Are you suggesting that a third party, outside of a relationship can breech said relationship and neither party of the same relationship is responsible?
No it's holding women to a standard. It's not misogynist.
When a couple are in a 'relationship' it is an agreement of sorts that does not extend to the world. And if that agreement is breeched, only one of the two parties can be responsible for it. A third party cannot be responsible for breeching that agreement.
What I find to me extremely weird is the unexplained "lower standard" we expect of women. We don't expect them to keep their word or their promises or to keep secrets. We expect that it is somehow a woman's perogative to change her mind without cause, notice or explanation. I'm not sorry that I heartily disagree with this notion. Men and women are people and I hold them both to the same expectations of honor and integrity.
So once again, if a girlfriend cheats, I am not going to blame the handsome, charming stranger. I am going to hold her accountable for her actions. How is that misogynist?
Yeah something of a double-edged sword there. Of course their argument is about knowledge and all that, but in reality, many outsourced jobs go to contract companies who then sell the jobs out to other, unknown entities. All the companies out there having things made by slave children invariably claim no knowledge based on these types of practices.
Also, outsourcing happens on our soils as well. I once spent some time with a company that sold our services to another company and the markup rate was 50% or more of what I was getting. I was rather disgusted at the notion. It was impossible for me to get that job, but by going through one of these companies, I could get it and there I was, "the same damned person."
But we people routinely get angry at people who do the very same things we do... or we simply get angry at the wrong people. Case in point: A guy finds his woman has been with another man. The guy gets angry and goes after the other man. Say what?! This guy is doing what pretty much every other guy would do when it's being made available to them. Why get pissed off at another guy who is doing what you would be tempted to do? I wouldn't. The real problem was the woman and sometimes she is blamed and other times even forgiven. Ridiculous.
So the business who is likely to outsource (call centers and stuff like that) finds one of its employees is paying someone else to do the work he was hired to do. On one hand, they shouldn't care. On the other, there are security concerns... sort of. If they thought he was a safe employee, they now know it was just an illusion like all of our other notions of being safe. (But we gave up our freedom, our right to self-defence and lots and lots of money to taxes and we're NOT safer? I'm shocked! Shocked I tell you!)
Well, there is certainly much to talk about with regards to this and a lot of perspectives to weigh in. But most of us definitely feel companies like Verizon 'deserves' this though it would only make a difference if most everyone was doing this... which they aren't. Can't be. So, kudos to the scammer. May he never be given another job like this or in the industry again. You are scum just like the companies who outsource our jobs. It doesn't make it right when you do it, any more than when they do it. That they get upset when someone did it to them shows perfectly that they know what they are doing and who they are doing it to. That they feel justified in doing it while others shouldn't just shows their hypocrisy.
"Their servers were under investigation" is only kind of true. The DOJ was reportedly investigating parties other than Megaupload. Their normal procedure was to remove offending files so they could remain compliant under the DMCA. This investigation didn't have anything on Megaupload as they kept close to but never crossing that fine line. And of course, when they were told they could no longer remove the infringing material, they did as they were told in order to assist in the investigation.
I guess it is important to note that the DOJ either didn't know what its left hand was doing (unlikely) or this in indeed entrapment. And just because they said it's not does not make it so. Recently, we have all be seeing more stories of how police and others are not just planting evidence, they are simply making things up!
Because in the US rudeness varies a lot as do our other personality attributes. There are some ethnic/cultural attributes which vary interestingly. For example, asian people seem to have the most positive of stereotypes where they are nearly always concerned about whether or not they are in someone else's way. They never want to be rude. Black people tend to be the opposite as they never seem to care when they are in the way of anyone else, talking TO the movies and more. White and hispanic people seem to vary more in the middle of the spectrum. I think it's also important to note that while the stereotypes are "generally" true, I know some black people who simply do not fit the description at all as well as a few asians who aren't very 'asian.' But everyone seems increasingly comfortable talking about the problem of black people in the movie theaters so why can't we tell the rest of the truth and be okay with it?
I guess it would have been enough to say "we have a lot of different types of people and personalities in the US and we don't think or act the same." But sometimes I like to elaborate.
I have long wanted my TomTom to sense the sound level of what is going on around it and to detect if someone in the car is talking. If it detects talking, it will merely beep and put text on the display when it has something to say.
I can't tell you how many times that thing interrupts conversation in the car with some speech I would rather not hear at that exact moment. A beep with text and maybe a "say it anyway" button would be great.
Copyright protects individual works. The character may fall out of copyright, but the films and cartoons and the like will remain in copyright until they expire... if they are ever alloweed to. You predictions of chaos and lack of marketability are exagerated.
I have heard many times "...a superman..." used in a context which does not have anything to do with the character Superman. Depending on the context, it is a part of the English language.
Windows RT is a recycled Win32 OS as well. Did you miss the article posted here on Slashdot discussing how RT was jailbroken using a classic Win32 exploit?
So far, Microsoft's response to everything is to try to make Win32 run on it. This has been demonstrated to present a number of problems not the least of which is the inability to run on lower-powered electronics and is still vulnerable to the same old exploits regardless of which processor it runs on.
I have been repeating the same old prediction -- that the computer in your pocket will become the computer you use everywhere, that depending on where you are, it will have different interfaces, inputs and outputs. CES is apparently showing it all to be true... at least so far. But Microsoft doesn't appear to be responding in any meaningful way.
I suppose it's possible that some skunkworks program in Microsoft's darkest R&D halls may be cooking up an answer, but it would seem to be a bit late. By the time they have any serious response to the new computing style, the market will already be dominated and owned by Google's Android, Microsoft won't get so much as a shrug.
They should have started building something new YEARS and years ago instead of recycling Win32 at every new cycle of Windows. At the very least they should have divided their resources where one part keeps Business and Win32 going while the other half moves on to the new mobile computing thing. They have LOTS of money so I have little doubt they could have done it. Why they think they have to move everything all in the same direction is beyond me. I picture a giant amoeba desperately trying to move in one direction where its own mass and inertia prevents it from making any difference.
Go buy a diet coke in Japan and (if you can) read the label. Now go buy a diet coke in the US. Aspartame? Yeah...
One commenter pointed to Sprite green... I might try it just to see what it's like but basically I have given up on soda in favor of unsweetened iced tea... I don't like it sweet anyway.
And Zevia? Never heard of it before today... will have to see if it's around here.
And here's another thing. I don't hate sugar. It's better that HFCS. Why can't I have that?!
There are some life-shortening choices we don't get to make. I would prefer stevia, an all natural sweetener in my drinks which have a long history of use in Japan, in my low-calorie drinks... somehow it's still not allowed.
And the presence and prevalence of cereal fillers in just about everything imaginable is a pretty tough thing to get around too.
And the current price of healthcare? Well, let's just say I live with a lot more [fear] than I would prefer. I simply don't think I could afford it if anything serious were to happen.
No, it just means someone didn't pay enough to the Chinese officials.
Bribery is kind of how business is done in China I have heard. There have been congressional hearings where people doing business in China have testified precisely that and being restricted from participating in their "business culture" reduces their ability to compete.
This is a story about "bad U.S. CEOs" not about bad companies. Since the Google CEO is doing a pretty good job for the company, he wouldn't likely appear on any such list. But Balmer, on the other hand, SHOULD appear on the bad CEO list. Despite all else, I would prefer a good Microsoft with good products.
Your trust is extended because of the expectations involved. The user/owner of the device is not informed that, unlike his PC or other smart phone devices, Nokia is handling encyption differently. As https is used primarily for the purpose of securing data traffic between the user and their banks or their other services which need security, the expectation has always been that it would not involve the maker of the device which is being used.
I "trust" my car maker to build a good car. I do not "trust" them not to install cameras in it without my knowledge and then tell me later "there are cameras, but we are not looking at the video feed."
Which explains why Microsoft wasn't on the list. Does anyone actually know what country they are based in now? With all the tax-dodging tricks these companies engage in these days, I am a little lost as to what planet they are based on, let alone which nation.
Lovin' it. As loved as that series was, it really played itself out as completely as possible didn't it? Kinda went way beyond that. Still, I wish they kept Stargate Universe going. That was a series that had my interest.
That they have selected Linux is only significant in that it is free for them to use and actively developed. That by itself is just a drop in the barrel of the large number of device makers who select Linux to build their machines. Who is making such devices using Windows? I think no one. I know it has been tried in the past but I doubt it is going on at present. Perhaps someone will point out some examples to the contrary.
The industry recognizes Linux is great for these types of purposes. Virtually any purpose really. The real trick is the services and applications writing. Those are things which can be written for any OS and Linux may have some great tools available for it, but Windows, as far as I know, has the best. So 'free,' stable and actively developed is definitely winning the war over 'developers! developers! developers!"
WINE needs some serious development. SaMBa is pretty much there now isn't it? Linux is filling all the gaps left behind by Windows. Isn't it time it starts closing in even further?
Linux as a kernel to host applications is well established anyway. And yet, while companies such as the one I work for think nothing of buying Cisco (running Linux), Falconstor (running Linux) and VMWare (running Linux) I still hear many say that Linux is a toy for hobbyists. What has to be done to overcome that perception? These are people who see no problem with running Windows in mission critical situations. Disturbing.
This is our "law enforcement" at work. They make up laws to enforce.
This kind of thing needs a SERIOUS slap-down. Did the constitution address the issue of authorities citing violation of law that doesn't exist or is not pertaining to the problem for which action was taken?
And to tamper with evidence on top of that?
I'm just a guy you know? If I see something going on, I am definitely going to hesitate and think about whether or not I will record it or take pictures. This is indeed a chilling effect because ordinarily, I would want to contribute to helping any given situation.
People in the workplace usually perform 'tasks.' Everything they do and know should be relevant to performing that task. If, to accomplish that task, they have to write code, it increases the details which need to be known for other people and for them to remember. When I see people every day asking me [again] "how do I change my password" I have to doubt their ability to do certain things with complexity.
Users need developers. Developers need power and flexibility. I see no need to change this arrangement.
Putting programming within the reach of every-day people is to harm [further] things in two ways:
1. Adds to the complexity of knowledge of users and thus creates additional potential for things not working. 2. Reduces further the power and flexibility of most programming which results from the need to reduce the risks of #1.
The kind of high-level programming we are doing today is more "black box" dependant than ever before. When I learned to code, it was BASIC first but then quickly into assembly language for some popular motorola processors. In that realm, I learned to write pretty much everything about how to get input to how to send output. Admittedly there were stll black boxes, but the black boxes were essentially "interacting with the OS" which is one black box we need.
But when the very language we write in is a black box I begin to worry more and more about the mentality of programmers who don't understand the underlying details of what really goes on. I recall someone saying "why do checks this way? use REGEX!" I was like "uhm... what do you think regex routines are doing???" Once again, black box dependency obscures people's understanding of what computers are actually doing.
I'll get off my soap box now, but I will close with this: The problems with today's software is programmers who don't understand computers. This division of "hardware guys and software guys" is ridiculous... every bit as ridiculous as the idea of separating the head from the body (mental and physical) in the practice of medicine.
Slashdot Mirror
Are you suggesting that a third party, outside of a relationship can breech said relationship and neither party of the same relationship is responsible?
No it's holding women to a standard. It's not misogynist.
When a couple are in a 'relationship' it is an agreement of sorts that does not extend to the world. And if that agreement is breeched, only one of the two parties can be responsible for it. A third party cannot be responsible for breeching that agreement.
What I find to me extremely weird is the unexplained "lower standard" we expect of women. We don't expect them to keep their word or their promises or to keep secrets. We expect that it is somehow a woman's perogative to change her mind without cause, notice or explanation. I'm not sorry that I heartily disagree with this notion. Men and women are people and I hold them both to the same expectations of honor and integrity.
So once again, if a girlfriend cheats, I am not going to blame the handsome, charming stranger. I am going to hold her accountable for her actions. How is that misogynist?
The IRS will have MUCH to say over this. Of that you can be sure.
Yeah something of a double-edged sword there. Of course their argument is about knowledge and all that, but in reality, many outsourced jobs go to contract companies who then sell the jobs out to other, unknown entities. All the companies out there having things made by slave children invariably claim no knowledge based on these types of practices.
Also, outsourcing happens on our soils as well. I once spent some time with a company that sold our services to another company and the markup rate was 50% or more of what I was getting. I was rather disgusted at the notion. It was impossible for me to get that job, but by going through one of these companies, I could get it and there I was, "the same damned person."
But we people routinely get angry at people who do the very same things we do... or we simply get angry at the wrong people. Case in point: A guy finds his woman has been with another man. The guy gets angry and goes after the other man. Say what?! This guy is doing what pretty much every other guy would do when it's being made available to them. Why get pissed off at another guy who is doing what you would be tempted to do? I wouldn't. The real problem was the woman and sometimes she is blamed and other times even forgiven. Ridiculous.
So the business who is likely to outsource (call centers and stuff like that) finds one of its employees is paying someone else to do the work he was hired to do. On one hand, they shouldn't care. On the other, there are security concerns... sort of. If they thought he was a safe employee, they now know it was just an illusion like all of our other notions of being safe. (But we gave up our freedom, our right to self-defence and lots and lots of money to taxes and we're NOT safer? I'm shocked! Shocked I tell you!)
Well, there is certainly much to talk about with regards to this and a lot of perspectives to weigh in. But most of us definitely feel companies like Verizon 'deserves' this though it would only make a difference if most everyone was doing this... which they aren't. Can't be. So, kudos to the scammer. May he never be given another job like this or in the industry again. You are scum just like the companies who outsource our jobs. It doesn't make it right when you do it, any more than when they do it. That they get upset when someone did it to them shows perfectly that they know what they are doing and who they are doing it to. That they feel justified in doing it while others shouldn't just shows their hypocrisy.
"Their servers were under investigation" is only kind of true. The DOJ was reportedly investigating parties other than Megaupload. Their normal procedure was to remove offending files so they could remain compliant under the DMCA. This investigation didn't have anything on Megaupload as they kept close to but never crossing that fine line. And of course, when they were told they could no longer remove the infringing material, they did as they were told in order to assist in the investigation.
I guess it is important to note that the DOJ either didn't know what its left hand was doing (unlikely) or this in indeed entrapment. And just because they said it's not does not make it so. Recently, we have all be seeing more stories of how police and others are not just planting evidence, they are simply making things up!
Because in the US rudeness varies a lot as do our other personality attributes. There are some ethnic/cultural attributes which vary interestingly. For example, asian people seem to have the most positive of stereotypes where they are nearly always concerned about whether or not they are in someone else's way. They never want to be rude. Black people tend to be the opposite as they never seem to care when they are in the way of anyone else, talking TO the movies and more. White and hispanic people seem to vary more in the middle of the spectrum. I think it's also important to note that while the stereotypes are "generally" true, I know some black people who simply do not fit the description at all as well as a few asians who aren't very 'asian.' But everyone seems increasingly comfortable talking about the problem of black people in the movie theaters so why can't we tell the rest of the truth and be okay with it?
I guess it would have been enough to say "we have a lot of different types of people and personalities in the US and we don't think or act the same." But sometimes I like to elaborate.
I have long wanted my TomTom to sense the sound level of what is going on around it and to detect if someone in the car is talking. If it detects talking, it will merely beep and put text on the display when it has something to say.
I can't tell you how many times that thing interrupts conversation in the car with some speech I would rather not hear at that exact moment. A beep with text and maybe a "say it anyway" button would be great.
Copyright protects individual works. The character may fall out of copyright, but the films and cartoons and the like will remain in copyright until they expire... if they are ever alloweed to. You predictions of chaos and lack of marketability are exagerated.
I have heard many times "...a superman..." used in a context which does not have anything to do with the character Superman. Depending on the context, it is a part of the English language.
Windows RT is a recycled Win32 OS as well. Did you miss the article posted here on Slashdot discussing how RT was jailbroken using a classic Win32 exploit?
So far, Microsoft's response to everything is to try to make Win32 run on it. This has been demonstrated to present a number of problems not the least of which is the inability to run on lower-powered electronics and is still vulnerable to the same old exploits regardless of which processor it runs on.
I have been repeating the same old prediction -- that the computer in your pocket will become the computer you use everywhere, that depending on where you are, it will have different interfaces, inputs and outputs. CES is apparently showing it all to be true... at least so far. But Microsoft doesn't appear to be responding in any meaningful way.
I suppose it's possible that some skunkworks program in Microsoft's darkest R&D halls may be cooking up an answer, but it would seem to be a bit late. By the time they have any serious response to the new computing style, the market will already be dominated and owned by Google's Android, Microsoft won't get so much as a shrug.
They should have started building something new YEARS and years ago instead of recycling Win32 at every new cycle of Windows. At the very least they should have divided their resources where one part keeps Business and Win32 going while the other half moves on to the new mobile computing thing. They have LOTS of money so I have little doubt they could have done it. Why they think they have to move everything all in the same direction is beyond me. I picture a giant amoeba desperately trying to move in one direction where its own mass and inertia prevents it from making any difference.
Go buy a diet coke in Japan and (if you can) read the label. Now go buy a diet coke in the US. Aspartame? Yeah...
One commenter pointed to Sprite green... I might try it just to see what it's like but basically I have given up on soda in favor of unsweetened iced tea... I don't like it sweet anyway.
And Zevia? Never heard of it before today... will have to see if it's around here.
And here's another thing. I don't hate sugar. It's better that HFCS. Why can't I have that?!
I *also* buy stevia. I put it in my coffee. Trick is not to use too much. Stuff is STRONG. I want it in my low-carb/low-cal foods. In it.
I want it IN FOODS instead of as an additive. There is no "unsweetened softdrinks" or whatever.
If I wanted to go low-cal or no sugar, my choices are limited to other toxins I'd rather not have.
There are some life-shortening choices we don't get to make. I would prefer stevia, an all natural sweetener in my drinks which have a long history of use in Japan, in my low-calorie drinks... somehow it's still not allowed.
And the presence and prevalence of cereal fillers in just about everything imaginable is a pretty tough thing to get around too.
And the current price of healthcare? Well, let's just say I live with a lot more [fear] than I would prefer. I simply don't think I could afford it if anything serious were to happen.
No, it just means someone didn't pay enough to the Chinese officials.
Bribery is kind of how business is done in China I have heard. There have been congressional hearings where people doing business in China have testified precisely that and being restricted from participating in their "business culture" reduces their ability to compete.
This is a story about "bad U.S. CEOs" not about bad companies. Since the Google CEO is doing a pretty good job for the company, he wouldn't likely appear on any such list. But Balmer, on the other hand, SHOULD appear on the bad CEO list. Despite all else, I would prefer a good Microsoft with good products.
Your trust is extended because of the expectations involved. The user/owner of the device is not informed that, unlike his PC or other smart phone devices, Nokia is handling encyption differently. As https is used primarily for the purpose of securing data traffic between the user and their banks or their other services which need security, the expectation has always been that it would not involve the maker of the device which is being used.
I "trust" my car maker to build a good car. I do not "trust" them not to install cameras in it without my knowledge and then tell me later "there are cameras, but we are not looking at the video feed."
Which explains why Microsoft wasn't on the list. Does anyone actually know what country they are based in now? With all the tax-dodging tricks these companies engage in these days, I am a little lost as to what planet they are based on, let alone which nation.
There it is... the SG1 reference :)
Lovin' it. As loved as that series was, it really played itself out as completely as possible didn't it? Kinda went way beyond that. Still, I wish they kept Stargate Universe going. That was a series that had my interest.
That they have selected Linux is only significant in that it is free for them to use and actively developed. That by itself is just a drop in the barrel of the large number of device makers who select Linux to build their machines. Who is making such devices using Windows? I think no one. I know it has been tried in the past but I doubt it is going on at present. Perhaps someone will point out some examples to the contrary.
The industry recognizes Linux is great for these types of purposes. Virtually any purpose really. The real trick is the services and applications writing. Those are things which can be written for any OS and Linux may have some great tools available for it, but Windows, as far as I know, has the best. So 'free,' stable and actively developed is definitely winning the war over 'developers! developers! developers!"
WINE needs some serious development. SaMBa is pretty much there now isn't it? Linux is filling all the gaps left behind by Windows. Isn't it time it starts closing in even further?
Linux as a kernel to host applications is well established anyway. And yet, while companies such as the one I work for think nothing of buying Cisco (running Linux), Falconstor (running Linux) and VMWare (running Linux) I still hear many say that Linux is a toy for hobbyists. What has to be done to overcome that perception? These are people who see no problem with running Windows in mission critical situations. Disturbing.
This makes me wonder about the people who go around taking pictures of women's butts.
This is our "law enforcement" at work. They make up laws to enforce.
This kind of thing needs a SERIOUS slap-down. Did the constitution address the issue of authorities citing violation of law that doesn't exist or is not pertaining to the problem for which action was taken?
And to tamper with evidence on top of that?
I'm just a guy you know? If I see something going on, I am definitely going to hesitate and think about whether or not I will record it or take pictures. This is indeed a chilling effect because ordinarily, I would want to contribute to helping any given situation.
Yes I am.
People in the workplace usually perform 'tasks.' Everything they do and know should be relevant to performing that task. If, to accomplish that task, they have to write code, it increases the details which need to be known for other people and for them to remember. When I see people every day asking me [again] "how do I change my password" I have to doubt their ability to do certain things with complexity.
Users need developers. Developers need power and flexibility. I see no need to change this arrangement.
Putting programming within the reach of every-day people is to harm [further] things in two ways:
1. Adds to the complexity of knowledge of users and thus creates additional potential for things not working.
2. Reduces further the power and flexibility of most programming which results from the need to reduce the risks of #1.
The kind of high-level programming we are doing today is more "black box" dependant than ever before. When I learned to code, it was BASIC first but then quickly into assembly language for some popular motorola processors. In that realm, I learned to write pretty much everything about how to get input to how to send output. Admittedly there were stll black boxes, but the black boxes were essentially "interacting with the OS" which is one black box we need.
But when the very language we write in is a black box I begin to worry more and more about the mentality of programmers who don't understand the underlying details of what really goes on. I recall someone saying "why do checks this way? use REGEX!" I was like "uhm... what do you think regex routines are doing???" Once again, black box dependency obscures people's understanding of what computers are actually doing.
I'll get off my soap box now, but I will close with this: The problems with today's software is programmers who don't understand computers. This division of "hardware guys and software guys" is ridiculous... every bit as ridiculous as the idea of separating the head from the body (mental and physical) in the practice of medicine.