It's actually only $10, but I think it might have potential. I can't see how this would take more than 1 hr per store once you have your speech down and know how to do the paperwork fast, and even if the total amount on work did come to 1hr per store, a $10/hr part time job with completely flexable hours isn't a bad prospect for lot of people. I expect they will get a lot of college students.
I'm pretty sure this works a hell of a lot better in urban areas than rural areas - I have a shopping center across the street from me with at least 10 shops in it, and I would not mind making up to $100 for a few spare hours of talking and paperwork. Then I can take a bus down the road with my unlimited monthly pass and do the same thing at the next commercial district, provided it isn't covered already, so for me there's not much cost except time and legwork. If I lived in the boondocks or some sprawling residential area, the analysis would be decidely different. If it's enough of a problem I'm sure they'll adjust compensation or change the nature of the program.
Maybe, that was one of my first thoughts too. However, I decided to take a closer look just out of curiosity. I think the success of this depends a lot on how they manage it. It's thankfully not so simple as a bunch of college students running out on a free-for-all gathering information and wasting manager's time. You actually have to apply, be accepted as a contactor, use official google forms, and be in contact with some type of field representative. If they are smart, they will only allow a certain number of people in each city/region to avoid saturation and bad will, and if they are even smarter they will offer some sort of guidence to "contractors" as to which businesses still need to be reviewed. I'm curious as to how they plan to do it, so I just sent in an application for the hell of it, I may or may not end up following through.
That said, I know I have seen one or two other sites with simmilar business models asking for reps on craigslist over the past few months. One wanted people to gather business information, the other just wanted menus from restaurants. Even if they manage this program correctly, it could still create bad will if there is a proliferation of this method of information gathering. We will see.
I don't quite understand what makes this "evil." There are hundreds, if not thousands of places online where people gather this type of information (and more) for free. Check out Yelp.com. How much do you think this infomation is worth? And how else would the average person be able to capitalize on it? Sure, they could hire a group of full time employees to do the same work, but I bet they would miss a lot of niche places that your average cash-strapped college student is perfectly happy to go to.
I can see where it is appropriate when firing a person, as they have a proven track record with the company. I was more concerned with the original post about being passed over when applying for a job. If everyone who didn't happen to get hired for a job could turn it into a court case, I would find that a bit distressing.
Even if there was a law against this type of discrimination (if you want to call it that) how would you enforce it? How would an employee convince a court that this was the main reason for them not getting a job?
Firing someone is a little different than hiring someone, though. You'd probably have a better case if you were fired for such a photo, unless the offending action could somehow be interpreted as being in conflict with your job duties.
You're right - all else being equal it is better to use light guns or any other type on non-lethal in place of real guns. But have you looked at the applications they are talking about? Sure, it's better for making arrests of dangerous criminals - but using non-lethals on border jumpers and unruly crowd represents a new kind of use. Politicians can't deploy heavy firepower in these situations because people would find it morally reprehensible - but if a few illegals or counterculturists end up blinded, there won't be the same kind of moral outcry since there are no body bags to rally around.
1. We are governed by representatives, not the public. If there was some sane way to hold a national initiative process, I think the political landscape would look quite different, though I'll not speculate on better or worse.
2. Any good democracy has to have protections for those in the minority. Think of all the other implications if we had a system where 50% of the populace could trump all policies. I'm hardly equating RIAA's business interests with things like civil rights, but just pointing out that mob rule is not a desirable model.
I think he's referring to the people who argue against using surplus in vitro embryos for research. Every time a test-tube baby is created, spare embryos are made because the procedure has a high failure rate and backups may be required. This means there are hundreds of thousands of embryos floating around in storage, many of which will eventually expire or be destroyed by parents request. There are some on the pro-life side that do not want these cells/embryos to be used for any research purpose despite the fact that they have very little hope of ever becoming a human life. This is a significant part of the debate over the source of stem cells, and is more than a mere straw-man argument as far as I can tell.
As far as I can figure it must have been this way since day one. I'm not sure if the new DRM free music has the # of computer restrictions, but Apple has always limited the number of computers you could play ITMS songs on - I think it's five? How else could they know unless there was embedded data. If people haven't been outraged by now, I can't see why they should suddenly start.
I'll grant you that life might exist in other forms, but we have no idea what those other forms might be - if life exists in a place that is thousands of degrees, it might be very hard to detect it, since we have no idea what to look for. It makes sense to me to start with earth-like planets, because no matter what other ecological models might exist out there, we know that ours can work and we know what it looks like.
Yet somehow all that mucking about with four elements, geocentric models and alchemy led to what we now regard as science. Humans are constantly trying to expand their horizons, and it is a given that they will makes some mistakes along the way. You call this "an exercise in math and science fiction", but I think it is a necessary exercise. It's not like there is some magic point when we will have gathered "enough" information to make proper judgements, and if we don't try to apply our knowledge every step of the way, then how do we know if we are really getting anywhere? The trail of mistakes our scientists leave behind is just as important as the trail of their triumphs - they are signposts telling us what fallacies not to fall for.
See slide #8 - Lead, mercury, and cadmium are a computer's most common toxic substances. When melted down, the machines release even more toxins into the air, ground, and water. The one with the kid playing in the pile of wires. The working conditions are one thing, but it's the long term costs that are of real concern.
It's the "given that it's already created" part of your statement that is the with this situation. If there was a finite amount of this kind of waste, the problem would just diminish over time. The problem is that the amount of e-waste is growing at an ever-faster pace with no sign of stopping. But maybe once China gets developed enough, and people can afford to complain about poisioned water, it will start passing environmental laws that make this kind of work impractical. But then some other region (SE Asia? Africa? Post-peak oil Middle East?) will have twice the amount of e-waste to recycle - from both the west and China.
But you're right, there isn't an easy, obvious solution. But it still invites critical thinking.
If that is the way you feel about free speech, then the answer is not to tie the hands of radio operators and printing presses, but to support public broadcasting. If you feel that every citizen has the absolute right to not only speech, but amplified speech, then what you want are publicly owned means of production, and that is a far larger issue.
And furthermore, although people may not be free in the "market context", there are many options available to would-be broadcasters. The Advent of the internet along with low-cost printing and recording has made speech freer than ever before. If Opie and Anthony wanted to carry on their message, I am confident even a relatively low fan-base on internet radio could support their efforts.
It's an american editor talking about an american company, so it is naturally written with the first amendment in mind - though I'll admit it could have been worded more clearly. But I think he was just trying to head off a certain line of argument that criticizes any and all limits on speech as somehow both illegal and immoral. Whatever kind of issue this is, I don't see how it is a "free speech issue" in a legal, or even a moral sense.
I have the right to print whatever I want, but that does not mean I have the right to use my neighbor's printing press. I have the right to say whatever I want, but that does not mean I have the right to use my neighbor's satellite network .
People have the freedom to speak, including Opie and Anthony. With internet distribution, people are even free to broadcast themselves in voice or in print at relatively low cost, something the writers of the constitution never could have even dreamed of. But the right to speak on XM involves the use of someone elses' very expensive and limited equiptment to amplify their message, and to me that is a very different issue entirely.
I personally think it is a horrible idea - I am in favor of paper ballots, with perhaps limited numbers of electronic booths for certain people who need them - handicaped etc... But I can't see how online voting will add much to the system. However, I don't think it's an idea that will die until there is at least one major disaster involving hacking, extreme corruption or something along those lines.
Just to add something different to what everybody else said - what about people working in government? Not just the people who are actually on capitol hill, but everyone from federal interns to lawyers to a local mayor's secretary - basically any professional person who has any regular contact with the government at any level might suddenly have a serious career problem if they voted for the "wrong" party.
I like the idea of building to the environment, and I actually have seen several dome houses in California and I liked the look of them, though I never thought about them from a natural disaster perspective. I think there are people out there who would give up their ranch houses for a new design, but nobody would want to be the first to do it. For the first person in a community it is
1) Wierd. No matter how nice one might be able to make a dome, it would feel strange to be the only one living in one.
2) Expensive. Standard houses made from standard parts benefit from economies of scale. The three dome houses I can remember seeing looked like they had rich occupants - someone with money to throw around on something eccentric.
Because it doesn't interfere with our ability to survive long enough to reproduce and raise a couple of kids. Any design flaws in an organism may remain for a long time provided they don't interfere with the essenials.
On the business level it should work out. The large capacity printers cost big bucks anyways, and are probably under lease in a lot of situations rather than bought outright. And since Xerox would also make the paper, they can leave it slightly imperfect so that it degrades over time (I believe the article says it currently lasts about 50 rounds), so there's your consumables.
Slashdot Mirror
Agreed, though I hope for their sake they will be smart and organize the effort in some way to eliminate or minimize that effect.
It's actually only $10, but I think it might have potential. I can't see how this would take more than 1 hr per store once you have your speech down and know how to do the paperwork fast, and even if the total amount on work did come to 1hr per store, a $10/hr part time job with completely flexable hours isn't a bad prospect for lot of people. I expect they will get a lot of college students.
I'm pretty sure this works a hell of a lot better in urban areas than rural areas - I have a shopping center across the street from me with at least 10 shops in it, and I would not mind making up to $100 for a few spare hours of talking and paperwork. Then I can take a bus down the road with my unlimited monthly pass and do the same thing at the next commercial district, provided it isn't covered already, so for me there's not much cost except time and legwork. If I lived in the boondocks or some sprawling residential area, the analysis would be decidely different. If it's enough of a problem I'm sure they'll adjust compensation or change the nature of the program.
Maybe, that was one of my first thoughts too. However, I decided to take a closer look just out of curiosity. I think the success of this depends a lot on how they manage it. It's thankfully not so simple as a bunch of college students running out on a free-for-all gathering information and wasting manager's time. You actually have to apply, be accepted as a contactor, use official google forms, and be in contact with some type of field representative. If they are smart, they will only allow a certain number of people in each city/region to avoid saturation and bad will, and if they are even smarter they will offer some sort of guidence to "contractors" as to which businesses still need to be reviewed. I'm curious as to how they plan to do it, so I just sent in an application for the hell of it, I may or may not end up following through.
That said, I know I have seen one or two other sites with simmilar business models asking for reps on craigslist over the past few months. One wanted people to gather business information, the other just wanted menus from restaurants. Even if they manage this program correctly, it could still create bad will if there is a proliferation of this method of information gathering. We will see.
I don't quite understand what makes this "evil." There are hundreds, if not thousands of places online where people gather this type of information (and more) for free. Check out Yelp.com. How much do you think this infomation is worth? And how else would the average person be able to capitalize on it? Sure, they could hire a group of full time employees to do the same work, but I bet they would miss a lot of niche places that your average cash-strapped college student is perfectly happy to go to.
I can see where it is appropriate when firing a person, as they have a proven track record with the company. I was more concerned with the original post about being passed over when applying for a job. If everyone who didn't happen to get hired for a job could turn it into a court case, I would find that a bit distressing.
Even if there was a law against this type of discrimination (if you want to call it that) how would you enforce it? How would an employee convince a court that this was the main reason for them not getting a job? Firing someone is a little different than hiring someone, though. You'd probably have a better case if you were fired for such a photo, unless the offending action could somehow be interpreted as being in conflict with your job duties.
You're right - all else being equal it is better to use light guns or any other type on non-lethal in place of real guns. But have you looked at the applications they are talking about? Sure, it's better for making arrests of dangerous criminals - but using non-lethals on border jumpers and unruly crowd represents a new kind of use. Politicians can't deploy heavy firepower in these situations because people would find it morally reprehensible - but if a few illegals or counterculturists end up blinded, there won't be the same kind of moral outcry since there are no body bags to rally around.
1. We are governed by representatives, not the public. If there was some sane way to hold a national initiative process, I think the political landscape would look quite different, though I'll not speculate on better or worse. 2. Any good democracy has to have protections for those in the minority. Think of all the other implications if we had a system where 50% of the populace could trump all policies. I'm hardly equating RIAA's business interests with things like civil rights, but just pointing out that mob rule is not a desirable model.
I think he's referring to the people who argue against using surplus in vitro embryos for research. Every time a test-tube baby is created, spare embryos are made because the procedure has a high failure rate and backups may be required. This means there are hundreds of thousands of embryos floating around in storage, many of which will eventually expire or be destroyed by parents request. There are some on the pro-life side that do not want these cells/embryos to be used for any research purpose despite the fact that they have very little hope of ever becoming a human life. This is a significant part of the debate over the source of stem cells, and is more than a mere straw-man argument as far as I can tell.
As far as I can figure it must have been this way since day one. I'm not sure if the new DRM free music has the # of computer restrictions, but Apple has always limited the number of computers you could play ITMS songs on - I think it's five? How else could they know unless there was embedded data. If people haven't been outraged by now, I can't see why they should suddenly start.
I'll grant you that life might exist in other forms, but we have no idea what those other forms might be - if life exists in a place that is thousands of degrees, it might be very hard to detect it, since we have no idea what to look for. It makes sense to me to start with earth-like planets, because no matter what other ecological models might exist out there, we know that ours can work and we know what it looks like.
Yet somehow all that mucking about with four elements, geocentric models and alchemy led to what we now regard as science. Humans are constantly trying to expand their horizons, and it is a given that they will makes some mistakes along the way. You call this "an exercise in math and science fiction", but I think it is a necessary exercise. It's not like there is some magic point when we will have gathered "enough" information to make proper judgements, and if we don't try to apply our knowledge every step of the way, then how do we know if we are really getting anywhere? The trail of mistakes our scientists leave behind is just as important as the trail of their triumphs - they are signposts telling us what fallacies not to fall for.
See slide #8 - Lead, mercury, and cadmium are a computer's most common toxic substances. When melted down, the machines release even more toxins into the air, ground, and water. The one with the kid playing in the pile of wires. The working conditions are one thing, but it's the long term costs that are of real concern.
It's the "given that it's already created" part of your statement that is the with this situation. If there was a finite amount of this kind of waste, the problem would just diminish over time. The problem is that the amount of e-waste is growing at an ever-faster pace with no sign of stopping. But maybe once China gets developed enough, and people can afford to complain about poisioned water, it will start passing environmental laws that make this kind of work impractical. But then some other region (SE Asia? Africa? Post-peak oil Middle East?) will have twice the amount of e-waste to recycle - from both the west and China.
But you're right, there isn't an easy, obvious solution. But it still invites critical thinking.
If that is the way you feel about free speech, then the answer is not to tie the hands of radio operators and printing presses, but to support public broadcasting. If you feel that every citizen has the absolute right to not only speech, but amplified speech, then what you want are publicly owned means of production, and that is a far larger issue.
And furthermore, although people may not be free in the "market context", there are many options available to would-be broadcasters. The Advent of the internet along with low-cost printing and recording has made speech freer than ever before. If Opie and Anthony wanted to carry on their message, I am confident even a relatively low fan-base on internet radio could support their efforts.
It's an american editor talking about an american company, so it is naturally written with the first amendment in mind - though I'll admit it could have been worded more clearly. But I think he was just trying to head off a certain line of argument that criticizes any and all limits on speech as somehow both illegal and immoral. Whatever kind of issue this is, I don't see how it is a "free speech issue" in a legal, or even a moral sense.
I have the right to print whatever I want, but that does not mean I have the right to use my neighbor's printing press. I have the right to say whatever I want, but that does not mean I have the right to use my neighbor's satellite network .
People have the freedom to speak, including Opie and Anthony. With internet distribution, people are even free to broadcast themselves in voice or in print at relatively low cost, something the writers of the constitution never could have even dreamed of. But the right to speak on XM involves the use of someone elses' very expensive and limited equiptment to amplify their message, and to me that is a very different issue entirely.
I think U.S. growth rates are mainly due to immigrants, though.
I personally think it is a horrible idea - I am in favor of paper ballots, with perhaps limited numbers of electronic booths for certain people who need them - handicaped etc... But I can't see how online voting will add much to the system. However, I don't think it's an idea that will die until there is at least one major disaster involving hacking, extreme corruption or something along those lines.
Just to add something different to what everybody else said - what about people working in government? Not just the people who are actually on capitol hill, but everyone from federal interns to lawyers to a local mayor's secretary - basically any professional person who has any regular contact with the government at any level might suddenly have a serious career problem if they voted for the "wrong" party.
It's not really that different. But slashdot is hardly a fan club for the London cameras either.
Though I will admit, the comparison to America does seem a little out of place in this summery.
I like the idea of building to the environment, and I actually have seen several dome houses in California and I liked the look of them, though I never thought about them from a natural disaster perspective. I think there are people out there who would give up their ranch houses for a new design, but nobody would want to be the first to do it. For the first person in a community it is
1) Wierd. No matter how nice one might be able to make a dome, it would feel strange to be the only one living in one.
2) Expensive. Standard houses made from standard parts benefit from economies of scale. The three dome houses I can remember seeing looked like they had rich occupants - someone with money to throw around on something eccentric.
Because it doesn't interfere with our ability to survive long enough to reproduce and raise a couple of kids. Any design flaws in an organism may remain for a long time provided they don't interfere with the essenials.
I'm not up on my more recent history of car company wages vs. profit, but I hardly think the companies were doing badly in the time of Henry Ford.
Not a myth, but pretty hard to do, and you have to have a huge flat area to do it. I think I only did it once without using a cheat.
On the business level it should work out. The large capacity printers cost big bucks anyways, and are probably under lease in a lot of situations rather than bought outright. And since Xerox would also make the paper, they can leave it slightly imperfect so that it degrades over time (I believe the article says it currently lasts about 50 rounds), so there's your consumables.