"Some bloke has made another tedious iPhone app: iWank.
Using the iPhones cool features such as the unique touchscreen and accelerometer, you can literally wank Steve Jobs to orgasm. Simply make the appropriate motion with the iPhone, and see a naked Jobs on the screen. His expression changes according to the speed and rhythm of the motion. To finish the job, simply rub the on screen impression of Jobs' tumescent empurpled member and watch him ejaculate.
There have been rumours of a 'cheat mode', where Jobs can ejaculate in seconds after the user inputs a URL leading to another iPhone PR stunt on some news site. Apple has refused to comment.
SPONSORED LINK: Get your amazing super-hip iPhone HERE"
It all depends where you are on your career path (i.e how old you are). For the original question/article where somebody is looking at an internship, I'd assume young; in which case it's better to get into an environment where you can build your general hard/soft skills, rather than settling for the 'right' job description or salary in a doghole that will hold you back in years to come.
For someone further along their career path, then burger flipping WOULD look bad on a CV and wouldn't pay the bills.
Also, I know it's a luxury that not everyone has, but I've always avoided employers that have "HR's buzzword-compliance monitor" like the plague. When I have worked at places like that, invariably they have been the soul destroying places that its better to be out of in the long run. There are still plenty of companies (especially SMEs) where HR tossers, tickbox fetishists and other management-fad bueaurocrats are not in charge, and it's still entirely possible to 'work your way up'. These are the places that you (or someone starting their career anyway) will find the (relatively) enjoyable and fulfilling jobs instead of a future as Dilbert.
I would broadly agree, but I would personally advise against kissing the bosses ass. Any boss you have to kiss the ass of to succeed isn't a boss worth working for.
A good boss will be happy if you (or any employee) work diligently for the COMPANY, not just the boss personally. This means sometimes professionally disagreeing with the boss, and letting him know that (politely!). This has worked very well for me before, but of course YMMV.
As for paying attention and learning what you can. thats excellent advice. I have turned a year working in warehouses (forklift driving, general box shifting) into valuable career experience just by looking around, asking questions and taking everything in. Good bosses will recognise when you are doing this, and appreciate evidence of you having done this before in any job.
I know theres a lot of "a good boss.." in this post and I am aware that there are thousands of abysmal bosses out there, but the bad ones are the ones to avoid working for whenever possible. IMO Its better for your career (in the long run) and sanity to work in some hypothetical burger joint on $6/hr for a GOOD boss than somewhere on $60,000 for an asshole who won't let you get any useful experience under your belt or otherwise let you progress.
words change over time. Theft needs to be re-defined. The worst part about this isn't that you don't thin that copyright infringement is theft (which by the very definition is not), it's that you somehow think it's your right to take and distribute someone else's work.
Thanks for reading all sorts of opinions into my post that I didn't write and don't hold.
The real point is that it's complicated, economically and morally. Wankers like the original poster ranting about 'hard work' and copying intellectual works (which may or may not result in a 'lost sale') being the 'same as stealing a car' add NOTHING to the debate except hot air.
Is copyright infringement bad for content creators? Often it is, often it's not. Whatever it is, it isn't 'theft' and only resembles 'theft' in a small way. It's something else, and emotive pleas about 'theft' mark their writer as an utter hoon.
You steal when you refuse to pay anything for something that a person worked years of their life to produce, and instead end run around them and download a copy of their hard work from an illegal source. It doesn't matter whether it was a sculpture, a painting, a movie or a song.
The fact that we musicians are treated like our art is worthless simply because it's easy to rip us off is offensive beyond words. If it were as easy to copy a sculpture, sculptors would react exactly as we have.
If you don't want to pay for the song, don't listen to it. If you download it for free from a source that wasn't authorized by the artist (IE: taking their hard work without payment and without permission) than you are a thief; it's that simple. If I did the same thing to General Motors they'd lock me up for grand theft auto.
So, peeking at somebody's newspaper over their shoulder is the same as grabbing their paper and running away? It's all "theft", right?
In fact, writing this post has taken me minutes of work to produce; if you read it and fail to send me money then you're just a common THIEF.
THEFT is permanently taking something that belongs to someone else. If the original owner still has it, it ain't theft, no matter what fuzzy platitudes about 'hard work' or 'art' you throw at it.
Doesn't the iPhone vibrate slightly when it registers a 'touch'? My Nokia 5800 does that as standard, which is surprisingly useful as feedback. I would be surprised if the iPhone doesn't.
I am left thinking "so what?". All they did was PROJECT graphics onto an inflatable surface, and used a camera and image recognition to determine which 'button' was being pressed.
I think it's a bit of a stretch to describe this as a 'touch screen'; the image is projected onto the surface (which could be true for ANY surface) and the surface itself does NOT detect touches. There is also no tactile feedback whatsoever. I might as well get one of those laser projection keyboards, set it up on the bonnet of my car and announce that I've made a "self-propelling air-conditioned touchscreen that seats four".
UK is 230V, as is most of the rest of Europe. At one time it was 240V, but voltage rates have been harmonized. Hence the reason many devices have been required to support 220-240V to facilitate that harmonization.
Not quite. When they 'harmonised' the voltages across Europe it was mainly about the input tolerances of appliances (eg a device must work on 220v-240v nominal); they didn't touch the actual power infrastructure at all.
With the possible exception of newly-developed areas with brand new power infrastructure, power still comes out of the wall at good-old 240v (often 250v or more, with tolerances).
You have a vehicle that gets 30mpg and can fit a 50" TV in it?
An 'ordinary' British/European van gets 40mpg (imp) / 32mpg (US). Thats (roughly) a real figure as calculated by me (I currently run a fleet of them).
You could get four 50" TVs in one.
the population might thin out enough that we move back to living within nature instead of being this anomalous creature that tries to force nature to obey.
Excellent, I'm glad you voluntered for phase 1 of the population thinning program. Feel free to remove your burden from the earth in any quiet environmentally-concious way you see fit.
Nothing personal, I just think that "great, lets start with you" is an good reply to anyone discussing population thinning:)
As a UK resident and driver in the true home of the roundabout, I wish to tell you that roundabouts are not a panacea.
Roundabouts work best for light to moderate traffic, where all 4 directions and all movements (left turn, right turn etc) are fairly equal in demand. For heavy traffic, they very quickly congest as traffic builds on the roundabout and blocks all entry. Indeed, round here most busy/large roundabouts have traffic lights on them as well, with varying degrees of success.
As for "gas consumption from forced arbitrary deceleration and acceleration is reduced" - I strongly disagree. Here roundabouts are used as a form of 'traffic calming', ie a deliberate obstacle to slow traffic. With a traffic light its a 50/50 chance between stopping completely and carrying on at cruising speed. With roundabouts there is always a decelerate/accelerate cycle, which depending on the design of the junction can be quite severe. In Birmingham (UK) and elsewhere. there was even a recent fad among local traffic engineers to plant high vegetation on the sightlines for approaching traffic to force all vehicles entering the roundabout to slow to below 5mph to be able to see traffic on the junction. On some examples here you have maybe 3 ft before the roundabout itself where you can see oncoming vehicles.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that roundabouts are rubbish and traffic lights are good, but theres different solutions to different problems. Replacing non-synchronised traffic lights with roundabouts in a situation with very heavy traffic would have a very much worse result.
Yeah, lets ban everything that could ever create a risk in any situation. Theoretically, I could be distracted by reading your post on/. and not see an anyry badger lunging at me from next to my desk. Therefore, your posting on/. needs to be banned.
In fact, lets also ban the posession of slippery substances (if dropped on the floor they could cause somebody to slip and crack their skull open) etc etc etc
'Safe driving' is about awareness, being aware of the traffic around you and the road conditions, etc. It is NOT about a 'list of things you should never do, because in some situations they might be dangerous'.
I myself have nearly been hit by people distracted by road signs, FFS. By your logic road signs should be banned.
As for
Any driver involved in an accident while their car was moving should immediately have their license suspended and car impounded until cause can be determined. If they are at fault charged and if convicted of a simple infraction their license revoked. If injury or worse is caused they should be jailed. They are a danger to others.
, yeah, nice way to never ever find out the true cause of any accident because everyone involved is desperately trying to cover their asses against people like you. Go and read 'Road Accidents - Prevent or Punish' by J J Leeming, and then read it again.
People here have been ticketed for eating apples or sipping water, while stopped at traffic lights.
Eventually, somebody will realise that people with the first frigging clue about driving (and a self-preservation instinct) do these things WHEN IT IS SAFE TO DO SO. It's the people without the first clue of driving who need the attention of the authorities, and these people are ingineous at finding ways of being dangerous while driving exactly 'by the book'. Cops should pull people who are obviously being a danger (all over the road, near misses etc etc), rather than based on a tickbox system (is speed >X? Is driver doing activity Y?) as seems to be increasingly the case in many areas.
It's suprising how many times one person can, you know, say "you know" in one interview.
For the record, it was 22 times, don't you know...
Well, you know, it can, erm, you know, act as a very effective, er, space-filler, you know, when you're, erm, trying to think of what to say next, if you know what I mean.
I would summarise that interview as "When builds leak they might be incomplete or old, and people may get a wrong impression of what the product will be like. This causes my phone to ring which is a pain in the ass"
Around where i live, a drivers license just says you have paid your tax ( ok, and taken the 'competency test'.. but that's a different discussion ) and gives you the right to drive around at will, anonymously. We don't have checkpoints where we have to produce ID.
Perhaps its different where he lives, which is a shame.
Just a minor point, but nobody "drives around at will, anonymously". You have plates with a unique identifier on at least the back of your car, visible to everybody. In some places (such as here in the UK) these identifiers are routinely read and logged by roadside equipment and stored in a database.
I'm not disagreeing with your sentiment, just the details:)
Thats interesting, I hadn't thought of people going to work (without car, with laptop) and then going straight to the cinema afterwards. Will the cinemas involved actually be callous enough to turn away paying customers because they happen to have a computer on them? Will they provide lockers? Will those lockers really be secure?
Of course the "everybody in Birmingham drives" thing is a huge generalisation (and only a half-serious one at that). Good luck in your (presumably sound engineering) work; FNS.
I've also known people travel by bus and train. This is not the US. People don't all drive everywhere.
I am in Birmingham and I wish to disagree...;)
Although seriously, having lived in London (using public transport 98% of the time) and in Brum (driving 100% of the time) an often overlooked factor is the ability/inability to leave items/shopping/whatever in the boot of a car.
Similarly, people often overlook the need (when driving to the shops, for instance) to find and return to where one had parked the car before leaving, as opposed to being able to start at one end of a shopping street (eg Oxford St in London) and depart from the other end when using public transport, without having to remember an arbitary location of where you happened to park that day.
Slashdot Mirror
very likely to come with Bada Bing.
"Some bloke has made another tedious iPhone app: iWank.
Using the iPhones cool features such as the unique touchscreen and accelerometer, you can literally wank Steve Jobs to orgasm. Simply make the appropriate motion with the iPhone, and see a naked Jobs on the screen. His expression changes according to the speed and rhythm of the motion. To finish the job, simply rub the on screen impression of Jobs' tumescent empurpled member and watch him ejaculate.
There have been rumours of a 'cheat mode', where Jobs can ejaculate in seconds after the user inputs a URL leading to another iPhone PR stunt on some news site. Apple has refused to comment.
SPONSORED LINK: Get your amazing super-hip iPhone HERE"
"I woudn't do THAT job" comment moderated "redundant" gets 5 irony points from me
It all depends where you are on your career path (i.e how old you are). For the original question/article where somebody is looking at an internship, I'd assume young; in which case it's better to get into an environment where you can build your general hard/soft skills, rather than settling for the 'right' job description or salary in a doghole that will hold you back in years to come.
For someone further along their career path, then burger flipping WOULD look bad on a CV and wouldn't pay the bills.
Also, I know it's a luxury that not everyone has, but I've always avoided employers that have "HR's buzzword-compliance monitor" like the plague. When I have worked at places like that, invariably they have been the soul destroying places that its better to be out of in the long run. There are still plenty of companies (especially SMEs) where HR tossers, tickbox fetishists and other management-fad bueaurocrats are not in charge, and it's still entirely possible to 'work your way up'. These are the places that you (or someone starting their career anyway) will find the (relatively) enjoyable and fulfilling jobs instead of a future as Dilbert.
I would broadly agree, but I would personally advise against kissing the bosses ass. Any boss you have to kiss the ass of to succeed isn't a boss worth working for.
A good boss will be happy if you (or any employee) work diligently for the COMPANY, not just the boss personally. This means sometimes professionally disagreeing with the boss, and letting him know that (politely!). This has worked very well for me before, but of course YMMV.
As for paying attention and learning what you can. thats excellent advice. I have turned a year working in warehouses (forklift driving, general box shifting) into valuable career experience just by looking around, asking questions and taking everything in. Good bosses will recognise when you are doing this, and appreciate evidence of you having done this before in any job.
I know theres a lot of "a good boss.." in this post and I am aware that there are thousands of abysmal bosses out there, but the bad ones are the ones to avoid working for whenever possible. IMO Its better for your career (in the long run) and sanity to work in some hypothetical burger joint on $6/hr for a GOOD boss than somewhere on $60,000 for an asshole who won't let you get any useful experience under your belt or otherwise let you progress.
words change over time. Theft needs to be re-defined. The worst part about this isn't that you don't thin that copyright infringement is theft (which by the very definition is not), it's that you somehow think it's your right to take and distribute someone else's work.
Thanks for reading all sorts of opinions into my post that I didn't write and don't hold.
The real point is that it's complicated, economically and morally. Wankers like the original poster ranting about 'hard work' and copying intellectual works (which may or may not result in a 'lost sale') being the 'same as stealing a car' add NOTHING to the debate except hot air.
Is copyright infringement bad for content creators? Often it is, often it's not. Whatever it is, it isn't 'theft' and only resembles 'theft' in a small way. It's something else, and emotive pleas about 'theft' mark their writer as an utter hoon.
You steal when you refuse to pay anything for something that a person worked years of their life to produce, and instead end run around them and download a copy of their hard work from an illegal source. It doesn't matter whether it was a sculpture, a painting, a movie or a song. The fact that we musicians are treated like our art is worthless simply because it's easy to rip us off is offensive beyond words. If it were as easy to copy a sculpture, sculptors would react exactly as we have. If you don't want to pay for the song, don't listen to it. If you download it for free from a source that wasn't authorized by the artist (IE: taking their hard work without payment and without permission) than you are a thief; it's that simple. If I did the same thing to General Motors they'd lock me up for grand theft auto.
So, peeking at somebody's newspaper over their shoulder is the same as grabbing their paper and running away? It's all "theft", right?
In fact, writing this post has taken me minutes of work to produce; if you read it and fail to send me money then you're just a common THIEF.
THEFT is permanently taking something that belongs to someone else. If the original owner still has it, it ain't theft, no matter what fuzzy platitudes about 'hard work' or 'art' you throw at it.
Two words: shoe polish
*Struggles to comprehend the possible thorny racial politics issues of ethnically black 'white' people "blacking up"*
Doesn't the iPhone vibrate slightly when it registers a 'touch'? My Nokia 5800 does that as standard, which is surprisingly useful as feedback. I would be surprised if the iPhone doesn't.
I am left thinking "so what?". All they did was PROJECT graphics onto an inflatable surface, and used a camera and image recognition to determine which 'button' was being pressed.
I think it's a bit of a stretch to describe this as a 'touch screen'; the image is projected onto the surface (which could be true for ANY surface) and the surface itself does NOT detect touches. There is also no tactile feedback whatsoever. I might as well get one of those laser projection keyboards, set it up on the bonnet of my car and announce that I've made a "self-propelling air-conditioned touchscreen that seats four".
UK is 230V, as is most of the rest of Europe. At one time it was 240V, but voltage rates have been harmonized. Hence the reason many devices have been required to support 220-240V to facilitate that harmonization.
Not quite. When they 'harmonised' the voltages across Europe it was mainly about the input tolerances of appliances (eg a device must work on 220v-240v nominal); they didn't touch the actual power infrastructure at all.
With the possible exception of newly-developed areas with brand new power infrastructure, power still comes out of the wall at good-old 240v (often 250v or more, with tolerances).
You have a vehicle that gets 30mpg and can fit a 50" TV in it?
An 'ordinary' British/European van gets 40mpg (imp) / 32mpg (US). Thats (roughly) a real figure as calculated by me (I currently run a fleet of them).
You could get four 50" TVs in one.
the population might thin out enough that we move back to living within nature instead of being this anomalous creature that tries to force nature to obey.
Excellent, I'm glad you voluntered for phase 1 of the population thinning program. Feel free to remove your burden from the earth in any quiet environmentally-concious way you see fit.
Nothing personal, I just think that "great, lets start with you" is an good reply to anyone discussing population thinning :)
Yes, anybody with more money than you robbed it.
Feel better now?
This: http://www.cbrd.co.uk/indepth/magicroundabout/ is more informative than the wiki article.
I in fact grew up in Tamworth, a similarly roundabout-endowed place with a junction similar to that in Swindon
As a UK resident and driver in the true home of the roundabout, I wish to tell you that roundabouts are not a panacea.
Roundabouts work best for light to moderate traffic, where all 4 directions and all movements (left turn, right turn etc) are fairly equal in demand. For heavy traffic, they very quickly congest as traffic builds on the roundabout and blocks all entry. Indeed, round here most busy/large roundabouts have traffic lights on them as well, with varying degrees of success.
As for "gas consumption from forced arbitrary deceleration and acceleration is reduced" - I strongly disagree. Here roundabouts are used as a form of 'traffic calming', ie a deliberate obstacle to slow traffic. With a traffic light its a 50/50 chance between stopping completely and carrying on at cruising speed. With roundabouts there is always a decelerate/accelerate cycle, which depending on the design of the junction can be quite severe. In Birmingham (UK) and elsewhere. there was even a recent fad among local traffic engineers to plant high vegetation on the sightlines for approaching traffic to force all vehicles entering the roundabout to slow to below 5mph to be able to see traffic on the junction. On some examples here you have maybe 3 ft before the roundabout itself where you can see oncoming vehicles.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that roundabouts are rubbish and traffic lights are good, but theres different solutions to different problems. Replacing non-synchronised traffic lights with roundabouts in a situation with very heavy traffic would have a very much worse result.
It took me 2.5 hours to get home from work which usually takes 25 minutes. (6 miles)
Y'know, ya cudda parked and walked it in an hour and an half and gotten some exercise.
Yes, because there was ample, free and safe overnight parking for him to abandon his car at, and retrieving the car would be soooo easy later.
Yeah, lets ban everything that could ever create a risk in any situation. Theoretically, I could be distracted by reading your post on /. and not see an anyry badger lunging at me from next to my desk. Therefore, your posting on /. needs to be banned.
In fact, lets also ban the posession of slippery substances (if dropped on the floor they could cause somebody to slip and crack their skull open) etc etc etc
'Safe driving' is about awareness, being aware of the traffic around you and the road conditions, etc. It is NOT about a 'list of things you should never do, because in some situations they might be dangerous'.
I myself have nearly been hit by people distracted by road signs, FFS. By your logic road signs should be banned.
As for
Any driver involved in an accident while their car was moving should immediately have their license suspended and car impounded until cause can be determined. If they are at fault charged and if convicted of a simple infraction their license revoked. If injury or worse is caused they should be jailed. They are a danger to others.
, yeah, nice way to never ever find out the true cause of any accident because everyone involved is desperately trying to cover their asses against people like you. Go and read 'Road Accidents - Prevent or Punish' by J J Leeming, and then read it again.
People here have been ticketed for eating apples or sipping water, while stopped at traffic lights.
Eventually, somebody will realise that people with the first frigging clue about driving (and a self-preservation instinct) do these things WHEN IT IS SAFE TO DO SO. It's the people without the first clue of driving who need the attention of the authorities, and these people are ingineous at finding ways of being dangerous while driving exactly 'by the book'. Cops should pull people who are obviously being a danger (all over the road, near misses etc etc), rather than based on a tickbox system (is speed >X? Is driver doing activity Y?) as seems to be increasingly the case in many areas.
Right
It's suprising how many times one person can, you know, say "you know" in one interview. For the record, it was 22 times, don't you know...
Well, you know, it can, erm, you know, act as a very effective, er, space-filler, you know, when you're, erm, trying to think of what to say next, if you know what I mean.
Was the surprise the lack of surprises?
I would summarise that interview as "When builds leak they might be incomplete or old, and people may get a wrong impression of what the product will be like. This causes my phone to ring which is a pain in the ass"
No real surprises there.
Around where i live, a drivers license just says you have paid your tax ( ok, and taken the 'competency test'.. but that's a different discussion ) and gives you the right to drive around at will, anonymously. We don't have checkpoints where we have to produce ID.
Perhaps its different where he lives, which is a shame.
Just a minor point, but nobody "drives around at will, anonymously". You have plates with a unique identifier on at least the back of your car, visible to everybody. In some places (such as here in the UK) these identifiers are routinely read and logged by roadside equipment and stored in a database.
I'm not disagreeing with your sentiment, just the details :)
Thats interesting, I hadn't thought of people going to work (without car, with laptop) and then going straight to the cinema afterwards. Will the cinemas involved actually be callous enough to turn away paying customers because they happen to have a computer on them? Will they provide lockers? Will those lockers really be secure?
Of course the "everybody in Birmingham drives" thing is a huge generalisation (and only a half-serious one at that). Good luck in your (presumably sound engineering) work;
FNS.
I've also known people travel by bus and train. This is not the US. People don't all drive everywhere.
I am in Birmingham and I wish to disagree... ;)
Although seriously, having lived in London (using public transport 98% of the time) and in Brum (driving 100% of the time) an often overlooked factor is the ability/inability to leave items/shopping/whatever in the boot of a car.
Similarly, people often overlook the need (when driving to the shops, for instance) to find and return to where one had parked the car before leaving, as opposed to being able to start at one end of a shopping street (eg Oxford St in London) and depart from the other end when using public transport, without having to remember an arbitary location of where you happened to park that day.