I want to extend my sincere appreciation. No, I've been saying (since about day two, maybe even day one) that I hope their shares tank in value. They've done a decent drop. I can't wait until they get low enough. As promised then, and reiterated now, I'll actually let Slashdot know when I pull the trigger.
I'm going to wait until their share value drops, I'll buy up to 2000 shares, and then I'll hold it for at least a year and see where it is. (Always at least a year - I don't even check fluctuations in that time.) I'll let folks know when I sell 'em too. Yes, it's a big investment but I can risk it. I also don't need an immediate return but I expect their return growth rate to be really, really high compared to the averages and adjusted for inflation. I won't be greedy. I'll wait until it's down at like $25/share. I'll wait until it's $250 to sell. It'll be back at those numbers in six months. In a year it will be a bit more healthy.
So, drive that share value into the ground. Make them damned near worthless based on market reactions and speculation. I'll donate 10% of the profit to EFF and another 10% to the ACLU. Drive 'em into the basement. I'm all for it. You, my outraged fellow Slashdotters, are doing good things and those of us who can take the risks applaud your efforts.
I'll help your English out. "Disillusioned." That means they've had their illusions stripped away. They're "delusional." If they pay attention and agree to your post, they might be disillusioned. Probably not but it could happen. Either way, disillusioned happens when you're no longer subject to the illusion.
*sighs* No, no we're not. They're arguing with an idiot who may (or may not be) self-identifying as a Libertarian. The important part is that they're quite probably retarded. Very few Libertarians are Anarchists. Some are minarchists. I'm actually damned near a Socialist - albeit for very different reasons, on the scale. Quite a few of us are similarly minded. Corporations have rights but they're somewhere below that of the individual and the commons. They are afforded certain protections and rights and have an obligation to uphold their end of the social contract.
Ayn Rand was an idiot. Rand Paul is not a Libertarian. Most of the vocal people utilizing the moniker are actually ashamed Republicans. Oddly enough, when you look at their beliefs and the Libertarian ideology, it's hard to see where they could possibly even be wedged in there. I can assure you, I'm far more concerned with your liberty, your ability to make best use of your freedom, and ensuring we do what we can to maintain a functional society with reasonable protections, opportunity, and upward mobility. I really couldn't give two shits about the health of a single corporation, life finds a way.
And no, no... I've been a member of the party for nearly 40 years. We used to be the "loony left." Somehow, everyone got confused, and now we're assumed to be the anarchists or the folks on the right. We might have been stoned but I'm pretty sure we gave you a brochure. You did get one, right? If not then I can probably find you one.
In all seriousness... I'll get you a brochure - even if I gotta write the damned thing myself. Or, you can just read the first four or so paragraphs on Wikipedia and get a good idea of what a Libertarian might be. It's not a bad article, I am kind of surprised. Some Libertarians are, indeed, Anarchists. You can safely ignore them. They're just noisy but they're not allowed to use the fine china. It'd be antithetical if we told them that they didn't belong or took away their microphone so it is what it is.
In all seriousness, not even the majority of Libertarians are retarded. Oh, we have our share of fruitcakes and retards, don't get me wrong. But they're actually just the noisy people and they get the most attention. Most of us aren't followers of Rand, Republicans ashamed to use the name in polite company, or even teens. We actually understand the ideology, the precepts, and have varied ways to reach those goals or work towards them - except for our vocal set of nimrods. Sorry for the confusion.
Yes, but to accept the former (fully) means to accept some level of responsibility as well as an obligation to work towards fixing it.
The other option is to blame it all on authoritarianism and do nothing and accept no part of the problem nor seek solutions. Which do you think people will pick?
Yes, yes it is a self-feeding problem and it's fueled as much by ego as well. No, no I don't actually have a solution either. But damn if these aren't a fine circus and the bread's not bad either... *sighs*
There's truth to that adage about the getting the government you deserve.
I can help with this! There's a few of us but, for the moment, I'm the resident automotive aficionado.
It's still an automobile (or car). It just also has a computer. Many cars have computers and they are, in fact, better for it - in many ways. There are some exceptions but, for the most part, they've been using computers in cars for ages and it's still just a car with a computer in it. It's just more computer than usual.
I'm also not a believer that it takes internal combustion to make an automotive experience enjoyable. While it has its benefits, it is not exclusive. There's plenty of enjoyment to be had in an EV in a whole host of situations. I can even find good things to say about a Lada and yes, yes I have driven one.
Where do we draw the line with a living wage net? How much will we cover? What levels of forgiveness will we have? What methods of rehabilitation will we have?
A subset of people are going to say, "If we're paying taxes to enable you, you need to follow these rules." (They may include things like health, lifestyle choices, etc.)
I have no idea if those people will have much power but somewhere, at some point, there's going to be a line drawn. That point is when the output of labor is less than the company is getting in profit/benefit at what they consider an acceptable rate - right now (or at least something close to that).
This minimum living wage, it needs to be something other than, "Just enough to eke by with no frills." That definition is too subjective. There will be unexpected things - some of which happen with an alarming frequency and thus the quoted text leans in that direction.
Does it include enough to pay off student debts? Or, if the student undertook those debts and was unable to get a job in their particular field - what then? Does it include enough to cover the guy's $10/day beer habit? 'Cause there's more to live than just eating rice and drinking water. Surely there's more to a living wage than just a cold, empty, apartment without amenities of any type, no social life, and a few tins of cheap spice and a 40# bag of rice.
Good point and a damned fine protection we have with it too. Though, sadly, the ideal it was formed under has faded away. We used to think that it was better for ten men to go free than for an innocent man to spend but one day in jail.
I can agree that such is one of the reasons. So... Err... Umm... I don't suppose you've got any suggestions, realistic ones, as to how we can change this? (Preferably without bloodshed.)
There's also mental health and I'd think we'll need higher standards for housing - it should be comfortable (within reason), safe, and secure. Some level of each is good - and the Law of Diminishing Returns is still ever-present.
There should be meaningful social life and recreation - it needn't be expensive but, overall, I suspect the price of "bread and circuses" (football and beer) goes a long ways, as does a significant other, and things like that.
A hobby is also good - as is a chance (with effort, luck, and dedication) some level of upward mobility that can be striven for.
So, how do we get there? What about those who can not give a full day's work - should they be paid a full day's wages?
By the way, I do sort of think we might have "butt heads" over this before but I think it might be because you're used to everyone attacking and arguing. I don't find those conversations interesting and I don't usually learn anything from them. So, I do like a good debate but I hate to argue. Nobody's ever changed anyone's mind just because of a few pixels on the screen and most folks are not actually interested in holding their views up for scrutiny and changing them when new information comes to light. I think it's an ego thing but I'm not a head doctor...
Currently, I am thinking that the Universal Basic Income might be the best in that it's potentially the least expensive, might foster growth, protects the liberties of the individual, and still ensures that the commons are given due protection. They could more than cover this lady's taxes by raising mine a mere percentage point and I'm not actually sure that I'd even notice. Again, while looking at that as an option, I'd caution one to remember the Diminishing Law of Returns. It's complicated but I think we humans making it more complicated than it has to be.
Nah, it's in the browser. They moved it again. Open the default new-tab page and scroll down, it might be slow loading. It used to even get its own tab. I'm not sure when they moved it to there but that's where it is now. I don't actually see that page, I open a default ELOG instance on a new tab opening.
Those sound reasonable, should they be able to live alone in a reasonable apartment? (I'll say reasonable meaning comfortable, private bathroom, at least with adequate food preparation and storage facilities.)
Then food... What quality? There's a slew of options...
Then, they gotta have a social life and a healthy hobby or two - that's not unreasonable, I don't think.
Then, what about when they can't budget for shit, owe money due to past choices, and have mental problems that might include things like addiction but aren't so pressing as to require isolation and protection from themselves?
Probably, given the era, more about 'general compute devices' than desktops specifically. Thus, I'd not expect any government to say they're a monopoly. That doesn't mean they can't be slapped down for abusive behaviors. It just means they're probably not going to have the threat of being labeled a monopoly and subject to things like additional monitoring or penalties above and beyond the norm for abusive behaviors. Most governments have lots of tools in their toolbox. I don't think they'd need monopoly here - I'm not even sure if it would fit.
We've got Chromebooks, tablets, Linux, OS X, iOS, and ARM based devices. We've got digital assistants that are disparate devices and computers in our kid's toys. We've got office systems running on anything from Linux to OSX to BSD to Windows - even at the desktop level. I don't think they're gonna really try to argue they're still a monopoly. Abusive? Absolutely. A monopoly? Err... I'm thinking no.
I get all the work done that I need to and I am not a gamer. Windows has no compelling reasons for me to use it - and I've spent plenty of time with it and was actually an award winner (MVP Shell, IE/OE, and Security) for a half dozen years before I got tired of it because I was not learning anything new and that didn't feel right.
I leak no unintended data to Canonical or to anyone else. I have the ability to view separate hardware logs that my internet traffic runs through. I have control of my system(s) and a high level of confidence in them. I've taken the time to learn to read the logs, to understand networking, and to learn to practice safe hex. When a setting on the machine does not do what it claims to do then safe hex is damned near futile.
Furthermore, security is a process and not an application. Being thwarted by being unable to practice safe hex takes you out of the running as the greatest benefit (or weakness) for security. Off means off. That should not even be a question. I don't even *care* if it's on - I care that they're dishonest about it. I'll *give* them the data if they ask. I wouldn't even block it at the firewall.
I don't think I ignored anything. Lemme double check.
I think I see where you're confused and I'd speculate that you're actually the guilty party BUT I'll take the blame and say it was because I was not clear enough. No, those are questions. What does a 'basic roof' over their head even mean? What does that look like? Are their roommates? Are there sacrifices?
Those are very generic statements and ill defined. There's no basic tautology here, they're mired in complexity. What's the basic standard of living and how much work does it take to meet that standard of living *if* any?
In my failure to articulate properly, assume (and rightfully so) that I'm on the side of things like giving serious consideration to a universal basic income at this point. If that makes it more clear, that might help. I am pretty sure you're thinking I hold a position that I do not.
So what does manned mean in this case? What does that mean, really? What are they worth, in real dollars and cents? (Or dollars and sense, if you prefer?) Do they get an apartment to themselves, a game console, a phone with data, broadband, a car, a computer, a couple of reasonable hobbies, a meaningful social life, and without any compromises along the way?
So far, I've gotten platitudes and pithy sayings. I'm holding out - there's at least one more reply. What does the ideal look like to you? How do you propose we reach it? What reasonable protections are we going to maintain to ensure the liberty of the individual is upheld while ensuring the protection of the commons? (I asked another person that - your replies are rather similar.)
I'm very open to suggestions here. Buggered if I've got the answer. If I knew, I'd be happy to tell you. I'm sure as shit on the guy who holds back from sharing his views on things.
True, but if you only need a mule to do a week's worth of work per year - you get shoot the mule and eat it.
Where's the line drawn? What is reasonable? Is reasonable a nice car, cell phone, data service, broadband, a tablet, a laptop or desktop, a nice stereo, not having to have roommates, or what? Where does that line get drawn to you? Platitudes are nice but actual answers are more helpful - I'm open to suggestions. We don't have enough gainful employment for everyone. Never mind, enough that they are willing to pay a great deal more for. Where do we draw the line, why, and how to we ensure we're protecting the liberties of the individual while ensuring reasonable protections for the commons?
We've also stopped upholding our end of the social contract. It is our job to observe the courts and to be knowledgeable in their doings. Instead, we rely on yellow journalism, politics played as a team sport, and hope the EFF or ACLU stands up if it's too grievous. We've stopped observing the courts and power that goes unchecked has only one direction to go, it's natural - it's wrong, but it's natural. This is a rhetorical question but when was the last time you took one of your days off from work to observe the local district court and watched to observe justice was being served? We rely on someone else to tell us when to be outraged and offer no oversight on the smaller things - that's how it got this big.
And that's a royal we. That's us, the collective. There's some truth to the adage that you get the government you deserve and the other adage about being ruled by consent. Don't think I have the answers, I know I do not. There's a lot of things that are complicated but we seem hell bent on making them more complicated than they need to be. I don't know why. I can speculate why. I can even present what I think is a logical argument for holding those beliefs. However, it's off-topic, long, and I'm lazy tonight. But, I'll write you that novella if you want one...
With the current data that I have, the reasoning that I have used, I hold the belief that the socially responsible choice would be to have a universal basic income IF you're going to have no minimum wage. I'm not exactly enamored by that but it seems to be the most logical choice if one wants prosperity and stability. I'm open to suggestions.
Yeah, I can do the former and I don't even need dedicated hardware. I don't know how to do the latter. I could probably find it on Google and with some work but I've never done it. I'd have to whack at it my way - or I would because it'd be easier for me to do it that way than it would be to actually go through and figure it out the faster way. That and, well, I'd not actually be in any great hurry.
I do use the same password there as I use anywhere else. In fact, I know what that password is and it's safe and sound. They can have that password. The next time I visit, I'll change it. It's a sacrifice fly and I don't consider it a great loss. They could probably use that password to... Well... Nothing? They can't even figure out a system from it and the email password's not the same. In fact, none of my accounts are the same.
So, I'll be okay. Hopefully others are smart enough to know not to reuse passwords. Or at least to let 'em have only a small chunk at a time.
At any rate, I'll have to read about the other ways. I'd only know how to do it like I described. I could bang out a pretty quick and dirty script and then find me some dictionaries. I don't keep those sort of things on hand. I've got a few PERL skills left in me! Err... No, really, I'd probably write something quick and in PERL. I'm sure there are tools out there to do it but I don't know who made 'em, where to go to find something that can be trusted, nor have I maintained a relationship with any who kept up with it. I could probably ask around...
I am tempted to install phpBB and populate it with some data, extract the database, and then throw stuff at it until it breaks. I'm just not sure it would be all that rewarding and what the benefit (for me) would be. It might amuse me for a few days, there's that. It is interesting trying to keep up with all the changes. I mentioned elsewhere, it's probably been since 1995 when I was last interested in this sort of thing - interested enough to poke at it and learn a wee bit. I'm not even sure where I'd go looking for large, reliable, proxy lists.
I am guessing some time with Google and on the.onion domains (maybe a few invite only forums - I can probably score an invite out of my contacts list) would be a good start. I'm way too lazy for that and it's not nearly rewarding enough with low-enough risks. It would be lots of neat stuff to learn.
Unless the fake users have data associated that mirrors other users, I'm gonna filter that out. Well, maybe not, compute cycles are cheap today. But, I'd filter admins, active users, and things like that. I'd just then pop several instances up in DB and my own LAMP stack and hammer on 'em until I got them. I'm gonna be pretty slow anyhow. I might as well filter out the more active users, admins, and the likes. Then I'd work my way backwards, starting with the newest, that's likely to be the most "fresh" data. So, if you inserted your "haystack" all at once, it's a relational database, I'll filter those out fairly well by that means too.
It does kind of pique my interest. I do sort of miss that type of thing. If I had done something like that then I'd have not really done much of anything with 'em before. If I would have done so in the past then I'd mostly just have dumped 'em to a newsgroup and they were usually porn passwords. You know, if I had... I can't really admit to having done anything of the sort. But, I have been known to be curious before.
There's a law that I like to point to in times like this. It is the Law of Diminishing Returns. At some point, there's an amount of labor, between none and little, where it's simply not enough energy spent to deserve payment at a level enough where someone could do just that job, nothing else, and have all the benefits of modern society. Unless you want to change that, and if so advocate for that but you need to present a logical argument for doing so. I'm not seeing that.
There is that point where you're not contributing enough for people to justify giving you the product of their labor or as much of that as you might prefer. Where is that line, why is it there, and by what authority do you place it where you do?
What makes you think it was easy for those guys to get that position? Why does she deserve that position without having put any effort into it? What does that look like in your head? 'Cause if it's anything like I envision, it's not all it's cracked up to be.
I read the letter and I'm tempted to offer a rebuttal. However, I'm particularly lazy today. I have my reasons.
At any rate... Suffice to say, there's a lot to be said about this. Like most things, it's complicated. There's even more than one way to look at it and a variety of "facts" still in debate. One of those facts includes sexual innuendo whilst representing the company on a public forum, drinking at work, and recreational drug use - on her own time. (I'm obviously not a fan of a company giving a shit what you do on your own time but, ya know, you don't have to *tell* them that in a public forum with your own username attached to it.)
'Snot even very well written. My grasp of the English language is quite poor. I can do better than that. But, what is the message? Oh, yes... Now I remember. Heh, no - that's not even worth rebutting. There's a level of accountability missing. I suspect that would fix a few things up but she's bound to come to a realization - eventually. And, as I'm skipping all the fluff, the sooner she reaches that realization, the better. Don't blame me, I didn't set up the system. I do know that I must work within it - if I want the benefits from it.
So, save us both the time and assume I said something witty and insightful. *nods* Insert it here and pretend it was another seven or eight paragraphs. That's my thoughts on the subject. Make sure to finish it off with a nice personal anecdote and call it good. 'Cause I'll write you a novella if I really gotta... I suspect I'd be preaching to the choir and I am lazy today.
Slashdot Mirror
I want to extend my sincere appreciation. No, I've been saying (since about day two, maybe even day one) that I hope their shares tank in value. They've done a decent drop. I can't wait until they get low enough. As promised then, and reiterated now, I'll actually let Slashdot know when I pull the trigger.
I'm going to wait until their share value drops, I'll buy up to 2000 shares, and then I'll hold it for at least a year and see where it is. (Always at least a year - I don't even check fluctuations in that time.) I'll let folks know when I sell 'em too. Yes, it's a big investment but I can risk it. I also don't need an immediate return but I expect their return growth rate to be really, really high compared to the averages and adjusted for inflation. I won't be greedy. I'll wait until it's down at like $25/share. I'll wait until it's $250 to sell. It'll be back at those numbers in six months. In a year it will be a bit more healthy.
So, drive that share value into the ground. Make them damned near worthless based on market reactions and speculation. I'll donate 10% of the profit to EFF and another 10% to the ACLU. Drive 'em into the basement. I'm all for it. You, my outraged fellow Slashdotters, are doing good things and those of us who can take the risks applaud your efforts.
I'll help your English out. "Disillusioned." That means they've had their illusions stripped away. They're "delusional." If they pay attention and agree to your post, they might be disillusioned. Probably not but it could happen. Either way, disillusioned happens when you're no longer subject to the illusion.
*sighs* No, no we're not. They're arguing with an idiot who may (or may not be) self-identifying as a Libertarian. The important part is that they're quite probably retarded. Very few Libertarians are Anarchists. Some are minarchists. I'm actually damned near a Socialist - albeit for very different reasons, on the scale. Quite a few of us are similarly minded. Corporations have rights but they're somewhere below that of the individual and the commons. They are afforded certain protections and rights and have an obligation to uphold their end of the social contract.
Ayn Rand was an idiot. Rand Paul is not a Libertarian. Most of the vocal people utilizing the moniker are actually ashamed Republicans. Oddly enough, when you look at their beliefs and the Libertarian ideology, it's hard to see where they could possibly even be wedged in there. I can assure you, I'm far more concerned with your liberty, your ability to make best use of your freedom, and ensuring we do what we can to maintain a functional society with reasonable protections, opportunity, and upward mobility. I really couldn't give two shits about the health of a single corporation, life finds a way.
And no, no... I've been a member of the party for nearly 40 years. We used to be the "loony left." Somehow, everyone got confused, and now we're assumed to be the anarchists or the folks on the right. We might have been stoned but I'm pretty sure we gave you a brochure. You did get one, right? If not then I can probably find you one.
In all seriousness... I'll get you a brochure - even if I gotta write the damned thing myself. Or, you can just read the first four or so paragraphs on Wikipedia and get a good idea of what a Libertarian might be. It's not a bad article, I am kind of surprised. Some Libertarians are, indeed, Anarchists. You can safely ignore them. They're just noisy but they're not allowed to use the fine china. It'd be antithetical if we told them that they didn't belong or took away their microphone so it is what it is.
In all seriousness, not even the majority of Libertarians are retarded. Oh, we have our share of fruitcakes and retards, don't get me wrong. But they're actually just the noisy people and they get the most attention. Most of us aren't followers of Rand, Republicans ashamed to use the name in polite company, or even teens. We actually understand the ideology, the precepts, and have varied ways to reach those goals or work towards them - except for our vocal set of nimrods. Sorry for the confusion.
Yes, but to accept the former (fully) means to accept some level of responsibility as well as an obligation to work towards fixing it.
The other option is to blame it all on authoritarianism and do nothing and accept no part of the problem nor seek solutions. Which do you think people will pick?
Yes, yes it is a self-feeding problem and it's fueled as much by ego as well. No, no I don't actually have a solution either. But damn if these aren't a fine circus and the bread's not bad either... *sighs*
There's truth to that adage about the getting the government you deserve.
I can help with this! There's a few of us but, for the moment, I'm the resident automotive aficionado.
It's still an automobile (or car). It just also has a computer. Many cars have computers and they are, in fact, better for it - in many ways. There are some exceptions but, for the most part, they've been using computers in cars for ages and it's still just a car with a computer in it. It's just more computer than usual.
I'm also not a believer that it takes internal combustion to make an automotive experience enjoyable. While it has its benefits, it is not exclusive. There's plenty of enjoyment to be had in an EV in a whole host of situations. I can even find good things to say about a Lada and yes, yes I have driven one.
Where do we draw the line with a living wage net? How much will we cover? What levels of forgiveness will we have? What methods of rehabilitation will we have?
A subset of people are going to say, "If we're paying taxes to enable you, you need to follow these rules." (They may include things like health, lifestyle choices, etc.)
I have no idea if those people will have much power but somewhere, at some point, there's going to be a line drawn. That point is when the output of labor is less than the company is getting in profit/benefit at what they consider an acceptable rate - right now (or at least something close to that).
This minimum living wage, it needs to be something other than, "Just enough to eke by with no frills." That definition is too subjective. There will be unexpected things - some of which happen with an alarming frequency and thus the quoted text leans in that direction.
Does it include enough to pay off student debts? Or, if the student undertook those debts and was unable to get a job in their particular field - what then? Does it include enough to cover the guy's $10/day beer habit? 'Cause there's more to live than just eating rice and drinking water. Surely there's more to a living wage than just a cold, empty, apartment without amenities of any type, no social life, and a few tins of cheap spice and a 40# bag of rice.
Good point and a damned fine protection we have with it too. Though, sadly, the ideal it was formed under has faded away. We used to think that it was better for ten men to go free than for an innocent man to spend but one day in jail.
I can agree that such is one of the reasons. So... Err... Umm... I don't suppose you've got any suggestions, realistic ones, as to how we can change this? (Preferably without bloodshed.)
There's also mental health and I'd think we'll need higher standards for housing - it should be comfortable (within reason), safe, and secure. Some level of each is good - and the Law of Diminishing Returns is still ever-present.
There should be meaningful social life and recreation - it needn't be expensive but, overall, I suspect the price of "bread and circuses" (football and beer) goes a long ways, as does a significant other, and things like that.
A hobby is also good - as is a chance (with effort, luck, and dedication) some level of upward mobility that can be striven for.
So, how do we get there? What about those who can not give a full day's work - should they be paid a full day's wages?
By the way, I do sort of think we might have "butt heads" over this before but I think it might be because you're used to everyone attacking and arguing. I don't find those conversations interesting and I don't usually learn anything from them. So, I do like a good debate but I hate to argue. Nobody's ever changed anyone's mind just because of a few pixels on the screen and most folks are not actually interested in holding their views up for scrutiny and changing them when new information comes to light. I think it's an ego thing but I'm not a head doctor...
Currently, I am thinking that the Universal Basic Income might be the best in that it's potentially the least expensive, might foster growth, protects the liberties of the individual, and still ensures that the commons are given due protection. They could more than cover this lady's taxes by raising mine a mere percentage point and I'm not actually sure that I'd even notice. Again, while looking at that as an option, I'd caution one to remember the Diminishing Law of Returns. It's complicated but I think we humans making it more complicated than it has to be.
Nah, it's in the browser. They moved it again. Open the default new-tab page and scroll down, it might be slow loading. It used to even get its own tab. I'm not sure when they moved it to there but that's where it is now. I don't actually see that page, I open a default ELOG instance on a new tab opening.
Those sound reasonable, should they be able to live alone in a reasonable apartment? (I'll say reasonable meaning comfortable, private bathroom, at least with adequate food preparation and storage facilities.)
Then food... What quality? There's a slew of options...
Then, they gotta have a social life and a healthy hobby or two - that's not unreasonable, I don't think.
Then, what about when they can't budget for shit, owe money due to past choices, and have mental problems that might include things like addiction but aren't so pressing as to require isolation and protection from themselves?
And more...
> So what explains the consistent cost overruns?
Graft, greed, corruption, and incompetence. *sighs* I know I don't have to explain that to you. ;-)
Probably, given the era, more about 'general compute devices' than desktops specifically. Thus, I'd not expect any government to say they're a monopoly. That doesn't mean they can't be slapped down for abusive behaviors. It just means they're probably not going to have the threat of being labeled a monopoly and subject to things like additional monitoring or penalties above and beyond the norm for abusive behaviors. Most governments have lots of tools in their toolbox. I don't think they'd need monopoly here - I'm not even sure if it would fit.
We've got Chromebooks, tablets, Linux, OS X, iOS, and ARM based devices. We've got digital assistants that are disparate devices and computers in our kid's toys. We've got office systems running on anything from Linux to OSX to BSD to Windows - even at the desktop level. I don't think they're gonna really try to argue they're still a monopoly. Abusive? Absolutely. A monopoly? Err... I'm thinking no.
I get all the work done that I need to and I am not a gamer. Windows has no compelling reasons for me to use it - and I've spent plenty of time with it and was actually an award winner (MVP Shell, IE/OE, and Security) for a half dozen years before I got tired of it because I was not learning anything new and that didn't feel right.
I leak no unintended data to Canonical or to anyone else. I have the ability to view separate hardware logs that my internet traffic runs through. I have control of my system(s) and a high level of confidence in them. I've taken the time to learn to read the logs, to understand networking, and to learn to practice safe hex. When a setting on the machine does not do what it claims to do then safe hex is damned near futile.
Furthermore, security is a process and not an application. Being thwarted by being unable to practice safe hex takes you out of the running as the greatest benefit (or weakness) for security. Off means off. That should not even be a question. I don't even *care* if it's on - I care that they're dishonest about it. I'll *give* them the data if they ask. I wouldn't even block it at the firewall.
I don't think I ignored anything. Lemme double check.
I think I see where you're confused and I'd speculate that you're actually the guilty party BUT I'll take the blame and say it was because I was not clear enough. No, those are questions. What does a 'basic roof' over their head even mean? What does that look like? Are their roommates? Are there sacrifices?
Those are very generic statements and ill defined. There's no basic tautology here, they're mired in complexity. What's the basic standard of living and how much work does it take to meet that standard of living *if* any?
In my failure to articulate properly, assume (and rightfully so) that I'm on the side of things like giving serious consideration to a universal basic income at this point. If that makes it more clear, that might help. I am pretty sure you're thinking I hold a position that I do not.
So what does manned mean in this case? What does that mean, really? What are they worth, in real dollars and cents? (Or dollars and sense, if you prefer?) Do they get an apartment to themselves, a game console, a phone with data, broadband, a car, a computer, a couple of reasonable hobbies, a meaningful social life, and without any compromises along the way?
So far, I've gotten platitudes and pithy sayings. I'm holding out - there's at least one more reply. What does the ideal look like to you? How do you propose we reach it? What reasonable protections are we going to maintain to ensure the liberty of the individual is upheld while ensuring the protection of the commons? (I asked another person that - your replies are rather similar.)
I'm very open to suggestions here. Buggered if I've got the answer. If I knew, I'd be happy to tell you. I'm sure as shit on the guy who holds back from sharing his views on things.
True, but if you only need a mule to do a week's worth of work per year - you get shoot the mule and eat it.
Where's the line drawn? What is reasonable? Is reasonable a nice car, cell phone, data service, broadband, a tablet, a laptop or desktop, a nice stereo, not having to have roommates, or what? Where does that line get drawn to you? Platitudes are nice but actual answers are more helpful - I'm open to suggestions. We don't have enough gainful employment for everyone. Never mind, enough that they are willing to pay a great deal more for. Where do we draw the line, why, and how to we ensure we're protecting the liberties of the individual while ensuring reasonable protections for the commons?
We've also stopped upholding our end of the social contract. It is our job to observe the courts and to be knowledgeable in their doings. Instead, we rely on yellow journalism, politics played as a team sport, and hope the EFF or ACLU stands up if it's too grievous. We've stopped observing the courts and power that goes unchecked has only one direction to go, it's natural - it's wrong, but it's natural. This is a rhetorical question but when was the last time you took one of your days off from work to observe the local district court and watched to observe justice was being served? We rely on someone else to tell us when to be outraged and offer no oversight on the smaller things - that's how it got this big.
And that's a royal we. That's us, the collective. There's some truth to the adage that you get the government you deserve and the other adage about being ruled by consent. Don't think I have the answers, I know I do not. There's a lot of things that are complicated but we seem hell bent on making them more complicated than they need to be. I don't know why. I can speculate why. I can even present what I think is a logical argument for holding those beliefs. However, it's off-topic, long, and I'm lazy tonight. But, I'll write you that novella if you want one...
With the current data that I have, the reasoning that I have used, I hold the belief that the socially responsible choice would be to have a universal basic income IF you're going to have no minimum wage. I'm not exactly enamored by that but it seems to be the most logical choice if one wants prosperity and stability. I'm open to suggestions.
Yeah, I can do the former and I don't even need dedicated hardware. I don't know how to do the latter. I could probably find it on Google and with some work but I've never done it. I'd have to whack at it my way - or I would because it'd be easier for me to do it that way than it would be to actually go through and figure it out the faster way. That and, well, I'd not actually be in any great hurry.
I do use the same password there as I use anywhere else. In fact, I know what that password is and it's safe and sound. They can have that password. The next time I visit, I'll change it. It's a sacrifice fly and I don't consider it a great loss. They could probably use that password to... Well... Nothing? They can't even figure out a system from it and the email password's not the same. In fact, none of my accounts are the same.
So, I'll be okay. Hopefully others are smart enough to know not to reuse passwords. Or at least to let 'em have only a small chunk at a time.
At any rate, I'll have to read about the other ways. I'd only know how to do it like I described. I could bang out a pretty quick and dirty script and then find me some dictionaries. I don't keep those sort of things on hand. I've got a few PERL skills left in me! Err... No, really, I'd probably write something quick and in PERL. I'm sure there are tools out there to do it but I don't know who made 'em, where to go to find something that can be trusted, nor have I maintained a relationship with any who kept up with it. I could probably ask around...
I am tempted to install phpBB and populate it with some data, extract the database, and then throw stuff at it until it breaks. I'm just not sure it would be all that rewarding and what the benefit (for me) would be. It might amuse me for a few days, there's that. It is interesting trying to keep up with all the changes. I mentioned elsewhere, it's probably been since 1995 when I was last interested in this sort of thing - interested enough to poke at it and learn a wee bit. I'm not even sure where I'd go looking for large, reliable, proxy lists.
I am guessing some time with Google and on the .onion domains (maybe a few invite only forums - I can probably score an invite out of my contacts list) would be a good start. I'm way too lazy for that and it's not nearly rewarding enough with low-enough risks. It would be lots of neat stuff to learn.
Unless the fake users have data associated that mirrors other users, I'm gonna filter that out. Well, maybe not, compute cycles are cheap today. But, I'd filter admins, active users, and things like that. I'd just then pop several instances up in DB and my own LAMP stack and hammer on 'em until I got them. I'm gonna be pretty slow anyhow. I might as well filter out the more active users, admins, and the likes. Then I'd work my way backwards, starting with the newest, that's likely to be the most "fresh" data. So, if you inserted your "haystack" all at once, it's a relational database, I'll filter those out fairly well by that means too.
It does kind of pique my interest. I do sort of miss that type of thing. If I had done something like that then I'd have not really done much of anything with 'em before. If I would have done so in the past then I'd mostly just have dumped 'em to a newsgroup and they were usually porn passwords. You know, if I had... I can't really admit to having done anything of the sort. But, I have been known to be curious before.
There's a law that I like to point to in times like this. It is the Law of Diminishing Returns. At some point, there's an amount of labor, between none and little, where it's simply not enough energy spent to deserve payment at a level enough where someone could do just that job, nothing else, and have all the benefits of modern society. Unless you want to change that, and if so advocate for that but you need to present a logical argument for doing so. I'm not seeing that.
There is that point where you're not contributing enough for people to justify giving you the product of their labor or as much of that as you might prefer. Where is that line, why is it there, and by what authority do you place it where you do?
What makes you think it was easy for those guys to get that position? Why does she deserve that position without having put any effort into it? What does that look like in your head? 'Cause if it's anything like I envision, it's not all it's cracked up to be.
Open door policies means the door is open - you can go both and out.
I read the letter and I'm tempted to offer a rebuttal. However, I'm particularly lazy today. I have my reasons.
At any rate... Suffice to say, there's a lot to be said about this. Like most things, it's complicated. There's even more than one way to look at it and a variety of "facts" still in debate. One of those facts includes sexual innuendo whilst representing the company on a public forum, drinking at work, and recreational drug use - on her own time. (I'm obviously not a fan of a company giving a shit what you do on your own time but, ya know, you don't have to *tell* them that in a public forum with your own username attached to it.)
'Snot even very well written. My grasp of the English language is quite poor. I can do better than that. But, what is the message? Oh, yes... Now I remember. Heh, no - that's not even worth rebutting. There's a level of accountability missing. I suspect that would fix a few things up but she's bound to come to a realization - eventually. And, as I'm skipping all the fluff, the sooner she reaches that realization, the better. Don't blame me, I didn't set up the system. I do know that I must work within it - if I want the benefits from it.
So, save us both the time and assume I said something witty and insightful. *nods* Insert it here and pretend it was another seven or eight paragraphs. That's my thoughts on the subject. Make sure to finish it off with a nice personal anecdote and call it good. 'Cause I'll write you a novella if I really gotta... I suspect I'd be preaching to the choir and I am lazy today.