While keyboards CAN last a long time, dude....no. Think about it; they are the recipient of your grimy fingers, day in/day out. They are more disgusting than *anything* else in your house, pillows and toilets included.
Keyboards should be replaced yearly given how disgusting they are.
But who's to say this isn't the cover story for the "Government VPN Encryption" program where a foreign entity managed to "steal" the backdoor password so now everyone has to patch.
Bet we hear similar things from cisco in the coming weeks/months.
Because of basic city planning? Surrounding yourself with solar power plants cause a break in zoning and can interrupt your tax base. Take a look at most small/medium sized towns, and check out just how severely the freeway segments them. Solar plant would be worse.
I wouldn't even want three sides. One, maybe two sides at most.
Does anyone else remember a time when politicians paid lip service to upholding the constitution and what it stood for?
I mean, we all knew they were full of shit, and they knew we knew, but it was like a game. Who could spew shit with a smile and not blush about the bullshit they were feeding us.
So yes, it is perfectly possible for intelligent, skilled people to end up in a job well below what they are qualified and able to do.
Not saying it's not. However, as you broached the topic, I would agree; it's entirely possible for someone to be employed well below what they're qualified for...for a short duration.
That doesn't seem to be what we're talking about here, however.
Not only is this "just deserts", but it's also quite probable. Institutional and architectural information tends to fade quickly, at least for myself. 6 months into a new job and I will only have passing knowledge on the systems. 1 year out and I'm back to almost square one with a weird sense of deja-foo ( on purpose ).
So fuck them. Take the money, develop amnesia and when they come calling, create chaos under the guise of "being helpful".
As the title suggests, any society and it's economy are one in the same. Two words, same concept. To truly understand this, you must first be willing to see what drives people together; what makes us want to be around others.
It's greed.
Alone we can survive, more or less. Depending on where, and one's ability, that "Survive" can range from "just barely" to "thrive", yet even in that "thrive" category,we still want more stuff. Better shelter, better food, better tools, more leisurely time, ect...It's this greed which drives us to work with others, to share in the responsibility of surviving so that we might both be able to "get more stuff".
Take away this need, and you take away society. In a truly post-scarcity environment, people wind up being hermits with little to no social interaction. Of course, that's a moot point as there will never be a post-scarcity environment.
Which is not to say anything negative about start trek, mind you. In fact, it's flawed concept of a economy-free society is what first got me thinking about this stuff, and underpinned my explorations of economics and society for decades to come.
Note: I never said I didn't offer praise. Someone does something good, I encourage it. Leadership 101; positive reinforcement is more effective than negative.
That's not, however, what I was talking about.
When I do have to correct someone, men are usually easier to correct because I don't have to pad their egos first. I can deliver the necessary communication and we all can move on. Women? More work because I have to build them up enough to handle the criticism.
Note; I am not saying all women or all men. Just generally speaking.
While I don't deny those kinds of comments exist, I'm not including those examples in my generalities. Furthermore, they tend to be rare. At least in professional environments I work in.
The emotional petting I'm referring to is more inline with offering constructive criticism. When someone is fucking up and not correcting it themselves, it's up to the team leader to address it. With men I have found this is as simple as "You're doing this wrong. Here's how it should be done". Tried that exact same approach with women in my younger days to much different results. Tears were common, also anger. I made sure I delivered the criticism in the exact same tone, same words. Didn't matter.
With women, I've found you have to build them up. Focus on areas they're doing well in first, then deliver the criticism. Then talk about it some more. Then maybe talk about their strengths, then circle back around to the criticism. We go from a 2 second correction to a 15-30 minute conversation where I have to remember to "be nice" the entire time. Like I said, exhausting.
Now, please bear in mind I'm speaking in generalities. Some men need that fluffing too, and I know a handful of women who prefer bluntness. But in my experience, the above stereotype can be relied upon.
It's worth clarifying; I am an exceptional communicator. I can and do motivate others to achieve their best.
However. I find the required communication methods necessary to properly interface with most women exhausting. Necessary criticism must be delivered in such a way that takes far longer and requires far more redundant communication. Most men, however, are far easier to deal with. These are, of course, generalities.
That you don't have the same reactions suggests you are a far more natural communicator than I, for which I'm envious. So you are very probably right; it is a "me" thing.
While I appreciate the idea of catering your communication to your target(s), I have to say that dealing with people who need constant emotional petting to stay productive is exhausting ( women mostly ).
I much prefer working with men for this reason. While it's not a guarantee you won't get "Whiny Bitches" in a male dominated environment, it's far less likely. By putting aside the emotional overhead, the entire team can more effectively focus on the task(s) at hand.
You *listen* to your children, help them explore what they like and dislike. You understand that your children won't like everything, and possibly not even what you like...but I guess there's the rub. Mommy's and Daddy's egos can't accept their children not being little fucking clones of themselves, so they set out to "fix" that.
Ironically, my daughter does like to code and is a fan of STEM subjects in general. She also likes fashion ( although, perhaps notably, only in how it applies to others as she'll often leave the house in whatever is clean-"ish", sans brushing her hair ) and babysitting, neither of which holds any interest to me. But you know what I do? I make sure to encourage her interests, wherever they take her. This isn't some heroic feat. I'm not some exemplar example of parenting. I'm just some guy who has her interests at heart.
Your first mistake was being an asshole. How do I know? Because people, as a rule, are lazy. I'm lazy. You're lazy. We're all lazy. So why, I'm forced to ponder, are so many people intent on fucking with you that it overcomes their natural laziness?
The only answer that makes sense is that you were a raging asshole.
Forgive me for being the odd duck out here, but what ever happened to "Personal Responsibility"? I, too, think it's wrong for the hackers to release that information. It sounds like a despicable act of misguided morality to me, but that's irrelevant.
These people took their own lives, the external stressers don't really matter; they CHOSE to commit suicide. Maybe if signing up and using that site was such an emotional risk for them, they shouldn't have done it?
If you don't have riveting hero(s), you darned well better have an awesome presentation.
I disagree. Superheroes are, by and large, boring. They're the good guys! They do good things. Whoopee.
It's the bad guys that really give movies and shows their depth. Incidentally, this is also what keeps a lot of marvel movies from being great; the hero is "meh", and the bad guy is "meh". Thor 2? Iron Man 2?
But when the villain is interesting and dynamic? It can save an otherwise blah movie. Case in point; The Dark Knight, with Heath Ledger's Joker. Sans Joker, the movie would have been "ok". Ledger made that movie great.
Heroes can only ever be as interesting as their antagonistic foils.
Slashdot Mirror
The foul mouthed, wish-I-were-an-alcoholic, Metatron.
Remember; angels weren't allowed to drink.
While keyboards CAN last a long time, dude....no. Think about it; they are the recipient of your grimy fingers, day in/day out. They are more disgusting than *anything* else in your house, pillows and toilets included.
Keyboards should be replaced yearly given how disgusting they are.
But who's to say this isn't the cover story for the "Government VPN Encryption" program where a foreign entity managed to "steal" the backdoor password so now everyone has to patch.
Bet we hear similar things from cisco in the coming weeks/months.
Because of basic city planning? Surrounding yourself with solar power plants cause a break in zoning and can interrupt your tax base. Take a look at most small/medium sized towns, and check out just how severely the freeway segments them. Solar plant would be worse.
I wouldn't even want three sides. One, maybe two sides at most.
Does anyone else remember a time when politicians paid lip service to upholding the constitution and what it stood for?
I mean, we all knew they were full of shit, and they knew we knew, but it was like a game. Who could spew shit with a smile and not blush about the bullshit they were feeding us.
I miss those days.
So yes, it is perfectly possible for intelligent, skilled people to end up in a job well below what they are qualified and able to do.
Not saying it's not. However, as you broached the topic, I would agree; it's entirely possible for someone to be employed well below what they're qualified for...for a short duration.
That doesn't seem to be what we're talking about here, however.
...does "overqualified" mean "has a degree but can't be trusted to change a lightbulb"?
Because ya. Holy hell, ya.
Not only is this "just deserts", but it's also quite probable. Institutional and architectural information tends to fade quickly, at least for myself. 6 months into a new job and I will only have passing knowledge on the systems. 1 year out and I'm back to almost square one with a weird sense of deja-foo ( on purpose ).
So fuck them. Take the money, develop amnesia and when they come calling, create chaos under the guise of "being helpful".
...and...?
You forgot the part where you prove me wrong. Please do, I'm an arrogant prick, and having someone prove me wrong is healthy for me.
In your own time.
As the title suggests, any society and it's economy are one in the same. Two words, same concept. To truly understand this, you must first be willing to see what drives people together; what makes us want to be around others.
It's greed.
Alone we can survive, more or less. Depending on where, and one's ability, that "Survive" can range from "just barely" to "thrive", yet even in that "thrive" category,we still want more stuff. Better shelter, better food, better tools, more leisurely time, ect...It's this greed which drives us to work with others, to share in the responsibility of surviving so that we might both be able to "get more stuff".
Take away this need, and you take away society. In a truly post-scarcity environment, people wind up being hermits with little to no social interaction. Of course, that's a moot point as there will never be a post-scarcity environment.
Which is not to say anything negative about start trek, mind you. In fact, it's flawed concept of a economy-free society is what first got me thinking about this stuff, and underpinned my explorations of economics and society for decades to come.
Note: I never said I didn't offer praise. Someone does something good, I encourage it. Leadership 101; positive reinforcement is more effective than negative.
That's not, however, what I was talking about.
When I do have to correct someone, men are usually easier to correct because I don't have to pad their egos first. I can deliver the necessary communication and we all can move on. Women? More work because I have to build them up enough to handle the criticism.
Note; I am not saying all women or all men. Just generally speaking.
Project much?
Oh, that is without question.
It's all that much worse because I'm right and I know it.
While I don't deny those kinds of comments exist, I'm not including those examples in my generalities. Furthermore, they tend to be rare. At least in professional environments I work in.
The emotional petting I'm referring to is more inline with offering constructive criticism. When someone is fucking up and not correcting it themselves, it's up to the team leader to address it. With men I have found this is as simple as "You're doing this wrong. Here's how it should be done". Tried that exact same approach with women in my younger days to much different results. Tears were common, also anger. I made sure I delivered the criticism in the exact same tone, same words. Didn't matter.
With women, I've found you have to build them up. Focus on areas they're doing well in first, then deliver the criticism. Then talk about it some more. Then maybe talk about their strengths, then circle back around to the criticism. We go from a 2 second correction to a 15-30 minute conversation where I have to remember to "be nice" the entire time. Like I said, exhausting.
Now, please bear in mind I'm speaking in generalities. Some men need that fluffing too, and I know a handful of women who prefer bluntness. But in my experience, the above stereotype can be relied upon.
It's worth clarifying; I am an exceptional communicator. I can and do motivate others to achieve their best.
However. I find the required communication methods necessary to properly interface with most women exhausting. Necessary criticism must be delivered in such a way that takes far longer and requires far more redundant communication. Most men, however, are far easier to deal with. These are, of course, generalities.
That you don't have the same reactions suggests you are a far more natural communicator than I, for which I'm envious. So you are very probably right; it is a "me" thing.
While I appreciate the idea of catering your communication to your target(s), I have to say that dealing with people who need constant emotional petting to stay productive is exhausting ( women mostly ).
I much prefer working with men for this reason. While it's not a guarantee you won't get "Whiny Bitches" in a male dominated environment, it's far less likely. By putting aside the emotional overhead, the entire team can more effectively focus on the task(s) at hand.
You *listen* to your children, help them explore what they like and dislike. You understand that your children won't like everything, and possibly not even what you like...but I guess there's the rub. Mommy's and Daddy's egos can't accept their children not being little fucking clones of themselves, so they set out to "fix" that.
Ironically, my daughter does like to code and is a fan of STEM subjects in general. She also likes fashion ( although, perhaps notably, only in how it applies to others as she'll often leave the house in whatever is clean-"ish", sans brushing her hair ) and babysitting, neither of which holds any interest to me. But you know what I do? I make sure to encourage her interests, wherever they take her. This isn't some heroic feat. I'm not some exemplar example of parenting. I'm just some guy who has her interests at heart.
Your first mistake was being an asshole. How do I know? Because people, as a rule, are lazy. I'm lazy. You're lazy. We're all lazy. So why, I'm forced to ponder, are so many people intent on fucking with you that it overcomes their natural laziness?
The only answer that makes sense is that you were a raging asshole.
Too bad it takes artificial intelligence to do something actual intelligence could fix.
Of course they do. And they should absolutely be held responsible for any breach of contract they engaged in.
However, when it comes to members committing suicide, that's not on them. Or the hackers. That's on the people who make that choice.
Forgive me for being the odd duck out here, but what ever happened to "Personal Responsibility"? I, too, think it's wrong for the hackers to release that information. It sounds like a despicable act of misguided morality to me, but that's irrelevant.
These people took their own lives, the external stressers don't really matter; they CHOSE to commit suicide. Maybe if signing up and using that site was such an emotional risk for them, they shouldn't have done it?
Bravo sir.
How smart are we talking here?
Totally misread that initially as, "Rupert Murdoch won't be touching your children after all".
I was a bit disappointed when I reread it, not gonna lie.
If you don't have riveting hero(s), you darned well better have an awesome presentation.
I disagree. Superheroes are, by and large, boring. They're the good guys! They do good things. Whoopee.
It's the bad guys that really give movies and shows their depth. Incidentally, this is also what keeps a lot of marvel movies from being great; the hero is "meh", and the bad guy is "meh". Thor 2? Iron Man 2?
But when the villain is interesting and dynamic? It can save an otherwise blah movie. Case in point; The Dark Knight, with Heath Ledger's Joker. Sans Joker, the movie would have been "ok". Ledger made that movie great.
Heroes can only ever be as interesting as their antagonistic foils.