Re:Please follow her advice.
on
Vive La Loafing!
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
In my personal experience, working harder than the slackers just means that the boss will pile even more responsibility (read: work) on your shoulders, until you're about to break.
Meanwhile, the slackers will just have to do a little more than just slack oof, just enough to get in a decent performance review.
And worse, because the corporate ladder is actually a pyramid, your chances of climbing the ladder are actually not as good as they want you to believe. The competition for the next highest level job is such that there is a good chance you won't get it.
End result: not slacking off means more stress for you. And the payoff is effectively wholly dependent on the whims of your superiors, not on your performance.
Now, if only I could set aside my personal pride and slack off, I wouldn't be so bitter...
why can't prowess in long swords be applied to short shords, if not in full then partially?
You know, I was scratching my head as I read the parent, and you rephrasing his point makes me wonder even more.
In D&D, at least in edition 3.0 and 3.5, this is exactly how weapons are portrayed. You need the basic proficiency (in simple, martial or exotic weapons) to handle the weapon. As long as you have proficiency in a weapon class, you can handle all weapons in that class equally well. Since both shortsword and longsword are martial weapons, anyone with the martial weapon proficiency gets to use them at no penalty.
In order to differentiate the weapons, there are the feats. It makes sense to invest in feats such as Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization to increase your skill in the use of your primary weapon, and as a consequence, all other weapons in the class now operate at a relative penalty, thus mirroring the real-life effect (to a degree) of being good at using one weapon means being slightly less good at using a related weapon.
So, in concluding, the D&D system already does what you and parent poster want. You may disagree with the implementation, but that's a disagreement on scale, not priniciple.
And before you start about the many warnings about its experimental nature, that is only valid if you get it from the source. The version that is currently integrated in the stable production kernel is just that: stable and production ready.
It has been ages since a French cyclist dominated the tour like the non-French cyclists have been doing for the past editions. As far as I know, the French cycling public, like their like-minded counterparts in the rest of Europe having nothing but respect for Lance Armstrong (with the exception of some nagging doubt about him being dope-free, but that goes for every cyclist in the top-10 in the Tour).
The C64 did allow you to use all 16 colours in high-res mode (320x200), but only 2 colours per 8x8 pixel area. You could switch to multi-colour mode, which would give you 4 colours per 8x8 pixel area.
With some judicious use of the colour memory (where high-res and multicolour graphics modes sourced their colour definitions), one could indeed use all 16 colours in a single graphic.
And while the C128 could theoretically do 640x400 graphics, there was no support for the graphics modes of the 80-column display chip, and the documentation was almost non-existant as well. One could hack it in machine code, but it was hell (and trust me, I've tried it, and I was quite a 6510 assembly wiz).
My, my, my. The more things change, the more they stay the same:
There's unlimited supply and there is no reason why I tell you it was all a frame they onl1y did it 'cos of fame - Who? EMI
Too many people had the suss Too many people support us An unlimited amount too many outlets in and out - Who? EMI
And sir and friends are crucified a day they wished that we had died We are an addition we are ruled by-none Never ever never
And you thought that we were faking that we were all just money making you do not believe we're for real or you would lose your cheap appeal?
Don't judge a book just by the cover Unless you cover just another And blind acceptance is a sign of stupid fools who stand in line like EMI
Unlimited edition with an unlimited supply That was fhe only reason we alt had to say goodbye
Unlimited supply EMI there is no reason why EMI I tell you if was all a frame EMI they only did it 'cos of fame EMI I do not need the pressure EMI I can't stand the useless fools EMI unlimited supply EMI Hallo EMl goodbye A & M
Hmmm. Poorly armed troops sent into the forest eh? Described by the Germans as 'Shock Troops', eh?
Would that forest by any chance be Belleau Wood?
The poorly armed description would fit, as those troops were always armed with the cast-offs of the other services (until after WWII), and they tended to compensate for that with their superior training and discipline.
If you are going to try to belittle the French, please do so without belittling the value of your very own US Marine Corps, a force that could be described as 'Shock Troops' even when they were still the red-headed stepchild of the US armed forces.
Exactly what you described happened in the 70s in Germany.
The famous writer Heinrich Böll wrote an essay that treated Ulrike Meinhof (of the Baader-Meinhof group, a particularly violent wing of the terrorist organisation Rote Armee Fraktion) as a human being instead of a murdering monster.
On this ground, his house was raided by the German police, as obviously Böll must have been a terrorist sympathiser, and he was publicly reviled in the German press.
So yes, your reasoning is very apt.
For his take on this, try reading his Die verlorene Ehre der Katharina Blum where he makes a character live through similar circumstances.
That's true on all Linux distributions, from what I can tell.
The only reason you need Ctrl-Alt-Fx to switch to a terminal from X is because the normal Alt-Fx combo is trapped by X. OTOH, Ctrl-Alt-Fx is bound to work always, so not a bad idea to just use that all the time.
Expenses? Look up the ingredients in a standard pre-prepared meal, then do the math to see what fresh ingredients would have cost you. I guarantee you will find that you come out 10 to 50% cheaper.
Washing up? I suspect you're not eating with your fingers, so you have to wash up after a pre-prepared dinner as well. Let's be charitable and say you eat the stuff from its packaging. You have now saved the time in washing up 2 plates and 3 pans (about what you need for a 2 person dinner). Trust me, that's about 1 minute of washing up and toweling off.
About the only thing I can say against buying fresh is that fresh ingredients come in bulk (e.g. a single head of lettuce will give 4-6 servings), and therefore you will generally have to buy for several days at once. That can be solved with a good freezer, but it is a chore.
I found out myself that cooking with fresh ingredients is an enormous saving. I have more money to spend even though I generally have to spend about 15 minutes on a meal, and I eat like a king.
Also, although I am not a health nut, I do find that I feel better after several days of fresh food. It appears that the methods of conservation do destroy nutrient value, to say nothing of additives.
Lastly, pre-prepared food is often salted heavily. A month of eating fresh will cure you of your salt habit, and you'll suddenly find your taste has improved, you're now able to discriminate more flavours, and whenever you do use salt you will find that in moderation it tends to strengthen other flavours, instead of obliterating them, making for a richer experience.
So do yourself a favour, try eating fresh for a month. You will not go back except occasionally.
England and Scotland are both part of the same country
I suggest you don't say that to a Scot unless your condition is perfect and you can sprint faster than Ben Johnson on a truckload of illegal supplements.
Although I understand what you mean (England and Scotland are both part of the United Kingdom) the fact that they are part of the same nation does not make them the same country, especially not in the Scots' view.
First, your first two quotes are from the Old Testament. The very first in fact from the Torah, the Jewish law. Your second quote is from a Jewish prophet. The fact that these seem to exclude other peoples is a natural extension from the (Orthodox) Jewish faith (I don't know if liberal Jews still adhere to this doctrine though).
Your second two quotes are from the book of Matthew, who is generally considered in Christian theology to be writing for a Jewish audience, hence he still is espousing the doctrine that they are the chosen people of God.
As the follow up verses to your fourth quote will show, Matthew did concede that Gentiles could join, but his remains the most exclusionist of the four Gospels.
This is just in a nutshell. If you're interested I would suggest you start reading some serious treatises on theology, and don't take the mere literal word of the Bible as truth, and especially not the word of those that profess to have the one true interpretation.
Alien life is a scientific possibility. What proof is there? We exist. We live on a planet in the universe. Hence, some others might as well.
There is a very important rule in applying the scientific method to observational evidence: you cannot extrapolate from a single data point.
I suggest you and the morons that agreed with you go back to take an elementary science course.
And for the record: I think SETI is as much junk science, maybe more, than anything the SETI supporters like to bash. Funny that hard-core alien believers don't like to apply the same standards to their reasoning as they do to others. As long as the only theoretical foundation of alien life is Drake's equation and extrapolation from a single observational fact, SETI and belief in extraterrestrial life belongs in the crank section of the library, along with a belief that the earth is flat and phlogiston theory.
Nice that you mention the EFS (Encrypted Filesystem) feature of NTFS.
Since you seem to know a lot about MS software, care to enlighten us why Microsoft decided to implement EFS with single DES as its default algorithm? EFS was introduced at a time when it was already known that single DES was extremely vulnerable to brute force attacks.
Very nice indeed of you to mention EFS. That is one of the reasons that NTFS sucks. The other features of NTFS suck in different ways, but this is a shining example of MS offering a feature that's just not worth it.
Many believe, and I'm sure you're one of them, that copyright and other intellectual "properties" are intrinsic rights of the author.
A side note: this is exactly the foundation of copyright doctrine in Europe: the droit moral (moral right) of the author.
I think it's really funny to see the entertainment cartels push for American doctrines and laws in Europe (e.g. long term copyrights, protection of access controls a la the DMCA), and then turning around and use the droit moral doctrine in the US to make their policies more palatable.
Just like the lie that the DMCA was a consequence of international treaties, while it was the entertainment cartels that lobbied for those treaties in the first place.
Yes, the cartels want their cake and want to get to eat it too. Yet when we citizens even think of doing the same, astroturfers like grandparent poster start berating us.
She's an entire 4th grader's age older than a 4th grader.../
I think you might find after a few moments' research that Andrea is a name that can be given to a boy in Italian. I don't know if it is unisex, and the article didn't mention Andrea's gender, but it does not necessarily have to be a girl.
How can I trust it when he is overlooking something so obvious as the 'Find' option in Synaptic?
I quote: it won't let you search the apt catalogues using natural language queries. For example, searching for 'word processor' returns no results; a more experienced user would know that they had to search for 'OpenOffice' or 'Abiword' to display the packages they were seeking. It would be great if Synaptic could search the package descriptions, as well as the title.
Now, in my Synaptic install (Debian unstable) I see the following: in the right top corner is a search box that does an incremental search on package name only. In the Package menu I find an option named Find (shortcut Ctrl-F, as a Windows/IE user would expect it) which allows me to search on all fields of the package. By default the search dialog that comes up searches on both package name and description.
Otherwise I would say, Synaptic rocks! It is the nicest package manager I have ever used. I still do apt-get install for individual packages, but for finding packages and just browsing the tree, I use Synaptic. The daunting aspect the reviewer notes is due to the sheer amount of packages available, some 5500 on Conectiva, and some 14000 on Debian.
Just try it. Get synaptic (and if you're on an rpmbased system, apt4rpm) and give it a whirl. You won't go back.
Developers focus on features in their software, rather than ensuring that they have a solid core.
I did a double take on reading that. Are we still talking about Open Source? Because that sounds like typical of proprietary development to me, where all focus is on marketability, and to hell with solid software.
[..] completely nonpublic disclosure of many application-specific vulnerabilities would fix these problems and filter out most actual acts of exploiting security holes.
Nice idea in theory. However, history has shown us that without the threat of full disclosure hanging over their heads, vendors will not fix vulnerabilities in time.
Also, full disclosure, while giving hackers the tools to exploit a hole, will also at the same time give sysadmins and users the information to close or work around the security vulnerability.
So while the chances of an initial exploit may rise, the 'Window of Exposure' is dramatically shrunk. Bruce Schneier has written a good essay on both the history and the theory behind Full Disclosure. Read it.
I don't know if you still get to read this, but if you use unstable in your sources, try installing apt-build.
As long as there are Debian source packages available, it will build everything from source (including dependencies) with whatever flags you like, and put the built packages in a local repository. Just add that repository to your sources.list, and you can install locally built and optimised packages of just about everything.
It is not quite up to the standards of usability of Gentoo's portage or BSD's ports system, but it works quite nicely.
Slashdot Mirror
In my personal experience, working harder than the slackers just means that the boss will pile even more responsibility (read: work) on your shoulders, until you're about to break.
Meanwhile, the slackers will just have to do a little more than just slack oof, just enough to get in a decent performance review.
And worse, because the corporate ladder is actually a pyramid, your chances of climbing the ladder are actually not as good as they want you to believe. The competition for the next highest level job is such that there is a good chance you won't get it.
End result: not slacking off means more stress for you. And the payoff is effectively wholly dependent on the whims of your superiors, not on your performance.
Now, if only I could set aside my personal pride and slack off, I wouldn't be so bitter...
MartYou know, I was scratching my head as I read the parent, and you rephrasing his point makes me wonder even more.
In D&D, at least in edition 3.0 and 3.5, this is exactly how weapons are portrayed. You need the basic proficiency (in simple, martial or exotic weapons) to handle the weapon. As long as you have proficiency in a weapon class, you can handle all weapons in that class equally well. Since both shortsword and longsword are martial weapons, anyone with the martial weapon proficiency gets to use them at no penalty.
In order to differentiate the weapons, there are the feats. It makes sense to invest in feats such as Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization to increase your skill in the use of your primary weapon, and as a consequence, all other weapons in the class now operate at a relative penalty, thus mirroring the real-life effect (to a degree) of being good at using one weapon means being slightly less good at using a related weapon.
So, in concluding, the D&D system already does what you and parent poster want. You may disagree with the implementation, but that's a disagreement on scale, not priniciple.
MartWell, since their initial release date was 'Mid-2004' it is not hard for them to not slip their deadline.
Typical for Microsoft actually, set expectations low so that the fanboys can crow about the eventual 'accomplishment'.
MartWell then, do the search and post the link, or shut the fuck up, OK?
MartNope, sorry.
Look here: a complete RBAC system with Mandatory Acces Controls.
And before you start about the many warnings about its experimental nature, that is only valid if you get it from the source. The version that is currently integrated in the stable production kernel is just that: stable and production ready.
MartNever?
Then why was he still posting after that incident?
MartCite please?
It has been ages since a French cyclist dominated the tour like the non-French cyclists have been doing for the past editions. As far as I know, the French cycling public, like their like-minded counterparts in the rest of Europe having nothing but respect for Lance Armstrong (with the exception of some nagging doubt about him being dope-free, but that goes for every cyclist in the top-10 in the Tour).
MartThe C64 did allow you to use all 16 colours in high-res mode (320x200), but only 2 colours per 8x8 pixel area. You could switch to multi-colour mode, which would give you 4 colours per 8x8 pixel area.
With some judicious use of the colour memory (where high-res and multicolour graphics modes sourced their colour definitions), one could indeed use all 16 colours in a single graphic.
And while the C128 could theoretically do 640x400 graphics, there was no support for the graphics modes of the 80-column display chip, and the documentation was almost non-existant as well. One could hack it in machine code, but it was hell (and trust me, I've tried it, and I was quite a 6510 assembly wiz).
MartMy, my, my. The more things change, the more they stay the same:
The Sex Pistols - EMI
MartHmmm. Poorly armed troops sent into the forest eh? Described by the Germans as 'Shock Troops', eh?
Would that forest by any chance be Belleau Wood?
The poorly armed description would fit, as those troops were always armed with the cast-offs of the other services (until after WWII), and they tended to compensate for that with their superior training and discipline.
If you are going to try to belittle the French, please do so without belittling the value of your very own US Marine Corps, a force that could be described as 'Shock Troops' even when they were still the red-headed stepchild of the US armed forces.
MartExactly what you described happened in the 70s in Germany.
The famous writer Heinrich Böll wrote an essay that treated Ulrike Meinhof (of the Baader-Meinhof group, a particularly violent wing of the terrorist organisation Rote Armee Fraktion) as a human being instead of a murdering monster.
On this ground, his house was raided by the German police, as obviously Böll must have been a terrorist sympathiser, and he was publicly reviled in the German press.
So yes, your reasoning is very apt.
For his take on this, try reading his Die verlorene Ehre der Katharina Blum where he makes a character live through similar circumstances.
MartThat's true on all Linux distributions, from what I can tell.
The only reason you need Ctrl-Alt-Fx to switch to a terminal from X is because the normal Alt-Fx combo is trapped by X. OTOH, Ctrl-Alt-Fx is bound to work always, so not a bad idea to just use that all the time.
MartTV dinners are a false economy.
Expenses? Look up the ingredients in a standard pre-prepared meal, then do the math to see what fresh ingredients would have cost you. I guarantee you will find that you come out 10 to 50% cheaper.
Washing up? I suspect you're not eating with your fingers, so you have to wash up after a pre-prepared dinner as well. Let's be charitable and say you eat the stuff from its packaging. You have now saved the time in washing up 2 plates and 3 pans (about what you need for a 2 person dinner). Trust me, that's about 1 minute of washing up and toweling off.
About the only thing I can say against buying fresh is that fresh ingredients come in bulk (e.g. a single head of lettuce will give 4-6 servings), and therefore you will generally have to buy for several days at once. That can be solved with a good freezer, but it is a chore.
I found out myself that cooking with fresh ingredients is an enormous saving. I have more money to spend even though I generally have to spend about 15 minutes on a meal, and I eat like a king.
Also, although I am not a health nut, I do find that I feel better after several days of fresh food. It appears that the methods of conservation do destroy nutrient value, to say nothing of additives.
Lastly, pre-prepared food is often salted heavily. A month of eating fresh will cure you of your salt habit, and you'll suddenly find your taste has improved, you're now able to discriminate more flavours, and whenever you do use salt you will find that in moderation it tends to strengthen other flavours, instead of obliterating them, making for a richer experience.
So do yourself a favour, try eating fresh for a month. You will not go back except occasionally.
MartI suggest you don't say that to a Scot unless your condition is perfect and you can sprint faster than Ben Johnson on a truckload of illegal supplements.
Although I understand what you mean (England and Scotland are both part of the United Kingdom) the fact that they are part of the same nation does not make them the same country, especially not in the Scots' view.
Mart (not a Scot, but I used to know a few)More like: "People want to be deceived, therefore they shall be deceived."
Mart (brushing of his high school Latin).You appear to be mistaken.
Here's a few thoughts:
First, your first two quotes are from the Old Testament. The very first in fact from the Torah, the Jewish law. Your second quote is from a Jewish prophet. The fact that these seem to exclude other peoples is a natural extension from the (Orthodox) Jewish faith (I don't know if liberal Jews still adhere to this doctrine though).
Your second two quotes are from the book of Matthew, who is generally considered in Christian theology to be writing for a Jewish audience, hence he still is espousing the doctrine that they are the chosen people of God.
As the follow up verses to your fourth quote will show, Matthew did concede that Gentiles could join, but his remains the most exclusionist of the four Gospels.
This is just in a nutshell. If you're interested I would suggest you start reading some serious treatises on theology, and don't take the mere literal word of the Bible as truth, and especially not the word of those that profess to have the one true interpretation.
MartThere is a very important rule in applying the scientific method to observational evidence: you cannot extrapolate from a single data point.
I suggest you and the morons that agreed with you go back to take an elementary science course.
And for the record: I think SETI is as much junk science, maybe more, than anything the SETI supporters like to bash. Funny that hard-core alien believers don't like to apply the same standards to their reasoning as they do to others. As long as the only theoretical foundation of alien life is Drake's equation and extrapolation from a single observational fact, SETI and belief in extraterrestrial life belongs in the crank section of the library, along with a belief that the earth is flat and phlogiston theory.
MartNice that you mention the EFS (Encrypted Filesystem) feature of NTFS.
Since you seem to know a lot about MS software, care to enlighten us why Microsoft decided to implement EFS with single DES as its default algorithm? EFS was introduced at a time when it was already known that single DES was extremely vulnerable to brute force attacks.
Very nice indeed of you to mention EFS. That is one of the reasons that NTFS sucks. The other features of NTFS suck in different ways, but this is a shining example of MS offering a feature that's just not worth it.
MartA side note: this is exactly the foundation of copyright doctrine in Europe: the droit moral (moral right) of the author.
I think it's really funny to see the entertainment cartels push for American doctrines and laws in Europe (e.g. long term copyrights, protection of access controls a la the DMCA), and then turning around and use the droit moral doctrine in the US to make their policies more palatable.
Just like the lie that the DMCA was a consequence of international treaties, while it was the entertainment cartels that lobbied for those treaties in the first place.
Yes, the cartels want their cake and want to get to eat it too. Yet when we citizens even think of doing the same, astroturfers like grandparent poster start berating us.
MartI think you might find after a few moments' research that Andrea is a name that can be given to a boy in Italian. I don't know if it is unisex, and the article didn't mention Andrea's gender, but it does not necessarily have to be a girl.
MartHow can I trust it when he is overlooking something so obvious as the 'Find' option in Synaptic?
I quote: it won't let you search the apt catalogues using natural language queries. For example, searching for 'word processor' returns no results; a more experienced user would know that they had to search for 'OpenOffice' or 'Abiword' to display the packages they were seeking. It would be great if Synaptic could search the package descriptions, as well as the title.
Now, in my Synaptic install (Debian unstable) I see the following: in the right top corner is a search box that does an incremental search on package name only. In the Package menu I find an option named Find (shortcut Ctrl-F, as a Windows/IE user would expect it) which allows me to search on all fields of the package. By default the search dialog that comes up searches on both package name and description.
Otherwise I would say, Synaptic rocks! It is the nicest package manager I have ever used. I still do apt-get install for individual packages, but for finding packages and just browsing the tree, I use Synaptic. The daunting aspect the reviewer notes is due to the sheer amount of packages available, some 5500 on Conectiva, and some 14000 on Debian.
Just try it. Get synaptic (and if you're on an rpmbased system, apt4rpm) and give it a whirl. You won't go back.
MartI did a double take on reading that. Are we still talking about Open Source? Because that sounds like typical of proprietary development to me, where all focus is on marketability, and to hell with solid software.
MartIn other words, it would be Romario?
Nice idea in theory. However, history has shown us that without the threat of full disclosure hanging over their heads, vendors will not fix vulnerabilities in time.
Also, full disclosure, while giving hackers the tools to exploit a hole, will also at the same time give sysadmins and users the information to close or work around the security vulnerability.
So while the chances of an initial exploit may rise, the 'Window of Exposure' is dramatically shrunk. Bruce Schneier has written a good essay on both the history and the theory behind Full Disclosure. Read it.
MartI don't know if you still get to read this, but if you use unstable in your sources, try installing apt-build.
As long as there are Debian source packages available, it will build everything from source (including dependencies) with whatever flags you like, and put the built packages in a local repository. Just add that repository to your sources.list, and you can install locally built and optimised packages of just about everything.
It is not quite up to the standards of usability of Gentoo's portage or BSD's ports system, but it works quite nicely.
Mart