I think they are trying to be clever and play on the term China Syndrome, where the fuel melts all the way through the earth to it's Antipodal point.
But since this is Japan, the author speculates that the antipodal point is somewhere in Uruguay, which it is not (it's kinda close though). You can check here: Antipodal Map
At first, I hated it. It's ugly, and written in Perl but have grown to really respect it's capabilities. It's easy enough for the managers to poke around in and do basic administration, but flexible enough for the engineers to code custom plugins and scripts to extend functionality.
There is a large community and tons of documentation.
So because of the reasons you listed, there should be no competition? Can we leave it to the consumer to decide which service they want, and what risks they are willing to take? Can we leave it to the worker to decide which company they want to work for (taxi vs Uber, vs another line of work).?
I am just wondering who this is hurting by allowing competition, and by what criteria we/society decide that trade cannot happen between two consenting adults.
I wonder what the "people" say. I'm not really interested in what the taxi companies, unions or politicians have to say.
If this is a detriment in some way to the general public, by all means get rid of it; I have yet to see a single anti-Uber post on here demonstrating how Uber is a bad thing.
If in fact it is bad for the consumer, or general public, why does the demand for the service keep the service running?
Correct me if I'm wrong but nobody is forcing people to use Uber right? And the Uber drivers are getting compensated fairy? (otherwise I would assume they would find employment elsewhere).
Simple supply and demand. When the demand gets high enough usually the laws change.
Just because something is Law by no means makes it just, right, or logical.
In the eyes of management and the bean counters, you are nothing more than a resource. You are a meat robot getting paid X to do 100% of Y. Simple.
In reality you happen to be a human that eats, poops, get's sick, has feelings, family etc and realize that nobody is 100% effect.
Labor will start to comply and do the best they can to track their time; however shortly after this management get's upset and chastises labor for only getting 75-80% of time tracked.
Shortly after the berating labor miraculously manages to track 100% of their time. The formula for labor becomes 8/Tasks = Time per task.
Management becomes happy.
(This scenario has been realized at every position I've been at in the last 10 years).... I wonder what the management and the bean counters think when their overlords ask for the same thing?
If you read the comments to this article you'll see that most of the people leaving comments believe there are no unbiased medical professionals.... well, except for those that agree with them, like the one that wrote the article.
It's been coming for a long time and everyone has seen it coming. But the moment someone speaks out against it the Social Crusaders label that person as a racist, sexist, bigot, or privileged white male to silence and shame them.
The Social Equality crusade has been in effect for decades at least. Things like Affirmative Action are down right discriminatory but are deemed necessary by Social Warriors in the name of Social Justice and/or Equality.
As the abundance of wealth in this country has spread and the sense of self entitlement has grown people have been whipped into a politically correct fervor and there is no sign of slowing down.
Survival of the fittest is now a thing of the past. We live in a time where there is such an abundance of goods, medicine and food that we can pick and choose who will succeed and on what merit (or lack-thereof).
if the advert sites go away for want of revenue, so what?
I think a lot of people that use stuff like Facebook etc will be bummed, but will move onto a pay-to-play service.
that goes against all of our principals. And we will pony up the dough to run it ourselves, no contributions asked, expected or accepted.
Sounds very altruistic, great. So where did the dough to run it come from? Evil corporation or magical fairies?
I run completely free services like this too, right out of my pocket, with zero profit; the money to pay for bandwidth and hosting comes from my day job: a corporation.
I merely asked a question. I wasn't advocating for the behaviour of the adware companies, blocking or not blocking.
I was simply trying to point out the sense of entitlement that seems to be pervasive.
Everyone seems to jump on the "f*ck the evil corporate profit monger" bandwagon, but no one ever seems to think about who's going to keep the lights on.
Like that blog site? Guess what? That guy blogging needs to eat, pay his rent and provide for his family. How is he going to pay for that: with high ideals? I think not.
Ok, too small. Fox News, CNN, take your pick. Some big news site. Those evil f*ckers are spamming you with ads and malware. Guess what? There's some guy working as a blogger/sysadmin/toilet cleaner/take your pick that needs to provide for his family.
See where this is going?
Again, I'm not advocating for, or against. Just pointing out that we need to put things in perspective.
They don't owe me a damned thing, and I don't owe them anything -- but until they find a technology solution to stop me, too damned bad.
This is exactly the entitlement mentality that puts said evil corporation in an arm's race to beat your technology and become more intrusive in the first place.
They feel entitled to make a profit by any means necessary, while you feel entitled to their content or service by any means necessary.
So you go ahead and be a well behaved little consumer, me, I'll continue to not give a crap about the revenue of large corporations.
The point is obviously lost on you. No one is advocating that; I was, and still am pointing out that everything comes at a cost. You can't have it both ways.
I will allow a site which serves its own advertising to show ads as long as they're not overly intrusive. But doubleclick, discus, scrorecard reasearch, quantcast, facebook, twitter -- and literally hundreds of other shit sites I have no interest in, well -- that's not my problem.
Unfortunately they are the only ones that probably pay well enough to generate profit. I know, profit is evil. But yeah, it will kind of be your problem when the "free" content or service you get used to using is no longer available. This is what makes subscription services great (no ads) but then everyone complains about the prices of the subscription, again evil corporate profit.
But let's not act like I owe you something. And let's certainly not act like just because you collect your money from a bunch of shady assholes that I owe them anything.
Clearly. The operating entity of the site owes you their content.
Personally, I'll take the good with the bad as not every situation is so black and white and weigh in the "real" price of said services.
Slashdot Mirror
I think they are trying to be clever and play on the term China Syndrome, where the fuel melts all the way through the earth to it's Antipodal point.
But since this is Japan, the author speculates that the antipodal point is somewhere in Uruguay, which it is not (it's kinda close though).
You can check here: Antipodal Map
I agree.
Our organization relies heavily on RT.
At first, I hated it. It's ugly, and written in Perl but have grown to really respect it's capabilities.
It's easy enough for the managers to poke around in and do basic administration, but flexible enough for the engineers to code custom plugins and scripts to extend functionality.
There is a large community and tons of documentation.
So because of the reasons you listed, there should be no competition?
Can we leave it to the consumer to decide which service they want, and what risks they are willing to take?
Can we leave it to the worker to decide which company they want to work for (taxi vs Uber, vs another line of work).?
I am just wondering who this is hurting by allowing competition, and by what criteria we/society decide that trade cannot happen between two consenting adults.
I think it's fairly easy to see why Uber isn't very popular with municipalities.
Any idea why they are popular with the consumer?
I wonder what the "people" say.
I'm not really interested in what the taxi companies, unions or politicians have to say.
If this is a detriment in some way to the general public, by all means get rid of it; I have yet to see a single anti-Uber post on here demonstrating how Uber is a bad thing.
If in fact it is bad for the consumer, or general public, why does the demand for the service keep the service running?
Correct me if I'm wrong but nobody is forcing people to use Uber right?
And the Uber drivers are getting compensated fairy? (otherwise I would assume they would find employment elsewhere).
Simple supply and demand. When the demand gets high enough usually the laws change.
Just because something is Law by no means makes it just, right, or logical.
How does one identify a baby who "seems" likely to develop a peanut allergy?
Hint: It's the one not breathing.
Bamba is awesome! It's funny to watch an american try it for the first time.
Can you share have the link to the study?
In the eyes of management and the bean counters, you are nothing more than a resource. You are a meat robot getting paid X to do 100% of Y. Simple.
In reality you happen to be a human that eats, poops, get's sick, has feelings, family etc and realize that nobody is 100% effect.
Labor will start to comply and do the best they can to track their time; however shortly after this management get's upset and chastises labor for only getting 75-80% of time tracked.
Shortly after the berating labor miraculously manages to track 100% of their time. The formula for labor becomes 8/Tasks = Time per task.
Management becomes happy.
(This scenario has been realized at every position I've been at in the last 10 years). ... I wonder what the management and the bean counters think when their overlords ask for the same thing?
I'd settle for just training most things not to poop in my yard. Whatever that takes.
Everyone that put in work was supposed to benefit. It isn't working out that way.
Absolutely untrue.
While the distribution is not close to "even", the "poor" (at least in the United States) are enjoying a higher quality of life.
Everyone is benefiting, just not evenly.
Exactly.
Most "work" is useless busy work now-a-days.
See job title: Social Media Manager.
So what you're saying is the uranium powered bicycle is REALLY dangerous.
If you read the comments to this article you'll see that most of the people leaving comments believe there are no unbiased medical professionals.... well, except for those that agree with them, like the one that wrote the article.
I hope your questions are mostly rhetorical.
It's been coming for a long time and everyone has seen it coming. But the moment someone speaks out against it the Social Crusaders label that person as a racist, sexist, bigot, or privileged white male to silence and shame them.
The Social Equality crusade has been in effect for decades at least.
Things like Affirmative Action are down right discriminatory but are deemed necessary by Social Warriors in the name of Social Justice and/or Equality.
As the abundance of wealth in this country has spread and the sense of self entitlement has grown people have been whipped into a politically correct fervor and there is no sign of slowing down.
Survival of the fittest is now a thing of the past.
We live in a time where there is such an abundance of goods, medicine and food that we can pick and choose who will succeed and on what merit (or lack-thereof).
making these classes attractive to kids
That's why they are putting more girls in the classes: to attract more nerds, duh.
I feel this same way about my auto mechanic. I'm deeply troubled by the lack of female representation when I take my car in. Something must be done.
Why not? It worked for Affirmative Action.
if the advert sites go away for want of revenue, so what?
I think a lot of people that use stuff like Facebook etc will be bummed, but will move onto a pay-to-play service.
that goes against all of our principals. And we will pony up the dough to run it ourselves, no contributions asked, expected or accepted.
Sounds very altruistic, great. So where did the dough to run it come from? Evil corporation or magical fairies?
I run completely free services like this too, right out of my pocket, with zero profit; the money to pay for bandwidth and hosting comes from my day job: a corporation.
It's an arm's race.
FYI, a great way to "defend" your computer is to not intentionally put it on the front-line.
I merely asked a question. I wasn't advocating for the behaviour of the adware companies, blocking or not blocking.
I was simply trying to point out the sense of entitlement that seems to be pervasive.
Everyone seems to jump on the "f*ck the evil corporate profit monger" bandwagon, but no one ever seems to think about who's going to keep the lights on.
Like that blog site? Guess what?
That guy blogging needs to eat, pay his rent and provide for his family. How is he going to pay for that: with high ideals? I think not.
Ok, too small.
Fox News, CNN, take your pick. Some big news site.
Those evil f*ckers are spamming you with ads and malware.
Guess what? There's some guy working as a blogger/sysadmin/toilet cleaner/take your pick that needs to provide for his family.
See where this is going?
Again, I'm not advocating for, or against. Just pointing out that we need to put things in perspective.
They don't owe me a damned thing, and I don't owe them anything -- but until they find a technology solution to stop me, too damned bad.
This is exactly the entitlement mentality that puts said evil corporation in an arm's race to beat your technology and become more intrusive in the first place.
They feel entitled to make a profit by any means necessary, while you feel entitled to their content or service by any means necessary.
So you go ahead and be a well behaved little consumer, me, I'll continue to not give a crap about the revenue of large corporations.
The point is obviously lost on you. No one is advocating that; I was, and still am pointing out that everything comes at a cost. You can't have it both ways.
Good luck only buy from companies, or even private parties for that matter, that don't expect to make profit.
I will allow a site which serves its own advertising to show ads as long as they're not overly intrusive. But doubleclick, discus, scrorecard reasearch, quantcast, facebook, twitter -- and literally hundreds of other shit sites I have no interest in, well -- that's not my problem.
Unfortunately they are the only ones that probably pay well enough to generate profit. I know, profit is evil. But yeah, it will kind of be your problem when the "free" content or service you get used to using is no longer available.
This is what makes subscription services great (no ads) but then everyone complains about the prices of the subscription, again evil corporate profit.
But let's not act like I owe you something. And let's certainly not act like just because you collect your money from a bunch of shady assholes that I owe them anything.
Clearly. The operating entity of the site owes you their content.
Personally, I'll take the good with the bad as not every situation is so black and white and weigh in the "real" price of said services.
I stand corrected.