-- I don't like to be leashed. I don't even like my cell phone. I find calling someone on a phone to be very demanding. When I hear the phone ring, I hear "TALK TO ME, TALK TO ME!" which would be appropriate if it extremely important to do so, but it rarely is. I prefer a text message to which I can respond when the time is appropriate or an email through which I can convey well-thought-out messages.
A lot of people agree with you there. I'm 23 and in the past year I think there's probably only been one person my age or younger that I talked to on the phone -- that being my (now ex) girlfriend. People older than me though seem to much prefer phone calls. I think they're the single most obnoxious communication method.
-- I don't like the focus of the smartphone. The smartphone, in my opinion, should be first and foremost a phone. With the billions of dollars put into R&D and infrastructure, one would think that a cell phone call would be at least as clear as talking on an intercom... but that's far from the case. Instead, cellular voice tech has taken back seat to video media quality so that you can watch really high quality Netflix videos in your palm, but you can't talk to someone in the same confidence of communication that could by using a 40-year old telephone.
Anything that discourages voice calls is AWESOME as far as I'm concerned!
-- I am not a voyeur. I am not particularly interested by the day-to-day happenings of people. I usually don't care about what you ate for lunch unless you've eaten for a week at a restaurant that's new to you and you think that I would personally enjoy eating at the same place. And if that's the case, send me a message-- don't tag me on your Facebook wall so that I have to visit the shrine you've built to your exhibitionist self.
As you have discovered, social networking sites are only as good as your social network. If the content is crap, it probably means your friends are crap;) Seriously though, I've considered deleting my Facebook many times, but it's the best method I've got for casual communication, and it also surprisingly may be the best news aggregator I've ever found.
Oh of course I don't expect a freakin' revolution because some crypto company had to shut down. Nobody cares. Nobody will ever care. I was merely pointing out that -- despite Nixon's opinion to the contrary -- just because the government does it does not automatically make it legal.
Not a single goddamn word of this gibberish has any relation to a word I've said except that bit at the end...
Also, worth noting that the ONLY other logically consistent position is to deport everyone who isn't a member of one of the native tribes.
so get to it man. figure out where you relatives are from. go there. but before you leave, drop off your belongings, and the contents of your bank account to the nearest reservation.
I never said that was the only solution, I said it was the only *other* solution. There are two logically consistent positions -- let them in, or get out. As stated, I prefer to let them in.
Also, worth noting that the ONLY other logically consistent position is to deport everyone who isn't a member of one of the native tribes. Not that real life is ever logically consistent....
It looks like they didn't shut down because of "terror" but because they didn't want to comply with court orders and didn't have the money to fight a losing battle.
It doesn't matter what Congress or the courts say; if the law violates the US Constitution, it is illegal and invalid. Which makes the agents enforcing it part of an organized criminal enterprise. An organized criminal enterprise which has just caused numerous US businesses to close their doors by using tactics intended to produce a state of fear in those businesses. Sounds like the freakin' definition of terrorism to me.
What exactly makes you think the NSA would have any incentive to do a better job than the existing producers? My guess would be the NSA's products would be *worse*. They don't need you to trust them. They don't need to turn a profit. Things are easier for them if you shit is not secured. And they don't give a damn if anyone else reads your traffic. Exactly what incentive would they have to make things secure?
Haven't really been concerned about battery life lately, but when I used to travel a lot I noticed my laptop that usually got 4 hours on Windows could get 6 or 7 in Linux with a few simple adjustments.
Not entirely a fair comparison though, as you can't really rip out the window manager and replace it with something ultra-light on Windows...and you also don't have as much control over the display brightness in Windows -- the dimmest Windows would let me set it was equal to around 20 steps from the bottom on Linux. Could do even better by installing Linux to a USB flash drive so it wasn't spinning up the hard drive as often.
Yea, I work as a consultant for one of the big national pharmacy chains, and from what I hear there are some prescriptions where we just eat the cost ourselves because it's cheaper than actually getting the person's insurance to pay for it...
No one is entitled to affordable health care, there is no reason why everyone should be able to have liver transplants regardless of income level. We should have access to fairly priced health care that we can work out the details of paying for it. And choose whether or not it's worth the money to us as individuals. Not the government deciding.
So Nikola Tesla's life is less valuable than Kim Kardashian's?
Still has to be part of the discussion, since there are *already* native-born US citizens spending months in prison for being undocumented. Sometimes forced to work in prison at $1/day to earn the money to purchase a new copy of their birth certificate from the government.
So anyone saying we should do more deportation and crack down harder is *also* saying we should be doing more of that to our own citizens, because we've already proven we can't do one without the other. Which is why I wanna say a big FUCK YOU to anyone who feels that way.
You see illegals picketing all the time in D.C.....why no crackdown/arrests/deportations?
Probably because the police department that tried that would get slammed with so many millions of dollars in wrongful imprisonment and civil rights lawsuits. Which would then be paid out of your tax dollars.
a) Not everyone at those things are illegal. I'm a native-born citizen and I've attended several events like that b) The bill of rights applies whether you're a citizen or not. Notice that it always says PEOPLE, not citizens. Such an assault would violate the first, and possibly fourth, fifith, and sixth amendments.
The anti-Latino prejudices of today are no different than the anti-Asian, anti-Jew, anti-Irish, and anti-German prejudices of the past.
Except for, you know, that part where the Asians, Jews, Irish, Germans, etc. did their paperwork to get in. If they didn't, they weren't let in. Apparently Spanish-speaking immigrants are "more special" and don't have to immigrate properly.
Kind of. The message boards had a filename search feature, but that relied on having downloaded the message where that file was posted originally. There's really no way to search the network at all.
You could certainly publish only incremental changes to the list, and there are plenty of mechanisms for doing that. But whoever wanted to search it would still need to download the entire list.
Yes, socialism is backed by a political system. This does not have to be a government. Anarchy is a political system.
Linux is a piece of software backed by a hardware system. That does not make Linux hardware. Nor does it mean you can use 'Linux' and 'x86 system' interchangeably ('linux' is to 'socialism' as 'x86 system' is to 'funded by the government')
To stretch this analogy just a bit further...when I said 'this formula would be a socialist model', that would be like saying 'Cinelerra is professional video editing software'. That's kind of an opinion, I admit that formula could be crap. But to reply with 'No, socialism is for the federal government to be distributing the money' is like saying 'No, a multi-core CPU is professional video editing software'. Even if every professional video editing system has a multi-core CPU, that still doesn't make the CPU software. *Even if* socialism always requires a federal government redistributing the wealth, that still doesn't make that government the definition of socialism. And no, a multi-core CPU is not professional video editing software "as a practical matter". Even if they are "everywhere that it exists."
Yes, it is. It's an economic policy enforced by a political entity. The point I was making is that the fact that it's distributed *by the federal government* isn't what makes it socialism -- the way it is distributed does.
$ (students) * (cost of living) * C + (average per-day mileage of buses) * K per school.
is an economic policy. It says how much money they get.
"getting all the money from the Federal government"
is a political decision. It says who does which tasks.
Technically socialism is an economic model, not a political model. Social Anarchism for example is a form of socialism with no government at all: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_anarchism
It's clearly not just about how much money the district has when you can easily see inequality even within two schools in the same district pulling from the same budget. Even if you funded all schools entirely from the federal budget you'd still probably have a huge amount of inequality between them.
A 'socialist' model would be something like $ (students) * (cost of living) * C + (average per-day mileage of buses) * K per school. Our model is more like $(students) * (average salary of town) * (percentage of students from above-average income households) * C
Slashdot Mirror
Most developers make at least $120K every year. And that is simply the net salary.
No, they don't. Perhaps you're thinking of the *top 10%* of software developers.
It's also not included on any modern PC, which is the entire reason people want to use USB.
-- I don't like to be leashed. I don't even like my cell phone. I find calling someone on a phone to be very demanding. When I hear the phone ring, I hear "TALK TO ME, TALK TO ME!" which would be appropriate if it extremely important to do so, but it rarely is. I prefer a text message to which I can respond when the time is appropriate or an email through which I can convey well-thought-out messages.
A lot of people agree with you there. I'm 23 and in the past year I think there's probably only been one person my age or younger that I talked to on the phone -- that being my (now ex) girlfriend. People older than me though seem to much prefer phone calls. I think they're the single most obnoxious communication method.
-- I don't like the focus of the smartphone. The smartphone, in my opinion, should be first and foremost a phone. With the billions of dollars put into R&D and infrastructure, one would think that a cell phone call would be at least as clear as talking on an intercom... but that's far from the case. Instead, cellular voice tech has taken back seat to video media quality so that you can watch really high quality Netflix videos in your palm, but you can't talk to someone in the same confidence of communication that could by using a 40-year old telephone.
Anything that discourages voice calls is AWESOME as far as I'm concerned!
-- I am not a voyeur. I am not particularly interested by the day-to-day happenings of people. I usually don't care about what you ate for lunch unless you've eaten for a week at a restaurant that's new to you and you think that I would personally enjoy eating at the same place. And if that's the case, send me a message-- don't tag me on your Facebook wall so that I have to visit the shrine you've built to your exhibitionist self.
As you have discovered, social networking sites are only as good as your social network. If the content is crap, it probably means your friends are crap ;) Seriously though, I've considered deleting my Facebook many times, but it's the best method I've got for casual communication, and it also surprisingly may be the best news aggregator I've ever found.
bad spelling...[does] not a dialect make.
Yeah, the Brits have been saying that about "American English" for years! ;)
Oh of course I don't expect a freakin' revolution because some crypto company had to shut down. Nobody cares. Nobody will ever care. I was merely pointing out that -- despite Nixon's opinion to the contrary -- just because the government does it does not automatically make it legal.
Not a single goddamn word of this gibberish has any relation to a word I've said except that bit at the end...
Also, worth noting that the ONLY other logically consistent position is to deport everyone who isn't a member of one of the native tribes.
so get to it man. figure out where you relatives are from. go there. but before you leave, drop off your belongings, and the contents of your bank account to the nearest reservation.
I never said that was the only solution, I said it was the only *other* solution. There are two logically consistent positions -- let them in, or get out. As stated, I prefer to let them in.
I see absolutely no problem with that strategy.
Also, worth noting that the ONLY other logically consistent position is to deport everyone who isn't a member of one of the native tribes. Not that real life is ever logically consistent....
That's existed for over a decade, but nobody wants to use it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freenet
It looks like they didn't shut down because of "terror" but because they didn't want to comply with court orders and didn't have the money to fight a losing battle.
It doesn't matter what Congress or the courts say; if the law violates the US Constitution, it is illegal and invalid. Which makes the agents enforcing it part of an organized criminal enterprise. An organized criminal enterprise which has just caused numerous US businesses to close their doors by using tactics intended to produce a state of fear in those businesses. Sounds like the freakin' definition of terrorism to me.
What exactly makes you think the NSA would have any incentive to do a better job than the existing producers? My guess would be the NSA's products would be *worse*. They don't need you to trust them. They don't need to turn a profit. Things are easier for them if you shit is not secured. And they don't give a damn if anyone else reads your traffic. Exactly what incentive would they have to make things secure?
Haven't really been concerned about battery life lately, but when I used to travel a lot I noticed my laptop that usually got 4 hours on Windows could get 6 or 7 in Linux with a few simple adjustments.
Not entirely a fair comparison though, as you can't really rip out the window manager and replace it with something ultra-light on Windows...and you also don't have as much control over the display brightness in Windows -- the dimmest Windows would let me set it was equal to around 20 steps from the bottom on Linux. Could do even better by installing Linux to a USB flash drive so it wasn't spinning up the hard drive as often.
Yea, I work as a consultant for one of the big national pharmacy chains, and from what I hear there are some prescriptions where we just eat the cost ourselves because it's cheaper than actually getting the person's insurance to pay for it...
No one is entitled to affordable health care, there is no reason why everyone should be able to have liver transplants regardless of income level. We should have access to fairly priced health care that we can work out the details of paying for it. And choose whether or not it's worth the money to us as individuals. Not the government deciding.
So Nikola Tesla's life is less valuable than Kim Kardashian's?
Still has to be part of the discussion, since there are *already* native-born US citizens spending months in prison for being undocumented. Sometimes forced to work in prison at $1/day to earn the money to purchase a new copy of their birth certificate from the government.
So anyone saying we should do more deportation and crack down harder is *also* saying we should be doing more of that to our own citizens, because we've already proven we can't do one without the other. Which is why I wanna say a big FUCK YOU to anyone who feels that way.
You see illegals picketing all the time in D.C.....why no crackdown/arrests/deportations?
Probably because the police department that tried that would get slammed with so many millions of dollars in wrongful imprisonment and civil rights lawsuits. Which would then be paid out of your tax dollars.
a) Not everyone at those things are illegal. I'm a native-born citizen and I've attended several events like that
b) The bill of rights applies whether you're a citizen or not. Notice that it always says PEOPLE, not citizens. Such an assault would violate the first, and possibly fourth, fifith, and sixth amendments.
So they're now proven guilty because you say so?
Sorry, that's not how the USA works. Try Riyadh.
The anti-Latino prejudices of today are no different than the anti-Asian, anti-Jew, anti-Irish, and anti-German prejudices of the past.
Except for, you know, that part where the Asians, Jews, Irish, Germans, etc. did their paperwork to get in. If they didn't, they weren't let in. Apparently Spanish-speaking immigrants are "more special" and don't have to immigrate properly.
Tell that to the natives...
*PEOPLE* cannot be illegal; only actions can.
It's like if you said your CPU was written in C. That's just wrong and sounds stupid. The software running on it may be, but the CPU itself isn't.
Kind of. The message boards had a filename search feature, but that relied on having downloaded the message where that file was posted originally. There's really no way to search the network at all.
You could certainly publish only incremental changes to the list, and there are plenty of mechanisms for doing that. But whoever wanted to search it would still need to download the entire list.
I've been making the exact same point for this entire discussion. Shit I've been directly quoting the same original two posts for most of it.
The fact that I'm supporting "people who want to defend it" is an assumption you are making based upon absolutely nothing.
I don't. And I'm fully aware some tea partiers have nearly identical goals to myself. And I try to work with them when possible.
Yes, socialism is backed by a political system. This does not have to be a government. Anarchy is a political system.
Linux is a piece of software backed by a hardware system. That does not make Linux hardware. Nor does it mean you can use 'Linux' and 'x86 system' interchangeably ('linux' is to 'socialism' as 'x86 system' is to 'funded by the government')
To stretch this analogy just a bit further...when I said 'this formula would be a socialist model', that would be like saying 'Cinelerra is professional video editing software'. That's kind of an opinion, I admit that formula could be crap. But to reply with 'No, socialism is for the federal government to be distributing the money' is like saying 'No, a multi-core CPU is professional video editing software'. Even if every professional video editing system has a multi-core CPU, that still doesn't make the CPU software. *Even if* socialism always requires a federal government redistributing the wealth, that still doesn't make that government the definition of socialism. And no, a multi-core CPU is not professional video editing software "as a practical matter". Even if they are "everywhere that it exists."
Yes, it is. It's an economic policy enforced by a political entity. The point I was making is that the fact that it's distributed *by the federal government* isn't what makes it socialism -- the way it is distributed does.
$ (students) * (cost of living) * C + (average per-day mileage of buses) * K per school.
is an economic policy. It says how much money they get.
"getting all the money from the Federal government"
is a political decision. It says who does which tasks.
Technically socialism is an economic model, not a political model. Social Anarchism for example is a form of socialism with no government at all:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_anarchism
Go read the rest of my post.
It's clearly not just about how much money the district has when you can easily see inequality even within two schools in the same district pulling from the same budget. Even if you funded all schools entirely from the federal budget you'd still probably have a huge amount of inequality between them.
A 'socialist' model would be something like $ (students) * (cost of living) * C + (average per-day mileage of buses) * K per school.
Our model is more like $(students) * (average salary of town) * (percentage of students from above-average income households) * C