I work in IT- Not exactly entry level, but in the 2-5 years experience area. A 3rd level tech at a medium/large company.
I have a cool boss, who brings us cookies for no reason and always keeps the fridge in her office stocked with Pepsi.
I have fairly flexible hours, working usually right around 40 hours per week. I have cool coworkers and this is a neat business. I get training funded by the company.
I get a free laptop to borrow if I ever need it to go out of town or something and a free cell phone with unlimited nights and weekends.
I make $55k/yr and I'm 22 years old.
I would love to get more than 3 weeks per year of vacation, but that's better than most people i know, so I can't complain.
Very intelligent response that mirrors my views. Take the good with the bad in the interest of liberty...
You should check out the book "Harmful to Minors" by Judith Levine. It's a great book, despite the amount of criticism NARTH (the national anti-homosexual group) throws at it calling it a "pedophile manifesto" (which it's amusingly not EVEN CLOSE).
I actually bought "Harmful to Minors" by Judith Levine. It's a great book. You should read it, despite the amount of criticism NARTH (the national anti-homosexual group) throws at it calling it a "pedophile manifesto" (which it's amusingly not EVEN CLOSE).
i still don't know whether to think the "patient-client confidentiality" is worth violating, even in those circumstances.
The great irony is that pedophiles are probably the single group that need the MOST mental help and many would be willing to seek it, except for the fact that they can almost never speak openly to a psychologist for fear of being arrested.
I find it really interesting to do a general "poll" of the number of people in this thread who seem OK with the far-reaching pre-emptive blanket banning of IP addresses in this topic.
In another topic, the entirety of the board would be up in arms, but on this subject it is stirring up hot debate with the pro-block and anti-block camps looking to be about equal in numbers (at least in numbers of posts).
What does this say? That a good number of us really don't care *as much* about those freedoms that we profess to when discussing other topics? Perhaps it's just because a small group of people get so incredibly hot under the collar about this topic (and I understand, really!!).
The thing to me is that parents are always the ones to jump in and say "well, I can only imagine if it was my kid". The thing is that if you're a half-decent parent, it won't be your kid. If you let your kid be alone with someone who could be capable of posting something like that ON THE INTERNET, you are making a mistake in your parenting somewhere.
Personally, I think kids should be informed about this kid of thing at a young age so that if they are ever actually put in the situation of having to deal with it, they're capable of saying "no" and if forced, capable and willing to tell someone about it later.
But throwing down blanket bans on IP addresses <b>IS</b> a violation of our basic rights and inhibits the freedom of information, which is one of the most basic of human rights and dignities in my opinion.
It will take the cooperation of ALL the world's governments to take down these sites, which I can't see happening soon. Then the content will migrate to a service like FREENET, where the information is decentralized and fully anonymous and guess what... you won't be able to take it down anymore.
Information will flow, even if we don't want it to. Spying on the population isn't the solution. Protecting the kids is a solution. No more kids spending time with pornographers, no more porn involving kids...
That said, I also think it's scary how I, as a young white male (not old enough to be a father, but too old to be a kid myself), can't even hug my 13yo brother in public without attracting a smattering of both disgusted and prying looks from people around that just scream "WHY ARE YOU MOLESTING THAT BOY?"
He was making a DIRECT comparison between raiding a person based on their address and raiding a person based on an IP of a site they may have been involved with.
The trick is that an IP address is more similar to a "street" than a specific address. So the SWAT team comes out and raids every house on the street. Sure, you'll find the culprit, but you'll also find the inside of a lot of innocent people's homes and that is a violation of our rights and basic freedoms.
"One who gives up liberty for security deserves neither."
There are 8 organizations in my city for preventing "stranger abduction", yet only four such abductions have occurred in the last 2 years.
There are a dozen groups out there working to prevent sexual abuse, but Social Services itself is badly badly underfunded and can't handle the cases of *simple* abuse.
Simple as it is called, it's no walk in the garden and I think resources from other areas should be re-directed in that direction. So in essence, I'm just saying...
Can anyone comment on the existance of prior "software" using these features. I seem to recall a "time limiting" software designed for Windows 3.1 back in around 1994 or 1995. There have been "filtering" software utilities for longer than that.
Is this another example of the abuse of software patents? I think I might move to the EU (assuming they stay sane and reject the ability to restrict software development through patents).
Well, when I see something floating around my screen and I want to know how to deal with it, the first thing I do is "right click" on it to see what options I have available. Then I check the various menus or buttons associated with it.
Easier for the novice but more frustrating for the expert.
Perhaps that's why there is a fairly negative view of AOL and MacOS and the various other things that have gained the reputation of "training wheels". Sure they're great when you can't ride a bike correctly, but they would probably make Lance Armstrong fall off his bike at a crucial moment.
I think the objective would be to make the interface more efficient. Personally, I think the menus that make LESS overall clicks are better.
I miss my old Windows 3.1 interface, where I had set up something similar to a "start menu" on my right-click context menu. It allowed fully customizable links, including things like "minimize all windows" and things.
The right-click context menu is one of the most efficient features of Windows. I would favor having a seaparate context menu connected to another button. I would definatley appreciate a "middle click" context menu that was customizable and a standard "right click" context menu in addition.
Actually, if you will notice, this post came BEFORE the other one. That leads me to conclude that the OTHER one is copied.
Stewey
Re:E-democracy *should mean* direct voting
on
Public Net-work
·
· Score: 1
"children would still legally be property"
They are as much property to you as your pets are.
Personally, I think it's really sad when they can take a kid away from his parents for something THEY deem inappropriate (but which family, friends and the kid himself says is just fine), but when it comes to the kid (and we're mostly talking teengers here) making simple decisions or even travelling or representing himself legally, they most definately ARE the property of the parents.
Ever read a subpoena for a juvinile witness? It subpoenas the parents and mandates that they bring specific property with them. Then on the "property" listing, they name the children.
Ironic when you can be charged as an adult for comitting a crime at the age of 12, but you have to be 18 before you can be asked to bear witness to a crime.
Ironic you can die for your country at the age of 18, but you can't drink until the age of 21.
Ironic that you can be arrested for "consentual" sexual assault at the age of 13 AND be charged as an adult for it (and with all of the pre-meditation and awareness that is mandated for an assault convictin) , but regardless of your willingness, cannot consent to sex until the age of 18.
Ironic that your parents can coerce you to work at the age of 14, but you cannot work on your own volition without their permission until the age of 18.
Wow, that is perhaps the most scary thing I've ever heard.
As much as I would like to believe in the esoteric thought of "educated masses", at least here in America, if you put the choice to the masses, you end up with rediculous results.
If things were put to popular vote all the time, issues that were somewhat extremest could easily be quietly proposed and pumped up in fairly extremest circles without reaching the mainstream. Because voter turnout would be very low, you could expect extreme viewpoints to end up becoming law fairly frequently.
In addition, I have a feeling that your idea of "favorable representation" would basically turn into what we have now. National platforms would emerge with people campaigning to be "your voter" and would gather together a huge cluster of votes with which they could sway national opinion.
Can you imagine how many votes someone like Rush Limbaugh would get in such a circumstance? One of the reasons representation in the house/senate is setup how it is, is to be sure that all areas of the country are represented and representatives are over a reasonable size of the population.
Too bad it doesn't work how it is now. Maybe it'd be worth a try, but I think we'd have to watch it carefully to see how it was going. I think people would pretty quickly get sick of it and vote to have their representatives back. Maybe if they were gotten rid of, they might be more REPRESENTATIVE of the people next time around.
The irony here is that in most other areas of society, companies (those with money) LEAD THE CHARGE in moving technology to new areas where it has never gone before.
The entertainment industry, however; is stuck playing a piss-poor attempt of "catch up" to the nerds sitting in their bedrooms casually typing code for the sheer fun of it.
What does that say about corporate motivation to pursue new and efficient methods of distribution. We're moving into an era in every industry (not just software and entertainment), where companies have realized that it is CHEAPER and EASIER to pay off the government and fund a legal team than it is to pay some good engineers and forward-thinkers to develop new ides.
Instead of pushing new ideas forward on their own merit, they're trying to legislate to make OLD ideas stick around so they can sit back and watch the money flow without having to expend any effort.
Sad, sad state.
The worst part is that the politicians LOVE it because of the amount of money flowing into their coffers.
Perhaps a more accurate method would be to extrapolate from the amount of water actually present in a cloud. A "cloud" isn't some well-defined object containing a set density of water. I'm sure a big puffy white one has a LOT less water than a big mean dark one that is the same size.
Then again, when we're talking about clouds... they're just concentrations of moisture that happen to refract and reflect visible light. The air has moisture everywhere. What exactly is the difference in moisture content between a cloud and a "really wet day" in the jungle?
I've seen it rain with very little cloud cover... So while we're at it, why not just weigh the air?
Or we could get around to other even more pointless activities... ANYTHING to get you on/.:-)
Ok, nevermind about that. It was a stupid assumption, since it would only apply to those "dual latched" parts of a chip (like the P4 ALU), and not to "ordinary" data paths.
Been too long since I did any transistor level work.:-)
I did some reading and found that Gordon Moore himself updated his "law" in 1971, revising the doubling time from 12 months (in his original 1965 observation) to 24 months (which, averaged, gives the oft-wrongly-cited 18 months) and he also commented that it seemed to include "performance" as a relative figure.
My mention of Clock speed in terms of that is simply a loose coorilation between frequency and performance.
Actually, I turned up the 100um number, but realizeed that a "cycle" includes the rise AND fall of the clock, which makes the "half-cycle" time 0.5ps (500fs) and is where I pulled the number 50um.
Slashdot Mirror
I work in IT- Not exactly entry level, but in the 2-5 years experience area. A 3rd level tech at a medium/large company.
I have a cool boss, who brings us cookies for no reason and always keeps the fridge in her office stocked with Pepsi.
I have fairly flexible hours, working usually right around 40 hours per week. I have cool coworkers and this is a neat business. I get training funded by the company.
I get a free laptop to borrow if I ever need it to go out of town or something and a free cell phone with unlimited nights and weekends.
I make $55k/yr and I'm 22 years old.
I would love to get more than 3 weeks per year of vacation, but that's better than most people i know, so I can't complain.
Stewey
Very intelligent response that mirrors my views. Take the good with the bad in the interest of liberty...
:-)
You should check out the book "Harmful to Minors" by Judith Levine. It's a great book, despite the amount of criticism NARTH (the national anti-homosexual group) throws at it calling it a "pedophile manifesto" (which it's amusingly not EVEN CLOSE).
You're now added to my 'friends' list
Stewey
Very intelligent response that mirrors my views.
:-)
I actually bought "Harmful to Minors" by Judith Levine. It's a great book. You should read it, despite the amount of criticism NARTH (the national anti-homosexual group) throws at it calling it a "pedophile manifesto" (which it's amusingly not EVEN CLOSE).
You're now added to my 'friends' list
Stewey
Well that's fortunate.
i still don't know whether to think the "patient-client confidentiality" is worth violating, even in those circumstances.
The great irony is that pedophiles are probably the single group that need the MOST mental help and many would be willing to seek it, except for the fact that they can almost never speak openly to a psychologist for fear of being arrested.
Which is a viscious cycle.
Stewey
The sad part about what you've said is that BY being so difficult, the police have made it more difficult on themselves.
In addition, I have a feeling that you (not turning them in) are in fact, yourself, comitting a felony.
If they were every to decided they had it in for your ass, you'd be screwed.
Sad
Stewey
I find it really interesting to do a general "poll" of the number of people in this thread who seem OK with the far-reaching pre-emptive blanket banning of IP addresses in this topic.
In another topic, the entirety of the board would be up in arms, but on this subject it is stirring up hot debate with the pro-block and anti-block camps looking to be about equal in numbers (at least in numbers of posts).
What does this say? That a good number of us really don't care *as much* about those freedoms that we profess to when discussing other topics? Perhaps it's just because a small group of people get so incredibly hot under the collar about this topic (and I understand, really!!).
The thing to me is that parents are always the ones to jump in and say "well, I can only imagine if it was my kid". The thing is that if you're a half-decent parent, it won't be your kid. If you let your kid be alone with someone who could be capable of posting something like that ON THE INTERNET, you are making a mistake in your parenting somewhere.
Personally, I think kids should be informed about this kid of thing at a young age so that if they are ever actually put in the situation of having to deal with it, they're capable of saying "no" and if forced, capable and willing to tell someone about it later.
But throwing down blanket bans on IP addresses <b>IS</b> a violation of our basic rights and inhibits the freedom of information, which is one of the most basic of human rights and dignities in my opinion.
It will take the cooperation of ALL the world's governments to take down these sites, which I can't see happening soon. Then the content will migrate to a service like FREENET, where the information is decentralized and fully anonymous and guess what... you won't be able to take it down anymore.
Information will flow, even if we don't want it to. Spying on the population isn't the solution. Protecting the kids is a solution. No more kids spending time with pornographers, no more porn involving kids...
That said, I also think it's scary how I, as a young white male (not old enough to be a father, but too old to be a kid myself), can't even hug my 13yo brother in public without attracting a smattering of both disgusted and prying looks from people around that just scream "WHY ARE YOU MOLESTING THAT BOY?"
WTF is up with that?
*sighs*
Stewey
He was making a DIRECT comparison between raiding a person based on their address and raiding a person based on an IP of a site they may have been involved with.
The trick is that an IP address is more similar to a "street" than a specific address. So the SWAT team comes out and raids every house on the street. Sure, you'll find the culprit, but you'll also find the inside of a lot of innocent people's homes and that is a violation of our rights and basic freedoms.
"One who gives up liberty for security deserves neither."
Stewey
There are 8 organizations in my city for preventing "stranger abduction", yet only four such abductions have occurred in the last 2 years.
There are a dozen groups out there working to prevent sexual abuse, but Social Services itself is badly badly underfunded and can't handle the cases of *simple* abuse.
Simple as it is called, it's no walk in the garden and I think resources from other areas should be re-directed in that direction. So in essence, I'm just saying...
"I agree"
Stewey
Can anyone comment on the existance of prior "software" using these features. I seem to recall a "time limiting" software designed for Windows 3.1 back in around 1994 or 1995. There have been "filtering" software utilities for longer than that.
Is this another example of the abuse of software patents? I think I might move to the EU (assuming they stay sane and reject the ability to restrict software development through patents).
Stewey
Ahh yes... Intuition...
Well, when I see something floating around my screen and I want to know how to deal with it, the first thing I do is "right click" on it to see what options I have available. Then I check the various menus or buttons associated with it.
Seems simple enough to me.
Stewey
Easier for the novice but more frustrating for the expert.
Perhaps that's why there is a fairly negative view of AOL and MacOS and the various other things that have gained the reputation of "training wheels". Sure they're great when you can't ride a bike correctly, but they would probably make Lance Armstrong fall off his bike at a crucial moment.
Stewey
I think the objective would be to make the interface more efficient. Personally, I think the menus that make LESS overall clicks are better.
I miss my old Windows 3.1 interface, where I had set up something similar to a "start menu" on my right-click context menu. It allowed fully customizable links, including things like "minimize all windows" and things.
The right-click context menu is one of the most efficient features of Windows. I would favor having a seaparate context menu connected to another button. I would definatley appreciate a "middle click" context menu that was customizable and a standard "right click" context menu in addition.
Stewey
Funny, there are a ton of other 40GB MP3 players that have been on the market for a little while.
This one is a bit cheaper than the iPod:
Archos
So, you might argue that the iPod is the smallest 40GB player out? Wrong again. Check this one out:
Rio Karma
Not that it's a BAD player- it's just not as Revolutionary as the Mac fanboys claim. :-)
Those iMacs don't look so bad... even if they're next to impossible to upgrade. :-)
Stewey
Actually, if you will notice, this post came BEFORE the other one. That leads me to conclude that the OTHER one is copied.
Stewey
"children would still legally be property"
They are as much property to you as your pets are.
Personally, I think it's really sad when they can take a kid away from his parents for something THEY deem inappropriate (but which family, friends and the kid himself says is just fine), but when it comes to the kid (and we're mostly talking teengers here) making simple decisions or even travelling or representing himself legally, they most definately ARE the property of the parents.
Ever read a subpoena for a juvinile witness? It subpoenas the parents and mandates that they bring specific property with them. Then on the "property" listing, they name the children.
Ironic when you can be charged as an adult for comitting a crime at the age of 12, but you have to be 18 before you can be asked to bear witness to a crime.
Ironic you can die for your country at the age of 18, but you can't drink until the age of 21.
Ironic that you can be arrested for "consentual" sexual assault at the age of 13 AND be charged as an adult for it (and with all of the pre-meditation and awareness that is mandated for an assault convictin) , but regardless of your willingness, cannot consent to sex until the age of 18.
Ironic that your parents can coerce you to work at the age of 14, but you cannot work on your own volition without their permission until the age of 18.
Sorry, you touched a nerve.
Stewey
Wow, that is perhaps the most scary thing I've ever heard.
As much as I would like to believe in the esoteric thought of "educated masses", at least here in America, if you put the choice to the masses, you end up with rediculous results.
If things were put to popular vote all the time, issues that were somewhat extremest could easily be quietly proposed and pumped up in fairly extremest circles without reaching the mainstream. Because voter turnout would be very low, you could expect extreme viewpoints to end up becoming law fairly frequently.
In addition, I have a feeling that your idea of "favorable representation" would basically turn into what we have now. National platforms would emerge with people campaigning to be "your voter" and would gather together a huge cluster of votes with which they could sway national opinion.
Can you imagine how many votes someone like Rush Limbaugh would get in such a circumstance? One of the reasons representation in the house/senate is setup how it is, is to be sure that all areas of the country are represented and representatives are over a reasonable size of the population.
Too bad it doesn't work how it is now. Maybe it'd be worth a try, but I think we'd have to watch it carefully to see how it was going. I think people would pretty quickly get sick of it and vote to have their representatives back. Maybe if they were gotten rid of, they might be more REPRESENTATIVE of the people next time around.
hehe
Stewey
The irony here is that in most other areas of society, companies (those with money) LEAD THE CHARGE in moving technology to new areas where it has never gone before.
The entertainment industry, however; is stuck playing a piss-poor attempt of "catch up" to the nerds sitting in their bedrooms casually typing code for the sheer fun of it.
What does that say about corporate motivation to pursue new and efficient methods of distribution. We're moving into an era in every industry (not just software and entertainment), where companies have realized that it is CHEAPER and EASIER to pay off the government and fund a legal team than it is to pay some good engineers and forward-thinkers to develop new ides.
Instead of pushing new ideas forward on their own merit, they're trying to legislate to make OLD ideas stick around so they can sit back and watch the money flow without having to expend any effort.
Sad, sad state.
The worst part is that the politicians LOVE it because of the amount of money flowing into their coffers.
Bleh.
Stewey
but that has GOT to be the supidest thing I've ever heard.
The problem with the RIAA is that nobody respects them anymore because they're always so rediculously out of touch with reality and culture.
Scary for an organization that is in control of modern music, which is at the core of our culture.
Stewey
Ok, fine. I'm still anti-elephant.
Fine if you choose Minivans instead of Big Macs.
The point I'm making is that the article is clearly written for cluless morons who will be posting this tomorrow on the outside of their cubicles.
Those people don't understand tons or elephants, since both of them are something you study in faraway places, like college. *chuckles*
Sorry for the condescending attitude. I'm in the mood tonight.
Stewey
hmmm...
Well, uhm... *I* see no reason why most people should have some natural appreciation of what "550 elephants" actually means.
Perhaps if they did it in terms of Big Macs or copies of "Vogue".
Stewey
The answer to the question of life, the universe and everything is....
the answer is.... "42"
Stewey
Perhaps a more accurate method would be to extrapolate from the amount of water actually present in a cloud. A "cloud" isn't some well-defined object containing a set density of water. I'm sure a big puffy white one has a LOT less water than a big mean dark one that is the same size.
/. :-)
Then again, when we're talking about clouds... they're just concentrations of moisture that happen to refract and reflect visible light. The air has moisture everywhere. What exactly is the difference in moisture content between a cloud and a "really wet day" in the jungle?
I've seen it rain with very little cloud cover... So while we're at it, why not just weigh the air?
Or we could get around to other even more pointless activities... ANYTHING to get you on
Stewey
Ok, nevermind about that. It was a stupid assumption, since it would only apply to those "dual latched" parts of a chip (like the P4 ALU), and not to "ordinary" data paths.
:-)
Been too long since I did any transistor level work.
Stewey
Also, about moore's law.
I did some reading and found that Gordon Moore himself updated his "law" in 1971, revising the doubling time from 12 months (in his original 1965 observation) to 24 months (which, averaged, gives the oft-wrongly-cited 18 months) and he also commented that it seemed to include "performance" as a relative figure.
My mention of Clock speed in terms of that is simply a loose coorilation between frequency and performance.
Stewey
Actually, I turned up the 100um number, but realizeed that a "cycle" includes the rise AND fall of the clock, which makes the "half-cycle" time 0.5ps (500fs) and is where I pulled the number 50um.
Squirrely