Mod the grandparent up. While it is true we all of us build on the shoulders of those who came before, we ought only build on what is made available willingly. If I work hard on a product, I don't want someone else to just take it and get rich off it while I am left to stew. If I work hard on something I choose to release as open source, then I've made that choice to let others build off of an benefit from my work. That distinction ought to have resonance.
Heh, when it comes to graphics performance on linux YMMV is pretty much the tagline. That being said, I'm savoring the anecdotal rebuttal to a blanket statement with no source. Now is my chance to go meta...
What the hell is wrong with people? My post was modded flamebait? erroneus is 100% correct. If you are on a bus with closed windows in traffic, do you think you'd be able to hear someone making a 911 call? Does slashdot imagine all 911 calls involve loud voices? Even if the call was loud enough to be heard, how close would the bus have to get to have an impact? Do I even have to address the assumption that the 911 call would be on the bus? Even if it was on the bus, the reaction time between realizing someone was trying to make a 911 call and turning off the device could cost vital seconds.
This. I think of someone sitting there feeling quite satisfied with having blocked annoying cell conversations, passing by a 911 call in progress and causing a dropped call. Its pretty sick when you think about it, how our actions are driven by the pleasure we get for seeing people suffer for their transgressions, regardless of the actual consequences.
Business schools ought to be in a great position to judge this. Surely they would have models to factor in M&A in which the target is a competitor, or a resource a competitor was after, etc? The question is, do the various studies cited take those factors into account? (And if not, are there studies that do).
Is price keeping people away? As the user of an older non-smart phone I procured to let me text easily (it has a keyboard) while avoiding a smart phone, price is the issue. Not the price of the phone, but the price of the service. Why buy a smart phone when I have to pay an extra $30 a month min for a paltry amount of bandwidth?
California is an example of how not to go about it, not a reason to avoid progress altogether. If we looked at early attempts to fly and only saw the crashes, we'd never have invented airplanes.
After a week of analytics they shifted their business model slightly. "We are now offering users cash money to keep their cameras turned off, in the name of basic decency, animal rights, and several reports recently published by the FDA. When we say our users are sick we being literal in the most precise and correct sense of the word."
I want this in the US so badly, with numbers adjusted for population of course. In a way we have it now, except it is only for the WhiteHouse, nothing is mandatory, and popular measures get a polite but firm dismissal (as if we were misbehaving children rather than citizens in a democracy).
Just from Linus's feed. Google+ is becoming more like Twitter than Facebook. Just a few users talking to the masses, rather than a ton of users talking to each other.
Sure. I used to spend time customizing my desktop to work just the way I liked, look just the way I liked, and feel like an extension of my workflow. With Gnome 3's cornucopia of options available to the user, I no longer spend time tweaking my desktop. Its very zen.
Yay, heads back in the sand! When our new President continues the US tradition of playing into the hands of the MPAA and their ilk, supports SOPA 2, and such, THEN it will be news for nerds and we can wonder how it all came to pass. Right now though? Clearly this stuff doesn't matter.
Wrong. Every discussion on hate crimes has someone who insists "all crimes against another person are hate crimes". That entirely misses the point. A hate crime is a crime against an entire community. If a murderer kills a man, that's murder. If he kills a black man living in a white neighborhood because of the color of his skin, then in addition to the murder victim, he's also waged a form of violence on an entire community: "Move here, get murdered". In this specific case, it wasn't just an attack on one kid. It was an attack on the gay community: "Stop being gay, or be outed and face all the fucked up consequences our society attacks gay people with". Try reading up a bit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_crime#Psychological_effects, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbolic_violence
Yes, it matter a great deal, especially when people still make the poor argument that "teh marketz R wize" and "gubmint iz bad". This was a case of a company (American Airlines, with a history of mistreating customers and PR issues - like most airlines out there) once again trampling on its customers. Its important to assign blame where it belongs.
The presumes they want all the projects finished. Often some projects just don't have the same business priority as others, and they don't actually need to happen. However if you have interdepartmental warfare, each department tries to get *their* work done first, regardless of the priority to the company at large, which can lead to the situation described in the article. A couple of solutions that can work: 1. only allow the head of IT to set priorities in your bug tracking system, and have him/her refer requests to change priority up the chain if they conflict with stated business needs. 2. ignore inflated priorities (then duck) 3. address the issue in a meeting between department heads and senior management (also, duck!). 4. Quit, find a better job (good luck).
Reading the article it is worse than just the deletion problem. If your profile is on the site ever, it is on google forever. Making it available to google seems like a pretty big breach of trust. You look at a site like OkCupid, that allows users to set their profiles to private. With google and google caching, that setting is bypassed entirely. That is simply a failure on OkCupid's part, they either don't have the technical skill to properly secure their site, or they choose not to despite telling users their info is restricted to other users only. Either way, false advertising.
Or that they just don't want their name and image being used to actively promote a product or brand. Is wanting to passively support something so wrong?
Slashdot Mirror
bump
Why should that be the only purpose of copyright? Why can't it let people prevent others from profiting from their work without their permission?
Mod the grandparent up. While it is true we all of us build on the shoulders of those who came before, we ought only build on what is made available willingly. If I work hard on a product, I don't want someone else to just take it and get rich off it while I am left to stew. If I work hard on something I choose to release as open source, then I've made that choice to let others build off of an benefit from my work. That distinction ought to have resonance.
...Except in this very specific instance.
Heh, when it comes to graphics performance on linux YMMV is pretty much the tagline. That being said, I'm savoring the anecdotal rebuttal to a blanket statement with no source. Now is my chance to go meta...
What the hell is wrong with people? My post was modded flamebait? erroneus is 100% correct. If you are on a bus with closed windows in traffic, do you think you'd be able to hear someone making a 911 call? Does slashdot imagine all 911 calls involve loud voices? Even if the call was loud enough to be heard, how close would the bus have to get to have an impact? Do I even have to address the assumption that the 911 call would be on the bus? Even if it was on the bus, the reaction time between realizing someone was trying to make a 911 call and turning off the device could cost vital seconds.
This. I think of someone sitting there feeling quite satisfied with having blocked annoying cell conversations, passing by a 911 call in progress and causing a dropped call. Its pretty sick when you think about it, how our actions are driven by the pleasure we get for seeing people suffer for their transgressions, regardless of the actual consequences.
Business schools ought to be in a great position to judge this. Surely they would have models to factor in M&A in which the target is a competitor, or a resource a competitor was after, etc? The question is, do the various studies cited take those factors into account? (And if not, are there studies that do).
Is price keeping people away? As the user of an older non-smart phone I procured to let me text easily (it has a keyboard) while avoiding a smart phone, price is the issue. Not the price of the phone, but the price of the service. Why buy a smart phone when I have to pay an extra $30 a month min for a paltry amount of bandwidth?
Is there anything we can do to win the PR war on privacy?
"There is no way to form take some forms of voter initiatives seriously" ... what? Also, back that ridiculous statement up with facts please.
California is an example of how not to go about it, not a reason to avoid progress altogether. If we looked at early attempts to fly and only saw the crashes, we'd never have invented airplanes.
After a week of analytics they shifted their business model slightly. "We are now offering users cash money to keep their cameras turned off, in the name of basic decency, animal rights, and several reports recently published by the FDA. When we say our users are sick we being literal in the most precise and correct sense of the word."
I want this in the US so badly, with numbers adjusted for population of course. In a way we have it now, except it is only for the WhiteHouse, nothing is mandatory, and popular measures get a polite but firm dismissal (as if we were misbehaving children rather than citizens in a democracy).
Just from Linus's feed. Google+ is becoming more like Twitter than Facebook. Just a few users talking to the masses, rather than a ton of users talking to each other.
Sure. I used to spend time customizing my desktop to work just the way I liked, look just the way I liked, and feel like an extension of my workflow. With Gnome 3's cornucopia of options available to the user, I no longer spend time tweaking my desktop. Its very zen.
Yay, heads back in the sand! When our new President continues the US tradition of playing into the hands of the MPAA and their ilk, supports SOPA 2, and such, THEN it will be news for nerds and we can wonder how it all came to pass. Right now though? Clearly this stuff doesn't matter.
Wrong. Every discussion on hate crimes has someone who insists "all crimes against another person are hate crimes". That entirely misses the point. A hate crime is a crime against an entire community. If a murderer kills a man, that's murder. If he kills a black man living in a white neighborhood because of the color of his skin, then in addition to the murder victim, he's also waged a form of violence on an entire community: "Move here, get murdered". In this specific case, it wasn't just an attack on one kid. It was an attack on the gay community: "Stop being gay, or be outed and face all the fucked up consequences our society attacks gay people with". Try reading up a bit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_crime#Psychological_effects, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbolic_violence
Maybe Canonical released Unity for the same reason Adam Sandler made Jack and Jill?
Thank you for identifying yourself as utterly incapable of rational discussion on this
Yes, it matter a great deal, especially when people still make the poor argument that "teh marketz R wize" and "gubmint iz bad". This was a case of a company (American Airlines, with a history of mistreating customers and PR issues - like most airlines out there) once again trampling on its customers. Its important to assign blame where it belongs.
(Ack, "This", not "The")
The presumes they want all the projects finished. Often some projects just don't have the same business priority as others, and they don't actually need to happen. However if you have interdepartmental warfare, each department tries to get *their* work done first, regardless of the priority to the company at large, which can lead to the situation described in the article. A couple of solutions that can work: 1. only allow the head of IT to set priorities in your bug tracking system, and have him/her refer requests to change priority up the chain if they conflict with stated business needs. 2. ignore inflated priorities (then duck) 3. address the issue in a meeting between department heads and senior management (also, duck!). 4. Quit, find a better job (good luck).
Reading the article it is worse than just the deletion problem. If your profile is on the site ever, it is on google forever. Making it available to google seems like a pretty big breach of trust. You look at a site like OkCupid, that allows users to set their profiles to private. With google and google caching, that setting is bypassed entirely. That is simply a failure on OkCupid's part, they either don't have the technical skill to properly secure their site, or they choose not to despite telling users their info is restricted to other users only. Either way, false advertising.
Or that they just don't want their name and image being used to actively promote a product or brand. Is wanting to passively support something so wrong?