would shift the equilibrium of CO2... and more CO2 would remain dissolved in the ocean... hence less cooling effect.
But those lucky enough to survive that barrage had to also clear the acid rain, who, media types were convinced, would prevent children from playing outside, as early as 1980.
Maybe you are unaware that the reason acid rain is less of a problem now is precisely because of legislation enacted to prevent it? I visited lakes in the 80s in Wisconsin that could not support much life because of acidity from acid rain. We're damn lucky that it became a big enough issue that we took action.
And let's not forget that large, invisible barrier with a hole in it, by which sending money to Washington and voting Democratic was the only way to survive. The nearly world-class hoax of the ozone hole. Such a non-event.
Funny, it was a Republican administration that oversaw banning of CFCs. And also, a non-event because action was taken.
I think you're either trolling, or willfully ignorant. Any of the examples you mentioned would have become a real problem if action had not been taken. Your argument is not supported by your evidence -- it's refuted by your evidence. Never mind the 'vote Democratic' claptrap you've inserted that doesn't make any sense and has nothing to do with your points.
For someone of a scientific bent, you're sorely lacking in logical thought.
Now, don't get me wrong: unlike many slashdotters, I believe that someone with really good management skills can make a *huge* difference to a company or whatever fraction thereof he is given charge of. But you can't pretend that executive compensation in America, in general, is anything short of insane right now. Executives get brought in, proceed to take the company boldly into completely the wrong direction, lose it billions of dollars, and are sent packing with a "golden parachute" worth more money than my gross income combined over my entire lifespan.
I just want to point out that executives on that scale are *not* managers, and their role is not to manage the people on the floor doing the work (with the exception of some high-level sales). Seems the parent to your post was referring to managers, not to highest-level execs.
BTW, I agree with you 100%. But it's not going to change as most people are too afraid of jeopardizing their job to do what is necessary to bring income disparity back to a sane level. Part of this can be blamed on union-busting (as well as the questionable efficacy of some unions), part of it can be blamed on the cabal of execs/large stockholders who appoint eachother to high-paying positions.
We'll see what happens as the US economy sits in the shitter for a few years -- it's possible that workers may be able to reclaim some of the losses of the past two decades... but I doubt it. The people calling the shots are nearly untouchable, as they control the corporations, the media, the government, and the banking system. (Note that I'm not a conspiracy theorist... "the people" I refer to are a diverse group and not some backroom org). The class divide in the US is real, and it's not going anywhere.
It's been long known that beer is the drink of the underclasses. Wine, of course, being the preferred drink of the upper classes. And hard liquor a habit of the dregs of society.
Ah yes, we all recall that James Bond is a wine drinker, as was Winston Churchill.
Take a look at the magazines targeting the very affluent -- who are the primary alcohol advertisers (hint: it's not breweries or vineyards)?
Then we need to consider that this was a study done in the Czech Republic, not in the US or the UK. Are you positive of that assumption about classes?
Wait a sec... it's coming clear to me now... I think I'm seeing through my bitter alcoholic haze...
Also: How many scientists have not been pushed into obsession because lack of companionship? You know Newton never married and never had a girlfriend. He didn't have too many friends either I think. So could not some of his work have been created by a man that had nothing else to do? By someone who is desperately fighting the loneliness that comes creeping up anytime he closes the book?
A couple years ago I read a book that examined several very famous geniuses (in different fields), and compared and contrasted their lives. One of the observations made by the author was that most people that we consider to be geniuses of their field, have a life companion who enables their obsessive behavior. Wish I could remember the author and/or title of the book...
Note that this was true of Newton as well -- there has been some research that suggests his housekeeper fulfilled that role in his life (whether or not the relationship had a sexual aspect).
Is there a risk to your company network and even maybe the BSA Microsoft thugs? Possibly, but...I...don't...give...a...fuck.
Which is why I'd never in a million years hire you.
You think that exposing your employer to risk is laughable? You think that the circumstances of your hiring justify you exposing them to risk?
You've agreed to a employment contract, and likely in that contract there is a clause about adherence to corporate policy, and there may even be a specific clause related to use of unauthorized or unlicensed software.
By saying that you don't care, simply because youre not happy with your employment contract, would suggest to me that the best solution is to terminate your employment contract.
In short, there's a time and place for everything, including employment negotiations, and blithely ignoring the risks you bring to your employer is just plain stupid.
It's very simple, really. Add the expected value of the risk you bring to the company to what you produce (note that the expected value will be negative). Realize that you're worth less if you add risk exposure. Reduce risk exposure to help justify a request for permanent employee status. Or, buy your own benefits and deal with it. You agreed to work for what they offered... and now you're doing something that harms the company. Why shouldn't they be upset?
These politicians and their agents can say all sorts of misleading or incorrect statements and they aren't called on it by the reporters. I don't know if it's because the reporters and pundits are too dumb, too scared or too enamored with politicians.
It's simple. Piss off the politician and/or spokesperson, and they'll never be on your show again. So then you lose an opportunity to make money off them.
Keep them happy, by lobbing softballs questions, and you'll get all the exlusive interviews you can handle.
If this surcharge is put in place, I will never buy an album from any label that receives funds from this surcharge. Ever.
This is coming from someone who has spent more than $15000 (not even inflation-adjusted!) on new music purchases in the past 15 years, and who does not EVER download pirated music.
Then I will cancel my cable internet service. The only way the cable companies will resist this is if enough customers threaten to walk away should this happen, and then follow through on the threat.
No, it's because commercial whaling has extreme limits on quotas, etc -- but whaling for research does not.
So they harvest the minke whale sperm, and the leftover byproducts they get to sell on the market.
Whaling for research is just about justification of killing more whales in order to evade the limits placed on commercial whaling by international treaties.
Just after I clicked submit I realized that I forgot to mention he's an airline mechanic. There had to have been some bonus points for the not-so-subtle Fletch reference.
The argument "I did it because I could" is not morally or ethically defensible. Unfortunately, it might be legally defensible.
That which is not forbidden is allowed.
We cannot demand that people obey some moral code, when morality is subjective. This is why in the Old Testament there are the 10 Commandments, not the 10 guidelines for moral behavior. This is why Hammurabi's Code existed. This is why the legal system is based on blacklisting disallowed behaviours, not whitelisting appropriate ones.
Unless we specifically forbid certain activities, we must expect that those activities will continue unchecked.
I agree with you that it's ethically indefensible, but can we really expect anything else?
You make a very good point in general about what "rights" are being fought for, but...
Or how about both Gulf Wars and the right to cheap oil (and how cheap is your oil now)?
The first Gulf War was partially about cheap oil, and partially about maintaining the status of the dollar as the world's reserve currency.
The second Gulf War is/was about some the same things -- except it's the right to oil profits, not the right to cheap oil. But it's also about socially acceptable government spending to stimulate the economy. And it's also about setting up a straw man in the national policies debate.
Just being stupid enough to sign up for "designated target" status for long enough to make general doesn't mean that someone is patriotic or willing to protect anything this country stands for. It just means that you are capable of following orders and occassionally guessing what your superiors meant when they screwed up.
It's obvious that you've never been around brass. It's not [just] a waiting game to make general, or admiral. Some of it is politics:). And a large portion of it is managerial and communications skills, just as with upper-level management anywhere. Just following orders and "guessing what your superiors meant" is not nearly enough.
Let me guess, you saw "10 Euros a day" and flipped out.
Note what the context is: international roaming.
Considering the current cost of data services on a cell phone, 10 euro a day is not out of line for complete data services across multiple continents.
voice usage --international calling plans get heavy quickly. Now that data is such a big part of cell service, I'd expect that my monthly bill would be even higher if I were still traveling all over the place and doing almost all my business via cell phone.
So, sure 10 euro a day looks like a lot... but blanket access? Even when at a client site with locked down systems & no wi-fi? It's worth US$450/month if you're already paying $700/mo for voice.
Yes, there are only a certain number of customers that would find it worthwhile to use a plan like this, and I don't think open wi-fi is going anywhere for a long time... but I do think that business travelers would find a service like this very useful -- particularly those who don't have the time to swing by Starbucks to checktheir emails. People traveling on business tend to pack a lot of work into their day.
1) Here's the thing, if I buy a PC to play DVD's, browse the Internet, etc, I can get something for $400-600 that does the job adequately. However, that system will not play games. If I want to play games I'm looking at a $1000-1500 box at a minimum.
Here's the thing -- that only holds if you want to play the newest and most CPU/GPU intesive games.
I don't bother with new games, when I gan get old games for cheap and they play fine on my older PCs. High-end PC == work machine. When I replace my work machine, the old one gets relegated to gaming rig, though I usually spend a few bucks to upgrade the GPU.
Now, this may not work for you if you're into games requiring a large base of users online -- but for me, it's fine, as I prefer single-player games. And truthfully, I'd be considered a casual gamer, so die-hard gamers will have different requirements than I.
But even when I played games ~20 hours a week, I never found having an older PC to be a hindrance to enjoying the games I had the hardware to run. If anything, the experience was better due to patches already being published.
Slashdot Mirror
It's funny if you're a neanderthal.
I hate to nitpick item-by-item, but there's a lot of confusion in your post that I think you should research some of your assumptions more completely.You mean, encouraging high-risk home loans by deregulating the banking industry and reducing oversight of the consumer lending industry? It is reduced government that has led us to the current mess.
Please. Hoover inherited a wobbling economy largely due to the policies of his laissez-faire predecessors who allowed rampant banking and finance abuses that served to profit only the financiers. Hoover's problem was that he did too little, too late to make the kind of impact necessary to stave off depression.
I understand the concept of strict Constitutionalism, and I know we'll never agree on a lot of things. My feeling is that the Constitution is held as sacred by so many people, when it is clear to me that a strict interpretation of the Constitution has failed, because we have failed to change the Constitution with the times. The world is remarkably different than it was 220 years ago, and some of the political theories that were new and popular at the time don't fit in with today's world. Due to advances in communication, etc, there are economies of scale unrealizable 30 years ago, let alone 220 years ago. If you want to literally follow the words written 220 years ago, you should think about what they envisioned as an ideal society, and whether that notion of an ideal society really fits in with what is desired now, and if it is even attainable. C
Excuse me while I go visit a goatse link to get that image out of my mind.
Perhaps you don't understand how trademark registrations work. A Cuban company can register a trademark in the EU. There are agreements in effect that impact how the US views trademarks registered in the EU. By not honoring those agreements for trademarks owned by Cuban companies, the US has violated the agreements. You're right, the morality of the sanctions is meaningless. However, the existence of the sanctions, and how the are implemented, is not meaningless -- and this is what has resulted in the finding that the US has violated international treaties.
Utter bullshit. The US claims that it's a moral ban, and thus not subject to fair trade agreements. Please refer to the arguments presented to the WTO in this case. However, since the US allows online gambling, as well as meatspace gambling, the moral exclusion can't apply. Furthermore, adequate regulation and monitoring is not the actual reason for the online gambling ban -- the real reason is that the US gambling industry cried out for the regulation in order to protect their business. It's a protectionist ban, quite simply, and as such is in violation of treaties the US is a signatory to. So, officially, the reason for the ban is morality as argued to the WHO.
In short, when discussing a legal issue, please discuss within the context of the legal system, not in the context of what seems logical (since they are often in conflict
Yeah, well, I'm urging all companies to cat-5 their code, that's gotta be better then coaxing it.
When you do business with Walmart, you should know that you're going to be asked to reduce your price. When you stop supporting mom-and-pop shops by not giving them the volume discounts you give to Walmart, to the point where Walmart has a potentially sufocating grip on your retail pipeline, then you're in trouble.
This is what happens when you dance with the devil... you find out he's clumsy and steps on your feet, and has bad breath to boot.
There's an op-ed piece written by the founder of Snapper that sheds a lot of light on why/how a manufacturer should choose not to do business with Walmart. Too busy to dreg up a link, but well worth the read, for anyone who cares enough to do a google search.
There's a simple solution, which you appear to have solved for yourself... type "mytopia" into your favorite search engine, and off you go...
Another note, is that the source site for a lot of slashdot articles might have trouble handling the slashdot effect. By direct linking only to a site like news.com, there's mitigation of that. Only people truly interested in the site are going to find & navigate to the actual site.
AFAICT, it's win-win for everyone. Site avoids a slahdotting, news.com gets more traffic, slashdot gets a little bit of info about the site from the linked article, trolls get to complain about the lack of a direct link, and karma whores get to refute the trolls in order to get insightful mods
Colling the atmosphere by venting of CO2 from ocean water is immaterial, since it does not change the net energy of the system (earth + atmosphere). In the long run, the extra CO2 in the atmosphere would result in more energy, and hence higher temperatures, in the atmosphere. And even if it did matter, then it would still be idiotic to wantonly release CO2 in to the atmosphere, since that would shift the equilibrium of CO2... and more CO2 would remain dissolved in the ocean... hence less cooling effect.
Maybe you are unaware that the reason acid rain is less of a problem now is precisely because of legislation enacted to prevent it? I visited lakes in the 80s in Wisconsin that could not support much life because of acidity from acid rain. We're damn lucky that it became a big enough issue that we took action.
Funny, it was a Republican administration that oversaw banning of CFCs. And also, a non-event because action was taken.
I think you're either trolling, or willfully ignorant. Any of the examples you mentioned would have become a real problem if action had not been taken. Your argument is not supported by your evidence -- it's refuted by your evidence. Never mind the 'vote Democratic' claptrap you've inserted that doesn't make any sense and has nothing to do with your points.
For someone of a scientific bent, you're sorely lacking in logical thought.
BTW, I agree with you 100%. But it's not going to change as most people are too afraid of jeopardizing their job to do what is necessary to bring income disparity back to a sane level. Part of this can be blamed on union-busting (as well as the questionable efficacy of some unions), part of it can be blamed on the cabal of execs/large stockholders who appoint eachother to high-paying positions.
We'll see what happens as the US economy sits in the shitter for a few years -- it's possible that workers may be able to reclaim some of the losses of the past two decades... but I doubt it. The people calling the shots are nearly untouchable, as they control the corporations, the media, the government, and the banking system. (Note that I'm not a conspiracy theorist... "the people" I refer to are a diverse group and not some backroom org). The class divide in the US is real, and it's not going anywhere.
Take a look at the magazines targeting the very affluent -- who are the primary alcohol advertisers (hint: it's not breweries or vineyards)?
Then we need to consider that this was a study done in the Czech Republic, not in the US or the UK. Are you positive of that assumption about classes?
Wait a sec... it's coming clear to me now... I think I'm seeing through my bitter alcoholic haze...
Nice troll. Very nice, I give it 10/10.
Note that this was true of Newton as well -- there has been some research that suggests his housekeeper fulfilled that role in his life (whether or not the relationship had a sexual aspect).
You think that exposing your employer to risk is laughable? You think that the circumstances of your hiring justify you exposing them to risk?
You've agreed to a employment contract, and likely in that contract there is a clause about adherence to corporate policy, and there may even be a specific clause related to use of unauthorized or unlicensed software.
By saying that you don't care, simply because youre not happy with your employment contract, would suggest to me that the best solution is to terminate your employment contract.
In short, there's a time and place for everything, including employment negotiations, and blithely ignoring the risks you bring to your employer is just plain stupid.
It's very simple, really. Add the expected value of the risk you bring to the company to what you produce (note that the expected value will be negative). Realize that you're worth less if you add risk exposure. Reduce risk exposure to help justify a request for permanent employee status. Or, buy your own benefits and deal with it. You agreed to work for what they offered... and now you're doing something that harms the company. Why shouldn't they be upset?
Keep them happy, by lobbing softballs questions, and you'll get all the exlusive interviews you can handle.
(Though a bit late for a Holocaust cloak, one would think, and perhaps the component is a little large for a wheelbarrow)
Wait, does this mean that the ASCII goatse images are rootkits?
I guess the age-old question has been answered... yes, John, goatse does run linux.
If this surcharge is put in place, I will never buy an album from any label that receives funds from this surcharge. Ever.
This is coming from someone who has spent more than $15000 (not even inflation-adjusted!) on new music purchases in the past 15 years, and who does not EVER download pirated music.
Then I will cancel my cable internet service. The only way the cable companies will resist this is if enough customers threaten to walk away should this happen, and then follow through on the threat.
No, it's because commercial whaling has extreme limits on quotas, etc -- but whaling for research does not.
So they harvest the minke whale sperm, and the leftover byproducts they get to sell on the market.
Whaling for research is just about justification of killing more whales in order to evade the limits placed on commercial whaling by international treaties.
Just after I clicked submit I realized that I forgot to mention he's an airline mechanic. There had to have been some bonus points for the not-so-subtle Fletch reference.
We cannot demand that people obey some moral code, when morality is subjective. This is why in the Old Testament there are the 10 Commandments, not the 10 guidelines for moral behavior. This is why Hammurabi's Code existed. This is why the legal system is based on blacklisting disallowed behaviours, not whitelisting appropriate ones.
Unless we specifically forbid certain activities, we must expect that those activities will continue unchecked.
I agree with you that it's ethically indefensible, but can we really expect anything else?
The second Gulf War is/was about some the same things -- except it's the right to oil profits, not the right to cheap oil. But it's also about socially acceptable government spending to stimulate the economy. And it's also about setting up a straw man in the national policies debate.
It's obvious that you've never been around brass. It's not [just] a waiting game to make general, or admiral. Some of it is politics
The people who disagree and would work to change that are being marginalized via media and communications industry "cooperation" with government...
I may think Ron Paul and Ralph Nader are a bit out there myself, but on this I heartily agree with their followers.
Let me guess, you saw "10 Euros a day" and flipped out.
Note what the context is: international roaming.
Considering the current cost of data services on a cell phone, 10 euro a day is not out of line for complete data services across multiple continents.
voice usage --international calling plans get heavy quickly. Now that data is such a big part of cell service, I'd expect that my monthly bill would be even higher if I were still traveling all over the place and doing almost all my business via cell phone.
So, sure 10 euro a day looks like a lot... but blanket access? Even when at a client site with locked down systems & no wi-fi? It's worth US$450/month if you're already paying $700/mo for voice.
Yes, there are only a certain number of customers that would find it worthwhile to use a plan like this, and I don't think open wi-fi is going anywhere for a long time... but I do think that business travelers would find a service like this very useful -- particularly those who don't have the time to swing by Starbucks to checktheir emails. People traveling on business tend to pack a lot of work into their day.
I don't bother with new games, when I gan get old games for cheap and they play fine on my older PCs. High-end PC == work machine. When I replace my work machine, the old one gets relegated to gaming rig, though I usually spend a few bucks to upgrade the GPU.
Now, this may not work for you if you're into games requiring a large base of users online -- but for me, it's fine, as I prefer single-player games. And truthfully, I'd be considered a casual gamer, so die-hard gamers will have different requirements than I.
But even when I played games ~20 hours a week, I never found having an older PC to be a hindrance to enjoying the games I had the hardware to run. If anything, the experience was better due to patches already being published.