Dont know about you but my Doctor gives me a 50% discount if I pay in cash. Turns out to be less than the cost my insurance bills me as my "co-pay". He saves the money because he does not have to have 3 people dedicated to validating the insurance, billing the different insurance agencies, and a collection person whos job it is to get the insurance companies to pay him.
So let me get this right, Deflation is bad and inflation is good?
If I have a currency that is worth less tomorrow than it is today then it is a good thing?
Sorry, I like the idea of a deflationary currency. It encourages saving, thrift, and money management where as inflationary currency encourages spending, and waist.
The whole idea that inflationary currency is good for the economy is based on the idea that it artificially forces spending as no one wants to hold onto it. Believe it or not that is a new idea, for thousands of years the world ran on deflationary currency. It was good then and it is still good now.
Give the people who need to work 10x more than everyone else gets and I doubt they'll complain.
The world is changing, letting a handful of people control 90% of the wealth is a bad idea.
So, If I give 10x the amount to those that work, compared to those that do not work, then the 99% of the population will bitch that the top 1% is making too much and control too much of the wealth.
This planet just happens to be several light-years off the main trade routes.
Fewer than 1 in 20 stars have a planet in the habitable zone. Fewer than 1 in 200 stars have a planet that supports life. 1 in 20,000 have evolved any intelligent life. So there are a lot of places out there that are off the beaten path and not visited often. Most intelligent species are not noticed for many years after they become space faring and start to explore. This is just a fact of space being so big and there being so many places where there is no life.
About the only people that make it this far off the beaten path and come across this little planet are the ones that are hiding from something or the ones that get lost.
After reading the comments, it appears that most dont know how to estimate.
If you are giving a time estimate in days/weeks/months/years Stop! That is wrong!
Always give the estimate in hours of work. The reason multiplying by pi works is that to management 1 day == 8 hours and 8*3 == 24 hours or 1 day.
I have found that when developers, Admins, and other technical people are asked to give the estimate in hours, you normally get a good estimate. Asking for the number of hours causes them to stop and think about the answer on a more granular level.
To top it off you can play with management when using hours. A work week is not 40 hours, it is 37.5 when you deduct federally mandated breaks and lunch. A year for one employee is 1,950 hours. If the employee has holidays and 2 weeks vacation it drops it down to 1837.5 hours. You can even go in and say things like the first hour of the day and the last hour of the day are non-productive hours due to time to spin up/read email/spin down/ etc and you can deduct another 10 hours a week for that making a work week 27.5 hours of working time or 1317.5 hours a year. Then start deducting weekly meetings, project meetings, etc. I bet when all is done you are looking at less than 10 hours a week of actual time coding. (Therefore your estimate of 3 days was right because that is 18 hours and it has taken 2 weeks to get the 18 hours in;) )
Managers and MBA's think that (maximising hours) == (maximising output), knowing nothing about how productivity tails off when hours worked in a week exceed ~ 40 or so.
I fixed it for you. The above is true of 99.9% of the companies I have worked for.
First, I did not say it was useless, I said "I dont think the average couch potato will ever get it"
Assuming you are an average couch potato, I would suggest that you did not break even. You simply did not understand the math.:P
Doing some rough math I come up with the following.
Checking my local electric I am paying $0.06 per kWh and if I feed electric back to the grid they pay $0.03 per kWh Checking current prices and using the optimum output from the system a $28,000 system will produce 16,755 kWh a year. (The average American uses 11,280 kWh a year)
If you take the maximum output of the system multiplied by 10 years (The life expectancy of the system) then divided it by the cost to come up with a cost per kWh of $0.16
Then subtracted the kWh above the average American usage as a net gain of 5,475 kWh multiplied by $0.03 per kWh as the electric company pays you for that, then multiplied it by 10 years. (Total $1,642) to be deducted from the overall cost of the system.
This brings the electric cost to $0.15 per kWh on the system (Remember it cost me $0.06 per kWh from the grid)
The sales brochures will often extend the life of the system out to 15 years in order to reduce the TCO and show you making a small net gain.
All of the above is based on the system working at peek efficiency. The truth is you will average 8,000 to 9,000 kWh a year from the system not the 16,755 kWh as the real world never gives peek efficiency. Add to that the chance of the system lasting 10 years with out damage and costly repairs is slim, one hail storm (We have them here ever 5 years or so) will total a system are require replacement of the panels.
Now, the reason I did not say it was useless is because there are a lot of uses for Solar. I have researched it because the cost of solar is well worth it, if and only if you use it in a manner that get the best bang for the buck so to speak. A small hunting cabin in the woods is a great example. It is not used as a daily place to live, you can design the cabin to be extremely electric efficient, and because you are not there all the time the solar can take days/weeks/months to charge the batters while you are not there so that when you are, you have electric on demand. Add to that the cost being far less than paying to have electric lines run miles out to your cabin and you have major net gains using it in that instance.
You may want to give up. I dont think the average couch potato will ever get it, they all think solar is the way of the future. Most seems to believe we will someday put a simple put a 2m^2 panel on your roof and get all your power needs.
You know what, I take that back. Most could not tell you how big two square meters is. They are expecting one of them blue panel thingies will some day power the house.
I hate to say it but there is not a good one. I have been in the IT field for 20+ years and I personally hate AD, however there is no real alternative. I have watched the open source solutions for years and they tend to be way to complex for a Jr admin and no where near as easy to get going as AD.
A note to open source developers: Come up with a replacement that can work in AD's place for Windows, Linux, Mac, etc. and is just as easy to set up. With that you could get a foothold in the Directory market place. There is no real competition for AD and it is needed badly.
Innovation does not come from a company it comes from competition!
The issue here is that Microsoft has killed the competition, No longer does innovation flow through competition.
Back before windows 95 we had Windows 3.1 and Dos. Dos was produced by Microsoft (MSDOS), IBM (IBM DOS), and Digital Research (DrDOS).
As one would come up with an innovative feature and gain some market share, the others would follow and add a new feature of their own. Each to try to regain the lost share and expand their market. When Microsoft combined Windows and DOS to create Windows 95 they killed the other dos manufactures. Thus creating there market dominance. From that point on they continued to flounder with few major innovations and more and more redesigned of the GUI or adding features that no one wanted or used.
The money they have along with the "really smart developers and engineers" do not matter, they have no real competition. Linux is the closest thing they have had to competition in years and it has never really grabbed enough market share on the desk top to spur the innovation and product life cycles that Microsoft would need to keep going. Dont get me wrong, Linux is stellar and I run it everywhere I can but without the pressure there is no market force to force the innovation.
On the server side, you can see Linux forcing innovation with Microsoft's announcement that admins should learn command line as Windows server GUI will be going away, as well as many of the server advancements that Linux has and Microsoft is implementing.
Do I think Microsoft desktops will survive, no. I see a slow erosion to obscurity. What replaces them may be Linux, Mac, or something completely new designed to use the new technologies that are emerging. I do however see Microsoft continuing for many years, struggling with the desktop and pushing more and more to servers and the cloud.
That is because you do not understand how the stock exchange works. Some notes to help you under stand
#1) When you buy a stock, you do not own the stock. (Unless you get a hard copy of the stock certificate) #2) The real stock is in DTCC's (Depository Trust and Clearing Corporation) name in a hidden vault in New York City. #3) DTCC when Clearing the sale simply moves the record of the stock from one account to another and does not change the ownership of the stock. #4) DTCC's Data center is running on 10 to 15 year old hardware and the stuff crashes all the time. #5) Some day the database will crash and the information as to who owns what will be lost #6) DTCC Will profit as they own all the stocks.
DTCC the privately held company you never heard of processing 4.6 quadrillion dollars a year in stock transactions.
Wait tell you find out who makes up the board of directors!
If one of these things is flying over YOUR PROPERTY are you allowed to blast it out of the sky?
There is debate as to the ownership of airspace below 500 ft. Which is the minimum height that aircraft can flow over populated areas. The fact that they restrict it to below 400 ft. means that it is within the airspace that normally would be covered by property rights.
Now, the reason I chose an Estes model rocket in my example is that it is legal to shoot them in the city. They travel at upwards of 1000ft a sec and can reach altitudes of over 3000ft. They require no notification or permission to fire. Thus if one of them happens into the area over your back yard and you happen to hit it with the rocket then there is not much you can do. Then again, my guess would be that the person flying it would freak a bit, even on a close call and at 400ft there is a chance of it crashing just from his reaction throwing it off course.
I would also note that Texas is a very strong property rights state. The police can not just walk onto your back yard and retrieve the crashed aircraft. They do have to ask permission. So, I would not be surprised if they loose a few.
The bias is not towards technologically minded people (what is this 1998?), it's towards people who use the Internet, i.e., everyone under 30. The Boomers are not likely to download torrents because they grew up with TV sets and, by and large, aren't very tech savvy.
30? 30???? Come on, boomers are over 50 now. Hell I am over 40 and am of the generation that started with home computers. You need to update your timeline, people born after 1970 are very computer savvy (they are not boomers) and many born after 1965 are as well. Once you get beyond that the number begin to sharply drop off.
I dont care for ether of them, but my wife and daughter love them both. Nether of them is "Technical" but both of them are capable of and do download the torrents for those shows as well as a show that I think is called "Once upon a time" but I could be wrong on the name.
I however am technical, and I throttle there torrent connections so I can get AMC's Walking Dead faster.:P
That way they can have an mid air collision with the Estes model rocket I will happen to be launching at the time. My special one where I replace the parachute cord with steal cable to make sure it does not break.:P
BTC was a horribly designed currency from the getgo designed by people with no clue what they're doing in terms of the currency side of the equation. What's more, notice how it's mostly just people who have money in BTC that are advocating for it? There is an inherent incentive to talk it up as it has no value other than what suckers they can lure in to buy the worthless junk.
As much as I hate to feed a troll, The economic concepts behind bitcoin are sound. It boils down to the debate between deflationary currency and inflationary currency. The arguments that I have heard are that inflationary currency (The USD) it needed to maintain economic growth. The fact that the USD will buy less tomorrow than it buys today encourages people to spend it, thus driving the economy. The concept behind deflationary currency (BTC) is one that the currency does not drive the economy, supply and demand drive the economy. A deflationary currency gains value and will buy more tomorrow than it buys today, as such it encourages people to save them instead of spending them. This is an interesting debate as deflationary currency was the standard for 1000's of years and inflationary currency is still new (last 100 years or so)
Remember, a bitcoin is only worth what some one will pay for it. The value is based on supply and demand with a limited supply. As demand grows so will the value of a bit coin as the supply is limited.
I will note that I do own a few 1000 bitcoin right now and I bought them back at 1$ a coin. I dont foresee them completely collapsing as many suggest because they have been adopted within several gray areas on the internet as a means to pay for products that many processors (paypal, googlepay, etc) prohibit. I personally believe the turning point on bitcoin was when the service started that allowed you to buy bitcoin at any 7-11 or CVS pharmacy. That was the point where they became easy to get.
As to your arguments of paying taxes, big whoop! I can not pay my US taxes with Euros, gold, or any of the stocks I own. As to debt, it is not illegal, it is barter. I give you bitcoin in exchange you remove/drop/mark off my debt. Just the same as me giving some one a car or a gold coin in payment of my debt.
Many years ago you could e-mail an address at google, yahoo, as well as others and they would remove your personal data from the listings. I used to do it every year. Do a search on my self and remove all reference to me. It worked great but they all stopped it and no longer honor requests for removal.
They really should bring it back, Not saying there needs to be a law but a movement to be an upstanding member of the online community and let you request removal of your information.
So it is a good thing that nobody has mentioned getting rid of the right to bear arms, except for a few knee-jerk types.
I don't often hear US citizens complain about not being able to have their own nuclear weapons for self-defense and yet that is illegal.
Ill complain, I say if you can afford a nuclear weapon then you should be able to have one. This really is a stupid argument, Nuclear weapons are large, have many moving parts, cost billions to buy and have multiple million $ maintenance costs. It is the equivalent of comparing a rubber band airplane to a 787 jet liner. I can afford a windup airplane, Very few people can afford a 787.
The second amendment reads
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
From "District of Columbia v Heller". Supreme.justia.com. Retrieved August 30, 2010. In Justice Antonin Scalia's majority opinion:
Nowhere else in the Constitution does a “right” attributed to “the people” refer to anything other than an individual right. What is more, in all six other provisions of the Constitution that mention “the people,” the term unambiguously refers to all members of the political community, not an unspecified subset. This contrasts markedly with the phrase “the militia” in the prefatory clause. As we will describe below, the “militia” in colonial America consisted of a subset of “the people”— those who were male, able bodied, and within a certain age range. Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to “keep and bear Arms” in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause’s description of the holder of that right as “the people”.
Astrix VOIP PBX with the call block function. They dont change the caller ID much so you just block the calling party and you are good for several months. Setting the block message to play the "Number has been disconnected or is no longer in service" message helps as many of them remove the number when getting that message.
Slashdot Mirror
Dont know about you but my Doctor gives me a 50% discount if I pay in cash. Turns out to be less than the cost my insurance bills me as my "co-pay". He saves the money because he does not have to have 3 people dedicated to validating the insurance, billing the different insurance agencies, and a collection person whos job it is to get the insurance companies to pay him.
The only thing missing is the smallpox.
OMG, I cracked up laughing at the above. Even trying to live the same style as the 1800's is better just because of the above statement. ;P
The moral of the above story is "NEVER OWN A HOUSE WITH A HOA"
Now, get off my lawn or I will shoot you.
So let me get this right, Deflation is bad and inflation is good?
If I have a currency that is worth less tomorrow than it is today then it is a good thing?
Sorry, I like the idea of a deflationary currency. It encourages saving, thrift, and money management where as inflationary currency encourages spending, and waist.
The whole idea that inflationary currency is good for the economy is based on the idea that it artificially forces spending as no one wants to hold onto it. Believe it or not that is a new idea, for thousands of years the world ran on deflationary currency. It was good then and it is still good now.
You can buy gold with it, then sell the gold and pay your taxes on the profit.
So you can pay taxes with and on bitcoin, you just have to buy and sell the right items.
Give the people who need to work 10x more than everyone else gets and I doubt they'll complain.
The world is changing, letting a handful of people control 90% of the wealth is a bad idea.
So, If I give 10x the amount to those that work, compared to those that do not work, then the 99% of the population will bitch that the top 1% is making too much and control too much of the wealth.
As is obvious from your above two statements.
You are not to far off.
This planet just happens to be several light-years off the main trade routes.
Fewer than 1 in 20 stars have a planet in the habitable zone.
Fewer than 1 in 200 stars have a planet that supports life.
1 in 20,000 have evolved any intelligent life.
So there are a lot of places out there that are off the beaten path and not visited often. Most intelligent species are not noticed for many years after they become space faring and start to explore. This is just a fact of space being so big and there being so many places where there is no life.
About the only people that make it this far off the beaten path and come across this little planet are the ones that are hiding from something or the ones that get lost.
After reading the comments, it appears that most dont know how to estimate.
If you are giving a time estimate in days/weeks/months/years Stop! That is wrong!
Always give the estimate in hours of work. The reason multiplying by pi works is that to management 1 day == 8 hours and 8*3 == 24 hours or 1 day.
I have found that when developers, Admins, and other technical people are asked to give the estimate in hours, you normally get a good estimate. Asking for the number of hours causes them to stop and think about the answer on a more granular level.
To top it off you can play with management when using hours. A work week is not 40 hours, it is 37.5 when you deduct federally mandated breaks and lunch. A year for one employee is 1,950 hours. If the employee has holidays and 2 weeks vacation it drops it down to 1837.5 hours. You can even go in and say things like the first hour of the day and the last hour of the day are non-productive hours due to time to spin up/read email/spin down/ etc and you can deduct another 10 hours a week for that making a work week 27.5 hours of working time or 1317.5 hours a year. Then start deducting weekly meetings, project meetings, etc. I bet when all is done you are looking at less than 10 hours a week of actual time coding. (Therefore your estimate of 3 days was right because that is 18 hours and it has taken 2 weeks to get the 18 hours in ;) )
Managers and MBA's think that (maximising hours) == (maximising output), knowing nothing about how productivity tails off when hours worked in a week exceed ~ 40 or so.
I fixed it for you. The above is true of 99.9% of the companies I have worked for.
First, I did not say it was useless, I said "I dont think the average couch potato will ever get it"
Assuming you are an average couch potato, I would suggest that you did not break even. You simply did not understand the math. :P
Doing some rough math I come up with the following.
Checking my local electric I am paying $0.06 per kWh and if I feed electric back to the grid they pay $0.03 per kWh
Checking current prices and using the optimum output from the system a $28,000 system will produce 16,755 kWh a year. (The average American uses 11,280 kWh a year)
If you take the maximum output of the system multiplied by 10 years (The life expectancy of the system) then divided it by the cost to come up with a cost per kWh of $0.16
Then subtracted the kWh above the average American usage as a net gain of 5,475 kWh multiplied by $0.03 per kWh as the electric company pays you for that, then multiplied it by 10 years. (Total $1,642) to be deducted from the overall cost of the system.
This brings the electric cost to $0.15 per kWh on the system (Remember it cost me $0.06 per kWh from the grid)
The sales brochures will often extend the life of the system out to 15 years in order to reduce the TCO and show you making a small net gain.
All of the above is based on the system working at peek efficiency. The truth is you will average 8,000 to 9,000 kWh a year from the system not the 16,755 kWh as the real world never gives peek efficiency. Add to that the chance of the system lasting 10 years with out damage and costly repairs is slim, one hail storm (We have them here ever 5 years or so) will total a system are require replacement of the panels.
Now, the reason I did not say it was useless is because there are a lot of uses for Solar. I have researched it because the cost of solar is well worth it, if and only if you use it in a manner that get the best bang for the buck so to speak. A small hunting cabin in the woods is a great example. It is not used as a daily place to live, you can design the cabin to be extremely electric efficient, and because you are not there all the time the solar can take days/weeks/months to charge the batters while you are not there so that when you are, you have electric on demand. Add to that the cost being far less than paying to have electric lines run miles out to your cabin and you have major net gains using it in that instance.
You may want to give up. I dont think the average couch potato will ever get it, they all think solar is the way of the future. Most seems to believe we will someday put a simple put a 2m^2 panel on your roof and get all your power needs.
You know what, I take that back. Most could not tell you how big two square meters is. They are expecting one of them blue panel thingies will some day power the house.
I hate to say it but there is not a good one. I have been in the IT field for 20+ years and I personally hate AD, however there is no real alternative. I have watched the open source solutions for years and they tend to be way to complex for a Jr admin and no where near as easy to get going as AD.
A note to open source developers: Come up with a replacement that can work in AD's place for Windows, Linux, Mac, etc. and is just as easy to set up. With that you could get a foothold in the Directory market place. There is no real competition for AD and it is needed badly.
Innovation does not come from a company it comes from competition!
The issue here is that Microsoft has killed the competition, No longer does innovation flow through competition.
Back before windows 95 we had Windows 3.1 and Dos. Dos was produced by Microsoft (MSDOS), IBM (IBM DOS), and Digital Research (DrDOS).
As one would come up with an innovative feature and gain some market share, the others would follow and add a new feature of their own. Each to try to regain the lost share and expand their market. When Microsoft combined Windows and DOS to create Windows 95 they killed the other dos manufactures. Thus creating there market dominance. From that point on they continued to flounder with few major innovations and more and more redesigned of the GUI or adding features that no one wanted or used.
The money they have along with the "really smart developers and engineers" do not matter, they have no real competition. Linux is the closest thing they have had to competition in years and it has never really grabbed enough market share on the desk top to spur the innovation and product life cycles that Microsoft would need to keep going. Dont get me wrong, Linux is stellar and I run it everywhere I can but without the pressure there is no market force to force the innovation.
On the server side, you can see Linux forcing innovation with Microsoft's announcement that admins should learn command line as Windows server GUI will be going away, as well as many of the server advancements that Linux has and Microsoft is implementing.
Do I think Microsoft desktops will survive, no. I see a slow erosion to obscurity. What replaces them may be Linux, Mac, or something completely new designed to use the new technologies that are emerging. I do however see Microsoft continuing for many years, struggling with the desktop and pushing more and more to servers and the cloud.
The only issue is if they give a test, and by passing hand you a degree, they call them diploma mills.
I really is amazing what can't be copyrighted.
Things like databases, lists, recipes, strings of random numbers and letters (activation codes for windows), etc., etc.
That is because you do not understand how the stock exchange works. Some notes to help you under stand
#1) When you buy a stock, you do not own the stock. (Unless you get a hard copy of the stock certificate)
#2) The real stock is in DTCC's (Depository Trust and Clearing Corporation) name in a hidden vault in New York City.
#3) DTCC when Clearing the sale simply moves the record of the stock from one account to another and does not change the ownership of the stock.
#4) DTCC's Data center is running on 10 to 15 year old hardware and the stuff crashes all the time.
#5) Some day the database will crash and the information as to who owns what will be lost
#6) DTCC Will profit as they own all the stocks.
DTCC the privately held company you never heard of processing 4.6 quadrillion dollars a year in stock transactions.
Wait tell you find out who makes up the board of directors!
If one of these things is flying over YOUR PROPERTY are you allowed to blast it out of the sky?
There is debate as to the ownership of airspace below 500 ft. Which is the minimum height that aircraft can flow over populated areas. The fact that they restrict it to below 400 ft. means that it is within the airspace that normally would be covered by property rights.
Now, the reason I chose an Estes model rocket in my example is that it is legal to shoot them in the city. They travel at upwards of 1000ft a sec and can reach altitudes of over 3000ft. They require no notification or permission to fire. Thus if one of them happens into the area over your back yard and you happen to hit it with the rocket then there is not much you can do. Then again, my guess would be that the person flying it would freak a bit, even on a close call and at 400ft there is a chance of it crashing just from his reaction throwing it off course.
I would also note that Texas is a very strong property rights state. The police can not just walk onto your back yard and retrieve the crashed aircraft. They do have to ask permission. So, I would not be surprised if they loose a few.
The bias is not towards technologically minded people (what is this 1998?), it's towards people who use the Internet, i.e., everyone under 30. The Boomers are not likely to download torrents because they grew up with TV sets and, by and large, aren't very tech savvy.
30? 30???? Come on, boomers are over 50 now. Hell I am over 40 and am of the generation that started with home computers. You need to update your timeline, people born after 1970 are very computer savvy (they are not boomers) and many born after 1965 are as well. Once you get beyond that the number begin to sharply drop off.
I dont care for ether of them, but my wife and daughter love them both. Nether of them is "Technical" but both of them are capable of and do download the torrents for those shows as well as a show that I think is called "Once upon a time" but I could be wrong on the name.
I however am technical, and I throttle there torrent connections so I can get AMC's Walking Dead faster. :P
Please, please fly one of them over my house.
That way they can have an mid air collision with the Estes model rocket I will happen to be launching at the time. My special one where I replace the parachute cord with steal cable to make sure it does not break. :P
BTC was a horribly designed currency from the getgo designed by people with no clue what they're doing in terms of the currency side of the equation. What's more, notice how it's mostly just people who have money in BTC that are advocating for it? There is an inherent incentive to talk it up as it has no value other than what suckers they can lure in to buy the worthless junk.
As much as I hate to feed a troll, The economic concepts behind bitcoin are sound. It boils down to the debate between deflationary currency and inflationary currency. The arguments that I have heard are that inflationary currency (The USD) it needed to maintain economic growth. The fact that the USD will buy less tomorrow than it buys today encourages people to spend it, thus driving the economy. The concept behind deflationary currency (BTC) is one that the currency does not drive the economy, supply and demand drive the economy. A deflationary currency gains value and will buy more tomorrow than it buys today, as such it encourages people to save them instead of spending them. This is an interesting debate as deflationary currency was the standard for 1000's of years and inflationary currency is still new (last 100 years or so)
Remember, a bitcoin is only worth what some one will pay for it. The value is based on supply and demand with a limited supply. As demand grows so will the value of a bit coin as the supply is limited.
I will note that I do own a few 1000 bitcoin right now and I bought them back at 1$ a coin. I dont foresee them completely collapsing as many suggest because they have been adopted within several gray areas on the internet as a means to pay for products that many processors (paypal, googlepay, etc) prohibit. I personally believe the turning point on bitcoin was when the service started that allowed you to buy bitcoin at any 7-11 or CVS pharmacy. That was the point where they became easy to get.
As to your arguments of paying taxes, big whoop! I can not pay my US taxes with Euros, gold, or any of the stocks I own. As to debt, it is not illegal, it is barter. I give you bitcoin in exchange you remove/drop/mark off my debt. Just the same as me giving some one a car or a gold coin in payment of my debt.
Many years ago you could e-mail an address at google, yahoo, as well as others and they would remove your personal data from the listings. I used to do it every year. Do a search on my self and remove all reference to me. It worked great but they all stopped it and no longer honor requests for removal.
They really should bring it back, Not saying there needs to be a law but a movement to be an upstanding member of the online community and let you request removal of your information.
So it is a good thing that nobody has mentioned getting rid of the right to bear arms, except for a few knee-jerk types.
I don't often hear US citizens complain about not being able to have their own nuclear weapons for self-defense and yet that is illegal.
Ill complain, I say if you can afford a nuclear weapon then you should be able to have one. This really is a stupid argument, Nuclear weapons are large, have many moving parts, cost billions to buy and have multiple million $ maintenance costs. It is the equivalent of comparing a rubber band airplane to a 787 jet liner. I can afford a windup airplane, Very few people can afford a 787.
The second amendment reads
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
From "District of Columbia v Heller". Supreme.justia.com. Retrieved August 30, 2010.
In Justice Antonin Scalia's majority opinion:
Nowhere else in the Constitution does a “right” attributed to “the people” refer to anything other than an individual right. What is more, in all six other provisions of the Constitution that mention “the people,” the term unambiguously refers to all members of the political community, not an unspecified subset. This contrasts markedly with the phrase “the militia” in the prefatory clause. As we will describe below, the “militia” in colonial America consisted of a subset of “the people”— those who were male, able bodied, and within a certain age range. Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to “keep and bear Arms” in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause’s description of the holder of that right as “the people”.
So there are two of us who have found the same solution.
A+, it has been working for me for a couple of years now.
Astrix VOIP PBX with the call block function. They dont change the caller ID much so you just block the calling party and you are good for several months. Setting the block message to play the "Number has been disconnected or is no longer in service" message helps as many of them remove the number when getting that message.