If the software translates exactly what it hears (which is exactly how people talk), then we're even in for a bigger problem. Sometimes I wish I was a teacher - I guarantee that if I saw one instance of a slang in a written assignment I'd mark it down a grade, and make them correct it if they wanted any grade at all. Any mention of "u" instead of "you", and it's an instant F.
As I understand it, the original thought, which came from old African proverb is this: "The village raises the child." It is my opinion that when it's changed ever so slightly to say, "It takes...", it embodies a major shift in the overall connotation and/or meaning. In this case, the change was perfectly suited to the kinds of policies favored by the Democratic party (in support of the so-called nanny state).
... and would leave evidence all over the state/country.
When you consider the ease and wreckless abandon with which Diebold was able to "update" the software in its machines, I'm not inclined to believe that this would be a very difficult thing to accomplish.
Reminds me of the horrendous results often had by sitting someone down in front of an early model Macintosh, with a LaserWriter parked right next to it. "Cool....12 fonts on a single page!" It made me appreciate the role that typesetters/layout designers play in the world of written communication.
Of course now, many of them have usurped the computer screen (especially when it comes to the web), mistakenly believing that it's a direct substitute for the printed page. No matter where you look, there's a lot of "punishment" going on...and the culprits range anywhere from relative novices, to seasoned professionals.
Knowing Stern, any mention of this topic is most likely done in a degrading, derogatory manner, with absolutely no intrinsic value other than to titilate/stimulate his brain-dead listeners
I see quite a difference between this aproach, and approaching the subject with a sense of intellectual or educational value. Perhaps it's not so much the "what" that matters here, so much as the "how".
First, there are many ways to implement the same functionality. Some code is better than other code. Some apps are better at some things than others. There is no one magic bullet, and I hope it stays that way. Why? When you start to settle on one platform, on one way of doing things, the creative waters that were once a rushing river, dwindle to a stagnant puddle. Cancerous dynamics start to intrude on the process, and soon you've got a mess that no one will touch. Where does that leave you?
I read a rather enlightening account of one person's effort in the U.K. to educate people on the dangers of the National ID Card (the Blunko-card as some call it). Here's what has me totally puzzled:
1. The majority of citizens in the UK actually favor the national ID card (about 75% if I'm not mistaken). Oddly, they have reached a fist-pounding critical mass that won't listen to reason. Their minds are made up.
2. The government is selling the idea as a means to "make the acuisition of government-related services easier." Woohoo...what an astonishingly significant benefit there. Not.
Here's where it gets weird...
3. The citizens think that the National ID card will somehow solve all problems related to illegal immigration, and yet this has never been mentioned by the government as one of its objectives.
So what does that leave you? A delusional public that refuses to be educated, that isists on jumping headlong into the headlights of an oncoming freight train, and you are powerless to stop it from happening.
Sadly, I have no reason to believe that Americans are any different.
Quark's trade secrets, along with the enormous amount of money we had invested in R&D to develop QuarkXPress 3 would have been for naught.
I worked with a company who used Quark for their primary workflow (one of their departments anyway). If ALdus could have gotten ahold of the source, I think the primary reason Quark would have been in trouble was their attitude toward their customers- a kind of "You owe us" mentality. It was quite annoying. I haven't had to deal with anything Quark for quite a while, so I don't know if the attitude has changed.
That having been said, everyone assumes that it's ONLY the technology that will make or break your success as a company. Technology is only part of it - unfortunately, it's the part that keeps customers locked into using your pruduct even when they despise you as a company. I think there's a lot to be said for good customer service- spreading some goodwill will go a long way toward retaining customers that might otherwise consider a competing product.
Point taken...the company could have gone under for any number of reasons. Perhaps pointing the finger at piracy was a bit misguided, but given what some people use to justify it, piracy isn't an issue that should be ignored or trivialized.
It's very simple...when you play without paying, you're benefitting from whatever value it provides you. In essence, you get something, they get nothing. Ask yourself...what harm is being done if nobody pays, but everyone plays?
Not even! This poster tells the absolute truth. IF you play, you pay. Simple. This applies to music, movies, everything. If you play without paying, you're stealing. If you don't want to pay what they're asking then don't. No one is forcing you to. But for Pete's sake, don't go and steal it.
After reading quite a bit about the authentication stuff, I've decided not to purchase the game. I *never* pirate games, not only because it's wrong, but because I have a great deal of respect for the resources that are required for a game of such high quality. Fortuanately, there *are* other games available, and I will be looking to one of those instead.
There was a day when you could, with reasonable trust, assume that the transaction you were about to engage was between you and the other party, and no one else. What I buy at the grocery store, how many movies I see, whether I spend $500 or $5000 on a wedding ring says NOTHING about who I am. It's purely my business. However, massive information pipelines being built where there are many collection points, and a few central repositories. Out of this comes an infrastructure that grows to rely on this information (credit reporting, for example), and out of this grows a dire (but seldom observed) need to make sure the data is accurate. Those who maintain these repositories gain all the benefit, with no risk or accountability. If the information happens to be incorrect, fixing it is next to impossible.
And to address your analogy - they might know me, but they only know what *I* choose to tell them, unless they've taken extraordinary means to locate other information. The way things are headed, I have no control over who knows what, or why, unless I take extradordinary measures to prevent the information from being collected in the first place. The burden has shifted 180 degrees.
That's the reality of it. We're supplying these companies with their own blood money, and we CONTINUE to supply these companies with their own blood money, and then we wonder why they try to screw us every chance they get. They do it because they CAN- mainly because we LET them.
I agree with your comment. As far as privacy is concerned, once the government has any information with respect to a given transaction or arrangement, (especially if it's related to a transaction that has NOTHING to do with the government in the first place), the privacy is GONE. To assure something that isn't there in the first place is complete bunk.
Now, unlike most of the rest of my friends that got laid off and sucked the government unemployement insurance tit, I am fending for myself with the money I saved by not buying useless crap.
Very good. This is exactly the type of discipline and self-reliance that has become foreign to many Americans.
I had a friend bring his computer into the office one day, and to our surprise, when he booted it up, it connected to the network without incident. Only thing is, it wasn't OUR network. He has a wireless connection, and interestingly, someone in the area was running completely unprotected wireless access point. Seems like battening down the hatches is a very smart choice- if the IP belongs to your network, it's you the feds will be talking to.
...simply by opting for encryption, as the presumption of guilt becomes more heavily ingrained into the collective psyche of those who think they're making a positive contribution to the so-called "war on terrorism".
Yes, the startup fee is $9.95, but they've done something clever. You buy land in the game, and depending on how much the land is worth and how much of it you buy, it will affect your monthly payment - so it's more like you're renting the use of virtual land from the software company.
I've heard numerous times that the Christian right was a leading force in getting this legislation passed- on Christian TV no less- almost like they're proud of it.
There are some very unfortunate trends in this culture, and no amount of rationalization will make the costs they incur disappear. You can't have it all. That's part of the human condition. People are good at deluding themselves, but only until they're forced to deal with the consequences. By then, however, the damage is done- it's matter of salvaging what's left.
When people shop they act in their best interest, as they should.
When people shop, they act in their best short term interest. America has become all about short-term interest. "I want it NOW, and I want as much as I can get." The massive amounts of debt incurred by the average American is an indication as to how pervasive this mentality is, and sadly, it is only one of several. The next time you walk through a mall, a park, or other location frequented by large numbers of people take note of how many of them are overweight. Same problem, different symptom.
Trying to do inject some sort of ethics at the cash register is WAY too late and rarely effective.
It's way too late and rarely effective because few people have the will or the discipline to actually do it. Like better eating habits, it entails a lifestyle change- doing things differently, and doing that consistently.
Corporations do vote - every time someone writes a fat check in the form of a bri^H^H^H campaign contribution. The number of and size of these contributions determine how much media penetration a candidate can expect, and this, I'd argue, has at least some impact on the way people cast their votes. All this corporate money is exactly the reason that the campaign finance reform is so vitally necessary. When you think of a candidate spending more than a hundred million dollars to get re-elected, something is very wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
If the software translates exactly what it hears (which is exactly how people talk), then we're even in for a bigger problem. Sometimes I wish I was a teacher - I guarantee that if I saw one instance of a slang in a written assignment I'd mark it down a grade, and make them correct it if they wanted any grade at all. Any mention of "u" instead of "you", and it's an instant F.
As I understand it, the original thought, which came from old African proverb is this: "The village raises the child." It is my opinion that when it's changed ever so slightly to say, "It takes...", it embodies a major shift in the overall connotation and/or meaning. In this case, the change was perfectly suited to the kinds of policies favored by the Democratic party (in support of the so-called nanny state).
... and would leave evidence all over the state/country.
When you consider the ease and wreckless abandon with which Diebold was able to "update" the software in its machines, I'm not inclined to believe that this would be a very difficult thing to accomplish.
Reminds me of the horrendous results often had by sitting someone down in front of an early model Macintosh, with a LaserWriter parked right next to it. "Cool....12 fonts on a single page!" It made me appreciate the role that typesetters/layout designers play in the world of written communication.
Of course now, many of them have usurped the computer screen (especially when it comes to the web), mistakenly believing that it's a direct substitute for the printed page. No matter where you look, there's a lot of "punishment" going on...and the culprits range anywhere from relative novices, to seasoned professionals.
Knowing Stern, any mention of this topic is most likely done in a degrading, derogatory manner, with absolutely no intrinsic value other than to titilate/stimulate his brain-dead listeners
I see quite a difference between this aproach, and approaching the subject with a sense of intellectual or educational value. Perhaps it's not so much the "what" that matters here, so much as the "how".
First, there are many ways to implement the same functionality. Some code is better than other code. Some apps are better at some things than others. There is no one magic bullet, and I hope it stays that way. Why? When you start to settle on one platform, on one way of doing things, the creative waters that were once a rushing river, dwindle to a stagnant puddle. Cancerous dynamics start to intrude on the process, and soon you've got a mess that no one will touch. Where does that leave you?
(Look at the government to see how this works).
Kudos to the Abiword developers.
I read a rather enlightening account of one person's effort in the U.K. to educate people on the dangers of the National ID Card (the Blunko-card as some call it). Here's what has me totally puzzled:
1. The majority of citizens in the UK actually favor the national ID card (about 75% if I'm not mistaken). Oddly, they have reached a fist-pounding critical mass that won't listen to reason. Their minds are made up.
2. The government is selling the idea as a means to "make the acuisition of government-related services easier." Woohoo...what an astonishingly significant benefit there. Not.
Here's where it gets weird...
3. The citizens think that the National ID card will somehow solve all problems related to illegal immigration, and yet this has never been mentioned by the government as one of its objectives.
So what does that leave you? A delusional public that refuses to be educated, that isists on jumping headlong into the headlights of an oncoming freight train, and you are powerless to stop it from happening.
Sadly, I have no reason to believe that Americans are any different.
Quark's trade secrets, along with the enormous amount of money we had invested in R&D to develop QuarkXPress 3 would have been for naught.
I worked with a company who used Quark for their primary workflow (one of their departments anyway). If ALdus could have gotten ahold of the source, I think the primary reason Quark would have been in trouble was their attitude toward their customers- a kind of "You owe us" mentality. It was quite annoying. I haven't had to deal with anything Quark for quite a while, so I don't know if the attitude has changed.
That having been said, everyone assumes that it's ONLY the technology that will make or break your success as a company. Technology is only part of it - unfortunately, it's the part that keeps customers locked into using your pruduct even when they despise you as a company. I think there's a lot to be said for good customer service- spreading some goodwill will go a long way toward retaining customers that might otherwise consider a competing product.
Point taken...the company could have gone under for any number of reasons. Perhaps pointing the finger at piracy was a bit misguided, but given what some people use to justify it, piracy isn't an issue that should be ignored or trivialized.
It's very simple...when you play without paying, you're benefitting from whatever value it provides you. In essence, you get something, they get nothing. Ask yourself...what harm is being done if nobody pays, but everyone plays?
Not even! This poster tells the absolute truth. IF you play, you pay. Simple. This applies to music, movies, everything. If you play without paying, you're stealing. If you don't want to pay what they're asking then don't. No one is forcing you to. But for Pete's sake, don't go and steal it.
After reading quite a bit about the authentication stuff, I've decided not to purchase the game. I *never* pirate games, not only because it's wrong, but because I have a great deal of respect for the resources that are required for a game of such high quality. Fortuanately, there *are* other games available, and I will be looking to one of those instead.
There was a day when you could, with reasonable trust, assume that the transaction you were about to engage was between you and the other party, and no one else. What I buy at the grocery store, how many movies I see, whether I spend $500 or $5000 on a wedding ring says NOTHING about who I am. It's purely my business. However, massive information pipelines being built where there are many collection points, and a few central repositories. Out of this comes an infrastructure that grows to rely on this information (credit reporting, for example), and out of this grows a dire (but seldom observed) need to make sure the data is accurate. Those who maintain these repositories gain all the benefit, with no risk or accountability. If the information happens to be incorrect, fixing it is next to impossible.
And to address your analogy - they might know me, but they only know what *I* choose to tell them, unless they've taken extraordinary means to locate other information. The way things are headed, I have no control over who knows what, or why, unless I take extradordinary measures to prevent the information from being collected in the first place. The burden has shifted 180 degrees.
That's the reality of it. We're supplying these companies with their own blood money, and we CONTINUE to supply these companies with their own blood money, and then we wonder why they try to screw us every chance they get. They do it because they CAN- mainly because we LET them.
I agree with your comment. As far as privacy is concerned, once the government has any information with respect to a given transaction or arrangement, (especially if it's related to a transaction that has NOTHING to do with the government in the first place), the privacy is GONE. To assure something that isn't there in the first place is complete bunk.
Now, unlike most of the rest of my friends that got laid off and sucked the government unemployement insurance tit, I am fending for myself with the money I saved by not buying useless crap.
Very good. This is exactly the type of discipline and self-reliance that has become foreign to many Americans.
I had a friend bring his computer into the office one day, and to our surprise, when he booted it up, it connected to the network without incident. Only thing is, it wasn't OUR network. He has a wireless connection, and interestingly, someone in the area was running completely unprotected wireless access point. Seems like battening down the hatches is a very smart choice- if the IP belongs to your network, it's you the feds will be talking to.
...simply by opting for encryption, as the presumption of guilt becomes more heavily ingrained into the collective psyche of those who think they're making a positive contribution to the so-called "war on terrorism".
Yes, the startup fee is $9.95, but they've done something clever. You buy land in the game, and depending on how much the land is worth and how much of it you buy, it will affect your monthly payment - so it's more like you're renting the use of virtual land from the software company.
Agreed...but what about the ACLJ?
I've heard numerous times that the Christian right was a leading force in getting this legislation passed- on Christian TV no less- almost like they're proud of it.
If it's released under something like the Java license I don't expect them to build a decent community or to present any real competition to linux.
Curious - what is it about the Java license that you find troubling?
Ad hominem attacks will not transcend reality.
There are some very unfortunate trends in this culture, and no amount of rationalization will make the costs they incur disappear. You can't have it all. That's part of the human condition. People are good at deluding themselves, but only until they're forced to deal with the consequences. By then, however, the damage is done- it's matter of salvaging what's left.
When people shop they act in their best interest, as they should.
When people shop, they act in their best short term interest. America has become all about short-term interest. "I want it NOW, and I want as much as I can get." The massive amounts of debt incurred by the average American is an indication as to how pervasive this mentality is, and sadly, it is only one of several. The next time you walk through a mall, a park, or other location frequented by large numbers of people take note of how many of them are overweight. Same problem, different symptom.
Trying to do inject some sort of ethics at the cash register is WAY too late and rarely effective.
It's way too late and rarely effective because few people have the will or the discipline to actually do it. Like better eating habits, it entails a lifestyle change- doing things differently, and doing that consistently.
Corporations do vote - every time someone writes a fat check in the form of a bri^H^H^H campaign contribution. The number of and size of these contributions determine how much media penetration a candidate can expect, and this, I'd argue, has at least some impact on the way people cast their votes. All this corporate money is exactly the reason that the campaign finance reform is so vitally necessary. When you think of a candidate spending more than a hundred million dollars to get re-elected, something is very wrong.