Gambling is about screwing money out of stupid, statistically illiterate and not entirely mentally stable people. A large chunk of those people do not, whatever slashdot groupthink may sometimes seem to say, deserve it (there is no groupthink, just random bunch of nerds).
You will be earning money from other people's suffering. Doing it for long or doing it often is not a sign of a person I want on my team.
How can you relate the remark from Marylin French as being any less disturbed.
The grandparent pointed out that this was a quote from a novel. You continue to hold it against the author. Do you go around demanding Thomas Harris be arrested for cannibalism because Hannibal Lecter recommends taking packed lunches with human brains whenever travelling by air? Are you insane?
Is it so fucking difficult? If you want to seriously show tendencies in a group of say a million people, then you need at least 501k examples; probably more. Other than that then you need to do proper statistical sampling. That means
Get a random sample of FOSS people
demonstrate clearly that there is no bias in your selection
characterise those people clearly; link them to companies / organisations/projects etc.
measure things about them
survey attitudes within your group.
demonstrate that your survey results really represent true attitudes
gather results and do proper statistical analysis on them including error bars
Yes, it's a load of hard work, but that's what's needed before someone starts spouting off.
Until this debate I have been absolutely convinced that there is continual sexism in engineering/computing areas. Simply because I've been involved in recruiting decisions often enough to know how many of the managers think. However, looking at the pathetic inability of people here to understand basic statistics and the scientific method is really making me re-think.
Please stop posting this statistically incorrect crap and start actually doing some worthwhile research.
I think your post is a perfect example of the lack of undersanding that I was talking about.
But what if you want to become a speaker on the technology you sell? To some extent your personal life will impact your business life.
What I was saying is that people's private and personal life tends to accidentally merge if they are careless. In the case you have given the only difference is that that risk is even stronger. You're acting like this is something completely new, when it isn't. Celebrities and politicians have long dealt with the same problem for a long time. What you see is that those that deal with it successfully are generally those who make the boundary between private and public life clear.
An example you should take is from Steve Jobs. Whatever else may be true about his products; his ability to sell them is without controversy. His private life/public life boundary is particularly strong and successful and doesn't stop him selling.
To be honest, I can only really imagine this being a problem for a person in some kind of third rate "live the company" desperate sales position in a pyramid marketing company.
Btw, in relation to your example on your mobile phone. Some companies just bringing your mobile phone into work constitutes it falling under the business.
In some (but not most) legal jurisdictions they may even be right. I can see this being completely justified in a high security working envrionment. In that case you just wouldn't bring your own mobile in. Some special jobs have special requirements. So what?
But just thinking that what you do in your private life should have no impact is wrong.
If your private life breaks the law, then I can imagine that. Otherwise, your private life is, and should remain, private. This is separate from your "out of work public life". If you are a politician wanting to abolish copyright, then working for a major label might reasonably be ruled out. However, if you just quietly support the pirate party, that is something which it should really be illegal for them to find out let alone use against you.
Once "place" is really a short cut to say "in storage media which are all subject to one point of failure". The potential failure here is the failure of the storage company (though it could be a misunderstanding with the cloud software etc. etc). For DVD it's failure of the media; for an on-site backup it's a failure of the site and so on.
In this case a cloud service is exactly equivalent to one additional place for storing off site backups and the grandparent is right.
We're aware of that, but what you had probably never thought of is that some people are planning to associate their personal avatar with "the company". I can fully understand why you would find that incomprehensible.
That would be a breach of the T&Cs of many (most?) virtual worlds. Arguably less professional than wandering around the virtual world as a naked furry.
Then it's a virtual world not suited to corporate use. Have your legal people go negotiate quick. They're probably completely clueless if they have never thought of this and you can take them completely.
No one likes wearing business wear. [.....] and making people feel at ease.
Your sentence reminds me of a dilbert cartoon in which the PHB forgets to insert a "United way update" between telling of the great company success and then telling that there can be no pay rises since the company has financial difficulties.
People are allowing their work and social life to blur but it's a real problem. I think it's very important to keep them separate, but that most people don't yet understand the technology or it's implications. I'm allowed to use my work computer and email for limited personal reasons (before you tell me that that's stupid; it's only stupid if your company lacks competent lawyers; or possibly if you live in the USA), however I keep clear tagging; personal stuff is generally under one userID; work another. At the very least I use clearly labelled folders. I have music I can listen to on my company phone, but I use a separate memory card which I paid for; which is clearly labelled as personal and where I keep the receipt. Keeping this boundary intact is critical.
It's very simple to apply this to the virtual world. You should have two separate avatars. One you use from work; one you use from home. Do not link them in any way. Make it clear to people which one they should interact with depending on circumstances (e.g. your friend's avatar wants to have sex with your work avatar; if you even admit who you are you then you say "sorry I'm working. I'll be off later"); if it's the suit which is turning them on, then get another avatar dressed in a sharp suit too.
There are very clear legal differences between these different things. If I have my (legally copied) music on my card I can use privacy laws to limit the companies access to them during an audit (you still have to allow access if you want to demonstrate that you haven't been stealing company secrets, but you can make an agreement that they can't have any personal material). If I have the same stuff on a company computer I may actually have indulged in unlicensed copying because the act of putting it on the company computer from my personal media is copying/distribution (even if the music is CC-SA or some such, I may not in a position to agree to the CC-SA for the company). If you have material on your personal computer at home you have much more protection still. In the context of Avatars, as long as you do your best to maintain the separation, the very fact that your HR researched what other avatar you have in private life should already be a breach of privacy laws in any civilised country.
In that context, what's the difficulty with a dress policy for your work avatar? You should treat your work avatar as company property. Let them dispose of it as they wish. Do not share anything personal with a company unless you are a contractor with your own company (in which case nothing will save you from liability).
Businesses really hate that viral open source thing in the GPL
You seem to think that we're on some ideological crusade to take over everything. In the real world, we just don't care at all about anything which is not "core business". The GPL is an excellent thing since we can give back source code without much need to think. The business justification is one check box (because we have to) rather than weeks of meetings about whether this feature is strategic. When you somehow end up giving away a feature to a GPL app, you know that even if the competition gains the same, they still have to make any fixes they make available to other people.
They asked him to provide a Paypal account and he refused.
maybe we should try..
they asked him to give a second paypal account saying that the one he had given wasn't good enough; it turned out that getting the new one involved giving his bank account information to paypal, not just his credit card number; sensibly he wasn't willing to do this
Success also attracts many people who aren't that desirable. At the start of something you have people that care about it. Later on, if something is becoming a big success, there will also be people that are just in it for the fame and money. These people tend to have a little less ethical balance.
There fixed that for you. Honestly, doesn't that sound like they just admitted they knew this update would damage people's systems? Can you say class action? The warning they give does warn about save games being lost, but doesn't seem clear to me about systems being completel missing Or did I miss that somewhere?
If a single product becomes dominant, then the code required to defeat it simply becomes a standard component of any malware...
It depends on whether you rely on your anti-virus to stop infection when it's happening or clean up mess later. I think the first is impossible and has to be done by the OS combined with actual working security people reacting to new threats and the anti-virus not having much to say. The second can be done with some time delay which allows the anti-virus companies to have the advantage.
Generally because the older people control the resources and are the ones who decide when things happen and when we go to war. By the time the young people realise the whole system is set up to screw them over, it's too late and they're already old.
Oh; sorry; you were asking about windows? To punish them for their lazy game playing ways. They should be doing something more valuable like posting on Slashdot instead.
I agree with yuna49; this doesn't satisfy my request. I agree that it's malware by my definition, but I don't see any evidence that it was written by an ant-virus software company. The worst I can see is that they were slow in declaring it malware. That's more likely because they are afraid of Sony than because they didn't want to. I suppose I'd have to admit that that's actually an argument for getting your anti-malware software from MS. They might not report their own malware, but at least they aren't afraid of anyone. When you can crush the US legal system; why worry about people like Sony?
A number of moderators consistently and repeatedly moderate as troll any criticism of MS. There's clearly some kind of deliberate manipulation going on, though whether it's just MS employees doing it themselves or it's an actual publicity campaign would probably require some interesting legal footwork to discover:-)
Hint; there are more than 300 million Americans; what is the chance, randomly, that the son of one president could also be a president? I mean there are other things the poster could be talking about; cutting funding for single mothers etc. but the Bush senior / junior thing is just a bit to glaring to fail to mention in your post.
Never let anyone over the age of 40 use Windows. They don't need the latest games so there is no reason to do so and the ease of management you'll get by putting them on Ubuntu will be massive.
Could you provide a link for this which involves a "serious" anti-virus company (Norton/McAfee/Kaspersky/BitDefender etc.) and an actual released to the field piece of malware. "There are cases" could include the "anti-virus" packages advertised via online ads which actually are malware.
Never attribute to malice what you can attribute to shoddy engineering.
The thing about MS is that we know that they buy up the best talent in the business and still deliver garbage. MS Research exists almost entirely to stop other companies getting their hands on good CS people. I think you can attribute MS's "shoddy engineering" to malice.
And this leads to another thought; short term MS Security offerings are probably going to have problems, but long term, those problems that matter to their customers will probably be eliminated. Their products always start bad and end up mediocre. However, there's one thing they will never achieve. Neutrality from MS. Since MS is one of the biggest sources of malware/not-quite-what-we-wanted-ware (live update;.NET modules for firefox; copy protection etc.) perhaps the other anti-virus companies should be marketing their neutrality from MS at least as strongly as their supposed quality? Of course they would have to guarantee to start warning about MS software in order to do this..
Also RFID doesn't connect to the power supply of the rest of the laptop. So firstly when there's a short due to water it doesn't damage the circuit. Secondly the entire circuit can be sealed into plastic so the water etc. can't get to it.
Slashdot Mirror
Gambling is about screwing money out of stupid, statistically illiterate and not entirely mentally stable people. A large chunk of those people do not, whatever slashdot groupthink may sometimes seem to say, deserve it (there is no groupthink, just random bunch of nerds). You will be earning money from other people's suffering. Doing it for long or doing it often is not a sign of a person I want on my team.
How can you relate the remark from Marylin French as being any less disturbed.
The grandparent pointed out that this was a quote from a novel. You continue to hold it against the author. Do you go around demanding Thomas Harris be arrested for cannibalism because Hannibal Lecter recommends taking packed lunches with human brains whenever travelling by air? Are you insane?
Is it so fucking difficult? If you want to seriously show tendencies in a group of say a million people, then you need at least 501k examples; probably more. Other than that then you need to do proper statistical sampling. That means
Yes, it's a load of hard work, but that's what's needed before someone starts spouting off.
Until this debate I have been absolutely convinced that there is continual sexism in engineering/computing areas. Simply because I've been involved in recruiting decisions often enough to know how many of the managers think. However, looking at the pathetic inability of people here to understand basic statistics and the scientific method is really making me re-think.
Please stop posting this statistically incorrect crap and start actually doing some worthwhile research.
But what if you want to become a speaker on the technology you sell? To some extent your personal life will impact your business life.
What I was saying is that people's private and personal life tends to accidentally merge if they are careless. In the case you have given the only difference is that that risk is even stronger. You're acting like this is something completely new, when it isn't. Celebrities and politicians have long dealt with the same problem for a long time. What you see is that those that deal with it successfully are generally those who make the boundary between private and public life clear.
An example you should take is from Steve Jobs. Whatever else may be true about his products; his ability to sell them is without controversy. His private life/public life boundary is particularly strong and successful and doesn't stop him selling.
To be honest, I can only really imagine this being a problem for a person in some kind of third rate "live the company" desperate sales position in a pyramid marketing company.
Btw, in relation to your example on your mobile phone. Some companies just bringing your mobile phone into work constitutes it falling under the business.
In some (but not most) legal jurisdictions they may even be right. I can see this being completely justified in a high security working envrionment. In that case you just wouldn't bring your own mobile in. Some special jobs have special requirements. So what?
But just thinking that what you do in your private life should have no impact is wrong.
If your private life breaks the law, then I can imagine that. Otherwise, your private life is, and should remain, private. This is separate from your "out of work public life". If you are a politician wanting to abolish copyright, then working for a major label might reasonably be ruled out. However, if you just quietly support the pirate party, that is something which it should really be illegal for them to find out let alone use against you.
OP didn't say anything about UI, as you'd surely know if you had bothered to read the summary:
QtCore has more or less nothing to do with UI.
And a cloud service is just "one place."
No it's not.
Once "place" is really a short cut to say "in storage media which are all subject to one point of failure". The potential failure here is the failure of the storage company (though it could be a misunderstanding with the cloud software etc. etc). For DVD it's failure of the media; for an on-site backup it's a failure of the site and so on. In this case a cloud service is exactly equivalent to one additional place for storing off site backups and the grandparent is right.
We're aware of that, but what you had probably never thought of is that some people are planning to associate their personal avatar with "the company". I can fully understand why you would find that incomprehensible.
That would be a breach of the T&Cs of many (most?) virtual worlds. Arguably less professional than wandering around the virtual world as a naked furry.
Then it's a virtual world not suited to corporate use. Have your legal people go negotiate quick. They're probably completely clueless if they have never thought of this and you can take them completely.
No one likes wearing business wear. [.....] and making people feel at ease.
Your sentence reminds me of a dilbert cartoon in which the PHB forgets to insert a "United way update" between telling of the great company success and then telling that there can be no pay rises since the company has financial difficulties.
the work/real life/virtual life are blurring.
People are allowing their work and social life to blur but it's a real problem. I think it's very important to keep them separate, but that most people don't yet understand the technology or it's implications. I'm allowed to use my work computer and email for limited personal reasons (before you tell me that that's stupid; it's only stupid if your company lacks competent lawyers; or possibly if you live in the USA), however I keep clear tagging; personal stuff is generally under one userID; work another. At the very least I use clearly labelled folders. I have music I can listen to on my company phone, but I use a separate memory card which I paid for; which is clearly labelled as personal and where I keep the receipt. Keeping this boundary intact is critical.
It's very simple to apply this to the virtual world. You should have two separate avatars. One you use from work; one you use from home. Do not link them in any way. Make it clear to people which one they should interact with depending on circumstances (e.g. your friend's avatar wants to have sex with your work avatar; if you even admit who you are you then you say "sorry I'm working. I'll be off later"); if it's the suit which is turning them on, then get another avatar dressed in a sharp suit too.
There are very clear legal differences between these different things. If I have my (legally copied) music on my card I can use privacy laws to limit the companies access to them during an audit (you still have to allow access if you want to demonstrate that you haven't been stealing company secrets, but you can make an agreement that they can't have any personal material). If I have the same stuff on a company computer I may actually have indulged in unlicensed copying because the act of putting it on the company computer from my personal media is copying/distribution (even if the music is CC-SA or some such, I may not in a position to agree to the CC-SA for the company). If you have material on your personal computer at home you have much more protection still. In the context of Avatars, as long as you do your best to maintain the separation, the very fact that your HR researched what other avatar you have in private life should already be a breach of privacy laws in any civilised country.
In that context, what's the difficulty with a dress policy for your work avatar? You should treat your work avatar as company property. Let them dispose of it as they wish. Do not share anything personal with a company unless you are a contractor with your own company (in which case nothing will save you from liability).
Businesses really hate that viral open source thing in the GPL
You seem to think that we're on some ideological crusade to take over everything. In the real world, we just don't care at all about anything which is not "core business". The GPL is an excellent thing since we can give back source code without much need to think. The business justification is one check box (because we have to) rather than weeks of meetings about whether this feature is strategic. When you somehow end up giving away a feature to a GPL app, you know that even if the competition gains the same, they still have to make any fixes they make available to other people.
Speaking for most "businesses" everywhere.
They asked him to provide a Paypal account and he refused.
maybe we should try..
they asked him to give a second paypal account saying that the one he had given wasn't good enough; it turned out that getting the new one involved giving his bank account information to paypal, not just his credit card number; sensibly he wasn't willing to do this
there fixed that for you...
Success also attracts many people who aren't that desirable. At the start of something you have people that care about it. Later on, if something is becoming a big success, there will also be people that are just in it for the fame and money. These people tend to have a little less ethical balance.
Sounds like a scheme to get sued
There fixed that for you. Honestly, doesn't that sound like they just admitted they knew this update would damage people's systems? Can you say class action? The warning they give does warn about save games being lost, but doesn't seem clear to me about systems being completel missing Or did I miss that somewhere?
If a single product becomes dominant, then the code required to defeat it simply becomes a standard component of any malware...
It depends on whether you rely on your anti-virus to stop infection when it's happening or clean up mess later. I think the first is impossible and has to be done by the OS combined with actual working security people reacting to new threats and the anti-virus not having much to say. The second can be done with some time delay which allows the anti-virus companies to have the advantage.
Generally because the older people control the resources and are the ones who decide when things happen and when we go to war. By the time the young people realise the whole system is set up to screw them over, it's too late and they're already old.
Oh; sorry; you were asking about windows? To punish them for their lazy game playing ways. They should be doing something more valuable like posting on Slashdot instead.
No; I'll tell him to get outside and stop sitting in front of the computer. At his age he should know better.
I agree with yuna49; this doesn't satisfy my request. I agree that it's malware by my definition, but I don't see any evidence that it was written by an ant-virus software company. The worst I can see is that they were slow in declaring it malware. That's more likely because they are afraid of Sony than because they didn't want to. I suppose I'd have to admit that that's actually an argument for getting your anti-malware software from MS. They might not report their own malware, but at least they aren't afraid of anyone. When you can crush the US legal system; why worry about people like Sony?
A number of moderators consistently and repeatedly moderate as troll any criticism of MS. There's clearly some kind of deliberate manipulation going on, though whether it's just MS employees doing it themselves or it's an actual publicity campaign would probably require some interesting legal footwork to discover :-)
Hint; there are more than 300 million Americans; what is the chance, randomly, that the son of one president could also be a president? I mean there are other things the poster could be talking about; cutting funding for single mothers etc. but the Bush senior / junior thing is just a bit to glaring to fail to mention in your post.
Never let anyone over the age of 40 use Windows. They don't need the latest games so there is no reason to do so and the ease of management you'll get by putting them on Ubuntu will be massive.
Could you provide a link for this which involves a "serious" anti-virus company (Norton/McAfee/Kaspersky/BitDefender etc.) and an actual released to the field piece of malware. "There are cases" could include the "anti-virus" packages advertised via online ads which actually are malware.
Never attribute to malice what you can attribute to shoddy engineering.
The thing about MS is that we know that they buy up the best talent in the business and still deliver garbage. MS Research exists almost entirely to stop other companies getting their hands on good CS people. I think you can attribute MS's "shoddy engineering" to malice.
And this leads to another thought; short term MS Security offerings are probably going to have problems, but long term, those problems that matter to their customers will probably be eliminated. Their products always start bad and end up mediocre. However, there's one thing they will never achieve. Neutrality from MS. Since MS is one of the biggest sources of malware/not-quite-what-we-wanted-ware (live update; .NET modules for firefox; copy protection etc.) perhaps the other anti-virus companies should be marketing their neutrality from MS at least as strongly as their supposed quality? Of course they would have to guarantee to start warning about MS software in order to do this..
Wait a second; You mean you all get delusions like that !!???!!! What has gone wrong? Where can I sign up? Why did nobody mention this before?
Also RFID doesn't connect to the power supply of the rest of the laptop. So firstly when there's a short due to water it doesn't damage the circuit. Secondly the entire circuit can be sealed into plastic so the water etc. can't get to it.