That son of a bitch launched four missles into Kuwait today that he's been forbidden to own by the UN for 12 years.
You must be psychic. Last I heard, it was only a rumor that they were Scud missiles, and most likely they were short range missiles that he was permitted to have. Heaven forbid that an army retaliates when you attack them.
Can you really come up with a good reason as to -WHY- that's acceptable?
Nope, it's not acceptable, if he has the weapons. Did he have WMD last time? Did he use them then? If he's such a threat, then why didn't he use them in 1991?
The rest of the world needs proof that he has these weapons before we're willing to punish him. Where is the smoking gun? Is the fact that he's not co-operating considered evidence? Don't we give accused criminals the right to remain silent? Do we have any evidence that he still has WMD or has any credible links to al-Qaeda? No.
The rest of the world is trying to follow international law. The U.S. and Britain helped create that law, but it doesn't mean they are above it. Iraq may be in breach of the law, but now the U.S. and Britain are too. How do two wrongs make a right? The U.S. and Britain validated the authority of that law by going to the U.N. to make their case, and then when it was taking too long, they broke the law by taking matters into their own hands.
The law allows the use of force in 2 situations: 1) When someone initiates agression against your territory or that of your allies, you may retaliate. 2) When authorized by the U.N.
Iraq never attacked the U.S., was never linked to terrorism, and was not a credible threat to anyone but his own people. (Perhaps a peacekeeping mission would have been appropriate?) Plus, an attack on Iraq was NOT authorized by the U.N. Therefore, even if you can somehow morally justify this war, it's still illegal. Therefore, the U.S. is a bully.
Go fucking live there.
Hmmm, that's an awfully rude comment. Do you kiss your mother with that mouth? So, you want to drag it down to this level, eh?
Go fucking live there? I don't have to go anywhere. I live in the sovereign nation of Canada, whose policies, just like other countries, are NOT dictated to us by the United States. The American government has no authority here. You got a problem with that? Take it up with the U.N.
In the mean time, you, the rest of you yankee bastards, and that moron president of yours can kiss my maple syrup covered ass.
If we make them worry about the gun we have, they will find unity in taking it away.
There are many people all over the world who are even more likely to look for an opportunity to strike the U.S. now that America has basically decreed that they are above the law.
I grew up in a world where the U.S. was the good guys, and we were happy to be good guys too. Now this war has proven that America is a bully. Funny how sometimes the bullied kids fight back. Does the word 'Columbine' mean anything to you?
But what the hell, you've got God on your side, right?
Re:Speaking as a Canadian
on
Strike on Iraq
·
· Score: 1
In fact it points out the wonder of living in a free state and though it is itself an exercise in hypocrisy should be cherished as an example of such.
I'm just wondering: How does invading Iraq create freedom or liberty in the United States?
For that matter, how does invading Iraq prove that the United States can be trusted by the rest of the world? I think this war will sway world opinion against the U.S. for the next 50 years.
Hmm, that's an interesting, if rather contrived, situation. I'm reminded of the anecdotal evidence I often hear against the use of seatbelts. I prefer to make my decisions based on statistics. What are the chances of the situation you've just described, particularly on a U.N. mission?
Picture this:
You're a peace keeper in Somalia, and your chopper gets hit by an RPG. It crashes near a crowd of locals, all hyped up on drugs, and they want a piece of you. Thankfully, they're mostly armed with rocks and knives, and the ones with AK-47's can't aim anyway, so they're no match for you, since you can mow down dozens of skinny rock throwers with one pass of your new high-tech flesh seeking fully-automatic combat rifle, holding off the horde from swarming your downed comrades.
During the crash, two of your buddies were thrown from the helicopter (obviously because they weren't wearing their seatbelts) and they landed in the midst of the crowd where they were promptly beaten into unrecognizable bloody stumps. The crowd picks up their weapons and aims them at you...
Now, choose the features you'd like those weapons to have.
However, I do see your point. Here's how the army is going to deal with the problem you point out: they won't use biometrics... they'll just implant an RFID chip in the palm of every soldier, and the rifle will only work if a valid RFID is near the RFID reader on the rifle.
I once created a screen scraper to grab the prices for our competitor's products and stick them in a database. Then we did this calculation: Our Price = Their Price * 0.95
To this day I'm still not convinced that it was unethical because even large stores compare their prices to other stores all the time in an attempt to have the "lowest price". When you have two gas stations across the street from each other, they often set their prices based on the price of their competitor. In general, prices are considered public information.
It's all irrelevant now... our competitor found out about us, dropped their price by 10% for a few months to put us out of business, and then jacked their prices right back to their original levels. I guess, for a while, we did something good for customers, and for that I'm satisfied.
All you Americans can attend "half price" because of our sagging currency/exchange rate, while us "Canadians" can't afford to buy lunch there let alone travel.
You haven't been watching the exchange rate recently, have you? 12 months ago, 1 U.S. dollar was worth $1.60 Canadian, but my last exchange occurred at the rate of $1.47, and the U.S. dollar is still dropping in value.
Whoever is in charge of the dollar policy in the U.S. recently changed. The previous guy was an advocate of a strong U.S. dollar (I'm not sure why), but the new guy realizes that was hurting U.S. exports, so you can expect the rate to settle somewhere around $1.35 to $1.40 after the dust settles. That would at least bring it inline with purchasing power on both sides of the border.
It will also bring comparative salaries more inline on both sides, so it might slow down the "brain drain" of Canadian talent to the U.S.
Because hate encourages violence, they hate us, and thus they visit violence upon us and we visit violence upon them.
Sure, it's become a cycle, but the U.S. and Britain helped to start it by forcibly removing the Palestinians from Palestine and helping to create Israel on land that had been farmed by the Palestinians' ancestors for 75 generations (before which it was Jewish land and the Jews were forcibly removed by the Roman Empire).
I'm not saying anyone can fix the problem, but I am saying that people don't just start hating for no apparent reason; they have valid reasons for hating the U.S.
However, I do agree with your point that video games and the war on Iraq are not at all related.
It's unfortunate that this article had to turn into a bunch of Americans debating their governments' priorities. The real story here is some interesting new technology that going to be tested that will expand science for everyone's benefit.
To the Americans out there - we in the rest of the world are very impressed by your past accomplishments. The fact that other nations are also developing their own space programs does not mean it's an insult to you guys.
You will benefit from everyone else's space exploration, just as you benefit from Japan's semiconductor research, Canada's telecommunications research, and Europe's alternative energy research. Yes, other nations benefit from U.S. research too. It's a team game we're playing here, and it's time we stopped with the us/them frame of mind.
Think for a second where the U.S. rocket technology came from. Was it strictly a U.S. invention, or was is based heavily on German technology?
My point is that countries can accomplish more working together than in isolation.
Yup, telesurgery starts to look pretty appealing if you've been suffering on a long waiting list typical of the healthcare system in Canada
I'd just like to point out that there are long waiting lists in the U.S. too; it's just that you are allowed to jump ahead in line if you have more money. If don't have enough money, you're not allowed to get in line. I'll take the Canadian system any day.
I feel sorry for the mothers of the many thousands of Americans who died pulling Europe out of the cesspool it made of itself.
As a Canadian, I'd like to add that I'm proud that my Grandfather and his generation of Canadians fought to help liberate France, and fight alongside our friends in Europe. Canadians fought because it was the right thing to do, not because we wanted you to 'owe' us for the favour.
Never mind the Americans; we've learned the secret to dealing with them: even though they have long memories, and they think everyone owes them something, they have very short attention spans. Give them 3 months and the average American will again forget how to spell Europe. They don't even remember why their Whitehouse is painted white!
Worrying to hear Americans have to check an atlas to check Australia is south of the equator.
First of all, I'm a Canadian.
Second of all, I was pretty sure that it was completely below the equator, but I really wasn't sure, and I wanted to be certain.
I don't think it's unreasonable that I wasn't completely sure if the northern tip of Australia pertruded above the equator, and honestly, I really didn't know where Perth was in Australia either.
Do you know where Calgary or Winnipeg is in Canada? Do you know what province they're in? Do you know which one is further north? Do you know if either are north of the arctic circle, or would you have to check an atlas?
I don't expect an Australian, or even an American who lives much closer, to know the answers to these questions. Honestly, I had to check an atlas before my recent trip to Indianapolis, because I really didn't know where it was, and it turns out it's close enough that I drove there.
Honestly, I would consider it sufficient if, when shown a map, an individual could name all the continents, find their country, and name their surrounding countries. Whether or not you can give precise latitude and longitude coordinates is irrelevant.
Why do the requirements put this elevator in the middle of the ocean?
I believe it has to do with anchoring the elevator at the equator, since the other end would have to be directly over the equator to avoid wobbling north and south during its orbit.
Since Australia lies completely south of the equator (according to this web atlas), I would suggest that this company wants to have a base of operations in Australia, but place the anchor somewhere in the Indian Ocean.
Just because NASA has no ideas what to do doesn't mean that nobody could. Some middle school kid might pop up with some brilliantly obvious way to save our asses that the hotshots all overlooked. If you're f*cked anyway you might as well let everyone else have a chance to think of something.
That's an interesting idea... here's a way to build on it: have NASA issue a warning today, that we only have 2 years until a killer asteroid is going to hit us. Then, the middle school kids with the ideas can offer them up NOW so we can actually have time to implement them! Why wait until we're all f*cked?
I think they're great - I get 2 to 5% back from purchases, and never pay interest because I pay it off every month. I save money, and the credit card company makes money off the fools who can't manage their money properly - I love it!
unfortunately a bit expensive if you are as addicted to it as I am. I spend approx $30/month in service charges with TDCT for "convenience". This always shocks americans.
I bank in both the U.S. and Canada. While it's true that Canada was ahead of the U.S. technologically (because Canada usually ends up being a test market for new technologies), the U.S. has pretty much caught up.
I still find the U.S. systems frustrating but I think it's mostly because of how the U.S. doesn't have "national" banks like Canada has. The Canadian banks are comparatively huge, which lets them provide a lot more convenience than the smaller, more regional U.S. banks. (Though, some large U.S. banks are pretty good.)
Overall, the U.S. systems are way more expensive in terms of fees than the Interac system. Sometimes, I find the Visa Check card is the best way to go in the U.S. It's like a debit card - it takes money directly out of your account, but it uses the Visa network, so you don't have to wait for the clerk to dust off and boot up their debit card readers.
Regarding the $3 service fee when you bought a pizza: Buddy, just break down and get a Visa or Mastercard! That's what it's for! Pay the credit card bill online, and it doesn't even cost anything for a stamp or to write a cheque. I guess if you can't handle having a credit card, then you're gonna be stuck paying the outrageous service fees. Also, look into getting a better service plan from TD Canada Trust - for $12 a month, you should be able to find a plan that will save you the $30 in individual transaction fees. Also, there are lots of TD machines all across Canada, so there's no excuse for you to need to use the $1 or $2 service fee machines.
It amazes me that people complain about a 48 cent Canadian stamp, and then willingly pay $1.50 or more to take out forty dollars when they want to buy a few drinks. Just pick a bank with convenient bank machine locations.
Why should a casual user even see the Administrator menu!
Because the user may be the administrator! Ha ha! In my applications, if you click on the Administrator Menu, it says you don't have privileges to get there, and directs you to a login prompt. That's more intuitive to an administrator than just having a login button, and no obvious presence of Administrator level settings.
Nothing on a computer is intuitive unless you understand the abstraction or metaphore that the UI is using.
However, in my job, I don't try to abstract the computer - I abstract the task that the user is trying to perform. If one of the things the program does is automatically print out labels, and the user may have to reprint one of those labels, then I put a big button on the side/bottom/top/wherever that say "reprint labels" and has a picture of the printer on it. I don't put a button there that says "File", and when you click on it, a list pops up including the item "Print...", and if you click on that, bringing up a little window to ask them what to print. I *know* that 90% of the time, 90% of the users will want to print an old label, and how they do that is obvious, because there's a big button on the screen saying "reprint labels".
The other 10% of users are either myself (during configuration) or a system administrator, so you put all the other "guru" commands under another big button that says "Administrator Menu". That tells the casual user they don't have to go there. Under this Administrator menu, you can abstract the computer because that's what an administrator is concerned with, so you have "System Log", "Global Application Settings", "Hardware I/O", and "Security" options hidden away from 90% of the users, and they don't complain about having too much junk cluttering their screen.
I get pretty sick of these stories. I certainly understand that there's a lot of bad software and user interfaces out there, but I'm aware of it, and I put a huge amount of effort into designing interfaces to be intuitive to whoever's going to use the system.
However, here's how my projects go: we get a contract in mid-January to write a custom software application. It has to be completed by, say, May 1st, because that's what our sales dept. sold them. They never asked an engineer how long it would take, they just promised the moon to get the contract. Then, we write a functional specification, and give it to the customer for review. We need to get it reviewed and signed before we can move forward, but for some reason, my contact with the customer doesn't have the authority to sign anything. Not only that, it goes through countless revisions as the customer finally realizes they don't actually want what we sold them. Of course, the deadline of May 1st never changes, so by the time the functional spec is approved, it's April 25th, we've had to start writing the application without a fully approved functional spec, and we've got a week to finish writing, testing, and debuging the application, so no matter what, we're going to deliver late and overbudget.
That's when your boss comes by, shows you the budget numbers for the project and says, "We can't afford any more time on this project, so just do whatever it takes to make it work." Making it work does not mean spending hours designing and revising user interfaces to make them intuitive. I hate it, but that's why software interfaces aren't intuitive.
I hadn't considered the idea of using a credit check to test a new hire, but it does make a lot of sense. I heard somewhere else that an auto insurance company, Progressive, uses their clients' credit as a good indicator of future risk. They claimed that it was a better predictor of future accident claims than someone's previous driving record.
If that is true, then I can certainly understand how a credit rating may be a decent indicator of a potential employee's reliability. I doubt it would be the only factor in deciding to hire someone, but if you had two otherwise equal candidates, where one has an excellent credit rating, but the other consistently misses bill payments, racks up huge credit card bills, etc., wouldn't that be a relevant point of discrimination? What if you were hiring someone to be a project manager? Wouldn't personal finance habits be a good indicator of how well they can manage a $200,000 account? Not always, but... put yourself in the employer's shoes.
As for privacy, remember, this is your employer - they will already have your SSN on file, they know your salary, how many medical claims you make against your medical plan, probably even what prescription medications you're taking. They know how much tax you pay, they can see what type of car you drive; they have your address, home phone number, spouse's name, dependents' names, how much you're contributing to your retirement savings, and a whole lot more if they put any effort into looking. Why is it that you're afraid of a credit check?
I always thought I was paranoid, but I wouldn't hesitate to give my employer permission to do a credit check, probably because I expect it would be spotless, and it might give me an edge over another candidate.
There are still providers that limit you to only one computer per connection? Wow. I guess the high competition in my area (GTA) has allowed the customers a little bit more freedom. In fact, my provider will give minor tech support for most routers and hubs.
Yeah, yeah, T.O. the centre of everything... blah, blah, blah. Well, in Windsor (butthole of the world) my cable modem actually serves out up to 3 real IP addresses! How d'ya like DEM apples?
Of course, I still use a personal router, but that does imply that I can have at least 3 computers in my home using that internet connection.
Who the hell has their SQL server in the public side of their firewall?
Well, I'm afraid to say the small company I work for has our main SQL Server right out there in the wild. Unfortunately, we don't have a full time system administrator. The person with the title "IS Manager" is just the VB programmer who was told to look after the network and server in his "spare time".
It bugs the heck out of me, but he doesn't give a damn about security, only patches things if they stop working, and pretty much doesn't care about that part of his job. Now, don't get me wrong - he's very bright - one of our best programmers, but he just doesn't want to be a system administrator. If I had his job, at least I would care, but the fact is, there's no way I'd want that job either.
Unfortunately, we're not big enough to drop a full time salary on just a system administrator, and I'm willing to bet that there are a lot of other companies out there in the same situation, and they're the ones who have one server box that runs SQL server, their intranet, exchange server, web server, etc., and it's sitting right on the internet just for convenience. Plus, nobody at these lean-and-mean companies has the time to research and install every single patch that comes out for the 1 or 2 dozen applications that are running on the servers. Most are happy enough just to be doing daily backups.
For those who don't know, in Canada we still use a pen and paper voting system -- not even punch cards. This vote was specifically for the leader of a political party, so I believe it was run by the party, not by Elections Canada. For me, these problems are evidence that we should stick with our proven voting methods until we're much more confident in electronic voting systems (if ever).
His lawyers could use it as evidence that he couldn't get a fair trial, and he could be freed based on that, despite any evidence proving his guilt, and that'd truly be a tragedy.
That's true. However, the reason for this is precisely because the lawyer would be correct - if you flood the public with speculation and character descriptions, then it becomes much harder to pick a fair jury.
If he's innocent, and you taint the jury, they're more likely to decide he's guilty just because he's already been tried in the media. If he's guilty, and he gets off on the defense you mention, then that's injustice for the families of the victims.
Slashdot Mirror
That son of a bitch launched four missles into Kuwait today that he's been forbidden to own by the UN for 12 years.
You must be psychic. Last I heard, it was only a rumor that they were Scud missiles, and most likely they were short range missiles that he was permitted to have. Heaven forbid that an army retaliates when you attack them.
Can you really come up with a good reason as to -WHY- that's acceptable?
Nope, it's not acceptable, if he has the weapons. Did he have WMD last time? Did he use them then? If he's such a threat, then why didn't he use them in 1991?
The rest of the world needs proof that he has these weapons before we're willing to punish him. Where is the smoking gun? Is the fact that he's not co-operating considered evidence? Don't we give accused criminals the right to remain silent? Do we have any evidence that he still has WMD or has any credible links to al-Qaeda? No.
The rest of the world is trying to follow international law. The U.S. and Britain helped create that law, but it doesn't mean they are above it. Iraq may be in breach of the law, but now the U.S. and Britain are too. How do two wrongs make a right? The U.S. and Britain validated the authority of that law by going to the U.N. to make their case, and then when it was taking too long, they broke the law by taking matters into their own hands.
The law allows the use of force in 2 situations:
1) When someone initiates agression against your territory or that of your allies, you may retaliate.
2) When authorized by the U.N.
Iraq never attacked the U.S., was never linked to terrorism, and was not a credible threat to anyone but his own people. (Perhaps a peacekeeping mission would have been appropriate?) Plus, an attack on Iraq was NOT authorized by the U.N. Therefore, even if you can somehow morally justify this war, it's still illegal. Therefore, the U.S. is a bully.
Go fucking live there.
Hmmm, that's an awfully rude comment. Do you kiss your mother with that mouth? So, you want to drag it down to this level, eh?
Go fucking live there? I don't have to go anywhere. I live in the sovereign nation of Canada, whose policies, just like other countries, are NOT dictated to us by the United States. The American government has no authority here. You got a problem with that? Take it up with the U.N.
In the mean time, you, the rest of you yankee bastards, and that moron president of yours can kiss my maple syrup covered ass.
If we make them worry about the gun we have, they will find unity in taking it away.
There are many people all over the world who are even more likely to look for an opportunity to strike the U.S. now that America has basically decreed that they are above the law.
I grew up in a world where the U.S. was the good guys, and we were happy to be good guys too. Now this war has proven that America is a bully. Funny how sometimes the bullied kids fight back. Does the word 'Columbine' mean anything to you?
But what the hell, you've got God on your side, right?
Get back to work, Terry! Quit slacking off!
In fact it points out the wonder of living in a free state and though it is itself an exercise in hypocrisy should be cherished as an example of such.
I'm just wondering: How does invading Iraq create freedom or liberty in the United States?
For that matter, how does invading Iraq prove that the United States can be trusted by the rest of the world? I think this war will sway world opinion against the U.S. for the next 50 years.
Hmm, that's an interesting, if rather contrived, situation. I'm reminded of the anecdotal evidence I often hear against the use of seatbelts. I prefer to make my decisions based on statistics. What are the chances of the situation you've just described, particularly on a U.N. mission?
Picture this:
You're a peace keeper in Somalia, and your chopper gets hit by an RPG. It crashes near a crowd of locals, all hyped up on drugs, and they want a piece of you. Thankfully, they're mostly armed with rocks and knives, and the ones with AK-47's can't aim anyway, so they're no match for you, since you can mow down dozens of skinny rock throwers with one pass of your new high-tech flesh seeking fully-automatic combat rifle, holding off the horde from swarming your downed comrades.
During the crash, two of your buddies were thrown from the helicopter (obviously because they weren't wearing their seatbelts) and they landed in the midst of the crowd where they were promptly beaten into unrecognizable bloody stumps. The crowd picks up their weapons and aims them at you...
Now, choose the features you'd like those weapons to have.
However, I do see your point. Here's how the army is going to deal with the problem you point out: they won't use biometrics... they'll just implant an RFID chip in the palm of every soldier, and the rifle will only work if a valid RFID is near the RFID reader on the rifle.
Scary, eh?
I once created a screen scraper to grab the prices for our competitor's products and stick them in a database. Then we did this calculation: Our Price = Their Price * 0.95
To this day I'm still not convinced that it was unethical because even large stores compare their prices to other stores all the time in an attempt to have the "lowest price". When you have two gas stations across the street from each other, they often set their prices based on the price of their competitor. In general, prices are considered public information.
It's all irrelevant now... our competitor found out about us, dropped their price by 10% for a few months to put us out of business, and then jacked their prices right back to their original levels. I guess, for a while, we did something good for customers, and for that I'm satisfied.
All you Americans can attend "half price" because of our sagging currency/exchange rate, while us "Canadians" can't afford to buy lunch there let alone travel.
You haven't been watching the exchange rate recently, have you? 12 months ago, 1 U.S. dollar was worth $1.60 Canadian, but my last exchange occurred at the rate of $1.47, and the U.S. dollar is still dropping in value.
Whoever is in charge of the dollar policy in the U.S. recently changed. The previous guy was an advocate of a strong U.S. dollar (I'm not sure why), but the new guy realizes that was hurting U.S. exports, so you can expect the rate to settle somewhere around $1.35 to $1.40 after the dust settles. That would at least bring it inline with purchasing power on both sides of the border.
It will also bring comparative salaries more inline on both sides, so it might slow down the "brain drain" of Canadian talent to the U.S.
Because hate encourages violence, they hate us, and thus they visit violence upon us and we visit violence upon them.
Sure, it's become a cycle, but the U.S. and Britain helped to start it by forcibly removing the Palestinians from Palestine and helping to create Israel on land that had been farmed by the Palestinians' ancestors for 75 generations (before which it was Jewish land and the Jews were forcibly removed by the Roman Empire).
I'm not saying anyone can fix the problem, but I am saying that people don't just start hating for no apparent reason; they have valid reasons for hating the U.S.
However, I do agree with your point that video games and the war on Iraq are not at all related.
It's unfortunate that this article had to turn into a bunch of Americans debating their governments' priorities. The real story here is some interesting new technology that going to be tested that will expand science for everyone's benefit.
To the Americans out there - we in the rest of the world are very impressed by your past accomplishments. The fact that other nations are also developing their own space programs does not mean it's an insult to you guys.
You will benefit from everyone else's space exploration, just as you benefit from Japan's semiconductor research, Canada's telecommunications research, and Europe's alternative energy research. Yes, other nations benefit from U.S. research too. It's a team game we're playing here, and it's time we stopped with the us/them frame of mind.
Think for a second where the U.S. rocket technology came from. Was it strictly a U.S. invention, or was is based heavily on German technology?
My point is that countries can accomplish more working together than in isolation.
Yup, telesurgery starts to look pretty appealing if you've been suffering on a long waiting list typical of the healthcare system in Canada
I'd just like to point out that there are long waiting lists in the U.S. too; it's just that you are allowed to jump ahead in line if you have more money. If don't have enough money, you're not allowed to get in line. I'll take the Canadian system any day.
do you have color tv too?
No, but we do have "Colour TV".
I feel sorry for the mothers of the many thousands of Americans who died pulling Europe out of the cesspool it made of itself.
As a Canadian, I'd like to add that I'm proud that my Grandfather and his generation of Canadians fought to help liberate France, and fight alongside our friends in Europe. Canadians fought because it was the right thing to do, not because we wanted you to 'owe' us for the favour.
Never mind the Americans; we've learned the secret to dealing with them: even though they have long memories, and they think everyone owes them something, they have very short attention spans. Give them 3 months and the average American will again forget how to spell Europe. They don't even remember why their Whitehouse is painted white!
Worrying to hear Americans have to check an atlas to check Australia is south of the equator.
First of all, I'm a Canadian.
Second of all, I was pretty sure that it was completely below the equator, but I really wasn't sure, and I wanted to be certain.
I don't think it's unreasonable that I wasn't completely sure if the northern tip of Australia pertruded above the equator, and honestly, I really didn't know where Perth was in Australia either.
Do you know where Calgary or Winnipeg is in Canada? Do you know what province they're in? Do you know which one is further north? Do you know if either are north of the arctic circle, or would you have to check an atlas?
I don't expect an Australian, or even an American who lives much closer, to know the answers to these questions. Honestly, I had to check an atlas before my recent trip to Indianapolis, because I really didn't know where it was, and it turns out it's close enough that I drove there.
Honestly, I would consider it sufficient if, when shown a map, an individual could name all the continents, find their country, and name their surrounding countries. Whether or not you can give precise latitude and longitude coordinates is irrelevant.
Why do the requirements put this elevator in the middle of the ocean?
I believe it has to do with anchoring the elevator at the equator, since the other end would have to be directly over the equator to avoid wobbling north and south during its orbit.
Since Australia lies completely south of the equator (according to this web atlas), I would suggest that this company wants to have a base of operations in Australia, but place the anchor somewhere in the Indian Ocean.
Just because NASA has no ideas what to do doesn't mean that nobody could. Some middle school kid might pop up with some brilliantly obvious way to save our asses that the hotshots all overlooked. If you're f*cked anyway you might as well let everyone else have a chance to think of something.
That's an interesting idea... here's a way to build on it: have NASA issue a warning today, that we only have 2 years until a killer asteroid is going to hit us. Then, the middle school kids with the ideas can offer them up NOW so we can actually have time to implement them! Why wait until we're all f*cked?
Credit cards are stupid if you ask me.
I think they're great - I get 2 to 5% back from purchases, and never pay interest because I pay it off every month. I save money, and the credit card company makes money off the fools who can't manage their money properly - I love it!
unfortunately a bit expensive if you are as addicted to it as I am. I spend approx $30/month in service charges with TDCT for "convenience". This always shocks americans.
I bank in both the U.S. and Canada. While it's true that Canada was ahead of the U.S. technologically (because Canada usually ends up being a test market for new technologies), the U.S. has pretty much caught up.
I still find the U.S. systems frustrating but I think it's mostly because of how the U.S. doesn't have "national" banks like Canada has. The Canadian banks are comparatively huge, which lets them provide a lot more convenience than the smaller, more regional U.S. banks. (Though, some large U.S. banks are pretty good.)
Overall, the U.S. systems are way more expensive in terms of fees than the Interac system. Sometimes, I find the Visa Check card is the best way to go in the U.S. It's like a debit card - it takes money directly out of your account, but it uses the Visa network, so you don't have to wait for the clerk to dust off and boot up their debit card readers.
Regarding the $3 service fee when you bought a pizza: Buddy, just break down and get a Visa or Mastercard! That's what it's for! Pay the credit card bill online, and it doesn't even cost anything for a stamp or to write a cheque. I guess if you can't handle having a credit card, then you're gonna be stuck paying the outrageous service fees. Also, look into getting a better service plan from TD Canada Trust - for $12 a month, you should be able to find a plan that will save you the $30 in individual transaction fees. Also, there are lots of TD machines all across Canada, so there's no excuse for you to need to use the $1 or $2 service fee machines.
It amazes me that people complain about a 48 cent Canadian stamp, and then willingly pay $1.50 or more to take out forty dollars when they want to buy a few drinks. Just pick a bank with convenient bank machine locations.
Why should a casual user even see the Administrator menu!
Because the user may be the administrator! Ha ha! In my applications, if you click on the Administrator Menu, it says you don't have privileges to get there, and directs you to a login prompt. That's more intuitive to an administrator than just having a login button, and no obvious presence of Administrator level settings.
Nothing on a computer is intuitive unless you understand the abstraction or metaphore that the UI is using.
However, in my job, I don't try to abstract the computer - I abstract the task that the user is trying to perform. If one of the things the program does is automatically print out labels, and the user may have to reprint one of those labels, then I put a big button on the side/bottom/top/wherever that say "reprint labels" and has a picture of the printer on it. I don't put a button there that says "File", and when you click on it, a list pops up including the item "Print...", and if you click on that, bringing up a little window to ask them what to print. I *know* that 90% of the time, 90% of the users will want to print an old label, and how they do that is obvious, because there's a big button on the screen saying "reprint labels".
The other 10% of users are either myself (during configuration) or a system administrator, so you put all the other "guru" commands under another big button that says "Administrator Menu". That tells the casual user they don't have to go there. Under this Administrator menu, you can abstract the computer because that's what an administrator is concerned with, so you have "System Log", "Global Application Settings", "Hardware I/O", and "Security" options hidden away from 90% of the users, and they don't complain about having too much junk cluttering their screen.
I get pretty sick of these stories. I certainly understand that there's a lot of bad software and user interfaces out there, but I'm aware of it, and I put a huge amount of effort into designing interfaces to be intuitive to whoever's going to use the system.
However, here's how my projects go: we get a contract in mid-January to write a custom software application. It has to be completed by, say, May 1st, because that's what our sales dept. sold them. They never asked an engineer how long it would take, they just promised the moon to get the contract. Then, we write a functional specification, and give it to the customer for review. We need to get it reviewed and signed before we can move forward, but for some reason, my contact with the customer doesn't have the authority to sign anything. Not only that, it goes through countless revisions as the customer finally realizes they don't actually want what we sold them. Of course, the deadline of May 1st never changes, so by the time the functional spec is approved, it's April 25th, we've had to start writing the application without a fully approved functional spec, and we've got a week to finish writing, testing, and debuging the application, so no matter what, we're going to deliver late and overbudget.
That's when your boss comes by, shows you the budget numbers for the project and says, "We can't afford any more time on this project, so just do whatever it takes to make it work." Making it work does not mean spending hours designing and revising user interfaces to make them intuitive. I hate it, but that's why software interfaces aren't intuitive.
I hadn't considered the idea of using a credit check to test a new hire, but it does make a lot of sense. I heard somewhere else that an auto insurance company, Progressive, uses their clients' credit as a good indicator of future risk. They claimed that it was a better predictor of future accident claims than someone's previous driving record.
If that is true, then I can certainly understand how a credit rating may be a decent indicator of a potential employee's reliability. I doubt it would be the only factor in deciding to hire someone, but if you had two otherwise equal candidates, where one has an excellent credit rating, but the other consistently misses bill payments, racks up huge credit card bills, etc., wouldn't that be a relevant point of discrimination? What if you were hiring someone to be a project manager? Wouldn't personal finance habits be a good indicator of how well they can manage a $200,000 account? Not always, but... put yourself in the employer's shoes.
As for privacy, remember, this is your employer - they will already have your SSN on file, they know your salary, how many medical claims you make against your medical plan, probably even what prescription medications you're taking. They know how much tax you pay, they can see what type of car you drive; they have your address, home phone number, spouse's name, dependents' names, how much you're contributing to your retirement savings, and a whole lot more if they put any effort into looking. Why is it that you're afraid of a credit check?
I always thought I was paranoid, but I wouldn't hesitate to give my employer permission to do a credit check, probably because I expect it would be spotless, and it might give me an edge over another candidate.
There are still providers that limit you to only one computer per connection? Wow. I guess the high competition in my area (GTA) has allowed the customers a little bit more freedom. In fact, my provider will give minor tech support for most routers and hubs.
Yeah, yeah, T.O. the centre of everything... blah, blah, blah. Well, in Windsor (butthole of the world) my cable modem actually serves out up to 3 real IP addresses! How d'ya like DEM apples?
Of course, I still use a personal router, but that does imply that I can have at least 3 computers in my home using that internet connection.
Who the hell has their SQL server in the public side of their firewall?
Well, I'm afraid to say the small company I work for has our main SQL Server right out there in the wild. Unfortunately, we don't have a full time system administrator. The person with the title "IS Manager" is just the VB programmer who was told to look after the network and server in his "spare time".
It bugs the heck out of me, but he doesn't give a damn about security, only patches things if they stop working, and pretty much doesn't care about that part of his job. Now, don't get me wrong - he's very bright - one of our best programmers, but he just doesn't want to be a system administrator. If I had his job, at least I would care, but the fact is, there's no way I'd want that job either.
Unfortunately, we're not big enough to drop a full time salary on just a system administrator, and I'm willing to bet that there are a lot of other companies out there in the same situation, and they're the ones who have one server box that runs SQL server, their intranet, exchange server, web server, etc., and it's sitting right on the internet just for convenience. Plus, nobody at these lean-and-mean companies has the time to research and install every single patch that comes out for the 1 or 2 dozen applications that are running on the servers. Most are happy enough just to be doing daily backups.
For those who don't know, in Canada we still use a pen and paper voting system -- not even punch cards. This vote was specifically for the leader of a political party, so I believe it was run by the party, not by Elections Canada. For me, these problems are evidence that we should stick with our proven voting methods until we're much more confident in electronic voting systems (if ever).
His lawyers could use it as evidence that he couldn't get a fair trial, and he could be freed based on that, despite any evidence proving his guilt, and that'd truly be a tragedy.
That's true. However, the reason for this is precisely because the lawyer would be correct - if you flood the public with speculation and character descriptions, then it becomes much harder to pick a fair jury.
If he's innocent, and you taint the jury, they're more likely to decide he's guilty just because he's already been tried in the media. If he's guilty, and he gets off on the defense you mention, then that's injustice for the families of the victims.