Is to want what you have rather than trying to have what you want.
If you earn $40k / year, don't spend money like you make $80k. Debt is stress. Debt is unhappiness. Avoid it.
People of all various income levels can be happy or not. It depends on how they choose to live their lives. People who over-spend because they think having those nicer things will make them more happy end up being owned by their things. And in debt. Both of which lead to unhappiness and stress.
I am quite happy. Why is that? My home mortgage is less than half of what I could afford. I drive an 8 year old car which I paid off 5 years ago. Therefore, I have some enough money each month for entertainment and also enough to save for the future.
No stress and I get to have fun. Stop trying to keep up with the proverbial Joneses. It will inevitably lead you toward stress and unhappiness.
What other demographic would pay $600USD for an over-sized iPhone that can't make calls?
Seriously. You can purchase much more powerful & useful devices that have a similar footprint for hundreds of $ less. While also freeing you from Apple's arbitrary application approval. The massive sales numbers of the iPad is truly baffling.
What about the notion of broadband providers as "mere conduits"?
They don't attempt to filter content on the grounds that the nanosecond they do that, then they are liable for any/all content that flows through their service.
By the same logic, an entity that is a "mere conduit" is NOT a 3rd party to which ownership of any of the content - including email - is given. The case is crap.
Personally, I think this is great news. Competition is a good thing. If Youtube was the only destination for video, that type of monopoly would - eventually - prove to be bad for everyone. Even if it is "do no evil" Google.
Several months ago, I canceled my TV service. I use Hulu quite often to watch the shows I want to see. They are always there, commercial interruptions are minimal and video/audio quality is good. And that is just using VGA cable from my laptop to DLP HDTV @ 720p res and a headphone-to-RCA output to my HTR.
I upgraded my internet service to 6mbps down for only $5 extra / month. Canceling the TV service saves me more than $70 / month. Obviously, I come out way ahead here.
Hulu.com is a great service and I disable ad-blocking for the site and try to actually click an ad every once in a while. I want this model to work. It's unobtrusive, on-demand and costs me exactly what is should: Nothing.
If I'm going to have commercials shoved down my throat, then it should not cost me money to view the content. That's what the advertisers are for. The traditional cable TV service model is on the way out. Good riddance - I'll not miss it in the least.
Right. Vidler's mashup is actually title "Rapture Riders" and is a Blondie / Doors mix. Quite good, but probably not what you meant. I saw "Riders On The Storm" and it reminded me of that mix.
That would be Mark Vidler, aka Go Home Productions. He does some absolutely genius remix / mashups / whatever you want to call them.
Click the mp3 link and you will find some free downloads as well as many mashup vids hosted by YouTube.
Not sure if the mix can still be found on his site, but the "Superchunk Mix" Part 1 and 2 is simply stunning. Near the end of part 2, there's a very cool mix using Bowie's "Under Pressure".
Then, immediately after, is an exceptionally cool mash-up using AC/DC (Back In Black) and Queen (We Will Rock You) with a lead-in from Run DMC and then tosses in some Led Zeppelin too. Then, just at the very end, you hear I heard the news today, oh boy.... Squeezed some Beatles in there!
According to this article, neither candidate is going to reduce the national debt.
While both presidential candidates enter the campaign's final week promising to be the better fiscal steward, each has outlined tax and spending proposals that would make annual budget deficits worse, analysts say, with Senator John McCain likely to create a deeper hole than Senator Barack Obama would.
We, as a country, are screwed with either candidate. As someone who usually leans Republican, I must admit that I think we are less screwed should Obama win. Therefore, he will be getting my vote.
It is highly unlikely then Ron Paul will win the Republican nomination. This is unfortunate because he is an extremely smart man who is consistent in his policies. His voting history carries this out. Not only that, be he is the only candidate that seems to have a solid understanding of sound economic fiscal policy.
Even more unfortunate, we will soon be left with elections that are exactly as they have been in the past: A choice between the lesser of two evils.
Tell me, of the 4 front-runners (Clinton, Obama, Romney, McCain), who deserves your vote? The answer is: None of the above.
Bad, bad, horrible idea. The government has proven time and time again that it is completely incapable of performing this function. "Stealing" income from people that earn more so that it can be distributed via welfare and other such programs to those that earn less (or nothing) will never, ever work. EVER! It will only promote complacency.
Yes, a 6-week old baby is a viable life. That's why it's called a baby, not an embryo. I never said anything about killing life or 6-week old babies. You and your ilk love to pull out the over-wrought emotional comparisons when you have no valid reasons to oppose the science.
Read and understand before speaking on subjects for which you have only been told what to think rather than thinking for yourself. From this reference:
The embryonic stem cell is defined by its origin--that is from one of the earliest stages of the development of the embryo, called the blastocyst. Specifically, embryonic stem cells are derived from the inner cell mass of the blastocyst at a stage before it would implant in the uterine wall. The embryonic stem cell can self-replicate and is pluripotent--it can give rise to cells derived from all three germ layers.
The blastocyst is made of only 150 cells or less. That is not life, it is smaller than a grain of sand. And certainly a far cry from a 6-week old.
Your spastic adjectives do little to sway other's opinions. "pillage unwitting embryos" - pffft, you paint a picture of someone walking in, stealing some embryos and sucking the stem cells from them through a straw. Your arguments possess very intellect and far too much emotion.
So non-viable life froms like an embryo deserve advocacy, but people with diseases don't?! Ridiculous.
Parkinson's disease is not an "exotic afflication". 500,000 Americans suffer from it. From this article:
The costs of this treatment and disability are believed to reach $6 billion annually in the United States, making both treatment and prevention high research priorities.
So, by your reasoning, it would make more sense to come up with a viable cure for PD and spend that $6 billion on something else. Right? Well guess what, stem cell research offers the most promise for future treatments.
And while we're at it, why don't we increase funding to help children that are already born to get them better nutrition, education and housing. Stop wasting resources on headline-grabbing issue like this one and do something that's actually useful.
The more important emphasis is on embryonic. Cells collected from children after being born, from umbilical cords or even adult stem cells are, by definition, not embryonic.
AFAIK, the ban on federal funding is targeted only at embryonic stem cell research. And that is only because the embryo is destroyed in the process.
First of all, the idea is to generate stem-cell based therapies that anyone can afford, not just the wealthy.
Secondly, these therapies are not likely to be created in time for Michael J. Fox. Who are you to decide that because he's rich & famous, he should be prevented from obtaining treatments that others may not be able to afford (yet)? It's a trickle-down effect. Many treatments now widely used and available to nearly everyone were - at one time - prohibitively expensive for most people. And oh yeah: Are you saying that people who are past "reproductive age" are disposable? Men older than Mr. Fox have had children.
Thirdly, embryos are not "promising youth". It's an embryo, not a viable life form. Let's pull that embryo out of the freezer and set it on a chair to see what happens to its promising youth. And how do you know that if that embryo were implanted in some willing female, that the youth wouldn't grow up to be a serial killer? That's right, you don't. Stop tugging at emotional heart-strings in a thinly veiled attempt to confuse the issue. Your use of the phrase "naturally selected" to describe MJ Fox is cold and void of empathy. And yet you profess that an embryo has the right - a requirement even - to become a "promising youth".
By over-litigation, stupid, religion-fueled vetoes, etc. the U.S. falls further and further behind as other countries move ahead in nearly every major technological field. It's depressing to contemplate.
However, on the bright side, even without federal funding, stem cell research abounds. Private companies are funding the research. Which, in the end, is probably better than government funding anyway since everything the government touches turns to crap.
"Good on ya" to the Australian legislature. With proper limitations in place, there simply is no reason not to proceed with this type of research. There are many advances that have occurred over time that were fought for what appear now to be "silly" reasons (mostly ignorant fear).
Next year a new law will come into force which will force Koreans to reveal their name and ID number before they share their opinions online.
The article doesn't mention any specific penalties for posting anonymously. 4 years of prison time is an absurd penalty for a (usually) harmless offense. It does mention other, more serious offenses than insulting someone and "up to 4 years..." so I'd guess that if you say "that guy's an idiot" without revealing your identity and you are (somehow) discovered, then the penalty won't be as severe as hacking into "data banks" or knowingly spreading a virus.
And, as in the U.S., the politicians really and truly do not understand technology. At all. My hunch is that the politicians in power just want some way to prosecute people who post "less-than-favorable" information about them - even if it's true.
Slashdot Mirror
It's called Congress.
Is to want what you have rather than trying to have what you want.
If you earn $40k / year, don't spend money like you make $80k. Debt is stress. Debt is unhappiness. Avoid it.
People of all various income levels can be happy or not. It depends on how they choose to live their lives. People who over-spend because they think having those nicer things will make them more happy end up being owned by their things. And in debt. Both of which lead to unhappiness and stress.
I am quite happy. Why is that? My home mortgage is less than half of what I could afford. I drive an 8 year old car which I paid off 5 years ago. Therefore, I have some enough money each month for entertainment and also enough to save for the future.
No stress and I get to have fun. Stop trying to keep up with the proverbial Joneses. It will inevitably lead you toward stress and unhappiness.
What other demographic would pay $600USD for an over-sized iPhone that can't make calls?
Seriously. You can purchase much more powerful & useful devices that have a similar footprint for hundreds of $ less. While also freeing you from Apple's arbitrary application approval. The massive sales numbers of the iPad is truly baffling.
What about Ning?
I have not set up a social network using Ning, but am a member of a few. Does anyone have experience with it?
What about the notion of broadband providers as "mere conduits"?
They don't attempt to filter content on the grounds that the nanosecond they do that, then they are liable for any/all content that flows through their service.
By the same logic, an entity that is a "mere conduit" is NOT a 3rd party to which ownership of any of the content - including email - is given. The case is crap.
Personally, I think this is great news. Competition is a good thing. If Youtube was the only destination for video, that type of monopoly would - eventually - prove to be bad for everyone. Even if it is "do no evil" Google.
Several months ago, I canceled my TV service. I use Hulu quite often to watch the shows I want to see. They are always there, commercial interruptions are minimal and video/audio quality is good. And that is just using VGA cable from my laptop to DLP HDTV @ 720p res and a headphone-to-RCA output to my HTR.
I upgraded my internet service to 6mbps down for only $5 extra / month. Canceling the TV service saves me more than $70 / month. Obviously, I come out way ahead here.
Hulu.com is a great service and I disable ad-blocking for the site and try to actually click an ad every once in a while. I want this model to work. It's unobtrusive, on-demand and costs me exactly what is should: Nothing.
If I'm going to have commercials shoved down my throat, then it should not cost me money to view the content. That's what the advertisers are for. The traditional cable TV service model is on the way out. Good riddance - I'll not miss it in the least.
You are quite correct. I would like to retract my original post and apologize to all 2 - 4 year-olds.
... that the largest financial institutions in the U.S. were actually run by 3 year-olds.
Right. Vidler's mashup is actually title "Rapture Riders" and is a Blondie / Doors mix. Quite good, but probably not what you meant. I saw "Riders On The Storm" and it reminded me of that mix.
Oh, found a link to download if you are interested.
or whoever did the same to "Riders on the storm."
That would be Mark Vidler, aka Go Home Productions. He does some absolutely genius remix / mashups / whatever you want to call them.
Click the mp3 link and you will find some free downloads as well as many mashup vids hosted by YouTube.
Not sure if the mix can still be found on his site, but the "Superchunk Mix" Part 1 and 2 is simply stunning. Near the end of part 2, there's a very cool mix using Bowie's "Under Pressure".
Then, immediately after, is an exceptionally cool mash-up using AC/DC (Back In Black) and Queen (We Will Rock You) with a lead-in from Run DMC and then tosses in some Led Zeppelin too. Then, just at the very end, you hear I heard the news today, oh boy.... Squeezed some Beatles in there!
According to this article, neither candidate is going to reduce the national debt.
We, as a country, are screwed with either candidate. As someone who usually leans Republican, I must admit that I think we are less screwed should Obama win. Therefore, he will be getting my vote.
D'ya mean like $700 billion?
Do you perhaps mean "oxymoron" rather than "homonym" ?
It is highly unlikely then Ron Paul will win the Republican nomination. This is unfortunate because he is an extremely smart man who is consistent in his policies. His voting history carries this out. Not only that, be he is the only candidate that seems to have a solid understanding of sound economic fiscal policy.
Even more unfortunate, we will soon be left with elections that are exactly as they have been in the past: A choice between the lesser of two evils.
Tell me, of the 4 front-runners (Clinton, Obama, Romney, McCain), who deserves your vote? The answer is: None of the above.
[ exhale a sigh of desperation ]
Does the software have a InitiateChairTossingDiatribe function available?
Bad, bad, horrible idea. The government has proven time and time again that it is completely incapable of performing this function. "Stealing" income from people that earn more so that it can be distributed via welfare and other such programs to those that earn less (or nothing) will never, ever work. EVER! It will only promote complacency.
No. CDs are paid for and under fair use, it is perfectly reasonable to create MP3 versions from the CD.
"Unpaid-for" was just a fancy euphemism for "stolen".
By the way, does anyone really care? Who's going to buy a Zune anyway?
Yes, a 6-week old baby is a viable life. That's why it's called a baby, not an embryo. I never said anything about killing life or 6-week old babies. You and your ilk love to pull out the over-wrought emotional comparisons when you have no valid reasons to oppose the science.
Read and understand before speaking on subjects for which you have only been told what to think rather than thinking for yourself. From this reference:
The blastocyst is made of only 150 cells or less. That is not life, it is smaller than a grain of sand. And certainly a far cry from a 6-week old.Your spastic adjectives do little to sway other's opinions. "pillage unwitting embryos" - pffft, you paint a picture of someone walking in, stealing some embryos and sucking the stem cells from them through a straw. Your arguments possess very intellect and far too much emotion.
So non-viable life froms like an embryo deserve advocacy, but people with diseases don't?! Ridiculous.
Parkinson's disease is not an "exotic afflication". 500,000 Americans suffer from it. From this article:
So, by your reasoning, it would make more sense to come up with a viable cure for PD and spend that $6 billion on something else. Right? Well guess what, stem cell research offers the most promise for future treatments.And while we're at it, why don't we increase funding to help children that are already born to get them better nutrition, education and housing. Stop wasting resources on headline-grabbing issue like this one and do something that's actually useful.
The more important emphasis is on embryonic. Cells collected from children after being born, from umbilical cords or even adult stem cells are, by definition, not embryonic.
AFAIK, the ban on federal funding is targeted only at embryonic stem cell research. And that is only because the embryo is destroyed in the process.
First of all, the idea is to generate stem-cell based therapies that anyone can afford, not just the wealthy.
Secondly, these therapies are not likely to be created in time for Michael J. Fox. Who are you to decide that because he's rich & famous, he should be prevented from obtaining treatments that others may not be able to afford (yet)? It's a trickle-down effect. Many treatments now widely used and available to nearly everyone were - at one time - prohibitively expensive for most people. And oh yeah: Are you saying that people who are past "reproductive age" are disposable? Men older than Mr. Fox have had children.
Thirdly, embryos are not "promising youth". It's an embryo, not a viable life form. Let's pull that embryo out of the freezer and set it on a chair to see what happens to its promising youth. And how do you know that if that embryo were implanted in some willing female, that the youth wouldn't grow up to be a serial killer? That's right, you don't. Stop tugging at emotional heart-strings in a thinly veiled attempt to confuse the issue. Your use of the phrase "naturally selected" to describe MJ Fox is cold and void of empathy. And yet you profess that an embryo has the right - a requirement even - to become a "promising youth".
Your arguments have no merit.
OK, no federal funding on human embryonic stem cell research. I realize there are other types of stem cells.
By over-litigation, stupid, religion-fueled vetoes, etc. the U.S. falls further and further behind as other countries move ahead in nearly every major technological field. It's depressing to contemplate.
However, on the bright side, even without federal funding, stem cell research abounds. Private companies are funding the research. Which, in the end, is probably better than government funding anyway since everything the government touches turns to crap.
"Good on ya" to the Australian legislature. With proper limitations in place, there simply is no reason not to proceed with this type of research. There are many advances that have occurred over time that were fought for what appear now to be "silly" reasons (mostly ignorant fear).
Proceed!
Like this article talked about?
The article doesn't mention any specific penalties for posting anonymously. 4 years of prison time is an absurd penalty for a (usually) harmless offense. It does mention other, more serious offenses than insulting someone and "up to 4 years ..." so I'd guess that if you say "that guy's an idiot" without revealing your identity and you are (somehow) discovered, then the penalty won't be as severe as hacking into "data banks" or knowingly spreading a virus.
And, as in the U.S., the politicians really and truly do not understand technology. At all. My hunch is that the politicians in power just want some way to prosecute people who post "less-than-favorable" information about them - even if it's true.