I wonder if they'll go after the product of one of my former employers, Go!Zilla. It used to have a more lizardy logo, but now it only has big eyes.
As a lark when I worked there, I once arranged for us to buy a number of 6 foot inflatable Godzilla dolls, which we dressed in company t-shirts and abused. We also had "I love the lizard!" logo tshirts.
But that was a long time ago and the company is gone now; only the product remains.
Are you being dense on purpose? I'm not talking about the DMCA at all. I'm talking about all the *other* laws we have that cover other kinds of property. As I said, you're being unimaginative. If this is the best you can do, it's no wonder the other side is winning.
We keep discussing this, but evidently it's not sinking in. You do *not* have a legal right in the United States to modify any property you own in any manner you choose. I know you're smart enough to come up with even more examples than the ones I've given you. To continue to use this argument shows lack of imagination. Is this the best you can do?
Oh, tsk! That utterly defeats his purpose -- if he posts to/. he doesn't have to do anything that would actually work towards change. He's doing this *instead* of commenting officially.
C'mon Schwab, you're talking out your ass here. While I'm the first person to come to Harlan's defense, he's by no means "one of the most financially successful writers working in Hollywood", today or ever. Your other "facts" are equally specious.
As someone much more familar with Harlan's writings for and about Hollywood, I can see your comments for what they are -- Harlanesque bombast. Before you wax all quixotic on the subject, try actually researching the topic.
Well, except that's *not* what Ad-Aware and similar products do. They *don't* make a clear connection between uninstalling 'spyware' and decreasing functionality of a program.
I've worked personally on both sides of this fence, with one of the companies named in the interview. I can't tell you how many times I had email exchanges with users that ran like this:
USER: Suddenly my version of [Product] won't work! I get a message it's missing [filename]; what happened?
RESPONSE: You may have installed a program that "removes spyware" that has removed that program element. Programs like that are designed to remove advertising software from your computer. You're welcome to do that, but if you don't want to see ads, the free version of [Product] is not for you. You should try [Pay Version of Product] or some other product that is not ad sponsored.
USER: But I don't understand! The program said it would get rid of evil viruses and bad programs! It didn't say it would remove parts of the programs I use. Why doesn't it say your programs might not work any more?
RESPONSE: We suggest writing to the support address of the "spyware removal" program with your concern. Maybe they will change their documentation to make that more clear.
I myself was *personally* responsible for making sure that software that included ad components had clear, readable EULAs. The software had to all but slap the user in the face with the information -- it had a first line that said, in all caps, that the program was AD SUPPORTED and would DISPLAY ADS. It urged, in all caps, that users *read* before they agreed. I fought with developers who wanted to make the EULA less visible, to ensure that it couldn't be dragged off the desktop or otherwise avoided.
The bottom line is that it didn't matter. I could explain to a user in simple plain language what was going on, and the user would still *ignore* the whole text.
I've become increasingly frustrated by the topic of late. From what I can tell, there are people who feel justified in robbing others of income by repackaging software to remove advertising components. For almost all advertising supported software I'm aware of, an ad-free version is offered for a cost. If you don't want ads, or don't want "spyware", pay for the software. It's that simple. But to actively take income from people simply because you don't approve of their business model is heinous.
Actually, now that I think about it, this is not the first instance of this sort of activity. I remember a developer with a popular product which was ad-supported that used to check for ad-removal programs and bring up a popup window that said something like:
"[Anti-adware program] has been found on your system. It may remove files that this software needs. Do you want to remove [Anti-adware program]?"
A pretty nice bit of turnaround, I always thought.
I was just about to post this! I think it's truly the future of MMORPG's -- it's the next step, the perfect evolution. All my friends play it *all* *the* *time*.
I can't wait for a wireless version I can play on handhelds when I'm on the bus, or in meetings. It's *so* addictive.
Nope, under the new law, if you filed after 1/6/02, it's $330 a week max. If you had a claim before then, you get no increase in benefits. Because of this, many people waited until January to file claims.
Supposedly they're going to make the higher amount retroactive to 9/11/01 for "workers displaced by the WTC disaster".
In the US, the unemployment compensation program is administered by the individual states. Because of this, the amount of money you get varies from state to state, as do the terms on which you get it -- within specific federal parameters.
So, for example, in California, there are different requirements for what constitutes "actively looking for work" depending on your situation. Union members have to go through the procedures that their unions have to find them work. Workers laid off from temp jobs have to contact the temp agency and accept placements from them. When you get actual 'award letter' from California, it tells you exactly what you have to do to be "actively seeking".
I've also had experience with Georgia, which has different rules. There, people get told to make a list of employers they contact, and must go in person to fill out applications a certain number of times a week, etc. Recipients have to register with the state job search facility, stuff like that. Full details in this PDF of the Georgia "Rights and Responsibilities" pamphlet.
From the Georgia pamphlet, it looks like there are Federal regulations that require random claim audits to check on the veracity of details. It seems like some states use different methods to comply with that. When I filed in California, I specifically asked, "Do I need to keep a record of my job search, with employer names?" and the claims agent said, "No, not unless we tell you to do so." Sure enough, on the California Claim form, there's a part that says if a box has been checked on the form, you need to provide employer contact information. I document scrupulously anyway, in case I'm ever accused of UI fraud. I can show how many resumes I sent out, to whom, responses, follow-up calls, along with other things I did to find a job.
Amount of money also varies widely and doesn't corrolate to the cost of living. Until this January, California's top UI benefit was 230.00 a week -- one of the 2-3 lowest in the country, despite having one of the highest costs of living. Of course, one cannot simply move to another state to get better benefits; changing address just results in an "interstate claim". You get the amount of money you'd have gotten in the old state, with mega increased delays and hassles because it's processed through two states.
You know, that's something that I found odd when I moved here; in the South there are 24-hour Wal-marts everywhere, but in the bay area, I don't know of any. when I mention this to people here, someone always says, "I think there's one over in ", but no one can ever confirm one.
Myth 1: You make that much on unemployment? You lucky fuck!
Reality: If you filed after Jan 6th, 2002, the California state employment maximum is 330.00 a week, for up to 26 weeks. You can't file again for a year, and you have to have worked a substantial amount during the benefit year to be able to get more. That's 8580.00 to last a year, before taxes. Yes, it's taxable. That's well below the national "poverty line".
Myth 2: Well, still, it's enough to live on, you lucky fuck.
Reality: Maybe where you live, but not everywhere. In most major cities in the US, it's not enough for basic living expenses. Move to the country? Well, there aren't any jobs there, either, and less infrastructure. Oh, and if you have any other expenses, you're pretty much screwed. For example, I pay 100.00 a week in child support (a very modest sum), so I have to live on 230.00 a week. If I had a car payment, student loans, or other debts, I'd be toast. As it is, my lease locks me into over 1500.00 a month in rent. Hey, you do the math -- it's pretty grim.
Myth 3: You're better off getting a job at Wal-mart or something.
Reality: A "good" basic job might pay the same as the unemployment, but it'll also eat 40 hours a week of job-hunting time -- and management at that McJob isn't going to let you go on interviews every other day, either. Even if the McJob might pay a little more, it may hinder your ability to get Work In Your Field, which is a net loss in the long term.
Myth: People on unemployment are lazy anyway.
Reality: A lot of people treat job hunting as a full time job in and of itself, spending hours a day sending out resumes, querying employers, researching, etc. Do they sometimes get depressed and do nothing? Sure -- and that's perfectly normal for such a demoralizing, life-changing event.
Myth: You're supposed to take any job you can get.
Reality: In California, at least, there is no expectation that you will "take any job". The state expects you to look for work in your field, and to accept a reasonable offer of work, or explain to their satisfaction why you didn't. A job offer asking you to move 2000 miles is not reasonable, but one with a 20 percent cut in pay may be.
I could go on and on here, but the bottom line is, it's not a day in the park. I'm one of those people trying to do the best I can to get a job, while working to improve my chances -- which can be tough. For example, I had to get special permission from the State to take college credit classes -- they had to be things that would help me gain job skills, and I couldn't take the classes during any time that would prevent me from working or looking for work. I ended up taking internet-based community college courses that required no deadlines or class meetings.
People have asked me, "So, that Odd Todd thing, is that how it is?" and I've told them that it's a lot like that, yeah. I get up and I feel crappy that I can't find a job. Like many of my unemployed friends, I don't go out the way I used to because it costs money. There's a lot of inertia involved -- but it's not about laziness and it's not about "scamming the system." It's just about unfortunate economic realities, folks.
In the US, food doesn't *have* to be tossed. There's a national organization, Second Harvest, that arranges for surplus food donations. I think their programs vary depending on location, but in Atlanta, they have trucks that come to restaurants and grocery stores to pick up, and regular drop off points. The food goes from the restaurants to soup kitchens and food assistance pantries, where it is used or handed out in an organized fashion. They also do larger scale projects like getting surpus produce from one region in the country to another.
As far as I'm aware, in some places restauranteurs are misinformed about local rules for food donation. Second Harvest and similar organizations work to provide correct information as well as the go-betweens to organize and monitor such donations.
A quick survey on the net for "surpus food" or "food rescue" (a common term for this) turned up several meta-lists of organizations, including this one which has listings for the US and Canada. It seems like there's more a misperception of legal reason that actual restrictions.
My/. sweetie's favorite film of all time is Mike Jittlov'sWizard of Speed and Time. He's got a laser disc copy but no disc player, so I got him a copy on VHS (from skinnyguy.com) so we can snuggle up and watch it on Valentine's Day. (I've never seen it all the way through.)
Additionally, I've tried to make the day as simple and stressfree for him; like many geeks I know, he's uncomfortable trying to plan something romantic. I suggested a restaurant I'd enjoy and planned the movie, to ensure he didn't have to worry about what would please me.
*sigh* Okay, I'm going to repeat this one last time. Not all technology companies spent money on toys or provided extras. Be is a very clear example of a company that *did not* spend on such excesses.
Almost nothing was free at Be. No lunches, no soft drinks, no toys. NO fancy hardware. Most of the tech employees brought in equipment from home, because it was hard to requisition some kinds of equipment considered optional. When a component was needed, it was scavenged from non-working equipment.
There were some scooters, and probably some small "toys", but they were universally purchased by employees, who have since taken them home or on to new jobs.
I notice the original comment has been modded up as funny. You know, for many people watching an organization they were deeply committed to being disassembled, it's just, well, not funny. In this particular case, it's not funny, and it's not even close to true.
Another problem with your comments is that you assume two working parents. Actually, in the Valley, that's not as likely as you might imagine. Even when two parents start out with careers, there's a real move here to have one or both parents stay home.
It's more likely to see parents with flexible hours, or one parent who left a job to raise the children. Additionally, the parents tend to be much older -- mid-40's isn't uncommon. These children also aren't in 30-child classrooms; they're in private schools (because almost everyone here who can afford it is in private school) with much smaller class sizes.
In short, it's clear from your comments that you're not familar with the reality of families in the Silicon Valley. While I don't necessarily approve of some of the excesses here, there's a much higher percentage of stay-at-home parents here than in many other places in the US.
but I do wonder how they assigned the date "of at least 6000 years ago" to this.
It's not exactly carbon 14 dating; it's analysis of coral structures and related debris. Basically, it has to do with the rate of changes in coral structures over time, as well as sedimentation and things of that nature. Information about coral dating can be found here and here. Uranium/Thorium dating can be used on marine sediment (info here). Actually, the entire "Dating Exibit" site has a simplistic but good explanation of various relative and absolute dating techniques.
MST3K had ruined my son, before he even hit kindergarten, I kid you not.
He was a big fan of the Comedy Central showings and would beg to watch them daily. I didn't realize how much it had affected him at the time.
One weekend, my spouse was a GOH at a small con. My son got his own 'handler', a child care person in charge of keeping him entertained during panels. She asked for permission to screen Jurassic Park for my son in the private movie theatre at the hotel. He'd never seen the film because of our concerns about its violence, but I reluctantly agreed.
I went to check on him at some point and found him sitting with his handler in the theatre *heckling* the film, a la Joel and the bots. At the moment I walked in, a velociraptor was stalking the child stars on screen, while my son crooned, "Here, dinner dinner dinner! Here boy!" and "Mmmmm! I smell pasta with MEAT sauce!"
Oooo! Two dot-com layoffs ago, my coworkers and I read one day that our CueCats (thoughtfully provided by Forbes and other magazines) didn't actually *belong* to us --- D:C was making a big stink about how the User Agreement specified that the Cat remained the property of D:C, blah blah blah.
Someone mentioned that saying equating ownership of a thing with the power to destroy it, and off we went. Since no one was actually *using* the Cats, we took a couple out back and uh, exerted our ownership control over them.
Pleasantly enough, the CueCat cord is long enough to really get some momentum going, if you swing the Cat around a bit. Then it's just a matter of introducing the Cat to the pavement, wall, or other object. Rinse and repeat.
We also ran over them, and used the remaining cords to lash things together, as I remember. Funny, D:C may have own the Cats, but no one from D:C attended the funerals or anything....
I know I have absolutely no practical experience in social agitation for political change, so please accept it as my woefully uneducated personal opinion that I see this sort of thing [chanting slogans] as infantile.
That's your opinion; it's not matched by the experience of countless protest organizations and movements dating back centuries. As you've said, you don't have a similar well of experience from which to draw.
It is not effective or witty, it is lame. It makes you look like brainless, uncreative drones on television, and people will tune you right out.
While it may be annoying to you, it *is* effective.
The reason chanting has been used at protest events for centuries is because it works. Chanting, in combination with other factors (bright/colorful/memorable costumes, clear signs, catchy slogans) helps fulfill several goals that most protest groups have. Among them, chanting:
1. Creates substantive sight-and-sound bites for the media.
2. Conveys a basic message to observers.
3. Unites the protesters, giving a greater appearance of unity.
4. Helps keep participant energy up over long protest periods.
5. Can be used to synchronize group action and convey messages in large crowds. ("When we start chanting 'foo', that's the signal to move towards the gates of the plant.")
6. Provides a simple "hook" for bystanders to participate.
I understand that you may consider chants about the DMCA childish, but simple slogans can create interest in a topic. If I know nothing about the DMCA and hear people chanting "Down with the DMCA" (and see signs waving!) I may be spurred to find out more about the subject myself. While you may be adept at explaining the topic in 20 minutes, or even 5, you need to capture interest in 20 seconds -- the time my car is stopped at that red light on the corner -- and that requires slogans, signs, and *chants*.
Please think of something different.
I'll politely refrain from asking how many protests you've participated in, or organized, or how you've kept your mental and physical energy up after 4 hours of marching, or 20 days at the same street corner; after all, you've already said you have no experience with organized protest actions. While I understand that you -- someone educated about the topic -- may find simple chanting "infantile" -- I would suggest that you try engaging in the activity before demanding of others that they replace a time-tested and perennially effective element of protesting.
"You guys!" I say, shaking my head and wagging my finger, "Are pushers!"
We used to say of MtG: "It's cheaper than crack!"
It does make me sort of nostalgic to think about the old days of WotC, even though I was never involved with the company. My spouse worked at White Wolf from 91-95; there was a lot of crossover, especially after Tweet joined WotC. (He was cocreator of ArsMagica, which became a White Wolf property when they bought Lion Rampant.)
In those days, if you left or got canned by White Wolf, you went to WotC; it was as if there was a standing job offer. My spouse left WW and considered WotC, but I whined so much about not wanting to move to Seattle, he decided against it. (Stupid! Stupid! *grin*)
Certainly we were aware of the sexual/relationship antics; they were fairly prevalent throughout the "independent" gaming industry. The Chaosium guys were famous for their free-wheeling ways, for example. Many people in the industry were pagan; many were non-monogamous. There was a fair amount of recreational drug use, as well. (As one would expect.)
Now that I work in 'net industry in Silicon Valley, I certainly see a lot of stuff that's familar from gaming industry days. A great deal of gaming industry culture revolved around the idea that people were getting paid to do what they loved and felt a very emotional attachment to their companies and products. My spouse had been one of the first kids playing original D when he was a young teen, he told his parents he wanted to write role-playing games when he grew up. It was the early 80's, and they thought he was crazy.
Ten years later, he was doing just that -- writing supplements and working on games. In the same way, guys I work with every day tell me they dreamed of being able to play with computers all day when they grew up.
The Salon article alludes to this, to an extent. What I see happening in the.com industry as well as the gaming industry is that kids grew up playing, went to work still playing -- but eventually get pushed by marketing and economic factors into being "adult" about their work, which kills a lot of the love. I can imagine the feelings Atkinson had on resigning WotC are similar to those my most recent.com boss had when he had to lay off college buddies to keep his company alive -- the "play" part is eclipsed by the harsh realities of the "work".
The article notes that he attends a public school.
Where did you see that? Paideia is *not* a public school. It's a private school, one of the more selective (read: difficult to get into) schools in the Atlanta area. The tuition is over 10K a year.
Actually, no. The article on K5 is still overestimating the revenue from targetted banner ads, because he's basing his estimates on published rates currently available.
Unfortunately, those rates don't mean anything in the current advertising climate. I used to work for dot-com with a revenue stream based almost entirely on advertising revenue with targeted banner ads. (I say used to because they had to lay off half their staff in January, because of the CPM rate crash.)$20 CPMs were possible a year ago, and $6-10 CPM's maybe 6 months ago -- but right now, CPM rates are so low, that even for targeted banner ads in higher-than-average click-through settings, they're still barely breaking $1.00 CPM. 60 *cents* isn't unheard of.
So, redo the math, reducing ad revenue by a power of 10, (because of his inflated CPM rates of $4-10) and you get more in the ballpark. Further, advertisers are trying to push towards an entirely per-click payment model, which can be quite abyssmal, revenue-wise -- and doesn't take into account all we know about the value of brand recognition over time, etc.
All you have to do is graph the decrease over the course of a year, from $20.00 CPMs to 60 cent ones, and you'll see why Yahoo's in trouble.
What I find particularly elegant about the work is how well informed it is by classical models. It's not just that it's 5-7-5 "verses", but that the whole thing is built around the Greek epic poem model. It's written to evoke Homer and Hesiod, complete with initial invocation of a muse and subsequent references to that muse. It includes traditional asides, stops frequently to praise its heroes, and closes with a prayer (of sorts).
It's also similar in more than just form. Works like Hesiod's Theogony are not just spoken poetic entertainment: they delineate the world view of their culture. In the same way, the DeCSS epic instructs the "listener" in the world view and cultural values of those opposing DeCSS.
Well, as the t-shirt says, chix dig linux -- but some linuxchix *don't* dig/. because of a perceived misogynistic flavor. In all seriousness, what's your take on/. women, and women in general? They don't seem to figure much in your universe; is this an indication that you're one of those sublimatin' types? Comments?
Slashdot Mirror
I wonder if they'll go after the product of one of my former employers, Go!Zilla. It used to have a more lizardy logo, but now it only has big eyes.
As a lark when I worked there, I once arranged for us to buy a number of 6 foot inflatable Godzilla dolls, which we dressed in company t-shirts and abused. We also had "I love the lizard!" logo tshirts.
But that was a long time ago and the company is gone now; only the product remains.
Are you being dense on purpose? I'm not talking about the DMCA at all. I'm talking about all the *other* laws we have that cover other kinds of property. As I said, you're being unimaginative. If this is the best you can do, it's no wonder the other side is winning.
We keep discussing this, but evidently it's not sinking in. You do *not* have a legal right in the United States to modify any property you own in any manner you choose. I know you're smart enough to come up with even more examples than the ones I've given you. To continue to use this argument shows lack of imagination. Is this the best you can do?
Oh, tsk! That utterly defeats his purpose -- if he posts to /. he doesn't have to do anything that would actually work towards change. He's doing this *instead* of commenting officially.
Bad form!
C'mon Schwab, you're talking out your ass here. While I'm the first person to come to Harlan's defense, he's by no means "one of the most financially successful writers working in Hollywood", today or ever. Your other "facts" are equally specious.
As someone much more familar with Harlan's writings for and about Hollywood, I can see your comments for what they are -- Harlanesque bombast. Before you wax all quixotic on the subject, try actually researching the topic.
-Trin
Well, except that's *not* what Ad-Aware and similar products do. They *don't* make a clear connection between uninstalling 'spyware' and decreasing functionality of a program.
I've worked personally on both sides of this fence, with one of the companies named in the interview. I can't tell you how many times I had email exchanges with users that ran like this:
USER: Suddenly my version of [Product] won't work! I get a message it's missing [filename]; what happened?
RESPONSE: You may have installed a program that "removes spyware" that has removed that program element. Programs like that are designed to remove advertising software from your computer. You're welcome to do that, but if you don't want to see ads, the free version of [Product] is not for you. You should try [Pay Version of Product] or some other product that is not ad sponsored.
USER: But I don't understand! The program said it would get rid of evil viruses and bad programs! It didn't say it would remove parts of the programs I use. Why doesn't it say your programs might not work any more?
RESPONSE: We suggest writing to the support address of the "spyware removal" program with your concern. Maybe they will change their documentation to make that more clear.
I myself was *personally* responsible for making sure that software that included ad components had clear, readable EULAs. The software had to all but slap the user in the face with the information -- it had a first line that said, in all caps, that the program was AD SUPPORTED and would DISPLAY ADS. It urged, in all caps, that users *read* before they agreed. I fought with developers who wanted to make the EULA less visible, to ensure that it couldn't be dragged off the desktop or otherwise avoided.
The bottom line is that it didn't matter. I could explain to a user in simple plain language what was going on, and the user would still *ignore* the whole text.
I've become increasingly frustrated by the topic of late. From what I can tell, there are people who feel justified in robbing others of income by repackaging software to remove advertising components. For almost all advertising supported software I'm aware of, an ad-free version is offered for a cost. If you don't want ads, or don't want "spyware", pay for the software. It's that simple. But to actively take income from people simply because you don't approve of their business model is heinous.
Actually, now that I think about it, this is not the first instance of this sort of activity. I remember a developer with a popular product which was ad-supported that used to check for ad-removal programs and bring up a popup window that said something like:
"[Anti-adware program] has been found on your system. It may remove files that this software needs. Do you want to remove [Anti-adware program]?"
A pretty nice bit of turnaround, I always thought.
I was just about to post this! I think it's truly the future of MMORPG's -- it's the next step, the perfect evolution. All my friends play it *all* *the* *time*.
I can't wait for a wireless version I can play on handhelds when I'm on the bus, or in meetings. It's *so* addictive.
Nope, under the new law, if you filed after 1/6/02, it's $330 a week max. If you had a claim before then, you get no increase in benefits. Because of this, many people waited until January to file claims.
Supposedly they're going to make the higher amount retroactive to 9/11/01 for "workers displaced by the WTC disaster".
In the US, the unemployment compensation program is administered by the individual states. Because of this, the amount of money you get varies from state to state, as do the terms on which you get it -- within specific federal parameters.
So, for example, in California, there are different requirements for what constitutes "actively looking for work" depending on your situation. Union members have to go through the procedures that their unions have to find them work. Workers laid off from temp jobs have to contact the temp agency and accept placements from them. When you get actual 'award letter' from California, it tells you exactly what you have to do to be "actively seeking".
I've also had experience with Georgia, which has different rules. There, people get told to make a list of employers they contact, and must go in person to fill out applications a certain number of times a week, etc. Recipients have to register with the state job search facility, stuff like that. Full details in this PDF of the Georgia "Rights and Responsibilities" pamphlet.
From the Georgia pamphlet, it looks like there are Federal regulations that require random claim audits to check on the veracity of details. It seems like some states use different methods to comply with that. When I filed in California, I specifically asked, "Do I need to keep a record of my job search, with employer names?" and the claims agent said, "No, not unless we tell you to do so." Sure enough, on the California Claim form, there's a part that says if a box has been checked on the form, you need to provide employer contact information. I document scrupulously anyway, in case I'm ever accused of UI fraud. I can show how many resumes I sent out, to whom, responses, follow-up calls, along with other things I did to find a job.
Amount of money also varies widely and doesn't corrolate to the cost of living. Until this January, California's top UI benefit was 230.00 a week -- one of the 2-3 lowest in the country, despite having one of the highest costs of living. Of course, one cannot simply move to another state to get better benefits; changing address just results in an "interstate claim". You get the amount of money you'd have gotten in the old state, with mega increased delays and hassles because it's processed through two states.
You know, that's something that I found odd when I moved here; in the South there are 24-hour Wal-marts everywhere, but in the bay area, I don't know of any. when I mention this to people here, someone always says, "I think there's one over in ", but no one can ever confirm one.
No Waffle Houses, either. *grump*
Myth 1: You make that much on unemployment? You lucky fuck!
Reality: If you filed after Jan 6th, 2002, the California state employment maximum is 330.00 a week, for up to 26 weeks. You can't file again for a year, and you have to have worked a substantial amount during the benefit year to be able to get more. That's 8580.00 to last a year, before taxes. Yes, it's taxable. That's well below the national "poverty line".
Myth 2: Well, still, it's enough to live on, you lucky fuck.
Reality: Maybe where you live, but not everywhere. In most major cities in the US, it's not enough for basic living expenses. Move to the country? Well, there aren't any jobs there, either, and less infrastructure. Oh, and if you have any other expenses, you're pretty much screwed. For example, I pay 100.00 a week in child support (a very modest sum), so I have to live on 230.00 a week. If I had a car payment, student loans, or other debts, I'd be toast. As it is, my lease locks me into over 1500.00 a month in rent. Hey, you do the math -- it's pretty grim.
Myth 3: You're better off getting a job at Wal-mart or something.
Reality: A "good" basic job might pay the same as the unemployment, but it'll also eat 40 hours a week of job-hunting time -- and management at that McJob isn't going to let you go on interviews every other day, either. Even if the McJob might pay a little more, it may hinder your ability to get Work In Your Field, which is a net loss in the long term.
Myth: People on unemployment are lazy anyway.
Reality: A lot of people treat job hunting as a full time job in and of itself, spending hours a day sending out resumes, querying employers, researching, etc. Do they sometimes get depressed and do nothing? Sure -- and that's perfectly normal for such a demoralizing, life-changing event.
Myth: You're supposed to take any job you can get.
Reality: In California, at least, there is no expectation that you will "take any job". The state expects you to look for work in your field, and to accept a reasonable offer of work, or explain to their satisfaction why you didn't. A job offer asking you to move 2000 miles is not reasonable, but one with a 20 percent cut in pay may be.
I could go on and on here, but the bottom line is, it's not a day in the park. I'm one of those people trying to do the best I can to get a job, while working to improve my chances -- which can be tough. For example, I had to get special permission from the State to take college credit classes -- they had to be things that would help me gain job skills, and I couldn't take the classes during any time that would prevent me from working or looking for work. I ended up taking internet-based community college courses that required no deadlines or class meetings.
People have asked me, "So, that Odd Todd thing, is that how it is?" and I've told them that it's a lot like that, yeah. I get up and I feel crappy that I can't find a job. Like many of my unemployed friends, I don't go out the way I used to because it costs money. There's a lot of inertia involved -- but it's not about laziness and it's not about "scamming the system." It's just about unfortunate economic realities, folks.
In the US, food doesn't *have* to be tossed. There's a national organization, Second Harvest, that arranges for surplus food donations. I think their programs vary depending on location, but in Atlanta, they have trucks that come to restaurants and grocery stores to pick up, and regular drop off points. The food goes from the restaurants to soup kitchens and food assistance pantries, where it is used or handed out in an organized fashion. They also do larger scale projects like getting surpus produce from one region in the country to another.
As far as I'm aware, in some places restauranteurs are misinformed about local rules for food donation. Second Harvest and similar organizations work to provide correct information as well as the go-betweens to organize and monitor such donations.
A quick survey on the net for "surpus food" or "food rescue" (a common term for this) turned up several meta-lists of organizations, including this one which has listings for the US and Canada. It seems like there's more a misperception of legal reason that actual restrictions.
My /. sweetie's favorite film of all time is Mike Jittlov's Wizard of Speed and Time. He's got a laser disc copy but no disc player, so I got him a copy on VHS (from skinnyguy.com) so we can snuggle up and watch it on Valentine's Day. (I've never seen it all the way through.)
Additionally, I've tried to make the day as simple and stressfree for him; like many geeks I know, he's uncomfortable trying to plan something romantic. I suggested a restaurant I'd enjoy and planned the movie, to ensure he didn't have to worry about what would please me.
[list of frivolous dot.com toys deleted]
*sigh* Okay, I'm going to repeat this one last time. Not all technology companies spent money on toys or provided extras. Be is a very clear example of a company that *did not* spend on such excesses.
Almost nothing was free at Be. No lunches, no soft drinks, no toys. NO fancy hardware. Most of the tech employees brought in equipment from home, because it was hard to requisition some kinds of equipment considered optional. When a component was needed, it was scavenged from non-working equipment.
There were some scooters, and probably some small "toys", but they were universally purchased by employees, who have since taken them home or on to new jobs.
I notice the original comment has been modded up as funny. You know, for many people watching an organization they were deeply committed to being disassembled, it's just, well, not funny. In this particular case, it's not funny, and it's not even close to true.
It's more likely to see parents with flexible hours, or one parent who left a job to raise the children. Additionally, the parents tend to be much older -- mid-40's isn't uncommon. These children also aren't in 30-child classrooms; they're in private schools (because almost everyone here who can afford it is in private school) with much smaller class sizes.
In short, it's clear from your comments that you're not familar with the reality of families in the Silicon Valley. While I don't necessarily approve of some of the excesses here, there's a much higher percentage of stay-at-home parents here than in many other places in the US.
It's not exactly carbon 14 dating; it's analysis of coral structures and related debris. Basically, it has to do with the rate of changes in coral structures over time, as well as sedimentation and things of that nature. Information about coral dating can be found here and here. Uranium/Thorium dating can be used on marine sediment (info here). Actually, the entire "Dating Exibit" site has a simplistic but good explanation of various relative and absolute dating techniques.
Heh, use gender neutral phrasing, and everyone on /. will assume male gender. Happens every time...
He was a big fan of the Comedy Central showings and would beg to watch them daily. I didn't realize how much it had affected him at the time.
One weekend, my spouse was a GOH at a small con. My son got his own 'handler', a child care person in charge of keeping him entertained during panels. She asked for permission to screen Jurassic Park for my son in the private movie theatre at the hotel. He'd never seen the film because of our concerns about its violence, but I reluctantly agreed.
I went to check on him at some point and found him sitting with his handler in the theatre *heckling* the film, a la Joel and the bots. At the moment I walked in, a velociraptor was stalking the child stars on screen, while my son crooned, "Here, dinner dinner dinner! Here boy!" and "Mmmmm! I smell pasta with MEAT sauce!"
He was five at the time.
Oooo! Two dot-com layoffs ago, my coworkers and I read one day that our CueCats (thoughtfully provided by Forbes and other magazines) didn't actually *belong* to us --- D:C was making a big stink about how the User Agreement specified that the Cat remained the property of D:C, blah blah blah.
Someone mentioned that saying equating ownership of a thing with the power to destroy it, and off we went. Since no one was actually *using* the Cats, we took a couple out back and uh, exerted our ownership control over them.
Pleasantly enough, the CueCat cord is long enough to really get some momentum going, if you swing the Cat around a bit. Then it's just a matter of introducing the Cat to the pavement, wall, or other object. Rinse and repeat.
We also ran over them, and used the remaining cords to lash things together, as I remember. Funny, D:C may have own the Cats, but no one from D:C attended the funerals or anything....
That's your opinion; it's not matched by the experience of countless protest organizations and movements dating back centuries. As you've said, you don't have a similar well of experience from which to draw.
It is not effective or witty, it is lame. It makes you look like brainless, uncreative drones on television, and people will tune you right out.
While it may be annoying to you, it *is* effective.
The reason chanting has been used at protest events for centuries is because it works. Chanting, in combination with other factors (bright/colorful/memorable costumes, clear signs, catchy slogans) helps fulfill several goals that most protest groups have. Among them, chanting:
1. Creates substantive sight-and-sound bites for the media.
2. Conveys a basic message to observers.
3. Unites the protesters, giving a greater appearance of unity.
4. Helps keep participant energy up over long protest periods.
5. Can be used to synchronize group action and convey messages in large crowds. ("When we start chanting 'foo', that's the signal to move towards the gates of the plant.")
6. Provides a simple "hook" for bystanders to participate.
I understand that you may consider chants about the DMCA childish, but simple slogans can create interest in a topic. If I know nothing about the DMCA and hear people chanting "Down with the DMCA" (and see signs waving!) I may be spurred to find out more about the subject myself. While you may be adept at explaining the topic in 20 minutes, or even 5, you need to capture interest in 20 seconds -- the time my car is stopped at that red light on the corner -- and that requires slogans, signs, and *chants*.
Please think of something different.
I'll politely refrain from asking how many protests you've participated in, or organized, or how you've kept your mental and physical energy up after 4 hours of marching, or 20 days at the same street corner; after all, you've already said you have no experience with organized protest actions. While I understand that you -- someone educated about the topic -- may find simple chanting "infantile" -- I would suggest that you try engaging in the activity before demanding of others that they replace a time-tested and perennially effective element of protesting.
-Trin
We used to say of MtG: "It's cheaper than crack!"
It does make me sort of nostalgic to think about the old days of WotC, even though I was never involved with the company. My spouse worked at White Wolf from 91-95; there was a lot of crossover, especially after Tweet joined WotC. (He was cocreator of ArsMagica, which became a White Wolf property when they bought Lion Rampant.)
In those days, if you left or got canned by White Wolf, you went to WotC; it was as if there was a standing job offer. My spouse left WW and considered WotC, but I whined so much about not wanting to move to Seattle, he decided against it. (Stupid! Stupid! *grin*)
Certainly we were aware of the sexual/relationship antics; they were fairly prevalent throughout the "independent" gaming industry. The Chaosium guys were famous for their free-wheeling ways, for example. Many people in the industry were pagan; many were non-monogamous. There was a fair amount of recreational drug use, as well. (As one would expect.)
Now that I work in 'net industry in Silicon Valley, I certainly see a lot of stuff that's familar from gaming industry days. A great deal of gaming industry culture revolved around the idea that people were getting paid to do what they loved and felt a very emotional attachment to their companies and products. My spouse had been one of the first kids playing original D when he was a young teen, he told his parents he wanted to write role-playing games when he grew up. It was the early 80's, and they thought he was crazy. Ten years later, he was doing just that -- writing supplements and working on games. In the same way, guys I work with every day tell me they dreamed of being able to play with computers all day when they grew up.
The Salon article alludes to this, to an extent. What I see happening in the .com industry as well as the gaming industry is that kids grew up playing, went to work still playing -- but eventually get pushed by marketing and economic factors into being "adult" about their work, which kills a lot of the love. I can imagine the feelings Atkinson had on resigning WotC are similar to those my most recent .com boss had when he had to lay off college buddies to keep his company alive -- the "play" part is eclipsed by the harsh realities of the "work".
Where did you see that? Paideia is *not* a public school. It's a private school, one of the more selective (read: difficult to get into) schools in the Atlanta area. The tuition is over 10K a year.
Actually, no. The article on K5 is still overestimating the revenue from targetted banner ads, because he's basing his estimates on published rates currently available.
Unfortunately, those rates don't mean anything in the current advertising climate. I used to work for dot-com with a revenue stream based almost entirely on advertising revenue with targeted banner ads. (I say used to because they had to lay off half their staff in January, because of the CPM rate crash.)$20 CPMs were possible a year ago, and $6-10 CPM's maybe 6 months ago -- but right now, CPM rates are so low, that even for targeted banner ads in higher-than-average click-through settings, they're still barely breaking $1.00 CPM. 60 *cents* isn't unheard of.
So, redo the math, reducing ad revenue by a power of 10, (because of his inflated CPM rates of $4-10) and you get more in the ballpark. Further, advertisers are trying to push towards an entirely per-click payment model, which can be quite abyssmal, revenue-wise -- and doesn't take into account all we know about the value of brand recognition over time, etc.
All you have to do is graph the decrease over the course of a year, from $20.00 CPMs to 60 cent ones, and you'll see why Yahoo's in trouble.
What I find particularly elegant about the work is how well informed it is by classical models. It's not just that it's 5-7-5 "verses", but that the whole thing is built around the Greek epic poem model. It's written to evoke Homer and Hesiod, complete with initial invocation of a muse and subsequent references to that muse. It includes traditional asides, stops frequently to praise its heroes, and closes with a prayer (of sorts).
It's also similar in more than just form. Works like Hesiod's Theogony are not just spoken poetic entertainment: they delineate the world view of their culture. In the same way, the DeCSS epic instructs the "listener" in the world view and cultural values of those opposing DeCSS.
It's a lovely thing to wake up to this morning.
Well, as the t-shirt says, chix dig linux -- but some linuxchix *don't* dig /. because of a perceived misogynistic flavor. In all seriousness, what's your take on /. women, and women in general? They don't seem to figure much in your universe; is this an indication that you're one of those sublimatin' types? Comments?