Please tell me why we care about the alleged postal temperament of the adult being who :
1. tried to motivate a bunch of geek screaming "developers, developers, developers" on top of his lungs as if they were a bunch of rock fans and obtained a very tepid response, but an instant internet phun-of-the-month success, in the league of Asshat and Wassaaaap
2. who was so embarrasingly sweating while screaming and running from each side on the scene he looked more like my fat grandpa playing tennis then some company big brass.
3. that aside from this nice show of being able to ridicule himself for the better good of the company and his own one, has the same mentality of each and other private guy : you work, I cash.
Tell me again, aside from understanding what he's trying to take away from any "associate" next..why should I care ?
Let' say the "hacker" reveals some notion. The "cattle" listen to what they hear and react as they please, regardless of the accuracy of the notion. If they like it, they'll praise the scientist..just to blame him/her two minutes later for something else they don't like.
It seems to me you still belong to the cattle you so much dislike and in particular to the malevolent subset of them because
1. you completely disregard the fact even peer-reviewed notions can be found, after intellectually honest peer-review, false. In other words it seems that you believe peer-review is always better then no peer-review, as if peer-review was something ameliorative by itself..while it can be done dishonestly and erroneously as much as everything else can.
2. you blame the hackers for revealing information still not reviewed AS IF that single action was the cause of confusion in the cattle..but that's flatly false because
3. cattle more often the not can't tell peer-reviewed material from articles of faith. They believe and hope that there are authorities that will always tell them "the truth"...either a scientific authority or a political or a religious one..always some benevolent AUTHORITY.
The best way to say "thank you" to intellectually honest scientist is to become one, just saying "thanks" doesn't help a bit.
Additionally it seems to me you're just reacting in a way most people was conditioned to..just blame the bad guy..and we'll tell you who the bad guy is, you needn't understand by yourself if they're really bad or not..WE SAY IT IS therefore IT IS.
Dude, you still belong to the herd you hate so much and you still don't realize it.
Indeed knowing morse is practically useless in these days of extremely easy communications and the practice needed to become moderately proficient seems enermous.
But it's only relative to the application and the individual.
Consider all one needs to use morse code is
1. a medium
2. a way to modulate the medium into discrete intervals
3. either a couple of hears (sound morse) or eyes (light source morse) and probably a couple of hands to modulate the signal and write down letters
That's enormously flexible. The assumption that only because we now have very convenient technology then we should drop far more resilient instruments like morse is dangerous...expecially when one considers morse is useful only if there's many people using and operating it (exactly like phones or internet).
Maybe I'm old fashioned but I like things I can do without relying on a lot of technology I can't possibily always own.
I agree that the secretary in your example should have checked twice because it's part of her/his job to make sure there are no typos..and it should come naturally to anybody writing anything of some relevance.
But would that remove the blame from you, the boss, for not triple checking ? You're supposed to be MORE vigilant and overwatching whatever your subordinates are doing..which means in theory you should be overlooking each and every one of their actions...while in practice the management is supposed to overlook the important and/or critical actions leaving some room to subordinates responsability.
Indeed putting the blame on the software for not showing a RED ALTER SCREEN OF DEATH would only be the final touch to the comedy of big management trying to shift blame like crazy...up to blaming the computers.
Other heads will roll, but before you chop the heads off of the people who allowed someone to do something massively stupid, you first fire the person who actually did something massively stupid.
Oh now I get it ! You first fire the person who did a criminal piratesque typo, for he/she is an heathen, the scum of the planet, the standard idiot, the swine, the nazifeminisitrepubloliberal, the ape....or a person that didn't check what he typed twice.
YEAH it was negligence and he/she deserves to be fired , so what ?
You can blame procedures and software and management all you want, but do you really think that someone authorized to make major transactions shouldn't be really, really careful about it while doing it?
He/She must be careful, BUT
1. we have evidence that no matter how careful, error is possible..even error whose effect was extreme as this one (but some thousand little error can sum up to a big error as well..that's why double and triple checking and redundancy may seem expensive on the short term, but may save lots on the medium long term..depending on the kind of transaction of course)
2. as we're told it was a single error, possibly made by one single person (as it seems according to the narration) ONE SINGLE person MUST NOT have the possibility to do such a single catastrophic error ; by analogy it was (and I hope it still is) not possible for the single nuclear missile base commander to launch any missle..apparently we're told it was physically impossible for single human to launch the missle out of distraction..and measures were taken to restrict madman from launching a missle as well.
3. so you're correct when you say the person is to be blamed for making an error, but you're implicity trying to apologize that fact that it was incredibily irresponsible for the whole management (read, the whole fuc*ing company and expecially if not exclusively the very much paid TOP levels) to let this happen...blaming the single person must not be a convenient scapegoat way to excuse carelessness and evident negligence in management.
In other words, it's a bad idea to let the bucket stop at a single person when it's evident the mistake was ALLOWED to happen as it was very much predictable for the simple reasons _transactions_ are the instrument of financial companies...by analogy it's like having a taxi drivers not check in the side mirror when surpassing or entering the lane...it's actually "looking forward having troubles"...it's bad for sunday or everyday drivers..it's absurd and untolerable for professional drivers.
Additionally, it's far more relevant then a frequent ordinary and predictable (therefore preventable) clerical error
1. it moved (relatively for billion of people pockets) an enormous amount of money
2. it seriously financially harmed an undisclosed amount of Fubon investors
3. it provoked a damage control reaction in the public relations department (trying to minimize the fact that they lost an hell of a lot of profits..but they still do better then other similar companies. Who the f*ck cares !
4. it gives an hint that moving hundred millions on a stock market may NOT provoke sensible effect on the price on the involved stock or on the stock market as a whole...reinforcing my complete lack of trust in the very concept and many implementation of stock market
5. the cost of it will probably be unloaded on many ordinary Joes one way or another
Firing the employee is absolutely inconsequential and quite irrelevant : it's just a form of vindication against the employee for disclosing that the company oweners and high responsibles don't even know how to operate their own business let alone other people businesses.
A: Tell em to quit college so they'll not get the degree..but be good enough to be used in college jobs without the college levels pay, because they don't have the degree that commands higher pay. More profit for us !
B: but they'll have an incomplete education..would you disinvest just before you're about to profit ?
A: do you ever see me caring about brains I ruin to obtain profit ? Besides, they all are do nothing people..even the engineers and the scientist always theorizing never producing ! I'd like to see them managing mah bizness.
B: but almost anything electro-opto-chemical-mechanical has reached today levels by the enormous, grossly unpaid and tremendously tedious work of thousand of scientist and engineers ! Production is just the most appreciated consequence of their initial work.
A: Really ? Just pretend it's not.. people doesn't know and can't tell. Or pretend they do and enphasize only the fact they don't produce..but that WE make the production possible not them.
B: but that means repressing the same people that make some many good stuff possible ?
A: BOTTOM LINE, you wanna get paid ? Go repress your wage out of somebody else and on the way remember my cut or else...
Hey it's ok to look after Google, but it's not The Padrino ! Mamma mia !
Anyway don't EVER look for a job at Google because WE KNOW about you, kapisch ?
Meanwhile in the corporate Batcavern
on
Cubicle Privacy
·
· Score: 1
Batman: ahahahah...yeah and they kept on discussing about noise cancellation technology schmechnology !
Robin: Naaahh ahahahh com'on that's unreal!
Batman: No no, it is for real ! They were all excited about this sound stuff they forgot why they accepted to work in cubicles to being with !
Robin : ahahaha losers , they think it's for company flexibility profiteabily blah blah blahability !
Batman: exactly ! And the more they're worried about escaping the goddamed cubicle and get a decent office the more they forget about getting a decently paid job, it's a win win situation for employer !
Robin: but the next time they may whine and ask for that sound technology stuff
Batman: never worry my young friend, by that time there'll be a restructuration layoff and they'll be worried about their job long enough for the cycle to start again !
Let's read the Sheriff testimony shall we ? Here the link to the PDF
I'll take some quotes that I find interesting, you're advise to read all the testimony for better comprehension
Victims of these organized criminal groups include the tobacco industry, luxury goods manufacturers, clothing companies, and the music and motion picture industries.
Indeed all those industry have something in common : a big difference between final sale price and production cost...meaning they have high profits for each unit they sell. Not surprisingly criminals can still produce something and sell the counterfeit good at a price that is lower then the original good price..that's possible only if the real production cost is significantly lower then expected sale price. Of course criminals can also use second quality raw materials for their production, but that's true of industries as well (that's why legitimate industries could use minimal open-2-review standards..but that's another problem)...most of the times consumers don't notice any significant difference, either because the difference is not significant to them or because it's factually minimal
Information in open sources indicates that across the globe anything that has a decent profit margin is being counterfeited. And not surprisingly so..but I'd replace decent with "high"...decency is a rather vaporous measure.
During interviews, these suspects have admitted that IPR crime is attractive because of the high profit and minimal jail sentences. In the parlance of one suspect, "It's better than the dope business, no ones going to prison for DVDs."
So one would think "let's rise the bar, punish the crime and the crime will stop"..I guess 20 years of War on Drugs have amply shown that this is not the case..drugs are still sold....while some argue that the total amount of drugs sold must have declined (because of the seizures) they usually forget seizures make the business only marginally more expensive...and drugs are still sold.
There are mounting indicators of the involvement of terrorist groups and their supporters.
Criminal countefeit rings are those who benefit the most and they certainly don't want political/religious activists and extremists (therefore likely terrorists) among their ranks, because they're big noisy troublemakers attracting an hell of a lot of police AND government attention. One could argue that terrorism distract police from other duties, but assuming terrorist are profiting from the same rings of "ordinary" criminals..you would have seen criminal policing of terrorist activities.
There must be the understanding that this crime affects all citizens through fraud, the diversion of tax revenue, and the empowerment of the criminal element.
I completely agree : let me remember Enron Corporation and other extremely dangerous criminal corporation who operate inside legitimate markets..I wonder how many are hidden behind a curtain of weak or bought laws, complacent officials et al.
The Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department has, like most local agencies, suffered cutbacks in personnel over the past several years due to severe budget curtailments.
It did ? Amazing I would have tought boatloads of money were disbursed to police/firefighters after 9/11...mmhh one wonders were all the money really went. Maybe at Homeland Security ? Maybe in Iraq ?.....Oh well, so as long as I'm not affected who cares about neighbours *waves little national flag*
You turn the whole stuff into a problem of violated individual will ; well so what if my will is that of going around a public area naked because I take offence in being seen clothed ? It is the same as your logic..you don't want others to be seen naked, I don't want other to see me clothed because I find it to be disrispectful, yet I guess you would be the first to have me arrested for "indecent exposure"
Far be it from me to belittle research on forensic science, since I have written about the importance of questioning such conventional wisdom as the reliability of fingerprint evidence and the credibility of confessions.
Whoot no sweat ! You work for a bunch of people who would do anything to prove freedom to monopolize profits is being endangered by some science (sshh don't tell people about fingerprint, we'll steal their goods)..hell those people would even support creationist theory or satanism if that gave them some way to have more monetary profits or to make people work for less.
But surely we can do better than a February study in the journal Psychonomic Bulletin & Review that concluded that it's easier to identify someone close to you than someone more than a football-field-length away. At 450 feet, the scientist concludes, "the human visual system starts to lose small details."
That's know as "selective quoting"..the practice of selecting a part of statement and omitting other parts that would clarify the previous statement. Some people react to statements that challenge their own knowledge by considering them laughable and belittling them so that they appear less fearsome to them, some WSJ journalist knows that and throws his integrity outta the window (assuming he had one to begin with) hoping to please his masters and amuse his readers.
One wonders in what are WSJ owners benefitting from that article...oh wait, the owners don't even read their own journal maybe:-) they're too busy stacking piles of "hard earned" money.
Quite obviously the consumers that no longer buy tickets/licences think that they're getting a lot for free (their satisfaction is therefore maximized)but it's everyday experience that anything very close to free doesn't last forever...hey..rarely is anything given for nothing. Therefore the great majority of consumers is going to think it can't last forever, but they assume there are only few people really pirating because they see shelves still stocked with new movies, people still going to cinemas and still renting movies.
Additionally , the most careful few among the consumers can notice that the balance sheets of major movie studio is still in the positive numbers. Why don't they just stop makig movies if they're suffering losses ? Could it be that media industry is pricing itself out of the market ? Interesting..as long as demand-offer theory is good for them, the theory is good ; otherwise is false.
Many consumer also notice that major starts are still making boatloads of money or so they hear on TV and Radio ; obviously, the majority of people with really low income compare their income to stars and notice stars earn waaay too much.
Ok they do make some wrong assumption, like that stars really do nothing..but certainly they do not fatigue nearly as much as the average employee of many industries and they're not exposed to many financial risks once they're into the business.
-----
SO why in the hell should consumer renounce the opportunity to have a little entertainment with no reuse value for almost free...for the shake of a moral suasion argument ?
One argument is that piracy is wrong because it damages the workers of industry ; yet they consumer notice that the argument is made only to blame piracy, as the industry doesn't really seem to care when they choose to lay off people ( that extends to almost any industry, not only media)
Another is that piracy in the form of cheap chinese imitation that work and cost half is damaging to everybody : again, most consumers can't take the blame, as they didn't outsource production to China or India ! Obviously many industry blame unions, but unions are powerless in many countries.
It's old game of passing the bucket a..and the real bucket usually lands near or on the masses..and it hurts. Now either the bucket passing is beneficial to the masses or they're not going to tolerate it indefinitely..and watching a movie doesn't fit a lot of people definition of "beneficial".
Many industries have also failed miserably at providing a "moral guidance" because what they have grown into the last 50 years are compulsively driven consumer..they were tought they'll obtain anything by following "the plan" imposed by high brass and quite obviously they're going to rebel is they don't get what was promised to them.
They also noticed few are benefitting immensely from the work of many....that worked when the many were satisfied and felt secure (with social security, realistic minimum wages etc)....don't know how long it will last without economic security.
By using this logic the cocaine industry is among the most efficient in the world
1. very little incredibly underpaid workforce (preparing the coca plant) 2. extreme flexibility and possibility to kill rioting workforce and/or easily replace them 3. only few expensive chemist employees whose cost per kilogram of product is insignificant 4. a demand that is literally dependant on the supply, so supply can make any price for almost an y quantity (it is often noted that in such condition the demand is perfectly elastic, but more often the problems related to the demand are forgotten) 5. the return per employed head is most probably enormous
Indeed from an financial and economical point of view it's a dream business..that's why government declare war on such businesses but NEVER really win the war..that would mean killing a profiteable industry that certainly pays a lot to the corrupt portions of governments.
So you see, efficiency is really a relative concept..because such an industry is certainly efficient for whoever benefits from it, but it's a complete disaster for those who sustain its weight and suffer its externalities.
No they want exactly that people, they're the ones who are less flexible and easier to legally blackmail : having a kid to raise and a family is prohibitively expensive if one wants to give them a decent lifestyle..and more importantly a decent security for the future ; but as natality rates suggest families are shrinking in absolute numbers and distribution suggests most numerous families are among the relatively already wealthy, there's little choice but exploiting young singles who are culturally and financially more flexible and can invest more of their OWN time into studying and updating their knowledgebase (so shifting some costs on them)
Therefore IBM et al may experience in the future more difficulty in finding workforce that is exploitable at an average rate and with a consistency that they deem in-line with their profit expectations ; additionally they'll experience difficulties in finding educated workforce, as privatization of schools increase the average compensation expectations of the graduate (but not the quality of instruction) and public school decline decreases the cheaply produced and (once upon a time) good workforce.
Companies increasingly have their own CEOs to blame for not passing benefits and revenues to the maintenance of the social system they exploited to obtain unsustainable levels of profit (remember no company has a top limit of acceptable profit) Additionally the culture of profit at the expense of everybody else (expecially public expense) is begging to show its true nature of self-destructing exploitation
In other words there's too many people that obtained control on too many resources by simply pillaging them : for instance, some company obtained workforce flexibilty by inducing workforce to renounce their lifestyle in favor of extremized flexibility. Some other shifted financial risks on the retirement fund of their employees or by rewarding in stocks whose value is influenced by irrational fears and wild speculations.
I have an hard time finding how society benefitted from such a corporate culture and if the net results are positive.
Why the urgency ? In practice if you can call 911 that doesn't mean it will always save your life, as this link shows.
I wonder..why the urgency and the short term (by industrial standards) to some phone companies, but I guess much less urgency to fix the emergency services that should _come_ after calling ?
Could it be that if you have some lobbist among the lawmakers they'll become more sensible ? Could it be that some phone companies are highly annoyed by VOIP ?.....guess one needs a lobbist for ambulances, but who's going to lobby for every Joe and Jane out there ?
It's an irony there's much attention on the 911 phone number but little attention to what 911 is all about..all of that after 9/11. But hey, missile defense and all that yadda yadda yadda.
Fair enough, but one can use the question "why didn't the Pres veto this and that" to point out both the Pres deficieny in lack of action and whatever alleged evil the Congress cooked.
If you want to hear other people opinion expect to hear something that you may not like.
Nobody is forcing anybody to start a Blog..nobody is forcing anybody to listen, go live alone in denial in a cave or something so you'll never hear complains. Say hello to Batman and other condescending imaginary friends while in the cave.
No RIAA didn't steal anything, watch your language. RIAA and amici suggest that copyright violation is the same as stealing goods, but it quite simply is not because the "good" isn't substracted from anyone physical avaiability. In fact if I copy one person book/dvd/good on which copyright can apply even without the owner permission I'm NOT taking the good away from the owner avaiability, I'm only making a copy of it. Therefore the amount of goods possessed isn't reduced by my copying, what is reduced or annihilated according to RIAA is the profit their amici claim they should obtain on _each copy_ of the good.
As far as I know the logic behind copyright is that it should work as an incentive (under the form of an exclusive right to copy) to reproduce more copies of copyrightable goods thus helping general public access the good and as incentive to produce more copyrightable goods, the incentive being given under the form of a _temporary monopoly_ over the economic exploitation of the work.
With the decreasing cost of communication , the ability to copy the entire content of entire libraries in seconds and the possibility to reduce stock of unsold books/dvd/etc to ZERO by delivering the good by internet we entered a second phase of Gutenberg Revolution in which copying instruments are so cheap and powerful anybody can have access to anything.... at a unitary cost -really- very very close to zero.
YET what we see is demonization of copying and sharing of virtual goods which are easily copied by their own nature and conveniently designed to be attractive to buyers.
Producers expect buyers to remain ignorant and not to understand that the revenue on each copy of the good is enormous when compared to the copying cost ; many producers would like buyers to believe the revenues are mostly enjoyed by artists/technicians/actual producers of the good while they usually see only fractions of the revenue ; some other would like buyers to believe unlikely incredible investments in some copyrighted good were made... therefore they should enjoy monopoly on the good even after the death of the real author(s) ; other still use the argument that copyright "lives" a number of families..quickly and conveniently forgetting copyright doesn't cause anything..it's only an instrument designed to protect creativity that is now exploited to protect powerful private interests not interested in creativity but in bottom line blind and abstract monetary profits.
In other words many copyright -exploiters- (unlike some producer) would like you to believe anarchy would reign supreme without enforcement of copyright..nothing copyrightable would be produced anymore without copyright...quickly and conveniently forgetting the trade-off for their privilege is that of making the copyright good _ factually accessible and avaiable_ to the greatest number possible of citizen...which is made by reducing the price (which beats 99% of piracy except the extremists believing anything should be always constantly free)
Of course if those who live off exploiting copyright wish to continue to do so..they're free to do that without welfare and protection from State.
1. Sex offenders are very badly perceived (and sometimes rightly so) 2. Action on sex offender is relatively easy, try charging some guy with an army of lawyers and media support ! (see O.J , Michael Jackson et al) 3. Persecution of sex offenders make official look like they're "doing something" and protecting citizens 4. Attention focused on sex crime is an excellent distractor from even worse crimes, white collar crime ruining people lifes and savings generating hundred thousand of poor, destitute and psycologically broken people...more of them turning to violence.
Don't be held slave by a very tiny minority that wants state to persecute penile showing as if it was murder ! WAKE UP !
There are already similar laws in Canada and Italy (and from previous messages it seems also in Denmark).
It's far worse then a tax (which in theory should finance public services which is possibly very good) in some implementations it's a tax used to distribute private ASSUMED loss of profit over ALL of the population buying either cd-r or dvd-r or basically any media that can be written by consumer.
Therefore even the innocent consumer who uses the media for lawful purpose is hit by this kind of corporate tax, the guilty trip of people thinking most of media is used for piracy notwithstanding..there are plenty of legitimate uses that are struck by that.
But the absurd assumption is made that you're guilty by association therefore you should be subject to the levy, whose proceedings one way or another will reach private pockets who anyway can't possibily offer but -extimates- of loss based on hot thin air and doctored figures.
So two absurdity in one package 1. making you guilty by use of media 2. using government levy authority to enrich private interest
If this isn't corporate welfare it's certainly strikingly similar.
The White House admits as much: "We wanted people who would represent the Administration positively, and--call us nutty--it seemed like those who wanted to kick this Administration out of town last November would have some difficulty doing that," says White House spokesman Trent Duffy
So in a technical conference you want people concerned with giving current administration "a good look" (marketers, publicists) instead of geeky technicians who have deep social problems, but are absolute masters of their trades ?
And you admit to that candidly ? Well if so I'd like a fiery redhead girl at my office tomorrow, thank you. A stenographer of course, what did you think ?!! I don't do certain things I was born again in xmas or whatever I forgot the memo....
Anyway, I know it's schadenfraude but corporate getting some "shove it" from people they supported is par for the course they choosed to play on, instead of following the course of actually benefitting people who, in exchange, work better and buy more.
Oh the simplicity and freshness of your vision ! But no,the producer kind of persons don't think like that..they think like this
*Some people with lotta money* and the producers of Star Trek: Enterprise are very flattered and impressed by the fans' passionate outpouring of attention for the show and their efforts to raise funds to continue the show's production...
but please
1. raise a mortage on everything you own and send us the money 2. then sell the mortaged stuff to some idiot and send us the money 3. then arrange an insurance scam, have an accident and send us money 4. before the actual accident, try to syphon every dime you can from friends pretending you have a cancer and send us the money 5. in your living will, make us beneficiaries of the sale of your organs and send us the money 6. you can also first sell the services of your body to a necrophiliac friend of yours and send us the money 7. remeber that your ashes can go in cat food, so sell the remaing ashes and send us the money 8. don't forget to write a book on how you sold your life to studios because we have our hands so much on you your life sux and send us the money (or the rights)
THEN fuck off !
P.s. Studios are nerd-friendly. Hell, any company is friendly as long as you give em money.
Oh that's interesting, so I guess that the following message
"Love thy neighbour"
is valid only because there's Christ Jesus name after it ? Come on, you know you're lying to yourself.
Unless you're willing to put your name and reputation on the line, why should anyone take your speech seriously?
Because if you use name and reputation as a meter to evaluate something you'll find a surprise: reputation is often easy to be faked (see Ebay) not mentioning name..in days of identity stealing, names mean little.
Stand up and post proudly and make a big noise
No, try saying something that makes sense. Noise is easy to produce, YOU BUMBLING IDIOT ! I just did.
If you want to be treated like a human being with something important to say, then post without fear
What a pile of manure ! So you treat human beings like an human being when you find one who is fearless ? HELLO, human beings are full of fears and that's perfectly natural..there's nothing wrong about that. Learning how to cope with fears is far more productive then posting on a blog "without fear" just to prove a bunch of bumbling idiots that you're not scared : because if you do that you actually prove you're SCARED of looking scared to a bunch of morons.
Slashdot Mirror
Please tell me why we care about the alleged postal temperament of the adult being who :
1. tried to motivate a bunch of geek screaming "developers, developers, developers" on top of his lungs as if they were a bunch of rock fans and obtained a very tepid response, but an instant internet phun-of-the-month success, in the league of Asshat and Wassaaaap
2. who was so embarrasingly sweating while screaming and running from each side on the scene he looked more like my fat grandpa playing tennis then some company big brass.
3. that aside from this nice show of being able to ridicule himself for the better good of the company and his own one, has the same mentality of each and other private guy : you work, I cash.
Tell me again, aside from understanding what he's trying to take away from any "associate" next..why should I care ?
Let' say the "hacker" reveals some notion. The "cattle" listen to what they hear and react as they please, regardless of the accuracy of the notion. If they like it, they'll praise the scientist..just to blame him/her two minutes later for something else they don't like.
...either a scientific authority or a political or a religious one..always some benevolent AUTHORITY.
It seems to me you still belong to the cattle you so much dislike and in particular to the malevolent subset of them because
1. you completely disregard the fact even peer-reviewed notions can be found, after intellectually honest peer-review, false. In other words it seems that you believe peer-review is always better then no peer-review, as if peer-review was something ameliorative by itself..while it can be done dishonestly and erroneously as much as everything else can.
2. you blame the hackers for revealing information still not reviewed AS IF that single action was the cause of confusion in the cattle..but that's flatly false because
3. cattle more often the not can't tell peer-reviewed material from articles of faith. They believe and hope that there are authorities that will always tell them "the truth"
The best way to say "thank you" to intellectually honest scientist is to become one, just saying "thanks" doesn't help a bit.
Additionally it seems to me you're just reacting in a way most people was conditioned to..just blame the bad guy..and we'll tell you who the bad guy is, you needn't understand by yourself if they're really bad or not..WE SAY IT IS therefore IT IS.
Dude, you still belong to the herd you hate so much and you still don't realize it.
Indeed knowing morse is practically useless in these days of extremely easy communications and the practice needed to become moderately proficient seems enermous.
But it's only relative to the application and the individual.
Consider all one needs to use morse code is
1. a medium
2. a way to modulate the medium into discrete intervals
3. either a couple of hears (sound morse) or eyes (light source morse) and probably a couple of hands to modulate the signal and write down letters
That's enormously flexible. The assumption that only because we now have very convenient technology then we should drop far more resilient instruments like morse is dangerous...expecially when one considers morse is useful only if there's many people using and operating it (exactly like phones or internet).
Maybe I'm old fashioned but I like things I can do without relying on a lot of technology I can't possibily always own.
I agree that the secretary in your example should have checked twice because it's part of her/his job to make sure there are no typos..and it should come naturally to anybody writing anything of some relevance.
But would that remove the blame from you, the boss, for not triple checking ? You're supposed to be MORE vigilant and overwatching whatever your subordinates are doing..which means in theory you should be overlooking each and every one of their actions...while in practice the management is supposed to overlook the important and/or critical actions leaving some room to subordinates responsability.
Indeed putting the blame on the software for not showing a RED ALTER SCREEN OF DEATH would only be the final touch to the comedy of big management trying to shift blame like crazy...up to blaming the computers.
People just seem to believe this shit.
Other heads will roll, but before you chop the heads off of the people who allowed someone to do something massively stupid, you first fire the person who actually did something massively stupid.
Oh now I get it ! You first fire the person who did a criminal piratesque typo, for he/she is an heathen, the scum of the planet, the standard idiot, the swine, the nazifeminisitrepubloliberal, the ape....or a person that didn't check what he typed twice.
YEAH it was negligence and he/she deserves to be fired , so what ?
You can blame procedures and software and management all you want, but do you really think that someone authorized to make major transactions shouldn't be really, really careful about it while doing it?
He/She must be careful, BUT
1. we have evidence that no matter how careful, error is possible..even error whose effect was extreme as this one (but some thousand little error can sum up to a big error as well..that's why double and triple checking and redundancy may seem expensive on the short term, but may save lots on the medium long term..depending on the kind of transaction of course)
2. as we're told it was a single error, possibly made by one single person (as it seems according to the narration) ONE SINGLE person MUST NOT have the possibility to do such a single catastrophic error ; by analogy it was (and I hope it still is) not possible for the single nuclear missile base commander to launch any missle..apparently we're told it was physically impossible for single human to launch the missle out of distraction..and measures were taken to restrict madman from launching a missle as well.
3. so you're correct when you say the person is to be blamed for making an error, but you're implicity trying to apologize that fact that it was incredibily irresponsible for the whole management (read, the whole fuc*ing company and expecially if not exclusively the very much paid TOP levels) to let this happen...blaming the single person must not be a convenient scapegoat way to excuse carelessness and evident negligence in management.
In other words, it's a bad idea to let the bucket stop at a single person when it's evident the mistake was ALLOWED to happen as it was very much predictable for the simple reasons _transactions_ are the instrument of financial companies...by analogy it's like having a taxi drivers not check in the side mirror when surpassing or entering the lane...it's actually "looking forward having troubles"...it's bad for sunday or everyday drivers..it's absurd and untolerable for professional drivers.
You're absolutely correct.
Additionally, it's far more relevant then a frequent ordinary and predictable (therefore preventable) clerical error
1. it moved (relatively for billion of people pockets) an enormous amount of money
2. it seriously financially harmed an undisclosed amount of Fubon investors
3. it provoked a damage control reaction in the public relations department (trying to minimize the fact that they lost an hell of a lot of profits..but they still do better then other similar companies. Who the f*ck cares !
4. it gives an hint that moving hundred millions on a stock market may NOT provoke sensible effect on the price on the involved stock or on the stock market as a whole...reinforcing my complete lack of trust in the very concept and many implementation of stock market
5. the cost of it will probably be unloaded on many ordinary Joes one way or another
Firing the employee is absolutely inconsequential and quite irrelevant : it's just a form of vindication against the employee for disclosing that the company oweners and high responsibles don't even know how to operate their own business let alone other people businesses.
A: Tell em to quit college so they'll not get the degree..but be good enough to be used in college jobs without the college levels pay, because they don't have the degree that commands higher pay. More profit for us !
B: but they'll have an incomplete education..would you disinvest just before you're about to profit ?
A: do you ever see me caring about brains I ruin to obtain profit ? Besides, they all are do nothing people..even the engineers and the scientist always theorizing never producing ! I'd like to see them managing mah bizness.
B: but almost anything electro-opto-chemical-mechanical has reached today levels by the enormous, grossly unpaid and tremendously tedious work of thousand of scientist and engineers ! Production is just the most appreciated consequence of their initial work.
A: Really ? Just pretend it's not.. people doesn't know and can't tell. Or pretend they do and enphasize only the fact they don't produce..but that WE make the production possible not them.
B: but that means repressing the same people that make some many good stuff possible ?
A: BOTTOM LINE, you wanna get paid ? Go repress your wage out of somebody else and on the way remember my cut or else...
Hey it's ok to look after Google, but it's not The Padrino ! Mamma mia !
Anyway don't EVER look for a job at Google because WE KNOW about you, kapisch ?
Batman: ahahahah...yeah and they kept on discussing about noise cancellation technology schmechnology !
Robin: Naaahh ahahahh com'on that's unreal!
Batman: No no, it is for real ! They were all excited about this sound stuff they forgot why they accepted to work in cubicles to being with !
Robin : ahahaha losers , they think it's for company flexibility profiteabily blah blah blahability !
Batman: exactly ! And the more they're worried about escaping the goddamed cubicle and get a decent office the more they forget about getting a decently paid job, it's a win win situation for employer !
Robin: but the next time they may whine and ask for that sound technology stuff
Batman: never worry my young friend, by that time there'll be a restructuration layoff and they'll be worried about their job long enough for the cycle to start again !
Robin: shivers me timbers, that's evil !
Batman: watch your language young boy !
Let's read the Sheriff testimony shall we ? Here the link to the PDF
..I guess 20 years of War on Drugs have amply shown
..you would have seen criminal policing of terrorist activities.
.....Oh well, so as long as I'm not affected who cares about neighbours *waves little national flag*
I'll take some quotes that I find interesting, you're advise to read all the testimony for better comprehension
Victims of these organized criminal groups include the tobacco industry, luxury goods manufacturers, clothing companies, and the music and motion picture industries.
Indeed all those industry have something in common : a big difference between final sale price and production cost...meaning they have high profits for each unit they sell. Not surprisingly criminals can still produce something and sell the counterfeit good at a price
that is lower then the original good price..that's possible only if the real production cost is significantly lower then expected sale
price. Of course criminals can also use second quality raw materials for their production, but that's true of industries as well (that's why legitimate industries could use minimal open-2-review standards..but that's another problem)...most of the times consumers don't notice any significant difference, either because the difference is not significant to them or because it's factually minimal
Information in open sources indicates that across the globe anything that has a decent profit margin is being counterfeited.
And not surprisingly so..but I'd replace decent with "high"...decency is a rather vaporous measure.
During interviews, these suspects have admitted that IPR crime is attractive because of the high profit and minimal jail sentences. In the parlance of one suspect, "It's better than the dope business, no ones going to prison for DVDs."
So one would think "let's rise the bar, punish the crime and the crime will stop"
that this is not the case..drugs are still sold....while some argue that the total amount of drugs sold must have declined (because
of the seizures) they usually forget seizures make the business only marginally more expensive...and drugs are still sold.
There are mounting indicators of the involvement of terrorist groups and their supporters.
Criminal countefeit rings are those who benefit the most and they certainly don't want political/religious activists and extremists (therefore likely terrorists) among their ranks, because they're big noisy troublemakers attracting an hell of a lot of police AND government attention. One could argue that terrorism distract police from other duties, but assuming terrorist are profiting from the same rings of "ordinary" criminals
There must be the understanding that this crime affects all citizens through fraud, the diversion of tax revenue, and the empowerment of the criminal element.
I completely agree : let me remember Enron Corporation and other extremely dangerous criminal corporation who operate inside legitimate
markets..I wonder how many are hidden behind a curtain of weak or bought laws, complacent officials et al.
The Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department has, like most local agencies, suffered cutbacks in personnel over the past several years due to severe budget curtailments.
It did ? Amazing I would have tought boatloads of money were disbursed to police/firefighters after 9/11...mmhh one wonders were all the
money really went. Maybe at Homeland Security ? Maybe in Iraq ?
You turn the whole stuff into a problem of violated individual will ; well so what if my will is that of going around a public area naked because I take offence in being seen clothed ? It is the same as your logic ..you don't want others to be seen naked, I don't want other to see me clothed because I find it to be disrispectful, yet I guess you would be the first to have me arrested for "indecent exposure"
Far be it from me to belittle research on forensic science, since I have written about the importance of questioning such conventional wisdom as the reliability of fingerprint evidence and the credibility of confessions.
..the practice of selecting a part of statement and omitting other parts that would clarify the previous statement. Some people react to statements that challenge their own knowledge by considering them laughable and belittling them so that they appear less fearsome to them, some WSJ journalist knows that and throws his integrity outta the window (assuming he had one to begin with) hoping to please his masters and amuse his readers.
:-) they're too busy stacking piles of "hard earned" money.
Whoot no sweat ! You work for a bunch of people who would do anything to prove freedom to monopolize profits is being endangered by some science (sshh don't tell people about fingerprint, we'll steal their goods)..hell those people would even support creationist theory or satanism if that gave them some way to have more monetary
profits or to make people work for less.
But surely we can do better than a February study in the journal Psychonomic Bulletin & Review that concluded that it's easier to identify someone close to you than someone more than a football-field-length away. At 450 feet, the scientist concludes, "the human visual system starts to lose small details."
That's know as "selective quoting"
One wonders in what are WSJ owners benefitting from that article...oh wait, the owners don't even read their own journal maybe
Uh ok so you wanna save your precious family from The Terrorist Scare yet hey if boobies are "shown" to the hell with their security.
Makes sense to idiots, I guess.
Let's make the hypothesis piracy is wrong.
...for the shake of a moral suasion argument ?
....don't know how long it will last without economic security.
Quite obviously the consumers that no longer buy tickets/licences think that they're getting a lot for free (their satisfaction is therefore maximized)but it's everyday experience that anything very close to free doesn't last forever...hey..rarely is anything given for nothing. Therefore the great majority of consumers is going to think it can't last forever, but they assume there are only few people really pirating because they see shelves still stocked with new movies, people still going to cinemas and still renting movies.
Additionally , the most careful few among the consumers can notice that the balance sheets of major movie studio is still in the positive numbers. Why don't they just stop makig movies if they're suffering losses ? Could it be that media industry is pricing itself out of the market ? Interesting..as long as demand-offer theory is good for them, the theory is good ; otherwise is false.
Many consumer also notice that major starts are still making boatloads of money or so they hear on TV and Radio ; obviously, the majority of people with really low income compare their income to stars and notice stars earn waaay too much.
Ok they do make some wrong assumption, like that stars really do nothing..but certainly they do not fatigue nearly as much as the average employee of many industries and they're not exposed to many financial risks once they're into the business.
-----
SO why in the hell should consumer renounce the opportunity to have a little entertainment with no reuse value for almost free
One argument is that piracy is wrong because it damages the workers of industry ; yet they consumer notice that the argument is made only to blame piracy, as the industry doesn't really seem to care when they choose to lay off people ( that extends to almost any industry, not only media)
Another is that piracy in the form of cheap chinese imitation that work and cost half is damaging to everybody : again, most consumers can't take the blame, as they didn't outsource production to China or India ! Obviously many industry blame unions, but unions are powerless in many countries.
It's old game of passing the bucket a..and the real bucket usually lands near or on the masses..and it hurts. Now either the bucket passing is beneficial to the masses or they're not going to tolerate it indefinitely..and watching a movie doesn't fit a lot of people definition of "beneficial".
Many industries have also failed miserably at providing a "moral guidance" because what they have grown into the last 50 years are compulsively driven consumer..they were tought they'll obtain anything by following "the plan" imposed by high brass and quite obviously they're going to rebel is they don't get what was promised to them.
They also noticed few are benefitting immensely from the work of many....that worked when the many were satisfied and felt secure (with social security, realistic minimum wages etc)
By using this logic the cocaine industry is among the most efficient in the world
1. very little incredibly underpaid workforce (preparing the coca plant)
2. extreme flexibility and possibility to kill rioting workforce and/or easily replace them
3. only few expensive chemist employees whose cost per kilogram of product is insignificant
4. a demand that is literally dependant on the supply, so supply can make any price for almost an y quantity (it is often noted that in such condition the demand is perfectly elastic, but more often the problems related to the demand are forgotten)
5. the return per employed head is most probably enormous
Indeed from an financial and economical point of view it's a dream business..that's why government declare war on such businesses but NEVER really win the war..that would mean killing a profiteable industry that certainly pays a lot to the corrupt portions of governments.
So you see, efficiency is really a relative concept..because such an industry is certainly efficient for whoever benefits from it, but it's a complete disaster for those who sustain its weight and suffer its externalities.
No they want exactly that people, they're the ones who are less flexible and easier to legally blackmail : having a kid to raise and a family is prohibitively expensive if one wants to give them a decent lifestyle ..and more importantly a decent security for the future ; but as natality rates suggest families are shrinking in absolute numbers and distribution suggests most numerous families are among the relatively already wealthy, there's little choice but exploiting young singles who are culturally and financially more flexible and can invest more of their OWN time into studying and updating their knowledgebase (so shifting some costs on them)
Therefore IBM et al may experience in the future more difficulty in finding workforce that is exploitable at an average rate and with a consistency that they deem in-line with their profit expectations ; additionally they'll experience difficulties in finding educated workforce, as privatization of schools increase the average compensation expectations of the graduate (but not the quality of instruction) and public school decline decreases the cheaply produced and (once upon a time) good workforce.
Companies increasingly have their own CEOs to blame for not passing benefits and revenues to the maintenance of the social system they exploited to obtain unsustainable levels of profit (remember no company has a top limit of acceptable profit) Additionally the culture of profit at the expense of everybody else (expecially public expense) is begging to show its true nature of self-destructing exploitation
In other words there's too many people that obtained control on too many resources by simply pillaging them : for instance, some company obtained workforce flexibilty by inducing workforce to renounce their lifestyle in favor of extremized flexibility. Some other shifted financial risks on the retirement fund of their employees or by rewarding in stocks whose value is influenced by irrational fears and wild speculations.
I have an hard time finding how society benefitted from such a corporate culture and if the net results are positive.
Why the urgency ? In practice if you can call 911 that doesn't mean it will always save your life, as this link shows.
I wonder..why the urgency and the short term (by industrial standards) to some phone companies, but I guess much less urgency to fix the emergency services that should _come_ after calling ?
Could it be that if you have some lobbist among the lawmakers they'll become more sensible ? Could it be that some phone companies are highly annoyed by VOIP ?.....guess one needs a lobbist for ambulances, but who's going to lobby for every Joe and Jane out there ?
It's an irony there's much attention on the 911 phone number but little attention to what 911 is all about..all of that after 9/11. But hey, missile defense and all that yadda yadda yadda.
Fair enough, but one can use the question "why didn't the Pres veto this and that" to point out both the Pres deficieny in lack of action and whatever alleged evil the Congress cooked.
There's no need to leave one alone for the other.
If you want to hear other people opinion expect to hear something that you may not like.
..nobody is forcing anybody to listen, go live alone in denial in a cave or something so you'll never hear complains. Say hello to Batman and other condescending imaginary friends while in the cave.
Nobody is forcing anybody to start a Blog
No RIAA didn't steal anything, watch your language. RIAA and amici suggest that copyright violation is the same as stealing goods, but it quite simply is not because the "good" isn't substracted from anyone physical avaiability. In fact if I copy one person book/dvd/good on which copyright can apply even without the owner permission I'm NOT taking the good away from the owner avaiability, I'm only making a copy of it. Therefore the amount of goods possessed isn't reduced by my copying, what is reduced or annihilated according to RIAA is the profit their amici claim they should obtain on _each copy_ of the good.
... therefore they should enjoy monopoly on the good even after the death of the real author(s) ; other still use the argument that copyright "lives" a number of families..quickly and conveniently forgetting copyright doesn't cause anything..it's only an instrument designed to protect creativity that is now exploited to protect powerful private interests not interested in creativity but in bottom line blind and abstract monetary profits.
...quickly and conveniently forgetting the trade-off for their privilege is that of making the copyright good _ factually accessible and avaiable_ to the greatest number possible of citizen...which is made by reducing the price (which beats 99% of piracy except the extremists believing anything should be always constantly free)
As far as I know the logic behind copyright is that it should work as an incentive (under the form of an exclusive right to copy) to reproduce more copies of copyrightable goods thus helping general public access the good and as incentive to produce more copyrightable goods, the incentive being given under the form of a _temporary monopoly_ over the economic exploitation of the work.
With the decreasing cost of communication , the ability to copy the entire content of entire libraries in seconds and the possibility to reduce stock of unsold books/dvd/etc to ZERO by delivering the good by internet we entered a second phase of Gutenberg Revolution in which copying instruments are so cheap and powerful anybody can have access to anything.... at a unitary cost -really- very very close to zero.
YET what we see is demonization of copying and sharing of virtual goods which are easily copied by their own nature and conveniently designed to be attractive to buyers.
Producers expect buyers to remain ignorant and not to understand that the revenue on each copy of the good is enormous when compared to the copying cost ; many producers would like buyers to believe the revenues are mostly enjoyed by artists/technicians/actual producers of the good while they usually see only fractions of the revenue ; some other would like buyers to believe unlikely incredible investments in some copyrighted good were made
In other words many copyright -exploiters- (unlike some producer) would like you to believe anarchy would reign supreme without enforcement of copyright..nothing copyrightable would be produced anymore without copyright
Of course if those who live off exploiting copyright wish to continue to do so..they're free to do that without welfare and protection from State.
Get a clue ! That's par for course.
1. Sex offenders are very badly perceived (and sometimes rightly so)
2. Action on sex offender is relatively easy, try charging some guy with an army of lawyers and media support ! (see O.J , Michael Jackson et al)
3. Persecution of sex offenders make official look like they're "doing something" and protecting citizens
4. Attention focused on sex crime is an excellent distractor from even worse crimes, white collar crime ruining people lifes and savings generating hundred thousand of poor, destitute and psycologically broken people...more of them turning to violence.
Don't be held slave by a very tiny minority that wants state to persecute penile showing as if it was murder ! WAKE UP !
There are already similar laws in Canada and Italy (and from previous messages it seems also in Denmark).
It's far worse then a tax (which in theory should finance public services which is possibly very good) in some implementations it's a tax used to distribute private ASSUMED loss of profit over ALL of the population buying either cd-r or dvd-r or basically any media that can be written by consumer.
Therefore even the innocent consumer who uses the media for lawful purpose is hit by this kind of corporate tax, the guilty trip of people thinking most of media is used for piracy notwithstanding..there are plenty of legitimate uses that are struck by that.
But the absurd assumption is made that you're guilty by association therefore you should be subject to the levy, whose proceedings one way or another will reach private pockets who anyway can't possibily offer but -extimates- of loss based on hot thin air and doctored figures.
So two absurdity in one package
1. making you guilty by use of media
2. using government levy authority to enrich private interest
If this isn't corporate welfare it's certainly strikingly similar.
The White House admits as much: "We wanted people who would represent the Administration positively, and--call us nutty--it seemed like those who wanted to kick this Administration out of town last November would have some difficulty doing that," says White House spokesman Trent Duffy
So in a technical conference you want people concerned with giving current administration "a good look" (marketers, publicists) instead of geeky technicians who have deep social problems, but are absolute masters of their trades ?
And you admit to that candidly ? Well if so I'd like a fiery redhead girl at my office tomorrow, thank you. A stenographer of course, what did you think ?!! I don't do certain things I was born again in xmas or whatever I forgot the memo....
Anyway, I know it's schadenfraude but corporate getting some "shove it" from people they supported is par for the course they choosed to play on, instead of following the course of actually benefitting people who, in exchange, work better and buy more.
Oh the simplicity and freshness of your vision ! But no,the producer kind of persons don't think like that..they think like this
*Some people with lotta money* and the producers of Star Trek: Enterprise are very flattered and impressed by the fans' passionate outpouring of attention for the show and their efforts to raise funds to continue the show's production...
but please
1. raise a mortage on everything you own and send us the money
2. then sell the mortaged stuff to some idiot and send us the money
3. then arrange an insurance scam, have an accident and send us money
4. before the actual accident, try to syphon every dime you can from friends pretending you have a cancer and send us the money
5. in your living will, make us beneficiaries of the sale of your organs and send us the money
6. you can also first sell the services of your body to a necrophiliac friend of yours and send us the money
7. remeber that your ashes can go in cat food, so sell the remaing ashes and send us the money
8. don't forget to write a book on how you sold your life to studios because we have our hands so much on you your life sux and send us the money (or the rights)
THEN fuck off !
P.s. Studios are nerd-friendly. Hell, any company is friendly as long as you give em money.
Oh that's interesting, so I guess that the following message
"Love thy neighbour"
is valid only because there's Christ Jesus name after it ? Come on, you know you're lying to yourself.
Unless you're willing to put your name and reputation on the line, why should anyone take your speech seriously?
Because if you use name and reputation as a meter to evaluate something you'll find a surprise: reputation is often easy to be faked (see Ebay) not mentioning name..in days of identity stealing, names mean little.
Stand up and post proudly and make a big noise
No, try saying something that makes sense. Noise is easy to produce, YOU BUMBLING IDIOT ! I just did.
If you want to be treated like a human being with something important to say, then post without fear
What a pile of manure ! So you treat human beings like an human being when you find one who is fearless ? HELLO, human beings are full of fears and that's perfectly natural..there's nothing wrong about that. Learning how to cope with fears is far more productive then posting on a blog "without fear" just to prove a bunch of bumbling idiots that you're not scared : because if you do that you actually prove you're SCARED of looking scared to a bunch of morons.