If it makes you happier and isn't going to lead to retiring in poverty, then go for it, obviously. This is hardly a question worth asking, but I guess too many people still delusionally believe that money creates fulfillment.
The OP didn't say how big a pay cut or characterize the difference in benefits (although what he did say indicated that the difference in benes was significant). A 10% pay cut and higher expenses (due to, for example, a less generous medical insurance plan) can, over time, add up to a substantial reduction in what you can put aside for retirement. And while money does not create fulfilment, the difference between retiring in "not poverty" and retiring in comfort is huge and irreparable. Without a firm commitment for improved salary and benefits (or equity in the company) tied to performance, it's almost always a mistake to take a cut. The stress, unhappiness, and feeling of lost opportunity that come along with barely getting by is not a delusion.
My point is that urban areas in the US are filled with space that could be acquired cheaply and could work with the community to become "gentrified".
But gentrification is exactly what all the Google bus protesters are so upset about. Google provides transportation; Google employees can be hipster city dwellers; hipster city dwellers drive up local rents; original local residents can no longer afford to live in the neighborhood. The original local residents would prefer that their neighborhood remain blighted so they can afford to continue to live there. The guy pushing for companies to relocate to big cities isn't taking his position because it benefits the residents of big cities; he's doing it because it benefits big city governments.
The true answer is to allow people to get through a full background check in exchange for skipping the screening process entirely. Frequent travelers (the majority) would do so, and this would cut the number of people waiting in line to almost nothing.
But they won't do that, because the TSA is primarily a jobs program, not a security screening service.
I think the problem is that we've created artificial supply and demand.
They don't let anyone avoid security screening merely in exchange for money. "Fast-track" passengers pay for the privilege, but also go through a security vetting process to be eligible. That's different from paying to skip a long line, which is no more artificial than this: "Here, sit in this cramped seat with no leg room surrounded by screaming babies for the next 12 hours. Or, you can pay $$$ for a first-class seat, and I'll find someone else to put back here in Economy."
TFS says drones start at several thousand, but all the above features can be had in a single pre-packaged unit that can be had for $600.
Can that $600 model dead-reckon back to home and autoland if it loses both GPS and its control link?
As to the use of the word "drone", I think we can thank the media for using it to describe anything from a micro-UAV that looks like a hummingbird, to a huge stratospheric flier. Also, has anyone else noticed that an article about a hobby quadcopter is likely to be accompanied by a picture of a Reaper launching a Hellfire missile? That really helps with the public's perception of small UAVs.
you could probably build one by bolting together enough lesser helicopters and borrowing the feedback/stability control systems from the little octocopters; but barring a contract to airlift an oil rig, assemble a prefab skyscraper like a layer cake, or some other slightly nutty project, I'm having a hard time thinking of what you would use such a monster for...
Speaking of slightly nutty projects, bolting several helicopters together has actually been tried, with rather spectacular results. Witness the Piasecki PA97 Helistat, where the blimp just adds more fun to the mix. The fun starts about 50 seconds in.
Jamie Dimon was paid $20 million? Larry Ellison got over $96 mil in 2012, followed closely(?) by Elon Musk at over $78 mil. Hell, even Richard W. Dreiling, CEO of Dollar General Corp (that's right, The Dollar Store chain) was paid over $23 million in 2012. Check out the AFL-CIO's list of the 100 highest paid CEOs in the US -- the lowest guy on that totem pole took in almost $19 million. Lots of those people have nothing to do with banking or tech. Fashion, entertainment, retail clothing, even coffee shop chains are all represented.
Actually I think you do, but you're being deliberately obtuse so you could follow up with that idiotic following sentence.
Ah, I love the smell of ad hominem in the morning. It's such a wonderful reflection of the poster's state of mind.
Of course I understand what "doing something for a joke" is, and this is not an example. This is more along the lines of "doing something to see what happens".
I put in my application for Google Glass as a joke.
I don't think you understand what a "joke" is. Unless, that is, the information you supplied on the application is funny in some way.
You want some advice? Here's some advice: buy it, and wear it into a biker bar. Before you go to the bar, leave a note for your next of kin, asking them to post the recorded video on Youtube. That way, we can all share in the joke.
Not digging giant holes in the ground with spoons means you're not a winner.
Have you ever thought that not everyone shares your interests?
Of course not everyone has the same interests. But if you weren't engaging in a bit of reductio ad absurdum, and you think that digging giant holes in the ground with spoons is in any way equivalent to cultivating a relationship with another human being, you might want to seek professional help.
How does spending all your money/free time trying to attract (usually) the most superficial/uninteresting members of the opposite sex make you a "winner"?
It doesn't. But spending some of your money/free time to establish a mutually satisfying relationship with someone to whom you're physically and emotionally attracted, definitely makes you a winner. Cynically dismissing this may not make you a loser, but it certainly makes you "not a winner."
What you say would be true, if the word "that" had appeared in the original summary; however, it didn't. Here's the original wording: "The proof is currently contained within a 13 GB file — less space than is required to hold the entirety of Wikipedia." Nothing to stress or interpret there, although I will grant you that the inappropriate use of the emdash does confuse matters a bit.
I suppose it's all moot now anyway, since the summary has been edited to protect the guilty and to correct the mistake -- it now says "The proof is currently contained within a 13 GB file — more space than is required to hold the entirety of Wikipedia."
I think they meant to say "less space than that is required to store Wikipedia".
Probably not. Since 0 bytes is less space than that is required to store Wikipedia, I would wager that they actually meant to say, "more space than that is required to store Wikipedia.
The Constitution does not give you any rights, people do.
You're partly right. The Constitution does not give you any rights, but neither do people. The Constitution defines the limited powers of the Federal government, and reserves those powers not specifically given to the Federal government, to the states.
the Bill of Rights does not grant rights to the people. It merely enumerates the ones that the Framers felt were most important.
No, "they/their" is plural. Using it as gender neutral for a single person is just stupid and bad grammar.
You should try to get in the habit of looking things up, just to be sure, before engaging in ad hominem. From dictionary.com's entry for "They":
Usage note
Long before the use of generic he was condemned as sexist, the pronouns they, their, and them were used in educated speech and in all but the most formal writing to refer to indefinite pronouns and to singular nouns of general personal reference, probably because such nouns are often not felt to be exclusively singular: If anyone calls, tell them I'll be back at six. Everyone began looking for their books at once. Such use is not a recent development, nor is it a mark of ignorance.
Drawing all your opinions from authority figures (judges), even in matters of law, is very unwise and flies in the face of the principles of this nation. Judges routinely are and have been wrong, and the supreme court overruled past decisions made by the past supreme court, on some occasions.
A judge's ruling is referred to as an opinion; however, unlike your opinion and my opinion, it has the force of law. No one aside from you said anything about drawing ALL opinions from authority figures; you're engaging in a logical fallacy known as "an appeal to extremes", so knock it off.
The courts could establish that the first amendment doesn't protect any speech at all and it wouldn't affect my opinions in the least.
Fine, as long as we're clear that you're expressing an opinion rather than stating facts. As the saying goes, you're entitled to your own opinions, but you're not entitled to your own facts.
Maybe you should get some opinions of your own.
Oh, I can assure you that our little interchange has afforded me plenty of opportunity to form a few opinions. But I won't go into that, because personal opinions have nothing to do with the issue at hand. I'll wager that you were unaware that, until the Supreme Court ruled in the 1925 case Gitlow v. New York that the 14th Amendment's 'equal protection' clause extended the imposition of 1st Amendment protections to State governments as well as the Federal government, that State governments were not constrained at all by the 1st Amendment.
If you trouble yourself to review the wording of the 1st Amendment, you will find that it only imposes its constraint on Congress; not on any other branch or agency of the Federal government, and certainly not on State governments. Those shortcomings in the Constitutions were changed by court ruling.
Sad how "the land of the free" has so much mindless authority worship.
Even sadder that most people have no idea how their government is even supposed to operate, but choose to rely on their feelings and opinions about the way things should be.
It's just garbage article like this that get my knickers in a twist. Stop wasting time and money on junk like this.
Agree that this was a crap Slashdot article. However, if you had followed the links to the report by the National Science Foundation, you would have found the answers to your questions re: source and scope, and as a bonus, you would have found a lot of extremely interesting information.
If you've been come to Slashdot looking for wisdom and insight in the posted articles, you already know it's a fruitless pursuit.
The First Amendment guarantees your right to express your opinions without fear of government reprisal, where the reprisal would be in response to the opinions and not to the act of speaking.
Then the government could just ban all manner of speech. In reality, free speech protests all speech and the first amendment makes *no such distinctions*. The fact that our government is violating the constitution doesn't mean that it isn't what it is, and your examples just demonstrate the government's seething hatred of our rights.
the courts have established lots of 1st Amendment exceptions. Suggest you educate yourself.
"Working for free" is a rather nebulous concept for most salaried professionals, since most of us tend to put in a bit of unpaid overtime on a fairly regular basis. If your boss is suggesting with a straight face that you should decline being compensated until your bugs have been fixed, he's probably an idiot, and may actually be dangerously sociopathic. You might want to ask him about the last time one of his bone-headed decisions resulted in his turning down his paycheck.
The First Amendment guarantees your right to express your opinions without fear of government reprisal, where the reprisal would be in response to the opinions and not to the act of speaking. It does not guarantee you the right to talk wherever and whenever you want to. For example:
You can get detained by the local police for standing on a corner in a residential neighborhood and yelling after some arbitrary time threshold, usually 10:00 pm.
You can be fined and/or jailed for contempt of court for expressing yourself in a court of law without the judge's permission.
You can be sued in a court of law for making false statements about another person.
A trial judge may issue a gag order preventing you from speaking publicly about issues relating to a trial.
You can actually be legally subjected to a beating at the hands of a person you offend with your speech. Google "fighting words doctrine" for additional info.
Slashdot Mirror
If it makes you happier and isn't going to lead to retiring in poverty, then go for it, obviously. This is hardly a question worth asking, but I guess too many people still delusionally believe that money creates fulfillment.
The OP didn't say how big a pay cut or characterize the difference in benefits (although what he did say indicated that the difference in benes was significant). A 10% pay cut and higher expenses (due to, for example, a less generous medical insurance plan) can, over time, add up to a substantial reduction in what you can put aside for retirement. And while money does not create fulfilment, the difference between retiring in "not poverty" and retiring in comfort is huge and irreparable. Without a firm commitment for improved salary and benefits (or equity in the company) tied to performance, it's almost always a mistake to take a cut. The stress, unhappiness, and feeling of lost opportunity that come along with barely getting by is not a delusion.
My point is that urban areas in the US are filled with space that could be acquired cheaply and could work with the community to become "gentrified".
But gentrification is exactly what all the Google bus protesters are so upset about. Google provides transportation; Google employees can be hipster city dwellers; hipster city dwellers drive up local rents; original local residents can no longer afford to live in the neighborhood. The original local residents would prefer that their neighborhood remain blighted so they can afford to continue to live there. The guy pushing for companies to relocate to big cities isn't taking his position because it benefits the residents of big cities; he's doing it because it benefits big city governments.
They can't put anything on the Internet that isn't true!
The true answer is to allow people to get through a full background check in exchange for skipping the screening process entirely. Frequent travelers (the majority) would do so, and this would cut the number of people waiting in line to almost nothing.
But they won't do that, because the TSA is primarily a jobs program, not a security screening service.
Well, as a matter of fact, the process you propose has been in use for over a year at a few airports and airlines, and is expanding.
I think the problem is that we've created artificial supply and demand.
They don't let anyone avoid security screening merely in exchange for money. "Fast-track" passengers pay for the privilege, but also go through a security vetting process to be eligible. That's different from paying to skip a long line, which is no more artificial than this: "Here, sit in this cramped seat with no leg room surrounded by screaming babies for the next 12 hours. Or, you can pay $$$ for a first-class seat, and I'll find someone else to put back here in Economy."
TFS says drones start at several thousand, but all the above features can be had in a single pre-packaged unit that can be had for $600.
Can that $600 model dead-reckon back to home and autoland if it loses both GPS and its control link?
As to the use of the word "drone", I think we can thank the media for using it to describe anything from a micro-UAV that looks like a hummingbird, to a huge stratospheric flier. Also, has anyone else noticed that an article about a hobby quadcopter is likely to be accompanied by a picture of a Reaper launching a Hellfire missile? That really helps with the public's perception of small UAVs.
you could probably build one by bolting together enough lesser helicopters and borrowing the feedback/stability control systems from the little octocopters; but barring a contract to airlift an oil rig, assemble a prefab skyscraper like a layer cake, or some other slightly nutty project, I'm having a hard time thinking of what you would use such a monster for...
Speaking of slightly nutty projects, bolting several helicopters together has actually been tried, with rather spectacular results. Witness the Piasecki PA97 Helistat, where the blimp just adds more fun to the mix. The fun starts about 50 seconds in.
Jamie Dimon was paid $20 million? Larry Ellison got over $96 mil in 2012, followed closely(?) by Elon Musk at over $78 mil. Hell, even Richard W. Dreiling, CEO of Dollar General Corp (that's right, The Dollar Store chain) was paid over $23 million in 2012. Check out the AFL-CIO's list of the 100 highest paid CEOs in the US -- the lowest guy on that totem pole took in almost $19 million. Lots of those people have nothing to do with banking or tech. Fashion, entertainment, retail clothing, even coffee shop chains are all represented.
Actually I think you do, but you're being deliberately obtuse so you could follow up with that idiotic following sentence.
Ah, I love the smell of ad hominem in the morning. It's such a wonderful reflection of the poster's state of mind.
Of course I understand what "doing something for a joke" is, and this is not an example. This is more along the lines of "doing something to see what happens".
I put in my application for Google Glass as a joke.
I don't think you understand what a "joke" is. Unless, that is, the information you supplied on the application is funny in some way.
You want some advice? Here's some advice: buy it, and wear it into a biker bar. Before you go to the bar, leave a note for your next of kin, asking them to post the recorded video on Youtube. That way, we can all share in the joke.
Not digging giant holes in the ground with spoons means you're not a winner.
Have you ever thought that not everyone shares your interests?
Of course not everyone has the same interests. But if you weren't engaging in a bit of reductio ad absurdum, and you think that digging giant holes in the ground with spoons is in any way equivalent to cultivating a relationship with another human being, you might want to seek professional help.
How does spending all your money/free time trying to attract (usually) the most superficial/uninteresting members of the opposite sex make you a "winner"?
It doesn't. But spending some of your money/free time to establish a mutually satisfying relationship with someone to whom you're physically and emotionally attracted, definitely makes you a winner. Cynically dismissing this may not make you a loser, but it certainly makes you "not a winner."
It depends if you stress "that" or not.
What you say would be true, if the word "that" had appeared in the original summary; however, it didn't. Here's the original wording: "The proof is currently contained within a 13 GB file — less space than is required to hold the entirety of Wikipedia." Nothing to stress or interpret there, although I will grant you that the inappropriate use of the emdash does confuse matters a bit.
I suppose it's all moot now anyway, since the summary has been edited to protect the guilty and to correct the mistake -- it now says "The proof is currently contained within a 13 GB file — more space than is required to hold the entirety of Wikipedia."
I think they meant to say "less space than that is required to store Wikipedia".
Probably not. Since 0 bytes is less space than that is required to store Wikipedia, I would wager that they actually meant to say, "more space than that is required to store Wikipedia.
The Constitution does not give you any rights, people do.
You're partly right. The Constitution does not give you any rights, but neither do people. The Constitution defines the limited powers of the Federal government, and reserves those powers not specifically given to the Federal government, to the states.
the Bill of Rights does not grant rights to the people. It merely enumerates the ones that the Framers felt were most important.
No, "they/their" is plural. Using it as gender neutral for a single person is just stupid and bad grammar.
You should try to get in the habit of looking things up, just to be sure, before engaging in ad hominem. From dictionary.com's entry for "They":
Usage note
Long before the use of generic he was condemned as sexist, the pronouns they, their, and them were used in educated speech and in all but the most formal writing to refer to indefinite pronouns and to singular nouns of general personal reference, probably because such nouns are often not felt to be exclusively singular: If anyone calls, tell them I'll be back at six. Everyone began looking for their books at once. Such use is not a recent development, nor is it a mark of ignorance.
Honestly, what is the difference
Obviously, you are one of the 50-odd varieties of insensitive clod!
But what I want to know is, what does "Neither" mean when there are 50 other choices?
Exactly. The Republicans will use it to devastate the used phone market.
I guess you missed the part where the bill's author is a Democratic Senator.
Drawing all your opinions from authority figures (judges), even in matters of law, is very unwise and flies in the face of the principles of this nation. Judges routinely are and have been wrong, and the supreme court overruled past decisions made by the past supreme court, on some occasions.
A judge's ruling is referred to as an opinion; however, unlike your opinion and my opinion, it has the force of law. No one aside from you said anything about drawing ALL opinions from authority figures; you're engaging in a logical fallacy known as "an appeal to extremes", so knock it off.
The courts could establish that the first amendment doesn't protect any speech at all and it wouldn't affect my opinions in the least.
Fine, as long as we're clear that you're expressing an opinion rather than stating facts. As the saying goes, you're entitled to your own opinions, but you're not entitled to your own facts.
Maybe you should get some opinions of your own.
Oh, I can assure you that our little interchange has afforded me plenty of opportunity to form a few opinions. But I won't go into that, because personal opinions have nothing to do with the issue at hand. I'll wager that you were unaware that, until the Supreme Court ruled in the 1925 case Gitlow v. New York that the 14th Amendment's 'equal protection' clause extended the imposition of 1st Amendment protections to State governments as well as the Federal government, that State governments were not constrained at all by the 1st Amendment.
If you trouble yourself to review the wording of the 1st Amendment, you will find that it only imposes its constraint on Congress; not on any other branch or agency of the Federal government, and certainly not on State governments. Those shortcomings in the Constitutions were changed by court ruling.
Sad how "the land of the free" has so much mindless authority worship.
Even sadder that most people have no idea how their government is even supposed to operate, but choose to rely on their feelings and opinions about the way things should be.
It's just garbage article like this that get my knickers in a twist. Stop wasting time and money on junk like this.
Agree that this was a crap Slashdot article. However, if you had followed the links to the report by the National Science Foundation, you would have found the answers to your questions re: source and scope, and as a bonus, you would have found a lot of extremely interesting information.
If you've been come to Slashdot looking for wisdom and insight in the posted articles, you already know it's a fruitless pursuit.
The First Amendment guarantees your right to express your opinions without fear of government reprisal, where the reprisal would be in response to the opinions and not to the act of speaking.
Then the government could just ban all manner of speech. In reality, free speech protests all speech and the first amendment makes *no such distinctions*. The fact that our government is violating the constitution doesn't mean that it isn't what it is, and your examples just demonstrate the government's seething hatred of our rights.
the courts have established lots of 1st Amendment exceptions. Suggest you educate yourself.
"Working for free" is a rather nebulous concept for most salaried professionals, since most of us tend to put in a bit of unpaid overtime on a fairly regular basis. If your boss is suggesting with a straight face that you should decline being compensated until your bugs have been fixed, he's probably an idiot, and may actually be dangerously sociopathic. You might want to ask him about the last time one of his bone-headed decisions resulted in his turning down his paycheck.
Part of the problem is that this technology didn't exist when their parents were teaching them how to behave..
Part of the problem is that their parents didn't teach them how to behave.
FTFY
The First Amendment guarantees your right to express your opinions without fear of government reprisal, where the reprisal would be in response to the opinions and not to the act of speaking. It does not guarantee you the right to talk wherever and whenever you want to. For example: