I got a great contract out of town for 12 months so decided to do the same thing. The office had a gym and I had a locker, so I lived in my van, using the gym each morning and evening and eating at my desk.
It's surprisingly easy if you are single. I'm not, so eventually it wore a bit thin with the wife (she stayed home and I commuted each week), but if I was single I'd do it again. Next time though I'd invest in a bigger more comfortable vehicle.
Next big project, Open Source RVs!
Design RV modules like the International Space Station, with standardised connector docks. Everyone parks up and connects to each other to create a massive temporary office space.
Reread as this: If the house costs x, x + 50% is kind of expensive but acceptable. X + 100% already becomes expensive, and X + 200 is ridiculous. Better now?
Nope. Because the value is mostly in the land, not the house.
Back when I bought my first house, I could buy land for $20k and build a humble cottage for $20k. Back then a big TV (27") cost $2k.
Now a block of land cost $1million, and a good house can be built for about $250k. The big TV is now 55" and cost $600.
The $250k house will cost you $350k in the crap areas, and over $1.5 million in the good areas. It has zero to do with the actual house.
Well said. Google (and the rest of the big 5) pay just under $100k for kids right out of college - about double the US median wage for a first job!
For some roles maybe, but not all. A architect friend of mine went through the laborious interview process at Google as he was interested in getting in with the cool kids (years ago before Google turned into fuckwits). He was earning $180k, and they offered him a job as an Engineer paying $80k.
I've heard similar stories of Google deliberately paying under market rates because so many clueless nerds will take it up the ass to work for them.
But Pepsi never made the claim did they, which was your entire argument? And now you're trying to squirm out of it on a technicality?
Go find some children to play with elsewhere...
but honestly, who is going to fork over ~$3,500 for a tablet?
Rich people.
The same people that buy $5000 handbags and $15000 watches. If you're making $50k/week, and you need to buy a tablet, are you seriously going to get the $500 model that all the regular folk have?
But would it?
If that critic told you how awesome the song was, then you listened to it and it was crap, how much value have you gained? And if your friends and family also think it's shit then where is the value?
I prefer a critic who thinks exactly like me. And so far, the only person I've found like that is me.
Er, ok...since you asked.
SJW means Social Justice Warrior, ie someone who thinks they are looking out for the little guy. eg equal opportunity, affirmative action, save the whales etc.
I merely stated that something that costs more, will invariably be associated with the rich, since that is how the rich distinguish themselves for the masses.
Nothing social in there, no pleas for justice, just making an observation about expensive things.
You've just contradicted yourself and you don't even know it. Considering that you've been wrong about basic facts of what was said and what was submitted, this does not surprise me.
Just saying I'm wrong doesn't really qualify as an argument, but then at least you've been consistent...
Despite all of us working in I.T. for decades and being up on the latest trends -- we universally agreed that it feels like real innovation is slowing down.
My great grandparents saw the industrial revolution, my grandparents experienced world wars, my parents brought about social revolution and the digital age, and I played computer games and watched porn.
My kids also play computer games and are probably watching porn too. It seems we've reached a plateau in human development.
And if you've seen that weird guy on youtube, he can shoot arrows as quickly as a revolver by holding multiple arrows in his hand and reloading as part of the shooting action. The longbow was the AK47 of it's day.
When I first left home I hardly ever washed my clothes. You can good a 6 months out of a pair of jeans, and a few weeks out of a shirt if you don't spill shit on it.:)
What the hell were people doing in the old days that required washing of clothes all day every day?
By toilet you mean hole in the ground, or spetic tank maybe? The modern, inside flushable toilet connected to a mains sewer only became mainstream after the war. My parents who were kids in the 40's and 50's still remember having to shit in an 'outhouse'.
Electricity is more recent, many rural areas didn't get that until the 1960s, and running water in rural areas depends on pumps and often came with electricity,
along with toilets.
in cities running water goes back to the Ancient rome.
They also had toilets, but I don't think that really counts.
In short, a large part of the populace's taste is not my taste, so those stars... meaningless to me.
I hardly ever read reviews for this same reason. Everyone has different opinions, so for this reason I find the whole concept of a professional critic ridiculous.
Like most of us here, I work in Technology, but am becoming increasingly disillusioned with this industry. Technology for technology's sake is my pet peeve.
Yes I like electric windows, but no I can't stand the auto wiper thing that gets it wrong most of the time. I like ABS, but hate auto lane assist. Who is that retarded that they need this?
Where are the people drawing a line in the sand to say, not all technology is good for us. Sure pick the good bits, but don't simply include everything just because it's there. My car has GPS but it won't let me use it while driving. Awesome.
I have bluetooth hands free which is handy, but everytime I receive an SMS the car can't deal with it and throws out an error. So now I don't use that at all either.
Technology is good, complexity is bad, and not being able to disbale featrue we don't like/want is evil.
Is that a serious qeustion? I can only assume you have zero experience in business, because the answer FUCK YES! Any company anywhere from mom and pop up to Apple, the most profitable company in history, would all be happy with unit sales of 13 million.
My only point was that Pepsi would probably like to sell as many as these
Yes and marketing 101 will teach you that simply aiming at Joe Average will get you nowhere, every successful business targets a specific market segment. Pepsi, and I'm guessing here, probably have studied the market, realise that Samsung and Apple have the top end sown up, Chinese knock-offs have the bottom end, so they are targetting the younger, above average aspirational types who want something better than a feature phone, but can't quite afford Apple/Samsung.
But please, continue on with your SJW ranting, it's amusing.
I know SJW is the phrase of the year for 2015, and it makes you feel like you're in the club to throw it around like that, but at least learn how to use it correctly before you look like a fool...
I would like to fix it too, but I don't see why wanting to fix gun violence should be a good excuse to abandon reason.
The arguments I've seen invovle aligning America's gun regulations with those of other modern western democracies, the same ones that don't suffer the same issues with guns. That sounds reaosnable to me.
Second on the list is probably the road deaths, because that also stands out as way above everyone else. It seems your love for the concept of freedom (not actual freedom, because it's hard to be free if you are dead) far outweighs common sense (ie attitudes to seatbelts, helmets, and guns).
I do appreciate freedom, but I don't recall ever citing that as a reason for opposing gun control or even opposing gun control at all. So I am not sure why you presume to know what my concept of freedom is.
So why then do you think it would be unreasonable to have similar regulations like Canada, UK, Australia, New Zealand, France, Germany, Sweden, Denmark, Japan, Singapore etc etc?
Slight variation, some bored kids were always hanging down the park just up the street. One of my friends decides to test a theory and pick up rocks whenever he finds them and leave in the park near where the kids hangout. After a few weeks the pile of rocks grows bigger until one day the building next door ended up with smashed windows.
Theory proven.
The real test? What the insurance rates are -- self-driving cars will likely be a lower risk, and thus cost less to insure.
All that means is that self drive cars will be associated with the poor, and rich people will still drive themselves to demonstrate their wealth. Pretty much like how rich people own yachts even though powerboats require less skill and maintenance.
I'd add to that list:
* Never drive preoccupied or in emotional imbalance
* Never drive intoxicated or on drugs
When I have sex, there is a chance I could get a disease, or a stalker girlfriend, but regardless of risk, there are some pleasures in life I'll never outsource to a machine. Driving is similar and I'm sure I'm not the only one with this opinion.
Slashdot Mirror
I got a great contract out of town for 12 months so decided to do the same thing. The office had a gym and I had a locker, so I lived in my van, using the gym each morning and evening and eating at my desk.
It's surprisingly easy if you are single. I'm not, so eventually it wore a bit thin with the wife (she stayed home and I commuted each week), but if I was single I'd do it again. Next time though I'd invest in a bigger more comfortable vehicle.
Next big project, Open Source RVs!
Design RV modules like the International Space Station, with standardised connector docks. Everyone parks up and connects to each other to create a massive temporary office space.
Reread as this: If the house costs x, x + 50% is kind of expensive but acceptable. X + 100% already becomes expensive, and X + 200 is ridiculous. Better now?
Nope. Because the value is mostly in the land, not the house. Back when I bought my first house, I could buy land for $20k and build a humble cottage for $20k. Back then a big TV (27") cost $2k.
Now a block of land cost $1million, and a good house can be built for about $250k. The big TV is now 55" and cost $600. The $250k house will cost you $350k in the crap areas, and over $1.5 million in the good areas. It has zero to do with the actual house.
Well said. Google (and the rest of the big 5) pay just under $100k for kids right out of college - about double the US median wage for a first job!
For some roles maybe, but not all. A architect friend of mine went through the laborious interview process at Google as he was interested in getting in with the cool kids (years ago before Google turned into fuckwits). He was earning $180k, and they offered him a job as an Engineer paying $80k.
I've heard similar stories of Google deliberately paying under market rates because so many clueless nerds will take it up the ass to work for them.
But Pepsi never made the claim did they, which was your entire argument? And now you're trying to squirm out of it on a technicality? Go find some children to play with elsewhere...
but honestly, who is going to fork over ~$3,500 for a tablet?
Rich people.
The same people that buy $5000 handbags and $15000 watches. If you're making $50k/week, and you need to buy a tablet, are you seriously going to get the $500 model that all the regular folk have?
But would it?
If that critic told you how awesome the song was, then you listened to it and it was crap, how much value have you gained? And if your friends and family also think it's shit then where is the value? I prefer a critic who thinks exactly like me. And so far, the only person I've found like that is me.
Er, ok...since you asked.
SJW means Social Justice Warrior, ie someone who thinks they are looking out for the little guy. eg equal opportunity, affirmative action, save the whales etc.
I merely stated that something that costs more, will invariably be associated with the rich, since that is how the rich distinguish themselves for the masses.
Nothing social in there, no pleas for justice, just making an observation about expensive things.
A "Luddite" tends to mean someone who avoids all technology, not someone who is smart enough to avoid the gimmicky ones.
You've just contradicted yourself and you don't even know it. Considering that you've been wrong about basic facts of what was said and what was submitted, this does not surprise me.
Just saying I'm wrong doesn't really qualify as an argument, but then at least you've been consistent...
Despite all of us working in I.T. for decades and being up on the latest trends -- we universally agreed that it feels like real innovation is slowing down.
My great grandparents saw the industrial revolution, my grandparents experienced world wars, my parents brought about social revolution and the digital age, and I played computer games and watched porn.
My kids also play computer games and are probably watching porn too. It seems we've reached a plateau in human development.
And if you've seen that weird guy on youtube, he can shoot arrows as quickly as a revolver by holding multiple arrows in his hand and reloading as part of the shooting action. The longbow was the AK47 of it's day.
When I first left home I hardly ever washed my clothes. You can good a 6 months out of a pair of jeans, and a few weeks out of a shirt if you don't spill shit on it. :)
What the hell were people doing in the old days that required washing of clothes all day every day?
Toilets, most people in the 1st world.
By toilet you mean hole in the ground, or spetic tank maybe? The modern, inside flushable toilet connected to a mains sewer only became mainstream after the war. My parents who were kids in the 40's and 50's still remember having to shit in an 'outhouse'.
Electricity is more recent, many rural areas didn't get that until the 1960s, and running water in rural areas depends on pumps and often came with electricity,
along with toilets.
in cities running water goes back to the Ancient rome.
They also had toilets, but I don't think that really counts.
In short, a large part of the populace's taste is not my taste, so those stars... meaningless to me.
I hardly ever read reviews for this same reason. Everyone has different opinions, so for this reason I find the whole concept of a professional critic ridiculous.
Like most of us here, I work in Technology, but am becoming increasingly disillusioned with this industry. Technology for technology's sake is my pet peeve.
Yes I like electric windows, but no I can't stand the auto wiper thing that gets it wrong most of the time. I like ABS, but hate auto lane assist. Who is that retarded that they need this?
Where are the people drawing a line in the sand to say, not all technology is good for us. Sure pick the good bits, but don't simply include everything just because it's there. My car has GPS but it won't let me use it while driving. Awesome.
I have bluetooth hands free which is handy, but everytime I receive an SMS the car can't deal with it and throws out an error. So now I don't use that at all either.
Technology is good, complexity is bad, and not being able to disbale featrue we don't like/want is evil.
Apple would be fine with 1%; would Pepsi?
Is that a serious qeustion? I can only assume you have zero experience in business, because the answer FUCK YES! Any company anywhere from mom and pop up to Apple, the most profitable company in history, would all be happy with unit sales of 13 million.
My only point was that Pepsi would probably like to sell as many as these
Yes and marketing 101 will teach you that simply aiming at Joe Average will get you nowhere, every successful business targets a specific market segment. Pepsi, and I'm guessing here, probably have studied the market, realise that Samsung and Apple have the top end sown up, Chinese knock-offs have the bottom end, so they are targetting the younger, above average aspirational types who want something better than a feature phone, but can't quite afford Apple/Samsung.
But please, continue on with your SJW ranting, it's amusing.
I know SJW is the phrase of the year for 2015, and it makes you feel like you're in the club to throw it around like that, but at least learn how to use it correctly before you look like a fool...
I would like to fix it too, but I don't see why wanting to fix gun violence should be a good excuse to abandon reason.
The arguments I've seen invovle aligning America's gun regulations with those of other modern western democracies, the same ones that don't suffer the same issues with guns. That sounds reaosnable to me.
Second on the list is probably the road deaths, because that also stands out as way above everyone else. It seems your love for the concept of freedom (not actual freedom, because it's hard to be free if you are dead) far outweighs common sense (ie attitudes to seatbelts, helmets, and guns).
I do appreciate freedom, but I don't recall ever citing that as a reason for opposing gun control or even opposing gun control at all. So I am not sure why you presume to know what my concept of freedom is.
So why then do you think it would be unreasonable to have similar regulations like Canada, UK, Australia, New Zealand, France, Germany, Sweden, Denmark, Japan, Singapore etc etc?
Slight variation, some bored kids were always hanging down the park just up the street. One of my friends decides to test a theory and pick up rocks whenever he finds them and leave in the park near where the kids hangout. After a few weeks the pile of rocks grows bigger until one day the building next door ended up with smashed windows.
Theory proven.
Hey, don't let them in on our plan. :)
As a motorbike rider, I fully support more morons being forced to be passengers in robot cars
The real test? What the insurance rates are -- self-driving cars will likely be a lower risk, and thus cost less to insure.
All that means is that self drive cars will be associated with the poor, and rich people will still drive themselves to demonstrate their wealth. Pretty much like how rich people own yachts even though powerboats require less skill and maintenance.
Modern cars are way safer and more reliable; it's so silly it's not even a comparison
Which explains perfectly is why there is zero market for old cars....
Sure the automated car may have some accidents that the human might avoid but I'm betting the total goes down.
Just like letting your brother have sex with that girl you met in the bar reduces your risk of getting diseases.
Some risks are worth taking.
* Never get bored, tired, or distracted
I'd add to that list: * Never drive preoccupied or in emotional imbalance * Never drive intoxicated or on drugs
When I have sex, there is a chance I could get a disease, or a stalker girlfriend, but regardless of risk, there are some pleasures in life I'll never outsource to a machine. Driving is similar and I'm sure I'm not the only one with this opinion.