Of course if money is your primary choice, I would suggest Australia.
As someone who thought the same a few years back, I'd highly discourage this as a course of action. In Australia, I made far more money than in my native New Zealand, but it was all eaten up with the ridiculous cost of living. Sure, some places might be cheaper than Sydney, but good luck finding a well paying job outside of Sydney (if you do, grab it - it probably WILL be worth it).
Since moving to Hannover, Germany, my pay stayed around the same or increased slightly and my cost of living went down by more than 50%. I feel significantly better off here than I ever did in Sydney.
My German brother-in-law.... I have no co-pay when I go to the doctor while his is 20 Euro.
What?! Here in Germany, we "co-pay" 10 euro a quarter if we use medical services that quarter. So, if he's sickly and visits the doctor often, he'll be paying 40 euro a year. His prescriptions will cost nothing and additional doctors visits within that quarter will also require no additional "co-pay".
If your brother-in-law really is handing over 20 euro every time he goes to the doctor, you should tell him to read up on the system here; find a new doctor; and report the old one to the authorities.
Over the last two years, I've had a few medical issues. One was an abscess on my stomach that required putting me under; another was headache problems that took me through three different courses of different kinds of pills, a CAT-scan and then an eventual MRI; and one was stomach problems that required a gastroscopy, followed by a course of pills. At no time during any of this did I pay more than the 10 euro per quarter and when I bought aspirin for my headaches (the prescription medication was at no cost).
Yeah I agree, it was a little harsh, and I apologize for that. It's just that since I live in a first world nation on less than €10K a year before taxes I tend to get a bit touchy when people talk about "living lighter for the next 8 years" in regards to €100K purchases.
That is completely understandable. However it's worth remembering that less than €10k is a very small amount to live on in a first world nation. That puts you significantly below the average.
Beyond that, it's also worth remembering that quality of life increases dramatically over a certain point. My "day to day costs" before I met my wife weren't all that different to when I was on half that income; just the extra that I had could go on "toys" like computer equipment and cars and so on. Now I'm married and have a daughter, but the tax system here in Germany is quite favourable for my situation (my tax went from around 50% to around 33% just by getting married) so despite the extra costs with my new situation, it's not as detrimental as it could've been (financially... nothing compares to having a loving wife and daughter of course; so even if I had been significantly worse off financially, I still would've done it).
I am so sorry for claiming you were either rich or full of shit, it's obvious to me now that you are indeed just "above average".
No problem - I remember well being in a pretty bad situation myself. I grew up in a poor family; then after leaving home at 16 managed on my own to make quite a lot by the time I was 21. However by 23, I'd blown it all on "the high life" and was burned out. I was poor for the next 5 years or so, and then slowly made my way up from "pretty crap" wages through to where I am now. It's really only now in my early 30s that I feel I'm really starting to get back on my feet properly.
I really hope for you that you can get yourself out of the situation you're in as well.
On an unrelated note my current car is a pair of €200 shoes. I guess that's maybe six months of savings, so to invest as wisely as you in my transportation I should then aim for six times that?
I don't have any shoes worth anywhere near that amount myself - my most expensive pair was around €50. But then again, my shoes aren't my transportation over any kind of longer distances.
As I said though, there's a point where extra income can be used for "play" a bit more. I certainly wouldn't suggest spending 6 months worth of your income on a pair of shoes; but 6 months of income on a car might be reasonable (the one I'm paying off over three years represents around 7 or 8 months income).
You said you paid your current car off in three years, so clearly three years is a good time period for this. Or eight years, meaning 16 times that? I don't know, I'm sure they do make shoes that expensive, but then I'd be going far beyond my needs into the area of choosing style over purpose.
Yes, you really would... which is why I don't suggest that at all...
Your current car was about a third of €100K? Well, mr. above average... You might not be rich or full of shit, but you still buy overpriced cars. That's not an option for most people.
A new car here in Germany costs between €10k and €60k unless you're going for something really special. So, spending €33k on a car is really around the middle of the range. Sure, it was a "brand new car", which I'm aware is a luxury in and of itself - many people only ever buy second hand (whether required to by financial situation or simply because it does financially make much more sense) - but for me it's not just transportation; it's fun (and stress relief from a pretty hectic job and home life) as well.
If you can afford a €100k car, then you are by all means "rich" without any stretch of the imagination. Most people budget quite a lot to afford a car a third of that price. I've got friends who are well off - double income, no kids - who have two cars that together doesn't total €80k, and while they still have money left over they certainly spend most of their income just paying for those cars.
In other words, I suggest you take a step back and re-assess your situation. Congratulation, you are one of the few, one of the privileged, one of the people fortunate enough to be able to come on slashdot and pull numbers out of your ass to make yourself seem special.
Hey, that's a little harsh isn't it? Actually, a €100k car would be something I'd spend 8 or so years paying off. I'm definitely well above average wage, but hardly amongst the elite.
As it is, my current car was around a third of that price; and I paid it off in 3 years (actually, final payment is coming up in a couple of months). Did that reduce my ability to do other stuff? Sure. No good holidays in the last three years and I haven't upgraded my computers in that long either. It's a matter of priorities. If I were to buy a €100k car, I'd be living a lot tighter for the next 8 years, but I'd consider it worth it.
I'm by no means "rich" by any stretch of the imagination and certainly can't afford a full time driver, but as long as these cars come in at under €80k
You do realise that 80k is about three years of average pre-tax salary in the UK, for example?
I never said I wasn't "above average" - just not "rich"...
GoogleDrive will only be affordable (at any time in the next couple decades) to rich people to replace professional, expert drivers. So it has to be better than expert drivers to make the case compelling to people who might actually be able to afford it.
I think you're either vastly overestimating the cost of GoogleDrive or vastly underestimating the cost of hiring someone to drive you around all the time... (or you live in a third-world country where labour such as drivers is cheap).
I'm by no means "rich" by any stretch of the imagination and certainly can't afford a full time driver, but as long as these cars come in at under €80k, I'll happily consider one (I'll go up to €100k if it's also a pure electric, given the price difference between petrol and electricity here)
You pay a high premium on Silk Road, apparently for quality and convenience...from what I've heard it's a hell of a lot more expensive than what these things would cost on the street, so unless these kids are selling at a loss.....
Depends who you buy from and what you buy. But I can say from experience that LSD is around 50% of street price in general. I did get some at around 25% of street price; but it was about 50% the amount of actual LSD per blotter, so I had to take twice as much for the same effect... still works out at 50% of street price though, so I didn't complain too much.
A friend of mine was also pleasantly surprised by the MDMA and cocaine prices (not being my substances of choice though, I couldn't say that with any certainty).
Tobacco and alcohol are the two main ones. Any drug that's less harmful and less addictive than these two should be automatically decriminalized
For reference, that's a LOT of drugs... tobacco (or more specifically, nicotine) is extremely addictive. And alcohol is extremely harmful. A LOT of drugs are less addictive than nicotine and a LOT are less harmful than alcohol.
Or were you meaning "less addictive than alcohol and less harmful than nicotine"?
For the record in advance, I don't smoke pot. I don't enjoy being "slowed down" or not being able to think clearly (for the same reason, I'm very cautious with alcohol as well, and generally avoid it).
What drug can be consumed at a very high rate and not kill? I am betting your thinking of pot.
Personally, I'd love to watch someone TRY to overdose on LSD... 75 micrograms gets most people somewhat tripping; 200 micrograms is a good trip for an experienced user; 500 micrograms gets pretty much anyone to a point where they're unable to function (total loss of ego, awareness of world or self, etc); and the lethal dosage is assumed to be somewhere around 12 milligrams. That is, 24 times the amount that even a serious LSD user (such as myself) would consider extreme.
If you can get studies done by people who have nothing to gain by pot being legal or for it remain illegal you might have a chance. Those groups are the only ones who could deliver a clear unbiased result. Anyone else will have a biased result. All results from the biased groups for either side should be tossed. They have an agenda.
All the talk about alcohol. Anything taken to extremes is bad. I'll say this I have yet to see anyone get addicted to alcohol on the first drink. I have seen first hand and read about people getting addicted to drugs on the first hit. They need that drug after the first hit. I have yet to see someone need a drink after the first drink.
I really recommend that if you want to be taken seriously, you make a distinction between different drugs.
There's a world of difference between, for example, LSD and Meth. Some guy taking a few tabs of acid isn't going to become addicted (actually, since it's a non addictive substance; and a pretty mind altering experience, wanting to do it often is extremely rare, even amongst those who thoroughly enjoy it such as myself). Some guy trying meth with his friends once is also probably not going to get addicted straight away (there's a chance, but so extremely slim, it's not worth counting); but there's a good chance that the enjoyment of it combined with peer pressure in the wrong social circles will lead him to try it a few more times, and then he probably will be addicted (it's a highly addictive drug by comparison to many others).
Or, looking at a more commonly used drug - marijuana. Hate the stuff myself, but its harmful effects are negligible; the abuse possibilities for quantity are low (once you're stoned enough, you tend to just go to sleep on the couch rather than consuming more); and its potential for addiction is also very low (psychological addiction can be quite high, as with anything enjoyable; but physical addiction is pretty hard to cultivate (not impossible, just pretty hard)).
By comparison, those who drink to excess regularly will quite easily become addicted; and kill themselves only slightly slower than meth when doing it. So, looking at these facts, shouldn't we be outlawing alcohol and legalising LSD and marijuana?
No, I don't actually want to outlaw alcohol, but it's hypocritical to talk about the dangers of "drugs" while having no real problem with alcohol and not making a distinction between different kinds of drugs.
Quite simply, alcohol is a dangerous, addictive drug in the same way as heroin, meth and crack cocaine. It's just far more socially acceptable and most people learn to control their use of it. They'd also learn to control use of other hard substances were they legal. The non- or low-addictive and non- to low-harm substances barely need any control at all other than good education about the effects so people don't try and do silly things like operate a motor vehicle while stoned out of their tree.
And as a last note, please read and consider my sig before you reply.
People do put sensitive data on dropbox because the advertising tells them it's safe.
Having never seen any Dropbox advertising anywhere, I couldn't say. I only heard about it because of a friend who used it. If they do advertise this way however, I completely agree that it's deceptive and a bad thing. It won't stop me using it for the way that I do though.
Compared to it's dozens of more able competitors (eg. google drive) it's no more useful.
Well, Dropbox does give me more space for free than Google Drive (5.8GB vs 5GB), but having just installed it as a quick side-by-side comparison, I'd say the usage is indeed basically identical.
Regardless though, the usage is basically identical, but I see no compelling reason for one or the other, so why not just stick with what I'm using rather than switch? I'd say the same to someone using Google Drive when someone tries to convince them to switch to Dropbox.
In that case you may as well just dump the stuff in a directory on a webserver anywhere on the planet.
The problem with dropbox is it pretends to be secure and useful but is instead a pointless polished turd.
I agree it pretends to be secure, but I wouldn't call it "not useful" - just "not useful at what most people seem to want to do with it".
I use DropBox exclusively for family photos. I have a folder shared with my brother, parents and parents-in-law, where we periodically dump new photos of my daughter. Doing so is literally just "copy" in the filesystem.
The interested parties then can browse and copy out of the folder should they choose. At no point do they need to open a browser; remember a special address or username/password combination or anything like that. It's extremely convenient for them. Additionally, my wife can show off photos on her Android phone without ever needing to have considered how to get them on there in the first place - just open the DropBox app, and there's all the pictures.
Now, would I ever point sensitive or important data there? No, of course not. Nor would I ever consider it a "cloud data management solution" or whatever buzzwords people want to throw around. But it IS a useful service for sharing photos and other unimportant/non-sensitive data across a range of platforms with basically no user training required.
Gates vowed revenge for this, and what better way than to take over the world with computers and make the Curiosity rover run off a modified version of Windows Vista.
Thankfully no... VxWorks may not be great at a lot of things, but it's got a proven track record with the rovers...
'People have been thinking about immortality throughout history. We have a deep human need to figure out what happens to us after death,' says John Martin Fischer,
Nothing, You're dead.
Not necessarily. Obviously the religious fairy-tales are just that, i.e. whatever people need to hear to strengthen the meme-infection. But there is room for reincarnation without the religious connotations. Consciousness and life itself are still not understood at all, so there is room for speculation. Obviously, the body (brain) plays a part (for many the dominant part, it seems), but it is not enough to explain what is observable. Still, no need to do "immortality" research, everybody finds out sooner or later what happens. I guess these 5M just show that quite a few rich people live pathetic lives and know it.
Here's an interesting concept... not quite sure if I accept it or not, but it's something which has had me thinking a bit recently.
Assuming the following things:
1) Existence (I hesitate to use the word "universe" given the various theories of multiple "universes") is infinite in either direction, time or both.
2) Randomness exists
3) Consciousness is caused by a specific arrangement of the make-up of our brains and could also be caused by similar specific arrangements of other things
Assumption 1 is very debatable; however certainly not outside the realms of reason. Assumption 2 is, in my understanding, pretty strongly confirmed - although there's still those who'd argue against it. Assumption 3 seems quite logical and reasonable in general.
Assumptions 1 and 2 lead to the idea that anything that can happen eventually will. Adding assumption 3 leads to the idea that after our consciousness stops in our brains (death), it will eventually spring up again somewhere else including all of the memories from our lives before.
It's also worth keeping in mind the idea that your consciousness is only aware of the present - the past is accessed through memories. Therefore it seems quite acceptable to say that there's no fundamental difference to waking up in the morning as a "different consciousness" today than the one you were yesterday whilst still retaining all the same memories versus actually remaining the same consciousness. You can't prove it one way or the other and it makes no difference whatsoever. Therefore this new consciousness that awakes a trillion trillion years from now that has all your memories IS just as much your consciousness as you are now.
Like I said, I'm not sure I accept this general idea or not (I certainly wouldn't go so far as to say I "believe" it); but it definitely is food for thought for me, and I would like to hear others' (reasoned) opinions on it.
Please let me know where that is. I'll send my resume....
Development Group, Engineering Division, Konica Minolta Business Solutions Europe GmbH. Langenhagen, Lower Saxony, Germany.
Not currently hiring in my group sorry (we only just got someone new), but while I can't speak for the quality one way or another of managers and supervisors in other groups, I can say that the general rules apply throughout the company; and most of them are laws that apply throughout the country.
Wouldn't you like to show up to a job interview with a red Swingline stapler, and announce, "this is my stapler, I keep it because it doesn't bind up as much"?
Because if you got the job, you could be pretty sure that they were right-thinking people, and understood the importance of staplers that don't bind up.
If I was the guy interviewing, that'd be some serious bonus points on you getting the job for doing that. I just finished hiring someone new, but I was pretty disappointed with the entire round of applicants in general - all WAY too stiff and boring. The guy we're getting appears to be good, and I'm sure he'll work well and also end up fitting in to our team once he loosens up, but what I wouldn't have given for an applicant that turns up and does something like this...
I can see that you miss the point. In the IT industry, you are EXPECTED to work unpaid overtime, you are EXPECTED to take work home and even though you may be legally allowed to take holidays, quite often the IT managers tell you that you can not take them when you wanted because there is not enough staff to cover the shifts (That means the manager wants to take holidays on the same period)
You sir, need to move to a better company... or if all of the companies where you live are like that, may I recommend another country?
Here, if you work overtime, you're either getting it off later in lieu or getting paid for it. If you work at home after hours, that's overtime and is treated the same way. If you want holidays and there's no very strong business reason to have you in the office, your boss can't stop you. If you haven't used all your holidays for the year, HR will tell your boss to go jump off a bridge and give you your holidays regardless of what he says.
As the responsible person for approving the holidays of the members in my group, I've only ONCE had to decline a request (due to an important project deadline) and offered an alternative instead which the employee was perfectly fine with.
"language skills" or simple "languages known" becomes "linguistic skills"
This one annoys me to the point that when asked about "linguistic skills", I start going on about my (admittedly limited, but not non-existent) knowledge of comparative linguistics; etymology; grammar constructions; and so on. It usually gets strange looks, followed by, "Uh, we meant what languages do you speak?"; at which point I point out the difference between linguistics and languages, vainly hoping (but hardly expecting) that they'll actually learn something.
So, do you think in grammatically correct sentences?
Actually, I think your rhetorical question actually raises a fairly good point. Most people, writing quickly, will write how they think. I am in fact writing this the exact way that it came in to my head, deliberately trying to ignore any rules of grammar and so on. I'm putting commas where I pause, and just letting the text flow from my brain through my fingers and on to the screen.
I would contend that this is a common way of writing for many people, and so those who write very poorly do in fact use the same structures in their thoughts. My personal opinion on this is that such people (assuming they're writing their native language) are less mentally capable than those who can form a comprehensible sentence - however harsh that may sound.
I believe you'll find that most non-Americans are already a bit incensed about American companies telling them how to run their country. I suspect this kind of behaviour is more likely to increase the backlash than help anyone's human rights.
Generally speaking though, Google isn't usually viewed as an "American company" by most (in my experience). While they're certainly headquartered in the US, they've got strong offices all over the world and don't strongly advertise or push their "Americanness" (compare Apple, who plaster a "Designed and built in California" thing on every box they produce; or Microsoft who flatly refuse to accept British (or International) English as being distinct from American English other than in spell checkers).
You're absolutely right as a general case, but I'm not sure it applies to Google.
Of course, there are plenty of people who will disagree with my statement and say that Google is most definitely viewed as an "American company", but it just seems to me that most people I encounter don't see it as such.
Indeed... this is by far the most mods I've ever had on one of my posts:
6x Insightful (+6)
1x Insightful that was undone by posting 0
1x Interesting (+1)
1x Informative (+1)
1x Troll (-1)
2x Overrated (-2)
So, most people seem to think my post has insight; but it's FAR from unanimous...
I'd hazard a guess that those who don't are the "don't have children" types rather than the "something wrong with them" types. My favourite argument in this thread so far would be swillden's point here.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course if money is your primary choice, I would suggest Australia.
As someone who thought the same a few years back, I'd highly discourage this as a course of action. In Australia, I made far more money than in my native New Zealand, but it was all eaten up with the ridiculous cost of living. Sure, some places might be cheaper than Sydney, but good luck finding a well paying job outside of Sydney (if you do, grab it - it probably WILL be worth it).
Since moving to Hannover, Germany, my pay stayed around the same or increased slightly and my cost of living went down by more than 50%. I feel significantly better off here than I ever did in Sydney.
My German brother-in-law .... I have no co-pay when I go to the doctor while his is 20 Euro.
What?! Here in Germany, we "co-pay" 10 euro a quarter if we use medical services that quarter. So, if he's sickly and visits the doctor often, he'll be paying 40 euro a year. His prescriptions will cost nothing and additional doctors visits within that quarter will also require no additional "co-pay".
If your brother-in-law really is handing over 20 euro every time he goes to the doctor, you should tell him to read up on the system here; find a new doctor; and report the old one to the authorities.
Over the last two years, I've had a few medical issues. One was an abscess on my stomach that required putting me under; another was headache problems that took me through three different courses of different kinds of pills, a CAT-scan and then an eventual MRI; and one was stomach problems that required a gastroscopy, followed by a course of pills. At no time during any of this did I pay more than the 10 euro per quarter and when I bought aspirin for my headaches (the prescription medication was at no cost).
Yeah I agree, it was a little harsh, and I apologize for that. It's just that since I live in a first world nation on less than €10K a year before taxes I tend to get a bit touchy when people talk about "living lighter for the next 8 years" in regards to €100K purchases.
That is completely understandable. However it's worth remembering that less than €10k is a very small amount to live on in a first world nation. That puts you significantly below the average.
Beyond that, it's also worth remembering that quality of life increases dramatically over a certain point. My "day to day costs" before I met my wife weren't all that different to when I was on half that income; just the extra that I had could go on "toys" like computer equipment and cars and so on. Now I'm married and have a daughter, but the tax system here in Germany is quite favourable for my situation (my tax went from around 50% to around 33% just by getting married) so despite the extra costs with my new situation, it's not as detrimental as it could've been (financially... nothing compares to having a loving wife and daughter of course; so even if I had been significantly worse off financially, I still would've done it).
I am so sorry for claiming you were either rich or full of shit, it's obvious to me now that you are indeed just "above average".
No problem - I remember well being in a pretty bad situation myself. I grew up in a poor family; then after leaving home at 16 managed on my own to make quite a lot by the time I was 21. However by 23, I'd blown it all on "the high life" and was burned out. I was poor for the next 5 years or so, and then slowly made my way up from "pretty crap" wages through to where I am now. It's really only now in my early 30s that I feel I'm really starting to get back on my feet properly.
I really hope for you that you can get yourself out of the situation you're in as well.
On an unrelated note my current car is a pair of €200 shoes. I guess that's maybe six months of savings, so to invest as wisely as you in my transportation I should then aim for six times that?
I don't have any shoes worth anywhere near that amount myself - my most expensive pair was around €50. But then again, my shoes aren't my transportation over any kind of longer distances.
As I said though, there's a point where extra income can be used for "play" a bit more. I certainly wouldn't suggest spending 6 months worth of your income on a pair of shoes; but 6 months of income on a car might be reasonable (the one I'm paying off over three years represents around 7 or 8 months income).
You said you paid your current car off in three years, so clearly three years is a good time period for this. Or eight years, meaning 16 times that? I don't know, I'm sure they do make shoes that expensive, but then I'd be going far beyond my needs into the area of choosing style over purpose.
Yes, you really would... which is why I don't suggest that at all...
Your current car was about a third of €100K? Well, mr. above average... You might not be rich or full of shit, but you still buy overpriced cars. That's not an option for most people.
A new car here in Germany costs between €10k and €60k unless you're going for something really special. So, spending €33k on a car is really around the middle of the range. Sure, it was a "brand new car", which I'm aware is a luxury in and of itself - many people only ever buy second hand (whether required to by financial situation or simply because it does financially make much more sense) - but for me it's not just transportation; it's fun (and stress relief from a pretty hectic job and home life) as well.
So would I have - before I was married and with a daughter. A studio wouldn't do much for me these days.
If you can afford a €100k car, then you are by all means "rich" without any stretch of the imagination. Most people budget quite a lot to afford a car a third of that price. I've got friends who are well off - double income, no kids - who have two cars that together doesn't total €80k, and while they still have money left over they certainly spend most of their income just paying for those cars.
In other words, I suggest you take a step back and re-assess your situation. Congratulation, you are one of the few, one of the privileged, one of the people fortunate enough to be able to come on slashdot and pull numbers out of your ass to make yourself seem special.
Hey, that's a little harsh isn't it? Actually, a €100k car would be something I'd spend 8 or so years paying off. I'm definitely well above average wage, but hardly amongst the elite.
As it is, my current car was around a third of that price; and I paid it off in 3 years (actually, final payment is coming up in a couple of months). Did that reduce my ability to do other stuff? Sure. No good holidays in the last three years and I haven't upgraded my computers in that long either. It's a matter of priorities. If I were to buy a €100k car, I'd be living a lot tighter for the next 8 years, but I'd consider it worth it.
I'm by no means "rich" by any stretch of the imagination and certainly can't afford a full time driver, but as long as these cars come in at under €80k
You do realise that 80k is about three years of average pre-tax salary in the UK, for example?
I never said I wasn't "above average" - just not "rich"...
Actually, I drive a 2009 MX-5. And I spend less than 100€ a year on drugs, so I doubt that'd go a long way towards a new one.
I hate it when dickheads like you own nice cars...
GoogleDrive will only be affordable (at any time in the next couple decades) to rich people to replace professional, expert drivers. So it has to be better than expert drivers to make the case compelling to people who might actually be able to afford it.
I think you're either vastly overestimating the cost of GoogleDrive or vastly underestimating the cost of hiring someone to drive you around all the time... (or you live in a third-world country where labour such as drivers is cheap).
I'm by no means "rich" by any stretch of the imagination and certainly can't afford a full time driver, but as long as these cars come in at under €80k, I'll happily consider one (I'll go up to €100k if it's also a pure electric, given the price difference between petrol and electricity here)
You pay a high premium on Silk Road, apparently for quality and convenience...from what I've heard it's a hell of a lot more expensive than what these things would cost on the street, so unless these kids are selling at a loss.....
Depends who you buy from and what you buy. But I can say from experience that LSD is around 50% of street price in general. I did get some at around 25% of street price; but it was about 50% the amount of actual LSD per blotter, so I had to take twice as much for the same effect... still works out at 50% of street price though, so I didn't complain too much.
A friend of mine was also pleasantly surprised by the MDMA and cocaine prices (not being my substances of choice though, I couldn't say that with any certainty).
Tobacco and alcohol are the two main ones. Any drug that's less harmful and less addictive than these two should be automatically decriminalized
For reference, that's a LOT of drugs... tobacco (or more specifically, nicotine) is extremely addictive. And alcohol is extremely harmful. A LOT of drugs are less addictive than nicotine and a LOT are less harmful than alcohol.
Or were you meaning "less addictive than alcohol and less harmful than nicotine"?
For the record in advance, I don't smoke pot. I don't enjoy being "slowed down" or not being able to think clearly (for the same reason, I'm very cautious with alcohol as well, and generally avoid it).
What drug can be consumed at a very high rate and not kill? I am betting your thinking of pot.
Personally, I'd love to watch someone TRY to overdose on LSD... 75 micrograms gets most people somewhat tripping; 200 micrograms is a good trip for an experienced user; 500 micrograms gets pretty much anyone to a point where they're unable to function (total loss of ego, awareness of world or self, etc); and the lethal dosage is assumed to be somewhere around 12 milligrams. That is, 24 times the amount that even a serious LSD user (such as myself) would consider extreme.
If you can get studies done by people who have nothing to gain by pot being legal or for it remain illegal you might have a chance. Those groups are the only ones who could deliver a clear unbiased result. Anyone else will have a biased result. All results from the biased groups for either side should be tossed. They have an agenda.
How's this one suit?
And while not a study, this is a pretty good related read for some "non potheads" trying to aim for the same thing.
All the talk about alcohol. Anything taken to extremes is bad. I'll say this I have yet to see anyone get addicted to alcohol on the first drink. I have seen first hand and read about people getting addicted to drugs on the first hit. They need that drug after the first hit. I have yet to see someone need a drink after the first drink.
I really recommend that if you want to be taken seriously, you make a distinction between different drugs.
There's a world of difference between, for example, LSD and Meth. Some guy taking a few tabs of acid isn't going to become addicted (actually, since it's a non addictive substance; and a pretty mind altering experience, wanting to do it often is extremely rare, even amongst those who thoroughly enjoy it such as myself). Some guy trying meth with his friends once is also probably not going to get addicted straight away (there's a chance, but so extremely slim, it's not worth counting); but there's a good chance that the enjoyment of it combined with peer pressure in the wrong social circles will lead him to try it a few more times, and then he probably will be addicted (it's a highly addictive drug by comparison to many others).
Or, looking at a more commonly used drug - marijuana. Hate the stuff myself, but its harmful effects are negligible; the abuse possibilities for quantity are low (once you're stoned enough, you tend to just go to sleep on the couch rather than consuming more); and its potential for addiction is also very low (psychological addiction can be quite high, as with anything enjoyable; but physical addiction is pretty hard to cultivate (not impossible, just pretty hard)).
By comparison, those who drink to excess regularly will quite easily become addicted; and kill themselves only slightly slower than meth when doing it. So, looking at these facts, shouldn't we be outlawing alcohol and legalising LSD and marijuana?
No, I don't actually want to outlaw alcohol, but it's hypocritical to talk about the dangers of "drugs" while having no real problem with alcohol and not making a distinction between different kinds of drugs.
Quite simply, alcohol is a dangerous, addictive drug in the same way as heroin, meth and crack cocaine. It's just far more socially acceptable and most people learn to control their use of it. They'd also learn to control use of other hard substances were they legal. The non- or low-addictive and non- to low-harm substances barely need any control at all other than good education about the effects so people don't try and do silly things like operate a motor vehicle while stoned out of their tree.
And as a last note, please read and consider my sig before you reply.
People do put sensitive data on dropbox because the advertising tells them it's safe.
Having never seen any Dropbox advertising anywhere, I couldn't say. I only heard about it because of a friend who used it. If they do advertise this way however, I completely agree that it's deceptive and a bad thing. It won't stop me using it for the way that I do though.
Compared to it's dozens of more able competitors (eg. google drive) it's no more useful.
Well, Dropbox does give me more space for free than Google Drive (5.8GB vs 5GB), but having just installed it as a quick side-by-side comparison, I'd say the usage is indeed basically identical.
Regardless though, the usage is basically identical, but I see no compelling reason for one or the other, so why not just stick with what I'm using rather than switch? I'd say the same to someone using Google Drive when someone tries to convince them to switch to Dropbox.
In that case you may as well just dump the stuff in a directory on a webserver anywhere on the planet. The problem with dropbox is it pretends to be secure and useful but is instead a pointless polished turd.
I agree it pretends to be secure, but I wouldn't call it "not useful" - just "not useful at what most people seem to want to do with it".
I use DropBox exclusively for family photos. I have a folder shared with my brother, parents and parents-in-law, where we periodically dump new photos of my daughter. Doing so is literally just "copy" in the filesystem.
The interested parties then can browse and copy out of the folder should they choose. At no point do they need to open a browser; remember a special address or username/password combination or anything like that. It's extremely convenient for them. Additionally, my wife can show off photos on her Android phone without ever needing to have considered how to get them on there in the first place - just open the DropBox app, and there's all the pictures.
Now, would I ever point sensitive or important data there? No, of course not. Nor would I ever consider it a "cloud data management solution" or whatever buzzwords people want to throw around. But it IS a useful service for sharing photos and other unimportant/non-sensitive data across a range of platforms with basically no user training required.
Gates vowed revenge for this, and what better way than to take over the world with computers and make the Curiosity rover run off a modified version of Windows Vista.
Thankfully no... VxWorks may not be great at a lot of things, but it's got a proven track record with the rovers...
'People have been thinking about immortality throughout history. We have a deep human need to figure out what happens to us after death,' says John Martin Fischer,
Nothing, You're dead.
Not necessarily. Obviously the religious fairy-tales are just that, i.e. whatever people need to hear to strengthen the meme-infection. But there is room for reincarnation without the religious connotations. Consciousness and life itself are still not understood at all, so there is room for speculation. Obviously, the body (brain) plays a part (for many the dominant part, it seems), but it is not enough to explain what is observable. Still, no need to do "immortality" research, everybody finds out sooner or later what happens. I guess these 5M just show that quite a few rich people live pathetic lives and know it.
Here's an interesting concept... not quite sure if I accept it or not, but it's something which has had me thinking a bit recently.
Assuming the following things:
1) Existence (I hesitate to use the word "universe" given the various theories of multiple "universes") is infinite in either direction, time or both.
2) Randomness exists
3) Consciousness is caused by a specific arrangement of the make-up of our brains and could also be caused by similar specific arrangements of other things
Assumption 1 is very debatable; however certainly not outside the realms of reason. Assumption 2 is, in my understanding, pretty strongly confirmed - although there's still those who'd argue against it. Assumption 3 seems quite logical and reasonable in general.
Assumptions 1 and 2 lead to the idea that anything that can happen eventually will. Adding assumption 3 leads to the idea that after our consciousness stops in our brains (death), it will eventually spring up again somewhere else including all of the memories from our lives before.
It's also worth keeping in mind the idea that your consciousness is only aware of the present - the past is accessed through memories. Therefore it seems quite acceptable to say that there's no fundamental difference to waking up in the morning as a "different consciousness" today than the one you were yesterday whilst still retaining all the same memories versus actually remaining the same consciousness. You can't prove it one way or the other and it makes no difference whatsoever. Therefore this new consciousness that awakes a trillion trillion years from now that has all your memories IS just as much your consciousness as you are now.
Like I said, I'm not sure I accept this general idea or not (I certainly wouldn't go so far as to say I "believe" it); but it definitely is food for thought for me, and I would like to hear others' (reasoned) opinions on it.
Please let me know where that is. I'll send my resume....
Development Group, Engineering Division, Konica Minolta Business Solutions Europe GmbH. Langenhagen, Lower Saxony, Germany.
Not currently hiring in my group sorry (we only just got someone new), but while I can't speak for the quality one way or another of managers and supervisors in other groups, I can say that the general rules apply throughout the company; and most of them are laws that apply throughout the country.
Wouldn't you like to show up to a job interview with a red Swingline stapler, and announce, "this is my stapler, I keep it because it doesn't bind up as much"?
Because if you got the job, you could be pretty sure that they were right-thinking people, and understood the importance of staplers that don't bind up.
If I was the guy interviewing, that'd be some serious bonus points on you getting the job for doing that. I just finished hiring someone new, but I was pretty disappointed with the entire round of applicants in general - all WAY too stiff and boring. The guy we're getting appears to be good, and I'm sure he'll work well and also end up fitting in to our team once he loosens up, but what I wouldn't have given for an applicant that turns up and does something like this...
I can see that you miss the point. In the IT industry, you are EXPECTED to work unpaid overtime, you are EXPECTED to take work home and even though you may be legally allowed to take holidays, quite often the IT managers tell you that you can not take them when you wanted because there is not enough staff to cover the shifts (That means the manager wants to take holidays on the same period)
You sir, need to move to a better company... or if all of the companies where you live are like that, may I recommend another country?
Here, if you work overtime, you're either getting it off later in lieu or getting paid for it. If you work at home after hours, that's overtime and is treated the same way. If you want holidays and there's no very strong business reason to have you in the office, your boss can't stop you. If you haven't used all your holidays for the year, HR will tell your boss to go jump off a bridge and give you your holidays regardless of what he says.
As the responsible person for approving the holidays of the members in my group, I've only ONCE had to decline a request (due to an important project deadline) and offered an alternative instead which the employee was perfectly fine with.
As an American, I think a case could be made for giving NZ control of our DOJ.
As a New Zealander, I wholeheartedly agree with your proposal.
"language skills" or simple "languages known" becomes "linguistic skills"
This one annoys me to the point that when asked about "linguistic skills", I start going on about my (admittedly limited, but not non-existent) knowledge of comparative linguistics; etymology; grammar constructions; and so on. It usually gets strange looks, followed by, "Uh, we meant what languages do you speak?"; at which point I point out the difference between linguistics and languages, vainly hoping (but hardly expecting) that they'll actually learn something.
So, do you think in grammatically correct sentences?
Actually, I think your rhetorical question actually raises a fairly good point. Most people, writing quickly, will write how they think. I am in fact writing this the exact way that it came in to my head, deliberately trying to ignore any rules of grammar and so on. I'm putting commas where I pause, and just letting the text flow from my brain through my fingers and on to the screen.
I would contend that this is a common way of writing for many people, and so those who write very poorly do in fact use the same structures in their thoughts. My personal opinion on this is that such people (assuming they're writing their native language) are less mentally capable than those who can form a comprehensible sentence - however harsh that may sound.
I believe you'll find that most non-Americans are already a bit incensed about American companies telling them how to run their country. I suspect this kind of behaviour is more likely to increase the backlash than help anyone's human rights.
Generally speaking though, Google isn't usually viewed as an "American company" by most (in my experience). While they're certainly headquartered in the US, they've got strong offices all over the world and don't strongly advertise or push their "Americanness" (compare Apple, who plaster a "Designed and built in California" thing on every box they produce; or Microsoft who flatly refuse to accept British (or International) English as being distinct from American English other than in spell checkers).
You're absolutely right as a general case, but I'm not sure it applies to Google.
Of course, there are plenty of people who will disagree with my statement and say that Google is most definitely viewed as an "American company", but it just seems to me that most people I encounter don't see it as such.
Indeed... this is by far the most mods I've ever had on one of my posts:
So, most people seem to think my post has insight; but it's FAR from unanimous...
I'd hazard a guess that those who don't are the "don't have children" types rather than the "something wrong with them" types. My favourite argument in this thread so far would be swillden's point here.