A 90% implementation of 80% of the problem sounds like a great success. Write me down 100% of the whole problem, never change your mind, never change the problem, and never change anything else, and you might be able to legitimately complain that you didn't get 100% of a solution. If you poorly define a problem which in itself changes during the execution, and you still expect 100% of a solution, then the problem lies in your expectations.
Would mod up if could. The ipaderisation of corporate IT means moving all the real work back onto the servers, locking everything down, and limiting what users can do to web browsing. Delivering web pages that can do everything users need to is the thing. The ipad is great for web browsing I think, though I prefer a laptop so I can have a real word processor and spreadsheet to work when there is no internet connection.
In theory (because the whole dirty bomb theory has never actually happened and is just a security theatre bogey man myth). In actual historical fact, fertiliser bombs HAVE had effects lasting for decades. Oslo city centre will never be the same for instance.
I don't think there was any indication in the article that this was anything to do with terrorism. See my comment above about fertiliser. If you fear terrorism you will see it everywhere. If you don't then you will not necessarily associate any particular material object with terrorism.
There seems a bit of confusion here between marketing, advertising and PR. I don't think the marketing units make adverts specifically, I think they market oil products, i.e. sell them to people and companies. I suspect that marketing oil products is fairly profitable, but I am not an oil marketer. BP, for instance, probably still markets quite a lot of oil products fairly profitably, regardless of any damage to its 'intangible' brand value in one particular country.
The security problem as I see it is that some people want computers to be able to know who is using them, and have built their business and defense models as though this were the case. Un/fortunately, people are cleverer than computers and some people don't want to tell the computer who they are. You can build any software and hardware measures you like and this will still be the case. Computer networks are insecure. Enjoy this time my friend. There might come a day when computers get cleverer than us and will actually be securable. Having an internet composed of computers cleverer than we are might not be as nice as it might seem.
I'm probably being stupid but if someone puts in a search like 'sex girl porn streaming' in some kind of search engine, how is it bad when the site returns pron links?
I could see an argument for the existence of offense caused by deliberate attacks on another person's humanity - biologically rooted offense in response to bodily mutilation and offense caused by seeing another human being tortured or demeaned.
I don't accept that being offended is just a response to external stimuli. In the moment it is mostly a response to internal stimuli, or at least to external stimuli which the offended has internalised throughout his life. The 'offending' remark is a trigger, but the bomb already existed in the mind of the offended person and it's their responsibility how they manage their own baggage. If you accept we have free will, then we are free to decide whether to respond to the trigger by setting off the bomb. I'm reminded of the societies around the world which regard a woman showing her hair in public as offensive. If someone from one of those societies sees a woman with her hair blowing in the wind, they may be offended, but it doesn't seem right to say the woman is entirely responsible for the offence. Now if she deliberately set out to offend then she has more culpability, but it is still the responsibility of the offended person to decide how they respond to their own feelings I think. In this case the guy seems like a troll setting out to use sensation to market his product and make a political point of sorts, or a joke. Pretty offensive I suppose, but I acknowledge my own role in deciding to find that offensive. Interesting discussion though, thanks
The subjective feeling of being offended is not caused by the person issuing the 'offensive' words necessarily though, but in large measure by things in the backgrund, and to an extent, under control of the person taking offence. The causal chain flows outwards from the two people involved, and combines to generate the instance of offense.
No I disagree. Being offended implies that an offence was committed against one. Claiming to have been the victim of an offence is often used as a covert attack. The covert part is pretending that someone has attacked you when in reality you are attacking them.
Or maybe a tolerant community that can live with people as we find them, tolerant, intolerant, childish, professional, or whatever. Does the functionality matter more or the image? Do the corporations matter more or the community? Perhaps this is testing the waters as to whether open source is big enough to stand on its own, or is pwned by corporations.
Who are you to say anyone should be professional about anything? If someone pays you to do something then you should be preofssional about it. If someone doesn't pay you then you professionalism may be inappropriate. Amateurism in that case would be fine, if you are a young person or young at heart then childishness might be best, if you are a total geek then total geekiness may be just the ticket. Don't let the corporations convince you that your whole life is about work, which is what 'always professional' is really saying.
Unless you want to give your software an anti-establishment flavour and market to the geekspace who will wrap it up in a script called something like clean_parse.script and chuckle to themselves quietly at their secret joke of getting such an interestingly named component into a corporate machine, in which case it's a pretty smart move getting his object known throughout geekspace among people who might try it when they otherwise wouldn't even have heard of it.
Maybe his tool is aimed at lone-wolf basement dwelling hackers, and his utility is well-named, as they've all heard of it now, and wouldn't have otherwise.
I'm not saying they should avoid being offended. I'm saying being offended is an active process (even if at least partly), and the person who is offended (by some words) is just as much an actor as the offender. We all can decide whether to be offended by words or not, depending on context and on our own interpretation of the 'offender's' intent. The capacity to offend is not entirely under the control of the offender, and requires a corresponding action (the action of 'taking offense') by the offendee.
I'm not sure this is true. People are probably much better off being who they are, and if they are the kind of person who thinks this is what they want to do they should be that. Who are you to say they need to stop anything for the sake of mythical imagined women you hope would be programmers if it wasn't for all the jerks? If women don't want to code much they don't have to, and if men don't want to choose all grown up names for their utilities who is to say they should?
I disagree completely, the name is way more important than the functionality or accuracy of code. We are all talking about this no mark utility because of the name. We would otherwise never even know or care it existed. The brand is everything.
Yes, I agree. What a ridiculous state of affairs when a website (the blog in the original article) filters out words like 'panties'. Corporations need to get out of the censorship game, it's the job of cunts in government to decide what words are not allowed.
Slashdot Mirror
Forgot to add.. your abundance of 'personality', along with drinking skills, should fit your for the senior manager role I think.
A 90% implementation of 80% of the problem sounds like a great success. Write me down 100% of the whole problem, never change your mind, never change the problem, and never change anything else, and you might be able to legitimately complain that you didn't get 100% of a solution. If you poorly define a problem which in itself changes during the execution, and you still expect 100% of a solution, then the problem lies in your expectations.
Would mod up if could. The ipaderisation of corporate IT means moving all the real work back onto the servers, locking everything down, and limiting what users can do to web browsing. Delivering web pages that can do everything users need to is the thing. The ipad is great for web browsing I think, though I prefer a laptop so I can have a real word processor and spreadsheet to work when there is no internet connection.
In theory (because the whole dirty bomb theory has never actually happened and is just a security theatre bogey man myth). In actual historical fact, fertiliser bombs HAVE had effects lasting for decades. Oslo city centre will never be the same for instance.
I don't think there was any indication in the article that this was anything to do with terrorism. See my comment above about fertiliser. If you fear terrorism you will see it everywhere. If you don't then you will not necessarily associate any particular material object with terrorism.
Replace the words 'radioactive material' with the word 'fertiliser', given recent events, and see whether you are more/same/less worried.
There seems a bit of confusion here between marketing, advertising and PR. I don't think the marketing units make adverts specifically, I think they market oil products, i.e. sell them to people and companies. I suspect that marketing oil products is fairly profitable, but I am not an oil marketer. BP, for instance, probably still markets quite a lot of oil products fairly profitably, regardless of any damage to its 'intangible' brand value in one particular country.
"if you don't do anything wrong, then you have nothing to fear" Where have I heard that one before?
Would mod Funny if could, or even laughable
Security PEBKAC.
The security problem as I see it is that some people want computers to be able to know who is using them, and have built their business and defense models as though this were the case. Un/fortunately, people are cleverer than computers and some people don't want to tell the computer who they are. You can build any software and hardware measures you like and this will still be the case. Computer networks are insecure. Enjoy this time my friend. There might come a day when computers get cleverer than us and will actually be securable. Having an internet composed of computers cleverer than we are might not be as nice as it might seem.
Who is going to require that programmers license anything? The United Nations?
I'm probably being stupid but if someone puts in a search like 'sex girl porn streaming' in some kind of search engine, how is it bad when the site returns pron links?
I could see an argument for the existence of offense caused by deliberate attacks on another person's humanity - biologically rooted offense in response to bodily mutilation and offense caused by seeing another human being tortured or demeaned.
I don't accept that being offended is just a response to external stimuli. In the moment it is mostly a response to internal stimuli, or at least to external stimuli which the offended has internalised throughout his life. The 'offending' remark is a trigger, but the bomb already existed in the mind of the offended person and it's their responsibility how they manage their own baggage. If you accept we have free will, then we are free to decide whether to respond to the trigger by setting off the bomb. I'm reminded of the societies around the world which regard a woman showing her hair in public as offensive. If someone from one of those societies sees a woman with her hair blowing in the wind, they may be offended, but it doesn't seem right to say the woman is entirely responsible for the offence. Now if she deliberately set out to offend then she has more culpability, but it is still the responsibility of the offended person to decide how they respond to their own feelings I think. In this case the guy seems like a troll setting out to use sensation to market his product and make a political point of sorts, or a joke. Pretty offensive I suppose, but I acknowledge my own role in deciding to find that offensive. Interesting discussion though, thanks
The subjective feeling of being offended is not caused by the person issuing the 'offensive' words necessarily though, but in large measure by things in the backgrund, and to an extent, under control of the person taking offence. The causal chain flows outwards from the two people involved, and combines to generate the instance of offense.
No I disagree. Being offended implies that an offence was committed against one. Claiming to have been the victim of an offence is often used as a covert attack. The covert part is pretending that someone has attacked you when in reality you are attacking them.
Or maybe a tolerant community that can live with people as we find them, tolerant, intolerant, childish, professional, or whatever. Does the functionality matter more or the image? Do the corporations matter more or the community? Perhaps this is testing the waters as to whether open source is big enough to stand on its own, or is pwned by corporations.
Who are you to say anyone should be professional about anything? If someone pays you to do something then you should be preofssional about it. If someone doesn't pay you then you professionalism may be inappropriate. Amateurism in that case would be fine, if you are a young person or young at heart then childishness might be best, if you are a total geek then total geekiness may be just the ticket. Don't let the corporations convince you that your whole life is about work, which is what 'always professional' is really saying.
Unless you want to give your software an anti-establishment flavour and market to the geekspace who will wrap it up in a script called something like clean_parse.script and chuckle to themselves quietly at their secret joke of getting such an interestingly named component into a corporate machine, in which case it's a pretty smart move getting his object known throughout geekspace among people who might try it when they otherwise wouldn't even have heard of it.
Maybe his tool is aimed at lone-wolf basement dwelling hackers, and his utility is well-named, as they've all heard of it now, and wouldn't have otherwise.
I'm not saying they should avoid being offended. I'm saying being offended is an active process (even if at least partly), and the person who is offended (by some words) is just as much an actor as the offender. We all can decide whether to be offended by words or not, depending on context and on our own interpretation of the 'offender's' intent. The capacity to offend is not entirely under the control of the offender, and requires a corresponding action (the action of 'taking offense') by the offendee.
I'm not sure this is true. People are probably much better off being who they are, and if they are the kind of person who thinks this is what they want to do they should be that. Who are you to say they need to stop anything for the sake of mythical imagined women you hope would be programmers if it wasn't for all the jerks? If women don't want to code much they don't have to, and if men don't want to choose all grown up names for their utilities who is to say they should?
I disagree completely, the name is way more important than the functionality or accuracy of code. We are all talking about this no mark utility because of the name. We would otherwise never even know or care it existed. The brand is everything.
Yes, I agree. What a ridiculous state of affairs when a website (the blog in the original article) filters out words like 'panties'. Corporations need to get out of the censorship game, it's the job of cunts in government to decide what words are not allowed.