Maybe this is a naive question, but why isn't a third-party standards organization leading the way on this? I know that W3C didn't do a great job standardizing HTML (as any web developer who has spent hours debugging IE vs Mozilla can attest), but ANY standard is better than no standard here. Where's NIST or ANSI? I hate to even suggest that the US government get involved, but setting some kind of standard could avoid another Blu-Ray vs. HD DVD wasteful standard war that hurts consumers and developers. Everyone would be better off if this conflict could be avoided entirely. What would it take?
Aside from losing the formatting, you lost the most important footnote to the data:
"Deaths per passenger mile should also be considered as a basic risk measure when comparing risks amongst various modes of transportation. Since the average number of passengers in an aircraft far exceeds the average number of passengers in a motor vehicle, the passenger mile risk of air carrier transportation is significantly less than that of motor vehicle transportation."
The last column in the list shows how many fatalities there are per million miles that any aircraft flies. That's a totally non-sensical number; I'm not even sure why they include it. Since aircraft carry 20-400 people the right metric is deaths per passenger-mile; what are my odds of dying if I drive 500 miles to visit family or fly the same 500 instead?
If the purpose of the program (increasing air safety) will be maximized by not releasing this report to the public then NASA is right to not release it. Pilots are very sensitive about their jobs, especially when safety is on the line. If pilots are more likely to report incidents (near-misses and dangerous situations) if they know that the data will only be used internally then not releasing it is the right answer.
I know that pilots were given anonymity, but there are plenty of incidents that could be recognized by the description (it's not hard to figure out which airlines fly a lot of routes -- Southwest and JetBlue, for example, are the only carriers between a lot of secondary airports).
If the report is published to the greater world then pilots might not be as forthcoming about future incidents and we might lose a good chance to prevent an accident. Without knowing more about the report, why it was developed, who developed it, and what good it does I can't say for sure whether that's the right answer or not, but it's at least a reasonable answer. There's no conspiracy here, sorry.
That said, there went my plan to spend all 48 hours of the last weekend on earth popping penguin mints and playing Halo 3. I guess I'll just have to do that this weekend instead.
Re:In a lot of ways, Gimp is more intuitive than P
on
GIMP 2 for Photographers
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
The problem is not that it can't detect that you're working with a small file and give additional history steps. The problem is that if you consistently work with small files and get used to having a long undo trail then you may get surprised when you only have a short history when you open a big file.
For example, in your system a user might usually edit 128x128 px images and have 150 undo steps available. They'd get used to being able to undo 100 brush actions in a row if they needed to revert. But when they edit a larger image they'd inevitably scream with frustration when their history has been silently taken away and they can't undo the stupid change. It's a risk.
I'm not saying that Adobe made the right design call, but there are positives and negatives on both sides.
Actually, the legal status of recording a conversation without the consent of the other side varies by state (if you're in the US) and it obviously varies across countries. In some states it's quite illegal, in others it's quite OK.
If you're considering it, check the interwebs first to make sure that your state allows it.
Right -- but the supply is present no matter what. If there are no H1-B visas then a lot of programmers who would be here on H1-Bs are going to be doing the same work, but doing it from Banglore rather than Burlingame.
The programmers exist no matter what and location isn't --that-- important. It's important, but not enough to eliminate the supply of offshore programmers.
The choice is to have H1-Bs in the US--paying income tax, being supervised by US managers, and subject to US labor laws--or to let them work offshore. If they stay offshore then they don't pay US tax and don't generate US management jobs.
Globalization of the technology economy is a fact, just like continental drift. It's an overwhelmingly positive thing for workers in developing countries (to get paid in hard currency for "clean" non-industrial work is a god-send) and generally positive here (new products, services, and goods at lower prices). All we can do is to try to do it on terms that are favorable to as many as possible. Allowing the labor to come here means that we get to set the terms of the labor. I'll take that deal any day of the week.
I'm open to new argument, but that's how I see it now.
The emails in TFA are from the top end of this scum-sucking organization
The emails were from the top-line people, I agree.
However, down near the bottom of this thread there is a dump of a salary list from Excel that appears to include line-level programmers. The torrent allegedly contains their SSN, phone, and address as well. I haven't seen the torrent, but I'm trusting people at the bottom of this thread who have. The bottom-level programmers have nothing to do with the politics of the organization. It's one thing to think that they should have chosen a better company to work for, but they aren't the figureheads of the company by any stretch. It's even possible that they're here on H1-B visas and are thus effectively indentured servants, unable to leave without losing their visa even if they dislike the company politics.
It's a little gross to go after them.
If the torrent doesn't contain the info above then please inform me in a civil manner and I'll happily consider myself educated. I still think there's a problem with Internet vigilante justice, but it comes in a different form when it's the figureheads rather than the low-level employees.
Easy on the personal attacks -- let's make Slashdot a better place one civil exchange at a time. I respect your right to disagree on whatever terms you want to, but let's disagree in a way that fosters discussion.
I am wondering is whether we find their vigilante attitude towards stopping downloads more or less distasteful than
Their "vigilante" tactics have inspired a vigilante response, for better or for worse. It's the old "well, they started it" defense.
It's almost a little disgusting to see intelligent Slashdot readers encouraging identity theft and other federal crimes because they don't like the work that MD does. Obviously the vast majority of readers aren't doing so, but there have been full names of low-level programmers already posted in this thread and I'm sure far worse on other sites.
Do the ends (stopping MD's work) really justify the means? If this were the internal emails of an abortion provider we would all be disgusted if a pro-life group sent the names, addresses, and social security numbers of clinic secretaries and janitors around. But when it's the low-level functionaries of a hated technology group it's apparently OK and to be commended.
Just because a large number of people disagree with their work it shouldn't be OK to break federal law to discourage them. Yes, they may have broken federal law first, but the answer is not to raise the ante.
So which one is applied by the modern court system?
In criminal law one is innocent until proven guilty.
In civil law (like this), the scales are even with just a feather on the side of "not liable" (since one can only really be "innocent" of a crime).
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe this is a naive question, but why isn't a third-party standards organization leading the way on this? I know that W3C didn't do a great job standardizing HTML (as any web developer who has spent hours debugging IE vs Mozilla can attest), but ANY standard is better than no standard here. Where's NIST or ANSI? I hate to even suggest that the US government get involved, but setting some kind of standard could avoid another Blu-Ray vs. HD DVD wasteful standard war that hurts consumers and developers. Everyone would be better off if this conflict could be avoided entirely. What would it take?
Aside from losing the formatting, you lost the most important footnote to the data:
"Deaths per passenger mile should also be considered as a basic risk measure when comparing risks amongst various modes of transportation. Since the average number of passengers in an aircraft far exceeds the average number of passengers in a motor vehicle, the passenger mile risk of air carrier transportation is significantly less than that of motor vehicle transportation."
The last column in the list shows how many fatalities there are per million miles that any aircraft flies. That's a totally non-sensical number; I'm not even sure why they include it. Since aircraft carry 20-400 people the right metric is deaths per passenger-mile; what are my odds of dying if I drive 500 miles to visit family or fly the same 500 instead?
If the purpose of the program (increasing air safety) will be maximized by not releasing this report to the public then NASA is right to not release it. Pilots are very sensitive about their jobs, especially when safety is on the line. If pilots are more likely to report incidents (near-misses and dangerous situations) if they know that the data will only be used internally then not releasing it is the right answer.
I know that pilots were given anonymity, but there are plenty of incidents that could be recognized by the description (it's not hard to figure out which airlines fly a lot of routes -- Southwest and JetBlue, for example, are the only carriers between a lot of secondary airports).
If the report is published to the greater world then pilots might not be as forthcoming about future incidents and we might lose a good chance to prevent an accident. Without knowing more about the report, why it was developed, who developed it, and what good it does I can't say for sure whether that's the right answer or not, but it's at least a reasonable answer. There's no conspiracy here, sorry.
By "premium content" you mean "Slashdot"?
If you want to pay to avoid ads on Slashdot there's a mechanism, conviniently enough.
we just "lost" it for a while
I once was lost, but now I'm found.
like, perhaps we took our eye off the ball?
I once was blind, but now I see.
That said, there went my plan to spend all 48 hours of the last weekend on earth popping penguin mints and playing Halo 3. I guess I'll just have to do that this weekend instead.
The problem is not that it can't detect that you're working with a small file and give additional history steps. The problem is that if you consistently work with small files and get used to having a long undo trail then you may get surprised when you only have a short history when you open a big file.
For example, in your system a user might usually edit 128x128 px images and have 150 undo steps available. They'd get used to being able to undo 100 brush actions in a row if they needed to revert. But when they edit a larger image they'd inevitably scream with frustration when their history has been silently taken away and they can't undo the stupid change. It's a risk.
I'm not saying that Adobe made the right design call, but there are positives and negatives on both sides.
Actually, the legal status of recording a conversation without the consent of the other side varies by state (if you're in the US) and it obviously varies across countries. In some states it's quite illegal, in others it's quite OK.
If you're considering it, check the interwebs first to make sure that your state allows it.
Right -- but the supply is present no matter what. If there are no H1-B visas then a lot of programmers who would be here on H1-Bs are going to be doing the same work, but doing it from Banglore rather than Burlingame.
The programmers exist no matter what and location isn't --that-- important. It's important, but not enough to eliminate the supply of offshore programmers.
The choice is to have H1-Bs in the US--paying income tax, being supervised by US managers, and subject to US labor laws--or to let them work offshore. If they stay offshore then they don't pay US tax and don't generate US management jobs.
Globalization of the technology economy is a fact, just like continental drift. It's an overwhelmingly positive thing for workers in developing countries (to get paid in hard currency for "clean" non-industrial work is a god-send) and generally positive here (new products, services, and goods at lower prices). All we can do is to try to do it on terms that are favorable to as many as possible. Allowing the labor to come here means that we get to set the terms of the labor. I'll take that deal any day of the week.
I'm open to new argument, but that's how I see it now.
How much for the whole shoe?
No no, fresh farm-raised Atlantic sole for only $8 / lb.
There's something fishy about this whole thread.
The emails in TFA are from the top end of this scum-sucking organization
The emails were from the top-line people, I agree.
However, down near the bottom of this thread there is a dump of a salary list from Excel that appears to include line-level programmers. The torrent allegedly contains their SSN, phone, and address as well. I haven't seen the torrent, but I'm trusting people at the bottom of this thread who have. The bottom-level programmers have nothing to do with the politics of the organization. It's one thing to think that they should have chosen a better company to work for, but they aren't the figureheads of the company by any stretch. It's even possible that they're here on H1-B visas and are thus effectively indentured servants, unable to leave without losing their visa even if they dislike the company politics.
It's a little gross to go after them.
If the torrent doesn't contain the info above then please inform me in a civil manner and I'll happily consider myself educated. I still think there's a problem with Internet vigilante justice, but it comes in a different form when it's the figureheads rather than the low-level employees.
Easy on the personal attacks -- let's make Slashdot a better place one civil exchange at a time. I respect your right to disagree on whatever terms you want to, but let's disagree in a way that fosters discussion.
I am wondering is whether we find their vigilante attitude towards stopping downloads more or less distasteful than
Their "vigilante" tactics have inspired a vigilante response, for better or for worse. It's the old "well, they started it" defense.
It's almost a little disgusting to see intelligent Slashdot readers encouraging identity theft and other federal crimes because they don't like the work that MD does. Obviously the vast majority of readers aren't doing so, but there have been full names of low-level programmers already posted in this thread and I'm sure far worse on other sites.
Do the ends (stopping MD's work) really justify the means? If this were the internal emails of an abortion provider we would all be disgusted if a pro-life group sent the names, addresses, and social security numbers of clinic secretaries and janitors around. But when it's the low-level functionaries of a hated technology group it's apparently OK and to be commended.
Just because a large number of people disagree with their work it shouldn't be OK to break federal law to discourage them. Yes, they may have broken federal law first, but the answer is not to raise the ante.
So which one is applied by the modern court system? In criminal law one is innocent until proven guilty. In civil law (like this), the scales are even with just a feather on the side of "not liable" (since one can only really be "innocent" of a crime).