It's this generation of precious snowflakes. Everything they do is "special".
This story reminds me of the link (it was either or on fark) to a web log entry someone had written about putting tea bags and water in a glass jar and leaving it in the sun to brew. Apparently the same people who will complain about a system that takes an old idea and adds "web" or "mobile" and treats it as new have no problem with taking an old idea and putting it in a "blog" and treating it as new. I guess for some people something doesn't exist until there's a blog about it.
You're not a "maker" if you build a table or a bicycle or a RaspberriPi-powered toaster, you're just a guy who builds tables or bicycles or toasters.
1) I believe in karma, or "what goes around comes around."
2) It can be a small world, especially if you stay within the same industry.
If you're asked to break the law, ignore regulations, do something that will endanger your health or safety or the health or safety of others, feel free to quit on the spot. No job is worth getting hurt or going to jail for.
I still wouldn't recommend it. I'm more the type to make them fire my ass, but if it's the type of environment where you're asked to do those type of things, there are likely other issues and you're been waiting for an excuse to quit.
But otherwise, employers will notice and so should you. If your new employer gets the impression you're not giving the old job full notice, I'm not saying they'll rescind a job offer, but they will take note that you're likely to do the same to them some day.
If it's at the new employer's initiative--e.g. an extra bonus if you start right away--remember at this point you're as much an outsider to them as your old boss. They obviously don't have morals and won't hesitate to screw you over some day.
People remember that sort of thing. Even if you don't ever want to go back to your old employer (although I've seen that a lot, people trying to hastily rebuild bridges from long cold ashes) the coworkers and managers you gave that middle finger will move on to other employers. And when your resume comes in, HR folks may not be the most useful tools in the chest, but they can make simple associations. "Oh, Bob worked at Acme Inc. Sue, you used to work at Acme, did you know Bob?"
You may think, I was pretty close to Sue while we were at Acme. She'll be sure not to say anything that might hurt my chances of getting this job. And that may be true. But there will be people who won't remember you as fondly. Or even someone who is otherwise neutral, but goes on the defense. "If I fail to say something about the way Bob left Acme, and he pulls the same stunt here, I look bad. If I give Bob the thumbs-down, whoever they do hire may suck out loud, but at least it won't be my fault."
So now you can never go back to your old employer (the HR computers will remember you even if anyone you worked with is gone), you won't have a shot at any company that acquires or merges with your old employer (this thread has examples of merged HR systems), and you've also complicated your chances of ever getting hired anywhere a former coworker (or anyone from the old employer who hears the story of the guy who give the company the big middle finger, even if they never worked directly with you) goes.
You might as well take that employer off your resume, and forget about working in that industry forever.
And what do you get in return? 2 weeks? Two weeks where you weren't going to do a lot of work anyway. Two weeks where you could come in late and leave early. (What are they going to do, fire you?) As long as you're not actively destroying files or sabotaging projects, no one will hold a grudge, or likely even notice, if you're not giving "110%" those last two weeks. But walk out on short notice, you're burning a bridge that doesn't need to be burnt.
Now a lot of places will walk you out that day. For some bosses it's an ego thing, but mostly it's just a security consideration. Why have you in the building with access to who-knows-what if you're not part of the team? And that's fine.
And certainly there are cases of employees getting fired or laid off with no notice, and I certainly agree it's a two way street. You owe your employer no more consideration than they give you. However, with the firing, it's rarely true there was no notice. Usually there's a process. For example, you know if you work in a place where showing up on time is a big deal. And you know you've been told your late arrivals have been noticed. So when you show late and are turned around at the door and sent away, you can't really say you didn't have any notice. With lay-offs there's usually a severan
I want to see a new law, named after him, which protects everyone's rights in the UK against such detention. That way everyone in the UK will be a beneficiary of this new "Miranda Rights" law. Of course, it should differ from the Miranda Rights in the US in fundamental ways so as to cause the most confusion possible. Especially in internet discussions.
There should be a new law--"Miranda Rights"--but named after Carmen Miranda.
Considering the episode that aired Sunday night in the USA was the ninth episode of the last season, if local broadcasters outside the US are just now showing the second episode (aired over a year ago in the US) , I'm not really suprised fans of the show are turning to alternative methods.
And even if he didn't, are you telling me you've never opted to take a photo when an important slide comes up in a meeting? That means you either were furiously scribbling down notes (when a picture would do) or your meetings never discussed anything noteworthy...
...or I work with reasonable people who will email the slides after (or even sometimes before) the meeting. Instead or scribbling down notes or taking pictures, I listen to the speaker.
The problem is the economic instability it would create, as so much of the world's production capacity is devoted to a vanity project useless to 99.99999% of the population. Plus there is the fact that wealth is only as real as everyone else believing it is yours. Something like this would spawn a global class war, and rightly so.
From where comes the economic instability? First, people don't think in terms of percentage of the world's production capacity. Second, who do you think is going to build this thing? At least at first, a large space station for the super-rich would be a huge jobs project. A lot of the people you might expect to be against such a project would be strong proponents and among the first to line up for jobs.
Of course, once the thing is built and those jobs are gone and maintenance depends on cheap labor and materials from the surface, that situation changes. But judging by the trailers, that's the plot of the movie.
$190.8 billion in 1975 dollars (the equivalent of $828.11 billion today). Looks like the ultra-rich are stuck on Earth for the time being
The estimated total net worth of the Forbes 400 (400 wealthiest USAians) last year was 1.7 trillion USD. And that's just the top Americans. Throw in some Russian tycoons, Middle East oil sheiks, European industrialists, assorted media tycoons from around the world, and include corporate resources they control in addition to personal assets, and that second statement (we are all stuck on Earth for the time being) has nothing to do with the first (it costs a lot of money to get in to space in any large scale).
on the planet where folks that have a key "grinder" tend to also be the folks that would obey said instruction
And which planet is that? It certainly isn't Earth.
In my college days we'd make copies of the dorm keys for friends who lived off campus, so we wouldn't have to go down to let them in the front door of the dorm.
Not only did those keys have the imprint "do not duplicate," but the copies we got back would have the same message!
You are allowed 5 free articles (or views) of The Onion website. After that they greet you with a paywall. One day, you are going to hit that limit. Your face is going to be annoyed once that happens.
That's perfect. The Onion only has 5 ideas that they keep recycling/repackaging.
Got that? Microsoft spent more in a single year advertising the Windows 8 and Surface launches than it took in from Surface sales that same year.
Why is that an interesting point? Obviously you can't do that in the long term and make a profit. And it would be interesting if for an established product there was either an increase in advertising or drop in sales to get in that position. But for a new product, is this unusual?
Let's look at some of your data. Fiscal 2013 ended on June 30. RT and Surface RT were launched October 26, 2012. Therefor, any advanced advertising costs for RT and Surface from July 1 to October 25, 2012 would be against 0 sales, because the product wasn't released yet. That's almost a third of the year where if even a single penny was spent as advertising, it would have been more than sales. And MS spent a lot more than a penny during that time.
That the launch of Windows 8, Windows RT, and Surface RT has not met MS's expectations has been well covered on Slashdot. I'll need a little more background in advertising, such as comparison to a typical Apple advertising budget when launching a new product, for your post to be interesting.
The question really misses the point, though. If you index the entire contents, then anyone searching will find it based on what they know, not what you think of in advance. Google seems to do pretty well at locating pages, despite many fine pages lacking meta tags (and despite many poor spam articles trying to abuse meta tags.) If the keywords aren't present in the article, it's probably not a very useful article anyway, as it obviously is lacking a common description.
Nail, head. Having people provide tags or keywords is asking people to adapt to the way computers work. While not perfect, Google shows us we can have computers adapt to the way people work.
My parents have a Samsung SmartTV, and a Samsung smart BluRay player (they run the same software). They use the "smart" software for one thing: watching Netflix. It sucks.
I've only used my Samsung BluRay to stream from my local NAS, not with Netflix, Amazon, or other service. If the Google dongle is better in function and ease of use, that would justify the $35.
Wow. Is it sad that it's significantly easier to play flash video on a $35 device than it is on my >$500 Linux machine?
????
It's $35, on top of the cost of the TV itself, plus the cost of the smartphone, tablet, or notebook, which is now reduced to the role of TV remote. Does all that together cost less than your Linux machine?
I don't get what the market is for this device. Instead of $35, how about I pay $0 and just the networking capabilities of my TV? Or pay the same $0 and use the same capabilities in my optical disc player, which also steams media files from my local NAS. Or use the same capabilities in my TiVo?
And none of those others devices require me to sacrifice another device to stream through.
"All in all, at $35 it's the most affordable way to access online media services on your HDTV."
How is $35 more affordable than the $0 I'd pay to use the existing media services that came built in to my HDTV?
Since the whole point of GPU programming is efficiency, don't even think about VBing it. Or Pythoning it. Or whatever layer of a shiny crap might seem superficially appealing to you.
They will have this power, and they will use it; toward what end?
To the same end as everyone else in power--every government, every religion, every political party. Power is the end unto itself. The goal of power is to gain more power. The question is settled.
That surveillance is one of those powers isn't particularly new. People had networks of spies in ancient times.
Surveillance and spies certainly aren't new, but changes in technology drastically change the implications of surveillance. You think the NSA tracking every call and every email is the same as the king planting a spy in the local tavern to eavesdrop?
Slashdot Mirror
>> Disdain From Users
Yes, both of them objected. (I don't really blame Yahoo for taking another shot at a service no one's used for the last ten years.)
Yahoo sports, particularly the fantasy sports, are pretty well trafficked. There's no competition from Google.
It's this generation of precious snowflakes. Everything they do is "special".
This story reminds me of the link (it was either or on fark) to a web log entry someone had written about putting tea bags and water in a glass jar and leaving it in the sun to brew. Apparently the same people who will complain about a system that takes an old idea and adds "web" or "mobile" and treats it as new have no problem with taking an old idea and putting it in a "blog" and treating it as new. I guess for some people something doesn't exist until there's a blog about it.
You're not a "maker" if you build a table or a bicycle or a RaspberriPi-powered toaster, you're just a guy who builds tables or bicycles or toasters.
QFT.
Plastic can be easily recycled when sorted, is like saying you can easily walk to work when someone gives you a piggyback ride.
In other words, 100% true? I would walk to more places if walking meant getting a piggy back ride.
1) I believe in karma, or "what goes around comes around."
2) It can be a small world, especially if you stay within the same industry.
If you're asked to break the law, ignore regulations, do something that will endanger your health or safety or the health or safety of others, feel free to quit on the spot. No job is worth getting hurt or going to jail for.
I still wouldn't recommend it. I'm more the type to make them fire my ass, but if it's the type of environment where you're asked to do those type of things, there are likely other issues and you're been waiting for an excuse to quit.
But otherwise, employers will notice and so should you. If your new employer gets the impression you're not giving the old job full notice, I'm not saying they'll rescind a job offer, but they will take note that you're likely to do the same to them some day.
If it's at the new employer's initiative--e.g. an extra bonus if you start right away--remember at this point you're as much an outsider to them as your old boss. They obviously don't have morals and won't hesitate to screw you over some day.
People remember that sort of thing. Even if you don't ever want to go back to your old employer (although I've seen that a lot, people trying to hastily rebuild bridges from long cold ashes) the coworkers and managers you gave that middle finger will move on to other employers. And when your resume comes in, HR folks may not be the most useful tools in the chest, but they can make simple associations. "Oh, Bob worked at Acme Inc. Sue, you used to work at Acme, did you know Bob?"
You may think, I was pretty close to Sue while we were at Acme. She'll be sure not to say anything that might hurt my chances of getting this job. And that may be true. But there will be people who won't remember you as fondly. Or even someone who is otherwise neutral, but goes on the defense. "If I fail to say something about the way Bob left Acme, and he pulls the same stunt here, I look bad. If I give Bob the thumbs-down, whoever they do hire may suck out loud, but at least it won't be my fault."
So now you can never go back to your old employer (the HR computers will remember you even if anyone you worked with is gone), you won't have a shot at any company that acquires or merges with your old employer (this thread has examples of merged HR systems), and you've also complicated your chances of ever getting hired anywhere a former coworker (or anyone from the old employer who hears the story of the guy who give the company the big middle finger, even if they never worked directly with you) goes.
You might as well take that employer off your resume, and forget about working in that industry forever.
And what do you get in return? 2 weeks? Two weeks where you weren't going to do a lot of work anyway. Two weeks where you could come in late and leave early. (What are they going to do, fire you?) As long as you're not actively destroying files or sabotaging projects, no one will hold a grudge, or likely even notice, if you're not giving "110%" those last two weeks. But walk out on short notice, you're burning a bridge that doesn't need to be burnt.
Now a lot of places will walk you out that day. For some bosses it's an ego thing, but mostly it's just a security consideration. Why have you in the building with access to who-knows-what if you're not part of the team? And that's fine.
And certainly there are cases of employees getting fired or laid off with no notice, and I certainly agree it's a two way street. You owe your employer no more consideration than they give you. However, with the firing, it's rarely true there was no notice. Usually there's a process. For example, you know if you work in a place where showing up on time is a big deal. And you know you've been told your late arrivals have been noticed. So when you show late and are turned around at the door and sent away, you can't really say you didn't have any notice. With lay-offs there's usually a severan
There should be a new law--"Miranda Rights"--but named after Carmen Miranda.
I would certainly want the right to wear hats covered with fruit protected.
And you should have the right to defend yourself if attacked by someone with a banana!
I want to see a new law, named after him, which protects everyone's rights in the UK against such detention. That way everyone in the UK will be a beneficiary of this new "Miranda Rights" law. Of course, it should differ from the Miranda Rights in the US in fundamental ways so as to cause the most confusion possible. Especially in internet discussions.
There should be a new law--"Miranda Rights"--but named after Carmen Miranda.
Aging isn't a disease; it's a gift.
I pity the people who can't see this.
Considering the episode that aired Sunday night in the USA was the ninth episode of the last season, if local broadcasters outside the US are just now showing the second episode (aired over a year ago in the US) , I'm not really suprised fans of the show are turning to alternative methods.
The News in this seems to be that AOL divisions are starting to melt down so bring on the competition and sell your stocks.
I thought the news in this is that AOL is still a thing.
And even if he didn't, are you telling me you've never opted to take a photo when an important slide comes up in a meeting? That means you either were furiously scribbling down notes (when a picture would do) or your meetings never discussed anything noteworthy...
...or I work with reasonable people who will email the slides after (or even sometimes before) the meeting. Instead or scribbling down notes or taking pictures, I listen to the speaker.
The problem is the economic instability it would create, as so much of the world's production capacity is devoted to a vanity project useless to 99.99999% of the population. Plus there is the fact that wealth is only as real as everyone else believing it is yours. Something like this would spawn a global class war, and rightly so.
From where comes the economic instability? First, people don't think in terms of percentage of the world's production capacity. Second, who do you think is going to build this thing? At least at first, a large space station for the super-rich would be a huge jobs project. A lot of the people you might expect to be against such a project would be strong proponents and among the first to line up for jobs.
Of course, once the thing is built and those jobs are gone and maintenance depends on cheap labor and materials from the surface, that situation changes. But judging by the trailers, that's the plot of the movie.
$190.8 billion in 1975 dollars (the equivalent of $828.11 billion today). Looks like the ultra-rich are stuck on Earth for the time being
The estimated total net worth of the Forbes 400 (400 wealthiest USAians) last year was 1.7 trillion USD. And that's just the top Americans. Throw in some Russian tycoons, Middle East oil sheiks, European industrialists, assorted media tycoons from around the world, and include corporate resources they control in addition to personal assets, and that second statement (we are all stuck on Earth for the time being) has nothing to do with the first (it costs a lot of money to get in to space in any large scale).
Jimmy,
You really couldn't tell Clark Kent is just Superman with glasses?
on the planet where folks that have a key "grinder" tend to also be the folks that would obey said instruction
And which planet is that? It certainly isn't Earth.
In my college days we'd make copies of the dorm keys for friends who lived off campus, so we wouldn't have to go down to let them in the front door of the dorm.
Not only did those keys have the imprint "do not duplicate," but the copies we got back would have the same message!
You are allowed 5 free articles (or views) of The Onion website. After that they greet you with a paywall. One day, you are going to hit that limit. Your face is going to be annoyed once that happens.
That's perfect. The Onion only has 5 ideas that they keep recycling/repackaging.
Gravity Affects Stuff!
Talk about burying the lead. The big news here is
you can actually see it with your eyes
And all this time I've been trying to see stuff with my feet. Could be why I'm not a rocket surgeon.
Got that? Microsoft spent more in a single year advertising the Windows 8 and Surface launches than it took in from Surface sales that same year.
Why is that an interesting point? Obviously you can't do that in the long term and make a profit. And it would be interesting if for an established product there was either an increase in advertising or drop in sales to get in that position. But for a new product, is this unusual?
Let's look at some of your data. Fiscal 2013 ended on June 30. RT and Surface RT were launched October 26, 2012. Therefor, any advanced advertising costs for RT and Surface from July 1 to October 25, 2012 would be against 0 sales, because the product wasn't released yet. That's almost a third of the year where if even a single penny was spent as advertising, it would have been more than sales. And MS spent a lot more than a penny during that time.
That the launch of Windows 8, Windows RT, and Surface RT has not met MS's expectations has been well covered on Slashdot. I'll need a little more background in advertising, such as comparison to a typical Apple advertising budget when launching a new product, for your post to be interesting.
The question really misses the point, though. If you index the entire contents, then anyone searching will find it based on what they know, not what you think of in advance. Google seems to do pretty well at locating pages, despite many fine pages lacking meta tags (and despite many poor spam articles trying to abuse meta tags.) If the keywords aren't present in the article, it's probably not a very useful article anyway, as it obviously is lacking a common description.
Nail, head. Having people provide tags or keywords is asking people to adapt to the way computers work. While not perfect, Google shows us we can have computers adapt to the way people work.
My parents have a Samsung SmartTV, and a Samsung smart BluRay player (they run the same software). They use the "smart" software for one thing: watching Netflix. It sucks.
I've only used my Samsung BluRay to stream from my local NAS, not with Netflix, Amazon, or other service. If the Google dongle is better in function and ease of use, that would justify the $35.
Wow. Is it sad that it's significantly easier to play flash video on a $35 device than it is on my >$500 Linux machine?
????
It's $35, on top of the cost of the TV itself, plus the cost of the smartphone, tablet, or notebook, which is now reduced to the role of TV remote. Does all that together cost less than your Linux machine?
I don't get what the market is for this device. Instead of $35, how about I pay $0 and just the networking capabilities of my TV? Or pay the same $0 and use the same capabilities in my optical disc player, which also steams media files from my local NAS. Or use the same capabilities in my TiVo?
And none of those others devices require me to sacrifice another device to stream through.
"All in all, at $35 it's the most affordable way to access online media services on your HDTV."
How is $35 more affordable than the $0 I'd pay to use the existing media services that came built in to my HDTV?
Minor nit, far better than some folks here's "todays special's" or "there car is over their".
Is that a joke or are you just really bad at grammar trolling?
I just met this guy the other day at Starbucks, he's a comp sci major. Knows 2 whole languages. C# and Java.
Seriously. CS major, managed languages. I really hope he's using "unsafe" and pointers but I doubt it.
The important question is, did he get your order right?
I would have taken that seriously if not for the missile.
You have a strange outlook on life.
I can stand to pay a speeding ticket, but a missle I take seriously!
Since the whole point of GPU programming is efficiency, don't even think about VBing it. Or Pythoning it. Or whatever layer of a shiny crap might seem superficially appealing to you.
Learn OpenCL and do the job properly.
"VBing?" "Pythoning?"
Learn English and answer the question properly.
I'd say the situation is the exact opposite.
They will have this power, and they will use it; toward what end?
To the same end as everyone else in power--every government, every religion, every political party. Power is the end unto itself. The goal of power is to gain more power. The question is settled.
That surveillance is one of those powers isn't particularly new. People had networks of spies in ancient times.
Surveillance and spies certainly aren't new, but changes in technology drastically change the implications of surveillance. You think the NSA tracking every call and every email is the same as the king planting a spy in the local tavern to eavesdrop?