Thus, you have crazy stuff like the Battleship movie; I'm pretty sure they literally started with the brand name, and ginned up a movie project to put on it. I submit to you that Battleship isn't an example of scraping the barrel for ideas, but rather an example of jump-starting the marketing for a movie by building off a well-known pre-existing brand.
I always assumed that someone realised Rihanna would look good running around in uniform and firing a machine gun, and fit the movie round that.
If, instead of griping abut people griping that fusion has been 20 years away since the 60s, people in the 60s had produced a working version of fusion power, then everybody wouldn't still be griping that fusion has been 20 years away since the 60s. Would they?
The idea that a corporate person should have freedom of speech is, I think, a problem. For example, it allows them to spend vast amounts of money on political campaigns. This is undemocratic. Corporations don't get to vote or stand for election, but are allowed to have huge influence over politics through money. Since they are not real people they often act without morals or any sense of human decency, and try to get politicians with a similar disposition elected and the law change to reflect their myopic obsession with profit above all else.
That's nothing to do with them being legal persons or not.
I think you must have some romantic libertarian idea that the world should be composed of individual entrepreneurs in a free market.
If you abandoned the legal concept of a limited liability corporation, rich people would just arrange their businesses as partnerships, joint trading companies, informal cartels or some other artificial construction. As soon as a business grows past the size that one person can control, you have de facto corporations anyway.
Short of the government making it illegal to act in business as other than a sole trader, I don't see what you could do about it.
I'm not surprised you're having poor luck in the general job market. the middle managers who are doing hiring will resent you for your intellect and success. this is why you get thrown the stupid questions like "name all the words in the dictionary from your head". they are tearing you down because they feel bad about where they are in their lives.
And just to guarantee you never get a job, be sure to make crystal clear from your attitude and conversation that this is how you view the interviewer.
Finally I just had to tell him, "I'm not sure what you're looking for in the answer. Can you please clarify the question?" He didn't. I don't know if that was a pass, fail, or just a stress question.
Evidently a high stress question if you're still worrying about it.
A core precept of US law is that "all people" have certain unalienable rights, be they citizen or not, at home or abroad.
If that was true, the US would have no justification in prosecuting wars overseas, as killing a foreign civilian (or soldier) would be the same as killing a US one.
Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are not inalienable rights, they're goals for human beings to aim towards in an indifferent universe.
Everyone on slashdot seems confused because this is on the internet. Spying is spying. It's legal in your own country to spy on foreign powers, it's illegal in the country you're spying on.
You're never going to agree to the extradition of one of your own spies if they get exposed, which is why you occasionally get "tit for tat" diplomatic expulsions, as it's the only real way of showing that you know you've been spied on, as the spy will most likely have diplomatic cover.
If you get caught red-handed spying abroad, it depends on which country you're talking about. North Korea would probably execute you, Canada would pack you off home and take you off their "actual diplomats" list.
Yes, because I, for one, look forward to my children living in an untaxed, government-free future, where the only security comes from being an indentured slave to some mega-corporation run by a malevolent AI.
I can't remember exactly which book, but the book pointed out how easy it could be.
Ignore messing around with firmware etc. The book foretold the story that someone would be using a online take out service/delivery service and they had setup all their allergies so that any restaurant saw a red flag and to be careful what goes in the meal. Someone hacks into just-eat or whomever the provider is. The customers Peanut allergy suddenly goes away on the notes and the dish is prepared as normal a week later. Instant severe incident if not death.
I'm so glad I don't have food allergies.
That sounds more like some sort of "perfect crime" story than a serious threat.
I'm pretty sure that if I had a real, fatal food allergy I wouldn't be eating anything I hadn't seen prepared with my own eyes.
I definitely wouldn't be relying on Domino's Pizza or whoever to custom bake my pizza in a separate, sterile area.
My plan, I would data mine you to figure out what fast food outlets you like and if you have any addictions.
Then send you free bacon cheeseburgers, cigarettes, venti coffee that's pure espresso shots. Whatever you have trouble saying no to the most.
It would kill you, eventually, unless you started exercising, eating right, and maybe a trip to a detox clinic.
Can I volunteer to be your enemy?
My death/wish-list:
Kobe beefburgers
That coffee that's made from cats shitting out beans, whatever it's called
Single malt scotch
Cuban cigars
Bullshit. Your freedom to do what you like (on the internet or elsewhere) certainly does not extend to the freedom to murder people.
It seems entirely reasonable to me to think about the potential problems caused by an "internet of things". Cheerleading progress for its own sake, with no regard to any downsides, is childish.
I suppose, but today you can probably do it with skype or something of that sort.
There is no essential difference between calling the cops by skype, phone or anonymous postcard.
If you live in a society where householders react to a knock at the door by shooting blind, you are unsurprisingly going to have a higher than average murder rate.
Can someone please tell me how this move increases shareholder value, which should be Google's top priorities?
I expect the shareholders are glad that the company takes steps to safeguard that value, e.g. by paying for an alarm system or a safe for the petty cash at night?
Slashdot Mirror
Thus, you have crazy stuff like the Battleship movie; I'm pretty sure they literally started with the brand name, and ginned up a movie project to put on it. I submit to you that Battleship isn't an example of scraping the barrel for ideas, but rather an example of jump-starting the marketing for a movie by building off a well-known pre-existing brand.
I always assumed that someone realised Rihanna would look good running around in uniform and firing a machine gun, and fit the movie round that.
Popularity in and of itself is a very strong measure
It's a very strong measure of popularity.
Popularity and quality are orthogonal. Measuring one tells you nothing about the other.
Entertainment and intelligence are basically oil and water
Only if you equate entertainment with some popular TV shows.
It's like writing off cinema as an art form because Transformers 2 was popular.
149,597,871 kilometers. Please don't use miles in space.
Yes, because it's so much neater using kilometres.
If, instead of griping abut people griping that fusion has been 20 years away since the 60s, people in the 60s had produced a working version of fusion power, then everybody wouldn't still be griping that fusion has been 20 years away since the 60s. Would they?
"What if a connected wheelchair spent all of its time far from the home of the person to whom it was assigned?"
What if we lived in a country where people had a right to privacy?
What if we lived in a country where people didn't defraud the government? The right to privacy is not the same as the right to commit crime.
The idea that a corporate person should have freedom of speech is, I think, a problem. For example, it allows them to spend vast amounts of money on political campaigns. This is undemocratic. Corporations don't get to vote or stand for election, but are allowed to have huge influence over politics through money. Since they are not real people they often act without morals or any sense of human decency, and try to get politicians with a similar disposition elected and the law change to reflect their myopic obsession with profit above all else.
That's nothing to do with them being legal persons or not.
I think you must have some romantic libertarian idea that the world should be composed of individual entrepreneurs in a free market.
If you abandoned the legal concept of a limited liability corporation, rich people would just arrange their businesses as partnerships, joint trading companies, informal cartels or some other artificial construction. As soon as a business grows past the size that one person can control, you have de facto corporations anyway.
Short of the government making it illegal to act in business as other than a sole trader, I don't see what you could do about it.
Well said. Let us not forget that cars, dolls, and shoes have something that a corporation doesn't have: a physical existence.
So what? "The Military" or "The Government" don't have an individual physical existence either, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.
That would be great news for corporations, of course.
Which makes me wonder why he bothered doing the PhD in the first place if he didn't want to stay in academia.
I'm not surprised you're having poor luck in the general job market. the middle managers who are doing hiring will resent you for your intellect and success. this is why you get thrown the stupid questions like "name all the words in the dictionary from your head". they are tearing you down because they feel bad about where they are in their lives.
And just to guarantee you never get a job, be sure to make crystal clear from your attitude and conversation that this is how you view the interviewer.
Finally I just had to tell him, "I'm not sure what you're looking for in the answer. Can you please clarify the question?" He didn't. I don't know if that was a pass, fail, or just a stress question.
Evidently a high stress question if you're still worrying about it.
The site that teaches you to code well enough to get a job. Also, hide the PhD.
And don't foget to call yourself Mr Smith, not Doctor Smith.
It's amazing the number of PhDs who trip up over that trivial mistake.
A core precept of US law is that "all people" have certain unalienable rights, be they citizen or not, at home or abroad.
If that was true, the US would have no justification in prosecuting wars overseas, as killing a foreign civilian (or soldier) would be the same as killing a US one.
Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are not inalienable rights, they're goals for human beings to aim towards in an indifferent universe.
You're never going to agree to the extradition of one of your own spies if they get exposed, which is why you occasionally get "tit for tat" diplomatic expulsions, as it's the only real way of showing that you know you've been spied on, as the spy will most likely have diplomatic cover.
If you get caught red-handed spying abroad, it depends on which country you're talking about. North Korea would probably execute you, Canada would pack you off home and take you off their "actual diplomats" list.
they can hack me without warrants, can I hack them without warrants?
Yes.
Disclaimer: IANAL
Yes, because there is no reason to ever have a stop sign, it's purely to annoy skilful drivers like you.
Yes, because I, for one, look forward to my children living in an untaxed, government-free future, where the only security comes from being an indentured slave to some mega-corporation run by a malevolent AI.
I can't remember exactly which book, but the book pointed out how easy it could be.
Ignore messing around with firmware etc. The book foretold the story that someone would be using a online take out service/delivery service and they had setup all their allergies so that any restaurant saw a red flag and to be careful what goes in the meal. Someone hacks into just-eat or whomever the provider is. The customers Peanut allergy suddenly goes away on the notes and the dish is prepared as normal a week later. Instant severe incident if not death.
I'm so glad I don't have food allergies.
That sounds more like some sort of "perfect crime" story than a serious threat.
I'm pretty sure that if I had a real, fatal food allergy I wouldn't be eating anything I hadn't seen prepared with my own eyes.
I definitely wouldn't be relying on Domino's Pizza or whoever to custom bake my pizza in a separate, sterile area.
My plan, I would data mine you to figure out what fast food outlets you like and if you have any addictions.
Then send you free bacon cheeseburgers, cigarettes, venti coffee that's pure espresso shots. Whatever you have trouble saying no to the most.
It would kill you, eventually, unless you started exercising, eating right, and maybe a trip to a detox clinic.
Can I volunteer to be your enemy?
My death/wish-list:
Kobe beefburgers
That coffee that's made from cats shitting out beans, whatever it's called
Single malt scotch
Cuban cigars
I'm pretty sure I saw this demonstrated on a documentary called "Homeland" a year or two ago, so it's definitely possible.
It seems entirely reasonable to me to think about the potential problems caused by an "internet of things". Cheerleading progress for its own sake, with no regard to any downsides, is childish.
I suppose, but today you can probably do it with skype or something of that sort.
There is no essential difference between calling the cops by skype, phone or anonymous postcard.
If you live in a society where householders react to a knock at the door by shooting blind, you are unsurprisingly going to have a higher than average murder rate.
Sorry, but non-founders do not get a vote, which quite frankly I agree with.
I don't think you should be called a public company unless the majority of voting shares are able to be purchased by the public..
Can someone please tell me how this move increases shareholder value, which should be Google's top priorities?
I expect the shareholders are glad that the company takes steps to safeguard that value, e.g. by paying for an alarm system or a safe for the petty cash at night?