oxide

I'm glad that non-competes are being looked at with a stink-eye, I feel it's bullshit to ask someone to sign away their right to use their skills to make a living in exchange for...using their skills to make a living.

"If I can't have you, nobody can" is the long and short of a non-compete IMO, I don't feel that's an acceptable condition in any relationship.

Maybe I misunderstand what a non-compete is, but it seems relatively straightforward. I don't think an employer is entitled to that kind of benefit, especially considering loyalty to an employer is usually rewarded with indifference at best.

>On the other, there is a legitimate question about nations and foreign actors meddling in a sovereign state's electoral process, and the precedent that sets regarding international norms and established codes of conduct.

unless it happens to be of benefit of the candidate you support, of course. then it's all hunky-dory.

of course I'm just kidding. however, there are people that feel this way, and these folks definitely see the issue in black and white.

Fair enough.

Originally it was a flat out denial IIRC. The sudden recent mention of who cares is what raised a red flag for me, it didn't seem consistent with the original statement at all.

I could be wrong, but honestly, "who cares who did it" is a fishy enough govenrment response that it's hardly any wonder the Russians are being looked at funny.

Haven't the Russians just recently quietly changed gears? i.e. stopped denying it and changed the rhetoric to "why does it matter who leaked it?"

I doubt there is concrete, independently verified evidence, but I'm not sure how much more fishy the Kremlin could possibly be about the whole thing.

I usually don't mind giving the benefit of the doubt to people, but I don't tend to feel the same way about governments.

I think OP understands why Donald Trump is the Republican nominee. The question was why are you planning on voting for the Republican nominee.

If your answer is because you don't get to choose between the ideal candidate and Trump, that's fair enough, why go out of your way to talk down?

I agree, you'll likely puke if you are opiate-naive and try to "toss-n-wash" (swallow a spoonful of leaf with a thick juice) 1/3rd of an ounce of powdered kratom leaf.

someone like that should start with just a few grams, approximately a teaspoonful. it's also normal to not feel anything at all the first few times you take it.

for someone opiate dependent, that dose is enough to halt the physical symptoms of withdrawal and alleviate some of the emotional symptoms, albeit for a short time. if you want to quit opiate abuse badly enough, that's just about all you need.

I suppose I did start parroting what I said last time I commented here on kratom thread, yeesh.

I ought to have qualified it with a disclaimer if I was just going to repeat myself. I feel it's decent basic information on kratom for the uninitiated, but I didn't mean to parrot myself like that. It's been a long week.

My apologies, and thank you for clarifying.

as a matter of fact I just got around to installing an IRC client for the first time in years.

sorry about the line breaks.

It really isn't a course reversal, the people holding the purse strings seemed to have forced the DEA's hand into extending the period of public comment.

IIRC something similar happened with MDMA.

Hopefully folks like myself who have used Kratom to alleviate opiate withdrawal to great success will come forward and comment.

Anecdotally speaking, there are folks who have used kratom to ween themselves off of maintenance drugs like methadone and suboxone.

The withdrawals from long-acting maintenance opiates like these can last months making it nearly impossible to get off of them cold-turkey.

Switching to kratom, which has a shorter, more forgiving withdrawal, can be of great benefit to an addict looking to get off of these maintenance drugs.

For an addict, kratom stops withdrawals in their tracks. It doesn't get you high, and taking more to get high would be pointless.

To an opiate-naive individual kratom will at most give a mild buzz. It's not like taking heroin, hydrocodone, or even codeine. just a mild buzz.

Kratom is usually sold as a powdered leaf. You can't overdose on kratom, because if you take too much of the powdered leaf you just throw up, well before you're able to ingest a dangerous amount. It's very self-regulating in that way.

You can't smoke or snort the powdered leaf. It is usually swallowed as a powdered leaf with a thick juice or simply brewed into a tea.

>How do you stop it?

why not an anti-drone drone? would it be cost effective to fit a weapon capable of downing a drone onto a drone?

That's an excellent point, one I think is often overlooked.

I cannot know how many discoveries were founded on the backs of some other line of research, but what I do know is that things are discovered during the course of research.

Imagine the kind of applications the research into a livable Mars might yield. Our own infrastructure, agriculture and more could stand to benefit quite a bit here at home from the cash we invest looking towards the Red planet.

I don't honestly believe that the allocation of additional surveillance resources would have helped.

What's more likely, IMO, is that the crimes you described would never be solved even with millions of dollars in surveillance resources allocated to Oakland.

Also, this is one side of a story. Who's to say you aren't making things up, exaggerating, or even minimizing your provocation?

Do you think surveillance resources would have been best used solving a case of road rage? How many drones and cameras should have been used to bring justice to a mentally ill homeless man? Would you have preferred a helicopter was deployed to locate a damaged car that may or may not have struck your vehicle?

The truth about crime is that most of it goes unpunished, a fact every adult has to come to terms with eventually.

There aren't enough cameras in the world to stop a cop from filing your police report in a stack of paperwork and forgetting about it.

AFAIK, Saudis are a key ally in the region which is why we turn blind eyes to Riydah.

So, no, the US wants the current regime to stay and keep the status quo.

Losing the current regime could be bad news. Who's to say who and what fills the vacuum? Better to keep the current regime propped up than roll the dice and possibly lose.

There are no bones about the Saudis being every bit as undesirable a regime as some others.

To the average smuggler, it's a write off. To a dealer, at most an inconvenience. The end user is unaffected.

The only real value of a seizure like this is the political one IMO.

why shouldn't it? the phrase itself, in my mind, conjures up images of impossible patents and theoretical technology.

maybe I just have a good imagination, but when someone says "carbon capture" I imagine some sort of artillery sized vacuum we can point at the sky and turn on to start sucking carbon out of the atmosphere.

trees sound plenty viable. maybe it should be called tree planting instead.

is carbon capture actually viable? a completely carbon-free capturing method sounds like perpetual motion or free energy.

why aren't we finding and funding squads of 400 lb men to carry out our cyber will?

if Russia and China have squads of state-sponsored hackers, we ought to fight fire with 400 lbs of fire.

>computers and internet access also costs money, so does this mean that the introduction of these technologies presents an ethical problem, because the poorer part of the population may not be able to afford it, thus increasing inequality?

some folks argue yes, that internet access should be a basic human right.

The more I learn about this situation the more surprised I am.

George Carlin had a great bit about NIMBY-types, but in that bit the NIMBY-types, who don't want a prison built near them, have a "logical" viewpoint that he deconstructs: criminals don't hang around outside of a prison. Inmates who escape want to get as far away from the prison as possible, that's the point of escaping, after all.

From what I can tell, the NIMBY-types in SF only have...aesthetic concerns? is that really what is keeping housing from being built? concerns over an eyesore? I don't see the "logical" viewpoint that can be deconstructed here, no wonder it's such a headache.

If the problem is a political one, is the only solution to fight fire with fire? Politics is a slow turning ship, so I can't imagine the problem getting better any time soon for folks who's lives are affected most.

I'd probably just settle for a much longer commute if push came to shove, but I imagine that's not an option for everyone.

I'm fairly ignorant of the housing market in general, but from what I understand the problem in SF has more than one layer: the local government won't allow new housing to be built, the NIMBY crowd wants a one-story skyline across the entire bay, etc.

what is to be done to introduce new supply? the whole thing seems like a hell of a headache, I feel for folks trying to live in that area.

you should go implement this in Crash Bandicoot and make a youtube video of it.

Ah, see, I once made the mistake of purchasing "economy bacon" to save a buck only to find out what you just said.

there was a salty breakfast had that morning.

Yes. IMO the saltiness is a dealbreaker. Some regular bacons are borderline too salty for me though.

ah, fair enough.

I remember these guys from way back, when they originally didn't take Jim Sterling's criticism of Slaughtering Grounds very well. I forgot about them until they sued him, then forgot about them again until just now.

It's a fitting end to the story of Digital Homicide.

Completely deserved. Also, ironically enough, done by their own hand.

This is, simply put, a direct result of the Steam Greenlight system.

Since anyone with access to $100 and an asset pack is able to become a self-published con artist, it was only a matter of time before one of these con artists had enough money for a hired gun lawyer to try and silence what they perceive as attacks from users and critics.

The publisher is question is Digital Homicide. Enjoy a bit of the context and backstory below.

(to be viewed chronologically): [1] [2] [3] [4]

1) http://www.thejimquisition.com/the-jimquisition-the-slaughte...

2) http://www.thejimquisition.com/steam-vote-rigging-and-shady-...

3) http://www.thejimquisition.com/digital-homicide-and-the-case...

4) http://www.thejimquisition.com/the-jimquisition-homicide/

Good on Valve for taking action.

I have almost no marketable skills to speak of, how can I work remotely?

I'll take phone calls, answer questions from a script, whatever I have to do.

Also, what marketable skills should I focus on developing if I want to work remotely in an actual, skill-required job?

I'm not incompetent: I'm proficient in plenty of basic office software, I can troubleshoot/fix a computer, and I can type 90wpm. You know, the fundamentals.

Thank you in advance.

There is no censorship IIRC, the entire thing was overblown. (shocking, huh?)

if you put blacklisted words in your tags, description or title your video gets demonitized. It isn't censorship of content whatsoever.

Did you really think youtube bots were watching every second of monetized content looking for the f-word?