It's almost as if Facebook is a gigantic sociological test lab. The idea is to make the whole thing incrementally more ridiculous and obnoxious, and then measure how far you can push people before they quit.
Don't presume to tell me how I think and how I mean things. I never used the word Zionist. I used the word state. Go buy yourself a dictionary.
I love how people hate the Jews so much,
Really? Please, tell me more about what I love and what I hate.
they'll advocate for twisted, bigoted, purely evil people like Hamas.
Where did I do that exactly? Oh wait, that's just you putting words in my mouth again.
FWIW, I think Hamas is a corrupt and dangerous organization that has no business running a lemonade stand, let alone a fledgling state. But you know what? That's the reality on the ground, and collective punishment (of each and every resident of Gaza) isn't the solution. Is a matter of fact it's illegal under international law.
But I digress - you were busy telling me how I think and what I believe in. Please continue.
Yup, lying does more damage to employee morale (and everything else that follows along after morale) than just about anything else you can do. People who feel lied to go into self-preservation mode and it's almost impossible to get them back out.
Ahhh the anti-semite card. Always a treat to see that one played.
According to reality, being critical of the policies of the state of Israel is not the same as being anti-semitic.
So tell me, how does it serve the welfare of the people living in the welfare capital of the world when their homes are destroyed by military action, and then basic rebuilding supplies are banned? After significant international pressure, Israel has finally lifted some aspects of this blockade, but the situation in Gaza remains both surreal and humiliating.
But of course it's possible all my information is wrong and is based on some twisted anti-semitic worldview, and Gaza is indeed a welfare capital paradise. When are you moving there? Can I come too?
In years past, it may have been good enough to have six to eight out of a list of 10 technical skills wanted by an employer, but now "there are enough people who don't have work that they can find someone who has all" the qualifications being sought, said Hibbits.
I still see a lot of job ads where the list of mandatory skills and experience is ridiculous, including a half decade of "proven" execution in each of 3-4 often competing technology areas or methodologies. My first thought when I read them is "seriously? you have all that in your shop? and you want a single person to be responsible for all of it?"
Now move on to the list of "desirable" skills where we see pink unicorns prancing through fields of golden sunshine, an acronym farm, and an MBA thrown in for good measure. There is no sane hiring manager who legitimately expects to see a candidate with every checkbox filled in... or if they do have that expectation at the beginning of the recruitment process they quickly readjust after a few weeks.
Another large annoyance with paper books: when Amazon goes out of business (or changes their T&C), they will send squads of armed goons into your home to rifle through your bookshelves and remove all the books you ever bought from them.
I'd like to see a graph showing the total volume of pressurized, human-habitable "tin can" in orbit over time... because I bet that graph is about to go hockey stick over the next few decades.
Delivery mechanism aside, my original point was to address the concept of "and up the food chain" as this thread was named by GP.
Acetaminophen is not like, say, a neurotoxin that may remain chemically unaltered within the host and can be consumed by subsequent predators. Tylenol kills because the liver is damaged (to the point of failure) in the process of breaking it down into byproducts. The byproducts are not themselves toxic, so a dead snake (or a dead rodent or a dead fish in the case of a delivery mechanism failure) isn't going to present the same risk to the next scavenger in the chain.
My IPv6 example was hypothetical. In my real world experience, I've watched in awe as companies did things that cannibalized the future in order to add a few dollars to the current quarter results - things that did substantial harm when the piper came calling 6 weeks later.
Well, yes and no. It's a way to shift the tax burden to the company paying the dividends, but here's the catch: unless the company is making large profits you can't just go on drawing huge dividends out of it year after year.
What causes liver failure is the work done by the liver to break down the acetaminophen into relatively harmless compounds. That's probably why they chose this form of poisoning - no risk of bioaccumulation.
Because by being insanely focused on quarterly results, our society rewards short-term thinking, and often actively punishes long-term thinking. In most (not all, but most) companies, if a system architect told his CTO
"we need to undertake a $X million project to transition our systems to IPv6. This is going to become a big deal in about 10 years time and we want to be on top of it," the CTO might or might not take the idea seriously. But even if the CTO did decide to bring the idea to the board for approval, he'd be shot down in seconds.
"You want to reduce shareholder profits by $X million to fix something that might become a problem in 10 years? Let's move on to the next item on the agenda shall we? And don't bring stupid ideas like this one to the table again in the future Bob. We need you focused on shareholder value." .
Slashdot Mirror
wusses that vote red whenever somebody suggests that they might possibly at some future time have to worry about dieing.
Doesn't even have to be the threat of dying. It can be the mere threat of being made to pay for the excesses of the current generation.
It's almost as if Facebook is a gigantic sociological test lab. The idea is to make the whole thing incrementally more ridiculous and obnoxious, and then measure how far you can push people before they quit.
A CEO deals with customers?
It's just code words and you know it.
Don't presume to tell me how I think and how I mean things. I never used the word Zionist. I used the word state. Go buy yourself a dictionary.
I love how people hate the Jews so much,
Really? Please, tell me more about what I love and what I hate.
they'll advocate for twisted, bigoted, purely evil people like Hamas.
Where did I do that exactly? Oh wait, that's just you putting words in my mouth again.
FWIW, I think Hamas is a corrupt and dangerous organization that has no business running a lemonade stand, let alone a fledgling state. But you know what? That's the reality on the ground, and collective punishment (of each and every resident of Gaza) isn't the solution. Is a matter of fact it's illegal under international law.
But I digress - you were busy telling me how I think and what I believe in. Please continue.
Yup, lying does more damage to employee morale (and everything else that follows along after morale) than just about anything else you can do. People who feel lied to go into self-preservation mode and it's almost impossible to get them back out.
Ahhh the anti-semite card. Always a treat to see that one played.
According to reality, being critical of the policies of the state of Israel is not the same as being anti-semitic.
So tell me, how does it serve the welfare of the people living in the welfare capital of the world when their homes are destroyed by military action, and then basic rebuilding supplies are banned? After significant international pressure, Israel has finally lifted some aspects of this blockade, but the situation in Gaza remains both surreal and humiliating.
But of course it's possible all my information is wrong and is based on some twisted anti-semitic worldview, and Gaza is indeed a welfare capital paradise. When are you moving there? Can I come too?
In years past, it may have been good enough to have six to eight out of a list of 10 technical skills wanted by an employer, but now "there are enough people who don't have work that they can find someone who has all" the qualifications being sought, said Hibbits.
I still see a lot of job ads where the list of mandatory skills and experience is ridiculous, including a half decade of "proven" execution in each of 3-4 often competing technology areas or methodologies. My first thought when I read them is "seriously? you have all that in your shop? and you want a single person to be responsible for all of it?"
Now move on to the list of "desirable" skills where we see pink unicorns prancing through fields of golden sunshine, an acronym farm, and an MBA thrown in for good measure. There is no sane hiring manager who legitimately expects to see a candidate with every checkbox filled in ... or if they do have that expectation at the beginning of the recruitment process they quickly readjust after a few weeks.
The company you "jump" to is facing the same economic realities, and will funnel those same pressures on to you.
Another large annoyance with paper books: when Amazon goes out of business (or changes their T&C), they will send squads of armed goons into your home to rifle through your bookshelves and remove all the books you ever bought from them.
If Israel isn't willing to allow basic supplies into the territory, is it realistic to think these laptops will somehow be let through?
Candy Browser (Graham Cracker OS 4_1) Version/2.7
Hell, it can't be any worse at rendering standard HTML/CSS than IE.
"pressurized volume" - key distinction
Money shots will present a much greater hazard to the film crew.
I'd like to see a graph showing the total volume of pressurized, human-habitable "tin can" in orbit over time ... because I bet that graph is about to go hockey stick over the next few decades.
Delivery mechanism aside, my original point was to address the concept of "and up the food chain" as this thread was named by GP.
Acetaminophen is not like, say, a neurotoxin that may remain chemically unaltered within the host and can be consumed by subsequent predators. Tylenol kills because the liver is damaged (to the point of failure) in the process of breaking it down into byproducts. The byproducts are not themselves toxic, so a dead snake (or a dead rodent or a dead fish in the case of a delivery mechanism failure) isn't going to present the same risk to the next scavenger in the chain.
My IPv6 example was hypothetical. In my real world experience, I've watched in awe as companies did things that cannibalized the future in order to add a few dollars to the current quarter results - things that did substantial harm when the piper came calling 6 weeks later.
It's called tax dodging.
Well, yes and no. It's a way to shift the tax burden to the company paying the dividends, but here's the catch: unless the company is making large profits you can't just go on drawing huge dividends out of it year after year.
Taxes almost never go lower. They always trend higher.
They do?
My guess would be that they calculate based on measuring the amount of energy input into the system and subtracting what is observed escaping.
I bet if I read TFA that would eliminate the need to make guesses, but this is slashdot.
Read TFA - it's actually a pretty cool idea for a delivery mechanism. Not failsafe, but pretty neat.
What causes liver failure is the work done by the liver to break down the acetaminophen into relatively harmless compounds. That's probably why they chose this form of poisoning - no risk of bioaccumulation.
AFAIK the primary effect from an overdose is liver damage.
Meanwhile, back in realityland, the ISPs all maintain records of which subscriber was assigned which NAT IP during various periods of time.
Because by being insanely focused on quarterly results, our society rewards short-term thinking, and often actively punishes long-term thinking. In most (not all, but most) companies, if a system architect told his CTO
"we need to undertake a $X million project to transition our systems to IPv6. This is going to become a big deal in about 10 years time and we want to be on top of it,"
the CTO might or might not take the idea seriously. But even if the CTO did decide to bring the idea to the board for approval, he'd be shot down in seconds.
"You want to reduce shareholder profits by $X million to fix something that might become a problem in 10 years? Let's move on to the next item on the agenda shall we? And don't bring stupid ideas like this one to the table again in the future Bob. We need you focused on shareholder value."
.
What sort of person visits LinkedIn?
(and FWIW, I got my current job through LinkedIn)