I've got it! The whole thing is really a plot by the MPAA. They want to be able to conduct airstrikes on your house while you're watching your pirated movies, so the made a wireless technology that will jam your radar while seeming to make it easier to watch the movies. Clever bastards...
I don't have the book in front of me, but if I recall correctly, the theft percentages were all around a few percent. It was something like the average CEO floor pays for 90% of the bagels, while the average grunt floor pays for 95% of them. Though the guy also stopped providing bagels if the payment percentage was under 90% or 85% or something like that.
Yeah, there is some insight to be gained from these numbers, but let's keep a little perspective too. Only 90% payment may be slightly less then the grunt floors, but it doesn't exactly make them an evil band of roving bagel thieves.
Odd things I've experienced lately
on
Computer Voodoo?
·
· Score: 1
The first thing that comes to mind is mysterious printer wackiness on Windows computers. That's almost a post in itself. I'm using a HP 1410 all in one with a Dell Latitude D600 running XP. The printer will only work if it's connected directly to the computer. Plugging it into a USB hub makes Windows think that it's a completely different device, and it wants to install the drivers again. There are certain Excel documents that will not print out entirely on it - it just stops printing and feeds the rest of the page through. Last time, I tried printing to PDF and then printing from Acrobat, and that worked.
We have a display here (proprietary, explosion-proof, and very expensive) that goes out of whack sometimes. Hitting it usually brings it back.
Woah there, get a grip. I don't understand why some people flip out so badly whenever someone mentions something vaugely related to religion. The underlying point is perfectly reasonable if you can read it with an open mind.
The point is - we know very little about how the human body really works. Therefore, it might not be such a good idea to go changing around our DNA, since even with extensive testing, it's hard to know exactly what those changes will really do. That's not to say we should never ever change our DNA, but we have to be aware of what the long-term consequences could be.
What if we make ourselves more vulnerable to some other disease or condition? What if we screw up some rare but essential functionality for some part of our bodies? What if we change some aspect of how our brains function? What if it's a subtle change that doesn't show up for several generations? These are the things that we have to consider anytime we think about making changes to our DNA.
Excellent point, but I thought I'd point out that the fields you listed as "relatively predictable" don't seem all that predictable to me.
Climate - We can't really predict the weather a week from now. I'm not all that convinced that we have any idea what's going to happen in 1, 10, or 100 years. (Preparing for flames from the global warming crowd...)
Oil Supplies - You'd stand to make quite a lot of money if you actually knew what would happen to oil supplies in the future. There's too many variables, though. Maybe production will dwindle until we're forced to switch to coal and nuclear. Maybe we'll perfect Fusion power and burning oil will become pointless. Maybe we'll discover so much oil that nobody would seriously suggest we'd run out.
Population - It's probably going up. But where, and how much? Who can say for sure?
Tectonic plate movement - We're pretty sure which direction most of the plates are moving in, but just try to predict when the next earthquake is. There's a lot of money in that, but nobody can do it.
Predicting pretty much anything in the future doesn't have a very good track record.
Does anyone else wonder why these Socialist-types feel the need to inject the same long-disproven arguments into any discussion in which someone mentions guns?
And this is exactly what we're talking about - stuff like "Backwards", "Behind the times", "no culture", etc. Who decided what views on a particular subject are "With the times" or "Behind the times"? It's such a smug, condescending attitude. Why can't you just say "They mostly believe in X, which I don't agree with"?
Even if a particular view is "With the times", why is it so special to have that view? That sounds like your views on important subjects are based on whatever the popular opinion is at the moment, and are subject to change anytime popular opinion changes. I don't know about you, but my views are based on core principles, and are not subject to change based on what other people think or what is deemed to be popular at the moment.
I think we have a funny definition of culture too. IMHO, culture means the attitudes and values other people have, the activities they enjoy, the beliefs they hold, the way they live, the food they eat, everything about how they go about their lives. Everybody has culture, it's who they are and what they do. How can you say that they have "no culture" because they don't seem to enjoy certain activities? Who declared that culture consists of big-city theater, arts, and music? It seems like many of the things that some people claim to be culture consist of immersing oneself in foreign cultures.
Not that there's anything wrong with that specifically. If you like foreign cultures, big city theater, arts, and music, then go live in a big city, and have a good time. But don't go around saying that other people who don't enjoy those things are ignorant buffoons with no culture. We have our own culture, and we like it just fine.
What makes you think that land was originally unowned by anyone and held in common? Everything I've read indicates that primitive socities were often territorial and violent, and would frequently fight over property and raid each other. Tribes unwilling to protect their land by force would be overrun and replaced by other tribes willing to take their land by force. At least when the modern concept of private property took over, land could be bought peacefully by whoever could make the best use of it.
Further, wealth is not based on resources, but production. Many areas with little or no resources have thrived and became wealthy, while other areas with a wealth of resources remain poor. The difference is the culture and the political and economic system that rewards production, rather then force or some arbitraty definition of "need". Take, say, the US or Europe or Japan versus Africa.
Actually, I've met some convicted felons that I'd much rather have around me then most of the actors I've read about.
Of course, there's other convicted felons I wouldn't want to be within a mile of without being part of a heavily armed group, but that's beside the point.
Exactly, and it's even better then the "fire sensor" system the parent mentioned. Instead of a complex, fragile, active system to unlock the door that's likely to break when you need it the most, the door is locked by an active system, i.e. pressurization. If you need to open the door, then it's almost certain that you've lost pressurization too.
Maybe it works if someone walks straight through it without moving too much, but how is it going to deal with groups of people shifting around each other, people who happen to turn while walking through, people who are carrying or swinging around oddly-shaped items, etc.
Real currency is an important factor, yes, but that alone doesn't make it a crime. Was it actually taken outside of the rules? If so, wouldn't it be easier and equally just to take the money back from the user who broke the rules and ban his account?
For spyware and viruses, don't use Microsoft products. The iMac mini was probably made to be a replacement for Windows users tired of spyware and viruses - just remove the old computer, and hook the iMac up to the same devices.
For spam, not using AOL is a good start. Then, don't use your address on web forms. Be prepared to change addresses every few years or so. And use a decent e-mail client that has spam filtering.
Ta-da!
So, what have they done about the battery problem?
on
Smart Guns are Coming
·
· Score: 1
What happens when the battery dies?
If it doesn't work without the battery, then someone will be left defenseless when they get a bad battery, forget to replace it, happen to be somewhere (such as cold weather) where batteries don't work as well, etc.
If it does work without the battery, anyone who gets it just has to remove the battery to make it work for them.
A quick way to tell whether it's just another way to make it harder for the law-abiding to get guns: are the police required to use it too?
My latest interview was a bit unusual...
on
Defining Google
·
· Score: 1
My latest interview was almost the opposite of this (not Google, or even IT). Starting from the beginning...
Talked to a recruiter at a career fair. Went to an info session that night, and signed up for an on-campus interview the next day. Fairly typical interview, went pretty well I thought. Got an e-mail a couple of weeks later that I'd be flown out for an on-site interview, a 2-day process.
The funny thing about it was that there wasn't much of an interview at all. When we get started, I'm in a conference room with a dozen other interviewees. They split us into 2 groups and have us make bridges with construction paper, rubber bands, pipe cleaners, and paper clips. Then, we get the usual speech about working conditions, pay, benefits, etc. We go for lunch and take a tour around the facility. Then we get back to the conference room for the "interview". We all stay in the same room together, and they have each person get up in front of everyone and give a little speech answering some questions that they gave us right before the first person went up. After the speech, they ask you some more questions for a few minutes, and then you sit back down. After that, we all went back to the hotel. There was also a group dinner at a restaurant with all the recruiters.
The next day, we visited a work site and talked to some actual employees. It was pretty informal, so I don't think they were reporting back on us as part of the process. Then finally, we had exit interviews, the only thing so far that resembled a conventional interview, and went home.
I got the job, so I suppose it worked well enough, but it's quite a contrast to the usual process of dozens of interviews with various departments.
Slashdot Mirror
How sad indeed... Is there anybody on this board that has any idea what Halliburton actually does? Or can at least spell their name right?
I don't know about you, but I prefer to get women naked. Getting lingerie naked seems kinda pointless.
If you had been following DST, you would have gotten it without the coffee.
You have demonstrated your actual intelligence by posting your demands on Slashdot. The world will go on ignoring you.
I've got it! The whole thing is really a plot by the MPAA. They want to be able to conduct airstrikes on your house while you're watching your pirated movies, so the made a wireless technology that will jam your radar while seeming to make it easier to watch the movies. Clever bastards...
I don't have the book in front of me, but if I recall correctly, the theft percentages were all around a few percent. It was something like the average CEO floor pays for 90% of the bagels, while the average grunt floor pays for 95% of them. Though the guy also stopped providing bagels if the payment percentage was under 90% or 85% or something like that.
Yeah, there is some insight to be gained from these numbers, but let's keep a little perspective too. Only 90% payment may be slightly less then the grunt floors, but it doesn't exactly make them an evil band of roving bagel thieves.
The first thing that comes to mind is mysterious printer wackiness on Windows computers. That's almost a post in itself. I'm using a HP 1410 all in one with a Dell Latitude D600 running XP. The printer will only work if it's connected directly to the computer. Plugging it into a USB hub makes Windows think that it's a completely different device, and it wants to install the drivers again. There are certain Excel documents that will not print out entirely on it - it just stops printing and feeds the rest of the page through. Last time, I tried printing to PDF and then printing from Acrobat, and that worked.
We have a display here (proprietary, explosion-proof, and very expensive) that goes out of whack sometimes. Hitting it usually brings it back.
I can and do.
It doesn't disrupt anybody who isn't trying to commit a violent crime, and it certainly isn't anybody else's business.
Woah there, get a grip. I don't understand why some people flip out so badly whenever someone mentions something vaugely related to religion. The underlying point is perfectly reasonable if you can read it with an open mind.
The point is - we know very little about how the human body really works. Therefore, it might not be such a good idea to go changing around our DNA, since even with extensive testing, it's hard to know exactly what those changes will really do. That's not to say we should never ever change our DNA, but we have to be aware of what the long-term consequences could be.
What if we make ourselves more vulnerable to some other disease or condition? What if we screw up some rare but essential functionality for some part of our bodies? What if we change some aspect of how our brains function? What if it's a subtle change that doesn't show up for several generations? These are the things that we have to consider anytime we think about making changes to our DNA.
Excellent point, but I thought I'd point out that the fields you listed as "relatively predictable" don't seem all that predictable to me.
Climate - We can't really predict the weather a week from now. I'm not all that convinced that we have any idea what's going to happen in 1, 10, or 100 years. (Preparing for flames from the global warming crowd...)
Oil Supplies - You'd stand to make quite a lot of money if you actually knew what would happen to oil supplies in the future. There's too many variables, though. Maybe production will dwindle until we're forced to switch to coal and nuclear. Maybe we'll perfect Fusion power and burning oil will become pointless. Maybe we'll discover so much oil that nobody would seriously suggest we'd run out.
Population - It's probably going up. But where, and how much? Who can say for sure?
Tectonic plate movement - We're pretty sure which direction most of the plates are moving in, but just try to predict when the next earthquake is. There's a lot of money in that, but nobody can do it.
Predicting pretty much anything in the future doesn't have a very good track record.
Does anyone else wonder why these Socialist-types feel the need to inject the same long-disproven arguments into any discussion in which someone mentions guns?
And this is exactly what we're talking about - stuff like "Backwards", "Behind the times", "no culture", etc. Who decided what views on a particular subject are "With the times" or "Behind the times"? It's such a smug, condescending attitude. Why can't you just say "They mostly believe in X, which I don't agree with"?
Even if a particular view is "With the times", why is it so special to have that view? That sounds like your views on important subjects are based on whatever the popular opinion is at the moment, and are subject to change anytime popular opinion changes. I don't know about you, but my views are based on core principles, and are not subject to change based on what other people think or what is deemed to be popular at the moment.
I think we have a funny definition of culture too. IMHO, culture means the attitudes and values other people have, the activities they enjoy, the beliefs they hold, the way they live, the food they eat, everything about how they go about their lives. Everybody has culture, it's who they are and what they do. How can you say that they have "no culture" because they don't seem to enjoy certain activities? Who declared that culture consists of big-city theater, arts, and music? It seems like many of the things that some people claim to be culture consist of immersing oneself in foreign cultures.
Not that there's anything wrong with that specifically. If you like foreign cultures, big city theater, arts, and music, then go live in a big city, and have a good time. But don't go around saying that other people who don't enjoy those things are ignorant buffoons with no culture. We have our own culture, and we like it just fine.
How many of you are in a college lecture right now, posting through Wi-Fi on your laptop?
What makes you think that land was originally unowned by anyone and held in common? Everything I've read indicates that primitive socities were often territorial and violent, and would frequently fight over property and raid each other. Tribes unwilling to protect their land by force would be overrun and replaced by other tribes willing to take their land by force. At least when the modern concept of private property took over, land could be bought peacefully by whoever could make the best use of it.
Further, wealth is not based on resources, but production. Many areas with little or no resources have thrived and became wealthy, while other areas with a wealth of resources remain poor. The difference is the culture and the political and economic system that rewards production, rather then force or some arbitraty definition of "need". Take, say, the US or Europe or Japan versus Africa.
No good could possibly come from this.
Actually, I've met some convicted felons that I'd much rather have around me then most of the actors I've read about.
Of course, there's other convicted felons I wouldn't want to be within a mile of without being part of a heavily armed group, but that's beside the point.
Exactly, and it's even better then the "fire sensor" system the parent mentioned. Instead of a complex, fragile, active system to unlock the door that's likely to break when you need it the most, the door is locked by an active system, i.e. pressurization. If you need to open the door, then it's almost certain that you've lost pressurization too.
Maybe it works if someone walks straight through it without moving too much, but how is it going to deal with groups of people shifting around each other, people who happen to turn while walking through, people who are carrying or swinging around oddly-shaped items, etc.
Real currency is an important factor, yes, but that alone doesn't make it a crime. Was it actually taken outside of the rules? If so, wouldn't it be easier and equally just to take the money back from the user who broke the rules and ban his account?
For spyware and viruses, don't use Microsoft products. The iMac mini was probably made to be a replacement for Windows users tired of spyware and viruses - just remove the old computer, and hook the iMac up to the same devices.
For spam, not using AOL is a good start. Then, don't use your address on web forms. Be prepared to change addresses every few years or so. And use a decent e-mail client that has spam filtering.
Ta-da!
What happens when the battery dies?
If it doesn't work without the battery, then someone will be left defenseless when they get a bad battery, forget to replace it, happen to be somewhere (such as cold weather) where batteries don't work as well, etc.
If it does work without the battery, anyone who gets it just has to remove the battery to make it work for them.
A quick way to tell whether it's just another way to make it harder for the law-abiding to get guns: are the police required to use it too?
My latest interview was almost the opposite of this (not Google, or even IT). Starting from the beginning...
Talked to a recruiter at a career fair. Went to an info session that night, and signed up for an on-campus interview the next day. Fairly typical interview, went pretty well I thought. Got an e-mail a couple of weeks later that I'd be flown out for an on-site interview, a 2-day process.
The funny thing about it was that there wasn't much of an interview at all. When we get started, I'm in a conference room with a dozen other interviewees. They split us into 2 groups and have us make bridges with construction paper, rubber bands, pipe cleaners, and paper clips. Then, we get the usual speech about working conditions, pay, benefits, etc. We go for lunch and take a tour around the facility. Then we get back to the conference room for the "interview". We all stay in the same room together, and they have each person get up in front of everyone and give a little speech answering some questions that they gave us right before the first person went up. After the speech, they ask you some more questions for a few minutes, and then you sit back down. After that, we all went back to the hotel. There was also a group dinner at a restaurant with all the recruiters.
The next day, we visited a work site and talked to some actual employees. It was pretty informal, so I don't think they were reporting back on us as part of the process. Then finally, we had exit interviews, the only thing so far that resembled a conventional interview, and went home.
I got the job, so I suppose it worked well enough, but it's quite a contrast to the usual process of dozens of interviews with various departments.
We're just realizing that some guy with a computer and an internet connection is doing our jobs better then we are.