Now here's my suggestion on how to fix it. They need to hire a few full time staffers with their donations and have them handle written applications to contribute to Wikipedia. Let anyone with sound credentials contribute, but require that they prove that they have some idea of what they are talking about.
Dear Sir:
I hereby submit my application, attached, to become a contributor to Wikipedia. Specifically, that section of Wikipedia that deals with the 1970's. Specifically, 1970's American television. More specifically, 1970's American television commercials. Specifically, the 1979 American television commercial for Planters Peanuts depicting a man being chased for his delicious nuts. Although many of the people who worked on this commercial are dead, dying, ill, or on vacation in Belgium, I was part of the janitorial staff at the editing house where this particular commercial was cut, and during my very long breaks, I observed with a keen and jaundiced eye the cutting of this animated gem. I am also neither dead, dying, ill, nor on vacation in Belgium.
I look forward to your quick acceptance of my editorship. I have some very interesting revelatory facts about Mr. Peanut that I would like to add to the article.
said the company "has done a 360" since the primary
What's with the misunderstood metaphors? Here's a helpful chart:
Doing a 180 = taking an opposing position to that previously taken.
Doing a 360 = doing donuts in a parking lot.
Doing a 720 = you're drunk and the room is spinning many, many times.
Whenever he was asked an uncomfortable question, this was basically how he responded - Wallace also asked him yes or no if he'd like to re-establish a relationship with the United States, and his initial stab at it was "well, let us ask first who broke off ties in the first place?" Wallace asked him again, regardless of who broke off ties, yes or no would he like to re-establish them? He then launched into another history lesson. Wallace interrupted - "yes or no, why won't you answer the question?" Then he got mad - "is this multiple choice? These are complicated questions!" This is basically the guy's MO - say all kinds of crazy things, then when he's pressed for clarification, launch into a life story that's got nothing to do with the issue at hand in an attempt to confuse.
Not that I'm defending Ahmadinejad, but really, at first, I wasn't sure which politician you were talking about. I don't think any political interviewee likes being hit with yes or no questions, and certainly wouldn't just say yes or no given such a question.
They were seriously cutting into the big jet/big airline's market space because of simple efficiency: prop planes use less fuel, less ground support, require less technology, etc.
Continental bought them out and shut them down.
Lest we lay all of the blame at Continental's doors, remember that in order for Continental to buy Metro Air, Metro Air had to sell to Continental. So I think an equal portion of blame lies with the owners of Metro Air.
It's funny -- a few months ago, my Google account was slapping the heck out of SpamSieve on my local account. But very recently, I've gotten several spams in my Gmail account. So whatever Google is using, they're going to have to start figuring out what the spammers have already figured out.
Why exactly should be give any weight to anything from and organization so ignorant as to disallow bittorrent?... This guy should spend his time educating the fools at his institution.
OK, if you've ever worked for a large organization, you soon realize that a few people in the organization set policy. The rest have no say. That's all there is to it.
And if this guy "spent his time educating the fools at his institution", he wouldn't actually have any time left over for his real job, which is research and educating students, for which the institution pays him.
In this case we normally have something like Nature article (for the practicing biologist) -> Nature News and Views (for the lazy people who read Nature but can't be arsed to read the article) -> New Scientist article/comment (for the interested layman) -> traditional news media (the proletariat)
... -> someone's blog (for the wide-eyed mouth-breather) -> another someone's blog (even wider eyes) -> Slashdot (YOU) -> Slashdot comment (ME).
The fact that more time was spent during the interview discussing facets of his Facebook profile instead of interviewing him for the internship he applied for is a bit appalling.
Assuming that the job had nothing to do with the information on his profile, I think the appropriate answer for the candidate would be either, "I would hope that my private preferences would not reflect on my professional performance, don't you think?" or, "I don't understand what that question has to do with my professional qualifications. Can you explain?"
Sure, it's easier just to cave and talk about anything the interviewer wants. But at some point you have to halt the insanity. Surely there's another job somewhere.
Slashdot Mirror
As the linked article states, there are commercial OCR programs that are far more accurate.
--Rob
--Rob
Is it a coincidence that Talk Like A Pirate Day is Sept 19th?
--Rob
Internet surfers sometimes punch monkeys. I'm pretty sure there's no real point to that.
--Rob
I think they're trying to revive the show.
What's with the misunderstood metaphors? Here's a helpful chart:
Doing a 180 = taking an opposing position to that previously taken.
Doing a 360 = doing donuts in a parking lot.
Doing a 720 = you're drunk and the room is spinning many, many times.
--Rob
Better than dope, better than crack, better even than ecstasy... it's STUPID!
--Rob
Or turn the GPS on its back so it looks like you're going for a moon shot.
1. Things we understand (subject to change)
2. Things we don't understand yet
3. Godel things -- things we know are true but cannot prove.
--Rob
--Rob
"From: uk furniture
I am interested, please let me know more"
--Rob
speaking from personal experience :(
Not that I'm defending Ahmadinejad, but really, at first, I wasn't sure which politician you were talking about. I don't think any political interviewee likes being hit with yes or no questions, and certainly wouldn't just say yes or no given such a question.
--Rob
Lest we lay all of the blame at Continental's doors, remember that in order for Continental to buy Metro Air, Metro Air had to sell to Continental. So I think an equal portion of blame lies with the owners of Metro Air.
--Rob
--Rob
What are you talking about? There's Breakout... Superbreakout... photoshop?
--Rob
--Rob
OK, if you've ever worked for a large organization, you soon realize that a few people in the organization set policy. The rest have no say. That's all there is to it.
And if this guy "spent his time educating the fools at his institution", he wouldn't actually have any time left over for his real job, which is research and educating students, for which the institution pays him.
--Rob
--Rob
--Rob
--Rob
--Rob
Assuming that the job had nothing to do with the information on his profile, I think the appropriate answer for the candidate would be either, "I would hope that my private preferences would not reflect on my professional performance, don't you think?" or, "I don't understand what that question has to do with my professional qualifications. Can you explain?"
Sure, it's easier just to cave and talk about anything the interviewer wants. But at some point you have to halt the insanity. Surely there's another job somewhere.
--Rob
I mean, really. Seeking employment isn't like running for office.
(sigh) Pearls before swine.
--Rob
--Rob