Here in Portland, we firebomb new Starbucks facilities. Fuck you and your corporate coffee. Quit Walmarting the good old coffee shops out of existence.
They've just opened another one across the street from the tiny espresso shack I love to frequent in the mornings. If she ends up going under because of it, I think I might get in the mood for a little firebombing myself...
Haha, this reminds me of biology class. We were discussing the structure of ozone, which has shared bonds between the outer oxygen atoms and the inner oxygen atom. In diagrams, these are marked by dotted lines. What it really means is a shared orbital between all three atoms -- a quantum electron state that encompasses all three oxygen nuclei.
I said "These bonds are called Ghost Bonders." Everyone referred to them as ghost bonders after that. Hah!
A common thing you'll hear Americans say is, "I can't afford to have ideals. I can't afford to stand up for myself. I might get fired."
We stupid American money chasers... We forget that our ideals, morals, and families are all that really matters. We're slaves to the almighty Buck, and those of us who manage to see clearly enough to realize that this is ludicrous, are branded as either stupid, or hopelessly idealistic.
I say those who are willing to give up their ideals and lives for the sake of a corporation don't deserve them in the first place. Kind of like what Ben Franklin said regarding security vs. freedom.
Just write every expense off and get a big tax return.
This is completely offtopic, but you never want a big tax return. Do you really want the government making interest off your tax money instead of you?
If you are financially disciplined enough, the best possible situation is to end up owing a bunch of taxes at the end of the year -- but you were smart, and you stuck that money in a 1-year CD or some other type of investment, and now it is you who earns the interest throughout the year.
The government loves to give you a big tax return. It means they made lots of interest off you.
To be totally fair, some of the parts on motherboards are not easily identifiable.
I've seen devices that looked like ceramic disc capacitors but were actually ICs in unusual packaging. I've seen chips that look like power regulators which are actually crystals, things which look like crystals which are actually transistors, etc.
You see those donut-shaped components with thick coils of copper wire wrapped around them? Can you name what that is? (Yeah, I'm sure lots of us can, but I'm also sure that a fair number of us can't, and that doesn't make us incompetent).
In some cases, "white doohicky" is the best you can do to describe a part without looking up the part code. Of course, he didn't go into much detail so we can't really know exactly what part he was talking about.
It was hot, and there was no air conditioning in the cramped little house. I leaned over the running system (tower case turned on its side, motherboard facing up, case cover off) to grab a screw from the table behind it... And a bead of sweat fell from my forehead into the case.
We're getting offtopic here, but yes, I have big problems with patriotism as it currently seems to be defined.
Consider Germany. I think you will be hard pressed to locate a German who is "Proud to be German," proud of the German flag, or anything like that. I'm not pulling this out of my ass, this is my actual experience from my time in Germany.
There is pride associated with Teutonic culture. But pride for Germany? Why would a German be proud of Germany? That entails pride in its history, and we know that is filled with great evil.
I'm fully capable of feeling pride in the people I spend my time with, the actions I take, and the improvements I make in the world. But proud to be American? Not in the slightest. The country I'm from has nothing to do with it.
Even in at-will states, fireable offenses are clearly defined. They can lay off whoever the hell they want, but getting fired is a whole other can of worms.
And it doesn't change the fact that you'd simply be a slime for doing such a thing. At least a few people on this planet believe that being a slime actually counts for something, at some point down the road...
This ridiculous hyperbole doesn't qualify as an argument.
If the employer says "You must have broadband," then they better damn well pay for it. Similarly, if the employer says "You must have a Ferrari," they better damn well pay for it.
But we all know no employer is going to require you to drive a Ferrari. Your argument is ridiculous.
I wasn't in any way implying that incorporating suddenly turns people into assholes. Sorry if you interpret it that way.
Incorporation dramatically reduces liability, as you point out. That is the reason I feel they should be treated differently than unincorporated companies. Not because the corporate managers suddenly become Evil.
Companies incorporate so they can be treated as entities unto themselves, separate from their human components. Since they aren't human, I don't feel they deserve the same treatment I would give a person. In my mind, this somewhat balances the gigantic tax and liability advantages gained when a company incorporates.
This kind of hostile response kindof makes me laugh.
Corporations hold such power in this country I think it is always prudent to treat them with hostility. This does not equate with being hostile toward the people you work with.
See how you like carrying two cellphones - one for work, and one of your own
I wouldn't mind that much. As an aside, I view this as a technological deficiency: I see no reason why it shouldn't be possible to bind two different cell phone accounts to the same physical phone. When you call/receive a call from your employer, it gets charged to the company account. All other calls get charged to the personal account. Why don't cell companies do this?
Surely you don't think that it is your employer's responsibility to provide you with a cellphone for personal use?
Of course not, and I never implied such.
Really, the bottom line is: deduct the cost of cell service from your compensation... is it still worth keeping the job?
I think the bottom line is: why should I allow my employer to nickle and dime me away from the salary I agreed upon when I was hired?
So should that mom and pop shop decide to incorporate for the tax benefits, all of a sudden it will magically lose touch with the people?
I might seem cold for thinking so, but yes. If you don't want to be viewed as an evil corporation, don't incorporate. I don't think it's me who's being unfair. What is unfair is that only corporation are able to receive these tax benefits.
I'm not going to change my opinion just because the law is fucked up.
"Employee AxemRed is very capable but seems to have a drinking problem. I recommend we let him go before the problem scales any further"
Then, when they terminate you, take their ass to court and ask for the evidence that you were not performing your job correctly. Your personal life and what you do on your off hours is none of their fucking business.
When one is a salary man, a bit more is expected, within reason (which is the key).
That's not how I understand salaried work at all. My view on it is that salaried work is work that must be accomplished within a certain time frame. Period.
If you can bust your ass and do your job on only 30 hours a week, rock on. Likewise, if you need 80 hours a week to do your job, tough shit.
Salary isn't about working harder than everyone else. It's about getting your work done no matter what it takes. Sometimes, "what it takes" is less than you might expect. Sometimes it's more. The real difference between this and hourly wage is much greater responsibility. That doesn't necessarily translate directly into more hours and harder work.
A company is a group of people... it gains a personality that is formed out of what the people in charge of do on behalf of the company.
In the case of unincorporated companies I would agree. But corporations exist for the purpose of avoiding liability. If the corporate rulers have no personal stake, no liability in the company, I see no reason to treat the company as a personified entity.
Yes, a mom-and-pop shop run as a partnership is a completely different story.
IMHO, when a group of people decide to incorporate a company, that company becomes its own entity seperate from the people who run it, and is therefore not deserving of any respect or loyalty that would be due to actual humans.
when the economy is good treat your company with the level of loyalty and respect that they showed to you.
This is typical American neurotic thinking (I'm American too, I'm not trying to flame you here).
Loyalty is to other people. Respect is something you show other people. It is nonsense to be "loyal" to a company, or to "respect" a company. This idea is simply American corporate brainwashing.
Companies are incorporeal entities, not deserving of loyalty or respect. Be loyal to yourself and your employer (your employer is a person, not a corporation). Think nothing of this vaporous concept called "the company."
Now our new CIO has elected to stop that benefit using the argument that we should be dedicated staff who desire to be responsive and should do what it takes to make that happen.
Your CIO sounds like an asshole. "Dedicated" means dedicated to the work, not dedicated to spending money for your own company. (Hint to CIO: People work to get paid money. Not to spend money for their employers.) If the company needs you to have internet access to do your job, they should pay for it.
Any company which demands you restructure your own personal finances in order to be able to afford an internet connection that they require you to have had their head up their ass. Your personal finances are none of their fucking business. I realize it's much easier said than done, but if I were in your position and had such demands placed on me, I'd quit.
Put this arrogant prick in his place. All of you should collectively refuse to pay for broadband yourselves, and let him see how "productive" you are without his help. It is not your reponsiblity to spend your own money for "the good of the company."
But that didn't answer his question at all. He mentioned a specific example, and you give a textbook response.
The question is, why not use JPEG if it results in smaller files and no visible artifacts? I think the answer to that question is, there IS no reason not to. If the compression fits your application, use it. Don't make decisions based on generalizations and textbook answers.
Will there be artifacts? Perhaps. But what is relevant, of course, is whether they are perceptible, and beyond that, whether they are distracting.
Don't just blindly follow rules of thumb. Do a real experiment, like the OP's colleague did. If a certain type of compression works best in your application, then use it. Don't discard options based on theory, especially when direct experience contradicts it.
Oh, and a small nitpick: PNG is not optionally compressed. The compression is mandatory.
Actually, the use of the word "literally" as hyperbole is very well accepted. The fact that the usage is ironic does not invalidate the usage.
Consider the phrase, "I could care less." This typically is used to mean "I couldn't care less," but it is a common and accepted usage. As another example, take the expression "Big whoop," which on the surface seems to indicate great excitement, but is actually used to express indifference.
Expressing a concept by stating its opposite is a very common mode in English. All languages have funny little quirks and idioms like this. To use another contrary phrase, "Big deal."
I thought of this years ago.
on
Broadband Blimps
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
My idea didn't include blimps, though. My proposal was to put roaming access points on commercial jets, essentially creating a dynamic "sky network."
Considering the immense air traffic over most parts of the modern world, I figured this idea might actually work, and would require basically zero investment beyond the cost of the roaming access points -- no need to invent crazy new technology when there are already perfectly good airplanes up in the air every day anyway. I figured the airlines could be paid a reasonable royalty from the fees collected from users of the network.
Re:Regarding conciousness
on
Lysergically Yours
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
I have never taken hallucinagens, so I cannot comment from personal experience, but I have always wondered whether the "new modes of conciousness" so often reported are actually new ways of looking at the world, or merely hallucinations themselves.
It is difficult, as a person who has experienced hallucinogenic states, to explain to someone who hasn't, just what it's really like. There is definitely something to be learned by experiencing these altered states. It helps to remind us that what we experience in our minds as "reality" is anything but real, and that we really don't have direct access to "reality" as it truly exists. It even might cause you to doubt that there is anything such as the "true nature" of things.
Feynman had an idea, which when he moved to a profoundly different mental environment, appeared ridiculous. The important lesson to be learned here is that what seems very reasonable and sane about reality could be equally ridiculous, and we're just in the wrong frame of mind to "see" it.
His understanding had been no more real than the things he was seeing in the chamber.
That's really the entire point. Who knows what "real" is, when your conscious perceptions of reality can be so profoundly altered by taking a few milligrams (or in this case, micrograms) of some chemical compound?
In a psychedelic state, it is common to look at normal waking life that used to seem so normal, and feel that it is completely ridiculous.
In fact, there is no logical basis to claim that either state is "real," or "ridiculous." Drugs whack you upside the head with the philosophical truth that "reality," as we commonly define it, doesn't really exist in any relevant way. It is only psychological reality which matters.
(BTW, I haven't taken any psychedelic compounds in a long time, and don't plan to again.)
Slashdot Mirror
Here in Portland, we firebomb new Starbucks facilities. Fuck you and your corporate coffee. Quit Walmarting the good old coffee shops out of existence.
They've just opened another one across the street from the tiny espresso shack I love to frequent in the mornings. If she ends up going under because of it, I think I might get in the mood for a little firebombing myself...
I said "These bonds are called Ghost Bonders." Everyone referred to them as ghost bonders after that. Hah!
We stupid American money chasers... We forget that our ideals, morals, and families are all that really matters. We're slaves to the almighty Buck, and those of us who manage to see clearly enough to realize that this is ludicrous, are branded as either stupid, or hopelessly idealistic.
I say those who are willing to give up their ideals and lives for the sake of a corporation don't deserve them in the first place. Kind of like what Ben Franklin said regarding security vs. freedom.
This is completely offtopic, but you never want a big tax return. Do you really want the government making interest off your tax money instead of you?
If you are financially disciplined enough, the best possible situation is to end up owing a bunch of taxes at the end of the year -- but you were smart, and you stuck that money in a 1-year CD or some other type of investment, and now it is you who earns the interest throughout the year.
The government loves to give you a big tax return. It means they made lots of interest off you.
I've done this one. Luckily, the system simply wouldn't boot. No damage done :-)
I've seen devices that looked like ceramic disc capacitors but were actually ICs in unusual packaging. I've seen chips that look like power regulators which are actually crystals, things which look like crystals which are actually transistors, etc.
You see those donut-shaped components with thick coils of copper wire wrapped around them? Can you name what that is? (Yeah, I'm sure lots of us can, but I'm also sure that a fair number of us can't, and that doesn't make us incompetent).
In some cases, "white doohicky" is the best you can do to describe a part without looking up the part code. Of course, he didn't go into much detail so we can't really know exactly what part he was talking about.
Right, that's likely.
Bang. That machine never worked again.
Consider Germany. I think you will be hard pressed to locate a German who is "Proud to be German," proud of the German flag, or anything like that. I'm not pulling this out of my ass, this is my actual experience from my time in Germany.
There is pride associated with Teutonic culture. But pride for Germany? Why would a German be proud of Germany? That entails pride in its history, and we know that is filled with great evil.
I'm fully capable of feeling pride in the people I spend my time with, the actions I take, and the improvements I make in the world. But proud to be American? Not in the slightest. The country I'm from has nothing to do with it.
And it doesn't change the fact that you'd simply be a slime for doing such a thing. At least a few people on this planet believe that being a slime actually counts for something, at some point down the road...
If the employer says "You must have broadband," then they better damn well pay for it. Similarly, if the employer says "You must have a Ferrari," they better damn well pay for it.
But we all know no employer is going to require you to drive a Ferrari. Your argument is ridiculous.
Incorporation dramatically reduces liability, as you point out. That is the reason I feel they should be treated differently than unincorporated companies. Not because the corporate managers suddenly become Evil.
Companies incorporate so they can be treated as entities unto themselves, separate from their human components. Since they aren't human, I don't feel they deserve the same treatment I would give a person. In my mind, this somewhat balances the gigantic tax and liability advantages gained when a company incorporates.
Yeah, whoops. I see his meaning now.
Corporations hold such power in this country I think it is always prudent to treat them with hostility. This does not equate with being hostile toward the people you work with.
See how you like carrying two cellphones - one for work, and one of your own
I wouldn't mind that much. As an aside, I view this as a technological deficiency: I see no reason why it shouldn't be possible to bind two different cell phone accounts to the same physical phone. When you call/receive a call from your employer, it gets charged to the company account. All other calls get charged to the personal account. Why don't cell companies do this?
Surely you don't think that it is your employer's responsibility to provide you with a cellphone for personal use?
Of course not, and I never implied such.
Really, the bottom line is: deduct the cost of cell service from your compensation... is it still worth keeping the job?
I think the bottom line is: why should I allow my employer to nickle and dime me away from the salary I agreed upon when I was hired?
I might seem cold for thinking so, but yes. If you don't want to be viewed as an evil corporation, don't incorporate. I don't think it's me who's being unfair. What is unfair is that only corporation are able to receive these tax benefits.
I'm not going to change my opinion just because the law is fucked up.
Then, when they terminate you, take their ass to court and ask for the evidence that you were not performing your job correctly. Your personal life and what you do on your off hours is none of their fucking business.
That's not how I understand salaried work at all. My view on it is that salaried work is work that must be accomplished within a certain time frame. Period.
If you can bust your ass and do your job on only 30 hours a week, rock on. Likewise, if you need 80 hours a week to do your job, tough shit.
Salary isn't about working harder than everyone else. It's about getting your work done no matter what it takes. Sometimes, "what it takes" is less than you might expect. Sometimes it's more. The real difference between this and hourly wage is much greater responsibility. That doesn't necessarily translate directly into more hours and harder work.
In the case of unincorporated companies I would agree. But corporations exist for the purpose of avoiding liability. If the corporate rulers have no personal stake, no liability in the company, I see no reason to treat the company as a personified entity.
Yes, a mom-and-pop shop run as a partnership is a completely different story.
IMHO, when a group of people decide to incorporate a company, that company becomes its own entity seperate from the people who run it, and is therefore not deserving of any respect or loyalty that would be due to actual humans.
This is typical American neurotic thinking (I'm American too, I'm not trying to flame you here).
Loyalty is to other people. Respect is something you show other people. It is nonsense to be "loyal" to a company, or to "respect" a company. This idea is simply American corporate brainwashing.
Companies are incorporeal entities, not deserving of loyalty or respect. Be loyal to yourself and your employer (your employer is a person, not a corporation). Think nothing of this vaporous concept called "the company."
"The company" can go fuck itself.
Your CIO sounds like an asshole. "Dedicated" means dedicated to the work, not dedicated to spending money for your own company. (Hint to CIO: People work to get paid money. Not to spend money for their employers.) If the company needs you to have internet access to do your job, they should pay for it.
Any company which demands you restructure your own personal finances in order to be able to afford an internet connection that they require you to have had their head up their ass. Your personal finances are none of their fucking business. I realize it's much easier said than done, but if I were in your position and had such demands placed on me, I'd quit.
Put this arrogant prick in his place. All of you should collectively refuse to pay for broadband yourselves, and let him see how "productive" you are without his help. It is not your reponsiblity to spend your own money for "the good of the company."
What a crock of shit.
I think you've just demonstrated far more immaturity than Twitter ever has...
The question is, why not use JPEG if it results in smaller files and no visible artifacts? I think the answer to that question is, there IS no reason not to. If the compression fits your application, use it. Don't make decisions based on generalizations and textbook answers.
Will there be artifacts? Perhaps. But what is relevant, of course, is whether they are perceptible, and beyond that, whether they are distracting.
Don't just blindly follow rules of thumb. Do a real experiment, like the OP's colleague did. If a certain type of compression works best in your application, then use it. Don't discard options based on theory, especially when direct experience contradicts it.
Oh, and a small nitpick: PNG is not optionally compressed. The compression is mandatory.
Consider the phrase, "I could care less." This typically is used to mean "I couldn't care less," but it is a common and accepted usage. As another example, take the expression "Big whoop," which on the surface seems to indicate great excitement, but is actually used to express indifference.
Expressing a concept by stating its opposite is a very common mode in English. All languages have funny little quirks and idioms like this. To use another contrary phrase, "Big deal."
Considering the immense air traffic over most parts of the modern world, I figured this idea might actually work, and would require basically zero investment beyond the cost of the roaming access points -- no need to invent crazy new technology when there are already perfectly good airplanes up in the air every day anyway. I figured the airlines could be paid a reasonable royalty from the fees collected from users of the network.
It is difficult, as a person who has experienced hallucinogenic states, to explain to someone who hasn't, just what it's really like. There is definitely something to be learned by experiencing these altered states. It helps to remind us that what we experience in our minds as "reality" is anything but real, and that we really don't have direct access to "reality" as it truly exists. It even might cause you to doubt that there is anything such as the "true nature" of things.
Feynman had an idea, which when he moved to a profoundly different mental environment, appeared ridiculous. The important lesson to be learned here is that what seems very reasonable and sane about reality could be equally ridiculous, and we're just in the wrong frame of mind to "see" it.
His understanding had been no more real than the things he was seeing in the chamber.
That's really the entire point. Who knows what "real" is, when your conscious perceptions of reality can be so profoundly altered by taking a few milligrams (or in this case, micrograms) of some chemical compound?
In a psychedelic state, it is common to look at normal waking life that used to seem so normal, and feel that it is completely ridiculous.
In fact, there is no logical basis to claim that either state is "real," or "ridiculous." Drugs whack you upside the head with the philosophical truth that "reality," as we commonly define it, doesn't really exist in any relevant way. It is only psychological reality which matters.
(BTW, I haven't taken any psychedelic compounds in a long time, and don't plan to again.)