I imagine that any gains she's made from GamerGate has to be balanced against loads of angry fat bedroom boys breathlessly sending her anonymous death threats via twitter.
I didn't realize parents giving their children some of the money they've earned is a problem, but I guess I'm wrong and it's up there with institutional racism, lack of parity in pay between sexes etc.
Remind me; why is it a problem, again? And what's it got to do with you, anyway? Are you jealous?
You're getting really shit hardware for $250-300. Perhaps an ultraplastic piece of shit. Unless your idea of developing is using notepad to ponce around with small html files, you won't be doing any serious development on it.
> Just because Mozilla is "cool" doesn't make it okay to pay vastly under market value for their employee's > services
Why are people working for less than their market value? If there are genuine reasons, don't you think those reasons lower their market value? Perhaps they want to work for a non-profit. There's plenty of other places they could be working (if they're any good).
> Agree, but they should have had a much better response prepared
No, doesn't matter what "the response" is. They're firing someone, effective immediately. You don't worry about what the users think.
"It's like if you suddenly fire the company rep that your main customer has been dealing with exclusively for years. You don't just call them up and say "hey, Joe's no longer with us, we'll get back to you in a bit about his replacement.""
It's like that except the "main customer" doesn't give you any money, but acts like they're shareholder or they're on the board or something. Like a kid in his dad's suit, greased back hair. "I'm not happy with this situation! Why wasn't I told earlier". You can imagine the people who run reddit watching the drama and thinking "who the fuck do these entitled cretins think they are? Uh..yeah, put out a statement, say "we're sorry, we...uh...yeah, could have handled it better. Sounds like we're sorry but really we don't give a fuck and would do the same thing next time".
We don't know what "Joe" did. Assuming it was something terrible enough to get him frogmarched out of the building, you're just unhappy with the string of characters submitted to the customer to explain that he's no longer around? That's the beef?
Yeah, good luck with that. Let's come back in a couple of weeks time and see how different reddit it. My money is on - no different in any way whatsoever. And all the whiners will still be there. Users, eh? Never happy.
They don't know why she was fired, right? But they want her back? Is that it? The internal, human resources issues aren't the concern of non-employees. They want reddit to OK their decisions with non-employees? To tip them off? "Keep this quiet, but we're going to fire someone in a couple of weeks; can you start arranging AMAs with this other person instead?". What a joke.
The casual racism. I probably come from oversees relative to you. Am I bad? Are you? What does it mean? Does it only work for one country? Sounds like religious bollocks too; the religion I happened to have been born into is the only true one; the others are evil. It's just simplistic bullshit for uneducated peasants, isn't it.
In the exciting world of html hairdressers, where this week's javascript framework and version control tool is far more important than writing code that's going to be stable, fast and be around in more than 2 months.
"With concerns being raised about the deal's impacts on everything from intellectual property rights to government sovereignty, it is surprising to many that Congress would abdicate their role in determining the specifics of agreements that may have far reaching implications for their constituents."
Why is it surprising? Gives them less work to do! They're all pro-business, which is the reason they're in office. Whether or not they agree with tighter gun laws, or minimum wage, or black/gay rights, or abortion, or equality of any sort etc...those aren't interesting to people in power other than as something they can use to sway voting voters on any given election. These people don't give a fuck about you in any other way, and in any case, stuff like copyright etc is just not of interest to most people; there's simply no votes in it.
If they want to make a profit they need to roll their sleeves up and get to work. How do other people make money from my site after my death? I'll give 'em my credentials and they can do what I've been doing. Next.
How is this any different to a newspaper reporting on, say, increased drug dealing in a named part of london? "But people are going to go there and buy drugs now they've read about it in the paper". Yes, but they were already doing that.
I wonder how a law which tried to prevent such reporting - assuming said interference of the state was legal and desirable - would look, and how it would differ from censorship performed in more embarrassingly run countries.
No, if you're obese you risk a lot more than "a few" (what is that? 2? 3? 5?) years. It puts extra stress on just about every part of your body especially, crucially, your heart. 1 in 5 americans die from obesity related illnesses. People eating obviously unhealthy foods watching the news and worrying about Al Queda when there's a 9/11-sized death toll every day from what they're eating.
Slashdot Mirror
Not as dangerous as 27.
Also, I thought you're supposed to punch sharks in the back like that Australian guy did?
Which is the one which comes pre-installed on most distros?
I imagine that any gains she's made from GamerGate has to be balanced against loads of angry fat bedroom boys breathlessly sending her anonymous death threats via twitter.
I didn't realize parents giving their children some of the money they've earned is a problem, but I guess I'm wrong and it's up there with institutional racism, lack of parity in pay between sexes etc.
Remind me; why is it a problem, again? And what's it got to do with you, anyway? Are you jealous?
You're getting really shit hardware for $250-300. Perhaps an ultraplastic piece of shit. Unless your idea of developing is using notepad to ponce around with small html files, you won't be doing any serious development on it.
> Just because Mozilla is "cool" doesn't make it okay to pay vastly under market value for their employee's
> services
Why are people working for less than their market value? If there are genuine reasons, don't you think those reasons lower their market value? Perhaps they want to work for a non-profit. There's plenty of other places they could be working (if they're any good).
"In addition the inscrutable error messages"
Well, Stroustrup himself describes them as "appalling", and Concepts was supposed to clean some of this stuff up. Roll on c++17...
> Agree, but they should have had a much better response prepared
No, doesn't matter what "the response" is. They're firing someone, effective immediately. You don't worry about what the users think.
"It's like if you suddenly fire the company rep that your main customer has been dealing with exclusively for years. You don't just call them up and say "hey, Joe's no longer with us, we'll get back to you in a bit about his replacement.""
It's like that except the "main customer" doesn't give you any money, but acts like they're shareholder or they're on the board or something. Like a kid in his dad's suit, greased back hair. "I'm not happy with this situation! Why wasn't I told earlier". You can imagine the people who run reddit watching the drama and thinking "who the fuck do these entitled cretins think they are? Uh..yeah, put out a statement, say "we're sorry, we...uh...yeah, could have handled it better. Sounds like we're sorry but really we don't give a fuck and would do the same thing next time".
We don't know what "Joe" did. Assuming it was something terrible enough to get him frogmarched out of the building, you're just unhappy with the string of characters submitted to the customer to explain that he's no longer around? That's the beef?
Yeah, good luck with that. Let's come back in a couple of weeks time and see how different reddit it. My money is on - no different in any way whatsoever. And all the whiners will still be there. Users, eh? Never happy.
They don't know why she was fired, right? But they want her back? Is that it? The internal, human resources issues aren't the concern of non-employees. They want reddit to OK their decisions with non-employees? To tip them off? "Keep this quiet, but we're going to fire someone in a couple of weeks; can you start arranging AMAs with this other person instead?". What a joke.
Sure but that comment... why post it anonymously? Afraid of reprisals?
The casual racism. I probably come from oversees relative to you. Am I bad? Are you? What does it mean? Does it only work for one country? Sounds like religious bollocks too; the religion I happened to have been born into is the only true one; the others are evil. It's just simplistic bullshit for uneducated peasants, isn't it.
In the exciting world of html hairdressers, where this week's javascript framework and version control tool is far more important than writing code that's going to be stable, fast and be around in more than 2 months.
"My Grandmother on Mother's side always said all bad things come from oversees"
Embarrassing elderly relative.
Which OS is handling your SMSs?
Isn't Google+ more popular than Twitter?
I wouldn't know; I took 14 seconds to create an account. Why don't you?
"Cloudflare hosting which is notorius for spam and botnets"
Huh? That's a powerfully stupid thing to say. It's what you use when you don't want script kiddies ddosing your site.
Just read the news, from multiple sources. Then when someone defends this or that regime your bullshit detector will kick in automatically.
Most people haven't heard of "Last Week Tonight with John Oliver" though.
"With concerns being raised about the deal's impacts on everything from intellectual property rights to government sovereignty, it is surprising to many that Congress would abdicate their role in determining the specifics of agreements that may have far reaching implications for their constituents."
Why is it surprising? Gives them less work to do! They're all pro-business, which is the reason they're in office. Whether or not they agree with tighter gun laws, or minimum wage, or black/gay rights, or abortion, or equality of any sort etc...those aren't interesting to people in power other than as something they can use to sway voting voters on any given election. These people don't give a fuck about you in any other way, and in any case, stuff like copyright etc is just not of interest to most people; there's simply no votes in it.
If they want to make a profit they need to roll their sleeves up and get to work. How do other people make money from my site after my death? I'll give 'em my credentials and they can do what I've been doing. Next.
How is this any different to a newspaper reporting on, say, increased drug dealing in a named part of london? "But people are going to go there and buy drugs now they've read about it in the paper". Yes, but they were already doing that.
I wonder how a law which tried to prevent such reporting - assuming said interference of the state was legal and desirable - would look, and how it would differ from censorship performed in more embarrassingly run countries.
No, if you're obese you risk a lot more than "a few" (what is that? 2? 3? 5?) years. It puts extra stress on just about every part of your body especially, crucially, your heart. 1 in 5 americans die from obesity related illnesses. People eating obviously unhealthy foods watching the news and worrying about Al Queda when there's a 9/11-sized death toll every day from what they're eating.
The comments are definitely c++.