Well, of course; I'll parse any statement through a motivation filter before I decide on whether or not I take it at face value or not. A perfect stranger telling me the road is out 3 miles ahead has no discernible reason to lie to me at all, unless he just feels like being a jerk-off (an extremely remote possibility). When it comes to something like a resume, however, there is a shit load of motivation to try and pad that as much as possible and come as close as possible to the point of incredulity without going over.
Honestly, the way I look at it, the harder someone is trying to sell me on something, be it an idea, a product, whatever, the more I distrust what they're telling me and more likely I am to discount it until I can independently verify their claims. I admit, it's led to arguments in my personal life (especially as regards political ideology, which is all but impossible to discuss without one person trying to "sell" the idea to the other) but at the same time, the fact that I don't take much at face value has garnered respect from my peers as well. The difficulty lies in the implications of my distrust...all too often, people look at it as a negative reflection on them as a person, but I don't necessarily see it that way. I don't doubt that they may believe whatever it is they're telling me, but beliefs != facts. The problem is making someone understand that just because I may not totally believe what they're telling me, I don't think they're a lying asshole. All too often, people equate one with the other, and that's not true at all in my estimation of a person. I mean, if that was enough to immediately write someone off, I wouldn't associate with any religious people whatsoever.
Of course, there's the argument that in order to "keep the peace", we should all just smile and nod and accept the white lies and exaggerations of others so that we can safely tell our own white lies and exaggerations, but I've never subscribed to that idea, either, because honestly, I think we have enough Emperor's New Clothes bullshit going on in the world today that a little extra scrutiny at the expense of harmony would go a long way towards keeping the most egregious purveyors of this nonsense honest (or deservedly ostracized).
Boy, how awesome would society be if we limited scientific research to what was deemed "useful"?
As we're projected to top 9 billion people by 2050, I think finding new places to live and new sources of resources is incredibly useful, especially now, before the mass starvation and death. Perhaps you think it would be best to wait until after the fact? Or do you just not give a shit because you'll probably be dead by then?
Tardigrades are able to survive in extreme environments that would kill almost any other animal. Some can survive temperatures of close to absolute zero (273 C (459 F)), temperatures as high as 151 C (304 F), 1,000 times more radiation than other animals, and almost a decade without water. Since 2007, tardigrades have also returned alive from studies in which they have been exposed to the vacuum of outer space for a few days in low earth orbit.
It seems to me that organisms like this would be able to survive on Mars, even in it's current conditions, so it seems to me that we're going to discover some form of elementary life on Mars eventually, it's just a matter of time (and looking in the right places, which could be miles below the surface for all we know).
Still, as a layperson that reads stuff like this as a hobby, I think we'd discover life on Europa first...if we ever manage to figure out a way to get a probe under the ice (and of course keep it completely sterile, which given the hardiness of those water bears would seem to be damn hard to do beyond any shred of doubt for an earth-originating probe).
Do you really want to live in a society where the rule is you cannot trust the veracity of specific statements made by people?
Conversely, how naive do you have to be to automatically take people at their word these days?
As Dr. House says, everybody lies. Go read your average resume and there is so much bullshit being shoved into every nook and cranny you ought to be wearing hip-waders as you go through it. That's what happens when the economy gets shitty and a single opening results in hundreds of resumes...people start doing all sorts of mental gymnastics to make even their 6 months as a cashier at McDonald's while they were in school sound like some grandiose career. "Cashier, you say? Oh no, I was a 'Computer Cash Register Specialist'." Janitor? Try 'Certified Custodial Technician'."
Aren't people supposed to provide a copy of their degrees when they get a job in USA?
Of course, but the diligence on the part of the employer varies greatly, obviously. I've worked in entry-level brain dead retail jobs that required a drug screen, background check, and credit check first, whereas many of the degree'd positions around here barely do a background check at all. It's funny, but it seems that many places are more worried that the teenager may steal $20 out of their till, or if the minimum wage person they have answering phones smokes a joint from time to time, then they are about the people that actually have access to real sums of money or access to systems that they could really fuck up.
I always make it a point to check with my references after I get an offer someplace just to see what types of questions they were asked, and 90% of the time, they've never even been called. Next time I apply for a job I'm not too concerned about getting, I think I'm going to try and bury some easter eggs in my resume; like a certificate in underwater basket-weaving or 'bitchin' cup of coffee' certification, just to see if they even catch it.
If people were just more careful with their data, and didn't use web browsers or other network software that allowed the execution of arbitrary code (Javascript, for example: 90% of the websites out there that use it could be redesigned to work without it) would find their risk of a virus or malware infection to be slightly above nothing.
I have no problem with Javascript being implemented if I can block it with NoScript or one of it's analogues.
I've long been of the opinion that NoScript like functionality should be built into the browsers themselves, not a blanket "JS On/Off" setting, but a true user-defined whitelist that blacklists everything by default until the end user enables it. The problem, of course, is that many users out there think it's too much of an inconvenience to be allowing scripts every time they visit a specific page. Believe me, I've long been a NoScript (ScriptNo on Chrome) cheerleader and most think it's just too much of a pain in the ass to deal with, even after a simple demonstration and the promise that after a few days at most the majority of their regular websites will be on the whitelist and thus work no different than they do without.
If taking someone to a particularly bad page and literally showing them the 30 different active scripts trying to be run on that page (of which 28 have absolutely nothing to do with the site itself or that particular content) isn't enough to convince someone that it is in their best interests to deal with the inconvenience, I doubt the ethereal threat of a virus or malware ever will.
But I'd file a police report (bearing in mind that it is criminal to file a false one), and be cooperating with the police to whatever extent they requested to discover who it was, if it was possible.
I'm betting most people aren't even aware they've got someone leeching on their wifi until they get a notice like this in the first place, and even if they were, how do you prove they knew?
While my mother was in town for Christmas last year, I drove her around to photograph the Christmas lights around one of the nicer neighborhoods here in town, and out of curiosity I turned on the wifi scanner on my phone... at least 20% of the wireless networks I was able to pick up were wide open. These were high-6, low 7-figure homes...
It's ridiculous how often you find unsecured networks in this day and age.
Using that logic, all ISPs would be responsible for the actions of their users.
If they didn't have billions of dollars and in-house legal teams at their disposal, I have no doubt that they would be...
The MAFIAA argued that Limewire owed them more money than the GDP of every country in the world combined. There is no doubt in my mind that they would sue every manufacturer of consumer level networking equipment and even the makers of basic ethernet cables for "facilitating piracy" if they thought they could get away with it and come out even one dollar ahead for their troubles. They shake down grandmothers for fuck's sake, even after death.
It's cute the way you just assumed the thing was turned on/plugged in in the first place. From what friends in tech support have told me, that's hardly a given.
You can have a device broadcasting IP information all day long and a sworn statement that your property has been stolen, and it is at that location, and the police will act like the laziest most disinterested bastards on the fucking planet.
YMMV, of course. I doubt the police in a city like Chicago or Milwaukee could give less of a fuck about a stolen phone or other device, what with all the murders and shit to deal with, and I'm okay with that. In the grand scheme of things, my laptop/phone isn't that important. File report, file insurance claim, get on with life...
My music collection alone is in the 100's of GBs. It's not at all inconceivable to need this much storage if you're trying to digitize your physical media collection. I'd probably need 20+ TB's to rip everything I own on CD/DVD/BD, I'm just waiting until you can get a good brand for about $20/TB or so.
Personal computer? What kind of socialist nonsense is that?! You should ditch the computer and just get a tablet! Sure, you can't upgrade it at all and you'll end up with 4 of them rotting in a drawer just like your old cell phones currently do, but consumerism is good for America! Buy buy buy!!
Your PC has a wide variety of uses and applications, but tablets have touch screens! Ooooooh, touch screens......aaaarrrrggghhhhhhh/homer
So desktop users will be sorta pushed to the sidelines, and then we're all supposed to live on our phones or something.
Well, makes sense, doesn't it? On the hardware end everything is being pushed towards non-upgradeable, throwaway devices like cellphones and tablets, designed for the dump. I've been using and reusing the same ATX computer case on my desktop PC for the last decade at least but in the same number of years I've accrued five cell phones, four of which are currently rotting in a drawer because I don't know what the hell else to do with them. Sell them on eBay for $3? Not worth my time...
Indeed. That's why it's time to declare internet service a utility once and for all, and regulate the fuck out of these industries, just as we do with those providing our power.
When my local electricity provider wants to raise rates, they need to go to our public utilities board and get the rate increase approved, and they need to do so in public hearings where the people can (and do, our last rate increase hearing made the local news when a few people went all Tea Party on them) comment. Arbitrary bullshit like the ISPs pull, especially as regards shoving bandwidth caps down our throats and daring us to do something about it, would simply not be as easy to pull off if the public and the media were aware of it before it happened, especially not when they'd be forced to face those people openly in a public forum.
If they want to keep their local monopolies, they need to be regulated, just as our power, water/sewage, roads, and local telephone service are. If they refuse to be regulated, then they need to have their local monopolies taken away and the market truly needs to be opened up for competitors once and for all. As with the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which opened up the lines and forced the owners to allow competitors to use their lines in exchange for a reasonable licensing fee, the same needs to be done for our network infrastructure. Once we've got Time Warner, Comcast, Charter Communications, Cox, and every other ISP in the nation competing across the entire nation for customers, the price per mb is going to plummet and the bullshit artificial scarcity model they love so much will completely collapse.
That will be great for consumers, which is why it will never happen, not in this ridiculous pro-business, anti-consumer climate here in the states.
They should seriously bring Plinkett in as a consultant if they ever do anything with the Star Wars franchise again. His reviews were about 100 times more entertaining than the prequel trilogy and extremely insightful to boot.
His reviews of the TNG-cast Star Trek films were pretty good as well, but the Episode 1 review remains the best review of a film I've ever seen.
Wifi fucking blows ass for anything that isn't basic web browsing. If I can hard-line, I will hard-line.
Wifi is adequate for the average home that usually has one or two computers, a game console, and maybe a couple phones, but when you're paying for top-tier bandwidth plans from your ISP and have a ton of connected devices it's retarded to piss half of the capability away because you couldn't be arsed to run a fucking cable and get the whole nut at all times. If your electronics aren't moving anywhere regularly, why the fuck would you not just hard-line? The cost of the cable is trivial and installation is a joke.
That's my point, employers depend on their employees to generate profits for them just as much as employees depend on their employers for their employment. It's not all one-sided, even though many people these days think it is.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, of course; I'll parse any statement through a motivation filter before I decide on whether or not I take it at face value or not. A perfect stranger telling me the road is out 3 miles ahead has no discernible reason to lie to me at all, unless he just feels like being a jerk-off (an extremely remote possibility). When it comes to something like a resume, however, there is a shit load of motivation to try and pad that as much as possible and come as close as possible to the point of incredulity without going over.
Honestly, the way I look at it, the harder someone is trying to sell me on something, be it an idea, a product, whatever, the more I distrust what they're telling me and more likely I am to discount it until I can independently verify their claims. I admit, it's led to arguments in my personal life (especially as regards political ideology, which is all but impossible to discuss without one person trying to "sell" the idea to the other) but at the same time, the fact that I don't take much at face value has garnered respect from my peers as well. The difficulty lies in the implications of my distrust...all too often, people look at it as a negative reflection on them as a person, but I don't necessarily see it that way. I don't doubt that they may believe whatever it is they're telling me, but beliefs != facts. The problem is making someone understand that just because I may not totally believe what they're telling me, I don't think they're a lying asshole. All too often, people equate one with the other, and that's not true at all in my estimation of a person. I mean, if that was enough to immediately write someone off, I wouldn't associate with any religious people whatsoever.
Of course, there's the argument that in order to "keep the peace", we should all just smile and nod and accept the white lies and exaggerations of others so that we can safely tell our own white lies and exaggerations, but I've never subscribed to that idea, either, because honestly, I think we have enough Emperor's New Clothes bullshit going on in the world today that a little extra scrutiny at the expense of harmony would go a long way towards keeping the most egregious purveyors of this nonsense honest (or deservedly ostracized).
Boy, how awesome would society be if we limited scientific research to what was deemed "useful"?
As we're projected to top 9 billion people by 2050, I think finding new places to live and new sources of resources is incredibly useful, especially now, before the mass starvation and death. Perhaps you think it would be best to wait until after the fact? Or do you just not give a shit because you'll probably be dead by then?
Such as the Tardigrade ("Water Bear")...
Tardigrades are able to survive in extreme environments that would kill almost any other animal. Some can survive temperatures of close to absolute zero (273 C (459 F)), temperatures as high as 151 C (304 F), 1,000 times more radiation than other animals, and almost a decade without water. Since 2007, tardigrades have also returned alive from studies in which they have been exposed to the vacuum of outer space for a few days in low earth orbit.
It seems to me that organisms like this would be able to survive on Mars, even in it's current conditions, so it seems to me that we're going to discover some form of elementary life on Mars eventually, it's just a matter of time (and looking in the right places, which could be miles below the surface for all we know).
Still, as a layperson that reads stuff like this as a hobby, I think we'd discover life on Europa first...if we ever manage to figure out a way to get a probe under the ice (and of course keep it completely sterile, which given the hardiness of those water bears would seem to be damn hard to do beyond any shred of doubt for an earth-originating probe).
Do you really want to live in a society where the rule is you cannot trust the veracity of specific statements made by people?
Conversely, how naive do you have to be to automatically take people at their word these days?
As Dr. House says, everybody lies. Go read your average resume and there is so much bullshit being shoved into every nook and cranny you ought to be wearing hip-waders as you go through it. That's what happens when the economy gets shitty and a single opening results in hundreds of resumes...people start doing all sorts of mental gymnastics to make even their 6 months as a cashier at McDonald's while they were in school sound like some grandiose career. "Cashier, you say? Oh no, I was a 'Computer Cash Register Specialist'." Janitor? Try 'Certified Custodial Technician'."
And as the Chief Executive Officer, what happens when he asks the programmers to execute his vision, with no idea whether it's even possible?
You could ask Steve Jobs, if he wasn't dead...
Aren't people supposed to provide a copy of their degrees when they get a job in USA?
Of course, but the diligence on the part of the employer varies greatly, obviously. I've worked in entry-level brain dead retail jobs that required a drug screen, background check, and credit check first, whereas many of the degree'd positions around here barely do a background check at all. It's funny, but it seems that many places are more worried that the teenager may steal $20 out of their till, or if the minimum wage person they have answering phones smokes a joint from time to time, then they are about the people that actually have access to real sums of money or access to systems that they could really fuck up.
I always make it a point to check with my references after I get an offer someplace just to see what types of questions they were asked, and 90% of the time, they've never even been called. Next time I apply for a job I'm not too concerned about getting, I think I'm going to try and bury some easter eggs in my resume; like a certificate in underwater basket-weaving or 'bitchin' cup of coffee' certification, just to see if they even catch it.
If people were just more careful with their data, and didn't use web browsers or other network software that allowed the execution of arbitrary code (Javascript, for example: 90% of the websites out there that use it could be redesigned to work without it) would find their risk of a virus or malware infection to be slightly above nothing.
I have no problem with Javascript being implemented if I can block it with NoScript or one of it's analogues.
I've long been of the opinion that NoScript like functionality should be built into the browsers themselves, not a blanket "JS On/Off" setting, but a true user-defined whitelist that blacklists everything by default until the end user enables it. The problem, of course, is that many users out there think it's too much of an inconvenience to be allowing scripts every time they visit a specific page. Believe me, I've long been a NoScript (ScriptNo on Chrome) cheerleader and most think it's just too much of a pain in the ass to deal with, even after a simple demonstration and the promise that after a few days at most the majority of their regular websites will be on the whitelist and thus work no different than they do without.
If taking someone to a particularly bad page and literally showing them the 30 different active scripts trying to be run on that page (of which 28 have absolutely nothing to do with the site itself or that particular content) isn't enough to convince someone that it is in their best interests to deal with the inconvenience, I doubt the ethereal threat of a virus or malware ever will.
But I'd file a police report (bearing in mind that it is criminal to file a false one), and be cooperating with the police to whatever extent they requested to discover who it was, if it was possible.
I'm betting most people aren't even aware they've got someone leeching on their wifi until they get a notice like this in the first place, and even if they were, how do you prove they knew?
While my mother was in town for Christmas last year, I drove her around to photograph the Christmas lights around one of the nicer neighborhoods here in town, and out of curiosity I turned on the wifi scanner on my phone... at least 20% of the wireless networks I was able to pick up were wide open. These were high-6, low 7-figure homes...
It's ridiculous how often you find unsecured networks in this day and age.
Using that logic, all ISPs would be responsible for the actions of their users.
If they didn't have billions of dollars and in-house legal teams at their disposal, I have no doubt that they would be...
The MAFIAA argued that Limewire owed them more money than the GDP of every country in the world combined. There is no doubt in my mind that they would sue every manufacturer of consumer level networking equipment and even the makers of basic ethernet cables for "facilitating piracy" if they thought they could get away with it and come out even one dollar ahead for their troubles. They shake down grandmothers for fuck's sake, even after death.
It's cute the way you just assumed the thing was turned on/plugged in in the first place. From what friends in tech support have told me, that's hardly a given.
You can have a device broadcasting IP information all day long and a sworn statement that your property has been stolen, and it is at that location, and the police will act like the laziest most disinterested bastards on the fucking planet.
Just a couple weeks ago here in Madison, WI, a stolen iPhone resulted in multiple units across several districts tracking it down as the owner fed real-time location data to them.
YMMV, of course. I doubt the police in a city like Chicago or Milwaukee could give less of a fuck about a stolen phone or other device, what with all the murders and shit to deal with, and I'm okay with that. In the grand scheme of things, my laptop/phone isn't that important. File report, file insurance claim, get on with life...
Not only that, but we'd be pretty much outlawing boxing and MMA...
And I'm not sure I'd let my son play if I had one.
Indeed. There are better ways to participate in competitive sports without running into each other at full speed over and over head-first.
Although in all honesty any son of mine would probably have as much disdain for physical competitiveness as I do...
My music collection alone is in the 100's of GBs. It's not at all inconceivable to need this much storage if you're trying to digitize your physical media collection. I'd probably need 20+ TB's to rip everything I own on CD/DVD/BD, I'm just waiting until you can get a good brand for about $20/TB or so.
Personal computer? What kind of socialist nonsense is that?! You should ditch the computer and just get a tablet! Sure, you can't upgrade it at all and you'll end up with 4 of them rotting in a drawer just like your old cell phones currently do, but consumerism is good for America! Buy buy buy!!
Your PC has a wide variety of uses and applications, but tablets have touch screens! Ooooooh, touch screens......aaaarrrrggghhhhhhh /homer
So desktop users will be sorta pushed to the sidelines, and then we're all supposed to live on our phones or something.
Well, makes sense, doesn't it? On the hardware end everything is being pushed towards non-upgradeable, throwaway devices like cellphones and tablets, designed for the dump. I've been using and reusing the same ATX computer case on my desktop PC for the last decade at least but in the same number of years I've accrued five cell phones, four of which are currently rotting in a drawer because I don't know what the hell else to do with them. Sell them on eBay for $3? Not worth my time...
...and now we know!
I don't think that post means what you think it WOOOOOOOOOOSH...
Hell yeah! That Sorny TV I bought at the Ogdenville Outlet Mall has worked like a charm!
Indeed. That's why it's time to declare internet service a utility once and for all, and regulate the fuck out of these industries, just as we do with those providing our power.
When my local electricity provider wants to raise rates, they need to go to our public utilities board and get the rate increase approved, and they need to do so in public hearings where the people can (and do, our last rate increase hearing made the local news when a few people went all Tea Party on them) comment. Arbitrary bullshit like the ISPs pull, especially as regards shoving bandwidth caps down our throats and daring us to do something about it, would simply not be as easy to pull off if the public and the media were aware of it before it happened, especially not when they'd be forced to face those people openly in a public forum.
If they want to keep their local monopolies, they need to be regulated, just as our power, water/sewage, roads, and local telephone service are. If they refuse to be regulated, then they need to have their local monopolies taken away and the market truly needs to be opened up for competitors once and for all. As with the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which opened up the lines and forced the owners to allow competitors to use their lines in exchange for a reasonable licensing fee, the same needs to be done for our network infrastructure. Once we've got Time Warner, Comcast, Charter Communications, Cox, and every other ISP in the nation competing across the entire nation for customers, the price per mb is going to plummet and the bullshit artificial scarcity model they love so much will completely collapse.
That will be great for consumers, which is why it will never happen, not in this ridiculous pro-business, anti-consumer climate here in the states.
Or was it Eurasia? What week is this? DOUBLEPLUSUNGOOD!
[citation needed]
They should seriously bring Plinkett in as a consultant if they ever do anything with the Star Wars franchise again. His reviews were about 100 times more entertaining than the prequel trilogy and extremely insightful to boot.
His reviews of the TNG-cast Star Trek films were pretty good as well, but the Episode 1 review remains the best review of a film I've ever seen.
Wifi fucking blows ass for anything that isn't basic web browsing. If I can hard-line, I will hard-line.
Wifi is adequate for the average home that usually has one or two computers, a game console, and maybe a couple phones, but when you're paying for top-tier bandwidth plans from your ISP and have a ton of connected devices it's retarded to piss half of the capability away because you couldn't be arsed to run a fucking cable and get the whole nut at all times. If your electronics aren't moving anywhere regularly, why the fuck would you not just hard-line? The cost of the cable is trivial and installation is a joke.
PS - TROLOLOLOLO...
That's my point, employers depend on their employees to generate profits for them just as much as employees depend on their employers for their employment. It's not all one-sided, even though many people these days think it is.