I really doubt that would happen. These are big corporations, not kids on a playground. Adobe wants flash on every device imaginable, and the iPhone/iPod/iPad represents a significant number of those devices. If Apple reverses itself and says Flash is welcome, then Adobe will jump to have it on their devices. I'm sure the execs at Adobe are and will continue to call Jobs lots of nasty names in the privacy of their offices, but they're not about to give up marketshare if it's offered to them.
One night she was arguing with her boyfriend (no physical fight involved), and threatened to call 911 (nobody knows why, this was one of her out-of-the-head moments). She picked up her cell phone, messed with it a moment, then put it back down. Unknown to us, she had dialled 911 then hung up.
A little while later (not very fast, sad to say), there were 4 policemen at the front door.
It's not surprising that it took a while, since your roommate called from a cell-phone. Yes, they do get a "more-or-less" location based on the phone's GPS, or tower position, but they don't necessarily get a really accurate location. In this case, those cops may have had to go door to door to find out which house the cell-phone was actually in. Yes, I know you said that your roomate was the one who owned the phone, but owner address is not normally part of the data that 911 gets.
there were 4 policemen at the front door. I answered the door, and one of them said "Did someone dial 911?" I said "Oh, shit. Yes, I think someone did. Just a minute, I will go get her." And started to close the door.
One of the policemen put his hand on the door and said "I would like to come in and talk to her." I said, "I will go get her, you just wait here." And I closed the door. Went and got her, told her the police wanted to talk to her. She let one of them in, and he interviewed her. In the meantime, the other officers, still outside, proceeded to badger me: "Why didn't you let us in?" "What are you afraid of?" "What have you got in there you don't want us to see?" Etc., etc.
Even fishier. Unless the cops were being particularly lax, they would not just say "Okie dokie" when you closed the door on them. The fact that you SAY it was your roommate that made the call is irrelevant. The fact that she says she's the one who made the call is irrelevant. You've now admitted that the call came from your house, and they have no way of knowing who made that call, or that the person who made that call isn't tied up in your bathroom with a gag in their mouth. Even if they did believe you that your friend was in fact the person who made the call, your insistence that they shouldn't come in would probably make them think that the call was made during a "domestic disturbance", and that you hadn't had time to clean up the broken glass/furniture/whatever. For all they knew, you'd terrorized your roommate into lying that everything was fine, when in fact you'd been punching her in the stomach until they showed up.
I just smiled and told them "Nothing personal; it is a matter of principle. You got to talk to the person you came here to see. You need not concern yourselves with anything else." I closed the door and went to bed.
Unlikely. Again, unless you got some really lax officers (who may have, just for fun, gone door-to-door looking for that phone, even though they had no interest in investigating the call), at this point you'd get the choice of cooperating or trying on some new silver bracelets.
So, so far, what you've described is that a call went to 911, the police responded, you made them suspicious by insisting that although the 911 call came from your residence, you don't want them coming in to confirm that there was no crime. At this point, I'd probably expect the police to demand entry, and if it turns out there's no actual problem, say good night and go home (unless you really try to piss them off, in which case you may get a cite for disorderly conduct or obstruction). If you then have further complaints, I'd expect that they'd plead exigent circumstances, exempting them from the need to have a warrant to search the premises, which ultimately is how it'd get written up.
In ANY of those cases, if they had tried to break in unannounced, they would have gotten shot.
And then you'd wind up dead, and we wouldn't be reading your posts on
Wifi snooping, like google did, is more like them plugging into an ethernet jack on the outside of your house when you've used a hub (and not a switch) and thus every port sees every packet.
Nonsense. The router is broadcasting in the clear into public locations. It's trivially easy to add encryption, which would have kept this information out of Google's hands. Refuse to do so at your own risk.
They have to take deliberate action to record the traffic.
true, but irrelevant. You have to take deliberate action to walk outside and hear your neighbors talking, that doesn't make walking outside wrong.
They cannot walk down the street and just "listen to it". They have to have a special application and computer system setup and running to record it. You cannot go to BestBuy, buy a laptop, turn it on and walk down the street and record what google did. You need special software (and possibly hardware.)
I can do all of this on my freaking cell-phone. Where on Earth did you get the idea that you need some kind of "special equipment" to "hear" wifi signals, other than a wireless nic of some kind.
I will be passing this to the my associates in law enforcement and we will stop and arrest any people operating vehicles within this State for violations of our communications laws.
And what communications law would that be? I'm curious about how the law manages to say that broadcasting your data, in the clear, to anyone who cares to listen results in that listening party being in violation. Maybe you're not going far enough. I hear there are devices called radios and televisions that "listen in" on transmissions promiscuously broadcast by various entities. You should start grabbing people who operate these devices as well, I mean really, who gave them permission to collect the data put out by these so-called "broadcasters", did they check first and ask permission to eavesdrop on their signals?
It is one thing to take pictures from a public street(which is problematic in and of itself around here, for Google),
Yeah, I hate it when people go around, just willy-nilly looking at things that are out in public. That just sucks.
but it is another to intercept or otherwise illegally obtain data that you do not have legal authority to possess.
See above. They're listening to publicly broadcast information. They're not breaking into your network, you're putting this stuff out there for all the world to see. The simplest way to stop them from hearing it is to stop broadcasting it, or encrypting those broadcasts.
We might seem like backwards people to most
Noooooo, I can't imagine where people might get that idea.....
Google has just started a very big problem for themselves.
Yeah, they got into a crapstorm with China, but it's you and your Georgia law-enforcement associates that're really gonna scare 'em.
It seriously sucks to be a driver of one of those cars right now.
There ya go, grab the guy getting paid by the hour to drive around. That's much easier than going after the actual company. If that's your strategy, you're lazy on top of being clueless.
Please explain then how the Mac Mini is in any way trapped in a walled garden then. So far, both ACs have only demonstrated one or more of the following: 1) You don't know what a walled garden is. 2) You don't know anything about OSX machines. 3) You're just trolling and 1 and 2 are irrelevant. Maybe when you're all growed up, you'll get your very own Slashdot account and get over name-calling. Now go get ready for bed little one, and don't forget to brush your teeth.
no, you copied the data. That does not make you the creator of that data any more than picking up a pen and copying word-for-word the contents of Shakespeare's data makes you the "creator" of Hamlet.
I look at it a little differently. If all the sales-people died tonight, would the engineers be able to sell the products without them? I'd think yes. Maybe not as effectively, but they could still sell things. If all the engineers died tonight, would the sales people be able to make the products that they need to sell? Based on my experiences with salespeople, I seriously doubt it.
Unless you're selling a service, in which case the people providing the service matter a whole lot more.
I have pretty intimate knowledge of companies that sell software-related services, and generally the rule that the salespeople are golden and the technical people are cogs holds pretty strongly there too.
Switch: Push Button Constant On / Off, Lock-Out Tail Cap
If I'm reading this right, it's like a flashlight button (click on, click again off). If that's true, this thing goes from really dangerous to absurdly dangerous since it'll stay on if you drop it (or turn on accidentally if you drop it "just right"). I can't imagine putting a control on something like this that doesn't require constant, intentional pressure to keep it on, so that as soon as you let go it shuts off. If I'm wrong, please correct me. I really hope I'm wrong.
Where do you get the idea that I "[pretend] that everyone follows all of the rules all of the time"? People don't, and therefore you get people who rear end other peoples cars. That's why we have rules against that, so that the responsible party, the idiot who can't figure out that following too closely is dangerous, can be held responsible for the damage they do to other people's property. It doesn't matter WHY the first car stops. Red-light cam, deer jumping onto the road, a kid running in front of him, a blown tire, whatever. You should always leave enough space between you and the car you're following so that you can stop without hitting it. Why is this so hard for you to understand, and for the safety of others on the road I hope you don't actually drive since you don't seem to understand this. Red-light cams are irrelevant to the underlying fact that if you don't have enough room to stop, you were following too closely.
Or, by your logic, we shouldn't have most traffic rules, because people might ignore them. Yield signs? Get rid of 'em, people roll through them anyway. Speed limits? Why bother, people speed. Stop for pedestrians? Nah, let the bastards run to get out of my way. You can rationalize all you like, but there is no good reason to be following closely enough that you can't stop. It is not the fault of the person in front of you, take responsibility for yourself, drive safely, and stop blaming others for your poor driving habits.
Oh, and by the way:
By your logic, it would be perfectly OK to cut public funding for AIDS testing and notification because, after all, if everyone is monogomous and has safe sex, there's no reason anyone would ever need AIDS testing or notification. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out why this approach is flawed.
You have this completely backwards. By your logic, people will behave badly and potentially get AIDs, so why do anything about it? By my logic, you see the problem unsafe sex/unsafe driving, and you make a plan to lessen the risk and deal with the consequences, sex ed & testing/driving regulation & enforcement.
maybe that's true in fantasyland, but not where these cameras are being installed.
How do you figure that? Who exactly is forcing you to tailgate the car in front of you? The rule is simple, the fact that people refuse to follow it isn't the fault of the rule, it's the fault of all the people who are "such amazing drivers" that those rules clearly don't apply to them. If you follow at a safe distance, and pay attention to traffic, you won't rear-end anyone, the end.
Except that red-light cameras do not have any effect on driver safety, but they do cause a *large* numbers of rear-end collisions.
Or is it that people follow the car in front of them too closely, and can't stop fast enough. Around here, rear-ending another car is always the fault of the driver in the second car, as you're always supposed to keep enough distance to account for a possible panic-stop.
Well, arguably the federal government has gradually been re-instituting slavery only this time around it is affecting all of us.
Really? Stop working. Go ahead, don't work. Will someone come find you and whip you? Will you be beaten by government "slave-masters" until you go back to work? You'd probably lose your nice house and car (if you have one), but that's about all. SLAVES do not get to choose whether they're going to work or not. Citizens pay taxes because we live in a pretty damned nice country, and, much like living in a nice house, it costs money to keep it that way. Sadly in recent history the people in power spent that money on some pretty damned stupid things, but that still doesn't make you a slave. Hell, pack up your stuff and move somewhere else if it's so awful, which, by the way, is another option slaves don't get. You don't like paying taxes, fine, but stop with the overdramatic talk about being a slave. Claiming to be a slave because you pay taxes is like claiming to be a rape-victim because someone bumped into you in a crowded bar.
I don't entirely disagree with you, but still, police, firefighters, paramedics, soldiers (and plenty of others) get special consideration for their perils because they're in those dangerous situations because of the needs of others. A miner, for instance, is there to dig coal. If there's an accident, it's not his job to risk his life further to rescue other miners. Now, if he does so, and I'm sure a fair number do, and he's injured or killed in the attempt, he absolutely gets looked at as a hero, as opposed to the poor bastard who just had a rock fall on him and had to be rescued. That guy gets sympathy, but there's nothing heroic about having a rock fall on you. That doesn't take away from the fact that his job is respectable, and necessary, they're just two different things. A cop, fireman, medic, soldier, etc, are in those dangerous situations for someone else's benefit. It doesn't personally effect the fireman if a house on the other side of town burns down any more than it effects anyone else who's home sleeping through the event, but he's still there walking around in a burning building trying to put it out, and risking his well-being while he's at it. He could have gone into sales, or landscaping or something less dangerous, that pays as well or better than firefighting, but he chose that work to help others. Okay, and because it's a cool job, but still....
As far as glamor goes, we tend to glamorize plenty of professions while ignoring others as "trivial". Tell someone your kid is a CEO, and people are impressed, tell 'em he's a garbage man, and you get indifference or sympathy that he didn't "make something of himself". Personally, I think the garbage man probably deserves a lot more respect than he gets, and the CEO is probably over-rated, but that's human nature for you....
Cops die less than lumberjacks, miners and divers. Sing me a sad song. I'd rather be shot in the face than die underground or underwater.
The difference is in how they die. When a heroic lumberjack dies fighting off a vicious tree that has a history of killing people and stealing their cars, then I'm sure he gets the same kind of sympathy as a cop who dies after a criminal shoots him/her. It's sad when *anyone* dies while doing their job, but out of all your examples, the tree, the mine, or the ocean never intentionally kills those people. Cops on the other hand, are actually killed intentionally.
A little quick to judge? How about some basic biology. Males are wired for sex and females are wired to be selective about sex. Its not opinion, it is biology. Some males may show constraint, but they are fighting nature. If biology is allowed to take its course males will always try to go all the way and females will have to put on the breaks unless they like the traits of the male; in which case the female is just as likely to attempt to procreate and all bets are off.
That's a nice, clinical description, which in the real world falls apart pretty quickly. Plenty of guys go out, spend the night flirting and have no intention of actually trying to have sex with anyone, and I've seen plenty of girls at my local bar who are looking to get laid and leave with a different guy every weekend. Those girls aren't poor innocent waifs who have been taken advantage of, they're adults who choose to have sex when they want to. There's also nothing wrong with what they're doing. Women are just as grown-up and competent as men when it comes to sex, and are perfectly capable of deciding whether they want to sleep with someone or not.
So if someone is educating their daughters to be wary of boys because "boys will drag them as far down in the gutter as they will allow" they are correct; eventually the relationship will become non-platonic and if allowed will degrade to sex.
No they are not correct. Is it okay make them aware that some guys will lie and do what it takes to get them into bed? Sure. Is it okay to teach them that guys only want one thing, and it's in their pants? No, it is not. That's how you create a girl with problems with self confidence, and trust issues. I have plenty of friends who are women, and there's absolutely nothing sexual about our relationships. They don't have to play gatekeeper to my uncontrollable desires, and I don't have to worry about them innocently falling prey to my sneaky male charms. That's the real world for ya, we really are more than just a collection of base instincts.
I tell girls that boys will drag them as far down in the gutter as they will allow.
You know, you're an asshole. I don't think I've ever started a post on Slashdot that way, and I really don't go in for name-calling, but you get the prize for driving me to it. You seem to have issues with males (I can't tell from your name whether you are one or not, but it's irrelevant), and you should be working through that yourself, not poisoning children's minds to share in your gender issues. No, BOYS will not drag girls into the gutter, some will, some won't. Just as some girls will be manipulative little monsters, and others won't. Shame on you for actively trying to damage these girls' outlook with regards to the other half of the population.
For me, I download everything, so I am immune to CBS and most ads for that matter! I know this self-censorship will probably dwindle, but for now its heavenly!
Great, another do-gooder who isn't affected by something, but feels compelled to "protect" everyone else. You appear to have mastered the use of the "off button" on your television, so instead of cheering for censorship, why not just help some other easily offended prats find it too, and quit telling others what they can and can't see on TV.
While they're at it, shoot, darn, gosh-darn-it, and golly are just surrogates for other "unacceptable" words too. Perhaps the PTC should be going after "Leave it to Beaver" reruns as well for promoting this kind of potty-mouth behaviour in children. Gee-wilikers, hey don't even "bleep" those words!
What if it is against the law in my country for me to compromise confidential information, but now Australia demands to see it?
How is that relevant? In this instance, you're not in *your* country, and therefore your country's laws don't apply, the laws of the country you're in are the only ones they're bound by. Your only choice is, don't bring anything into Australia that you can't have seen by others, and quite frankly, that really goes for *any* other country. Nobody cares what the laws are "back home", you're expected to comply with the laws of where you are, not where you're from.
In short: ignore the qualifications section of any job posting and pay attention to the actual job responsibilities and what experience you might have that's relevant. Pay no mind to stupid hiring managers who have bullshit qualification lists. Apply anyway!
Shhhhh! You're giving away all our secrets!:)
I agree with pretty much everything you say here, it even sounds like, superficially at least, our backgrounds may be pretty similar. I just HATE boneheaded HR/Hiring manager stuff. Maybe they think they're being clever with the absurd and sometimes arbitrary "requirements", but really, they're just making a nuisance of themselves....
This is one of those rare posts that I wish would actually get passed around in emails, and posted to other websites. Easily one of the best posts I've ever seen on/.
which just leads to even more people getting 4-year degrees of dubious real-world value. If it's just an arbitrary crap filter, why not just put in a height requirement, or maybe require that all applicants be able to balance a ball on their noses for no less than five minutes. Wait, here's an idea; just stop accepting resumes after the first 50, or 100 (or whatever) show up, and ditch the arbitrary "crap-filter" to begin with.
Slashdot Mirror
I really doubt that would happen. These are big corporations, not kids on a playground. Adobe wants flash on every device imaginable, and the iPhone/iPod/iPad represents a significant number of those devices. If Apple reverses itself and says Flash is welcome, then Adobe will jump to have it on their devices. I'm sure the execs at Adobe are and will continue to call Jobs lots of nasty names in the privacy of their offices, but they're not about to give up marketshare if it's offered to them.
It's not surprising that it took a while, since your roommate called from a cell-phone. Yes, they do get a "more-or-less" location based on the phone's GPS, or tower position, but they don't necessarily get a really accurate location. In this case, those cops may have had to go door to door to find out which house the cell-phone was actually in. Yes, I know you said that your roomate was the one who owned the phone, but owner address is not normally part of the data that 911 gets.
Even fishier. Unless the cops were being particularly lax, they would not just say "Okie dokie" when you closed the door on them. The fact that you SAY it was your roommate that made the call is irrelevant. The fact that she says she's the one who made the call is irrelevant. You've now admitted that the call came from your house, and they have no way of knowing who made that call, or that the person who made that call isn't tied up in your bathroom with a gag in their mouth. Even if they did believe you that your friend was in fact the person who made the call, your insistence that they shouldn't come in would probably make them think that the call was made during a "domestic disturbance", and that you hadn't had time to clean up the broken glass/furniture/whatever. For all they knew, you'd terrorized your roommate into lying that everything was fine, when in fact you'd been punching her in the stomach until they showed up.
Unlikely. Again, unless you got some really lax officers (who may have, just for fun, gone door-to-door looking for that phone, even though they had no interest in investigating the call), at this point you'd get the choice of cooperating or trying on some new silver bracelets.
So, so far, what you've described is that a call went to 911, the police responded, you made them suspicious by insisting that although the 911 call came from your residence, you don't want them coming in to confirm that there was no crime. At this point, I'd probably expect the police to demand entry, and if it turns out there's no actual problem, say good night and go home (unless you really try to piss them off, in which case you may get a cite for disorderly conduct or obstruction). If you then have further complaints, I'd expect that they'd plead exigent circumstances, exempting them from the need to have a warrant to search the premises, which ultimately is how it'd get written up.
And then you'd wind up dead, and we wouldn't be reading your posts on
Nonsense. The router is broadcasting in the clear into public locations. It's trivially easy to add encryption, which would have kept this information out of Google's hands. Refuse to do so at your own risk.
true, but irrelevant. You have to take deliberate action to walk outside and hear your neighbors talking, that doesn't make walking outside wrong.
I can do all of this on my freaking cell-phone. Where on Earth did you get the idea that you need some kind of "special equipment" to "hear" wifi signals, other than a wireless nic of some kind.
And what communications law would that be? I'm curious about how the law manages to say that broadcasting your data, in the clear, to anyone who cares to listen results in that listening party being in violation. Maybe you're not going far enough. I hear there are devices called radios and televisions that "listen in" on transmissions promiscuously broadcast by various entities. You should start grabbing people who operate these devices as well, I mean really, who gave them permission to collect the data put out by these so-called "broadcasters", did they check first and ask permission to eavesdrop on their signals?
Yeah, I hate it when people go around, just willy-nilly looking at things that are out in public. That just sucks.
See above. They're listening to publicly broadcast information. They're not breaking into your network, you're putting this stuff out there for all the world to see. The simplest way to stop them from hearing it is to stop broadcasting it, or encrypting those broadcasts.
Noooooo, I can't imagine where people might get that idea.....
Yeah, they got into a crapstorm with China, but it's you and your Georgia law-enforcement associates that're really gonna scare 'em.
There ya go, grab the guy getting paid by the hour to drive around. That's much easier than going after the actual company. If that's your strategy, you're lazy on top of being clueless.
Please explain then how the Mac Mini is in any way trapped in a walled garden then. So far, both ACs have only demonstrated one or more of the following:
1) You don't know what a walled garden is.
2) You don't know anything about OSX machines.
3) You're just trolling and 1 and 2 are irrelevant.
Maybe when you're all growed up, you'll get your very own Slashdot account and get over name-calling. Now go get ready for bed little one, and don't forget to brush your teeth.
no, you really didn't....
no, you copied the data. That does not make you the creator of that data any more than picking up a pen and copying word-for-word the contents of Shakespeare's data makes you the "creator" of Hamlet.
I look at it a little differently. If all the sales-people died tonight, would the engineers be able to sell the products without them? I'd think yes. Maybe not as effectively, but they could still sell things. If all the engineers died tonight, would the sales people be able to make the products that they need to sell? Based on my experiences with salespeople, I seriously doubt it.
I have pretty intimate knowledge of companies that sell software-related services, and generally the rule that the salespeople are golden and the technical people are cogs holds pretty strongly there too.
from their website:
If I'm reading this right, it's like a flashlight button (click on, click again off). If that's true, this thing goes from really dangerous to absurdly dangerous since it'll stay on if you drop it (or turn on accidentally if you drop it "just right"). I can't imagine putting a control on something like this that doesn't require constant, intentional pressure to keep it on, so that as soon as you let go it shuts off.
If I'm wrong, please correct me. I really hope I'm wrong.
so what additional security issues do you expect that the school will have to deal with that Windows would protect against?
Where do you get the idea that I "[pretend] that everyone follows all of the rules all of the time"? People don't, and therefore you get people who rear end other peoples cars. That's why we have rules against that, so that the responsible party, the idiot who can't figure out that following too closely is dangerous, can be held responsible for the damage they do to other people's property. It doesn't matter WHY the first car stops. Red-light cam, deer jumping onto the road, a kid running in front of him, a blown tire, whatever. You should always leave enough space between you and the car you're following so that you can stop without hitting it. Why is this so hard for you to understand, and for the safety of others on the road I hope you don't actually drive since you don't seem to understand this.
Red-light cams are irrelevant to the underlying fact that if you don't have enough room to stop, you were following too closely.
Or, by your logic, we shouldn't have most traffic rules, because people might ignore them. Yield signs? Get rid of 'em, people roll through them anyway. Speed limits? Why bother, people speed. Stop for pedestrians? Nah, let the bastards run to get out of my way.
You can rationalize all you like, but there is no good reason to be following closely enough that you can't stop. It is not the fault of the person in front of you, take responsibility for yourself, drive safely, and stop blaming others for your poor driving habits.
Oh, and by the way:
You have this completely backwards. By your logic, people will behave badly and potentially get AIDs, so why do anything about it? By my logic, you see the problem unsafe sex/unsafe driving, and you make a plan to lessen the risk and deal with the consequences, sex ed & testing/driving regulation & enforcement.
How do you figure that? Who exactly is forcing you to tailgate the car in front of you? The rule is simple, the fact that people refuse to follow it isn't the fault of the rule, it's the fault of all the people who are "such amazing drivers" that those rules clearly don't apply to them. If you follow at a safe distance, and pay attention to traffic, you won't rear-end anyone, the end.
Or is it that people follow the car in front of them too closely, and can't stop fast enough. Around here, rear-ending another car is always the fault of the driver in the second car, as you're always supposed to keep enough distance to account for a possible panic-stop.
Really? Stop working. Go ahead, don't work. Will someone come find you and whip you? Will you be beaten by government "slave-masters" until you go back to work? You'd probably lose your nice house and car (if you have one), but that's about all.
SLAVES do not get to choose whether they're going to work or not. Citizens pay taxes because we live in a pretty damned nice country, and, much like living in a nice house, it costs money to keep it that way. Sadly in recent history the people in power spent that money on some pretty damned stupid things, but that still doesn't make you a slave. Hell, pack up your stuff and move somewhere else if it's so awful, which, by the way, is another option slaves don't get.
You don't like paying taxes, fine, but stop with the overdramatic talk about being a slave. Claiming to be a slave because you pay taxes is like claiming to be a rape-victim because someone bumped into you in a crowded bar.
I don't entirely disagree with you, but still, police, firefighters, paramedics, soldiers (and plenty of others) get special consideration for their perils because they're in those dangerous situations because of the needs of others. A miner, for instance, is there to dig coal. If there's an accident, it's not his job to risk his life further to rescue other miners. Now, if he does so, and I'm sure a fair number do, and he's injured or killed in the attempt, he absolutely gets looked at as a hero, as opposed to the poor bastard who just had a rock fall on him and had to be rescued. That guy gets sympathy, but there's nothing heroic about having a rock fall on you. That doesn't take away from the fact that his job is respectable, and necessary, they're just two different things. A cop, fireman, medic, soldier, etc, are in those dangerous situations for someone else's benefit. It doesn't personally effect the fireman if a house on the other side of town burns down any more than it effects anyone else who's home sleeping through the event, but he's still there walking around in a burning building trying to put it out, and risking his well-being while he's at it. He could have gone into sales, or landscaping or something less dangerous, that pays as well or better than firefighting, but he chose that work to help others. Okay, and because it's a cool job, but still....
As far as glamor goes, we tend to glamorize plenty of professions while ignoring others as "trivial". Tell someone your kid is a CEO, and people are impressed, tell 'em he's a garbage man, and you get indifference or sympathy that he didn't "make something of himself". Personally, I think the garbage man probably deserves a lot more respect than he gets, and the CEO is probably over-rated, but that's human nature for you....
The difference is in how they die. When a heroic lumberjack dies fighting off a vicious tree that has a history of killing people and stealing their cars, then I'm sure he gets the same kind of sympathy as a cop who dies after a criminal shoots him/her.
It's sad when *anyone* dies while doing their job, but out of all your examples, the tree, the mine, or the ocean never intentionally kills those people. Cops on the other hand, are actually killed intentionally.
That's a nice, clinical description, which in the real world falls apart pretty quickly. Plenty of guys go out, spend the night flirting and have no intention of actually trying to have sex with anyone, and I've seen plenty of girls at my local bar who are looking to get laid and leave with a different guy every weekend. Those girls aren't poor innocent waifs who have been taken advantage of, they're adults who choose to have sex when they want to. There's also nothing wrong with what they're doing. Women are just as grown-up and competent as men when it comes to sex, and are perfectly capable of deciding whether they want to sleep with someone or not.
No they are not correct. Is it okay make them aware that some guys will lie and do what it takes to get them into bed? Sure. Is it okay to teach them that guys only want one thing, and it's in their pants? No, it is not. That's how you create a girl with problems with self confidence, and trust issues.
I have plenty of friends who are women, and there's absolutely nothing sexual about our relationships. They don't have to play gatekeeper to my uncontrollable desires, and I don't have to worry about them innocently falling prey to my sneaky male charms. That's the real world for ya, we really are more than just a collection of base instincts.
You know, you're an asshole. I don't think I've ever started a post on Slashdot that way, and I really don't go in for name-calling, but you get the prize for driving me to it. You seem to have issues with males (I can't tell from your name whether you are one or not, but it's irrelevant), and you should be working through that yourself, not poisoning children's minds to share in your gender issues. No, BOYS will not drag girls into the gutter, some will, some won't. Just as some girls will be manipulative little monsters, and others won't. Shame on you for actively trying to damage these girls' outlook with regards to the other half of the population.
Great, another do-gooder who isn't affected by something, but feels compelled to "protect" everyone else. You appear to have mastered the use of the "off button" on your television, so instead of cheering for censorship, why not just help some other easily offended prats find it too, and quit telling others what they can and can't see on TV.
While they're at it, shoot, darn, gosh-darn-it, and golly are just surrogates for other "unacceptable" words too. Perhaps the PTC should be going after "Leave it to Beaver" reruns as well for promoting this kind of potty-mouth behaviour in children. Gee-wilikers, hey don't even "bleep" those words!
We're not all from Chicago though......
How is that relevant? In this instance, you're not in *your* country, and therefore your country's laws don't apply, the laws of the country you're in are the only ones they're bound by. Your only choice is, don't bring anything into Australia that you can't have seen by others, and quite frankly, that really goes for *any* other country. Nobody cares what the laws are "back home", you're expected to comply with the laws of where you are, not where you're from.
Shhhhh! You're giving away all our secrets! :)
I agree with pretty much everything you say here, it even sounds like, superficially at least, our backgrounds may be pretty similar. I just HATE boneheaded HR/Hiring manager stuff. Maybe they think they're being clever with the absurd and sometimes arbitrary "requirements", but really, they're just making a nuisance of themselves....
This is one of those rare posts that I wish would actually get passed around in emails, and posted to other websites. Easily one of the best posts I've ever seen on /.
which just leads to even more people getting 4-year degrees of dubious real-world value. If it's just an arbitrary crap filter, why not just put in a height requirement, or maybe require that all applicants be able to balance a ball on their noses for no less than five minutes.
Wait, here's an idea; just stop accepting resumes after the first 50, or 100 (or whatever) show up, and ditch the arbitrary "crap-filter" to begin with.