I know this sounds very arrogant, but I would love to see trials change so you're actually judged by your peers instead of members of the public, so for example doctors by doctors, network admin by other network admin, and such. That way you can get a bunch of people who know how far this person has stepped out of line.
And CEOs by CEOs? I see that going down really well in these parts.:)
Jobs' has motive for saying the story is bullshit (especially considering there is a court case that has been granted class-action status). If he did not deny the story, it wil be used against Apple in the case. Moreover, he has a credibility issue right now.
Gizmodo is a third party, and they have been pretty consistent in reporting on both points of view on this issue.
Just sayin'
That may be, but as mentioned in the GP, Gizmodo is simply citing a Bloomberg article, which is what Jobs said was bullshit. And news organizations have an interest in writing sensational news.
Its been a long time since I saw such a dickwad move by an MMO company. This rivals Star Wars Galaxies NGE in terms of betrayal of the player-base by Blizzard.
On the plus side, it's likely to result in fewer "dick-waddings" in forum posts.;)
Not to defend their featureless-ness, but I imagine the restrictions come from the cc-based account loading. If you can pay in with q credit card, then withdraw, you get interest free cash advances.
Or it might just be a poorly-thought-out service.;)
Yeah, they have as much right as the PhDs to be there, but what they SHOULD do, were they decent people, is concede that people other than themselves are better able to do better work and that because of this they should allow them better access.
Uh huh. Some professor somewhere wants to get his name published in a certain magazine, so that he can get another grant, a little more prestige and a bigger office, and people should move out of the way for him?
I don't buy this crap about PhDs working to save lives. They're people, just like everyone else - sure, some are going to be doing it for altruistic purposes, but others will be doing it because they see a personal benefit out of it, and others will be thrill junkies.
The "intellectual arrogance", for want of a better term, that I've read in these posts is amazing.
To sum it up, a 4 year education doesn't mean you have enough experience to understand more then the guy on the ground who's been doing it for 40 years without the same. You probably don't.
I stopped writing my response to the GP because I saw yours. This is absolutely insightful, and I wish I had mod points to mod you up. Arrogance is the most common trait I've found amongst academicians; the persistent belief that half a dozen years studying a book or a lab can give you as strong an understanding as 20 years practical experience is ludicrous, yet somehow prevalent.
If you want to compare rates of suicides at the workplace, compare rates of suicides at the ***workplace***. Jumping is a very gruesome way to die. Also, jumping from your own office building, when done willingly, is a very public statement.
The past couple weeks, anytime someone's brought up the "oh, but it's less than the national suicide rate" argument, someone else has jumped in about it being at AT the workplace, and how it's a very public statement, etc. But I have what may be a fairly naive question: what does it mean within their cultural context? Is it a very public statement, and if so, does it say what we think it says? If suicide rates are impacted by cultural factors, surely suicide methods are as well, no?
The IT department didn't pick the app, and isn't allowed to not support it. They can't switch to another app (usually apps like this have little or no competition, and they're probably locked-in anyway).
Which is, in and of itself, not a problem. IT should not be selecting the software used, because IT doesn't understand what the business needs. IT should give feedback on the technical details in a business-understandable fashion (i.e., the risk of data loss with this product is high, because the producer has a history of not releasing updates when problems are discovered), but it's the business' decision.
However, a strong procurement department also needs to come into play here. When software is purchased, a contract should be drawn up with the producer, safeguarding the rights of the purchasing organization and - if necessary - providing legal venues to enforce them. In this way, you can minimize the impact of hurry-to-release applications by forcing the producer to fix them when you discover problems.
Unfortunately, that's a much easier task for multinationals than it is for SMEs.
Okay, then you have 12 or 14 of them and you have to deal with paying 6 or 7 different bills and you've made a small profit while having driven around to a bunch of different shops or risked your credit card by loaning it to someone to make purchases on your behalf. Congrats. That's still a lot harder than sitting outside an Apple store and paying a bunch of people $20 each to go buy 2 iPads then reselling them and making an easy profit while scalping the average person.
Oh, I'd like to be one of those people you offered the twenty bucks to. Yes, please give me twenty bucks to go in and buy that iPad, along with the 600 bucks I need to pay for it... nice knowing you, sucker.;)
remember that bitch who bought the #1 spot in line in order to buy out the entire stock so she could resell them? How is that fair to the people behind her who waited hours?
Simple. Apple should have learned how to do business by people who've been doing it long before Apple existed... Limit two (2) per person, per purchase. Grocery stores and Walmarts all across the land have been doing this for decades. You can buy as many as you want... 2 at a time. On launch day, that would equate to exactly two -- by the time you got back to the counter the second time, there wouldn't be any left.
Help me out here - why is "per purchase" any more/less right/wrong than "at all"?
Whether it belongs to Apple or not, it's clear that it did not belong to Gizmodo or the fella who found it. You know quite well when someone says "I found this phone at a bar and would like to sell it to you" that it's not his, so you're clearly buying stolen property; whether it belongs to Apple or some little old lady somewhere is irrelevant.
(e.g. if you don't put the brakes on in your car and it starts to roll and crashes into something).
Wrong analogy. Unlike the car, the router by itself wouldn't cause any damage. *Someone* committed a crime, they should prosecute that guy.
Um, so you're saying that the car would commit the crime by itself then? Wrong analogy destruction.
Unless you're an idiot, you already have these things for your home network.
Then I guess I'm an idiot for being a nice guy and providing free access for people passing by. Why am I an idiot? My traffic is secure (I have two networks, one encrypted with WPA2-Enterprise with a RADIUS server, another open) and I have no traffic limits. Why shouldn't I share?
I'm not sure if this is what the court had in mind, but odds are pretty slim that the terms of service you agree to with your Internet pipe actually allow you to share that wireless with someone else. Also, Germany is not America, where "my freedom" outweighs every other consideration. It may be that the ability to identify people and their actions is an overriding consideration in the minds of the German people (who, like most peoples, are not well-represented by Slashdot opinions).
Or just short circuit all your problems and try going to Apple's Russian website. You know, www.apple.com/ru . Like, you know, everyone else in every other country in the world goes to their own Apple site.
I would point out that somebody being afraid that Hawking's lectures would cause investors to panic is not the same thing as investors panicking. There's still a form of stupidity involved, but it's not quite where you're pointing out, I think.
I'm going to be pwning noobs until "pwning noobs" is a ridiculously outdated term and then I'll beat my grandkids at whatever game they're playing and I'll go "Yeah! I pwned you little noobs! Old school!" and they'll groan and go "graaaaandpaaaaaa". It'll be awesome.
Is it bad that I want to troll my hypothetical grandkids?
Based on the above, I wouldn't worry too much about it. They're likely to stay hypothetical.
Could be. Out here though (Switzerland) employers tend to give notebooks that have 3G cards in them, so I've got wireless no matter where I am in the country, and never wind up paying the hotels for wireless when on a business trip.
For the Americans in the crowd: yes, Switzerland is big enough that I still need to stay in a hotel when traveling in-country.:)
I'm sorry, but I strongly disagree with your position on almost every count.
Firstly, your point about different territories with different rules is fundamentally flawed. Many places — all of Europe, for example — already have stronger data protection laws than most of the US. This causes no earth-shattering problem with compliance. Large companies keep the data they can't legally export within their European offices. Smaller companies just outsource things like payment collection to services that guarantee any personal data will be processed securely and not transferred outside of EU borders. They were going to outsource it anyway, so the only people who lose out are services that want to handle sensitive information but can't make the same guarantees as others about security, whose flawed business model just became obsolete.
While I don't disagree with your post, I wonder just how many large European businesses you've worked for. I'm a consultant in this field, and have quite a few clients who are multinational. While a minority make efforts to stay in compliance with such data privacy laws, such as by keeping PII in the country of origin, a vast majority have no idea where their PII is stored or transmitted. They think data privacy doesn't really apply to them because they don't keep credit cards, and they don't understand the nature of Safe Harbor agreements or what, exactly, is covered therein.
Data privacy is important, and probably needs to be legislated at some level, but don't go telling people that simply because it's the law here, companies actually comply with it.
Mod parent down. His job was to keep the network secure, and the people demanding the passwords didn't have a right to know them. He told the mayor instead.
This is, of course, after they fired him without demanding the passwords first.
Help me understand - is there a reason why the city should have to ask him first? I'm not sure it's germane to the case, but the fact that you're fired doesn't relieve you of responsibilities, such as NDAs, following city security policy (his own defense), or distributing necessary information to your employer.
Slashdot Mirror
As one of the "people with money", at least by your definition, I can say quite confidently that I trust my girlfriend and friends completely.
Logic falters in the face of reality, eh?
So women are like cats then?
Here, pussy, pussy, pussy. Here, pussy. Come here!
I know this sounds very arrogant, but I would love to see trials change so you're actually judged by your peers instead of members of the public, so for example doctors by doctors, network admin by other network admin, and such. That way you can get a bunch of people who know how far this person has stepped out of line.
And CEOs by CEOs? I see that going down really well in these parts. :)
In a report sure to raise eyebrows, CNN Money reports that despite a very vocal group of detractors, the vast majority of iPhone users love AT&T
.
Thus proving once again that the opinions of Slashdotters have little in common with the opinions of the majority.
Jobs' has motive for saying the story is bullshit (especially considering there is a court case that has been granted class-action status). If he did not deny the story, it wil be used against Apple in the case. Moreover, he has a credibility issue right now.
Gizmodo is a third party, and they have been pretty consistent in reporting on both points of view on this issue.
Just sayin'
That may be, but as mentioned in the GP, Gizmodo is simply citing a Bloomberg article, which is what Jobs said was bullshit. And news organizations have an interest in writing sensational news.
Just sayin'.
Its been a long time since I saw such a dickwad move by an MMO company. This rivals Star Wars Galaxies NGE in terms of betrayal of the player-base by Blizzard.
On the plus side, it's likely to result in fewer "dick-waddings" in forum posts. ;)
You believe the government has a duty to protect you?
Why, yes, actually. Ever heard of "social contract"?
Yes. Usually from people advocating programs that are funded by money not belonging to them.
Not to defend their featureless-ness, but I imagine the restrictions come from the cc-based account loading. If you can pay in with q credit card, then withdraw, you get interest free cash advances.
Or it might just be a poorly-thought-out service. ;)
Yeah, they have as much right as the PhDs to be there, but what they SHOULD do, were they decent people, is concede that people other than themselves are better able to do better work and that because of this they should allow them better access.
Uh huh. Some professor somewhere wants to get his name published in a certain magazine, so that he can get another grant, a little more prestige and a bigger office, and people should move out of the way for him?
I don't buy this crap about PhDs working to save lives. They're people, just like everyone else - sure, some are going to be doing it for altruistic purposes, but others will be doing it because they see a personal benefit out of it, and others will be thrill junkies.
The "intellectual arrogance", for want of a better term, that I've read in these posts is amazing.
To sum it up, a 4 year education doesn't mean you have enough experience to understand more then the guy on the ground who's been doing it for 40 years without the same. You probably don't.
I stopped writing my response to the GP because I saw yours. This is absolutely insightful, and I wish I had mod points to mod you up. Arrogance is the most common trait I've found amongst academicians; the persistent belief that half a dozen years studying a book or a lab can give you as strong an understanding as 20 years practical experience is ludicrous, yet somehow prevalent.
If you want to compare rates of suicides at the workplace, compare rates of suicides at the ***workplace***. Jumping is a very gruesome way to die. Also, jumping from your own office building, when done willingly, is a very public statement.
The past couple weeks, anytime someone's brought up the "oh, but it's less than the national suicide rate" argument, someone else has jumped in about it being at AT the workplace, and how it's a very public statement, etc. But I have what may be a fairly naive question: what does it mean within their cultural context? Is it a very public statement, and if so, does it say what we think it says? If suicide rates are impacted by cultural factors, surely suicide methods are as well, no?
One can't help but wonder how much productivity could be gained if internet porn was not accessible in the U.S.
What, you think offices full of (even more) sexually frustrated geeks will *increase* productivity?
The IT department didn't pick the app, and isn't allowed to not support it. They can't switch to another app (usually apps like this have little or no competition, and they're probably locked-in anyway).
Which is, in and of itself, not a problem. IT should not be selecting the software used, because IT doesn't understand what the business needs. IT should give feedback on the technical details in a business-understandable fashion (i.e., the risk of data loss with this product is high, because the producer has a history of not releasing updates when problems are discovered), but it's the business' decision.
However, a strong procurement department also needs to come into play here. When software is purchased, a contract should be drawn up with the producer, safeguarding the rights of the purchasing organization and - if necessary - providing legal venues to enforce them. In this way, you can minimize the impact of hurry-to-release applications by forcing the producer to fix them when you discover problems.
Unfortunately, that's a much easier task for multinationals than it is for SMEs.
Because if you let kids prey in school, you're going to have to let a priest observe your bedroom habits as well.
I agree - preying in school is bad. You've just got to keep those carnivore kids away from the omnivores, else you're asking for trouble!
Okay, then you have 12 or 14 of them and you have to deal with paying 6 or 7 different bills and you've made a small profit while having driven around to a bunch of different shops or risked your credit card by loaning it to someone to make purchases on your behalf. Congrats. That's still a lot harder than sitting outside an Apple store and paying a bunch of people $20 each to go buy 2 iPads then reselling them and making an easy profit while scalping the average person.
Oh, I'd like to be one of those people you offered the twenty bucks to. Yes, please give me twenty bucks to go in and buy that iPad, along with the 600 bucks I need to pay for it... nice knowing you, sucker. ;)
Simple. Apple should have learned how to do business by people who've been doing it long before Apple existed... Limit two (2) per person, per purchase . Grocery stores and Walmarts all across the land have been doing this for decades. You can buy as many as you want... 2 at a time. On launch day, that would equate to exactly two -- by the time you got back to the counter the second time, there wouldn't be any left.
Help me out here - why is "per purchase" any more/less right/wrong than "at all"?
Whether it belongs to Apple or not, it's clear that it did not belong to Gizmodo or the fella who found it. You know quite well when someone says "I found this phone at a bar and would like to sell it to you" that it's not his, so you're clearly buying stolen property; whether it belongs to Apple or some little old lady somewhere is irrelevant.
Wrong analogy. Unlike the car, the router by itself wouldn't cause any damage. *Someone* committed a crime, they should prosecute that guy.
Um, so you're saying that the car would commit the crime by itself then? Wrong analogy destruction.
Then I guess I'm an idiot for being a nice guy and providing free access for people passing by. Why am I an idiot? My traffic is secure (I have two networks, one encrypted with WPA2-Enterprise with a RADIUS server, another open) and I have no traffic limits. Why shouldn't I share?
I'm not sure if this is what the court had in mind, but odds are pretty slim that the terms of service you agree to with your Internet pipe actually allow you to share that wireless with someone else. Also, Germany is not America, where "my freedom" outweighs every other consideration. It may be that the ability to identify people and their actions is an overriding consideration in the minds of the German people (who, like most peoples, are not well-represented by Slashdot opinions).
...it's that any and all natural disasters can be stopped by the liberal use of nuclear weapons.
And the most likely side effect to the use of nuclear weapons is that some geek gets laid.
Well, they're both pretty rare events.
Or just short circuit all your problems and try going to Apple's Russian website. You know, www.apple.com/ru . Like, you know, everyone else in every other country in the world goes to their own Apple site.
I would point out that somebody being afraid that Hawking's lectures would cause investors to panic is not the same thing as investors panicking. There's still a form of stupidity involved, but it's not quite where you're pointing out, I think.
I'm going to be pwning noobs until "pwning noobs" is a ridiculously outdated term and then I'll beat my grandkids at whatever game they're playing and I'll go "Yeah! I pwned you little noobs! Old school!" and they'll groan and go "graaaaandpaaaaaa". It'll be awesome.
Is it bad that I want to troll my hypothetical grandkids?
Based on the above, I wouldn't worry too much about it. They're likely to stay hypothetical.
Could be. Out here though (Switzerland) employers tend to give notebooks that have 3G cards in them, so I've got wireless no matter where I am in the country, and never wind up paying the hotels for wireless when on a business trip.
For the Americans in the crowd: yes, Switzerland is big enough that I still need to stay in a hotel when traveling in-country. :)
I'm sorry, but I strongly disagree with your position on almost every count.
Firstly, your point about different territories with different rules is fundamentally flawed. Many places — all of Europe, for example — already have stronger data protection laws than most of the US. This causes no earth-shattering problem with compliance. Large companies keep the data they can't legally export within their European offices. Smaller companies just outsource things like payment collection to services that guarantee any personal data will be processed securely and not transferred outside of EU borders. They were going to outsource it anyway, so the only people who lose out are services that want to handle sensitive information but can't make the same guarantees as others about security, whose flawed business model just became obsolete.
While I don't disagree with your post, I wonder just how many large European businesses you've worked for. I'm a consultant in this field, and have quite a few clients who are multinational. While a minority make efforts to stay in compliance with such data privacy laws, such as by keeping PII in the country of origin, a vast majority have no idea where their PII is stored or transmitted. They think data privacy doesn't really apply to them because they don't keep credit cards, and they don't understand the nature of Safe Harbor agreements or what, exactly, is covered therein.
Data privacy is important, and probably needs to be legislated at some level, but don't go telling people that simply because it's the law here, companies actually comply with it.
Mod parent down. His job was to keep the network secure, and the people demanding the passwords didn't have a right to know them. He told the mayor instead.
This is, of course, after they fired him without demanding the passwords first.
Help me understand - is there a reason why the city should have to ask him first? I'm not sure it's germane to the case, but the fact that you're fired doesn't relieve you of responsibilities, such as NDAs, following city security policy (his own defense), or distributing necessary information to your employer.