When I interview people, I like ot finish up with a few questions that let me know what they are like as a person. What hobbies they have, what they do for fun, etc. I typically ask what their computer/network setup is like at home. If I hear that a guy just built a wallwart embedded PC running linux so he can stream MP3s to his living room media PC, I'm thinking positive thoughts. If he only has an old eMachine and windows 98 hooked up to the net via dialup, I tend to wonder. The guy with the home computer hobbies has encountered a lot of issues the other guy hasn't, even if their work experience/education is the same. So I tend to hire guys like the hobbiest, everything else being equal.
So you exclude people from your company that have life outside of computers? If the guy with Win98 had Win98 because he was out there hiking, biking, or helping kids learn to read, that's a negative?
I'm not sure how well your theory holds up; more computers at work means he's more likely to encounter something. At home, he's just running his own little network with two computers, he may not hit a problem at all, because he's not doing anything complicated with it.
You make some great points, but I disagree with this. This is baby-boomer baloney. It's rationalizing selfishness. There's no harm in it if "what you want to do with your life" is something worthwhile or even noble. But for most people, it's just a code word from socially acceptable narcissism. Me me me, is what it breaks down to.
Ya, and what's wrong with focusing on yourself? No one else is going to give a shit about me, so I might as well...
Besides, how is it narcissism to try to find a job you enjoy doing? Everyone is better off with that, including your coworkers.
Well, my advice to you would be... just do the bare minimum to keep the job, don't go out of your way to make sure things run smoothly if you're gone. Milk them for as long as you can, because clearly they don't give a shit about you when all is said and done.
#1 for anyone working to remember is: your sole purpose there is to collect a paycheck, nothing more.
What makes you think supply hasn't expanded? Ammo factories are now running 24/7 trying to keep up, I think some companies are trying to build more factories. Do some research.
And the point of the Acid tests is to demonstrate whether a given web browser acts like a 2009 browser or a 2001 browser.
Except that not passing the tests hasn't stopped me from seeing sites using IE. So as the OP said, Acid tests are irrelevent.
No web browser can Do What I Mean in all cases.
That's not what he wants; he wants it to "do what IE does when its clearly not up to standards." A much narrower scoope.
Or d) finding a way not to have to access the site, such as by going to a competitor's site.
Oh please. I could give a shit what browser I'm using.. the content on site is what's important. I'm going to use the browser that works with the most sites, so switching to IE over FF will allow me to do that, that's what I'll do.
On the whole, Mac owners tend to spend more online than owners of PCs that run Windows.
I see you like to make things up. Glad to see your imagination is healthy.
Since Microsoft stopped making Internet Explorer for Mac, it didn't make sense to turn away potential customers who use Safari, whose WebKit acts more like Gecko than like IE's Trident.
Can't argue there; if you find a significant number of people are accessing your site with a Mac, and you want those people, you should try to accomodate them. But if they're pretty insignficant (and they are), I'm not sure you make a good ROI.
That's why there aren't a lot of IE-only sites anymore as of June 2009.
Do you have any actual evidence, or are you just making things up? FF has arguably done more to push things along than Safari.
About a decade ago, did you continue to use AOL even after standard dial-up Internet became popular, because the "existing" sites were still on AOL?
What is this all about? First off, the "sites" were already outside of AOL, because anyone could put a site on the internet, but not necessarly on AOL exclusively. Just to be clear though, I kept AOL for long after I even after I had broadband, because there were some things that were exclusive (that it only cost $5 / month helped too). It did eventually stop offering anything I couldn't get elsewhere, and they tried to raise the rate (even though they promised they never would), so I dropped it.
If the browser follows web standards 100% and yet some webpages render incorrectly - doesn't this mean the issue is with the web page and not with the browser?
And as an end user, I don't give a shit. If it renders fine in IE and not in Safari, I'll use IE. The site is more important than the browser.
They don't have to prove anyone else downloaded it. They did what any other kaaza user would have done, so its reasonable to assume that if they were able to download the files, someone else likely did as well.
Careful here. Plenty of people say things like "oh i'll kick your ass," even to people they don't know, but don't mean it, as evidienced by the fact that they don't kick the other persons ass.
Because it IS ultimiately the phone requesting the data. Or are you going to argue that my blue tooth device can't be used because its not DIRECTLY using the network?
Tons more software comes with a desktop version of Ubuntu as well.
Ahh, in other words, Ubuntu is a huge bloated mess, much like what happens when you buy Windows from an OEM vendor.. you get a bunch of useless shit you didn't want or ask for. Good argument.
Its interesting now that Windows bashers have to resort to outright lies to bash anymore. Its not anywhere near that complicated, yet as many Ubuntu users will tell you, the apt-get doesn't get their WiFi working. Maybe instead of bashing you should fix your favorite OS.
Or, you know, to prevent a pandemic flu from becoming established inside your borders, thus saving potenitally thousands of lives and countless hours of productivity.
The only way to effectively do that would be to completely close your borders.
Wait, what about all the people in the designer baby story that said we shouldn't interfere with natural selection? Wouldn't this count as part of evolution / natural selection?
Part of the thrill of parenting, is the gamble about what kind of child you will end up with. To be able to choose the traits of your children, seems to make it all a bit superficial to me.
Hmm... I wonder if you would be as thrilled when the child pops out with Downs or some other genetic disease.
But I believe that the time-tested natural selection is more reliable when it comes to the survival of our species.
It's random... and you conveintly forget babies that die almost immediately because of some genetic flaw or those born with MS, Downs, etc. Natural selection isn't chosing anything.. it's random, and unlike humans, doesn't care if the result will work or not.
You don't seem to know what unconstitutional is... the constitution limits what government can do, it doesn't grant us right. Show me where in the constitution which states the government can dictate what I put into my own body.
The phone techs you talk to when you call AT&T have access to a lot of tools and information you may not have access to, but ultimately, they are limited to handling the kinds of issues they have been trained to handle. Getting new material to these techs takes a long time and a lot of work. Chances are, they didn't help you because they don't know how to respond.
And this is totally irrlevent. You call AT&T about a problem, and you should expect them to do something. Saying "oh the poor tech doesn't know anything" is horseshit. He's still a part of AT&T, and by making excuses for the poor tech you're making excuses for AT&T.
I certainly agree. Personally, I find these types of laws very objectionable. But, as we live in a representative republic and there could be national security considerations, they don't have to show it to you or I; that's what Congress and the Courts are for. We have a system (a flawed one, in my opinion) for this type of oversight.
They do if they expect anyone to support their braindead laws. Also, if someone is accused I would expect that they can see the evidence and know how it was collected. There are flaws; that doesn't make anything they're doing ok though... it means they're in the wrong.
But this isn't a trial. When this kind of evidence is required, it'll be shown to judges and congressmen with security clearances.
The fundamental problem is that ultimately the people are supposed to be in charge. How can we make decisions without all the evidence? This is a gapping flaw; government wants to limit rights, has evidence it shows to itself to support it's decision, and we're just supposed to be ok with that? If that's not tyranny I don't know what is.
I wouldn't be so sure about that. If they are too specific about what they reveal, they risk giving away information as to the source of the information, which could compromise an existing source. And if they are too vague, they will be crucified politically.
As I said, if they cannot or will not reveal the evidence, they cannot justify the "new tools" in my mind, and we should be demanding Congress revoke the new laws. Individual rights trump national security everytime.
(For an example of this, look at the response to Cheney, when he said that we had prevented a terrorist attack through information we learned from torture. He was accused of lying (which I believe he was) to justify the previous administration's actions, because he would not (or could not) supply details. The exact same thing would happen if they tried to show how these new laws had been effective without providing details.)
That's exactly my point; too bad. If they cannot or will not show the evidence, they're full of it, and we should demand they stop. There's no in between, there's no "oh, we can trust the government." Its our duty to scutinize everything they say, and to doubt them. Trying to prevent that scutinization is exteremly supsicious.
That being said, I'm against these laws, and our use of torture. But your line of reasoning will be ineffective. You have to take a play from the anti-torture people on this one, and say that it doesn't matter if these laws work or not; they are simply un-American. You have to reject the premise that there can ever be a security/freedom trade-off.
I think saying the laws violate the 5th and 15h Amendments is saying they are simply un-American AND illegal. Plesae read carefully what I've been saying, especially this post. You can't get more American than the reasoning of the Founders, and that's the basis of my reasoning.
You'll never see the evidence you're looking for, because of very real national security concerns. There are many people who understand this restriction on information. And, if that's the entirety of your argument, you'll lose those people. This will have to be overturned on principle, not effectiveness.
It is the principal of it; one branch rubber stamping another branch without telling the citizens of this country? How un-American can you possible get if you (not you specifically) think THAT's ok?
Slashdot Mirror
When I interview people, I like ot finish up with a few questions that let me know what they are like as a person. What hobbies they have, what they do for fun, etc. I typically ask what their computer/network setup is like at home. If I hear that a guy just built a wallwart embedded PC running linux so he can stream MP3s to his living room media PC, I'm thinking positive thoughts. If he only has an old eMachine and windows 98 hooked up to the net via dialup, I tend to wonder. The guy with the home computer hobbies has encountered a lot of issues the other guy hasn't, even if their work experience/education is the same. So I tend to hire guys like the hobbiest, everything else being equal.
So you exclude people from your company that have life outside of computers? If the guy with Win98 had Win98 because he was out there hiking, biking, or helping kids learn to read, that's a negative?
I'm not sure how well your theory holds up; more computers at work means he's more likely to encounter something. At home, he's just running his own little network with two computers, he may not hit a problem at all, because he's not doing anything complicated with it.
You make some great points, but I disagree with this. This is baby-boomer baloney. It's rationalizing selfishness. There's no harm in it if "what you want to do with your life" is something worthwhile or even noble. But for most people, it's just a code word from socially acceptable narcissism. Me me me, is what it breaks down to.
Ya, and what's wrong with focusing on yourself? No one else is going to give a shit about me, so I might as well...
Besides, how is it narcissism to try to find a job you enjoy doing? Everyone is better off with that, including your coworkers.
Well, my advice to you would be... just do the bare minimum to keep the job, don't go out of your way to make sure things run smoothly if you're gone. Milk them for as long as you can, because clearly they don't give a shit about you when all is said and done.
#1 for anyone working to remember is: your sole purpose there is to collect a paycheck, nothing more.
What makes you think supply hasn't expanded? Ammo factories are now running 24/7 trying to keep up, I think some companies are trying to build more factories. Do some research.
Um, I think people are stocking up on ammo because they think Obama will try to revoke the 2nd Amendment, not because they fear the end is nigh.
So what is gold backed by? Or right, nothing. It's usefulness is very limited, and give a choice between gold or wheat, I'd rather have wheat.
And the point of the Acid tests is to demonstrate whether a given web browser acts like a 2009 browser or a 2001 browser.
Except that not passing the tests hasn't stopped me from seeing sites using IE. So as the OP said, Acid tests are irrelevent.
No web browser can Do What I Mean in all cases.
That's not what he wants; he wants it to "do what IE does when its clearly not up to standards." A much narrower scoope.
Or d) finding a way not to have to access the site, such as by going to a competitor's site.
Oh please. I could give a shit what browser I'm using.. the content on site is what's important. I'm going to use the browser that works with the most sites, so switching to IE over FF will allow me to do that, that's what I'll do.
On the whole, Mac owners tend to spend more online than owners of PCs that run Windows.
I see you like to make things up. Glad to see your imagination is healthy.
Since Microsoft stopped making Internet Explorer for Mac, it didn't make sense to turn away potential customers who use Safari, whose WebKit acts more like Gecko than like IE's Trident.
Can't argue there; if you find a significant number of people are accessing your site with a Mac, and you want those people, you should try to accomodate them. But if they're pretty insignficant (and they are), I'm not sure you make a good ROI.
That's why there aren't a lot of IE-only sites anymore as of June 2009.
Do you have any actual evidence, or are you just making things up? FF has arguably done more to push things along than Safari.
About a decade ago, did you continue to use AOL even after standard dial-up Internet became popular, because the "existing" sites were still on AOL?
What is this all about? First off, the "sites" were already outside of AOL, because anyone could put a site on the internet, but not necessarly on AOL exclusively. Just to be clear though, I kept AOL for long after I even after I had broadband, because there were some things that were exclusive (that it only cost $5 / month helped too). It did eventually stop offering anything I couldn't get elsewhere, and they tried to raise the rate (even though they promised they never would), so I dropped it.
If the browser follows web standards 100% and yet some webpages render incorrectly - doesn't this mean the issue is with the web page and not with the browser?
And as an end user, I don't give a shit. If it renders fine in IE and not in Safari, I'll use IE. The site is more important than the browser.
They don't have to prove anyone else downloaded it. They did what any other kaaza user would have done, so its reasonable to assume that if they were able to download the files, someone else likely did as well.
Careful here. Plenty of people say things like "oh i'll kick your ass," even to people they don't know, but don't mean it, as evidienced by the fact that they don't kick the other persons ass.
Because it IS ultimiately the phone requesting the data. Or are you going to argue that my blue tooth device can't be used because its not DIRECTLY using the network?
Tons more software comes with a desktop version of Ubuntu as well.
Ahh, in other words, Ubuntu is a huge bloated mess, much like what happens when you buy Windows from an OEM vendor.. you get a bunch of useless shit you didn't want or ask for. Good argument.
Its interesting now that Windows bashers have to resort to outright lies to bash anymore. Its not anywhere near that complicated, yet as many Ubuntu users will tell you, the apt-get doesn't get their WiFi working. Maybe instead of bashing you should fix your favorite OS.
Ha you caught me. ;-)
Or, you know, to prevent a pandemic flu from becoming established inside your borders, thus saving potenitally thousands of lives and countless hours of productivity.
The only way to effectively do that would be to completely close your borders.
Wait, what about all the people in the designer baby story that said we shouldn't interfere with natural selection? Wouldn't this count as part of evolution / natural selection?
The regular flu kills kids and the elderly all the time. This one is much nastier.
No, it's not. Its actually less worse than the regular flu.
You're not a parent of a kid with Downs are you?
Part of the thrill of parenting, is the gamble about what kind of child you will end up with. To be able to choose the traits of your children, seems to make it all a bit superficial to me.
Hmm... I wonder if you would be as thrilled when the child pops out with Downs or some other genetic disease.
The only problem Gattaca brings up is that it's a bad idea to discriminate based on rule of law and the attitude towards those naturally born.
Genetic selection doesn't automatically mean people will form said attitude, or enact legislation against those "naturally" born or not.
But I believe that the time-tested natural selection is more reliable when it comes to the survival of our species.
It's random... and you conveintly forget babies that die almost immediately because of some genetic flaw or those born with MS, Downs, etc. Natural selection isn't chosing anything.. it's random, and unlike humans, doesn't care if the result will work or not.
You don't seem to know what unconstitutional is... the constitution limits what government can do, it doesn't grant us right. Show me where in the constitution which states the government can dictate what I put into my own body.
The phone techs you talk to when you call AT&T have access to a lot of tools and information you may not have access to, but ultimately, they are limited to handling the kinds of issues they have been trained to handle. Getting new material to these techs takes a long time and a lot of work. Chances are, they didn't help you because they don't know how to respond.
And this is totally irrlevent. You call AT&T about a problem, and you should expect them to do something. Saying "oh the poor tech doesn't know anything" is horseshit. He's still a part of AT&T, and by making excuses for the poor tech you're making excuses for AT&T.
Anyone else now getting spam emails about auto warranties? They seem to have just moved online..
I certainly agree. Personally, I find these types of laws very objectionable. But, as we live in a representative republic and there could be national security considerations, they don't have to show it to you or I; that's what Congress and the Courts are for. We have a system (a flawed one, in my opinion) for this type of oversight.
They do if they expect anyone to support their braindead laws. Also, if someone is accused I would expect that they can see the evidence and know how it was collected. There are flaws; that doesn't make anything they're doing ok though... it means they're in the wrong.
But this isn't a trial. When this kind of evidence is required, it'll be shown to judges and congressmen with security clearances.
The fundamental problem is that ultimately the people are supposed to be in charge. How can we make decisions without all the evidence? This is a gapping flaw; government wants to limit rights, has evidence it shows to itself to support it's decision, and we're just supposed to be ok with that? If that's not tyranny I don't know what is.
I wouldn't be so sure about that. If they are too specific about what they reveal, they risk giving away information as to the source of the information, which could compromise an existing source. And if they are too vague, they will be crucified politically.
As I said, if they cannot or will not reveal the evidence, they cannot justify the "new tools" in my mind, and we should be demanding Congress revoke the new laws. Individual rights trump national security everytime.
(For an example of this, look at the response to Cheney, when he said that we had prevented a terrorist attack through information we learned from torture. He was accused of lying (which I believe he was) to justify the previous administration's actions, because he would not (or could not) supply details. The exact same thing would happen if they tried to show how these new laws had been effective without providing details.)
That's exactly my point; too bad. If they cannot or will not show the evidence, they're full of it, and we should demand they stop. There's no in between, there's no "oh, we can trust the government." Its our duty to scutinize everything they say, and to doubt them. Trying to prevent that scutinization is exteremly supsicious.
That being said, I'm against these laws, and our use of torture. But your line of reasoning will be ineffective. You have to take a play from the anti-torture people on this one, and say that it doesn't matter if these laws work or not; they are simply un-American. You have to reject the premise that there can ever be a security/freedom trade-off.
I think saying the laws violate the 5th and 15h Amendments is saying they are simply un-American AND illegal. Plesae read carefully what I've been saying, especially this post. You can't get more American than the reasoning of the Founders, and that's the basis of my reasoning.
You'll never see the evidence you're looking for, because of very real national security concerns. There are many people who understand this restriction on information. And, if that's the entirety of your argument, you'll lose those people. This will have to be overturned on principle, not effectiveness.
It is the principal of it; one branch rubber stamping another branch without telling the citizens of this country? How un-American can you possible get if you (not you specifically) think THAT's ok?