In the past, I refused to interview with a company because they required a drug test. No, I don't do drugs, it's the principle that matters.
Now, however, I've been unemployed far too long (I'm in Northern Calfornia where the tech job market really sucks) and I don't think I have the luxury to stick to my principles. I guess I'll find out where I really stand if I'm offered a job that requires a drug test. I'm not looking forward to making that decision.
Your credit history is none of their business. When I received one of those for a job, I told them I didn't see any reason for them to run a credit check on a programmer who had no access to any company finances. They agreed. I got the job. If they hadn't of pulled the requirement, I would have refused to position.
I'd refuse a drivers license background check too, unless I was getting a job where my duties included driving.
Step 1. Build the basics for a permanent presence in space. The ISS might do the job. That's merely a place to hang on to for...
Step 2. Build an ore processing space station so we can mine the asteriods. This will provide most of the raw materials needed for everything else, such as...
Step 3. Large scale self-sufficient space station. This might not be a single station. There might be one station devoted to living quarters, recreation, etc. and another for manufacturing and science.
It would probably be decades before this system reaches the break even point, and a few more decades before it pays for itself (financially). But that gives you...
Step 4. Profit! (sorry, I couldn't help myself).
That's my amateur class analysis. Feel free to blow huge holes into it.
those who email you every week or so letting you know that your website can be listed on the top 300 search engines for some relatively[1] nominal fee.
I was being bothered by one of those web page verification companies. "For x dollars a month" we can verify all your links are correct". After about the third email I configured my server to give their IP block the internet eqivalent of slamming down the phone (DROP).
I agree. My stay with @Home was a period of frustration. Their mail service was so bad that I didn't dare rely on it. Their excuse, "email is for noncommerical, hobbiest purposes only". Fuck you @Home. I switched to DSL and set up my own mail server along with SpamAssassin and a few blackholes to minimize spam. When something goes wrong, I can fix it myself (and blame myself, too).
I don't run an open server (I test this whenever I make any significant changes to my configuration) and certainly don't allow spam. I'm so anal that I have a filter that bounces subjects which contain "fwd: fwd:". That caught my mom and sisters a few times.
Since I have a dynamic ip address, I use a service to deal with that (along with a 15 minute cron job to make sure my domain and ip address are synced). Unfortunately, some of the more "religious" antispammers block the entire dynamic dsl range, so there are a few places that refuse mail from me (very rare, fortunately).
Preventing private email servers is just plain stupid. Just because some people are abusing this doesn't mean everyone must be punished. That's the equivlent of saying, "some people print child porn, therefore we must outlaw all private publications."
APC doesn't release the communications protocals used in their UPSes, so they must be reverse engineered to work with NUT (Network UPS Tool). MGE UPS Systems fully supports open source, releasing all their protocals and even donating a few units to the developers. MGE does cost more, unfortunately, but at least they don't include the self-destruct feature found in some APC models.
I agree about the flash. I think it's the first time I have ever seen flash being useful. It's also the first time I didn't ignore the flash. I watched it loop through several times because I was actually learning about the product. Marketing droids, you might wish to make a note of this.
Too bad the case is way out of my budget. I'm a tech worker in Northern California. Want to guess if I have a job or not?
I would assume they settled out of course instead of paying this as part of a judgement. If they had gone the whole distance in court they would have had to pay refunds AND stop price fixing. I haven't seen any drop in CD prices, so it's obvious they haven't changed their practices one bit.
No doubt the RIAA attornies realized they would lose the case and be forced to sell music at reasonable prices. They can't have that! So settle for a few measly millions, instead.
Re:Isn't deleting logs an obstruction of justice?
on
Cryptome Log Subpoenaed
·
· Score: 1, Troll
Haven't you asked yourself by these terrorists hate America pretty much exclusively?
No, why should I? I don't ask a murdering piece of shit why he is what he is.
But since you completely missed the clue train, here's why they hate us:
We represent everything they are not. Although we aren't perfect, we strive to grant EVERYONE, including immigrants, equal rights. We don't exclude half the population from full participation in society because of gender. We don't teach that it's perfectly acceptable to hate and kill someone because of a difference of religion. We don't completely ignore science and engineering and concentrate our entire education system on religious studies.
Our very existence, our very success is a constant reminder to them that they are failures. At one time, the Middle East was the center of science. It was tolerant of other religions. Scholars from around the (known) world flocked to their cities to study and learn. Now that the islamofascists have taken control, they are an intellectual wasteland.
That is why they hate us.
FYI, if I had moderator points I would have moderated you down as off-topic or a troll. Unfortunately, I could not moderate you down for being a complete fucking idiot.
You couldn't be more wrong. As stated by our Founding Fathers, The Constitution is meant to be a chain around the government. The Bill of Rights is not a list of rights being granted, it is a clarification of rights we are born with. The Bill of Rights is saying, "these are rights the government CAN NOT FUCK WITH".
This is one of the fundamental differences between the US and other countries such as the UK. In the UK, you only have rights the government wishes to give you, and those rights can be taken away any time they wish.
I recommend you take a basic civics course that requires you to read related documents such as The Federalist Papers and other original writings by the creators of the Constitution.
Not that humans ever really needed an excuse to slaughter one another.
Consider this situation, a country implements a program to increase rainfall. A side effect is less rain in a neighboring country, resulting in massive famine, or it could cause a low lying country to suffer heavy flooding. Either way, diplomatic channels go into action, one country demanding the other country to stop causing devastating weather side-effects, the other country refusing to listen because they are tired of not being able to feed their own people. Wars have been fought for far less signicant reasons.
Now consider the actual war. Aiming a few tornados at the enemy capital might get their attention. We're in for some interesting times.
Just as a gun can be used for good or bad, feeding your family or murdering your neighbor, weather control will also be used for both. When weather control is possible, it will happen. There is no question about that. Intelligent people will recognize this fact and try to find ways of reducing possibility of evil uses.
Under Windoze, this CD launches a program that wants to connect to somewhere via the internet. No f*ing way. I just want to play the CD on my computer because the stereo is in the other room and is not convenient.
I haven't tried under Linux because I broke the sound driver and haven't gotten around to fixing it, yet.
National Safety Council, Injury Facts, 2001 Edition:
Accident Type age:0-4 5-1 All Automobile 900 1,500 Poisoning by solids, liquids 60 40 Pedestrian 250 300 Drowning 450 350 Fires, burns 400 260 Suffocation by ingested object 100 20 Firearms 20 60 Poisoning by gases, vapors 10 10 All other causes 700 400 TOTAL 2,700 2,700
Florida State University criminologist Dr. Gary Kleck suggests that some fatal gun accidents may actually be the culmination of a history of child abuse.
As for the statement that more people own pools than firearms, I doubt that very much. The percentage of homes with firearms is above 40%. I don't know the actual number, but just looking around I can tell the percentage of homes with swimming pools is far lower.
Where firearms are concerned, people DO watch their kids around them. The low number of accidents is proof of that. Too bad this same common sense is not used around swimming facilities.
One person called me a liar. That's a common fallback for people who are unable to refute a statement. I posted the numbers. While I can't find my original source for the 2 days vs 1 year claim, the numbers I can locate show that swimming accidents are a far more serious problem than gun accidents by a 10 to 1 ratio.
Of all the accident types, gun accidents has the second lowest number. It's seriousness as a problem is hugely exagerated by the anti-gun nuts.
Guns are a Constitutionally recognized Right, which makes it nearly impossible to ban them outright. So why not fix the easy problems, like drowning deaths, most which can be prevented by federally mandated pool covers. Even better, let's start a national movement. We must stop the horror. Completely outlaw swimming pools, FOR THE CHILDREN.
It is the standard practice of the anti-gun nuts to lie. It's not possible for them to use the facts since they don't support their arguments. When the gun rights groups use the facts, the control nuts call them liars even though the facts are easily proven. When that fails, they resort to childish name calling, as was done here by an anonymous coward who should just STFU.
I just ran across this annoyance today. The website insists you allow cookies (by default, I don't), and redirections you to a NONEXISTENT error page when you don't allow cookies. Try it yourself, turn off cookies and go to law.com
I agree. On the rare occassion I register to get to the site, I use an email address generated on the fly that will tell me at a glance where the address came from. Of course, it's extremely rare that I will go through the bother of registering.
Which proves once again, expertise in one field doesn't mean squat in another field. All too often we hear some fool say "I have a phd in [some random field], so you should listen to me when I discuss [some other field].". Uh, no.
To the flamers, will you take the advice of a college professor of chemistry when it comes to setting up a secure network? Hell no! You probably wouldn't even listen to a computer science professor, either, because they usually don't have a clue about how things work in the 'real world.'
For some odd reason, gun control fools like to quote this as a decision against gun rights when the opposite is actually the case. The Supreme Court found that because the weapon in question served no useful military purpose, the individual did not have a right to possess it.
"Sporting Purposes" is a very stupid argument when it comes to the 2nd Ammendment. There is no mention of hunting or other sports activities in the Constitution. The right to own a gun is specifically meant as a means to defend the nation, both from foreign and domestic enemies. The writings of the authors and supporters of the Constitution and Bill of Rights verify this in their personal writings when they clarify the issue by saying it is spefically intended to keep the government in fear of the armed populous.
And don't bother saying, "where did they write that." I want fall for a strawman debate. Read it your own damn self. Go to the library. I suggest you start with the Federalist Papers and continue from their. Madison, Jefferson, Franklin, etc.
And yes, I have read their papers. That's why I know I am right and you are very wrong.
Wrong. The right to own a gun is an individual right, not a State right. That has already been backed up by the Supreme Court. It is popular for the anti-gun crowd to repeat this false statement as often as possible. I think they believe in the old saying, "repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth."
The Constitution uses two different phrases to differentiate between an individual right and a state right. "The People" refers to an individual right. "The State(s)" refers to a State right. If we assume that the 2nd Ammendment is a State right, then it is the only place in the entire document that uses "The People" to refer to the State. Let's transfer this thinking to other parts to see how dangerous this can be. From the 1st Ammendment:
Congress shall make no law.. abridging.. the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
If "The People" refers to the State, then only state governments have the right to challenge unjust laws or to hold rallies denouncing mistakes of the government. Actually, even football games could be declared illegal unless it is State sponsered!
Other important notes. The meaning of "well organized" at the time the Constitution was written was roughly equivelent to "well supplied" or "well equipped". "Militia" refers to anyone NOT part of the military or police.
Exactly my point. Linux needs the goodwill of big companies more than big companies need the good will of the Linux community. As far as market goes, Linux is hardly a blip in the radar compared to Windoze. I wish it was different. Piss of the hardware companies and they'll just say, "screw it, it's not worth the time, effort, or money, we'll concentrate on windows." I'm not suggesting we bend over backwards and make unreasonable changes or continue to support long obsolete APIs. I am suggesting there should be no big surprises and that we should solicite input from the hardware companies.
As much as others would like to think otherwise, compared to Windoze, Linux is a niche market. I'm talking about desktop systems, not servers. Servers don't need hardware accelerated video cards or force-feedback joysticks. Hell, my server doesn't even have a video card, mouse, or keyboard.
On the other hand, it goes both ways. If a hardware company is taking advantage of the open source community - fuck 'em.
Slashdot Mirror
In the past, I refused to interview with a company because they required a drug test. No, I don't do drugs, it's the principle that matters.
Now, however, I've been unemployed far too long (I'm in Northern Calfornia where the tech job market really sucks) and I don't think I have the luxury to stick to my principles. I guess I'll find out where I really stand if I'm offered a job that requires a drug test. I'm not looking forward to making that decision.
Your credit history is none of their business. When I received one of those for a job, I told them I didn't see any reason for them to run a credit check on a programmer who had no access to any company finances. They agreed. I got the job. If they hadn't of pulled the requirement, I would have refused to position.
I'd refuse a drivers license background check too, unless I was getting a job where my duties included driving.
Step 1. Build the basics for a permanent presence in space. The ISS might do the job. That's merely a place to hang on to for ...
...
Step 2. Build an ore processing space station so we can mine the asteriods. This will provide most of the raw materials needed for everything else, such as
Step 3. Large scale self-sufficient space station. This might not be a single station. There might be one station devoted to living quarters, recreation, etc. and another for manufacturing and science.
It would probably be decades before this system reaches the break even point, and a few more decades before it pays for itself (financially). But that gives you...
Step 4. Profit! (sorry, I couldn't help myself).
That's my amateur class analysis. Feel free to blow huge holes into it.
Ed Wood could never understand why no one liked his movies.
It's real simple, no one like the movies because they sucked!
I agree. My stay with @Home was a period of frustration. Their mail service was so bad that I didn't dare rely on it. Their excuse, "email is for noncommerical, hobbiest purposes only". Fuck you @Home. I switched to DSL and set up my own mail server along with SpamAssassin and a few blackholes to minimize spam. When something goes wrong, I can fix it myself (and blame myself, too).
I don't run an open server (I test this whenever I make any significant changes to my configuration) and certainly don't allow spam. I'm so anal that I have a filter that bounces subjects which contain "fwd: fwd:". That caught my mom and sisters a few times.
Since I have a dynamic ip address, I use a service to deal with that (along with a 15 minute cron job to make sure my domain and ip address are synced). Unfortunately, some of the more "religious" antispammers block the entire dynamic dsl range, so there are a few places that refuse mail from me (very rare, fortunately).
Preventing private email servers is just plain stupid. Just because some people are abusing this doesn't mean everyone must be punished. That's the equivlent of saying, "some people print child porn, therefore we must outlaw all private publications."
It took me about 10 seconds to find the rackmount stuff.
Try to get the protocol information for one of their USB models. You can't. They may have been open about their models in the past, but not anymore.
I agree about the flash. I think it's the first time I have ever seen flash being useful. It's also the first time I didn't ignore the flash. I watched it loop through several times because I was actually learning about the product. Marketing droids, you might wish to make a note of this.
Too bad the case is way out of my budget. I'm a tech worker in Northern California. Want to guess if I have a job or not?
I would assume they settled out of course instead of paying this as part of a judgement. If they had gone the whole distance in court they would have had to pay refunds AND stop price fixing. I haven't seen any drop in CD prices, so it's obvious they haven't changed their practices one bit.
No doubt the RIAA attornies realized they would lose the case and be forced to sell music at reasonable prices. They can't have that! So settle for a few measly millions, instead.
You couldn't be more wrong. As stated by our Founding Fathers, The Constitution is meant to be a chain around the government. The Bill of Rights is not a list of rights being granted, it is a clarification of rights we are born with. The Bill of Rights is saying, "these are rights the government CAN NOT FUCK WITH".
This is one of the fundamental differences between the US and other countries such as the UK. In the UK, you only have rights the government wishes to give you, and those rights can be taken away any time they wish.
I recommend you take a basic civics course that requires you to read related documents such as The Federalist Papers and other original writings by the creators of the Constitution.
Not that humans ever really needed an excuse to slaughter one another.
Consider this situation, a country implements a program to increase rainfall. A side effect is less rain in a neighboring country, resulting in massive famine, or it could cause a low lying country to suffer heavy flooding. Either way, diplomatic channels go into action, one country demanding the other country to stop causing devastating weather side-effects, the other country refusing to listen because they are tired of not being able to feed their own people. Wars have been fought for far less signicant reasons.
Now consider the actual war. Aiming a few tornados at the enemy capital might get their attention. We're in for some interesting times.
Just as a gun can be used for good or bad, feeding your family or murdering your neighbor, weather control will also be used for both. When weather control is possible, it will happen. There is no question about that. Intelligent people will recognize this fact and try to find ways of reducing possibility of evil uses.
Under Windoze, this CD launches a program that wants to connect to somewhere via the internet. No f*ing way. I just want to play the CD on my computer because the stereo is in the other room and is not convenient.
I haven't tried under Linux because I broke the sound driver and haven't gotten around to fixing it, yet.
National Safety Council, Injury Facts, 2001 Edition:
Accident Type age:0-4 5-1
All Automobile 900 1,500
Poisoning by solids, liquids 60 40
Pedestrian 250 300
Drowning 450 350
Fires, burns 400 260
Suffocation by ingested object 100 20
Firearms 20 60
Poisoning by gases, vapors 10 10
All other causes 700 400
TOTAL 2,700 2,700
Florida State University criminologist Dr. Gary Kleck suggests that some fatal gun accidents may actually be the culmination of a history of child abuse.
As for the statement that more people own pools than firearms, I doubt that very much. The percentage of homes with firearms is above 40%. I don't know the actual number, but just looking around I can tell the percentage of homes with swimming pools is far lower.
Where firearms are concerned, people DO watch their kids around them. The low number of accidents is proof of that. Too bad this same common sense is not used around swimming facilities.
One person called me a liar. That's a common fallback for people who are unable to refute a statement. I posted the numbers. While I can't find my original source for the 2 days vs 1 year claim, the numbers I can locate show that swimming accidents are a far more serious problem than gun accidents by a 10 to 1 ratio.
Of all the accident types, gun accidents has the second lowest number. It's seriousness as a problem is hugely exagerated by the anti-gun nuts.
Guns are a Constitutionally recognized Right, which makes it nearly impossible to ban them outright. So why not fix the easy problems, like drowning deaths, most which can be prevented by federally mandated pool covers. Even better, let's start a national movement. We must stop the horror. Completely outlaw swimming pools, FOR THE CHILDREN.
It is the standard practice of the anti-gun nuts to lie. It's not possible for them to use the facts since they don't support their arguments. When the gun rights groups use the facts, the control nuts call them liars even though the facts are easily proven. When that fails, they resort to childish name calling, as was done here by an anonymous coward who should just STFU.
In two days, more child die from backyard pool drowning accidents than die all year from gun accidents. It appears you are using faulty math.
I just ran across this annoyance today. The website insists you allow cookies (by default, I don't), and redirections you to a NONEXISTENT error page when you don't allow cookies. Try it yourself, turn off cookies and go to law.com
I agree. On the rare occassion I register to get to the site, I use an email address generated on the fly that will tell me at a glance where the address came from. Of course, it's extremely rare that I will go through the bother of registering.
And another thing, it isn't my interpretation. It is the interpretation of lawyers specializing in Constitutional law.
I'm still waiting for you to make a competent counter to my argument. I won't hold my breath, however, since I know it is impossible.
Which proves once again, expertise in one field doesn't mean squat in another field. All too often we hear some fool say "I have a phd in [some random field], so you should listen to me when I discuss [some other field].". Uh, no.
To the flamers, will you take the advice of a college professor of chemistry when it comes to setting up a secure network? Hell no! You probably wouldn't even listen to a computer science professor, either, because they usually don't have a clue about how things work in the 'real world.'
To make it real simple for the more clueless:
expertise in A != expertise in B
United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)
For some odd reason, gun control fools like to quote this as a decision against gun rights when the opposite is actually the case. The Supreme Court found that because the weapon in question served no useful military purpose, the individual did not have a right to possess it.
"Sporting Purposes" is a very stupid argument when it comes to the 2nd Ammendment. There is no mention of hunting or other sports activities in the Constitution. The right to own a gun is specifically meant as a means to defend the nation, both from foreign and domestic enemies. The writings of the authors and supporters of the Constitution and Bill of Rights verify this in their personal writings when they clarify the issue by saying it is spefically intended to keep the government in fear of the armed populous.
And don't bother saying, "where did they write that." I want fall for a strawman debate. Read it your own damn self. Go to the library. I suggest you start with the Federalist Papers and continue from their. Madison, Jefferson, Franklin, etc.
And yes, I have read their papers. That's why I know I am right and you are very wrong.
The Constitution uses two different phrases to differentiate between an individual right and a state right. "The People" refers to an individual right. "The State(s)" refers to a State right. If we assume that the 2nd Ammendment is a State right, then it is the only place in the entire document that uses "The People" to refer to the State. Let's transfer this thinking to other parts to see how dangerous this can be. From the 1st Ammendment:
If "The People" refers to the State, then only state governments have the right to challenge unjust laws or to hold rallies denouncing mistakes of the government. Actually, even football games could be declared illegal unless it is State sponsered!
Other important notes. The meaning of "well organized" at the time the Constitution was written was roughly equivelent to "well supplied" or "well equipped". "Militia" refers to anyone NOT part of the military or police.
Exactly my point. Linux needs the goodwill of big companies more than big companies need the good will of the Linux community. As far as market goes, Linux is hardly a blip in the radar compared to Windoze. I wish it was different. Piss of the hardware companies and they'll just say, "screw it, it's not worth the time, effort, or money, we'll concentrate on windows." I'm not suggesting we bend over backwards and make unreasonable changes or continue to support long obsolete APIs. I am suggesting there should be no big surprises and that we should solicite input from the hardware companies.
As much as others would like to think otherwise, compared to Windoze, Linux is a niche market. I'm talking about desktop systems, not servers. Servers don't need hardware accelerated video cards or force-feedback joysticks. Hell, my server doesn't even have a video card, mouse, or keyboard.
On the other hand, it goes both ways. If a hardware company is taking advantage of the open source community - fuck 'em.