Can anyone really get away with telling their boss that? I've had what I consider fairly reasonable bosses, and the best response I'd get from saying "I ain't doing it until it's in the specification documents" is "yes, we'll send a note to the person who controls the specs, but you're making the change now." Much more often I'd get "the client needs this changed yesterday, do it now, and try to remember to tell the documentation guy when you're done." Then again, I've never worked any place particularly formal about development practices. Maybe others really do work that way, but I'd have to see it once to believe it.
As long as someone goes back and cleans up the manual things change during the coding process. Cant' tell you how many times I've seen manuals with screenshots, but the documentation and shots are from two versions ago, before major navigation items were rearranged or fields were renamed. On the mild end you might get something where the manual specifies "enter your email address" and the software has a blank for "user name" but on the extreme end you'll have a manual that says "check the box for value X" but on your version that box doesn't even exist at all.
For programming types, there's another (though not necessarily better) option. Development is often inexpensive and can be done on home equipment you'd have anyway. You don't have to quit the day job, as long as you're willing to work evenings and weekends, and stretch your dream out over years instead of months. Financially it's a lot more solid, but it's probably more exhausting and can definitely get in the way of a lot of other stuff you'd normally do with your off time.
Do anything with just one click! Never mind the hours to purchase, install, configure, and learn how to use the software. Forget logging in, doing actual work. Never mind all that other stuff. It's "just" that last click that counts.
Yep. I run an online computer game and have had a few dreamers track me down with unsolicited ideas for computer games, where they wanted a programmer. I'm not looking for other work, but I've gleaned enough from a few conversations to note that most game ideas can be summed up in less than a paragraph. "We'll have mechs fighting each other. You can buy upgrades and stuff." No actual gameplay, no mechanics, no item names, no details on any level. But they want me to sign an NDA just to talk about it (they say that loud and clear in the initial unsolicited email) just to make sure I don't steal their paragraph. I've never taken it further to see what they wanted to pay, so I can't comment on that.
One of the other risks of self-teaching is not always knowing what you don't know. I've managed to teach myself enough PHP and MySQL to get a computer game up and running successfully, but half an hour talking with a more properly trained expert in the field pointed me towards several tools and techniques I'd never heard of. It's easy to stop at "good enough" because you simply don't know if you should be looking for something better.
On the other hand maybe the lesson of the story is if you're teaching yourself you need to make sure the regimen includes conversations with people who know more than you do and who can keep nudging you toward more things to learn.
This where the "you also pick your college" aspect comes in. I was required to take 120 credits to graduate. Maybe 46 of them were in my major (which, ideally, is stuff you *want* to take). Of the rest, I had a few loose constraints (mix up some humanities, social sciences and hard science) but all of the classes were of my choosing. No phys ed requirements, no freshman basic classes. Yeah, occasionally you have to put up with an intro course in a new subject before moving up to a tougher course with more meat, but that was the worst of it. My school also let me skip past Calc I based on my simply saying I knew it and wanted to go to Calc II--the burden was on me to pass the class.
I ran across a similar analysis somewhere (a book about a Buddhist monk, maybe?), and keep coming back to the idea. It seems like a fairly rational analysis, and it's moderately comforting in a weird way.
I have a last name that's a common woman's first name (I'm male) and my first name is a common last name. Telemarketers invariably tripped over the name and asked for "last first" or Mrs. "firstname" instead, emphasizing they didn't know me. I also had one telemarketer insist "I'm a concerned neighbor just down the street in, um..." and then completely mangled the pronunciation of the 5-letter name of my town. It made it abundantly clear he was lying.
All these problems were solved when I switched to a cell phone, which I guess is automatically off the telemarketer list, and dropped the land line.
Sorry to reply to myself, but I think I can condense that rambling a lot.
Basically, I think the usefulness of copyright is in protecting creators from other "creators" who would try to resell someone else's creation, in some form or another.
I don't think copyright should be used to "protect" creators from consumers, nor do I think it should be used as a weapon against consumers.
Missed this response due to the holiday, not sure if you'll catch it. First just wanted to point out that I'm really not in favor of the status quo, and would gladly accept greatly reduced limits on duration, greater acceptance of fair use, etc. But I do still think a limited term copyright would be a valuable thing to keep around. Mostly, I guess, because I think creators really should own their creations, at least for a little while, regardless of whether there's a benefit to society, or it does or doesn't encourage them to create in the first place.
I was going to admit to being an aspiring novelist, but realized I do already make some income from my writing, in the form of a web-based computer game. I think most of the money comes from people paying for gameplay rather than specifically the writing (though it's sort of a souped-up text-based adventure, and is writing heavy). I'd certainly feel pretty ticked (and cheated) if someone copied all the text, put some filler in to make it more like a novel, and sold it as their own work. There actually was one over-enthusiastic player who flat-out said to me one day, "I like your game so much I'm going copy everything but let the characters be villains instead of superheroes." I told the player I'd be pretty offended if they did that, and would again feel like they'd stolen from me if they copied the entire game except for that one facet.
Now ask me 20 years from now, assuming the game no longer exists, if some enthusiasts want to resurrect and host it (or a close mimicry of it) somewhere on the net, and that's not something I'm going to fuss about. (I'd probably be pretty honored.) Likewise I thing fanfiction is an awesome tribute, and applaud any player that feels like sharing some on the game forums. The line I'd draw isn't strictly financial, either. If someone wrote a book that only borrowed from the background city, or that used one character (but not everything), I don't think I'd complain, I'd take that as a complimentary reference.
But most of that was about other creators taking from my creations, and this may be a little bit off of the original topic, about people downloading copyrighted content. As a content creator I generally wouldn't get fussy about individual consumers enjoying the product without paying. I support the function of libraries, and it'd be silly to object to anything that works in an essentially analogous fashion. A torrent really isn't that much different.
At least that's the theory. Since my game is web-based, I've got exclusive control of all the code, and there isn't any way for players to really copy the game. (They can copy the text, but not the game engine.) On the other hand, the game is free to play with a donation model, and I go out of my way to make it nearly as enjoyable to non-donators as to donators (none of that "freeloaders get a tiny taste and donators get the whole kingdom" crap). I made that choice primarily for business reasons, but in a certain respect since nobody has to pay unless they want to I may already be working in fairly close alignment with the post-copyright world you envision. My business model allows those who do pay for the game to provide enough support to cover for any who can't or don't want to, and I'm fine with that. You won't see me treating a non-donating player any differently than a donator.
What I'd like to see is a "maybe" moderation so when I'm running out of time to use the rest of my mod points I can assign them to something (presumably helping me get more of them sooner) without actually committing to any particular viewpoints or facts.
Among other things, I realized one ability that we tend to take for granted. When out walking on a leash (usually one of those extending leashes), he was very good about always going between me and obstacles such as trees. In fact when heading on his own path, he would realize he was about to go on the wrong side of a tree or post, and backtrack to where he could go between, keeping the leash from wrapping around the object.
I'd say that was one smart dog. Of the dozens of dogs I've walked, not a one of them has been capable of doing what you describe. Walking dogs for me is mostly an exercise in untangling the silly mutts from things they wrap themselves around.
On the other hand I had a dog that was better than Houdini at escaping things, repeatedly outsmarting every human's best efforts to keep him in. Different dogs, different skills, I suppose.
Mine still eat lots of crickets and flies that get into the house. And possibly an occasional spider or other creepy-crawly.
They also keep my lap warm on cold days, which can be nice.
Michelangelo spent four years of his life paint the roof of the Cistene Chapel. And he did it without copyright to provide an incentive.
Yeah, but in that system he's essentially a hired laborer, like a carpenter, rather than someone running their own business based on the sale of their creation. Maybe you're saying that doesn't matter, but I think there's a pretty stark difference between the two situations. I might be very satisfied writing novels and having them published, but I don't think I'd be satisfied at all being paid a salary to entertain a millionaire's kids by telling them stories all day long, and with no rights to tell those same stories to anyone else.
I didn't say $400 speakers, I said setup. There is a very, VERY big difference.
For most of us, our "setup" is the two speakers plugged into our computer, so the setup = speakers in our minds. Needing more to the setup than just speakers is alien to me.
Seconded. I loved Kon-Tiki when I read it in high school, and I've just reread it recently and found it as much fun. I was astounded by the Easter Island adventures, too. My school taught me--decades after Heyerdahl had demonstrated their construction and published it in a book--that the statues were "a mystery" which still frustrates me to this day.
Because it's symmetrical. Who but the most evil cabal of engineers on earth would design such a connector to be a perfect rectangle? Without looking closely you have a 50/50 chance of getting the correct orientation.
And yet this is still a massive improvement over the old PS/2 connectors, which were perfect circles. With a rectangle you have one right and one wrong orientation. With a circle you get 359 wrong orientations for one right one. So we're definitely headed in the right direction!
You seem to presume that impolite comments are inherently useless.
Actually, I do grant there are times when being impolite is useful, or even necessary. And I have seen people be overly polite when it's not constructive. But that's almost entirely in person. On the internet? The number of times someone is unnecessarily a jackass when politeness would be more effective, compared to the number of times someone is overly polite when being forceful would be more effective, it's basically safe to say the rule is "flaming isn't a reasonable way of doing anything." You're going to be right so many million times more than you're going to be wrong, it's good practical advice.
What the OP did was suggest in an *impolite* manner that the author should do just what you describe.
Sure, but sometimes it's not what you say but how you say it. I'd be willing to bet anything that my words and the OP's words would elicit very different responses, which means they are not equivalent suggestions.
The impoliteness was, in a sense, a form to indicate strong conviction.
No, this is clearly some schmuck on the internet going around being a jackass because he doesn't have any personal negative effects from flaming other random people who he has no empathy for.
I accept that one might have occasions to be impolite as a means of conveying strong conviction, but this is not such a case. This is a guy swatting a fly with a sledgehammer because it's the internet and he doesn't care to have a properly measured response.
Funny, you'd think they'd take this opportunity as lame ducks to pass the legislation that's actually *good for the people* despite being unpopular with the powerful lobbies, because there wouldn't be many repercussions. Shame it doesn't appear to work that way.
Most of us exist in a world where there are literally hundreds of shades of interaction between flaming and coddling. You're saying "going 100% one way is better than going 100% the other way" which is a false dichotomy, among other things, and probably more subjective than objective. Why not just be polite, but firm, in suggesting that the author should be in pursuit of the facts and wary of cool-sounding but unfounded preconceptions?
Flaming someone isn't a reasonable way of doing anything.
I can't believe it took all the way to the bottom of the page to find one comment like yours, but you speak the truth. A sub-ocean, sustainable colony would serve as a sufficient "lifeboat" for just about any catastrophe, and be only a fraction of the cost. Plus probably provide nearly as good scientific returns as a mission to Mars.
I'm all for going to mars, but I think an ocean colony would be a great first start.
Do you think most of the people who bounce would do so based on what they can see in the thumbnail, or what they determine when they can actually read what's on the page? I'm sure there's some of both, but I think the thumbnail isn't going to solve the problem for anywhere near 50% to 70% of site visitors.
As for bandwidth, if they're pre-submitting extra data as bunches of thumbnail pages to save you a few clicks now an then, I'm not convinced it's a bandwidth saver. It might be, and may depend a lot on the user, but I'd need to see the evidence. As speculation it sounds like a wash or possibly a net loss.
I dunno. If most books were color, it might be remarkable that b/w screens are succeeding. But since the majority of the books I read are black and white to begin with, I consider it just kinda normal that the e-book reader is also grayscale.
Slashdot Mirror
Can anyone really get away with telling their boss that? I've had what I consider fairly reasonable bosses, and the best response I'd get from saying "I ain't doing it until it's in the specification documents" is "yes, we'll send a note to the person who controls the specs, but you're making the change now." Much more often I'd get "the client needs this changed yesterday, do it now, and try to remember to tell the documentation guy when you're done." Then again, I've never worked any place particularly formal about development practices. Maybe others really do work that way, but I'd have to see it once to believe it.
As long as someone goes back and cleans up the manual things change during the coding process. Cant' tell you how many times I've seen manuals with screenshots, but the documentation and shots are from two versions ago, before major navigation items were rearranged or fields were renamed. On the mild end you might get something where the manual specifies "enter your email address" and the software has a blank for "user name" but on the extreme end you'll have a manual that says "check the box for value X" but on your version that box doesn't even exist at all.
For programming types, there's another (though not necessarily better) option. Development is often inexpensive and can be done on home equipment you'd have anyway. You don't have to quit the day job, as long as you're willing to work evenings and weekends, and stretch your dream out over years instead of months. Financially it's a lot more solid, but it's probably more exhausting and can definitely get in the way of a lot of other stuff you'd normally do with your off time.
Do anything with just one click! Never mind the hours to purchase, install, configure, and learn how to use the software. Forget logging in, doing actual work. Never mind all that other stuff. It's "just" that last click that counts.
Yep. I run an online computer game and have had a few dreamers track me down with unsolicited ideas for computer games, where they wanted a programmer. I'm not looking for other work, but I've gleaned enough from a few conversations to note that most game ideas can be summed up in less than a paragraph. "We'll have mechs fighting each other. You can buy upgrades and stuff." No actual gameplay, no mechanics, no item names, no details on any level. But they want me to sign an NDA just to talk about it (they say that loud and clear in the initial unsolicited email) just to make sure I don't steal their paragraph. I've never taken it further to see what they wanted to pay, so I can't comment on that.
On the other hand maybe the lesson of the story is if you're teaching yourself you need to make sure the regimen includes conversations with people who know more than you do and who can keep nudging you toward more things to learn.
This where the "you also pick your college" aspect comes in. I was required to take 120 credits to graduate. Maybe 46 of them were in my major (which, ideally, is stuff you *want* to take). Of the rest, I had a few loose constraints (mix up some humanities, social sciences and hard science) but all of the classes were of my choosing. No phys ed requirements, no freshman basic classes. Yeah, occasionally you have to put up with an intro course in a new subject before moving up to a tougher course with more meat, but that was the worst of it. My school also let me skip past Calc I based on my simply saying I knew it and wanted to go to Calc II--the burden was on me to pass the class.
I ran across a similar analysis somewhere (a book about a Buddhist monk, maybe?), and keep coming back to the idea. It seems like a fairly rational analysis, and it's moderately comforting in a weird way.
All these problems were solved when I switched to a cell phone, which I guess is automatically off the telemarketer list, and dropped the land line.
Basically, I think the usefulness of copyright is in protecting creators from other "creators" who would try to resell someone else's creation, in some form or another.
I don't think copyright should be used to "protect" creators from consumers, nor do I think it should be used as a weapon against consumers.
I was going to admit to being an aspiring novelist, but realized I do already make some income from my writing, in the form of a web-based computer game. I think most of the money comes from people paying for gameplay rather than specifically the writing (though it's sort of a souped-up text-based adventure, and is writing heavy). I'd certainly feel pretty ticked (and cheated) if someone copied all the text, put some filler in to make it more like a novel, and sold it as their own work. There actually was one over-enthusiastic player who flat-out said to me one day, "I like your game so much I'm going copy everything but let the characters be villains instead of superheroes." I told the player I'd be pretty offended if they did that, and would again feel like they'd stolen from me if they copied the entire game except for that one facet.
Now ask me 20 years from now, assuming the game no longer exists, if some enthusiasts want to resurrect and host it (or a close mimicry of it) somewhere on the net, and that's not something I'm going to fuss about. (I'd probably be pretty honored.) Likewise I thing fanfiction is an awesome tribute, and applaud any player that feels like sharing some on the game forums. The line I'd draw isn't strictly financial, either. If someone wrote a book that only borrowed from the background city, or that used one character (but not everything), I don't think I'd complain, I'd take that as a complimentary reference.
But most of that was about other creators taking from my creations, and this may be a little bit off of the original topic, about people downloading copyrighted content. As a content creator I generally wouldn't get fussy about individual consumers enjoying the product without paying. I support the function of libraries, and it'd be silly to object to anything that works in an essentially analogous fashion. A torrent really isn't that much different.
At least that's the theory. Since my game is web-based, I've got exclusive control of all the code, and there isn't any way for players to really copy the game. (They can copy the text, but not the game engine.) On the other hand, the game is free to play with a donation model, and I go out of my way to make it nearly as enjoyable to non-donators as to donators (none of that "freeloaders get a tiny taste and donators get the whole kingdom" crap). I made that choice primarily for business reasons, but in a certain respect since nobody has to pay unless they want to I may already be working in fairly close alignment with the post-copyright world you envision. My business model allows those who do pay for the game to provide enough support to cover for any who can't or don't want to, and I'm fine with that. You won't see me treating a non-donating player any differently than a donator.
What I'd like to see is a "maybe" moderation so when I'm running out of time to use the rest of my mod points I can assign them to something (presumably helping me get more of them sooner) without actually committing to any particular viewpoints or facts.
Among other things, I realized one ability that we tend to take for granted. When out walking on a leash (usually one of those extending leashes), he was very good about always going between me and obstacles such as trees. In fact when heading on his own path, he would realize he was about to go on the wrong side of a tree or post, and backtrack to where he could go between, keeping the leash from wrapping around the object.
I'd say that was one smart dog. Of the dozens of dogs I've walked, not a one of them has been capable of doing what you describe. Walking dogs for me is mostly an exercise in untangling the silly mutts from things they wrap themselves around.
On the other hand I had a dog that was better than Houdini at escaping things, repeatedly outsmarting every human's best efforts to keep him in. Different dogs, different skills, I suppose.
Mine still eat lots of crickets and flies that get into the house. And possibly an occasional spider or other creepy-crawly. They also keep my lap warm on cold days, which can be nice.
Michelangelo spent four years of his life paint the roof of the Cistene Chapel. And he did it without copyright to provide an incentive.
Yeah, but in that system he's essentially a hired laborer, like a carpenter, rather than someone running their own business based on the sale of their creation. Maybe you're saying that doesn't matter, but I think there's a pretty stark difference between the two situations. I might be very satisfied writing novels and having them published, but I don't think I'd be satisfied at all being paid a salary to entertain a millionaire's kids by telling them stories all day long, and with no rights to tell those same stories to anyone else.
I didn't say $400 speakers, I said setup. There is a very, VERY big difference.
For most of us, our "setup" is the two speakers plugged into our computer, so the setup = speakers in our minds. Needing more to the setup than just speakers is alien to me.
Seconded. I loved Kon-Tiki when I read it in high school, and I've just reread it recently and found it as much fun. I was astounded by the Easter Island adventures, too. My school taught me--decades after Heyerdahl had demonstrated their construction and published it in a book--that the statues were "a mystery" which still frustrates me to this day.
Nice rebuttal. Also, yay, NaNoWriMo! Hope yours is going well.
Because it's symmetrical. Who but the most evil cabal of engineers on earth would design such a connector to be a perfect rectangle? Without looking closely you have a 50/50 chance of getting the correct orientation.
And yet this is still a massive improvement over the old PS/2 connectors, which were perfect circles. With a rectangle you have one right and one wrong orientation. With a circle you get 359 wrong orientations for one right one. So we're definitely headed in the right direction!
You seem to presume that impolite comments are inherently useless.
Actually, I do grant there are times when being impolite is useful, or even necessary. And I have seen people be overly polite when it's not constructive. But that's almost entirely in person. On the internet? The number of times someone is unnecessarily a jackass when politeness would be more effective, compared to the number of times someone is overly polite when being forceful would be more effective, it's basically safe to say the rule is "flaming isn't a reasonable way of doing anything." You're going to be right so many million times more than you're going to be wrong, it's good practical advice.
What the OP did was suggest in an *impolite* manner that the author should do just what you describe.
Sure, but sometimes it's not what you say but how you say it. I'd be willing to bet anything that my words and the OP's words would elicit very different responses, which means they are not equivalent suggestions.
The impoliteness was, in a sense, a form to indicate strong conviction.
No, this is clearly some schmuck on the internet going around being a jackass because he doesn't have any personal negative effects from flaming other random people who he has no empathy for.
I accept that one might have occasions to be impolite as a means of conveying strong conviction, but this is not such a case. This is a guy swatting a fly with a sledgehammer because it's the internet and he doesn't care to have a properly measured response.
Funny, you'd think they'd take this opportunity as lame ducks to pass the legislation that's actually *good for the people* despite being unpopular with the powerful lobbies, because there wouldn't be many repercussions. Shame it doesn't appear to work that way.
Flaming someone isn't a reasonable way of doing anything.
I'm all for going to mars, but I think an ocean colony would be a great first start.
As for bandwidth, if they're pre-submitting extra data as bunches of thumbnail pages to save you a few clicks now an then, I'm not convinced it's a bandwidth saver. It might be, and may depend a lot on the user, but I'd need to see the evidence. As speculation it sounds like a wash or possibly a net loss.
I dunno. If most books were color, it might be remarkable that b/w screens are succeeding. But since the majority of the books I read are black and white to begin with, I consider it just kinda normal that the e-book reader is also grayscale.