The problem is Sara, in a small organization , sure you play it by ear I guess. But as a business grows it gets hard not to have some fixed rules around it.
Like lets take an obvious example. "Dont grab girls butts". Well we might make an exemption for joe and jane who are dating, I mean, its just public affection by a couple right? Well hang on now theres a problem because if the break up badly and end up in the "we dont really know the status of this anymore?" who can really say whats going on, but it leaves an awful amount of power in janes hand to declare it sexual harrassment, because it would be profoundly innapropriate to dismiss such a complaint.
Thus the easiest rule is just "keep that shit out of the office please" which removes any ambiguity (and to be honest most guys suck at comprehending ambiguity)
Finally what happens when you a situation where theres an office where everyone knows each other well and a few lewd jokes are made between sexes and its fine because on friday night everyones out at beers including the girls and ya know its friendship and all that. Well the new guy, joins the company and he sees everyone making lewd jokes at each other and figures he too will start making sly breast comments to the receptionist. I mean how is he to know that when bill the accountant makes those comments he's actually the receptionists best friend and they've been making those jokes since high school. Suddenly you have to fire a guy for sexual harassment because he just didnt understand that the rules that define who can say what to who are actually made outside the office rather than inside. I mean you cant let it slide either because now the receptionist is completely freaked out and uncomfortable about a stranger creeping her out. But stranger doesnt really understand where he went wrong, monkey see monkey do.
Sometimes its better to just rule that shit needs to be kept tame in the office for everybodys sanity.
The emails showed that they conspired to prevent papers from ever being peer reviewed, or to rig that peer review.
All the claims made about the scientists where disproven in multiple investigations. The only thing that was shown was that one of them was not following the rules regarding FOI requests, although the investigations also found that the person making the requests was doing so out of harrassment. Finally the data that was denied was unFOIable anyway since it involved commercially owned data-sets that would have been a breach of copyright to FOI.
A bunch of pissed off scientists badmouthing a crank who had been harrassing them and submitting pseudoscience to to journals does not constitute a conspiracy to silence people. To do that you actually need to talk to the publishers of the journals, not somee generic scientist guys at some generic university research lab.
Sure that analogy would work great if only wikileaks campaign involved wikileaks engaging in a huge campaign of personal harrassment, death threats, break-ins, smear-campaigns and corporate funded legal skullfuckery directed at the government.
But since none of that happened, and the CRU was a bunch of hard working, honest scientists who had their lives turned upside down in a deeply hostile way to try and discredit their hard work, the analogy is actually fucking terrible.
I wouldnt actually be surprised if there was some substance. A while back, when Australia was doing its tendering for constructing the national broadband network (fibre to the home + backbone upgrade), it excluded these companies on the grounds of "security concerns" but declined to state why. It was puzzling as australia is as close to china as we are to the united states, and perhaps more so economically.
Perhaps the US Pentagon had a word to Australian intelligence about the concerns, and this guy has heard those concerns too.
Right but IBM is apt. IBM has always innovated (The PC itself, for instance) but the creativity of its techs was stifled by a general old-world business model that left it vunerable to getting its throat torn out by the new-world practices of microsoft in the 80s. But microsoft is now in that same boat. The apple it crushed in the 90s bears no resemblance to the apple of today, and apple has learned and studied its mistakes. And apple has studied microsoft learning its successes too. Apple now has the raw capital to beat microsoft in an endurance game and it has the smarts to beat microsoft at being desirable and attractive to non techie punters.
Microsoft will always have a market for its PC stuff, as long as it doesnt completely blow it with this metro guff, but apple is redefining the market, and I'm not convinced that whatever innovations Win8 brings to the tablet space have arived in time to make a difference.
Frankly I suspect the only thing that will make MS's tablets work is if it fogets the home market and makes an aggressive pitch at the enterprise. It might succeed in that.
Considering the article linked is on a climate deniers website, you well may end up having a point. I'd like to see a more credible source for this story than the quack watt's site.
Because its part of the big picture. The film was 1-2 hours and talked about a LOT of things. The reality is we dont know how bad its going to get , only that its bad. the film explored a range of scenarios at different time scales.
More to the point, as this very research shows, the effects of decisions made NOW will be with us for a LONG time to come. So yes, there is urgency. Even over the past ten years the *current* effects of climate change have become a lot more serious. Do we really need to spend another 20 years arguing with boorish anti-intellectual denialists and conservatives whilst we actually know now for a fact that we really do need to fix a serious problem in the biosphere, like right now?
But its neither misleading or a lie? Its very clear in the film what he means, and just because a bunch of shitty conservative bloggers decided to twist his words with selective quotation and straight out misattribution doesn't mean its HIM being dishonest, it means its the ridiculous denialists being dishonest.
5) You hire a lobbyist to get the government to legally indemnify your company from any damage caused by making kids teeth fall out in return for buying the congressmen his next election victory.
Call it C02 and half of the conservative blogosphere is going to start running aroiund in circles decrying it as some sort of strange communist conspiracy.
If it encourages folks to upgrade to v8 or v9, I imagine microsoft would be pretty happy with it actually. They've been campaigning for people to stop using v7
He was already way behind the curve prior to palin, then when she got appointed, he got a big surge as people kind of went "Wow thats an exciting choice!" and then finally plumetted when she opened her mouth and people realised she was completely bonkers.
The reality was McCaine could not have won it because Bush had poisoned the well so badly that most people simply wanted nothing to do with the GOP, and Obama was a young kenedy-eque black dude who was purporting to offer a radically different path from Bush's disasterous road.
Yep. Doing IOS apps rekindled my love of programming at a time when the endless treadmill of web-dev was pushing me towards contemplating a career change into something not-computers.
I'm sure I'll grow disillusioned again, but for now, I'm actually enjoying my job for the first time in a decade.
Its also possibly one of the most obvious patents imaginable. I honestly dont understand how patent examiners read these things and reject them on spot with a note saying something like "What the fuck is wrong with your brain, idiot?"
I mean if it where up to me, it would be an anarchist revolution with a resolutely syndicalist-socialist economy. But the libertarians probably wouldn't have a bar of that. And all the democracy people (most folks) would probably rather have some sort of government. And then amongst those, half would want a liberal revolution and the other half a conservative one (wheeee chile death squads).
And thats the problem. America isn't having a revolution because despite all the doom and gloom, nobody agrees on shit, and maybe thats the triumph of democracy. When nobody can agree on what they want, mediocracy will rule and protect the status quo of the rich and powerful.
I know this sounds pesimistic, but I am pesimistic, so here is some honesty: American living standards still put most of the world to shame, except perhaps for the mess of the privatized health system. The poor are on average far richer than most of the developing world, and the rich are insanely rich. Things can get a *lot* worse before people finally snap and agree , for better or worse, that shit needs replacement at the burning end of an angry citizenrys pichforks.
AGW warming isn't really speculation anymore. We actually know its happening, and theres a growing depressing realization that the last 15-20 years of beating around the bush and being obstructed by ludite denialists with pet congressmen has led us to a point where the discussion has now had to moved from prevention to mitigation as we've more or less missed the window to stop it from progressing.
The question now is how bad it gets. 1m is the low end of the ballpark.
I think sometimes in these conversation you should probably mentally replace "hipster" with "sex-haver". Its a seriously anti-social and frankly boring thing to go flipping out about other peoples tech preferences. Get over it geeks and worry about your own shit, not mine.
Yes I have an iphone. No I'm not a hipster. No I honestly don't care what someone else thinks of mine as much as I honestly dont care what their phone is.
Ranting about apple being some boutique trendy thing with no technical merit got old a *long* time ago.
No. Law suits are not always about damages. They CAN be about impending damage and injunctions to prevent them.
Now whether a judge will think the kids have standing in something as relatively speculative (although I think a very sound case can be made that at least we know SOME damage is happening from human involvement), is another matter, but the legal theory here is at least plausible.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem is Sara, in a small organization , sure you play it by ear I guess. But as a business grows it gets hard not to have some fixed rules around it.
Like lets take an obvious example. "Dont grab girls butts". Well we might make an exemption for joe and jane who are dating, I mean, its just public affection by a couple right? Well hang on now theres a problem because if the break up badly and end up in the "we dont really know the status of this anymore?" who can really say whats going on, but it leaves an awful amount of power in janes hand to declare it sexual harrassment, because it would be profoundly innapropriate to dismiss such a complaint.
Thus the easiest rule is just "keep that shit out of the office please" which removes any ambiguity (and to be honest most guys suck at comprehending ambiguity)
Finally what happens when you a situation where theres an office where everyone knows each other well and a few lewd jokes are made between sexes and its fine because on friday night everyones out at beers including the girls and ya know its friendship and all that. Well the new guy, joins the company and he sees everyone making lewd jokes at each other and figures he too will start making sly breast comments to the receptionist. I mean how is he to know that when bill the accountant makes those comments he's actually the receptionists best friend and they've been making those jokes since high school. Suddenly you have to fire a guy for sexual harassment because he just didnt understand that the rules that define who can say what to who are actually made outside the office rather than inside. I mean you cant let it slide either because now the receptionist is completely freaked out and uncomfortable about a stranger creeping her out. But stranger doesnt really understand where he went wrong, monkey see monkey do.
Sometimes its better to just rule that shit needs to be kept tame in the office for everybodys sanity.
When you think about it, whats going on here is inducing mental illness in "thinking" machines.
We already know how to induce mental illness in humans. Religion and war.
The emails showed that they conspired to prevent papers from ever being peer reviewed, or to rig that peer review.
All the claims made about the scientists where disproven in multiple investigations. The only thing that was shown was that one of them was not following the rules regarding FOI requests, although the investigations also found that the person making the requests was doing so out of harrassment. Finally the data that was denied was unFOIable anyway since it involved commercially owned data-sets that would have been a breach of copyright to FOI.
A bunch of pissed off scientists badmouthing a crank who had been harrassing them and submitting pseudoscience to to journals does not constitute a conspiracy to silence people. To do that you actually need to talk to the publishers of the journals, not somee generic scientist guys at some generic university research lab.
Sure that analogy would work great if only wikileaks campaign involved wikileaks engaging in a huge campaign of personal harrassment, death threats, break-ins, smear-campaigns and corporate funded legal skullfuckery directed at the government.
But since none of that happened, and the CRU was a bunch of hard working, honest scientists who had their lives turned upside down in a deeply hostile way to try and discredit their hard work, the analogy is actually fucking terrible.
I wouldnt actually be surprised if there was some substance. A while back, when Australia was doing its tendering for constructing the national broadband network (fibre to the home + backbone upgrade), it excluded these companies on the grounds of "security concerns" but declined to state why. It was puzzling as australia is as close to china as we are to the united states, and perhaps more so economically.
Perhaps the US Pentagon had a word to Australian intelligence about the concerns, and this guy has heard those concerns too.
Right but IBM is apt. IBM has always innovated (The PC itself, for instance) but the creativity of its techs was stifled by a general old-world business model that left it vunerable to getting its throat torn out by the new-world practices of microsoft in the 80s. But microsoft is now in that same boat. The apple it crushed in the 90s bears no resemblance to the apple of today, and apple has learned and studied its mistakes. And apple has studied microsoft learning its successes too. Apple now has the raw capital to beat microsoft in an endurance game and it has the smarts to beat microsoft at being desirable and attractive to non techie punters.
Microsoft will always have a market for its PC stuff, as long as it doesnt completely blow it with this metro guff, but apple is redefining the market, and I'm not convinced that whatever innovations Win8 brings to the tablet space have arived in time to make a difference.
Frankly I suspect the only thing that will make MS's tablets work is if it fogets the home market and makes an aggressive pitch at the enterprise. It might succeed in that.
Considering the article linked is on a climate deniers website, you well may end up having a point. I'd like to see a more credible source for this story than the quack watt's site.
Forth is a bit like darts. I paradoxically get better at darts the more I drink. Thus I'm very fond of darts, like I'm very fond of forth.
Somehow I feel that if I did forth for a day job, my liver would be destroyed.
Because its part of the big picture. The film was 1-2 hours and talked about a LOT of things. The reality is we dont know how bad its going to get , only that its bad. the film explored a range of scenarios at different time scales.
More to the point, as this very research shows, the effects of decisions made NOW will be with us for a LONG time to come. So yes, there is urgency. Even over the past ten years the *current* effects of climate change have become a lot more serious. Do we really need to spend another 20 years arguing with boorish anti-intellectual denialists and conservatives whilst we actually know now for a fact that we really do need to fix a serious problem in the biosphere, like right now?
But its neither misleading or a lie? Its very clear in the film what he means, and just because a bunch of shitty conservative bloggers decided to twist his words with selective quotation and straight out misattribution doesn't mean its HIM being dishonest, it means its the ridiculous denialists being dishonest.
You forgot step 5.
5) You hire a lobbyist to get the government to legally indemnify your company from any damage caused by making kids teeth fall out in return for buying the congressmen his next election victory.
The people with the patents. The joys of government enforced monopolies.
Call it C02 and half of the conservative blogosphere is going to start running aroiund in circles decrying it as some sort of strange communist conspiracy.
UK weather: Where 29c is a heatwave.
Firefox has the auto updater which OUGHT be keeping most folks up to date, and even old versions of chrome are pretty web dev friendly.
All 4 users of opera might have reasons to grumble if they are still using an ancient version, for some absurd reason.
If it encourages folks to upgrade to v8 or v9, I imagine microsoft would be pretty happy with it actually. They've been campaigning for people to stop using v7
He was already way behind the curve prior to palin, then when she got appointed, he got a big surge as people kind of went "Wow thats an exciting choice!" and then finally plumetted when she opened her mouth and people realised she was completely bonkers.
The reality was McCaine could not have won it because Bush had poisoned the well so badly that most people simply wanted nothing to do with the GOP, and Obama was a young kenedy-eque black dude who was purporting to offer a radically different path from Bush's disasterous road.
Yep. Doing IOS apps rekindled my love of programming at a time when the endless treadmill of web-dev was pushing me towards contemplating a career change into something not-computers.
I'm sure I'll grow disillusioned again, but for now, I'm actually enjoying my job for the first time in a decade.
Its also possibly one of the most obvious patents imaginable. I honestly dont understand how patent examiners read these things and reject them on spot with a note saying something like "What the fuck is wrong with your brain, idiot?"
But what sort of revolution would it be?
I mean if it where up to me, it would be an anarchist revolution with a resolutely syndicalist-socialist economy. But the libertarians probably wouldn't have a bar of that. And all the democracy people (most folks) would probably rather have some sort of government. And then amongst those, half would want a liberal revolution and the other half a conservative one (wheeee chile death squads).
And thats the problem. America isn't having a revolution because despite all the doom and gloom, nobody agrees on shit, and maybe thats the triumph of democracy. When nobody can agree on what they want, mediocracy will rule and protect the status quo of the rich and powerful.
I know this sounds pesimistic, but I am pesimistic, so here is some honesty: American living standards still put most of the world to shame, except perhaps for the mess of the privatized health system. The poor are on average far richer than most of the developing world, and the rich are insanely rich. Things can get a *lot* worse before people finally snap and agree , for better or worse, that shit needs replacement at the burning end of an angry citizenrys pichforks.
AGW warming isn't really speculation anymore. We actually know its happening, and theres a growing depressing realization that the last 15-20 years of beating around the bush and being obstructed by ludite denialists with pet congressmen has led us to a point where the discussion has now had to moved from prevention to mitigation as we've more or less missed the window to stop it from progressing.
The question now is how bad it gets. 1m is the low end of the ballpark.
He's refering to the EU courts. Metagovernments , like normal governments, can multitask.
If you havent clicked "Accept", for sure.
Lawyers can't write laws, only contracts, and even then this whole court nullification business tends to be treated as *VERY* fishy by the courts.
I think sometimes in these conversation you should probably mentally replace "hipster" with "sex-haver". Its a seriously anti-social and frankly boring thing to go flipping out about other peoples tech preferences. Get over it geeks and worry about your own shit, not mine.
Yes I have an iphone. No I'm not a hipster. No I honestly don't care what someone else thinks of mine as much as I honestly dont care what their phone is.
Ranting about apple being some boutique trendy thing with no technical merit got old a *long* time ago.
No. Law suits are not always about damages. They CAN be about impending damage and injunctions to prevent them.
Now whether a judge will think the kids have standing in something as relatively speculative (although I think a very sound case can be made that at least we know SOME damage is happening from human involvement), is another matter, but the legal theory here is at least plausible.