I don't think that'll be an issue. Consider that we don't perceive frames in movie or tv, both media that have frame rates significantly below what we're used to in computers.
At the entrance, volunteers searched my bag and poured out my bottle of water.
How pathetic to volunteer to screw people over for the benefit of giant multinationals and morally bankrupt organizations like the IOC.
The games are utterly ruined for me, and have been for a while. It's such a shame. Nothing short of a massive boycott would do any good, but the athletes would be most hurt by it, especially for sports with a short competitive lifespan.
Anymore, I don't watch. I don't care. I don't buy crap because it has the word "Olympics" or the stupid ring logo on it. I'll never pay money to see an event, and I'll raise hell like you've never seen if anybody ever tries to bring that pile of monstrous civic wreckage to my city.
It's a two way street. Consumers do whatever they can to squeeze corps. Corps squeeze consumers.
The government does not need to get involved, they need to get out of the way by removing the monopoly cable companies enjoy. Then we'll have actual competition.
For a counterexample to your argument, look at the airline industry. Consumers demand cheap flights, and they get cheap flights.
Really, people, get over yourselves, stop the hand wringing and cries that the sky is falling. Big companies have failed. Countries have failed. Empires have failed. We rebuild. In fact, we build something better.
The alternative is propping up things that actually aren't working. GM. Most of the airline industry. If Google fails, it will introduce a massive wave of opportunity for entrepreneurs out there who have ideas that they can't pursue now because the threat that Google will eat their lunch is too great.
It's entirely possible companies can be too big, in the sense that they cause problems for the economy, but they are never too big to fail.
In Linus' case, however, perhaps he's critical enough about phones that it's actually a risk to send him one. If he writes a bad review, the company who manufactures it and sent it to him has just shot itself in the foot.
Or perhaps, unlike celebrities the masses drool over, Linus's endorsement, let alone mere use, isn't worth that much. Frankly, I don't care what phone, dental floss, bike, or anything else he uses.
Your point is well taken, though. If you want to give away free samples, giving them to notorious critics of mostly everything is probably not a good idea.
I agree with the government's position on this one. What started out as a lawsuit over the scanning of books (to make them searchable, which I consider fair use)
Unfortunately, that you consider it fair use doesn't really matter. Fair use is defined, and it is not defined to include copying an entire work for your own commercial purposes, which is exactly what Google did.
Google should be sued for a vast sum of money over this, just like you or I did if we copied all the works the RIAA or MPAA get so jumpy about "just to make them searchable".
You don't get to abuse other people's property rights just because you're Google.
Oh, thank $DIETY, as long as it's not legal, we're fine. Can we talk about illegal wiretaps by the government en masse in recent years with the cooperation of major telecoms, where nobody will ever be prosecuted?
Your wife's right, nobody's going to go back to a paper card for information. They're going to go to a database where getting this information is easy and inexpensive. Just look to jurisdictions that do or want to take DNA if you're convicted or accused of a crime, or in some cases arrested. If this information isn't in a database now, it will be when someone comes up with a perfectly reasonable and innocuous reason to do it. The abuse of the data comes later. The medical field is great at this, sadly. It makes me angry when I get forms, like I did for umbilical cord blood donation, that talk about how it can save lives of my child or others if they have some condition or other.....oh, and we can use it for research if we want....oh, and we can also use it for anything else we want, without limitation.
What? No. Stop being ridiculously unreasonable and overreaching. Ok, testing for certain genetic diseases is a good idea. You may proceed. You may not keep the samples. You may not do anything with the information that doesn't directly benefit my child's health without my consent.
The NFL argues that footage of the game is licensed onlyThe NFL argues that footage of the game is licensed only
Aye, there's the rub. I haven't licensed a darned thing from the NFL, ever. We need to entirely do away with BS "licensing" like "by viewing this web site...". No, sorry, I agree to your terms by signing a contract, period. I don't agree to your terms by viewing a web site, watching a TV, rubbing my nose, or yelling Yabba Dabba Do. The very notion that I agreed to 34 pages of legalese by doing something no sane person would construe as a positive affirmation of agreement is ridiculous.
Can we please get law back in line with common sense now?
The interest rates at which the US borrows money reflects the lender's belief that they'll be paid back. Meaning they're pretty darned certain they're going to get their money back or they wouldn't lend it. If some hair brained politician followed your recommendations, you'd see this nasty little thing called hyperinflation rear its ugly head and your life would become rather more unpleasant than it is now.
Not to say it hasn't been tried, but the countries that do it tend to spiral in rather quickly after. Contrary to popular opinion, people, governments, and institutions who loan on this scale are not idiots.
A botnet attack? But then the activity shouldn't be concentrated by country, but spread around the world about evenly.
No, not really. It should be spread across vulnerable computers about evenly, which means it should be concentrated in large countries with significant technological infrastructure. China and India are both huge, and while a decent chunk of them are impoverished, I suspect they're still quite up there in terms of internet connected systems.
Some kind of distributed attack, possibly, or something completely benign. Look at the packets and see what they are. Looking at source alone isn't that revealing.
And the converse: the more sites go paywalled, the safer it is for the next to go paywalled. It's not unlike the airline industry, which has been in revenue hell forever, being essentially nothing but price competition. Now, they're starting to charge for things they didn't used to. The public is up in arms! But they're all doing it. If you don't like it, you can drive.
Are the airlines/newspapers evil for wanting to make money? Are the consumers evil for wanting something to cost as close to nothing as possible? No, in both cases.
Offering content online has to be worth the trouble. If it's not, they're just going to quit. Ooooh, readership! Frankly, I don't care about readership if I'm a newspaper, I care about revenue (and yes, one is a proxy for the other, but don't lose sight of which one you really care about--it's profit). Losing a bunch of readers who don't actually bring any revenue isn't really a problem. We will eventually settle into something that mostly works.
Personally, I really don't go looking for the next $ACTOR movie. Ever. Many actors, I've found, have a limited number of characters they can portray, so if you've seen them in a couple movies, you've seen them period. It's annoying to go to see a story told and you see $ACTOR instead of $CHARACTER. That's something I liked about Avatar. With two exceptions, I didn't really recognize actors, so I could get more involved in the characters.
So, thank you, but no, I don't want a new movie starring Young Sean Connery. I want a new movie starring someone I've never heard of.
The classic problem with selling new cars is that the people who can afford to buy them don't care about efficiency.
This is just not true. Markets are not homogeneous. Some care about efficiency and buy a Prius. Some care more about operating cost and buy an econobox that gets worse mileage than a hybrid, but costs less to operate. Some care about impressing the neighbors, and buy whatever it takes to do that. Some want to be trendy, and buy some god awful thing like the so-called "Smart Car".
If you want to say something like "males between 18-25 generally don't care about efficiency"...ok, I'll give you that one.:) But they're not the target market for the Volt, are they?
Yes, domain speculators are worse, imo. I think it comes down to a fundamental weakness of DNS. Weave.org shouldn't refer to one person (nor should my own "personal" domain, but I needed a live domain, so picked one). Nor should local businesses. billybobscrabshack shouldn't be.com unless it's THE Billy Bob's Crab Shack worldwide.
Interestingly, that strikes me as potentially pretentious and wasteful. Don't tie up a chuck of Internet real estate just for your own personal vanity, IMO. Would I bin somebody's resume over it? Nope, nor would I for an aol.com address. If they get as far as talking to them, I might ask about it. There's probably a reason. Either way, asking will tell you something. Assuming will not.
Which really means the deadlines need to be right, not shorter, not longer. It's the same old, same old. If there's a hard deadline, you have to cut the work to fit. If there are hard requirements, you have to move the deadline. Companies who won't do either are just fooling themselves and their customers.
I heard the hype, including from a close friend who is in the industry, and I was really just not interested. Whatever. The latest super expensive Cameron epic, probably with impressive effects. I'm getting old, too, and it takes more than pretty pictures to impress me.
Bowing to said friend's "You HAVE to see this movie" pressure" I saw it, and was blown away. I saw it a 4th time last night, and still get chills watching it.
I know, not everybody likes it. Some people get stuck on the fact that like more or less all stories, this one has been told before. If you don't like it, that's fine. If you don't like it, or won't see it, just because you want to be a contrarian, I think you're missing out. Go see it and just don't admit it if that makes you feel better.
20,000 lines of Fortran. Nearly all variables were i, j, k, etc, and it was rather complex modeling code.
Comments? No, there were no comments. There was no documentation of any kind, unless you count the journal article in which the person who wrote the code described the model.
I like this. Another of my reasons for wanting comments is similarly simple.
So-called self-documenting code tells you what it does. Comments tell you what it's supposed to do. Unless the developer never makes errors, those things are not always the same.
That -does- make sense. Too often, though, the rest of the conversation would go like this.
"Ok, that's fine. Do you have any OTHER software we don't know about?" "No. None!" "Ok, we'll do a quick audit and get back to you."
(a short time later)
"Well, I'm afraid we found several pieces of additional software. Several were expired trial versions, which according to the license, we're obliged to buy since you continued using them past the trial date. Then there's this other package..." "But that ones free!" "No, it's free for "noncommercial use", which doesn't cover us. And what about $EXPENSIVE PACKAGE? We never bought that." "Oh, that's my own copy. I have a license." "Yes, we know. An academic license. It doesn't cover your use of that software here."
I agree with you in principle. As long as everybody plays nice, there's no reason to lock things down. The people who won't play nice mess it up for everyone.
With the client's full knowledge and permission is key.;-)
I've seen people fired for doing the same without permission. Ask them, and they "needed it to do their job!". Ask the client,and no they didn't. Companies often understand perfectly well that some of the hoops they make us jump through are less efficient. Sometimes there's a reason, like write documentation so we don't lose your work if you get hit by a bus, sometimes it's misguided.
I've been the sys admin. I've been the developer. I've been both at once.
Security guys tend to forget that work needs to get done. Developers tend to forget that the way they want to do their job is sometimes not allowed (we security guys often don't make the rules, we just get busted for not following them) or is illegal (I don't care how much you need $COMMERCIAL_PACKAGE, pay for it or keep it off my systems). This is not entirely by accident. It's just separation of duties. If you have two important jobs to get done, and those jobs conflict, give them to separate people. If you give the whole thing to developers, they'll develop software and not worry so much about the security bit.
The general problem is that if you have a set of rules that have to be followed, the more people you need to get to follow them, the lower the chance it's actually going to happen. That's why as processes scale up, you start getting these people the developers see as a waste of time in the loop. In IT, it's system admins and whatever you call your security group. In medical research, it's data managers, who might not be trained to do the research, but can be meticulous about making sure the data bits are done right.
Personally, I'm happy to give out admin rights to people who use them responsibly, which I define as to do the set of things they told me they need them for, and then only in the furtherance of their actual job, not installing fluff crap they just want, like news(paper) readers. It's sadly a small minority that actually do this.
Really, both sides just need to listen to each other and show a little respect. We all just have a job to do.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think that'll be an issue. Consider that we don't perceive frames in movie or tv, both media that have frame rates significantly below what we're used to in computers.
How pathetic to volunteer to screw people over for the benefit of giant multinationals and morally bankrupt organizations like the IOC.
The games are utterly ruined for me, and have been for a while. It's such a shame. Nothing short of a massive boycott would do any good, but the athletes would be most hurt by it, especially for sports with a short competitive lifespan.
Anymore, I don't watch. I don't care. I don't buy crap because it has the word "Olympics" or the stupid ring logo on it. I'll never pay money to see an event, and I'll raise hell like you've never seen if anybody ever tries to bring that pile of monstrous civic wreckage to my city.
It's a two way street. Consumers do whatever they can to squeeze corps. Corps squeeze consumers.
The government does not need to get involved, they need to get out of the way by removing the monopoly cable companies enjoy. Then we'll have actual competition.
For a counterexample to your argument, look at the airline industry. Consumers demand cheap flights, and they get cheap flights.
Really, people, get over yourselves, stop the hand wringing and cries that the sky is falling. Big companies have failed. Countries have failed. Empires have failed. We rebuild. In fact, we build something better.
The alternative is propping up things that actually aren't working. GM. Most of the airline industry. If Google fails, it will introduce a massive wave of opportunity for entrepreneurs out there who have ideas that they can't pursue now because the threat that Google will eat their lunch is too great.
It's entirely possible companies can be too big, in the sense that they cause problems for the economy, but they are never too big to fail.
Or perhaps, unlike celebrities the masses drool over, Linus's endorsement, let alone mere use, isn't worth that much. Frankly, I don't care what phone, dental floss, bike, or anything else he uses.
Your point is well taken, though. If you want to give away free samples, giving them to notorious critics of mostly everything is probably not a good idea.
Unfortunately, that you consider it fair use doesn't really matter. Fair use is defined, and it is not defined to include copying an entire work for your own commercial purposes, which is exactly what Google did.
Google should be sued for a vast sum of money over this, just like you or I did if we copied all the works the RIAA or MPAA get so jumpy about "just to make them searchable".
You don't get to abuse other people's property rights just because you're Google.
Oh, thank $DIETY, as long as it's not legal, we're fine. Can we talk about illegal wiretaps by the government en masse in recent years with the cooperation of major telecoms, where nobody will ever be prosecuted?
Your wife's right, nobody's going to go back to a paper card for information. They're going to go to a database where getting this information is easy and inexpensive. Just look to jurisdictions that do or want to take DNA if you're convicted or accused of a crime, or in some cases arrested. If this information isn't in a database now, it will be when someone comes up with a perfectly reasonable and innocuous reason to do it. The abuse of the data comes later. The medical field is great at this, sadly. It makes me angry when I get forms, like I did for umbilical cord blood donation, that talk about how it can save lives of my child or others if they have some condition or other.. ...oh, and we can use it for research if we want. ...oh, and we can also use it for anything else we want, without limitation.
What? No. Stop being ridiculously unreasonable and overreaching. Ok, testing for certain genetic diseases is a good idea. You may proceed. You may not keep the samples. You may not do anything with the information that doesn't directly benefit my child's health without my consent.
Aye, there's the rub. I haven't licensed a darned thing from the NFL, ever. We need to entirely do away with BS "licensing" like "by viewing this web site...". No, sorry, I agree to your terms by signing a contract, period. I don't agree to your terms by viewing a web site, watching a TV, rubbing my nose, or yelling Yabba Dabba Do. The very notion that I agreed to 34 pages of legalese by doing something no sane person would construe as a positive affirmation of agreement is ridiculous.
Can we please get law back in line with common sense now?
This, regrettably, is both naive and wrong.
The interest rates at which the US borrows money reflects the lender's belief that they'll be paid back. Meaning they're pretty darned certain they're going to get their money back or they wouldn't lend it. If some hair brained politician followed your recommendations, you'd see this nasty little thing called hyperinflation rear its ugly head and your life would become rather more unpleasant than it is now.
Not to say it hasn't been tried, but the countries that do it tend to spiral in rather quickly after. Contrary to popular opinion, people, governments, and institutions who loan on this scale are not idiots.
Bread tritium? Sounds like it'll have a really light crust. Yummy!
No, not really. It should be spread across vulnerable computers about evenly, which means it should be concentrated in large countries with significant technological infrastructure. China and India are both huge, and while a decent chunk of them are impoverished, I suspect they're still quite up there in terms of internet connected systems.
Some kind of distributed attack, possibly, or something completely benign. Look at the packets and see what they are. Looking at source alone isn't that revealing.
And the converse: the more sites go paywalled, the safer it is for the next to go paywalled. It's not unlike the airline industry, which has been in revenue hell forever, being essentially nothing but price competition. Now, they're starting to charge for things they didn't used to. The public is up in arms! But they're all doing it. If you don't like it, you can drive.
Are the airlines/newspapers evil for wanting to make money? Are the consumers evil for wanting something to cost as close to nothing as possible? No, in both cases.
Offering content online has to be worth the trouble. If it's not, they're just going to quit. Ooooh, readership! Frankly, I don't care about readership if I'm a newspaper, I care about revenue (and yes, one is a proxy for the other, but don't lose sight of which one you really care about--it's profit). Losing a bunch of readers who don't actually bring any revenue isn't really a problem. We will eventually settle into something that mostly works.
Personally, I really don't go looking for the next $ACTOR movie. Ever. Many actors, I've found, have a limited number of characters they can portray, so if you've seen them in a couple movies, you've seen them period. It's annoying to go to see a story told and you see $ACTOR instead of $CHARACTER. That's something I liked about Avatar. With two exceptions, I didn't really recognize actors, so I could get more involved in the characters.
So, thank you, but no, I don't want a new movie starring Young Sean Connery. I want a new movie starring someone I've never heard of.
This is just not true. Markets are not homogeneous. Some care about efficiency and buy a Prius. Some care more about operating cost and buy an econobox that gets worse mileage than a hybrid, but costs less to operate. Some care about impressing the neighbors, and buy whatever it takes to do that. Some want to be trendy, and buy some god awful thing like the so-called "Smart Car".
If you want to say something like "males between 18-25 generally don't care about efficiency"...ok, I'll give you that one. :) But they're not the target market for the Volt, are they?
Yes, domain speculators are worse, imo. I think it comes down to a fundamental weakness of DNS. Weave.org shouldn't refer to one person (nor should my own "personal" domain, but I needed a live domain, so picked one). Nor should local businesses. billybobscrabshack shouldn't be .com unless it's THE Billy Bob's Crab Shack worldwide.
DNS needs a reboot.
Because the ability to give a credit card number to a domain registrar is evidence of coding ability?
Couldn't agree more on the businesses with @somethingelse.com addresses, though.
Interestingly, that strikes me as potentially pretentious and wasteful. Don't tie up a chuck of Internet real estate just for your own personal vanity, IMO. Would I bin somebody's resume over it? Nope, nor would I for an aol.com address. If they get as far as talking to them, I might ask about it. There's probably a reason. Either way, asking will tell you something. Assuming will not.
Which really means the deadlines need to be right, not shorter, not longer. It's the same old, same old. If there's a hard deadline, you have to cut the work to fit. If there are hard requirements, you have to move the deadline. Companies who won't do either are just fooling themselves and their customers.
I heard the hype, including from a close friend who is in the industry, and I was really just not interested. Whatever. The latest super expensive Cameron epic, probably with impressive effects. I'm getting old, too, and it takes more than pretty pictures to impress me.
Bowing to said friend's "You HAVE to see this movie" pressure" I saw it, and was blown away. I saw it a 4th time last night, and still get chills watching it.
I know, not everybody likes it. Some people get stuck on the fact that like more or less all stories, this one has been told before. If you don't like it, that's fine. If you don't like it, or won't see it, just because you want to be a contrarian, I think you're missing out. Go see it and just don't admit it if that makes you feel better.
20,000 lines of Fortran. Nearly all variables were i, j, k, etc, and it was rather complex modeling code.
Comments? No, there were no comments. There was no documentation of any kind, unless you count the journal article in which the person who wrote the code described the model.
I like this. Another of my reasons for wanting comments is similarly simple.
So-called self-documenting code tells you what it does. Comments tell you what it's supposed to do. Unless the developer never makes errors, those things are not always the same.
That -does- make sense. Too often, though, the rest of the conversation would go like this.
"Ok, that's fine. Do you have any OTHER software we don't know about?"
"No. None!"
"Ok, we'll do a quick audit and get back to you."
(a short time later)
"Well, I'm afraid we found several pieces of additional software. Several were expired trial versions, which according to the license, we're obliged to buy since you continued using them past the trial date. Then there's this other package..."
"But that ones free!"
"No, it's free for "noncommercial use", which doesn't cover us. And what about $EXPENSIVE PACKAGE? We never bought that."
"Oh, that's my own copy. I have a license."
"Yes, we know. An academic license. It doesn't cover your use of that software here."
I agree with you in principle. As long as everybody plays nice, there's no reason to lock things down. The people who won't play nice mess it up for everyone.
With the client's full knowledge and permission is key. ;-)
I've seen people fired for doing the same without permission. Ask them, and they "needed it to do their job!". Ask the client,and no they didn't. Companies often understand perfectly well that some of the hoops they make us jump through are less efficient. Sometimes there's a reason, like write documentation so we don't lose your work if you get hit by a bus, sometimes it's misguided.
I've been the sys admin. I've been the developer. I've been both at once.
Security guys tend to forget that work needs to get done. Developers tend to forget that the way they want to do their job is sometimes not allowed (we security guys often don't make the rules, we just get busted for not following them) or is illegal (I don't care how much you need $COMMERCIAL_PACKAGE, pay for it or keep it off my systems). This is not entirely by accident. It's just separation of duties. If you have two important jobs to get done, and those jobs conflict, give them to separate people. If you give the whole thing to developers, they'll develop software and not worry so much about the security bit.
The general problem is that if you have a set of rules that have to be followed, the more people you need to get to follow them, the lower the chance it's actually going to happen. That's why as processes scale up, you start getting these people the developers see as a waste of time in the loop. In IT, it's system admins and whatever you call your security group. In medical research, it's data managers, who might not be trained to do the research, but can be meticulous about making sure the data bits are done right.
Personally, I'm happy to give out admin rights to people who use them responsibly, which I define as to do the set of things they told me they need them for, and then only in the furtherance of their actual job, not installing fluff crap they just want, like news(paper) readers. It's sadly a small minority that actually do this.
Really, both sides just need to listen to each other and show a little respect. We all just have a job to do.
Made me lol @work. Wish I had mod points. :)