I just don't understand why Google doesn't turn this around for marketing purposes. "Our search is so good, other search engines have to use our results to compete."
I don't get all the hate. I have this open in Chrome right now, and the site is running with a very low profile compared to the last iteration. The previous design would constantly stall my browser while it thought about doing something. This one popped right up, less delay on stories with a ton of comments shown at once, multiple tabs isn't crippling me like it used to.
I seriously don't get what all of you people are complaining about because I'm personally not seeing it (other than the "too much white space" thing).
The thing about reading through a list of applicants is that you simply don't have enough time to explore if that person without a degree is worth anything. Having a degree helps weed out people who've shown to be successful in at least one area in their life in the past. Unless there's something else there that stands out, it's hard to otherwise pick out qualified applicants who don't have a degree. It's just all about how many applicants you get and how much time you have.
If you're willing to shell out several thousand dollars each patent, go for it! The current cost of patent is geared for A) people with serious inventions they're willing to invest in and possibly market, and B) megacorps bathing in cash. The price structure leaves these things a bit unbalanced in multiple ways. Are you willing to fight for your patent in court? Would you really sue Microsoft if you determined they violated your patent?
In order to buy or fight a patent, you needs TONS of cash. End of story. Everyone else loses.
Way to only focus on the false allegations, and not all the ludicrous things that make you a a "sex offender".
Also, you neglected to mention that some studies found obscenely high rates of false rape accusations- well over half, in fact.
What ludicrous things that label you a "sex offender" was not the topic of that particular conversation. Sorry that I do not re-iterate every point of the more general topic when discussing a single point. But thanks for sharing (and you are right). Also, I DID mention rate of false rape accusations. I provided links to back up what I said, which in turn provides plenty of cited sources where you can read the figures yourself. I didn't see any mention of any study that claimed those figures were "well over half". That's just ridiculous.
Lastly: let's not let a little thing like The Innocence Project get in the way of anything. You know, that project where they free huge numbers of death row inmates after proving they're innocent, usually using DNA testing? Funny how they find so many innocent people on death row, given murders receive the heaviest investigation.
Well, in the Innocence Project, I believe they focus on cases where they were convicted based on identification in a lineup. Turns out those aren't so trustworthy (misidentified). There's other factors that come into play as well, as some cases were subject to racism, some had careless juries, and others were just one of the usual suspects in the right place at the right time (aka - lacking an alibi) while their history of crime wasn't violent. Hell, some just had cops that scared them into confessing (this shit still happens today).
It appears that the false accusation rate with child sex abuse is probably higher than rape, but the numbers they quote is still pretty high (child sex abuse appears to be around 10%, and for rape is 2-8% -- the FBI said 8%). It also varies WIDELY upon the circumstance, location, etc. I can't find figures on other crimes, but if they are lower I'd imagine it's probably because it's harder to pull off as there is not much emotional appeal on the side of the accuser in other crimes (except murder).
With those figures in mind, it doesn't make a big enough impact on the recidivism rate even if you remove the innocents from that figure to claim that recidivism rate is way off. It's still incredibly low, especially by comparison to other crimes.
What does "taking a slash" mean? Public urination? If so, then no, not even the most absurdly conservative jurisdictions would classify that as a sex offender.
Then you'd be shocked to know that that happens. Also: piercing (like an earring) a minor without parental consult.
Because child molesters and rapists with amazingly high recidivism rates don't deserve the stigma at all. I'm sure you'd be comfortable hiring one to be a babysitter if that's your view.
False. Try ~5%. That's nothing compared to other crimes. Read this.
Sorry for responding to my own post, but I'd also like to add that most people would be surprised what constitutes a "sex offender". There are also varying degrees and different crimes that make up these people. Does everyone get GPS tracked or is it just the pedos (that's the only one I can think of that would have "red zones")? Shouldn't we reserve this for more serious sex crimes or multiple offenders? What happens to the 19yr old that had sex with a 17yr old (depending on the state the 19yr old lives in)?
Unfortunately, sex offenders have a very high recidivism rate. Real sex offenders, that is. People do get added to the sex offender list for the wrong reasons, IMHO. But real sex offenders have a disease that is not cured by jail time.
I agree, but this "solution" is just a bit over the top. I didn't RTFA, but is there some kind of time limit to this (red zone for 5 mins = police)? Can it detect intentions (did the pedo try to travel near that playground or did it just happen to be along a route he was taking)?
"Better" is a completely relative description. What's shit to you might be "OMFG ROXX0RZ!" to someone else. In this case, the ability to play Xbox Live Arcade games on your friggin' phone. As a side note, I'm an Android fanboy, but c'mon... you gotta admit that's an advantage over other mobile platforms for a ton of people out there.
To play the devil's advocate here, the ability to play some Xbox Arcade games is a pretty great motivator.
Xbox Arcade games are not that good. There are WAY more cool things you can do with an iphone.
I've not heard anyone rant about how great any Windows phone is ever. I sit next to a guy at work who raves about his iphone 4 until I'm sick of hearing it.
Personally I stick to a bottom of the line Nokia that actually gets 2 weeks of battery life. I want my phone for phone calls and the odd SMS and I have a laptop for everything else.
Just out of curiosity, how many Xbox Arcade games have you played? If I remember right, Portal: Still Alive was released to Xbox Arcade, which is a hugely popular game. One of my favorite games of all time is on the Arcade (Shadow Complex). There's a bunch more good ones listed here. I'm not saying everyone has to like these, but they've proven to be immensely popular, and I could see that as a driving factor. Personally for me that isn't enough, but ya gotta admit that tying these two platforms together is a pretty neat trick.
YOUR shoe box. I have a bed made out of the stuff. Don't think that what goes for you applies to everyone, buddy.
Besides, I think everyone reading/. on any semi-regular basis already knows about the whole "capturing anti-matter" thing, so no need to repeat stuff like you're the only one who keeps up on the news.
You're assuming everyone has kept up on this news. It might be new to somebody, in which case this is incredibly helpful.
Slashdot Mirror
You, sir, are a marketing GENIUS!
Ok, seriously, who the fuck uses cold fusion anymore?
can't even rtfa.
Who used it ever?
I just don't understand why Google doesn't turn this around for marketing purposes. "Our search is so good, other search engines have to use our results to compete."
I really don't see what the problem is with telnet. If it works, use it.
I don't get all the hate. I have this open in Chrome right now, and the site is running with a very low profile compared to the last iteration. The previous design would constantly stall my browser while it thought about doing something. This one popped right up, less delay on stories with a ton of comments shown at once, multiple tabs isn't crippling me like it used to. I seriously don't get what all of you people are complaining about because I'm personally not seeing it (other than the "too much white space" thing).
The thing about reading through a list of applicants is that you simply don't have enough time to explore if that person without a degree is worth anything. Having a degree helps weed out people who've shown to be successful in at least one area in their life in the past. Unless there's something else there that stands out, it's hard to otherwise pick out qualified applicants who don't have a degree. It's just all about how many applicants you get and how much time you have.
If you're willing to shell out several thousand dollars each patent, go for it! The current cost of patent is geared for A) people with serious inventions they're willing to invest in and possibly market, and B) megacorps bathing in cash. The price structure leaves these things a bit unbalanced in multiple ways. Are you willing to fight for your patent in court? Would you really sue Microsoft if you determined they violated your patent?
In order to buy or fight a patent, you needs TONS of cash. End of story. Everyone else loses.
Yes, because less competition always results in better products for the consumer at lower costs.
Do they also repel Raptors? If so, I'll buy 2,000!
Way to only focus on the false allegations, and not all the ludicrous things that make you a a "sex offender".
Also, you neglected to mention that some studies found obscenely high rates of false rape accusations- well over half, in fact.
What ludicrous things that label you a "sex offender" was not the topic of that particular conversation. Sorry that I do not re-iterate every point of the more general topic when discussing a single point. But thanks for sharing (and you are right). Also, I DID mention rate of false rape accusations. I provided links to back up what I said, which in turn provides plenty of cited sources where you can read the figures yourself. I didn't see any mention of any study that claimed those figures were "well over half". That's just ridiculous.
Lastly: let's not let a little thing like The Innocence Project get in the way of anything. You know, that project where they free huge numbers of death row inmates after proving they're innocent, usually using DNA testing? Funny how they find so many innocent people on death row, given murders receive the heaviest investigation.
Well, in the Innocence Project, I believe they focus on cases where they were convicted based on identification in a lineup. Turns out those aren't so trustworthy (misidentified). There's other factors that come into play as well, as some cases were subject to racism, some had careless juries, and others were just one of the usual suspects in the right place at the right time (aka - lacking an alibi) while their history of crime wasn't violent. Hell, some just had cops that scared them into confessing (this shit still happens today).
Students between the ages of 13-18 with access to a computer, the Net and a browser....
What I read: Poor smart kids from poor impoverished countries need not apply.
We're too web centric, people.
Most of the greatest scientists EVER did wondrous things without computers or the internet.
So, libraries are keeping poor kids out now?
I wouldn't say most are innocent, but here's the links you were referring to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_accusation_of_rape
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_allegation_of_child_sexual_abuse
It appears that the false accusation rate with child sex abuse is probably higher than rape, but the numbers they quote is still pretty high (child sex abuse appears to be around 10%, and for rape is 2-8% -- the FBI said 8%). It also varies WIDELY upon the circumstance, location, etc. I can't find figures on other crimes, but if they are lower I'd imagine it's probably because it's harder to pull off as there is not much emotional appeal on the side of the accuser in other crimes (except murder).
With those figures in mind, it doesn't make a big enough impact on the recidivism rate even if you remove the innocents from that figure to claim that recidivism rate is way off. It's still incredibly low, especially by comparison to other crimes.
What does "taking a slash" mean? Public urination? If so, then no, not even the most absurdly conservative jurisdictions would classify that as a sex offender.
Then you'd be shocked to know that that happens. Also: piercing (like an earring) a minor without parental consult.
Then let's stamp "Thief" on your forehead for downloading that MP3.
Because child molesters and rapists with amazingly high recidivism rates don't deserve the stigma at all. I'm sure you'd be comfortable hiring one to be a babysitter if that's your view.
False. Try ~5%. That's nothing compared to other crimes. Read this.
Sorry for responding to my own post, but I'd also like to add that most people would be surprised what constitutes a "sex offender". There are also varying degrees and different crimes that make up these people. Does everyone get GPS tracked or is it just the pedos (that's the only one I can think of that would have "red zones")? Shouldn't we reserve this for more serious sex crimes or multiple offenders? What happens to the 19yr old that had sex with a 17yr old (depending on the state the 19yr old lives in)?
Unfortunately, sex offenders have a very high recidivism rate. Real sex offenders, that is. People do get added to the sex offender list for the wrong reasons, IMHO. But real sex offenders have a disease that is not cured by jail time.
I agree, but this "solution" is just a bit over the top. I didn't RTFA, but is there some kind of time limit to this (red zone for 5 mins = police)? Can it detect intentions (did the pedo try to travel near that playground or did it just happen to be along a route he was taking)?
"Better" is a completely relative description. What's shit to you might be "OMFG ROXX0RZ!" to someone else. In this case, the ability to play Xbox Live Arcade games on your friggin' phone. As a side note, I'm an Android fanboy, but c'mon... you gotta admit that's an advantage over other mobile platforms for a ton of people out there.
To play the devil's advocate here, the ability to play some Xbox Arcade games is a pretty great motivator.
Xbox Arcade games are not that good. There are WAY more cool things you can do with an iphone.
I've not heard anyone rant about how great any Windows phone is ever. I sit next to a guy at work who raves about his iphone 4 until I'm sick of hearing it.
Personally I stick to a bottom of the line Nokia that actually gets 2 weeks of battery life. I want my phone for phone calls and the odd SMS and I have a laptop for everything else.
Just out of curiosity, how many Xbox Arcade games have you played? If I remember right, Portal: Still Alive was released to Xbox Arcade, which is a hugely popular game. One of my favorite games of all time is on the Arcade (Shadow Complex). There's a bunch more good ones listed here. I'm not saying everyone has to like these, but they've proven to be immensely popular, and I could see that as a driving factor. Personally for me that isn't enough, but ya gotta admit that tying these two platforms together is a pretty neat trick.
What I'm saying is what you posted isn't the original text.
Are you suggesting targeting niche markets isn't a valid business strategy?
YOUR shoe box. I have a bed made out of the stuff. Don't think that what goes for you applies to everyone, buddy.
Besides, I think everyone reading /. on any semi-regular basis already knows about the whole "capturing anti-matter" thing, so no need to repeat stuff like you're the only one who keeps up on the news.
You're assuming everyone has kept up on this news. It might be new to somebody, in which case this is incredibly helpful.
No it won't, but we'll be able to observe it from planet Earth for another 650 million years.
To play the devil's advocate here, the ability to play some Xbox Arcade games is a pretty great motivator.
Do you realize how much you pay in personal income taxes vs. corporate income taxes?