In Germany for a slightly lower salary (let's say 100K) you work only 37 hrs a week (for real, not only on paper), have 30 days of paid vacation a year, an extensive social security and healthcare coverage provided by the government (you don't need any private insurance), and you cannot be fired "at will", but only for a fair reason. What about google, microsoft, and the US in general?
Yesterday here on slashdot I read a scary post saying that astronomy Ph.D. students work 80 hrs a week, and reading the comments it seemed that it's considered "normal" in the US. I thought they were on another planet!
You forgot the 42K you would pay in income tax for all those government-provided benefits. 80-hour work weeks are not the norm in the US.
Well unless you are one of the 1%, cost of living always equals total salary, no matter what that salary is. Cost of living there is so high because they make so much, if google gave everyone a 10% raise cost of living would simply increase.
Pardon? You spend 100% of your income on cost of living unless you make more than $250K/year? That's bullshit, even with the cost of living in Silicon Valley.
Unfortunately, I'm not surprised. It's a two party system, and the game is rigged to keep it that way.
How many parties were represented in the recent president/vice-president debates?
And the only time I've ever heard of a third-party candidate being included in a Presidential debate was Ross Perot. And what did he have that got him there? A shitload of money.
I rather thought ABC is a private business, so from a Libertarian point of view, I would think they could decide whatever they want as far as who to include on their own debate?
Or, if you are not accepting corporate donations, why are you interested in going on a debate that is essentially sponsored by a corporation -- i.e. ABC -- and their advertisers?
Unless there is something else here, this sounds a bit petulant.
Creating legislation forcing ABC to permit his participation in the debate would be against Libertarian principals. Applying public pressure to revise their policy is not. I don't think you really understand Libertarian principals at all.
1. $50,000 is not a high amount and doesn't require corporate donations. I've seen missionaires collect more money from friends and family than that. 2. Why are you posting to Slashdot about this? I may not like ABC's position, but have no control over it. 3. Why did Slashdot accept this? They aren't even close to their mission statement on this
1. Why should there be any minimum amount? Isn't setting a financial threshold just affirming we're only interested in politicians that are good at raising capital? Is that what we want? 2. Because we have an opportunity to do something about this ridiculous policy but letting this ABC affiliate know how stupid this policy is. Or not, it's your choice. 3. This falls under "stuff that matters". At least it does to me.
Oh spare us the human "rights" that involve other people paying for the stuff you want.
Hell yeah, access to food or medicine can't be a right either. Or someone might have to pay for it. So down with foodstamps, unemployment payments, etc, etc.
In a civilized society, we establish some minimal bar (food, water, shelter), which we try to provide for every member of that society. That's how I read "right" - as in, we'll try to provide it, if you can't afford it. Even if someone does have to pay for it
You're confusing rights with entitlements. Free speech is a right. A broadband connection to enable you to exercise that right in a very specific medium is an entitlement. This isn't just semantics.
This is the single most useless piece of technology in the history of existence. EVER. Forever. More useless than a pet rock... rocks are at least camp-chic these days.
That's fairly myopic and unimaginative, and you've apparently forgotten or are too young to remember Tomagotchi.
The applications for unobtrusive perimeter security systems are interesting.
I wouldn't say it's particularly dangerous. Less robust and maybe more prone to failure, but even a catastrophic failure of a lower receiver wouldn't do any real harm. On the other hand, the upper exploding on you would ruin your day. And probably your face.
While the lower receiver is legally considered to be the serialized firearm it is fairly simple part. Folks have been making them on CNC machines for years. The metal upper receiver is much more difficult to manufacture and required precision metal machining. You need both to have a functional weapon. Without the upper, the lower is completely and utterly useless.
"Google Voice" is just a rebranded Grand Central. Google hasn't done much with it since they bought it. Users have been screaming about the same bugs on the forums for years. The SMS side of Google Voice has been especially flaky. Google Voice gets their phone numbers from some low-end third party telco in Northern California that doesn't seem to be properly plugged in to the system that tells other telcos about the numbers and their properties (cell/landline, etc.).
Google Voice doesn't have an API. There's hack code to talk to Google Voice from programs. It doesn't work too well, because the interface to Voice is (perhaps by intent) API-hostile. If you're using Google Voice for anything serious, get a pay service like Twilio. You pay a few cents per message, but it actually works and there's customer support.
I believe you're mistaking Google Talk for Google Voice.
Rubbish. I've routinely been able to connect to wireless networks with my various MacBooks over the years whilst PC using friends were struggling.
I wasn't very specific in my original post, but there are known issues with Apple's 802.1x authenticator code. WPA Enterprise is less commonly used with Macs than consumer-level wifi, which is probably why our experiences are so different. For what it's worth, I've never had a problem using wifi anywhere where there was WEP/WPA-PSK security (or no security). I'm perfectly happy with the MBP I use for work, as are thousands of others who use them at my company. And the WPA supplicant in Lion works better than SL, but isn't quite 100% yet.
It's certainly possible the arguments are valid, but I'm deeply skeptical of criticism about a product that's written by a competitor. Especially one who fails to note the conflict, as is customary in journalism.
"This was written by Karim Kai Ani, a former middle school teacher and math coach, and the founder of Mathalicious, which is rewriting the middle school math curriculum around real-world topics."
This is not only at the top of the TFA, but the information is also stated in the first sentence of TFS.
get your hardware fixed. I dont have that problem on my horribly old 2009 17" macbook pro or the out of date 2011 13" macbook pro my wife has.
The only time I experienced that ws with a piece of crap Wireless router from belkin. Ripping it off the wall and smashing it solved the problem, well after it was replaced with a netgear.
Macs are notoriously finicky about wireless connectivity. Before you reply with [citation needed], just do a quick web search for crying out loud.
Totally agree with your point, but want to add that all Facebook users implicitly trust Facebook even though almost no one explicitly trusts them. Many _say_ they don't trust them but continue to use the service. In other words, given enough time and ubiquity folks will probably trust FB for SSO without ever considering the wisdom of doing so.
Why don't people just tell their browser to remember their login/pwd information? That's what I do for Slashdot, BoingBoing, fb, lj, gmail, etc.
Bank websites and credit card websites, I still store the passwords in my noggin, but social media? I don't care if someone who's stolen my laptop suddenly can make twitter posts in my name.
Because many people are using multiple devices, in which case they have to store your passwords in "the cloud" with some sort of browser sync. Also, folks are accessing resources with a browser sometimes and apps at other times.
LastPass does a pretty good job of filling in the gaps.
All too well, and thanks for dredging up _those_ memories. I cut my teeth in networking roaming the halls with a thin-net terminator in one hand and a crimping tool in the other while people shouted about the network being down... again. We didn't start seeing 10BaseT until when, early 90s? I remember Synoptics Lattisnet as being the first incarnation of Ethernet over TWP, but it wasn't compatible with the 10BaseT standard when it finally came out a couple years later. Synoptics +Wellfleet became Bay, and Bay became Nortel. Sorry, I'm just an old man rambling now.
And the funny bit was Ethernet probably had the least amount to do with making a network of networks. At the time Ethernet was about the least used medium for long distance connections. It took 20 years before Ethernet started being heavily used for long distance connections primarily because it's cheaper not better but DWDM was able to carry it and work around some of it's flaws.
Try X.25 serial connections over copper wire with blazing fast 56K speeds, and that's only if you had the good stuff. I agree with you that Ethernet had absolutely nothing to do with the creation of the Internet and contributed nothing to its popularization. Even today there are very, very few long-distance connections that utilize Ethernet.
TFA is so full of inaccuracies I don't know where to begin. The author appears confused about the differences between data-link protocols, like Ethernet, network protocols, like TCP/IP, and applications, like a web browser that you type that URL thingy into.
I'm surprised and disappointed that Slashdot posted it at all.
Slashdot Mirror
In Germany for a slightly lower salary (let's say 100K) you work only 37 hrs a week (for real, not only on paper), have 30 days of paid vacation a year, an extensive social security and healthcare coverage provided by the government (you don't need any private insurance), and you cannot be fired "at will", but only for a fair reason. What about google, microsoft, and the US in general?
Yesterday here on slashdot I read a scary post saying that astronomy Ph.D. students work 80 hrs a week, and reading the comments it seemed that it's considered "normal" in the US. I thought they were on another planet!
You forgot the 42K you would pay in income tax for all those government-provided benefits. 80-hour work weeks are not the norm in the US.
Well unless you are one of the 1%, cost of living always equals total salary, no matter what that salary is.
Cost of living there is so high because they make so much, if google gave everyone a 10% raise cost of living would simply increase.
Pardon? You spend 100% of your income on cost of living unless you make more than $250K/year? That's bullshit, even with the cost of living in Silicon Valley.
Unfortunately, I'm not surprised. It's a two party system, and the game is rigged to keep it that way.
How many parties were represented in the recent president/vice-president debates?
And the only time I've ever heard of a third-party candidate being included in a Presidential debate was Ross Perot. And what did he have that got him there? A shitload of money.
I rather thought ABC is a private business, so from a Libertarian point of view, I would think they could decide whatever they want as far as who to include on their own debate?
Or, if you are not accepting corporate donations, why are you interested in going on a debate that is essentially sponsored by a corporation -- i.e. ABC -- and their advertisers?
Unless there is something else here, this sounds a bit petulant.
Creating legislation forcing ABC to permit his participation in the debate would be against Libertarian principals. Applying public pressure to revise their policy is not. I don't think you really understand Libertarian principals at all.
There are a couple problems with your story
1. $50,000 is not a high amount and doesn't require corporate donations. I've seen missionaires collect more money from friends and family than that.
2. Why are you posting to Slashdot about this? I may not like ABC's position, but have no control over it.
3. Why did Slashdot accept this? They aren't even close to their mission statement on this
1. Why should there be any minimum amount? Isn't setting a financial threshold just affirming we're only interested in politicians that are good at raising capital? Is that what we want?
2. Because we have an opportunity to do something about this ridiculous policy but letting this ABC affiliate know how stupid this policy is. Or not, it's your choice.
3. This falls under "stuff that matters". At least it does to me.
Oh spare us the human "rights" that involve other people paying for the stuff you want.
Hell yeah, access to food or medicine can't be a right either. Or someone might have to pay for it. So down with foodstamps, unemployment payments, etc, etc.
In a civilized society, we establish some minimal bar (food, water, shelter), which we try to provide for every member of that society. That's how I read "right" - as in, we'll try to provide it, if you can't afford it. Even if someone does have to pay for it
You're confusing rights with entitlements. Free speech is a right. A broadband connection to enable you to exercise that right in a very specific medium is an entitlement. This isn't just semantics.
That's not part of next quarter's profits, nor within the tenure of any currently elected politician.
Forget it.
Neither is the robot that found it, and yet there it is. For fuck's sake, there is such a thing as being too cynical.
And then apologizes the next day because the idiot on MSNBC got it wrong.
And we wonder why politicians never speak their minds about anything under any circumstances.
I'm an irrational Slashdot poster, so I'm just going to blame Apple now even though they have nothing to do with this.
This proves that Apple is the new Microsoft. At least around these parts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_effects_of_circumcision
Read down to the female preference and response section. 79% to 89% prefer circumcised based on the research quoted.
So yes, they actually do.
I prefer big tits, but I don't advocate breast implants for infants. This is a horrific example of a double standard.
This is the single most useless piece of technology in the history of existence. EVER. Forever. More useless than a pet rock... rocks are at least camp-chic these days.
That's fairly myopic and unimaginative, and you've apparently forgotten or are too young to remember Tomagotchi.
The applications for unobtrusive perimeter security systems are interesting.
The one I built was designed to murder sheets of paper from as far away as reasonably possible, mostly limited by the skill of the operator.
I wouldn't say it's particularly dangerous. Less robust and maybe more prone to failure, but even a catastrophic failure of a lower receiver wouldn't do any real harm. On the other hand, the upper exploding on you would ruin your day. And probably your face.
While the lower receiver is legally considered to be the serialized firearm it is fairly simple part. Folks have been making them on CNC machines for years. The metal upper receiver is much more difficult to manufacture and required precision metal machining. You need both to have a functional weapon. Without the upper, the lower is completely and utterly useless.
"Google Voice" is just a rebranded Grand Central. Google hasn't done much with it since they bought it. Users have been screaming about the same bugs on the forums for years. The SMS side of Google Voice has been especially flaky. Google Voice gets their phone numbers from some low-end third party telco in Northern California that doesn't seem to be properly plugged in to the system that tells other telcos about the numbers and their properties (cell/landline, etc.).
Google Voice doesn't have an API. There's hack code to talk to Google Voice from programs. It doesn't work too well, because the interface to Voice is (perhaps by intent) API-hostile. If you're using Google Voice for anything serious, get a pay service like Twilio. You pay a few cents per message, but it actually works and there's customer support.
I believe you're mistaking Google Talk for Google Voice.
Rubbish. I've routinely been able to connect to wireless networks with my various MacBooks over the years whilst PC using friends were struggling.
I wasn't very specific in my original post, but there are known issues with Apple's 802.1x authenticator code. WPA Enterprise is less commonly used with Macs than consumer-level wifi, which is probably why our experiences are so different. For what it's worth, I've never had a problem using wifi anywhere where there was WEP/WPA-PSK security (or no security). I'm perfectly happy with the MBP I use for work, as are thousands of others who use them at my company. And the WPA supplicant in Lion works better than SL, but isn't quite 100% yet.
It's certainly possible the arguments are valid, but I'm deeply skeptical of criticism about a product that's written by a competitor. Especially one who fails to note the conflict, as is customary in journalism.
"This was written by Karim Kai Ani, a former middle school teacher and math coach, and the founder of Mathalicious, which is rewriting the middle school math curriculum around real-world topics."
This is not only at the top of the TFA, but the information is also stated in the first sentence of TFS.
get your hardware fixed. I dont have that problem on my horribly old 2009 17" macbook pro or the out of date 2011 13" macbook pro my wife has.
The only time I experienced that ws with a piece of crap Wireless router from belkin. Ripping it off the wall and smashing it solved the problem, well after it was replaced with a netgear.
Macs are notoriously finicky about wireless connectivity. Before you reply with [citation needed], just do a quick web search for crying out loud.
This is article deriding free on-line math education written by a person who develops paid on-line math education.
However, nobody trusts Facebook.
Totally agree with your point, but want to add that all Facebook users implicitly trust Facebook even though almost no one explicitly trusts them. Many _say_ they don't trust them but continue to use the service. In other words, given enough time and ubiquity folks will probably trust FB for SSO without ever considering the wisdom of doing so.
Why don't people just tell their browser to remember their login/pwd information? That's what I do for Slashdot, BoingBoing, fb, lj, gmail, etc.
Bank websites and credit card websites, I still store the passwords in my noggin, but social media? I don't care if someone who's stolen my laptop suddenly can make twitter posts in my name.
Because many people are using multiple devices, in which case they have to store your passwords in "the cloud" with some sort of browser sync. Also, folks are accessing resources with a browser sometimes and apps at other times.
LastPass does a pretty good job of filling in the gaps.
Speaking of ethernet, anyone else remember thick ethernet cable and vampire taps?
All too well, and thanks for dredging up _those_ memories. I cut my teeth in networking roaming the halls with a thin-net terminator in one hand and a crimping tool in the other while people shouted about the network being down... again. We didn't start seeing 10BaseT until when, early 90s? I remember Synoptics Lattisnet as being the first incarnation of Ethernet over TWP, but it wasn't compatible with the 10BaseT standard when it finally came out a couple years later. Synoptics +Wellfleet became Bay, and Bay became Nortel. Sorry, I'm just an old man rambling now.
I typo'd 56K. I meant 56k. Sorry.
And the funny bit was Ethernet probably had the least amount to do with making a network of networks. At the time Ethernet was about the least used medium for long distance connections. It took 20 years before Ethernet started being heavily used for long distance connections primarily because it's cheaper not better but DWDM was able to carry it and work around some of it's flaws.
Try X.25 serial connections over copper wire with blazing fast 56K speeds, and that's only if you had the good stuff. I agree with you that Ethernet had absolutely nothing to do with the creation of the Internet and contributed nothing to its popularization. Even today there are very, very few long-distance connections that utilize Ethernet.
TFA is so full of inaccuracies I don't know where to begin. The author appears confused about the differences between data-link protocols, like Ethernet, network protocols, like TCP/IP, and applications, like a web browser that you type that URL thingy into.
I'm surprised and disappointed that Slashdot posted it at all.