Not too long ago, I went on a distro hunt. I've used Linux, off and on, for years - except I never really used it. Oh, it was installed and even kept updated but I'd just boot to Windows. I also come from a Unix background. However, my brain was getting mushy and I wanted to ensure that I was still learning new things. I opted to facilitate this by simply getting rid of Windows and using only Linux. So, I did my distro hunt...
I can not tell you what will be best for you. However, I've actually tried almost every single one of the major distros and a lot of the small ones. DistroWatch? Yeah, I tried them all - even the little ones. Many of those got tried on bare metal but most got tried in a VM. I mean, yeah, all of them. I might have missed one or two but that's probably because they appeared to replicate work from others.
So, in the end, I did use Mint Cinnamon for a while and it's still installed on one of the laptops that I have with me. However, I decided that I like the simplicity and speed of LXDE (amazing on recent hardware and good-enough on older hardware). I'd also decided that the ecosystem provided by Ubuntu was the best one for me - it's the largest and is generally helpful. I could do more customization but I opted to just use Lubuntu. No distro has my particular needs completely met so I just start from there and do my installs and changes as required - it was the least amount of work.
LXDE is speedy, like I mentioned. It's also rather familiar to most people. I did a dock of my own and set that up. I've been learning more and more about it as time goes on. There's still a lot more for me to learn (a good thing) and it keeps me interested (also a good thing). I've been content enough with my choice to let my MSDN subscription lapse. I don't use any Windows except for my phone. I can't. Well, I could but it'd take some effort. I just had to make the switch, make sure that I'd no longer be able to boot to Windows, and things have gone well since.
Of course, it helps that I have some familiarity and some history of use. I used to use Solaris everywhere, it was even on our workstations, and then migrated to Windows. I'd tried Linux not long after it came out. I liked it. I even kept it installed on a partition on almost every box. I just, well... I wasn't booting to it except to try something out, update, and maybe show someone something. It was just there and I wasn't using it.
That said, if I had to ask Matt a question...
"If you could change any one thing about Canonical, the organization, what would it be? For me, I'd probably change the clique nature that we see in some of the mailing lists, on the forum, or even at live events. It's great that they've an official @ubuntu.com email address but, really, they've not actually done much in the way of contributing - ever. It's seemingly more a pissing match and a popularity contest than it is about the benefit that some provide to the community.
"If I could change anything, I'd change that. However, if you can snap your fingers and make any change to Canonical, what would that change be - and why? If that question is difficult to answer due to politics or any other reason, you can change Canonical to Ubuntu itself. I'm interested in both, if you want to go that far but I'm limited to one question per post."
Except they never made that accusation. They were quite specific in saying that it was their personal preference. They even went as far as to say they hate it but that they've no hate for the users. Hell, he even said it was a matter of personal preference. I've no idea why you'd piss in your knickers over someone saying that they don't like a DE.
I don't know if I'd call having a limited amount of pre-compiled software a 'walled garden' per se. I mean, you can grab the source (for most anything you'd be wanting on a tablet - at least that I can think of) and compile it yourself. Hell, you can even upload and share your compiled work with others or, if you want, you can compile things and get them included in the repository so that others can install them with apt. (That might require a bit of work and playing well with others - I'm actually, somehow, mistakenly on the "official" Lubuntu team so I've got part of the way there.)
That said, hmm... Tempting? Except, I've already bought a stack of tablets and just not enjoyed them. I've heard bad things about this company (not Canonical but BQ) in the past. I've heard the interface isn't really that nice. I guess, really, I'd rather just send them a few dollars and let them keep their hardware. It's not a bad price, really. It's not a good price but it's not terrible. I think it'd be nicer to just have the opportunity to get *buntu installed on more devices in an easier way. You can do it, if you want, but there are a few traps along the way and at least one seems to brick some hardware if something goes amiss.
I imagine, and this is just a guess, that people will start cross-compiling on beefier hardware and then getting it added to the official repository or will just make a repo that you can add manually. It'll be interesting to see where it goes but it doesn't really tickle my "must buy button." That's a bit unfortunate as that's a pretty big, and pretty silly, button for me. Unfortunately, the "tablet" aspect is a turn-off for me. I've not had much enjoyment from tablets but they're not bad for when you're pooping.
So, no... I won't be buying one yet, even though it's a very KGIII-thing to do. I'll be watching with keen interest to see where it goes. I've considered a cell phone but, again, I've not really read a lot good about them. I guess, sadly, I'm not cut out to be a tablet fan. Oh, I've tried to like them. I just can't like them. I've tried a whole bunch and I've not really found them a good fit for who I am and what I do. I'd not begrudge others and I'm glad this is an option for them and I wish it well. Maybe they'll develop something that makes me more interested?
Somebody needs to do some online lessons in learning about the tax code, business law, and things of that nature. I know enough to know that I'm not really qualified to do so. Let me see if I can help you out, I'll do what I can - if you've got questions then go ahead and ask. This will be a bit long - I encourage you to read and not skim but that's up to you.
No, he (probably) doesn't pay less in taxes than his secretary. Warren pays a lower percentage than his secretary. Numerically, I'm guessing he pays a much higher number. Why? Because he's spending (or moving) that money. When profits are realized is when you get taxed. You get taxed when you move or spend the money.
For example, I pay a marginal tax rate of about 23% (State and Federal) on Capital Gains. That's probably a much lower percentage than what you pay. I do not have, personally, any taxable income - I pay no Income Taxes. It's also important to note, I'd pay the Income Tax rate if I realized those profits in less than a year. In other words, you get taxed at Income Tax rates if you do short-term investing. You get taxed at Capital Gains rates if you do long-term investing (a period longer than one calendar year). The reasons for this are obvious - the lower rate is to encourage those who've accumulated some wealth to leave their money in long-term investments that enable the economy to function as well as it does.
Warren's taxes are surely more complicated than mine but the reality is that his Income Tax is exactly the same as his secretary's Income Tax on the same amount of money. They are numerically the same - as the default. He may structure differently than she and may be able to reduce his tax burden in ways that she's unable (or unwilling) to utilize but the intrinsic number is exactly the same as it is for her as it is for him.
Where that differs is in investments like stocks, bonds, or even just interest gained from keeping your money in the bank for the bank to use. (An example might be that I probably get a much higher interest rate on plain savings than you do - simply because I am able to give them access to great valued assets.) Those are taxed at varied rates that depend on duration, value, method, and other things. It's a bit complicated and I honestly do not know enough to give you exact figures.
However, at the same dollar total, he'd pay exactly what his secretary would pay on any of those things - there's no magic space where my tax burden is any different than your burden given the same level of involvement. We may both write down and reduce burden and offset income based on optimizing one's overall tax burden but, really, the numbers exactly the same for you as it is for Warren.
He has choices, by the way. He can get his secretary an accountant and a lawyer and enable her to structure her income to be more beneficial to her. He can simply pay the secretary more. He can not use every mechanism in the book - write-offs and reductions are not automatic, you need to file for them. Odd that he complains but still uses those mechanisms to reduce his burden. He can even donate and pay more than his obligated amount. Yes, you can donate to the government - I have. You can't just be all that picky about where it goes. I donated to NASA but I was unable to earmark it for something like an educational outreach program or inviting aliens to tea on Mars.
So, he's complaining about various reductions in taxes - that he's opting to use, are not mandatory, and could be utilized by anyone with that level of income - including his secretary. He's bitching about the effects of reducing the tax burden while purposefully reducing his tax burden. He does all that while he has a plethora of other options that include things like paying his secretary enough money so that they get to worry about taxes too.
He's not necessarily wrong but he's neither innocent nor is what he said really interpreted very well by most folks who hear it. Do the lines need to be adjusted? Quite probably, yes. To what end? The g
You are aware that nobody actually paid that 91% marginal tax rate, right? I mean that literally. Not. One. Person. Nobody paid that marginal tax rate - there were plenty of loopholes and far less manpower to find those exploiting them. The lines of tax code were fewer then and they had far more ways to avoid (or even evade - which is illegal) taxes then.
No, look at the actual numbers and notice the tax income that the government actually got in relation to the income the people generated? Yeah, it was lower then. I've dug out the number and pretty charts in the past. I guess I can Google and see if I can find them again, if you really want. But no... Nobody was paying that percentage and the government got a lower percentage of income then than it does now. (Percentages, not totals - however, the government still gets a higher total today. I've not crunched the numbers to find absolute values, adjusted for inflation and buying power, so I can't speculate on that area.)
I've a similar issue but not with cable and it doesn't cost me any money. I hate, absolutely hate, voice mail. But, voice mail comes included with my cell phone plan. I don't actually deal with the cell phone company myself, usually and if I can help it, but I have someone who does so on my behalf. At any rate, if you do not set up the voice mail it never gets configured or enabled - with US Cellular and Verizon.
But, and this seems to happen with both companies - or did with Verizon and I've not used them in a while so that may be different now, if you call or have *any* change on the system, something, somebody, somehow, it gets enabled with the defaults. Every time... At that point, someone (sometimes myself) has to call them and have it disabled, again... I go out of my way to not contact them, or have them contacted on my behalf, if I can help it.
It's a bit annoying. I pay someone to take care of things like that. They take care of all my bills, ensure things that are important get done, and make sure I'm not a complete mess. So, I end up paying someone (or using my own time) to call, have it disabled, and put yet another note on my account indicating that I really do not want the service. As it happened with both Verizon and US Cellular, multiple times and nearly every single time, I wonder if it's somehow automated.
If I do contact them personally, I make it a point to ask (nicely - for I am a nice guy) to ensure that it's not enabled at the end of our call. That's actually got a fairly better track record.
With cable? Well... I'm in Florida and this is only my forth time using this house. My kids use it and they call and get cable activated before they get here. They turn it off when they leave. The last one claims they turned it off - about a year ago. As I was coming down, I called ahead to have it turned on. They say that it will be turned on at such and such a date. I get a call the following day telling me that the rep made a mistake - that it is already turned on. The part above, the part where I mentioned that I don't actually call the cell company normally or do it myself? Yeah, I don't deal with the cable company often and certainly not on a regular basis. I don't even see the bills.
It turns out, I've been happily paying for cable this entire time. My kid indicates that they turned it off. There's supposedly an account note that says someone called the cable company on that date or close enough to that date but there's no note of what the interaction was and no record of the call. I have no idea if it has been processed yet but they aren't that bad about it. They're supposed to credit my account or issue a refund. I told 'em to just credit it as I'm sure the kids will turn it back on again as they're both authorized users. However, they could tell (probably logs of some type) that there really was nobody here using the service so getting the credit wasn't too hard - and I did it myself. God. I hate making phone calls to those types of places. My time is more valuable than that - to me, at least,.
Quite a few automobiles will exceed 250k miles with proper maintaining and good driving. As an automobile aficionado, I've managed to pull some gems up and keep them preserved with very little cost. I do think it's a bit insane for most people to finance a new car. I'd go so far as to suggest not financing a used car either.
The minute you drive the new car off the lot, it's worth something like 30% less than what it was when you bought it. But you're gonna pay more than the MSRP when you tally up those payments. It's just not (usually) a good investment. On the other hand, I am really fond of new cars and have bought a number of them over the years. Most of them we paid for with cash which meant I had to save up in order to buy them. (My first car bought with cash was a 740Li. My son still owns it but it is stored in the US while he is not.)
At any rate... There are lots of gems to be found. Person-to-person has an appeal if you're familiar with the make, model, and mechanics. With so many cars having "features" that people don't really like (such as the black box, cellular connectivity, and associated security implications) it's actually still a thriving market in older model cars. I've got quite a few but none of them are really for sale.
To give a rough example... I bought a second hand 1988 Honda Accord LX. It was in fine shape but I put it on a boat and sent it to a guy in Japan who does pretty much nothing but restore Hondas. (He has a brother who does similar but with Nissan and, more specifically, the Z models.) I had it fully torn down, restored, and re-aligned. It took quite a while. I paid for it to be shipped to outside of LA and shipped, on a container ship, back to Japan. It returned to the US about 8 months later. I flew out and drove it back to Maine - while I was out, I put on about 15,000 miles on it - as I zig-zagged across the country.
Here's the fun part..
I did all of that, now have that, and I paid just about what I'd have paid for the same model in the current year with the same level of upgrades. Yes, I got all of that done and it cost me about what a new car, of that same model, would have cost. While in Kansas, and certainly not going slow, I got in the low 40s for my MPG. I regularly get upper 20s and low 30s back in Maine. It's not unusual to see upper 30s if I drive a bit more wisely.
I've done similar with other cars. I have a 82 Volvo 245 that I sent to the West Coast and had it upgraded, restored, and modified - for less than a new Volvo would have cost. I sent a 911 back to the factory for a factory overhaul and restoration but that one was *not* cheaper than it would have been to buy new. No, no... That one was stupidly expensive but worth every penny.
At any rate... Look in the used car ads. There are some national magazines/fliers that you can get should you want something very specific or more choices. Line a few of them up and go for a road trip. Got an old buddy you've not been hanging out with for a while? Take them with you. It's even better if they're a mechanic.
While I hate doing my own repairs and maintaining my own vehicles, I can. We're all geeks and nerds here. It's a giant piece of complicated machinery that harnesses the power of controlled explosives and precise timing. The brakes use fairly high pressure and a bunch of interesting valves - and if they're old drum brakes, they're full of springs and doodads that all need to be exactly right in order to work. (Take a picture!!! Take a damned picture when you pop the cover off drum brakes - lesson learned, lesson shared.) So, you can *easily* learn enough to be able to find a gem, make it yours, and keep it running in perpetuity.
We're pretty old here. Think of the car you wanted most as a child. Now think of something a tad bit more realistic. Find one. Fix it. Keep it. It will, possibly, work. You just need to never, ever fall in love with car because it will break your heart. Never fall in love with your first automobile. At any rate - go find a used car and giv
Ya gotta be old school. <snark>You damned newbies, both of ya!</snark>
While I did have an older account, I can assure you - it was not as old as your accounts. I think that means you win something...
At any rate, I figured seeing as you're old and all... & lt ; (just remove the spaces) and you get your snark tag in the making.
And no, don't thank me. I'm just doing my job... Caring for the elderly...;-) I was probably "here" on this site then but my UUID was much, much higher - in the upper 5 digit range 79xxx or so? Sadly, I can remember that but not the username - then I could probably guess my password and change the email. Given the date that would have been, I suspect I actually *know* the password used.
Ah well, I'd not go back to that account anyhow. Err... I used to drink, heavily... I'm pretty sure if someone found my old account, I'd lie and say it wasn't me. I've got dim recollections of waking up and wondering what the hell I'd done online the night before.
I figured it was some letter that came from runes. I'd heard it mentioned in a documentary or two but now I know what it looks like. Until I forget. My memory is shot.
At any rate, I can type it here. I've got all sorts of characters (keyboard layout) that I don't know or use. I mostly need the Euro, Pound, and things like that. But, when I type it here, it disappears in the preview. Slashdot whitelists certain characters.
Oh, ha! I forgot to add... That's the power of the "average" person - I think. They can do pretty well for themselves if you get out of the way and let them do it. They do even better if you ensure that they've got the tools they want. (Lesson learned: That's NOT always the tools suggested by a vendor. When they say they want a certain compiler - get it for them. Err... We had proprietary compilers back in those days.)
At any rate, the "average" seems to be able to do okay if given the ability to do so. The average can even have some impressive results in the right environment. Ego says that I should claim we were above average. I don't think that's true. While we were "industry leading" that's largely due to a combination of timing and having the willingness to work together and get shit done. No, we had some great people but I'd like to think we were mostly just average people who were willing to do good work.
Meh, I learned a lot from 'em. Mostly, I learned to get out of the way and take a lesson. They found what they were good at, on average, and did that job, on average. The guy writing the documentation today may not be (but probably is - unless there's a crunch of some type) someone who actually was hired to do documentation. Just like I'd been known to take out the trash or even clean up after a mess. I can assure you, I was not "hired" to clean up. But, it needed doing and I was there. I'd like to think we were largely average people. Otherwise, I fall into the trap of thinking I'm special and am where I am because of it and I know that's intellectually dishonest even if it is an appeal to the ego.
In the past, I've mentioned how we didn't really have much in the way of formal job titles at the company I sold. We didn't have a lead programmer, we didn't have a specific QA team, and people have often asked me how that worked or what that looked like. I suspect they ask out of morbid curiosity but... Well, no... That's really what I expect.
Anyhow, what it looked like is that people found and filled their own roles. I'm speaking pretty much of the developer side of things. We didn't have a whole lot of "users" in the traditional sense. There was a lot of cross over, including what you guys are calling "dev-ops." But, QA was done before changes were rolled out to production. Documentation was written - and done well. Research was done. A versioning system decided on (without my needing to intervene or even make suggestions). Code was written. I usually only approached a few people at once but they'd go back, relay the message, and organize and things got done.
There was no manager. In fact, the person who was doing much of the managing was one of the newest hires when I sold. Yet they didn't make more than anyone. They didn't do employee reviews nor could they have fired anyone. We didn't have HR but we had someone who did that sort of stuff - as well as liaison with the bookkeeping and payroll. They were more a secretary than HR - they couldn't hire or fire anyone, they probably didn't want to. Hell, they couldn't even write, issue, or get signed a disciplinary note for a person's files. Err... In all fairness, we never had such a thing.
People sometimes ask if I used scrum, agile, or witchcraft. No. I don't actually think the devs had a name for it. We called it, get this, "programming." They did it because I couldn't. I don't tell the mechanic how to fix my car. I don't tell my programmers how to do things that I don't know how to do or am not an expert at. If I'd been able to do it, I'd have kept doing it. I can't code for shit. Oh, I can... It's just... Well... It works. By some definition, we could say it worked well. And, well, it worked well enough for me to be able to hire professionals.
What system did they use? Buggered if I know. I told them what I needed, they gave me a time and date, and we revisited at that date and time. They then gave me an ETA. Sometimes, one of 'em might ask me to be a bit more clear. If they needed something, they let me know. They're programmers - trust me, they let me know. If it was going to be late, they let me know. Someone did a framework, someone maintained, someone did QA, someone did documentation, someone interacted with me, someone interacted with ops, someone kept it organized, and someone kept it disorganized. There might be multiple people wearing those hats, some wearing no hats at all, and some that probably didn't even want to wear any hat but the one that they liked best.
I'm not so sure that "trust and get out of the way so the experts you hired can actually do what you paid them to do without you slowing them down or adding needless complexity and largely letting them organize themselves and find their own role" has a three letter acronym so I never really know how to answer that question. "Buggered if I know" is not a very good system they tell me. Oddly enough, I'm still (fairly frequently) told that I did it all wrong. Oddly enough, I'm told that'd never work - to which I usually ask, "Well, have you tried it?"
It's amazing how well people do when left to their own devices with nothing but a goal and the tools they want to work with to meet the stated goals. I didn't even have to give them labels or separate pay grades. I don't know what happened between now and then but I suspect it would have been an abject failure if I'd tried to corral them. I didn't even have to tell them when to take breaks or go on lunch! Yet, they always met my goals - even when I pushed for the damned near impossible. Without them, I'd still have to work every day.
I've mentioned this before but not had a lot of feedback on it...
I'm a huge fan of equal opportunity. I've done well and I think we should give everyone an equal chance to do well (within reason, obviously). No, really... I like equal opportunity. What I do not understand is why people try to insist on equal outcomes. We are not all equal in ability and lowering the whole to the lowest common denominator is probably not a wise choice to make.
All those people that you mention have a right to speak. They are not owed a platform nor an audience. Expecting an equal outcome is illogical. Nobody should be obligated to provide a platform or ensure an audience - and nobody is entitled to an equal outcome. The more I think about it, the more convinced I become that people are hell bent on making things needlessly complicated.
There is no obligation of success. There is no entitlement to hold a position of power. There is no surety that one will be able to do what one wishes without fear of consequences. It's unfortunate that you had an identity crisis and put a bunch holes in and tattoos on your face while proudly declaring to be an otherkin and oppressed but the problem is that you've been here for six months and can't even make my coffee right! You sure as shit don't deserve a job, you earn it. You sure as hell don't deserve an audience, you earn it. You sure as shit don't deserve success, as defined by you, because you didn't shit in your pants today - you're a grown adult who should have stopped the pants shitting already. If you want respect, earn it. If you want success, well... Good luck but you should probably do something to earn it or lower your expectations - as near as I can tell, it's largely luck and being in the right place at the right time.
(Those are not you personally.)
Expecting equal outcomes is a fool's errand. Adjust and move on, it's not that difficult. By the way, if you make a good cup of coffee - I don't care who you are. Go forth and make coffee to the best of your ability! But you're probably going to have to measure success as being, maybe, assistant night manager.
Adjusting outcomes? Well, not too long ago, I was leaving New York. Before we left, I want to NYC. I can now say that I've been paid to sing on Broadway. I went, sang, and the missus gave me a pocket full of change. Sometimes, you just need to have more realistic expectations and do what you can to meet them. I don't suppose you want me to sing for you? She's promised to pay me the next time I rally. That way, I can say I'm a professional race car driver.
When I sold, I signed a contract that pretty much prohibits (non-compete) my working in the industry for life and I signed what I thought was an exceptionally long NDA to go along with it. Being a man of my word (and inherently lazy) I don't think they'll have a problem with the former and I've almost certainly violated the NDA (in small ways) since then. So far, it has not been a problem.
The company was incorporated but not publicly owned. The now-parent company is. When we expanded and did pedestrian traffic, we often worked with data that did not belong to us. We signed some pretty odd NDAs ("confidentiality agreement" really) for that. I, and by extension we, always handled those well. It's their data... I'm just not sure why you think that your break schedule is an important trade secret but, don't worry, we won't tell anyone your secret sauce. But, I'm pretty sure I've violated the last signed NDA at least once and at least technically. Some of the rules are pretty silly.
I'd have to look but I think the NDA's duration is 10 years as well. Lacking any other experience in the area - I wonder if that's a standard duration. All of the others I've signed have been for 5 to 7 years. I've only signed the one that applied strictly to me personally and have only that example for anything even remotely similar to a CEO getting done. So, I don't really know if 10 years is long or not. I'd always thought it was quite long. Oh well... I've even mentioned some of the specific hardware we used. I guess they can sue me.
Having read your comments to here... I don't think you're entirely alone. I've bought tablets. I've bought a bunch of them - hoping each one will be better than the last. So far? No dice. (We can say that about Slashdot now - No Dice!)
I don't mind my phone but I don't do much on it. I read, email, text, and make phone calls. Anything else? I tether. I prefer a slide-out keyboard but that's not always the option I want to take in regards to the rest of the hardware - but I do prefer it and will opt for it if it is a realistic option.
I prefer a desktop. Something big and with a giant keyboard. I can't lug that with me so I often have a laptop with me. I'm using a rather nice laptop right now - it's full sized because that's what I prefer. I *like* having two drives in my laptop and I like the weight just fine. It's not really a laptop, I don't use it on my lap.
Then, there's the tablet... If I'm going to be mobile and not have my laptop - I'll just use my phone. The added screen does nothing for me. Adding an external keyboard just reduces its mobility and that's why I'd be using it in the first place. So, I just can't find it in my heart to like tablets and that's not for lack of trying. In fact, I'll be trying again soon - I hope.
If we get Lubuntu running on a Surface Pro then I'll get one of those. I have no interest in it with Windows on it. If I'm going to go with something that's not going to have the portability that I'd prefer, I might as well get a good bit of hardware. I'll probably use it as a consumption device, fairly rarely, and just use it in place of places where I'd use a laptop now. I'm willing to give it a shot and it will be okay if it turns out that I don't like it either. I'm quite certain that someone will accept it as a hand-me-down, just like I've managed to rid myself of various tablets over the past few years.
I did not mind the Motion tablets from a long time ago. Even Acer had a nice one. The one I had was convertible, from Motion themselves, and ran XP on it. It got a whole lot of use, especially on-site at customers, and was a good bit of kit. So far, and I only owned one of the Motions, that has been the only one that I've really liked. I forget the model number but it's still owned and was still working the last time I had it out. It's in my basement and I come across it every couple of years and play with it. Hmm... I bet it'd run a Linux distro fairly well - I'm sure someone's figured the hardware out by now.
I actually seriously considered tendering an offer for Slashdot. In fact, I did offer - it just wasn't enough or wasn't noticed as they never contacted me about it. (I did not offer much. The offer stands when/if it goes up for sale again.) But, seriously... Yes, Slashdot makes some money but not a whole lot. You can be reasonably sure of this because of what is said in public about it. Yet, do you want to own it?
If you answered yes, I'd encourage you to think about that for a minute. The only reason I offered to buy it was sentimental reasons and, maybe, to protect the rest of the internet from us. Can you imagine trying to satisfy all of us enough so that we don't bitch? Think about how vocal our minority is capable of being - over trivial things. We can't even agree with what the layout should be and some of us, a really vocal minority, will complain regardless. I don't want to be in charge of keeping us happy.
Ah well... If you're curious, I'd have put us into a trust. After my loan was repaid (as well as interest) then I'd have removed myself from that trust after setting up a charter to ensure growth and longevity. I'd have installed a community voted board, let them write the charter (with oversight), and stepped out of the way once I got my money back. The goal being, as stated, growth and longevity with a preference for the latter and moderate stability. Staff would have all been fired and it would be run by volunteers with open accounting - including how much I was to get as interest and when that was paid. At this point, the community can keep its own damned self alive and running and that includes administrating the hardware and dealing with vendors. They can be paid a stipend. If that's not enough, there are other volunteers. Put it into a semi-democracy and do what you can to protect it from itself.
I did not do that. Well, I made a "serious" offer and it still stands. I do not imagine they'll accept such an offer. Thus, it will never happen. If it does, then that's the plan. I'm willing to put $50,000 into it. I assume some transfer expenses so I'll offer $40,000. Cash is available in three business days but maybe sooner. I'll settle for 10% (compounded) interest and will take only profits to repay the loan given to the community to buy the site (which is how I envision it). After that's settled, I'll return to my place as a happy user and the site can keep chugging along, doing what it is doing, and do so in perpetuity as a not-for-profit organization. The offer still stands.
No, the rest of the internet doesn't want us. I suspect they'd recoil in horror and flee in abject terror if we all bailed out and went somewhere else. Someone will keep Slashdot going for a very long time. I'm pretty sure that laws and a few treaties actually prevent it from being completely shuttered.
(That was basically much of my post about it in the other thread.)
Anything old, such as the concept of borders and governance, is bound to have some ambiguity. This concept, in particular, has had a whole bunch of varied implementations over the years and spans the globe by its nature. Pinning the word to a single definition that is accepted by all is likely an exercise in futility.
It's probably best to not use the word as having a strict definition but to avoid it, where possible, by being less vague. I don't imagine that will satisfy a whole lot more people but it might lead to fewer instances of genuine confusion. So, there's that.
You Sir, and I reserve the right to not agree with everything you say, have just found a spot on my "friends" list. (It's how I keep track of posts that I might want to read.) And no, no... I seem to recall that you've said a number of things that I don't entirely agree with and that's okay - you've always presented such logically and some dignity (well, that last part made *me* snicker).
Nope... I don't always agree with the conclusions you make - usually because we've a marginally different perspective but nothing so major as to remove all commonality. So, onto that friends list with you. Why? Well, you worded it well and are factually accurate (though I suppose we might argue a detail or two).
The sad thing is, that posting such and knowing such is what got you there. See, I find it sad that you had to explain that to someone who is, in all likelihood, an American. They're also likely to be an adult and likely to have graduated from at least high school. Yet you had to, or felt you had to, explain the very basics of why we're a country and what it meant.
I recently had the chance to explain who Amerigo Vespucci is to someone. I guess they can be forgiven. They're a young kid who hasn't taken American History yet. I see your post as something similar. At least, in my case, he's just a kid. I've also kind of adopted 'em and his little brother but that's a long story. They're well spoken and intelligent - quite inquisitive, really. They're a joy to have around the house and I live vicariously through their exploits. But, 'tis a long story and they're horrible time-stealers! Buggers keep eating into my/. time!
I've sat, for like four days, with this tab open and I want to reply but I keep running out of posts.;-) So, I'll never get to a reply if I don't do it.
First, I'm not entirely sure what to say other than thank you for giving me the honor of valuing my opinion enough to specifically ask about it and for indicating that you wish I still was involved in the industry. I must tell you, that last part is a bit inviting at times. I've had a bunch of offers and I might actually take a short-term position where it's engaging. I don't really need the money so that's not actually a concern - I mention that because that's a topic that has come up.
Now... That said... I never hired a freelancer, I never hired a contractor. I did, from time to time, need to hire a consultant. There's some overlap potential but it was a flat-fee type of thing. I'm not a big fan of off-shoring nor am I a fan of outsourcing. However, I'm not a fan of spending money needlessly. Yet, if the country you wish to sell in does not have people who are able to afford your products then... But where does reasonable and responsible go? That path is a complete rabbit hole.
It has been tough to think of a good example. That's why this tab is still open after all this time. But, alas, I'm reminded of a conversation that I had on this very site - probably within the past year or two. This may get a bit complicated and I think it might end up longer than I'd like. I'm assuming you're okay with that. It's not like you're unfamiliar with my posting style or history.;-)
I pointed out that I started programmers (they had to have some sort of expertise and domain knowledge or they weren't of much value and we had to train them - we were willing to do that, including formal education) used to get started at about $120k if they worked for me. They were expected to be good and all that and blah blah. You understand... I'm sure you understand.
The person I was responding to was quick to shout out that such was impossible and that nobody could do such a thing. I then showed them some numbers of what a traffic engineer made then and what they made now. E.g. A *senior* traffic engineer will make something around $80k/year. I should point out, the figure I gave for what I was paying them then is in real dollars, not adjusted dollars. My shop, one of the few, skewed those numbers enough to actually demonstrate this. In today's value, that's something like $160k/year - if you're curious. There's the added complexity of inferior work, greater numbers of shops offering services, and a bit of a market flood due to the government throwing 800 billion USD at the economic problem - specifically for "shovel ready" work that was highway related. (Now you know *why* my business was valued and sold for as much as it did.)
At any rate... They then asked how I could do it. They wanted to know how I could afford to do it. It's simple, really. I just shunted their salary off to the customer - usually your local municipality but later expanding to include services for private companies. Yes, I didn't actually give a shit how much I paid them (in that sense of the word) because I was just going to make the customer pay for it.
They were outraged! Outraged! They simply were pissed that I'd paid employees good money at the expense of the tax payer and, of course, tried to take things to the extreme level and refuse to accept that there's a difference between acceptable and extreme. No, my employees were not driving super cars to work on the tax payer dime. I bid or gave them a figure and they agreed to pay it and we had fancy contracts that stipulated things like times and penalties. But, more importantly, those people that I paid also turned around and paid taxes in those communities. That we increased efficiency, efficacy, and made things safer is, of course, an added bonus.
Well, that seemed to calm them down and they meandered off. The thing is, I'd probably pay about what I was paying then (judging by the nu
I don't think most sane people are calling for any such thing. You can safely assume those who would be are idiots or insane - or maybe both. Perhaps you're trying to insert more than I said into my reply?
At any rate, Somalia could probably do well with a wee bit less government than they have. They don't actually get to do much in the way of electing whom governs them and their government is frequently the guy with the most guns and friends. It's not the official one that stomps into the UN once in a while. No, their government is particularly bad. Maybe you misread "pretty well governed" as "governed pretty well?" They've got so much government, albeit unofficial and unrecognized, that they might be one of the few places where a little less government is a good idea - as contrary as that might sound.
An unrecognized government is no less oppressive but it's still a government. They've got *lots* of government. Complete with a, localized at least, monopoly on force and even paperwork. They even overlap in some areas. That is often a bad thing for the locals. It's not a very representative government at all. Well, no... They're representative - just not of the citizens and not democratically. I do think that, with time, they'll improve. The government that should be governing is doing a pretty piss poor job of it - they should probably be stronger and less corrupt and oust the warlords and do way too many things to list here.
At any rate, they've got plenty of government. It's just really, really bad government. Imagine everything you think you know about the place and multiply it by ten. It's just that bad. If you go from one city to another then you may, really, need paperwork or they'll kill you. Like trade your sister for food type of bad. Oh, and your sister is five. They are that badly governed but it's a mistake to assume/believe that they are not governed and have no government. Oh, they've got a shitload of government - really, really scary government.
Well, son... It's time to teach you a lesson. See, hosts were around before we had the DNS system. Allow me to show you when we started to move past them, in December of 1973... http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/...
You're in your 30s, Alex. Being unemployed does not make you retired. It makes you unemployed. Collecting disability doesn't make you retired, it makes you unable to work.
As for your other posts, I see you failed to read mine and understand it. That's okay, APK. I'm kind of used to it. You failed to address any of my points. I do not *need* you to tell me about hosts. I'm well aware of what hosts do and the benefits of using them or not using them. I've never denied the technical merits of using a hosts file - ever. We've been over this before. Let me know when hosts can be refined as well as a whole host of other options. At this point in time, I have better choices for me. At this point in time, I have an effective system that's efficient with my time. It does everything I need it to do in the ways that I want to do them. I do things that the hosts file simply can not do. If the hosts file were a better tool for the job I want done, I'd do it. That's what you're continually not understanding. It's not even a difficult concept.
As for the rest of your many posts... Do you seriously think that crap-flooding and pretending to not be you is believed by anyone? If mildly amusing is your goal, you've managed.
The part of me that isn't white is brown and brown is the majority of what I have. I get ticketed about as often as my more-brown relatives and my not-brown relatives. Which is to say, none. I've not had a speeding ticket since something like 1972. I've never picked up a DWB or anything - but I've had some interesting encounters that I think could have resulted in a DWB arrest and fine. I've also driven all over the place - including other countries which, presumably, I'd get a DWnvB ticket or something but that never happened.
This doesn't mean that DWB doesn't happen. It shouldn't be misconstrued as anything other than my anecdote and those of others who have discussed it with me. Driving is a very popular discussion topic with me - I can talk about it and cars for hours. I do mean hours. No, cocaine does not "help" with that.
But, to my point (and I have one!), I'm not really sure that it's just DWB. A lot of it has to do with how you carry yourself and how you present yourself. Are you polite? Do you turn the radio down? Do you acknowledge guilt - if guilty? Do you have paperwork ready? Is your car clean and reasonably organized? Are you clean and sober? Are you buckled in? Is your car in good repair? Is your exhaust quiet? Did you move slowly and keep in mind that cops are herd animals and subject to spooking?
It's true that we'd not have to worry about those sorts of things in an ideal world. However, if it were an ideal world, we'd not be having this discussion at all. We'd not need to. But, I don't think selective enforcement (or selective prosecution) is always used to persecute brown people. Nah, they'll persecute most anyone they don't like. That doesn't mean I know how to (effectively and realistically) change it.
I think they're just saying that they're unable to maintain their speed without constant attention. They mentioned something about getting a ticket for 26 in a 25 because of a photo but I didn't actually see any instances of that actually happening when I used Google. I prefer a manual, to the point of exclusion where possible, but I can maintain my speed at 25 MPH (or close enough) in either.
In an automatic (and in a manual - if done properly) your car will move if you take your foot off the brake. This is normal behavior. However, it doesn't (on a reasonably level surface) just keep accelerating forever. If it exceeds somewhere around 5-8 MPH, while on a level surface, with no use of the accelerator pedal, see a mechanic.
If you're driving a manual and you're having issues remaining below a certain speed, while not using the accelerator, then simply shift into a lower gear and use the engine to brake and better maintain speed. If it's an automatic, let up off the gas pedal. This is not complicated. If you can't do these things and your car is in good repair, do not drive. Hire a driver. These are basic skills that should be taught to children who are learning to drive.
Hell, mine both learned to drive and are reasonably adept on it. Of course, they've driven some of my cars over the years and I've owned some unique automobiles - some with absurd amounts of power, that you strap on a five point restraint, and make loud noises with quick responses. Hell, my current daily driver (the one with me) only has 450 ponies under the hood but I imagine it'd scare quite a few people. Me? I love the low, throaty, growl and the privilege of operating such a fine tuned piece of machinery. I'm actually a (mostly) responsible driver when I'm on a public street. It's not just my safety that I'm putting at risk.
Actually, the vast majority of accidents are caused by driving too fast for the conditions.
I've had people get confused by that before and I hate to do the appeal to authority thing but I'm the closest we've got to an expert on the subject. If you are drunk and back into another car in the bar parking lot at 5 MPH, you were driving too fast for the conditions. If you were going 30 MPH and slipped off into a snowbank, you were driving too fast for the conditions. If you're sitting still and someone hits your car, they were driving too fast for the conditions.
Sometimes, the conditions are such that the speed should be zero if a modicum of safety is the goal. Chances are that you're not the driver you think you are. I'd also suggest that you do not have a "sports tuned" motorized vehicle of any type. It's unlikely that you've either the expertise to configure it, the knowledge of what to do with the configuration, or the finances to achieve it. I surprise this because I *do* have a vehicle with sport tuning - I have several. The tuning varies for the sport and can be prohibitively expensive - to the point where few people would want to use it for regular travel.
That said, there's a time and a space for enjoying oneself behind the wheel of an automobile. Limit your speeding and aggressive behaviors to those times and places. You are not the only one on the road. As someone who actually *does* get involved in some motor sports, don't give us a bad name by trying to identify as us. There are lots of ways to get your speed on. Residential streets or public highways are not usually those spots. No, you don't have the skills and training required to push your car to the envelope without risking others and others do not accept the risks you're forcing on them.
Save your speed for the track or closed circuits. Personally? I prefer rally over any other type. I've a very nice, a bit older, Saab that I use for such. Well, used... The engine is no longer working - it has completely, and totally, seized because I was unwilling to stop and bow out gracefully. If you knew how much money was in that engine, you'd probably poop a small brick - and I'm very much just an old duffer. Hell, the tires are more expensive than you might imagine. (It's not like I can get away with just one set.) I'll probably be saying to hell with it and just buying an already complete WRX or Mini. I might go with an older Mini and just enter a different class. I am not a professional so it's a money sink for me. It is a fun hobby.
Hmm... I used to be stationed at Quantico but this was, shall we say, a long time ago. Back then, if you had the appropriate stickers then you'd be allowed to get away with a whole lot of stuff. My MOS made me a vehicle operator (driver). I often spent a bunch of miles off-base with the appropriate stickers. Hell, we were doing an official convoy (I'm assuming you know what that means) and some idiot pulled in, mixed with us, and then tried to stop (seemingly to get a camera). It did not go over well and caused untold damage to their vehicle, with them in it. (The flashing lights and sign trucks should be an indication to not join in on the fun if not the fact that you've got 500 vehicles, in a row, all of which are big, heavy, and kind of scary looking. Add to that the fact that they're all going 45 MPH and haven't even stopped for red lights or any other sign...)
On our personal vehicles, well... The appropriate stickers could get you all sorts of access and mostly ignored if you didn't do anything outlandish. I mean stuff like being from up north, waiting for it to snow that half inch that shuts the city down, and then driving like a madman in the snow... Yeah, the cops just waved and laughed. We stopped and helped one out from inside the median and I spent the day teaching my buds how to drive in the snow. Speeding was assumed, driving drunk was frequent, and complete and total disregard to rules was mandatory - so long as you had the right stickers.
I take it that such has changed? Also, do not pull into an actual convoy of military vehicles and then apply the brakes. Do not mix with convoy! Convoy ahead, do not interfere! CONVOY! Those signs, on trucks with flashing lights, actually may mean something including that we're not going to stop. We're not *allowed* to stop for you or your Honda - even if you wave a gun at us and certainly not for pictures. We're OBLIGATED to move your vehicle out of the way and continue to do our best to keep up with the rest of the convoy. Do not mix with convoy. We had trucks, all along the convoy, driving beside us - with flashing lights. Yeah, they got run over. Well, more like pushed out of the way. I was not the driver of said vehicle but I didn't stop either. The law's pretty clear on this - so were my orders. Do not interfere with convoy.
It's about what 85% of the people will obey - not about the actual speed they drive. I should have made that a bit more clear. It actually... Err... It actually makes you a bit less correct but I can't speak for this particular stretch of road.
Slashdot Mirror
Not too long ago, I went on a distro hunt. I've used Linux, off and on, for years - except I never really used it. Oh, it was installed and even kept updated but I'd just boot to Windows. I also come from a Unix background. However, my brain was getting mushy and I wanted to ensure that I was still learning new things. I opted to facilitate this by simply getting rid of Windows and using only Linux. So, I did my distro hunt...
I can not tell you what will be best for you. However, I've actually tried almost every single one of the major distros and a lot of the small ones. DistroWatch? Yeah, I tried them all - even the little ones. Many of those got tried on bare metal but most got tried in a VM. I mean, yeah, all of them. I might have missed one or two but that's probably because they appeared to replicate work from others.
So, in the end, I did use Mint Cinnamon for a while and it's still installed on one of the laptops that I have with me. However, I decided that I like the simplicity and speed of LXDE (amazing on recent hardware and good-enough on older hardware). I'd also decided that the ecosystem provided by Ubuntu was the best one for me - it's the largest and is generally helpful. I could do more customization but I opted to just use Lubuntu. No distro has my particular needs completely met so I just start from there and do my installs and changes as required - it was the least amount of work.
LXDE is speedy, like I mentioned. It's also rather familiar to most people. I did a dock of my own and set that up. I've been learning more and more about it as time goes on. There's still a lot more for me to learn (a good thing) and it keeps me interested (also a good thing). I've been content enough with my choice to let my MSDN subscription lapse. I don't use any Windows except for my phone. I can't. Well, I could but it'd take some effort. I just had to make the switch, make sure that I'd no longer be able to boot to Windows, and things have gone well since.
Of course, it helps that I have some familiarity and some history of use. I used to use Solaris everywhere, it was even on our workstations, and then migrated to Windows. I'd tried Linux not long after it came out. I liked it. I even kept it installed on a partition on almost every box. I just, well... I wasn't booting to it except to try something out, update, and maybe show someone something. It was just there and I wasn't using it.
That said, if I had to ask Matt a question...
"If you could change any one thing about Canonical, the organization, what would it be? For me, I'd probably change the clique nature that we see in some of the mailing lists, on the forum, or even at live events. It's great that they've an official @ubuntu.com email address but, really, they've not actually done much in the way of contributing - ever. It's seemingly more a pissing match and a popularity contest than it is about the benefit that some provide to the community.
"If I could change anything, I'd change that. However, if you can snap your fingers and make any change to Canonical, what would that change be - and why? If that question is difficult to answer due to politics or any other reason, you can change Canonical to Ubuntu itself. I'm interested in both, if you want to go that far but I'm limited to one question per post."
Except they never made that accusation. They were quite specific in saying that it was their personal preference. They even went as far as to say they hate it but that they've no hate for the users. Hell, he even said it was a matter of personal preference. I've no idea why you'd piss in your knickers over someone saying that they don't like a DE.
I don't know if I'd call having a limited amount of pre-compiled software a 'walled garden' per se. I mean, you can grab the source (for most anything you'd be wanting on a tablet - at least that I can think of) and compile it yourself. Hell, you can even upload and share your compiled work with others or, if you want, you can compile things and get them included in the repository so that others can install them with apt. (That might require a bit of work and playing well with others - I'm actually, somehow, mistakenly on the "official" Lubuntu team so I've got part of the way there.)
That said, hmm... Tempting? Except, I've already bought a stack of tablets and just not enjoyed them. I've heard bad things about this company (not Canonical but BQ) in the past. I've heard the interface isn't really that nice. I guess, really, I'd rather just send them a few dollars and let them keep their hardware. It's not a bad price, really. It's not a good price but it's not terrible. I think it'd be nicer to just have the opportunity to get *buntu installed on more devices in an easier way. You can do it, if you want, but there are a few traps along the way and at least one seems to brick some hardware if something goes amiss.
I imagine, and this is just a guess, that people will start cross-compiling on beefier hardware and then getting it added to the official repository or will just make a repo that you can add manually. It'll be interesting to see where it goes but it doesn't really tickle my "must buy button." That's a bit unfortunate as that's a pretty big, and pretty silly, button for me. Unfortunately, the "tablet" aspect is a turn-off for me. I've not had much enjoyment from tablets but they're not bad for when you're pooping.
So, no... I won't be buying one yet, even though it's a very KGIII-thing to do. I'll be watching with keen interest to see where it goes. I've considered a cell phone but, again, I've not really read a lot good about them. I guess, sadly, I'm not cut out to be a tablet fan. Oh, I've tried to like them. I just can't like them. I've tried a whole bunch and I've not really found them a good fit for who I am and what I do. I'd not begrudge others and I'm glad this is an option for them and I wish it well. Maybe they'll develop something that makes me more interested?
Somebody needs to do some online lessons in learning about the tax code, business law, and things of that nature. I know enough to know that I'm not really qualified to do so. Let me see if I can help you out, I'll do what I can - if you've got questions then go ahead and ask. This will be a bit long - I encourage you to read and not skim but that's up to you.
No, he (probably) doesn't pay less in taxes than his secretary. Warren pays a lower percentage than his secretary. Numerically, I'm guessing he pays a much higher number. Why? Because he's spending (or moving) that money. When profits are realized is when you get taxed. You get taxed when you move or spend the money.
For example, I pay a marginal tax rate of about 23% (State and Federal) on Capital Gains. That's probably a much lower percentage than what you pay. I do not have, personally, any taxable income - I pay no Income Taxes. It's also important to note, I'd pay the Income Tax rate if I realized those profits in less than a year. In other words, you get taxed at Income Tax rates if you do short-term investing. You get taxed at Capital Gains rates if you do long-term investing (a period longer than one calendar year). The reasons for this are obvious - the lower rate is to encourage those who've accumulated some wealth to leave their money in long-term investments that enable the economy to function as well as it does.
Warren's taxes are surely more complicated than mine but the reality is that his Income Tax is exactly the same as his secretary's Income Tax on the same amount of money. They are numerically the same - as the default. He may structure differently than she and may be able to reduce his tax burden in ways that she's unable (or unwilling) to utilize but the intrinsic number is exactly the same as it is for her as it is for him.
Where that differs is in investments like stocks, bonds, or even just interest gained from keeping your money in the bank for the bank to use. (An example might be that I probably get a much higher interest rate on plain savings than you do - simply because I am able to give them access to great valued assets.) Those are taxed at varied rates that depend on duration, value, method, and other things. It's a bit complicated and I honestly do not know enough to give you exact figures.
However, at the same dollar total, he'd pay exactly what his secretary would pay on any of those things - there's no magic space where my tax burden is any different than your burden given the same level of involvement. We may both write down and reduce burden and offset income based on optimizing one's overall tax burden but, really, the numbers exactly the same for you as it is for Warren.
He has choices, by the way. He can get his secretary an accountant and a lawyer and enable her to structure her income to be more beneficial to her. He can simply pay the secretary more. He can not use every mechanism in the book - write-offs and reductions are not automatic, you need to file for them. Odd that he complains but still uses those mechanisms to reduce his burden. He can even donate and pay more than his obligated amount. Yes, you can donate to the government - I have. You can't just be all that picky about where it goes. I donated to NASA but I was unable to earmark it for something like an educational outreach program or inviting aliens to tea on Mars.
So, he's complaining about various reductions in taxes - that he's opting to use, are not mandatory, and could be utilized by anyone with that level of income - including his secretary. He's bitching about the effects of reducing the tax burden while purposefully reducing his tax burden. He does all that while he has a plethora of other options that include things like paying his secretary enough money so that they get to worry about taxes too.
He's not necessarily wrong but he's neither innocent nor is what he said really interpreted very well by most folks who hear it. Do the lines need to be adjusted? Quite probably, yes. To what end? The g
You are aware that nobody actually paid that 91% marginal tax rate, right? I mean that literally. Not. One. Person. Nobody paid that marginal tax rate - there were plenty of loopholes and far less manpower to find those exploiting them. The lines of tax code were fewer then and they had far more ways to avoid (or even evade - which is illegal) taxes then.
No, look at the actual numbers and notice the tax income that the government actually got in relation to the income the people generated? Yeah, it was lower then. I've dug out the number and pretty charts in the past. I guess I can Google and see if I can find them again, if you really want. But no... Nobody was paying that percentage and the government got a lower percentage of income then than it does now. (Percentages, not totals - however, the government still gets a higher total today. I've not crunched the numbers to find absolute values, adjusted for inflation and buying power, so I can't speculate on that area.)
I've a similar issue but not with cable and it doesn't cost me any money. I hate, absolutely hate, voice mail. But, voice mail comes included with my cell phone plan. I don't actually deal with the cell phone company myself, usually and if I can help it, but I have someone who does so on my behalf. At any rate, if you do not set up the voice mail it never gets configured or enabled - with US Cellular and Verizon.
But, and this seems to happen with both companies - or did with Verizon and I've not used them in a while so that may be different now, if you call or have *any* change on the system, something, somebody, somehow, it gets enabled with the defaults. Every time... At that point, someone (sometimes myself) has to call them and have it disabled, again... I go out of my way to not contact them, or have them contacted on my behalf, if I can help it.
It's a bit annoying. I pay someone to take care of things like that. They take care of all my bills, ensure things that are important get done, and make sure I'm not a complete mess. So, I end up paying someone (or using my own time) to call, have it disabled, and put yet another note on my account indicating that I really do not want the service. As it happened with both Verizon and US Cellular, multiple times and nearly every single time, I wonder if it's somehow automated.
If I do contact them personally, I make it a point to ask (nicely - for I am a nice guy) to ensure that it's not enabled at the end of our call. That's actually got a fairly better track record.
With cable? Well... I'm in Florida and this is only my forth time using this house. My kids use it and they call and get cable activated before they get here. They turn it off when they leave. The last one claims they turned it off - about a year ago. As I was coming down, I called ahead to have it turned on. They say that it will be turned on at such and such a date. I get a call the following day telling me that the rep made a mistake - that it is already turned on. The part above, the part where I mentioned that I don't actually call the cell company normally or do it myself? Yeah, I don't deal with the cable company often and certainly not on a regular basis. I don't even see the bills.
It turns out, I've been happily paying for cable this entire time. My kid indicates that they turned it off. There's supposedly an account note that says someone called the cable company on that date or close enough to that date but there's no note of what the interaction was and no record of the call. I have no idea if it has been processed yet but they aren't that bad about it. They're supposed to credit my account or issue a refund. I told 'em to just credit it as I'm sure the kids will turn it back on again as they're both authorized users. However, they could tell (probably logs of some type) that there really was nobody here using the service so getting the credit wasn't too hard - and I did it myself. God. I hate making phone calls to those types of places. My time is more valuable than that - to me, at least,.
Quite a few automobiles will exceed 250k miles with proper maintaining and good driving. As an automobile aficionado, I've managed to pull some gems up and keep them preserved with very little cost. I do think it's a bit insane for most people to finance a new car. I'd go so far as to suggest not financing a used car either.
The minute you drive the new car off the lot, it's worth something like 30% less than what it was when you bought it. But you're gonna pay more than the MSRP when you tally up those payments. It's just not (usually) a good investment. On the other hand, I am really fond of new cars and have bought a number of them over the years. Most of them we paid for with cash which meant I had to save up in order to buy them. (My first car bought with cash was a 740Li. My son still owns it but it is stored in the US while he is not.)
At any rate... There are lots of gems to be found. Person-to-person has an appeal if you're familiar with the make, model, and mechanics. With so many cars having "features" that people don't really like (such as the black box, cellular connectivity, and associated security implications) it's actually still a thriving market in older model cars. I've got quite a few but none of them are really for sale.
To give a rough example... I bought a second hand 1988 Honda Accord LX. It was in fine shape but I put it on a boat and sent it to a guy in Japan who does pretty much nothing but restore Hondas. (He has a brother who does similar but with Nissan and, more specifically, the Z models.) I had it fully torn down, restored, and re-aligned. It took quite a while. I paid for it to be shipped to outside of LA and shipped, on a container ship, back to Japan. It returned to the US about 8 months later. I flew out and drove it back to Maine - while I was out, I put on about 15,000 miles on it - as I zig-zagged across the country.
Here's the fun part..
I did all of that, now have that, and I paid just about what I'd have paid for the same model in the current year with the same level of upgrades. Yes, I got all of that done and it cost me about what a new car, of that same model, would have cost. While in Kansas, and certainly not going slow, I got in the low 40s for my MPG. I regularly get upper 20s and low 30s back in Maine. It's not unusual to see upper 30s if I drive a bit more wisely.
I've done similar with other cars. I have a 82 Volvo 245 that I sent to the West Coast and had it upgraded, restored, and modified - for less than a new Volvo would have cost. I sent a 911 back to the factory for a factory overhaul and restoration but that one was *not* cheaper than it would have been to buy new. No, no... That one was stupidly expensive but worth every penny.
At any rate... Look in the used car ads. There are some national magazines/fliers that you can get should you want something very specific or more choices. Line a few of them up and go for a road trip. Got an old buddy you've not been hanging out with for a while? Take them with you. It's even better if they're a mechanic.
While I hate doing my own repairs and maintaining my own vehicles, I can. We're all geeks and nerds here. It's a giant piece of complicated machinery that harnesses the power of controlled explosives and precise timing. The brakes use fairly high pressure and a bunch of interesting valves - and if they're old drum brakes, they're full of springs and doodads that all need to be exactly right in order to work. (Take a picture!!! Take a damned picture when you pop the cover off drum brakes - lesson learned, lesson shared.) So, you can *easily* learn enough to be able to find a gem, make it yours, and keep it running in perpetuity.
We're pretty old here. Think of the car you wanted most as a child. Now think of something a tad bit more realistic. Find one. Fix it. Keep it. It will, possibly, work. You just need to never, ever fall in love with car because it will break your heart. Never fall in love with your first automobile. At any rate - go find a used car and giv
Ya gotta be old school. <snark>You damned newbies, both of ya!</snark>
While I did have an older account, I can assure you - it was not as old as your accounts. I think that means you win something...
At any rate, I figured seeing as you're old and all... & lt ; (just remove the spaces) and you get your snark tag in the making.
And no, don't thank me. I'm just doing my job... Caring for the elderly... ;-) I was probably "here" on this site then but my UUID was much, much higher - in the upper 5 digit range 79xxx or so? Sadly, I can remember that but not the username - then I could probably guess my password and change the email. Given the date that would have been, I suspect I actually *know* the password used.
Ah well, I'd not go back to that account anyhow. Err... I used to drink, heavily... I'm pretty sure if someone found my old account, I'd lie and say it wasn't me. I've got dim recollections of waking up and wondering what the hell I'd done online the night before.
At any rate... I figure senility was probably the problem. So, that's how you type the less-than. I know of no way to do it with a different keyboard layout. You can use the keyboard to do © or just the HTML entity. Just pretend you're going to reply, click on quote parent, and all should become clear. With the keyboard layout you can just use ©. (€£¥® etc.) Buggered if I know how to do the less than symbol with just a shortcut, however.
I figured it was some letter that came from runes. I'd heard it mentioned in a documentary or two but now I know what it looks like. Until I forget. My memory is shot.
At any rate, I can type it here. I've got all sorts of characters (keyboard layout) that I don't know or use. I mostly need the Euro, Pound, and things like that. But, when I type it here, it disappears in the preview. Slashdot whitelists certain characters.
Oh, ha! I forgot to add... That's the power of the "average" person - I think. They can do pretty well for themselves if you get out of the way and let them do it. They do even better if you ensure that they've got the tools they want. (Lesson learned: That's NOT always the tools suggested by a vendor. When they say they want a certain compiler - get it for them. Err... We had proprietary compilers back in those days.)
At any rate, the "average" seems to be able to do okay if given the ability to do so. The average can even have some impressive results in the right environment. Ego says that I should claim we were above average. I don't think that's true. While we were "industry leading" that's largely due to a combination of timing and having the willingness to work together and get shit done. No, we had some great people but I'd like to think we were mostly just average people who were willing to do good work.
Meh, I learned a lot from 'em. Mostly, I learned to get out of the way and take a lesson. They found what they were good at, on average, and did that job, on average. The guy writing the documentation today may not be (but probably is - unless there's a crunch of some type) someone who actually was hired to do documentation. Just like I'd been known to take out the trash or even clean up after a mess. I can assure you, I was not "hired" to clean up. But, it needed doing and I was there. I'd like to think we were largely average people. Otherwise, I fall into the trap of thinking I'm special and am where I am because of it and I know that's intellectually dishonest even if it is an appeal to the ego.
In the past, I've mentioned how we didn't really have much in the way of formal job titles at the company I sold. We didn't have a lead programmer, we didn't have a specific QA team, and people have often asked me how that worked or what that looked like. I suspect they ask out of morbid curiosity but... Well, no... That's really what I expect.
Anyhow, what it looked like is that people found and filled their own roles. I'm speaking pretty much of the developer side of things. We didn't have a whole lot of "users" in the traditional sense. There was a lot of cross over, including what you guys are calling "dev-ops." But, QA was done before changes were rolled out to production. Documentation was written - and done well. Research was done. A versioning system decided on (without my needing to intervene or even make suggestions). Code was written. I usually only approached a few people at once but they'd go back, relay the message, and organize and things got done.
There was no manager. In fact, the person who was doing much of the managing was one of the newest hires when I sold. Yet they didn't make more than anyone. They didn't do employee reviews nor could they have fired anyone. We didn't have HR but we had someone who did that sort of stuff - as well as liaison with the bookkeeping and payroll. They were more a secretary than HR - they couldn't hire or fire anyone, they probably didn't want to. Hell, they couldn't even write, issue, or get signed a disciplinary note for a person's files. Err... In all fairness, we never had such a thing.
People sometimes ask if I used scrum, agile, or witchcraft. No. I don't actually think the devs had a name for it. We called it, get this, "programming." They did it because I couldn't. I don't tell the mechanic how to fix my car. I don't tell my programmers how to do things that I don't know how to do or am not an expert at. If I'd been able to do it, I'd have kept doing it. I can't code for shit. Oh, I can... It's just... Well... It works. By some definition, we could say it worked well. And, well, it worked well enough for me to be able to hire professionals.
What system did they use? Buggered if I know. I told them what I needed, they gave me a time and date, and we revisited at that date and time. They then gave me an ETA. Sometimes, one of 'em might ask me to be a bit more clear. If they needed something, they let me know. They're programmers - trust me, they let me know. If it was going to be late, they let me know. Someone did a framework, someone maintained, someone did QA, someone did documentation, someone interacted with me, someone interacted with ops, someone kept it organized, and someone kept it disorganized. There might be multiple people wearing those hats, some wearing no hats at all, and some that probably didn't even want to wear any hat but the one that they liked best.
I'm not so sure that "trust and get out of the way so the experts you hired can actually do what you paid them to do without you slowing them down or adding needless complexity and largely letting them organize themselves and find their own role" has a three letter acronym so I never really know how to answer that question. "Buggered if I know" is not a very good system they tell me. Oddly enough, I'm still (fairly frequently) told that I did it all wrong. Oddly enough, I'm told that'd never work - to which I usually ask, "Well, have you tried it?"
It's amazing how well people do when left to their own devices with nothing but a goal and the tools they want to work with to meet the stated goals. I didn't even have to give them labels or separate pay grades. I don't know what happened between now and then but I suspect it would have been an abject failure if I'd tried to corral them. I didn't even have to tell them when to take breaks or go on lunch! Yet, they always met my goals - even when I pushed for the damned near impossible. Without them, I'd still have to work every day.
I've mentioned this before but not had a lot of feedback on it...
I'm a huge fan of equal opportunity. I've done well and I think we should give everyone an equal chance to do well (within reason, obviously). No, really... I like equal opportunity. What I do not understand is why people try to insist on equal outcomes. We are not all equal in ability and lowering the whole to the lowest common denominator is probably not a wise choice to make.
All those people that you mention have a right to speak. They are not owed a platform nor an audience. Expecting an equal outcome is illogical. Nobody should be obligated to provide a platform or ensure an audience - and nobody is entitled to an equal outcome. The more I think about it, the more convinced I become that people are hell bent on making things needlessly complicated.
There is no obligation of success. There is no entitlement to hold a position of power. There is no surety that one will be able to do what one wishes without fear of consequences. It's unfortunate that you had an identity crisis and put a bunch holes in and tattoos on your face while proudly declaring to be an otherkin and oppressed but the problem is that you've been here for six months and can't even make my coffee right! You sure as shit don't deserve a job, you earn it. You sure as hell don't deserve an audience, you earn it. You sure as shit don't deserve success, as defined by you, because you didn't shit in your pants today - you're a grown adult who should have stopped the pants shitting already. If you want respect, earn it. If you want success, well... Good luck but you should probably do something to earn it or lower your expectations - as near as I can tell, it's largely luck and being in the right place at the right time.
(Those are not you personally.)
Expecting equal outcomes is a fool's errand. Adjust and move on, it's not that difficult. By the way, if you make a good cup of coffee - I don't care who you are. Go forth and make coffee to the best of your ability! But you're probably going to have to measure success as being, maybe, assistant night manager.
Adjusting outcomes? Well, not too long ago, I was leaving New York. Before we left, I want to NYC. I can now say that I've been paid to sing on Broadway. I went, sang, and the missus gave me a pocket full of change. Sometimes, you just need to have more realistic expectations and do what you can to meet them. I don't suppose you want me to sing for you? She's promised to pay me the next time I rally. That way, I can say I'm a professional race car driver.
When I sold, I signed a contract that pretty much prohibits (non-compete) my working in the industry for life and I signed what I thought was an exceptionally long NDA to go along with it. Being a man of my word (and inherently lazy) I don't think they'll have a problem with the former and I've almost certainly violated the NDA (in small ways) since then. So far, it has not been a problem.
The company was incorporated but not publicly owned. The now-parent company is. When we expanded and did pedestrian traffic, we often worked with data that did not belong to us. We signed some pretty odd NDAs ("confidentiality agreement" really) for that. I, and by extension we, always handled those well. It's their data... I'm just not sure why you think that your break schedule is an important trade secret but, don't worry, we won't tell anyone your secret sauce. But, I'm pretty sure I've violated the last signed NDA at least once and at least technically. Some of the rules are pretty silly.
I'd have to look but I think the NDA's duration is 10 years as well. Lacking any other experience in the area - I wonder if that's a standard duration. All of the others I've signed have been for 5 to 7 years. I've only signed the one that applied strictly to me personally and have only that example for anything even remotely similar to a CEO getting done. So, I don't really know if 10 years is long or not. I'd always thought it was quite long. Oh well... I've even mentioned some of the specific hardware we used. I guess they can sue me.
Having read your comments to here... I don't think you're entirely alone. I've bought tablets. I've bought a bunch of them - hoping each one will be better than the last. So far? No dice. (We can say that about Slashdot now - No Dice!)
I don't mind my phone but I don't do much on it. I read, email, text, and make phone calls. Anything else? I tether. I prefer a slide-out keyboard but that's not always the option I want to take in regards to the rest of the hardware - but I do prefer it and will opt for it if it is a realistic option.
I prefer a desktop. Something big and with a giant keyboard. I can't lug that with me so I often have a laptop with me. I'm using a rather nice laptop right now - it's full sized because that's what I prefer. I *like* having two drives in my laptop and I like the weight just fine. It's not really a laptop, I don't use it on my lap.
Then, there's the tablet... If I'm going to be mobile and not have my laptop - I'll just use my phone. The added screen does nothing for me. Adding an external keyboard just reduces its mobility and that's why I'd be using it in the first place. So, I just can't find it in my heart to like tablets and that's not for lack of trying. In fact, I'll be trying again soon - I hope.
If we get Lubuntu running on a Surface Pro then I'll get one of those. I have no interest in it with Windows on it. If I'm going to go with something that's not going to have the portability that I'd prefer, I might as well get a good bit of hardware. I'll probably use it as a consumption device, fairly rarely, and just use it in place of places where I'd use a laptop now. I'm willing to give it a shot and it will be okay if it turns out that I don't like it either. I'm quite certain that someone will accept it as a hand-me-down, just like I've managed to rid myself of various tablets over the past few years.
I did not mind the Motion tablets from a long time ago. Even Acer had a nice one. The one I had was convertible, from Motion themselves, and ran XP on it. It got a whole lot of use, especially on-site at customers, and was a good bit of kit. So far, and I only owned one of the Motions, that has been the only one that I've really liked. I forget the model number but it's still owned and was still working the last time I had it out. It's in my basement and I come across it every couple of years and play with it. Hmm... I bet it'd run a Linux distro fairly well - I'm sure someone's figured the hardware out by now.
I actually seriously considered tendering an offer for Slashdot. In fact, I did offer - it just wasn't enough or wasn't noticed as they never contacted me about it. (I did not offer much. The offer stands when/if it goes up for sale again.) But, seriously... Yes, Slashdot makes some money but not a whole lot. You can be reasonably sure of this because of what is said in public about it. Yet, do you want to own it?
If you answered yes, I'd encourage you to think about that for a minute. The only reason I offered to buy it was sentimental reasons and, maybe, to protect the rest of the internet from us. Can you imagine trying to satisfy all of us enough so that we don't bitch? Think about how vocal our minority is capable of being - over trivial things. We can't even agree with what the layout should be and some of us, a really vocal minority, will complain regardless. I don't want to be in charge of keeping us happy.
Ah well... If you're curious, I'd have put us into a trust. After my loan was repaid (as well as interest) then I'd have removed myself from that trust after setting up a charter to ensure growth and longevity. I'd have installed a community voted board, let them write the charter (with oversight), and stepped out of the way once I got my money back. The goal being, as stated, growth and longevity with a preference for the latter and moderate stability. Staff would have all been fired and it would be run by volunteers with open accounting - including how much I was to get as interest and when that was paid. At this point, the community can keep its own damned self alive and running and that includes administrating the hardware and dealing with vendors. They can be paid a stipend. If that's not enough, there are other volunteers. Put it into a semi-democracy and do what you can to protect it from itself.
I did not do that. Well, I made a "serious" offer and it still stands. I do not imagine they'll accept such an offer. Thus, it will never happen. If it does, then that's the plan. I'm willing to put $50,000 into it. I assume some transfer expenses so I'll offer $40,000. Cash is available in three business days but maybe sooner. I'll settle for 10% (compounded) interest and will take only profits to repay the loan given to the community to buy the site (which is how I envision it). After that's settled, I'll return to my place as a happy user and the site can keep chugging along, doing what it is doing, and do so in perpetuity as a not-for-profit organization. The offer still stands.
No, the rest of the internet doesn't want us. I suspect they'd recoil in horror and flee in abject terror if we all bailed out and went somewhere else. Someone will keep Slashdot going for a very long time. I'm pretty sure that laws and a few treaties actually prevent it from being completely shuttered.
(That was basically much of my post about it in the other thread.)
Anything old, such as the concept of borders and governance, is bound to have some ambiguity. This concept, in particular, has had a whole bunch of varied implementations over the years and spans the globe by its nature. Pinning the word to a single definition that is accepted by all is likely an exercise in futility.
It's probably best to not use the word as having a strict definition but to avoid it, where possible, by being less vague. I don't imagine that will satisfy a whole lot more people but it might lead to fewer instances of genuine confusion. So, there's that.
You Sir, and I reserve the right to not agree with everything you say, have just found a spot on my "friends" list. (It's how I keep track of posts that I might want to read.) And no, no... I seem to recall that you've said a number of things that I don't entirely agree with and that's okay - you've always presented such logically and some dignity (well, that last part made *me* snicker).
Nope... I don't always agree with the conclusions you make - usually because we've a marginally different perspective but nothing so major as to remove all commonality. So, onto that friends list with you. Why? Well, you worded it well and are factually accurate (though I suppose we might argue a detail or two).
The sad thing is, that posting such and knowing such is what got you there. See, I find it sad that you had to explain that to someone who is, in all likelihood, an American. They're also likely to be an adult and likely to have graduated from at least high school. Yet you had to, or felt you had to, explain the very basics of why we're a country and what it meant.
I recently had the chance to explain who Amerigo Vespucci is to someone. I guess they can be forgiven. They're a young kid who hasn't taken American History yet. I see your post as something similar. At least, in my case, he's just a kid. I've also kind of adopted 'em and his little brother but that's a long story. They're well spoken and intelligent - quite inquisitive, really. They're a joy to have around the house and I live vicariously through their exploits. But, 'tis a long story and they're horrible time-stealers! Buggers keep eating into my /. time!
I've sat, for like four days, with this tab open and I want to reply but I keep running out of posts. ;-) So, I'll never get to a reply if I don't do it.
First, I'm not entirely sure what to say other than thank you for giving me the honor of valuing my opinion enough to specifically ask about it and for indicating that you wish I still was involved in the industry. I must tell you, that last part is a bit inviting at times. I've had a bunch of offers and I might actually take a short-term position where it's engaging. I don't really need the money so that's not actually a concern - I mention that because that's a topic that has come up.
Now... That said... I never hired a freelancer, I never hired a contractor. I did, from time to time, need to hire a consultant. There's some overlap potential but it was a flat-fee type of thing. I'm not a big fan of off-shoring nor am I a fan of outsourcing. However, I'm not a fan of spending money needlessly. Yet, if the country you wish to sell in does not have people who are able to afford your products then... But where does reasonable and responsible go? That path is a complete rabbit hole.
It has been tough to think of a good example. That's why this tab is still open after all this time. But, alas, I'm reminded of a conversation that I had on this very site - probably within the past year or two. This may get a bit complicated and I think it might end up longer than I'd like. I'm assuming you're okay with that. It's not like you're unfamiliar with my posting style or history. ;-)
I pointed out that I started programmers (they had to have some sort of expertise and domain knowledge or they weren't of much value and we had to train them - we were willing to do that, including formal education) used to get started at about $120k if they worked for me. They were expected to be good and all that and blah blah. You understand... I'm sure you understand.
The person I was responding to was quick to shout out that such was impossible and that nobody could do such a thing. I then showed them some numbers of what a traffic engineer made then and what they made now. E.g. A *senior* traffic engineer will make something around $80k/year. I should point out, the figure I gave for what I was paying them then is in real dollars, not adjusted dollars. My shop, one of the few, skewed those numbers enough to actually demonstrate this. In today's value, that's something like $160k/year - if you're curious. There's the added complexity of inferior work, greater numbers of shops offering services, and a bit of a market flood due to the government throwing 800 billion USD at the economic problem - specifically for "shovel ready" work that was highway related. (Now you know *why* my business was valued and sold for as much as it did.)
At any rate... They then asked how I could do it. They wanted to know how I could afford to do it. It's simple, really. I just shunted their salary off to the customer - usually your local municipality but later expanding to include services for private companies. Yes, I didn't actually give a shit how much I paid them (in that sense of the word) because I was just going to make the customer pay for it.
They were outraged! Outraged! They simply were pissed that I'd paid employees good money at the expense of the tax payer and, of course, tried to take things to the extreme level and refuse to accept that there's a difference between acceptable and extreme. No, my employees were not driving super cars to work on the tax payer dime. I bid or gave them a figure and they agreed to pay it and we had fancy contracts that stipulated things like times and penalties. But, more importantly, those people that I paid also turned around and paid taxes in those communities. That we increased efficiency, efficacy, and made things safer is, of course, an added bonus.
Well, that seemed to calm them down and they meandered off. The thing is, I'd probably pay about what I was paying then (judging by the nu
I don't think most sane people are calling for any such thing. You can safely assume those who would be are idiots or insane - or maybe both. Perhaps you're trying to insert more than I said into my reply?
At any rate, Somalia could probably do well with a wee bit less government than they have. They don't actually get to do much in the way of electing whom governs them and their government is frequently the guy with the most guns and friends. It's not the official one that stomps into the UN once in a while. No, their government is particularly bad. Maybe you misread "pretty well governed" as "governed pretty well?" They've got so much government, albeit unofficial and unrecognized, that they might be one of the few places where a little less government is a good idea - as contrary as that might sound.
An unrecognized government is no less oppressive but it's still a government. They've got *lots* of government. Complete with a, localized at least, monopoly on force and even paperwork. They even overlap in some areas. That is often a bad thing for the locals. It's not a very representative government at all. Well, no... They're representative - just not of the citizens and not democratically. I do think that, with time, they'll improve. The government that should be governing is doing a pretty piss poor job of it - they should probably be stronger and less corrupt and oust the warlords and do way too many things to list here.
At any rate, they've got plenty of government. It's just really, really bad government. Imagine everything you think you know about the place and multiply it by ten. It's just that bad. If you go from one city to another then you may, really, need paperwork or they'll kill you. Like trade your sister for food type of bad. Oh, and your sister is five. They are that badly governed but it's a mistake to assume/believe that they are not governed and have no government. Oh, they've got a shitload of government - really, really scary government.
Well, son... It's time to teach you a lesson. See, hosts were around before we had the DNS system. Allow me to show you when we started to move past them, in December of 1973...
http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/...
You're in your 30s, Alex. Being unemployed does not make you retired. It makes you unemployed. Collecting disability doesn't make you retired, it makes you unable to work.
As for your other posts, I see you failed to read mine and understand it. That's okay, APK. I'm kind of used to it. You failed to address any of my points. I do not *need* you to tell me about hosts. I'm well aware of what hosts do and the benefits of using them or not using them. I've never denied the technical merits of using a hosts file - ever. We've been over this before. Let me know when hosts can be refined as well as a whole host of other options. At this point in time, I have better choices for me. At this point in time, I have an effective system that's efficient with my time. It does everything I need it to do in the ways that I want to do them. I do things that the hosts file simply can not do. If the hosts file were a better tool for the job I want done, I'd do it. That's what you're continually not understanding. It's not even a difficult concept.
As for the rest of your many posts... Do you seriously think that crap-flooding and pretending to not be you is believed by anyone? If mildly amusing is your goal, you've managed.
The part of me that isn't white is brown and brown is the majority of what I have. I get ticketed about as often as my more-brown relatives and my not-brown relatives. Which is to say, none. I've not had a speeding ticket since something like 1972. I've never picked up a DWB or anything - but I've had some interesting encounters that I think could have resulted in a DWB arrest and fine. I've also driven all over the place - including other countries which, presumably, I'd get a DWnvB ticket or something but that never happened.
This doesn't mean that DWB doesn't happen. It shouldn't be misconstrued as anything other than my anecdote and those of others who have discussed it with me. Driving is a very popular discussion topic with me - I can talk about it and cars for hours. I do mean hours. No, cocaine does not "help" with that.
But, to my point (and I have one!), I'm not really sure that it's just DWB. A lot of it has to do with how you carry yourself and how you present yourself. Are you polite? Do you turn the radio down? Do you acknowledge guilt - if guilty? Do you have paperwork ready? Is your car clean and reasonably organized? Are you clean and sober? Are you buckled in? Is your car in good repair? Is your exhaust quiet? Did you move slowly and keep in mind that cops are herd animals and subject to spooking?
It's true that we'd not have to worry about those sorts of things in an ideal world. However, if it were an ideal world, we'd not be having this discussion at all. We'd not need to. But, I don't think selective enforcement (or selective prosecution) is always used to persecute brown people. Nah, they'll persecute most anyone they don't like. That doesn't mean I know how to (effectively and realistically) change it.
I think they're just saying that they're unable to maintain their speed without constant attention. They mentioned something about getting a ticket for 26 in a 25 because of a photo but I didn't actually see any instances of that actually happening when I used Google. I prefer a manual, to the point of exclusion where possible, but I can maintain my speed at 25 MPH (or close enough) in either.
In an automatic (and in a manual - if done properly) your car will move if you take your foot off the brake. This is normal behavior. However, it doesn't (on a reasonably level surface) just keep accelerating forever. If it exceeds somewhere around 5-8 MPH, while on a level surface, with no use of the accelerator pedal, see a mechanic.
If you're driving a manual and you're having issues remaining below a certain speed, while not using the accelerator, then simply shift into a lower gear and use the engine to brake and better maintain speed. If it's an automatic, let up off the gas pedal. This is not complicated. If you can't do these things and your car is in good repair, do not drive. Hire a driver. These are basic skills that should be taught to children who are learning to drive.
Hell, mine both learned to drive and are reasonably adept on it. Of course, they've driven some of my cars over the years and I've owned some unique automobiles - some with absurd amounts of power, that you strap on a five point restraint, and make loud noises with quick responses. Hell, my current daily driver (the one with me) only has 450 ponies under the hood but I imagine it'd scare quite a few people. Me? I love the low, throaty, growl and the privilege of operating such a fine tuned piece of machinery. I'm actually a (mostly) responsible driver when I'm on a public street. It's not just my safety that I'm putting at risk.
Actually, the vast majority of accidents are caused by driving too fast for the conditions.
I've had people get confused by that before and I hate to do the appeal to authority thing but I'm the closest we've got to an expert on the subject. If you are drunk and back into another car in the bar parking lot at 5 MPH, you were driving too fast for the conditions. If you were going 30 MPH and slipped off into a snowbank, you were driving too fast for the conditions. If you're sitting still and someone hits your car, they were driving too fast for the conditions.
Sometimes, the conditions are such that the speed should be zero if a modicum of safety is the goal. Chances are that you're not the driver you think you are. I'd also suggest that you do not have a "sports tuned" motorized vehicle of any type. It's unlikely that you've either the expertise to configure it, the knowledge of what to do with the configuration, or the finances to achieve it. I surprise this because I *do* have a vehicle with sport tuning - I have several. The tuning varies for the sport and can be prohibitively expensive - to the point where few people would want to use it for regular travel.
That said, there's a time and a space for enjoying oneself behind the wheel of an automobile. Limit your speeding and aggressive behaviors to those times and places. You are not the only one on the road. As someone who actually *does* get involved in some motor sports, don't give us a bad name by trying to identify as us. There are lots of ways to get your speed on. Residential streets or public highways are not usually those spots. No, you don't have the skills and training required to push your car to the envelope without risking others and others do not accept the risks you're forcing on them.
Save your speed for the track or closed circuits. Personally? I prefer rally over any other type. I've a very nice, a bit older, Saab that I use for such. Well, used... The engine is no longer working - it has completely, and totally, seized because I was unwilling to stop and bow out gracefully. If you knew how much money was in that engine, you'd probably poop a small brick - and I'm very much just an old duffer. Hell, the tires are more expensive than you might imagine. (It's not like I can get away with just one set.) I'll probably be saying to hell with it and just buying an already complete WRX or Mini. I might go with an older Mini and just enter a different class. I am not a professional so it's a money sink for me. It is a fun hobby.
Hmm... I used to be stationed at Quantico but this was, shall we say, a long time ago. Back then, if you had the appropriate stickers then you'd be allowed to get away with a whole lot of stuff. My MOS made me a vehicle operator (driver). I often spent a bunch of miles off-base with the appropriate stickers. Hell, we were doing an official convoy (I'm assuming you know what that means) and some idiot pulled in, mixed with us, and then tried to stop (seemingly to get a camera). It did not go over well and caused untold damage to their vehicle, with them in it. (The flashing lights and sign trucks should be an indication to not join in on the fun if not the fact that you've got 500 vehicles, in a row, all of which are big, heavy, and kind of scary looking. Add to that the fact that they're all going 45 MPH and haven't even stopped for red lights or any other sign...)
On our personal vehicles, well... The appropriate stickers could get you all sorts of access and mostly ignored if you didn't do anything outlandish. I mean stuff like being from up north, waiting for it to snow that half inch that shuts the city down, and then driving like a madman in the snow... Yeah, the cops just waved and laughed. We stopped and helped one out from inside the median and I spent the day teaching my buds how to drive in the snow. Speeding was assumed, driving drunk was frequent, and complete and total disregard to rules was mandatory - so long as you had the right stickers.
I take it that such has changed? Also, do not pull into an actual convoy of military vehicles and then apply the brakes. Do not mix with convoy! Convoy ahead, do not interfere! CONVOY! Those signs, on trucks with flashing lights, actually may mean something including that we're not going to stop. We're not *allowed* to stop for you or your Honda - even if you wave a gun at us and certainly not for pictures. We're OBLIGATED to move your vehicle out of the way and continue to do our best to keep up with the rest of the convoy. Do not mix with convoy. We had trucks, all along the convoy, driving beside us - with flashing lights. Yeah, they got run over. Well, more like pushed out of the way. I was not the driver of said vehicle but I didn't stop either. The law's pretty clear on this - so were my orders. Do not interfere with convoy.
Oh, I forgot to add...
It's about what 85% of the people will obey - not about the actual speed they drive. I should have made that a bit more clear. It actually... Err... It actually makes you a bit less correct but I can't speak for this particular stretch of road.