As bad-taste as it is to post another submitted story in a front-page story, here is another whitehouse.gov petition story that addresses net neutrality from an angle that is actually winnable:
In order to win this fight, we need to make people understand that net neutrality is a services-paid-for issue. They paid for something, but they are being robbed out of getting what they purchased. To win net neutrality, you MUST sell that point to people.
When comparing how much people give for charity, percentage is all that matters. If someone makes $50k/yr and gives $5k/yr to charity, and someone else makes $5,000,000/yr and gives $20k to charity, do you really consider them to be more generous since they gave FOUR TIMES the amount? No, they are less generous. They would be giving 0.4% of their salary vs. 10.0%. The impact on their lives would be non-existent. The point of charitable giving is that you are giving up something for other people -- you are saying "my life will be harder so that other people's lives can be easier."
But yeah, I guess you could say they gave quadruple the amount to charity, if you wanted to be disingenuous.
One of life's great mysteries is how achieving wealth tends to make people more greedy. For example, studies have shown that, as a percentage of income, charitable giving tends to be inversely proportional to income. Here you have a company that has found tremendous success, and in response to that success they become more greedy and try to shut everyone down.
I think human nature is not to just want success. Human nature is to want to win and stomp on the corpses of your competition.
"Unless you're the head of a major federal agency or a huge company launching an online initiative targeted at millions of users, it's unlikely you'll be the one responsible for a project (and problems) on the scale of the Health Insurance Marketplace."
Going by budget, even if you are the head of Facebook and Twitter, you are still not going to be responsible for a project on the scale of the Health Insurance Marketplace.
This farce is wholly, completely, and unarguably inexcusable.
I just want to make sure I have the right series of events here, from the public perspective:
1. A previous elected official and congress enact some overreaching laws in response to a terrorist attack 2. A politician who makes a bunch of promises against these programs is elected the new President 3. The now-elected politician strengthens and enforces those programs rather than shuttering them 4. There is some kind of a court decision but it is sealed/secret. FOIA requests are made by EFF. 5. A whistle blower comes forward and exposes the illegal activities to the public because his bosses and the elected official have continued said operations. Since his bosses are the Executive Branch and responsible for enforcing the law, he has nobody to report his findings to other than the public. 6. The elected official and members of congress declare said whistle blower a traitor for exposing their methods. 7. It is revealed that the court had previously, as in years ago, ruled that the activities reported on by the whistle blower are illegal. Meaning the whistle blower is not just reporting the activities, but he is reporting that the President of the United States, the heads of major departments, the Attorney General, and a bunch of other People In Power have been knowingly breaking the law to empower the government. Not only, in fact, are they doing something that the court already ruled is illegal, but they sealed the court's decision so that the public would not know about it.
If they are talking about enough users having this running to be effective, then they are talking about a tremendous number of users basically setting their phones to drain their batteries out as-fast-as-possible. What are the electricity costs of such an endeavor? Significant, I'd wager.
And the number of false-positives that would be generated would be huge, I'd imagine.
I don't understand why Apple doesn't just spend all their $billions locked up overseas to build an overseas manufacturing facility. They have plenty. Probably plenty to do it multiple times. Then, they get the best of multiple worlds: 1) they are not as reliant on Samsung, 2) they get to use that money tax-free, 3) they can have some meaningful diversification
And if the thing goes belly-up? Then they "buy" the whole thing from their foreign subsidiary with US cash and get a tax rebate on the business expense in addition to never having paid taxes on it in the first place.
I don't work for samsung, I'm a definitely-not-Samsung-person, buuuuut . . .
The monolithic competitors to the small, agile little tech/phone startup company, Samsung, want to squash it with legal action because they have no prayer of defeating the high-value, unmatched technological innovations Samsung is or will be offering shortly! Samsung's victory is inevitable! ALL HAIL SAMSUNG!
I say again, I am not a Samsung employee. However, as an insightful, intelligent employee, I am looking at employment there in the coming years (and maybe you should too, fellow insightful employees of Samsung's doomed-to-be-destroyed competitors!).
I'm willing to bet that this discrepancy is more a factor of groups vs. individuals than male vs. female. Aka "peer pressure" aka "everyone is doing it" etc.
In other news, a giant art sculpture designed to be visible from space located in the northernmost reaches of Siberia is mysteriously blurry when viewed from the latest satellite photography through Apple's new maps application.
At 40, you should know by now that it isn't what your reward is, but how much you are enjoying it.
If a job offered me a 100% raise, but I had to commute an hour each way, I'd say no. My current commute is 7 minutes. That would mean I lose almost 2 hours of personal time in the evening every single day, and that is not worth doubling my salary to me. However, other people have different priorities for what they are looking to achieve.
If being closer to home and earning a little more money is more important to you and will bring you a greater sense of satisfaction and fulfillment than your current situation, then make the change. But if money isn't that important to you, you are "close enough" to home, and you are really happy at your current position, be sure you aren't just moving because "the grass is greener."
EA is pretty reckless with this. iD could sue everyone for copying the idea of 1st person shooters with the guns popping out the bottom of the screen, et al.
Of course, they can't WIN such a suit. I hope the judge dismisses with prejudice. This is a potentially patent-troll-esque precedent case.
Blizzard would like to thank you for your patience. While we constantly strive to maintain a stable server environment, there was no way we could have predicted so many people, most of whom pre-ordered the expansion pack, were ACTUALLY going to attempt to play it the day it came out. We thank you for your patience while we work out minor server stability issues. We are confident that you will be able to log in and enjoy the world we worked so hard to create on October 10th, following our regularly scheduled maintenance.
I wonder if anyone in the judiciary branch enforcing rulings against the TSA ends up unable to fly/etc. They would have pretty much the same recourse as the rest of us.
People who bought the game online and pre-downloaded it with the advertising from Blizzard that they should (paraphrased) "download it early so you can play the minute it goes live," still cannot play the game.
Slashdot Mirror
As bad-taste as it is to post another submitted story in a front-page story, here is another whitehouse.gov petition story that addresses net neutrality from an angle that is actually winnable:
http://slashdot.org/submission/3512823/whitehousegov-net-neutrality-petition
That links to this: http://wh.gov/lfOKl
In order to win this fight, we need to make people understand that net neutrality is a services-paid-for issue. They paid for something, but they are being robbed out of getting what they purchased. To win net neutrality, you MUST sell that point to people.
When comparing how much people give for charity, percentage is all that matters. If someone makes $50k/yr and gives $5k/yr to charity, and someone else makes $5,000,000/yr and gives $20k to charity, do you really consider them to be more generous since they gave FOUR TIMES the amount? No, they are less generous. They would be giving 0.4% of their salary vs. 10.0%. The impact on their lives would be non-existent. The point of charitable giving is that you are giving up something for other people -- you are saying "my life will be harder so that other people's lives can be easier."
But yeah, I guess you could say they gave quadruple the amount to charity, if you wanted to be disingenuous.
This from 2012
One of life's great mysteries is how achieving wealth tends to make people more greedy. For example, studies have shown that, as a percentage of income, charitable giving tends to be inversely proportional to income. Here you have a company that has found tremendous success, and in response to that success they become more greedy and try to shut everyone down.
I think human nature is not to just want success. Human nature is to want to win and stomp on the corpses of your competition.
"Unless you're the head of a major federal agency or a huge company launching an online initiative targeted at millions of users, it's unlikely you'll be the one responsible for a project (and problems) on the scale of the Health Insurance Marketplace."
Going by budget, even if you are the head of Facebook and Twitter, you are still not going to be responsible for a project on the scale of the Health Insurance Marketplace.
This farce is wholly, completely, and unarguably inexcusable.
Right now, there is a space alien laughing its ass off while it pulls voyager back into our solar system with a magnetic tractor beam.
HUR HUR HUR! EARTHLINGS FUNNY!!!!
I believe my 1-year-old comment will suffice:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3176825&cid=41612805
I just want to make sure I have the right series of events here, from the public perspective:
1. A previous elected official and congress enact some overreaching laws in response to a terrorist attack
2. A politician who makes a bunch of promises against these programs is elected the new President
3. The now-elected politician strengthens and enforces those programs rather than shuttering them
4. There is some kind of a court decision but it is sealed/secret. FOIA requests are made by EFF.
5. A whistle blower comes forward and exposes the illegal activities to the public because his bosses and the elected official have continued said operations. Since his bosses are the Executive Branch and responsible for enforcing the law, he has nobody to report his findings to other than the public.
6. The elected official and members of congress declare said whistle blower a traitor for exposing their methods.
7. It is revealed that the court had previously, as in years ago, ruled that the activities reported on by the whistle blower are illegal. Meaning the whistle blower is not just reporting the activities, but he is reporting that the President of the United States, the heads of major departments, the Attorney General, and a bunch of other People In Power have been knowingly breaking the law to empower the government. Not only, in fact, are they doing something that the court already ruled is illegal, but they sealed the court's decision so that the public would not know about it.
Did I miss anything?
Oh yeah,
8. Snowden is probably still fucked.
If they are talking about enough users having this running to be effective, then they are talking about a tremendous number of users basically setting their phones to drain their batteries out as-fast-as-possible. What are the electricity costs of such an endeavor? Significant, I'd wager.
And the number of false-positives that would be generated would be huge, I'd imagine.
I don't understand why Apple doesn't just spend all their $billions locked up overseas to build an overseas manufacturing facility. They have plenty. Probably plenty to do it multiple times. Then, they get the best of multiple worlds: 1) they are not as reliant on Samsung, 2) they get to use that money tax-free, 3) they can have some meaningful diversification
And if the thing goes belly-up? Then they "buy" the whole thing from their foreign subsidiary with US cash and get a tax rebate on the business expense in addition to never having paid taxes on it in the first place.
Allow me to rephrase:
I don't work for samsung, I'm a definitely-not-Samsung-person, buuuuut . . .
The monolithic competitors to the small, agile little tech/phone startup company, Samsung, want to squash it with legal action because they have no prayer of defeating the high-value, unmatched technological innovations Samsung is or will be offering shortly! Samsung's victory is inevitable! ALL HAIL SAMSUNG!
I say again, I am not a Samsung employee. However, as an insightful, intelligent employee, I am looking at employment there in the coming years (and maybe you should too, fellow insightful employees of Samsung's doomed-to-be-destroyed competitors!).
I'm willing to bet that this discrepancy is more a factor of groups vs. individuals than male vs. female. Aka "peer pressure" aka "everyone is doing it" etc.
Too Lazy Didn't Read
It sounds to me like you are describing extortion since these cases are already legal and not in violation of copyright law.
In other news, a giant art sculpture designed to be visible from space located in the northernmost reaches of Siberia is mysteriously blurry when viewed from the latest satellite photography through Apple's new maps application.
At 40, you should know by now that it isn't what your reward is, but how much you are enjoying it.
If a job offered me a 100% raise, but I had to commute an hour each way, I'd say no. My current commute is 7 minutes. That would mean I lose almost 2 hours of personal time in the evening every single day, and that is not worth doubling my salary to me. However, other people have different priorities for what they are looking to achieve.
If being closer to home and earning a little more money is more important to you and will bring you a greater sense of satisfaction and fulfillment than your current situation, then make the change. But if money isn't that important to you, you are "close enough" to home, and you are really happy at your current position, be sure you aren't just moving because "the grass is greener."
EA is pretty reckless with this. iD could sue everyone for copying the idea of 1st person shooters with the guns popping out the bottom of the screen, et al.
Of course, they can't WIN such a suit. I hope the judge dismisses with prejudice. This is a potentially patent-troll-esque precedent case.
Blizzard would like to thank you for your patience. While we constantly strive to maintain a stable server environment, there was no way we could have predicted so many people, most of whom pre-ordered the expansion pack, were ACTUALLY going to attempt to play it the day it came out. We thank you for your patience while we work out minor server stability issues. We are confident that you will be able to log in and enjoy the world we worked so hard to create on October 10th, following our regularly scheduled maintenance.
I wonder if anyone in the judiciary branch enforcing rulings against the TSA ends up unable to fly/etc. They would have pretty much the same recourse as the rest of us.
Either that, or Billybob just puts up with a lot more shit than anyone else.
*cymbal crash*
At the very least it is possible that it might not have been dead anymore . . .
I guess the hulk moved on to make movies instead of crushing solar systems . . .
Can't we all just get along?
The important thing about the D3 launch is this:
People who bought the game online and pre-downloaded it with the advertising from Blizzard that they should (paraphrased) "download it early so you can play the minute it goes live," still cannot play the game.
If I had to guess, the board is checking to see if they can nullify the contract due to fraud before firing the guy. But that's just my guess.