You weren't around during the 00's were you? That time when companies invested billions into their infrastructure and technology only the become irrelevant husks with stock valued at fractions of a percent of their high.
You are probably right that Facebook will be around for a while (for some definition of a while), but it's not because they're building a data center.
The difference is that one does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy to the air around them, while they do have a reasonable expectation of privacy given their bodies when wearing clothing. Walking through an x-ray machine that you consent to is different than being x-rayed unbeknownst when you can reasonably assume your clothes provide you privacy is different than having a dog sniff the air around you.
There are many places, by my personal suggestion would be Finland. Also to be considered on one's short-list in my opinion: Norway, Switzerland, Cuba, Sweden. They will differ a bit in certain aspects, but in terms of quality of life stemming from education, health care, environmental respect, and personal freedoms they're all quite good.
I'm sad to inform you that the matter of time has already passed. One could perhaps argue for innovation still, at least that's somewhat comparable. Education and personal freedom, not so much, the US is far from a world leader there.
At one does have the right to frisk everyone wishing to enter their home, should they chose and the visitor consent before being permitted entry. This, though, is more like checking out the anal cavity of the women in front of you at the check-out line, just in case she has a bomb up there, you know, just in case. Also, poisoning her while you're at it. Without her knowing.
Why do you not think Assange would have done to him what we have done to many other people already for reasons even more flimsy? We have our statesmen and women calling for his summary execution, imprisonment without due process doesn't exactly seem like much of a stretch.
I believe LWATCDR was speaking of the trial to resolve the rape charges, and not the trial to resolve whether to extradite. Just because Britain deems the charges legitimate and extradition permissible by its guidelines does not mean the rape trial is over and done with just yet.
"Public sector workers have better job security, better pay, and better benefits than private sector workers."
Could you cite a source for that please? I have always thought that an equivalent, comparable job at a private sector company paid better than one in government. I'm not talking about the "complete compensation package" that includes benefits, only gross pay. My ideas about this could be totally incorrect, they're only impressions I have formed by reading non-empirical sources. You though, purport it as a fact that my impression is wrong, so I ask you to cite a source, please.
If the paper trail existed, were you likely to get to verify it for yourself?
I personally have only gone and observed the counting process once, when I felt it was wise to make sure there were people watching. In my community, enough people observe the official count that I don't feel obligated to do it every time. I have also once verified my ballot was counted by validating against my stub's serial number.
It is a much different situation between having a paper trail that can be verified by the average citizen observing and an electronic database.
All increased turnout does is increase the accuracy of the portion of the vote one has garnered, it does not constitute a mandate. Yes, I understand that perception is not reality here.
"If there had been a lackadaisical voter turnout, he wouldn't feel bold enough to lead this outrageous assault on workers' rights."
Maybe. We don't know that. 10% of the population turning out and giving him 90% of the vote is different than 90% of the population turning out and giving him 60% of the vote.
Posting a status update is a bit different than email in that it is pull rather than push signaling. Updating your status is not much different fom spamming all your friends with information in which most of them are not interested, so long as they poll frequently enough. If they don't poll frequently enough, than email is better anyhow. If it's not important enough to spam to all your friends, than is it important enough to post?
Yes, one can make the argument that it's not spam because people selectively go and check your status. The thing is though, they don't know your status until they check it. If they don't check often, they might miss when the information is relevant, unless they go back and check your status history (not sure if Facebook offers this). Better then, to email information to those to whom it is relevant then, no?
Did you know that when one cites something, one generally specifies the source of their information? Strange but true.
Yes, I saw the page you linked above, but I had no idea if that was your citation. For one, I was not sure what "annoyed Google" meant to you and had no way to determine if that incident was the one you wished to cite or if there had been another one. In my book, if the true reasons were attempted PageRank manipulation, it would fall under a different category than "annoying", but everyone's interpretation is different. Which is why it's best to say what you mean, and not expect people to infer it.
Perhaps AC was asking for a citation indicating the removal of BMW's sites from the index because they annoyed Google? I'd be curious to see that citation. Boilerplate catch-all policy is not nearly as interesting.
Because your version of the headline, while probably more accurate, is not something we know at this time. The actual headline, while not necessarily as detailed as it could be, is factually true.
So, what you are saying is that there is always an opportunity cost. You are right, of course. However, you ignore the opportunity in raising future scientists. There is a balance to be struck, for sure. A society will want scientists working on solving problems, but also scientists teaching future scientists to replace those that phase out of research. If salaries are skewed one way or the other, the balance is not viable (of course not everyone sees money as the sole motivator, but there will be skew in the direction of the money).
That's very good advice. My point was that for groups of "known" quantities they ask for far less information than for random individuals. Not everyone falls into the "they hardly know anything about you" camp.
You've never enrolled in insurance have you? They don't ask this for employer-provided insurance, since that's a different kind of coverage (where they have models for the type of employees that employer tends to employ, etc). For those cases, they rely on the principles insurance is suppose to rely on, for individual buyers, they give you an anal probe and only enroll you if you are not likely to need their services.
This is why some places have labour laws that state a minimum notice for ending employment from either party. This notice period varies based on how long the relationship lasted, started with a week from day one to about six weeks after two years of employment. Of course, if the employer wishes to not keep you around for security reasons, they may require you not to come to work, but they must pay your paycheck for that time period. The same applies to the employee, they must give the same amount of time in notice. I'm not sure how they resolve disputes where an employee doesn't give notice or fails to show up, but I'm guessing there is a system in place, or the people there tend to be honorable enough to uphold the deal (at least marginally).
Popular is a subjective measure, to me 15% is not exactly popular. It's the best browser out there, but doesn't meet my popularity bar. If I walk into an office and 85 of my group uses Linux and 15 use OS X (those numbers are roughly accurate actually, I would not call OS X popular at my company. That's all I was saying.
While I agree we don't need a warning label, we should require disclosing data charges made by software installed on the phone that cannot be disabled. Otherwise, next month AT&T can claim that 45GB of data was background traffic I have no business knowing about, that I bought a phone that uses data, they need not tell me how much data their hidden update checker app uses, how to turn it off, or that it even exists, and that because it's a smartphone I am responsible for all charges.
Without disclosure, and with a mindset that "It is part of having a smart phone that uses data" is not sufficient for the user to make the right choice. We need regulations preciecly because otherwise AT&T has no incentive to play nice. Yes, 45GB is excessive, but I bet they can raise the traffic they bill you for based on services they need not disclose to 25% of your usage before it's noticed, and convince all other providers to do the same.
Slashdot Mirror
They all have somewhat high bars, but the question was were to go, not how to get there.
You weren't around during the 00's were you? That time when companies invested billions into their infrastructure and technology only the become irrelevant husks with stock valued at fractions of a percent of their high.
You are probably right that Facebook will be around for a while (for some definition of a while), but it's not because they're building a data center.
The difference is that one does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy to the air around them, while they do have a reasonable expectation of privacy given their bodies when wearing clothing. Walking through an x-ray machine that you consent to is different than being x-rayed unbeknownst when you can reasonably assume your clothes provide you privacy is different than having a dog sniff the air around you.
There are many places, by my personal suggestion would be Finland. Also to be considered on one's short-list in my opinion: Norway, Switzerland, Cuba, Sweden. They will differ a bit in certain aspects, but in terms of quality of life stemming from education, health care, environmental respect, and personal freedoms they're all quite good.
I'm sad to inform you that the matter of time has already passed. One could perhaps argue for innovation still, at least that's somewhat comparable. Education and personal freedom, not so much, the US is far from a world leader there.
At one does have the right to frisk everyone wishing to enter their home, should they chose and the visitor consent before being permitted entry. This, though, is more like checking out the anal cavity of the women in front of you at the check-out line, just in case she has a bomb up there, you know, just in case. Also, poisoning her while you're at it. Without her knowing.
Why do you think NetHack is so terrible?
Why do you not think Assange would have done to him what we have done to many other people already for reasons even more flimsy? We have our statesmen and women calling for his summary execution, imprisonment without due process doesn't exactly seem like much of a stretch.
I believe LWATCDR was speaking of the trial to resolve the rape charges, and not the trial to resolve whether to extradite. Just because Britain deems the charges legitimate and extradition permissible by its guidelines does not mean the rape trial is over and done with just yet.
Where did TheCarp state that he had agreed to those terms?
"Public sector workers have better job security, better pay, and better benefits than private sector workers."
Could you cite a source for that please? I have always thought that an equivalent, comparable job at a private sector company paid better than one in government. I'm not talking about the "complete compensation package" that includes benefits, only gross pay. My ideas about this could be totally incorrect, they're only impressions I have formed by reading non-empirical sources. You though, purport it as a fact that my impression is wrong, so I ask you to cite a source, please.
If the paper trail existed, were you likely to get to verify it for yourself?
I personally have only gone and observed the counting process once, when I felt it was wise to make sure there were people watching. In my community, enough people observe the official count that I don't feel obligated to do it every time. I have also once verified my ballot was counted by validating against my stub's serial number.
It is a much different situation between having a paper trail that can be verified by the average citizen observing and an electronic database.
All increased turnout does is increase the accuracy of the portion of the vote one has garnered, it does not constitute a mandate. Yes, I understand that perception is not reality here.
"If there had been a lackadaisical voter turnout, he wouldn't feel bold enough to lead this outrageous assault on workers' rights."
Maybe. We don't know that. 10% of the population turning out and giving him 90% of the vote is different than 90% of the population turning out and giving him 60% of the vote.
Posting a status update is a bit different than email in that it is pull rather than push signaling. Updating your status is not much different fom spamming all your friends with information in which most of them are not interested, so long as they poll frequently enough. If they don't poll frequently enough, than email is better anyhow. If it's not important enough to spam to all your friends, than is it important enough to post?
Yes, one can make the argument that it's not spam because people selectively go and check your status. The thing is though, they don't know your status until they check it. If they don't check often, they might miss when the information is relevant, unless they go back and check your status history (not sure if Facebook offers this). Better then, to email information to those to whom it is relevant then, no?
Did you know that when one cites something, one generally specifies the source of their information? Strange but true.
Yes, I saw the page you linked above, but I had no idea if that was your citation. For one, I was not sure what "annoyed Google" meant to you and had no way to determine if that incident was the one you wished to cite or if there had been another one. In my book, if the true reasons were attempted PageRank manipulation, it would fall under a different category than "annoying", but everyone's interpretation is different. Which is why it's best to say what you mean, and not expect people to infer it.
Wouldn't that be suicide for Bing?
Perhaps AC was asking for a citation indicating the removal of BMW's sites from the index because they annoyed Google? I'd be curious to see that citation. Boilerplate catch-all policy is not nearly as interesting.
Because your version of the headline, while probably more accurate, is not something we know at this time. The actual headline, while not necessarily as detailed as it could be, is factually true.
So, what you are saying is that there is always an opportunity cost. You are right, of course. However, you ignore the opportunity in raising future scientists. There is a balance to be struck, for sure. A society will want scientists working on solving problems, but also scientists teaching future scientists to replace those that phase out of research. If salaries are skewed one way or the other, the balance is not viable (of course not everyone sees money as the sole motivator, but there will be skew in the direction of the money).
That's very good advice. My point was that for groups of "known" quantities they ask for far less information than for random individuals. Not everyone falls into the "they hardly know anything about you" camp.
You've never enrolled in insurance have you? They don't ask this for employer-provided insurance, since that's a different kind of coverage (where they have models for the type of employees that employer tends to employ, etc). For those cases, they rely on the principles insurance is suppose to rely on, for individual buyers, they give you an anal probe and only enroll you if you are not likely to need their services.
This is why some places have labour laws that state a minimum notice for ending employment from either party. This notice period varies based on how long the relationship lasted, started with a week from day one to about six weeks after two years of employment. Of course, if the employer wishes to not keep you around for security reasons, they may require you not to come to work, but they must pay your paycheck for that time period. The same applies to the employee, they must give the same amount of time in notice. I'm not sure how they resolve disputes where an employee doesn't give notice or fails to show up, but I'm guessing there is a system in place, or the people there tend to be honorable enough to uphold the deal (at least marginally).
Popular is a subjective measure, to me 15% is not exactly popular. It's the best browser out there, but doesn't meet my popularity bar. If I walk into an office and 85 of my group uses Linux and 15 use OS X (those numbers are roughly accurate actually, I would not call OS X popular at my company. That's all I was saying.
While I agree we don't need a warning label, we should require disclosing data charges made by software installed on the phone that cannot be disabled. Otherwise, next month AT&T can claim that 45GB of data was background traffic I have no business knowing about, that I bought a phone that uses data, they need not tell me how much data their hidden update checker app uses, how to turn it off, or that it even exists, and that because it's a smartphone I am responsible for all charges.
Without disclosure, and with a mindset that "It is part of having a smart phone that uses data" is not sufficient for the user to make the right choice. We need regulations preciecly because otherwise AT&T has no incentive to play nice. Yes, 45GB is excessive, but I bet they can raise the traffic they bill you for based on services they need not disclose to 25% of your usage before it's noticed, and convince all other providers to do the same.
While I use and love Opera, I'm not deluded into thinking it's a popular browser (on the desktop).