I thought it was generally proven that porn lowers the overall rape rate which should in theory mean that child porn(without real children) should lower the child rape rate.
Quite the opposite. Don't believe anything you read on/b/.
No, that doesn't follow. Being enthusiastically hetero is not at all the same as being homophobic
No, but describing that everything you don't like as a vivid representation of homoeroticism kind of is. Football isn't suppose to get a sexual rise out of men. It's a game of simulated warfare and athletic strategy. It's attraction to a typical man's adrenal gland falls under the star of Ares rather than Venus. If your worldview is absorbed by the binary distribution of "Does it turn me on sexually or is it for teh gays?" then your condition is considered a disorder and downright creepy by the opposite sex. It is admittedly healthier than an obsession with violence, and easier to cure as you probably just need to get laid or lay off the porn for a while. Go camping or something.
People/corporations who are producing copyrighted materials are NOT getting paid when they work, they get paid in the future, when the works are actually sold.
They're paid for their distribution and investment.
You unilaterally deciding that they don't need to get paid is no different than you picking up your paycheck and finding your employer decided that Wednesday was work-for-free day.
The record companies do NOT work for me. If they cannot deliver a product to me in a better way than their competitors, they do not deserve my money any more than their competitors do. I cannot be sued by Burger King because I prefer eating at McDonalds unless I am sponsored by Burger King to eat only at Burger King.
If you don't like this system, change it. Go out and hire some musicians to create a new, unseen, unheard work. Negotiate a fair price. Pay them up front. Pay all of the expenses up front. Since this is now a work-for-hire, you get to keep the copyright. When they finish the work, give it away for free. See how long you can sustain that.
Do you work for the RIAA? Can you not see the train of progress rolling by without you aboard? The old ways are dying. The model of extorted distribution is completely obsolete. People don't HAVE to pay $20.00 for a $0.15 CD to listen to the music they want to hear anymore. Music is not dead, but its distribution model is -- it just hasn't noticed yet. Like the typewriter manufacturers had to do when the computer became popular, they need to either abandon their current business practices or radically change them to a new, profitable, beneficial-to-society model. Simply because the recording industry isn't made up of small businesses doesn't mean it's immune to failure if they lose their market niche.
OK, fair enough. What about the other 99% of artists, who do spend more than a week in the recording studio (or on location at a film, or in their studio painting, etc), or who some consider to be talented, or who can't get anywhere near the equivalent income from selling their art as any other skilled person?
Touring, selling t-shirts and stickers on their website, and having day jobs if they're not making enough money off their hobbies... like the rest of us do. I live and work in Los Angeles, and so I have friends (the kind who actually consider ME their friend) who range from small time entertainment to international superstars that are used to seeing their faces on the front of tabloids. I'm not so detached from the industry that I'm unaware at how a change like this would affect them personally, and I tell them the same thing. "No such thing as a free ride." It keeps them in the black for now, and when their draconian royalties payment system catches up with the rest of the world's economic flow, they probably won't be left to starve.
Do you want to do your job for free?
Do you want to not get paid for any work you do?
If not, then you support copyright restrictions. Because violation of copyright is exactly the same thing as hiring someone but not paying them.
I get paid when I work. I don't get paid today because I worked 4 years ago for one week, and people still benefit [sic] from what I did. Violation of copyright says "You did you job, good job. Now get over it and get BACK to work like the rest of mankind!" and not "I don't think you should get paid for what you do."
I have zero sympathy for those untalented hacks who spent a whole week in a recording studio and now want me to feed them, their whores, and their children for the rest of their pathetic lives. If they want to eat, they need to go out and win bread like the rest of us!
Can someone please explain in layman's terms how this results in a decision, for those of us who aren't quantum mathematicians? I somewhat get the whole "indecision results in a decision" thing but seems to be a hard idea to wrap my brain around so to speak.
They're saying that no one orders lobster at McDonald's -- not because people don't like lobster, but because it's not on the menu. You can't base how the general population feels about lobster by asking McDonald's how many lobsters they sell compared to how many hamburgers.
So instead of looking to see what people feel about lobster, they're asking restaurants how many lobsters they sell in order to determine if lobster is even on the menu. Once that's set in stone, THEN they can start testing the demographics of how many people prefer lobster to what.
At least that's how I interpreted what they're doing...:\
I agree that teachers disconnected from reality are bad, but the alternative is even worse. Look at what too much bitching got us: they teach JAVA as the primary programming language in universities nowadays! How sadistically cruel is that?
Finally, I can put my university Java courses to good use!
This didn't work the last n times it was tried (Iran, Pakistan, Colombia, Vietnam, Somalia etc etc, and that's just naming some US interventions off the top of my head, not all the other examples from history of failed puppet governments, the UK has a whole list too). What makes you think this time will work?
There have been major successes as well (that often looked like failures for decades), but besides that, I didn't say it would work. I was just explaining the logic behind it, and I'm glad I'm not in charge of it. It's no secret that Iran wants to take over at least 1/3rd of what's left of Iraq. Are the forces there truly preventing a genocide? Would the Sunni or Shi'ite takeovers be peaceful and all the terrorists bury their weapons and go home to live in peace forever if the US left? Is the government [the one that the allied forces are trying to set up] going to commit greater crimes than any we've ousted or prevented through our efforts? Would success spell some measure of peace in the Middle East, or would failure lead to a better future? No one knows.
At this point, whatever decision is made, it's outcome will at least look negative for the next 5-10 years. In 20? Who knows?
hey retards : ted stevens (republican) hasn't chaired a committee since 2004.
Stevens chaired the Senate Appropriations Committee from 1997 to 2005, except for the 18 months when Democrats controlled the chamber. The chairmanship gave Stevens considerable influence among fellow Senators, who relied on him for home-state project funds. Due to Republican Party rules that limited committee chairmanships to six years, Stevens gave up the Appropriations gavel at the start of the 109th Congress, in January 2005. He chaired the United States Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation during the 109th Congress.
If nobody wants us there and the only way to win genocide -- why are we there? I mean, besides for the oil.
For the same reason why "nobody" wants Americans to have religious freedom.
Because your definition of "nobody" infers that the noisy, protesting 1% of Iraqis are everybody. The flagburners that call us "The Great Devil" and fire machine guns into the air must make up the sum total of the entire Iraqi population!
The Islamic sects that would get holocausted into extinction if the other sects took control are scared for when the soldiers leave. The suicide bombers are, for the most part, not Iraqi. They are immigrant extremists that are in Iraq, killing Iraqis that don't follow the same Islamic code as they do, to scare the rest into submitting to their specific beliefs. You think mosque, pilgrimage, police headquarters, and market bombings are targetted at US troops?
If you want to know the reason why we're still there, I suggest you read "Leviathan" while you wait. If Iraq doesn't have a stable government or structured military when the troops pull out, the land will go to the meanest, toughest faction -- which is currently not one that's allied with us. We have troops there to make sure the Western-friendly government lasts more than a weekend.
Am I the only when that thought memristors would remain the the 5-10 year category for the next couple of decades?...So when will we see commercially available devices?
What, you want him to grab people randomly from the street?
Is that a possibility? Like... can we draft a proposition and vote for that idea in 2 years?
Instead of corrupt, constitution-burning lawyers, schemers and career politicians, we periodically fill the ranks with core samples of the population who are actually affected by the choices the government makes...
Wouldn't that be a breath of fresh air and a bucket of sunshine...
But seriously, the prospect of bringing a flawed misfit sentient being into this world and explaining to them "oh, by the way, your species is extinct!" doesn't seem very humane or ethical to me.
You know... I didn't think I'd be the one to tell you this... but Locke2005, have you ever wondered why you were so much hairier than your "biological" father? Ever wonder why kids giggled when your name "Ug" was read in classrooms, and why you prefer deerskin over cashmir?
I'm sure you've come to the correct conclusion by now... If you don't believe me, the proof is right before your eyes. You're posting excitedly in a news post about mammoth burgers.
I'll let you get back to your flint and tinder... and... we're sorry about your entire species.
That's just it though. Exercise, for kids, shouldn't be a task. They should be running around playing cops and robbers or pretending they're ponies or picking up sticks and fighting trees like they were monsters. They could be jumproping, hopscotching, playing tag, playing basketball, football, 4-square, walking and talking, wrestling, it doesn't matter. When did going outside become something kids HAD to do instead of something they WANTED to do all day? Well, yeah, there's winter for those of you in the crappy parts of the world, but that's when they're out building snowmen and sledding. It's healthy for boys to bloody each other up now and again. It's healthy for girls to get some real world attention instead of having to whore it out from faceless crowds of the blogotron.
Saying that spending 8 hours a day messaging their friends on facespace is helping them develop skills for a technical world is 100% bullshit, and you should be mature enough to recognize that -- just like how watching TV for 8 hours a day won't turn anyone into an electrical engineer or media executive. It will build up the skill of wasting your life away much faster than it will build any of the other skills that might be fertilized by what that media type has to offer.
Telling your BFF that "OMG mai 'rents r total NAZIS!!!" and posting pictures you took of yourself in the mirror are NOT skills that someone needs for this day and age. This day and age needs people with self discipline, work ethic, ambition, and determination. Internet and videogame addiction can and will kill those character traits, and should be curbed in children at high cost, if necessary. Candy and videogames shouldn't be their life staples until they're at least in college.
Further to the point what is so special about doing things "outside" and so wasteful about doing those same things infront of a computer? Is it just your upbringing that causes you to expect kids to want to do what you want to do, or simply a social expectation? Because such thinking appears to have no rational basis in real life.
You're apparently unaware that exercise keeps people fit, and it's healthy to be fit. Going outside greatly increases the chances of one participating in at least mild-to-moderate exercise. Kids going outside greatly increase the chances of moderate-to-vigorous exercise. You're obviously not a parent. You're obviously not involved with kids. When we went to school, there was one fat kid in the entire grade, and they were known as "The Fat Kid" -- now 30-60% of children are obese. Trading all physical activities for sitting and staring is unhealthy. Sacrificing something you like because you're addicted to something else is unhealthy. Self discipline is healthy. Before you start harping that sitting in front of a computer all day and doing nothing but eating and sleeping besides that can be construed as "healthy" for a developmental youngster, I suggest you look up any study ever made, EVER, on exercise's effects on the human body.
I can't wait until my clothing starts coming with FBI warnings that the design is trademarked, pateneted and that I may only wear the shirt before Labor Day, and before 8 PM on weeknights. You just wait.
Wait till produce markets start selling oranges that have a note injected under the peel that says, after about 6 pages of legal boilerplate and definitions, "Sunkist Oranges are owned and trademarked by Sunkist. Any reproduction including but not limited to: using seeds to grow more Sunkist Oranges, taking pictures of Sunkist Oranges, or using Sunkist Oranges for any non-personal use is prohibited by law and punishable by a maximum fine of up to $500,000 per offense and 5 years of incarceration. Purchasing this orange licenses you to one user per purchase. If you wish to share this orange, you must contact Sunkist to purchase additional licenses through our hotline below. By tasting, juicing, or breaking this orange into slices, you agree to these terms." and meanwhile, it infects your house with airborn SecureFROOT scurvy.
Youth is not a renewable resource. It's finite. They have 24 hours in every day, and what they spend their time doing eliminates the ability to spend that time doing something better. When you see girls quitting their ballet classes because they want to sit on Myspace for all 8 hours of their free time, that's not socially healthy. When kids don't want to go out and play football because "It's easier to just play Madden, and it doesn't hurt!" that's not healthy either. Every hour they spend sitting on their social networking sites is syphoned from the time they could be speaking to people face to face, doing homework (or engaging in some other form of learning), doing ANYTHING outside, or doing anything constructive.
Even the study mentions obsessive, addicted individuals with a smile and a wink thinking it's cute that:
two dating 17-year olds... wake up and immediately instant message each other, then switch to mobile phones while on route to campus, then send text messages during class. After spending time together doing homework, they talk on the phone or send text messages
Yes, videogames and social networking can be good things for kids -- in restricted moderation, but they have to be just a supplement to physical and cognitive-developmental activities -- not the overarching structure of their entire lives. It's sickening to see people spend all their time on sites doing absolutely nothing, wondering why everyone's getting fat, lonely, depressed, and socially anxious. Moderation needs to be brought to people's lives, and not through oversaturation (I can only spend x number of minutes doing this, because I have to do x number of other things today!) but through self discipline (I'm spending x number of minutes doing this, because there are better things I could be doing with my time.... but I deserve this break.)
Somehow, I figured lonely slashdotters would be more interested in this article: Using Stem Cells for Breast Enhancement
Lonely slashdotters? My fiance has been asking me about implants for months, and I kept saying "You know, they wouldn't feel natural. It wouldn't be the same."
Suddenly, I can cut all that crap. This is the best news I've heard all year!
Older workers might be more experienced, but also have more time to develop bad habits. Instead of asking questions like the one you listed, think up a few scenarios and ask them what they would do in the situation.
I don't think this is stressed enough. Age/experience has a very goldilocks approach in IT. It can be too hot and too cold. You can get the old dogs stuck in their tricks that want to port your entire system over to what they've been doing, or you'll get the ones that are so jaded in the civil war against management and marketing that they are nothing but a poison thorn in your IT department. You can also get masters of their craft that are seeking new ways to expand themselves, but may get bored with the tasks you have for them and leave just as quickly as they came. You'll probably get something inbetween.
These are all different cogs for different machines. Maybe you just need a human appliance in your IT department that you can rely on like a laborador to get his job done. Maybe you need someone who's unafraid to stick up for the IT in front of marketing/management (because lack of competent project managers?). Maybe you need a magnanimous whirlwind to roll through your department and get the engines greased and running on the right track within a short amount of time.
For your money, unless they're pursuing IT as a post-retirement hobby, the older ones will typically cost you more for their output compared to the younger ones, but they'll typically be more reliable as well -- as an imprecise generalization.
McCarthyism resulted in less than 1% of the citizens of Hollywood being blacklisted from the movie industry (on hearsay and specious evidence). So that was OK, then?
It's only regretable that it didn't get 100% of them blacklisted from the movie industry.
Slashdot Mirror
I thought it was generally proven that porn lowers the overall rape rate which should in theory mean that child porn(without real children) should lower the child rape rate.
Quite the opposite. Don't believe anything you read on /b/.
I'd hate to actually go to a theatre for once, and have it overrun by retards...
You have not been to the movies lately, have you?
No, that doesn't follow. Being enthusiastically hetero is not at all the same as being homophobic
No, but describing that everything you don't like as a vivid representation of homoeroticism kind of is. Football isn't suppose to get a sexual rise out of men. It's a game of simulated warfare and athletic strategy. It's attraction to a typical man's adrenal gland falls under the star of Ares rather than Venus. If your worldview is absorbed by the binary distribution of "Does it turn me on sexually or is it for teh gays?" then your condition is considered a disorder and downright creepy by the opposite sex. It is admittedly healthier than an obsession with violence, and easier to cure as you probably just need to get laid or lay off the porn for a while. Go camping or something.
I don't see this being useful for detecting breast... tumors
That's what hands are for. (Preferrably my hands)
People/corporations who are producing copyrighted materials are NOT getting paid when they work, they get paid in the future, when the works are actually sold.
They're paid for their distribution and investment.
You unilaterally deciding that they don't need to get paid is no different than you picking up your paycheck and finding your employer decided that Wednesday was work-for-free day.
The record companies do NOT work for me. If they cannot deliver a product to me in a better way than their competitors, they do not deserve my money any more than their competitors do. I cannot be sued by Burger King because I prefer eating at McDonalds unless I am sponsored by Burger King to eat only at Burger King.
If you don't like this system, change it. Go out and hire some musicians to create a new, unseen, unheard work. Negotiate a fair price. Pay them up front. Pay all of the expenses up front. Since this is now a work-for-hire, you get to keep the copyright. When they finish the work, give it away for free. See how long you can sustain that.
Do you work for the RIAA? Can you not see the train of progress rolling by without you aboard? The old ways are dying. The model of extorted distribution is completely obsolete. People don't HAVE to pay $20.00 for a $0.15 CD to listen to the music they want to hear anymore. Music is not dead, but its distribution model is -- it just hasn't noticed yet. Like the typewriter manufacturers had to do when the computer became popular, they need to either abandon their current business practices or radically change them to a new, profitable, beneficial-to-society model. Simply because the recording industry isn't made up of small businesses doesn't mean it's immune to failure if they lose their market niche.
OK, fair enough. What about the other 99% of artists, who do spend more than a week in the recording studio (or on location at a film, or in their studio painting, etc), or who some consider to be talented, or who can't get anywhere near the equivalent income from selling their art as any other skilled person?
Touring, selling t-shirts and stickers on their website, and having day jobs if they're not making enough money off their hobbies... like the rest of us do. I live and work in Los Angeles, and so I have friends (the kind who actually consider ME their friend) who range from small time entertainment to international superstars that are used to seeing their faces on the front of tabloids. I'm not so detached from the industry that I'm unaware at how a change like this would affect them personally, and I tell them the same thing. "No such thing as a free ride." It keeps them in the black for now, and when their draconian royalties payment system catches up with the rest of the world's economic flow, they probably won't be left to starve.
Do you want to do your job for free? Do you want to not get paid for any work you do? If not, then you support copyright restrictions. Because violation of copyright is exactly the same thing as hiring someone but not paying them.
I get paid when I work. I don't get paid today because I worked 4 years ago for one week, and people still benefit [sic] from what I did. Violation of copyright says "You did you job, good job. Now get over it and get BACK to work like the rest of mankind!" and not "I don't think you should get paid for what you do."
I have zero sympathy for those untalented hacks who spent a whole week in a recording studio and now want me to feed them, their whores, and their children for the rest of their pathetic lives. If they want to eat, they need to go out and win bread like the rest of us!
Can someone please explain in layman's terms how this results in a decision, for those of us who aren't quantum mathematicians? I somewhat get the whole "indecision results in a decision" thing but seems to be a hard idea to wrap my brain around so to speak.
They're saying that no one orders lobster at McDonald's -- not because people don't like lobster, but because it's not on the menu. You can't base how the general population feels about lobster by asking McDonald's how many lobsters they sell compared to how many hamburgers.
:\
So instead of looking to see what people feel about lobster, they're asking restaurants how many lobsters they sell in order to determine if lobster is even on the menu. Once that's set in stone, THEN they can start testing the demographics of how many people prefer lobster to what.
At least that's how I interpreted what they're doing...
I agree that teachers disconnected from reality are bad, but the alternative is even worse. Look at what too much bitching got us: they teach JAVA as the primary programming language in universities nowadays! How sadistically cruel is that?
Finally, I can put my university Java courses to good use!
:no they're not :(
output.stream.text.openRebuttalLibrary.strongRebuttals.javaIsABadFirstLanguage.showIcon.frownyFace.inputAudience.slashDot.inputArgument.cruel.ouputEmotion.snarky.noBorder.standardText.displaySettingsOptimal.blackFont.print();
This didn't work the last n times it was tried (Iran, Pakistan, Colombia, Vietnam, Somalia etc etc, and that's just naming some US interventions off the top of my head, not all the other examples from history of failed puppet governments, the UK has a whole list too). What makes you think this time will work?
There have been major successes as well (that often looked like failures for decades), but besides that, I didn't say it would work. I was just explaining the logic behind it, and I'm glad I'm not in charge of it. It's no secret that Iran wants to take over at least 1/3rd of what's left of Iraq. Are the forces there truly preventing a genocide? Would the Sunni or Shi'ite takeovers be peaceful and all the terrorists bury their weapons and go home to live in peace forever if the US left? Is the government [the one that the allied forces are trying to set up] going to commit greater crimes than any we've ousted or prevented through our efforts? Would success spell some measure of peace in the Middle East, or would failure lead to a better future? No one knows.
At this point, whatever decision is made, it's outcome will at least look negative for the next 5-10 years. In 20? Who knows?
hey retards : ted stevens (republican) hasn't chaired a committee since 2004.
Stevens chaired the Senate Appropriations Committee from 1997 to 2005, except for the 18 months when Democrats controlled the chamber. The chairmanship gave Stevens considerable influence among fellow Senators, who relied on him for home-state project funds. Due to Republican Party rules that limited committee chairmanships to six years, Stevens gave up the Appropriations gavel at the start of the 109th Congress, in January 2005. He chaired the United States Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation during the 109th Congress.
Herp Derp
If nobody wants us there and the only way to win genocide -- why are we there? I mean, besides for the oil.
For the same reason why "nobody" wants Americans to have religious freedom.
Because your definition of "nobody" infers that the noisy, protesting 1% of Iraqis are everybody. The flagburners that call us "The Great Devil" and fire machine guns into the air must make up the sum total of the entire Iraqi population!
The Islamic sects that would get holocausted into extinction if the other sects took control are scared for when the soldiers leave. The suicide bombers are, for the most part, not Iraqi. They are immigrant extremists that are in Iraq, killing Iraqis that don't follow the same Islamic code as they do, to scare the rest into submitting to their specific beliefs. You think mosque, pilgrimage, police headquarters, and market bombings are targetted at US troops?
If you want to know the reason why we're still there, I suggest you read "Leviathan" while you wait. If Iraq doesn't have a stable government or structured military when the troops pull out, the land will go to the meanest, toughest faction -- which is currently not one that's allied with us. We have troops there to make sure the Western-friendly government lasts more than a weekend.
Am I the only when that thought memristors would remain the the 5-10 year category for the next couple of decades?...So when will we see commercially available devices?
In 5-10 years.
What, you want him to grab people randomly from the street?
Is that a possibility? Like... can we draft a proposition and vote for that idea in 2 years?
Instead of corrupt, constitution-burning lawyers, schemers and career politicians, we periodically fill the ranks with core samples of the population who are actually affected by the choices the government makes...
Wouldn't that be a breath of fresh air and a bucket of sunshine...
He'd look pretty ridiculous saying "Vote for change by voting for a Washington insider", now wouldn't he?
Maybe he meant he would change into a Washington insider?
But seriously, the prospect of bringing a flawed misfit sentient being into this world and explaining to them "oh, by the way, your species is extinct!" doesn't seem very humane or ethical to me.
You know... I didn't think I'd be the one to tell you this... but Locke2005, have you ever wondered why you were so much hairier than your "biological" father? Ever wonder why kids giggled when your name "Ug" was read in classrooms, and why you prefer deerskin over cashmir?
I'm sure you've come to the correct conclusion by now... If you don't believe me, the proof is right before your eyes. You're posting excitedly in a news post about mammoth burgers.
I'll let you get back to your flint and tinder... and... we're sorry about your entire species.
That's just it though. Exercise, for kids, shouldn't be a task. They should be running around playing cops and robbers or pretending they're ponies or picking up sticks and fighting trees like they were monsters. They could be jumproping, hopscotching, playing tag, playing basketball, football, 4-square, walking and talking, wrestling, it doesn't matter. When did going outside become something kids HAD to do instead of something they WANTED to do all day? Well, yeah, there's winter for those of you in the crappy parts of the world, but that's when they're out building snowmen and sledding. It's healthy for boys to bloody each other up now and again. It's healthy for girls to get some real world attention instead of having to whore it out from faceless crowds of the blogotron.
Saying that spending 8 hours a day messaging their friends on facespace is helping them develop skills for a technical world is 100% bullshit, and you should be mature enough to recognize that -- just like how watching TV for 8 hours a day won't turn anyone into an electrical engineer or media executive. It will build up the skill of wasting your life away much faster than it will build any of the other skills that might be fertilized by what that media type has to offer.
Telling your BFF that "OMG mai 'rents r total NAZIS!!!" and posting pictures you took of yourself in the mirror are NOT skills that someone needs for this day and age. This day and age needs people with self discipline, work ethic, ambition, and determination. Internet and videogame addiction can and will kill those character traits, and should be curbed in children at high cost, if necessary. Candy and videogames shouldn't be their life staples until they're at least in college.
Further to the point what is so special about doing things "outside" and so wasteful about doing those same things infront of a computer? Is it just your upbringing that causes you to expect kids to want to do what you want to do, or simply a social expectation? Because such thinking appears to have no rational basis in real life.
You're apparently unaware that exercise keeps people fit, and it's healthy to be fit. Going outside greatly increases the chances of one participating in at least mild-to-moderate exercise. Kids going outside greatly increase the chances of moderate-to-vigorous exercise. You're obviously not a parent. You're obviously not involved with kids. When we went to school, there was one fat kid in the entire grade, and they were known as "The Fat Kid" -- now 30-60% of children are obese. Trading all physical activities for sitting and staring is unhealthy. Sacrificing something you like because you're addicted to something else is unhealthy. Self discipline is healthy. Before you start harping that sitting in front of a computer all day and doing nothing but eating and sleeping besides that can be construed as "healthy" for a developmental youngster, I suggest you look up any study ever made, EVER, on exercise's effects on the human body.
I can't wait until my clothing starts coming with FBI warnings that the design is trademarked, pateneted and that I may only wear the shirt before Labor Day, and before 8 PM on weeknights. You just wait.
Wait till produce markets start selling oranges that have a note injected under the peel that says, after about 6 pages of legal boilerplate and definitions, "Sunkist Oranges are owned and trademarked by Sunkist. Any reproduction including but not limited to: using seeds to grow more Sunkist Oranges, taking pictures of Sunkist Oranges, or using Sunkist Oranges for any non-personal use is prohibited by law and punishable by a maximum fine of up to $500,000 per offense and 5 years of incarceration. Purchasing this orange licenses you to one user per purchase. If you wish to share this orange, you must contact Sunkist to purchase additional licenses through our hotline below. By tasting, juicing, or breaking this orange into slices, you agree to these terms." and meanwhile, it infects your house with airborn SecureFROOT scurvy.
Even the study mentions obsessive, addicted individuals with a smile and a wink thinking it's cute that:
two dating 17-year olds ... wake up and immediately instant message each other, then switch to mobile phones while on route to campus, then send text messages during class. After spending time together doing homework, they talk on the phone or send text messages
Yes, videogames and social networking can be good things for kids -- in restricted moderation, but they have to be just a supplement to physical and cognitive-developmental activities -- not the overarching structure of their entire lives. It's sickening to see people spend all their time on sites doing absolutely nothing, wondering why everyone's getting fat, lonely, depressed, and socially anxious. Moderation needs to be brought to people's lives, and not through oversaturation (I can only spend x number of minutes doing this, because I have to do x number of other things today!) but through self discipline (I'm spending x number of minutes doing this, because there are better things I could be doing with my time.... but I deserve this break.)
Somehow, I figured lonely slashdotters would be more interested in this article: Using Stem Cells for Breast Enhancement
Lonely slashdotters? My fiance has been asking me about implants for months, and I kept saying "You know, they wouldn't feel natural. It wouldn't be the same."
Suddenly, I can cut all that crap. This is the best news I've heard all year!
Older workers might be more experienced, but also have more time to develop bad habits. Instead of asking questions like the one you listed, think up a few scenarios and ask them what they would do in the situation.
I don't think this is stressed enough. Age/experience has a very goldilocks approach in IT. It can be too hot and too cold. You can get the old dogs stuck in their tricks that want to port your entire system over to what they've been doing, or you'll get the ones that are so jaded in the civil war against management and marketing that they are nothing but a poison thorn in your IT department. You can also get masters of their craft that are seeking new ways to expand themselves, but may get bored with the tasks you have for them and leave just as quickly as they came. You'll probably get something inbetween.
These are all different cogs for different machines. Maybe you just need a human appliance in your IT department that you can rely on like a laborador to get his job done. Maybe you need someone who's unafraid to stick up for the IT in front of marketing/management (because lack of competent project managers?). Maybe you need a magnanimous whirlwind to roll through your department and get the engines greased and running on the right track within a short amount of time.
For your money, unless they're pursuing IT as a post-retirement hobby, the older ones will typically cost you more for their output compared to the younger ones, but they'll typically be more reliable as well -- as an imprecise generalization.
McCarthyism resulted in less than 1% of the citizens of Hollywood being blacklisted from the movie industry (on hearsay and specious evidence). So that was OK, then?
It's only regretable that it didn't get 100% of them blacklisted from the movie industry.
What do you use to catch a jaded pessimist?
That's easy enough. Make them think everything is their idea.
"I hacked you? Sorry mate, I was just trying to play Solitaire"
Looks like we're lucky this time. Last kid that accidently played videogames with our system chose Global Thermonuclear War!