Kevin Kelly also recommended a website for this type of work; you can see his recommendation at his "Cool Tools" page for a company called Pictopia. I haven't used them (yet) but they look good from here.
Eben Moglen is lead counsel for the Electronic Frontier Foundation and a professor at Columbia Law School in New York City . He's a proponent of freedom on-line, a friend (or at least acquaintence) of Lawrence Lessig, and someone who works actively as a lawyer to promote open software and copyright issues on the web.
I had him as a professor for three of my classes while I was there, and he's a lightening rod for controversy. He often interacts with professor Jane Ginsburg, who takes an opposite view of copyright (and teaches copyright at Columbia; she's also the daughter of Justice Ginsburg on the Supreme Court).
Play nice with Piers Anthony
on
Singularity Sky
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Play nice with Piers Anthony. While Anthony's sci-fi books are definitely space opera, without his work, I would never have become the sci-fi reader I am today. His "Bio of a Space Tyrant" series was my first glimpse into some of the ideas that would germinate into a lifelong love of science fiction. He's an enthusiastic writer, and really does interact well with his fans, as evidenced by the fan correspondence he includes at the end of his books. Finally, at least it's reading and it's fun - I think the tradeoff for my hours is well worth it.
Wolfram's broad sharing of his work, while still limited (you still need an internet connection, at least momentarily, to save or print it) is a terrific step forward in sharing information with a broader audience that may be interested in his work. I was one of the purchasers of his book when it was first published, but it was expensive enough (even while heavily subsidized by Wolfram himself) that not everyone who was interested could find a copy.
By publishing on-line, Wolfram does something courageous as well - rather than simply submitting his work to academia and using their vetting procedure, he's opening up his work for criticism from a much, much wider body of critics. Forums like/. give us the opportunity to discuss the merits of his work - by the end of today, there will be many critiques of his work on this page, and everyone who takes the time to read those will come away from the discussion with many different perspectives that they might never have stumbled upon.
It's true that Wolfram has his own agenda to push here, and it might be compared to self-publishing a newspaper that only focuses on what you want, but one could argue that about nearly anything that's published, and I'd rather have the material disseminated so that I can read it and come to my own conclusions.
Well, from the Anconym finder, ANDY may stand for:
"ANDY [=] US Popular Abbreviation for Andrews AFB"
So, nothing too exciting. Feel free to read conspiracy into it though! You might consider a party who lost the bid for Andrew's new RS Information Systems? Just search Google News for Andrews Air Force Base
After reading the posts on here, it's clear that most people have pretty definite opinions on which option is the best. Would it be too difficult to integrate a poll on top of "stories" like this, where readers could add in their opinions when the options are rather limited? Rather than tallying up the responses, I'd like to see how many/.'ers prefer satellite to cable - although, from the posts, it seems that satellite has carried the day.
I agree with a fellow responder, who says that "that's what references are for." This is true, both the reference(s) that got the employee the job in the first place, and the references listed by that employee in the second.
As many/.ers are doubtless aware, most good jobs don't make appearances in the newspaper or on Monster's prodigy. They are networked jobs, plain and simple, and are given based on acquaintences, friendships, and loyalty. This has at least a couple consequences/built-in safeguards. If you're referring your friend, you're talking that individual up - but you still have to balance that loyalty against the loyalty you owe your hiring friend, even if it's not your company or your job riding on her hiring. If you're doing the introducing, chances are that it's within a closed industry, and those recommendations (as well as general reputations) are going to stick around for a bit.
Ending my rant, I think that it's important to remember that you're not only interviewing when you're sitting in your suit or your sweatpants, looking over the desk of the HR manager. Within an industry, you're interviewing for that better, or perhaps even golden job everytime you interact with your peers.
This story is news, but I kept expecting some point of contention in the article, rather than some musings on decorating schemes that were compared to clip art.
I found my point here:
The root server operators "have no contract with anyone, no guarantee of level of service, they could turn [the root servers] off tomorrow with no consequences at all because they are doing it out of the kindness of their heart," said Internet consultant Ambler. "ICANN needs contracts with the root server operators that specify minimum levels of service and minimum levels of security and the root servers need to be paid for that," he said.
Why is it so confusing to imagine that (a) People do like to do things out of the "kindness" of their collective hearts, and (b) security is not always "secured" by either contracts or money? I understand the legal protections associated with contracts, but I think there's a chance that the root server operator system, as it stands, could alternatively be viewed as something successful - something, much like the open source software movement, that works, not because of contracts or restrictive covenants, but because people enjoy contributing to something useful for their own and others' use.
I worked one summer at the City's Department of Recreation. Turned down a job working maintenance at a water park (late high school/early college female lifeguards) because the Dept. of Rec. paid more. What a horrible tradeoff.
The city manager's assistant who hired me was excited - not because I was in college, but because I still had a valid driver's license. All of our equipment was handed down from other city departments who no longer wanted/needed it. The truck I drove had been used to clear snow off of ice-covered ponds, until it fell partly through the ice. That stopped the 4WD from working, so they simply disconnected it. The Special Deluxe topped out a 30 mph, but I did have a yellow light on the top that alerted motorists to my presence on the city streets.
The death threats: Not only did we have the worst crew (Supervisor demoted to Dept. of Rec. due to pending child pornography charges; the two other employees excepting me were permanent-part time, alcoholics who would pick up their first 6 packs on the 6 am ride into work - couldn't drive b/c no licenses) but the Dept. of Rec. also had work release convicts that did much of the work.
The first death threat was from a convicted crack dealer from Bay City, Michigan. After I conveyed our supervisor's orders, he strode up to me, poked me in the nose, and told me that he would "kill me" and that if his brother wasn't in prison, his brother would also "come and kill me as well." I didn't point out the logical fallacy within his argument at the time. The second was a B&E (he stole guns and some money) convict from Alpena, Michigan. I wasn't as worried this time; he only wanted to use the truck, and it's not as if he had the guns he had originally stolen to fulfill his death threat this time.
"Worrying about fish that may make it to the wild and into the food chain seems pretty tame in comparison."
The complaint of the CFS seeks regulation, or at least oversight - the point of the injunction is to stop something irresponsible before it starts, rather than waiting to see irreversible results before condeming them. It is true that GM food is an everyday part of our life, but the production of those crops isregulated, and with good reason. Additionally, this seems different than the life-saving potential of greater food production - if it's merely making money from entertainment value associated with the Nemo fad, then perhaps it should be looked at more seriously. These fish will make it into the wild one way or another, and the same concerns they have with Salmon (a food crop) shouldn't be ignored just because this is a toy.
Not to mention the fact that some kid or college student will inevitably eat one of these.
I think "eager" might be a strong word for my position, but this will very likely be technology that you simply can't live without.
Sure, there will still be communes where people can get back to nature - meaning the position where the slow process of evolution has left us - but for most of us, we'll be in the same position we are when it comes to upgrading our RAM (on our computers) or submitting to the biometric handprint stations at work. I sit at work and am amazed at how people got along without the internet to do the same job. How was it even possible to be even relatively informed?
The final point is this = even if you're not comfortable with the idea, you need to stay informed about where this process is heading - you may not be eager to do your taxes or manage your budget, but your quality of life is greatly increased if you do, and you make choices rather than being forced into a decision at the last minute. Hopefully it's less eager than it is common sense.
It may be that Sesame Street provides a wonderful shelter for your child's development; however (one would hope) your child must leave that shelter and enter the real world. I'm all for great programing, but to say that TV is going to produce your responsible citizens is just as erroneous as the argument that videogames make people violent - it's the ability or inability to interact well with society that determines either of those two actions.
Let your kids watch a little TV, but when it comes to raising them, take them out into the community and spend time with them while they're there. Then, you (rightfully) have no one to blame, or praise, but yourself.
Slashdot Mirror
Kevin Kelly also recommended a website for this type of work; you can see his recommendation at his "Cool Tools" page for a company called Pictopia. I haven't used them (yet) but they look good from here.
You're absolutely right. I mistyped, and I apologize.
Eben Moglen is lead counsel for the Electronic Frontier Foundation and a professor at Columbia Law School in New York City . He's a proponent of freedom on-line, a friend (or at least acquaintence) of Lawrence Lessig, and someone who works actively as a lawyer to promote open software and copyright issues on the web.
I had him as a professor for three of my classes while I was there, and he's a lightening rod for controversy. He often interacts with professor Jane Ginsburg, who takes an opposite view of copyright (and teaches copyright at Columbia; she's also the daughter of Justice Ginsburg on the Supreme Court).
Play nice with Piers Anthony. While Anthony's sci-fi books are definitely space opera, without his work, I would never have become the sci-fi reader I am today. His "Bio of a Space Tyrant" series was my first glimpse into some of the ideas that would germinate into a lifelong love of science fiction. He's an enthusiastic writer, and really does interact well with his fans, as evidenced by the fan correspondence he includes at the end of his books. Finally, at least it's reading and it's fun - I think the tradeoff for my hours is well worth it.
Wolfram's broad sharing of his work, while still limited (you still need an internet connection, at least momentarily, to save or print it) is a terrific step forward in sharing information with a broader audience that may be interested in his work. I was one of the purchasers of his book when it was first published, but it was expensive enough (even while heavily subsidized by Wolfram himself) that not everyone who was interested could find a copy.
By publishing on-line, Wolfram does something courageous as well - rather than simply submitting his work to academia and using their vetting procedure, he's opening up his work for criticism from a much, much wider body of critics. Forums like /. give us the opportunity to discuss the merits of his work - by the end of today, there will be many critiques of his work on this page, and everyone who takes the time to read those will come away from the discussion with many different perspectives that they might never have stumbled upon.
It's true that Wolfram has his own agenda to push here, and it might be compared to self-publishing a newspaper that only focuses on what you want, but one could argue that about nearly anything that's published, and I'd rather have the material disseminated so that I can read it and come to my own conclusions.
Well, from the Anconym finder, ANDY may stand for:
"ANDY [=] US Popular Abbreviation for Andrews AFB"
So, nothing too exciting. Feel free to read conspiracy into it though! You might consider a party who lost the bid for Andrew's new RS Information Systems? Just search Google News for Andrews Air Force Base
After reading the posts on here, it's clear that most people have pretty definite opinions on which option is the best. Would it be too difficult to integrate a poll on top of "stories" like this, where readers could add in their opinions when the options are rather limited? Rather than tallying up the responses, I'd like to see how many /.'ers prefer satellite to cable - although, from the posts, it seems that satellite has carried the day.
I agree with a fellow responder, who says that "that's what references are for." This is true, both the reference(s) that got the employee the job in the first place, and the references listed by that employee in the second.
As many /.ers are doubtless aware, most good jobs don't make appearances in the newspaper or on Monster's prodigy. They are networked jobs, plain and simple, and are given based on acquaintences, friendships, and loyalty. This has at least a couple consequences/built-in safeguards. If you're referring your friend, you're talking that individual up - but you still have to balance that loyalty against the loyalty you owe your hiring friend, even if it's not your company or your job riding on her hiring. If you're doing the introducing, chances are that it's within a closed industry, and those recommendations (as well as general reputations) are going to stick around for a bit.
Ending my rant, I think that it's important to remember that you're not only interviewing when you're sitting in your suit or your sweatpants, looking over the desk of the HR manager. Within an industry, you're interviewing for that better, or perhaps even golden job everytime you interact with your peers.
This story is news, but I kept expecting some point of contention in the article, rather than some musings on decorating schemes that were compared to clip art.
I found my point here:
The root server operators "have no contract with anyone, no guarantee of level of service, they could turn [the root servers] off tomorrow with no consequences at all because they are doing it out of the kindness of their heart," said Internet consultant Ambler. "ICANN needs contracts with the root server operators that specify minimum levels of service and minimum levels of security and the root servers need to be paid for that," he said.
Why is it so confusing to imagine that (a) People do like to do things out of the "kindness" of their collective hearts, and (b) security is not always "secured" by either contracts or money? I understand the legal protections associated with contracts, but I think there's a chance that the root server operator system, as it stands, could alternatively be viewed as something successful - something, much like the open source software movement, that works, not because of contracts or restrictive covenants, but because people enjoy contributing to something useful for their own and others' use.
I worked one summer at the City's Department of Recreation. Turned down a job working maintenance at a water park (late high school/early college female lifeguards) because the Dept. of Rec. paid more. What a horrible tradeoff.
The city manager's assistant who hired me was excited - not because I was in college, but because I still had a valid driver's license. All of our equipment was handed down from other city departments who no longer wanted/needed it. The truck I drove had been used to clear snow off of ice-covered ponds, until it fell partly through the ice. That stopped the 4WD from working, so they simply disconnected it. The Special Deluxe topped out a 30 mph, but I did have a yellow light on the top that alerted motorists to my presence on the city streets.
The death threats: Not only did we have the worst crew (Supervisor demoted to Dept. of Rec. due to pending child pornography charges; the two other employees excepting me were permanent-part time, alcoholics who would pick up their first 6 packs on the 6 am ride into work - couldn't drive b/c no licenses) but the Dept. of Rec. also had work release convicts that did much of the work.
The first death threat was from a convicted crack dealer from Bay City, Michigan. After I conveyed our supervisor's orders, he strode up to me, poked me in the nose, and told me that he would "kill me" and that if his brother wasn't in prison, his brother would also "come and kill me as well." I didn't point out the logical fallacy within his argument at the time. The second was a B&E (he stole guns and some money) convict from Alpena, Michigan. I wasn't as worried this time; he only wanted to use the truck, and it's not as if he had the guns he had originally stolen to fulfill his death threat this time.
All in all, it was still better than selling Kirby Vacuums door-to-door.
IAAL but this isn't legal advice.
"Worrying about fish that may make it to the wild and into the food chain seems pretty tame in comparison."
The complaint of the CFS seeks regulation, or at least oversight - the point of the injunction is to stop something irresponsible before it starts, rather than waiting to see irreversible results before condeming them. It is true that GM food is an everyday part of our life, but the production of those crops is regulated, and with good reason. Additionally, this seems different than the life-saving potential of greater food production - if it's merely making money from entertainment value associated with the Nemo fad, then perhaps it should be looked at more seriously. These fish will make it into the wild one way or another, and the same concerns they have with Salmon (a food crop) shouldn't be ignored just because this is a toy.
Not to mention the fact that some kid or college student will inevitably eat one of these.
I think "eager" might be a strong word for my position, but this will very likely be technology that you simply can't live without.
Sure, there will still be communes where people can get back to nature - meaning the position where the slow process of evolution has left us - but for most of us, we'll be in the same position we are when it comes to upgrading our RAM (on our computers) or submitting to the biometric handprint stations at work. I sit at work and am amazed at how people got along without the internet to do the same job. How was it even possible to be even relatively informed?
The final point is this = even if you're not comfortable with the idea, you need to stay informed about where this process is heading - you may not be eager to do your taxes or manage your budget, but your quality of life is greatly increased if you do, and you make choices rather than being forced into a decision at the last minute. Hopefully it's less eager than it is common sense.
It may be that Sesame Street provides a wonderful shelter for your child's development; however (one would hope) your child must leave that shelter and enter the real world. I'm all for great programing, but to say that TV is going to produce your responsible citizens is just as erroneous as the argument that videogames make people violent - it's the ability or inability to interact well with society that determines either of those two actions. Let your kids watch a little TV, but when it comes to raising them, take them out into the community and spend time with them while they're there. Then, you (rightfully) have no one to blame, or praise, but yourself.