I left a job and got another month's paycheck. I e-mailed them letting them know their error. Heard nothing back until 8 months later, I get an angry e-mail accusing me of ignoring repeated efforts to contact me about it, and a vague threat about taking me to court.
These repeated attempts were e-mails sent to my old work e-mail. The one they automatically shut down immediately after I quit. They had my phone number, stable e-mail address, updated address, and my boss was still in contact with me weekly.
Unfortunately, the tone of the discussion on so many other topics, including climate change, has changed dramatically in the past 25 years, to the point that we never actually get to discussing the issues.
I think it's a temporary thing. Old media is mortibund obviously, and older generations don't know where else to go. As younger generations go to online sources of news, old media caters to an increasingly senile, angry, out of touch demographic. Younger people are better informed, and hopefully this primary and election has finally convinced them they need to actually fucking vote if they want things like social security or a rational climate policy.
I mean, it's not all roses of course, I think the fake news online thing is going to get worse, we could tip towards facebook mob mentality, and there are plenty of millenials who could be convinced the "educated elites" are evil. But I'm saying things will not stay the same, one way or the other, it is possible that we'll get back to debates based on fact rather than paranoia.
I think were it just laziness and impatience, you'd see coffee vending machines as they have in Japan. When I'm getting coffee at starbucks it's because I can feel the withdrawal mild headache coming on and I'm not at home. If it was between spending $6 for a can and being on my way in a few seconds and $2 for a hand-made silly frilly coffee art that the barista takes 10 minutes to get to, I would choose the can every time just for convenience. Yet they usually don't have their canned stuff out in their stores.
I think it's more of a luxury thing. You can get a fancy pants coffee at a premium, and it's still, you know, just a few dollars. Convenience isn't, I think, the driving force.
If I break my leg doing something stupid while drunk, or if I break it while saving an infant from a burning building, the leg is still broken. They put a cast on it either way. If they've sustained psychological damage from policing porn for a paycheck, it doesn't matter if yours is more noble. Not sure why you're turning it into a competition. Is your ego really that small that you need to brag to people you don't know online?
I probably shouldn't jinx it, but I think the hate is because they know most people won't try to haggle. If you go to their online chat portal and threaten to go to their competitor, I mean they're not "great," but it's something. They're giving me their $60 a month high speed internet for $10 a month no contract. It took at most 20 minutes while I was probably reading e-mail in another window. The sense of winning made it all the better.
The dumbing down of the snowflake, "lets protest everything" generation makes it easier for them to push that
Which generation is that? There are very few people protesting anything. The millennial generation I'm assuming you're talking about mainly protests with clicks on facebook. Gen-Xers seem generally too busy worrying about having massive debt to ever retire. Boomers conversely seem ready to riot if their taxes don't go down yearly AND if anyone does anything to reduce their government benefits, but I never see them actually take to the streets.
Seriously, who are you talking about? Black lives matter protests? Yeah, they're protesting being shot. That's hardly "protest everything."
Occupy whatever protests? That was, what, a few dozen people of the millennial and gen-x for a few weeks.
Dakota access pipeline? Again, small group protesting a very specific activity that would endanger the climate, hardly "everything."
You talk about sensationalist bullshit, but you seem to have swallowed some of it if you believe protests, rather than apathy, dominate any generation.
As far as "dumbing down" look up the flynn effect.
I feel like the "tech mobile consumer electronics" industry as a whole is so far up each other's assholes they haven't bothered to ask normal people if they want phones that are thinner. Every time I search for an upcoming phone to see if I should buy it (about every 2 years) all I can find are articles written by people who sound like they masturbate using the newest version of the iphone while thinking about how many more pixels next month's iphone might have.
Asking anyone I know IRL what phone they have "Uh, I think an iphone? No wait, it's the other one."
Do they do focus groups for this shit? If so, is entirely composed of whatever type of human being is addicted to really minor improvements in phones?
>Hillary! might have had a chance had if she weren't an unlikable corrupt harpy and if she had some accomplishment to her name other than marrying Bill.
You're right. If she had accomplishments like, say graduating from Yale law school, spearheading the clinton health care reform effort, surviving 30 years of ruthless attacks by conservatives, being a senator, being secretary of state, running the Clinton foundation which helped to lower HIV treatment to affordable levels among whatever else it does, and winning the democratic primary by a large margin, she might have, I dunno, won millions of more votes in the presidential election!
/s Seriously? Lack of accomplishments when compared to Don Trump? +4 insightful? "Unlikeable harpy?"
I think it's wildly optimistic to suggest that Russian propaganda is driving this unfortunately. I would prefer to think there weren't people out there this badly deluded, but I can't, Americans really are so stupid they think the DNC rigged it against Sanders and the electoral college overturning the vote is totally 100% fair.
Aside from the fact that Clinton has not shown "wanton disregard for the law," there's the fact that the presidency comes with control of the military and nuclear arsenal.
Car metaphor: you have to get in a car. Do you get in the car with a driver who speeds by 15 MPH or a driver who is drunk?
Also seems like you could make an ad campaign around environmentalism. I have no idea if it would be accurate to say synthesized diamonds are actually better for the environment, but given how easily you can fool people into thinking diamonds are rare and valuable, probably easy to dupe them into thinking they're carbon negative too.
I would suggest that if the social order is on the verge of collapse, it's because our current social order was designed by morons who were quantifiably dumber and less informed than future generations are.
Gift-giving programs like this always turn into runaway spirals.
This seems like the type of statement that could have some studies, citations, or examples for it rather than pure conjecture. You mention Obamacare, but I'd argue healthcare is in general a terrible example of why socialism is bad, and citing it NOW, in the middle of sorting itself out, is particularly nonsensical.
It WOULD be premature for HRC to implement it at a national level for the same reasons though. Given the experiments which appear to be going on in Canada, we should wait. If Canada proves that no matter how you do it, you get inflation then yeah, we should look for other solutions to the automation issues.
Those appear to be people who would label themselves scientists rather than environmentalists first and foremost, and individual environmentalists.
Environmental organizations still seem categorically opposed to nuclear power. The Sierra club is, if I'm not mistaken, the biggest and most influential environmentalist group (at least in the US), and their stance, as I linked to, is:
Nuclear is no solution to Climate Change and every dollar spent on nuclear is one less dollar spent on truly safe, affordable and renewable energy sources.
They're not only opposed to it, they discount it as a solution (despite it factually BEING a solution and the most affordable option), and present an idiotic false dichotomy about it being mutually exclusive with their preferred solutions.
I have environmentalist sympathies, but this must be how reasonable gun rights activists feel about some of the shit the NRA pulls.
Seems like a false dichotomy based on religious beliefs rather than reality. Windows is not the demon. It's perfectly reasonable to assume that you can run windows without being served ads by the OS.
...a report on Thursday found those pledges would see temperature rises significantly overshoot the threshold, with 3C of warming. Environmental groups urged governments to do more.
Oh, you mean like climate engineering to take positive steps to reduce the temperature and soak up excess carbon already up there and maybe prevent the damage already on track to happen? No?? That's so evil that we shouldn't even consider it?
How about nuclear energy? That doesn't fart out carbon, and then we can still use, you know, electricity rather than... "Unequivocally no" again? Oh, right, because Chernobyl happened that proves it can't work. I'm sure a similar nuclear disaster now is just as likely and would be much worse than a silly little 3 degree temperature rise.
So the solution is... wishes, everyone riding around on bikes, and moral superiority? Because it looks to me like we're stuck between a rock and a hard place. The rock of fossil fuel interests keeping us from actually doing anything before it's a crisis, and naive environmentalists groups who rule out actual solutions on the grounds that they might not be completely perfect.
You're likely trolling, but there are probably some people whose cognitive dissonance is going to actually take that as a reason to continue smoking.
Mutations are random changes. Connect some random wires to your motherboard. Not all new circuits are going to be bad, some can be beneficial!
Evolution has been undergoing trial and error for billions of years. You're at peak fitness. Er... from a genetics perspective. Messing with stuff at random at this point is going to, in the vast majority of cases, do nothing. Of the remainder, the vast majority is going to be bad.
Finally, this is mutations at a cellular level, not system wide. If you changed some genes at random prior to birth, there would be an extremely small number that would help you out a little, though probably with side effects like +1 malaria resistance but -30 health in the form of sickle cell anemia. However, mutations in individual cells will at best kill that individual cell. At worst, it will evolve the cell. Evolution at the cellular level within a massively multicellular organism like yourself turns out to be cancer. Those individual cells are very strong compared to the others. Strong enough to rebel and kill you.
TLDR: No, there is no "minority" of beneficial mutations here. None. Zero.
I was under the impression that Hogan's wife was not okay with the thing. I think it is wrong to hurt your spouse like that. And racism is morally wrong.
Your sig points out "nobody is always right." I suspect that every single news organization of any decent caliber, that has been around for much time, has people who think they have legitimate grievances. All of them seem to be made up of people, and in my experience, all people make mistakes.
I'm not sure what the best way to resolve Hogan's fair complaint with making sure news organizations don't get shut down, but that WAS Thiel's stated goal here, if I'm not mistaken, was to shut down Gawker.
The Washington Post published Valerie Plame's identity as a CIA operative, ending her career. To me that's more serious an offense than leaking a sex tape. Should the Washington Post be closed for this mistake?
You missed their brilliant expose that Donald Trump's hair was probably an absurdly expensive, shitty looking weave.
Anyway, I get it, we should wait to cry foul when a real, respectable news organization gets taken down by a billionaire with a grudge. Just so we're clear, which news organizations are the good guys? I want to be ready, so I'll need a list of the good ones.
Sorry, I phrased that very poorly. No, the sex tape shouldn't have been released, the fact that Hogan and Thiel are assholes doesn't make invading their privacy okay. I was only responding to HBI's suggestion that Nick Denton is an asshole so that makes this a good thing.
"Don't want to get in trouble with your spouse? Don't commit adultery. Don't want to get fired from the WWE for racist comments? Don't use the N word" in particular were absurdly overstated.
I'm not okay with the fappening. I don't think sending nude pictures of yourself to someone is morally wrong, wheras what Hogan did is. I know though everyone on slashdot is not a lawyer but for some reason assumes everything is put in legal terms, so no, Hogan being a douche shouldn't justify invading his privacy either.
Yes, tell yourself this was all about one particular asshole and there's no collateral damage possible to freedom of the press or freedom of speech. The only websites and news organizations that will get sued into oblivion because the oligarchs have a grudge against them will be ones run by assholes and that never do any useful reporting.
/s
Since sarcasm may be lost on you, Hulk hogan is also a boil on the ass of humanity. Don't want to get in trouble with your spouse? Don't commit adultery. Don't want to get fired from the WWE for racist comments? Don't use the N word.
Peter Thiel is straight up evil. By all means, sue gawker for invasion of your privacy, outing a billionaire is not very nice I suppose. Billionaire responding by funding lawsuits against the news organization until it shuts down is censorship by any useful meaning of the word though.
Don't cheer, this isn't in any way good for you or anyone besides Hogan and Thiel.
So if you are going to intertwine science and politics like that, in ways that will invariably lead to the needless suffering of many millions of people if you are wrong, what happens if you are wrong? You don't get to just walk away and say "sorry about the shit we did to you, science corrected itself. Don't you Fucking Love Science?" In the realm of politics when you ideologically wreck the lives of a lot of people, justice demands you pay for it. So, are you ready to say the science is settled, we trust it, let's act on it and if scientists firmly disprove it we're ready to face whatever consequences the political system demands of us?
How is it possible you're NOT applying this to the fossil fuels side? Dumping excess carbon into the air IS A FUCKING INSANE SCIENCE EXPERIMENT. Not even a hypothesis driven one.
It's looking like every one who was involved in making those decisions isn't going to walk away and say "sorry," they're just going to be dead of old age long before our children have to deal with the worst effects.
So, are you ready to say the science is settled, we trust it, let's act on it and if scientists firmly disprove it we're ready to face whatever consequences the political system demands of us?
Okay, we should cryopreserve the Koch brothers, the GOP, every climate change denier. If climate change never happens, we'll thaw them out in 2100 and let them continue living. If climate change does occur, we'll thaw them and put them in to hard labor in the sahara desert for the remainder of their lives. I'm 100% okay with that.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't much care for The Zuck, but before taking off on the all too predictable partisan political tears
I know the GOP lately doesn't seem to stand for anything but billionaires, but I don't think zuckerberg quite qualifies as a "partisan" issue yet...
I left a job and got another month's paycheck. I e-mailed them letting them know their error. Heard nothing back until 8 months later, I get an angry e-mail accusing me of ignoring repeated efforts to contact me about it, and a vague threat about taking me to court.
These repeated attempts were e-mails sent to my old work e-mail. The one they automatically shut down immediately after I quit. They had my phone number, stable e-mail address, updated address, and my boss was still in contact with me weekly.
Unfortunately, the tone of the discussion on so many other topics, including climate change, has changed dramatically in the past 25 years, to the point that we never actually get to discussing the issues.
I think it's a temporary thing. Old media is mortibund obviously, and older generations don't know where else to go. As younger generations go to online sources of news, old media caters to an increasingly senile, angry, out of touch demographic. Younger people are better informed, and hopefully this primary and election has finally convinced them they need to actually fucking vote if they want things like social security or a rational climate policy.
I mean, it's not all roses of course, I think the fake news online thing is going to get worse, we could tip towards facebook mob mentality, and there are plenty of millenials who could be convinced the "educated elites" are evil. But I'm saying things will not stay the same, one way or the other, it is possible that we'll get back to debates based on fact rather than paranoia.
I think were it just laziness and impatience, you'd see coffee vending machines as they have in Japan. When I'm getting coffee at starbucks it's because I can feel the withdrawal mild headache coming on and I'm not at home. If it was between spending $6 for a can and being on my way in a few seconds and $2 for a hand-made silly frilly coffee art that the barista takes 10 minutes to get to, I would choose the can every time just for convenience. Yet they usually don't have their canned stuff out in their stores.
I think it's more of a luxury thing. You can get a fancy pants coffee at a premium, and it's still, you know, just a few dollars. Convenience isn't, I think, the driving force.
If I break my leg doing something stupid while drunk, or if I break it while saving an infant from a burning building, the leg is still broken. They put a cast on it either way. If they've sustained psychological damage from policing porn for a paycheck, it doesn't matter if yours is more noble. Not sure why you're turning it into a competition. Is your ego really that small that you need to brag to people you don't know online?
I probably shouldn't jinx it, but I think the hate is because they know most people won't try to haggle. If you go to their online chat portal and threaten to go to their competitor, I mean they're not "great," but it's something. They're giving me their $60 a month high speed internet for $10 a month no contract. It took at most 20 minutes while I was probably reading e-mail in another window. The sense of winning made it all the better.
Oh, regulations are bad? Great, lets set up a municipal broadband everywhere and...
Oh, I see. By "less regulation" you mean letting private businesses do whatever they want, not anyone else.
The dumbing down of the snowflake, "lets protest everything" generation makes it easier for them to push that
Which generation is that? There are very few people protesting anything. The millennial generation I'm assuming you're talking about mainly protests with clicks on facebook. Gen-Xers seem generally too busy worrying about having massive debt to ever retire. Boomers conversely seem ready to riot if their taxes don't go down yearly AND if anyone does anything to reduce their government benefits, but I never see them actually take to the streets.
Seriously, who are you talking about? Black lives matter protests? Yeah, they're protesting being shot. That's hardly "protest everything."
Occupy whatever protests? That was, what, a few dozen people of the millennial and gen-x for a few weeks.
Dakota access pipeline? Again, small group protesting a very specific activity that would endanger the climate, hardly "everything."
You talk about sensationalist bullshit, but you seem to have swallowed some of it if you believe protests, rather than apathy, dominate any generation.
As far as "dumbing down" look up the flynn effect.
I feel like the "tech mobile consumer electronics" industry as a whole is so far up each other's assholes they haven't bothered to ask normal people if they want phones that are thinner. Every time I search for an upcoming phone to see if I should buy it (about every 2 years) all I can find are articles written by people who sound like they masturbate using the newest version of the iphone while thinking about how many more pixels next month's iphone might have.
Asking anyone I know IRL what phone they have "Uh, I think an iphone? No wait, it's the other one."
Do they do focus groups for this shit? If so, is entirely composed of whatever type of human being is addicted to really minor improvements in phones?
>Hillary! might have had a chance had if she weren't an unlikable corrupt harpy and if she had some accomplishment to her name other than marrying Bill. You're right. If she had accomplishments like, say graduating from Yale law school, spearheading the clinton health care reform effort, surviving 30 years of ruthless attacks by conservatives, being a senator, being secretary of state, running the Clinton foundation which helped to lower HIV treatment to affordable levels among whatever else it does, and winning the democratic primary by a large margin, she might have, I dunno, won millions of more votes in the presidential election!
/s Seriously? Lack of accomplishments when compared to Don Trump? +4 insightful? "Unlikeable harpy?"
I think it's wildly optimistic to suggest that Russian propaganda is driving this unfortunately. I would prefer to think there weren't people out there this badly deluded, but I can't, Americans really are so stupid they think the DNC rigged it against Sanders and the electoral college overturning the vote is totally 100% fair.
/thread
Aside from the fact that Clinton has not shown "wanton disregard for the law," there's the fact that the presidency comes with control of the military and nuclear arsenal.
Car metaphor: you have to get in a car. Do you get in the car with a driver who speeds by 15 MPH or a driver who is drunk?
Also seems like you could make an ad campaign around environmentalism. I have no idea if it would be accurate to say synthesized diamonds are actually better for the environment, but given how easily you can fool people into thinking diamonds are rare and valuable, probably easy to dupe them into thinking they're carbon negative too.
We have not only homegrown dysgenics (Idiocracy style)
Citation needed. And no, a shitty movie is not a citation.
Countercitation: flynn effect
I would suggest that if the social order is on the verge of collapse, it's because our current social order was designed by morons who were quantifiably dumber and less informed than future generations are.
Gift-giving programs like this always turn into runaway spirals.
This seems like the type of statement that could have some studies, citations, or examples for it rather than pure conjecture. You mention Obamacare, but I'd argue healthcare is in general a terrible example of why socialism is bad, and citing it NOW, in the middle of sorting itself out, is particularly nonsensical.
It WOULD be premature for HRC to implement it at a national level for the same reasons though. Given the experiments which appear to be going on in Canada, we should wait. If Canada proves that no matter how you do it, you get inflation then yeah, we should look for other solutions to the automation issues.
Environmental organizations still seem categorically opposed to nuclear power. The Sierra club is, if I'm not mistaken, the biggest and most influential environmentalist group (at least in the US), and their stance, as I linked to, is:
Nuclear is no solution to Climate Change and every dollar spent on nuclear is one less dollar spent on truly safe, affordable and renewable energy sources.
They're not only opposed to it, they discount it as a solution (despite it factually BEING a solution and the most affordable option), and present an idiotic false dichotomy about it being mutually exclusive with their preferred solutions.
I have environmentalist sympathies, but this must be how reasonable gun rights activists feel about some of the shit the NRA pulls.
Seems like a false dichotomy based on religious beliefs rather than reality. Windows is not the demon. It's perfectly reasonable to assume that you can run windows without being served ads by the OS.
...a report on Thursday found those pledges would see temperature rises significantly overshoot the threshold, with 3C of warming. Environmental groups urged governments to do more.
Oh, you mean like climate engineering to take positive steps to reduce the temperature and soak up excess carbon already up there and maybe prevent the damage already on track to happen? No?? That's so evil that we shouldn't even consider it?
How about nuclear energy? That doesn't fart out carbon, and then we can still use, you know, electricity rather than... "Unequivocally no" again? Oh, right, because Chernobyl happened that proves it can't work. I'm sure a similar nuclear disaster now is just as likely and would be much worse than a silly little 3 degree temperature rise.
So the solution is... wishes, everyone riding around on bikes, and moral superiority? Because it looks to me like we're stuck between a rock and a hard place. The rock of fossil fuel interests keeping us from actually doing anything before it's a crisis, and naive environmentalists groups who rule out actual solutions on the grounds that they might not be completely perfect.
You're likely trolling, but there are probably some people whose cognitive dissonance is going to actually take that as a reason to continue smoking.
Mutations are random changes. Connect some random wires to your motherboard. Not all new circuits are going to be bad, some can be beneficial!
Evolution has been undergoing trial and error for billions of years. You're at peak fitness. Er... from a genetics perspective. Messing with stuff at random at this point is going to, in the vast majority of cases, do nothing. Of the remainder, the vast majority is going to be bad.
Finally, this is mutations at a cellular level, not system wide. If you changed some genes at random prior to birth, there would be an extremely small number that would help you out a little, though probably with side effects like +1 malaria resistance but -30 health in the form of sickle cell anemia. However, mutations in individual cells will at best kill that individual cell. At worst, it will evolve the cell. Evolution at the cellular level within a massively multicellular organism like yourself turns out to be cancer. Those individual cells are very strong compared to the others. Strong enough to rebel and kill you.
TLDR: No, there is no "minority" of beneficial mutations here. None. Zero.
I was under the impression that Hogan's wife was not okay with the thing. I think it is wrong to hurt your spouse like that. And racism is morally wrong.
Your sig points out "nobody is always right." I suspect that every single news organization of any decent caliber, that has been around for much time, has people who think they have legitimate grievances. All of them seem to be made up of people, and in my experience, all people make mistakes.
I'm not sure what the best way to resolve Hogan's fair complaint with making sure news organizations don't get shut down, but that WAS Thiel's stated goal here, if I'm not mistaken, was to shut down Gawker.
The Washington Post published Valerie Plame's identity as a CIA operative, ending her career. To me that's more serious an offense than leaking a sex tape. Should the Washington Post be closed for this mistake?
You missed their brilliant expose that Donald Trump's hair was probably an absurdly expensive, shitty looking weave.
Anyway, I get it, we should wait to cry foul when a real, respectable news organization gets taken down by a billionaire with a grudge. Just so we're clear, which news organizations are the good guys? I want to be ready, so I'll need a list of the good ones.
Sorry, I phrased that very poorly. No, the sex tape shouldn't have been released, the fact that Hogan and Thiel are assholes doesn't make invading their privacy okay. I was only responding to HBI's suggestion that Nick Denton is an asshole so that makes this a good thing.
"Don't want to get in trouble with your spouse? Don't commit adultery. Don't want to get fired from the WWE for racist comments? Don't use the N word" in particular were absurdly overstated.
I'm not okay with the fappening. I don't think sending nude pictures of yourself to someone is morally wrong, wheras what Hogan did is. I know though everyone on slashdot is not a lawyer but for some reason assumes everything is put in legal terms, so no, Hogan being a douche shouldn't justify invading his privacy either.
Yes, tell yourself this was all about one particular asshole and there's no collateral damage possible to freedom of the press or freedom of speech. The only websites and news organizations that will get sued into oblivion because the oligarchs have a grudge against them will be ones run by assholes and that never do any useful reporting.
/s
Since sarcasm may be lost on you, Hulk hogan is also a boil on the ass of humanity. Don't want to get in trouble with your spouse? Don't commit adultery. Don't want to get fired from the WWE for racist comments? Don't use the N word.
Peter Thiel is straight up evil. By all means, sue gawker for invasion of your privacy, outing a billionaire is not very nice I suppose. Billionaire responding by funding lawsuits against the news organization until it shuts down is censorship by any useful meaning of the word though.
Don't cheer, this isn't in any way good for you or anyone besides Hogan and Thiel.
So if you are going to intertwine science and politics like that, in ways that will invariably lead to the needless suffering of many millions of people if you are wrong, what happens if you are wrong? You don't get to just walk away and say "sorry about the shit we did to you, science corrected itself. Don't you Fucking Love Science?" In the realm of politics when you ideologically wreck the lives of a lot of people, justice demands you pay for it. So, are you ready to say the science is settled, we trust it, let's act on it and if scientists firmly disprove it we're ready to face whatever consequences the political system demands of us?
How is it possible you're NOT applying this to the fossil fuels side? Dumping excess carbon into the air IS A FUCKING INSANE SCIENCE EXPERIMENT. Not even a hypothesis driven one.
It's looking like every one who was involved in making those decisions isn't going to walk away and say "sorry," they're just going to be dead of old age long before our children have to deal with the worst effects.
So, are you ready to say the science is settled, we trust it, let's act on it and if scientists firmly disprove it we're ready to face whatever consequences the political system demands of us?
Okay, we should cryopreserve the Koch brothers, the GOP, every climate change denier. If climate change never happens, we'll thaw them out in 2100 and let them continue living. If climate change does occur, we'll thaw them and put them in to hard labor in the sahara desert for the remainder of their lives. I'm 100% okay with that.