Comment Re:Missing option (Score 1) 701
"Ay yo, Jamal blast on dat foo"
*BLAM* *BLAM* *BLAM*
"I's staight busted dis GAT in dat nigga ass. I ain't even seen da body drop"
Holy Eubonics Batman!!
"Ay yo, Jamal blast on dat foo"
*BLAM* *BLAM* *BLAM*
"I's staight busted dis GAT in dat nigga ass. I ain't even seen da body drop"
Holy Eubonics Batman!!
If they can't play by the big boy rules then they don't belong in a big boy game.
The national picture of Detroit and surrounding area..is pretty much one big,decaying heroin/crack den with abandoned and dilapidated properties...with tumbleweeds aplenty in the streets.
Hell, the episode of Drugs, Inc on the Nat. Geo channel alone painted a pretty bleak picture of Detroit spreading heroin around to not only itself, but the surviving suburbs that are still around the area.
Nope. California's budget is very solidly in black, average salary is way higher than in Texas and industry is _growing_. It turns out, that being a nice place to live attracts business.
Got any links to stats that back that up?
Certainly not what I'm hearing on the national news stations....MSNBC, CNN, FOX..etc.
Ahh so there are no scarce resources that go into digital creations ? Nobody puts time, money, consumable resources to make entertainment ?
I didn't say that at all, and you know it. It's the "digital creations" themselves which are not scarce. Producing new ones requires labor and other scarce resources. However, artificial copyright monopolies are hardly the only way to fund the production of new media. In the absence of copyright you still have options like patronage and crowd-funding, not to mention volunteer efforts (which already make up a significant fraction of copyrighted works).
Really, while I certainly think that the media companies have been shooting themselves in the foot with machineguns by not maximizing the digital presence of their works,
No, punishing those who distribute copies of digital media without their authorization isn't a right. It's just a privilege invented as part of a scheme to incentivize the creation of new works. And like any legal privilege, it can only exist by infringing on the natural rights of others. There are other, better options.
Seriously why don't you just try justifying why you limit access to your property or person for your own material interests.
That's easy. If someone else is using my property or person, I can't use it myself. Use of scare resources is inherently competitive and zero-sum. The same is not true for non-scarce resources like digital media.
I also wouldn't use a service that does not provide a library at least on par with The Pirate Bay.
That's a pretty ridiculous bar to set.
I think it's a very reasonable bar to set. TPB proves that there is no technical reason why we can't provide everyone with near-instant, free access to basically every last bit of media on Earth. It's up to the pro-copyright faction to justify withholding that access to suit their own material interests.
Have these problems actually been happening a lot?
When I first started to help manage a computer lab, I was concerned users would behave really badly and do horrible things. The truth is, very few users did, and we just talked to those users and told them how to behave.
If you get the occasional repeatedly defiant user, locking out their account can be the final solution. But most people (at least at our site) aren't jerks and listen. Most "bad things" are due more to incompetence than malice, and educating students is easy.
Also, as someone with experience in these matters, allow me to recommend AGAINST Fedora for production systems. I like to call Fedora the self-breaking distro; updates break things CONSTANTLY. You're much better off running Ubuntu (even non-LTS is more stable than Fedora) or the RHEL clones like CentOS or Scientific Linux.
If it's opt-in, or you can very easily opt out without giving up anything else, then it's a subscription. Otherwise, it's a tax.
Sheesh.
That doesn't make any sense, businesses don't hire people on a whim, they hire people because they have roles that need doing, minimum wage doesn't change that.
Businesses hire people when they have a job that needs doing, provided that it's worth the cost. Not every potential job is worth its cost, and minimum wage artificially raises that cost, with the obvious result that some jobs simply go undone.
There is also the matter of competition which is not subject to the minimum wage—not just under-the-table employment and offshoring, but also automation. With the increased minimum wage, businesses may find that it's now cheaper to employ a machine, where before they would have given the job to a human. Or perhaps they simply increase their existing employees' workloads rather than hiring someone else to handle the "unskilled" jobs.
Even if every business did act like it was insensitive to wages, as you seem to think, that would just mean that the marginal ones are no longer profitable and thus go out of business, further reducing both the supply of goods and the demand for labor.
The worker is not consenting to work, he is figuratively forced at gunpoint.
Emphasis very much on the "figuratively"—and it's not the employer holding the gun. If the worker does not consent then he is merely left in his original state, and is no worse off than he would be in the absence of the employer. Regardless of any external pressures, whether from nature or the government or other sources, the employer-employee relationship itself is completely consensual. A free market is one where people's natural rights are respected, not one where everyone is guaranteed an equal bargaining position. The fact that the job means more to the worker than it does to the employer does not prevent this from being a free market.
In these difficult times of wars and crisis, Obama is one of the best presidents Americans could have hoped for.
Are you serious?
Obama is completely disengaged from the turmoil happening in the world. I don't think it is him being "stand offish", I don't think he actually knows WHAT to do and is paralyzed by that.
No one in the world has respect for the US admin...he doesn't know when to make a stand, nor will he stand on it. And the world knows this and is testing this right now.
You would think that Tesla would build the plant in Detroit, not only is land cheap and most likely loads of incentives but it would be a direct slap in the face to the big three automakers.
The trouble in setting up there would be, what are you going to use for a workforce?
Likely as not, not locals, and how are you going to convince folks to me to Detroit, not much incentive to move to a barren, economically sparse, drug infested/violence infested area. I mean, Tesla can't possibly pay THAT high of wages to give folks incentive to brave it by moving there.
The over regulation and high taxes in CA are the killer for any business possibilities there. Large companies are leaving California due the the bad fiscal management out there and overbearing govt restrictions on businesses out there.
You'd think at some point, sensible folks would see this and do something to curtail the problem, but when you let political philosophy outweigh what common sense should present to the current vision, you get much of what you see in CA, and more recently in the entire Federal admin overall.
Sadly, some seem to hold their philosophical vision over and above solutions that could fix things at ALL costs. Some folks wold rather fail by breaking, rather than to bend and survive.
Politics: A strife of interests masquerading as a contest of principles. The conduct of public affairs for private advantage. -- Ambrose Bierce