With ethics and morals like that it's no wonder that American corporations are pocketing BILLIONS in excess oil profits during times of scarcity, while defunding retirement accounts and abandoning health insurance programs
The goverment takes a nice chunk off of the top of gas prices too, why can't they seem to save the money instead of spend it.
Why is it that the people and corporations smart enough to make more than they spend are evil and greedy, and that nobody seems to complain when corporations and goverments spend more then they make?
I do not mean to imply that corporations can't be too greedy for their own good, but that in capitalism you are supposed to act in your own self interest and aquiring more money then you spend is in your own self interest.
My point was less about odf and accessibility and more about appropiate use of his funds.
As several people have pointed out anybody can code thier own odf reader, and since the article states that several groups are already working on the problem I am wondering why he needs to bring a lawsuit against the state when he could instead use the money to solve the problem buy hiring programers instead of lawyers.
It seems that every week there is a different group claiming the world is going to end and everybody has to stop what they are doing to fix whatever problem they have found. If groups can come up with the money to [lobby politicians, bring lawsuits, or make advertising campaigns] why can't they come up with the money to find a solution to fix the problem.
I have found that if you want people to change thier ways you have to have a good reason for the change and a drop in replacement to replace the problem.
They ARE involved. They've kicked off a dialogue and raised the awareness level of the issue of accessibility in open-sourced apps. Writing code isn't the only way to participate in the open source movement.
I realize that awareness is an important issue but, which costs more hiring a programmer to implement the standard or the lawsuit he intends to file if the goverment does not keep it's promise.
One of the advantages of a capitalist economy is that if you see a need, in this case an office suite with a screen reader that supports odf, you can make a product that fills the need and sell it for a profit.
Or if he dosen't like the idea of making money because of the disability, and the Disabilty Policy Consortium is a non profit organization he could inform people that the blind need a screen reader for odf documents and if they contribute money to a fund to make the prouct they can get a tax deduction.
You say that the death penalty does not solve crime, and you also say that you have to get a second offense before you can invoke the can spam act. It apperas that someone was able to come up with a punishment that prevented a repeat offense.
I might be wrong but under any set of laws you will always find at least one person willing to break the law thus you will always have crime.
If you will always have crime you need a way to discourage repeat offenders. With the death penalty the person being punished is prevented from breaking any more laws.
Once you establish that they have broken a law what deterrent would you suggest?
If you fine someone who has broken the law are they required to prove they money they pay with was gained legally, perhaps by mandatory irs audits for several years before and after the event.
If you imprison them do they lose more then they gain, in prision all of your basic needs are met you have food shelter clothing and medical treatment, would this work better if we had a situation like cool hand luke http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0061512/
Since we already have a minimum wage that is supposed to be enough to make a living that will provide all of the basics of life lets use that figure to our advantage.
Change the legal system so that crimes aren't punished by jail time but by a fine. Stipulate that the only way to pay the fine is by going to a prison work camp. Instead of paying them by writing them a check, give them payroll deductions that pay for room, board and all of the other expenses of running a prison and the rest goes to thier fine. when the fine is paid off they are released.
Under this system they are at least helping the rest of society, because the goverment won't have to hire or contract out the jobs that could be done by the criminals and the money we would have used goes to paying the criminals.
My boss has only a limited interest in my health. He has a wholely different perspective on it than I do. Why does he have so much control over my health care and I have so little.
probably the same reason all of the companies claimn they can't cover the retirement packages they offered, the decline of the company man. If everybody hired on to a company and worked the thirty years and then retired, you have more incentive to keep employees healthy. If people switch jobs every five years what is the motivation to keep employees healthy, they will find a different job soon anyway.
I'm sure most people use very little insurance for the first 3/4 of their life. Insurance companies want to insure these people then cut them once they're no longer profitable to insure. That is wrong.
Under a free market system that is right. If insurance companies spend more than they make they will go out of buisness.
I think this also fits with the car insurance analogy, I have heard that some of the insurance companies that claim to offer the lowest price minimum coverage drop you after the first accident.
To survive an insurance company needs to make more then they spend, which is why insurance polices cover specific topics.
there is a reason flood insurance is different then homeowners insurance. I have not been to Denver, but I imagine there is probably little need for flood insurance for a city that is a mile above sea level. I have not been to new orleans either, but I imagine there is a greater need for flood insurance in a city built below sea level.
In general insurance is probably like every other buisness. If you pay more you are likely too get more, or if that does not provide enough there is the possibility that you switch to an ala carte system where you buy everything individually.
my sister's fiance works for http://www.calltech.com/ and they are the ones who handle verizon dsl. according to him, one of the things that can get you a promotion is having a high percentage of problems solved. you start out as a tier 1 then get promoted to tier 2 then 3.
if I understand correctly to get your call routed higher than the initial tier 1 you either have to talk for to a tier one for 15 minutes or have 4 unresolved calls in a few days.
under this system it would seem like they are trying to make it dificult to get your call to the people.
Since the tech support is being outsourced I wonder if the only communication verizon gets is a bill each month.
virtualisation would be like bying a ford truck but you have to run onstar, So you put a small GM car in the bed thus giving you onstar capabilities without having to rework the ford for the onstar device.
Lets say you are just moving up the channels to see if there is anything good on. Well, if some of those stations are showing commercials, you will be forced to watch them before you are allowed to continue looking for content.
If you don't wait to see what comes on after the comercials end, how will you know if you would want to watch it?
Slashdot Mirror
With ethics and morals like that it's no wonder that American corporations are pocketing BILLIONS in excess oil profits during times of scarcity, while defunding retirement accounts and abandoning health insurance programs
The goverment takes a nice chunk off of the top of gas prices too, why can't they seem to save the money instead of spend it.
Why is it that the people and corporations smart enough to make more than they spend are evil and greedy, and that nobody seems to complain when corporations and goverments spend more then they make?
I do not mean to imply that corporations can't be too greedy for their own good, but that in capitalism you are supposed to act in your own self interest and aquiring more money then you spend is in your own self interest.
My point was less about odf and accessibility and more about appropiate use of his funds.
As several people have pointed out anybody can code thier own odf reader, and since the article states that several groups are already working on the problem I am wondering why he needs to bring a lawsuit against the state when he could instead use the money to solve the problem buy hiring programers instead of lawyers.
It seems that every week there is a different group claiming the world is going to end and everybody has to stop what they are doing to fix whatever problem they have found. If groups can come up with the money to [lobby politicians, bring lawsuits, or make advertising campaigns] why can't they come up with the money to find a solution to fix the problem.
I have found that if you want people to change thier ways you have to have a good reason for the change and a drop in replacement to replace the problem.
They ARE involved. They've kicked off a dialogue and raised the awareness level of the issue of accessibility in open-sourced apps. Writing code isn't the only way to participate in the open source movement.
I realize that awareness is an important issue but, which costs more hiring a programmer to implement the standard or the lawsuit he intends to file if the goverment does not keep it's promise.
One of the advantages of a capitalist economy is that if you see a need, in this case an office suite with a screen reader that supports odf, you can make a product that fills the need and sell it for a profit.
Or if he dosen't like the idea of making money because of the disability, and the Disabilty Policy Consortium is a non profit organization he could inform people that the blind need a screen reader for odf documents and if they contribute money to a fund to make the prouct they can get a tax deduction.
You say that the death penalty does not solve crime, and you also say that you have to get a second offense before you can invoke the can spam act. It apperas that someone was able to come up with a punishment that prevented a repeat offense.
I might be wrong but under any set of laws you will always find at least one person willing to break the law thus you will always have crime.
If you will always have crime you need a way to discourage repeat offenders. With the death penalty the person being punished is prevented from breaking any more laws.
Once you establish that they have broken a law what deterrent would you suggest?
If you fine someone who has broken the law are they required to prove they money they pay with was gained legally, perhaps by mandatory irs audits for several years before and after the event.
If you imprison them do they lose more then they gain, in prision all of your basic needs are met you have food shelter clothing and medical treatment, would this work better if we had a situation like cool hand luke http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0061512/
Since we already have a minimum wage that is supposed to be enough to make a living that will provide all of the basics of life lets use that figure to our advantage.
Change the legal system so that crimes aren't punished by jail time but by a fine.
Stipulate that the only way to pay the fine is by going to a prison work camp.
Instead of paying them by writing them a check, give them payroll deductions that pay for room, board and all of the other expenses of running a prison and the rest goes to thier fine.
when the fine is paid off they are released.
Under this system they are at least helping the rest of society, because the goverment won't have to hire or contract out the jobs that could be done by the criminals and the money we would have used goes to paying the criminals.
Is it stealing if the electrons are free?
My boss has only a limited interest in my health. He has a wholely different perspective on it than I do. Why does he have so much control over my health care and I have so little.
probably the same reason all of the companies claimn they can't cover the retirement packages they offered, the decline of the company man. If everybody hired on to a company and worked the thirty years and then retired, you have more incentive to keep employees healthy. If people switch jobs every five years what is the motivation to keep employees healthy, they will find a different job soon anyway.
I'm sure most people use very little insurance for the first 3/4 of their life. Insurance companies want to insure these people then cut them once they're no longer profitable to insure. That is wrong.
Under a free market system that is right. If insurance companies spend more than they make they will go out of buisness.
I think this also fits with the car insurance analogy, I have heard that some of the insurance companies that claim to offer the lowest price minimum coverage drop you after the first accident.
To survive an insurance company needs to make more then they spend, which is why insurance polices cover specific topics.
there is a reason flood insurance is different then homeowners insurance. I have not been to Denver, but I imagine there is probably little need for flood insurance for a city that is a mile above sea level. I have not been to new orleans either, but I imagine there is a greater need for flood insurance in a city built below sea level.
In general insurance is probably like every other buisness. If you pay more you are likely too get more, or if that does not provide enough there is the possibility that you switch to an ala carte system where you buy everything individually.
my sister's fiance works for http://www.calltech.com/ and they are the ones who handle verizon dsl.
according to him, one of the things that can get you a promotion is having a high percentage of problems solved.
you start out as a tier 1 then get promoted to tier 2 then 3.
if I understand correctly to get your call routed higher than the initial tier 1 you either have to talk for to a tier one for 15 minutes or have 4 unresolved calls in a few days.
under this system it would seem like they are trying to make it dificult to get your call to the people.
Since the tech support is being outsourced I wonder if the only communication verizon gets is a bill each month.
I'm sure there's a car analogy somewhere here...
I think I have a car analogy for you.
virtualisation would be like bying a ford truck but you have to run onstar, So you put a small GM car in the bed thus giving you onstar capabilities without having to rework the ford for the onstar device.
Lets say you are just moving up the channels to see if there is anything good on. Well, if some of those stations are showing commercials, you will be forced to watch them before you are allowed to continue looking for content.
If you don't wait to see what comes on after the comercials end, how will you know if you would want to watch it?