Users should bare the responsibility of checking out their own dates, not the site
Ignoring the Freudian typo, it seems amazing to me that anyone would think it was a good idea to attempt to spend quality time alone with a complete stranger: If you're in a public place, it's about as safe as any other activity. If there are no witnesses, or you're relying on the stranger's car to get to or from said public place, it's not. This is true of any first date, no matter how you met them. Early dates give you a chance to see whether you like your date and evaluate how sketchy they are, and to jump in without making that decision is to invite trouble (not just from crazy stalker types, it can also lead to really bad relationships).
Das encryptmachine ist nicht fuer gefingerpoken und mittengrabben. Ist easy wrecken der secrets, schnatchendatas und breakensecurity mit grossembrassen. Ist nicht fuer gewerken bei das dumpkopfen.
I'm assuming you're not a troll, but someone who truly believes that no crime has been committed.
You are correct that currently no criminal activity has been proven. This is largely because all the details, including what judicial oversight exists, who's getting monitored, etc, is classified. Every court case and congressional inquiry into this issue has been held up by the inability to study the facts for "national security reasons". What evidence is publicly available suggests that there is wiretapping going on without judicial oversight, which is illegal under FISA. I for one also consider it no accident that what the "Left-wingers" think might be going on bears a striking resemblance to the Total Information Awareness project that was stopped by Congress in 2004 (under Republican control).
Is there necessarily a crime here? No. Is there good reason to think that there's a crime being committed? Absolutely. This is especially true in light of recent efforts by the Bush administration to try to get Congress to retroactively make the sort of wiretapping that appears to be going on legal and to get judicial precedent saying that it's legal. In other words, it looks like their trying to cover their asses before someone else becomes president.
The way the music industry is set up right now, the big 4 companies screw the label execs, who screw the label talent managers, who screw the band managers, who screw the musicians. (His career so far has been moving slowly up the chain, so that he's now responsible for more screwing people over than being screwed. Also, he's honest enough that when he was managing a band he wasn't simply taking the money and telling drunk band members they'd spent it all on drugs.)
The fact that EMI assumed that King Crimson had agreed to the one-sided contracts that they have for most everyone else is a clear indication of how screwed up the industry is.
A newb trying to get into this field has absolutely NO CHANCE.
Go look at the job ads and see what they're looking for as far as experience is concerned. You can't even meet those requirements with internships.
While not quite no chance, I have to say this is definitely a major issue. (I myself nearly ended up on the street at about the 1-2 year mark due to lack of experience.) I was chatting with a recruiter recently, and he told me when I brought up the problem that nowadays in tech an "entry-level" programmer is someone with 2-3 years of experience. I then asked him how his clients ever hoped to find someone with that level of experience if no one will hire programmers right out of college.
The fundamental problem is that it's more advantageous for each individual firm to hire people with some job experience (because they won't make novice mistakes), but if every company follows that rule then no one can enter the industry.
I don't think you have to worry: we won't RTFA anyways.
But seriously, it's not that confusing: BIOS finds and starts grub, which finds and starts kernel, which finds and starts init, which finds and starts everything else listed in the correct sets of/etc/init.d scripts.
The $3 million is the cost of a program the state created in response to this which allows anyone affected by the theft to get free identity theft insurance. It's actually a relatively reasonable response by government (don't worry, I'm not used to that).
I don't know about everywhere else, but in the Rust Belt 60K/yr is considered solidly professional-grade, a bit above the median rate for programmers, sys admins, and other professional workers.
I decided to look up the stats on this issue, and this is what I found: According to the US Census 60K a year would put you well into the second-highest quintile for household income, which is generally upper-middle class. Also, 60K a year is higher than the median rate for those with 4-year degrees. Ohio is close to the middle of the median income range, so I'd say the 60K/yr is a bit higher than a large number of smart people are getting.
This sounds to me like you're suffering from the natural bias that comes from being used to a certain income level, namely thinking that you're an "average" person. You aren't, according to the statistics you're doing well above average. This isn't surprising, a lot of smart people do better than average, but don't think for a minute that's average. I've seen this sort of thing before: I had a college roommate who thought he was part of an average family, both of his parents made 6 figures.
...and who calls the 'Great Plains' states the 'Northwest'??
That's easy: The same people who call areas east of the Mississippi (which isn't even the geographical center of the country) the 'Midwest', who almost invariably live on the northern portions of the East Coast.
As far as the whole "buzzword bingo" problem in job ads, the real solution is so simple I'm surprised no one uses it: Have the manager of the position, who should have at least a clue as to what s/he needs) write their own job requirements. You may get fewer candidates that way, but they're far more likely to be the right candidates.
Well, I've always liked the Russian answer to happiness: "You come home from work, are sitting in your broken-down chair reading Pravda, when three men in badly-fitting suits knock on your door. 'Mr Voyslatovich?' 'No, he lives 3 floors up.'"
If I'm Steve Jobs, why should I care whether Apple is "beating" Vista? Investors sure don't, if their stock price is any indication.
What matters to Apple is whether Apple is doing well as a company. They don't really have to care what's happening to MSFT. In fact, I'd expect that AAPL tends to go up at about when MSFT goes up because a large percentage of the stock price is based on the industry rather than the company.
Ditto for Joel Spolsky. I don't always agree with these guys, but they definitely know what they're talking about, and knowing what they knew saved my butt on a couple of occasions.
I'm going to have to argue that point a bit: It depends a lot on the market you're talking about whether monopolies are necessarily bad or unchecked competition is necessarily bad. The reason for this is that some products are far easier to produce on a large scale, and others on a small scale. For instance, beer is far better produced on a small scale than a large one, while with cellular phones there's a huge advantage to being a large provider. When you have large scale, you should end up with a heavily regulated monopoly or oligopoly, when you have a small scale you tend to see a minimally regulated competitive market.
In the category of heavily regulated monopoly you'll find most utilities, while in the category of relatively unchecked competition you can consider such businesses as landscapers. Trying to regulate landscapers stifles the market, while deregulating utilities leads to corporate trickery followed by a bunch of mergers (case in point: AT&T->Baby Bells->AT&T).
Slashdot Mirror
Ignoring the Freudian typo, it seems amazing to me that anyone would think it was a good idea to attempt to spend quality time alone with a complete stranger: If you're in a public place, it's about as safe as any other activity. If there are no witnesses, or you're relying on the stranger's car to get to or from said public place, it's not. This is true of any first date, no matter how you met them. Early dates give you a chance to see whether you like your date and evaluate how sketchy they are, and to jump in without making that decision is to invite trouble (not just from crazy stalker types, it can also lead to really bad relationships).
Great: Now capture a Hooloovoo (a hyper-intelligent shade of the color blue).
What do you mean wait? The Hunchback of Notre Dame now has a happy ending.
My post has a very specific history to it, which you can read all about here if you're interested. It's nowhere near as random as it looks.
Das encryptmachine ist nicht fuer gefingerpoken und mittengrabben. Ist easy wrecken der secrets, schnatchendatas und breakensecurity mit grossembrassen. Ist nicht fuer gewerken bei das dumpkopfen.
It's called hyperbole.
I'm assuming you're not a troll, but someone who truly believes that no crime has been committed.
You are correct that currently no criminal activity has been proven. This is largely because all the details, including what judicial oversight exists, who's getting monitored, etc, is classified. Every court case and congressional inquiry into this issue has been held up by the inability to study the facts for "national security reasons". What evidence is publicly available suggests that there is wiretapping going on without judicial oversight, which is illegal under FISA. I for one also consider it no accident that what the "Left-wingers" think might be going on bears a striking resemblance to the Total Information Awareness project that was stopped by Congress in 2004 (under Republican control).
Is there necessarily a crime here? No. Is there good reason to think that there's a crime being committed? Absolutely. This is especially true in light of recent efforts by the Bush administration to try to get Congress to retroactively make the sort of wiretapping that appears to be going on legal and to get judicial precedent saying that it's legal. In other words, it looks like their trying to cover their asses before someone else becomes president.
No, it does matter: What they're trying to do is ensure that any administration that comes after them can't prosecute them for what they've done.
The way the music industry is set up right now, the big 4 companies screw the label execs, who screw the label talent managers, who screw the band managers, who screw the musicians. (His career so far has been moving slowly up the chain, so that he's now responsible for more screwing people over than being screwed. Also, he's honest enough that when he was managing a band he wasn't simply taking the money and telling drunk band members they'd spent it all on drugs.)
The fact that EMI assumed that King Crimson had agreed to the one-sided contracts that they have for most everyone else is a clear indication of how screwed up the industry is.
Hey, I'm using Lynx, you insensitive clod!
While not quite no chance, I have to say this is definitely a major issue. (I myself nearly ended up on the street at about the 1-2 year mark due to lack of experience.) I was chatting with a recruiter recently, and he told me when I brought up the problem that nowadays in tech an "entry-level" programmer is someone with 2-3 years of experience. I then asked him how his clients ever hoped to find someone with that level of experience if no one will hire programmers right out of college.
The fundamental problem is that it's more advantageous for each individual firm to hire people with some job experience (because they won't make novice mistakes), but if every company follows that rule then no one can enter the industry.
No, obviously this didn't work at all: There was no Genesis effect, otherwise I wouldn't be able to write this.
I wouldn't be surprised if he got Russ Feingold (Mr no-PATRIOT-Act) on board as well.
But seriously, it's not that confusing: BIOS finds and starts grub, which finds and starts kernel, which finds and starts init, which finds and starts everything else listed in the correct sets of
The $3 million is the cost of a program the state created in response to this which allows anyone affected by the theft to get free identity theft insurance. It's actually a relatively reasonable response by government (don't worry, I'm not used to that).
Not quite right:
Stupidity gets you fired, while malice gets you promoted to head of HR.
Please do not plot an intercept course with Earth. Or any Earth space equipment for that matter.
I don't know about everywhere else, but in the Rust Belt 60K/yr is considered solidly professional-grade, a bit above the median rate for programmers, sys admins, and other professional workers.
I decided to look up the stats on this issue, and this is what I found: According to the US Census 60K a year would put you well into the second-highest quintile for household income, which is generally upper-middle class. Also, 60K a year is higher than the median rate for those with 4-year degrees. Ohio is close to the middle of the median income range, so I'd say the 60K/yr is a bit higher than a large number of smart people are getting.
This sounds to me like you're suffering from the natural bias that comes from being used to a certain income level, namely thinking that you're an "average" person. You aren't, according to the statistics you're doing well above average. This isn't surprising, a lot of smart people do better than average, but don't think for a minute that's average. I've seen this sort of thing before: I had a college roommate who thought he was part of an average family, both of his parents made 6 figures.
That's easy: The same people who call areas east of the Mississippi (which isn't even the geographical center of the country) the 'Midwest', who almost invariably live on the northern portions of the East Coast.
As far as the whole "buzzword bingo" problem in job ads, the real solution is so simple I'm surprised no one uses it: Have the manager of the position, who should have at least a clue as to what s/he needs) write their own job requirements. You may get fewer candidates that way, but they're far more likely to be the right candidates.
Well, I've always liked the Russian answer to happiness:
"You come home from work, are sitting in your broken-down chair reading Pravda, when three men in badly-fitting suits knock on your door.
'Mr Voyslatovich?'
'No, he lives 3 floors up.'"
If I'm Steve Jobs, why should I care whether Apple is "beating" Vista? Investors sure don't, if their stock price is any indication.
What matters to Apple is whether Apple is doing well as a company. They don't really have to care what's happening to MSFT. In fact, I'd expect that AAPL tends to go up at about when MSFT goes up because a large percentage of the stock price is based on the industry rather than the company.
Ditto for Joel Spolsky. I don't always agree with these guys, but they definitely know what they're talking about, and knowing what they knew saved my butt on a couple of occasions.
I'm going to have to argue that point a bit: It depends a lot on the market you're talking about whether monopolies are necessarily bad or unchecked competition is necessarily bad. The reason for this is that some products are far easier to produce on a large scale, and others on a small scale. For instance, beer is far better produced on a small scale than a large one, while with cellular phones there's a huge advantage to being a large provider. When you have large scale, you should end up with a heavily regulated monopoly or oligopoly, when you have a small scale you tend to see a minimally regulated competitive market.
In the category of heavily regulated monopoly you'll find most utilities, while in the category of relatively unchecked competition you can consider such businesses as landscapers. Trying to regulate landscapers stifles the market, while deregulating utilities leads to corporate trickery followed by a bunch of mergers (case in point: AT&T->Baby Bells->AT&T).