Or the LOTR trilogy on one disc for $35. I would pay that. Lots of people would buy it for the 12 hours of entertainment that it provides. That's part of the problem is that people look at in terms of how much money will they spend versus how much time that will occupy. $3 per hour is a lot more affordable than $15 per hour. Hell, even at theaters the price is $5 per hour. When first run movies on huge screens cost LESS than the later released video version, there is a BIG problem with the business model and people stop buying.
It's not very clear to me that we learned a lot about manned missions since 1969.
Telescopes, rovers, and orbiters have yielded good knowledge. No?
Orion *is* a big Apollo lander. I recall that it will be capable of landing 3 man on the surface (a 50% increase!). If you were looking for an alternative type of lander, maybe its possible that they got it right in the 60s. On Earth, we the vehicles that are capable of landing include have helicopters and airplanes and not much else. And these don't seen like good ideas to me. Maybe this? The big improvement, though, is Ares V which should enable us to do a big more than just flying to the Moon or Mars and back. With the materials that we'll be able to bring things will get real exciting (you just wait).
The nice thing about Open Source is that it doesn't require billion-dollar budgets.
Wheeler might disagree with that, albeit the 'budgets' are largely time-based via volunteer effort or corporate-based via organizations who realize sharing software is cheaper than allowing it to be hoarded.
This is not a country that does great things any longer.
You might be right about that, but I find fault in the logic that we shouldn't fund NASA because they didn't do much during the last 40 years. You complain about stupid wars, but what they experienced in 1969 was the culmination of an effort to win the mother of "stupid wars". Whether the Russians or Communists were significant or not is up for debate, but the Cold, Korean, and Vietnam Wars were all unnecessary pissing contests and as a result of that American piss made it to the Moon.
If you are going to blame anything for the lack of "accomplishments" of NASA for the last 40 year, blame the lack of a structured plan when they hit the ground running in the 1960s. Since then --- technology has advanced, discoveries have been made, and science has caught up to the engineering accomplishment of putting a man on the moon. By suggesting that NASA be defunded, you are suggesting that everything during the last 40 years has been a waste.
By rights, we really should have a permanent base on the moon by now, and should have already put somebody on Mars.
If you consider that 2 of the 17 Apollo flight missions were failures and that 2 of 4 Space Shuttles have blown up (with 120+ successful mission), you'd realize that working in space is *really* hard and risky. Do you recall the challenges of Skylab in the early 70s when NASA had a pair of booster rockets that it needed something to do with? This was a far cry from what ISS is today. So, I would argue that the past 40 years have been instrumental towards getting us to where are today... which is in the position to *consider* a trip to Mars 20 years from now. However, without the groundwork that this and other missions have laid, it will never happen. Because the most important thing for a human Mars mission is that he (or she) doesn't die there. I have no doubt that any attempts in the 80s or 90s to customize a Saturn V with a crew vehicle destined for Mars would have resulted in such a death. In 20 years, though, I think technology exists that will enable such an astronaut to survive.
And the "present American's condition" cares very little about what was going on in the 1960s or what will be going on in the 2030s.
It's irrational to consider that the United States, in its current condition, could or should operate a Mars mission.
It's irrational to criticize the pursuit of science and discovery, while being the co-founder of worthy initiatives which promote openness for the purposes of advancing mankind. Call me crazy, but I don't think America's "current condition" should derail established efforts towards these scientific goals.
If you want to argue that sending the money to Lockheed Martin is a mistake, then that's fine. I've heard much criticism of their organization from reputable associates and I tend to believe that there's is a bad work environment from these anecdotes. However, suggesting that NASA doesn't deserve the shoestring budgets that they receive then in the name of advancing mankind beyond the reaches of Earth's atmosphere, I have to humbly disagree.
They could **both** get attacked by angry penguins...
PC: Hey now! I'm a PC with Red Hat Enterprise Linux!
Mac: And I'm Mac with Ubuntu!
PC: Looks like you might still have some bugs in you.
(Mac pulls a visible obstruction off his shirt and throws it off-screen)
Mac: Well, somebody's got to test the software before it gets into the packaged and included in your stable, reliable, and supported platform.
PC: Yeah, I guess you're right. Thank you Mac! I mean, thank you Ubuntu.
Mac: You're welcome, PC.
PC: Ya know... you've got some nifty features like the latest version of Firefox and OpenOffice that I'd like to try something.
Mac: Oh, really? Well, you can run me, too!
PC: Sweet. That sure is nice to know. You're a real good pal Ubuntu.
(they hug, screen fades)
I'm not wasting my time in this article except to post a "Thank you" to the taggers who flagged this story as "kdawsonsucks". On occasion, stories that he posts are interesting and useful but a warning for the ones that should have fallen through the cracks is appreciated.
Sooner or later there will be "Milk Mavens" at the local supermarket standing in the Diary isle to tell you that you should drink milk and that the stories about lactose intolerance are just myths told by "Big Soda" to ween you into their camp.
And after that "Coke Crusaders" will start marching up and down public commercial streets crying the glories of their black carbonated sugar water.
I can't find the original PDF from the DOE, but I located one with the information I wanted that talks briefly about an effort to develop small-scale nuclear reactors for "developing regions" (i.e. the 3rd World and the Moon). This is from page 83 (96 of 332 in PDF) of the document.
A key goal of GNEP is to create an international framework that will allow developing
countries and other countries without nuclear infrastructure to harness nuclear
power while minimizing proliferation concerns. There are two parts to this
framework: an international partnership whereby supplier nations would lease
nuclear fuel to countries that agree not to pursue enrichment or reprocessing
capabilities, and the deployment of nuclear reactors appropriately sized for the
electricity grids and industrial needs of smaller, more rural, and less industrialized
regions.
[...]
The U.S., the United Kingdom, France, Russia, China, and Japan comprise the
initial set of global fuel supplier partners (DOE 2006a).
The goal of the GNEP small-scale reactor research program is to deploy nuclear
reactors of 50-350 MW capacities with simple operations, fully passive safety
systems, capabilities for remote monitoring by the International Atomic Energy
Agency (IAEA), and long-life fuel loads, possibly not requiring any refueling over the
reactorâ(TM)s lifetime.
GoogleBooks is setup to let you read an entire book if rights are granted. Authors would grant GoogleBooks the right to read a book the have can earn pennies for every copy that is read.
If rights are not granted, then they claim Fair Use for a small portion and you end up seeing the blank pages.
In my opinion, a middle ground between "make readers pay" and "pay authors pennies" is needed before the GoogleBooks business model can really take off. Until then, GoogleBooks remains one of their less important products (and it shows from the lack of support that is available from them when problems crop up).
cold comfort for somebody that wants to own a home and not rent
If you had paid more attention, you'll realize that I made the remarks about renting from the perspective of somebody who *should* be able to buy a home. Cold comfort for myself? I suppose. More like a harsh realization.
I agree that lax oversight was a primary contributor to the housing bubble, but I don't blame the banks. The game that the banks were playing was foolish and they deserve what they got, but in the future my fix for the real estate market would be regulated appraisals and harsh penalties for a state sanctioned appraiser who plays games with the value of property. This way, a neighborhood will be able to rely on the professionalism and expertise of somebody who's job it is to know the value of a neighborhood. Furthermore, local government would have staff members who are in the position to recommend improvements that could increase the value of property. For instance, if ajdacent lots in a run down neighborhood both go up for sale, the expert could place a recommendation to buy them and convert them to park space to help beautify the neighborhood. And I don't know many people who would disagree with taxes that are taken by the city and used to directly increase the value of a neighborhood... so regulation of city/state sponsored appraisers would do wonders to have contained the damage caused by the value of a house doubling because of new dry-wall and parquet floors.
And don't get me wrong, I've no problem with real estate investors who professionally fix up rundown houses. My beef has always been with the amateurs who come in and do cosmetic work for value prices. And that's what tougher regulation would address... so that would be beneficial.
Sounds like downtown Detroit (or is it Debt-Riot?).
And it *sounds* like what the area needs is the exact investors who I singled out for (a) buy, (b) fix, and (c) sell. If you could seriously stomach living there, go to the bank and propose to buy one stake of land in the lot you want for yourself and the a couple of ones next to each other in a nearby block. Then, get the permits to demo the buildings in the adjacent lots and build yourself a nice shiny new apartment building to rent out at those wonderful $800/month rates.
Also, in order for people to move into the apartment building you'll want to make sure that there are jobs in the area... if there aren't then the hopes of "turning the area around" are more like false hope.
And regarding deferring your college loans... I am under the impression that you can only do that while you are still in school and that deferment does not stop the juice from running in the form of interest. At the same time, while banks are struggling and the stock market is stagnant, it makes paying off debt seem like a better use of your money than investing.
Then again, hindsight is 20/20 and this is my opinion of what has happened in the last 3-4 years and doesn't represent what will happen in the future.
Also, have you ever heard the expression, "Life is too short to drink the house wine"? I think it is equally applicable towards where you choose to live. If maximizing your disposable income is really your path to more happiness than living in a nicer $800/month rental apartment, then power to you. But I suspect that you'll ultimately be happier at a location that doesn't need your constant attention (that is, unless you get joy from fixing shit that's broken).
I have previously modded you up earlier in this story, so this response will cost you that point, however what you said needs to be addressed.
All these bailouts do is screw over me, as both a taxpayer and a person who otherwise* would be able to afford to buy a house!
You are somewhat misguided to say that the bailouts are your problem. In my view... it was the bubble all along. The bubble was the result of the (1) buy, (2) fix, and (3) sell economy that dominated the first half of this century. When $500k houses were divided into 3 separate $300k condos... that was a sign of the market taking it on the chin.
And then, in 2003-2005 a peculiar thing happened. Renting became a more profitable long term strategy than home ownership. If you don't realize this, then you are not seeing the forest from the trees. There are many other affordable options for people like you.
Now, if I could guess at something... you are dreading the student loans that you'll have to pay back. If you are unfortunate enough to have students loans at greater than 8%, you have my sympathies. In the meantime, please direct your angst towards the unfair student loan providers and the rising cost of American tuition. Average students have $20k in debt, but $60-80k in loans are not unheard of. This takes $300-500 per month for 30 years to pay back... and I know there are "amnesty laws" which forgive loans after 20 years in place, but affording to pay back an education (in my opinion) is a much bigger crisis in America than affording a place to live.
And yes... I graduated and have been working in the technology sector since 2004. I make a good wage, and have gone to the trouble of paying off $35k in loans since graduating and have an additional $15k ahead of me. And with the light at the end of the tunnel, I support efforts for local governments to consider the value of making life easier for individuals who are encumbered by their educational loans.
wiping out much of the state of North Dakota. We were able to contain the damage, and we've managed to keep it a secret by replacing the state with a hologram projection, but eventually someone is going to go there and figure out that something is amiss.
I just want good reasonably priced fast broadband available to everyone.
The problem is that companies get to decide what reasonably priced is. For some people, $10/month is unreasonable and THESE ARE THE PEOPLE WHO NEED THE SERVICE THE MOST IF THEY WANT TO IMPROVE THEIR LOT IN LIFE (though I suppose an adequate library system is a good substitute).
In rare instances, cities have made it available. Other cities are working towards evaluating if it is worth the cost to setup. But the fact is that local government is the only entity which can ensure fair treatment for less privileged citizens and cities that cannot provide a status quo for their least privileged citizens are at a disadvantage to those who can.
I would think size would be another barrier. I recognize that you don't need something as large as a brick to transmit signals, but I doubt that cell phones could effectively be used to pass signals to each other without making them larger.
On the internet, routers work because they are dedicated to passing signals back and forth on directed paths. With an "ad hoc cell phone network", if my cell phone was using Cell Phone B for communication with Cell Phone C, I think its likely that the call would drop when Cell Phone B tried to make a call... unless an extra transmitter was added to Cell Phone B and my guess is that this would make Cell Phone B larger and who wants something to be larger when it can be smaller?
Honestly how often do you actually use the home button?
When I want to fill out my timecard at the end of a workday or read the latest announcements from my company. Oh, also when I need to quickly load a page that looks work-related.
You could argue that this could be made one of my bookmarks... but I like having it be special instead of wasting its functionality.
One of the most valuable lessons that I got while learning to program was spending a few weeks learning how to implement various sorting algorithms. This was quiessencial, in my mind. BubbleSort, QuickSort, MergeSort, and a number of other ones... we spent days learning the theory and then had to code them up.
Point is... coding them up is the simple part. Also, writing the code is an impractical task that you'd never actually do at your job (either use a library or copy it from somewhere else!). The value was learning how many different ways there are to do the same task... and that their are major costs in memory or processor associated with each of them.
So, the reason I am responding to a post that says "the value is in the documentation" is because I think it would be great to teach sorting theory and then distribute code for each algorithm and get the students to (a) fix minor bugs that have been placed in it, (b) write documentation for it, or (c) implement a program that demonstrates appropriate usage of the different sorting techniques.
As an aside... I coded BubbleSort before cracking any programming textbooks addressing the topic and before any formal instruction from professors. So, when I went through the exercise of "learning" about BubbleSort in class it was enlightening and interesting to learn that the "obvious" solution to a problem is absolutely the worst way of solving it. Finesse is mandatory!
Well, your efforts to command the backend of the school network are commendable. Do you recall the most hopeful part of my original post, though?
With any luck, they will also DOCUMENT their journey so it can be repeated by other governments without such huge expenses.
If you wrote a document which lays out the software and infrastructure needed to command an Open Source infrastructure, it would empower others to do what you've done. Obviously, a well-written document would help make it easier to convince others that it is a good idea and your guidelines would include invaluable "Lessons Learned".
Of course, you could start by including your experiences/configuration as a Wikibook to greatly improve your ability to get help from others.
*** I meant a homogeneous Linux IT infrastructure.
I am almost positive that there are no state/province governments that rely strictly on Open Source software because at least some of their systems are are Windows.
In other words, you'll get great, terse and insanely efficient code that cannot be maintained, ever.
Just make sure the maintainers have their own supply of weed. Code that has been written by a high man must be maintained by high men. I think the philosophical perspective of this is called transcendence.
Of course, between paying for health benefits, munchies in the office kitchen, and a communal bong in the conference room, the cost to keep these types of employees on staff might be too high (no pun intended) for upper management to justify.
I am going to assert that Open Source software has not previously been successfully deployed as an enterprise solution to a large government's IT infrastructure. In other words, it is a big fat risk. One of the first rules of engineering is to minimize and mitigate risks.
The first couple of governments that shift to Open Source will be blazing an expensive trail to deal with interoperability and all the minor "glitches" that come up along the way. With any luck, they will also DOCUMENT their journey so it can be repeated by other governments without such huge expenses.
And as to what can be done with $25 Million dollars that TFA says was spent on software during the first half of the year (assuming that government's can get past the 'growing pains' effect mentioned above that the early adopters will face)... I would like to see that the savings be allocated to fund city improvement projects to beautify the urban landscape. Build parks, improve roads, and erect attractive low-income housing buildings. I guess that is covered by #1 (used for other government programs), but nothing would be better for the local citizens than having a city which is invested in keeping the standard of living for all its citizens high.
In light of that, when I noticed that my local government (the state of Massachusetts) was considering an Open Source agenda, I sent them my support and feedback.
[wikicredits] which [are] paid out when you contribute to wikileaks, and can then be used to buy time-limited exclusive access to new leaks.
You are imagining a surreal world where the seller would also be the buyer. Now, think to yourself if a Dairy farmer would ever go buy a gallon of milk from the supermarket.
Similarly, Wikileaks has an obligation not to pay money for the information they get because creating a financial incentive for the information they deal with would spawn a new breed of writer's who'll be happy to fabricate and profit. I don't take issue with the "exclusive rights for a period of time" decision, though.
In response to your signature... Congrats! That's awesome. In response to your rant about cigarette taxes, I think New York has the right to stop people from buying huge quantities of the product in other states and then reselling them. I think that is what is offending you, not if not feel free to correct me. As a non-smoker in his mid-20s (who has been exposed to anti-smoking propaganda from a young age), I agree with the high taxes to dissuade customers from using a product which alledgedly had bad health side-effects. The *point* of higher cigarette taxes isn't more revenue. It is less usage. And if money is part of the reason you quit, then good for the state of New York.
As far as government being power mongers... there is some truth to that but I respectfully disagree with your broad generalization. The aim of government is (foremost) FREEDOM and (secondarily) SECURITY. As long as you are free and safe to lead the life of your choosing and pursue your own personal happiness... they are doing their job.
If you want it to be cheaper or if you want a city/state where your tax dollars are spent in ways that are a more obvious to you... then may I suggest that you consider moving?
At some point we have to realize that cell phones and internet access are pretty much not a privilege any more. All of us should have access to these shared resources (the tubes).
Disclaimer: American viewpoint.
I agree that these services are nearly necessitates in today's society. Communication is king. It is required. Broadcast TV has been made a free service based on government regulation. On the other hand, electricity and heat are more necessary than communication and they are in the same competitive mode to keep prices low.
Here's the difference that I see, though, between all these services... if the government was to start providing these as "free services" (like the majority of roads are) they are basically saying "this is as good as it gets". Competition for cheaper methods of delivering heat and electricity has historically kept these prices low, so these industries is well regulated. However, duopolistic behavior by Verizon and AT&T have caused the telephone companies to practice the same tricks that resulted in the original breakup of AT&T in 1984. Prices are what the phone companies want them to be and customers cannot elect fair "lower cost" options (pay-as-you-go is a joke at a quarter a minute and $30 for 450 minutes per month is excessive... and there is no middle ground).
Slashdot Mirror
Or the LOTR trilogy on one disc for $35. I would pay that. Lots of people would buy it for the 12 hours of entertainment that it provides. That's part of the problem is that people look at in terms of how much money will they spend versus how much time that will occupy. $3 per hour is a lot more affordable than $15 per hour. Hell, even at theaters the price is $5 per hour. When first run movies on huge screens cost LESS than the later released video version, there is a BIG problem with the business model and people stop buying.
It's not very clear to me that we learned a lot about manned missions since 1969.
Telescopes, rovers, and orbiters have yielded good knowledge. No?
Orion *is* a big Apollo lander. I recall that it will be capable of landing 3 man on the surface (a 50% increase!). If you were looking for an alternative type of lander, maybe its possible that they got it right in the 60s. On Earth, we the vehicles that are capable of landing include have helicopters and airplanes and not much else. And these don't seen like good ideas to me. Maybe this? The big improvement, though, is Ares V which should enable us to do a big more than just flying to the Moon or Mars and back. With the materials that we'll be able to bring things will get real exciting (you just wait).
The nice thing about Open Source is that it doesn't require billion-dollar budgets.
Wheeler might disagree with that, albeit the 'budgets' are largely time-based via volunteer effort or corporate-based via organizations who realize sharing software is cheaper than allowing it to be hoarded.
This is not a country that does great things any longer.
You might be right about that, but I find fault in the logic that we shouldn't fund NASA because they didn't do much during the last 40 years. You complain about stupid wars, but what they experienced in 1969 was the culmination of an effort to win the mother of "stupid wars". Whether the Russians or Communists were significant or not is up for debate, but the Cold, Korean, and Vietnam Wars were all unnecessary pissing contests and as a result of that American piss made it to the Moon.
If you are going to blame anything for the lack of "accomplishments" of NASA for the last 40 year, blame the lack of a structured plan when they hit the ground running in the 1960s. Since then --- technology has advanced, discoveries have been made, and science has caught up to the engineering accomplishment of putting a man on the moon. By suggesting that NASA be defunded, you are suggesting that everything during the last 40 years has been a waste.
By rights, we really should have a permanent base on the moon by now, and should have already put somebody on Mars.
If you consider that 2 of the 17 Apollo flight missions were failures and that 2 of 4 Space Shuttles have blown up (with 120+ successful mission), you'd realize that working in space is *really* hard and risky. Do you recall the challenges of Skylab in the early 70s when NASA had a pair of booster rockets that it needed something to do with? This was a far cry from what ISS is today. So, I would argue that the past 40 years have been instrumental towards getting us to where are today... which is in the position to *consider* a trip to Mars 20 years from now. However, without the groundwork that this and other missions have laid, it will never happen. Because the most important thing for a human Mars mission is that he (or she) doesn't die there. I have no doubt that any attempts in the 80s or 90s to customize a Saturn V with a crew vehicle destined for Mars would have resulted in such a death. In 20 years, though, I think technology exists that will enable such an astronaut to survive.
And the "present American's condition" cares very little about what was going on in the 1960s or what will be going on in the 2030s.
It's irrational to consider that the United States, in its current condition, could or should operate a Mars mission.
It's irrational to criticize the pursuit of science and discovery, while being the co-founder of worthy initiatives which promote openness for the purposes of advancing mankind. Call me crazy, but I don't think America's "current condition" should derail established efforts towards these scientific goals.
If you want to argue that sending the money to Lockheed Martin is a mistake, then that's fine. I've heard much criticism of their organization from reputable associates and I tend to believe that there's is a bad work environment from these anecdotes. However, suggesting that NASA doesn't deserve the shoestring budgets that they receive then in the name of advancing mankind beyond the reaches of Earth's atmosphere, I have to humbly disagree.
They could **both** get attacked by angry penguins...
PC: Hey now! I'm a PC with Red Hat Enterprise Linux!
Mac: And I'm Mac with Ubuntu!
PC: Looks like you might still have some bugs in you.
(Mac pulls a visible obstruction off his shirt and throws it off-screen)
Mac: Well, somebody's got to test the software before it gets into the packaged and included in your stable, reliable, and supported platform.
PC: Yeah, I guess you're right. Thank you Mac! I mean, thank you Ubuntu.
Mac: You're welcome, PC.
PC: Ya know... you've got some nifty features like the latest version of Firefox and OpenOffice that I'd like to try something.
Mac: Oh, really? Well, you can run me, too!
PC: Sweet. That sure is nice to know. You're a real good pal Ubuntu.
(they hug, screen fades)
I'm not wasting my time in this article except to post a "Thank you" to the taggers who flagged this story as "kdawsonsucks". On occasion, stories that he posts are interesting and useful but a warning for the ones that should have fallen through the cracks is appreciated.
Sooner or later there will be "Milk Mavens" at the local supermarket standing in the Diary isle to tell you that you should drink milk and that the stories about lactose intolerance are just myths told by "Big Soda" to ween you into their camp.
And after that "Coke Crusaders" will start marching up and down public commercial streets crying the glories of their black carbonated sugar water.
And then, the terrorists will have won.
I can't find the original PDF from the DOE, but I located one with the information I wanted that talks briefly about an effort to develop small-scale nuclear reactors for "developing regions" (i.e. the 3rd World and the Moon). This is from page 83 (96 of 332 in PDF) of the document.
A key goal of GNEP is to create an international framework that will allow developing countries and other countries without nuclear infrastructure to harness nuclear power while minimizing proliferation concerns. There are two parts to this framework: an international partnership whereby supplier nations would lease nuclear fuel to countries that agree not to pursue enrichment or reprocessing capabilities, and the deployment of nuclear reactors appropriately sized for the electricity grids and industrial needs of smaller, more rural, and less industrialized regions.
[...]
The U.S., the United Kingdom, France, Russia, China, and Japan comprise the initial set of global fuel supplier partners (DOE 2006a).
The goal of the GNEP small-scale reactor research program is to deploy nuclear reactors of 50-350 MW capacities with simple operations, fully passive safety systems, capabilities for remote monitoring by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), and long-life fuel loads, possibly not requiring any refueling over the reactorâ(TM)s lifetime.
GoogleBooks is setup to let you read an entire book if rights are granted. Authors would grant GoogleBooks the right to read a book the have can earn pennies for every copy that is read.
If rights are not granted, then they claim Fair Use for a small portion and you end up seeing the blank pages.
In my opinion, a middle ground between "make readers pay" and "pay authors pennies" is needed before the GoogleBooks business model can really take off. Until then, GoogleBooks remains one of their less important products (and it shows from the lack of support that is available from them when problems crop up).
cold comfort for somebody that wants to own a home and not rent
If you had paid more attention, you'll realize that I made the remarks about renting from the perspective of somebody who *should* be able to buy a home. Cold comfort for myself? I suppose. More like a harsh realization.
I agree that lax oversight was a primary contributor to the housing bubble, but I don't blame the banks. The game that the banks were playing was foolish and they deserve what they got, but in the future my fix for the real estate market would be regulated appraisals and harsh penalties for a state sanctioned appraiser who plays games with the value of property. This way, a neighborhood will be able to rely on the professionalism and expertise of somebody who's job it is to know the value of a neighborhood. Furthermore, local government would have staff members who are in the position to recommend improvements that could increase the value of property. For instance, if ajdacent lots in a run down neighborhood both go up for sale, the expert could place a recommendation to buy them and convert them to park space to help beautify the neighborhood. And I don't know many people who would disagree with taxes that are taken by the city and used to directly increase the value of a neighborhood... so regulation of city/state sponsored appraisers would do wonders to have contained the damage caused by the value of a house doubling because of new dry-wall and parquet floors.
And don't get me wrong, I've no problem with real estate investors who professionally fix up rundown houses. My beef has always been with the amateurs who come in and do cosmetic work for value prices. And that's what tougher regulation would address... so that would be beneficial.
Sounds like downtown Detroit (or is it Debt-Riot?).
And it *sounds* like what the area needs is the exact investors who I singled out for (a) buy, (b) fix, and (c) sell. If you could seriously stomach living there, go to the bank and propose to buy one stake of land in the lot you want for yourself and the a couple of ones next to each other in a nearby block. Then, get the permits to demo the buildings in the adjacent lots and build yourself a nice shiny new apartment building to rent out at those wonderful $800/month rates.
Also, in order for people to move into the apartment building you'll want to make sure that there are jobs in the area... if there aren't then the hopes of "turning the area around" are more like false hope.
And regarding deferring your college loans... I am under the impression that you can only do that while you are still in school and that deferment does not stop the juice from running in the form of interest. At the same time, while banks are struggling and the stock market is stagnant, it makes paying off debt seem like a better use of your money than investing.
Then again, hindsight is 20/20 and this is my opinion of what has happened in the last 3-4 years and doesn't represent what will happen in the future.
Also, have you ever heard the expression, "Life is too short to drink the house wine"? I think it is equally applicable towards where you choose to live. If maximizing your disposable income is really your path to more happiness than living in a nicer $800/month rental apartment, then power to you. But I suspect that you'll ultimately be happier at a location that doesn't need your constant attention (that is, unless you get joy from fixing shit that's broken).
I have previously modded you up earlier in this story, so this response will cost you that point, however what you said needs to be addressed.
All these bailouts do is screw over me, as both a taxpayer and a person who otherwise* would be able to afford to buy a house!
You are somewhat misguided to say that the bailouts are your problem. In my view... it was the bubble all along. The bubble was the result of the (1) buy, (2) fix, and (3) sell economy that dominated the first half of this century. When $500k houses were divided into 3 separate $300k condos... that was a sign of the market taking it on the chin.
And then, in 2003-2005 a peculiar thing happened. Renting became a more profitable long term strategy than home ownership. If you don't realize this, then you are not seeing the forest from the trees. There are many other affordable options for people like you.
Now, if I could guess at something... you are dreading the student loans that you'll have to pay back. If you are unfortunate enough to have students loans at greater than 8%, you have my sympathies. In the meantime, please direct your angst towards the unfair student loan providers and the rising cost of American tuition. Average students have $20k in debt, but $60-80k in loans are not unheard of. This takes $300-500 per month for 30 years to pay back... and I know there are "amnesty laws" which forgive loans after 20 years in place, but affording to pay back an education (in my opinion) is a much bigger crisis in America than affording a place to live.
And yes... I graduated and have been working in the technology sector since 2004. I make a good wage, and have gone to the trouble of paying off $35k in loans since graduating and have an additional $15k ahead of me. And with the light at the end of the tunnel, I support efforts for local governments to consider the value of making life easier for individuals who are encumbered by their educational loans.
wiping out much of the state of North Dakota. We were able to contain the damage, and we've managed to keep it a secret by replacing the state with a hologram projection, but eventually someone is going to go there and figure out that something is amiss.
Wiping out North Dakota shouldn't be too hard. There's only about 600,000 people in the state and half of them live on the eastern border within 4 miles of Minnesota.
I just want good reasonably priced fast broadband available to everyone.
The problem is that companies get to decide what reasonably priced is. For some people, $10/month is unreasonable and THESE ARE THE PEOPLE WHO NEED THE SERVICE THE MOST IF THEY WANT TO IMPROVE THEIR LOT IN LIFE (though I suppose an adequate library system is a good substitute).
In rare instances, cities have made it available. Other cities are working towards evaluating if it is worth the cost to setup. But the fact is that local government is the only entity which can ensure fair treatment for less privileged citizens and cities that cannot provide a status quo for their least privileged citizens are at a disadvantage to those who can.
I would think size would be another barrier. I recognize that you don't need something as large as a brick to transmit signals, but I doubt that cell phones could effectively be used to pass signals to each other without making them larger.
On the internet, routers work because they are dedicated to passing signals back and forth on directed paths. With an "ad hoc cell phone network", if my cell phone was using Cell Phone B for communication with Cell Phone C, I think its likely that the call would drop when Cell Phone B tried to make a call... unless an extra transmitter was added to Cell Phone B and my guess is that this would make Cell Phone B larger and who wants something to be larger when it can be smaller?
On Slashdot, I can mention cocks and cunts or even fucking assholes, why can't I do it on Facebook?
Total shit-eating-pigfuckers, I say.
There, fixed that for you.
Honestly how often do you actually use the home button?
When I want to fill out my timecard at the end of a workday or read the latest announcements from my company. Oh, also when I need to quickly load a page that looks work-related.
You could argue that this could be made one of my bookmarks... but I like having it be special instead of wasting its functionality.
One of the most valuable lessons that I got while learning to program was spending a few weeks learning how to implement various sorting algorithms. This was quiessencial, in my mind. BubbleSort, QuickSort, MergeSort, and a number of other ones... we spent days learning the theory and then had to code them up.
Point is... coding them up is the simple part. Also, writing the code is an impractical task that you'd never actually do at your job (either use a library or copy it from somewhere else!). The value was learning how many different ways there are to do the same task... and that their are major costs in memory or processor associated with each of them.
So, the reason I am responding to a post that says "the value is in the documentation" is because I think it would be great to teach sorting theory and then distribute code for each algorithm and get the students to (a) fix minor bugs that have been placed in it, (b) write documentation for it, or (c) implement a program that demonstrates appropriate usage of the different sorting techniques.
As an aside... I coded BubbleSort before cracking any programming textbooks addressing the topic and before any formal instruction from professors. So, when I went through the exercise of "learning" about BubbleSort in class it was enlightening and interesting to learn that the "obvious" solution to a problem is absolutely the worst way of solving it. Finesse is mandatory!
Well, your efforts to command the backend of the school network are commendable. Do you recall the most hopeful part of my original post, though?
With any luck, they will also DOCUMENT their journey so it can be repeated by other governments without such huge expenses.
If you wrote a document which lays out the software and infrastructure needed to command an Open Source infrastructure, it would empower others to do what you've done. Obviously, a well-written document would help make it easier to convince others that it is a good idea and your guidelines would include invaluable "Lessons Learned".
Of course, you could start by including your experiences/configuration as a Wikibook to greatly improve your ability to get help from others.
*** I meant a homogeneous Linux IT infrastructure.
I am almost positive that there are no state/province governments that rely strictly on Open Source software because at least some of their systems are are Windows.
In other words, you'll get great, terse and insanely efficient code that cannot be maintained, ever.
Just make sure the maintainers have their own supply of weed. Code that has been written by a high man must be maintained by high men. I think the philosophical perspective of this is called transcendence.
Of course, between paying for health benefits, munchies in the office kitchen, and a communal bong in the conference room, the cost to keep these types of employees on staff might be too high (no pun intended) for upper management to justify.
I am going to assert that Open Source software has not previously been successfully deployed as an enterprise solution to a large government's IT infrastructure. In other words, it is a big fat risk. One of the first rules of engineering is to minimize and mitigate risks.
The first couple of governments that shift to Open Source will be blazing an expensive trail to deal with interoperability and all the minor "glitches" that come up along the way. With any luck, they will also DOCUMENT their journey so it can be repeated by other governments without such huge expenses.
And as to what can be done with $25 Million dollars that TFA says was spent on software during the first half of the year (assuming that government's can get past the 'growing pains' effect mentioned above that the early adopters will face)... I would like to see that the savings be allocated to fund city improvement projects to beautify the urban landscape. Build parks, improve roads, and erect attractive low-income housing buildings. I guess that is covered by #1 (used for other government programs), but nothing would be better for the local citizens than having a city which is invested in keeping the standard of living for all its citizens high.
In light of that, when I noticed that my local government (the state of Massachusetts) was considering an Open Source agenda, I sent them my support and feedback.
[wikicredits] which [are] paid out when you contribute to wikileaks, and can then be used to buy time-limited exclusive access to new leaks.
You are imagining a surreal world where the seller would also be the buyer. Now, think to yourself if a Dairy farmer would ever go buy a gallon of milk from the supermarket.
Similarly, Wikileaks has an obligation not to pay money for the information they get because creating a financial incentive for the information they deal with would spawn a new breed of writer's who'll be happy to fabricate and profit. I don't take issue with the "exclusive rights for a period of time" decision, though.
In response to your signature... Congrats! That's awesome. In response to your rant about cigarette taxes, I think New York has the right to stop people from buying huge quantities of the product in other states and then reselling them. I think that is what is offending you, not if not feel free to correct me. As a non-smoker in his mid-20s (who has been exposed to anti-smoking propaganda from a young age), I agree with the high taxes to dissuade customers from using a product which alledgedly had bad health side-effects. The *point* of higher cigarette taxes isn't more revenue. It is less usage. And if money is part of the reason you quit, then good for the state of New York.
As far as government being power mongers... there is some truth to that but I respectfully disagree with your broad generalization. The aim of government is (foremost) FREEDOM and (secondarily) SECURITY. As long as you are free and safe to lead the life of your choosing and pursue your own personal happiness... they are doing their job.
If you want it to be cheaper or if you want a city/state where your tax dollars are spent in ways that are a more obvious to you... then may I suggest that you consider moving?
At some point we have to realize that cell phones and internet access are pretty much not a privilege any more. All of us should have access to these shared resources (the tubes).
Disclaimer: American viewpoint.
I agree that these services are nearly necessitates in today's society. Communication is king. It is required. Broadcast TV has been made a free service based on government regulation. On the other hand, electricity and heat are more necessary than communication and they are in the same competitive mode to keep prices low.
Here's the difference that I see, though, between all these services... if the government was to start providing these as "free services" (like the majority of roads are) they are basically saying "this is as good as it gets". Competition for cheaper methods of delivering heat and electricity has historically kept these prices low, so these industries is well regulated. However, duopolistic behavior by Verizon and AT&T have caused the telephone companies to practice the same tricks that resulted in the original breakup of AT&T in 1984. Prices are what the phone companies want them to be and customers cannot elect fair "lower cost" options (pay-as-you-go is a joke at a quarter a minute and $30 for 450 minutes per month is excessive... and there is no middle ground).