I'm very sorry for you and your father, but all is not lost. We are rapidly approaching the singularity, at which point death will become optional. This really bugs me because I keep losing, on average, one relative per year.
Again, absolutely agreed: if I'm already inside, I might be able to see evidence of such wrongdoing.
Of course, as the interviewer (and not the screener), I don't know and can't ask whether the person I'm interviewing is single, so it'd be difficult for me to make the decision to call the Attorney General. Now, if we only hired singles, that might be evidence but it could just be that families are reluctant to relocate.
I completely agree with you. However, from a practical standpoint (i.e., from the individual's shoes): if one is questioned about marriage in an interview and does not obtain the position, one might consider that one's answer to that question was responsible.
If one is not questioned (and if one is not even interviewed due to being weeded out by the $35 background check showing that one is married, or divorced, or black, or a Christian, or gay, or etc.), one can only speculate, and cannot form much of a case against them to redress one's greivance in court. So by making it illegal to ask the question, the legislators are making it easier for corporations to break the (or, more generously, this particular) law.
Now, I'm not saying I have evidence that they're doing this. But if you were trying to maximize shareholder value at all costs, isn't this something you would consider, if not ever put down in writing?
PS Why didn't Slashdot management update the "Allowed HTML" at the bottom? <p> is no longer allowed, or at least no longer displays properly. It should state "use <br><br> instead, or <p> to start the paragraph, and </p> to end it (like the above paragraphs).
I agree that iTunes is a new development; however, the Sony rootkit was years after iTunes was introduced. So I wouldn't say they've changed at all or learned their lessons...
Do you trust the American public to really make smart decisions?
A biological analogy might work here: do we trust our liver/blood/bone cells to make decisions about what actions the body should take?
Of course, when there's a cancer in the brain it destroys the entire body.
Re:Where is "religious fundamentalism" in US govt?
on
Back to the Bunker
·
· Score: 1
"Lack of evidence of 100%" does not equal "the evidence shows 0%."
But anyway, thank you for correcting my gross abuse of the language. I will never again abuse the language in this way, and I fully agree with you that neither your first nor your most recent "thank you" was dripping with sarcasm.
GTA: Vice City has a radio segment which has a guy yelling something about "democracy versus an elite electoral college".
Okay, I found a transcript, so here it is; it's on VCPR, Vice City Public Radio:
Callum: I'm 23, but I feel much older, and wiser. I know everything.
I've seen a lot of the world.
Alex: What does the rest of the world have to tell us about how to do
things? Build more trains? Have people elect their leader rather than
an elite electoral college? Ride a bike to work like a girl scout or a
clown with dietary concerns? No thanks, Vladimir.
Samuel L. Jackson is also the voice actor for the lead black cop ("Officer Tenpenny") in Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas.
(Even though it was Travolta's character that killed Marvin, this is deliciously on topic.;-)
Re:Where is "religious fundamentalism" in US govt?
on
Back to the Bunker
·
· Score: 1
"Put up or shut up" is a strange way of being polite.
He has also said that he is the great decider, and has hinted that he hopes to be in power when the holocaust arrives. Yes, I consider that fairly fundamental: he believes the literal word of Revelations and intends to help see it to fruition.
To find a middle ground, I will agree that he only uses religion to further his purposes. There is no evidence that he actually believes it, so you're probably correct to state that he is not a religious fundamentalist; he just plays one on TV.
Re:Where is "religious fundamentalism" in US govt?
on
Back to the Bunker
·
· Score: 1
Hang on, so you're saying you deny Bush said that God speaks through him?
That said, Andromeda Strain was an exciting movie, and I enjoyed it. I *never* thought it would be used as a scientific policy theme any more than I thought the same of "Forbidden Planet" or "War of the Worlds".
Agreed. I also never thought "Planet of the Apes" was a future documentary.
I never said that life should be fair. I said that the social contract that the producers entered into with the public, in order to "lock up content", has been violated several times in my lifetime by illegally extending copyright. You did not address this in your response.
From that social contract: "To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries." It does not specifically state that this balance should be "fair", so I apologize for my wording since it was not intended to incite.
"Angry man yells at cloud" was a newspaper headline from the Simpsons, regarding the grandfather figure; I apologize for being confusing.
I don't see food ever being cheaper/more effective to replicate than to grow, so I don't see the situation arising.
You do not see that an engineered process can be more efficient than a random process? I cannot apologize for this; I see evidence of this every day, and cannot believe that you use a computer (to post to Slashdot) and have not witnessed it yourself. You are correct in that we cannot do it today; it's at most 50 years off, and likely 5 or 10 (barring civil war). We will be able to convert sunlight and dirt into steak in minutes, without having to wait years for the cow to grow and develop (and eat literally tons of crops and produce a similar amount of excrement).
I agree with you about the political problems in Africa, and did not mean to bring that into the debate; it was simply a means of asking where you would draw the line if physical goods were as cheaply and easily copyable as digital goods, which you did not address.
Your other poster is spot on: if a large percentage of the population participates in an activity, and that activity is currently against the law but was not in times past, then it makes good sense to check our presuppositions and perhaps eliminate the law. Primarily, for efficiency's sake: it would provide more law enforcement resources to catch criminals who harm their victims physically (the raid on The Pirate Bay took 50 cops, some of whom were taken off of child molestation investigations to help with the raid; this actively removed law enforcement resources from crimes with defenseless victims in order to prosecute a company which was in full compliance with the local laws; but, like the Internet which treats censorship as damage and routes around it, The Pirate Bay has now ensured that it will never go down again).
I don't download anything I shouldn't. I live in the US, and they're cracking down on that sort of thing. It's somewhat interesting that my leisure time is basically filled with Slashdot, books, and videogames; I almost never watch TV or movies any more, and I really don't miss them.
Anyone else reading this, there are links to articles in the comments, in case you don't have Flash turned on, or you don't want to sit through a 3 minute news piece.
Interesting that the links to NY Times articles no longer work, and there's a comment relating to that as well. But the other articles are still up.
So, of course management likes married people with kids, as it's a shackle they didn't even have to pay for.
That right there is a good reason for the double standard. (It's fun thinking on both sides of the aisle.)
Also, although it's illegal to ask questions about marriage, family, race, sex, etc. during the interview, it is not illegal to do a background check on prospective employees.
A background check will answer most of those questions, so that the employer doesn't need to ask them during the interview. A smart employer will use a background check ($35) to weed out applicants prior to the interview (phone screen costs about the same, given 20 to 30 minutes of a manager's time; in-house interview costs a few thousand), and will then already have the information (not to say that those performing the interview will have it, but management will).
One of their issues is that you can't "unwatch" or "unlisten" to media you've already been exposed to. By you remembering what you've experienced, they lose recurring revenue.
There is a solution, however: free "brownies" with every movie purchase!
Slashdot Mirror
I'm very sorry for you and your father, but all is not lost. We are rapidly approaching the singularity, at which point death will become optional. This really bugs me because I keep losing, on average, one relative per year.
Again, absolutely agreed: if I'm already inside, I might be able to see evidence of such wrongdoing.
Of course, as the interviewer (and not the screener), I don't know and can't ask whether the person I'm interviewing is single, so it'd be difficult for me to make the decision to call the Attorney General. Now, if we only hired singles, that might be evidence but it could just be that families are reluctant to relocate.I completely agree with you. However, from a practical standpoint (i.e., from the individual's shoes): if one is questioned about marriage in an interview and does not obtain the position, one might consider that one's answer to that question was responsible.
If one is not questioned (and if one is not even interviewed due to being weeded out by the $35 background check showing that one is married, or divorced, or black, or a Christian, or gay, or etc.), one can only speculate, and cannot form much of a case against them to redress one's greivance in court. So by making it illegal to ask the question, the legislators are making it easier for corporations to break the (or, more generously, this particular) law.
Now, I'm not saying I have evidence that they're doing this. But if you were trying to maximize shareholder value at all costs, isn't this something you would consider, if not ever put down in writing?
PS Why didn't Slashdot management update the "Allowed HTML" at the bottom? <p> is no longer allowed, or at least no longer displays properly. It should state "use <br><br> instead, or <p> to start the paragraph, and </p> to end it (like the above paragraphs).
Music industry changed?
I agree that iTunes is a new development; however, the Sony rootkit was years after iTunes was introduced. So I wouldn't say they've changed at all or learned their lessons...
A biological analogy might work here: do we trust our liver/blood/bone cells to make decisions about what actions the body should take?
Of course, when there's a cancer in the brain it destroys the entire body.
"Lack of evidence of 100%" does not equal "the evidence shows 0%."
But anyway, thank you for correcting my gross abuse of the language. I will never again abuse the language in this way, and I fully agree with you that neither your first nor your most recent "thank you" was dripping with sarcasm.
Okay, I found a transcript, so here it is; it's on VCPR, Vice City Public Radio:
Samuel L. Jackson is also the voice actor for the lead black cop ("Officer Tenpenny") in Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas.
;-)
(Even though it was Travolta's character that killed Marvin, this is deliciously on topic.
"Put up or shut up" is a strange way of being polite.
He has also said that he is the great decider, and has hinted that he hopes to be in power when the holocaust arrives. Yes, I consider that fairly fundamental: he believes the literal word of Revelations and intends to help see it to fruition.
To find a middle ground, I will agree that he only uses religion to further his purposes. There is no evidence that he actually believes it, so you're probably correct to state that he is not a religious fundamentalist; he just plays one on TV.
Hang on, so you're saying you deny Bush said that God speaks through him?
123 Spaghetti Lane?
If you're that lazy, here's an article.
I have a feeling that IHBT though; either that or you're just not paying fucking attention. Oh well.
Agreed. I also never thought "Planet of the Apes" was a future documentary.
Newkyalur holocaust on 6-6-06 would be just so ... fitting for an end, wouldn't it? (Yes, the remake of the Omen is hyping it up.)
But, perhaps our (or their) calendars are off by a few weeks wrt BC/AD. Vacation that week has a nice ring to it.
Amusingly, it's all over the P2P networks but nobody downloads it because they can just download the DVD. ;-)
Mr. President, the correct term is "empire." 1/2 :)
From that social contract: "To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries." It does not specifically state that this balance should be "fair", so I apologize for my wording since it was not intended to incite.
"Angry man yells at cloud" was a newspaper headline from the Simpsons, regarding the grandfather figure; I apologize for being confusing.
You do not see that an engineered process can be more efficient than a random process? I cannot apologize for this; I see evidence of this every day, and cannot believe that you use a computer (to post to Slashdot) and have not witnessed it yourself. You are correct in that we cannot do it today; it's at most 50 years off, and likely 5 or 10 (barring civil war). We will be able to convert sunlight and dirt into steak in minutes, without having to wait years for the cow to grow and develop (and eat literally tons of crops and produce a similar amount of excrement).
I agree with you about the political problems in Africa, and did not mean to bring that into the debate; it was simply a means of asking where you would draw the line if physical goods were as cheaply and easily copyable as digital goods, which you did not address.
Your other poster is spot on: if a large percentage of the population participates in an activity, and that activity is currently against the law but was not in times past, then it makes good sense to check our presuppositions and perhaps eliminate the law. Primarily, for efficiency's sake: it would provide more law enforcement resources to catch criminals who harm their victims physically (the raid on The Pirate Bay took 50 cops, some of whom were taken off of child molestation investigations to help with the raid; this actively removed law enforcement resources from crimes with defenseless victims in order to prosecute a company which was in full compliance with the local laws; but, like the Internet which treats censorship as damage and routes around it, The Pirate Bay has now ensured that it will never go down again).
I don't download anything I shouldn't. I live in the US, and they're cracking down on that sort of thing. It's somewhat interesting that my leisure time is basically filled with Slashdot, books, and videogames; I almost never watch TV or movies any more, and I really don't miss them.
Anyone else reading this, there are links to articles in the comments, in case you don't have Flash turned on, or you don't want to sit through a 3 minute news piece.
Interesting that the links to NY Times articles no longer work, and there's a comment relating to that as well. But the other articles are still up.
That right there is a good reason for the double standard. (It's fun thinking on both sides of the aisle.)
Also, although it's illegal to ask questions about marriage, family, race, sex, etc. during the interview, it is not illegal to do a background check on prospective employees.
A background check will answer most of those questions, so that the employer doesn't need to ask them during the interview. A smart employer will use a background check ($35) to weed out applicants prior to the interview (phone screen costs about the same, given 20 to 30 minutes of a manager's time; in-house interview costs a few thousand), and will then already have the information (not to say that those performing the interview will have it, but management will).
I am.
Apples and oranges are both fruit. There are similarities to companies deciding to end remote working.
It's working for me; I can still drive to work.
There is a solution, however: free "brownies" with every movie purchase!
We are already. The advertising budget is factored in to the retail price of an item/service.
Very true. And with Apple pulling out of India, it seems like others are having similar thoughts.