And at the risk of stereotyping myself, we geeks seem particularly bad in this regard - I wouldn't say we behave worse than most people, just that we tend to lack some of the "social filters" that most people keep up 24/7.
No, the problem isn't that you're a geek - it's that you're thirteen years old emotionally. As so many have said elsewhere in this discussion, it's long past time to grow up.
by appealing to the most fragile shrinking violets out there, such laws instead make mixed-gender teams an outright liability.
Yet, many places operate mixed gender teams with no problems at all. As above, the problem isn't the policies - behavior created liabilities, not policy.
Are the main differences really torso length, should width, and waist size?
They're a huge part of the difference, yes.
Or are the authors just being polite and not highlighting jugs as a factor?
Or maybe they're just being professionals rather than juveniles. (Really, four different slang terms in one post? Grow up.) Or, and I find this likely, given the wide variation in sizes and position of female breasts (and there's no real correlation with other body measurements) they're going for the same "one size fits mostly all" approach.
Its GOOD that its more expensive. FORCE the companies to pay the lower level people better
You're a bit confused there - because despite them being paid better, they aren't any better off. They can still only afford a crappy place, etc... etc...
Or, in other words... I and millions of others can be extremely inconvenienced for little gain - or we can reshuffle the cards to end up right where we already are. Some choice.
Infringement is not theft. Infringement is infringement. There's a reason why infringement is classified as a distinct tort, instead of simply classified as theft.
Play semantic word games all you want - but they reality is that if you're trying to use someone else's reputation, you're a thief.
JD certainly could have used the opportunity to be a narcissistic sociopath, beaten him up and bullied him into bankruptcy or complete submission, and generally ruined his life.
More semantic games trying to evade to issue and the facts.
Like what? If they were really interested in cutting corners they would not be developing superdraco engines for the CCDev escape system proposal. The Shuttle had no escape system at all and NASA flew it.
Because the specification demands an escape system - duh.
It does not seem like they are cutting corners to me.
Just because it doesn't seem like they're cutting corners doesn't mean they aren't being cut - not all corners are visible to an outside observer. (Heck, even the big players have lost boosters and probes in recent history due to such non obvious corners being cut.) I'm also reminded of when John Carmak posted to a space development list years ago recounting the steep learning curve they were suffering through, and ruefully admitting that he'd learned there were good reasons why Big Aerospace did at least some things the way they did. (He'd thrown many such techniques overboard, believing like many armchair engineers that they were mere bloat and gold plating.)
I'm not claiming they cut corners, or defending the notion that they are. I'm merely pointing out that you can't draw a curve through a single point - and one shouldn't uncritically cheer the point just because it confirms your bias.
The Jack Daniel's company's gracious reaction to the abuse of their trade mark is more than the book's publisher deserved. Deliberately ripping-off another company's IPR for a book jacket is not the behaviour of a reputable publisher.
This. I get so freaking tired of these "why can't companies be kind to people who are deliberately ripping them off" stories. If you're a thief, you deserved to be treated as one.
What I find interesting is the default assumption is that NASA is wrong - nobody ever wonders if it SpaceX cut any corners that will come back to bite them in the butt.
We wrapped each and every item in a anti-static bag, and then evacuated the bags before boxing them up. We used normal cardboard boxes for boxing.
It's so very amusing - you went to all that trouble with the items, and then packaged them without any care as to the packaging. Actually, it's not amusing. It's stupid.
The elephant in the room that nobody is discussing... what's your container going to be made of? How are you going to seal it and keep it sealed? These are non-trivial questions. Containers react with the materials inside and corrode both inside and out. Seals dry out. Etc... etc...
There's a lot more to this than just the items inside. The container has to maintain its integrity too.
It looks very probable that these pcb computers will be the starting point towards building smart automated appliances in the home.
Not without getting a hell of a lot cheaper - I.E. down in the $3-5 range. Most appliances are in the sub $100 range, so adding $40 pcb computers is going to be a non starter.
I learned more about history, language, philosophy from those audiocassettes than 5 years of actual college.
I seriously doubt that. You may have amassed more facts - but facts aren't learning. When you take a serious degree, you also learn how to think and handle information via writing papers and interaction/discussion between yourself and other students and the professor.
Have a look in the "Explore" section of Google+ (I think it used to be called "What's Hot"). The things that are popular is not all tech elite stuff. I would say one of the larger groups of people who use Google+ are people interested in photography, there is a lot about that on there.
I know this is hard to believe, but stay with me, technically inclined people have all kinds of interests. (Myself, I'm into woodworking and photography as well.) It is indeed modestly popular with photographers, but from the buzz on the various boards, that's because of the size of the previews not because they can reach any significant audience. (And looking currently at Explore, only a small fraction is pictures.)
Years back when I first joined Facebook, the first thing someone posted on my wall was something on the lines of "This is lame, not as good as MySpace".
And to a large part, whoever posted that's correct - as Facebook didn't allow the level of customization and widgets that MySpace does. But Facebook was a heck of a lot simpler to use and eventually offered much more interactivity and activities. G+ offers little to nothing that Facebook doesn't.
Or we can try this on a trial basis, and scale it up if it seems to be working. When the algae sinks, carrying the carbon to the bottom of the ocean, it takes the iron with it.
Well, it's not that simple. The algae we cause to bloom consumes nutrients that would have been consumed by other algaes. Nor is the ocean bottom dead - dumping that massive amounts of iron and algae into them is not going to be without effect.
The only thing special here is that apple is actually still using boxes, whereas other products have moved to clamshells
Um, no. Apple using boxes is nothing special at all. For the most part, outside of inexpensive products meant to hang on hooks, most products/companies still use boxes.
What do you mean nobody uses it? Ariane 5 works this way exactly
Um, no. Ariane 5 doesn't work like that all - it has a 2nd stage that ignites in flight.
It is generally accepted that you get more reliability the more engines you start on the ground (even single body Falcon 9 adheres to this in a different way - 9 engines started (and checked) on the ground, 1 in the air.
Which of course it not what you claimed - which was that "all motors are started on the ground". Something that has never been common practice, and in fact is quite rare.
Just like LiveJournal before MySpace, the social medium is fad-based.
People keep saying that... so often it's become accepted truth, while ignoring reality. Not to mention that Slashdot, ever disdainful of anything the masses like, had been gleefully predicting Facebook's imminent demise since the day they opened their door to the public.
Yes, Livejournal and Myspace had a lot of users - among the early adopters and the young. Neither had anything even remotely approaching the depth and penetration that Facebook has. So, are they fad based? Or did it just take a couple of tries before someone got it right, or close enough to right, to capture and dominate the market? The jury is still out, but the evidence is somewhat in favor of the latter.
A new social network, to topple Facebook, has to both replace Facebook functionally *and* capture a huge number of users across a broad range of social strata. (Just capturing the tech elite and next-best-thing adopters won't cut it anymore due to deep and broad penetration of Facebook.) That's a tall order, even for Google.
Slashdot Mirror
No, the problem isn't that you're a geek - it's that you're thirteen years old emotionally. As so many have said elsewhere in this discussion, it's long past time to grow up.
Yet, many places operate mixed gender teams with no problems at all. As above, the problem isn't the policies - behavior created liabilities, not policy.
Neither is relevant to the topic of being juvenile.
They're a huge part of the difference, yes.
Or maybe they're just being professionals rather than juveniles. (Really, four different slang terms in one post? Grow up.) Or, and I find this likely, given the wide variation in sizes and position of female breasts (and there's no real correlation with other body measurements) they're going for the same "one size fits mostly all" approach.
You're a bit confused there - because despite them being paid better, they aren't any better off. They can still only afford a crappy place, etc... etc...
Or, in other words... I and millions of others can be extremely inconvenienced for little gain - or we can reshuffle the cards to end up right where we already are. Some choice.
Play semantic word games all you want - but they reality is that if you're trying to use someone else's reputation, you're a thief.
More semantic games trying to evade to issue and the facts.
Because the specification demands an escape system - duh.
Just because it doesn't seem like they're cutting corners doesn't mean they aren't being cut - not all corners are visible to an outside observer. (Heck, even the big players have lost boosters and probes in recent history due to such non obvious corners being cut.) I'm also reminded of when John Carmak posted to a space development list years ago recounting the steep learning curve they were suffering through, and ruefully admitting that he'd learned there were good reasons why Big Aerospace did at least some things the way they did. (He'd thrown many such techniques overboard, believing like many armchair engineers that they were mere bloat and gold plating.)
I'm not claiming they cut corners, or defending the notion that they are. I'm merely pointing out that you can't draw a curve through a single point - and one shouldn't uncritically cheer the point just because it confirms your bias.
That reduces population growth, but causes an explosion of per-capita resource consumption. That's not exactly sustainable either.
This. I get so freaking tired of these "why can't companies be kind to people who are deliberately ripping them off" stories. If you're a thief, you deserved to be treated as one.
The 1970's called - they want to drop off the disco balls and bell bottom trousers for the rest of your nostalgia trip.
No, you'd have to be someone using the word as it's been commonly used for thirty odd years now.
What I find interesting is the default assumption is that NASA is wrong - nobody ever wonders if it SpaceX cut any corners that will come back to bite them in the butt.
It's so very amusing - you went to all that trouble with the items, and then packaged them without any care as to the packaging. Actually, it's not amusing. It's stupid.
The elephant in the room that nobody is discussing... what's your container going to be made of? How are you going to seal it and keep it sealed? These are non-trivial questions. Containers react with the materials inside and corrode both inside and out. Seals dry out. Etc... etc...
There's a lot more to this than just the items inside. The container has to maintain its integrity too.
Not without getting a hell of a lot cheaper - I.E. down in the $3-5 range. Most appliances are in the sub $100 range, so adding $40 pcb computers is going to be a non starter.
No, you don't think. Period.
Yes, something utterly unlike iGoogle and completely lacking all features of iGoogle is a replacement for iGoogle.
What are you smoking?
Nor has it succeeded like fanbois said it would. If it were anyone but Google, you'd have already pronounced it dead too.
Is such utter cluelessness painful?
I seriously doubt that. You may have amassed more facts - but facts aren't learning. When you take a serious degree, you also learn how to think and handle information via writing papers and interaction/discussion between yourself and other students and the professor.
I know this is hard to believe, but stay with me, technically inclined people have all kinds of interests. (Myself, I'm into woodworking and photography as well.) It is indeed modestly popular with photographers, but from the buzz on the various boards, that's because of the size of the previews not because they can reach any significant audience. (And looking currently at Explore, only a small fraction is pictures.)
And to a large part, whoever posted that's correct - as Facebook didn't allow the level of customization and widgets that MySpace does. But Facebook was a heck of a lot simpler to use and eventually offered much more interactivity and activities. G+ offers little to nothing that Facebook doesn't.
Well, it's not that simple. The algae we cause to bloom consumes nutrients that would have been consumed by other algaes. Nor is the ocean bottom dead - dumping that massive amounts of iron and algae into them is not going to be without effect.
So did 99 percenters in the form of servants, etc...
Um, no. Apple using boxes is nothing special at all. For the most part, outside of inexpensive products meant to hang on hooks, most products/companies still use boxes.
Um, no. Ariane 5 doesn't work like that all - it has a 2nd stage that ignites in flight.
Which of course it not what you claimed - which was that "all motors are started on the ground". Something that has never been common practice, and in fact is quite rare.
People keep saying that... so often it's become accepted truth, while ignoring reality. Not to mention that Slashdot, ever disdainful of anything the masses like, had been gleefully predicting Facebook's imminent demise since the day they opened their door to the public.
Yes, Livejournal and Myspace had a lot of users - among the early adopters and the young. Neither had anything even remotely approaching the depth and penetration that Facebook has. So, are they fad based? Or did it just take a couple of tries before someone got it right, or close enough to right, to capture and dominate the market? The jury is still out, but the evidence is somewhat in favor of the latter.
A new social network, to topple Facebook, has to both replace Facebook functionally *and* capture a huge number of users across a broad range of social strata. (Just capturing the tech elite and next-best-thing adopters won't cut it anymore due to deep and broad penetration of Facebook.) That's a tall order, even for Google.