The batshit insane goverment there killed it because it involved environmentalism.
Magical libertarian thinking knows no bounds.
Based on TFA, it sounds like there were some valid concerns about the project:
Although the data and analysis state that the New City will support multi-modal transportation alternatives, and the scenario analysis assumes the New City will have transit, the policies do not actually require it. Urban sprawl may not be discouraged without clearer and more specific standards.
...
As written, this policy is vague regarding the actual size of the New City... the policy fails to provide adequate guidelines and standards for the location, suitability, contiguity, and compactness of the developable area, which could result in a scattered, energy inefficient, and sprawling pattern of development in areas which are environmentally unsuitable.
These sound like valid concerns, If it's not in writing, it's not going to happen - any city that's worked with a developer knows that the developer will promise the world "Oh yes, we'll build a park on every street corner and a paved jogging/biking trail around the perimeter of the development, trust us", but when funds run short, the development ends up with a patch of dirt called a "park", and fifty feet of paved trail that goes nowhere.
Plus there was the little financial sideshow:
While Destiny's Pugliese could have gone elsewhere with his plans, it seems a legal plot twist was the final nail in Destiny's coffin: A series of finger-pointing lawsuits between Pugliese and investor Fred DeLuca concluded last October when Pugliese and his business manager Joseph Reamer were charged with money laundering and fraud for using a portion of DeLuca's investment to pay for personal and business projects unrelated to Destiny.
I couldn't help but notice that you check for a free pirated version before checking legitimate sources.
You missed his point. He wasn't telling you the order he uses, he was giving you the two options for watching content.
One is much easier than the other. Why would he go around to several streaming sites or resort to buying a physical DVD if the movie he wants isn't available for streaming when, for any relatively recent movie, he could just go straight to downloading the torrent. And, unlike with streaming content, once he downloads it, he can be sure that it will still be there in a month when he wants to watch it again, and he can load it on his phone or laptop to take it on the go.
The NSA's sniffing is legally comparable to a police dragnet checking door-to-door for a suspect
Forgot to add "and forcefully entering your house"
Well, not exactly - since they generally don't leave any damage or even any sign that they've been looking at your data, perhaps a better analogy would be "and they have agreements with every home builder and landlord in the country to set up an invisible secret door that agents can use to enter your home any time they want and have a look around. As far as you know, only the NSA has the secret key to the secret door, but since there's so much secrecy around it, no one knows if any of those secret doors have been breached by criminals (and even if someone does know, they can't legally tell you "Oh hey, I saw a thief entering your house through the secret door that you don't know about")"
Or the editors and use rbase may decide that they don't like the new owner...
Read the summary. The editors are the new owners (or will be if they get the funding).
I read the summary and I didn't see anything about the editors cashing in their 401K's (or mortgaging their houses) to purchase the site with their own funds because they think it is a stable investment for their retirement.
There is no absolute guarantee that the sun will come up tomorrow morning. But past performance suggests that it is a good bet.
Returns on this site may go below 25%, but with better promotion and ad targeting, it is also quite likely that both traffic and ad conversion rate could go up substantially, thus raising the return rate. On balance, it looks like a risky, but potentially lucrative investment opportunity, and if the editors were asking for investors rather than handouts, I would be willing to buy some shares.
Or the editors and use rbase may decide that they don't like the new owner when he decides to muck around with the site to add better promotion and ad targeting and when they move elsewhere, all he's left with is a $6 domain name.
If you think it's such a great investment, talk your family and friends into pulling money from their houses so they can invest in this "sure thing" company.
Presumably if it brings in ~$125k in ad revenue per year, it'd be "worth" about 4 times that, or $500k. I personally think that even with that much yearly ad revenue I would not spend that kind of money on such a site.
So you would turn down an investment that gave 25% returns when bonds are paying 2%? Free advice: you might want to get some professional help to manage your 401k.
Past performance doesn't guarantee future results
If anyone is putting a significant portion of their 401K into a highly speculative investment like an internet blog website, they definitely need professional help to manage their 401k.
That depends on your definition of "most" since the USA average is 32% of road expenses covered by user taxes and fees. Locally, San Francisco just passed a $150M bond measure paid out of the general fund to repair their roads.
Even if drivers paid 100% of the road costs, their commute is still aided by transit riders (and bicyclists), since there's not enough roads to support them all. The SF Bay bridge carries 250,000 cars each day, while the BART system carries 400,000 riders/day (not an apples to apples comparison because not all BART riders are driving to SF, and not all car drivers are staying in SF, there are other roads and other forms of transit to SF, but it gives a sense of the scale of transit versus roads). Without transit, there wouldn't be enough roads for all of the cars, nor spaces to park them in.
Wait till the kids grow up, pay most of their loans off, get married And get raises.
I know plenty of $150K+ software engineers living in downtown SF condos with kids. Having a family doesn't have to mean moving to the 'burbs. I live outside of the city, but in a condo with a 5 minute walk to the train, or a 45 minute bike ride to the city.
They will buy cars again
I live in NYC and transit costs a lot in subsidies. Fares only cover 25% to 50% of costs
Cars have subsidies too, but the subsidies are hidden. If people stopped using transit, even if NYC could afford to build new roads to accommodate them, where would they build enough roads and parking to accommodate the cars?
Not to mention that most of the European public transport sucks as well, but for different reasons (lots of people have to use it, so high density, uncomfortable, expensive and unrealiable).
The UK public transport sucks so badly that I would never go near it if it wasn't for the fact there is no alternative (and I suspect most other people would do the same).
I've heard amazing things about German public transport, but Germany is one of the few European countries I've not had a chance to see in person, so I cannot comment (I've been on the UK, French, Italian and Belgian public transport systems)
Either way, don't assume that magically building public transport would make your commute better, it could well make it worse (nothing like being stuck standing in a hot tin can with the smell of farts, urine and beer for 40 mins because a train broke down in the tunnel).
It would be far better to reduce this silly concept of "commuting", so that only those that have to be on premises to do their job commute, and make it so there are jobs that are withing walking/cycling distance to where you life. A more mixed zoning system, rather than massive tracts of residential zoning in one area linked to commercial/industrial ones would help with that.
I've only ridden European public transit as a tourist, so I can't comment much on that, but I've commuted both on crowded Tokyo and San Francisco transit lines (trains and buses), and haven't really run into problems with the smelly farting passengers (though BART does often have the stench of urine in some parts of the train), but even so, I wouldn't trade that commute for a car commute.
It is really going to be a compromise between the expense of a car and the ease of other transportation. And it is not going mean people are necessarily going to own fewer cars, just that they will not use them to commute.
It's also a compromise in choosing where you live. You can have the nice 4 bedroom 2000 sq ft house out in the suburbs with a big yard and a pool with an hour drive to work, or you could live in a higher density condo complex with a small 1400 sq ft 3 bedroom condo, shared pool, small patio or deck and an 30 minute train ride plus 15 minute walk to work.
Many people don't want to give up that big house in the suburbs, but the younger generation is happy to live in a small apartment or condo in the city so everywhere they work or play is a 20 minute walk from home.
Providing good transit to spread out suburban neighborhoods is not feasible, yet many people whine "Public transit just doesn't work for me because I've chosen to live far from work. But please add another lane to the freeway for me because 5 lanes is not enough." If you want to take advantage of public transit, then live near public transit, don't expect the public to spend billions of dollars building a train to your suburban front door.
Nobody has a car. There's no point. Public transport is good enough, even if it's 3 in the morning and you're drunk. Cars only waste a load of money. And for everything heavy, we have the "loads taxi" (?) (Lastentaxi), which costs 8.50€/h, and they even help you carry stuff for 4€ per 10 minutes carrying.
What's left? For me, in my whole life... nothing.
The only thing I can think of is that if you travel around a lot in the same country, and have stuff to carry (like a camera team or a band), then a car is cheaper. So it's more of a group / company / bus thing.
Public transport is not good enough in many cities in the USA - most USA cities were designed around a car culture and aren't well designed for public transport - housing and neighborhoods are too spread out, and housing is too low density. There are often big suburban office parks that are separate from housing, so instead of a train taking commuters into the city where they work, instead you end up having to link a bunch of low density neighborhoods and offices parks with each other with a big grid of low-density transit links.
There are a few larger cities where transit works, and there are efforts to build more transit friendly housing, but in general, the USA can't have the same level of public transit as countries where transit is already commonplace. And it's a bit of a chicken-or-egg problem - no one uses transit because it sucks, and transit sucks because no one uses it. It would take decades for the USA to approach the level of public transit services that many European countries already have.
The people in charge of making sure ships don't sneak out of port without paying for their taxes need to measure where the water line is on the ship when it enters port, then measure it again when the ship leaves, then use the blueprint of the ship to calculate how much more water is being displaced and how much that water weighs. All you need in order to do this is measuring tape, a calculator, and a blueprint of the ship.
Are taxes paid on weight? Cargo is generally charged by volume.
I don't think they got seriously more secure than using a computer with physically destroyed USB and ethernet ports.
I think it's hard to reliably destroy the USB ports for someone that has physical access to the machine and is motivated to get data off - USB is integrated into the core logic chips on the motherboard, so even if you destroy the actual ports, someone could tap into the traces on the motherboard to access the port. Though I guess if he has that much access to the machine, he'd just find a way to write it unencrypted to the hard drive and would take the hard drive with him. (I know there are operating system controls that make it hard to use USB ports or write data where it shouldn't go, but those controls can be bypassed)
If he can find a way to run a binary on the machine, then it's even easier to get data off -- he can just have his app flash QR codes on the screen at 15 frames per second and record it with a camera to get a 45kbyte/sec stream of data. With a good camera and a high res screen he can probably achieve much higher bitrates.
Movies and music are NOT free. Get that through your head. You might find it convenient to freely stream a flick some conglomerate of investors sank $100 million to produce. No matter how you rationalize what you're doing you're taking for free what someone spent money to produce and is trying to sell.
The fundamentals will not change. Not thinking a movie is worth of your $10 is not an excuse. Thinking the lead actor is an untalented douche is not an excuse. Hating the producer is not an excuse. Your convenience is not an excuse. You are not entitled to free shit and you are not a delicate unique little snowflake.
They aren't hosting movies, they are transcribing movies into subtitles, if anything, they are making the movies more desirable by making them available in many more languages.
Aside from the obvious benefit for those that want to watch a movie filmed in a language they don't speak, I also found it useful to add subtitles to movies I already own. When my wife's Japanese speaking family came to visit from Japan, I was able to find subtitle files that matched up with some titles that I owned on DVD. I had to adjust the timing a bit to get them to match up, but it opened up a lot of movie possibilities that wouldn't otherwise be available. Few movies sold in the USA are subtitled in Japanese (though I did find a few Japanese movies on Netflix that are subtitled in English). I did see some movies on Amazon.jp that were English with Japanese subtitles, but since I lack a region-2 or multiregion DVD player, the movie industry has made it impossible for me to view them.
I've already paid for the movie and its content for personal viewing, so it's hard for the movie industry to say that someone translating from English->Japanese is stealing their creative work.
and I love Linux, but I have no desire to combine the two. Writing by hand is just one of those things I have to do sometimes but not enough to invest in this kind of thing.
I prefer to take notes by pen rather than computer - I find that I listen better when I write versus when I type.
If this pen lets me write *and* will record a searchable electronic version of my notes including digrams and automatically uploaded via Wifi, then I think it's fantastic. I used an electronic notepad years ago that promised the same, but it required a Windows host, the OCR was horrible and even the digitized bitmap version of the page wasn't that great - as far as I know, it captured bitmaps rather than vectors.
The grammar/spelling correction features of this pen don't sound that useful for me, since when I want prefect writing, I use a computer.
Preventative vs. preventive Preventive is the original adjective corresponding to prevent, but preventative has gained ground and is now a common variant. The two share all their definitions.
In most fields, when you say that something is going to happen, but then it doesn't, then that means you were wrong. In secret intelligence, if you say something is going to happen, but it doesn't, then that means that you prevented it.
You don't need pervasive spying to know that someone might try to hack into the electrical system during a highly publicized event, so the big takeway from this is that apparently they were not prepared for this kind of likely attack if they had to take any action to prevent the attack once they received the "credible threat" -- they should have already been prepared for a cyber attack... maybe some of the intelligence money would be better spent on preventative measures.
Need masters degree as a min for a level 1 job and or that + 1-2 years at an tech or trade school and then after working a few years you get replaced but are still loaded with all the student loans (hope you get income based ones) as then they get next to 0 out of the min wage job you get next (after hiding the degrees to even get that)
We need unions to stand up for workers rights and to have real training / apprenticeship that don't take 2-4+ years of pure class room.
Don't you mean you need Unions to facilitate outsourcing the IT jobs overseas? Unions may work for service employees where they can't easily be outsourced, but if unions started making the same demands in IT fields, there's not much friction to prevent the jobs from ending up overseas.
"Perl" is the name of the language. Only the "P" is capitalized. The name of the interpreter (the program which runs the Perl script) is "perl" with a lowercase "p". You may or may not choose to follow this usage. But never write "PERL", because perl is not an acronym.
One rumor I heard was that ILS (or some portion of it) wasn't functioning on the runway the plane was landing on (28L) so the pilot was making a manual approach without the automated glidepath alerts he'd normally have. If this is true, then this gives the story a technology/geek tie-in, and touches on issues like whether or not humans (pilots in particular) have become too reliant on machines and when the machines fail, humans don't have enough experience without them to be an adequate back up.
Though I haven't seen the ILS issue reported in any official reports, so maybe it's not true.
No one has seen him there, so who knows where he is? Even the USA lost track of him if they erroneously tipped off European countries that Snowden was on Boliva's presidential plane.
You are assuming the US erroneously tipped of European countries. It could also have been a calculated action to signal to Bolivia of things to come if they mess with the US. If so, the US should rework the math, because it doesn't seem to have worked out as planned and raised the ire of many neutral allies and countries.
I think it's more likely that Bolivia was deliberating screwing with the USA by quickly ushering a hooded, sunglassed man on the plane or loading a suspiciously human sized box at the last minute, just to see who was watching and see if they could make a fool out of someone. If that was their plan, it seems like they succeeded.
He doesn't want to take a boat...... too easy for the boat to be boarded in international water....
With a plane, you can attempt to force it to land with threats of shooting it down, but there is less chance that the US would actually shot down a plan killing him than of them boarding a vessel in international waters to take him.
Maybe Russia ought to send him to the International Space Station. That would really poke at the USA and there's nothing the USA can do about it since we've failed to maintain our space program so it's not like they can send the CIA after him, and the 3 Russian crewmembers can keep him safe during his stay. Then after he leaves the ISS, they can just have the Soyuz touch down in Venezuela.
It would actually be kind of amusing to see the USA's reaction to Snowden sitting aboard the ISS, releasing a new classified document each day.
To get to the ISS, Russia would first have to let him into the country. If they were going to do that, then he wouldn't be stuck in the internantional hall at the airport, effectively not in any country.
No one has seen him there, so who knows where he is? Even the USA lost track of him if they erroneously tipped off European countries that Snowden was on Boliva's presidential plane.
Slashdot Mirror
The batshit insane goverment there killed it because it involved environmentalism.
Magical libertarian thinking knows no bounds.
Based on TFA, it sounds like there were some valid concerns about the project:
Although the data and analysis state that the New City will support multi-modal transportation alternatives, and the scenario analysis assumes the New City will have transit, the policies do not actually require it. Urban sprawl may not be discouraged without clearer and more specific standards.
As written, this policy is vague regarding the actual size of the New City... the policy fails to provide adequate guidelines and standards for the location, suitability, contiguity, and compactness of the developable area, which could result in a scattered, energy inefficient, and sprawling pattern of development in areas which are environmentally unsuitable.
These sound like valid concerns, If it's not in writing, it's not going to happen - any city that's worked with a developer knows that the developer will promise the world "Oh yes, we'll build a park on every street corner and a paved jogging/biking trail around the perimeter of the development, trust us", but when funds run short, the development ends up with a patch of dirt called a "park", and fifty feet of paved trail that goes nowhere.
Plus there was the little financial sideshow:
While Destiny's Pugliese could have gone elsewhere with his plans, it seems a legal plot twist was the final nail in Destiny's coffin: A series of finger-pointing lawsuits between Pugliese and investor Fred DeLuca concluded last October when Pugliese and his business manager Joseph Reamer were charged with money laundering and fraud for using a portion of DeLuca's investment to pay for personal and business projects unrelated to Destiny.
I couldn't help but notice that you check for a free pirated version before checking legitimate sources.
You missed his point. He wasn't telling you the order he uses, he was giving you the two options for watching content.
One is much easier than the other. Why would he go around to several streaming sites or resort to buying a physical DVD if the movie he wants isn't available for streaming when, for any relatively recent movie, he could just go straight to downloading the torrent. And, unlike with streaming content, once he downloads it, he can be sure that it will still be there in a month when he wants to watch it again, and he can load it on his phone or laptop to take it on the go.
The NSA's sniffing is legally comparable to a police dragnet checking door-to-door for a suspect
Forgot to add "and forcefully entering your house"
Well, not exactly - since they generally don't leave any damage or even any sign that they've been looking at your data, perhaps a better analogy would be "and they have agreements with every home builder and landlord in the country to set up an invisible secret door that agents can use to enter your home any time they want and have a look around. As far as you know, only the NSA has the secret key to the secret door, but since there's so much secrecy around it, no one knows if any of those secret doors have been breached by criminals (and even if someone does know, they can't legally tell you "Oh hey, I saw a thief entering your house through the secret door that you don't know about")"
Or the editors and use rbase may decide that they don't like the new owner ...
Read the summary. The editors are the new owners (or will be if they get the funding).
I read the summary and I didn't see anything about the editors cashing in their 401K's (or mortgaging their houses) to purchase the site with their own funds because they think it is a stable investment for their retirement.
Past performance doesn't guarantee future results
There is no absolute guarantee that the sun will come up tomorrow morning. But past performance suggests that it is a good bet.
Returns on this site may go below 25%, but with better promotion and ad targeting, it is also quite likely that both traffic and ad conversion rate could go up substantially, thus raising the return rate. On balance, it looks like a risky, but potentially lucrative investment opportunity, and if the editors were asking for investors rather than handouts, I would be willing to buy some shares.
Or the editors and use rbase may decide that they don't like the new owner when he decides to muck around with the site to add better promotion and ad targeting and when they move elsewhere, all he's left with is a $6 domain name.
If you think it's such a great investment, talk your family and friends into pulling money from their houses so they can invest in this "sure thing" company.
Presumably if it brings in ~$125k in ad revenue per year, it'd be "worth" about 4 times that, or $500k. I personally think that even with that much yearly ad revenue I would not spend that kind of money on such a site.
So you would turn down an investment that gave 25% returns when bonds are paying 2%? Free advice: you might want to get some professional help to manage your 401k.
Past performance doesn't guarantee future results
If anyone is putting a significant portion of their 401K into a highly speculative investment like an internet blog website, they definitely need professional help to manage their 401k.
That depends on your definition of "most" since the USA average is 32% of road expenses covered by user taxes and fees. Locally, San Francisco just passed a $150M bond measure paid out of the general fund to repair their roads.
Even if drivers paid 100% of the road costs, their commute is still aided by transit riders (and bicyclists), since there's not enough roads to support them all. The SF Bay bridge carries 250,000 cars each day, while the BART system carries 400,000 riders/day (not an apples to apples comparison because not all BART riders are driving to SF, and not all car drivers are staying in SF, there are other roads and other forms of transit to SF, but it gives a sense of the scale of transit versus roads). Without transit, there wouldn't be enough roads for all of the cars, nor spaces to park them in.
Wait till the kids grow up, pay most of their loans off, get married And get raises.
I know plenty of $150K+ software engineers living in downtown SF condos with kids. Having a family doesn't have to mean moving to the 'burbs. I live outside of the city, but in a condo with a 5 minute walk to the train, or a 45 minute bike ride to the city.
They will buy cars again
I live in NYC and transit costs a lot in subsidies. Fares only cover 25% to 50% of costs
Cars have subsidies too, but the subsidies are hidden. If people stopped using transit, even if NYC could afford to build new roads to accommodate them, where would they build enough roads and parking to accommodate the cars?
Not to mention that most of the European public transport sucks as well, but for different reasons (lots of people have to use it, so high density, uncomfortable, expensive and unrealiable).
The UK public transport sucks so badly that I would never go near it if it wasn't for the fact there is no alternative (and I suspect most other people would do the same).
I've heard amazing things about German public transport, but Germany is one of the few European countries I've not had a chance to see in person, so I cannot comment (I've been on the UK, French, Italian and Belgian public transport systems)
Either way, don't assume that magically building public transport would make your commute better, it could well make it worse (nothing like being stuck standing in a hot tin can with the smell of farts, urine and beer for 40 mins because a train broke down in the tunnel).
It would be far better to reduce this silly concept of "commuting", so that only those that have to be on premises to do their job commute, and make it so there are jobs that are withing walking/cycling distance to where you life. A more mixed zoning system, rather than massive tracts of residential zoning in one area linked to commercial/industrial ones would help with that.
I've only ridden European public transit as a tourist, so I can't comment much on that, but I've commuted both on crowded Tokyo and San Francisco transit lines (trains and buses), and haven't really run into problems with the smelly farting passengers (though BART does often have the stench of urine in some parts of the train), but even so, I wouldn't trade that commute for a car commute.
It is really going to be a compromise between the expense of a car and the ease of other transportation. And it is not going mean people are necessarily going to own fewer cars, just that they will not use them to commute.
It's also a compromise in choosing where you live. You can have the nice 4 bedroom 2000 sq ft house out in the suburbs with a big yard and a pool with an hour drive to work, or you could live in a higher density condo complex with a small 1400 sq ft 3 bedroom condo, shared pool, small patio or deck and an 30 minute train ride plus 15 minute walk to work.
Many people don't want to give up that big house in the suburbs, but the younger generation is happy to live in a small apartment or condo in the city so everywhere they work or play is a 20 minute walk from home.
Providing good transit to spread out suburban neighborhoods is not feasible, yet many people whine "Public transit just doesn't work for me because I've chosen to live far from work. But please add another lane to the freeway for me because 5 lanes is not enough." If you want to take advantage of public transit, then live near public transit, don't expect the public to spend billions of dollars building a train to your suburban front door.
but then thats because i drive old junk... no loan, low maintenance, cheap insurance.
But your old junk is still contributing to pollution and it's slowing down my bus commute.
Germany city dweller here.
Nobody has a car. There's no point.
Public transport is good enough, even if it's 3 in the morning and you're drunk.
Cars only waste a load of money.
And for everything heavy, we have the "loads taxi" (?) (Lastentaxi), which costs 8.50€/h, and they even help you carry stuff for 4€ per 10 minutes carrying.
What's left? For me, in my whole life... nothing.
The only thing I can think of is that if you travel around a lot in the same country, and have stuff to carry (like a camera team or a band), then a car is cheaper. So it's more of a group / company / bus thing.
Public transport is not good enough in many cities in the USA - most USA cities were designed around a car culture and aren't well designed for public transport - housing and neighborhoods are too spread out, and housing is too low density. There are often big suburban office parks that are separate from housing, so instead of a train taking commuters into the city where they work, instead you end up having to link a bunch of low density neighborhoods and offices parks with each other with a big grid of low-density transit links.
There are a few larger cities where transit works, and there are efforts to build more transit friendly housing, but in general, the USA can't have the same level of public transit as countries where transit is already commonplace. And it's a bit of a chicken-or-egg problem - no one uses transit because it sucks, and transit sucks because no one uses it. It would take decades for the USA to approach the level of public transit services that many European countries already have.
The people in charge of making sure ships don't sneak out of port without paying for their taxes need to measure where the water line is on the ship when it enters port, then measure it again when the ship leaves, then use the blueprint of the ship to calculate how much more water is being displaced and how much that water weighs. All you need in order to do this is measuring tape, a calculator, and a blueprint of the ship.
Are taxes paid on weight? Cargo is generally charged by volume.
I don't think they got seriously more secure than using a computer with physically destroyed USB and ethernet ports.
I think it's hard to reliably destroy the USB ports for someone that has physical access to the machine and is motivated to get data off - USB is integrated into the core logic chips on the motherboard, so even if you destroy the actual ports, someone could tap into the traces on the motherboard to access the port. Though I guess if he has that much access to the machine, he'd just find a way to write it unencrypted to the hard drive and would take the hard drive with him. (I know there are operating system controls that make it hard to use USB ports or write data where it shouldn't go, but those controls can be bypassed)
If he can find a way to run a binary on the machine, then it's even easier to get data off -- he can just have his app flash QR codes on the screen at 15 frames per second and record it with a camera to get a 45kbyte/sec stream of data. With a good camera and a high res screen he can probably achieve much higher bitrates.
Movies and music are NOT free. Get that through your head. You might find it convenient to freely stream a flick some conglomerate of investors sank $100 million to produce. No matter how you rationalize what you're doing you're taking for free what someone spent money to produce and is trying to sell.
The fundamentals will not change. Not thinking a movie is worth of your $10 is not an excuse. Thinking the lead actor is an untalented douche is not an excuse. Hating the producer is not an excuse. Your convenience is not an excuse. You are not entitled to free shit and you are not a delicate unique little snowflake.
They aren't hosting movies, they are transcribing movies into subtitles, if anything, they are making the movies more desirable by making them available in many more languages.
Aside from the obvious benefit for those that want to watch a movie filmed in a language they don't speak, I also found it useful to add subtitles to movies I already own. When my wife's Japanese speaking family came to visit from Japan, I was able to find subtitle files that matched up with some titles that I owned on DVD. I had to adjust the timing a bit to get them to match up, but it opened up a lot of movie possibilities that wouldn't otherwise be available. Few movies sold in the USA are subtitled in Japanese (though I did find a few Japanese movies on Netflix that are subtitled in English). I did see some movies on Amazon.jp that were English with Japanese subtitles, but since I lack a region-2 or multiregion DVD player, the movie industry has made it impossible for me to view them.
I've already paid for the movie and its content for personal viewing, so it's hard for the movie industry to say that someone translating from English->Japanese is stealing their creative work.
and I love Linux, but I have no desire to combine the two. Writing by hand is just one of those things I have to do sometimes but not enough to invest in this kind of thing.
I prefer to take notes by pen rather than computer - I find that I listen better when I write versus when I type.
If this pen lets me write *and* will record a searchable electronic version of my notes including digrams and automatically uploaded via Wifi, then I think it's fantastic. I used an electronic notepad years ago that promised the same, but it required a Windows host, the OCR was horrible and even the digitized bitmap version of the page wasn't that great - as far as I know, it captured bitmaps rather than vectors.
The grammar/spelling correction features of this pen don't sound that useful for me, since when I want prefect writing, I use a computer.
preventative
Stop it. The word is preventive.
Unless, of course, the word is "preventative":
http://grammarist.com/spelling/preventative-preventive/
Preventative vs. preventive
Preventive is the original adjective corresponding to prevent, but preventative has gained ground and is now a common variant. The two share all their definitions.
http://ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=preventative&submit.x=41&submit.y=12
preventive (pr-vntv) also preventative (-t-tv)
http://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/preventative
preventative adjective
concerned with or serving to keep something from happening
Synonyms precautionary, preventative, prophylactic
Interestingly, the Merriam Webster Thesaurus doesn't even mention preventive as a synonym for preventative
Of course, if you're on a mission to eliminate a widely used word from the English Language, well, I wish you luck.
In most fields, when you say that something is going to happen, but then it doesn't, then that means you were wrong. In secret intelligence, if you say something is going to happen, but it doesn't, then that means that you prevented it.
You don't need pervasive spying to know that someone might try to hack into the electrical system during a highly publicized event, so the big takeway from this is that apparently they were not prepared for this kind of likely attack if they had to take any action to prevent the attack once they received the "credible threat" -- they should have already been prepared for a cyber attack... maybe some of the intelligence money would be better spent on preventative measures.
never write "PERL", because perl is not an acronym
It most certainly is, according to Larry Wall no less. PERL = Pathologically Eclectic Rubbish Lister.
http://docstore.mik.ua/orelly/perl3/lperl/ch01_02.htm
It's actually a retronym, not an acronym. That is, Larry came up with the name first, and the expansion later. That's why "Perl" isn't in all caps.
Need masters degree as a min for a level 1 job and or that + 1-2 years at an tech or trade school and then after working a few years you get replaced but are still loaded with all the student loans (hope you get income based ones) as then they get next to 0 out of the min wage job you get next (after hiding the degrees to even get that)
We need unions to stand up for workers rights and to have real training / apprenticeship that don't take 2-4+ years of pure class room.
Don't you mean you need Unions to facilitate outsourcing the IT jobs overseas? Unions may work for service employees where they can't easily be outsourced, but if unions started making the same demands in IT fields, there's not much friction to prevent the jobs from ending up overseas.
Now please tell us what you think about PERL. I'd really like to know.
http://learn.perl.org/faq/perlfaq1.html#Whats-the-difference-between-perl-and-Perl-
"Perl" is the name of the language. Only the "P" is capitalized. The name of the interpreter (the program which runs the Perl script) is "perl" with a lowercase "p".
You may or may not choose to follow this usage. But never write "PERL", because perl is not an acronym.
This doesn't really sound like geek news.
One rumor I heard was that ILS (or some portion of it) wasn't functioning on the runway the plane was landing on (28L) so the pilot was making a manual approach without the automated glidepath alerts he'd normally have. If this is true, then this gives the story a technology/geek tie-in, and touches on issues like whether or not humans (pilots in particular) have become too reliant on machines and when the machines fail, humans don't have enough experience without them to be an adequate back up.
Though I haven't seen the ILS issue reported in any official reports, so maybe it's not true.
Verizon can't provide any 4G, or even reliable 3G coverage in my neighborhood, yet Everest climbers have good enough 4G coverage to stream HD video!?
No one has seen him there, so who knows where he is? Even the USA lost track of him if they erroneously tipped off European countries that Snowden was on Boliva's presidential plane.
You are assuming the US erroneously tipped of European countries. It could also have been a calculated action to signal to Bolivia of things to come if they mess with the US. If so, the US should rework the math, because it doesn't seem to have worked out as planned and raised the ire of many neutral allies and countries.
I think it's more likely that Bolivia was deliberating screwing with the USA by quickly ushering a hooded, sunglassed man on the plane or loading a suspiciously human sized box at the last minute, just to see who was watching and see if they could make a fool out of someone. If that was their plan, it seems like they succeeded.
He doesn't want to take a boat...... too easy for the boat to be boarded in international water....
With a plane, you can attempt to force it to land with threats of shooting it down, but there is less chance that the US would actually shot down a plan killing him than of them boarding a vessel in international waters to take him.
Maybe Russia ought to send him to the International Space Station. That would really poke at the USA and there's nothing the USA can do about it since we've failed to maintain our space program so it's not like they can send the CIA after him, and the 3 Russian crewmembers can keep him safe during his stay. Then after he leaves the ISS, they can just have the Soyuz touch down in Venezuela.
It would actually be kind of amusing to see the USA's reaction to Snowden sitting aboard the ISS, releasing a new classified document each day.
To get to the ISS, Russia would first have to let him into the country. If they were going to do that, then he wouldn't be stuck in the internantional hall at the airport, effectively not in any country.
No one has seen him there, so who knows where he is? Even the USA lost track of him if they erroneously tipped off European countries that Snowden was on Boliva's presidential plane.