And the other way -- by having employees (mostly managers) to pay for stolen items out of their own pay checks (so they do at Fry's -- I don't know about other stores)
Wow, I sure hope that's illegal (forcing employees to pay for stolen goods)! Because if not, it should be... I'm pretty sure it is, at least here in Canada.
OK fine, there's one country. But I wouldn't say that Mexico's crime problems stem from its gun laws... for instance, look at the UK and (especially) Canada. MUCH lower murder rates than the US, and both have gun control.
I'll believe that when people stop buying $200 jeans, $300 "bling" chains, $500 jackets, and $50,000 SUVs. There's plenty of money to go around, people just don't want to spend it. After all, says the general public, why buy something when you can just get it for free?
So? That's a very poor argument. All of my favourite web-based news sites (Globe & Mail, New York Times, International Herald Tribune, Guardian, etc.) are free. Why shouldn't I expect objective reporting from a news website, simply because it's free? Fair, objective news reporting is a great way to get respect. Biased reporting which maintains a facade of being objective (which, I argue, is what Slashdot does) is the wrong way to go.
Seriously, can't Slashdot even try to pretend that it's an objective news outlet? A headline like "Ignore Vista Until 2008", which is just a reference to an opinion piece, speaks volumes about the bias of this website.
The iPod doesn't succeed because it's better than any other MP3 player out there, it succeeds because of its marketing campaigns. I'm not talking about the few geeks (such as us Slashdot readers) who buy it, mind you, but the masses of uneducated people who buy an iPod because, simply, it's "the thing" to buy. The only thing that's keeping other MP3 players from attaining the success of the iPod is a slick TV commercial with a well-known band (too bad U2's already taken!). That's why an open-source MP3 player will never succeed to the same degree.
Although this might, after a lot of research and development, work marginally well enough when someone reads out-loud a cut-and-dry paper with no colloquial language and simple grammar, I can't see this ever working for normal speech. Slang and grammar evolve too quickly for most dictionaries of a single language -- imagine how hard it would be to maintain a device that is supposed to instantly translate who-knows-how-many different languages (since only having, say, English to French would just be silly). By the time a new chip is released, it will have already been outdated by developments in language, since even just a few small ones, especially new words, can throw off a translator (10 years ago, who knew what "to google something" meant?).
Slashdot Mirror
And the other way -- by having employees (mostly managers) to pay for stolen items out of their own pay checks (so they do at Fry's -- I don't know about other stores)
Wow, I sure hope that's illegal (forcing employees to pay for stolen goods)! Because if not, it should be... I'm pretty sure it is, at least here in Canada.
"As if", of course, is what I meant (preview button = good).
... can think of a better name! Edubuntu? Sheesh! As is Ubuntu isn't bad enough.
OK fine, there's one country. But I wouldn't say that Mexico's crime problems stem from its gun laws... for instance, look at the UK and (especially) Canada. MUCH lower murder rates than the US, and both have gun control.
Yes, after all, there's such a low murder rate in Texas.
I'm pretty sure the post was just a joke (it gets pretty funny in a bad soap opera-ish way at the end).
I'll believe that when people stop buying $200 jeans, $300 "bling" chains, $500 jackets, and $50,000 SUVs. There's plenty of money to go around, people just don't want to spend it. After all, says the general public, why buy something when you can just get it for free?
So? That's a very poor argument. All of my favourite web-based news sites (Globe & Mail, New York Times, International Herald Tribune, Guardian, etc.) are free. Why shouldn't I expect objective reporting from a news website, simply because it's free? Fair, objective news reporting is a great way to get respect. Biased reporting which maintains a facade of being objective (which, I argue, is what Slashdot does) is the wrong way to go.
Seriously, can't Slashdot even try to pretend that it's an objective news outlet? A headline like "Ignore Vista Until 2008", which is just a reference to an opinion piece, speaks volumes about the bias of this website.
The iPod doesn't succeed because it's better than any other MP3 player out there, it succeeds because of its marketing campaigns. I'm not talking about the few geeks (such as us Slashdot readers) who buy it, mind you, but the masses of uneducated people who buy an iPod because, simply, it's "the thing" to buy. The only thing that's keeping other MP3 players from attaining the success of the iPod is a slick TV commercial with a well-known band (too bad U2's already taken!). That's why an open-source MP3 player will never succeed to the same degree.
Although this might, after a lot of research and development, work marginally well enough when someone reads out-loud a cut-and-dry paper with no colloquial language and simple grammar, I can't see this ever working for normal speech. Slang and grammar evolve too quickly for most dictionaries of a single language -- imagine how hard it would be to maintain a device that is supposed to instantly translate who-knows-how-many different languages (since only having, say, English to French would just be silly). By the time a new chip is released, it will have already been outdated by developments in language, since even just a few small ones, especially new words, can throw off a translator (10 years ago, who knew what "to google something" meant?).
Imagine the possibilities!