Is root kit now the new buzzword for "please send me traffic"? This isn't the same as a rootkit, it's just a annoyingly hidden directory. Can we tag this as FUD?
Trying to persuade 80% of restruant owners to convert is harder then persuading city hall. To my knowledge few business owners have ever tried it and it's difficult to persuade people to turn away others for money. If it wasn't a bylaw law suits can also incur if someone thinks the policy is illegal. Easier to make it clear this way. Capitalism is not the be all and end all of human organization and has significant short comings. Libertarianism is just as bad as communism, pure capitalistism and feminism for ignoring data about human behavior.
Given unlimited freedom people tend not to organize into free thinking utopias but instead they form governments. Take any random group of people set them to a task and a natural order will arise resembling a government of some sort.
A non evil union and a non evil company can make things good. A evil company or an evil union will automatically convert their counterpart as a defensive mechanism. At my previous union job I made a good 6-10/h more then a similar non-union job. (6 when I started, 10 when I left 3 years later). Conditions where pretty decent. Full benefits for full timers, a decent number of full timers, and a lot of hiring from within. We had occasional strikes and the union didn't have a iron grip on the company but over all things were okay. We generally had lower turn over then non union jobs of a similar ilk and that saves a good 10k-15k per employee on training and hiring. Productivity was higher then other jobs due mostly to higher pay attracting better people.
The company was one of the largest and most progressive in Canada. The unions wasn't really evil there and the company was pretty good too.
If you simply give better working conditions and wages, you will be undercut by the competition and you'll go out of business. WTF do you think outsourcing and the loss of manufacturing is all about? Americans are too expensive to employ.
In IT outsourcing is just management buzzwords. Like "synergy". all companies I've known personally who have tried it regretted it later. The Telco I used to work for went through multi tens millions on development to get something that hardly worked. A law suit is in progress and they've learned their lesson but outsourcing isn't the be all and end all. It's not Top shelf quality for 1/100 the cost. It's usually second tier quality for almost the same cost as second tier local once you factor in all the infrastructure and middle men you need to set to do it right. If you don't do this it ends up being worse then third tier for double the local cost. The only reason to do it is to get capacity without affecting the price of local talent. At least thats what I see.
Then do us all a favor, quit forcing your communist agenda on business owners and entrepeneurs and eat at those places that ban smoking, and QUIT FORCING YOUR LIBERAL BULLSHIT ON EVERYONE ELSE.
It's my fucking business, if I want smokers to enjoy the establishment by providing a smoking section; I should have that right. You don't want to eat where there's smoke? Don't eat at my joint.
It's not your right to make MY business decisions.
Can you brandish a gun in public areas? Can you drive drunk? Similar rationale. Smoke at your home thats fine. But the waitress isn't paid enough to breath all your second hand smoke and most restruants are too cheap to get separate ventilation so either they should ban smoking or mandates separate smoking section ventilation and higher wages to waitresses/waiters who work there.
And I don't particularly want somebody's screaming kids in the place fucking up my perfectly good dinner but you don't see me pushing to ban 'em. Instead I pick up and take my money elsewhere. It's pretty neat how that works
Easy to avoid, kids are expensive. so find any place where is stake is $30+ and I garentee you there will be very few is any children. Or go to the lounge side of any lounge/dinning room establishment. Neat how that works huh. Smokers are a minority. But one that disturbs much more then themselves. I used to hate going out because of the smoke and how it killed my eyes at the end of the night or how it made my cloths stink and my skin feel like it was covered in a light acid. Then the city put a smoking ban on bars and I went out a lot more. Smokers make up 20% of the population why should the rest of us sacrifice to keep them happy? Usually it wasn't everyone in a bar smoking just about 20%-40% ever lit up. But those 20-40 were the ones who made all of us stink and feel uncomfortable and in a tangible way made us all a little less healthy.
And for good reason. It's no wonder all the American auto plants are shutting down, when you have to pay people $25 an hour for untrained labour, meanwhile, all the cars coming out of Japan can do it so much cheaper.
You may have a point about other goods but many foreign cars are domestically assembled and many domestic cars have as high or higher quotient of foreign parts. Also Japanese companies have historically felt obligations to their workers while US companies have not as much compunctions of screwing over workers to guard the bottom line. Over all your point about this one product type is full holes.
Let's see - he was on Star Trek as mentioned, he maintains an active and widely read blog, he writes columns for multiple high traffic web sites, he has a slashdot account, he runs linux, he's been published by O'Reilly (a book called 'Just A Geek' no less) and he has done voice work for such shows as Teen Titans. And he doesn't have 'hardcore' greek cred? What does it take? And what does that make the rest of us?
Hardcore geek cred would be some form of respect. For instance linus torvald has it, Steve Jobs does too, and Stan Lee as well. Wil Wheaton has geek pity. He's a geek. We feel bad he no longer has much of an acting career and we enjoyed his previous work (I didn't but trekkies seemed to have liked it).
Oh come on, this is slashdot, can't anyone come up with a car analogy?:P
Alright, Porn is like the 8 years old chevette you drove for years until you got a real job and could buy a decent car. Chevrolet Chevette is porn (cheap unfulfillable and causes chaffing), Ford Focus is a hand job from the easy girl in class (a bit rough, cramped and ugly), Honda Civic was the blow job from the first GF who was too scared to do it for real (good and fun but kind of common and everyone gets one), the Ford mustang will be your first time (quick, short lived, busted too early, and kind of ugly and messy), The BMW 3 series will be the first stable GF who puts out (not as good as advertised but adequate), a Lexus IS350 will be the hottest GF ever had (expensive but worth it), and a Dodge caravan is like a marriage (ugly, but feels like home. ), and finally a porche boxster is like the mistress you pick up at 50 (expensive, fun, and a sign you are past you prime but not mature enough to admit it).
Looking at porn every once in a while isn't going to hurt a kid. But if you let them watch porn in their bedrooms every night, they'll never be driven to talk to girls, and next thing you know their a 30 year old virgin slashdot poster, and Gord knows, no one wants that. You have to limit the porn enough to force them to talk to girls.
I'd think it's more of a motivational poster/video then a replacement. Honestly I don't know only 1 guy who prefers porn to sex with a women or even chasing women. Porn is cheap and rampant but All of my single guy friends are endlessly looking through bars, through parties, through online etc..
porn doesn't replace sex. It just sort of acts as a really shallow proxy for most people. A few have a problem but most do not.
I've found kids who lean on porn the hardest are the biggest worshipers of their GF later. Kids who have to lean on it lest are the ones who treat women like dirt and sleep around.
I agree, most porn girls aren't the most stable in various ways. All the ones I've met (worked as a web dev for very eclectic webhost) were pretty screwed up. But working as a porn girl or web cam girl sure beats being a prostitute in absolute terms of safety.
1) Many people orgasm through some means while watching porn. So it's more like admiring someone else's dinner while waiting for the waiter to bring yours out.
I think a better analogy is watching a cooking show on TV as they make a steak dinner while you eat some pizza pockets and wash it down with soda. It's no steak dinner but it'll hold you until you get some real food. Porn isn't sex but it'll hold ya until you get some real sex.
I strongly disagree. There are very effective ways to keep teens away from porn. They involve teaching a kid to respect themselves and others. It involves talking to your kids about these things. It involves teaching your kids correct principles when they are young and being a good parent. Is it possible to have your child never see porn? Probably not as there are many conspiring men who have their hearts set on addicting as many as they can but you can teach your kid never to go looking for it and what to do if he accidentally finds it.
umm.. having had friends in such "teaching" households I can attests nothing short of quadriplegia will stop a teen boy from porn. From my Pastors son to the most devote Muslim family. The teens boys and sometimes girls invariably see porn and like it. And the "stricter" the family they came from the more into it they get.
But you've already made up your own fluffy version of reality and I should let sleeping dogs lie.
I've often wondered why magazines aren't formated for the different levels of expertise. Why not have the first 1/3'rd of the magazine devoted to beginner articles. The 2nd devoted to intermediate articles and the last 3rd devoted to expert material?
Probably because no one wants to pay for a magazine that only has 1/3 of it dedicated to you. Actually less then 1/3 more like 1/6 because most magazines are 1/2 ads.
Using grains to create ethanol could have a negative impact on the food market by driving up prices - especially for poor countries.
One of the major problems in many of those countries is they now have more people then they can actually feed from local agriculture (IE. over the local carrying capacity). This over population tends to diminish the local carrying capacity over time and results in things like desertification and ecological stress. If for some reason the food stops coming (economic instability, the whims of donor nations, war, natural disaster etc...) you have a massive famine on your hands. Cheap food is used as a weapon as well to keep nations under thumb (ie. egypt) and ensure only the ones that back the food rich west (ie. dictators in most of Africa) stay in power.
In the long run for these nations it'd be better if essential food crops sky rocket in price and cash crops diminish. Coffee and most cash crops can't feed the hungry and many of these poor nations grow little else. If grain were incredibly expensive then they would have an incentive to grow that instead which may get them better sustainability and autonomy.
Which is what's going to happen. And which is why you're hearing about this now, because it's too late. All the niche content will move to internet distribution, whereas TV will remain the bastion for the big networks, news, and other live events. (Maybe we'll get lucky and eventually get a Star Trek channel. Between all the series, movies, specials and whatnot, there's enough Star Trek material to fill a whole channel.)
It's a lot more distorted than that. When Joe Teenager takes the $20 he would have spent on a CD and spends it on ricing out his car, that money is not lost to the economy.
Well, ricing that car definitely loses that wealth for humanity if not economy.
If you compare the lost music sale to the increase in the amount people spend on concerts, then factor in how much kids today (probably their most valuable customers) spend on their cellphone, it all adds up nicely, all without having to resort to imaginary lost sales.
Tickets sales go more directly to the artist. The RIAA doesn't represent the artist as much as the distributer. The RIAA couldn't care less and by extention the labels couldn't care a single wad if the artist never made a dime so long as they get paid. I suppose that is an obvious fact.
If that's true, then it shouldn't matter if you have men or women doing the job. Especially given that you CAN increase stength (women already have better endurance). Is it not possible for women to lift weights and build muscle?
Everybody has a predefined upper limit. So if you can lift that great. If you can't and work really hard till you can great. But if you can't and working out 2h everyday doesn't give you that extra strength then no. Your frame and hormonal balances as well as various muscle bulk and type related genetics determine your upper limit. As far as I know the upper limit is higher in men then women if all other factors were remain the same (fraternal twins with really close match in genes).
That's not necessarily true. Consider the following dataset, where the numbers represent some index of an individual's strength. Men {1, 2, 3, 4, 1000} (Avg = 252.5) Women {10, 10, 10, 10, 10} (Avg = 10)
So, here we have a dataset where, on average, men are FAR stronger than women. However, choosing a random woman from the population, you'll get a woman with a strength index of 10. There's an 80% chance the man you choose will be weaker than that woman.
Of course that isn't the situation. The mean, median, upper limit and mode of Men's relative strength is greater then the mean, median, upper limit, and mode of womens. So it's pretty ok to say that on average men are stronger then women. It's not a deceiving statistic and conforms to all known interpretations of the data.
Sure, because he's obviously the first honest candidate in recorded history.
Would appearing baffled be enough? The current prez would then take the title. HE appears baffled at every question and then proceeds to answer a different one then the one asked.
Most people who claim there is no difference have a tendency to never have look at HD players on their TV (480i, 480p, 720i, 720p, 1080i, or 1080p) most of them have sat int he "I'm not getting it because it makes no difference" camp before actually watching any HD content on any TV. Even at 480i there is a noticeable quality difference specially in busy scenes or in color balance etc.. a side by side makes it explicit but almost all people can notice a difference. At any resolution higher then this the difference is extremely obvious. HD TV's are actually pretty cheap now. Players are coming down.
You are not an early adopter and that is fine but claiming there is no difference to your eye is almost always a misinformation unless you are significantly visually impaired. The Cost benefit might be a better argument. You don't enjoy spectacle so the cost is more then the benifit it imparts. Thats fine too. But making claims of visual quality without support is just spreading mis information.
Slashdot Mirror
Is root kit now the new buzzword for "please send me traffic"? This isn't the same as a rootkit, it's just a annoyingly hidden directory. Can we tag this as FUD?
Trying to persuade 80% of restruant owners to convert is harder then persuading city hall. To my knowledge few business owners have ever tried it and it's difficult to persuade people to turn away others for money. If it wasn't a bylaw law suits can also incur if someone thinks the policy is illegal. Easier to make it clear this way. Capitalism is not the be all and end all of human organization and has significant short comings. Libertarianism is just as bad as communism, pure capitalistism and feminism for ignoring data about human behavior.
Given unlimited freedom people tend not to organize into free thinking utopias but instead they form governments. Take any random group of people set them to a task and a natural order will arise resembling a government of some sort.
A non evil union and a non evil company can make things good. A evil company or an evil union will automatically convert their counterpart as a defensive mechanism. At my previous union job I made a good 6-10/h more then a similar non-union job. (6 when I started, 10 when I left 3 years later). Conditions where pretty decent. Full benefits for full timers, a decent number of full timers, and a lot of hiring from within. We had occasional strikes and the union didn't have a iron grip on the company but over all things were okay. We generally had lower turn over then non union jobs of a similar ilk and that saves a good 10k-15k per employee on training and hiring. Productivity was higher then other jobs due mostly to higher pay attracting better people.
The company was one of the largest and most progressive in Canada. The unions wasn't really evil there and the company was pretty good too.
If you simply give better working conditions and wages, you will be undercut by the competition and you'll go out of business. WTF do you think outsourcing and the loss of manufacturing is all about? Americans are too expensive to employ.
In IT outsourcing is just management buzzwords. Like "synergy". all companies I've known personally who have tried it regretted it later. The Telco I used to work for went through multi tens millions on development to get something that hardly worked. A law suit is in progress and they've learned their lesson but outsourcing isn't the be all and end all. It's not Top shelf quality for 1/100 the cost. It's usually second tier quality for almost the same cost as second tier local once you factor in all the infrastructure and middle men you need to set to do it right. If you don't do this it ends up being worse then third tier for double the local cost. The only reason to do it is to get capacity without affecting the price of local talent. At least thats what I see.
Then do us all a favor, quit forcing your communist agenda on business owners and entrepeneurs and eat at those places that ban smoking, and QUIT FORCING YOUR LIBERAL BULLSHIT ON EVERYONE ELSE.
It's my fucking business, if I want smokers to enjoy the establishment by providing a smoking section; I should have that right. You don't want to eat where there's smoke? Don't eat at my joint.
It's not your right to make MY business decisions.
Can you brandish a gun in public areas? Can you drive drunk? Similar rationale. Smoke at your home thats fine. But the waitress isn't paid enough to breath all your second hand smoke and most restruants are too cheap to get separate ventilation so either they should ban smoking or mandates separate smoking section ventilation and higher wages to waitresses/waiters who work there.
And I don't particularly want somebody's screaming kids in the place fucking up my perfectly good dinner but you don't see me pushing to ban 'em. Instead I pick up and take my money elsewhere. It's pretty neat how that works
Easy to avoid, kids are expensive. so find any place where is stake is $30+ and I garentee you there will be very few is any children. Or go to the lounge side of any lounge/dinning room establishment. Neat how that works huh. Smokers are a minority. But one that disturbs much more then themselves. I used to hate going out because of the smoke and how it killed my eyes at the end of the night or how it made my cloths stink and my skin feel like it was covered in a light acid. Then the city put a smoking ban on bars and I went out a lot more. Smokers make up 20% of the population why should the rest of us sacrifice to keep them happy? Usually it wasn't everyone in a bar smoking just about 20%-40% ever lit up. But those 20-40 were the ones who made all of us stink and feel uncomfortable and in a tangible way made us all a little less healthy.
And for good reason. It's no wonder all the American auto plants are shutting down, when you have to pay people $25 an hour for untrained labour, meanwhile, all the cars coming out of Japan can do it so much cheaper.
You may have a point about other goods but many foreign cars are domestically assembled and many domestic cars have as high or higher quotient of foreign parts. Also Japanese companies have historically felt obligations to their workers while US companies have not as much compunctions of screwing over workers to guard the bottom line. Over all your point about this one product type is full holes.
I eagerly await the arrival of either the Hulk or godzilla.
Let's see - he was on Star Trek as mentioned, he maintains an active and widely read blog, he writes columns for multiple high traffic web sites, he has a slashdot account, he runs linux, he's been published by O'Reilly (a book called 'Just A Geek' no less) and he has done voice work for such shows as Teen Titans. And he doesn't have 'hardcore' greek cred? What does it take? And what does that make the rest of us?
Hardcore geek cred would be some form of respect. For instance linus torvald has it, Steve Jobs does too, and Stan Lee as well. Wil Wheaton has geek pity. He's a geek. We feel bad he no longer has much of an acting career and we enjoyed his previous work (I didn't but trekkies seemed to have liked it).
Oh come on, this is slashdot, can't anyone come up with a car analogy? :P
Alright, Porn is like the 8 years old chevette you drove for years until you got a real job and could buy a decent car. Chevrolet Chevette is porn (cheap unfulfillable and causes chaffing), Ford Focus is a hand job from the easy girl in class (a bit rough, cramped and ugly), Honda Civic was the blow job from the first GF who was too scared to do it for real (good and fun but kind of common and everyone gets one), the Ford mustang will be your first time (quick, short lived, busted too early, and kind of ugly and messy), The BMW 3 series will be the first stable GF who puts out (not as good as advertised but adequate), a Lexus IS350 will be the hottest GF ever had (expensive but worth it), and a Dodge caravan is like a marriage (ugly, but feels like home. ), and finally a porche boxster is like the mistress you pick up at 50 (expensive, fun, and a sign you are past you prime but not mature enough to admit it).
better?
I'm saying that it's a lot more fun to look at a live naked woman than a digital one.
Unless of course she's your MOMnoun, non specific)!!!!
Looking at porn every once in a while isn't going to hurt a kid. But if you let them watch porn in their bedrooms every night, they'll never be driven to talk to girls, and next thing you know their a 30 year old virgin slashdot poster, and Gord knows, no one wants that. You have to limit the porn enough to force them to talk to girls.
I'd think it's more of a motivational poster/video then a replacement. Honestly I don't know only 1 guy who prefers porn to sex with a women or even chasing women. Porn is cheap and rampant but All of my single guy friends are endlessly looking through bars, through parties, through online etc..
porn doesn't replace sex. It just sort of acts as a really shallow proxy for most people. A few have a problem but most do not.
I've found kids who lean on porn the hardest are the biggest worshipers of their GF later. Kids who have to lean on it lest are the ones who treat women like dirt and sleep around.
I agree, most porn girls aren't the most stable in various ways. All the ones I've met (worked as a web dev for very eclectic webhost) were pretty screwed up. But working as a porn girl or web cam girl sure beats being a prostitute in absolute terms of safety.
1) Many people orgasm through some means while watching porn. So it's more like admiring someone else's dinner while waiting for the waiter to bring yours out.
I think a better analogy is watching a cooking show on TV as they make a steak dinner while you eat some pizza pockets and wash it down with soda. It's no steak dinner but it'll hold you until you get some real food. Porn isn't sex but it'll hold ya until you get some real sex.
I strongly disagree. There are very effective ways to keep teens away from porn. They involve teaching a kid to respect themselves and others. It involves talking to your kids about these things. It involves teaching your kids correct principles when they are young and being a good parent. Is it possible to have your child never see porn? Probably not as there are many conspiring men who have their hearts set on addicting as many as they can but you can teach your kid never to go looking for it and what to do if he accidentally finds it.
umm.. having had friends in such "teaching" households I can attests nothing short of quadriplegia will stop a teen boy from porn. From my Pastors son to the most devote Muslim family. The teens boys and sometimes girls invariably see porn and like it. And the "stricter" the family they came from the more into it they get.
But you've already made up your own fluffy version of reality and I should let sleeping dogs lie.
I've often wondered why magazines aren't formated for the different levels of expertise. Why not have the first 1/3'rd of the magazine devoted to beginner articles. The 2nd devoted to intermediate articles and the last 3rd devoted to expert material?
Probably because no one wants to pay for a magazine that only has 1/3 of it dedicated to you. Actually less then 1/3 more like 1/6 because most magazines are 1/2 ads.
Using grains to create ethanol could have a negative impact on the food market by driving up prices - especially for poor countries.
One of the major problems in many of those countries is they now have more people then they can actually feed from local agriculture (IE. over the local carrying capacity). This over population tends to diminish the local carrying capacity over time and results in things like desertification and ecological stress. If for some reason the food stops coming (economic instability, the whims of donor nations, war, natural disaster etc...) you have a massive famine on your hands. Cheap food is used as a weapon as well to keep nations under thumb (ie. egypt) and ensure only the ones that back the food rich west (ie. dictators in most of Africa) stay in power.
In the long run for these nations it'd be better if essential food crops sky rocket in price and cash crops diminish. Coffee and most cash crops can't feed the hungry and many of these poor nations grow little else. If grain were incredibly expensive then they would have an incentive to grow that instead which may get them better sustainability and autonomy.
Which is what's going to happen. And which is why you're hearing about this now, because it's too late. All the niche content will move to internet distribution, whereas TV will remain the bastion for the big networks, news, and other live events. (Maybe we'll get lucky and eventually get a Star Trek channel. Between all the series, movies, specials and whatnot, there's enough Star Trek material to fill a whole channel.)
Wait, you mean spike isn't the star trek channel?
It's a lot more distorted than that. When Joe Teenager takes the $20 he would have spent on a CD and spends it on ricing out his car, that money is not lost to the economy.
Well, ricing that car definitely loses that wealth for humanity if not economy.
If you compare the lost music sale to the increase in the amount people spend on concerts, then factor in how much kids today (probably their most valuable customers) spend on their cellphone, it all adds up nicely, all without having to resort to imaginary lost sales.
Tickets sales go more directly to the artist. The RIAA doesn't represent the artist as much as the distributer. The RIAA couldn't care less and by extention the labels couldn't care a single wad if the artist never made a dime so long as they get paid. I suppose that is an obvious fact.
If that's true, then it shouldn't matter if you have men or women doing the job. Especially given that you CAN increase stength (women already have better endurance). Is it not possible for women to lift weights and build muscle?
Everybody has a predefined upper limit. So if you can lift that great. If you can't and work really hard till you can great. But if you can't and working out 2h everyday doesn't give you that extra strength then no. Your frame and hormonal balances as well as various muscle bulk and type related genetics determine your upper limit. As far as I know the upper limit is higher in men then women if all other factors were remain the same (fraternal twins with really close match in genes).
That's not necessarily true. Consider the following dataset, where the numbers represent some index of an individual's strength.
Men {1, 2, 3, 4, 1000} (Avg = 252.5)
Women {10, 10, 10, 10, 10} (Avg = 10)
So, here we have a dataset where, on average, men are FAR stronger than women. However, choosing a random woman from the population, you'll get a woman with a strength index of 10. There's an 80% chance the man you choose will be weaker than that woman.
Of course that isn't the situation. The mean, median, upper limit and mode of Men's relative strength is greater then the mean, median, upper limit, and mode of womens. So it's pretty ok to say that on average men are stronger then women. It's not a deceiving statistic and conforms to all known interpretations of the data.
Sure, because he's obviously the first honest candidate in recorded history.
Would appearing baffled be enough? The current prez would then take the title. HE appears baffled at every question and then proceeds to answer a different one then the one asked.
Most people who claim there is no difference have a tendency to never have look at HD players on their TV (480i, 480p, 720i, 720p, 1080i, or 1080p) most of them have sat int he "I'm not getting it because it makes no difference" camp before actually watching any HD content on any TV. Even at 480i there is a noticeable quality difference specially in busy scenes or in color balance etc.. a side by side makes it explicit but almost all people can notice a difference. At any resolution higher then this the difference is extremely obvious. HD TV's are actually pretty cheap now. Players are coming down.
You are not an early adopter and that is fine but claiming there is no difference to your eye is almost always a misinformation unless you are significantly visually impaired. The Cost benefit might be a better argument. You don't enjoy spectacle so the cost is more then the benifit it imparts. Thats fine too. But making claims of visual quality without support is just spreading mis information.
no you can tell on any tv. even the 480i. the difference is non trivial.