The only reason you are not an actual indentured worker is because of the wider society. Pay your taxes you stupid selfish cunt. You're not some isolated mountain man but the beneficiary of society's largess.
The guy is bragging himself up as a self-taught PHP programmer. That ought to tell you all you need to know. Belief that he actual makes $150k per year is optional.
Even if I believed you (and claims like these are a dime a dozen on the Internet), it's at best an isolated case. Teaching yourself PHP is hardly brilliance. Anybody can do it. Teaching yourself to code well, that's a whole other ballgame. The mere fact that you didn't say "I taught myself C++" or "I taught myself Java", but in fact, picked out a language that could best be described as the BASIC for the 21st century suggests to me that your proof of why higher education is needed, not why it isn't.
I'll wager you're the kind of talentless hack that I have to clean up after. I was paid by the hour by a friend of mine's company to fix up a PHP catastrophe coded by some assholes who actually got away with $40,000 for a site that violated every notion of security and best practices. I made $20,000 on it, so by your calculation I'm the talentless chump, but by any reasonable standard, the assholes who ripped off a company for $40,000 for a product that wasn't worth taking a shit on would have been the talentless ones.
For the most part they're just greedy assholes who think they've found an ideology that can justify what is nothing more than pure, unadulterated selfishness.
I think that if the British Navy had had half a clue as to what Babbage's work could produce for them, it would have thrown what was then the most substantial military resources in the world at it, and the computing revolution would have happened in Victorian Britain.
He certainly invented the modern notion of Communism. Whatever communal socialism might have existed before Marx's time, none of it could be said to have influenced Chinese Communists. They very much believed themselves the heirs of Marx, to the point that after the breakdown of relations between the USSR and the PRC, China frequently claimed that the USSR had veered from the true Marxist-Leninist path. The Chinese Communist most assuredly asserted that they were Marxist in origin.
Uh no... A Communist country would be built upon a Communist economy. Communism is an economic as well as political ideology. Abandon the economic side of the equation and you cease to have a Marxist state. China has not meaningfully been a Communist state since Deng Xiaoping began his radical reforms in the post-Mao era. It could best be described as a Capitalist Technocracy that has turned Chinese Communism into little more than empty flag waving.
How does it attach gamers to Windows? Do you have to state your PC operating system of choice. And if you don't say "Windows7" they don't sell you an XBox?
Microsoft has been trying to be the predominant web portal for 17 years. This isn't strategy, it's abject failure. Microsoft has thrown billions at various iterations of MSN, much of it sighs dominant browser, and has only got a distant second, in no small part by making Yahoo a customer.
There is no master plan. The only thing MS can do is keep flinging shit at the wall with little hope of being any more than a bit player.
Thank goodness Ron Paul is... somewhere... defending freedom. Perhaps he's busy giving directions to a bus-load of swirly-eyed supporters going to try to create the illusion of wide-spread popularity by crashing another straw poll. You know, something really important.
Sensible Crowd: We're not even sure what to look for, we're not even sure of how abiogenesis occurred, so attempting to answer the question is extremely premature.
This is a case where the statement "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." Yes, we have no evidence as of yet, but at the same time we have a sample size of exactly one, so trying to making any claim on the frequency or infrequency of life elsewhere in the Universe is utterly ludicrous.
My understanding is that's the plan. They start selling water to NASA, and that gets them to profitability, as well as allowing them to test out asteroid mining technologies. Once you've got a basic asteroid mining economy going, then you can start going after precious metals, rare earths, whatever. The idea to my mind wouldn't, not any time soon anyways, to look at selling asteroid nickel or copper to markets down on Earth, but rather to sell them to other interests who could start building satellites and such in space. If it could be done in a reasonable fashion, the sheer cost of lifting those materials into orbit might make it a self-sustaining economic model.
Farts from Salmond no doubt. But he's playing the same gamebook the Quebec Nationalists did... and look how well their independence movement has done. Two failed referendums, and independence far less likely now that 15 years ago.
That's the reason for Devo-Max, and why the Scottish Nationalists are terrified of a simple yes or no ballot, because they know they'll lose that kind of vote, and it will kill the nationalist movement for a generation or more. But toss in Devo-Max, and suddenly they can win just enough to hold on.
This is why I tell Scottish Nationalists that a vote for the SNP is not necessarily a vote for independence. Voters can be more sophisticated than political parties give them credit for. And this is confirmed time and time again by poll after poll that shows the Nationalists at least 10 points (and often more) from even imagining a successful vote.
But he shouldn't just be pounded hard. His lawyer should be disbarred. I'm thinking if you started tossing lawyers, you'd see a lot of less of this, from the big guys as well as the small.
"Sure I'd love to defend your claim to have patented the lead or graphite filled stylus, but you see, I'll be disbarred for fraud and lose my livelihood, so take your pencil and shove it up your ass."
They'll never be ready as long as we keep underwriting oil exploration, or at least not diverting a hefty amount of money towards research. I doubt oil companies are all that interested in alternatives, because the mid-term view is that as long as the price of a barrel goes up, they make more money.
We have a lot of at least partially workable solutions. Nothing perfect, but then again, as I said, the use of long-chain hydrocarbons to run vehicles is idiocy in the extreme, no matter how you look at it. It is possibly the most ludicrous, incompetent and irresponsible use of a precious resource I can think of save perhaps for water fountains in Las Vegas.
First of all, I'm not British, so I have no particular horse in the race. But the facts themselves speak volumes:
1. No poll has ever put support anywhere close to 50 percent. 2. The SNP's successes have come in large part because of the decline in Labour support. 3. Considering point 2, one cannot thus assume that support for independence is equal to that of support for the SNP. The SNP appears to be the equivalent of the Bloc Quebecois and Parti Quebecois in Quebec, a placeholder party for the so-called "soft nationalists". 4. There are no lack of hotheads in England and Scotland making rude noises at each other, but there's no indication that general sentiment can be gauged by the usual gang of lunatics.
My feeling is that the UK is heading slowly (and awkwardly) towards becoming a federated state; more in the model of Canada or Germany. It probably should have been done three hundred years ago, but I don't think political science had quite evolved to the point where one could fathom a federal government with internal states holding some limited sovereignty. The best example they had at the time was the Holy Roman Empire, which had basically rendered the central government nothing more than a fancy dress party.
Too bad 2 out of 3 Scots don't want independence. You'll be sort of like British Republicans when the vote fails; miserable, mocking your fellow man and refusing to admit that your whole idea was daft and a minority position.
Slashdot Mirror
The only reason you are not an actual indentured worker is because of the wider society. Pay your taxes you stupid selfish cunt. You're not some isolated mountain man but the beneficiary of society's largess.
Every civilized society throughout history has required taxes. Pay yours, you pathetic selfish cunt.
The guy is bragging himself up as a self-taught PHP programmer. That ought to tell you all you need to know. Belief that he actual makes $150k per year is optional.
Even if I believed you (and claims like these are a dime a dozen on the Internet), it's at best an isolated case. Teaching yourself PHP is hardly brilliance. Anybody can do it. Teaching yourself to code well, that's a whole other ballgame. The mere fact that you didn't say "I taught myself C++" or "I taught myself Java", but in fact, picked out a language that could best be described as the BASIC for the 21st century suggests to me that your proof of why higher education is needed, not why it isn't.
I'll wager you're the kind of talentless hack that I have to clean up after. I was paid by the hour by a friend of mine's company to fix up a PHP catastrophe coded by some assholes who actually got away with $40,000 for a site that violated every notion of security and best practices. I made $20,000 on it, so by your calculation I'm the talentless chump, but by any reasonable standard, the assholes who ripped off a company for $40,000 for a product that wasn't worth taking a shit on would have been the talentless ones.
For the most part they're just greedy assholes who think they've found an ideology that can justify what is nothing more than pure, unadulterated selfishness.
The Meaning of Life Part V: Live Organ Donor Transpants
I think that if the British Navy had had half a clue as to what Babbage's work could produce for them, it would have thrown what was then the most substantial military resources in the world at it, and the computing revolution would have happened in Victorian Britain.
Before you repeat that, I recommend you read the Communist Manifesto.
He certainly invented the modern notion of Communism. Whatever communal socialism might have existed before Marx's time, none of it could be said to have influenced Chinese Communists. They very much believed themselves the heirs of Marx, to the point that after the breakdown of relations between the USSR and the PRC, China frequently claimed that the USSR had veered from the true Marxist-Leninist path. The Chinese Communist most assuredly asserted that they were Marxist in origin.
Uh no... A Communist country would be built upon a Communist economy. Communism is an economic as well as political ideology. Abandon the economic side of the equation and you cease to have a Marxist state. China has not meaningfully been a Communist state since Deng Xiaoping began his radical reforms in the post-Mao era. It could best be described as a Capitalist Technocracy that has turned Chinese Communism into little more than empty flag waving.
How does it attach gamers to Windows? Do you have to state your PC operating system of choice. And if you don't say "Windows7" they don't sell you an XBox?
Microsoft has been trying to be the predominant web portal for 17 years. This isn't strategy, it's abject failure. Microsoft has thrown billions at various iterations of MSN, much of it sighs dominant browser, and has only got a distant second, in no small part by making Yahoo a customer.
There is no master plan. The only thing MS can do is keep flinging shit at the wall with little hope of being any more than a bit player.
I'm sure Microsoft would be most grateful if you repeated this line of horseshit at the next shareholders meeting.
Thank goodness Ron Paul is... somewhere... defending freedom. Perhaps he's busy giving directions to a bus-load of swirly-eyed supporters going to try to create the illusion of wide-spread popularity by crashing another straw poll. You know, something really important.
If there's life on a planet like Venus, I think that would be pretty amazing and a whole lot of people would be interested in it.
Sensible Crowd: We're not even sure what to look for, we're not even sure of how abiogenesis occurred, so attempting to answer the question is extremely premature.
This is a case where the statement "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." Yes, we have no evidence as of yet, but at the same time we have a sample size of exactly one, so trying to making any claim on the frequency or infrequency of life elsewhere in the Universe is utterly ludicrous.
The insane amount of money spent to buy Motorola might almost be worth it.
Which means a cross-licensing agreement will be put in place ending the Microsoft tax on Androids. I guess that's a win.
My understanding is that's the plan. They start selling water to NASA, and that gets them to profitability, as well as allowing them to test out asteroid mining technologies. Once you've got a basic asteroid mining economy going, then you can start going after precious metals, rare earths, whatever. The idea to my mind wouldn't, not any time soon anyways, to look at selling asteroid nickel or copper to markets down on Earth, but rather to sell them to other interests who could start building satellites and such in space. If it could be done in a reasonable fashion, the sheer cost of lifting those materials into orbit might make it a self-sustaining economic model.
Farts from Salmond no doubt. But he's playing the same gamebook the Quebec Nationalists did... and look how well their independence movement has done. Two failed referendums, and independence far less likely now that 15 years ago.
That's the reason for Devo-Max, and why the Scottish Nationalists are terrified of a simple yes or no ballot, because they know they'll lose that kind of vote, and it will kill the nationalist movement for a generation or more. But toss in Devo-Max, and suddenly they can win just enough to hold on.
This is why I tell Scottish Nationalists that a vote for the SNP is not necessarily a vote for independence. Voters can be more sophisticated than political parties give them credit for. And this is confirmed time and time again by poll after poll that shows the Nationalists at least 10 points (and often more) from even imagining a successful vote.
But he shouldn't just be pounded hard. His lawyer should be disbarred. I'm thinking if you started tossing lawyers, you'd see a lot of less of this, from the big guys as well as the small.
"Sure I'd love to defend your claim to have patented the lead or graphite filled stylus, but you see, I'll be disbarred for fraud and lose my livelihood, so take your pencil and shove it up your ass."
They'll never be ready as long as we keep underwriting oil exploration, or at least not diverting a hefty amount of money towards research. I doubt oil companies are all that interested in alternatives, because the mid-term view is that as long as the price of a barrel goes up, they make more money.
We have a lot of at least partially workable solutions. Nothing perfect, but then again, as I said, the use of long-chain hydrocarbons to run vehicles is idiocy in the extreme, no matter how you look at it. It is possibly the most ludicrous, incompetent and irresponsible use of a precious resource I can think of save perhaps for water fountains in Las Vegas.
First of all, I'm not British, so I have no particular horse in the race. But the facts themselves speak volumes:
1. No poll has ever put support anywhere close to 50 percent.
2. The SNP's successes have come in large part because of the decline in Labour support.
3. Considering point 2, one cannot thus assume that support for independence is equal to that of support for the SNP. The SNP appears to be the equivalent of the Bloc Quebecois and Parti Quebecois in Quebec, a placeholder party for the so-called "soft nationalists".
4. There are no lack of hotheads in England and Scotland making rude noises at each other, but there's no indication that general sentiment can be gauged by the usual gang of lunatics.
My feeling is that the UK is heading slowly (and awkwardly) towards becoming a federated state; more in the model of Canada or Germany. It probably should have been done three hundred years ago, but I don't think political science had quite evolved to the point where one could fathom a federal government with internal states holding some limited sovereignty. The best example they had at the time was the Holy Roman Empire, which had basically rendered the central government nothing more than a fancy dress party.
Too bad 2 out of 3 Scots don't want independence. You'll be sort of like British Republicans when the vote fails; miserable, mocking your fellow man and refusing to admit that your whole idea was daft and a minority position.