What are you talking about? Lots of people in Chandler, Gilbert, and Tempe probably make about that much and live in more normal-sized houses. North Phoenix isn't bad either, nor is Ahwatukee. No, you really don't want to live in a $50k house in South Phoenix (north of South Mountain) or on the west side.
Arizona's not *that* red. It wasn't that long ago they elected Janet Napolitano (D) as governor, before Obama got her to take over as DHS head. Tempe's a pretty blue city too, as is Tucson.
Now Utah is about as red is it gets, I think. Along with Mississippi, Alabama, etc.
He is confusing terms a bit here, but the previous poster was calling him a leftist. A true leftist does not favor corporations having the kind of power or influence that he describes, that's a hallmark of the right wing, so it's reasonable for him to call them Republicans, which is a far-right party. Yes, in most areas the Democrats are also center-right, but that party does claim to answer to the people on the left, even if it is just lip service.
If the landowners are absentee and living in China, what happens when you stop paying rent? Don't the landlords need to actually apply to the local court to start eviction proceedings? If they have some local agent to do that, why can't the local agent approve broadband installation?
Cat hair is 100 times worse than dog hair....yeah the lab I have sheds more but the crappy roomba does a decent job of keeping up and it isn't that super fine shit that gets all over everything.
Cat hair? What cat hair? Come to think of it, I had a cat when I was a teenager that shed a lot, but my current cats don't. Some are a lot worse than others; a Persian would be a PITA for that reason, but my current American shorthairs don't shed much at all, I don't even notice it. You can brush them occasionally with a wire brush that pulls out the loose hair if it's a problem.
it isn't a chore like trying to wash a cat.
Luckily, I haven't had to do that very much. And some cats are much worse than others with this. Some of them just sit there and look really annoyed and unhappy, others go wild and tear you to shreds. I think part of it is doing it once in a while so they're used to it (and wearing heavy gloves, and trimming the claws beforehand). With my current two cats, one is a bit of a problem, while the other is pretty cool.
Plus I'd like to see a cat jump a pheasant or grouse, or retrieve a duck from the water.
Why would I care about that? I think I'd care about that about as much as watching a tractor pull. Besides, cats are predators, and most predators avoid any kind of prey which is too close their own body mass. Cats are relatively small, so they go after animals the size of a rat, at the very largest, and usually things like mice and small lizards. A duck is about as large as a cat. A Yorkie or Chihuahua probably isn't going to be much help with ducks either.
the main "yard" is just over an acre and fenced in)
That makes a big, big difference I think (plus your dog-door in the garage). Most big-dog owners I see have little or no yard. That seems like a terrible environment for a large dog.
And WTF are you feeding a dog at $100/month
Ok, maybe $100 was an exaggeration, but a friend of a friend who has Cane Corsos told me it was $50/month per dog for his. Granted, these are very large dogs, but that's what I'm talking about here--big dogs, not all dogs averaged together (including Chihuahuas).
get the fucker to stop walking on the cars.
Not a problem with indoor cats.
lol captcha: minority I wonder which one of us it was targeting;-)
I'm not sure, but I think it was me. It might be geographically-based though, but I really wonder; when I lived next to NYC and visited a lot, I sure saw a lot of people with dogs at the dog park. I can't imagine how that can be a decent environment for a dog to live in unless it's Chihuahua-sized. Now, all the women I see on OKCupid (including ones in DC, not too far from where I live) seem to have big dogs. Whatever happened to that stereotype about women liking cats more? That's directly contrary to my observations.
How is it a tech hub like Seattle doesn't have broadband fast enough for Netflix, yet I'm living in rural Virginia and it works just great for me? What the hell is going on in Seattle?
Unfortunately, this "choice" you talk about is something that frequently doesn't exist.
I use Win7, Win8.1, IE, and Gnome3 all the time. I hate them all (Win7 the least). I wish I could change to KDE instead of Gnome3, or Cinnamon, or anything else really. But I can't, I don't get to choose my Linux desktop at work. Same with Windows and IE. I'm not allowed to use anything besides IE10 for web browsing, and it's horrible (especially because so many sites are completely broken on it). I'd love to change to Firefox, but that's not allowed. Luckily I don't have to use the Win8.1 computer very often, that one really makes me want to pull my hair out. Holy shit, that thing is horrible. And for the people saying "you just need to install [3rd party software] on it", that's not allowed.
At home, I don't have any of these problems. I use Linux Mint with KDE and Firefox, and I'm happy. If Mint goes down the tubes for some reason and I get sick of it, I can change to something else at will, perhaps Arch. I can't do that at work.
Then we have the desktop environments. KDE isn't too bad, and there are some lightweight alternatives that a quasi-usable. But the former star of the Linux desktop environments, GNOME, has pretty much destroyed itself with its GNOME 3 effort. This is one of the most stunning failures ever seen when developing software. The user experience has been ruined in a way that many thought would not be possible. Yet it has happened.
See, this illustrates a big problem. I guess it's a problem with human nature, I'm not sure exactly, but it's a big problem somewhere.
You point out a big problem (and I agree, Gnome3 is a big problem; it sucks. The user experience is awful, just as you say). Then you even mention a solution: KDE. KDE isn't perfect, but it isn't too bad, just like you say. Personally, I like it, at least better than anything else I've ever used. I wish they hadn't wasted so much effort on that "semantic desktop" crap with Nepomuk etc., but otherwise it works well and lets me configure it to my heart's delight. It's reasonably fast on my older hardware and does everything I need to do. I constantly read people complaining about some mis-feature or missing feature in Gnome3, and that thing is always not a problem in KDE, either because it's easily configurable (without having to download some extension) or just isn't architected that way.
But for some reason, no one wants to switch to KDE. They just gripe about Gnome3. And many of the larger distros keep pushing Gnome3 for some odd reason (Fedora and RHEL are the most notable examples, but Debian pushes it now too). It's utterly baffling. I thought Linux was supposed to be all about giving users choice and being hacker-friendly. Gnome3 is the opposite of that; it's made with the same philosophy behind the MacOSX UI. Heck, I think even Macs are more configurable than Gnome3.
and even ads have been injected into the browsing experience!
Now you'll have to provide a citation for that one. I'm always using whatever the latest FF version in the Mint repos is, and I haven't seen any ads. And it's a lot faster and more memory-efficient than Chromium, which I've also spent plenty of time with. I'm no fan of the new UI, but the only time I really see that is when I click on the configuration button, which isn't often.
When you are a billionaire, you are not free to do whatever you want to. You cannot travel freely, you need an armed security detail EVERYWHERE you go.
No, you don't. That's ridiculous. Yes, if you're a billionaire in some shithole in Central America that would be correct, but you certainly don't need to worry about that kind of thing in western Europe. There's lots of billionaires these days; they don't all have armed guards. Most people wouldn't know most billionaires if they saw them on the street. A few famous ones like Donald Trump and Bill Gates, sure, but most regular people wouldn't know Elon Musk if they saw him at the mall (and even he's famous in tech circles).
You'd need an entire army to do that. A small militia of private security contractors isn't going to be able to handle the police and army even in a country the size of El Salvador.
Also, your results are likely to be very different based on several factors, such as the geographic area you're in (and the political leanings there), and state law.
What state/region are you in? And how bad was your wife? The typical complaint is that the only way men get full custody is when the wife is basically a crack whore, judged mentally incompetent, etc.; cases where it's so completely obvious the woman is unfit for custody that they have to give it to the man or else put the child in foster care.
These days, the milk is free anyway if you know how to get it. No reason to buy a cow when you can grab one off the street for free.
And how exactly do you get it for free anyway? Some men are just much more gifted with talking to women than others; AFAICT, getting "it" easily as you say seems to involve spending a lot of time at bars, and being outgoing and confident. When you don't drink and are introverted, this isn't so easy to do. It's still not hard to get free sex even if you're an introvert who doesn't like alcohol or socializing that much: you can just use Tinder, but it requires lowering your standards a lot. and "liking" all the women who are 20 years older and/or 200 pounds heavier than you. I'd rather play Minecraft.
Now don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to say that it's impossible to meet a nice and attractive woman as an not-terribly-social introvert and create a permanent relationship with her, but you're talking about quick sex or a "hookup" as they call it these days, something altogether different than a typical courtship.
They'll ask where you live and you'll tell them, "Just out of town, near the river," hoping that they won't ask the next question, which is, "Oh! How many acres? Three? Four?" You'll lower your voice as you start apologetically - "A hundred and sixty. But we have horses..." It's not the sort of attention an introvert enjoys.
It's easy. Have you seen the movie "Ex Machina"? Just do what that guy did: build a really nice house on some island which is only accessible by helicopter, and live there by yourself. Don't build any artificially-intelligent robot babes though, that'll only lead to disaster.
Depends on the animals. Cats are extremely low-maintenance. You could leave them alone for a week with an automatic litterbox and food dispenser. Or hire someone from Craigslist to check on them every few days. Some of them actually travel really well too, so you could always bring them with you. The main problem is finding hotels that'll take them, but you can always just sneak them in if they're not very vocal.
What I really don't understand is why so many people have dogs, and not just any dogs, but big dogs. There's no way you can get away when you have one of those things. They have to be walked at least once a day, they have to be let outside several times a day to relieve themselves (since they can't use litterboxes), if you live in a subdivision that means you need to accompany them outside so you can pick up the poo or else get fined (or you let them into your back yard and pretty soon the place looks like a Mad Max scene but with piles of dog poo all over), you can't easily take them on a plane (cats go in carriers under the seat), when you do take them they need a giant cage, and then frequently the pilot forgets to turn on the cargo bay heat so the dog freezes to death during the flight. The food cost is huge because they eat so much of it, so count on $50-100/month just for that, and on top of that now your house stinks and is filthy unless you invest a ton of time into constantly cleaning both the dog and the house (since they apparently can't keep themselves clean). You can board your dog when you travel, but that costs $30-50 per day, which adds up fast. Hiring a pet sitter from Craigslist is also doable, but most likely isn't going to work well because they can't visit often enough to let the dog out before it shits on the carpet or in his cage. You can't even spend an unplanned night at someone's house with a dog, because there's no way to arrange a pet-sitter that fast unless you have some very accommodating neighbors (and it's not good to assume they'll be around to take care of your dog at such short notice). .
But if you live in Atlanta or Charlotte or Phoenix or Omaha or Kansas City you're probably doing pretty well on 100K.
Yeah, but then you're living in a shithole, at least in the case of Phoenix. Plus you have to deal with temperatures over 100F every day and night for 9 months out of the year.
Exactly. Even with $2.5B, this guy can't afford to pay off everyone's mortgage in the US. So if he pays off some neighborhood's mortgages, he'll have everyone else screaming for the same thing.
Doing it anonymously is the only way. Unless you're a fame-seeker like Trump, having that much money can be a real PITA because it'll bring so much attention to you, and you won't be able to have a normal life or normal relationships; everyone will be after you for your money. That's gotta make it impossible to get a decent girlfriend too: you're going to be a magnet for the gold-diggers, and won't be able to discern the quality women from them. Again, just look at Trump: you think Melania hooked up with him because of any true love?
Possibly, but not many tech people are at Eich's level. I know I'm never going to be CEO of any well-known company, for instance, and neither are most of the other people here. Of course, most conservatives these days seem to think that they're all millionaires who are temporarily down on their luck, even when they're living in a trailer, so they could very act the way you describe anyway.
Anyhow, there's a big difference between supporting a *candidate* and supporting a particular *law* (proposition). You can always argue that you liked the candidate and/or his/her stand on the issues. Even if it comes down to the H1B issue, you can argue that you believe the program is mismanaged, used to keep engineering salaries low, etc.
There really isn't any way to argue support for Proposition 8, except that you hate gay people and think they should have lesser rights. There is no other rational explanation for supporting that proposition. You simply cannot claim support for equal rights (a cornerstone of western society), and support a law which denies equal rights, so anyone who does deny equal rights for fellow citizens is nothing more than a bigot.
Carly Fiorina, support the woman to do to the U.S. what she did to HP!!!
You mean taking an entity that used to make cutting-edge, ultra-high-quality, high-profit stuff and instead making low-profit generic cookie-cutter crap? Basically instead of competing with Germany, she wants us to compete with China?
BTW, has anyone else here used an HP business laptop recently? WTF is with the horrible keyboard layout?
Yep, I'll take Trump any day over Fiorina. At least he has a reputation for usually getting NYC construction projects done, instead of driving successful, venerable companies into the ground and then trying to blame it on the economy.
This is why I believe New York state should be broken up, along with a bunch of other places around the country. "Upstate" New York should be split off from the NYC metro area, and given a new name and made a separate state. NYS is already one of the most populous states, so breaking off the upstate part will bring its population in line with other east coast states, and will still probably be one of the larger ones. Then the metro NYC area should be made into a new city-state, but by combining it with the surrounding states of NJ and CT. The northern half of NJ should be made part of the new NYC state, along with the western side of CT (especially the Stamford area). Of course, Long Island would also be part of NYC-state.
The southern half of NJ should be combined with Philly into another city-state, broken off from Pennsylvania. Then the remains of Connecticut (I'm not exactly sure where to draw the line) should be combined with Rhode Island. This will give us a total of 50 states, same as now. But we'll have two new city-states where the metro areas don't cross state boundaries (providing much greater administrative efficiency and better services, especially with transit), and the populations will be more balanced, with RI gaining a lot of population so they don't so much undue representation in Congress, and the citizens of NYS, NYC, and Philly all gaining representation in the Senate (because their two senators each will answer to fewer citizens). Also importantly, states with vastly different cultures will be separated so that state-wide politics have less infighting (upstate NYS vs. NYC, Philly vs. the rest of PA), and the people of each new state can have a state government that answers to them better, instead of constantly arguing with urban/rural people in the other part of the state about how things should be run.
There's nothing corrupt about holding companies accountable for their violations of the law (including anti-trust law), and then fining them heavily when they're convicted. It sure beats the US/EU way of going to all that legal trouble, and then slapping them on the wrist with a paltry fine that's written off as "the cost of doing business" since they made far, far more by doing the illegal thing than they have to pay in fines as a consequence.
(The EU isn't quite as bad as the US in assessing paltry fines, but their fines are still paltry.)
Or are you one of those folks who think whatever business does is okay?
But if Google were to exclude competitors from its search engine, you really don't think there is wrong with that? Really?
Yes, really. He's one of those libertarian morons who thinks companies should be allowed to grow into absolute monopolies unimpeded, and then should be able to do whatever they want at that point, free from any kind of consequences because with a monopoly position it's nearly impossible to unseat them or compete against them. He'll probably say something about you wanting to "punish success".
Opposing force technology is also improving. And they aren't hamstrung with an overpriced monstrosity and tied to failing tech.
I wonder how much of this stems from the workforces available. In the opposing forces, working in the military-industrial complex is likely a good career move; they probably get many of their best engineers working there. Here in the US, this isn't the case; working on military programs is a pretty poor career move compared to working in the commercial sector in one of the tech hubs. The pay is worse, the stability is worse (unless you work directly for the government, but then the pay is far, far worse), the work locations are frequently remote places far away from tech hubs and alternative jobs in case yours disappears, and the bureaucracy is infinitely worse so it's hard to get anything done in a reasonable time.
On top of all that, you have defense contracting companies who seem to be set up to milk the whole process for as much money as they can get, frequently by charging the government for billable hours; the process isn't designed to get actual working products in the minimum timeframe, it's seemingly designed as a big make-work program.
Slashdot Mirror
Are you going to stone your children when they misbehave? It says you must do that in the Bible.
Lots of animals are homosexual.
Of course, I'm responding to a religious nut, so any arguments referencing reality are useless, since you're insane and don't believe in reality.
What are you talking about? Lots of people in Chandler, Gilbert, and Tempe probably make about that much and live in more normal-sized houses. North Phoenix isn't bad either, nor is Ahwatukee. No, you really don't want to live in a $50k house in South Phoenix (north of South Mountain) or on the west side.
He should get a better car; those cars are crap. There's lots of much nicer, and more reliable, cars for the same money.
Arizona's not *that* red. It wasn't that long ago they elected Janet Napolitano (D) as governor, before Obama got her to take over as DHS head. Tempe's a pretty blue city too, as is Tucson.
Now Utah is about as red is it gets, I think. Along with Mississippi, Alabama, etc.
He is confusing terms a bit here, but the previous poster was calling him a leftist. A true leftist does not favor corporations having the kind of power or influence that he describes, that's a hallmark of the right wing, so it's reasonable for him to call them Republicans, which is a far-right party. Yes, in most areas the Democrats are also center-right, but that party does claim to answer to the people on the left, even if it is just lip service.
If the landowners are absentee and living in China, what happens when you stop paying rent? Don't the landlords need to actually apply to the local court to start eviction proceedings? If they have some local agent to do that, why can't the local agent approve broadband installation?
Cat hair is 100 times worse than dog hair....yeah the lab I have sheds more but the crappy roomba does a decent job of keeping up and it isn't that super fine shit that gets all over everything.
Cat hair? What cat hair? Come to think of it, I had a cat when I was a teenager that shed a lot, but my current cats don't. Some are a lot worse than others; a Persian would be a PITA for that reason, but my current American shorthairs don't shed much at all, I don't even notice it. You can brush them occasionally with a wire brush that pulls out the loose hair if it's a problem.
it isn't a chore like trying to wash a cat.
Luckily, I haven't had to do that very much. And some cats are much worse than others with this. Some of them just sit there and look really annoyed and unhappy, others go wild and tear you to shreds. I think part of it is doing it once in a while so they're used to it (and wearing heavy gloves, and trimming the claws beforehand). With my current two cats, one is a bit of a problem, while the other is pretty cool.
Plus I'd like to see a cat jump a pheasant or grouse, or retrieve a duck from the water.
Why would I care about that? I think I'd care about that about as much as watching a tractor pull. Besides, cats are predators, and most predators avoid any kind of prey which is too close their own body mass. Cats are relatively small, so they go after animals the size of a rat, at the very largest, and usually things like mice and small lizards. A duck is about as large as a cat. A Yorkie or Chihuahua probably isn't going to be much help with ducks either.
the main "yard" is just over an acre and fenced in)
That makes a big, big difference I think (plus your dog-door in the garage). Most big-dog owners I see have little or no yard. That seems like a terrible environment for a large dog.
And WTF are you feeding a dog at $100/month
Ok, maybe $100 was an exaggeration, but a friend of a friend who has Cane Corsos told me it was $50/month per dog for his. Granted, these are very large dogs, but that's what I'm talking about here--big dogs, not all dogs averaged together (including Chihuahuas).
get the fucker to stop walking on the cars.
Not a problem with indoor cats.
lol captcha: minority ;-)
I wonder which one of us it was targeting
I'm not sure, but I think it was me. It might be geographically-based though, but I really wonder; when I lived next to NYC and visited a lot, I sure saw a lot of people with dogs at the dog park. I can't imagine how that can be a decent environment for a dog to live in unless it's Chihuahua-sized. Now, all the women I see on OKCupid (including ones in DC, not too far from where I live) seem to have big dogs. Whatever happened to that stereotype about women liking cats more? That's directly contrary to my observations.
How is it a tech hub like Seattle doesn't have broadband fast enough for Netflix, yet I'm living in rural Virginia and it works just great for me? What the hell is going on in Seattle?
Unfortunately, this "choice" you talk about is something that frequently doesn't exist.
I use Win7, Win8.1, IE, and Gnome3 all the time. I hate them all (Win7 the least). I wish I could change to KDE instead of Gnome3, or Cinnamon, or anything else really. But I can't, I don't get to choose my Linux desktop at work. Same with Windows and IE. I'm not allowed to use anything besides IE10 for web browsing, and it's horrible (especially because so many sites are completely broken on it). I'd love to change to Firefox, but that's not allowed. Luckily I don't have to use the Win8.1 computer very often, that one really makes me want to pull my hair out. Holy shit, that thing is horrible. And for the people saying "you just need to install [3rd party software] on it", that's not allowed.
At home, I don't have any of these problems. I use Linux Mint with KDE and Firefox, and I'm happy. If Mint goes down the tubes for some reason and I get sick of it, I can change to something else at will, perhaps Arch. I can't do that at work.
Then we have the desktop environments. KDE isn't too bad, and there are some lightweight alternatives that a quasi-usable. But the former star of the Linux desktop environments, GNOME, has pretty much destroyed itself with its GNOME 3 effort. This is one of the most stunning failures ever seen when developing software. The user experience has been ruined in a way that many thought would not be possible. Yet it has happened.
See, this illustrates a big problem. I guess it's a problem with human nature, I'm not sure exactly, but it's a big problem somewhere.
You point out a big problem (and I agree, Gnome3 is a big problem; it sucks. The user experience is awful, just as you say). Then you even mention a solution: KDE. KDE isn't perfect, but it isn't too bad, just like you say. Personally, I like it, at least better than anything else I've ever used. I wish they hadn't wasted so much effort on that "semantic desktop" crap with Nepomuk etc., but otherwise it works well and lets me configure it to my heart's delight. It's reasonably fast on my older hardware and does everything I need to do. I constantly read people complaining about some mis-feature or missing feature in Gnome3, and that thing is always not a problem in KDE, either because it's easily configurable (without having to download some extension) or just isn't architected that way.
But for some reason, no one wants to switch to KDE. They just gripe about Gnome3. And many of the larger distros keep pushing Gnome3 for some odd reason (Fedora and RHEL are the most notable examples, but Debian pushes it now too). It's utterly baffling. I thought Linux was supposed to be all about giving users choice and being hacker-friendly. Gnome3 is the opposite of that; it's made with the same philosophy behind the MacOSX UI. Heck, I think even Macs are more configurable than Gnome3.
and even ads have been injected into the browsing experience!
Now you'll have to provide a citation for that one. I'm always using whatever the latest FF version in the Mint repos is, and I haven't seen any ads. And it's a lot faster and more memory-efficient than Chromium, which I've also spent plenty of time with. I'm no fan of the new UI, but the only time I really see that is when I click on the configuration button, which isn't often.
When you are a billionaire, you are not free to do whatever you want to. You cannot travel freely, you need an armed security detail EVERYWHERE you go.
No, you don't. That's ridiculous. Yes, if you're a billionaire in some shithole in Central America that would be correct, but you certainly don't need to worry about that kind of thing in western Europe. There's lots of billionaires these days; they don't all have armed guards. Most people wouldn't know most billionaires if they saw them on the street. A few famous ones like Donald Trump and Bill Gates, sure, but most regular people wouldn't know Elon Musk if they saw him at the mall (and even he's famous in tech circles).
You'd need an entire army to do that. A small militia of private security contractors isn't going to be able to handle the police and army even in a country the size of El Salvador.
That's the problem, it's a toss-up.
Also, your results are likely to be very different based on several factors, such as the geographic area you're in (and the political leanings there), and state law.
What state/region are you in? And how bad was your wife? The typical complaint is that the only way men get full custody is when the wife is basically a crack whore, judged mentally incompetent, etc.; cases where it's so completely obvious the woman is unfit for custody that they have to give it to the man or else put the child in foster care.
These days, the milk is free anyway if you know how to get it. No reason to buy a cow when you can grab one off the street for free.
And how exactly do you get it for free anyway? Some men are just much more gifted with talking to women than others; AFAICT, getting "it" easily as you say seems to involve spending a lot of time at bars, and being outgoing and confident. When you don't drink and are introverted, this isn't so easy to do. It's still not hard to get free sex even if you're an introvert who doesn't like alcohol or socializing that much: you can just use Tinder, but it requires lowering your standards a lot. and "liking" all the women who are 20 years older and/or 200 pounds heavier than you. I'd rather play Minecraft.
Now don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to say that it's impossible to meet a nice and attractive woman as an not-terribly-social introvert and create a permanent relationship with her, but you're talking about quick sex or a "hookup" as they call it these days, something altogether different than a typical courtship.
They'll ask where you live and you'll tell them, "Just out of town, near the river," hoping that they won't ask the next question, which is, "Oh! How many acres? Three? Four?" You'll lower your voice as you start apologetically - "A hundred and sixty. But we have horses..." It's not the sort of attention an introvert enjoys.
It's easy. Have you seen the movie "Ex Machina"? Just do what that guy did: build a really nice house on some island which is only accessible by helicopter, and live there by yourself. Don't build any artificially-intelligent robot babes though, that'll only lead to disaster.
Depends on the animals. Cats are extremely low-maintenance. You could leave them alone for a week with an automatic litterbox and food dispenser. Or hire someone from Craigslist to check on them every few days. Some of them actually travel really well too, so you could always bring them with you. The main problem is finding hotels that'll take them, but you can always just sneak them in if they're not very vocal.
What I really don't understand is why so many people have dogs, and not just any dogs, but big dogs. There's no way you can get away when you have one of those things. They have to be walked at least once a day, they have to be let outside several times a day to relieve themselves (since they can't use litterboxes), if you live in a subdivision that means you need to accompany them outside so you can pick up the poo or else get fined (or you let them into your back yard and pretty soon the place looks like a Mad Max scene but with piles of dog poo all over), you can't easily take them on a plane (cats go in carriers under the seat), when you do take them they need a giant cage, and then frequently the pilot forgets to turn on the cargo bay heat so the dog freezes to death during the flight. The food cost is huge because they eat so much of it, so count on $50-100/month just for that, and on top of that now your house stinks and is filthy unless you invest a ton of time into constantly cleaning both the dog and the house (since they apparently can't keep themselves clean). You can board your dog when you travel, but that costs $30-50 per day, which adds up fast. Hiring a pet sitter from Craigslist is also doable, but most likely isn't going to work well because they can't visit often enough to let the dog out before it shits on the carpet or in his cage. You can't even spend an unplanned night at someone's house with a dog, because there's no way to arrange a pet-sitter that fast unless you have some very accommodating neighbors (and it's not good to assume they'll be around to take care of your dog at such short notice).
.
But if you live in Atlanta or Charlotte or Phoenix or Omaha or Kansas City you're probably doing pretty well on 100K.
Yeah, but then you're living in a shithole, at least in the case of Phoenix. Plus you have to deal with temperatures over 100F every day and night for 9 months out of the year.
Exactly. Even with $2.5B, this guy can't afford to pay off everyone's mortgage in the US. So if he pays off some neighborhood's mortgages, he'll have everyone else screaming for the same thing.
Doing it anonymously is the only way. Unless you're a fame-seeker like Trump, having that much money can be a real PITA because it'll bring so much attention to you, and you won't be able to have a normal life or normal relationships; everyone will be after you for your money. That's gotta make it impossible to get a decent girlfriend too: you're going to be a magnet for the gold-diggers, and won't be able to discern the quality women from them. Again, just look at Trump: you think Melania hooked up with him because of any true love?
Possibly, but not many tech people are at Eich's level. I know I'm never going to be CEO of any well-known company, for instance, and neither are most of the other people here. Of course, most conservatives these days seem to think that they're all millionaires who are temporarily down on their luck, even when they're living in a trailer, so they could very act the way you describe anyway.
Anyhow, there's a big difference between supporting a *candidate* and supporting a particular *law* (proposition). You can always argue that you liked the candidate and/or his/her stand on the issues. Even if it comes down to the H1B issue, you can argue that you believe the program is mismanaged, used to keep engineering salaries low, etc.
There really isn't any way to argue support for Proposition 8, except that you hate gay people and think they should have lesser rights. There is no other rational explanation for supporting that proposition. You simply cannot claim support for equal rights (a cornerstone of western society), and support a law which denies equal rights, so anyone who does deny equal rights for fellow citizens is nothing more than a bigot.
Carly Fiorina, support the woman to do to the U.S. what she did to HP!!!
You mean taking an entity that used to make cutting-edge, ultra-high-quality, high-profit stuff and instead making low-profit generic cookie-cutter crap? Basically instead of competing with Germany, she wants us to compete with China?
BTW, has anyone else here used an HP business laptop recently? WTF is with the horrible keyboard layout?
Yep, I'll take Trump any day over Fiorina. At least he has a reputation for usually getting NYC construction projects done, instead of driving successful, venerable companies into the ground and then trying to blame it on the economy.
This is why I believe New York state should be broken up, along with a bunch of other places around the country. "Upstate" New York should be split off from the NYC metro area, and given a new name and made a separate state. NYS is already one of the most populous states, so breaking off the upstate part will bring its population in line with other east coast states, and will still probably be one of the larger ones. Then the metro NYC area should be made into a new city-state, but by combining it with the surrounding states of NJ and CT. The northern half of NJ should be made part of the new NYC state, along with the western side of CT (especially the Stamford area). Of course, Long Island would also be part of NYC-state.
The southern half of NJ should be combined with Philly into another city-state, broken off from Pennsylvania. Then the remains of Connecticut (I'm not exactly sure where to draw the line) should be combined with Rhode Island. This will give us a total of 50 states, same as now. But we'll have two new city-states where the metro areas don't cross state boundaries (providing much greater administrative efficiency and better services, especially with transit), and the populations will be more balanced, with RI gaining a lot of population so they don't so much undue representation in Congress, and the citizens of NYS, NYC, and Philly all gaining representation in the Senate (because their two senators each will answer to fewer citizens). Also importantly, states with vastly different cultures will be separated so that state-wide politics have less infighting (upstate NYS vs. NYC, Philly vs. the rest of PA), and the people of each new state can have a state government that answers to them better, instead of constantly arguing with urban/rural people in the other part of the state about how things should be run.
There's nothing corrupt about holding companies accountable for their violations of the law (including anti-trust law), and then fining them heavily when they're convicted. It sure beats the US/EU way of going to all that legal trouble, and then slapping them on the wrist with a paltry fine that's written off as "the cost of doing business" since they made far, far more by doing the illegal thing than they have to pay in fines as a consequence.
(The EU isn't quite as bad as the US in assessing paltry fines, but their fines are still paltry.)
Or are you one of those folks who think whatever business does is okay?
But if Google were to exclude competitors from its search engine, you really don't think there is wrong with that? Really?
Yes, really. He's one of those libertarian morons who thinks companies should be allowed to grow into absolute monopolies unimpeded, and then should be able to do whatever they want at that point, free from any kind of consequences because with a monopoly position it's nearly impossible to unseat them or compete against them. He'll probably say something about you wanting to "punish success".
Opposing force technology is also improving. And they aren't hamstrung with an overpriced monstrosity and tied to failing tech.
I wonder how much of this stems from the workforces available. In the opposing forces, working in the military-industrial complex is likely a good career move; they probably get many of their best engineers working there. Here in the US, this isn't the case; working on military programs is a pretty poor career move compared to working in the commercial sector in one of the tech hubs. The pay is worse, the stability is worse (unless you work directly for the government, but then the pay is far, far worse), the work locations are frequently remote places far away from tech hubs and alternative jobs in case yours disappears, and the bureaucracy is infinitely worse so it's hard to get anything done in a reasonable time.
On top of all that, you have defense contracting companies who seem to be set up to milk the whole process for as much money as they can get, frequently by charging the government for billable hours; the process isn't designed to get actual working products in the minimum timeframe, it's seemingly designed as a big make-work program.