Ideas like this would hurt smaller businesses and overall be quite damaging to the economy.

In many cases outsourcing puts things in your grasp that aren't possible to do otherwise simply because your business isn't large enough or doesn't have enough capital to handle the task. For example, if you're a mom and pop bakery who wants to sell to other local stores, you probably don't have enough capital to afford large scale logistics or a distribution network. The solution is to outsource your logistics and shipping to a distributor.

I've only had good experience with staffing agencies. Because it's easy for them to let you go, that means they're also more willing to take risks in hiring you. I was able to get a job really fast right out of college with one, which helped establish my new skill set. Few people want to permanently hire somebody with a degree and no experience because it's too easy to find somebody who is a dud, even if they have a 4.0 GPA like I did.

As I mentioned in my previous post, it costs a lot to live in NYC mainly because of the fact that a lot of people want to live there. You don't HAVE to live that way. You could literally move about 100 miles and have a considerably cheaper cost of living.

My income is barely above the figure I mentioned in my GP post, and I live perfectly comfortably on it. Why? Because I didn't make the dumb choice to live among the world's elite without the means to afford the spending required to live among the world's elite.

And which country are you comparing India against? The US? If so, which city? Brownsville, Texas is considerably cheaper than New York City. Nobody has to live in New York City. But OWS people choose to do so anyways in spite of the high cost. Why? Because they really want that metropolitan lifestyle.

Does $35,000 carry them less distance? Yes, but that's a choice that they voluntarily made. It's a stupid choice, but it's theirs to make. Only so many people can be in the same place at once, and when a lot of people want to live in the same area, then it costs more. It's a simple matter of supply and demand meets physics.

Wall Street didn't set it that way, nor did Bill Gates or anybody even close to being as wealthy as him. That's just the economics of a lot of people trying to be into the same spot at once. Anybody who feels otherwise needs to get the fuck over themselves; they're nothing special, and just because they're a human being doesn't mean they have the right to take whatever the hell they want.

Oh I see, you're one of those. Well just so you know:

- Most people who work on Wall Street identify as liberal and/or democrat.
- If you make over USD $42,000 per year, you are among the world's top 1% of income earners.
- Not even 1% of New York actually demonstrated at Wall Street as over 99% of them had better things to do.
- Most people who attended OWS are among the world's wealthiest 1% just measured by the mere fact that they live in a residence in New York City, and even if they had no income at the time. And among other things, some of them were complaining about iPads getting stolen while they were there.
- Most importantly, nothing is more greedy than living among the world's wealthiest 1% and also believing that you somehow deserve to have more than you already have.

Who are the psychopaths now?

If I buy doritos at wal-mart, they're the same doritos you can get at the mom and pop store down the street, only it costs about 10% less. I should know because last year I worked for a company that is a major food distributor who has wal-mart as a customer, and guess what, they also sold the same doritos to mom and pop shops as well.

Furthermore, mom and pop shops also pay most of their employees minimum wage.

Like GP said, it's getting really old how on slashdot, any time some ultra-left wing pundit rants, they can rarely do so without saying "fox news watchers" or "wal-mart shoppers" and it's getting old and it just makes you look even dumber than those you're railing against.

Google isn't the internet, and the internet isn't Google. Nobody anywhere ever is going to stop you from making your own search engine. But making a good search engine is hard. Google is as popular as they are because they're good at making a good search engine. What you're proposing is having the government decide what is and isn't a good search result. And I'm going to tell you right now, that's a SHITTY idea.

If Google Search is regulated as a utility, then search results stop being sorted by what you're probably looking for, and instead is sorted by whatever the public (typically some politician's cabinet members appointed to a regulatory authority) votes is "fair," and so we have to make sure everybody's voice is equally heard. This would mean that for example if you search for topics of Atheism, then the Church of Scientology gets to have their links near the top of your search results, because you know, it's only fair that they get represented equally among other religions.

That, and people like Search King will have the right to spam your search results with irrelevant bullshit, mainly because it's only fair that they too be heard.

I personally have seen all kinds of cases where a disaster is required before anybody decides they want to harden their information security.

That said, you might consider just leaking some of these documents to the open internet by simply pasting the URL to public places. For example, put it on twitter and give it an irrelevant but popular hashtag. Then it hits a major news site, and you know the rest.

The trick is doing it without leaving a trail to yourself, otherwise you'll end up like those guys who found that AT&T link to the iPhone accounts.

There isn't one. If somebody REALLY wanted to rip off the firmware, they'd just unsolder the chip and buy a matching reader for about $50 from digikey. The skills required to do it aren't terribly difficult, and in fact it requires less skill to pull that off than it does to read from a jtag port.

Any EE worth a shit would be well aware of that, and wouldn't bother disabling the jtag for that reason; if anything they'd prefer to leave it intact to facilitate troubleshooting RMA'ed parts so that they are cheaper to refurbish.

Off hand I can already think of a technique I myself have deployed (not written by me) when hacking DirecTV smart cards, or what I know Xbox 360 mod chip users do: Use "stealthing" code that presents the data that is SUPPOSED to be there when asked by any existing commands that are used to read the firmware contents, but otherwise the hacked code is what gets executed during normal running operation.

It wouldn't surprise me if whoever wrote this went to such lengths to add this kind of feature to their firmware. I mean look how excruciatingly feature packed stuxnet was.

Oh look at the typical AC ad hom attck, color me surprised. Attacking the person always works if you can't attack the argument, right?

Plants do grow in tundra regions, however the reason trees don't grow tall (as GP pointed out) is because of three things:

- Summer seasons are too short
- Permafrost doesn't permit expansive root systems
- Extreme cold causes decomposition to take longer

However there isn't anything to indicate that it isn't possible for tree growth in the event of warming. Even if the land wasn't fertile enough, that wouldn't prevent this from occurring. Because of the geography, it's possible this area could resemble the conditions of the Sahara desert during previous ice ages (which is believed to be anything but a desert.)

Really?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Never minding that even the Tundra biomes were once part of Pangaea, a continent which was completely covered in all manner of life. The soil nutrients don't magically disappear when the area freezes over.

There's actually a simple term for that: socialism. Socialism simply means the state controls the means of production in a given market at the exclusion of all others, vis-a-vis a monopoly. I.e. the state itself owns the manufacturing plants and directly hires the individual craftsmen, in addition to telling them what products they will and will not create, and setting prices (typically without the forces of supply and demand influencing them.)

Contrary to what is often repeated on slashdot, the US and even most European countries have almost no elements of socialism. Welfare programs (e.g. medicaid, SNAP, social security) aren't socialism because the government doesn't produce anything; instead it purchases goods and services from private individuals and hands their product to whoever. I.e. it's just a transfer. Examples of socialism in the US might include trash services and water. European governments would also include health services (i.e. the medical staff work at the direction of and are paid by the government.)

Free market, by the way, simply means that the forces of supply and demand determine prices. Contrary to common left wing talking points, a monopoly typically doesn't make for a free market, even if it is a private entity that holds the monopoly. The reason why is because as the sole producer of a given good/service, the prices aren't subject to the normal pressures of supply and demand in most cases (namely because a monopoly power can create artificial scarcity, such as what the company De Beers did for the last 100 years.)

Most people who espouse socialism as the solution to a given humanitarian problem always seem to ignore that socialism tends to grant the most favors to whoever is best connected (read: best friends with) the resident politicians.

This is because socialism is defined by one fact: The state owns and controls the means of production. This means that nobody except for the politicians get to decide which people get to work on what. So unless your particular needs are at the forefront of Comrade Leader's attention, then the state resources don't go towards your given cause. (Think about it this way: Imagine if it took an act of congress just to devote people to work on your particular illness instead of doing congress's own pet flavor of the year project.)

This means that if you're terminally ill, nobody gives a shit unless you happen to be close friends with Comrade Leader.

In our system, nobody cares much if you're terminally ill, but if enough people share your condition, then somebody out there might dedicate resources (and people) to working on a cure if they think they can have some kind of reward to show for it. Will every disease that will ever exist get cured in our system? Probably not, and the reason why is because there just isn't enough man hours in the world to do that kind of thing for all of the world's most rare diseases. However the chance your condition will be cured is measurably worse in socialism.

Probably because it's impractical as hell. Assuming that your own immune system doesn't destroy the phage first, most bacteria actually have very good resistance to that kind of thing. Unlike in the case of multi-cellular organisms with an immune system, they have mechanisms where they can shed bad RNA, and they can adapt to new virus strains within a single generation (anywhere from a day to a week, depending on the bacterium.)

Right now the technology for it just isn't there, and probably won't be there until proteinomics advances quite a bit.