The problem is that the only population willing to control itself is the one that has the resources to use the population to make the world a better place and support the population in more comfort and better health. You can't control the breeding habits of the people in third world countries who have no food, no education, and no possibility for their children to have a better life than they do.
It would almost be a sin for first world people to control their own population as doing so would make life WORSE for the third world people.
I built mine about 3 or 4 years back, but it is still hangs pretty good with modern hardware.
i7 3770k
8 GB RAM (considered 16 GB, but it never goes above 6 GB usage, so all that memory would be sitting there burning electricity).
128 GB SSD (considering upgrading to 1 TB because space is becoming an issue even though I only put the OS and Flight Simulator files on it.)
3 TB HD ( only 400 GB used).
Radeon 6990 Video Driver.
30" HP IPS LCD
Asus Maximus IV Extreme Motherboard
AFAIK, it's not the court who does the disbarring, it's the Bar Society -- which is the professional organization.
I think that now the Bar Society might start taking a look.
If the Bar association won't disbar them, then the judge needs to remove the recognized authority of the Bar Association. perhaps then they will sit up and take notice. But I guess that is a catch 22, since the judge will then have no more legal authority either. I guess this is why they let the farce continue.
Yes, by all means, let us condemn and entire industry because of your real-world, terrible experience, or the assholes mentioned in the Prenda story. Yes, that's perfectly logical and is a sensible, productive way to run society. I mean, what could possibly go wrong?
Yes, it is definitely wrong to judge a group based on just one member, but how about when 90% or more of it's members are an issue? I have known dozens of lawyers, and I have known one that was a useful and good person. Of the others, I will admit that most of them weren't openly evil, just evil by being useless and not doing their job when some other lawyer was attempting to do you evil. However, in some circumstances I have worked for lawyers and in those cases, the lawyer was quite definitely openly evil such that I will never again work for a company that has a lawyer in its upper management.
I wish the report would go into some detail about how close the ties that these workers have to terrorism were, even if they were anonymized. Were they members or former members of a terrorist group? Is one of their family members or close personal friends a terrorist? It's still a failure to find these people before hiring them, but there's a big difference between "We found that 73 people were former members of a group or groups classified as a terrorist organization" and "We found that 73 people had donated money to the wrong charity or have a distant relative that might be a member of a terrorist organization."
All the report says is that the 73 people were divided into 5 categories and that the TSA didn't have clearance for all 5 categories.
Yes, and what kind of terrorists did they have links to? The kind that blow up buildings and planes? Or the kind that vocally challenges the government when the government wipes their posteriors with the constitution?
You aren't legally required to provide your SSN to businesses unless one of the following is true:
You'll be engaging in a transaction that requires notification to the Internal Revenue Service; or
You're initiating a financial transaction subject to federal Customer Identification Program rules.
After reading the first dozen questions, how many million years would you say it would be before you ever agree to answer questions from slashdot posters again?
Is that the same kind of years that are used by a lot of other technological advances? Because if it is, we won't have commercially available self-driving cars before 2040.
And by then, I hope they're freakin' flying cars, too.
I like how the article is written, "Unsupported and extremely unlikely assumption is true. Based on that unsupported assumption, everybody will start behaving according to another unsupported assumption. Once this happens, the only accidents will be due to a third unsupported assumption. Given all this, how does this affect the insurance industry?"
Well, I say who cares? The first assumption is not likely to occur. The second one presumes that everybody will accept this and completely change their lifestyle to not own a car. The third one assumes that only hardware and software errors could possibly cause a crash. Once you pile conjecture upon conjecture upon conjecture, it is not even worth talking about it.
The rates used to be like 2%, but that was back int like the 60s and 70s when we actually thought having an educated populace was a good idea.
I find it extremely irritating, that Navient, which used to be Sallie Mae, is a company, not a government entity, but it somehow enjoys protection from its customers declaring bankruptcy.
Probably better than a 1 in 10 chance that any random woman you meet on the street knows what a plumbob is.
Uh oh, I thought I knew what a plumbob was until you said that. Then I had to go look it up. So yes, I still know what a plumbob is, but indeed what most people know as a plumbob does not match my definition. I've even PLAYED the Sims, probably have 40 or 50 hours in from about 10 years back, and didn't know that thing over their head was called a plumbob.
Yes, I have the $99 bundle for TV, Phone and Internet. It costs $230 a month.
I'm paying 20 euros ($22 or so) for 20 Mbit ADSL. Fuck phone, I don't use that anymore. We don't watch TV, and I'm guessing that's where the majority of your bill is?
Yup. TV is where they really drag you over the coals. Oddly, 20 years ago, cable TV was about $20 a month and included about 50 channels, perhaps one of which had anything worth watching on at any given time. Now, cable TV costs about $100 and has about 1000 channels, about half of which are HD duplicates of the other half and another half of which are just music, and when all is said and done, perhaps one of which has anything worth watching at any given time.
She was groundbreaking as one of the earliest actors on a multiracial show - controversial in the day....live long and prosper.
Also ground breaking in that she didn't play a sterotypical role for her races, while the other racial roles did play a stereotypical role for their race.
No, Dick, in order to be a real African American Actor,
you'd have actually had to be working in the field.
This raises a question. Why is there a different standard for referring to someone's heritage depending on their skin tone? A person with dark skin who 10 generations ago had an ancestor from Africa is an African American. A person (like me) who's ancestors came from Czechoslovakia two generations ago is just an American. In fact, a person of light skin whose ancestors had come from Africa two generations back would probably also just be referred to as an American. I suspect that if I found someone with dark skin who had immigrated from Czechoslovakia two generations back, they would also be referred to as an African American even if the last ancestor to have come from Africa was 50 or more generations ago.
Where is the line drawn? My ancestors came out of Africa no more than 3,000 generations ago, and more than likely far less. They were decidedly dark skinned, and hairy besides. And yet, I am just an American.
So what is up with referring to a race by their regional background, especially given that the regional background may be both inaccurate and almost certainly not recent?
She's the CEO of a charity. Shouldn't she be doing it for free? If doing it is a full time job, then perhaps they should find someone with a trust fund who doesn't need any more money to do the job.
The Red Cross decided they needed high-power ex execs from places like AT&T who have no idea whatsoever how to run a relief charity. They destroyed the company from the inside out.
I assume that they wanted the company destroyed. After all, these high power execs also destroyed the companies from which they came.
This and many other examples like
- PETA euthanizing more animals than they shelter
- UNICEF expenses of 52 million dollars (pdf) in expenses related to management and fundraising (out of a 600 million dollars budget, and that's one of the best managed ones out there)
show that it is much more efficient to donate time or money locally instead of to big organizations.
Donate to your local food bank, soup kitchen, volunteer some time in the retirement home, the satisfaction will be the same and the effects will be much more efficient. Or, at the very least, don't screw people over, it is more than enough if you can do that.
Why should you donate anything to help someone in the other side of the world while people needs your help in your own neighbourhood?
Agree. Local charities aren't big enough to mismanage the funds, and the people are close enough that they will probably volunteer their time as well and not need a half million dollar salary.
There is too much graft and corruption in all of the big charities. Red cross makes $2 billion a year selling your blood and not giving you any tax credit for it, but claiming it on their taxes as a donation.
United Way and March of Dimes encourages quotas, threat of firing and ostracizing to force people in organizations to take part in fund raising for organizations which donate to causes which they don't necessarily agree with. All of these big organizations spend more than 10 cents out of every dollar on actual humanitarian causes, and as you can see often cannot even tell you how they spent the other 80-some cents, and neither can they people that the organizations claim to have benefited.
I never give them dimes either, but I do donate blood every 8 weeks. They can't embezzle that.
But they do. They sell it and claim it as a donation, so they don't pay taxes on it, but they don't allow you, the giver to claim it as a charitable donation. Also, they claim 91% of their donations goes toward humanitarian efforts, but they don't include the moneys received from selling the blood, because that would lower their percentage down into the 60s or 70s or lower according to NPR.
Far better to donate to a local hospital and eliminate the waste and the approximately 50% of blood donation that ends up spoiling on the shelf.
All the accidents... Were causing by HUMANS and not by the machine.
Can't wait until we get rid of the stupid monkeys behind the wheel...
Even thought the fault of the accidents was another driver (or sometimes the google driver), the statistics still result that the autonomously driven cars were about 3 or 4 times more likely to be involved in an accident than the average driver. So basically, they are not as good at avoiding being in an accident as the average human driver. Driving id not just about not hitting people. It is also about avoiding the other drivers who are out to get you.
Yeah, the bundling drives me crazy. I get constant ads from Charter saying "get internet, tv, and phone for $30 each!" But I'm paying $60 for internet alone. Frankly, when their advertising sets $30 in my mind as the appropriate price for each of their services, I can't help but be ripped off paying twice that much. In other words, their advertising is making me angry with them.
I have zero interest in phone. I've asked about internet + TV, but for some reason that's $110, rather than $90, which isn't just a ripoff, it's insane.
Yes, I have the $99 bundle for TV, Phone and Internet. It costs $230 a month.
I would (almost) rather someone force me to learn PERL, rather than ever seriously programming in javascript again.
The thing I noticed about Perl is that 5 minutes after you have written something that works, you could look at it and it would be completely unclear how or why it works.
In my experience, most companies hiring for "entry level" are defining the wage as entry level, or straight out of college wages, but the actual skill requirements they are looking for typically imply 3 to 5 years of work experience.
Slashdot Mirror
population control... there its all fixed now.
The problem is that the only population willing to control itself is the one that has the resources to use the population to make the world a better place and support the population in more comfort and better health. You can't control the breeding habits of the people in third world countries who have no food, no education, and no possibility for their children to have a better life than they do.
It would almost be a sin for first world people to control their own population as doing so would make life WORSE for the third world people.
I built mine about 3 or 4 years back, but it is still hangs pretty good with modern hardware. i7 3770k 8 GB RAM (considered 16 GB, but it never goes above 6 GB usage, so all that memory would be sitting there burning electricity). 128 GB SSD (considering upgrading to 1 TB because space is becoming an issue even though I only put the OS and Flight Simulator files on it.) 3 TB HD ( only 400 GB used). Radeon 6990 Video Driver. 30" HP IPS LCD Asus Maximus IV Extreme Motherboard
AFAIK, it's not the court who does the disbarring, it's the Bar Society -- which is the professional organization.
I think that now the Bar Society might start taking a look.
If the Bar association won't disbar them, then the judge needs to remove the recognized authority of the Bar Association. perhaps then they will sit up and take notice. But I guess that is a catch 22, since the judge will then have no more legal authority either. I guess this is why they let the farce continue.
Yes, by all means, let us condemn and entire industry because of your real-world, terrible experience, or the assholes mentioned in the Prenda story. Yes, that's perfectly logical and is a sensible, productive way to run society. I mean, what could possibly go wrong?
Yes, it is definitely wrong to judge a group based on just one member, but how about when 90% or more of it's members are an issue? I have known dozens of lawyers, and I have known one that was a useful and good person. Of the others, I will admit that most of them weren't openly evil, just evil by being useless and not doing their job when some other lawyer was attempting to do you evil. However, in some circumstances I have worked for lawyers and in those cases, the lawyer was quite definitely openly evil such that I will never again work for a company that has a lawyer in its upper management.
I wish the report would go into some detail about how close the ties that these workers have to terrorism were, even if they were anonymized. Were they members or former members of a terrorist group? Is one of their family members or close personal friends a terrorist? It's still a failure to find these people before hiring them, but there's a big difference between "We found that 73 people were former members of a group or groups classified as a terrorist organization" and "We found that 73 people had donated money to the wrong charity or have a distant relative that might be a member of a terrorist organization."
All the report says is that the 73 people were divided into 5 categories and that the TSA didn't have clearance for all 5 categories.
Yes, and what kind of terrorists did they have links to? The kind that blow up buildings and planes? Or the kind that vocally challenges the government when the government wipes their posteriors with the constitution?
You aren't legally required to provide your SSN to businesses unless one of the following is true:
You'll be engaging in a transaction that requires notification to the Internal Revenue Service; or
You're initiating a financial transaction subject to federal Customer Identification Program rules.
After reading the first dozen questions, how many million years would you say it would be before you ever agree to answer questions from slashdot posters again?
Is that the same kind of years that are used by a lot of other technological advances? Because if it is, we won't have commercially available self-driving cars before 2040.
And by then, I hope they're freakin' flying cars, too.
I like how the article is written, "Unsupported and extremely unlikely assumption is true. Based on that unsupported assumption, everybody will start behaving according to another unsupported assumption. Once this happens, the only accidents will be due to a third unsupported assumption. Given all this, how does this affect the insurance industry?"
Well, I say who cares? The first assumption is not likely to occur. The second one presumes that everybody will accept this and completely change their lifestyle to not own a car. The third one assumes that only hardware and software errors could possibly cause a crash. Once you pile conjecture upon conjecture upon conjecture, it is not even worth talking about it.
The rates used to be like 2%, but that was back int like the 60s and 70s when we actually thought having an educated populace was a good idea.
I find it extremely irritating, that Navient, which used to be Sallie Mae, is a company, not a government entity, but it somehow enjoys protection from its customers declaring bankruptcy.
Probably better than a 1 in 10 chance that any random woman you meet on the street knows what a plumbob is.
Uh oh, I thought I knew what a plumbob was until you said that. Then I had to go look it up. So yes, I still know what a plumbob is, but indeed what most people know as a plumbob does not match my definition. I've even PLAYED the Sims, probably have 40 or 50 hours in from about 10 years back, and didn't know that thing over their head was called a plumbob.
As higher dimensional beings, it might be like the "floating thumb" or "got your nose" trick for mice.
If they only lived a day, they probably didn't even wake up from the anesthesia before dying.
Yes, I have the $99 bundle for TV, Phone and Internet. It costs $230 a month.
I'm paying 20 euros ($22 or so) for 20 Mbit ADSL. Fuck phone, I don't use that anymore. We don't watch TV, and I'm guessing that's where the majority of your bill is?
Yup. TV is where they really drag you over the coals. Oddly, 20 years ago, cable TV was about $20 a month and included about 50 channels, perhaps one of which had anything worth watching on at any given time. Now, cable TV costs about $100 and has about 1000 channels, about half of which are HD duplicates of the other half and another half of which are just music, and when all is said and done, perhaps one of which has anything worth watching at any given time.
She was groundbreaking as one of the earliest actors on a multiracial show - controversial in the day. ...live long and prosper.
Also ground breaking in that she didn't play a sterotypical role for her races, while the other racial roles did play a stereotypical role for their race.
No, Dick, in order to be a real African American Actor, you'd have actually had to be working in the field.
This raises a question. Why is there a different standard for referring to someone's heritage depending on their skin tone? A person with dark skin who 10 generations ago had an ancestor from Africa is an African American. A person (like me) who's ancestors came from Czechoslovakia two generations ago is just an American. In fact, a person of light skin whose ancestors had come from Africa two generations back would probably also just be referred to as an American. I suspect that if I found someone with dark skin who had immigrated from Czechoslovakia two generations back, they would also be referred to as an African American even if the last ancestor to have come from Africa was 50 or more generations ago.
Where is the line drawn? My ancestors came out of Africa no more than 3,000 generations ago, and more than likely far less. They were decidedly dark skinned, and hairy besides. And yet, I am just an American.
So what is up with referring to a race by their regional background, especially given that the regional background may be both inaccurate and almost certainly not recent?
She's the CEO of a charity. Shouldn't she be doing it for free? If doing it is a full time job, then perhaps they should find someone with a trust fund who doesn't need any more money to do the job.
The Red Cross decided they needed high-power ex execs from places like AT&T who have no idea whatsoever how to run a relief charity. They destroyed the company from the inside out.
I assume that they wanted the company destroyed. After all, these high power execs also destroyed the companies from which they came.
This and many other examples like - PETA euthanizing more animals than they shelter - UNICEF expenses of 52 million dollars (pdf) in expenses related to management and fundraising (out of a 600 million dollars budget, and that's one of the best managed ones out there) show that it is much more efficient to donate time or money locally instead of to big organizations. Donate to your local food bank, soup kitchen, volunteer some time in the retirement home, the satisfaction will be the same and the effects will be much more efficient. Or, at the very least, don't screw people over, it is more than enough if you can do that. Why should you donate anything to help someone in the other side of the world while people needs your help in your own neighbourhood?
Agree. Local charities aren't big enough to mismanage the funds, and the people are close enough that they will probably volunteer their time as well and not need a half million dollar salary.
There is too much graft and corruption in all of the big charities. Red cross makes $2 billion a year selling your blood and not giving you any tax credit for it, but claiming it on their taxes as a donation.
United Way and March of Dimes encourages quotas, threat of firing and ostracizing to force people in organizations to take part in fund raising for organizations which donate to causes which they don't necessarily agree with.
All of these big organizations spend more than 10 cents out of every dollar on actual humanitarian causes, and as you can see often cannot even tell you how they spent the other 80-some cents, and neither can they people that the organizations claim to have benefited.
President Obama is paid 400,000 dollars a year. He does get free room and board though.
He gets free everything. They might as well put the $400,000 right into his savings account. He doesn't have expenses like you and I do.
I refuse to give them a single dime.
I never give them dimes either, but I do donate blood every 8 weeks. They can't embezzle that.
But they do. They sell it and claim it as a donation, so they don't pay taxes on it, but they don't allow you, the giver to claim it as a charitable donation. Also, they claim 91% of their donations goes toward humanitarian efforts, but they don't include the moneys received from selling the blood, because that would lower their percentage down into the 60s or 70s or lower according to NPR.
Far better to donate to a local hospital and eliminate the waste and the approximately 50% of blood donation that ends up spoiling on the shelf.
All the accidents... Were causing by HUMANS and not by the machine. Can't wait until we get rid of the stupid monkeys behind the wheel...
Even thought the fault of the accidents was another driver (or sometimes the google driver), the statistics still result that the autonomously driven cars were about 3 or 4 times more likely to be involved in an accident than the average driver. So basically, they are not as good at avoiding being in an accident as the average human driver. Driving id not just about not hitting people. It is also about avoiding the other drivers who are out to get you.
Yeah, the bundling drives me crazy. I get constant ads from Charter saying "get internet, tv, and phone for $30 each!" But I'm paying $60 for internet alone. Frankly, when their advertising sets $30 in my mind as the appropriate price for each of their services, I can't help but be ripped off paying twice that much. In other words, their advertising is making me angry with them.
I have zero interest in phone. I've asked about internet + TV, but for some reason that's $110, rather than $90, which isn't just a ripoff, it's insane.
Yes, I have the $99 bundle for TV, Phone and Internet. It costs $230 a month.
Ah, so the basic requirement to get an entry level job is to have done an entry level job already.
I would (almost) rather someone force me to learn PERL, rather than ever seriously programming in javascript again.
The thing I noticed about Perl is that 5 minutes after you have written something that works, you could look at it and it would be completely unclear how or why it works.
In my experience, most companies hiring for "entry level" are defining the wage as entry level, or straight out of college wages, but the actual skill requirements they are looking for typically imply 3 to 5 years of work experience.
How much Dice do you need to get an entry level job?
More than exists right now apparently. I've never gotten a job through Dice, though I have tried at several points in the past.