As the guy stated (and this is a fact, which has no respect for whether you feel it should be true), those traditional forms of foreign aid did in fact do exactly what he stated.
I'm sorry, do you have any references for this fact? None of the NGOs I've dealt with in the last couple of years have expressed anything of the sort. Now, that may be due to their own selfish desires to stay employed, I don't know, but I've never heard any sort of information that sees that as "well-recognized".
For the record, the Y2K bug did actually threaten critical computer systems, many of which were mainframes installed decades earlier, but those systems were fixed long before the story ever ran on the news.
Which is exactly why it was all hyped nonsense. The people who needed to do fixes already knew about them and had them underway long before the media frenzy. It was all stupid reactionary/hypersensationalist journalism intended to boost sales and get ratings. It worked.
Depending upon the configuration settings (frames per second, bit rate, I frame P frame structure etc.) it is most certainly possible to have a lower bit rate setting with better quality video than that of a higher bit rate setting. For example, if you drop the frame rate on a lower bitrate you often increase the quality of the video. So theoretically you can get easily the same quality at say 5 Mbps with a 15 fps as you can at 10 Mbps with 30 fps. I don't have specific numbers but subjectively (and empirically) it's quite possible.
There are definitely things that do make a difference here though, such as motion or high speed camera work. These types of video often suffer more noticeably than others so anyone watching sports, for example, will see the differences in quality more readily than someone watching a soap opera.
Who said it was perfect? What I read is that Ralph de la Vega is blaming the iPhone for AT&Ts shitty performance when it performs just as shittily using other smart phones and when iPhones used in other locations don't have the same issues. Nobody said the iPhone was perfect.
Funny how every one of those things you listed with the exception of the military can be done cheaper and more effectively by the private sector.
Explain that to the phone companies who want the government to pay for upgrades to the infrastructure. (Which the government already paid for once and then handed over to the phone companies to get rich.) The problem with your assertion is that, while many things can be done cheaper by the private sector, the private sector simply won't do them. The private sector will only do things if it helps their bottom line and providing for the masses simply never helps. Any notion otherwise is complete wishful thinking. (Yes I'm sure there are one or two exceptions but they aren't providing whatever-it-is to everyone.)
I also find it interesting that you chose the "low man on the totem pole" as your example employees for the services mentioned. Let's not compare salaries of "middle management" or executives. Those aren't fair comparisons right?
Every company fucks up... the FDA has a lot of room for improvement (while I agree they have room for improvement and things tend to be getting worse rather than better over the last couple decades) but do you really think the "industry" gives a shit? Ask the lady who's 4 year old died from tainted meat (from a factory that knew the food was tainted before he got sick and didn't do a recall until nearly 3 weeks after the boy died from E-Coli known to be from their meat) whether she thinks the industry would have protected her family.
When that's weighed against the less efficient (for him) but safer alternative of sticking with this current crappy job, it's really a no-brainer.
Since when is $50 per hour a crappy job? That's $104000 annually. Sure, I'm certain a fair number of slashdotters make more than that, but by far that's not the average, anywhere. The grandparent didn't say he had a crappy job, just that he was "undervalued", which I'm likely to disagree with if he's making over $100K a year. It doesn't really matter how much he was billed at, when you consider the other factors he already mentioned that go into that billing amount.
As for "slashing holes in the support network" I'm not sure where that comes from since nothing in the parent post to yours mentions anything about taking away opportunities for anyone else. What it does mention is that the factors the grandparent mentions are self-imposed and can not realistically be provided by society.
It is why I oppose the 'Legalize it, Tax it' mantra that gets spread around regarding a certain product.
Maybe it's just me but I've always considered that particular attitude to mean, tax the business behind it. You now have a legitimate source of income for the dealers that can then be taxed. You now have legitimate businesses that can pay income tax. You now have sales tax. I don't think anyone saying that really means add a vice tax to it.
I thought phone companies were required by law to provide unlock codes. Was I mistaken? I know my wife has gotten two AT&T phones unlocked over the past couple of years... maybe she just got the nice rep.
I agree, I was asking why someone would basically add "cause emotional turmoil" to a definition of an act of war and then say it's a definition of an act of terrorism. The two are very different.
ah, MREs already have a ridiculous number of calories in them. Doubling up would suffice and wouldn't really require that much extra equipment to carry...
Law enforcement already have a problem with 'roids. Even if the new drug doesn't directly affect moods, it could cause harmful or fatal overestimation of strength and ability.
Or worse harmful and fatal underestimation of strength and ability. Police already have far too many of their numbers using aggressive posturing and physical force when it isn't necessary. I'm not talking Rodney King type stuff but every day stuff that isn't overtly out of proportion to what was happening. (Yes, I know Rodney King should have just done as he was told and he was guilty.)
I suspect that this will be a "banned" drug for cops because the first time a cop is abusive while using it and kills someone, the public will go nuts over it. Then again, if all cops looked like the hulk there would probably be far less resistance-- though resistance has its place too.
The average US citizen eats more than 200 pounds of meat (beef pork and chicken) a year. We eat plenty of protein... we just don't balance it very well with other things that will help metabolize it properly. That said, our diets are most definitely weighted to sugars and fats. I just wanted to point out that we get plenty of proteins.
This is almost exactly what I said in another post a couple weeks ago. People who think they are irreplaceable are simply wrong. Yes, the company could take a hit, but there is always someone out there who can do the job, and usually someone who can do it better. We aren't the gods we seem to think...
The former bosses I use as references are ones where I left because of big company-wide layoffs, not ones where I left them in a lurch (and any time you leave on your own terms, even if you give a months' notice, they'll still perceive this as leaving them in a lurch)
This is simply not true. If you leave as you suggest, with no notice, that is leaving them in the lurch. If you give notice (I gave a month at my last job so I could train someone to replace me and finish a couple more important tasks) like a responsible adult, there is rarely any negative impact on getting references in the future.
A neutral reference means nothing when they actually talk to a real person that worked with you. A "neutral reference" comes from HR and has no bearing on whether or not someone gets hired. When people do reference checks like this, they try to speak to a supervisor or someone that would have worked with the individual. Everyone knows that HR has no bearing on anything unless the person actually worked in HR, or got fired for misconduct.
Saying no isn't really that difficult. Remember though, that doing so will pigeon hole you away from being given similar opportunities in the future. I'd recommend talking to your supervisor and someone who is currently in a position similar to what you're being offered, and discuss the duties expected. Treat it like a "mentoring" opportunity and make sure they understand that you are treating it as such. If they feel you're seeking long term career advice (whether you take the position or turn it down) they're far more likely to view the situation favorably. If you decide to turn the position down after weighing it a bit, make sure they understand you would still like to be considered for opportunities in the future should they arise.
As for being forcibly put into an effect 7 dahttp://ask.slashdot.org/story/09/12/08/1759224/Saying-No-To-Promotions-Away-From-Tech?art_pos=2#y a week work schedule, I'd say no, with or without compensation adjustment. I won't work for a company that tries to do that. If they need people to work those hours, they should hire more people. Other people have different opinions about that though. If it's a very temporary thing, I'd consider it, with a written understanding that my time would be compensated either financially or with similar time off in the future when the "on-call" requirement can be met some other way.
I kept up just fine and was responding to a specific post. Read for comprehension. Here, I'll help. From the post I replied to: I think I would classify terrorism as any premeditated act against a state that has not declared war against the actionee
From the post I replied to: I think I would classify terrorism as any premeditated act against a state that has not declared war against the actionee...
At the time of the bombing of Pearl Harbor we had not declared war on Germany or Japan.
Slashdot Mirror
As the guy stated (and this is a fact, which has no respect for whether you feel it should be true), those traditional forms of foreign aid did in fact do exactly what he stated.
I'm sorry, do you have any references for this fact? None of the NGOs I've dealt with in the last couple of years have expressed anything of the sort. Now, that may be due to their own selfish desires to stay employed, I don't know, but I've never heard any sort of information that sees that as "well-recognized".
For the record, the Y2K bug did actually threaten critical computer systems, many of which were mainframes installed decades earlier, but those systems were fixed long before the story ever ran on the news.
Which is exactly why it was all hyped nonsense. The people who needed to do fixes already knew about them and had them underway long before the media frenzy. It was all stupid reactionary/hypersensationalist journalism intended to boost sales and get ratings. It worked.
What song, exactly, requires 3 GB of data to be downloaded, as a single? Was it a video or just audio?
Theoretically, perhaps. In reality either one could look better given other factors.
You do know being a woman isn't race specific, right?
Depending upon the configuration settings (frames per second, bit rate, I frame P frame structure etc.) it is most certainly possible to have a lower bit rate setting with better quality video than that of a higher bit rate setting. For example, if you drop the frame rate on a lower bitrate you often increase the quality of the video. So theoretically you can get easily the same quality at say 5 Mbps with a 15 fps as you can at 10 Mbps with 30 fps. I don't have specific numbers but subjectively (and empirically) it's quite possible.
There are definitely things that do make a difference here though, such as motion or high speed camera work. These types of video often suffer more noticeably than others so anyone watching sports, for example, will see the differences in quality more readily than someone watching a soap opera.
Perhaps next time you should buy a phone then, not an "all in one" device that doesn't do any particular task as well as a dedicated unit would.
Who said it was perfect? What I read is that Ralph de la Vega is blaming the iPhone for AT&Ts shitty performance when it performs just as shittily using other smart phones and when iPhones used in other locations don't have the same issues. Nobody said the iPhone was perfect.
Funny how every one of those things you listed with the exception of the military can be done cheaper and more effectively by the private sector.
Explain that to the phone companies who want the government to pay for upgrades to the infrastructure. (Which the government already paid for once and then handed over to the phone companies to get rich.) The problem with your assertion is that, while many things can be done cheaper by the private sector, the private sector simply won't do them. The private sector will only do things if it helps their bottom line and providing for the masses simply never helps. Any notion otherwise is complete wishful thinking. (Yes I'm sure there are one or two exceptions but they aren't providing whatever-it-is to everyone.)
I also find it interesting that you chose the "low man on the totem pole" as your example employees for the services mentioned. Let's not compare salaries of "middle management" or executives. Those aren't fair comparisons right?
Every company fucks up... the FDA has a lot of room for improvement (while I agree they have room for improvement and things tend to be getting worse rather than better over the last couple decades) but do you really think the "industry" gives a shit? Ask the lady who's 4 year old died from tainted meat (from a factory that knew the food was tainted before he got sick and didn't do a recall until nearly 3 weeks after the boy died from E-Coli known to be from their meat) whether she thinks the industry would have protected her family.
When that's weighed against the less efficient (for him) but safer alternative of sticking with this current crappy job, it's really a no-brainer.
Since when is $50 per hour a crappy job? That's $104000 annually. Sure, I'm certain a fair number of slashdotters make more than that, but by far that's not the average, anywhere. The grandparent didn't say he had a crappy job, just that he was "undervalued", which I'm likely to disagree with if he's making over $100K a year. It doesn't really matter how much he was billed at, when you consider the other factors he already mentioned that go into that billing amount.
As for "slashing holes in the support network" I'm not sure where that comes from since nothing in the parent post to yours mentions anything about taking away opportunities for anyone else. What it does mention is that the factors the grandparent mentions are self-imposed and can not realistically be provided by society.
It is why I oppose the 'Legalize it, Tax it' mantra that gets spread around regarding a certain product.
Maybe it's just me but I've always considered that particular attitude to mean, tax the business behind it. You now have a legitimate source of income for the dealers that can then be taxed. You now have legitimate businesses that can pay income tax. You now have sales tax. I don't think anyone saying that really means add a vice tax to it.
If you were wearing neon in 1993 and watching spandex aerobics, it's no wonder you ended up on slashdot. Good grief!
I thought phone companies were required by law to provide unlock codes. Was I mistaken? I know my wife has gotten two AT&T phones unlocked over the past couple of years... maybe she just got the nice rep.
I agree, I was asking why someone would basically add "cause emotional turmoil" to a definition of an act of war and then say it's a definition of an act of terrorism. The two are very different.
Define "win". According to the US we've only ever "lost" one war... a wait, that was a "conflict" so it doesn't count.
ah, MREs already have a ridiculous number of calories in them. Doubling up would suffice and wouldn't really require that much extra equipment to carry...
Law enforcement already have a problem with 'roids. Even if the new drug doesn't directly affect moods, it could cause harmful or fatal overestimation of strength and ability.
Or worse harmful and fatal underestimation of strength and ability. Police already have far too many of their numbers using aggressive posturing and physical force when it isn't necessary. I'm not talking Rodney King type stuff but every day stuff that isn't overtly out of proportion to what was happening. (Yes, I know Rodney King should have just done as he was told and he was guilty.)
I suspect that this will be a "banned" drug for cops because the first time a cop is abusive while using it and kills someone, the public will go nuts over it. Then again, if all cops looked like the hulk there would probably be far less resistance-- though resistance has its place too.
The average US citizen eats more than 200 pounds of meat (beef pork and chicken) a year. We eat plenty of protein... we just don't balance it very well with other things that will help metabolize it properly. That said, our diets are most definitely weighted to sugars and fats. I just wanted to point out that we get plenty of proteins.
This is almost exactly what I said in another post a couple weeks ago. People who think they are irreplaceable are simply wrong. Yes, the company could take a hit, but there is always someone out there who can do the job, and usually someone who can do it better. We aren't the gods we seem to think...
The former bosses I use as references are ones where I left because of big company-wide layoffs, not ones where I left them in a lurch (and any time you leave on your own terms, even if you give a months' notice, they'll still perceive this as leaving them in a lurch)
This is simply not true. If you leave as you suggest, with no notice, that is leaving them in the lurch. If you give notice (I gave a month at my last job so I could train someone to replace me and finish a couple more important tasks) like a responsible adult, there is rarely any negative impact on getting references in the future.
A neutral reference means nothing when they actually talk to a real person that worked with you. A "neutral reference" comes from HR and has no bearing on whether or not someone gets hired. When people do reference checks like this, they try to speak to a supervisor or someone that would have worked with the individual. Everyone knows that HR has no bearing on anything unless the person actually worked in HR, or got fired for misconduct.
Saying no isn't really that difficult. Remember though, that doing so will pigeon hole you away from being given similar opportunities in the future. I'd recommend talking to your supervisor and someone who is currently in a position similar to what you're being offered, and discuss the duties expected. Treat it like a "mentoring" opportunity and make sure they understand that you are treating it as such. If they feel you're seeking long term career advice (whether you take the position or turn it down) they're far more likely to view the situation favorably. If you decide to turn the position down after weighing it a bit, make sure they understand you would still like to be considered for opportunities in the future should they arise.
As for being forcibly put into an effect 7 dahttp://ask.slashdot.org/story/09/12/08/1759224/Saying-No-To-Promotions-Away-From-Tech?art_pos=2#y a week work schedule, I'd say no, with or without compensation adjustment. I won't work for a company that tries to do that. If they need people to work those hours, they should hire more people. Other people have different opinions about that though. If it's a very temporary thing, I'd consider it, with a written understanding that my time would be compensated either financially or with similar time off in the future when the "on-call" requirement can be met some other way.
Ah, perhaps that's the problem then... I've had both confiscated, but I've heard other people haven't... maybe I just look like a terrorist.
I kept up just fine and was responding to a specific post. Read for comprehension. Here, I'll help.
From the post I replied to: I think I would classify terrorism as any premeditated act against a state that has not declared war against the actionee
From the post I replied to:
I think I would classify terrorism as any premeditated act against a state that has not declared war against the actionee...
At the time of the bombing of Pearl Harbor we had not declared war on Germany or Japan.