Ubiquitous, how did Gygax steal D&D from Dave Arneson by putting an A in the name? Calling Gygax the creator of D&D is like calling Stalin the creator of communism.
"But I Want the Market to Accommodate My Exact Preference!" Otherwise you'd be happy with any of a dozen clip on keyboards for iPhone or Android. A little bulkier, sure. But there are solutions, so quit bitching.
is that now that rich white people have drug problems (ie, "real" people), maybe we can muster up some sympathy for other addicted people now?
Nah, I'm dreaming.
You obviously didn't live through the late seventies, early eighties. Cocaine was everywhere in the affluent white community, and quite out in the open. Then we had a decade of drug abuse clinic stories for the rich and famous. No sympathy for non-rich non-white people was had.
And how, way I ask, does packet radio not accomplish the same thing, across considerably larger distances than a peer-to-peer mesh network? The mesh isn't useless, but at some point it still needs to connect to some place with proper connectivity. This may not be within the range of the Internet of Things.
Because it only works if every device has a pingable IP. Or some such nonsense.
Apple doesn't need the money at all, while the poor starve to death. That makes Apple and other companies like Apple the most despicable group of people on Earth. It isn't just Tim Cook or Jeff Bezos or Larry Page. Companies are made by people and every single person working at Apple is contributing to the problem.
Google is bigger than Apple now, so you can throw your hate that way. Or are you just another irrational Apple hater? Rhetorical.
The U.S. Constitution, as designed, granted powers from the people to the government. The compromise found within the Bill of Rights essentially listed a number of prohibitions so the new government absolutely knew that they could in no way interfere with this core set of rights.
Unfortunately, we've reached a point where many people believe that the U.S. Constitution confers rights from the government to the citizens rather than it's original purpose of conferring powers to the government from the people.
And this gets modded up I guess because that's what we'd like it to be. No the Bill or Rights are just that, rights that people have in the US. Nothing, be it person, corporation, government, or church can take these rights away from you. It has NOTHING to do with limiting the powers of the Federal government. This is just a cleverly disguised states rights post, or something. I knew there was something underhanded going on when you snuck that "right to bear arms" in there and forgetting about the militia bit.
The last thing that the manufacturers want are people to reuse old equipment. Each is a loss of a potential sale of a new unit. In the perverse eyes of capitalism.
Sports. That is all there really is to it. The idiocracy of America values sports infinitely higher than academics. University of Chicago, one of the schools with the least emphasis on sports, has 81% full time instructors, the majority tenure or on the tenure track, and a student to teacher ratio of 6:1. Yes it's expensive to go there, but at least you know where the money is going. It's not paying $5 million a year for a name football coach.
This is what happens when you have a single point of failure like a stupid, technically illiterate secretary added to the mix.
Misogyny much? Secretaries are usually well versed in things like email, since it's a major part of their job. Managers are the ones who think they know everything, and make these kinds of mistakes.
Men, particularly blue collar men, have been disproportionately impacted by the bad economy. Where is the same level of enthusiasm about training blue collar men for an "exciting career as a nurse, nurse practitioner, etc.?" Those are high paying, skilled, wildly disproportionately female-dominated positions. They could easily accommodate an influx of men. There is also a true shortage of qualified people, unlike in computer-related fields. Why no interest? Because if we suddenly gave men the opportunity and incentive (ex aggressive recruiting, preferential college admission, etc. ) to pursue those fields, a lot of women might be pushed out and that'd be "sexist."
No, because men in general do not want to be caretakers. Do you want to spend the rest of your life changing bed pans? I thought not. Women take these positions because they were taught to do so, instead of pursuing more lucrative medical technician or heaven forbid MD positions. I have several female friends and relatives who are MDs, and they will tell you about the obstacles put in their way since they weren't white males.
Just maybe this has nothing to do with race or sexism and they just hired the best people they could find.
Like a lot of people at Slashdot, I work in the IT industry too. Most of our people are male, and either Caucasian or Indian. Does that mean that the company I work for is part of some evil conspiracy to keep aphroditic purple martians out of the IT work force? Nope.
And back to the geek perspective. You don't think that your IT society is doing anything wrong, but looked at from the OUTSIDE, it is very skewed against non-white males, especially if they are not young. When the geeks can accurately look in the mirror and say, "yes, I AM one of the problems," things might start changing.
According to this page: http://www.economicmodeling.co... At the very best, females make up 30.4% of IT graduates. The workforce is 35% female, so on average females are more likely to be hired for IT positions than men.
At lower paying positions with less potential growth. That kind of skewed those figures.
Insinuating that female workers "fare worse" at Yahoo is akin to insinuating that there is rampant sexism and a glass ceiling going on there, which is most likely simply untrue.
Except the opposite. I guarantee that it IS true. It has been at every firm that I've ever worked for. The only way that women get hired, especially for competitive executive positions, is to accept a lower salary than their male counterparts. On top of that, they have to "fit in" and "be one of the guys." It's like putting on an artificial penis, so they forget you have breasts.
I thought that competitive business was supposed to hire the most qualified and motivated candidates?
Yes, they are supposed to. Now do you see the problem? If they won't hire you even with the right qualifications, then the smart thing to do is not even try to get the qualifications, and take a safer, lower paying career.
Let's say that Ikea did license the logo to them, what control they have if the site decides to start posting derogatory things about Ikea? No, Ikea CANNOT trust the good will of the site. They have to get them to un-brand, or shut them down. It would be stupid to handle this any other way.
After several false starts during which she repeatedly and noisily attempts to clear her throat, Ms. Elk spends most of the interview circuitously leading up to the "theory of dinosaurs by Anne Elk bracket Miss brackets", making assertions like "My theory, which belongs to me, is mine." It turns out that in the end Miss Elk's new theory on brontosauruses is rather shallow: "All brontosauruses are thin at one end, much, much thicker in the middle, and then thin again at the far end." Her true concern is that she receive full credit for devising this new theory: "That is the theory that I have, and which is mine, and what it is too."
This whole culture of saying that something is too difficult because it's an addition is nonsense. Whatever happened good old fashioned responsibility and personal accountability?
A lovely rant, but you miss a very important point. Most obese people are depressed. They don't show it because their dopamine is so high from all the food they eat. Try to tell an obese person to NOT eat something. You will get a reaction similar to a starving dog protecting a scrap of meat. The old adage about eating a pint of ice cream because you were depressed? Yep, that's true. No amount of brow beating can force an obese person to diet unless you fix the underlying mental disorder. Wellbutrin is one of the few anti-depressants that shows a marked LOSS of weight in users. That's because it helps regulate your dopamine. Smokers lose weight. Why? Nicotine helps increase your dopamine. So why not just subscribe Wellbutrin to all the obese people? That's the rub. Most would take the drugs AND keep eating because dopamine is a rush. It would only make things worse in the long run. If you are person who can easily turn away from food, then you are not depressed.
So obesity has to be treated on multiple fronts. Education so the patient understands that there is a mental/physical component that must be fixed, i.e. the depression. That eating is NOT the solution, and that the feeling of well being can be acquired from other means. Richard Simmons, for all his silliness, was one of the few to really get this. His program worked because it made people feel better about their lives in general, and then try to slowly lose some weight. Dieting alone does not do it. As soon as you are feeling depressed, that pint of ice cream will be too tempting.
Slashdot Mirror
No, cheaper hotels have slower WiFi if they have any WiFi at all.
Ubiquitous, how did Gygax steal D&D from Dave Arneson by putting an A in the name? Calling Gygax the creator of D&D is like calling Stalin the creator of communism.
"But I Want the Market to Accommodate My Exact Preference!" Otherwise you'd be happy with any of a dozen clip on keyboards for iPhone or Android. A little bulkier, sure. But there are solutions, so quit bitching.
is that now that rich white people have drug problems (ie, "real" people), maybe we can muster up some sympathy for other addicted people now?
Nah, I'm dreaming.
You obviously didn't live through the late seventies, early eighties. Cocaine was everywhere in the affluent white community, and quite out in the open. Then we had a decade of drug abuse clinic stories for the rich and famous. No sympathy for non-rich non-white people was had.
"Oh that promise to not sell the information? Well, we screwed up and sold it all for $10 Billion. Pay a fine of $10 Million? Sure, that's fair."
Microsoft switch IE to use components written by someone else?
I place the likelihood of that as pretty small.
Microsoft have always had a huge case of "Not Invented Here", and I don't see that changing.
Considering that IE is based on Mosaic, SQLServer is based on Sybase, etc. etc., I don't think Microsoft has ever really "invented anything here."
And how, way I ask, does packet radio not accomplish the same thing, across considerably larger distances than a peer-to-peer mesh network? The mesh isn't useless, but at some point it still needs to connect to some place with proper connectivity. This may not be within the range of the Internet of Things.
Because it only works if every device has a pingable IP. Or some such nonsense.
It wasn't on the Shuttle's, either. But killing the crew less than one time in sixty can't really be that hard, can it?
Actually it's quite hard. That's why only 3 countries have managed to do it.
"Man-rated" is not on SpaceX's advertising brochure. Yet.
Is it monitoring? Yes. Are the devices "on the internet," that is, IP routable? No.
Enough with this IOT bullshit.
I guess it's not sexy enough to be "in the cloud" anymore.
Apple doesn't need the money at all, while the poor starve to death. That makes Apple and other companies like Apple the most despicable group of people on Earth. It isn't just Tim Cook or Jeff Bezos or Larry Page. Companies are made by people and every single person working at Apple is contributing to the problem.
Google is bigger than Apple now, so you can throw your hate that way. Or are you just another irrational Apple hater? Rhetorical.
The U.S. Constitution, as designed, granted powers from the people to the government. The compromise found within the Bill of Rights essentially listed a number of prohibitions so the new government absolutely knew that they could in no way interfere with this core set of rights.
Unfortunately, we've reached a point where many people believe that the U.S. Constitution confers rights from the government to the citizens rather than it's original purpose of conferring powers to the government from the people.
And this gets modded up I guess because that's what we'd like it to be. No the Bill or Rights are just that, rights that people have in the US. Nothing, be it person, corporation, government, or church can take these rights away from you. It has NOTHING to do with limiting the powers of the Federal government. This is just a cleverly disguised states rights post, or something. I knew there was something underhanded going on when you snuck that "right to bear arms" in there and forgetting about the militia bit.
The last thing that the manufacturers want are people to reuse old equipment. Each is a loss of a potential sale of a new unit. In the perverse eyes of capitalism.
Sports. That is all there really is to it. The idiocracy of America values sports infinitely higher than academics. University of Chicago, one of the schools with the least emphasis on sports, has 81% full time instructors, the majority tenure or on the tenure track, and a student to teacher ratio of 6:1. Yes it's expensive to go there, but at least you know where the money is going. It's not paying $5 million a year for a name football coach.
This is what happens when you have a single point of failure like a stupid, technically illiterate secretary added to the mix.
Misogyny much? Secretaries are usually well versed in things like email, since it's a major part of their job. Managers are the ones who think they know everything, and make these kinds of mistakes.
Another thing that's obvious made to sound groundbreaking.
What did he say about yakisoba? Does he like? Hate it? Get some on his shirt?
Men, particularly blue collar men, have been disproportionately impacted by the bad economy. Where is the same level of enthusiasm about training blue collar men for an "exciting career as a nurse, nurse practitioner, etc.?" Those are high paying, skilled, wildly disproportionately female-dominated positions. They could easily accommodate an influx of men. There is also a true shortage of qualified people, unlike in computer-related fields. Why no interest? Because if we suddenly gave men the opportunity and incentive (ex aggressive recruiting, preferential college admission, etc. ) to pursue those fields, a lot of women might be pushed out and that'd be "sexist."
No, because men in general do not want to be caretakers. Do you want to spend the rest of your life changing bed pans? I thought not. Women take these positions because they were taught to do so, instead of pursuing more lucrative medical technician or heaven forbid MD positions. I have several female friends and relatives who are MDs, and they will tell you about the obstacles put in their way since they weren't white males.
Just maybe this has nothing to do with race or sexism and they just hired the best people they could find.
Like a lot of people at Slashdot, I work in the IT industry too. Most of our people are male, and either Caucasian or Indian. Does that mean that the company I work for is part of some evil conspiracy to keep aphroditic purple martians out of the IT work force? Nope.
And back to the geek perspective. You don't think that your IT society is doing anything wrong, but looked at from the OUTSIDE, it is very skewed against non-white males, especially if they are not young. When the geeks can accurately look in the mirror and say, "yes, I AM one of the problems," things might start changing.
According to this page: http://www.economicmodeling.co...
At the very best, females make up 30.4% of IT graduates.
The workforce is 35% female, so on average females are more likely to be hired for IT positions than men.
At lower paying positions with less potential growth. That kind of skewed those figures.
That is it.
Insinuating that female workers "fare worse" at Yahoo is akin to insinuating that there is rampant sexism and a glass ceiling going on there, which is most likely simply untrue.
Except the opposite. I guarantee that it IS true. It has been at every firm that I've ever worked for. The only way that women get hired, especially for competitive executive positions, is to accept a lower salary than their male counterparts. On top of that, they have to "fit in" and "be one of the guys." It's like putting on an artificial penis, so they forget you have breasts.
I thought that competitive business was supposed to hire the most qualified and motivated candidates?
Yes, they are supposed to. Now do you see the problem? If they won't hire you even with the right qualifications, then the smart thing to do is not even try to get the qualifications, and take a safer, lower paying career.
Let's say that Ikea did license the logo to them, what control they have if the site decides to start posting derogatory things about Ikea? No, Ikea CANNOT trust the good will of the site. They have to get them to un-brand, or shut them down. It would be stupid to handle this any other way.
After several false starts during which she repeatedly and noisily attempts to clear her throat, Ms. Elk spends most of the interview circuitously leading up to the "theory of dinosaurs by Anne Elk bracket Miss brackets", making assertions like "My theory, which belongs to me, is mine." It turns out that in the end Miss Elk's new theory on brontosauruses is rather shallow: "All brontosauruses are thin at one end, much, much thicker in the middle, and then thin again at the far end." Her true concern is that she receive full credit for devising this new theory: "That is the theory that I have, and which is mine, and what it is too."
This whole culture of saying that something is too difficult because it's an addition is nonsense. Whatever happened good old fashioned responsibility and personal accountability?
A lovely rant, but you miss a very important point. Most obese people are depressed. They don't show it because their dopamine is so high from all the food they eat. Try to tell an obese person to NOT eat something. You will get a reaction similar to a starving dog protecting a scrap of meat. The old adage about eating a pint of ice cream because you were depressed? Yep, that's true. No amount of brow beating can force an obese person to diet unless you fix the underlying mental disorder. Wellbutrin is one of the few anti-depressants that shows a marked LOSS of weight in users. That's because it helps regulate your dopamine. Smokers lose weight. Why? Nicotine helps increase your dopamine. So why not just subscribe Wellbutrin to all the obese people? That's the rub. Most would take the drugs AND keep eating because dopamine is a rush. It would only make things worse in the long run. If you are person who can easily turn away from food, then you are not depressed.
So obesity has to be treated on multiple fronts. Education so the patient understands that there is a mental/physical component that must be fixed, i.e. the depression. That eating is NOT the solution, and that the feeling of well being can be acquired from other means. Richard Simmons, for all his silliness, was one of the few to really get this. His program worked because it made people feel better about their lives in general, and then try to slowly lose some weight. Dieting alone does not do it. As soon as you are feeling depressed, that pint of ice cream will be too tempting.