Color coding as somebody else suggested is harder - you need to prove to FDA that the color is safe and does not leach from the plastic, and it isn't as safe - people are dumb they will connect the red tube to the blue outlet if they can.
Or you can just use striping on the outside of the tube, rather than making the tube out of solid, colored plastic. The striping could include a text-label or pattern for the color-blind. In any case many dyes are FDA-approved as food safe; look at the nineteen bajillion varieties of plastic drinking glasses and children's tableware. Making sturdy, completely incompatible connectors isn't too hard, either; they're all over in the industrial applications of gases and dangerous liquids, so it's plausible to adapt them cheaply and directly to the medical uses.
So, I put overflow recyclables into the trash can that is emptied weekly once my recycle bin is full. I'd rather have them recycled.
And you can't just buy another bin, stick some in your neighbor's bin, or come up with any other solution? You really have to throw them away and then make comments on slashdot about how you would "rather" have that stuff recycled?
Verizon has declared that they plan to test a 150GB (if I remember correctly) monthly cap on FIOS in this area; and there's basically no one else around because they've been driven out of business or out of the area.
Trust me, 9 out of 10 people who can't get FIOS at all (which is like 80% of the country) would *joyously* accept a 150 GB cap if they could actually have fiber. Most people, even most hardcore nerds, don't download anywhere near that much.
Are you now? So you're not an idiot, you're just a troll or a joker? And that's supposed to make me more impressed with you?
In any case, when I wrote my response, your comment had briefly peaked at +5 informative; I had to save people from believing such idiocy whether or not I thought you believed your own bullshit.
CO2 is denser than air so naturally the atmosphere compacts under gravity as the density increases.
Utterly incorrect. CO2 levels rising dramatically doesn't mean the percentage composition of CO2 in the atmosphere has changed by a large number. The atmosphere is still less than.5% CO2 today; even if it had started at 0% CO2, adding.5% concentration of something only half again as heavy (or dense, if you prefer; not that dense and heavy are synonyms but either way my point stands) as the vast majority of the atmosphere would not logically explain "the biggest contraction of the thermosphere in at least 43 years" without some serious synergy compounding the effect of that minimal impact on atmospheric density.
Furthermore, a given swath of the atmosphere is all roughly the same density; it's not like there's this big fat pocket of air that weighs 0.1 g/L and this other pocket a mile away at the same altitude that weighs 0.19 g/L. Diffusion dictates that CO2 could change the density of the air only as much as it changes the average density of the entire atmosphere (at a given altitude) once completely diffused into all the other stuff. You could jack the atmosphere up to 10% CO2, 20 times what it's ever been in the last billion years, and I doubt you could explain these contractions with simply density arguments.
Also, TFA mentions CO2 - not in any conjunction whatsoever with your insane reason for mentioning it, but it does mention CO2 - and says "Even when we take CO2 into account using our best understanding of how it operates as a coolant, we cannot fully explain the thermosphere's collapse." Note that they're talking about CO2 cooling the upper atmosphere, not about density.
Whoever marked the parent as informative is a moron.
Definitely, and there's at least 4 of them apparently. 4 people who felt compelled to tell us this was good information but couldn't remember anything about 101 level chemistry. How the fuck did they pretend to know it was good information if they can't see through something that stupid?
Just consider one question: if genetically modified foods are so great, if only ignorant jackasses would ever have a reason to doubt their virtues, if the facts are on the side of those who want to sell them, then why does Monsanto fight so hard and spend so much money and lobby so much to prevent non-GMO food producers from labeling their products as such?
You were doing great until you asked this question, which is frankly just a stupid question: Monsanto fights labeling of non-GMO foods as such because those labels allow the express implication that GMO is a proven harmful thing. We're used to seeing "non" and "free" on food labels with regards to things that are very bad for you, or more often things people think are very bad for them, e.g. trans fat, high-fructose corn syrup, fat and sugar altogether, etc. I'm not on Monsanto's side here - I think they're basically satan, and always have - but I would fight, too, if someone wanted labels for their product that summoned up strong implications that my product caused cancer or some shit, and had virtually no proof to back it up. I wouldn't bribe congressman or infiltrate federal agencies to win my fight, but I can totally understand doing something to fight labeling like that. People who market and/or buy food labeled as non-GMO, or demand that all GMO foods be marked as such, are like the vaccines-and-autism people; I respect them, I worry that they're not all wrong, but I can't abide all of the hysterical protests they throw up as if they have absolute iron-clad proof of their claims rather than a giant gray area and a scientific community almost entirely not on their side.
That is two people with the same fingerprint (at least at the very small parts of DNA we look at) can in fact be very likely with a database this size. [...] The markers used were not designed for a nation wide database situation.
Correct, I suppose, but perhaps misleading. Your objection does not, I believe, lead to a rational conclusion that convictions based on false-positives will rise, huge budgets squandered, or other similar troubles occur. Once police are sufficiently interested in a small handful of individuals, after they take the dozens or hundreds of hits from a familial search and narrow them by conventional detective work, I'm sure much more thorough tests are available to conclusively check just a few people against the suspect sample.
It will be up to ethicists, district attorneys, courts, and civil liberties attorneys in the long run to determine just how much "fishing" is allowed in these familial DNA searches and what constitutes too high a cost or too high a rate of false-positives, but I assume that once the search is narrowed more accurate, specific biological testing and focused conventional detective work can produce adequately highly confident convictions.
recognizing individuals for merely putting the last piece in the jigsaw puzzle is intellectually dishonest
Not always true. If he's just the guy who put it all together, then it's true that maybe he doesn't deserve a huge prize. Nevertheless, some people truly revolutionize a field (or multiple fields) almost by themselves; see Linus Pauling for the best example.
Recognizing the last guy in a long line can sometimes be dishonest, but what if that line's been stalled for decades and this 'last guy in line' solves all the big problems or re-invents the field completely. Completely new schools of science happen every year these days, especially in neuroscience, physics, etc.; what if the prize winner invented an entire field of study?
Everybody stands on someone's shoulder's in science, but some people are magnitudes more important and more productive than others and I don't believe stupid sidebars in textbooks or posthumous biographies show them enough gratitude for making the big leaps.
The Pirate Party and Piratbyrån are unrelated organizations.
Yes, of course. I was simply pointing out that the underlying goals of Piratbyrån are still gaining momentum quickly, and will likely change the world with or without that particular group. Piratbyrån did a lot to get things started, and things won't end with their dissolution.
Ok, I didn't expect to defend communist China today, but really this rule makes sense. Look at the way Amazon and Netflix have been sued in just the last six months for examples of the incredible wealth of sensitive information you can reconstruct from completely mundane and innocent data. Keeping troops off the internet entirely makes perfect sense from a security standpoint, although going that far isn't necessary and stomps on people's free speech way too much for my taste.
Anyway, I know I wouldn't want anyone reconstructing the surfing and posting habits of my military members to spot troop movements, locations of certain projects, etc. That's not a far-fetched concern, either: in the cold war Blackbird and U-2 spy planes regularly counted the number of vehicles in parking lots, watched trains, etc. to figure out when big projects were underway and where major hardware was being shipped. It's not impossible to do similar things by tracking internet traffic.
It's not like this is the end; the Pirate Party still has seats in the European Parliament. If they thought letting this particular organization die made the most sense in absence of some central figures, then I'm not sure I agree but it's not the end of their political movement and it damn sure won't be the end of their member's activity in similar organizations.
Nobody sold out, nobody quit; the majority of their membership will hopefully move on to different groups with the same goals.
Actually, I think it'd be a lot more useful to create a.kids domain and give people the walled garden they want.
Heck, I wouldn't be opposed to having a.christ domain either, that way I can filter it out through my firewall and never have to worry about accidentally stumbling upon it!
I'm not authoritative here, but I don't think walled gardens have done society much good where they've been tried. They certainly don't look very successful in China, North Korea, Utah, or anywhere else they've been seriously attempted.
I couldn't tell, really, if you approved of the whole idea, were joking about your Jesus-free garden, or anything, but I thought it was worth making a serious reply in any case. Shutting yourself off rarely helps.
Why should he provide citations for demographic data that can easily be found via google?
And why am I obligated to have psychic powers to know exactly which of the "about 270,000 results" he relied on in making his claims? Being easily searchable or easily available are not the same thing as being easily traceable and verifiable.
the fact that they donate $10 per domain to a nonprofit organisation is just wrong...Who are they to decide for us that this should be done?
They're not deciding anything "for us". They're making a public decision to donate some of their profit, purely private money, to a certain cause. You make it sound like they're breaking into your house, stealing your piggy bank, and sending it to UNICEF. If you don't agree with mandatory "donations" to charities (eg: your employer appointing a designated United Way coordinator who literally harasses you at work to donate money) I hear you and agree with you, but that is not what's happening here.
Lawley says he expects to make $30m (£20m) a year in revenue by selling each.xxx site for $60, and pledges to donate $10 from each sale to child protection initiatives.
If he actually gives $6 million per year to child protection causes the universe will implode out of shock and amazement.
Also on children, are they supposing children will never stumble into a.xxx domain (or that.xxx can be blocked altogether), so now they're safe from porn? Because I'm sure that.xxx porn sites will never use pop-up loops or deceptive ads or auto-dialing trojans the way many.com porn sites have done forever. The new.xxx porn industry will be squeaky clean, with our children's welfare at heart!
Not to mention the whole thing won't have any damn effect unless you simultaneously force current.com,.net, and.org porn sites to re-register in.xxx and drop their old domains, which will not happen.
Furthermore, for the whole notion of giving adults an easy, consolidated place to access porn, let me give ICANN a big hint: whether it's porn, cracks, bomb making instructions, or whatever, the most obvious place to look for anything even vaguely taboo is always the one most flooded with scams, viruses, top lists, etc. which make the obvious places by far the most worthless places to look. I predict that absolutely all worthwhile porn will remain on.com sites for quite some time, and that.com sites will simply register the same domain registered under.xxx and redirect people back into the.com site.
Holy Christ....assuming you're more than twelve years old you've got to know better than to put out a dozen statistics like that without giving us any clue where they came from. Normally I think what I'm about to say is annoying, self-righteous, and pedantic, but you have truly earned yourself a:
I thoroughly fail to see how my calculations assume *anything* about market crashes. No shit there will be crashes, based on recent history a pretty fucking bad one every 15 years, but exactly how do you want me to "incorporate...one serious financial catastrophe on average every 30 years" into my calculations? A crystal ball?
If a crash "cancels out the growth of your seed money" then no fucking duh you'll have to compensate for it somehow, but you can't entirely predict the crashes and it's not reasonable over the long haul to simply not invest in stocks. Forgive me if I assumed everyone was intelligent enough to see that sometimes shit happens and you have to work a few more years or kick in a much higher contribution for a while to compensate.
Just because I don't cover every little thing in detail, in a 200 word post that only an idiot would take as complete financial roadmap, doesn't mean I'm saying "ridiculous" things.
If you haven't saved enough for most of your retirement by the time you hit your 40s, you kind of deserve to have to worry about it.
WTF are you talking about? Do you have any idea how things work in the real world?
The idiot parent is partially correct, but not for the reasons he thinks he is. If you haven't put in an adequate percentage of your final goal as seed money, to go on earning most of the interest you'll get, by the time you're 40 you're in trouble. You'll have to put in 25k+ a year after age 40 to be able to retire on time.
You will, of course, put in a massive percentage of the actual cash contribution in your late forties and fifties.
I said, (and I believe proved), that you don't know what cheap is.
You did nothing of the kind. Your citation for 77 homes in Denver between 100k and 150k doesn't prove a single thing. Were these homes nice homes? What's actually the median price for a home the average person would subjectively call "nice" in your area? Even if I'm wrong and Spokane isn't cheap, how has your post proved Denver embodies cheapness? It hasn't even proved that Denver is cheaper than Spokane
Another thing: I was quite clearly talking about rather good homes, the 65th to 85th percentile perhaps ("semi-modern, medium sized three bedroom house in the best urban neighborhood in the county") while you've merely proved the existence of any homes at all in your selected price range anywhere in Denver county. For all I know, those are literally in the ghetto or stuffed under freeway onramps.
I was wrong on the specifics of a supermarket manager's salary and I admitted it (I also protested that being wrong there doesn't really change the validity of the underlying point). You admit to no inaccuracy about anything, and continue bashing me without giving better data yourself. You cherry picked a data set with literally no context whatsoever and declared my argument defeated. I generalized freely based on my personal experience; you claimed to have thoroughly researched an answer. You set the bar far higher for yourself than I set for my statement, and you failed miserably. Nice try; please play again.
Well, life is apparently cheaper in Denver than it is here in Spokane, but I'm not delusional or full of shit for saying it's cheap up here. I know is Spokane's only a 107 on the cost of living index, last time I checked, and I know literally every single person I've ever asked who ever lived somewhere else said "It's so cheap to live here".
Furthermore, tossing up-to-the-minute real estate prices at me is completely misleading. Real estate is dirt cheap *everywhere* right now and mortgage rates are low and getting lower just so the bank doesn't end up owning an empty neighborhood in which no one will buy a house at all; I was quoting the last time real estate was sane, i.e. the price I'd expect to pay if I bought a house in a totally average year instead of during a massive recession.
If store managers really make that much money, then maybe it is doable for them. Nevertheless, jobs which *begin* at 35k, and have the potential to stretch up to 100k through basically parallel promotions into very similar positions, are increasingly rare.
I wasn't right on some specifics, and I wasn't right for your town, but I think my overall point still stands: it's not some sort of cakewalk to have a house, a car and a family on one income anymore, whereas it used to be completely standard for American families. Jobs that let you do that are becoming ever rarer, as well.
Your assumption that I can't manage money and your assumption that I've already graduated college are irrelevant. Just because I believe a certain salary requisite for a certain lifestyle, in my town, doesn't mean I can't manage money and it doesn't follow that comparisons to your town disprove my point.
Do you think the guy who manages your local supermarket has a college degree? He's certainly making enough money to pay for a decent home, healthcare insurance, and a family.
The average grocery store manager earns what, $29,000 a year? Let's break that down.
First, housing.You can't get a mortgage on a refrigerator carton for less than $800 a month where I live. It's probably gonna be more like $1200. Did I mention real estate's frickin cheap here? Like semi-modern, medium sized three bedroom house in the best urban neighborhood in the county for $175,000 kind of cheap? Even the most incredibly ideal mortgage of $800 a month, on something which stretches the definition of "decent home", is $9600 a year right there, plus $2000 a year for property taxes and at least $1000 for the basic keeping-up-with-entropy kind of home maintenance. Running total: $12600/year.
Average American families spend like $12000/year on groceries. I'm going to assume our fictitious family is substantially more responsible and austere than the average American families I know, and say they'll spend $6000 a year on groceries. Running total: $18600.
School expenses: Even if those kids attend public school all the way and never take the really cool class trips, it costs at least $1500 a year in random extra crap to send two or three youngsters through K-12 education. Running total: $20600.
Health care: Unless he works for a ridiculously generous grocery store, he's putting in at least $5000 in premiums, copays, etc. on his family's healthcare. Running total: $25600.
I'm gonna stop there. He's not saving a dime for retirement, doesn't have a car, never takes vacations, doesn't buy clothing, doesn't pay utilities, or many other things yet. Nevertheless, even under my highly ideal situation he's almost broke halfway through paying his expenses.
Bottom line: No, the grocery store manager doesn't have all that. We're not all just a bunch of whiners wanting a free ride: life sucks, and it's getting worse. Quit being a bitch about it and assuming we're just lazy or delusional.
I'm not sure it's "the youngest and brightest". I'd be far more likely to agree that it's "the most ambitious and driven and money-hungry".
Most of them [who consider science over finance] imagine careers in math and science as being the sort of thing that only an autistic could love: sitting alone in a sterile room for 12 hours a day pouring over numbers and figures, working for a small paycheck. I'm not sure how far off they are.
I agree. They're not that far off, by the way, for most kinds of lab science. You're not alone; you work with and form creepy pseudo familial ties with a lot of great people, but the work is that boring on a day to day basis.
As for attracting people, the young and bright who have no interest in finance or purely capital-generating work (i.e. making marketable physical product) may have no strong interest in anything but science, but they're still (and I generalize because I speak for myself and five other people who do undergraduate research with me) smart enough to realize that quality of life sucks, the pay basically sucks, and you're job goes on the line with every grant you write. University research is only worth doing for pure passion's sake; every other factor completely sucks compared to any white-collar corporate position higher ranked than secretary. I gather the average corporate job isn't much better, based on two recently graduated friends who no work private sector biochemistry and entomology positions.
Thus, young potential scientists with any trace of self-preservation in them might become lower-mid level corporate drones rather than put up with a flat-out meat grinder of a scientific landscape.
School made it seem like anything interesting was already known, and in particular, there didn't seem to be anything that both needed research and was in reach (as opposed to, say, QM or string theory, which might take multiple doctorates to understand fully)
You're looking at the wrong fields, then. If you want something accessible, maybe you shouldn't be choosing between fields that are primarily theoretical (you mentioned AI and string theory) and fields so well understood the basic knowledge hasn't changed in 60+ years (chemistry, math, physics).
Just because physics, AI, and such don't attract you doesn't mean that biochemistry, biology, neurology etc. aren't brimming with unanswered questions, many of which are amazingly basic and ripe for simple, easy to grasp research. If you're simply not interested in life science that's ok, but if you meant all science lacks accessible material or the potential for exciting fundamental discoveries then you're very sadly misinformed.
Commence whining about the death of the US Space program, the US falling behind other nations, and how it's all the (Pick one: Obama, Bush, Clinton, Bush Sr.) administration's fault in 3.....2......1....blastoff.
Don't get me wrong, it's all basically true; it's just tiresome whining to listen to.
I never said or so much as implied that you're guaranteed to hit something if you speed, I said the results are worse IF you hit something IF you are speeding, and that's categorically impossible to deny. Stop taking my argument to it's completely irrational conclusion and spouting off bullshit like "if 50 is safer than 70 then why not make everyone do 15?" I'm sorry the stupid cliff thing offends your very souls. Forget I said it.
Slashdot Mirror
Color coding as somebody else suggested is harder - you need to prove to FDA that the color is safe and does not leach from the plastic, and it isn't as safe - people are dumb they will connect the red tube to the blue outlet if they can.
Or you can just use striping on the outside of the tube, rather than making the tube out of solid, colored plastic. The striping could include a text-label or pattern for the color-blind. In any case many dyes are FDA-approved as food safe; look at the nineteen bajillion varieties of plastic drinking glasses and children's tableware. Making sturdy, completely incompatible connectors isn't too hard, either; they're all over in the industrial applications of gases and dangerous liquids, so it's plausible to adapt them cheaply and directly to the medical uses.
So, I put overflow recyclables into the trash can that is emptied weekly once my recycle bin is full. I'd rather have them recycled.
And you can't just buy another bin, stick some in your neighbor's bin, or come up with any other solution? You really have to throw them away and then make comments on slashdot about how you would "rather" have that stuff recycled?
Verizon has declared that they plan to test a 150GB (if I remember correctly) monthly cap on FIOS in this area; and there's basically no one else around because they've been driven out of business or out of the area.
Trust me, 9 out of 10 people who can't get FIOS at all (which is like 80% of the country) would *joyously* accept a 150 GB cap if they could actually have fiber. Most people, even most hardcore nerds, don't download anywhere near that much.
Reelin' in the little fishies ...
Are you now? So you're not an idiot, you're just a troll or a joker? And that's supposed to make me more impressed with you?
In any case, when I wrote my response, your comment had briefly peaked at +5 informative; I had to save people from believing such idiocy whether or not I thought you believed your own bullshit.
CO2 is denser than air so naturally the atmosphere compacts under gravity as the density increases.
Utterly incorrect. CO2 levels rising dramatically doesn't mean the percentage composition of CO2 in the atmosphere has changed by a large number. The atmosphere is still less than .5% CO2 today; even if it had started at 0% CO2, adding .5% concentration of something only half again as heavy (or dense, if you prefer; not that dense and heavy are synonyms but either way my point stands) as the vast majority of the atmosphere would not logically explain "the biggest contraction of the thermosphere in at least 43 years" without some serious synergy compounding the effect of that minimal impact on atmospheric density.
Furthermore, a given swath of the atmosphere is all roughly the same density; it's not like there's this big fat pocket of air that weighs 0.1 g/L and this other pocket a mile away at the same altitude that weighs 0.19 g/L. Diffusion dictates that CO2 could change the density of the air only as much as it changes the average density of the entire atmosphere (at a given altitude) once completely diffused into all the other stuff. You could jack the atmosphere up to 10% CO2, 20 times what it's ever been in the last billion years, and I doubt you could explain these contractions with simply density arguments.
Also, TFA mentions CO2 - not in any conjunction whatsoever with your insane reason for mentioning it, but it does mention CO2 - and says "Even when we take CO2 into account using our best understanding of how it operates as a coolant, we cannot fully explain the thermosphere's collapse." Note that they're talking about CO2 cooling the upper atmosphere, not about density.
Whoever marked the parent as informative is a moron.
Definitely, and there's at least 4 of them apparently. 4 people who felt compelled to tell us this was good information but couldn't remember anything about 101 level chemistry. How the fuck did they pretend to know it was good information if they can't see through something that stupid?
Just consider one question: if genetically modified foods are so great, if only ignorant jackasses would ever have a reason to doubt their virtues, if the facts are on the side of those who want to sell them, then why does Monsanto fight so hard and spend so much money and lobby so much to prevent non-GMO food producers from labeling their products as such?
You were doing great until you asked this question, which is frankly just a stupid question: Monsanto fights labeling of non-GMO foods as such because those labels allow the express implication that GMO is a proven harmful thing. We're used to seeing "non" and "free" on food labels with regards to things that are very bad for you, or more often things people think are very bad for them, e.g. trans fat, high-fructose corn syrup, fat and sugar altogether, etc. I'm not on Monsanto's side here - I think they're basically satan, and always have - but I would fight, too, if someone wanted labels for their product that summoned up strong implications that my product caused cancer or some shit, and had virtually no proof to back it up. I wouldn't bribe congressman or infiltrate federal agencies to win my fight, but I can totally understand doing something to fight labeling like that. People who market and/or buy food labeled as non-GMO, or demand that all GMO foods be marked as such, are like the vaccines-and-autism people; I respect them, I worry that they're not all wrong, but I can't abide all of the hysterical protests they throw up as if they have absolute iron-clad proof of their claims rather than a giant gray area and a scientific community almost entirely not on their side.
That is two people with the same fingerprint (at least at the very small parts of DNA we look at) can in fact be very likely with a database this size. [...] The markers used were not designed for a nation wide database situation.
Correct, I suppose, but perhaps misleading. Your objection does not, I believe, lead to a rational conclusion that convictions based on false-positives will rise, huge budgets squandered, or other similar troubles occur. Once police are sufficiently interested in a small handful of individuals, after they take the dozens or hundreds of hits from a familial search and narrow them by conventional detective work, I'm sure much more thorough tests are available to conclusively check just a few people against the suspect sample.
It will be up to ethicists, district attorneys, courts, and civil liberties attorneys in the long run to determine just how much "fishing" is allowed in these familial DNA searches and what constitutes too high a cost or too high a rate of false-positives, but I assume that once the search is narrowed more accurate, specific biological testing and focused conventional detective work can produce adequately highly confident convictions.
recognizing individuals for merely putting the last piece in the jigsaw puzzle is intellectually dishonest
Not always true. If he's just the guy who put it all together, then it's true that maybe he doesn't deserve a huge prize. Nevertheless, some people truly revolutionize a field (or multiple fields) almost by themselves; see Linus Pauling for the best example.
Recognizing the last guy in a long line can sometimes be dishonest, but what if that line's been stalled for decades and this 'last guy in line' solves all the big problems or re-invents the field completely. Completely new schools of science happen every year these days, especially in neuroscience, physics, etc.; what if the prize winner invented an entire field of study?
Everybody stands on someone's shoulder's in science, but some people are magnitudes more important and more productive than others and I don't believe stupid sidebars in textbooks or posthumous biographies show them enough gratitude for making the big leaps.
The Pirate Party and Piratbyrån are unrelated organizations.
Yes, of course. I was simply pointing out that the underlying goals of Piratbyrån are still gaining momentum quickly, and will likely change the world with or without that particular group. Piratbyrån did a lot to get things started, and things won't end with their dissolution.
Ok, I didn't expect to defend communist China today, but really this rule makes sense. Look at the way Amazon and Netflix have been sued in just the last six months for examples of the incredible wealth of sensitive information you can reconstruct from completely mundane and innocent data. Keeping troops off the internet entirely makes perfect sense from a security standpoint, although going that far isn't necessary and stomps on people's free speech way too much for my taste.
Anyway, I know I wouldn't want anyone reconstructing the surfing and posting habits of my military members to spot troop movements, locations of certain projects, etc. That's not a far-fetched concern, either: in the cold war Blackbird and U-2 spy planes regularly counted the number of vehicles in parking lots, watched trains, etc. to figure out when big projects were underway and where major hardware was being shipped. It's not impossible to do similar things by tracking internet traffic.
It's not like this is the end; the Pirate Party still has seats in the European Parliament. If they thought letting this particular organization die made the most sense in absence of some central figures, then I'm not sure I agree but it's not the end of their political movement and it damn sure won't be the end of their member's activity in similar organizations.
Nobody sold out, nobody quit; the majority of their membership will hopefully move on to different groups with the same goals.
Actually, I think it'd be a lot more useful to create a .kids domain and give people the walled garden they want.
Heck, I wouldn't be opposed to having a .christ domain either, that way I can filter it out through my firewall and never have to worry about accidentally stumbling upon it!
I'm not authoritative here, but I don't think walled gardens have done society much good where they've been tried. They certainly don't look very successful in China, North Korea, Utah, or anywhere else they've been seriously attempted.
I couldn't tell, really, if you approved of the whole idea, were joking about your Jesus-free garden, or anything, but I thought it was worth making a serious reply in any case. Shutting yourself off rarely helps.
Why should he provide citations for demographic data that can easily be found via google?
And why am I obligated to have psychic powers to know exactly which of the "about 270,000 results" he relied on in making his claims? Being easily searchable or easily available are not the same thing as being easily traceable and verifiable.
the fact that they donate $10 per domain to a nonprofit organisation is just wrong...Who are they to decide for us that this should be done?
They're not deciding anything "for us". They're making a public decision to donate some of their profit, purely private money, to a certain cause. You make it sound like they're breaking into your house, stealing your piggy bank, and sending it to UNICEF. If you don't agree with mandatory "donations" to charities (eg: your employer appointing a designated United Way coordinator who literally harasses you at work to donate money) I hear you and agree with you, but that is not what's happening here.
Lawley says he expects to make $30m (£20m) a year in revenue by selling each .xxx site for $60, and pledges to donate $10 from each sale to child protection initiatives.
If he actually gives $6 million per year to child protection causes the universe will implode out of shock and amazement.
.xxx domain (or that .xxx can be blocked altogether), so now they're safe from porn? Because I'm sure that .xxx porn sites will never use pop-up loops or deceptive ads or auto-dialing trojans the way many .com porn sites have done forever. The new .xxx porn industry will be squeaky clean, with our children's welfare at heart!
.com, .net, and .org porn sites to re-register in .xxx and drop their old domains, which will not happen.
.com sites for quite some time, and that .com sites will simply register the same domain registered under .xxx and redirect people back into the .com site.
Also on children, are they supposing children will never stumble into a
Not to mention the whole thing won't have any damn effect unless you simultaneously force current
Furthermore, for the whole notion of giving adults an easy, consolidated place to access porn, let me give ICANN a big hint: whether it's porn, cracks, bomb making instructions, or whatever, the most obvious place to look for anything even vaguely taboo is always the one most flooded with scams, viruses, top lists, etc. which make the obvious places by far the most worthless places to look. I predict that absolutely all worthwhile porn will remain on
Holy Christ....assuming you're more than twelve years old you've got to know better than to put out a dozen statistics like that without giving us any clue where they came from. Normally I think what I'm about to say is annoying, self-righteous, and pedantic, but you have truly earned yourself a:
[Citation Needed]
I thoroughly fail to see how my calculations assume *anything* about market crashes. No shit there will be crashes, based on recent history a pretty fucking bad one every 15 years, but exactly how do you want me to "incorporate...one serious financial catastrophe on average every 30 years" into my calculations? A crystal ball?
If a crash "cancels out the growth of your seed money" then no fucking duh you'll have to compensate for it somehow, but you can't entirely predict the crashes and it's not reasonable over the long haul to simply not invest in stocks. Forgive me if I assumed everyone was intelligent enough to see that sometimes shit happens and you have to work a few more years or kick in a much higher contribution for a while to compensate.
Just because I don't cover every little thing in detail, in a 200 word post that only an idiot would take as complete financial roadmap, doesn't mean I'm saying "ridiculous" things.
If you haven't saved enough for most of your retirement by the time you hit your 40s, you kind of deserve to have to worry about it.
WTF are you talking about? Do you have any idea how things work in the real world?
The idiot parent is partially correct, but not for the reasons he thinks he is. If you haven't put in an adequate percentage of your final goal as seed money, to go on earning most of the interest you'll get, by the time you're 40 you're in trouble. You'll have to put in 25k+ a year after age 40 to be able to retire on time.
You will, of course, put in a massive percentage of the actual cash contribution in your late forties and fifties.
I said, (and I believe proved), that you don't know what cheap is.
You did nothing of the kind. Your citation for 77 homes in Denver between 100k and 150k doesn't prove a single thing. Were these homes nice homes? What's actually the median price for a home the average person would subjectively call "nice" in your area? Even if I'm wrong and Spokane isn't cheap, how has your post proved Denver embodies cheapness? It hasn't even proved that Denver is cheaper than Spokane
Another thing: I was quite clearly talking about rather good homes, the 65th to 85th percentile perhaps ("semi-modern, medium sized three bedroom house in the best urban neighborhood in the county") while you've merely proved the existence of any homes at all in your selected price range anywhere in Denver county. For all I know, those are literally in the ghetto or stuffed under freeway onramps.
I was wrong on the specifics of a supermarket manager's salary and I admitted it (I also protested that being wrong there doesn't really change the validity of the underlying point). You admit to no inaccuracy about anything, and continue bashing me without giving better data yourself. You cherry picked a data set with literally no context whatsoever and declared my argument defeated. I generalized freely based on my personal experience; you claimed to have thoroughly researched an answer. You set the bar far higher for yourself than I set for my statement, and you failed miserably. Nice try; please play again.
Well, life is apparently cheaper in Denver than it is here in Spokane, but I'm not delusional or full of shit for saying it's cheap up here. I know is Spokane's only a 107 on the cost of living index, last time I checked, and I know literally every single person I've ever asked who ever lived somewhere else said "It's so cheap to live here".
Furthermore, tossing up-to-the-minute real estate prices at me is completely misleading. Real estate is dirt cheap *everywhere* right now and mortgage rates are low and getting lower just so the bank doesn't end up owning an empty neighborhood in which no one will buy a house at all; I was quoting the last time real estate was sane, i.e. the price I'd expect to pay if I bought a house in a totally average year instead of during a massive recession.
If store managers really make that much money, then maybe it is doable for them. Nevertheless, jobs which *begin* at 35k, and have the potential to stretch up to 100k through basically parallel promotions into very similar positions, are increasingly rare.
I wasn't right on some specifics, and I wasn't right for your town, but I think my overall point still stands: it's not some sort of cakewalk to have a house, a car and a family on one income anymore, whereas it used to be completely standard for American families. Jobs that let you do that are becoming ever rarer, as well.
Your assumption that I can't manage money and your assumption that I've already graduated college are irrelevant. Just because I believe a certain salary requisite for a certain lifestyle, in my town, doesn't mean I can't manage money and it doesn't follow that comparisons to your town disprove my point.
Do you think the guy who manages your local supermarket has a college degree? He's certainly making enough money to pay for a decent home, healthcare insurance, and a family.
The average grocery store manager earns what, $29,000 a year? Let's break that down.
First, housing.You can't get a mortgage on a refrigerator carton for less than $800 a month where I live. It's probably gonna be more like $1200. Did I mention real estate's frickin cheap here? Like semi-modern, medium sized three bedroom house in the best urban neighborhood in the county for $175,000 kind of cheap? Even the most incredibly ideal mortgage of $800 a month, on something which stretches the definition of "decent home", is $9600 a year right there, plus $2000 a year for property taxes and at least $1000 for the basic keeping-up-with-entropy kind of home maintenance. Running total: $12600/year.
Average American families spend like $12000/year on groceries. I'm going to assume our fictitious family is substantially more responsible and austere than the average American families I know, and say they'll spend $6000 a year on groceries. Running total: $18600.
School expenses: Even if those kids attend public school all the way and never take the really cool class trips, it costs at least $1500 a year in random extra crap to send two or three youngsters through K-12 education. Running total: $20600.
Health care: Unless he works for a ridiculously generous grocery store, he's putting in at least $5000 in premiums, copays, etc. on his family's healthcare. Running total: $25600.
I'm gonna stop there. He's not saving a dime for retirement, doesn't have a car, never takes vacations, doesn't buy clothing, doesn't pay utilities, or many other things yet. Nevertheless, even under my highly ideal situation he's almost broke halfway through paying his expenses.
Bottom line: No, the grocery store manager doesn't have all that. We're not all just a bunch of whiners wanting a free ride: life sucks, and it's getting worse. Quit being a bitch about it and assuming we're just lazy or delusional.
I'm not sure it's "the youngest and brightest". I'd be far more likely to agree that it's "the most ambitious and driven and money-hungry".
Most of them [who consider science over finance] imagine careers in math and science as being the sort of thing that only an autistic could love: sitting alone in a sterile room for 12 hours a day pouring over numbers and figures, working for a small paycheck. I'm not sure how far off they are.
I agree. They're not that far off, by the way, for most kinds of lab science. You're not alone; you work with and form creepy pseudo familial ties with a lot of great people, but the work is that boring on a day to day basis.
As for attracting people, the young and bright who have no interest in finance or purely capital-generating work (i.e. making marketable physical product) may have no strong interest in anything but science, but they're still (and I generalize because I speak for myself and five other people who do undergraduate research with me) smart enough to realize that quality of life sucks, the pay basically sucks, and you're job goes on the line with every grant you write. University research is only worth doing for pure passion's sake; every other factor completely sucks compared to any white-collar corporate position higher ranked than secretary. I gather the average corporate job isn't much better, based on two recently graduated friends who no work private sector biochemistry and entomology positions.
Thus, young potential scientists with any trace of self-preservation in them might become lower-mid level corporate drones rather than put up with a flat-out meat grinder of a scientific landscape.
School made it seem like anything interesting was already known, and in particular, there didn't seem to be anything that both needed research and was in reach (as opposed to, say, QM or string theory, which might take multiple doctorates to understand fully)
You're looking at the wrong fields, then. If you want something accessible, maybe you shouldn't be choosing between fields that are primarily theoretical (you mentioned AI and string theory) and fields so well understood the basic knowledge hasn't changed in 60+ years (chemistry, math, physics).
Just because physics, AI, and such don't attract you doesn't mean that biochemistry, biology, neurology etc. aren't brimming with unanswered questions, many of which are amazingly basic and ripe for simple, easy to grasp research. If you're simply not interested in life science that's ok, but if you meant all science lacks accessible material or the potential for exciting fundamental discoveries then you're very sadly misinformed.
Commence whining about the death of the US Space program, the US falling behind other nations, and how it's all the (Pick one: Obama, Bush, Clinton, Bush Sr.) administration's fault in 3.....2......1....blastoff.
Don't get me wrong, it's all basically true; it's just tiresome whining to listen to.
I never said or so much as implied that you're guaranteed to hit something if you speed, I said the results are worse IF you hit something IF you are speeding, and that's categorically impossible to deny. Stop taking my argument to it's completely irrational conclusion and spouting off bullshit like "if 50 is safer than 70 then why not make everyone do 15?" I'm sorry the stupid cliff thing offends your very souls. Forget I said it.