Just one of many things that in no way affect your job performance but will disqualify you from many jobs.
Actually I would disagree. I dare say that a person's credit history might be an excellent way to look at how a person manages their tasks/duties.
Here is a list of things I can think of that you could deduce from looking at this sort of a list:
1) Can the person manage regular things coming in and out?
2) Can the person plan and control themselves to stay in control of things?
3) Has the person got enough wits to be able to manage tight situations as they arise here and there?
We are Homosapien, once there are no more of us, then the human race as we know it is extinct.
When trying to make an argument in a seemingly scientific manner, stick to scientific arguments, otherwise you just end up looking like the new kid on the block.
1) To start with it's Homo Sapien, not homosapien.
2) Another rather obvious point is that Homo here is the actual genus. Here is a list of the species that all fall under this one genus.
3) Now, scientific errors aside, "Humanity" as you put it aren't actually linked to the single species. Human evolution has been passed through the various species within the Homo genus. That means even if we as people change enough to be significantly different to warrant another species, we will still fall under the genus banner along with all our distant forefathers and still classify as humans.
Now, either start paying more attention to your science teachers or stop spouting this pseudo-scientific babble in a place that has lots of scientists.
And for the record, I didn't even do biology past the 9th grade (For us here in Australia that's about 13 or 14 years old).
Even if there is a future in space, I won't see it.
Your view seems to be REALLY inline with political views and planning. They don't plan/care about anything past the next election horizon. Why not invest in something that won't see big returns for three years like improving mass transit in cities? Oh yeah, because all the cost will be seen with your government and all the rewards might be seen with another government. In the end, no-one gets a better mass transit system.
Wake the fuck up and stop being so gloriously selfish.
Just because you won't personally see the benefits doesn't mean that something isn't worth doing. You are not special. If you think that 50 million dollars spent as part of a stimulus package to maybe give the folks at NASA a great idea or a cheap way of putting small payloads into space is bad, then just think of it as 50 million dollars distributed among scientists, engineers and inventors. Chances are that it might just end up in circulation in your country and helping your flailing economy - which desperately needs help right now.
Or the oldest mistake in the world, where developers/publishers DO NOT listen to beta testers and preview testers and PUSH their "better" ideas to the final gold cut even if they get told by everyone playing it that it's wrong/stupid/not enjoyable etc.
Hello, Star Wars: Galaxies combat system for probably the BEST example of being pig headed and pushing through a joke of a combat system even when EVERYONE playing the game says it sucks ass.
If you're considering making a closed server but open client, and the product actually becomes popular, you should expect that someone will make an emulator for the basic server functions eventually.
That actually reminds me of what they did with the Ultima Online servers/clients. Rather similar to be honest.
I always wonder in these sort of over-rulings where common sense has prevailed, how it sits with the other companies who DIDN'T have the patent at the time.
Is there now a resource that those companies can sue Britannica for possibly not ALLOWING them to conduct business as normal due to Britannica having a patent that's invalid?
If I wanted to make a CDROM with some info on it, and these guys jumped in and stopped me due to a patent, and now I found out the patent is invalid, I would be (pretty rightly) pissed off.
Use the submit a story link and there is a good chance that your articles would get posted to the main page.
Re:The rest of the world is making fun of America
on
The Outing of Pranknet
·
· Score: 1
All western societies are based upon implicit trust.
Totally agree with you, but you still need to use your noodle mate. If someone calls my number and says that I am late with a bill payment, I trust them and assume it's right - it's within the realms of common sense. If someone was to call me and say that my car had been picked up by the police and I should call the station at such and such, no problems, I would probably give them a call - but if they started telling me to start throwing chairs through windows to get a quicker police reaction time... I would have to let some common sense creep in and think it was a prank.
If you have such total implicit trust in strangers that you would do whatever they tell you, let me be the first to warn you about Nigerian email scams. They don't really have the money! It's all a scam!
That's part of why I love slashdot. For so many people that ask for something seemingly impossible, there seems to be someone who either has the answer or knows someone that does.
Bless you uber-nerds!
Re:The rest of the world is making fun of America
on
The Outing of Pranknet
·
· Score: -1
I can't help but sort of agree. I can't believe that people just do stuff because someone total stranger on the phone tells them to. It's just not right in any way.
I have a poster up here at work. It shows some comic book superhero with the quote: "Common Sense: So rare it's a god damn super power". I can't help but think that it applies here too. Sure, the kid is a jackass for doing what he does, but the people who obey and actually do these things? I don't feel sorry for them much at all. If he took a weapon and actually threatened them, that's another story, but how much perceived threat can a caller on a phone generate to cause people to act out of fear rather than stupidity?
One of my flatmates still plays this. The only problem is that he turns the speakers up to cinema level and I can tell you, at that level, the sound effects, well, they just aren't so hot anymore.
I don't care if he is frying his brain playing this for hours, but frying my brain with the sounds, it had to stop. We now have a special "Robotron Sound Rule" in the household.
Well... quadriplegics don't get that! Lucky bastards.
What if they do get that feeling... but no amount of scratching relieves it? Good god, that would be like... like... being stuck in a wheelchair for the rest of your life! Arghhh!!!
They tell us "we've detected the atmosphere" but don't tell us what the atmosphere is made of. Nice.
This being slashdot, the authors assumed you would come to your own determination that the atmosphere was in fact some sort of gas and didn't feel the need to elaborate.
Firstly, wow. Wow. Wow! I am rarely ceased to be amazed.
I agree in places where society has broke down, and people can't control themselves may need Gun control if the true causes can't be addressed first.
Don't you think society has broken down when so many people feel the need to carry guns?
Even in the US it is stupid to kill someone with a gun, they leave to much of a trace, and are so accurate it is very difficult to claim it as anything but intent.
Why on earth would you be thinking about ways to kill someone? Surely you can discuss differences through speaking to one another? Work out differences without resorting to violence?
By allowing a simple solution, it is easier to catch/get rid of those criminals lazy/crazy enough that they used a gun anyway.
So now, you are advocating allowing loads of people to carry guns so that it's easier to catch the lazy and stupid criminals?
I am even happier to live in a part of the USA where they don't have to keep guns away from people to keep them from killing each other
Probably not the way you meant to word that. Paraphrasing it reads: Luckily you live in a place where the government doesn't need to regulate guns and even if they did, people would still kill one another.
But cheap != free. Have you ever paid hosting costs for a large website, or run your own server farm? Me neither, but the shit is far from free. Hardware, software, IT personnel, electricity, bandwidth, designers, staff writers.. all of it costs money. And then there's, you know, the desire to actually make a profit.
I ain't saying "Don't put up ads" on the website. In my postshere however I am saying that while previously there was little choice for me to get to the news I wanted without buying a newspaper for $1. Now, the internet provides me with many, many sources of information. Some of this is free content, some is opinions. I don't mind paying for quality material either, I subscribe to both NewScientist and ScientificAmerican in print format. I however will not be paying for either printed or online versions of the trash I find in newspapers. It seems that there are a LOT of people in a similar boat to me, our information options have expanded GREATLY and the result is sadly greatly declining newspaper readers. Put simply, The BOOM times of newspapers are over and while presenting the same content online might be a step is the right direction, and charging for it might seem like a decent business idea at the senior level, but it's very unlikely that it would in any way shore up the massive losses the papers are suffering with smaller circulation. Markets grow, markets shrink. When the market you are in is shrinking, there is only so much you can do to maintain your profit levels. I see this as clutching at straws, nothing more.
Everyone clamoring for Free.. that's just not the way the world works. Toss em out -you wont need masses of readers anymore to support ad revenue- and let us pay you a fair price for the service you tender. Why would someone even think that they would make their newspapers available for free? Is this some kind of base assumption we run on that everything on the internet should be free and we just flush the bills down the toilet? What's happening is they incur cost producing Content and then they give it away for free. What kind of crazy business model is that, you make NO PROFIT. Strip off all this advertising crap. Charge for premium content. Turn the web into a real, competitive marketplace. We can dig deeper so only for actual content and services by the way
You missed my point totally mate. When I buy a newspaper, I am paying for someone to chop down trees, someone to make ink, someone to run huge sheets of paper through huge machines that print on them, then fold them, then deliver them to newsagents, and each person has to make a dollar.
That's fine. Well, actually it's NOT. I stopped buying newspapers a long time ago because I found that I was only interested in one or two stories in an entire newspaper. Those one or two stories were generally covered online by the sites that I visit on a regular basis. So, I stopped buying newspapers. I am one of the people that falls into the stopped buying newspapers, turned to the internet group.
What Mr Rupert seems to be totally MISSING which is the point I am making is that should he put the SAME content on the internet that he puts into the printed version, I am STILL NOT INTERESTED in paying for it. Possibly less so.
Just because I stopped buying a newspaper and get things off the net doesn't mean I will start buying a newspaper just because it's available online.
What compounds this even more is that he is investing probably millions of dollars into a multi-billion dollar business and he seems to be missing this simple point.
Do I expect a whole newspaper of content for free online in one place with no ads? Nope.
Can I always get the two or three things I am interested in from either sites like Slashdot for free in the detail that I want? Yes.
I think a lot of newspapers and media that previously sold very large volumes better start telling shareholders that they are going to face a serious decline in readership and profits due to the availability of small snippets of information on the internet. The glory days of ALL PRINT MEDIA are GONE. Finished. They won't be reborn with a new fee on a website.
Translation: "We have too much traffic on our websites so plans are in place to drop that volume of visitors dramatically."
I think a better translation would be: Steve (Assistant): Mr Murdoch, the Chief Financial Officer is looking at your numbers. He isn't happy at the moment. Rupert: Well Steve, it's like this, We have this thing that makes us lots of money, but it's going up the clapper now, and we have this other thing, that no-one really understands here, and all the senior management executive reports show that if all of our customers payed for it, it would be grand, so lets do that. I am sure that the people on this interweb thing can afford it. Good job Steve, lets go out for a team lunch... Oh, also, Steve, can you download this internet for me? My kids say they can't download stuff at home cause it's too slow. Steve: Ummm, sir? Download the internet? Rupert: Yes! Download it, anything to stop my kids whinging when I come home. Steve: Ummm, okay, sure. Rupert: Great, also, can you schedule a meeting later with the board? I need to discuss how we will be investing all this new interweb money that we will be making.
Or something like that. Loads of people simply don't get the internet, I deal with them all the time here when I am presenting to senior management meetings. They know it's SOMETHING. They know that MONEY passes through it, they think that just because they do SOMETHING on this place with MONEY, they will make some of it themselves. It's the old-school business mentality coming head to head with something to revolutionary that many of the older chaps (as good at business as they are) simply don't comprehend or have enough smarts to make sense of. It's so vastly different to ANYTHING they have dealt with in the years they have been in business.
Slashdot Mirror
Just one of many things that in no way affect your job performance but will disqualify you from many jobs.
Actually I would disagree. I dare say that a person's credit history might be an excellent way to look at how a person manages their tasks/duties.
Here is a list of things I can think of that you could deduce from looking at this sort of a list:
1) Can the person manage regular things coming in and out?
2) Can the person plan and control themselves to stay in control of things?
3) Has the person got enough wits to be able to manage tight situations as they arise here and there?
Thoughts?
We are Homosapien, once there are no more of us, then the human race as we know it is extinct.
When trying to make an argument in a seemingly scientific manner, stick to scientific arguments, otherwise you just end up looking like the new kid on the block.
1) To start with it's Homo Sapien, not homosapien.
2) Another rather obvious point is that Homo here is the actual genus. Here is a list of the species that all fall under this one genus. 3) Now, scientific errors aside, "Humanity" as you put it aren't actually linked to the single species. Human evolution has been passed through the various species within the Homo genus. That means even if we as people change enough to be significantly different to warrant another species, we will still fall under the genus banner along with all our distant forefathers and still classify as humans.
Now, either start paying more attention to your science teachers or stop spouting this pseudo-scientific babble in a place that has lots of scientists.
And for the record, I didn't even do biology past the 9th grade (For us here in Australia that's about 13 or 14 years old).
Full disclosure: I'm a computer engineer, from a family of engineers. I also went to Space Camp. Twice.
You failed the final exam first time too huh? :P
Even if there is a future in space, I won't see it.
Your view seems to be REALLY inline with political views and planning. They don't plan/care about anything past the next election horizon. Why not invest in something that won't see big returns for three years like improving mass transit in cities? Oh yeah, because all the cost will be seen with your government and all the rewards might be seen with another government. In the end, no-one gets a better mass transit system.
Wake the fuck up and stop being so gloriously selfish.
Just because you won't personally see the benefits doesn't mean that something isn't worth doing. You are not special. If you think that 50 million dollars spent as part of a stimulus package to maybe give the folks at NASA a great idea or a cheap way of putting small payloads into space is bad, then just think of it as 50 million dollars distributed among scientists, engineers and inventors. Chances are that it might just end up in circulation in your country and helping your flailing economy - which desperately needs help right now.
I think -- and I could be wrong -- that "Owning" is like "Pwning," and it means "to dominate," if you're fourteen.
Actually, chances are a 14 yo would totally understand to own/pwn something where it's much more likely that a 30 year old would have no clue.
Or the oldest mistake in the world, where developers/publishers DO NOT listen to beta testers and preview testers and PUSH their "better" ideas to the final gold cut even if they get told by everyone playing it that it's wrong/stupid/not enjoyable etc.
Hello, Star Wars: Galaxies combat system for probably the BEST example of being pig headed and pushing through a joke of a combat system even when EVERYONE playing the game says it sucks ass.
If you're considering making a closed server but open client, and the product actually becomes popular, you should expect that someone will make an emulator for the basic server functions eventually.
That actually reminds me of what they did with the Ultima Online servers/clients. Rather similar to be honest.
100 light-years! Boy that barely missed us, better put on your hardhats boys because the next mash up is said to be only 80 light-years away!
WHOOSH.
That's not the sound of you missing a joke. That's the sound of the planet flying above your head.
I always wonder in these sort of over-rulings where common sense has prevailed, how it sits with the other companies who DIDN'T have the patent at the time.
Is there now a resource that those companies can sue Britannica for possibly not ALLOWING them to conduct business as normal due to Britannica having a patent that's invalid?
If I wanted to make a CDROM with some info on it, and these guys jumped in and stopped me due to a patent, and now I found out the patent is invalid, I would be (pretty rightly) pissed off.
Any lawyers/patent-know-it-all's in the house?
physics and other olympiads get any mention here
Use the submit a story link and there is a good chance that your articles would get posted to the main page.
All western societies are based upon implicit trust.
Totally agree with you, but you still need to use your noodle mate. If someone calls my number and says that I am late with a bill payment, I trust them and assume it's right - it's within the realms of common sense. If someone was to call me and say that my car had been picked up by the police and I should call the station at such and such, no problems, I would probably give them a call - but if they started telling me to start throwing chairs through windows to get a quicker police reaction time... I would have to let some common sense creep in and think it was a prank.
If you have such total implicit trust in strangers that you would do whatever they tell you, let me be the first to warn you about Nigerian email scams. They don't really have the money! It's all a scam!
Just let me know if they spot a ring that looks like it's been braided.
Here you go.
That's part of why I love slashdot. For so many people that ask for something seemingly impossible, there seems to be someone who either has the answer or knows someone that does.
Bless you uber-nerds!
I can't help but sort of agree. I can't believe that people just do stuff because someone total stranger on the phone tells them to. It's just not right in any way.
I have a poster up here at work. It shows some comic book superhero with the quote: "Common Sense: So rare it's a god damn super power". I can't help but think that it applies here too. Sure, the kid is a jackass for doing what he does, but the people who obey and actually do these things? I don't feel sorry for them much at all. If he took a weapon and actually threatened them, that's another story, but how much perceived threat can a caller on a phone generate to cause people to act out of fear rather than stupidity?
One of my flatmates still plays this. The only problem is that he turns the speakers up to cinema level and I can tell you, at that level, the sound effects, well, they just aren't so hot anymore.
I don't care if he is frying his brain playing this for hours, but frying my brain with the sounds, it had to stop. We now have a special "Robotron Sound Rule" in the household.
You should see what they do to test the products we all use everyday. Double ouchies.
Well... quadriplegics don't get that! Lucky bastards.
What if they do get that feeling... but no amount of scratching relieves it? Good god, that would be like... like... being stuck in a wheelchair for the rest of your life! Arghhh!!!
They tell us "we've detected the atmosphere" but don't tell us what the atmosphere is made of. Nice.
This being slashdot, the authors assumed you would come to your own determination that the atmosphere was in fact some sort of gas and didn't feel the need to elaborate.
run CancelWiseassMode($me)
I agree in places where society has broke down, and people can't control themselves may need Gun control if the true causes can't be addressed first.
Don't you think society has broken down when so many people feel the need to carry guns?
Even in the US it is stupid to kill someone with a gun, they leave to much of a trace, and are so accurate it is very difficult to claim it as anything but intent.
Why on earth would you be thinking about ways to kill someone? Surely you can discuss differences through speaking to one another? Work out differences without resorting to violence?
By allowing a simple solution, it is easier to catch/get rid of those criminals lazy/crazy enough that they used a gun anyway.
So now, you are advocating allowing loads of people to carry guns so that it's easier to catch the lazy and stupid criminals?
I am even happier to live in a part of the USA where they don't have to keep guns away from people to keep them from killing each other
Probably not the way you meant to word that. Paraphrasing it reads: Luckily you live in a place where the government doesn't need to regulate guns and even if they did, people would still kill one another.
Nice area, is there any good property about?
This is a lolcopter if I ever saw one:
why does windows crash so often?
1) Why does Chrome crash so often on facebook.com? - Google Chrome Help
2) Why Flash CS4 might crash so often
Nah, no skewing there at all. Well, actually, I just thought I would punch the EXACT same thing into google. Same result for the top answer.
Either way, that was my first, and very likely last foray into the world of bing.com.
But cheap != free. Have you ever paid hosting costs for a large website, or run your own server farm? Me neither, but the shit is far from free. Hardware, software, IT personnel, electricity, bandwidth, designers, staff writers.. all of it costs money. And then there's, you know, the desire to actually make a profit.
I ain't saying "Don't put up ads" on the website. In my posts here however I am saying that while previously there was little choice for me to get to the news I wanted without buying a newspaper for $1. Now, the internet provides me with many, many sources of information. Some of this is free content, some is opinions. I don't mind paying for quality material either, I subscribe to both NewScientist and ScientificAmerican in print format. I however will not be paying for either printed or online versions of the trash I find in newspapers. It seems that there are a LOT of people in a similar boat to me, our information options have expanded GREATLY and the result is sadly greatly declining newspaper readers. Put simply, The BOOM times of newspapers are over and while presenting the same content online might be a step is the right direction, and charging for it might seem like a decent business idea at the senior level, but it's very unlikely that it would in any way shore up the massive losses the papers are suffering with smaller circulation. Markets grow, markets shrink. When the market you are in is shrinking, there is only so much you can do to maintain your profit levels. I see this as clutching at straws, nothing more.
Everyone clamoring for Free.. that's just not the way the world works. Toss em out -you wont need masses of readers anymore to support ad revenue- and let us pay you a fair price for the service you tender. Why would someone even think that they would make their newspapers available for free? Is this some kind of base assumption we run on that everything on the internet should be free and we just flush the bills down the toilet? What's happening is they incur cost producing Content and then they give it away for free. What kind of crazy business model is that, you make NO PROFIT. Strip off all this advertising crap. Charge for premium content. Turn the web into a real, competitive marketplace. We can dig deeper so only for actual content and services by the way
You missed my point totally mate. When I buy a newspaper, I am paying for someone to chop down trees, someone to make ink, someone to run huge sheets of paper through huge machines that print on them, then fold them, then deliver them to newsagents, and each person has to make a dollar.
That's fine. Well, actually it's NOT. I stopped buying newspapers a long time ago because I found that I was only interested in one or two stories in an entire newspaper. Those one or two stories were generally covered online by the sites that I visit on a regular basis. So, I stopped buying newspapers. I am one of the people that falls into the stopped buying newspapers, turned to the internet group.
What Mr Rupert seems to be totally MISSING which is the point I am making is that should he put the SAME content on the internet that he puts into the printed version, I am STILL NOT INTERESTED in paying for it. Possibly less so.
Just because I stopped buying a newspaper and get things off the net doesn't mean I will start buying a newspaper just because it's available online.
What compounds this even more is that he is investing probably millions of dollars into a multi-billion dollar business and he seems to be missing this simple point.
Do I expect a whole newspaper of content for free online in one place with no ads? Nope.
Can I always get the two or three things I am interested in from either sites like Slashdot for free in the detail that I want? Yes.
I think a lot of newspapers and media that previously sold very large volumes better start telling shareholders that they are going to face a serious decline in readership and profits due to the availability of small snippets of information on the internet. The glory days of ALL PRINT MEDIA are GONE. Finished. They won't be reborn with a new fee on a website.
Now do you get it?
Translation: "We have too much traffic on our websites so plans are in place to drop that volume of visitors dramatically."
I think a better translation would be:
Steve (Assistant): Mr Murdoch, the Chief Financial Officer is looking at your numbers. He isn't happy at the moment.
Rupert: Well Steve, it's like this, We have this thing that makes us lots of money, but it's going up the clapper now, and we have this other thing, that no-one really understands here, and all the senior management executive reports show that if all of our customers payed for it, it would be grand, so lets do that. I am sure that the people on this interweb thing can afford it. Good job Steve, lets go out for a team lunch... Oh, also, Steve, can you download this internet for me? My kids say they can't download stuff at home cause it's too slow.
Steve: Ummm, sir? Download the internet?
Rupert: Yes! Download it, anything to stop my kids whinging when I come home.
Steve: Ummm, okay, sure.
Rupert: Great, also, can you schedule a meeting later with the board? I need to discuss how we will be investing all this new interweb money that we will be making.
Or something like that. Loads of people simply don't get the internet, I deal with them all the time here when I am presenting to senior management meetings. They know it's SOMETHING. They know that MONEY passes through it, they think that just because they do SOMETHING on this place with MONEY, they will make some of it themselves. It's the old-school business mentality coming head to head with something to revolutionary that many of the older chaps (as good at business as they are) simply don't comprehend or have enough smarts to make sense of. It's so vastly different to ANYTHING they have dealt with in the years they have been in business.
How in the hell did he get that snowplow job! I applied for that job too, I was sure I had it.....
Homer Simpson, is that you?
They should collect this in barges and burn it for fuel.
If you wanted to do that, pretty much any municipal solid waste dump would be a better bet.
If it costs less than the prevailing price of crude, then it's a go - hassles be damned!
Hmmm, first three posts on a supposedly smart and generally environmentally leaning website can think of doing nothing but burning it.
Yup, as a planet, we're fucked.
about as exciting as reading detailed baseball statistics is to non-sports fans
Now, now, I don't think even THAT is exciting for sports fans.