That doesnt' really explain it IMO.

If, say, I have a job. First 100 applicants get to trial it to give it a go. Some of their CVs have clear typos, a couple are 5 pages long, some use Comic Sans, Times New Roman... Considering these are clear no-nos on a CV, I would expect they don't know how to write one. If they don't, do they want the job? No. But I'm still here seeing if they can cope.

It would be a nice idea to have people after vetting to do the actual job, heck, it may be done in places, but to take people straight off without whittling out the cases of definite, pure, grade A trash, you're a money sink for the company

THIS. THIS A THOUSAND TIMES

If someone doesn't know many employers use arbitrary methods to weed out hundreds, even thousands of applicants to something manageable that they can look at properly, they need to come back to reality

From a single typo to Times New Roman font, anything that has (and some have that no) statistical value (like, say, literally taking the second half of applicants and rejecting them), can and will be used. Only now I'm seeing companies use the "if you don't hear from us in X days, you were unsuccessful/ignored" in response to how bad it is you don't even get a 'no' these days

As long as applying will be as simple as emailing a CV/resumé/application and a human has to look at it for a response, there will be a huge bottleneck in business resources in responding to them and will do things like this

I assume this scale is taking out the elements of actual lies and is more to do with analysing the truth. Truth be told a detector of that would be handy, but it wouldn't be easy to detect a factual piece of information in the context it gets used, yet I would imagine politicians are craftier with that than blatant lies

To quote the link: "...Windows 8 Metro UI last year, which was an obvious attempt to move the desktop to a mobile UX"

Granted, I haven't tried 8 in any sense (why bother..), but from my end it looks more the other way around and they're forcing something totally suited to a tablet onto a computer rather than moving the PC direction towards tablet/phone UI; it bears a resemblance to poorly handled game ports from console to PC

From what little i've read, wages went up a lot towards the end. Today, you have below-inflation wage increases, many wages frozen and many taking pay cuts. The only increases are (in some ways debatably) unjustified and decided by the one/s receiving it.

Due to population increases not counteracting the increases in efficiency, there were food shortages. The Office for National Statistics showed between 2004-2007 the population increased by about 1mil. Whereas that's higher than the 19th century, as a % of the total it's far less. Plus, if you haven't noticed...we as a 'developed' nation throw away a LOT of food, so I doubt we'll have mass malnutrition (no more than we already do because people practically live in takeaways..)

In general, I think there are similar knock on effects of jobs vanishing, maybe coupled with the recession and a mass feeling of social dissociation things can and have been grim (e.g. riots), but I wreckon whatever's to come won't compare, and it will only be good if we move away from choking capitalist agendas forcing people to use their lives working when, lets face it, we would GLADLY let a robot do our job if it meant we didn't have to work..

I have few dealings with Paypal, but whenver I think of them, this comes to mind: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jan/04/paypal-buyer-destroys-violin

Speaking as a Brit, I would gladly stand up against this, like many others no doubt, but since when did Government put something forward for our opinion and actually consider it? They just throw money at advisers to decide for them

"advertisements for a discounted product", blaming fatigue

Depends where you look, google finds me various cases that win or lose.

I can see the validity in not wanting users to potentially completely circumvent their advertising, knocking off revenue, however don't some sites have advertisements for a discounted, for example, so you go to that product on it's site, have a look, then maybe see what else is on offer?

They are getting free advertising to some extent, and with users these days wanting minimal effort (would you rather copy and paste or search for the content, especially on a phone / tablet? I thought not..) they shouldn't be clamping down on a nation of speed readers..

Three words: One Dollar Salary...

Hope that a judge deems otherwise, since you may as well agree to sacrifice your second child and 5 goats to use their service if they can do this...

As someone mentioned in a similar story (credit to whoever they are) you don''t get such shackles with in-store purchase unless there's ongoing payments!

Apologies, supply not meeting demand*

They didn't have an excuse they could fall back on if they ramped them up with no reason?

Despite their operations returning to normal, it might be a case of demand still not meeting the supply. If people are willing to pay more, how often do you hear "since we've knocked the prices up lately, we'll just slash them anyway"

This gives me a gut feeling all the programs you install could be used for ads more targeted than ever before....

Forget your search history, these could use data from your whole internet history, downloads, desktop, start menu...