They're actually not that necessary nowadays, with the exception of "ritualistic" meetings "Hi would you like to buy our company?/Hi I'm your new boss/Believe in The Company, Serve The Company With All Your Heart/Downsizing Plans".
If I were a moderately evil boss, I'd expect people to be able to be in say 5 meetings at once via "instant messaging" conferences, and then get them to put the chat logs on an intranet site so I can see what they've been up to.
You could in fact chair one conference while being part of many others.
When an attendee gets interrupted, the rest do not need to repeat themselves and waste number of attendees * time - the person just scrolls up to see what he/she missed.
I wouldn't care if you're coding or watching youtube as well, as long as it doesn't interrupt workplace productivity significantly.
With this it'll be like those big multiprocessing jobs where real time = 10 seconds and cpu time = 2 weeks.
e.g. real time = 5 hours, meeting idle time = 24 hours, meeting user time = 1 hour, coding time = 2 hours, youtube = 1 hour, "coffee/smoke breaks" = 1 hour .
Saudi Arabia does not sell oil in marks (go figure how much USD the world needs to buy that oil every day). Wheat, edible oil, microchips, etc is not traded in marks.
China and huge numbers of countries around the world do not hold reserves and bonds in marks.
So when the USA prints money, the US Gov gets richer, the US citizens get poorer AND the rest of the world get slightly poorer (or a lot poorer - depending on how much the USA owes them;) ).
Whereas if a country like Zimbabwe printed money, the Zimbabwe gov gets richer than the Zimbabwe citizens, and the rest of the world just watch Zimbabwe fall apart.
Now the thing is naughty Iran is selling oil in Euros, and Iraq also switched to the euro until they got invaded by the USA;).
In the past the USA could print money easily without suffering the usual consequences, nowadays as more and more people are trading in Euro, it gets harder.
Lots of smart people have recently proven to the world that it's best to risk OTHER people's money. And that is why credit cards are better than debit cards.
Seriously: With credit cards when stuff goes wrong, it's not YOUR money that's gone. It's other people's money. They may try to get it from you, but it's still YOUR money till they succeed.
With debit cards, when stuff goes wrong, it's YOUR money that's gone. You may try to get it from the bank, but meanwhile you do NOT have that money till they decide to give it to you.
That is a big strategic difference. If you do not see the difference, may I borrow lots of money from you? I promise to pay you back eventually.
If it worked so well the Indians in India would have significantly lower rates of cancer compared to the world (after correcting for problems like "dying of a heart attack/diabetes much earlier" = "not getting cancer" ).
The reality is that the smart ones weren't outsmarted at all.
After all, the smart ones got paid very well and got big bonuses.
Sure some of them might be out of a job now, but since "everybody was doing the same thing, it wasn't their fault" AND it made their bosses rich too, so they'll soon be rehired to do the same thing all over again. After a nice holiday in the bahamas or something;).
It's the stupid ones who don't get it, and don't see how all this "fancy math" is actually just adding games to the casino. But a casino where if the smart ones lose "too big", the stupid ones have to pay.
Call me cynical but that fancy math is almost like the finance equivalent of the "Chewbacca defense".
Think about it, if the "fancy math" was really to reduce risk, stuff wouldn't be blowing up so regularly e.g. 1987, 1997 (remember LTCM?) and 2008.
Do people really think the smart ones don't know what they are doing when Warren Buffet himself came out and referred to their schemes as "financial weapons of mass destruction"?
They probably were thinking: "I hope he shuts up before the sheep realize what's happening".
Privatize the pain, socialize the pain.
Now if they actually started putting a special tax/levy on finacial institutions that'll be progress. Then at least they'd have to pay for their own bailouts.
And "everyone" was betting via the CDS that the loans wouldn't all go poof at once (like they'd believe that was impossible, I mean just think about it).
And "everyone" was saying it was ok to do all that.
Because "everyone" doing all that got quite a bit of money for doing so - bonuses, commissions etc.
But when it all went "poof", _everyone_ has to pay for it.
This demonstrates how the laws can and will be used.
It justifies those who believe that when laws are proposed you should think of how it could be abused, not just how it could be used.
"The Treasury released a document to Parliament yesterday showing it used sections of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 to take control of the bank's assets, saying in the statement the bank's collapse may harm the U.K. economy. "
I thought Microsoft's plan was to have everyone eventually turn it off, and when they get infected by malware, Microsoft will say "It's your fault, you turned it off".
"The IMF's support was conditional on a series of drastic economic reforms influenced by neoliberal economic principles called a "structural adjustment package" (SAP). The SAPs called on crisis-struck nations to cut back on government spending to reduce deficits, allow insolvent banks and financial institutions to fail, and aggressively raise interest rates."
Raise interest rates, allow insolvent banks and institutions to fail (even if they are "too big to let fail"). And allow them to be bought up by foreigners. How'd the USA like it if AIG got bought up by China/Japan (they do have enough money, it's just that they know it'll annoy their number 1 customer ).
Go compare what the USA is doing now to the IMF's recommendations in 1997.
So, forgive me if I see the IMF as evil. The World Bank? Probably the other arm;).
They're both just tools for the US to increase its power over the rest of the world.
Funny how so many of them smoke (50% of the males) and yet so few die. Maybe they are smoking much better stuff than everyone else?
quote: "The numbers have fallen steadily since their peak back in 1966, when about half of all adults indulged, compared with only about 30% now. But even today, about half of all Japanese men smoke. "
A cellphone is not only hard for some old folks to use, it's also hard to use if you have something like a stroke and can no longer figure out numbers or have lost language ability, or are otherwise severely incapacitated.
The MHC profiles can be detected by scent. Intelligence is correlated with sperm quality.
So why can't you judge someone by appearance? Where's the evidence that there is no correlation?
Just by photos women tend to look their most attractive during their most fertile time in their cycle.
Sure it's hard to judge the details, but humans (and other animals) have been going by looks (not purely of course) for generations. Believe me - identifying whether a stranger is likely to attack you is very important.
Now given the invention of "make up" knowing what look someone is aiming for is also useful info e.g. "Emo Goth". In fact it might tell you a bit more about personality than her "unmodified" look.
As for what keeps women in the workplace down, it's the same thing that keeps men in the workplace down - they don't start their own companies. The sure way to be on top is to start your own kingdom. More men are interested in being Kings than women. For one, most women tend to be attracted to "Kings". There's a far shorter queue of men going for the women equivalents.
Slashdot Mirror
They're actually not that necessary nowadays, with the exception of "ritualistic" meetings "Hi would you like to buy our company?/Hi I'm your new boss/Believe in The Company, Serve The Company With All Your Heart/Downsizing Plans".
If I were a moderately evil boss, I'd expect people to be able to be in say 5 meetings at once via "instant messaging" conferences, and then get them to put the chat logs on an intranet site so I can see what they've been up to.
You could in fact chair one conference while being part of many others.
When an attendee gets interrupted, the rest do not need to repeat themselves and waste number of attendees * time - the person just scrolls up to see what he/she missed.
I wouldn't care if you're coding or watching youtube as well, as long as it doesn't interrupt workplace productivity significantly.
With this it'll be like those big multiprocessing jobs where real time = 10 seconds and cpu time = 2 weeks.
e.g. real time = 5 hours, meeting idle time = 24 hours, meeting user time = 1 hour, coding time = 2 hours, youtube = 1 hour, "coffee/smoke breaks" = 1 hour .
You should (would) have seen the posts from the "I'm using Vista you insensitive clod" bunch.
;).
They're still waiting for the cancel/allow box to show up
BTW does that mean the illegal wiretaps make almost everyone innocent?
Ah but they're now retroactively legal wiretaps...
I'm not a US citizen or a lawyer but I heard in the USA that's only if the cops did the illegal search.
If the debt grew big enough that the clock started to warp space things might be different ;)
"Just wait until the baby boomers die out in large enough numbers "
;).
Bring back trans-fats!
Will you like to have fries with that? Lots of fries? Supersize? Add fried chicken?
And sir, smoking is encouraged in the chain smoking section
Thank you for being a Patriot! You have been nominated for the Black Lung and Fatty Heart awards.
We don't need no purple hearts here...
There's a big difference in the situation.
;) ).
;).
Saudi Arabia does not sell oil in marks (go figure how much USD the world needs to buy that oil every day). Wheat, edible oil, microchips, etc is not traded in marks.
China and huge numbers of countries around the world do not hold reserves and bonds in marks.
So when the USA prints money, the US Gov gets richer, the US citizens get poorer AND the rest of the world get slightly poorer (or a lot poorer - depending on how much the USA owes them
Whereas if a country like Zimbabwe printed money, the Zimbabwe gov gets richer than the Zimbabwe citizens, and the rest of the world just watch Zimbabwe fall apart.
Now the thing is naughty Iran is selling oil in Euros, and Iraq also switched to the euro until they got invaded by the USA
In the past the USA could print money easily without suffering the usual consequences, nowadays as more and more people are trading in Euro, it gets harder.
Lots of smart people have recently proven to the world that it's best to risk OTHER people's money. And that is why credit cards are better than debit cards.
Seriously: With credit cards when stuff goes wrong, it's not YOUR money that's gone. It's other people's money. They may try to get it from you, but it's still YOUR money till they succeed.
With debit cards, when stuff goes wrong, it's YOUR money that's gone. You may try to get it from the bank, but meanwhile you do NOT have that money till they decide to give it to you.
That is a big strategic difference. If you do not see the difference, may I borrow lots of money from you? I promise to pay you back eventually.
If it worked so well the Indians in India would have significantly lower rates of cancer compared to the world (after correcting for problems like "dying of a heart attack/diabetes much earlier" = "not getting cancer" ).
So far that does not appear to be the case.
http://nitawriter.wordpress.com/2007/04/26/india-has-one-of-the-highest-cancer-rates-in-the-world/
There were other potential solutions to the problem, my guess is those other solutions wouldn't have made their friends/cronies as rich ;).
The reality is that the smart ones weren't outsmarted at all.
;).
After all, the smart ones got paid very well and got big bonuses.
Sure some of them might be out of a job now, but since "everybody was doing the same thing, it wasn't their fault" AND it made their bosses rich too, so they'll soon be rehired to do the same thing all over again. After a nice holiday in the bahamas or something
It's the stupid ones who don't get it, and don't see how all this "fancy math" is actually just adding games to the casino. But a casino where if the smart ones lose "too big", the stupid ones have to pay.
Call me cynical but that fancy math is almost like the finance equivalent of the "Chewbacca defense".
Think about it, if the "fancy math" was really to reduce risk, stuff wouldn't be blowing up so regularly e.g. 1987, 1997 (remember LTCM?) and 2008.
Do people really think the smart ones don't know what they are doing when Warren Buffet himself came out and referred to their schemes as "financial weapons of mass destruction"?
They probably were thinking: "I hope he shuts up before the sheep realize what's happening".
Privatize the pain, socialize the pain.
Now if they actually started putting a special tax/levy on finacial institutions that'll be progress. Then at least they'd have to pay for their own bailouts.
Thing is, "everyone" was giving out those loans.
And "everyone" was betting via the CDS that the loans wouldn't all go poof at once (like they'd believe that was impossible, I mean just think about it).
And "everyone" was saying it was ok to do all that.
Because "everyone" doing all that got quite a bit of money for doing so - bonuses, commissions etc.
But when it all went "poof", _everyone_ has to pay for it.
Except the trouble is _everyone_ != "everyone".
PPC != Alpha
IBM is the one carrying the PPC ball now. Apple and Motorola aren't doing much with it.
So Charlie of The Inquirer was right?
This demonstrates how the laws can and will be used.
It justifies those who believe that when laws are proposed you should think of how it could be abused, not just how it could be used.
"The Treasury released a document to Parliament yesterday showing it used sections of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 to take control of the bank's assets, saying in the statement the bank's collapse may harm the U.K. economy. "
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601102&sid=aXjIA5NzyM5c
"when you are victimized it will be preserved for posterity!"
The police might say the cameras weren't working or the tapes were blank:
http://anothersecretpoliceman.blogspot.com/2006/01/jean-charles-de-menezes.html
Why does that label matter so much?
Which has more outstanding bugs or problems?
So far in my opinion Hotmail's antispam performance is really bad.
Yahoo antispam is ok.
Google's antispam should be about as good as yahoo, but I think their web security track record isn't so good.
Obvious: add pads just below the knees.
Bend to peel off.
I thought Microsoft's plan was to have everyone eventually turn it off, and when they get infected by malware, Microsoft will say "It's your fault, you turned it off".
The UAC is crap.
The fact that it annoys people enough to either turn it off permanently, or just mindlessly click "allow" should show you how bad it is.
There ARE alternatives ways to achieve better security.
What Microsoft should have done was provide much better sandboxing.
I'd personally go for sandbox templates:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/156693
After years of development (and how many billions of dollars), it's quite disgraceful that the best Microsoft can provide is the crap called UAC.
Well keep in mind in the 1997 Asian Financial Crisis the IMF recommended the Asian Governments to do about the opposite of what the USA is doing now.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asian_financial_crisis
"The IMF's support was conditional on a series of drastic economic reforms influenced by neoliberal economic principles called a "structural adjustment package" (SAP). The SAPs called on crisis-struck nations to cut back on government spending to reduce deficits, allow insolvent banks and financial institutions to fail, and aggressively raise interest rates."
Raise interest rates, allow insolvent banks and institutions to fail (even if they are "too big to let fail"). And allow them to be bought up by foreigners. How'd the USA like it if AIG got bought up by China/Japan (they do have enough money, it's just that they know it'll annoy their number 1 customer ).
Go compare what the USA is doing now to the IMF's recommendations in 1997.
So, forgive me if I see the IMF as evil. The World Bank? Probably the other arm ;).
They're both just tools for the US to increase its power over the rest of the world.
"Where do you live that there are NOT heavy taxes on tobacco?"
Japan does not have heavy taxes on tobacco (not where I live Japan is the country of topic):
http://www.wesh.com/money/1823235/detail.html
Funny how so many of them smoke (50% of the males) and yet so few die. Maybe they are smoking much better stuff than everyone else?
quote: "The numbers have fallen steadily since their peak back in 1966, when about half of all adults indulged, compared with only about 30% now. But even today, about half of all Japanese men smoke. "
A cellphone is not only hard for some old folks to use, it's also hard to use if you have something like a stroke and can no longer figure out numbers or have lost language ability, or are otherwise severely incapacitated.
What they should do is stop discouraging people from having supersize meals and chain smoking. And put heavy taxes on tobacco and fries.
:).
That'll help take care of the elderly
The MHC profiles can be detected by scent.
Intelligence is correlated with sperm quality.
So why can't you judge someone by appearance? Where's the evidence that there is no correlation?
Just by photos women tend to look their most attractive during their most fertile time in their cycle.
Sure it's hard to judge the details, but humans (and other animals) have been going by looks (not purely of course) for generations. Believe me - identifying whether a stranger is likely to attack you is very important.
Now given the invention of "make up" knowing what look someone is aiming for is also useful info e.g. "Emo Goth". In fact it might tell you a bit more about personality than her "unmodified" look.
As for what keeps women in the workplace down, it's the same thing that keeps men in the workplace down - they don't start their own companies. The sure way to be on top is to start your own kingdom. More men are interested in being Kings than women. For one, most women tend to be attracted to "Kings". There's a far shorter queue of men going for the women equivalents.
So the selection pressure is there.