I face similar discrimination in my workplace
on
Racism At Microsoft?
·
· Score: 1
While I and about 3% of employees at my place of work have curly hair, 0% of the management does. I have been continuosly passed up for promotion by others from both within and without the company WHO HAVE STRAIGHT HAIR. Clearly, I am being discriminated against, and suing for $5 billion is warranted.
Statistics can never prove discrimination in the absence of clear discriminatory actions. Besides, those in a recognized minority such as "blacks" recieve many more benefits and advantages than someone like myself who belongs to an unrecognized minority. (I am a 6 foot tall 30 year old male of germanic descent with dark curly hair, green eyes between 180 and 190 lbs with a 10 1/2 shoe size.) In seriousness, due to my location, there have many times in schooling and employment where as a "huelo" I have been a distinct minority and faced more clear discrimination than the average "black" man has faced in decades.
All of these issues that keep coming up are due to reliance on copyright concepts invented centuries ago.
First, we have the duration of copyright. The original concepts for this came from a world where it might take 20 years or more for a work to reach 10-20% of the population. In the connected world we live in today, a published work can be available everywhere in a single moment, whether it be digital, paper, celluloid or whatever. If the publishing megacorps passed on a reasonable percentage of the true profits to the creators of these works, and if the creators saved and invested this money properly instead of running out to pay cash for multi-million dollar homes, the succesful ones would have enough money to live on within two years, the unsuccesful would have to try again, but that's life. Instead, due to corporate theft of these profits and childish actions on the part of artists, we get the idea that artists, their children, and their children's children need continued income from these works. And of course the idea that a corporation's property will suddenly vaporize on a given date is repugnant to them and to their investors.
The second, and more important flaw in the continued application of outmoded copyright concepts is that they were birthed in a time when our consumption of copyrighted works was not mediated by machines. If a person bought a copyrighted work in 1693, they had a book or a sheet of music, and when the copyright expired there would be thousands of copies of that work available from which to draw the content for the now free and unfettered dissemination of the ideas within. Now, in the digital age, content begins to exist in forms that only machines understand. If those who create the content only do so for machines which will not create copies, and copyrights outlive the functionality of those machines, publishers can effectively insure that the content will never enter the market in the public domain.
As Thomas Jefferson wrote, "...generally speaking, other nations have thought that these monopolies produce more embarrassment than advantage to society; and it may be observed that the nations which refuse monopolies of invention, are as fruitful as England in new and useful devices." Unfortunately, the great mass of people does not understand or care about these issues, and those who do care are the same who profit from the current system, and whose future profits will be greater as they mold copyright law to their own purposes
There are two problems with the pay-per-view model, and this applies to digital music as well as digital television.
Consumerish people that think it's a great idea are always throwing around numbers like $0.25 for a viewing/listening, $3.00 for a subscription. Trouble is, we'll never see numbers like that. Right now, on Directv for example, pay-per-view movies cost about $1.00 a half-hour. Something like Simpsons reruns might get down into the $0.25-$0.50 range, but not new shows. Furthermore, it won't eliminate commercials, since broadcasters are still motivated to get as much money as they can. They'll charge what consumers are willing to pay, then add as much advertising as consumers will tolerate. (Not Slashdotter I-bought-a-Tivo-so-I-could-skip-the-commercials consumers, lets-watch-TV-for-2-hours-so-maybe-we-can-catch-th e-funny-new-Budweiser-ad consumers.)
I don't know where the idea that the pay-per-view model neccesarilly leads to things like Simpsons reruns being available 24 hours a day. It is in the best interest of the broadcaster/content creator cartel to restrict the availability of the "oldies but goodies" to increase the saleability of the new crap. If producers notice a decline in viewership, their first response will not be to create better shows, it will be to focus-group a slew of gimmicks to attract viewers.
I also doubt that pay-per-view TV will decrease viewership due to cost consciousness. People who can't afford to fix their cars or feed their kids already "waste money" on cell phones, sattelite/cable and watch every $20 pay-per-view boxing match.
Keep in mind that the Milky Way will collide with Andromeda far before Sol becomes a RG, so all bets are off after then.
The galactic "collision" might mean Sol ends up in the Andromeda galaxy instead of the Milky Way, but that's about it, since galaxies are mostly empty space.
If "best free mail client" is a valid goal, what happens when it is accomplished?
Do we just keep the same goal and play top-o-the-heap with other free mail clients? Do we now change our goal to "best mail client period? If the former is the case, then fine, but that will never meet the goal that Miguel clearly has of drawing Windows users to Linux. If it is tha latter, that's just bad project management. A project should have a clear goal and stick to it for the most part. Being the best mail client period for me certainly includes hackability and an extension framework, and other features that perhaps no current mail client has, and it doesn't mean parroting Outlook, which has it's own flaws and limitations.
Enough about me anyway, I was merely defending the original poster whose point was that when a user says "why can't I [insert feature] with this mail program" the answer shouldn't be "hey at least it's free software" it should be "switch to free software and you'll have that feature and more due the superior development force of the Open Source community."
Re:Intelligent Satellite Teams for Space Systems
on
Pushing The Envelope
·
· Score: 1
Somebody would have to do the math, but while a smaller satellite would be more endangered by smaller space particles, space on that scale should also be more empty of same small particles. I think that a 10cm sattelite would still encounter more 1cm particles than a 1m sattelite would encounter 10cm particles, but...
I think that the poster's intent is, sure let us create free software, but instead of trying to make the best free mail client (which from the perspective of say, an Outlook user, would still seem like a shoddy piece of crap), the goal should be the best mail client period, and have it be free software. He never said anything about ignoring freedom.
They claim to be doing this under the "Street performer protocol" but aren't. They are not asking to have money put into escrow until they get to a certain level and will then release the code under the WINE license and collect the cash, they want the money now, and we have to trust them to release the code when they get 20,000 subscribers.
Furthermore, the website is as full of bluster as any go-nowhere $uP3r 31337 project I've seen. Smells like Project Armageddon to me, only this time we're supposed to foot the bill.
but for most kids, they need more interaction with their peers and less with computers
True, but more importantly they need more interaction with adults and all age groups and less with their peers too.
Putting kids in a 30-to-1 ratio with adults seems like a remarkably brilliant way to teach them to be adults. No wonder so many college graduates here on Slashdot have the socialization skills and well-roundedness of a sea cucumber.
Didn't AOL have some problems last year with giving "gifts of appreciation" to volunteers? I would shy away from any kind of direct payment to the developers for this reason.
If your company really wants to give a gift to reward development of open-source software, how about opening some of the specs and documenting the hardware/software developed in-house for the open source community at large to enjoy.
Just look into the sad eyes of Garrison Keeler and Steven King, as flies gather to suck the last drops of moisture from their parched tear ducts.
"$5.00 a day, that's less than a mochachino double tall Starbucks(tm) latte supremo-delicioso, yet that same $5.00 can change the life of a starving author such as these. Your $5.00 can clothe and feed an author and pay for his pencils and laptop computers. You will recieve a picture of your author in the dustcover of the next book he writes, and your heart will be warmed by your generous gift."
"You are in no way excused from your obligation to support the starving CEO of Starbucks(tm), and should still continue your daily consumption of mochachino double tall Starbucks(tm) latte supremo-deliciosos, and heck, you really could drink more, the yacht needs a paint job. Author's picture requires purchase of book title of your choice, warm heart for free when you purchase Humanity(tm) and Compassion(tm) at your nearest Artist Enclave(tm). Starving Authors(tm) is a wholly owned subsidiary of Starving Artists(tm) an international corporation serving the needs of starving artists worldwide through whining and intimidation. Sometimes we resort to threats and legal action, so check your ass."
I love the area graph that shows how signifigantly the product decreases the required skill level and number of tasks that need to be performed by support staff. Clearly, it will reduce support costs by at least half!
Of course, it's an entirely unlabeled fiction, but that shouldn't disuade any pointy-hairs.
If the Motion picture industry can afford to produce a $100,000,000 movie, and release it to the public, at a cost of $6.00 a pup, and then make a massive profit, there is no reason why Microsoft can't do the same thing.
I think you are forgetting, that although everyone involved in making a movie makes money, the studio almost always manages to not make a "profit" on it, in order to avoid paying taxes and percentages on profit. Now, of course, when you're a big star you negotiate a percentage on the gross, since only a dummy would take a percentage on profit anymore if he had the choice.
The movie industry runs on loans and producers, so they don't have to report gains or profits to keep investors happy, unlike the software industry.
During the sweaty doldrums of a San Joaquin Valley Summer, my friends, siblings, and I began comparing our 2600 Asteroids scores in the single digits. "What was your score?" "A little more than 4 flips."
There is a tradition in my family that the Asteroids cartridge was flawed. After several months, aliens would no longer appear. I think we bought 3 or 4 copies. (This was during the crash when Kmart had carts for like $8 or less)
This number was chosen to make it as close to the original second as possible.
The second is not "based" on the 9,192,631,770 cycles of cesium-133 radiation, they just took the second that existed and tried to find a good match in the radiation of various isotopes, then said, "the second will be adjusted a smidgen to match this, and now it's the standard second." The actual "base" of the second is in fact the arbitrary division of days into 24/60/60.
Does this new "standardization" of laws across State lines like this and UCITA, along with the uproar over the "unstadardized" voting practices this year represent another move toward a monolithic government in the US of A? Will the bureaucrats negotiate away the founding principle of individiual States?
I suspect we will see more attempts in the future to erase the lines between States, with plenty of fear keywords, "We must STANDARDIZE laws against CHILD ABUSE among the States because the current PATCHWORK of laws is CONFUSING." Because, to a bureacrat, the idea that someone is outside their jurisdiction only because of a "technicality" like State lines is frustrating. And because, to the yokels, the idea that "them thar californeeuns got themselves aborsheeun and gay marrij" is intolerable under their concept of a National Spiritual Destiny and threatens America's status as God's Chosen Country, while concerned New Yorkers will want to legislate the educational curriculum of kids in Tennessee, lest they be crippled by their non-pc and "intolerant" upbringing.
Eventually, the majority will rule, irrespective of State and other local boundaries, and our National Government will begin to approach the level of bureacratic masturbatory excercise that has crippled many of the "democracies" of Europe.
How does your theory explain the Smurf phenomenon, with the utter lack of shirts and the adoption of large beanie hats? Not to mention the whole blue skin deal.
I think its a good idea to provide the occassional binary as a project hits maturity points. User testing can't always be "here's the problem I had, and here's the fix for it." In a game, for example there might be a complex gameplay situation that results in odd scoring or getting stuck or whatever, which may require a fundamental change in the engine. Non-programmers are at least as likely as programmers to find a flaw like this.
As for screenshots, some projects obvously can't really benefit from screenshots, like the Linux kernel, but there are a lot of projects with "great 3d engine" that turn out to be basically Galaga in OpenGL with Tux as half the graphics. A screenshot can give you a clue as to whether the programmer understands gameplay and design, or just likes programming matrix math.
I wouldn't expect to be able to escape ads on the web, just as you can't avoid them on TV, listening to the radio, watching movies, or reading magazines. Banner ads were simple, but they've lost their effectiveness... The next generation will be much harder to separate from the content, seeing as how an entire cottage industry has sprung up devoted to selling tools to consumers which prevent ads from appearing before their eyes.
I believe banner ads are more like TV, Print and Radio ads than any of these technologies described. Commercials on old-school media can be ignored by diverting your attention for the time they exist, or by not looking at the the portion of the screen/paper containing the ad. These new ad technologies require active user intervention to interrupt them. It's as if when you were watching TV, it would all of a sudden switch over to a "Tap-Lite" infomercial, and you would have to wait 30 seconds before you could then switch the channel back yourself.
As other people have mentioned here, ads in other media are not expected to get "click-throughs" or whatnot, they are mainly there to place the product in our minds so we'll buy it later. Why do companies expect us to interrupt our activities to wander off into their badly designed, overly graphical websites and "BUY NOW!!!" in order for their ad to count as "effective"? Do I get off my ass and drive to Taco Bell the second I see that chihuahua? No, the chihuahua gets my attention and I see the new taco or whatever and then, when I'm hungry, I might get Taco Bell instead of McDonald's.
Make your ads clever or imformative, and mention your freakin' brand name, and you'll see results. Put up "Click here now! See what everyone's talking about!" ads, and I'll ignore them, like I ignore the mattress barn commercials. They aren't selling anything I want.
I dind't even know the commercial was on the site. Actually I wasn't entirely sure it was real. I ain't so much a gaming buff, and do not have a Playstation anyway, but I was falling asleep on the couch and saw the commercial. The next day I was like, "was that a real commercial or a weird flashback dream or what?" (Note to self, drugs and Evil Dead movies do not mix, m-kay?) Then I came on here, lo-and behold Slashdot is in my head again.
I wish some people weren't so stingy with their tech and some other people weren't so eager to lock out chunks of their audience when open formats exist, then I could see it again awake.
Slashdot Mirror
While I and about 3% of employees at my place of work have curly hair, 0% of the management does. I have been continuosly passed up for promotion by others from both within and without the company WHO HAVE STRAIGHT HAIR. Clearly, I am being discriminated against, and suing for $5 billion is warranted.
Statistics can never prove discrimination in the absence of clear discriminatory actions. Besides, those in a recognized minority such as "blacks" recieve many more benefits and advantages than someone like myself who belongs to an unrecognized minority. (I am a 6 foot tall 30 year old male of germanic descent with dark curly hair, green eyes between 180 and 190 lbs with a 10 1/2 shoe size.) In seriousness, due to my location, there have many times in schooling and employment where as a "huelo" I have been a distinct minority and faced more clear discrimination than the average "black" man has faced in decades.
All of these issues that keep coming up are due to reliance on copyright concepts invented centuries ago.
First, we have the duration of copyright. The original concepts for this came from a world where it might take 20 years or more for a work to reach 10-20% of the population. In the connected world we live in today, a published work can be available everywhere in a single moment, whether it be digital, paper, celluloid or whatever. If the publishing megacorps passed on a reasonable percentage of the true profits to the creators of these works, and if the creators saved and invested this money properly instead of running out to pay cash for multi-million dollar homes, the succesful ones would have enough money to live on within two years, the unsuccesful would have to try again, but that's life. Instead, due to corporate theft of these profits and childish actions on the part of artists, we get the idea that artists, their children, and their children's children need continued income from these works. And of course the idea that a corporation's property will suddenly vaporize on a given date is repugnant to them and to their investors.
The second, and more important flaw in the continued application of outmoded copyright concepts is that they were birthed in a time when our consumption of copyrighted works was not mediated by machines. If a person bought a copyrighted work in 1693, they had a book or a sheet of music, and when the copyright expired there would be thousands of copies of that work available from which to draw the content for the now free and unfettered dissemination of the ideas within. Now, in the digital age, content begins to exist in forms that only machines understand. If those who create the content only do so for machines which will not create copies, and copyrights outlive the functionality of those machines, publishers can effectively insure that the content will never enter the market in the public domain.
As Thomas Jefferson wrote, "...generally speaking, other nations have thought that these monopolies produce more embarrassment than advantage to society; and it may be observed that the nations which refuse monopolies of invention, are as fruitful as England in new and useful devices." Unfortunately, the great mass of people does not understand or care about these issues, and those who do care are the same who profit from the current system, and whose future profits will be greater as they mold copyright law to their own purposes
I also doubt that pay-per-view TV will decrease viewership due to cost consciousness. People who can't afford to fix their cars or feed their kids already "waste money" on cell phones, sattelite/cable and watch every $20 pay-per-view boxing match.
The galactic "collision" might mean Sol ends up in the Andromeda galaxy instead of the Milky Way, but that's about it, since galaxies are mostly empty space.
Do we just keep the same goal and play top-o-the-heap with other free mail clients? Do we now change our goal to "best mail client period? If the former is the case, then fine, but that will never meet the goal that Miguel clearly has of drawing Windows users to Linux. If it is tha latter, that's just bad project management. A project should have a clear goal and stick to it for the most part. Being the best mail client period for me certainly includes hackability and an extension framework, and other features that perhaps no current mail client has, and it doesn't mean parroting Outlook, which has it's own flaws and limitations.
Enough about me anyway, I was merely defending the original poster whose point was that when a user says "why can't I [insert feature] with this mail program" the answer shouldn't be "hey at least it's free software" it should be "switch to free software and you'll have that feature and more due the superior development force of the Open Source community."
Somebody would have to do the math, but while a smaller satellite would be more endangered by smaller space particles, space on that scale should also be more empty of same small particles. I think that a 10cm sattelite would still encounter more 1cm particles than a 1m sattelite would encounter 10cm particles, but ...
I think that the poster's intent is, sure let us create free software, but instead of trying to make the best free mail client (which from the perspective of say, an Outlook user, would still seem like a shoddy piece of crap), the goal should be the best mail client period, and have it be free software. He never said anything about ignoring freedom.
Furthermore, the website is as full of bluster as any go-nowhere $uP3r 31337 project I've seen. Smells like Project Armageddon to me, only this time we're supposed to foot the bill.
What?
Have you played an adventure game lately? Found a key to open a door? Distracted a monter by feeding it?
Of course, nowadays most of the puzzles amount to:
hotspot=getnextpuzzle();
for item in inventory
{
drop(item, hotspot);
if (puzzlesolved(hotspot)==TRUE) return SUCCESS;
}
but on the positive side you don't have to type:
>say hello to troll
what?
>speak to troll
what?
>talk to troll
there is no troll here.
>talk to hairy troll
the hairy troll just got bored and left.
there is no hairy troll here.
>stupid computer
what?
True, but more importantly they need more interaction with adults and all age groups and less with their peers too.
Putting kids in a 30-to-1 ratio with adults seems like a remarkably brilliant way to teach them to be adults. No wonder so many college graduates here on Slashdot have the socialization skills and well-roundedness of a sea cucumber.
If your company really wants to give a gift to reward development of open-source software, how about opening some of the specs and documenting the hardware/software developed in-house for the open source community at large to enjoy.
"$5.00 a day, that's less than a mochachino double tall Starbucks(tm) latte supremo-delicioso, yet that same $5.00 can change the life of a starving author such as these. Your $5.00 can clothe and feed an author and pay for his pencils and laptop computers. You will recieve a picture of your author in the dustcover of the next book he writes, and your heart will be warmed by your generous gift."
"You are in no way excused from your obligation to support the starving CEO of Starbucks(tm), and should still continue your daily consumption of mochachino double tall Starbucks(tm) latte supremo-deliciosos, and heck, you really could drink more, the yacht needs a paint job. Author's picture requires purchase of book title of your choice, warm heart for free when you purchase Humanity(tm) and Compassion(tm) at your nearest Artist Enclave(tm). Starving Authors(tm) is a wholly owned subsidiary of Starving Artists(tm) an international corporation serving the needs of starving artists worldwide through whining and intimidation. Sometimes we resort to threats and legal action, so check your ass."
The middle (center of mass) would be in geosynchronous orbit, not the top.
Of course, it's an entirely unlabeled fiction, but that shouldn't disuade any pointy-hairs.
I think you are forgetting, that although everyone involved in making a movie makes money, the studio almost always manages to not make a "profit" on it, in order to avoid paying taxes and percentages on profit. Now, of course, when you're a big star you negotiate a percentage on the gross, since only a dummy would take a percentage on profit anymore if he had the choice.
The movie industry runs on loans and producers, so they don't have to report gains or profits to keep investors happy, unlike the software industry.
There is a tradition in my family that the Asteroids cartridge was flawed. After several months, aliens would no longer appear. I think we bought 3 or 4 copies. (This was during the crash when Kmart had carts for like $8 or less)
At my workplace, the year is divided into 13 periods already.
Now you're limiting yourself to one planet and one dimension. Somewhere, it's got to be 5 0'clock.
The second is not "based" on the 9,192,631,770 cycles of cesium-133 radiation, they just took the second that existed and tried to find a good match in the radiation of various isotopes, then said, "the second will be adjusted a smidgen to match this, and now it's the standard second." The actual "base" of the second is in fact the arbitrary division of days into 24/60/60.
I suspect we will see more attempts in the future to erase the lines between States, with plenty of fear keywords, "We must STANDARDIZE laws against CHILD ABUSE among the States because the current PATCHWORK of laws is CONFUSING." Because, to a bureacrat, the idea that someone is outside their jurisdiction only because of a "technicality" like State lines is frustrating. And because, to the yokels, the idea that "them thar californeeuns got themselves aborsheeun and gay marrij" is intolerable under their concept of a National Spiritual Destiny and threatens America's status as God's Chosen Country, while concerned New Yorkers will want to legislate the educational curriculum of kids in Tennessee, lest they be crippled by their non-pc and "intolerant" upbringing.
Eventually, the majority will rule, irrespective of State and other local boundaries, and our National Government will begin to approach the level of bureacratic masturbatory excercise that has crippled many of the "democracies" of Europe.
How does your theory explain the Smurf phenomenon, with the utter lack of shirts and the adoption of large beanie hats? Not to mention the whole blue skin deal.
As for screenshots, some projects obvously can't really benefit from screenshots, like the Linux kernel, but there are a lot of projects with "great 3d engine" that turn out to be basically Galaga in OpenGL with Tux as half the graphics. A screenshot can give you a clue as to whether the programmer understands gameplay and design, or just likes programming matrix math.
I believe banner ads are more like TV, Print and Radio ads than any of these technologies described. Commercials on old-school media can be ignored by diverting your attention for the time they exist, or by not looking at the the portion of the screen/paper containing the ad. These new ad technologies require active user intervention to interrupt them. It's as if when you were watching TV, it would all of a sudden switch over to a "Tap-Lite" infomercial, and you would have to wait 30 seconds before you could then switch the channel back yourself.
As other people have mentioned here, ads in other media are not expected to get "click-throughs" or whatnot, they are mainly there to place the product in our minds so we'll buy it later. Why do companies expect us to interrupt our activities to wander off into their badly designed, overly graphical websites and "BUY NOW!!!" in order for their ad to count as "effective"? Do I get off my ass and drive to Taco Bell the second I see that chihuahua? No, the chihuahua gets my attention and I see the new taco or whatever and then, when I'm hungry, I might get Taco Bell instead of McDonald's.
Make your ads clever or imformative, and mention your freakin' brand name, and you'll see results. Put up "Click here now! See what everyone's talking about!" ads, and I'll ignore them, like I ignore the mattress barn commercials. They aren't selling anything I want.
I wish some people weren't so stingy with their tech and some other people weren't so eager to lock out chunks of their audience when open formats exist, then I could see it again awake.
There's a dude trimming his hedge with a hedgetrimmer for a hand, then Bruce Campbell comes out and hassles him and stuff.