Hah! I've defeated your algorithm - With the exception of #5 (and somewhat #2 - I put in my 40+ hours, but have never really done all that well at making sure they happen between 9am and 5pm), I do all of those regularly!
The only way that people with your view will make a difference is if you go out of your way to support the few devs that push quality products that meet your requirements.
And as I mentioned, I do. Drop in the bucket, though, and such content becomes increasingly rare.
these years now that feel like the golden age of online gaming will be the dark ages of games as historians of the future try to recreate what online play was like now for many titles.
While I agree with your premise, you overlook the fact that many of us in the "first gen" of gamers already view this as a "dark age". Personally, I have a fairly impressive game library, spanning a dozen platforms and worth probably tens of thousands of dollars (at original retail price*) worth of games. And I basically stopped buying games about a decade ago, with a few notable exceptions.
Make no mistake, I still game regularly - Between the occasional non-obnoxious modern release, and the back catalog of once-great games that I still haven't played (just finished Fallout a few weeks ago, no idea how I never got into that when it first came out), I figure I have enough material to keep me content for the rest of my life. But I will not play any game that depends on any aspect of the game under the exclusive control of a third party. Open servers and a really viable single-player mode, or GTFO, simple as that.
* Not that I actually paid full retail, which counts as an entirely different problem with modern games - Reselling a game used to mean putting it back in the box (or putting everything you had left in a ziplock bag), and passing it along to someone else for a few bucks. Now, if you even have the option of reselling it, you usually need to do so with the "permission" of the publisher. Fuck that!
Yes and no. You have it basically correct, but have omitted a key fact in this particular situation - Youtube can only exist by virtue of the fact that its users give them the vast majority of their content.
It sounds great, as a business model, to get paid for reselling something you can get for free, but not all of your audience will quietly put up with the fact that they count as the product.
They make you an offer, you decline and go elsewhere. Who was successful in that negotiation? Nobody.
I agree with you as a technicality, but in spirit, you've accomplished the same thing...
Who won? The person who says "screw your pathetic offer" and does go elsewhere for a better deal. The company that fills a position they have open with someone good enough that they didn't need to accept the first lowball offer that came their way.
And who lost? The company forced to either leave a position vacant, or possibly worse, fill it with someone so inexperienced (or just plain bad at what they do) that they had no alternatives but to accept the first paying offer that came their way.
This can only work out well, both in terms of Reddit's future staffing and Pao's goal of equalizing the playing field for women, if Reddit suddenly starts leading the industry for salaries. And as much as I like Reddit - I just don't see that happening.
Of course we do - We just do it in a way less blunt than "A shekel for that, you must be mad!".
Do you pay $6 for your toothpaste at 7-11, or $4 for the same brand and size at Walmart? Similarly, do you fill your car at the closest QwikyMart charging $0.15 higher than everyone else, or do you plan ahead to get gas at the average-priced Shell/Mobil/Major-Brand-X, or do you go out of your way to get gas at Sams for $0.10 less than everyone else has? We "negotiate" low margin prices by virtue of choosing where we buy. We don't try to talk most retail outlets down, we simply don't shop there except as a last resort.
And on the subject of cars, when you move up to much higher margin items, like furniture and cars and houses - Do you still just pay list, or do you negotiate? Well, guess what - I make a couple times the cost of a new car per year; and you can bet your ass I'll negotiate my salary (and the price of a car/house/couch) to the best of my ability. And no, I won't trade cash-in-hand for equity. I might trade it for vacation time, only because I value that higher than money, but oddly enough I have yet to find a company willing to even consider that particular trade-off. Huh, you'd almost think they want to get as much work out of me for as little money as possible, almost like... like... some sort of negotiation!
On the "bright" side, though, this will have the desired effect for Pao - Good negotiators won't even apply to work at Reddit, they'll go somewhere that recognizes the value of someone skilled at negotiation (a valuable skill in itself,useful in far, far more contexts than mere salary discussions). And assuming her premise holds true (I honestly don't know whether it does or doesn't), she will in effect get more women working there, and Reddit will benefit from underpaying them due to having banned negotiation in the name of "equality". That deserves a hell of a golf-clap, Ellen! It takes balls - erm, ovaries - to sell out your own kind in the name of protecting them from discrimination. Kudos!
Yes, I would have a problem with you randomly appearing and taking a dump on my front lawn, because I pay the government roughly 1.5% of the value of my home every year for the continued privilege of having the mostly-exclusive right to decide who gets to defecate on my lawn.
If, however, I put out an ad for someone to come fertilize my lawn with human excrement, and awarded you an exclusive contract to do the job for the next 65 years... Well then, I wouldn't really have much to right to bitch about you doing exactly what I asked you to, now would I?
It's more about it being sacred for the gifts it gave the early Hawaiians in the form of food, water and other resources than of it being because of ghosts.
In any case, whether "ghosts" or "we liked hanging out there 1500 years ago", neither makes any difference as to whether or not we should build an observatory in one of the single most suitable spots on the planet for its primary purpose.
"Killed X people. He admits it. His lawyers admit it. We have video proving he did it." "Yep, guilty".
"Injured Y people. He admits it. His lawyers admit it. We have video proving he did it." "Yep, guilty".
"Conspired to do the above. He admits it. His lawyers admit it. We have video proving he did it." "Yep, guilty".
"Used a firearm to do the above. He admits it. His lawyers admit it. We have video proving he did it." "Yep, guilty".
"Did the above in a public place. He admits it. His lawyers admit it. We have video proving he did it." "Yep, guilty".
"Disrupted commerce with the above. He admits it. His lawyers admit it. We have video proving he did it." "Yep, guilty".
Really, it takes 23 minutes of deliberation per charge for 30 variations of the above list, none of which either the defendant or his lawyers or the physical evidence disputes? Hell, it amazes me it took 23 minutes total. Most likely scenario, the jury included one complete bastard who liked finally getting his 23 minutes of attention and milked it for every second he could.
You have given the single, most concise answer in this discussion.
We have stopped building an expensive modern scientific instrument that will improve all of humanity, because of fucking ghosts. And not even ghosts in the "poltergeist" sense, but ghosts in the "my great grandaddy told me Jesus cries when you eat a ham and cheese sandwich" sense - Such complete nonsense that any adult should feel ashamed that such idiotic words might come out of their mouth in voicing their objections to this telescope.
The sooner we as a species stop humoring these morons, the better.
/ Not an atheist. // Not psychotic enough, though, to pretend I know god's will about big rock, meteorites, walls, and mountain tops. /// Also not just "pro science, so fuck you" - I'd say the same about building a Walmart in the same spot.
Instead of asking "what now", doesn't anyone wonder why TC chose to self-destruct, invoking its own canary and refusing to let anyone keep the name?
If the devs just wanted out, they could have passed on the name to a blessed successor. Even if they wanted to act petty and protect the name for no good reason, they didn't need to invoke their canary. Something about this just doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
Hmm, if we question whether or not we can trust that the NSA didn't get to the original devs... How can we trust that they didn't get to the auditors? "Yup, all clear! Enjoy! (Can I have my kids back now, Mr. Suit?)"
The famous "51% attack" requires both malice *and* luck.
First of all, just hitting 51% doesn't guarantee that you will continue to have a longer available chain than the rest of the network, a hard requirement to pull off a 51% double-spending attack. Until you start getting into the 60 or 70% range, you can at best cheat for a few blocks in a row.
And since such double-spending becomes instantly detectable and would pretty much obliterate confidence in the network, you would effectively have the ability to double-spend a suddenly-worthless currency. Only someone intentionally looking to destroy BitCoin would waste the resources to control that much processing power, only to make all their high-end dedicated hardware worthless in the process. And before you suggest someone like the NSA could do it - Currently it would take 2.2 zettaflops; for comparison the entire Top500 only pull 309 petaflops, or about 0.007% (no, I didn't misplace the decimal or forget to multiply by 100 there) of the aggregate power of the Bitcoin network.
Both are dangerous, but when used properly and with care can be exceptionally useful.
Not really a great analogy... People without knives (but who at least know of their existence) can immediately see their utility, regardless of their danger. Although some people without Facebook pages may avoid it out of some variety of fear, I dare say that the majority of people without them simply don't want one.
I think as a better analogy, you might compare FB to a sous vide machine - Yes, it serves a (very, very niche) purpose, and yes, we can all see what it does; but let's not kid ourselves, all the people rushing out to buy one only do it because it counts as this year's cool kitchen gadget (and more importantly, all their friends have one).
Facebook only has as much lasting power as it does because its utility has a certain "stickiness" to it - Once you join and all your friends join, it takes effort to have all your friends update their contact information for you; but if you never joined in the first place, it really doesn't "do" much you can't get elsewhere. The "wall", okay, you can't really get that anywhere else (without having all your "friends" go there as well), but far from appealing to me, I consider that an annoying feature. "So your friend wrote that to you?" "No, FB just thought I might like to see it" "So wait, does it randomly post your messages to other people you don't know?" "*crickets*".
you also offer an opportunity for people who offer you something beneficial to find you (ex: old friends displaced by time and distance, other hobbiests who share your passion).
I don't really see that as a selling point, though - I have stayed in touch with everyone from my past that I wanted to, and I have no shortage of opportunities to make new friends based on shared interests in the real world every single day. Meanwhile, that cute girl from my sophomore history class now counts as a soccer mom in her mid 30s and we have literally nothing in common beyond that insignificant footnote from our distant pasts.
I expect you're happy with computer modelling for many things
Computer modelling can help us come up with plausible answers to a vast array of questions that we have difficulty otherwise obtaining data on... But no scientist would ever accept a computer model in favor of actual experimental data, when available.
Perhaps the best-known example of this, weather forecasting. We have a pretty solid grasp of the physics involved, but reality diverges from the predictions over time anyway.
And also, of course, pretend that computer modelling is what it's all about.
The GGP, not the GP, brought that up.
And all that said, I have to admit, I consider this one somewhat silly. Of all the really cool groundbreaking work we could do sending probes to the far reaches of the solar system (hello, Titan and Ganymede?), we plan to hit a really big nearby rock with a hammer and see what happens? Only slightly better "science" than the Shuttle program, which consisted of 10% "let's grow seeds in zero gravity" and 90% classified military payloads.
Hong Kong is special administrative region of China. It has different laws, open culture, democracy, and freedoms, unlike mainland China. Don't put Hong Kong with the dictatorship of the China.
SARs exist only by staying in the good graces of the PRC. Hong Kong and Macau could lose their special status tomorrow and would have zero say in the matter.
Of course, China currently enjoys playing both sides of the "capitalism" fence, so that almost certainly wouldn't happen; but if Beijing says "Hey, you like all that freedom you have? Yeah, we need you to make something to happen ASAP - Reeeal shame if we reallocated your entire region into a coal ash dump"? You'd see how much "independence" China's SARs really have.
This would be exponentially more effective if read with green text on black background. You lazy.
Pleeease don't give them any ideas. They seem to have trouble keeping the site's normal CSS fully functional from week to week; do you really want them to go tinkering with it to add extra punch to yet another one of these lame 4/1 posts?
And also.. backing up his email in case he deletes his inbox/sentbox? Are you serious?
Some industries have legally mandated retention periods, both in the minimum and maximum direction.
That said, employees shouldn't have the ability to violate the corporate retention policy. You delete an email? Okay, you don't see it anymore, but it still lives on the server. You don't delete an email? Okay, but in three years, it vanishes automatically.
And yes, you can play games such as forwarding it to yourself, printing it to PDF, yadda yadda yadda, but at least on the deletion side, your admins have no excuse for not having the server automatically enforce minimum required retention times.
No one has said we should focus on STEM to the exclusion of all else.
If you want to take a double major, sure, go ahead and get that degree in Medieval French Lit - Just make sure your other major(s) actually makes you qualified to earn a living.
No argument, a humanities degree will go a long way toward making an engineer "well rounded" (I took the double major path myself); but far from having a glut of narrowly-focused STEM professionals on the market, we instead have a staggering preponderance of unemployable college graduates who had no idea what they wanted to do with their lives and saw a liberal arts degree as the path of least resistance. Nothing "noble" about that, and "well rounded" applies to both sides of the fence. All Nietzsche and no Newton makes you just as square as all Calculus and no Yanomami
Now, if you really do want to work as an anthropologist, hey, more power to ya! But don't complain that no one wants to hire you to smoke a lot of weed and ruminate about how much The Man has conspired to keep you down.
I treat such questions as passwords and never put real info in them. If they're basing it on info they think they already have, they should be slapped hard.
This, so much this! It really annoys me that sooo many sites all ask questions from the same pool of stupid biographical data, thereby making guessing them almost trivial for people like vengeful ex wives and rogue IT staff at any random website that collects password reset questions.
Mother's maiden name? "handlebar mustache"
First pet's name? "furious green ideas"
Granted, I don't tend to pick what I'd call really all that "secure" passwords for them, but I sure as hell don't give them real answers. Hell, half the questions they ask, I don't even know the right answer - "College roommate's home town"??? Seriously? WTF, I couldn't stand the guy, you can sum up the entirety of our conversation with "can you please wash your bedding this month?" and "I told you you couldn't make bacon in a hot-pot!"
I mean, if you were doing actual peer review, none of this would pass even a half-sentient peer's inpection.
This, so much this!
Seriously - If I don't do my job and my boss catches me playing online poker all day, should I attach a response to my HR writeup explaining that I have addressed my deficiency by rearranging my cube to make it harder for others to see my screen???
The problem here has nothing to do with people submitting fake papers, Springer. Rather, you need to stop hiring fake editors.
I don't know about agriculture as a source of air pollution, though I know the runoff causes massive damage to aquatic ecosystems.
The bigger problem here, we just have too damned many humans. Not too many cars, not too many woodstoves, not fuel-X vs fuel-Y, not farming-method-P vs farming-method-Q. We don't need emissions controls (well, we do, but I consider that secondart); we need population controls.
Nothing short of that will "fix" our pollution problem, our energy needs, our water needs, our space needs. Our planet just can't handle the size of our species.
Slashdot Mirror
Hah! I've defeated your algorithm - With the exception of #5 (and somewhat #2 - I put in my 40+ hours, but have never really done all that well at making sure they happen between 9am and 5pm), I do all of those regularly!
You did not mention doing anything aside from playing old games and buying very few games, if any, now. But go ahead, get an attitude about it.
"Make no mistake, I still game regularly - Between the occasional non-obnoxious modern release".
Attitude? Well, one of us seems to have attitude, anyway. Or at least a reading comprehension problem...
The only way that people with your view will make a difference is if you go out of your way to support the few devs that push quality products that meet your requirements.
And as I mentioned, I do. Drop in the bucket, though, and such content becomes increasingly rare.
these years now that feel like the golden age of online gaming will be the dark ages of games as historians of the future try to recreate what online play was like now for many titles.
While I agree with your premise, you overlook the fact that many of us in the "first gen" of gamers already view this as a "dark age". Personally, I have a fairly impressive game library, spanning a dozen platforms and worth probably tens of thousands of dollars (at original retail price*) worth of games. And I basically stopped buying games about a decade ago, with a few notable exceptions.
Make no mistake, I still game regularly - Between the occasional non-obnoxious modern release, and the back catalog of once-great games that I still haven't played (just finished Fallout a few weeks ago, no idea how I never got into that when it first came out), I figure I have enough material to keep me content for the rest of my life. But I will not play any game that depends on any aspect of the game under the exclusive control of a third party. Open servers and a really viable single-player mode, or GTFO, simple as that.
* Not that I actually paid full retail, which counts as an entirely different problem with modern games - Reselling a game used to mean putting it back in the box (or putting everything you had left in a ziplock bag), and passing it along to someone else for a few bucks. Now, if you even have the option of reselling it, you usually need to do so with the "permission" of the publisher. Fuck that!
Facepalm...that's how ad-based websites work!
Yes and no. You have it basically correct, but have omitted a key fact in this particular situation - Youtube can only exist by virtue of the fact that its users give them the vast majority of their content.
It sounds great, as a business model, to get paid for reselling something you can get for free, but not all of your audience will quietly put up with the fact that they count as the product.
They make you an offer, you decline and go elsewhere. Who was successful in that negotiation? Nobody.
I agree with you as a technicality, but in spirit, you've accomplished the same thing...
Who won? The person who says "screw your pathetic offer" and does go elsewhere for a better deal. The company that fills a position they have open with someone good enough that they didn't need to accept the first lowball offer that came their way.
And who lost? The company forced to either leave a position vacant, or possibly worse, fill it with someone so inexperienced (or just plain bad at what they do) that they had no alternatives but to accept the first paying offer that came their way.
This can only work out well, both in terms of Reddit's future staffing and Pao's goal of equalizing the playing field for women, if Reddit suddenly starts leading the industry for salaries. And as much as I like Reddit - I just don't see that happening.
Yet we don't negotiate for toothpaste, gas, etc.
Of course we do - We just do it in a way less blunt than "A shekel for that, you must be mad!".
Do you pay $6 for your toothpaste at 7-11, or $4 for the same brand and size at Walmart? Similarly, do you fill your car at the closest QwikyMart charging $0.15 higher than everyone else, or do you plan ahead to get gas at the average-priced Shell/Mobil/Major-Brand-X, or do you go out of your way to get gas at Sams for $0.10 less than everyone else has? We "negotiate" low margin prices by virtue of choosing where we buy. We don't try to talk most retail outlets down, we simply don't shop there except as a last resort.
And on the subject of cars, when you move up to much higher margin items, like furniture and cars and houses - Do you still just pay list, or do you negotiate? Well, guess what - I make a couple times the cost of a new car per year; and you can bet your ass I'll negotiate my salary (and the price of a car/house/couch) to the best of my ability. And no, I won't trade cash-in-hand for equity. I might trade it for vacation time, only because I value that higher than money, but oddly enough I have yet to find a company willing to even consider that particular trade-off. Huh, you'd almost think they want to get as much work out of me for as little money as possible, almost like... like... some sort of negotiation!
On the "bright" side, though, this will have the desired effect for Pao - Good negotiators won't even apply to work at Reddit, they'll go somewhere that recognizes the value of someone skilled at negotiation (a valuable skill in itself,useful in far, far more contexts than mere salary discussions). And assuming her premise holds true (I honestly don't know whether it does or doesn't), she will in effect get more women working there, and Reddit will benefit from underpaying them due to having banned negotiation in the name of "equality". That deserves a hell of a golf-clap, Ellen! It takes balls - erm, ovaries - to sell out your own kind in the name of protecting them from discrimination. Kudos!
"In the early 1960s, the Hawaii Island Chamber of Commerce began encouraging astronomical development of Mauna Kea, as an economic stimulus [...] UH rebuilt its small astronomy department into a new Institute for Astronomy, and in 1968 the Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources gave it a 65-year lease for all land within a 4 km (2.5 mi) radius of its telescope
Yes, I would have a problem with you randomly appearing and taking a dump on my front lawn, because I pay the government roughly 1.5% of the value of my home every year for the continued privilege of having the mostly-exclusive right to decide who gets to defecate on my lawn.
If, however, I put out an ad for someone to come fertilize my lawn with human excrement, and awarded you an exclusive contract to do the job for the next 65 years... Well then, I wouldn't really have much to right to bitch about you doing exactly what I asked you to, now would I?
Now git offa mah lawn, whippersnapper!
It's more about it being sacred for the gifts it gave the early Hawaiians in the form of food, water and other resources than of it being because of ghosts.
"The summit of Mauna Kea was seen as the "region of the gods", a place where benevolent spirits reside. Poliahu, deity of snow, also resides there."
Like I said, ghosts.
In any case, whether "ghosts" or "we liked hanging out there 1500 years ago", neither makes any difference as to whether or not we should build an observatory in one of the single most suitable spots on the planet for its primary purpose.
Seriously?
"Killed X people. He admits it. His lawyers admit it. We have video proving he did it." "Yep, guilty".
"Injured Y people. He admits it. His lawyers admit it. We have video proving he did it." "Yep, guilty".
"Conspired to do the above. He admits it. His lawyers admit it. We have video proving he did it." "Yep, guilty".
"Used a firearm to do the above. He admits it. His lawyers admit it. We have video proving he did it." "Yep, guilty".
"Did the above in a public place. He admits it. His lawyers admit it. We have video proving he did it." "Yep, guilty".
"Disrupted commerce with the above. He admits it. His lawyers admit it. We have video proving he did it." "Yep, guilty".
Really, it takes 23 minutes of deliberation per charge for 30 variations of the above list, none of which either the defendant or his lawyers or the physical evidence disputes? Hell, it amazes me it took 23 minutes total. Most likely scenario, the jury included one complete bastard who liked finally getting his 23 minutes of attention and milked it for every second he could.
You have given the single, most concise answer in this discussion.
// Not psychotic enough, though, to pretend I know god's will about big rock, meteorites, walls, and mountain tops.
/// Also not just "pro science, so fuck you" - I'd say the same about building a Walmart in the same spot.
We have stopped building an expensive modern scientific instrument that will improve all of humanity, because of fucking ghosts. And not even ghosts in the "poltergeist" sense, but ghosts in the "my great grandaddy told me Jesus cries when you eat a ham and cheese sandwich" sense - Such complete nonsense that any adult should feel ashamed that such idiotic words might come out of their mouth in voicing their objections to this telescope.
The sooner we as a species stop humoring these morons, the better.
/ Not an atheist.
Instead of asking "what now", doesn't anyone wonder why TC chose to self-destruct, invoking its own canary and refusing to let anyone keep the name?
If the devs just wanted out, they could have passed on the name to a blessed successor. Even if they wanted to act petty and protect the name for no good reason, they didn't need to invoke their canary. Something about this just doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
Hmm, if we question whether or not we can trust that the NSA didn't get to the original devs... How can we trust that they didn't get to the auditors? "Yup, all clear! Enjoy! (Can I have my kids back now, Mr. Suit?)"
The famous "51% attack" requires both malice *and* luck.
First of all, just hitting 51% doesn't guarantee that you will continue to have a longer available chain than the rest of the network, a hard requirement to pull off a 51% double-spending attack. Until you start getting into the 60 or 70% range, you can at best cheat for a few blocks in a row.
And since such double-spending becomes instantly detectable and would pretty much obliterate confidence in the network, you would effectively have the ability to double-spend a suddenly-worthless currency. Only someone intentionally looking to destroy BitCoin would waste the resources to control that much processing power, only to make all their high-end dedicated hardware worthless in the process. And before you suggest someone like the NSA could do it - Currently it would take 2.2 zettaflops; for comparison the entire Top500 only pull 309 petaflops, or about 0.007% (no, I didn't misplace the decimal or forget to multiply by 100 there) of the aggregate power of the Bitcoin network.
ads are displayed in a way that would not be permitted on broadcast or cable television.
Porn is not permitted on broadcast television either. Welcome to the internet.
Both are dangerous, but when used properly and with care can be exceptionally useful.
Not really a great analogy... People without knives (but who at least know of their existence) can immediately see their utility, regardless of their danger. Although some people without Facebook pages may avoid it out of some variety of fear, I dare say that the majority of people without them simply don't want one.
I think as a better analogy, you might compare FB to a sous vide machine - Yes, it serves a (very, very niche) purpose, and yes, we can all see what it does; but let's not kid ourselves, all the people rushing out to buy one only do it because it counts as this year's cool kitchen gadget (and more importantly, all their friends have one).
Facebook only has as much lasting power as it does because its utility has a certain "stickiness" to it - Once you join and all your friends join, it takes effort to have all your friends update their contact information for you; but if you never joined in the first place, it really doesn't "do" much you can't get elsewhere. The "wall", okay, you can't really get that anywhere else (without having all your "friends" go there as well), but far from appealing to me, I consider that an annoying feature. "So your friend wrote that to you?" "No, FB just thought I might like to see it" "So wait, does it randomly post your messages to other people you don't know?" "*crickets*".
you also offer an opportunity for people who offer you something beneficial to find you (ex: old friends displaced by time and distance, other hobbiests who share your passion).
I don't really see that as a selling point, though - I have stayed in touch with everyone from my past that I wanted to, and I have no shortage of opportunities to make new friends based on shared interests in the real world every single day. Meanwhile, that cute girl from my sophomore history class now counts as a soccer mom in her mid 30s and we have literally nothing in common beyond that insignificant footnote from our distant pasts.
I expect you're happy with computer modelling for many things
Computer modelling can help us come up with plausible answers to a vast array of questions that we have difficulty otherwise obtaining data on... But no scientist would ever accept a computer model in favor of actual experimental data, when available.
Perhaps the best-known example of this, weather forecasting. We have a pretty solid grasp of the physics involved, but reality diverges from the predictions over time anyway.
And also, of course, pretend that computer modelling is what it's all about.
The GGP, not the GP, brought that up.
And all that said, I have to admit, I consider this one somewhat silly. Of all the really cool groundbreaking work we could do sending probes to the far reaches of the solar system (hello, Titan and Ganymede?), we plan to hit a really big nearby rock with a hammer and see what happens? Only slightly better "science" than the Shuttle program, which consisted of 10% "let's grow seeds in zero gravity" and 90% classified military payloads.
Hong Kong is special administrative region of China. It has different laws, open culture, democracy, and freedoms, unlike mainland China. Don't put Hong Kong with the dictatorship of the China.
SARs exist only by staying in the good graces of the PRC. Hong Kong and Macau could lose their special status tomorrow and would have zero say in the matter.
Of course, China currently enjoys playing both sides of the "capitalism" fence, so that almost certainly wouldn't happen; but if Beijing says "Hey, you like all that freedom you have? Yeah, we need you to make something to happen ASAP - Reeeal shame if we reallocated your entire region into a coal ash dump"? You'd see how much "independence" China's SARs really have.
This would be exponentially more effective if read with green text on black background. You lazy.
Pleeease don't give them any ideas. They seem to have trouble keeping the site's normal CSS fully functional from week to week; do you really want them to go tinkering with it to add extra punch to yet another one of these lame 4/1 posts?
Pffft, Any fool can tell that Harkonnen doesn't have the cunning to pull this off on their own.
Open your eyes, sheeple! This has the marks of those Bene Gesserit witches all over it!
And also.. backing up his email in case he deletes his inbox/sentbox? Are you serious?
Some industries have legally mandated retention periods, both in the minimum and maximum direction.
That said, employees shouldn't have the ability to violate the corporate retention policy. You delete an email? Okay, you don't see it anymore, but it still lives on the server. You don't delete an email? Okay, but in three years, it vanishes automatically.
And yes, you can play games such as forwarding it to yourself, printing it to PDF, yadda yadda yadda, but at least on the deletion side, your admins have no excuse for not having the server automatically enforce minimum required retention times.
No one has said we should focus on STEM to the exclusion of all else.
If you want to take a double major, sure, go ahead and get that degree in Medieval French Lit - Just make sure your other major(s) actually makes you qualified to earn a living.
No argument, a humanities degree will go a long way toward making an engineer "well rounded" (I took the double major path myself); but far from having a glut of narrowly-focused STEM professionals on the market, we instead have a staggering preponderance of unemployable college graduates who had no idea what they wanted to do with their lives and saw a liberal arts degree as the path of least resistance. Nothing "noble" about that, and "well rounded" applies to both sides of the fence. All Nietzsche and no Newton makes you just as square as all Calculus and no Yanomami
Now, if you really do want to work as an anthropologist, hey, more power to ya! But don't complain that no one wants to hire you to smoke a lot of weed and ruminate about how much The Man has conspired to keep you down.
I treat such questions as passwords and never put real info in them. If they're basing it on info they think they already have, they should be slapped hard.
This, so much this! It really annoys me that sooo many sites all ask questions from the same pool of stupid biographical data, thereby making guessing them almost trivial for people like vengeful ex wives and rogue IT staff at any random website that collects password reset questions.
Mother's maiden name? "handlebar mustache"
First pet's name? "furious green ideas"
Granted, I don't tend to pick what I'd call really all that "secure" passwords for them, but I sure as hell don't give them real answers. Hell, half the questions they ask, I don't even know the right answer - "College roommate's home town"??? Seriously? WTF, I couldn't stand the guy, you can sum up the entirety of our conversation with "can you please wash your bedding this month?" and "I told you you couldn't make bacon in a hot-pot!"
I mean, if you were doing actual peer review, none of this would pass even a half-sentient peer's inpection.
This, so much this!
Seriously - If I don't do my job and my boss catches me playing online poker all day, should I attach a response to my HR writeup explaining that I have addressed my deficiency by rearranging my cube to make it harder for others to see my screen???
The problem here has nothing to do with people submitting fake papers, Springer. Rather, you need to stop hiring fake editors.
But you don't care, because it's the control that matters to you, no the consequences.
Fundamental attribution error, much?
1) Modern diesel engines burn cleaner than gasoline.
2) Modern wood-stoves can produce 1/10th the emissions of your granddad's outdoor wood boiler.
I don't know about agriculture as a source of air pollution, though I know the runoff causes massive damage to aquatic ecosystems.
The bigger problem here, we just have too damned many humans. Not too many cars, not too many woodstoves, not fuel-X vs fuel-Y, not farming-method-P vs farming-method-Q. We don't need emissions controls (well, we do, but I consider that secondart); we need population controls.
Nothing short of that will "fix" our pollution problem, our energy needs, our water needs, our space needs. Our planet just can't handle the size of our species.