It could just be security theatre. People are evolved/inculcated with fear of the dark, so lights make them feel safer. Is there any good evidence to show that providing street lighting makes things safer than people carrying their own light with them?
On the other hand most of the internet is not in America, and has no interest in being owned by American corporations, and it seems more likely that whatever MSM is, and Hollywood, will get owned by the internet. The movie industry is small fry.
and we want our web page noticee back - 'This page should be viewed on browser X with screen resolution y by z'
This is enough for me not to bother clicking on the link. Saying this about your web page is a risky strategy and I guess only Google can get away with this and get a subset of people to dutifully switch browsers just to see what the exciting page has on it (and possibly Apple could too).
Maybe you're tolling, I'm not sure, but here goes.
There is something called 'requirements' - stuff people want to do, and there is something called 'solutions' - software that does stuff. As soon as human being starts to use a piece of software, it changes their requirements, because they have new ideas of stuff they want to do. Hence it is impossible to define the 'true' requirements before the software exists, because the true requirements don't exist until the software does, and vice versa. Software and requirements both change over time in a mutually dependent way.
Yes I think you're right. It really is best to avoid buying things as much as possible, unless you now the person who made them, and wish to support that person's enterprise.
It should be pretty easy to knock up a website that can take in a pic, find the face, modify it subtly in a randomise way, and give the person their modified pic back. Maybe there could even be a Facebook app that would do it.
>politicians tolerate being bribed but they are highly allergic against being blackmailed.
I think you are wrong about this. History shows that Newscorp has a long record of invading politicians' private lives, digging dirt they want to keep quiet, and using threats of publication of said dirt to affect politicians' votes.
I think if you made a list of the politicians supporting SOPA you would find it correlated strongly with the list of politicians which Newscorp have some dirt on.
Newscorp eh? A UK politician recently openly called Newscorp a 'protection racket'. They had invaded the privacy of everyone in the public eye to dig up dirt, and were using that dirt to further their own agenda, and as leverage against politicians.
It's starting to become clear why your US senators support this thing now.
This is what the media companies want you to think. The one thing the recent NewsCorp events have taught us is how the relationship between government and media really works (in the UK at least, I imagine it's the same in the US).
NewsCorp is a protection racket. It invades the privacy of anyone in the public eye, builds up a dossier of evidence that would be uncomfortable for the person if made public, and uses that evidence to further its economic aims.
They only publish the dirt if they don't get what they want. Generally they use the dirt as leverage over the politicians.
Disagree abut the slides. When I speak the important things come out of my mouth and body language, the slides are just for illustration of particular points and to keep attention focused on the overall flow. If most of the information was on the slides, I could just email the slides and do something more useful with my time than prepare, rehearse, and stand there talking.
There seems to be a confusion between deontology and teleology here. There might be a utility in having particular knowledge about a particular virus, but that is a very different thing from whether it is a good idea to create the virus in the real world. Just because there is utility in an action does not necessarily justify the action. I think the question here was more about why they thought it was right to do it, not the utility they could see in doing it. Utility is not necessarily justification. It might be useful to kill all people of a certain religion, and we might learn all kinds of useful data from doing so, but is it sufficient justification to do it?
The size of the game is not really an issue if you're streaming, the only issue is the screen resolution - make the servers render the game rather than the client machine and you can play the most hideously large complex game on the dumbest of machines, as long as the network connection can stream the video fast enough. Latency is the only big challenge.
I don't hate America, I've had some lovely holidays there (except for that one time in New York when they blew up the WTC) and some of my best friends are Americans. I do hate America's lack of data protection legislation, dangerous gun laws, propensity to vote oil industry shills into power, desire to market dangerous food to the rest of the world, and one or two other things, but nowhere's perfect. Not a reason not to call out the bad parts when you see em though.
In Europe we have a thing called data protection. Organisations who monger personal information have a legal obligation to protect it. Facebook are not exempt. Social networks are already regulated in the advanced world.
1. Work out what bits you want to work on and what you don't. (I would be most interested in their database, backend payment, processing, and accounting systems, and customer facing website, YMMV)
2. Log everything that you work on so you have evidence of where the problems are and how long you spend on each one.
3. Get quotes from separate firms to manage all the bits you don't want to do (printers? phones? LAN? server management? email?)
4. Find out what the directors' plans for the business are for the next 6 months, 1 year, 2 years, 5 years.
5. Work up a systems development plan to meet the director's business objectives (increasing customer base? new products and services? increasing transaction volumes?).
6. Present the package of quotes and your development plan in an organised meeting with senior management. Argue for the extra money to cover the routine services, and the extra staff you will need to support their business development (as others have said, doing it alone won't work long-term, it will lkill both you and the business).
If they are a serious business they will recognise the wisdom in your approach and be more than willing to invest in what is ultimately the basis of their whole business. Do this quickly while you are still an unknown quantity, full of magical skills. Once you become the guy who fixes the printers they won't be able to hear your message so clearly.
I agree. My expectations were conditioned by this though: 'voted the funniest joke in the world by American men'. When I read the references to hunting and guns, my expectations were further bolstered, making it almost impossible for the joke itself to engender surprise, since the context had already rendered me determinedly unsurprised. I found it ironic that the article relied on American men to judge the best joke in the world. I wonder how many different countries supplied contestants, and who translated them.
Slashdot Mirror
It could just be security theatre. People are evolved/inculcated with fear of the dark, so lights make them feel safer. Is there any good evidence to show that providing street lighting makes things safer than people carrying their own light with them?
On the other hand most of the internet is not in America, and has no interest in being owned by American corporations, and it seems more likely that whatever MSM is, and Hollywood, will get owned by the internet. The movie industry is small fry.
I hear lots of celebs use it
That's right, transgenics and non-transgenics are more or less equally liable to generate invasive weeds which share some of their genetic material.
They already are. Google is full of examples, but here is one: http://www.cwss.org/proceedingsfiles/2010/26_Joseph%20DitomasoabstractBiofuel%20and%20invasives%202010.pdf
This is enough for me not to bother clicking on the link. Saying this about your web page is a risky strategy and I guess only Google can get away with this and get a subset of people to dutifully switch browsers just to see what the exciting page has on it (and possibly Apple could too).
Moving on.
There is something called 'requirements' - stuff people want to do, and there is something called 'solutions' - software that does stuff. As soon as human being starts to use a piece of software, it changes their requirements, because they have new ideas of stuff they want to do. Hence it is impossible to define the 'true' requirements before the software exists, because the true requirements don't exist until the software does, and vice versa. Software and requirements both change over time in a mutually dependent way.
In the corporate west the news cycle manages the politicians.
You don' really need storage for geothermal energy - it isn't particularly weather-dependent - it is dependent on the heat of the earth's core.
Yes I think you're right. It really is best to avoid buying things as much as possible, unless you now the person who made them, and wish to support that person's enterprise.
Except this is not true. They still have their life, it is just less convenient than previously, hence it has not been stolen.
It should be pretty easy to knock up a website that can take in a pic, find the face, modify it subtly in a randomise way, and give the person their modified pic back. Maybe there could even be a Facebook app that would do it.
Sure this was reported on here last March, but this was all I could find: http://thinkgeek.shill.slashdot.org/index2.pl?section=&color=indigo&index=1&view=popular&duration=-1&startdate=20110316&page=46
I think you are wrong about this. History shows that Newscorp has a long record of invading politicians' private lives, digging dirt they want to keep quiet, and using threats of publication of said dirt to affect politicians' votes.
I think if you made a list of the politicians supporting SOPA you would find it correlated strongly with the list of politicians which Newscorp have some dirt on.
It's starting to become clear why your US senators support this thing now.
NewsCorp is a protection racket. It invades the privacy of anyone in the public eye, builds up a dossier of evidence that would be uncomfortable for the person if made public, and uses that evidence to further its economic aims.
They only publish the dirt if they don't get what they want. Generally they use the dirt as leverage over the politicians.
This is why SOPA.
Disagree abut the slides. When I speak the important things come out of my mouth and body language, the slides are just for illustration of particular points and to keep attention focused on the overall flow. If most of the information was on the slides, I could just email the slides and do something more useful with my time than prepare, rehearse, and stand there talking.
There is no such thing as proper containment. Fukushima anyone?
There seems to be a confusion between deontology and teleology here. There might be a utility in having particular knowledge about a particular virus, but that is a very different thing from whether it is a good idea to create the virus in the real world. Just because there is utility in an action does not necessarily justify the action. I think the question here was more about why they thought it was right to do it, not the utility they could see in doing it. Utility is not necessarily justification. It might be useful to kill all people of a certain religion, and we might learn all kinds of useful data from doing so, but is it sufficient justification to do it?
The size of the game is not really an issue if you're streaming, the only issue is the screen resolution - make the servers render the game rather than the client machine and you can play the most hideously large complex game on the dumbest of machines, as long as the network connection can stream the video fast enough. Latency is the only big challenge.
I don't hate America, I've had some lovely holidays there (except for that one time in New York when they blew up the WTC) and some of my best friends are Americans. I do hate America's lack of data protection legislation, dangerous gun laws, propensity to vote oil industry shills into power, desire to market dangerous food to the rest of the world, and one or two other things, but nowhere's perfect. Not a reason not to call out the bad parts when you see em though.
In Europe we have a thing called data protection. Organisations who monger personal information have a legal obligation to protect it. Facebook are not exempt. Social networks are already regulated in the advanced world.
1. Work out what bits you want to work on and what you don't. (I would be most interested in their database, backend payment, processing, and accounting systems, and customer facing website, YMMV) 2. Log everything that you work on so you have evidence of where the problems are and how long you spend on each one. 3. Get quotes from separate firms to manage all the bits you don't want to do (printers? phones? LAN? server management? email?) 4. Find out what the directors' plans for the business are for the next 6 months, 1 year, 2 years, 5 years. 5. Work up a systems development plan to meet the director's business objectives (increasing customer base? new products and services? increasing transaction volumes?). 6. Present the package of quotes and your development plan in an organised meeting with senior management. Argue for the extra money to cover the routine services, and the extra staff you will need to support their business development (as others have said, doing it alone won't work long-term, it will lkill both you and the business). If they are a serious business they will recognise the wisdom in your approach and be more than willing to invest in what is ultimately the basis of their whole business. Do this quickly while you are still an unknown quantity, full of magical skills. Once you become the guy who fixes the printers they won't be able to hear your message so clearly.
I agree. My expectations were conditioned by this though: 'voted the funniest joke in the world by American men'. When I read the references to hunting and guns, my expectations were further bolstered, making it almost impossible for the joke itself to engender surprise, since the context had already rendered me determinedly unsurprised. I found it ironic that the article relied on American men to judge the best joke in the world. I wonder how many different countries supplied contestants, and who translated them.
No but I guess there's nothing to stop you selling your password (except probably something in the small print of the EULA).