The recruiter or employer should have balls enough to say something like "The very best you're going to get out of this process is a rejection letter, so now that you are fully informed you can make your own decision."
Yeah. It happens a lot. I advocate a universal code for "this is a legal requirement only"
We should treat these transactions with respect when we are not being respected by our opposites? Fuck that.
Yes, you should. If you can treat even jerks with respect, it says good things about you. Not that you should let them walk all over you, but you should treat them with basic respect.
I mean, if I cannot live up to an obligation I make, even if it's to show up at a place and time, I consider that to reflect on me. Now, if you wanna send an email that says "I got another job" or "I decided to stay at my old job" or whatever and let them know, that's a different story.
Why would they insert other ads? This isn't a revenue grab. It's defensive against the Disney/Fox/Marvel streaming service about to start up (or the super-beefed up Hulu.) They need to have IP up and running that people want.
Planned obsolescence for style reasons is opt-in. It let's people choose to replace or not. Planned obsolescence via build quality is something else. Heck, even if for style reasons, better build quality means higher resale value.
The longer the cards last the more money they make so the miners treat the GPU's like tender infants and take great pains to cool them properly.
If the next gen of cards produces a significant boost in performance, they'll upgrade anyway. If the GPUs have any life left in them, that's money left on the table.
What you may mean is they have to take great pains to cool them so they last until the next gen is out (since they run 24/7 at max speed.) But that makes them last longer than they otherwise would, not longer than in someone's normal computer. Heck, the "average" GPU probably is used for decoding Netflix streams.
You lose money you could have earned. Shareholders lose money they already earned and invested. A CEO will not get poorer over the course of his employment, just less rich.
Most of our conservatives, in the context of history, are fairly Left-leaning. They support egalitarianism in politics and society; the only area they do not support it is the economy...
Except for gay marriage, voting rights, felon disenfranchisement, prayer in school, mandatory standing for the national anthem, etc. And, depending on where the line is drawn for "most conservatives", active and vocal parts are significantly against equality with regard to gender, race and religion.
...[the economy,] where they insist on free markets instead of enforced socioeconomic equality.
I've never heard of anyone serious wanting enforced equality. To say those are the two positions is stupid and wrong.
My local cable company encrypts and DRMs public domain programs, so you have to buy their PVR
Under (US) Federal Law, they have to rent you a decryption device (CableCard) compatible with other DVRs. It's usually $5/mo. It's one area the US seems to actually protected consumers.
The court's not sure it should care. It's a preliminary injunction, until the case is complete. Which means the judge was convinced (to some level) that Take-Two could win the case and that it would suffer "irreparable harm" (in driving people off the online game) while the case happened.
Now, I have no idea if Take-Two is liable for damages the injunction causes if they lose the case.
A mail guy or someone working a front desk? Come on, they are not offering much real value and pay should be commensurate with that basic fact
Unless, as a person, we want to pay them enough money to eat food, etc. I suppose food stamps can provide some assistance, but it seems most people who oppose paying a living wage also oppose food stamps.
It's not civics, it's awards. To qualify for the Oscars, for example, movies need a theatrical release. Owning theaters is a great way to ensure a theatrical release.
Facebook is the fifth-most-valuable company in the world. While that may seem dumb to you, it means they could absorb, say, Disney and Ford and give up half of Facebook (numbers guesses, but probably accurate enough).
Yeah, FB could fail as a network, which is why FB as a company is so intent on buying the next hot thing: Instagram, WhatsApp, Snapchat(failed there). And investing in whatever else seems like the future: Oculus.
but if you created something cool and want to stay in control of it, why sell?
Two reasons. One is obviously for the money. The other is because otherwise you're facing a sustained competition with a huge company. Which is pretty hard, and can easily leave you with nothing (or a lot less than selling out.) I mean, a case study is to look at Snapchat vs. Instagram.
Not that Snapchat's founders seem upset to have lost ? billions in return for staying independent, but it was a real choice.
They asked for only a fraction (albeit a high one) of what they got. For instance, the Navy asked for one ship (of some type), and got three. The Army asked for no more tanks, is getting a bunch, etc.
You do realize that they can chose to not live in California, no?
Sure I do. And if they decide to move, maybe California will change it's laws to keep them. I'm not a particular fan of this law, but I am a fan of states being able to regulate the companies who do business within them. Otherwise, people who want to live in an area where, I dunno, businesses have to hire 10% homeless people or businesses have to allow open carry or whatever cannot exist. Some laws (and I think both of my prior examples) are stupid. But that's different from not allowing them in the first place.
Well, that just meant they lost a lot of future business in the space launch industry to Texas, Colorado, Florida, Arizona, etc.
Quite possibly, they decided they didn't want the space launch industry. I mean, it's a rational choice to make.
I believe that if California did not have such great weather that they'd have gone bankrupt a long time ago by now.
Business associations say the rule would... conflict with corporate law that says the internal affairs of a corporation should be governed by the state law in which it is incorporated. This bill would apply to companies headquartered in California.
I'm all for states regulating companies that do business within them. I mean, I get that all of Silicon Valley decided to incorporate in Delaware, but they live in California. Let California regulate them.
How many investigative stories chronicling all the privacy invading shit Facebook does will Facebook withstand. Cause it would be trivial to have a month-long news cycle "discovering" and announcing new policies.
Also if any lock picks where seen hotel security called the cops and those persons were arrested. For those that don't know Defcon has an entire lockpicking pavilion.
Lockpicks are illegal for an individual to own in five states as sufficient evidence that one is planning/attemptting to commit a crime (Nevada is one of them). For those who don't know, state law trumps convention events.
You should also avoid Mississippi, Ohio, Tennessee and Virgina.
Not the physical chain, unconnected deadbolt, etc. that every hotel room I've been in has had some version of. Precisely to lock out maids/people with a master key.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't you do a lot of advocacy work that requires coordinating with lawyers? Aren't lawyers using encrypted emails?
Well, it's going to get my phone number into Google's hands, together with my email. That's going to let them link a lot more data to me.
Yeah. It happens a lot. I advocate a universal code for "this is a legal requirement only"
Yes, you should. If you can treat even jerks with respect, it says good things about you. Not that you should let them walk all over you, but you should treat them with basic respect.
I mean, if I cannot live up to an obligation I make, even if it's to show up at a place and time, I consider that to reflect on me. Now, if you wanna send an email that says "I got another job" or "I decided to stay at my old job" or whatever and let them know, that's a different story.
Why would they insert other ads? This isn't a revenue grab. It's defensive against the Disney/Fox/Marvel streaming service about to start up (or the super-beefed up Hulu.) They need to have IP up and running that people want.
Planned obsolescence for style reasons is opt-in. It let's people choose to replace or not. Planned obsolescence via build quality is something else. Heck, even if for style reasons, better build quality means higher resale value.
If the next gen of cards produces a significant boost in performance, they'll upgrade anyway. If the GPUs have any life left in them, that's money left on the table.
What you may mean is they have to take great pains to cool them so they last until the next gen is out (since they run 24/7 at max speed.) But that makes them last longer than they otherwise would, not longer than in someone's normal computer. Heck, the "average" GPU probably is used for decoding Netflix streams.
You lose money you could have earned. Shareholders lose money they already earned and invested. A CEO will not get poorer over the course of his employment, just less rich.
If it's one employee, maybe. If it's a large percentage of your employees, maybe the new work isn't worth replacing a large chunk of your workforce.
Except for gay marriage, voting rights, felon disenfranchisement, prayer in school, mandatory standing for the national anthem, etc. And, depending on where the line is drawn for "most conservatives", active and vocal parts are significantly against equality with regard to gender, race and religion.
I've never heard of anyone serious wanting enforced equality. To say those are the two positions is stupid and wrong.
I mean, anything can be hacked, sure. But some things are harder than others. It's why Windows 98 has more security issues seLinux
Under (US) Federal Law, they have to rent you a decryption device (CableCard) compatible with other DVRs. It's usually $5/mo. It's one area the US seems to actually protected consumers.
Brilliant Crooks make you believe the implausible numbers. Whatever else you want to say about Facebook, the people running it are brilliant
The court's not sure it should care. It's a preliminary injunction, until the case is complete. Which means the judge was convinced (to some level) that Take-Two could win the case and that it would suffer "irreparable harm" (in driving people off the online game) while the case happened.
Now, I have no idea if Take-Two is liable for damages the injunction causes if they lose the case.
Unless, as a person, we want to pay them enough money to eat food, etc. I suppose food stamps can provide some assistance, but it seems most people who oppose paying a living wage also oppose food stamps.
It's not civics, it's awards. To qualify for the Oscars, for example, movies need a theatrical release. Owning theaters is a great way to ensure a theatrical release.
I'm sorry, are you saying that a system that forcibly takes people's houses (raising the supply of homes on the market) will somehow drive prices up?
Facebook is the fifth-most-valuable company in the world. While that may seem dumb to you, it means they could absorb, say, Disney and Ford and give up half of Facebook (numbers guesses, but probably accurate enough).
Yeah, FB could fail as a network, which is why FB as a company is so intent on buying the next hot thing: Instagram, WhatsApp, Snapchat(failed there). And investing in whatever else seems like the future: Oculus.
Two reasons. One is obviously for the money. The other is because otherwise you're facing a sustained competition with a huge company. Which is pretty hard, and can easily leave you with nothing (or a lot less than selling out.) I mean, a case study is to look at Snapchat vs. Instagram.
Not that Snapchat's founders seem upset to have lost ? billions in return for staying independent, but it was a real choice.
They asked for only a fraction (albeit a high one) of what they got. For instance, the Navy asked for one ship (of some type), and got three. The Army asked for no more tanks, is getting a bunch, etc.
Sure I do. And if they decide to move, maybe California will change it's laws to keep them. I'm not a particular fan of this law, but I am a fan of states being able to regulate the companies who do business within them. Otherwise, people who want to live in an area where, I dunno, businesses have to hire 10% homeless people or businesses have to allow open carry or whatever cannot exist. Some laws (and I think both of my prior examples) are stupid. But that's different from not allowing them in the first place.
Quite possibly, they decided they didn't want the space launch industry. I mean, it's a rational choice to make.
I doubt it, but we'll get to find out!
I'm all for states regulating companies that do business within them. I mean, I get that all of Silicon Valley decided to incorporate in Delaware, but they live in California. Let California regulate them.
How many investigative stories chronicling all the privacy invading shit Facebook does will Facebook withstand. Cause it would be trivial to have a month-long news cycle "discovering" and announcing new policies.
Lockpicks are illegal for an individual to own in five states as sufficient evidence that one is planning/attemptting to commit a crime (Nevada is one of them). For those who don't know, state law trumps convention events.
You should also avoid Mississippi, Ohio, Tennessee and Virgina.
Not the physical chain, unconnected deadbolt, etc. that every hotel room I've been in has had some version of. Precisely to lock out maids/people with a master key.
Don't remind them. I'm sure what you're talking about is on the 2025-2030 roadmap.