Exactly. What if this is their way of conveniently getting out of having to do more work? "Oh look at that, our flags on anthrax bomb searches only turned up 50 people this month instead of 100, yay, half as much snooping to do!" Surely the more clandestine parts of Google's infrastructure would be so far from scrutiny that no one would have any way to tell if the flags only worked half the time.
What if Google is just conveniently forgetting to log more of those terms so that they don't have to do as much work snooping on people? I mean, if you don't have as many terrorist suspects showing up on your search engine you surely wont have as many illegal search warrants to process.
Well, what do you think would happen if we all lived much longer? Overpopulation.... And all those people need a job, but there aren't any.. We first need to rethink our society before we actually go and create 'immortality'...
I know your comment was partly tongue-in-cheek but the reality is that if you improve the quality of life for individuals that are highly experienced (i.e. almost everyone that is old) you end up with a much more capable workforce. We already crossed the bridge of geriatric overpopulation back in the 70s when we got good at organ transplants and heart attack/stroke care. If we can keep the aging population feeling good and contributing to society we will end up much farther ahead than if we just keep going on the path of preventing death.
Seriously, it's more like Rand Paul channeling Peter Griffin.
"Lois, I just spent all our savings on lotto tickets!"
So BTC is your equivalent of a stable store of value (aka savings) and stocks are lotto tickets? thefuck? It would go like this: "Lois, I just put all our lotto tickets into the savings account!" The tickets are already bought, the only question is what they are worth when the numbers are drawn, and if you think its possible to pick 10 publicly traded large retailers that will all rise/fall with even a TENTH the amplitude that BTC does, good fucking luck. His idea has plenty of holes in it, but so far not a single "slashdot economist" has ranted about REAL ones.
He's a failed something anyway, if he thinks that stocks have "intrinsic value".
Stocks are the only thing with intrinsic value: ownership of the means of production. Everything else is convention, but the ability to make something that someone else wants or needs is intrinsic value.
Not enough modpoints in the world... To think that people are rattling their keyboards on this thread insisting that stocks of all things don't have value (after all, they are merely a share of a very large, typically profitable and asset-maintaining organization) and instead BTC in its current form is perfectly fine, because it surely has value (the value of the greater fool, without any presupposition of dividends or asset liquidation or anything). Simply amazing.
I don't own bitcoin nor have I ever used bitcoin for anything.
but this Rand guy seriously misunderstands the whole fucking concept. stock? ? just sell your bitcoin and buy some stock with that money. if the stocks value was tied to bitcoin, you might just as well just own bitcoin instead of the stock. if the stock presented some other value(in dollars or bananas) that would be a direct tie in to something else.
backing it up with gold or other valuables or anything that would need some company to adhere to some arbitrary value for the bits would destroy the whole concept(or at the very least transform it to some airline miles system bs) and you might just as well dig egold out of the grave...
so what the guy would like would be a centrally deployed currency, you know, like bus card money. beats me why he thinks that would be better or more novel - of course then there would be a company to shut down to shut down the use.
The current "problem" that outsiders have with Bitcoin is that the value is 100% intangible (aside from perhaps some loose correlation to electricity/mining rigs divided by the number of miners and then divided again by the number of overall people bought in to BTC). So if you were a legitimate businessperson you would completely decline to participate in BTC considering the value fluctuates solely based on what is at this point a pretty small participation of speculators and nerds wasting electricity in their basements. So, how do we come to a cryptocurrency that doesn't have that fault? You have to tie it to owning something else (gold? salt? dead presidents? stocks? whatever has value.)
It would work like this: Pick 10 big retailers, put their stocks in a "Basket" portfolio, and then whenever someone wants a RandCoin they go to RandCoin.com on the internet, proffer some workable payment (i.e. USD) and then when their RandCoin is generated the money they spent to get it would be invested in that portfolio of stocks. So now your 1 randcoin is worth say $100 in the stocks of those companies. It would be hard to pick 10 companies that shared enough traits as to all rise/fall in unison so the value would be a HELL of a lot more stable than BTC is today. The final issue then, as you state, is that there is an entity (randcoin, inc) to come to shut down when its realized that 99% of the transactions are for illicit goods or money laundering operations. But, that's only a problem if you really want a cryptocurrency that is suitable for those purposes. The mainstream interest in BTC is by completely law-abiding people who really just want a way to exchange money without going through [monopolistic big bank x] in order to decrease the transaction fee.
Your speculation that "backing it up with gold or other valuables or anything that would need some company to adhere to some arbitrary value for the bits would destroy the whole concept" is not true if you are interested in (as most are) anonymity of transactions. And i would say in reply 1) why? and 2) there is still the ability, if it is a cryptocurrency like BTC, to stay anonymous because you can still buy from a trusted "anonymising" middle man, the exact same way you would today. The transaction anonymity isnt hurt at all, it merely changes the point at which the currency is generated and moves it to a (hopefully) trusted company/nonprofit. Debasing the currency might be possible still, but its a risk most would gladly trade for the thought that BTC will deflate from now to infinity, except to those who spend enough $ on electricity and mining rigs.
They could make a car for $1M that had a useful live of 1M miles. Even if it is the only car you would need to ever buy, if it cost more than you could afford, it doesn't matter how long it lasts.
This is what I would call (no offense intended) an "economically ignorant argument". A car that was somehow guaranteed to last 1M miles (reminder: the average driver in the US puts on less than 10k miles/year) would last literally 100 years. Let me ask a potentially enlightening question: do people shy away from buying houses valued at several multiples of their annual salary, almost entirely with borrowed money? Not at all, since they last 50-75 years (well longer than the typical financing term), and require relatively little cost in upkeep. If the same were true for autos, you would simply see 30+ year car loans (net present value and interest rates are ignored here since its outside the scope of this premise.)
It didn't help that there were crazy people put into power (Caligula, Nero) and feckless people as well.
I blame the crazy and feckless more than I blame the sedimentary medium used to construct things.
Concrete is much more closely related to igneous deposits; if they found it in some riverbed it would have almost certainly already reacted and became useless. In historical terms it really is a rather magical compound, they (the Romans) even figured out how to make concrete that cures under water.
Top that with the degradation of quality in what use to be considered durable goods
I'm not buying that model. Cars, which are the second most expensive purchase after a house, are lasting longer than ever. Sure, some durable goods are lasting less time then previously, but they also cost significantly fewer hours of labor to purchase so their hours of labor to useful life ratio is probably in the same ballpark.
In 1974 you could buy a decent car for $2,500. A minimum wage job at the time got you $4,160 and a professional job $10,000. Back then a good car cost 1/2 of what a minimum wage worker made and 1/4 of a professional job. Compared to today, where minimum wage gets you $15,080 and a profession job $50,000, a price of a car should be $7,500 to $12,500.
There is no doubt that cars are more "durable" than before, but it's only because, compared to wages, we are paying 2 to 3 times as much for the same product.
Those boundaries (a minimum wage job vs a professional job) have changed a lot so its a lot more meaningful to look at median household or median individual income. In those numbers, in 1970 it was $6,670 and in 2004 it was $30,513 Average car price in 1970 was $3,900.00 and today it's just over $20,000. Thats a move from 58% of annual income (another misnomer because required expenses from that income have changed so much in the past 30-40 years, food, housing, taxes, etc have all shifted) to 66% of annual income, not a huge move.
Even if you took those numbers at face value and said "cars are definitely more expensive now" you have to also look at average car age rates, which reflect how much *per year* each person is spending on having a new car (or a used car if you prefer). That number has gone up from 5.7 years in 1970 to 9.0 in 2000 and its well over 10 as of 2011. So, each car purchased is basically lasting twice as long (taking into account just the time the cars are kept, not how reliable they are) as they were "back then". Even if the cars are 10% to 25% more expensive in real dollars or income fractions or whatever, we are definitely coming out ahead thanks to improvements in reliability, serviceability and quality.
programs to randomize that for you adding/removing unused fonts [...] good luck linking all my persona together.
Hmm we have a set of visits who have a nonstandard font collection, and only comic sans and wingings are consistently in the list... must be aepervius!
Unless you really _really_ open yourself up to Facebook, the info isnt a whole lot of good. They were totally off on where I was located, but were kind of close to where I worked but were also totally off the mark on income. The tags to/from classifications are interesting but really one dimensional.
I did like the list of easy to remember passwords they generated at the end, though.
1) Live near family (ie, grandparents) that can care for your kids and assist with transportation
This will bite you in the ass... just as soon as your kids are ready to start college (probably at your expense) your parents will be calling dibs on their bedrooms so that you can support them in return... while keeping your kids' tuition paid. It might be worth it, or might not.
You sound like my sisters, and my wife's brothers and sister.
In both cases, they tossed off any responsibility for any of our parents, who managed to all die off within 7 years. So it was my wife and I who cared for them.
Anyhow, the siblings were surprised when my wife and I got the lion's share of all the inheritances.
The irony is that I'd told all the parents that I didn't like dead people's money, and our siblings are all about money.
Perhaps your parents will end up feeling the same about you.
Hm nope, that's already taken care of, but thanks for being a condescending asshole anyway. Your siblings must find you delightful.
OpenSSL 2.0 or LibreSSL - what's the difference? The OpenSSL guys don't have the resources/time/funding/whatever to do it, and the OpenBSD guys apparently do.
Rather, they apparently don't (hence the donations plea). What they do have time for is forking OpenSSL, cutting out the stuff they don't care about, and slapping each other on the back for giving OpenSSL a good poke in the eye.
I'd say it's puerile -- and a bit alarming, considering these people are building something so important to the continued health of the internet.
But it goes right along with the notion that they are not even considering helping the original OpenSSL project (one that they have benefited greatly from in the past) and instead simply forked it in order to do only work that benefits themselves. The "we will get around to multiplatform when the donations pour in" is about as pathetic as the "we will get around to fixing that vulnerability countermeasure code later" that caused Heartbleed in the first place. If Heartbleed didn't scare people away from Free/Open Source software, then this surely will. Mission accomplished, Theo!
Comic Sans doesn't exactly inspire confidence for people who now view the open source development model as dubious.
Maybe in 2000, I would have cared but no longer. OSS is very well established and is in plenty of cases the leading option. If people want to make stupid emotional decisions, then it's time to let them. No actually, it's time to encourage them because it means I will have fewer serious competitors of the competition hamstring themselves with ill-informed emotional decisions.
They're pleading for donations. Are you comfortable being the sole donor, too?
In the wake of the OpenSSL bug, many people were questioning open source in general, saying (not rightfully, but saying nonetheless) that the Heartbleed bug was caused by a bunch of amateur volunteers. i.e. open source is not developed by professionals
Except you're right, it was caused by half-assing what was supposed to be a good feature, because the programmers decided they would just stop and come back to it later. But now we have *different* amateur volunteers working on it! Problem solved!
By the way, he said that he is the only person who works, so his wife income has no place here.
By the way, I said "income potential" which is to be considered as an opportunity cost. I am thinking of this purely from an economical standpoint as there are several other non-economic factors which may easily override this. Hence I made no attempt to state what is right/wrong for any given person or family.
1) Live near family (ie, grandparents) that can care for your kids and assist with transportation
This will bite you in the ass... just as soon as your kids are ready to start college (probably at your expense) your parents will be calling dibs on their bedrooms so that you can support them in return... while keeping your kids' tuition paid. It might be worth it, or might not.
You may have to consider several factors involved your statement. Speaking of that, there are many questions to be asked in order to understand how and why you said it. 1)Who paid for both of your education? 2)Where do you live? 3)What help did you get from the Government along these years? 4)Who else help your family during these years, or only two of you?, 5)How much did you claim your kids for tax deduction? and 6)What does your wife think about raising 7 kids?
Having someone else care for 7 children (even if only 3 were in daycare at any point) would almost certainly be more expensive than working unless his wife had particularly high income potential (if she went to school to be a pri/sec teacher then forget about that.) However it goes without saying that having 7 children is the exception, not the norm.
Sadly. most parent with two working parents and a child in day care would be better off with one working parent, cost wise. I've seen that a lot.
Given you can pay for $5000 of your annual daycare expenses with completely pre-tax money, for the first child you would have to earn less than minimum wage (working full time) to make that true (assuming the US average center based daycare cost) so I don't think your experience is typical (based on median wage data). If you opt for an in-home care situation (i.e. at your neighbor's place who watches kids for the thrill) then you can probably find a spot for 2 kids on what amounts to a $15/hr wage. Two kids at an average center-based daycare gets tough, and by the time you get to three you are probably in the red unless you make significantly above the US median wage. I have sticker-shocked many prospective parents with cost figures on child care, but always follow it with this: "if you think daycare is expensive, try not working."
Sure you could buy $200 shoes for your kid, but they definitely don't need any of that stuff. My kids get plenty of enjoyment from going out for a walk in the woods, which is free, and don't need to go to amusement parks all the time to be entertained.
That's really only a half-truth. Kids cost either A) the net of the salary the parent gave up to stay at home to raise them or B) the price of the daycare so that the parents can continue to work. The presumption that there is a careerless, stay-at-home parent by default is rather quaint, so A is usually a pretty high number. If you live in a particularly populous area, the cost of B will be rather high if you want your kids to be in a well-staffed facility (and who wouldn't want that?) So, there is a specific and considerable cost to having kids, and backend-loading the cost after your earnings have risen is a very attractive proposition, especially for people who are accustomed to a pretty high standard of living, i.e. a roomy house, vacations, driving a "newer" car, etc.
So if I'm the bad guy with the gun I just need to wait until my panicked, untrained victim with his low-precision gun has wasted its two bullets somewhere into the landscape and then put a bullet into his head?
No, you just need to shoot him. It's a murder, not a duel. You're the bad guy, you get to shoot first, since you initiated the conflict.
The "Bad guys" that any subversive gun is intended to defend against is not some random assailant on the street, it's a totalitarian regime in which the occupiers are not going to be as blunt as to simply try to murder all the locals (maybe some of them) rather it's for a guerrilla style resistance to allow bands of "minutemen" to have some chance at putting up a fight with particular tactics. With that, any gun that is not effective at least at 100+ yards (typical duck/shoot situations) is really not going to help, hence why this whole charade was (in the case of WWII) and still is a bad idea.
Sadly there is no supremely high-tech activity at work in this patent like sending out a flash and scanning for feedback from lenses, instead it is basically an automated anti-glasshole ready to punch anyone who is idly passing by with a recording device, but will completely miss the person with a hidden camera recording them for some time from arms length.
Yea, seems an expensive and obtuse solution for a problem $10 worth of wire and high-intensity IR LEDs can fix.
That reminds me, pick up an IR filter element for my hipster coat button cam...
Which, in turn, reminds me to ask - do we know if Glass has an IR filter built into it? IF so, then my high-powered IR LED system won't be very effective against them (although, it will still be highly effective against traditional security cameras).
I can't imagine any issues with carrying something like that in close proximity to your genitals...
Side note, RE: EMF pumps - I love how a Google search of that term brings up nothing but "ghost" sucker, er, I mean hunter, equipment sales sites. Nothing funnier to me than droves of people doing their damnedest to prove P.T. Barnum right.
Outdoor photos (and even some indoor ones) tend to look like complete trash if a camera has no IR filter, so I would venture a guess that it does indeed have a decent IR filter in place.
America learned once why it can't let dictators like Putin just invade their neighbors with impunity.
Well then maybe they should stop putting people like Putin in power. The current political system in Russia is the direct result of the disastrous neo-liberal economic policies imposed by the West after the collapse of the USSR.
Let's stop fucking up other parts of the world and then fucking them up further by using military intervention to clean up our previous fuck ups. How quickly we forget where this all goes.
lolololololololol. Or is it Troooooooooolololololololo?
Anyway, saying that the west had more than a whisper of influence on the resurrection of post-Soviet Russia, you are seriously delusional. They basically took everyone from the old club (Putin included) and shook them up in a snow globe, and let them fall in to place in the new club. Then, they passed a "constitution" that did little more than switch on the faucet of capitalism, and allowed money to gather into any oligarch that still had a piece of Old Russia. Is the west in the picture yet? Nope, didn't think so. Then, as energy prices rose from the rock bottom 80s level, money flew into Russia faster than anyone could even catch it. Billionaires were being minted weekly and so many were from the old party that corruption surged to all time highs. Aha! That's what the west did! They bought all that Russian oil and gas! How dare they, those meddling westerners.
He probably could have tried legal measures to implement reform if it was actually more important to him than being famous
Really? What legal measures could he have tried while remaining in the US? He would have been arrested faster than SSD read times, and never heard from again for "national security" reasons. The government's first response was to label him a traitor - they don't let you have much freedom as a traitor, in case you didn't know. I doubt any legal measures he could have tried before being arrested as a traitor would even have been reported on by the press, again for national security reasons.
Whether you think his revelations were right or wrong, I think you'd have to agree he couldn't have truly revealed anything successfully by staying in the US.
The government's first response to someone who was tasked to keep secrets safe and secure, but instead rounded up many thousands of said very important, sensitive national secrets and shared them with several reporters and then gallivanted across Asia with them in tow, was to call him a traitor? Hmm. How out of line. You can't argue for a second that he didn't completely betray his duties at the NSA, the only outstanding question is whether or not his betrayal was warranted given that the secrets he shared appear to illustrate abuse of power by the NSA. Had he stayed in the US and given his evidence to trusted sources within the US, the government's reaction would have been much different. Grassroots support would have been a lot more organic and presistent, too. The "Free Snowden" crowd can't exactly picket at the Russian embassy with any effect.
Slashdot Mirror
google (et all) are the government's bitch.
they will do as they're told.
or else.
Exactly. What if this is their way of conveniently getting out of having to do more work? "Oh look at that, our flags on anthrax bomb searches only turned up 50 people this month instead of 100, yay, half as much snooping to do!" Surely the more clandestine parts of Google's infrastructure would be so far from scrutiny that no one would have any way to tell if the flags only worked half the time.
What if Google is just conveniently forgetting to log more of those terms so that they don't have to do as much work snooping on people? I mean, if you don't have as many terrorist suspects showing up on your search engine you surely wont have as many illegal search warrants to process.
Well, what do you think would happen if we all lived much longer? Overpopulation.... And all those people need a job, but there aren't any.. We first need to rethink our society before we actually go and create 'immortality'...
I know your comment was partly tongue-in-cheek but the reality is that if you improve the quality of life for individuals that are highly experienced (i.e. almost everyone that is old) you end up with a much more capable workforce. We already crossed the bridge of geriatric overpopulation back in the 70s when we got good at organ transplants and heart attack/stroke care. If we can keep the aging population feeling good and contributing to society we will end up much farther ahead than if we just keep going on the path of preventing death.
Seriously, it's more like Rand Paul channeling Peter Griffin.
"Lois, I just spent all our savings on lotto tickets!"
So BTC is your equivalent of a stable store of value (aka savings) and stocks are lotto tickets? thefuck? It would go like this: "Lois, I just put all our lotto tickets into the savings account!" The tickets are already bought, the only question is what they are worth when the numbers are drawn, and if you think its possible to pick 10 publicly traded large retailers that will all rise/fall with even a TENTH the amplitude that BTC does, good fucking luck. His idea has plenty of holes in it, but so far not a single "slashdot economist" has ranted about REAL ones.
He's a failed something anyway, if he thinks that stocks have "intrinsic value".
Stocks are the only thing with intrinsic value: ownership of the means of production. Everything else is convention, but the ability to make something that someone else wants or needs is intrinsic value.
Not enough modpoints in the world... To think that people are rattling their keyboards on this thread insisting that stocks of all things don't have value (after all, they are merely a share of a very large, typically profitable and asset-maintaining organization) and instead BTC in its current form is perfectly fine, because it surely has value (the value of the greater fool, without any presupposition of dividends or asset liquidation or anything). Simply amazing.
I don't own bitcoin nor have I ever used bitcoin for anything.
but this Rand guy seriously misunderstands the whole fucking concept. stock? ? just sell your bitcoin and buy some stock with that money. if the stocks value was tied to bitcoin, you might just as well just own bitcoin instead of the stock. if the stock presented some other value(in dollars or bananas) that would be a direct tie in to something else.
backing it up with gold or other valuables or anything that would need some company to adhere to some arbitrary value for the bits would destroy the whole concept(or at the very least transform it to some airline miles system bs) and you might just as well dig egold out of the grave...
so what the guy would like would be a centrally deployed currency, you know, like bus card money. beats me why he thinks that would be better or more novel - of course then there would be a company to shut down to shut down the use.
The current "problem" that outsiders have with Bitcoin is that the value is 100% intangible (aside from perhaps some loose correlation to electricity/mining rigs divided by the number of miners and then divided again by the number of overall people bought in to BTC). So if you were a legitimate businessperson you would completely decline to participate in BTC considering the value fluctuates solely based on what is at this point a pretty small participation of speculators and nerds wasting electricity in their basements. So, how do we come to a cryptocurrency that doesn't have that fault? You have to tie it to owning something else (gold? salt? dead presidents? stocks? whatever has value.)
It would work like this: Pick 10 big retailers, put their stocks in a "Basket" portfolio, and then whenever someone wants a RandCoin they go to RandCoin.com on the internet, proffer some workable payment (i.e. USD) and then when their RandCoin is generated the money they spent to get it would be invested in that portfolio of stocks. So now your 1 randcoin is worth say $100 in the stocks of those companies. It would be hard to pick 10 companies that shared enough traits as to all rise/fall in unison so the value would be a HELL of a lot more stable than BTC is today. The final issue then, as you state, is that there is an entity (randcoin, inc) to come to shut down when its realized that 99% of the transactions are for illicit goods or money laundering operations. But, that's only a problem if you really want a cryptocurrency that is suitable for those purposes. The mainstream interest in BTC is by completely law-abiding people who really just want a way to exchange money without going through [monopolistic big bank x] in order to decrease the transaction fee.
Your speculation that "backing it up with gold or other valuables or anything that would need some company to adhere to some arbitrary value for the bits would destroy the whole concept" is not true if you are interested in (as most are) anonymity of transactions. And i would say in reply 1) why? and 2) there is still the ability, if it is a cryptocurrency like BTC, to stay anonymous because you can still buy from a trusted "anonymising" middle man, the exact same way you would today. The transaction anonymity isnt hurt at all, it merely changes the point at which the currency is generated and moves it to a (hopefully) trusted company/nonprofit. Debasing the currency might be possible still, but its a risk most would gladly trade for the thought that BTC will deflate from now to infinity, except to those who spend enough $ on electricity and mining rigs.
They could make a car for $1M that had a useful live of 1M miles. Even if it is the only car you would need to ever buy, if it cost more than you could afford, it doesn't matter how long it lasts.
This is what I would call (no offense intended) an "economically ignorant argument". A car that was somehow guaranteed to last 1M miles (reminder: the average driver in the US puts on less than 10k miles/year) would last literally 100 years. Let me ask a potentially enlightening question: do people shy away from buying houses valued at several multiples of their annual salary, almost entirely with borrowed money? Not at all, since they last 50-75 years (well longer than the typical financing term), and require relatively little cost in upkeep. If the same were true for autos, you would simply see 30+ year car loans (net present value and interest rates are ignored here since its outside the scope of this premise.)
It didn't help that there were crazy people put into power (Caligula, Nero) and feckless people as well.
I blame the crazy and feckless more than I blame the sedimentary medium used to construct things.
Concrete is much more closely related to igneous deposits; if they found it in some riverbed it would have almost certainly already reacted and became useless. In historical terms it really is a rather magical compound, they (the Romans) even figured out how to make concrete that cures under water.
Top that with the degradation of quality in what use to be considered durable goods
I'm not buying that model. Cars, which are the second most expensive purchase after a house, are lasting longer than ever. Sure, some durable goods are lasting less time then previously, but they also cost significantly fewer hours of labor to purchase so their hours of labor to useful life ratio is probably in the same ballpark.
In 1974 you could buy a decent car for $2,500. A minimum wage job at the time got you $4,160 and a professional job $10,000. Back then a good car cost 1/2 of what a minimum wage worker made and 1/4 of a professional job. Compared to today, where minimum wage gets you $15,080 and a profession job $50,000, a price of a car should be $7,500 to $12,500.
There is no doubt that cars are more "durable" than before, but it's only because, compared to wages, we are paying 2 to 3 times as much for the same product.
Those boundaries (a minimum wage job vs a professional job) have changed a lot so its a lot more meaningful to look at median household or median individual income. In those numbers, in 1970 it was $6,670 and in 2004 it was $30,513 Average car price in 1970 was $3,900.00 and today it's just over $20,000. Thats a move from 58% of annual income (another misnomer because required expenses from that income have changed so much in the past 30-40 years, food, housing, taxes, etc have all shifted) to 66% of annual income, not a huge move.
Even if you took those numbers at face value and said "cars are definitely more expensive now" you have to also look at average car age rates, which reflect how much *per year* each person is spending on having a new car (or a used car if you prefer). That number has gone up from 5.7 years in 1970 to 9.0 in 2000 and its well over 10 as of 2011. So, each car purchased is basically lasting twice as long (taking into account just the time the cars are kept, not how reliable they are) as they were "back then". Even if the cars are 10% to 25% more expensive in real dollars or income fractions or whatever, we are definitely coming out ahead thanks to improvements in reliability, serviceability and quality.
programs to randomize that for you adding/removing unused fonts [...] good luck linking all my persona together.
Hmm we have a set of visits who have a nonstandard font collection, and only comic sans and wingings are consistently in the list... must be aepervius!
Unless you really _really_ open yourself up to Facebook, the info isnt a whole lot of good. They were totally off on where I was located, but were kind of close to where I worked but were also totally off the mark on income. The tags to/from classifications are interesting but really one dimensional.
I did like the list of easy to remember passwords they generated at the end, though.
1) Live near family (ie, grandparents) that can care for your kids and assist with transportation
This will bite you in the ass... just as soon as your kids are ready to start college (probably at your expense) your parents will be calling dibs on their bedrooms so that you can support them in return... while keeping your kids' tuition paid. It might be worth it, or might not.
You sound like my sisters, and my wife's brothers and sister.
In both cases, they tossed off any responsibility for any of our parents, who managed to all die off within 7 years. So it was my wife and I who cared for them.
Anyhow, the siblings were surprised when my wife and I got the lion's share of all the inheritances.
The irony is that I'd told all the parents that I didn't like dead people's money, and our siblings are all about money.
Perhaps your parents will end up feeling the same about you.
Hm nope, that's already taken care of, but thanks for being a condescending asshole anyway. Your siblings must find you delightful.
OpenSSL 2.0 or LibreSSL - what's the difference? The OpenSSL guys don't have the resources/time/funding/whatever to do it, and the OpenBSD guys apparently do.
Rather, they apparently don't (hence the donations plea). What they do have time for is forking OpenSSL, cutting out the stuff they don't care about, and slapping each other on the back for giving OpenSSL a good poke in the eye.
I'd say it's puerile -- and a bit alarming, considering these people are building something so important to the continued health of the internet.
But it goes right along with the notion that they are not even considering helping the original OpenSSL project (one that they have benefited greatly from in the past) and instead simply forked it in order to do only work that benefits themselves. The "we will get around to multiplatform when the donations pour in" is about as pathetic as the "we will get around to fixing that vulnerability countermeasure code later" that caused Heartbleed in the first place. If Heartbleed didn't scare people away from Free/Open Source software, then this surely will. Mission accomplished, Theo!
Comic Sans doesn't exactly inspire confidence for people who now view the open source development model as dubious.
Maybe in 2000, I would have cared but no longer. OSS is very well established and is in plenty of cases the leading option. If people want to make stupid emotional decisions, then it's time to let them. No actually, it's time to encourage them because it means I will have fewer serious competitors of the competition hamstring themselves with ill-informed emotional decisions.
They're pleading for donations. Are you comfortable being the sole donor, too?
In the wake of the OpenSSL bug, many people were questioning open source in general, saying (not rightfully, but saying nonetheless) that the Heartbleed bug was caused by a bunch of amateur volunteers. i.e. open source is not developed by professionals
Except you're right, it was caused by half-assing what was supposed to be a good feature, because the programmers decided they would just stop and come back to it later. But now we have *different* amateur volunteers working on it! Problem solved!
By the way, he said that he is the only person who works, so his wife income has no place here.
By the way, I said "income potential" which is to be considered as an opportunity cost. I am thinking of this purely from an economical standpoint as there are several other non-economic factors which may easily override this. Hence I made no attempt to state what is right/wrong for any given person or family.
1) Live near family (ie, grandparents) that can care for your kids and assist with transportation
This will bite you in the ass... just as soon as your kids are ready to start college (probably at your expense) your parents will be calling dibs on their bedrooms so that you can support them in return... while keeping your kids' tuition paid. It might be worth it, or might not.
You may have to consider several factors involved your statement. Speaking of that, there are many questions to be asked in order to understand how and why you said it. 1)Who paid for both of your education? 2)Where do you live? 3)What help did you get from the Government along these years? 4)Who else help your family during these years, or only two of you?, 5)How much did you claim your kids for tax deduction? and 6)What does your wife think about raising 7 kids?
Having someone else care for 7 children (even if only 3 were in daycare at any point) would almost certainly be more expensive than working unless his wife had particularly high income potential (if she went to school to be a pri/sec teacher then forget about that.) However it goes without saying that having 7 children is the exception, not the norm.
Sadly. most parent with two working parents and a child in day care would be better off with one working parent, cost wise.
I've seen that a lot.
Given you can pay for $5000 of your annual daycare expenses with completely pre-tax money, for the first child you would have to earn less than minimum wage (working full time) to make that true (assuming the US average center based daycare cost) so I don't think your experience is typical (based on median wage data). If you opt for an in-home care situation (i.e. at your neighbor's place who watches kids for the thrill) then you can probably find a spot for 2 kids on what amounts to a $15/hr wage. Two kids at an average center-based daycare gets tough, and by the time you get to three you are probably in the red unless you make significantly above the US median wage. I have sticker-shocked many prospective parents with cost figures on child care, but always follow it with this: "if you think daycare is expensive, try not working."
Sure you could buy $200 shoes for your kid, but they definitely don't need any of that stuff. My kids get plenty of enjoyment from going out for a walk in the woods, which is free, and don't need to go to amusement parks all the time to be entertained.
That's really only a half-truth. Kids cost either A) the net of the salary the parent gave up to stay at home to raise them or B) the price of the daycare so that the parents can continue to work. The presumption that there is a careerless, stay-at-home parent by default is rather quaint, so A is usually a pretty high number. If you live in a particularly populous area, the cost of B will be rather high if you want your kids to be in a well-staffed facility (and who wouldn't want that?) So, there is a specific and considerable cost to having kids, and backend-loading the cost after your earnings have risen is a very attractive proposition, especially for people who are accustomed to a pretty high standard of living, i.e. a roomy house, vacations, driving a "newer" car, etc.
No, you just need to shoot him. It's a murder, not a duel. You're the bad guy, you get to shoot first, since you initiated the conflict.
The "Bad guys" that any subversive gun is intended to defend against is not some random assailant on the street, it's a totalitarian regime in which the occupiers are not going to be as blunt as to simply try to murder all the locals (maybe some of them) rather it's for a guerrilla style resistance to allow bands of "minutemen" to have some chance at putting up a fight with particular tactics. With that, any gun that is not effective at least at 100+ yards (typical duck/shoot situations) is really not going to help, hence why this whole charade was (in the case of WWII) and still is a bad idea.
Sadly there is no supremely high-tech activity at work in this patent like sending out a flash and scanning for feedback from lenses, instead it is basically an automated anti-glasshole ready to punch anyone who is idly passing by with a recording device, but will completely miss the person with a hidden camera recording them for some time from arms length.
Yea, seems an expensive and obtuse solution for a problem $10 worth of wire and high-intensity IR LEDs can fix.
That reminds me, pick up an IR filter element for my hipster coat button cam...
Which, in turn, reminds me to ask - do we know if Glass has an IR filter built into it? IF so, then my high-powered IR LED system won't be very effective against them (although, it will still be highly effective against traditional security cameras).
Hmmm.... maybe some sort of pocket-sized EMF pump?
I can't imagine any issues with carrying something like that in close proximity to your genitals...
Side note, RE: EMF pumps - I love how a Google search of that term brings up nothing but "ghost" sucker, er, I mean hunter, equipment sales sites. Nothing funnier to me than droves of people doing their damnedest to prove P.T. Barnum right.
Outdoor photos (and even some indoor ones) tend to look like complete trash if a camera has no IR filter, so I would venture a guess that it does indeed have a decent IR filter in place.
America learned once why it can't let dictators like Putin just invade
their neighbors with impunity.
Well then maybe they should stop putting people like Putin in power.
The current political system in Russia is the direct result of the
disastrous neo-liberal economic policies imposed by the West after the
collapse of the USSR.
Let's stop fucking up other parts of the world and then fucking them up
further by using military intervention to clean up our previous fuck
ups. How quickly we forget where this all goes.
lolololololololol. Or is it Troooooooooolololololololo?
Anyway, saying that the west had more than a whisper of influence on the resurrection of post-Soviet Russia, you are seriously delusional. They basically took everyone from the old club (Putin included) and shook them up in a snow globe, and let them fall in to place in the new club. Then, they passed a "constitution" that did little more than switch on the faucet of capitalism, and allowed money to gather into any oligarch that still had a piece of Old Russia. Is the west in the picture yet? Nope, didn't think so. Then, as energy prices rose from the rock bottom 80s level, money flew into Russia faster than anyone could even catch it. Billionaires were being minted weekly and so many were from the old party that corruption surged to all time highs. Aha! That's what the west did! They bought all that Russian oil and gas! How dare they, those meddling westerners.
He probably could have tried legal measures to implement reform if it was actually more important to him than being famous
Really? What legal measures could he have tried while remaining in the US? He would have been arrested faster than SSD read times, and never heard from again for "national security" reasons. The government's first response was to label him a traitor - they don't let you have much freedom as a traitor, in case you didn't know. I doubt any legal measures he could have tried before being arrested as a traitor would even have been reported on by the press, again for national security reasons.
Whether you think his revelations were right or wrong, I think you'd have to agree he couldn't have truly revealed anything successfully by staying in the US.
The government's first response to someone who was tasked to keep secrets safe and secure, but instead rounded up many thousands of said very important, sensitive national secrets and shared them with several reporters and then gallivanted across Asia with them in tow, was to call him a traitor? Hmm. How out of line. You can't argue for a second that he didn't completely betray his duties at the NSA, the only outstanding question is whether or not his betrayal was warranted given that the secrets he shared appear to illustrate abuse of power by the NSA. Had he stayed in the US and given his evidence to trusted sources within the US, the government's reaction would have been much different. Grassroots support would have been a lot more organic and presistent, too. The "Free Snowden" crowd can't exactly picket at the Russian embassy with any effect.