Most of the time I find that these two questions are actually one question. . . But generally I put the priority on "enjoy what I do". Usually if I enjoy the work I'm doing then I (almost) automatically enjoy where I work.
So you're saying that if I believed in Hotmail's product, I should have stayed on even after they were bought by Microsoft - even though Microsoft itself doesn't believe in the product, only the revenue?
And you're saying that I should do this even if the new corporate culture thinks what I wear to work is more important than the work I do? Even if the new culture features top-down management that totally devalues my experience and ability? That I'm twice as evil if the new culture doesn't fit my lifestyle preferences?
Besides, American Budweiser is quite popular in England. I've seen people riding the train with a case of the familiar red-and-white cans alongside them, guzzling away. My theory was that the beer enjoys "import" status over there.
From the article: A more capitalistic venture is the Starbucks-Microsoft deal announced in January of this year, which may lead to wireless access for customers in Starbucks coffee shops.
I think you may be missing the point. The goal of the fake fansites isn't to impress the money-men at all, it's to impress potential fans.
The idea is that because the site appears to belong to someone just like the site's visitors, large numbers of those vistors will say, "hey, I can relate to this person, and they think [foo] is cool - I should think it's cool too, and spend money on it!".
The fake site doesn't generate fake numbers for the money-men, it generates real fans for the product.
What makes $30/year so ambitious? That works out to a $2.50/month magazine subscription. Last time I checked, people were happy to pay twice that much for magazines with ads in them. Or did you mean that Salon's content doesn't rate $2.50 a month? Neither does People Magazine's, but everybody subscribes anyway, don't they?
Trust me, if you're launching ICBMs from one part of the U.S. and targeting another part, you have much more important things to worry about than Customs declarations!
Dude, calm down. Isn't it much more likely that this reflects no policy, only random bureaucratic confusion? Chances are some relatively minor functionary brough up the customs question, nobody had any idea what the answer was, and some other functionary decided to have the form filled out just to cover their ass.
It sounds like you're comparing the meatspace concept of "visible" to the cyberspace concept of "accessible".
And isn't that accessibility the heart of the issue? This "bridge" is a piece of infrastructure, designed and implemented to facilitate traffic and communication. It is attached at one end to a public-access piece of infrastructure, and it is attached at the other end to a public-access piece of infrastructure. Furthermore, it has not been "closed" to public access. Whose fault is it if the public uses it?
The house analogy is pretty weak, though. How about a "bridge" analogy?
Let's say you build a bridge in a public place; it spans a river, and links two communities together. Let's say further that while you posess the bridge, it is to some extent open to the public.
The question is, how much control will you exercise over access to the bridge? Will you charge a toll? Are the access control methods sufficient to prevent non-toll-payers from crossing the bridge? Finally, how accountable are you for the the traffic of criminals across the bridge?
Most Internet infrastrucure is absolutely not anaologous to a house - it's analogous to other forms of infrastructure.
So let me get this straight: This guy is getting paid ~$60k/year, and all he can do is complain that he's not being paid an over-inflated $110k/year?
Oh, wait: he has to put a little effort into finding a job, now. It might take him a whole week of trying to get in touch with potential employers to find a job. Boo fucking hoo.
And what kind of idiot leeches Salon's office equipment because they want to "avoid a trip to Kinko's"? Didn't he just come off two years of $100/hour contracts and $100/year salaries? What an ass.
Yes and no. I used to work for a company called Conxion that specializes in managed hosting.
They get around the DDOS issue with a "brute force" solution: having more bandwidth than their peers. What this means is that their peers would be saturated before the DDOS even hit Conxion's network.
They solved the "peer down" problem by peering with multiple high-bandwidth providers.
The interesting thing to note here is that DDOS is essentially itself a brute force procedure. Protecting against it is trivial, if you have more brute force than the attacker.
Duh. If it wasn't cheating, it wouldn't be dishonest.
The real question is this: Were the students supposed to demonstrate that they had learned how to write their own good code?
Since most student's natural state and abilities seem to lie in the area of using other people's work, I'm guessing they don't need to be taught how to do that!
Of course the real world works on the principle of code-reuse! But that doesn't exempt programmers from being able to write good code of their own when pressed. What these students have shown is that, when pressed, they can't (or won't) write good code. They cheated, and they deserve to fail. They haven't demonstrated the required level of learning.
We control the horizontal, we control the vertical, and we control *space*! The Earth will soon be OURS!!!
I think you misspelled "All your Iridium are belong to Canada."
HTH. HAND.
Re:A worrying turn of phrase...
on
Paper Phones
·
· Score: 1
She can't control how her product is used.
True, but she could always not produce an abusable product. Or is that concept too alien for you?
"I've got a great idea for a product! It's cheap to build, easy to use, and in high demand! I'll be able to retire within 24 hours of bringing it to market! Of course, it has the potential to do great harm to our society and our environment - and people probably abuse it - but that's not my concern! Now, please excuse me while I go to the bank. Ha ha ha ha!"
Obviously each individual is responsible for their own applications of morally neutral objects, but I think it's pure bullshit to say that a) society is already fucked up, b) it's not my fault and it's not my responsibility, and therefore c) there's nothing wrong with exploiting and adding to the problem for personal profit.
Sometimes it's not the Sysadmin's fault, either. I'm a Sysadmin for a major company, and I was horrified to learn that most of our production servers are running SP4.
"This needs to be fixed!" I cried. "Let me do this right away!"
"Sorry, but these are our production servers," they replied. "They're running the in-house applications that the engineers wrote. Upgrading the service packs will break their code. We've told them that there's a huge security hole, but they refuse to recode, and the executives refuse to make them."
From Merriam-Webster Online:
Main Entry: motor
Pronunciation: 'mO-t&r
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin, from movEre to move
1 : one that imparts motion; specifically : PRIME MOVER
2 : any of various power units that develop energy or impart motion: as a : a small compact engine b : INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINE; especially : a gasoline engine c : a rotating machine that transforms electrical energy into mechanical energy
Definition 1 implies that almost all living-creature joints come with motors - they're called muscles. Sadly, the site is/.-ed, so who knows what exactly is being said?
Still, the expert user could do much the same with them as what we do with computers today. Sure, today we have various bells and whistles, but the central uses are the same.
Buh? I think the "expert users" you refer to would almost universally agree, that modern computers allow them to do more stuff (several orders of magnitude more stuff) than earlier they ever could with earlier computers. And they can do it faster, cheaper, and smaller, too!
Slashdot Mirror
Most of the time I find that these two questions are actually one question. . . But generally I put the priority on "enjoy what I do". Usually if I enjoy the work I'm doing then I (almost) automatically enjoy where I work.
So you're saying that if I believed in Hotmail's product, I should have stayed on even after they were bought by Microsoft - even though Microsoft itself doesn't believe in the product, only the revenue?
And you're saying that I should do this even if the new corporate culture thinks what I wear to work is more important than the work I do? Even if the new culture features top-down management that totally devalues my experience and ability? That I'm twice as evil if the new culture doesn't fit my lifestyle preferences?
Or are you just trolling?
After all, what is there to discuss if we cannot even follow the link in the story?
What makes you think people here actually read the stories before they start discussing?
Besides, American Budweiser is quite popular in England. I've seen people riding the train with a case of the familiar red-and-white cans alongside them, guzzling away. My theory was that the beer enjoys "import" status over there.
From the article: A more capitalistic venture is the Starbucks-Microsoft deal announced in January of this year, which may lead to wireless access for customers in Starbucks coffee shops.
I think The Onion already has the scoop.
I think you may be missing the point. The goal of the fake fansites isn't to impress the money-men at all, it's to impress potential fans.
The idea is that because the site appears to belong to someone just like the site's visitors, large numbers of those vistors will say, "hey, I can relate to this person, and they think [foo] is cool - I should think it's cool too, and spend money on it!".
The fake site doesn't generate fake numbers for the money-men, it generates real fans for the product.
It's that whole meme thing. Gutenberg is a meme. Kinda like Judge Reinhold.
What makes $30/year so ambitious? That works out to a $2.50/month magazine subscription. Last time I checked, people were happy to pay twice that much for magazines with ads in them. Or did you mean that Salon's content doesn't rate $2.50 a month? Neither does People Magazine's, but everybody subscribes anyway, don't they?
What would you do with a "Peltier-on-a-chip"?
1. Assemble a Beowulf cluster of them.
2. Leech more mp3s from Napster.
3. Bundle censorware with each one (in compliance with Texas law).
4. Leech more mp3s from Napster, but call it "hacktivism".
5. Wintel r00l3z!
6. Cowboy Neal.
Trust me, if you're launching ICBMs from one part of the U.S. and targeting another part, you have much more important things to worry about than Customs declarations!
Dude, calm down. Isn't it much more likely that this reflects no policy, only random bureaucratic confusion? Chances are some relatively minor functionary brough up the customs question, nobody had any idea what the answer was, and some other functionary decided to have the form filled out just to cover their ass.
Besides, I'm sure the official U.S. position on "moon ownership" is already sufficiently well documented elsewhere.
It sounds like you're comparing the meatspace concept of "visible" to the cyberspace concept of "accessible".
And isn't that accessibility the heart of the issue? This "bridge" is a piece of infrastructure, designed and implemented to facilitate traffic and communication. It is attached at one end to a public-access piece of infrastructure, and it is attached at the other end to a public-access piece of infrastructure. Furthermore, it has not been "closed" to public access. Whose fault is it if the public uses it?
I don't think Zawinsky's Law is obsolete yet - remember, email is the gateway drug of the Internet.
Clearly, mp3s will evolve until they can send email. This is in accordance with Zawinsky's Law.
The house analogy is pretty weak, though. How about a "bridge" analogy?
Let's say you build a bridge in a public place; it spans a river, and links two communities together. Let's say further that while you posess the bridge, it is to some extent open to the public.
The question is, how much control will you exercise over access to the bridge? Will you charge a toll? Are the access control methods sufficient to prevent non-toll-payers from crossing the bridge? Finally, how accountable are you for the the traffic of criminals across the bridge?
Most Internet infrastrucure is absolutely not anaologous to a house - it's analogous to other forms of infrastructure.
So let me get this straight: This guy is getting paid ~$60k/year, and all he can do is complain that he's not being paid an over-inflated $110k/year?
Oh, wait: he has to put a little effort into finding a job, now. It might take him a whole week of trying to get in touch with potential employers to find a job. Boo fucking hoo.
And what kind of idiot leeches Salon's office equipment because they want to "avoid a trip to Kinko's"? Didn't he just come off two years of $100/hour contracts and $100/year salaries? What an ass.
And the obligatory /. statement: "Imagine a Beowulf cluster of these!"
Yes and no. I used to work for a company called Conxion that specializes in managed hosting.
They get around the DDOS issue with a "brute force" solution: having more bandwidth than their peers. What this means is that their peers would be saturated before the DDOS even hit Conxion's network.
They solved the "peer down" problem by peering with multiple high-bandwidth providers.
The interesting thing to note here is that DDOS is essentially itself a brute force procedure. Protecting against it is trivial, if you have more brute force than the attacker.
Academic Dishonesty-When Is It REALLY Cheating?
Duh. If it wasn't cheating, it wouldn't be dishonest.
The real question is this: Were the students supposed to demonstrate that they had learned how to write their own good code?
Since most student's natural state and abilities seem to lie in the area of using other people's work, I'm guessing they don't need to be taught how to do that!
Of course the real world works on the principle of code-reuse! But that doesn't exempt programmers from being able to write good code of their own when pressed. What these students have shown is that, when pressed, they can't (or won't) write good code. They cheated, and they deserve to fail. They haven't demonstrated the required level of learning.
We control the horizontal, we control the vertical, and we control *space*! The Earth will soon be OURS!!!
I think you misspelled "All your Iridium are belong to Canada."
HTH. HAND.
She can't control how her product is used.
True, but she could always not produce an abusable product. Or is that concept too alien for you?
"I've got a great idea for a product! It's cheap to build, easy to use, and in high demand! I'll be able to retire within 24 hours of bringing it to market! Of course, it has the potential to do great harm to our society and our environment - and people probably abuse it - but that's not my concern! Now, please excuse me while I go to the bank. Ha ha ha ha!"
Obviously each individual is responsible for their own applications of morally neutral objects, but I think it's pure bullshit to say that a) society is already fucked up, b) it's not my fault and it's not my responsibility, and therefore c) there's nothing wrong with exploiting and adding to the problem for personal profit.
Sometimes it's not the Sysadmin's fault, either. I'm a Sysadmin for a major company, and I was horrified to learn that most of our production servers are running SP4.
"This needs to be fixed!" I cried. "Let me do this right away!"
"Sorry, but these are our production servers," they replied. "They're running the in-house applications that the engineers wrote. Upgrading the service packs will break their code. We've told them that there's a huge security hole, but they refuse to recode, and the executives refuse to make them."
Anybody who thinks NT sysadmins live in a vacuum and don't have to deal with PHBs every single day "has been eating stupid sandwiches".
Or how about:
Average number of posts before somebody complains that the referenced site has been /.-ed:
2
3
4
Huh? I didn't get first post?
Cowboy Neal
From Merriam-Webster Online:
Main Entry: motor
Pronunciation: 'mO-t&r
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin, from movEre to move
1 : one that imparts motion; specifically : PRIME MOVER
2 : any of various power units that develop energy or impart motion: as a : a small compact engine b : INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINE; especially : a gasoline engine c : a rotating machine that transforms electrical energy into mechanical energy
Definition 1 implies that almost all living-creature joints come with motors - they're called muscles. Sadly, the site is /.-ed, so who knows what exactly is being said?
I'm looking for a good Gyro place in the South Bay area. If you know of one, please let me know.
Try Best Bite in Mountain View, on El Camino - great service, excellent food, honest prices. And yes, they do serve gyros. Here's a map. HTH. HAND!
Still, the expert user could do much the same with them as what we do with computers today. Sure, today we have various bells and whistles, but the central uses are the same.
Buh? I think the "expert users" you refer to would almost universally agree, that modern computers allow them to do more stuff (several orders of magnitude more stuff) than earlier they ever could with earlier computers. And they can do it faster, cheaper, and smaller, too!