I see a lot of people slamming facebook and social web sites.
They usually do it on some website, while being social.
What makes their comments better than ones on facebook.
Slashdot isn't a social network in the sense that Facebook is. Slashdot is more a continuation of what was done earlier in Usenet and BBSs -- a way for the stereotypical basement-dwelling geek to communicate with others of his kind. No expectation that any of us know each other in real life, or even that we know each other's real names, is involved. Slashdot is the kind of place where "no one knows you're a dog".
Facebook is different. It's an intrusion of the Real World onto the intertubes. It's expected that you know your facebook friends in real life, that you participate in real life social events with them. All things your stereotypical geek has absolutely nothing to do with.
But why is there such a cartoonishly level of evil in the corporate world these days? Could they not have seen that there was a move to digital media and start to shut down some stores, move their capital, do something that would have provided them a real path to future growth?
They did, but too little, too late. Think of it as capitalism in action.
I'm giving you serious advice here. It is not healthy to stock up on anger like that. Take yoga classes. Really, I'm fucking serious.
Yoga? Yoga's not going to help. It gives you way too much time to put your body in uncomfortable positions and _think_ about all the ways various bastards wronged you. Like that damned yoga teacher who suckered you into dislocating your own hip.
What early adopters? The early adopters were using the Rocketbook and its RCA follow-ons, ten years ago. These Johnny-come-latelies with their Kindles and Sonys and Nooks are the early majority.
(the pioneers had loaded books onto their Radio Shack Model 100s and read them two lines at a time.)
I think this is a case where new legislation is obviously needed.
We've had plenty of new legislation. It has all had the intention and effect of strengthening the RIAAs position. If we had new legislation on this subject now, it would simply impose a $1000/song minimum or something.
The only copyright legislation that could cut through the mess now is along the lines of "Title 17 of the United States Code is hereby repealed, and the United States hereby withdraws from the Berne Convention".
You almost certainly can. Remember: the RIAA will have an establishment fined if they do not pay the RIAA extor^H^H^Hfees on live performances of original music written and still owned by the performer. And then they won't give the "royalty" fees to the owner of the music, because he did not go through them in the first place.
No, you're thinking of ASCAP, BMI, or SESAC. I'm sure the RIAA would LIKE to pull this kind of shit, but they haven't figured out how to cut in on it yet.
So moral of the story is, if you work for the right company, try to leave it? If you work for the wrong company, succeed at leaving?
It's no great secret that many companies reward disloyalty. When they're hiring (in an economy better than now, anyway), it's a competitive process where they have to offer the prospective hire enough to leave his current job, or to pick their offer over some other company's. Once they have the employee, though, the shoe is on the other foot; the employee probably won't leave unless they're paid well below the going rate for new hires elsewhere. So the rational thing for the company to do is to keep compensation just high enough that employees won't jump ship.
Employees who find this offensive will likely change jobs fairly often... and then get labeled as job-hoppers and end up stuck anyway.
From a Business Law standpoint my professor taught me this. Check to see IF they can pay the fine AND then sue. It's not worth the legal expense if you can't get back the legal costs. There are even judges that will give no award if the defendant has no money.
This isn't business law. The RIAA isn't trying to recover damages. They're trying to get enormous awards to frighten people into compliance with their demands. The message is "don't use filesharing or we'll bankrupt you, and your little dog too."
...and they're accusing the DEFENDANT of being vexatious? That's not usually the way it works.
I rather suspect, though, that the US Supreme Court will smack down the Fifth Circuit for ignoring the law's requirement of a minimum of $750/infringement, thereby protecting the RIAA from activist judges and hordes of underaged cheerleaders. Copyright uber alles, after all.
The first purpose already has an international language. If someone in any culture hits their hand with a hammer, they all use the same sounds whether or not they ultimately say a curse word. Curse words add no value.
I think certain words carry a certain weight, and overusing them dilutes them.
This is the biggest problem. We're going to have to move to new swear words. Or revive some ones.
I'd like to nominate two: 1) niggardly: every moron thinks it's taboo already, might as well make it so. We can back-form "niggard" from it, and use it like "asshole". 2) Zounds: An old religious one, from "god's wounds". We can refer to it as "The Z word".
Seriously, laser cooling has been around for decades. Want a more interesting article? How about something about a laser which really is a beam of intensely-focused energy capable of burning through anything in its path? Especially if it runs on house current
I find this is true, but only to a point. If the "IT grunt" is smart, and a good communicator they should be able to convincingly argue for a position that isn't an exact fit into one of the stereotypes or archetypes. They should be able to show a good business case for their position such that the manager can understand why their IT grunt is useful in more than one way.
If the "IT grunt" could do all that, he wouldn't be an IT grunt. You're putting forth the proposition that in order to succeed in a technical position, one must have strong business skills. Which is a proposition often made by managers, but in that context it brings up the obvious question: "If I had great business skills, why wouldn't I have YOUR job?"
Get a good team of professionals with complimentary skills, but don't give them stupid handles.
No, no, he really was a Sherpa. One of those Nepalese guys who climbs the Himalayas like they were nothing and laughs at the silly Westerners who think they did it first. You wouldn't believe the EEO points you get for a Sherpa.
That being said, many of the experts presume that Bushehr is the target, and they are probably correct, but let's not get ahead of ourselves. It could also be targeting one or more of the centrifuge plants, or some other, possibly still secret facility.
Or pretty much anything run by that particular Siemens control software. All I've found released so far is a section of code which calls a specific routine (part of the target, I think, not the worm) at the start of the 100ms interrupt, and if that routine returns 0xdeadf007, skips doing the rest of the 100ms interrupt. If that's all there is to it, I'd guess it's a way to cause a malfunction; the attackers might have some external way of manipulating the return value of the routine, so once this code is in place they could cause the process to fail at will. But that's probably not the whole of the attack.
I remember how back around 2005 they were still operating off completely different computer systems and in many cases had different "hubs" for ground and air - sometimes just a few miles from each other.
They were still that way, at least as far as separate hubs, as late as last year. Probably separate computer systems still too; woe upon the customer who calls the regular FedEx number about a FedEx Ground package. (OK, not woe, but they won't be able to help you except to direct you to the FedEx Ground number)
Ah, you haven't heard of the glories of civil law. It is, for example, how most drug law forfeitures are done - you have to prove your innocence to get the seized assets back. (I am not a lawyer, and if you have assets seized, you had better get one and not rely on/. for legal advice.)
Yes and no. This IS how drug law forfeitures are done. But proving your innocence does not get the seized assets back; that just keeps you from serving additional jail time. No; you have to literally sue the government and prove (the burden on YOU) that the assets are innocent.
When it does happen, it will affect everyone without regard to their diplomas, and you can blame those who didn't bother doing something about it, which is 99.9% of the population.
I assure you that if there is a pandemic, poor and minorities will be the hardest hit. (or so the papers will tell us, anyway).
Slashdot Mirror
Slashdot isn't a social network in the sense that Facebook is. Slashdot is more a continuation of what was done earlier in Usenet and BBSs -- a way for the stereotypical basement-dwelling geek to communicate with others of his kind. No expectation that any of us know each other in real life, or even that we know each other's real names, is involved. Slashdot is the kind of place where "no one knows you're a dog".
Facebook is different. It's an intrusion of the Real World onto the intertubes. It's expected that you know your facebook friends in real life, that you participate in real life social events with them. All things your stereotypical geek has absolutely nothing to do with.
Which isn't so bad, until you try to go back in to work and get a '403 - Forbidden', and all your co-workers start getting '301 - Moved Permanently'.
They did, but too little, too late. Think of it as capitalism in action.
Yoga? Yoga's not going to help. It gives you way too much time to put your body in uncomfortable positions and _think_ about all the ways various bastards wronged you. Like that damned yoga teacher who suckered you into dislocating your own hip.
What early adopters? The early adopters were using the Rocketbook and its RCA follow-ons, ten years ago. These Johnny-come-latelies with their Kindles and Sonys and Nooks are the early majority. (the pioneers had loaded books onto their Radio Shack Model 100s and read them two lines at a time.)
Environmentalists would stop it dead. It involves mining and extraction.
We've had plenty of new legislation. It has all had the intention and effect of strengthening the RIAAs position. If we had new legislation on this subject now, it would simply impose a $1000/song minimum or something.
The only copyright legislation that could cut through the mess now is along the lines of "Title 17 of the United States Code is hereby repealed, and the United States hereby withdraws from the Berne Convention".
No, you're thinking of ASCAP, BMI, or SESAC. I'm sure the RIAA would LIKE to pull this kind of shit, but they haven't figured out how to cut in on it yet.
That is merely because Chief Justice Rehnquist was pretty much against individual freedom full stop.
It's no great secret that many companies reward disloyalty. When they're hiring (in an economy better than now, anyway), it's a competitive process where they have to offer the prospective hire enough to leave his current job, or to pick their offer over some other company's. Once they have the employee, though, the shoe is on the other foot; the employee probably won't leave unless they're paid well below the going rate for new hires elsewhere. So the rational thing for the company to do is to keep compensation just high enough that employees won't jump ship.
Employees who find this offensive will likely change jobs fairly often... and then get labeled as job-hoppers and end up stuck anyway.
This isn't business law. The RIAA isn't trying to recover damages. They're trying to get enormous awards to frighten people into compliance with their demands. The message is "don't use filesharing or we'll bankrupt you, and your little dog too."
...and they're accusing the DEFENDANT of being vexatious? That's not usually the way it works.
I rather suspect, though, that the US Supreme Court will smack down the Fifth Circuit for ignoring the law's requirement of a minimum of $750/infringement, thereby protecting the RIAA from activist judges and hordes of underaged cheerleaders. Copyright uber alles, after all.
Because "negative reinforcement" sounded so, well, negative?
Turns out that swearing is a natural analgesic: Scientific American article on the subject
Thoughtless use is not the only use. Nobody could 'cleverly' refer to the case of Arkell v. Pressdram if Pressdram hadn't replied "fuck off".
This is the biggest problem. We're going to have to move to new swear words. Or revive some ones.
I'd like to nominate two:
1) niggardly: every moron thinks it's taboo already, might as well make it so. We can back-form "niggard" from it, and use it like "asshole".
2) Zounds: An old religious one, from "god's wounds". We can refer to it as "The Z word".
It wants its Nobel Prize back.
Seriously, laser cooling has been around for decades. Want a more interesting article? How about something about a laser which really is a beam of intensely-focused energy capable of burning through anything in its path? Especially if it runs on house current
If the "IT grunt" could do all that, he wouldn't be an IT grunt. You're putting forth the proposition that in order to succeed in a technical position, one must have strong business skills. Which is a proposition often made by managers, but in that context it brings up the obvious question: "If I had great business skills, why wouldn't I have YOUR job?"
No, no, he really was a Sherpa. One of those Nepalese guys who climbs the Himalayas like they were nothing and laughs at the silly Westerners who think they did it first. You wouldn't believe the EEO points you get for a Sherpa.
Or pretty much anything run by that particular Siemens control software. All I've found released so far is a section of code which calls a specific routine (part of the target, I think, not the worm) at the start of the 100ms interrupt, and if that routine returns 0xdeadf007, skips doing the rest of the 100ms interrupt. If that's all there is to it, I'd guess it's a way to cause a malfunction; the attackers might have some external way of manipulating the return value of the routine, so once this code is in place they could cause the process to fail at will. But that's probably not the whole of the attack.
So do Christianity's.
Ha. Grudges are held so long in that part of the world it makes the Sicilians look positively forgiving.
They were still that way, at least as far as separate hubs, as late as last year. Probably separate computer systems still too; woe upon the customer who calls the regular FedEx number about a FedEx Ground package. (OK, not woe, but they won't be able to help you except to direct you to the FedEx Ground number)
Yes and no. This IS how drug law forfeitures are done. But proving your innocence does not get the seized assets back; that just keeps you from serving additional jail time. No; you have to literally sue the government and prove (the burden on YOU) that the assets are innocent.
She's f-ing Wonder Woman. Unlike us mere mortals, she always remembers exactly where she parked.
I assure you that if there is a pandemic, poor and minorities will be the hardest hit. (or so the papers will tell us, anyway).