But when you come by looking to sell ads for our hospital, you need to demonstrate knowledge of least a couple of basic surgical procedures. Someone who doesn't understand surgery shouldn't be making ads for us.
Why on earth not? What sort of ad for a hospital is going to have any technical content whatsoever?
But I recently in the UK I saw a local agency to me that had for a job for an experienced groundworker aka a navvy that was next to an advert for a php programer the navvys job paid more than the Php Dev;-)
Basic labourers earn fuck all. Maybe if you're a skilled brickie or carpenter or something, but someone who can just carry bricks and shovel sand doesn't get paid that much more than minimum wage. A quick search for unskilled labouring job where I live shows hourly rates in the range of GBP 6.50 to 7.50 and the minimum wage is currently GBP 6.30
Personally, I'd rather get a job sitting at a supermarket checkout or serving burgers, at least you don't have to knacker yourself to do your job.
Who in the hell wants to listen to an "English major" who runs an online ad service? This guy should be drawn and quartered, not quoted.
But does he run a company that makes money? Because that's all that counts.
It doesn't matter whether he's got a BA in Drawing Fairies or a couple of PhDs in theoretical quantum physics and mechanical engineering.
He is talking about employing non-computer science graduates to work in a non-technical role. If you're selling online advertising (or whatever the graduates are employed to do) it is entirely self evident that some background knowledge of how the web works is going to be your advantage, even if it's just enough to let you bluff your way through presentations to clients.
Like Bill Hicks said it, if anyone is in advertising or marketing, just kill yourself.
That would wipe out companies like Google completely then.
Even the geekiest geek spending his free day a week researching pure computer science topics is only there because Google earn enough money from advertising to finance his research.
Great software engineers are a scarce resource even for Google. Maybe the team that executed this plan have had a new, better idea that they want to run with.
Who gives a fuck what they want? If companies like Google put the interests of their precious snowflakes of employees above their customers, they will die a horrible, deserved death.
The US props up dictators for all sort of Realpolitik reasons
By that argument, you can defend any action whatsoever. Hitler and Stalin didn't kill millions of people for the sake of it, or out of sadism, they did it as part of their political programs.
Your worried about a minor nuclear event that will never have a death attributed to it directly...
1. "You're".
2. No death has ever been attributed to smoking directly (except where someone's fallen asleep smoking and burned their house down). No death from liver failure has ever been attributed directly to excess alcohol consumption. All you can say is that, on average, if you smoke and drink you're x times more likely to die early.
Same with cancers caused by radiation and poisonours radioactive materials being introduced into the biosphere.
There is evidence that even when things were "done correctly" at Fukushima there were completely unexpected failure modes that no-one had predicted. That's the biggest challenge in engineering safety - handling things that are literally unpredictable.
Earthquakes and tsunamis may not be accurately predictable, but they're not like a meteorite hitting the Earth and wiping out an entire continent or Godzilla coming out of the sea and eating your power plant..
The Japanese tsunami was bigger than the designers had ever expected, but it wasn't (since it happened) impossible. Even if it was the biggest earthquake and tsunami in recorded human history (which I don't believe it was), it was still a genuine possibility.
It would be nice if the price reduction reached the end consumer... the retail price is still more than 25 times that.
To do that you would need to nationalise the whole electricity system, and have something like the CEGB in Britain in the 1970s. But, of course, the free market does everything better, especially when the fucking government pay all their bills and absolve them from any fucking liability too.
You are comparing nuclear power to experimenting and create nuclear weapons... Nuclear Power as it is today is very safe, reliable, and cheap if done correctly. People oppose nuclear power because they are scared because of their ignorance.
The reason that people confuse nuclear weapons with nuclear power is because historically they're absolutely fucking inter-connected. Plus, governments after WW2 (at least here in the UK) simply lied about the purpose of nuclear power stations, which were basically there as a cover for atomic weapons development. Oh look, just like Iran and North Korea, the evil bastards.
If there's a problem with nuclear power it's that as soon as profit motive and corporations gets involved they first thing they do is slash safety to boost revenue.
No, the problem with nuclear power is that it is government funded and backed by unlimited government guarantees and they still let for-profit corporations run the fucking things anyway and take all the short term profits without having to underwrite the long term risks.
They sent us Celiene Dion and Justin Beiber. I think that counts as a hostile country.
As a non North American can I just point out that the US is responsible for a whole genre of music that makes Celine Dion and Justin Bieber look like Kurt Cobain?
Wasn't Michael J. Fox a longtime smoker? Doesn't seem to have protected him.
And not everyone who smokes dies of lung cancer, and not everyone who drinks heavily dies of liver disease. These things are averages, there will always be outliers when it comes to human beings.
I have a neurological disease and didn't think it offensive. I also didn't think it funny. You choose whether to be offended. Choose to not be offended, and you'll be a happier person.
You are, of course, right.
However, I still find the whole justification that just because something's a joke no one should take it too seriously, extremely dangerous and wrong-headed.
Nazi satirical writings and cartoons of Jews were very far from being "just jokes" that everyone should be able to laugh off. Like any potential act of speech or writing, jokes have consequences.
everyone is always taking offense these days. lighten up, im sure you make fun of "insert XX here" and I am sure XX is not amused by it. If people cant take a joke, the world is a very boring place.
Joking at the expense of people with less perceived power than you proves that you are psychologically insecure, not that you are in fact more powerful.
Also, your Carlin example has the distinction of being 100% unamusing.
News flash: Jokes come at the expense of somebody|thing. Sometimes it's you.
News flash 2: jokes are generally understood to contain something funny. Pointing at someone with a disease/disability and saying "look, he's different from me!" is not funny, it's just a pathetic way of proving your 'normality' to the conformists around you.
Your right, it is in very bad taste. You should be ashamed of yourself and why Slashdot awards you points is beyond me. Having a Neurological disease myself, it is very offensive. You are the kind of person who laughs at others misfortunes. Sad!
How the fuck has this been modded funny?
Whether you agree with him or not, there is absolutely no evidence he's joking.
Yes and no. There's more people living to extreme old age these days, but we haven't really increased the maximum lifespan.
Sorry, we have most certainly increased the average life expectancy.
Your argument is basically "if you didn't die in childbirth, or early from malnutrition or one of numerous childhood diseases that are now eradicated or very rare, and if you didn't ever get a disease as an adult that we could now trivially treat with drugs, or die from an infection that we would nowadays just sterilise and bandage, or ever have an accident that left you unable to hunt/labour in the fields, then it was quite possible to live to 70 or more".
Well, yes. I don't think most people would argue that human beings have physically changed that much in the last few tens of thousands of years.
It was precisely the large number of now-preventable diasters that resulted in so many people dying young.
Slashdot Mirror
But when you come by looking to sell ads for our hospital, you need to demonstrate knowledge of least a couple of basic surgical procedures. Someone who doesn't understand surgery shouldn't be making ads for us.
Why on earth not? What sort of ad for a hospital is going to have any technical content whatsoever?
I'm a programmer and I see the world in a very different way than everyone else.
Smugly, as though from a great height?
But I recently in the UK I saw a local agency to me that had for a job for an experienced groundworker aka a navvy that was next to an advert for a php programer the navvys job paid more than the Php Dev ;-)
Basic labourers earn fuck all. Maybe if you're a skilled brickie or carpenter or something, but someone who can just carry bricks and shovel sand doesn't get paid that much more than minimum wage. A quick search for unskilled labouring job where I live shows hourly rates in the range of GBP 6.50 to 7.50 and the minimum wage is currently GBP 6.30
Personally, I'd rather get a job sitting at a supermarket checkout or serving burgers, at least you don't have to knacker yourself to do your job.
Who in the hell wants to listen to an "English major" who runs an online ad service? This guy should be drawn and quartered, not quoted.
But does he run a company that makes money? Because that's all that counts.
It doesn't matter whether he's got a BA in Drawing Fairies or a couple of PhDs in theoretical quantum physics and mechanical engineering.
He is talking about employing non-computer science graduates to work in a non-technical role. If you're selling online advertising (or whatever the graduates are employed to do) it is entirely self evident that some background knowledge of how the web works is going to be your advantage, even if it's just enough to let you bluff your way through presentations to clients.
Like Bill Hicks said it, if anyone is in advertising or marketing, just kill yourself.
That would wipe out companies like Google completely then.
Even the geekiest geek spending his free day a week researching pure computer science topics is only there because Google earn enough money from advertising to finance his research.
Seriously. All the people with their panties in a wad over this...you're not entitled
You must be an old person.
Anyone under 25 is entitled to EVERYTHING, they're entitled to it FOREVER and they're entitled to it for FREE.
Great software engineers are a scarce resource even for Google. Maybe the team that executed this plan have had a new, better idea that they want to run with.
Who gives a fuck what they want? If companies like Google put the interests of their precious snowflakes of employees above their customers, they will die a horrible, deserved death.
Capitalists vs Warmongers!
It will be one of those fights where they both manage to win.
The US props up dictators for all sort of Realpolitik reasons
By that argument, you can defend any action whatsoever. Hitler and Stalin didn't kill millions of people for the sake of it, or out of sadism, they did it as part of their political programs.
Your worried about a minor nuclear event that will never have a death attributed to it directly...
1. "You're".
2. No death has ever been attributed to smoking directly (except where someone's fallen asleep smoking and burned their house down). No death from liver failure has ever been attributed directly to excess alcohol consumption. All you can say is that, on average, if you smoke and drink you're x times more likely to die early.
Same with cancers caused by radiation and poisonours radioactive materials being introduced into the biosphere.
It doesn't protect from unimaginable scenarios
A really big earthquake and tsunami are not, and were never unimaginable.
There is evidence that even when things were "done correctly" at Fukushima there were completely unexpected failure modes that no-one had predicted. That's the biggest challenge in engineering safety - handling things that are literally unpredictable.
Earthquakes and tsunamis may not be accurately predictable, but they're not like a meteorite hitting the Earth and wiping out an entire continent or Godzilla coming out of the sea and eating your power plant..
The Japanese tsunami was bigger than the designers had ever expected, but it wasn't (since it happened) impossible. Even if it was the biggest earthquake and tsunami in recorded human history (which I don't believe it was), it was still a genuine possibility.
It would be nice if the price reduction reached the end consumer... the retail price is still more than 25 times that.
To do that you would need to nationalise the whole electricity system, and have something like the CEGB in Britain in the 1970s. But, of course, the free market does everything better, especially when the fucking government pay all their bills and absolve them from any fucking liability too.
You are comparing nuclear power to experimenting and create nuclear weapons... Nuclear Power as it is today is very safe, reliable, and cheap if done correctly. People oppose nuclear power because they are scared because of their ignorance.
The reason that people confuse nuclear weapons with nuclear power is because historically they're absolutely fucking inter-connected. Plus, governments after WW2 (at least here in the UK) simply lied about the purpose of nuclear power stations, which were basically there as a cover for atomic weapons development. Oh look, just like Iran and North Korea, the evil bastards.
If there's a problem with nuclear power it's that as soon as profit motive and corporations gets involved they first thing they do is slash safety to boost revenue.
No, the problem with nuclear power is that it is government funded and backed by unlimited government guarantees and they still let for-profit corporations run the fucking things anyway and take all the short term profits without having to underwrite the long term risks.
They sent us Celiene Dion and Justin Beiber. I think that counts as a hostile country.
As a non North American can I just point out that the US is responsible for a whole genre of music that makes Celine Dion and Justin Bieber look like Kurt Cobain?
I refer, of course, to Cuntry & Western.
the real question is, where are people going? bioshock infinite? chains & dragons? It remains to be seen...
Maybe they all just grew up and got a girlfriend?
I think tomatoes are very popular, as part of ketchup.
I don't think that quite comes under the definition of "fresh" somehow.
There are actually a few positive effects nicotine possesses, the negative effects of smoking are mediated by the oxidation products of cigarettes..
Don't forget the addictive nature of nicotine.
Morphine is addictive too. Being addicted to something that saves your life is not necessarily a bad thing.
Wasn't Michael J. Fox a longtime smoker? Doesn't seem to have protected him.
And not everyone who smokes dies of lung cancer, and not everyone who drinks heavily dies of liver disease. These things are averages, there will always be outliers when it comes to human beings.
I have a neurological disease and didn't think it offensive. I also didn't think it funny. You choose whether to be offended. Choose to not be offended, and you'll be a happier person.
You are, of course, right.
However, I still find the whole justification that just because something's a joke no one should take it too seriously, extremely dangerous and wrong-headed.
Nazi satirical writings and cartoons of Jews were very far from being "just jokes" that everyone should be able to laugh off. Like any potential act of speech or writing, jokes have consequences.
everyone is always taking offense these days. lighten up, im sure you make fun of "insert XX here" and I am sure XX is not amused by it. If people cant take a joke, the world is a very boring place.
Joking at the expense of people with less perceived power than you proves that you are psychologically insecure, not that you are in fact more powerful.
Also, your Carlin example has the distinction of being 100% unamusing.
News flash: Jokes come at the expense of somebody|thing. Sometimes it's you.
News flash 2: jokes are generally understood to contain something funny. Pointing at someone with a disease/disability and saying "look, he's different from me!" is not funny, it's just a pathetic way of proving your 'normality' to the conformists around you.
Your right, it is in very bad taste. You should be ashamed of yourself and why Slashdot awards you points is beyond me. Having a Neurological disease myself, it is very offensive. You are the kind of person who laughs at others misfortunes. Sad!
How the fuck has this been modded funny?
Whether you agree with him or not, there is absolutely no evidence he's joking.
Yes and no. There's more people living to extreme old age these days, but we haven't really increased the maximum lifespan.
Sorry, we have most certainly increased the average life expectancy.
Your argument is basically "if you didn't die in childbirth, or early from malnutrition or one of numerous childhood diseases that are now eradicated or very rare, and if you didn't ever get a disease as an adult that we could now trivially treat with drugs, or die from an infection that we would nowadays just sterilise and bandage, or ever have an accident that left you unable to hunt/labour in the fields, then it was quite possible to live to 70 or more".
Well, yes. I don't think most people would argue that human beings have physically changed that much in the last few tens of thousands of years.
It was precisely the large number of now-preventable diasters that resulted in so many people dying young.