...evil is subjective, and all depends on which side of the line you live on.
The part that I think is brilliant about Google's mantra is that it forces them to do business at a higher standard or lose serious face. I think it's ludicrous to think that any organization as large as Google could keep every single employee in a decision-making position from abusing their power forever. Fact is, power corrupts and it will happen to every powerful company given enough time. What their mantra does is keep them from crossing the line too far before people start waving the "you're doing evil again" flag. If Google's behavior is seen across the board as evil (e.g. Microsoft) then they will start to loose their power over time - another company will sprout up and steal their clean rep and they'll start to loose market share (e.g. Microsoft: Windows just lost some market share to Linux? Give it time...).
Google's mantra is kind of a first-line defense against it's own inevitable corruption from within. The market screams evil and the execs become aware of their company position in the public-eye. It's a calculation of course: how much of the market can think Google is evil before it really starts to hurt them? Sure, lot's disagree with their China decision but there are decent arguments both for and against that particular issue that can be debated. It's not until Google starts behaving ala-M$ on a routine basis (and yes, this is another notch in the stick) that we can really call their behavior "evil." And their still a long way off (IMHO) from being "an evil company." They certainly aren't pushing the antitrust line anytime soon as far as I can see.
Another thing their mantra does for them is give them a scapegoat just in case someone in the organization goes too far. They can fire that individual and Google can stand behind their mantra claiming to not be evil because they're "ridding themselves of those who wish to corrupt them from within." I'm no Google fanboi but I do like most of what they've done so far and I wish them no ill-will generally speaking. They've slipped a bit for sure on this one. I just hope their mantra works the way in which I think it was intended and helps to keep them from falling down the well too far.
Finally somebody just asked! After thousands of years of war I'm glad someone finally posted this question on/. Perhaps now we'll get an answer... (waiting...)...
Scientists are people.
That's correct (unless of course there's intelligent life out there but I'll give you that one until proven otherwise); very astute. You win a gold star.
Do you like working on things the world cares about, or things nobody cares about?
That depends on the subject matter and I'm not entirely sure why you're asking - it's a bit off topic. What are you're hobbies? Perhaps we should exchange phone numbers and get to know each other.
Do you think scientists like traveling to "important" meetings all over the world and having those meetings covered by the BBC and CNN, or do they like to have monthly meetings in Des Moines Iowa at the Motel Six so that they can share their findings on cockroach habits with the local pest control company?
I don't know what "scientists" as a social group like or dislike (that might make a really great study). Nor do I really care. Your implication is the same as the parent and is based on piss (urine if you're a scientist - although at this point I think it's safe to assume you're not so piss will likely do just fine). Let's use another analogy that perhaps you'll understand: ALL/.ers like President George W. Bush as a person and think he's a great human being (hint - if you answered true your IQ is... really high... yeah).
Scenario 1: The RIAA attempts to sue the President or his daughters. The power of his political position along with his lawyers completely dismantles the RIAA's claims and creates precedent powerful enough to stall just about any suit of a similar nature against any other American citizen.
Scenario 2: The RIAA doesn't attempt to sue the President or his daughters. The simple act of not doing so creates arguments defendants of an RIAA suit can use claiming discrimination due to their societal, political and/or economic status. The RIAA is selectively choosing to only go after certain citizens because they feel they have a better chance at extortion.
Scenario 3 (which is currently on the table it seems): The RIAA get the lawyer to retract his claims but because it has already been reported to the national press there is defendant argument available which could claim Scenario 2 and has the potential for the defendant to pursue discovery against the lawyer who made the claim originally as well as his source of information regarding the Bush's alleged act making it a potential can-of-worms for the RIAA (if said discovery were to be granted).
Please. These are corporations we're talking about here. If the monetary incentive is large enough their executive boards would sellout their first-born in a heartbeat. Well, maybe not Nintendo, but I wouldn't exactly call either $ony or Micro$oft 'ethical entities'.
If I were them I would just say the hell with it and not even submit GTA or any other game to ESRB. Sell it on their website, on steam-like services and probably on amazon.
IMHO: Then you'd be making a terrible business decision. There is nothing stopping them from doing this now. Submitting titles to the ESRB that get AO ratings and bans in some countries is serious free-press advertisement. People who are likely to buy such titles will not be deterred by an AO rating and if stores will not carry such titles then this is EXACTLY the kind of press the company needs so they can promote the titles out-of-store. Purchasing that kind of advertisement power for any company would be insane - this kind of free press is priceless. Simply put: this is a sound business decision for any company producing a game which is bound to get an AO rating from the ESRB.
That's a cynical perspective lumping all scientists into a category of corruption. It's not based in fact whatsoever and it's unclear to me how you managed to dupe/.ers into calling your comment insightful. I can only assume your hostility towards the scientific community comes from either having been beaten by a nerd with a beaker or you've got something to gain by discrediting nerds with beakers in general.
Also, it seems to me that someone in the Richmond offices of eBay has the ear of someone in the BBC, eBay gets an astonishingly high amount of free publicity from the BBC (The BBC does not allow advertising -- um, yeah, sure...).
It's not advertising; it's public relations. EBay may have the ear of someone in the BBC but that's how it works - private companies promote through journalism every day by pitching events, press releases and other tidbits. There is a big difference between the two and there's nothing wrong with it.
A story is a story - whether or not it's good journalism is another matter. The BBC, like all news org's is writing headlines to generate readership. It's a business just like any other and it's all about readership so they'll write what will get people talking - positive or negative, it's all about the buzz.
There's nothing wrong with the BBC because of this fact alone - there may be other things wrong with it but I don't buy this individual complaint.
He isn't assuming anything at all! All he did was post an interesting feature about GMail. It's retarded programmers who don't know how to properly check for valid email addresses who are to blame. Good grief; don't kill the friggin' messenger - especially when his reports are educational and completely unbiased.
My thanks to TheGreatOrangePeel for informing those of us who were unaware about this pretty neat feature.
Do not tune stuff that is hidden unless you know what you are doing.
Hrm; it seems to me one might learn something from doing just to opposite. I for one learn best through meddling, breaking and then figuring out how to fix it (although it's not always so peachy). Telling those who don't know what they're doing to never bother amounts to encouraging overall ignorance. I don't find that to be a good thing let alone insightful (mod points).
I personally would opt for something along the lines of, "Tuning unfamiliar settings can corrupt an application's ability to function properly. Do so at your own risk."
Frankly, I am hard-pressed to see a solution to this crisis.
From my perspective the solution is quite simple. Ignore those who teach hate and publicly proclaim their denial as racial intolerance. IMHO you're correct in your opinion that 'they are going to feel increasingly empowered' if this is tolerated in any way. Tolerance is shown when there is no complaint to the contrary. It should never be left up to those who preach doctrine to cherry-pick history simply because it fits with what they want it to be. Schools are not there to teach belief - that's what religion is for, go to church - they are there to teach facts. If people don't like the facts they're free to take their children elsewhere and teach them nothing but doctrine for all I care; just don't force the rest of us living in reality to abide by personal belief.
I just don't have any sympathy left for those who continue to push doctrine on others. Let's evolve a bit more quickly people (pun intended).
This kid doesn't deserve to be arrested. He doesn't deserve to be thrust into "Alternative Education". He deserves to have someone ask him why he built the school in a video game. Let a psychologist evaluate him, and then either medicate the kid or let him go back to class.
This kid doesn't deserve to be arrested. He doesn't deserve to be thrust into "Alternative Education". - should have quit while you were ahead.
He DOES NOT deserve to have anyone question him at all. There is Z-E-R-O reason to believe that this act alone makes him a threat in any way whatsoever. Period. He doesn't need to be examined for a faulty brain nor does he deserve to be medicated - give me a frigin' break.
Thanks evangelical's, Jack Thompson, George Bush, political--for-gain and all of you parents out there who should never have been allowed to procreate for creating our current so-called "free" society. You've all been a great help in continuing to destroy everything we stand for.
Was that a question? I don't see it having anything to do with Hollywood.
Once again showing that we, as a nation (meaning our governmental and societal policies), continue to move away from the basic principles our founding fathers left us with. We continue to erode the basic human rights of our citizens with sickening speed in the name of security - which, interestingly enough, is more often than not brought upon ourselves by pre-judging and meddling in the affairs of others before making sure our own crap doesn't stink. And boy does it reek.
My comment was simply pointing out my humble opinion that our country, which prides itself so much in our self-proclaimed democratic principles (which are corrupt and full of hypocrisy seeing as how we don't actually have a true democracy... *ahem* republic *cough*), has been increasingly been showed up by our neighbors to the north in their ability to follow the morals and principles our constitution outlines better than we can. It's pathetic.
100% in agreement. Such a comment is quite transparent in its bias that it's geared towards justifying rather than addressing the issues. I wonder how many kick-backs he's getting for looking the other way...
Anyone *competent* should've know several reasons why it wasn't a bomb:
Considering Boston was the only city out of a dozen or so to even bat and eye at this let alone through down a gauntlet and put the entire city under seige is proof enough for the rest of us that they overreacted on a whole new level.
Those stupid things were here in Seattle too and people thought they were an intriguing gimmick. I think it's sad that innocent people are suffering by getting arrested and charged for criminal action and a company had to shell out big cash all because smug politicians have zero humility and cannot admit they freaked out. Excuses out the wazoo only make them look more inept.
That's a massive assumption that, when caught, the number of addresses known to be sold is high enough to matter. Let's use you're example:
So if the list is 100 e-mails and the person caught was selling the list for 1$ then the fine would be equal to 1$ x 100 and that $ would be sent to the people who's names are on the list.
What if they're only caught with 100 but they actually sold 2000? This method doesn't work. Which is exactly why they've moved from fines to jail time. Deterrents are necessary and if the initial one isn't good enough then the stakes need to be raised. People need to take some responsibility for their actions - the stakes have just been raised; is it still worth the risk?
IMHO western punishments for most crimes aren't stiff enough (except for Enron execs - we finally got some justice there). Freedom does not equal screwing your neighbor and when a criminal impacts the public negatively they should be made example of.
This model is dead. If ad-skipping is prevented by technology or law people would stop watching the shows
I find this a rather ridiculous statement with absolutely zero examples to back it up. For years people have watched network TV with advertisements and those who haven't wanted to watch them have simply used the mute function. PVR's have not been around that long and the vast majority of people owning a TV in the United States do not have one. So, for the majority of people, if PVR's were prevented by technology or law they wouldn't notice a thing - life in TV-land would keep on ticking the same way it always has for them.
Sure, there is an emerging model that makes use of the internet to get shows to a viewer's home but it is still in its infancy and certainly is not about to wholly replace the standard anytime soon. Now, I agree that things are moving in this direction and, I too, hope it succeeds; but there is no compelling evidence to suggest that if technology or legislation were put in place that limited the end-user and forced them to remain with today's standard model that people would somehow mass-revolt. To suggest that people would simply refuse to accept it and not watch shows anymore because they have commercial breaks is short-sighted wishful thinking. People will watch anyway.
Cause compared to all those other displays just like it this one sucks? Bit early to ask it to be HD capable don't ya think? It's still a push forward no matter how you slice it - LCD used to 'suck' too.
I actually did this last week when the story about Maine broke on Slashdot. I live in Washington State and actually received detailed responses back from both senators and my district's representative within 24 hours. Understanding that the response was likely from an aide, it's nice to know that all three are equally against the 2005 Real ID Act (in Maria Cantwell's case it was voted for - not because she was for that particular law, but because it was slid into an unrelated foreign policy bill that she felt was needed).
I am pleased that the very next week Washington State is among those early states which is renouncing this ridiculous federal law. It can't hurt to speak your peace so take a few minutes and give em a piece of your mind!
Neither. Software bugs and breaks happen. Yeah, I know, it's/., but do we really have to treat EVERY tiny issue between M% and Apple as a full-blown conspiricy? So they're fixing a problem that's been discovered. WOW. I'm impressed with this kind of investigative reporting... *rolls eyes*
Slashdot Mirror
Without the expectation of privacy we are not free; we are slaves of the state.
Go America *rolls eyes*
...evil is subjective, and all depends on which side of the line you live on.
The part that I think is brilliant about Google's mantra is that it forces them to do business at a higher standard or lose serious face. I think it's ludicrous to think that any organization as large as Google could keep every single employee in a decision-making position from abusing their power forever. Fact is, power corrupts and it will happen to every powerful company given enough time. What their mantra does is keep them from crossing the line too far before people start waving the "you're doing evil again" flag. If Google's behavior is seen across the board as evil (e.g. Microsoft) then they will start to loose their power over time - another company will sprout up and steal their clean rep and they'll start to loose market share (e.g. Microsoft: Windows just lost some market share to Linux? Give it time...).
Google's mantra is kind of a first-line defense against it's own inevitable corruption from within. The market screams evil and the execs become aware of their company position in the public-eye. It's a calculation of course: how much of the market can think Google is evil before it really starts to hurt them? Sure, lot's disagree with their China decision but there are decent arguments both for and against that particular issue that can be debated. It's not until Google starts behaving ala-M$ on a routine basis (and yes, this is another notch in the stick) that we can really call their behavior "evil." And their still a long way off (IMHO) from being "an evil company." They certainly aren't pushing the antitrust line anytime soon as far as I can see.
Another thing their mantra does for them is give them a scapegoat just in case someone in the organization goes too far. They can fire that individual and Google can stand behind their mantra claiming to not be evil because they're "ridding themselves of those who wish to corrupt them from within." I'm no Google fanboi but I do like most of what they've done so far and I wish them no ill-will generally speaking. They've slipped a bit for sure on this one. I just hope their mantra works the way in which I think it was intended and helps to keep them from falling down the well too far.
If that's not a God, what is?
/. Perhaps now we'll get an answer... (waiting...)...
Finally somebody just asked! After thousands of years of war I'm glad someone finally posted this question on
Scientists are people.
/.ers like President George W. Bush as a person and think he's a great human being (hint - if you answered true your IQ is... really high... yeah).
That's correct (unless of course there's intelligent life out there but I'll give you that one until proven otherwise); very astute. You win a gold star.
Do you like working on things the world cares about, or things nobody cares about?
That depends on the subject matter and I'm not entirely sure why you're asking - it's a bit off topic. What are you're hobbies? Perhaps we should exchange phone numbers and get to know each other.
Do you think scientists like traveling to "important" meetings all over the world and having those meetings covered by the BBC and CNN, or do they like to have monthly meetings in Des Moines Iowa at the Motel Six so that they can share their findings on cockroach habits with the local pest control company?
I don't know what "scientists" as a social group like or dislike (that might make a really great study). Nor do I really care. Your implication is the same as the parent and is based on piss (urine if you're a scientist - although at this point I think it's safe to assume you're not so piss will likely do just fine). Let's use another analogy that perhaps you'll understand: ALL
Doesn't matter.
Scenario 1: The RIAA attempts to sue the President or his daughters. The power of his political position along with his lawyers completely dismantles the RIAA's claims and creates precedent powerful enough to stall just about any suit of a similar nature against any other American citizen.
Scenario 2: The RIAA doesn't attempt to sue the President or his daughters. The simple act of not doing so creates arguments defendants of an RIAA suit can use claiming discrimination due to their societal, political and/or economic status. The RIAA is selectively choosing to only go after certain citizens because they feel they have a better chance at extortion.
Scenario 3 (which is currently on the table it seems): The RIAA get the lawyer to retract his claims but because it has already been reported to the national press there is defendant argument available which could claim Scenario 2 and has the potential for the defendant to pursue discovery against the lawyer who made the claim originally as well as his source of information regarding the Bush's alleged act making it a potential can-of-worms for the RIAA (if said discovery were to be granted).
Here's to dreaming of a world without the RIAA...
Please. These are corporations we're talking about here. If the monetary incentive is large enough their executive boards would sellout their first-born in a heartbeat. Well, maybe not Nintendo, but I wouldn't exactly call either $ony or Micro$oft 'ethical entities'.
If I were them I would just say the hell with it and not even submit GTA or any other game to ESRB. Sell it on their website, on steam-like services and probably on amazon.
IMHO: Then you'd be making a terrible business decision. There is nothing stopping them from doing this now. Submitting titles to the ESRB that get AO ratings and bans in some countries is serious free-press advertisement. People who are likely to buy such titles will not be deterred by an AO rating and if stores will not carry such titles then this is EXACTLY the kind of press the company needs so they can promote the titles out-of-store. Purchasing that kind of advertisement power for any company would be insane - this kind of free press is priceless. Simply put: this is a sound business decision for any company producing a game which is bound to get an AO rating from the ESRB.
That's a cynical perspective lumping all scientists into a category of corruption. It's not based in fact whatsoever and it's unclear to me how you managed to dupe /.ers into calling your comment insightful. I can only assume your hostility towards the scientific community comes from either having been beaten by a nerd with a beaker or you've got something to gain by discrediting nerds with beakers in general.
Also, it seems to me that someone in the Richmond offices of eBay has the ear of someone in the BBC, eBay gets an astonishingly high amount of free publicity from the BBC (The BBC does not allow advertising -- um, yeah, sure...).
It's not advertising; it's public relations. EBay may have the ear of someone in the BBC but that's how it works - private companies promote through journalism every day by pitching events, press releases and other tidbits. There is a big difference between the two and there's nothing wrong with it.
A story is a story - whether or not it's good journalism is another matter. The BBC, like all news org's is writing headlines to generate readership. It's a business just like any other and it's all about readership so they'll write what will get people talking - positive or negative, it's all about the buzz.
There's nothing wrong with the BBC because of this fact alone - there may be other things wrong with it but I don't buy this individual complaint.
He isn't assuming anything at all! All he did was post an interesting feature about GMail. It's retarded programmers who don't know how to properly check for valid email addresses who are to blame. Good grief; don't kill the friggin' messenger - especially when his reports are educational and completely unbiased.
My thanks to TheGreatOrangePeel for informing those of us who were unaware about this pretty neat feature.
Do not tune stuff that is hidden unless you know what you are doing.
Hrm; it seems to me one might learn something from doing just to opposite. I for one learn best through meddling, breaking and then figuring out how to fix it (although it's not always so peachy). Telling those who don't know what they're doing to never bother amounts to encouraging overall ignorance. I don't find that to be a good thing let alone insightful (mod points).
I personally would opt for something along the lines of, "Tuning unfamiliar settings can corrupt an application's ability to function properly. Do so at your own risk."
Just my 2 cents.
Frankly, I am hard-pressed to see a solution to this crisis.
From my perspective the solution is quite simple. Ignore those who teach hate and publicly proclaim their denial as racial intolerance. IMHO you're correct in your opinion that 'they are going to feel increasingly empowered' if this is tolerated in any way. Tolerance is shown when there is no complaint to the contrary. It should never be left up to those who preach doctrine to cherry-pick history simply because it fits with what they want it to be. Schools are not there to teach belief - that's what religion is for, go to church - they are there to teach facts. If people don't like the facts they're free to take their children elsewhere and teach them nothing but doctrine for all I care; just don't force the rest of us living in reality to abide by personal belief.
I just don't have any sympathy left for those who continue to push doctrine on others. Let's evolve a bit more quickly people (pun intended).
Hrm... No doubt a true statement BUT... That doesn't really answer the question...
Let's try this again. WTF is wrong with our society?
This kid doesn't deserve to be arrested. He doesn't deserve to be thrust into "Alternative Education". He deserves to have someone ask him why he built the school in a video game. Let a psychologist evaluate him, and then either medicate the kid or let him go back to class.
This kid doesn't deserve to be arrested. He doesn't deserve to be thrust into "Alternative Education". - should have quit while you were ahead.
He DOES NOT deserve to have anyone question him at all. There is Z-E-R-O reason to believe that this act alone makes him a threat in any way whatsoever. Period. He doesn't need to be examined for a faulty brain nor does he deserve to be medicated - give me a frigin' break.
Thanks evangelical's, Jack Thompson, George Bush, political--for-gain and all of you parents out there who should never have been allowed to procreate for creating our current so-called "free" society. You've all been a great help in continuing to destroy everything we stand for.
Steve Ballmer calling anyone else insane is a bit hypocritical...
http://youtube.com/watch?v=kvbWLfr-Z4s
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Nc4MzqBFxZE
http://youtube.com/watch?v=8To-6VIJZRE
http://youtube.com/watch?v=zPFu9ezddyk
http://youtube.com/watch?v=La_u1jPLOIA
Hey Steve, how's the medication workin' out for ya?
Was that a question? I don't see it having anything to do with Hollywood.
Once again showing that we, as a nation (meaning our governmental and societal policies), continue to move away from the basic principles our founding fathers left us with. We continue to erode the basic human rights of our citizens with sickening speed in the name of security - which, interestingly enough, is more often than not brought upon ourselves by pre-judging and meddling in the affairs of others before making sure our own crap doesn't stink. And boy does it reek.
My comment was simply pointing out my humble opinion that our country, which prides itself so much in our self-proclaimed democratic principles (which are corrupt and full of hypocrisy seeing as how we don't actually have a true democracy... *ahem* republic *cough*), has been increasingly been showed up by our neighbors to the north in their ability to follow the morals and principles our constitution outlines better than we can. It's pathetic.
100% in agreement. Such a comment is quite transparent in its bias that it's geared towards justifying rather than addressing the issues. I wonder how many kick-backs he's getting for looking the other way...
That Canadians are more American than most Americans (I'm American which makes me ignorant by association and therefor an expert on the subject).
My 2 cents.
Anyone *competent* should've know several reasons why it wasn't a bomb:
Considering Boston was the only city out of a dozen or so to even bat and eye at this let alone through down a gauntlet and put the entire city under seige is proof enough for the rest of us that they overreacted on a whole new level.
Those stupid things were here in Seattle too and people thought they were an intriguing gimmick. I think it's sad that innocent people are suffering by getting arrested and charged for criminal action and a company had to shell out big cash all because smug politicians have zero humility and cannot admit they freaked out. Excuses out the wazoo only make them look more inept.
[for] each person's e-mail they sold...
That's a massive assumption that, when caught, the number of addresses known to be sold is high enough to matter. Let's use you're example:
So if the list is 100 e-mails and the person caught was selling the list for 1$ then the fine would be equal to 1$ x 100 and that $ would be sent to the people who's names are on the list.
What if they're only caught with 100 but they actually sold 2000? This method doesn't work. Which is exactly why they've moved from fines to jail time. Deterrents are necessary and if the initial one isn't good enough then the stakes need to be raised. People need to take some responsibility for their actions - the stakes have just been raised; is it still worth the risk?
IMHO western punishments for most crimes aren't stiff enough (except for Enron execs - we finally got some justice there). Freedom does not equal screwing your neighbor and when a criminal impacts the public negatively they should be made example of.
This model is dead. If ad-skipping is prevented by technology or law people would stop watching the shows
I find this a rather ridiculous statement with absolutely zero examples to back it up. For years people have watched network TV with advertisements and those who haven't wanted to watch them have simply used the mute function. PVR's have not been around that long and the vast majority of people owning a TV in the United States do not have one. So, for the majority of people, if PVR's were prevented by technology or law they wouldn't notice a thing - life in TV-land would keep on ticking the same way it always has for them.
Sure, there is an emerging model that makes use of the internet to get shows to a viewer's home but it is still in its infancy and certainly is not about to wholly replace the standard anytime soon. Now, I agree that things are moving in this direction and, I too, hope it succeeds; but there is no compelling evidence to suggest that if technology or legislation were put in place that limited the end-user and forced them to remain with today's standard model that people would somehow mass-revolt. To suggest that people would simply refuse to accept it and not watch shows anymore because they have commercial breaks is short-sighted wishful thinking. People will watch anyway.
Cause compared to all those other displays just like it this one sucks? Bit early to ask it to be HD capable don't ya think? It's still a push forward no matter how you slice it - LCD used to 'suck' too.
I actually did this last week when the story about Maine broke on Slashdot. I live in Washington State and actually received detailed responses back from both senators and my district's representative within 24 hours. Understanding that the response was likely from an aide, it's nice to know that all three are equally against the 2005 Real ID Act (in Maria Cantwell's case it was voted for - not because she was for that particular law, but because it was slid into an unrelated foreign policy bill that she felt was needed). I am pleased that the very next week Washington State is among those early states which is renouncing this ridiculous federal law. It can't hurt to speak your peace so take a few minutes and give em a piece of your mind!
Neither. Software bugs and breaks happen. Yeah, I know, it's /., but do we really have to treat EVERY tiny issue between M% and Apple as a full-blown conspiricy? So they're fixing a problem that's been discovered. WOW. I'm impressed with this kind of investigative reporting... *rolls eyes*