http://hearing.siemens.com/sg/10-about-us/01-our-history/milestones.jsp?year=1924

Sorry, probably not time travel.

Mod this parent up!

I visited a small town on the east coast. It used to be a prosperous steel production town. Very poor now, the mines are closed, everything has gone to flip. This I do not believe was because of consumer pressure, I believe the shipping of steel production overseas happened long before Wal-Marts relative status.

But the parent here is correct. Fools who shop at Wal-Mart. I refuse to shop at Wal-Mart. My wife sometimes wants to go to Wal-Mart because she thinks things there are "cheap". Wal-Mart is one of the largest employers in the United States... how sad. But it's the way the ball bounces. People think "capitalism" is good. People think the goal of "capitalism" is bigger better faster cheaper. People think that they are saving a dollar at Wal-Mart, not realizing due to Double Irish tax fraud, that the dollar they spent at Wal-Mart will never reenter the US again, but be spent overseas somewhere. The media tries to mitigate these horrors by trying to stress the Double Irish tax scheme is for "tax deferment", they only pay taxes when they try to bring the money into the US but that money is NEVER brought back into the United States and stays in overseas financial institutions. This pulls some international corporations tax on international sales down to the single digits! The only tax they spend, is what they make off the American public... it turns out, your dollar really isn't that valuable or relevant compared to global profit margins. American consumerism, is junk investment.

You might hate this, but it's true. What does America create? Seriously... you think Apple created that iPhone? How much of that iPhone do you think was "designed" by American born, citizens working in Cupertino or any Apple owned facility in the United States? Who made your Intel processor; from my understanding, a fair amount of the designing is done in Isreal while a great deal of fabrication is done in Russian plants. How many American workers are hired by Microsoft, how many in the US on Microsoft's payroll are from India? Are you really proud that maybe 1,000 Microsoft executives and upper management who are the highest paid, might be "American"? What of the 88,000 others collecting a pay check?

It might be interesting, next time you are at a store... look at that dollar (or more accurately your debit card before you swipe it). What does it mean? Where did that number come from, where is that number going. What does it really mean.... that number? You don't know, neither does the guy next to you. All you care about, is getting that Dr. Pepper and you have a larger number in a "bank" than the number posted on the "price tag", so that means, algebraically that you can buy it. So you swipe your card... and off you go.

First, the PCWorld column states that Linux is dead because of a lack of content.

While I'll agree, desktop usage doesn't seem as wide spread as I would like it, a lack of content is NOT the reason for this problem.

I've NEVER seen a platform so rich in content. There is no computer system or operating system that has more applications than a FOSS system (aside from perhaps a Mac OS X box which cators to both Blender and the commercial Maya... as an example).

Secondly, a default install of any FOSS box would give the user far more content than a default install of Windows. The reason why Linux isn't taking the desktop by storm is simply because of one problem and only one problem.

Microsoft Office and the lack of 100% compatible alternatives.

This is the PRIME reason companies and individuals hold on to a Windows platform. It's the ONLY reason ONE of the FIVE machines on my company desk is Windows; the rest are Gentoo Linux boxes. Watch a DVD on Linux? I've been doing that for over a decade, what the hell is Mr. Strohmeye's problem?

Lack of desktop adoption yes, lack of content Robert Strohmeye doesn't know what he's talking about.

1) All the 3D technologies to date, work by tricking the brain. But the brain is still smarter than the technologies which is why a lot of people get headaches and other side effects trying to participate with the 3D stuff; I barely got through Avatar, and I watched maybe 10% of it without the glasses on. While there were some interesting 3D FX in Avatar (usually only the scenes of fluffies floating about), a more pleasurable experience would have been to watch the movie in 2D instead.

2) All the 3D technologies to date require additional hardware. Which the capitalists will attempt to capitalize one. It's my feeling that should I purchase a "3D" Television set, that is should come free with the same number of additional components to use the TV as the size of the average house hold population plus 2 more for visiting friends. So each family may be a mean sum of 3 people, so five "glasses" should be for free for each TV. And, the glasses shouldn't cost very much at all. Currently, they are around 150USD to 200USD; and not even stylish. For that kind of cash, it better be DG or some designer glasses with sapphire lenses. Only one pair is given for some televisions; boy if that isn't an insult! We don't have wives, girlfriends, friends or neighbors? What morons are deciding these things?

3) All the 3D technologies are ridiculously pricey, and with the above caveats out right stupid. While the idea is really cool, and the notion of such display systems gaining new R&D is appreciable. The capitalists running the show to the consumers are obviously out of touch with reality. There's no way I'm going to limit my viewing experience with a headache every 30 minutes; and pay dearly for the Television and pay dearly again for glasses. I can't even watch a full length movie with this stuff, I've tried varied 3D techniques none of them are comfortable and sustainable. On "movie nights" I can spend many hours watching movie after movie.

4) The industry put me off with the way they are wording things. "Consumers aren't cooperating" or "Consumers aren't doing their part". First off, it's not my responsibility or obligation to purchase your damn crap, get that through your skull or I'll write it on a bullet and help you get that message inside your head. If you make something worth buying, then I'll consider but just because you want more money for your own pleasure you have to earn it (just like you tell me). It's not that I'm not cooperating, it's you aren't doing your part in providing quality products or products worth buying, or if you think you are then you aren't putting reasonable price tags on those products. It's not the consumers responsibility to randomly purchase crap. I know you like impulse buying but be careful thinking that since some do that should be precedent; you just enjoy the morons who do buy Juicy Fruit gum at the checkout stand and you better respect those of us who don't. Don't tell me I'm not doing my part. You aren't doing yours!

Most likely, instantly.

By the time they put a tracking device on you, what they are looking for is anything out of the norm. They already know you go to work at 7am, they know you always take the freeway, they know all the restaurants you go to for lunch. They know on Thursdays you stop by the school to pick up your kid, they know on Fridays you have off and go to the beach.

The one Friday the GPS reports you 50 miles into the middle of nowhere... ding.

So, if you put it on the taxi, by the time that taxi makes two or three rights... the FBI is already on them and see that you have dislodged the device. There might be obstruction to justice charges if it seems intentional... so anything than a signal emitting from the trash can, and you might find yourself in real trouble I suspect.

Some lawyers make a lot of money; many lawyers are not rich. In fact most of them become "ambulance chasers" for this reason. On average, lawyers make between 50-100K

I find this difficult to believe. I'll have to call this one out. Some might not make much, but on average that doesn't seem right at all. The economics nor stereotypes simply doesn't equate with this assertion. I have yet to meet an ethical lawyer, but that doesn't mean much technically. However, the idea that their schooling is so expensive compared to other professions and the stringent requirements all point to a person who shall honestly be in the interest of "justice" to undergo such burden for an average pay of 50-100K. We all know, this certainly does not fit the bill with what we see hit the news and court rooms with personal greed and exploitation seemingly being the only motive for a lawyer.

As for free representation, you can get free legal advice depending on where you live. If you are charged with a crime, you have the right to free counsel.

"Advice" is not precedent. "Advice" is ineffective. "Advice" is nothing more than words without action. "Advice" is advice, nothing more. And when you are served, anything some random lawyer said really has no weight given your situation; very similar to joining the military, at point of no return you are often told that anything the Recruiter told you is probably a lie or otherwise unbinding.

I'm aware that free legal counsel is available and constitutionally guaranteed (US LAW) in criminal law.

But what about civil matters? What if I write a program and some company decides to send lawyers after me... asking for some settlement and to cease and desist, what then? This is the part of the system that is severely broke. Why should I only be guaranteed legal counsel in the event I'm a criminal? Why can't I be given counsel as the victim, or even if I wasn't a "victim" as the "dove".

Legal system should be equally accessible to all. If a Company is allowed to sue me for whatever reason, then I should be able to defend myself with whatever comparable resources they can bring to the table. In fact, I say such cases should be barred from settlement, and the company or the excessively wealthy one must manage total costs of his and the defendants legal counsel, through out the duration; and compensation for out of work time for the defendant regardless of verdict.

What does this mean?

I was pointing out other professions that require enormous expense that the public benefits from for far less out of pocket experience. I pay taxes, modest at that and it seems to be able to pay for the billions and billions poured into building roads, bridges and skyscrapers, nuclear facilities and power generation plants, water sanitation plants, sewage facilities and the rest of it all. My point was you can't argue that the poor Lawyer has so much to pay out of pocket, because so many other professions also pay dearly and those who benefit from their effort never have to see first hand the exorbitant costs. To see my cardiologist for about an hour, 20 dollars out of pocket. To walk into any lawyers office and say hello, a 500 dollar retainer fee. Both are highly subject to what they say, literally. The Cardiologist in SoCal is probably paid much more than the average lawyer. I pay medical insurance, so if my Cardiologist actually has to get bloody, I'm ok. If my lawyer has to file a paper and walk into a court room...

I think you see my point.

You could look at and say that the lawyer got too much of a settlement or you could look at it and say the individual would have gotten nothing without a lawyer.

This is what infuriates people. This is not a choice. This isn't a game of "in order for you to see justice, I shall be able to rape you before hand". This is a precise analogy, and one of the reasons certain groups of people throughout history have been slaughtered; and they will be again and again.

This isn't a game of exploitation, it's supposed to solve disputes.

Is 2/3 a high amount? Yes. But do you know exactly what was in that bill? Most likely the lawyers had to answer every motion, address every detail that the school district would throw at them in order to even get the suit to proceed. Being the school district, the lawyers would probably have to fight motions to dismiss as the school would argue that they can't be sued as part of state. Then even if they could be sued, everything fell under protected state behaviors, etc. That's a lot of time on a lawyer's part and time = money. Even a case that is settled like this takes up boxes and boxes of so called "paperwork."

I understand what you're saying, doesn't make it right. I don't care what's in that bill or how many boxes of paperwork goes into a case, 425,000 USD for a settlement is ridiculous at any level. For 425,000 dollars, that better be a Supreme Court ruling... unfortunately, such a ruling would total millions I imagine.

I'm aware of post education certification and continued education for Lawyers, Doctors et al. Lawyers seem to make more than mechanical engineers, construction engineers, architects and a fair share of medical professions. In spite of all of this, and the jokes about modern health care, still poor people have access to a doctor. As opposed to the legal system, there is no access for poor people we know this, otherwise the RIAA and their John Doe lawsuits wouldn't be so successful at extortion. You can not afford a court battle, there is no protection for you. There is no legal equivalent of Medicare, there is no legal equivalent of Free Health Clinics, there is no legal equivalent of the fact your state taxes pays for the construction engineers that build the roads and water systems. There's no legal equivalent of you consulting an accountant to start a business.

I don't care how expensive their school is. I don't care how expensive their paralegals are. I don't care about their bills, they are lawyers so they should be able to drag the costs down themselves by suing those who overcharge them... I don't know.

The system needs to be fixed, there is no excuse for taking 425k from a 600k settlement. The financial aspects are ridiculous, the legal representation is ridiculous (where a large corporation can take an individual to court... what bullshit).

I never saw an advertisement for Bentley, Rolls Royce or Lamborghini. Never saw a Porsche ad until most recently, and it's safe to say I was well aware of the Porsche 911 series long before 2002 Porsche SUV ads started showing up. Never saw an advertisement for Tiffany & Co. Never saw an advertisement for Waterford Crystal. Only until recently did I notice that Omega Watches was sponsoring some Olympic events... but I didn't have to wikipedia them I knew from experience they were fine watches as I had already purchased a few years before I watch the first swim race.

There's a lot to be said about the inherent exposure quality products inherit. The argument is most childish, 'how are you supposed to find out? you had to have seen an advertisement'. Wrong. Most of the highest quality products you know of, you never saw an advertisement for them. I never saw an advertisement for Alpine or Blapunkt radios, Onkyo stereo equipment. Never saw an advertisement for Black Hills Gold. Most advertisements are for products we already know from day to day use (the truth is the irony of the fact most of us do not have a Porsche, most of us haven't ever seen a Lamborghini in real life... the least needed advertisement also is the least utilized day to day).

I know about Mt Dew, I have drank tons of it. I don't want to see a Mt Dew commercial; I don't care if they have a new Code Purple drink, I'm sure I'll notice it just fine when I go to get another Mt Dew. I don't care about Mc Donalds, they can advertise swiss gold ingots for free with every purchase... all owners of a Mc Donalds restaurant should be thrown in jail for the obvious health hazards their food creates. I don't need to see another advertisement for Ford... if that damn company would actually make a decent vehicle they wouldn't need to try to convince me to buy it with flashy ads and carefully choreographed cinematics.

The only thing an advertisement/advertiser or salesman does is try to contradict your better judgment. When you see a fine product, you know it's fine. When you see a crappy product, you also know it's crappy. But you buy a lot more crappy stuff than good stuff, largely due to being convinced to shop at WalMart rather than the cost difference. How many shitty Timex, Swatch, Armitron and DKNY designer watches have been sold to each individual? 400 dollars for a crappy designer Coach watch at Macy's.... it's a Timex with those stupid C's on it. I don't care to be sold a crappy product. Fire the salesman and spread his pay amongst the craftsmen... the product will sell itself, fool.

So I don't give a shit about advertisement. I don't want to see it, ever. Nor should I have to pay not to see it. I want NO advertisements. None! Stuff all the advertisements into one channel, that way I can walk around my neighborhood and find the morons who might be watching it. (Ever notice you can always get what you want from people who watch infomercials? You can always convince these fools of anything, Young Earth Creationism? You name it. They are fools.)

Google. I want no advertisements. Not one bleep before, during or after the show. I don't give a damn how awesome the show is, I won't watch any of it if there's a commercial on the air. If I have to pay, one cent, I want no advertisements. If I buy cable service for TV channels... I paid already, why should I have to watch an advertisement, on any channel, that is only going to be additional pay? Why should I be tricked, conned, sold, convinced, fooled, persuaded to buy any damn thing?

Just so you know, it's also why I don't go to a lot of theme parks or sporting events. If I have to pay for a ticket to get inside, there better not be any advertisement when I get in there. If there are advertisement, then I want the cost of the ticket back as they are making money from the advertisements.
Personally I think should any service or product be sold, it should be illegal for it to contain or reference any other product, or otherwise reasonably be considered product placement or any means of "advertisement" therein. There used to be product placement laws, that's why old TV shows had funky unidentifable items in the show (beer cans with just a white square for a label etc.) This used to follow through with movies, but at some point in time, all of this crumbled and you have Pepsi and Dorittos on some high-school sit com. And you have commercials....

Like all husbands, there comes a time when your wife asks of you that dreadful task of fetching female hygiene products from the store. We as males, must sit there in public with those nasty devices in our hands... we feel like some sort of freak I say!

I can not imagine telling my wife that I'll get her necessary items... in a few months. I'm pretty sure I wouldn't appreciate the aftermath of that myself, *shudder*. She would
certainly fly off the handle and say "In a few months!?!?! You march to the Apple store right now and get my iPad NOW!"

I own blocks of IPv4 addresses, yes a query to ARIN produces my name. I own many Domain Names (my DNS bills are substantial). I also own several IPv4 blocks because I purchase a business account for my home internet connection; these ones aren't ownership, but part of product agreement from the ISP I go through. I have co-los directly connected into Yahoo's backbone in the NBC building downtown San Diego. I have considerable network resources, for personal use and as nerdy as it is... I'm proud.

The IPv6 problem largely persists because there is 0 infrastructure support. When I say infrastructure, I mean everything from the AT&T copper telecommunications level all the way to the consumer level Service Providers like Cox Cable or Road Runner services. Almost all "IPv6" solutions a consumer can find is nothing more than a IPv6 WAN configuration scheme between you and your ISPs first router and their router does IPv6 to IPv4 translation for all requests. Some companies might have their own IPv6-to-IPv4 translators on the routers facing their upstream providers... again this isn't connected to a IPv6 "internet". The IPv6 support found in software primarily seems to most revolve around one requirement "translation to IPv4".

I know this might hurt a lot of feelings. Bind Ping, a lot of FOSS software has "native" IPv6 support and I'm not debating this. What I'm pointing out is none of it is anything more than experimental code as there is no real means of testing any of it on a real life network. I have faith in it, yes but I have a hard time thinking it could have been extensively tested on a real network.

I realized all of this after trying to get my co-los on a hardcore, pure, real-life IPv6 network with network addresses and all services go. Even up to the point where IPv4 wouldn't work at all. It logically can't be done at this point in time; there are no big time upstream providers in Southern California that can provide a real IPv6 link, even to businesses such as mid-sized ISPs let alone to consumers. This is the problem, without infrastructure support... all we are doing is translation and pseudo-WANs running on top of IPv4.

All the telecommunication companies need to jump on board. All the major universities need to abandon IPv4 for communicating with each other (effectively converting the major backbone of the internet to IPv6). We need the translators to be in primarily reverse, IPv4-to-IPv6 instead of IPv6-to-IPv4. We need all the major ISPs to start offering IPv6 to the consumer. This is the easy part I think, consumer doesn't care or know the difference.

A "Company" already is awarded benefits that are grotesquely wrong. One of my main complaints is that the law views a "Corporation" as a single entity, and in this course physical individuals are legally shielded from direct complaints. Only in the most extreme scenerio, oft brought to light by other equally powerful entities, can an individual or board room member be personally charged with a crime.

So I think Companies, Corporations are granted free reign on any tyrannical act they deem profitable. This is already far too much in my opinion.

Now, on to the issue brought up, under my premise that they already get away with murder, my main disagreement with the idea that they should be awarded personal Rights stems from another argument the have to circumvent immediate democratic measures; in other words, they argue that since they employ people that they inherently represent their views regardless under the assumption what's good for the company in turn is good for it's employees and thus surrounding society. This rationale is so flawed, one could write a book on how it's incorrect even without touching on giving jobs to foreigners or off-shore employees.

The above argument basically boils down to public representation. If you are representing the interests of the public, then you should abide by rules, regulations and scrutiny of the public. Period, no other way around it, no argument suffices to contradict this demand. Companies can't have both to choose from whenever the situation best suits them. When they indirectly cause a famine in Africa.... they are a single entity and those involved aren't directly charged and convicted. When the government comes for them, then they want to hide behind Personal Rights as granted to individuals... all the while, they also have to abide by business laws, and international legislation....

No, AT&T does not deserve explicit rights granted to Individual Citizens. They do not deserve the rights they already have.

The government and military already have a "partitioned" inaccessible "internet". The real name of the "internet" you are using to view this site is called NIPRNET, and the "secure partitioned" one is called SIPRNET. The secured internet has been around for decades and is still used by governments around the world.

So this proposition simply is a play on words, particularly a "partition" word, possibly for a total ground up restructuring scheme for sure. This is such a bold statement from a government official, it's baffling really.

I assert with arrogance, certainty and confidence, that any person who dares believe they have influence in politics due to casting a vote is not only a fool but a moron, dumb and gullible. When the stage is set and the show begins, at that point, doesn't matter which actor you prefer. This is the part about democracy that people truly misunderstand; they'll be no person to land on the ballet that doesn't pose a benefit to those already in power. The fact you might have a technical choice between one person or another, makes no difference at all to the direction those people what this country to go in. Obama or McCain, either a controversial black president, or a first time female vice-president... you see, "change" was inevitable as either likely candidate would have presented "controversial change" no matter who you voted for. I always admire the Soviets for their blunt honesty, in the Soviet Union everyone had to vote but there was only one check box on the ballot; you see, that's honesty coming down from their government. Here in America, you're given two check boxes, and those in power laugh at you as you trot about thinking you had a "choice". To see the absurdity here, one has to realize that for any given role, one can find more than a handful of people who comply and agree. So you grab a couple of your "friends" who both agree with how you want to run the country then you offer them to the public, it's a canned operation from the get-go with the benefit of people believing they somehow are able to influence the direction of politics! Aside from the obvious that I have pointed out, there also exists a most arrogant approach to resolving civil dispute and unrest of the masses; and this only ads icing to this cake made of bullshit you call voting. The powerful people, think so highly of my ideas, or yours, that all of our complaints, wishes and visions can be reduced to a single digit representation; no need to explain to me what you want, I don't care for your petty beliefs, I'll tell you what you need and force you to make a choice in the form of a check mark. You think it's sweet and simple, a check mark that can change the world... nothing that can change the world is ever so simple.

The only real way to "vote" or influence politics in democracy, is to donate funds to an organization of your liking; or pay fees either or. Only the combined wealth of a group of people can afford the lawyers and lobbyists to wine and dine the legislators and delegates, politicians and the wealthy elite.

Do I vote? No. I don't participate in bullshit. When I have a complaint, I write letters to congressmen, sheriffs, judges. I'll voice my opinions on public forums in hopes of influencing others. I find organizations that I am in-line with and make financial contributions. All of these combined has far more political impact than any amount of voting. For this, Torvalds could have participated most effectively in American politics without ever having made a single checkbox irregardless of his legal status.