One reason I'm very selective in who I teach things to. This violent transparency in IT where knowledge you accumulate is supposed to be freely shared is the bane of everyone's careers at some point.
The alternative only makes logical sense to the geek, but of it course, it ends up even much worse for him. The geek who "defensively" hoards knowledge gets the reputation of being unfriendly and hard to work with. It doesn't matter if you know the infrastructure inside and out -- employers are perfectly capable of hiring people who are just as capable of learning as you are, and they'll be happy to replace a bad employee with a good one.
Sorry but supply and demand rules nature. Just like a lot of predators will die if there prey is in short supply, if 10 million people can fill a job, it won't pay a lot.
Yeast will multiply without bound in a sugar solution, until all the food is gone and they all die. Using primitive instinct as guidance is the road to extinction.
Yet somehow we've survived pretty well. Maybe the system works.
If your house doubled in price, that likely means that you'll have to pay double (or more) for your next house, too.
And later you sell that house for the value you bought it for, maybe more. Doesn't change the fact that your first investment doubled. That was operating on the assumption that housing inflation doubles everywhere. It doesn't.
Meanwhile, those of us who came from little and tended to be a little more self-made tend to get more a bit offended when the implication comes along, over and over again, that we didn't do shit and everything was handed to us because of 'white privilege' or heteronormity or whatever is fashionable to say gives you all the breaks today. If you work hard, teach yourself, and get ahead, don't be surprised if we aren't in favor of getting dragged down again by the mediocrity that didn't bother with any of those things.
There is WAY too much victimization in society, this idea that if you're going nowhere, it's not your fault, it always has to be others holding you down.
I don't think the Russians are "pushing for Trump" anymore, and I would be highly, highly skeptical that he's colluding with them in any way at this point. What I was saying is the Russian propagandists have been sowing discord, any type. Anything that makes America look divided, whatever weakens the perception of the US's political on of the country's political stability.
yet will simultaneously hold the belief that some voters must be flip/flopping between candidates when an "October surprise" is unleashed
Some voters flip flop. Some are actually undecided. I don't think that was the case in 2016 though. What happened with the October Surprise last year, and what has happened before, is that voters don't leave candidate A and join candidate B -- instead they leave candidate A and just don't vote at all. They don't show up.
So voters aren't malleable enough that you can convince them to switch their votes, but they are malleable enough for you to erode their excitement for a candidate until they get to the point where they say "everything is shit, why even bother?"
Hate him for how fucking bad of a president he is. How bad of a person he is.
Don't hate him for petty shit - his hair, his hand size, his foundation / powder ?
I usually don't go off on Trump's appearance, but his cheap, tacky spray-looking fake tan says something weird about him. Yeah, I will lump him along with the other folks who do those horrible things to their skin. The plastic Hollywood types too. It's just tacky. Everything about the guy speaks of no taste. There are much, MUCH worse traits, but the appearance is yet another questionable personality trait to throw onto the pile of everything else.
Why do I care what Hillary looks like? She's irrelevant. She has makeup, but no horrible tacky fake tan like Trump has, at least. We were comparing Obama and Trump's appearance, though.
Total bullshit reasoning. If everyone did what one person did, the world wouldn’t work. Take a car accident on the highway. If everyone drives past it and does nothing, that’s bad. If everyone takes out their phone and calls the police, some 911 switchboard just got overloaded (and maybe more people crash due to using their phones) when one person calling would have sufficed. If everyone stops to check if everyone is okay, then suddenly the highway gets so clogged the ambulance can’t get there. Are the people who do nothing and drive past “leeches”? I guess you could technically claim that. But they’re not hurting anyone by doing that, just like how pirating something you otherwise wouldn’t have bought also doesn’t hurt anyone.
That's a weird goofy justification for essentially "I can do this thing as long as not too many others do it, cause I'm special."
There are a whole ton of bad comparisons in there as well that I shouldn't need to get into.
And it turns out they were wrong about alot of stuff. The constitution is hardly immutable nor the people that crafted it 'divine' in any way.
That's why they made it amendable. And we've changed it according to their rules.
Modification of copyright law doesn't requite a constitutional amendment either. I think the Constitution is fine. It gives Congress the power to craft copyright laws, and Congress is where the real problem lies.
My God, the stupidity of this particular argument is epic.
If you want me to give up one of my rights -- the right to say what I want, copy what I want, all these natural rights that we used to take for granted, then you have to give me something in return. The entire purpose of copyright was to give a very limited time period of exclusivity, because that will enable more content to be created and released to the public domain. That was the entire purpose -- they felt copyright was the way to maximize the public domain. Otherwise, it's not morally justifiable to limit someone's rights just so someone else can create value and make money through that limitation.
Somewhere along the line, a despicable notion gained traction, the idea of "intellectual property." That an idea or expression should be treated the same as a physical object, and that removal of the protection of that idea is akin to theft from the owner. That has shifted the balance of power far far away from where it belongs, the public domain, and towards the individuals and companies who have come to hold these ideas in perpetuity. I am not convinced anymore that the current administration of copyright is morally justified, or that the violation of copyright is morally suspect.
The old I'm morally justified in pirating, because I don't like the price-point.
Nice.
Above a certain price point, sure, I would say it's morally justifiable. Actually, I think quite a few things are justifiable in the service of breaking the content industry's pushes towards where they clearly want to go in the streaming model. Consumer rights have been removed one by one by one because the content owners are legally allowed to throw technological barriers in the way, I'm not sure we have to 'play nice' by the rules when the rules have been stacked against your own interests.
The market isn't going to, and can't fix this problem. The assumption that it could is based off of laughable theories still widely accepted in business schools, but it doesn't change the fact that most of these problems don't have a market solution.
"Black Lives Matter" was always a horrible slogan. It got a hell of a lot worse during the primaries when the Democratic candidates were expected to (and explicitly did) repudiate "All Lives Matter," and cotton specifically to Black Lives Matter. I would have hoped that the BLM organizers would have been savvy enough and maybe think twice about a title and slogan meant to "stick it" to the other side, but when you choose Michael Brown as your poster child, you're already not exactly playing with a full deck.
The Russians didn't *fake* anything for the elections.
Oh hell, there was a fair amount of fake news. Most of it didn't make it to the top of 'respected' news outlets, but there was a whole undercurrent going through Facebook, etcetc of fake stories spread around, and not limited to one candidate either.
Maybe you should read TFA, the Putin trolls were paying left leaning activists.
The Russian trolls were pushing for Trump, but when it seemed like Hillary was going to win, they switched tactics to counter her expected Presidency: attack the system instead. Make it seem like the whole US system was corrupt and doom. Foster as much acrimony as possible, set groups against one another so Russia can point to the US and say that it's too chaotic to be reliable, to be trustworthy, and that Moscow has their stuff in order.
But its not malware. Malware is spread through malicious acts. If its fully disclosed up front, its just your choice to go there. I do like coinhive's capatcha alternative, I would rather mine for 20 seconds than to pick which image is a car or what a street sign is.
Isn't the whole point of those capchas to prove that it's a human making the decisions rather than a computer doing the registration work?
Unions are great at getting workers stuff when the going is good, but when it is rough, they are unwilling to give anything back
And what is this... "giving anything back" supposed to look like? Pay cuts? A sacrifice by low-wage earners so that the company can limp along for a few years?
The union philosophy is that the company is not more important than its employees. If the company can't exist without screwing over its workers, then the company doesn't need to exist.
Probably the best explanation I've seen on this is from Cracked.com of all places, shortly after the release of the last shitty Indiana Jones sequel. Why Hollywood doesn't give geeks what they want gives the Internet acclaim, the studio response, and box office of then-current geek-favorite properties like Kick-Ass, Scott Pilgrim, Serenity.
Unfortunately, this means little without giving specific examples of good movies that critics hated and vice versa. Overall, while there are certainly blind spots, and I'll disagree with various critics on some things, in general they get it right.
Screw the critics, they're morons
Again, not enough information given, but it's possible that you're the moron as well.
Honest Trailers are great, but Cinema Sins is kindof crappy. They have quotas of sin amounts, what they call out as "sins" aren't sins -- they're either something that was explained in the story that they just missed or didn't understand, or they're bashing something they think is a cliche. Tropes aren't bad, it's pretty much impossible to tell stories without them. But if the Cinema Sins folks are ever short on time, it becomes free bashing on things they've seen elsewhere, as if this was supposed to be a bad thing.
There's critique, and then there's just cynical snarking. CinemaSins can be the former, but often devolve into the latter.
Seeing how unions so effectively ruined the competitiveness and efficiently of the Big 3, which were already very strong, established and highly profitable companies, a union would be a death sentence for a relatively young and developing company like Tesla.
Big 3 management was entirely incompetent as well. I know we love to say unions killed the big 3, but perhaps if they had good direction and knew how to react to what other automakers were doing to get ahead, they might have been fine.
"Seems like performance has nothing to do with it," one Tesla employee told CNBC under the condition of anonymity. "Those terminated were generally the highest paid in their position,"
Huh... why would Tesla be paying under-performers so much?
Salaries pretty much never go down. They only go up. The longer you've worked at the company, the more you get paid, regardless of actual performance.
Slashdot Mirror
One reason I'm very selective in who I teach things to. This violent transparency in IT where knowledge you accumulate is supposed to be freely shared is the bane of everyone's careers at some point.
The alternative only makes logical sense to the geek, but of it course, it ends up even much worse for him. The geek who "defensively" hoards knowledge gets the reputation of being unfriendly and hard to work with. It doesn't matter if you know the infrastructure inside and out -- employers are perfectly capable of hiring people who are just as capable of learning as you are, and they'll be happy to replace a bad employee with a good one.
Sorry but supply and demand rules nature. Just like a lot of predators will die if there prey is in short supply, if 10 million people can fill a job, it won't pay a lot.
Yeast will multiply without bound in a sugar solution, until all the food is gone and they all die. Using primitive instinct as guidance is the road to extinction.
Yet somehow we've survived pretty well. Maybe the system works.
If your house doubled in price, that likely means that you'll have to pay double (or more) for your next house, too.
And later you sell that house for the value you bought it for, maybe more. Doesn't change the fact that your first investment doubled. That was operating on the assumption that housing inflation doubles everywhere. It doesn't.
Meanwhile, those of us who came from little and tended to be a little more self-made tend to get more a bit offended when the implication comes along, over and over again, that we didn't do shit and everything was handed to us because of 'white privilege' or heteronormity or whatever is fashionable to say gives you all the breaks today. If you work hard, teach yourself, and get ahead, don't be surprised if we aren't in favor of getting dragged down again by the mediocrity that didn't bother with any of those things.
There is WAY too much victimization in society, this idea that if you're going nowhere, it's not your fault, it always has to be others holding you down.
I don't think the Russians are "pushing for Trump" anymore, and I would be highly, highly skeptical that he's colluding with them in any way at this point.
What I was saying is the Russian propagandists have been sowing discord, any type. Anything that makes America look divided, whatever weakens the perception of the US's political on of the country's political stability.
yet will simultaneously hold the belief that some voters must be flip/flopping between candidates when an "October surprise" is unleashed
Some voters flip flop. Some are actually undecided. I don't think that was the case in 2016 though. What happened with the October Surprise last year, and what has happened before, is that voters don't leave candidate A and join candidate B -- instead they leave candidate A and just don't vote at all. They don't show up.
So voters aren't malleable enough that you can convince them to switch their votes, but they are malleable enough for you to erode their excitement for a candidate until they get to the point where they say "everything is shit, why even bother?"
Hate him for how fucking bad of a president he is. How bad of a person he is.
Don't hate him for petty shit - his hair, his hand size, his foundation / powder ?
I usually don't go off on Trump's appearance, but his cheap, tacky spray-looking fake tan says something weird about him. Yeah, I will lump him along with the other folks who do those horrible things to their skin. The plastic Hollywood types too. It's just tacky. Everything about the guy speaks of no taste. There are much, MUCH worse traits, but the appearance is yet another questionable personality trait to throw onto the pile of everything else.
Why do I care what Hillary looks like? She's irrelevant. She has makeup, but no horrible tacky fake tan like Trump has, at least. We were comparing Obama and Trump's appearance, though.
Total bullshit reasoning. If everyone did what one person did, the world wouldn’t work. Take a car accident on the highway. If everyone drives past it and does nothing, that’s bad. If everyone takes out their phone and calls the police, some 911 switchboard just got overloaded (and maybe more people crash due to using their phones) when one person calling would have sufficed. If everyone stops to check if everyone is okay, then suddenly the highway gets so clogged the ambulance can’t get there. Are the people who do nothing and drive past “leeches”? I guess you could technically claim that. But they’re not hurting anyone by doing that, just like how pirating something you otherwise wouldn’t have bought also doesn’t hurt anyone.
That's a weird goofy justification for essentially "I can do this thing as long as not too many others do it, cause I'm special."
There are a whole ton of bad comparisons in there as well that I shouldn't need to get into.
And it turns out they were wrong about alot of stuff. The constitution is hardly immutable nor the people that crafted it 'divine' in any way.
That's why they made it amendable. And we've changed it according to their rules.
Modification of copyright law doesn't requite a constitutional amendment either. I think the Constitution is fine. It gives Congress the power to craft copyright laws, and Congress is where the real problem lies.
My God, the stupidity of this particular argument is epic.
If you want me to give up one of my rights -- the right to say what I want, copy what I want, all these natural rights that we used to take for granted, then you have to give me something in return. The entire purpose of copyright was to give a very limited time period of exclusivity, because that will enable more content to be created and released to the public domain. That was the entire purpose -- they felt copyright was the way to maximize the public domain. Otherwise, it's not morally justifiable to limit someone's rights just so someone else can create value and make money through that limitation.
Somewhere along the line, a despicable notion gained traction, the idea of "intellectual property." That an idea or expression should be treated the same as a physical object, and that removal of the protection of that idea is akin to theft from the owner. That has shifted the balance of power far far away from where it belongs, the public domain, and towards the individuals and companies who have come to hold these ideas in perpetuity. I am not convinced anymore that the current administration of copyright is morally justified, or that the violation of copyright is morally suspect.
The old I'm morally justified in pirating, because I don't like the price-point.
Nice.
Above a certain price point, sure, I would say it's morally justifiable. Actually, I think quite a few things are justifiable in the service of breaking the content industry's pushes towards where they clearly want to go in the streaming model. Consumer rights have been removed one by one by one because the content owners are legally allowed to throw technological barriers in the way, I'm not sure we have to 'play nice' by the rules when the rules have been stacked against your own interests.
The market isn't going to, and can't fix this problem. The assumption that it could is based off of laughable theories still widely accepted in business schools, but it doesn't change the fact that most of these problems don't have a market solution.
. What matters is how it looked like.
Exactly and when you say "All lives matter" it makes you look like a nazi.
Yes! Exactly, this is what the Nazis stood for: that all lives from all races are equally important and deserve equal treatment before the law.
"Black Lives Matter" was always a horrible slogan. It got a hell of a lot worse during the primaries when the Democratic candidates were expected to (and explicitly did) repudiate "All Lives Matter," and cotton specifically to Black Lives Matter. I would have hoped that the BLM organizers would have been savvy enough and maybe think twice about a title and slogan meant to "stick it" to the other side, but when you choose Michael Brown as your poster child, you're already not exactly playing with a full deck.
The Russians didn't *fake* anything for the elections.
Oh hell, there was a fair amount of fake news. Most of it didn't make it to the top of 'respected' news outlets, but there was a whole undercurrent going through Facebook, etcetc of fake stories spread around, and not limited to one candidate either.
Maybe you should read TFA, the Putin trolls were paying left leaning activists.
The Russian trolls were pushing for Trump, but when it seemed like Hillary was going to win, they switched tactics to counter her expected Presidency: attack the system instead. Make it seem like the whole US system was corrupt and doom. Foster as much acrimony as possible, set groups against one another so Russia can point to the US and say that it's too chaotic to be reliable, to be trustworthy, and that Moscow has their stuff in order.
But its not malware. Malware is spread through malicious acts. If its fully disclosed up front, its just your choice to go there. I do like coinhive's capatcha alternative, I would rather mine for 20 seconds than to pick which image is a car or what a street sign is.
Isn't the whole point of those capchas to prove that it's a human making the decisions rather than a computer doing the registration work?
Videos are something I will always keep off when I'm on mobile, unless I'm using the Youtube app, I don't need to see anything moving.
Unions are great at getting workers stuff when the going is good, but when it is rough, they are unwilling to give anything back
And what is this... "giving anything back" supposed to look like? Pay cuts? A sacrifice by low-wage earners so that the company can limp along for a few years?
The union philosophy is that the company is not more important than its employees. If the company can't exist without screwing over its workers, then the company doesn't need to exist.
Probably the best explanation I've seen on this is from Cracked.com of all places, shortly after the release of the last shitty Indiana Jones sequel. Why Hollywood doesn't give geeks what they want gives the Internet acclaim, the studio response, and box office of then-current geek-favorite properties like Kick-Ass, Scott Pilgrim, Serenity.
Unfortunately, this means little without giving specific examples of good movies that critics hated and vice versa. Overall, while there are certainly blind spots, and I'll disagree with various critics on some things, in general they get it right.
Screw the critics, they're morons
Again, not enough information given, but it's possible that you're the moron as well.
Honest Trailers are great, but Cinema Sins is kindof crappy. They have quotas of sin amounts, what they call out as "sins" aren't sins -- they're either something that was explained in the story that they just missed or didn't understand, or they're bashing something they think is a cliche. Tropes aren't bad, it's pretty much impossible to tell stories without them. But if the Cinema Sins folks are ever short on time, it becomes free bashing on things they've seen elsewhere, as if this was supposed to be a bad thing.
There's critique, and then there's just cynical snarking. CinemaSins can be the former, but often devolve into the latter.
And I'd be fine getting modded down for it, I certainly wouldn't bitch and moan in other /. stories because some mod gave a -1 to my off-topicness.
Seeing how unions so effectively ruined the competitiveness and efficiently of the Big 3, which were already very strong, established and highly profitable companies, a union would be a death sentence for a relatively young and developing company like Tesla.
Big 3 management was entirely incompetent as well. I know we love to say unions killed the big 3, but perhaps if they had good direction and knew how to react to what other automakers were doing to get ahead, they might have been fine.
"Seems like performance has nothing to do with it," one Tesla employee told CNBC under the condition of anonymity. "Those terminated were generally the highest paid in their position,"
Huh... why would Tesla be paying under-performers so much?
Salaries pretty much never go down. They only go up. The longer you've worked at the company, the more you get paid, regardless of actual performance.