A guy who saw that there was a really cool poster that cost money, and decided to make himself a free version. Of course, had he asked the people who sold the poster, he might have found out they have an electronic copy available to download at no cost.
I would consider 'fair' behavior when they choose to honor their privacy agreement - not just the letter of the contract, but the spirit of it as well. If they've found they can make a buck on marketing, I don't see any reason to turn the other cheek. Call them up, ask for their superior, and let them know that you are cancelling your card / account because they chose not to honor the privacy policy you agreed to. Don't bother entitling them to another chance - but also don't allow your voice to get forgotten in the dregs of the front line - let it get to the people pulling the shots.
A common ploy among some manufacturers is to sell the same product with a separate SKU / Product line. Garmin comes to mind, where the Garmins available through Walmart have a different product number than the Garmins available through other vendors. I also remember a TigerDirect product that was a U2 iPod, signed by Bono, or some such. Maybe it just had a couple songs on it or something - I don't know.
Point is, even if they offer a product available everywhere, it's almost trivial to make a 'unique' product - even with services. Choose an unusual combination of services (or in the case of, y'know, Pizza.. pick an unusual combination - pizza, a DVD rental, and hot-wings), offer a semi loss-leader on the deal, and walla! You have a customer willingly handing over personal information.
Still, that's essentially the merchant gaming the system and not the bank, but I seriously distrust banks that would willingly open that vector to their customers. They might as well be in the business of identify theft, imho.
This is slashdot, you can't like Firefly without liking Buffy surely?
Not that I am by any means dissing Firefly, I love the show and own the series on DVD, but the best episodes of Buffy were far more powerful than the best episodes of Firefly.
And the worst episodes of Buffy were far worse than watching a firefly drown in kerosene. Just sayin'.
It's true, he needed none of that. First off, he used new wheels, which have no appreciable wear. Second, he certainly wasn't precision driving, which is where it would be critical.
It's a prototype and it's downright awesome, but in terms of useful application, I'm just skeptical. The technology is similar to what you'll find in a Constant Variable Transmission (CVT), which has the added benefit of not having to contact an uneven surface. That means even wear throughout the lifetime of the apparatus, and better steering control *without* resorting to complicated computer feedback controls.
I guess sometimes I just retain an old viewpoint - good technology is stuff that will work as intended even when it's broken.
Well, yes and no. The difference is in a traditional wheel as you change speed that response doesn't change. In this system, the feedback you get will be dependent on the speed you're going. In a traditional wheel as the response changes (i.e. normal tire wear) there is really no appreciable change in steering or friction.
The added issue is that your velocity *and* direction are dependent on where the tire contacts the driving surface. That really isn't an issue with a flat surface, but I don't typically drive on a dried desert lake bed. On a bumpy surface you'll experience unintended vast changes in speed, direction, and taste (namely if you vomit).
It looks awesome for robots in a controlled setting is what I'm saying, but not for typical day-to-day driving.. at least not yet.
My biggest concern is how much control you have over the accuracy and precision. The friction between the power and pavement surfaces is dependent on how much that wheel is worn down. While driving the response you get as the wheel ages will change.
Everyone has a first day on the job, and Seattle is less republican than the rest of the state. Mind you, republican has little to do with being firearm-aware.
Police will never be able to predict all crime, of course, but Brantingham believes they can make a significant dent. âoeWe think you can predict and deter about 15 percent of burglaries,â he says.
I've seen quite a few posts jump to the Minority Report conclusion. Question is, is that really the best way to deter crime?
How about a simpler solution? If the cops find out that mugging typically happens on dark streets between the bar and the nearest parking garage, why not encourage local businesses, residents, and city personnel to get the place better lit?
You can easily be proactive, but being proactive about catching criminals is really stupid. Instead, be proactive about improving society - if burglaries happen in the run-down section of town, invest in improvements. Hell, if you hire local you'll likely be hiring the guy who may have been about to burgle you. Sure, that sounds fatalistic in one front, but if you pay them $100 to do something, it beats them stealing $100 from you instead.
I know a couple people who work for TSA. They used to be cool, independent thinkers who I enjoyed hanging around. Now half of them are suspicious, pessimistic people who act as though the entire nation is entrapped in some massive conspiracy theory.
Even if they perform psychological screening, I doubt very much whether they're looking for the right traits, or whether this screening is performed often enough.
Why they haven't done this before is beyond me, actually...
Perhaps that's the wrong question then: How about 'What did terrorists achieve by hijacking planes?'
Simply, they got a really big missile. They used those to attack extremely high value targets - Western societies' center of commerce, government, and military operations. Even prior to that, blowing up a plane wasn't the point of hijacking a plane. The point was to make some statement, usually political, and use the plane (and its' hostages) as a bargaining chip. Blowing up the plane? Not so much.
What value is in attacking some checkpoint? It will pretty much just cause the US to tighten down how they police airports, and how much money they spend on 'protecting' their citizens. That's not terrorism, sadly.. it's just obnoxious, and it will make US Citizens hate whatever group takes credit for the act. The government will get encouragement to lead some war in the land that the terrorists supposedly inhabit on some pretense of our freedoms. The terrorists get to hide in a hut in the middle of a pile of sand, continually explaining how important their cause truly is to their brethren, while fighting for *their* 'freedom'.
I hate finding interesting comments when (I have mod points) AND (I have a comment to add).
The worst part is the mindset that TSA is trying to breed - complacency. I'd rather have a little less security (and by less, I mean go back to screening activity that doesn't skirt the intent of the constitution), and a little more freedom.
Admittedly the other behavior that I find abhorrent is when flight attendants take a minute to recognize military in uniform. Don't get me wrong, I appreciate the work they do for our country. The airlines behavior makes me feel like the military is on the flight to protect / police us. I don't know about you but I don't like working off the clock, and I can't imagine they do either. I'd rather not encourage them to put in free labor on my behalf, much less the complacency it supports.
I know it's irrational and a bit self-centered. I just don't see the passengers today being overly encouraged to react the way they did in the fourth plane.
I think you've hit the nail on the head. To add to this point though, the OP has made a few mistakes that I notice nobody has really rectified:
1) He assumes that he will learn programming in college.
The vast majority of CS degrees, in my experience, expect you to pick programming up as you go along. They instead focus on how to program *effectively*, which involves writing code that isn't gobble-dee-gook.
2) He assumes that colleges will teach him something that he can't learn on his own.
The fallacy here is that if he's not willing to learn on his own, he would simply fail in college anyhow.
3) He assumes that he won't benefit from all those GE classes.
What I learned from all those GE classes, as you noted, aren't strictly about the subjects themselves. I learned how to listen to people I don't get along with, compromise with people who I disagree with, how to apply myself to tasks that don't interest me, and especially that happiness means not resting on my laurels.
4) He assumes that his employer cares about what degree he actually gets.
If his employer values the degree, his employer inherently understands what that degree is composed of, and likely needs those GE classes more than any particular CS class offered. Skills applicable to the job are typically learned on the job, not in a classroom. See above for what is actually taught in college.
I really, really, REALLY wonder how the young folks of today are going to react in 10 or 15 years when they're in the same position their elders are today. What's their (or your) backup plan? What's your long-term plan?
What uses do you think humans have for a protein like this? How does it present?
Some thoughts I had just sitting here:
1) Supplements instinct to seek higher ground (mountains are traditionally heavy metals, which will even distort gravity slightly).
2) Couldbe responsible for migranes in people that are exposed to high electrical fields.
3) Could possibly cause unexplained dizziness from time to time.
4) Could be responsible for the moving light fragments (phosphene) I see when my eyes are closed.
Why isn't it more noticeable? Perhaps in animals that demonstrate magnetic knowledge, the eyeball mass to body mass difference is significant compared to humans, so we can't readily discern what our eyes are telling us in this regard.
It's called marketing, in one guise. The annual marketing budget in 2008 was roughly 412 billion dollars, as per one site. I highly doubt that takes into consideration the money spent on government uses, such as the Census (14.7 billion dollars), the alphabet soup - FBI, DOD(incl. NSA), CIA, DHS, et cetera (annual budget of 7.9 billion, 664 billion, 44 billion in 2005, 85.2 billion, respectively). I'd feel confident saying that this barely touches the amount of money that is actually thrown at demographics in general. It's interesting to note how large the DHS budget actually is though.
A better suggestion, and one I'd like to have the ability to do myself, is read the bar-codes of all my CDs. After reading them, go through your CD collection and determine what songs are extraneous, and give you the option to delete them (or go look for the CD).
I know I'm one of the unusual people who keeps the jewel cases complete, but I've found they're the perfect height to allow two rows of paperbacks on a bookshelf.
Fact is, if Napster still existed, it would be nice to give you the option to just download the songs from those CDs so you don't have to slog through burning the good ones you missed.
I have to disagree. I'm Alaskan, and I can say that anything under 0 means it's time to put on a jacket cause it's no longer T-shirt weather. "too f'in cold" is what happens after 40 below. That's not affiliated to Fahrenheit OR Celsius!
There's no reason in the world that *anyone* needs to make a profit at the expense of others. And no - profit does not pay the salary of people working. Profit is what is left after you pay all expenses. Salary is an expense.
I have no problem with a company making a profit. That is the entire point of corporate life. I have a problem with quality of life issues that exist solely because a company is only capable of making a profit on the services they provide at the expense of the same people that they serve.
I also have a problem with the average person who says we don't need a national health care plan because their insurance is better. More often than not, that person chose to work for a company that provides very good benefits specifically because of those benefits. They further neglect to consider the change in their final paycheck due to the cost difference that employers might not have to pay. (Admittedly, I'm sure many employers would simply stop paying the expense and consider it more profit - see above).
Furthermore, when I consider 1) how many people in American society today use the ER because there isn't another option for them, and 2) how much ER costs are inflated for simple things that could be fixed rather inexpensively otherwise (try just going to the doctor next time you have a problem, you may get in quicker), I really think that a real national health care plan would outweigh the costs associated, and improve tangential issues as well (Better quality of life in poverty areas, potentially less time on welfare, fewer absences in school due to health could improve education across the board, etc).
Yep, those two constraints "must work for the company longer than 6 months, and work more than 30 hours per week" exclude the majority. Looking at Walmart employees (I'm using 2001 data available on google), there were 930770 employees, and 476813 full-time employees who worked over 45 weeks in the year.
Admittedly, the same study by Richard Drogin says "Average earnings comparisons are restricted to year-end active employees with full-time status who worked over 45 weeks in the year. Approximately 85% of Wal-Mart workforce is full-time."
To me, it suggests that while 85% might work more than 30 hours a week, only 476/931= 51% of those are eligible for benefits because they've worked long enough to qualify. To be fair, that's a back-of-the-envelope calculation based on numbers
Speaking of small businesses: don't ever count on getting insurance if you work for a small business. Insurance companies can charge whatever they want to a small business - which means that if someone gets seriously sick (multi-million issue), the insurance company can (and will) hike the insurance rates of that business to compensate their lost income. There's no upper limit on what they can charge in this circumstance.
And I'm paying $1200/mo for full coverage. I'm early 30s, don't smoke, am not overweight, and am just finishing my graduate degree. I'm sure if you have a large family or are otherwise unhealthy, it can be a huge burden, like the present condition I find myself in.
And I get sick of the people above who think that because they're in a good situation that insurance companies paint all people as equal. The simple fact is insurance companies are based off statistics, and they run numbers extremely well. My theory is if they put enough people into the camp above that those people will keep them rolling in profit at the expense of people in my camp. Unless you're a part of a large company (that will typically cover a lot of costs you don't see, mind), you're going to be paying rates like I am.
Slashdot Mirror
Who is this Greg Mahlknecht?
A guy who saw that there was a really cool poster that cost money, and decided to make himself a free version. Of course, had he asked the people who sold the poster, he might have found out they have an electronic copy available to download at no cost.
Ah well.
I would consider 'fair' behavior when they choose to honor their privacy agreement - not just the letter of the contract, but the spirit of it as well. If they've found they can make a buck on marketing, I don't see any reason to turn the other cheek. Call them up, ask for their superior, and let them know that you are cancelling your card / account because they chose not to honor the privacy policy you agreed to. Don't bother entitling them to another chance - but also don't allow your voice to get forgotten in the dregs of the front line - let it get to the people pulling the shots.
A common ploy among some manufacturers is to sell the same product with a separate SKU / Product line. Garmin comes to mind, where the Garmins available through Walmart have a different product number than the Garmins available through other vendors. I also remember a TigerDirect product that was a U2 iPod, signed by Bono, or some such. Maybe it just had a couple songs on it or something - I don't know.
.. pick an unusual combination - pizza, a DVD rental, and hot-wings), offer a semi loss-leader on the deal, and walla! You have a customer willingly handing over personal information.
Point is, even if they offer a product available everywhere, it's almost trivial to make a 'unique' product - even with services. Choose an unusual combination of services (or in the case of, y'know, Pizza
Still, that's essentially the merchant gaming the system and not the bank, but I seriously distrust banks that would willingly open that vector to their customers. They might as well be in the business of identify theft, imho.
This is slashdot, you can't like Firefly without liking Buffy surely?
Not that I am by any means dissing Firefly, I love the show and own the series on DVD, but the best episodes of Buffy were far more powerful than the best episodes of Firefly.
And the worst episodes of Buffy were far worse than watching a firefly drown in kerosene. Just sayin'.
It's true, he needed none of that. First off, he used new wheels, which have no appreciable wear. Second, he certainly wasn't precision driving, which is where it would be critical.
It's a prototype and it's downright awesome, but in terms of useful application, I'm just skeptical. The technology is similar to what you'll find in a Constant Variable Transmission (CVT), which has the added benefit of not having to contact an uneven surface. That means even wear throughout the lifetime of the apparatus, and better steering control *without* resorting to complicated computer feedback controls.
I guess sometimes I just retain an old viewpoint - good technology is stuff that will work as intended even when it's broken.
Well, yes and no. The difference is in a traditional wheel as you change speed that response doesn't change. In this system, the feedback you get will be dependent on the speed you're going. In a traditional wheel as the response changes (i.e. normal tire wear) there is really no appreciable change in steering or friction.
.. at least not yet.
The added issue is that your velocity *and* direction are dependent on where the tire contacts the driving surface. That really isn't an issue with a flat surface, but I don't typically drive on a dried desert lake bed. On a bumpy surface you'll experience unintended vast changes in speed, direction, and taste (namely if you vomit).
It looks awesome for robots in a controlled setting is what I'm saying, but not for typical day-to-day driving
My biggest concern is how much control you have over the accuracy and precision. The friction between the power and pavement surfaces is dependent on how much that wheel is worn down. While driving the response you get as the wheel ages will change.
Everyone has a first day on the job, and Seattle is less republican than the rest of the state. Mind you, republican has little to do with being firearm-aware.
Police will never be able to predict all crime, of course, but Brantingham believes they can make a significant dent. âoeWe think you can predict and deter about 15 percent of burglaries,â he says.
I've seen quite a few posts jump to the Minority Report conclusion. Question is, is that really the best way to deter crime?
How about a simpler solution? If the cops find out that mugging typically happens on dark streets between the bar and the nearest parking garage, why not encourage local businesses, residents, and city personnel to get the place better lit?
You can easily be proactive, but being proactive about catching criminals is really stupid. Instead, be proactive about improving society - if burglaries happen in the run-down section of town, invest in improvements. Hell, if you hire local you'll likely be hiring the guy who may have been about to burgle you. Sure, that sounds fatalistic in one front, but if you pay them $100 to do something, it beats them stealing $100 from you instead.
Oh .. "5","whatever","adavis"
A real geek would have done it from a HP 48g
Fixed that for you.
I know a couple people who work for TSA. They used to be cool, independent thinkers who I enjoyed hanging around. Now half of them are suspicious, pessimistic people who act as though the entire nation is entrapped in some massive conspiracy theory.
Even if they perform psychological screening, I doubt very much whether they're looking for the right traits, or whether this screening is performed often enough.
Why they haven't done this before is beyond me, actually...
Perhaps that's the wrong question then: How about 'What did terrorists achieve by hijacking planes?'
.. it's just obnoxious, and it will make US Citizens hate whatever group takes credit for the act. The government will get encouragement to lead some war in the land that the terrorists supposedly inhabit on some pretense of our freedoms. The terrorists get to hide in a hut in the middle of a pile of sand, continually explaining how important their cause truly is to their brethren, while fighting for *their* 'freedom'.
Simply, they got a really big missile. They used those to attack extremely high value targets - Western societies' center of commerce, government, and military operations. Even prior to that, blowing up a plane wasn't the point of hijacking a plane. The point was to make some statement, usually political, and use the plane (and its' hostages) as a bargaining chip. Blowing up the plane? Not so much.
What value is in attacking some checkpoint? It will pretty much just cause the US to tighten down how they police airports, and how much money they spend on 'protecting' their citizens. That's not terrorism, sadly
So really - what DO terrorists gain?
I hate finding interesting comments when (I have mod points) AND (I have a comment to add).
The worst part is the mindset that TSA is trying to breed - complacency. I'd rather have a little less security (and by less, I mean go back to screening activity that doesn't skirt the intent of the constitution), and a little more freedom.
Admittedly the other behavior that I find abhorrent is when flight attendants take a minute to recognize military in uniform. Don't get me wrong, I appreciate the work they do for our country. The airlines behavior makes me feel like the military is on the flight to protect / police us. I don't know about you but I don't like working off the clock, and I can't imagine they do either. I'd rather not encourage them to put in free labor on my behalf, much less the complacency it supports.
I know it's irrational and a bit self-centered. I just don't see the passengers today being overly encouraged to react the way they did in the fourth plane.
I think you've hit the nail on the head. To add to this point though, the OP has made a few mistakes that I notice nobody has really rectified:
1) He assumes that he will learn programming in college.
The vast majority of CS degrees, in my experience, expect you to pick programming up as you go along. They instead focus on how to program *effectively*, which involves writing code that isn't gobble-dee-gook.
2) He assumes that colleges will teach him something that he can't learn on his own.
The fallacy here is that if he's not willing to learn on his own, he would simply fail in college anyhow.
3) He assumes that he won't benefit from all those GE classes.
What I learned from all those GE classes, as you noted, aren't strictly about the subjects themselves. I learned how to listen to people I don't get along with, compromise with people who I disagree with, how to apply myself to tasks that don't interest me, and especially that happiness means not resting on my laurels.
4) He assumes that his employer cares about what degree he actually gets.
If his employer values the degree, his employer inherently understands what that degree is composed of, and likely needs those GE classes more than any particular CS class offered. Skills applicable to the job are typically learned on the job, not in a classroom. See above for what is actually taught in college.
Sad reality is, it's a young folks game
I really, really, REALLY wonder how the young folks of today are going to react in 10 or 15 years when they're in the same position their elders are today. What's their (or your) backup plan? What's your long-term plan?
What uses do you think humans have for a protein like this? How does it present?
Some thoughts I had just sitting here:
1) Supplements instinct to seek higher ground (mountains are traditionally heavy metals, which will even distort gravity slightly).
2) Couldbe responsible for migranes in people that are exposed to high electrical fields. 3) Could possibly cause unexplained dizziness from time to time. 4) Could be responsible for the moving light fragments (phosphene) I see when my eyes are closed.
Why isn't it more noticeable? Perhaps in animals that demonstrate magnetic knowledge, the eyeball mass to body mass difference is significant compared to humans, so we can't readily discern what our eyes are telling us in this regard.
It's called marketing, in one guise. The annual marketing budget in 2008 was roughly 412 billion dollars, as per one site. I highly doubt that takes into consideration the money spent on government uses, such as the Census (14.7 billion dollars), the alphabet soup - FBI, DOD(incl. NSA), CIA, DHS, et cetera (annual budget of 7.9 billion, 664 billion, 44 billion in 2005, 85.2 billion, respectively). I'd feel confident saying that this barely touches the amount of money that is actually thrown at demographics in general. It's interesting to note how large the DHS budget actually is though.
A better suggestion, and one I'd like to have the ability to do myself, is read the bar-codes of all my CDs. After reading them, go through your CD collection and determine what songs are extraneous, and give you the option to delete them (or go look for the CD).
I know I'm one of the unusual people who keeps the jewel cases complete, but I've found they're the perfect height to allow two rows of paperbacks on a bookshelf.
Fact is, if Napster still existed, it would be nice to give you the option to just download the songs from those CDs so you don't have to slog through burning the good ones you missed.
I have to disagree. I'm Alaskan, and I can say that anything under 0 means it's time to put on a jacket cause it's no longer T-shirt weather. "too f'in cold" is what happens after 40 below. That's not affiliated to Fahrenheit OR Celsius!
There's no reason in the world that *anyone* needs to make a profit at the expense of others. And no - profit does not pay the salary of people working. Profit is what is left after you pay all expenses. Salary is an expense.
I have no problem with a company making a profit. That is the entire point of corporate life. I have a problem with quality of life issues that exist solely because a company is only capable of making a profit on the services they provide at the expense of the same people that they serve.
I also have a problem with the average person who says we don't need a national health care plan because their insurance is better. More often than not, that person chose to work for a company that provides very good benefits specifically because of those benefits. They further neglect to consider the change in their final paycheck due to the cost difference that employers might not have to pay. (Admittedly, I'm sure many employers would simply stop paying the expense and consider it more profit - see above).
Furthermore, when I consider 1) how many people in American society today use the ER because there isn't another option for them, and 2) how much ER costs are inflated for simple things that could be fixed rather inexpensively otherwise (try just going to the doctor next time you have a problem, you may get in quicker), I really think that a real national health care plan would outweigh the costs associated, and improve tangential issues as well (Better quality of life in poverty areas, potentially less time on welfare, fewer absences in school due to health could improve education across the board, etc).
Yep, those two constraints "must work for the company longer than 6 months, and work more than 30 hours per week" exclude the majority. Looking at Walmart employees (I'm using 2001 data available on google), there were 930770 employees, and 476813 full-time employees who worked over 45 weeks in the year.
Admittedly, the same study by Richard Drogin says "Average earnings comparisons are restricted to year-end active employees with full-time status who worked over 45 weeks in the year. Approximately 85% of Wal-Mart workforce is full-time."
To me, it suggests that while 85% might work more than 30 hours a week, only 476/931= 51% of those are eligible for benefits because they've worked long enough to qualify. To be fair, that's a back-of-the-envelope calculation based on numbers
Speaking of small businesses: don't ever count on getting insurance if you work for a small business. Insurance companies can charge whatever they want to a small business - which means that if someone gets seriously sick (multi-million issue), the insurance company can (and will) hike the insurance rates of that business to compensate their lost income. There's no upper limit on what they can charge in this circumstance.
And I'm paying $1200/mo for full coverage. I'm early 30s, don't smoke, am not overweight, and am just finishing my graduate degree. I'm sure if you have a large family or are otherwise unhealthy, it can be a huge burden, like the present condition I find myself in.
And I get sick of the people above who think that because they're in a good situation that insurance companies paint all people as equal. The simple fact is insurance companies are based off statistics, and they run numbers extremely well. My theory is if they put enough people into the camp above that those people will keep them rolling in profit at the expense of people in my camp. Unless you're a part of a large company (that will typically cover a lot of costs you don't see, mind), you're going to be paying rates like I am.
While I appreciate the Godwin'd article, saying Adolf was responsible is akin to suggesting that Palin owns the largest diamond mine in the world.
Certainly not me! I don't need to give somebody my passcode for the heck of it!