First, I never stretch things across both monitors (they are different sizes and resolutions).
I do, however, keep palletes on my left monitor and the workspace on the right monitor, and in programs like Photoshop or Dreamweaver that makes a huge difference.
Second, it is far harder to pay attention to multiple workspaces than it is to pay attention to multiple monitors (I've tried it both ways). There is simply no comparison. And yes, using multiple monitors takes a few days or a week to get used to, but I know of no one that has used multiple monitors extensively that wants to go back to just one.
It is also really nice to have your chat window open on one monitor, and be working on the other. You can glance at the reply and be back working in an instant. I also drag things I'm monitoring off to the side (burning a CD, copying files, downloading, etc) so I can monitor them at a glance but they aren't in the way.
If I had the money I'd get a third monitor right now.
I'm quite certain my eyesight degraded worse and faster the longer I used a CRT. As soon as I switched to all LCD's, my prescription hasn't changed in 3 years.
I also like the crisp, clear text.
Get good quality LCD's and you'll love them.
I haven't gone so far as dual DVI yet (due to cost), but that is what I'd ultimately like.
Re:Movies while working are newsworthy & produ
on
A Dual Monitor Experiment
·
· Score: 4, Informative
I find at certain tasks I am FAR more productive with dual monitors.
When I have a lot of data manipulation to do it is very advantageous to have one document open on each monitor. Copying and pasting is simple, and doesn't involve switching between programs. They are both open and visible at once, just copy from one and paste to the other.
I do think that sacrificing an increase in productivity (the personal tendency to watch a DVD on the other monitor aside) to save $1 a month is very short sighted.
With LCD's (very low power consumption) that is far less of an issue.
Several studies have shown at least a double digit increase in real world productivity. My own experience would suppport that.
Bush did look backwards: 11 years backwards to the war his daddy started, and he as the fortunate son felt obliged to finish.
Iraq was and is far from our biggest threat. The Saudi's still openly support terrorism. Iran has nukes. North Korea has nukes. Bangladesh is a haven for terrorists.
But Bush chose Iraq.
As for Afghanistan, I'm going off of recent news reports, and sitting down for hours talking with soldiers that had just got back from there and had hundreds of photos they had taken. First hand.
And speaking of pulling things out of your sphincter, the majority of military polled IN IRAQ were critical of Bush, not supportive. These are people on the ground, and in the know.
I hope I meet the lady who did the talking for that video so I can pimp slap her! The way she talked just really ground on my ears for some reason.
And what was up with showing the distance between the eye in metric (50cm) and the width of the screen in standard (10 inches). Pick a camp and stay in it.
While on the topic, I wish America would get with the picture and switch to metric already... standard isn't so, well, standard.
Oh, I don't know, Instant Runoff Voting would have kept Nader votes from affecting the outcome of the 2000 election, so Gore would be our president instead of the current prat we're stuck with.
I personally would prefer IRV to the electoral college (particularly where the electorates are individuals who can cast their votes as they choose, regardless of how the majority of their state votes).
But if there is a better voting system that has any chance of gaining momentum in the U.S., I'm ready to hear about it.
Why create code that distorts the voting results, Diebold has already done it.
My favorite story was a county in Pennsylvania (if I remember correctly, it's in this months Readers Digest) where the electronic voting machine correctly counted all 144,000 votes. Except there were only 19,000 registered voters in the entire county.
We're screwed in this election. It is going to make the 2000 Florida crap look like a cakewalk.
If Iraq wasn't involved, why in the hell did we attack them right in the middle of our real war on terror? Because Bush couldn't find the real terrorists, and had do to something to look like a president. The fact that he was going after a Bush family enemy that tried to kill his father was a big bonus, too.
But Iraq had zero responsibility for 9/11 and almost zero chance of causing another 9/11. Bush knew that then. Iraq was a deception and a distraction.
It has cost America far more than it has given us, and we are exactly 0% safer today from Iraq than we were on 9/11. They weren't a threat then, they aren't now.
What Iraq has become is a breeding ground worldwide for hatred against America. Ironically, Iraq was giving what America desperately needs: regime change.
Was Saddam an "evil-doer"? Sure. Was he a threat? No!
If you want to look at the real effect the war in Iraq had, you just have to look at the before and after pictures of America:
United vs. Divided. Posed to defend ourselves vs. Spread thin in the world Focused on terrorism vs. Distracted Absolutely surrounded by supportive allies vs. Public enemy number 1 in the world
Good job, Bush.
And Afghanistan, maybe 5% of that country is a democracy, the other 95% is a haven to terrorists, run by warlords, and one giant greenhouse for opium. Bush takes a few pictures and soundbites, and wants us to ignore everything else we see on TV and hear from those coming back from military service there.
And on the environment, there is simply too much crap coming out of Bush's mouth to refute it all. Sadly, the environment simply isn't a major issue in this election.
We ignore the facts on the environment to our own peril. Bush made promise after promise of clean fuels and freedom from dependence on foreign oil while he was running in 2000. But the first thing he did as president was to gut funding for hydrogen research, and gas prices are as high as they've ever been.
Committed? It appears (from 3.5 years of his actions, which speak way louder than his words and cheesy grins) the only thing Bush is committed to is the Bush Family Holy War against Saddam Hussein (personally, not Iraq) and turning all power (control and money) in America over to huge corporations and the government. Over and over and over again Bush has sided with big business, and time and time again the losers are the American taxpayers, citizens, Constitution, and the environment.
Conservative? I thought it was the conservatives we could trust not to change the Constitution and take away our rights. I thought it was the conservatives that believed in government "of the people, by the people, for the people", not "of the big business, by the big business, for the big business". But it just seems Bush is incapable of saying no to any lobbyist he meets (most of which it appears he immediately adds to his staff), only to fire later when he needs a fall guy.
Christian? Well, that's between him and his God. But the values he talks about with his words, and those he talks about with his actions and policies aren't even cousins. No relation at all.
"kicking the evil-doers @sses"? Well, if he really cared about fighting terrorism, he would have fought terrorism. But by 2:00 PM on September 11th, 2001 he had pinned the attacks on Iraq, without evidence or reason, and never once wavered from that position. Anyone in his administration that pointed out evidence to the contrary has been replaced.
Meanwhile, only a small corner of Afghanistan is even remotely in our control, we have pulled out all of our troops but just enough to say we're still there (but far from enough to be effective), and we have Saddam in custody, and Osama is no where to be found. Iraq is now a breeding ground for terrorism, and Al Qeada the movement is now bigger than Al Qeada the group could have ever dreamed. The best thing we could have done to strengthen the terrorists numbers and resolve was to attack Iraq how and when we did. We are weaker for it (spread more thinly with fewer allies, and far less unity as a nation).
Gore definitely blew it by showing up to each of the 3 debates as a totally different person, but he was far from delusional.
The worst that can be said of Gore was his comment about "creating the Internet", which was very effectively (and falsely) represented as "inventing" the Internet (which is not what he said or implied).
Bush spin wins again.
Gore's exact words were: "During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet."
And history does indeed show that he was the politician that took the initiative to fund and support the creation of the Internet. He had nothing to do with the invention of the Internet, it's technical details, specifications, or protocols. Nor did he ever claim to. But he WAS fundamental in getting it funded. And if you take away that funding you take away the Internet as we know it, or at least prolong its creation until someone else comes along and does exactly what Gore did: get the U.S. government to pay for its creation.
So, to answer your question, yes, I would happily go back in time and give my vote to Gore knowing what I know about Bush. And Gore, for that matter.
I'd love to vote for Badnarik. And while it isn't a wasted vote, it is an ineffective vote when your sole goal is to get Bush out of office.
I'd love a system where you could vote 3 times in priority. If your first candidate wins, your vote stays with him and helps him win. If he doesn't have a chance, then your vote goes to your second choice, etc.
But, that isn't the way it is.
My vote for Badnarik really doesn't have a chance of affecting the outcome of this election. But my vote for Kerry (the lesser of two evils), does.
I base my personal opinion on no one elses opinion. I base my opinion on scientific data that I see first hand, not someone elses interpretation of said data.
For instance, if you see satellite images of the ice shelves in the Antarctic and Greenland from the 70's and compare them to today, the change is VERY alarming. It is pretty much a 40% reduction across the board.
The reason this is the most alarming is that it is accelerating, and that it will, without a doubt, reach a point of critical mass where it is too late to stop. The ice shelves act as retaining walls, holding back a flood of looser snow and ice that very quickly melts when it hits the ocean (unlike the ice shelves themselves). There is wide agreement (it's just a matter of simple math) that when (not if, at the rate we're going) the ice shelves are gone and that looser snow and ice joins the ocean, it will raise sea level by 23 feet.
Now I live at 3,000 feet, so what do I care if the ocean raises by 23 feet and all the lawyers get washed into the sea?
Except that at the same time the ocean temperature changes drastically, very rapidly changing EVERYTHING we depend on in the ocean from food to weather (you think this hurricane season was bad!). Just as bad, the salinity in the ocean drops overnight (in the scheme of things), and any animal in the ocean that can't cope just dies.
There's a lot more, but you don't buy any of this environmentalist crap anyway, so I'll save my breath.
By the way, I'd vote Libertarian in a heartbeat if the guy had a snowballs chance in hel... Antarctica.
I do have MANY otherwise intelligent friends who are die-hard Republicans. I take a LOT of crap for not liking Bush.
It all boils down to a handful of things:
1. They bite on everything Bush says. Hook, line, and sinker.
2. Almost without exception they are die hard Rush Limbaugh fans.
3. Politics is, unfortunately, a popularity contest. And on the surface, Bush appears to be a committed, conservative Christian who is really kicking the evil-doers @sses and loves America so much it hurts.
I must say, I am quite dissappointed in America (and particularly Republicans and Republican politicians) right now. Brainless sponges, the lot of them.
You know, it amazes me how narrow-minded people are with respect to politics.
Is it so hard to believe that a true Republican could despise Bush? Or prefer Gore over Bush?
1. Bush is a blubbering idiot. If he earned his college degree I'll eat my keyboard. Gore on the otherhand is really very intelligent, and quite wise to boot.
2. During the 2000 election Bush promised repeatedly to support the environment. All talk. Gore, on the other hand, has proven repeatedly that he has a lifelong commitment to the environment. And I'm not talking about typical environmentalists with their "damn humans" attitude, I mean being able to recognize clear (VERY clear) scientific trends. All Bush can do is bend America over for the big companies (oil, logging, and many, many others) to have their way with us.
3. Gore never would have gone storming blindly into Iraq, cowboy style, guns a'blazing, accomplishing jack crap, costing over 1,000 U.S. soldiers their lives, and 25,000+ others severely wounded, while sticking the American taxpayer with a $200 Billion bill ($120 Billion actually spent, another $80 already committed (ie. spent)). Contrast this with the first Iraq war where we actually did accomplish something (liberate Kuwait), earned great praise from the world, strengthened America and our pride in our soldiers, and only cost the American taxpayer $5 Billion in the end.
I could go on all night. Bush is a frad. He parades himself as a conservative Christian committed to ridding the world of all evil. Ha! Jokes on us. The only thing he's ridding us of is our money, which is all going to huge mega-corporations like Halliburton.
4 more years of this crap and America will never be the same, and definitely for the worse!
In conjunction with a Space Elevator this would be a great way to get rid of our radioactive waste.
Fill a large container with radioactive waste, send it up the elevator, tow / launch it to the nearest lagrange point, and send it down the superhighway.
When it gets to it's exit, thrusters fire and it flies directly into the sun. No more radioactive waste.
I agree whole-heartedly with the underlying premise of your post:
Diversify!
It is far better to make $10k a year each from 4 places, than $40k a year from 1 place.
You are exposed to far more people, more opportunities, get a chance to find out what you like and don't like, and get to learn a lot more.
And you're far more likely not to be a part of a huge corporation. The conglomeration of American business into a handful of mega-corporations will come back to bite us on the @ss big time!
I'm a Republican too, but I despise Bush. He claims to be conservative but is wholesaling America to the highest bidder.
I really wish I could take back my vote in 2000 and give it to Gore.
Bush is great if you're rich, own a major oil or logging company, like to breathe CO2, or look forward to the 23 rise on sea level.
If you're the average Joe in the U.S. that doesn't buy into the whole Saddam = Terrorism garbage, then Bush eats it. I'm sick to death of his cheesy grin and empty rhetoric.
I think that $52k vs. $60k is the difference when both programmers are located in the United States, and the 40% pay cut is when the coder is located in India.
H-1B in the U.S. make largely what U.S. citizens make.
Show me the laws on "zombied machines" and "DDOSing"
For zombied machines it's called the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003:
`Sec. 1037. Fraud and related activity in connection with electronic mail
`(a) IN GENERAL- Whoever, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, knowingly--
`(1) accesses a protected computer without authorization, and intentionally initiates the transmission of multiple commercial electronic mail messages from or through such computer,
`(2) uses a protected computer to relay or retransmit multiple commercial electronic mail messages, with the intent to deceive or mislead recipients, or any Internet access service, as to the origin of such messages,
`(3) materially falsifies header information in multiple commercial electronic mail messages and intentionally initiates the transmission of such messages,
`(4) registers, using information that materially falsifies the identity of the actual registrant, for five or more electronic mail accounts or online user accounts or two or more domain names, and intentionally initiates the transmission of multiple commercial electronic mail messages from any combination of such accounts or domain names, or
`(5) falsely represents oneself to be the registrant or the legitimate successor in interest to the registrant of 5 or more Internet Protocol addresses, and intentionally initiates the transmission of multiple commercial electronic mail messages from such addresses,
or conspires to do so, shall be punished as provided in subsection (b).
As for DDoS'ing being illegal, I'm rather certain it is both illegal and prosecutable, but isn't as clear cut and easy to find as the CAN-SPAM Act and I've got more to do today than look that up.
Xerox (and others, I'm sure) have done this for quite some time.
About 5 or 6 years ago a friend that owned a print shop and used a Xerox color laser printer told me about Xerox imprinting every print with a watermark that could be decoded to obtain the serial number of the actual machine used in the printing.
The watermark was undetectable to the human eye and didn't alter the presentation of the image.
They did this at the behest of the government because it's so easy to print money on these things. This way they can track the money back to the machine via the serial number.
I'm saying that nothing in and of itself (written language, spoken language, source code) is inherently free speech, without considering the legality of the content.
You can't say, or write, or write a program to facilitate a death threat on the president of the United States. So it's clear that free speech can be preempted due to the content of the speech (or writing or source code).
So if oral speech can't in and of itself be completely, totally, and without restriction "free", why should source code or other writings enjoy that benefit?
So called "free speech" does not supercede every other law or right.
Look, I don't give a rats rear axle that the guys a good programmer. Good for him.
But if he can't make a good living as a coder, he should go out and get a job to pay his rent.
The argument you are making is like saying, "Hey, I'm really good at repo-ing cars, but since there aren't any jobs doing that, I'm going to go steal cars instead."
He had plenty of other ways to pay his rent. He crossed the line. He should do time.
Slashdot Mirror
First, I never stretch things across both monitors (they are different sizes and resolutions).
I do, however, keep palletes on my left monitor and the workspace on the right monitor, and in programs like Photoshop or Dreamweaver that makes a huge difference.
Second, it is far harder to pay attention to multiple workspaces than it is to pay attention to multiple monitors (I've tried it both ways). There is simply no comparison. And yes, using multiple monitors takes a few days or a week to get used to, but I know of no one that has used multiple monitors extensively that wants to go back to just one.
It is also really nice to have your chat window open on one monitor, and be working on the other. You can glance at the reply and be back working in an instant. I also drag things I'm monitoring off to the side (burning a CD, copying files, downloading, etc) so I can monitor them at a glance but they aren't in the way.
If I had the money I'd get a third monitor right now.
For me it's LCD's all the way.
I'm quite certain my eyesight degraded worse and faster the longer I used a CRT. As soon as I switched to all LCD's, my prescription hasn't changed in 3 years.
I also like the crisp, clear text.
Get good quality LCD's and you'll love them.
I haven't gone so far as dual DVI yet (due to cost), but that is what I'd ultimately like.
I find at certain tasks I am FAR more productive with dual monitors.
When I have a lot of data manipulation to do it is very advantageous to have one document open on each monitor. Copying and pasting is simple, and doesn't involve switching between programs. They are both open and visible at once, just copy from one and paste to the other.
I do think that sacrificing an increase in productivity (the personal tendency to watch a DVD on the other monitor aside) to save $1 a month is very short sighted.
With LCD's (very low power consumption) that is far less of an issue.
Several studies have shown at least a double digit increase in real world productivity. My own experience would suppport that.
Bush did look backwards: 11 years backwards to the war his daddy started, and he as the fortunate son felt obliged to finish.
Iraq was and is far from our biggest threat. The Saudi's still openly support terrorism. Iran has nukes. North Korea has nukes. Bangladesh is a haven for terrorists.
But Bush chose Iraq.
As for Afghanistan, I'm going off of recent news reports, and sitting down for hours talking with soldiers that had just got back from there and had hundreds of photos they had taken. First hand.
And speaking of pulling things out of your sphincter, the majority of military polled IN IRAQ were critical of Bush, not supportive. These are people on the ground, and in the know.
I hope I meet the lady who did the talking for that video so I can pimp slap her! The way she talked just really ground on my ears for some reason.
And what was up with showing the distance between the eye in metric (50cm) and the width of the screen in standard (10 inches). Pick a camp and stay in it.
While on the topic, I wish America would get with the picture and switch to metric already... standard isn't so, well, standard.
....and don't take this post too seriously.....
Glad you included that part. You saved me 15 minutes of typing about how it couldn't possibly hurt us in the long run...
Oh, I don't know, Instant Runoff Voting would have kept Nader votes from affecting the outcome of the 2000 election, so Gore would be our president instead of the current prat we're stuck with.
I personally would prefer IRV to the electoral college (particularly where the electorates are individuals who can cast their votes as they choose, regardless of how the majority of their state votes).
But if there is a better voting system that has any chance of gaining momentum in the U.S., I'm ready to hear about it.
Why create code that distorts the voting results, Diebold has already done it.
My favorite story was a county in Pennsylvania (if I remember correctly, it's in this months Readers Digest) where the electronic voting machine correctly counted all 144,000 votes. Except there were only 19,000 registered voters in the entire county.
We're screwed in this election. It is going to make the 2000 Florida crap look like a cakewalk.
Where to even start?!?!?
If Iraq wasn't involved, why in the hell did we attack them right in the middle of our real war on terror? Because Bush couldn't find the real terrorists, and had do to something to look like a president. The fact that he was going after a Bush family enemy that tried to kill his father was a big bonus, too.
But Iraq had zero responsibility for 9/11 and almost zero chance of causing another 9/11. Bush knew that then. Iraq was a deception and a distraction.
It has cost America far more than it has given us, and we are exactly 0% safer today from Iraq than we were on 9/11. They weren't a threat then, they aren't now.
What Iraq has become is a breeding ground worldwide for hatred against America. Ironically, Iraq was giving what America desperately needs: regime change.
Was Saddam an "evil-doer"? Sure. Was he a threat? No!
If you want to look at the real effect the war in Iraq had, you just have to look at the before and after pictures of America:
United vs. Divided.
Posed to defend ourselves vs. Spread thin in the world
Focused on terrorism vs. Distracted
Absolutely surrounded by supportive allies vs. Public enemy number 1 in the world
Good job, Bush.
And Afghanistan, maybe 5% of that country is a democracy, the other 95% is a haven to terrorists, run by warlords, and one giant greenhouse for opium. Bush takes a few pictures and soundbites, and wants us to ignore everything else we see on TV and hear from those coming back from military service there.
And on the environment, there is simply too much crap coming out of Bush's mouth to refute it all. Sadly, the environment simply isn't a major issue in this election.
We ignore the facts on the environment to our own peril. Bush made promise after promise of clean fuels and freedom from dependence on foreign oil while he was running in 2000. But the first thing he did as president was to gut funding for hydrogen research, and gas prices are as high as they've ever been.
Once again, thanks George.
Have you evidence to the contrary?
Only 3.5 years worth.
Committed? It appears (from 3.5 years of his actions, which speak way louder than his words and cheesy grins) the only thing Bush is committed to is the Bush Family Holy War against Saddam Hussein (personally, not Iraq) and turning all power (control and money) in America over to huge corporations and the government. Over and over and over again Bush has sided with big business, and time and time again the losers are the American taxpayers, citizens, Constitution, and the environment.
Conservative? I thought it was the conservatives we could trust not to change the Constitution and take away our rights. I thought it was the conservatives that believed in government "of the people, by the people, for the people", not "of the big business, by the big business, for the big business". But it just seems Bush is incapable of saying no to any lobbyist he meets (most of which it appears he immediately adds to his staff), only to fire later when he needs a fall guy.
Christian? Well, that's between him and his God. But the values he talks about with his words, and those he talks about with his actions and policies aren't even cousins. No relation at all.
"kicking the evil-doers @sses"? Well, if he really cared about fighting terrorism, he would have fought terrorism. But by 2:00 PM on September 11th, 2001 he had pinned the attacks on Iraq, without evidence or reason, and never once wavered from that position. Anyone in his administration that pointed out evidence to the contrary has been replaced.
Meanwhile, only a small corner of Afghanistan is even remotely in our control, we have pulled out all of our troops but just enough to say we're still there (but far from enough to be effective), and we have Saddam in custody, and Osama is no where to be found. Iraq is now a breeding ground for terrorism, and Al Qeada the movement is now bigger than Al Qeada the group could have ever dreamed. The best thing we could have done to strengthen the terrorists numbers and resolve was to attack Iraq how and when we did. We are weaker for it (spread more thinly with fewer allies, and far less unity as a nation).
The W is for weenie.
Gore definitely blew it by showing up to each of the 3 debates as a totally different person, but he was far from delusional.
The worst that can be said of Gore was his comment about "creating the Internet", which was very effectively (and falsely) represented as "inventing" the Internet (which is not what he said or implied).
Bush spin wins again.
Gore's exact words were: "During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet."
And history does indeed show that he was the politician that took the initiative to fund and support the creation of the Internet. He had nothing to do with the invention of the Internet, it's technical details, specifications, or protocols. Nor did he ever claim to. But he WAS fundamental in getting it funded. And if you take away that funding you take away the Internet as we know it, or at least prolong its creation until someone else comes along and does exactly what Gore did: get the U.S. government to pay for its creation.
So, to answer your question, yes, I would happily go back in time and give my vote to Gore knowing what I know about Bush. And Gore, for that matter.
I'd love to vote for Badnarik. And while it isn't a wasted vote, it is an ineffective vote when your sole goal is to get Bush out of office.
I'd love a system where you could vote 3 times in priority. If your first candidate wins, your vote stays with him and helps him win. If he doesn't have a chance, then your vote goes to your second choice, etc.
But, that isn't the way it is.
My vote for Badnarik really doesn't have a chance of affecting the outcome of this election. But my vote for Kerry (the lesser of two evils), does.
No offense taken.
I base my personal opinion on no one elses opinion. I base my opinion on scientific data that I see first hand, not someone elses interpretation of said data.
For instance, if you see satellite images of the ice shelves in the Antarctic and Greenland from the 70's and compare them to today, the change is VERY alarming. It is pretty much a 40% reduction across the board.
The reason this is the most alarming is that it is accelerating, and that it will, without a doubt, reach a point of critical mass where it is too late to stop. The ice shelves act as retaining walls, holding back a flood of looser snow and ice that very quickly melts when it hits the ocean (unlike the ice shelves themselves). There is wide agreement (it's just a matter of simple math) that when (not if, at the rate we're going) the ice shelves are gone and that looser snow and ice joins the ocean, it will raise sea level by 23 feet.
Now I live at 3,000 feet, so what do I care if the ocean raises by 23 feet and all the lawyers get washed into the sea?
Except that at the same time the ocean temperature changes drastically, very rapidly changing EVERYTHING we depend on in the ocean from food to weather (you think this hurricane season was bad!). Just as bad, the salinity in the ocean drops overnight (in the scheme of things), and any animal in the ocean that can't cope just dies.
There's a lot more, but you don't buy any of this environmentalist crap anyway, so I'll save my breath.
By the way, I'd vote Libertarian in a heartbeat if the guy had a snowballs chance in hel... Antarctica.
I do have MANY otherwise intelligent friends who are die-hard Republicans. I take a LOT of crap for not liking Bush.
It all boils down to a handful of things:
1. They bite on everything Bush says. Hook, line, and sinker.
2. Almost without exception they are die hard Rush Limbaugh fans.
3. Politics is, unfortunately, a popularity contest. And on the surface, Bush appears to be a committed, conservative Christian who is really kicking the evil-doers @sses and loves America so much it hurts.
I must say, I am quite dissappointed in America (and particularly Republicans and Republican politicians) right now. Brainless sponges, the lot of them.
You know, it amazes me how narrow-minded people are with respect to politics.
Is it so hard to believe that a true Republican could despise Bush? Or prefer Gore over Bush?
1. Bush is a blubbering idiot. If he earned his college degree I'll eat my keyboard. Gore on the otherhand is really very intelligent, and quite wise to boot.
2. During the 2000 election Bush promised repeatedly to support the environment. All talk. Gore, on the other hand, has proven repeatedly that he has a lifelong commitment to the environment. And I'm not talking about typical environmentalists with their "damn humans" attitude, I mean being able to recognize clear (VERY clear) scientific trends. All Bush can do is bend America over for the big companies (oil, logging, and many, many others) to have their way with us.
3. Gore never would have gone storming blindly into Iraq, cowboy style, guns a'blazing, accomplishing jack crap, costing over 1,000 U.S. soldiers their lives, and 25,000+ others severely wounded, while sticking the American taxpayer with a $200 Billion bill ($120 Billion actually spent, another $80 already committed (ie. spent)). Contrast this with the first Iraq war where we actually did accomplish something (liberate Kuwait), earned great praise from the world, strengthened America and our pride in our soldiers, and only cost the American taxpayer $5 Billion in the end.
I could go on all night. Bush is a frad. He parades himself as a conservative Christian committed to ridding the world of all evil. Ha! Jokes on us. The only thing he's ridding us of is our money, which is all going to huge mega-corporations like Halliburton.
4 more years of this crap and America will never be the same, and definitely for the worse!
In conjunction with a Space Elevator this would be a great way to get rid of our radioactive waste.
Fill a large container with radioactive waste, send it up the elevator, tow / launch it to the nearest lagrange point, and send it down the superhighway.
When it gets to it's exit, thrusters fire and it flies directly into the sun. No more radioactive waste.
I agree whole-heartedly with the underlying premise of your post:
Diversify!
It is far better to make $10k a year each from 4 places, than $40k a year from 1 place.
You are exposed to far more people, more opportunities, get a chance to find out what you like and don't like, and get to learn a lot more.
And you're far more likely not to be a part of a huge corporation. The conglomeration of American business into a handful of mega-corporations will come back to bite us on the @ss big time!
I'm a Republican too, but I despise Bush. He claims to be conservative but is wholesaling America to the highest bidder.
I really wish I could take back my vote in 2000 and give it to Gore.
Bush is great if you're rich, own a major oil or logging company, like to breathe CO2, or look forward to the 23 rise on sea level.
If you're the average Joe in the U.S. that doesn't buy into the whole Saddam = Terrorism garbage, then Bush eats it. I'm sick to death of his cheesy grin and empty rhetoric.
Anyone But Bush
John Kerry is a Douche Bag But I'm Voting For Him Anyway
I think that $52k vs. $60k is the difference when both programmers are located in the United States, and the 40% pay cut is when the coder is located in India.
H-1B in the U.S. make largely what U.S. citizens make.
The jobs overseas are a whole different ballgame.
Show me the laws on "zombied machines" and "DDOSing"
For zombied machines it's called the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003:
`Sec. 1037. Fraud and related activity in connection with electronic mail
`(a) IN GENERAL- Whoever, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, knowingly--
`(1) accesses a protected computer without authorization, and intentionally initiates the transmission of multiple commercial electronic mail messages from or through such computer,
`(2) uses a protected computer to relay or retransmit multiple commercial electronic mail messages, with the intent to deceive or mislead recipients, or any Internet access service, as to the origin of such messages,
`(3) materially falsifies header information in multiple commercial electronic mail messages and intentionally initiates the transmission of such messages,
`(4) registers, using information that materially falsifies the identity of the actual registrant, for five or more electronic mail accounts or online user accounts or two or more domain names, and intentionally initiates the transmission of multiple commercial electronic mail messages from any combination of such accounts or domain names, or
`(5) falsely represents oneself to be the registrant or the legitimate successor in interest to the registrant of 5 or more Internet Protocol addresses, and intentionally initiates the transmission of multiple commercial electronic mail messages from such addresses,
or conspires to do so, shall be punished as provided in subsection (b).
As for DDoS'ing being illegal, I'm rather certain it is both illegal and prosecutable, but isn't as clear cut and easy to find as the CAN-SPAM Act and I've got more to do today than look that up.
Xerox (and others, I'm sure) have done this for quite some time.
About 5 or 6 years ago a friend that owned a print shop and used a Xerox color laser printer told me about Xerox imprinting every print with a watermark that could be decoded to obtain the serial number of the actual machine used in the printing.
The watermark was undetectable to the human eye and didn't alter the presentation of the image.
They did this at the behest of the government because it's so easy to print money on these things. This way they can track the money back to the machine via the serial number.
Find, then the consequences of his free speech source code is that he goes to jail.
Works for me.
I'm saying that nothing in and of itself (written language, spoken language, source code) is inherently free speech, without considering the legality of the content.
You can't say, or write, or write a program to facilitate a death threat on the president of the United States. So it's clear that free speech can be preempted due to the content of the speech (or writing or source code).
So if oral speech can't in and of itself be completely, totally, and without restriction "free", why should source code or other writings enjoy that benefit?
So called "free speech" does not supercede every other law or right.
First, the argument that source code in an of itself is free speech is a steaming pile of crap.
I'm a coder and contributor to open source software. But I don't think anything you write is in an of itself protected free speech.
If I create a 100 page document revealing nuclear secrets and instructions for successfully bringing down a US airliner, is that free speech?
If I create a list of fellow students I intend to kill on Monday, is that free speech?
If I write (and distribute) a program with the express intent of DDoS'ing websites (which is illegal), is that free speech?
If I write (and distribute) a program with the express intent of illegally using zombied machines (which is against federal law) is that free speech?
That is very different than just writing "spam software".
He knowingly crossed the line from free speech to criminal activity (more than once) and needs to be held accountable for that.
*cough* bull crap *cough*
Look, I don't give a rats rear axle that the guys a good programmer. Good for him.
But if he can't make a good living as a coder, he should go out and get a job to pay his rent.
The argument you are making is like saying, "Hey, I'm really good at repo-ing cars, but since there aren't any jobs doing that, I'm going to go steal cars instead."
He had plenty of other ways to pay his rent. He crossed the line. He should do time.