I have no idea, what about them? I fail how to see how they're any different. However, I'm sure there are some interesting differences between different economic classes, but those cut across racial boundaries.
Yes, I was much the same (TI-99/4A here; I always envied the kids who got C=64s, the TI was kinda lame and not well-supported).
However, out of my peers in school, I was an oddball; very, very few of them had computers like me. It was like that all the way through high school. In college, lots of them got computers mainly because they had to, for doing classwork, and because the internet revolution was heating up at that time, and everyone thought you'd have to be able to use a computer to get a job of any kind very soon (and, of course, lots of the non-computer-using kids in high school didn't even go to college, since to clean toilets or work a cash register, no one cares if you know how to use Windows 3.1 or 95, so the college group was only a subset of the high school group).
I am noticing that lots of people my age now do have computers and use Facebook, but they're still not really caught up, and haven't really caught onto all the capabilities, though it's changing fast as more companies push stuff out to consumers in a form that's easy for them to use.
I think the question is, is QML interpreted or compiled? Javascript is interpreted (actually it's just-in-time compiled IIRC), but it doesn't have to be, that's only because of the way it's used. There's nothing but effort and inertia keeping you from using Javascript as a high-level application language.
If the QML is all compiled, then theoretically there may be no performance difference at all, depending on how good the compiler is.
I don't know about other carriers, but I have T-mobile, and it doesn't matter how bad cell service is inside my house, because it uses WiFi for phone calls if I'm associated to a WiFi AP.
If you have this available, you could just use your mobile phones and ditch the landline entirely.
It's mostly inertia; older people (like 30+) are set in their ways and think cable is a requirement for modern life. (I say this as someone almost 40; I don't think most of my peers are as up to newer technologies as me.)
There's nothing misogynistic about it. Obviously, you've never read Dilbert comics if you don't get the reference. It is a somewhat derogatory reference to coworkers, but not in a sexist way.
If some people can't work together without being abusive or harassing other team members, then they don't deserve to work. It's that simple. Reducing your workforce for one person IS a smart idea unless you never intend to grow larger than 5 or so people in your company. No large company would ever tolerate this kind of behavior.
So I guess according to you, if you have a successful and growing company but several of the employees are outspoken racists, you should institute a policy of never hiring black people just because of them? Let's see how that works out when you either get sued, or worse brought up on criminal charges.
Abuse absolutely CAN be eliminated by policies and enforcement in a workplace: it's simple: if someone violates the policy, they're fired. Problem solved.
It's not like prisons, because prisons don't have the option of eliminating prisoners who cause problems. This is also one reason that public schools have problems (though not as bad, they can expel students, but the offense has to be pretty severe). Companies don't have this problem; anyone who doesn't follow policies can be shown the door.
Finally, did you miss the part where harassment is illegal? That means if you do it badly enough, you don't just get fired (or your company sued), you go to prison.
So why are you trying to defend harassment anyway?
Have things changed? I interned at a military contractor (which built aircraft carriers) when I was in college; there was classified material handled there, but they have absolutely zero armed security. Of course, this was back in the 90s, when things hadn't all gone to shit like now.
Bullshit. From what I've seen of humans, they almost always either defend the bully, or look the other way. Things have to get really, really ridiculous before they stand up for the victim, and then you're talking courts, Nuremburg trials, etc.
Obviously, chimps are far more advanced than humans.
You're right, the welfare of employees should be the primary reason, but expecting people (esp. the sociopaths in management) to do the right thing just because it's right is futile.
WTF? I don't know how you have your comments filtered, but I'm seeing a very strong contingent of pro-harassment people here. There's one just two comments up from here, by "Ash-Fox". Glancing farther up, I see more pro-harassment and pro-misogyny posters: "cheekyjohnson", "lionchild", and especially "cayenne8", along with a bunch of anonymous cowards.
They may be a minority, but this is definitely not "unanimous" from where I'm sitting.
Yes, because we should just tolerate assholishness! So we also shouldn't employ black people to work in harassment centric environments, and allow a bunch of racist assholes to keep acting that way? You're pathetic.
Kissing your wife might piss off someone (though I am wondering what your wife is doing at work with you, unless you happen to work at the same place). However, I fail to see how any lawsuit over that would ever go anywhere; in fact, if some crazy woman tried a sexual harassment lawsuit and this was one of her data points, she'd just look ridiculous in front of the jury. "Sexual harassment" (or any harassment) isn't a one-time thing that some might find offensive and others not; it's a pattern of repeated behavior that can be shown to demean or harass a particular person. A quick kiss between two married people doesn't qualify for that.
Otherwise, prepare for a multi-million-dollar lawsuit that will prevail in any court system.
To be fair, this isn't exactly true. Such a lawsuit wouldn't go anywhere in Saudi Arabia, for instance, since sexual harassment is part of the culture there. Women can't walk down the street without being hissed at.
But yes, in any western country, this is mostly true.
Unfortunately, that's easier said than done in many careers. For instance, I'm a software engineer (male, but irrelevant here); if I get sick of my job, the market for software engineers is pretty good, so as long as I'm in a metro area where there's plenty of applicable jobs, it's not that big a deal to give the finger to my workplace and go someplace else. However, this lady was in the RCMP in Canada. Where else is she going to go? It's not like there's 10 competing RCMPs to go to if one is full of abusive assholes. Of course, it probably is advisable to check out a particular career before you get in too deep, to make sure it's something you'd like to do for your working life, but once you've made the investment in training and education, it's kinda hard to just quit and do something else. The alternative may be nothing better than waiting tables, and if you have a family to support (as many women do, since it's so normal these days for men to abandon their families), they really need that paycheck.
To any young women thinking about going into any careers (actually this probably applies to anyone), I advise doing a couple of internships, preferably at different places if you can, to see what the working culture is like in that industry, while you're young enough to afford that luxury. It might change your mind about wanting to make a career out of it.
You don't have to be against the idea of "nations" to believe Assange is not a traitor. To think he's a "traitor", you just have to be a stupid American who thinks US law and policy applies globally.
Or are you seriously arguing that, say, Blackwater supplying preteen boys for sexual slaves to Afghan warlords is somehow in the interest of the West at large, and anyone who exposes that scheme or complains about it is a "traitor"?
Yes, he is, and lots of Americans (most notably evangelical Christians) vocally believe this too.
As far as I can tell, all the European countries have very similar legal systems, except of course for the wacky UK with its crappy common-law system. I'm not sure how this applies since Assange of course is being extradited from the UK. Also, with the EU, there may be some laws there allowing lawyers from one nation to practice in other member nations; they have a lot of laws like this, allowing workers to freely travel between nations and work in any of them, so there might be something like that for lawyers too.
What we really need is an EU-based lawyer to comment on this.
Slashdot Mirror
I have no idea, what about them? I fail how to see how they're any different. However, I'm sure there are some interesting differences between different economic classes, but those cut across racial boundaries.
Yes, I was much the same (TI-99/4A here; I always envied the kids who got C=64s, the TI was kinda lame and not well-supported).
However, out of my peers in school, I was an oddball; very, very few of them had computers like me. It was like that all the way through high school. In college, lots of them got computers mainly because they had to, for doing classwork, and because the internet revolution was heating up at that time, and everyone thought you'd have to be able to use a computer to get a job of any kind very soon (and, of course, lots of the non-computer-using kids in high school didn't even go to college, since to clean toilets or work a cash register, no one cares if you know how to use Windows 3.1 or 95, so the college group was only a subset of the high school group).
I am noticing that lots of people my age now do have computers and use Facebook, but they're still not really caught up, and haven't really caught onto all the capabilities, though it's changing fast as more companies push stuff out to consumers in a form that's easy for them to use.
I think the question is, is QML interpreted or compiled? Javascript is interpreted (actually it's just-in-time compiled IIRC), but it doesn't have to be, that's only because of the way it's used. There's nothing but effort and inertia keeping you from using Javascript as a high-level application language.
If the QML is all compiled, then theoretically there may be no performance difference at all, depending on how good the compiler is.
I don't know about other carriers, but I have T-mobile, and it doesn't matter how bad cell service is inside my house, because it uses WiFi for phone calls if I'm associated to a WiFi AP.
If you have this available, you could just use your mobile phones and ditch the landline entirely.
It's mostly inertia; older people (like 30+) are set in their ways and think cable is a requirement for modern life. (I say this as someone almost 40; I don't think most of my peers are as up to newer technologies as me.)
There's nothing misogynistic about it. Obviously, you've never read Dilbert comics if you don't get the reference. It is a somewhat derogatory reference to coworkers, but not in a sexist way.
If some people can't work together without being abusive or harassing other team members, then they don't deserve to work. It's that simple. Reducing your workforce for one person IS a smart idea unless you never intend to grow larger than 5 or so people in your company. No large company would ever tolerate this kind of behavior.
So I guess according to you, if you have a successful and growing company but several of the employees are outspoken racists, you should institute a policy of never hiring black people just because of them? Let's see how that works out when you either get sued, or worse brought up on criminal charges.
Abuse absolutely CAN be eliminated by policies and enforcement in a workplace: it's simple: if someone violates the policy, they're fired. Problem solved.
It's not like prisons, because prisons don't have the option of eliminating prisoners who cause problems. This is also one reason that public schools have problems (though not as bad, they can expel students, but the offense has to be pretty severe). Companies don't have this problem; anyone who doesn't follow policies can be shown the door.
Finally, did you miss the part where harassment is illegal? That means if you do it badly enough, you don't just get fired (or your company sued), you go to prison.
So why are you trying to defend harassment anyway?
Sounds like Microsoft.
Have things changed? I interned at a military contractor (which built aircraft carriers) when I was in college; there was classified material handled there, but they have absolutely zero armed security. Of course, this was back in the 90s, when things hadn't all gone to shit like now.
Bullshit. From what I've seen of humans, they almost always either defend the bully, or look the other way. Things have to get really, really ridiculous before they stand up for the victim, and then you're talking courts, Nuremburg trials, etc.
Obviously, chimps are far more advanced than humans.
You're right, the welfare of employees should be the primary reason, but expecting people (esp. the sociopaths in management) to do the right thing just because it's right is futile.
Sounds like you should have gone ahead and pressed charges. Then, if you got fired, you'd have a very easy lawsuit for harassment and retaliation.
WTF? I don't know how you have your comments filtered, but I'm seeing a very strong contingent of pro-harassment people here. There's one just two comments up from here, by "Ash-Fox". Glancing farther up, I see more pro-harassment and pro-misogyny posters: "cheekyjohnson", "lionchild", and especially "cayenne8", along with a bunch of anonymous cowards.
They may be a minority, but this is definitely not "unanimous" from where I'm sitting.
Yes, because we should just tolerate assholishness! So we also shouldn't employ black people to work in harassment centric environments, and allow a bunch of racist assholes to keep acting that way? You're pathetic.
Kissing your wife might piss off someone (though I am wondering what your wife is doing at work with you, unless you happen to work at the same place). However, I fail to see how any lawsuit over that would ever go anywhere; in fact, if some crazy woman tried a sexual harassment lawsuit and this was one of her data points, she'd just look ridiculous in front of the jury. "Sexual harassment" (or any harassment) isn't a one-time thing that some might find offensive and others not; it's a pattern of repeated behavior that can be shown to demean or harass a particular person. A quick kiss between two married people doesn't qualify for that.
Otherwise, prepare for a multi-million-dollar lawsuit that will prevail in any court system.
To be fair, this isn't exactly true. Such a lawsuit wouldn't go anywhere in Saudi Arabia, for instance, since sexual harassment is part of the culture there. Women can't walk down the street without being hissed at.
But yes, in any western country, this is mostly true.
Unfortunately, that's easier said than done in many careers. For instance, I'm a software engineer (male, but irrelevant here); if I get sick of my job, the market for software engineers is pretty good, so as long as I'm in a metro area where there's plenty of applicable jobs, it's not that big a deal to give the finger to my workplace and go someplace else. However, this lady was in the RCMP in Canada. Where else is she going to go? It's not like there's 10 competing RCMPs to go to if one is full of abusive assholes. Of course, it probably is advisable to check out a particular career before you get in too deep, to make sure it's something you'd like to do for your working life, but once you've made the investment in training and education, it's kinda hard to just quit and do something else. The alternative may be nothing better than waiting tables, and if you have a family to support (as many women do, since it's so normal these days for men to abandon their families), they really need that paycheck.
To any young women thinking about going into any careers (actually this probably applies to anyone), I advise doing a couple of internships, preferably at different places if you can, to see what the working culture is like in that industry, while you're young enough to afford that luxury. It might change your mind about wanting to make a career out of it.
You don't have to be against the idea of "nations" to believe Assange is not a traitor. To think he's a "traitor", you just have to be a stupid American who thinks US law and policy applies globally.
Or are you seriously arguing that, say, Blackwater supplying preteen boys for sexual slaves to Afghan warlords is somehow in the interest of the West at large, and anyone who exposes that scheme or complains about it is a "traitor"?
Yes, he is, and lots of Americans (most notably evangelical Christians) vocally believe this too.
According to your idiotic statement, the Nazis were perfectly justified in their actions because they weren't in another country.
Sorry, but crimes against humanity (e.g. genocide) are prosecutable anywhere.
As far as I can tell, all the European countries have very similar legal systems, except of course for the wacky UK with its crappy common-law system. I'm not sure how this applies since Assange of course is being extradited from the UK. Also, with the EU, there may be some laws there allowing lawyers from one nation to practice in other member nations; they have a lot of laws like this, allowing workers to freely travel between nations and work in any of them, so there might be something like that for lawyers too.
What we really need is an EU-based lawyer to comment on this.
Yeah sure, and the guy who determined this was found to be corrupt.
You must be new here. Slashdot summaries are always misleading, and frequently outright incorrect.
to bring a bit of awareness on Garzon's story as well as the blatant corruption going on over here (Spain).
Now we just need more stories to bring awareness about the blatant corruption going on over here in the USA.