like this out of the goodness of their non-existent corporate heart.
I've asked this question to everyone who has railed the NYT as some sort of government sockpuppet corporate publication: What is so bad about the Sulzberger family?
She didn't handle any of the phone bills, my Dad did (very traditional 1950s-esque couple), she wouldn't even open them. My Dad was opposed to my mom's snooping but not enough so to stand up/fight her over it. As far as technology goes, this woman was scared to use a microwave or a VCR and wouldn't use them.
She didn't have the last names of many of the friends I had met outside of school and only had the first names noted in her book, so I doubt the phone book was used.
Thanks for this..it really makes me wonder about parents these days with their kid-tracking iPhone apps and glorified malware/RAT software like "SafeEyes" they install to get GPS history of their kids etc...my mom would have totally forced that on me, had she been technologically savvy and these things existed at the time.
What I also find is that behavior like your mom following your brother to his friends house, and my mom listening in on my phone calls whenever she could (picking up the other line elsewhere in the house when she saw the phone lit up). This had the chilling effect of causing my friends not to want to hang out with me. How could they trust me if my mom was on my case all the time? They didn't want to get in trouble themselves, and once my mom made a phone call "I heard my son and your son talking about sex with girls.." to someone else's parents, my social life would tank and I'd stop getting invited to things. No one wants to hang out with someone who's mom is going to get on their case.
My mom also had a habit of calling the other person's parents with any info she gleaned from listening in on conversations, with the intent on getting my friend in trouble for whatever reason. She was a very Catholic, puritanical person and not much in youth culture met with her approval, so you can imagine how frequent this was. She would exaggerate what she heard and attempt to paint the issue in the worst light possible for me and/or my friends.
So yeah, next time parents are wondering why the kid is so glued to the smartphone and not going out and making friends..maybe they should take a long hard look at themselves. And phase out euphemisms like "overprotective" with more accurate terminology like "controlling" and "living vicariously through children."
Oh yeah, to add to this, we moved when I was in 6th grade within NYC. We moved from a neighborhood that had been built in the late 1800s to one that had been built in the 1970s. The new neighborhood, while much nicer, had few public spaces for kids to play -- just one park attached to a school that was frequently gated/closed. Kids could also bike for about an hour to get to another larger public park in an older neighborhood. Once they turned 16, quickly those who could afford it got cars and started hanging out literally driving around the neighborhood. I'm sure these same kids are doing that now on their smartphone or just sitting at home.
My parents claimed they encouraged me to be more social and go out more with my friends, just like yourself. Instead I spent time on IRC and MUDs.
The original article actually sort of reads like the story of my own childhood. I grew up in NYC under Broken Windows/Giuliani, when policing and keeping kids safe began to become at its peak.
My mom watched an awful lot of daytime TV and abduction dramas -- she was warning me about being abducted from stores when I was four years old, constantly, until I was around sixteen and it was ridiculous.
Of course, my mother being fed all these stories from the media, was very "overprotective." This meant she tried to listen in on my phone calls, would regularly search my room (not for drugs or anything..this started before I even knew what drugs were...for notes I had passed out in class and things she could find to get more information about who my friends were and what were we doing). When I was 16 I found she had many of my friends' phone numbers in the back of her phone book -- many of those friends were from outside of school and she had to have gone through my things to find the numbers.
What happened here? Well, I became adept at cryptography and communicating privately -- and started working at an ISP around age 12. I also spent a lot of time at home because she would prevent me from going to any events with friends (concerts), sleeping over anyone's house, etc etc. Ostensibly, she said "get out of the house", but in reality her conditions were too restrictive to actually encourage it.
Once I got to college, I became a complete social butterfly. I threw big parties all the time and was extremely social, and I continue to be quite a social person today. I have little social media presence.
After college I used the computer skills I had gotten as a teenager to start my career, which I continue in.
It's not a sad story and it has a fine ending, but it totally matches the article. It's almost eerie reading it myself.
My users would probably ask the same of you..they're the ones that started using webmail on their own rather than deal with Outlook...my opinion isn't really relevant when you can't get users to adopt a new version.
Since the release of Office 2013, and its noticeably much uglier interface (especially in Outlook), I've had users flock to Google Docs and other web-based services to get away from the clunky Office Desktop. Notably, Outlook users are using the GMail web interface now, rather than downgrade Office and fall behind on keeping up-to-date with software and tech.
Many of them think the best upgrade for Office 2015 would be to make it look like Office 2010 instead of this forced Windows-8 style which looks clunky and a bit monochromatic.
If this is the executive responsible for this, I wonder who on earth picked him to be in charge of a site that needs to be used by a lot of computer-illiterate folks who don't like silly design changes!?!
Don't you love it when someone tries to be the Grammar Nazi and makes a grammatical error of their own?
Especially when they are an AC!
Punctuation is applied within the quotation marks, so this should be written as "then." This is about as trivial an error as the semicolon misuse that you cite in the original post -- but you seem to care!
Basically I think apple is right, nobody wanting a good system would take an ssd over a spinning disk for their main drive.
Huh? Anyone wanting a good system would take an SSD over a platter-based disk! New computers like the MBP Retina or the T440 reach a significant bottleneck when using a standard HDD. I've seen users complain about their T430 or T440's with regular disks, only to throw in an SSD and they say "This computer is great!!."
So I can see why Apple forced it upon its users. When given the choice, many don't understand SSD and aren't willing to pay more for smaller disks. But it makes such a noticeable difference in speed to the consumer they've chosen to force it on folks.
Ah ok. I think that's a bit of a niche profession. Most professionals -- lawyers, businesspeople, executives, marketing folk, even developers/IT people, typically get by with just the internal storage for most daily activities -- especially if they don't store email locally. However niche areas of "professional" like graphic designer, video editor, trial presenter/evidence discovery etc require more robust storage than can be provided via Direct Attached Storage to a laptop, so they need a network based or USB/etc solution.
I think plenty of folks working in IT know quite a few (if not the majority at some companies) professionals who use the internal HD for storage almost exclusively (save for times they need to attach something to an email, which they do regardless of advice not to, or dropbox etc..)..and it's questionable whether they are using Time Machine or another backup mechanism. What kind of professional are you talking about?
Stay tuned for Elon Musk's critique of the NHTSA and long blog post detailing why the NHTSA is a bunch of corrupt scumbags and how Tesla is so awesome that it is able to get ratings above a perfect score.
Well, that's just thinking about the technological countermeasures. They're changing the game here from technological (blocking accounts) to add a legal dimension.
If they keep editing articles for money and violating Wikipedia's terms of service after getting the demand letter, they expose themselves to massive civil claims. Since they make money, this creates assets that can then be sued for and seized/garnished via court order.
Also I severely doubt they'd go the malware/malicious route because they'd have to stop being a open company and retreat into the shadowy branches of the interwebs and thus limit their client base. Once they get caught sending malware, they expose themselves to criminal charges in addition to civil charges, and a whole host more civil damages due to clear malice.
I think the overarching point here is that intelligent people tend to develop their own moral compasses and feelings on ethics, and many times this contradicts the values of the status quo.
Over time however, the many forgotten Joe-Slightly-Above-Averages are very important to history while they are not remembered individually. This is what causes value change and progress throughout history. How many Joe-Slightly-Above-Averages ended up with a criminal record due to the Civil Rights movement? Value change was instigated by their actions in defiance of the status quo and norms. Not just through one leader -- but through many, and this value change diffused from the "cadre" into the communities. In hindsight, was it worth it?
I'm also not sure I can correlate your argument about immediate gratification to drug use. Maybe this is true for stimulants like meth, but not for psychedelics where users often make elaborate plans. There's many disciplined people who have been successful who have used drug users in a limited fashion -- let's take Steve Jobs for example -- who have said it has contributed greatly to their success.
The market capitalization of Bitcoin is far too large at this point for any Silk Road or darkweb market to play a considerable role in its value: nearly $4.1 billion as of this writing.
Most of the increase in value has been attributed to the adoption of Bitcoin in China as well as fears in Europe over quantitative easing of the Euro.
This caused Bitcoin to spike nearly 4x in value before coming down slightly by $50 yesterday. This is typical of a market "correction" when a security has become overvalued.
I think the chances of a correlation to any individual entity or market at this point are minimal. At most any type of darkweb site is dealing with a few millions of dollars in Bitcion, which is pocket change in the realm of $4.1 billion market cap.
All of the points you identify are in relation to the problems caused to drug users by drug laws , not by drug use. Historically, intelligent people have often been willing to contradict the law and status quo in order to do things that they feel that they should be able to do.
Many of the same risks you identify applied to intelligent people across history who have engaged in seemingly "self-destructive" behaviors in order to further beliefs they believed were right: Galileo (loss of money/reduced opportunity/legal risks destroy your career/excommunication/health risks of torture like strappado), Marin Luther King (risks to him legally like his frequent jailings and to his life like his assassination), Ghandi (much of the same, health risks of hunger strikes etc).
Not to say that your average drug user is accomplishing good at the level that these folks were (or even at all), but something has to be said for intelligent people being people of conviction. Regardless of consequences, intelligent and historically admirable people were often steadfast in their beliefs. Some might have labelled Galileo's behavior as self-destructive, bound to get him locked up or in trouble and not worthwhile -- but centuries later we see the value.
ah thanks..I was getting the Firefox addon store confused with the Chrome store. The Mozilla/Firefox one still lacks HTTPS everywhere but that's not an issue for Chrome. Huzzah!
Last time I checked HTTPS Everywhere was installed from the EFF's web site and not through the Chrome store. What does this mean for Chrome and HTTPS by default?
Maybe he should go work for the UN. They've been trying to get the US government to abandon various forms of harmful behavior for a while.
This has worked out with the US ignoring the UN/working around them whenever enough member states disagree with them, and going through the UN when it is politically expedient and success is likely.
Slashdot Mirror
Any references that the Sulzberger family was involved in any of this?
like this out of the goodness of their non-existent corporate heart.
I've asked this question to everyone who has railed the NYT as some sort of government sockpuppet corporate publication: What is so bad about the Sulzberger family?
I've yet to get a good response to that one.
She didn't have the last names of many of the friends I had met outside of school and only had the first names noted in her book, so I doubt the phone book was used.
Pretty much every teenager in my new neighborhood had a car (except me). Not sure where in NYC you were from, but this was in Queens.
Betteridge's Law of Headlines indicates this answer is most likely correct :)
That's a NICE office building...fyi from SF :)
What I also find is that behavior like your mom following your brother to his friends house, and my mom listening in on my phone calls whenever she could (picking up the other line elsewhere in the house when she saw the phone lit up). This had the chilling effect of causing my friends not to want to hang out with me. How could they trust me if my mom was on my case all the time? They didn't want to get in trouble themselves, and once my mom made a phone call "I heard my son and your son talking about sex with girls.." to someone else's parents, my social life would tank and I'd stop getting invited to things. No one wants to hang out with someone who's mom is going to get on their case.
My mom also had a habit of calling the other person's parents with any info she gleaned from listening in on conversations, with the intent on getting my friend in trouble for whatever reason. She was a very Catholic, puritanical person and not much in youth culture met with her approval, so you can imagine how frequent this was. She would exaggerate what she heard and attempt to paint the issue in the worst light possible for me and/or my friends.
So yeah, next time parents are wondering why the kid is so glued to the smartphone and not going out and making friends..maybe they should take a long hard look at themselves. And phase out euphemisms like "overprotective" with more accurate terminology like "controlling" and "living vicariously through children."
Oh yeah, to add to this, we moved when I was in 6th grade within NYC. We moved from a neighborhood that had been built in the late 1800s to one that had been built in the 1970s. The new neighborhood, while much nicer, had few public spaces for kids to play -- just one park attached to a school that was frequently gated/closed. Kids could also bike for about an hour to get to another larger public park in an older neighborhood. Once they turned 16, quickly those who could afford it got cars and started hanging out literally driving around the neighborhood. I'm sure these same kids are doing that now on their smartphone or just sitting at home.
My parents claimed they encouraged me to be more social and go out more with my friends, just like yourself. Instead I spent time on IRC and MUDs.
The original article actually sort of reads like the story of my own childhood. I grew up in NYC under Broken Windows/Giuliani, when policing and keeping kids safe began to become at its peak.
My mom watched an awful lot of daytime TV and abduction dramas -- she was warning me about being abducted from stores when I was four years old, constantly, until I was around sixteen and it was ridiculous.
Of course, my mother being fed all these stories from the media, was very "overprotective." This meant she tried to listen in on my phone calls, would regularly search my room (not for drugs or anything ..this started before I even knew what drugs were...for notes I had passed out in class and things she could find to get more information about who my friends were and what were we doing). When I was 16 I found she had many of my friends' phone numbers in the back of her phone book -- many of those friends were from outside of school and she had to have gone through my things to find the numbers.
What happened here? Well, I became adept at cryptography and communicating privately -- and started working at an ISP around age 12. I also spent a lot of time at home because she would prevent me from going to any events with friends (concerts), sleeping over anyone's house, etc etc. Ostensibly, she said "get out of the house", but in reality her conditions were too restrictive to actually encourage it.
Once I got to college, I became a complete social butterfly. I threw big parties all the time and was extremely social, and I continue to be quite a social person today. I have little social media presence.
After college I used the computer skills I had gotten as a teenager to start my career, which I continue in.
It's not a sad story and it has a fine ending, but it totally matches the article. It's almost eerie reading it myself.
My users would probably ask the same of you..they're the ones that started using webmail on their own rather than deal with Outlook...my opinion isn't really relevant when you can't get users to adopt a new version.
Many of them think the best upgrade for Office 2015 would be to make it look like Office 2010 instead of this forced Windows-8 style which looks clunky and a bit monochromatic.
If this is the executive responsible for this, I wonder who on earth picked him to be in charge of a site that needs to be used by a lot of computer-illiterate folks who don't like silly design changes!?!
"Fanny Bottom" and "then".
Don't you love it when someone tries to be the Grammar Nazi and makes a grammatical error of their own?
Especially when they are an AC!
Punctuation is applied within the quotation marks, so this should be written as "then." This is about as trivial an error as the semicolon misuse that you cite in the original post -- but you seem to care!
Basically I think apple is right, nobody wanting a good system would take an ssd over a spinning disk for their main drive.
Huh? Anyone wanting a good system would take an SSD over a platter-based disk! New computers like the MBP Retina or the T440 reach a significant bottleneck when using a standard HDD. I've seen users complain about their T430 or T440's with regular disks, only to throw in an SSD and they say "This computer is great!!."
So I can see why Apple forced it upon its users. When given the choice, many don't understand SSD and aren't willing to pay more for smaller disks. But it makes such a noticeable difference in speed to the consumer they've chosen to force it on folks.
Ah ok. I think that's a bit of a niche profession. Most professionals -- lawyers, businesspeople, executives, marketing folk, even developers/IT people, typically get by with just the internal storage for most daily activities -- especially if they don't store email locally. However niche areas of "professional" like graphic designer, video editor, trial presenter/evidence discovery etc require more robust storage than can be provided via Direct Attached Storage to a laptop, so they need a network based or USB/etc solution.
I think plenty of folks working in IT know quite a few (if not the majority at some companies) professionals who use the internal HD for storage almost exclusively (save for times they need to attach something to an email, which they do regardless of advice not to, or dropbox etc..)..and it's questionable whether they are using Time Machine or another backup mechanism. What kind of professional are you talking about?
I just checked gmail.com with Calomel SSL Validation (thanks to cffrost's post ) and it appears gmail uses PFS as well. How come this wasn't news?
Stay tuned for Elon Musk's critique of the NHTSA and long blog post detailing why the NHTSA is a bunch of corrupt scumbags and how Tesla is so awesome that it is able to get ratings above a perfect score.
If they keep editing articles for money and violating Wikipedia's terms of service after getting the demand letter, they expose themselves to massive civil claims. Since they make money, this creates assets that can then be sued for and seized/garnished via court order.
Also I severely doubt they'd go the malware/malicious route because they'd have to stop being a open company and retreat into the shadowy branches of the interwebs and thus limit their client base. Once they get caught sending malware, they expose themselves to criminal charges in addition to civil charges, and a whole host more civil damages due to clear malice.
Over time however, the many forgotten Joe-Slightly-Above-Averages are very important to history while they are not remembered individually. This is what causes value change and progress throughout history. How many Joe-Slightly-Above-Averages ended up with a criminal record due to the Civil Rights movement? Value change was instigated by their actions in defiance of the status quo and norms. Not just through one leader -- but through many, and this value change diffused from the "cadre" into the communities. In hindsight, was it worth it?
I'm also not sure I can correlate your argument about immediate gratification to drug use. Maybe this is true for stimulants like meth, but not for psychedelics where users often make elaborate plans. There's many disciplined people who have been successful who have used drug users in a limited fashion -- let's take Steve Jobs for example -- who have said it has contributed greatly to their success.
Most of the increase in value has been attributed to the adoption of Bitcoin in China as well as fears in Europe over quantitative easing of the Euro.
This caused Bitcoin to spike nearly 4x in value before coming down slightly by $50 yesterday. This is typical of a market "correction" when a security has become overvalued.
I think the chances of a correlation to any individual entity or market at this point are minimal. At most any type of darkweb site is dealing with a few millions of dollars in Bitcion, which is pocket change in the realm of $4.1 billion market cap.
Many of the same risks you identify applied to intelligent people across history who have engaged in seemingly "self-destructive" behaviors in order to further beliefs they believed were right: Galileo (loss of money/reduced opportunity/legal risks destroy your career/excommunication/health risks of torture like strappado), Marin Luther King (risks to him legally like his frequent jailings and to his life like his assassination), Ghandi (much of the same, health risks of hunger strikes etc).
Not to say that your average drug user is accomplishing good at the level that these folks were (or even at all), but something has to be said for intelligent people being people of conviction. Regardless of consequences, intelligent and historically admirable people were often steadfast in their beliefs. Some might have labelled Galileo's behavior as self-destructive, bound to get him locked up or in trouble and not worthwhile -- but centuries later we see the value.
ah thanks..I was getting the Firefox addon store confused with the Chrome store. The Mozilla/Firefox one still lacks HTTPS everywhere but that's not an issue for Chrome. Huzzah!
Last time I checked HTTPS Everywhere was installed from the EFF's web site and not through the Chrome store. What does this mean for Chrome and HTTPS by default?
This has worked out with the US ignoring the UN/working around them whenever enough member states disagree with them, and going through the UN when it is politically expedient and success is likely.