Your sincerest hope is that a 20 year old kid gets ass raped while he does a 30 day stint in prison?
To further clarify... 30 day stint in jail, not prison.
In the U.S., prisons are usually run by the states or the federal government, while jails are local affairs. Jail sentences are considerably shorter than prison sentences (and if a crime is serious enough that it demands a longer sentence, it will be a prison offence). Comparatively few jail inmates are hardened criminals.
As a result, all of this "raped in the ass" stuff doesn't really happen in jails. Prisons might be a different story, but this whole line of comment, for this case, is basically bullshit.
But last time I checked, the US was part of the world. So exclduing it from the count skews the numbers and therefore the conclusions.
I don't think they excluded the U.S. What they mean is that when you exclude the entire rest of the world, the U.S.-only statistics look different. You can choose the statistics that are more important to you.
I can't believe that there's more than a person installing Chrome for each one that uses a PC without knowing what a "browser" is (and therefore is an IE user).
A lot of people do use Google services, though. They're obviously the leading search engine, and Gmail is quite popular. I can't remember where I saw it last (because I use Chrome), but Google used to put little messages on their pages saying "try a fast, modern Web browser - download Chrome today!" Considering how many people downloaded Bonzi Buddy, etc., back in the day, I can imagine that a lot of people see "fast Web browser," click the link, and they barely notice that Chrome has become their new default Web browser (or understand the significance of it).
Amazon did not dodge any taxes. If anyone dodged taxes, it was some of the consumers that used Amazon.
True, but Amazon benefits from the perception that "you don't have to pay sales tax" if you buy from Amazon. Every other retailer in my state is required to collect the taxes, but Amazon has not been doing so. So while "dodging taxes" might not be as accurate as saying Amazon exploits loopholes, Amazon is still benefiting from an unfair advantage over all of its competitors.
If Amazon has an office in Maryland (I don't know where their office is located), and warehouses in Tennessee, California and Minnesota (again, I don't know where their warehouses are), they only have Nexus in 4 states: Maryland, Tennessee, California and Minnesota and are only responsible for sales tax collection/remittance in those 4 states.
I live in California and Amazon has never collected any sales tax from me, so I guess they must not have warehouses here (except that some of my purchases have clearly shipped from "fulfillment centers" in California). Nor do I know anyone who has paid sales tax on an Amazon purchase in any other state. One presumes Amazon must have offices or warehouses somewhere. Therefore it is logical to surmise that Amazon is using (presumably legal) means to dodge sales taxes.
The problem with that assertion is that the ideology is the establishment in San Francisco. As to being a "security problem", San Francisco could be in open rebellion from now until the heat death of the universe and not threaten anyone's (particularly, any establishment's) security outside of the city borders.
Haha, absolutely true. As a longtime resident of San Francisco, if any politician declared that San Francisco was some kind of bellwether for the rest of the country, I'd think they were completely incompetent. On the other hand, personally I kind of like living among this brand of idealistic loonies, rather than the other brand.
It's just a case of some dumb business stretching laws.
Stretching? I dunno... I doubt I've walked into a 7-Eleven that didn't have cameras pointed at me in my lifetime. The face recognition stuff just seems to add an extra wrinkle. I don't think there are any laws about that, and I'm not sure there should be. That's kind of like saying you can take video of me when I walk into your business, but we're going to limit how long you can watch the tape. People react strongly to this because there's a computer doing it. But if you hired someone to watch the tape every night and take notes -- "woman, man, man, man, woman, woman... hey, that guy got 86'ed last week!" -- should that be illegal? What's the difference, really, except that one version is automated?
That's possible, but I think it's more likely that you know about these bars because you lived in the South Bay (as opposed to San Francisco). To me, putting cameras in these kinds of bars is kind of like putting them at the entrance to Six Flags. Is anybody surprised? Go to tourist traps, get treated like a tourist. Meanwhile, there are a lot of bars and restaurants in San Francisco. The idea that "bars in San Francisco" will now be doing this kinda does the town a disservice. A few awful corporate bars might be doing it, sure. But the majority of people won't notice, because they're not going to those bars.
I'm not saying the bars don't exist. I'm saying they seem to be cheesy factory bars for club kids and out of towners -- not the kind of place you'd actually go if you lived here. Your statements don't really contradict that.
FWIW, I've lived in San Francisco for 17 years and I've heard of maybe one of these bars. I wouldn't want to extrapolate any kind of "trend" out of this. As the summary suggests, I think there's more press release than reality here.
Zuckerberg appears to be planning to hold a majority of the shares for the forseeable future. His board has absolutely no power as a result. The only way to buy out Facebook and take it private again would be for Zuckerberg to sell it. For all practical purposes Facebook is still a private company, it just has a fraction of its shares on the market.
Basically, the reason Facebook went IPO at all is because under U.S. law, once a company has a certain number of shareholders it has to file quarterly reports to the SEC just as if it were a public company. So Facebook would have all the administrative burden and regulatory scrutiny of a public company, without any of the advantages of being a public company. Going public was really the only logical option, but they organized their offering in such a way that the current executives retain tight control of the reins. Google had a similar idea with its IPO.
Words and pictures on a page are no substitute for actually connecting with people in person, and it never will.
The funny thing about Facebook-hate on/. is that it seems to force people to create false dichotomies to "prove" their point about how awful Facebook is. Example: You can either connect with people in real life or you can piss around on Facebook. You may not do both.
"Hey dude, it's been fun, but listen, the real reason I wanted to meet with you today is to let you know that I never want to meet with you again. From now on, we're going to do our communications through a Web site called Facebook. I've written the URL down on this little card for you. It's really cool, because you can share photos and stuff on there -- so unlike just now, where you showed me the baby pictures in your wallet, you don't even have to remember to bring your wallet with you. Way better than meeting in person. All right, dude, seeya later -- oops! My bad. But you know what I meant. See you on Facebook!"
Believe it or not, most people who are on Facebook also see their Facebook friends in person, if they live close enough for that to be convenient. Why you'd think otherwise escapes me.
There is no "innovation" behind Facebook, it is merely a social/business/etc contract between a vast amount of interested parties to create, maintain, and improve upon (in their own self interest) conduit for information storage and exchange between people. Why do they do this? Simple, information and advertising.
People tend to confuse "innovation" with "invention." You don't have to do the second to do the first. Facebook as innovated a lot of things, from its business model to its technology. Look at HipHop, for example. That's innovation by anybody's standards, but Facebook's track record for innovation is not limited to software. That's narrow thinking.
I get it sort of, but since I and a lot of people I know still use mail, IM, forums, blogs (this one gotta be the one tha lost most popularity) and a few other social portals, I just cant see facebook taking over in the near future.
Consider that a lot of people already have switched from calling friends on their mobile phones to texting, to the extent that a number of people have told me they barely rack up 10 minutes of voice calls per month. When technologies come along that people see benefit in, they use them. It may turn out that your picture of the future of communications is mistaken -- and that Facebook has already "taken over" for a great many people.
Had facebook never allowed 3rd party applications, it would still be regarded as a social network (with the emphasis on 'social'). Now it's just an ad and web based software delivery system (not unlike, say, Steam).
Uhhh... I guess. For everyone, that is, except those of us who don't use any third party apps at all, and just use Facebook for the social aspects.
When they abbreviate the State of New York, they do spell it with periods, yes. They only rarely do so, though, and I've never seen them abbreviate the paper's own name.
Re:The 21st century formula for a successful compa
on
HP To Cut 30,000 Jobs
·
· Score: 1
Which involves either very passive sentences, which are weak, or repeating the full name over and over, which makes you sound like an autistic.
Oh, show a little vision...
Modern CEOs don't grow their companies in the long-term. They don't build good products and increase sales, putting profits back into R&D, new products, and new hires. They don't pay shareholders modest dividends and explain their long-term strategies for slowly growing and maintaining profitable companies. That shit is old school!
21st century CEOs boost short term profits by cutting jobs and forcing existing workers to pick up the slack. They show the shareholders that the next quarter's profits are great and the shareholders call them visionaries. They hide debt with shell games, cut workers to hide sales declines, and outsource everything they can to sweatshops that produce crap product at lower prices. 21st century CEOs look AMAZING on paper.
And in the long-term...well, who gives a shit about the long-term? By then the 21 century CEOs have long since bailed out with their golden parachutes. Let Uncle Sam bail their companies out.
How much Flash do you use on your phone? To me, not being forced to download Flash ads is a blessing. Also, last time I tried the Flash Plugin, games and other, more sophisticated Flash UIs were quirky or broken. That might be the app designers' fault -- they weren't thinking of mobile phone touchscreens when they built them. But the point is, I found in-browser Flash to be pretty much useless on Android.
I benchmarked Firefox versus the stock browser on my Android 2.2 phone about six months ago and Firefox's JavaScript performance was already faster, in addition to doing much better on HTML5/CSS compatibility tests. The stock browser on an Android 3.1 tablet was faster than the same version of Firefox on the same hardware, though. Clearly Google has been steadily improving the Android browser; unfortunately, you have to upgrade the entire OS to get the new browser code, so owners of older handsets are stuck with what they've got.
Seriously, 20 somethings haven't used a screw driver or or wrench?
Yeah, I think he got a little off track with that one. More to the point, how does a pile of interconnecting gears send the message "Change the Configuration Settings"? A screwdriver makes a little bit of sense because you can use it to adjust torque, but most people these days use a screwdriver to build furniture, not to tweak the configuration of things. I guess the gears are supposed to mean "look inside and see how it works"?
Your nerd-rage is a little frightening. Maybe try taking walks outside from time to time.
Since he did this early on, I never caught the Seinfeld craze, to me he was always just a really stupid retard who made jokes for stupid people.
And I'm sure all those millions of stupid people who like Seinfeld just quake in their boots when an intellect as vast and powerful as yours comes around.
Your business might have a basket like product that is oh so funny to use as a shopping cart but your customers don't make the connection because they don't do their shopping in a dog-sled.
Maybe not, but I don't do my shopping with a shopping cart, either. I hate pushing those things around. I almost never use them, and certainly never when I'm only buying one item (which seems like nine times out of ten when I'm shopping online). I understand what the picture means, of course, but it doesn't really connect to my own shopping experience. A basket might make more sense.
The Floppy disk icon for saving. First off, I checked. Not a SINGLE application I use actually has such an icon. Not a one.
TextPad uses it. So there's one. Good job on avoiding that icon, though, because I suspect seeing it might cause you to fly into a purple-faced rage.
Clipboards... he shows exactly where almost everyone will still see these in daily use.
Daily use? I haven't seen one in years. But his real point is perfectly valid... what is it about a clipboard that evokes the idea of "Cut and Paste"? Is that what you use a clipboard for? No, you use it to fill out forms... something that the icon has nothing to do with.
The CD icon... WHAT does it represent? It absolutely under no circumstance represents as CD as codified by the requirments of Philips and Sony.
If I want to burn a CD, then a picture of a CD makes absolute sense, and it does absolutely "represent a CD"... your argument about why it doesn't is frankly baffling.
nothing like being reminded on a Sunday that whatever else I might be, I am superior to at least one person in this world.
Yeah, well I hope you're not keeping count. Seriously, take some deep breaths, go look at some flowers, maybe have some ice cream.
Christ, the index still to this day lists C as number one, but good luck finding anywhere close to the number of classic C jobs out there as there are say, Java,.NET, and PHP jobs, or even C++ jobs for that matter.
I wonder about that. I think there probably are more straight C jobs than you realize (mainly in embedded systems and vertical industries more than mainstream "put an ad on Craigslist" type jobs), but I suspect it really has more to do with C being a sort of "foundational" language, so you have lots and lots of students searching for info about it. Then again, the Linux kernel is all C, as is PHP itself. C is hardly dying out. But I wonder how many people really still use it as their main, go-to tool.
OK, I'm not sure I understand the whole "get rid of Unity 2D" thing. As I understand it, Unity 3D means it's accelerated, but VMware and other virtualization environments don't support GPU acceleration for Ubuntu yet, so that leave people who prefer to run Ubuntu in a VM without a GUI. Where's the logic in that? Not even Windows forces you to have a modern video card for hardware acceleration -- if your hardware can't do Aero Glass, Windows just switches it off.
Slashdot Mirror
Your sincerest hope is that a 20 year old kid gets ass raped while he does a 30 day stint in prison?
To further clarify... 30 day stint in jail, not prison.
In the U.S., prisons are usually run by the states or the federal government, while jails are local affairs. Jail sentences are considerably shorter than prison sentences (and if a crime is serious enough that it demands a longer sentence, it will be a prison offence). Comparatively few jail inmates are hardened criminals.
As a result, all of this "raped in the ass" stuff doesn't really happen in jails. Prisons might be a different story, but this whole line of comment, for this case, is basically bullshit.
But last time I checked, the US was part of the world. So exclduing it from the count skews the numbers and therefore the conclusions.
I don't think they excluded the U.S. What they mean is that when you exclude the entire rest of the world, the U.S.-only statistics look different. You can choose the statistics that are more important to you.
I can't believe that there's more than a person installing Chrome for each one that uses a PC without knowing what a "browser" is (and therefore is an IE user).
A lot of people do use Google services, though. They're obviously the leading search engine, and Gmail is quite popular. I can't remember where I saw it last (because I use Chrome), but Google used to put little messages on their pages saying "try a fast, modern Web browser - download Chrome today!" Considering how many people downloaded Bonzi Buddy, etc., back in the day, I can imagine that a lot of people see "fast Web browser," click the link, and they barely notice that Chrome has become their new default Web browser (or understand the significance of it).
Amazon did not dodge any taxes. If anyone dodged taxes, it was some of the consumers that used Amazon.
True, but Amazon benefits from the perception that "you don't have to pay sales tax" if you buy from Amazon. Every other retailer in my state is required to collect the taxes, but Amazon has not been doing so. So while "dodging taxes" might not be as accurate as saying Amazon exploits loopholes, Amazon is still benefiting from an unfair advantage over all of its competitors.
If Amazon has an office in Maryland (I don't know where their office is located), and warehouses in Tennessee, California and Minnesota (again, I don't know where their warehouses are), they only have Nexus in 4 states: Maryland, Tennessee, California and Minnesota and are only responsible for sales tax collection/remittance in those 4 states.
I live in California and Amazon has never collected any sales tax from me, so I guess they must not have warehouses here (except that some of my purchases have clearly shipped from "fulfillment centers" in California). Nor do I know anyone who has paid sales tax on an Amazon purchase in any other state. One presumes Amazon must have offices or warehouses somewhere. Therefore it is logical to surmise that Amazon is using (presumably legal) means to dodge sales taxes.
I'm just trying to figure out how an 8.5% sales tax on $199 comes to $300.
Methinks somebody's splitting hairs here.
The problem with that assertion is that the ideology is the establishment in San Francisco. As to being a "security problem", San Francisco could be in open rebellion from now until the heat death of the universe and not threaten anyone's (particularly, any establishment's) security outside of the city borders.
Haha, absolutely true. As a longtime resident of San Francisco, if any politician declared that San Francisco was some kind of bellwether for the rest of the country, I'd think they were completely incompetent. On the other hand, personally I kind of like living among this brand of idealistic loonies, rather than the other brand.
It's just a case of some dumb business stretching laws.
Stretching? I dunno... I doubt I've walked into a 7-Eleven that didn't have cameras pointed at me in my lifetime. The face recognition stuff just seems to add an extra wrinkle. I don't think there are any laws about that, and I'm not sure there should be. That's kind of like saying you can take video of me when I walk into your business, but we're going to limit how long you can watch the tape. People react strongly to this because there's a computer doing it. But if you hired someone to watch the tape every night and take notes -- "woman, man, man, man, woman, woman... hey, that guy got 86'ed last week!" -- should that be illegal? What's the difference, really, except that one version is automated?
As I've replied to other people, "hardly ever going into SF" and going to these bars are two things that are directly correlated.
That's possible, but I think it's more likely that you know about these bars because you lived in the South Bay (as opposed to San Francisco). To me, putting cameras in these kinds of bars is kind of like putting them at the entrance to Six Flags. Is anybody surprised? Go to tourist traps, get treated like a tourist. Meanwhile, there are a lot of bars and restaurants in San Francisco. The idea that "bars in San Francisco" will now be doing this kinda does the town a disservice. A few awful corporate bars might be doing it, sure. But the majority of people won't notice, because they're not going to those bars.
I'm not saying the bars don't exist. I'm saying they seem to be cheesy factory bars for club kids and out of towners -- not the kind of place you'd actually go if you lived here. Your statements don't really contradict that.
FWIW, I've lived in San Francisco for 17 years and I've heard of maybe one of these bars. I wouldn't want to extrapolate any kind of "trend" out of this. As the summary suggests, I think there's more press release than reality here.
Zuckerberg appears to be planning to hold a majority of the shares for the forseeable future. His board has absolutely no power as a result. The only way to buy out Facebook and take it private again would be for Zuckerberg to sell it. For all practical purposes Facebook is still a private company, it just has a fraction of its shares on the market.
Basically, the reason Facebook went IPO at all is because under U.S. law, once a company has a certain number of shareholders it has to file quarterly reports to the SEC just as if it were a public company. So Facebook would have all the administrative burden and regulatory scrutiny of a public company, without any of the advantages of being a public company. Going public was really the only logical option, but they organized their offering in such a way that the current executives retain tight control of the reins. Google had a similar idea with its IPO.
Words and pictures on a page are no substitute for actually connecting with people in person, and it never will.
The funny thing about Facebook-hate on /. is that it seems to force people to create false dichotomies to "prove" their point about how awful Facebook is. Example: You can either connect with people in real life or you can piss around on Facebook. You may not do both.
"Hey dude, it's been fun, but listen, the real reason I wanted to meet with you today is to let you know that I never want to meet with you again. From now on, we're going to do our communications through a Web site called Facebook. I've written the URL down on this little card for you. It's really cool, because you can share photos and stuff on there -- so unlike just now, where you showed me the baby pictures in your wallet, you don't even have to remember to bring your wallet with you. Way better than meeting in person. All right, dude, seeya later -- oops! My bad. But you know what I meant. See you on Facebook!"
Believe it or not, most people who are on Facebook also see their Facebook friends in person, if they live close enough for that to be convenient. Why you'd think otherwise escapes me.
There is no "innovation" behind Facebook, it is merely a social/business/etc contract between a vast amount of interested parties to create, maintain, and improve upon (in their own self interest) conduit for information storage and exchange between people.
Why do they do this? Simple, information and advertising.
People tend to confuse "innovation" with "invention." You don't have to do the second to do the first. Facebook as innovated a lot of things, from its business model to its technology. Look at HipHop, for example. That's innovation by anybody's standards, but Facebook's track record for innovation is not limited to software. That's narrow thinking.
I get it sort of, but since I and a lot of people I know still use mail, IM, forums, blogs (this one gotta be the one tha lost most popularity) and a few other social portals, I just cant see facebook taking over in the near future.
Consider that a lot of people already have switched from calling friends on their mobile phones to texting, to the extent that a number of people have told me they barely rack up 10 minutes of voice calls per month. When technologies come along that people see benefit in, they use them. It may turn out that your picture of the future of communications is mistaken -- and that Facebook has already "taken over" for a great many people.
Had facebook never allowed 3rd party applications, it would still be regarded as a social network (with the emphasis on 'social'). Now it's just an ad and web based software delivery system (not unlike, say, Steam).
Uhhh... I guess. For everyone, that is, except those of us who don't use any third party apps at all, and just use Facebook for the social aspects.
When they abbreviate the State of New York, they do spell it with periods, yes. They only rarely do so, though, and I've never seen them abbreviate the paper's own name.
Which involves either very passive sentences, which are weak, or repeating the full name over and over, which makes you sound like an autistic.
Oh, show a little vision...
Modern CEOs don't grow their companies in the long-term. They don't build good products and increase sales, putting profits back into R&D, new products, and new hires. They don't pay shareholders modest dividends and explain their long-term strategies for slowly growing and maintaining profitable companies. That shit is old school!
21st century CEOs boost short term profits by cutting jobs and forcing existing workers to pick up the slack. They show the shareholders that the next quarter's profits are great and the shareholders call them visionaries. They hide debt with shell games, cut workers to hide sales declines, and outsource everything they can to sweatshops that produce crap product at lower prices. 21st century CEOs look AMAZING on paper.
And in the long-term...well, who gives a shit about the long-term? By then the 21 century CEOs have long since bailed out with their golden parachutes. Let Uncle Sam bail their companies out.
How much Flash do you use on your phone? To me, not being forced to download Flash ads is a blessing. Also, last time I tried the Flash Plugin, games and other, more sophisticated Flash UIs were quirky or broken. That might be the app designers' fault -- they weren't thinking of mobile phone touchscreens when they built them. But the point is, I found in-browser Flash to be pretty much useless on Android.
I benchmarked Firefox versus the stock browser on my Android 2.2 phone about six months ago and Firefox's JavaScript performance was already faster, in addition to doing much better on HTML5/CSS compatibility tests. The stock browser on an Android 3.1 tablet was faster than the same version of Firefox on the same hardware, though. Clearly Google has been steadily improving the Android browser; unfortunately, you have to upgrade the entire OS to get the new browser code, so owners of older handsets are stuck with what they've got.
I think you meant this one.
Seriously, 20 somethings haven't used a screw driver or or wrench?
Yeah, I think he got a little off track with that one. More to the point, how does a pile of interconnecting gears send the message "Change the Configuration Settings"? A screwdriver makes a little bit of sense because you can use it to adjust torque, but most people these days use a screwdriver to build furniture, not to tweak the configuration of things. I guess the gears are supposed to mean "look inside and see how it works"?
Your nerd-rage is a little frightening. Maybe try taking walks outside from time to time.
Since he did this early on, I never caught the Seinfeld craze, to me he was always just a really stupid retard who made jokes for stupid people.
And I'm sure all those millions of stupid people who like Seinfeld just quake in their boots when an intellect as vast and powerful as yours comes around.
Your business might have a basket like product that is oh so funny to use as a shopping cart but your customers don't make the connection because they don't do their shopping in a dog-sled.
Maybe not, but I don't do my shopping with a shopping cart, either. I hate pushing those things around. I almost never use them, and certainly never when I'm only buying one item (which seems like nine times out of ten when I'm shopping online). I understand what the picture means, of course, but it doesn't really connect to my own shopping experience. A basket might make more sense.
The Floppy disk icon for saving. First off, I checked. Not a SINGLE application I use actually has such an icon. Not a one.
TextPad uses it. So there's one. Good job on avoiding that icon, though, because I suspect seeing it might cause you to fly into a purple-faced rage.
Clipboards... he shows exactly where almost everyone will still see these in daily use.
Daily use? I haven't seen one in years. But his real point is perfectly valid ... what is it about a clipboard that evokes the idea of "Cut and Paste"? Is that what you use a clipboard for? No, you use it to fill out forms ... something that the icon has nothing to do with.
The CD icon... WHAT does it represent? It absolutely under no circumstance represents as CD as codified by the requirments of Philips and Sony.
If I want to burn a CD, then a picture of a CD makes absolute sense, and it does absolutely "represent a CD"... your argument about why it doesn't is frankly baffling.
nothing like being reminded on a Sunday that whatever else I might be, I am superior to at least one person in this world.
Yeah, well I hope you're not keeping count. Seriously, take some deep breaths, go look at some flowers, maybe have some ice cream.
Christ, the index still to this day lists C as number one, but good luck finding anywhere close to the number of classic C jobs out there as there are say, Java, .NET, and PHP jobs, or even C++ jobs for that matter.
I wonder about that. I think there probably are more straight C jobs than you realize (mainly in embedded systems and vertical industries more than mainstream "put an ad on Craigslist" type jobs), but I suspect it really has more to do with C being a sort of "foundational" language, so you have lots and lots of students searching for info about it. Then again, the Linux kernel is all C, as is PHP itself. C is hardly dying out. But I wonder how many people really still use it as their main, go-to tool.
OK, I'm not sure I understand the whole "get rid of Unity 2D" thing. As I understand it, Unity 3D means it's accelerated, but VMware and other virtualization environments don't support GPU acceleration for Ubuntu yet, so that leave people who prefer to run Ubuntu in a VM without a GUI. Where's the logic in that? Not even Windows forces you to have a modern video card for hardware acceleration -- if your hardware can't do Aero Glass, Windows just switches it off.