Re:Why are genetically defective people breeding?
on
Three Blind Phreaks
·
· Score: 1
I hope you've already got kids, and that they're fine.
Thank you.
If not, I sincerely wish you they are healthy when they come. I hope you don't have any cancer, diabetes, Alzheimer or such in your family, and if you do, I hope you don't catch any of it.
I would adopt based on my own medical history.
Re:Why are genetically defective people breeding?
on
Three Blind Phreaks
·
· Score: 1
That suggestion of yours is called "eugenics". The last guy who was into eugenics large-style was some guy called Adolf Whatshisname from a pretty city called "Braunau". Go Figure!
Nazi Eugenics was a program with the absurd, unscientific goal of producing a "racially pure" Aryan (AKA Nordic) race. How is that, in any way, the same as advocating that people with severe genetic defects adopt, rather than breed?
Re:Why are genetically defective people breeding?
on
Three Blind Phreaks
·
· Score: 1
Thank you for defending me when I voiced an unpopular, but what I consider to be correct, belief.
Re:Why are genetically defective people breeding?
on
Three Blind Phreaks
·
· Score: 1
The nazis called, they want their 1930 propaganda back.
If you don't understand the difference between Nazi Eugenics, which was based on superficial traits and aimed for "racial purity", and a desire to prevent children from being born blind, with Down's Syndrome, or with Huntington's Disease, then you have nothing to contribute to this discussion.
Re:Why are genetically defective people breeding?
on
Three Blind Phreaks
·
· Score: 1
And what makes you qualified to decide whose genes are suitable for propagation?
Intelligence. When someone produces a child that is genetically defective (blind, Down Syndrome, Huntington's Disease, etc.), it's rather obvious that their genetic material does not belong in the gene pool.
The whole point of evolution by natural selection is that individuals can breed as often as they damn well please and nature will sort it out.
Fine. Put them in the woods to hunt and gather food, as nature intended, and see how well they survive.
Using your reasoning, some kid who lives out life in a bubble with no immune system and then uses artificial insemination to get someone pregnant is being selected by nature. Absurd.
Re:Why are genetically defective people breeding?
on
Three Blind Phreaks
·
· Score: 0, Troll
And while eye-sight was required for survival centuries ago, intelligence is required to survive now. Evolution doesn't need these brothers to be weeded out.
And what will stop them from having blind children who are stupid?
Survival of the fittest means that if these brothers survive because of intelligence, then their lives are not worthless for the next generation of humans.
They are not surviving because of intelligence. They are surviving because society is providing for their needs. Are you suggesting that all blind people who live to a ripe old age are intelligent? Get real!
So go back to your cave, troll...
I am not a "troll." I am expressing my beliefs, which, apparently, others share.
Re:Why are genetically defective people breeding?
on
Three Blind Phreaks
·
· Score: 1
Who are you to tell somebody they shouldn't breed.
An intelligent person who understands that perpetuating genetic defects is a bad idea.
Is the next gene nazi party on it's way to exterminate all those with bad genes?
There is a big difference between the so-called "eugenics" practiced by the Nazis and sound scientific reasoning. I don't advocate killing anyone nor do I think superficial traits like hair and eye color are the basis for determining "superiority."
Re:Why are genetically defective people breeding?
on
Three Blind Phreaks
·
· Score: 0, Troll
Now, you wouldn't be one to advocate eliminating the inferior?
No. I'm advocating that those with genetic defects adopt rather than breed.
I won't make a statement that would allow you to invoke Godwin's law, but I will suggest that you probably carry more than a few recessive genes that would call for your eradication. Or at least sterilization.
If I had the same genetic defect, recessive or not, that lead to the blindness of those boys, then, yes, sterilization would be appropriate.
Re:Why are genetically defective people breeding?
on
Three Blind Phreaks
·
· Score: 1, Troll
They are not defective - they are the next stage in evolution. You are the ape.
Then I hope that one of these genetically superior beings becomes the driver of the short bus that takes you to school.
For the record my post above was half joke, half informative.
My apologies for not getting the joke part and for responding inappropriately as a result.
Your assessment of trolls is correct, but there is still no reason that one should reply to trolls.
The problem is distinguishing the trolls from those who are simply misguided, illogical, or just plain stupid -- and all such people exist in far too great numbers on Slashdot. Allowing wrong-headed statements to go unchallenged gives them legitimacy that they do not deserve.
Why are genetically defective people breeding?
on
Three Blind Phreaks
·
· Score: -1, Troll
From the Wired story:
Ramy, along with two of his three brothers, has been blind since birth due to a genetic defect.
I can understand the first kid coming out blind, but when that happened, the parents should have stopped breeding. Now there are three more genetically defective people who can keep those defective genes into the gene pool. It's this kind of stupidity that's weakening the human race. Before "civilization", nature would weed out genetic defects like that using starvation, wolves, lions, bears, etc. Now you have people perpetuating defective genetic lines just because they can.
I'm impressed with the three brothers and with their ability to compensate for their blindness, but at least two of them should never have been born.
Gimme a break! A loaded shotgun!? Since when has spam resulted in the direct injury or death of a person? In your own words, "what a stupid analogy!"
The idea of an analogy is not to claim that two things are equal, but rather that they bear similarities. For example, when people referring to "throwing out the baby with the bath water", they are not trying to say that what they are comparing to that is the moral or legal equivalent of infanticide or abandoning an infant.
In general, you aren't responsible for the traffic that goes through your server, as long as you can't be reasonably expected to know what's going through there.
At this point in time, you can reasonably expect that spam will eventually go through any open relay. Going back to my analogy, if you leave a loaded shotgun on a picnic bench in a public park, you do bear some responsibility for what happens -- even if you "can't reasonably be expected to know" who's going to pick up the gun and what they will do with it. If a kid trespasses on your property and drowns in your unfenced pool, you may be charged with criminal negligence and can expect to face a civil suit -- even though you could not be reasonably expected to know that the particular child would drown in your pool at that particular time.
Also, remember that the administrator is guilty of no crime.
That does not mean that he bears no civil liability for his negligence.
I've written several books and deal with these matters on a daily basis. Tell me, what's your qualifications to argue this?
I've got a better idea: Tell us who you are, what books you've written, and what your qualifications were to write those books. For instance, do you have a law degree? Have you testified as an expert witness in such matters? Rush Limbaugh has written several books, but it doesn't mean that he knows what he's talking about.
In answer to your question am an anti-spam activist. I own and run multiple domains and administer mail servers for myself and others. I am a member of CAUCE. I have studied the caselaw regarding spam. I have consulted to a company making spam filtering hardware/software. And I "deal with these matters on a daily basis."
I don't think you understand the purpose of the sacred troll.
Trolls are just childish cries for attention intended to give their authors a false sense of adequacy. Don't try to glorify them beyond that.
It decreases the signal-to-noise ratio on Slashdot. Perhaps one day, Slashdot will be unreadable and the editors will finally have to answer for their moderation cabal's crimes.
You really need to grow up. For Christ's sake, you have an e-mail address at a college. If you don't like Slashdot, then don't read it. But don't try to act like posting trolls to f*ck with people is some kind of act of defiance.
Next, you're going to say that ISPs are responsible for all of the traffic that goes through them.
Everyone is responsible for their own negligence. If an ISP is told that user X is sending viruses all over the net, then the ISP can be held liable for damages if they do nothing. If the RIAA tells an ISP that user Y is trading copyrighted music, the ISP can be held liable if they refuse to do anything about it. ISPs are responsible for their actions or inactions. If the ISP does not exercise due diligence, then they can be held liable.
Being a common carrier does not mean that you have no legal responsibility to exercise due diligence.
The criminal is the spammer, not the postmaster with the open relay.
Ever heard of "negligence"? Look up "attractive nuisance" sometime.
Just like when you leave your door open, the criminal is the thief, and not you.
And if you leave a loaded gun on a playground, the criminal is the one who picks it up and shoots someone. But that doesn't mean that you can leave loaded guns on playgrounds without fear of prosecution.
So if there are any laws that should be enforced, they should be inforced on the criminals - these open relays cant even be considered as accomplices, because they are not. (unless they are getting money from this from the criminals)
Who said anything about laws? They are being sent letters and asked to shut down the open relays.
Whether you like it or not, there's nothing that's wrong about having open relays.
Bullshit. If your open relay is used by spammers, it inconveniences hundreds of thousands, or even millions of users. It costs ISPs and businesses money to deal with the spam that's spewing out of your open relay.
If I wish to leave my house door unlocked, it's not the business of the government to tell me I have to lock it. It may be irresponsible, but it's my right.
What a stupid analogy! If you leave your house unlocked, the only person likely to be hurt by it is you when you come home and find your stereo, PC, and TV gone. If you leave an open relay, you potentially hurt many innocent third parties. If you want a better analogy, it's like the government telling you that you can't leave a loaded shotgun on a picnic bench in a public park.
Just the same, I have the right to have an open relay and not close it. They have no right to tell me how to run my server. I accept the consequences of how I run it.
So does that mean that you're going to reimburse me and the other postmasters who have to deal with the spam? Are you going to compensate the users who got spam through your open relay? Are you willing to accept legal responsibility for the porn ads sent through your system to e-mail addresses of children? If not, in what way are you accepting the consequences?
The IPod Mini looks bad ass and I'm hearing nothing but good reviews. I think I'll have to pick on up one of these days.
Why? It's barely over 1/4 the capacity of a 15GB iPod, has a smaller display with fewer pixels, and it's only $50 less.
4GB isn't really enough storage for a music collection (unless you record at low bitrates/quality). So you are either syncing constantly and rotating music out or you have stale music that you're tired of.
I'm glad that things are working out for you and that you're happy with your career. Nonetheless, when experienced hiring professionals give advice and tell how to apply successfully, I think that's worth considering. To a great extent, you are already doing much of what he's recommending and, apparently, only differ seriously when it comes to the question of resume-spamming.
Applying for lots of jobs doesn't really seem to indicate that you'll jump ship or that you're just interested in the minimum to get by. Not to me.
It does to me, and I've been in hiring and supervisory positions in the tech field. The guys who sent resumes to every headhunter in town often continued to do so after being hired (hint: if you're going to fax your resume on the company fax, don't just walk away and assume that it went through and no error report is forthcoming).
I disagree with the "carpet bombing" approach to job hunting.
I find that the best analogy to job hunting is a guy trying to pick up women. Meandering through a bar or other meeting place and saying to every woman there "I'm available for sex and would be willing to have it with you" is unlikely to result in a "romantic encounter." If it does, it's not likely to be satisfying or long-term and will probably be with one who has real problems. Worse, it's likely that the women will compare notes and you will get an unwanted reputation.
On the other hand, a guy who does some research and shows that he's really interested in a specific woman and feels that they have something important in common is far more likely to be successful at "hooking up" and has a much better chance of ending up in a long-term, mutually satisfying relationship. The woman wants to feel special.
So do companies and the same thing happens with job hunting. The personnel department at Corp. X receives a copy of your resume with generic I-want-a-job form cover letter. The letter doesn't distinguish itself from any of the other 217 cover letters that he's received for that job. Then he gets a copy of your resume from headhunters X, Y, and Z. At that point, you're damaged goods in his eyes. You've obviously handed your resume out indiscriminately and you're unlikely to be an enthusiastic, interested employee.
Had you done the research and found out who was the hiring manager, you could have sent your resume right to him, bypassing the personnel guy who's just looking for reasons to reject candidates ("23 months of experience. We need 2 years. Round file."). If your cover letter had said "My first job was programming binary load lifters, which are very similar to the moisture vaporators made by your firm", you'd have a foot in the door. The guy would be thinking that he'd found someone who had a genuine interest in his business. Make a discreet follow-up call to ask if he got your resume, and you may just get an interview because you're enthusiastic and you made it convenient. He'd think that you're much less likely to jump ship at a moment's notice since you're apparently interested in the work.
First of all, what does my prospective employer have to do with what other positions I apply for?
Because he's looking for reasons to weed applicants out. If he sees your resume for three positions he's posted and then gets it from four headhunters, he's going to see desperation and round-file you. Read what he wrote:
You want to look like you are good enough to be in heavy demand. You're going to decide where you want to work, because you're smart enough to have a choice in the matter, so you only need to apply for one or two jobs. A personalized cover letter that shows that you understand what the company does goes a long way to proving that you care enough to deserve a chance.
Employers are looking for employees who have a genuine interest in the position, work, and company business. They don't want to hire someone who is going to jump ship at the first sign of a higher paying job or someone who's just interested in doing the minimum necessary to get by.
Go ahead, apply for every job THAT YOU'RE QUALIFIED FOR, and sort through the results yourself.
You do that. I'll carefully research the firms that I apply to and only submit resumes and carefully crafted cover letters for those positions where I have a genuine interest. While I'm interviewing, you can be running off another 300 resumes at Kinko's.
If your prospective employer thinks you should sit around on your ass and pretend that you're qualified and live off of Ramen and potatos for months while you wait, then you probably don't want to work for him.
Your prospective employer thinks that that you should be a highly-respected professional with a network of professional contacts that are eager to have you work for their firms or are recommending you to other firms. The prospective employer thinks that you should be someone who is in-demand and that it's a privilege to have the opportunity to hire you. If that's not you, then expect a long job search ending in a dead-end job and substandard pay.
IF I ran a company and people were overclocking there desktop compueters I'd go balastic.
it voids the warrenty.
What complete, utter, absolute, bull. Read about the Magnuson-Moss warranty act (if you live in the U.S.). The only way that a manufacturer can deny a warranty claim is if the modification you made directly contributes to a failure. Dell can't refuse to replace your CD-ROM drive just because you overclocked your CPU. HP can't get out of replacing the failed Ethernet adapter just because you ran your CPU above spec. Sure, if you cook your CPU by overclocking it, they can refuse to replace that one part, but they can't "void the warranty" in a general sense.
anything over 10% will become unstable and impacts the CPU life.
That kind of broad generalization is silly. Some CPUs can't overclock by even 5% while others are perfectly happy being overclocked by 25% or more.
There is a level of expertise when a company designs, codes, and supports a product that's usually not there when the company is just selling support. I'm no Linux guru, but there's nothing to stop me from selling Linux support contracts. If a customer calls, it's not like I will be able to walk into Linus Torvald's office to ask an esoteric question about interrupt latencies. So I could bumble along and the customers would either renew the contracts or not.
If, on the other hand, I had a company that wrote, sold, and supported a software product, I'd have a support team that could escalate problems to developers. I'd have an incentive to do the support right: bad support = lost sales. What the hell does "Joe's Linux Consulting and Screen Door Company" care if you never buy another copy of Redhat? He got the contract for a year's support, made no guarantees that he could solve your problems, and he's paying off his car loan with your company's yearly support subscription fee.
That's one of the things that's broken about the Linux model. There's no guarantee that the people selling the support know anything more about Linux than your own staff does.
Slashdot Mirror
I hope you've already got kids, and that they're fine.
Thank you.
If not, I sincerely wish you they are healthy when they come. I hope you don't have any cancer, diabetes, Alzheimer or such in your family, and if you do, I hope you don't catch any of it.
I would adopt based on my own medical history.
That suggestion of yours is called "eugenics". The last guy who was into eugenics large-style was some guy called Adolf Whatshisname from a pretty city called "Braunau". Go Figure!
Nazi Eugenics was a program with the absurd, unscientific goal of producing a "racially pure" Aryan (AKA Nordic) race. How is that, in any way, the same as advocating that people with severe genetic defects adopt, rather than breed?
Thank you for defending me when I voiced an unpopular, but what I consider to be correct, belief.
The nazis called, they want their 1930 propaganda back.
If you don't understand the difference between Nazi Eugenics, which was based on superficial traits and aimed for "racial purity", and a desire to prevent children from being born blind, with Down's Syndrome, or with Huntington's Disease, then you have nothing to contribute to this discussion.
And what makes you qualified to decide whose genes are suitable for propagation?
Intelligence. When someone produces a child that is genetically defective (blind, Down Syndrome, Huntington's Disease, etc.), it's rather obvious that their genetic material does not belong in the gene pool.
The whole point of evolution by natural selection is that individuals can breed as often as they damn well please and nature will sort it out.
Fine. Put them in the woods to hunt and gather food, as nature intended, and see how well they survive.
Using your reasoning, some kid who lives out life in a bubble with no immune system and then uses artificial insemination to get someone pregnant is being selected by nature. Absurd.
And while eye-sight was required for survival centuries ago, intelligence is required to survive now. Evolution doesn't need these brothers to be weeded out.
And what will stop them from having blind children who are stupid?
Survival of the fittest means that if these brothers survive because of intelligence, then their lives are not worthless for the next generation of humans.
They are not surviving because of intelligence. They are surviving because society is providing for their needs. Are you suggesting that all blind people who live to a ripe old age are intelligent? Get real!
So go back to your cave, troll...
I am not a "troll." I am expressing my beliefs, which, apparently, others share.
Who are you to tell somebody they shouldn't breed.
An intelligent person who understands that perpetuating genetic defects is a bad idea.
Is the next gene nazi party on it's way to exterminate all those with bad genes?
There is a big difference between the so-called "eugenics" practiced by the Nazis and sound scientific reasoning. I don't advocate killing anyone nor do I think superficial traits like hair and eye color are the basis for determining "superiority."
Now, you wouldn't be one to advocate eliminating the inferior?
No. I'm advocating that those with genetic defects adopt rather than breed.
I won't make a statement that would allow you to invoke Godwin's law, but I will suggest that you probably carry more than a few recessive genes that would call for your eradication. Or at least sterilization.
If I had the same genetic defect, recessive or not, that lead to the blindness of those boys, then, yes, sterilization would be appropriate.
They are not defective - they are the next stage in evolution. You are the ape.
Then I hope that one of these genetically superior beings becomes the driver of the short bus that takes you to school.
For the record my post above was half joke, half informative.
My apologies for not getting the joke part and for responding inappropriately as a result.
Your assessment of trolls is correct, but there is still no reason that one should reply to trolls.
The problem is distinguishing the trolls from those who are simply misguided, illogical, or just plain stupid -- and all such people exist in far too great numbers on Slashdot. Allowing wrong-headed statements to go unchallenged gives them legitimacy that they do not deserve.
From the Wired story:
Ramy, along with two of his three brothers, has been blind since birth due to a genetic defect.
I can understand the first kid coming out blind, but when that happened, the parents should have stopped breeding. Now there are three more genetically defective people who can keep those defective genes into the gene pool. It's this kind of stupidity that's weakening the human race. Before "civilization", nature would weed out genetic defects like that using starvation, wolves, lions, bears, etc. Now you have people perpetuating defective genetic lines just because they can.
I'm impressed with the three brothers and with their ability to compensate for their blindness, but at least two of them should never have been born.
Gimme a break! A loaded shotgun!? Since when has spam resulted in the direct injury or death of a person? In your own words, "what a stupid analogy!"
The idea of an analogy is not to claim that two things are equal, but rather that they bear similarities. For example, when people referring to "throwing out the baby with the bath water", they are not trying to say that what they are comparing to that is the moral or legal equivalent of infanticide or abandoning an infant.
In general, you aren't responsible for the traffic that goes through your server, as long as you can't be reasonably expected to know what's going through there.
At this point in time, you can reasonably expect that spam will eventually go through any open relay. Going back to my analogy, if you leave a loaded shotgun on a picnic bench in a public park, you do bear some responsibility for what happens -- even if you "can't reasonably be expected to know" who's going to pick up the gun and what they will do with it. If a kid trespasses on your property and drowns in your unfenced pool, you may be charged with criminal negligence and can expect to face a civil suit -- even though you could not be reasonably expected to know that the particular child would drown in your pool at that particular time.
Also, remember that the administrator is guilty of no crime.
That does not mean that he bears no civil liability for his negligence.
I've written several books and deal with these matters on a daily basis. Tell me, what's your qualifications to argue this?
I've got a better idea: Tell us who you are, what books you've written, and what your qualifications were to write those books. For instance, do you have a law degree? Have you testified as an expert witness in such matters? Rush Limbaugh has written several books, but it doesn't mean that he knows what he's talking about.
In answer to your question am an anti-spam activist. I own and run multiple domains and administer mail servers for myself and others. I am a member of CAUCE. I have studied the caselaw regarding spam. I have consulted to a company making spam filtering hardware/software. And I "deal with these matters on a daily basis."
I don't think you understand the purpose of the sacred troll.
Trolls are just childish cries for attention intended to give their authors a false sense of adequacy. Don't try to glorify them beyond that.
It decreases the signal-to-noise ratio on Slashdot. Perhaps one day, Slashdot will be unreadable and the editors will finally have to answer for their moderation cabal's crimes.
You really need to grow up. For Christ's sake, you have an e-mail address at a college. If you don't like Slashdot, then don't read it. But don't try to act like posting trolls to f*ck with people is some kind of act of defiance.
Next, you're going to say that ISPs are responsible for all of the traffic that goes through them.
Everyone is responsible for their own negligence. If an ISP is told that user X is sending viruses all over the net, then the ISP can be held liable for damages if they do nothing. If the RIAA tells an ISP that user Y is trading copyrighted music, the ISP can be held liable if they refuse to do anything about it. ISPs are responsible for their actions or inactions. If the ISP does not exercise due diligence, then they can be held liable.
Being a common carrier does not mean that you have no legal responsibility to exercise due diligence.
The criminal is the spammer, not the postmaster with the open relay.
Ever heard of "negligence"? Look up "attractive nuisance" sometime.
Just like when you leave your door open, the criminal is the thief, and not you.
And if you leave a loaded gun on a playground, the criminal is the one who picks it up and shoots someone. But that doesn't mean that you can leave loaded guns on playgrounds without fear of prosecution.
So if there are any laws that should be enforced, they should be inforced on the criminals - these open relays cant even be considered as accomplices, because they are not. (unless they are getting money from this from the criminals)
Who said anything about laws? They are being sent letters and asked to shut down the open relays.
Getting pissed? Looks like your little troll backfired.
Have fun burning karma, asshat.
Hey ass-lick, my reply to you is up to a +5 as I write this.
I'm requesting you be modded down to -1 hell by my friends over at anti-slash.
Don't lie. You have you friends.
And that makes you proud? Grow up, pin-dick.
What are people supposed to do? Let you spout off that stupid shit unchallenged? You are an idiot.
Whether you like it or not, there's nothing that's wrong about having open relays.
Bullshit. If your open relay is used by spammers, it inconveniences hundreds of thousands, or even millions of users. It costs ISPs and businesses money to deal with the spam that's spewing out of your open relay.
If I wish to leave my house door unlocked, it's not the business of the government to tell me I have to lock it. It may be irresponsible, but it's my right.
What a stupid analogy! If you leave your house unlocked, the only person likely to be hurt by it is you when you come home and find your stereo, PC, and TV gone. If you leave an open relay, you potentially hurt many innocent third parties. If you want a better analogy, it's like the government telling you that you can't leave a loaded shotgun on a picnic bench in a public park.
Just the same, I have the right to have an open relay and not close it. They have no right to tell me how to run my server. I accept the consequences of how I run it.
So does that mean that you're going to reimburse me and the other postmasters who have to deal with the spam? Are you going to compensate the users who got spam through your open relay? Are you willing to accept legal responsibility for the porn ads sent through your system to e-mail addresses of children? If not, in what way are you accepting the consequences?
The IPod Mini looks bad ass and I'm hearing nothing but good reviews. I think I'll have to pick on up one of these days.
Why? It's barely over 1/4 the capacity of a 15GB iPod, has a smaller display with fewer pixels, and it's only $50 less.
4GB isn't really enough storage for a music collection (unless you record at low bitrates/quality). So you are either syncing constantly and rotating music out or you have stale music that you're tired of.
I'm glad that things are working out for you and that you're happy with your career. Nonetheless, when experienced hiring professionals give advice and tell how to apply successfully, I think that's worth considering. To a great extent, you are already doing much of what he's recommending and, apparently, only differ seriously when it comes to the question of resume-spamming.
Applying for lots of jobs doesn't really seem to indicate that you'll jump ship or that you're just interested in the minimum to get by. Not to me.
It does to me, and I've been in hiring and supervisory positions in the tech field. The guys who sent resumes to every headhunter in town often continued to do so after being hired (hint: if you're going to fax your resume on the company fax, don't just walk away and assume that it went through and no error report is forthcoming).
I disagree with the "carpet bombing" approach to job hunting.
I find that the best analogy to job hunting is a guy trying to pick up women. Meandering through a bar or other meeting place and saying to every woman there "I'm available for sex and would be willing to have it with you" is unlikely to result in a "romantic encounter." If it does, it's not likely to be satisfying or long-term and will probably be with one who has real problems. Worse, it's likely that the women will compare notes and you will get an unwanted reputation.
On the other hand, a guy who does some research and shows that he's really interested in a specific woman and feels that they have something important in common is far more likely to be successful at "hooking up" and has a much better chance of ending up in a long-term, mutually satisfying relationship. The woman wants to feel special.
So do companies and the same thing happens with job hunting. The personnel department at Corp. X receives a copy of your resume with generic I-want-a-job form cover letter. The letter doesn't distinguish itself from any of the other 217 cover letters that he's received for that job. Then he gets a copy of your resume from headhunters X, Y, and Z. At that point, you're damaged goods in his eyes. You've obviously handed your resume out indiscriminately and you're unlikely to be an enthusiastic, interested employee.
Had you done the research and found out who was the hiring manager, you could have sent your resume right to him, bypassing the personnel guy who's just looking for reasons to reject candidates ("23 months of experience. We need 2 years. Round file."). If your cover letter had said "My first job was programming binary load lifters, which are very similar to the moisture vaporators made by your firm", you'd have a foot in the door. The guy would be thinking that he'd found someone who had a genuine interest in his business. Make a discreet follow-up call to ask if he got your resume, and you may just get an interview because you're enthusiastic and you made it convenient. He'd think that you're much less likely to jump ship at a moment's notice since you're apparently interested in the work.
Because he's looking for reasons to weed applicants out. If he sees your resume for three positions he's posted and then gets it from four headhunters, he's going to see desperation and round-file you. Read what he wrote:Employers are looking for employees who have a genuine interest in the position, work, and company business. They don't want to hire someone who is going to jump ship at the first sign of a higher paying job or someone who's just interested in doing the minimum necessary to get by.
Go ahead, apply for every job THAT YOU'RE QUALIFIED FOR, and sort through the results yourself.
You do that. I'll carefully research the firms that I apply to and only submit resumes and carefully crafted cover letters for those positions where I have a genuine interest. While I'm interviewing, you can be running off another 300 resumes at Kinko's.
If your prospective employer thinks you should sit around on your ass and pretend that you're qualified and live off of Ramen and potatos for months while you wait, then you probably don't want to work for him.
Your prospective employer thinks that that you should be a highly-respected professional with a network of professional contacts that are eager to have you work for their firms or are recommending you to other firms. The prospective employer thinks that you should be someone who is in-demand and that it's a privilege to have the opportunity to hire you. If that's not you, then expect a long job search ending in a dead-end job and substandard pay.
IF I ran a company and people were overclocking there desktop compueters I'd go balastic.
it voids the warrenty.
What complete, utter, absolute, bull. Read about the Magnuson-Moss warranty act (if you live in the U.S.). The only way that a manufacturer can deny a warranty claim is if the modification you made directly contributes to a failure. Dell can't refuse to replace your CD-ROM drive just because you overclocked your CPU. HP can't get out of replacing the failed Ethernet adapter just because you ran your CPU above spec. Sure, if you cook your CPU by overclocking it, they can refuse to replace that one part, but they can't "void the warranty" in a general sense.
anything over 10% will become unstable and impacts the CPU life.
That kind of broad generalization is silly. Some CPUs can't overclock by even 5% while others are perfectly happy being overclocked by 25% or more.
Why wouldn't you want copper?
Copper is much cheaper.
Silver only conducts 10% better then copper.
You answered your own question: Because silver conducts 10% better than copper.
There is a level of expertise when a company designs, codes, and supports a product that's usually not there when the company is just selling support. I'm no Linux guru, but there's nothing to stop me from selling Linux support contracts. If a customer calls, it's not like I will be able to walk into Linus Torvald's office to ask an esoteric question about interrupt latencies. So I could bumble along and the customers would either renew the contracts or not.
If, on the other hand, I had a company that wrote, sold, and supported a software product, I'd have a support team that could escalate problems to developers. I'd have an incentive to do the support right: bad support = lost sales. What the hell does "Joe's Linux Consulting and Screen Door Company" care if you never buy another copy of Redhat? He got the contract for a year's support, made no guarantees that he could solve your problems, and he's paying off his car loan with your company's yearly support subscription fee.
That's one of the things that's broken about the Linux model. There's no guarantee that the people selling the support know anything more about Linux than your own staff does.