Doesn't help as much as you'd think since many users hook up to their company WiFi to make their phones and tablets (especially tablets) work right.
I have one of my browsers permanently proxied through an SSH tunnel out of the office. Not 100% (nothing is these days... how much to I trust my shell provider really?) BUT at least I know I'm getting out of the government office I'm in where I *presume they are accessing anything and everything they can.
Ditto. Run by the university too. So far as I know there were no psych experiments going on but then again Madison has a fairly active psych department so who knows;-)
As for this study... why people drink? All for their own reasons... but mostly because they can.
I could write a fairly in depth thesis on the subject just based on my past 20 years of spending ~5 nights a week in a bar (the last 2 of which without alcohol) but I don't feel I would be contributing anything new to the subject (and neither will these people)
This story is what it is... what I'm mad about is how quietly in the past day my ability to disable ads went away. If that's the way it is so be it but poof there it went with not so much as a whisper!
1) This is a projected shortfall for 6 years from now not now. That being said I rarely give credit to such speculation as the logic behind is usually lacking.
2) Having recently been in the job market there are *TONS of jobs available in the Software field at least in my area (Minneapolis, MN) but even more so searching nationally. You may or may not have the skills or experience or desire to do certain types of development but there is no shortage of computer jobs at the moment.
I've been handed "failed" projects numerous times... I'm good at taking them at fixing them. (and because of that it's a regularly offered job to me) One thing that hasn't been mentioned is initial code analysis. A well crafted, *objective (no slandering the original developer), review of the code in advance can go a long way towards easing tensions later. When you demonstrate the issues you are about to fix and *then fix them you are more likely to get the credit you deserve.
Another note: if the original code was written by your *single well respected member of the company then if it is truly terrible then there should be very little stopping you from taking the re-write route (assuming the intended product isn't infeasible). You are better off designing the product properly from scratch anyway instead of trying to piece-meal repair something as terrible as you imply.
Anecdotal: 1 contract job I was given they literally gave me the entire source repository in advance of the interview and asked me to check it out (project that was WAY over budget and over schedule). They wanted me to "finish up a few features" and deliver. I wrote a long plain text email review of the code telling them how bad the entire situation was and the job was given to me (with orders of magnitude larger budget) before I even went in.
When I started working in the industry companies were all looking for 10+ years of Java experience when the language had only existed for 4 years. Companies will always ask for the impossible... job hunting 101.
As for the OP's question my current job is a great example of what he may go through:
I've spent nearly 15 years writing standalone j2Se applications for a variety of uses. I'd bumped into Web in a variety of ways but it'd never been my actual job and so got very little of my time. There are a number of other technologies as well such as JPA, Spring, etc that I'd seen, maybe fixed, but not created in.
My current job has been a learning experience as, although my foundation in base Java is quite solid, almost every technology/framework/etc we're using here was new to me 1st day on the job. I was very clear about this in the interview. Their response / reason for hiring me was exactly right: You're a great programmer the rest of this you can learn.. we're not worried about it.
Obviously this takes a certain amount of intelligence on the part of the hiring manager and some skills to get past the filters but honestly *every job I've ever had has used some tool or skill I didn't possess on hiring. It's almost in your better interest to find the job and let them pay you to do the learning once you know exactly what you will need to do *that job.
Only aside I would say is if you've lived in a world of *pure C then you probably need to wrap your head around OOP concepts. They're not that hard really but it's enough of a different way to interpret the world that you should get your head moving in that direction.
I'm slowly switching off as I'm inspired to do so but many of my domains are still on register.com (part of N.A.)
They are constantly pushing WebLock on me via near daily email BUT it has never been automatically added to my service. Particularly at that disgusting price who would?
Honestly I'm guessing an Id10t error here... He accidentally opted in and is now complaining about it. I'll give him a small benefit of the doubt that they push it so hard that's it's actually kind of easy to accidentally opt in BUT it is not forced as far as I've ever heard or seen.
I think it doesn't really matter how safe the auto drive is or how attentive the driver is when it goes to answering the OPs question. The legality will be (should be) exactly the same as when you're using cruise control. When I driver engages such a "tool" to "assist" their driving they are not handing liability over to the "tool". If I engage cruise control and look away and cruise control propels me into another vehicle that has stopped in front of me I am still 100% liable for that accident (with a possible lawsuit potential towards the automaker if I *tried to disengage cruise and it refused to do so).
Similarly with Auto Drive: When I engage it I am handing over the *control not the liability. The potential for lawsuits against the automaker becomes greater because, frankly, the chances for finding a "hole" in the algorithm that results in a crash is greater BUT from a purely legal standpoint the driver is still liable for anything that happens while they are behind the wheel.
(First of all clarification... there's another thread above this talking about 'Project Managers' which I consider to be a completely different topic)
I think you're describing the bigger point. For a truly technical team the "best" manager must be at least somewhat technical. Their job isn't to DO the technical stuff but they need to UNDERSTAND the technical stuff in order to best direct their resources. I, recently, had issues in the other direction where my manager (who BTW was a fantastic manager most of the time) missed being a technical resource. He would take on tasks for the team and do them in the name of "shielding" us when what was actually being accomplished was he wasn't spending that time on the *real shielding that needed to be done so both we and he were over taxed. Most of the time tho he needed his technical expertise to know what and how our team could accomplish what was handed to us he just needed to be reminded to make his managerial duties the priority over doing the "actual work" he missed.
For the "other" topic I mentioned in my clarification my opinions are quite different. I've had numerous "Project Managers" who couldn't code if their life depended on it. That didn't keep them from doing their jobs quite well so long as they trusted their technical advisers when it came to technical decisions. Their job is to wield people and get the red tape done. If a project is big enough to need one then it is big enough to have technical leads to make that relationship work.
I download a lot of TV (not having any workable TV reception at home broadcast isn't an option). There are a large number of shows that I used to watch via Hulu/etc and sat through the ads because hey... they gotta get paid somehow! BUT every time they add another restriction (sorry you can't watch this until tomorrow / next week / no more (only past 5-6 episodes) / ever, I switch to more reliable and ad free sources .
They were making some amount of money off of me, now they are not because of their own bumbling efforts.
IMHO: The internet should be as 'reliable' a delivery mechanism as broadcast. Unless the big broadcasters have a stake in the sales of physical televisions and Cable/Sat service there should be exactly ZERO difference between me watching a show on my TV and streaming it from an official site.. especially when, with companies like Hulu, they don't even have to pay for the infrastructure. What are they gaining by making me wait to see or limiting how much historical I can see? Someone please educate me!
Gandalf = "divine messenger". He is portrayed as the "everyman's" wizzard but his powers and knowledge shouldn't be taken so lightly. Frodo's other companions also tend to be larger than life and help out in crucial ways.
Also: The ring is what it is but the story is filled with "gifts" that Frodo (or Bilbo for The Hobbit) are bestowed that give them superhero like abilities such as Stinger, the Elven Mail and the Phial for example.
I give more credit to Samwise for being a true everyman.
Circular reference... chicken or the egg in a manner of speaking but for the most part you're both right. The first dictionary post-dates the first written word so not ALL books come from the dictionary. There is also an important fact that the dictionary is a closed / regulated book of a *specific set of words considered by whomever to be part of the real language. Most books contain at least a few words that are not allowed in said dictionary for a number of reasons. That being said, the first dictionary came a long time ago and at some point it became the source, not the repository of, most people's extended vocabulary. The point is not that the dictionary doesn't invent words but that the writers of the books go to it to find the ones they want to use. Also a portion of the dictionary came from the spoken word directly and may or may not have ever been included in printed form elsewhere before inclusion so in the printed sense the dictionary would be the "first".
In mathematical terms one would like to think that the dictionary is what would happen if all books (of a given language) were shoved into a proper Set BUT instead that set requires a garbage ( morality) filter to make the set even smaller. It is also a snapshot in time so only catches up to modern changes in the language every so often making it even smaller.
Given the mind-set I see around every day I doubt this Judge had to be bribed... he expresses an extremely popular yet flawed philosophy. The basic concept that the ends justify the means... *any means. His "ruling" states that this is legal because this is what the NSA/Gov't needed to do to counter the threat they were faced. The whole problem with that in this arena is that our basic rights are designed to counter such an argument. They are specifically created to say "When you reach the point you feel you absolutely MUST do this thing you are being told you CAN NOT do this thing so find another way."
If this judge were unique in his opinion that the ends justify *any means even if they violate our sacred rights that would be one thing but unfortunately a pretty high percentage of our country agrees with him and even some significant subset probably thinks we're not doing enough. I am not willing to trade one bit of freedom for the illusion of security I only wish my view was in the majority (or even that the majority would understand the fact security is an illusion!)
I would like to *emphatically disagree... matter 'o fact I'd just shove this into the usual/. reactionary article category. Whomever thought this was a valid premise spends their time no where near the vibrant music community. There is no decline... As a direct hit to the reference in the summary: Daft punk wears helmets to hide their tears because no one is dancing? Are you f$%^ing kidding me? As a specific point their most recent album was significantly *less digital than their previous and there are no shortage of people dancing their asses off to it.
I spend my life in the music biz and this article really angers me not because it has any grain of truth but because there are people out there who really think it is! The only links in the article are fairly laughable... sorry a soul band from the 70's can't come back and see the same draw they had before. There's a saying I like which applies heavily to the music biz "So what have you done for me lately?" people are very forgetful and extremely ADD when it comes to music. Keeping the audience's eye for year after year requires constant attention and you still might lose 'em.
As for the no one dancing? BS. Crowds at any show that gets packed have to figure out how to move with limited space... that's logistics not music or some change in the landscape. the people who really want more room to move you'll find at the edges and you'll see *plenty of movement in the middle it just takes a different form.
Anyway... dunno why I'm arguing this logically... it really wasn't worth the energy I put into it... I'm going away now.
I'm proud to live in a state that deemed these cameras unconstitutional a long time ago.
I also live in a state / metro where re-timing light changes is excessively utilized. Delays as long as 5 seconds are employed between one side's Red and the cross traffic's Green. Although the concept of a delay is one I think is beneficial I think that is going too far. 1-2 seconds *tops are enough to up the stats but any longer and we have people jumping the red on the front side, not the back side of the green. Similarly dangerous especially when combined with the recent trend of re-scheduling lights as well. (reversing the rotation, giving a second turn signal turn, etc) jumping the green is one thing but if you jump the green and it turns out it wasn't your green you get lots of trouble coming your way.
That and 3+ (we have an entire road that's 6) *minute long cycles could really stand to go away. Make people wait too long at a light and they will start deciding it's "worth it" to circumvent the impediment to their forward progress.
Maybe, maybe not. As mentioned in a previous comment, prison is primarily used as a punishment here not as much for protection of general society. In a country founded on the principal of various innate freedoms taking away someone's freedom seems the ultimate punishment. Fines = Taking your means to buy what you want = Taking your freedom to acquire. Revocation of licenses (drivers, professional) take away your freedom to legally perform certain activities. Prison, and the associated probation/parole system, go steps farther by explicitly removing all, or almost all, but your barest freedoms. Execution takes your final freedom (Life) away.
Personally I think a 10 year sentence is pretty excessive. Your average privileged American is pretty shell shocked by even small amounts of time behind bars. Months to a couple years is enough of a penalty to reform the vast majority. Those that don't fit that mold become repeat offenders where the penalties deservedly go up. Extreme example: I could walk out of my office right now and gun down someone in cold blood and I wouldn't end up with 10 years. I don't disagree at all with Prison being the style of punishment but I find the duration to be excessive and honestly for first offense pending aggravating circumstances a friendly prosecutor would probably be happy with a number of years of probation in-lieu of. The whole concept of "Trying to send a message" is an abortion of our legal system and should be weeded out with appropriate diligence.
PS: The whole misunderstood argument is similarly BS. I break laws all the time and when I get caught I pay the price. I am truly understood by only myself but that is no argument that I shouldn't be judged based on the same laws my fellow citizens are. I instead work to change those laws I disagree with so I can spread my own understanding.
I was pondering on this recently and was thinking the following:
1) Light travels at that good ole' speed it does.
2) Scientists continually marvel at the fact they are seeing the universe far away the way it was millions or billions of years ago.
3) I never hear them comment on the fact what they are seeing has changed as much as our near universe in all of that time.
SO... what's to say we're not looking at the beginnings of literally millions (+?) of civilizations that in a few million years would look to the Hubble like we do now from up close?
Astronomers spend SO much of their time looking at light-speed forced history that I feel a certain slight is paid to what the present truly may be. The universe may be absolutely teaming with life that we won't be able to even see the beginnings of in ours or even our great-great-great-great-...........-great-great-grandchildren's lifetimes.
Yeah... that's been a standard feature of Android for a while now... I use it a lot. Honestly Apple making a big deal about it is essentially them advertising how cool Android was before them. The Tim Cook era looks promising!
In our ever accelerating world of innovation isn't 20 years ridiculously long now? It's not a hard concept to visualize... think back 20 years (assuming you were alive back then with a 2.5M UID;-) and picture any of the technologies that are currently commonplace. Then think about all of the technology 'fads' and innovations that have come and gone. 20 Years might as well be saying that competitors can *never use your innovation when put in that perspective because that innovation went from discovery to practical to commonplace to obsolete in a significantly shorter time period.
It's hard to pin a number on it but IMHO a 'reasonable' figure would be closer to 5-10 years and I'd be happier with 5.
Slashdot Mirror
Doesn't help as much as you'd think since many users hook up to their company WiFi to make their phones and tablets (especially tablets) work right.
I have one of my browsers permanently proxied through an SSH tunnel out of the office. Not 100% (nothing is these days... how much to I trust my shell provider really?) BUT at least I know I'm getting out of the government office I'm in where I *presume they are accessing anything and everything they can.
Zombies.
They already took away the ability to disable ads this week... We have always been at war with Beta.
Ditto. Run by the university too. So far as I know there were no psych experiments going on but then again Madison has a fairly active psych department so who knows ;-)
As for this study... why people drink? All for their own reasons... but mostly because they can.
I could write a fairly in depth thesis on the subject just based on my past 20 years of spending ~5 nights a week in a bar (the last 2 of which without alcohol) but I don't feel I would be contributing anything new to the subject (and neither will these people)
This story is what it is... what I'm mad about is how quietly in the past day my ability to disable ads went away. If that's the way it is so be it but poof there it went with not so much as a whisper!
1) This is a projected shortfall for 6 years from now not now. That being said I rarely give credit to such speculation as the logic behind is usually lacking.
2) Having recently been in the job market there are *TONS of jobs available in the Software field at least in my area (Minneapolis, MN) but even more so searching nationally. You may or may not have the skills or experience or desire to do certain types of development but there is no shortage of computer jobs at the moment.
Thanks for the fairly sane post :-)
I've been handed "failed" projects numerous times... I'm good at taking them at fixing them. (and because of that it's a regularly offered job to me) One thing that hasn't been mentioned is initial code analysis. A well crafted, *objective (no slandering the original developer), review of the code in advance can go a long way towards easing tensions later. When you demonstrate the issues you are about to fix and *then fix them you are more likely to get the credit you deserve.
Another note: if the original code was written by your *single well respected member of the company then if it is truly terrible then there should be very little stopping you from taking the re-write route (assuming the intended product isn't infeasible). You are better off designing the product properly from scratch anyway instead of trying to piece-meal repair something as terrible as you imply.
Anecdotal: 1 contract job I was given they literally gave me the entire source repository in advance of the interview and asked me to check it out (project that was WAY over budget and over schedule). They wanted me to "finish up a few features" and deliver. I wrote a long plain text email review of the code telling them how bad the entire situation was and the job was given to me (with orders of magnitude larger budget) before I even went in.
When I started working in the industry companies were all looking for 10+ years of Java experience when the language had only existed for 4 years. Companies will always ask for the impossible... job hunting 101.
As for the OP's question my current job is a great example of what he may go through:
I've spent nearly 15 years writing standalone j2Se applications for a variety of uses. I'd bumped into Web in a variety of ways but it'd never been my actual job and so got very little of my time. There are a number of other technologies as well such as JPA, Spring, etc that I'd seen, maybe fixed, but not created in.
My current job has been a learning experience as, although my foundation in base Java is quite solid, almost every technology/framework/etc we're using here was new to me 1st day on the job. I was very clear about this in the interview. Their response / reason for hiring me was exactly right: You're a great programmer the rest of this you can learn.. we're not worried about it.
Obviously this takes a certain amount of intelligence on the part of the hiring manager and some skills to get past the filters but honestly *every job I've ever had has used some tool or skill I didn't possess on hiring. It's almost in your better interest to find the job and let them pay you to do the learning once you know exactly what you will need to do *that job.
Only aside I would say is if you've lived in a world of *pure C then you probably need to wrap your head around OOP concepts. They're not that hard really but it's enough of a different way to interpret the world that you should get your head moving in that direction.
I'm slowly switching off as I'm inspired to do so but many of my domains are still on register.com (part of N.A.)
They are constantly pushing WebLock on me via near daily email BUT it has never been automatically added to my service. Particularly at that disgusting price who would?
Honestly I'm guessing an Id10t error here... He accidentally opted in and is now complaining about it. I'll give him a small benefit of the doubt that they push it so hard that's it's actually kind of easy to accidentally opt in BUT it is not forced as far as I've ever heard or seen.
I think it doesn't really matter how safe the auto drive is or how attentive the driver is when it goes to answering the OPs question. The legality will be (should be) exactly the same as when you're using cruise control. When I driver engages such a "tool" to "assist" their driving they are not handing liability over to the "tool". If I engage cruise control and look away and cruise control propels me into another vehicle that has stopped in front of me I am still 100% liable for that accident (with a possible lawsuit potential towards the automaker if I *tried to disengage cruise and it refused to do so).
Similarly with Auto Drive: When I engage it I am handing over the *control not the liability. The potential for lawsuits against the automaker becomes greater because, frankly, the chances for finding a "hole" in the algorithm that results in a crash is greater BUT from a purely legal standpoint the driver is still liable for anything that happens while they are behind the wheel.
(First of all clarification... there's another thread above this talking about 'Project Managers' which I consider to be a completely different topic)
I think you're describing the bigger point. For a truly technical team the "best" manager must be at least somewhat technical. Their job isn't to DO the technical stuff but they need to UNDERSTAND the technical stuff in order to best direct their resources. I, recently, had issues in the other direction where my manager (who BTW was a fantastic manager most of the time) missed being a technical resource. He would take on tasks for the team and do them in the name of "shielding" us when what was actually being accomplished was he wasn't spending that time on the *real shielding that needed to be done so both we and he were over taxed. Most of the time tho he needed his technical expertise to know what and how our team could accomplish what was handed to us he just needed to be reminded to make his managerial duties the priority over doing the "actual work" he missed.
For the "other" topic I mentioned in my clarification my opinions are quite different. I've had numerous "Project Managers" who couldn't code if their life depended on it. That didn't keep them from doing their jobs quite well so long as they trusted their technical advisers when it came to technical decisions. Their job is to wield people and get the red tape done. If a project is big enough to need one then it is big enough to have technical leads to make that relationship work.
Personal example:
I download a lot of TV (not having any workable TV reception at home broadcast isn't an option). There are a large number of shows that I used to watch via Hulu/etc and sat through the ads because hey... they gotta get paid somehow! BUT every time they add another restriction (sorry you can't watch this until tomorrow / next week / no more (only past 5-6 episodes) / ever, I switch to more reliable and ad free sources .
They were making some amount of money off of me, now they are not because of their own bumbling efforts.
IMHO: The internet should be as 'reliable' a delivery mechanism as broadcast. Unless the big broadcasters have a stake in the sales of physical televisions and Cable/Sat service there should be exactly ZERO difference between me watching a show on my TV and streaming it from an official site.. especially when, with companies like Hulu, they don't even have to pay for the infrastructure. What are they gaining by making me wait to see or limiting how much historical I can see? Someone please educate me!
I agree but a couple asides:
Gandalf = "divine messenger". He is portrayed as the "everyman's" wizzard but his powers and knowledge shouldn't be taken so lightly.
Frodo's other companions also tend to be larger than life and help out in crucial ways.
Also: The ring is what it is but the story is filled with "gifts" that Frodo (or Bilbo for The Hobbit) are bestowed that give them superhero like abilities such as Stinger, the Elven Mail and the Phial for example.
I give more credit to Samwise for being a true everyman.
Circular reference... chicken or the egg in a manner of speaking but for the most part you're both right. The first dictionary post-dates the first written word so not ALL books come from the dictionary. There is also an important fact that the dictionary is a closed / regulated book of a *specific set of words considered by whomever to be part of the real language. Most books contain at least a few words that are not allowed in said dictionary for a number of reasons. That being said, the first dictionary came a long time ago and at some point it became the source, not the repository of, most people's extended vocabulary. The point is not that the dictionary doesn't invent words but that the writers of the books go to it to find the ones they want to use. Also a portion of the dictionary came from the spoken word directly and may or may not have ever been included in printed form elsewhere before inclusion so in the printed sense the dictionary would be the "first".
In mathematical terms one would like to think that the dictionary is what would happen if all books (of a given language) were shoved into a proper Set BUT instead that set requires a garbage ( morality) filter to make the set even smaller. It is also a snapshot in time so only catches up to modern changes in the language every so often making it even smaller.
Given the mind-set I see around every day I doubt this Judge had to be bribed... he expresses an extremely popular yet flawed philosophy. The basic concept that the ends justify the means... *any means. His "ruling" states that this is legal because this is what the NSA/Gov't needed to do to counter the threat they were faced. The whole problem with that in this arena is that our basic rights are designed to counter such an argument. They are specifically created to say "When you reach the point you feel you absolutely MUST do this thing you are being told you CAN NOT do this thing so find another way."
If this judge were unique in his opinion that the ends justify *any means even if they violate our sacred rights that would be one thing but unfortunately a pretty high percentage of our country agrees with him and even some significant subset probably thinks we're not doing enough. I am not willing to trade one bit of freedom for the illusion of security I only wish my view was in the majority (or even that the majority would understand the fact security is an illusion!)
I would like to *emphatically disagree... matter 'o fact I'd just shove this into the usual /. reactionary article category. Whomever thought this was a valid premise spends their time no where near the vibrant music community. There is no decline... As a direct hit to the reference in the summary: Daft punk wears helmets to hide their tears because no one is dancing? Are you f$%^ing kidding me? As a specific point their most recent album was significantly *less digital than their previous and there are no shortage of people dancing their asses off to it.
I spend my life in the music biz and this article really angers me not because it has any grain of truth but because there are people out there who really think it is! The only links in the article are fairly laughable... sorry a soul band from the 70's can't come back and see the same draw they had before. There's a saying I like which applies heavily to the music biz "So what have you done for me lately?" people are very forgetful and extremely ADD when it comes to music. Keeping the audience's eye for year after year requires constant attention and you still might lose 'em.
As for the no one dancing? BS. Crowds at any show that gets packed have to figure out how to move with limited space... that's logistics not music or some change in the landscape. the people who really want more room to move you'll find at the edges and you'll see *plenty of movement in the middle it just takes a different form.
Anyway... dunno why I'm arguing this logically... it really wasn't worth the energy I put into it... I'm going away now.
I'm proud to live in a state that deemed these cameras unconstitutional a long time ago.
I also live in a state / metro where re-timing light changes is excessively utilized. Delays as long as 5 seconds are employed between one side's Red and the cross traffic's Green. Although the concept of a delay is one I think is beneficial I think that is going too far. 1-2 seconds *tops are enough to up the stats but any longer and we have people jumping the red on the front side, not the back side of the green. Similarly dangerous especially when combined with the recent trend of re-scheduling lights as well. (reversing the rotation, giving a second turn signal turn, etc) jumping the green is one thing but if you jump the green and it turns out it wasn't your green you get lots of trouble coming your way.
That and 3+ (we have an entire road that's 6) *minute long cycles could really stand to go away. Make people wait too long at a light and they will start deciding it's "worth it" to circumvent the impediment to their forward progress.
Maybe, maybe not. As mentioned in a previous comment, prison is primarily used as a punishment here not as much for protection of general society. In a country founded on the principal of various innate freedoms taking away someone's freedom seems the ultimate punishment. Fines = Taking your means to buy what you want = Taking your freedom to acquire. Revocation of licenses (drivers, professional) take away your freedom to legally perform certain activities. Prison, and the associated probation/parole system, go steps farther by explicitly removing all, or almost all, but your barest freedoms. Execution takes your final freedom (Life) away.
Personally I think a 10 year sentence is pretty excessive. Your average privileged American is pretty shell shocked by even small amounts of time behind bars. Months to a couple years is enough of a penalty to reform the vast majority. Those that don't fit that mold become repeat offenders where the penalties deservedly go up. Extreme example: I could walk out of my office right now and gun down someone in cold blood and I wouldn't end up with 10 years. I don't disagree at all with Prison being the style of punishment but I find the duration to be excessive and honestly for first offense pending aggravating circumstances a friendly prosecutor would probably be happy with a number of years of probation in-lieu of. The whole concept of "Trying to send a message" is an abortion of our legal system and should be weeded out with appropriate diligence.
PS: The whole misunderstood argument is similarly BS. I break laws all the time and when I get caught I pay the price. I am truly understood by only myself but that is no argument that I shouldn't be judged based on the same laws my fellow citizens are. I instead work to change those laws I disagree with so I can spread my own understanding.
I was pondering on this recently and was thinking the following:
1) Light travels at that good ole' speed it does.
2) Scientists continually marvel at the fact they are seeing the universe far away the way it was millions or billions of years ago.
3) I never hear them comment on the fact what they are seeing has changed as much as our near universe in all of that time.
SO... what's to say we're not looking at the beginnings of literally millions (+?) of civilizations that in a few million years would look to the Hubble like we do now from up close?
Astronomers spend SO much of their time looking at light-speed forced history that I feel a certain slight is paid to what the present truly may be. The universe may be absolutely teaming with life that we won't be able to even see the beginnings of in ours or even our great-great-great-great-...........-great-great-grandchildren's lifetimes.
Anyway... back to pondering...
Guiness brah!
You are correct sir. Although apparently since I was last there the value of the Rupee has fallen *severely so...
At current exchange R4,700 Crore ~= $87,231,060.00 USD.
Hey... they brought 2Pac back... they could bring Jobs back if they wanted to. The two of them could even rap together to announce the iPhone 6!
Yeah... that's been a standard feature of Android for a while now... I use it a lot. Honestly Apple making a big deal about it is essentially them advertising how cool Android was before them. The Tim Cook era looks promising!
I'll get back to you on that question in a minute...
(now where's my box of tissues?)
True... but!
In our ever accelerating world of innovation isn't 20 years ridiculously long now? It's not a hard concept to visualize... think back 20 years (assuming you were alive back then with a 2.5M UID ;-) and picture any of the technologies that are currently commonplace. Then think about all of the technology 'fads' and innovations that have come and gone. 20 Years might as well be saying that competitors can *never use your innovation when put in that perspective because that innovation went from discovery to practical to commonplace to obsolete in a significantly shorter time period.
It's hard to pin a number on it but IMHO a 'reasonable' figure would be closer to 5-10 years and I'd be happier with 5.