We're trying to develop technologies to divert the next asteroid, survive a super-volcano and make it so we all can live well even in our 15th decade. I think we do need to work every day.

I don't understand the constant "programming jobs are going away" comments. They're really not, and there are a lot of us in the US with a good salary.

https://www.bls.gov/ooh/comput...

In 2014 there were 1,114,000 software developer jobs. Projections are that it will grow 17% between 2014 and 2024, meaning we plan to add 186,600 jobs. Which, incidentally, is a much higher rate of growth than other jobs.

Yeah this is ridiculous. If you want to use UTC, you can just use UTC. People do it all the time. But most of the time you want to know "should I be expecting a person in Utah to be awake right now? Would they be at the office? Is it early?" We change the clocks twice a year because it's easier to do that than to have everybody shift their hours. In spring we open at 7:00AM, in the winter we open at 8:00AM is harder to remember than twice a year move your clock. That same concept applies with UTC. With time-zones, we just mentally move the clock. Instead of remembering "this location has this schedule, and this location has this schedule" it's generally easier to hold one schedule in your mind and then mentally move the clock. "people are generally awake from 6:00AM - 10:00PM", not "people in Ohio are up from 11:00 - 3:00, people in California are up from 13:00 - 5:00".

Somebody dared me to put it as my sig, so there it is.

I'm confused here. It seems like a contract that doesn't mention a data cap would lead to the ISP being mandated to not institute a data cap because, well, the contract. Seems like any lawsuit would be able to get the data cap removed. That makes me think that the data caps are in the contracts, but then, the analogy becomes "you can consume 10 cookies a day up to 30 cookies a week" and then after you've consumed 30 cookies they're like "ok, no more cookies", and again, what's the problem. One side of this is painfully wrong and I just can't figure out who. Having never been under a data cap and not having access to the contract of somebody who has, I'm having a hard time figuring this out.

That seems ridiculous to limit them to advertising monthly data cap / billing period, as it doesn't address the thing most people care about foremost, which is bandwidth. Advertising bandwidth and advertising data cap sounds more fair. If they are disclosing the data cap in the contract, then I don't see what the problem is. You seem to be advocating for a totally useless metric. The reality is, regardless of how they communicate it, operating a network capable of handling all subscribers using all of their allotted bandwidth, is much more expensive than figuring out what the real peak load is and operating a network capable of handling that, which is again much more expensive than trimming users back a little bit under peak load. If you were to keep the margins the same, I bet you'd find that most people would opt for a tiered plan that degrades their bandwidth slightly during high usage times and opens them up under low usage times because it would be so much cheaper than the network that has dedicated bandwidth for each subscriber.

What are you talking about? hate verb 1. feel intense or passionate dislike for (someone). "the boys hate each other" synonyms: loathe, detest, despise, dislike, abhor, execrate; More noun 1. intense or passionate dislike. "feelings of hate and revenge" synonyms: hatred, loathing, detestation, dislike, distaste, abhorrence, abomination, execration, aversion; More Please tell me in historical terms when hate wasn't a synonym for dislike.

Why would you assume that? It's a matter of degree, right? Maybe he is intense and passionate about his dislike of Apple. I mean, he's taking the time to canvas the internet about it. Don't try to rewrite the meaning of hate to only apply to certain causes or situations that you think are the worst. There are other words for that such as unconscionable, deplorable, inhuman or disgusting.

I feel like this is more like if you were walking by and accidentally dropped your pornography out of your folders on the street and a kid saw it. It's clearly not intentional behavior, there was no intent. I find it hard to believe you'd go to jail for accidentally exposing a kid to porn.

This line of thinking perplexes me. Yes, they may be talking about things that we don't necessarily care about, but we almost certainly can tell them things they would like to know. Such as where danger is. We could possibly introduce new vocabulary and through the power of giving something a name, give them a new concept that they can relate to each other. We can make smarter dolphins to eat.

We also have a legislature which is supposed to be much more representative. It's easier to move congressional districts. If you have a more diverse legislature, you will end up with more diverse presidential options. Plus we have the primary system. It's really just this defeatist attitude that keeps the two party system alive in a society with this much access to information and cheap outreach to constituencies.

It does bring up an interesting point of how people will change their behavior when they know the person driving a car can't just run them over if they block the car. I live in a city where the good parts and the "bad" parts aren't separated by very much distance. If I'm driving from home to work I have to drive by several homeless people. Being at a stop light and having a guy stand in front of my car while another guy tries to shake me down would be very uncomfortable.

I'm not really that worried it would happen, but we also don't know how people will adapt to that. I imagine in the beginning it would take the form of pedestrians being impolite once they know they can walk in front of a car at an intersection and it'll stop. I already experience slow moving pedestrians entering a crosswalk at the tail-end of a stoplight's cycle once or twice a month. That type of person might become more bold in their behavior. The overly aggressive homeless person that won't take the first few "no"s might also become more bold.

It would be interesting if a serial killer was following the Clinton's around committing all these murders. I hope that kind of stuff does happen. I mean, in the sense that the people are either dead by serial killer or dead by the official explanation, not in the "I wish there was more murder going on" way.

This has already been declared false by snopes. http://www.snopes.com/meta/cou...

I agree that it's an impressive piece of technology. Sticking with the microwave analogy, I'd say that we're way past noticing chocolate melt near RADAR but not yet at a counter-top microwave. We're sitting somewhere close to a 6 foot tall, 750lb microwave (which incidentally cost around $3000). I love easy mac, and one day, we will have it. My point is just that easy mac provides a different take on dinner than... uh... I don't know, this metaphor is really falling apart... Corn? Is that right? Is that the VR equivalent? I have a reference sheet somewhere for this...