Leaving it on because wifi coverage in the parts of austin I frequent is so shitty that I like the idea of cell providers losing out on the free rape opportunity.
A major goal in life is to REMOVE windows from my life, not to put it in more places. If it weren't for games, I could eliminate the contagion completely.
Ain't no chance in hell I'm putting windows on Things(tm) in my house that might do something important, like climate control. Every russian and chinese hacker in the world will be having thermostat wars in my house, and I've already got a Wife(1.0) for that particular feature.
Because teenagers and young adults don't, and arguably have more places to be and more ability to get there without mom and dad driving them. But I can say without question that my kid ignores the WiiU, he loves his iPad and he loves his PC, it's consoles he doesn't seem to care for.
I've had 2 fords, and while they were still running when I got rid of them (well before 100k), I was happy to be rid of them. These were circa 1999 and 2001. I recently had to do business travel and was stuck with two cars: A Ford Fiesta and a Hyundai Somesmallshit. I'd take the Hyundai any day of the week.
I can't speak to GM, but I think Fix Or Repair Daily is probably still an accurate assessment, and perhaps the most positive thing I have to say about Ford. Truly uninspiring vehicles. Add to that that both of my Honda's were made in the USA, and both of my Fords were made in Mexico, really makes me question my loyalties. Am I loyal to American workers or American CEOs? The former makes a great car, the latter makes great noise.
Real bombs can look like anything. The ones that get the military right now look like anything from dolls to bits of debris by the side of the road. Telling people what bombs really look like is misleading. The limitations governing shape and size come primarily from the intended use: if you want to kill a few soldiers by tricking them, then you disguise the bomb to look like something innocent, hiding the trigger and explosives from view. If you want to blow up a big building at a certain time or on a certain command, then you're limited by the amount of explosive and whatever sort of elaborate trigger mechanism you want to ensure it doesn't get disarmed, can be safely transported to its deployment area, and can be activated by your favorite method. If you want to drop one from a plane, launch one from a missile, or drop one on a sub, you additionally have other problems...
Slashdot says I don't need ads, though I never took them up on the offer.
I don't want the ads on my page, they don't interact well, they sometimes play video or make noise, they sometimes display content that is inappropriate for the location I am at, they are sometimes hosted on machines that apparently are located on mars and hang up rendering of the page, they often try to pop up, over, under, around, sideways and generally interfere with the webpage, there are literally hundreds of reasons why Internet ads are obnoxious and should be killed dead.
If you want to make money being "website" find another way. If you want to paywall, great I will decide if you're worth it or not. If you want to show me 7 neat tricks, your business model is over, invest in fry cook school now.
...over something most of us really don't care about. Even in full view of the fact that certain websites exist exclusively on ad based revenue and may stop existing if we are successful in blocking ads. Let them die or be replaced by something else.
We also pay people not to farm, and we pay them to farm things other than what might be the most fruitful, we trash food that could be consumed simply because people will not buy it if it looks funny. All services are for-profit ventures, and I'm not advocating a change in that, in fact I'm trying to find a way to maintain that while dealing with social issues. Suppliers would still get paid, and the biggest flaw I see is right there: the suppliers will definitely try to rob the government through the usual corruptions.
Also, I am only arguing for sustenance, not desirability. You can go get food that will keep you alive and healthy. This is different than food you would pay a premium for because it tastes good, or you really like a juicy steak, or you just want to try something new. If you want potato chips and steak, you will have to earn money to pay for it. If you will tolerate a granola bar for breakfast, reconstituted potatoes for lunch and chicken soup for dinner, then you're all set and those foods can be made from less than premium cuts of meat, less than perfect potatoes, while still being entirely healthy and nutritious. Give people a little money? They buy McDonalds, and they shouldn't, and it becomes a health care problem for us to also pay for.
I'm not proposing nor condoning a mechanism to keep people fat and happy and not working. I'm proposing a system wherein people can fall, through their own fault or otherwise, survive, recover and hopefully move on. I recognize that many people either cannot or will not lift themselves out of this, but I think most will.
I think it's news because many people feel the Broadwell-C was the better chip and that possibly SkyLake would be eclipsed. The things you can do when you're a monopoly are bad for the customer. I
I agree that there will be system gaming, particularly with how we implement things in the US. Any system is going to revolve around predators stealing government handouts for bad purposes. All systems presently do. The question is which system allows us greatest oversight and control, with reasonable overhead? Handing out currency I think gives us minimal oversight, people are still going to be having problems that become our problems but we're not going to be able to figure it out. Providing services means we can manage suppliers to achieve the desired quality of living, but is not a slam dunk, some ass-weasels like Jeb who really messed things up in Florida, will be spinning their turds as success, muddying the waters. Still, it's easy for me to visit Florida and see exactly how bad the services are. If I visit and things are expensive, it's harder to figure out.
I also do not think that on the whole people who are in low income brackets are frequently well educated nor make good decisions with money, and would rather instead provide them with what they really need (imbued strongly with what we think they need), and let them choose to take it or leave it. I think those I'm wrong about, can use it, then leave it profitably, while the rest will likely be stuck with it indefinitely. I don't see this as a punishment, and it shouldn't be. Neither though should it be easy street, it certainly won't be for the people paying the taxes.
Basic income has exactly the same flaw, but worse. If you have an income of $100k/yr, basic income will not be very valuable to you, it may represent only 5% of your income. Further, if you are making $100k/yr you will be a net provider, meaning not only will you be giving back all your basic income, you will also be giving extra in taxes to cover basic income for those who are net receivers. So in essence you are hoping that basic income will just be less taxes for you because you're handing out free money with no overhead, and hoping for some fiat to ensure that when we wake up we're powerless to do anything about it. Further, and this requires you accept my inflation argument, your $100k will be worth less, as the new people able to spend money will cause the price of goods to rise. In short I think you will end up poorer, the poor will still be poor.
I don't agree at all with anything else you say, even slightly, nor do I think it's a reasonable negotiating point when you start talking about constitutional amendments which will not happen, even if your plan was sound.
Absolutely not. Qualifying for those things is difficult for people who ARE willing to work, but whose work doesn't provide a livable wage (i.e. the Walmart example), or other criteria. The point of this is that it is available to everyone without exception. Simply that people who can choose better, will choose better.
replaces government pensions, welfare, food stamps,
To me this is the basic flaw of basic income. By handing out free money, you are still going to have all the social ills those programs are at least mitigating, but now you have fewer people in your society who are working profitably (or at least I will assume so). Further, the flaw with currency has always been that its value is not fixed by any hard force, but rather floats based on a complicated set of functions that surely will not favor the poor. The outcome I see is that you give that currency out, and prices of things will go up, and people are still having a hard time scraping by (and bad decisions with that money will further conflate the issue).
I would rather see "Basic Services" instead of basic income. Every person can get X amount of food, show up and be treated for medical concerns, have day care, be provided with A place to live suitable for themselves alone, with heat and enough electricity for a single person. Do not give out money, give out basic and enabling services people in hard times can use. None of this would be posh, but it would provide basic living needs. You could do nothing at all and exist for as long as you live. This would have less inflationary impact, and would allow companies to hire/fire at will (which they arguably need to do), and allow citizens to retrain themselves as technology renders disciplines obsolete, and ultimately provide the safety net I think a civilized country should have, but leaving the best parts of capitalism. There will be considerable incentive incentive to get out of and an impetus to return the individual to productivity, which is actually the primary force for economic health in a country anyway. Some never will... and the success or failure of this program will be determined by how many such people exist.
But if you want to run a socialist experiment, this is how I'd start it, not by handing out a check.
I have kids. It's just not in my DNA to think of taking a picture of them, or just about anything for that matter. I also very infrequently look at pictures of this nature, it's just not something I really have any interest in. My wife is the opposite, but she carries a very high end camera with her, because she wants the pictures to be perfect...
To each their own, but there's a sizable number of people who just don't care about pictures and we're probably not feeling the crunch of flash size as a result.
I agree, I couldn't care less about the camera or the ability to shoot video. It's a feature that has been in phones for years that I still can't figure out why I'd want. I have managed with 16GB and don't feel an urgent need to upgrade.
Administration Specialist in Standardizing Hardware Assisted Technology
It sounds like a certification, but by definition means that you are an anointed manager and certified bloviator of... pretty much anything you want to be, including pointy sticks if that's your gig.
... is concerned that we don't trust them, and don't really want them keeping tabs on us? I mean that would never happen! Next thing you'll tell me people are throwing tea in the ocean to protest their unelected government! Insanity!
I bet a place like MIT just has many times the IT systems of most other places, and they didn't take that into account. Not reading the actual TFA because it requires me to register or something dumb like that.
As I think anyone who has ever done IT to support an engineering or software team would attest, supporting these teams is about like herding cats. We all want to use whatever technology we know, that does the function we want it to do. We will not tolerate anything Microsoft or Oracle (mostly because we use Linux or OS X and they don't always play well), and we want the latest bleeding edge features we saw on that guys website out there. IT will try all sorts of things, from outright bans, to sandboxes, to cameras over our desks...but we are a security nightmare. I can imagine that a place like MIT would be the worst possible place to try to lock down, since there are people actively looking for ways to break networks and software as a means of education (and it's a good thing, kind of). The absolute only thing that keeps a reign on the chaos in the corporate environment, is the very real chance we may screw up and cost real money, so some of us try hard to only break IT rules when we feel there's no other option. At a school? Hah.
I guess I see an article like this and assume it's an example of a healthy educational environment for technology majors.
Slashdot Mirror
s/wifi/cell/
Leaving it on because wifi coverage in the parts of austin I frequent is so shitty that I like the idea of cell providers losing out on the free rape opportunity.
A major goal in life is to REMOVE windows from my life, not to put it in more places. If it weren't for games, I could eliminate the contagion completely.
Ain't no chance in hell I'm putting windows on Things(tm) in my house that might do something important, like climate control. Every russian and chinese hacker in the world will be having thermostat wars in my house, and I've already got a Wife(1.0) for that particular feature.
Because teenagers and young adults don't, and arguably have more places to be and more ability to get there without mom and dad driving them. But I can say without question that my kid ignores the WiiU, he loves his iPad and he loves his PC, it's consoles he doesn't seem to care for.
3 sentences? Maybe 3 letters...
Solid state cows don't sound like they'd taste good with A1, so I am 100% against this idea.
This same issue also has had a terrible impact on the price of insulin, which has doubled in the past 5 years or so.
Someone uttered the magic phrase "AbracaSCAM", and voila, he has regionally exclusive rights to print money.
I've had 2 fords, and while they were still running when I got rid of them (well before 100k), I was happy to be rid of them. These were circa 1999 and 2001. I recently had to do business travel and was stuck with two cars: A Ford Fiesta and a Hyundai Somesmallshit. I'd take the Hyundai any day of the week.
I can't speak to GM, but I think Fix Or Repair Daily is probably still an accurate assessment, and perhaps the most positive thing I have to say about Ford. Truly uninspiring vehicles. Add to that that both of my Honda's were made in the USA, and both of my Fords were made in Mexico, really makes me question my loyalties. Am I loyal to American workers or American CEOs? The former makes a great car, the latter makes great noise.
Real bombs can look like anything. The ones that get the military right now look like anything from dolls to bits of debris by the side of the road. Telling people what bombs really look like is misleading. The limitations governing shape and size come primarily from the intended use: if you want to kill a few soldiers by tricking them, then you disguise the bomb to look like something innocent, hiding the trigger and explosives from view. If you want to blow up a big building at a certain time or on a certain command, then you're limited by the amount of explosive and whatever sort of elaborate trigger mechanism you want to ensure it doesn't get disarmed, can be safely transported to its deployment area, and can be activated by your favorite method. If you want to drop one from a plane, launch one from a missile, or drop one on a sub, you additionally have other problems...
Slashdot says I don't need ads, though I never took them up on the offer.
I don't want the ads on my page, they don't interact well, they sometimes play video or make noise, they sometimes display content that is inappropriate for the location I am at, they are sometimes hosted on machines that apparently are located on mars and hang up rendering of the page, they often try to pop up, over, under, around, sideways and generally interfere with the webpage, there are literally hundreds of reasons why Internet ads are obnoxious and should be killed dead.
If you want to make money being "website" find another way. If you want to paywall, great I will decide if you're worth it or not. If you want to show me 7 neat tricks, your business model is over, invest in fry cook school now.
...over something most of us really don't care about. Even in full view of the fact that certain websites exist exclusively on ad based revenue and may stop existing if we are successful in blocking ads. Let them die or be replaced by something else.
Amen. Preach it.
We also pay people not to farm, and we pay them to farm things other than what might be the most fruitful, we trash food that could be consumed simply because people will not buy it if it looks funny. All services are for-profit ventures, and I'm not advocating a change in that, in fact I'm trying to find a way to maintain that while dealing with social issues. Suppliers would still get paid, and the biggest flaw I see is right there: the suppliers will definitely try to rob the government through the usual corruptions.
Also, I am only arguing for sustenance, not desirability. You can go get food that will keep you alive and healthy. This is different than food you would pay a premium for because it tastes good, or you really like a juicy steak, or you just want to try something new. If you want potato chips and steak, you will have to earn money to pay for it. If you will tolerate a granola bar for breakfast, reconstituted potatoes for lunch and chicken soup for dinner, then you're all set and those foods can be made from less than premium cuts of meat, less than perfect potatoes, while still being entirely healthy and nutritious. Give people a little money? They buy McDonalds, and they shouldn't, and it becomes a health care problem for us to also pay for.
I'm not proposing nor condoning a mechanism to keep people fat and happy and not working. I'm proposing a system wherein people can fall, through their own fault or otherwise, survive, recover and hopefully move on. I recognize that many people either cannot or will not lift themselves out of this, but I think most will.
I think it's news because many people feel the Broadwell-C was the better chip and that possibly SkyLake would be eclipsed. The things you can do when you're a monopoly are bad for the customer. I
I agree that there will be system gaming, particularly with how we implement things in the US. Any system is going to revolve around predators stealing government handouts for bad purposes. All systems presently do. The question is which system allows us greatest oversight and control, with reasonable overhead? Handing out currency I think gives us minimal oversight, people are still going to be having problems that become our problems but we're not going to be able to figure it out. Providing services means we can manage suppliers to achieve the desired quality of living, but is not a slam dunk, some ass-weasels like Jeb who really messed things up in Florida, will be spinning their turds as success, muddying the waters. Still, it's easy for me to visit Florida and see exactly how bad the services are. If I visit and things are expensive, it's harder to figure out.
I also do not think that on the whole people who are in low income brackets are frequently well educated nor make good decisions with money, and would rather instead provide them with what they really need (imbued strongly with what we think they need), and let them choose to take it or leave it. I think those I'm wrong about, can use it, then leave it profitably, while the rest will likely be stuck with it indefinitely. I don't see this as a punishment, and it shouldn't be. Neither though should it be easy street, it certainly won't be for the people paying the taxes.
Basic income has exactly the same flaw, but worse. If you have an income of $100k/yr, basic income will not be very valuable to you, it may represent only 5% of your income. Further, if you are making $100k/yr you will be a net provider, meaning not only will you be giving back all your basic income, you will also be giving extra in taxes to cover basic income for those who are net receivers. So in essence you are hoping that basic income will just be less taxes for you because you're handing out free money with no overhead, and hoping for some fiat to ensure that when we wake up we're powerless to do anything about it. Further, and this requires you accept my inflation argument, your $100k will be worth less, as the new people able to spend money will cause the price of goods to rise. In short I think you will end up poorer, the poor will still be poor.
I don't agree at all with anything else you say, even slightly, nor do I think it's a reasonable negotiating point when you start talking about constitutional amendments which will not happen, even if your plan was sound.
Absolutely not. Qualifying for those things is difficult for people who ARE willing to work, but whose work doesn't provide a livable wage (i.e. the Walmart example), or other criteria. The point of this is that it is available to everyone without exception. Simply that people who can choose better, will choose better.
replaces government pensions, welfare, food stamps,
To me this is the basic flaw of basic income. By handing out free money, you are still going to have all the social ills those programs are at least mitigating, but now you have fewer people in your society who are working profitably (or at least I will assume so). Further, the flaw with currency has always been that its value is not fixed by any hard force, but rather floats based on a complicated set of functions that surely will not favor the poor. The outcome I see is that you give that currency out, and prices of things will go up, and people are still having a hard time scraping by (and bad decisions with that money will further conflate the issue).
I would rather see "Basic Services" instead of basic income. Every person can get X amount of food, show up and be treated for medical concerns, have day care, be provided with A place to live suitable for themselves alone, with heat and enough electricity for a single person. Do not give out money, give out basic and enabling services people in hard times can use. None of this would be posh, but it would provide basic living needs. You could do nothing at all and exist for as long as you live. This would have less inflationary impact, and would allow companies to hire/fire at will (which they arguably need to do), and allow citizens to retrain themselves as technology renders disciplines obsolete, and ultimately provide the safety net I think a civilized country should have, but leaving the best parts of capitalism. There will be considerable incentive incentive to get out of and an impetus to return the individual to productivity, which is actually the primary force for economic health in a country anyway. Some never will... and the success or failure of this program will be determined by how many such people exist.
But if you want to run a socialist experiment, this is how I'd start it, not by handing out a check.
I have kids. It's just not in my DNA to think of taking a picture of them, or just about anything for that matter. I also very infrequently look at pictures of this nature, it's just not something I really have any interest in. My wife is the opposite, but she carries a very high end camera with her, because she wants the pictures to be perfect...
To each their own, but there's a sizable number of people who just don't care about pictures and we're probably not feeling the crunch of flash size as a result.
I agree, I couldn't care less about the camera or the ability to shoot video. It's a feature that has been in phones for years that I still can't figure out why I'd want. I have managed with 16GB and don't feel an urgent need to upgrade.
Administration Specialist in Standardizing Hardware Assisted Technology
It sounds like a certification, but by definition means that you are an anointed manager and certified bloviator of ... pretty much anything you want to be, including pointy sticks if that's your gig.
It gets better, when Meg Whitman runs for president, she can also tell us all how she created 30k jobs! (In China and Malaysia)
... is concerned that we don't trust them, and don't really want them keeping tabs on us? I mean that would never happen! Next thing you'll tell me people are throwing tea in the ocean to protest their unelected government! Insanity!
I bet a place like MIT just has many times the IT systems of most other places, and they didn't take that into account. Not reading the actual TFA because it requires me to register or something dumb like that.
As I think anyone who has ever done IT to support an engineering or software team would attest, supporting these teams is about like herding cats. We all want to use whatever technology we know, that does the function we want it to do. We will not tolerate anything Microsoft or Oracle (mostly because we use Linux or OS X and they don't always play well), and we want the latest bleeding edge features we saw on that guys website out there. IT will try all sorts of things, from outright bans, to sandboxes, to cameras over our desks...but we are a security nightmare. I can imagine that a place like MIT would be the worst possible place to try to lock down, since there are people actively looking for ways to break networks and software as a means of education (and it's a good thing, kind of). The absolute only thing that keeps a reign on the chaos in the corporate environment, is the very real chance we may screw up and cost real money, so some of us try hard to only break IT rules when we feel there's no other option. At a school? Hah.
I guess I see an article like this and assume it's an example of a healthy educational environment for technology majors.