There is value in using that mode for porn (although your IP address is still exposed, and it's unclear that anyone is going to understand why you were at LustyHotBabes.com for any non auto-erotic pursuits). But it is also incredibly useful for the times you want to visit a site that caches credentials locally or otherwise relies on client-side tracking, but you don't want that behavior. I do not like to leave data for gmail, facebook, linked-in etc. on my work machine, for example, I don't own it and IT can seize it at any time.
The DoE doesn't know how to produce children with the right skills for the workforce that is what I think I know. But then as a parent I want my kids to be able to develop the right skills for the workforce on their own (multiple times in their life, based on how our economy is working), I want school to prepare them for the intellectual side of life. After school, either in a trade school or professional school, they can learn the specifics to acquire a job.
Corporations know, sort of, what skills they need to fill vacant positions and what roles are not being filled fast enough. Unfortunately they have instantaneous knowledge only and are genetically incapable of thinking more than 1 year out. A first grader will not be hitting the job market for about 20 years. 20 years ago Java was an infant, everyone programmed in C, and not very many people even knew what the "web" was... an AOL keyword was about the cutting edge.
The best evidence to support your argument is their recommendations: "Work collaboratively in clear roles (e.g., pair programming) to construct a problem solution of a sequence of block-based programming commands.
If this is the future, let's just launch the missiles now and put the poor dog down before it suffers.
Insanity. Telling my IT to eat a dick might at worst get me yelled at by my boss, maybe if I were already on his shit-list. Otherwise he'd probably tell me I shouldn't do that, and I'd list a number of other things I shouldn't do, and we'll reach an impasse.
Having work/life balance will actually get me fired. I mean...laid off.
Yeah, I'm in a right-to-work state and I tell my IT to eat dick at least once a month, or I did when I was still working for a company that didn't understand IT is a service, not the business. You can write all teh rules you want, you will not get compliance from most people.
Honestly the cat was out of the bag when people started carrying smartphones. Banning watches is just being nit picky about the forms of spying you want to forbid.
Then I'll wear two. Then you'll threaten to get me fired. Then I'll wear three. Then, after numerous iterations on this, we'll realize that this cat is out of the bag, it isn't going back in, and the people offering these devices will have to be held responsible for the damages their products cause.
That said, a friend of mine informed me that his company still doesn't allow wifi. In 2015. Our IT started prohibiting that in 2002, and we started installing our own wifi, and they quickly realized that firing us is harder than just finding a sensible option. I suppose especially retarded companies will continue to drag their feet for another decade.
We call it kindle, acrobad reader, plus various proprietary things from Google, Apple, M$. You can already spend a fortune in Kindle without realizing it, if you are an avid and relatively fast reader.
Say what? I don't know too many (computer science) academics who'd touch C with a ten foot pole. Those of us who use C do it for real work (and like it/won't get off it).
If I want to live in an ivory tower I'd either a) use the latest theory compliant language/compiler du jour or b) refuse to code at all since that is an implementation issue, and instead pontificate on what is missing from latest language.
No, just people who partake in "geek culture", which as far as I'm concerned is a new thing itself and frequently not representative of greater geekdom.
But you should pay the full income tax even if you held the stock for 3 years
The reason they do the short term rate higher than long-term is good, they're trying to slow down day trading and all the instability and insanity that model introduces. I definitely think we want to penalize short term investors for being nuisances. Sometimes even 1 year seems to short. I get tired of these quarterly reports where every financial emission of a company is scruitinized on a 3 month basis. A hardware technology company may take 2 years to change directions if they have a good year or a bad year. You won't see it in 3 month increments, what you are seeing are seasonal buying patterns and noise. But...the game continues.
On the other hand, it seems like selling the stock should be considered income, and holding it longer just gets you a big discount to encourage long term investment. But it's still income and should be taxed that way. I shouldn't be in the position of investing $100M and paying myself millions in capital gains taxed at 15%. I may have been taxed on that $100M (or may not have been...very unclear) but i haven't been taxed on the income from growth, and it is income as soon as I realize it.
An investigation by the U.S. Senate showed Apple had paid just 2 percent tax on income of $74 billion over 2010-2012, largely by exploiting an unusual loophole in Ireland's tax code.
In terms of corporate tax avoidance, the issue is that people think avoidance is illegal and immoral. It is not, it's a feature, we all do it. I do it by deducting 401k, IRA, HSA, dependents etc. Corporations have more options. The issue is not the avoidance, it is that they are able to avoid too much, and we further discourage them from realizing profits in the US, which in turn discourages them from investing in the US (real estate, capital purchases, employment, etc.). Tim is one of a few CEOs that is right out there saying "don't hate the player, hate the game", a lot of them just flat out deny they're breaking the law (true, usually) and give you the old "fuck you I got mine" spiel. We need to fix the system, but our government isn't exactly functional right now.
It's almost as if our government is dysfunctional on purpose, that perhaps having a broken government is working out really well for certain people.
Oh I think he wanted to say something profound about this: http://www.reuters.com/article.... But he wants to provide the editorial himself. He realizes saying what needs to be said (i.e. TMO, et. al. are making an end-run around net neutrality) might have legal implications. He spends many paragraphs (i guess, I stopped reading) about relying on video services to drop to lower resolution, but there are some technical issues why that's not ideal. We also know that the monopolies want to be content providers not bandwidth providers, so they want to start making deals with these companies individually and have exclusivity agreements (i.e. everything we hate and fear about the end of net neutrality). So really the answers to his rants are already out there, but he's unaware or avoiding them.
So at the end of the day many words spent, all wasted.
Rey is Luke and Leia's daughter, the product of a breeding program designed to produce superior Jedi. Han and Leia are estranged as a result, with Han realizing that women are always unfaithful, but a Wookie's grip is always firm but gentle. It will be revealed in episode 9 that Finn is actually Leia and Lando's son, when she was going through what she describes as "a thing" when Han was frozen in carbonite. Finn develops strong mommy issues, after learning exactly how much of the Star Wars universe are his half brother & sister.
It will later be revealed that C3P0 is Kylo Ren's father (Leia, of course, his mother, who was going through another "thing" back in A New Hope), Finn turns to the off-white side upon learning this and slays himself after Leia gives him bedroom eyes.
And now we are all freed of the need to line up opening week for what appears to be a generally good but not really that great sci-fi movie, just because we weren't sure who would die.
I'm curious about the Star Wars spoiler ban as well, is it universal or just this one?
I don't know about this ban, there is a thread on reddit whose entire purpose is star wars spoilers. You can find out who lives, dies, and does or does not appear... if you want to do it. The threads are still there, I won't link them for a number of reasons. My opinion though is if a movie survives only because of "spoilers", it's probably not worth paying theater prices.
IANAL, but it's not clear to me that it is a violation of 18 U.S.C. 1543 to forge a passport for the purposes of fucking with Facebook, it's not clear based on 18 U.S.C. 1546 that it is a crime to provide a false passport for the purposes of fucking with Facebook, and it's not clear under 18 U.S.C. 1541 that Facebook is actually allowed to verify a passport (i.e. they are not a sanctioned body, as far as I know). You can do whatever you want with birth certificates, as far as I know, insofar as Facebook is concerned. All of this falls apart if you are actually trying to break a law and using false information to conceal your activities, but in that case you're already in cost-benefit analysis land and hopefully know what you're doing.
Maybe someone is going to have to do this and get taken to court over it to "see what happens", but I have no intention of telling the truth on the internet unless I have a good reason to do so.
If their product is the users, you are attacking the heart of their business model by providing an incorrect name.
Yet in the United States it is entirely legal to adopt any name at all, for any reason you want, under certain restrictions (most having to do with how you interact with the government and sometimes banks - frequently because of government). There is absolutely no requirement that I use my birth-name, although there are some inconveniences. As far as my friends know, my bullshit made-up Facebook name is actually how I wish to be referred to.
Asking me to provide proof of my name is really asking me to produce documentation that corroborates my story: documentation I can easily (and legally) fabricate, or else may itself have been a fabrication that does not support my facebook identity. It seems like in our brave new digital age, the we should have our children change their identity every year to establish some history.
It is a total waste of time to continue down this road, my name is whatever I say it is. Until it comes time to pay taxes, then it's whatever my parents said it was on the day I was born.
how can they possibly justify being against municipal broadband
Possibly the swan song of a failing candidate who took a bunch of money and needs to do something about it to ensure he can get more money at a later date for a campaign he can actually win.
Except that many/most technical people I know won't work for the federal government on a bet because the wages are too low. The government is AN employer, and they pay what they pay.
The main argument against H-1B visas (at least the most vocal argument) is that big corps are using cheap foreign labor to cut costs, at the expense of American workers. Do you disagree?
It is one strong argument citing abuse. Other good arguments are: second class (non)citizens, lack of freedom to negotiate salaries, lack of freedom to leave bad employers, not to mention idealistic failure.
Putting a high threshold on entry is an elegant solution.
It is not high for say: engineering R&D, it's quite low, entry level in some fields. It may be high for IT... hard for me to say. However it WILL sound high to a lot of voting americans, particularly the ones voting republican. It is a political stunt. Divide your enemies against each other, most americans can't differentiate between "wealthier middle class" and "filthy rich". They do this all the time in union areas to try to deflate strikes.
bringing the best and the brightest from around the world to help the USA-
Or, we give qualified candidate first dibs at green cards, and allow them to negotiate with their own employer. Some might believe this is more in the spirit of "free market" than a federal fiat is. Except we don't like free markets when they work against the rich guy.
It's not though. That salary might be low in some places and high in others. It might be low in one industry or high in another. In my area/industry that's actually really low, but there are a lot of H1Bs here. Additionally, salaries change over time, do we need a federal fiat every time? Will we have to fight for "minimum indentured servant wage increase" every N years?
H1Bs should stop being granted. Offer green cards to present holders, but no more new ones. Either they come in with a green card and you take the risk that they leave or suck, or they don't come in.
AMD bet on 64-bit, and won (64-bit). Intel's effort was Itanium, it is pretty much done for.
Intel can compete better in low power, where owning its own fab which is also top notch, gives it considerable advantage. Even against superior architectures. AMD really fucked that up, along with everyone else who thought MFG should be done overseas. As a result their chips always run a bit hotter, and can't run quite as fast. So they have to sell them cheaper with lower margin... and AMD is spread a bit thinner... and has to outsource or reduce support on some of its products a bit more...and has less money to innovate...and the rest is history.
It's not going to go away, that's not even really the point. Even in countries where guns are banned, there is a non-zero number of gun deaths yearly. There are fewer, however, and that can be shown clearly. Murder has not gone away either, but I would argue that if there were not laws against it, and penalties for doing it, there'd be a whole lot more murders. Even assuming a sane world, it is at times easier to kill someone than to work around them.
The problem is that the incidence of gun violence in the US (based on my data, loosely obtained) is about.01% yearly. Compared to other countries that have not outright banned guns, but which require licensing, we are at least 10x their incidence, in some cases much, much more. It seems like a simple thing like licensing might considerably reduce our gun issues, and not hurt or curtail the freedom of anyone that wants to own a gun and can demonstrate basic responsibility and sanity.
I'm really not sure why a legit gun owner wouldn't want this, if only to ensure that one day public outrage won't get his guns taken away because bleeding hearts got upset over a total nutcase who shot up someplace. We already had a poorly thunk assault rifle ban that utterly failed to do anything but get a politician some votes. Anything we can do to reduce the number of whackjobs shooting places up that doesn't hurt anyone seems like we a thing we should do happily, without a fight.
Slashdot Mirror
There is value in using that mode for porn (although your IP address is still exposed, and it's unclear that anyone is going to understand why you were at LustyHotBabes.com for any non auto-erotic pursuits). But it is also incredibly useful for the times you want to visit a site that caches credentials locally or otherwise relies on client-side tracking, but you don't want that behavior. I do not like to leave data for gmail, facebook, linked-in etc. on my work machine, for example, I don't own it and IT can seize it at any time.
The DoE doesn't know how to produce children with the right skills for the workforce that is what I think I know. But then as a parent I want my kids to be able to develop the right skills for the workforce on their own (multiple times in their life, based on how our economy is working), I want school to prepare them for the intellectual side of life. After school, either in a trade school or professional school, they can learn the specifics to acquire a job.
Corporations know, sort of, what skills they need to fill vacant positions and what roles are not being filled fast enough. Unfortunately they have instantaneous knowledge only and are genetically incapable of thinking more than 1 year out. A first grader will not be hitting the job market for about 20 years. 20 years ago Java was an infant, everyone programmed in C, and not very many people even knew what the "web" was... an AOL keyword was about the cutting edge.
The best evidence to support your argument is their recommendations: "Work collaboratively in clear roles (e.g., pair programming) to construct a problem solution of a sequence of block-based programming commands.
If this is the future, let's just launch the missiles now and put the poor dog down before it suffers.
That is the IT side of exactly how it works. Try to ban pot and some will smoke it and even more will ignore it, and even the policemen stop caring.
Have a work/life balance.
Insanity. Telling my IT to eat a dick might at worst get me yelled at by my boss, maybe if I were already on his shit-list. Otherwise he'd probably tell me I shouldn't do that, and I'd list a number of other things I shouldn't do, and we'll reach an impasse.
Having work/life balance will actually get me fired. I mean...laid off.
Yeah, I'm in a right-to-work state and I tell my IT to eat dick at least once a month, or I did when I was still working for a company that didn't understand IT is a service, not the business. You can write all teh rules you want, you will not get compliance from most people.
Honestly the cat was out of the bag when people started carrying smartphones. Banning watches is just being nit picky about the forms of spying you want to forbid.
You don't allow it.......
Then I'll wear two. Then you'll threaten to get me fired. Then I'll wear three. Then, after numerous iterations on this, we'll realize that this cat is out of the bag, it isn't going back in, and the people offering these devices will have to be held responsible for the damages their products cause.
That said, a friend of mine informed me that his company still doesn't allow wifi. In 2015. Our IT started prohibiting that in 2002, and we started installing our own wifi, and they quickly realized that firing us is harder than just finding a sensible option. I suppose especially retarded companies will continue to drag their feet for another decade.
We call it kindle, acrobad reader, plus various proprietary things from Google, Apple, M$. You can already spend a fortune in Kindle without realizing it, if you are an avid and relatively fast reader.
C weilding academic to me
Say what? I don't know too many (computer science) academics who'd touch C with a ten foot pole. Those of us who use C do it for real work (and like it/won't get off it).
If I want to live in an ivory tower I'd either a) use the latest theory compliant language/compiler du jour or b) refuse to code at all since that is an implementation issue, and instead pontificate on what is missing from latest language.
No, just people who partake in "geek culture", which as far as I'm concerned is a new thing itself and frequently not representative of greater geekdom.
But you should pay the full income tax even if you held the stock for 3 years
The reason they do the short term rate higher than long-term is good, they're trying to slow down day trading and all the instability and insanity that model introduces. I definitely think we want to penalize short term investors for being nuisances. Sometimes even 1 year seems to short. I get tired of these quarterly reports where every financial emission of a company is scruitinized on a 3 month basis. A hardware technology company may take 2 years to change directions if they have a good year or a bad year. You won't see it in 3 month increments, what you are seeing are seasonal buying patterns and noise. But...the game continues.
On the other hand, it seems like selling the stock should be considered income, and holding it longer just gets you a big discount to encourage long term investment. But it's still income and should be taxed that way. I shouldn't be in the position of investing $100M and paying myself millions in capital gains taxed at 15%. I may have been taxed on that $100M (or may not have been...very unclear) but i haven't been taxed on the income from growth, and it is income as soon as I realize it.
An investigation by the U.S. Senate showed Apple had paid just 2 percent tax on income of $74 billion over 2010-2012, largely by exploiting an unusual loophole in Ireland's tax code.
In terms of corporate tax avoidance, the issue is that people think avoidance is illegal and immoral. It is not, it's a feature, we all do it. I do it by deducting 401k, IRA, HSA, dependents etc. Corporations have more options. The issue is not the avoidance, it is that they are able to avoid too much, and we further discourage them from realizing profits in the US, which in turn discourages them from investing in the US (real estate, capital purchases, employment, etc.). Tim is one of a few CEOs that is right out there saying "don't hate the player, hate the game", a lot of them just flat out deny they're breaking the law (true, usually) and give you the old "fuck you I got mine" spiel. We need to fix the system, but our government isn't exactly functional right now.
It's almost as if our government is dysfunctional on purpose, that perhaps having a broken government is working out really well for certain people.
Oh I think he wanted to say something profound about this: http://www.reuters.com/article.... But he wants to provide the editorial himself. He realizes saying what needs to be said (i.e. TMO, et. al. are making an end-run around net neutrality) might have legal implications. He spends many paragraphs (i guess, I stopped reading) about relying on video services to drop to lower resolution, but there are some technical issues why that's not ideal. We also know that the monopolies want to be content providers not bandwidth providers, so they want to start making deals with these companies individually and have exclusivity agreements (i.e. everything we hate and fear about the end of net neutrality). So really the answers to his rants are already out there, but he's unaware or avoiding them.
So at the end of the day many words spent, all wasted.
Rey is Luke and Leia's daughter, the product of a breeding program designed to produce superior Jedi. Han and Leia are estranged as a result, with Han realizing that women are always unfaithful, but a Wookie's grip is always firm but gentle. It will be revealed in episode 9 that Finn is actually Leia and Lando's son, when she was going through what she describes as "a thing" when Han was frozen in carbonite. Finn develops strong mommy issues, after learning exactly how much of the Star Wars universe are his half brother & sister.
It will later be revealed that C3P0 is Kylo Ren's father (Leia, of course, his mother, who was going through another "thing" back in A New Hope), Finn turns to the off-white side upon learning this and slays himself after Leia gives him bedroom eyes.
And now we are all freed of the need to line up opening week for what appears to be a generally good but not really that great sci-fi movie, just because we weren't sure who would die.
What karma score do we have to have to be able to get front page comments like this guy?
I'm curious about the Star Wars spoiler ban as well, is it universal or just this one?
I don't know about this ban, there is a thread on reddit whose entire purpose is star wars spoilers. You can find out who lives, dies, and does or does not appear... if you want to do it. The threads are still there, I won't link them for a number of reasons. My opinion though is if a movie survives only because of "spoilers", it's probably not worth paying theater prices.
passport? birth certificate?
IANAL, but it's not clear to me that it is a violation of 18 U.S.C. 1543 to forge a passport for the purposes of fucking with Facebook, it's not clear based on 18 U.S.C. 1546 that it is a crime to provide a false passport for the purposes of fucking with Facebook, and it's not clear under 18 U.S.C. 1541 that Facebook is actually allowed to verify a passport (i.e. they are not a sanctioned body, as far as I know). You can do whatever you want with birth certificates, as far as I know, insofar as Facebook is concerned. All of this falls apart if you are actually trying to break a law and using false information to conceal your activities, but in that case you're already in cost-benefit analysis land and hopefully know what you're doing.
Maybe someone is going to have to do this and get taken to court over it to "see what happens", but I have no intention of telling the truth on the internet unless I have a good reason to do so.
No it's not, we're just going to get more comfortable with lying and fabricating documentation. Which is OK too.
If their product is the users, you are attacking the heart of their business model by providing an incorrect name.
Yet in the United States it is entirely legal to adopt any name at all, for any reason you want, under certain restrictions (most having to do with how you interact with the government and sometimes banks - frequently because of government). There is absolutely no requirement that I use my birth-name, although there are some inconveniences. As far as my friends know, my bullshit made-up Facebook name is actually how I wish to be referred to.
Asking me to provide proof of my name is really asking me to produce documentation that corroborates my story: documentation I can easily (and legally) fabricate, or else may itself have been a fabrication that does not support my facebook identity. It seems like in our brave new digital age, the we should have our children change their identity every year to establish some history.
It is a total waste of time to continue down this road, my name is whatever I say it is. Until it comes time to pay taxes, then it's whatever my parents said it was on the day I was born.
how can they possibly justify being against municipal broadband
Possibly the swan song of a failing candidate who took a bunch of money and needs to do something about it to ensure he can get more money at a later date for a campaign he can actually win.
Except that many/most technical people I know won't work for the federal government on a bet because the wages are too low. The government is AN employer, and they pay what they pay.
The main argument against H-1B visas (at least the most vocal argument) is that big corps are using cheap foreign labor to cut costs, at the expense of American workers. Do you disagree?
It is one strong argument citing abuse. Other good arguments are: second class (non)citizens, lack of freedom to negotiate salaries, lack of freedom to leave bad employers, not to mention idealistic failure.
Putting a high threshold on entry is an elegant solution.
It is not high for say: engineering R&D, it's quite low, entry level in some fields. It may be high for IT... hard for me to say. However it WILL sound high to a lot of voting americans, particularly the ones voting republican. It is a political stunt. Divide your enemies against each other, most americans can't differentiate between "wealthier middle class" and "filthy rich". They do this all the time in union areas to try to deflate strikes.
bringing the best and the brightest from around the world to help the USA-
Or, we give qualified candidate first dibs at green cards, and allow them to negotiate with their own employer. Some might believe this is more in the spirit of "free market" than a federal fiat is. Except we don't like free markets when they work against the rich guy.
But a good idea is a good idea.
It's not though. That salary might be low in some places and high in others. It might be low in one industry or high in another. In my area/industry that's actually really low, but there are a lot of H1Bs here. Additionally, salaries change over time, do we need a federal fiat every time? Will we have to fight for "minimum indentured servant wage increase" every N years?
H1Bs should stop being granted. Offer green cards to present holders, but no more new ones. Either they come in with a green card and you take the risk that they leave or suck, or they don't come in.
AMD bet on 64-bit, and won (64-bit). Intel's effort was Itanium, it is pretty much done for.
Intel can compete better in low power, where owning its own fab which is also top notch, gives it considerable advantage. Even against superior architectures. AMD really fucked that up, along with everyone else who thought MFG should be done overseas. As a result their chips always run a bit hotter, and can't run quite as fast. So they have to sell them cheaper with lower margin... and AMD is spread a bit thinner... and has to outsource or reduce support on some of its products a bit more...and has less money to innovate...and the rest is history.
It's not going to go away, that's not even really the point. Even in countries where guns are banned, there is a non-zero number of gun deaths yearly. There are fewer, however, and that can be shown clearly. Murder has not gone away either, but I would argue that if there were not laws against it, and penalties for doing it, there'd be a whole lot more murders. Even assuming a sane world, it is at times easier to kill someone than to work around them.
The problem is that the incidence of gun violence in the US (based on my data, loosely obtained) is about .01% yearly. Compared to other countries that have not outright banned guns, but which require licensing, we are at least 10x their incidence, in some cases much, much more. It seems like a simple thing like licensing might considerably reduce our gun issues, and not hurt or curtail the freedom of anyone that wants to own a gun and can demonstrate basic responsibility and sanity.
I'm really not sure why a legit gun owner wouldn't want this, if only to ensure that one day public outrage won't get his guns taken away because bleeding hearts got upset over a total nutcase who shot up someplace. We already had a poorly thunk assault rifle ban that utterly failed to do anything but get a politician some votes. Anything we can do to reduce the number of whackjobs shooting places up that doesn't hurt anyone seems like we a thing we should do happily, without a fight.