Gradually trying to move towards driverless cars instead of working directly on that goal is like thinking that by practicing jumping and getting better and better a jumping that you'll eventually be able to fly.
You say that some open source code went unaudited, even though it should have been audited. Open source enables people to do stuff, it doesn't magically make them do it. Just because openssl could be audited, it didn't magically get audited. But still, it _could_ be audited. That's the first step.
In the case of cars, it's easy, you can just have governments pay for auditing. But you need the code for that to be manageable.
Open source means that you, or an army of people like you, can get it audited, somehow. For example, you can set up a kickstarter for it and pay someone you trust. You might also have the competition look at cheats. Your government can also audit the source, if it's important enough.
People do have power, it takes a lot of getting together with others and stuff, but a lot more is possible than what you can do personally.
It's not really something you can decide easily. Internet surveillance is the current state of affairs. You can accept it, fight it, or despair. Out of those, I think most people just choose the first.
I don't think that's how it works. There's a place for knowledge and experience, and there's a place for fresh talent and creativity. Also, they have a different value for the company. Experienced guys are worth more, so they are paid more. Younger ones will maybe make it up in volume or not, so they are paid less.
I don't see that as a problem, just reality.
I don't think companies want younger guys because they are cheaper, they are aware they are less productive, esp in the long run, so it's the same deal for them to hire an experienced guy for 120k vs one or two young guys for 70k each (just an example, I don't live in the US).
But... two things...
One of them, inexperienced devs _may_ have a hidden cost in the long run, but for public companies there is no long run, there's only next quarter, and the managers kpi related bonuses. So, costs you won't look at, they don't exist.
The second one, inexperienced guys are inexperienced, so you can get away with paying a lot less than _their_ already lower worth. Also, they will work extra hours for free, will study stuff in their time, not company time. They will travel for free, so as to know new places. They will ask for less money out of lack of experience, and because they value other stuff like getting experience and contacts.
This means that you have to pay an older guy his worth, and you get younger guys at a discount on their already lower value, with no extra cost. Maybe mentoring kids into asking for that they are worth will make them better negotiators, and a little less desirable?
"okthxbai" helps you train not to click again on links to that content, so it will eventually rank lower for the search engine. Also, in any environment, if enough people take the "okthxbai" route, restricted content will eventually lose popularity, regardless of its inherent value. That is an incentive for other to share their knowledge in a more open way. So, "okthxbai" might not give you the piece of info you thought you were accessing, but end up giving you more and better information than you wished for.
The advertising said you would have at least one update. There was one. The claim was fulfilled that's not false advertising. Specially not for such a cheap phone, that already has Android 5.1
US companies don't exist in a vacuum. Some of their profits come from foreign countries, and some of that money get spent in the local US market. That helps the local economy, and keeps more people employed. In fact, the US as a whole gets to do business mostly everywhere, so it's a mostly free market in that respect, but labour can't move freely. This kind of thing helps labour to move more freely, so it's a freer market, in the Adam Smith sense. I know that this is fueled by corporate greed, but the market end up more free, I don't think you can question that.
Again, I think it's reasonable to fight this, because this is harmful to US guys, but I don't think it's a matter of overall fairness, but more of the legitimate personal benefit of US workers.
I don't support (or otherwise care about) H1B visas, but that's inexact.
US companies trade their products and services throughout the world. The world is their market, so it's a freer market if you allow foreigners to participate, not only with their purchasing dollars, but also with their work.
H1B visas and other ways to hire cheaper foreigners, while not its "intended" purpose, and while it's bad for locals, it does make the market freer and fairer. That's exactly why this is bad for locals, and they should fight it.
Could this be a problem endemic to organizations that spend money that they didn't really do anything to earn in the first place?
No. If that were true, all people who are born rich, and all rich families would be completely useless to society. Many of them are. Some of them are not. You need a different theory.
Competition is overrated. These are high barrier to entry markets. That kind of market ends up as an oligopoly. To mitigate that, you need expensive and cumbersome regulation, which is very prone to corruption.
I live in Uruguay. There is a monopoly on landlines for the state telecom. Everybody gets reasonable good access, close to half the homes already have fiber.
We are a small country, but also a sparse one. It's doable elsewhere.
I think the problem here is that so many people see telecom as a market opportunity. To me, it's more like public roads, sewage, that kind of thing. At least when it comes to infrastructure, competition either won't happen, or won't do much good.
On wireless there's more space for markets, because barriers to entry are lower, but I would definitely have governments build all the land instrastructure and then lease. Of course governments are prone to corruption, but there is also the possibility of oversight, and each particular government does not last forever. Oligopolistic companies do last forever, and they have the same kind of problems.
To be honest, that's not tiny. Facebook mediates social interaction for large numbers of people. Tiny changes like this can affect real life a lot, making bullying easier/harder, making it easier to pick fights with family, helping you lose your job, b/c you pushed dislike on they press releases.
This is small stuff, but it's small stuff at a very large scale. That's why it's news.
It's 2015, but electronic voting is a solution in search of a problem.
You can't really make an electronic system that protects secrecy, while also preventing large scale fraud, and most importantly, being auditable by citizens, not security experts, and right there on election day.
Paper vote has different versions, but most of them comply with that. There are some cases where paper ballots mislead, things like that, but all those cases can be improved by better, possible, citizens and party auditing.
Electronic voting _can_ be faster than paper voting, but you can only save the couple of hours (at max) it takes for humans to count the ballots at the voting table. It's a dumb trade-off to earn two hours (tops), and lose secrecy, fraud containment, and auditability.
You are right. You shouldn't do that. In my case, I got the Fire Phone, I didn't give it much thought, because I wanted a phone with LTE, a good camera, and cheap. I got it for $200 on black friday. I could have got the Moto G, but this one has a better camera.
A week after, I found out Hangouts was not available, and wanted it, so I downloaded the google play and play services APK, and installed them in the phone. I had to change a config setting to enable installs from outside of the store, just like in stock android, but no need to root it.
I mean, I wouldn't recommend it to someone who really NEEDS google stuff, or someone who doesn't want to tinker with their phone, but it took really little tinkering to get google play installed, and after that it's just a different android phone, same apps, same everything.
Waiting in line is for suckers. Us Amazon fans already have Amazon Prime. Some lucky guys even have Prime Now, why stand in line?
(Disclaimer: not a real Amazon fan, do those exist? But I do own a Fire TV and a Fire Phone, good hardware, great camera, good LTE speeds in my country, the best $200 spent on a phone)
Gimp eventually did become decent feature-wise, but of course it can't replace Photoshop for people who want Photoshop. People learn to work with images, using photoshop, and they don't want to learn a different way of doing things. They shouldn't need to. If you need Photoshop, you should just use that.
For me, I never learned photoshop, I tried to, several times, but just couldn't do basic stuff. Gimp was very easy for me to learn, I use it only for very simple stuff, like resizing pictures, color management, basic compositing, sprites, logos for web development, that kind of thing.
The Internet isn't even a thing, it's wishful thinking, and a bunch of random crap "visionaries" with no business plan are all pushing as the Next Big Thing.
It's marketing hype by people trying to cash in, but who otherwise have no idea what it's good for.... Instead it's just a bunch of bullshit and lies about how unfinished tech with no actual value is going to revolutionize the world.
Every idiot who says "Yarg, teh internet" should get swiftly smacked in the head. Because other than they want a piece of the action, not a single one of them can tell you what it is and why you actually want it.
Getting suckered into spending public money to allow some idiot to let you help him figure out what this crap is for is a sure sign you're not doing enough due diligence.
I'm glad to see people like this starting to say "go away and leave us alone". Because there's nothing there yet, just some speculative crap.
It's a solution in search of a problem, and a bunch of people trying to get other people help them figure out the business plan and what this stuff is for.
Slashdot Mirror
Gradually trying to move towards driverless cars instead of working directly on that goal is like thinking that by practicing jumping and getting better and better a jumping that you'll eventually be able to fly.
Worked for Superman, didn't it?
My government can't.
My government _could_ do it or pay someone to do it, if the code was open.
What you say doesn't deny what I said.
You say that some open source code went unaudited, even though it should have been audited.
Open source enables people to do stuff, it doesn't magically make them do it.
Just because openssl could be audited, it didn't magically get audited. But still, it _could_ be audited. That's the first step.
In the case of cars, it's easy, you can just have governments pay for auditing. But you need the code for that to be manageable.
That's proof by lack of will, or imagination.
Open source means that you, or an army of people like you, can get it audited, somehow.
For example, you can set up a kickstarter for it and pay someone you trust.
You might also have the competition look at cheats.
Your government can also audit the source, if it's important enough.
People do have power, it takes a lot of getting together with others and stuff, but a lot more is possible than what you can do personally.
It's not really something you can decide easily.
Internet surveillance is the current state of affairs. You can accept it, fight it, or despair. Out of those, I think most people just choose the first.
I don't think that's how it works.
There's a place for knowledge and experience, and there's a place for fresh talent and creativity.
Also, they have a different value for the company. Experienced guys are worth more, so they are paid more. Younger ones will maybe make it up in volume or not, so they are paid less.
I don't see that as a problem, just reality.
I don't think companies want younger guys because they are cheaper, they are aware they are less productive, esp in the long run, so it's the same deal for them to hire an experienced guy for 120k vs one or two young guys for 70k each (just an example, I don't live in the US).
But... two things...
One of them, inexperienced devs _may_ have a hidden cost in the long run, but for public companies there is no long run, there's only next quarter, and the managers kpi related bonuses. So, costs you won't look at, they don't exist.
The second one, inexperienced guys are inexperienced, so you can get away with paying a lot less than _their_ already lower worth. Also, they will work extra hours for free, will study stuff in their time, not company time. They will travel for free, so as to know new places. They will ask for less money out of lack of experience, and because they value other stuff like getting experience and contacts.
This means that you have to pay an older guy his worth, and you get younger guys at a discount on their already lower value, with no extra cost. Maybe mentoring kids into asking for that they are worth will make them better negotiators, and a little less desirable?
"okthxbai" helps you train not to click again on links to that content, so it will eventually rank lower for the search engine.
Also, in any environment, if enough people take the "okthxbai" route, restricted content will eventually lose popularity, regardless of its inherent value. That is an incentive for other to share their knowledge in a more open way.
So, "okthxbai" might not give you the piece of info you thought you were accessing, but end up giving you more and better information than you wished for.
Plans that count on you being very clever, and the mark being a simpleton, usually backfire.
The advertising said you would have at least one update. There was one.
The claim was fulfilled that's not false advertising. Specially not for such a cheap phone, that already has Android 5.1
They are not discrete markets, it's a single one.
US companies don't exist in a vacuum. Some of their profits come from foreign countries, and some of that money get spent in the local US market. That helps the local economy, and keeps more people employed. In fact, the US as a whole gets to do business mostly everywhere, so it's a mostly free market in that respect, but labour can't move freely. This kind of thing helps labour to move more freely, so it's a freer market, in the Adam Smith sense. I know that this is fueled by corporate greed, but the market end up more free, I don't think you can question that.
Again, I think it's reasonable to fight this, because this is harmful to US guys, but I don't think it's a matter of overall fairness, but more of the legitimate personal benefit of US workers.
I don't support (or otherwise care about) H1B visas, but that's inexact.
US companies trade their products and services throughout the world. The world is their market, so it's a freer market if you allow foreigners to participate, not only with their purchasing dollars, but also with their work.
H1B visas and other ways to hire cheaper foreigners, while not its "intended" purpose, and while it's bad for locals, it does make the market freer and fairer. That's exactly why this is bad for locals, and they should fight it.
In any case, sunburn is not the only reason you apply sunblock.
Skin cancer doesn't really care all that much about sunburn, but the total of hours in the sun divided by the power of the sunblock used.
Could this be a problem endemic to organizations that spend money that they didn't really do anything to earn in the first place?
No. If that were true, all people who are born rich, and all rich families would be completely useless to society. Many of them are. Some of them are not. You need a different theory.
Eh?
Competition is overrated.
These are high barrier to entry markets. That kind of market ends up as an oligopoly.
To mitigate that, you need expensive and cumbersome regulation, which is very prone to corruption.
I live in Uruguay. There is a monopoly on landlines for the state telecom. Everybody gets reasonable good access, close to half the homes already have fiber.
We are a small country, but also a sparse one. It's doable elsewhere.
I think the problem here is that so many people see telecom as a market opportunity. To me, it's more like public roads, sewage, that kind of thing. At least when it comes to infrastructure, competition either won't happen, or won't do much good.
On wireless there's more space for markets, because barriers to entry are lower, but I would definitely have governments build all the land instrastructure and then lease. Of course governments are prone to corruption, but there is also the possibility of oversight, and each particular government does not last forever. Oligopolistic companies do last forever, and they have the same kind of problems.
Nice choice! It would be hard to tell a robot from the real Lucy Liu.
In any case, I would want one!.
To be honest, that's not tiny.
Facebook mediates social interaction for large numbers of people.
Tiny changes like this can affect real life a lot, making bullying easier/harder, making it easier to pick fights with family, helping you lose your job, b/c you pushed dislike on they press releases.
This is small stuff, but it's small stuff at a very large scale. That's why it's news.
It's 2015, but electronic voting is a solution in search of a problem.
You can't really make an electronic system that protects secrecy, while also preventing large scale fraud, and most importantly, being auditable by citizens, not security experts, and right there on election day.
Paper vote has different versions, but most of them comply with that. There are some cases where paper ballots mislead, things like that, but all those cases can be improved by better, possible, citizens and party auditing.
Electronic voting _can_ be faster than paper voting, but you can only save the couple of hours (at max) it takes for humans to count the ballots at the voting table. It's a dumb trade-off to earn two hours (tops), and lose secrecy, fraud containment, and auditability.
Good luck not getting in jail at some part of that process http://it.slashdot.org/story/15/07/04/2110207/researcher-who-reported-e-voting-vulnerability-targeted-by-police-raid-in-argentina
I got one for my wife, she's happy with it, and really likes her phone, after the upgrade to Lollipop.
I just liked the one on the Fire better.
You are right. You shouldn't do that.
In my case, I got the Fire Phone, I didn't give it much thought, because I wanted a phone with LTE, a good camera, and cheap.
I got it for $200 on black friday. I could have got the Moto G, but this one has a better camera.
A week after, I found out Hangouts was not available, and wanted it, so I downloaded the google play and play services APK, and installed them in the phone. I had to change a config setting to enable installs from outside of the store, just like in stock android, but no need to root it.
I mean, I wouldn't recommend it to someone who really NEEDS google stuff, or someone who doesn't want to tinker with their phone, but it took really little tinkering to get google play installed, and after that it's just a different android phone, same apps, same everything.
Yes, Search and Gmail have gone downhill since they were acquired by Google.
Waiting in line is for suckers.
Us Amazon fans already have Amazon Prime. Some lucky guys even have Prime Now, why stand in line?
(Disclaimer: not a real Amazon fan, do those exist? But I do own a Fire TV and a Fire Phone, good hardware, great camera, good LTE speeds in my country, the best $200 spent on a phone)
Gimp eventually did become decent feature-wise, but of course it can't replace Photoshop for people who want Photoshop. People learn to work with images, using photoshop, and they don't want to learn a different way of doing things. They shouldn't need to. If you need Photoshop, you should just use that.
For me, I never learned photoshop, I tried to, several times, but just couldn't do basic stuff. Gimp was very easy for me to learn, I use it only for very simple stuff, like resizing pictures, color management, basic compositing, sprites, logos for web development, that kind of thing.
Back in the nineties...
The Internet isn't even a thing, it's wishful thinking, and a bunch of random crap "visionaries" with no business plan are all pushing as the Next Big Thing.
It's marketing hype by people trying to cash in, but who otherwise have no idea what it's good for. ...
Instead it's just a bunch of bullshit and lies about how unfinished tech with no actual value is going to revolutionize the world.
Every idiot who says "Yarg, teh internet " should get swiftly smacked in the head. Because other than they want a piece of the action, not a single one of them can tell you what it is and why you actually want it.
Getting suckered into spending public money to allow some idiot to let you help him figure out what this crap is for is a sure sign you're not doing enough due diligence.
I'm glad to see people like this starting to say "go away and leave us alone". Because there's nothing there yet, just some speculative crap.
It's a solution in search of a problem, and a bunch of people trying to get other people help them figure out the business plan and what this stuff is for.