There's a better solution. Find the guy who bikes to work every day. Offer him half the 'incentive' to wear your shackle next to his own. Or.. figure out a way to mimic the data input for the shackle, and have it run 24-7. The insurance company will love you! You might want to invest in another shackle that looks the same, just in case their gestappo walks the halls looking for the insolent.
As a band name, I certainly wouldn't capitalize it. Just like Erectile Disfunction.. Why.. pray tell.. is that ever capitalized? It seems like the antithesis of capitalization, as [ed. in] a hole.
I can conceive of at least two reasons that the airline might not like this practice:
First, they get really bad press by leaving people stranded in the middle of no-where. In the case of people intentionally ducking the last leg, that leaves the airline in a quandry - do they blow their ontime percentages by waiting for the person and earn bad press, or do they leave the person in the middle of no-where and risk the bad press?
Second, moreso than how much they can price gouge the public, flying to hidden cities starts to screw with things such as forecasting, government tracking, and load calculations.
Would it not be awesome sometime in the next couple years before this practice dies off to hear about an airplane taking off empty because nobody wanted to take the last leg?
Incidentally, I'd like to ask how many more years we have to be subjected to the lesson on how to buckle our seatbelts. Seatbelts have only been mandatory in ground transport since 1964, y'know. Sure, airline seatbelts operate slightly differently to enable others to extricate people in emergencies, but still.
The ethical choice I make has to be weighed against the ethical choice of offering a "free" service in exchange for obtaining the metadata of every person connected to a one or a zero. At the end of the day, my own integrity means a lot more than however much "They" might choose to make off my expense. Am I worried about that choice? Excellent question.
Fair enough. I'm too young and stupid to remember the past, congratulations on your observation. Do me a favor though, and clarify what you mean. You mean that the agitators are people complaining about tropical deforestation, or are people they the people perpetrating tropical deforestation? You weren't clear.
To be fair, I think my one of my points was very specifically that the countries most in need are in fact the ones most responsible for the tropical deforestation. To wit:
you want them to be responsible for their planet when they're having trouble even being responsible for themselves?
My response to that idea was certainly *not* more talk or bribing. Perhaps you'd like me to simplify it, so I'll do you the favor. These countries interact choose to interact with developed countries because they seek to gain equal footing amongst their peers. The terms by which we engage this desire will absolutely control the behavior they exhibit. If you'd choose to bribe or talk to them, all you accomplish is playing at their level. Their behavior is all about tit-fot-tat / quid-pro-quo. Instead, if you no longer accept how they do business and instead require that they operate according to the principles that you dictate, then you can control more than simply the product you receive. Now, please don't forget that communication is always a two-way street; they must be happy with the terms mutually agreed upon. Like I said toward the tail-end of my argument: globalization certainly has some benefits in that regard.
I think its abysmal that the same people outraged about things such as tropical deforestation are also outraged at the idea of globalization. At the end of the day it simply doesn't make sense. If you want someone to work with you on something, it certainly isn't helpful to ostracize them. You simply can't include them into your circle for some things, and exclude them for others. That isn't the way society works.
P.S. I don't know about you, but I can't for an instant believe that bribing someone is going to encourage them to feel a part of your circle, or even that it would change their behavior at all. I'm more inclined to think they're going to give you more face time, and learn how to tell you want you want to hear. Course, that only works so for so long before they think they can start asking for reparations. Or something.
There is a great deal of outrage over carbon production but almost none over destruction of the best sequestration means that exists.
Now, the thing that gets under my skin about your mentality is this:
As an American, I recognize that American philosophy is very commercilized, very liberal-thinking, and very consumerist in general. What I respect about the outrage over people actively producing carbon is that it encourages people to take some ownership of their choices and actions. What I cannot respect about the outrage that people have regarding the destruction of these tropical rain forests (or anything, really, for that matter) is this:
1) The outraged people have no legal, ethical, moral, or social ties to the things in question.
2) The outraged people have no understanding regarding the political, economic, or social climate of the area in question.
3) The countries in question are certainly approaching their land with a simple cost-benefit analysis in mind. If they can get something out of what's there to get ahead, why shouldn't they?
Now, don't get me wrong. I heard a statistic the other day that 26% of man-made CO2 production comes directly from these rain forests being decimated (source completely forgotten and thus heresay, my apologies). I'm pretty sure that Americans may get close to that figure, but I doubt they actually exceed that. Encouraging another continent to be more responsible for their planet would be cool, but lets not forget the struggle those continents are going through right now. The four horsemen seem to be beating a pretty steady drum there; you want them to be responsible for their planet when they're having trouble even being responsible for themselves? Admirable, simply admirable, in your arrogance and ignorance.
To that end, becoming the stewards of our planet truly seems our burden to bear; that we might shoulder some of their responsibility to the degree which they are obviously unable, so that they as a continent might be able to gain a somewhat more steady footing among their peers, the other continents.
If you really want them to stop destroying the land that protects our planet, outrage over their actions certainly isn't going to accomplish diddly squat; you're going to have to change the equation. They're currently decimating the rain forests because it benefits them to do so. I would be very surprised if they had very many other apparent options that enable competition in a global marketplace. I keep hearing 'think local' when it comes to sustainability, but, globalization certainly has some benefits too. That could enable us to put positive pressure on other continents and countries to follow our philosophies and moral standards, don't you think?
I'm more inclined to believe that hollywood was just figuring that the TV show would be more believeable / watchable if they had a "based on a true story" element to it, and rewrote his backstory to fall in line with the show.
I think it would have been a great idea on the part of the supervisor to, rather than write their names on the cups, just give them each a name as they order. "Hi! Your name is Fred today, what can I get you?"
Perhaps not, but "Google" refers to searching on the Internet using a search engine (preferably Google, if it becomes necessary to duplicate results). Therefore, "Google" is certainly shorter and more specific than "Search the internet".
Whatever you do, I'd recommend avoiding the topic of her feet in her vicinity. Or any other body part that seems slightly out of proportionality, for that matter.
Reading comprehension please. He says he *has* a degree; this degree is in Network Systems Administration. Last I checked, this degree is *related* to Computers, right? The issue that employers have is that the title of the degree is not "Computer Science", despite it being a computer science degree. This is an issue of reading comprehension, and the lack thereof in the HR department.
My own two cents: I will cease to be a member of this community if they remove Classic Slashdot. I *barely* tolerate this hideous amalgamation of the original Slashdot; if Dice were anything more than a marketing / PR firm, they would recognize that the area they need to focus on is not redesigning the front-end / back-end, it is ensuring that the content meets the requirements of their community. Dice has certainly had too many crit-fails on their die rolls to believe their current campaign.
I concur; I'd argue Bill Gates won if you consider the relative time each player spent honing their craft in the game. Gates had a fun piece of PR, and Fritz got a feather in his cap. Though tough to estimate, consider how much 71 seconds of Gates' time is worth.
Quick googling shows a 2013 net worth of 72 B, and 2.52455e9 seconds in 80 years. Even a rough estimate means that match cost thirty bucks [72,000,000,000 / 2.52455e9]. Gates essentially said 'Hey kid, playing this game isn't worth a fifty to me.'
The concept of insurance is just broken. Given the mandate to have "insurance", this really boils down to combining extortion [take your money], behavior modification [to eliminate their risk], and profit [selling your metadata].
I have to point out that, unless you've been handed that tinfoil hat from your great-grandfather, you're likely wearing aluminum foil. Brain waves are actually transparent to Aluminum foil and essentially make it easier for Them to hear, whereas Tin foil shields your brain-waves from Them. I don't mean to scare you or anything, but I figured that if you really value your privacy you ought to know.
Hear Hear!
For instance - how many Columbines have occurred in the past forty years?
How many post offices have been shot up in the last twenty years?
How many Shopping malls?
Seriously. We as a society must choose whether to be a society or live in tyranny.
Why should how we're treated at an airport be any different than how we're treated in any other place?
Give me back my damn shoes already - no, wait - give me back my damn dignity.
Failure to communicate with users when errors occur.
Failure to communicate when the system is broken.
Failure to communicate critical errors to your own staff.
Failure to create a realistic timeframe for necessary repairs.
Seriously. Why, when the system won't work at all, should I have to spend my time trying time and time again to even create an account? When I talk to the help and they say "keep trying", I act like a bloody fool by trying again. When I talk to the help and they say "It will be up in two or three hours", I assume that they've been told information that is roughly accurate!
Two things:
First (to parent): My general observation about the government is once they've concocted a system approximating your standards (a series with 65%, 84%, and 70% respectively), they then short-circuit the entire system, grab the easy test (presumably the 65%), and just assume you "passed" the other two. After all, when you fail to train your staff to perform the tests correctly, you may as well not bother doing them, right?
Second (to child): The polygraph is essentially a legal way for the governmental agencies to pre-screen potential candidates and exclude them from a list of hire-able candidates. The entire crux of the goverment's complaint was essentially that by their candidates bypassing the polygraph, they required the hiring agency to expend more government resources in selecting an appropriate candidate. Hell, I could see a resume-proofreading service get tried using the same argument. After all, a lie by omission is still a lie - and polishing a resume is essentially just removing the 'rough patches'.
Slashdot Mirror
There's a better solution. Find the guy who bikes to work every day. Offer him half the 'incentive' to wear your shackle next to his own. Or .. figure out a way to mimic the data input for the shackle, and have it run 24-7. The insurance company will love you! You might want to invest in another shackle that looks the same, just in case their gestappo walks the halls looking for the insolent.
As a band name, I certainly wouldn't capitalize it. Just like Erectile Disfunction .. Why .. pray tell .. is that ever capitalized? It seems like the antithesis of capitalization, as [ed. in] a hole.
I'd argue you are going to need a heck of a lot more rocket fuel for deceleration than the mass a parachute system would require.
I can conceive of at least two reasons that the airline might not like this practice:
First, they get really bad press by leaving people stranded in the middle of no-where. In the case of people intentionally ducking the last leg, that leaves the airline in a quandry - do they blow their ontime percentages by waiting for the person and earn bad press, or do they leave the person in the middle of no-where and risk the bad press?
Second, moreso than how much they can price gouge the public, flying to hidden cities starts to screw with things such as forecasting, government tracking, and load calculations.
Would it not be awesome sometime in the next couple years before this practice dies off to hear about an airplane taking off empty because nobody wanted to take the last leg?
Incidentally, I'd like to ask how many more years we have to be subjected to the lesson on how to buckle our seatbelts. Seatbelts have only been mandatory in ground transport since 1964, y'know. Sure, airline seatbelts operate slightly differently to enable others to extricate people in emergencies, but still.
The ethical choice I make has to be weighed against the ethical choice of offering a "free" service in exchange for obtaining the metadata of every person connected to a one or a zero. At the end of the day, my own integrity means a lot more than however much "They" might choose to make off my expense. Am I worried about that choice? Excellent question.
Like pee in the reservior?
Tell that to Steve Jobs. I'm sure he'd still believe his doctors were wrong, were he still alive.
Don't forget each of the 1.5 million downloads. According to my maths, that comes out to roughly two undecillion dollars.
To be fair, I think my one of my points was very specifically that the countries most in need are in fact the ones most responsible for the tropical deforestation. To wit:
you want them to be responsible for their planet when they're having trouble even being responsible for themselves?
My response to that idea was certainly *not* more talk or bribing. Perhaps you'd like me to simplify it, so I'll do you the favor. These countries interact choose to interact with developed countries because they seek to gain equal footing amongst their peers. The terms by which we engage this desire will absolutely control the behavior they exhibit. If you'd choose to bribe or talk to them, all you accomplish is playing at their level. Their behavior is all about tit-fot-tat / quid-pro-quo. Instead, if you no longer accept how they do business and instead require that they operate according to the principles that you dictate, then you can control more than simply the product you receive. Now, please don't forget that communication is always a two-way street; they must be happy with the terms mutually agreed upon. Like I said toward the tail-end of my argument: globalization certainly has some benefits in that regard.
I think its abysmal that the same people outraged about things such as tropical deforestation are also outraged at the idea of globalization. At the end of the day it simply doesn't make sense. If you want someone to work with you on something, it certainly isn't helpful to ostracize them. You simply can't include them into your circle for some things, and exclude them for others. That isn't the way society works.
P.S. I don't know about you, but I can't for an instant believe that bribing someone is going to encourage them to feel a part of your circle, or even that it would change their behavior at all. I'm more inclined to think they're going to give you more face time, and learn how to tell you want you want to hear. Course, that only works so for so long before they think they can start asking for reparations. Or something.
There is a great deal of outrage over carbon production but almost none over destruction of the best sequestration means that exists.
Now, the thing that gets under my skin about your mentality is this:
As an American, I recognize that American philosophy is very commercilized, very liberal-thinking, and very consumerist in general.
What I respect about the outrage over people actively producing carbon is that it encourages people to take some ownership of their choices and actions.
What I cannot respect about the outrage that people have regarding the destruction of these tropical rain forests (or anything, really, for that matter) is this:
1) The outraged people have no legal, ethical, moral, or social ties to the things in question.
2) The outraged people have no understanding regarding the political, economic, or social climate of the area in question.
3) The countries in question are certainly approaching their land with a simple cost-benefit analysis in mind. If they can get something out of what's there to get ahead, why shouldn't they?
Now, don't get me wrong. I heard a statistic the other day that 26% of man-made CO2 production comes directly from these rain forests being decimated (source completely forgotten and thus heresay, my apologies). I'm pretty sure that Americans may get close to that figure, but I doubt they actually exceed that. Encouraging another continent to be more responsible for their planet would be cool, but lets not forget the struggle those continents are going through right now. The four horsemen seem to be beating a pretty steady drum there; you want them to be responsible for their planet when they're having trouble even being responsible for themselves? Admirable, simply admirable, in your arrogance and ignorance.
To that end, becoming the stewards of our planet truly seems our burden to bear; that we might shoulder some of their responsibility to the degree which they are obviously unable, so that they as a continent might be able to gain a somewhat more steady footing among their peers, the other continents.
If you really want them to stop destroying the land that protects our planet, outrage over their actions certainly isn't going to accomplish diddly squat; you're going to have to change the equation. They're currently decimating the rain forests because it benefits them to do so. I would be very surprised if they had very many other apparent options that enable competition in a global marketplace. I keep hearing 'think local' when it comes to sustainability, but, globalization certainly has some benefits too. That could enable us to put positive pressure on other continents and countries to follow our philosophies and moral standards, don't you think?
Yay. Thank goodness we've finally gotten there. Can we please find a new book to emulate? Pretty please?
... hell, how about a phone book? Nice quiet read .. no end of the world catastrophies to worry about, just some lousy advertising.
How about
I'm more inclined to believe that hollywood was just figuring that the TV show would be more believeable / watchable if they had a "based on a true story" element to it, and rewrote his backstory to fall in line with the show.
I think it would have been a great idea on the part of the supervisor to, rather than write their names on the cups, just give them each a name as they order. "Hi! Your name is Fred today, what can I get you?"
Perhaps not, but "Google" refers to searching on the Internet using a search engine (preferably Google, if it becomes necessary to duplicate results). Therefore, "Google" is certainly shorter and more specific than "Search the internet".
Whatever you do, I'd recommend avoiding the topic of her feet in her vicinity. Or any other body part that seems slightly out of proportionality, for that matter.
Reading comprehension please. He says he *has* a degree; this degree is in Network Systems Administration. Last I checked, this degree is *related* to Computers, right? The issue that employers have is that the title of the degree is not "Computer Science", despite it being a computer science degree. This is an issue of reading comprehension, and the lack thereof in the HR department.
Derek, I think this is well-said.
My own two cents: I will cease to be a member of this community if they remove Classic Slashdot. I *barely* tolerate this hideous amalgamation of the original Slashdot; if Dice were anything more than a marketing / PR firm, they would recognize that the area they need to focus on is not redesigning the front-end / back-end, it is ensuring that the content meets the requirements of their community. Dice has certainly had too many crit-fails on their die rolls to believe their current campaign.
I concur; I'd argue Bill Gates won if you consider the relative time each player spent honing their craft in the game. Gates had a fun piece of PR, and Fritz got a feather in his cap. Though tough to estimate, consider how much 71 seconds of Gates' time is worth.
Quick googling shows a 2013 net worth of 72 B, and 2.52455e9 seconds in 80 years. Even a rough estimate means that match cost thirty bucks [72,000,000,000 / 2.52455e9]. Gates essentially said 'Hey kid, playing this game isn't worth a fifty to me.'
The concept of insurance is just broken. Given the mandate to have "insurance", this really boils down to combining extortion [take your money], behavior modification [to eliminate their risk], and profit [selling your metadata].
I have to point out that, unless you've been handed that tinfoil hat from your great-grandfather, you're likely wearing aluminum foil. Brain waves are actually transparent to Aluminum foil and essentially make it easier for Them to hear, whereas Tin foil shields your brain-waves from Them. I don't mean to scare you or anything, but I figured that if you really value your privacy you ought to know.
Hear Hear!
For instance - how many Columbines have occurred in the past forty years?
How many post offices have been shot up in the last twenty years?
How many Shopping malls?
Seriously. We as a society must choose whether to be a society or live in tyranny.
Why should how we're treated at an airport be any different than how we're treated in any other place?
Give me back my damn shoes already - no, wait - give me back my damn dignity.
My wife saw that book on my shelf last night and asked if it was related to a man's period. I had to chuckle.
You missed other issues that *also* appear:
Failure to communicate with users when errors occur.
Failure to communicate when the system is broken.
Failure to communicate critical errors to your own staff.
Failure to create a realistic timeframe for necessary repairs.
Seriously. Why, when the system won't work at all, should I have to spend my time trying time and time again to even create an account? When I talk to the help and they say "keep trying", I act like a bloody fool by trying again. When I talk to the help and they say "It will be up in two or three hours", I assume that they've been told information that is roughly accurate!
So the black hole is like the hole that the Play-Doh squishes through, only we're in a four-dimensional black hole and not a three dimensional hole?
Could explain why we experience time in one direction and not all at once - that's the fourth dimension that squeezes through piece at a time.
Two things: First (to parent): My general observation about the government is once they've concocted a system approximating your standards (a series with 65%, 84%, and 70% respectively), they then short-circuit the entire system, grab the easy test (presumably the 65%), and just assume you "passed" the other two. After all, when you fail to train your staff to perform the tests correctly, you may as well not bother doing them, right?
Second (to child): The polygraph is essentially a legal way for the governmental agencies to pre-screen potential candidates and exclude them from a list of hire-able candidates. The entire crux of the goverment's complaint was essentially that by their candidates bypassing the polygraph, they required the hiring agency to expend more government resources in selecting an appropriate candidate. Hell, I could see a resume-proofreading service get tried using the same argument. After all, a lie by omission is still a lie - and polishing a resume is essentially just removing the 'rough patches'.