Should set that as my startup sound so I can feel like it's 1996 again...

I haven't read anything on individualism being a root cause of poverty. I did a quick google search and found a couple things. One is the idea of "survival of the fittest", that those in poverty do it to themselves, and it's the individualist ideology that tells everyone "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" and as a result those who cannot receive no help. Is that the complaint against individualism?

If so, I completely understand that a self-centric position on society would most likely create an environment where poverty could easily manifest and consume the less-to-do of society. I do think some will allow it to happen to them, while others will resist but their current station in life (specifically class) won't allow them to escape poverty. A couple bad financial decisions and the banks won't make it easier on you. The poor are usually in the financial position where they receive higher interest rates they cannot afford, while the well off with good credit receive lower intrest rates. It seems unfair.

I do believe charitable actions would be higher in an individualist society. We already live in a nanny state which is counter to the individualist society. Sure, the majority of spending tends to go to defense spending, but that doesn't mean we don't currently have excessive social programs already in place to catch the fringe of society. And still we have poverty. Lots of it.

What happened? The government has its hands deeply embedded in the private economy, and restrictions and regulations are steep for startup entrepreneurs, while the larger corporations enjoy crony-capitalism. Translation: regulations and restrictions create a tilted playing field where larger corporations can easily succeed with less competition, thus less jobs are created by budding entrepreneurs. So the number of workers goes up while the number of job creators goes down. Eventually we could all be working for the big corporations, and with less competition they could lessen benefits such as health or vacation pay, they could easily lower wages, and they could then extend the expected work week from 40 hours to something like 100 hours. If that sounds farfetched, I can tell you from first hand experience I've seen this exact thing happen to an industry I know very well. And when I say big corporations, I mean major parent companies that buy large businesses. For instance, let's take the advertising industry. One parent company could own almost all of the major companies in that industry, so if you complain about the 100 hour work week and loss of vacation benefits, your chances of receiving another job in that industry are cut to almost zero. I've seen it. And they do illegal shit like tell women not to get pregnant.

This kind of corporatist entitlement is bad. And we got here through regulations, through a regimented government nanny system that is counterintuitive to free markets. And this makes it very hard on people to "pull themselves up by their bootstraps", which is what all individualists claim to want of people around them. How can you pull yourself up when you're essentially a slave to corporations? I don't know. But it's not getting better. The nanny system, in my opinion, is making it worse. The more we ask for, the less we get. And I say this because I see a very real connection between system created to help us (welfare) and regulations that help big business. I see it as being connected. Poverty perpetuated by big business and bankers.

If we could peel back the regulations and restrictions on industry, we would see a growth of jobs. We'd see a decline in corporate dominance. Most restrictions or regulations are created to stifle competition, not help the consumer, mind you. From there, I'd like to think people would generally do better, have better lives, and contribute charitably to others. Poverty will never be stricken from the planet, but we certainly could do more to help those in our community. That's where it starts. And when people feel they pay into a nanny system, they feel less generous to help those in front of them. I know, I see it every damn day in LA.

Yeah wow big deal. Startup with Adobe CS4/CS5 and all its helper apps in under 5 seconds and I will be impressed

Tags for this video have been changed from 'cockpit, startup, video game, realistic' to 'cockpit, startup, video game, realistic, flight simulator' - edited by xxovercastxx

Ah loved that show, for a time that intro was my windows startup theme, for a little dose of 70's space-disco pep

But you did start this off by saying you weren't into "hardwired buttons" because Windows isn't as solid as the OS on an ipod Touch.
I just don't think that makes any sense - what's the point of comparing them when they are so different?

The fact that phones use haptics suggests to me that the feedback from physical buttons is something that we all need and miss with touch devices. Personally I would like a real keyboard on my phone but getting that bigger screen seems like a fair trade-off. Maybe a slide-out keyboard is a future option for me.

>> ^jmd:

I wasn't refering to keyboards, neither the droids nore the iphones have a hardware keyboard. The majority of their interface use is not by typing either. I was concentrating more on the visual user interface..the windows themselves. The majority of Windows naggles are related to the operating systems upkeep of its internals and overhead, and how it handles application launches and such. The OS simply priorities the UI with the rest of the program, and that falls apart when under windows rules "It is acceptable to use most or even all cpu cycles for another program or windows upkeep process". Comparatively, the iphones/itouches put a bigger emphasis on making sure applications startup, run, and exit smoothly, and that video (interface visuals) does not lag or stutter while you are trying to use the touch screen to touch and move things.
Exiting 3d games has always been one of the most uggliest things in windows as a residual black window is left on the desktop for a second or more and the OS thrashes as swap memory of the windows that just became viewable is loaded into the freed memory. On the iphone on the other hand, while playing a 3d game, if I hit the home button the screen scales out and fades smoothly, and the audio slowly fades out. No pauses..no black screens..no sudden sound cut outs. It is extremely graceful. But that is enough of me rambling.

I wasn't refering to keyboards, neither the droids nore the iphones have a hardware keyboard. The majority of their interface use is not by typing either. I was concentrating more on the visual user interface..the windows themselves. The majority of Windows naggles are related to the operating systems upkeep of its internals and overhead, and how it handles application launches and such. The OS simply priorities the UI with the rest of the program, and that falls apart when under windows rules "It is acceptable to use most or even all cpu cycles for another program or windows upkeep process". Comparatively, the iphones/itouches put a bigger emphasis on making sure applications startup, run, and exit smoothly, and that video (interface visuals) does not lag or stutter while you are trying to use the touch screen to touch and move things.

Exiting 3d games has always been one of the most uggliest things in windows as a residual black window is left on the desktop for a second or more and the OS thrashes as swap memory of the windows that just became viewable is loaded into the freed memory. On the iphone on the other hand, while playing a 3d game, if I hit the home button the screen scales out and fades smoothly, and the audio slowly fades out. No pauses..no black screens..no sudden sound cut outs. It is extremely graceful. But that is enough of me rambling.

I have a suspicion that Green technology is the next boom market.

I'm sure somewhere there is a fledgling 'solar thermal' or 'tidal energy' startup that will be the next Microsoft... But i don't have the confidence to invest

>> ^MaxWilder:
Actually, there is a part of me that says: If they own the lines, why shouldn't they control what goes over it however they want?
Of course I know all the reasons for net neutrality, such as encouraging innovation and preventing large businesses from stifling small startups. But if I owned parcel shipping service, I wouldn't want the government to tell me I couldn't charge extra for priority service. You could apply the same metaphor to any number of other services. Some amusement parks allow people to buy expensive VIP tickets that cut to the head of lines. Direct flights might cost more than a flight with a bunch of connections, and the concord was really pricey. All those examples make sense.
Why does the same thing not apply to internet service providers, except for the fact that we are accustomed to net neutrality and will be pissed if things change? I'm actually a little torn on this issue.


That's because you seem to be confused about the issue.

To take your parcel service analogy and put it into the correct context, think of it not as charging an individual more for different teirs of shipping priority, but more like charging amazon.com one rate with next day delivery, and newegg.com the same rate and shipping everything ground.

When I see things like Net Neutrality being fought so hard against by the cable and telephone companies, I really start to think that if any industry needs to be taken over by the government it's them. Some countries have gone so far as to make unrestricted internet access a right of their citizenry, pushing prices down and bandwidth up. But I forget we can't do that in the US, that'd cut into the massive corporate profits and that's just plain UNAMERICAN!

>> ^MaxWilder:
Actually, there is a part of me that says: If they own the lines, why shouldn't they control what goes over it however they want?
Of course I know all the reasons for net neutrality, such as encouraging innovation and preventing large businesses from stifling small startups. But if I owned parcel shipping service, I wouldn't want the government to tell me I couldn't charge extra for priority service. You could apply the same metaphor to any number of other services. Some amusement parks allow people to buy expensive VIP tickets that cut to the head of lines. Direct flights might cost more than a flight with a bunch of connections, and the concord was really pricey. All those examples make sense.
Why does the same thing not apply to internet service providers, except for the fact that we are accustomed to net neutrality and will be pissed if things change? I'm actually a little torn on this issue.


In part, it's because they want things both ways. They want to keep the special protections they get for being common carriers (i.e. they're not responsible for the content in the pipes), but they also want to be able to monitor that content and charge differently for different sources/uses. Common carriers are called that precisely because they don't differentiate among the content they carry...if they do differentiate, then by definition, they're no longer common carriers. At that point, they become liable for all the child porn and terrorist speech they transmit.

On a different tack, I shudder to think of the added complexity when they try to handle billing and routing based on both endpoints of every connection. Reliability of the internet would hit an all-time low.

Actually, there is a part of me that says: If they own the lines, why shouldn't they control what goes over it however they want?

Of course I know all the reasons for net neutrality, such as encouraging innovation and preventing large businesses from stifling small startups. But if I owned parcel shipping service, I wouldn't want the government to tell me I couldn't charge extra for priority service. You could apply the same metaphor to any number of other services. Some amusement parks allow people to buy expensive VIP tickets that cut to the head of lines. Direct flights might cost more than a flight with a bunch of connections, and the concord was really pricey. All those examples make sense.

Why does the same thing not apply to internet service providers, except for the fact that we are accustomed to net neutrality and will be pissed if things change? I'm actually a little torn on this issue.

Judging by what they show the guy playing with during startup, there's only one engine in the model, in the main fuselage. The nacelles seem to be just for cosmetics.

Still, coolest shit I've seen. Bling in its purest form.

^I don't think you have researched this topic enough to make accurate conclusions.

Chickens can eat grass, which if you have a yard which you would otherwise have to mow every week, is a free source of chicken food.

You will never be able to buy produce for cheaper then you can produce it yourself. Even if you have to grow it indoors and pay electricity it would be cheaper.

You say that 10 square meters is impossible to grow $1800 of food a year. If you space, tomato plants for example, so that each takes 0.5 meters squared, you can grow 20 plants in a 10 square meter area. Using aeroponics, each plant matures in approximately 10 days. Mature tomato plants can produce up to 20-30 lbs of fruit, so with this modest setup you could achieve:

20 plants x 36 harvests x 20/30 lbs fruit = 14,400 lbs min/21,600 lbs max of tomatoes per year. Sold at $2 a lb, that would be $28,800-$43,200 a year.

aeroponics recycles both water and fertilizer, so your costs would be very low. Using new LED grow lights, you can cover approximately 1 square meter for only 30 watts. So a 10 meter squared setup would require 300 watts of grow lights running 12 hours a day 365 days a year (just to compare, your computer uses 400-600+ watts).

Energy costs: 300 watts * 12 hours * 365 days / $0.05 per kilowatt hour = $65.70 annual cost.

Yearly profit after startup costs: $28,800 - $65.70 = $28,734.30

To make $1800, you would only have to harvest 3 times a year with all 20 plants, or harvest 10 times a year with only 5 plants (2.5 meters squared). Even with only a single meter squared, you could make $2,880 a year if you harvested all 36 times.

The science is there...you just aren't taking advantage of it

*As an aside, why are you arguing with me over well documented information? Presumably you have the internet, why don't you use it?

>> ^enemycombatant:
At 2:30, was he pointing at the Windows startup prompt that asks if you want to start normally or in safe mode?!


Yup =)

At 2:30, was he pointing at the Windows startup prompt that asks if you want to start normally or in safe mode?!