At worst...maybe make one and only one pass through to see if anything is genuinely useful. But one thing I've found is...quit just gathering stuff that *might* be useful some day for *some* project.
That type of thinking lands you where I once was, and to where a number of my friends are, namely they have workshops, garages and even spreading into their very HOUSES just heaps of junk. Stuff piling up everywhere.
I've basically given myself a new mode of action. I have about 2-3 projects, things I can and will realistically get to in the next few months. I will collect things for those, buy them, or otherwise attain them.
Anything else, I pass on.
I've made up my mind, that I will not move a ton of useless, outdated shit around any more.
I'm still going through my stuff after the last one.
I found books, tons of stuff, tech stuff that was outdated. Into the trash.
I had a number of CRT monitors, I kept only the ones I needed for computers I have that do not yet have flat screens. The rest of them...in the trash.
Old SGI workstations? In the trash.
Old network cards, old ram, keyboards I didn't need, etc....in the trash.
I'm actually once again starting to have a home office where I can find stuff I actually need to do the things I'm actually working on.
I still have a ways to go, but I'm unloading. I make enough money these days to where I can buy new or used stuff WHEN I NEED it for something I'm currently working on.
This also keeps me from getting into too many projects at once....and never having time to finish one. I have one friend, that bless his heart, he is like a cat and a laser pointer, always seeing something 'new' to start on, yet rarely finishing the last interesting project last month and way beyond, and yet, still accumulating stuff for all of them.
I know people like this...they have rooms that look like an audition for the tv show "Hoarders", and while I don't think it is so much a mental problem for them, it is the MO of always seeing possible treasure in a pile of shit, harvesting it, but never getting to it.
I figured out, the garbageman is my friend. I find something I've not used in awhile, it simply goes into the trash can, and they haul it away for me.
Cutting money for things like research and Head Start and NiH is just plain dumb.
I agree with you for the most part, but I've been hearing and reading things lately, that seem to indicate that Head Start, while a very noble and great sounding program, has largely been money wasted.
That one might need some closer looking, and revamp or better, replace it.
When I started looking a bit more closely at this, it isn't a cut at all. It is like you said...only a reduction in spending.
Even with sequestration, we're on schedule to spend more this year than last year, just what we need.
Obama got his tax increase....we all saw it in our paychecks in January. Why can't they start cutting...but in an INTELLIGENT manner?
*SIGH*, you know...we really need to just stop...sweep EVERYONE out of Washington, no one in office can come back to it, and start over. Maybe then we'd have a chance going forward for a bit without all the crap that is currently entrenched in DC.
Just start over with a whole new crowd with no one having seniority, no power clicks...etc. It is too bad that there was no periodic "clean the house" type provision in the Constitution where every few decades...whoosh, everyone there is out and must be replaced.
I'm interested in how this works with prior case law. For instance, a helicopter scanning neighborhoods doesn't require a warrant since you do not own the airspace above your home, and anything the helicopter can see can be used against you in a court. If this legislation would be passed, I'd think it would also impact the ability for law enforcement to do their jobs (unless they included some weasel clauses to allow for it).
But a helicopter is a manned aircraft, and this legislation is banning unmanned (drone) aircraft.
The problem is...it is only banning for use by private citizens, it apparently isn't applicable to govt (state or fed) agencies or law enforcement, which I'd be more worried about than private citizens.
At least with a helicopter, you can hear them and go see them...a drone is much more stealthy and hard to detect.
We shouldn't be allowing spy and military type aircraft like these at ALL over our civilian airspace.
As a Texan who more and more begins to understand the value of protecting private property rights above any value of other persons or government entities' claims to have their right to snoop on anyone and anything at any time.... I'm now not so sure that this prospect of banning unmanned surveillance aircraft and publicly accessible satellite imagery that goes down to high detail of stuff on the ground is such a bad thing after all.
I could probably see your point IF it also applied to govt too.
Frankly I'm more concerned about the govt survelliance than I am of the so called "dirty hippy" trying to find corporate pollution violations.
I mean hell, at least you had a chance to see the Black Helicopters when they were tracking you.
Except that, even inside the US, these views stand out as "odd" or even "insane", it just depends where you go within the US. In Texas, such views are probably considered "normal" (except maybe in Austin). In New York, you might get committed. This country is just so polarized between extremely different views that we'd be much better off if we broke up into separate smaller countries. We're never going to get any kind of agreement when you have one group of people that thinks all taxation is "evil" and that we shouldn't have any government unless it's run by some fundamentalist Christian church.
But, that's the beauty of having it the United States of America, where you have states' rights (supposedly) the mainstay rather than one all encompassing Federal govt.
One nice thing is, if you don't like they way they do it in NY, then move to TX if that fits your way of life and outlook on life. That's what makes it a good thing IMHO.
The US is a large place with a great diversity of geographical and environmental situations. Many of the different views and needs are based on this, and also different views happen due to this too.
And each thought and philosophy is JUST as valid in one area of the country as it is with the others. Frankly, I think it is good that there are vastly different mindsets...it (should) keep the country somewhat middle,and not allow it go to the extreme in one direction or another.
But the idea of states is that it IS similar to living in a different small country, that allows for more freedom for a person to live how they want to live in the US, but with the states themselves united, we're much stronger that if apart when it comes to dealing with the rest of the world.
Sorry, but the OP's sentiment is shared by most Americans these days. It's too bad Slashdot doesn't have something to show the poster's country next to their name, so we can ignore comments from people in countries infected by pure lunacy, and maybe even put in a filter to ignore such comments, just as we do for low-modded posts (though for the US, it'd help if it showed the state the poster was in; the post was probably made from someplace like Alabama or Nebraska, not from New York or California or Washington).
Err...
Slashdot is a US based, US centric website/forum you know, right? So, views generally expressed here are PERFECTLY VALID with respect to US centric thinking about issues involving politcs (definitions of Left vs Right), taxation, social norms, guns, etc.
It is the EU or other non-US views that are the ones that should and do stand out as 'odd'.
Wait, you can afford to destroy the planet? Are you an elderly person with no children or family or something?
A little alarmist, aren't we?
And it isn't any worse than all those folks out there driving huge SUV's and other trucks that "aren't needed" either.....at least you'll be able to see over me a little better.
Honestly, I'm not all that worried about it either...the world isn't going to end anytime in my lifetime due to pollution, global warming, or anything else affected by me or my actions, so, why should it bother me?
Life is short, I plan to spend every moment of mine making myself happy and enjoy it, and nice muscle car (with a bit of update for better handling) is what makes me happy.
No. But it also doesn't make it OK to be an unholy prick to people who have suffered such an abuse, just because you don't want to have to accommodate them.
But that's not the case here...
Rather than ban the whole talk that many people might have been interested in, why didn't they just put a sign on the door to that hall warning someone not to go in if they have sexual talk issues.
Geez, I'd have thought the topic they posted for this talked would have clued in any one with a bit of intelligence (and I'd think most people at a hackers convention type thing would be smart) would guess if things like that bothered them, they'd be best served by not going to listen.
There might be work available in Texas but that doesn't mean there is work available everywhere.
Well, as you found, often you have to move to where the jobs are...inconvenient, but that's life these days.
The days of having a job in one place for life has been LONG gone, even before the recession hit. If you want to progress in the W2 world, you have to quit and seek out new jobs every 3 years or so, and be prepared to move where they are.
In tech, however, telecommuting is easing the pain of this somewhat though.
They aren't arguing for any of those things. Merely that technical conferences should not gratuitously include sexual or rape-related references when they aren't on-topic to the actual purpose of the conference. If you've been to any technical conferences, you'd realize this is a pervasive problem in a rather male-dominated, frattish industry, though it's been getting somewhat better lately (perhaps with the exception of game-industry conferences).
How about some common sense, and rather than cater to a very small minority of people that might be offended and ban the talk altogether, to allow the talk and have a sign warning people that might be offended to NOT attend the talk and look for some other forum for entertainment.
Why censor based on the lowest common denominator of who might possibly attend the show?
And, as it turns out in this story, there was NO woman that was traumatized in this fashion, it was just a story this Ada organization was using to threaten the conference presenters into banning this talk.
I would take that action as much more despicable than possible offending someone...using a rape victim concern as a false pretense for furthering the Ada agenda, and controlling speech they way THEY seem to think it needs to be controlled.
I'm sure that's easy to say if neither you nor anyone you love has ever been the victim of a violent sexual assault.
Go volunteer at your local women's shelter, then try and come back here with that attitude.
Look, I understand that rape or any other assault is traumatic. That' a given, it is a horrible crime and should be punished.
That being said, it is a big world, and nasty shit happens. Is it up to everyone else in the world to be careful and tip toe around someone that is sensitive to some content for most any reason?? I think not. If that person can't handle something, then they themselves can self censor what they see or hear. Anyone that can't handle rape talk, should not attend a talk that involves that, they shouldn't prevent other people from having said discourse on said subject.
I'm getting very tired in our current society of basing everyone on the LOWEST common denominator. Someone might be offended, be traumatized or be allergic to something, so the MAJORITY of people that these things have no effect on, must be deprived of these sights, sounds, smells, consumables to protect the very small minority that should just take their bodies and minds elsewhere so as not to be exposed.
People choose to have kids, and if it is your thing..good for you. But, you should know the sacrifice personally and fiscally that having a kid involves and be prepared for it. And no, you should not get a break because you have kids, that is the price for that activity.
I'd rather have more disposable income and freedom to come and go as I please...you should not get a break and I should not get penalized for deciding whether one chooses to procreate or not.
And, people ARE going to have kids, so, it isn't anything special, no one is going to stop having them for any reason I can think of, so it isn't something 'special', and no, you shouldn't catch a break for doing it.
And frankly, these kids suck up resources from society until they become adult and independent...schools, and other things that cost money, and then there are all the "think of the children" crap we adults have to put up with, to tip toe around possibly injuring kids, and that's not touching upon having to work more to cover when someone with kids has to pick up a sick kid at school or something else of the sort.
So, yes, I still say that the childless, in our system are subsidizing to some extent those with kids, and there is no good reason for this.
I'm a bit curious as to why he has to get the 'cable company' to move his connection?
I mean, how hard is it to tap into where the cable comes into the house and re-route it as necessary? Can he not simply run cable through the house attic, and drop down into the wall where he wants it without cable company interference?
Can he not put up his own external antenna in addition to cable wherever he wants it?
I'd think that most people doing this type thing would NOT be telling anyone they were recording, just for the reason that people don't act themselves when they know they're on camera.
Because the ones who have kids, are the ones LETTING THE CURRENT SYSTEM SURVIVE. If no kids are born, who do you think will pay your pension when you are old? Advanced society (not 3rd world societies) needs renewal, and the ones sacrifizing their life for it (parents) should be rewarded, isntead of penalized. Egoist individuals who think only on themselves should have more tax penalty.
The thing is..if you took away the tax credits and deductions...people would STILL have the same number of kids just as often.
People like to fuck, which results in kids. And, some people want to have kids, and tax or no tax, they will have them.
If this is the case, why should the childless subsidize them by paying more taxes?
Actually, when I go to fly, I do make sure to arrive in plenty of time ahead of flight....and when going through TSA if they don't wave me through the metal detector and instead make me go to the scanner, I refuse and politely ask for the pat down rather than be exposed to the 'radiation'.
The TSA agents have consistently told me there is no xray or radiation in these, but I smile and ask for the pat down.
It isn't any big deal so far...but I wish more people would do this as a slight form of protest. If enough people were backing up the lines for pat downs, they might have to rethink using the damned things.
but complaining about a relatively small tax break they get strikes me as a little bit ignorant of the cost of actually HAVING the kid
But again...why should the childless be subsidizing that cost of having a kid for those that choose to do so by us paying higher taxes for their priv to do this?
If it is too $$ to have children, they don't fscking have them, you know?
Sure it is expensive and requires a lot of self sacrifice for most people, but still, that's no reason to get a tax break for it...it is just the cost of that activity.
If you don't have children, your job is to work in an office and cover for all the time the people with kids take off every week for PTA meetings. And doctor appointments. And picking the kids up early. And taking the kids late on half days. And leaving early to take the kids to birthday parties and soccer practice. And staying home because the kids are sick.
And..don't forget, with taxes, those with kids get to take deductions and get refunds based on having kids, while those of us without do not, so, in essence we're subsidizing those with kids.
Shouldn't parents have to pay MORE since having kids uses more resources than those without?
And no...tax deductions will NOT encourage or discourage people from having kids as many posit. People will fuck, kids will result...they did it LONG before there were income taxes.
Slashdot Mirror
At worst...maybe make one and only one pass through to see if anything is genuinely useful. But one thing I've found is...quit just gathering stuff that *might* be useful some day for *some* project.
That type of thinking lands you where I once was, and to where a number of my friends are, namely they have workshops, garages and even spreading into their very HOUSES just heaps of junk. Stuff piling up everywhere.
I've basically given myself a new mode of action. I have about 2-3 projects, things I can and will realistically get to in the next few months. I will collect things for those, buy them, or otherwise attain them.
Anything else, I pass on.
I've made up my mind, that I will not move a ton of useless, outdated shit around any more.
I'm still going through my stuff after the last one.
I found books, tons of stuff, tech stuff that was outdated. Into the trash.
I had a number of CRT monitors, I kept only the ones I needed for computers I have that do not yet have flat screens. The rest of them...in the trash.
Old SGI workstations? In the trash.
Old network cards, old ram, keyboards I didn't need, etc....in the trash.
I'm actually once again starting to have a home office where I can find stuff I actually need to do the things I'm actually working on.
I still have a ways to go, but I'm unloading. I make enough money these days to where I can buy new or used stuff WHEN I NEED it for something I'm currently working on.
This also keeps me from getting into too many projects at once....and never having time to finish one. I have one friend, that bless his heart, he is like a cat and a laser pointer, always seeing something 'new' to start on, yet rarely finishing the last interesting project last month and way beyond, and yet, still accumulating stuff for all of them.
I know people like this...they have rooms that look like an audition for the tv show "Hoarders", and while I don't think it is so much a mental problem for them, it is the MO of always seeing possible treasure in a pile of shit, harvesting it, but never getting to it.
I figured out, the garbageman is my friend. I find something I've not used in awhile, it simply goes into the trash can, and they haul it away for me.
I agree with you for the most part, but I've been hearing and reading things lately, that seem to indicate that Head Start, while a very noble and great sounding program, has largely been money wasted.
That one might need some closer looking, and revamp or better, replace it.
When I started looking a bit more closely at this, it isn't a cut at all. It is like you said...only a reduction in spending.
Even with sequestration, we're on schedule to spend more this year than last year, just what we need.
Obama got his tax increase....we all saw it in our paychecks in January. Why can't they start cutting...but in an INTELLIGENT manner?
*SIGH*, you know...we really need to just stop...sweep EVERYONE out of Washington, no one in office can come back to it, and start over. Maybe then we'd have a chance going forward for a bit without all the crap that is currently entrenched in DC.
Just start over with a whole new crowd with no one having seniority, no power clicks...etc. It is too bad that there was no periodic "clean the house" type provision in the Constitution where every few decades...whoosh, everyone there is out and must be replaced.
But a helicopter is a manned aircraft, and this legislation is banning unmanned (drone) aircraft.
The problem is...it is only banning for use by private citizens, it apparently isn't applicable to govt (state or fed) agencies or law enforcement, which I'd be more worried about than private citizens.
At least with a helicopter, you can hear them and go see them...a drone is much more stealthy and hard to detect.
We shouldn't be allowing spy and military type aircraft like these at ALL over our civilian airspace.
I could probably see your point IF it also applied to govt too.
Frankly I'm more concerned about the govt survelliance than I am of the so called "dirty hippy" trying to find corporate pollution violations.
I mean hell, at least you had a chance to see the Black Helicopters when they were tracking you.
But, that's the beauty of having it the United States of America, where you have states' rights (supposedly) the mainstay rather than one all encompassing Federal govt.
One nice thing is, if you don't like they way they do it in NY, then move to TX if that fits your way of life and outlook on life. That's what makes it a good thing IMHO.
The US is a large place with a great diversity of geographical and environmental situations. Many of the different views and needs are based on this, and also different views happen due to this too.
And each thought and philosophy is JUST as valid in one area of the country as it is with the others. Frankly, I think it is good that there are vastly different mindsets...it (should) keep the country somewhat middle,and not allow it go to the extreme in one direction or another.
But the idea of states is that it IS similar to living in a different small country, that allows for more freedom for a person to live how they want to live in the US, but with the states themselves united, we're much stronger that if apart when it comes to dealing with the rest of the world.
And that bodes well in all our favors.
Err...
Slashdot is a US based, US centric website/forum you know, right? So, views generally expressed here are PERFECTLY VALID with respect to US centric thinking about issues involving politcs (definitions of Left vs Right), taxation, social norms, guns, etc.
It is the EU or other non-US views that are the ones that should and do stand out as 'odd'.
I'm a little confused, as far as I know you CAN 'depreciate' it immediately?
Every year for my corporation, anything I buy, I write off 100% that year.
I've never lived anywhere where there was a cap.
I'd not even heard of them till reading about home data caps here on /.
A little alarmist, aren't we?
And it isn't any worse than all those folks out there driving huge SUV's and other trucks that "aren't needed" either.....at least you'll be able to see over me a little better.
Honestly, I'm not all that worried about it either...the world isn't going to end anytime in my lifetime due to pollution, global warming, or anything else affected by me or my actions, so, why should it bother me?
Life is short, I plan to spend every moment of mine making myself happy and enjoy it, and nice muscle car (with a bit of update for better handling) is what makes me happy.
When they can get to where they can print out a 1969 Camaro Z28, I'll be first in line to buy a printer!!
I can afford something that gets 10 MPG....but would be nice to have a 'new' one!!
But that's not the case here...
Rather than ban the whole talk that many people might have been interested in, why didn't they just put a sign on the door to that hall warning someone not to go in if they have sexual talk issues.
Geez, I'd have thought the topic they posted for this talked would have clued in any one with a bit of intelligence (and I'd think most people at a hackers convention type thing would be smart) would guess if things like that bothered them, they'd be best served by not going to listen.
Sucks to be them...they should have paid more attention while in school and gotten a 'real' job.
Well, as you found, often you have to move to where the jobs are...inconvenient, but that's life these days.
The days of having a job in one place for life has been LONG gone, even before the recession hit. If you want to progress in the W2 world, you have to quit and seek out new jobs every 3 years or so, and be prepared to move where they are.
In tech, however, telecommuting is easing the pain of this somewhat though.
Glad to hear your story had a happy ending.
How about some common sense, and rather than cater to a very small minority of people that might be offended and ban the talk altogether, to allow the talk and have a sign warning people that might be offended to NOT attend the talk and look for some other forum for entertainment.
Why censor based on the lowest common denominator of who might possibly attend the show?
And, as it turns out in this story, there was NO woman that was traumatized in this fashion, it was just a story this Ada organization was using to threaten the conference presenters into banning this talk.
I would take that action as much more despicable than possible offending someone...using a rape victim concern as a false pretense for furthering the Ada agenda, and controlling speech they way THEY seem to think it needs to be controlled.
Look, I understand that rape or any other assault is traumatic. That' a given, it is a horrible crime and should be punished.
That being said, it is a big world, and nasty shit happens. Is it up to everyone else in the world to be careful and tip toe around someone that is sensitive to some content for most any reason?? I think not. If that person can't handle something, then they themselves can self censor what they see or hear. Anyone that can't handle rape talk, should not attend a talk that involves that, they shouldn't prevent other people from having said discourse on said subject.
I'm getting very tired in our current society of basing everyone on the LOWEST common denominator. Someone might be offended, be traumatized or be allergic to something, so the MAJORITY of people that these things have no effect on, must be deprived of these sights, sounds, smells, consumables to protect the very small minority that should just take their bodies and minds elsewhere so as not to be exposed.
People choose to have kids, and if it is your thing..good for you. But, you should know the sacrifice personally and fiscally that having a kid involves and be prepared for it. And no, you should not get a break because you have kids, that is the price for that activity.
I'd rather have more disposable income and freedom to come and go as I please...you should not get a break and I should not get penalized for deciding whether one chooses to procreate or not.
And, people ARE going to have kids, so, it isn't anything special, no one is going to stop having them for any reason I can think of, so it isn't something 'special', and no, you shouldn't catch a break for doing it.
And frankly, these kids suck up resources from society until they become adult and independent...schools, and other things that cost money, and then there are all the "think of the children" crap we adults have to put up with, to tip toe around possibly injuring kids, and that's not touching upon having to work more to cover when someone with kids has to pick up a sick kid at school or something else of the sort.
So, yes, I still say that the childless, in our system are subsidizing to some extent those with kids, and there is no good reason for this.
I mean, how hard is it to tap into where the cable comes into the house and re-route it as necessary? Can he not simply run cable through the house attic, and drop down into the wall where he wants it without cable company interference?
Can he not put up his own external antenna in addition to cable wherever he wants it?
I'd certainly never tell anyone...
The thing is..if you took away the tax credits and deductions...people would STILL have the same number of kids just as often.
People like to fuck, which results in kids. And, some people want to have kids, and tax or no tax, they will have them.
If this is the case, why should the childless subsidize them by paying more taxes?
The TSA agents have consistently told me there is no xray or radiation in these, but I smile and ask for the pat down.
It isn't any big deal so far...but I wish more people would do this as a slight form of protest. If enough people were backing up the lines for pat downs, they might have to rethink using the damned things.
But again...why should the childless be subsidizing that cost of having a kid for those that choose to do so by us paying higher taxes for their priv to do this?
If it is too $$ to have children, they don't fscking have them, you know?
Sure it is expensive and requires a lot of self sacrifice for most people, but still, that's no reason to get a tax break for it...it is just the cost of that activity.
In the US, that's how they are largely perceived, although the word they're using more recently is "progressive".
Hmm, based on your post, I would posit that wherever you're from, the people there can't read a full article and come to a proper conclusion.
And..don't forget, with taxes, those with kids get to take deductions and get refunds based on having kids, while those of us without do not, so, in essence we're subsidizing those with kids.
Shouldn't parents have to pay MORE since having kids uses more resources than those without?
And no...tax deductions will NOT encourage or discourage people from having kids as many posit. People will fuck, kids will result...they did it LONG before there were income taxes.