Speaking as a college student: if you have time to spend a few hours on entertainment, you have time to work. If you can't afford the game, perhaps you should consider a part-time job.
Three simple things: 1) Basic fact-checking, 2) reviewing what you write to make sure you produced a clear, thoughtful, and coherent statement, and 3) crediting and providing [spam-free] links to, sources.
As far as your critique of how on Earth someone is supposed to post content, I have to assume you're not talking about the mechanical steps (press the button), but rather the 'how do you post content without getting berated' question. The answer is also simple: well-informed means educated; educated means that you are capable of presenting an argument with enough information for your audience to come to the same conclusion you did.
If you're getting berated then you obviously haven't presented your argument clearly, which may say something about either your educational background, or your work ethic.
I agree with you wholeheartedly, but until this website popped up I always felt more or less like I'm just getting robbed come April. Transparency and Accountability contribute to a lot of buy-in where taxes are concerned. Lets be honest - it's remarkably easy to become disenfranchised when you have no idea where your money actually goes.
Rationally, I'm also completely aware that the budget is public information and that I can look at it should I choose to, but this format seems to make things quite a bit clearer.
The real drawback I see though is that everyone seems to accept the notoriously dubious concept that governments scale effectively. I liked the idea of the government we started with: by the people, for the people. It essentially meant that the average person was able to comprehend what the government was doing at almost every bureaucratic level, and be assured that it was supporting their community and their freedoms.
I challenge anyone today to wrap their head around the behemoth we have today. For instance, pick a branch at random, and start looking at job titles from the top, and see how far down you can get before you have no idea what responsibilities a particular job has.
Oh come on!
If you're on good terms with a Peugeot dealer, chances are you'll be driving a Peugeot, even if the GM dealer is closer.
Most people think they get better deals from friends. Sometimes they are right, often they're the same and sometimes they're worse. In most cases, though, people feel better going to someone they know. That is not a nefarious scheme, it's human nature.
And besides, Google doesn't want their employees to sell this. There is nothing to sell here. It's a move to get the function more widespread acknowledgement and thus a bigger userbase (to which they custom-tailor ads).
Frankly, I have a very hard time seeing how this is supposed to be Evil (TM).
My interpretation that the goal of this bonus program is to make damn sure this feature comes across to the public as a 'Good Thing'. It seems like they hope to chip away every blemish that makes it unappealing. That means they *do* want their employees to sell this, because they want to be able to sell this feature to their advertisers. This is the only thing Google actually *does* sell if I'm not mistaken -- advertising. (sure they might make some money in other departments, but the bottom line is if they didn't advertise, they wouldn't be a household name).
There's three things I see are inherently evil about Google pushing this feature like they are:
1) They're directly tying the success (i.e. bonuses) of every individual to the success of one product regardless of whether the product is good or bad.
It's actions like this that make employees realize they're part of a profit-driven enterprise, and not an idea-driven enterprise (of which I used to attribute Google). Most profit-driven enterprises couldn't care whether they sell a goodproduct, as long as it sells. (See Microsoft)
2) They've made a business model around producing 'non-biased' results, and now they're inducing an intentional bias on the results.
Admittedly, they're improving the quality of their results (until the script kiddies and dubious SEOites latch onto a process to induce their bias into the mix, at which point Google's bogging themselves down in micromanaging the results).
3) They're hoping (and probably rightfully so) that the public doesn't mind Google retaining the information necessary to identify each +1.
Personally, I have come to realize that I don't generally like or appreciate businesses taking advantage of my personal information; still, Google is intelligent enough to realize that selling advertising is more profitable than selling this info to someone else. In short, Google's not evil, cause they're smart enough to profit just by playing the game. Everyone else *is* evil because they saw a hack and are exploiting it, and aren't smart enough to figure out how to actually benefit from it.
Isn't the point nowadays that you do both?
Left and Right are a matter of perspective. You don't *actually* need to sit on either side, right? Either do the politicians.
They tell the people who want to vote for the guy on the Right that they're following Right ideology, and they tell the people who want to vote for the guy on the Left that they're following Left ideology.
Everyone's happy. No?
I can't help but notice most of his letters are written more than one way. Note the U with and without a tail, upper and lowercase T's, P and roe (presumably used interchangeably), D's closed at both the top and bottom, and some of his Ns look like umlauts, and his W's seem to be all over the map.
I would be very inclined to assume the E's are all spaces and remove them. There's a noticeable amount of repititon - WLD, NCB, PRS, TFRN, RCBRN, TRS, MKS, NMR
I'm also curious: Did he own a vehicle? What was the make and model? Are there important events in 71, 74, and 75 (that seems like a longshot, as the highway theory posted elsewhere seems more on target)? Who are / were his friends (and more importantly, their initials)?
Honestly, I'd assume it's not so much encrypted, as it simply is shorthand. There's very few vowels (except E), and lots of repetition otherwise. I'd look to things he didn't encrypt and start with what his vocabulary actually was. Unfortunately, they didn't post any of that. Ho Hum.
I know the definitions of "News for Nerds" is very broad, but does this really belong on Slashdot? It's a straightforward article on corporate taxes without a sci/tech or otherwise nerdy slant. Wouldn't this be better discussed on a real political blog?
The reason this is on Slashdot is simply that the article was posted via the NYTimes twitter feed. This has to be News for Nerds! Sides, we have to do due diligence, and make sure whoever is choosing to re-tweet the NYTimes feed doesn't get sued.
Oh c'mon, the good news is they're easily thwarted. Just yell in a loud voice 'Olly Olly Oxen Free', and the tiny robot overlord will come out of hiding.
Well that's the point though, isn't it? Some click-farm needs to boost its' credibility, so they grab real news and post it on their site, then submit those links to every website that might possibly link to their less-than-genuine-rendition of the real article?
It'd be nice if the editors stopped reposting these, but at some point of the heuristics suggest it's worth reposting (maybe they count how many responses each submitter receives?), maybe it's the heuristics that need to change.
Not knowing the specific circumstances, I'll point out that a great many classes have requirements in their syllabus (such as books required for class assignments and the like) that aren't truly necessary.
Perhaps the first semester there wasn't a solid system in place that made use of the software?
I think the parent is suggesting that businesses should ensure three things for all their customers:
1. Their pricing model is fair, and publicly available to everybody.
2. It should be clear when their goods/services are being "consumed".
3. There should be a simple, and straightforward method to prevent selected goods/services from being "consumed".
When a business has a good/service that is used by 99% of the population, perhaps the government ought to step in and verify those three things meet the intent of their wording, and if not then certainly, accept or reject fees and services that are not clear.
This is slashdot, not wikipedia. We're perfectly entitled to say something completely arbitrary without citing any sources. Regardless of it's authenticity, we simply refer you to the 'almighty' Google. If you can't find it, obviously your google-fu is weak. I would link you to a source that affirms his post, but it would really only be a a link to goatse.cx
We usually get modded insightful or funny for such behavior (see this post), depending on the sarcastic nature and/or how obvious the sarcastic tone in the post is.
You chose a browser script/protocol rather than a programming language?
Sorry but I think you've chosen the thing that will die first. Java is standard across platforms. Javascript and HTML5 are not (and will never be) standard across browsers.
C++ has been around for a long long time, and it is a horrible unclean mess (compared to any modern language like Java) that should have died 20 years ago.
Java will be around in *50* years time. HTML5 will be being replaced in 5 years time.
Only if nobody comes around to collect the garbage.
Speaking as a landlord, you ought to! Not only will it add value to the property and reduce heating costs, but often insulation will settle in the wall (or get stolen by squirrels, in some cases). Letting them know gives them power to do something about it, whether they have the immediate funds to do so or not.
Depending on the state, there's probably a couple tax breaks they can get for such an endeavor.
Wish I had mod points today.
The only other thing to point out is that quite a few places have (or will have) a place to recycle / dispose of CFL's rather than landfill them.
Slashdot Mirror
C'mon, any GOOD scientists should be able to get a few dozen different studies out of triplets!
You don't typically use up a whole human body in an experiment!
Seriously.
Speaking as a college student: if you have time to spend a few hours on entertainment, you have time to work. If you can't afford the game, perhaps you should consider a part-time job.
No more secrets
Forgive me, but the correct quote is: "Too many secrets".
If you'll note the abhorrent lack of A's in "No more secrets", it's a slight tip-off.
What does it take to please you people?
Three simple things: 1) Basic fact-checking, 2) reviewing what you write to make sure you produced a clear, thoughtful, and coherent statement, and 3) crediting and providing [spam-free] links to, sources.
As far as your critique of how on Earth someone is supposed to post content, I have to assume you're not talking about the mechanical steps (press the button), but rather the 'how do you post content without getting berated' question. The answer is also simple: well-informed means educated; educated means that you are capable of presenting an argument with enough information for your audience to come to the same conclusion you did.
If you're getting berated then you obviously haven't presented your argument clearly, which may say something about either your educational background, or your work ethic.
I agree with you wholeheartedly, but until this website popped up I always felt more or less like I'm just getting robbed come April. Transparency and Accountability contribute to a lot of buy-in where taxes are concerned. Lets be honest - it's remarkably easy to become disenfranchised when you have no idea where your money actually goes.
Rationally, I'm also completely aware that the budget is public information and that I can look at it should I choose to, but this format seems to make things quite a bit clearer.
The real drawback I see though is that everyone seems to accept the notoriously dubious concept that governments scale effectively. I liked the idea of the government we started with: by the people, for the people. It essentially meant that the average person was able to comprehend what the government was doing at almost every bureaucratic level, and be assured that it was supporting their community and their freedoms.
I challenge anyone today to wrap their head around the behemoth we have today. For instance, pick a branch at random, and start looking at job titles from the top, and see how far down you can get before you have no idea what responsibilities a particular job has.
Oh come on! If you're on good terms with a Peugeot dealer, chances are you'll be driving a Peugeot, even if the GM dealer is closer. Most people think they get better deals from friends. Sometimes they are right, often they're the same and sometimes they're worse. In most cases, though, people feel better going to someone they know. That is not a nefarious scheme, it's human nature. And besides, Google doesn't want their employees to sell this. There is nothing to sell here. It's a move to get the function more widespread acknowledgement and thus a bigger userbase (to which they custom-tailor ads). Frankly, I have a very hard time seeing how this is supposed to be Evil (TM).
My interpretation that the goal of this bonus program is to make damn sure this feature comes across to the public as a 'Good Thing'. It seems like they hope to chip away every blemish that makes it unappealing. That means they *do* want their employees to sell this, because they want to be able to sell this feature to their advertisers. This is the only thing Google actually *does* sell if I'm not mistaken -- advertising. (sure they might make some money in other departments, but the bottom line is if they didn't advertise, they wouldn't be a household name). There's three things I see are inherently evil about Google pushing this feature like they are:
1) They're directly tying the success (i.e. bonuses) of every individual to the success of one product regardless of whether the product is good or bad.
It's actions like this that make employees realize they're part of a profit-driven enterprise, and not an idea-driven enterprise (of which I used to attribute Google). Most profit-driven enterprises couldn't care whether they sell a goodproduct, as long as it sells. (See Microsoft)
2) They've made a business model around producing 'non-biased' results, and now they're inducing an intentional bias on the results.
Admittedly, they're improving the quality of their results (until the script kiddies and dubious SEOites latch onto a process to induce their bias into the mix, at which point Google's bogging themselves down in micromanaging the results).
3) They're hoping (and probably rightfully so) that the public doesn't mind Google retaining the information necessary to identify each +1.
Personally, I have come to realize that I don't generally like or appreciate businesses taking advantage of my personal information; still, Google is intelligent enough to realize that selling advertising is more profitable than selling this info to someone else. In short, Google's not evil, cause they're smart enough to profit just by playing the game. Everyone else *is* evil because they saw a hack and are exploiting it, and aren't smart enough to figure out how to actually benefit from it.
Isn't the point nowadays that you do both?
Left and Right are a matter of perspective. You don't *actually* need to sit on either side, right? Either do the politicians.
They tell the people who want to vote for the guy on the Right that they're following Right ideology, and they tell the people who want to vote for the guy on the Left that they're following Left ideology.
Everyone's happy. No?
Funny, I took the slashdot news article as a direct challenge to participate in the conversation without RTFA.
Thought it was mandatory!
I know, it's slashdot, but don't dupes usually wait a day or a week before getting posted?
http://tech.slashdot.org/story/11/03/30/1517238/Google-Agrees-To-Biennial-Privacy-Reviews
I can't help but notice most of his letters are written more than one way. Note the U with and without a tail, upper and lowercase T's, P and roe (presumably used interchangeably), D's closed at both the top and bottom, and some of his Ns look like umlauts, and his W's seem to be all over the map.
I would be very inclined to assume the E's are all spaces and remove them. There's a noticeable amount of repititon - WLD, NCB, PRS, TFRN, RCBRN, TRS, MKS, NMR
I'm also curious: Did he own a vehicle? What was the make and model? Are there important events in 71, 74, and 75 (that seems like a longshot, as the highway theory posted elsewhere seems more on target)? Who are / were his friends (and more importantly, their initials)?
Honestly, I'd assume it's not so much encrypted, as it simply is shorthand. There's very few vowels (except E), and lots of repetition otherwise. I'd look to things he didn't encrypt and start with what his vocabulary actually was. Unfortunately, they didn't post any of that. Ho Hum.
I know the definitions of "News for Nerds" is very broad, but does this really belong on Slashdot? It's a straightforward article on corporate taxes without a sci/tech or otherwise nerdy slant. Wouldn't this be better discussed on a real political blog?
The reason this is on Slashdot is simply that the article was posted via the NYTimes twitter feed. This has to be News for Nerds! Sides, we have to do due diligence, and make sure whoever is choosing to re-tweet the NYTimes feed doesn't get sued.
Right?
(bird chirps)
Oh c'mon, the good news is they're easily thwarted. Just yell in a loud voice 'Olly Olly Oxen Free', and the tiny robot overlord will come out of hiding.
Okay, but might that have something to do with the fact that once it's cached, it's a mite quicker to load the next time?
Unfortunately, there is no limitation that prohibits people who lack friends from using or posting on slashdot.
How else am I supposed to win a free lunch?
Just drop your iPhone in the tray.
Well that's the point though, isn't it? Some click-farm needs to boost its' credibility, so they grab real news and post it on their site, then submit those links to every website that might possibly link to their less-than-genuine-rendition of the real article?
It'd be nice if the editors stopped reposting these, but at some point of the heuristics suggest it's worth reposting (maybe they count how many responses each submitter receives?), maybe it's the heuristics that need to change.
Not knowing the specific circumstances, I'll point out that a great many classes have requirements in their syllabus (such as books required for class assignments and the like) that aren't truly necessary.
Perhaps the first semester there wasn't a solid system in place that made use of the software?
-- You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
I tried that once, and now I'm unemployed!
I think the parent is suggesting that businesses should ensure three things for all their customers:
1. Their pricing model is fair, and publicly available to everybody.
2. It should be clear when their goods/services are being "consumed".
3. There should be a simple, and straightforward method to prevent selected goods/services from being "consumed".
When a business has a good/service that is used by 99% of the population, perhaps the government ought to step in and verify those three things meet the intent of their wording, and if not then certainly, accept or reject fees and services that are not clear.
This is slashdot, not wikipedia. We're perfectly entitled to say something completely arbitrary without citing any sources. Regardless of it's authenticity, we simply refer you to the 'almighty' Google. If you can't find it, obviously your google-fu is weak. I would link you to a source that affirms his post, but it would really only be a a link to goatse.cx We usually get modded insightful or funny for such behavior (see this post), depending on the sarcastic nature and/or how obvious the sarcastic tone in the post is.
Oh, don't worry about the tension - the springs will give a bit with wear.
That's what my VCR says too! Oh wait, nevermind.
Wait, yes it is!
You chose a browser script/protocol rather than a programming language? Sorry but I think you've chosen the thing that will die first. Java is standard across platforms. Javascript and HTML5 are not (and will never be) standard across browsers. C++ has been around for a long long time, and it is a horrible unclean mess (compared to any modern language like Java) that should have died 20 years ago. Java will be around in *50* years time. HTML5 will be being replaced in 5 years time.
Only if nobody comes around to collect the garbage.
Speaking as a landlord, you ought to! Not only will it add value to the property and reduce heating costs, but often insulation will settle in the wall (or get stolen by squirrels, in some cases). Letting them know gives them power to do something about it, whether they have the immediate funds to do so or not. Depending on the state, there's probably a couple tax breaks they can get for such an endeavor.
Wish I had mod points today. The only other thing to point out is that quite a few places have (or will have) a place to recycle / dispose of CFL's rather than landfill them.