The point is not the apps themselves. The point is the process. If this is indicative (please, note the 'If' at the start of this sentence) of the process of developing apps for the Pre, then Palm is toast. They need the Pre to be a success. For that to happen, their app store needs to be a success. And for that to happen, developers have to develop (and market) apps. Making life difficult for developers will kill that right away. While you may not care for Palm (personally, a company is a company is a company), having a wide range of competitors in any given unregulated market tends (not always, but usually) to result in better products (or service), so we all have an interest in the success of Palm.
For 90% (heck, probably 99%) of computer users today, they could walk into any electronics store, buy the cheapest computer available, and come away with a computer that would meet all their needs. They don't need to go to a specialty store. They don't need a super fancy graphics card, or a multiterabyte hard drive. It's no different than buying a toaster or a washing machine.
Yeah, I know, WE all think that one OS is better than all the rest. Or that this processor is better than that. Or whatever. But WE (the denizens of slash dot), are truly the elite. We know more about computers than 99% of the rest of the planet. We do more with our computers (both in breadth and depth) than 99% of the rest of the planet. So, no, we wouldn't be thrilled to talk to same salesman selling a commodity simply because he needs a job. The best sales people go where they can make the best money. Same as us. There ain't no money selling a $600 computer. The salesmen doing that are far from the best [Okay, there are no doubt some decent computer salesmen, but they are rare enough that we can ignore them].
If you walk into a store with the intention of buying something about which you are ignorant, you will probably not get the best deal possible. That is not the fault of the salesmen, nor the fault of the store, nor the fault of the government. It is YOUR fault for not doing your homework. Too bad for you.
The bank requested the user's identity. Google refused to provide it. So then the bank goes to court not only to get the user's identity but to deactivate the user's account. I'm missing the logic. Okay, maybe the bank fears that enough time has passed that the user has seen the errant email and wants to prevent the user from misusing the information. Now, that might work if the user does not have a local copy of the email. On the other hand, if the user has a local copy and is now angry at the bank for having had their gmail account shut down, the user, who might otherwise have done nothing, now has both the means and the motive to do something. Good move.
Wouldn't it have been possible for Google to contact the gmail user and ask him to delete any local copies? And Google, presumably, could have deleted the email from its own servers. I like Google's policy of protecting user identities. But this whole mess sounds like two bureaucrats blindly following policy to the detriment of the end-users.
Can't anyone think anymore?
Because the customer in question gave the bank a gmail account and said "send me information via this email address".
Do you really think that your ISP-based email address is any better than gmail? If so, could I interest you in some waterfront property in Florida?
Seriously. Unless the contents of the email is encrypted before it is sent, assume the whole fricken' world (with lasers,even) has access to it.
Training != experience
I've had very little formal training since I graduated uni in 1986. But the experience I've garnered has made me a much better programmer. Ain't no way I could put all of that experience into some game for some rookie to learn in a few days. Not to mention that if I knew that the rookie was going to replace me, I'd be less than 100% motivated to put 100% of my knowledge into the system.
You may be wrong. Lots of people post info about their work on social networking sites via their home computers. Even though the info is not posted from a corporate computer, the posts can still damage the company. Regardless of whether employees can access social networking sites from work, they need to be aware of the potential effects of social networking on their employer.
If you want to stick to the strip of Canada that contains > 90% of the population, 3G is probably the way to go. It should cover most of the trip. If you want to stray beyond that area, you're basically out of luck unless you go with satellite.
Keep in mind that Canada is larger than the US (area-wise), with about one tenth the population. As a result there are vast areas that simply have no economic justification for having wireless internet access (or even cell phone access). Imagine Alaska writ large.
When I was in grade school (back in the early 70s), one of my teachers suggested that anyone intending to go to university should take typing in high school as they'd save a lot of money by being able to type their own papers. Sounded good to me, so I followed through on the advice. While it didn't save me money having my papers typed (as a comp sci student, I wrote no papers), it's been amazingly helpful as a programmer. Kudos to Mr Staska.
One of the things I find annoying about laws like this is that guilt is presumed and all are punished. My iPod contains nothing but freely (legally) downloadable material. Okay, I'm in the minority, but I (and others like me) do exist. Now I'm to be punished by being charged a fee up front for doing nothing that the complainants could complain about. Furthermore, the fee that I'm to be charged is to compensate the artists of the material on my iPod. However, since the material is free, and since the artists are not part of the collective, they will not, in fact, receive any part of that fee. The ones who will receive the fee had no part in the production of the material on my iPod. They are benefitting financially from the work of those outside the collective. One could reasonably argue that they are stealing from the artists in this case.
It is not a question of supporting theft. The RIAA, et al, use these stats, and similar data, to try to influence governments to ban file sharing of all sorts as well as to implement other laws that many tech users find oppressive and which do punish those who are not guilty. The **AA groups have proved to be total jackasses in their attempts to defend their interests, alienating large segments of their customer base as well as people who are neither part of their customer base nor among those harming their interests. Such people will respond negatively to anything that might be perceived as supporting the **AA groups.
As far as these services being essential, "essential" is irrelevant. If I chose to share data, which I am legally entitled to share, it is neither your business nor your right to tell me how I may share said data. If I am not legally entitled to share data, the method by which I share it is irrelevant - I am breaking the law regardless of how I share it.
I've worked in a graph or grid style environment. I reported to X, but was typically working for A, B, C... Not a good scene.
Better to have a contract or 'at will' environment. Don't like the current situation? Find another.
There will always be some form of hierarchy, even if it is very flat. Someone has to be responsible for the success of failure of a project (or a company) - may be the owner or an employee. That someone has to have the right to make decisions (rights and responsibilities are the opposite sides of the same coin).
It really depends on the size of the project. There are plenty of one-geek projects out there. Then again, there are even more projects that require a multi-geek approach. Those projects absolutely require geeks who can work with other geeks. That's where good team leads (or, dare I say it, project managers) are really important - they can help keep things running smoothly. The really good ones do it so well you don't even notice them. Look at Linux or the BSDs (Free, Open, Net). Those projects have to have many geeks. The projects work well (or not) based on the guys running the show (I'll leave y'all to make your own judgments on the success / failure thereof).
Unless you're into extreme programming, even a multi-geek project tends to break things into fairly independent parts. Yes, you need to coordinate the interfaces, but that doesn't require that much interaction between the implementers. Moreso the overall design team.
I do live in an area that receives snow (Manitoba). I would be inclined to put the panels on a moveable framework on the ground rather than on the roof. Doing so would make it easier to clean the snow off them (moving them vertical during a snow storm is a good idea, but some snow will still likely accumulate on them). It would also allow you to adjust the angle for optimal power conversion throughout the year (the angle of the sun changes significantly throughout the year here). Mounting them on the roof would likely be a PITA.
So, if I understand correctly, when a gov't employee sees a co-worker downloading music, they are supposed to yell "that's stealing". While in some cases, we might enjoy doing that, I suspect that in many cases, we'd be highly embarrassed to do so. How do we avoid embarrassment while still following the rules? We avoid looking directly at our co-workers' monitors, thereby reducing the overall level of oversight, making it easier for rules to be violated. Good job, training department.
First off: if you're really concerned, and you do intend to do develop your own stuff, talk to a lawyer - laws vary significantly between jurisdictions.
That said, I always do my own development work on my hardware using my software on my own time. I do not use company time, hardware, or software, for anything I consider to be "mine". I won't even talk to co-workers about it (even outside company time). I do all this to maintain a strict separation.
If accepting the money means they own the laptop (even in part), don't take the money. Or buy a cheap computer to use for your own work.
I'd recommend doing this even if a lawyer says you're okay. Laws change. You could move. Companies can use the threat of long, expensive lawsuits to intimidate. Leaving as few legal footholds for the enemy is a good idea.
Howdy.
We have them here in Winnipeg. Pros: more payment options than coinage (bills and credit cards are accepted). Cons: not quite as convenient and not really designed for cold temperatures. In particular, when it gets cold, the LCD becomes unreadable. When it gets really cold (i.e. less than, say, -25C), the boxes simply fail. We had quite a few days last winter when the city had free parking (due to the boxes not working).
If you, as an employer, send an employee to a customer's premises, you bear some responsibility for their actions while on site. Not necessarily 100% responsibility, but some responsibility.
Most companies for which I've worked carry insurance to cover their backsides should an employee do something inappropriate. Larger companies frequently self-insure. Bottom line is that if you don't have confidence that your employee can comport himself appropriately, don't send him on a customer visit.
While the attitude is unfortunate, it is, unfortunately, a fairly realistic attitude. There are far too many examples available today of either abuse of technology or plans to abuse technology. Given the number of such examples (if you have to ask for examples, you clearly don't read/. enough), it is realistic that when a new technology appears, which would, if abused, seriously disrupt privacy rights, that the denizens of/. would speak out against it. We'll need to see lots of examples of government (and corporations) doing the right thing, actively preventing abuse of technology, before this attitude will ebb. Rather than try to shout down/., your time might be better spent educating others.
I'm an adult. I expect to be treated like one. I realize that situations will arise that require me to occasionally work OT. No problem with that - that's just life. I also realize that situations will arise that require me to take time off work on short notice. I expect my employer to have no problem with that (and, indeed, my boss has no problem with it). The proviso, in both directions, is that it cannot be excessive, either in duration or frequency.
As far as always being "on call", that's why G-d invented the off-switch. Or, failing that, the Faraday cage (not for me, for the khest'n cellphone). If I'm on-call for a lot of hours on a regular basis, I expect compensation (you can roll it into my salary, as long as I'm told about it BEFORE I accept the job).
Slashdot Mirror
The point is not the apps themselves. The point is the process. If this is indicative (please, note the 'If' at the start of this sentence) of the process of developing apps for the Pre, then Palm is toast. They need the Pre to be a success. For that to happen, their app store needs to be a success. And for that to happen, developers have to develop (and market) apps. Making life difficult for developers will kill that right away. While you may not care for Palm (personally, a company is a company is a company), having a wide range of competitors in any given unregulated market tends (not always, but usually) to result in better products (or service), so we all have an interest in the success of Palm.
For 90% (heck, probably 99%) of computer users today, they could walk into any electronics store, buy the cheapest computer available, and come away with a computer that would meet all their needs. They don't need to go to a specialty store. They don't need a super fancy graphics card, or a multiterabyte hard drive. It's no different than buying a toaster or a washing machine. Yeah, I know, WE all think that one OS is better than all the rest. Or that this processor is better than that. Or whatever. But WE (the denizens of slash dot), are truly the elite. We know more about computers than 99% of the rest of the planet. We do more with our computers (both in breadth and depth) than 99% of the rest of the planet. So, no, we wouldn't be thrilled to talk to same salesman selling a commodity simply because he needs a job. The best sales people go where they can make the best money. Same as us. There ain't no money selling a $600 computer. The salesmen doing that are far from the best [Okay, there are no doubt some decent computer salesmen, but they are rare enough that we can ignore them]. If you walk into a store with the intention of buying something about which you are ignorant, you will probably not get the best deal possible. That is not the fault of the salesmen, nor the fault of the store, nor the fault of the government. It is YOUR fault for not doing your homework. Too bad for you.
The bank requested the user's identity. Google refused to provide it. So then the bank goes to court not only to get the user's identity but to deactivate the user's account. I'm missing the logic. Okay, maybe the bank fears that enough time has passed that the user has seen the errant email and wants to prevent the user from misusing the information. Now, that might work if the user does not have a local copy of the email. On the other hand, if the user has a local copy and is now angry at the bank for having had their gmail account shut down, the user, who might otherwise have done nothing, now has both the means and the motive to do something. Good move. Wouldn't it have been possible for Google to contact the gmail user and ask him to delete any local copies? And Google, presumably, could have deleted the email from its own servers. I like Google's policy of protecting user identities. But this whole mess sounds like two bureaucrats blindly following policy to the detriment of the end-users. Can't anyone think anymore?
Because the customer in question gave the bank a gmail account and said "send me information via this email address". Do you really think that your ISP-based email address is any better than gmail? If so, could I interest you in some waterfront property in Florida? Seriously. Unless the contents of the email is encrypted before it is sent, assume the whole fricken' world (with lasers,even) has access to it.
Training != experience I've had very little formal training since I graduated uni in 1986. But the experience I've garnered has made me a much better programmer. Ain't no way I could put all of that experience into some game for some rookie to learn in a few days. Not to mention that if I knew that the rookie was going to replace me, I'd be less than 100% motivated to put 100% of my knowledge into the system.
Well, they will "long" remember me. Their recollection of you will be rather "short".
You may be wrong. Lots of people post info about their work on social networking sites via their home computers. Even though the info is not posted from a corporate computer, the posts can still damage the company. Regardless of whether employees can access social networking sites from work, they need to be aware of the potential effects of social networking on their employer.
If you want to stick to the strip of Canada that contains > 90% of the population, 3G is probably the way to go. It should cover most of the trip. If you want to stray beyond that area, you're basically out of luck unless you go with satellite. Keep in mind that Canada is larger than the US (area-wise), with about one tenth the population. As a result there are vast areas that simply have no economic justification for having wireless internet access (or even cell phone access). Imagine Alaska writ large.
Heck, when I was young, we used our fingers and a sundial.
from writing code for my employer so I can work on my own coding projects. (Sad, but true).
On the other hand, they probably don't want a "if it's stolen, you can lose a lot of money and we won't help you avoid that" reputation either.
Components. American components, Russian Components, ALL MADE IN TAIWAN!
All your space are belong to us.
When I was in grade school (back in the early 70s), one of my teachers suggested that anyone intending to go to university should take typing in high school as they'd save a lot of money by being able to type their own papers. Sounded good to me, so I followed through on the advice. While it didn't save me money having my papers typed (as a comp sci student, I wrote no papers), it's been amazingly helpful as a programmer. Kudos to Mr Staska.
One of the things I find annoying about laws like this is that guilt is presumed and all are punished. My iPod contains nothing but freely (legally) downloadable material. Okay, I'm in the minority, but I (and others like me) do exist. Now I'm to be punished by being charged a fee up front for doing nothing that the complainants could complain about. Furthermore, the fee that I'm to be charged is to compensate the artists of the material on my iPod. However, since the material is free, and since the artists are not part of the collective, they will not, in fact, receive any part of that fee. The ones who will receive the fee had no part in the production of the material on my iPod. They are benefitting financially from the work of those outside the collective. One could reasonably argue that they are stealing from the artists in this case.
It is not a question of supporting theft. The RIAA, et al, use these stats, and similar data, to try to influence governments to ban file sharing of all sorts as well as to implement other laws that many tech users find oppressive and which do punish those who are not guilty. The **AA groups have proved to be total jackasses in their attempts to defend their interests, alienating large segments of their customer base as well as people who are neither part of their customer base nor among those harming their interests. Such people will respond negatively to anything that might be perceived as supporting the **AA groups. As far as these services being essential, "essential" is irrelevant. If I chose to share data, which I am legally entitled to share, it is neither your business nor your right to tell me how I may share said data. If I am not legally entitled to share data, the method by which I share it is irrelevant - I am breaking the law regardless of how I share it.
I've worked in a graph or grid style environment. I reported to X, but was typically working for A, B, C... Not a good scene. Better to have a contract or 'at will' environment. Don't like the current situation? Find another. There will always be some form of hierarchy, even if it is very flat. Someone has to be responsible for the success of failure of a project (or a company) - may be the owner or an employee. That someone has to have the right to make decisions (rights and responsibilities are the opposite sides of the same coin).
It really depends on the size of the project. There are plenty of one-geek projects out there. Then again, there are even more projects that require a multi-geek approach. Those projects absolutely require geeks who can work with other geeks. That's where good team leads (or, dare I say it, project managers) are really important - they can help keep things running smoothly. The really good ones do it so well you don't even notice them. Look at Linux or the BSDs (Free, Open, Net). Those projects have to have many geeks. The projects work well (or not) based on the guys running the show (I'll leave y'all to make your own judgments on the success / failure thereof). Unless you're into extreme programming, even a multi-geek project tends to break things into fairly independent parts. Yes, you need to coordinate the interfaces, but that doesn't require that much interaction between the implementers. Moreso the overall design team.
I do live in an area that receives snow (Manitoba). I would be inclined to put the panels on a moveable framework on the ground rather than on the roof. Doing so would make it easier to clean the snow off them (moving them vertical during a snow storm is a good idea, but some snow will still likely accumulate on them). It would also allow you to adjust the angle for optimal power conversion throughout the year (the angle of the sun changes significantly throughout the year here). Mounting them on the roof would likely be a PITA.
So, if I understand correctly, when a gov't employee sees a co-worker downloading music, they are supposed to yell "that's stealing". While in some cases, we might enjoy doing that, I suspect that in many cases, we'd be highly embarrassed to do so. How do we avoid embarrassment while still following the rules? We avoid looking directly at our co-workers' monitors, thereby reducing the overall level of oversight, making it easier for rules to be violated. Good job, training department.
First off: if you're really concerned, and you do intend to do develop your own stuff, talk to a lawyer - laws vary significantly between jurisdictions. That said, I always do my own development work on my hardware using my software on my own time. I do not use company time, hardware, or software, for anything I consider to be "mine". I won't even talk to co-workers about it (even outside company time). I do all this to maintain a strict separation. If accepting the money means they own the laptop (even in part), don't take the money. Or buy a cheap computer to use for your own work. I'd recommend doing this even if a lawyer says you're okay. Laws change. You could move. Companies can use the threat of long, expensive lawsuits to intimidate. Leaving as few legal footholds for the enemy is a good idea.
Howdy. We have them here in Winnipeg. Pros: more payment options than coinage (bills and credit cards are accepted). Cons: not quite as convenient and not really designed for cold temperatures. In particular, when it gets cold, the LCD becomes unreadable. When it gets really cold (i.e. less than, say, -25C), the boxes simply fail. We had quite a few days last winter when the city had free parking (due to the boxes not working).
If you, as an employer, send an employee to a customer's premises, you bear some responsibility for their actions while on site. Not necessarily 100% responsibility, but some responsibility. Most companies for which I've worked carry insurance to cover their backsides should an employee do something inappropriate. Larger companies frequently self-insure. Bottom line is that if you don't have confidence that your employee can comport himself appropriately, don't send him on a customer visit.
While the attitude is unfortunate, it is, unfortunately, a fairly realistic attitude. There are far too many examples available today of either abuse of technology or plans to abuse technology. Given the number of such examples (if you have to ask for examples, you clearly don't read /. enough), it is realistic that when a new technology appears, which would, if abused, seriously disrupt privacy rights, that the denizens of /. would speak out against it. We'll need to see lots of examples of government (and corporations) doing the right thing, actively preventing abuse of technology, before this attitude will ebb. Rather than try to shout down /., your time might be better spent educating others.
I'm an adult. I expect to be treated like one. I realize that situations will arise that require me to occasionally work OT. No problem with that - that's just life. I also realize that situations will arise that require me to take time off work on short notice. I expect my employer to have no problem with that (and, indeed, my boss has no problem with it). The proviso, in both directions, is that it cannot be excessive, either in duration or frequency. As far as always being "on call", that's why G-d invented the off-switch. Or, failing that, the Faraday cage (not for me, for the khest'n cellphone). If I'm on-call for a lot of hours on a regular basis, I expect compensation (you can roll it into my salary, as long as I'm told about it BEFORE I accept the job).