Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).
By the way, American companies tend to hire quite a bit in Canada and plenty of people go, but eh, there's an implicit (and now explicit) tension in American society (racism, class-ism, not to mention gun violence, lack of healthcare, etc.) that tend not to sit well with some Canadians.
It's not okay to say "I find this boring so I won't do it". You can't succeed without ever putting effort into something you don't like. Real life doesn't work like that, you can't always have it your way. If you don't want to put in enough effort to pass a test, school is just not for you, go do something else.
Frankly, college admissions are pretty damn well designed. Adam Grant is a professor at Wharton, a b-school. What's the process for that? There's a standardized test, a one shot deal on measuring some form of intellectual capabilities. There's a reliance on your grades in school, which come from a prolonged period of evaluation. There are essays, so you can show your creativity and what makes you you. There's an evaluation of your job experience and extracurriculars, to show that you have life skills and experiences. Then there's a bloody interview, where they make sure you are who your application seems to suggest. Compare that to the process of finding a job. School admissions are much more structured, and frankly, probably better at finding a good candidate than most interview processes. What's wrong with it? Is it only that it requires people to memorize and do well in a test? The test is only a portion of the evaluation criteria, and yes, I expect people that want to get in to put in the effort for it. Someone that has the resilience and the mental strength to succeed in something they don't enjoy should accomplish even greater things when they start doing things they love.
Also, your explanation is like a designer saying: "What, you wanted the picture with a 1920x1080 resolution? Yea, I made it 320x240 and then stretched it using Microsoft Paint and saved it at a higher resolution. It's 1920x1080, what's your problem?"
Also I thought that on Slashdot we blame Apple for making expensive crap anyway, at which point not buying them would be wise buying policies for a government...
The app itself forces you to upgrade, because
tldr: I don't want a fucking update. I paid for my shit and I want it to work like when I paid for it, not a succession of updates that do I-have-no-clue-what.
Granted, Skype is free, but the point remains... why does it need to forcefully update? Let me use my old version, did your protocol suddenly change?... And if my computer/OS is 5 years-old but works fine for me, why should I upgrade? Right now there's just no choice; your app _mandates_ an upgrade and then stops working, and you're like "well fuck I guess I need to change OS". Remember when you weren't _forced_ to update your software? Pepperidge Farms remembers.
The government also tends to _pass laws_, I don't know if you noticed. The "law" is supposed to be rooted in morals and ethics, and it is entirely possible to act in a lawful and yet unethical manner. In this case the government has been lying to us for years, but revealing that the government is behaving unethically yielded a witch hunt for the lone unlawful rebel instead of a scandal about how the government has been acting all along.
This is like a king yelling "Traitor! To death!" when evidence is published that the king behaved wrongly for years.
1. open to question; in dispute; doubtful: Whether or not he is qualified for the job is debatable.
2. capable of being debated.
1. questionable, dubious, arguable, disputable.
Perhaps "questionable" or "dubious" would have been a better choice, but it's "debatable" because I'm unsure whether or not they charge that $500. Their policy says they do; their response to this scandal is they don't. We can debate whether they're being truthful or not. You're right though, it serves no purpose.
1. The owners seem incredibly snarky.
2. There's multiple cases of people getting charged even though they tried cancelling half a year in advance
3. They seem to suffer from low staff and debatable accounting practices
4. There's a of positive reviews from people with 1 review, and he accuses negative reviewers of being liars when they have a few reviews on their account
Whether or not they actually charge $500 for bad online reviews is debatable, but they sure seem like dicks and charge for everything else, and have bad business practices.
Here, let me google that for you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H...
There's an amazing animated map on the right. The entire east/south of China has been "China" ever since, roughly, 300 BC (yep, that's 2300 years ago). The west (which, must I remind you, is nowhere as populated as the east, and certainly was even less populated before "modern China") was entirely conquered, or at least considered China, for the first time in roughly 1200 (800 years ago). Some fragments had been conquered and then lost previous to that, but whatever. In 1892, China occupied also all of current Mongolia, too, apparently.
Basically China as we know it is maybe new, but there has been mingling of population and wars over _thousands of years_. You could argue it belonged to.. different warring factions, or city-states, back in the days, but that's like saying the Italians had a bunch of city-states. As a whole though? The concept of "China" has been in the region considered China now for a long, long, long time. You can argue about Tibet, though it was conquered by Mongols in the 13th century, along with China and a lot of the Middle-East, and by the Qing in the early 18th century (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Tibet#Manchurian_Qing_Dynasty). I mean... I don't know man, what do you want me to say? Those ethnic tribes considered "Chinese" have been sharing this territory for a couple hundred/thousands of years, and they've had a lot of wars, for sure, but that's no different than most old civilizations...
The point is, the current China has now joined the Western world's game of Diplomacy, and people are just unhappy at a new player. There is no historical reason to believe they would use their ICBMs more than the US or anyone else, and I can't blame them for wanting to play the game because they got screwed not playing it for the past hundred years.
Hint: Almost all of China's wars were internal (or at least in the territory of current China). The Opium war and the invasion by Japan led the country to decide they need to play the game others are playing, which is what they've been doing since then.
It totally is about military power now, but I find it hard to not understand them, due to the history.
Seriously we're talking of an organization that is involved in covert military intelligence or worse and spies on the entire world, including US citizens, that is funded by the US government but lies to its elected officials and also spies on them. Really? Shut it down or massively cut down on its powers, and jail every leader involved. If you can't do that, then does the US government control the CIA, or does the CIA control the US government?...