I'm nothing resembling -ist. I simply live outside any religious belief. I could say that at the same time accept all of them and don't particularly care about any, apart from a knowledge perspective. I like knowing about them (think "20 questions") but that's it.
All non-retarded human beings come up with ideas on their own. So do most of the retarded ones. Now, most such ideas are idiotic, sure. But they're there. e.g. "Hey, let's get drunk as shit and then drive home" or "Let's have unprotected sex with random strangers".
True. Building them in the Sahara would mitigate some of these issues, however there are three major impacting factors there: erosion, sand deposits and savages.
It's okay to be an extrovert, but if you can't think alone for 15 minutes, that makes you ADHD (Or ADD)-prone. My take: the inability to just sit tight and think for 15 minutes is a result of how society and way of living are shaped nowadays. Instant gratification, stimuli overload, everything is faster than the speed of thought (literally).
People get used to that way of doing things and that way of living, and when you get them out of their perceived "natural" environment, they freak out. Quite normal, all things considering, might I say.
Maybe. The GP raises an interesting point though. Is the "address" (johndoe123@example.com) the same as its user (Mike Somehow who uses the previously mentioned e-mail address)? Real life example: I rent an apartment which was previously occupied by a foreign citizen. I receive snail mail addressed to: - The owner - Previous renter - Me - My wife - Unspecified recipient (SPAM) - Others (named people who don't live at my address).
I am legally entitled to open mail addressed to me and "unspecified recipient". Now, in case of an e-mail address, the same could apply. The actual recipient might not be the one who "lives" there, and there might be elements that specifically mention a different recipient than me. Since an e-mail is a non-physical item, I can't really "return without opening" but I could destroy it (after or instead of reading its contents).
Is this covered by the GMail EULA? I confess I've never read the whole damn thing.
...Or, otherwise called, Corporate Social Networks, are loathed by many employees because they're shoved down said employees' collective throat. It's not something attractive, but rather mandatory, and people don't like being given directions in this regard. Some CEO thinks it's a good idea or finds this as a new toy, and then he enforces its use, his directs roll the shit downhill and all of a sudden the cubicle dweller HAS to meet a weekly/monthly activity quota. It defies the very point of a social network.
Of course, there are some hilarious effects that pop out: - A VP posts some corporate bullshit and everyone under him comes in droves and "like" that post because they wanna look good and enter said VP's graces. - Similarly, some douche posts some corporate BS and then begs colleagues for "likes". - Proper collaboration tools are ditched because CSN is today's buzz and then everything happens through the social network rather than stuff be sent through the most efficient channel.
Not to mention that corporate social network software is badly designed, badly implemented, more often than not requiring a separate account to be created specifically for it, spamming inboxes with newsletters, assigned flags and daily digests, erroring out, eating drafts and posts, the UI is horrendous, the integration with other software is buggy as hell.
For example, out corporate social network has an Outlook Plugin which we were told to install. More often than not, the plugin bugs out and disables paste functionality for the entire machine. It took me hours to narrow down the culprit after finding out I can't copy/paste anything anymore. So now whenever I can't paste stuff I close and re-open my Outlook, which happens too often.
Just like Communism, it's a good idea. In theory. Only it ignores how humans work.
I am not trying to play devil's advocate, but I am going to make a simple analogy. You are blindfolded in the middle of an unknown number of people. You could send a broadcast asking them to respond with their full names... or clap their hands once. Both methods will enable you to count how many there are. One is gathering more information than strictly required, the other just enough. Of course, in the above case it could swing both ways, so there's no way to know for sure, all I'm saying is that both ways are possible.
Adults don't stop playing games. As a matter of fact, humans never stop playing games throughout their entire lives. Haven't you seen old men playing chess or backgammon? Football, soccer, even courting are all games. Even haggling is a game in a certain sense.
I am on-site, full time role. That means I am in an office and have physical colleagues around me but we support people based across the pond. The irony is that although we're 5-10 times cheaper than an US-based similar position, the management is still tightening the crew on salaries, totally unjustifiable if you ask me but hey, I'm not calling the shots so there you have it.
My expectations are based on what should be fair, and of course that contradicts reality, but that doesn't mean reality is fair. After all, this "reality" we talk about is imposed by human beings who have the power to shape it to their advantage.
Measuring count citizens passing through only needs to account for whether a signal exists and signal strength. If citizen A comes from east, exists west and comes back a second later, he will be counted again, which is correct, according to the scope of the metric. Measures are: - how many items are in an area at a given time; - how many items are in the area on average over X time period. None of which requires items to be uniquely identified.
Slashdot Mirror
Depends on country, my friend. :)
Not everybody lives where you live
I'm nothing resembling -ist. I simply live outside any religious belief. I could say that at the same time accept all of them and don't particularly care about any, apart from a knowledge perspective. I like knowing about them (think "20 questions") but that's it.
I'm relatively literate from a scientific perspective, I hate all politicians equally and I have no religious beliefs.
Where does that put me?
All non-retarded human beings come up with ideas on their own. So do most of the retarded ones.
Now, most such ideas are idiotic, sure. But they're there.
e.g. "Hey, let's get drunk as shit and then drive home" or "Let's have unprotected sex with random strangers".
True. Building them in the Sahara would mitigate some of these issues, however there are three major impacting factors there: erosion, sand deposits and savages.
Plenty of whacko experiments have been designed throughout the years. I've read about much, much worse than this.
"usually".
In all fairness, he did add some value (and then shat on it).
Haha, almost correct.
Effort noted.
Who did I actually replied to? Can you please check again? :)
Let me know when it's mass-produced.
I'm Romanian, you inconsiderate clod.
How well do you speak (or write, for that matter) my language?
Anyway, thanks for correcting me, I appreciate it. What I don't appreciate is the unnecessary smug coating you simply HAD to pour in.
It's okay to be an extrovert, but if you can't think alone for 15 minutes, that makes you ADHD (Or ADD)-prone.
My take: the inability to just sit tight and think for 15 minutes is a result of how society and way of living are shaped nowadays. Instant gratification, stimuli overload, everything is faster than the speed of thought (literally).
People get used to that way of doing things and that way of living, and when you get them out of their perceived "natural" environment, they freak out. Quite normal, all things considering, might I say.
Maybe. The GP raises an interesting point though.
Is the "address" (johndoe123@example.com) the same as its user (Mike Somehow who uses the previously mentioned e-mail address)?
Real life example: I rent an apartment which was previously occupied by a foreign citizen. I receive snail mail addressed to:
- The owner
- Previous renter
- Me
- My wife
- Unspecified recipient (SPAM)
- Others (named people who don't live at my address).
I am legally entitled to open mail addressed to me and "unspecified recipient". Now, in case of an e-mail address, the same could apply. The actual recipient might not be the one who "lives" there, and there might be elements that specifically mention a different recipient than me. Since an e-mail is a non-physical item, I can't really "return without opening" but I could destroy it (after or instead of reading its contents).
Is this covered by the GMail EULA? I confess I've never read the whole damn thing.
He's an analogy? Damn!
Is this any different from you renting the e-mailbox space on the google (or other ISP) servers?
Yes. It's called "Contractual Terms" or "EULA".
...Or, otherwise called, Corporate Social Networks, are loathed by many employees because they're shoved down said employees' collective throat.
It's not something attractive, but rather mandatory, and people don't like being given directions in this regard.
Some CEO thinks it's a good idea or finds this as a new toy, and then he enforces its use, his directs roll the shit downhill and all of a sudden the cubicle dweller HAS to meet a weekly/monthly activity quota. It defies the very point of a social network.
Of course, there are some hilarious effects that pop out:
- A VP posts some corporate bullshit and everyone under him comes in droves and "like" that post because they wanna look good and enter said VP's graces.
- Similarly, some douche posts some corporate BS and then begs colleagues for "likes".
- Proper collaboration tools are ditched because CSN is today's buzz and then everything happens through the social network rather than stuff be sent through the most efficient channel.
Not to mention that corporate social network software is badly designed, badly implemented, more often than not requiring a separate account to be created specifically for it, spamming inboxes with newsletters, assigned flags and daily digests, erroring out, eating drafts and posts, the UI is horrendous, the integration with other software is buggy as hell.
For example, out corporate social network has an Outlook Plugin which we were told to install. More often than not, the plugin bugs out and disables paste functionality for the entire machine. It took me hours to narrow down the culprit after finding out I can't copy/paste anything anymore. So now whenever I can't paste stuff I close and re-open my Outlook, which happens too often.
Just like Communism, it's a good idea. In theory. Only it ignores how humans work.
On a more optimistic note, they know what they're doing the other half of the time, so we're all good.
My head is defective. I always see "IEEE" and transform it into "Internet Explorer Enterprise Edition". Makes me cringe every time.
I've read books not much bigger than that comment, and less funny for sure.
I guess a whooosh is in order.
I am not trying to play devil's advocate, but I am going to make a simple analogy.
You are blindfolded in the middle of an unknown number of people. You could send a broadcast asking them to respond with their full names... or clap their hands once.
Both methods will enable you to count how many there are. One is gathering more information than strictly required, the other just enough.
Of course, in the above case it could swing both ways, so there's no way to know for sure, all I'm saying is that both ways are possible.
Adults don't stop playing games. As a matter of fact, humans never stop playing games throughout their entire lives. Haven't you seen old men playing chess or backgammon? Football, soccer, even courting are all games. Even haggling is a game in a certain sense.
I am on-site, full time role. That means I am in an office and have physical colleagues around me but we support people based across the pond.
The irony is that although we're 5-10 times cheaper than an US-based similar position, the management is still tightening the crew on salaries, totally unjustifiable if you ask me but hey, I'm not calling the shots so there you have it.
My expectations are based on what should be fair, and of course that contradicts reality, but that doesn't mean reality is fair. After all, this "reality" we talk about is imposed by human beings who have the power to shape it to their advantage.
Measuring count citizens passing through only needs to account for whether a signal exists and signal strength. If citizen A comes from east, exists west and comes back a second later, he will be counted again, which is correct, according to the scope of the metric.
Measures are:
- how many items are in an area at a given time;
- how many items are in the area on average over X time period.
None of which requires items to be uniquely identified.
...And that's how CToS starts.