Perhaps you can manage your time, estimate things well, or perhaps you can just solve solve the problems that take other people sixteen hours in only four.
That may be true of some passable engineers, but every good engineer I've ever known would not be content solving problems that only take four hours to crack. These engineers can solve the problems that take other people 16h in 4h, perhaps, but would prefer to work on stuff that's harder.
The major difference between "geeks" and "normals" in technical fields is that geeks enjoy pushing the limits of their skill, while the normals are quite happy simply being competent at their jobs. One does not push oneself to one's limits in software development or any engineering discipline without a few all-nighters along the way.
I'm sick of all the "geeks have poor work-life balance" crap -- geeks are happy working a lot of hours because they enjoy their work. In fact, I've never met a geek who didn't continue to work all night on some pet project even when their work was not currently geeky. Geeks who work in their field of geekdom are often happiest because they are essentially getting paid for having fun.
Geek culture can sometimes be hostile to women, but that's more an effect of how those women were socialized into valuing interpersonal relationships more than impersonal pursuits. You don't fix that problem by changing geek culture, you fix that problem by changing the larger culture so that it doesn't expect different value systems in people of differing genders.
I note that just about everyone is presuming that Apple will be deliberately constructing an update to turn unlocked iPhones into bricks. While that's certainly possible, they are currently claiming that there is no such intent, but that folks should be aware that there's a possibility the next update will break unlocked phones.
Now, Apple could certainly be lying, but they have so far had a reasonable reputation for being forthright. Additionally, if their intent was malicious, they could have avoided saying anything (since the warranty text already disclaims warranty for modified devices), issued the update, and laughed as all the iPhone unlockers bricked their phones. It's certainly plausible that Apple has been testing updates with stock and unlocked phones and has noted that updates sometimes brick unlocked phones; that's at least as plausible as the "deliberate bricking" everyone is in a tizzy about.
I'm willing to give Apple the benefit of the doubt, but given how evil it would be if the bricking were deliberate, I'm hoping someone will reverse-engineer the update and find out the facts. Until then, though, let's not rush to attribute malice to a company that has been basically decent over the years.
I say, wait and see, and not make too many assumptions.
Advertisers may not use gadget ads to create or read any cookies on ad impressions or interaction. Advertisers also may not use web beacons, pixel tags, and other cookie-like mechanisms, such as Flash local storage, in their gadget ads.
I still just don't get it how people can get their mind around using a word for other human beings to describe something as "worthless" or "something I don't like" and don't reflect about what they are doing.
The vast majority of people who speak English as a first language do not actually consider their speech at all.
People say a lot of things without ever stopping to consider the most obvious meaning of the words, much less additional meanings or possible connotation. That's why we end up with managers who say stupid crap like "it's not rocket surgery"; and, it's equally why we hear even people who are perfectly OK with homosexuality say "that's gay" in a derogatory context.
Simply put, they say "that's gay" because they hear other people say it, and parrot it without consideration of the meaning. If you are gay, or have good friends who are, you do tend to notice it a bit more and be a bit more sensitive to it -- after all, you've probably heard it used to attack homosexuality and taken a bit of offense.
In truth, who bother me a lot more than idiots being insensitive about their words are those that are overly-sensitive to those words. If someone is using language that marks them as an idiot, by all means feel free to point it out to them. Just remember that tolerance has to work both ways -- you don't have to like that someone is a jerk, but they do have that right. You can try to educate them, but when the line is crossed into humiliation or other forms of oppression, you lose the moral high-ground.
If some poor researcher loses funding, and industry realizes they had something good to say or study, they'll get the money quick enough, plus they can decide who to offer it to and at what price. It is no different than the guy who washes cars: if government paid him to do it, he'd be charging $100 an hour and would forget to use water.
It's true that the government grant system is poorly-managed, and that we pay a lot more than we should in many circumstances. However, research isn't only valuable as a "marketable materials" pursuit.
If we didn't have government grants, no pure research would ever be done, and the only stuff we'd be discovering would have direct marketable value. That sounds great until you realize that much of the "valuable" research that's been done depended on earlier research that didn't have any obvious value.
For example, if Michael Faraday hadn't figured out the principles of electro-magnetic radiation -- something he did just because he was curious, and which had no obvious practical value in 1831 -- we would not have had a generators, radios, and a myriad other things (like transformers) that make modern life possible.
Have some empathy for others trying to find a better life in exactly the same way your ancestors did!
I have a great deal of empathy for immigrants; as a 2nd-generation American, I'm proud that my grandparents immigrated legally, worked diligently for citizenship, and were never under the care (financial or otherwise) of the State.
It's one thing to criticize someone who is anti-immigrant -- after all, we are almost all from immigrant stock -- but quite another to attack someone who's against illegal immigration. There are very good reasons to control the rate of immigration, including the ability to ensure adequate infrastructure (power, clean water, sewage treatment, police and fire services, etc.) to support the population growth.
People who immigrate illegally may be doing so as an act of desperation, but they are breaking a decent and fair law. If you disagree that the law is decent and fair, then participate in movements to get the law changed -- don't just attack people who believe in enforcing it.
Sorry, I'm failing to see why sending snail mail spam is ok, but email and SMS spam, unsolicited telephone marketting, etc are bad.
Yes, yes you are. Let me break it down, since you're actually speaking of three things here:
With "postal spam", otherwise known as "junk mail":
The sender bears the entire cost
Fraudulent claims in ads are pursued
The Direct Marketing Association will gladly remove you from member mailing lists (stopping about 85% of junk mail, in my experience)
With email and SMS spam:
The recipient bears the majority of the cost (actually, the ISP does, in terms of increased bandwidth and storage requirements, but they pass these costs on to subscribers in order to keep making a profit; the distinction is therefor irrelevant).
"E-mail fraud" doesn't have the same problems as mail fraud, and is not readily investigated
There is no large central trade association that manages the majority of e-mail marketing -- you often can't get your name off of anyone's lists
With telemarketing:
The caller bears the cost
The recipient has no control over the timing (the phone rings during dinner, e.g.), making it very annoying
There is a do-not-call registry
In short, people put up with junk mail because it doesn't cost them anything, only saps a couple of minutes of time once a day (at most!), and isn't particularly annoying.
People don't like e-mail and SMS spam because it costs them something, is very annoying, is often fradulent, and takes time and effort to deal with almost every time one checks one's mail. Likewise, telemarketing is very annoying.
And to me, a government which does not fear its people has already stripped them of any power they have over the government. I don't think the Chinese government fears its people -- rather, I think it wants to protect them. That, to me, is far scarier. The logic seems to go like this:
"If the people knew what happened in Tienanmen Square, their anger might cause them to revolt. The action would be ultimately fruitless, and we would be forced to kill a great many people. Therefore, it is in the people's best interest that they do not know."
There are shades of that reasoning beginning to occur in many first-world countries, and I can only hope that the people of those democratic republics take action to prevent that attitude from prevailing before it becomes impossible to do so.
The US government is still mostly in fear of its people -- the reason that GW Bush can only gripe instead of silence the press is this fear. If Mr. Bush were to attempt to silence the press, the populace would rouse from its collective sleep and cry for blood. Congress, fearing the loss of their jobs, would swiftly call for impeachment, and it would not be long before the president lost all his power.
That is the kind of fear a government should have -- the fear that if it takes away its citizens' rights, those citizens will take away the power of that government.
Nothing like a country terrified of its own citizens
Indeed, I wish it were more often the case that the government feared its people. Unfortunately most regimes (including, increasingly, those of the First World) have the opposite problem.
I'm not denying that software makers have responsibility for their bugs. My point is that the software industry has a process, and that Apple was following that process. The process goes like this:
Write some software
Test it until the developers are happy
Give it to a broader internal user-base
Launch a private beta (larger user-base)
Launch a public beta (much larger user-base)
Release software
At each stage until release, the goal is to find as many bugs as possible. You simply can't do that without letting a broad user-base test things out.
Contrary to your belief, other engineering pursuits do follow that process, but often a "public beta" type of arrangement is simply too expensive.
if people can find several exploits on day one, that means they are pretty obvious exploits
What's in question here is whether these exploits were actually found -- the supposed discoverer isn't sharing any information with anyone, so we really don't know if those flaws exist or not.
Here, let me fix that for you: releasing beta software with remotely exploitable bugs to users who accept a license that indicates the software is pre-release and should not be used with important data...
Well, the rest of that doesn't make any sense anymore.
I mean, seriously, the second paragraph of the license, which is presented in all-caps, boldface text, says:
IMPORTANT NOTE: THIS IS "BETA", PRE-RELEASE, TIME-LIMITED SOFTWARE MEANT FOR EVALUATION AND DEVELOPMENT PURPOSES ONLY. THIS SOFTWARE SHOULD NOT BE USED IN A COMMERCIAL OPERATING ENVIRONMENT OR WITH IMPORTANT DATA. BEFORE INSTALLING THIS APPLE SOFTWARE, YOU SHOULD BACK UP ALL OF YOUR DATA AND REGULARLY BACK UP DATA WHILE USING THIS APPLE SOFTWARE.
A company can't be blamed for people not bothering to read the contract -- it's not like the above is any kind of vague legalese.
Apple has taken every reasonable measure to ensure people know that this software carries risk - they call it a beta, they describe what that means in the license, etc.
However, this "security researcher" who claims to have found bugs (he probably did -- it is beta software), but refuses to share them with Apple, the WebKit project upon which Safari is based, or anyone else, is actively unprofessional. He's profiting by maligning a company (Apple) without presenting any hard evidence to anyone, and in so doing he's harming me and my fellow security professionals by devaluing the security research process.
It's all moot anyway, since no download service (that I know of) besides allofmp3 will give you better than about 192kbps lossy audio
Audio Lunchbox allows artists to offer tracks in a variety of formats, FLAC among them. No mainstream artists, but plenty of interesting stuff to find.
Zunior (no relation to the Zune) is similar -- they offer FLAC for a premium.
iTunes Plus offers 256kpbs AAC (MPEG-4's Advanced Audio Codec) tracks without DRM -- Lossy, but better than 192kbps. Right now it's only EMI Music's catalog, but rumor has it that will be expanding.
How about, say 6 bucks a month to be able to listen to any song whenever you want (so long as you keep paying), and around $1.29 to own the track permanently?
The subscription model is already fairly successful, and most subscription services will sell you a given track -- those that you buy, you can continue to use even after you cancel the service. The model is fine. What needs to happen is that DRM needs to all but disappear.
Using the artists-get-paid-for-plays model is novel, but would require some sort of DRM to work; you'd need to limit the players that could use that music so that stats would be properly reported and aggregated. It could be less-restrictive (i.e. work on any machine participating in the service), but it would still have to exist.
I don't necessarily have a problem with DRM in cases where it's very clear that you don't own the content (such as the subscription tracks). However, it's essential that tracks offered for purchase be DRM-free (you either own it or you don't, there should be no gray area).
I agree that there would certainly be massive social implications to a site like MySpace suddenly changing its stripes to exclude folks on the basis of gender, race, sexual preference, etc. What I was mostly responding to is the idea that such behavior would be illegal.
In the context of this thread, the key point is that even though MySpace is discriminating against registered sex offenders -- a foolish move, IMHO: our society shouldn't keep punishing people after they've completed their sentence -- it's perfectly legal for them to do so.
Let us think of some possible scenarios: random rape, date rate, child rape, child molestation, groping, lewd conduct, public nudity. Of these, which ones do you consider serious? Do you believe they should all be grouped as sex offenses? I don't even know if they are all considered sex offenses, I tried to look it up to determine if my list was valid, but in the short time I looked on google for sex offenses, all I got were sex offender registry links, so I can't even look up to determine what constitutes a sex offense.
I googled "sex offender registry inclusion requirements site:.gov" and found and example pretty quickly -- the below is from the State of Michigan's FAQ on sex offender registries.
Indecent Exposure While Engaging in a Lewd/Lascivious Act (M.C.L. 750.335a(2)(b)), if previously convicted of violation of M.C.L. 750.335a.
So it would seem that if you're caught "indecently exposed" while, say, doing a striptease at a party, and it happens more than once -- you're a sex offender. If you're "indecently exposed" three times, regardless of context -- you're a sex offender.
Also, if you get a Disorderly Person conviction three times -- yep, you're a sex offender.
What I've done instead is to create a catch-all email address in a subdomain and sign up as, ie amazon@subdomain.domain.com.... Good luck communicating 16 random letters and numbers over the phone to level-1 customer support.
This also has the advantage of not needing to establish the alias first, which is a boon when asked for e-mail addresses on paperwork or while away from your computer. I use this same system, and it works very well.
One downside, however, is customer-support confusion. Explaining your 16-char random local-part over the phone pales in comparison to peoples reaction when they see their company (or domain name) in your mail address.
Case in point, when I signed up for a Onlzbag hotel (rot-13 to protect the guilty) frequent guest card, I was told that e-mail address was required. I used onlzbag.com@{mydomain}. The response was a very angry hostess screaming "that's not your e-mail address, that's ours."
Granted, demanding a supervisor and equally-loudly explaining the hostess' stupidity while insisting that they explain why they were accusing me of fraud did net me a couple nights of free hotel, but YMMV.:)
they certainly cannot discriminate against you based on purely physical factors (race, sex, etc.).
They most certainly can -- you do not know of what you speak.
There are certain circumstances where an organization can legally discriminate. The most common of these is a private organization whose purpose would be invalidated by allowing a member of a certain race, religion, gender, etc. to join. For example, the company Curves is a workout facility for women; they have been sued to allow men to join and have prevailed as a women-only organization.
Ever see a waiter in a wheelchair? It's unlikely because an employer can define a job as requiring a certain level of physical ability (need to move in tight spaces and carry 150lbs.), and use such definition to avoid hiring people with certain disabilities. The ADA only forces employers to make "reasonable accommodation", it doesn't force them to make all possible accommodation.
I can start a club that's only for people of German descent, and can deny membership (and employment, if I wish) to people who don't meet that criteria.
If MySpace decided that they'd only allow men to use their service, they can do that -- there might be social, but no legal consequences.
She was quite clear that she was concerned about them telling other people she was a sex offender, as they had already told her she was one.
Such an event, if it happened, is a crime, called SLANDER.
See, that's the thing -- she's worried it might happen, she's not upset because it did happen.
Yes, it sucks to be told "you look like a sex offender, so we're deleting your MySpace account", and sucks even more that MySpace didn't have enough foresight to have an appeals process. It's in really poor taste.
However, even if MySpace had slipped up and told some people "this account was canceled because its owner's personal details matched a sex offender registry", it's not a crime. For several reasons:
Slander and libel (which latter is more likely, given the written medium) are torts not crimes. If someone libels you, you get them to stop, apologize, and possibly pay you sums of money by suing them. You can't file criminal charges.
For either slander or libel, one must prove that the statements made are both false and made in bad faith; neither appears to be true.
MySpace is privately-owned, and their terms of service basically say they can terminate you whenever and however they want. You agree to this when joining.
That second bit demands a little more attention. For this to have been libelous, MySpace would have to both tell people that the lady was actually a sex offender (they didn't, they said her profile matched that of a sex offender), and she'd have to prove that MySpace did these things in order to harm her reputation.
At worst case, MySpace would be negligent, and this lady might have a defamation case. In that line, she'd still have to prove the statement was wrong, and that she was materially harmed -- that is, that MySpace's actions caused her some kind of measurable harm, not just embarrassment.
I am not an attorney, and this is not legal advice. I just try to know as much about the law as I can.
Sex offenders.. the new Jews... And soon they will have to have a symbol, clearly visible on their clothes, that shows they are a sex offender.
Ok, that might be a bit of a stretch.
I certainly agree that we, as a society, have a disturbing tendency to label people coupled with an even more disturbing tendency to extend the labels beyond their meaning. For example, a friend of mine had been dating her girlfriend since they were both 16. The girlfriend turned 18, but my friend was 2 months away when my friend's parents caught them. Said parents insisted on pressing charges, and now the girlfriend is a registered sex offender -- see, that's statutory rape in many states.
That public status has caused a great deal of strain on their relationship, and great hardship for the girlfriend when it comes time to find employment -- people assume that anyone who's a "sex offender" is a child-molester or violent rapist.
On the other hand, comparing that kind of societal labeling to antisemitism that eventually led to an attempted genocide is a bit absurd. Despite the problems with the sex-offender registry, at least those people are being labeled based on their actions, not based on their descent or physical characteristics.
You would just look at a certain fixed point on a blank page and it would feed you one word at time at whatever speed you select. The words always showed up at the same position, so in terms of this article your "straw" would be in a fixed position.
I was able to read quite a bit faster, but I did not have the money to spend on it at the time. I also wasn't sure how useful it would be outside of novels.
The sad thing is that such an approach actually defeats one of the best tools for increasing reading speed and comprehension.
In my formative years, I was fortunate enough to attend a school that taught reading in a fairly non-traditional way. Of course, I started like everyone else: learn to read letters, then groups of letters that make sounds (phonetic groups), then phonetic groups that make up words. The difference is that once we had been taught a reasonable level of skill in this regard (and a decent base vocabulary), we continued the pattern -- we learned to read groups of words as phrases, then phrases as sentences.
That is, we learned not to read a phrase or sentence as a string of words, but as a discrete unit of information. Most people are never taught this (though many avid readers figure it out on their own, whether consciously or not).
The result for my life is that I can read even fairly technical documentation very quickly, and without sacrificing comprehension. People I know who learned this method later in life claim that it's actually improved comprehension. I'm not exactly a "speed reader", by most definitions, but I do read significantly faster than average -- even when that average is among avid readers.
The "straw" approach of only seeing a word or two defeats both the speed and comprehension of readers who've learned to process information this way. Maybe it's better in that it would require less training than the method I'm used to -- I don't know -- but it's certainly not any better for me.
The only link I could find before I stopped caring to search was a company who wants to sell their services, but they describe the basic idea I'm referring to: MindTools is their name.
it's best to preemptively explain them in your covering letter
Sadly, lots of employers don't even bother to read cover letters in the first pass. If you're lucky, they skim them to find out why you're applying for the position.
If there are employment holes greater than a month or two, your resume is likely to get round-filed before your cover letter is ever even looked at. It's even more true in companies that use software to pre-filter resumes.
My advice, having worked as a hiring manager, is to explain "gaps" in employment history directly on your resume. The rule of thumb is that unless you really were in rehab or jailed, you were probably doing something that should be recorded on your resume anyhow, right along with all of your other employment history.
Tried to start a business? Put the dates down and the name of the business, and your position as "proprietor".
Tried the stay-at-home parent thing? Put the dates down and list "Unpaid volunteer work (variety)". Volunteer work looks great on a resume, and if you get the interview, you'll be asked about it. Explain that you were a full-time parent and volunteered at a wide variety of events your children were involved in.
Took some time to live off your investments and just relax? Put the dates down and list "Independent investment management". At the interview, explain that you spent that time managing your own investments as your primary source of income. It's true even if all you did was keep an eye on your balances. If asked about specifics, politely refuse with something like "I really don't feel comfortable discussing my personal finances."
If you were really in jail, I can't help you - some employers will care, others won't, and there's nothing you can do to change their mind (usually).
If you were really in rehab, you aren't required to disclose it. However, it is probably smart to list the dates in your employment history and mark them as "family/medical leave". They can't and won't ask you about it, and will tend to assume that you had an ill family member or a serious illness. "Rehab" will not likely enter their mind. If they *do* ask about it, it's perfectly appropriate to say (politely) "I'd rather not discuss my medical history".
Theft and fraud do not bring the price of goods up. When shopping carts are stolen from the supermarket it does not raise the cost of food. If they could have possibly raised the price before they would have already done it. Theft cuts into profits but it absolutely does not raise the price for the consumer.
Go back to your Economics classes: the profit margin is sale price - cost of item - cost of selling item. That last includes store rent, utilities, labor, shrinkage (part of which is theft), etc.
Imagine two stores (A and B) sell an item (X) for $5, and this is a $1 profit (for simplicity, all other factors are equal).
If Store A starts to have a theft problem, it could drop their margin. If the problem is serious, the cost of selling X might increase to the point where they are losing money. If this is only a problem for Store A, then Store A has to either stop carrying X, go out of business, or find an effective anti-theft solution (one that has a total cost less than the theft it stops). At this point, the consumer is not affected.
However, if Store B has the same theft problem as Store A, and no effective anti-theft is available, then both stores raise their prices on X to $7 in order to restore profit. The consumer is hurt at this point because no one can stay in business selling X for $5 -- if the consumer wants X, they will have to pay $7 for it.
If no one steals anything, Store A can only raise its price on X, without losing customers, in a few ways:
They can "bundle" some product or service -- people might pay more for X because the warranty is better, for example.
They can segment the market, offering coupons, rebates, &c. that bring X's price down for those who aren't willing to pay the higher price.
They can collude with Store B and agree that they can both raise their prices (this is called "price fixing", and is illegal, if common).
Without the theft factor, competition can keep prices low; with theft, all providers must raise prices to maintain a profit, so competition doesn't do squat.
The only people who should ignore their dreams and stick with the lives they hate...
There's a huge difference between sticking with a 'life you hate' and sticking with a temporary situation that sucks. Only whiners radically change their life because of a short stint of suck.
Let me supply a comparison from my own life:
When I was younger, I had a job where I was under-paid and over-worked. I really wanted to quit and get something better, but without a degree or enough work experience, I couldn't get a job in the IT field. I decided to stick with that job, and I'm glad I did -- otherwise, I'd probably be in an entire field I can't stand anymore.
I stuck with a temporary situation that sucked, because I could look to the future and see that it was in my long-term interest to do so.
When I was a little older, I got myself stuck in a situation where my friends and roommates were treating me like crap, I was spending all of my money on stupid crap to make myself feel better (which didn't work), and I was operating a business that was at a dead-end. Now that was a life I hated: I packed up my stuff, bought myself out of my lease, sold a good portion of what I owned, closed the business, and moved across the state. I had to take a job as a waiter in my new home to pay the bills, but I had friendlier friends, less stress, and a much better roommate (who I married later).
I left a life I hated despite, even though it created a temporary situation that sucked.
I think the important thing for the OP to decide is whether he's in a spot that sucks now, but will set him up to be comfortable later (i.e. being able to retire and travel because of a good pension/extra money/whatever); or, whether the situation is so bad in the long run that it's worth fleeing at any cost.
Have you used an intel Mac? Neo Office is plenty fast.
Neo Office is plenty fast on an intel Mac for most users. It is not fast (or, sadly, stable) enough to be of use in an Enterprise environment. Don't believe me? Try working on revisions of a document over 1000 pages long.
If you have need for a very powerful suite, you should be willing put up with its less-than-perfect performance. If not, go with iWork ($40) or just use TextEdit.app.
Your examples suck (neither has a useful spreadsheet, for example), but your point is solid. I'm in no way recommending against Macs in the enterprise. My only point of contention was that "throwing on OpenOffice" was a good solution when moving to the Mac.
The main point being that most orgs moving to Mac would spend equal amounts of money on Office whether they were buying PCs or Macs, and so buying something users are more likely to be familiar with makes a lot more sense than stressing over the compartively tiny cost of an office suite.
Slashdot Mirror
That may be true of some passable engineers, but every good engineer I've ever known would not be content solving problems that only take four hours to crack. These engineers can solve the problems that take other people 16h in 4h, perhaps, but would prefer to work on stuff that's harder.
The major difference between "geeks" and "normals" in technical fields is that geeks enjoy pushing the limits of their skill, while the normals are quite happy simply being competent at their jobs. One does not push oneself to one's limits in software development or any engineering discipline without a few all-nighters along the way.
I'm sick of all the "geeks have poor work-life balance" crap -- geeks are happy working a lot of hours because they enjoy their work. In fact, I've never met a geek who didn't continue to work all night on some pet project even when their work was not currently geeky. Geeks who work in their field of geekdom are often happiest because they are essentially getting paid for having fun.
Geek culture can sometimes be hostile to women, but that's more an effect of how those women were socialized into valuing interpersonal relationships more than impersonal pursuits. You don't fix that problem by changing geek culture, you fix that problem by changing the larger culture so that it doesn't expect different value systems in people of differing genders.
I note that just about everyone is presuming that Apple will be deliberately constructing an update to turn unlocked iPhones into bricks. While that's certainly possible, they are currently claiming that there is no such intent, but that folks should be aware that there's a possibility the next update will break unlocked phones.
Now, Apple could certainly be lying, but they have so far had a reasonable reputation for being forthright. Additionally, if their intent was malicious, they could have avoided saying anything (since the warranty text already disclaims warranty for modified devices), issued the update, and laughed as all the iPhone unlockers bricked their phones. It's certainly plausible that Apple has been testing updates with stock and unlocked phones and has noted that updates sometimes brick unlocked phones; that's at least as plausible as the "deliberate bricking" everyone is in a tizzy about.
I'm willing to give Apple the benefit of the doubt, but given how evil it would be if the bricking were deliberate, I'm hoping someone will reverse-engineer the update and find out the facts. Until then, though, let's not rush to attribute malice to a company that has been basically decent over the years.
I say, wait and see, and not make too many assumptions.
People say a lot of things without ever stopping to consider the most obvious meaning of the words, much less additional meanings or possible connotation. That's why we end up with managers who say stupid crap like "it's not rocket surgery"; and, it's equally why we hear even people who are perfectly OK with homosexuality say "that's gay" in a derogatory context.
Simply put, they say "that's gay" because they hear other people say it, and parrot it without consideration of the meaning. If you are gay, or have good friends who are, you do tend to notice it a bit more and be a bit more sensitive to it -- after all, you've probably heard it used to attack homosexuality and taken a bit of offense.
In truth, who bother me a lot more than idiots being insensitive about their words are those that are overly-sensitive to those words. If someone is using language that marks them as an idiot, by all means feel free to point it out to them. Just remember that tolerance has to work both ways -- you don't have to like that someone is a jerk, but they do have that right. You can try to educate them, but when the line is crossed into humiliation or other forms of oppression, you lose the moral high-ground.
If we didn't have government grants, no pure research would ever be done, and the only stuff we'd be discovering would have direct marketable value. That sounds great until you realize that much of the "valuable" research that's been done depended on earlier research that didn't have any obvious value.
For example, if Michael Faraday hadn't figured out the principles of electro-magnetic radiation -- something he did just because he was curious, and which had no obvious practical value in 1831 -- we would not have had a generators, radios, and a myriad other things (like transformers) that make modern life possible.
By your logic, bribing a Senator is no worse than giving money to the AARP.
I have a great deal of empathy for immigrants; as a 2nd-generation American, I'm proud that my grandparents immigrated legally, worked diligently for citizenship, and were never under the care (financial or otherwise) of the State.
It's one thing to criticize someone who is anti-immigrant -- after all, we are almost all from immigrant stock -- but quite another to attack someone who's against illegal immigration. There are very good reasons to control the rate of immigration, including the ability to ensure adequate infrastructure (power, clean water, sewage treatment, police and fire services, etc.) to support the population growth.
People who immigrate illegally may be doing so as an act of desperation, but they are breaking a decent and fair law. If you disagree that the law is decent and fair, then participate in movements to get the law changed -- don't just attack people who believe in enforcing it.
Sorry, I'm failing to see why sending snail mail spam is ok, but email and SMS spam, unsolicited telephone marketting, etc are bad.
Yes, yes you are. Let me break it down, since you're actually speaking of three things here:
In short, people put up with junk mail because it doesn't cost them anything, only saps a couple of minutes of time once a day (at most!), and isn't particularly annoying.
People don't like e-mail and SMS spam because it costs them something, is very annoying, is often fradulent, and takes time and effort to deal with almost every time one checks one's mail. Likewise, telemarketing is very annoying.
And to me, a government which does not fear its people has already stripped them of any power they have over the government. I don't think the Chinese government fears its people -- rather, I think it wants to protect them. That, to me, is far scarier. The logic seems to go like this:
"If the people knew what happened in Tienanmen Square, their anger might cause them to revolt. The action would be ultimately fruitless, and we would be forced to kill a great many people. Therefore, it is in the people's best interest that they do not know."
There are shades of that reasoning beginning to occur in many first-world countries, and I can only hope that the people of those democratic republics take action to prevent that attitude from prevailing before it becomes impossible to do so.
The US government is still mostly in fear of its people -- the reason that GW Bush can only gripe instead of silence the press is this fear. If Mr. Bush were to attempt to silence the press, the populace would rouse from its collective sleep and cry for blood. Congress, fearing the loss of their jobs, would swiftly call for impeachment, and it would not be long before the president lost all his power.
That is the kind of fear a government should have -- the fear that if it takes away its citizens' rights, those citizens will take away the power of that government.
- Write some software
- Test it until the developers are happy
- Give it to a broader internal user-base
- Launch a private beta (larger user-base)
- Launch a public beta (much larger user-base)
- Release software
At each stage until release, the goal is to find as many bugs as possible. You simply can't do that without letting a broad user-base test things out.Contrary to your belief, other engineering pursuits do follow that process, but often a "public beta" type of arrangement is simply too expensive.What's in question here is whether these exploits were actually found -- the supposed discoverer isn't sharing any information with anyone, so we really don't know if those flaws exist or not.
Well, the rest of that doesn't make any sense anymore.
I mean, seriously, the second paragraph of the license, which is presented in all-caps, boldface text, says: A company can't be blamed for people not bothering to read the contract -- it's not like the above is any kind of vague legalese.
Apple has taken every reasonable measure to ensure people know that this software carries risk - they call it a beta, they describe what that means in the license, etc.
However, this "security researcher" who claims to have found bugs (he probably did -- it is beta software), but refuses to share them with Apple, the WebKit project upon which Safari is based, or anyone else, is actively unprofessional. He's profiting by maligning a company (Apple) without presenting any hard evidence to anyone, and in so doing he's harming me and my fellow security professionals by devaluing the security research process.
How about, say 6 bucks a month to be able to listen to any song whenever you want (so long as you keep paying), and around $1.29 to own the track permanently?
The subscription model is already fairly successful, and most subscription services will sell you a given track -- those that you buy, you can continue to use even after you cancel the service. The model is fine. What needs to happen is that DRM needs to all but disappear.
Using the artists-get-paid-for-plays model is novel, but would require some sort of DRM to work; you'd need to limit the players that could use that music so that stats would be properly reported and aggregated. It could be less-restrictive (i.e. work on any machine participating in the service), but it would still have to exist.
I don't necessarily have a problem with DRM in cases where it's very clear that you don't own the content (such as the subscription tracks). However, it's essential that tracks offered for purchase be DRM-free (you either own it or you don't, there should be no gray area).
I agree that there would certainly be massive social implications to a site like MySpace suddenly changing its stripes to exclude folks on the basis of gender, race, sexual preference, etc. What I was mostly responding to is the idea that such behavior would be illegal.
In the context of this thread, the key point is that even though MySpace is discriminating against registered sex offenders -- a foolish move, IMHO: our society shouldn't keep punishing people after they've completed their sentence -- it's perfectly legal for them to do so.
I googled "sex offender registry inclusion requirements site:.gov" and found and example pretty quickly -- the below is from the State of Michigan's FAQ on sex offender registries.
(from http://www.michigan.gov/msp/0,1607,7-123-1589_187So it would seem that if you're caught "indecently exposed" while, say, doing a striptease at a party, and it happens more than once -- you're a sex offender. If you're "indecently exposed" three times, regardless of context -- you're a sex offender.
Also, if you get a Disorderly Person conviction three times -- yep, you're a sex offender.
Re-goddamn-diculous.
One downside, however, is customer-support confusion. Explaining your 16-char random local-part over the phone pales in comparison to peoples reaction when they see their company (or domain name) in your mail address.
Case in point, when I signed up for a Onlzbag hotel (rot-13 to protect the guilty) frequent guest card, I was told that e-mail address was required. I used onlzbag.com@{mydomain}. The response was a very angry hostess screaming "that's not your e-mail address, that's ours."
Granted, demanding a supervisor and equally-loudly explaining the hostess' stupidity while insisting that they explain why they were accusing me of fraud did net me a couple nights of free hotel, but YMMV.
There are certain circumstances where an organization can legally discriminate. The most common of these is a private organization whose purpose would be invalidated by allowing a member of a certain race, religion, gender, etc. to join. For example, the company Curves is a workout facility for women; they have been sued to allow men to join and have prevailed as a women-only organization.
Ever see a waiter in a wheelchair? It's unlikely because an employer can define a job as requiring a certain level of physical ability (need to move in tight spaces and carry 150lbs.), and use such definition to avoid hiring people with certain disabilities. The ADA only forces employers to make "reasonable accommodation", it doesn't force them to make all possible accommodation.
I can start a club that's only for people of German descent, and can deny membership (and employment, if I wish) to people who don't meet that criteria.
If MySpace decided that they'd only allow men to use their service, they can do that -- there might be social, but no legal consequences.
Yes, it sucks to be told "you look like a sex offender, so we're deleting your MySpace account", and sucks even more that MySpace didn't have enough foresight to have an appeals process. It's in really poor taste.
However, even if MySpace had slipped up and told some people "this account was canceled because its owner's personal details matched a sex offender registry", it's not a crime. For several reasons:
That second bit demands a little more attention. For this to have been libelous, MySpace would have to both tell people that the lady was actually a sex offender (they didn't, they said her profile matched that of a sex offender), and she'd have to prove that MySpace did these things in order to harm her reputation.
At worst case, MySpace would be negligent, and this lady might have a defamation case. In that line, she'd still have to prove the statement was wrong, and that she was materially harmed -- that is, that MySpace's actions caused her some kind of measurable harm, not just embarrassment.
I am not an attorney, and this is not legal advice. I just try to know as much about the law as I can.
I certainly agree that we, as a society, have a disturbing tendency to label people coupled with an even more disturbing tendency to extend the labels beyond their meaning. For example, a friend of mine had been dating her girlfriend since they were both 16. The girlfriend turned 18, but my friend was 2 months away when my friend's parents caught them. Said parents insisted on pressing charges, and now the girlfriend is a registered sex offender -- see, that's statutory rape in many states.
That public status has caused a great deal of strain on their relationship, and great hardship for the girlfriend when it comes time to find employment -- people assume that anyone who's a "sex offender" is a child-molester or violent rapist.
On the other hand, comparing that kind of societal labeling to antisemitism that eventually led to an attempted genocide is a bit absurd. Despite the problems with the sex-offender registry, at least those people are being labeled based on their actions, not based on their descent or physical characteristics.
In my formative years, I was fortunate enough to attend a school that taught reading in a fairly non-traditional way. Of course, I started like everyone else: learn to read letters, then groups of letters that make sounds (phonetic groups), then phonetic groups that make up words. The difference is that once we had been taught a reasonable level of skill in this regard (and a decent base vocabulary), we continued the pattern -- we learned to read groups of words as phrases, then phrases as sentences.
That is, we learned not to read a phrase or sentence as a string of words, but as a discrete unit of information. Most people are never taught this (though many avid readers figure it out on their own, whether consciously or not).
The result for my life is that I can read even fairly technical documentation very quickly, and without sacrificing comprehension. People I know who learned this method later in life claim that it's actually improved comprehension. I'm not exactly a "speed reader", by most definitions, but I do read significantly faster than average -- even when that average is among avid readers.
The "straw" approach of only seeing a word or two defeats both the speed and comprehension of readers who've learned to process information this way. Maybe it's better in that it would require less training than the method I'm used to -- I don't know -- but it's certainly not any better for me.
The only link I could find before I stopped caring to search was a company who wants to sell their services, but they describe the basic idea I'm referring to: MindTools is their name.
Sadly, lots of employers don't even bother to read cover letters in the first pass. If you're lucky, they skim them to find out why you're applying for the position.
If there are employment holes greater than a month or two, your resume is likely to get round-filed before your cover letter is ever even looked at. It's even more true in companies that use software to pre-filter resumes.
My advice, having worked as a hiring manager, is to explain "gaps" in employment history directly on your resume. The rule of thumb is that unless you really were in rehab or jailed, you were probably doing something that should be recorded on your resume anyhow, right along with all of your other employment history.
Tried to start a business? Put the dates down and the name of the business, and your position as "proprietor".
Tried the stay-at-home parent thing? Put the dates down and list "Unpaid volunteer work (variety)". Volunteer work looks great on a resume, and if you get the interview, you'll be asked about it. Explain that you were a full-time parent and volunteered at a wide variety of events your children were involved in.
Took some time to live off your investments and just relax? Put the dates down and list "Independent investment management". At the interview, explain that you spent that time managing your own investments as your primary source of income. It's true even if all you did was keep an eye on your balances. If asked about specifics, politely refuse with something like "I really don't feel comfortable discussing my personal finances."
If you were really in jail, I can't help you - some employers will care, others won't, and there's nothing you can do to change their mind (usually).
If you were really in rehab, you aren't required to disclose it. However, it is probably smart to list the dates in your employment history and mark them as "family/medical leave". They can't and won't ask you about it, and will tend to assume that you had an ill family member or a serious illness. "Rehab" will not likely enter their mind. If they *do* ask about it, it's perfectly appropriate to say (politely) "I'd rather not discuss my medical history".
Go back to your Economics classes: the profit margin is sale price - cost of item - cost of selling item. That last includes store rent, utilities, labor, shrinkage (part of which is theft), etc.
Imagine two stores (A and B) sell an item (X) for $5, and this is a $1 profit (for simplicity, all other factors are equal).
If Store A starts to have a theft problem, it could drop their margin. If the problem is serious, the cost of selling X might increase to the point where they are losing money. If this is only a problem for Store A, then Store A has to either stop carrying X, go out of business, or find an effective anti-theft solution (one that has a total cost less than the theft it stops). At this point, the consumer is not affected.
However, if Store B has the same theft problem as Store A, and no effective anti-theft is available, then both stores raise their prices on X to $7 in order to restore profit. The consumer is hurt at this point because no one can stay in business selling X for $5 -- if the consumer wants X, they will have to pay $7 for it.
If no one steals anything, Store A can only raise its price on X, without losing customers, in a few ways:
Without the theft factor, competition can keep prices low; with theft, all providers must raise prices to maintain a profit, so competition doesn't do squat.
There's a huge difference between sticking with a 'life you hate' and sticking with a temporary situation that sucks. Only whiners radically change their life because of a short stint of suck.
Let me supply a comparison from my own life:
When I was younger, I had a job where I was under-paid and over-worked. I really wanted to quit and get something better, but without a degree or enough work experience, I couldn't get a job in the IT field. I decided to stick with that job, and I'm glad I did -- otherwise, I'd probably be in an entire field I can't stand anymore.
I stuck with a temporary situation that sucked, because I could look to the future and see that it was in my long-term interest to do so.
When I was a little older, I got myself stuck in a situation where my friends and roommates were treating me like crap, I was spending all of my money on stupid crap to make myself feel better (which didn't work), and I was operating a business that was at a dead-end. Now that was a life I hated: I packed up my stuff, bought myself out of my lease, sold a good portion of what I owned, closed the business, and moved across the state. I had to take a job as a waiter in my new home to pay the bills, but I had friendlier friends, less stress, and a much better roommate (who I married later).
I left a life I hated despite, even though it created a temporary situation that sucked.
I think the important thing for the OP to decide is whether he's in a spot that sucks now, but will set him up to be comfortable later (i.e. being able to retire and travel because of a good pension/extra money/whatever); or, whether the situation is so bad in the long run that it's worth fleeing at any cost.
Neo Office is plenty fast on an intel Mac for most users. It is not fast (or, sadly, stable) enough to be of use in an Enterprise environment. Don't believe me? Try working on revisions of a document over 1000 pages long.
Your examples suck (neither has a useful spreadsheet, for example), but your point is solid. I'm in no way recommending against Macs in the enterprise. My only point of contention was that "throwing on OpenOffice" was a good solution when moving to the Mac.
The main point being that most orgs moving to Mac would spend equal amounts of money on Office whether they were buying PCs or Macs, and so buying something users are more likely to be familiar with makes a lot more sense than stressing over the compartively tiny cost of an office suite.