It's been a while but last time I checked it was just a certain karma threshold. The idea was to prevent newly registered accounts from spamming downvotes.
But again, haven't actively participated in HN for a while. Things could be different now.
Your numbers are off in essentially every area. Car payment is $200-$250 a month, insurance is $100 a month, gas is $50 a month, and call it an amortized $100 a month for repairs and other expenses. In total, an average car costs $500 a month. And never mind the cost for parking. In contrast, passes for public transportation cost somewhere from $50-$100, _but_ you can usually get them subsidized and/or pre-tax. In Boston, I'm able to get an unlimited pass through my employer for $35 pre-tax a month and my car costs me $500 post-tax a month. In major cities, cars are strictly a luxury. Note, I bought one a few months ago and couldn't be happier, but I'm under no illusions: it is a luxury.
If you are getting a T pass for $35 then your company is just paying for a portion of it; some companies give it to their employees for free, but that doesn't mean it's free.
That said, a T-pass is $70/month and most people can pay that pre-tax. Still considerably less than car ownership.
It was already legal under the DMCA (at least, according to the spirit of the law). Apple and the RIAA just wanted you to believe otherwise. The language has simply been clarified so overzealous companies can't easily scare consumers.
not a lot of folks would want people videotaping everything they did at work
Did you know if you get a Top Secret clearance, you have to have anything related to your work release reviewed for the rest of your life? Being awarded privileges by the government comes with additional responsibility. Videotaping the police is the same as monitoring people who work with classified information; it's just part of the job. If someone is uncomfortable with that s/he should find a different job.
I was thinking that the law may only apply to audio recordings as security cameras without such recordings are able to record without breaking the law. So the reality is they are already subject to the similar levels of monitoring.
PS: If that's the case it seems like cop/cam might be a marketable product.
I don't know about that, but you do see notices all the time that say things like,
"Use of this or any other DoD interest computing system constitutes consent to monitoring at all times. . . information placed in this system is not subject to any expectation of privacy."
It just comes with the territory. Some jobs are more private, some are more public. Bank tellers, customer service reps, talk show hosts, members of Congress. They all get recorded routinely while working, and for different reasons.
Seems to me police interactions are a natural thing to make part of the public record.
Unlike bank tellers, customer service reps, and cops, talk show hosts and members of Congress often seek those careers largely because of the public attention involved, not in spite of it.
I can confirm it. Anything you want to release that is even tangentially related to cleared work needs to go through the gov't first to vet it for classified info.
That's not true for life and not true just because you have a TS. It is true for certain compartmentalized programs and their ilk, but a GENSER TS does not bear this responsibility. It merely acknowledges that you've had a NAC and an SSBI performed - nothing more.
You might be interested in reading this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_in_English#Modern_Englis.... As third person singular personal pronouns, he and he/she are both acceptable in the dual gender case. If we're going to be strictly PC we should say gender-neutral, but A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language was written in 1985, so I hope you let it pass. :)
A note for when you go to college: On the surface college may seem like it rewards risk even less than high school. Don't be fooled. You just have to intelligently optimize your GPA (I wrote about optimization a bit here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1132222). If you take this approach, the challenge is no longer getting offered a job, but getting the interview in the first place. I've been offered a job for every interview I've had, but damn did I have to work hard to get my foot in the door. Once you DO get your foot in the door, you're pretty much guaranteed the job because your risk taking puts you many technical miles ahead of the competition. I hope (but have no empirical evidence yet) that the same effect will be true when applying to graduate school. Just use your ingenuity to get around the screening process. :)
EDIT: One last thing I thought of. You may be one of those people that will be able to get a 4.0 GPA and have time to work on creative processes. Your 4.0 GPA is still a waste of time. There is always more you can do that is ultimately more impressive than a high GPA (i.e. publishing in competitive conferences, starting a highly technical and useful open source project, working on the Linux/BSD kernel, etc).
This was generally my philosophy in high school. So I fully understand your point. The honors program I'm in requires a 3.5 but I never realized how fulfilling undergraduate research can be. That's definitely something I will look in to.
I should have qualified. The only reason that might be reasonable to maintain a high GPA is an honors program or some other program with an arbitrary GPA requirement (i.e. 5 years BS/MS http://www.cs.vt.edu/undergraduate/degrees/5yr-BS-MS).
I will say that I started my college career in the honors program and on the 5 year BS/MS track. I just couldn't wait long enough to start doing real work. ;)
For that it's worth, the DoD doesn't actually define "cyber warfare". In fact, in 2006 it depreciated the concept of "information warfare" (http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/new_pubs/jp3_13.pdf). The closest concept the DoD has is "cyber operations" which are meant to "operate and defend the Global Information Grid" (http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/new_pubs/jp1_02.pdf). Personally I don't think Scheiner focused enough on the fact that "cyber war" is essentially a media construction.
