Your showing your age Grandpa. It's not called Ecstasy anymore, it's Molly.

I am using healthcare as an example to show that the statement "It's up to you as a free fucking human being to figure out how much you can handle and how much you want to work." is false. It is not up to me as a human being to figure out how much work I can handle and how much work I want to do. It is up to my requirements to live. I need to afford food, water, shelter, etc. If I cannot afford those things I die. This is directly related to the current US healthcare model, or at least the one that our politicians in power favor... if you can't afford to pay for healthcare, you die.

So, you're saying that these people don't exist because you haven't met him? Are you saying that there aren't people working for minimum wage or less who are trying to live a life from that income? I realize that, yes, this is a fabricated situation, but clearly, these kinds of peopl exist, so we can explore the details of this abstract idea. If you are just worried about you and your situation, that's fine, it's a conservative stance, and it's one that I personally don't agree with. It puts the burden of survival squarely on the individual's shoulders. Not everyone is able to do the things that you can do, and I don't need a concrete example of this. There exist people who are more capable than you are, and also there are people less capable than you are. The gamut will run from the most capable to the least capable. Are we to assume that the least capable people should not survive because their skill set doesn't allow them to earn a livable wage? Requiring concrete factual examples of things in order to discuss possible outcomes isn't realistic. We have to assume that these situations exist, or have a possibility of existing so that we can be proactive with thinking up possible solutions, instead of waiting until we have already experienced the situations to start coming up with damage control reactive solutions.

Exactly, we aren't talking about YOU in particular. We are talking about the masses who are wage takers. The ones who don't have the ability to dictate their terms of employment because they don't have the skills necessary to do that. Ideally, they would have those skills, or be able to enroll in training programs to teach those skills. In short, I'm not worried about you. I'm worried about the guy whose only option is to take whatever job is available, and the competition that he faces for that job, which will inevitably push wages down to their lowest possible point.

And what about those people who make mistakes and have to deal with the consequences... Should people have to live awful lives working themselves to death because of a bad decision decades ago? Isn't that like saying to sick people "Fuck you, pay for medical care or die. You shouldn't have gotten sick in the first place, and this all could have been avoided"? Not everyone has the aptitude that you have, does that mean that they need to be relegated to a life of wage slavery, working more and more for less and less just to not starve to death?

Yes, ideally this would work. However, if you are charging X and your competition is charging 0.1X, you're not going to get any business until you drop your rates to theirs.

Good luck buying stuff to make lunch getting paid a Fiverr an hour. Forget about eating out anywhere for that amount of money. Oh, you could hold out for higher pay, but those people who are willing to work for shit wages because they can't starve will be constantly undercutting you, meaning that you'll have to take shit wages or starve.

It's even worse than not using TOR. Combetta used the same handle "stonetear" that he used in multiple other places on the internet. (Etsy, Gmail, etc.)

I applied this morning, and less than an hour later I was approved. I essentially put in the same information as you did, it seems very easy to get accepted.

It's possible, but you'd need to severely curtail the losses that occur when pushing electricity across long distances. I think this can be done using superconductors, but they're very expensive.

I completely agree. If IT has to work through the night to fix an issue, they're still expected to be there the next morning for their regular work hours. This has happened to me several times, but it's the way of things. I hate it, but I get paid well enough to just grin and bear it.

I used to manage a GameStop, and for the hourly employees they were all but required to get this form of payment. The real shitty thing is that most ATMs require you to withdrawl in $20 denominations. A few will let you do $10, but rarely can you go lower than that. For these part time hourly employees, sometimes their paychecks would be ~$50, making it difficult to get to that last bit of money which consequently could make up a significant percentage of their overall paycheck. They're total BS, and I empathize with anyone who has to get paid using such a draconian method.

I used to work for a small private equipment reliability company. The culture was great and I enjoyed working for the owners. Eventually, they sold the company to a large publicly owned company. The first things that they cut were the free sodas, and every developer with any coding experience jumped ship because they all saw that things were going downhill. About 6 months after the free sodas were cut, they started laying off people throughout the company. (Un)fortunately, the particular office I left didn't have any lay-offs because most of the developers already left.

From TFA "This can be useful to international travellers who need their phones to work on different networks. Other people just like the freedom of being able to switch carriers as they please." So besides blatantly stepping on a customer's rights, what is the main detriment of this law? For the average consumer, which isn't the typical slashdot reader, they would have no idea about any of this. For the typical slashdot reader, this could be annoying, especially for travel, but in the end it doesn't seem like unlocking a phone would save you any substantial amount of money, considering that you'd get hit with an early termination fee for switching carriers after unlocking your phone. For the majority of you, is unlocking your phone about saving money, or just about the funsies of playing with the tech toys?

No, you can leave off a return address on the letters you mail out, but each letter is stamped with the ID of the post office that processed it which can help narrow down where the letter came from.