If the child always has access to a "panic button" that lets a white knight come fix the problems, he or she won't learn how to cope and deal with problems without outside aid. I'd rather have a child stuck in a rough spot for a while and come out of it himself than have to rescue him every time he got into a situation he couldn't see an obvious solution to. I remember the first time I got in a really lousy position - drove a car off the road - but I managed to get the car fixed and back on the road with no lasting damage in an hour or so. I was so proud that evening that I had managed to rescue myself, and that's a feeling that every kid should have. A knowledge that they can take care of themselves if need be.
This isn't some sort of 'panic button' it is a cell phone. I highly doubt that giving your child a method to call for help is somehow keeping them from dealing with problems. When I was a kid, they didn't have cell phones, I got a loud whistle for if I got lost in the woods or in trouble. Knowing that I could call for help certainly didn't give me any sense of immunity from trouble.
And cope with what exactly? What situation do you think a 10 year old could get into, requiring a cell phone to call for help, that they should deal with themselves? If there is ANY situation that warrants using a cell phone to call for help I do NOT want my 10 year old to try and deal with it themselves. The only thing they should be dealing with is understanding if the situation is beyond their ability to control.
I've been through survival training and I know I can last for a week dropped off somewhere with just what I have in my pockets, but I'll be damned if I don't still keep some sort of equivalent to the whistle that I used to carry as a kid.
You can learn to swim in the 3' deep section, there is no need to boot someone into the deepend.
I would kill for a full blown investment into a program to actually understand the human brain and nervous system, and methods to repair damaged nerves and/or regrow human tissue and organs.
But I've always been a fan of improving prosthetics.
If Russia actually thinks the space-race can ever go their way again ? Not inconceivable but surely a highly improbable concept. So why the effort then ?
Just because one guy thinks he is racing the other, that doesn't make it a race. I don't see how a country wishing to continue its space program automatically puts it into a race.
The problem is convincing people that it needs to be Space and not some other goal like 'green' or maglev trains or another endeavour.
I think that we have reached a point where we expect our technology to keep growing at the rate it has been, and I am inclined to agree that while space exploration would be where I would want to see it go, I don't think that space is the only goal which will result in pushing technological boundaries.
The premise is correct. I'm trying to hold a civil discussion here by explaining the goals of copyright.
Funny, the definition of copyright I have (from Wiktionary) is quite different and says nothing about Society buying your work : "The right by law to be the entity which determines who may publish, copy and distribute a piece of writing, music, picture or other work of authorship.". So while practically a copyrighted work ends up in the public domain, the copyright is not a pact to enter the public domain in exchange of a temporary privilege.
The public domain is the natural state of all 'intellectual property'. Without copyright protections in law, there is no distinction between the public domain, and a protected work. In your very own definition, it states that it is a 'right by law'. That is not a natural right. It is a right granted by law.
It's just a right that, in practice but not by definition, is temporary. I, in advance, accept your concession of this point.
Don't get cute. You are wrong.
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.
Notice the statement, "by securing for limited times... the exclusive Right". Outside of the temporary protections, the right belongs to the public.
Caprice No. 24 in A minor is the final caprice of Niccolò Paganini's 24 Caprices, and a famous work for solo violin. The work, in the key of A minor, consists of a theme, 11 variations, and a finale.
It is widely considered one of the most difficult pieces written for the solo violin. It requires many highly advanced techniques such as parallel octaves and rapid shifting covering many intervals, extremely fast scales and arpeggios including minor scales in thirds and tenths, left hand pizzicato, high positions, and quick string crossing. As a result, many violinists after studying for many years still lack the virtuosity required for such a demanding piece.
The caprice has provided a rich seam of material for works by subsequent composers. Compositions based on it, and transcriptions of it, include:
Leopold Auer arranged it for violin with piano accompaniment, and added some variations of his own James Barnes "Fantasy Variations on a Theme by Niccolo Paganini", a wind band arrangement with each variation as a soli for a particular section Boris Blacher Variations on a Theme by Paganini (1947), for orchestra Hans Bottermund Variations on a Theme by Paganini Johannes Brahms Variations on a Theme of Paganini , Op. 35 (1862-63), for solo piano (2 books) Luigi Dallapiccola Sonatina canonica in mi bemolle maggiore su "Capricci" di Niccolo Paganini : per pianoforte (1946) Michael Fath "24th Caprice" for solo electric guitar Eliot Fisk transcribed all 24 Caprices for solo guitar Benny Goodman Caprice XXIV The Great Kat adapted the 24th Caprice for electric guitar Raaf Hekkema Transcribed and Arranged it for solo Alto Saxophone Wiktor Labunski "Four Variations on a Theme by Paganini," for solo piano Franz Liszt the last of his Six Grandes Études de Paganini for solo piano, S.141 (1838, revised 1851) Andrew Lloyd Webber Variations (1977), Variations (album) originally for cello and rock band, later also arranged for cello and orchestra; Song & Dance - the Dance part is a reworked version of Variations Paul Luongo Adapted version of "Paganini's 24th Caprice" for solo ukulele Witold Lutosawski Variations on a Theme by Paganini (1940-41), for two pianos; in 1978 he made a version for piano and orchestra Janice Martin "Paganinimania", an arrangement of the 24th Caprice with orchestral accompaniment Nathan Milstein Paganiniana, an arrangement of the 24th Caprice, with variations based on the other caprices Pavel Necheporenko - Variations on a Theme by Paganini, transcribed for unaccompanied balalaika. Simon Proctor "Paganini Metamorphasis" for Solo Piano Frank Proto Capriccio di Niccolo for Trumpet and Orchestra (1994). Nine Variants on Paganini for Double Bass and Orchestra, also for Double Bass and Piano (2001). Paganini in Metropolis for Clarinet and Wind Symphony (2001), also for Clarinet and Orchestra (2002). Sergei Rachmaninoff Rhapsody on a Theme of Paganini, Op. 43 (1934), a set of twenty four variations for piano and orchestra Fazil Say Paganini Variations for solo piano Stanisaw Skrowaczewski Concerto Nicolò for Piano Left Hand and Orchestra, 2003 Joseph I. Vance 'Variations on a Caprice', for 2 guitars, bass, and drums (composed May 2007) Philip Wilby Paganini Variations, for both wind band and brass band Robert Muczynski - 'Desperate Measures' Paganini Variations Op. 48 Karol Szymanowski : third caprice from "Three caprices about Paganini themes" for violin and piano (1918)[1] Alison Balsom - Recorded a version transcribed for the trumpet.
The alternative, is that most of these variations on Paganini's theme would be ILLEGAL under current copyright law. This is just an example of what society is losing with perpetual copyright.
Your stated reason is that copyright restrictions of 14 years is too short, because your parents were still selling books after 14 years.
The purpose of copyright is to allow artists to profit from their work, but also to allow that work to fall into the public domain so that others may use that as inspiration for their own creative works. There are several works today, that if copyright laws were as strict when they were made as they are today, those works would have been copyright violations.
Copyright is something that a Society grants the creator of a work in exchange for the work entering the public domain. In essence, the public has purchased the rights to the work in exchange for temporary monopoly.
If you claim that the length of copyright needs to be extended, then the compensation to the public needs to be increased.
Turn it around. Why shouldn't your children benefit from the fruits of your work in case you don't live to benefit fully from them? Oh well you surely don't have any children so you'd probably go "fuck the little fuckers, they have to work hard to get 'rewarded' just like anyone else". All fuckers like you want is artists to 'stop being greedy' (i.e. let you have their work for free) so that you don't have to pay a thing.
I would like you to address this point:
Why does copyright need to exist beyond 20 years?
Consider that when copyright was introduced in the United States, the duration was only 14 years. That was in a time where distribution was very limited, and the ability to turn a work into a profitable enterprise required a longer period of time. 14 years was determined to be a fair amount of time for the creator to receive compensation for their work. (And, assuming they died within those 14 years, compensation to their estate). Why now, with the barriers to distribution driven so far into the dust that the cost to market a work is nearly zero, do we need copyright protections for nearly a century?
If the purpose of copyright is to protect the interest of the creator for a limited time, why should that protection extend beyond 20 years?
I think everyone that responded to my post missed the point. It was a silly joke, almost as silly as rallying behind a system as measurement for any reason other than "It is simple, accurate, and easy to use".
The cause of the Tsunami is similar. A large chunk of land falling into a body of water. In the case of La Palma, that 'chunk' is much larger, and apt to fall in one go.
This is why we glorify the mental prowess of "rocket scientists". They consider a 131 page proposal with this level of detail to be the equivalent of a napkin drawing.
In the world of government and military systems, 131 pages is just enough to cover the information declarations, the acronym list, and the table of contents. Page 131 probably says "Pages 131-542 TBD".
I just cancelled my Xbox live account yesterday. I have a few friends with Xboxes, but very few games that require me to play online with them. The games that I do play online are PC games which provide FREE online gaming.
My biggest issue with Xbox live, is that it is a service that should be free. I turn on my Xbox and get blasted with ads, and offers to 'buy' games. Of course, to 'buy' the game they mean lease it to my Xbox and only my Xbox (account). There is nothing in Xbox live that I've seen that has been revolutionary that should require a subscription to run. At least not coupled with the sales aspect.
Maybe I missed something, and I'd love for there to be a reason to keep it, but I haven't found it.
(That, and any company that doesn't allow you to cancel online when you can manage every other aspect of your account online pisses me off and I almost cancelled on principle)
With normal aircraft that would be an option. However, airships require very specific facilities to house and protect them. Right now in the States there are probably less than a dozen facilities that are prepared to support a landing airship. Many airships are damaged when they are brought in and out of their own hangars.
Timeliness is always a problem. Time is money, and the longer you take to make one shipment is time that you aren't spending on the next shipment. These companies will have staff that they will have to maintain while these airships are in service, and each cut in profit that a grounding causes is a cut that brings the more traditional shipping methods into competition.
I don't think I've driven across Pennsylvania once and not crossed somewhere that was having bad weather. That was a straight line, less than 6 hours from Philly to Pittsburgh. Travel a long enough distance, and you will cross areas where the weather is less than ideal.
So an airship that is designed to move heavy cargo across long distances will likely encounter weather conditions that are different than its port of departure.
"Not Safe" is not a rebuttal. NOTHING is safe when mishandled.
Right now, there is a flammable gas being pumped into my basement. Not only that, I know for a fact that a flame is burning just inches away from the gas line. It is so dangerous, that when I installed my new dangerous gas burning device, the government gave me a tax credit...
Now, perhaps you could help explain why this generation system couldn't use similar precautions?
That's exactly right. Once you progress to a certain "altitude", you have to stop thinking about your salary in terms of what you're being paid by the hour, and start thinking in terms of what you're being paid by what you're getting accomplished. I know, it sounds like some of that "Who moved my cheese" crap, but it's true. It also works both ways. That is, if you can get it done in 32 hours a week (or working remotely) no problem.
Sometimes you'll have to work harder/longer, other times you'll be able to get things accomplished quicker than you expected. All that combined with good compensation negotiation, and you'll be fine.
Typically the mindset is, "Sure, you got your work done in 32 hours, but you are salary, so now go do 8 hour's of Bob's work."
I know Spanish fluently, enough German to survive, and about enough Japanese to find my way back to the US Embassy.
The problem with learning a language other than English is this:
If English is not your first language, then there are huge benefits to learning English. However, if you were born in an English speaking country, then the choice in a second language isn't as clear cut. The evidence is here in this thread.
Which language do you choose? Well, Spanish has helped me in my local neighborhood whenever I go back to visit my parents, but in Europe? Aside from being able to puzzle out some Italian, it didn't help much at all, I found that English was of more use since most people there spoke it a little bit. I did run across a Spanish tourist, I helped him translate the German menu into Spanish so he knew what he was ordering, but other than that...
Almost any European language is of limited use outside of that country. The same is true of languages from Northern Africa and the Middle East. Asia you have the options of Korean, Japanese, or Mandarin Chinese for maximum exposure. And then, as you may guess from my username, is the customer for a lot of Engineering companies, the US military and government. English is the language of choice there.
In the end, you should pick the language of the country in which you wish to work or do business with. Don't speak the native language of another coworker at the office. You may do so at home, or at the bar, but in the office it shows very poor manners as anyone else who doesn't speak that language will feel alienated or snubbed.
Might be thousands of dollars, but likely it is not.
Back during my days I call 'The search for internet', I priced out the cost of some of my options.
A T1 would have run me about $600/month, and I couldn't even get cable until I paid to run the lines myself. I was even too far for DSL (my CO didn't support DSL, but I would have been too far even if it did)
I cannot imagine that on average, T1 lines cost so much that text messaging needs to cost as much as it does. Heck, in the rural areas, could there even be that much text traffic?
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps one of the many reasons the homicide figure is lower is because they can't kill their hated person twice ;).
I thought so too, but then they brought out the charges for desecration of a corpse. :(
If the child always has access to a "panic button" that lets a white knight come fix the problems, he or she won't learn how to cope and deal with problems without outside aid. I'd rather have a child stuck in a rough spot for a while and come out of it himself than have to rescue him every time he got into a situation he couldn't see an obvious solution to. I remember the first time I got in a really lousy position - drove a car off the road - but I managed to get the car fixed and back on the road with no lasting damage in an hour or so. I was so proud that evening that I had managed to rescue myself, and that's a feeling that every kid should have. A knowledge that they can take care of themselves if need be.
This isn't some sort of 'panic button' it is a cell phone. I highly doubt that giving your child a method to call for help is somehow keeping them from dealing with problems. When I was a kid, they didn't have cell phones, I got a loud whistle for if I got lost in the woods or in trouble. Knowing that I could call for help certainly didn't give me any sense of immunity from trouble.
And cope with what exactly? What situation do you think a 10 year old could get into, requiring a cell phone to call for help, that they should deal with themselves? If there is ANY situation that warrants using a cell phone to call for help I do NOT want my 10 year old to try and deal with it themselves. The only thing they should be dealing with is understanding if the situation is beyond their ability to control.
I've been through survival training and I know I can last for a week dropped off somewhere with just what I have in my pockets, but I'll be damned if I don't still keep some sort of equivalent to the whistle that I used to carry as a kid.
You can learn to swim in the 3' deep section, there is no need to boot someone into the deepend.
I would kill for a full blown investment into a program to actually understand the human brain and nervous system, and methods to repair damaged nerves and/or regrow human tissue and organs.
But I've always been a fan of improving prosthetics.
If Russia actually thinks the space-race can ever go their way again ? Not inconceivable but surely a highly improbable concept. So why the effort then ?
Just because one guy thinks he is racing the other, that doesn't make it a race. I don't see how a country wishing to continue its space program automatically puts it into a race.
The problem is convincing people that it needs to be Space and not some other goal like 'green' or maglev trains or another endeavour.
I think that we have reached a point where we expect our technology to keep growing at the rate it has been, and I am inclined to agree that while space exploration would be where I would want to see it go, I don't think that space is the only goal which will result in pushing technological boundaries.
The premise is correct. I'm trying to hold a civil discussion here by explaining the goals of copyright.
Funny, the definition of copyright I have (from Wiktionary) is quite different and says nothing about Society buying your work : "The right by law to be the entity which determines who may publish, copy and distribute a piece of writing, music, picture or other work of authorship.". So while practically a copyrighted work ends up in the public domain, the copyright is not a pact to enter the public domain in exchange of a temporary privilege.
The public domain is the natural state of all 'intellectual property'. Without copyright protections in law, there is no distinction between the public domain, and a protected work. In your very own definition, it states that it is a 'right by law'. That is not a natural right. It is a right granted by law.
It's just a right that, in practice but not by definition, is temporary. I, in advance, accept your concession of this point.
Don't get cute. You are wrong.
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.
Notice the statement, "by securing for limited times... the exclusive Right". Outside of the temporary protections, the right belongs to the public.
You refuse to answer the question:
Why does copyright need to exist beyond 20 years?
Here is an arguement against perpetual copyright.
Caprice No. 24 in A minor is the final caprice of Niccolò Paganini's 24 Caprices, and a famous work for solo violin. The work, in the key of A minor, consists of a theme, 11 variations, and a finale.
It is widely considered one of the most difficult pieces written for the solo violin. It requires many highly advanced techniques such as parallel octaves and rapid shifting covering many intervals, extremely fast scales and arpeggios including minor scales in thirds and tenths, left hand pizzicato, high positions, and quick string crossing. As a result, many violinists after studying for many years still lack the virtuosity required for such a demanding piece.
The caprice has provided a rich seam of material for works by subsequent composers. Compositions based on it, and transcriptions of it, include:
Leopold Auer arranged it for violin with piano accompaniment, and added some variations of his own
James Barnes "Fantasy Variations on a Theme by Niccolo Paganini", a wind band arrangement with each variation as a soli for a particular section
Boris Blacher Variations on a Theme by Paganini (1947), for orchestra
Hans Bottermund Variations on a Theme by Paganini
Johannes Brahms Variations on a Theme of Paganini , Op. 35 (1862-63), for solo piano (2 books)
Luigi Dallapiccola Sonatina canonica in mi bemolle maggiore su "Capricci" di Niccolo Paganini : per pianoforte (1946)
Michael Fath "24th Caprice" for solo electric guitar
Eliot Fisk transcribed all 24 Caprices for solo guitar
Benny Goodman Caprice XXIV
The Great Kat adapted the 24th Caprice for electric guitar
Raaf Hekkema Transcribed and Arranged it for solo Alto Saxophone
Wiktor Labunski "Four Variations on a Theme by Paganini," for solo piano
Franz Liszt the last of his Six Grandes Études de Paganini for solo piano, S.141 (1838, revised 1851)
Andrew Lloyd Webber Variations (1977), Variations (album) originally for cello and rock band, later also arranged for cello and orchestra; Song & Dance - the Dance part is a reworked version of Variations
Paul Luongo Adapted version of "Paganini's 24th Caprice" for solo ukulele
Witold Lutosawski Variations on a Theme by Paganini (1940-41), for two pianos; in 1978 he made a version for piano and orchestra
Janice Martin "Paganinimania", an arrangement of the 24th Caprice with orchestral accompaniment
Nathan Milstein Paganiniana, an arrangement of the 24th Caprice, with variations based on the other caprices
Pavel Necheporenko - Variations on a Theme by Paganini, transcribed for unaccompanied balalaika.
Simon Proctor "Paganini Metamorphasis" for Solo Piano
Frank Proto Capriccio di Niccolo for Trumpet and Orchestra (1994). Nine Variants on Paganini for Double Bass and Orchestra, also for Double Bass and Piano (2001). Paganini in Metropolis for Clarinet and Wind Symphony (2001), also for Clarinet and Orchestra (2002).
Sergei Rachmaninoff Rhapsody on a Theme of Paganini, Op. 43 (1934), a set of twenty four variations for piano and orchestra
Fazil Say Paganini Variations for solo piano
Stanisaw Skrowaczewski Concerto Nicolò for Piano Left Hand and Orchestra, 2003
Joseph I. Vance 'Variations on a Caprice', for 2 guitars, bass, and drums (composed May 2007)
Philip Wilby Paganini Variations, for both wind band and brass band
Robert Muczynski - 'Desperate Measures' Paganini Variations Op. 48
Karol Szymanowski : third caprice from "Three caprices about Paganini themes" for violin and piano (1918)[1]
Alison Balsom - Recorded a version transcribed for the trumpet.
The alternative, is that most of these variations on Paganini's theme would be ILLEGAL under current copyright law. This is just an example of what society is losing with perpetual copyright.
Your stated reason is that copyright restrictions of 14 years is too short, because your parents were still selling books after 14 years.
The purpose of copyright is to allow artists to profit from their work, but also to allow that work to fall into the public domain so that others may use that as inspiration for their own creative works. There are several works today, that if copyright laws were as strict when they were made as they are today, those works would have been copyright violations.
Copyright is something that a Society grants the creator of a work in exchange for the work entering the public domain. In essence, the public has purchased the rights to the work in exchange for temporary monopoly.
If you claim that the length of copyright needs to be extended, then the compensation to the public needs to be increased.
Go see the damned movie. If you think that the lack of dialog hurts Wall-e then I'll pay 2x for your ticket.
Turn it around. Why shouldn't your children benefit from the fruits of your work in case you don't live to benefit fully from them? Oh well you surely don't have any children so you'd probably go "fuck the little fuckers, they have to work hard to get 'rewarded' just like anyone else". All fuckers like you want is artists to 'stop being greedy' (i.e. let you have their work for free) so that you don't have to pay a thing.
I would like you to address this point:
Why does copyright need to exist beyond 20 years?
Consider that when copyright was introduced in the United States, the duration was only 14 years. That was in a time where distribution was very limited, and the ability to turn a work into a profitable enterprise required a longer period of time. 14 years was determined to be a fair amount of time for the creator to receive compensation for their work. (And, assuming they died within those 14 years, compensation to their estate). Why now, with the barriers to distribution driven so far into the dust that the cost to market a work is nearly zero, do we need copyright protections for nearly a century?
If the purpose of copyright is to protect the interest of the creator for a limited time, why should that protection extend beyond 20 years?
I think everyone that responded to my post missed the point. It was a silly joke, almost as silly as rallying behind a system as measurement for any reason other than "It is simple, accurate, and easy to use".
Yesterday I saw a lorry with a container on it that had a sticker which read : "Warning! 9'6" high. 2.5m wide."
Ok, I think I'm starting to get the hang of these conversions.
Lorry, "9'6" high. 2.5m wide".
Canyonero?
The cause of the Tsunami is similar. A large chunk of land falling into a body of water. In the case of La Palma, that 'chunk' is much larger, and apt to fall in one go.
How much is a liter? To me, the most accurate description you can give is 'About 1/4th of a gallon' Or in even easier approximation, 'a quart'.
This is why we glorify the mental prowess of "rocket scientists". They consider a 131 page proposal with this level of detail to be the equivalent of a napkin drawing.
In the world of government and military systems, 131 pages is just enough to cover the information declarations, the acronym list, and the table of contents. Page 131 probably says "Pages 131-542 TBD".
I just cancelled my Xbox live account yesterday. I have a few friends with Xboxes, but very few games that require me to play online with them. The games that I do play online are PC games which provide FREE online gaming.
My biggest issue with Xbox live, is that it is a service that should be free. I turn on my Xbox and get blasted with ads, and offers to 'buy' games. Of course, to 'buy' the game they mean lease it to my Xbox and only my Xbox (account). There is nothing in Xbox live that I've seen that has been revolutionary that should require a subscription to run. At least not coupled with the sales aspect.
Maybe I missed something, and I'd love for there to be a reason to keep it, but I haven't found it.
(That, and any company that doesn't allow you to cancel online when you can manage every other aspect of your account online pisses me off and I almost cancelled on principle)
With normal aircraft that would be an option. However, airships require very specific facilities to house and protect them. Right now in the States there are probably less than a dozen facilities that are prepared to support a landing airship. Many airships are damaged when they are brought in and out of their own hangars.
Timeliness is always a problem. Time is money, and the longer you take to make one shipment is time that you aren't spending on the next shipment. These companies will have staff that they will have to maintain while these airships are in service, and each cut in profit that a grounding causes is a cut that brings the more traditional shipping methods into competition.
I don't think I've driven across Pennsylvania once and not crossed somewhere that was having bad weather. That was a straight line, less than 6 hours from Philly to Pittsburgh. Travel a long enough distance, and you will cross areas where the weather is less than ideal.
So an airship that is designed to move heavy cargo across long distances will likely encounter weather conditions that are different than its port of departure.
"Not Safe" is not a rebuttal. NOTHING is safe when mishandled.
Right now, there is a flammable gas being pumped into my basement. Not only that, I know for a fact that a flame is burning just inches away from the gas line. It is so dangerous, that when I installed my new dangerous gas burning device, the government gave me a tax credit...
Now, perhaps you could help explain why this generation system couldn't use similar precautions?
That's exactly right. Once you progress to a certain "altitude", you have to stop thinking about your salary in terms of what you're being paid by the hour, and start thinking in terms of what you're being paid by what you're getting accomplished. I know, it sounds like some of that "Who moved my cheese" crap, but it's true. It also works both ways. That is, if you can get it done in 32 hours a week (or working remotely) no problem.
Sometimes you'll have to work harder/longer, other times you'll be able to get things accomplished quicker than you expected. All that combined with good compensation negotiation, and you'll be fine.
Typically the mindset is, "Sure, you got your work done in 32 hours, but you are salary, so now go do 8 hour's of Bob's work."
I know Spanish fluently, enough German to survive, and about enough Japanese to find my way back to the US Embassy.
The problem with learning a language other than English is this:
If English is not your first language, then there are huge benefits to learning English. However, if you were born in an English speaking country, then the choice in a second language isn't as clear cut. The evidence is here in this thread.
Which language do you choose? Well, Spanish has helped me in my local neighborhood whenever I go back to visit my parents, but in Europe? Aside from being able to puzzle out some Italian, it didn't help much at all, I found that English was of more use since most people there spoke it a little bit. I did run across a Spanish tourist, I helped him translate the German menu into Spanish so he knew what he was ordering, but other than that...
Almost any European language is of limited use outside of that country. The same is true of languages from Northern Africa and the Middle East. Asia you have the options of Korean, Japanese, or Mandarin Chinese for maximum exposure. And then, as you may guess from my username, is the customer for a lot of Engineering companies, the US military and government. English is the language of choice there.
In the end, you should pick the language of the country in which you wish to work or do business with. Don't speak the native language of another coworker at the office. You may do so at home, or at the bar, but in the office it shows very poor manners as anyone else who doesn't speak that language will feel alienated or snubbed.
Is it even possible to be out of tune to AC/DC? I thought that was the point.
To hell with being a luddite, texting just seems to be a backward step to me.
We invented the telegraph, then the phone, and now its like going back to the telegraph.
Might be thousands of dollars, but likely it is not.
Back during my days I call 'The search for internet', I priced out the cost of some of my options.
A T1 would have run me about $600/month, and I couldn't even get cable until I paid to run the lines myself. I was even too far for DSL (my CO didn't support DSL, but I would have been too far even if it did)
I cannot imagine that on average, T1 lines cost so much that text messaging needs to cost as much as it does. Heck, in the rural areas, could there even be that much text traffic?