Some restaurants have taken the step of banning cameras, or at least have established a 'no flash' rule.
Here was I thinking it was because they fear nobody's going to go to a restaurant serving a tiny portion size. The more the cook fancies himself as a great chef, the less you'll get on your plate.
48M as international aid, eh? Wow, generous. Just to put that in context, that's less than the combined annual salary of David Letterman and Regis Philbin.
A true capitalist would not have started such a company off a government grant [...]
A true capitalist takes seed money from whoever is willing to offering it at the lowest price. Only a nitwit ideologue lets their personal prejudices get in the way of making money.
Quite true. They're not an act of war of themselves, just the last non-combat stage before an American war against whichever third world nation they've opted to target during this Presidential term, usually for resources or strategic advantage.
Sanctions by non-US groups tend to be more about changing behavior rather than intentionally starving a nation to weaken it prior to an invasion.
Anywhere that would cut out coffee from the budget is quite frankly insane. It's a minuscule expense compared to the HR budget and improves productivity dramatically when people would otherwise be flagging (early mornings for night owls, afternoons for early birds).
The ability to provide free, legal performance enhancing drugs is one of the few negligible-cost productivity boost techniques available. You'd have to be both petty and highly incompetent as a manager to do away with it.
Essentially, yes, they do: "First of April, 2010. Twentythird of July, 2009." As do Australians and AFAIK all the English speaking nations apart from the US. The US really is out on its own when it comes to a lot of this stuff. (Anyone with any sense uses ISO format though because the numbers sort better in a list.)
Oh, the industry is moving to BSD-style licenses? When? What industry?
A fair point to make, that. Very few successful commercial enterprises have ever used a GPL license for their software. For the few that did, their GPL software ended up acting as loss-leaders for other technologies or for generating support contracts.
Speaking subjectively, I can't imagine why a commercial company would want GPL software anyway. BSD license code attracts older, more accomplished and experienced developers with a work ethic they've acquired from working in a professional environment. GPL code attracts young cowboys and ideological zealots -- teenagers and students who don't have bills to pay, or a family to support, and have not had to develop those professional skills.
Did they actually use GPL-style licenses before?
I doubt many companies themselves did, but, most software developers and development managers in those companies would have been exposed to the GPL at various times in their lives -- particularly back when they themselves were students, living cheaply at home.
What the linked story really demonstrates is you can work product placement for Apple gear into nearly any article whatsoever, not just the reviews for competing IT products, non-competing IT products and "competing if you squint hard enough and long enough" products.
The news media's always been fairly open to writing positive copy for their advertisers, but, in the current economic climate of falling sales and falling advertising there must be a powerful temptation to go that little bit too far.
It might be a good idea for you to take notes on this, because it can happen in your election system too. It happened in Vermont (2009) and Peru (2006) using similar systems
Yep. Australia have only been running preferential elections since 1918 and use it in all elections: federal, state and local government. What would we know, eh? Elections in one US state (of unknown infrastructure quality) and a third world nation are obviously much more authorative.
people ranking their favorite candidate higher caused the second-choice candidate to lose and threw the election to the third-choice candidate.
What, precisely, is wrong with that? If your second choice candidate's first choice vote is so poor that they're eliminated in a counting round, they deserved to go. They simply weren't very popular.
Preferential systems encourage lots of parties to take part, so it's never the three corner contest you're fearful of.
Maybe it's a language divide. Here in America, "throw away your vote" means to cast a vote in a way that (1) doesn't further your interests or (2) works against your interests.
In what way does voting for a torture supporter further your interests in human rights? It just reinforces the perception of torture's popularity.
If enough of you actually voted for a candidate whose policies you like, instead of the corporate proto-fascists you believe are likely to win, you might actually elect them. (Or at least give the villains a scare back to some sort of policy semi-sanity.)
So, given a candidate who's more evil and a candidate who's less evil, you'd just as soon take the more evil one? You don't see a difference?
I get to say I voted for a party I believe in. The rest of you collectively voted for evil. Had more of you had the courage to vote for a party you believe in, your country might not be where it is today.
Personally, I prefer to do what I can to reduce evil, bit by bit, rather than give up entirely just because I can't eliminate it all at once.
By caving in, you gained absolutely nothing. Just look at where such thinking got your Democrats Party in the Shrub era;-).
I gather from your comment history that you're Australian. If that's correct, you don't actually have a modern preferential voting system: you have IRV, which is subject to most of the same criticisms as our voting method, even though it seems on the surface as though you can vote your true preferences without penalty.
Hate to break it to you, but, we can indeed vote for our true preferences without penalty. For example, preferences from Greens Party and Australian Democrats voters makes up a significant proportion of the Australian Labor Party's "Two Party Prefered" vote and has edged them over the line a lot of the time (particularly in the 1980s and 1990s). I don't know which academic you've been reading, but, you've been woefully informed about what actually happens.
For example, let's say I'm opposed to torture, and I'm voting in a race between a pro-torture candidate and an anti-torture candidate.
How likely is that with America's Republican and Democrat parties, though? They're both pro-torture, as can be seen from the Senate voting record. Seriously, your choices range from cartoonish villains to cartoonish super-villains over there.
If I cast my vote in such a way that it makes the greater of the evils candidate more likely to win (the outcome I don't want!), Americans would say I'm "throwing my vote away". What do you call it in your country?
Hope you don't mind the edit, as it doesn't change the intent. If you're voting for an lesser evil, you're throwing your vote away by perpetuating the election of evil.
Luckily, my country has a modern preferential voting system so we're not prone to these prehistoric ballot box conundrums. Hope to be live long enough to see the US at least catch up to the 20th century in this particular area, but, it's not looking too likely so far.
Furthermore, in the short term (i.e. the next couple decades), voting for a third party candidate harms your interests. It's worse than throwing your vote away.
I really don't get Americans. The only way you can throw away your vote is by voting for a party whose policies you don't support.
There's no "I voted for the guy who's kept the torture camps open, but, at least I didn't vote for the other guy who was worse." Dude, you still voted for a guy who keeps torture camps open. That's not something to see as a positive result.
Anonymous Coward on 2009-10-29 6:08 (#29903353) wrote:
People, including some from our online group, were mopping it up with the old papers that are everywhere. "Try doing that with a website," I observed as I walked by.
When your newspaper's remaining unique feature is its absorbency, you know you're really in trouble.
And then I want to deal with a store that will give me immediately a replacement instead of sending it in and waiting 3-4 weeks 'til they get a replacement from their distributor.
Dunno about the US, but, in Australia the big stores are the most likely to have enough rolling stock on hand that they're able to pull a replacement item from stock — and then they'll chase up the warranty replacement paperwork themselves.
Being a big client with large recurring orders, the manufacturers and the big company have a business relationship to maintain so they don't stuff each other around. So they're happy, and they keep the customer happy. They see it as part of customer service.
Really? Why so short, doesn't that show lack of experience, etc? Mine is pared down (I thought) to about 12 pages....I've done too much to squeeze it down to less.
Any more than 2 pages and a lot of CV reviewers will bin it unread. They simply don't have the time to read all of that. A 2 page CV demonstrates that you can summarise.
By all means, take a 12 page CV in with you to the interview "to provide some further detail" if you like, but, it's the 2-3 page CV gets your foot in the door.
"I still use a 22" CRT I bought years ago for $800. What, I should throw away a perfectly good monitor and buy an LCD because you'll stick your nose in the air?"
Nope. You buy an LCD because it'll pay for itself in power bill savings in 6-9 months. After that, it's extra beer money!
No reasonable person would ever take "A link is not in of itself libel" to mean "I can shield myself from a lawsuit just by putting the libelous text inside tags."
I dunno. I think there are times where the text itself may not be libellous, but, the link makes it so:
"Always excellent to see someone with such an open mind":)
The legal system needs to recognise that the Internet's just another communication medium and the real test is whether someone's been defamed as a result of someone else typing things.
I don't think anyone says that greylisting doesn't work because it does. The problem is that it's not a good idea for most email users. There are far too many (poorly configured) mail servers out there that will not attempt a second delivery -- mostly automated systems such as Delta's itinerary mailer, various online retailers, etc. Sure, you could reject their messages out of principle, but that doesn't work in the real world where people expect email delivery to be 100% error-free.
The very few mail domains I care about that don't handle greylisting well, I can white-list. Meanwhile I'd be asking them why, if they're such a reputable company, they can't hire a competent systems administrator. Even traditionally woeful mail server software like Exchange can be configured to work correctly these days. There's simply no excuse.
"... and the Linux distros and Mac actually have a chance."
Neither has any real chance as a mainstream OS. Mac's been willfully overpriced and is sold as a luxury product. GNU/Linux, on the desktop, is an also-ran — a nice try but the small demographic who cares about running commercial apps on Unix systems are migrating to Mac OS X. The lumbering bohemoth that is X11 on Linux hasn't been tamed, even after all these years, and many are essentially sick of the unfulfilled promise.
The only real hope for the open source/free crowd taking it to the mainstream is ReactOS. The more contributors that project gains, the quicker the FOSS will bury Microsoft and the expensive proprietory vendors. The Windows platform will be with us for many years to come, if only because of the specialist app dependency — but the Windows vendor doesn't need to be Microsoft with its bloated, vastly overpriced offerings.
``The key to it all is that kids own their machine, so all the admin stuff (networking, power management, etc.) *needs* to work within a consistent, simple GUI.``
That view, and the Sugar UI FWIW, stem from a completely flawed understanding of children. Kids are inherently quick at learning and highly adaptable. Give them a Linux or a Windows UI and they'll thrive, taking that knowledge with them and building on it to adulthood.
What Sugar did was try to lock them in a world of Fisher Price toy simplicity, as if they were intellectually retarded. None of the UI knowledge of Sugar would benefit them later. It thoroughly deserved to fail.
This is right up there with that politician who wanted to sue God.
Well, given The Pope claims to be His representative and The Vatican hoards gagillions of dollars in assets (aside: while begging for donations), God's a very ripe target with plenty of ability to pay.
Slashdot Mirror
Here was I thinking it was because they fear nobody's going to go to a restaurant serving a tiny portion size. The more the cook fancies himself as a great chef, the less you'll get on your plate.
48M as international aid, eh? Wow, generous. Just to put that in context, that's less than the combined annual salary of David Letterman and Regis Philbin.
A true capitalist takes seed money from whoever is willing to offering it at the lowest price. Only a nitwit ideologue lets their personal prejudices get in the way of making money.
Quite true. They're not an act of war of themselves, just the last non-combat stage before an American war against whichever third world nation they've opted to target during this Presidential term, usually for resources or strategic advantage.
Sanctions by non-US groups tend to be more about changing behavior rather than intentionally starving a nation to weaken it prior to an invasion.
Man, I'm so glad I live in a democracy rather than that theocracy you're living in.
Anywhere that would cut out coffee from the budget is quite frankly insane. It's a minuscule expense compared to the HR budget and improves productivity dramatically when people would otherwise be flagging (early mornings for night owls, afternoons for early birds).
The ability to provide free, legal performance enhancing drugs is one of the few negligible-cost productivity boost techniques available. You'd have to be both petty and highly incompetent as a manager to do away with it.
Essentially, yes, they do: "First of April, 2010. Twentythird of July, 2009." As do Australians and AFAIK all the English speaking nations apart from the US. The US really is out on its own when it comes to a lot of this stuff. (Anyone with any sense uses ISO format though because the numbers sort better in a list.)
A fair point to make, that. Very few successful commercial enterprises have ever used a GPL license for their software. For the few that did, their GPL software ended up acting as loss-leaders for other technologies or for generating support contracts.
Speaking subjectively, I can't imagine why a commercial company would want GPL software anyway. BSD license code attracts older, more accomplished and experienced developers with a work ethic they've acquired from working in a professional environment. GPL code attracts young cowboys and ideological zealots -- teenagers and students who don't have bills to pay, or a family to support, and have not had to develop those professional skills.
I doubt many companies themselves did, but, most software developers and development managers in those companies would have been exposed to the GPL at various times in their lives -- particularly back when they themselves were students, living cheaply at home.
What the linked story really demonstrates is you can work product placement for Apple gear into nearly any article whatsoever, not just the reviews for competing IT products, non-competing IT products and "competing if you squint hard enough and long enough" products.
The news media's always been fairly open to writing positive copy for their advertisers, but, in the current economic climate of falling sales and falling advertising there must be a powerful temptation to go that little bit too far.
Yep. Australia have only been running preferential elections since 1918 and use it in all elections: federal, state and local government. What would we know, eh? Elections in one US state (of unknown infrastructure quality) and a third world nation are obviously much more authorative.
What, precisely, is wrong with that? If your second choice candidate's first choice vote is so poor that they're eliminated in a counting round, they deserved to go. They simply weren't very popular.
Preferential systems encourage lots of parties to take part, so it's never the three corner contest you're fearful of.
In what way does voting for a torture supporter further your interests in human rights? It just reinforces the perception of torture's popularity.
If enough of you actually voted for a candidate whose policies you like, instead of the corporate proto-fascists you believe are likely to win, you might actually elect them. (Or at least give the villains a scare back to some sort of policy semi-sanity.)
I get to say I voted for a party I believe in. The rest of you collectively voted for evil. Had more of you had the courage to vote for a party you believe in, your country might not be where it is today.
By caving in, you gained absolutely nothing. Just look at where such thinking got your Democrats Party in the Shrub era ;-).
Hate to break it to you, but, we can indeed vote for our true preferences without penalty. For example, preferences from Greens Party and Australian Democrats voters makes up a significant proportion of the Australian Labor Party's "Two Party Prefered" vote and has edged them over the line a lot of the time (particularly in the 1980s and 1990s). I don't know which academic you've been reading, but, you've been woefully informed about what actually happens.
How likely is that with America's Republican and Democrat parties, though? They're both pro-torture, as can be seen from the Senate voting record. Seriously, your choices range from cartoonish villains to cartoonish super-villains over there.
Hope you don't mind the edit, as it doesn't change the intent. If you're voting for an lesser evil, you're throwing your vote away by perpetuating the election of evil.
Luckily, my country has a modern preferential voting system so we're not prone to these prehistoric ballot box conundrums. Hope to be live long enough to see the US at least catch up to the 20th century in this particular area, but, it's not looking too likely so far.
I really don't get Americans. The only way you can throw away your vote is by voting for a party whose policies you don't support.
There's no "I voted for the guy who's kept the torture camps open, but, at least I didn't vote for the other guy who was worse." Dude, you still voted for a guy who keeps torture camps open. That's not something to see as a positive result.
When your newspaper's remaining unique feature is its absorbency, you know you're really in trouble.
Dunno about the US, but, in Australia the big stores are the most likely to have enough rolling stock on hand that they're able to pull a replacement item from stock — and then they'll chase up the warranty replacement paperwork themselves.
Being a big client with large recurring orders, the manufacturers and the big company have a business relationship to maintain so they don't stuff each other around. So they're happy, and they keep the customer happy. They see it as part of customer service.
Any more than 2 pages and a lot of CV reviewers will bin it unread. They simply don't have the time to read all of that. A 2 page CV demonstrates that you can summarise.
By all means, take a 12 page CV in with you to the interview "to provide some further detail" if you like, but, it's the 2-3 page CV gets your foot in the door.
Says MartinSchou:
I'm a little tired of this argument.
"I still use a 22" CRT I bought years ago for $800. What, I should throw away a perfectly good monitor and buy an LCD because you'll stick your nose in the air?"
Nope. You buy an LCD because it'll pay for itself in power bill savings in 6-9 months. After that, it's extra beer money!
No reasonable person would ever take "A link is not in of itself libel" to mean "I can shield myself from a lawsuit just by putting the libelous text inside tags."
I dunno. I think there are times where the text itself may not be libellous, but, the link makes it so:
"Always excellent to see someone with such an open mind" :)
The legal system needs to recognise that the Internet's just another communication medium and the real test is whether someone's been defamed as a result of someone else typing things.
I don't think anyone says that greylisting doesn't work because it does. The problem is that it's not a good idea for most email users. There are far too many (poorly configured) mail servers out there that will not attempt a second delivery -- mostly automated systems such as Delta's itinerary mailer, various online retailers, etc. Sure, you could reject their messages out of principle, but that doesn't work in the real world where people expect email delivery to be 100% error-free.
The very few mail domains I care about that don't handle greylisting well, I can white-list. Meanwhile I'd be asking them why, if they're such a reputable company, they can't hire a competent systems administrator. Even traditionally woeful mail server software like Exchange can be configured to work correctly these days. There's simply no excuse.
"... and the Linux distros and Mac actually have a chance."
Neither has any real chance as a mainstream OS. Mac's been willfully overpriced and is sold as a luxury product. GNU/Linux, on the desktop, is an also-ran — a nice try but the small demographic who cares about running commercial apps on Unix systems are migrating to Mac OS X. The lumbering bohemoth that is X11 on Linux hasn't been tamed, even after all these years, and many are essentially sick of the unfulfilled promise.
The only real hope for the open source/free crowd taking it to the mainstream is ReactOS. The more contributors that project gains, the quicker the FOSS will bury Microsoft and the expensive proprietory vendors. The Windows platform will be with us for many years to come, if only because of the specialist app dependency — but the Windows vendor doesn't need to be Microsoft with its bloated, vastly overpriced offerings.
``[...] I believe you get 3 months of AppleCare Protection or whatever when you buy Mac from them.``
A barest minimum 3 month warranty, eh? Now that's confidence in the quality of your product!
If computers were cars, and Apple Macs were BMWs, I think I might stick to the Hyundai with the 5 year warranty ;-).
``The key to it all is that kids own their machine, so all the admin stuff (networking, power management, etc.) *needs* to work within a consistent, simple GUI.``
That view, and the Sugar UI FWIW, stem from a completely flawed understanding of children. Kids are inherently quick at learning and highly adaptable. Give them a Linux or a Windows UI and they'll thrive, taking that knowledge with them and building on it to adulthood.
What Sugar did was try to lock them in a world of Fisher Price toy simplicity, as if they were intellectually retarded. None of the UI knowledge of Sugar would benefit them later. It thoroughly deserved to fail.
This is right up there with that politician who wanted to sue God.
Well, given The Pope claims to be His representative and The Vatican hoards gagillions of dollars in assets (aside: while begging for donations), God's a very ripe target with plenty of ability to pay.