Comment Very low observability is a terrible idea (Score 1) 275
I mean what if nobody sees it when they do flyovers at the start of football games?
Comment Re:Being a former drug addict, I think (Score 1) 47
I quit smoking cold turkey a few years ago before vaping really took off. There are a lot of factors that go into whether someone can finally quit or not, but I will say that the pleasant, tempting odor of cigarettes went away eventually. Sometimes a light tobacco scent on the air will smell good in an abstract sense but when I am around other smokers it's a pretty disgusting odor.
The hardest part for me about quitting was being left out socially every time there was a smoke break. It was actually when I started smoking in high school that I made the most friends. Also at most jobs I've worked at the smokers club takes precedence over all formal rank. It's pretty twisted.
Submission + - Utility wants $17,500 refund after failure to scrub negative search results (arstechnica.com) 3
mpicpp writes: Seattle City Light worked really hard to quash 2008 article, may sue Brand.com.
Seattle’s publicly-owned electrical utility, City Light, is now demanding a refund for the $17,500 that it paid to Brand.com in a botched effort to boost the online reputation of its highly-paid chief executive, Jorge Carrasco.
Brand.com "enhances online branding and clears negatives by blanketing search results with positive content" in an attempt to counteract unwanted search engine results. City Light signed a contract with the company in October 2013 and extended it in February 2014. The contracts authorized payments of up to $47,500.
Hamilton said that he first raised the issue of the utility’s online reputation when he was interviewing for the chief of staff job in early 2013.
“All I saw were negative stories about storms, outages and pay increases and I raised it as a concern during that interview,” he said. “And then after I started, [CEO Jorge Carrasco] and I discussed what we could do to more accurately represent the utility and what the utility is all about, because we didn't feel it was well represented online.”
Thus, the Brand.com contract. City Light says that it only ever thought Brand.com would help it place legitimate material in legitimate outlets—talking up some of the positive changes that have taken place at City Light during Carrasco's tenure. Instead, it appears to have received mostly bogus blog posts.
Seattle’s publicly-owned electrical utility, City Light, is now demanding a refund for the $17,500 that it paid to Brand.com in a botched effort to boost the online reputation of its highly-paid chief executive, Jorge Carrasco.
Brand.com "enhances online branding and clears negatives by blanketing search results with positive content" in an attempt to counteract unwanted search engine results. City Light signed a contract with the company in October 2013 and extended it in February 2014. The contracts authorized payments of up to $47,500.
Hamilton said that he first raised the issue of the utility’s online reputation when he was interviewing for the chief of staff job in early 2013.
“All I saw were negative stories about storms, outages and pay increases and I raised it as a concern during that interview,” he said. “And then after I started, [CEO Jorge Carrasco] and I discussed what we could do to more accurately represent the utility and what the utility is all about, because we didn't feel it was well represented online.”
Thus, the Brand.com contract. City Light says that it only ever thought Brand.com would help it place legitimate material in legitimate outlets—talking up some of the positive changes that have taken place at City Light during Carrasco's tenure. Instead, it appears to have received mostly bogus blog posts.
Comment Breaking News! (Score 1) 209
Mutation is random.
Comment The Truth About War (Score 1) 159
Atrocities are committed by both sides in any war.
Sure the RIAA has an outdated business model and they are doing some serious wrongs to people who haven't broken the law.
But I at the same time I am a college student and I have no illusions about younger peoples' attitudes about sharing copyrighted material. It has nothing to do with DRM or outdated business models. Even if the RIAA and MPAA were to disappear tomorrow and be replaced by the most streamlined business model with everything in an open format, mass piracy will be unaffected as long as students can't afford to pay for the content. The vast majority of the students could care less about the "War". Ideologically they may agree with people against the RIAA, but only so much as they don't want to be sued. As long as there's little to no risk of an individual being sued, there's no better business model than free. Because of modern technology, when we pay for a song or movie now, we aren't paying for the content itself anymore. We are paying for the guarantee that we won't be sued. In order to make money off of content now, the copyright holders have to set the price according to what people are willing to pay for that guarantee. If there's no risk or a super tiny risk of being sued, then people aren't going to pay anything or are going to only pay a small amount such as a penny per song. So yeah keep fighting your fight against things like DRM and shady enforcement tactics, but stop assuming that everyone is on your side. The truth of the matter is that the vast majority of filesharers do it because it's free. It's just part of our culture now that you don't have to pay for stuff because you won't get caught
Slashdot Top Deals
Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no substitute for a good blaster at your side. - Han Solo
