Stay away from "free" apps from unknown developers. You're better off paying 99c, $1.99, $2.99 to give the developer a legitimate revenue stream than incentivizing them to pimp you out to shady third party advertisers.
Good advice. I need to start charging for my shady, repackaged malware on Google Play.
Because the only way to find an app on the iShit interface is by name, a name your friend told you, then you can't find it because the search doesn't actually give any relevancy points for exactly matching what you typed.
I used to hang out with a woman who was a police dispatcher in a fairly major city. She had to know where the cops were at all times so she could call the closest one to any incident that may occur.
She said she did not know of one cop in town that wasn't banging a stripper or a hooker on the side. Most strippers and call girls will have "their" cop who would watch their back and look the other way for a little quid pro quo.
So yeah, having the fact that they park in back of the local "gentleman's" club for a half hour twice a week as public record might cause them some concern.
And with good reason. This quid pro quo is abuse of power.
We had just started putting GPS on our delivery trucks about a year before I left my last job. The guys who did their route and got back to base in the expected amount of time were never checked unless a customer requested an ETA. However, we had a few guys who always seemed to take a lot longer, so we checked their GPS routes much more often and found stuff like two hour lunches, or going thirty miles out of their way to stop at home... stuff that really impacted our delivery schedules and the workload on their coworkers, not to mention limiting the total number of deliveries (which is to say, income) we could make from a single truck and driver.
tl;dr: Guys who delivered results were rarely monitored at all, and if they were, issues were usually ignored. Guys that didn't deliver good results could no longer give bullshit excuses and were dealt with appropriately.
Great that it worked so well (to your knowledge). This system is just another method to gather "bad information" on everybody so that when a manager is pissed at somebody, there is already a mountain of evidence for firing them, no matter how good they perform.
You think it's "rather funny" that they might think you have an interest in beating polygraph examinations if you bought a book on beating polygraph examinations?
I'm going to sell a book called, "How to Beat a Polygraph Examiner."
I was under the assumption that someone reading on/. can draw the obvious conclusions (that have been pointed out to you by more than one person by now).
Judging by seeing how three people explained it while only one complained that he doesn't know, I guess my assumption was not so far off. I just can't please everyone, I guess I have to deal with that, but 3 out of 4 should do for now.
It's not an obvious conclusion. You omitted facts and just said the spending was better. It's the better outcomes that matter, not the spending. Sorry, I tried to improve your argument, since your superiority was obviously enough.
You don't see the irony in thinking that spending more on education is good, but spending more on health isn't? The data presented said nothing about results, only spending.
Health expenditure (in percent of GDP): 9.4 (USA: 17.9)
Physician density (per 1000): 3.8 (USA: 2.4)
Adult obesity: 18.6% (USA: 33%)
Education expenditure (in percent of GDP): 7.3 (USA: 5.4)
Public debt (2012/2011, in percent of GDP): 38.2/38.4 (USA: 72.5/67.8)
Unlike your claims, I have a source for them. Well, of course only if you believe that socialist propaganda machine that the CIA is.
It's amusing to me that you think outspending on health is bad and that outspending on education is good. [This assumes that all your data points were intended to show Sweden superior].
I suspect the admins can't actually change passwords and can only apply a reset. I assume when they perform a reset they don't have access to the new password either.
Anytime I've had a password reset, the sysadmin tells me what it's reset to. Even on very highly "secure" networks.
your remark that government not paving roads would mean private dirt roads for a commute is an example of a non sequitur
No it isn't. I say if governments didn't pave roads, there wouldn't be paved roads, with the possible exception of wealthy neighborhoods and some major commuter routes with tolls that most people could not afford (they'd be using the dirt paths). Note that turnpike tolls are regulated by the government. Private companies are most certainly capable of paving roads - that's not the point. They don't have incentive to pave enough roads to make it worth owning a car.
Also, I see your previous citation of ketchup and Coca-cola, and raise you mercury in fish, melamine, lead paint, asbestos, and Love Canal.
Never said it was impossible. Sure government didn't pave roads at one time - I'd like to see the commute on a muddy ditch into the city. There were a HELL of a lot fewer cars then! If the roads and bridges were not maintained by the government, they would be in such shitty shape as to be virtually unusable, except for perhaps some in Las Vegas or other areas where business would realize that no roads meant no business (homeowners and renters would be shit out of luck except in neighborhoods of the wealthy). Are you seriously suggesting no government-funded roads?
The first government funded transportation in the US was actually water canals.
Non-sequitur.
And the hair dryer tags are only there because the GOVERNMENT provides the courts and force of law for lawsuits.
If there is a straw man - you own it. You said you would take the corporation to get things done, ANY day. Sure, you listed the things you don't like about government, but your statement stands alone.
I take it you also don't want paved roads, schools, police departments, firemen, or safe food.
Hello straw man.
Not a straw man. DiamondMagic says he'll take the corporation over government ANY day. Corporations will not be paving roads or inspecting food any time soon (without government involvement).
Politically, big corporations and big government are a difference without a distinction.
Corporations get stuff done because someone with money thought up an idea.
Governments get stuff done because someone with a personal army thought up an idea.
Now I don't know about you, but I'll take the guy with money any day. I see a kind of big difference between a door-to-door salesman ringing my bell, and the IRS, FBI/NSA, or EPA ringing my bell. (If they're polite enough to not just knock the thing in first.)
I take it you also don't want paved roads, schools, police departments, firemen, or safe food.
Well, if the Red states weren't so stubborn as to opt-out, at least we'd have 50 different systems.
Wow, 50 different targets to crack sure is an even better choice! Especially when they all go against the same central server to record and search for sensitive data! Nothing better than giving a guy 50 chances to break into a warehouse with hundreds of millions of items of juicy data!
First you claim that it's one centralized system so it's great to penetrate. Now you claim that 50 is better. Nice logic.
I think you misunderstand, Opportunist is right, while the Tor market is tiny, give the recent Snowden-gate revelations, combined with the Pirate Browser bundle, Tor use has been skyrocketing. If they want to be so dumbtarded and turn them away, more power to them when they hit chapter 11.
Skyrocketed? You mean like doubled or tripled, from 3 users to 6 or 9?
And to be quite honest, it is none of your fucking business if a retailer chooses not to sell to a certain sub-set of customers because they represent a high-risk for fraud.
That's exactly the reason I give when them darkies come into my store. Gawd damn civil rights bullsheeeet.
But seriously, I think that excluding customers because they are taking actions to protect their fourth amendment rights of privacy might be grounds for a civil rights action.
You're going to have to find a better way to verify the credit card.
Wrong. Denying service because of race is against the law. Denying service because the buyer is anon is not.
Slashdot Mirror
Stay away from "free" apps from unknown developers. You're better off paying 99c, $1.99, $2.99 to give the developer a legitimate revenue stream than incentivizing them to pimp you out to shady third party advertisers.
Good advice. I need to start charging for my shady, repackaged malware on Google Play.
Because the only way to find an app on the iShit interface is by name, a name your friend told you, then you can't find it because the search doesn't actually give any relevancy points for exactly matching what you typed.
Just plain wrong. You are either a liar or inept.
I used to hang out with a woman who was a police dispatcher in a fairly major city. She had to know where the cops were at all times so she could call the closest one to any incident that may occur.
She said she did not know of one cop in town that wasn't banging a stripper or a hooker on the side. Most strippers and call girls will have "their" cop who would watch their back and look the other way for a little quid pro quo.
So yeah, having the fact that they park in back of the local "gentleman's" club for a half hour twice a week as public record might cause them some concern.
And with good reason. This quid pro quo is abuse of power.
We had just started putting GPS on our delivery trucks about a year before I left my last job. The guys who did their route and got back to base in the expected amount of time were never checked unless a customer requested an ETA. However, we had a few guys who always seemed to take a lot longer, so we checked their GPS routes much more often and found stuff like two hour lunches, or going thirty miles out of their way to stop at home... stuff that really impacted our delivery schedules and the workload on their coworkers, not to mention limiting the total number of deliveries (which is to say, income) we could make from a single truck and driver.
tl;dr: Guys who delivered results were rarely monitored at all, and if they were, issues were usually ignored. Guys that didn't deliver good results could no longer give bullshit excuses and were dealt with appropriately.
Great that it worked so well (to your knowledge). This system is just another method to gather "bad information" on everybody so that when a manager is pissed at somebody, there is already a mountain of evidence for firing them, no matter how good they perform.
You think it's "rather funny" that they might think you have an interest in beating polygraph examinations if you bought a book on beating polygraph examinations?
I'm going to sell a book called, "How to Beat a Polygraph Examiner."
I was under the assumption that someone reading on /. can draw the obvious conclusions (that have been pointed out to you by more than one person by now).
Judging by seeing how three people explained it while only one complained that he doesn't know, I guess my assumption was not so far off. I just can't please everyone, I guess I have to deal with that, but 3 out of 4 should do for now.
It's not an obvious conclusion. You omitted facts and just said the spending was better. It's the better outcomes that matter, not the spending. Sorry, I tried to improve your argument, since your superiority was obviously enough.
While all that may be true, the original poster presented only the expenditures as proof that Sweden was better. That was my point.
You don't see the irony in thinking that spending more on education is good, but spending more on health isn't? The data presented said nothing about results, only spending.
Actually, many, many of us do want it. Just the greedy, self-centered, me-first, Fox news watchers don't.
Some more figures about Sweden, shall we?
Health expenditure (in percent of GDP): 9.4 (USA: 17.9) Physician density (per 1000): 3.8 (USA: 2.4) Adult obesity: 18.6% (USA: 33%) Education expenditure (in percent of GDP): 7.3 (USA: 5.4) Public debt (2012/2011, in percent of GDP): 38.2/38.4 (USA: 72.5/67.8)
Unlike your claims, I have a source for them. Well, of course only if you believe that socialist propaganda machine that the CIA is.
It's amusing to me that you think outspending on health is bad and that outspending on education is good. [This assumes that all your data points were intended to show Sweden superior].
I suspect the admins can't actually change passwords and can only apply a reset. I assume when they perform a reset they don't have access to the new password either.
Anytime I've had a password reset, the sysadmin tells me what it's reset to. Even on very highly "secure" networks.
your remark that government not paving roads would mean private dirt roads for a commute is an example of a non sequitur
No it isn't. I say if governments didn't pave roads, there wouldn't be paved roads, with the possible exception of wealthy neighborhoods and some major commuter routes with tolls that most people could not afford (they'd be using the dirt paths). Note that turnpike tolls are regulated by the government. Private companies are most certainly capable of paving roads - that's not the point. They don't have incentive to pave enough roads to make it worth owning a car.
Also, I see your previous citation of ketchup and Coca-cola, and raise you mercury in fish, melamine, lead paint, asbestos, and Love Canal.
... how is this a strike against Android?
It's not. The headline is designed to get the fAndoids to click through and post anti-Apple and anti-Microsoft rants.
But apparently this is all impossible, you say?
Never said it was impossible. Sure government didn't pave roads at one time - I'd like to see the commute on a muddy ditch into the city. There were a HELL of a lot fewer cars then! If the roads and bridges were not maintained by the government, they would be in such shitty shape as to be virtually unusable, except for perhaps some in Las Vegas or other areas where business would realize that no roads meant no business (homeowners and renters would be shit out of luck except in neighborhoods of the wealthy). Are you seriously suggesting no government-funded roads?
The first government funded transportation in the US was actually water canals.
Non-sequitur.
And the hair dryer tags are only there because the GOVERNMENT provides the courts and force of law for lawsuits.
If there is a straw man - you own it. You said you would take the corporation to get things done, ANY day. Sure, you listed the things you don't like about government, but your statement stands alone.
Moreover, the context of the post was clearly focused on the federal government. Of all your example, only the EPA fits that category.
Oh Really? So the federal government doesn't pay for interstate highways? Or reimburse states for fire-fighting wildfires?
Companies have a vested interest in keeping customers happy (and additionally, in not being sued).
Yes, but the judicial system is a government system, so we're back there.
But it's crazy to make the claim that they're not even going to try to put out or maintain a good/safe product without mother govt telling them to.
I never made the claim that they wouldn't do ANY product safety, only that it would be inadequate.
Hello straw man.
Not a straw man. DiamondMagic says he'll take the corporation over government ANY day. Corporations will not be paving roads or inspecting food any time soon (without government involvement).
Yes, because this one incident that got reported to slashdot and made the front page for some reason ...
Reason: Apple haters cruise the firehose and up-vote anything that makes Apple look bad.
Corporations get stuff done because someone with money thought up an idea.
Governments get stuff done because someone with a personal army thought up an idea.
Now I don't know about you, but I'll take the guy with money any day. I see a kind of big difference between a door-to-door salesman ringing my bell, and the IRS, FBI/NSA, or EPA ringing my bell. (If they're polite enough to not just knock the thing in first.)
I take it you also don't want paved roads, schools, police departments, firemen, or safe food.
Hint: When you read english right it's the same thought exactly!
Um, no. 50 targets != 1 target.
If you're going to be barbaric enough to use the death penalty, you might as well go all the way and withold the anaesthetic.
Until you get people willing to convict someone just for the chance to pull the trigger.
+5 Insightful, especially in USA.
We should just go back to hangings. It works for killing Nazis and war criminals.
Then the EU would block the export of rope.
Well, if the Red states weren't so stubborn as to opt-out, at least we'd have 50 different systems.
Wow, 50 different targets to crack sure is an even better choice! Especially when they all go against the same central server to record and search for sensitive data! Nothing better than giving a guy 50 chances to break into a warehouse with hundreds of millions of items of juicy data!
First you claim that it's one centralized system so it's great to penetrate. Now you claim that 50 is better. Nice logic.
I think you misunderstand, Opportunist is right, while the Tor market is tiny, give the recent Snowden-gate revelations, combined with the Pirate Browser bundle, Tor use has been skyrocketing. If they want to be so dumbtarded and turn them away, more power to them when they hit chapter 11.
Skyrocketed? You mean like doubled or tripled, from 3 users to 6 or 9?
And to be quite honest, it is none of your fucking business if a retailer chooses not to sell to a certain sub-set of customers because they represent a high-risk for fraud.
That's exactly the reason I give when them darkies come into my store. Gawd damn civil rights bullsheeeet.
But seriously, I think that excluding customers because they are taking actions to protect their fourth amendment rights of privacy might be grounds for a civil rights action.
You're going to have to find a better way to verify the credit card.
Wrong. Denying service because of race is against the law. Denying service because the buyer is anon is not.