Comment Re:Hopefully wont be too popular (Score 1) 34
It costs what it used to cost to not have ads.
Yes, I understand inflation and all that, but it leaves a bad taste from it lining up that way.
It costs what it used to cost to not have ads.
Yes, I understand inflation and all that, but it leaves a bad taste from it lining up that way.
Yeah, but if those bombs start dropping, the internet might be the least of our worries.
An interesting statement given that an original design goal of the internet by the military was to be sufficiently decentralized to route around damage in the case of war.
I'm still trying to figure out why retirees need a childcare center.
Kids are taking longer and longer to move out of the house. Once the retirees no longer have a basement, they want somewhere to get them out of the way. This is incidentally what makes this "News That Matters", as it may impact Slashdot regulars.
Sometimes it even get bizarre: People that claim we only have Covid vaccines because of Trump, but that at the same time refuse to get vaccinated. On wonders how these people manage to navigate their daily lives and one suspects that the answer is "not well".
To be fair, the fact that Trump had anything to do with the vaccines is the best reason I've seen to be cautious about them.
However, after due diligence to see that he didn't meddle enough with the process to screw them up, I was vaccinated when they became available and am fully boosted.
Single data point. We cut Netflix last month. It wasn't because of inflation. It was because we'd watched everything we wanted to they had for now.
Donating appreciated assets is a good way to avoid capital gains tax if you want to donate anyway, but the sum of the capital gains tax avoided and the tax deduction you get for the donation (which is based on the current value of the asset at time of donation) is still less than if you'd sold the asset for that value and kept what was left over after paying the taxes.
To put it another way, it's not true that donating puts you in a better financial position than not donating. It is true that you can do a lot more good to someone you're giving to per dollar it costs you to do so if you are careful about how you go about it.
This of course ignores fraud scenarios, where someone appraises the donation at more than the asset is actually worth, but that's a general problem which is not particular to the whole capital gains saving aspect.
Remember, with inflation, $1k isn't worth what it used to be back when phones first hit $1k.
Not that we've had enough inflation that I'd spend that on a phone.
It's a car stereo. If someone's in your car "updating" it, they're more likely to update it right out of there, along with the rest of the car. Someone was probably told to implement some signed code security, you know, stuff, but make sure it doesn't break anything.
Now, if you used that as a backdoor to give yourself free heated seats or something, it would get fixed in a hurry.
Actually, the big problem with something like this is that it allows the someone to "update" the stereo to remove any anti-theft stuff (like not working after a power outage without a owner-known code), and resell it.
This makes owners of the car more likely to have their cars broken into and the stereos stolen.
As the link says, it's a Meta account you will need when they roll out it (right now you still need the Facebook account). A Meta account which requires basically the same information as signing up for a Facebook account did. But it is to be called Meta. When the roll it out. After they've raised the price.
>Cults tend to dominate certain businesses, either religious or cultural.
Not just businesses. Roman Catholics hold about 30% of US Congressional seats.
23% of the folks in the US are Roman Catholic, so while they may be a bit overrepresented in congress it's a big difference from a tiny religion being a majority within a business unit.
I see your point, I think, and you are right. For a private entity.
But this is a six billion corporation. They should absolutely be able to pay someone to see this task as his primary raison d'etre.
What if that person is the one who decides to delete everything?
Setting things up to deal with an accidental issue is one thing- though far fewer places clear that bar than they should. Making sure that the people dealing with that can't also break things is another level of work, which is non-technical folks are going to have a very hard time determining if is being done correctly. Security is hard.
The idiocy of California legislators also created a state that practically has 1/4 of the entire American gdp. Sounds like you're the idiot for criticizing their target ideal even if there's a few missteps on the way)
The view that legislators are responsible for any value a state may have is the sort of myopia that leads to so much bad legislation.
What about Orcas? Do they also absorb the microplastics and improve drinking water quality? Would make the treatment plant much more exciting (but anger many activists)
In English, there are many ways to refer to a person of unspecified gender. Most of those ways are disliked by various people, so folks choose the way they dislike the least. One of those ways is to use "They" to refer to a single individual. Others include the use of "he" as a generic referent (used extensively in older english literature), the use of "one" as a pronoun for a general individual (but usually not one with a particular name as in this case), and a variety of fairly new pronouns generated by folks offended by the old ones.
Architects don't to the safety check on big stuff, but it is common in the US for a architect to do everything on a lot of residential. While anecdotal evidence from a building construction engineer friend indicates this isn't a great approach, architects should in theory learn this stuff.
Software production is assumed to be a line function, but it is run like a staff function. -- Paul Licker
