The problem, if anything, lies in the general precedent of establishing the carrier having control of how much data you can use, and how/where you can use it. T-Mobile hasn't been bad about it from what I've seen, but that doesn't mean they'll stay that way (right now they're the last place upstart among the major carriers). Furthermore, Verizon and AT&T are likely going to be more than happy to put the screws to their customers using this sort of thing to wring out whatever extra money they can.
The premise is entirely dumb, because, just like with cars, you don't need to build your own. You can go to a dealership and buy something fast with a lot of horsepower. If you want better, you don't have to build it yourself (though you can) - there are specialty shops that will upgrade a base model for you. Apple has never been targeted at PC gaming, and any gaming you can do on a Mac is incidental to it. But if you want an out of the box machine that can play games, you can go to Dell or whomever. Sure, you may pay a lot for it, but you're not going to be getting a Mac for cheap either.
I've seen that approach far too many places. Usually it was just one symptom of an overall bad manager, or a bad management culture. To be sure, I've seen cases of people who ruined it for others, but on the whole, the true metric should be whether or not work gets done, and done to standard/on time, because that's not going to change regardless of whether someone is in the office or remote.
When you're fresh out of college, cost of living really isn't on your mind, or at least it wasn't for me. I wanted to live in the area where I knew there were all the things I wanted, from food to entertainment to job opportunities. Fast forward a bit, and I realized that the area I was in was ridiculously expensive for no good reason, had insane traffic that would never get better, and that I could get 90-95% of the things I wanted in a far, far cheaper area, cutting my housing costs all but in half.
It should be no surprise that the older people get, the less they're willing to put up with the kind of things you have to suffer through in the SF Bay area. Living 4 to an apartment is fine in your early 20s, but when you get older, you want a place of your own, nevermind the space to have a family.
Very much this. A number of the Asian signatories, such as Japan, appear quite worried about the TPP not passing, because they equate it to being left to the mercy of China. It makes me rather angry with the assholes that pushed for all the intellectual property crap - not that there shouldn't be IP rights, but not the way that the eternal copyright maximalist group wants.
Just think of the bonus we'd get on our science research! We'd be ahead on tech in no time if we switch our government to science-focused technocracy. I mean, sure, we'd probably lose the military bonuses we get from our current government type, but since when have we had a war where that would have mattered? If we switch, we could achieve a tech victory in no time!
52% isn't what I'd call a 'definitive majority'. But don't take my word for it. I'll let a fellow by the name of James Madison explain to you why (among other things) sometimes you need to require a supermajority to make decisions of a certain importance: http://www.constitution.org/fe...
In theory part of the point of a non-binding referendum is that it's, you know, non-binding. I agree that if you're going to hold a binding referendum, on something of that degree of significance, you should set a higher threshold (possibly including turnout stipulations, not that it likely would matter here). The problem here is that everyone seems to treat the referendum as if it were actually binding, mostly because the politicians seem to scared to explain why they're not going to treat it that way (and scared to go through with it too).
What Britain really needs to do is treat this as the political issue it is. Make it part of the next election - do you vote for MPs that want to exit the EU, or ones who don't? The Tories don't want to, though, because they're afraid they'll bleed support to UKIP. That's the entire reason Cameron held this vote in the first place, because he foolishly thought he could put the issue to rest with a 'Remain' victory.
[Sir Galahad the Chaste is watching the Castle Anthrax Scene from Monty Python and the Holy Grail when an Internet Ratings Board warning pops up on his screen]
Ratings Board: We were in the nick of time. You were in great peril.
Sir Galahad: I don't think I was.
Ratings Board: Yes, you were. You were in terrible peril.
Sir Galahad: Look, let me go back in there and face the peril.
Ratings Board: No, it's too perilous.
Sir Galahad: Look, it's my duty as a knight to sample as much peril as I can.
Ratings Board: No, we've got to find the Holy Grail. Come on.
Sir Galahad: Oh, let me have just a little bit of peril?
Is that actual individual persons though? How many of those accounts are for corporate entities, never-mind fake profiles? I'd say that the half population estimate is probably high, though it's still a significant chunk of the population (too many, if you ask me).
The problem is that Facebook also wants everyone to be consuming information through their interface.
But it's a "problem" in the sense that people need to make themselves aware of that, and exercise their ability to do things like stop using Facebook. It's not one that requires a law or regulation or such (and I say that as a liberal who's not opposed to government action in cases where it makes sense - this isn't one of them). Sunlight is the disinfectant needed - that and some sense on the part of people to not buy into using a closed/locked down platform run by an unaccountable private company by its own terms, where those people (and their personal information and details of their private lives) are the product rather than the actual customer.
As someone mentioned to me, this current election is between a grandma that can't figure out her email, and a grandpa that believes everything he reads on Facebook.
Depends if you want one that works, but looks like a completely out of place cheap POS, or if you actually want one that looks like it's supposed to. When my previous vehicle (a 2006 model) had its driver side mirror clipped, I needed to get one that actually matched the model - and it was all built into the housing, along with the plugin for the adjustment control (electronic) connector. I didn't pay for the original, just an aftermarket clone, but it still ran me about $100 (which was far cheaper still to just order and replace myself rather than pay for someone to do it for me, but that's another matter).
Having a camera installed in a car that doesn't have one is a pain, because they have to put in the wiring for it. But once that's done, it's not difficult to just swap out the module. If these are anything like backup cameras, it's about the size of a GoPro (or smaller), and probably about as expensive. Judging by what I paid to replace one of my side mirrors, it's likely going to be roughly on par.
Probably contrasting the bill rate vs take home pay. The latter is what the guard gets, the former is what the contracting company gets, meaning it's all the money for benefits, taxes, and profit etc padded on to that. So yes, $25-35, though the guard actually only probably gets around $10 of that or so.
It can't be bargained with. It can't be reasoned with. It doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And it absolutely will not stop, ever, unless you go up a flight of stairs.
It's not just Clinton though, this sort of thing is rife in the system. The difference between what happens to a low level analyst and someone at higher levels is several orders of magnitude in size, even before you add in the 'political ramifications' bit. Consider the difference between one person who leaks information because of a political agenda, and another who does the same. The first is a formerly faceless IT admin, the latter a General. The IT admin leaked information about questionable programs that involved potential spying on American citizens, with the intent to spark a conversation about those things. The latter leaked information proclaiming responsibility for an act of industrial espionage on another country that could have been considered an act of war, for motives I can only guess at - but happened to be a very high ranking individual, who even today hasn't been named or accused (though rumors have floated in the press). The first guy is in exile, the latter has suffered no public consequences at all (whomever they are).
I can really only think of two high ranking individuals who were punished at all, the first being General Petraeus, the second being former National Security Advisor Sandy Berger. The punishment in both cases was a fine ($100k and $50k respectively) and two years' probation.
The Federal Government is generally terrible on several levels when it comes to job retention. The biggest thing they have to offer is that it's one of the few places that actually offers a pension, and that's increasingly going away. In anything requiring tech skills, they're not remotely competitive on salary or benefits.
The biggest thing that a place like the NSA can offer is "this work is really really cool, even if you can't tell anyone about it." But at some point, that just doesn't measure up to other things. In a normal workplace, there would be ways for the higher ups to intervene and arrange for appropriate truckloads of money to make sure someone doesn't leave (or at least make it worth their while to stay), even if they may not be smart enough to do so. In the government, they generally can't do that even if they want to - it'd take an act of congress, basically.
That's entirely because the system was poorly planned and underfunded though. A proper train/subway system, like in say Tokyo or Seoul, is amazing in how efficiently it can move people around the city.
Slashdot Mirror
Wait, WHERE is cloud?!! shit.
Don't be dense now... it's in the sky! How can they take the sky away? The sky belongs to everyone!
You can't take the sky from me.
But you can delete my blog, it seems.
The problem, if anything, lies in the general precedent of establishing the carrier having control of how much data you can use, and how/where you can use it. T-Mobile hasn't been bad about it from what I've seen, but that doesn't mean they'll stay that way (right now they're the last place upstart among the major carriers). Furthermore, Verizon and AT&T are likely going to be more than happy to put the screws to their customers using this sort of thing to wring out whatever extra money they can.
Unfounded speculative claims? FUD and hype?
In "Cyber" Security? Inconceivable!
That would imply paying for quality in the first place, which management tends to be allergic to the idea of doing.
The premise is entirely dumb, because, just like with cars, you don't need to build your own. You can go to a dealership and buy something fast with a lot of horsepower. If you want better, you don't have to build it yourself (though you can) - there are specialty shops that will upgrade a base model for you. Apple has never been targeted at PC gaming, and any gaming you can do on a Mac is incidental to it. But if you want an out of the box machine that can play games, you can go to Dell or whomever. Sure, you may pay a lot for it, but you're not going to be getting a Mac for cheap either.
I've seen that approach far too many places. Usually it was just one symptom of an overall bad manager, or a bad management culture. To be sure, I've seen cases of people who ruined it for others, but on the whole, the true metric should be whether or not work gets done, and done to standard/on time, because that's not going to change regardless of whether someone is in the office or remote.
When you're fresh out of college, cost of living really isn't on your mind, or at least it wasn't for me. I wanted to live in the area where I knew there were all the things I wanted, from food to entertainment to job opportunities. Fast forward a bit, and I realized that the area I was in was ridiculously expensive for no good reason, had insane traffic that would never get better, and that I could get 90-95% of the things I wanted in a far, far cheaper area, cutting my housing costs all but in half.
It should be no surprise that the older people get, the less they're willing to put up with the kind of things you have to suffer through in the SF Bay area. Living 4 to an apartment is fine in your early 20s, but when you get older, you want a place of your own, nevermind the space to have a family.
Very much this. A number of the Asian signatories, such as Japan, appear quite worried about the TPP not passing, because they equate it to being left to the mercy of China. It makes me rather angry with the assholes that pushed for all the intellectual property crap - not that there shouldn't be IP rights, but not the way that the eternal copyright maximalist group wants.
Just think of the bonus we'd get on our science research! We'd be ahead on tech in no time if we switch our government to science-focused technocracy. I mean, sure, we'd probably lose the military bonuses we get from our current government type, but since when have we had a war where that would have mattered? If we switch, we could achieve a tech victory in no time!
52% isn't what I'd call a 'definitive majority'. But don't take my word for it. I'll let a fellow by the name of James Madison explain to you why (among other things) sometimes you need to require a supermajority to make decisions of a certain importance:
http://www.constitution.org/fe...
In theory part of the point of a non-binding referendum is that it's, you know, non-binding. I agree that if you're going to hold a binding referendum, on something of that degree of significance, you should set a higher threshold (possibly including turnout stipulations, not that it likely would matter here). The problem here is that everyone seems to treat the referendum as if it were actually binding, mostly because the politicians seem to scared to explain why they're not going to treat it that way (and scared to go through with it too).
What Britain really needs to do is treat this as the political issue it is. Make it part of the next election - do you vote for MPs that want to exit the EU, or ones who don't? The Tories don't want to, though, because they're afraid they'll bleed support to UKIP. That's the entire reason Cameron held this vote in the first place, because he foolishly thought he could put the issue to rest with a 'Remain' victory.
[Sir Galahad the Chaste is watching the Castle Anthrax Scene from Monty Python and the Holy Grail when an Internet Ratings Board warning pops up on his screen]
Ratings Board: We were in the nick of time. You were in great peril.
Sir Galahad: I don't think I was.
Ratings Board: Yes, you were. You were in terrible peril.
Sir Galahad: Look, let me go back in there and face the peril.
Ratings Board: No, it's too perilous.
Sir Galahad: Look, it's my duty as a knight to sample as much peril as I can.
Ratings Board: No, we've got to find the Holy Grail. Come on.
Sir Galahad: Oh, let me have just a little bit of peril?
Ratings Board: No. It's unhealthy.
Sir Galahad: I bet you're gay.
Ratings Board: Am not.
Obligatory XKCD: https://xkcd.com/538/
The IRS scares me far more than the IRA. Getting blown up sucks, but it's over quickly, unlike the tender affections of the IRS.
Is that actual individual persons though? How many of those accounts are for corporate entities, never-mind fake profiles? I'd say that the half population estimate is probably high, though it's still a significant chunk of the population (too many, if you ask me).
The problem is that Facebook also wants everyone to be consuming information through their interface.
But it's a "problem" in the sense that people need to make themselves aware of that, and exercise their ability to do things like stop using Facebook. It's not one that requires a law or regulation or such (and I say that as a liberal who's not opposed to government action in cases where it makes sense - this isn't one of them). Sunlight is the disinfectant needed - that and some sense on the part of people to not buy into using a closed/locked down platform run by an unaccountable private company by its own terms, where those people (and their personal information and details of their private lives) are the product rather than the actual customer.
As someone mentioned to me, this current election is between a grandma that can't figure out her email, and a grandpa that believes everything he reads on Facebook.
Depends if you want one that works, but looks like a completely out of place cheap POS, or if you actually want one that looks like it's supposed to. When my previous vehicle (a 2006 model) had its driver side mirror clipped, I needed to get one that actually matched the model - and it was all built into the housing, along with the plugin for the adjustment control (electronic) connector. I didn't pay for the original, just an aftermarket clone, but it still ran me about $100 (which was far cheaper still to just order and replace myself rather than pay for someone to do it for me, but that's another matter).
Having a camera installed in a car that doesn't have one is a pain, because they have to put in the wiring for it. But once that's done, it's not difficult to just swap out the module. If these are anything like backup cameras, it's about the size of a GoPro (or smaller), and probably about as expensive. Judging by what I paid to replace one of my side mirrors, it's likely going to be roughly on par.
Probably contrasting the bill rate vs take home pay. The latter is what the guard gets, the former is what the contracting company gets, meaning it's all the money for benefits, taxes, and profit etc padded on to that. So yes, $25-35, though the guard actually only probably gets around $10 of that or so.
It can't be bargained with. It can't be reasoned with. It doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And it absolutely will not stop, ever, unless you go up a flight of stairs.
It's not just Clinton though, this sort of thing is rife in the system. The difference between what happens to a low level analyst and someone at higher levels is several orders of magnitude in size, even before you add in the 'political ramifications' bit. Consider the difference between one person who leaks information because of a political agenda, and another who does the same. The first is a formerly faceless IT admin, the latter a General. The IT admin leaked information about questionable programs that involved potential spying on American citizens, with the intent to spark a conversation about those things. The latter leaked information proclaiming responsibility for an act of industrial espionage on another country that could have been considered an act of war, for motives I can only guess at - but happened to be a very high ranking individual, who even today hasn't been named or accused (though rumors have floated in the press). The first guy is in exile, the latter has suffered no public consequences at all (whomever they are).
I can really only think of two high ranking individuals who were punished at all, the first being General Petraeus, the second being former National Security Advisor Sandy Berger. The punishment in both cases was a fine ($100k and $50k respectively) and two years' probation.
"The problem with quotes on the internet is that they are often untrue or misattributed." -Abraham Lincoln
The Federal Government is generally terrible on several levels when it comes to job retention. The biggest thing they have to offer is that it's one of the few places that actually offers a pension, and that's increasingly going away. In anything requiring tech skills, they're not remotely competitive on salary or benefits.
The biggest thing that a place like the NSA can offer is "this work is really really cool, even if you can't tell anyone about it." But at some point, that just doesn't measure up to other things. In a normal workplace, there would be ways for the higher ups to intervene and arrange for appropriate truckloads of money to make sure someone doesn't leave (or at least make it worth their while to stay), even if they may not be smart enough to do so. In the government, they generally can't do that even if they want to - it'd take an act of congress, basically.
Unless you live in DC - then you have to make sure and check that the train is not on fire before you go in to work:
https://ismetroonfire.com/
That's entirely because the system was poorly planned and underfunded though. A proper train/subway system, like in say Tokyo or Seoul, is amazing in how efficiently it can move people around the city.