True, but I did meeting a girl that lived in that dorm that I ended up dating. So it all worked out.
The surest way of not getting laid is to date girls (there are exceptions of course).
Meet them for coffee, hang out with them, ask them to tag along when you go somewhere, but dating sets up the wrong frame of reference. Dating conveys to the girl that your social value is lower than hers. Girls will always accept free food and free entertainment, but this won't make them attracted to you, on the contrary.
However, preventing workers from striking is pretty much the same thing as feudalism.
Personally, I don't have a problem with strikes as long as we're allowed to replace those strikers with non-union employees. Many times. We're not allowed to do this. Many times. There are even laws on the books that prevent us from hiring non-union workers in the first place.
I have nothing against Unions per say. I only have problems with coercive laws protecting them.
Those laws vary from State to State and they vary depending on the type of job you do, but sometimes as an employee, you are forced to join a Union (for your own good), you are forced to pay your dues (for your own good), and you are forced to abide by the collective decision of the Union (for your own good).
Essentially, this is taking power away from the individual and giving it to a central authority. And I can't see how this would be a good idea. Just to give you an example, Former Governor Gray Davis made it mandatory for a lot of University of California employees to pay union membership dues. The reasoning given was that even the non-union employees were receiving all the benefits of having an Union, so it would only be fair that they pay the cost.
Personally, I think that's bull. I don't know if the finance campaign reform would affect the gorvernorship, but I don't think Unions should be allowed to contribute money to the governor if the governor can force people to contribute a part of their paycheck to that same Union.
(and they make their employees work when sick. super)
I know two people who used to work at Starbucks. They had no complaints about their company. In fact, Starbucks is probably the only coffee shop in my town that offers full benefits and an ok wage.
Bob Golfen
The Arizona Republic
Apr. 27, 2004 12:00 AM
Are you wasting money putting premium gasoline into your car or truck?
Most people are, according to automotive experts.
Only about 5 percent of modern automobiles require premium under their manufacturers' recommendation. For the other 95 percent of the cars and trucks on the road, premium fuel makes no difference in performance or reliability.
And many of the vehicles that manufacturers say need premium run perfectly well on regular without any dire consequences or significant loss of performance.
"If you can't tell the difference, the car can't, either," said Mark Salem, a Tempe veteran auto technician and advice columnist.
"The reduction in performance can only be measured on a dynamometer. Most people, including myself, can't tell the difference."
Try telling that to Kelvin Williams, 35, of Phoenix. Despite the climbing cost of premium gas, he's still using it in his Dodge Ram pickup, he said, because regular gas "actually bogs down the car."
"Yes, I have to (use premium) with my truck, it's a Dodge 1500 Sports Edition Ram," Williams said. "With the V-8, it's better for the engine itself."
Salem said he has owned his 1995 Chevrolet Corvette since it was new, and despite the automaker's advice that premium be used, "I've used regular since Day 1."
With gasoline prices on the rise, the use of premium fuel has dropped off nationally as more motorists try cheaper blends to save money. Typically, premium costs about 20 cents more per gallon than regular.
In 2003, sales of premium represented about 12 percent of pump sales, down from 13.5 percent in 2002 when the cost of gasoline was lower, according to industry data. The highest use of premium was during 1994, when it reached 20.3 percent.
Premium gasoline is not better than regular, just different, said Randy Nowell, a master technician for the American Automobile Association. The difference is in the octane levels, a measurement of the gasoline blend's resistance to engine knock caused by pre-ignition.
"Dealers and sales people will tell you to buy premium because you're buying a premium car," Nowell said. "That's a myth."
Nearly every 2004 General Motors vehicle uses regular gas, said Chuck Harrington, GM's Western regional spokesman.
Ford now has just "a handful" of cars that use premium, spokeswoman Sandra Badgett said. But those cars can use regular with no ill effects, she said.
"We generally recommended certain octane because that's where the engine is tuned to run the best," Badgett said. "If you put regular in a vehicle that wants premium, it's not going to hurt it. It's not going to drop dead on the road."
Using premium in a car or truck that requires regular gives it no benefit in performance, mileage or reliability, she added.
Regular ranges from 85 to 87 octane, midgrades from 88 to 90, and premium 91 or higher.
But only performance engines with high compression ratios or those enhanced with turbochargers or superchargers benefit from the anti-knock protection.
The premium-gas issue has changed over the past two decades. Since 1981, every vehicle includes an electronic device in the ignition system called a knock sensor, which slightly retards the vehicle's ignition timing if it senses pre-ignition. The timing change may result in slightly less performance or fuel mileage, but it won't hurt the engine, Nowell said.
He advises drivers of vehicles requiring premium to try a tankful of midrange, . which is about 10 cents per gallon cheaper than premium and slightly boosts octane at lesser cost.
Interesting. I work for a US mortgage company. Back in the day we threw big bashes, did all sorts of crazy drinking and partying (the company as a whole) and were none the worse for it
"Back in the day" is the key phrase here. Crazy drinking and crazy partying usually leads to crazy lawsuits. That's why those company traditions are dying here in the US.
And if you want a portable computer..........why not just buy a freakin' PDA?
My pockets are bulky enough. Even if someone offered me a free state-of-the-art PDA, I'd still use the calendar on my cell, at least if it's on my cell -- it's on me at all times. It's the same thing with the camera. If I had had a camera on me at all times, I could have easily photographed the two drunk drivers that hit and run the parked cars of my neighbors.
Yeah, because if I can't easily read the whole article about it, I want to remain unaware that it's happening.
I guess, you only get your news from Slashdot.
I get my news from news.google, so your comment is irrelevant to me. If the news item is that worthy, google emails it to me long before it ever gets posted on Slashdot. Plus, if the article is from the nytimes, I can usually can get 100 duplicate/related articles from google, so it's not like it would be difficult for headliners to find other (unregistered) news sources for pretty much the same information.
The editors play an important role, and losing their involvement would reduce the overall quality.
It will decrease the quality, yes, but it will also increase the quantity of books available to any one person and so the best of the best ebooks will easily spread like wild fire.
I agree that ebooks will never completely displace textbooks, but in any case here is a really cool suggestion for taking notes on your laptop and have them overlayed within your ebook.
Writing a textbook is no small endeavor, professors often spend months upon months writing and revising a single text.
According to this Professor:"A typical [College] textbook earns the author less than $3,000 over a five-year or longer period." That's not a lot of money we're talking about. It could be funded in a number of different ways. We could have featured sponsors, student micropaiments, and paypal donations.
While the Open Source community can survive off the valiant efforts of thousands of coders worldwide, the number of individuals in higher academia qualified to write textbooks is much more limited.
Yes, but we don't need that many books in the first place. If the authors adopt the open source model and allow others to contribute to or take what they need from their work, then the same book won't have to be rewritten from scratch by a thousand different authors.
I just can't envision a scenario where this kind of approach is sustainable in a long-term or wide-reaching context. Thoughts?
This approach is sustainable. It won't replace dead-tree college textbooks, that's for sure, but at least it will be a viable alternative for some students and some poorer countries.
Compare to a DTP like Word: without having a power user ability, it's quite easy to start doing fairly sophisticated content organisation, layout, etc. In comparison, Excel remains a lifeless 2D spreedsheet application.
I must really be dumb at using Word, or you must be really dumb at using Excel, but I completely disagree with your impression of those two.
One Linux user does not equal all Linux users. Besides, the parent post doesn't even talk about the price, he talks about the license terms. Those two are not necessarily the same thing.
"...Remember Columbine? The sheriff's department there were villified for 'not seeing the warning signs' "
The sheriff's department in Columbine was villified by the media. It wasn't villified by anyone here. Get your facts straight. What you see on TV does not necessarily reflect what Slashdotters think and it certainly doesn't reflect what happens in reality.
Mmmm... that's not entirely true. Lately, a lot of virus writers have just been preying on the stupidity and gullibility of the average user. Hell, I got one of them zipped one day that practically had freakin' installation instructions... and people were STILL getting infected!
It doesn't matter if only a very small minority of gullible users get infected. In the scheme of things, it doesn't cost the worldwide community that much. The cost becomes significant however when a significant percentage of the population gets infected.
The problem with Microsoft is that it wants to remote control your box. It wants to know what you have installed and how you're using it. That's why Microsoft boxes are insecure, it's not because Microsoft isn't smart enough, it's because it's not in their interest to make your box too secure.
I also belonged to a fraternity. As far as I know, there was never even one allegation of rape against mine. I can believe there was one false allegation of rape against your fraternity. Yeah. Two false allegations of rape. Yeah, may be. Sixty two *false* allegations of rape. You've got to be kidding me!
Either this brotherly love is blinding you, or you're making this up and you never even belonged to such a fraternity.
I'm not too worried.
maybe folks can social-engineer judges, but the risk is low compared to the alternative.
You should be worried. If you get successfully scammed by a subpoena, it won't be because a judge was "socially engineered", it will be because one of his staff was fooled or it will be because one of your staff was fooled by what looked like an official subpoena.
Have you trained your low level staff in security issues? Because that's what you should be worried about. Con men won't go to you, they'll go directly after your temporary employees, your janitors, you new employees, and your interns.
Same school, same year, kid borrows a laptop from the school for a weekend as he'd done for months, but this time didn't sign out for it correctly. Suspended and grades withheld. There you go. Borrowing a laptop without proper authorisation is a worse crime than rape in School Land.
No, you're comparing apples to oranges. In this case of yours, rape didn't seem to be proven, at best only sex was proven. If a school wants to contradict the verdict of a State court, the school better have some damn good lawyers or it better have a clear written policy in which it states that kids who have sex with each other will be kicked out automatically.
Even in the case of the laptop, if the parents had hired a good lawyer. Things probably would have blown over, and for all we know, this laptop-thing might have been settled quietly one or two months after the incident.
Slashdot Mirror
The surest way of not getting laid is to date girls (there are exceptions of course).
Meet them for coffee, hang out with them, ask them to tag along when you go somewhere, but dating sets up the wrong frame of reference. Dating conveys to the girl that your social value is lower than hers. Girls will always accept free food and free entertainment, but this won't make them attracted to you, on the contrary.
The surest way of not getting laid is to supplicate and to do girls favors.
Personally, I don't have a problem with strikes as long as we're allowed to replace those strikers with non-union employees. Many times. We're not allowed to do this. Many times. There are even laws on the books that prevent us from hiring non-union workers in the first place.
Those laws vary from State to State and they vary depending on the type of job you do, but sometimes as an employee, you are forced to join a Union (for your own good), you are forced to pay your dues (for your own good), and you are forced to abide by the collective decision of the Union (for your own good).
Essentially, this is taking power away from the individual and giving it to a central authority. And I can't see how this would be a good idea. Just to give you an example, Former Governor Gray Davis made it mandatory for a lot of University of California employees to pay union membership dues. The reasoning given was that even the non-union employees were receiving all the benefits of having an Union, so it would only be fair that they pay the cost.
Personally, I think that's bull. I don't know if the finance campaign reform would affect the gorvernorship, but I don't think Unions should be allowed to contribute money to the governor if the governor can force people to contribute a part of their paycheck to that same Union.
I know two people who used to work at Starbucks. They had no complaints about their company. In fact, Starbucks is probably the only coffee shop in my town that offers full benefits and an ok wage.
Take a look at Fortune's magazine, the picture of Darl made the front cover and the headline is touting him as a "Linux Slayer". I wish I was kidding.
By the way, your blog has been spammed a great number of times. It's the first time I see this, it kind of sucks.
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/arti cles/0427premium27.html#
Regular gas often fine in modern cars
Bob Golfen
The Arizona Republic
Apr. 27, 2004 12:00 AM
Are you wasting money putting premium gasoline into your car or truck?
Most people are, according to automotive experts.
Only about 5 percent of modern automobiles require premium under their manufacturers' recommendation. For the other 95 percent of the cars and trucks on the road, premium fuel makes no difference in performance or reliability.
And many of the vehicles that manufacturers say need premium run perfectly well on regular without any dire consequences or significant loss of performance.
"If you can't tell the difference, the car can't, either," said Mark Salem, a Tempe veteran auto technician and advice columnist.
"The reduction in performance can only be measured on a dynamometer. Most people, including myself, can't tell the difference."
Try telling that to Kelvin Williams, 35, of Phoenix. Despite the climbing cost of premium gas, he's still using it in his Dodge Ram pickup, he said, because regular gas "actually bogs down the car."
"Yes, I have to (use premium) with my truck, it's a Dodge 1500 Sports Edition Ram," Williams said. "With the V-8, it's better for the engine itself."
Salem said he has owned his 1995 Chevrolet Corvette since it was new, and despite the automaker's advice that premium be used, "I've used regular since Day 1."
With gasoline prices on the rise, the use of premium fuel has dropped off nationally as more motorists try cheaper blends to save money. Typically, premium costs about 20 cents more per gallon than regular.
In 2003, sales of premium represented about 12 percent of pump sales, down from 13.5 percent in 2002 when the cost of gasoline was lower, according to industry data. The highest use of premium was during 1994, when it reached 20.3 percent.
Premium gasoline is not better than regular, just different, said Randy Nowell, a master technician for the American Automobile Association. The difference is in the octane levels, a measurement of the gasoline blend's resistance to engine knock caused by pre-ignition.
"Dealers and sales people will tell you to buy premium because you're buying a premium car," Nowell said. "That's a myth."
Nearly every 2004 General Motors vehicle uses regular gas, said Chuck Harrington, GM's Western regional spokesman.
Ford now has just "a handful" of cars that use premium, spokeswoman Sandra Badgett said. But those cars can use regular with no ill effects, she said.
"We generally recommended certain octane because that's where the engine is tuned to run the best," Badgett said. "If you put regular in a vehicle that wants premium, it's not going to hurt it. It's not going to drop dead on the road."
Using premium in a car or truck that requires regular gives it no benefit in performance, mileage or reliability, she added.
Regular ranges from 85 to 87 octane, midgrades from 88 to 90, and premium 91 or higher.
But only performance engines with high compression ratios or those enhanced with turbochargers or superchargers benefit from the anti-knock protection.
The premium-gas issue has changed over the past two decades. Since 1981, every vehicle includes an electronic device in the ignition system called a knock sensor, which slightly retards the vehicle's ignition timing if it senses pre-ignition. The timing change may result in slightly less performance or fuel mileage, but it won't hurt the engine, Nowell said.
He advises drivers of vehicles requiring premium to try a tankful of midrange, . which is about 10 cents per gallon cheaper than premium and slightly boosts octane at lesser cost.
If midrange works, then run a
Soon, it will have the worst rate of assaults with exacto knifes in the entire World.
"Back in the day" is the key phrase here. Crazy drinking and crazy partying usually leads to crazy lawsuits. That's why those company traditions are dying here in the US.
My pockets are bulky enough. Even if someone offered me a free state-of-the-art PDA, I'd still use the calendar on my cell, at least if it's on my cell -- it's on me at all times. It's the same thing with the camera. If I had had a camera on me at all times, I could have easily photographed the two drunk drivers that hit and run the parked cars of my neighbors.
..., now this.
I guess, you only get your news from Slashdot.
I get my news from news.google, so your comment is irrelevant to me. If the news item is that worthy, google emails it to me long before it ever gets posted on Slashdot. Plus, if the article is from the nytimes, I can usually can get 100 duplicate/related articles from google, so it's not like it would be difficult for headliners to find other (unregistered) news sources for pretty much the same information.
Then, read the user reviews, run it to see how long it will last, and take into account the periodic replacement cost into your budget.
It will decrease the quality, yes, but it will also increase the quantity of books available to any one person and so the best of the best ebooks will easily spread like wild fire.
http://radio.weblogs.com/0104634/2003/07/31.html#a 2071
According to this Professor:"A typical [College] textbook earns the author less than $3,000 over a five-year or longer period." That's not a lot of money we're talking about. It could be funded in a number of different ways. We could have featured sponsors, student micropaiments, and paypal donations.
While the Open Source community can survive off the valiant efforts of thousands of coders worldwide, the number of individuals in higher academia qualified to write textbooks is much more limited.
Yes, but we don't need that many books in the first place. If the authors adopt the open source model and allow others to contribute to or take what they need from their work, then the same book won't have to be rewritten from scratch by a thousand different authors.
I just can't envision a scenario where this kind of approach is sustainable in a long-term or wide-reaching context. Thoughts?
This approach is sustainable. It won't replace dead-tree college textbooks, that's for sure, but at least it will be a viable alternative for some students and some poorer countries.
I must really be dumb at using Word, or you must be really dumb at using Excel, but I completely disagree with your impression of those two.
One Linux user does not equal all Linux users. Besides, the parent post doesn't even talk about the price, he talks about the license terms. Those two are not necessarily the same thing.
I guess, you weren't around 10 to 15 years ago.
The sheriff's department in Columbine was villified by the media. It wasn't villified by anyone here. Get your facts straight. What you see on TV does not necessarily reflect what Slashdotters think and it certainly doesn't reflect what happens in reality.
"So what kind of solution do you propose?"
Stop taking the news on TV so damn seriously.
It doesn't matter if only a very small minority of gullible users get infected. In the scheme of things, it doesn't cost the worldwide community that much. The cost becomes significant however when a significant percentage of the population gets infected.
The problem with Microsoft is that it wants to remote control your box. It wants to know what you have installed and how you're using it. That's why Microsoft boxes are insecure, it's not because Microsoft isn't smart enough, it's because it's not in their interest to make your box too secure.
Either this brotherly love is blinding you, or you're making this up and you never even belonged to such a fraternity.
You should be worried. If you get successfully scammed by a subpoena, it won't be because a judge was "socially engineered", it will be because one of his staff was fooled or it will be because one of your staff was fooled by what looked like an official subpoena.
Have you trained your low level staff in security issues? Because that's what you should be worried about. Con men won't go to you, they'll go directly after your temporary employees, your janitors, you new employees, and your interns.
No, you're comparing apples to oranges. In this case of yours, rape didn't seem to be proven, at best only sex was proven. If a school wants to contradict the verdict of a State court, the school better have some damn good lawyers or it better have a clear written policy in which it states that kids who have sex with each other will be kicked out automatically.
Even in the case of the laptop, if the parents had hired a good lawyer. Things probably would have blown over, and for all we know, this laptop-thing might have been settled quietly one or two months after the incident.