We're missing the bit about Evolution. Chickens and Eggs didn't appear, they evolved. What eventually became a chicken, was laying eggs long before a chicken walked the earth. In describing what defines a chicken, one attribute we can mention is that it "lays eggs". When doing the same with an egg, we cannot argue that a requirement is that it contains or came from a chicken. So, an egg is necessary for a chicken.
These people are being restricted from visiting certain websites from their job. These websites are not being stifled. This is something worthy of debate, sure. But, this concerns me less than what was implied via the headline. Was it intentionally sensational? I know there's a character limit on headlines, but i refuse to believe that "employee access to" would be all that hard to fit.
I haven't played many 1st or 3rd person shooter games, but I did just finish Red Dead Redemption. I thought the Dead Eye was slightly out of place, but I was able to forgive it because of this: My character is the sharpest shooter in the west. I, they player am not. If this were 100% immersion, it would rely on my personal skills as a sharp shooter. Oddly, it would break the immersion since my character would be a shitty gunslinger. Somehow they need to give a superior skill while still requiring me to show some skill on my own part.
Still, I think they could of done away with that, as the "auto lock" seems to fill that same gap.
This slashdot article simply references a bullet point on a convention agenda. How did it make its way to slashdot if it wasn't hyped in some other fashion? For all I know is that the "Earth Shaking" announcement could be an open bar reception for the attendees.
Not entirely true if they are gunning for SEO. Google looks for the "canonical" meta keyword, but people are still paranoid about serving duplicate content, and this would certainly count as that.
If the airbag is deployed there will be an ad for a personal injury lawyer. If the car is totaled, as it's hauled away on the wrecker, you'll see insurance ads flashing. If someone is being air lifted in the vicinity, life insurance.
Even if they are being used for something benign, it still makes sense for them to go away on the deletion or browser history. That's essentially what they are.
I don't think the point here is to see what drugs do to your DNA (if anything). It's to see "just what is it about this Rockers DNA that allows him to still be alive"?
My first reaction exactly. My second reaction, this just won't end up taking off. It's that terrible of an idea. Now, that's not to say some watered down form won't come our way soon.
Good point. Sure. Spammers should be allowed to spam "those" people. But not you and me. Of course, you can see how that would be a business model destined for failure. This comes back to what I refer to as "normal" people. "Majority" isn't the best word either, but maybe it's better. If most people actually found value in spam, then, sure. We who hate it would be the outliers. But most don't find value in spam, but most still receive spam.
Again. I made the previous case as a Devil's advocate more or less. My first reaction was to hope on Twitter and sensationalize this. Then I started thinking. By doing that, everyone would cry "OMG, they're making our printers print stuff we didn't ask for. They're wasting our paper". Those outcries would be wrong and right. Right in that "this is aweful." Wrong in that "they are not yet." So when, next year, this "doesn't" happen due to the fact that it's asinine. Those "normal" people who also agreed that it was idiotic will be settling for the "less evil" version that asks them permission before doing so. Who knows. For all I know they declare the intent to do this crap knowing well they'll feel the hate for it. If they do, they don't do it. The do something "less evil". If they hear no outcries. ??? Profit?
By purchase agreement of the free or subsidized printer? By perhaps getting a request to print on the lcd screen? Or maybe a popup on the computer that offers free coupons?
Not to say it won't be sleazy. Not to say people won't be surprised by the ads.
First let me say, I, like most of slashdot readers absolutely hate this crap. But to play Devil's advocate, suppose some consumers are not opposed to this kind of business relationship. Suppose they actually find value in it (ignoring the fact the you and I may consider it some kind of wrong). Should it be allowed to continue? I see insane ad practices happening time and time again. Sometimes they catch on and become normal. Other times they disappear (often quickly) as consumers revolt against them. Often, the ones that stick don't bother "normal" people. Whether it should or shouldn't is another topic, I guess. Where do you draw the line?
My view is that our outcries against this stuff have their place. Hopefully it makes "normal" consumers more aware. Hopefully. Sometimes these practices stick. Sometimes they don't. Maybe the ones that do are a fair tradeoff. My concern is that the absurdity and intrusion escalates.
There is a problem. Ads want to be targeted. We want to hate ads. Maybe it will always be that way. The best we can don is to keep people conscious so at least they're aware of what they could possibly be giving up when allowing them into their lives.
This printer thing. I don't see how it will stick. But HP and Yahoo! are sure as Hell going to see. Let's just hope it doesn't set a precedent, or at least some kind of civil middle ground can be found.
I absolutely hated Yahoo's new login screen. There was a Chevy Ad that took up the whole page. What I did like was the fact that there was a forum at the top of the screen to provide feedback on the ad. This is a new trend in my opinion. Let's hope our outcries continue to bring about changes like this.
I'm sure publicity is the number one reason. For Ozzy or Knome? I'm not sure. But I can tell you that if they wanted a candidate who has taken great "bodily abuse" from drugs or whatever, they'd have no trouble finding one who isn't a high profile personality.
In other news, chimpanzee learns sign language by listening to Metallica. To achieve this, researchers simply taught the chimpanzee sign language while playing Metallica.
Because, I'm sure Google doesn't give back in terms of productivity.
But really. This is hard to quantify. Half of my dev team was looking under the hood to see how it worked. Directly lost productivity? Maybe, but I think over-all it netted positive for the team. I would argue that this sort of thing is good for productivity.
Slashdot Mirror
The shortest path between any two configurations (be them solved or not) on a graph of all possibilities will be no greater than 20.
We're missing the bit about Evolution. Chickens and Eggs didn't appear, they evolved. What eventually became a chicken, was laying eggs long before a chicken walked the earth. In describing what defines a chicken, one attribute we can mention is that it "lays eggs". When doing the same with an egg, we cannot argue that a requirement is that it contains or came from a chicken. So, an egg is necessary for a chicken.
These people are being restricted from visiting certain websites from their job. These websites are not being stifled. This is something worthy of debate, sure.
But, this concerns me less than what was implied via the headline. Was it intentionally sensational? I know there's a character limit on headlines, but i refuse to believe that "employee access to" would be all that hard to fit.
I haven't played many 1st or 3rd person shooter games, but I did just finish Red Dead Redemption. I thought the Dead Eye was slightly out of place, but I was able to forgive it because of this: My character is the sharpest shooter in the west. I, they player am not. If this were 100% immersion, it would rely on my personal skills as a sharp shooter. Oddly, it would break the immersion since my character would be a shitty gunslinger. Somehow they need to give a superior skill while still requiring me to show some skill on my own part.
Still, I think they could of done away with that, as the "auto lock" seems to fill that same gap.
For me to go to the original story, post this summary and get a +5 insightful?
This slashdot article simply references a bullet point on a convention agenda. How did it make its way to slashdot if it wasn't hyped in some other fashion? For all I know is that the "Earth Shaking" announcement could be an open bar reception for the attendees.
Not an atomically correct one. Mathematical curve. I've seen this one somewhere before:
((x^2)+(y^2)-1)-(x^2)(y^3)=0
Not entirely true if they are gunning for SEO. Google looks for the "canonical" meta keyword, but people are still paranoid about serving duplicate content, and this would certainly count as that.
BBQ. Maybe not the best, but def. not last.
Who needs luck when you have nine lives. Nine lives plus bionic limbs? An animal like that could devour us all.
If the airbag is deployed there will be an ad for a personal injury lawyer. If the car is totaled, as it's hauled away on the wrecker, you'll see insurance ads flashing. If someone is being air lifted in the vicinity, life insurance.
Even if they are being used for something benign, it still makes sense for them to go away on the deletion or browser history. That's essentially what they are.
I don't think the point here is to see what drugs do to your DNA (if anything). It's to see "just what is it about this Rockers DNA that allows him to still be alive"?
And probably the outcry won't be all that great due to the fact that it's mainly to print "web stuff". And we're so used to seeing ads on the web.
My first reaction exactly. My second reaction, this just won't end up taking off. It's that terrible of an idea. Now, that's not to say some watered down form won't come our way soon.
Good point. Sure. Spammers should be allowed to spam "those" people. But not you and me. Of course, you can see how that would be a business model destined for failure. This comes back to what I refer to as "normal" people. "Majority" isn't the best word either, but maybe it's better. If most people actually found value in spam, then, sure. We who hate it would be the outliers. But most don't find value in spam, but most still receive spam.
Again. I made the previous case as a Devil's advocate more or less. My first reaction was to hope on Twitter and sensationalize this. Then I started thinking. By doing that, everyone would cry "OMG, they're making our printers print stuff we didn't ask for. They're wasting our paper". Those outcries would be wrong and right. Right in that "this is aweful." Wrong in that "they are not yet." So when, next year, this "doesn't" happen due to the fact that it's asinine. Those "normal" people who also agreed that it was idiotic will be settling for the "less evil" version that asks them permission before doing so. Who knows. For all I know they declare the intent to do this crap knowing well they'll feel the hate for it. If they do, they don't do it. The do something "less evil". If they hear no outcries. ??? Profit?
By purchase agreement of the free or subsidized printer? By perhaps getting a request to print on the lcd screen? Or maybe a popup on the computer that offers free coupons?
Not to say it won't be sleazy. Not to say people won't be surprised by the ads.
First let me say, I, like most of slashdot readers absolutely hate this crap. But to play Devil's advocate, suppose some consumers are not opposed to this kind of business relationship. Suppose they actually find value in it (ignoring the fact the you and I may consider it some kind of wrong). Should it be allowed to continue? I see insane ad practices happening time and time again. Sometimes they catch on and become normal. Other times they disappear (often quickly) as consumers revolt against them. Often, the ones that stick don't bother "normal" people. Whether it should or shouldn't is another topic, I guess. Where do you draw the line?
My view is that our outcries against this stuff have their place. Hopefully it makes "normal" consumers more aware. Hopefully. Sometimes these practices stick. Sometimes they don't. Maybe the ones that do are a fair tradeoff. My concern is that the absurdity and intrusion escalates.
There is a problem. Ads want to be targeted. We want to hate ads. Maybe it will always be that way. The best we can don is to keep people conscious so at least they're aware of what they could possibly be giving up when allowing them into their lives.
This printer thing. I don't see how it will stick. But HP and Yahoo! are sure as Hell going to see. Let's just hope it doesn't set a precedent, or at least some kind of civil middle ground can be found.
I absolutely hated Yahoo's new login screen. There was a Chevy Ad that took up the whole page. What I did like was the fact that there was a forum at the top of the screen to provide feedback on the ad. This is a new trend in my opinion. Let's hope our outcries continue to bring about changes like this.
I'm sure publicity is the number one reason. For Ozzy or Knome? I'm not sure. But I can tell you that if they wanted a candidate who has taken great "bodily abuse" from drugs or whatever, they'd have no trouble finding one who isn't a high profile personality.
1) Emulate absurd feature of competitor ...
2) Wait for public upheaval
3) Concede to users' outrage
4) Make it into a news story
5)
6) Profit!
What many people may have gotten from this:
"Wow, Bing still does that? Google was good enough to axe it. Google cares about users. Bing is Tacky"
Just see if they know how to program. A positive result would indicate autism. Not sure if a negative result would indicate its absence, though.
When James Gosling left.
I highly doubt it's a matter of what the devs found time to implement. These are product management level decisions.
In other news, chimpanzee learns sign language by listening to Metallica. To achieve this, researchers simply taught the chimpanzee sign language while playing Metallica.
Oh. I see what you did there.
Ban the use of Google at work.
Because, I'm sure Google doesn't give back in terms of productivity.
But really. This is hard to quantify. Half of my dev team was looking under the hood to see how it worked. Directly lost productivity? Maybe, but I think over-all it netted positive for the team. I would argue that this sort of thing is good for productivity.