If the market was full of other fruit, they wouldn't have thought it profitable to buy all the bananas. The whole premise is a standard device in economics, used to represent manipulation of necessities. So if you assume there is other fruit, you'd assume it was also bought up. The reality is that the stores only order what they expect to sell, and that if you buy all the bananas, the price of apples will also go up and workers might be priced out of both.
It is generally considered much more likely that a person can walk, bicycle, or take the bus to work than that they can just eat rocks, or eat currency.
The objective is to allow political dissidents under repressive regimes a method of communicating politically online without getting in trouble by their governments.
you mean regimes unfriendly to the US
Don't be silly. If a regime is unfriendly to the US, but allows freedom of expression to their people, then Tor in no way works against them. So no, they would not be the target. Also, if a regime is repressive, but friendly to the US, it would still work against them because the US can't put the cat back in the bag after releasing it.
I'll stick with, I meant what I said and I said what I meant. It is meant to disadvantage governments that discourage free expression; regardless of their allegiances.
You're the one saying something is "strictly bad." My assumption is that some people in the world are for oppressive regimes, and that it is actually a major point of contention that people fight to the death over.
The weird idea that Celts were limited to Scotland is very modern. The Celts building the wicker men, including both the ones Caesar saw, and the ones he made up, were all from much farther south than Scotland. And the Scots wouldn't cross over from Ireland for another millennia.
I'll give you a hint, though: a Scot is a type of Celt. A Celt is not a type of Scot. And not necessarily a Scotsman, either.
I'm not sure how it helps to oppose bigotry to create a false stereotype demonizing all fraternities and sororities. Seems like just another chapter of bigotry, to me.
If you think you are so "great" such that it's not an issue for you, why are you even commenting on it?
What is the theory at play there? Only people disadvantaged by a claim can understand it and examine it?
What if I told you that none of my comments were personal stories in the first person, but that they were abstract opinions based on an analysis of the publicly known and discussed variables?
How do you make your greatness shine in a way that you can bypass the usual HR nonsense?
You get over yourself and your sense of entitlement. You make life decisions that will achieve your goals. You set higher goals than just, "working for whichever lame corporation whose ways of doing business I dislike, that will pay me." If you're highly motivated to make a lot of money, you can make more as a consultant than a corporate employee, anyways. No, you don't have to be "cream of the crop," you just have to adopt a more fact-based understanding of the available life choices.
If you actually thought that telling people to do what they value instead of what pays the most is "bragging," that only suggests you're unhappy with your own life choices.
"How" an "org" is to know somebody is "so great," well, why is it your premise that they are "so great?" If they suck, everything I said is equally true compared to if they are great. Even if you have a low level of job skills, you don't have to accept being at the bottom of the curve for job happiness. Find a job that fits what you want in life, stop trying to convince companies that you are whatever fantasy they had about the perfect employee.
It is not a given that it is beneficial for the worker to accept a job with a company that actually desires somebody other than them. Tricking that company into hiring them might in fact not benefit the worker in the long term. A company with unrealistic expectations about available workers is guaranteed not to actually want the workers they hire; the only way to get past their requirements is to lie, or "slip through the cracks."
I have personally seen workers (of low skill IMO, but qualified) turn down corporate jobs precisely because they company had unrealistic expectations and they didn't think it would be a good employer to work for, put up postings of availability as a consultant, and then get a contract with the exact same company! But without any special terms, without the keyword soup nonsense, without the crazy contract, just as regular business-to-business work-for-hire, at double the rate they were paying employees.
You bought into the nonsense, and it is all you see.
No, "it is the current that kills you" is only true for static electricity.
For circuits, you can't separate the voltage and the current in that way, and the current isn't the variable. You have voltage, resistance, and current. The current is determined by the voltage and the resistance. In an electrocution setting, the resistance is fixed; whatever the resistance of your skin is doesn't change based on what you touch. However much current your body can draw, it will, based on... the voltage. Because the resistance isn't a variable that has to do with the current source you accidentally connect yourself to, the voltage is what tells you how much current will be drawn.
The only exceptions are where the risk is from inductors, which will try to maintain the current. But that doesn't apply here.
To learn more about this dangerous idiocy, see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... "While there is some truth to it, it is basically a load of crap, and dangerously misleading." Status: busted
No, if you're actually one of the desirable workers they want, you can also just refuse to work for them in the first place, and refuse to consider any positions where you encountered that nonsense.
That's real life. Willingness to be treated like shit is only an advantage at the bottom of the scale.
For example, take a bunch of die-hard communists, settle them all in the same village, give them local rule, and force them to hold elections every few years.
They'll be totally free, and have representative government. They might even vote for people who promise to put in strict central economic control, and to protest forced-elections. They might even believe themselves unfree, except they can institute their own rules; they just have to verify every few years that they are indeed the rules they want. So they'll insist the elections make them unfree, but they'll be otherwise totally able to choose their rules.
Here in the USA, we can't have freedom without a mixed economy, because the people demand a mixed economy. They also demand to call it "Capitalism," and to call our Representative Republic a "Democracy." Although in my State we have local Direct Democracy, and all the important issues are decided directly by vote of the People.
All it takes to have free people without Capitalism, is to find people that want something other than Capitalism, and free them! Or find people who are already free, like Americans, and who wanted something other than Capitalism. Like... Americans!
What I want to know, which country do "these people" think is Capitalist? Every rich country I've ever heard of lets the existing rich people and successful companies maintain an unlevel playing field, and Capital alone is rarely enough to compete. It is certainly better than Adam Smith's day. Consider his example of a opening a quarry and having your competitors ambush the deliveries and dump the stone into the river. That was a normal, expected thing if you tried to get into a new industry back then. It took not only the capital, but also body guards, and those guards had to be of the right social standing to defend you from the specific people hired by the established quarries. It is very similar to modern American industries where participation is guaranteed to generate patent lawsuits, even where no legit new invention is involved. We have legal process that, given enough capital, may or may not protect you. But even when Justice prevails, the wheels turn too slowly to save Capitalism for the affected business. Even if somehow you got all the money back you lost in the suit, which "can't" happen in our system, the playing field you'd be on would remain unlevel and any Capital coming in should be advised of the continued risk of crippling lawsuit.
And other industries, Capitalism reigns. I can, for example, open a restaurant or convenience store based entirely on capital considerations.
I would also say that all the rich countries I know of have elements of Capitalism, and that is true regardless of what type of government they have.
Where I am it did jump 75 cents in a couple days. If you bought at a cheap station last week and an expensive one this week, there would be over a dollar gap. There is 50 cents of difference in price available within a couple miles.
Well, if you're here in the US we have a "mixed economy" and there is no general ban on collusion. Price-fixing is only banned in narrow circumstances. There are a wide variety of specific tactics that the oil companies use to push up retail prices. Most of them just push prices up, they don't create monopolies or disadvantage other oil companies. If you were to build a refinery, those tactics wouldn't hurt you, actually you'd share in the benefit. So it isn't the same type of thing at all. I'm not sure that you understood the issues, or even tried. You just thought about your pocket, only, and didn't contribute any idea.
If it was oil, you could just switch to natural gas, or electric.;)
I'm guessing it was some sort of failed humor, since you seem to be claiming bananas are a luxury, and gasoline a necessity. Then again, maybe you're from Jupiter and you'd die without huffing gas.
Popularity sucks, I always hope less people will choose the same tech as me. If it is popular then the lowest common denominator is guaranteed to be average. I want software with a community that is higher on the curve than that.
So which distro am I using? I say, don't ask, don't tell.
My morally correct is not your morally correct. It is impossible for a company to do anything morally correct as universal morality code would be an oxymoron.
That is what Ethics is for, and why the main focus of complaints is generally ethics and not morality. Ethics is the overlapping parts people agreed on.
If they're buying consumer grade laptops for employees, they'll just buy whatever is cheap in 5 years, and the bean counter won't listen to the whining about which brands anybody wants. That's true even if the CTO was overheard in the cafeteria saying, "Gosh, we'll never buy from them again!"
If only another company would make a Thinkpad clone, there would be a giant army of people running away and Lenovo would die, and companies would be On Notice not to do that.
As it is, their key product line is unaffected and has no good alternative.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, the person should google it instead of bloviating. If you don't know about Open Hardware, you're not the one to be telling us about it, eh?
No speculation needed, just a basic web search.
If that's what you hear, I believe you.
It isn't really that hard to understand, I think you can do better.
Everybody chose PulseAudio, because the ALSA and OSS APIs are still there. But "everybody" uses PulseAudio because it has a modern featureset.
If the market was full of other fruit, they wouldn't have thought it profitable to buy all the bananas. The whole premise is a standard device in economics, used to represent manipulation of necessities. So if you assume there is other fruit, you'd assume it was also bought up. The reality is that the stores only order what they expect to sell, and that if you buy all the bananas, the price of apples will also go up and workers might be priced out of both.
It is generally considered much more likely that a person can walk, bicycle, or take the bus to work than that they can just eat rocks, or eat currency.
The objective is to allow political dissidents under repressive regimes a method of communicating politically online without getting in trouble by their governments.
you mean regimes unfriendly to the US
Don't be silly. If a regime is unfriendly to the US, but allows freedom of expression to their people, then Tor in no way works against them. So no, they would not be the target. Also, if a regime is repressive, but friendly to the US, it would still work against them because the US can't put the cat back in the bag after releasing it.
I'll stick with, I meant what I said and I said what I meant. It is meant to disadvantage governments that discourage free expression; regardless of their allegiances.
You're the one saying something is "strictly bad." My assumption is that some people in the world are for oppressive regimes, and that it is actually a major point of contention that people fight to the death over.
The weird idea that Celts were limited to Scotland is very modern. The Celts building the wicker men, including both the ones Caesar saw, and the ones he made up, were all from much farther south than Scotland. And the Scots wouldn't cross over from Ireland for another millennia.
I'll give you a hint, though: a Scot is a type of Celt. A Celt is not a type of Scot. And not necessarily a Scotsman, either.
You don't have to be a True Scotsman to build a perfect strawman, but the Celts did basically invent it, and none of this modern stuff compares.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W...
Oh, wait, oops, the story was just a Straw Man.
As with "superior" soy sauce, it doesn't mean it is better, just that it fermented longer. You can tell the difference with just your nose.
That isn't the hammer of Justice, that is the Reality of the Public Discourse, the Natural Social Consequence of Freedom of Speech.
They spoke, other people reacted according to their established prerogatives. No Justice needed.
Don't believe the hype!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
You've got some derp in your neckbeard.
I'm not sure how it helps to oppose bigotry to create a false stereotype demonizing all fraternities and sororities. Seems like just another chapter of bigotry, to me.
If you think you are so "great" such that it's not an issue for you, why are you even commenting on it?
What is the theory at play there? Only people disadvantaged by a claim can understand it and examine it?
What if I told you that none of my comments were personal stories in the first person, but that they were abstract opinions based on an analysis of the publicly known and discussed variables?
How do you make your greatness shine in a way that you can bypass the usual HR nonsense?
You get over yourself and your sense of entitlement. You make life decisions that will achieve your goals. You set higher goals than just, "working for whichever lame corporation whose ways of doing business I dislike, that will pay me." If you're highly motivated to make a lot of money, you can make more as a consultant than a corporate employee, anyways. No, you don't have to be "cream of the crop," you just have to adopt a more fact-based understanding of the available life choices.
If you actually thought that telling people to do what they value instead of what pays the most is "bragging," that only suggests you're unhappy with your own life choices.
"How" an "org" is to know somebody is "so great," well, why is it your premise that they are "so great?" If they suck, everything I said is equally true compared to if they are great. Even if you have a low level of job skills, you don't have to accept being at the bottom of the curve for job happiness. Find a job that fits what you want in life, stop trying to convince companies that you are whatever fantasy they had about the perfect employee.
It is not a given that it is beneficial for the worker to accept a job with a company that actually desires somebody other than them. Tricking that company into hiring them might in fact not benefit the worker in the long term. A company with unrealistic expectations about available workers is guaranteed not to actually want the workers they hire; the only way to get past their requirements is to lie, or "slip through the cracks."
I have personally seen workers (of low skill IMO, but qualified) turn down corporate jobs precisely because they company had unrealistic expectations and they didn't think it would be a good employer to work for, put up postings of availability as a consultant, and then get a contract with the exact same company! But without any special terms, without the keyword soup nonsense, without the crazy contract, just as regular business-to-business work-for-hire, at double the rate they were paying employees.
You bought into the nonsense, and it is all you see.
No, "it is the current that kills you" is only true for static electricity.
For circuits, you can't separate the voltage and the current in that way, and the current isn't the variable. You have voltage, resistance, and current. The current is determined by the voltage and the resistance. In an electrocution setting, the resistance is fixed; whatever the resistance of your skin is doesn't change based on what you touch. However much current your body can draw, it will, based on... the voltage. Because the resistance isn't a variable that has to do with the current source you accidentally connect yourself to, the voltage is what tells you how much current will be drawn.
The only exceptions are where the risk is from inductors, which will try to maintain the current. But that doesn't apply here.
To learn more about this dangerous idiocy, see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... "While there is some truth to it, it is basically a load of crap, and dangerously misleading." Status: busted
No, if you're actually one of the desirable workers they want, you can also just refuse to work for them in the first place, and refuse to consider any positions where you encountered that nonsense.
That's real life. Willingness to be treated like shit is only an advantage at the bottom of the scale.
Likely you won't get to talk to that person unless you have alternate access, or claim to meet the requirements.
Which is probably why most positions end up being filled by alternate methods, like "networking."
Nerds are allergic to advertising. We already know how to select preferred items from what is available for purchase.
For example, take a bunch of die-hard communists, settle them all in the same village, give them local rule, and force them to hold elections every few years.
They'll be totally free, and have representative government. They might even vote for people who promise to put in strict central economic control, and to protest forced-elections. They might even believe themselves unfree, except they can institute their own rules; they just have to verify every few years that they are indeed the rules they want. So they'll insist the elections make them unfree, but they'll be otherwise totally able to choose their rules.
Here in the USA, we can't have freedom without a mixed economy, because the people demand a mixed economy. They also demand to call it "Capitalism," and to call our Representative Republic a "Democracy." Although in my State we have local Direct Democracy, and all the important issues are decided directly by vote of the People.
All it takes to have free people without Capitalism, is to find people that want something other than Capitalism, and free them! Or find people who are already free, like Americans, and who wanted something other than Capitalism. Like... Americans!
What I want to know, which country do "these people" think is Capitalist? Every rich country I've ever heard of lets the existing rich people and successful companies maintain an unlevel playing field, and Capital alone is rarely enough to compete. It is certainly better than Adam Smith's day. Consider his example of a opening a quarry and having your competitors ambush the deliveries and dump the stone into the river. That was a normal, expected thing if you tried to get into a new industry back then. It took not only the capital, but also body guards, and those guards had to be of the right social standing to defend you from the specific people hired by the established quarries. It is very similar to modern American industries where participation is guaranteed to generate patent lawsuits, even where no legit new invention is involved. We have legal process that, given enough capital, may or may not protect you. But even when Justice prevails, the wheels turn too slowly to save Capitalism for the affected business. Even if somehow you got all the money back you lost in the suit, which "can't" happen in our system, the playing field you'd be on would remain unlevel and any Capital coming in should be advised of the continued risk of crippling lawsuit.
And other industries, Capitalism reigns. I can, for example, open a restaurant or convenience store based entirely on capital considerations.
I would also say that all the rich countries I know of have elements of Capitalism, and that is true regardless of what type of government they have.
Where I am it did jump 75 cents in a couple days. If you bought at a cheap station last week and an expensive one this week, there would be over a dollar gap. There is 50 cents of difference in price available within a couple miles.
Well, if you're here in the US we have a "mixed economy" and there is no general ban on collusion. Price-fixing is only banned in narrow circumstances. There are a wide variety of specific tactics that the oil companies use to push up retail prices. Most of them just push prices up, they don't create monopolies or disadvantage other oil companies. If you were to build a refinery, those tactics wouldn't hurt you, actually you'd share in the benefit. So it isn't the same type of thing at all. I'm not sure that you understood the issues, or even tried. You just thought about your pocket, only, and didn't contribute any idea.
If it was oil, you could just switch to natural gas, or electric. ;)
I'm guessing it was some sort of failed humor, since you seem to be claiming bananas are a luxury, and gasoline a necessity. Then again, maybe you're from Jupiter and you'd die without huffing gas.
My advice is to read his book.
Popularity sucks, I always hope less people will choose the same tech as me. If it is popular then the lowest common denominator is guaranteed to be average. I want software with a community that is higher on the curve than that.
So which distro am I using? I say, don't ask, don't tell.
My morally correct is not your morally correct. It is impossible for a company to do anything morally correct as universal morality code would be an oxymoron.
That is what Ethics is for, and why the main focus of complaints is generally ethics and not morality. Ethics is the overlapping parts people agreed on.
If they're buying consumer grade laptops for employees, they'll just buy whatever is cheap in 5 years, and the bean counter won't listen to the whining about which brands anybody wants. That's true even if the CTO was overheard in the cafeteria saying, "Gosh, we'll never buy from them again!"
If only another company would make a Thinkpad clone, there would be a giant army of people running away and Lenovo would die, and companies would be On Notice not to do that.
As it is, their key product line is unaffected and has no good alternative.