But when speculation becomes a business itself, the entire economy can get sucked down the whirlpool. The most recent economic boom definitely seems to have been casino-based.
When I read that, I thought to myself - hey, if these guys were trying to speculate on the market and lost, then it means that somebody won - which of course got me thinking about who it was. Then I of course came to the realisation that the bankers here traded the "loss" to the government for a "win" in return. I am pretty sure that this is rather obvious to everyone, but given my current seedy mental state, it felt like a brief spark of "Wow!":)
Seriously, if anyone thought that either a, whoever built Stuxnet or b, all those who said "Wow, that worked well..." wouldn't be stumbling over one another to release ver 2.0 either had their head buried in the sand, or there are pink unicorns farting rainbows in their existence.
I would go further again and say that if anyone thinks that the mega-corporations might not be looking at possible similar little ideas to say knock out a competitors new product range of TVs or to cause problems in that new line of cars with wifi spots is also sadly mistaken. It's not to say that I have a tinfoil hat on or the like, but this is "serious business" when it comes to potentially millions and millions of dollars. Just look at all the fuss and bad press that Toyota got when they had their "funny accelerator pedal" problem a while ago. I can't even remember what the eventual cause was, I do recall reading a number of amusing possible scenarios like particles from space, people getting confused with the pedals and a bunch more - but what if the next time it was simply a virus engineered by a rival manufacturer?
No. While they are both fighting each other (although Apple seems to have the better lawyers after a few salvo exchanges), be assured that should another phone enter the marketplace, these two would just as quickly turn on it in unison and then resume their own spit once the new player was out of the equation.
Whoever or whatever started it, both these companies are trying to really dig their heels in to be the ONLY smartphone company - they just happen to be each others biggest rivals at the moment.
Yup, it's like the pimply faced kid who pleads to his parents that he wants the internet to help with homework, gets it in his room, the gets busted whacking off to porn.
Here is my sarcastic impression of The Scream to display how surprised I am that this malware is being abused. \ö/
If they are adding that as information about "you" to the folks they sell your information to, you should be entitled to get it under a request of "what information about me do you have" - not a "what information have I given to you about me, minus all the other stuff you worked out on your own...".
However, I can also see that giving all that information may well end up opening an interesting kettle of fish. What if one of their derived bits of information about you were that you were a white supremacist? What if they worked out that you were interested in cross dressing? What if you wanted to keep both of these facts very very secret - I mean a white supremacist cross dresser?
It is different because in one case they are saying that "Science is wrong/doesn't exist - therefore we should...." and here where there is nothing that can be labelled as a Religion Vs Science issue (meaning they can't throw the creationist/denialist line) they simply jibber jabber, lie and cover up actual science to further their own agenda.
While it isn't totally different, I agree, it actually shows them as being much more hypocritical.
If a politician was truly a creationist, in some way (though I would disagree with them) I would somewhat accept if they were acting out political decisions based on that, but if they then suddenly turned around and said that they "Voted for.... due to the strong scientific evidence for evolution." then as far as I am concerned, they have lost all credibility and integrity.
I agree with you, and suggest that you head on over to the (ugh, Facebook) protest campaign and if you have a FB account, add your vote/click/support etc.
When I see things like this, I immediately think "Well done!" to the owners/managers of the website. The normal website would have gone and written up an article on it and left it at that. There are very few sites that would have made the leap from "Waaaaa, look at those cronies!" to "Heh, I know how to fix this, give me some prize money - we're having a contest!".
I might even have to start having a read of the site every now and again.
Can I again request for the corrected version to be taken down claiming it hurts me while the other party does the same ad-infinitum? Where does the buck stop?
Fool of a Took! This is about job creation. Everyone knows that the Italian job market needs a bit of a kick-a-long. This makes highly skilled IT positions as people continue to update information. The buck stops with them, silly billy!
If someone who is offended can require a correction be made, the internet and world as a whole will be such a nicer happier place. With rainbows and ice cream for everyone.
I am offended by your mocking of rainbows and icecream, I demand you correct your defamatory statements with the much more accurate:
If someone who is offended can require a correction be made, the internet and world as a while will be such a nicer happier place. With kittens and jelly beans for everyone.
Because the owners of these things are rather shady criminal types at best and you taking away their shiny thing that makes them tons of money is a great way of attracting attention of their underlings who come visit you and do shady criminal things to your knees at best.
What truly makes me sad when I see things like this, is that it ultimately makes me think that a bit of science has been lying around for 150 years - and there are still people who try to disclaim it, pretend it simply isn't true and make all manner of excuses as to why it doesn't mean what it clearly states. All to either keep making money, keep doing what they have been doing or because it is simply easier to not have to change the way things are done.
I wonder if this is one of those "Oh, shit, not in my backyard!" type of reflex actions. Perhaps the Senator actually has one of those disabled services?
Whatever the cause for the Senator's huff and puff, at least it is good huffing and puffing.
I was more talking about some jobs just being paid a "danger" aspect to the salary.
It is a positive thing in general if we can train a robot to do some highly dangerous work, not only because it means that we can remove the need for some poor sap to have to take those risks, but it also means that we can as a whole keep getting better and better robots. The flipside is that some chap was probably paid a damned fine salary to do it.
Think, if we had bipedal robots walking around, able to interact with their environment, move things, make decisions based on unfolding events and the like - we would have been in a position to walk a team of robots into Fukishima Number Three right after the tsunami. Sure, those robots would end up radioactive and have to be tossed out, but think of the good that would have come had we known early on what the problem was - not to mention being able to start throwing water on it - even if it was bucket by bucket.
Some $400 per hour jobs have that salary becuase it is that difficult to do and requires an exceptional person to be able to perform it. Others pay that much because while easy enough, no-one wants to do that job so it is offered with a stupendous salary to make it more attractive.
A few examples of highly paid jobs that could be done by just about anyone with a little training: - Mine Removal - sure there is training, but the majority of the pay is for the danger, not the expertise required to do the job. - Drug Running - Okay, not an official job title no doubt, but drug trafficers are payed loads of money to do a really simple job. It is just risky as buggery.
Other highly paid jobs such as working on an Oil Platform or in a Mining Pit may not require a huge range of training and experience, but due to location you might well be apart from friends and family for weeks on end. Recently in Australia there has been a bit of a mining boom in Western Australia. The mining companies are paying insane salaries just to entice people to go work in the middle of the Australian desert.
If your $400 hour job falls into the second bracket and there is indeed now a robot that can do the job, tough luck. Find something else that no-one wants to do:)
I know that we on slashdot are aware that if you put it online, even locked down or under a pseudonym, it should be regarded as published to the world, but I was under the impression that was a grudging acceptance of reality, not a position to be approved of.
I actually think that there is a middle line to be drawn here. If we post something to a group of friends on (lets assume) a SN that allows for things to be sent to only selected people, then it won't ever get on to such sites as in the article. They cannot simply access your private conversations. A person whose online pseudonym has no relation to their name and who doesn't post linking information won't ever worry about it. What is going on here is that the senators are taking up a asinine position on something that rattles some public outcry/sympathy.
If you post something up, under your own name, for everyone to see, it is free for anyone to view.
That includes the people that you didn't expect to look at it and that also means that you are responsible for your actions and that those actions may bleed across into aspects of your life you didn't expect them to - such as your potential employment. No-one seems to mind being asked "What are your personal interests and activities outside of work?" during an interview. They don't really care whether you like to knit scarves or skydive - they want to see if you will likely fit in with the rest of the team. I don't see them looking at your online personality as being any different.
We prohibit discrimination on the basis of race or sex or national origin. Why not prohibit discrimination based on, for example, the presence of racy photos of you online?
Because most employers aren't hiring people to work by themselves without any contact whatsoever to anyone - whether other employees or customers.
I think if a person posts online saying that they did , then employers SHOULD be able to look at it and include that in their review of the person to see if they will fit into their company. Remember, this isn't about whether or not drunk driving, civil disobedience or felony murder are reviewed - all of those things can't really be hidden online. This is about posts made on social networks. If the person posted that they were "sick of getting breath tested and drink driving should be allowed" or "I simply had to kill that bitch, she had it coming..." even after serving the right time, wouldn't you feel that it is a VALID insight into the person and an employer should be allowed to see that person as they portray themselves to the public?
Again, while I think that interviews should be kept in the interview room, I do think that if you think it's okay to post things on social media networks - companies looking to employ you are within their rights to look at them.
Yup, totally agree. There was once a time when everyone was encouraged to do the absolute best, to do things better than they were - and it that meant spending a few extra dollars/days/employees to get the job done, then it was done. Now we live in a "that's more than good enough" landscape where sub-par is considered above average.
I don't really quite know where to step in on this argument. I personally think that companies that do these sort of background checks are taking the wrong approach to human resource management, but I also can't really stand up for someone that posts utter dribble online then whines about not getting that professional job they want because they aren't professional..
I would personally like to have to take neither side here. Companies shouldn't be doing this, and idiots should be bitter about getting what they deserve.
While I agree with you in terms of budgets going over, delays and the like - the James Webb telescope is a disaster, I do also agree with MightyMartian in the sense that it is good to see the damned thing actually going to go up.
Program Management on the JW is terrible. James Webb telescope itself is a good thing.
James Webb telescope on budget and on time would have been a better thing.
Cross licensing gets rid of the concept of one party still attacking another for the most part. Party A sues Party B: result Party A either gets money or Party B has to stop doing what they are doing. However if Party B has its own trove of patents, the idea of cross licensing comes through by Party B telling Party A "Hey, if you don't back that lawsuit off, we will sue you for patents x, y and z." At that point both parties are pretty much in a stalemate - so they agree that Party A can use patents x, y and z while Party B holds off suing them.
Both parties will pretty much want to keep doing what they are doing, so they rattle their sabres for a while until an equilibrium is reached with the patents.
If (like in this case) one of the parties is new to the group or bought up a bunch of patents, they can still be attacked - but they already know what their patents are worth to the other companies - they were likely already using them as part of some agreement previously. If they still get sued, they (as the new patent owners) can revoke previous agreements allowing the other companies use of their patents. If this happens, then basically the whole things starts from the beginning of this post until an equilibrium is reached.
Slashdot Mirror
But when speculation becomes a business itself, the entire economy can get sucked down the whirlpool. The most recent economic boom definitely seems to have been casino-based.
When I read that, I thought to myself - hey, if these guys were trying to speculate on the market and lost, then it means that somebody won - which of course got me thinking about who it was. Then I of course came to the realisation that the bankers here traded the "loss" to the government for a "win" in return. I am pretty sure that this is rather obvious to everyone, but given my current seedy mental state, it felt like a brief spark of "Wow!" :)
"but what if the next time it was simply a virus engineered by a rival manufacturer?"
- or a virus engineered by somebody who wanted to short a company's stock...
See, you're getting it now!
Then you are clearly onto something good!
Seriously, if anyone thought that either a, whoever built Stuxnet or b, all those who said "Wow, that worked well..." wouldn't be stumbling over one another to release ver 2.0 either had their head buried in the sand, or there are pink unicorns farting rainbows in their existence.
I would go further again and say that if anyone thinks that the mega-corporations might not be looking at possible similar little ideas to say knock out a competitors new product range of TVs or to cause problems in that new line of cars with wifi spots is also sadly mistaken. It's not to say that I have a tinfoil hat on or the like, but this is "serious business" when it comes to potentially millions and millions of dollars. Just look at all the fuss and bad press that Toyota got when they had their "funny accelerator pedal" problem a while ago. I can't even remember what the eventual cause was, I do recall reading a number of amusing possible scenarios like particles from space, people getting confused with the pedals and a bunch more - but what if the next time it was simply a virus engineered by a rival manufacturer?
No. While they are both fighting each other (although Apple seems to have the better lawyers after a few salvo exchanges), be assured that should another phone enter the marketplace, these two would just as quickly turn on it in unison and then resume their own spit once the new player was out of the equation.
Whoever or whatever started it, both these companies are trying to really dig their heels in to be the ONLY smartphone company - they just happen to be each others biggest rivals at the moment.
Would you want work done by a bunch of students with a single day of training to be up for review?
Yup, it's like the pimply faced kid who pleads to his parents that he wants the internet to help with homework, gets it in his room, the gets busted whacking off to porn.
Here is my sarcastic impression of The Scream to display how surprised I am that this malware is being abused. \ö/
If they are adding that as information about "you" to the folks they sell your information to, you should be entitled to get it under a request of "what information about me do you have" - not a "what information have I given to you about me, minus all the other stuff you worked out on your own...".
However, I can also see that giving all that information may well end up opening an interesting kettle of fish. What if one of their derived bits of information about you were that you were a white supremacist? What if they worked out that you were interested in cross dressing? What if you wanted to keep both of these facts very very secret - I mean a white supremacist cross dresser?
It is different because in one case they are saying that "Science is wrong/doesn't exist - therefore we should...." and here where there is nothing that can be labelled as a Religion Vs Science issue (meaning they can't throw the creationist/denialist line) they simply jibber jabber, lie and cover up actual science to further their own agenda.
While it isn't totally different, I agree, it actually shows them as being much more hypocritical.
If a politician was truly a creationist, in some way (though I would disagree with them) I would somewhat accept if they were acting out political decisions based on that, but if they then suddenly turned around and said that they "Voted for .... due to the strong scientific evidence for evolution." then as far as I am concerned, they have lost all credibility and integrity.
I agree with you, and suggest that you head on over to the (ugh, Facebook) protest campaign and if you have a FB account, add your vote/click/support etc.
When I see things like this, I immediately think "Well done!" to the owners/managers of the website. The normal website would have gone and written up an article on it and left it at that. There are very few sites that would have made the leap from "Waaaaa, look at those cronies!" to "Heh, I know how to fix this, give me some prize money - we're having a contest!".
I might even have to start having a read of the site every now and again.
Baby steps tiger, baby steps.
The first cars were expensive and slow. Slowly they became faster and cheaper. Now they are fast and cheap.
First EV were slow and expensive. Slowly they are becoming faster and cheaper. One day they will be both fast and cheap.
Can I again request for the corrected version to be taken down claiming it hurts me while the other party does the same ad-infinitum? Where does the buck stop?
Fool of a Took! This is about job creation. Everyone knows that the Italian job market needs a bit of a kick-a-long. This makes highly skilled IT positions as people continue to update information. The buck stops with them, silly billy!
If someone who is offended can require a correction be made, the internet and world as a whole will be such a nicer happier place. With rainbows and ice cream for everyone.
I am offended by your mocking of rainbows and icecream, I demand you correct your defamatory statements with the much more accurate:
If someone who is offended can require a correction be made, the internet and world as a while will be such a nicer happier place. With kittens and jelly beans for everyone.
Sincerely, The Italian Parliament.
Because the owners of these things are rather shady criminal types at best and you taking away their shiny thing that makes them tons of money is a great way of attracting attention of their underlings who come visit you and do shady criminal things to your knees at best.
What truly makes me sad when I see things like this, is that it ultimately makes me think that a bit of science has been lying around for 150 years - and there are still people who try to disclaim it, pretend it simply isn't true and make all manner of excuses as to why it doesn't mean what it clearly states. All to either keep making money, keep doing what they have been doing or because it is simply easier to not have to change the way things are done.
I wonder if this is one of those "Oh, shit, not in my backyard!" type of reflex actions. Perhaps the Senator actually has one of those disabled services?
Whatever the cause for the Senator's huff and puff, at least it is good huffing and puffing.
I was more talking about some jobs just being paid a "danger" aspect to the salary.
It is a positive thing in general if we can train a robot to do some highly dangerous work, not only because it means that we can remove the need for some poor sap to have to take those risks, but it also means that we can as a whole keep getting better and better robots. The flipside is that some chap was probably paid a damned fine salary to do it.
Think, if we had bipedal robots walking around, able to interact with their environment, move things, make decisions based on unfolding events and the like - we would have been in a position to walk a team of robots into Fukishima Number Three right after the tsunami. Sure, those robots would end up radioactive and have to be tossed out, but think of the good that would have come had we known early on what the problem was - not to mention being able to start throwing water on it - even if it was bucket by bucket.
Some $400 per hour jobs have that salary becuase it is that difficult to do and requires an exceptional person to be able to perform it. Others pay that much because while easy enough, no-one wants to do that job so it is offered with a stupendous salary to make it more attractive.
A few examples of highly paid jobs that could be done by just about anyone with a little training:
- Mine Removal - sure there is training, but the majority of the pay is for the danger, not the expertise required to do the job.
- Drug Running - Okay, not an official job title no doubt, but drug trafficers are payed loads of money to do a really simple job. It is just risky as buggery.
Other highly paid jobs such as working on an Oil Platform or in a Mining Pit may not require a huge range of training and experience, but due to location you might well be apart from friends and family for weeks on end. Recently in Australia there has been a bit of a mining boom in Western Australia. The mining companies are paying insane salaries just to entice people to go work in the middle of the Australian desert.
If your $400 hour job falls into the second bracket and there is indeed now a robot that can do the job, tough luck. Find something else that no-one wants to do :)
I was meaning to say that exact same thing - almost.
I know that we on slashdot are aware that if you put it online, even locked down or under a pseudonym, it should be regarded as published to the world, but I was under the impression that was a grudging acceptance of reality, not a position to be approved of.
I actually think that there is a middle line to be drawn here. If we post something to a group of friends on (lets assume) a SN that allows for things to be sent to only selected people, then it won't ever get on to such sites as in the article. They cannot simply access your private conversations. A person whose online pseudonym has no relation to their name and who doesn't post linking information won't ever worry about it. What is going on here is that the senators are taking up a asinine position on something that rattles some public outcry/sympathy.
If you post something up, under your own name, for everyone to see, it is free for anyone to view.
That includes the people that you didn't expect to look at it and that also means that you are responsible for your actions and that those actions may bleed across into aspects of your life you didn't expect them to - such as your potential employment. No-one seems to mind being asked "What are your personal interests and activities outside of work?" during an interview. They don't really care whether you like to knit scarves or skydive - they want to see if you will likely fit in with the rest of the team. I don't see them looking at your online personality as being any different.
We prohibit discrimination on the basis of race or sex or national origin. Why not prohibit discrimination based on, for example, the presence of racy photos of you online?
Because most employers aren't hiring people to work by themselves without any contact whatsoever to anyone - whether other employees or customers.
I think if a person posts online saying that they did , then employers SHOULD be able to look at it and include that in their review of the person to see if they will fit into their company. Remember, this isn't about whether or not drunk driving, civil disobedience or felony murder are reviewed - all of those things can't really be hidden online. This is about posts made on social networks. If the person posted that they were "sick of getting breath tested and drink driving should be allowed" or "I simply had to kill that bitch, she had it coming..." even after serving the right time, wouldn't you feel that it is a VALID insight into the person and an employer should be allowed to see that person as they portray themselves to the public?
Again, while I think that interviews should be kept in the interview room, I do think that if you think it's okay to post things on social media networks - companies looking to employ you are within their rights to look at them.
Yup, totally agree. There was once a time when everyone was encouraged to do the absolute best, to do things better than they were - and it that meant spending a few extra dollars/days/employees to get the job done, then it was done. Now we live in a "that's more than good enough" landscape where sub-par is considered above average.
I don't really quite know where to step in on this argument. I personally think that companies that do these sort of background checks are taking the wrong approach to human resource management, but I also can't really stand up for someone that posts utter dribble online then whines about not getting that professional job they want because they aren't professional..
I would personally like to have to take neither side here. Companies shouldn't be doing this, and idiots should be bitter about getting what they deserve.
While I agree with you in terms of budgets going over, delays and the like - the James Webb telescope is a disaster, I do also agree with MightyMartian in the sense that it is good to see the damned thing actually going to go up.
Program Management on the JW is terrible.
James Webb telescope itself is a good thing.
James Webb telescope on budget and on time would have been a better thing.
Cross licensing gets rid of the concept of one party still attacking another for the most part. Party A sues Party B: result Party A either gets money or Party B has to stop doing what they are doing. However if Party B has its own trove of patents, the idea of cross licensing comes through by Party B telling Party A "Hey, if you don't back that lawsuit off, we will sue you for patents x, y and z." At that point both parties are pretty much in a stalemate - so they agree that Party A can use patents x, y and z while Party B holds off suing them.
Both parties will pretty much want to keep doing what they are doing, so they rattle their sabres for a while until an equilibrium is reached with the patents.
If (like in this case) one of the parties is new to the group or bought up a bunch of patents, they can still be attacked - but they already know what their patents are worth to the other companies - they were likely already using them as part of some agreement previously. If they still get sued, they (as the new patent owners) can revoke previous agreements allowing the other companies use of their patents. If this happens, then basically the whole things starts from the beginning of this post until an equilibrium is reached.