Forgot your password?

typodupeerror

Comment: What does science have to do with anything? (Score 1) 1181

by BELG (#39688915) Attached to: Losing the Public Debate On Global Warming

Until someone figures out how to convince a person who claims the earth is 4000 years old that we need to do something about our carbon footprint, we're screwed.

They don't respond to _rational_ argumentation, so they are sure as hell not going to listen to a smart ass in a Prius claiming we're all DOOOOOOOOOOMED.

I sure don't know what the common ground is. Anyone?

Comment: Shouldn't be a problem (Score 1) 504

I work for a hosting company that does a fair amount of in house development, and we never care (even a little) about education in the hiring process. We care a lot about if you're any good of course, but mainly we care if you're an enthusiast.

We've learned over the years that education and current skill set counts for pretty much nothing at all in the long run if you're not INTO your line of work. We had far too many seemingly skilled and highly educated new employees that just seem to stand still. Their idea of further education is that we should pay for courses, when we'd rather spend our money of sending our people to things like Google IO, OSCON, RailsConf and the like. It motivates the hell out of them instead of cramming knowledge down their throats.

I know of several other companies that do the exact opposite, and they claim it works.

Point is, YMMW. Go apply to a few jobs, and stress the fact that you LIKE what you do. It counts for a lot in some places, and even though I can only speak for myself, those places are way more fun and stimulating to work at.

I have to post anonymously and can't name my employer, and you posted anonymously too, so that's a bummer :(

Comment: Re:Leveraging search to get identity entries (Score 1) 126

by BELG (#37257244) Attached to: Google Explores Re-Ranking Search Results Using +1 Button Data

I agree with that there's probably a reason to be a little paranoid about what they're doing, but I think you've got it absolutely backwards. They're leveraging G+ to improve their search engine. They earn their money from advertising, and the biggest driver for that is search. It's free labor, and it can greatly improve the quality of search results. That's pretty close to free money.

Think about it, they have had the browsing profiles of most people for a long time already, and they could (and most likely already do) link your profile with those of your contacts. It's not exactly a stretch to imagine ways they can link people together. They might email eachother regularily on Gmail, chat on Google Talk, comment on eachother's Blogger blogs, share access to a site on Google Analytics, participate in the same threads on Google Groups, the list just goes on..

Don't let the urge to fall for conspiracy theories cloud your judgement. I don't consider the scenario above any less scary than what you're suggesting, just a lot more plausible.

Social Networks

Banned From Google+, Anonymous Creates Anonplus

Submitted by Anonymous Coward
An anonymous reader writes "Google has reportedly banned a handful of Anonymous members from Google+ (it's not exactly clear how many accounts were shut down). The hacktivist group likened Google's actions to the stories of activists being banned from Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, as well as governments blocking various websites using Internet censorship tools. As a result, Anonymous has decided to create its own social network: Anonplus."
Cellphones

Verizon Tells Customer To Get A Lawyer & A Sub-> 1

Submitted by suraj.sun
suraj.sun writes "Verizon Tells Customer To Get A Lawyer & A Subpoena To Get An Itemized Bill:

A woman, who called Verizon to try to find out about the $4.19 she was being charged for six local calls, was told by Verizon reps that the only way it would provide her an itemized bill was to get a lawyer and have the lawyer get a subpoena to force Verizon to disclose the information.

Instead, the woman went to court (by herself) and a judge told Verizon to hand over the itemized bill info.

        It is a basic matter of fair business practice that a consumer should be able to contact a utility about a charge on a bill and learn what the charge is for and learn that the charge was correctly applied. The only verification that Verizon's witness could offer that a charge like [the customer's] $4.19 measured use charge was accurate and billed correctly was her faith in the accuracy of Verizon's computer system. The only way that Verizon would offer any information about a past charge in response to a consumer inquiry was to require that customer to hire a lawyer and subpoena their own usage information. By no reasonable standard could this be considered reasonable customer service.

The judge has also suggested Verizon should be fined $1,000 for its failure here, and that suggestion will be reviewed by the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission.

Techdirt: http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20110715/02212815101/verizon-tells-customer-to-get-lawyer-subpoena-to-get-itemized-bill.shtml"

Link to Original Source

Sum quod eris.

Working...