monochrome printer / copier / scanner. We got it after I got fed up with my crappy Cannon inkjet a couple of years ago for just a little over $100 from Best Buy. Haven't looked back since. Most of the printing we do is my wife printing papers for school which are all B&W anyway. The only other thing we might want to print are photos, but they are better done at the store than some crappy inkjet printer anyway.
My issue wasn't that anybody is entitled to be successful, only an individual can shape one's future. But the post I was replying to made the implication than, in an ideal world, wealthy people shouldn't be able to purchase expensive education for their children.
And my point wasn't that you couldn't spend as much money as you want on tutors or prep classes for your kids. You can, but to get into college they'll have to demonstrate some minimum ability and no amount of money can subvert that.
I'm for barriers to higher education so long as we provide a means for people to improve themselves and try again and again until they can qualify.
I actually think there should be a limit on the number of times you can retry. How many times does somebody have to fail before they should give up? After all, do you want a doctor who only passed his exams on the tenth try or would you rather that the med school had taken him aside and suggested a different line of work? Maybe coroner, where the patients are already dead. A few retries, yes. Unlimited retries, no.
In my ideal world, if I earn a load of money due to my own hard work and determination, I will give my (future) children the best possible chance in life by paying for a top notch education.
And if your kid is actually, for want of a better word, stupid? Too stupid for higher education? Not everybody is suited for higher education and no amount of money will solve that. You could spend millions on some people and they simply won't ever achieve any more. Just like no amount of money will ever turn me into an Olympic athlete, no amount of money will turn some people into top scientists, top lawyers, top doctors or captains of industry. You have to deal with the genetic cards you were dealt.
I know it's a very unamerican sentiment, but some people aren't destined to be great and it's better if they instead work on being happy. Which is, ultimately, what you should want for your kids, no?
I think the point is that some people are not suited to a college education. The current system still encourages those people to go to college and pursue a degree even though the only thing they'll get from it is a mountain of debt after they eventually drop out. The real solution is to increase college admission standards so that the money can be focused on those who are most able to take advantage of a college education while those who are not suited to an academic career can be guided into vocational training that better suits their abilities.
In an ideal world, all barriers to higher education will be based solely on your ability and not on how much money you (or your family) has.
Sure, and, obviously, you've seen this particular site and know the exact geology of this site.
You are speculating wildly. You have no idea how much explosive this particular hole would need to seal it any more than I do.
As for "it would have happened already", I'm amazed that you think it's so easy to get 11 tons of explosives to the bottom of the ocean and detonate it.
I didn't say it's a straight substitution and isn't without technical challenges. But, please, tell me how many nukes are designed to be detonated at 3000 m under the sea?
Personally, I'd rather have the browser go faster than look faster.
Personally, I'd rather have a stable browser with useful features that I use than a browser that can render a page 0.1 second faster. I really don't understand this obsession over the speed of the browser.
I don't disagree that how somebody handles a mistake is as important, or even more important than the mistake itself, but you're focusing on having the chance to get to give the candidate a full and deep interview to find that out. With this very public black mark attached to his name, he might not even get as far as an initial phone interview.
First impressions count and when you have a barrage of resumes to go through you end up looking for reasons to throw some of them away on the spot. It's just not possible to fully read all of them and give them all full consideration. It's certainly impossible to call every candidate just-in-case your impression from the resume is wrong. And there's no way in hell you can bring them all in for face-to-face interviews.
Given the choice between trusting The People, or trusting that small subset of The People who live by taxing the rest of us and telling us what's good for us, I think I'm going to have to call it for The People.
And by "The People" you mean large corporations with substantial amounts of cash.
I am interviewing people currently actually, and I resent your comment. Clearly you know nothing about how the business world works (see I can make sweeping and insulting generalizations based on knowing nothing about you too).
No, you don't judge people on one action, but it still counts. All things being equal, would you hire the guy who publicly fucked up in a major way or a guy with the same qualifications and experience who hasn't make a huge public fuck up? If you'd still hire the fuck up guy, you'd better have a damn good explanation for your own bosses because they are sure to see the fuck up first before they see anything else.
Sure the other guy could have many fuck ups in their past that you don't know about. He may have even worse fuck ups. But you can't not hire somebody on the basis of something you don't know, but you sure can not hire somebody on the basis of something you do know. And that's the difference. It's that the fuck up is known that will hurt this guy.
I'm not saying this is right or just. It isn't about what's right, just or moral. It's just the way things are and it's why revealing the name was a dick thing for Gizmodo to do. Which was the original fucking point.
My thoughts exactly. After take-off they turn on the autopilot and there's not much to do until landing. It would put anybody to sleep, which isn't good if something should suddenly happen. Maybe they should alter the rules so that at least one of the pilot / co-pilot has to be paying attention at all times, or at least ease the ban for very long flights.
As I wrote/asked in another reply... where are the people dying from these supposed distracted pilots? I've yet to hear about them.
I have not seen a need for this law. The reason I'm replying to you specifically is that your approach has an implicit degree of acceptance to there being a need; can you give me evidence of this need? I just want to see some form of proof that we need this law/rule/ban in any shape or form.
I don't disagree at all, but I think most passengers would feel more comfortable with thinking that one of the pilots is paying attention. It's theater. Just like the security checks at the airport.
My thoughts exactly. After take-off they turn on the autopilot and there's not much to do until landing. It would put anybody to sleep, which isn't good if something should suddenly happen. Maybe they should alter the rules so that at least one of the pilot / co-pilot has to be paying attention at all times, or at least ease the ban for very long flights.
Install FireFox, Install IE Tab, set IE Tab to automatically switch to IE for intranet apps (I set a filter for www.mycompany.com). Problem solved. Crappy corporate webapps still work and I can browser the wider internet with the extra security of FireFox.
Slashdot Mirror
I vote for a movie based on dog shit, just make it moving and awe inspiring.
I have a Brother DCP-7040
monochrome printer / copier / scanner. We got it after I got fed up with my crappy Cannon inkjet a couple of years ago for just a little over $100 from Best Buy. Haven't looked back since. Most of the printing we do is my wife printing papers for school which are all B&W anyway. The only other thing we might want to print are photos, but they are better done at the store than some crappy inkjet printer anyway.
No need for cookies, you just use javascript and CSS.
No need for JavaScript either. You can do it with CSS alone.
My issue wasn't that anybody is entitled to be successful, only an individual can shape one's future. But the post I was replying to made the implication than, in an ideal world, wealthy people shouldn't be able to purchase expensive education for their children.
And my point wasn't that you couldn't spend as much money as you want on tutors or prep classes for your kids. You can, but to get into college they'll have to demonstrate some minimum ability and no amount of money can subvert that.
I'm for barriers to higher education so long as we provide a means for people to improve themselves and try again and again until they can qualify.
I actually think there should be a limit on the number of times you can retry. How many times does somebody have to fail before they should give up? After all, do you want a doctor who only passed his exams on the tenth try or would you rather that the med school had taken him aside and suggested a different line of work? Maybe coroner, where the patients are already dead. A few retries, yes. Unlimited retries, no.
In my ideal world, if I earn a load of money due to my own hard work and determination, I will give my (future) children the best possible chance in life by paying for a top notch education.
And if your kid is actually, for want of a better word, stupid? Too stupid for higher education? Not everybody is suited for higher education and no amount of money will solve that. You could spend millions on some people and they simply won't ever achieve any more. Just like no amount of money will ever turn me into an Olympic athlete, no amount of money will turn some people into top scientists, top lawyers, top doctors or captains of industry. You have to deal with the genetic cards you were dealt.
I know it's a very unamerican sentiment, but some people aren't destined to be great and it's better if they instead work on being happy. Which is, ultimately, what you should want for your kids, no?
I think the point is that some people are not suited to a college education. The current system still encourages those people to go to college and pursue a degree even though the only thing they'll get from it is a mountain of debt after they eventually drop out. The real solution is to increase college admission standards so that the money can be focused on those who are most able to take advantage of a college education while those who are not suited to an academic career can be guided into vocational training that better suits their abilities.
In an ideal world, all barriers to higher education will be based solely on your ability and not on how much money you (or your family) has.
Sure, and, obviously, you've seen this particular site and know the exact geology of this site.
You are speculating wildly. You have no idea how much explosive this particular hole would need to seal it any more than I do.
As for "it would have happened already", I'm amazed that you think it's so easy to get 11 tons of explosives to the bottom of the ocean and detonate it.
I bow to your (apparently) superior knowledge of sea bed geology. What's that? You know nothing about sea bed geology and are just making shit up?
I didn't say it's a straight substitution and isn't without technical challenges. But, please, tell me how many nukes are designed to be detonated at 3000 m under the sea?
What makes you assume you need 20 kilotons of force? We're not talking about dropping a large nuclear bomb here. It's not that big of a hole!
Yes, there are bunker busting bombs that would probably do the job just as well. Nuclear is overkill.
I rather think that for 99% of the people in the world, the biggest impact on their internet experience is network speeds, not rendering speed.
But I can't imagine that lags in rendering have more of an impact than, say, lags in downloading the page in the first place.
Personally, I'd rather have the browser go faster than look faster.
Personally, I'd rather have a stable browser with useful features that I use than a browser that can render a page 0.1 second faster. I really don't understand this obsession over the speed of the browser.
Nobody ever lost money by betting on the stupidity of the general public.
Because if there is an .xxx domain the internet will quickly fill with porn. Unlike the totally pure and kid safe environment of the internet now!
I don't disagree that how somebody handles a mistake is as important, or even more important than the mistake itself, but you're focusing on having the chance to get to give the candidate a full and deep interview to find that out. With this very public black mark attached to his name, he might not even get as far as an initial phone interview.
First impressions count and when you have a barrage of resumes to go through you end up looking for reasons to throw some of them away on the spot. It's just not possible to fully read all of them and give them all full consideration. It's certainly impossible to call every candidate just-in-case your impression from the resume is wrong. And there's no way in hell you can bring them all in for face-to-face interviews.
And by "The People" you mean large corporations with substantial amounts of cash.
Pah, never heard of a wind spill?
I am interviewing people currently actually, and I resent your comment. Clearly you know nothing about how the business world works (see I can make sweeping and insulting generalizations based on knowing nothing about you too).
No, you don't judge people on one action, but it still counts. All things being equal, would you hire the guy who publicly fucked up in a major way or a guy with the same qualifications and experience who hasn't make a huge public fuck up? If you'd still hire the fuck up guy, you'd better have a damn good explanation for your own bosses because they are sure to see the fuck up first before they see anything else.
Sure the other guy could have many fuck ups in their past that you don't know about. He may have even worse fuck ups. But you can't not hire somebody on the basis of something you don't know, but you sure can not hire somebody on the basis of something you do know. And that's the difference. It's that the fuck up is known that will hurt this guy.
I'm not saying this is right or just. It isn't about what's right, just or moral. It's just the way things are and it's why revealing the name was a dick thing for Gizmodo to do. Which was the original fucking point.
My thoughts exactly. After take-off they turn on the autopilot and there's not much to do until landing. It would put anybody to sleep, which isn't good if something should suddenly happen. Maybe they should alter the rules so that at least one of the pilot / co-pilot has to be paying attention at all times, or at least ease the ban for very long flights.
As I wrote/asked in another reply... where are the people dying from these supposed distracted pilots? I've yet to hear about them.
I have not seen a need for this law. The reason I'm replying to you specifically is that your approach has an implicit degree of acceptance to there being a need; can you give me evidence of this need? I just want to see some form of proof that we need this law/rule/ban in any shape or form.
I don't disagree at all, but I think most passengers would feel more comfortable with thinking that one of the pilots is paying attention. It's theater. Just like the security checks at the airport.
But flying a plane is NOT like driving a car.
Errr...never said it was.
My thoughts exactly. After take-off they turn on the autopilot and there's not much to do until landing. It would put anybody to sleep, which isn't good if something should suddenly happen. Maybe they should alter the rules so that at least one of the pilot / co-pilot has to be paying attention at all times, or at least ease the ban for very long flights.
Install FireFox, Install IE Tab, set IE Tab to automatically switch to IE for intranet apps (I set a filter for www.mycompany.com). Problem solved. Crappy corporate webapps still work and I can browser the wider internet with the extra security of FireFox.