I think you hit something significant there, at least for me. You can talk about the financial aspects of Net Neutrality all up and down the information superhighway (remember that lovely phrase? Now think of a toll booth). In the end, however, we're talking about giving private companies control over the transmission of a giant steaming shitload of information.
So an organization with the sufficient funds could bribe pay someone, say, AT&T, to throttle content to sites they'd like shut down. So let's think beyond political parties...Suppose the Church of Scientology took it into their head to try and slow/stop traffic to, say, Xenu.net. Just a thought--I mean, I'm sure the Church wouldn't do anything so heavyhanded. After all, they've been so upstanding in the past and value open debate. Or suppose conservative organizations decided that adult-oriented content should be as inaccessible as possible. Maybe Microsoft reversing their position and decides that people don't really need to be able to access Slashdot.org, Firefox.org, or even Google.com.
The more I look at the issue, the more I'm concerned that this could open the floodgate of a free-for-all where you don't have a voice unless you've got a bunch of money to be able to pay for it.
Y'know, I think that might not be such a bad thing. Seriously--a nice, cold, objective look at the book's contents--no agenda, no filler, no snide comments about how wrong the author is. Maybe having more opinionated book reviews in addition to this type would be nice, but honestly, sometimes just having the cold, hard facts is refreshing.
Seems like it just disrupts the pictures taken at the time, which would be very commercially useful. Honestly, I hope it doesn't become very commonplace; I rather enjoy seeing the random crap people take pictures of with their cell phones.
Personally, I'd rather see cell phone jammers become more common--in restaurants and theaters, especially.
I miss Webvan. I'm not afraid to say it. I miss Webvan. With Webvan, I could select the groceries I needed, select a time for them to be delivered, and the guy (who was invariably friendly) would carry them up to my apartment to drop them off. On time, every time. The prices were reasonable and the goods were high quality.
Now, with Amazon's scheme, I can buy only non-perishable foods (the vast majority of which I can find cheaper as a generic brand at Kroger), and then wait for "Super Saver Shipping" to deliver in its own good time. Then, if I'm not home, they'll either leave it at my door for someone to pilfer, or take it down to the office so I can schlep it back up.
Hey, that's capitalism. I don't know why anyone finds this mystifying; in search of a cheaper labor pool, a bunch of Western companies invested a bunch of money in a developing country. So much so that the "developing country" has developed so far that investing there just isn't the payoff it used to be. So now they're either going to look for another developing country to invest in, or decide that shifting their labor pool from country to country isn't the long-term investment benefit they thought it was going to be.
It's not the size of the board, it's how you use it.:)
Seriously, though...How you use a job board plays a prominent role. I've found that applying for jobs, job agents, etc. is rather useless. The employer/headhunter on the other end gets piled with resumes and your chances of getting through are rather slim, even if you combine the Ultimate Cover Letter with the Holy Resume of Zinthar.
Where I have had success is letting the recruiters/employers come to me. I post my resume, including all of my skills, and I allow them to look up the skills they're looking for and contact me if they think I might be a fit. I've tried it all ways, and this is the way I've gotten every IT job I've held to date. It allows the recruiter/employer to dictate the terms of their search.
I don't have the data, but I'd be willing to bet that the vast majority of available jobs over something like Monster are not posted. Rather, they prefer to search the database of those who've posted their resumes and look for a potential fit that way. The alternative seems to be that they get flooded with a bunch of cover letters and resumes from desperate techies who would say they could code Fortran on punch cards if it got them an interview.
No, it would not be "ok." I'm neither Democrat nor Republican. But if we're going to entrust our democratic system to a private corporation, I feel even less enthused about one where they're openly siding with one party.
Again--it's not a matter of "conspiracy theories." Whether fraud has been or will be committed is not the point. The point is simply that the Diebold system is not accountable and verifiable to the people. With Diebold's system in place, our elections are not and cannot be open and free, no matter who wins the elections.
(And regarding security--why do you suppose those who've looked at the source code are appalled by its security? When everyone from Johns Hopkins University to 20-year-veteran programmers say it's messed up, chances are that it is. But, alas, there's no way to tell. We simply have to take Diebold's word for it.)
Is touch screen voting the best solution available or is a conspiracy afoot?
This totally misses the point. The point is not whether voter fraud has been committed, the point is that there's no way to tell if it was or wasn't.
Diebold's system is completely proprietary; we can't examine it to see if there are any "loopholes" or not, and we can't check its security. We can't go back and audit to make sure nothing funny happened. Adding icing to the cake, the Diebold leadership is openly pro-Republican.
To summarize; by adopting Diebold's system here in GA, we've privatized the election by giving complete control over it to a private corporation that's biased in favor of a particular outcome. To say it smells fishy would be an understatement of monumental proportions.
Instead of focusing on whether fraud occurred or not, we need to be demanding an election system that is auditable and verifiable to the people. Open elections are key to democracy; Diebold's system is anything but open.
There are times when I wonder if Microsoft isn't purposely trying to get everybody on the Net own3d.
I mean, what kind of frikkin' bug would make an executable link pretend to be something else? If I believed in conspiracy theories, I'd swear it was deliberate.
While I understand his frustrations, the reality is that there are a lot of people--*especially* a lot of techies--out there looking for work. And spending the time/energy to develop a complete narrative cover letter for each position you send your resume to is simply time prohibitive.
I'm willing to bet that 99% of people who are looking for work right now are taking a "shotgun" approach. This isn't the *best* way to get your resume out, but it is the quickest. And if you're looking to get your foot in the same door as several hundred others, speed counts. As does as much exposure as possible--hoping that somewhere, somehow, your resume will generate interest.
Ultimately, the best way to generate interest is to carefully research the company you're submitting to, the position, check for networking opportunities (very important!), etc. But this isn't always practical--and it's tough to tell how much extra attention that will generate. From the job seeker's standpoint, sometimes "shotgun" is the most practical, even if it doesn't generate as much interest each time it's sent out.
Exactly what the world needs. Another vaguely-worded bill written either by clueless lawmakers who can barely reboot their computer, or, worse, lobbyists who want to manipulate the clueless lawmakers.
Slashdot Mirror
"Why do you hate America?"
;)
Carrot Top.
"Heck, maybe even political parties?"
I think you hit something significant there, at least for me. You can talk about the financial aspects of Net Neutrality all up and down the information superhighway (remember that lovely phrase? Now think of a toll booth). In the end, however, we're talking about giving private companies control over the transmission of a giant steaming shitload of information.
So an organization with the sufficient funds could bribe pay someone, say, AT&T, to throttle content to sites they'd like shut down. So let's think beyond political parties...Suppose the Church of Scientology took it into their head to try and slow/stop traffic to, say, Xenu.net. Just a thought--I mean, I'm sure the Church wouldn't do anything so heavyhanded. After all, they've been so upstanding in the past and value open debate. Or suppose conservative organizations decided that adult-oriented content should be as inaccessible as possible. Maybe Microsoft reversing their position and decides that people don't really need to be able to access Slashdot.org, Firefox.org, or even Google.com.
The more I look at the issue, the more I'm concerned that this could open the floodgate of a free-for-all where you don't have a voice unless you've got a bunch of money to be able to pay for it.
Because. ;)
In the SNOW, too! ;)
(I actually do have an old Zenith 8088 laptop that weighs at least 12 pounds.)
Oy, you kids. When I was young, in the heady days of 8088 processors, the laptops weighed ten pounds at LEAST. And we were THANKFUL!
Y'know, I think that might not be such a bad thing. Seriously--a nice, cold, objective look at the book's contents--no agenda, no filler, no snide comments about how wrong the author is. Maybe having more opinionated book reviews in addition to this type would be nice, but honestly, sometimes just having the cold, hard facts is refreshing.
Fair point.
Seems like it just disrupts the pictures taken at the time, which would be very commercially useful. Honestly, I hope it doesn't become very commonplace; I rather enjoy seeing the random crap people take pictures of with their cell phones.
Personally, I'd rather see cell phone jammers become more common--in restaurants and theaters, especially.
I miss Webvan. I'm not afraid to say it. I miss Webvan. With Webvan, I could select the groceries I needed, select a time for them to be delivered, and the guy (who was invariably friendly) would carry them up to my apartment to drop them off. On time, every time. The prices were reasonable and the goods were high quality.
Now, with Amazon's scheme, I can buy only non-perishable foods (the vast majority of which I can find cheaper as a generic brand at Kroger), and then wait for "Super Saver Shipping" to deliver in its own good time. Then, if I'm not home, they'll either leave it at my door for someone to pilfer, or take it down to the office so I can schlep it back up.
I miss Webvan.
Very true.
Hey, that's capitalism. I don't know why anyone finds this mystifying; in search of a cheaper labor pool, a bunch of Western companies invested a bunch of money in a developing country. So much so that the "developing country" has developed so far that investing there just isn't the payoff it used to be. So now they're either going to look for another developing country to invest in, or decide that shifting their labor pool from country to country isn't the long-term investment benefit they thought it was going to be.
Three words:
"How's it hanging?"
Well, "Southern Bell" is BellSouth, and though they are organized by the CWA, there's no imminent strike. SBC must be some other neck of the woods.
It's not the size of the board, it's how you use it. :)
Seriously, though...How you use a job board plays a prominent role. I've found that applying for jobs, job agents, etc. is rather useless. The employer/headhunter on the other end gets piled with resumes and your chances of getting through are rather slim, even if you combine the Ultimate Cover Letter with the Holy Resume of Zinthar.
Where I have had success is letting the recruiters/employers come to me. I post my resume, including all of my skills, and I allow them to look up the skills they're looking for and contact me if they think I might be a fit. I've tried it all ways, and this is the way I've gotten every IT job I've held to date. It allows the recruiter/employer to dictate the terms of their search.
I don't have the data, but I'd be willing to bet that the vast majority of available jobs over something like Monster are not posted. Rather, they prefer to search the database of those who've posted their resumes and look for a potential fit that way. The alternative seems to be that they get flooded with a bunch of cover letters and resumes from desperate techies who would say they could code Fortran on punch cards if it got them an interview.
Yeah, BUT Scruggs tuners tend to wear down after a while and you have to have them re-geared or replaced.
No, it would not be "ok." I'm neither Democrat nor Republican. But if we're going to entrust our democratic system to a private corporation, I feel even less enthused about one where they're openly siding with one party.
Again--it's not a matter of "conspiracy theories." Whether fraud has been or will be committed is not the point. The point is simply that the Diebold system is not accountable and verifiable to the people. With Diebold's system in place, our elections are not and cannot be open and free, no matter who wins the elections.
(And regarding security--why do you suppose those who've looked at the source code are appalled by its security? When everyone from Johns Hopkins University to 20-year-veteran programmers say it's messed up, chances are that it is. But, alas, there's no way to tell. We simply have to take Diebold's word for it.)
Is touch screen voting the best solution available or is a conspiracy afoot?
This totally misses the point. The point is not whether voter fraud has been committed, the point is that there's no way to tell if it was or wasn't.
Diebold's system is completely proprietary; we can't examine it to see if there are any "loopholes" or not, and we can't check its security. We can't go back and audit to make sure nothing funny happened. Adding icing to the cake, the Diebold leadership is openly pro-Republican.
To summarize; by adopting Diebold's system here in GA, we've privatized the election by giving complete control over it to a private corporation that's biased in favor of a particular outcome. To say it smells fishy would be an understatement of monumental proportions.
Instead of focusing on whether fraud occurred or not, we need to be demanding an election system that is auditable and verifiable to the people. Open elections are key to democracy; Diebold's system is anything but open.
"Back, and to the left....Back, and to the left..."
(The pitiful thing is, you *know* a video display exactly like that is going on at the FCC right now...)
Good to know they're doing something useful with our tax dollars.
Next up is a bill to declare the official cow of the United States... [*sigh*, ok, go ahead, insert Monica or Hillary joke here]
I know, I know, but such a monumental display of stupidity...
There are times when I wonder if Microsoft isn't purposely trying to get everybody on the Net own3d.
I mean, what kind of frikkin' bug would make an executable link pretend to be something else? If I believed in conspiracy theories, I'd swear it was deliberate.
Maybe it's time to outsource the USPTO to India. Or at least hire them a techie or two who know WTF their ass from a hole in the ground.
Failing that, let's bring Homie the Clown out of retirement to take a little tour around the office.
*BONK* "Homie don't play dat!"
While I understand his frustrations, the reality is that there are a lot of people--*especially* a lot of techies--out there looking for work. And spending the time/energy to develop a complete narrative cover letter for each position you send your resume to is simply time prohibitive.
I'm willing to bet that 99% of people who are looking for work right now are taking a "shotgun" approach. This isn't the *best* way to get your resume out, but it is the quickest. And if you're looking to get your foot in the same door as several hundred others, speed counts. As does as much exposure as possible--hoping that somewhere, somehow, your resume will generate interest.
Ultimately, the best way to generate interest is to carefully research the company you're submitting to, the position, check for networking opportunities (very important!), etc. But this isn't always practical--and it's tough to tell how much extra attention that will generate. From the job seeker's standpoint, sometimes "shotgun" is the most practical, even if it doesn't generate as much interest each time it's sent out.
Exactly what the world needs. Another vaguely-worded bill written either by clueless lawmakers who can barely reboot their computer, or, worse, lobbyists who want to manipulate the clueless lawmakers.
Very true. My bad.