Clearly your ability to rationalize and look at the big picture had nothing to do with the roughly 6 years between when you hacked code and when you re-entered the market as an experienced software engineer. Don't get me wrong, eduction is great to help become a 'better person' (though I wouldn't judge them more capable than one without based on many job categories), but to assume your radical transformation had nothing to do with simply growing up is a little disengenous.
I know that when I left school, I was the biggeest hot shot coder on earth and everyone else was wrong. Flash forward 10-15 years and now I know I'm a piece of the team, and if I can't function well in the team, we all fail, etc. and so forth.
Wisdom, eduction, and experience (in life and career) change your outlook on how you do your job and live your life. Cookie-cuttering it into one category would be an oversight, and highly simplifies one's personal development.
Most applications from Google can be specifically configured to not run over mobile. Just don't watch videos or download countless imaginees and you'll be fine. The first month is ALWAYS the heaviest month you'll use mobile data on any given phone, at least from my experience (because you want to try everything, and still working out how best to integrate the phone into your life, etc..).
"We're whining that all products sold near us are designed to do something that we find undesirable."
Whining about a lack of choice is perfectly reasonable, and in the perfect world, a large enough population of people should be able to solve the issue with market forces and unrestricted market entry.
Dumb phones still exist, so the choice is yours for not settling for them, or the many other competing phone platforms in the market. We as a society have chosen walled gardens and interconnected services, many because they wanted it that way, many because the heavy marketing convinced us to do it despite reservations. Don't blame people for buying what they wanted.
I've got a Nexus 5 and the amount of data wasted on systems updates is pretty small, and that's with syncing my entire google catelog of services. How can someone sue for a service that can be TURNED OFF, hence saving your entire reason for sueing.
The shitty thing about this suit is that Google actually makes very good use of elecricity and has spent years getting it to the point where battery usage for regular background activities like described are well performing. Its an insult to all good nerds to be insulted by a bunch of ignorant people looking for their handount.
How exactly is that accomplished? I'd assume that anyone inside a network has basically unfettered access to the device, but how would a 'drive by' attacker be able to accomplish this?
If the police enter your house on spousal abuse and see a pound of coke on your coffee table, you're still going to arrested for both. If you wanted to be a smart criminal, learn to segregate your data better, stupid.
Dubai a city with a significantly challenging future and it has little to do with a dome. It's the center of little, its propelled by wildy deep pockets vs. social need, and wealth centers in the middle east are already distributing their investments to other regions. Forget the fact that once the oil's gone the wealth remaining in the region will leach away as there's so few people (though it'll take a very long time). UAE: 9mil, Yeman: 23mil, Oman: 4mil, Saudi Arabia: 30 mil. They have huge gulfs of weath distribution, and generally horrible climates. Why would people go to Dubai if it wasn't a spectacle or a huge weath gaining opportunity? My advice: Bilk Dubai for all its worth now, because in 50 years it'll be a distant memory of largesse gone awry by modern standards.
Since when is a password in itself evidence, or in any way incriminating yourself? What the police find from access granted by said password is another matter.
Laws exist in a large part to protect the dumb, naive, incapable, or ignorant individuals in our population. Choose your insult and blame society for being too liberal supportive of any group and you can say the same thing.
I can't say much about the merit of the case or common sense, but considering radar jammer manufacturers can be held accountable for miss-use (intended abuse of the law) its at least possible that the case will go to trial. The significant note of the case (if it continues) will be if TOR is designed to facilitate breaking the law or if it has enough legal uses to be considered incidental support, like the internet, air, electricity, etc...
Well, you don't remember very clearly then. People's 'rights' have always been trampled on when the state deemed it necessary. This is nothing new to the US. It's happened since the dawn of time. Human's requirements for security will always trump their desire for equality (well unless you're the top of the pyramid I suppose). Once things 'calm down' on a global scale, expect more politicians massaging away the bad bump in these laws. Then expect 'the next great calamity', which will again cause more knee jerk laws to be passed with roughshod through the political spheres.
Generally speaking, if you're a major shareholder with inside knowledge of wrongdoing and the power to change it, you can be personally held accountable for the actions of ' the corporation'. Since you're a 1 man band, you'd be guaranteed to meet the two conditions and be thrown in jail regardless of the veil of a 'corporate shield' or not.
I can't say anything about the rest of your post, but being the 'owner' of your domain, you ARE the target of a DMCA takedown, not the hosting provider since you control the content on your site ultimately. They'll hit the provider first, but eventually get to you, as the lawful owner of the domain, DMCA is about you, not them. If the provider sends along your personal contact information as is probably required for a subpoena (maybe a take-down, but I doubt it) then that's what they'll do.
I'm not really following what the guy's saying, but it all comes down to trust.
In the US, I assume you need to have a certain level of certification to both open a cab company as well as be a driver in said cabs (insert rude jokes about cab drivers here..) and Uber is the laizez faire of cabs. Anyone can become a cab at any time, sort of like a car share, but on demand, and most likely participants who don't know one another (like cabs).
The problem comes from trust. When you step into a cab in the US, you have the assumption of not being ripped off, driven around the block, driven dangerously fast, robbed blind, etc.. If lets say I pull up into the Airport and see "NY Taxi Service" or "NY Economy Taxi Service", "Or NYC Taxi's" all posted on their cars, I have no idea if this is a legit signage from a company that has long ties to the area, or a fly by night that is going to take me for a ride.
Try going to countries that have any less enforcement and you get all people trying to look out for you to AVOID xyz because they'll take you for a ride, and maybe they won't and the helpers are just paid by a competing taxi service. Losing an industry that may be fat, but is forced to follow stricter rules for the public good seems like a justifiable trade-off, but I'm open to hearing other opinions on the matter.
As there are many shapes and forms to democratic process, can you reference an active government that have 'gotten it right' at least in terms of dealing with campaign / direct contributions that you find working well (or at least as close to what you're proposing to introduce)?
That all may be true, or it may not. Taking power away from the fed means that that vacant space is going to:
1. State / local governments
2. Organized groups with special interests
3. The populace
Odds are #3 will have exactly as much say as they've always had, and there's more money to be had be groups 1/2 if the fed shrivles up. My opinion is that if you want power, you need to trade it off with harsh real panalties for violating the trust put upon you. The problem is the people with the most to lose from the scheme are the only ones who have the power to enact it (barring armed revolt). Have fun!
That's an easy one too. Set caps on campaign spending or set limits on the amount of TV/radio based ad time that can be spent on a campaigner. That would very quickly set a more balanced playing field for having people over the top bombarded with the message. It still allows for street signs, internet bombardment, etc.. but those are also generally grass roots in nature, so it may actually benefit people getting elected where they may not have been recognized prior.
If I wanted to block all telephone signals, I should have the right to. If I block emergency radio signals, I should have the right to. If I block all wireless communication signals on the planet, I should have the right to. Wahh wahh wahh. Oh my god, do you troglodytes live in a fucking bubble or what.
The poor also buy cheaper cars that are generally lower consumption than the gas guzzling behemonths that roam the American streets. It may disproportionately tax the poor (that drive anyways), but at least its fair in the sene that its based on consumption. Fix the poor with income tax breaks if you must.
This is all business man, these artists get free bandwidth from Youtube and possibly the option to make a profit of ad revenues, all for nothing. If these guys set up their own servers and host it themselves, the costs become cost prohibitive. If they've signed agreements with Google (however retarded these contacts may be) then who's to call either side evil? At least when I blindly agree to a EULA, I know I'm sticking my butt into the air and waiting for a company to do rude things to it.
Slashdot Mirror
Save a tree and use e-paper, man... =)
Clearly your ability to rationalize and look at the big picture had nothing to do with the roughly 6 years between when you hacked code and when you re-entered the market as an experienced software engineer. Don't get me wrong, eduction is great to help become a 'better person' (though I wouldn't judge them more capable than one without based on many job categories), but to assume your radical transformation had nothing to do with simply growing up is a little disengenous.
I know that when I left school, I was the biggeest hot shot coder on earth and everyone else was wrong. Flash forward 10-15 years and now I know I'm a piece of the team, and if I can't function well in the team, we all fail, etc. and so forth.
Wisdom, eduction, and experience (in life and career) change your outlook on how you do your job and live your life. Cookie-cuttering it into one category would be an oversight, and highly simplifies one's personal development.
Most applications from Google can be specifically configured to not run over mobile. Just don't watch videos or download countless imaginees and you'll be fine. The first month is ALWAYS the heaviest month you'll use mobile data on any given phone, at least from my experience (because you want to try everything, and still working out how best to integrate the phone into your life, etc..).
"We're whining that all products sold near us are designed to do something that we find undesirable."
Whining about a lack of choice is perfectly reasonable, and in the perfect world, a large enough population of people should be able to solve the issue with market forces and unrestricted market entry.
Dumb phones still exist, so the choice is yours for not settling for them, or the many other competing phone platforms in the market. We as a society have chosen walled gardens and interconnected services, many because they wanted it that way, many because the heavy marketing convinced us to do it despite reservations. Don't blame people for buying what they wanted.
I've got a Nexus 5 and the amount of data wasted on systems updates is pretty small, and that's with syncing my entire google catelog of services. How can someone sue for a service that can be TURNED OFF, hence saving your entire reason for sueing.
The shitty thing about this suit is that Google actually makes very good use of elecricity and has spent years getting it to the point where battery usage for regular background activities like described are well performing. Its an insult to all good nerds to be insulted by a bunch of ignorant people looking for their handount.
"boots it off the network"
How exactly is that accomplished? I'd assume that anyone inside a network has basically unfettered access to the device, but how would a 'drive by' attacker be able to accomplish this?
If the police enter your house on spousal abuse and see a pound of coke on your coffee table, you're still going to arrested for both. If you wanted to be a smart criminal, learn to segregate your data better, stupid.
Well hey, people have their own opinions no matter how much those opinions may contradict your singular world view.
Dubai a city with a significantly challenging future and it has little to do with a dome. It's the center of little, its propelled by wildy deep pockets vs. social need, and wealth centers in the middle east are already distributing their investments to other regions. Forget the fact that once the oil's gone the wealth remaining in the region will leach away as there's so few people (though it'll take a very long time). UAE: 9mil, Yeman: 23mil, Oman: 4mil, Saudi Arabia: 30 mil. They have huge gulfs of weath distribution, and generally horrible climates. Why would people go to Dubai if it wasn't a spectacle or a huge weath gaining opportunity? My advice: Bilk Dubai for all its worth now, because in 50 years it'll be a distant memory of largesse gone awry by modern standards.
Since when is a password in itself evidence, or in any way incriminating yourself? What the police find from access granted by said password is another matter.
Laws exist in a large part to protect the dumb, naive, incapable, or ignorant individuals in our population. Choose your insult and blame society for being too liberal supportive of any group and you can say the same thing.
I can't say much about the merit of the case or common sense, but considering radar jammer manufacturers can be held accountable for miss-use (intended abuse of the law) its at least possible that the case will go to trial. The significant note of the case (if it continues) will be if TOR is designed to facilitate breaking the law or if it has enough legal uses to be considered incidental support, like the internet, air, electricity, etc...
Well, you don't remember very clearly then. People's 'rights' have always been trampled on when the state deemed it necessary. This is nothing new to the US. It's happened since the dawn of time. Human's requirements for security will always trump their desire for equality (well unless you're the top of the pyramid I suppose). Once things 'calm down' on a global scale, expect more politicians massaging away the bad bump in these laws. Then expect 'the next great calamity', which will again cause more knee jerk laws to be passed with roughshod through the political spheres.
Generally speaking, if you're a major shareholder with inside knowledge of wrongdoing and the power to change it, you can be personally held accountable for the actions of ' the corporation'. Since you're a 1 man band, you'd be guaranteed to meet the two conditions and be thrown in jail regardless of the veil of a 'corporate shield' or not.
I can't say anything about the rest of your post, but being the 'owner' of your domain, you ARE the target of a DMCA takedown, not the hosting provider since you control the content on your site ultimately. They'll hit the provider first, but eventually get to you, as the lawful owner of the domain, DMCA is about you, not them. If the provider sends along your personal contact information as is probably required for a subpoena (maybe a take-down, but I doubt it) then that's what they'll do.
I'm not really following what the guy's saying, but it all comes down to trust.
In the US, I assume you need to have a certain level of certification to both open a cab company as well as be a driver in said cabs (insert rude jokes about cab drivers here..) and Uber is the laizez faire of cabs. Anyone can become a cab at any time, sort of like a car share, but on demand, and most likely participants who don't know one another (like cabs).
The problem comes from trust. When you step into a cab in the US, you have the assumption of not being ripped off, driven around the block, driven dangerously fast, robbed blind, etc.. If lets say I pull up into the Airport and see "NY Taxi Service" or "NY Economy Taxi Service", "Or NYC Taxi's" all posted on their cars, I have no idea if this is a legit signage from a company that has long ties to the area, or a fly by night that is going to take me for a ride.
Try going to countries that have any less enforcement and you get all people trying to look out for you to AVOID xyz because they'll take you for a ride, and maybe they won't and the helpers are just paid by a competing taxi service. Losing an industry that may be fat, but is forced to follow stricter rules for the public good seems like a justifiable trade-off, but I'm open to hearing other opinions on the matter.
I'll wait for EA games on Steam, and I've been quite happy blissfully ignoring any and all new EA releases.
As there are many shapes and forms to democratic process, can you reference an active government that have 'gotten it right' at least in terms of dealing with campaign / direct contributions that you find working well (or at least as close to what you're proposing to introduce)?
That all may be true, or it may not. Taking power away from the fed means that that vacant space is going to:
1. State / local governments
2. Organized groups with special interests
3. The populace
Odds are #3 will have exactly as much say as they've always had, and there's more money to be had be groups 1/2 if the fed shrivles up. My opinion is that if you want power, you need to trade it off with harsh real panalties for violating the trust put upon you. The problem is the people with the most to lose from the scheme are the only ones who have the power to enact it (barring armed revolt). Have fun!
That's an easy one too. Set caps on campaign spending or set limits on the amount of TV/radio based ad time that can be spent on a campaigner. That would very quickly set a more balanced playing field for having people over the top bombarded with the message. It still allows for street signs, internet bombardment, etc.. but those are also generally grass roots in nature, so it may actually benefit people getting elected where they may not have been recognized prior.
If I wanted to block all telephone signals, I should have the right to. If I block emergency radio signals, I should have the right to. If I block all wireless communication signals on the planet, I should have the right to. Wahh wahh wahh. Oh my god, do you troglodytes live in a fucking bubble or what.
Dunno about that one, but here's a snapshot of much of the market:
http://www.zillow.com/visuals/...
The poor also buy cheaper cars that are generally lower consumption than the gas guzzling behemonths that roam the American streets. It may disproportionately tax the poor (that drive anyways), but at least its fair in the sene that its based on consumption. Fix the poor with income tax breaks if you must.
Our hosing bubble hasn't popped yet. Houses are at historic highs. Just wait a few years and things will go back to normal.
This is all business man, these artists get free bandwidth from Youtube and possibly the option to make a profit of ad revenues, all for nothing. If these guys set up their own servers and host it themselves, the costs become cost prohibitive. If they've signed agreements with Google (however retarded these contacts may be) then who's to call either side evil? At least when I blindly agree to a EULA, I know I'm sticking my butt into the air and waiting for a company to do rude things to it.