I myself have already stopped watching cable entirely several months ago. Other people in my house still watch e.g. CNN and Fox news, things that can't be torrented, but they noticed the means in which I get all of my content (via XBMC) and always ask if they can watch my shows. So, over time I have put XBMC setups in all five rooms streaming off of my NAS, but there's still that one nagging problem. The editor has done just what the name implies and removed a lot of important content from my submission (for brevity? who knows) where I explain this.
I'm going to have to put you in your place for a second here though. You sound just like one of those annoying politicians who basically say "I don't do X and I turned out fine, so neither should you." Therefore they want to ban violent video games, pornography, guns, salt, and basically every other vice that most people have and enjoy, but don't talk about. And then in the process of shaming you out of the things that you enjoy but they don't, they feel smug and self righteous. That's you. How about this: Instead of judging what other people do, why not shut the fuck up and get a life of your own?
I've been considering doing exactly this, but would like to avoid it if possible. Reasons I want to avoid it include no encoding and if I buy an analog tuner it won't be useful for that much longer as the analog cable spectrum is about to be removed.
Actually not using usenet. Used to, and it was good, but not anymore.
The first and second rules about usenet do not apply, and I want to emphasize that strongly. I knew this would come up, but my summary was becoming too long as it is. Everybody and their mother's dog knows about torrents though.
I don't like a lot of things the government does, does that mean I should be allowed to refuse to pay taxes and not go to jail for those things as well?
In fact, I object to the idea of income taxes to begin with. The founding fathers were mostly against the idea of them as well.
This is exactly what I'm talking about. You're expecting the company to cater to your needs (i.e. waiting on you) rather than going the other way around. If nobody is hiring you, this is exactly why.
Well that depends on who you are. Google and facebook can afford to roll their own solution, and for them it is indeed more economical than buying a ton of EMC/VMware/Cisco licenses.
IT folks often roll their eyes when somebody talks about cloud services, or just get mad when they effectively "outsource" (not offshore - note the distinction) their IT work to another company by means of external cloud services. But you know, solutions like I described above are cheaper for medium-size shops to implement for their own internal cloud services, mainly because most of the work has been done for them, and due to economies of scale this solution will cost them less than to roll their own.
And see, people like you not being able to understand why this solution might benefit one organization but not another is why you can't get hired. In IT it is very important to understand business. In IT you're typically not a computer scientist, rather you're applying what the computer scientists have already done towards either your customer's needs or your company's needs. THAT is what gets you hired these days.
This is going to sound a bit harsh, but I'm a no BS kind of guy, so I'm just going to say it outright:
It sounds more to me like you simply don't like competition. And to be honest, at a deeper darker level, nobody does. Not corporations, not individuals. The PR folks at firms (e.g. microsoft) say they welcome competition, but other people in the company meanwhile say "yeah right". Likewise, an individual would be rather pissed if some new guy came in and did the job a lot better, so he got laid off, even if the new guy got paid the same or even more than the incumbent.
However in your case, this is a bit more pronounced. In your mind, even if you're a shit worker, you should have the right to a job and high pay over any immigrant, regardless of their skill set or work ethic. You won't admit it, but it's true. This is actually the basis that labor unions are formed around, by the way. The first labor unions were usually built around race/ethnicity to keep the minorities who would work for less out, effectively holding a monopoly on the labor supply.
Anywho, in my opinion, it isn't right to hold American businesses back because the people who they are forced to hire don't have the skills that are sought after. That makes no sense whatsoever to force the entire company to go overseas due to a lack of domestic talent, mainly due to self entitled idiots getting pissed that they made a poor career choice or are just plain lazy. We're operating in a global economy now, by the way. If a domestic company like say Oracle or Cisco is unable to find the talent they need because either they can't import workers or they can't find domestic ones, and therefore are being outbid by somebody who does have access to that talent, then their choices are either ship overseas or just close up shop. Neither option gets you a job.
Some argue that we should fix the problems with tariffs. But they don't fix the problem, and in fact cause more harm than good. Here's why: If steel sells for cheaper in China than it does in the US, so we in the US stick tariffs on it, that isn't going to convince say Norway, Qatar, or name your favorite country here to pay more money to buy from the US. They'll just buy from China. Meanwhile us Americans have to pay more for our steel goods because of that good ol' job saving tariff. As collateral damage, our industries that sell goods made from steel (e.g. earthmovers that are made here, which are one of our biggest exports) now have to raise their price, making it harder to compete with overseas companies, and costing them even more jobs, all so that we can save a few steelworker jobs. When economists say that saving those jobs have cost a lot more jobs elsewhere, or that saving that $50k a year job costs the economy $250k a year, they aren't joking.
By the way, in my state, we've had a few companies move here JUST BECAUSE finding talent in their home state was too difficult.
IT means information technology. Just like its name implies, it is any technology whose primary purpose is to deliver, store, and process information. That would include hard disks, networks, computers, etc. Software is part of it, but not all of it. The physical disks, switches, computers, etc are also part of it.
Actually I'm in Arizona, and yes the word "dole" very much applies due to what we term anchor baby syndrome. Parent(s) here illegally, kid is here legally and is entitled to medicaid (here we call it AHCCCS - which provides comprehensive care by the way, and is better than the health care that 90% of americans have with zero premiums, zero deductable, and copays no higher than $5.) which also makes one or both parents automatically eligible for that program as well as food stamps and cash assistance. Used to be that we deported them, but Obama signed an executive order saying that we can't.
There's also the matter that the ones who aren't here legally treat the emergency room as their go-to clinic when they have a cold and pay no taxes on their income.
Ok suppose you're right. Let's suppose that you've worked extensively with SAN's, but an IT shop needs an active directory admin. You hand them your resume, and it doesn't have anything about active directory on it.
You got your 30 seconds, and the recruiter passes on your resume.
So you then do the smart thing and tailor your resume to the job description. You don't have AD experience, so you don't lie about it, but you generalize it as having a background in network administration (SAN people for the most part do.) Now lets say that makes it to the interview (probably not depending on the number of applicants, but say it does anyways.) Employer asks if you've ever done AD before. If you tell him no, but you can pick it up within a month...well, he'll tell you that he'll keep your resume on file, but in the back of his head he's thinking that you should have at least learned AD first before applying to begin with. If he's in the middle of a big project (which is probably the case if he is trying to hire talent at that point in time,) he needs the talent NOW, not a month from now.
TL;DR: saying "I'm smart enough to figure it out" doesn't work.
The nice thing about this is that if a study did show the intended result, you wouldn't need to have politicians vote on this issue. Since ballots are done by the state, it can be voted in by means of referendum, which most states have a process for.
You know what I think would be a great idea, is if individual states would remove the party affiliations from the ballot. Just list the name of the candidate. Don't even list the office they are running for, just put a list of candidates in a given section in a randomized order and say that they are all running for the same office. If you knew enough about the candidate you were voting for, and even the other players in that office and their issues, then you'd already know all of that information. So why is it needed on the ballot?
I bet you that you'd get a lot of "I don't know who the hell these people even are, and I might vote for the wrong one, so I'll just leave this section blank." Perfect.
It would be interesting if somebody did an empirical experiment on this.
I'm not trying to beat up on the voter. What I'm trying to do is to encourage people to think before they vote, or just not vote at all. As I said earlier, voting on an issue you don't understand is more damaging than not voting at all. I know, this is an unpopular thing to say (especially the way Sean Penn and the rest of Hollywood publicly lambasted Stone and Parker when they said this) because everybody is constantly going around espousing the virtues of voting - even if that means voting on something that you never took the time to educate yourself about.
Last election cycle, I had some representative of a congressional candidate call me and ask me to vote for their guy, and in explaining why, he basically spoke up about a couple of problems that I personally wanted to see solved, saying the candidate would solve it.
So I asked what his guy would do to solve these problem...and...he didn't really know. Imagine that, somebody working on his campaign doesn't actually know what he intends to do to solve said problems. I hope the guy will one day ask the same question himself.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah.
Well it's not just me that watches TV.
I myself have already stopped watching cable entirely several months ago. Other people in my house still watch e.g. CNN and Fox news, things that can't be torrented, but they noticed the means in which I get all of my content (via XBMC) and always ask if they can watch my shows. So, over time I have put XBMC setups in all five rooms streaming off of my NAS, but there's still that one nagging problem. The editor has done just what the name implies and removed a lot of important content from my submission (for brevity? who knows) where I explain this.
I'm going to have to put you in your place for a second here though. You sound just like one of those annoying politicians who basically say "I don't do X and I turned out fine, so neither should you." Therefore they want to ban violent video games, pornography, guns, salt, and basically every other vice that most people have and enjoy, but don't talk about. And then in the process of shaming you out of the things that you enjoy but they don't, they feel smug and self righteous. That's you. How about this: Instead of judging what other people do, why not shut the fuck up and get a life of your own?
Just consider it at least. Thank you.
I probably spend more on content than your monthly salary, and still have plenty left over.
Exactly, and this is where sickbeard and couchpotato come in. They make the torrent process transparent. Just add your content and it shows up later.
Uhhh...torrents are going to die because of me?
Wow I didn't realize there was such an easy point of failure, looks like me and slashdot managed to do what the RIAA and MPAA never could do.
Except I'm not using usenet.
Cheese I guess when they say people don't read TFS, they're right.
You should try reading the summary a bit there hoss. It's somewhat difficult to torrent live broadcasts.
I've been considering doing exactly this, but would like to avoid it if possible. Reasons I want to avoid it include no encoding and if I buy an analog tuner it won't be useful for that much longer as the analog cable spectrum is about to be removed.
Submitter here:
Actually not using usenet. Used to, and it was good, but not anymore.
The first and second rules about usenet do not apply, and I want to emphasize that strongly. I knew this would come up, but my summary was becoming too long as it is. Everybody and their mother's dog knows about torrents though.
I don't like a lot of things the government does, does that mean I should be allowed to refuse to pay taxes and not go to jail for those things as well?
In fact, I object to the idea of income taxes to begin with. The founding fathers were mostly against the idea of them as well.
But he did win a nobel peace prize...
This is exactly what I'm talking about. You're expecting the company to cater to your needs (i.e. waiting on you) rather than going the other way around. If nobody is hiring you, this is exactly why.
This article, and the "viral" comments about open source, always remind me of this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vz-MepaJCM4
Well that depends on who you are. Google and facebook can afford to roll their own solution, and for them it is indeed more economical than buying a ton of EMC/VMware/Cisco licenses.
IT folks often roll their eyes when somebody talks about cloud services, or just get mad when they effectively "outsource" (not offshore - note the distinction) their IT work to another company by means of external cloud services. But you know, solutions like I described above are cheaper for medium-size shops to implement for their own internal cloud services, mainly because most of the work has been done for them, and due to economies of scale this solution will cost them less than to roll their own.
And see, people like you not being able to understand why this solution might benefit one organization but not another is why you can't get hired. In IT it is very important to understand business. In IT you're typically not a computer scientist, rather you're applying what the computer scientists have already done towards either your customer's needs or your company's needs. THAT is what gets you hired these days.
This is going to sound a bit harsh, but I'm a no BS kind of guy, so I'm just going to say it outright:
It sounds more to me like you simply don't like competition. And to be honest, at a deeper darker level, nobody does. Not corporations, not individuals. The PR folks at firms (e.g. microsoft) say they welcome competition, but other people in the company meanwhile say "yeah right". Likewise, an individual would be rather pissed if some new guy came in and did the job a lot better, so he got laid off, even if the new guy got paid the same or even more than the incumbent.
However in your case, this is a bit more pronounced. In your mind, even if you're a shit worker, you should have the right to a job and high pay over any immigrant, regardless of their skill set or work ethic. You won't admit it, but it's true. This is actually the basis that labor unions are formed around, by the way. The first labor unions were usually built around race/ethnicity to keep the minorities who would work for less out, effectively holding a monopoly on the labor supply.
Anywho, in my opinion, it isn't right to hold American businesses back because the people who they are forced to hire don't have the skills that are sought after. That makes no sense whatsoever to force the entire company to go overseas due to a lack of domestic talent, mainly due to self entitled idiots getting pissed that they made a poor career choice or are just plain lazy. We're operating in a global economy now, by the way. If a domestic company like say Oracle or Cisco is unable to find the talent they need because either they can't import workers or they can't find domestic ones, and therefore are being outbid by somebody who does have access to that talent, then their choices are either ship overseas or just close up shop. Neither option gets you a job.
Some argue that we should fix the problems with tariffs. But they don't fix the problem, and in fact cause more harm than good. Here's why: If steel sells for cheaper in China than it does in the US, so we in the US stick tariffs on it, that isn't going to convince say Norway, Qatar, or name your favorite country here to pay more money to buy from the US. They'll just buy from China. Meanwhile us Americans have to pay more for our steel goods because of that good ol' job saving tariff. As collateral damage, our industries that sell goods made from steel (e.g. earthmovers that are made here, which are one of our biggest exports) now have to raise their price, making it harder to compete with overseas companies, and costing them even more jobs, all so that we can save a few steelworker jobs. When economists say that saving those jobs have cost a lot more jobs elsewhere, or that saving that $50k a year job costs the economy $250k a year, they aren't joking.
By the way, in my state, we've had a few companies move here JUST BECAUSE finding talent in their home state was too difficult.
IT means information technology. Just like its name implies, it is any technology whose primary purpose is to deliver, store, and process information. That would include hard disks, networks, computers, etc. Software is part of it, but not all of it. The physical disks, switches, computers, etc are also part of it.
Actually I'm in Arizona, and yes the word "dole" very much applies due to what we term anchor baby syndrome. Parent(s) here illegally, kid is here legally and is entitled to medicaid (here we call it AHCCCS - which provides comprehensive care by the way, and is better than the health care that 90% of americans have with zero premiums, zero deductable, and copays no higher than $5.) which also makes one or both parents automatically eligible for that program as well as food stamps and cash assistance. Used to be that we deported them, but Obama signed an executive order saying that we can't.
There's also the matter that the ones who aren't here legally treat the emergency room as their go-to clinic when they have a cold and pay no taxes on their income.
So yeah, the term dole definitely applies.
Ok suppose you're right. Let's suppose that you've worked extensively with SAN's, but an IT shop needs an active directory admin. You hand them your resume, and it doesn't have anything about active directory on it.
You got your 30 seconds, and the recruiter passes on your resume.
So you then do the smart thing and tailor your resume to the job description. You don't have AD experience, so you don't lie about it, but you generalize it as having a background in network administration (SAN people for the most part do.) Now lets say that makes it to the interview (probably not depending on the number of applicants, but say it does anyways.) Employer asks if you've ever done AD before. If you tell him no, but you can pick it up within a month...well, he'll tell you that he'll keep your resume on file, but in the back of his head he's thinking that you should have at least learned AD first before applying to begin with. If he's in the middle of a big project (which is probably the case if he is trying to hire talent at that point in time,) he needs the talent NOW, not a month from now.
TL;DR: saying "I'm smart enough to figure it out" doesn't work.
No, I'm thinking more along the lines of mexico. Even canadians go to mexico.
The nice thing about this is that if a study did show the intended result, you wouldn't need to have politicians vote on this issue. Since ballots are done by the state, it can be voted in by means of referendum, which most states have a process for.
Two can play that.
I'd say he wants a computer to do actual work with, not a toy that requires boot camp to get things done.
Does that invalidate the premise that we aren't running out of trees any time soon due to paper production?
You know what I think would be a great idea, is if individual states would remove the party affiliations from the ballot. Just list the name of the candidate. Don't even list the office they are running for, just put a list of candidates in a given section in a randomized order and say that they are all running for the same office. If you knew enough about the candidate you were voting for, and even the other players in that office and their issues, then you'd already know all of that information. So why is it needed on the ballot?
I bet you that you'd get a lot of "I don't know who the hell these people even are, and I might vote for the wrong one, so I'll just leave this section blank." Perfect.
It would be interesting if somebody did an empirical experiment on this.
Right, and eventually those businesses will realize that they gain nothing out of advertising in it.
I'm not trying to beat up on the voter. What I'm trying to do is to encourage people to think before they vote, or just not vote at all. As I said earlier, voting on an issue you don't understand is more damaging than not voting at all. I know, this is an unpopular thing to say (especially the way Sean Penn and the rest of Hollywood publicly lambasted Stone and Parker when they said this) because everybody is constantly going around espousing the virtues of voting - even if that means voting on something that you never took the time to educate yourself about.
Last election cycle, I had some representative of a congressional candidate call me and ask me to vote for their guy, and in explaining why, he basically spoke up about a couple of problems that I personally wanted to see solved, saying the candidate would solve it.
So I asked what his guy would do to solve these problem...and...he didn't really know. Imagine that, somebody working on his campaign doesn't actually know what he intends to do to solve said problems. I hope the guy will one day ask the same question himself.