I do hope someone with mod points sees the parent post. I had a very hard time not laughing loudly and disturbing people in nearby cubicles. I did laugh silently, though. Pretty hard too. By the way, uigrad, where do you live? (Yes, I'm female.)
Hmm, yes, he COULD do that...but then, someone lacking the gonads to log in and post under a username, rather than anonymously, probably wouldn't think of that solution.
Nah, I agree with the first AC--it was reaching too much to be funny, since the post he was deliberately misinterpreting made it clear that it was the female who needed back-up/redundancy, not him. Trying too hard/= funny.
"Compaines (sic) in Europe can cover 24x7 *every day* if necessary simply by using shifts, incentives and compensations."... "I have never worked more than 40 hours in a week for 6 years..."... "And my 5 weeks of holiday per year have never been denied to me."
Am I missing something here, or did you just prove the point coupland made in the first post?
"Dropping and replacing SSNs with something that can't be reproduced/used by someone who it doesn't match (such as a biometric) is a nice idea. Hell, so is a database of SSNs and other personal information."
Sure, those are great ideas! You might, however, want to check out some of the previous posts, just to make sure you still think those ideas are good after reading them.
"...the "entire human race" portrayed on ST is not even as ethnically diverse as the current US population?"
Setting aside for the moment the issue of how you came to this conclusion (which has already been addressed in another post), a less "ethnically diverse" future would seem to make sense, from the standpoint that intermarriage between ethnicities would blur racial lines and cause greater ethnic homogeneity the farther into the future one goes. This could also be viewed as another example of Star Trek's "optimism"--that the human race will experience a decline in racism/tribalism as it advances, thus encouraging (or at least not discouraging) the blending of races via intermarriage.
Since we're all correcting each other's spelling and grammar here (which I find highly amusing in response to this particular article, by the way), the title of your post should be "AYB Vs. Valentine's Day..."
Uh, what? How was this proven, and what did they have a monopoly on? Please back up your opinion with facts. To my knowledge, the only actual monopolies are government-owned, such as the USPS.
And on a related note, what accounts for the $1billion damages? I'd wager a large part of that is plugging security holes that should not have been there in the first place.
Perhaps the government should be paying him for showing where these holes were.
This is becoming ridiculous, my employer pays me to do a job and I do it. He shouldn't have the right to ear, see and read everything I do in the company office because he's afraid I may leak private information. Where will we have to draw the line between the company's right to corporate secrecy and its employees' right to privacy?
Each individual should be deciding where to draw the line at the time he signs (or doesn't sign) the paperwork upon being employed. If the company wants you to sign over to them "the right to (h)ear, see and read everything [you] do in the company office," and you don't think they should have that right, don't sign the form. Find another company that won't ask for that right. It's your choice--the same way you can choose not to work for a company that won't pay you what you think you're worth, or doesn't offer the benefits you want.
I worked for Barnes & Noble some years ago, and during that time found out that the Bible is the most-often stolen book. I theorized that these thieves must be rationalizing it to themselves, thinking that the "Word of God" should be free, or some such...and was told that that was almost word for word what a shoplifter had said when caught. Sad that they don't think about all the hard work put into manufacturing and publishing those books, the result of which they're stealing, and therefore braking a Commandment.
Then he starts his Jedi training, and he's not free there either. Remember in Episode II when Padme asks him if he's even allowed to love? He's still a slave, but now he's a slave to the Jedi order, in a sense.
This reminds me--has anyone else noticed the similarity of the Jedi philosophy to that of the society in the movie "Equilibrium"?
Re:It could be worse ...
on
Star Wars Sickout
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
So you're saying it's ok to murder one person, against his will (hence the term "murder"), to save the lives of three people? Hmm...sounds like democracy/socialism to me. Sacrificing the individual to the group.
Ahh, but technically the term means one who fucks his own mother.
Re:It could be worse ...
on
Star Wars Sickout
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Ugh--and if he didn't agree (although the other three very well may have guilted him into agreeing), not only do we have no way of knowing, but murdering someone else to save one's own life is STILL MURDER.
Well-put, Marvelicious, and thank you for pointing this out! I'd like to add that most of the taxes on gas were originally put forth as "temporary" measures, just until the end of the war/recession/other current excuse for more taxes. Hmm...I don't think they've removed any though...maybe they just forgot.
Slashdot Mirror
I do hope someone with mod points sees the parent post. I had a very hard time not laughing loudly and disturbing people in nearby cubicles. I did laugh silently, though. Pretty hard too. By the way, uigrad, where do you live? (Yes, I'm female.)
Oh my god. I love you.
Hmm, yes, he COULD do that...but then, someone lacking the gonads to log in and post under a username, rather than anonymously, probably wouldn't think of that solution.
FTA:
"The call centre worker bragged that he could sell up to 200,000 account details each month."
This was also mentioned in the Slashdot summary above...did you read any of this before posting?
(/offtopic)
Was this the author's error, or the reviewer's?
Am I missing something here, or did you just prove the point coupland made in the first post?
Brilliantly said! Where are those mods when you need them? Come on, someone mod parent "insightful"...
Sure, those are great ideas! You might, however, want to check out some of the previous posts, just to make sure you still think those ideas are good after reading them.
Hmmm... I think you missed his point.
Setting aside for the moment the issue of how you came to this conclusion (which has already been addressed in another post), a less "ethnically diverse" future would seem to make sense, from the standpoint that intermarriage between ethnicities would blur racial lines and cause greater ethnic homogeneity the farther into the future one goes. This could also be viewed as another example of Star Trek's "optimism"--that the human race will experience a decline in racism/tribalism as it advances, thus encouraging (or at least not discouraging) the blending of races via intermarriage.
(Please forgive me for being slightly off-topic, O great and just gods of moderation.)
If by "the people" you mean "the government," then yes.
Since we're all correcting each other's spelling and grammar here (which I find highly amusing in response to this particular article, by the way), the title of your post should be "AYB Vs. Valentine's Day..."
Uh, what? How was this proven, and what did they have a monopoly on? Please back up your opinion with facts. To my knowledge, the only actual monopolies are government-owned, such as the USPS.
Perhaps the government should be paying him for showing where these holes were.
Each individual should be deciding where to draw the line at the time he signs (or doesn't sign) the paperwork upon being employed. If the company wants you to sign over to them "the right to (h)ear, see and read everything [you] do in the company office," and you don't think they should have that right, don't sign the form. Find another company that won't ask for that right. It's your choice--the same way you can choose not to work for a company that won't pay you what you think you're worth, or doesn't offer the benefits you want.
I don't think that word means what you think it does...
Disclaimer: I am an atheist.
Then he starts his Jedi training, and he's not free there either. Remember in Episode II when Padme asks him if he's even allowed to love? He's still a slave, but now he's a slave to the Jedi order, in a sense. This reminds me--has anyone else noticed the similarity of the Jedi philosophy to that of the society in the movie "Equilibrium"?
So you're saying it's ok to murder one person, against his will (hence the term "murder"), to save the lives of three people? Hmm...sounds like democracy/socialism to me. Sacrificing the individual to the group.
Ahh, but technically the term means one who fucks his own mother.
Ugh--and if he didn't agree (although the other three very well may have guilted him into agreeing), not only do we have no way of knowing, but murdering someone else to save one's own life is STILL MURDER.
Thank you! My thoughts exactly. For a good example of government trying to do business, take a look at the Postal Service.
Well-put, Marvelicious, and thank you for pointing this out! I'd like to add that most of the taxes on gas were originally put forth as "temporary" measures, just until the end of the war/recession/other current excuse for more taxes. Hmm...I don't think they've removed any though...maybe they just forgot.