We can't even make a translator that works and you're going to look for "suspicious" people? Is that some kind of sick joke? What, exactly, constitutes "suspicious" and wouldn't that be almost impossible to code in any meaningful way? Hell, we humans can't even agree on what "suspicion" looks like and now they want to teach a computer. Good luck with that.
I expect that "suspicion" is a fairly complex process in the human brain (it relies on a lot of different senses) so I am having difficulty understanding how anyone in their right mind would undertake such an effort.
100% agree with balance. But it's bigger than that.
You say you don't want or need to be completely financially independent. You say you'd be happy if your dividends lasted a few years before running out...
No argument. You can do what you want to do, of course. But don't you see that you will still be forced to make money later in life in order to support yourself??? By definition, that's not freedom. Don't get me wrong, it's not slavery either. Hopefully, you'll be good enough to adapt your skillset so you can make money and get by doing something you like. But I don't think like you do.
See, you assume that the REST of your life, you'll be able to "do what you need to do to get by" (at whatever income level you need). I don't assume that. I want to make sure I don't have to do ANYTHING at that point -- unless I want to. F-you money insures that, which is why I took the time to explain it.
F-you money is where you have enough to live the way you want to live without EVER having to go back to work. Until you reach that point, you still have a long road ahead. It's where you are financially independent enough that you can tell your employer "Fuck You". You might have "piles" of money right now but if you are smart, you are investing those dollars so you can reach F-you money as quickly as possible. After that, you can do whatever you want to do.
I used to be just like you. I'd look at my paycheck and wonder, "how the hell am I going to spend this?". But, from experience, as you get old into your 30's and 40's -- you quickly realize that, unless you are sitting on $2-$3mil US minimum, you are still going to have to go to work. Maybe you can delay it for 20 years and live off your savings in the meantime. But what happens when the money runs out? You'll have to work. You'll work not because you want to...but because you have to in order to pay the bills. And the bills get bigger as you go on. House, cars, kids, wives, new businesses, insurance, repairs, vacations, etc.
In America, this is one of the reasons you see people work so hard and put so much into it. They are all after the F-you money because they know, once they get it....everything else from that point on is optional (except death and paying taxes). And I am talking about normal people who work because they have to work. If you work (truly) because you enjoy it, then good for you. But you must realize you are in the vast minority.
Imagine having such a large "pile" that you could pay yourself $100K, $200K, $300K, or whatever per year -- just from the interest your pile generates. That's F-you money. And, no offense, but I doubt you are there yet.
I have some unfortunate opportunities to observe such actions myself as some people I know were
intimidated by a real estate management company, which managed to extort a significant amount of money from them, threatening legal action. In all likelihood the claims would have been dismissed by a court, but they were too scared.
Do you see the logical flaw in your post? You rail against entities using the legal system as their weapon, yet, the example you cite is an example of somebody NOT fighting back. In other words, the very legal system you rail against -- was not used. Instead, your people rolled over and paid up "because they were scared".
Let's be clear here: if you aren't prepared to fight back, then you will get whatever comes to you.
I am not saying it is right. I am just saying that is probably #1 on the laws of the world, universe, and everything.
Not fighting = easier target.
Yep, and Canadian products will become more "expensive" to Americans (therefore, less goods are sold). Additionally, US products will become cheaper for Canadians (therefore, more of our goods get sold to you)....
It doesn't matter. The point is: currency values mean very little unless you trade them or are measuring inflation. Any more analysis is a discussion of macro-economic theory and world money supply. A topic best left to the economists.
Synesthesia is one of the most fascinating subjects I have ever read about. Basically, it's a neuro condition where your senses get cross-wired. For example, you would "taste" words (taste and hearing are cross-wired). Every word you hear would have a distinctive taste on your tongue. Or, you would "hear" in color (hearing and vision are cross-wired). Everything you hear produces different colors in your brain.
Yes, I know. It sound like BS. But it is not. It is well documented and seems to be fairly common. In fact, 60 Minutes did a story on it years ago but I can not find the link. Google it. Sometimes it's spelled Synaesthesia.
If we can ever master the mechanics of how it happens, we'll know what we need to know to do exactly what you lay out in your post. For now, however, it's a long way off.
You come into MY world, with your commercialism, and you expect me to care about what does and does not cost you money?
I don't mean offense but honestly....who is to say what I should and shouldn't click? If a link is present, I may - or may not - click it. It is 100% up to me. In fact, it's so much my decision -- that you have absolutely no control or influence on my decision.
I am sorry if my whims might cost you money. Perhaps you should find a different model or a different way of doing things. We (the internet) got along just fine before advertising and we will get along just fine if your ads disappeared. They won't, of course. But that is beside the point. The internet is based on an open architecture. Open and free (in the technical sense) access to information. That is the default. Not the other way around, as much as the commercial powers want it that way.
I say this because it seems to be that the main goal of the commercial powers that be is: to change how the internet works. The rest of us are appalled at some of the rules and regs the internet has taken on since the commercial interests arrived.
And just for the record, I am not anti-commercial. I just think it's funny when commercial interests complain that users aren't doing things "the right way" and it might cost them money. Boo-hoo. Go find another way to accomplish your goals.
(note: sorry to pick on you...it's not personal. You just represent the "commercial" interests of the internet)
So, is tasering for "punishment" something we should accept as a society? It sure seems to me that a lot of police officers these days are using their tasers as a form of punishment when whatever situation does not go to their plan. You see it A LOT in passive resistance situations (ie: sitting in front of a bulldozer used to mean they hog-tied you and carried you off. Now, it means they taser you until you move on your own.)
I ask in all seriousness because I sure see a lot of it.
"Do what we say or we'll use the taser."
"Sir, if you don't then we are going to have to taser you"
Is this how we want tasers used? Has this ever been tested in a court?
I remember that Tornado because I was living in Austin at the time. Incredible. Even more incredible that more people did not die. Funny...I seem to remember ALL of the bad tornadoes that were close.:)
What I did not mention was the heat index was 114F and it was during a period of serious drought. All creeks were dried up and there was not a pool of water that I could find. Believe me....it was not my choice. I gladly would have taken ANY water at that point but your assertion that water is plentiful is a bit naive. Even in the Ozarks. Grab a topo map and you'll see. It's not just nice, pretty creeks and lakes back in those hills. There are vast expanses of land between them.
Water is not as easy to find as you think. Especially when you are on foot, tired, and dehydrated. Already, your mind is playing games with you and it feels like each step is your last. Of course...it is easy to be a Monday morning quarterback.:)
(and I do that a lot to myself over this experience)
Drinking pee is harder than you think. I speak from personal experience.
I was lost in the Ozark mountains for 2 days without any supplies. The temperature was over 100F and I had almost no water. The little water I did have was exhausted quickly and the next best alternative was my own pee. I became thirsty enough that drinking my own pee was not even a question - it was a necessity (or so I thought).
I removed my flashlight batteries and peed in my flashlight because it was the only thing I had that could hold liquid.
Guess what happens to your pee when you are dehydrated? It's get much more concentrated. So much so, that I think you'll have a hard time drinking it unless you are, literally, getting close to death. Mine was so strong, I couldn't even stomach the smell much less, drink it. I have never been as thirsty in my life as that day and I have never since, been in a situation as dire as that one. Yet, I couldn't drink it.
While it may be an option early on, as dehydration starts setting in, drinking your own pee becomes less of an option as each hour passes by.
It wasn't the hurricane that was the problem. It was the levies. Had the levees not broken, we would not be talking about Katrina today.
Obviously, they are related because the levees would not have broken without the hurricane. But the point here is that the Hurricane did remarkably little damage on it's own. The levees, on the other hand, were responsible for almost all of the issues you read about today.
Just another example of the edges starting to fray with respect to our national infrastructure. Without the levee issues, Katrina isn't special. Powerful? yes. Scary? yes. Destructive? Not really, when compared to something like Andrew or Hugo.
...and don't even get me started on the emergency response.
You make the assertion that stereotypes are "usually" wrong.
Please explain and back that up. Because from where I stand, stereotypes can be dead on accurate. Not all, mind you, but enough of them to make the case there is some basis in reality.
Case in point: women. The stereotype is that they are more emotional beings than men.
...and that is pretty well documented through the sociological and scientific studies in the area. It turns out that women DO think differently than men. So is that stereotype wrong? No, but it might be in some individual, specific cases.
Another case: the stereotype of Fox news watchers is that they are uninformed (or, to be nice: "have misperceptions").
...and it turns out, that is correct. Are all of them that way? No, but enough have "misperceptions" that it is statistically significant.
Stereotypes have been around for a long time, with good reason. They aren't "wrong" anymore than jealousy or anger are wrong. They just are.
Porno knockoffs of Star Wars have been going on a long time. Although, I doubt anyone could really say they "ripped off" Star Wars, the similarities are uncanny.
Or at least that's what my friends tell me after watching it. (cough, cough)
They are "supposed" to do (whatever that means) whatever is in my and everybody else's best interests.
Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong as in, totally 100% incorrect.
They are supposed to do whatever is best for the shareholder's interests. Period. Nobody else matters. If the shareholders want to disband and liquidate the company, then they can. Corporations are created for - and only for - the shareholders. Jeez...where did you go to school? This is middle school economics stuff and is backed by historical record, not opinion.
That is all they are supposed to do. Anything else is nothing more than a means to that goal. (philanthropy, community endeavors, etc) It all culminates in the company bringing a product to market and hopefully, making money. But that isn't even required. There are plenty of non-profit corporations and guess what? They also answer to their shareholders.
There are, of course, indirect connections. ie: shareholders want companies to remain in business so they want the companies to do what is right for customers and the community. Therefore, companies answer to customers and the community. But this connection is indirect in nature and is only a result of it being a means to an end (ie: the end = shareholders goals). All else, besides the shareholders, is secondary. And yes, I mean ALL else. Even legal penalties become part of the shareholder equation.
This is national news now. CNBC is covering it and Apple's stock jumped $3.60 or so because of the news.
It will be very interesting to see how the players react. My prediction?
Apple: won't care. more customers = better
T-Mobile: won't care.
AT&T: Pissed!
It is very important to distribute the "how-to" as quickly and widely as possible. I hope he published them before they sue his ass and try to silence him. Because I think AT&T will do exactly that...
Remember folks, sometimes it doesn't matter if you win or lose -- only that you delay. And AT&T would love to delay people from doing this on a mass-scale.
Yea, the plants who don't have CEMS (continuous emissions monitoring systems) do. But almost all coal plants now have technology like this. Your numbers are way off or not current. Source, please...
The CEMS systems remove a LOT of the pollutants. It's a newer industry, but there are lots of companies doing this work. And it's not revolutionary. The processes are fairly sound, but somewhat inefficient (as expected). Here's one. Here's a nice list. of companies doing this sort of thing. They make a living helping power plants reduce pollutants.
I am not saying it's perfect because it's not. But methinks your number of 96K lbs/yr of mercury is probably old and outdated. These systems have been on the market only for a few years, but certainly enough to bring down the "highs" of the old days.
You are so, so wrong. If a US company owns them, then they are subject to US law. This is to prevent US based companies from just setting up a shell and providing services to, say....Cuba or any other restricted country. There are countless examples of subsidiaries getting in trouble for things that are illegal in the US -- but not where their offices are.
Otherwise, Foster Wheeler would just setup a shell in another country and start building refineries for Cuba.
I, personally, know of companies who have gotten into trouble when their equipment, somehow, found it's way to a restricted country (Cuba, Sudan, Syria, Iran, etc). The US treasury department publishes a list. Admittedly, this is only the voluntary actions but I am certain there are involuntary actions as well (ie: criminal cases). See the entry about Varian (Switzerland) for a specific example of what I am talking about.
The point is: they ARE subject to US law via eBay owning them.
Slashdot Mirror
We can't even make a translator that works and you're going to look for "suspicious" people? Is that some kind of sick joke? What, exactly, constitutes "suspicious" and wouldn't that be almost impossible to code in any meaningful way? Hell, we humans can't even agree on what "suspicion" looks like and now they want to teach a computer. Good luck with that.
I expect that "suspicion" is a fairly complex process in the human brain (it relies on a lot of different senses) so I am having difficulty understanding how anyone in their right mind would undertake such an effort.
100% agree with balance. But it's bigger than that.
You say you don't want or need to be completely financially independent. You say you'd be happy if your dividends lasted a few years before running out...
No argument. You can do what you want to do, of course. But don't you see that you will still be forced to make money later in life in order to support yourself??? By definition, that's not freedom. Don't get me wrong, it's not slavery either. Hopefully, you'll be good enough to adapt your skillset so you can make money and get by doing something you like. But I don't think like you do.
See, you assume that the REST of your life, you'll be able to "do what you need to do to get by" (at whatever income level you need). I don't assume that. I want to make sure I don't have to do ANYTHING at that point -- unless I want to. F-you money insures that, which is why I took the time to explain it.
F-you money is where you have enough to live the way you want to live without EVER having to go back to work. Until you reach that point, you still have a long road ahead. It's where you are financially independent enough that you can tell your employer "Fuck You". You might have "piles" of money right now but if you are smart, you are investing those dollars so you can reach F-you money as quickly as possible. After that, you can do whatever you want to do.
I used to be just like you. I'd look at my paycheck and wonder, "how the hell am I going to spend this?". But, from experience, as you get old into your 30's and 40's -- you quickly realize that, unless you are sitting on $2-$3mil US minimum, you are still going to have to go to work. Maybe you can delay it for 20 years and live off your savings in the meantime. But what happens when the money runs out? You'll have to work. You'll work not because you want to...but because you have to in order to pay the bills. And the bills get bigger as you go on. House, cars, kids, wives, new businesses, insurance, repairs, vacations, etc.
In America, this is one of the reasons you see people work so hard and put so much into it. They are all after the F-you money because they know, once they get it....everything else from that point on is optional (except death and paying taxes). And I am talking about normal people who work because they have to work. If you work (truly) because you enjoy it, then good for you. But you must realize you are in the vast minority.
Imagine having such a large "pile" that you could pay yourself $100K, $200K, $300K, or whatever per year -- just from the interest your pile generates. That's F-you money. And, no offense, but I doubt you are there yet.
I have some unfortunate opportunities to observe such actions myself as some people I know were intimidated by a real estate management company, which managed to extort a significant amount of money from them, threatening legal action. In all likelihood the claims would have been dismissed by a court, but they were too scared.
Do you see the logical flaw in your post? You rail against entities using the legal system as their weapon, yet, the example you cite is an example of somebody NOT fighting back. In other words, the very legal system you rail against -- was not used. Instead, your people rolled over and paid up "because they were scared".
Let's be clear here: if you aren't prepared to fight back, then you will get whatever comes to you.
I am not saying it is right. I am just saying that is probably #1 on the laws of the world, universe, and everything.
Not fighting = easier target.
Yep, and Canadian products will become more "expensive" to Americans (therefore, less goods are sold). Additionally, US products will become cheaper for Canadians (therefore, more of our goods get sold to you)....
It doesn't matter. The point is: currency values mean very little unless you trade them or are measuring inflation. Any more analysis is a discussion of macro-economic theory and world money supply. A topic best left to the economists.
Nature can already do this. (so can drugs...)
Synesthesia is one of the most fascinating subjects I have ever read about. Basically, it's a neuro condition where your senses get cross-wired. For example, you would "taste" words (taste and hearing are cross-wired). Every word you hear would have a distinctive taste on your tongue. Or, you would "hear" in color (hearing and vision are cross-wired). Everything you hear produces different colors in your brain.
Yes, I know. It sound like BS. But it is not. It is well documented and seems to be fairly common. In fact, 60 Minutes did a story on it years ago but I can not find the link. Google it. Sometimes it's spelled Synaesthesia.
If we can ever master the mechanics of how it happens, we'll know what we need to know to do exactly what you lay out in your post. For now, however, it's a long way off.
You come into MY world, with your commercialism, and you expect me to care about what does and does not cost you money?
I don't mean offense but honestly....who is to say what I should and shouldn't click? If a link is present, I may - or may not - click it. It is 100% up to me. In fact, it's so much my decision -- that you have absolutely no control or influence on my decision.
I am sorry if my whims might cost you money. Perhaps you should find a different model or a different way of doing things. We (the internet) got along just fine before advertising and we will get along just fine if your ads disappeared. They won't, of course. But that is beside the point. The internet is based on an open architecture. Open and free (in the technical sense) access to information. That is the default. Not the other way around, as much as the commercial powers want it that way.
I say this because it seems to be that the main goal of the commercial powers that be is: to change how the internet works. The rest of us are appalled at some of the rules and regs the internet has taken on since the commercial interests arrived.
And just for the record, I am not anti-commercial. I just think it's funny when commercial interests complain that users aren't doing things "the right way" and it might cost them money. Boo-hoo. Go find another way to accomplish your goals.
(note: sorry to pick on you...it's not personal. You just represent the "commercial" interests of the internet)
So, is tasering for "punishment" something we should accept as a society? It sure seems to me that a lot of police officers these days are using their tasers as a form of punishment when whatever situation does not go to their plan. You see it A LOT in passive resistance situations (ie: sitting in front of a bulldozer used to mean they hog-tied you and carried you off. Now, it means they taser you until you move on your own.)
I ask in all seriousness because I sure see a lot of it.
"Do what we say or we'll use the taser."
"Sir, if you don't then we are going to have to taser you"
Is this how we want tasers used? Has this ever been tested in a court?
And I got first post.
:)
Yep, F5's produce flatness, indeed.
:)
I remember that Tornado because I was living in Austin at the time. Incredible. Even more incredible that more people did not die. Funny...I seem to remember ALL of the bad tornadoes that were close.
Did you read my post? It was 100F outside.
:)
What I did not mention was the heat index was 114F and it was during a period of serious drought. All creeks were dried up and there was not a pool of water that I could find. Believe me....it was not my choice. I gladly would have taken ANY water at that point but your assertion that water is plentiful is a bit naive. Even in the Ozarks. Grab a topo map and you'll see. It's not just nice, pretty creeks and lakes back in those hills. There are vast expanses of land between them.
Water is not as easy to find as you think. Especially when you are on foot, tired, and dehydrated. Already, your mind is playing games with you and it feels like each step is your last. Of course...it is easy to be a Monday morning quarterback.
(and I do that a lot to myself over this experience)
Ahhh, good point. I stand corrected and you are absolutely right that Katrina did quite a lot of damage to the Mississippi/Louisiana coast.
Drinking pee is harder than you think. I speak from personal experience.
I was lost in the Ozark mountains for 2 days without any supplies. The temperature was over 100F and I had almost no water. The little water I did have was exhausted quickly and the next best alternative was my own pee. I became thirsty enough that drinking my own pee was not even a question - it was a necessity (or so I thought).
I removed my flashlight batteries and peed in my flashlight because it was the only thing I had that could hold liquid.
Guess what happens to your pee when you are dehydrated? It's get much more concentrated. So much so, that I think you'll have a hard time drinking it unless you are, literally, getting close to death. Mine was so strong, I couldn't even stomach the smell much less, drink it. I have never been as thirsty in my life as that day and I have never since, been in a situation as dire as that one. Yet, I couldn't drink it.
While it may be an option early on, as dehydration starts setting in, drinking your own pee becomes less of an option as each hour passes by.
It wasn't the hurricane that was the problem. It was the levies. Had the levees not broken, we would not be talking about Katrina today.
...and don't even get me started on the emergency response.
Obviously, they are related because the levees would not have broken without the hurricane. But the point here is that the Hurricane did remarkably little damage on it's own. The levees, on the other hand, were responsible for almost all of the issues you read about today.
Just another example of the edges starting to fray with respect to our national infrastructure. Without the levee issues, Katrina isn't special. Powerful? yes. Scary? yes. Destructive? Not really, when compared to something like Andrew or Hugo.
You make the assertion that stereotypes are "usually" wrong.
...and that is pretty well documented through the sociological and scientific studies in the area. It turns out that women DO think differently than men. So is that stereotype wrong? No, but it might be in some individual, specific cases.
...and it turns out, that is correct. Are all of them that way? No, but enough have "misperceptions" that it is statistically significant.
Please explain and back that up. Because from where I stand, stereotypes can be dead on accurate. Not all, mind you, but enough of them to make the case there is some basis in reality.
Case in point: women. The stereotype is that they are more emotional beings than men.
Another case: the stereotype of Fox news watchers is that they are uninformed (or, to be nice: "have misperceptions").
Stereotypes have been around for a long time, with good reason. They aren't "wrong" anymore than jealousy or anger are wrong. They just are.
Uninformed users request features that they neither understand nor are qualified to implement. IT says no.
News at 11.
DEC was bought by Compaq way back when (1997?). Compaq was bought by HP more recently. AMD was not involved with either of those takeovers.
So how did AMD get the DEC Alpha engineers? As far as I know, the DEC Alpha guys are still within HP. Did I miss something?
Agree with your post except for this film.
Porno knockoffs of Star Wars have been going on a long time. Although, I doubt anyone could really say they "ripped off" Star Wars, the similarities are uncanny.
Or at least that's what my friends tell me after watching it. (cough, cough)
They are "supposed" to do (whatever that means) whatever is in my and everybody else's best interests.
Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong as in, totally 100% incorrect.
They are supposed to do whatever is best for the shareholder's interests. Period. Nobody else matters. If the shareholders want to disband and liquidate the company, then they can. Corporations are created for - and only for - the shareholders. Jeez...where did you go to school? This is middle school economics stuff and is backed by historical record, not opinion.
That is all they are supposed to do. Anything else is nothing more than a means to that goal. (philanthropy, community endeavors, etc) It all culminates in the company bringing a product to market and hopefully, making money. But that isn't even required. There are plenty of non-profit corporations and guess what? They also answer to their shareholders.
There are, of course, indirect connections. ie: shareholders want companies to remain in business so they want the companies to do what is right for customers and the community. Therefore, companies answer to customers and the community. But this connection is indirect in nature and is only a result of it being a means to an end (ie: the end = shareholders goals). All else, besides the shareholders, is secondary. And yes, I mean ALL else. Even legal penalties become part of the shareholder equation.
They might step in but for one small problem: The iPhone isn't available in Europe right now.
:)
But other than that tiny detail, I agree with your post
This is national news now. CNBC is covering it and Apple's stock jumped $3.60 or so because of the news.
It will be very interesting to see how the players react. My prediction?
Apple: won't care. more customers = better
T-Mobile: won't care.
AT&T: Pissed!
It is very important to distribute the "how-to" as quickly and widely as possible. I hope he published them before they sue his ass and try to silence him. Because I think AT&T will do exactly that...
Remember folks, sometimes it doesn't matter if you win or lose -- only that you delay. And AT&T would love to delay people from doing this on a mass-scale.
It's just Wal-mart.
Yea, the plants who don't have CEMS (continuous emissions monitoring systems) do. But almost all coal plants now have technology like this. Your numbers are way off or not current. Source, please...
The CEMS systems remove a LOT of the pollutants. It's a newer industry, but there are lots of companies doing this work. And it's not revolutionary. The processes are fairly sound, but somewhat inefficient (as expected). Here's one. Here's a nice list. of companies doing this sort of thing. They make a living helping power plants reduce pollutants.
I am not saying it's perfect because it's not. But methinks your number of 96K lbs/yr of mercury is probably old and outdated. These systems have been on the market only for a few years, but certainly enough to bring down the "highs" of the old days.
You are so, so wrong. If a US company owns them, then they are subject to US law. This is to prevent US based companies from just setting up a shell and providing services to, say....Cuba or any other restricted country. There are countless examples of subsidiaries getting in trouble for things that are illegal in the US -- but not where their offices are.
Otherwise, Foster Wheeler would just setup a shell in another country and start building refineries for Cuba.
I, personally, know of companies who have gotten into trouble when their equipment, somehow, found it's way to a restricted country (Cuba, Sudan, Syria, Iran, etc). The US treasury department publishes a list. Admittedly, this is only the voluntary actions but I am certain there are involuntary actions as well (ie: criminal cases). See the entry about Varian (Switzerland) for a specific example of what I am talking about.
The point is: they ARE subject to US law via eBay owning them.
He can't pardon anyone if the charges are brought AFTER he is out of office.
My money is on that route. Once the Dems get the White House and Congress - watch out.