I've started calculating all project costs in Starbucks Coffees, instead of dollars. For instance, "We could build something to do this for you in a few weeks, but it will cost about 10,000 Starbucks coffees. Or subscribe to this existing service, for only 2 Starbucks coffees per day.
It's too late. Tech seemed like a great career many years ago, but the successful tech corporations lobbied their way to bring in cheap foreign labor and for tax breaks for moving call centers and jobs to overseas locations.... (blah blah blah)
Let me guess... you're a Donal Trump supporter, right?
Bzzzt! I'm an American software developer over 50.
My turn: I'm guessing you're a young person in tech working in the US on an H1-B, right?
Or, more specifically, how should americans perceive foreign governments running intelligence operations to influence the outcome of the elections and therefore determine who will become the next POTUS?
Wonder why it took them so long, since the US has been doing that to other countries (including in-country psyops) for at least 60 years...
It's too late. Tech seemed like a great career many years ago, but the successful tech corporations lobbied their way to bring in cheap foreign labor and for tax breaks for moving call centers and jobs to overseas locations. And even today they complain about how expensive (!!) tech labor is while they hide their profits in foreign tax havens.
So you spend all this tax money (from a treasury these tech companies are avoiding paying into) to push kids into STEM fields where they will fail to get employment because those companies don't want to hire expensive Americans.
Don't fall for it! The US still needs plumbers, electricians, welders and other skilled workers that can't be done offshore. Or get a LEED certification and learn Spanish. so you can manage construction crews of Honduran guest workers.
All looks like conjecture to me. The motivation primarily seems to be fame-seeking. And NGP VAN probably has plenty of vulnerabilities and attack vectors, considering the nature of the software and its history of failed security.
I don’t want to disappoint anyone, but none of the candidates has my sympathies. Each of them has skeletons in the closet and I think people have a right to know the truth about the politicians.
As for me, I see great differences between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. Hillary seems so much false to me, she got all her money from political activities and lobbying, she is a slave of moguls, she is bought and sold. She never had to work hard and never risked everything she had. Her words don’t meet her actions. And her collision with the DNC turned the primaries into farce.
Opposite to her, Donald Trump has earned his money himself. And at least he is sincere in what he says. His position is straight and clear.
Anyway that doesn’t mean that I support him. I’m totally against his ideas about closing borders and deportation policy. It’s a nonsense, absolute bullshit.
I have nothing to say about Bernie Sanders. It seems he never had a chance to win the nomination as the Democratic Party itself stood against him!
I.E. "You can have no freedom because I can always come up with some hypothetical that describes how somehow, some day what you're doing might possibly affect me in some way."
See, for example, interfering with my "view space" or increasing the cost of some service paid by taxpayers.
Follow these steps if you don't want to associate a payment method with your account.
A credit card is required to set up accounts for children.
If you've already created your Apple ID, you'll need to add a payment method when you first use it to sign in to the iTunes Store, App Store, or iBooks Store. But you can optionally remove the payment method after you sign in to the store.
WTF, Really? That's NOT creating an ID without a CC. At all. They're still collecting your CC information. And keeping it, I'm sure, after you "remove" it. It's like those porn sites that "Hey, we just need a credit card for access to prove you're 18. We won't charge it. Promise". Also "Just the tip."
Why can’t I select None when I edit my Apple ID payment information? You might not be able to see or select the None payment option for one of these reasons. If you don't want to use a credit card, you can use another form of payment, such as a gift card.
If you have an unpaid balance or payment due
If you have a subscription that automatically renews
If you're using the iTunes Store or App Store for the first time
If you changed your country or region
If you're a part of Family Sharing
TL;DR: Apple WILL get your credit card, or you won't get in.
Well... not having to give your payment information to Spotify is one. Apple doesn't share ANY purchaser information other than an ID that really can't be tied to anyone. So not having to worry about another site having your personal information might be worth it. I don't know if signing up for Spotify requires giving them your personal information, or if you can just pay $13/year and be done with it (since a lot of personal information is just so they can bill you).
I signed up for Spotify using my Facebook account (which was a mistake, in retrospect). When I decided to upgrade to the pay version, I used Spotify gift cards. So they don't really have that information from me (except what Facebook lets them have, which is all fake anyway).
Note that I never said it was an issue for her, I was just answering the question from the OP.
She didn't support it, until it turned out that a lot of voters supported it, so in 2013 she changed her position and supported it. It speaks to principles. Hers are "say what's popular."
In government by the people and for the people, since when is listening to the constituents that you represent a bad idea in general?
Well, it's a bad idea for a politician because you open yourself to attacks from your opponents calling you a "flip-flopper". Other than that, it really shouldn't be. In most circumstances. Civil rights issues kind of present a special case, though, and there were certainly plenty of politicians in the 18th and 19th centuries who stood in opposition to slavery even when voter opinion was not on their side - out of principle.
I really don't think there is anything wrong with Hillary's position on this issue, or the change. Before 2013, she pretty much always supported "civil unions" that granted all the same government / government supported rights to same-sex couples as marriage did. And, of course, same-sex couples could always "get married" even if it was not universally recognized. That could have been workable but there was too much opposition to even that sort of compromise. As public opinion changed and courts started taking sides on the issue, it became something that had to be resolved at the Federal level (due to the "Full faith and credit" clause of the Constitution). So Clinton really had to evolve her rhetoric on the issue.
The whole thing never would have been an issue if the government wasn't intent on being so involved in peoples' lives (and relationships). The marriage certificate was only created in the first place to keep the whites and black from mixing.
What's the deal with gay marriage? Do you think she doesn't really support it, or does really support it but says she doesn't?
She didn't support it, until it turned out that a lot of voters supported it, so in 2013 she changed her position and supported it. It speaks to principles. Hers are "say what's popular." I'm sure if people heard what she said to Goldman Sachs audiences (that netted her hundreds of thousands of "speaking fees"), most people would not support it, so we won't get to hear those comments.
Clinton opposed same-sex marriage as a candidate for the Senate, while in office as a senator, and while running for president in 2008. She expressed her support for civil unions starting in 2000 and for the rights’ of states to set their own laws in favor of same-sex marriage in 2006. As polls showed that a majority of Americans supported same-sex marriage, Clinton’s views changed, too. She announced her support for same-sex marriage in March 2013.
That's the whole point. Just the fact that we're having to parse out their words to try to figure out what they might have been trying to say demonstrates a failure of journalism. And these are just the first two random samples I pulled out of today's newsfeed.
Maybe the problem is your reading comprehension?
In the Chicago case, the total number of homicides is between 293 and 306 (depending on how many of the 6 preceded vs. followed the 300th on of the year.). Orthogonal to homicides, 13 people were shot. 7 of those may have been homicides, or possibly fewer if some of the homicides had a different weapon.
HA! Apparently your comprehension is at least as bad as mine. TFA said "over a 60-hour period that saw 55 people shot, 13 fatally,". So maybe I'm not the only one? My point getting through yet?
The second planet isn't 2 million years old. The star it's orbiting is. The article explains that the other planet could in fact be younger, but they're not sure.
Cognitive dissonance! It got you too! How can their be a planet older than the star it's orbiting? It wasn't a planet then! "They're not sure" - but the headline was pretty clear...
I'm a supporter of gun rights, and I'm for treating guns like cars. For one, it's much easier to get a car and a driver's license. I don't even get background checked for a car, and, frankly, the classes I'd have to take to get a gun are much longer and more expensive, and I don't even have to take classes for the DMV - I just have to pass a test. Plus, driving an "illegal" car or getting caught driving without a license would result in nothing but a fine, but if I have an illegal gun I'll serve a mandatory minimum of 5 years in prison.
Also what about the guy from Indiana who was apprehended before he shot up a gay pride parade in LA?
Why do you assume that was a separate incident? From what I've heard, the guy asked for protection when he was arrested, saying he was going to be killed just like Omar, who he and at least three others were working with...
If you live in a place where you feel you need to carry a gun, it's too late for you. That's not civilization, it's pathetic.
Well that's just it, isn't it. The US is not a "civilized" country, and never has been. It's easy to mistake it for one, so I understand your confusion. Here's an easy test: View how the people in Japan (a civilized country) reacted after the Tsunami hit. Now compare with how the people acted after Katrina hit New Orleans. See the difference?
Yea, that's why people walk around armed in the US: It's not really a very civilized place.
The second amendment is just that. An amendment. It's time to repeal or modify it because clearly, the gun totters and gun sellers and even the FBI are not mature enough to play with them.
Yep, you want gun bans and restrictions, that right there is the way to do it. SCOTUS has ruled on the 2nd - it's an individual right. If we want to empower the Federal government to restrict gun ownership, changing the Constitution is the way to do it.
Don't forget, while we're at it, we're going to need to get rid of that pesky 4th Amendment too. No other way to allow the police to go house-to-house searching for guns during the confiscation.
Two Statements:
Ship owners are realizing bigger ships aren't better than smaller ships.
Ship owners continue to prefer to buy bigger ships rather than smaller ships.
Journalists and media are doing this purposely. They're creating cognitive dissonance in their audiences, to keep them confused. If you watch for it, you can find conflicting statements, both presented as fact, in many many MSM news stories. I've only recently picked up on this trend. Often, it will be the headline that says one thing and the body of the story says the opposite.
Chicago recorded its 300th homicide this weekend and tallied six others over a 60-hour period that saw 55 people shot, 13 fatally, from Friday afternoon through early Monday morning.
Okay, 300th homicide, presumably since the start of 2016. But... "and tallied six others"... So there were 7? "13 [shot] fatally". Wait... 13? So that means they are now at 307, including the 13 this weekend. Well... what's with all the conflicting numbers? Did I actually interpret that right? Maybe not, because the Tribune claims there were only 5 homicides during the same period.
And here's another one from Newsmax. The headline is "Kepler K2-33b, Youngest Exoplanet Found Yet, Shows How Planets Form". But in the copy is this:
The planet is roughly the size of Neptune, about 5 million to 10 million years old
Ok... But then further down:
K2-33b is the second young "hot Jupiter" found in recent months, the Los Angeles Times reported. A hot Jupiter is a gas giant orbiting close to its star. The other one, discovered orbiting a 2 million-year-old star named V830 Tau, was written about in a separate article published in the journal Nature.
But wait.. the one found first is 2 million years old, but the youngest one found is now (K2-33b), which is 5 - 10 million years old? How does that make it younger than one 2 million years old?
But it's funny, you mention an almost inconsequential tax credit rather than all the business credits, home-owner credits, and education credits.
I *did* mention the crony capitalism stuff (business credits). There is no home-owner credit that I'm aware of - only a deduction for the mortgage interest. The education (that is, the tuition credit) is a pretty recent addition, and not one I've ever been able to take advantage of, even though I put a kid through college several years ago.
Also, it seems like you are the one that is uninformed.
Slashdot Mirror
I've started calculating all project costs in Starbucks Coffees, instead of dollars. For instance, "We could build something to do this for you in a few weeks, but it will cost about 10,000 Starbucks coffees. Or subscribe to this existing service, for only 2 Starbucks coffees per day.
It's too late. Tech seemed like a great career many years ago, but the successful tech corporations lobbied their way to bring in cheap foreign labor and for tax breaks for moving call centers and jobs to overseas locations.... (blah blah blah)
Let me guess... you're a Donal Trump supporter, right?
Bzzzt! I'm an American software developer over 50.
My turn: I'm guessing you're a young person in tech working in the US on an H1-B, right?
Or, more specifically, how should americans perceive foreign governments running intelligence operations to influence the outcome of the elections and therefore determine who will become the next POTUS?
Wonder why it took them so long, since the US has been doing that to other countries (including in-country psyops) for at least 60 years...
45? What kind of retirement community do you live in that keeps programmers around until they are 45?
By the late 1980's, even being over 30 was perilous.
Could always work for a military contractor. They're still using 8-inch floppy disks!
It's too late. Tech seemed like a great career many years ago, but the successful tech corporations lobbied their way to bring in cheap foreign labor and for tax breaks for moving call centers and jobs to overseas locations. And even today they complain about how expensive (!!) tech labor is while they hide their profits in foreign tax havens.
So you spend all this tax money (from a treasury these tech companies are avoiding paying into) to push kids into STEM fields where they will fail to get employment because those companies don't want to hire expensive Americans.
Don't fall for it! The US still needs plumbers, electricians, welders and other skilled workers that can't be done offshore. Or get a LEED certification and learn Spanish. so you can manage construction crews of Honduran guest workers.
All looks like conjecture to me. The motivation primarily seems to be fame-seeking. And NGP VAN probably has plenty of vulnerabilities and attack vectors, considering the nature of the software and its history of failed security.
From Guccifer's Blog:
I.E. "You can have no freedom because I can always come up with some hypothetical that describes how somehow, some day what you're doing might possibly affect me in some way."
See, for example, interfering with my "view space" or increasing the cost of some service paid by taxpayers.
spotify was always free to disable subs via the app and only do them via the website and spend their own money marketing their service
There are plenty of apps that do this. Hulu and Netflix are among them.
https://support.apple.com/en-g...
Hope this helps.
Nope.
WTF, Really? That's NOT creating an ID without a CC. At all. They're still collecting your CC information. And keeping it, I'm sure, after you "remove" it. It's like those porn sites that "Hey, we just need a credit card for access to prove you're 18. We won't charge it. Promise". Also "Just the tip."
TL;DR: Apple WILL get your credit card, or you won't get in.
Well... not having to give your payment information to Spotify is one. Apple doesn't share ANY purchaser information other than an ID that really can't be tied to anyone. So not having to worry about another site having your personal information might be worth it. I don't know if signing up for Spotify requires giving them your personal information, or if you can just pay $13/year and be done with it (since a lot of personal information is just so they can bill you).
I signed up for Spotify using my Facebook account (which was a mistake, in retrospect). When I decided to upgrade to the pay version, I used Spotify gift cards. So they don't really have that information from me (except what Facebook lets them have, which is all fake anyway).
netflix has been paying up for the last few years and growing subscribers
So why hasn't Apple banned Netflix from the App store? I don't pay my subscription through Apple. I have the app on my iPad, but I never even use it.
Note that I never said it was an issue for her, I was just answering the question from the OP.
She didn't support it, until it turned out that a lot of voters supported it, so in 2013 she changed her position and supported it. It speaks to principles. Hers are "say what's popular."
In government by the people and for the people, since when is listening to the constituents that you represent a bad idea in general?
Well, it's a bad idea for a politician because you open yourself to attacks from your opponents calling you a "flip-flopper". Other than that, it really shouldn't be. In most circumstances. Civil rights issues kind of present a special case, though, and there were certainly plenty of politicians in the 18th and 19th centuries who stood in opposition to slavery even when voter opinion was not on their side - out of principle.
I really don't think there is anything wrong with Hillary's position on this issue, or the change. Before 2013, she pretty much always supported "civil unions" that granted all the same government / government supported rights to same-sex couples as marriage did. And, of course, same-sex couples could always "get married" even if it was not universally recognized. That could have been workable but there was too much opposition to even that sort of compromise. As public opinion changed and courts started taking sides on the issue, it became something that had to be resolved at the Federal level (due to the "Full faith and credit" clause of the Constitution). So Clinton really had to evolve her rhetoric on the issue.
The whole thing never would have been an issue if the government wasn't intent on being so involved in peoples' lives (and relationships). The marriage certificate was only created in the first place to keep the whites and black from mixing.
What's the deal with gay marriage? Do you think she doesn't really support it, or does really support it but says she doesn't?
She didn't support it, until it turned out that a lot of voters supported it, so in 2013 she changed her position and supported it. It speaks to principles. Hers are "say what's popular." I'm sure if people heard what she said to Goldman Sachs audiences (that netted her hundreds of thousands of "speaking fees"), most people would not support it, so we won't get to hear those comments.
Clinton opposed same-sex marriage as a candidate for the Senate, while in office as a senator, and while running for president in 2008. She expressed her support for civil unions starting in 2000 and for the rights’ of states to set their own laws in favor of same-sex marriage in 2006. As polls showed that a majority of Americans supported same-sex marriage, Clinton’s views changed, too. She announced her support for same-sex marriage in March 2013.
Critics will say this provision will be hard to control, will foster age discrimination, and put pressure on IT wages.
That's part of Silicon Valley's wish list though, is it not?
Yes Mr/Mrs Officer. Of course I have a social media life. My slashdot account name is "Anonymous Coward".
If they check your posts, you will surely be deported!
That's the whole point. Just the fact that we're having to parse out their words to try to figure out what they might have been trying to say demonstrates a failure of journalism. And these are just the first two random samples I pulled out of today's newsfeed.
Maybe the problem is your reading comprehension? In the Chicago case, the total number of homicides is between 293 and 306 (depending on how many of the 6 preceded vs. followed the 300th on of the year.). Orthogonal to homicides, 13 people were shot. 7 of those may have been homicides, or possibly fewer if some of the homicides had a different weapon.
HA! Apparently your comprehension is at least as bad as mine. TFA said "over a 60-hour period that saw 55 people shot, 13 fatally,". So maybe I'm not the only one? My point getting through yet?
The second planet isn't 2 million years old. The star it's orbiting is. The article explains that the other planet could in fact be younger, but they're not sure.
Cognitive dissonance! It got you too! How can their be a planet older than the star it's orbiting? It wasn't a planet then! "They're not sure" - but the headline was pretty clear...
That's interesting. Do you have a source?
Just this one. It has links to others.
I'm a supporter of gun rights, and I'm for treating guns like cars. For one, it's much easier to get a car and a driver's license. I don't even get background checked for a car, and, frankly, the classes I'd have to take to get a gun are much longer and more expensive, and I don't even have to take classes for the DMV - I just have to pass a test. Plus, driving an "illegal" car or getting caught driving without a license would result in nothing but a fine, but if I have an illegal gun I'll serve a mandatory minimum of 5 years in prison.
So, yea, let's treat guns more like cars...
Also what about the guy from Indiana who was apprehended before he shot up a gay pride parade in LA?
Why do you assume that was a separate incident? From what I've heard, the guy asked for protection when he was arrested, saying he was going to be killed just like Omar, who he and at least three others were working with ...
If you live in a place where you feel you need to carry a gun, it's too late for you. That's not civilization, it's pathetic.
Well that's just it, isn't it. The US is not a "civilized" country, and never has been. It's easy to mistake it for one, so I understand your confusion. Here's an easy test: View how the people in Japan (a civilized country) reacted after the Tsunami hit. Now compare with how the people acted after Katrina hit New Orleans. See the difference?
Yea, that's why people walk around armed in the US: It's not really a very civilized place.
The second amendment is just that. An amendment. It's time to repeal or modify it because clearly, the gun totters and gun sellers and even the FBI are not mature enough to play with them.
Yep, you want gun bans and restrictions, that right there is the way to do it. SCOTUS has ruled on the 2nd - it's an individual right. If we want to empower the Federal government to restrict gun ownership, changing the Constitution is the way to do it.
Don't forget, while we're at it, we're going to need to get rid of that pesky 4th Amendment too. No other way to allow the police to go house-to-house searching for guns during the confiscation.
Two Statements:
Ship owners are realizing bigger ships aren't better than smaller ships.
Ship owners continue to prefer to buy bigger ships rather than smaller ships.
Journalists and media are doing this purposely. They're creating cognitive dissonance in their audiences, to keep them confused. If you watch for it, you can find conflicting statements, both presented as fact, in many many MSM news stories. I've only recently picked up on this trend. Often, it will be the headline that says one thing and the body of the story says the opposite.
Here's an example, from MSN:
Okay, 300th homicide, presumably since the start of 2016. But... "and tallied six others" ... So there were 7? "13 [shot] fatally". Wait... 13? So that means they are now at 307, including the 13 this weekend. Well... what's with all the conflicting numbers? Did I actually interpret that right? Maybe not, because the Tribune claims there were only 5 homicides during the same period.
And here's another one from Newsmax. The headline is "Kepler K2-33b, Youngest Exoplanet Found Yet, Shows How Planets Form". But in the copy is this:
Ok... But then further down:
But wait.. the one found first is 2 million years old, but the youngest one found is now (K2-33b), which is 5 - 10 million years old? How does that make it younger than one 2 million years old?
I think it's intentional.
But it's funny, you mention an almost inconsequential tax credit rather than all the business credits, home-owner credits, and education credits.
I *did* mention the crony capitalism stuff (business credits). There is no home-owner credit that I'm aware of - only a deduction for the mortgage interest. The education (that is, the tuition credit) is a pretty recent addition, and not one I've ever been able to take advantage of, even though I put a kid through college several years ago.
Also, it seems like you are the one that is uninformed.