Remember when everyone and their dad had a chat client that used XMPP? Now it's all completely balkanized, with each client using a different protocol. I'm expected to have Hangouts, Facebook Messenger, WhatsApp, and a few dozen other ones now. No. I refuse to.
Although more to your point, Duo apparently uses the QUIC protocol which is open. Now that's just for the connection piece. Who knows what they're using for the data protocol.
My previous car cost about $7k. Wake me up when I can get one for about that much. Don't get me wrong -- I'm excited to see what EVs can do, but I'm not in the market for one unless they're under $10k.
I get tired of hearing that $municipality has given a particular vendor a monopoly on cable TV/Internet. It simply isn't true. This has been illegal for 20 years, but still the myth persists.
It adds a single place that I can get push updates from people I'd like to get updates from. That's all. Maybe that's lazy. According to the recent articles, that makes me smart!
If you'd rather not use it and use other methods, that's fine by me. But don't get all "oh, your life would be so much better without it". I'm not here to tell you what you're missing out on. Apparently nothing! You're not hurting anyone's feelings by not using it, but apparently I'm causing you a lot of grief by using it.
Of course it doesn't have an impact. Neither does voting for Trump or Clinton. Your vote means *nothing* in terms of electing someone. EVEN IN A SWING STATE. If you're so lucky, your odds go from about 1 in 10,000,000,000 to 1 in 10,000,000.
Local elections are the most important to vote in. Then it might matter.
As long as we have first-past-the-post, winner-take-all elections, it is one's rational self-interest to vote strategically against the party they least want to win, rather than for the party they most want to win.
If people continue to vote strategically like you suggest, what incentive do the politicians have to reform our voting system? I can see it now.
"Mrs. Clinton, I am voting for you solely because your opponent is so terrible. But I warn you, if you don't push hard for some sort of ranked choice voting system in the next election I will....still vote for you because your opponent is still terrible."
Judging from their actions, the Democrats and Republicans would rather lose an election than give people the ability to vote their conscience and case a non-spoiler vote minor parties. In 1992 and 1996 Perot split the vote giving Clinton a win. In 2000, Nader's absence would have likely produced a Gore victory. So both parties have been burned by this, but they aren't exactly lining up to change the system. The duopoly has more benefits for them long-term. They aren't going to do it.
The only way to get it done would be by citizen initiative in the states that allow for it. And even then, both the Democrats and Republicans will come out against it; the law will be easily defeated. We will never be rid of this voting system until it regularly spoils a victory for the same party multiple times and the determine they're better off with it than without it.
Now, now. I've been told time and time again that the efficient markets hypothesis is true, and anyone who says otherwise simply doesn't understand economics.
Yes, what's good for the goose is good for the gander, after all.
My employer pays out 2 weeks of severance if they fire someone. So I think it's fair to give 2 weeks notice to them. If they didn't, it would depend on the circumstances if I gave leave or not.
Mine were divided into lines, with each line having a number of words equal to the line's number in the fibonacci sequence. I think the last line was 89 words.
1) They're expensive as all fuck. I had to take out a ton of student loans and now have a lot of debt. I'm comfortable, but even on my and my wife's salary, having a kid would make us considerably less comfortable.
2) I don't want the responsibility. I like being able to go to a concert or sporting event on a snap decision instead of having to worry about who might watch my kid or having to take them with me.
I live in a swing state (Ohio) and my vote is worthless too. The only way it truly matters is if my vote gives a candidate a plurality of the vote in my state AND my state's electoral votes are required for that candidate to win.
If I go out and vote for Hillary Clinton, the only thing that changes is that Hillary Clinton has one extra vote that she wouldn't have had if I did not vote for her.
The Open Source folks are generally about it being a better development model. On a long enough timeline Open Source software will outperform proprietary software. It will become the best tool for the job.
Free Software advocates are more like what you describe. RMS has said on many occasions his goal is not technical superiority, but freedom (as he defines it). He screams bloody murder that proprietary software is morally and ethically wrong, but he's not really concerned if that retards its adoption. He's not interested in using or recommending proprietary software even if it "helps the cause" at the end of the day.
Sure, but the main builder of roads is the government. And if we're going to build more roads, we'll need more spending on roads, which means more taxes. People do not like taxes.
I find that people would rather spend hundreds of dollars per year in wasted gas/time in traffic than see their taxes go up by half that amount.
Also, if the government gives me $30,000/year but I have to work at some boring, back breaking job 40 hours/week to make $32,000/year then why the hell shouldn't I just sit home and play video games?
Because if you work the back-breaking job you'll have $62,000/yr rather than the $30,000.
$30,000 is higher than most think it should be. I think it should be just about enough to keep you alive. But if the government gave me $10k/yr, I'm not quitting my job, that's for sure. I want to sit at home and play video games as much as the next guy, but I want to be able to do more than that, too.
Slashdot Mirror
Heh. For Debian, I think they're almost ready to move to the 3.x series. Maybe. In a few years.
That was sarcasm. I use Debian and love it.
No, there isn't. Except there's a lot of HR departments out there that believe there *is* something magical about that paper.
No one ever got fired for buying IBM just as no one ever got fired for insisting on the magical piece of paper.
This has pissed me off to no end.
Remember when everyone and their dad had a chat client that used XMPP? Now it's all completely balkanized, with each client using a different protocol. I'm expected to have Hangouts, Facebook Messenger, WhatsApp, and a few dozen other ones now. No. I refuse to.
Although more to your point, Duo apparently uses the QUIC protocol which is open. Now that's just for the connection piece. Who knows what they're using for the data protocol.
Sold new car, I'm sure.
My previous car cost about $7k. Wake me up when I can get one for about that much. Don't get me wrong -- I'm excited to see what EVs can do, but I'm not in the market for one unless they're under $10k.
And when the HR department sees that they have no degree from an accredited school?
Exactly this.
I get tired of hearing that $municipality has given a particular vendor a monopoly on cable TV/Internet. It simply isn't true. This has been illegal for 20 years, but still the myth persists.
It adds a single place that I can get push updates from people I'd like to get updates from. That's all. Maybe that's lazy. According to the recent articles, that makes me smart!
If you'd rather not use it and use other methods, that's fine by me. But don't get all "oh, your life would be so much better without it". I'm not here to tell you what you're missing out on. Apparently nothing! You're not hurting anyone's feelings by not using it, but apparently I'm causing you a lot of grief by using it.
Parallel construction. They might still be able to figure it out anyway.
Of course it doesn't have an impact. Neither does voting for Trump or Clinton. Your vote means *nothing* in terms of electing someone. EVEN IN A SWING STATE. If you're so lucky, your odds go from about 1 in 10,000,000,000 to 1 in 10,000,000.
Local elections are the most important to vote in. Then it might matter.
If people continue to vote strategically like you suggest, what incentive do the politicians have to reform our voting system? I can see it now.
"Mrs. Clinton, I am voting for you solely because your opponent is so terrible. But I warn you, if you don't push hard for some sort of ranked choice voting system in the next election I will....still vote for you because your opponent is still terrible."
Judging from their actions, the Democrats and Republicans would rather lose an election than give people the ability to vote their conscience and case a non-spoiler vote minor parties. In 1992 and 1996 Perot split the vote giving Clinton a win. In 2000, Nader's absence would have likely produced a Gore victory. So both parties have been burned by this, but they aren't exactly lining up to change the system. The duopoly has more benefits for them long-term. They aren't going to do it.
The only way to get it done would be by citizen initiative in the states that allow for it. And even then, both the Democrats and Republicans will come out against it; the law will be easily defeated. We will never be rid of this voting system until it regularly spoils a victory for the same party multiple times and the determine they're better off with it than without it.
If 39% is theft, I'd hate to see what you would have called the 91% tax rate we had in the 50s.
Now, now. I've been told time and time again that the efficient markets hypothesis is true, and anyone who says otherwise simply doesn't understand economics.
Well when you throw in with a guy who wants to exclude people from the country based on their religion, I think you lose the libertarian moniker.
Depending on where you live, the farthest left candidate on the ballot is probably Gloria La Riva of the Party of Socialism and Liberation.
The other half of that is that the assholes who vote for a racist fuckbag like Trump deserve to live in the country of their own making.
I have a 1500 sq. ft. house that is $800/mo including escrow and PMI. My commute is 5 minutes.
My salary would probably have to quintuple before I'd even consider going to SV for work.
And I would go as far as to say they are fully aware of how their systems of government and policing work. They simply don't like it.
Yes, what's good for the goose is good for the gander, after all.
My employer pays out 2 weeks of severance if they fire someone. So I think it's fair to give 2 weeks notice to them. If they didn't, it would depend on the circumstances if I gave leave or not.
Mine were divided into lines, with each line having a number of words equal to the line's number in the fibonacci sequence. I think the last line was 89 words.
For me at least:
1) They're expensive as all fuck. I had to take out a ton of student loans and now have a lot of debt. I'm comfortable, but even on my and my wife's salary, having a kid would make us considerably less comfortable.
2) I don't want the responsibility. I like being able to go to a concert or sporting event on a snap decision instead of having to worry about who might watch my kid or having to take them with me.
I live in a swing state (Ohio) and my vote is worthless too. The only way it truly matters is if my vote gives a candidate a plurality of the vote in my state AND my state's electoral votes are required for that candidate to win.
If I go out and vote for Hillary Clinton, the only thing that changes is that Hillary Clinton has one extra vote that she wouldn't have had if I did not vote for her.
The Open Source folks are generally about it being a better development model. On a long enough timeline Open Source software will outperform proprietary software. It will become the best tool for the job.
Free Software advocates are more like what you describe. RMS has said on many occasions his goal is not technical superiority, but freedom (as he defines it). He screams bloody murder that proprietary software is morally and ethically wrong, but he's not really concerned if that retards its adoption. He's not interested in using or recommending proprietary software even if it "helps the cause" at the end of the day.
Sure, but the main builder of roads is the government. And if we're going to build more roads, we'll need more spending on roads, which means more taxes. People do not like taxes.
I find that people would rather spend hundreds of dollars per year in wasted gas/time in traffic than see their taxes go up by half that amount.
Also, if the government gives me $30,000/year but I have to work at some boring, back breaking job 40 hours/week to make $32,000/year then why the hell shouldn't I just sit home and play video games?
Because if you work the back-breaking job you'll have $62,000/yr rather than the $30,000.
$30,000 is higher than most think it should be. I think it should be just about enough to keep you alive. But if the government gave me $10k/yr, I'm not quitting my job, that's for sure. I want to sit at home and play video games as much as the next guy, but I want to be able to do more than that, too.
See also the people who think faxes are inherently more secure than email attachments.