Sadly this IS the type of reasoning I would expect from a company stupid enough to waste time investigating their employees facebook profiles. "If they're not on facebook, they must be bad at dealing with people! Or they have some whacko conspiracy theory about how their privacy is going to be invaded if they sign up! Or they are a ticking time bomb waiting to shoot up the office! Or they're lying to us already!"
Looking for a job is one of the worst jobs out there. Degrading, no pay, and completely arbitrary. "Hmm... they're qualified for this job, and would probably do it very well, but I don't like the font on this resume. I prefer comic sans. Plus, my buddy is applying for the same posting... [toss]"
You miss the point: the suicide rate is lower suggests that Foxconn is decreasing suicides, not increasing them. You can say "It should be zero," but that's naive.
Steve Jobs made a lot of money but he's dead now. Why is his monopolistic anti-competitiveness continuing to cripple Apple devices?
You're really asking why apple, having made insane amounts of money by designing desirable products and being anti-competitive, isn't immediately changing course after one guy dies?
And then everyone looks at you crazy when you parody the rude person by holding your phone up to your ear and shouting "LALALA! I'm an incosiderate asshole who talks on his phone in public! Fuck waiting until I won't annoy everyone else, I gotta talk about boring buisiness stuff now! LALALALA!"
Edit: okay, I've been drinking too much, went back and read the context, yes, AC does in fact seem to miss big government telling him to keep his nose clean. Sorry.
Stop trying to justify stupid shit by contorting your mind to make those in power right.
I think you're reading too much into that. I think AC was making an offhand comment, not actually justifying some religious ninnies in government trying to regulate his morality. Much like laughing about how you won't have to come into work on monday after getting fired is not actually saying "It is good and fair that the company fired me."
Furthermore, I think by now we all will recognize that the bag might not inflate even though oxygen is flowing. The instructions have been the same for, what, 20 years? We have them down as much as we're going to without actually doing it by now. It's fine to say it every time, but if most of the passengers ignore it, really not an issue.
Although it should be against the law for businesses to pry into our personal lives, including our financial history, Facebook is the wrong company to lead the charge.
I suspect they're only leading the charge now so they can make the employers PAY for their employee spying service they'll announce soon.
Alternative even worse joke: So they wanted to seize the means of representation?
Alternative alternative even worse joke: Maybe they didn't leave because someone was standing directly in front of them and there was no one they could capture standing on the diagonal.
My question too. Being in favor of a strong national defense logically means not wanting to exhaust it on pointless invasions on countries that haven't done anything to justify being invaded.
Because I think it's a red herring. Blaming the two party system for every failure of the political process is simplistic, but gets bandied about with nearly every political discussion here. Typically, countries with more than two parties have the exact same problem, implying the problem has absolutely nothing to do with the two party system. Rather than wasting time explaining that for each issue that the two party system gets blamed for, the onus should be on the person blaming it to show that it might be the cause in that case.
Why it annoys me is that it's a cop out. People see a problem, but rather than voting to solve the problem, they just say "Oh, it's because of the two party system," and excuse themselves from bothering to go out on election day.
Keep in mind that it's security theater, not real security. They do these things to increase their budget and power, and justify the increase in budget and power itself and future increases, not to actually do anything to increase safety.
It would be a liability were the public to actually care. The government had good indications that this guy was bad apples, had all these increased powers and ability to suspend our rights, and obviously it failed. But rather than say "Okay, then this isn't working, you guys utterly failed in your stated mission, you guys are fired and we're throwing out all these suspensions of our rights and increased government powers," the public says "TAKE MORE OF OUR RIGHTS! SPEND MORE OF OUR TAXES!!! HAVE MORE POWER!!! JUST PROTECT US FROM ALL THESE BAD GUYS!!!"
Minor pet peeve: important biological research results don't need to be pragmatic to be very important. Science asks "Why", it doesn't just ask "Knowing this, what can I get out of it?" The structure of DNA was not immediately used to cure diseases. Knowing that E=MC squared was important for reasons beyond "Great! Now we can REALLY blow up our enemies!"
This is a problem these days with basic biological research and probably all basic research: people are taking a short-term, "what can we do with it" approach. There's funding for "translational research," to make cures and treatments right now, and that's good, but funding for long-term research that has no immediate applications is suffering. Everything has to be linked to cancer or alzheimers. No one can get away with studying something just because it's how life happens and is important and may, 30 years from now, lead to something useful or not.
Knowing how our memories are stored may not be immediately or ever be useful. It doesn't have to be.
My challenge to anyone who blames the two party system for a given political problem is this: find me a country on earth that does not have a two party system and ALSO does not have the problem you just mentioned.
I don't know, but I do know that Monsanto and others who could make nearly unlimited amounts of money from patents on DNA sequences already have very deep pockets and will do anything they can to make sure they can make monopolies.
Surely even the staunchest of Creationists must acknowledge the so called "short-term" evolution that gives us the ability to manipulate plants or breed wolves into dogs.
I think you give too much credit to a movement which endorses ignorance as a science.
I'm not sure. It seems to me that most research institutions pay up: the people writing the papers have keys to the paywall that they don't have to pay for themselves.
I work at a university california institution, it's pretty rare that I come across a journal article written in the last 20 years I can't get immediately for "free to me" (due to the UC paying the journal).
In her defense, she was probably being a little paranoid on my behalf. Also, most fellowships aren't going to bother looking up how many times you've been cited, let alone reading your papers and determining how good they think they are. Journal title is a fast way to judge it, and while it's far from perfect... what method of sorting out the good research quickly is?
I hear a lot of senators who were in favor of SOPA or PIPA changed their minds once they saw it wasn't going to happen. They probably learned their lesson that censorship is bad, no reason to vote them out now, right?
Sorry for the sarcasm, but no, Elsevier has realized the futility of the fight right here and now, they haven't given up on their scheme to take taxpayer-paid research and sell it.
Forgot to mention, I did in fact decide to send it to a different journal because of Elsevier. If the other publisher rejects it, it will have to go to Elsevier.
what do these journals offer the scientific community that they can't get for free on the Internet?
Right now I'm trying to figure out which journal to send my manuscript to. I was talking with a colleague, I mentioned PLoS one. She said that she wouldn't see that as favorably on a CV as she would for a journal that rejects more papers. This is not an old scientist who works for one of the "top tier" journals either and has a vested interest in keeping things how they are, she's a grad student.
I don't want to contribute to Elsevier, but it's a competitive field. I wouldn't want to miss out on getting funded to do research that I thought was important just because I went to a journal with a worse reputation but slightly better ethics.
The implication being that 1. Something inherent to the american corporate culture is greedy 2. Americans as a group are inherently greedy or 3. America attracts greedy people/corporations?
I'm not offended, and I could believe number two. Genuinely curious.
Slashdot Mirror
I may not be understanding your technical point, or the joke, or the reference, but I'm going to agree with you.
Sadly this IS the type of reasoning I would expect from a company stupid enough to waste time investigating their employees facebook profiles. "If they're not on facebook, they must be bad at dealing with people! Or they have some whacko conspiracy theory about how their privacy is going to be invaded if they sign up! Or they are a ticking time bomb waiting to shoot up the office! Or they're lying to us already!"
Looking for a job is one of the worst jobs out there. Degrading, no pay, and completely arbitrary. "Hmm... they're qualified for this job, and would probably do it very well, but I don't like the font on this resume. I prefer comic sans. Plus, my buddy is applying for the same posting... [toss]"
You miss the point: the suicide rate is lower suggests that Foxconn is decreasing suicides, not increasing them. You can say "It should be zero," but that's naive.
Steve Jobs made a lot of money but he's dead now. Why is his monopolistic anti-competitiveness continuing to cripple Apple devices?
You're really asking why apple, having made insane amounts of money by designing desirable products and being anti-competitive, isn't immediately changing course after one guy dies?
And then everyone looks at you crazy when you parody the rude person by holding your phone up to your ear and shouting "LALALA! I'm an incosiderate asshole who talks on his phone in public! Fuck waiting until I won't annoy everyone else, I gotta talk about boring buisiness stuff now! LALALALA!"
Edit: okay, I've been drinking too much, went back and read the context, yes, AC does in fact seem to miss big government telling him to keep his nose clean. Sorry.
Stop trying to justify stupid shit by contorting your mind to make those in power right.
I think you're reading too much into that. I think AC was making an offhand comment, not actually justifying some religious ninnies in government trying to regulate his morality. Much like laughing about how you won't have to come into work on monday after getting fired is not actually saying "It is good and fair that the company fired me."
Furthermore, I think by now we all will recognize that the bag might not inflate even though oxygen is flowing. The instructions have been the same for, what, 20 years? We have them down as much as we're going to without actually doing it by now. It's fine to say it every time, but if most of the passengers ignore it, really not an issue.
Although it should be against the law for businesses to pry into our personal lives, including our financial history, Facebook is the wrong company to lead the charge.
I suspect they're only leading the charge now so they can make the employers PAY for their employee spying service they'll announce soon.
In soviet Romania, flag removes YOU!
Alternative even worse joke: So they wanted to seize the means of representation?
Alternative alternative even worse joke: Maybe they didn't leave because someone was standing directly in front of them and there was no one they could capture standing on the diagonal.
My question too. Being in favor of a strong national defense logically means not wanting to exhaust it on pointless invasions on countries that haven't done anything to justify being invaded.
Because I think it's a red herring. Blaming the two party system for every failure of the political process is simplistic, but gets bandied about with nearly every political discussion here. Typically, countries with more than two parties have the exact same problem, implying the problem has absolutely nothing to do with the two party system. Rather than wasting time explaining that for each issue that the two party system gets blamed for, the onus should be on the person blaming it to show that it might be the cause in that case.
Why it annoys me is that it's a cop out. People see a problem, but rather than voting to solve the problem, they just say "Oh, it's because of the two party system," and excuse themselves from bothering to go out on election day.
Keep in mind that it's security theater, not real security. They do these things to increase their budget and power, and justify the increase in budget and power itself and future increases, not to actually do anything to increase safety.
It would be a liability were the public to actually care. The government had good indications that this guy was bad apples, had all these increased powers and ability to suspend our rights, and obviously it failed. But rather than say "Okay, then this isn't working, you guys utterly failed in your stated mission, you guys are fired and we're throwing out all these suspensions of our rights and increased government powers," the public says "TAKE MORE OF OUR RIGHTS! SPEND MORE OF OUR TAXES!!! HAVE MORE POWER!!! JUST PROTECT US FROM ALL THESE BAD GUYS!!!"
As Santorum said, "We must be united in this war. We cannot allow any criticism."
When did he say that? I would in no way be surprised if he did say that, but a google search didn't return anything.
Minor pet peeve: important biological research results don't need to be pragmatic to be very important. Science asks "Why", it doesn't just ask "Knowing this, what can I get out of it?" The structure of DNA was not immediately used to cure diseases. Knowing that E=MC squared was important for reasons beyond "Great! Now we can REALLY blow up our enemies!"
This is a problem these days with basic biological research and probably all basic research: people are taking a short-term, "what can we do with it" approach. There's funding for "translational research," to make cures and treatments right now, and that's good, but funding for long-term research that has no immediate applications is suffering. Everything has to be linked to cancer or alzheimers. No one can get away with studying something just because it's how life happens and is important and may, 30 years from now, lead to something useful or not.
Knowing how our memories are stored may not be immediately or ever be useful. It doesn't have to be.
My challenge to anyone who blames the two party system for a given political problem is this: find me a country on earth that does not have a two party system and ALSO does not have the problem you just mentioned.
I don't know, but I do know that Monsanto and others who could make nearly unlimited amounts of money from patents on DNA sequences already have very deep pockets and will do anything they can to make sure they can make monopolies.
Surely even the staunchest of Creationists must acknowledge the so called "short-term" evolution that gives us the ability to manipulate plants or breed wolves into dogs.
I think you give too much credit to a movement which endorses ignorance as a science.
I'm not sure. It seems to me that most research institutions pay up: the people writing the papers have keys to the paywall that they don't have to pay for themselves.
I work at a university california institution, it's pretty rare that I come across a journal article written in the last 20 years I can't get immediately for "free to me" (due to the UC paying the journal).
In her defense, she was probably being a little paranoid on my behalf. Also, most fellowships aren't going to bother looking up how many times you've been cited, let alone reading your papers and determining how good they think they are. Journal title is a fast way to judge it, and while it's far from perfect... what method of sorting out the good research quickly is?
I hear a lot of senators who were in favor of SOPA or PIPA changed their minds once they saw it wasn't going to happen. They probably learned their lesson that censorship is bad, no reason to vote them out now, right?
Sorry for the sarcasm, but no, Elsevier has realized the futility of the fight right here and now, they haven't given up on their scheme to take taxpayer-paid research and sell it.
Forgot to mention, I did in fact decide to send it to a different journal because of Elsevier. If the other publisher rejects it, it will have to go to Elsevier.
Hell, I want to replace my FUNCTIONAL hand with a bionic one.
what do these journals offer the scientific community that they can't get for free on the Internet?
Right now I'm trying to figure out which journal to send my manuscript to. I was talking with a colleague, I mentioned PLoS one. She said that she wouldn't see that as favorably on a CV as she would for a journal that rejects more papers. This is not an old scientist who works for one of the "top tier" journals either and has a vested interest in keeping things how they are, she's a grad student.
I don't want to contribute to Elsevier, but it's a competitive field. I wouldn't want to miss out on getting funded to do research that I thought was important just because I went to a journal with a worse reputation but slightly better ethics.
The implication being that 1. Something inherent to the american corporate culture is greedy 2. Americans as a group are inherently greedy or 3. America attracts greedy people/corporations?
I'm not offended, and I could believe number two. Genuinely curious.