> basically wasting everyone's time due to their selfish habit.
Yep, it can be especially harrowing if you're waiting for them to get out of the way so you can take a shot at that M4A2E8 that's just sitting in the open.
Oh, wait, that's World of Tanks. Sorry.
That extra second or two at a light (even multiplied by 5 or 8) doesn't seem that critical most times. Often, I'll wait that extra second or two myself, just to be sure no bozo on a cell phone is going to run the recently-changed light.
For your consideration: You and your boss are likely to be on good terms. Your boss is likely to be literate in the details of your position. Your boss's boss is less likely to be so. The larger the company, the deeper the hierarchy. At some point, you end up with someone who neither knows nor cares about technical aspects, only the budget. All it takes is for the Peter principle to break one link in that chain to disconnect the work from the leaders, and make "the company" not give a fuck.
And yes, 20% of us work for large or huge companies, where the "fucks" jar has been mislaid due simply to scaling. More of us work for smaller companies where the jar has been mislaid for other reasons (incompetence, desperation, etc.)
The fact you don't borrow does not mean you have no credit score. It just means you don't have a record of borrowing and repayment. Presumably other elements, like actual car/house ownership, holding a job, etc, contribute portions to the credit score.
Your credit score is generated based on the information in your credit report. Fair Isaac, the makers of the FICO score, is tight-lipped about exactly how the scores are calculated. But they do give the weights of various criteria that they look at: 35% payment history, 30% amount owed, 15% length of history, 10% new credit, 10% types of credit used.
Percentage of available credit in use is a factor, so with 100% credit available...:)
Personally, I also avoid borrowing whenever possible. The one time I had a store credit card, I cancelled it after getting a $50 late fee on a $20 charge that was late by 1 day.
You don't become experienced in C/C++ by learning Python. And you don't get experienced in defensive programming by relying on the language, interpreter, or OS to do the heavy lifting.
Then again, you don't get a good program by shorting testing. And that happens too. The cure for inexperience is mistakes. Preferably non-fatal (or non-critical) ones.
Okay, let's go with cancer, then. It metastasized, the community excised the most visible lump, and the rest responded to chemo.
He was smacked for it. End of story.
And with that, you drive the bus over him, deliberately missing the folks who told him "yeah, you've got a good idea there, do it". Great driving there.
Kyle's modification of Lerna's license was originally assented to by other lead developers on the project, but the decision polarized the open-source community.
This wasn't a cancer. This was Kyle being thrown under the bus when the other lead devs saw the inevitable shitstorm get kicked up. It does not endear me to the other lead developers.
lolcow.wiki looks like a wiki dedicated to articles of the nature you describe: "the main stream media is all wrong about this." I love how the Brianna Wu page has, as citations, links to comments on sites such as knowyourmeme and twitter. At least one of the links to FBI FOIA results (a more creditable citation) is cited misleadingly, claiming it shows something that it doesn't actually show.
Some highlights from that page: - Nonetheless, Wu retweeted it as if it were credible. - Brianna Wu nonetheless tweeted it as a legitimate threat. - but Brianna Wu claimed they were legitimate all the same
Yeah, I don't think your links show anything more than "someone said it on the internet". Sorry. But feel free to provide creditable citations! I'm always willing to listen.
> 5. While a lot of what he said was protected, the statements on biological differences between the sexes (...) do not enjoy any legal protection and Google was - as a matter of law - okay to fire him on over them.
FTFY. Of course, firing him was a speech act by Google, and as we already know, speech that is legal still can have social consequences.
Slashdot Mirror
> basically wasting everyone's time due to their selfish habit.
Yep, it can be especially harrowing if you're waiting for them to get out of the way so you can take a shot at that M4A2E8 that's just sitting in the open.
Oh, wait, that's World of Tanks. Sorry.
That extra second or two at a light (even multiplied by 5 or 8) doesn't seem that critical most times. Often, I'll wait that extra second or two myself, just to be sure no bozo on a cell phone is going to run the recently-changed light.
> ...refuse to stand up to, which makes you complicit in their behavior.
So ... if you're not with us, you're against us?
That's your argument?
I'm pretty sure there are more pristine samples where those came from.
> we are FUCKED
Not yet. Those models are the 2.1 revision. ... and you say that like that's a bad thing!
... because people like me will go from dealer to dealer, saying that in-car espionage is a deal breaker for my purchase of a new car.
It happened with those motorized seat belts. It will happen with this.
> he's no king!
Peasant 1: How do you know he's the king?
Peasant 2: He's the only one who doesn't have shit on him.
> in the already overburdened subway system.
Maybe they should build more roads, or expand their subway system, or something...
> ignoring the fact that these ups and downs depend on which party has their president in office.
[citation?]
For your consideration: You and your boss are likely to be on good terms. Your boss is likely to be literate in the details of your position. Your boss's boss is less likely to be so. The larger the company, the deeper the hierarchy. At some point, you end up with someone who neither knows nor cares about technical aspects, only the budget. All it takes is for the Peter principle to break one link in that chain to disconnect the work from the leaders, and make "the company" not give a fuck.
And yes, 20% of us work for large or huge companies, where the "fucks" jar has been mislaid due simply to scaling. More of us work for smaller companies where the jar has been mislaid for other reasons (incompetence, desperation, etc.)
It is telling that you only felt comfortable distributing that document when you were quitting.
Why did you not do so before, presenting it as a "I feel strongly enough about these items that unless (some) action is taken I will resign"?
When you step down off your soap box, you should look to your own critical thinking skills, and look up Whataboutism.
The fact you don't borrow does not mean you have no credit score. It just means you don't have a record of borrowing and repayment. Presumably other elements, like actual car/house ownership, holding a job, etc, contribute portions to the credit score.
from here:
Your credit score is generated based on the information in your credit report. Fair Isaac, the makers of the FICO score, is tight-lipped about exactly how the scores are calculated. But they do give the weights of various criteria that they look at: 35% payment history, 30% amount owed, 15% length of history, 10% new credit, 10% types of credit used.
Percentage of available credit in use is a factor, so with 100% credit available... :)
Personally, I also avoid borrowing whenever possible. The one time I had a store credit card, I cancelled it after getting a $50 late fee on a $20 charge that was late by 1 day.
You don't become experienced in C/C++ by learning Python. And you don't get experienced in defensive programming by relying on the language, interpreter, or OS to do the heavy lifting.
Then again, you don't get a good program by shorting testing. And that happens too. The cure for inexperience is mistakes. Preferably non-fatal (or non-critical) ones.
... if only it was congestion they were managing....
It wasn't. Vimeo wasn't throttled at all, and some services were throttled only after a certain number of bytes. See here
You should. I would wager that most of us NoScript-using folks don't have Google accounts.
Okay, let's go with cancer, then. It metastasized, the community excised the most visible lump, and the rest responded to chemo.
He was smacked for it. End of story.
And with that, you drive the bus over him, deliberately missing the folks who told him "yeah, you've got a good idea there, do it". Great driving there.
This wasn't a cancer. This was Kyle being thrown under the bus when the other lead devs saw the inevitable shitstorm get kicked up. It does not endear me to the other lead developers.
Looked up your links.
lolcow.wiki looks like a wiki dedicated to articles of the nature you describe: "the main stream media is all wrong about this." I love how the Brianna Wu page has, as citations, links to comments on sites such as knowyourmeme and twitter. At least one of the links to FBI FOIA results (a more creditable citation) is cited misleadingly, claiming it shows something that it doesn't actually show.
Some highlights from that page:
- Nonetheless, Wu retweeted it as if it were credible.
- Brianna Wu nonetheless tweeted it as a legitimate threat.
- but Brianna Wu claimed they were legitimate all the same
Yeah, I don't think your links show anything more than "someone said it on the internet". Sorry. But feel free to provide creditable citations! I'm always willing to listen.
Stephen Hawking's actual voice (before his disability caught up with him) ?
Or the computer generated voice (the name of whose sample donor I could not locate )?
The fact that the FBI agents have, on the stand and on court documents, been caught misstating facts or outright lying, counts for a good bit too.
See the Empty Wheel take on this story. (Googling left to the reader.)
> Wrong. Try again.
> The license use of that work. They don't sell copies of that work.
That's okay. We can change their names to those of the accused, and presto!
> Donate to the groups that support net neutrality.
I already do. It's called taxes.
> 5. While a lot of what he said was protected, the statements on biological differences between the sexes (...) do not enjoy any legal protection and Google was - as a matter of law - okay to fire him on over them.
FTFY. Of course, firing him was a speech act by Google, and as we already know, speech that is legal still can have social consequences.
> Their response was "oh, that wasn't us, it was somebody else."
Cisco's response was that too.