However, a good manager should have some idea how long tasks ought to take and be able to determine if the workers aren't productive.
Question for 100: What's easier for the average manager? To actually have a clue what the people working under him are doing or having IT install software that takes pics of them every 10 seconds?
The new part is that you make people pay you for putting the computers you manage into their server room, pay for the power to run them and put their software for you to manage on it.
It's kinda like being the admin for a server farm, only that you don't get paid, but in return, neither do you have to pay for anything, you're not responsible for anything you do to the computers and you can do with the software and data on them whatever you please.
You were wondering why the US, which was the absolute leader in science and technology until not that long ago, is falling behind in technology and why insane ideas like flat earth, hollow earth or creationism that are subject to ridicule or the plot of silly comedies at best outside "God's own country" can be taken serious and even taught at schools (in science classes, not classes dealing with mythology)?
Now, this is certainly not the only reason. But a good display of what's wrong here.
As long as you keep it strictly opt-in, I could agree.
The problem is that it won't be opt-in. It won't even be opt-out. It is far too tempting for those in power to abuse a system designed to protect children for their own goals, to protect themselves. And it is far too tempting for corporations to abuse it to protect their interests. We'd get mandatory filters that you may or may not opt out, depending on just how corrupt your regime already is, and you can rest assured that any information on how to actually own what you buy would be "removed for your protection" too.
I somehow doubt that researchers, who usually live by the creed of "publish or perish" (because your name and what papers hang on it are usually your capital as a researcher) don't want to publish. Quite the opposite.
But when you're dependent on money, your research is usually not yours...
I do my job because I actually like doing my job and I also like having more money than unemployment benefit would provide. But it's more the former than the latter. Also, and I don't expect you to understand that, I don't give a shit about money. The things I like are cheap. And for some odd reason it seems to be impossible to pay me less than I actually need to live, which is surprisingly little. Why would I want to have more money? To watch a number on my bank account get bigger? Somehow I fail to see the appeal of that.
But I do understand that there are actually people who for some odd reason want to be rich. But working sure isn't the way to do it, which is easy to deduce by simple observation.
I somehow doubt that they mean that the system can keep your data secure. It seems more that their definition means that whatever content you might sell to the "owner" (I'll use the term loosely here) of the device is safe from him actually owning it.
Are you fucking nuts? You want to hand the same corporations that sue grannies that don't even own a computer for downloading death metal songs the right to hack anything they want with impunity?
Isn't it bad enough that they can abuse the legal system that way?
They're your kids. Not mine. And neither I, nor "the internet", nor even a school, is responsible for raising them. You are. If you cannot be assed to take care of your kids, use rubbers.
Quite the opposite, we're busy childproofing the unicorns, lest someone got hurt by the pointy tip of its (very imaginary) horn.
This has nothing to do with "normalizing pedophilia" and everything with normalizing censorship of anything that could remotely be considered entertaining because some people are busy thinking of the children constantly.
Thinking about it... if you're thinking of the children all the time, chances are, you're a pedo.
Hey, let's all stop paying taxes and everyone pays only for what he needs. I don't need schools. Let that guy with 4 kids pay for that. I'm also healthy, so I don't need no medical care. That's more something for someone who is bedridden and dependent on constant medical attention to pay for. I also don't really see any reason to wage war in some godforsaken land I can't even spell properly with a Latin alphabet, so I guess those carriers should be paid for by people who want them. And I can afford an offroad vehicle, so I don't really see why those roads need to be maintained.
You know, your idea starts to really appeal to me. I'm rich, after all, and I sure pay more taxes than I get out of it. And with more poor people dying faster, we do something against the overpopulation.
Slashdot Mirror
However, a good manager should have some idea how long tasks ought to take and be able to determine if the workers aren't productive.
Question for 100: What's easier for the average manager? To actually have a clue what the people working under him are doing or having IT install software that takes pics of them every 10 seconds?
The new part is that you make people pay you for putting the computers you manage into their server room, pay for the power to run them and put their software for you to manage on it.
It's kinda like being the admin for a server farm, only that you don't get paid, but in return, neither do you have to pay for anything, you're not responsible for anything you do to the computers and you can do with the software and data on them whatever you please.
Then the logical next question is "Why do they?"
You were wondering why the US, which was the absolute leader in science and technology until not that long ago, is falling behind in technology and why insane ideas like flat earth, hollow earth or creationism that are subject to ridicule or the plot of silly comedies at best outside "God's own country" can be taken serious and even taught at schools (in science classes, not classes dealing with mythology)?
Now, this is certainly not the only reason. But a good display of what's wrong here.
As long as you keep it strictly opt-in, I could agree.
The problem is that it won't be opt-in. It won't even be opt-out. It is far too tempting for those in power to abuse a system designed to protect children for their own goals, to protect themselves. And it is far too tempting for corporations to abuse it to protect their interests. We'd get mandatory filters that you may or may not opt out, depending on just how corrupt your regime already is, and you can rest assured that any information on how to actually own what you buy would be "removed for your protection" too.
Well, those who cannot know have to believe, and those that have to believe are easier to control.
Even Pol Pot knew this. And every religion since the dawn of mankind.
I somehow doubt that researchers, who usually live by the creed of "publish or perish" (because your name and what papers hang on it are usually your capital as a researcher) don't want to publish. Quite the opposite.
But when you're dependent on money, your research is usually not yours...
Nah, communism is far more blunt than that.
And here I was, about to post "onion link in 5, 4, 3..."
I think I really have to get up earlier.
Answer the two questions people really care about: How hard is it to root the thing and how easy to circumvent the current latest security gimmick?
I do my job because I actually like doing my job and I also like having more money than unemployment benefit would provide. But it's more the former than the latter. Also, and I don't expect you to understand that, I don't give a shit about money. The things I like are cheap. And for some odd reason it seems to be impossible to pay me less than I actually need to live, which is surprisingly little. Why would I want to have more money? To watch a number on my bank account get bigger? Somehow I fail to see the appeal of that.
But I do understand that there are actually people who for some odd reason want to be rich. But working sure isn't the way to do it, which is easy to deduce by simple observation.
But even after only 2 days Jesus in the corner starts to appear and talk nonsense.
I somehow doubt that they mean that the system can keep your data secure. It seems more that their definition means that whatever content you might sell to the "owner" (I'll use the term loosely here) of the device is safe from him actually owning it.
Are you fucking nuts? You want to hand the same corporations that sue grannies that don't even own a computer for downloading death metal songs the right to hack anything they want with impunity?
Isn't it bad enough that they can abuse the legal system that way?
They're your kids. Not mine. And neither I, nor "the internet", nor even a school, is responsible for raising them. You are. If you cannot be assed to take care of your kids, use rubbers.
Quite the opposite, we're busy childproofing the unicorns, lest someone got hurt by the pointy tip of its (very imaginary) horn.
This has nothing to do with "normalizing pedophilia" and everything with normalizing censorship of anything that could remotely be considered entertaining because some people are busy thinking of the children constantly.
Thinking about it... if you're thinking of the children all the time, chances are, you're a pedo.
The same parents that watch afternoon talk and court shows and scripted reality shows?
Pretty much WhatsApp without Facebook.
Yeah, right, and this will actually work really well because it's absolutely easy to check and verify that my money is used for what I want.
Hey, let's all stop paying taxes and everyone pays only for what he needs. I don't need schools. Let that guy with 4 kids pay for that. I'm also healthy, so I don't need no medical care. That's more something for someone who is bedridden and dependent on constant medical attention to pay for. I also don't really see any reason to wage war in some godforsaken land I can't even spell properly with a Latin alphabet, so I guess those carriers should be paid for by people who want them. And I can afford an offroad vehicle, so I don't really see why those roads need to be maintained.
You know, your idea starts to really appeal to me. I'm rich, after all, and I sure pay more taxes than I get out of it. And with more poor people dying faster, we do something against the overpopulation.
Well, unfortunately I'm no Billionaire, so I guess I can't buy me some laws to protect my money.
I do.
It's called paying taxes.
I understand that Republicans don't understand the concept, but believe me, it already exists.
You never know where the person wearing you stands on AGW, so dodge the question.
Now, that's good for watches, but how can I shut down properly the next time I get asked "Does that dress make me look fat?"
All I figured out so far is that "No, the fat makes you look fat" is the WRONG answer.
But it amuses the other 99.99%.
I can already see the new scheme by bums.
"Dude, spare a buck or I have to ask you what the weather's like right now!"