It's not as easy as that - the rules for submitting resumes are usually made by the HR department, and whether these guys are smart or flexible has only a minor impact on your job. There are some great departments in lousy companies, and vice versa. Besides there are very few jobs out there in companies that don't suck. Realistically you need to find one which sucks not quite so bad.
Except, oh yeah, the acceptable usage policies of the Alaskan government forbid the use of government computers for personal and campaign uses...
Slightly off-topic, but don't you guys think that the amount of restrictions placed on politicians are a bit over the top? I mean obviously government officials need to obey the law, no arguing with that. And if I understand correctly, in this case she's not actually denying that she's been sidestepping the law?
So just looking at the hypothetical case that she'd been using government email for private use. Let's say she writes to her husband - who might also be her aide, and it's about a political topic. Towards the end she asks him something about her kids - and then she's broken the law? Seems a bit absurd - what's the cost to the state there, less than a 100th of a cent? I recall that during Gore's candidacy, he was attacked once because he'd used a campaign-funded phone card, for a campaign-oriented call, but with a government-owned phone. Again, seems absurdly petty to even discuss something like that.
I think there is a danger of giving politicians so little leeway, that no reasonable person can act politically without breaking the law. This just gets everybody used to the idea that it's unavoidable to do so.
Because of the role these features have played historically. Nobody has tried to enslave people based on the amount of hair they do or do not grow. (There are no major religions around which think being bald is an affront to god's will either.) If there'd been something like that in US history, then talking about "healing it" would also be a touchy issue. If we had a generally relaxed attitude to skin colour - the way we do about hair colour - then someone bleaching their skin would seem as uninteresting as them bleaching their hair and using blue contacts.
If, at some point, we'd had a Congress that actually wanted to stop him much of the wrong that's been done by Bush in the last seven years could have been prevented.
It could have been prevented by the voting population of the US, too. It's a lot easier to pretend it had nothing to do with your choices, of course.
This election is about two candidates that are basically the same.
If you want change or some form of improvement of our system, vote for a third party.
That's the very last thing you should do. If you want to get a third party in, then you need to build it from the ground up: campaign in local elections firsts, then state elections, the house, the senate. Only once you have a few senators should you consider nominating a candidate for the presidency. There is no way you'll get someone elected for president if you can't even win a seat in the senate. Long before you run your own candidate you can wield political influence by endorsing candidates of other parties. There is no shortcut here, and if you aren't able to deal with the reality of that, then none will take your party seriously.
Your responsibility in this election is to chose the better of two candidates. It's about an immensely powerful position - it's about a life and death for many people, it's about war, about economic wellbeing, about issues concerning the whole planet. You have some power in electing a president - your decision contributes to something affecting many millions of lives. That's your responsibility - live up to it.
it is locked to a single service provider but the average user really REALLY doesn't care.
I think that's overstating it a bit. Yes consumers are not all tech-savy, but lots of consumers take an interest in their money. And being locked into on provider has a consequence there.
It's not that the mutants survive, it's that everyone survives, so there's no basis for any one mutant having a better chance of survival.
That's a problem, however there is a factor which should not be neglected: more and more birth defects can be detected before birth. Scanning for these defects has become almost standard for women who become pregnant later in life. In the future it will probably be possible to do even more pre-natal testing, with less risk for the pregnancy. In all likelyhood this will lead to fewer babies born with severe disabilities or other birth defects, as those pregnancies are terminated. That's a strong selective effect which would contribute to evolution.
Discrimination against disabled people is a problem with captchas anyway. If you are blind and using a HTML->Braille browser, then captchas lock you out.
Just use sneakemail for an easier way to implement the approach the GP suggests: http://sneakemail.com/
Yeah you are right, it isn't convenient in all cases, but it works brilliantly on websites which require you to provide an address, and for people who are... not so computer savy...
Also works great for banks, paypal etc - the emails I get from them need to use the address I gave them - that's a nice way to quickly identify most phishing attempts.
This won't work, the law ordinarily already prevents trademarks for words like "winter" or numbers like "2010". The problem is that a law was passed granting trademark rights specifically to the IOC, on words and phrases which would not normally qualify. They could do the very same thing if you'd filed a trademark previously for "winter" - you'd still not be able to use it commercially in connection with the olympic games.
This commercial aspect is the next thing to keep in mind: trademark law does not prevent you from talking about the olympic games, it just restricts what you can do commercially. So if you write: the corrupt IOC want's to trademark "winter" and "with glowing hearts" you can do that - there is fuck all they can do about it. Now if you have a company that sells "winter tea" (and have done that for decades) - then you could well be in trouble, because they could exploit that law to extract money from you.
I really don't see why a commercial organization like the IOC which exists primarily in order to profit their members should get special status.
That's not exactly what boycotting means. You are merely changing your individual spending habits - a boycott is an organized action trying to hurt a specific target. It doesn't have to last long and it doesn't have to involve all your purchasing decisions. For a successful example check the Brent Spar boycott http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brent_spar#The_.22battle.22_of_Brent_Spar . Fingerpointing is irrelevant in a case like that - they'd be forced to act just as Shell was, who even had to conclude "Shell's position as a major European enterprise has become untenable".
I think the third choice should be phrased as "accept what the people picking option 1 or 2 decide". That doesn't mean a third party can't make it, just that it's not as easy as putting up a third party candidate. Instead you need to build an infrastructure for your party, gain membership, run in local elections, then in state elections, win some seats in the house and the senate, then win elections for governor, then run for president. Takes a lot of time and a lot of dedication. There is no shortcut though - if you haven't build a base to win a seat in the senate, you are not going to run successfully for president, just not going to happen.
The algorithm counts usage of first person nouns - "I" tends to indicate less spin than "we", for example. It also searches out phrases that offer qualifications or clarifications of more general statements, since speeches that contain few such amendments tend to be high on spin. Finally, increased rates of action verbs such as "go" and "going", and negatively charged words, such as "hate" and "enemy", also indicate greater levels of spin. Skillicorn had his software tackle a database of 150 speeches from politicians involved in the 2008 US election race (see diagram).
Anyone here who believes that there is more to spin than using certain words? I understand that analyzing semantics is more difficult than just using "cut", "grep" and "wc" on a candidates speech text, but that's just pathetic. Seems a typical case of measuring something that's easy to measure, than claiming that was what you were looking for from the start.
Car manufacturers regularly license patents from each other. The patent on the double-clutch design shouldn't be a problem. Also VW is developing hybrid technology: http://blog.wired.com/cars/2008/03/revealed-volksw.html
Well, I'm only guessing, but it doesn't strike me as likely that Google would want to pull out of the agreement, currently. If their browser were to fail gaining market share, and they'd manage to kill Firefox too - then they'd have handed the browser market to MS on a silver platter. I don't think they would want to take that risk.
If you think there are no bureaucratic hurdles in a totalitarian regime plagued by corruption, then you've swallowed too much Chinese propaganda. As regarding civil rights: if there is an earthquake somewhere in the US, and it turns out that most of the collapsed buildings were schools - shoddily built by friends of corrupt politicians - would the press keep quiet about it?
How would you implement this? Self-control by a media which decides what's good for you to know, or government censhorship which bans information about major events, because you can't handle the truth anyway? Of course for this to work you'd also need strict control of the internet, so that people can't look at foreign media either - print publications from other countries would have to go to the censorship office before being made accessable to US citizens, etc.
I know it's very comfortable to blame the "sensational press" for terrorism, but the result of your proposal is that you lose freedom of the press. After that you won't even notice the other rights you are going to lose. Democracy is not a bed of roses - among many other things it asks from citizens that they are able to handle the free flow of information and opinion. Yes, that enables terrorist to make their acts known to all citizens who are able to access that free flow, but it's also the backbone of a free society. Giving up on freedom of the press means essentially to surrender - lets not do that.
But will it become an important player on the desktop?
Sure it will. It's doing great in the netbook area, and Asus has shown with the EeePC that you can ship a Linux-based system that's easy to use, stable and complete. Acer, MSI, HP and a few others are also shipping Linux netbooks now.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not as easy as that - the rules for submitting resumes are usually made by the HR department, and whether these guys are smart or flexible has only a minor impact on your job. There are some great departments in lousy companies, and vice versa. Besides there are very few jobs out there in companies that don't suck. Realistically you need to find one which sucks not quite so bad.
Slightly off-topic, but don't you guys think that the amount of restrictions placed on politicians are a bit over the top? I mean obviously government officials need to obey the law, no arguing with that. And if I understand correctly, in this case she's not actually denying that she's been sidestepping the law?
So just looking at the hypothetical case that she'd been using government email for private use. Let's say she writes to her husband - who might also be her aide, and it's about a political topic. Towards the end she asks him something about her kids - and then she's broken the law? Seems a bit absurd - what's the cost to the state there, less than a 100th of a cent? I recall that during Gore's candidacy, he was attacked once because he'd used a campaign-funded phone card, for a campaign-oriented call, but with a government-owned phone. Again, seems absurdly petty to even discuss something like that.
I think there is a danger of giving politicians so little leeway, that no reasonable person can act politically without breaking the law. This just gets everybody used to the idea that it's unavoidable to do so.
Because of the role these features have played historically. Nobody has tried to enslave people based on the amount of hair they do or do not grow. (There are no major religions around which think being bald is an affront to god's will either.) If there'd been something like that in US history, then talking about "healing it" would also be a touchy issue. If we had a generally relaxed attitude to skin colour - the way we do about hair colour - then someone bleaching their skin would seem as uninteresting as them bleaching their hair and using blue contacts.
It could have been prevented by the voting population of the US, too. It's a lot easier to pretend it had nothing to do with your choices, of course.
This election is about two candidates that are basically the same.
Do you even believe this excuse yourself?
That's the very last thing you should do. If you want to get a third party in, then you need to build it from the ground up: campaign in local elections firsts, then state elections, the house, the senate. Only once you have a few senators should you consider nominating a candidate for the presidency. There is no way you'll get someone elected for president if you can't even win a seat in the senate. Long before you run your own candidate you can wield political influence by endorsing candidates of other parties. There is no shortcut here, and if you aren't able to deal with the reality of that, then none will take your party seriously.
Your responsibility in this election is to chose the better of two candidates. It's about an immensely powerful position - it's about a life and death for many people, it's about war, about economic wellbeing, about issues concerning the whole planet. You have some power in electing a president - your decision contributes to something affecting many millions of lives. That's your responsibility - live up to it.
So? Nothing stops you from buying a replacement battery from Apple.
I think that's overstating it a bit. Yes consumers are not all tech-savy, but lots of consumers take an interest in their money. And being locked into on provider has a consequence there.
Well, I'm an older guy - this article says I should mate with younger women. Do I need to spell it out for you?
That's a problem, however there is a factor which should not be neglected: more and more birth defects can be detected before birth. Scanning for these defects has become almost standard for women who become pregnant later in life. In the future it will probably be possible to do even more pre-natal testing, with less risk for the pregnancy. In all likelyhood this will lead to fewer babies born with severe disabilities or other birth defects, as those pregnancies are terminated. That's a strong selective effect which would contribute to evolution.
Discrimination against disabled people is a problem with captchas anyway. If you are blind and using a HTML->Braille browser, then captchas lock you out.
The problem with the auto-baning for gmail/yahoo etc is that it becomes really easy to lock the email account of someone you don't like.
Yeah you are right, it isn't convenient in all cases, but it works brilliantly on websites which require you to provide an address, and for people who are ... not so computer savy...
Also works great for banks, paypal etc - the emails I get from them need to use the address I gave them - that's a nice way to quickly identify most phishing attempts.
Bear in mind though, that this is what Larry Ellison, founder of Oracle said...
This commercial aspect is the next thing to keep in mind: trademark law does not prevent you from talking about the olympic games, it just restricts what you can do commercially. So if you write: the corrupt IOC want's to trademark "winter" and "with glowing hearts" you can do that - there is fuck all they can do about it. Now if you have a company that sells "winter tea" (and have done that for decades) - then you could well be in trouble, because they could exploit that law to extract money from you.
I really don't see why a commercial organization like the IOC which exists primarily in order to profit their members should get special status.
Nazi Germany had a Christian majority. Apart from that I agree: you don't need to have a religious population in order to have the death penalty.
That's not exactly what boycotting means. You are merely changing your individual spending habits - a boycott is an organized action trying to hurt a specific target. It doesn't have to last long and it doesn't have to involve all your purchasing decisions. For a successful example check the Brent Spar boycott http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brent_spar#The_.22battle.22_of_Brent_Spar . Fingerpointing is irrelevant in a case like that - they'd be forced to act just as Shell was, who even had to conclude "Shell's position as a major European enterprise has become untenable".
The mythical man month? You can't solve every problem by adding more people to the project.
I think the third choice should be phrased as "accept what the people picking option 1 or 2 decide". That doesn't mean a third party can't make it, just that it's not as easy as putting up a third party candidate. Instead you need to build an infrastructure for your party, gain membership, run in local elections, then in state elections, win some seats in the house and the senate, then win elections for governor, then run for president. Takes a lot of time and a lot of dedication. There is no shortcut though - if you haven't build a base to win a seat in the senate, you are not going to run successfully for president, just not going to happen.
According to their methodology "we're feeling sorry" would be spin, whereas "I personally solved all hurricane problems" wouldn't be.
The algorithm counts usage of first person nouns - "I" tends to indicate less spin than "we", for example. It also searches out phrases that offer qualifications or clarifications of more general statements, since speeches that contain few such amendments tend to be high on spin. Finally, increased rates of action verbs such as "go" and "going", and negatively charged words, such as "hate" and "enemy", also indicate greater levels of spin. Skillicorn had his software tackle a database of 150 speeches from politicians involved in the 2008 US election race (see diagram).
Anyone here who believes that there is more to spin than using certain words? I understand that analyzing semantics is more difficult than just using "cut", "grep" and "wc" on a candidates speech text, but that's just pathetic. Seems a typical case of measuring something that's easy to measure, than claiming that was what you were looking for from the start.
Car manufacturers regularly license patents from each other. The patent on the double-clutch design shouldn't be a problem. Also VW is developing hybrid technology: http://blog.wired.com/cars/2008/03/revealed-volksw.html
Well, I'm only guessing, but it doesn't strike me as likely that Google would want to pull out of the agreement, currently. If their browser were to fail gaining market share, and they'd manage to kill Firefox too - then they'd have handed the browser market to MS on a silver platter. I don't think they would want to take that risk.
If you think there are no bureaucratic hurdles in a totalitarian regime plagued by corruption, then you've swallowed too much Chinese propaganda. As regarding civil rights: if there is an earthquake somewhere in the US, and it turns out that most of the collapsed buildings were schools - shoddily built by friends of corrupt politicians - would the press keep quiet about it?
I know it's very comfortable to blame the "sensational press" for terrorism, but the result of your proposal is that you lose freedom of the press. After that you won't even notice the other rights you are going to lose. Democracy is not a bed of roses - among many other things it asks from citizens that they are able to handle the free flow of information and opinion. Yes, that enables terrorist to make their acts known to all citizens who are able to access that free flow, but it's also the backbone of a free society. Giving up on freedom of the press means essentially to surrender - lets not do that.
Sure it will. It's doing great in the netbook area, and Asus has shown with the EeePC that you can ship a Linux-based system that's easy to use, stable and complete. Acer, MSI, HP and a few others are also shipping Linux netbooks now.