yes it does. Capitalism gives an incentive to you to "do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Another part of human nature, is that people like when people are nice to them, and generally will return the favor. For instance, if you behave in a way that others approve of, they might decide to buy your product or service (and subscribe to your newsletter.)
I changed my mind. We should search everyone entering a zoo for 16 ton weights. And then sue the zookeepers for singling out bodybuilders and profiling them as parrot haters.
What was that about people with incomplete information making incorrect assumptions, and yet still coming to a correct answer. You didn't see his scratch paper, so you can't refute his logic. But we can all see his conclusion, and your attempt to refute his method of obtaining the answer without challenging the answer itself is further evidence that you do, in fact, bless communism. Even if it is only to the extent of a useless idiot.
This is why the US needs something like the Data Protection Act. Basically, it is supposed to ensure that the data which companies store is relevant, correct, not kept longer than necessary and only disclosed where appropriate.
"Supposed" being the key word. That's the clipper chip mindset. Back then we were smart enough to think letting the pigs control the means of production was worse than letting the farmers have control, or at least no better. At least the farmers had a stake in it.
If you want records to be accurate, and not disclosed inappropriately, prosecute their misuse. Sarbanes-Oxley has done wonders to reduce the amount of records. Actually, it wasn't the S-Ox legislation, it was the Anderson Accounting criminal investigations. S-Ox just created a market for outsourced paper shredders and email hosting, since most companies can't be bothered to waste time "documenting" their document retention strategies.
Dunn, Fiorina. Wall Street is probably just sexist. Or maybe it's a fact that men manage companies better. Or maybe misguided thinking elevates inadequate people to positions they aren't qualified for merely for the sake of filling some quota of diversity.
Poor people have heart attacks, commit suicide, suffer from insomnia, clinical depression, sweaty palms, ulcers, and all sorts of other horrible ailments upon finding they've won a trip to the pokey too. There's nothing unusual about Ken Lay's reaction.
what is this "Ascendancy" you speak of? The name itself smells of class mobility.
Why do 10% of the people own and control 90%...
on
HP's Dunn Stepping Down
·
· Score: 0, Offtopic
Why do 10% of the people own and control 90% of the resources?
Redistribution of wealth, pure and simple.
Less than 1% of the people are responsible for more than 99% of production. People like Henry Ford, Thomas Edison, Linus Torvalds, and Bob from Account Temps should, by right, own and control their fair share of the resources. But the government robs them of their right.
Actually, part of the reason is benevolence. Ford wanted to pay his workers (he employed jews, also) a fair wage, and Torvalds wanted to spread his communist ideology to opiate the religionless masses, so they gave away more resources than they were required to by law (while still paying their required taxes.
The question of the inherited wealth controlled by the corporations founded by the likes of Ford and Edison is a different topic, though.
He had payments to make on his Porche, and you can't do that on a government salary...
Of course you can. Just depends on the government position. For instance, the guy that delegated his job to review the contracts to the lower level bureaucrats who ended up not doing the job well.
Thanks to laws (FICA tax, unemployment insurance, etc.) and expectations (perqs such as medical insurance and stock options) an employee typically costs 50 to 100% more than the base salary. Add in risks such as lawsuits, and a $100,000 consultant to replace a $60,000 employee looks like a bargain. Consultants is a capitalist solution to a socialist problem.
Better to have them do the mundane stuff, and train you own people to do the cutting edge, interesting, high-value work....... Assuming they're good enough.
But that's (theoretically) why the consultants are so high priced. If, as an employee, I realize my value, I'm going to demand a big raise, refuse to do overtime without pay, and insist I can leave whenever I want. With employees like that, who needs consultants?
Suppose that a business or government organization, say my city's port authority, is using a software application, say an ERP system, and that I'm an out of work developer (or even an underprivileged minority who somehow managed to cross the digital divide.) Instead of faking a back injury to go on disability when my unemployment insurance runs out (or even resorting to a life of crime) to pay the bills, if the application was open sourced, I could study the inner workings of the application and possibly get a job based on my expertise (or offer consulting services for one of several organizations that use the application.) If I couldn't afford expensive training from the proprietary software's vender (or even college), I'd have a chance to compete with (or even get a job at) the global services corporation that would otherwise be virtually the only option for the organization that needs the ERP system. The beneficiaries would be both the developers who study the open source code (by getting work) and the organization(s) that use it (by saving money by drawing on a potentially larger labor pool in the competitive marketplace for the needed software.) Even the global services corporation benefits, because they can win contracts more easily because their clients would not need fear being locked in as much.
Most software written (and especially that which ends up in the consultant nightmare) describes a business process. Whether it's an excel spreadsheet that determines your pricing margins to different suppliers, or an CRM app that lets the business know what customers like, it's hard to let that go, even if you don't publish the actual data, since your competitors would love to know what algorithms influence your strategies. Besides, data is never *really* divorced from code, and certainly it always ends up worse than you'd like in business apps.
"peaceful and law-abiding" does not include conspiracy, harboring fugitives, funding terrorist organizations, purgery, and being an accessory to others' crimes.
The dirty little truth is that "moderate" muslims (if by moderate, you mean those who don't want to kill all the infidels and destroy western civilization) are in the minority.
All XUL does is take away table formatting. I've developed XUL apps and ended up scrapping a bunch of HBOX/VBOX formatting and going back to HTML. What we really need is a HTML way to build "components" (a la Tapestry) or "widgets" from basic HTML tags. Trees and Menus and custom selectors like sliders with images.
But the JVM isn't the success. It's the language. It's the c-style, oop enforced, garbage collected, package managed, core libraries, language that is the success of Java. But it mostly runs on servers, and secondly as full fledged apps. Bytecode compilation, remote execution, and the sandbox are great ideas, but they're hardly necessary in the environments where java has succeeded. They're really just artifacts of the language's legacy when it was going to run applets in a browser. But now we're seeing a need for the lightweight, cross-platform, protected execution environment that the JVM was built to solve, and java the language may be able to fit it, if it ever gets back onto the desktop.
except in these cases the amount of stock in the options may be pre-determined, but the price is not. A CEO gets an offer of 1000 option shares as a bonus. When the option matures, the CEO picks the date of the lowest share price.
It's not "buy 1000 shares at today's price one year from now."
It's "buy 1000 shares at the lowest price in the last year."
A car that costs twice as much as a car that gets the same gas mileage as it? And they drive it for the gas mileage! That's conspicuous spending at it's worst.
Religion and morality may have little to do with each other, but we're not talking morality (def: subscription to a specific religious belief about what is right and wrong), we're talking about crime. And crime *is* statistically much lower in predominantly religious communities (with the caveat that the religion is Judaism or Christianity)
Slashdot Mirror
yes it does. Capitalism gives an incentive to you to "do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Another part of human nature, is that people like when people are nice to them, and generally will return the favor. For instance, if you behave in a way that others approve of, they might decide to buy your product or service (and subscribe to your newsletter.)
I changed my mind. We should search everyone entering a zoo for 16 ton weights. And then sue the zookeepers for singling out bodybuilders and profiling them as parrot haters.
Should we ban 16 ton weights? 16 ton weights don't kill people, negligent zookeepers do. Sue 'em!
What was that about people with incomplete information making incorrect assumptions, and yet still coming to a correct answer. You didn't see his scratch paper, so you can't refute his logic. But we can all see his conclusion, and your attempt to refute his method of obtaining the answer without challenging the answer itself is further evidence that you do, in fact, bless communism. Even if it is only to the extent of a useless idiot.
This is why the US needs something like the Data Protection Act. Basically, it is supposed to ensure that the data which companies store is relevant, correct, not kept longer than necessary and only disclosed where appropriate.
"Supposed" being the key word. That's the clipper chip mindset. Back then we were smart enough to think letting the pigs control the means of production was worse than letting the farmers have control, or at least no better. At least the farmers had a stake in it.
If you want records to be accurate, and not disclosed inappropriately, prosecute their misuse. Sarbanes-Oxley has done wonders to reduce the amount of records. Actually, it wasn't the S-Ox legislation, it was the Anderson Accounting criminal investigations. S-Ox just created a market for outsourced paper shredders and email hosting, since most companies can't be bothered to waste time "documenting" their document retention strategies.
Dunn, Fiorina. Wall Street is probably just sexist. Or maybe it's a fact that men manage companies better. Or maybe misguided thinking elevates inadequate people to positions they aren't qualified for merely for the sake of filling some quota of diversity.
Poor people have heart attacks, commit suicide, suffer from insomnia, clinical depression, sweaty palms, ulcers, and all sorts of other horrible ailments upon finding they've won a trip to the pokey too. There's nothing unusual about Ken Lay's reaction.
what is this "Ascendancy" you speak of? The name itself smells of class mobility.
Why do 10% of the people own and control 90% of the resources?
Redistribution of wealth, pure and simple.
Less than 1% of the people are responsible for more than 99% of production. People like Henry Ford, Thomas Edison, Linus Torvalds, and Bob from Account Temps should, by right, own and control their fair share of the resources. But the government robs them of their right.
Actually, part of the reason is benevolence. Ford wanted to pay his workers (he employed jews, also) a fair wage, and Torvalds wanted to spread his communist ideology to opiate the religionless masses, so they gave away more resources than they were required to by law (while still paying their required taxes.
The question of the inherited wealth controlled by the corporations founded by the likes of Ford and Edison is a different topic, though.
Republicans, all. And thus class traitors, to boot.
but sorry, myspace friends don't count. The difference is, there are just more losers these days.
He had payments to make on his Porche, and you can't do that on a government salary...
Of course you can. Just depends on the government position. For instance, the guy that delegated his job to review the contracts to the lower level bureaucrats who ended up not doing the job well.
Thanks to laws (FICA tax, unemployment insurance, etc.) and expectations (perqs such as medical insurance and stock options) an employee typically costs 50 to 100% more than the base salary. Add in risks such as lawsuits, and a $100,000 consultant to replace a $60,000 employee looks like a bargain. Consultants is a capitalist solution to a socialist problem.
Better to have them do the mundane stuff, and train you own people to do the cutting edge, interesting, high-value work....... Assuming they're good enough. But that's (theoretically) why the consultants are so high priced. If, as an employee, I realize my value, I'm going to demand a big raise, refuse to do overtime without pay, and insist I can leave whenever I want. With employees like that, who needs consultants?
Are you listening, Churchill and Roosevelt?
Suppose that a business or government organization, say my city's port authority, is using a software application, say an ERP system, and that I'm an out of work developer (or even an underprivileged minority who somehow managed to cross the digital divide.) Instead of faking a back injury to go on disability when my unemployment insurance runs out (or even resorting to a life of crime) to pay the bills, if the application was open sourced, I could study the inner workings of the application and possibly get a job based on my expertise (or offer consulting services for one of several organizations that use the application.) If I couldn't afford expensive training from the proprietary software's vender (or even college), I'd have a chance to compete with (or even get a job at) the global services corporation that would otherwise be virtually the only option for the organization that needs the ERP system. The beneficiaries would be both the developers who study the open source code (by getting work) and the organization(s) that use it (by saving money by drawing on a potentially larger labor pool in the competitive marketplace for the needed software.) Even the global services corporation benefits, because they can win contracts more easily because their clients would not need fear being locked in as much.
Most software written (and especially that which ends up in the consultant nightmare) describes a business process. Whether it's an excel spreadsheet that determines your pricing margins to different suppliers, or an CRM app that lets the business know what customers like, it's hard to let that go, even if you don't publish the actual data, since your competitors would love to know what algorithms influence your strategies. Besides, data is never *really* divorced from code, and certainly it always ends up worse than you'd like in business apps.
"peaceful and law-abiding" does not include conspiracy, harboring fugitives, funding terrorist organizations, purgery, and being an accessory to others' crimes.
The dirty little truth is that "moderate" muslims (if by moderate, you mean those who don't want to kill all the infidels and destroy western civilization) are in the minority.
All XUL does is take away table formatting. I've developed XUL apps and ended up scrapping a bunch of HBOX/VBOX formatting and going back to HTML. What we really need is a HTML way to build "components" (a la Tapestry) or "widgets" from basic HTML tags. Trees and Menus and custom selectors like sliders with images.
But the JVM isn't the success. It's the language. It's the c-style, oop enforced, garbage collected, package managed, core libraries, language that is the success of Java. But it mostly runs on servers, and secondly as full fledged apps. Bytecode compilation, remote execution, and the sandbox are great ideas, but they're hardly necessary in the environments where java has succeeded. They're really just artifacts of the language's legacy when it was going to run applets in a browser. But now we're seeing a need for the lightweight, cross-platform, protected execution environment that the JVM was built to solve, and java the language may be able to fit it, if it ever gets back onto the desktop.
except in these cases the amount of stock in the options may be pre-determined, but the price is not. A CEO gets an offer of 1000 option shares as a bonus. When the option matures, the CEO picks the date of the lowest share price. It's not "buy 1000 shares at today's price one year from now." It's "buy 1000 shares at the lowest price in the last year."
A car that costs twice as much as a car that gets the same gas mileage as it? And they drive it for the gas mileage! That's conspicuous spending at it's worst.
Yeah, the outside is great in Seattle, if you only wanted to use it 3 months a year.
Religion and morality may have little to do with each other, but we're not talking morality (def: subscription to a specific religious belief about what is right and wrong), we're talking about crime. And crime *is* statistically much lower in predominantly religious communities (with the caveat that the religion is Judaism or Christianity)