jterce

I wonder about all this talk and arguing back and forth over whether "it's a fake".

What this man is expressing is real. I can confirm it is real, because as a human I can feel many of the same things, as I read it. Whether he will die in 30 days or not, we don't know. And you can, of course, argue about that all day long. You might even be quite put out if he does not. But whether he is having these thoughts and feelings because he is about to die, or whether he is simply exploring these thoughts and feelings because he is a human (and facing death like us all), they are no less real. You may call one fiction because the man does not die on cue, but after reading it, I say it is not fake.

I believe the retransmitted quantum packet would be necessarily different from the original. So the receiving node notices that the packet has been modified, but because it expects the (secure) hub to modify the original, all is well.

> The problems occur when they're trying to do stuff on their local machines.

By all means, try to explain that to users if you like, and if you think they'd care. The issue is that it breaks the user experience, whatever technical reason you'd like to attribute that to.

Everything you just mentioned is more or less public by its very nature. Encryption wouldn't make any sense even were it feasible.

Yes, of course both are. But still, you're only ever going to be conscious from the perspective contained within the original you. The copy may be mathematically identical, but it does not make sense that there would be any kind of a magical transition of consciousness from one to the other. The other "you" would have its own consciousness entirely separate from yours. I.e., if you copy yourself and kill the original, you will lose consciousness. You will not wake up.

It makes many Americans increasingly angry as well.

That's very similar to the angle I'm taking with http://repwatch.us/

Still in development.

Frankly, anyone who has paid attention to what Paul has actually said or done in the last 20 years knows this in no way represents his views. In fact, quite the opposite, Paul is by far the most open and tolerant in the GOP field. The fact that some people are willing to focus on these says more about them than about Paul.

Agreed. It's the same as the "occupy" movement saying that corporations shouldn't influence government. It's true, but it's the politicians who are the problem. Everyone, the content providers included, should be representing their best interests to politicians. The burden is on the politicians to remain uncorrupted and to represent the best interests of their constituents to the fullest degree possible under law.

> not allowing those who have been born in fortuitous (and work ethic and abilities enhancing) circumstances to get so far ahead the less fortunate no longer have a chance to catch up.

I find this very troubling. Why should we prevent people from succeeding? I think rather than not allowing people to advance society would be better served by finding ways to help those behind advance. Also, why is it so important to catch up? Why cannot some do well and rise to the top while others do well (for their skill level) and not make it all the way to the top? What is so bad about that?

Do you realize that the "same percentage tax as middle-income earners" would be LOWER than what they currently pay?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States...

I think this would be much more appropriate.

15 years in technology is a lifetime. Enforcing a monopoly for so long ensures that there will be no real innovation/progress in that area. How can we, as a society, afford to be held back like this?

In so many areas progress would happen much faster if not hindered by legal threat.

> it's freaking 2011, we are not supposed to be dependent on other' people's irresponsibility.

I cannot think of any implementation of society where this could possibly be true. If you really feel this way you need to find yourself a deserted island and become completely self-sufficient.

It's really depressing that business today is less about innovation and competition and more about dirty legal practices to destroy other members of an industry.

This is some incredibly short-sighted zero sum game consideration. I hope we wake up and fix this before the state of innovation has been set back too many years.

> Harassing already-bought politicians does not fall into that category.

True indeed. The only thing to do with them is send them packing on the next off ramp. That's the idea behind a web app I'm developing: http://repwatch.us

You've got to be able to keep track of who needs to go and why.

I also received a very similar response from Jeff Sessions [R-AL].

I have that and about 12 sites on my Bluehost account.

Right, but the mirror would have to have been placed at least as far back as the half way point to where you want to see. If you want to see back two million years, you would have had to place the mirror one million years ago.

Right, so govtrack.us does a pretty good job providing information on activities in congress. It's a great research source.

This takes a very different approach.

RepWatch.us actively builds a profile of how accurately your reps advance your views based on the correlation of their votes on issues with yours.

It's essentially a way to illustrate a politician's actual stance compared to yours, and by so doing help counter the problem of our short political memory.

Most spam offers deals.

PHP is a tool. It's neither dead nor alive. Only your startup can be dead or alive. Stop worrying and start writing with whatever tools you like.

You're right. You're also slightly wrong.

Yes, labor is not exactly comparable in market terms to other products--more sticky prices, more difficulty in estimating value, etc.--but the principle and its consequences remain.

We DON'T HAVE to run PSAs to encourage people to become investment bankers precisely because there are high salaries. The salaries are the advertizement and they're incredibly effective.

As far as teachers, we don't have a shortage. We don't need more teachers, we need better teachers. How to attract those better teachers is unclear--a strictly higher salary would attract more of all caliber of teachers which would not help. I suppose commercials are thought to be one way and I think it's likely better compensation will have to be a part of it as well.

I wouldn't.

- "Its utterly ridiculous" "They well deserve it."

Why?

You seem to be forgetting the basics of economics. It really doesn't matter what you think they "deserve" or how hard you or they think it is to deal with the general public.

What matters is how many people could/would be willing to do their jobs. And the answer is quite a few, whereas there are many fewer people who could manage a McDonalds.

Thus demand is low for flight attendants, and thus the price is low.

I'm all for people negotiating for as much as they can get, but I certainly don't think it's ridiculous that the market offers different prices for different services.

Try and springboard off your existing contacts.

If you just finished university there should be some subset of people at the university who already know you in the context of tech (assuming tech was your major). Professors/administration either have projects or know plenty of people who do. Talk to everyone there you have rapport with.

This is where I'm at now. I developed quite a name for myself and my work while at university, and now six months after leaving I have more work than I can possibly do--almost without exception referrals from university contacts.

Yep, beautiful in FF 4.0.1

...and by "ready to ship" they mean "not ready to ship, but might be by the end of the month."

True, in general--but not so much in this case. If a client is paying you to be their expert, they will (usually) understand and expect that you know more than they in this area. Part of what they should be paying you for is your experience, advice and guidance.

This is an interesting insight.

Facebook/Twitter allow us to communicate the little things that are big in our own lives and see how much (little) those things really mean to others.

Should eventually have a bit of a reality check effect.

Keeping kids healthy is an absolutely unacceptable explanation for this.

I could think of more plausible reasons, but if the claim is taken at face value the direct implication is that schools have more authority to police kids health than parents. If this is the case, it would be perfectly logical to impose requirements for home diet as well.