My uncle and I both work for investment funds and have discussed working together. I do all the application programming for my company. I run Linux on our servers and have mentioned that it might be easier if we ran it on desktops as well.
He completely dismissed free software as a joke, a programmer's toy. Market share numbers for Linux servers, Apache, and Mozilla were how I convinced him that Linux is a viable option for business.
FireFox and Mozilla might not take money from M$ directly, but they build trust in free software.
> the only block of people on the planet arguing that there is no problem appear to be American
Only Americans deny the obvious truth of Global Warming. Only Americans are blind to the Utopia of socialism. Only American ignore the need to support farmers through subsidies. Only Americans question the efficientcy of nationalized healthcare. Only Americans refuse to join the International Criminal Court. Only Americans refuse to agree with the international community.
Only Americans put the right of the individual ahead of the rights of the group. Only Americans question dogma.
This effect is called 'in media res' which I think is latin for "in the middle." It's how a lot of stories and trilogies are done.
The way it works is that you start in the middle of a story when the confrontation is already underway, and you get some idea of what's going on at the moment. Then they go back to the beginning, usually through a flashback or by having 1 character explain the history of the conflict to another. Then you get the last part and see how the conflict is resolved.
The Odessey is a famous example of this effect. The book begins with Odysseus in a series of conflicts on his way home from Troy. Then he tells the story of how he was called the war and they defeated the Trojans, but he was blown off course on the way home. Then things flash back to his homeward journey, he returns and kills all the guys who've been courting his wife while he was away.
So, assuming Star Wars was intended to be done in media res, the correct order is middle, beginning, end. The series should be viewed 4, 5, 6, then 1, 2, 3, and if they come 7, 8, 9. Lucas just didn't do a good job of showing this.
Re:arguing against manned space missions?
on
The Wrong Stuff
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I was thinking more like:
"Weinberg arguing against a Bush program... shocking!"
I met Dr. Weinberg a few times when I was at UT. He teaches 1 undergrad course, the second semester of quantum mechanics. He has a rep of being kind of a jerk, and I found him a total liberal eletist.
He was also the main speaker at my sister's graduation (UT class of 2001). He went on a huge rant about how the state should adopt more liberal ploicies on spending, start an income tax, etc. Lots of people booed.
I felt it was pretty inappropriate to use that opportunity to voice is political views. Although this is an evaluative essay, it of course caries some of his bias:
"In my view the worst problem facing our society is not that there is a scarcity of private goods--food or clothing or SUVs or consumer electronics--but rather that there are sick people who cannot get health care, drug addicts who cannot get into rehabilitation programs, ports vulnerable to terrorist attack, insufficient resources to deal with Afghanistan and Iraq, and American children who are being left behind."
There you have it... "drug addicts who cannot get into rehabilitation programs" is 1 of the worst problems facing society.
Of course he thinks space research is a waste, it competes with his own field.
"no one in the White House is interested in anyway, like research on black holes and cosmology."
The guy's brilliant at physics, but does everything have to be about politics?
The joke isn't that the seat covers are easily changeable or washable. Those are fine, practical ideas.
The joke is that the reason they are changable is to match your outfit. It is purely aesthetic and something most men would see as a rediculous waste of time.
The sad thing is that some women really would change out their seat covers just to match their outfits so they look nice through the window or for that few seconds when the car door is open and others can see in. It's like the poster above said, it's be considered sexist if it weren't true.
Actually, I don't think the BBC is being accused of any crime at all. Sure, they had some questionable reporting, but this case is about the governmet.
The question is wether or not the government, specificallly Blair, released Dr. Kelly's name to the press, which caused all the hype about him and may have lead to his suicide.
The BBC has a vested interest in this both because they want it to be someone else's fault and because they are staunchly anti-government and anti-Blair. The BBC wants to nail him on this 1.
I'm not totally familiar with this case, but I think that's the gist. If I'm wrong, somone with details please correct me.
I'm a programmer at a hedge fund. I work in a room full of traders where we have BloomergTV or market news all day. I was really surprised to hear the reporting on TV go something like this:
Field correspondent: The drop in unearned revenue is a major problem for Microsoft. Sales of their Office software is down, and many companies are choosing not to renew their licenses.
Anchor: No kidding. Why should they pay all that money when they could use Linux for free?
If the article said as you did, that he had "secured" his part, then you're right. It means only that if there is a sequel, the studio is forced to give him a role. This would be especially easy if the studio didn't plan to make the sequel.
However, the article says that he would "be required" to appear in future films. This indicates that the studio put the clause in the contract and that they are at least considering the sequel.
You should get paid to go back to school and learn some Economics. Your calculations do not account for interest earned and opportunity costs.
$60,000 invested for 35 years at a rate of 5% is 330,960.92 after 30 years, where as $2,000 per year for 35 years is $361,281.23. However if you expect a return of 6%, the $60 grand turns into $461,165.21 where the $4,000 annuity is only $445,739.12.
So depending on the interest rate, this investment is not necessarily a good 1 - and if so, not by much. If not all people who were educated made as much as you expected, or if some uneducated people made more, or if some people didn't live as long as you expected, or the education costed more than you expected, there would be no profit.
Either way, your assumptions are somewhat questionable. Although higher education levels correlate with higher incomes, it does not mean education *causes* higher income (counter example: I know a guy with no higher education making $80,000 and another with a masters in physics working as a waiter). It is just as valid to assume that people who like to work hard tend to both get educated and make more money. Giving free education to all negates this idea and could turn out to be an unprofitable venture.
Also, you must understand that free education is not actually free, but paid for by other tax payers. You do not take into account the other uses the money would have if left to the tax payers or used in other government ventures. Since private equity tends to earn more than government debt, you can expect that the money could be better used in other ways.
As for your comment: "I do not understand why country's do not offer free college education for all."
First of all, "country's" should be spelled "countries."
Second, many countries claim to offer free education but then discriminate on who can receive it. Look at the school systems in Germany and Austria (where I live). Students here must decide at a very early age what sort of career they want to pursue, and schools accept them mostly based on ability. Children who aren't as bright are sent to high schools where they learn a trade (which is in many ways a good thing), but they don't have the full access to classes that the smarter student have and are *almost never* accepted to good universities.
Although the US school system is seen as lacking, at least students have the right to an equal level of education through high school, and *all* have access to higher education. University students must pay for their classes, but all have access to federal student loans.
Thirdly, making students pay their own tuition brings a healthy level of competition to the educational system. People who are not serious about their education are less likely to attend university, and students work harder to get good grades. I was shocked at the level of cheating that occurred in the German and Austrian universities I attended. No one really seems to care about their education. This is somewhat true in the US too, but Europe takes it to a whole other level.
I have never understood this arguement about people not having the money for a good education. As far as I know, federal student loans are automatically available in the US to all full-time university students pursuing a degree.
I went to a state university, and my student loan paid for all my tuition plus enough money to live on (I still worked during the summers to save some extra cash for the school year). So I had plenty of time to study and made good grades. My first year after college I earned about double what I owed in loans.
One of my good friends worked during university and never had time to study. He was afraid loans would put him into bad debt. I think his grades were still pretty good, but I have a better job, and I sure as hell had more fun in college.
Maybe there are some restriction I am unaware of about availability of student loans, but it was my understanding that anyone accepted to a US university is elligible. In fact, low income students sometimes receive grants instead of loans. Your parent's ability to pay really shouldn't keep anyone out of college.
And that reminds me of 1 of my favorite Feynman quotes. This is from www.scs-intl.com under Anecdotes / Al Seckel / It's All A Blur
Once we were out driving in his van in downtown Pasadena when he averted his attention to a beautiful girl walking down the sidewalk. He instantly slowed down the van and narrowly missed another car, which gave out an angry honk. Geeze, I said, Didn't you see that guy? No, I only see the women, the rest is all a blur.
You forget to mention that in Germany welfare pays very well
I didn't forget that. I like most things about Germany. I was simply disputing the original posters contention that the "USA is one of the most un-free countries in the world."
My coworkers all agree that it is a law. Shops must close at 8 on weekdays and 4 on Saturday.
You can say that it's only the law because it's public opinion, but this is not freedom. It is enforcing the will of the majority on the rest of the population. Yes, that's how democracy works, but some democracies are more free than others.
My point was only that in the US you are more free to do what you please. I didn't say society was better. Your point that democray may function better with certain rules may be right (I personally don't think so), but that doesn't change the fact that in things in Germany are more restricted. It is not 'more free' than the US as the original poster claimed.
If you were invaded tomorrow, and the invaders happened to win and take over all of the USA,
No, not tomorrow. But if Americans were being killed by the millions by the US gov, then YES, I would like another country to invade and help us.
Saddam murdered thousands of his own people with chemical weapons and over 100,000 in the Shiite uprising of 1991/2. Compaing that to the US is rediculous.
just new states waiting to be conquered
I think you're missing the point that in both my examples of Afghanistan and Iraq the people WANTED the US to invade. They were being opressed by the gov and were not capable of helping themselves.
I don't want the US to conquer anyone, but is a country is being oppressesed by a tyranical dictator or gov, I think we should help them.
Maybe thought should be given to the question why a terrorist wants to strike...
I had this conversation with some Afghans just after the conflit there. It went like this:
Me: Why do you hate Americans? Them: They invaded our country. Me: But they kicked out the Taliban? Them: Yes. It's much better now. Me: So if they made it better, then why do you hate them? Them: Because they invaded our country.
Of course it was more complicated than that, but the feeling I got (and my friend from the Ukraine tends to agree) was that they are just so used to hating us that they want to believe the worst, and it will take a long time to change that kind of impression.
I saw a similar report from deserting Iraqi soldiers.
Iraqis: I am glad that our country will be liberated, but it's too bad it has to be by those American devils. Reporter: Would you rather they didn't come? Iraqis: No, No, we want them, but they are still devils.
Hypocrits.
I think Bush is concentrating on this question as well. I think he really belives that a democratice Iraq will give America a good face in the Mid-East that will slowly change the impression after many years. He has been right so far that the area didn't erupt into Anti-American riots as many people predicted and no major terrorism has yet occured. Hopefully it will continue as such.
USA is one of the most un-free countries in the world
Is this a troll? Who are you kidding? As an American living in Germany, I am sickened by the lack of freedom given to the people here. You can't take a piss w/o gov approval.
Before I moved here, I had no idea before I moved here that things were so backward. Stores are only open 9am-8pm weekdays, and 11-4 (I think) Saturdays, never Sundays. That means I buy a week's worth of food every Saturday because my work hours are longer than the stores are open. It's not the store manager's decision; it's the law.
Stores are only allowed to have sales twice a year on designated days. The gov thinks letting stores have sales would be unfair to customers who had to work or didn't hear about the sale. The real effect is that prices are less competitive which hurts the store and its customers.
In fact, just owning a store or restaurant requires gov approval, and I don't mean a simple healthe dept license. If you want to open a bakery, you have to be a master chef. It's the law. I recently moved from the IT industry into finance. It was easy for me, but people tell me that changing careers like I did is almost impossible in Germany.
Right now the unemployment is through the roof, but my manager is afraid to hire people. You see, once you hire someone, you cannot fire them unless they commmit a working violation like stealing from the office. You cannot fire people for incompetence or bad business conditions. It's the law. Companies don't know if the recession will get worse, so they're affraid to take on employees. The gov restrictions only serve to worsen the unemployment problem.
Adding to that are restrictions for the handicapped. As mentioned above, employees cannot be fired, so no one wants to hire handicapped personnel. Companies w/o handicapped employees must pay an extra tax, leaving them less money for personnel and further raising unemployment.
So what do we have? Rules to protect workers that actually hurt other workers. Rules intended to give customers fair prices that actually keep prices high. Rules intended to keep people employed that actually keep people from being employed. Rules intended to help the handicapped that actually hurt the handicapped. There are tons more examples, but I think you get the picture.
And don't think that I'm the only 1 who finds these regulations ridiculous. The EU has been screaming at Germany and all the other member states to clean up their regulations. I have only been in Europe about 15 months, but these are the opinions of many of my German friends.
It may be true that EU has better privacy protection than the US, but that only adds to it's over-regulation. You could say that most of the regulations I've metioned apply to businesses, but they prevent me from living my life as I choose.
In America you are much more free to do what you want when you want. Germany, if not the whole EU, is a straitjacket for personal freedom.
speaking out "against" wide-spread, free, broadband internet-access.
It free for them, but not for the rest of us. Why should I pay for others to get WiFi, especially when I don't even have it myself? Public services should be made available to the public, not just to a select few regardless of their situation.
What will make this take off is a thought-processor
I was thinking just the opposite, what would really do it for me is storage. I want a chip to monitor and record all my memories and allow me to access them. I'll keep my brain for doing all the thinking.
Think how amazing it would be to have perfect photographic memory. You could learn all languages and be the world's expert in all academic subjects. It wouldn't automatically make you more creative, but you would be great in science because you'd be so good at pattern recognition.
Of course storage cpacity of the human brain is a long, long way off. Just think of all the multimedia we recieve and record in real time every minute of our lives. And all that gets stuffed into our little skulls for storage. Sure we forget a lot, but the amount we retain is blows awy current computer storage capacity.
Yeah, maybe someday processors will be able to SIMULATE human though, but I think the real goal should be a human brain with compuer storage.
Any info on VOIP for a regular PC? I need international long-distance access. I saw this Ask Slashdot article that recommended Speakfreely, but I haven't had time to try it.
Slashdot Mirror
damn mynoch ... always munchin on the power cables.
My uncle and I both work for investment funds and have discussed working together. I do all the application programming for my company. I run Linux on our servers and have mentioned that it might be easier if we ran it on desktops as well.
He completely dismissed free software as a joke, a programmer's toy. Market share numbers for Linux servers, Apache, and Mozilla were how I convinced him that Linux is a viable option for business.
FireFox and Mozilla might not take money from M$ directly, but they build trust in free software.
> the only block of people on the planet arguing that there is no problem appear to be American
Only Americans deny the obvious truth of Global Warming. Only Americans are blind to the Utopia of socialism. Only American ignore the need to support farmers through subsidies. Only Americans question the efficientcy of nationalized healthcare. Only Americans refuse to join the International Criminal Court. Only Americans refuse to agree with the international community.
Only Americans put the right of the individual ahead of the rights of the group. Only Americans question dogma.
This effect is called 'in media res' which I think is latin for "in the middle." It's how a lot of stories and trilogies are done.
The way it works is that you start in the middle of a story when the confrontation is already underway, and you get some idea of what's going on at the moment. Then they go back to the beginning, usually through a flashback or by having 1 character explain the history of the conflict to another. Then you get the last part and see how the conflict is resolved.
The Odessey is a famous example of this effect. The book begins with Odysseus in a series of conflicts on his way home from Troy. Then he tells the story of how he was called the war and they defeated the Trojans, but he was blown off course on the way home. Then things flash back to his homeward journey, he returns and kills all the guys who've been courting his wife while he was away.
So, assuming Star Wars was intended to be done in media res, the correct order is middle, beginning, end. The series should be viewed 4, 5, 6, then 1, 2, 3, and if they come 7, 8, 9. Lucas just didn't do a good job of showing this.
I was thinking more like:
"Weinberg arguing against a Bush program... shocking!"
I met Dr. Weinberg a few times when I was at UT. He teaches 1 undergrad course, the second semester of quantum mechanics. He has a rep of being kind of a jerk, and I found him a total liberal eletist.
He was also the main speaker at my sister's graduation (UT class of 2001). He went on a huge rant about how the state should adopt more liberal ploicies on spending, start an income tax, etc. Lots of people booed.
I felt it was pretty inappropriate to use that opportunity to voice is political views. Although this is an evaluative essay, it of course caries some of his bias:
"In my view the worst problem facing our society is not that there is a scarcity of private goods--food or clothing or SUVs or consumer electronics--but rather that there are sick people who cannot get health care, drug addicts who cannot get into rehabilitation programs, ports vulnerable to terrorist attack, insufficient resources to deal with Afghanistan and Iraq, and American children who are being left behind."
There you have it... "drug addicts who cannot get into rehabilitation programs" is 1 of the worst problems facing society.
Of course he thinks space research is a waste, it competes with his own field.
"no one in the White House is interested in anyway, like research on black holes and cosmology."
The guy's brilliant at physics, but does everything have to be about politics?
The joke isn't that the seat covers are easily changeable or washable. Those are fine, practical ideas.
The joke is that the reason they are changable is to match your outfit. It is purely aesthetic and something most men would see as a rediculous waste of time.
The sad thing is that some women really would change out their seat covers just to match their outfits so they look nice through the window or for that few seconds when the car door is open and others can see in. It's like the poster above said, it's be considered sexist if it weren't true.
> The BBC is complicit
Actually, I don't think the BBC is being accused of any crime at all. Sure, they had some questionable reporting, but this case is about the governmet.
The question is wether or not the government, specificallly Blair, released Dr. Kelly's name to the press, which caused all the hype about him and may have lead to his suicide.
The BBC has a vested interest in this both because they want it to be someone else's fault and because they are staunchly anti-government and anti-Blair. The BBC wants to nail him on this 1.
I'm not totally familiar with this case, but I think that's the gist. If I'm wrong, somone with details please correct me.
> $400 million drop in unearned revenue
I'm a programmer at a hedge fund. I work in a room full of traders where we have BloomergTV or market news all day. I was really surprised to hear the reporting on TV go something like this:
Field correspondent: The drop in unearned revenue is a major problem for Microsoft. Sales of their Office software is down, and many companies are choosing not to renew their licenses.
Anchor: No kidding. Why should they pay all that money when they could use Linux for free?
> his part secured for future episodes
Actually, there is a difference here.
If the article said as you did, that he had "secured" his part, then you're right. It means only that if there is a sequel, the studio is forced to give him a role. This would be especially easy if the studio didn't plan to make the sequel.
However, the article says that he would "be required" to appear in future films. This indicates that the studio put the clause in the contract and that they are at least considering the sequel.
You should get paid to go back to school and learn some Economics. Your calculations do not account for interest earned and opportunity costs.
$60,000 invested for 35 years at a rate of 5% is 330,960.92 after 30 years, where as $2,000 per year for 35 years is $361,281.23. However if you expect a return of 6%, the $60 grand turns into $461,165.21 where the $4,000 annuity is only $445,739.12.
So depending on the interest rate, this investment is not necessarily a good 1 - and if so, not by much. If not all people who were educated made as much as you expected, or if some uneducated people made more, or if some people didn't live as long as you expected, or the education costed more than you expected, there would be no profit.
Either way, your assumptions are somewhat questionable. Although higher education levels correlate with higher incomes, it does not mean education *causes* higher income (counter example: I know a guy with no higher education making $80,000 and another with a masters in physics working as a waiter). It is just as valid to assume that people who like to work hard tend to both get educated and make more money. Giving free education to all negates this idea and could turn out to be an unprofitable venture.
Also, you must understand that free education is not actually free, but paid for by other tax payers. You do not take into account the other uses the money would have if left to the tax payers or used in other government ventures. Since private equity tends to earn more than government debt, you can expect that the money could be better used in other ways.
As for your comment:
"I do not understand why country's do not offer free college education for all."
First of all, "country's" should be spelled "countries."
Second, many countries claim to offer free education but then discriminate on who can receive it. Look at the school systems in Germany and Austria (where I live). Students here must decide at a very early age what sort of career they want to pursue, and schools accept them mostly based on ability. Children who aren't as bright are sent to high schools where they learn a trade (which is in many ways a good thing), but they don't have the full access to classes that the smarter student have and are *almost never* accepted to good universities.
Although the US school system is seen as lacking, at least students have the right to an equal level of education through high school, and *all* have access to higher education. University students must pay for their classes, but all have access to federal student loans.
Thirdly, making students pay their own tuition brings a healthy level of competition to the educational system. People who are not serious about their education are less likely to attend university, and students work harder to get good grades. I was shocked at the level of cheating that occurred in the German and Austrian universities I attended. No one really seems to care about their education. This is somewhat true in the US too, but Europe takes it to a whole other level.
At least that's what I've seen in my experience.
Where do you live?
I have never understood this arguement about people not having the money for a good education. As far as I know, federal student loans are automatically available in the US to all full-time university students pursuing a degree.
I went to a state university, and my student loan paid for all my tuition plus enough money to live on (I still worked during the summers to save some extra cash for the school year). So I had plenty of time to study and made good grades. My first year after college I earned about double what I owed in loans.
One of my good friends worked during university and never had time to study. He was afraid loans would put him into bad debt. I think his grades were still pretty good, but I have a better job, and I sure as hell had more fun in college.
Maybe there are some restriction I am unaware of about availability of student loans, but it was my understanding that anyone accepted to a US university is elligible. In fact, low income students sometimes receive grants instead of loans. Your parent's ability to pay really shouldn't keep anyone out of college.
And that reminds me of 1 of my favorite Feynman quotes. This is from www.scs-intl.com under Anecdotes / Al Seckel / It's All A Blur
Once we were out driving in his van in downtown Pasadena when he averted his attention to a beautiful girl walking down the sidewalk. He instantly slowed down the van and narrowly missed another car, which gave out an angry honk. Geeze, I said, Didn't you see that guy? No, I only see the women, the rest is all a blur.
You forget to mention that in Germany welfare pays very well
I didn't forget that. I like most things about Germany. I was simply disputing the original posters contention that the "USA is one of the most un-free countries in the world."
is merely because people want it like that
My coworkers all agree that it is a law. Shops must close at 8 on weekdays and 4 on Saturday.
You can say that it's only the law because it's public opinion, but this is not freedom. It is enforcing the will of the majority on the rest of the population. Yes, that's how democracy works, but some democracies are more free than others.
My point was only that in the US you are more free to do what you please. I didn't say society was better. Your point that democray may function better with certain rules may be right (I personally don't think so), but that doesn't change the fact that in things in Germany are more restricted. It is not 'more free' than the US as the original poster claimed.
If you were invaded tomorrow, and the invaders happened to win and take over all of the USA,
No, not tomorrow. But if Americans were being killed by the millions by the US gov, then YES, I would like another country to invade and help us.
Saddam murdered thousands of his own people with chemical weapons and over 100,000 in the Shiite uprising of 1991/2. Compaing that to the US is rediculous.
just new states waiting to be conquered
I think you're missing the point that in both my examples of Afghanistan and Iraq the people WANTED the US to invade. They were being opressed by the gov and were not capable of helping themselves.
I don't want the US to conquer anyone, but is a country is being oppressesed by a tyranical dictator or gov, I think we should help them.
Maybe thought should be given to the question why a terrorist wants to strike...
I had this conversation with some Afghans just after the conflit there. It went like this:
Me: Why do you hate Americans?
Them: They invaded our country.
Me: But they kicked out the Taliban?
Them: Yes. It's much better now.
Me: So if they made it better, then why do you hate them?
Them: Because they invaded our country.
Of course it was more complicated than that, but the feeling I got (and my friend from the Ukraine tends to agree) was that they are just so used to hating us that they want to believe the worst, and it will take a long time to change that kind of impression.
I saw a similar report from deserting Iraqi soldiers.
Iraqis: I am glad that our country will be liberated, but it's too bad it has to be by those American devils.
Reporter: Would you rather they didn't come?
Iraqis: No, No, we want them, but they are still devils.
Hypocrits.
I think Bush is concentrating on this question as well. I think he really belives that a democratice Iraq will give America a good face in the Mid-East that will slowly change the impression after many years. He has been right so far that the area didn't erupt into Anti-American riots as many people predicted and no major terrorism has yet occured. Hopefully it will continue as such.
USA is one of the most un-free countries in the world
Is this a troll? Who are you kidding? As an American living in Germany, I am sickened by the lack of freedom given to the people here. You can't take a piss w/o gov approval.
Before I moved here, I had no idea before I moved here that things were so backward. Stores are only open 9am-8pm weekdays, and 11-4 (I think) Saturdays, never Sundays. That means I buy a week's worth of food every Saturday because my work hours are longer than the stores are open. It's not the store manager's decision; it's the law.
Stores are only allowed to have sales twice a year on designated days. The gov thinks letting stores have sales would be unfair to customers who had to work or didn't hear about the sale. The real effect is that prices are less competitive which hurts the store and its customers.
In fact, just owning a store or restaurant requires gov approval, and I don't mean a simple healthe dept license. If you want to open a bakery, you have to be a master chef. It's the law. I recently moved from the IT industry into finance. It was easy for me, but people tell me that changing careers like I did is almost impossible in Germany.
Right now the unemployment is through the roof, but my manager is afraid to hire people. You see, once you hire someone, you cannot fire them unless they commmit a working violation like stealing from the office. You cannot fire people for incompetence or bad business conditions. It's the law. Companies don't know if the recession will get worse, so they're affraid to take on employees. The gov restrictions only serve to worsen the unemployment problem.
Adding to that are restrictions for the handicapped. As mentioned above, employees cannot be fired, so no one wants to hire handicapped personnel. Companies w/o handicapped employees must pay an extra tax, leaving them less money for personnel and further raising unemployment.
So what do we have? Rules to protect workers that actually hurt other workers. Rules intended to give customers fair prices that actually keep prices high. Rules intended to keep people employed that actually keep people from being employed. Rules intended to help the handicapped that actually hurt the handicapped. There are tons more examples, but I think you get the picture.
And don't think that I'm the only 1 who finds these regulations ridiculous. The EU has been screaming at Germany and all the other member states to clean up their regulations. I have only been in Europe about 15 months, but these are the opinions of many of my German friends.
It may be true that EU has better privacy protection than the US, but that only adds to it's over-regulation. You could say that most of the regulations I've metioned apply to businesses, but they prevent me from living my life as I choose.
In America you are much more free to do what you want when you want. Germany, if not the whole EU, is a straitjacket for personal freedom.
Space elevator
Why not simply put them on stickers... There is absolutely *no* reason what so ever to put the rfid in the product itself!
Here's a reason: Using stickers wouldn't prevent shoplifting if they could be peeled or cut off.
speaking out "against" wide-spread, free, broadband internet-access.
It free for them, but not for the rest of us. Why should I pay for others to get WiFi, especially when I don't even have it myself? Public services should be made available to the public, not just to a select few regardless of their situation.
I believe that's "My Possie's on Broadband!"
What will make this take off is a thought-processor
I was thinking just the opposite, what would really do it for me is storage. I want a chip to monitor and record all my memories and allow me to access them. I'll keep my brain for doing all the thinking.
Think how amazing it would be to have perfect photographic memory. You could learn all languages and be the world's expert in all academic subjects. It wouldn't automatically make you more creative, but you would be great in science because you'd be so good at pattern recognition.
Of course storage cpacity of the human brain is a long, long way off. Just think of all the multimedia we recieve and record in real time every minute of our lives. And all that gets stuffed into our little skulls for storage. Sure we forget a lot, but the amount we retain is blows awy current computer storage capacity.
Yeah, maybe someday processors will be able to SIMULATE human though, but I think the real goal should be a human brain with compuer storage.
Any info on VOIP for a regular PC? I need international long-distance access. I saw this Ask Slashdot article that recommended Speakfreely, but I haven't had time to try it.
Any advice?