I like to imagine an engineer coming in the next morning, and crying like the Rancor handler when he beheld the work the axe had wrought.
Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).
Chances are you have seen that picture used at the top of the article - I had in a few places, and then ran across the guy in the photo, which is for some reason spreading all over... He's keeping track of where it appears.
It better include Saved By Zero by The Fixx
Can you provide a link to those 300 pages proving that we're "going to pay and pay"?
No, just like you can't prove that's not the case - because NONE of that is public.
All you can do is react to past experience when hundreds of pages of regulations are about to affect something that was working quite well.
And I doubt those 300 pages are all about net neutrality
Good luck with blind faith in large organizations that do not care about anything but growing themselves. I'm sure it will end well for you.
Net neutrality is a simple concept.
It is, isn't it...
Now you are starting to catch on.
It's real within the metaphor.
Just think of Inception mixed with the Matrix.
This seems to be a complaint about the convenience of quickly collecting and/or processing, not necessarily about "breaking the rules". You seem to be mixing up multiple concerns here.
If she CC'd her messages "properly", it appears she can satisfy the rule as written, even if such would make life difficult for investigators. The rule said nothing about making data easy to collect.
Nobody has produced clear evidence so far that she failed to CC properly. I suspect there may have been times that she forgot every now and then, but that may not be enough to bust her on. They'd probably have to show malicious intent.
OK, no real technical data and some absurd claims here.
First all-digital transceiver? No. There have been others. Especially if you allow them to have a DAC and an ADC and no other components in the analog domain, but even without that, there are lots of IoT-class radios with direct-to-digital detectors and digital outputs directly to the antenna. You might have one in your car remote (mine is two-way).
And they have to use patented algorithms? Everybody else can get along with well-known technology old enough that any applicable patents are long expired.
It would be nicer if there was some information about what they are actually doing. If they really have patented it, there's no reason to hold back.
Personally, I don't see that any of these things as compelling practical advantages, given that the kids already have dual Swedish and Belgian (and therefore EU) citizenship. If they were Moldovan and South Sudanese, that'd be a different story. Or if they were citizens of a country from which getting a visa to enter the US might be difficult in the future.
But most importantly I think this is one of those decisions that you just don't make primarily on a cost-benefit basis. It's not like deciding to join Costco or subscribe to Hulu. Citizenship entails responsibilities. If you want your kids to shoulder those responsibilities and feel allegiance to the US then it makes sense to get them that citizenship come hell or high water. But given that they already have two perfectly good citizenships from two advanced western democracies with generally positive international relations worldwide, I don't see much practical advantage in adding a third.
Still, I wouldn't presume to give advice, other than this. The poster needs to examine, very carefully, that feeling he has that maybe his kids should be Americans. The way he expresses it, "sentimental reasons", makes those feelings seem pretty trivial, in which case it hardly matters if they don't become Americans. After all, most other Belgians seem to get along perfectly well without being Americans too. But if this is at all something he suspects he might seriously regret not doing, or if it nags him in ways he can't quite put his finger on, he needs to get to the bottom of that in a way random people on the Internet can't help him with.
Exactly. My being sanctimonious would make you hypocritically self-righteous.
Yes. They don't lose anything by becoming citizens (there are tax issues but they are pretty minor), and being a US citizen has a lot of advantages, like the support of US consulate services.
I'm a dual citizen (born American, obtained British citizenship while I lived there), and while my default position would be "you should grant them US citizenship as that opens up more options to them if they ever want to live in the US" (and despite the many issues, there are still good reasons to want to live here for many people), it should be said that the tax bullshit really is onerous, and renunciation would be expensive. It is like the US congress has built a financial Berlin wall around the country
It's not an easy question to answer, and as someone else suggested, I would involve your 16 or 17-year old child in the decision beforehand, with good financial and legal advice on the implications pro and con. Weighing the option of living here vs. the never-ending IRS headaches of living abroad--that's a tough one.
The bait is always something tasty, until you feel the hook... and find the bait that tempted you wasn't even real.
I for one am looking forward to my future, virtual, bikini-clad room mates.
What we got was at least the initial piece of what we wanted,
The fish gets a tasty worm.. along with a hook.
In time we shall see if the worm was even real.
... with some food for thought.
The ending '-eous' or '-ious' is added to a noun to produce an adjective that means producing whatever that noun is. Something that is 'advantageous' produces advantage for example. Something which is ignominious produce ignominy (shame, embarrassment). Something that is piteous arouses pity in the onlooker.
I think you see where I'm going with this. The word the headline writer should have used is 'nauseated', although making users nauseous in the pedantic sense would certainly be a concern for the developers of any product.