I can not remember a single earthquake in California, whether it killed people or not, that was predicted by California seismologists. Maybe after the next big quake in CA we can have some Italian scientists testify against the California scientists!
Did California seismologists state that there was "no danger" from an earthquake? Did California seismologists cause people to ignore commonly accepted safety routines by their statements or actions? Maybe the next time you try to draw similarities between two situations, you can read a little and not be so ignorant! We can at least expect you to read the caption under the pictures, can't we?
A panel of seismologists who met just days before the 2009 earthquake in L’Aquila, Italy are on trial over their reassurances to the public.
if other seismologists are saying they would have gave the warning, doesn't that tell you something?
perhaps we need competing seismologists, you know, so people can get a second opinion.
Interesting that you would raise that thought, seeing as they had a lab tech who was forecasting earthquake based on (IIRC) radon levels. The scientists on trial apparently were convened to refute his warnings. The lab tech had incorrectly predicted earthquakes before, and the advisory panel (of scientists) were allegedly there to calm the public. The official government sanctioned scientists gave an all clear, go drink wine, don't worry about it statement, which in turn led to dead people.
IIRC, some of the scientists in the meeting claim (at least now) to have disagreed with the statement. Either they didn't raise their voices (in which case they should carry some of the responsibility) or they were overruled by the rest of the group. Either way, those in government seem to like suppressing the second or disagreeing opinion, as was being done with this statement of safety.
The case should be decided upon whether a professional opinion, or even one that is concurrent with a majority of professional opinions, can be held to be liable in the case of non-precaution.
It's much worse then non-precaution. It's the complete opposite of non-precaution. It's a statement of NO CAUTION IS NEEDED. One that was gave to the public by scientists serving on a public advisory board. People changed their behavior based on that "official statement", and that change in behavior led to the loss of life. Many of those dead would have been sleeping in their cars outside of their medieval, seismically weak homes. By and large they would have survived had those scientists not gave a statement of safety. If those scientists hadn't held that meeting and given that statement to discredit a lab tech who was forecasting earthquakes, this wouldn't even be a trial, as most of those people would still be alive.
Those people broke with their regular routine of sleeping outside in their car after multiple small tremors, based on the assurances of the seismologists on trial. Those seismologist called that open session to discredit a laboratory tech who was claiming the likelihood of a larger earthquake. The seismologists basically told the people that there was no danger, go drink some wine. If they hadn't called that meeting and gave that direction, those people wouldn't have broken routine, and many of them would have had a much better chance at survival.
What truly scientific mind would say that that it is safe to ignore the tremors that had been happening in the area? Why didn't they say "we have no conclusive evidence of a forthcoming earthquake, but here are some general safety tips". Most likely, they were more interested in discrediting and shaming the laboratory tech who had been warning of a big earthquake. When those who are entrusted with public safety choose ego over public safety, and it causes changes that lead to death, I agree that they should be held accountable.
Read the Nature article. Get the perspective from both sides.
If you can afford to have a philosophy about what software you are working with, you have too much money, too much ego, or both.
I think RMS and ESR (among many others) would both take exception to that statement, and I would ask you 'who is the final arbiter of "too much"?'.
Those who have the drive and desire, but not the employment to be able to support themselves or their families. Basically, those who he's spitting on by saying he doesn't want this job because it's going to be attached to Microsoft.
And as a correction, I would replace "have a philosophy" with "throw a job away over your philosophy". That was the intent of my statement, and I realize I didn't fully define it. Any person with years of experience working with software develops a measure of a "philosophy" about what they use (or don't) and why. But when the boss overrides us, we move ahead as directed, because it's what we get paid to do.
What Timothy likely needs to do is start his own business. Free up that job for someone who would appreciate it. Work his ass off avoiding Microsoft software, generating business, paying his own insurance, his own overhead, dealing with all the nasty taxes. See how long he can hold his philosophy without bending it for that client that would set him up for months, if he would just use that one microsoft product.
I know several people who are platform agnostic, work on Windows, Mac OS X or Linux as a client needs, and who occasionally work on Linux based software targeting an embedded environment. However such a job may be philosophically objectionable for the job seeker in question. In addition to the Linux work on the device itself there is often a part of the project that requires a Windows based utility that interacts with the device.
I'm platform agnostic myself. I'm currently administrating windows, mac and redhat servers from a 10.6 iMac. It's all about making the money required to live.
"Timothy" (asker of this/. question) seems to think he's taking a moral high road by refusing to work with Microsoft. More likely he has an issue with management that he is either unwilling to or incapable of resolving. I can understand refusing to work with a company because they use slaves or sweatshops or have a history of deceit with their employees. If you can afford to have a philosophy about what software you are working with, you have too much money, too much ego, or both.
For him to come crying to slashdot because his job responsibilities changed (everybody's does eventually) and to try to phrase it as him upholding his morals (pfft) is rather insulting to those who have been unemployed for some time.
No. YOU get some perspective. MS is still a criminal company responsible for who knows how many years of stagnation in sector. Even if the rest of the world looked the other way, some of us will never forget nor forgive MS its past and ONGOING practices of stomping competition with all kinds of shady tricks.
OOXML? Netscape? IE6? Office file formats?
This is not about "platform wars". This is about working for criminals. If you don't have a problem with that then fuck you.
Comments like this are why people make "nerd rage" jpegs. If you're this obsessed with and focused on hating Microsoft, you need to take a step outside and get a much broader perspective.
Typically compulsory licensing requirements include that the price must be fair.
You're obviously a legal genius compared to me, because I'm not even aware that such things exist. I'm sure you'll enlighten us all with numerous examples.
Your sarcasm is as obvious as your lack of knowledge.
Here is a USA example Search for the term "reasonabl" (last character purposely left off so you can hit the variations of the word). Here is a WIPO Study. Check out page 9. It seems to apply to the EU. Next time, do your own homework. =D
That AT&T offers a data plan measured in MB shows how out of touch AT&T is. It's not a data plan that they intend to sell, it's just there so they can claim they offer cheap data plans.
Moderated -1 flamebait? Must of stepped on the toes of someone's god. Either that or be fair and mark all political chatter as flamebait, which wouldn't be wrong =D
Yea regulations, I get to pay extra for car and continue paying extra over its entire life in added fuel, because regulations require it be built to protect me from myself. Here's a crazy thought drive responsible, which includes not doing so while drunk or sleepy, and all that safety stuff would be less necessary.
If I want to take the risk I should be able to buy something made of light weight bicycle tube and nylon.
Regulations also require the car be built to protect you from others. I consider myself as a pretty good driver, but even if I was perfect it wouldn't matter because there are always idiots on the road. Sometimes an idiot will come around a blind corner at speeds no sane person would consider. Sometimes an idiot will change lanes right into the space you're occupying.
I've been fortunate to see and dodge all the idiots thus far, but I know sooner or later I'm going to encounter an idiot that will do something stupid where I don't have the time or space to react to it. At that point I'm going to be very happy that those regulations made me pay for all that "safety stuff".
It's an old photographer's trick to keep gear in a diaper bag. Nobody wants to go near that (literal) shit.
I use a similar trick, but the Diaper bag is a nice touch. Despite what we are taught in school, we most often "judge a book by it's cover". Stowing your gear in a bag that advertises "worthless, valueless garbage" to the masses can be a good first step.
If you're going to insist on Besides the obvious, then the best that I can offer you is to leave the car unlocked, and protect the windows by leaving them wound down into the door where they may be safer. That way the thief might not break a $300 window while grabbing a $99 GPS (or even a few lose CDs, or change, or other shiny objects). Thieves sometimes steal cars by "popping the ignition", using a large screwdriver or similar pry-bar to break the lock. So I'll also suggest that you can prevent the expense of a broken ignition lock by gluing something into the keyhole where they would normally try to insert the screwdriver, blocking it. I suggest gluing in the original key.
I do photography on the side. That means laptop AND camera. First thing I do is use carrying cases and bags that don't advertise what they carry. My laptop bag looks like an army surplus hippie bag. My camera bag looks like a small backpack. If they are going to stay in the car, I make sure they are out of sight, usually in the trunk of my car. I don't make the mistake of parking my car THEN hiding my valuable, therefore advertising *where* to go to get the quick grab. I also drive a fairly common car that also isn't among the models that make the "top stolen" lists year to year. Not standing out in a parking lot has it's advantages. However, if you drive a vehicle that is largely labeled or *branded* (like BOB'S COMPUTER REPAIR or FRANK'S PHOTOGRAPHY), just ignore this and move to backups and insurance.
Backups. Your laptop likely has data you can't live without. Backup your entire user folder, and any data outside of it. Remember how you had to keep reburning that mix CD you loved before you got your mp3 player? Don't be cheap, use external drives.
Finally, Insurance. I'm still pricing mine out, but make sure that whatever you get covers theft wherever you are. PPA.com (for those based in the US) is an option I'm looking at as a photographer. It's a trade association that includes insurance in your dues, and covers a variety of situations that may not be covered by a regular policy. Also seems to offer quite a few resources for photographers (I am not yet a member).
Prevent by keeping it out of sight, but insure with backups and an insurance policy.
Secretly stabbed in the back, huh Valve? See Spies are overpowered and DO indeed, SUCK. Jerkwads.
You're just upset *backstab* because you have difficulty *MEDIC!!!! backstab* spy-checking as a *backstab, cloak* pyro. Perhaps if you stopped standing in one place *backstab, backstab, miss, backstab* and developed your pyro techniques, you would find spies to be *sapper, backstab, die from being on fire* easy prey.
Good thing I just followed the e-mail that just arrived and changed my password then! I'm fortunate to have found it in my junk mail. Weird that Steam is requiring social security numbers to change passwords now.
I've had the same hotmail account for more than 10 years and never had a problem with spam. Using hotmail via iphone is even better since it excludes all the superfluous msn crap you see when you log in to the web client.
I've been using Hotmail since '97 and have had the same experience.
Slashdot Mirror
I can not remember a single earthquake in California, whether it killed people or not, that was predicted by California seismologists. Maybe after the next big quake in CA we can have some Italian scientists testify against the California scientists!
Did California seismologists state that there was "no danger" from an earthquake? Did California seismologists cause people to ignore commonly accepted safety routines by their statements or actions? Maybe the next time you try to draw similarities between two situations, you can read a little and not be so ignorant! We can at least expect you to read the caption under the pictures, can't we?
A panel of seismologists who met just days before the 2009 earthquake in L’Aquila, Italy are on trial over their reassurances to the public.
if other seismologists are saying they would have gave the warning, doesn't that tell you something? perhaps we need competing seismologists, you know, so people can get a second opinion.
Interesting that you would raise that thought, seeing as they had a lab tech who was forecasting earthquake based on (IIRC) radon levels. The scientists on trial apparently were convened to refute his warnings. The lab tech had incorrectly predicted earthquakes before, and the advisory panel (of scientists) were allegedly there to calm the public. The official government sanctioned scientists gave an all clear, go drink wine, don't worry about it statement, which in turn led to dead people.
IIRC, some of the scientists in the meeting claim (at least now) to have disagreed with the statement. Either they didn't raise their voices (in which case they should carry some of the responsibility) or they were overruled by the rest of the group. Either way, those in government seem to like suppressing the second or disagreeing opinion, as was being done with this statement of safety.
The case should be decided upon whether a professional opinion, or even one that is concurrent with a majority of professional opinions, can be held to be liable in the case of non-precaution.
It's much worse then non-precaution. It's the complete opposite of non-precaution. It's a statement of NO CAUTION IS NEEDED. One that was gave to the public by scientists serving on a public advisory board. People changed their behavior based on that "official statement", and that change in behavior led to the loss of life. Many of those dead would have been sleeping in their cars outside of their medieval, seismically weak homes. By and large they would have survived had those scientists not gave a statement of safety. If those scientists hadn't held that meeting and given that statement to discredit a lab tech who was forecasting earthquakes, this wouldn't even be a trial, as most of those people would still be alive.
Those people broke with their regular routine of sleeping outside in their car after multiple small tremors, based on the assurances of the seismologists on trial. Those seismologist called that open session to discredit a laboratory tech who was claiming the likelihood of a larger earthquake. The seismologists basically told the people that there was no danger, go drink some wine. If they hadn't called that meeting and gave that direction, those people wouldn't have broken routine, and many of them would have had a much better chance at survival.
This has been discussed on slashdot before, catch-up on some of the details.
What truly scientific mind would say that that it is safe to ignore the tremors that had been happening in the area? Why didn't they say "we have no conclusive evidence of a forthcoming earthquake, but here are some general safety tips". Most likely, they were more interested in discrediting and shaming the laboratory tech who had been warning of a big earthquake. When those who are entrusted with public safety choose ego over public safety, and it causes changes that lead to death, I agree that they should be held accountable.
Read the Nature article. Get the perspective from both sides.
This was a great idea until they rigged a laser sensitive trigger to the containers...
snip...
If you can afford to have a philosophy about what software you are working with, you have too much money, too much ego, or both.
I think RMS and ESR (among many others) would both take exception to that statement, and I would ask you 'who is the final arbiter of "too much"?'.
Those who have the drive and desire, but not the employment to be able to support themselves or their families. Basically, those who he's spitting on by saying he doesn't want this job because it's going to be attached to Microsoft.
And as a correction, I would replace "have a philosophy" with "throw a job away over your philosophy". That was the intent of my statement, and I realize I didn't fully define it. Any person with years of experience working with software develops a measure of a "philosophy" about what they use (or don't) and why. But when the boss overrides us, we move ahead as directed, because it's what we get paid to do.
What Timothy likely needs to do is start his own business. Free up that job for someone who would appreciate it. Work his ass off avoiding Microsoft software, generating business, paying his own insurance, his own overhead, dealing with all the nasty taxes. See how long he can hold his philosophy without bending it for that client that would set him up for months, if he would just use that one microsoft product.
I know several people who are platform agnostic, work on Windows, Mac OS X or Linux as a client needs, and who occasionally work on Linux based software targeting an embedded environment. However such a job may be philosophically objectionable for the job seeker in question. In addition to the Linux work on the device itself there is often a part of the project that requires a Windows based utility that interacts with the device.
I'm platform agnostic myself. I'm currently administrating windows, mac and redhat servers from a 10.6 iMac. It's all about making the money required to live.
/. question) seems to think he's taking a moral high road by refusing to work with Microsoft. More likely he has an issue with management that he is either unwilling to or incapable of resolving. I can understand refusing to work with a company because they use slaves or sweatshops or have a history of deceit with their employees. If you can afford to have a philosophy about what software you are working with, you have too much money, too much ego, or both.
"Timothy" (asker of this
For him to come crying to slashdot because his job responsibilities changed (everybody's does eventually) and to try to phrase it as him upholding his morals (pfft) is rather insulting to those who have been unemployed for some time.
No. YOU get some perspective. MS is still a criminal company responsible for who knows how many years of stagnation in sector. Even if the rest of the world looked the other way, some of us will never forget nor forgive MS its past and ONGOING practices of stomping competition with all kinds of shady tricks.
OOXML? Netscape? IE6? Office file formats?
This is not about "platform wars". This is about working for criminals. If you don't have a problem with that then fuck you.
Comments like this are why people make "nerd rage" jpegs. If you're this obsessed with and focused on hating Microsoft, you need to take a step outside and get a much broader perspective.
God knows he's not gonna spend it on his website. I thought sites like that died with Netscape!
Even better, he's using a Star Trek TNG font for his header and logo!
You're obviously a legal genius compared to me, because I'm not even aware that such things exist. I'm sure you'll enlighten us all with numerous examples.
Your sarcasm is as obvious as your lack of knowledge.
Here is a USA example Search for the term "reasonabl" (last character purposely left off so you can hit the variations of the word).
Here is a WIPO Study. Check out page 9. It seems to apply to the EU.
Next time, do your own homework. =D
That AT&T offers a data plan measured in MB shows how out of touch AT&T is. It's not a data plan that they intend to sell, it's just there so they can claim they offer cheap data plans.
Moderated -1 flamebait? Must of stepped on the toes of someone's god. Either that or be fair and mark all political chatter as flamebait, which wouldn't be wrong =D
He's 76 years old and has been in politics for 45 years. If he hasn't flip flopped yet, when exactly will he do it?
Nice, posting as AC so you can't get called on it when it happens.
You may not like his ideas, but he hasn't flip flopped on them yet.
FTFY. After all, he is a politician.
Ever hear of airbags?
Thats enough about my wife...
Yea regulations, I get to pay extra for car and continue paying extra over its entire life in added fuel, because regulations require it be built to protect me from myself. Here's a crazy thought drive responsible, which includes not doing so while drunk or sleepy, and all that safety stuff would be less necessary.
If I want to take the risk I should be able to buy something made of light weight bicycle tube and nylon.
Regulations also require the car be built to protect you from others. I consider myself as a pretty good driver, but even if I was perfect it wouldn't matter because there are always idiots on the road. Sometimes an idiot will come around a blind corner at speeds no sane person would consider. Sometimes an idiot will change lanes right into the space you're occupying.
I've been fortunate to see and dodge all the idiots thus far, but I know sooner or later I'm going to encounter an idiot that will do something stupid where I don't have the time or space to react to it. At that point I'm going to be very happy that those regulations made me pay for all that "safety stuff".
It's an old photographer's trick to keep gear in a diaper bag. Nobody wants to go near that (literal) shit.
I use a similar trick, but the Diaper bag is a nice touch. Despite what we are taught in school, we most often "judge a book by it's cover". Stowing your gear in a bag that advertises "worthless, valueless garbage" to the masses can be a good first step.
Go too Goodwill, grab a ratty looking Barney the Dinosaur. Cut a hole and insert.
Wait, are we still talking about theft?
If you're going to insist on Besides the obvious , then the best that I can offer you is to leave the car unlocked, and protect the windows by leaving them wound down into the door where they may be safer. That way the thief might not break a $300 window while grabbing a $99 GPS (or even a few lose CDs, or change, or other shiny objects). Thieves sometimes steal cars by "popping the ignition", using a large screwdriver or similar pry-bar to break the lock. So I'll also suggest that you can prevent the expense of a broken ignition lock by gluing something into the keyhole where they would normally try to insert the screwdriver, blocking it. I suggest gluing in the original key.
Good luck getting insurance with that plan =D
I do photography on the side. That means laptop AND camera. First thing I do is use carrying cases and bags that don't advertise what they carry. My laptop bag looks like an army surplus hippie bag. My camera bag looks like a small backpack. If they are going to stay in the car, I make sure they are out of sight, usually in the trunk of my car. I don't make the mistake of parking my car THEN hiding my valuable, therefore advertising *where* to go to get the quick grab. I also drive a fairly common car that also isn't among the models that make the "top stolen" lists year to year. Not standing out in a parking lot has it's advantages. However, if you drive a vehicle that is largely labeled or *branded* (like BOB'S COMPUTER REPAIR or FRANK'S PHOTOGRAPHY), just ignore this and move to backups and insurance.
Backups. Your laptop likely has data you can't live without. Backup your entire user folder, and any data outside of it. Remember how you had to keep reburning that mix CD you loved before you got your mp3 player? Don't be cheap, use external drives.
Finally, Insurance. I'm still pricing mine out, but make sure that whatever you get covers theft wherever you are. PPA.com (for those based in the US) is an option I'm looking at as a photographer. It's a trade association that includes insurance in your dues, and covers a variety of situations that may not be covered by a regular policy. Also seems to offer quite a few resources for photographers (I am not yet a member).
Prevent by keeping it out of sight, but insure with backups and an insurance policy.
Secretly stabbed in the back, huh Valve? See Spies are overpowered and DO indeed, SUCK. Jerkwads.
You're just upset *backstab* because you have difficulty *MEDIC!!!! backstab* spy-checking as a *backstab, cloak* pyro. Perhaps if you stopped standing in one place *backstab, backstab, miss, backstab* and developed your pyro techniques, you would find spies to be *sapper, backstab, die from being on fire* easy prey.
Good thing I just followed the e-mail that just arrived and changed my password then! I'm fortunate to have found it in my junk mail. Weird that Steam is requiring social security numbers to change passwords now.
SQL Injection? Come on Valve. Get your Database Specialist some training.
Where are you getting SQL injection from? Database access != SQL injection.
It still does dumb user agent sniffing and throws tons of bad JavaScript at you. Its AJAXy interface breaks tabbed browsing.
As for the service itself, e-mail messages that aren't sent using Hotmail take a long time to arrive.
Quite good my ass.
20 seconds is too long for you?
I've had the same hotmail account for more than 10 years and never had a problem with spam. Using hotmail via iphone is even better since it excludes all the superfluous msn crap you see when you log in to the web client.
I've been using Hotmail since '97 and have had the same experience.