You're trying to help them out and they tell you to call someone else. I guess you did your job.
I saw a fire hydrant spewing water once, called the fire department, they said, "call the water department." I said, "OK." Hung up and didn't think about it again. Until now, I guess.
Why should a programmer be paid less just because he's younger . . . But no amount of general experience will make up for not having the skills his position and company needs you to know.
I submit to you that we would not be having this discussion if the job in question -- and both the new guy and the old guy -- were on the management side of things.
I'm getting paid more than anybody else in my family, and they are all older than me.
Does that mean I should get less just because they have "seniority"? NOPE. Pay is based upon supply-and-demand just like anything else, and if the demand is high and the number of people knowing Skill A is low, naturally the pay will be higher for those workers. Age is irrelevant.
Unless you're working in a family business (with all those relative) where everyone has the same general job title, but with specialization in somewhat different areas, it's not really a parallel, is it?
Basically you are a FOOL if you give a website your real info if it's not being used to send items you bought to your home.
You can't really have anything delivered to you without an address, true. But that doesn't necessarily mean those sites wouldn't sell you out either. I still agree with you that one shouldn't give up something for nothing.
If you aren't even a facebook user, you might want to add the antisocial subscription [adblockplus.org] to adblock,
since those little facebook icons are just as useless as the social bookmarking buttons of yore, but more viral.
As a Facebook non-user, those little icons serve a valuable purpose. They help me identify which websites to never visit again.
The point is, the phone is a terrible choice for security related matters, because it wasn't specifically designed to be an e-wallet from the ground up.
You can never, ever just bolt-on security.
By this implied definition of e-wallet, a real wallet isn't really designed as a wallet from the ground up either. My wallet has essentially no security once it's out of my hands through theft or loss. But I do get the point, one might store even more valuable information in an e-wallet than just the cash and credit card numbers present in an r-wallet. Bank passwords, other account passwords could lead to considerably more damage than the $50 per credit card loss one might incur. Unless of course, you carry your passwords on paper in your r-wallet.
The risk appears to only be for Android phones, because the swipe-to-unlock leaves smudges that can be visually decoded to tell the thief the "password". I can't see how this security vulnerability affects iPhones with their tap-based passcode.
And yes, I have a passcode on my phone. It takes about a day for the annoyance factor to dissipate, and IMHO you're nuts not to have one.
Simon
OK, I don't have an iPhone, so what is a tap-based passcode? Just typing digits on a 10-key style screen interface or something like that? I've got a smartphone,but not an iPhone, and have been reluctant to keep anything too valuable (or personal) on it for lack of password protection, and I've resisted using password protection because of how annoying I imagine it to be. Am I totally wrong about how big a hassle it is?
Maybe I'm missing something, but last I knew "We don't like him" wasn't a valid reason for shipping to Gitmo or executions (not that there always is a valid reason, but still...). Assange isn't a US citizen, so that throws treason out the window, so what's the justification?
That actually is pretty much the criteria . . . I don't consider it valid. But that is pretty much it.
Read your contract? Are you kidding? Mine was 2 pages of A4, all printed in a font about 1-1.5 mm tall. Hell, I'd need to scan it and double size-it just to be able to make out any characters on it for more than 5 seconds.
And for a 2 year phone service contract! I can see no legitimate reason that a contract like that needs to be so long and dense. OK, I can see one reason, to statistically reduce the number of customers who read it (and even greater reduce the number of customers who read and understand it), thus allowing the company to put anything in there they want.
It's our lack of consumer power that allows this, of course. I we had any real choice, almost everyone would pick the company with the shortest, fairest and clearest contract. It would be the free market at work -- sort of, "the free market at work" usually means something somewhat different . ..
I once worked for a very small company that provided services to county jails. The market was competitive, the my company and our competitors were all very eager to sign on as many jails as possible. But the county sheriffs, who made the decisions on which company to use, were rather savvy. They realized that they had bargaining power due to the competition. The little companies -- and a few big ones too -- often had to make special contract concessions. My boss, a lawyer, had one particular tactic to get ahead of the competition. He squeezed the contract on to a single page. Legal size, to be sure, and a somewhat "cheated" text and margin. But still one page. Sheriffs saw this and compared it to they other guys' multiple page contracts and presumably said to themselves "Now there's a straight shooter!"
We also made sure to send the sheriffs Christmas presents every year, and had the salesman drop by periodically to do some glad-handing and wine-and-dining.
We may never -- as consumers -- get to that point. The county sheriffs of the US have an annual convention where they can shoot the breeze about such stuff with each other. And there's not really a big enough convention hall for every consumer in the country. (Or is there?) But what we can do is try finding no-contract service "plans" where possible. And outright owned phones. We're not getting a "free" phone with 2 year contract, we pay for it over the duration. So many people just don't like big up-front costs.
I've gone this route, and I think I'm happier than when I had a contract. I might not be if I couldn't find another non-contract service if my provider suddenly got worse. And I also might not be if the provider I had to switch to required a different radio technology -- forcing me to get a new phone. But so far, so good.
If credit ratings in the UK are anything like those in the US, they won't sue you for not paying.
They'll just report that you have an arrears balance, which will destroy your credit rating and prevent you from ever buying a house, getting a subsidized phone, buying a car using a loan, getting a credit card etc etc etc.
You know what we need? A reverse of that process. So if you're ever unhappy with a provider of some good or service, you can report the business as delinquent in its obligations. This would naturally cause their stock to tank, prevent them from issuing bonds or getting corporate credit. And it would only take one report. accurate or not to do this. Of course, they could go through the dispute process, but that could take months, maybe years.
Now I know what you're thinking: "We don't need government intervention like that." But aha! I'm not suggesting legislation. After all, credit bureaus are not gov't agencies -- they're private entities. Ours would be too. This would just be a nice, tidy, free market thingy. No need to get Uncle Sam or the crown or Parliaments, Legislatures, Diets, or any other government or part thereof involved.
Lactic acid is in your muscles right now. Acetic acid is vinegar minus some nutrients. Peroxyacetic acid breaks down into acetic acid and hydrogen peroxide.
Doesn't sound like dangerous chemicals to me. Heck, rinsing with plain old vinegar would be at least twice as acidic. (plus whatever else is in vinegar besides acetic acid.)
Hey, I merely provided the names of some of the chemicals used to clean beef carcasses. You added the terms "dangerous" and "terrible". Parent of my previous post added "horrible". Original post on subject had merely called the chemicals "gross". Adding characterizations that the original poster had not written distorts his claim, which was: "The grossest thing about meat in the grocery store is all the chemicals they have to spray the meat down with . .." Something may be both "gross" and not dangerous.
The grossest thing about meat in the grocery store is all the chemicals they have to spray the meat down with to kill all the bad stuff and disease picked up from the animal from living in such poor conditions.
Well that's a load of shit. Please, do tell us which horrible horrible "chemicals" are sprayed on these poor diseased carcases, exactly. Maybe you could also link to a peer-reviewed study showing the significantly higher incidence of disease amongst animals raised using different methods. Go ahead, I'll wait.
I can easily imagine without resorting to peer-reviewed journal articles that there are "conditions" that could result in higher and lower incidence of disease among animals. After all, we know from our own experience as animals that our own living conditions greatly affect the incidence of disease in our populations. Consider typhoid, a disease that all but disappears in areas with modern sanitation.
I see no reason to believe that animals raised in poor sanitary conditions, would be sicklier than animals raised in good sanitary conditions. Do you really need a cite? Really? You were just trolling with that one.
As for chemicals used in cleaning carcasses -- besides water and steam -- here's an abstract from an article in the "Journal of Food Protection". Your wait is over!
Reports on the microbiological effects of decontaminating treatments routinely applied to carcasses at beef packing plants indicate that washing before skinning may reduce the numbers of enteric bacteria transferred from the hide to meat. Washing skinned carcasses and/or dressed sides can reduce the numbers of aerobes and Escherichia coli by about 1 log unit, and pasteurizing sides with steam or hot water can reduce their numbers by > 1 or > 2 log units, respectively. Spraying with 2% lactic acid, 2% acetic acid, or 200 ppm of peroxyacetic acid can reduce the numbers of aerobes and E. coli by about 1 log, but such treatments can be ineffective if solutions are applied in inadequate quantities or to meat surfaces that are wet after washing. Trimming and vacuum cleaning with or without spraying with hot water may be largely ineffective for improving the microbiological conditions of carcasses. When contamination of meat during carcass dressing is well controlled and carcasses are subjected to effective decontaminating treatments, the numbers of E. coli on dressed carcasses can be [less than] 1 CFU/ 1,000 cm2. However, meat can be recontaminated during carcass breaking with E. coli from detritus that persists in fixed and personal equipment. The adoption at all packing plants of the carcass-dressing procedures and decontaminating treatments used at some plants to obtain carcasses that meet a very high microbiological standard should be encouraged, and means for limiting recontamination of product during carcass breaking and for decontaminating trimmings and other beef products should be considered.
Service for my current phone costs me $60 plus sales tax per year. A phone with 3G and tethering would cost me at least that much a month. Good luck convincing me to get such a next phone anytime soon.
No, unless you were replacing dialup and a land line at home, I couldn't. Where do you get wireless service for that price?
I don't even want to know how much tax payer money was pissed away for that "key verdict" - having worked with quite a few monitoring and alarm systems for years I can tell you that most of the time "automatic alarms" get ignored and in fact can cause worse problems when an actual real alarm does occur because of how the operators tune them out - seems like they completely missed the mark on this - the real problem is most likely where you would expect it, the people running the system - human error I am sure !
You don't even have to ignore the alarm that isn't there. But I don't think the "alert" that we're discussing is the big klaxon/flashing sign reading "OIL LEAK," or an oil pressure light with electrical tape over it. What the article indicates was missing was an automatic method of indicating that a failure was imminent. As far as the cost of determining this: learning from mistakes can be expensive. Not learning from mistakes is likely even more so.
Slashdot Mirror
You're trying to help them out and they tell you to call someone else. I guess you did your job.
I saw a fire hydrant spewing water once, called the fire department, they said, "call the water department." I said, "OK." Hung up and didn't think about it again. Until now, I guess.
This, and many similar workplace situations:
1. Have zero debt. 2. Have, in a money market account, distinct from your investments, one year of your carefully budgeted living expenses.
When these two conditions are true, conversations with your boss will tend to take a very different tone from most people's expectations.
3. No kids. They make 1 and 2 a much bigger pain in the ass.
Why should a programmer be paid less just because he's younger . . . But no amount of general experience will make up for not having the skills his position and company needs you to know.
I submit to you that we would not be having this discussion if the job in question -- and both the new guy and the old guy -- were on the management side of things.
Not storing any incriminating data on your phone to begin with?
This is like telling a person to buy a portable safe to carry illegal drugs on him.
You understand that means not storing any data, right?
I'm getting paid more than anybody else in my family, and they are all older than me.
Does that mean I should get less just because they have "seniority"? NOPE. Pay is based upon supply-and-demand just like anything else, and if the demand is high and the number of people knowing Skill A is low, naturally the pay will be higher for those workers. Age is irrelevant.
Unless you're working in a family business (with all those relative) where everyone has the same general job title, but with specialization in somewhat different areas, it's not really a parallel, is it?
Basically you are a FOOL if you give a website your real info if it's not being used to send items you bought to your home.
You can't really have anything delivered to you without an address, true. But that doesn't necessarily mean those sites wouldn't sell you out either. I still agree with you that one shouldn't give up something for nothing.
If you aren't even a facebook user, you might want to add the antisocial subscription [adblockplus.org] to adblock, since those little facebook icons are just as useless as the social bookmarking buttons of yore, but more viral.
As a Facebook non-user, those little icons serve a valuable purpose. They help me identify which websites to never visit again.
So . . . is this "goodbye, Slashdot?"
Unfortunately your Grammar Nazi-ism failed to correct "unfriend me" to "defriend me".
"The pilots were debriefed", not "unbriefed".
"His argument was logically deconstructed", not unconstructed.
"The turkey needs to be defrosted", not "unfrosted"
Notice the patten? de- is used as a prefix to verbs.
Thanks for the grammar tip. I for one will try to dedo that bad habit.
I'm on Facebook for Farmville purposes. I'm in real life for social and professional purposes.
I just use it for Facebookville.
Dear Mark,
Fuck you.
I wonder if this is a tactic to see just how much bullshit people will put up with.
I thought that was the TSA's job.
The point is, the phone is a terrible choice for security related matters, because it wasn't specifically designed to be an e-wallet from the ground up.
You can never, ever just bolt-on security.
By this implied definition of e-wallet, a real wallet isn't really designed as a wallet from the ground up either. My wallet has essentially no security once it's out of my hands through theft or loss. But I do get the point, one might store even more valuable information in an e-wallet than just the cash and credit card numbers present in an r-wallet. Bank passwords, other account passwords could lead to considerably more damage than the $50 per credit card loss one might incur. Unless of course, you carry your passwords on paper in your r-wallet.
The risk appears to only be for Android phones, because the swipe-to-unlock leaves smudges that can be visually decoded to tell the thief the "password". I can't see how this security vulnerability affects iPhones with their tap-based passcode. And yes, I have a passcode on my phone. It takes about a day for the annoyance factor to dissipate, and IMHO you're nuts not to have one. Simon
OK, I don't have an iPhone, so what is a tap-based passcode? Just typing digits on a 10-key style screen interface or something like that? I've got a smartphone,but not an iPhone, and have been reluctant to keep anything too valuable (or personal) on it for lack of password protection, and I've resisted using password protection because of how annoying I imagine it to be. Am I totally wrong about how big a hassle it is?
Risk averse employees with average or lower skill sets might have difficulty nabbing an alternative job.
Well there's my example scenario for "adverse selection". My jargon and technical terminology dictionary is complete.
. . . to get it back in the middle of the magazine?
Maybe I'm missing something, but last I knew "We don't like him" wasn't a valid reason for shipping to Gitmo or executions (not that there always is a valid reason, but still...). Assange isn't a US citizen, so that throws treason out the window, so what's the justification?
That actually is pretty much the criteria . . . I don't consider it valid. But that is pretty much it.
Is it just me or do women seem to have gotten prettier over the years?
Not to be rude or anything, but todays girls just seem cuter.
There are exceptions of course - but I spy a trend...
It could be just that styles change. But more likely that photoshop makes the airbrush look like stone knives and bear skins.
You can't spell "pixelated nudity" without "nudity". And you can't put that in a Slashdot summary without slashdotting the site, it seems . . .
Read your contract? Are you kidding? Mine was 2 pages of A4, all printed in a font about 1-1.5 mm tall. Hell, I'd need to scan it and double size-it just to be able to make out any characters on it for more than 5 seconds.
And for a 2 year phone service contract! I can see no legitimate reason that a contract like that needs to be so long and dense. OK, I can see one reason, to statistically reduce the number of customers who read it (and even greater reduce the number of customers who read and understand it), thus allowing the company to put anything in there they want.
It's our lack of consumer power that allows this, of course. I we had any real choice, almost everyone would pick the company with the shortest, fairest and clearest contract. It would be the free market at work -- sort of, "the free market at work" usually means something somewhat different . . .
I once worked for a very small company that provided services to county jails. The market was competitive, the my company and our competitors were all very eager to sign on as many jails as possible. But the county sheriffs, who made the decisions on which company to use, were rather savvy. They realized that they had bargaining power due to the competition. The little companies -- and a few big ones too -- often had to make special contract concessions. My boss, a lawyer, had one particular tactic to get ahead of the competition. He squeezed the contract on to a single page. Legal size, to be sure, and a somewhat "cheated" text and margin. But still one page. Sheriffs saw this and compared it to they other guys' multiple page contracts and presumably said to themselves "Now there's a straight shooter!"
We also made sure to send the sheriffs Christmas presents every year, and had the salesman drop by periodically to do some glad-handing and wine-and-dining.
We may never -- as consumers -- get to that point. The county sheriffs of the US have an annual convention where they can shoot the breeze about such stuff with each other. And there's not really a big enough convention hall for every consumer in the country. (Or is there?) But what we can do is try finding no-contract service "plans" where possible. And outright owned phones. We're not getting a "free" phone with 2 year contract, we pay for it over the duration. So many people just don't like big up-front costs.
I've gone this route, and I think I'm happier than when I had a contract. I might not be if I couldn't find another non-contract service if my provider suddenly got worse. And I also might not be if the provider I had to switch to required a different radio technology -- forcing me to get a new phone. But so far, so good.
If credit ratings in the UK are anything like those in the US, they won't sue you for not paying.
They'll just report that you have an arrears balance, which will destroy your credit rating and prevent you from ever buying a house, getting a subsidized phone, buying a car using a loan, getting a credit card etc etc etc.
You know what we need? A reverse of that process. So if you're ever unhappy with a provider of some good or service, you can report the business as delinquent in its obligations. This would naturally cause their stock to tank, prevent them from issuing bonds or getting corporate credit. And it would only take one report. accurate or not to do this. Of course, they could go through the dispute process, but that could take months, maybe years.
Now I know what you're thinking: "We don't need government intervention like that." But aha! I'm not suggesting legislation. After all, credit bureaus are not gov't agencies -- they're private entities. Ours would be too. This would just be a nice, tidy, free market thingy. No need to get Uncle Sam or the crown or Parliaments, Legislatures, Diets, or any other government or part thereof involved.
Keep dreaming, Robbie, keep dreaming.
Lactic acid is in your muscles right now. Acetic acid is vinegar minus some nutrients. Peroxyacetic acid breaks down into acetic acid and hydrogen peroxide.
Doesn't sound like dangerous chemicals to me. Heck, rinsing with plain old vinegar would be at least twice as acidic. (plus whatever else is in vinegar besides acetic acid.)
Hey, I merely provided the names of some of the chemicals used to clean beef carcasses. You added the terms "dangerous" and "terrible". Parent of my previous post added "horrible". Original post on subject had merely called the chemicals "gross". Adding characterizations that the original poster had not written distorts his claim, which was: "The grossest thing about meat in the grocery store is all the chemicals they have to spray the meat down with . . ." Something may be both "gross" and not dangerous.
The grossest thing about meat in the grocery store is all the chemicals they have to spray the meat down with to kill all the bad stuff and disease picked up from the animal from living in such poor conditions.
Well that's a load of shit. Please, do tell us which horrible horrible "chemicals" are sprayed on these poor diseased carcases, exactly. Maybe you could also link to a peer-reviewed study showing the significantly higher incidence of disease amongst animals raised using different methods. Go ahead, I'll wait.
I can easily imagine without resorting to peer-reviewed journal articles that there are "conditions" that could result in higher and lower incidence of disease among animals. After all, we know from our own experience as animals that our own living conditions greatly affect the incidence of disease in our populations. Consider typhoid, a disease that all but disappears in areas with modern sanitation.
I see no reason to believe that animals raised in poor sanitary conditions, would be sicklier than animals raised in good sanitary conditions. Do you really need a cite? Really? You were just trolling with that one.
As for chemicals used in cleaning carcasses -- besides water and steam -- here's an abstract from an article in the "Journal of Food Protection". Your wait is over!
Reports on the microbiological effects of decontaminating treatments routinely applied to carcasses at beef packing plants indicate that washing before skinning may reduce the numbers of enteric bacteria transferred from the hide to meat. Washing skinned carcasses and/or dressed sides can reduce the numbers of aerobes and Escherichia coli by about 1 log unit, and pasteurizing sides with steam or hot water can reduce their numbers by > 1 or > 2 log units, respectively. Spraying with 2% lactic acid, 2% acetic acid, or 200 ppm of peroxyacetic acid can reduce the numbers of aerobes and E. coli by about 1 log, but such treatments can be ineffective if solutions are applied in inadequate quantities or to meat surfaces that are wet after washing. Trimming and vacuum cleaning with or without spraying with hot water may be largely ineffective for improving the microbiological conditions of carcasses. When contamination of meat during carcass dressing is well controlled and carcasses are subjected to effective decontaminating treatments, the numbers of E. coli on dressed carcasses can be [less than] 1 CFU/ 1,000 cm2. However, meat can be recontaminated during carcass breaking with E. coli from detritus that persists in fixed and personal equipment. The adoption at all packing plants of the carcass-dressing procedures and decontaminating treatments used at some plants to obtain carcasses that meet a very high microbiological standard should be encouraged, and means for limiting recontamination of product during carcass breaking and for decontaminating trimmings and other beef products should be considered.
There are 10 more articles found with the search "cleaning beef carcasses" at pubmed.
And that was just the first suggestion from Google.
But perhaps your phone (or your next phone) does.
Service for my current phone costs me $60 plus sales tax per year. A phone with 3G and tethering would cost me at least that much a month. Good luck convincing me to get such a next phone anytime soon.
No, unless you were replacing dialup and a land line at home, I couldn't. Where do you get wireless service for that price?
The iPad has its merits, and you can do programming on it now (there's at least three BASIC interpreters, for example) . . .
REM find iPad with BASIC installed in store
REM
10 PRINT "Rob Rules"
15 BEEP
20 GOTO 10
REM leave store
REM takes me back to 1983
Too bad, it does not come with 3G. That is a deal breaker for me.
But perhaps your phone (or your next phone) does. And perhaps it's got a wifi hotspot app . . .
I don't even want to know how much tax payer money was pissed away for that "key verdict" - having worked with quite a few monitoring and alarm systems for years I can tell you that most of the time "automatic alarms" get ignored and in fact can cause worse problems when an actual real alarm does occur because of how the operators tune them out - seems like they completely missed the mark on this - the real problem is most likely where you would expect it, the people running the system - human error I am sure !
You don't even have to ignore the alarm that isn't there. But I don't think the "alert" that we're discussing is the big klaxon/flashing sign reading "OIL LEAK," or an oil pressure light with electrical tape over it. What the article indicates was missing was an automatic method of indicating that a failure was imminent. As far as the cost of determining this: learning from mistakes can be expensive. Not learning from mistakes is likely even more so.