What the hell happened to my USER page?
It has weird new formatting...post my last post in big text at the top of the screen? That can't be good for work usage...
Seconded. WTF? The only thing I use my user page for is to get a quick glimpse of what I've posted, if there's any replies I should take care of, and if I scored a +5 anywhere (or a -1 as I'm sure this post will get). If I wanted to Firehose, I'd find the damn marble on my own.
And using the idle css for every page-- well, up yours, too, Slashdot.
Totally unrelated to the article, but wtf is up with the new userpage? I just want it the way it was, with easy access to my comments right up front when I click on my own username. I don't need a stupid stylesheet based on idle with fifteen useless widgets cluttering things up! Does anyone know how to get rid of that crap? (Since the slashdocumentation is years out of date...)
Btw, IE 8 beta 2 also seem to have way improved performance over IE 7, although that one will still not reach "interesting" levels in a test like this.
Especially not if they continue to test on the page www.google.com/OptimizedTestForChrome.php
That's the ~95% which are not mayor nuclear powers.
Wait, they're handing out nukes to municipal governments now? I don't know what it's like in your town, but the vast majorities of the mayors around here are factory-sealed with 98.5% pure batshit-grade insanity. I barely trust my mayor to run a furniture store, let alone an apocalypse.
In our sorting experiments we have followed the rules of a standard terabyte (TB) sort benchmark.
Which lead me to this page that describes the data (and it's available for download).
For the record, you can download a file that will generate the data for it. Because otherwise, well, posting a link to a 1TB file on Slashdot might melt the entire Internet.
You're going to trust people that are buying and selling laws to record their conversations?
Of course not. That's why we should get a law passed to make it mandatory. It'll be tough to pass, but I know a couple palms we could grease (off the record, of course)
Employers generally refuse to pay workers for the time between walking in the door of the factory and reaching the production floor on the theory that they are only going to pay for actual production time.
This same theory gets trotted out against teachers, too. Not too long ago in Ontario, we had a fairly anti-teacher government. They tried to redefine what "teaching" meant to something like "only time in a classroom lecturing". They said "Why should we pay you for time when your not teaching", by which they meant things like walking between classrooms during periods, photocopying notes, marking...
Thankfully the same situation that you describe also is an awesome counterargument. Imagine an auto worker whose job is to gather a bunch of parts from a bin, then move down the assembly line attaching those parts to cars. When she's done, she walks back to the bin and repeats. Now imagine an "efficiency expert" who, after observing her for a while, announces that they're cutting her salary by 25%. Why? Because they calculated that 25% of her time is spent walking from the end of the line back to the bin to gather parts, then walking back to the head of the line-- and none of those activities are "constructing cars". Why should they pay her for the minutes when she isn't "technically working".
Too many employers get away with redefining "work", and screwing employees out of wages earned from activities that don't fit into that narrow definition. These people's job description isn't "Do work on computer". It's "Be in the office for X O'clock prepare your work environment, then proceed to perform various activities towards the goal of X"
they'll ask people to report other people who have their damn cell out for 30 minutes at a time
I'm 5'8". My fiance is 5'2". Whenever we sit down in a theater, 99.99% of the time, some tall lugnut will walk in, and sit down right in front of her.If we move, a second lugnut will come in and repeat the process. If we sit down in an empty theatre, where we are the only two people there, then 5 seconds before the movie starts some lugnut will wander in, drool a bit, slither up the steps then sit right in front of her.
The movie industry should invest some money in discovering the force that causes this effect, and have it installed into every camera phone. Forget IR lights, forget police raids, forget turning everyone into snitches-- this one device alone would make cam recording impossible forever.
One thing I can never figure out: Gmail's spam filter is awesomely amazingly accurate. In the years I've had my gmail account, I think maybe 3 spams have made it through, and I've had 0 false positives.
Given that, why can't they apply that same well-learned spam filter to their ad words? An email subject line and an ad-words tag line are not all that dissimilar. It might cut down on the 99.9% of crap that comes through along the lines of "make 40k per month", "looking for [insert term]? find it here!", and "natural herbs online that pharmacy don't want you to know about!"
Unless there's one of those "things" going on. Maybe Google is perfectly capable of filtering them out, but they chose not to. They know that their adwords are unobtrusive to most, and blocked by the rest-- and maybe they know that their spammy ad words don't actually generate any significant business. So they gladly allow them, knowing the ads are worthless-- but will gladly take the spammer's money.
It'd be a beautifully perverse poetic justice: the spammers are shelling out cash hand over fist to buy a worthless product because they perceive it will earn them tons of cash. =)
Various organisations have been sensationalising this issue by prefixing cyber and pretending it's a new issue.
Here-here. It always makes me shudder on how ineptly this "new type" of bullying is handled. Rather that trying to prevent it, I say it should be allowed to happen, and then handled using conventional, existing laws
If you put all your effort into preventing "cyber" bullying, you're missing out on the greatest gift those bullies can give you: Immutable, public and permanent evidence of their wrong doing.
In Toronto and the surrounding regions, there were a few incidents of idiots bullying some poor kid, then posting video footage of themselves on YouTube doing so. They were, obviously, caught and punished. Unrelated to the act, they had posted the video while at school. The reaction of the school board? Put in highly inefficient filtering software that prevents anyone from accessing 'dangerous websites' like YouTube, because they might use them to cyber bully while at school.
The effect was threefold:
It made the teachers' lives hell, because so many of the websites they use were blocked (such as YouTube's plethora of educational videos, the WHMIS (Workplace Hazardous Materials Information System, ie "here's the government mandated documentation on how not to hurt yourself while using Very Dangerous Things in everyday life", and others)
It didn't make a lick of difference to the students, since they all just fired up a proxy or two
Most damaging in my opinion: it works to prevent stupid criminals from self-incriminating themselves!
You see, I'm of the opinion that if someone wants to cyberbully by posting video of themselves doing it on YouTube, then they should be allowed to. Because then it makes it infinitely more easier to use that evidence to punish them. I'm willing to be a disproportional number of us here on/. were bullied as kids. And I'm also sure that at one point or another parents/authorities were involved. And I'm willing to bet that more than once you were told by the parent "My little Neilson's an angel and would never do that!" or by the principal "It's just your word against his and I can't do anything. Besides I really don't believe you".
Now imagine how different those meetings would be if you could plunk down concrete evidence of the bullying, kindly provided by the bully himself. I believe a "O RLY?" would be in order.
So while cyberbullying is wrong, anything that can be constituted as "cyber"bullying is already covered by one or my laws. Preventing the cyber-part of it only removes a valuable weapon to wield in defense. So please think of the children and let the bullies back onto YouTube!
The video suffers from YouPorn syndrome. Symptoms of this condition include one or more minutes of stuff we don't care about. The condition is most extreme when the event we care about is of short duration. Although it is not entirely curable, it can be treated by posting the time of the interesting event in the comments section. In this case, the event in question occurs at 2:38. Remember, this is a treatment not a cure. The treatment still consumes bandwidth and time. In the future, we may have a Flash plug-in where the annotation feature can be used to denote points of interest, with the ability to skip to a keyframe just before said point. Until then, only video posters can prevent YouPorn syndrome. Remember, if the event of interest in your video is of short duration, the video should not be any more than twice as long as the actual event. Introduction, at most, should identify you and/or your fetish. Anything that can be explained more efficiently as text should be put in the little text section that appears in the upper right.
Or the book "The Killing Star" that came out in 1995 (still predated by all the other examples, I know).
The book opens with the solar system being wiped out by a lobby or relativistic missiles (ie: a bunch of rocks accelerated to near light space and slammed into the planets & moons. It's literally hard to see that coming).
A note, I'm in Canada too, and maybe it's just the neighborhood I grew up in, but all the meters were on the outside of the house. I'm not sure how effective hooking a web-cam rig to the side of your house would be.
Also, since the OP says the meter is in the basement, I'm assuming low light. This means you'll need to light the meter every time you want to snap a photo of it-- or leave a light on all the time. I have to wonder what that would do to your hydro bill...?
Slashdot Mirror
Seconded. WTF? The only thing I use my user page for is to get a quick glimpse of what I've posted, if there's any replies I should take care of, and if I scored a +5 anywhere (or a -1 as I'm sure this post will get). If I wanted to Firehose, I'd find the damn marble on my own.
And using the idle css for every page-- well, up yours, too, Slashdot.
Totally unrelated to the article, but wtf is up with the new userpage? I just want it the way it was, with easy access to my comments right up front when I click on my own username. I don't need a stupid stylesheet based on idle with fifteen useless widgets cluttering things up! Does anyone know how to get rid of that crap? (Since the slashdocumentation is years out of date...)
Except that last year he wanted an iPhone...
Just so long as you don't patent the reverse, please.
Especially not if they continue to test on the page www.google.com/OptimizedTestForChrome.php
Only if we call him Steve.
sooooo... that'd be fishing for fun and not for food, then? Or am I speaking to Mercury McSevenToe?
Wait, they're handing out nukes to municipal governments now? I don't know what it's like in your town, but the vast majorities of the mayors around here are factory-sealed with 98.5% pure batshit-grade insanity. I barely trust my mayor to run a furniture store, let alone an apocalypse.
For the record, you can download a file that will generate the data for it. Because otherwise, well, posting a link to a 1TB file on Slashdot might melt the entire Internet.
Of course not. That's why we should get a law passed to make it mandatory. It'll be tough to pass, but I know a couple palms we could grease (off the record, of course)
So... you're saying that the tag system won't be our next president? I'm confused.
This same theory gets trotted out against teachers, too. Not too long ago in Ontario, we had a fairly anti-teacher government. They tried to redefine what "teaching" meant to something like "only time in a classroom lecturing". They said "Why should we pay you for time when your not teaching", by which they meant things like walking between classrooms during periods, photocopying notes, marking...
Thankfully the same situation that you describe also is an awesome counterargument. Imagine an auto worker whose job is to gather a bunch of parts from a bin, then move down the assembly line attaching those parts to cars. When she's done, she walks back to the bin and repeats. Now imagine an "efficiency expert" who, after observing her for a while, announces that they're cutting her salary by 25%. Why? Because they calculated that 25% of her time is spent walking from the end of the line back to the bin to gather parts, then walking back to the head of the line-- and none of those activities are "constructing cars". Why should they pay her for the minutes when she isn't "technically working".
Too many employers get away with redefining "work", and screwing employees out of wages earned from activities that don't fit into that narrow definition. These people's job description isn't "Do work on computer". It's "Be in the office for X O'clock prepare your work environment, then proceed to perform various activities towards the goal of X"
I'm 5'8". My fiance is 5'2". Whenever we sit down in a theater, 99.99% of the time, some tall lugnut will walk in, and sit down right in front of her.If we move, a second lugnut will come in and repeat the process. If we sit down in an empty theatre, where we are the only two people there, then 5 seconds before the movie starts some lugnut will wander in, drool a bit, slither up the steps then sit right in front of her.
The movie industry should invest some money in discovering the force that causes this effect, and have it installed into every camera phone. Forget IR lights, forget police raids, forget turning everyone into snitches-- this one device alone would make cam recording impossible forever.
One thing I can never figure out: Gmail's spam filter is awesomely amazingly accurate. In the years I've had my gmail account, I think maybe 3 spams have made it through, and I've had 0 false positives.
Given that, why can't they apply that same well-learned spam filter to their ad words? An email subject line and an ad-words tag line are not all that dissimilar. It might cut down on the 99.9% of crap that comes through along the lines of "make 40k per month", "looking for [insert term]? find it here!", and "natural herbs online that pharmacy don't want you to know about!"
Unless there's one of those "things" going on. Maybe Google is perfectly capable of filtering them out, but they chose not to. They know that their adwords are unobtrusive to most, and blocked by the rest-- and maybe they know that their spammy ad words don't actually generate any significant business. So they gladly allow them, knowing the ads are worthless-- but will gladly take the spammer's money.
It'd be a beautifully perverse poetic justice: the spammers are shelling out cash hand over fist to buy a worthless product because they perceive it will earn them tons of cash. =)
Here-here. It always makes me shudder on how ineptly this "new type" of bullying is handled. Rather that trying to prevent it, I say it should be allowed to happen, and then handled using conventional, existing laws
If you put all your effort into preventing "cyber" bullying, you're missing out on the greatest gift those bullies can give you: Immutable, public and permanent evidence of their wrong doing.
In Toronto and the surrounding regions, there were a few incidents of idiots bullying some poor kid, then posting video footage of themselves on YouTube doing so. They were, obviously, caught and punished. Unrelated to the act, they had posted the video while at school. The reaction of the school board? Put in highly inefficient filtering software that prevents anyone from accessing 'dangerous websites' like YouTube, because they might use them to cyber bully while at school.
The effect was threefold:
You see, I'm of the opinion that if someone wants to cyberbully by posting video of themselves doing it on YouTube, then they should be allowed to. Because then it makes it infinitely more easier to use that evidence to punish them. I'm willing to be a disproportional number of us here on /. were bullied as kids. And I'm also sure that at one point or another parents/authorities were involved. And I'm willing to bet that more than once you were told by the parent "My little Neilson's an angel and would never do that!" or by the principal "It's just your word against his and I can't do anything. Besides I really don't believe you".
Now imagine how different those meetings would be if you could plunk down concrete evidence of the bullying, kindly provided by the bully himself. I believe a "O RLY?" would be in order.
So while cyberbullying is wrong, anything that can be constituted as "cyber"bullying is already covered by one or my laws. Preventing the cyber-part of it only removes a valuable weapon to wield in defense. So please think of the children and let the bullies back onto YouTube!
Hate to break it to you, but owning an Apple is the depression stage. =) (/negative mod-bait comment)
[Conan the Librarian lifts the man up with his bare hands]
Conan the Librarian: Don't you know the Dewey Decimal System?
The video suffers from YouPorn syndrome. Symptoms of this condition include one or more minutes of stuff we don't care about. The condition is most extreme when the event we care about is of short duration. Although it is not entirely curable, it can be treated by posting the time of the interesting event in the comments section. In this case, the event in question occurs at 2:38. Remember, this is a treatment not a cure. The treatment still consumes bandwidth and time. In the future, we may have a Flash plug-in where the annotation feature can be used to denote points of interest, with the ability to skip to a keyframe just before said point. Until then, only video posters can prevent YouPorn syndrome. Remember, if the event of interest in your video is of short duration, the video should not be any more than twice as long as the actual event. Introduction, at most, should identify you and/or your fetish. Anything that can be explained more efficiently as text should be put in the little text section that appears in the upper right.
Or the book "The Killing Star" that came out in 1995 (still predated by all the other examples, I know).
The book opens with the solar system being wiped out by a lobby or relativistic missiles (ie: a bunch of rocks accelerated to near light space and slammed into the planets & moons. It's literally hard to see that coming).
What about Halo? A device intended to sterilize the galaxy counts in my books.
Do not put Happy Fun Ball on a list.
A note, I'm in Canada too, and maybe it's just the neighborhood I grew up in, but all the meters were on the outside of the house. I'm not sure how effective hooking a web-cam rig to the side of your house would be.
Also, since the OP says the meter is in the basement, I'm assuming low light. This means you'll need to light the meter every time you want to snap a photo of it-- or leave a light on all the time. I have to wonder what that would do to your hydro bill...?
Post the images as CAPTCHAs that protect porn pictures. You'll have the values typed in for you in no time.
Sooo... can I file a Freedom of Information Act request and get a copy of the Lexicon now? I wonder if they offer free shipping on orders over $39?
Yup, but longer.