What is skyrocketing is the number of middle class parents claiming that their precious snowflakes are "on the autistic spectrum" due to behaviour that thirty years ago would just be thought of as slightly annoying and self centred.
When you watch a TV show in the UK that has product placement in it, the warning appears before the show or movie telling you. The U.S. should start doing this.
I don't remember ever seeing this warning here in the UK. Do they hide it in some small print somewhere or am I just incredibly unobservant?
There is a difference though between the company being liable and the management being liable. It for instance means that the directors wouldn't get prosecuted, but the company could get a fine. Of course that still means the current management take a hit in their paycheque, while the previous management get away scot free. Not entirely fair.
Directors are hardly ever prosecuted unless it's really egregious fraud, like Enron.
Hint: What you described is anarchy, not libertarianism.
Please learn the difference...
Libertarianism as commonly understood would soon amount to anarchy. With no government at all, those with the most money/guns would be able to do what they liked.
Of course, in practice you could have watered-down libertarianism (some government, some taxes, a limited police force, some sort of contract court and so on) but this would mean saying "all government is evil, except for this new type of government we have re-created which is basically the same as an Eighteenth Century government" and this doesn't have the same appeal to rugged individualists.
Does this mean libertarianism is best described as the belief that a private court system is the best way to enable capitalism, which in turn is supposed to magically cure all ills with an invisible hand?
Yes, but with libertarianism you won't have nasty old capitalism, but a real free market. And there's no magic, you just need perfect information, no barriers to entry, no monopolies or cartels, perfectly rational actors and so on.
Look, corruption in the gaming industry is as bad as corruption anywhere else, and if found out it should be punished.
The problem most of us non GamerGaters have is seeing the connection between this and vitriolic attacks on anyone daring to offer a feminist critique of games.
It's got nothing to do with who the Board of Directors are. They are just employees.
It depends who owns it.
And when you sell a company, you also sell its assets and liabilities.
If my due diligence fails to pick up on the fact that the company I just bought in fact owes another billion in taxes they forgot to mention, then I am the one who owes that billion to the government.
(In practice, I'd also be suing the former owners for damages, but I still owe the government).
Yes, because the FTC now trumps the right to free speech. Everyone is a drooling idiot and needs to be protected from big bad corporations. Don't like em, turn em off.
This sort of idiocy is the reductio ad absurdum of libertarianism and the belief that any government action is bad, and anything done by business is good.
Meanwhile, in the real world, corporations are quite rightly limited in what they can do. They do not have the freedom to lie in their advertising, for instance.
actually, it's good that you have to recharge it every day (or every 2nd, if you pull an overnighter), because its regularly. if the watch battery were to last 7-10 days, you'd have to watch for the battery
So why do I need the fucking watch again? To tell me the time? This implies that there are not clocks around me at all times telling me the time. My computer that I'm staring at right now is telling me the time. My microwave tells me the time. The damn clock on the wall tick tick ticks the time. I don't need anything to tell me the time because I already have a zillion things telling me the fucking time.
How about when you take the dog out for a walk? Or go to the pub with your friends? Or in a shop? Or you're camping at a music festival?
Yes, I know you can use a phone instead of a watch in these situations, but some of us don't like either leaving a phone in front of us while we're socialising, or having to take it out of your pocket to tell the time when it's easier to glance discreetly at your watch.
In some professional settings, if you try to re-invent the wheel (ie. "draw a circle"), rather than use the canned library from a framework, you won't just be criticized, you will be dismissed. Ugly fact, but still a fact. It's more about rote memorization of.net namespaces than problem-solving.
One of the things about problem solving is most certainly that you don't waste time re-inventing the wheel or even trying to design a slightly better wheel. In the real world, you do not have infinite time to devote to a problem. If something works off the shelf, then you use it.
Alternatively, TFA demonstrates someone willing to have a go at learning something they had previously considered beyond them, relying on their own initiative and freely available information, rather than paying $10K for some bullshit Certified Web Developer course.
I think it's because a lot of people in tech are intelligent and it's exceedingly frustrating to be subordinate to people who know less about your job than you do.
LK
That is true about any other professional job too. Bright young lawyers have to work for dull senior lawyers, same with doctors, soldiers, teachers or anything else that's not a minimum wage job.
Where I've had to work somewhere in the middle of nowhere like that, I just learned to take a packed lunch in. But I would choose not to work there in the longer term.
It's one of those "hygeine" elements of a job, i.e. things that can make you not want to work somewhere, but whose opposite doesn't really make you want to work there.
.
One of the major problems with IT and engineering departments is that they are treated as an expense.
Well, that's because unless you work in an IT or engineering company and develop IT or engineering products, then you are an overhead expense, just like HR, finance and building maintenance.
Slashdot Mirror
Check yourself into the nearest psych unit.
I think you just lost that argument.
You are obviously lucky enough not to have had to deal with criminal tweenagers.
A fourteen year old is a child by every definition of the word.
The age of criminal responsibility is ten in England.
I'm not saying that this is a crime, only that a fourteen year old can be treated similarly to an adult in some circumstances.
When asked to comment he replied "it's just a flesh wound".
"Dr. Flanagan also played a minor role in the drama surrounding the downfall of President Richard M. Nixon."
What exactly was his involvement in the downfall of President Richard M. Nixon?
A minor one.
What is skyrocketing is the number of middle class parents claiming that their precious snowflakes are "on the autistic spectrum" due to behaviour that thirty years ago would just be thought of as slightly annoying and self centred.
When you watch a TV show in the UK that has product placement in it, the warning appears before the show or movie telling you. The U.S. should start doing this.
I don't remember ever seeing this warning here in the UK. Do they hide it in some small print somewhere or am I just incredibly unobservant?
Should you be punished for a murder that happened in your house before you owned it?
The right way to deal with this is to track down the original management and deal with them.
Why didn't you go for "should you be punished for a murder that happened in your car before you owned it"?
Because there's no stupid analogy quite like a stupid car analogy.
There is a difference though between the company being liable and the management being liable. It for instance means that the directors wouldn't get prosecuted, but the company could get a fine. Of course that still means the current management take a hit in their paycheque, while the previous management get away scot free. Not entirely fair.
Directors are hardly ever prosecuted unless it's really egregious fraud, like Enron.
Hint: What you described is anarchy, not libertarianism.
Please learn the difference...
Libertarianism as commonly understood would soon amount to anarchy. With no government at all, those with the most money/guns would be able to do what they liked.
Of course, in practice you could have watered-down libertarianism (some government, some taxes, a limited police force, some sort of contract court and so on) but this would mean saying "all government is evil, except for this new type of government we have re-created which is basically the same as an Eighteenth Century government" and this doesn't have the same appeal to rugged individualists.
Does this mean libertarianism is best described as the belief that a private court system is the best way to enable capitalism, which in turn is supposed to magically cure all ills with an invisible hand?
Yes, but with libertarianism you won't have nasty old capitalism, but a real free market. And there's no magic, you just need perfect information, no barriers to entry, no monopolies or cartels, perfectly rational actors and so on.
The problem most of us non GamerGaters have is seeing the connection between this and vitriolic attacks on anyone daring to offer a feminist critique of games.
It depends who owns it.
And when you sell a company, you also sell its assets and liabilities.
If my due diligence fails to pick up on the fact that the company I just bought in fact owes another billion in taxes they forgot to mention, then I am the one who owes that billion to the government.
(In practice, I'd also be suing the former owners for damages, but I still owe the government).
Yes, because the FTC now trumps the right to free speech. Everyone is a drooling idiot and needs to be protected from big bad corporations. Don't like em, turn em off.
This sort of idiocy is the reductio ad absurdum of libertarianism and the belief that any government action is bad, and anything done by business is good.
Meanwhile, in the real world, corporations are quite rightly limited in what they can do. They do not have the freedom to lie in their advertising, for instance.
You charge your phone every day, so you charge your watch every day. Put it on the charger before bed.
You are presumably too young to remember when phones lasted a couple of weeks before needing to be charged.
People are prepared to accept the sacrifice to get the goodies on a smartphone, but that doesn't make it acceptable on a watch.
I haven't worn a (wrist) watch for decades.
Agreed, a proper hunter on a gold chain in your waistcoat pocket is the only suitable timepiece for a gentleman.
actually, it's good that you have to recharge it every day (or every 2nd, if you pull an overnighter), because its regularly. if the watch battery were to last 7-10 days, you'd have to watch for the battery
Yeah, it's a feature, not a bug. Sure.
So why do I need the fucking watch again? To tell me the time? This implies that there are not clocks around me at all times telling me the time. My computer that I'm staring at right now is telling me the time. My microwave tells me the time. The damn clock on the wall tick tick ticks the time. I don't need anything to tell me the time because I already have a zillion things telling me the fucking time.
How about when you take the dog out for a walk? Or go to the pub with your friends? Or in a shop? Or you're camping at a music festival?
Yes, I know you can use a phone instead of a watch in these situations, but some of us don't like either leaving a phone in front of us while we're socialising, or having to take it out of your pocket to tell the time when it's easier to glance discreetly at your watch.
We have Google!
Lord, help us!
To be fair, this is pretty much how they teach kids in schools everything these days.
History assignment on the First World War? Copy and paste stuff from Wikipedia into Powerpoint.
Music essay on Beethoven? Copy and paste stuff from Wikipedia into Powerpoint.
Science project on the Water Cycle? You guessed it.
In some professional settings, if you try to re-invent the wheel (ie. "draw a circle"), rather than use the canned library from a framework, you won't just be criticized, you will be dismissed. Ugly fact, but still a fact. It's more about rote memorization of .net namespaces than problem-solving.
One of the things about problem solving is most certainly that you don't waste time re-inventing the wheel or even trying to design a slightly better wheel. In the real world, you do not have infinite time to devote to a problem. If something works off the shelf, then you use it.
Alternatively, TFA demonstrates someone willing to have a go at learning something they had previously considered beyond them, relying on their own initiative and freely available information, rather than paying $10K for some bullshit Certified Web Developer course.
If Slashdot is any indication, most developers don't understand even basic logic.
You must not be new here.
I think it's because a lot of people in tech are intelligent and it's exceedingly frustrating to be subordinate to people who know less about your job than you do.
LK
That is true about any other professional job too. Bright young lawyers have to work for dull senior lawyers, same with doctors, soldiers, teachers or anything else that's not a minimum wage job.
I have four weeks of vacation
Only someone from the US would say that like it's a massive perk instead of a bare minimum requirement.
It's one of those "hygeine" elements of a job, i.e. things that can make you not want to work somewhere, but whose opposite doesn't really make you want to work there. .
One of the major problems with IT and engineering departments is that they are treated as an expense.
Well, that's because unless you work in an IT or engineering company and develop IT or engineering products, then you are an overhead expense, just like HR, finance and building maintenance.