However as the summary stated: "If they get cut, then layoffs might be next"

So very true. Look, soda, junk food, coffee? How much does any of that cost? A few bucks here and there? You are right, its nothing, you can afford all of that on your salary now if you want it right?

But.... flip it around....its really cheap. So why take it away? If the company is hurting for cash, ending soda and coffee is such a small change that its not going to actually help anything. If the company is THAT strapped.... its time to worry.

Even if you don't take advantage of it, I would be wary of a company that cuts ANY perk that doesn't cost them much. In fact, I would just be worried about them cutting any perk at all, because it really shows what their priorities are, and... a change in the priority of "be an attractive place to work to employees" is a serious red flag.

I agree but, isn't the opposite also true? Just because its tax doesn't mean its good either.

I applaud them for every dollar they save from the grubby hands of the warmongering, US government that gleefully cuts education before its murder machine. This country doesn't deserve loyal taxpayers. This country deserves to take on the population of greece so they can show us how to really avoid tax like champs.

If they sold something other than crappy walled gardens, this might make me want to buy their products.

Hard? Nah they are easy to "track", the problem is, the tracking pretty much relies on someone being a bit careless.

Thing is, every bitcoin address is a public key, so they are anonymous, anyone can generate a new address. So each new transaction, to a new account, is nearly impossible to "track". You just don't know if the coins changed hands or not, nor do you know which one.

Lets say there are X bitcoins in account A. A new transaction is generated sending Y bitcoins to account B and Z bitcoins to account C.

That is a standard transaction as the client sends extra coins to new addresses as "change". Which is the change, which didn't change hands? How do you know?

Don't get me wrong, it happens and has, I tracked down who stole some bitcoins once, thing is, I did it on the other side because the person in question mixed a number of coins together before another transaction, and some of those coins came from an address he had posted on a forum for "tips".

So basically you can follow them backwards to a transaction that can be attributed or watch them going forwards until one, but, you can't actually be sure that it is going to happen or that it is going to lead back to the right person...unless they make a mistake...which is also easy enough.

Though, I, for one, am hoping he doesn't screw up, I like Lulzsec more than I like the FBI. If I could take the money I am forced to give the FBI every year, and give it to Lulzsec instead...I would.

The directions this sort of research could be taken next are so amusing.
First, A potentially communicable source of disease resistance. Nose picking: Beneficial Adaptation for both picking up AND spreading immunity?

> When I built my house, I was frustrated with my previous 1960's house that had 2 receptacles per
> room. I said, hell with it, code says 6 feet, I'll make it 4. Note that thinking CORRECTLY, that would
> have made it 8 feet between outlets.

1960's! Oh the luxury!

My house was built to the 90s codes...that is... 1890s. Original lighting in the house was gas lamp. A friend of mine, was at his grandmother's house up the road and was messing with an old gas lamp fixture and found....it was still connected to live gas!

With horse hair plaster walls, and a house that was built before electricity, I am just happy everything was converted to 3 prongs and breakers...and that the vast majority (if not quite all) of the old cloth covered wire is gone. (though, I did personally kill one of the few remaining circuits recently, not even sure what it went to, but after it was off for a year from the breaker and nobody complained, I cut it out of the box and capped off the old run with glee)

> A little bug spray easily manages crazy ants. Bifenthrin or Pyrethrum based insecticides are highly effective.
> Fire-ant bait is ineffective because they aren't fire ants, thank God.

I haven't had to deal with "crazy" ants, but I had good luck with pyrenthum on a nasty ant problem once. A friend of mine was living in a dorm and came over my place. He brought a pizza box with a number of leftover slices, that had been in his dorm room. We set that in the kitchen and went to hang out in the other room. I walk into the kitchen to a horror: a swarm of ants, centering on the box, and in a solid mass covering the table, table leg, and portion of the floor.

I had some pyrenthum spray labeled for kitchen use, so I grabbed it and sprayed. The effect was immediate and complete. The writhing mass of spreading ants came to an immediate halt. Killed every single one as fast as I could spray it.

> The idea that scientists though the Earth was flat in the 1800s is the most ridiculous thing I have read on slashdot, I have a 5 digit ID!!!

In the poster's defence, he actually said that this was the opinion in 1490, not the 1800s. Still incorrect but, is a more understandable point of confusion since it was before the general public really had had it shown and explained to them. His point about the 1800s was about the existence of germs.

And looking for some citations on this in wiki...it seems I may have confused the geocentric/heliocentric world with the flat earth, even the church talked about the roun earth. Thomas Aquinas (who died in the 1200s) said:
"The physicist proves the earth to be round by one means, the astronomer by another: for the latter proves this by means of mathematics, e.g. by the shapes of eclipses, or something of the sort; while the former proves it by means of physics, e.g. by the movement of heavy bodies towards the center, and so forth."

> Most scientists believed the earth was flat. In the mid 1800's 99% of leading scientists did not
> believe in microbes. Louis Pasteur did. Consensus is meaningless.

Not true. By the 1490s, it had already been pretty well established that the earth was round. It was the uneducated masses and official church dogma that this was not true, and this created a climate where openly saying the earth was round was not exactly a safe position to take.

So while it may not have been en vogue to say the earth was round, privately, amongst those who did study the issue, it was allready known.

Exactly. The fear is actually quite justified too. Do we really think that, just because we eventually got over our fear of people with HIV, that there will never again be a disease that imparts significant social stigma? Not only that, but, if people have access to our records, they can make decisions behind our back.

Didn't get that job? Was it because of your medical record? They aren't going to tell you. If they did give you a reason, you would be daft to believe they told the truth.

Lets also not forget, a lot of this is similar to the FISA courts: it doesn't exist because some academic had an argument....it came about because of abuses. My mother and I both have worked at a major hospital; her in a clinical setting, me in IT.

The SINGLE most common reason for a person to get fired, not 20 years ago, but TODAY, is still unauthorized access to medical records. People look up celebrities, people look up their friends, look up their family members, look up their neighbors....and these are trained professionals with access to the system who have been told not to do it; and warned that the system is being audited.

Thing is, the audits came about because they found this was rampant. Princess Di came in for treatment once. The number of people who looked up her records just for their own curiosity was alarming. That is the sort of thing that started it, not just that but, people have lost jobs over illnesses. People have felt violated when their private medical details ended up the gossip of the town.

Sure, thats the real problem. Nobody should have to be ashamed of their medical condition, no condition really deserves stigma. Until that stigma is gone and people feel safe talking voluntarily, I am very much against taking their choice as to whether they let the world know away.

I talk freely about my own medical issues, but.... thats my choice. I will tell you I sleep with a CPAP machine, or about the lump I just had removed from my face. I feel no shame either. However, if you came up to me and told me that you read it in my medical records, you had better be my doctor, or else you better hope I can compose myself before I punch you.

> on the other hand, it wasn't too long ago people were bemoaning flight simulators as "terrorism trainers".

Really? People were were they? Anyone doing that has less of a grip on reality than the people who think they are personally Napoleon. I don't see why their opinion needs much consideration. May as well just say "on the other hand, some people are crazy and stupid".

I actually wasn't considering how prepared different groups were at all, not sure how or why that makes a difference. Its all about ensuring and protecting specific jobs and the business models that creates them.

Apparently doing business more efficiently is "unfair" now. Guessing this means "fairness" is defined as "works the same as we expected before we had current technology". Kind of like how buying refridgerators was unfair to ice harvesters....a perfect example of what happens when the government doesn't step in and restore fairness....now we all have to make our own ice because there is nobody to harvest natural ice for us.... so sad.

But its ok, because you can use those increased arrests to claim the problem is getting worst and you need stricter standards and more enforcement.

The problem is, I think, really one of measurement. We know how to measure reaction time and certain other things, then we call those "impairment", and talk about it as a few deviations in those few statistics and "impairment" are the same thing.

What about the study that found people who got in accidents with cell phones actually drove differently than other drivers, took more risks, and got in more accidents...even without cell phones. In fact, while most drivers using a phone drive more cautiously, these individuals actually drove less cautiously.

The problem isn't reaction time, its judgement, which is a problem because its very hard to measure directly and put a number on.... but, the evidence I have been looking at leads me to think it is a much more important factor than raw reaction time. A good driver doesn't rely on raw reaction time to keep him safe, and again... thats a judgement issue

And the key word there is "Associated".

Do you know what kind of depravity Dihydrogen monoxide exposure has been "associated" with?

- Nearly 100% of all felons were exposed to Dihydrogen Monoxide within just hours prior to their arrest.
- DHMO use is almost universal amongst child rapists.
- DHMO exposure actually kills children
- DHMO is dangerously addictive, killing most addicts who attempt to abstain from it within just 3 days!

Hows that for association?