You ask a good lawyer to look at for you. Even if you read it "very carefully", you aren't an expert on what is required for it be to proper (I assume, based on the fact that you are asking this question), so you might draw the wrong conclusions.
Radio tuners take up to real room. I don't think they would noticably affect the form factor. I don't agree that because they have large market share means that they have made all their decisions well. That's just silly. They may be good enough for most people and better than their competitors, but that doesn't really prove that radio wouldn't make it better.
The ability to listen to the radio is of dubious value?! I can understand that not supporting every music format (ogg, wma, etc.) is fine because you can get the same songs in the format it does support. But without a radio tuner, if you are outside and you want to listen to a sporting event as it happens, or to the news, or to talk radio, you just can't (not to mention the ability to listed to music on the radio if you want). A radio tuner would cost them a dollar to put in their. I'm certainly not going to carry around two different portable audio devices. The omission of a radio tuner is just stupid on Apple's part; I've heard a lot of people complain about it and cite it as a reason not to get an iPod.
There is no "general consumer". There are millions of people and they are all different. I know that you like to think that the world consists of identical sheep and everyone here is different and unique and brillant, and that all marketing is aimed only at the rest of the world. But that's not the case. You're saying that he is not representative of the target market, but there is someone else who is? Who? I would guess that the typical slashdotter is a white male in the 16-35 age range with disposable income that he spends on technology (or maybe he gets family members to spend theirs for him). This isn't the general consumer they are aiming at? So would a high school dropout single black mother be the general consumer here? Is my grandfather the general consumer they are targetting? A guy on a rural farm with no internet access? Or is it, maybe, the geeks like us who are spending our time on a page with ads for tech companies discussing advertisingish "news" about cool trendy consumer products like the iPod and G5 laptops?
Yes, we Americans are crazy with our "sarcasm". Can you believe that people sometimes say the opposite of what they mean to empashize their point? It's no wonder you can't understand us. Sarcasm is certainly a difficult topic, and I assure you that none of think less of you just because you are unable to figure it out. Why, I once heard a guy say--get this--"big deal" when he actually meant that something was not, in fact, a big deal. It's wild! I don't know how us Americans manage to communicate at all. Thanks for bringing this idiotic linguistic absurdity to our attention. I'm sure we'll all stop using sarcasm immediately! You have truly done us a great service with your post. I assure you that we could care less about your opinions on our idioms.
Have you tried visiting http://slashdot.org/metamod.pl? I didn't find out I was eligible to metamod for a while because there used to be a bug in slashcode where that link didn't show up on the homepage for you until after the first time you had metamodded. That bug may or may not have been fixed by now. (Hint: If you haven't figured out yet that no bug here is ever fixed, you certainly haven't been here long enough to m2).
You're right. It depends on the kind of job. For help-desk jobs and similar things (although I don't know about help desks specifically), companies often perfer less-experienced and younger people because they can pay them less and they do about as good a job . But for "highly skilled" positions like being a software developer on a major game, most companies generally want people with some experience. So I took issue with the OP's claim that having a "formal policy" of wanting people who are "young and naive" is standard practice for this sort of job. Further, he said that this was standard because they are a "large company", while my experience is the opposite. I would expect a major corportation hiring for a highly skilled position to care very much about experience and where you went to school, and so forth, while I would expect a smaller shop to be more likely to take a chance on someone smart who had no real experience.
We aren't talking about interneships. The parent and the article were clearly discussing full-time jobs.
Re:most companies?
on
NYT on EA Games
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
No. I'm not sure why it was modded insightful because it isn't at all how most large companies work. They generally perfer people with experience relevant to their job. This isn't to say that it is impossible to get a job straight out of school at most large companies, but they certainly don't usually have a "formal policy" of trying to hire the young and inexperienced. Whenever you graduate from college and try to find a job, just try calling up a typical Fortune 500 company and saying "I may have no experience but... I'm young and naive!" and see how far that gets you.
Because they understand that technology moves forward. Just because it takes some effort and a few hours today to download a movie doesn't mean that a few years from now that will still be the case. In fact, it almost certainly won't. And if they don't fight the trend now, by then the practice will be so entrenched that it will be too late.
It's not really accurate to say that a reason to legalize drugs is so that the government "could tax it". Because they can tax it now. Some states do already. And if you are growing or selling drugs for profit, you would obviously also owe income tax. Something being legal or not really has nothing to do with the government being permitted to collect tax on it. That said, I agree that in practice they would collect more in taxes through legalization (and that it would be good for many other reasons).
In the first Superman movie, we learned that he is capable of moving time backwards. Thus, he can theoretically do any job (including running a race) in a negative amount of time. How could the Flash possibly be faster than that?
(I hope this gets modded up enough to get submitted to Tycho and Gabe; yes, it's offtopic, but every question that's been modded up so far is something they've already answered, and as far as I'm concerned, that's even worse).
According to the mods, green yoda farts are apparently flamebait. That's probably true, although showing it empirically would be quite dangerous for all involved, especially yoda.
Whoah! Follow the first link there. Then, follow the link from the story to the "hacked" page that was put up on slashdot and... it looks just like today's front page! I bet at the time, the idea of a front page full of ads and worthless stories seemed like a funny joke to the hackers. Little did they know...
It's good that they included the "even terrorists" qualification. I normally assume that they are exempt from things that apply to "anyone in the world".
Don't tell me what I need or don't need in my software. It's off by default and if you don't want it, you don't have to do anything. But it's not for you to decide what I should or should not be able to do with my software. Other people may have different needs or use software in a different environment from you and this moralizing attitude that you can decide for everyone what their software should be able to do is frightening.
I sincerely hope no one here is using Outlook/Outlook Express.
Did you read the article? It says " the most recent versions of Outlook, where such features are switched off as standard, will be protected." This has been the same with many recent exploits. They only affect old versions of ms software, but it immediately gets spun here to say that no one should be using the current, safe versions. It's similar to the recent status bar spoofing issue posted here which affected firefox rc1 and opera and pre-sp2 IE, but not sp2 IE, and was of course disscussed as being a "hole in IE".
The ones with the word "Diebold" on the front are all running Windows (95,NT, and XP depending on how old they are).
My local Bank of America branch uses Diebold ATMs running OS/2. (Although I'm not sure if the machines actually say Diebold on the front, so you might be technically right).
There really is no such word in either Latin or English as "viri," period, full-stop, end-of-story.
Ok, but are you familiar with the English words "if" and "were". Apparently not, because if you were, it would be clear to you that what I was saying was contrafactual and I wasn't claiming this is a real word.
Something as simple as 'a == b' may easily add few KB to the kernel.
Only if you've overloaded operator==. But in that case, this is just a function call. A function call in C could just as easily add a few KB. The only difference between the languages here is that C++ gives you the "syntactic sugar" option of creating functions with the same names as operators. You can choose not to do that if you perfer and just use a regular function name, as in C. In no way does the ability to create a function named "==" instead of "Equals" show any more "lack of control" over code size than in C (exceptions might have been a better example).
Slashdot Mirror
You ask a good lawyer to look at for you. Even if you read it "very carefully", you aren't an expert on what is required for it be to proper (I assume, based on the fact that you are asking this question), so you might draw the wrong conclusions.
Eh, I'm not losing sleep over it. I'll just continue to not buy an iPod, just like many other people I've talked to.
Radio tuners take up to real room. I don't think they would noticably affect the form factor. I don't agree that because they have large market share means that they have made all their decisions well. That's just silly. They may be good enough for most people and better than their competitors, but that doesn't really prove that radio wouldn't make it better.
The ability to listen to the radio is of dubious value?! I can understand that not supporting every music format (ogg, wma, etc.) is fine because you can get the same songs in the format it does support. But without a radio tuner, if you are outside and you want to listen to a sporting event as it happens, or to the news, or to talk radio, you just can't (not to mention the ability to listed to music on the radio if you want). A radio tuner would cost them a dollar to put in their. I'm certainly not going to carry around two different portable audio devices. The omission of a radio tuner is just stupid on Apple's part; I've heard a lot of people complain about it and cite it as a reason not to get an iPod.
There is no "general consumer". There are millions of people and they are all different. I know that you like to think that the world consists of identical sheep and everyone here is different and unique and brillant, and that all marketing is aimed only at the rest of the world. But that's not the case. You're saying that he is not representative of the target market, but there is someone else who is? Who? I would guess that the typical slashdotter is a white male in the 16-35 age range with disposable income that he spends on technology (or maybe he gets family members to spend theirs for him). This isn't the general consumer they are aiming at? So would a high school dropout single black mother be the general consumer here? Is my grandfather the general consumer they are targetting? A guy on a rural farm with no internet access? Or is it, maybe, the geeks like us who are spending our time on a page with ads for tech companies discussing advertisingish "news" about cool trendy consumer products like the iPod and G5 laptops?
Yes, we Americans are crazy with our "sarcasm". Can you believe that people sometimes say the opposite of what they mean to empashize their point? It's no wonder you can't understand us. Sarcasm is certainly a difficult topic, and I assure you that none of think less of you just because you are unable to figure it out. Why, I once heard a guy say--get this--"big deal" when he actually meant that something was not, in fact, a big deal. It's wild! I don't know how us Americans manage to communicate at all. Thanks for bringing this idiotic linguistic absurdity to our attention. I'm sure we'll all stop using sarcasm immediately! You have truly done us a great service with your post. I assure you that we could care less about your opinions on our idioms.
Have you tried visiting http://slashdot.org/metamod.pl? I didn't find out I was eligible to metamod for a while because there used to be a bug in slashcode where that link didn't show up on the homepage for you until after the first time you had metamodded. That bug may or may not have been fixed by now. (Hint: If you haven't figured out yet that no bug here is ever fixed, you certainly haven't been here long enough to m2).
This was my first hint that it's a trap.
You're right. It depends on the kind of job. For help-desk jobs and similar things (although I don't know about help desks specifically), companies often perfer less-experienced and younger people because they can pay them less and they do about as good a job . But for "highly skilled" positions like being a software developer on a major game, most companies generally want people with some experience. So I took issue with the OP's claim that having a "formal policy" of wanting people who are "young and naive" is standard practice for this sort of job. Further, he said that this was standard because they are a "large company", while my experience is the opposite. I would expect a major corportation hiring for a highly skilled position to care very much about experience and where you went to school, and so forth, while I would expect a smaller shop to be more likely to take a chance on someone smart who had no real experience.
We aren't talking about interneships. The parent and the article were clearly discussing full-time jobs.
No. I'm not sure why it was modded insightful because it isn't at all how most large companies work. They generally perfer people with experience relevant to their job. This isn't to say that it is impossible to get a job straight out of school at most large companies, but they certainly don't usually have a "formal policy" of trying to hire the young and inexperienced. Whenever you graduate from college and try to find a job, just try calling up a typical Fortune 500 company and saying "I may have no experience but... I'm young and naive!" and see how far that gets you.
Because they understand that technology moves forward. Just because it takes some effort and a few hours today to download a movie doesn't mean that a few years from now that will still be the case. In fact, it almost certainly won't. And if they don't fight the trend now, by then the practice will be so entrenched that it will be too late.
It's not really accurate to say that a reason to legalize drugs is so that the government "could tax it". Because they can tax it now. Some states do already. And if you are growing or selling drugs for profit, you would obviously also owe income tax. Something being legal or not really has nothing to do with the government being permitted to collect tax on it. That said, I agree that in practice they would collect more in taxes through legalization (and that it would be good for many other reasons).
In the first Superman movie, we learned that he is capable of moving time backwards. Thus, he can theoretically do any job (including running a race) in a negative amount of time. How could the Flash possibly be faster than that?
(I hope this gets modded up enough to get submitted to Tycho and Gabe; yes, it's offtopic, but every question that's been modded up so far is something they've already answered, and as far as I'm concerned, that's even worse).
This joke (with it being Baghdad) was already made in Team America: World Police.
According to the mods, green yoda farts are apparently flamebait. That's probably true, although showing it empirically would be quite dangerous for all involved, especially yoda.
Actually, this isn't true. I care about their obsession with pixels.
Whoah! Follow the first link there. Then, follow the link from the story to the "hacked" page that was put up on slashdot and... it looks just like today's front page! I bet at the time, the idea of a front page full of ads and worthless stories seemed like a funny joke to the hackers. Little did they know...
It's good that they included the "even terrorists" qualification. I normally assume that they are exempt from things that apply to "anyone in the world".
No, using an activex exploit to change someone's hosts file was never considered social engineering.
Don't tell me what I need or don't need in my software. It's off by default and if you don't want it, you don't have to do anything. But it's not for you to decide what I should or should not be able to do with my software. Other people may have different needs or use software in a different environment from you and this moralizing attitude that you can decide for everyone what their software should be able to do is frightening.
Did you read the article? It says " the most recent versions of Outlook, where such features are switched off as standard, will be protected." This has been the same with many recent exploits. They only affect old versions of ms software, but it immediately gets spun here to say that no one should be using the current, safe versions. It's similar to the recent status bar spoofing issue posted here which affected firefox rc1 and opera and pre-sp2 IE, but not sp2 IE, and was of course disscussed as being a "hole in IE".
My local Bank of America branch uses Diebold ATMs running OS/2. (Although I'm not sure if the machines actually say Diebold on the front, so you might be technically right).
Ok, but are you familiar with the English words "if" and "were". Apparently not, because if you were, it would be clear to you that what I was saying was contrafactual and I wasn't claiming this is a real word.
Only if you've overloaded operator==. But in that case, this is just a function call. A function call in C could just as easily add a few KB. The only difference between the languages here is that C++ gives you the "syntactic sugar" option of creating functions with the same names as operators. You can choose not to do that if you perfer and just use a regular function name, as in C. In no way does the ability to create a function named "==" instead of "Equals" show any more "lack of control" over code size than in C (exceptions might have been a better example).