> I'm probably being really ignorant here, but what's the EEUU
I believe the Original Poster is spanish-speaking, and in spanish, The US is called Estados Unidos, abbreviated to EEUU. Never understood why it wasn't just EU...
> If you're the type of person who posts to Slashdot, this would be fun for about two days
I find your overabundance of faith in/.ers... disturbing. Really, most of us have at LEAST a week's worth of useless movie quotes in our head. If it's a large company, you could spend MONTHS repeating them over & over to new, different, and working people!
> How would you feel if uninvitedly you were asked for an interview then once you got there were told you would have to take a test?
How would you feel if you knew you were qualified for a job, but they made you fill out all this pointless paperwork before starting. I mean, it's so insulting, they can get all the information from your resume!
Tthey DO make you fill out pointles paperwork, and you don't complain (much) because it's easy & (relatively) quick.
So, unless they were making him do an hour-long test, the questions were probably so easy that Mr. Ph-friggin-D could have done them in no time flat. But instead of showing the "arrogant" morons up by completing it faster than anyone else, he gets all pissy about going through the same process EVERYONE ELSE goes through? Because it's above him? PhD or not, I don't want anyone working for me who is going to do shit like that. Of course I want my employees to know all the shit I don't -- otherwise I wouldn't need them -- but I don't want one who thinks anything related to his job is beneath him. Otherwise, he could be slouching on the parts of projects that don't interest him.
Might as well complain that you have to work two whole weeks before getting your first paycheck! (Heck, that's probably not true, he probably would have gotten a bit of money up front).
...but, isn't it arrogant of him to think himself above any kind of proficiency test? Does he think he's perfect and should be hired with no showing of his actual ability?
If keylogging is declared illegal, how much of a stretch would it be to declare that scanning EMails or even net traffic for inappropriate material is illegal?
> the pro-evolution people always call the Creationists crackpots but you don't ever hear the latter calling the former any names at least I haven't heard any
Then it's only because you haven't been listening (or purposefully ignoring the insults because you agree with them). The creationists in question continually call these scientists -- you know, people who have devoted their lives to finding out and explaining reality -- liars, stupid, evil, and more. There is no other way to take it. They also say the scientists (many or most of whom believe in a God of some form) will go to hell for trying to learn and understand. That sort of ignorance is simply amazing.
However, what is WORSE than calling someone a name or saying they will suffer eternally, is how dispicable these people are to put their words into the mouth of their god for their own agenda (which appears to be spreading ignorance). That is an insult not only to science, but an insult to the sane members of their own religious sect.
To take a more trollish (yet honest) POV, if I said the Earth's core was made of Jello, you would probably call me stupid, and rightly so. Therefore, when I hear adults who believe in what amounts to fairy tales, I consider them stupid and, IMO, rightly so.
> given they have a vocal pallet close to ours, they should be capable of human speech
Is that all that is necessary, or is it possible there would be a certain part of their brain not developed-enough to permit speech? I don't know jack about neurology...
A chair. The (supposed) existence of my chair does not imply the existence or nonexistence of dark matter. Unless, of course, it is extremely heavy and invisible. Still then, it's only conjecture that it isn't just very dense... and somehow invisible.
> What's more likely - incomplete knowledge of the long distance properties/influence of gravity, or 'dark matter'?
I do not claim to have any definitive knowledge on anything, me being just a balding monkey on this really big rock and all, but, is it necessarily "either/or?" Maybe there is some strange type of matter we don't understand AND we have incomplete knowledge. Or maybe it really is regular matter but we just can't see it for some reason (multiple dimensions drawing closer together)... I don't know.
Anyway, my point is that this is sort of like another discussion, on programming: is it "art" or is it "science?" Why can't it just be both?
> Pieces by Warhol and Duchamp (two name but two names) would appear to contradict this Jan Mukarovsky.
Not necessarily. It appears that Andy Warhol's function is to annoy the hell out of anyone who appreciates art. That is certainly his true purpose, therefore there is no need to call his simple drawings of random shit "art."
> A program may have no practical purpose, but it is still a set of practical instructions
That latest design (you know, the 85% translucent, 25-piece bra) has no practical purpose, but with the correct "practical" instructions, it can be recreated by another.
To see fine art in programming, I think back to the Amiga Demoscene. Programming to come up with awesome animated graphics and music, except that the keyboard is the brush and the monitor, your canvas. Yes, there was "science" involved, but it was only used as a method of delivery.
There was certainly no practical purpose to these tiny programs, and sometimes the tweaks applied to make the stuff run had no practical programming purpose either, other than it happened to get a desirable result with as little code as possible.
Then you'd be wrong. The Miata is a fugly car, IMO. The Z4 is OK looking, but the Miata was definitely built for women. It is far too small, has no spectacular features, and hasn't changed its basic style (which is certainly basic) since it was introduced, except for the depressed hood and headlight restyling in the 2nd Gens.
> keep your seeds from batches you buy at first...and then just plant them...
Well, if weed was being sold in stores, it would probably be grown under optimum conditions. Specifically, all the male plants would be removed before they could pollinate the female ones: thus, no seeds, but WAAAY better pot. If you ever had "kind bud" you will not find any seeds in it (unless it was cultivated by someone who didn't quite know what they were doing, or someone lied to you). Therefore you cannot plant them.
> there is a slang term for marijuana where it is called 'weed.' [...] It will grow indoors without a lot of effort, for instance.
I take it you've never actually tried growing it for yourself, because I can tell you it does NOT grow like a weed. Do you also think the drug "ice" is cold? (no offense) It takes a lot of time and knowledge to grow marijuana that's any good. Or to get it to grow at all. Weeds will grow without expensive lights (or 12-16hrs sunlight a day). 'Weed' does not do so very well.
I was sued today, by my mother, for stepping on a crack on a sidewalk. The claim was for negligence and attempted assault. Damages were costs of a chiropractic visit.
> if people wanted something apart from what the "monopolies" gave it would appear and come to fruition. That they don;t should tell us something
What it tells me is that the big ones spend so much to ensure you can't get the other options:
Coke & Pepsi spend so much on advertising that you see their logos everywhere and the smaller ones get lost in the noise.
C&P lock some stores/restaurants/whatever into selling only one or the other, or refusing discounts if they have the other (although many of those restaurants would not carry both anyway, as it would cost too much)
Coke, at least (dunno about Pepsi) gets the kids hooked early with their sugar-vending machines in schools, parks, etc.
Anyway, I don't care about Coke & Pepsi too much at the moment, there are much bigger problems than which of those nasty brown liquids is better.
I would like to start by pointing out that you used the word "bull" which, like it or not, is a shortened form of the word "bullshit" -- also a "curse" word. Therefore, you cussed (AKA, "cursed") before I did. Or is it just "fuck" that gets your ire up*?
> I just don't need to cuss to get my point across.
And you are assuming that because I had the audacity to use a word you think will cause a curse*, that I NEED to use it? No, I use it for emphasis. That's what they are there for unless you REALLY think saying certain words causes a curse to be placed on someone (as alluded-to just previously)...
If I would have said "frigging," you may not have said anything about swearing, which would imply that your (dis)interest is in the word itself and not the connotation or context. If you WOULD have been offended by it, go back and read the first sentence of this post.
You don't NEED to ever eat any solid food either, but it says nothing about the character of a person if they choose to or choose not to do it. However, it DOES say something about you if you are willing to label someone as unintelligent merely due to their choice of words*. I am, in fact, somewhat intelligent. I'm no Mensa-member, and I may not be at your level either, but I'm certainly above average. I am just an angry person who has learned to use all the words he knows, not just those that everyone else approve of.
You may ask if I use them in a professional setting? When dealing with customers, no. But the CEO of the place where I work (a hospital, no less) is a real person as well, and I have had conversations in which he would swear once in a while. It doesn't make him less important, less intelligent, or less qualified to do his job (which he does quite well).
* I would like to point out that at certain places in this post I made statements that could be construed as putting words in your mouth, I am not trying to do this: I am merely attempting to expand my point.
Come on man, cuss you out? I used one "bad" word, and it wasn't even calling you a name. You either need thicker skin, or need to quit whining about being a victim; especially when you are not ("boo hoo, he called me a name" -- I didn't).
It's more like a competitor sneaking into your store and replacing all the signs with directions to thier own store! It would be nice if judges were required to have a shred of a clue about the topic when ruling on something.
> My parents' last computer wouldn't run Win95, 98, or NT. [...] (It was a 400Mhz K6-II with 256M RAM.)
Somehow, your "evidence" seems suspect, as I used that same configuration (actually, a 450 K6-II) with all three of those OSes (NT WS, not server), plus ME (shudder, a VERY short time), and even windows 2000. So I don't know what you did to the computer, but there's no reason Windows wouldn't work.
So if you are going to call bull on Linux taking longer to boot than XP (it does take longer on my AMD 2600, with Mandrake 10.1), I am going to call TOTAL fucking bull on you claiming a K6 400 won't run Windows. Either you are full of it, just don't know how to install Windows, or you had broken computer parts.
> How can you tell wether someone knowingly viewed the pictures or not
I certainly haven't been to even.01% of the sites on the Internet, but I've never seen a popup with child porn (or, if I did, she had to have been close to 18 at least). I wouldn't imagine they are very prevalent, unless the site is devoted to it...
Slashdot Mirror
> I'm probably being really ignorant here, but what's the EEUU
I believe the Original Poster is spanish-speaking, and in spanish, The US is called Estados Unidos, abbreviated to EEUU. Never understood why it wasn't just EU...
> If you're the type of person who posts to Slashdot, this would be fun for about two days
/.ers... disturbing. Really, most of us have at LEAST a week's worth of useless movie quotes in our head. If it's a large company, you could spend MONTHS repeating them over & over to new, different, and working people!
I find your overabundance of faith in
> How would you feel if uninvitedly you were asked for an interview then once you got there were told you would have to take a test?
How would you feel if you knew you were qualified for a job, but they made you fill out all this pointless paperwork before starting. I mean, it's so insulting, they can get all the information from your resume!
Tthey DO make you fill out pointles paperwork, and you don't complain (much) because it's easy & (relatively) quick.
So, unless they were making him do an hour-long test, the questions were probably so easy that Mr. Ph-friggin-D could have done them in no time flat. But instead of showing the "arrogant" morons up by completing it faster than anyone else, he gets all pissy about going through the same process EVERYONE ELSE goes through? Because it's above him? PhD or not, I don't want anyone working for me who is going to do shit like that. Of course I want my employees to know all the shit I don't -- otherwise I wouldn't need them -- but I don't want one who thinks anything related to his job is beneath him. Otherwise, he could be slouching on the parts of projects that don't interest him.
Might as well complain that you have to work two whole weeks before getting your first paycheck! (Heck, that's probably not true, he probably would have gotten a bit of money up front).
...but, isn't it arrogant of him to think himself above any kind of proficiency test? Does he think he's perfect and should be hired with no showing of his actual ability?
If keylogging is declared illegal, how much of a stretch would it be to declare that scanning EMails or even net traffic for inappropriate material is illegal?
> the pro-evolution people always call the Creationists crackpots but you don't ever hear the latter calling the former any names at least I haven't heard any
Then it's only because you haven't been listening (or purposefully ignoring the insults because you agree with them). The creationists in question continually call these scientists -- you know, people who have devoted their lives to finding out and explaining reality -- liars, stupid, evil, and more. There is no other way to take it. They also say the scientists (many or most of whom believe in a God of some form) will go to hell for trying to learn and understand. That sort of ignorance is simply amazing.
However, what is WORSE than calling someone a name or saying they will suffer eternally, is how dispicable these people are to put their words into the mouth of their god for their own agenda (which appears to be spreading ignorance). That is an insult not only to science, but an insult to the sane members of their own religious sect.
To take a more trollish (yet honest) POV, if I said the Earth's core was made of Jello, you would probably call me stupid, and rightly so. Therefore, when I hear adults who believe in what amounts to fairy tales, I consider them stupid and, IMO, rightly so.
> given they have a vocal pallet close to ours, they should be capable of human speech
Is that all that is necessary, or is it possible there would be a certain part of their brain not developed-enough to permit speech? I don't know jack about neurology...
> I have other punishments in mind for these people, more tailored punishments... sicker punishments.
:)
I guess that's "let the punishment fit the crime, eh?"
> What are you sitting on then?
A chair. The (supposed) existence of my chair does not imply the existence or nonexistence of dark matter. Unless, of course, it is extremely heavy and invisible. Still then, it's only conjecture that it isn't just very dense... and somehow invisible.
> What's more likely - incomplete knowledge of the long distance properties/influence of gravity, or 'dark matter'?
I do not claim to have any definitive knowledge on anything, me being just a balding monkey on this really big rock and all, but, is it necessarily "either/or?" Maybe there is some strange type of matter we don't understand AND we have incomplete knowledge. Or maybe it really is regular matter but we just can't see it for some reason (multiple dimensions drawing closer together)... I don't know.
Anyway, my point is that this is sort of like another discussion, on programming: is it "art" or is it "science?" Why can't it just be both?
> Pieces by Warhol and Duchamp (two name but two names) would appear to contradict this Jan Mukarovsky.
Not necessarily. It appears that Andy Warhol's function is to annoy the hell out of anyone who appreciates art. That is certainly his true purpose, therefore there is no need to call his simple drawings of random shit "art."
> A program may have no practical purpose, but it is still a set of practical instructions
That latest design (you know, the 85% translucent, 25-piece bra) has no practical purpose, but with the correct "practical" instructions, it can be recreated by another.
To see fine art in programming, I think back to the Amiga Demoscene. Programming to come up with awesome animated graphics and music, except that the keyboard is the brush and the monitor, your canvas. Yes, there was "science" involved, but it was only used as a method of delivery.
There was certainly no practical purpose to these tiny programs, and sometimes the tweaks applied to make the stuff run had no practical programming purpose either, other than it happened to get a desirable result with as little code as possible.
> If you'd have said [...] "Mazda Miata", then
Then you'd be wrong. The Miata is a fugly car, IMO. The Z4 is OK looking, but the Miata was definitely built for women. It is far too small, has no spectacular features, and hasn't changed its basic style (which is certainly basic) since it was introduced, except for the depressed hood and headlight restyling in the 2nd Gens.
It looks like a chopped-up Saturn!
Why does it have to be either/or? Can't it be an artistic process to create an engineered solution?
Or an engineered process for artistic solutions? Or a suspension, engineered to solve artistic... I'm confusing myself...
I shouldn't need to pay anyone for permission to have a certain plant in my yard...
> keep your seeds from batches you buy at first...and then just plant them...
Well, if weed was being sold in stores, it would probably be grown under optimum conditions. Specifically, all the male plants would be removed before they could pollinate the female ones: thus, no seeds, but WAAAY better pot. If you ever had "kind bud" you will not find any seeds in it (unless it was cultivated by someone who didn't quite know what they were doing, or someone lied to you). Therefore you cannot plant them.
> there is a slang term for marijuana where it is called 'weed.' [...] It will grow indoors without a lot of effort, for instance.
I take it you've never actually tried growing it for yourself, because I can tell you it does NOT grow like a weed. Do you also think the drug "ice" is cold? (no offense) It takes a lot of time and knowledge to grow marijuana that's any good. Or to get it to grow at all. Weeds will grow without expensive lights (or 12-16hrs sunlight a day). 'Weed' does not do so very well.
I was sued today, by my mother, for stepping on a crack on a sidewalk. The claim was for negligence and attempted assault. Damages were costs of a chiropractic visit.
What it tells me is that the big ones spend so much to ensure you can't get the other options:
Anyway, I don't care about Coke & Pepsi too much at the moment, there are much bigger problems than which of those nasty brown liquids is better.
I would like to start by pointing out that you used the word "bull" which, like it or not, is a shortened form of the word "bullshit" -- also a "curse" word. Therefore, you cussed (AKA, "cursed") before I did. Or is it just "fuck" that gets your ire up*?
> I just don't need to cuss to get my point across.
And you are assuming that because I had the audacity to use a word you think will cause a curse*, that I NEED to use it? No, I use it for emphasis. That's what they are there for unless you REALLY think saying certain words causes a curse to be placed on someone (as alluded-to just previously)...
If I would have said "frigging," you may not have said anything about swearing, which would imply that your (dis)interest is in the word itself and not the connotation or context. If you WOULD have been offended by it, go back and read the first sentence of this post.
You don't NEED to ever eat any solid food either, but it says nothing about the character of a person if they choose to or choose not to do it. However, it DOES say something about you if you are willing to label someone as unintelligent merely due to their choice of words*. I am, in fact, somewhat intelligent. I'm no Mensa-member, and I may not be at your level either, but I'm certainly above average. I am just an angry person who has learned to use all the words he knows, not just those that everyone else approve of.
You may ask if I use them in a professional setting? When dealing with customers, no. But the CEO of the place where I work (a hospital, no less) is a real person as well, and I have had conversations in which he would swear once in a while. It doesn't make him less important, less intelligent, or less qualified to do his job (which he does quite well).
* I would like to point out that at certain places in this post I made statements that could be construed as putting words in your mouth, I am not trying to do this: I am merely attempting to expand my point.
Come on man, cuss you out? I used one "bad" word, and it wasn't even calling you a name. You either need thicker skin, or need to quit whining about being a victim; especially when you are not ("boo hoo, he called me a name" -- I didn't).
It's more like a competitor sneaking into your store and replacing all the signs with directions to thier own store! It would be nice if judges were required to have a shred of a clue about the topic when ruling on something.
> My parents' last computer wouldn't run Win95, 98, or NT. [...] (It was a 400Mhz K6-II with 256M RAM.)
Somehow, your "evidence" seems suspect, as I used that same configuration (actually, a 450 K6-II) with all three of those OSes (NT WS, not server), plus ME (shudder, a VERY short time), and even windows 2000. So I don't know what you did to the computer, but there's no reason Windows wouldn't work.
So if you are going to call bull on Linux taking longer to boot than XP (it does take longer on my AMD 2600, with Mandrake 10.1), I am going to call TOTAL fucking bull on you claiming a K6 400 won't run Windows. Either you are full of it, just don't know how to install Windows, or you had broken computer parts.
I think many of us are happy to say... NO SHIT!
> How can you tell wether someone knowingly viewed the pictures or not
.01% of the sites on the Internet, but I've never seen a popup with child porn (or, if I did, she had to have been close to 18 at least). I wouldn't imagine they are very prevalent, unless the site is devoted to it...
I certainly haven't been to even