When my father was working, he used to bring home stacks of work every night to complete after dinner. Then, he'd bring home bigger stacks of work to do over the weekends. When I asked him why he did that, he said that his boss expected this level of productivity out of him and if he didn't deliver, he'd be fired.
When I got my current job, I told my then-manager that I wouldn't be doing work from home. When I left work, all of my projects and stuff would go on hold until I came back the next morning (Monday morning in the case of weekends). I wasn't averse to taking an emergency "the systems are down" phone call or working after-hours to get said systems back up and running, but that was the exception, not the rule. I certainly wasn't going to put in 12 hours of work every day when I was only getting paid for 8 hours.
There was some push-back at some points, but I held fast and was lucky that the company I work for doesn't think of its workers as batteries to be drained dry and then discarded for a new one. If, at some point, I found myself at a company where the expectation was that you would spend every waking hour working 100% for them or else, I'd head for the exit as fast as possible. Then again, I'm 40 and know my worth as a programmer. Those kinds of companies tend to target the young programmers who are fresh out of school and are more easily intimidated.
There is a reason people turn to piracy, it is instant, it is able to be consumed anywhere, easy to transfer to handheld stuff and so on.
Which is why the MPAA's best weapon against piracy is Netflix. If the MPAA and other content owners allowed Netflix to put EVERYTHING on their systems, how many people would pirate versus watching via Netflix? And yet the content owners treat Netflix like it is an enemy to be shunned and starved of content. They've got a great weapon against piracy, but they're too afraid of it to wield it properly. Don't want Netflix to be too powerful? License the content to Amazon, Hulu, and other services also. But don't lock up your content and then act surprised when draconian anti-piracy laws don't bring down the piracy rate.
All they need to do is declare that "making X available to download potentially by the entire Internet" equals "large scale copyright infringement" and "saved some money pirating music instead of buying" equals "for financial gain." Bam! All online pirating is criminal piracy.
To be fair to the RIAA/MPAA (I never thought I'd type those words), they typically only go after uploaders because the finding someone who is purely downloading a copyrighted work is nearly impossible. It would take a lot of time and effort and the RIAA/MPAA are all about quick and easy copyright enforcement.
I agree about the appropriate punishment, though. It should be 10 times the cost of the nearest equivalent product. So if you share a DVD rip, 10 times the cost of the DVD. If you share an MP3 of a song, 10 times the price of the digital song on iTunes/Amazon/Google. This would still result in stiff penalties, but a) would not bankrupt individuals for life for accidentally sharing their MP3 directory and b) would keep the RIAA/MPAA from sending out "We're suing you for copyright infringement. If you lose you'll pay millions of dollars or you could settle for a mere $3,000" letters.
They had those listings for the book I was looking at too. Unfortunately, in this case, time is a factor. The book won't help me if the estimated arrival day is a week after I leave for my cruise. So I went with a slightly more expensive used book that will arrive in 2 days. In the future, though, I'd have no problem buying the "$0.01 + $3.99 shipping" book from a third party.
Thank you for reminding me about used books. I'm going on a cruise soon and wanted a nice, geeky book to bring along. I had a good book picked out but then saw that the Kindle version was $4 and the paperback version was $13.50. I didn't want to have to bring my Kindle along (reading on my phone would stink in the bright light) but I also don't want to spend three times more for a physical book that I might read once and be done with. I just checked Amazon and there's a used copy for $5 and free 2 day Prime shipping. (There were cheaper copies, but they wouldn't arrive before I leave for my cruise.)
To be fair, if you drop your physical book in the tub, it won't fare much better than the eBook. Actually, the eBook would fare better in a sense since you would be able to view it from another device.
I'd look to the Adventure Time Card Wars app for a good example on how to translate a game to an app. For those who don't follow the show, Adventure Time had an episode where the main characters played a game called Card Wars. They would place cards down and creatures would appear for them to control. The episode and non-existent game were so popular that they released both a physical game and an app (for iOS and Android).
The rules between the two versions (digital and physical) are slightly different and there are advantages to both. Both manage to evoke a "Card Wars" feel while taking advantage of their medium.
A Munchkin app might ditch the custom rules but could add things like online play or collectible card packs (via both a "do X and get a free card" and via in-app purchases). Would the Munchkin app be different than the physical Munchkin? Sure, but they could both still be Munchkin. (The game has proven that it is extremely flexible.)
And in the past, I'm sure law enforcement thought "If only we could just burst into $SUSPECT's house without a warrant we could solve more cases quicker." Thank goodness the police weren't granted those powers. They might have actually been used to solve crimes, but they would also have been abused to go on fishing expeditions or to scare critics into silence.
True, but for the most part society is willing to bear that cost.
I have freedom of speech. I can use it for good (to speak out against injustice) or for bad (to voice my negative opinion of someone using colorful words). So long as I'm not threatening violence, the government can't order me to stop speaking. The cost here is that people like the Westboro Baptist Church get to fling their ugly speech too. I hate their message and would join a counter-protest in a second, but they have the right to speak their minds. (NOTE: The right to speak doesn't equal the right to be heard. The WBC can try to speak but if 1,000 people organize a counter-protest and drown out their speech, they can't complain - so long as it isn't the government stopping them.)
Getting back to the law enforcement topic, our rights get in the way of law enforcement. That has a cost of increased investigation time/money (as police need a warrant and can't just barge into your house and need to document all evidence was obtained properly instead of just saying "we found those drugs there" and having their word be law). There's also an increased cost for trials as we actually need to weigh evidence and prove guilt instead of just saying "you're accused of X so you get 10 years in prison." These increased costs are worth it because the alternative is a horrible totalitarian government where the people live in fear of who the police will grab next.
And even if we made the HUGE assumption that all law enforcement individuals would only ever use the back doors for legitimate investigative purposes, there's still a problem with built-in back doors. Namely, if you make a back door for Mr. Policeman, then Mr. Hacker will find a way to pretend he's a police officer and will get in. Not maybe. Not possibly. Will. It's like saying that everyone should leave the back door to their house unlocked but put up a sign that says "Only Police Allowed To Enter Here." That sign's not going to stop a bugler and neither will the "police only" nature of the back door stop hackers.
Even if that did happen, wouldn't most of those taxi operators go out of business leaving only the ones with the best business model around? Surely, there aren't going to be a ton of cars on the street offering taxi services even if they never get any customers at all.
Realistically, what would happen is that many more taxi operators would take to the streets. Some would fail pretty quickly, some would stick around for a bit. Prices would be driven down and service quality would be driven up. Eventually, the market would stabilize around a group of taxi operators who can provide the most bang for the customer's buck.
Can we connect the chips to a mild electric shocker. Each person would be able to administer a shock to a candidate, but the amount would be barely detectable. When you get enough people together, though, you could cause the candidate some major discomfort. Did Candidate X just insult all women? He's going to be feeling some serious voltage tonight!
Rats. I normally walk with my smartphone sticking out of my shirt pocket, camera facing out. I could be filming anyone at any time. I guess I need to buy a bullet-proof vest just in case someone thinks I'm filming them and decides to shoot me to be sure I'm not a pedophile ISIS criminal terrorist.
Unfortunately, this first step will likely be followed by the (easier to implement) second step of "Uber is violating Islam by letting women go outside without a male escort! Shut it down!!!!" instead of the (better, but harder to implement) second step of "Hey, maybe we should treat women like they are actual people instead of things that we own."
I always want to laugh when I hear those ridiculous fad diet claims until I realize that someone is falling for them and expects rapid results. The best way to lose weight is gradually. This ensures that you are changing your lifestyle instead of just temporarily replacing a meal with a "delicious shake." It helps make sure the weight stays off.
When I am watching my weight, I'll sometimes have an initial burst of 4 pounds per week lost, but that slows down to a constant 1-2 pounds per week. No, I'm not going to shed the 30 pounds I want to lose in three weeks' time, but I'm also less likely to put 50 pounds back on two weeks after I stop watching my weight.
I'm lucky. Carbonated beverages have always tasted awful to me. Something about them feels like they are burning my tongue. I'd rather go thirsty for hours than drink one. My kids seem to have inherited this carbonation distaste. Our beverage of choice is plain water.
I'm sorry to break this to you, but - as a fellow overweight individual - there is no substitute for diet and exercise. If you hear any "lose 10 pounds in one week without exercise or changing your diet" then either a) it's a scam, b) it's some kind of drug that will have horrible side effects, c) it's a fad diet that will indeed let you lose the weight but you'll gain twice as much back once you go off the diet, d) there's an asterisk with "results may vary" in the fine print because most people only lose half a pound but that one guy lost 10 pounds", or e) some combination of the above.
If you want to lose weight, here are my recommendations:
1) Drink Water: A lot of times, we mistake our body's "I'm thirsty" signals for "I'm hungry" and then we snack and snack and snack. To add insult to injury, we might snack on salty foods which ups the "I'm thirsty" signal more. So drink a lot of water. Not only will it turn off the "I'm thirsty" signal but it will help make you feel full. And don't drink soda instead of water or those sugar-added "flavored water drinks." Just drink regular water.
2) Keep track of your calories: I use the MyFitnessPal app. It has a barcode scanner and lets me see just how many calories I've eaten and how many I have left in the day. Record EVERYTHING! Don't leave out that handful of potato chips or that bowl of cheese doodles.
3) Weigh your food: Get yourself a food scale and actually weigh your food. It's amazing how much an "American Portion" differs from a real portion of food. If you're having a "serving" of pasta, you might eyeball a serving and assume you've got it right, but chances are you've just given yourself two or three servings.
Obviously, there's more you can do like exercise more, eat more fruits and veggies, etc. These three make for a very good start, though.
I've found that keeping track of what I eat helps tremendously. I use the MyFitnessPal app to track all of the calories I ingest. This helps protect against the mindless snacking that a lot of people (including me) are prone to. You know, the "I'll just have a handful of chips. [five minutes later] A handful of nuts. [five minutes later] Just one candy bar. [five minutes later] A couple more chips. [The next day] Why am I gaining weight? I didn't eat much yesterday!"
My phone also has a pedometer app which hooks into MyFitnessPal to help me gauge how much exercise I'm getting. It's not perfect (I'm sure something like a FitBit would be able to track it more accurately), but it's all part of keeping me honest and not letting me wonder why I'm gaining weight when I'm mindlessly eating three servings of trail mix (complete with plenty of chocolate chips) every day.
They only need to do it to one or two people to make a public example of what happens when you don't roll over and do what they tell you to do. Look at all of the copyright infringement settlement letters sent by record companies. If everyone tried fighting those, there is no way that the record companies could win them all. However, a few that fought back wound up losing high-publicity cases. It helps make the case that "if you settle, you only pay $3,000, but if you try to fight, you might be out millions of dollars." This, in turn, helps scare people into submission whether they were guilty of infringement or not.*
* I've got to admit that I'm not positive that I wouldn't take the settlement if I were (falsely) accused of pirating/sharing music. I have a job, bills, kids to take care of, and a life to live. A huge lawsuit would involve time and money that I would be hard pressed to spend. It's a shame that the RIAA knows this, purposefully exploits it to get "anti-piracy wins", and don't get called on it much.
Slashdot Mirror
When my father was working, he used to bring home stacks of work every night to complete after dinner. Then, he'd bring home bigger stacks of work to do over the weekends. When I asked him why he did that, he said that his boss expected this level of productivity out of him and if he didn't deliver, he'd be fired.
When I got my current job, I told my then-manager that I wouldn't be doing work from home. When I left work, all of my projects and stuff would go on hold until I came back the next morning (Monday morning in the case of weekends). I wasn't averse to taking an emergency "the systems are down" phone call or working after-hours to get said systems back up and running, but that was the exception, not the rule. I certainly wasn't going to put in 12 hours of work every day when I was only getting paid for 8 hours.
There was some push-back at some points, but I held fast and was lucky that the company I work for doesn't think of its workers as batteries to be drained dry and then discarded for a new one. If, at some point, I found myself at a company where the expectation was that you would spend every waking hour working 100% for them or else, I'd head for the exit as fast as possible. Then again, I'm 40 and know my worth as a programmer. Those kinds of companies tend to target the young programmers who are fresh out of school and are more easily intimidated.
Which is why the MPAA's best weapon against piracy is Netflix. If the MPAA and other content owners allowed Netflix to put EVERYTHING on their systems, how many people would pirate versus watching via Netflix? And yet the content owners treat Netflix like it is an enemy to be shunned and starved of content. They've got a great weapon against piracy, but they're too afraid of it to wield it properly. Don't want Netflix to be too powerful? License the content to Amazon, Hulu, and other services also. But don't lock up your content and then act surprised when draconian anti-piracy laws don't bring down the piracy rate.
All they need to do is declare that "making X available to download potentially by the entire Internet" equals "large scale copyright infringement" and "saved some money pirating music instead of buying" equals "for financial gain." Bam! All online pirating is criminal piracy.
To be fair to the RIAA/MPAA (I never thought I'd type those words), they typically only go after uploaders because the finding someone who is purely downloading a copyrighted work is nearly impossible. It would take a lot of time and effort and the RIAA/MPAA are all about quick and easy copyright enforcement.
I agree about the appropriate punishment, though. It should be 10 times the cost of the nearest equivalent product. So if you share a DVD rip, 10 times the cost of the DVD. If you share an MP3 of a song, 10 times the price of the digital song on iTunes/Amazon/Google. This would still result in stiff penalties, but a) would not bankrupt individuals for life for accidentally sharing their MP3 directory and b) would keep the RIAA/MPAA from sending out "We're suing you for copyright infringement. If you lose you'll pay millions of dollars or you could settle for a mere $3,000" letters.
They had those listings for the book I was looking at too. Unfortunately, in this case, time is a factor. The book won't help me if the estimated arrival day is a week after I leave for my cruise. So I went with a slightly more expensive used book that will arrive in 2 days. In the future, though, I'd have no problem buying the "$0.01 + $3.99 shipping" book from a third party.
Thank you for reminding me about used books. I'm going on a cruise soon and wanted a nice, geeky book to bring along. I had a good book picked out but then saw that the Kindle version was $4 and the paperback version was $13.50. I didn't want to have to bring my Kindle along (reading on my phone would stink in the bright light) but I also don't want to spend three times more for a physical book that I might read once and be done with. I just checked Amazon and there's a used copy for $5 and free 2 day Prime shipping. (There were cheaper copies, but they wouldn't arrive before I leave for my cruise.)
To be fair, if you drop your physical book in the tub, it won't fare much better than the eBook. Actually, the eBook would fare better in a sense since you would be able to view it from another device.
I'd look to the Adventure Time Card Wars app for a good example on how to translate a game to an app. For those who don't follow the show, Adventure Time had an episode where the main characters played a game called Card Wars. They would place cards down and creatures would appear for them to control. The episode and non-existent game were so popular that they released both a physical game and an app (for iOS and Android).
The rules between the two versions (digital and physical) are slightly different and there are advantages to both. Both manage to evoke a "Card Wars" feel while taking advantage of their medium.
A Munchkin app might ditch the custom rules but could add things like online play or collectible card packs (via both a "do X and get a free card" and via in-app purchases). Would the Munchkin app be different than the physical Munchkin? Sure, but they could both still be Munchkin. (The game has proven that it is extremely flexible.)
Until they get through the lock screen, the evidence both exists and doesn't exist on the phone: Schrodinger's Evidence.
And in the past, I'm sure law enforcement thought "If only we could just burst into $SUSPECT's house without a warrant we could solve more cases quicker." Thank goodness the police weren't granted those powers. They might have actually been used to solve crimes, but they would also have been abused to go on fishing expeditions or to scare critics into silence.
True, but for the most part society is willing to bear that cost.
I have freedom of speech. I can use it for good (to speak out against injustice) or for bad (to voice my negative opinion of someone using colorful words). So long as I'm not threatening violence, the government can't order me to stop speaking. The cost here is that people like the Westboro Baptist Church get to fling their ugly speech too. I hate their message and would join a counter-protest in a second, but they have the right to speak their minds. (NOTE: The right to speak doesn't equal the right to be heard. The WBC can try to speak but if 1,000 people organize a counter-protest and drown out their speech, they can't complain - so long as it isn't the government stopping them.)
Getting back to the law enforcement topic, our rights get in the way of law enforcement. That has a cost of increased investigation time/money (as police need a warrant and can't just barge into your house and need to document all evidence was obtained properly instead of just saying "we found those drugs there" and having their word be law). There's also an increased cost for trials as we actually need to weigh evidence and prove guilt instead of just saying "you're accused of X so you get 10 years in prison." These increased costs are worth it because the alternative is a horrible totalitarian government where the people live in fear of who the police will grab next.
And even if we made the HUGE assumption that all law enforcement individuals would only ever use the back doors for legitimate investigative purposes, there's still a problem with built-in back doors. Namely, if you make a back door for Mr. Policeman, then Mr. Hacker will find a way to pretend he's a police officer and will get in. Not maybe. Not possibly. Will. It's like saying that everyone should leave the back door to their house unlocked but put up a sign that says "Only Police Allowed To Enter Here." That sign's not going to stop a bugler and neither will the "police only" nature of the back door stop hackers.
Even if that did happen, wouldn't most of those taxi operators go out of business leaving only the ones with the best business model around? Surely, there aren't going to be a ton of cars on the street offering taxi services even if they never get any customers at all.
Realistically, what would happen is that many more taxi operators would take to the streets. Some would fail pretty quickly, some would stick around for a bit. Prices would be driven down and service quality would be driven up. Eventually, the market would stabilize around a group of taxi operators who can provide the most bang for the customer's buck.
Can we connect the chips to a mild electric shocker. Each person would be able to administer a shock to a candidate, but the amount would be barely detectable. When you get enough people together, though, you could cause the candidate some major discomfort. Did Candidate X just insult all women? He's going to be feeling some serious voltage tonight!
Did anyone else misread:
as
Rats. I normally walk with my smartphone sticking out of my shirt pocket, camera facing out. I could be filming anyone at any time. I guess I need to buy a bullet-proof vest just in case someone thinks I'm filming them and decides to shoot me to be sure I'm not a pedophile ISIS criminal terrorist.
Unfortunately, this first step will likely be followed by the (easier to implement) second step of "Uber is violating Islam by letting women go outside without a male escort! Shut it down!!!!" instead of the (better, but harder to implement) second step of "Hey, maybe we should treat women like they are actual people instead of things that we own."
I always want to laugh when I hear those ridiculous fad diet claims until I realize that someone is falling for them and expects rapid results. The best way to lose weight is gradually. This ensures that you are changing your lifestyle instead of just temporarily replacing a meal with a "delicious shake." It helps make sure the weight stays off.
When I am watching my weight, I'll sometimes have an initial burst of 4 pounds per week lost, but that slows down to a constant 1-2 pounds per week. No, I'm not going to shed the 30 pounds I want to lose in three weeks' time, but I'm also less likely to put 50 pounds back on two weeks after I stop watching my weight.
On the plus side, that should result in significant weight loss.
I'm lucky. Carbonated beverages have always tasted awful to me. Something about them feels like they are burning my tongue. I'd rather go thirsty for hours than drink one. My kids seem to have inherited this carbonation distaste. Our beverage of choice is plain water.
I'm sorry to break this to you, but - as a fellow overweight individual - there is no substitute for diet and exercise. If you hear any "lose 10 pounds in one week without exercise or changing your diet" then either a) it's a scam, b) it's some kind of drug that will have horrible side effects, c) it's a fad diet that will indeed let you lose the weight but you'll gain twice as much back once you go off the diet, d) there's an asterisk with "results may vary" in the fine print because most people only lose half a pound but that one guy lost 10 pounds", or e) some combination of the above.
If you want to lose weight, here are my recommendations:
1) Drink Water: A lot of times, we mistake our body's "I'm thirsty" signals for "I'm hungry" and then we snack and snack and snack. To add insult to injury, we might snack on salty foods which ups the "I'm thirsty" signal more. So drink a lot of water. Not only will it turn off the "I'm thirsty" signal but it will help make you feel full. And don't drink soda instead of water or those sugar-added "flavored water drinks." Just drink regular water.
2) Keep track of your calories: I use the MyFitnessPal app. It has a barcode scanner and lets me see just how many calories I've eaten and how many I have left in the day. Record EVERYTHING! Don't leave out that handful of potato chips or that bowl of cheese doodles.
3) Weigh your food: Get yourself a food scale and actually weigh your food. It's amazing how much an "American Portion" differs from a real portion of food. If you're having a "serving" of pasta, you might eyeball a serving and assume you've got it right, but chances are you've just given yourself two or three servings.
Obviously, there's more you can do like exercise more, eat more fruits and veggies, etc. These three make for a very good start, though.
I've found that keeping track of what I eat helps tremendously. I use the MyFitnessPal app to track all of the calories I ingest. This helps protect against the mindless snacking that a lot of people (including me) are prone to. You know, the "I'll just have a handful of chips. [five minutes later] A handful of nuts. [five minutes later] Just one candy bar. [five minutes later] A couple more chips. [The next day] Why am I gaining weight? I didn't eat much yesterday!"
My phone also has a pedometer app which hooks into MyFitnessPal to help me gauge how much exercise I'm getting. It's not perfect (I'm sure something like a FitBit would be able to track it more accurately), but it's all part of keeping me honest and not letting me wonder why I'm gaining weight when I'm mindlessly eating three servings of trail mix (complete with plenty of chocolate chips) every day.
They only need to do it to one or two people to make a public example of what happens when you don't roll over and do what they tell you to do. Look at all of the copyright infringement settlement letters sent by record companies. If everyone tried fighting those, there is no way that the record companies could win them all. However, a few that fought back wound up losing high-publicity cases. It helps make the case that "if you settle, you only pay $3,000, but if you try to fight, you might be out millions of dollars." This, in turn, helps scare people into submission whether they were guilty of infringement or not.*
* I've got to admit that I'm not positive that I wouldn't take the settlement if I were (falsely) accused of pirating/sharing music. I have a job, bills, kids to take care of, and a life to live. A huge lawsuit would involve time and money that I would be hard pressed to spend. It's a shame that the RIAA knows this, purposefully exploits it to get "anti-piracy wins", and don't get called on it much.
Except step 2 would be "get tied up in court for years while Columbia's lawyers bleed you dry." And step 3 would be bankruptcy, not profit.
Or kill them where ever you happen to kill them and then transport their body to the nearest bog to dispose of the evidence.