I have seen them occur on Roadrunner -- in some neighborhoods around here it's downright painful when the college kids are in town.
As one of those college kids, I concur. Time Warner sucks, my speeds lately have completely sucked. Oh well, time to graduate and move on to greener Internet pastures I guess.
Your car is not the problem. Admit it: You are just being lazy. I know, you may not want to hear this. Most people don't, but recycling isn't very difficult. Consider your car excuse: The total amount of waste is exactly the same. It just gets separated into multiple containers. And when it comes to cans, just bag them and take them with you to the supermarket, recycle them on your way in, get groceries on the way out. It's really not that hard.
Well, they haven't changed much on the outside. For all we know, they went from cold-blooded to warm-blooded then back to cold-blooded, with an odd couple of million years using kerosene for blood. None of that would show up in the fossil record.
You don't seem to know a hell of a lot about this biology, do you.
"While you are crossing paths with my personal property, you must close your eyes and plug your ears. This is to protect my privacy."
You should not close your eyes and plug your ears, you shouldn't be there in the first place! The Google car very clearly drove onto private property where it was not allowed to go.
Where the fuck in Germany do you live that nobody cares about speeding? Besides installing blitzers all over the damn place, if you are speeding down a small community street just about everybody there will give you the finger and yell at you.
Just consider yourself lucky that you haven't been in an accident yet. The fact that you are so smug about putting other people's lives in danger with your reckless driving is simply disgusting.
Well, I have to say that with this post you've lost any credibility you may have had. So what if you're rich? Big fucking deal. If you're so confident about your story about knowing the MIT Black Jack guys stop bringing up the fact that you are rich, and just let the post live on its own. Your terrible defenses only destroy your credibility.
But I already know what your response to this will be- that you're richer than me. Well, maybe you are. I don't really care.
It may come as a surprise to you that not everybody grows up in a blue-blood family, and that social mobility is not perfect in the US. Redistributive tax systems allow for the strengthening of social mobility by ensuring that the lower class isn't always subject to abject poverty- that even if they are searching for a job or lose a job they do not lose their home and their entire life in the process.
Your comparison to slavery is disgusting and horribly elitist. No rich person would be where they are without the society around them, the infrastructure created by the government, the military that defends them (made up disproportionally, of course, with the lower and middle class), and the people who work for them. The redistribution of wealth acknowledges that people owe society for what it has given them, and must support it so that future generations can benefit from it as well.
You may have heard of a news source with editors called a Newspaper. These tend to be more reliable than the shitty blogs you mentioned. The NY Times bears no mention of this case, which it would if someone was actually shot by the police with any sort of controversy. They froth at the mouth at that sort of story.
I remember a time when there weren't too many political discussions. And it's only natural that it was that way since technological issues were only starting to move into public policy. The RIAA wasn't suing people, there was no net neutrality bill. On top of that, the US didn't make sweeping laws to take away checks and balances and people's rights, or invade any countries unilaterally. Like it or not, the discussion here has always been a reflection of the discussion of the US as a whole, just nerdier.
As long as there is judicial oversight, making it easier to eavesdrop isn't necessarily bad. Remember that it's good to do new things to combat terrorism if they are within the scope of the constitution. I have not had a chance to see the exact changes that this bill proposes, so I will not give my judgment (I know, this is/. so I really should be yelling and screaming).
Your argument is flawed on the basis that you are reversing cause and effect. You are saying NASA keeps doing scientific research on space primarily to receive money from the government. That's completely reversed. NASA receives money from the government in order to do scientific research. Those pretty pictures are just the byproduct of that.
Now clearly I am a bit biased considering I am sitting in building 12 of RIT's campus waiting to take a final, but hear this out since I'm about to graduate from here and think it is somewhat better than "worthless"
Your argument seems to come down to the fact that co-op's naivety about how things really work limits their usefulness, and the idea that co-ops are being exploited for cheap labor.
First, co-op's obviously get paid less than everyone else, but the idea that it is a form of exploitation is absurd. I have come out of all of my co-op's with a good amount of money, and at the same time have learned lots of valuable information that I wouldn't have ever learned in a class, all at the same time being able to try out different companies in the job market without having a commitment to them. Unless the student is getting paid minimum wage (which, by the way, RIT won't even allow), the student is gaining lots of valuable experience from the co-op. Also on this point, you undermine your own argument by saying these employees have inherent flaws. Well if they are flawed, then clearly an experienced employee has a better chance of getting the job on the job market and there is no problem with having co-ops taking jobs. Any programmer who is mad about a co-op taking their job was clearly not qualified enough to do their job anyway, and was therefore replaced.
Second, having co-ops allow students to break the idea of naivety that is so apparently so pervasive and damaging to young people. By going from company to company, not only do all co-ops have a chance of hitting a stinker, they also get to see different people in different environments. There is no better way to see how the world works than by being thrust into it, and most co-ops will see 2-4 different companies which have vastly different work environments. This means many will have a chance to shed their naivety about the work world before, or sooner after, graduation.
Finally, you mention flaws related to young professionals. (without ever mentioning what they are, except for naivety, for which you never said why that actually harms the effectiveness of an employee) Assuming that these flaws exist, how exactly does a non-co-op university solve for this? These flaws are clearly inherent in young people and if experienced developers don't have them, then it is a matter of businesses identifying and teaching young programmers about these flaws and helping them to overcome them. If nobody ever tells young programmers their problems, don't ever expect those young programmers to improve and become experts.
I've seen this argued in a number of places, including the FairTax book. To an extent it is correct, however this isn't a reason not to fine corporations. Simply put, in non-monopoly situations the free market sets the price, not the corporation. This means that if a corporation is fined and raises prices as a result, its competitors benefit because they do not have to raise prices. If the company that gets fined does not raise their prices, then their margins go down (which means less profits or even possibly write downs).
So lets apply this to Microsoft and then the free market in general. In this case Microsoft will have to pay lots of money to the EU. If they attempt to pass this cost on to consumers, it will strengthen OS X, Linux, Solaris, etc as alternatives to Windows. This means that in the case of Microsoft monopolizing the market, the EU fine can accomplish its task of lessening Microsoft's stake in the market if it is large enough. But if they have full control of the market, well that's why governments reserve the right to break companies up. If a fine would not be sufficient to punish a company, they could be split into smaller companies that would have to compete against each other.
So in the end, it isn't necessary to give the fines to Microsoft's competitors as you propose. Simply the act of fining Microsoft should be enough to help its competitors out.
I'm sorry, but the equivalent is not like robbing a bank and investing the money. The equivalent is an insider placing options trades on information learned before the public knew. The only difference in this case between the CEO or CFO of a company making the options trades and Oleksandr Dorozhko is that he gained this insider information illegally.
According to TFA, the legal question raised is whether or not he "deceived" the computer when he hacked into it and downloaded the quarterly report. The spirit of the law has clearly been violated, but it appears some judges seem keen on giving this guy his illegally gained money simply due to the fact that one cannot deceive a computer, only a human. If this is truly the case, then Congress needs to reform this law ASAP, or every eastern European, Russian, and Chinese hacker is going to target quarterly reports and make a killing.
I was going to moderate you, but I am too interesting in knowing what campus you are working at. And as another poster pointed out, how do people force fliers into your hands?
And better yet, most of those "peace and justice" organizations are not fronts for communist groups. The ones that are say they are (ISO, like you mentioned is fairly active where I am).
And open support of hamas and hezbollah? Another thing I have never seen, and can't seem to understand. If your campus is so in your face crazy, wouldn't Hillel have kicked some ass by now?
Actually it's das Hemd;), so die Hemd would be the incorrect usage. But your overall point is absolutely correct, and I think for Germans learning English the whole concept of when to correctly use "he or she" or "they" is likely quite confusing since there does not seem to be very much consensus.
I'm with AC. Just shut up, you don't know a damn thing about public transport. And regarding the London Tube, there is no fucking way every track is separate. Despite what another poster said, even most subways reuse tracks between different lines.
You clearly don't understand the first thing about Islamic terrorism. Their goal is not to convert us to muslims, it is for us to leave their damn countries and stop interfering with their politics. And either way, another poster has it right. Stop being such a wimp, my god.
Why link to a crappy Google translator version when a reasonably good english version of TFA is available? There are big flags at the top of the article, one for Germany, and one for English. I suppose the submitter didn't realize that funny blue and red flag was for Great Britain and meant English.
So you're saying that a random AC posting on/. has absolutely no clue about the facts, but is spouting off about some crackpot theory anyway? We better put a stop to this before it gets out of control!!!
I want to point out that in snowy conditions, the chance that "you may die" is simply higher no matter what combination of road, car, and driver exists. I go to college in upstate NY, which may not mean anything for someone from Australia, but as an indication of the weather here, the forecast for the nest 36 hours is 12"+ of snow.
I've driven in all sorts of awful conditions, sometimes with all-season tires, sometimes with better, but always in my Toyota Corrolla. All I can say is, that no matter how the car and road are, a good, careful driver is much more likely to make it through. The driver is the key simply because they can adjust their speed to the situation, regardless of the other two (or make the all important decision to say "This is it. I can't drive any farther because I can't see beyond the hood of the car"). If you are ever stuck in a snowstorm with my car, you'll see what I mean.
And I'm not positive about snow chains in Rochester, but I haven't seen any cars with them. Pretty much everyone either uses heavy duty snow tires or studded.
Slashdot Mirror
Your car is not the problem. Admit it: You are just being lazy. I know, you may not want to hear this. Most people don't, but recycling isn't very difficult.
Consider your car excuse: The total amount of waste is exactly the same. It just gets separated into multiple containers. And when it comes to cans, just bag them and take them with you to the supermarket, recycle them on your way in, get groceries on the way out. It's really not that hard.
Except with global warming, many of them will be dead before we have the chance.
You should not close your eyes and plug your ears, you shouldn't be there in the first place! The Google car very clearly drove onto private property where it was not allowed to go.
The summary could at least link to the paper. But then again, if we can't expect people to RTFA, I highly doubt anyone is going to RTFP...
Where the fuck in Germany do you live that nobody cares about speeding? Besides installing blitzers all over the damn place, if you are speeding down a small community street just about everybody there will give you the finger and yell at you.
Just consider yourself lucky that you haven't been in an accident yet. The fact that you are so smug about putting other people's lives in danger with your reckless driving is simply disgusting.
Well, I have to say that with this post you've lost any credibility you may have had. So what if you're rich? Big fucking deal. If you're so confident about your story about knowing the MIT Black Jack guys stop bringing up the fact that you are rich, and just let the post live on its own. Your terrible defenses only destroy your credibility.
But I already know what your response to this will be- that you're richer than me. Well, maybe you are. I don't really care.
It may come as a surprise to you that not everybody grows up in a blue-blood family, and that social mobility is not perfect in the US. Redistributive tax systems allow for the strengthening of social mobility by ensuring that the lower class isn't always subject to abject poverty- that even if they are searching for a job or lose a job they do not lose their home and their entire life in the process.
Your comparison to slavery is disgusting and horribly elitist. No rich person would be where they are without the society around them, the infrastructure created by the government, the military that defends them (made up disproportionally, of course, with the lower and middle class), and the people who work for them. The redistribution of wealth acknowledges that people owe society for what it has given them, and must support it so that future generations can benefit from it as well.
You may have heard of a news source with editors called a Newspaper. These tend to be more reliable than the shitty blogs you mentioned. The NY Times bears no mention of this case, which it would if someone was actually shot by the police with any sort of controversy. They froth at the mouth at that sort of story.
I remember a time when there weren't too many political discussions. And it's only natural that it was that way since technological issues were only starting to move into public policy. The RIAA wasn't suing people, there was no net neutrality bill. On top of that, the US didn't make sweeping laws to take away checks and balances and people's rights, or invade any countries unilaterally. Like it or not, the discussion here has always been a reflection of the discussion of the US as a whole, just nerdier.
As long as there is judicial oversight, making it easier to eavesdrop isn't necessarily bad. Remember that it's good to do new things to combat terrorism if they are within the scope of the constitution. I have not had a chance to see the exact changes that this bill proposes, so I will not give my judgment (I know, this is /. so I really should be yelling and screaming).
Your argument is flawed on the basis that you are reversing cause and effect. You are saying NASA keeps doing scientific research on space primarily to receive money from the government. That's completely reversed. NASA receives money from the government in order to do scientific research. Those pretty pictures are just the byproduct of that.
Now clearly I am a bit biased considering I am sitting in building 12 of RIT's campus waiting to take a final, but hear this out since I'm about to graduate from here and think it is somewhat better than "worthless"
Your argument seems to come down to the fact that co-op's naivety about how things really work limits their usefulness, and the idea that co-ops are being exploited for cheap labor.
First, co-op's obviously get paid less than everyone else, but the idea that it is a form of exploitation is absurd. I have come out of all of my co-op's with a good amount of money, and at the same time have learned lots of valuable information that I wouldn't have ever learned in a class, all at the same time being able to try out different companies in the job market without having a commitment to them. Unless the student is getting paid minimum wage (which, by the way, RIT won't even allow), the student is gaining lots of valuable experience from the co-op. Also on this point, you undermine your own argument by saying these employees have inherent flaws. Well if they are flawed, then clearly an experienced employee has a better chance of getting the job on the job market and there is no problem with having co-ops taking jobs. Any programmer who is mad about a co-op taking their job was clearly not qualified enough to do their job anyway, and was therefore replaced.
Second, having co-ops allow students to break the idea of naivety that is so apparently so pervasive and damaging to young people. By going from company to company, not only do all co-ops have a chance of hitting a stinker, they also get to see different people in different environments. There is no better way to see how the world works than by being thrust into it, and most co-ops will see 2-4 different companies which have vastly different work environments. This means many will have a chance to shed their naivety about the work world before, or sooner after, graduation.
Finally, you mention flaws related to young professionals. (without ever mentioning what they are, except for naivety, for which you never said why that actually harms the effectiveness of an employee) Assuming that these flaws exist, how exactly does a non-co-op university solve for this? These flaws are clearly inherent in young people and if experienced developers don't have them, then it is a matter of businesses identifying and teaching young programmers about these flaws and helping them to overcome them. If nobody ever tells young programmers their problems, don't ever expect those young programmers to improve and become experts.
I've seen this argued in a number of places, including the FairTax book. To an extent it is correct, however this isn't a reason not to fine corporations. Simply put, in non-monopoly situations the free market sets the price, not the corporation. This means that if a corporation is fined and raises prices as a result, its competitors benefit because they do not have to raise prices. If the company that gets fined does not raise their prices, then their margins go down (which means less profits or even possibly write downs).
So lets apply this to Microsoft and then the free market in general. In this case Microsoft will have to pay lots of money to the EU. If they attempt to pass this cost on to consumers, it will strengthen OS X, Linux, Solaris, etc as alternatives to Windows. This means that in the case of Microsoft monopolizing the market, the EU fine can accomplish its task of lessening Microsoft's stake in the market if it is large enough. But if they have full control of the market, well that's why governments reserve the right to break companies up. If a fine would not be sufficient to punish a company, they could be split into smaller companies that would have to compete against each other.
So in the end, it isn't necessary to give the fines to Microsoft's competitors as you propose. Simply the act of fining Microsoft should be enough to help its competitors out.
I'm sorry, but the equivalent is not like robbing a bank and investing the money. The equivalent is an insider placing options trades on information learned before the public knew. The only difference in this case between the CEO or CFO of a company making the options trades and Oleksandr Dorozhko is that he gained this insider information illegally.
According to TFA, the legal question raised is whether or not he "deceived" the computer when he hacked into it and downloaded the quarterly report. The spirit of the law has clearly been violated, but it appears some judges seem keen on giving this guy his illegally gained money simply due to the fact that one cannot deceive a computer, only a human. If this is truly the case, then Congress needs to reform this law ASAP, or every eastern European, Russian, and Chinese hacker is going to target quarterly reports and make a killing.
I was going to moderate you, but I am too interesting in knowing what campus you are working at. And as another poster pointed out, how do people force fliers into your hands?
And better yet, most of those "peace and justice" organizations are not fronts for communist groups. The ones that are say they are (ISO, like you mentioned is fairly active where I am).
And open support of hamas and hezbollah? Another thing I have never seen, and can't seem to understand. If your campus is so in your face crazy, wouldn't Hillel have kicked some ass by now?
I think you're just full of shit.
Actually it's das Hemd ;), so die Hemd would be the incorrect usage. But your overall point is absolutely correct, and I think for Germans learning English the whole concept of when to correctly use "he or she" or "they" is likely quite confusing since there does not seem to be very much consensus.
I'm with AC. Just shut up, you don't know a damn thing about public transport. And regarding the London Tube, there is no fucking way every track is separate. Despite what another poster said, even most subways reuse tracks between different lines.
You clearly don't understand the first thing about Islamic terrorism. Their goal is not to convert us to muslims, it is for us to leave their damn countries and stop interfering with their politics. And either way, another poster has it right. Stop being such a wimp, my god.
You raise a good point. Instead of blaming the submitter, I now blame the editors!
Why link to a crappy Google translator version when a reasonably good english version of TFA is available? There are big flags at the top of the article, one for Germany, and one for English. I suppose the submitter didn't realize that funny blue and red flag was for Great Britain and meant English.
Yes, it is. Well, I'll actually give you a choice. You're either a nutjob or an oil company shill. The choice is yours!
Have a nice day.
So you're saying that a random AC posting on /. has absolutely no clue about the facts, but is spouting off about some crackpot theory anyway? We better put a stop to this before it gets out of control!!!
I want to point out that in snowy conditions, the chance that "you may die" is simply higher no matter what combination of road, car, and driver exists. I go to college in upstate NY, which may not mean anything for someone from Australia, but as an indication of the weather here, the forecast for the nest 36 hours is 12"+ of snow.
I've driven in all sorts of awful conditions, sometimes with all-season tires, sometimes with better, but always in my Toyota Corrolla. All I can say is, that no matter how the car and road are, a good, careful driver is much more likely to make it through. The driver is the key simply because they can adjust their speed to the situation, regardless of the other two (or make the all important decision to say "This is it. I can't drive any farther because I can't see beyond the hood of the car"). If you are ever stuck in a snowstorm with my car, you'll see what I mean.
And I'm not positive about snow chains in Rochester, but I haven't seen any cars with them. Pretty much everyone either uses heavy duty snow tires or studded.