If you have netflix, check your cc statement. It's not 8.99 anymore. If you don't have netflix, you probably don't care! And you may still not care even if you do have it. In all likelihood I've wasted an entire post on this topic only because I have a bit of knowledge that I hope someone finds useful. Though they likely will not.
They wanted popular opinion to guide the name. If they wanted a sensible name their plan should have included that as a stated requirement for submissions. Their plan didn't backfire. They are just poor planners and Snobby McSnobbypants.
It's a name that was picked by the process they used. It isn't derogatory or offensive. Silly yes, but it's not a substantive part of the mission, just the moniker. It garnered a lot of attention when it was being voted and now people know what it is. That PR is great for such an expedition. Don't get your panties all twisted because something silly won. Embrace it.
Not to mention that's like the shittiest way they could have done a title. No attribution, no context. That's not an article title that's a pull-out quote. Stupid.
Zero because they've done it with holmium atoms on a Magnesium Oxide bed. I don't claim to know how even platter based storage works to know how to answer that question. But the amount of atoms in a BB is theoretically 3 Zetabytes (3 billion terabytes) worth of information could be stored. Pie in the sky, but it's a beautiful sky....
Or that it automatically use google drive and send a link to it instead? That way you don't have to waste time thinking about file size in 2017 and beyond.
some people on slashdot agree with certain things Trump says and does, but the majority of stories and comments about him are negative. And those that defend him are soundly beaten.
Uber CEO was on Trumps economic advisory council. This means he supports Trump and therefore is satan. At least that's how people are treated who support him. Ergo Slashdot piles on.
Vegas figured it differently. Expecting the bots and frist posters to get in on a morning post faster than the trump posters. However, I only came to the comments to make this joke and was not disappointed. Even if the joke was pretty lame.
Oh i agree. You don't have it institutionally like is portrayed on mad men, but just like racism, there will always be people who don't share the accepted, common view of how people should be treated. No matter how good a job we do as a society it will exist. What I find absolutely incredible is that companies today still have the secondary issue of not ADDRESSING the harassment appropriately. That's where the lawsuit comes. If they dealt with it appropriately when she reported it, then she would have no standing for a suit. I personally can't understand people who act that way towards anybody, especially in a business setting. But I'm just one person.
She definitely shouldn't have mixed the harassment and equal pay claims. That will only hurt her case. The "equal pay" claims will be impossible to prove anything and will make her just look like she nagging and therefore draw more skepticism into her harassment claims. The harassment, if true, is unacceptable. That kind of behavior is impossible to ever get away from completely, but management's reaction to it especially within a company that public, should be way better.
It is pretty common for people at that level not to understand more than basic comparison. It is very difficult to make ANY comparisons though without making that sort of assumption first. She should have kept the harassment separate from the allegations of unfair pay/advancement. The latter being found inaccurate will make her other claims suspect.
You're missing that 'Our new approach" was referring to the collective our (USA or FCC of the USA) and is about net neutrality rules that had been put in place by that office recently.
So would it be beneficial to figure out a way? Regardless of predicting the future of whether that results in finding no feasible solution, that question can be asked prior to or without ever having a clue about how. What would the benefits be? What would the potential problems be? These are reasonable questions to posit when discussing such topics.
Why now? Because the last few years and last year moreso has seen the exponential rise of the uber-whiner small group of people being given a stage for their hyper-whiny bullcrap. Because they see themselves as similar to at least one other person they assume this validates their point of view so much so that it must be the right point of view for everybody, and you are a _______ (fill in the blank with racist, sexist, whatever) if you disagree and don't immediately bow to their will. With the irony being social media platforms, like facebook, are what gave these fringe groups the idea that they were more than a fringe group in the first place.
Why did this AC get modded down? This is a legitimate question. They make a leap from "well we don't know why" straight to "must be human activity". Do you really have to wonder why there are "deniers" to something you claim is so irrefutable? Because you are disingenuous with how you present it. You say "climate change" is a thing, which it is. Climates change. Not as often as the weather, but they change. And that's how you ACT like you're stating it when you stare slack jawed at the "idiocy" of the deniers. Yet in reality you're not saying anything about climate change by itself. You are ALWAYS inferring that the major driver is human activity and therefore to accept that you must accept changes to human activity. Not small changes, HUGE changes. Because if human activity is the primary or even a notable driver of climate change, then the change to make it better has to be global in scale. That means putting your Styrofoam or plastic cups in the recycle bin isn't even close to enough. It means fundamentally altering society. Which means chaos. Which will have a much more dramatic and dire effect on our individual ability to survive. And that's ASSUMING there is a way for humans to avert the type of climate change that makes our lives problematic at some unknown time in the future. But can you assume that without having actual hard data showing the causation (not correlation, not gut feel of your gaia meter) and therefore force change on the global population? You can try, but you'll get no where. Maybe that's what the rabid climate change enthusiast want. An unwinnable whinefest. Well Congratulations, you have it.
Slashdot Mirror
If you have netflix, check your cc statement. It's not 8.99 anymore. If you don't have netflix, you probably don't care! And you may still not care even if you do have it. In all likelihood I've wasted an entire post on this topic only because I have a bit of knowledge that I hope someone finds useful. Though they likely will not.
They wanted popular opinion to guide the name. If they wanted a sensible name their plan should have included that as a stated requirement for submissions. Their plan didn't backfire. They are just poor planners and Snobby McSnobbypants.
It's a name that was picked by the process they used. It isn't derogatory or offensive. Silly yes, but it's not a substantive part of the mission, just the moniker. It garnered a lot of attention when it was being voted and now people know what it is. That PR is great for such an expedition. Don't get your panties all twisted because something silly won. Embrace it.
Not to mention that's like the shittiest way they could have done a title. No attribution, no context. That's not an article title that's a pull-out quote. Stupid.
Zero because they've done it with holmium atoms on a Magnesium Oxide bed. I don't claim to know how even platter based storage works to know how to answer that question. But the amount of atoms in a BB is theoretically 3 Zetabytes (3 billion terabytes) worth of information could be stored. Pie in the sky, but it's a beautiful sky....
who can't??
that would be kinda cool to have a mountain that if you climbed to its peak you were in space...
Or perhaps they are deliberately vague so the stats can be abused by people who cite them in order to try to lend credence to their broad assumptions.
Or that it automatically use google drive and send a link to it instead? That way you don't have to waste time thinking about file size in 2017 and beyond.
and can you press like ctrl alt X and automatically get raunchiest mode?
some people on slashdot agree with certain things Trump says and does, but the majority of stories and comments about him are negative. And those that defend him are soundly beaten.
Uber CEO was on Trumps economic advisory council. This means he supports Trump and therefore is satan. At least that's how people are treated who support him. Ergo Slashdot piles on.
Vegas figured it differently. Expecting the bots and frist posters to get in on a morning post faster than the trump posters. However, I only came to the comments to make this joke and was not disappointed. Even if the joke was pretty lame.
The over under on how many posts till trump was 7. You made a lot of people a lot of money.
Oh i agree. You don't have it institutionally like is portrayed on mad men, but just like racism, there will always be people who don't share the accepted, common view of how people should be treated. No matter how good a job we do as a society it will exist. What I find absolutely incredible is that companies today still have the secondary issue of not ADDRESSING the harassment appropriately. That's where the lawsuit comes. If they dealt with it appropriately when she reported it, then she would have no standing for a suit. I personally can't understand people who act that way towards anybody, especially in a business setting. But I'm just one person.
She definitely shouldn't have mixed the harassment and equal pay claims. That will only hurt her case. The "equal pay" claims will be impossible to prove anything and will make her just look like she nagging and therefore draw more skepticism into her harassment claims. The harassment, if true, is unacceptable. That kind of behavior is impossible to ever get away from completely, but management's reaction to it especially within a company that public, should be way better.
It is pretty common for people at that level not to understand more than basic comparison. It is very difficult to make ANY comparisons though without making that sort of assumption first. She should have kept the harassment separate from the allegations of unfair pay/advancement. The latter being found inaccurate will make her other claims suspect.
You're missing that 'Our new approach" was referring to the collective our (USA or FCC of the USA) and is about net neutrality rules that had been put in place by that office recently.
So would it be beneficial to figure out a way? Regardless of predicting the future of whether that results in finding no feasible solution, that question can be asked prior to or without ever having a clue about how. What would the benefits be? What would the potential problems be? These are reasonable questions to posit when discussing such topics.
why on earth did she accept?
No, obviously you didn't. But this is the world we live in today with regards to discussion and debate. Very disappointing.
Why now? Because the last few years and last year moreso has seen the exponential rise of the uber-whiner small group of people being given a stage for their hyper-whiny bullcrap. Because they see themselves as similar to at least one other person they assume this validates their point of view so much so that it must be the right point of view for everybody, and you are a _______ (fill in the blank with racist, sexist, whatever) if you disagree and don't immediately bow to their will. With the irony being social media platforms, like facebook, are what gave these fringe groups the idea that they were more than a fringe group in the first place.
Committing criminal destruction of property is not political incorrectness...
No it wasn't...troll
Why did this AC get modded down? This is a legitimate question. They make a leap from "well we don't know why" straight to "must be human activity". Do you really have to wonder why there are "deniers" to something you claim is so irrefutable? Because you are disingenuous with how you present it. You say "climate change" is a thing, which it is. Climates change. Not as often as the weather, but they change. And that's how you ACT like you're stating it when you stare slack jawed at the "idiocy" of the deniers. Yet in reality you're not saying anything about climate change by itself. You are ALWAYS inferring that the major driver is human activity and therefore to accept that you must accept changes to human activity. Not small changes, HUGE changes. Because if human activity is the primary or even a notable driver of climate change, then the change to make it better has to be global in scale. That means putting your Styrofoam or plastic cups in the recycle bin isn't even close to enough. It means fundamentally altering society. Which means chaos. Which will have a much more dramatic and dire effect on our individual ability to survive. And that's ASSUMING there is a way for humans to avert the type of climate change that makes our lives problematic at some unknown time in the future. But can you assume that without having actual hard data showing the causation (not correlation, not gut feel of your gaia meter) and therefore force change on the global population? You can try, but you'll get no where. Maybe that's what the rabid climate change enthusiast want. An unwinnable whinefest. Well Congratulations, you have it.