The good thing about basic phones is that they were perfected years ago, so they're cheap now. If off grid emergency use is important, buy a Nokia 1100 and it'll last you a week - a couple of cheap batteries can easily extend that to a month, or a portable solar panel will make it indefinite.
The emergence of power-guzzling pocket computers doesn't mean that the basic, long life, $30 phones don't exist any more, it just means they aren't getting headlines.
Get yourself a Moto G - the battery is good (although not astonishing: 1-2 days, rather than "oh shit, running out at 6pm"), the build quality and specs are excellent for normal usage (web, general communication), and they're dirt cheap compared to the competition.
Not necessarily. Is it not reasonable to say "I think taxes should be lower overall, and I don't think funds should be distributed to X, Y, or Z. However, since I'm forced to pay those taxes, I may as well avail myself of services X and Z. I'd be happier not to pay and not to use them, but since I've already paid, I may as well make the best of it"?
My kingdom for a mod-point. Moodle is designed to do exactly what you ask - it's admittedly not the absolute best piece of software I've ever used, and there are a few rough edges, but it does its job.
The only real competitor is the utter monstrosity that is Blackboard, which I believe starts at $10k/year. For that low, low price, you get a piece of software which is slow, buggy, and has a web interface which manages to disable such revolutionary new browser features as 'the back button', and 'middle click'.
I don't know that there is a method to do it completely anonymously, but the fact we're even treating the mere operation of an exit node as a crime, and something to be hidden at all costs, is a rather depressing indictment of the current state of our legal systems. Ideally one should be able to proudly and publicly make a stand for anonymity - that's where my comment about a decent amount of money comes in. A higher profile name who sets up a (charitable?) organisation with limited liability (not a perfect protection, but something) and loudly announces to the world how they're standing up for the First Amendment rights of all Americans (or some local equivalent) makes for, at worst, a protracted and public case in which the government can easily come out looking like the bully.
It's imperfect, certainly, but plenty of people have made the world a better place in the process of being fucked over making a stand against their governments. Many others have won. Some have disappeared into the legal system for all eternity. Sometimes the sacrifice is in vain, sometimes it isn't, but it almost always packs a better punch if you have the money and publicity to manage it well.
It's a public service, helping to preserve people's ability to practice their right to free speech. Plenty of us believe extremely strongly in that, and I'd consider it at least as worthy as many other philanthropic causes. If I had a decent amount of money (i.e. enough to consult a lawyer beforehand, take reasonable legal precautions, and kick up a stink rather than just disappearing if I ever were taken to court) I'd do it like a shot.
Even so, I'm not sure I buy the whole "two cars" argument - going on the lifestyle you assume, the time taken to call up a rental place and say "I'm making a trip, can you drop a Porsche Cayenne off at my address tomorrow morning, please." is hardly significant. Or just ask your PA to handle it...
Interesting. If anyone else cares, a somewhat enlightening bit of Googling on the subject seems to indicate that it varies from doctor to doctor, and that the main concern is the metal interfering with electrocauterisation equipment (in the case that something goes wrong during surgery, even if it wasn't intended to be used originally) and causing burns. It's a risk mitigation thing, and it appears that some places won't budge, whereas others will have you sign a release, with further variability based on the inherent risk of the type of surgery in question.
The anchors themselves are transdermal (through the skin), not subdermal (entirely under the skin) as the headline states. The magnetic caps sit on top of the steel which is protruding outside the skin, and the iPod then sits on them.
Also it appears the ones used in TFA are actually inert transdermal anchors with magnetic caps - in this case there's no reason to embed the actual magnets, whereas I'm assuming you got them for the whole 'extra sense' thing?
Looking at the article, I was actually thinking this would be a lot cooler with a nice watch face than an iPod. Having it just sitting there without a strap seems like a subtle but kind of interesting way to modify a fairly standard accessory.
It's fair to say that the figure is pretty damn likely to be incorrect. But I quite agree, the Forbes article should've gone one step further and done the correct calculation for the 2010 data (since, by their assertions, it seems that 2011 data is not yet fully available).
I didn't say 'instead of', but it sure as hell gives you an advantage. In my experience it's a sliding scale between ability, appearance and confidence - the more you have of one, the less you need of the others. A vast generalisation, of course, with somewhat overlapping criteria, and it breaks down at the extremes (you don't get surgeons with zero ability, nor business executives with zero confidence, for example), but not a bad rule of thumb.
A very reasonable post, although I must say I disagree with your implication that I'm 'pushing' anything. If you've looked at things from both sides and made your choice then I applaud you - it's certainly not my place to tell you how to behave. That said, I obviously think my way is the right way of doing things (hell, who doesn't?) and to that end I offer my opinion as best I can.
I've always found "I don't care how I look" to be the geek equivalent of the general public's "I don't understand maths". Both are shouted proudly, to separate oneself from the other group (those vapid socialites who base everything on appearance/those sweaty geeks who spend their lives in the basement with lines of code rather than people), when really neither are attitudes to be proud of. Of course there are times when there's no harm in looking a mess, but that's rarely what people seem to mean - it's often more of a day-to-day lack of care.
Sure, in an ideal world, people wouldn't judge on appearance, but that's not the planet we live on - there's no need to be uncomfortable, or look like a corporate drone, or even stand out particularly if you don't want to, but a high quality pair of jeans (the difference between good and crappy is vastly noticeable, even if you can't put your finger on exactly why that is) paired with a well-fitted button down shirt, a decent belt, and a good pair of shoes takes no more real effort than cargo pants and a t-shirt. Both are socially acceptable, but the former will immediately make a better impression on pretty much everyone you meet - they're better disposed to you, you feel more confident as a result, and so it goes on. The latter, to most people, would be the equivalent of needing to take out your phone to calculate a simple tip while you're out to dinner with a bunch of engineers - again it'd probably pass without comment, but it'd leave a subtle negative impression and modify people's disposition (conscious or otherwise) towards you as a result.
Are Google enforcing proprietary formats, bundling products to the detriment of their competition, and 'reinterpreting' standards such that third party options no longer interoperate properly? Although MS have been forced to improve more recently, I think that style of business was always the main problem that people had with them. Throwing another option into the marketplace without any element of coercion is fine by me, even if it is just a copy - genuine competition keeps everyone on their toes.
Surely that reinforces the point, though? Criminal cases have higher standards of proof than civil ("beyond reasonable doubt" compared to "on the balance of probabilities"), so if it's not enough for a civil case it sure as hell isn't enough for a criminal one.
Indeed. We need a name for the situation in which a company does something beneficial not for any altruistic or ethical reasons, but simply because the most profitable path happens to be aligned with the interests of the users.
I'm in the UK, where price disparities aren't quite so bad any more, but I (and presumably many other customers) would actually be more than happy with exchange rate tracking prices; hell, plenty of us do buy from US companies and pay in USD, at whatever rate we get that day, but unfortunately the copyright holders are always trying to make that more difficult.
The issue with your post is that, for some reason, you still include the 44% markup in your baseline prices. The GP specifically said that people didn't mind paying twice the dollar amount when the exchange rate was at about 0.5, and if the cost went up as rates changed drastically, that would be understandable - why do you calculate that rate change on an AUD$2600 base price rather than the actual USD base price, though?
Slashdot Mirror
The good thing about basic phones is that they were perfected years ago, so they're cheap now. If off grid emergency use is important, buy a Nokia 1100 and it'll last you a week - a couple of cheap batteries can easily extend that to a month, or a portable solar panel will make it indefinite.
The emergence of power-guzzling pocket computers doesn't mean that the basic, long life, $30 phones don't exist any more, it just means they aren't getting headlines.
Get yourself a Moto G - the battery is good (although not astonishing: 1-2 days, rather than "oh shit, running out at 6pm"), the build quality and specs are excellent for normal usage (web, general communication), and they're dirt cheap compared to the competition.
Not necessarily. Is it not reasonable to say "I think taxes should be lower overall, and I don't think funds should be distributed to X, Y, or Z. However, since I'm forced to pay those taxes, I may as well avail myself of services X and Z. I'd be happier not to pay and not to use them, but since I've already paid, I may as well make the best of it"?
My kingdom for a mod-point. Moodle is designed to do exactly what you ask - it's admittedly not the absolute best piece of software I've ever used, and there are a few rough edges, but it does its job.
The only real competitor is the utter monstrosity that is Blackboard, which I believe starts at $10k/year. For that low, low price, you get a piece of software which is slow, buggy, and has a web interface which manages to disable such revolutionary new browser features as 'the back button', and 'middle click'.
I don't know that there is a method to do it completely anonymously, but the fact we're even treating the mere operation of an exit node as a crime, and something to be hidden at all costs, is a rather depressing indictment of the current state of our legal systems. Ideally one should be able to proudly and publicly make a stand for anonymity - that's where my comment about a decent amount of money comes in. A higher profile name who sets up a (charitable?) organisation with limited liability (not a perfect protection, but something) and loudly announces to the world how they're standing up for the First Amendment rights of all Americans (or some local equivalent) makes for, at worst, a protracted and public case in which the government can easily come out looking like the bully.
It's imperfect, certainly, but plenty of people have made the world a better place in the process of being fucked over making a stand against their governments. Many others have won. Some have disappeared into the legal system for all eternity. Sometimes the sacrifice is in vain, sometimes it isn't, but it almost always packs a better punch if you have the money and publicity to manage it well.
It's a public service, helping to preserve people's ability to practice their right to free speech. Plenty of us believe extremely strongly in that, and I'd consider it at least as worthy as many other philanthropic causes. If I had a decent amount of money (i.e. enough to consult a lawyer beforehand, take reasonable legal precautions, and kick up a stink rather than just disappearing if I ever were taken to court) I'd do it like a shot.
Even so, I'm not sure I buy the whole "two cars" argument - going on the lifestyle you assume, the time taken to call up a rental place and say "I'm making a trip, can you drop a Porsche Cayenne off at my address tomorrow morning, please." is hardly significant. Or just ask your PA to handle it...
Interesting. If anyone else cares, a somewhat enlightening bit of Googling on the subject seems to indicate that it varies from doctor to doctor, and that the main concern is the metal interfering with electrocauterisation equipment (in the case that something goes wrong during surgery, even if it wasn't intended to be used originally) and causing burns. It's a risk mitigation thing, and it appears that some places won't budge, whereas others will have you sign a release, with further variability based on the inherent risk of the type of surgery in question.
Seriously? Any chance of a link with some more info on that?
The anchors themselves are transdermal (through the skin), not subdermal (entirely under the skin) as the headline states. The magnetic caps sit on top of the steel which is protruding outside the skin, and the iPod then sits on them.
If you look at TFA, they seem to be inert transdermal anchors with magnetic caps, so there shouldn't be any risk of pinching the tissue between them.
Also it appears the ones used in TFA are actually inert transdermal anchors with magnetic caps - in this case there's no reason to embed the actual magnets, whereas I'm assuming you got them for the whole 'extra sense' thing?
Looking at the article, I was actually thinking this would be a lot cooler with a nice watch face than an iPod. Having it just sitting there without a strap seems like a subtle but kind of interesting way to modify a fairly standard accessory.
It's fair to say that the figure is pretty damn likely to be incorrect. But I quite agree, the Forbes article should've gone one step further and done the correct calculation for the 2010 data (since, by their assertions, it seems that 2011 data is not yet fully available).
I didn't say 'instead of', but it sure as hell gives you an advantage. In my experience it's a sliding scale between ability, appearance and confidence - the more you have of one, the less you need of the others. A vast generalisation, of course, with somewhat overlapping criteria, and it breaks down at the extremes (you don't get surgeons with zero ability, nor business executives with zero confidence, for example), but not a bad rule of thumb.
A very reasonable post, although I must say I disagree with your implication that I'm 'pushing' anything. If you've looked at things from both sides and made your choice then I applaud you - it's certainly not my place to tell you how to behave. That said, I obviously think my way is the right way of doing things (hell, who doesn't?) and to that end I offer my opinion as best I can.
Thank you.
I've always found "I don't care how I look" to be the geek equivalent of the general public's "I don't understand maths". Both are shouted proudly, to separate oneself from the other group (those vapid socialites who base everything on appearance/those sweaty geeks who spend their lives in the basement with lines of code rather than people), when really neither are attitudes to be proud of. Of course there are times when there's no harm in looking a mess, but that's rarely what people seem to mean - it's often more of a day-to-day lack of care.
Sure, in an ideal world, people wouldn't judge on appearance, but that's not the planet we live on - there's no need to be uncomfortable, or look like a corporate drone, or even stand out particularly if you don't want to, but a high quality pair of jeans (the difference between good and crappy is vastly noticeable, even if you can't put your finger on exactly why that is) paired with a well-fitted button down shirt, a decent belt, and a good pair of shoes takes no more real effort than cargo pants and a t-shirt. Both are socially acceptable, but the former will immediately make a better impression on pretty much everyone you meet - they're better disposed to you, you feel more confident as a result, and so it goes on. The latter, to most people, would be the equivalent of needing to take out your phone to calculate a simple tip while you're out to dinner with a bunch of engineers - again it'd probably pass without comment, but it'd leave a subtle negative impression and modify people's disposition (conscious or otherwise) towards you as a result.
Are Google enforcing proprietary formats, bundling products to the detriment of their competition, and 'reinterpreting' standards such that third party options no longer interoperate properly? Although MS have been forced to improve more recently, I think that style of business was always the main problem that people had with them. Throwing another option into the marketplace without any element of coercion is fine by me, even if it is just a copy - genuine competition keeps everyone on their toes.
She actually has to run a special Win 3.1 program for that, because it's the only one which does the calculations she needs.
What's the program? Sounds like there might be some money in recoding those calculations into a nice shiny iPhone app...
On the one hand, what you say is absolutely correct. On the other hand, being a cyborg would be really, really cool...
Surely that reinforces the point, though? Criminal cases have higher standards of proof than civil ("beyond reasonable doubt" compared to "on the balance of probabilities"), so if it's not enough for a civil case it sure as hell isn't enough for a criminal one.
Indeed. We need a name for the situation in which a company does something beneficial not for any altruistic or ethical reasons, but simply because the most profitable path happens to be aligned with the interests of the users.
If what you just said is accurate, what I just heard was "Start a luxury car importer, undercut the competition by 15%, profit!".
I'm in the UK, where price disparities aren't quite so bad any more, but I (and presumably many other customers) would actually be more than happy with exchange rate tracking prices; hell, plenty of us do buy from US companies and pay in USD, at whatever rate we get that day, but unfortunately the copyright holders are always trying to make that more difficult.
The issue with your post is that, for some reason, you still include the 44% markup in your baseline prices. The GP specifically said that people didn't mind paying twice the dollar amount when the exchange rate was at about 0.5, and if the cost went up as rates changed drastically, that would be understandable - why do you calculate that rate change on an AUD$2600 base price rather than the actual USD base price, though?