See, back in the Utopian day you speak of, union members were proud of their work and it was well known. You could expect on American cars to be the best, most reliable cars on the planet. An union constructed building would be one that you knew was not only up to code, but surpassed it. Union members were their own foreman and made sure that all union members were doing their jobs RIGHT.
That's not the case any more. Now you have union members standing around waiting for the union electrician to plug something into a wall socket. You have union members enter a "job bank" requesting a job that is not available in their area and sit around and nothing for years waiting for a job that no longer exists. Now you have union members who are completely incompetent, lazy and cocky because they know they can not get fired. Now you have people literally attacking, even shooting and vandalizing non-union shops and their own coworkers who don't join them. To make sure the operations continue, they want to make all union votes completely open, meaning union thugs may see how you voted to make sure you voted right...,. etc.
A nice bit of unsubstantiated spin and propaganda, copied and pasted from the talking points. Regardless, just substitute "management" for "union *" in the paragraphs above and you can see there's nothing unusual about unions.
What unions do is give workers the same power to protect their interests that management has, both at the workplace and in government. There is no doubt that human beings use power for both good and bad purposes, just like both unions and management do: Some are legitimate, like obtaining better compensation, working conditions, and preventing abuse like arbitrary firing. Some are cronyism, like giving jobs and business to friends and allies. Some are corrupt, like kickbacks. I'd like people to use power for better purposes, but the world of honest hard work that you describe never existed in the executive suites or on the shop floors/cubicles.
CEOs get their calls answered by Senators and Governors. Individual workers do not; but the head of the UAW does, and that is how their interests are represented.
That sword is only double-edged if you believe 'the crowd' would be keen on identifying legitimate protesters as much as they are in identifying rioters....
This platform is really no different from any other in which individuals are attempted to be identified. Think of the effort to identify the girl who stomped on a kitten, or the guys throwing a dog off of a bridge, etc. It's just on a much larger scale because this time it's rioters - of which there were hundreds.
The online mob will go after anyone who is unpopular, just like a real lynch mob. They aren't making a good judgement about innocence or guilt. Like the looters, they may not care -- it may just be exciting for them to destroy someone else.
I've seen it on a small scale, where the owner of a community website dedicated to a sports team published the contact information of a 14-year-old poster that he disliked, and his readers responded like a wolf pack and harassed the boy. IIRC it's happened on a large scale in S. Korea and China (and probably elsewhere), where online lynch mobs have hounded people they disliked and ruined their lives.
What happens when someone decides to go after a politically unpopular group. How about when they use the tool to identify people at a gay nightclub, or go after Muslims or others?
... Those who would do so would likely still do so if the police simply put up the same picture on their own website....
Based on that reasoning, there is no need for this Zavilla tool; people could just use online photos. But it's not true -- if you build a tool that makes it much easier to do something, then people will do it much more often. You could share video before YouTube, but very few people did it. You could build you own personal social website before Facebook (create a webpage, use RSS, etc.), but almost nobody did it.
There's nothing about this technology that restricts its application to good purposes, and certainly we know humanity well enough to know they will do bad things.
It's sad that you can't see your fellow people; they're just representatives of 'groups' to you; it's us vs them. But really it's the bigots vs everyone else. Join us and you'll find that all your hatred and paranoia is a waste of time.
All those blacks, latinos, and gays walking around -- who knew that their very existence is a challenge to samzenpus and jbarr's political beliefs?
Certainly comics should only depict people who look like the vast majority in the United States as of 1950. They should only be marketed toward those people, who rightfully define our country in their own image. Anything else would be politically... umm.... incorrect.
It's not "Free Trade" that killed innovation in the US. It's regulation. You can't start a company out of your garage anymore. There are health codes, environmental regulations, tax and accounting standards to be met. Plus, quite a lot of regulation is designed to protect incumbent interests, squeezing out any potential competitors before they even get to market.
I thought it was too little regulation that allowed our banking system to collapse, greatly reducing funding for risky, innovative new ideas, as well as basic research.
You'll note that the regulated economies are the richest ones. The developing and poor nations have much less regulation.
Your opinion of your self sounds like many people from Wall Street. Why does the culture promote such arrogance? Don't people see the consequences of it?
Thanks for explaining. I would be concerned about software whose security patches are produced by a 3rd party. Some things need integration with the organization's knowledge, processes, etc, and aren't good candidates for outsourcing. Maybe that is the concern of others, too; I don't have experience with Debian and Red Hat's patches, however.
Thanks again; it's great that Mozillians are engaging the public on this issue.
What would be useful would be providing people, not money. Mozilla _has_ money if you look at financial statements; what they have a hard time doing is finding good people and working them into the organization (c.f. mythical man-month for the problems with the latter).
Other software organizations hire, integrate, and are productive with many more developers than Mozilla. It's hard to believe Mozilla's problem is human resources.
Boris - Charge for LTS? The people who need it can and will happily pay the cost, which should be minimal per user. Heck, you could even make a profit to support additional enterprise features (msi, gpo) and other FF development; I don't think anyone would complain.
I suspect I'm not the first to suggest this hybrid model, which as you know has been used by many open source organizations. What happened in prior discussions?
Sure, you can script a copy of userpref.js into every user's profile, but what if you want to restrict certain config options? You could restrict them all by making the file read only and owned by administrator, but that might not be the desired behavior. It might be better to have an overrideuserprefs.js that can be set to be read only and admin owned, but that takes a recompile. This enterprise forum might allow for suggestions like this which the devs ordinarily wouldn't consider.
It's been considered and implemented for a long time. There are several solutions.
I rarely watch Fox News (what's the point?) but I read the Wall Street Journal frequently. My general opinion is that News Corp leans towards making money for themselves, which is why they donate to both parties.
You read the WSJ opinion pages and think News Corp is apolitical? Also, have you noticed which party's Presidential candidates work for Fox?
Calling me names and mocking me, again, pretty typical tactics for News Corp.
Oooh, that's ironic, the top five recipients of News Corp money are all Democrats, including Barbara Boxer, Henry Waxman, and Harry Reid.
Ha ha. Have you watched Fox News? Read the Wall Street Journal? Are you seriously suggesting that News Corp leans toward the Democrats because of your one little factoid?
You've learned rhetorical techniques well from them
Conspiracy theorists are impossible to argue with. No matter what evidence you show to the kooks they will just rationalise it away. Conspiracy theory derives from an inability to accept the chaotic nature of reality, that "random" events outside the control of any central power can utterly destroy someone's life. The belief in conspiracy theory is a belief that SOMETHING is actually in control: THE GOVERNMENT!
And if THE GOVERNMENT could just have its secrets revealed, or if it was destroyed, then all would be right with the world and peace and justice would reign.
In fairness, it's not just theory. There is ample evidence that News Corp conspired with Scotland Yard. It's not inconceivable that the FBI has a similar relationship with them, but there would need to be evidence.
Has any other longtime slashdotter noticed that as the nerdscore of slashdotters has dropped year by year, the regressive anti-liberal tone to comments seems to have gone up?
Who the hell is Joe Herring and why should I trust anything he writes?...
Who the hell are Hugh Pickens and Timothy, and why should I trust anything they write/post?...
I should clarify something: My point was that we should ask the same skeptical questions about Hugh Pickens and Timothy and so I mimicked the language of the OP. Needless to say, most people on Slashdot know who they are and they have long reputations for their contributions. This front-page post may be a "blow" to their reputations, but their reputations are much bigger than one post.
Who the hell is Joe Herring and why should I trust anything he writes?
Who the hell are Hugh Pickens and Timothy, and why should I trust anything they write/post? This is a blow to both their reputations; this is really embarrassingly low quality stuff. Maybe they could respond to this thread. Pickens has no excuse; clearly he read the article in detail and was either taken in or wanted to promote it; I hope Timothy simply didn't review the post carefully -- unfortunately, would not be a first on Slashdot.
I get the sense that I've seen a few right-wing conspiracy theories on Slashdot's front page recently. Slashdot always seemed to be about open inquiry and not politicized conspiracies. Hopefully it stays that way.
Slashdot Mirror
See, back in the Utopian day you speak of, union members were proud of their work and it was well known. You could expect on American cars to be the best, most reliable cars on the planet. An union constructed building would be one that you knew was not only up to code, but surpassed it. Union members were their own foreman and made sure that all union members were doing their jobs RIGHT.
That's not the case any more. Now you have union members standing around waiting for the union electrician to plug something into a wall socket. You have union members enter a "job bank" requesting a job that is not available in their area and sit around and nothing for years waiting for a job that no longer exists. Now you have union members who are completely incompetent, lazy and cocky because they know they can not get fired. Now you have people literally attacking, even shooting and vandalizing non-union shops and their own coworkers who don't join them. To make sure the operations continue, they want to make all union votes completely open, meaning union thugs may see how you voted to make sure you voted right. ..,. etc.
A nice bit of unsubstantiated spin and propaganda, copied and pasted from the talking points. Regardless, just substitute "management" for "union *" in the paragraphs above and you can see there's nothing unusual about unions.
What unions do is give workers the same power to protect their interests that management has, both at the workplace and in government. There is no doubt that human beings use power for both good and bad purposes, just like both unions and management do: Some are legitimate, like obtaining better compensation, working conditions, and preventing abuse like arbitrary firing. Some are cronyism, like giving jobs and business to friends and allies. Some are corrupt, like kickbacks. I'd like people to use power for better purposes, but the world of honest hard work that you describe never existed in the executive suites or on the shop floors/cubicles.
CEOs get their calls answered by Senators and Governors. Individual workers do not; but the head of the UAW does, and that is how their interests are represented.
Guys, notepad strips out formatting. Isn't that what it was invented for!?!
No. It's for editing text; it's a text editor.
That sword is only double-edged if you believe 'the crowd' would be keen on identifying legitimate protesters as much as they are in identifying rioters. ...
This platform is really no different from any other in which individuals are attempted to be identified. Think of the effort to identify the girl who stomped on a kitten, or the guys throwing a dog off of a bridge, etc. It's just on a much larger scale because this time it's rioters - of which there were hundreds.
The online mob will go after anyone who is unpopular, just like a real lynch mob. They aren't making a good judgement about innocence or guilt. Like the looters, they may not care -- it may just be exciting for them to destroy someone else.
I've seen it on a small scale, where the owner of a community website dedicated to a sports team published the contact information of a 14-year-old poster that he disliked, and his readers responded like a wolf pack and harassed the boy. IIRC it's happened on a large scale in S. Korea and China (and probably elsewhere), where online lynch mobs have hounded people they disliked and ruined their lives.
What happens when someone decides to go after a politically unpopular group. How about when they use the tool to identify people at a gay nightclub, or go after Muslims or others?
... Those who would do so would likely still do so if the police simply put up the same picture on their own website.. ..
Based on that reasoning, there is no need for this Zavilla tool; people could just use online photos. But it's not true -- if you build a tool that makes it much easier to do something, then people will do it much more often. You could share video before YouTube, but very few people did it. You could build you own personal social website before Facebook (create a webpage, use RSS, etc.), but almost nobody did it.
There's nothing about this technology that restricts its application to good purposes, and certainly we know humanity well enough to know they will do bad things.
You fabricated 'facts' from prejudice,
It's sad that you can't see your fellow people; they're just representatives of 'groups' to you; it's us vs them. But really it's the bigots vs everyone else. Join us and you'll find that all your hatred and paranoia is a waste of time.
Hi, black male here.
Could this piece of AC propaganda be more obvious? More cliche and scripted?
All those blacks, latinos, and gays walking around -- who knew that their very existence is a challenge to samzenpus and jbarr's political beliefs?
Certainly comics should only depict people who look like the vast majority in the United States as of 1950. They should only be marketed toward those people, who rightfully define our country in their own image. Anything else would be politically ... umm .... incorrect.
It's not "Free Trade" that killed innovation in the US. It's regulation. You can't start a company out of your garage anymore. There are health codes, environmental regulations, tax and accounting standards to be met. Plus, quite a lot of regulation is designed to protect incumbent interests, squeezing out any potential competitors before they even get to market.
I thought it was too little regulation that allowed our banking system to collapse, greatly reducing funding for risky, innovative new ideas, as well as basic research.
You'll note that the regulated economies are the richest ones. The developing and poor nations have much less regulation.
Where do you think electric car manufacturers get money to pay researchers, engineers, etc.?
Your opinion of your self sounds like many people from Wall Street. Why does the culture promote such arrogance? Don't people see the consequences of it?
Thanks for explaining. I would be concerned about software whose security patches are produced by a 3rd party. Some things need integration with the organization's knowledge, processes, etc, and aren't good candidates for outsourcing. Maybe that is the concern of others, too; I don't have experience with Debian and Red Hat's patches, however.
Thanks again; it's great that Mozillians are engaging the public on this issue.
What would be useful would be providing people, not money. Mozilla _has_ money if you look at financial statements; what they have a hard time doing is finding good people and working them into the organization (c.f. mythical man-month for the problems with the latter).
Other software organizations hire, integrate, and are productive with many more developers than Mozilla. It's hard to believe Mozilla's problem is human resources.
Boris - Charge for LTS? The people who need it can and will happily pay the cost, which should be minimal per user. Heck, you could even make a profit to support additional enterprise features (msi, gpo) and other FF development; I don't think anyone would complain.
I suspect I'm not the first to suggest this hybrid model, which as you know has been used by many open source organizations. What happened in prior discussions?
guanxi
Sure, you can script a copy of userpref.js into every user's profile, but what if you want to restrict certain config options? You could restrict them all by making the file read only and owned by administrator, but that might not be the desired behavior. It might be better to have an overrideuserprefs.js that can be set to be read only and admin owned, but that takes a recompile. This enterprise forum might allow for suggestions like this which the devs ordinarily wouldn't consider.
It's been considered and implemented for a long time. There are several solutions.
I rarely watch Fox News (what's the point?) but I read the Wall Street Journal frequently. My general opinion is that News Corp leans towards making money for themselves, which is why they donate to both parties.
You read the WSJ opinion pages and think News Corp is apolitical? Also, have you noticed which party's Presidential candidates work for Fox?
Calling me names and mocking me, again, pretty typical tactics for News Corp.
Let's check: OpenSecrets.org.
Oooh, that's ironic, the top five recipients of News Corp money are all Democrats, including Barbara Boxer, Henry Waxman, and Harry Reid.
Ha ha. Have you watched Fox News? Read the Wall Street Journal? Are you seriously suggesting that News Corp leans toward the Democrats because of your one little factoid?
You've learned rhetorical techniques well from them
Conspiracy theorists are impossible to argue with. No matter what evidence you show to the kooks they will just rationalise it away. Conspiracy theory derives from an inability to accept the chaotic nature of reality, that "random" events outside the control of any central power can utterly destroy someone's life. The belief in conspiracy theory is a belief that SOMETHING is actually in control: THE GOVERNMENT!
And if THE GOVERNMENT could just have its secrets revealed, or if it was destroyed, then all would be right with the world and peace and justice would reign.
In fairness, it's not just theory. There is ample evidence that News Corp conspired with Scotland Yard. It's not inconceivable that the FBI has a similar relationship with them, but there would need to be evidence.
Has any other longtime slashdotter noticed that as the nerdscore of slashdotters has dropped year by year, the regressive anti-liberal tone to comments seems to have gone up?
Yes, at least to the latter.
I appreciate the benefits of rapid versioning and release cycles, but really, this is ridiculous.
Why don't people say this about Chrome? The response to the numbering is a bit confusing.
And how much money(if any) does Mozilla get paid by your organization for your use of Firefox?
I've probably donated thousands of dollars worth of time.
Hey - A Glenn Beck sighting!
Who the hell is Joe Herring and why should I trust anything he writes? ...
Who the hell are Hugh Pickens and Timothy, and why should I trust anything they write/post? ...
I should clarify something: My point was that we should ask the same skeptical questions about Hugh Pickens and Timothy and so I mimicked the language of the OP. Needless to say, most people on Slashdot know who they are and they have long reputations for their contributions. This front-page post may be a "blow" to their reputations, but their reputations are much bigger than one post.
Who the hell is Joe Herring and why should I trust anything he writes?
Who the hell are Hugh Pickens and Timothy, and why should I trust anything they write/post? This is a blow to both their reputations; this is really embarrassingly low quality stuff. Maybe they could respond to this thread. Pickens has no excuse; clearly he read the article in detail and was either taken in or wanted to promote it; I hope Timothy simply didn't review the post carefully -- unfortunately, would not be a first on Slashdot.
I get the sense that I've seen a few right-wing conspiracy theories on Slashdot's front page recently. Slashdot always seemed to be about open inquiry and not politicized conspiracies. Hopefully it stays that way.
I am a Microsoft employee in DevDiv.
The vast majority of programmers/people are not. So spare us the blunt advertisement.
Huh? It sure seems like an essential, valuable thing to say. It would be a little shady if he didn't reveal it.
... it's open source and upgrading to a newer version is free.
How much does it cost to test and then deploy this 'free' software to 2,000 desktops?
'Free' software is only free if your time is worth nothing.
I have it on good authority that you can reduce embarrassment by clicking the link before posting a comment.