I challenge everyone to take 80% of the time they spend complaining about Microsoft and devote it to something else such as contributing to an OSS project.
That way they can spend 80% of their time arguing about how the code should be written, creating incompatable patches, and then complaining about that.
FOSS is great, but complainers are just going to complain about whatever they get. Non-complainers already do something about it.
Printing money allows people to more easily exchange goods and services. Fluidity adds extra utility - hence it is creating wealth. How much would things be worth to you if you could never sell them again. How much would they be worth to you if you had to barter for them? Things that save us time and effort allow us to enjoy what we have more, and do more, which means that the value of stuff we own and stuff we know goes up.
Yes, because as we all know, it's a perfectly zero sum game. There's the same amount of wealth today that there was 10 million years ago. Nothing new at all has been created. If I'm doing good, someone else must therefore be doing bad, which makes me a bad person.
If you're hired by a company, you're paid to do your job, and look out for the interests of the company. If your boss is really not what is in the best interest of the company, and it's making a problem, you need to bring that to attention (discretely). Its possible (though unlikely) that he could be moved to a position (demotion even) where his talents could be used well without putting the company out of risk.
This sounds like a textbook case of the Peter Principle. Good luck dealing with it, but realize that if he doesn't have the guts to say he can't cope with his position, someone should, or you may not have somewhere to work for very long.
Walmart has enough money to do just about any other company's job, and do it better. What they don't have is corporate leadership, experience, personelle, and culture to do ti better. They picked one thing and got good at it. That's what they are good at. Maybe some day they will be good at something else, but that day is not today.
We have a system that punishes honest people who make mistakes. If you make a mistake, and are honest about it, you can get fired. If you make it someone else's fault, and are good at it, you survive until promotion. Wash, rinse, repeat. Add to this the Peter Principle, and you get corporate leadership that statistically speaking is promoted beyond its ability, and very good at not taking the blame for things.
Walmart got where it is today by pressuring suppliers (often right out of business) and if anyone can break the will of the MPAA on something, it's Walmart. Considering that Walmart can't (currently) handle this kind of digital distribution model, and that they are often fueled by impulse/other buying when someone goes to purchase electronics and entertainment, it's in their best interest to stamp down a more convenient distribution system.
I think it's a good move for Walmart (but not for us) because everyone knows that Walmart is "evil" (read: more able to use power in a negative fashion than most companies, which are relative lightweights) and most people don't give a damn because that's how they afford all their stuff. I doubt there will be serious backlash, come monday everyone will still be going to fill up their big boxes at Walmart.
So grow up, get over yourself, and realize that you can blame Bush for everything.
I've got, oh, about 600 posts here on slashdot. Find one where I blame everything, most things, or even a lot of things on Bush. Bush is a symptom of a much greater problem, and I too am worried about people blaming him instead of fixing the root problems (ignorant voters, campaign financing, etc blah blah).
The Bush administration has admitted to this kind of monitoring. I don't know where you get your information about what secret stuff other admins have been up to - this kind of secret stuff is supposed to be secret.
I have a friend who's phone is tapped by the FBI (I don't call him, hah) and I can't believe everyone's line is being monitored for keywords on all calls, it seems like too much effort for not enough reward, compared to, say, monitoring all international calls (something that may even be constitutional).
Don't you think it's a bit unfair to indict all of humanity based on the actions of a couple people?
If this was the only reason I felt this way, I think you'd be absolutely right. However, I think that I have seen so many cases of small and medium-scale abuse of power at school and at my various places of employment, and even among my peers... it's a pattern to me, and to be honest, I have a hard time imagining having all of that power and responsibility and not tempted to do a few questionable things (if not outright illegal). I really do strongly feel that from an evolutionary psychology perspective, there's little reason that humans would be adapted to this kind of fantastic power and megawealth.
This is yet one more point on the side of "humans were not evolved under conditions that would lead to responsible behavior given extraordinary amounts of power in a society." Personally, I'm with Douglass Adams here - I think that anyone ambitious and capable enough to have gotten such power in the first place should by no means be allowed to exercise it.
Well I guess it's "better" than BushCo etc spying on all of our phones, but at least they can pretend that's for the greater good...
If I were a corporate leadership, the last thing I would want is to have my employees distracted by ads. I'd pay the tiny fee for the *actual* product. Very small compared to salaries, even if you're underpaying. A distracted worker is a bad worker (why do we send them to so many meetings?!)
Maybe when Global Warming actually does become a global catastrophe, it will be just the impotace we need to stop bickering over territory and religion, and work together as a species.
I saw this article on Digg a while back, using an ingenous JavaScript that would look at the *rendering* of a link to determine if you'd been there or not (and possibly upload this information to the remote server). That's kinda scary...
Slashdot Mirror
This is one step closer to the invincible zombie army that the government is working on. Maybe it will help us defeat the robots in the future?
Why yes, my hat ismade out of tin. How did you know?
I challenge everyone to take 80% of the time they spend complaining about Microsoft and devote it to something else such as contributing to an OSS project.
That way they can spend 80% of their time arguing about how the code should be written, creating incompatable patches, and then complaining about that.
FOSS is great, but complainers are just going to complain about whatever they get. Non-complainers already do something about it.
Printing money allows people to more easily exchange goods and services. Fluidity adds extra utility - hence it is creating wealth. How much would things be worth to you if you could never sell them again. How much would they be worth to you if you had to barter for them? Things that save us time and effort allow us to enjoy what we have more, and do more, which means that the value of stuff we own and stuff we know goes up.
Yes, because as we all know, it's a perfectly zero sum game. There's the same amount of wealth today that there was 10 million years ago. Nothing new at all has been created. If I'm doing good, someone else must therefore be doing bad, which makes me a bad person.
I think this is more like a snail than a gerbil, but nicely put, Sloppy!
Techweb is reporting that Microsoft is specifically asking for feedback on this release, so make sure and let them know what you think.
Probably a bit too late to ask for POSIX interoperability, eh?
What, 45 comments and no gay/anal probe jokes? Where is the GNAA when you need them!?!
If you're hired by a company, you're paid to do your job, and look out for the interests of the company. If your boss is really not what is in the best interest of the company, and it's making a problem, you need to bring that to attention (discretely). Its possible (though unlikely) that he could be moved to a position (demotion even) where his talents could be used well without putting the company out of risk.
This sounds like a textbook case of the Peter Principle. Good luck dealing with it, but realize that if he doesn't have the guts to say he can't cope with his position, someone should, or you may not have somewhere to work for very long.
Walmart has enough money to do just about any other company's job, and do it better. What they don't have is corporate leadership, experience, personelle, and culture to do ti better. They picked one thing and got good at it. That's what they are good at. Maybe some day they will be good at something else, but that day is not today.
We have a system that punishes honest people who make mistakes. If you make a mistake, and are honest about it, you can get fired. If you make it someone else's fault, and are good at it, you survive until promotion. Wash, rinse, repeat. Add to this the Peter Principle, and you get corporate leadership that statistically speaking is promoted beyond its ability, and very good at not taking the blame for things.
For my masters project, I worked on a snake-like robotic arm. You can imagine the proctology jokes, I am sure.
"Take that, Open Source!"
If you own walmart stock, you're evil, too.
If you own a 401k or a mutual fund, you probably do too.
Walmart got where it is today by pressuring suppliers (often right out of business) and if anyone can break the will of the MPAA on something, it's Walmart. Considering that Walmart can't (currently) handle this kind of digital distribution model, and that they are often fueled by impulse/other buying when someone goes to purchase electronics and entertainment, it's in their best interest to stamp down a more convenient distribution system.
I think it's a good move for Walmart (but not for us) because everyone knows that Walmart is "evil" (read: more able to use power in a negative fashion than most companies, which are relative lightweights) and most people don't give a damn because that's how they afford all their stuff. I doubt there will be serious backlash, come monday everyone will still be going to fill up their big boxes at Walmart.
"In this house we obey the Laws of Conservation of Momentum!"
So grow up, get over yourself, and realize that you can blame Bush for everything.
I've got, oh, about 600 posts here on slashdot. Find one where I blame everything, most things, or even a lot of things on Bush. Bush is a symptom of a much greater problem, and I too am worried about people blaming him instead of fixing the root problems (ignorant voters, campaign financing, etc blah blah).
The Bush administration has admitted to this kind of monitoring. I don't know where you get your information about what secret stuff other admins have been up to - this kind of secret stuff is supposed to be secret.
I have a friend who's phone is tapped by the FBI (I don't call him, hah) and I can't believe everyone's line is being monitored for keywords on all calls, it seems like too much effort for not enough reward, compared to, say, monitoring all international calls (something that may even be constitutional).
Don't you think it's a bit unfair to indict all of humanity based on the actions of a couple people?
If this was the only reason I felt this way, I think you'd be absolutely right. However, I think that I have seen so many cases of small and medium-scale abuse of power at school and at my various places of employment, and even among my peers... it's a pattern to me, and to be honest, I have a hard time imagining having all of that power and responsibility and not tempted to do a few questionable things (if not outright illegal). I really do strongly feel that from an evolutionary psychology perspective, there's little reason that humans would be adapted to this kind of fantastic power and megawealth.
A video... leaked onto the net... before it was supposed to come out? That sure is weird.
This is yet one more point on the side of "humans were not evolved under conditions that would lead to responsible behavior given extraordinary amounts of power in a society." Personally, I'm with Douglass Adams here - I think that anyone ambitious and capable enough to have gotten such power in the first place should by no means be allowed to exercise it.
Well I guess it's "better" than BushCo etc spying on all of our phones, but at least they can pretend that's for the greater good...
I'm pretty sure in 5 years it will be known by most as "Whotube? oh yeah that..." Longetivity sure is short lived in our modern web 2.0-sphere.
If I were a corporate leadership, the last thing I would want is to have my employees distracted by ads. I'd pay the tiny fee for the *actual* product. Very small compared to salaries, even if you're underpaying. A distracted worker is a bad worker (why do we send them to so many meetings?!)
Bigelow Aerospace plans to build an orbiting hotel.
Hmm... Beigelow + Hotel rooms... I'm all for it, just so long as Roy Schneider doesn't use this to make a certain sequel.
Maybe when Global Warming actually does become a global catastrophe, it will be just the impotace we need to stop bickering over territory and religion, and work together as a species.
We probably won't, but hey, I can dream...
Then we'll be free to bath and bask on two centuries of wealth wasted on two centuries of greed.
Which, exactly, were the two centuries of wealth that were wasted, and the two centuries of greed?
I saw this article on Digg a while back, using an ingenous JavaScript that would look at the *rendering* of a link to determine if you'd been there or not (and possibly upload this information to the remote server). That's kinda scary...