Your need to point out how you were about to be an even larger dick before starting told me everything I needed to know to judge the worth of your opinion and skip it.
Of course - there is a difference - the doctors are not allowed to accept money from the drug companies. The reason for that is because you want the medical advice given by your medical professionals to be unbiased and not slanted by money paid to them by drug companies, because you need to be able to trust that your doctor has your best interests at heart.
But many are more likely to attend conferences in nice locations with decent perks etc where companies advertise their new drugs; I know people who work in this field and it is way more ethically murky than I'll ever be comfortable with.
My password 'system' is designed to allow me recall them without assistance, be unique to each site and be reasonably hard to crack. I won't share the exact method but the following is the same kind of idea.
Pick 2-3 core passcodes that you will use for different trust levels of sites. I have three. One I use for sites I don't trust, one I use for sites I trust a little more and another for financial style sites. They shouldn't be words but should be memorise-able for example "Dang84Deng". Then create some rules you can remember to adjust the password based on the site, for example add the number of vowels in the domain and the first two consonants. So my Slashdot password would be: Dang84Deng2sl
If someone finds out my password for slashdot it won't work for any other site. Theoretically they could work out the method and apply it to other mid-level sites but unless you're being targeted by someone willing to invest time and spots the method. As most attacks are automated I'm willing to accept that risk.
Right now, I can't spend $60 on a game just coming out. I wait until they drop the price.
You seem to be working on the assumption that they can afford to just charge less but keep making games as they currently are. Personally i have no issue paying ~£30/$60, or more, for a couple of titles that I really want each year given that I often get dozens of hours out of a game. I'd actually prefer that games like Skyrim effectively cost more if it meant they could be rounded out better and more polished; after all if I'm going to invest 60 hours in something then an extra £10 to have a great experience over a good one is money well spent.
I think the 2nd hand market has been beneficial to games manufacturers but they clearly don't agree; especially as cracking down on 2nd hand games allows them to make piracy much harder at the same time. As they can't force through price rises up front they are looking at other ways to increase revenue (DLC, passes, premium content). I don't like it but I can at least understand why.
There's nothing smart about buying a device which requires you to carry around 1200% more power than it can store natively in 12 additional units just to get through a typical days use. I've got a 'real' smartphone and there's no way in hell I'm going with as half-arsed solution as yours. At least a single external battery is only one thing to charge and carry.
I think farmer organizations as a group would invest in research and development. And McDonald's and other large commercial chains would also likely invest as it would reduce the costs of their suppliers.
Why pay to develop cheaper supplier costs if the research will be immediately available to all competitors; it's an increased cost for no, even temporary, chance to increase profit margin. Why invest billions inventing a better seed if all your competitors can keep the billions and copy the seed immediately for no cost.
There are examples of GM crops that would likely have been created without patents: Ones funded by charities or governments generally motivated by starvation in areas. Other than that I think you'll struggle to find any evidence people would continue GM research without any protections.
It isn't that simple. If someone sells me a copy of a piece of software they bought off someone else under a license that forbids resale etc I can't then make 10,000 copies of it and put it on every users pc at work; then when the company who made the software turn up say "I'm not party to the contract there's nothing you can do". It would be even harder to feel sorry for me, if you knew that I was fully aware that the software I was buying shouldn't be re-sold but did it anyway.
There need to be some protections in place otherwise anyone who could get hold of a handful of Monsanto seeds without being party to a sales contract could use them to produce masses of seeds and sell them without Monsanto's permission. If that is what we want then fine but don't expect anyone to invest in GM food.
so heavily encrusted with DRM that it will get in the way of playing games I have purchased.
I wouldn't be feeling so high and mighty in your position. PC gaming started the trend of restrictive DRM and is starting the trend of requiring always on internet (Sim City for example). Even Steam which is held us as the best there is when it comes to a basis for DRM systems, and generally pretty well defended on here, doesn't allow you to transfer ownership or 'lend' games.
If the DRM on the Xbox is put a one use code in when you buy a new copy and it is locked to your xbox live account then that DRM is no more onerous or complex than any PC DRM system around; it seems very ironic to attack the Xbox for potentially having what PCs have, or will have, while using PCs as the example of a better option.
If he left the console and the game then the friend could play using his mates xbox live account thus making GPs post a valid point. You sir are wrong.
I actually think this is a pretty good solution. If you used a unique incremented number each time someone with the same initials joined then something like that would work fine. 3 digits would allow for 999 employees with the exact same initials and gives everyone a name of 5-6 chars (assuming you limit to three initials).
Although it is certainly true that mis-leading is a bigger issue than lying I think you underestimate how many false statements are made by politicians. Sure this wouldn't solve the whole issue, and there is a massive risk regarding who decides what is true/false and their bias, but it could help bring more honesty into politics (or at least highlight who the most honest politicians are).
I pay by card anywhere that accepts them but if you don't think you're already paying for card fees within the price then you're kidding yourself. I think you'll find very few people are as willing to cut their nose off to spite their face (and pay more to do so).
I'll shop where it's cheapest, or the service justifies the premium, rather than irrationally ignore the best deal because of how the price is structured.
A small sandwich shop for example could easily be losing 10% of the sale price to processing fees. If they think they can make more money and/or price more competitively by charging a surcharge then I'm happy to see them try.
The UK has allowed and it doesn't really make much difference. Some smaller shops will only accept payment above a certain amount by card. Other, typically high cost but low margin, products will include a surcharge for using a credit card. Even if it doesn't become normal it at least gives shop keepers an alternative to refusing to take cards and that will hopefully stop the card providers gouging too much in their fees.
In short because they own the company and are responsible for choosing the board as well as how the company is run. I own considerable Apple stocks via funds so that includes me. If individual employees also broke the law I would be happy to see them punished as well.
Assuming that is the case then I would accept that Palm are less at fault than Apple however this no-hire 'conspiracy' covered a significant number of firms and I doubt Apple was the only one at fault. Finally, even if Palm was threatened with consequences it doesn't completely absolve them of responsibility.
It doesn't affect me directly but I really do hope that this ends in an eye-bleedingly high cost to the companies found to have colluded. They manipulated the labour market to artificially keep wages down and that needs to be punished by costs so big that anyone considering it in the future would have to be certifiably insane.
Factor in that the cost to employees could potentially be equivalent to years of lost wages and the ability to utilise this money and it really wouldn't be unreasonable to see a figure of a few $100,000 per employee theoretically covered by the no hire agreement. Give them that figure then take double as much as a fine to penalise the behaviour and you could be talking considerably more than a billion dollars and that imo is exactly what they deserve.
Could you please explain why one of the most brilliant men of all time is sitting in a 70's era wheel chair using a fucking joystick and his cheek to try and type words when we already have EEG-based headcaps that fucking MONKEYS can use to play goddamn video games?
Because you're too busy wasting your life bitching about what hasn't been achieved by society while doing fuck all to sort it yourself. It's pretty pathetic so sort your shit out.
Re:As someone who is a large part of the community
on
The 3D Un-Printer
·
· Score: 1
computer-controlled sewing has a noticeably smaller niche than 3D printing may be able to service, especially given the way that designs will be shared between users now vs in the 1980s. That said I'm not sure the idea of 3D printers in every house is viable. Most people aren't going to want to buy, maintain, understand and use it. However 3D print shops able to handle different materials, electronics etc in every town will happen (obviously in my opinion).
VR is a bit of a strawman example. VR hasn't happened yet so it's impossible to say whether it would be as big as people thought it would. If cheap, high quality VR systems were available then I'm certain we'd see more around.
it's effectively flattening it and removing some of the strategy around the unpredictability of the game.
I'd argue that it isn't. Currently the best letters aren't the ones that are difficult to use but the ones that the designer thought might be difficult based on the dictionary of the time. If Scrabble had been designed with the current dictionary they almost certainly would have scored the letters differently. The only thing that Scrabble gains from the current system is a reward mechanism for people who learn the best scrabble scoring words under the current scrabble rules. By updating the scoring to match with the current dictionary the game would reward people who have a good general vocabulary instead of those with a specialised scrabble vocabulary.
They're all valid points and strategies but it doesn't change the fact that unless the two opponents were of vastly different ability levels the theorectical situation (E=10 otherwise =1) would lead to the player getting most Es winning the majority of games. Yes game strategy would change in the way you suggest but that change wouldn't be enough to remove the advantage.
I do find it amusing that people have been happy to massively extend the words that can be used in scrabble since it was first released (massively changing the game) but would be up in arms about changing the scoring to account for those words. By not doing so they are effectively handicapping new players even more as they won't have the specialised word knowledge of a more experienced player; personally I think that is normally a bad sign for a game as bringing in new players is important to longevity.
I'm a PITA for avoiding work I don't think I should be doing; but I would still do a test at an interview below my expected level because the rules are different. I may well question why they wanted me to do it afterwards and/or it may influence the chance I'd take the job. I find it incredible to think there are people out there who would refuse to do something trivial at an interview, but at least it would be a clear sign of how they interact with others.
and I encouraged questions and told them that both behaviors were seen as a good thing.
I would think that asking for clarification when asked to do something you haven't heard of before is a pretty useful response and hardly a failure. Admittedly asking on Slashdot rather than just searching it is pretty lazy but that's because this is a forum and the other is an interview where the person is sat next to you and will presumably respond quickly and accurately; They'd probably think you were pretty weird if instead of asking you pulled out your phone in an interview and ignored them while you looked it up.
Exactly. Two of their criteria are entirely judgemental which makes your trust of their 'judgement' vital to your perception of the lists credibility. I actually think that formal dress codes can/are a nominal advantage in some ways but the idea that it would have any noticable affect on CEO ratings is laughable.
Slashdot Mirror
Your need to point out how you were about to be an even larger dick before starting told me everything I needed to know to judge the worth of your opinion and skip it.
But many are more likely to attend conferences in nice locations with decent perks etc where companies advertise their new drugs; I know people who work in this field and it is way more ethically murky than I'll ever be comfortable with.
My password 'system' is designed to allow me recall them without assistance, be unique to each site and be reasonably hard to crack. I won't share the exact method but the following is the same kind of idea. Pick 2-3 core passcodes that you will use for different trust levels of sites. I have three. One I use for sites I don't trust, one I use for sites I trust a little more and another for financial style sites. They shouldn't be words but should be memorise-able for example "Dang84Deng". Then create some rules you can remember to adjust the password based on the site, for example add the number of vowels in the domain and the first two consonants. So my Slashdot password would be: Dang84Deng2sl
If someone finds out my password for slashdot it won't work for any other site. Theoretically they could work out the method and apply it to other mid-level sites but unless you're being targeted by someone willing to invest time and spots the method. As most attacks are automated I'm willing to accept that risk.
You seem to be working on the assumption that they can afford to just charge less but keep making games as they currently are. Personally i have no issue paying ~£30/$60, or more, for a couple of titles that I really want each year given that I often get dozens of hours out of a game. I'd actually prefer that games like Skyrim effectively cost more if it meant they could be rounded out better and more polished; after all if I'm going to invest 60 hours in something then an extra £10 to have a great experience over a good one is money well spent.
I think the 2nd hand market has been beneficial to games manufacturers but they clearly don't agree; especially as cracking down on 2nd hand games allows them to make piracy much harder at the same time. As they can't force through price rises up front they are looking at other ways to increase revenue (DLC, passes, premium content). I don't like it but I can at least understand why.
There's nothing smart about buying a device which requires you to carry around 1200% more power than it can store natively in 12 additional units just to get through a typical days use. I've got a 'real' smartphone and there's no way in hell I'm going with as half-arsed solution as yours. At least a single external battery is only one thing to charge and carry.
Why pay to develop cheaper supplier costs if the research will be immediately available to all competitors; it's an increased cost for no, even temporary, chance to increase profit margin. Why invest billions inventing a better seed if all your competitors can keep the billions and copy the seed immediately for no cost.
There are examples of GM crops that would likely have been created without patents: Ones funded by charities or governments generally motivated by starvation in areas. Other than that I think you'll struggle to find any evidence people would continue GM research without any protections.
It isn't that simple. If someone sells me a copy of a piece of software they bought off someone else under a license that forbids resale etc I can't then make 10,000 copies of it and put it on every users pc at work; then when the company who made the software turn up say "I'm not party to the contract there's nothing you can do". It would be even harder to feel sorry for me, if you knew that I was fully aware that the software I was buying shouldn't be re-sold but did it anyway.
There need to be some protections in place otherwise anyone who could get hold of a handful of Monsanto seeds without being party to a sales contract could use them to produce masses of seeds and sell them without Monsanto's permission. If that is what we want then fine but don't expect anyone to invest in GM food.
I wouldn't be feeling so high and mighty in your position. PC gaming started the trend of restrictive DRM and is starting the trend of requiring always on internet (Sim City for example). Even Steam which is held us as the best there is when it comes to a basis for DRM systems, and generally pretty well defended on here, doesn't allow you to transfer ownership or 'lend' games.
If the DRM on the Xbox is put a one use code in when you buy a new copy and it is locked to your xbox live account then that DRM is no more onerous or complex than any PC DRM system around; it seems very ironic to attack the Xbox for potentially having what PCs have, or will have, while using PCs as the example of a better option.
If he left the console and the game then the friend could play using his mates xbox live account thus making GPs post a valid point. You sir are wrong.
I actually think this is a pretty good solution. If you used a unique incremented number each time someone with the same initials joined then something like that would work fine. 3 digits would allow for 999 employees with the exact same initials and gives everyone a name of 5-6 chars (assuming you limit to three initials).
Although it is certainly true that mis-leading is a bigger issue than lying I think you underestimate how many false statements are made by politicians. Sure this wouldn't solve the whole issue, and there is a massive risk regarding who decides what is true/false and their bias, but it could help bring more honesty into politics (or at least highlight who the most honest politicians are).
I pay by card anywhere that accepts them but if you don't think you're already paying for card fees within the price then you're kidding yourself. I think you'll find very few people are as willing to cut their nose off to spite their face (and pay more to do so).
I'll shop where it's cheapest, or the service justifies the premium, rather than irrationally ignore the best deal because of how the price is structured.
A small sandwich shop for example could easily be losing 10% of the sale price to processing fees. If they think they can make more money and/or price more competitively by charging a surcharge then I'm happy to see them try.
The UK has allowed and it doesn't really make much difference. Some smaller shops will only accept payment above a certain amount by card. Other, typically high cost but low margin, products will include a surcharge for using a credit card. Even if it doesn't become normal it at least gives shop keepers an alternative to refusing to take cards and that will hopefully stop the card providers gouging too much in their fees.
In short because they own the company and are responsible for choosing the board as well as how the company is run. I own considerable Apple stocks via funds so that includes me. If individual employees also broke the law I would be happy to see them punished as well.
Obvious troll is obvious and/or moderately retarded?
Assuming that is the case then I would accept that Palm are less at fault than Apple however this no-hire 'conspiracy' covered a significant number of firms and I doubt Apple was the only one at fault. Finally, even if Palm was threatened with consequences it doesn't completely absolve them of responsibility.
It doesn't affect me directly but I really do hope that this ends in an eye-bleedingly high cost to the companies found to have colluded. They manipulated the labour market to artificially keep wages down and that needs to be punished by costs so big that anyone considering it in the future would have to be certifiably insane.
Factor in that the cost to employees could potentially be equivalent to years of lost wages and the ability to utilise this money and it really wouldn't be unreasonable to see a figure of a few $100,000 per employee theoretically covered by the no hire agreement. Give them that figure then take double as much as a fine to penalise the behaviour and you could be talking considerably more than a billion dollars and that imo is exactly what they deserve.
Because you're too busy wasting your life bitching about what hasn't been achieved by society while doing fuck all to sort it yourself. It's pretty pathetic so sort your shit out.
computer-controlled sewing has a noticeably smaller niche than 3D printing may be able to service, especially given the way that designs will be shared between users now vs in the 1980s. That said I'm not sure the idea of 3D printers in every house is viable. Most people aren't going to want to buy, maintain, understand and use it. However 3D print shops able to handle different materials, electronics etc in every town will happen (obviously in my opinion).
VR is a bit of a strawman example. VR hasn't happened yet so it's impossible to say whether it would be as big as people thought it would. If cheap, high quality VR systems were available then I'm certain we'd see more around.
That's why Chess never became popular right?
I'd argue that it isn't. Currently the best letters aren't the ones that are difficult to use but the ones that the designer thought might be difficult based on the dictionary of the time. If Scrabble had been designed with the current dictionary they almost certainly would have scored the letters differently. The only thing that Scrabble gains from the current system is a reward mechanism for people who learn the best scrabble scoring words under the current scrabble rules. By updating the scoring to match with the current dictionary the game would reward people who have a good general vocabulary instead of those with a specialised scrabble vocabulary.
They're all valid points and strategies but it doesn't change the fact that unless the two opponents were of vastly different ability levels the theorectical situation (E=10 otherwise =1) would lead to the player getting most Es winning the majority of games. Yes game strategy would change in the way you suggest but that change wouldn't be enough to remove the advantage.
I do find it amusing that people have been happy to massively extend the words that can be used in scrabble since it was first released (massively changing the game) but would be up in arms about changing the scoring to account for those words. By not doing so they are effectively handicapping new players even more as they won't have the specialised word knowledge of a more experienced player; personally I think that is normally a bad sign for a game as bringing in new players is important to longevity.
I'm a PITA for avoiding work I don't think I should be doing; but I would still do a test at an interview below my expected level because the rules are different. I may well question why they wanted me to do it afterwards and/or it may influence the chance I'd take the job. I find it incredible to think there are people out there who would refuse to do something trivial at an interview, but at least it would be a clear sign of how they interact with others.
I would think that asking for clarification when asked to do something you haven't heard of before is a pretty useful response and hardly a failure. Admittedly asking on Slashdot rather than just searching it is pretty lazy but that's because this is a forum and the other is an interview where the person is sat next to you and will presumably respond quickly and accurately; They'd probably think you were pretty weird if instead of asking you pulled out your phone in an interview and ignored them while you looked it up.
Exactly. Two of their criteria are entirely judgemental which makes your trust of their 'judgement' vital to your perception of the lists credibility. I actually think that formal dress codes can/are a nominal advantage in some ways but the idea that it would have any noticable affect on CEO ratings is laughable.