That reminds me of the 1990's when JavaScript and pop-up ads were very popular. Most people had dial-up Internet access back then and would cancel out of a pop-up ad before it even loaded. About 5 or 6 years later I read a story on ZDNet that companies were starting to re-think their use of pop-up ads because they found that a lot of people cancel out of them before they finish loading. It's a shame that business leaders and Managers need consultants to tell them what everybody else already knows about bad technology and bad business practices.
These days you have to go out of your way to avoid flash by learning about and installing less popular Web browsers like Firefox and installing extensions (Add-ons) like NoScript that you have to educate yourself about. These days even browsers like Firefox come pre-installed with crapware and bloatware like Microsoft DRM and Shockwave Flash. These things I have manually disabled.
I often hear people on Slashdot claiming that Flash is safe, but I also constantly hear about flash-based exploits as well. To most Slashdot users I would think Flash would be relatively safe, however most people are not Slashdot users.
The Internet is becoming less accessible to me as the years go by. There is no need for Flash or Java or JavaScript (to navigate to a URL for example). I can only perceive malicious reasons why Web developers would try to force people to use these technologies.
When a Web site says Flash, JavaScript, Silverlight, Internet Explorer or anything else is required then that Website is never again visited. One must separate the wheat from the chaff.
Actually as a side note and an addendum, I think it is pertinent to note that I did work for various ISPs doing (low-level, first tier) tech support. I also remember talking to a former Manager (who was fired) about these issues (he happened to be in the ISP business himself, but on the sales side as opposed to the tech support side). The Manager in question was somebody who was promoted to middle Management and subsequently "laid off" when he noted some disagreements that he had with his boss. This person I happened to meet not through business or job related contacts but rather from a government sponsored job finding program.
You may have a point there, but you don't back up your point with any evidence. Anecdotally I have met and dealt with low level managers who were (IMHO) incompetent, or at the least competent enough to meet their metrics and nothing more. This may be a bias on my part as I've only dealt primarily with low level managers.
In my view high level Managers should ensure that low level managers are doing their job, so on the extreme level a CEO of a company like Enron should have no excuses as to the conduct of their employees (however removed they are from the Top Boss). Granted people at that level have historically mainly been involved in marketing efforts and only deal in the abstractions of the business side (i.e. cut 10% of the workforce and add the remaining 10% of the responsibilities to other employees). It's simple. Simple is as Simple does.
Low level Managers, in my experience, are more likely to attribute bad (high-level Management mandates) unto their employees. So for example if I need to do 10% more work while working in the same time constraints, and I can only manage to do an extra 5% more work then it has been my experience that LOW level managers will attribute the problem to me (and the other employees). I have experienced little empathy but a lot of Bullshit from Managers. Granted I am generalizing; I think I am more likely to remember bad examples than good (or mediocre) examples.
It should be emphasized that I am not disputing your claim, but am merely offering my own perspective.
In the end it doesn't really matter. This person had to go through various levels of management to get his problem resolved. This indicates to me that this is not just a programming problem, but an inherent problem with upper management. People (Managers) need to be fired for this incompetence. It will likely never happen because incompetent (upper Management) is unlikely to fire incompetent lower Management.
Meh, you are redundant by perhaps a few seconds. Too bad (although I wish Moderators would double-check time-stamps before downgrading a person's Karma).
"What's in a name? That which we call a rose By any other name would smell as sweet."
- Romeo and Juliet, by William Shakespeare
Of course that quote would have serious humour ramifications with a name like "Libshitz". Shakespeare was however cognizant of the political ramification of mere words and, alas, names. My theory that bad and stupid people primarily get into management positions has once again proven to be correct.
Well are you not a swell guy or what??? So what do you say to the guy that is NOT cheating? "Hey that is your problem, you oughta cheat too" This code sucks and people that develop it suck as well.
In the security community people often publish vulnerabilities so that the underlying software can become more secure. At the least they could have signatures for the source and its operation (I'm assuming this is possible, but perhaps difficult). Perhaps a whole redesign of security should be thought-out and implemented. I'm certainly against cheating, but one has to also evaluate what one is cheating against. If a gamer is in it for the money (trading for financial gain) then perhaps they should change their financial strategies (like trading stocks... which has always involved corruption, and nobody is seriously considering changing Wall Street)... So maybe getting a 9-5 factory job, or a job at Walmart or Starbucks. If it's just entertainment value then take it with a grain of salt or choose a lest popular game. I'm not familiar with WoW but I could say play a game where you can choose to ban your opponents. Like Usenet, the more people that get involved with it the less fun it becomes. That is life. Once the lowest common denominator population picks up on a fad or a cool technology things will eventually go downhill unless their are creative and intelligent forces at work to make things better. If WoW has self-policing mechanisms then that would be great. Perhaps they should change their paradigm.
To me this is a censorship issue. I understand the issues. Like the IRAA people have to deal with new technologies; simply banning them will never work in the long wrong because, well, the proverbial Genie is already out of the bottle.
When I think of self-replicating devices I think of Viruses and T-1000 cybernetic organisms. I don't think I want a 13 year old hacker prodigy with Asperger Syndrome self-replicating things. The IRAA has had enough problems with the likes of Bram Cohen et al. And yes I've been self-diagnosed with Asperger Syndrome, so beware what befalls me.
I don't mean "reasonable" in the legal sense, I mean in the normal sense of the word. Just based on what I read in TFA, their suit sounds completely unreasonable. That doesn't mean it won't be upheld in court, though.
Granted, but nobody really knows the details of the case just from reading the article, and so I couldn't judge either way. It will (and should) ultimately be left up to the courts. One does have to presume that the courts are "blind" (as in blind justice) and fair, but that is a different issue. Having somebody of the likes of "HitlerHitlerHitler" making statements about rape certainly is dubious and warrants investigation. Their may be stalking and libel issues involved, but that would be for the courts (and possibly even the police) to decide.
Yeah I'm big time into free speech, and I cannot accept farce and sarcasm as a legitimate form of uncensored communication. Harassment and libel however are different issues.
If they have no reasonable grounds for suing, then their lawsuit will be rejected by the courts. If they do have a reasonable grounds for suing then the courts will hear their case. Most Slashdotters forget to put IANAL disclaimers in their comments when making legal claims.
is the price of getting put on a mailing list too high to pay for a bit more freedom ?
Yes, and irrelevant. Mailing Lists have more privacy issues than any political issues they may be associated with. It's bad enough that I profile myself semi-anonymously on Slashdot; I certainly don't want an ad hoc (or ass-hoc historical) political organization to keep me in THEIR database (it's a government sugarpot of information to be hacked, exploited, extrapolated, etc). I'm happy enough to use a fake/temp email address to post on Slashdot. If the government really wants to know my real name and address then they have to work for it.
Thanks for the reply. In all seriousness I do very much love trees just for their aesthetic beauty. The fact that they help curb pollution and are vital to the creation of oxygen is certainly good, but perhaps less intuitive. One doesn't need to be an Environmentalist nor a Radical to love trees. Factories and parking lots have their utility in the modern world and it should be accepted that it is implausible to get rid of them. Cities like where I live (Toronto) have Lots of parks (trees) and even now the traffic islands in the middle of streets are starting to be less concrete and more tree friendly. It would be good if we could save at least a few unadorned forests as well.
Well I'm probably in the minority here. I have hugged a tree. I like trees. They don't complain, they look pretty, and they provide me with oxygen. And unlike with "higher" primates you can't get AIDS or any other social disease from hugging a tree. Trees rock, primates are mainly assholes.
The last thing these people (should) want is to bring this issue into the consciousness of the general public. And I hardly doubt companies like AT and T and their clones need donations. At best the call for donations is a sleazy publicity stunt. At worst it shows how cheap and money grubbing they are.
Quick note: I just visited a Web site (linked by a Slashdot member no less) saying that: "It looks like you need to upgrade your browsers Flash Player."
It's a presumptuous and arrogant statement on behalf of the Web designers. Web designers can choose to make their Web sites multimedia friendly without the Bullshit. The ones who decide not to I have no sympathy with.
Off hand (in the vague recesses of my memory) I believe Steven Hawking mentioned that in the Brief History of Time. Maybe not, but Google isn't helping me here and I don't want to download (search for) a PDF version (to do a word search) just to validate my assumptions.
Slashdot Mirror
That reminds me of the 1990's when JavaScript and pop-up ads were very popular. Most people had dial-up Internet access back then and would cancel out of a pop-up ad before it even loaded. About 5 or 6 years later I read a story on ZDNet that companies were starting to re-think their use of pop-up ads because they found that a lot of people cancel out of them before they finish loading. It's a shame that business leaders and Managers need consultants to tell them what everybody else already knows about bad technology and bad business practices.
These days you have to go out of your way to avoid flash by learning about and installing less popular Web browsers like Firefox and installing extensions (Add-ons) like NoScript that you have to educate yourself about. These days even browsers like Firefox come pre-installed with crapware and bloatware like Microsoft DRM and Shockwave Flash. These things I have manually disabled.
I often hear people on Slashdot claiming that Flash is safe, but I also constantly hear about flash-based exploits as well. To most Slashdot users I would think Flash would be relatively safe, however most people are not Slashdot users.
The Internet is becoming less accessible to me as the years go by. There is no need for Flash or Java or JavaScript (to navigate to a URL for example). I can only perceive malicious reasons why Web developers would try to force people to use these technologies.
When a Web site says Flash, JavaScript, Silverlight, Internet Explorer or anything else is required then that Website is never again visited. One must separate the wheat from the chaff.
Actually as a side note and an addendum, I think it is pertinent to note that I did work for various ISPs doing (low-level, first tier) tech support. I also remember talking to a former Manager (who was fired) about these issues (he happened to be in the ISP business himself, but on the sales side as opposed to the tech support side). The Manager in question was somebody who was promoted to middle Management and subsequently "laid off" when he noted some disagreements that he had with his boss. This person I happened to meet not through business or job related contacts but rather from a government sponsored job finding program.
You may have a point there, but you don't back up your point with any evidence. Anecdotally I have met and dealt with low level managers who were (IMHO) incompetent, or at the least competent enough to meet their metrics and nothing more. This may be a bias on my part as I've only dealt primarily with low level managers.
In my view high level Managers should ensure that low level managers are doing their job, so on the extreme level a CEO of a company like Enron should have no excuses as to the conduct of their employees (however removed they are from the Top Boss). Granted people at that level have historically mainly been involved in marketing efforts and only deal in the abstractions of the business side (i.e. cut 10% of the workforce and add the remaining 10% of the responsibilities to other employees). It's simple. Simple is as Simple does.
Low level Managers, in my experience, are more likely to attribute bad (high-level Management mandates) unto their employees. So for example if I need to do 10% more work while working in the same time constraints, and I can only manage to do an extra 5% more work then it has been my experience that LOW level managers will attribute the problem to me (and the other employees). I have experienced little empathy but a lot of Bullshit from Managers. Granted I am generalizing; I think I am more likely to remember bad examples than good (or mediocre) examples.
It should be emphasized that I am not disputing your claim, but am merely offering my own perspective.
Best regards,
UTW
In the end it doesn't really matter. This person had to go through various levels of management to get his problem resolved. This indicates to me that this is not just a programming problem, but an inherent problem with upper management. People (Managers) need to be fired for this incompetence. It will likely never happen because incompetent (upper Management) is unlikely to fire incompetent lower Management.
(I'll post without Karma bonus because I'm not adding anything new to the conversation.)
I often contradict you in my replies, but this post I find so Insightful that I feel compelled to give you a Kudos.
Best regards,
UTW
I take it somebody in a Management position got Mod points today and decided my Karma was too high.
Bart Simpson is an asshole. But then again he reminds me of myself when I was ten years old.
Meh, you are redundant by perhaps a few seconds. Too bad (although I wish Moderators would double-check time-stamps before downgrading a person's Karma).
Good thing he didn't live in Dildo, Newfoundland Dildo, Newfoundland
"What's in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet."
- Romeo and Juliet, by William Shakespeare
Of course that quote would have serious humour ramifications with a name like "Libshitz". Shakespeare was however cognizant of the political ramification of mere words and, alas, names. My theory that bad and stupid people primarily get into management positions has once again proven to be correct.
Well are you not a swell guy or what??? So what do you say to the guy that is NOT cheating? "Hey that is your problem, you oughta cheat too" This code sucks and people that develop it suck as well.
In the security community people often publish vulnerabilities so that the underlying software can become more secure. At the least they could have signatures for the source and its operation (I'm assuming this is possible, but perhaps difficult). Perhaps a whole redesign of security should be thought-out and implemented. I'm certainly against cheating, but one has to also evaluate what one is cheating against. If a gamer is in it for the money (trading for financial gain) then perhaps they should change their financial strategies (like trading stocks... which has always involved corruption, and nobody is seriously considering changing Wall Street)... So maybe getting a 9-5 factory job, or a job at Walmart or Starbucks. If it's just entertainment value then take it with a grain of salt or choose a lest popular game. I'm not familiar with WoW but I could say play a game where you can choose to ban your opponents. Like Usenet, the more people that get involved with it the less fun it becomes. That is life. Once the lowest common denominator population picks up on a fad or a cool technology things will eventually go downhill unless their are creative and intelligent forces at work to make things better. If WoW has self-policing mechanisms then that would be great. Perhaps they should change their paradigm.
To me this is a censorship issue. I understand the issues. Like the IRAA people have to deal with new technologies; simply banning them will never work in the long wrong because, well, the proverbial Genie is already out of the bottle.
When I think of self-replicating devices I think of Viruses and T-1000 cybernetic organisms. I don't think I want a 13 year old hacker prodigy with Asperger Syndrome self-replicating things. The IRAA has had enough problems with the likes of Bram Cohen et al. And yes I've been self-diagnosed with Asperger Syndrome, so beware what befalls me.
OOOPS:
and I cannot accept farce and sarcasm as a legitimate form of uncensored communication.
should read:
and I can accept farce and sarcasm as a legitimate form of uncensored communication.
I don't mean "reasonable" in the legal sense, I mean in the normal sense of the word. Just based on what I read in TFA, their suit sounds completely unreasonable. That doesn't mean it won't be upheld in court, though.
Granted, but nobody really knows the details of the case just from reading the article, and so I couldn't judge either way. It will (and should) ultimately be left up to the courts. One does have to presume that the courts are "blind" (as in blind justice) and fair, but that is a different issue. Having somebody of the likes of "HitlerHitlerHitler" making statements about rape certainly is dubious and warrants investigation. Their may be stalking and libel issues involved, but that would be for the courts (and possibly even the police) to decide.
Yeah I'm big time into free speech, and I cannot accept farce and sarcasm as a legitimate form of uncensored communication. Harassment and libel however are different issues.
Best regards,
UTW
Best regards,
UTW
... they have no reasonable grounds to be suing.
If they have no reasonable grounds for suing, then their lawsuit will be rejected by the courts. If they do have a reasonable grounds for suing then the courts will hear their case. Most Slashdotters forget to put IANAL disclaimers in their comments when making legal claims.
is the price of getting put on a mailing list too high to pay for a bit more freedom ?
Yes, and irrelevant. Mailing Lists have more privacy issues than any political issues they may be associated with. It's bad enough that I profile myself semi-anonymously on Slashdot; I certainly don't want an ad hoc (or ass-hoc historical) political organization to keep me in THEIR database (it's a government sugarpot of information to be hacked, exploited, extrapolated, etc). I'm happy enough to use a fake/temp email address to post on Slashdot. If the government really wants to know my real name and address then they have to work for it.
Thanks for the reply. In all seriousness I do very much love trees just for their aesthetic beauty. The fact that they help curb pollution and are vital to the creation of oxygen is certainly good, but perhaps less intuitive. One doesn't need to be an Environmentalist nor a Radical to love trees. Factories and parking lots have their utility in the modern world and it should be accepted that it is implausible to get rid of them. Cities like where I live (Toronto) have Lots of parks (trees) and even now the traffic islands in the middle of streets are starting to be less concrete and more tree friendly. It would be good if we could save at least a few unadorned forests as well.
Best regards,
UTW
Wacko-wack... I looked up "primate" in WordWeb after I posted:
Any placental mammal of the order Primates; has good eyesight and flexible hands and feet
I don't have good eyesight nor flexible hands and feet so it seems that I am not a primate. Thank goodness for that!
Well I'm probably in the minority here. I have hugged a tree. I like trees. They don't complain, they look pretty, and they provide me with oxygen. And unlike with "higher" primates you can't get AIDS or any other social disease from hugging a tree. Trees rock, primates are mainly assholes.
The last thing these people (should) want is to bring this issue into the consciousness of the general public. And I hardly doubt companies like AT and T and their clones need donations. At best the call for donations is a sleazy publicity stunt. At worst it shows how cheap and money grubbing they are.
Quick note:
I just visited a Web site (linked by a Slashdot member no less) saying that:
"It looks like you need to upgrade your browsers Flash Player."
It's a presumptuous and arrogant statement on behalf of the Web designers. Web designers can choose to make their Web sites multimedia friendly without the Bullshit. The ones who decide not to I have no sympathy with.
Off hand (in the vague recesses of my memory) I believe Steven Hawking mentioned that in the Brief History of Time. Maybe not, but Google isn't helping me here and I don't want to download (search for) a PDF version (to do a word search) just to validate my assumptions.
You sound like one of those carefully planted shills sent out by NASA to convince people that the moon landings were real. Great straw man :)
The flag in that photo looks like it was Photoshopped.