I don't believe so, no. I'm pretty sure it's an AT&T deal. the original company fell on hard times, but still had a valuable name. they were bought out by another company that was doing well (in AT&T's case, it was ironically bought out by a baby bell that had been shed off of itself 15 or 20 years prior), and the purchasing company says "your name is more famous than ours. we're you now."
It's essentially killing the celebrity and wearing his skin as a coat, buffalo bill style.
I even click on them when they are advertising products that interest me!
At this point, you couldn't convince me to click on a banner ad, period. no matter how innocuous it seems, no matter how much I trust the site owners, hell even if I was the site owner, "click on banner ad" = "here's a icepick, now stab yourself in the dick with it" to me.
That's how much the internet advertising machine has shit in it's own bed as far as I'm concerned. I don't care if an add pops up for the very product that I opened the web browser to look for in the first place, I'm not clicking on it!
See that bidirectional HDMI cable to your set-top box? Wonder what it's talking about.
Don't have a set-top box. I've got a blu-ray player (no internet connection), an xbox 360 (no internet connectino), a ps-3 ( withpurposely broken DNS resolution), and a wii.
I suppose it might be pushing out through the Wii... but I can just firewall that as soon as I find out what ports it is using.
See that ethernet port on the back of your tv? don't plug anything in to it.
Your tv have wireless (snazzy!) don't give it your wireless password.
Your tv secretly connecting to the 3g cellular network to report back information? A. who cares it doesn't know who you are anyway and B. start up a class action lawsuit... or C. search the web until you find www.sonytv-hacks.com and follow their instructions to load custom firmware on your tv that lets you use the secret 3g connection as a tether'd internet connection and subsequently torrent anonymously to your heart's connent.
How many touchscreen monitors at your place of employment? is your employer really likely to replace dozens, or hundreds (or thousands?!) of monitors all at once so that everybody can shove their mouse in the corner? unlikely. The mouse isn't going to be obsolete for a long time. Not to mention I can't imagine trying to play an FPS game with touchscreen controls.
Also, having everybody reaching across their desk to poke their monitor all day long sounds like an ergonomics nightmare.
I would love to know who considered AES, or any from crypto for that matter, "unbreakable".
Dan Brown.
Read digital fortress. It's actually quite an enjoyable ride, as long as you note right up front that Dan Brown's version of reality read like James Bond's version of international relations.
As soon as I think up something that I need to encrypt, I bang my head into the sink until I forget it, confident that I'll come back in time from the future (or send a suitable representative in a life vest) to remind myself what it is I wanted encrypted when I need the information.
odd, I was replying directly to your own assertion that we should be looking at wealth re-distribution, or is that not what your quote below means:
That seems to be the only semi-logical reason people are opposed to any talk of wealth redistribution for the uber-wealthy.
Sure sounds like you're promoting the idea. Me, I provided the only logical thought process by which I believe people can justify wealth re-distribution, that is the "I think that we should take their money from them because I personally do not think they should have it." i.e. "because, fuck them."
So prayer is, at best, a +1 to your saving throw roll, but you don't know what the difficulty target is, nor what you rolled, so you'll never know if it actually helped at all?
It's a "maybe it'll help, can't hurt" sort of thing?
Couldn't he just pray that he don't get shot at? I'm working under the assumption that Catholics believe prayer works, even if I don't.
Maybe prayer can't contradict free will? I'll buy that. let's say that we can't pray away somebody's desire to shoot at the pope. how about the bullet. it has no free will, it just has to follow physics. Can prayer change physics to alter the path of the bullet? If it can, we're set. if it can't.. um... what CAN it do?
I'd say it's closer to impossible, and I don't know what that has to do with GP's point. We shouldn't try to change the current situation where the top 1% takes all because there's a slightly greater than zero percent chance we could make it into that 1%? That seems to be the only semi-logical reason people are opposed to any talk of wealth redistribution for the uber-wealthy. I guess if you think you have a shot at that, it's valid.
no it seems to me that the GP is engaging in sky-is-falling-we're-all-screwed delusions just like every generation has engaged in. Only one of them was right, the one in the 30s, and what happened? the economy re-emerged to become one of the strongest in the world. It's popular to say nowadays "oh no the next great depression is coming", because people like to worry and complain. Doesn't make it true, or even truly likely. It sells papers and gets web hits, that's it. doesn't make it any more true than the rest of the BS alarmist stuff on the net.
I'm curious what right you think you have to the wealth of the uber-wealthy, what justification you have for wealth redistribution. "They have more than they need, so fuck them, gimme"? I was raised to believe "what's mine is mine, what belongs to others belongs to others". I always figured that's how everybody thought. I never understood lambasting the top 1% for being greedy and then saying that we should take their money from them because we want our cut of it. Is that not the same greed that we're accusing them of? Or is it different because, you know, we're special... and once again, fuck them for having the audacity to have a lot more money than we do? Where does our right to their money come from? assuming that aren't illegally gaming the system, and they're paying in fairly just like we are, where is our right to demand more? what is our moral justification?
My philosophy is hope for the best and prepare for the worst: you should do all you can to get into that 1% but vote for taxes, a public welfare system, and budgets on the assumption that you won't.
your idea and my idea of "preparing" may be different.
It's worth pointing out that Warren Buffet is telling anyone who will listen that he's not being taxed enough and that he shouldn't be that wealthy. One of the guys at the top is saying the situation is absurd.
That's not what I got from his article. What I got was "there are loopholes that benefit the rich that we don't need and are unfairly benefiting us over those who earn less. Also, some of us are taxed much less than others of us who make similar income by qualifying for loopholes based on the manner in which we earn money, and that is unfair." Both of these are sentiments I agree with. There is no reason that one guy should be taxed differently than another guy depending on how they make their income if they make the same amount in the end. Nor is there a reason to provide loopholes that do not apply equally to different people (or really a reason to provide loopholes at all).
I never heard Mr Buffet say "I have too much money, please come take it". Perhaps I need to re-read. If you'd be so kind as to point out where he said that? He used the final percentage of his income that he pays compared to his employees to point out the unbalanced benefit he receives from those deductions and loopholes. I noted that he paid more in taxes last year than I am likely to even earn in my entire lifetime, for roughly the same overall benefit that I receive for paying a couple or orders-of-magnitude less.
People like to say that the rich pay more because they benefit more, but that's not true. Not really. If the US gets invaded, the marines aren't heading to his house first to guard it. I doubt his roads get repaved every 6 weeks instead of once a decade or so like mine. FDIC isn't insuring much more of his money than mine at this point. Hell, his kids probably didn't even go to the public schools he is funding. Where's the 2000% benefit over what I'm getting?
Also, the "top 1%" isn't a club that's impossible to get in to. hard? sure. impossible? nope. how did Bill Gates get in?
Use his daddy's money to buy QDOS and license it to IBM?
How does that invalidate my point exactly? sounds to me like a smart business decision, filling a niche.
Your 401k would be full of raisins and modeling clay too if you weren't making enough extra to invest, which lots of people aren't...meanwhile, the 'greatest generation' is enjoying prop 13 housing, social security and generous pension benefits. Rock on sir.
spoken like a defeatist. assuming you have a job, you can easily drop something like 5% of your pre-tax income into a retirement fund almost no matter what you make. if you think you can't, the answer is that you won't. you won't give up the beer. you won't give up the cable tv. you won't give up the premium tier internet connection. you won't give up the big gas guzzling pickup. you won't give up eating out at mcdonalds. something. you can find 5% pre-tax somewhere. you won't even miss it when it doesn't show up in your paycheck. I was able to do this a decade ago when I was making jack shit doing a bullshit menial job, why can't you again?
the answer is it is easier to complain, point fingers, and cry.
Btw, tell you "it's impossible" story to my mother-in-law who grew up in a tiny little house, the daughter of a car salesman, and now owns several businesses, multiple houses, many acres of land (the parcel which the main branch of her businesses sitting upon last appraised for ~ $3 million, SANS the business on it), gets paid many thousands to give seminars at national conventions, plays around in the stock market as she likes, and travels abroad when she desires.
Know how she did that? hard work, good business decisions, and being smart with her money. In the 12 years that I have known her, I've watched her be quite unlucky several times, and still her fortune is intact.
my 401k is chock full of shares of stock in the companies you are hating on. they do well, I do well. because I own part of them.
what the hell is your 401k full of? Raisins and modeling clay?
Also, the "top 1%" isn't a club that's impossible to get in to. hard? sure. impossible? nope. how did Bill Gates get in? How did the waltons get in? How did Paul McCartney and Oprah get in? Find a nitch, fill it, manage your money well, make sound decisions, and you can get in.
Me I'm perfectly happy if I can pay my morgage, car payments, put money away for retirement, etc... while still affording the occasional toy like an ipad or a new guitar without going in to debt. I can do that. That's all I ever really wanted out of life. Some of us are perfectly happy not trying to be Warren Buffet, but that doesn't mean that we couldn't be.
When I need to find room on the server, I always find it best used of my time and effort to search out and remove a couple thousand 5kb files instead of the single 37gb file.
Almost everybody who is on my google+ friends list is also on my facebook list. The facebook list also contains many people who have not yet migrated to google+.
for the most part, almost nobody on my facebook list has anything worthwhile to say on a day-to-day basis. occasionally they do, but not often. usually you'll get 1 or 2 sentences from them, nothing substantial.
On google+ however, some of the same people I have on facebook now open up and have things to say that I find worthy of attention and comment. they spend more time and attention composing posts on google+ than on facebook.
Slashdot Mirror
Errr .. because email was around way before 1994. Maybe not in it's current form, and maybe not as prevalent - but it certainly existed way before then
Outlook and Exchange weren't around in 1994. POP3 and SMTP most certainly were.
Email actually hasn't changed much at all since 1994.
I don't believe so, no. I'm pretty sure it's an AT&T deal. the original company fell on hard times, but still had a valuable name. they were bought out by another company that was doing well (in AT&T's case, it was ironically bought out by a baby bell that had been shed off of itself 15 or 20 years prior), and the purchasing company says "your name is more famous than ours. we're you now."
It's essentially killing the celebrity and wearing his skin as a coat, buffalo bill style.
I even click on them when they are advertising products that interest me!
At this point, you couldn't convince me to click on a banner ad, period. no matter how innocuous it seems, no matter how much I trust the site owners, hell even if I was the site owner, "click on banner ad" = "here's a icepick, now stab yourself in the dick with it" to me.
That's how much the internet advertising machine has shit in it's own bed as far as I'm concerned. I don't care if an add pops up for the very product that I opened the web browser to look for in the first place, I'm not clicking on it!
I thought cable TV companies stopped support direct coax connections years ago.
See that bidirectional HDMI cable to your set-top box? Wonder what it's talking about.
Don't have a set-top box. I've got a blu-ray player (no internet connection), an xbox 360 (no internet connectino), a ps-3 ( withpurposely broken DNS resolution), and a wii.
I suppose it might be pushing out through the Wii... but I can just firewall that as soon as I find out what ports it is using.
if it's Sony, you'll probably just be able to load it dynamically off of a modified usb stick.
See that ethernet port on the back of your tv? don't plug anything in to it.
Your tv have wireless (snazzy!) don't give it your wireless password.
Your tv secretly connecting to the 3g cellular network to report back information? A. who cares it doesn't know who you are anyway and B. start up a class action lawsuit... or C. search the web until you find www.sonytv-hacks.com and follow their instructions to load custom firmware on your tv that lets you use the secret 3g connection as a tether'd internet connection and subsequently torrent anonymously to your heart's connent.
TL;DR: you have nothing to worry about.
How many touchscreen monitors at your place of employment? is your employer really likely to replace dozens, or hundreds (or thousands?!) of monitors all at once so that everybody can shove their mouse in the corner? unlikely. The mouse isn't going to be obsolete for a long time. Not to mention I can't imagine trying to play an FPS game with touchscreen controls.
Also, having everybody reaching across their desk to poke their monitor all day long sounds like an ergonomics nightmare.
or you could, you know, just stick with windows 7? It's the new xp or 98se, they're going to be supporting this thing for years and years...
You thought keyboard turners were hellish in world of warcraft, wait until you have to deal with the touchscreen interface players!
Somehow, I doubt that the PC-as-we-know-it is going to die in the year or so before Windows 8 comes out.
It's a green tentacle monster.
http://www.elfonlyinn.net/d/20021029.html
I would love to know who considered AES, or any from crypto for that matter, "unbreakable".
Dan Brown.
Read digital fortress. It's actually quite an enjoyable ride, as long as you note right up front that Dan Brown's version of reality read like James Bond's version of international relations.
My porn collection would require a stack 3.5" floppy disks at -least- 12 or 15 feet high.
I use 1.21 jiga-bit flux encryption.
As soon as I think up something that I need to encrypt, I bang my head into the sink until I forget it, confident that I'll come back in time from the future (or send a suitable representative in a life vest) to remind myself what it is I wanted encrypted when I need the information.
odd, I was replying directly to your own assertion that we should be looking at wealth re-distribution, or is that not what your quote below means:
That seems to be the only semi-logical reason people are opposed to any talk of wealth redistribution for the uber-wealthy.
Sure sounds like you're promoting the idea. Me, I provided the only logical thought process by which I believe people can justify wealth re-distribution, that is the "I think that we should take their money from them because I personally do not think they should have it." i.e. "because, fuck them."
I then questioned the morality of that assertion.
So prayer is, at best, a +1 to your saving throw roll, but you don't know what the difficulty target is, nor what you rolled, so you'll never know if it actually helped at all?
It's a "maybe it'll help, can't hurt" sort of thing?
Couldn't he just pray that he don't get shot at? I'm working under the assumption that Catholics believe prayer works, even if I don't.
Maybe prayer can't contradict free will? I'll buy that. let's say that we can't pray away somebody's desire to shoot at the pope. how about the bullet. it has no free will, it just has to follow physics. Can prayer change physics to alter the path of the bullet? If it can, we're set. if it can't.. um... what CAN it do?
I'd say it's closer to impossible, and I don't know what that has to do with GP's point. We shouldn't try to change the current situation where the top 1% takes all because there's a slightly greater than zero percent chance we could make it into that 1%? That seems to be the only semi-logical reason people are opposed to any talk of wealth redistribution for the uber-wealthy. I guess if you think you have a shot at that, it's valid.
no it seems to me that the GP is engaging in sky-is-falling-we're-all-screwed delusions just like every generation has engaged in. Only one of them was right, the one in the 30s, and what happened? the economy re-emerged to become one of the strongest in the world. It's popular to say nowadays "oh no the next great depression is coming", because people like to worry and complain. Doesn't make it true, or even truly likely. It sells papers and gets web hits, that's it. doesn't make it any more true than the rest of the BS alarmist stuff on the net.
I'm curious what right you think you have to the wealth of the uber-wealthy, what justification you have for wealth redistribution. "They have more than they need, so fuck them, gimme"? I was raised to believe "what's mine is mine, what belongs to others belongs to others". I always figured that's how everybody thought. I never understood lambasting the top 1% for being greedy and then saying that we should take their money from them because we want our cut of it. Is that not the same greed that we're accusing them of? Or is it different because, you know, we're special... and once again, fuck them for having the audacity to have a lot more money than we do? Where does our right to their money come from? assuming that aren't illegally gaming the system, and they're paying in fairly just like we are, where is our right to demand more? what is our moral justification?
My philosophy is hope for the best and prepare for the worst: you should do all you can to get into that 1% but vote for taxes, a public welfare system, and budgets on the assumption that you won't.
your idea and my idea of "preparing" may be different.
It's worth pointing out that Warren Buffet is telling anyone who will listen that he's not being taxed enough and that he shouldn't be that wealthy. One of the guys at the top is saying the situation is absurd.
That's not what I got from his article. What I got was "there are loopholes that benefit the rich that we don't need and are unfairly benefiting us over those who earn less. Also, some of us are taxed much less than others of us who make similar income by qualifying for loopholes based on the manner in which we earn money, and that is unfair." Both of these are sentiments I agree with. There is no reason that one guy should be taxed differently than another guy depending on how they make their income if they make the same amount in the end. Nor is there a reason to provide loopholes that do not apply equally to different people (or really a reason to provide loopholes at all).
I never heard Mr Buffet say "I have too much money, please come take it". Perhaps I need to re-read. If you'd be so kind as to point out where he said that? He used the final percentage of his income that he pays compared to his employees to point out the unbalanced benefit he receives from those deductions and loopholes. I noted that he paid more in taxes last year than I am likely to even earn in my entire lifetime, for roughly the same overall benefit that I receive for paying a couple or orders-of-magnitude less.
People like to say that the rich pay more because they benefit more, but that's not true. Not really. If the US gets invaded, the marines aren't heading to his house first to guard it. I doubt his roads get repaved every 6 weeks instead of once a decade or so like mine. FDIC isn't insuring much more of his money than mine at this point. Hell, his kids probably didn't even go to the public schools he is funding. Where's the 2000% benefit over what I'm getting?
Use his daddy's money to buy QDOS and license it to IBM?
How does that invalidate my point exactly? sounds to me like a smart business decision, filling a niche.
Your 401k would be full of raisins and modeling clay too if you weren't making enough extra to invest, which lots of people aren't...meanwhile, the 'greatest generation' is enjoying prop 13 housing, social security and generous pension benefits. Rock on sir.
spoken like a defeatist. assuming you have a job, you can easily drop something like 5% of your pre-tax income into a retirement fund almost no matter what you make. if you think you can't, the answer is that you won't. you won't give up the beer. you won't give up the cable tv. you won't give up the premium tier internet connection. you won't give up the big gas guzzling pickup. you won't give up eating out at mcdonalds. something. you can find 5% pre-tax somewhere. you won't even miss it when it doesn't show up in your paycheck. I was able to do this a decade ago when I was making jack shit doing a bullshit menial job, why can't you again?
the answer is it is easier to complain, point fingers, and cry.
no, your 401k is shitty. mine is fine.
Btw, tell you "it's impossible" story to my mother-in-law who grew up in a tiny little house, the daughter of a car salesman, and now owns several businesses, multiple houses, many acres of land (the parcel which the main branch of her businesses sitting upon last appraised for ~ $3 million, SANS the business on it), gets paid many thousands to give seminars at national conventions, plays around in the stock market as she likes, and travels abroad when she desires.
Know how she did that? hard work, good business decisions, and being smart with her money. In the 12 years that I have known her, I've watched her be quite unlucky several times, and still her fortune is intact.
Maybe you need to re-evaluate.
my 401k is chock full of shares of stock in the companies you are hating on. they do well, I do well. because I own part of them.
what the hell is your 401k full of? Raisins and modeling clay?
Also, the "top 1%" isn't a club that's impossible to get in to. hard? sure. impossible? nope. how did Bill Gates get in? How did the waltons get in? How did Paul McCartney and Oprah get in? Find a nitch, fill it, manage your money well, make sound decisions, and you can get in.
Me I'm perfectly happy if I can pay my morgage, car payments, put money away for retirement, etc... while still affording the occasional toy like an ipad or a new guitar without going in to debt. I can do that. That's all I ever really wanted out of life. Some of us are perfectly happy not trying to be Warren Buffet, but that doesn't mean that we couldn't be.
When I need to find room on the server, I always find it best used of my time and effort to search out and remove a couple thousand 5kb files instead of the single 37gb file.
Nope, round trip. don't forget to account for time dilation on the packets themselves.
Considering they're all made there?
yes yes, technological differences and all...
to elaborate:
Almost everybody who is on my google+ friends list is also on my facebook list. The facebook list also contains many people who have not yet migrated to google+.
for the most part, almost nobody on my facebook list has anything worthwhile to say on a day-to-day basis. occasionally they do, but not often. usually you'll get 1 or 2 sentences from them, nothing substantial.
On google+ however, some of the same people I have on facebook now open up and have things to say that I find worthy of attention and comment. they spend more time and attention composing posts on google+ than on facebook.
better?