According to Millenniata the M-disks are roughly $3 each. The internal drive is $50. But of course you have a point of "what are the requirements" in regards to data volume. (My photos will fit in under 8GB, but I don't have video.)
I would have thought being homeless was a pretty darn good evasion method.
I suppose it's more of a living with a friend and not paying rent kinda thing. Article gives no further information that I can see.
Just think how would you do it? The first thing you do is track the IP address. Probably led them to an library, school, internet cafe, McDonald's,.... Once there, watch and record the IP traffic at that location until you have both your suspect and your case against the suspect.
I'm sure that homeless are as much creatures of habit as the rest of us.
They do need an option that is better than putting a gun to the head.
No they don't. They already have options. Furthermore, it is not society's burden to provide people with "better" options for leaving society.
The only people who society arguably should have to support are the bereaved.
If you're implying that society shouldn't have to pay for it, no problem: charge for the medication (and do not allow insurance to pay for it). Just make it legal.
If you're implying that a person shouldn't have better means at their disposal then I will say that I sincerely hope that you Mr. Anonymous Coward find yourself in the desperate situation where you are terminally ill. Everyone knows there is no way out other than long months of pain and suffering with the medical community consuming all of your family's resources. I sincerely hope that the only thing that you can grasp is your grandfather's old pistol. And perhaps I am a cold hearted bastard, but I hope that your desperation forces you to pull the trigger and I sincerely hope that the next two hours find you in squirming in the most excruciating pain in your own blood, vomit, and shit. After the paramedics haul your worthless carcass away, given that there was no cleaner way to end your life, your spouse curses your name as she cleans up the mess you left behind. Perhaps then your offspring will have the decency to allow a legal, clean, and effective solution.
According to Wikipedia, roller coasters were first patented in 1885. Most elderly people alive to day probably were the type to ride a roller coaster when they were younger. They may have stopped when they grew out of amusement parks, or perhaps they became worried that they would get hurt. These seem like irrelevant concerns here.
I used to love roller coaster... then I started driving mountainous roads too fast and they became boring. Now that I'm even older I find them boring at best, painful at worse (bouncing up and down on the Indiana Jones ride doesn't do my back any favors). Most of the people I see outside of work are in their 80's -- your target audience for a Dr. Jack exit from this world -- and of the ones that have pulled the trigger, all of them were either in chronic, unmanageable pain or had terminal cancer eating them alive (with chemo therapy making them nauseous). I'm confident that none of them would choose a roller coast.
My preference would be to breathe deeply of carbon monoxide until quietly falling asleep. Failing that, pills would be a good alternative. The gun to the head that my friends have used leaves a significant mess -- and usually takes a lot longer to die than the movies would have you believe (median time of about an hour and half). A specialized death coaster would not be worth the time, effort, or money to build.
Obviously this is just a [stupid] publicity stunt, but most of the people that I know that would (would have) opted for euthanasia were elderly. They wouldn't be the type to board a roller coaster.
They do need an option that is better than putting a gun to the head.
Explain to me how the US government makes money by enforcing these laws?
Overall, you're correct. The war on drugs is costing the American Taxpayer a fortune. But frankly, no one really cares about the American Taxpayer.
On the personal level, there are jobs to be had based on the war on drugs. Between prison guards, cops, judges, law clerks, lawyers,... there are plenty of people with a personal financial stake in maintaining the status quo. Throw in Mrs. Grundy's fear of drug crazed maniacs and politicians would just as soon cut social security as appear soft on drugs.
Remember, the goal of politicians is not to solve problem but to buy votes by spending money. And what would we do with all of those unemployed lawyers?
What's to stop an OPEC-like organization from being created to ensure the price of drugs stay high?
OPEC is [relatively] successful due to the small number of suppliers in the marker and the scarcity of the product.
The inherit cost of producing most drugs is relatively low and the majority of the cost is a reflection of the risk factor in bringing it to market combined with the artificial scarcity. If you legalize drugs -- perhaps going so far as creating stores along the lines of "state liquor stores" -- the almost immediate bump in supply will drive the prices down.
There are problems that will have to be worked out. Such as:
Taxing something that people can easily grow themselves.
What if you don't want to smoke marijuana and the joker at the next table decides to light up? Personally I think the only solution would be to ban all smoking in public regardless of what is being smoked.
Increase in DUI / decrease in highway safety.
There will be problems in legalizing drugs -- but they should be less insurmountable than the amount of drug cartel violence going on now.
Only those that know they don't know shit and are in management precisely because they don't know shit. Which is, like, 100% in management, else they'd do something productive.
I've taken the technical management position when I've looked around at the who else they would've put in that position and said "Oh, God! No!!" I usually wait until some other qualified person can take it over and go back to design and coding.
I've had hideous managers who thought that who ever the data entry clerk is on MS Project must be the technical lead.
Good management is every bit as daunting as good coding -- and a stellar manager is every bit as rare as a stellar developer. I still miss working for Sandy who realized that the best thing a manager could do was protect his people from other managers. His team was the most productive.
I read the "No, and how the heck do you expect me to..." as answering the question "have you done that job before." -- effectively completing the scenario.
He is agreeing with you that HR types are morons that ask such questions and when he's in the hiring spot, he tries to block it (or point out that it really is a stupid question when the position in junior).
Ditto, and more importantly, if I add a private data member why should I have to re-compile anything other than the class?
Private members are not even a part of the public interface!
When you add a data member (private or otherwise) it changes the memory foot print of an object. If the compiler forced everything to have an implied pImpl (allocating everything on the heap) then it could probably get away with out a recompile but at the cost of performance. Since you can allocate objects on the stack (or possibly even simple ones in registers), the memory foot print of the object needs to be known by the user of the class.
Yes but if Moody's lowers the rating (which they may yet do) it will impact our ability to borrow money and eventually we will have to make severe cuts to balance the budget. So in a way we are just buying time until the inevitable or till someone comes up with a good idea (like stopping corporate welfare and raising taxes for the rich).
If your goal is to raise taxes -- go for it. But frankly, that's a short sighted and stupid goal. At this point the goal should be to increase tax revenue. There's a major difference between the two. Assume for argument sake that you raise the tax rate to 100% on anything a couple earns over $250K. How much extra revenue would you generate? Given the change in behavior, you'd raise pretty close to 0 -- and the economy would tank.
So the goal should not be to raise taxes, but to raise tax revenue (which may include increased taxes, but you have to account for the change in behavior that offsets your increased taxes). When some genius decided to raise the taxes on yachts the result was the death of the American yacht industry as it all moved overseas.
Given the increase in spending over the last several years, doing actual cuts to spending -- not just cuts in projected growth -- is going to be required to bring the budget in line.
If those bastards in congress did not find a way to increase the debt ceiling our precious triple A credit rating would have dropped significantly and the value of those treasury bonds would have went with it.
Not really. Not raising the debt ceiling would be tantamount to "daddy taking away the credit card" and is not the same as "not paying on what you currently owe on the credit card." The U.S. currently takes in roughly $200 billion a month (and spends between $300 and $400 billion a month). As long as the current bond holders are paid, the credit rating would not have been threatened.
What is a threat to the "precious triple A credit rating" is the perceived ability to repay that debt. Raising the debt limit without slowing the growth of debt is a direct threat to being able to repay the debt -- a direct threat to that precious AAA rating.
I keep forgetting... are they going to kill all the grammar Nazis before or after all the lawyers? At the very least I expect them to board the same ship as the telephone sanitation engineers and beauticians.
If they refuse to buy more I'm sure someone else will.
In order to a entice sufficient "someone else" to buy the Treasury bonds we'd have to raise interest rates -- unless the bonds are being purchased for non-investment reasons. The Federal Reserve is buying the bonds to artificially lower the interest rates on the bonds: the major side effect of this action is inflation.(1)
Or we could just default on the ones they are holding.
If we default on the ones we're holding (yeah! debt free!) then no-one in the future will buy more bonds for fear that we'll default on their holdings -- we're now an incredible credit risk. If we eventually do con people into buying our bonds again, they'll want exorbitant interest rates: just like if you walk away from your house, you'll be charge a significantly higher interest rate on your next house.
Either of your solutions means that the United States stops borrowing. While that is a good long term fix, we're currently too addicted to spending to quit cold turkey.
(1) We do have ourselves in an interesting predicament where we have both deflation going on in durable goods (cars, appliances, houses) and inflation on the consumable level (e.g., food). This shows that (a) the fundamentals are bad for the currency, and (b) consumer confidence low enough that people don't want to make major purchases. What they're forced to buy (food) is going up in price; what they can avoid buying (durables) they are.
Sometimes I feel like, here on/., anytime rivalry between the US and China comes up somebody just knee-jerks and feels the insatiable need to bring up the debt regardless of how irrelevant to the discussion.
Except if you're looking for motives to tip-toe around China, the U.S. debt is a big one.
So they tell the public the developers get 20% but tell the developers they will get nothing.
Not a company I want to do business with. Already using their competitors due to their outsourcing to third world states when requested to track sales tax.
Amazon sold it for $0.00? What's 20% of $0.00?
You could correctly argue that the developer received 1000% of the sale price.
This is not true, actually. Regulation E covers both credit and debit cards. If you report the fraud within two days of discovering the fraudulent activity, you can be liable for up to $50 (some banks, like mine, offer zero liability).
I am happy to note that you are correct. See FTC's Facts for Consumers. I wonder how long that's been in effect. The guy at work was reasonably upset. I wonder if he missed the 60 day window or it occurred before the rules changed.
It's not that serious. If you have an issue with cancelling your credit card, informing a few companies of the change, and filling out a short form to recover your money you have bigger issues than this man. People need to relax.
These stories never distinguish between credit cards (that you write a check for once a month) and debit cards (that connect directly to your bank account), even though there is a big difference legally. IANAL: Legally, you're only on the hook for $50 after you report your credit card stolen. Legally, you're on the hook for 100% if your debit card is stolen.
Anecdotal: I never heard of any friends being held liable for even the $50 from the credit card loss/theft. The banks have usually eaten it. I have had co-workers who have had their account cleaned out from a debit card being stolen and the individual had to eat the loss.
As long as there isn't positive identification of voters at the voting booth, there will always be rampant fraud in some areas. Eliminate the hacker prone, but require state ID to vote.
Hell I would do (almost) anything to undo their acquisition of Sun.
Then you need to go back in time and stop Jonathan Schwartz from becoming CEO and running Sun into the ground.
While Schwartz certainly didn't do anything stellar, Sun was already in a tail spin before Scott bailed. While they built their careers (and company) deriding Digital, they seemed to have stolen DEC's play book: establish yourself at the low-end, set your sites on the high-end and ignore the low-end, wonder what happened to your company. There certainly is enough blame to go around.
You mean totalitarian, so why not just say totalitarian? Fascism and neo-Fascism both have specific characteristics other than totalitarianism
Today's modern Progressive have more in common with the National Socialist party than they'd probably care to admit. They have similar views on nationalized health care, the environment, and controlling corporations via regulations.
Progressives want what amount to sin taxes
Not really. Prohibition was brought to you by the Progressives. Luckily it was enough of a disaster that everyone is running away from it now. If you look at Hillary-Care, it had very draconian things for doctors that didn't tow the line (it's been long enough I don't remember if she was advocating prison time or just bankruptcy). It's also the Progressives that are making streaming videos on the net a felony (welcome to prison).
You'll also note that the idiot George W was a piker when it came to domestic spying compared to the current [Progressive] administration. If you've been following along with/. I'm sure you've seen the articles on using airport scanner technology to spy into people's houses. It is the Progressives that are advocating putting GPS location devices on everyone's car so that big brother can know where you are at all times.
The previous time that the Progressives were in power [Clinton] they brought us Carnivore and massive domestic spying on e-mail.
Mussolini and Hitler would have salivated to have the domestic spying power that the Progressives have already brought us and are actively seeking. So, yes. The Progressives are totalitarian control-freaks that would make the Fascists proud.
Please note that you had been a fundie, I would have argued against their position.
Slashdot Mirror
According to Millenniata the M-disks are roughly $3 each. The internal drive is $50. But of course you have a point of "what are the requirements" in regards to data volume. (My photos will fit in under 8GB, but I don't have video.)
I would have thought being homeless was a pretty darn good evasion method.
I suppose it's more of a living with a friend and not paying rent kinda thing. Article gives no further information that I can see.
Just think how would you do it? The first thing you do is track the IP address. Probably led them to an library, school, internet cafe, McDonald's, .... Once there, watch and record the IP traffic at that location until you have both your suspect and your case against the suspect.
I'm sure that homeless are as much creatures of habit as the rest of us.
They do need an option that is better than putting a gun to the head.
No they don't. They already have options. Furthermore, it is not society's burden to provide people with "better" options for leaving society.
The only people who society arguably should have to support are the bereaved.
If you're implying that society shouldn't have to pay for it, no problem: charge for the medication (and do not allow insurance to pay for it). Just make it legal.
If you're implying that a person shouldn't have better means at their disposal then I will say that I sincerely hope that you Mr. Anonymous Coward find yourself in the desperate situation where you are terminally ill. Everyone knows there is no way out other than long months of pain and suffering with the medical community consuming all of your family's resources. I sincerely hope that the only thing that you can grasp is your grandfather's old pistol. And perhaps I am a cold hearted bastard, but I hope that your desperation forces you to pull the trigger and I sincerely hope that the next two hours find you in squirming in the most excruciating pain in your own blood, vomit, and shit. After the paramedics haul your worthless carcass away, given that there was no cleaner way to end your life, your spouse curses your name as she cleans up the mess you left behind. Perhaps then your offspring will have the decency to allow a legal, clean, and effective solution.
According to Wikipedia, roller coasters were first patented in 1885. Most elderly people alive to day probably were the type to ride a roller coaster when they were younger. They may have stopped when they grew out of amusement parks, or perhaps they became worried that they would get hurt. These seem like irrelevant concerns here.
I used to love roller coaster ... then I started driving mountainous roads too fast and they became boring. Now that I'm even older I find them boring at best, painful at worse (bouncing up and down on the Indiana Jones ride doesn't do my back any favors). Most of the people I see outside of work are in their 80's -- your target audience for a Dr. Jack exit from this world -- and of the ones that have pulled the trigger, all of them were either in chronic, unmanageable pain or had terminal cancer eating them alive (with chemo therapy making them nauseous). I'm confident that none of them would choose a roller coast.
My preference would be to breathe deeply of carbon monoxide until quietly falling asleep. Failing that, pills would be a good alternative. The gun to the head that my friends have used leaves a significant mess -- and usually takes a lot longer to die than the movies would have you believe (median time of about an hour and half). A specialized death coaster would not be worth the time, effort, or money to build.
Obviously this is just a [stupid] publicity stunt, but most of the people that I know that would (would have) opted for euthanasia were elderly. They wouldn't be the type to board a roller coaster.
They do need an option that is better than putting a gun to the head.
Explain to me how the US government makes money by enforcing these laws?
Overall, you're correct. The war on drugs is costing the American Taxpayer a fortune. But frankly, no one really cares about the American Taxpayer.
On the personal level, there are jobs to be had based on the war on drugs. Between prison guards, cops, judges, law clerks, lawyers, ... there are plenty of people with a personal financial stake in maintaining the status quo. Throw in Mrs. Grundy's fear of drug crazed maniacs and politicians would just as soon cut social security as appear soft on drugs.
Remember, the goal of politicians is not to solve problem but to buy votes by spending money. And what would we do with all of those unemployed lawyers?
What's to stop an OPEC-like organization from being created to ensure the price of drugs stay high?
OPEC is [relatively] successful due to the small number of suppliers in the marker and the scarcity of the product.
The inherit cost of producing most drugs is relatively low and the majority of the cost is a reflection of the risk factor in bringing it to market combined with the artificial scarcity. If you legalize drugs -- perhaps going so far as creating stores along the lines of "state liquor stores" -- the almost immediate bump in supply will drive the prices down.
There are problems that will have to be worked out. Such as:
There will be problems in legalizing drugs -- but they should be less insurmountable than the amount of drug cartel violence going on now.
The graphic linked to is informative.
Only those that know they don't know shit and are in management precisely because they don't know shit. Which is, like, 100% in management, else they'd do something productive.
I've taken the technical management position when I've looked around at the who else they would've put in that position and said "Oh, God! No!!" I usually wait until some other qualified person can take it over and go back to design and coding.
I've had hideous managers who thought that who ever the data entry clerk is on MS Project must be the technical lead.
Good management is every bit as daunting as good coding -- and a stellar manager is every bit as rare as a stellar developer. I still miss working for Sandy who realized that the best thing a manager could do was protect his people from other managers. His team was the most productive.
I read the "No, and how the heck do you expect me to ..." as answering the question "have you done that job before." -- effectively completing the scenario.
He is agreeing with you that HR types are morons that ask such questions and when he's in the hiring spot, he tries to block it (or point out that it really is a stupid question when the position in junior).
Let me introduce you to the decimal point.
Yes, but is your decimal point "." or ","?
Ditto, and more importantly, if I add a private data member why should I have to re-compile anything other than the class?
Private members are not even a part of the public interface!
When you add a data member (private or otherwise) it changes the memory foot print of an object. If the compiler forced everything to have an implied pImpl (allocating everything on the heap) then it could probably get away with out a recompile but at the cost of performance. Since you can allocate objects on the stack (or possibly even simple ones in registers), the memory foot print of the object needs to be known by the user of the class.
Yes but if Moody's lowers the rating (which they may yet do) it will impact our ability to borrow money and eventually we will have to make severe cuts to balance the budget. So in a way we are just buying time until the inevitable or till someone comes up with a good idea (like stopping corporate welfare and raising taxes for the rich).
If your goal is to raise taxes -- go for it. But frankly, that's a short sighted and stupid goal. At this point the goal should be to increase tax revenue. There's a major difference between the two. Assume for argument sake that you raise the tax rate to 100% on anything a couple earns over $250K. How much extra revenue would you generate? Given the change in behavior, you'd raise pretty close to 0 -- and the economy would tank.
So the goal should not be to raise taxes, but to raise tax revenue (which may include increased taxes, but you have to account for the change in behavior that offsets your increased taxes). When some genius decided to raise the taxes on yachts the result was the death of the American yacht industry as it all moved overseas.
Given the increase in spending over the last several years, doing actual cuts to spending -- not just cuts in projected growth -- is going to be required to bring the budget in line.
If those bastards in congress did not find a way to increase the debt ceiling our precious triple A credit rating would have dropped significantly and the value of those treasury bonds would have went with it.
Not really. Not raising the debt ceiling would be tantamount to "daddy taking away the credit card" and is not the same as "not paying on what you currently owe on the credit card." The U.S. currently takes in roughly $200 billion a month (and spends between $300 and $400 billion a month). As long as the current bond holders are paid, the credit rating would not have been threatened.
What is a threat to the "precious triple A credit rating" is the perceived ability to repay that debt. Raising the debt limit without slowing the growth of debt is a direct threat to being able to repay the debt -- a direct threat to that precious AAA rating.
Way to fail at a grammar nazi post there.
I keep forgetting ... are they going to kill all the grammar Nazis before or after all the lawyers? At the very least I expect them to board the same ship as the telephone sanitation engineers and beauticians.
If they refuse to buy more I'm sure someone else will.
In order to a entice sufficient "someone else" to buy the Treasury bonds we'd have to raise interest rates -- unless the bonds are being purchased for non-investment reasons. The Federal Reserve is buying the bonds to artificially lower the interest rates on the bonds: the major side effect of this action is inflation.(1)
Or we could just default on the ones they are holding.
If we default on the ones we're holding (yeah! debt free!) then no-one in the future will buy more bonds for fear that we'll default on their holdings -- we're now an incredible credit risk. If we eventually do con people into buying our bonds again, they'll want exorbitant interest rates: just like if you walk away from your house, you'll be charge a significantly higher interest rate on your next house.
Either of your solutions means that the United States stops borrowing. While that is a good long term fix, we're currently too addicted to spending to quit cold turkey.
(1) We do have ourselves in an interesting predicament where we have both deflation going on in durable goods (cars, appliances, houses) and inflation on the consumable level (e.g., food). This shows that (a) the fundamentals are bad for the currency, and (b) consumer confidence low enough that people don't want to make major purchases. What they're forced to buy (food) is going up in price; what they can avoid buying (durables) they are.
Except if you're looking for motives to tip-toe around China, the U.S. debt is a big one.
So they tell the public the developers get 20% but tell the developers they will get nothing.
Not a company I want to do business with. Already using their competitors due to their outsourcing to third world states when requested to track sales tax.
Amazon sold it for $0.00? What's 20% of $0.00?
You could correctly argue that the developer received 1000% of the sale price.
This is not true, actually. Regulation E covers both credit and debit cards. If you report the fraud within two days of discovering the fraudulent activity, you can be liable for up to $50 (some banks, like mine, offer zero liability).
I am happy to note that you are correct. See FTC's Facts for Consumers. I wonder how long that's been in effect. The guy at work was reasonably upset. I wonder if he missed the 60 day window or it occurred before the rules changed.
It's not that serious. If you have an issue with cancelling your credit card, informing a few companies of the change, and filling out a short form to recover your money you have bigger issues than this man. People need to relax.
These stories never distinguish between credit cards (that you write a check for once a month) and debit cards (that connect directly to your bank account), even though there is a big difference legally. IANAL: Legally, you're only on the hook for $50 after you report your credit card stolen. Legally, you're on the hook for 100% if your debit card is stolen.
Anecdotal: I never heard of any friends being held liable for even the $50 from the credit card loss/theft. The banks have usually eaten it. I have had co-workers who have had their account cleaned out from a debit card being stolen and the individual had to eat the loss.
Tape is more practical for offsite for large amount of data. LTO 5 is 1.5TB raw, and if they made them bigger we would be buying them.
Apparently HP make a 3 TB tape, but at a higher cost per byte.
If the Hp tape isn't part of a standard, don't buy it. Given time, proprietary will always bite you.
These so called "anti-trust" investigations seem to be more about government revenue generation than anything else.
Government revenue? Or campaign revenue. Obviously Google needs to donate more to key senators' retirement^Wreelection fund.
As long as there isn't positive identification of voters at the voting booth, there will always be rampant fraud in some areas. Eliminate the hacker prone, but require state ID to vote.
Hell I would do (almost) anything to undo their acquisition of Sun.
Then you need to go back in time and stop Jonathan Schwartz from becoming CEO and running Sun into the ground.
While Schwartz certainly didn't do anything stellar, Sun was already in a tail spin before Scott bailed. While they built their careers (and company) deriding Digital, they seemed to have stolen DEC's play book: establish yourself at the low-end, set your sites on the high-end and ignore the low-end, wonder what happened to your company. There certainly is enough blame to go around.
You mean totalitarian, so why not just say totalitarian? Fascism and neo-Fascism both have specific characteristics other than totalitarianism
Today's modern Progressive have more in common with the National Socialist party than they'd probably care to admit. They have similar views on nationalized health care, the environment, and controlling corporations via regulations.
Progressives want what amount to sin taxes
Not really. Prohibition was brought to you by the Progressives. Luckily it was enough of a disaster that everyone is running away from it now. If you look at Hillary-Care, it had very draconian things for doctors that didn't tow the line (it's been long enough I don't remember if she was advocating prison time or just bankruptcy). It's also the Progressives that are making streaming videos on the net a felony (welcome to prison).
You'll also note that the idiot George W was a piker when it came to domestic spying compared to the current [Progressive] administration. If you've been following along with /. I'm sure you've seen the articles on using airport scanner technology to spy into people's houses. It is the Progressives that are advocating putting GPS location devices on everyone's car so that big brother can know where you are at all times.
The previous time that the Progressives were in power [Clinton] they brought us Carnivore and massive domestic spying on e-mail.
Mussolini and Hitler would have salivated to have the domestic spying power that the Progressives have already brought us and are actively seeking. So, yes. The Progressives are totalitarian control-freaks that would make the Fascists proud.
Please note that you had been a fundie, I would have argued against their position.