Twitter is a completely useless piece of shit of no service to anyone but attention whores. I subscribed to prevent someone from mucking with my name and then never touched it. What pisses me off is when I want to get regular information from a site or service and instead of offering RSS, they ONLY offer twitter. So then I have to get an RSS feed of their twitter feed when they could have just made a fucking RSS feed to begin with.
Also, we need to stop referring to all these things as "social". What is "social" about being a self-involved narcissistic attention-whore? That's sort of the OPPOSITE of "social".
I like the idea that it's okay for government and corporations to data mine you and stalk you, but the individual data mining against the individual is "creepy" and evil and blah blah blah.
I don't care why academics went to school for "all those years". With the exception of a few fields, a non credentialed individual can have just as much credibility and experience and knowledge as someone with an institutional education.
Further, by that logic, you will then have to declare contributions from people with degrees from one educational institution as more valuable and meaningful than those from another.
The limewire guys are pinned for $75,000,000,000,000.00 -- so I'm eager to see the RIAA attempt a, say, $150,000,000,000,000.00 lawsuit against Amazon.
Yeah, the AP service is a paid-for service, but it's still an issue of "journalists" not doing research, investigation, or any original work anymore. 99% of what you consume news-wise originats elsewhere and is merely being parroted. Almost everyone in all forms of the news business are *REPORTERS* . . . meaning that they report what they read on an article linked from drudgereport or the AP or another news paper. As opposed to a "journalist" who, presumably, explores and writes their own stories.
And in that light, there's not much of a difference between most news persons and bloggers.
I haven't seen a 3D movie. I haven't played a 3D game. Not even "old school" 3D movies. I've never seen a 3D anything in my life, except for that hologram cowboy arcade game that was around for awhile in like 1990ish.
Along the same lines, I've never used Move or Kinnect.
I don't think they offer anything particularly compelling. It's not even a case of "I refuse to participate!". It's just a case of . . . . not really even giving the slightest fuck about it to bother. I'm quite happy with 2D in extremely high resolution on a high end entertainment system and for gaming, I'm quite content to use a controller or WASD+M.
No, you see -- they're better than the rest of us.
Some guy with a blog just gets his information and stories from another guy with a blog.
Newspaper journalists and news anchors and radio news people get their information and stories from daily newspapers and the AP and regurgitate it. *Totally* different. . ..*totally*!
I don't know what the complaining is about, either. It looks fine, though I'd maybe reduce the default font size a couple notches and maybe use a different background color for the quoted pieces just to set it off from the main article content itself. Hardly anything to get off track of the real story here, over. I mean, seriously, Press CTRL and flick the little wheel on the mouse a couple times and it looks just fine.
Word Perfect 7 came out in 1996. So by 2015, that'll mean it only have taken 19 years to overtake iPhone! Though, I don't really know how one is related to the other and I'm pretty sure they didn't foresee an "iPhone" even existing, as early as 1996.
There is nothing here that indicates any other judge would have ruled differently, except for all the judges prior to her voicing dissent against the abusive use of the legal system by the RIAA?
Also, of COURSE there is a conflict of interest. The same way there is a conflict of interest any time someone uses their position or power in government to eventually market themselves to private industry. Maybe if I do you favors with your legislation, you'll hire me away for big cash in a couple years. Or maybe I can get a really spiffy reward from a private company if I take a few years off from the industry to go push our agenda as an official in the government (a position that I can only get because of my supposed industry experience . . . erm . . . bias).
Because this would be totally different under a Republican president. And it'll be totally different under whoever the next president is. Totally. Yep.
Or they'll use their clout to whine so much about the supposed "piracy" that the government applies a federal "media" tax where everything that can or does hold any kind of content (from a blank journal notebook to a CD to a hard drive to web space) is taxed and filtered into the RIAA. And those artists who are not part of the RIAA can just eat a dick.
I would like to see a corporation declare itself as being gay and I would also like to see a corporation adopt and raise a child.
You think I'm being sarcastic, but I'm serious as fuck. I've always thought it would be fantastic to see Coca Cola or Intel go through the adoption process and raise a child. But would they be allowed to do it alone, or would they be obligated by adoption agencies to partner with another corporation?
This isn't possible. President Obama said that the era of revolving doors at the white house (corporations hiring away whitehouse appointees and whitehouse appointees with conflicting interests being hired away from private industry) was over. Yet, that's all I've seen here. From a company hiring out nearly the entire IRS to help it pay zero taxes to a guy with no history or experience or knowledge in anything becoming the country's "CTO" to . . . this.
I can only surmise that this has somehow slipped under Obama's radar and that as soon as someone brings it to his attention, he'll make sure some heads roll. And I'm sure the next president will totally not allow this to happen. Or the one after that. Or the one after that. This is totally not the way government has operated for most of our two centuries and change. This is toooootally a rare exception. Yep. I'm sure of it.
In forty years, the world will be almost entirely identical to this one. In 1960, the world expected flying cars and jetpacks and bases on the moon and mars by 2000 and other than the internet, the world of 2000 was pretty much the world of 1960. The world of 2050 is going to pretty much be the world of 2011.
Where do all these electric cars get their power from? It's okay to pollute wherever the power plants are built, just as long as it's not in the city limits, eh?
Of course, when most ISPs have a very long DHCP lease, it might as well just be static. For example, if you have Comcast, chances are that your IP address hasn't changed since you first started your service.
Yeah, thank god this administration finally put a stop to all those Corporate==> Government and Government ==> Corporate revolving doors! And The next administration will, too! It was just that one guy for those few years that did that. It's a totally new form of shadiness and corruption that we'll almost never see again now that that jackass is out of office!
New boss; same as the old boss. Even when they do say they won't allow revolving doors like this (that allow things like this to be taken advantage of and initiated) . . . which this current president DID say.
Don't worry about it. Why are you supposed to be altruistic and take a career building bridges or creating new patentable drugs or technologies for less pay to help society? If it's that important to "society", then how about they offer you more money, to justify your dedication to such endeavors?
That's why the answer to this problem is simple. If you want the talent, pay for it. If you're not willing to pay for it, then there's no reason an engineer should feel obliged to vow a life of "poverty" over a life of wealth just to help your company achieve new drug patents. It's amazing how every other field is supposed to rightfully be out for their own best interests, but when it comes to technology, engineers are supposed to be altruistic and when they aren't, they're supplemented with outside numbers to artificially constrict the value of their work.
Slashdot Mirror
Twitter is a completely useless piece of shit of no service to anyone but attention whores. I subscribed to prevent someone from mucking with my name and then never touched it. What pisses me off is when I want to get regular information from a site or service and instead of offering RSS, they ONLY offer twitter. So then I have to get an RSS feed of their twitter feed when they could have just made a fucking RSS feed to begin with.
Also, we need to stop referring to all these things as "social". What is "social" about being a self-involved narcissistic attention-whore? That's sort of the OPPOSITE of "social".
I like the idea that it's okay for government and corporations to data mine you and stalk you, but the individual data mining against the individual is "creepy" and evil and blah blah blah.
I don't care why academics went to school for "all those years". With the exception of a few fields, a non credentialed individual can have just as much credibility and experience and knowledge as someone with an institutional education.
Further, by that logic, you will then have to declare contributions from people with degrees from one educational institution as more valuable and meaningful than those from another.
The limewire guys are pinned for $75,000,000,000,000.00 -- so I'm eager to see the RIAA attempt a, say, $150,000,000,000,000.00 lawsuit against Amazon.
Yeah, the AP service is a paid-for service, but it's still an issue of "journalists" not doing research, investigation, or any original work anymore. 99% of what you consume news-wise originats elsewhere and is merely being parroted. Almost everyone in all forms of the news business are *REPORTERS* . . . meaning that they report what they read on an article linked from drudgereport or the AP or another news paper. As opposed to a "journalist" who, presumably, explores and writes their own stories.
And in that light, there's not much of a difference between most news persons and bloggers.
This is how I feel, also.
I haven't seen a 3D movie. I haven't played a 3D game. Not even "old school" 3D movies. I've never seen a 3D anything in my life, except for that hologram cowboy arcade game that was around for awhile in like 1990ish.
Along the same lines, I've never used Move or Kinnect.
I don't think they offer anything particularly compelling. It's not even a case of "I refuse to participate!". It's just a case of . . . . not really even giving the slightest fuck about it to bother. I'm quite happy with 2D in extremely high resolution on a high end entertainment system and for gaming, I'm quite content to use a controller or WASD+M.
Just because something contains some facts, doesn't justify wonton lifting of entire content, verbatim.
But did they claim to have done the research within and to have authored the piece?
No, you see -- they're better than the rest of us.
Some guy with a blog just gets his information and stories from another guy with a blog.
Newspaper journalists and news anchors and radio news people get their information and stories from daily newspapers and the AP and regurgitate it. *Totally* different. . . .*totally*!
My first reaction was "what the fuck is anyone talking about?".
The plagiarism part, I get. The whole thing about people wondering about some giraffe they saw in some ad I've never seen . . . whatever.
I don't know what the complaining is about, either. It looks fine, though I'd maybe reduce the default font size a couple notches and maybe use a different background color for the quoted pieces just to set it off from the main article content itself. Hardly anything to get off track of the real story here, over. I mean, seriously, Press CTRL and flick the little wheel on the mouse a couple times and it looks just fine.
Word Perfect 7 came out in 1996. So by 2015, that'll mean it only have taken 19 years to overtake iPhone! Though, I don't really know how one is related to the other and I'm pretty sure they didn't foresee an "iPhone" even existing, as early as 1996.
There is nothing here that indicates any other judge would have ruled differently, except for all the judges prior to her voicing dissent against the abusive use of the legal system by the RIAA?
Also, of COURSE there is a conflict of interest. The same way there is a conflict of interest any time someone uses their position or power in government to eventually market themselves to private industry. Maybe if I do you favors with your legislation, you'll hire me away for big cash in a couple years. Or maybe I can get a really spiffy reward from a private company if I take a few years off from the industry to go push our agenda as an official in the government (a position that I can only get because of my supposed industry experience . . . erm . . . bias).
Because this would be totally different under a Republican president. And it'll be totally different under whoever the next president is. Totally. Yep.
Or they'll use their clout to whine so much about the supposed "piracy" that the government applies a federal "media" tax where everything that can or does hold any kind of content (from a blank journal notebook to a CD to a hard drive to web space) is taxed and filtered into the RIAA. And those artists who are not part of the RIAA can just eat a dick.
I would like to see a corporation declare itself as being gay and I would also like to see a corporation adopt and raise a child.
You think I'm being sarcastic, but I'm serious as fuck. I've always thought it would be fantastic to see Coca Cola or Intel go through the adoption process and raise a child. But would they be allowed to do it alone, or would they be obligated by adoption agencies to partner with another corporation?
This isn't possible. President Obama said that the era of revolving doors at the white house (corporations hiring away whitehouse appointees and whitehouse appointees with conflicting interests being hired away from private industry) was over. Yet, that's all I've seen here. From a company hiring out nearly the entire IRS to help it pay zero taxes to a guy with no history or experience or knowledge in anything becoming the country's "CTO" to . . . this.
I can only surmise that this has somehow slipped under Obama's radar and that as soon as someone brings it to his attention, he'll make sure some heads roll. And I'm sure the next president will totally not allow this to happen. Or the one after that. Or the one after that. This is totally not the way government has operated for most of our two centuries and change. This is toooootally a rare exception. Yep. I'm sure of it.
In forty years, the world will be almost entirely identical to this one. In 1960, the world expected flying cars and jetpacks and bases on the moon and mars by 2000 and other than the internet, the world of 2000 was pretty much the world of 1960. The world of 2050 is going to pretty much be the world of 2011.
Where do all these electric cars get their power from? It's okay to pollute wherever the power plants are built, just as long as it's not in the city limits, eh?
So, it'll take effect by about the time your great-grandchildren are ready to drive. Hurrah!
A little sensitivity is understandable, but this is absurd.
Of course, when most ISPs have a very long DHCP lease, it might as well just be static. For example, if you have Comcast, chances are that your IP address hasn't changed since you first started your service.
Yeah, thank god this administration finally put a stop to all those Corporate==> Government and Government ==> Corporate revolving doors! And The next administration will, too! It was just that one guy for those few years that did that. It's a totally new form of shadiness and corruption that we'll almost never see again now that that jackass is out of office!
New boss; same as the old boss. Even when they do say they won't allow revolving doors like this (that allow things like this to be taken advantage of and initiated) . . . which this current president DID say.
Don't worry about it. Why are you supposed to be altruistic and take a career building bridges or creating new patentable drugs or technologies for less pay to help society? If it's that important to "society", then how about they offer you more money, to justify your dedication to such endeavors?
That's why the answer to this problem is simple. If you want the talent, pay for it. If you're not willing to pay for it, then there's no reason an engineer should feel obliged to vow a life of "poverty" over a life of wealth just to help your company achieve new drug patents. It's amazing how every other field is supposed to rightfully be out for their own best interests, but when it comes to technology, engineers are supposed to be altruistic and when they aren't, they're supplemented with outside numbers to artificially constrict the value of their work.