I once worked for the Department of Employment Security. They sent me to two weeks of school learning the system. I worked one week before they laid me off. Of course, by then I knew all the rules for getting unemployment and managed to double my claim.
Basically the issue is this: If you quit, then the onus is upon you to prove you quit for cause. If you are fired, the onus is upon the employer to prove you were fired for cause. Within those two parameters anything can happen, and a lot depends on whether the former employer tries to fight it. Whether or not your weekly check from unemployment is enough to pay your bar bill, having gone through the process of claiming unemployment may help you with a legal paper trail that may be useful in the future. Your former employer may wind up trying to bite you, and your furure employer may have questions. The paper trail can help you prove your case.
My grandfather was a company doctor for a mining company on the western slope in Colorado (near Gunnison & Crested Butte). He mixed sugar water with food dye in the kitchen for those who insisted they were sick, but for which he could find nothing wrong. Perhaps they needed a day off. In any case, the placebos worked.
Since there are already numerous posts invoking the applicability (or not) of Moore's Law, I thought I would start over. Although Gordon Moore certainly formulated his law based on silicon (original is here: http://www.intel.com/technology/mooreslaw/.) it can be applied clear back to 1890 with the Hollerith 'computer' that tabulated the 1890 census. When you graph it out, Moore's Law applies to electro-mechanical switches, then to relays, then to vacuum tubes, then transistors themselves (like in a six transistor radio of the 50's), then on to silicon. It's still the same exponential curve, in five separate states, only the last one of which is silicon. Kurzweil discusses this in depth here: http://www.kurzweilai.net/articles/art0134.html?printable=1. People who claim Moore's Law doesn't apply because this isn't traditional silicon acreage are missing the point, which is that not only is Moore's Law more encompassing than the originally envisioned, it is not going away any time soon. The imminent death of Moore's Law, as always, has been greatly exaggerated.
That's what RAID stands for. It's a nice idea in theory, as long as the disks remain cheap, but I've never trusted them to work properly and had more than one break on me. "All you have to do is unplug the bad disk, plug in a good one in its place, and in a few minutes all will be hunky dory." Bzzt. Wrong. Thanks for playing.
Backup every day to tape, to another disk entirely on a diffrent machine, to R/W DVD, twice a day if you have to, or all of the above--anywhere else but the machine itself. RAID: the accident waiting to happen. Yeah, I'm paranoid. It comes from experience.
Excuse me for sharing, but I was responding specifically to this statement:... that larger businesses with lots of phone lines have connected via a trunk circuit to their telco (which doesn't vet the caller ID info against the numbers assigned to that customer).
Had I wanted to reply to the original statement I would have hit reply at that level.
Qwest has a system called 'Caller ID with Privacy Plus' that slows this down. A robot intercepts calls as you described them and makes the caller go though a series of steps. They have to state their name, press 1, then the robot calls your number with a special double-ring. You answer and the robot tells you the name of the caller as stated, which you can accept or reject. Yeah, it's a bit of a pain, but it stops most all automated calls from call centers in their tracks.
It also stops calls from overseas, where my daughter lives. She's resigned to going through the motions every time she calls, and 9 times out of 10 a double ring means she is calling.
It's an additional $3.00 on top of the caller id charge, which is a total rip, but I'm very happy with the results and, to me, it's worth the money. I have a second line with no caller id, and the difference is very noticeable. I don't answer the other line, which is my fax and DSL, so it's not a problem for me. Both numbers are on the Do Not Call List.
I just did a test of loading both. Firefox 3.1 took 17 seconds to load. That's from 'tap tap' until 'Done' and ready to accept input. MSIE 7 took 7 seconds to do the exact same thing. YMMV, of course, but this was into the same space on the same machine.
At least on my machine, MSIE is DEFINITELY faster to load. Also, Firefox doesn't auto-complete my URLs like MSIE does. (If there is a setting, I haven't found it.) This is very useful for how I use the web, anyway, and makes using Firefox a lot slower. It's klutzier to use.
In terms of rendering, I have to give it to Firefox--especially on a place like Slashdot. Meta-moderation, for example, won't even work--at all--using MSIE, but is a piece of cake with Firefox.
Of course, then you have Chrome. No wonder it has no market share. It's just about useless.
A tempest in a teapot is all this is. Once again the vociferous few try to out-shout the many who don't care. This is an issue for a small percentage of Mac users in the first place--those with an interest in Digi-cams and the ability to copy back and forth. Draw two circles representing owners of both and it's doubtful you would exceed single digits in percentage of overlap. If you are going to contemplate buying a new computer, you can also contemplate buying a new Digi-Cam which offers USB support along with greatly enhanced capabilities, megapixels, etc.. The planned product cycle of cameras is far shorter than your average computer, measured in months. (Examples: Nikon Coolpix models, Samsung HDTVs, etc.)
Here's a thought: If you can't handle it, don't buy it. It won't even cause a noticeable ripple in Apple's bottom line. Besides, you can build your own PC from scratch and newegg parts for far less than a Mac. Then hook it up to said Samsung HDTV: Awesome.
I maintain you haven't described the 'average user,' though I concede that is a nebulous concept at best. In any case, we do not have any evidence whatsoever that 'hundreds of thousands of users' will be both affected and 'upset.' The evidence so far, as stated in the article, is 'hundrreds of users.' If a groundswell of unhappiness from 'hundreds of thousands of users' actually transpires, I will be glad to change my statement. But so far that is simply speculation. there is no evidence for that happening. You gotta start with the evidence you have rather than make it up.
Policy be damned. How, exactly, are they going to take them back? Can you imagine an 'edict' that 'demands' a company give back an allocation they've had for 20 years and is entwined into their IT system like a tumor into a brain? Let's just say that the reaction to such a move would be met with an overwhelming response. I could see voluntarily giving back a totally empty Class C (or half a B, for that matter) if a company simply were not using it and had no realistic plans for using it in the future, but a Class C half full with numbers over the entire range? I don't think so. Prepare to go to court and spend a long time there.
It's misleading and a clear fabrication. I can understand not wanting 1.0, but why not keep the version number off altogether? After all, you don't really have a 'version' until and unless you come up with an update. I believe customers do pay attention to version numbers. Not that '6.0' guarantees anything, but it implies a product that has been around awhile, been accepted for awhile, and that the company has not turned its attention away from it and updates, probably based on customer feedback.
and you can have them when you pry them from my cold, dead fingers. I would never be able to get them today, but way back in the early nineties they just gave them away. I had ten sites and wanted to start a Frame Relay network, so 'they' gave me a Class C for every site and one to knit them together. A couple of my sites had less than a dozen computers. Of course, these days even the copy machines have an IP address, so those sites are up around two dozen or so. One of them is doubling in space, so we'll be up to fifty or so. One of our sites closed, so that freed up an entire Class C, but our largest site is pushing the limits, so we moved the empty Class C to the large site. The numbers are scattered all over the place..1 is always the router. Of course, the hubs have their own IP address. Public access stations started at.100 to be easily recognizable, but then the staff machines got up to.99 so we had to hop scotch over the public numbers and keep going with.200. The numbers are static because it's easy to track, and when we first started it seemed a reasonable path to take.
Could we do this differently. OF COURSE!! There are lots of ways to free up a ton of space. Please don't lecture me on how to do it. I know how to do it. It's just that the system is working now. The system just kinda grew on us. When we started we had no idea copy machines would have IP addresses. Even the damn VoIP phones have IP addresses! That was a big hit on our numbers. Are refrigerators next? We had no idea we'd have fifty servers instead of three or four. Life has changed and because we are realtively 'wealthy' in terns of addresses, we had the flexibility to change with it.
I look at our Class C's kinda like a fixed field database. There's a lot of air in there. It compresses really nicely if you need to, but disk space is cheap, so there's no real reason to conserve it.
The thing is, even though we have a bunch of empty addresses, our experience shows that we're going to grow into them. We've already encountered congestion a couple of places. As soon as those new fridges show up we'll need some more numbers. My guess is before too long we're going to have to do some subnetting and consolidate a couple of our small sites into one Class C to free up the other one to use in a large site. That should work fine. I don't see any problems pulling that off. Of course, if we build another big site, we'll have to think through what to do very carefully. e'll probably do the new site like y'all want us to. We may not have any choice.
But those Class C's are mine. I own them, and you can't have them back.
A sample of appx 1200 voters is enough to predict a nationwide election. It is statistically valid, assuming they did things properly, tru;y random sample, blah blah. If you want to decry the statistics go ahead, but the number 246 is not in itself a criticism. You're going to have to go deeper than that to make a valid criticism.
Going fast on the average Autobahn is a nice theory, but in practice most of them are old two-laners (two in each direction), in disrepair, and dominated by literally miles of semi-trucks in the right lane that have no problem pulling into the left lane to pass another truck doing half a klick slower than they are. Now throw in construction delays every few miles where you get to drive on the shoulder for awhile or encounter a ten mile slowdown because someone is harvesting white aspargus in a field beside the road and everyone has to slow down to look.
Sure, driving on the A4 past Frankfurt is a joy because the road is modern, wide, and multi-laned, but by far the majority of the fabled Authobahns are more like Autotopia in Disneyland. Your bad-ass BMW 700 series is stuck in traffic like every other tiny SmartCar and tacky Opel in sight.
You're exactly right. The entire premis is wrong. In ancient times the lifespan was about 28. People had to reproduce as soon as and as often as possible because infant mortality--indeed, mortality in general, was so high. As soon as a woman reached puberty, she was eligible as a bride. You can see this in the Jewish tradition of Bar and Bat Mitzvah, which takes place at age 13 (or so). This is ostensibly to become an adult for religious purposes, but the point remains. 13 is a special age because it signifies sexual maturity.
In ancient societies you were either a child or an adult, period. It is only in modern industrialized societies that the concept of adolescence has any meaning at all. It's to hold off entry of young people into the workforce and allow for further training. It's a social issue, not a physical one, and it forestalls--to a large extent--reproduction until LATER in life, not earlier as it would be in a 'normal' environment. It's an artificial extension.
As for older guys with younger women: of course. The guys with the power get the girls. They've got the resources to protect the woman and her family. The woman has the 'reproductive assets.' So men are attracted to fecund-looking women (big breasts, shapely figure, all denoting reporoductive health) and women are attracted to powerful guys. Look in any personals section: Woman: "Wanted, stable, financially secure guy" Men: "Wanted: HWP younger woman." It's the selfish gene at work and makes reproductive sense. It's the same with all primates, at the very least.
Once women reach menopause, they are used up and no longer useful to the tribe. Men, however, are still capable of reproducing for a far longer time. The fact is, in ancient times neither one lived long enough to make that an issue. They were dead before they were thirty. We now live almost three times longer, but we also live with the evolution that allowed us to survive in a harsh paleolithic tribal environment; and it's still seen in our behavior.
Some good comments on evolution here--interesting thread.
OK, the SFPL network engineers (or their contracted delegates) have bolloxed up the WiFi so that it flakes out nearly every five minutes but at least it's there to flake out. What else can one expect where all the real talent work for companies like Google and Cisco?
Aww, c'mon, guy. That hurts!:-) Public libraries had Wi-Fi way before Starbucks. I put Wi-Fi in my library and pointed the routers at the parking lots, for free of course. The older routers had to be reset constantly. I think things have improved since then. Perhaps SFPL still has old stuff, though that is unlike them. I did intentionally 'bollox' port 25, sorry, tough, getoverit. It was a year before the Director of the place even knew it was up. I kinda forgot to tell her. But she got an award for her foresight anyway. That kinda sucked, but it's okay. I'm now retired so I doncarenomore.
signed,
untalented sysadmin for a library
Re:Common problems for private pilots...
on
Fossett's Plane Found
·
· Score: 2, Informative
If the rule is the same as it was when I was flying, you can go above 10,000 feet to a maximum of 12,000 feet without oxygen for a maximum of 1/2 hour. Otherwise stay below 10,000. I was a passenger in a 172 on VFR when the pilot, an experienced Viet Nam helicopter vet with several thousand hours, went to near 12,000 to get above some clouds for a few minutes. The effect was noticeable almost immediately. We zipped back down through a hole in the clouds pretty quickly (fortunately). He mentioned that had his brother been flying (who owned the plane) "he would have gone underneath the whole way." at about 3,000 feet where the weather was crappy. Well, Yeah!! I would have, too! 3,000 feet when you can actually SEE the ground is a good thing! (Note: Viet Nam era helicopter pilots are crazy bastards. No fear.)
I lost my sense of smell entirely for a couple of years. It has since returned, though not all that strongly. You don't realize what it's like unless it happens. Yeah, I could go into a barn and not be bothered and if my dog farted I didn't care, but I couldn't smell gas (the kind they sell you to heat up the stove), or anything burning, or sweat, or gasoline fumes (suggesting accompanying odorless CO), or spoilage in food that otherwise looked okay, or mildew, or that very special burning plastic stink of a hot CPU. Use your imagination for more 'exotic' issues.
It's damn dangerous to not have your sense of smell. I also lost interest in food. I couldn't understand at first why I needed more and more garlic until S.O. complained and I realized something was wrong. It sneaks up on you (just like fat!)
A couple of years later we were driving from Spokane to Seattle, a boring 300 mile trip in I-90, and my S.O. said, "You probaby can't tell this, but..."
"A skunk!" I said.
I've never been so happy to smell a skunk in my life! So I'd be happy with a plug-in replacement.
Mod parent up. This is absolutely true. If you are getting an interview, you are past the first and biggest hurdle in getting a job. The first task of any hiring manager is to go through and, one way or another, grade the resumes into two piles: "Unqualified" and "Qualified on paper." They may automate this or not--doesn't matter. If you get an interview, there is nothing on your resume that repulses them, including your work history, which is already apparent to them before they call you in. They would not take the considerable time to call you in if they didn't think you were otherwise qualified.
So that leaves you. Coupla suggestions:
1) Go to an employment counselor or even a friend and set up a fake interview. Tape yourself. Grimace and look at the results. If you have a habit of picking your nose when you're nervous, well....you might not even know.
2) Learn more about the company then the interviewer knows. "I see this company has enjoyed a 30% growth rate over the last few years. If this keeps up you'll be the biggest company in the world in ten years. Since that can't happen, what are your plans? How will you stay focused?"
3) You've been to interviews. You know the questions. Develop some cracker jack answers. Where do you see yourself in five years? You KNOW they'll ask that. "What is your greatest weakness? strength?"
I wonder if these manufacturers arent competing with each other rather than sitting down with consumers and asking, "What would you like to see in your next cell phone?" This creeping featuritis just makes stuff more complex.
My answer would be: Exclellent reception in as many areas as possible. Put some money into this. Make the antenna better. Make it absurdly easy to use, like an old Key 1A system. Let me store my numbers easily. Make the battery life as long as possible. Make it pass the drop test.
Do I want a camera? No, I'll use my Nikon if I want to take pictures. Do I want a calendar? No. Notepad? No. MP3? No. Games? No. Internet? No. GPS? No. Email? No. Text messaging? No. Look, I had a Treo. Two, in fact. They were great. I loved them. Now I don't need it any more because I'm, like, retired from all that crap. I gave the Treo away. Now....
Slashdot Mirror
I once worked for the Department of Employment Security. They sent me to two weeks of school learning the system. I worked one week before they laid me off. Of course, by then I knew all the rules for getting unemployment and managed to double my claim.
Basically the issue is this: If you quit, then the onus is upon you to prove you quit for cause. If you are fired, the onus is upon the employer to prove you were fired for cause. Within those two parameters anything can happen, and a lot depends on whether the former employer tries to fight it. Whether or not your weekly check from unemployment is enough to pay your bar bill, having gone through the process of claiming unemployment may help you with a legal paper trail that may be useful in the future. Your former employer may wind up trying to bite you, and your furure employer may have questions. The paper trail can help you prove your case.
My grandfather was a company doctor for a mining company on the western slope in Colorado (near Gunnison & Crested Butte). He mixed sugar water with food dye in the kitchen for those who insisted they were sick, but for which he could find nothing wrong. Perhaps they needed a day off. In any case, the placebos worked.
Since there are already numerous posts invoking the applicability (or not) of Moore's Law, I thought I would start over. Although Gordon Moore certainly formulated his law based on silicon (original is here: http://www.intel.com/technology/mooreslaw/.) it can be applied clear back to 1890 with the Hollerith 'computer' that tabulated the 1890 census. When you graph it out, Moore's Law applies to electro-mechanical switches, then to relays, then to vacuum tubes, then transistors themselves (like in a six transistor radio of the 50's), then on to silicon. It's still the same exponential curve, in five separate states, only the last one of which is silicon. Kurzweil discusses this in depth here: http://www.kurzweilai.net/articles/art0134.html?printable=1. People who claim Moore's Law doesn't apply because this isn't traditional silicon acreage are missing the point, which is that not only is Moore's Law more encompassing than the originally envisioned, it is not going away any time soon. The imminent death of Moore's Law, as always, has been greatly exaggerated.
That's what RAID stands for. It's a nice idea in theory, as long as the disks remain cheap, but I've never trusted them to work properly and had more than one break on me. "All you have to do is unplug the bad disk, plug in a good one in its place, and in a few minutes all will be hunky dory." Bzzt. Wrong. Thanks for playing.
Backup every day to tape, to another disk entirely on a diffrent machine, to R/W DVD, twice a day if you have to, or all of the above--anywhere else but the machine itself. RAID: the accident waiting to happen. Yeah, I'm paranoid. It comes from experience.
Excuse me for sharing, but I was responding specifically to this statement: ... that larger businesses with lots of phone lines have connected via a trunk circuit to their telco (which doesn't vet the caller ID info against the numbers assigned to that customer).
Had I wanted to reply to the original statement I would have hit reply at that level.
Qwest has a system called 'Caller ID with Privacy Plus' that slows this down. A robot intercepts calls as you described them and makes the caller go though a series of steps. They have to state their name, press 1, then the robot calls your number with a special double-ring. You answer and the robot tells you the name of the caller as stated, which you can accept or reject. Yeah, it's a bit of a pain, but it stops most all automated calls from call centers in their tracks.
It also stops calls from overseas, where my daughter lives. She's resigned to going through the motions every time she calls, and 9 times out of 10 a double ring means she is calling.
It's an additional $3.00 on top of the caller id charge, which is a total rip, but I'm very happy with the results and, to me, it's worth the money. I have a second line with no caller id, and the difference is very noticeable. I don't answer the other line, which is my fax and DSL, so it's not a problem for me. Both numbers are on the Do Not Call List.
I just did a test of loading both. Firefox 3.1 took 17 seconds to load. That's from 'tap tap' until 'Done' and ready to accept input. MSIE 7 took 7 seconds to do the exact same thing. YMMV, of course, but this was into the same space on the same machine.
At least on my machine, MSIE is DEFINITELY faster to load. Also, Firefox doesn't auto-complete my URLs like MSIE does. (If there is a setting, I haven't found it.) This is very useful for how I use the web, anyway, and makes using Firefox a lot slower. It's klutzier to use.
In terms of rendering, I have to give it to Firefox--especially on a place like Slashdot. Meta-moderation, for example, won't even work--at all--using MSIE, but is a piece of cake with Firefox.
Of course, then you have Chrome. No wonder it has no market share. It's just about useless.
A tempest in a teapot is all this is. Once again the vociferous few try to out-shout the many who don't care. This is an issue for a small percentage of Mac users in the first place--those with an interest in Digi-cams and the ability to copy back and forth. Draw two circles representing owners of both and it's doubtful you would exceed single digits in percentage of overlap. If you are going to contemplate buying a new computer, you can also contemplate buying a new Digi-Cam which offers USB support along with greatly enhanced capabilities, megapixels, etc.. The planned product cycle of cameras is far shorter than your average computer, measured in months. (Examples: Nikon Coolpix models, Samsung HDTVs, etc.)
Here's a thought: If you can't handle it, don't buy it. It won't even cause a noticeable ripple in Apple's bottom line. Besides, you can build your own PC from scratch and newegg parts for far less than a Mac. Then hook it up to said Samsung HDTV: Awesome.
I maintain you haven't described the 'average user,' though I concede that is a nebulous concept at best. In any case, we do not have any evidence whatsoever that 'hundreds of thousands of users' will be both affected and 'upset.' The evidence so far, as stated in the article, is 'hundrreds of users.' If a groundswell of unhappiness from 'hundreds of thousands of users' actually transpires, I will be glad to change my statement. But so far that is simply speculation. there is no evidence for that happening. You gotta start with the evidence you have rather than make it up.
says the article. That's right: 'Hundreds,' not 'tens of thousands.' Get it? The average consumer doesn't give a rip.
That's 'cause every smart bomb has its own IP.
Policy be damned. How, exactly, are they going to take them back? Can you imagine an 'edict' that 'demands' a company give back an allocation they've had for 20 years and is entwined into their IT system like a tumor into a brain? Let's just say that the reaction to such a move would be met with an overwhelming response. I could see voluntarily giving back a totally empty Class C (or half a B, for that matter) if a company simply were not using it and had no realistic plans for using it in the future, but a Class C half full with numbers over the entire range? I don't think so. Prepare to go to court and spend a long time there.
It's misleading and a clear fabrication. I can understand not wanting 1.0, but why not keep the version number off altogether? After all, you don't really have a 'version' until and unless you come up with an update. I believe customers do pay attention to version numbers. Not that '6.0' guarantees anything, but it implies a product that has been around awhile, been accepted for awhile, and that the company has not turned its attention away from it and updates, probably based on customer feedback.
Bad karma from this: Class Action suit.
and you can have them when you pry them from my cold, dead fingers. I would never be able to get them today, but way back in the early nineties they just gave them away. I had ten sites and wanted to start a Frame Relay network, so 'they' gave me a Class C for every site and one to knit them together. A couple of my sites had less than a dozen computers. Of course, these days even the copy machines have an IP address, so those sites are up around two dozen or so. One of them is doubling in space, so we'll be up to fifty or so. One of our sites closed, so that freed up an entire Class C, but our largest site is pushing the limits, so we moved the empty Class C to the large site. The numbers are scattered all over the place. .1 is always the router. Of course, the hubs have their own IP address. Public access stations started at .100 to be easily recognizable, but then the staff machines got up to .99 so we had to hop scotch over the public numbers and keep going with .200. The numbers are static because it's easy to track, and when we first started it seemed a reasonable path to take.
Could we do this differently. OF COURSE!! There are lots of ways to free up a ton of space. Please don't lecture me on how to do it. I know how to do it. It's just that the system is working now. The system just kinda grew on us. When we started we had no idea copy machines would have IP addresses. Even the damn VoIP phones have IP addresses! That was a big hit on our numbers. Are refrigerators next? We had no idea we'd have fifty servers instead of three or four. Life has changed and because we are realtively 'wealthy' in terns of addresses, we had the flexibility to change with it.
I look at our Class C's kinda like a fixed field database. There's a lot of air in there. It compresses really nicely if you need to, but disk space is cheap, so there's no real reason to conserve it.
The thing is, even though we have a bunch of empty addresses, our experience shows that we're going to grow into them. We've already encountered congestion a couple of places. As soon as those new fridges show up we'll need some more numbers. My guess is before too long we're going to have to do some subnetting and consolidate a couple of our small sites into one Class C to free up the other one to use in a large site. That should work fine. I don't see any problems pulling that off. Of course, if we build another big site, we'll have to think through what to do very carefully. e'll probably do the new site like y'all want us to. We may not have any choice.
But those Class C's are mine. I own them, and you can't have them back.
A sample of appx 1200 voters is enough to predict a nationwide election. It is statistically valid, assuming they did things properly, tru;y random sample, blah blah. If you want to decry the statistics go ahead, but the number 246 is not in itself a criticism. You're going to have to go deeper than that to make a valid criticism.
Why post AC? You deserve some credit (I think. I haven't seen it before anyway.)
Going fast on the average Autobahn is a nice theory, but in practice most of them are old two-laners (two in each direction), in disrepair, and dominated by literally miles of semi-trucks in the right lane that have no problem pulling into the left lane to pass another truck doing half a klick slower than they are. Now throw in construction delays every few miles where you get to drive on the shoulder for awhile or encounter a ten mile slowdown because someone is harvesting white aspargus in a field beside the road and everyone has to slow down to look.
Sure, driving on the A4 past Frankfurt is a joy because the road is modern, wide, and multi-laned, but by far the majority of the fabled Authobahns are more like Autotopia in Disneyland. Your bad-ass BMW 700 series is stuck in traffic like every other tiny SmartCar and tacky Opel in sight.
You're exactly right. The entire premis is wrong. In ancient times the lifespan was about 28. People had to reproduce as soon as and as often as possible because infant mortality--indeed, mortality in general, was so high. As soon as a woman reached puberty, she was eligible as a bride. You can see this in the Jewish tradition of Bar and Bat Mitzvah, which takes place at age 13 (or so). This is ostensibly to become an adult for religious purposes, but the point remains. 13 is a special age because it signifies sexual maturity.
In ancient societies you were either a child or an adult, period. It is only in modern industrialized societies that the concept of adolescence has any meaning at all. It's to hold off entry of young people into the workforce and allow for further training. It's a social issue, not a physical one, and it forestalls--to a large extent--reproduction until LATER in life, not earlier as it would be in a 'normal' environment. It's an artificial extension.
As for older guys with younger women: of course. The guys with the power get the girls. They've got the resources to protect the woman and her family. The woman has the 'reproductive assets.' So men are attracted to fecund-looking women (big breasts, shapely figure, all denoting reporoductive health) and women are attracted to powerful guys. Look in any personals section: Woman: "Wanted, stable, financially secure guy" Men: "Wanted: HWP younger woman." It's the selfish gene at work and makes reproductive sense. It's the same with all primates, at the very least.
Once women reach menopause, they are used up and no longer useful to the tribe. Men, however, are still capable of reproducing for a far longer time. The fact is, in ancient times neither one lived long enough to make that an issue. They were dead before they were thirty. We now live almost three times longer, but we also live with the evolution that allowed us to survive in a harsh paleolithic tribal environment; and it's still seen in our behavior.
Some good comments on evolution here--interesting thread.
OK, the SFPL network engineers (or their contracted delegates) have bolloxed up the WiFi so that it flakes out nearly every five minutes but at least it's there to flake out. What else can one expect where all the real talent work for companies like Google and Cisco?
Aww, c'mon, guy. That hurts! :-) Public libraries had Wi-Fi way before Starbucks. I put Wi-Fi in my library and pointed the routers at the parking lots, for free of course. The older routers had to be reset constantly. I think things have improved since then. Perhaps SFPL still has old stuff, though that is unlike them. I did intentionally 'bollox' port 25, sorry, tough, getoverit. It was a year before the Director of the place even knew it was up. I kinda forgot to tell her. But she got an award for her foresight anyway. That kinda sucked, but it's okay. I'm now retired so I doncarenomore.
signed,
untalented sysadmin for a library
If the rule is the same as it was when I was flying, you can go above 10,000 feet to a maximum of 12,000 feet without oxygen for a maximum of 1/2 hour. Otherwise stay below 10,000. I was a passenger in a 172 on VFR when the pilot, an experienced Viet Nam helicopter vet with several thousand hours, went to near 12,000 to get above some clouds for a few minutes. The effect was noticeable almost immediately. We zipped back down through a hole in the clouds pretty quickly (fortunately). He mentioned that had his brother been flying (who owned the plane) "he would have gone underneath the whole way." at about 3,000 feet where the weather was crappy. Well, Yeah!! I would have, too! 3,000 feet when you can actually SEE the ground is a good thing! (Note: Viet Nam era helicopter pilots are crazy bastards. No fear.)
I lost my sense of smell entirely for a couple of years. It has since returned, though not all that strongly. You don't realize what it's like unless it happens. Yeah, I could go into a barn and not be bothered and if my dog farted I didn't care, but I couldn't smell gas (the kind they sell you to heat up the stove), or anything burning, or sweat, or gasoline fumes (suggesting accompanying odorless CO), or spoilage in food that otherwise looked okay, or mildew, or that very special burning plastic stink of a hot CPU. Use your imagination for more 'exotic' issues.
It's damn dangerous to not have your sense of smell. I also lost interest in food. I couldn't understand at first why I needed more and more garlic until S.O. complained and I realized something was wrong. It sneaks up on you (just like fat!)
A couple of years later we were driving from Spokane to Seattle, a boring 300 mile trip in I-90, and my S.O. said, "You probaby can't tell this, but..."
"A skunk!" I said.
I've never been so happy to smell a skunk in my life! So I'd be happy with a plug-in replacement.
Mod parent up. This is absolutely true. If you are getting an interview, you are past the first and biggest hurdle in getting a job. The first task of any hiring manager is to go through and, one way or another, grade the resumes into two piles: "Unqualified" and "Qualified on paper." They may automate this or not--doesn't matter. If you get an interview, there is nothing on your resume that repulses them, including your work history, which is already apparent to them before they call you in. They would not take the considerable time to call you in if they didn't think you were otherwise qualified.
So that leaves you. Coupla suggestions:
1) Go to an employment counselor or even a friend and set up a fake interview. Tape yourself. Grimace and look at the results. If you have a habit of picking your nose when you're nervous, well....you might not even know.
2) Learn more about the company then the interviewer knows. "I see this company has enjoyed a 30% growth rate over the last few years. If this keeps up you'll be the biggest company in the world in ten years. Since that can't happen, what are your plans? How will you stay focused?"
3) You've been to interviews. You know the questions. Develop some cracker jack answers. Where do you see yourself in five years? You KNOW they'll ask that. "What is your greatest weakness? strength?"
Anyway, good luck. It's tough.
These sound like normal slashdot posts to me. You can't really distinguish them from a typical thread.
I wonder if these manufacturers arent competing with each other rather than sitting down with consumers and asking, "What would you like to see in your next cell phone?" This creeping featuritis just makes stuff more complex.
My answer would be: Exclellent reception in as many areas as possible. Put some money into this. Make the antenna better. Make it absurdly easy to use, like an old Key 1A system. Let me store my numbers easily. Make the battery life as long as possible. Make it pass the drop test.
Do I want a camera? No, I'll use my Nikon if I want to take pictures. Do I want a calendar? No. Notepad? No. MP3? No. Games? No. Internet? No. GPS? No. Email? No. Text messaging? No. Look, I had a Treo. Two, in fact. They were great. I loved them. Now I don't need it any more because I'm, like, retired from all that crap. I gave the Treo away. Now....
I - just - want - a - God - damned - phone!!! OK?
Why not publish the names of these folks? If they didn't write them as anonymous cowards, publish their names like every other slashdot post.