To workout --> change out of office clothes (no need to change undies or socks at this stage) into gym clothes
have workout - stink like crazy - grab gym bag - have shower - grab dry off towel - put on fresh undies and socks - deodorant
From workout --> put toxic smelling gym clothes in gym bag, put office clothes back on
They might hate me but I do understand the importance of deodorant, so I'm pretty sure I don't smell bad.
I think the word you're looking for here isn't "brief case," it's "purse.
or handbag. I've noticed that some of my girlfriends handbags have a similar structure to the TARDIS, unfortunately the only thing a purse can't fit is a laptop.
My laptop bag is my brief case, it's where I put my phone, wallet, diary, car keys and sunglasses, it's just inconceivable for me to forget it.
The worst thing to leave at home is my lunch, thats when I put my car key on my lunch in the fridge. I have however left the power supply at home and on occasion my phone, now that stings - you have to weigh up the distance traveled + lateness vs inconvenience of not having phone - sometimes quite liberating.
Speaking of liberating, once I forgot a change of underwear and only realised it half way through my lunch time workout - kinda weird but unexpectedly comfortable. Now locking your car keys in the car at work is a major annoyance (if you have an old car like me) so I keep spare car keys, a spare phone charger and a spare shirt at work, pretty handy. I'm considering leaving a laptop power supply at work too.
I am however getting more comfortable with no undies.
Well if that's the case then it would be smarter to be a blue collar worker cleaning toilets because those jobs cannot be outsourced. Only trouble is the pay and conditions of third world countries are being used to compete against first world countries and thus those conditions are being imported into first world countries.
What you say may be alright when applied to white collar workers where physical risk is low, but in the cases of heavy industry where safety is a concern it's simply not acceptable for a person to go to work in the morning and have a good chance at losing a body part or their life whilst working in conditions where safety standards don't exist. This is compounded by the fact that some employers *want* to have safe working environment for their staff but have to reduce standards to compete with companies that don't give a fuck if a worker loses an arm because it's to expensive to service or replace safety machinery.
I have been in work sites where people got killed because they didn't follow safety standards and it's pretty hard to retrain someone when they are dead or have lost their legs. Globalisation should be exporting safety and similar working conditions and compete based on the merits of the *efficiency* of the outsourcer not based on the gains of competing with a suppressed population who is desperate for any work OR with a country that has virtually Zero local investment in infrastructure and staff training.
And before you try to categorise me, I am 200 pounds 10% body fat and can't stand fast food. I constantly re-train and am smart enough time to have enough time to gather a wider world view. And frankly I don't think its a sense of 'entitlement' to anything that makes me wants to have a legal framework in place that *ALLOWS* companies to operate in first world countries *AND* provide opportunities to that same community.
These types of initiative's come from an executive that is absolutely gutless, where instead of reinvesting the shareholder gains of the 90's back into the business they were provided as shareholder return. Of course now shareholders have got use to that level of return they want it all the time until every quality business has had the core of capability replaced by a massive, flailing, incompetent middle management with absolutely no imagination for how to run a technology business and anyone who cares about what they do wondering when they will be outsourced, no wonder I.T is having trouble attracting new recruits. Just look at any large corporate and there you will see middle management there justifying why it should alter this cell in this spreadsheet every day. Management doesn't get sacked, nor do they have to retrain.
That dearth of incompetence that has no capability to build a business that plays to the strengths of it's strongest asset - it's employee's, and instead of these businesses having the capability to adapt to the very changes in the marketplace as they occur, they instead choose to strip the talent out of it, a very dangerous situation indeed when market forces shift away from even the sturdiest of giants, leaving shareholders and employees alike wonder what the fuck happened, and C level execs with a nice fat bonus for fucking everybody over.
Retraining my ass, this sort of shit is not building the technology industry - it's destroying it by scaring away the brightest enough to recognise that quality work is just not valued anymore. Fuck you for propagating that attitude.
Some externalities though are cost-benefit analysis's versus our lack of knowledge and skill to deal with the consequences of our inventions.
it's not the externalities that provide a benefit that are a concern, the vast majority of externalities are a burden on the community.
our own stupidity and lack of knowledge of the consequencies,...We just can't pack that kind of knowledge into each individual human being at present
it's not stupidity, it's apathy. You don't need to be a scientist etc, to see the consequences of a paper mill pumping carcinogens into a river - all the fish die. It's when political and legal constructs are created to hide those externalities it's a social issue.
No doubt many of the unseen (and uknown) problems we create and lack of understanding of them come to bite us in the ass in taxes, etc, but this is the nature of ANY development / economic activity, there are always risks
Not just taxes, health care costs, infrastructure costs and on and on. Risk is an inherent part of business and something business is used to dealing with, business does not like dealing with regulation. Make business deal with it's externalities and regulation disappears because it then becomes a cost to the business that it tries to mitigate, business knows how to deal with costs and then will find a way to turn it into something or change it's processes so it doesn't incur the cost.
The reality is our economic system was designed in the '30's, it really is time for a re-vamp of the legal framework that corporate law is built upon to reflect the new things learned in the 21st century.
Secondly, a free market does not mean that people should be allowed to take advantage of the market, companies, and workers. The market should also be fair. Americans are fans of free markets because of their efficiency, but we also realize that the markets have to be regulated or they become unfair (see the American History during the industrial revolution and where Unions gained power).
The entire market is flawed, so lets not talk about it like some perfect self balancing system, inherently it is *unfair* and will never be fair because it is geared to making profit not towards being self sustaining.
1). Executives on a board are legally obliged to make decisions that favor generating returns for the shareholders, if that decision means they have to stall for compensating some villagers in Bhopal or fishermen at Prince William sound, then that is the fiscally responsible thing to do.
2). Corporations are not responsible for externalities that create a cost to the community. The theory is that the community is big enough to be able to absorb the cost of those externalities and let business focus on what they are doing. We can see how well it works in the case of carbon emissions.
A free market is what it is because people *can* take advantage of the market, companies, and workers - that's capitalism at work and if free markets were efficient then there would be no such thing as pollution because it would be profitable to turn that waste into a resource for another industry and/or fiscal suicide to try to avoid legal consequences of producing a waste product that could not be re-used.
Free markets are inherently *inefficient* because characteristically they are able to offset the management of their externalities onto the community. The fact is free markets cannot afford to produce their goods because they are massively subsidised by the community producing the illusion that they are efficient, in the meantime the community (read taxpayers) are left with the burden of dealing with the toxic/social impact. Fix the above two point first and then you have the starting point for a market that is balanced AND self regulated.
Has nothing to do with corporatism and everything to do with nationalism.
Yeah it does. The executives in his wake are getting a kickback that's why they are playing the game "pass the almighty buck", that it borders on fraud and includes ripping off the taxpayer just sweetens the pie. Make promises, sign contracts, doesn't matter by the time the legal system catches up with him the damage will be done and the money safely squared away.
America has been singing the praises of capitalism for so long now that all these other economies are starting to sing along and produce the kind of executives that corporate America loves. Let's not attempt to put corporatism on a pedestal and say 'this is nationalism', this is globalisation, this is capitalism doing what it does best, benefiting the few at the expense of the many.
It's fairly obvious to me that I.D is blasphemous.
Faith is the stalwart of religion and doubt is the stalwart of science but both are the opposite of certainty. If catholicism, the most hypocritical church on earth, has no problem with Darwin's ideas then why is it such a problem with other religions.
Supports of I.D must remember that limiting the discoveries of science is akin to limiting the glory of god, knowledge is not evil and neither is the extension and application of science. The discoveries of science test the limits of our understanding of the universe and should be seen, as such, to expand the understanding of the works of god. A God doesn't need defense from anyone and testing the limits of biology doesn't resemble testing god, it only tests the most pathetic of literal interpretations of the bible in it's most evangelical insecurity. If atheists test god, why do you care, who are you to judge? If atheists want to commune at the limit by saying god doesn't exist, who cares, you can't save anyone.
Atheists croon about people who have a faith and how stupid they but forget that a lot of people draw comfort from faith because there is a difference between intelligence and wisdom - it doesn't mean either is right or wrong - just different ways to get to death and that life can be a shit fight sometimes. We all have freewill with no interference, that's why you can choose what you believe, that's why you can't blame god for suffering in the world - because it's our world, our domain.
That said, I believe I.D is a blasphemous work of satan designed to dumb people down and distract them from what's important. Education is a weapon against suffering.
I think that it's really shitty that Atheist's and Theists are wasting time on this debate instead of standing up for things that matter like challenging human rights abuses, poverty, tin pot dictators, corporate corruption and so many other issues worth pursuing. Things that affect us no matter what we believe in.
As usual, people assume that the problem is the fuel. Its not. Its the lifestyle....because there is not going to be affordable gasoline enough to live like that
Yes, life style is the key issue but it's more than likely we will not be able to afford to use gasoline the way we have, and that is different from affordable gasoline. Our society has been drawing upon prehistoric stores of solar energy and releasing that stored carbon, recreating those times effectively. There must be a point where, even if we do have new deposits of energy to draw on, we can't do it anymore because we exacerbate the consequences we have already set in motion.
It will be a lot like Europe in the fifties.
Not neccessarily, and America has a great opportunity to become leaders here. Europe in the fifties didn't have the net. Using the net we can mitigate an enormous amount of carbon dioxide usage by making government force society and businesses to decentralise. A one hundred km/mile round trip by one person in a car takes a lot more energy in a day than a person using a computer to do their work by telecommuting either at home or a telecommuting centre.
Sure not everyone will be able to do that but *every* sector of our economy that relies on energy will change, some industries will disappear. If you think that the RIAA/MPAA is fighting for there business model now, lets see how larger industries behave that rely on our dependence on our lifestyle. The auto industry is starting to scramble now, China coming on line economically and creating drain on our oil reserves has given western countries a preview of what the world is going to be like with expensive oil and now that genie is out of the bottle it will have a much greater effect than the whole world waking up to global warming, however people will at least be able to join the dots.
The suburbs will vanish.
Some might but there is also the possibility that regional centres will become larger as civilisation adjusts. It won't be too difficult to create urban telecommuting centres large enough to accommodate office workers that would have driven into a large centralised office, especially if that business gets a carbon credit for allowing you to walk to work. This is one situation where technology is the exactly appropriate solution to the problem.
And you won't like it.
People are usually afraid of change, but if you are in the technology industry you should be used to it, you might just find that the few people that do have to drive do so on less crowded roads, and people who walk to new telecommuting centres are more physically fit, spend less time in traffic, more time being productive workers whilst having more time for their families. At the end of every week it's easy to spend a total of ten hours or more in a car and I can think of better things to do with that 10 hours than sit in traffic.
I would really like to put one of these in a telescope, maybe there is a camera adapter I could use. I think that would be cooler than using it for ad's (which is probably what it is for)
If you ever listen to the Dropkick Murphys cover an AC/DC tune, their awful tuneless bass player / now lead singer does an amazing job of ruining any happy memories you used to have of AC/DC.
No, Celine Dion's cover of you shook me all night long is a crime against humanity add this to the microwave brain zapper to force people to listen it and you have a genuine weapon of mass disparagement.
give me the ball puppy, drop the ball, give me the ball puppy, drop the ball puppy, puppy drop the ball, puppy give me the ball, drop the ball puppy puppy drop the ball, puppy, PUPPY GIVE ME THE BALL, drop the ball puppy, give me the ball, drop it,, drop it, drop the ball
I like to name my machines after operating systems and a number.
For example If I have a Windows server 2003, I call it Ubuntu710, if I have a RHEL box I call it MACOS10, if I have a Vista machine I call it FedoraCore7. I got to name a mainframe once and I called it AmigaOS and for Sun servers I call them DOS2 through DOS6. I call HPUX boxes AIX5 and AIX boxes HPUX11. The marketing department has been getting Macs lately and, despite protestations, I insisted they be called windows2000 to maintain naming standard consistency.
This makes for fantastic meetings, any phb that tries to get involved usually walks away with a headache, PM's usually want to slit their wrists after the first 10 minutes of discussion. Crackers usually fuck them selves up as their brain tells them one thing and their os map tools tells them something else, usually resulting in them launching the wrong attack against a machine and setting off all sorts of alarm on our IDS, a hardened fedora box called windows95.
I tend to shy away from including data that describes the operational, location or OS of the machines saving that for a good configuration database, only the people that should know this data should be able to access it anyway.
Besides as a machines passes from one asset life cycle to another it can keep it's name avoiding confusing scenarios. Developers can use machine names like clarke, brin, bear, asimov and users can be hosted on byron, keats or shelly.
Maybe it's kinda lame, but I find it helps when the users can relate to the machines by name instead of some confusing pseudo-name-code, it also makes for less confusion when supporting the machine.
That's ok, thank you for an interesting conversation and for being gracious. However I will leave you with one other quote from Benjamin Franklin on the signing of the US constitution for your consideration.
We must, indeed, all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately.
I think we're coming from very different places here, but in addition to that I fear you're a little confused.
Not confused at all friend, just tired of the deception forced upon the masses.
First of all, you talk about "people who died for our way of life", and in the same breath you mention that they were conscripted. Er, in that case they died because someone pointed a gun at their head and told them they were going to war, and the state bears as much responsibility for killing them
Sure, but the America that went to war in the '40's is different from the America of today and so are the imperatives. The legal framework put into place from those days to today has made conscription illegal but also has changed the nature of the "enemy", and I'm not talking about tewworism. Populations in western democracies have been dumbed down by the very media that was supposed to be informing it, that has fostered apathy toward the entire political process. This is good for the plutocracy that despises the populace.
Secondly, you mention that the democratic process has been subverted against the will of the people, and you suggest compulsory voting as a remedy for that. However, compulsory voting has not notably inhibited that subversion in, say, Australia.
I should have made myself more clear, I suggest it as a step towards a remedy, democracy works when most of the population is involved. I believe the participation rates for elections in America is around 17%, and to be fair roughly the same in the UK. Voting is compulsory in Australia but you are met with a small fine if you don't vote, so most of the population votes even if they are largely apathetic towards the choices.
Australia does not have a bill of rights like the U.S and UK does so laws that would be impossible in America or the UK are possible in Australia. For the most part mandatory voting in Australia is the counterpoint for the flaws in her political framework, just like a bill of rights is the counter point to the flaws in the American political system.
What I'm saying is right now the flaws of our political systems are being used against us and exported instead of us learning from each other. The democratic process should remain a constant evolving continuum being tuned and refined.
No, it isn't. If anything, it perpetuates those flaws, by lending faux legitimacy to their results. Otherwise, why would so many opposition figures in oppressive regimes (eg. Zimbabwe) urge their supporters to boycott flawed elections?
The opposition in Zimbabwe urged their supporters to spoil their ballots as a non-violent way to confront a dictator. In other words they urged everyone to participate and use their vote as a means to strip legitimacy from the incumbent. If they don't participate then the dictator can say - well they didn't care enough to vote so they must support me.
I don't feel free, and I don't feel like celebrating - but you want me dragged to the party kicking and screaming? So much for freedom...
I don't feel free either and I said it *should* be a celebration, and given a choice of having you dragged to the party kicking and screaming to vote as a voter as opposed to dragged to a jail cell kicking and screaming for trying to get a vote, yes friend, I would rather see you dragged to the ballot box, even if when you get their you spoil your vote.
(Freedom is founded upon the ability to say, and mean, "I decline". If you can't respond to some choice with "I'm fine without, thanks", or "I'll make my own", or some other variation of "I'll take care of myself", you aren't free in that choice.)
No it isn't . Freedom is founded upon the ability to stand up and say 'I won't stand for you treating my friends and family that way' and t
My own view is that if I am free to vote, I am necessarily free to not vote;
Which is not the same as not participating in the vote, which is the attitude those who subvert the political process want to prevail as another way to incrementally steal the democratic process from the people - which is why buying/selling votes should be illegal. People died for our way of life, and they weren't free to choose not to go and fight in a war, they were conscripted. Now all we have to do is tick a box, and for some it's all to hard.
I'm no flag waving moron, but I wonder how those people would feel then if they knew this would be the prevailing attitude now. I'm not having a go at you personally because I know you are just pointing out that attitude but I'll point out something Benjamin Franklin said...
In these sentiments, Sir, I agree to this Constitution, with all its faults, -- if they are such; because I think a general Government necessary for us, and there is no form of government but what may be a blessing to the people, if well administered; and I believe, farther, that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic government, being incapable of any other.
And look at where we are now. The democratic process in most western countries has been subverted against the will of the people. Frankly if you want to participate in the freedoms afforded by a democracy it should be mandatory that you vote and illegal to make constructs that prevent people from voting. This is one of the flaws central to modern democracies and whilst it doesn't mean the democratic process can't be subverted, it's one less way it can be subverted. Voting should be seen as a celebration of being free.
Which raises a question - how does one spoil an electronic ballot?
This is a very good point, but I would suggest a no-vote option or a choice of a spoilable paper ballet alway remains. If you don't want to vote then you should have to get out of your house, go to the ballot box and spoil your vote - It is a vote to say "none of these candidates are acceptable" but not excercising your vote is the same as saying "I don't give a fuck" - selling your vote is akin to subverting the democratic process.
Slashdot Mirror
Ok, before you mod me down, think about it, there are some real benefits for Microsoft adopting this strategy.
Hey, it's just a sugestion
Damn thats a good idea, did you have to have it safety tested before you plugged it in?
From workout --> put toxic smelling gym clothes in gym bag, put office clothes back on
They might hate me but I do understand the importance of deodorant, so I'm pretty sure I don't smell bad.
or handbag. I've noticed that some of my girlfriends handbags have a similar structure to the TARDIS, unfortunately the only thing a purse can't fit is a laptop.
The worst thing to leave at home is my lunch, thats when I put my car key on my lunch in the fridge. I have however left the power supply at home and on occasion my phone, now that stings - you have to weigh up the distance traveled + lateness vs inconvenience of not having phone - sometimes quite liberating.
Speaking of liberating, once I forgot a change of underwear and only realised it half way through my lunch time workout - kinda weird but unexpectedly comfortable. Now locking your car keys in the car at work is a major annoyance (if you have an old car like me) so I keep spare car keys, a spare phone charger and a spare shirt at work, pretty handy. I'm considering leaving a laptop power supply at work too.
I am however getting more comfortable with no undies.
here-eth ends the rambling.
They have null words for numbers?
Well if that's the case then it would be smarter to be a blue collar worker cleaning toilets because those jobs cannot be outsourced. Only trouble is the pay and conditions of third world countries are being used to compete against first world countries and thus those conditions are being imported into first world countries.
What you say may be alright when applied to white collar workers where physical risk is low, but in the cases of heavy industry where safety is a concern it's simply not acceptable for a person to go to work in the morning and have a good chance at losing a body part or their life whilst working in conditions where safety standards don't exist. This is compounded by the fact that some employers *want* to have safe working environment for their staff but have to reduce standards to compete with companies that don't give a fuck if a worker loses an arm because it's to expensive to service or replace safety machinery.
I have been in work sites where people got killed because they didn't follow safety standards and it's pretty hard to retrain someone when they are dead or have lost their legs. Globalisation should be exporting safety and similar working conditions and compete based on the merits of the *efficiency* of the outsourcer not based on the gains of competing with a suppressed population who is desperate for any work OR with a country that has virtually Zero local investment in infrastructure and staff training.
And before you try to categorise me, I am 200 pounds 10% body fat and can't stand fast food. I constantly re-train and am smart enough time to have enough time to gather a wider world view. And frankly I don't think its a sense of 'entitlement' to anything that makes me wants to have a legal framework in place that *ALLOWS* companies to operate in first world countries *AND* provide opportunities to that same community.
These types of initiative's come from an executive that is absolutely gutless, where instead of reinvesting the shareholder gains of the 90's back into the business they were provided as shareholder return. Of course now shareholders have got use to that level of return they want it all the time until every quality business has had the core of capability replaced by a massive, flailing, incompetent middle management with absolutely no imagination for how to run a technology business and anyone who cares about what they do wondering when they will be outsourced, no wonder I.T is having trouble attracting new recruits. Just look at any large corporate and there you will see middle management there justifying why it should alter this cell in this spreadsheet every day. Management doesn't get sacked, nor do they have to retrain.
That dearth of incompetence that has no capability to build a business that plays to the strengths of it's strongest asset - it's employee's, and instead of these businesses having the capability to adapt to the very changes in the marketplace as they occur, they instead choose to strip the talent out of it, a very dangerous situation indeed when market forces shift away from even the sturdiest of giants, leaving shareholders and employees alike wonder what the fuck happened, and C level execs with a nice fat bonus for fucking everybody over.
Retraining my ass, this sort of shit is not building the technology industry - it's destroying it by scaring away the brightest enough to recognise that quality work is just not valued anymore. Fuck you for propagating that attitude.
it's not the externalities that provide a benefit that are a concern, the vast majority of externalities are a burden on the community.
it's not stupidity, it's apathy. You don't need to be a scientist etc, to see the consequences of a paper mill pumping carcinogens into a river - all the fish die. It's when political and legal constructs are created to hide those externalities it's a social issue.
Not just taxes, health care costs, infrastructure costs and on and on. Risk is an inherent part of business and something business is used to dealing with, business does not like dealing with regulation. Make business deal with it's externalities and regulation disappears because it then becomes a cost to the business that it tries to mitigate, business knows how to deal with costs and then will find a way to turn it into something or change it's processes so it doesn't incur the cost.
The reality is our economic system was designed in the '30's, it really is time for a re-vamp of the legal framework that corporate law is built upon to reflect the new things learned in the 21st century.
There, fixed that for ya
The entire market is flawed, so lets not talk about it like some perfect self balancing system, inherently it is *unfair* and will never be fair because it is geared to making profit not towards being self sustaining.
1). Executives on a board are legally obliged to make decisions that favor generating returns for the shareholders, if that decision means they have to stall for compensating some villagers in Bhopal or fishermen at Prince William sound, then that is the fiscally responsible thing to do.
2). Corporations are not responsible for externalities that create a cost to the community. The theory is that the community is big enough to be able to absorb the cost of those externalities and let business focus on what they are doing. We can see how well it works in the case of carbon emissions.
A free market is what it is because people *can* take advantage of the market, companies, and workers - that's capitalism at work and if free markets were efficient then there would be no such thing as pollution because it would be profitable to turn that waste into a resource for another industry and/or fiscal suicide to try to avoid legal consequences of producing a waste product that could not be re-used.
Free markets are inherently *inefficient* because characteristically they are able to offset the management of their externalities onto the community. The fact is free markets cannot afford to produce their goods because they are massively subsidised by the community producing the illusion that they are efficient, in the meantime the community (read taxpayers) are left with the burden of dealing with the toxic/social impact. Fix the above two point first and then you have the starting point for a market that is balanced AND self regulated.
Yeah it does. The executives in his wake are getting a kickback that's why they are playing the game "pass the almighty buck", that it borders on fraud and includes ripping off the taxpayer just sweetens the pie. Make promises, sign contracts, doesn't matter by the time the legal system catches up with him the damage will be done and the money safely squared away.
America has been singing the praises of capitalism for so long now that all these other economies are starting to sing along and produce the kind of executives that corporate America loves. Let's not attempt to put corporatism on a pedestal and say 'this is nationalism', this is globalisation, this is capitalism doing what it does best, benefiting the few at the expense of the many.
Faith is the stalwart of religion and doubt is the stalwart of science but both are the opposite of certainty. If catholicism, the most hypocritical church on earth, has no problem with Darwin's ideas then why is it such a problem with other religions.
Supports of I.D must remember that limiting the discoveries of science is akin to limiting the glory of god, knowledge is not evil and neither is the extension and application of science. The discoveries of science test the limits of our understanding of the universe and should be seen, as such, to expand the understanding of the works of god. A God doesn't need defense from anyone and testing the limits of biology doesn't resemble testing god, it only tests the most pathetic of literal interpretations of the bible in it's most evangelical insecurity. If atheists test god, why do you care, who are you to judge? If atheists want to commune at the limit by saying god doesn't exist, who cares, you can't save anyone.
Atheists croon about people who have a faith and how stupid they but forget that a lot of people draw comfort from faith because there is a difference between intelligence and wisdom - it doesn't mean either is right or wrong - just different ways to get to death and that life can be a shit fight sometimes. We all have freewill with no interference, that's why you can choose what you believe, that's why you can't blame god for suffering in the world - because it's our world, our domain.
That said, I believe I.D is a blasphemous work of satan designed to dumb people down and distract them from what's important. Education is a weapon against suffering.
I think that it's really shitty that Atheist's and Theists are wasting time on this debate instead of standing up for things that matter like challenging human rights abuses, poverty, tin pot dictators, corporate corruption and so many other issues worth pursuing. Things that affect us no matter what we believe in.
She loves it because it fits in her hand bag, "it runs linux eh? what's linux? It does what I need it to do and it's cuuuttteee"
Yes, life style is the key issue but it's more than likely we will not be able to afford to use gasoline the way we have, and that is different from affordable gasoline. Our society has been drawing upon prehistoric stores of solar energy and releasing that stored carbon, recreating those times effectively. There must be a point where, even if we do have new deposits of energy to draw on, we can't do it anymore because we exacerbate the consequences we have already set in motion.
Not neccessarily, and America has a great opportunity to become leaders here. Europe in the fifties didn't have the net. Using the net we can mitigate an enormous amount of carbon dioxide usage by making government force society and businesses to decentralise. A one hundred km/mile round trip by one person in a car takes a lot more energy in a day than a person using a computer to do their work by telecommuting either at home or a telecommuting centre.
Sure not everyone will be able to do that but *every* sector of our economy that relies on energy will change, some industries will disappear. If you think that the RIAA/MPAA is fighting for there business model now, lets see how larger industries behave that rely on our dependence on our lifestyle. The auto industry is starting to scramble now, China coming on line economically and creating drain on our oil reserves has given western countries a preview of what the world is going to be like with expensive oil and now that genie is out of the bottle it will have a much greater effect than the whole world waking up to global warming, however people will at least be able to join the dots.
Some might but there is also the possibility that regional centres will become larger as civilisation adjusts. It won't be too difficult to create urban telecommuting centres large enough to accommodate office workers that would have driven into a large centralised office, especially if that business gets a carbon credit for allowing you to walk to work. This is one situation where technology is the exactly appropriate solution to the problem.
People are usually afraid of change, but if you are in the technology industry you should be used to it, you might just find that the few people that do have to drive do so on less crowded roads, and people who walk to new telecommuting centres are more physically fit, spend less time in traffic, more time being productive workers whilst having more time for their families. At the end of every week it's easy to spend a total of ten hours or more in a car and I can think of better things to do with that 10 hours than sit in traffic.
I would really like to put one of these in a telescope, maybe there is a camera adapter I could use. I think that would be cooler than using it for ad's (which is probably what it is for)
No, Celine Dion's cover of you shook me all night long is a crime against humanity add this to the microwave brain zapper to force people to listen it and you have a genuine weapon of mass disparagement.
Cleanse me!!!!!!!
The parent company Checkmate is also a brand of condoms so when I read the article I thought it was a clever diversification for the company.
give me the ball puppy, drop the ball, give me the ball puppy, drop the ball puppy, puppy drop the ball, puppy give me the ball, drop the ball puppy puppy drop the ball, puppy, PUPPY GIVE ME THE BALL, drop the ball puppy, give me the ball, drop it,, drop it, drop the ball
For example If I have a Windows server 2003, I call it Ubuntu710, if I have a RHEL box I call it MACOS10, if I have a Vista machine I call it FedoraCore7. I got to name a mainframe once and I called it AmigaOS and for Sun servers I call them DOS2 through DOS6. I call HPUX boxes AIX5 and AIX boxes HPUX11. The marketing department has been getting Macs lately and, despite protestations, I insisted they be called windows2000 to maintain naming standard consistency.
This makes for fantastic meetings, any phb that tries to get involved usually walks away with a headache, PM's usually want to slit their wrists after the first 10 minutes of discussion. Crackers usually fuck them selves up as their brain tells them one thing and their os map tools tells them something else, usually resulting in them launching the wrong attack against a machine and setting off all sorts of alarm on our IDS, a hardened fedora box called windows95.
Besides as a machines passes from one asset life cycle to another it can keep it's name avoiding confusing scenarios. Developers can use machine names like clarke, brin, bear, asimov and users can be hosted on byron, keats or shelly.
Maybe it's kinda lame, but I find it helps when the users can relate to the machines by name instead of some confusing pseudo-name-code, it also makes for less confusion when supporting the machine.
I also like animals and cartoon characters.
I hope Viacom don't tell Chuck
Not confused at all friend, just tired of the deception forced upon the masses.
Sure, but the America that went to war in the '40's is different from the America of today and so are the imperatives. The legal framework put into place from those days to today has made conscription illegal but also has changed the nature of the "enemy", and I'm not talking about tewworism. Populations in western democracies have been dumbed down by the very media that was supposed to be informing it, that has fostered apathy toward the entire political process. This is good for the plutocracy that despises the populace.
I should have made myself more clear, I suggest it as a step towards a remedy, democracy works when most of the population is involved. I believe the participation rates for elections in America is around 17%, and to be fair roughly the same in the UK. Voting is compulsory in Australia but you are met with a small fine if you don't vote, so most of the population votes even if they are largely apathetic towards the choices.
Australia does not have a bill of rights like the U.S and UK does so laws that would be impossible in America or the UK are possible in Australia. For the most part mandatory voting in Australia is the counterpoint for the flaws in her political framework, just like a bill of rights is the counter point to the flaws in the American political system.
What I'm saying is right now the flaws of our political systems are being used against us and exported instead of us learning from each other. The democratic process should remain a constant evolving continuum being tuned and refined.
The opposition in Zimbabwe urged their supporters to spoil their ballots as a non-violent way to confront a dictator. In other words they urged everyone to participate and use their vote as a means to strip legitimacy from the incumbent. If they don't participate then the dictator can say - well they didn't care enough to vote so they must support me.
I don't feel free either and I said it *should* be a celebration, and given a choice of having you dragged to the party kicking and screaming to vote as a voter as opposed to dragged to a jail cell kicking and screaming for trying to get a vote, yes friend, I would rather see you dragged to the ballot box, even if when you get their you spoil your vote.
No it isn't . Freedom is founded upon the ability to stand up and say 'I won't stand for you treating my friends and family that way' and t
But how will we listen out for illegal aliens?
Which is not the same as not participating in the vote, which is the attitude those who subvert the political process want to prevail as another way to incrementally steal the democratic process from the people - which is why buying/selling votes should be illegal. People died for our way of life, and they weren't free to choose not to go and fight in a war, they were conscripted. Now all we have to do is tick a box, and for some it's all to hard.
I'm no flag waving moron, but I wonder how those people would feel then if they knew this would be the prevailing attitude now. I'm not having a go at you personally because I know you are just pointing out that attitude but I'll point out something Benjamin Franklin said...
And look at where we are now. The democratic process in most western countries has been subverted against the will of the people. Frankly if you want to participate in the freedoms afforded by a democracy it should be mandatory that you vote and illegal to make constructs that prevent people from voting. This is one of the flaws central to modern democracies and whilst it doesn't mean the democratic process can't be subverted, it's one less way it can be subverted. Voting should be seen as a celebration of being free.
This is a very good point, but I would suggest a no-vote option or a choice of a spoilable paper ballet alway remains. If you don't want to vote then you should have to get out of your house, go to the ballot box and spoil your vote - It is a vote to say "none of these candidates are acceptable" but not excercising your vote is the same as saying "I don't give a fuck" - selling your vote is akin to subverting the democratic process.