"Customers who wanted more privacy had to pay another $29 a month for standalone Internet access"
That's insane. Internet shouldn't cost that much alone. At an extra $29/mo, they're forcing your hand to accept the invasion of privacy as a way of life.
Wished I had quit much sooner. I got a huge pay increase, equally large workload decrease, and now have to tolerate minimal 'execuspeak'.http://news.slashdot.org/story/15/09/30/133216/ny-times-temporary-visas-to-import-talent-help-copycats-take-jobs-abroad#
This one hits close to home for me. Having worked for Accenture for a number of years, I saw the H-1B visa scam play out over and over. The campus I was staffed at originally hosted several thousand employees, then Accenture started bringing in the visas. Every year Accenture would grab as many visas as possible, train those people in at an existing jobs, then send those people back to their home country with someone else's job and make a round of layoffs locally. By the time I quit, those thousands of jobs had been cut to hundreds and the campus was a ghost town.
Having seen this repeat so many times, the whole political theater over illegal immigrants seems ridiculous. If our representatives aren't trying to save good paying jobs that require government approval to be shipped away, it's clear that the whole immigrant debate is just a political red herring.
To be clear, I have no problem with immigrants who come to stay and make what they can in this country. Pretty much all of our ancestors did this at some point. People that come here to swoop up a job and bring it home, however, that's another story.
Did anyone else cringe reading the summary? "...rovers have scraped away a few inches at a time, but the real paydirt may lie a meter or two below the surface"
If it's not in furlongs, the unit is meaningless to me.
Of course not all coal miners will want to be coders, but why can't you teach a coal miner to code? And why do people assume that coal miners are not interested in coding. And why do people assume they don't have the intellectual ability to handle it.
Maybe I'm being arrogant, but I'm guessing coal miners chose that life because they weren't suited for much else. I'd wager that most of these guys are below average intelligence, where as most programmers are above average intelligence.
Of course, (from a quick google search) the pay looks surprisingly decent, so maybe I'm wrong. The pay is probably accounting for a dangerous, unhealthy, and miserable line of work. Still, I have to believe that if you can do something else, you'd already be doing it.
Middle income earners get to deduct health care expenses
Not really. Not unless you have some crazy high medical expenses.
According to the IRS (irs.gov): "You may deduct only the amount by which your total medical care expenses for the year exceed 7.5% of your adjusted gross income"
There's too many examples to list that refute your claim that everybody will pay their share eventually. There are many companies that are given a low to 0% taxation rates to lure them into a particular state/city. Just ask Walmart. How is the poor guy going to get that same break?
Interesting correlation to that drop in violent crime...
Leaded gas, known to mess with development, was banned in 1978. Roughly 20 years later, about the time it takes for a new born to fully mature, violent crime begins to suddenly drop.
Not saying it's the cause, but it might be a factor.
Tasers are anything but a humane alternative. Consult Youtube for about 15 seconds for an example.
The thought behind the taser, is to use the weapon in a situation that would have otherwise necessitated lethal force (i.e. a gun). In practice, however, police just zap anyone that they find annoying. Worse still, because it's not a gun, these idiots don't consider tasers to have lethal consequences. There have been numerous serious injuries and even deaths as a result of the abuse of a weapon.
Consider the folks who have heart conditions, or who have been struck by multiple tasers.
Planes - Yes, I understand that the U.S. is large, but we can start with modern trains that connect smaller distances, like Milwaukee to Chicago, L.A. to Vegas, etc. Trains are more efficient than planes, and can actually travel very fast. I'm also speculating that trains suffer from fewer delays, have quicker security checkpoints, and require less maintenance.
Excessive Water Consumption - Too many people underestimate the value of clean, fresh water. It takes energy and costly equipment to clean and deliver fresh water to your home. Water is also a limited resource. If/when our rapidly draining aquifers run dry, the consequences will be disastrous to our food supply and economy. We can do some simple things to reduce our usage, without much effort. Front load washing machines save ~20 gallons per use. Low flow toilets can save ~2 gallons per flush. I have no regrets switching to either, and I have a lower water bill. http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/freshwater/water-conservation-tips/
I understand that there are many arguments as to whether global climate change exists, and/or how sever it is. I also understand that trying to reduce our emissions significantly can come at some economic cost. But there are still many low hanging fruits that we could easily tackle as a compromise, at very little cost.
To name a few:
- Boats - No emissions controls at all currently - Planes - Trains should be a better option (particularly in the U.S.) - Coal power plants - Outdated tech - Lawn mowers - Electric mowers could replace most people's mowing needs - Excessive water consumption - Top loading washing machines are a colossal waste of fresh water
Additionally, there have been numerous studies linking various forms of pollution to cancer and other serious health effects. So we stand to gain healthier people and lower health care costs by reducing our emissions as well.
Terms like this and mandatory arbitration clauses should be illegal. It's a very slippery slope to when people can forgo their legal rights, and we're already slipped too far.
If it (gas) suddenly doubled in price, our economy might collapse.
This is something that doesn't get noticed enough. You can talk about "Drill baby drill", "global warming is a myth", etc. all you want, but at the end of the day, it is wildly unwise to have our entire economy based around one technology. We are much better equipped to handle change if we're diversified.
We've seen oil prices spike too many times not to know better by now.
Maybe the ads don't effect many users now, but that's how they get their foot in the door.
Remember the Xbox 360 dashboard when the system first came out? Now look at it. You can barely see the screens you want to use, because everything is cluttered with ads.
Yeah, I'm a Minnesotan, so I'm all too familiar with the cold weather problems. But I can still appreciate innovation, even if the solution doesn't work for everyone (yet?).
I can appreciate your monopoly concern, but I think you're missing the obvious. If Google gets more control, it means that the carriers have less control.
Carriers and phones need to be 2 VERY separate entities. Google is pushing for that openness and separation. They are not asking for their own set of locks and restrictions. So, if Google wins this, it stands to reason that more manufacturerswill be able to build open devices.
I think the screen size is a reflection of the market. People are migrating towards phones with larger screens. For example, I'm guess that the Samsung S2 and S3 owe their success, at least in part to their large crisp screens. I'm not saying that 4.7" hasn't gone a little too far for the average user, but I bet that screen looks a lot prettier than the competition.
Personally, I have huge hands, so my next phone will be humongous. I avoid texting because I can't help but hit like 5 characters at once. I'm even considering the monstrously large Note 2.
How horrible that someone sells a product that cost more than the sum of their part!
It's not that someone is making a profit. It's that all of the major phone companies are working together to make phone prices ridiculous. Without contract, you're looking at: $649/16gb, $749/32gb, $849/64gb.
That is one hell of a mark up.
I guarantee that people would be rushing to stores a little slower if it weren't for the 2 year contract "discount". It seems a little fishy that all of the major phone releases have similar pricing and, generally speaking, the phones are locked to one provider. It reeks of collusion.
I've noticed more and more games are requiring a 1 time use only code to play. For example, EA NHL12 requires you to enter (which is a complete pain in the ass on an xbox) a 16 digit code to play any on-line modes. Essentially it makes the game worthless for re-sale.
So for those of you siting Steam's reasonable prices as "the system works" I disagree. EA dominates a VERY large portion of the gaming market, almost entirely the sports game genre. They have no intent on playing nicely. Yes I can boycott them (which I largely do), but that is LOT of games to boycott.
I had a Pre, and and loved the OS. It was a work of art, and I still think it's more intuitive than anything else available today. Unfortunately, Palm cheaped out on the hardware. The phone scratched at anything more than a gentle breeze, and the plastic began falling apart in a couple of weeks let alone 2 long years. Had Palm worked with HTC to put Web OS on some decent options, the company might be in an entirely different place today.
Its not just giant ships that are a problem. Planes, recreational boats, and even lawn mowers spew largely unfiltered exhaust into the air too. I never understood why the U.S. is so strict with car emissions, but so lax on other things that make significant contributions to air pollution.
Slashdot Mirror
"Customers who wanted more privacy had to pay another $29 a month for standalone Internet access"
That's insane. Internet shouldn't cost that much alone. At an extra $29/mo, they're forcing your hand to accept the invasion of privacy as a way of life.
Wished I had quit much sooner. I got a huge pay increase, equally large workload decrease, and now have to tolerate minimal 'execuspeak'.http://news.slashdot.org/story/15/09/30/133216/ny-times-temporary-visas-to-import-talent-help-copycats-take-jobs-abroad#
This one hits close to home for me. Having worked for Accenture for a number of years, I saw the H-1B visa scam play out over and over. The campus I was staffed at originally hosted several thousand employees, then Accenture started bringing in the visas. Every year Accenture would grab as many visas as possible, train those people in at an existing jobs, then send those people back to their home country with someone else's job and make a round of layoffs locally. By the time I quit, those thousands of jobs had been cut to hundreds and the campus was a ghost town.
Having seen this repeat so many times, the whole political theater over illegal immigrants seems ridiculous. If our representatives aren't trying to save good paying jobs that require government approval to be shipped away, it's clear that the whole immigrant debate is just a political red herring.
To be clear, I have no problem with immigrants who come to stay and make what they can in this country. Pretty much all of our ancestors did this at some point. People that come here to swoop up a job and bring it home, however, that's another story.
Did anyone else cringe reading the summary? "...rovers have scraped away a few inches at a time, but the real paydirt may lie a meter or two below the surface"
If it's not in furlongs, the unit is meaningless to me.
Of course not all coal miners will want to be coders, but why can't you teach a coal miner to code? And why do people assume that coal miners are not interested in coding. And why do people assume they don't have the intellectual ability to handle it.
Maybe I'm being arrogant, but I'm guessing coal miners chose that life because they weren't suited for much else. I'd wager that most of these guys are below average intelligence, where as most programmers are above average intelligence.
Of course, (from a quick google search) the pay looks surprisingly decent, so maybe I'm wrong. The pay is probably accounting for a dangerous, unhealthy, and miserable line of work. Still, I have to believe that if you can do something else, you'd already be doing it.
I've trademarked black writing on a white background. Please destroy any materials that infringe on my IP
Everyone is making broad generalizations.
You realize the irony in that statement, don't you?
Middle income earners get to deduct health care expenses
Not really. Not unless you have some crazy high medical expenses.
According to the IRS (irs.gov): "You may deduct only the amount by which your total medical care expenses for the year exceed 7.5% of your adjusted gross income"
There's too many examples to list that refute your claim that everybody will pay their share eventually. There are many companies that are given a low to 0% taxation rates to lure them into a particular state/city. Just ask Walmart. How is the poor guy going to get that same break?
Interesting correlation to that drop in violent crime...
Leaded gas, known to mess with development, was banned in 1978. Roughly 20 years later, about the time it takes for a new born to fully mature, violent crime begins to suddenly drop.
Not saying it's the cause, but it might be a factor.
Or if this article has any merit...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1229857/How-16-ships-create-pollution-cars-world.html
We could stop shipping crap across the ocean, as it's apparently causing more pollution than all of our cars combined...
Tasers are anything but a humane alternative. Consult Youtube for about 15 seconds for an example.
The thought behind the taser, is to use the weapon in a situation that would have otherwise necessitated lethal force (i.e. a gun). In practice, however, police just zap anyone that they find annoying. Worse still, because it's not a gun, these idiots don't consider tasers to have lethal consequences. There have been numerous serious injuries and even deaths as a result of the abuse of a weapon.
Consider the folks who have heart conditions, or who have been struck by multiple tasers.
Tasers should be banned.
Wow, lot's of hostility to my comment, and a few good points too.
Boats - I stand corrected, boats have some modest emissions controls. We could definitely stand to see something stronger though:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/apr/09/shipping-pollution, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1229857/How-16-ships-create-pollution-cars-world.html
Planes - Yes, I understand that the U.S. is large, but we can start with modern trains that connect smaller distances, like Milwaukee to Chicago, L.A. to Vegas, etc. Trains are more efficient than planes, and can actually travel very fast. I'm also speculating that trains suffer from fewer delays, have quicker security checkpoints, and require less maintenance.
Coal power plants: There is no such thing as clean coal plant. Look at the destruction caused just to GET the coal, let alone burn it. It's dangerous for the workers and disastrous for our environment. Search for images before and after mining, it's unsettling.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_power_in_the_United_States, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centralia,_Pennsylvania
Lawn Mowers - Operating a mower for an hour is the pollution equivalent of driving a car 200 miles. Consider how many lawns are in the U.S. alone. That is not insignificant: http://www.epa.gov/oaqps001/community/details/yardequip_addl_info.html.
Excessive Water Consumption - Too many people underestimate the value of clean, fresh water. It takes energy and costly equipment to clean and deliver fresh water to your home. Water is also a limited resource. If/when our rapidly draining aquifers run dry, the consequences will be disastrous to our food supply and economy. We can do some simple things to reduce our usage, without much effort. Front load washing machines save ~20 gallons per use. Low flow toilets can save ~2 gallons per flush. I have no regrets switching to either, and I have a lower water bill. http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/freshwater/water-conservation-tips/
I understand that there are many arguments as to whether global climate change exists, and/or how sever it is. I also understand that trying to reduce our emissions significantly can come at some economic cost. But there are still many low hanging fruits that we could easily tackle as a compromise, at very little cost.
To name a few:
- Boats - No emissions controls at all currently
- Planes - Trains should be a better option (particularly in the U.S.)
- Coal power plants - Outdated tech
- Lawn mowers - Electric mowers could replace most people's mowing needs
- Excessive water consumption - Top loading washing machines are a colossal waste of fresh water
Additionally, there have been numerous studies linking various forms of pollution to cancer and other serious health effects. So we stand to gain healthier people and lower health care costs by reducing our emissions as well.
Terms like this and mandatory arbitration clauses should be illegal. It's a very slippery slope to when people can forgo their legal rights, and we're already slipped too far.
If it (gas) suddenly doubled in price, our economy might collapse.
This is something that doesn't get noticed enough. You can talk about "Drill baby drill", "global warming is a myth", etc. all you want, but at the end of the day, it is wildly unwise to have our entire economy based around one technology. We are much better equipped to handle change if we're diversified.
We've seen oil prices spike too many times not to know better by now.
Maybe the ads don't effect many users now, but that's how they get their foot in the door.
Remember the Xbox 360 dashboard when the system first came out? Now look at it. You can barely see the screens you want to use, because everything is cluttered with ads.
Yeah, I'm a Minnesotan, so I'm all too familiar with the cold weather problems. But I can still appreciate innovation, even if the solution doesn't work for everyone (yet?).
I was hoping to purchase a Nexus 4, and was very disappointed that I can't get one for Sprint. After a little research, I came across this article explaining the lack of LTE: http://www.theverge.com/2012/10/29/3569688/why-nexus-4-does-not-have-4g-lte
In short, blame your greedy carrier.
I can appreciate your monopoly concern, but I think you're missing the obvious. If Google gets more control, it means that the carriers have less control.
Carriers and phones need to be 2 VERY separate entities. Google is pushing for that openness and separation. They are not asking for their own set of locks and restrictions. So, if Google wins this, it stands to reason that more manufacturerswill be able to build open devices.
I think the screen size is a reflection of the market. People are migrating towards phones with larger screens. For example, I'm guess that the Samsung S2 and S3 owe their success, at least in part to their large crisp screens. I'm not saying that 4.7" hasn't gone a little too far for the average user, but I bet that screen looks a lot prettier than the competition.
Personally, I have huge hands, so my next phone will be humongous. I avoid texting because I can't help but hit like 5 characters at once. I'm even considering the monstrously large Note 2.
How horrible that someone sells a product that cost more than the sum of their part!
It's not that someone is making a profit. It's that all of the major phone companies are working together to make phone prices ridiculous. Without contract, you're looking at: $649/16gb, $749/32gb, $849/64gb.
That is one hell of a mark up.
I guarantee that people would be rushing to stores a little slower if it weren't for the 2 year contract "discount". It seems a little fishy that all of the major phone releases have similar pricing and, generally speaking, the phones are locked to one provider. It reeks of collusion.
You confuse "the American public" with "a handful of people who took some poll".
You mean, a whopping 1,029 people might not be an accurate poll of a country with 314 million people?
I've noticed more and more games are requiring a 1 time use only code to play. For example, EA NHL12 requires you to enter (which is a complete pain in the ass on an xbox) a 16 digit code to play any on-line modes. Essentially it makes the game worthless for re-sale.
So for those of you siting Steam's reasonable prices as "the system works" I disagree. EA dominates a VERY large portion of the gaming market, almost entirely the sports game genre. They have no intent on playing nicely. Yes I can boycott them (which I largely do), but that is LOT of games to boycott.
I had a Pre, and and loved the OS. It was a work of art, and I still think it's more intuitive than anything else available today. Unfortunately, Palm cheaped out on the hardware. The phone scratched at anything more than a gentle breeze, and the plastic began falling apart in a couple of weeks let alone 2 long years. Had Palm worked with HTC to put Web OS on some decent options, the company might be in an entirely different place today.
Its not just giant ships that are a problem. Planes, recreational boats, and even lawn mowers spew largely unfiltered exhaust into the air too. I never understood why the U.S. is so strict with car emissions, but so lax on other things that make significant contributions to air pollution.