Ha Ha Ha, Yeah, Right! Let me translate this for you. It can mean one of two things:
1) They don't hire overqualified people when they can hire cheaper people just good enough to get the job done. Just like every other company out there.
2) Please, for the love of god, make the horde of unqualified geeks that bury us repeatedly under endless copies of their resumes even though we have rejected them countless times already stop. Let's try psychology... here.. we don't hire you b/c you are too qualified. Now go brag about that and stop trying! There... now how to get the stench of a million mothers' basements out of our mailroom....
In this society most careers revolve around seniority. Wages, benefit time, retirement, etc... they are all based primarily on seniority at most companies. Your hypothetical machinist probably started out a young man (or woman) with a healthy body a small apartment and few responsibilities.
Now, after faithfully giving 15-20 years of their life to bettering your company you would just cut them off to go start over somewhere else? Most likely with a family to feed, a mortgage doctors bills to take care of their now older body, etc...
I don't believe in paying someone to do something which no longer has a purpose but I think a company could at least inform the employee as soon as they think they might be moving in a new direction, plus a chance to fill a different position. Now.. if they cannot or will not learn to perform a new task... then sure, go ahead and can them.
In what religion does God not either have no competitors to speak of or has/will/is completely destroying them?
Does Google think it's BETTER than God?
"You lose, you pay - for everyone's lawyers fee's"
This sounds nice when the plaintiff is Patent Troll Inc. The problem is when Little Innovative New Market Entrant Co. finds Big Incumbent Inc. stealing their ideas. Do they try to defend themselves with only truth and their modest legal team on their side against the best lawyers BI Inc can buy? Not if losing means they have to pay for BI's dream team. They would be broken! Thus yet another barrier to new competition in the old stagnant markets. Consumers will not benefit from this.
With or without capital punishment the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness are not extended to murderers. Assuming they are not let out way early due to overcrowding someone with a life sentence does not get liberty. I suppose one can pursue happiness in any situation but they aren't really in much of a position to actually achieve it. Without the death sentence they still get the first part, life. Then again, for those who rape and kill little kids I'm not sure they even get that once they mix with the general population.
So... I ask this. Is it really more cruel to be executed, especially if it's a painless method than to spend the rest of your days in prison? Would it not be worse to wake up every day for decades in a horrible place with no hope of improvement? I never intend to get myself into that situation but I think I might prefer to just die. To continue to wake up day after day with no hope is the cruelest punishment I can imagine, not to say this guy doesn't deserve that.
Of course, this assumes the life sentenced don't just get let out way early. But to argue for letting this kind of murderer go free is an indirect way to just kill the next victim is it not?
If the criminal is still running free with opportunity to commit more crimes then the suspect has not yet been caught. Unless he/she is already expecting it to be just a matter of time before getting caught for the first crime why tempt fate by crossing that line again?
But if Apple actually protects this one, and doesn't license it out to other companies... then I may have to change my mind.
I will never be bothered by ads on the Apple products I will never own!
Go Apple!
I can't say I've seen a lot of micropenis comments here. You just have bad luck. On the other hand, surf at -1 and lot's of other off topic nasties do pop up.
It's not about the market responding to a problem such as oil running out, becoming rare, being too expensive... etc Nor about the market trying to save the environment.
It's the fortunes which can be made by coming up with a less expensive alternative. If that's not enough motivation then what are tax dollars supposed to do?
Our population rises exponentially. No matter how green our technology gets we ultimately have 3 choices.
Extinction.
Kill our excess children.
Expand out into the rest of the solar system and beyond
The only thing really up for argument is how long we have until we have to make the choice. The thing about that third choice however is that if we don't start it soon enough there won't be time before we have to choose between the other two.
That being said.. Let the market push green technology. Have you been watching the price of oil? There are fortunes to be made! There are many fortunes to be lost before we colonize space. There is too much technology to be developed yet so the market isn't going to do it. We need a money source which isn't required to justify itself by earning a profit to develop space travel technology. We need it to be cheap enough that corporations start shipping people off world to look for resources they can turn into money. The only source I know of is tax dollars.
As the price of fossil fuels rise the market will fund alternative energy sources. For the market to fund the steps towards colonizing the solar system the price of space travel must fall. The first will happen in spite of what anyone does. The second requires someone who can spend money without expecting a profit to do the initial work, ie taxpayer dollars ie government.
The differences go deeper than just how an RPM or DEB is set up (I assume you mean directory structure). Actually some well placed symbolic links can be a workaround for that problem.
The problem is all the libraries which are not binary compatible from version to version. Even if you re-arrange all the files I'd only give you about 50% odds of being able to run a package from another distro w/o problems.
I really don't care as I use ebuilds. I wonder though, wouldn't the logical conclusion of your argument be to get rid of one of either rpm or deb and standardize on the other?
Actually come to think of it... if that happened, if binary packages were run-anywhere I MIGHT not even use ebuilds anymore. Hmm... Of course, there are so many choices to be made at compile time. I realize most of the optimization is not worth an adult's time but choosing optional features can be.
Maybe he could have done so, he does seem to have some sort of programming background. Maybe not if it's been mostly Windows stuff. If getting a program to work normally involves combing through log files then it's really still just a programmer's toy. That's sad considering the alternative (WMC) respects the copy flag.
It sounds like he was just trying to make it work. If it takes digging to that level just to get it running then there is a problem. I though Myth was supposed to be in a working state at this point? Was he trying to build the latest right out of source control? If he was just installing a stable release with typical options then I think it's pretty reasonable to expect that anything which could go wrong would be too high level to need to go to a bug log.
I've given Myth a few tries myself (on Gentoo). It's the one thing I have yet to get to work. I see lots of people do have it working but it seems most have to resort to a live CD. I for one don't want to be stuck with a distro that was built with only Myth in mind. I want my machine I have already customized as I like it but with mythbackend running in the background.
The people would never elect someone who knows what they are talking about.
Appointees have no accountability.
So who do you recommend and how do we get them into power?
No, not if the two cracks cross one another. I suppose if Africa entirely broke in half all it once then it would take two more breaks to make 4 pieces but breaking a continent in half doesn't exactly happen overnight. If the two cracks are growing at the same time and they cross then you get 4 pieces from only two breaks.
No matter what science learns about our gene's roll in the choices we make I'm for banning this information from the court room.
I can see both sides of this to an extent. If someone has less control than it is less their fault, etc.. etc.. If someone has less control they are more of a danger to others, etc.. etc... I don't care. I think any information about ones genetic tendencies should be banned from the courtroom. People should be judged based on their own personal decisions, not their genetic makeup.
Any decisions made based on genes during this generation will effect the genes which get passed to future ones. Those genes must exist for a reason or they would have been selected out ages ago. I wonder how many in law enforcement or the military today have a genetic predisposition for violence? If one country completely eliminated said genes how much of a disadvantage would it be at if another invaded? On the other hand if everyone had them could we keep the peace at all? Nature will keep this in balance. We had better not try.
On a positive note, I suspect if society can reduce violence by other means then the benefit of having such genes around will drop. Natural selection should reduce them on it's own.
Slashdot Mirror
Ha Ha Ha, Yeah, Right! Let me translate this for you. It can mean one of two things:
1) They don't hire overqualified people when they can hire cheaper people just good enough to get the job done. Just like every other company out there.
2) Please, for the love of god, make the horde of unqualified geeks that bury us repeatedly under endless copies of their resumes even though we have rejected them countless times already stop. Let's try psychology... here.. we don't hire you b/c you are too qualified. Now go brag about that and stop trying! There... now how to get the stench of a million mothers' basements out of our mailroom....
In this society most careers revolve around seniority. Wages, benefit time, retirement, etc... they are all based primarily on seniority at most companies. Your hypothetical machinist probably started out a young man (or woman) with a healthy body a small apartment and few responsibilities.
Now, after faithfully giving 15-20 years of their life to bettering your company you would just cut them off to go start over somewhere else? Most likely with a family to feed, a mortgage doctors bills to take care of their now older body, etc...
I don't believe in paying someone to do something which no longer has a purpose but I think a company could at least inform the employee as soon as they think they might be moving in a new direction, plus a chance to fill a different position. Now.. if they cannot or will not learn to perform a new task... then sure, go ahead and can them.
In what religion does God not either have no competitors to speak of or has/will/is completely destroying them?
Does Google think it's BETTER than God?
He means he is happy. He has achieved something therefore he is happy. Right...?
Hmm... Let me guess... 1
That voters like to vote for lawyers? Humans are intelligent and yet, when grouped in large numbers they are so stupid.
"You lose, you pay - for everyone's lawyers fee's" This sounds nice when the plaintiff is Patent Troll Inc. The problem is when Little Innovative New Market Entrant Co. finds Big Incumbent Inc. stealing their ideas. Do they try to defend themselves with only truth and their modest legal team on their side against the best lawyers BI Inc can buy? Not if losing means they have to pay for BI's dream team. They would be broken! Thus yet another barrier to new competition in the old stagnant markets. Consumers will not benefit from this.
With or without capital punishment the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness are not extended to murderers. Assuming they are not let out way early due to overcrowding someone with a life sentence does not get liberty. I suppose one can pursue happiness in any situation but they aren't really in much of a position to actually achieve it. Without the death sentence they still get the first part, life. Then again, for those who rape and kill little kids I'm not sure they even get that once they mix with the general population.
So... I ask this. Is it really more cruel to be executed, especially if it's a painless method than to spend the rest of your days in prison? Would it not be worse to wake up every day for decades in a horrible place with no hope of improvement? I never intend to get myself into that situation but I think I might prefer to just die. To continue to wake up day after day with no hope is the cruelest punishment I can imagine, not to say this guy doesn't deserve that.
Of course, this assumes the life sentenced don't just get let out way early. But to argue for letting this kind of murderer go free is an indirect way to just kill the next victim is it not?
If the criminal is still running free with opportunity to commit more crimes then the suspect has not yet been caught. Unless he/she is already expecting it to be just a matter of time before getting caught for the first crime why tempt fate by crossing that line again?
But if Apple actually protects this one, and doesn't license it out to other companies... then I may have to change my mind. I will never be bothered by ads on the Apple products I will never own! Go Apple!
I can't say I've seen a lot of micropenis comments here. You just have bad luck. On the other hand, surf at -1 and lot's of other off topic nasties do pop up.
It's not about the market responding to a problem such as oil running out, becoming rare, being too expensive... etc Nor about the market trying to save the environment.
It's the fortunes which can be made by coming up with a less expensive alternative. If that's not enough motivation then what are tax dollars supposed to do?
Our population rises exponentially. No matter how green our technology gets we ultimately have 3 choices.
Extinction.
Kill our excess children.
Expand out into the rest of the solar system and beyond
The only thing really up for argument is how long we have until we have to make the choice. The thing about that third choice however is that if we don't start it soon enough there won't be time before we have to choose between the other two.
That being said.. Let the market push green technology. Have you been watching the price of oil? There are fortunes to be made! There are many fortunes to be lost before we colonize space. There is too much technology to be developed yet so the market isn't going to do it. We need a money source which isn't required to justify itself by earning a profit to develop space travel technology. We need it to be cheap enough that corporations start shipping people off world to look for resources they can turn into money. The only source I know of is tax dollars.
As the price of fossil fuels rise the market will fund alternative energy sources. For the market to fund the steps towards colonizing the solar system the price of space travel must fall. The first will happen in spite of what anyone does. The second requires someone who can spend money without expecting a profit to do the initial work, ie taxpayer dollars ie government.
Sure, if you live under a melting glacier. Otherwise you'd be taking in an awful lot of pollutants.
The differences go deeper than just how an RPM or DEB is set up (I assume you mean directory structure). Actually some well placed symbolic links can be a workaround for that problem. The problem is all the libraries which are not binary compatible from version to version. Even if you re-arrange all the files I'd only give you about 50% odds of being able to run a package from another distro w/o problems.
OK,
I really don't care as I use ebuilds. I wonder though, wouldn't the logical conclusion of your argument be to get rid of one of either rpm or deb and standardize on the other?
Actually come to think of it... if that happened, if binary packages were run-anywhere I MIGHT not even use ebuilds anymore. Hmm... Of course, there are so many choices to be made at compile time. I realize most of the optimization is not worth an adult's time but choosing optional features can be.
I don't have a 64 bit system. I do have multiple ARM devices and 32 bit systems.
That happens from time to time when you are allowed to have separate brains. Pretty alien concept for Mac fanboys I'm sure.
Maybe he could have done so, he does seem to have some sort of programming background. Maybe not if it's been mostly Windows stuff. If getting a program to work normally involves combing through log files then it's really still just a programmer's toy. That's sad considering the alternative (WMC) respects the copy flag.
It sounds like he was just trying to make it work. If it takes digging to that level just to get it running then there is a problem. I though Myth was supposed to be in a working state at this point? Was he trying to build the latest right out of source control? If he was just installing a stable release with typical options then I think it's pretty reasonable to expect that anything which could go wrong would be too high level to need to go to a bug log.
I've given Myth a few tries myself (on Gentoo). It's the one thing I have yet to get to work. I see lots of people do have it working but it seems most have to resort to a live CD. I for one don't want to be stuck with a distro that was built with only Myth in mind. I want my machine I have already customized as I like it but with mythbackend running in the background.
That or write their own implementation of the concept, put that in the official tree and obsolete years of hard work.
The people would never elect someone who knows what they are talking about.
Appointees have no accountability.
So who do you recommend and how do we get them into power?
No, not if the two cracks cross one another. I suppose if Africa entirely broke in half all it once then it would take two more breaks to make 4 pieces but breaking a continent in half doesn't exactly happen overnight. If the two cracks are growing at the same time and they cross then you get 4 pieces from only two breaks.
Great idea! Now we have to worry about distracted cars too occupied with watching "All My Circuits" to pay attention to where they are going.
No matter what science learns about our gene's roll in the choices we make I'm for banning this information from the court room.
I can see both sides of this to an extent. If someone has less control than it is less their fault, etc.. etc.. If someone has less control they are more of a danger to others, etc.. etc... I don't care. I think any information about ones genetic tendencies should be banned from the courtroom. People should be judged based on their own personal decisions, not their genetic makeup.
Any decisions made based on genes during this generation will effect the genes which get passed to future ones. Those genes must exist for a reason or they would have been selected out ages ago. I wonder how many in law enforcement or the military today have a genetic predisposition for violence? If one country completely eliminated said genes how much of a disadvantage would it be at if another invaded? On the other hand if everyone had them could we keep the peace at all? Nature will keep this in balance. We had better not try.
On a positive note, I suspect if society can reduce violence by other means then the benefit of having such genes around will drop. Natural selection should reduce them on it's own.