I'm not an expert in the field but what I saw of the comments were very specific about reuse of figures and data without citation.
If those claims have merit, then they should be sent to the NIH's Office of Research Integrity (since the research was NIH funded). NIH will do a proper, 3rd party investigation. Look at the original data and find out whether the supposedly copied bands are copies or just similar in appearance. Find other potential instances. Try to find out whether it's the PI, staff, or trainee(s) behind any manipulation. The ORI has the power to impose actual sanctions, as opposed to just innuendo. Making anonymous accusations on pubpeer is not the way to improve science.
If you know what they mean, than it means something. Why are you complaining about language not living up to your arbitrary standards when it performs its purpose, to confer meaning?
Because that kind of arglebargle obfuscates their message. Just because the slithy toves do gyre and gimble in the wabe, does not necessarily make the borogroves all mimsy.
There's a place for poetry, and a place for clearly stated information.
If this is all about an excited atom causing other atoms around it to move in a chain reaction (which is what we already know eventually causes our ear drums to vibrate, get converted to neurological signals to the brain and perceive "sound") then it pretty much seems like the most ridiculous waste of time and money in an experiment of which everyone knew the outcome I have heard of in a long while.
I disagree. The macroscopic phenomenon of sound comes from vast numbers of atoms acting in aggregate, and their effect dissipates rapidly as the initial energy is spread across more and more atoms. That can't happen at the quantum level. These folks suggest that, at a small enough level, the interaction becomes quantized, such that "sound" energy might transfer from one atom to exactly one other atom. ie, that the "billiard ball" model of atoms bouncing off each other can be reduced to a quantal exchange of energy very much like fluorescence resonance transfer.
Clearly, not a good way to listen to the latest Katy Perry song (if there is a good way to listen to the latest Katy Perry song), and pretty clearly not the ordinary definition of sound as a subjective phenomenon. If you're a physicist, trying to explain your study of quantal energy exchange among atoms to the lay press, "sound" is probably a pretty good metaphor.
The US Army is hardly the world's largest. Get a grip.
In terms of headcount, the US has the 3rd largest military, behind China and India. (North Korea is 4th) The US military employs 70% more people than the Russian military.
In terms of spending, the US has no close competition. The US spends 3.5 times as much as the next largest spender (China), and accounts, by itself, for more than a third of global military spending.
As an investor in renewables, China is well in the lead of ever other nation.
Either the Pew report or that article is giving you an incomplete picture.
China, despite being a leader in nuclear and renewable power, is also going balls out to build coal-gasification plants.
China, by dint of having 20% of the world's population and 18% of the gross world product, is an enormous investor in everything. In contrast, Iceland, despite being a "developed" country highly dependent on geothermal energy, is one of the smallest global producers of renewable energy (53% = 80 PJ, vs 20%=440 PJ in Germany or US 12%=2,300 PJ).
You have to keep in mind whether the important number is absolute investment, per capita investment, or fractional investment.
Why is it then possible and viable to have nuclear powered submarines but not ships?
The navy does not expect its submarines to operate at a profit. This is partly because they know that the market for nuclear missile-generated craters is fickle, so their sales are going to vary dramatically from year to year, include whole decades at a stretch where they may not deliver even a single warhead. It is partly because their other principle cargo, national influence, is very hard to value objectively. Most companies carry this product as "goodwill," and serious accountants completely disregard it in valuations.
The whole business model of nuclear submarines is a sham. A ponzy scheme foisted off on a credulous public awed by technology and investor story time, run by directors spending other people's money, but guaranteed to collect their own luxurious salaries regardless of whether the business ever turns a profit. 50 years without delivering a single megaton warhead...you'd think investors would wake up.
That article talks almost entirely about sulfur, which is only one aspect of pollution, and arguably less important for vessels/vehicles that spend their time hundreds or thousands of miles from populated areas.
They compare a car with annual use of 15,000km, carrying approximately 100 kg of cargo (1000 ton-miles), with a ship that travels 200,000 km carrying 150,000,000 kg of cargo (20,000,000,000 ton-miles). ie, based on equivalent use, one massive container ship is equal to 20 million cars. If that container ship produces sulfur equivalent to 50 million cars, despite using fuel with 2000 times more sulfur than terrestrial diesel, then I'd say they're doing a damn fine job of pollution control.
They're offering service in areas that are already flooded with ISP options, this is not progress.
That's a bit of hyperbole, isn't it? Yes, google is rolling out to relatively high-density neighborhoods, but none of these are "flooded" with ISP options. At best, they have one cable option, one FIOS option, and one DSL option. To the best of my knowledge, there is nowhere in this country that you can choose between two cable providers.
You may also be forgetting that, when the incumbent ISPs were themselves startups, they didn't offer much in the way of rural service, either. In fact, most of them had to be paid by the government (and are still being paid by the government) to extend service outside of the most profitable neighborhoods.
Of course, that was 20-50 years ago, so you can be forgiven for imagining that Comcast launched in 1969 to 100,000,000 homes scattered across 80,000 square miles. I, for one, am happy to see anything vaguely resembling a new entrant in communication services. If they can only roll out to one city block, or even just one apartment complex, and provide better, faster or cheaper service than the legacy behemoths, I'll be happy to see them succeed.
Free market capitalism is very beneficial to the consumers...when there is open competition.
You have to remember how the government has framed "competition" for companies like Comcast. Comcast and Time Warner are not competitors, any more than New York's MTA is a competitor of San Francisco's BART. Comcast competes with other "Internet Service Providers" or "Video Services" in its exclusive territorial boundaries. ie: Comcast only competes with AT&T, Verizon, and Dish.
As long as you can manage the double-think of "competition" specifically excluding the relationship between multiple providers similar technology, you will understand how having a single, national, coax-cable-based company increases competition, specifically with the twisted-copper-based company (AT&T) and the satellite-based company. As long as you can manage the double-think of competition, you will see that there is no barrier to any new company developing and distributing "Internet" or "TV," as long as that company doesn't use coax or twisted-pair wires. See how easily Google has been able to enter the ISP business by using fiber?
The only problem for a select few is that Aero had chosen a choice location for its array of antenna and some people can't get a good signal due to metal walls or distance from towers.
But, don't you see that that is exactly the value that Aereo was offering? Space for me to put an antenna that would reliably receive the digital broadcasts that were supposed to be so much better than analog, even in the middle of a forest of concrete and steel. How fondly I remember the pre-digital days, when I could get (slightly staticky) broadcasts from 30 miles away. With great anticipation, I waited on the new digital signals that claimed to provide clearer pictures over even greater distances. Imag.....y dis......nt.......it turns out.....digit....sts don......fully.
Are you saying Aereo would have been OK if they'd sold one of those OTA DVRs and colocated them at their warehouse? Aereo's fatal flaw is that they rented people a homogeneous device rather than selling them one of a menu? That, my friend, is a legal Rube Goldberg much more intricate than the technical workaround Aereo intended.
Not the OP, but I can add some. In the biological sciences, it has definitely become common for PhD's to do several post-docs (in the conventional sense of a 2-3 year position) or to do extended post-docs of 6 or more years. There are many reasons for this. Some people go into advanced science because they like doing experiments, and postdoc is the last level where you get to be heavily involved in bench work. Some people prefer to be 'behind the scenes' as the lab manager or head technician, but it's administratively difficult to create a position with that title, so the head technician may be an essentially permanent postdoc. Some of it is because people will take a sub-optimal job to accommodate their spouse or partner.
Some of it is because there are a lot more PhD graduates than tenure track positions or extramural funding, and professors really only know how to train students to become professors. So, students enter the post-doc pool as a sort of purgatory until they find a tenure-track job, rather than search for other work to apply their PhD skills. The recession basically halted academic hiring for 5 years, so now there's a big backlog of graduates with lots of time spent as postdocs. A recent Assistant Prof search I was involved in wouldn't even consider candidates without a Science or Nature publication. Candidates averaged about 4 years post-doc, and some were 10.
As always, it's important to remember that these positions are technically university jobs, but they are created by an individual researcher based on extramural funding. They're not jobs created by a dean to do the university's work more cheaply than a tenured professor. There's a sense in which postdocs are like research-track adjunct professors (and may even get that title eventually), but the problem form of adjunct professors are temporary positions created by a Department or College to meet its functional mandate (teaching) without distracting a professor from his income-generating activities.
One of the main reasons for rising tuition, especially at public universities, is the disappearance of taxpayer support. Support for public universities is down 25-30% in the last 25 years. Universities make up for that by raising tuitiion and shifting faculty from teaching to extramural-funded research. And by lowering salaries.
The big difference between tenure-track and adjunct faculty is that tenure-track faculty are expected to pay their own salary through grants and contracts. Professors are profit centers for universities, and the less time they spend teaching, the more income they can raise. Adjuncts are cost centers.
IPMI is awesome for managing servers. All the supermicro mobo's I've ever used had a dedicated ethernet port to make sure the IPMI was on a separate, dedidcated, not-internet connected network. The real problem is that they will (or at least would) fallback to the normal ethernet port for IPMI if the dedicated port was not connected.
So the risk here is anyone who bought nice Supermicro hardware, didn't bother to learn about the IPMI, and only connected the normal ethernet port. It's not going to be a problem for people running 5,000 servers in a datacenter. It's going to be a problem for SOHO guys whose web server has a BMC they don't know about communicating on the same port.
The epitome of word processing was achieved in 1985 with WriteNow. It did WYSIWG formatting, pagination, merge, had a dictionary and a thesaurus in something less than 400 kB. Nothing of substance has been added since.
No shit. A majority of the second amendment nutters in the US are extremely pro-police state, pro-totalitarianism.
Really? Odd that reality doesn't seem to fit with your narrative. From everything that I've seen in the US, police are generally disliked by both sides of the isle.
Depends on the area. Individuals tend to want the public to share their values and behavior, so gun nutters tend to want the public to share their values. In places where the gun nutter values coincide with local law, this means they like when the state uses strong enforcement of law, say to win the war on drugs. In places where the gun nutter values differ from local law, they tend to see their guns as a defense against government over-reach, say to defend free grazing rights.
Big surprise, they're only "totalitarian gun nutters" if they disagree with you.
You just have to understand that, if the Bible is right, that you will not be able to get into Heaven leading a lifestyle of sin. That includes not only homosexuality, but adultery, drunkenness, lying, anger, etc.
That's old testament bible. If you're a follower of Jesus, you should know that the only entrance criterion to heaven is accept Jesus as the son of God. "There is NO sin so bad that the blood of Jesus cannot cover it -- all you have to do is trust Him." Even homosexuality.
Aside from that, if I prevent you from using it, I would post it.
This sounds like an admission that it is impossible to control how another person or organization uses information once they have it, but you apparently consider that control a necessary requirement for the open sharing of information proposed by Mr. Roger's law. The inability to actually control the use of information once shared or collected is exactly why so many people oppose such sharing.
When you say "I don't care about sharing information; it should flow freely" you sound like you are in favor of sharing and collecting information among institutions, despite the fact that it is impossible to impose any controls more powerful than administrative and legal policy. It makes you look like a troll.
If you count all military who currently serve as well as retirees who get a check we make up well under 1% of the population. The issue here is that we have too many freeloaders.
The OP used veteran pensions as an example of a direct payment to individuals that no one would consider "takers" as a group. He did this to counter the conservative talking point of "makers and takers," which implies that anyone taking money from the government is a taker getting a handout. It's a nice talking point. There are currently about 2 million military retirees receiving about $52 billion. There are 63 million social security beneficiaries receiving $816 billion and 49 million medicare beneficiaries receiving $600 billion. Total federal spending is about $3500 billion, so those three groups account for 41% of federal spending (and I don't think many people would argue that any of them are "takers") There are 2 million people who work for the government and collect $180 B in salary. The point is that, just because "the government" sends someone a check, doesn't mean that person is a lazy, incompetent drain on society.
Why don't they just buy a wedding cake from someone who wants to sell them one?
Because if you allow anyone to discriminate based on race or sexual preference, then you allow everyone to discriminate based on race or sexual preference. It may be a single bakery refusing to sell a cake to a single icky gay couple that started the fuss, but the the consequence of the law may make it difficult or impossible for any gay person to buy any product from any store. Or to force a two-tiered system of businesses where gays can only do business with a subset of "gay friendly" businesses (which, one imagines, would be boycotted by upstanding Christians).
If you're in the business of making cakes, then make the damn cake. If you're in the business of being a religious busybody, then don't sell cakes.
I pay no banking fees. The only fee I do pay to them is a yearly 25$ for my credit card and thats only because I have one that earns points with cash back, so I make back that 25$ in 2-4 weeks and the rest of the year get ~50$ back a month.
Just because you're not writing the bank a check doesn't mean you're not paying fees. The bank charges 2-4% on every credit card purchase you make. You can imagine that "the store pays it," but the store is paying it with money they got from you.
What incentive is there to work to succeed if the govt is to take it all from you?
If the only reason you work is for your salary, then you are a wage slave and will never join the C-level. Those people you work for, they put in their hours because they want to win, and most of them aren't keeping score in dollars. Or not just in dollars. They're keeping score in how many people use "their" brand of computer or how many hotels they control. BoDs use compensation to try to make those rare people adopt the board's brand, but the compensation is not why CEOs are CEOs.
the Bureau of Labor reports that the percentage of people that are poor in the US AND working at least 1000 hours per year is just 4%.
From your link, the US population is quite large, and their 4.2% is 10,382,000 people (adults in the labor force for half the year) below the poverty line in 2011. This includes 4,375,000 people working full-time for the full year and 3,190,000 people working part-time for the full year. Even in the most generous interpretation, that's still 4 million hard-working Americans showing up for work every day, putting in a full day, and still going home to poverty.
In colloquial german it is mostly called "Hartz 4", because a Mr. Hartz was the industrialist/lobbyist who came up with the whole concept and convinced the government of it and it was the 4th part of a multi-part reform.
In the UK, it was known as the Speenhamland system, and it contributed to significant collapse in wages. Arguably, it resulted in the shifting of costs of labor from the employers to the state. ie: people had to have a job to qualify for Spennhamland payments, so they would take any job at any wage, and the state would be responsible for providing the living wage.
Why do politicians keep reviving these systems that have long ago proven to be completely disastrous? Are they not required to read history?
Step back to basic cable (or even broadcast TV) and drop the unlimited data phone plan. Never seen an apartment yet that split out HVAC by unit, and it's hard to spend that much heating/cooling a 2-BR, unless you leave the doors open all winter.
Health Care (with a kid): $400/mo
You're raising 2 kids on $27k: you qualify for Medicaid
Food / Toiletries (3 ppl): $600/mo (eating very poorly)
Number 1: if the best work you can get is minimum wage, maybe you should put off that second kid or ask your SO to help out with expenses. Number 2: $20/day will feed dad+2 kids pretty well, as long as he cooks. Seriously: that's 2 pounds of chicken + 2 pounds of rice + 4 pounds of carrots and a gallon of milk, with enough left over for salt, pepper and ketchup
If you're working 2 minimum wage jobs, you don't get the American Dream. You adjust your lifestyle. Those sacrifices will make your eventual success all the more sweet and motivate your kid(s) to rise above.
Any emergency (car [wreck], and the other guy drove off) and you're basically boned. I think I heard some economist call it a "Fragile Existence"
Yes, if you're living on the edge, then small calamities become disasters. One hopes those are the circumstances where your community (church, neighborhood, or government) pulls together and helps you through.
Corporate & Other segment revenues decreased 9% year-over-year to $4.3 million for the quarter ended December 31, 2013 from the comparable 2012 period, due primarily to the financial results at Slashdot Media.
Message: slashdot is losing money, and something needs to change very fast. Whatever/.'s current user base is, it is not a profitable set of consumers, and Dice appears not to be worried if their non-profitable customers go away.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not an expert in the field but what I saw of the comments were very specific about reuse of figures and data without citation.
If those claims have merit, then they should be sent to the NIH's Office of Research Integrity (since the research was NIH funded). NIH will do a proper, 3rd party investigation. Look at the original data and find out whether the supposedly copied bands are copies or just similar in appearance. Find other potential instances. Try to find out whether it's the PI, staff, or trainee(s) behind any manipulation. The ORI has the power to impose actual sanctions, as opposed to just innuendo. Making anonymous accusations on pubpeer is not the way to improve science.
If you know what they mean, than it means something. Why are you complaining about language not living up to your arbitrary standards when it performs its purpose, to confer meaning?
Because that kind of arglebargle obfuscates their message. Just because the slithy toves do gyre and gimble in the wabe, does not necessarily make the borogroves all mimsy.
There's a place for poetry, and a place for clearly stated information.
If this is all about an excited atom causing other atoms around it to move in a chain reaction (which is what we already know eventually causes our ear drums to vibrate, get converted to neurological signals to the brain and perceive "sound") then it pretty much seems like the most ridiculous waste of time and money in an experiment of which everyone knew the outcome I have heard of in a long while.
I disagree. The macroscopic phenomenon of sound comes from vast numbers of atoms acting in aggregate, and their effect dissipates rapidly as the initial energy is spread across more and more atoms. That can't happen at the quantum level. These folks suggest that, at a small enough level, the interaction becomes quantized, such that "sound" energy might transfer from one atom to exactly one other atom. ie, that the "billiard ball" model of atoms bouncing off each other can be reduced to a quantal exchange of energy very much like fluorescence resonance transfer.
Clearly, not a good way to listen to the latest Katy Perry song (if there is a good way to listen to the latest Katy Perry song), and pretty clearly not the ordinary definition of sound as a subjective phenomenon. If you're a physicist, trying to explain your study of quantal energy exchange among atoms to the lay press, "sound" is probably a pretty good metaphor.
The US Army is hardly the world's largest. Get a grip.
In terms of headcount, the US has the 3rd largest military, behind China and India. (North Korea is 4th) The US military employs 70% more people than the Russian military.
In terms of spending, the US has no close competition. The US spends 3.5 times as much as the next largest spender (China), and accounts, by itself, for more than a third of global military spending.
As an investor in renewables, China is well in the lead of ever other nation.
Either the Pew report or that article is giving you an incomplete picture. China, despite being a leader in nuclear and renewable power, is also going balls out to build coal-gasification plants.
China, by dint of having 20% of the world's population and 18% of the gross world product, is an enormous investor in everything. In contrast, Iceland, despite being a "developed" country highly dependent on geothermal energy, is one of the smallest global producers of renewable energy (53% = 80 PJ, vs 20%=440 PJ in Germany or US 12%=2,300 PJ).
You have to keep in mind whether the important number is absolute investment, per capita investment, or fractional investment.
Why is it then possible and viable to have nuclear powered submarines but not ships?
The navy does not expect its submarines to operate at a profit. This is partly because they know that the market for nuclear missile-generated craters is fickle, so their sales are going to vary dramatically from year to year, include whole decades at a stretch where they may not deliver even a single warhead. It is partly because their other principle cargo, national influence, is very hard to value objectively. Most companies carry this product as "goodwill," and serious accountants completely disregard it in valuations.
The whole business model of nuclear submarines is a sham. A ponzy scheme foisted off on a credulous public awed by technology and investor story time, run by directors spending other people's money, but guaranteed to collect their own luxurious salaries regardless of whether the business ever turns a profit. 50 years without delivering a single megaton warhead...you'd think investors would wake up.
Here the guardian describes how they put out more than 50million cars each: http://www.theguardian.com/env...
That article talks almost entirely about sulfur, which is only one aspect of pollution, and arguably less important for vessels/vehicles that spend their time hundreds or thousands of miles from populated areas.
They compare a car with annual use of 15,000km, carrying approximately 100 kg of cargo (1000 ton-miles), with a ship that travels 200,000 km carrying 150,000,000 kg of cargo (20,000,000,000 ton-miles). ie, based on equivalent use, one massive container ship is equal to 20 million cars. If that container ship produces sulfur equivalent to 50 million cars, despite using fuel with 2000 times more sulfur than terrestrial diesel, then I'd say they're doing a damn fine job of pollution control.
They're offering service in areas that are already flooded with ISP options, this is not progress.
That's a bit of hyperbole, isn't it? Yes, google is rolling out to relatively high-density neighborhoods, but none of these are "flooded" with ISP options. At best, they have one cable option, one FIOS option, and one DSL option. To the best of my knowledge, there is nowhere in this country that you can choose between two cable providers.
You may also be forgetting that, when the incumbent ISPs were themselves startups, they didn't offer much in the way of rural service, either. In fact, most of them had to be paid by the government (and are still being paid by the government) to extend service outside of the most profitable neighborhoods.
Of course, that was 20-50 years ago, so you can be forgiven for imagining that Comcast launched in 1969 to 100,000,000 homes scattered across 80,000 square miles. I, for one, am happy to see anything vaguely resembling a new entrant in communication services. If they can only roll out to one city block, or even just one apartment complex, and provide better, faster or cheaper service than the legacy behemoths, I'll be happy to see them succeed.
Free market capitalism is very beneficial to the consumers...when there is open competition.
You have to remember how the government has framed "competition" for companies like Comcast. Comcast and Time Warner are not competitors, any more than New York's MTA is a competitor of San Francisco's BART. Comcast competes with other "Internet Service Providers" or "Video Services" in its exclusive territorial boundaries. ie: Comcast only competes with AT&T, Verizon, and Dish.
As long as you can manage the double-think of "competition" specifically excluding the relationship between multiple providers similar technology, you will understand how having a single, national, coax-cable-based company increases competition, specifically with the twisted-copper-based company (AT&T) and the satellite-based company. As long as you can manage the double-think of competition, you will see that there is no barrier to any new company developing and distributing "Internet" or "TV," as long as that company doesn't use coax or twisted-pair wires. See how easily Google has been able to enter the ISP business by using fiber?
The only problem for a select few is that Aero had chosen a choice location for its array of antenna and some people can't get a good signal due to metal walls or distance from towers.
But, don't you see that that is exactly the value that Aereo was offering? Space for me to put an antenna that would reliably receive the digital broadcasts that were supposed to be so much better than analog, even in the middle of a forest of concrete and steel. How fondly I remember the pre-digital days, when I could get (slightly staticky) broadcasts from 30 miles away. With great anticipation, I waited on the new digital signals that claimed to provide clearer pictures over even greater distances. Imag.....y dis......nt.......it turns out.....digit....sts don......fully.
Are you saying Aereo would have been OK if they'd sold one of those OTA DVRs and colocated them at their warehouse? Aereo's fatal flaw is that they rented people a homogeneous device rather than selling them one of a menu? That, my friend, is a legal Rube Goldberg much more intricate than the technical workaround Aereo intended.
Not the OP, but I can add some. In the biological sciences, it has definitely become common for PhD's to do several post-docs (in the conventional sense of a 2-3 year position) or to do extended post-docs of 6 or more years. There are many reasons for this. Some people go into advanced science because they like doing experiments, and postdoc is the last level where you get to be heavily involved in bench work. Some people prefer to be 'behind the scenes' as the lab manager or head technician, but it's administratively difficult to create a position with that title, so the head technician may be an essentially permanent postdoc. Some of it is because people will take a sub-optimal job to accommodate their spouse or partner.
Some of it is because there are a lot more PhD graduates than tenure track positions or extramural funding, and professors really only know how to train students to become professors. So, students enter the post-doc pool as a sort of purgatory until they find a tenure-track job, rather than search for other work to apply their PhD skills. The recession basically halted academic hiring for 5 years, so now there's a big backlog of graduates with lots of time spent as postdocs. A recent Assistant Prof search I was involved in wouldn't even consider candidates without a Science or Nature publication. Candidates averaged about 4 years post-doc, and some were 10.
As always, it's important to remember that these positions are technically university jobs, but they are created by an individual researcher based on extramural funding. They're not jobs created by a dean to do the university's work more cheaply than a tenured professor. There's a sense in which postdocs are like research-track adjunct professors (and may even get that title eventually), but the problem form of adjunct professors are temporary positions created by a Department or College to meet its functional mandate (teaching) without distracting a professor from his income-generating activities.
One of the main reasons for rising tuition, especially at public universities, is the disappearance of taxpayer support. Support for public universities is down 25-30% in the last 25 years. Universities make up for that by raising tuitiion and shifting faculty from teaching to extramural-funded research. And by lowering salaries.
The big difference between tenure-track and adjunct faculty is that tenure-track faculty are expected to pay their own salary through grants and contracts. Professors are profit centers for universities, and the less time they spend teaching, the more income they can raise. Adjuncts are cost centers.
IPMI is awesome for managing servers. All the supermicro mobo's I've ever used had a dedicated ethernet port to make sure the IPMI was on a separate, dedidcated, not-internet connected network. The real problem is that they will (or at least would) fallback to the normal ethernet port for IPMI if the dedicated port was not connected.
So the risk here is anyone who bought nice Supermicro hardware, didn't bother to learn about the IPMI, and only connected the normal ethernet port. It's not going to be a problem for people running 5,000 servers in a datacenter. It's going to be a problem for SOHO guys whose web server has a BMC they don't know about communicating on the same port.
The epitome of word processing was achieved in 1985 with WriteNow. It did WYSIWG formatting, pagination, merge, had a dictionary and a thesaurus in something less than 400 kB. Nothing of substance has been added since.
No shit. A majority of the second amendment nutters in the US are extremely pro-police state, pro-totalitarianism.
Really? Odd that reality doesn't seem to fit with your narrative. From everything that I've seen in the US, police are generally disliked by both sides of the isle.
Depends on the area. Individuals tend to want the public to share their values and behavior, so gun nutters tend to want the public to share their values. In places where the gun nutter values coincide with local law, this means they like when the state uses strong enforcement of law, say to win the war on drugs. In places where the gun nutter values differ from local law, they tend to see their guns as a defense against government over-reach, say to defend free grazing rights.
Big surprise, they're only "totalitarian gun nutters" if they disagree with you.
You just have to understand that, if the Bible is right, that you will not be able to get into Heaven leading a lifestyle of sin. That includes not only homosexuality, but adultery, drunkenness, lying, anger, etc.
That's old testament bible. If you're a follower of Jesus, you should know that the only entrance criterion to heaven is accept Jesus as the son of God. "There is NO sin so bad that the blood of Jesus cannot cover it -- all you have to do is trust Him." Even homosexuality.
Aside from that, if I prevent you from using it, I would post it.
This sounds like an admission that it is impossible to control how another person or organization uses information once they have it, but you apparently consider that control a necessary requirement for the open sharing of information proposed by Mr. Roger's law. The inability to actually control the use of information once shared or collected is exactly why so many people oppose such sharing.
When you say "I don't care about sharing information; it should flow freely" you sound like you are in favor of sharing and collecting information among institutions, despite the fact that it is impossible to impose any controls more powerful than administrative and legal policy. It makes you look like a troll.
If you count all military who currently serve as well as retirees who get a check we make up well under 1% of the population. The issue here is that we have too many freeloaders.
The OP used veteran pensions as an example of a direct payment to individuals that no one would consider "takers" as a group. He did this to counter the conservative talking point of "makers and takers," which implies that anyone taking money from the government is a taker getting a handout. It's a nice talking point. There are currently about 2 million military retirees receiving about $52 billion. There are 63 million social security beneficiaries receiving $816 billion and 49 million medicare beneficiaries receiving $600 billion. Total federal spending is about $3500 billion, so those three groups account for 41% of federal spending (and I don't think many people would argue that any of them are "takers") There are 2 million people who work for the government and collect $180 B in salary. The point is that, just because "the government" sends someone a check, doesn't mean that person is a lazy, incompetent drain on society.
Why don't they just buy a wedding cake from someone who wants to sell them one?
Because if you allow anyone to discriminate based on race or sexual preference, then you allow everyone to discriminate based on race or sexual preference. It may be a single bakery refusing to sell a cake to a single icky gay couple that started the fuss, but the the consequence of the law may make it difficult or impossible for any gay person to buy any product from any store. Or to force a two-tiered system of businesses where gays can only do business with a subset of "gay friendly" businesses (which, one imagines, would be boycotted by upstanding Christians).
If you're in the business of making cakes, then make the damn cake. If you're in the business of being a religious busybody, then don't sell cakes.
I pay no banking fees. The only fee I do pay to them is a yearly 25$ for my credit card and thats only because I have one that earns points with cash back, so I make back that 25$ in 2-4 weeks and the rest of the year get ~50$ back a month.
Just because you're not writing the bank a check doesn't mean you're not paying fees. The bank charges 2-4% on every credit card purchase you make. You can imagine that "the store pays it," but the store is paying it with money they got from you.
What incentive is there to work to succeed if the govt is to take it all from you?
If the only reason you work is for your salary, then you are a wage slave and will never join the C-level. Those people you work for, they put in their hours because they want to win, and most of them aren't keeping score in dollars. Or not just in dollars. They're keeping score in how many people use "their" brand of computer or how many hotels they control. BoDs use compensation to try to make those rare people adopt the board's brand, but the compensation is not why CEOs are CEOs.
the Bureau of Labor reports that the percentage of people that are poor in the US AND working at least 1000 hours per year is just 4%.
From your link, the US population is quite large, and their 4.2% is 10,382,000 people (adults in the labor force for half the year) below the poverty line in 2011. This includes 4,375,000 people working full-time for the full year and 3,190,000 people working part-time for the full year. Even in the most generous interpretation, that's still 4 million hard-working Americans showing up for work every day, putting in a full day, and still going home to poverty.
In colloquial german it is mostly called "Hartz 4", because a Mr. Hartz was the industrialist/lobbyist who came up with the whole concept and convinced the government of it and it was the 4th part of a multi-part reform.
In the UK, it was known as the Speenhamland system, and it contributed to significant collapse in wages. Arguably, it resulted in the shifting of costs of labor from the employers to the state. ie: people had to have a job to qualify for Spennhamland payments, so they would take any job at any wage, and the state would be responsible for providing the living wage.
Why do politicians keep reviving these systems that have long ago proven to be completely disastrous? Are they not required to read history?
Car/Gas/Insurance (required by most jobs): $200/mo
Monthly bus pass $100
A (cheap) 2 bedroom apt: $900/mo
Get a roommate
Utilities (no longer included, thanks 2008 housing collapse :( ) : $200/mo
Step back to basic cable (or even broadcast TV) and drop the unlimited data phone plan. Never seen an apartment yet that split out HVAC by unit, and it's hard to spend that much heating/cooling a 2-BR, unless you leave the doors open all winter.
Health Care (with a kid): $400/mo
You're raising 2 kids on $27k: you qualify for Medicaid
Food / Toiletries (3 ppl): $600/mo (eating very poorly)
Number 1: if the best work you can get is minimum wage, maybe you should put off that second kid or ask your SO to help out with expenses. Number 2: $20/day will feed dad+2 kids pretty well, as long as he cooks. Seriously: that's 2 pounds of chicken + 2 pounds of rice + 4 pounds of carrots and a gallon of milk, with enough left over for salt, pepper and ketchup
If you're working 2 minimum wage jobs, you don't get the American Dream. You adjust your lifestyle. Those sacrifices will make your eventual success all the more sweet and motivate your kid(s) to rise above.
Any emergency (car [wreck], and the other guy drove off) and you're basically boned. I think I heard some economist call it a "Fragile Existence"
Yes, if you're living on the edge, then small calamities become disasters. One hopes those are the circumstances where your community (church, neighborhood, or government) pulls together and helps you through.
From Dice's quarterly report:
Corporate & Other segment revenues decreased 9% year-over-year to $4.3 million for the quarter ended December 31, 2013 from the comparable 2012 period, due primarily to the financial results at Slashdot Media.
Message: slashdot is losing money, and something needs to change very fast. Whatever /.'s current user base is, it is not a profitable set of consumers, and Dice appears not to be worried if their non-profitable customers go away.