Another idea would be to pay more for QA jobs and you would get better people. I know it doesn't work out perfectly like this all the time, but you get what you (are willing to) pay for. QA makes people think of script monkeys because that's what a lot of companies have made QA -- because they're only willing to pay script monkey money for it. Just a thought.
The problem isn't that people are buying things, it's that they're buying things that are truly unneccesary, and in some cases actually harmful.
So who gets to decide what's "necessary" versus "unnecessary"? If you're operating under some sort of global least common denominator for necessary-ness, then 99.9% of slashdotters are living EXTREMELY in excess. Note that it's not that I disagree with you, it's just that excess seems to be a product of freedom, and I like freedom even with its frustrations.
In regards to the Amy Winehouse thing, I think you're off the mark. Not off the mark to disagree that kids are silly to label her as a role model, but off the mark to think that the best way to deal with this is to leave. I recognize this is just an expression or maybe hyperbole, but where would you go if you were to leave? And if you feel so strongly about this (and I think such strong feelings are indeed warranted) maybe you'd be better off trying to influence younger people than just whine about how pathetic things are, even if their attitudes are indeed pathetic. People have been labeling young people as slackers for hundreds of years, but not every generation has produced slackers. When those generations turn out ok it's been because their mentor generations didn't abandon them to their excesses and foolishness and tried, even when it was difficult or seemed futile, to discipline and train them up.
In other words, my guess at why a lot of kids are so messed up today is that their parents were stupid and thoughtless in how they raised them, either by leaving them to raise themselves as the PARENTS pursued "unnecessary" wealth or by not providing any discipline because so many people are afraid of absolutes and lines in the sand these days. Either way, the kids are stupid, but it's because they've been abandoned, even when it would seem like many of them have everything going for them.
I'm sure plenty of people would be willing to respond and point out that their parents failed them and they still turned out ok, but 1) they're most certainly the exceptions and not the rule and 2) some of those same people may not be able to be honest in their estimation of themselves. I can say I turned out ok, but this is a freaking forum. I could say I was good-looking and slender too.
I do, for one. Just to answer your question. I care about stealth.
The reason stealth is handy and needs to be, well, the stealthiest, is so you won't end up going to war in the first place. But anyways, where'd all the "Right Stuff" test pilots (Yeager,Crossfield,etc) come from? Where'd the Mercury Seven come from? They were all military pilots. If you want to send people to space and the moon, that's fine. But it's foolish and obtuse to act like arms/weapons/military development and space development are somehow mutually exclusive. Maybe, just maybe, they've a symbiotic relationship and they benefit each other.
I do not want millions of taxpayers dollars to be used dealing with that problem. I'd rather they spend it on free breakfasts for schoolchildren or going after drunk drivers.
Either way, they're taking YOUR money and spending it how THEY want. So I'd rather they spend it on NEITHER. Instead I'd rather that I simply get to keep MY OWN MONEY instead of watching the government steal it out of my paycheck before it is even paid to me so they can waste it on their 5 million different varieties of free breakfasts and ill-conceived law enforcement ideas.
Re:I've always felt these are a trap to stay at wo
on
Tech's Top 10 Workspaces
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I agree, but I'm wondering whether or not you think it's bad that employers would do this -- kind of a counterintuitive productivity measure (at least for people exempt from overtime). I mean, why else would a company spend money other than to make more? Because they love their employees? Anyone proposing that is moving into real flat-out denial.
You really do sound like a bitter old man. Darn kids.
So mod down -1 old fogie viewing past with rose-colored glasses. Also mod down -1 too much justification about "quantity vs. quality" of friendships. Also mod down -1 would use cellphone for which supposedly has for "ONLY" one reason for many, many other reasons if an emergency arose, or maybe even if wanted a pizza on the way home from work thus proving it's not so bad to use a cellphone sometimes. That is unless, of course, carry-out pizzas have some how cheapened the entire food experience and dining, in which case he wouldn't do so.
In all seriousness, everybody talks about email, texting and cellphone use as "cheapening" communication, but it's merely changed it. Communication isn't like money where the primary basis is quantity, and the more you have, the less you usually appreciate it. I like being able to text my wife or friends with quick updates. I like being able to order food from my favorite places conveniently if I am out and about. Does this cheapen anything? No. It's not like I was pining for a deep, face-to-face conversation with the kid working the phones and the fryer at the takeout joint. And I don't try to have deep conversations with my wife using texts. But I just might have a deep conversation with her using our evil, communication-wrecking cellphones!
I'm not sure I understand. Can you explain why there is no such thing as wasted time?:)
You've indicated that you get paid regardless* and that it's the company's problem they are wasting money, but seeing as it's also the company that's doing the paying, wouldn't it generally be in your best interest to help the company spend its money wisely? And don't you also learn things, not necessarily technical things, but still applicable business things, by learning to navigate the business environment to push your ideas through and prevent waste?
I think I understand your perspective that the time isn't wasted because you can always learn something from anything; however, the other side of the coin would indicate the time could indeed be wasted because you could have done something more profitable, financially and educationally, in the time you spent on the failed or canceled activity.
* If a company pays bonuses, they generally prefer paying them out to people that implement successful projects, etc. It may or may not be fair or smart or good practice, but that's the way it goes. I don't have 30 years under my belt, just 8.
Is that a definition of justice or the consequences it? If it's merely the consequences of justice, then what's a definition for justice, especially outside of a litigious -type scope (i.e. there's more to justice than some guy getting prosecuted), and -- perhaps most importantly -- who gets to decide what's just and unjust? These are the types of questions that make me just want to stick to the lawyer jokes. Much easier.
Frankly, I think you're viewing the past with rose-colored glasses. I mean, slavery wasn't exactly a great stride in terms of freedom. Nor was the fact that women couldn't vote. And those controversial sodomy laws weren't just introduced with the Patriot Act, right? What about internment camps for Japanese CITIZENS in WWII? They just oozed Bill of Rights, didn't they? Or putting people with different skin colors in different schools.
These great freedoms for which you pine have both come and gone, ebbed and flowed throughout the history of this country. It's disingenuous to act like everything "used to be" fine and now it's all falling apart.
There have been abuses and victories in terms of freedom, but never has the strength of this country been put into question simply because some tool whines about canceling his trip to the States. It drives me absolutely NUTS that governments in the US (of all levels, e.g. eminent domain at municipality level) breach real Constitutional rights, but it bugs me because they're breaching Constitutional rights, not because it might encourage some putz to personally boycott travel here. I don't care if some guy in another country doesn't like my country, whether it be a migrant worker from Central America or a self-important full-time student from Central Europe.
But it doesn't matter. When I say the above, then I'm xenophobic and selfish or maybe even jingoistic. But if I go the other way, I'm soft and foolish.
Heaven forbid a mistake is made and your phone is recorded because you said "bomb", as in "last night's concert was the bomb." I didn't even know people still used that phrase!
A decentralized power system would be much more economically efficient, more resilient to regular local outages caused by weather storms, and much more competitive in offering consumers lower prices.
Maybe you could have both. What's wrong with having a decentralized system, as you've mentioned, that can also send and receive or buy and sell or whatever you want to call it from a centralized system? Obviously, you'd need to have rules, but maybe some sort of hybrid system (in terms of centralization) would be the most effective and stable. Decentralization comes with negatives, too, and those could be mitigated by still having "access" to some sort of power network.
Galaga. Galga is Spanish for gauge. I don't know what it might mean in other languages. Sorry for the spelling nazism, but I finally saw a chance to somehow rationalize all the quarters I wasted as a youngster.
Most bloggers are self-absorbed, navel-gazing tools with delusions of grandeur that have little actual bearing on anything except the musings of other bloggers (myself included).
Essentially you pay about $60-70 for a connection that you only squeeze maybe $35-45 worth of usage out of it. If a pay-per-usage option were implemented, how do you think the best way to charge for it would be? Well, it depends who you ask. If you're the provider (ISP) and you've established your business model getting $X profit on an "unlimited" setup, you'd probably set up your pay-per-use option to end up getting you the same. It sounds like I'm being sarcastic, but I'm not.
Your definition of "protest" could come under question. I am not saying you are incorrect to question the "perfectly legitimate" comment, but rather that your statement that "Protesting is not criminal" makes an assumption regarding the definition of a "protest". For example(s), a citizen protester may hold up signs and yell, but what if that protester also impedes the free flow of transportation or trips a random person walking by? Free speech should not be extended to physically impede the rights of others, whether intended or not. Furthermore, the tough thing about managing a "protest" type of situation for law enforcement is that one bad apple can truly spoil the bunch. If there are dozens or hundreds of people in a heightened state of emotion and one flips out you can go from a bunch of protesters to a riot. Or not. It's tough to tell. So to over-arrest in these types of situations is almost common practice. This doesn't excuse questionable law enforcement actions, but it does explain it, to some degree.
And I completely disagree with #2. The city may have some evidence of wrongdoing that could be and should be bolstered by a subpoena. That is, in my extremely limited understanding, the whole point of a subpoena. If you had all the evidence you needed in the first place, you wouldn't need a subpoena, but since you don't, one must be issued.
My beef is that the broad subpoena, whether it's standard practice or not, was the lazy/cheap way out and I'd think it better if they'd seek more specific information about the specific scenarios around the specific citizens that are suing them.
The NY Times article isn't particularly informative. It has some information, but not the specifics I was looking for. Here's some semi-useful info:
The subpoena is connected to a group of 62 lawsuits against the city that stem from arrests during the convention and have been consolidated in Federal District Court in Manhattan. About 1,800 people were arrested and charged, but 90 percent of them ultimately walked away from court without pleading guilty or being convicted.
I am not a lawyer, nor do I use the accompanying initialism, but can the "city" issue a subpoena? I guess a lawyer could as an agent of the court or whatever, and a lawyer could work for the city, but I thought they were issued by some clerk who had to get sign off by some judge? In which case (unless I am wrong, of course), I'd be more concerned about the judge than the city. I'd expect a city to do whatever possible to defend itself, etc, etc. But I think with some thought, a judge might agree with the guy's laywer that the subpoena was/is "'vague' and 'overbroad,' and wrote that seeking information about TXTmob users who have nothing to do with lawsuits against the city would violate their First Amendment and privacy rights." Chime in lawyers and law students.
Unfortunately, I just can't bring myself to get particularly riled up about this because I don't have enough info; the Times piece could just as easily have been written by a college sophomore for a campus newspaper.
You are indeed losing your edge to put Zsa Zsa into any sort of beauty list. Of course, my very statement proves the ridiculousness of beauty matching -- it's too hard to agree on beauty to get any sort of realistic outcome.
i have sensitive customer data on my machine which is required by law to be encrypted. Which law? I know this stuff is included contractually pretty much all the time; however, I didn't know there was an actual law for it.
Thanks. I wouldn't have found that you did unless you had shown me. In threads with many dozens or hundreds of comments, sometimes it's too much to ask to keep everything straight. I'd imagine you'd agree.
The US really doesn't export any steel to speak of, except for finished products. Scrap is different(scrap, industrial waste, whatever you like). China was the first country to import over a billion dollars in US scrap (in 2003, I think).
However, the problem is China and its vast natural resources. I honestly don't know about China's natural resources, but they seem to be consuming so much that they need to import steel and metals in scrap form from the US like gangbusters. I think this is because it's currently cheaper to refine it from scrap than mine it, but at this point China's resources, whether vast or otherwise, aren't as big of a sticking point as some people would think. Of course, their labor -- now that's definitely a cheaper pasture!
Slashdot Mirror
Another idea would be to pay more for QA jobs and you would get better people. I know it doesn't work out perfectly like this all the time, but you get what you (are willing to) pay for. QA makes people think of script monkeys because that's what a lot of companies have made QA -- because they're only willing to pay script monkey money for it. Just a thought.
What's the difference between "hell" and "piss"? You self-bleeped pissed, but not hell.
So who gets to decide what's "necessary" versus "unnecessary"? If you're operating under some sort of global least common denominator for necessary-ness, then 99.9% of slashdotters are living EXTREMELY in excess. Note that it's not that I disagree with you, it's just that excess seems to be a product of freedom, and I like freedom even with its frustrations.
In regards to the Amy Winehouse thing, I think you're off the mark. Not off the mark to disagree that kids are silly to label her as a role model, but off the mark to think that the best way to deal with this is to leave. I recognize this is just an expression or maybe hyperbole, but where would you go if you were to leave? And if you feel so strongly about this (and I think such strong feelings are indeed warranted) maybe you'd be better off trying to influence younger people than just whine about how pathetic things are, even if their attitudes are indeed pathetic. People have been labeling young people as slackers for hundreds of years, but not every generation has produced slackers. When those generations turn out ok it's been because their mentor generations didn't abandon them to their excesses and foolishness and tried, even when it was difficult or seemed futile, to discipline and train them up.
In other words, my guess at why a lot of kids are so messed up today is that their parents were stupid and thoughtless in how they raised them, either by leaving them to raise themselves as the PARENTS pursued "unnecessary" wealth or by not providing any discipline because so many people are afraid of absolutes and lines in the sand these days. Either way, the kids are stupid, but it's because they've been abandoned, even when it would seem like many of them have everything going for them.
I'm sure plenty of people would be willing to respond and point out that their parents failed them and they still turned out ok, but 1) they're most certainly the exceptions and not the rule and 2) some of those same people may not be able to be honest in their estimation of themselves. I can say I turned out ok, but this is a freaking forum. I could say I was good-looking and slender too.
Have you ever worked at or with NASA?
I do, for one. Just to answer your question. I care about stealth.
The reason stealth is handy and needs to be, well, the stealthiest, is so you won't end up going to war in the first place. But anyways, where'd all the "Right Stuff" test pilots (Yeager,Crossfield,etc) come from? Where'd the Mercury Seven come from? They were all military pilots. If you want to send people to space and the moon, that's fine. But it's foolish and obtuse to act like arms/weapons/military development and space development are somehow mutually exclusive. Maybe, just maybe, they've a symbiotic relationship and they benefit each other.
Either way, they're taking YOUR money and spending it how THEY want. So I'd rather they spend it on NEITHER. Instead I'd rather that I simply get to keep MY OWN MONEY instead of watching the government steal it out of my paycheck before it is even paid to me so they can waste it on their 5 million different varieties of free breakfasts and ill-conceived law enforcement ideas.
I agree, but I'm wondering whether or not you think it's bad that employers would do this -- kind of a counterintuitive productivity measure (at least for people exempt from overtime). I mean, why else would a company spend money other than to make more? Because they love their employees? Anyone proposing that is moving into real flat-out denial.
You really do sound like a bitter old man. Darn kids.
So mod down -1 old fogie viewing past with rose-colored glasses. Also mod down -1 too much justification about "quantity vs. quality" of friendships. Also mod down -1 would use cellphone for which supposedly has for "ONLY" one reason for many, many other reasons if an emergency arose, or maybe even if wanted a pizza on the way home from work thus proving it's not so bad to use a cellphone sometimes. That is unless, of course, carry-out pizzas have some how cheapened the entire food experience and dining, in which case he wouldn't do so.
In all seriousness, everybody talks about email, texting and cellphone use as "cheapening" communication, but it's merely changed it. Communication isn't like money where the primary basis is quantity, and the more you have, the less you usually appreciate it. I like being able to text my wife or friends with quick updates. I like being able to order food from my favorite places conveniently if I am out and about. Does this cheapen anything? No. It's not like I was pining for a deep, face-to-face conversation with the kid working the phones and the fryer at the takeout joint. And I don't try to have deep conversations with my wife using texts. But I just might have a deep conversation with her using our evil, communication-wrecking cellphones!
I'm not sure I understand. Can you explain why there is no such thing as wasted time? :)
You've indicated that you get paid regardless* and that it's the company's problem they are wasting money, but seeing as it's also the company that's doing the paying, wouldn't it generally be in your best interest to help the company spend its money wisely? And don't you also learn things, not necessarily technical things, but still applicable business things, by learning to navigate the business environment to push your ideas through and prevent waste?
I think I understand your perspective that the time isn't wasted because you can always learn something from anything; however, the other side of the coin would indicate the time could indeed be wasted because you could have done something more profitable, financially and educationally, in the time you spent on the failed or canceled activity.
* If a company pays bonuses, they generally prefer paying them out to people that implement successful projects, etc. It may or may not be fair or smart or good practice, but that's the way it goes. I don't have 30 years under my belt, just 8.
Is that a definition of justice or the consequences it? If it's merely the consequences of justice, then what's a definition for justice, especially outside of a litigious -type scope (i.e. there's more to justice than some guy getting prosecuted), and -- perhaps most importantly -- who gets to decide what's just and unjust? These are the types of questions that make me just want to stick to the lawyer jokes. Much easier.
Frankly, I think you're viewing the past with rose-colored glasses. I mean, slavery wasn't exactly a great stride in terms of freedom. Nor was the fact that women couldn't vote. And those controversial sodomy laws weren't just introduced with the Patriot Act, right? What about internment camps for Japanese CITIZENS in WWII? They just oozed Bill of Rights, didn't they? Or putting people with different skin colors in different schools.
These great freedoms for which you pine have both come and gone, ebbed and flowed throughout the history of this country. It's disingenuous to act like everything "used to be" fine and now it's all falling apart.
There have been abuses and victories in terms of freedom, but never has the strength of this country been put into question simply because some tool whines about canceling his trip to the States. It drives me absolutely NUTS that governments in the US (of all levels, e.g. eminent domain at municipality level) breach real Constitutional rights, but it bugs me because they're breaching Constitutional rights, not because it might encourage some putz to personally boycott travel here. I don't care if some guy in another country doesn't like my country, whether it be a migrant worker from Central America or a self-important full-time student from Central Europe.
But it doesn't matter. When I say the above, then I'm xenophobic and selfish or maybe even jingoistic. But if I go the other way, I'm soft and foolish.
stepping off soap box now...
Maybe you could have both. What's wrong with having a decentralized system, as you've mentioned, that can also send and receive or buy and sell or whatever you want to call it from a centralized system? Obviously, you'd need to have rules, but maybe some sort of hybrid system (in terms of centralization) would be the most effective and stable. Decentralization comes with negatives, too, and those could be mitigated by still having "access" to some sort of power network.
Just an idea
Galaga. Galga is Spanish for gauge. I don't know what it might mean in other languages. Sorry for the spelling nazism, but I finally saw a chance to somehow rationalize all the quarters I wasted as a youngster.
[places hands over ears] LA LA LA - can't hear you
Most bloggers are self-absorbed, navel-gazing tools with delusions of grandeur that have little actual bearing on anything except the musings of other bloggers (myself included).
There - I fixed that for you.
Your definition of "protest" could come under question. I am not saying you are incorrect to question the "perfectly legitimate" comment, but rather that your statement that "Protesting is not criminal" makes an assumption regarding the definition of a "protest". For example(s), a citizen protester may hold up signs and yell, but what if that protester also impedes the free flow of transportation or trips a random person walking by? Free speech should not be extended to physically impede the rights of others, whether intended or not. Furthermore, the tough thing about managing a "protest" type of situation for law enforcement is that one bad apple can truly spoil the bunch. If there are dozens or hundreds of people in a heightened state of emotion and one flips out you can go from a bunch of protesters to a riot. Or not. It's tough to tell. So to over-arrest in these types of situations is almost common practice. This doesn't excuse questionable law enforcement actions, but it does explain it, to some degree.
And I completely disagree with #2. The city may have some evidence of wrongdoing that could be and should be bolstered by a subpoena. That is, in my extremely limited understanding, the whole point of a subpoena. If you had all the evidence you needed in the first place, you wouldn't need a subpoena, but since you don't, one must be issued.
My beef is that the broad subpoena, whether it's standard practice or not, was the lazy/cheap way out and I'd think it better if they'd seek more specific information about the specific scenarios around the specific citizens that are suing them.
I am not a lawyer, nor do I use the accompanying initialism, but can the "city" issue a subpoena? I guess a lawyer could as an agent of the court or whatever, and a lawyer could work for the city, but I thought they were issued by some clerk who had to get sign off by some judge? In which case (unless I am wrong, of course), I'd be more concerned about the judge than the city. I'd expect a city to do whatever possible to defend itself, etc, etc. But I think with some thought, a judge might agree with the guy's laywer that the subpoena was/is "'vague' and 'overbroad,' and wrote that seeking information about TXTmob users who have nothing to do with lawsuits against the city would violate their First Amendment and privacy rights." Chime in lawyers and law students.
Unfortunately, I just can't bring myself to get particularly riled up about this because I don't have enough info; the Times piece could just as easily have been written by a college sophomore for a campus newspaper.
You are indeed losing your edge to put Zsa Zsa into any sort of beauty list. Of course, my very statement proves the ridiculousness of beauty matching -- it's too hard to agree on beauty to get any sort of realistic outcome.
thanks for the info
Thanks. I wouldn't have found that you did unless you had shown me. In threads with many dozens or hundreds of comments, sometimes it's too much to ask to keep everything straight. I'd imagine you'd agree.