Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:WTF UK? (Score 3, Informative) 216

by Richard_at_work (#48669141) Attached to: UK Man Arrested Over "Offensive" Tweet

John Terry was suspended because the FA had a grudge against him, he had already been cleared in an actual judicial court of the same offence but the FA decided that they were better than the Crown Court and found him guilty - but he had been subject to a long running series of issues with the FA regarding captaincies etc.

The Suarez case was totally different.

Also you seem to be deliberately mixing up actions by private bodies (the FA) with judicial court actions. Private bodies can do whatever they damn well please, within reason - there is a zero tolerance approach to racism in English football, hence the action against Suarez and Balotelli.

And the "man threatened with life for swearing too much" had a slew of breached orders behind him, so he escalated that himself.

Comment: Re:Interesting. I'd think the opposite (Score 1) 185

by jellomizer (#48667981) Attached to: The World Is Not Falling Apart

I haven't seen any president being the best person for the job.
Obama won, because he ran flawless campaigns. Greatly reduced the amount of dirt that can be dug up. Any dirt that was, was treated well and marginalized.

2008 - People were tired of Bush, so any democrat had a chance. McCain, was too old, so people needed to judge the VP candidate as well, and Palian was just the worst pick you could make. For a candidate who needed to push a moderate campaign.

2012 - Romney failed to make himself genuine. Being very conservative for the primary, then trying to seem moderate for the main election just didn't work.

Sure being black helped the democrat party solidify a base who often had low voter turnout to vote, as well a lot of people wanted to see things differently. But all in all it was about how good of a marketing campaign it was.

Comment: My Kids Nostalgia will be different from mine! (Score 1) 54

by jellomizer (#48667859) Attached to: The History of the NORAD/Microsoft and Google Santa Trackers

NORAD A military organization designed to blast communist out of the skies.
Google A for profit organisation that makes its money off of selling adds and offers a bunch of free services in return to having those adds in front of you.

So you are against capitalism however you are supporting the organization that is designed to track and kill people who are against capitalism (just as long as they are flying)

In general NORAD tracking of Santa is a gimmick to help bring up good will towards the organization. Because this started happening during the hottest part of the Cold War and the military was considered the keeper of all the newest and coolest technology. After the cold war companies tend to have the cooler technology. Transitioning to Google is a natural thing.

When your kids grow up and they will find that tracking Santa will be done with some other technology and organization they will feel like they are missing something because they will have nostalgia that doesn't match yours.

BTW Santa for generations is the symbol for consumerism. The reason why kids like him because he is the one that gives them toys. When I was a kid I didn't care about family time or any of the other true meanings of Christmas, I was all about ID and Ego (No Super Ego) and it was all about me getting cool stuff, and a little about seeing what other stuff people got.

Comment: Re:Of course there is a focus on the negative (Score 4, Insightful) 185

by jellomizer (#48666277) Attached to: The World Is Not Falling Apart

Not always. If the media makes it seem like things are getting worse overall. That would tell people the direction they are going in is wrong and will backtrack to the older ways when they were better.

You have sites like Fox News turning relatively moderate conservatives into extream conservatives. Due to the flood of negativity poison. Where before many issues were not a big deal or some supported it, now have became a polarizing issue.

Most of our judgment is based off of emotions, yes even the pro-science, well educated crowd. So misrepresented facts can cause a call to action where one isn't needed

Comment: Re:The finding suggests..? (Score 1) 130

by Impy the Impiuos Imp (#48659641) Attached to: Does Journal Peer Review Miss Best and Brightest?

You are correct, except that you're wrong. Of what value is a system that rejects scientific BS, if 9 times out of 10 it also rejects true, important innovation?

I don't think this is anything new, though. Einstein was known to occasionally send a radical new paper to someone with a note from himself attached saying idiot, look here.

Comment: Re:Bloody Innovative (Score 3, Interesting) 124

Notably Hollywood people, lest one appear on a talk show and casually drop the terrible service they received on airline X, costing the company millions.

There was a pregnant woman in Detroit who, while boarding a plane, was shoved violently aside by such an airline goon, striving to get to the Hollywood person aboard already to serve them. As it turns out, the pregnant woman happened to be a columnist for the Detroit Free Press.

It didn't go so well for the airline.

Comment: Re:Word of the America people (Score 2) 160

by Impy the Impiuos Imp (#48659581) Attached to: 'Citizenfour' Producers Sued Over Edward Snowden Leaks

Take the quotes off "wrong". Too many people view democracy as a holy justifier of dictatorship, as if, because it was voted in, it is therefore ok.

Democracy is a tool of freedom. Freedom is the master, not the servant of it, and is not something to be waved away because some charismatic demagogue can briefly convince 51% of the population to grant him infinite power.

Politicians tout democracy rather than freedom because freedom means freedom...from them, while democracy means massive powers authorized to them.

I'm not saying the US playing the game of "oh well, if it's gonna be a dictator, might as well be one friendly to us" is something noble, but I am so sick of this drooling, unthinking slavishness to the Holy Shrine of Democracy, when it yields little to no freedom.

Comment: Re:Lots of Interview but no job... yet (Score 2) 45

by jellomizer (#48658943) Attached to: Using Your Open-Source Contributions To Land a Full-Time Job

I have been part of the hiring team at a lot of companies. There are a lot of factors to choose a person or not.
1. Technicnical skills are important but not the main factor. There is a minimum bar that needs to be crossed. After that the points don't go much higher after that.

2. Industry experience. Tech companies are not just tech companies. Amazon is retail, Apple is hardware focused, PayPal is financial, Netflix is entertainment, and Comcast is infrastructural. The technology supports the core business. Every industry has its own set of buzzwords they may have industry standard protocols and a unique culture. I work in healthcare myself. And I see some tech people coming in from other sectors and they feel like they are just fresh out of school again.

3. Personality and motivation. Oddly enough if they just don't like you, you will probably not get the job. We all know the stereotypical dilbert Wally, who is the guy who finds ways to avoid work. No body really wants they type of guy so we try our best to make sure these people don't go in. Also on the flip side if we think you are too ambitious you will feel board at the position you are applying for and will leave shortly as the job may be too humdrum for you.

4. Professionalism. It isn't the 90s any more and most places are not going to hire any tech guy they can get their hands on. They will want someone who has a degree of professionalism with them. Not someone who they will be afraid to show in front of a customer.

Comment: Strangelove went to America? WTF! (Score 1) 68

by Impy the Impiuos Imp (#48658429) Attached to: ESA Carries Out Asteroid Impact Drill

To find out, the European Space Agency held its first ever mock asteroid drill to work on solutions and identify problems in how to handle such a catastrophe.

Symposium leader: Ok, anyone have any ideas other than "die" and "call NASA to see if they can launch a few hundred nukes at it?"

Comment: Re:Stone Age diet ? he wants to live all 20 years? (Score 1) 429

by Impy the Impiuos Imp (#48654675) Attached to: How Venture Capitalist Peter Thiel Plans To Live 120 Years

The simple version is that it's a diet without grains and pasta and chips and Doritos and French fries with everything. AKA you aren't gorging on starches. Root veggies are allowed (maybe fries? Think more cut tater chunks).

Look at your common diet and see how much bread (buns, sub, sandwich) pizza, pasta, donuts, muffins, potato chips, Funyons, much calories, taste good. die yung.

"One day I woke up and discovered that I was in love with tripe." -- Tom Anderson

Working...