It's weird that you seem to have someone watching what you type and providing realtime feedback. Is that like an AI, or just a really bored, well-informed homeless person?
You obviously don't know many wealthy people. Hard work is inversely proportional to pay. The hardest work is in fields under the hot sun. They get paid the least. Next is janitorial work, fast food, etc. They get paid slightly more. Then there's semi-professionals, professionals, managers, supervisors, etc. The higher it goes, the less work is involved (by any definition of the word work that includes more than just being present).
Not that I have a problem with it, especially since I'm not one of the people working the hardest for the least pay, but neither will I pretend that I work harder than they do.
Antivirus scanners provide a false sense of security with no real benefit.
You started off well, but if A/V didn't have any real benefit, then we wouldn't have immune systems. A/V provides the rather significant benefit of preventing future infections from known attackers. And simply limiting user permissions doesn't magically limit privilege escalation vulnerabilities. Sometimes (often) viruses/trojans/malware which exploit these vulnerabilities are identified before the actual vulnerabilities themselves can be patched, so without A/V, users would be vulnerable during the entire duration of this gap. Plus few people want viruses/malware lurking around on their machines even if the vulnerabilities have been fixed.
Can someone please explain how to turn off my computer? I suspect it's possible because I've seen other people turn theirs off, but I have no idea how to use technology and you guys seem smart. Thanks.
Addendum: Why the #^( doesn't it clearly explain that the website doesn't remember what you type unless you hit Submit. It took me an hour of trial and error to figure that out.
Wessels from the FFII went through the Commission's reply
The fact checking around here is just atrocious. Where to begin? First of all, they're nuclear wessels, which is an important distinction I think, and second, they're from the Star Trek, not the Final Fantasy 2.
You'll work better with people who are your friends.
I don't have a problem working with people who aren't my friends. In fact, I tend to get much less work done if the person I'm supposed to be working with is actually a friend. Additionally, I listen to people who have friends at work, and you know what else they have? Enemies. Or at least rivals. Relationships cause jealousy from other co-workers and lead to the perception (perhaps true) that some people are being left out. It's easy to avoid all of that by not having friends at work. The problem, IMO, isn't people who don't make friends at work, it's the people who can't work well with others without being friends.
Nonsense, I don't think I'm more interesting than they are; I just have enough sense to realize that and not inflict my co-workers with details of my kid's batting average or some other such crap. When it comes to work, I'm a professional team player and I'm more than willing to listen to other people's advice. But lunch isn't about work, it's about what I do with my free time, and for some reason, people like you can't wrap your minds around that. I'm not at work to make friends, I'm at work to fund my life outside of work.
It might not be the point, but it's still only slightly less asinine than referring to processor speed in gigabytes, confusing downloads with uploads, or any of the other inane mistakes that make most of us shake our heads and die a little inside.
The difference is that I can tell you, mcmonkey, to shut the fuck up with no ill consequences, except maybe you'll Foe me or take some other steps to break my little heart.
I can also completely ignore people without hurting their feelings or otherwise ostracizing them.
But in truth, I browse at +4 unless moderating, so I don't see much of the chaff you describe unless someone such as yourself replies to me directly.
Indeed. I don't like taking lunch because it means I have to stay here longer, but when I do take lunch, I don't want to have to bullshit and listen to idiotic stories from people who have nothing insightful, interesting or, often, even truthful to say. I don't care about their latest trip to Florida, or what new restaurant they discovered, or what the weather is like. And that's just from "normal" people. I also don't want to hear about your WoW character, or your latest raid, or what armor set you collected. FFS, I just want to read Slashdot in peace.
Nice. You know what Sony offered me for disclosing all of my information?
They sent me an e-mail which pointed out that, by law, I can get one free credit report per year, and they encouraged me to take advantage of that to look for any fraudulent activity.
The problem is that there are enough people out there who *will* sign the contract, regardless. And for the most part, these people will be unaffected, which gives them no indication that they made a poor decision.
Similarly, since people continue to waive their rights, there's no incentive for the corporation to change its policy; there's no indication that they made a poor decision. Which leaves those of us who *don't* want to sign our rights away with two equally unpleasant options: 1) Sign up and waive our rights, or 2) opt out and do without what's considered a standard part of modern life.
This is exactly the sort of thing that cries out for regulation. There is no free market solution to this problem. Even if an entire population suddenly decided they did not want to agree to binding arbitration, they would be powerless to change it, because it's neither practical nor economical for everyone to cancel their contracts. And so having achieved its critical mass, especially in light of its market dominance and barriers to entry for new competition, AT&T and other corporations are free to continue their abuse of the consumers from which they derive their existence. What a beautiful relationship.
People complain about lots of dumb things on Facebook, but usually not things that will make them look like non-conforming members of their social groups. In other words, nobody's going to label themselves as a basement dweller by getting vocal about the PSN on Facebook.
If you're using a GPS to get to and from you home every day, you might have bigger problems, and indeed, it's probably best that someone's keeping track of you.
Change seems to be the only constant of life. Look for a change in atmospheric composition, in RF "noise", in anything we can measure really. The galactic equivalent of a motion detector. Not all change represents life, but it does represent something worth investigating. And, of course, the change might not be occurring on a scale we can measure in a short timeframe (where short would be less than our average lifetime), but it would almost certainly be faster than traveling anywhere with existing technology.
Anything else -- the absence or existence of certain elements -- is even more speculative than postulating a cause for change. The only exception might be something we can be reasonably certain hasn't occurred naturally, such as a signal carrying intelligence (modulation), which is the whole drive behind SETI. The problem with only looking for modulated EMR, is that it limits the domain to strictly intelligent life, which, while extremely interesting, could well be too high a threshold.
The other problem is that given the vast distances of space, anything we discover will be ancient history at best, and quite possibly long gone. The only way we're likely to actually communicate with another intelligent species is if they happen to be remarkably close by, or if one of us masters the manipulation of space-time.
If there's not a valid connection, then let's meet for dinner at the local soup kitchen. We can sleep in a sleep in a shelter to save money. Oh, and we could eat bugs. They're free and plentiful, if you know where to look.
Or.... you could just admit that there's an obvious connection, and that people without means are willing to go to greater lengths than people WITH means, even if those lengths don't include (or excuse) stealing.
And that's all I was saying. That the life experience of the plane owner is as different from the average Joe as the average Joe's experience is from the impoverished. It's different when you have to make a choice between paying bills or buying food. I'm not saying it automatically turns people into criminals, nor am I taking a position on the moral and ethical aspect of stealing out of necessity; I'm just saying that the experiences are different enough that making any sort of comparison is basically useless (not to mention self-serving on the part of the OP).
Slashdot Mirror
I had a similar rule about sex, but my wife vetoed it.
Not directly, mind you, just by consistently opting for the alternative of not having sex at all.
It's weird that you seem to have someone watching what you type and providing realtime feedback. Is that like an AI, or just a really bored, well-informed homeless person?
To an extent, yes, but like designer jeans, people tend to overpay for the label of education.
You obviously don't know many wealthy people. Hard work is inversely proportional to pay. The hardest work is in fields under the hot sun. They get paid the least. Next is janitorial work, fast food, etc. They get paid slightly more. Then there's semi-professionals, professionals, managers, supervisors, etc. The higher it goes, the less work is involved (by any definition of the word work that includes more than just being present).
Not that I have a problem with it, especially since I'm not one of the people working the hardest for the least pay, but neither will I pretend that I work harder than they do.
Antivirus scanners provide a false sense of security with no real benefit.
You started off well, but if A/V didn't have any real benefit, then we wouldn't have immune systems. A/V provides the rather significant benefit of preventing future infections from known attackers. And simply limiting user permissions doesn't magically limit privilege escalation vulnerabilities. Sometimes (often) viruses/trojans/malware which exploit these vulnerabilities are identified before the actual vulnerabilities themselves can be patched, so without A/V, users would be vulnerable during the entire duration of this gap. Plus few people want viruses/malware lurking around on their machines even if the vulnerabilities have been fixed.
Can someone please explain how to turn off my computer? I suspect it's possible because I've seen other people turn theirs off, but I have no idea how to use technology and you guys seem smart. Thanks.
Addendum:
Why the #^( doesn't it clearly explain that the website doesn't remember what you type unless you hit Submit. It took me an hour of trial and error to figure that out.
Get it? You might not want to bet against him? Because he was a card shark?
Wessels from the FFII went through the Commission's reply
The fact checking around here is just atrocious. Where to begin? First of all, they're nuclear wessels, which is an important distinction I think, and second, they're from the Star Trek, not the Final Fantasy 2.
You're an idiot.
And that's Doctor Colbert to you.
You'll work better with people who are your friends.
I don't have a problem working with people who aren't my friends. In fact, I tend to get much less work done if the person I'm supposed to be working with is actually a friend. Additionally, I listen to people who have friends at work, and you know what else they have? Enemies. Or at least rivals. Relationships cause jealousy from other co-workers and lead to the perception (perhaps true) that some people are being left out. It's easy to avoid all of that by not having friends at work. The problem, IMO, isn't people who don't make friends at work, it's the people who can't work well with others without being friends.
Nonsense, I don't think I'm more interesting than they are; I just have enough sense to realize that and not inflict my co-workers with details of my kid's batting average or some other such crap. When it comes to work, I'm a professional team player and I'm more than willing to listen to other people's advice. But lunch isn't about work, it's about what I do with my free time, and for some reason, people like you can't wrap your minds around that. I'm not at work to make friends, I'm at work to fund my life outside of work.
It might not be the point, but it's still only slightly less asinine than referring to processor speed in gigabytes, confusing downloads with uploads, or any of the other inane mistakes that make most of us shake our heads and die a little inside.
The difference is that I can tell you, mcmonkey, to shut the fuck up with no ill consequences, except maybe you'll Foe me or take some other steps to break my little heart.
I can also completely ignore people without hurting their feelings or otherwise ostracizing them.
But in truth, I browse at +4 unless moderating, so I don't see much of the chaff you describe unless someone such as yourself replies to me directly.
Indeed. I don't like taking lunch because it means I have to stay here longer, but when I do take lunch, I don't want to have to bullshit and listen to idiotic stories from people who have nothing insightful, interesting or, often, even truthful to say. I don't care about their latest trip to Florida, or what new restaurant they discovered, or what the weather is like. And that's just from "normal" people. I also don't want to hear about your WoW character, or your latest raid, or what armor set you collected. FFS, I just want to read Slashdot in peace.
Nice. You know what Sony offered me for disclosing all of my information?
They sent me an e-mail which pointed out that, by law, I can get one free credit report per year, and they encouraged me to take advantage of that to look for any fraudulent activity.
Chamitoff...created software focused on spacecraft analysis and maneuver optimization.
Now that's guts, standing behind your work like that. Or crazy. One of those things. Maybe both.
The problem is that there are enough people out there who *will* sign the contract, regardless. And for the most part, these people will be unaffected, which gives them no indication that they made a poor decision.
Similarly, since people continue to waive their rights, there's no incentive for the corporation to change its policy; there's no indication that they made a poor decision. Which leaves those of us who *don't* want to sign our rights away with two equally unpleasant options: 1) Sign up and waive our rights, or 2) opt out and do without what's considered a standard part of modern life.
This is exactly the sort of thing that cries out for regulation. There is no free market solution to this problem. Even if an entire population suddenly decided they did not want to agree to binding arbitration, they would be powerless to change it, because it's neither practical nor economical for everyone to cancel their contracts. And so having achieved its critical mass, especially in light of its market dominance and barriers to entry for new competition, AT&T and other corporations are free to continue their abuse of the consumers from which they derive their existence. What a beautiful relationship.
Maybe it started out as hacktivism and then they found a goldmine of CC#s and billing info. Then greed took over.
People complain about lots of dumb things on Facebook, but usually not things that will make them look like non-conforming members of their social groups. In other words, nobody's going to label themselves as a basement dweller by getting vocal about the PSN on Facebook.
If you're using a GPS to get to and from you home every day, you might have bigger problems, and indeed, it's probably best that someone's keeping track of you.
Who wants some cake?
Change seems to be the only constant of life. Look for a change in atmospheric composition, in RF "noise", in anything we can measure really. The galactic equivalent of a motion detector. Not all change represents life, but it does represent something worth investigating. And, of course, the change might not be occurring on a scale we can measure in a short timeframe (where short would be less than our average lifetime), but it would almost certainly be faster than traveling anywhere with existing technology.
Anything else -- the absence or existence of certain elements -- is even more speculative than postulating a cause for change. The only exception might be something we can be reasonably certain hasn't occurred naturally, such as a signal carrying intelligence (modulation), which is the whole drive behind SETI. The problem with only looking for modulated EMR, is that it limits the domain to strictly intelligent life, which, while extremely interesting, could well be too high a threshold.
The other problem is that given the vast distances of space, anything we discover will be ancient history at best, and quite possibly long gone. The only way we're likely to actually communicate with another intelligent species is if they happen to be remarkably close by, or if one of us masters the manipulation of space-time.
Indeed, but that doesn't dispute the idea that socioeconomic conditions affect behavior choices; it just reinforces it in an unexpected way.
If there's not a valid connection, then let's meet for dinner at the local soup kitchen. We can sleep in a sleep in a shelter to save money. Oh, and we could eat bugs. They're free and plentiful, if you know where to look.
Or.... you could just admit that there's an obvious connection, and that people without means are willing to go to greater lengths than people WITH means, even if those lengths don't include (or excuse) stealing.
And that's all I was saying. That the life experience of the plane owner is as different from the average Joe as the average Joe's experience is from the impoverished. It's different when you have to make a choice between paying bills or buying food. I'm not saying it automatically turns people into criminals, nor am I taking a position on the moral and ethical aspect of stealing out of necessity; I'm just saying that the experiences are different enough that making any sort of comparison is basically useless (not to mention self-serving on the part of the OP).
Really? You don't see a connection between socioeconomic condition and the relative value of food?