He would go to Dubai and make $100,000 in 9 months, he would make maybe $60,000 a year in the US. He said he hated all the malls and consumerism there but he could get in and out and not worry about it.
Dubai is very western friendly. I have known people who have gone there to work on contract for all kinds of corporations. There is so much money there. My friend who went there told me his memory of Dubai is malls, lots of lots of malls. Thats all there is there he would joke.
I myself prefer Yerba Mate teas. You can buy them flavored and sweetened. The brand I drink the most is Guayaki (google it). Yerba mate teas not only have caffeine but other stimulants. I am somewhat sensitive to caffeine and i find that a mixture of stimulants leads to less side effects. Other people say they don't get the caffeine jitters from yerba mate.
They aren't prying into documents, they are copying media files. Its quite a big difference. It's not more of an invasion of privacy than the guy at the auto shop looking under the hood to see what you are running. What they are doing is wrong but it is somewhat grey area. Is it a huge deal? Not really.
That is in part because counter strike needs continuous transfer. Much of the internet traffic in Italy is your standard web pages, email, and file transfer.
Now, let's put that together with I'd guess an avg. 15-30 min. drive to work...those times are by car. One of my main points about riding a bike is that is is often faster than a car because you are not stuck in traffic. For some people who commute long distance without traffic a bicycle might not work.
Yeah, you're gonna really look professional after you get to work, sweat soaked or wet from rain. Most people who commute on a bicycle change when they get to work.
Not to mention that you'll likely have to get up at what, 4am to hope to peddle your way to work in hopes of getting there reasonably on time? Most of the world lives and works in an urban environment. Riding a bicycle is often faster than taking a car. Obviously people that need to commute with heavy tools or into rural areas aren't going to ride a bike.
Then there's the long ride home after a full day of work (and maybe the gym afterwards). There isn't much need for a gym when you get enough exercise commuting. The only reason i go to the gym myself is to lift weights but i can do that on my day's off.
That leaves you about 30 min when you get home to eat shower and crash. Again, the bicycle lets you skip waiting in traffic.
I think for most working people out there.....a bicycle is not a practical thing for daily working/living. I like to ride when possible for pleasure....good exercise and all. But, in real life...not much of an option unless you live in a perfect climate 99% of the year which most of us do not.
Despite the fact that nobody lives in the perfect climate 100% of the time people commute to work in every single one of the 50 states. It is possible to commute through snow, ice, rain, and heat.
Hehehe...and I don't wanna depend on a bicycle to get out when the next hurricane comes..... Just because you commute on a bike doesn't mean you have to sell your car. With gas prices as it is now you will however save a lot of money.
Remember that just because someone is pro-bicycle doesn't mean they are anti-car. No 1 mode of transportation serves everybody's needs. Some ride a car, some ride a bike, for some they need to take a bus or train because the other options don't work for them.
If you are a victim of identity theft you will have a flag on your credit possibly forever. It is best to just avoid it and pay the fee, you would otherwise end up paying more if you ever want a loan.
We would have no more traffic jams if more people rode bicycles. Bicycles are nearly immune to traffic jams. On an individual basis everyone should consider if it is worth it for them to skip over half the traveling time involved with driving.
Your right they should not be pirating but do they deserve to get what the RIAA is going to do? Do we as a society chose to chop off a hand of a thief? No way. Do we as a society want to punish extremely harshly for what is a small crime? No way.
It's a scare tactic. They lose out WAY more money paying their lawyers than they will ever recover. You think once they get a judgment for $5,000 the will ever collect that? No way. The RIAA is losing money suing people. The only reason they do it is to scare people. All they have to do is go around and ruin a few hundred college students lives by ruining their credit before they are 25 and people might stop downloading. It's pathetic that it comes to this. They place their bottom line over anything in their path. They will cause terrible strains on the lives of students in the period in their life when they should be studying, not worrying about the future of their credit.
Aha, but there you are wrong. If you send a postcard, you have very low expectation of privacy. However, if you put your letter inside an envelope, then you have an expectation that the envelope will only be opened by the intended recipient. Regular email as we mostly know it is like a postcard, but you can put your postcard into an electronic envelope by encrypting it, which would give you a greater expectation of privacy. Sure, a person can still break your encryption, but that person could also just open your envelope. We would recognize these actions as crimes, preserving your privacy.
To me there are 3 levels of protecting mail (electronic or not). The first level of privacy is a postcard or a plaintext email. These are both trivial to read and you can accidentally read them without any intent to do so. In the normal duties of a sys admin or a postal worker they will run into your mail.
The next level is minor obscurement of the mail. I would say the putting your email in an envelope is like compressing your email. Compression or an envelope does not try very hard to hide your mail but it means someone will have to deliberatly attempt to open your mail. Anyone can agree that making a choice to open someone's mail is wrong and illegal. The exception to this of course would be a postal worker or sys admin in some type of unusual duty that involved safety such as anthrax in the mail or a viras on the internet. The law is pretty clear that safety concerns trump privacy concerns whether you like it or not.
The last level of course would be actual encryption of your mail, electronic or not. You can encrypt both and the only way to undo it would be to intentionally break the encryption or get a court order forcing someone to give other their keys. By the way if a judge says you have to give over the keys you do or else you are held in contempt of court. The same thing applies with keys for a safe or a storage unit you lease/own.
Who says we have to send humans? Most likely we will send automated robots, nanobots would be even better. Sending maybe a dozen nanobots for redundancy would work just fine. When they arrive at a new system the use the carbon there to reproduce. They can terreform the planet.
A benefit to sending nano bots is that will very little energy we can send them close to the speed of light. Something that has a mass of maybe a few hundred atoms won't require huge resources to propel.
I don't really know much about the politics of this issue but i know that Google desktop sucks. It isn't worth it for me regardless of who is "good" and "evil".
You have a very insightful perspective on the subject but let me show you a different way of looking at it. You are right that it is very hard to ship the product with the SDK but your advice to ship without the SDK may or may not be a good idea. On some products the SDK won't make or break the product, on others it will. In my opinion the iPhone is a product that NEEDS this SDK. If Apple takes your advice and ships the product with developers far away from creating any applications I think sales will fall short of what Apple needs them to be. Now if the iPhone is a solid product on its own for the price then people will buy it and it will justify the huge cost of developing the SDK.
I can see why a developer would really want to release the product without the SDK just yet but that may or may not be a good business decision.
And of course why would you be protecting against Iran when (right now) the Shabab 4/5/6 missiles are theoretical? If anything the major threat to the US is (still) North Korea.
How are they a threat? They don't have any oil we want. I was under the impression that only countries with oil were a threat to us.
In my opinion the best thing to do is to run conduits. That way you can upgrade to any cables the future requires. You just run some strong string or fishing lined through the conduit. When it comes time to switch a cord you tie the new cord to the old cord or string and pull it through. Problem solved.
because not allow someone who is a danger to other to drive isn't punishment.
So true...
A person who has seizures should right a bicycle. I personally commute on a bicycle and it works great. Yes it would be VERY dangerous to have a seizure on a bike but it is less dangerous than a car. Maybe you would get run over but you wouldn't endanger anyone but yourself. As much as i would like to sympathize with someone who has minor seizures and their supposed "need" to drive what society needs is to have drivers who can safely operate their cars.
Someone proposed once to make cars with controls that were small joysticks like a video game so that people without normal arms can drive a car. The problem with this is that it is dangerous because it is too easy to bump or lose control of a small control, in a car you need big movement to get big change in direction/speed. It is sad but necessary that some disables people just can't drive a car. Remember there is no "right" to drive a car. It is a privilege granted by the state you live in, you need a license to drive a car. You also give up certain rights when you drive because it is not a right itself, if you don't like the rules of the road or the rules that apply to drivers you are not obligated to drive.
You should consider of being a Libertarian is really what you want. On many social and political issues they are spot on but some economic issues they go too far. Read up about Feudalism, what Libertarians want is a system a lot like Feudalism. Now Feudalism is an archaic political system but it is also an economic system.
Karl Marx wrote a lot of about Feudalism claiming it was the economic precursor to capitalism. He then argued that capitalism was a necessary step towards socialism and finally communism. A lot of the Libertarian thought comes from a direct reaction to communism. Libertarians believe that personal property is very important (rightly so) and they believe that any aspects of socialism are trampling on the rights of citizens.
The problem with Libertarian thought in my opinion is that we have already tried it and it didn't work. President Roosevelt gave us the New Deal which solved a lot of the problems that was literally killing citizens. People were starving and dying of sickness because of abuses of "personal rights". Some ideas that we still have in our society from the new deal are the SEC which is responsible for saving the personal property of many investors from being fraudulently taken away. Some libertarians claim that an organization like that should not exist. Social Security despite the problems it is having right now has been one of the most successful government programs ever. It has helped support many in need. Welfare may be abused but abuse in a program is no reason for the underlying philosophy of the program to be considered wrong.
So while libertarians have a lot of good points about personal freedom and voluntary interaction between persons they take it a little too far. I myself and politically adrift. I thought I was a libertarian for a while too. I still haven't found a political party that I would like to consider myself a part of. The green party has some good points about corporate abuse. The libertarian party has some good points about personal freedom. The Democratic party is the lesser of 2 evils in the 2 party system we have. The Republican party has some good points about gun rights. If someone has thought of a political party reading my post that i might like please tell me because i still can't find one that is right.
American police are definitely VERY aggressive. Check out this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XOgsJU2d45Y It shows at least 10 police setting up a sting operation to bust people for minor amounts of marijuana. The video shows the police arresting someone for attempting to purchase $10 of pot. When confronted by the police most of the people stop and put their hands up. The police then proceed to tackle from a full speed run. The people are pinned down and arrested. Now this is someone i want to see police do to violent criminals. Confront them, tackle them if they flee, book them and prosecute them. But what is this all about? Now i don't want to bring up the legality of marijuana other than this video is of very minor criminals who are having LOTS of police money spent in chasing them.
Police are supposed to enforce ALL laws regardless of their personal feelings and that is fine. This however is a waste of money. I don't want to dwell on one video too much because this aggressive attitude is all over. Tons of money is being spent in America setting up CCTV systems for police. Traffic lights are getting cameras put in place to enforce minor traffic laws. I realize there is a safety issue but that is really not what is at stake here. The police enforce more crimes that make them money (traffic tickets, drug charges where they can seize cash and property) and they spend less time on the safety of society as a whole. The police are underfunded and overstressed which leads to some meathead cops blowing off steam by roughing up marijuana users. The whole thing is very sad for the police and the criminals but the ones who really lose out are the normal members of society.
And you can lose that "they're all little angels" strawman. No one's saying that. But if beatings were an acceptable and effective punishment for misbehavior, we wouldn't need all these jails; we'd just hit criminals with a 2x4 until their mean streak were reduced to a pool on the floor, and then they'd never commit a crime again because they'd be too afraid of more beatings, right? Shame that doesn't actually work in the real world.
It's too bad that there is no easy answer to criminals, or children behaving badly. In a world full of violence one can imagine that perhaps people would grow up more peaceful if they have a less abusive childhood. I'm not saying that we would have world peace but I'm pretty sure that the world has way too much aggression. War and genocide are all over and it makes sense in my mind that growing up around violence sure helps it all perpetuate.
Slashdot Mirror
haha, homophobia is funny... NOT!
He would go to Dubai and make $100,000 in 9 months, he would make maybe $60,000 a year in the US. He said he hated all the malls and consumerism there but he could get in and out and not worry about it.
The realtor will simply phrase it as a bonus. "This house comes PRE-INSTALLED with FIOS broadband!"
Dubai is very western friendly. I have known people who have gone there to work on contract for all kinds of corporations. There is so much money there. My friend who went there told me his memory of Dubai is malls, lots of lots of malls. Thats all there is there he would joke.
I myself prefer Yerba Mate teas. You can buy them flavored and sweetened. The brand I drink the most is Guayaki (google it). Yerba mate teas not only have caffeine but other stimulants. I am somewhat sensitive to caffeine and i find that a mixture of stimulants leads to less side effects. Other people say they don't get the caffeine jitters from yerba mate.
They aren't prying into documents, they are copying media files. Its quite a big difference. It's not more of an invasion of privacy than the guy at the auto shop looking under the hood to see what you are running. What they are doing is wrong but it is somewhat grey area. Is it a huge deal? Not really.
Unix joke? Its just a blatent reference to sex, where is the unix part involved in my sig?
1 minute of previews, 4 minutes of adds, 1 minute for credits...
That is in part because counter strike needs continuous transfer. Much of the internet traffic in Italy is your standard web pages, email, and file transfer.
Now, let's put that together with I'd guess an avg. 15-30 min. drive to work...those times are by car.
One of my main points about riding a bike is that is is often faster than a car because you are not stuck in traffic. For some people who commute long distance without traffic a bicycle might not work.
Yeah, you're gonna really look professional after you get to work, sweat soaked or wet from rain.
Most people who commute on a bicycle change when they get to work.
Not to mention that you'll likely have to get up at what, 4am to hope to peddle your way to work in hopes of getting there reasonably on time?
Most of the world lives and works in an urban environment. Riding a bicycle is often faster than taking a car. Obviously people that need to commute with heavy tools or into rural areas aren't going to ride a bike.
Then there's the long ride home after a full day of work (and maybe the gym afterwards).
There isn't much need for a gym when you get enough exercise commuting. The only reason i go to the gym myself is to lift weights but i can do that on my day's off.
That leaves you about 30 min when you get home to eat shower and crash.
Again, the bicycle lets you skip waiting in traffic.
I think for most working people out there.....a bicycle is not a practical thing for daily working/living. I like to ride when possible for pleasure....good exercise and all. But, in real life...not much of an option unless you live in a perfect climate 99% of the year which most of us do not.
Despite the fact that nobody lives in the perfect climate 100% of the time people commute to work in every single one of the 50 states. It is possible to commute through snow, ice, rain, and heat.
Hehehe...and I don't wanna depend on a bicycle to get out when the next hurricane comes.....
Just because you commute on a bike doesn't mean you have to sell your car. With gas prices as it is now you will however save a lot of money.
Remember that just because someone is pro-bicycle doesn't mean they are anti-car. No 1 mode of transportation serves everybody's needs. Some ride a car, some ride a bike, for some they need to take a bus or train because the other options don't work for them.
If you are a victim of identity theft you will have a flag on your credit possibly forever. It is best to just avoid it and pay the fee, you would otherwise end up paying more if you ever want a loan.
We would have no more traffic jams if more people rode bicycles. Bicycles are nearly immune to traffic jams. On an individual basis everyone should consider if it is worth it for them to skip over half the traveling time involved with driving.
Your right they should not be pirating but do they deserve to get what the RIAA is going to do? Do we as a society chose to chop off a hand of a thief? No way. Do we as a society want to punish extremely harshly for what is a small crime? No way.
It's a scare tactic. They lose out WAY more money paying their lawyers than they will ever recover. You think once they get a judgment for $5,000 the will ever collect that? No way. The RIAA is losing money suing people. The only reason they do it is to scare people. All they have to do is go around and ruin a few hundred college students lives by ruining their credit before they are 25 and people might stop downloading. It's pathetic that it comes to this. They place their bottom line over anything in their path. They will cause terrible strains on the lives of students in the period in their life when they should be studying, not worrying about the future of their credit.
Aha, but there you are wrong. If you send a postcard, you have very low expectation of privacy. However, if you put your letter inside an envelope, then you have an expectation that the envelope will only be opened by the intended recipient. Regular email as we mostly know it is like a postcard, but you can put your postcard into an electronic envelope by encrypting it, which would give you a greater expectation of privacy. Sure, a person can still break your encryption, but that person could also just open your envelope. We would recognize these actions as crimes, preserving your privacy.
To me there are 3 levels of protecting mail (electronic or not). The first level of privacy is a postcard or a plaintext email. These are both trivial to read and you can accidentally read them without any intent to do so. In the normal duties of a sys admin or a postal worker they will run into your mail.
The next level is minor obscurement of the mail. I would say the putting your email in an envelope is like compressing your email. Compression or an envelope does not try very hard to hide your mail but it means someone will have to deliberatly attempt to open your mail. Anyone can agree that making a choice to open someone's mail is wrong and illegal. The exception to this of course would be a postal worker or sys admin in some type of unusual duty that involved safety such as anthrax in the mail or a viras on the internet. The law is pretty clear that safety concerns trump privacy concerns whether you like it or not.
The last level of course would be actual encryption of your mail, electronic or not. You can encrypt both and the only way to undo it would be to intentionally break the encryption or get a court order forcing someone to give other their keys. By the way if a judge says you have to give over the keys you do or else you are held in contempt of court. The same thing applies with keys for a safe or a storage unit you lease/own.
Who says we have to send humans? Most likely we will send automated robots, nanobots would be even better. Sending maybe a dozen nanobots for redundancy would work just fine. When they arrive at a new system the use the carbon there to reproduce. They can terreform the planet.
A benefit to sending nano bots is that will very little energy we can send them close to the speed of light. Something that has a mass of maybe a few hundred atoms won't require huge resources to propel.
I don't really know much about the politics of this issue but i know that Google desktop sucks. It isn't worth it for me regardless of who is "good" and "evil".
You have a very insightful perspective on the subject but let me show you a different way of looking at it. You are right that it is very hard to ship the product with the SDK but your advice to ship without the SDK may or may not be a good idea. On some products the SDK won't make or break the product, on others it will. In my opinion the iPhone is a product that NEEDS this SDK. If Apple takes your advice and ships the product with developers far away from creating any applications I think sales will fall short of what Apple needs them to be. Now if the iPhone is a solid product on its own for the price then people will buy it and it will justify the huge cost of developing the SDK.
I can see why a developer would really want to release the product without the SDK just yet but that may or may not be a good business decision.
And of course why would you be protecting against Iran when (right now) the Shabab 4/5/6 missiles are theoretical? If anything the major threat to the US is (still) North Korea.
How are they a threat? They don't have any oil we want. I was under the impression that only countries with oil were a threat to us.
In my opinion the best thing to do is to run conduits. That way you can upgrade to any cables the future requires. You just run some strong string or fishing lined through the conduit. When it comes time to switch a cord you tie the new cord to the old cord or string and pull it through. Problem solved.
because not allow someone who is a danger to other to drive isn't punishment.
So true...
A person who has seizures should right a bicycle. I personally commute on a bicycle and it works great. Yes it would be VERY dangerous to have a seizure on a bike but it is less dangerous than a car. Maybe you would get run over but you wouldn't endanger anyone but yourself. As much as i would like to sympathize with someone who has minor seizures and their supposed "need" to drive what society needs is to have drivers who can safely operate their cars.
Someone proposed once to make cars with controls that were small joysticks like a video game so that people without normal arms can drive a car. The problem with this is that it is dangerous because it is too easy to bump or lose control of a small control, in a car you need big movement to get big change in direction/speed. It is sad but necessary that some disables people just can't drive a car. Remember there is no "right" to drive a car. It is a privilege granted by the state you live in, you need a license to drive a car. You also give up certain rights when you drive because it is not a right itself, if you don't like the rules of the road or the rules that apply to drivers you are not obligated to drive.
You should consider of being a Libertarian is really what you want. On many social and political issues they are spot on but some economic issues they go too far. Read up about Feudalism, what Libertarians want is a system a lot like Feudalism. Now Feudalism is an archaic political system but it is also an economic system.
Karl Marx wrote a lot of about Feudalism claiming it was the economic precursor to capitalism. He then argued that capitalism was a necessary step towards socialism and finally communism. A lot of the Libertarian thought comes from a direct reaction to communism. Libertarians believe that personal property is very important (rightly so) and they believe that any aspects of socialism are trampling on the rights of citizens.
The problem with Libertarian thought in my opinion is that we have already tried it and it didn't work. President Roosevelt gave us the New Deal which solved a lot of the problems that was literally killing citizens. People were starving and dying of sickness because of abuses of "personal rights". Some ideas that we still have in our society from the new deal are the SEC which is responsible for saving the personal property of many investors from being fraudulently taken away. Some libertarians claim that an organization like that should not exist. Social Security despite the problems it is having right now has been one of the most successful government programs ever. It has helped support many in need. Welfare may be abused but abuse in a program is no reason for the underlying philosophy of the program to be considered wrong.
So while libertarians have a lot of good points about personal freedom and voluntary interaction between persons they take it a little too far. I myself and politically adrift. I thought I was a libertarian for a while too. I still haven't found a political party that I would like to consider myself a part of. The green party has some good points about corporate abuse. The libertarian party has some good points about personal freedom. The Democratic party is the lesser of 2 evils in the 2 party system we have. The Republican party has some good points about gun rights. If someone has thought of a political party reading my post that i might like please tell me because i still can't find one that is right.
American police are definitely VERY aggressive. Check out this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XOgsJU2d45Y
It shows at least 10 police setting up a sting operation to bust people for minor amounts of marijuana. The video shows the police arresting someone for attempting to purchase $10 of pot. When confronted by the police most of the people stop and put their hands up. The police then proceed to tackle from a full speed run. The people are pinned down and arrested. Now this is someone i want to see police do to violent criminals. Confront them, tackle them if they flee, book them and prosecute them. But what is this all about? Now i don't want to bring up the legality of marijuana other than this video is of very minor criminals who are having LOTS of police money spent in chasing them.
Police are supposed to enforce ALL laws regardless of their personal feelings and that is fine. This however is a waste of money. I don't want to dwell on one video too much because this aggressive attitude is all over. Tons of money is being spent in America setting up CCTV systems for police. Traffic lights are getting cameras put in place to enforce minor traffic laws. I realize there is a safety issue but that is really not what is at stake here. The police enforce more crimes that make them money (traffic tickets, drug charges where they can seize cash and property) and they spend less time on the safety of society as a whole. The police are underfunded and overstressed which leads to some meathead cops blowing off steam by roughing up marijuana users. The whole thing is very sad for the police and the criminals but the ones who really lose out are the normal members of society.
And you can lose that "they're all little angels" strawman. No one's saying that. But if beatings were an acceptable and effective punishment for misbehavior, we wouldn't need all these jails; we'd just hit criminals with a 2x4 until their mean streak were reduced to a pool on the floor, and then they'd never commit a crime again because they'd be too afraid of more beatings, right? Shame that doesn't actually work in the real world.
It's too bad that there is no easy answer to criminals, or children behaving badly. In a world full of violence one can imagine that perhaps people would grow up more peaceful if they have a less abusive childhood. I'm not saying that we would have world peace but I'm pretty sure that the world has way too much aggression. War and genocide are all over and it makes sense in my mind that growing up around violence sure helps it all perpetuate.
Link broken, try this one.
It's an interesting video BTW.