He was in residential real-estate in florida. Quitting his job probably saved him money...didn't have to pay for gas driving around to show houses no one wants to buy.
it's the years on end part which kind of rules that one out, i think. op says it only happens for a couple hours each night. unlikely that's the only time when the baby monitor would be in use....
The/. summary comes from the summary at the University of Manchester, you know, the link? It's the institution Kennedy works at, so...it's not untoward to expect that the press release from his employer about his work be somewhat accurate. And from reading that summary...I call bollocks. The problem, as I see it, is that he is extrapolating one or two steps beyond what is provable and safe. It's one thing to say that the rhythm of Plato's writings was informed by ancient musical theory. That's fine, I buy that. It fits with much of what we know about classical rules of harmony in art, architecture, poetry, etc. There's a mathematical simplicity to it all that makes it clean, and beautiful. It's not surprising that Plato would employ similar tools in his writing. But it's a huge big farking leap to say that his employ of (for his time) contemporary good taste and aesthetics is a demonstration of some secret philosophy and gospel. It's those sorts of tremendous leaps where I part company with literary analysts.
It is still the browser which is deployed on all the desktops at JPMorganChase. It's the corporate standard. They're doing testing on a newer version of IE, and they have a migration plan, but they currently still HAVE to support IE 6 b/c it's the only browser most of their employees are allowed to use while at work.
Bollocks. They don't want some ad which pops up every once in a while. They want a button. It's like asking the TV station to have a permanent chyron on screen with the authorites' phone numbers. It's a PRIVATE CORPORATION, it's completely unreasonable to expect the PRIVATE CORPORATION to provide a direct conduit for users to the government. The users have a browser bar; presumably they know how to do a web search and go to the government themselves. In fact, they don't even have to leave Blessed Facebook to run the search--in case you hadn't noticed, Facebook includes web searches now if things aren't found on the site. AND, the Aussie Police can exert themselves and create their own Fan Page so that they can have their own landing page inside Facebook. It's WAY over the top for them to request something so intrusive.
This right here is the thread I was looking for. No, the cop didn't lie, but he didn't exactly tell the whole truth either. THAT sort of misrepresentation of the law is what I find absolutely reprehensible, and it's something people in authority seem to do All The Time. Be they TSA, Police, or even just rent-a-cops, the tendency to misrepresent what your rights are to you in an attempt to coerce you into acting in a manner consistent with their whims is what completely pisses me off about the the authorities. They're counting on a) your not being well-versed in just what your rights are and b) that most folk don't want to be breaking the law so they'll comply. And they know that even if they're slightly infringing your rights that there will be no consequences for them. All the risk is on your side; they've got virtually none. Only egregious misconduct is dealt with in a manner which at all discourages the behaviour. It's wrong, and it's a significant factor in the erosion of personal liberty across the word. Once people get used to not being able to do something, that something which was previously legal can now be criminalized.
Well, I doubt this will help me, but maybe someone else.... My youtube account got locked...sometime in the past year? I didn't use it very frequently, and only ever used it to rate videos (I'd never posted a video, ever). Unfortunately, I don't have access to the email account I originally created the youtube account with, so...although you have a form for finding out why you got suspended, I can't use it. I have no way to find out why my account got suspended, no recourse. I don't care a whole lot because I wasn't using it for anything important, but...it uses the same username as my gmail, and I'd like to join the two accounts (now that that's an option). If the account weren't suspended, I could change my contact info to use a current email address...but I can't. Neither is there a webpage which will show me what TOS Google claims I violated despite my ability to enter in the correct authentication credentials. Here's my proposal: if your account is suspended, when you log in, you should be blocked from all site services; however, you should be routed to a special little area for resolving account issues. So, when I log in, I'd like to see, as my landing page, information on my status "you're suspended", and a little message box for interacting with google support to resolve the suspension (whether that be simply me requesting and google telling me why I was suspended, or maybe me being able to appeal and being able to see the result 'legitmate ban', 'mistake'). I think that would work a lot better than the current lack of process and completely opaque workings.
That's a somewhat misleading way to present it. The poor person and rich person pay the same 20% rate on the same level of income. The tax system is tiered. i.e., income up to a certain point gets taxed at a certain rate (starting at 0%). Income in excess of that gets taxed at the next highest rate. So, while a certain person's tax bill may end up equalling 30% of their income, that would mean they made such a great deal more than the lower brackets that it completely masked the fact that they were paying at a lower rate for that part of their income.
Well, as others pointed out, there's other reasons for having a fast network other than internet access; and you can't expect that your broadband speed won't *eventually* go up. However, I completely agree that broadband speed is seriously lagging what it probably should be. Yes, I'm sure there's any number of posters who can say they've got some special, wonderful fibre hookup, but that isn't yet available to the majority of people. And, honestly, until it is, a faster home network just isn't tremendously exciting.
Now that's actually a more intelligent proposal. Trying to ensure all "objectionable" material is only located on.xxx is a fool's errand..kids would be much easier to police....
depends on whether BP wants to take the short view or the long view. they're probably bound to lose a little on the disaster, but, as someone noted elsewhere, if they want to take a longer view, they can restrict global supply, causing prices to rise... competitors *could* increase output to keep prices down, but higher prices are in their competitors' interest as well...maximizes the profit for any well that is currently producing, so their competitors are likely to capitalize on the higher prices rather than trying to stick-it to BP by increasing production. the problem with the picture as you paint it is that each company is trying to maximize the profit they can make off each well while at the same time getting enough of a share of the market that they can fund continued operations. if prices suddenly rise, it's not in their interest to bring them down...likewise, it's not in their interest to make up for anything but a significant shortfall in production. of course, they are also walking a delicate public-relations and public-policy balancing act, so they have to give a little sometimes in the interest of keeping the customer hooked...but it's certainly not a case of the market working strictly in the customer's favour.
yeah, that may well be true...too tainted to eat, and they'll have more disease problems due to pollution induced mutations, but they'll go without being harvested and will get to all grow to maturity and reproduce unchecked. aren't hemisphere-sized ecological experiments FUN!?
Safeway and Sears let producers set prices all the time (more or less). Or do you think everything costs the same and then the retail store chooses a bunch of different prices? Producers set the price they sell their product at. The store buys it, applies their own markup, final consumer price. Producer raises price? Price generally goes up. Producer lowers price? Who knows...depends on sales contract between producer and store.
But that's really all irrelevant because in this model, the store doesn't buy ANYthing from the producer. They're acting as a sales agent, not a buyer-and-seller. A better example would be realtors. How many people do you think would stand for realtors getting to choose the price they have to sell their house at? Given that that's a better analogy, why would people feel better about Amazon and Apple making a Very similar decision for them?
No bubble being burst. I wasn't saying Apple had never, ever done anything open-source. I was, however, responding to insinuations that they were somehow "open" b/c some of the iPhone development software utilized open source. If they wanted to point to the company being open, pointing to the iPhone tools and the iPhone itself is hardly a good way to do it.
Apple may have their merits, but trying to argue that the iPhone is in ANY way an open platform is completely ludicrous. Apple goes above and beyond to try to prevent you from using devices the way you want to, they like open-source only in-so-far as it lets them build better CLOSED systems, they try to maintain as tight a control on everything they can as is possible. Sure, they use some open source as part of the products. What of it? That makes them a user, not a promoter, of open source and open systems. Particularly the latest requirements that applications can only be developed in their sanctioned languages is the most heavy-handed, self-serving "horseshit" I've ever seen.
And if you think Apple supporting some way for those so inclined to unlock the ability to install unsigned apps would make the phone a rancid piece of shit for everyone who DIDN'T do that...you truly are deluded. There is ZERO reason why providing some way for people to install apps that aren't blessed by their sweatshop-priesthood that oversees the app store would make it a "bad experience" for everyone who just stuck with the store. Sorry, but I guess there IS a UID for stupid.
Verizon's management would have to be monumentally incompetent to not be willing to get in bed with Apple. Especially if the cost of it is merely to not carry one not-very-high-selling phone. Now, Apple and Verizon both would have to be pretty stupid to make it an explicit quid pro quo, but I don't believe for a second that Verizon wouldn't make that call if they thought it would score them the iPhone. I'm not exactly what you'd call a fan of Apple, but there's personal preference, and then there's business.
Which would make sense...if Apple were letting Google do ad sales for the iPhone. But Apple has decided they want to try to keep that pie for themselves as well, what with their new ad program. It's not a stretch to think that they will make it more and more difficult for 3rd parties to sell ads on their platform. Which, were I Google, would make me question the value to providing a new, fancy capability for this competitor that is hell-bent on making it difficult for anyone but themselves to make money on their phones. After all, if turn-by-turn never makes it to the iPhone, Google can offer all sorts of justifications. But once they've provided it, there would be a lot more hue-and-cry if they discontinued it even if Apple's changing business practices made it unprofitable for them.
Don't get caught up in semantic quibbles. The passage of centuries doesn't really matter. The point is that the actual individuals alive today, in many parts of the world, live in cultures that have only recently been widely exposed to modern technology, philosophies, and world-views. It's irrelevant, when talking about those individuals, that their societies could in theory have modernized--the fact is, they didn't, and so the individuals are coming from cultures that didn't. Those individuals weren't alive for centuries, they have only the here-and-now, not the might-have-been. And it's not all about churches killing people. The Chinese also had a tremendous head-start on Europe, but also plateaued. The reasons why some societies continued to develop technologically and some reached a point of stasis or even stagnation are complex, and attributing it to any single factor is incredibly simplistic.
That's a truism. Only criminals commit crime. Any crime. Committing crime makes you a criminal, therefore only criminals commit crime. Unfortunately, there's no a priori classification of criminals.... However, many people who commit murder have prior criminal records for less severe crimes. It might not be difficult to go find a gun, but there's no reason to say, "Criminals can buy firearms anyway, so we should just go ahead let them." Or are you arguing that the rules which prevent felons from purchasing and owning firearms are stupid and should be gotten rid of? What's so wrong with "only non-criminals can legally buy firearms"? Does that prevent any non-criminal from using a gun to protect themselves if that's their preference? Unless you're a criminal who wants to be able to shop more easily at the gun-store, why is it a big imposition?
If I have systems, and I do, which require the utmost in performance, and which also have to connect to the outside world, the last thing I want is for those systems to IN ANY way be impacted b/c some bozo wants to flood me with packets. I want that cut off somewhere else, not at my box. I have a well-known, small set of external systems I want to connect to, and I only want to see traffic from them. It's not about my host being poorly designed, it's simply that I want to have my system focus only on the task it's doing, not some other b.s. I'll be using my network devices very heavily, high traffic rates (by no means all external), and I'll be often saturating my CPUs with actual work. Tell me again why I don't want another box acting as a firewall to help protect my systems?
Slashdot Mirror
He was in residential real-estate in florida. Quitting his job probably saved him money...didn't have to pay for gas driving around to show houses no one wants to buy.
it's the years on end part which kind of rules that one out, i think. op says it only happens for a couple hours each night. unlikely that's the only time when the baby monitor would be in use....
The /. summary comes from the summary at the University of Manchester, you know, the link? It's the institution Kennedy works at, so...it's not untoward to expect that the press release from his employer about his work be somewhat accurate. And from reading that summary...I call bollocks. The problem, as I see it, is that he is extrapolating one or two steps beyond what is provable and safe. It's one thing to say that the rhythm of Plato's writings was informed by ancient musical theory. That's fine, I buy that. It fits with much of what we know about classical rules of harmony in art, architecture, poetry, etc. There's a mathematical simplicity to it all that makes it clean, and beautiful. It's not surprising that Plato would employ similar tools in his writing. But it's a huge big farking leap to say that his employ of (for his time) contemporary good taste and aesthetics is a demonstration of some secret philosophy and gospel. It's those sorts of tremendous leaps where I part company with literary analysts.
More useful: http://xkcd.com/207/ Ackerman's function with graham's number.
It is still the browser which is deployed on all the desktops at JPMorganChase. It's the corporate standard. They're doing testing on a newer version of IE, and they have a migration plan, but they currently still HAVE to support IE 6 b/c it's the only browser most of their employees are allowed to use while at work.
That...and/or they blamed any reception problems & inconsistencies on the network, like everyone else who uses an iPhone in the USA.... :)
i don't think the point was necessarily b/c it was buying him off, but a gesture of good-will and sympathy. But I don't know, I wasn't involved.
They should try Amphetamine!
Bollocks. They don't want some ad which pops up every once in a while. They want a button. It's like asking the TV station to have a permanent chyron on screen with the authorites' phone numbers. It's a PRIVATE CORPORATION, it's completely unreasonable to expect the PRIVATE CORPORATION to provide a direct conduit for users to the government. The users have a browser bar; presumably they know how to do a web search and go to the government themselves. In fact, they don't even have to leave Blessed Facebook to run the search--in case you hadn't noticed, Facebook includes web searches now if things aren't found on the site. AND, the Aussie Police can exert themselves and create their own Fan Page so that they can have their own landing page inside Facebook. It's WAY over the top for them to request something so intrusive.
This right here is the thread I was looking for. No, the cop didn't lie, but he didn't exactly tell the whole truth either. THAT sort of misrepresentation of the law is what I find absolutely reprehensible, and it's something people in authority seem to do All The Time. Be they TSA, Police, or even just rent-a-cops, the tendency to misrepresent what your rights are to you in an attempt to coerce you into acting in a manner consistent with their whims is what completely pisses me off about the the authorities. They're counting on a) your not being well-versed in just what your rights are and b) that most folk don't want to be breaking the law so they'll comply. And they know that even if they're slightly infringing your rights that there will be no consequences for them. All the risk is on your side; they've got virtually none. Only egregious misconduct is dealt with in a manner which at all discourages the behaviour. It's wrong, and it's a significant factor in the erosion of personal liberty across the word. Once people get used to not being able to do something, that something which was previously legal can now be criminalized.
Well, I doubt this will help me, but maybe someone else.... My youtube account got locked...sometime in the past year? I didn't use it very frequently, and only ever used it to rate videos (I'd never posted a video, ever). Unfortunately, I don't have access to the email account I originally created the youtube account with, so...although you have a form for finding out why you got suspended, I can't use it. I have no way to find out why my account got suspended, no recourse. I don't care a whole lot because I wasn't using it for anything important, but...it uses the same username as my gmail, and I'd like to join the two accounts (now that that's an option). If the account weren't suspended, I could change my contact info to use a current email address...but I can't. Neither is there a webpage which will show me what TOS Google claims I violated despite my ability to enter in the correct authentication credentials. Here's my proposal: if your account is suspended, when you log in, you should be blocked from all site services; however, you should be routed to a special little area for resolving account issues. So, when I log in, I'd like to see, as my landing page, information on my status "you're suspended", and a little message box for interacting with google support to resolve the suspension (whether that be simply me requesting and google telling me why I was suspended, or maybe me being able to appeal and being able to see the result 'legitmate ban', 'mistake'). I think that would work a lot better than the current lack of process and completely opaque workings.
That's a somewhat misleading way to present it. The poor person and rich person pay the same 20% rate on the same level of income. The tax system is tiered. i.e., income up to a certain point gets taxed at a certain rate (starting at 0%). Income in excess of that gets taxed at the next highest rate. So, while a certain person's tax bill may end up equalling 30% of their income, that would mean they made such a great deal more than the lower brackets that it completely masked the fact that they were paying at a lower rate for that part of their income.
GP speaks estonian?
Well, as others pointed out, there's other reasons for having a fast network other than internet access; and you can't expect that your broadband speed won't *eventually* go up. However, I completely agree that broadband speed is seriously lagging what it probably should be. Yes, I'm sure there's any number of posters who can say they've got some special, wonderful fibre hookup, but that isn't yet available to the majority of people. And, honestly, until it is, a faster home network just isn't tremendously exciting.
Now that's actually a more intelligent proposal. Trying to ensure all "objectionable" material is only located on .xxx is a fool's errand. .kids would be much easier to police....
depends on whether BP wants to take the short view or the long view. they're probably bound to lose a little on the disaster, but, as someone noted elsewhere, if they want to take a longer view, they can restrict global supply, causing prices to rise... competitors *could* increase output to keep prices down, but higher prices are in their competitors' interest as well...maximizes the profit for any well that is currently producing, so their competitors are likely to capitalize on the higher prices rather than trying to stick-it to BP by increasing production. the problem with the picture as you paint it is that each company is trying to maximize the profit they can make off each well while at the same time getting enough of a share of the market that they can fund continued operations. if prices suddenly rise, it's not in their interest to bring them down...likewise, it's not in their interest to make up for anything but a significant shortfall in production. of course, they are also walking a delicate public-relations and public-policy balancing act, so they have to give a little sometimes in the interest of keeping the customer hooked...but it's certainly not a case of the market working strictly in the customer's favour.
yeah, that may well be true...too tainted to eat, and they'll have more disease problems due to pollution induced mutations, but they'll go without being harvested and will get to all grow to maturity and reproduce unchecked. aren't hemisphere-sized ecological experiments FUN!?
Safeway and Sears let producers set prices all the time (more or less). Or do you think everything costs the same and then the retail store chooses a bunch of different prices? Producers set the price they sell their product at. The store buys it, applies their own markup, final consumer price. Producer raises price? Price generally goes up. Producer lowers price? Who knows...depends on sales contract between producer and store.
But that's really all irrelevant because in this model, the store doesn't buy ANYthing from the producer. They're acting as a sales agent, not a buyer-and-seller. A better example would be realtors. How many people do you think would stand for realtors getting to choose the price they have to sell their house at? Given that that's a better analogy, why would people feel better about Amazon and Apple making a Very similar decision for them?
No bubble being burst. I wasn't saying Apple had never, ever done anything open-source. I was, however, responding to insinuations that they were somehow "open" b/c some of the iPhone development software utilized open source. If they wanted to point to the company being open, pointing to the iPhone tools and the iPhone itself is hardly a good way to do it.
Apple may have their merits, but trying to argue that the iPhone is in ANY way an open platform is completely ludicrous. Apple goes above and beyond to try to prevent you from using devices the way you want to, they like open-source only in-so-far as it lets them build better CLOSED systems, they try to maintain as tight a control on everything they can as is possible. Sure, they use some open source as part of the products. What of it? That makes them a user, not a promoter, of open source and open systems. Particularly the latest requirements that applications can only be developed in their sanctioned languages is the most heavy-handed, self-serving "horseshit" I've ever seen.
And if you think Apple supporting some way for those so inclined to unlock the ability to install unsigned apps would make the phone a rancid piece of shit for everyone who DIDN'T do that...you truly are deluded. There is ZERO reason why providing some way for people to install apps that aren't blessed by their sweatshop-priesthood that oversees the app store would make it a "bad experience" for everyone who just stuck with the store. Sorry, but I guess there IS a UID for stupid.
Verizon's management would have to be monumentally incompetent to not be willing to get in bed with Apple. Especially if the cost of it is merely to not carry one not-very-high-selling phone. Now, Apple and Verizon both would have to be pretty stupid to make it an explicit quid pro quo, but I don't believe for a second that Verizon wouldn't make that call if they thought it would score them the iPhone. I'm not exactly what you'd call a fan of Apple, but there's personal preference, and then there's business.
Which would make sense...if Apple were letting Google do ad sales for the iPhone. But Apple has decided they want to try to keep that pie for themselves as well, what with their new ad program. It's not a stretch to think that they will make it more and more difficult for 3rd parties to sell ads on their platform. Which, were I Google, would make me question the value to providing a new, fancy capability for this competitor that is hell-bent on making it difficult for anyone but themselves to make money on their phones. After all, if turn-by-turn never makes it to the iPhone, Google can offer all sorts of justifications. But once they've provided it, there would be a lot more hue-and-cry if they discontinued it even if Apple's changing business practices made it unprofitable for them.
Don't get caught up in semantic quibbles. The passage of centuries doesn't really matter. The point is that the actual individuals alive today, in many parts of the world, live in cultures that have only recently been widely exposed to modern technology, philosophies, and world-views. It's irrelevant, when talking about those individuals, that their societies could in theory have modernized--the fact is, they didn't, and so the individuals are coming from cultures that didn't. Those individuals weren't alive for centuries, they have only the here-and-now, not the might-have-been. And it's not all about churches killing people. The Chinese also had a tremendous head-start on Europe, but also plateaued. The reasons why some societies continued to develop technologically and some reached a point of stasis or even stagnation are complex, and attributing it to any single factor is incredibly simplistic.
That's a truism. Only criminals commit crime. Any crime. Committing crime makes you a criminal, therefore only criminals commit crime. Unfortunately, there's no a priori classification of criminals.... However, many people who commit murder have prior criminal records for less severe crimes. It might not be difficult to go find a gun, but there's no reason to say, "Criminals can buy firearms anyway, so we should just go ahead let them." Or are you arguing that the rules which prevent felons from purchasing and owning firearms are stupid and should be gotten rid of? What's so wrong with "only non-criminals can legally buy firearms"? Does that prevent any non-criminal from using a gun to protect themselves if that's their preference? Unless you're a criminal who wants to be able to shop more easily at the gun-store, why is it a big imposition?
If I have systems, and I do, which require the utmost in performance, and which also have to connect to the outside world, the last thing I want is for those systems to IN ANY way be impacted b/c some bozo wants to flood me with packets. I want that cut off somewhere else, not at my box. I have a well-known, small set of external systems I want to connect to, and I only want to see traffic from them. It's not about my host being poorly designed, it's simply that I want to have my system focus only on the task it's doing, not some other b.s. I'll be using my network devices very heavily, high traffic rates (by no means all external), and I'll be often saturating my CPUs with actual work. Tell me again why I don't want another box acting as a firewall to help protect my systems?