This isn't entirely true. Theoretically, ads serve the purpose of letting you know available options that you hadn't even considered before. This is a good thing, in theory.
This used to be a good thing before it was easy to seek out information about products. Now, it's rather pointless. If I don't already know that I need something from a given product category, then I don't actually need it. If I do know, then I'm doing a bit of research as to what my options are -- so I'll become aware of the available options that I was previously unaware of. Either way, the ads don't present a benefit to me.
A few years ago I stopped watching cable. I literally cancelled my cable and went to totally online tv viewing. I don't watch sports so it really wasn't a tough transition. However I do find that I miss new movies coming out, I'm unaware of the hot new car, or what the latest bestseller is. I used to get all this info in the advertising I'd watch on TV. In some ways I do miss it. I think OP is saying that contextual adds should be doing a better job of informing us as to what we would enjoy spending our money on, instead of showing us ads for stuff we will never buy. Since advertising is how both tv and web are essentially "paid for" why isn't the advertising better?
Yes, I understand the OP's point. I just think it's based on a faulty premise: that targeted ads are a "beautiful thing". I think ads, targeted or not, are an obnoxious nuisance. Targeted ads mean that I'm being tracked by ad companies, which elevates them above "nuisance".
I cut off my cable years ago and watch no broadcast television. And yet, I remain aware of the things that I'm interested in. Ads don't inform me of anything that I care about because I'm already actively checking out the things I care about. I actively don't want targeted advertising because 1) the tracking required to do it is deeply offensive and 2) perfectly targeted ads would bring me no value -- so "paying" for them by giving up my personal information would still be "paying" for absolutely nothing of value in return.
Personal data harvesting for contextual ads and content should be a beautiful thing. They do it privately and securely, and it's all automated so that no human being actually learns anything about you. And then the online world becomes customized, just for you. The real problem with this scenario is that is we're paying for contextual ads and content with our personal data, but we're not getting what we pay for.
I could not disagree with this more. There is nothing "beautiful" about harvesting personal data to serve contextual ads. I doesn't matter how well-targeted the ads are -- ads are not a benefit to me at all. The real problem with this scenario is that my personal data gets harvested in the first place.
Given that scenario, I'd lean toward the veteran every time.
Not me. I've hired a large number of people over the years, some from each of the two types you used in your hypothetical. In my experience, simply being a veteran doesn't make you a better employee (or a worse one). It's simply irrelevant. So, to answer your question ("Who makes the better intro level candidate, 22-24 year old veteran or a 22-24 year old with a High School Diploma and maybe a few credits from a Community College?") directly, I would say that they're equally qualified and my decision would be based on who I think would fit into the existing team better.
If you use Debian, trust it, and love it, and Debian has made this change, and you abhor the change, it's a good wakeup call opportunity. Most people will take this chance to say "perhaps I am on the wrong side of this issue" and then adjust accordingly.
Indeed. I use and love Debian, and this systemd thing certainly was a wakeup call to me. I'm now beginning the nontrivial effort required to move all my systems over to BSD.
You must work in very strange places. In my 30+ years in the industry, I have never encountered this in any workplace I've been in. Yet it's very common with open source communities. This isn't a universal thing, this is peculiar to these communities.
despite being one of the more competant and forward thinking of the bunch
Wait, he is? What do you base that on? From my experience with his major projects, it's hard to find either great competence or effective forward-thinking...
If you've done something to earn that much hate, maybe you ought to take a step back and re-evaluate your position.
No. Just no. Unless the guy is doing something that actually "earns" the hate -- and last I checked, he doesn't rape babies, engage in mass murder, or any of the other things that might qualify a "earning hate" -- then he hasn't earned a drop of it. People may be angry that systemd was developed and adopted by distros (I know that I am), but hate? For writing software? Really? Backing down in the face of such hatred is the opposite of what he should be doing.
If your point is that systemd is awful, that's fair (and, in my opinion, accurate). But responding in the form of hatred, threats, etc., doesn't make that point. Actually explaining why you object to it, and agitating with distros to not make it the default, does that far more effectively.
If there's a social network that has a "real name" policy, and I join it, and then someone else comes along and insists that they should be able to join this network without using their real name, what happens to me?
Ummm, nothing at all. Why would you think that what name another user chooses would impact your own account?
Do we flat out not have the right to participate in a social network that has a real name policy?
Of course you do. Nobody is saying otherwise. By the same token, Facebook has every right to institute whatever idiotic policy they choose, and everyone who finds their policy idiotic has every right to say so.
Silk Road had their servers configured so that the PHPMyAdmin pages were accessible from the internet at large? Sheesh. No wonder they got brought down.
It's not hard at all, but it's even easier is to just use different methods that better fit my needs (and don't require further configuration out of the box just to plug holes intentionally built into the system.)
I wasn't criticizing AdBlock Plus, you know. I was just asking how it worked to determine fitness for purpose. I wanted to know what they considered "well-behaved". I still don't know, but I've learned enough to know that they and I disagree on the definition, since they include many badly-behaved sites on their well-behaved list.
I can't find where they define what constitutes a "well-behaved" site, but from the list you pointed me to, it's clear they we tremendously disagree about who is well-behaved.
Advertising would be OK if it weren't so intrusive (tracking counts as intrusive) and/or obnoxious. That people loathe online advertising is because advertisers have behaved so incredibly badly. They've dug their own grave here.
I am also old enough to remember when the internet had very little advertising. Almost all services were just free outright (mostly run on a hobbyist basis or as a sideline to an established business or educational institution) or you paid money. There was no dearth of content in those days. In fact, by many measures, the content was far superior to what we have now.
Advertising is 100% optional. Sites use it because it's convenient, not because it's necessary.
The default for AdBlock Plus is to allow some of the well-behaved ads through
I use the combination of NoScript and hosts file blocking rather than AdBlock Plus, so forgive my ignorance here... but what does the AdBlock Plus people consider "well-behaved"? For me, it would mean ads that engage in no tracking whatsoever.
if everyone used this to only allow ads that don't behave badly, advertisers and their ad distribution networks would have to make their ads behave better.
Blocking all ads, on the other hand, gives them no incentive to change.
Again, what is "well-behaved"? I can't tell which is which without analyzing network traffic to see which ads are reporting on me, so I must treat all ads as ill-behaved as a matter of self-protection, and block them all. Period. Without exception.
I simply pay money directly to sites I value, when they provide a means to do so. If they don't provide a means, then too bad, that's their loss.
Atlas' website kindly lists all of the companies currently using Atlas. I'm pleased, because now I have a much more complete list of which services to completely avoid.
Because then most people would never install most of the apps, and Google needs as many people to install this stuff as possible in order to compile the most complete dossier on you that they can.
Personally, I find warranties for things like this to be pointless. The amount of record keeping and hassle involved far outweighs the amount of money we're talking about. I'd much rather know ahead of time which products are the most reliable.
Technically, yes. However if incandescents work well but other types don't, then from a practical point of view, it's a problem with the bulb. Nobody's going to rewire their house just so they can get increased life from CFLs. That'd be silly.
Could very well be. I'm not about to spend a lot of time researching LED bulbs, though, it's not worth much of my time. I find it odd that I've yet to see such lights in use anywhere, though.
I haven't made the shift to LED lighting (I dislike LED lighting), but my experience with CFLs is htat not a single one I've used has lasted anywhere near the lifespan that is claimed on the package. Actual lifespans vary widely, but generally, they seem to last about half as long as is claimed.
Minimizing in GNOME would be useless. Have you even looked at the ideas behind it?
I have, yes. But I don't see how minimizing would be useless -- it gets the window off the screen without closing it. That's VERY useful. None of the features you describe are adequate replacements for it.
Slashdot Mirror
ads are not a benefit to me at all.
This isn't entirely true. Theoretically, ads serve the purpose of letting you know available options that you hadn't even considered before. This is a good thing, in theory.
This used to be a good thing before it was easy to seek out information about products. Now, it's rather pointless. If I don't already know that I need something from a given product category, then I don't actually need it. If I do know, then I'm doing a bit of research as to what my options are -- so I'll become aware of the available options that I was previously unaware of. Either way, the ads don't present a benefit to me.
A few years ago I stopped watching cable. I literally cancelled my cable and went to totally online tv viewing. I don't watch sports so it really wasn't a tough transition. However I do find that I miss new movies coming out, I'm unaware of the hot new car, or what the latest bestseller is. I used to get all this info in the advertising I'd watch on TV. In some ways I do miss it. I think OP is saying that contextual adds should be doing a better job of informing us as to what we would enjoy spending our money on, instead of showing us ads for stuff we will never buy. Since advertising is how both tv and web are essentially "paid for" why isn't the advertising better?
Yes, I understand the OP's point. I just think it's based on a faulty premise: that targeted ads are a "beautiful thing". I think ads, targeted or not, are an obnoxious nuisance. Targeted ads mean that I'm being tracked by ad companies, which elevates them above "nuisance".
I cut off my cable years ago and watch no broadcast television. And yet, I remain aware of the things that I'm interested in. Ads don't inform me of anything that I care about because I'm already actively checking out the things I care about. I actively don't want targeted advertising because 1) the tracking required to do it is deeply offensive and 2) perfectly targeted ads would bring me no value -- so "paying" for them by giving up my personal information would still be "paying" for absolutely nothing of value in return.
I could not disagree with this more. There is nothing "beautiful" about harvesting personal data to serve contextual ads. I doesn't matter how well-targeted the ads are -- ads are not a benefit to me at all. The real problem with this scenario is that my personal data gets harvested in the first place.
Given that scenario, I'd lean toward the veteran every time.
Not me. I've hired a large number of people over the years, some from each of the two types you used in your hypothetical. In my experience, simply being a veteran doesn't make you a better employee (or a worse one). It's simply irrelevant. So, to answer your question ("Who makes the better intro level candidate, 22-24 year old veteran or a 22-24 year old with a High School Diploma and maybe a few credits from a Community College?") directly, I would say that they're equally qualified and my decision would be based on who I think would fit into the existing team better.
If you use Debian, trust it, and love it, and Debian has made this change, and you abhor the change, it's a good wakeup call opportunity. Most people will take this chance to say "perhaps I am on the wrong side of this issue" and then adjust accordingly.
Indeed. I use and love Debian, and this systemd thing certainly was a wakeup call to me. I'm now beginning the nontrivial effort required to move all my systems over to BSD.
You must work in very strange places. In my 30+ years in the industry, I have never encountered this in any workplace I've been in. Yet it's very common with open source communities. This isn't a universal thing, this is peculiar to these communities.
despite being one of the more competant and forward thinking of the bunch
Wait, he is? What do you base that on? From my experience with his major projects, it's hard to find either great competence or effective forward-thinking...
If you've done something to earn that much hate, maybe you ought to take a step back and re-evaluate your position.
No. Just no. Unless the guy is doing something that actually "earns" the hate -- and last I checked, he doesn't rape babies, engage in mass murder, or any of the other things that might qualify a "earning hate" -- then he hasn't earned a drop of it. People may be angry that systemd was developed and adopted by distros (I know that I am), but hate? For writing software? Really? Backing down in the face of such hatred is the opposite of what he should be doing.
If your point is that systemd is awful, that's fair (and, in my opinion, accurate). But responding in the form of hatred, threats, etc., doesn't make that point. Actually explaining why you object to it, and agitating with distros to not make it the default, does that far more effectively.
If there's a social network that has a "real name" policy, and I join it, and then someone else comes along and insists that they should be able to join this network without using their real name, what happens to me?
Ummm, nothing at all. Why would you think that what name another user chooses would impact your own account?
Do we flat out not have the right to participate in a social network that has a real name policy?
Of course you do. Nobody is saying otherwise. By the same token, Facebook has every right to institute whatever idiotic policy they choose, and everyone who finds their policy idiotic has every right to say so.
Silk Road had their servers configured so that the PHPMyAdmin pages were accessible from the internet at large? Sheesh. No wonder they got brought down.
It's not hard at all, but it's even easier is to just use different methods that better fit my needs (and don't require further configuration out of the box just to plug holes intentionally built into the system.)
I wasn't criticizing AdBlock Plus, you know. I was just asking how it worked to determine fitness for purpose. I wanted to know what they considered "well-behaved". I still don't know, but I've learned enough to know that they and I disagree on the definition, since they include many badly-behaved sites on their well-behaved list.
Why not just go to their site. Or if you install it, you can look at the list of "nice rules".
Today's list is here.
I can't find where they define what constitutes a "well-behaved" site, but from the list you pointed me to, it's clear they we tremendously disagree about who is well-behaved.
You don't actually need any privacy extensions to block the likes of Facebook tracking. A couple of entries in your hosts file does the trick.
Advertising would be OK if it weren't so intrusive (tracking counts as intrusive) and/or obnoxious. That people loathe online advertising is because advertisers have behaved so incredibly badly. They've dug their own grave here.
I am also old enough to remember when the internet had very little advertising. Almost all services were just free outright (mostly run on a hobbyist basis or as a sideline to an established business or educational institution) or you paid money. There was no dearth of content in those days. In fact, by many measures, the content was far superior to what we have now.
Advertising is 100% optional. Sites use it because it's convenient, not because it's necessary.
The default for AdBlock Plus is to allow some of the well-behaved ads through
I use the combination of NoScript and hosts file blocking rather than AdBlock Plus, so forgive my ignorance here... but what does the AdBlock Plus people consider "well-behaved"? For me, it would mean ads that engage in no tracking whatsoever.
if everyone used this to only allow ads that don't behave badly, advertisers and their ad distribution networks would have to make their ads behave better.
Blocking all ads, on the other hand, gives them no incentive to change.
Again, what is "well-behaved"? I can't tell which is which without analyzing network traffic to see which ads are reporting on me, so I must treat all ads as ill-behaved as a matter of self-protection, and block them all. Period. Without exception.
I simply pay money directly to sites I value, when they provide a means to do so. If they don't provide a means, then too bad, that's their loss.
Atlas' website kindly lists all of the companies currently using Atlas. I'm pleased, because now I have a much more complete list of which services to completely avoid.
You can also just reinstall them all by hand.
Because then most people would never install most of the apps, and Google needs as many people to install this stuff as possible in order to compile the most complete dossier on you that they can.
Of course you can. You just wouldn't get the apps back afterwards.
Personally, I find warranties for things like this to be pointless. The amount of record keeping and hassle involved far outweighs the amount of money we're talking about. I'd much rather know ahead of time which products are the most reliable.
Technically, yes. However if incandescents work well but other types don't, then from a practical point of view, it's a problem with the bulb. Nobody's going to rewire their house just so they can get increased life from CFLs. That'd be silly.
Could very well be. I'm not about to spend a lot of time researching LED bulbs, though, it's not worth much of my time. I find it odd that I've yet to see such lights in use anywhere, though.
The gist is, if your bulbs are dying early the problem may not (just) be the bulb itself but the quality of AC power being supplied to it
If the bulb can't handle the quality of power in my home (within reason, anyway), that's a still a problem with the bulb.
Remember they test these things and do quality assurance on them in a lab, with clean power and very controlled conditions.
So, in other words, their "quality assurance" is completely inadequate. That explains a lot.
I haven't made the shift to LED lighting (I dislike LED lighting), but my experience with CFLs is htat not a single one I've used has lasted anywhere near the lifespan that is claimed on the package. Actual lifespans vary widely, but generally, they seem to last about half as long as is claimed.
Minimizing in GNOME would be useless. Have you even looked at the ideas behind it?
I have, yes. But I don't see how minimizing would be useless -- it gets the window off the screen without closing it. That's VERY useful. None of the features you describe are adequate replacements for it.