I don't think anyone was suggesting they be treated as if they were the same thing. The point was that as far as employment law is concerned, they have many similarities. As far as legality is concerned they are treated the same, in so far that they both fall within the domain of being illegal. It was a useful comparison because while some may not get how "a dumb spoken remark" in the workplace might get them into real trouble, they might get how physical abuse would.
But if you're response to that is going to be "how can you equate the two" then perhaps we need to take a step back from that and explain the tools of discourse to you. Either that, or you are deliberately constructing a straw man from what was merely a method of illustrating a point. No one, at any time, equated the two, but that's what your straw man consisted of. Now that is a dishonest and manipulative tactic deserving only contempt.
Confusing comparisons with equating is doubly stupid and a really, really annoying riposte in discussions.
Drawing comparisons between similar things is a useful device to illustrate your point. It helps highlight the aspects you want to highlight. If is not equating the two. If they were the same in every aspect, then they would be the exact same thing and discussing their similarity would simply be a banal stating of the obvious that didn't illustrate anything.
In this case physical abuse is similar to "a dumb spoken remark" because both are illegal and may end up costing the company a great deal of money. If you don't follow how "a dumb spoken remark" might result in this then you need the similarities explained to you.
Why can't more companies act this way towards one another?
Because they are plenty of other disreputable companies that would laugh at the letter, file it under trash, and ignore until the firmly worded lawyers letters started arriving.
"The implications for online privacy in this series of relationships are uncertain."
I think they are very certain. This will, as with every collaboration of large corporations who seek and retain your information, result in increased use of personal (and often private) information to increase the market and profits of the corporation. Any possible benefit to the customer will be inconsequential and very debatable.
Use facebook? Expect a confusing change in privacy policy to follow, with associated double-speak explanation that demonstrates how it's all being done for your benefit, not theirs. Thereafter expect to have a relationship with Walmart on a personal level you may not be comfortable with, whether you shop there or not.
Where is the line drawn between "promoting" and "featuring"? Who decides where it lies?
I view a website practically every day that regularly features violence of the most brutal kind. Abuse, murder, assaults, genocide, mass murder, casual, premeditated. It's all there. It's called BBC News. I wouldn't say it is "promoting" violence, but someone else may have a more censorious view on that. Why should they get to decide and not me? Why does my habit of reading this website need "nudged"?
What you say isn't unusual and how all conspiracy theories develop. Pointing out any flaws in the theory doesn't disprove it in any way. It just means it goes deeper and encompassed more people than previously suspected.
Reading the article I am struck by just how little fact and data this is based on. This is something that happened 2.7 billion light years away and this is one possible explanation for what happened. I have no idea of how likely it is to be the correct explanation, but I didn't read anything that told me that it was the only explanation.
With that in mind, I am happy to float the possibility that this flash in a very distant galaxy, very long ago, was actually a mega-strike in a intergalaxial war. I have absolutely nothing to back that explanation up, and nothing to gauge how likely an explanation it is. But I imagine that this would be how it might look. That gives it equal validity to this black hole story.
Seriously? Star Wars is an expensive Space Opera, stocked full of shallow stereotyped characters. I wouldn't be my first port of a call in an analysis of human identity,
"ask the fundamental questions: who we are and how do we become who we are"
We are what we do, and we become who we are by taking responsibility for what we do. We do not get to go back in time, re-write history and change events because we got them wrong the first time.
What can we learn from Star Wards in this regard? Nothing. Hans shot first.
You don't understand. Everyone in the UK either lives in London, or wishes they did, or is terribly fascinated by everything that happens there. That's because it's an paradise of exciting people and streets paved with gold.
Isn't London also having some kind of sporting event this summer? Why don't we ever hear more about that?
Exactly. I'd advise the anonymous OP never to go into sales or advertising, as he seems to have a big moral dilemma about helping his company make money. "Likes" on products are advertising. Does anyone ever take them seriously? No-one is looking at them expecting the truth. No one is going to be amazed that you "like" your company's product.
But anyway, you don't have to have used the product to like it. My company builds lifeboats, I've never used one, I hope I never shall. I like them lots and lots. We make good ones and they pay my wages.
The anonymous OP is not the first person ever to be asked by their employer to put in a bit of a plug for the company. They will not be the last. If they have a serious problem with that then perhaps they are working for the wrong company, and should be questioning more than just this request. If they have a problem with it crossing over to their personal life, then ignore it. Who is ever going to know or check or care??? Seriously?
Oh noes! With your incisive insight you have identified the flaw in the plan that no-one else thought of! Foreign plates, doh! Who would have thunk it?!
This proposal is not about recognition of the registration number, it is about recognition of the number plate of a UK registered vehicle that does not have current insurance. If the plate is not recognised then it will be ignored. Or maybe flagged for approval by the petrol station.
Remember, the station owners do not wish to supply to anyone with bad registration plates either, they have a habit of driving off without paying.
Nobody wants your "piece of shit" only because others have better. It's all relative.
If other people didn't have "flashy and overfeatured" smartphones then it would be your phone that people would be considering "flashy and overfeatured", Do you really need to take videos? Always be contactable? Are you really that important?
So rather than scoffing at those with smartphones, you should be thanking them or making your phone so undesirable.
It's not the plan that's the problem it is the entire concept, which is based on a logical impossibility.
So how much longer are ISPs going to be allowed to use this lie when promoting their products? It's not even misleading, it's a plain falsehood. Very little in life is "unlimited". We live in a world of limited resources. No company can sell you "unlimited" anything.
Or are we witnessing a lexical change to the language where "unlimited" merely means a vague "lots"?
Slashdot Mirror
Yes. And do it not only for the benefit of the public at large, but for your friend's sake as well.
I'm color-blind, you insensitive clod! It all looks like lush green meadow to me.
So you really could demand you're listed as "TRUNCATE TABLE CUSTOMER;" ?
"Anyone at home" is an interesting take on that. Just how many people have a 3D printer in their home? A tiny number I would think.
That's a serious question, how many?
Excellent. This "story" deserves no better a reply and no further thought.
I don't think anyone was suggesting they be treated as if they were the same thing. The point was that as far as employment law is concerned, they have many similarities. As far as legality is concerned they are treated the same, in so far that they both fall within the domain of being illegal. It was a useful comparison because while some may not get how "a dumb spoken remark" in the workplace might get them into real trouble, they might get how physical abuse would.
But if you're response to that is going to be "how can you equate the two" then perhaps we need to take a step back from that and explain the tools of discourse to you. Either that, or you are deliberately constructing a straw man from what was merely a method of illustrating a point. No one, at any time, equated the two, but that's what your straw man consisted of. Now that is a dishonest and manipulative tactic deserving only contempt.
Confusing comparisons with equating is doubly stupid and a really, really annoying riposte in discussions.
Drawing comparisons between similar things is a useful device to illustrate your point. It helps highlight the aspects you want to highlight. If is not equating the two. If they were the same in every aspect, then they would be the exact same thing and discussing their similarity would simply be a banal stating of the obvious that didn't illustrate anything.
In this case physical abuse is similar to "a dumb spoken remark" because both are illegal and may end up costing the company a great deal of money. If you don't follow how "a dumb spoken remark" might result in this then you need the similarities explained to you.
I have 5 level 80+ chars on WoW, but haven't played the game in at least a year
So you've been paying a monthly subscription for a game you haven't played in a year?
If Blizzard wants me back
Blizzard must love gamers like you. No, they don't want you back, just keep paying them for nothing.
Why can't more companies act this way towards one another?
Because they are plenty of other disreputable companies that would laugh at the letter, file it under trash, and ignore until the firmly worded lawyers letters started arriving.
"The implications for online privacy in this series of relationships are uncertain."
I think they are very certain. This will, as with every collaboration of large corporations who seek and retain your information, result in increased use of personal (and often private) information to increase the market and profits of the corporation. Any possible benefit to the customer will be inconsequential and very debatable.
Use facebook? Expect a confusing change in privacy policy to follow, with associated double-speak explanation that demonstrates how it's all being done for your benefit, not theirs. Thereafter expect to have a relationship with Walmart on a personal level you may not be comfortable with, whether you shop there or not.
Where is the line drawn between "promoting" and "featuring"? Who decides where it lies?
I view a website practically every day that regularly features violence of the most brutal kind. Abuse, murder, assaults, genocide, mass murder, casual, premeditated. It's all there. It's called BBC News. I wouldn't say it is "promoting" violence, but someone else may have a more censorious view on that. Why should they get to decide and not me? Why does my habit of reading this website need "nudged"?
Like you don't have a picture of Teddy Roosevelt in your wallet?
Don't want.
So don't be a smart-ass!
Welcome to slashdot, you must be new here.
To be be fair, this is pretty much what TFA says, but the slashdot headline and summary sucks and totally misses the point.
Being concerned about not being left behind in new developments and new markets is what drives innovation and competition. It's not "freaking out".
Some will fail, some will be successful. Today's chimeras may be tomorrow's standard kit.
I'm sure this review proves the suitability of Linux for all other visually impaired users with computing science degrees.
Meanwhile, for all other visually impaired users...
What you say isn't unusual and how all conspiracy theories develop. Pointing out any flaws in the theory doesn't disprove it in any way. It just means it goes deeper and encompassed more people than previously suspected.
Reading the article I am struck by just how little fact and data this is based on. This is something that happened 2.7 billion light years away and this is one possible explanation for what happened. I have no idea of how likely it is to be the correct explanation, but I didn't read anything that told me that it was the only explanation.
With that in mind, I am happy to float the possibility that this flash in a very distant galaxy, very long ago, was actually a mega-strike in a intergalaxial war. I have absolutely nothing to back that explanation up, and nothing to gauge how likely an explanation it is. But I imagine that this would be how it might look. That gives it equal validity to this black hole story.
Seriously? Star Wars is an expensive Space Opera, stocked full of shallow stereotyped characters. I wouldn't be my first port of a call in an analysis of human identity,
"ask the fundamental questions: who we are and how do we become who we are"
We are what we do, and we become who we are by taking responsibility for what we do. We do not get to go back in time, re-write history and change events because we got them wrong the first time.
What can we learn from Star Wards in this regard? Nothing. Hans shot first.
You don't understand. Everyone in the UK either lives in London, or wishes they did, or is terribly fascinated by everything that happens there. That's because it's an paradise of exciting people and streets paved with gold.
Isn't London also having some kind of sporting event this summer? Why don't we ever hear more about that?
But it wasn't a rock.
It was a rock lobster!
Let this be a warning to us all.
Exactly. I'd advise the anonymous OP never to go into sales or advertising, as he seems to have a big moral dilemma about helping his company make money. "Likes" on products are advertising. Does anyone ever take them seriously? No-one is looking at them expecting the truth. No one is going to be amazed that you "like" your company's product.
But anyway, you don't have to have used the product to like it. My company builds lifeboats, I've never used one, I hope I never shall. I like them lots and lots. We make good ones and they pay my wages.
The anonymous OP is not the first person ever to be asked by their employer to put in a bit of a plug for the company. They will not be the last. If they have a serious problem with that then perhaps they are working for the wrong company, and should be questioning more than just this request. If they have a problem with it crossing over to their personal life, then ignore it. Who is ever going to know or check or care??? Seriously?
What a fuss about nothing.
And what about vehicles with foreign plates?
Oh noes! With your incisive insight you have identified the flaw in the plan that no-one else thought of! Foreign plates, doh! Who would have thunk it?!
This proposal is not about recognition of the registration number, it is about recognition of the number plate of a UK registered vehicle that does not have current insurance. If the plate is not recognised then it will be ignored. Or maybe flagged for approval by the petrol station.
Remember, the station owners do not wish to supply to anyone with bad registration plates either, they have a habit of driving off without paying.
Nobody wants your "piece of shit" only because others have better. It's all relative.
If other people didn't have "flashy and overfeatured" smartphones then it would be your phone that people would be considering "flashy and overfeatured", Do you really need to take videos? Always be contactable? Are you really that important?
So rather than scoffing at those with smartphones, you should be thanking them or making your phone so undesirable.
It's not the plan that's the problem it is the entire concept, which is based on a logical impossibility.
So how much longer are ISPs going to be allowed to use this lie when promoting their products? It's not even misleading, it's a plain falsehood. Very little in life is "unlimited". We live in a world of limited resources. No company can sell you "unlimited" anything.
Or are we witnessing a lexical change to the language where "unlimited" merely means a vague "lots"?