People make this kind of choice for their kids ALL THE TIME. Just look at refugees coming in from Syria. People can and do make the choice that it's better to risk their children's lives, and relocate themselves and all future generations to a culture where fundamentally they're considered outsiders, BECAUSE they believe it will be a better life.
If the engineers did something that they knew was wrong then they deserve to be blamed and punished for what they did.
The interesting thing is most software these days is abstracted out. If you're working on a big, enterprise level project, you won't get asked to draw a big picture: you'll be given a module you need to create that takes a given range of inputs and transforms them to a given level of outputs on a specific platform.
It's very possible that this wasn't something the whole engineering department would've known about. You could very easily have a number of different "modes" and then just have one guy link the modules together (in the damning behavior)
Actually this makes sense if you think it through.
One of the key indicators lenders are looking for is a change in your financial situation, which they use your behavior as a proxy.
If you are routinely paying off all your cards, and suddenly you want to spend $100k, it's fishy because it hints at something going on.
Maybe a sudden medical diagnosis will push you into bankruptcy. Maybe a lay off will mean you'll borrow as much as possible before missing payments and going into bankruptcy Maybe you just want to buy something expensive over a few months, and are not a credit risk.
The point is the banks can't know, so they may make the choice of not taking a chance (because someone who suddenly takes on debt could have heads or tails kinds of prospects)
Well Japanese suicide customs go beyond assisted suicide. I remember one example from the book: someone killed themselves as "death testimony." Basically the idea was they were giving witness (like in a court of law), and this was a way to prove they weren't lying. Or the idea that once your purpose is spent you should die (even if of full body and mind)
There's other, more complicated examples, that would be hard to explain if you haven't read the book
Japan actually has a history of embracing death and suicide in its culture. It's a bit wacky, but sometimes you're supposed to kill yourself if you're a good traditional japanese (and I have references!)
Read the book Shogun by James Clavell for an interesting perspective on it. It really shines a light on a non-western perspective, where death is something to be embraced at the right time (and that it's important to die a good death), as opposed to something that should be avoided at all costs.
You don't need to look at a lens straight on to see through it. If that were the case, anyone wearing glasses who was not looking directly at you would be missing their eyes.
What most people don't realize about general non-competes is to be enforceable, your old employer needs to PAY you for the period of the non-compete -- a non-compete clause is not allowed to deprive you of work.
Note that a GENERAL non-compete is different then a specific non-compete. It's generally permissible for a company to enforce a non-compete against a few competitors (e.g. you worked for google, now may not work for Apple) but they can't have an across the board stoppage of all work unless they pay you
Yes but the devil is in the details. If you really need to be available to help them for 2 years, $100k might not be worth your while (as you don't want to lose a job paying $100k a year for one that pays $50k)
Indeed avoiding police may be the best course of action, but what do you do if you have to run into them?
Take a real world example, let's say you're in a march for gay rights (or pick your favorite controversial protest)
If a cop comes up to you, says he hates homos, and that you deserve a night in the slammer, you STILL will get in trouble for resisting arrest.
Much better to go quietly (and non-violently).
Sure they may still give you a "ride" or do horrible things to you, but whereas it's pretty much guaranteed you'll get a beat down if you resist, you are less likely to be injured if you go quietly. (Although it might still happen)
I remember that study. Basically, officers are trained to think tasers / etc are not lethal and all they do is incapacitate suspects. In actuality, for a small percentage of the population with heart defects and other health issues, a taser can be lethal. After deploying tasers deaths of suspects actually went up -- because an officer was more likely to pull the trigger on a "non-lethal" option than a gun.
Except a police officer has the legal right to hurt you (up to taking your life) if you resist arrest. That's why so many shit bag police officers go free: they can fall back on the "well they were resisting arrest" argument. Standing up to bullying in this case should involve submitting to arrest by the officer, but following up with formal complaints later. A cop doesn't have a leg to stand on if you can say "Well I came peacably but the reason for the arrest was wrong and he beat me even though I kept saying I'd come peacefully"
I love all these T-Mobile bashing threads because everything boils down to what happens when you're out of a city. I travel for work and T-Mobile works fine. Why? I'm either in a major metropolitan area or I'm in the air. I never drive out into the country, and if i do, I don't mind the disruption of LTE service because it will always be there when I get back to a metro.
The only place this gets annoying is if you are trying to use Google Maps, but price it out. T-Mobile w/ Unlimited Data + a Tom Tom or Verizon with a cap.
Personally, I'll take T-Mobile because you can abuse your unlimited data (I download movies over LTE all the time and can set up a hot spot that beats whatever hotel wifi will have). Yes, YMMV. You need to really look at where you're going to be. Flying into NYC or Boston for the week for work? T-Mobile. Driving around in the middle of nowhere and using GPS? Don't T-Mobile
(p.s. If you buy a T-mobile iphone they'll lock the mobile hotspot to only 5GB / month. You may be best off with a 'droid device if that's going to be your primary use because that won't be locked -- although you can download unlimited data to your phone and transfer it over e.g. with Airplay)
I think the key is only certain things should be allowed to be forgotten.
The police blotter comes to mind. People who have not been convicted of any crime (but who have been accused) end up in the paper (with something you can find with google) irregardless of whether they'll be convicted.
What once was a pressure of public shaming has multiplied a thousand times: someone can be framed for a crime, be arrested, and released (because it comes out the charges are bogus) but they still essentially have a felony on their record (even though they were never convicted), because an employer can google their name before ever getting a background check.
This strikes me as wrong, and can see why someone might (rightfully) want to have something forgotten by google.
On the other hand, if BP wants to "forget" the oil spill it caused, or Shell wants to "forget" that it's drilling in the Arctic, that seems to me much less reasonable.
The solution therefore, is to redefine the right to be forgotten to a specific set of issues (where it is reasonable to be forgotten).
Alternatively, it may be that in the future there is a distinct rise in the name of "John Smiths," effectively limiting how much google can pick up on you.
I have a job with 100% travel, and this never happened to me. In fact I bought the kindle because I can be in Ho Chi Minh and still easily find the latest English language releases. In fact, I've been all over the world with my Kindle (North America + Europe + Asia + a bit of Africa) and was AMAZED that I've literally always had access to the free 3G
Music is now disposable. Do you really think people will still listen to their Taylor Swift or Ellie Goulding albums three years from now?
I'd really disagree with this. Spotify to me is revolutionary. People use spotify because music lasts so long, and to filter out the junk, because the cost of a really diverse music collection (buying CDs) is much much greater than my $10 / month spotify fee.
As an amatuer guitarist, it is not uncommon to want to listen to several CDs to hear specific styles or understand the history of music. Before spotify, I might spend $100 on CDs trying to research the roots of blues (e.g. just buy one CD of each of the greats: Son House, Muddy Waters, Wolf, etc.). Or decide to listen to several CDs by a single artist to see their growth. That was very costly buying CDs, but on spotify? Still $10 a month.
It allows me to surround myself with music. Literally, I listen to music all day at work, and never the same CD in a row (and usually not the same CD in a week). Just to keep up such a diverse set of music was incredibly costly before. And whereas buying CDs I used to waste money on the occasional dud I'd never listen to more than once, that never happens anymore.
And it's not just me. Take guys like my coworker for example. He downloaded the Rolling Stone Top 500 Album of all time list, and started listening from bottom to top. Great idea that you couldn't afford to do buying CDs ($5k to listen)
Another great example was at a family gathering a few weeks ago. I could just put on music that was appropriate to the crowd without having to buy a lot of CDs (and then not buy the one someone requests)
Really streaming music is revolutionary. It's night and day from 20 years ago where I used to go to The Wall, drop $20+ on a CD, and be stuck only getting what they might have in stock. Suddenly, no more special ordering necessary. Any style, anywhere, anytime.
A (very) eye opening thing was when a friend who is a teacher advised me to google salaries for my local state / local school district.
Teachers salaries are public record (although usually you'll find the public record is updated after a few years, so you might just now see salaries for 2012 online).
And the interesting thing, while junior teachers might make $10 an hour (which is barely livable), senior teachers will be salaried at $150k+ per year.
And, on top of that: they only work 9 months out of the year, and get nice pensions.
So while the bottom rung is not so well paid, the survivors are. And while I do understand a teacher in his or her 50s should be paid well, $150k seems excessive.
Maybe not the government, but if you are in a high end resort, and staying on a beach bungalow (or living on the coast), it might be comforting to have one out back.
What the Indonesians needed was a warning, not an escape pod. With no warning, the pods are useless. With warning, just get out of the path.
The key here is how much warning. Having been to indonesia, I can tell you that if you're on a beach you'll see signs everywhere pointing out the most efficient tsunami escape path. The problem is, even if you see it coming, and you start running, you might not be able to cover the kilometer or so to safety in the time you have warning. (Contrary to popular opinion tsunamis are not a giant wave, but more like a tide rolling in)
This provides a solution that allows you to survive with less reaction time. Which may be a good thing.
But let's face it, the government can revoke your transportation privileges anytime it pleases. If you don't believe me go drink and drive in a zero tolerance jurisdiction and see how long you keep your license.
The proper remedy here, is to make youtube and other video sites not be able to collect income from uploaded videos of drone flight.
Not to penalize the drone operators, who simply want to share videos of drone flight with other enthusiasts, without a profit motive.
Where do you think the money comes from to run the youtube servers, hire their sysadmins, and their programmers?
People get confused because the internet is full of "free" stuff, they think they have a right to free stuff. But actually, nothing is free. You pay for all your free content online (with a few exceptions like wikipedia) by being the product. Google is selling information about you to advertisers (and Adwords make more money for Google then any of their other ventures, like Android).
If drone enthusiasts want to share their videos with others in a non commercial way they should fork out the cash for their own host (which is dirt cheap these days anyways). Maybe the community can get together and create a not for profit website for sharing of such videos.
Slashdot Mirror
People make this kind of choice for their kids ALL THE TIME. Just look at refugees coming in from Syria. People can and do make the choice that it's better to risk their children's lives, and relocate themselves and all future generations to a culture where fundamentally they're considered outsiders, BECAUSE they believe it will be a better life.
If the engineers did something that they knew was wrong then they deserve to be blamed and punished for what they did.
The interesting thing is most software these days is abstracted out. If you're working on a big, enterprise level project, you won't get asked to draw a big picture: you'll be given a module you need to create that takes a given range of inputs and transforms them to a given level of outputs on a specific platform.
It's very possible that this wasn't something the whole engineering department would've known about. You could very easily have a number of different "modes" and then just have one guy link the modules together (in the damning behavior)
Actually this makes sense if you think it through.
One of the key indicators lenders are looking for is a change in your financial situation, which they use your behavior as a proxy.
If you are routinely paying off all your cards, and suddenly you want to spend $100k, it's fishy because it hints at something going on.
Maybe a sudden medical diagnosis will push you into bankruptcy.
Maybe a lay off will mean you'll borrow as much as possible before missing payments and going into bankruptcy
Maybe you just want to buy something expensive over a few months, and are not a credit risk.
The point is the banks can't know, so they may make the choice of not taking a chance (because someone who suddenly takes on debt could have heads or tails kinds of prospects)
Well Japanese suicide customs go beyond assisted suicide. I remember one example from the book: someone killed themselves as "death testimony." Basically the idea was they were giving witness (like in a court of law), and this was a way to prove they weren't lying. Or the idea that once your purpose is spent you should die (even if of full body and mind)
There's other, more complicated examples, that would be hard to explain if you haven't read the book
Japan actually has a history of embracing death and suicide in its culture. It's a bit wacky, but sometimes you're supposed to kill yourself if you're a good traditional japanese (and I have references!)
Read the book Shogun by James Clavell for an interesting perspective on it. It really shines a light on a non-western perspective, where death is something to be embraced at the right time (and that it's important to die a good death), as opposed to something that should be avoided at all costs.
You don't need to look at a lens straight on to see through it. If that were the case, anyone wearing glasses who was not looking directly at you would be missing their eyes.
What most people don't realize about general non-competes is to be enforceable, your old employer needs to PAY you for the period of the non-compete -- a non-compete clause is not allowed to deprive you of work.
Note that a GENERAL non-compete is different then a specific non-compete. It's generally permissible for a company to enforce a non-compete against a few competitors (e.g. you worked for google, now may not work for Apple) but they can't have an across the board stoppage of all work unless they pay you
Yes but the devil is in the details. If you really need to be available to help them for 2 years, $100k might not be worth your while (as you don't want to lose a job paying $100k a year for one that pays $50k)
Indeed avoiding police may be the best course of action, but what do you do if you have to run into them?
Take a real world example, let's say you're in a march for gay rights (or pick your favorite controversial protest)
If a cop comes up to you, says he hates homos, and that you deserve a night in the slammer, you STILL will get in trouble for resisting arrest.
Much better to go quietly (and non-violently).
Sure they may still give you a "ride" or do horrible things to you, but whereas it's pretty much guaranteed you'll get a beat down if you resist, you are less likely to be injured if you go quietly. (Although it might still happen)
I remember that study. Basically, officers are trained to think tasers / etc are not lethal and all they do is incapacitate suspects. In actuality, for a small percentage of the population with heart defects and other health issues, a taser can be lethal. After deploying tasers deaths of suspects actually went up -- because an officer was more likely to pull the trigger on a "non-lethal" option than a gun.
Except a police officer has the legal right to hurt you (up to taking your life) if you resist arrest. That's why so many shit bag police officers go free: they can fall back on the "well they were resisting arrest" argument. Standing up to bullying in this case should involve submitting to arrest by the officer, but following up with formal complaints later. A cop doesn't have a leg to stand on if you can say "Well I came peacably but the reason for the arrest was wrong and he beat me even though I kept saying I'd come peacefully"
And in Cambodia for under $10 a month you can get unlimited calling texts and 4G.
The US simply hasn't invested in infrastructure the way many third world countries have, and it really shows
I love all these T-Mobile bashing threads because everything boils down to what happens when you're out of a city. I travel for work and T-Mobile works fine. Why? I'm either in a major metropolitan area or I'm in the air. I never drive out into the country, and if i do, I don't mind the disruption of LTE service because it will always be there when I get back to a metro.
The only place this gets annoying is if you are trying to use Google Maps, but price it out. T-Mobile w/ Unlimited Data + a Tom Tom or Verizon with a cap.
Personally, I'll take T-Mobile because you can abuse your unlimited data (I download movies over LTE all the time and can set up a hot spot that beats whatever hotel wifi will have). Yes, YMMV. You need to really look at where you're going to be. Flying into NYC or Boston for the week for work? T-Mobile. Driving around in the middle of nowhere and using GPS? Don't T-Mobile
(p.s. If you buy a T-mobile iphone they'll lock the mobile hotspot to only 5GB / month. You may be best off with a 'droid device if that's going to be your primary use because that won't be locked -- although you can download unlimited data to your phone and transfer it over e.g. with Airplay)
I think the key is only certain things should be allowed to be forgotten.
The police blotter comes to mind. People who have not been convicted of any crime (but who have been accused) end up in the paper (with something you can find with google) irregardless of whether they'll be convicted.
What once was a pressure of public shaming has multiplied a thousand times: someone can be framed for a crime, be arrested, and released (because it comes out the charges are bogus) but they still essentially have a felony on their record (even though they were never convicted), because an employer can google their name before ever getting a background check.
This strikes me as wrong, and can see why someone might (rightfully) want to have something forgotten by google.
On the other hand, if BP wants to "forget" the oil spill it caused, or Shell wants to "forget" that it's drilling in the Arctic, that seems to me much less reasonable.
The solution therefore, is to redefine the right to be forgotten to a specific set of issues (where it is reasonable to be forgotten).
Alternatively, it may be that in the future there is a distinct rise in the name of "John Smiths," effectively limiting how much google can pick up on you.
I have a job with 100% travel, and this never happened to me. In fact I bought the kindle because I can be in Ho Chi Minh and still easily find the latest English language releases. In fact, I've been all over the world with my Kindle (North America + Europe + Asia + a bit of Africa) and was AMAZED that I've literally always had access to the free 3G
Music is now disposable. Do you really think people will still listen to their Taylor Swift or Ellie Goulding albums three years from now?
I'd really disagree with this. Spotify to me is revolutionary. People use spotify because music lasts so long, and to filter out the junk, because the cost of a really diverse music collection (buying CDs) is much much greater than my $10 / month spotify fee.
As an amatuer guitarist, it is not uncommon to want to listen to several CDs to hear specific styles or understand the history of music. Before spotify, I might spend $100 on CDs trying to research the roots of blues (e.g. just buy one CD of each of the greats: Son House, Muddy Waters, Wolf, etc.). Or decide to listen to several CDs by a single artist to see their growth. That was very costly buying CDs, but on spotify? Still $10 a month.
It allows me to surround myself with music. Literally, I listen to music all day at work, and never the same CD in a row (and usually not the same CD in a week). Just to keep up such a diverse set of music was incredibly costly before. And whereas buying CDs I used to waste money on the occasional dud I'd never listen to more than once, that never happens anymore.
And it's not just me. Take guys like my coworker for example. He downloaded the Rolling Stone Top 500 Album of all time list, and started listening from bottom to top. Great idea that you couldn't afford to do buying CDs ($5k to listen)
Another great example was at a family gathering a few weeks ago. I could just put on music that was appropriate to the crowd without having to buy a lot of CDs (and then not buy the one someone requests)
Really streaming music is revolutionary. It's night and day from 20 years ago where I used to go to The Wall, drop $20+ on a CD, and be stuck only getting what they might have in stock. Suddenly, no more special ordering necessary. Any style, anywhere, anytime.
You were saying?
That's a database of the whole state of NY. I thought my district was full of overpaid people.
A (very) eye opening thing was when a friend who is a teacher advised me to google salaries for my local state / local school district.
Teachers salaries are public record (although usually you'll find the public record is updated after a few years, so you might just now see salaries for 2012 online).
And the interesting thing, while junior teachers might make $10 an hour (which is barely livable), senior teachers will be salaried at $150k+ per year.
And, on top of that: they only work 9 months out of the year, and get nice pensions.
So while the bottom rung is not so well paid, the survivors are. And while I do understand a teacher in his or her 50s should be paid well, $150k seems excessive.
Except of course if there ever really was nuclear war, they'd be much safer.
You could use the same line of argument for a lot of things: seat belts, guard rails, non-slip shoes
Silly people spending money to prevent something that most likely won't happen.
However as a society we accept sometimes that preventing a marginal risk is the best scenario
Maybe not the government, but if you are in a high end resort, and staying on a beach bungalow (or living on the coast), it might be comforting to have one out back.
What the Indonesians needed was a warning, not an escape pod. With no warning, the pods are useless. With warning, just get out of the path.
The key here is how much warning. Having been to indonesia, I can tell you that if you're on a beach you'll see signs everywhere pointing out the most efficient tsunami escape path. The problem is, even if you see it coming, and you start running, you might not be able to cover the kilometer or so to safety in the time you have warning. (Contrary to popular opinion tsunamis are not a giant wave, but more like a tide rolling in)
This provides a solution that allows you to survive with less reaction time. Which may be a good thing.
You can still charter a private flight.
Did you seriously just imply being on a no fly list is no big deal because you can charter your own jet? Seriously? SERIOUSLY?
And when was somebody's "authorization to use mass transit" was ever revoked? You're paraonoid.
For starters, how about the No Fly list?
But let's face it, the government can revoke your transportation privileges anytime it pleases. If you don't believe me go drink and drive in a zero tolerance jurisdiction and see how long you keep your license.
Why should they though? What benefit does it give to the company?
The proper remedy here, is to make youtube and other video sites not be able to collect income from uploaded videos of drone flight.
Not to penalize the drone operators, who simply want to share videos of drone flight with other enthusiasts, without a profit motive.
Where do you think the money comes from to run the youtube servers, hire their sysadmins, and their programmers?
People get confused because the internet is full of "free" stuff, they think they have a right to free stuff. But actually, nothing is free. You pay for all your free content online (with a few exceptions like wikipedia) by being the product. Google is selling information about you to advertisers (and Adwords make more money for Google then any of their other ventures, like Android).
If drone enthusiasts want to share their videos with others in a non commercial way they should fork out the cash for their own host (which is dirt cheap these days anyways). Maybe the community can get together and create a not for profit website for sharing of such videos.