I typically wear pants everywhere I go, and the places I don't wear pants, I don't think I need to be uniquely identified...or at least, I think I'm pretty well recognized just by my physiognomy, yuh?
So, please, instead of putting the proprietary and easily-obsolesced technological bolus UNDER MY GOD-DAMNED SKIN can I, yuh, just stick it in my pocket?
5 (expanded): you can add neutrons to the nuclei of atoms to create heavier isotopes, which may then (in one of several decay scenarios*) split, as in fission
I.e., the most obviously valuable use of a high-density, high-energy neutron beam is studying heretofore under-investigated fission reactions and adding significant digits to heretofore over-investigated fission reactions. All this stuff about the "commercial benefits" is a cartoonish beard for A-bomb research.
* - the other common scenarios are alpha (helium-nucleus) emission resulting in a decrease of atomic number by 2 and mass number by 4, and beta (electron) emission resulting in an increase of atomic number by 1 and no change in mass number; i.e., we're talking alchemy here, kids.
The system tends to discourage trolls from becoming moderators, but it's not infallible. And nothing pleases everyone. Some people drink the kool-aid and ignore validity to justify their own blind fealty. And sometimes, the people being criticized are the ones with the mod points, so there's that to battle.
re 1. Repeating my point isn't disagreeing with me.
re 2. Yes, I liked the fish. It had timing and wit. The animation at the end wasn't bad either, but could have had better timing. This stuff is subtle. There's a reason Pixar films are universally recognized as better than anyone else's animated stuff.
re 3. Comparing something bad to other things that are bad doesn't make it good.
re 4. Cute, yes. But it still has to have an internal logic. Even illogic has a logic with a discernible disconnect from correct logic. That's how suspension of disbelief works. You have to show the etiology of the error somewhere, or the kids don't look misguided, they just look stupid. They blame something "Dad" said, but nothing Dad said in any way can be taken or mistaken to mean "I'd put my computer in the washing machine myself if I had the time". Now, if the line had been, "Dad said he needed someone to scrub the viruses and spyware off his computer," you'd have comedy gold. That, and a closing shot of the computer bobbing in the sudsy, agitating wash-water. I'm cracking up just thinking of it...
re 5. Again, comparing the ultra-dumb to the ultra-dumb isn't going to make it un-ultra-dumb. Compare it to the ultra-smart, and figure out where to fix it. Until then, don't insult your coworkers, associates, employees, partners, contributors, and shareholders by making ultra-dumb their public image.
>Apparently when people see that there is something more expensive and more "over the top" they are much more compelled to buy the next lower version than if that same version was the high end.
don't confuse compelled for enabled
people don't want to feel like pigs
they feel like pigs when they get the biggest item
if they take the next-biggest item, they both satisfy their need to serve themselves, and their need not to be gluttonous
also, it's very common that the best value is to be had by taking the second-tier item; the reason is that on a learning-curve pricing scheme, the slope is steepest between items near the premium end of the curve; why a learning-curve pricing scheme applies is beyond the scope of this article, many reasons can be found, and exceptions as well
1. Daredevil. What's this about? Nice editing, pretty sweet cinematography (if extremely dark due to heavy use of solar silhouetting). Nice little homily about the surfing ethic. And the kid skateboarding with the surfboard is cool too. But there's no surfing in it. There's skateboarding. Looks too cold to surf. And too dark. Confused.
2. This is hot. Predictable. I liked the touch with the fish. Too bad it didn't hold that note.
3. Wheee! Cute, but the payoff is lame. Firefox just wants to sleep? Confused again.
4. Get the Soap. Dumb. No text, sub- or otherwise, to indicate why the kids think washing gets rid of viruses and spyware. Only the soap-on-the-lens thing keeps it from being dead last. Oh, and the fact that this one could never be anything but:
5. Fox Fever. Ultra-dumb. Lame beyond words. Everything that's wrong about the vox populi artistic movement. How did this hunk of shit get out of the in-box, much less into this list?
The point is, it doesn't matter where the Wikipedia falls in your list of references. It's not a reference at all. It's noise, gussied up to look like facts.
His early yet elegant productivity enabled a generation to create and communicate.
But really, the heroes are the people who wrote the documentation. Because all the technology in the world is useless if the next guy can't figure out how it works.
It's not a store for facts, it's a store for claims.
When was the last time you googled for something, looked at the Wikipedia link, and then...read the associated discussion link to see what facts were in dispute?
If everyone answered randomly, only 1 in 256 people taking the quiz should have succeeded in avoiding all of the spyware.
So how did the other 6 manage it?
There are no clues on those websites (except the one that mentioned terms and conditions) to indicate that they might be trying to take something from you in return for the "free" stuff.
Slashdot Mirror
You left out
c) no hope of ever making more than $29.50/hour...
I typically wear pants everywhere I go, and the places I don't wear pants, I don't think I need to be uniquely identified...or at least, I think I'm pretty well recognized just by my physiognomy, yuh?
So, please, instead of putting the proprietary and easily-obsolesced technological bolus UNDER MY GOD-DAMNED SKIN can I, yuh, just stick it in my pocket?
That'd be brilliant. Cheers.
unpaid overtime
UNPAID
OVERTIME???
go hourly. you'll find yourself smiling through 100-hour weeks and 4-month vacations.
TEN
HOUR
DAY??
is that what passes for exhausting to the new crowd of code monkeys?
most slashdotters can make themselves invisible simply by entering a room
(you're nodding your head right now, aren't you?)
99.95% of songs aren't worth a dollar.
.05% are worth only a dollar.
The other
Writing the retail price into a wholesale contract is exactly what "price-fixing" is all about.
Where's the district attorney on this?
5 (expanded): you can add neutrons to the nuclei of atoms to create heavier isotopes, which may then (in one of several decay scenarios*) split, as in fission
I.e., the most obviously valuable use of a high-density, high-energy neutron beam is studying heretofore under-investigated fission reactions and adding significant digits to heretofore over-investigated fission reactions. All this stuff about the "commercial benefits" is a cartoonish beard for A-bomb research.
* - the other common scenarios are alpha (helium-nucleus) emission resulting in a decrease of atomic number by 2 and mass number by 4, and beta (electron) emission resulting in an increase of atomic number by 1 and no change in mass number; i.e., we're talking alchemy here, kids.
Yeah...I thought I had it down to just the few minutes during my after-lunch food coma...now it's showing up on /. in the middle of the night...
How is this better than the existing bookmarks system?
Those who can, do.
Those who can teach, criticize.
Those who can not even operate a login prompt, post as anonymous cowards.
How totally intuitive.
(not)
Did he say "cleaning"?
I didn't hear it.
A troll moderator.
The system tends to discourage trolls from becoming moderators, but it's not infallible. And nothing pleases everyone. Some people drink the kool-aid and ignore validity to justify their own blind fealty. And sometimes, the people being criticized are the ones with the mod points, so there's that to battle.
re 1. Repeating my point isn't disagreeing with me.
re 2. Yes, I liked the fish. It had timing and wit. The animation at the end wasn't bad either, but could have had better timing. This stuff is subtle. There's a reason Pixar films are universally recognized as better than anyone else's animated stuff.
re 3. Comparing something bad to other things that are bad doesn't make it good.
re 4. Cute, yes. But it still has to have an internal logic. Even illogic has a logic with a discernible disconnect from correct logic. That's how suspension of disbelief works. You have to show the etiology of the error somewhere, or the kids don't look misguided, they just look stupid. They blame something "Dad" said, but nothing Dad said in any way can be taken or mistaken to mean "I'd put my computer in the washing machine myself if I had the time". Now, if the line had been, "Dad said he needed someone to scrub the viruses and spyware off his computer," you'd have comedy gold. That, and a closing shot of the computer bobbing in the sudsy, agitating wash-water. I'm cracking up just thinking of it...
re 5. Again, comparing the ultra-dumb to the ultra-dumb isn't going to make it un-ultra-dumb. Compare it to the ultra-smart, and figure out where to fix it. Until then, don't insult your coworkers, associates, employees, partners, contributors, and shareholders by making ultra-dumb their public image.
So the sun rises over the ocean in California?
>Apparently when people see that there is something more expensive and more "over the top" they are much more compelled to buy the next lower version than if that same version was the high end.
don't confuse compelled for enabled
people don't want to feel like pigs
they feel like pigs when they get the biggest item
if they take the next-biggest item, they both satisfy their need to serve themselves, and their need not to be gluttonous
also, it's very common that the best value is to be had by taking the second-tier item; the reason is that on a learning-curve pricing scheme, the slope is steepest between items near the premium end of the curve; why a learning-curve pricing scheme applies is beyond the scope of this article, many reasons can be found, and exceptions as well
1. Daredevil. What's this about? Nice editing, pretty sweet cinematography (if extremely dark due to heavy use of solar silhouetting). Nice little homily about the surfing ethic. And the kid skateboarding with the surfboard is cool too. But there's no surfing in it. There's skateboarding. Looks too cold to surf. And too dark. Confused.
2. This is hot. Predictable. I liked the touch with the fish. Too bad it didn't hold that note.
3. Wheee! Cute, but the payoff is lame. Firefox just wants to sleep? Confused again.
4. Get the Soap. Dumb. No text, sub- or otherwise, to indicate why the kids think washing gets rid of viruses and spyware. Only the soap-on-the-lens thing keeps it from being dead last. Oh, and the fact that this one could never be anything but:
5. Fox Fever. Ultra-dumb. Lame beyond words. Everything that's wrong about the vox populi artistic movement. How did this hunk of shit get out of the in-box, much less into this list?
That's muh rulin'. - Judge R. Bean
The point is, it doesn't matter where the Wikipedia falls in your list of references. It's not a reference at all. It's noise, gussied up to look like facts.
That's known as the fallacy of false dilemma.
I've never looked in the code for slash, but why is it impossible to reparent this story as a comment under the original?
Bill Joy.
His early yet elegant productivity enabled a generation to create and communicate.
But really, the heroes are the people who wrote the documentation. Because all the technology in the world is useless if the next guy can't figure out how it works.
McNealy never created any job but his own.
No.
It needs a new concept to move beyond its current noise-collection schema.
Don't trust the Wikipedia.
It's not designed to find and protect the truth.
It's not a store for facts, it's a store for claims.
When was the last time you googled for something, looked at the Wikipedia link, and then...read the associated discussion link to see what facts were in dispute?
I don't even do that.
Finally!
Something to drown out the IM glissandos.
If everyone answered randomly, only 1 in 256 people taking the quiz should have succeeded in avoiding all of the spyware.
So how did the other 6 manage it?
There are no clues on those websites (except the one that mentioned terms and conditions) to indicate that they might be trying to take something from you in return for the "free" stuff.
What are the tells?