>>"Depends on your job and what you're doing. Don't forget a lot of people here are geeks who get paid for 8-5 and may work until 7 or 9 or 11 many days, with no overtime."
True, but it all depends on the job and the nature of the contribution is expected to make.
No surprise here. First, taking time out off your job to do personal business -- blogging or anything else -- is a fine way to get in trouble with your employer. Just common sense. You'd get in trouble for taking an hour every day at 3 o'clock to go running.
Second, the Hatch Act has, for decades, prohibited partisan political activity by federal employees. There's good reason, if only because those employees make decisions every day about how and where to spend taxpayer money.
Third, the provisions of the Hatch Act are made clear to every federal employee when they accept the job.
I'd love to see somene figure out how to take the noise out of exceeding the speed of sound. Maybe then we'd be able to fly a palatable SST.
But, please, not with engines like the Concorde. I lived for a while west of London, down the road a bit from Heathrow. The Concorde flew over my house a lot, just after takeoff. It was probably only doing about 300 mph or so, but, holy moly, was it loud! Can't-talk-on-the-telephone loud. I'll take a sonic boom or two any day in preference to that racket.
Weeding out the swine is a cost and resource issue for the Post and every other site that accepts comments. No absolute right exists to post anything to someone else's site; it's all by invitation. So paying staff to wallow in the crud day after day just so the most offensive comments can be flushed is an expensive pain. No one becomes a journalist to ride herd on crazed vile loons.
There's money to be made for anyone who can sell the Post and the rest of the industry something that even approximates what they want.
I can think of several sites dominated by comments that I no longer visit because I don't have the time or patience or stomach to deal with the crap. And I stopped reading comments here a long time ago; now I just skim the headlines in my RSS reader.
The guy at the Post may be acting as a 'traditional news editor", but, as a traditional reader, that's a very good thing. The web allows anyone to say anything, but that doesn't translate into a right to say anything on any site.
It's not about ideas or imagination. it's about stringing together words, or musical notes, or colors on a canvas in a way that's new to the world.
When Rowling created her novels, she created something she owned, lock, stock and barrel. She owner that unique sequence of words and every right associated with it. If she'd written gibberish, it would still be owned exclusively by her and be just as controlled to her copyright.
If I make something that has never existed before, I own it. No one has any rights to it unless I say so.
High-falutin' talk about ideas and sarcasm like "imaginary property" is cute, but it has nothing to do with reality.
The number of comments in this thread from people who are dismissive of usability tests is indicative of the gap between Linux fans and everyone else.
Usability is more than checking to see if a user evenrtually figured out how to get something deon. E.g., it's disastrous if they can't figure out how to open a file. But, the fact that they managed to open the file is not necessarily an indicator of a good design.
Usability is something people pay cash for. Just ask Apple and the Photoshop folks.
It's been some time, but it seems to me the notion of literate programming is that anyone who knows the language can read the code and understand what's going on.
So, whether you use "*" or "MULTIPLYB" is no more a mark of literacy than if you say "Thank you" or "Merci".
Verbosity has nothing to do with it. Cobol code that is readable is better than C code that's not.
If memory serves, at least one of the original notions of a Shuttle design included a winged first stage. One version, I believe, was crewed, with the intention that the crew would fly it back to base for reuse.
It's worth remembering that reusability is a means to an end -- lower costs -- and not an end in itself. The Shuttle has been unable to fly with enough frequency to reach that end. In hindsight, I suspect a persuasive case could be made that rather a lot of money would have been saved if we'd flown those missions using proven technology from the 1960's, i.e., the Saturn series.
Just to be annoyingly pedantic, you really can't "fly into space". Flying involves air and a lifting surface. Ergo, you can't fly into space.
During its ascent to orbit, the Shuttle's wings are useless, just so much dead weight. They only come into play during reentry for a few short moments following reentry on approach to the landing site.
Putting wings on an LEO spacecraft serves the purpose of trying to make the thing reusable. But, the complexity and cost of the Shuttle, along with un-likelihood that any similar craft can ever approach honest operational status, might induce us to consider other approaches to reusability.
Exactly, what are the advantages of Linux over Windows once you've removed stability, security, price, and ease of use from the table?
What I;m saying is that all the things that people here and elsehwere typically tout as pluses for Linux have little or nothing to do with its chances on the desktop.
The fact is that the vast majority of Windows users lack motivation to adopt Linux. Frankly, if they wanted to leave Windows, they'd be mutch more likely to adopt Apple. Why? Because it's easier to switch software when you buy new hardware, and because you can drive to the mall and buy Apple. You can't drive to a mall and buy Linux. Linux may be free, but in tems of commercial success, that's much less important than the fact that Linux has zero commercial presence in the retail chain.
I'd think the evidence of the last decade is that better stability, less crapware, fewer viruses and being free have not generated many converts to desktop Linux.
Lots of Windows users swear at their machines daily, and reinstall Windows on a regular basis. What they don't do, however, is switch to Linux.
Just being better hasn't, and isn't, going to win Linux many friends.
People correlate desktop appearance with software quality. "Cool" desktops will attract some folks, but alienate others who want something with a more professional appearance.
Linux has to be something more than a "just as good" replacement for Windows before it's widely adopted. It needs to deliver capabilities that customers want that are not available from Microsoft or Apples.
The chances of Linux being widely available on OEM hardware is essentially nil. For users to take the risk of installing Linux, it must enable them to accomplish something that Microsoft and Apple haven't.
When that happens, and only when that happens, people will start going out of their way to acquire Linux.
The Chinese government don't seem to be trying to justify its control of the media. Such control has been a hallmark of every totalitarian state, for obvious reasons.
Because absolute moral consistency is not a prerequisite for doing the right thing.
More to the point, no one is blocking Texan access to the net, or anything else for that matter. Texans, and Mexicans, are fully aware of their history. The Chinese people are not aware of Tibet's recent history because the government controls the media and their access to the net.
Besides, Mexico acquired Texas by force from Spain, which had acquired it by force from any number of indigenous peoples, who, in turn, were often at each other's throats. How far back do you want to go? Few of us, if anyone, live on land that was not forcibly taken from someone else at some point in history.
The fact remains, however, that Tibet is an independent nation forcibly conquered and annexed by China. It is also a fact that China is blocking net access to news about Tibet. The Tibetan people have a right to have their country back. The Chinese people have a right to real news, news that isn't filtered and tweaked by the government. No amount of "preconceptions" should obscure our moral vision about this.
Sometimes you need to decide which side you're on.
I know items on store shelves are for sale because they are, umm, in a store and have price tags. I know a web site with a public URL has something to sell when a box pops up and tells me what it costs and how to register and I can't otherwise get at the stuff gthe site is selling. I know a web site wih a public URL and something to sell was designed by someone without a clue when when nothing stands between me and the stuff that's being sold.
The best analogy here is this: A college town bar owner takes a truck full of six packs and sets them on the front steps of every frat house he can find, then calls the lawyers when he discovers the frat boys drank the beer without paying for it.
Going after the excesses of the RIAA, etc., by trying to convince the world that we've all been thinking wrong for the last millenia is typical sophomoric engineer think.
Property doesn't need to be matter. It only needs to be a product of someones mind to be "intellectual". Not smart or broundbreaking, just a product to someone's brain.
Do you draw a salary? Invest in stocks and bonds? There're all your property, right? Yet, they exist as nothing more than some organized bits in some databases.
Pick a goal: Stop the RIAA or change the way the rest of the world deals with property. The former seems considerably easier than the second, considering how many people earn their livings making intellectual property (like the people that own this site and like every software developer on the planet, for starters.)
I propose we fence off Florida and treat it as one big expierment in cultural evolution. Won't be long before they're sacrificing farm animals and reading entrails.
And... how do employers and collage admission boards deal with Floridians? Would you want to hire an employee or accept a student who's been taught that science is mumbojumbo and that mumbojumbo is science?
It's an effort to control the information available to Iranians. The regime does not want news and reporting coming in from sources they do not control. That's fundamental for a totalitarian state.
As for assuming " info will come out eventually", that's usually not the case. When the only information available comes from sources operated by the state or vetted by the state, there's little opportunity for information to simply "come out".
News and information are not synonymous. The CNN video, plus the reporting of the fire and the official quote, constitute a news story. Any "commentary" obviously is just that, not news. It's not even on the table in this discussion.
Slashdot, probably a day or two after the fact, runs a link to a news story created by someone one else. That's information, but it isn't news anymore. Ditto that lengthy post about OSHA and liability, etc.
Again, however, what reason do I have to assume that an anonymous post by someone who has no track record with me is credible and accurate? I do not want to get my news from an unknown and untested source that, in effect, forces me to work independently to verify its claims.
The process of assessing and determining the reliability of a single source, or a single story, is the same whether we're are talking about a/. poster, a wire service story, or an editor vetting a story at a newspaper. That process is fundamentally the same in the traditional media and in so-called user-generated media. That's why i have more trust in the newspaper I read every day than in Slashdot posters. I'm never exposed to any single/. poster long enough to determine if he/she is credible. I think that's a problem.
Slashdot Mirror
>>"Depends on your job and what you're doing. Don't forget a lot of people here are geeks who get paid for 8-5 and may work until 7 or 9 or 11 many days, with no overtime."
True, but it all depends on the job and the nature of the contribution is expected to make.
No surprise here. First, taking time out off your job to do personal business -- blogging or anything else -- is a fine way to get in trouble with your employer. Just common sense. You'd get in trouble for taking an hour every day at 3 o'clock to go running.
Second, the Hatch Act has, for decades, prohibited partisan political activity by federal employees. There's good reason, if only because those employees make decisions every day about how and where to spend taxpayer money.
Third, the provisions of the Hatch Act are made clear to every federal employee when they accept the job.
I'd love to see somene figure out how to take the noise out of exceeding the speed of sound. Maybe then we'd be able to fly a palatable SST.
But, please, not with engines like the Concorde. I lived for a while west of London, down the road a bit from Heathrow. The Concorde flew over my house a lot, just after takeoff. It was probably only doing about 300 mph or so, but, holy moly, was it loud! Can't-talk-on-the-telephone loud. I'll take a sonic boom or two any day in preference to that racket.
Weeding out the swine is a cost and resource issue for the Post and every other site that accepts comments. No absolute right exists to post anything to someone else's site; it's all by invitation. So paying staff to wallow in the crud day after day just so the most offensive comments can be flushed is an expensive pain. No one becomes a journalist to ride herd on crazed vile loons.
There's money to be made for anyone who can sell the Post and the rest of the industry something that even approximates what they want.
I can think of several sites dominated by comments that I no longer visit because I don't have the time or patience or stomach to deal with the crap. And I stopped reading comments here a long time ago; now I just skim the headlines in my RSS reader.
The guy at the Post may be acting as a 'traditional news editor", but, as a traditional reader, that's a very good thing. The web allows anyone to say anything, but that doesn't translate into a right to say anything on any site.
Well... the obvious thing to do is to pass the MacGyver torch to a kid and let Anderson, if he's inclined, play his father and/or boss.
And who says it has to be a guy? What about Katee Sackhoff??
But, seriously, I won't buy tickets unless Marge Simpson's sisters are in it.
Sure, as long as they don't use my words to do that.
It's the unique sequence of words that I own, not any ideas or perceptions those words spark in someone's brain.
It's not about ideas or imagination. it's about stringing together words, or musical notes, or colors on a canvas in a way that's new to the world.
When Rowling created her novels, she created something she owned, lock, stock and barrel. She owner that unique sequence of words and every right associated with it. If she'd written gibberish, it would still be owned exclusively by her and be just as controlled to her copyright.
If I make something that has never existed before, I own it. No one has any rights to it unless I say so.
High-falutin' talk about ideas and sarcasm like "imaginary property" is cute, but it has nothing to do with reality.
The number of comments in this thread from people who are dismissive of usability tests is indicative of the gap between Linux fans and everyone else.
Usability is more than checking to see if a user evenrtually figured out how to get something deon. E.g., it's disastrous if they can't figure out how to open a file. But, the fact that they managed to open the file is not necessarily an indicator of a good design.
Usability is something people pay cash for. Just ask Apple and the Photoshop folks.
It's been some time, but it seems to me the notion of literate programming is that anyone who knows the language can read the code and understand what's going on.
So, whether you use "*" or "MULTIPLYB" is no more a mark of literacy than if you say "Thank you" or "Merci".
Verbosity has nothing to do with it. Cobol code that is readable is better than C code that's not.
If memory serves, at least one of the original notions of a Shuttle design included a winged first stage. One version, I believe, was crewed, with the intention that the crew would fly it back to base for reuse.
It's worth remembering that reusability is a means to an end -- lower costs -- and not an end in itself. The Shuttle has been unable to fly with enough frequency to reach that end. In hindsight, I suspect a persuasive case could be made that rather a lot of money would have been saved if we'd flown those missions using proven technology from the 1960's, i.e., the Saturn series.
Just to be annoyingly pedantic, you really can't "fly into space". Flying involves air and a lifting surface. Ergo, you can't fly into space.
During its ascent to orbit, the Shuttle's wings are useless, just so much dead weight. They only come into play during reentry for a few short moments following reentry on approach to the landing site.
Putting wings on an LEO spacecraft serves the purpose of trying to make the thing reusable. But, the complexity and cost of the Shuttle, along with un-likelihood that any similar craft can ever approach honest operational status, might induce us to consider other approaches to reusability.
Yes, but...
Exactly, what are the advantages of Linux over Windows once you've removed stability, security, price, and ease of use from the table?
What I;m saying is that all the things that people here and elsehwere typically tout as pluses for Linux have little or nothing to do with its chances on the desktop.
The fact is that the vast majority of Windows users lack motivation to adopt Linux. Frankly, if they wanted to leave Windows, they'd be mutch more likely to adopt Apple. Why? Because it's easier to switch software when you buy new hardware, and because you can drive to the mall and buy Apple. You can't drive to a mall and buy Linux. Linux may be free, but in tems of commercial success, that's much less important than the fact that Linux has zero commercial presence in the retail chain.
I'd think the evidence of the last decade is that better stability, less crapware, fewer viruses and being free have not generated many converts to desktop Linux.
Lots of Windows users swear at their machines daily, and reinstall Windows on a regular basis. What they don't do, however, is switch to Linux.
Just being better hasn't, and isn't, going to win Linux many friends.
People correlate desktop appearance with software quality. "Cool" desktops will attract some folks, but alienate others who want something with a more professional appearance.
>>" Most users still use there computer for web browsing, emailing wordprocessing and IM."
And if they are satisfied with the software they're using for those basic tasks, they have no incentive to consider an alternative.
Red Hat means they don't think they can make money selling a retail Linux for use on desktops. That's been their position for several years.
Whether or not it is possible to put together a collection of Linux software that qualifies a a "desktop" is not at issue.
Linux has to be something more than a "just as good" replacement for Windows before it's widely adopted. It needs to deliver capabilities that customers want that are not available from Microsoft or Apples.
The chances of Linux being widely available on OEM hardware is essentially nil. For users to take the risk of installing Linux, it must enable them to accomplish something that Microsoft and Apple haven't.
When that happens, and only when that happens, people will start going out of their way to acquire Linux.
Clarke merits something more substantial and permanent. I'm advocating renaming Europa as Clarke's Moon.
Re: "the greatest bang since the big one..." Seems unlikely. It's only the biggest one since we've been watching.
The Chinese government don't seem to be trying to justify its control of the media. Such control has been a hallmark of every totalitarian state, for obvious reasons.
Because absolute moral consistency is not a prerequisite for doing the right thing.
More to the point, no one is blocking Texan access to the net, or anything else for that matter. Texans, and Mexicans, are fully aware of their history. The Chinese people are not aware of Tibet's recent history because the government controls the media and their access to the net.
Besides, Mexico acquired Texas by force from Spain, which had acquired it by force from any number of indigenous peoples, who, in turn, were often at each other's throats. How far back do you want to go? Few of us, if anyone, live on land that was not forcibly taken from someone else at some point in history.
The fact remains, however, that Tibet is an independent nation forcibly conquered and annexed by China. It is also a fact that China is blocking net access to news about Tibet. The Tibetan people have a right to have their country back. The Chinese people have a right to real news, news that isn't filtered and tweaked by the government. No amount of "preconceptions" should obscure our moral vision about this.
Sometimes you need to decide which side you're on.
I know items on store shelves are for sale because they are, umm, in a store and have price tags. I know a web site with a public URL has something to sell when a box pops up and tells me what it costs and how to register and I can't otherwise get at the stuff gthe site is selling. I know a web site wih a public URL and something to sell was designed by someone without a clue when when nothing stands between me and the stuff that's being sold.
The best analogy here is this: A college town bar owner takes a truck full of six packs and sets them on the front steps of every frat house he can find, then calls the lawyers when he discovers the frat boys drank the beer without paying for it.
Going after the excesses of the RIAA, etc., by trying to convince the world that we've all been thinking wrong for the last millenia is typical sophomoric engineer think.
Property doesn't need to be matter. It only needs to be a product of someones mind to be "intellectual". Not smart or broundbreaking, just a product to someone's brain.
Do you draw a salary? Invest in stocks and bonds? There're all your property, right? Yet, they exist as nothing more than some organized bits in some databases.
Pick a goal: Stop the RIAA or change the way the rest of the world deals with property. The former seems considerably easier than the second, considering how many people earn their livings making intellectual property (like the people that own this site and like every software developer on the planet, for starters.)
I propose we fence off Florida and treat it as one big expierment in cultural evolution. Won't be long before they're sacrificing farm animals and reading entrails.
And... how do employers and collage admission boards deal with Floridians? Would you want to hire an employee or accept a student who's been taught that science is mumbojumbo and that mumbojumbo is science?
It's an effort to control the information available to Iranians. The regime does not want news and reporting coming in from sources they do not control. That's fundamental for a totalitarian state.
As for assuming " info will come out eventually", that's usually not the case. When the only information available comes from sources operated by the state or vetted by the state, there's little opportunity for information to simply "come out".
News and information are not synonymous. The CNN video, plus the reporting of the fire and the official quote, constitute a news story. Any "commentary" obviously is just that, not news. It's not even on the table in this discussion.
/. poster, a wire service story, or an editor vetting a story at a newspaper. That process is fundamentally the same in the traditional media and in so-called user-generated media. That's why i have more trust in the newspaper I read every day than in Slashdot posters. I'm never exposed to any single /. poster long enough to determine if he/she is credible. I think that's a problem.
Slashdot, probably a day or two after the fact, runs a link to a news story created by someone one else. That's information, but it isn't news anymore. Ditto that lengthy post about OSHA and liability, etc.
Again, however, what reason do I have to assume that an anonymous post by someone who has no track record with me is credible and accurate? I do not want to get my news from an unknown and untested source that, in effect, forces me to work independently to verify its claims.
The process of assessing and determining the reliability of a single source, or a single story, is the same whether we're are talking about a