The Internet has been twisted and subverted from being the font of information and a vastly useful tool for humanity in general, into something driven by greed and the very worst that humanity has to offer
No other reason to do that then to get past the automated filters and mess with little kids.
Yup, some people are just plain ol' tacky assholes.
What I don't get is how people think a website that literally anyone can upload a video to is a good babysitter for their kid. I mean, you wouldn't set up a playpen in the middle of Union Station and just leave little Johnny Bastard to the wolves, would you?
I never said anything about "the hood," and FYI it's pretty telling that you make the assumption that food deserts only exist in high-crime sections of large cities.
Potosi, MO isn't even close to what anyone would consider a "ghetto," but without Wal-Mart, the residents are looking at a 40+ mile drive just for daily necessities.
Sure, but this time it's Amazon doing it to Wal-Mart. All the little fish were eaten long ago. Now the big fish only have each other to feed off of.
30 years ago, Wal-Mart pushed all the small shops out of the small towns; now, Wal-Mart is pulling up roots in those same small towns, leaving the residents with no retail grocery options.
What happens to the bears (consumers) when all the fish have devoured one another, and the lake stands empty?
you would really pass up a chance to hire the next Tesla or Hawkings, because they smoke?
Tesla did not smoke. Hawkings does not smoke.
It is telling that you used non-smokers as examples of really smart people that smoke.
Not really. What's telling is the fact you ignore my obvious point, favoring instead to latch on to a non-sequitur due to admittedly poor decision-making when it came to choosing examples.
Guess I should have gone with Einstein and Bohrs.
This is the number of really smart smokers that I know: 0.
In fact, I can't think of a better test for dumbness.
Not where I work. We don't hire smokers. We ask about tobacco use at the very beginning of the interview process, and reject all users.
Well, that's just stupid - you would really pass up a chance to hire the next Tesla or Hawkings, because they smoke? I bet your competition loves such counterproductive thinking.
This is perfectly legal. Smokers have no rights.
Not true - smokers have the exact same civil liberties as non-smokers. The key term here is "private company."
since there are few smokers in California, and they tend to not be super bright.
I cannot disagree that Californians do not seem to be all that bright.
This one is the big fail for me; until I can use my whole body as a controller, and move freely about the virtual space as I do reality, the technology will be a base novelty.
That said, Arizona Sunshine is a pretty fun game, forced teleportation aside.
Slashdot Mirror
Then the lower-cost solution is obviously to fix the roads first...
If the solution was that easy, the state wouldn't constantly be asking for more money to fix the roads.
The Internet has been twisted and subverted from being the font of information and a vastly useful tool for humanity in general, into something driven by greed and the very worst that humanity has to offer
So... I take it you were never on Usenet?
I think the idea is that old people deserve the babysitting, since they've already spent a lifetime contributing to society.
Now get off my lawn :D
No other reason to do that then to get past the automated filters and mess with little kids.
Yup, some people are just plain ol' tacky assholes.
What I don't get is how people think a website that literally anyone can upload a video to is a good babysitter for their kid. I mean, you wouldn't set up a playpen in the middle of Union Station and just leave little Johnny Bastard to the wolves, would you?
Is it so bloody hard to hire 500 people whose job it is to watch the videos and determine whether they are suitable for kids?
Well, I mean, the government only lets them import so main H-1B workers every year...
Obviously you've never listened to Justin Beiber.
What "pretty high bar" are you referring to?
The one you just mentioned about actually vetting content, and not allowing anything obscene, maybe?
It sure seems to me that Amazon does more to regulate content (intelligently, anyway) than YouTube.
Oh gawd, I forgot about dead baby jokes...
Q: What's the difference between a truckload of dead babies and a truckload of bowling balls?
A: you can't unload bowling balls with a pitchfork.
I never said anything about "the hood," and FYI it's pretty telling that you make the assumption that food deserts only exist in high-crime sections of large cities.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/w...
Potosi, MO isn't even close to what anyone would consider a "ghetto," but without Wal-Mart, the residents are looking at a 40+ mile drive just for daily necessities.
Opening a grocery store requires a good amount of existing start-up capital.
If it was that easy, there wouldn't be such a thing as a food desert, and they wouldn't be becoming more prevalent every month.
This is my concern:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/w...
... assuming mom and pop can get a business loan, which, considering how prevalent food deserts are in modern America, seems like a total crapshoot.
Sure, but this time it's Amazon doing it to Wal-Mart. All the little fish were eaten long ago. Now the big fish only have each other to feed off of.
30 years ago, Wal-Mart pushed all the small shops out of the small towns; now, Wal-Mart is pulling up roots in those same small towns, leaving the residents with no retail grocery options.
What happens to the bears (consumers) when all the fish have devoured one another, and the lake stands empty?
you would really pass up a chance to hire the next Tesla or Hawkings, because they smoke?
Tesla did not smoke. Hawkings does not smoke.
It is telling that you used non-smokers as examples of really smart people that smoke.
Not really. What's telling is the fact you ignore my obvious point, favoring instead to latch on to a non-sequitur due to admittedly poor decision-making when it came to choosing examples.
Guess I should have gone with Einstein and Bohrs.
This is the number of really smart smokers that I know: 0.
In fact, I can't think of a better test for dumbness.
Anecdote != evidence, you know. It's kind of funny that you think that, considering that research has indicated the possibility that smoking actually increases mental activity.
Why? Nothing prevents them from taking a 15 minute break to do something other than smoke.
Me too.
Of course, anywhere I've worked that let smokers take a break, also lets non-smokers.
The fact that many non-smokers choose to not take breaks should have no bearing on the people who do.
Not where I work. We don't hire smokers. We ask about tobacco use at the very beginning of the interview process, and reject all users.
Well, that's just stupid - you would really pass up a chance to hire the next Tesla or Hawkings, because they smoke? I bet your competition loves such counterproductive thinking.
This is perfectly legal. Smokers have no rights.
Not true - smokers have the exact same civil liberties as non-smokers. The key term here is "private company."
since there are few smokers in California, and they tend to not be super bright.
I cannot disagree that Californians do not seem to be all that bright.
... and the day you have more money, er, I mean, "free speech" than Verizon, I am absolutely certain they will listen to you.
Yea, if they'd have stuck "For The Patriotic Children" to the end, it would be a grand slam.
Roomspace requirements.
This one is the big fail for me; until I can use my whole body as a controller, and move freely about the virtual space as I do reality, the technology will be a base novelty.
That said, Arizona Sunshine is a pretty fun game, forced teleportation aside.
So... masochism, then.
Right? Something something 'basic income,' something something 'Star Trek.'
At least that's what I keep hearing from lazy, skill-less morons.
... [small business] represents the bulk of the economy.
This is technically true per government classification.
FWIW, Goldman Sachs, the wealthiest investment bank on the planet, is classified as a "small business" by the US government.
So, technically true, yet misleading. One might even start to believe it's intentionally so.
Get that? "Flight risk". So now we talk about workers in the same terms that we talk about fugitives or escaped slaves.
Whaddayamean, "now?"
As far as I can recall as an employee, especially in big corporations, we've always been talked about like chattel.
The decision to highlight one article over another is subjective.
Even if an algorithm is making the decision.