And again a company forces people to go pirate to play a game normally.
That statement is on very shaky ground, given that in Diablo II, playing the game "normally" came to mean playing on Battle.net for most of the fanbase. What they've done in Diablo III is focus entirely on the norm and cut out the less popular alternative.
Just out of curiosity:
- If you play a game which has a significant component of chance (i.e. random drops) which can be directly turned into money, would that not be considered gambling?
No, it wouldn't. The mere fact that chance is involved does not, in and of itself, make an activity "gambling", at least, not in the eyes of the law.
Yeah, it sounds like the movie is Exactly What It Says On The Tin. If you didn't like it, why did you go see it to begin with? What on earth were you expecting? xD
I was running SP2 until a couple months ago because Windows Update failed to update me to SP3. It turns out that if you had upgraded Internet Explorer to some version under SP2 (IE8?), it would not upgrade to SP3 because doing so would break the downgrade process (you could upgrade to SP3 flawlessly, but if you tried to downgrade back to SP2 it would break) unless you first downgraded IE before upgrading to SP3. Therefore, SP3 would not be listed in Windows Update, and it would not tell you that it was hiding the upgrade, or why. Utterly idiotic. I assume a lot of people are still running SP2 not because their using an unlicensed version, but precisely because, like me, they have a legit installation, but just don't know SP3 was out and being hidden from them, with Windows Update cheerfully telling them every week that their system is perfectly up to date.
So, because there are times when a relational DB is needed, your conclusion is nothing else should exit? Using the right tool for the job is a concept completely lost on you, apparently.
Somehow I feel that MS will be either buying up of these NoSQL companies or is developing their own in the near future. Why else would MS get involved...
Congrats, you win the "Duh" of the Year award, and you gain and extra obliviousness point if you didn't already think for some time now that MS must be working on coming up with their own NoSQL soon (via either acquisition, internal development, or a combination thereof).
SQL isn't an acronym, it's just a series of three letters that get pronounced as such.
Depends on where you are, apparently. I was told by someone once that you could tell which coast someone was from depending on whether they pronounced that "ess que ell" or "sequel", but I don't remember which coast was which, or whether that's still true today (or for that matter, whether it ever really way). I hear it both ways in the midwest, in any case. I pronounce is "ess que ell" myself, but I do recognize that your statement is false in general, despite being true for me.
I've been meaning to ask this, but how does Google know that my real name isn't "Pope Ratzo"?
Do they do background checks on Google+ users? Urine tests? Genetic profiling?
No. They decide it doesn't sound real and deny you access to your services with no clear appeal process because they can. If that happens to be your real name, well, too bad.
THAT's what people are screaming about -- the fact that Google is basically setting people up for domino-like failure cascades that could have devastating professional and commercial consequences, and there are more than a few scenarios where they could happen to somebody who's either outright innocent, or at least didn't deserve the equivalent of an online death penalty.
Not to mention this is apparently done automatically, with no human pulling the trigger, and no appeal process.
...and if Google and other cloud services are claiming that they're a more secure way to ensure the safety of your data, shame on them.
"Users should know better" only really works if the people providing the service aren't telling them the opposite of the truth. If they are, then shame on them, no perhaps about it. I think it's a bit unfair to blame the user and absolve the provider when what the user is doing, ill-advised as it may be, is believing and putting faith in the provider's claims of backups, reliability, and security.
(Not to mention that its prolly copyright infringement too, but that's unrelated).
Actually, it's probably not. In fact, citing an example in reference to a politically-charged topic like this is the very reason the "fair use" exemption exists -- you'd be hard pressed to find a clearer case.
"As we've heard in cases of pseudonym-users in Google+"
Right, now read the rest of the sentence. The fragment you're referring to is references other examples of Google turning off accounts. Nothing at all suggests that that was the reason in this case (in fact in this case, it was due to pics misidentified as kiddie-porn on Picasa).
The whole idea that a certain percentage of a workforce must be of a certain sex is irrelevant and stupid.
It's also not an idea anyone advocates. If you think that's what people are saying, you're missing the point. If the gender balance is extremely lopsided, it probably means that the majority in your field probably doesn't have the attitude you do that "as long as you are passionate about your field and talented and have a strong work ethic, nothing else matters," and they're actively driving away a lot of passionate and talented people based on their gender. If you really believe what you said you do, then you should think what percentage of the workforce is a particular gender is relevant and sometimes worrying.
Indeed, my mother taught me binary, octal, basic logic and how to use a soldering iron, not because she used them at work, but because she thought it was fun and thought I would to. She was right.:)
My dad says that's how they shop, check the same shelf over and over again to see if anything's changed:-P
I do that sometimes. Sometimes it's sheer incredulity that the item expected it missing ("How can they possibly not have/be out of X?") but often I am checking to actually see if something's changed: my mind.
Sounds like my pseudomom (my best friend's mother, who would often refer to me as her "other son"). At times it seemed like she was the only person at her company (a major insurance firm) who could translate user-needs into instructions for the coder. She used to do much of the coding herself, but eventually they just flew her all over the country to just talk to end users and carry instructions back to the coders.
Are you suggesting that at least 16%* of people in IT fit into the "Other" category? I've worked in the industry for twelve years now, and I can't *EVER* recall walking into an office and being unsure about the gender of at least 16% of the people working there...
Yes, but unless you asked them all to disrobe, you don't know how accurate you were in your determinations.;)
It doesn't say anything about them, nor is that relevant to the researcher's research. It's also not stereotyping to study population differences. It's only stereotyping when you then expect an individual to conform to the results. (The headline, alas, does the latter -- the researcher would say this headline is bullshit just as much as you do.)
Slashdot Mirror
It's good for a laugh. That makes it a more interesting link that 90% of the crud on /.'s main page at any given moment...
"Scientists " must be the most misused phrase ever.
Back off, man.
And again a company forces people to go pirate to play a game normally.
That statement is on very shaky ground, given that in Diablo II, playing the game "normally" came to mean playing on Battle.net for most of the fanbase. What they've done in Diablo III is focus entirely on the norm and cut out the less popular alternative.
Just out of curiosity: - If you play a game which has a significant component of chance (i.e. random drops) which can be directly turned into money, would that not be considered gambling?
No, it wouldn't. The mere fact that chance is involved does not, in and of itself, make an activity "gambling", at least, not in the eyes of the law.
I almost took that seriously, then I remembered we're talking about a video game... :p
Yeah, it sounds like the movie is Exactly What It Says On The Tin. If you didn't like it, why did you go see it to begin with? What on earth were you expecting? xD
I was running SP2 until a couple months ago because Windows Update failed to update me to SP3. It turns out that if you had upgraded Internet Explorer to some version under SP2 (IE8?), it would not upgrade to SP3 because doing so would break the downgrade process (you could upgrade to SP3 flawlessly, but if you tried to downgrade back to SP2 it would break) unless you first downgraded IE before upgrading to SP3. Therefore, SP3 would not be listed in Windows Update, and it would not tell you that it was hiding the upgrade, or why. Utterly idiotic. I assume a lot of people are still running SP2 not because their using an unlicensed version, but precisely because, like me, they have a legit installation, but just don't know SP3 was out and being hidden from them, with Windows Update cheerfully telling them every week that their system is perfectly up to date.
So, because there are times when a relational DB is needed, your conclusion is nothing else should exit? Using the right tool for the job is a concept completely lost on you, apparently.
Somehow I feel that MS will be either buying up of these NoSQL companies or is developing their own in the near future. Why else would MS get involved...
Congrats, you win the "Duh" of the Year award, and you gain and extra obliviousness point if you didn't already think for some time now that MS must be working on coming up with their own NoSQL soon (via either acquisition, internal development, or a combination thereof).
SQL isn't an acronym, it's just a series of three letters that get pronounced as such.
Depends on where you are, apparently. I was told by someone once that you could tell which coast someone was from depending on whether they pronounced that "ess que ell" or "sequel", but I don't remember which coast was which, or whether that's still true today (or for that matter, whether it ever really way). I hear it both ways in the midwest, in any case. I pronounce is "ess que ell" myself, but I do recognize that your statement is false in general, despite being true for me.
Which is it?
It's both. What, did you expect a clear and consistent policy, implemented uniformly and fairly? lol
I've been meaning to ask this, but how does Google know that my real name isn't "Pope Ratzo"?
Do they do background checks on Google+ users? Urine tests? Genetic profiling?
No. They decide it doesn't sound real and deny you access to your services with no clear appeal process because they can. If that happens to be your real name, well, too bad.
...why anyone would use Gmail for anything other than utterly disposable correspondence?
Some people have been bitten too many times by bad backups. Having the big G take care of it is, in fact, probably a safer solution for many.
THAT's what people are screaming about -- the fact that Google is basically setting people up for domino-like failure cascades that could have devastating professional and commercial consequences, and there are more than a few scenarios where they could happen to somebody who's either outright innocent, or at least didn't deserve the equivalent of an online death penalty.
Not to mention this is apparently done automatically, with no human pulling the trigger, and no appeal process.
"Synced with" does not imply "will lose data if cut off from".
Yes, it does, if the only way to restore functionality to the phone is to do a factory reset, as is the case here.
...and if Google and other cloud services are claiming that they're a more secure way to ensure the safety of your data, shame on them.
"Users should know better" only really works if the people providing the service aren't telling them the opposite of the truth. If they are, then shame on them, no perhaps about it. I think it's a bit unfair to blame the user and absolve the provider when what the user is doing, ill-advised as it may be, is believing and putting faith in the provider's claims of backups, reliability, and security.
(Not to mention that its prolly copyright infringement too, but that's unrelated).
Actually, it's probably not. In fact, citing an example in reference to a politically-charged topic like this is the very reason the "fair use" exemption exists -- you'd be hard pressed to find a clearer case.
From the summary!
"As we've heard in cases of pseudonym-users in Google+"
Right, now read the rest of the sentence. The fragment you're referring to is references other examples of Google turning off accounts. Nothing at all suggests that that was the reason in this case (in fact in this case, it was due to pics misidentified as kiddie-porn on Picasa).
The whole idea that a certain percentage of a workforce must be of a certain sex is irrelevant and stupid.
It's also not an idea anyone advocates. If you think that's what people are saying, you're missing the point. If the gender balance is extremely lopsided, it probably means that the majority in your field probably doesn't have the attitude you do that "as long as you are passionate about your field and talented and have a strong work ethic, nothing else matters," and they're actively driving away a lot of passionate and talented people based on their gender. If you really believe what you said you do, then you should think what percentage of the workforce is a particular gender is relevant and sometimes worrying.
Indeed, my mother taught me binary, octal, basic logic and how to use a soldering iron, not because she used them at work, but because she thought it was fun and thought I would to. She was right. :)
My dad says that's how they shop, check the same shelf over and over again to see if anything's changed :-P
I do that sometimes. Sometimes it's sheer incredulity that the item expected it missing ("How can they possibly not have/be out of X?") but often I am checking to actually see if something's changed: my mind.
Sounds like my pseudomom (my best friend's mother, who would often refer to me as her "other son"). At times it seemed like she was the only person at her company (a major insurance firm) who could translate user-needs into instructions for the coder. She used to do much of the coding herself, but eventually they just flew her all over the country to just talk to end users and carry instructions back to the coders.
Are you suggesting that at least 16%* of people in IT fit into the "Other" category? I've worked in the industry for twelve years now, and I can't *EVER* recall walking into an office and being unsure about the gender of at least 16% of the people working there...
Yes, but unless you asked them all to disrobe, you don't know how accurate you were in your determinations. ;)
Precisely. We need to learn to hate everyone equally, regardless of gender/race/creed/etc. We're all equally contemptible once you get to know us. ;)
It doesn't say anything about them, nor is that relevant to the researcher's research. It's also not stereotyping to study population differences. It's only stereotyping when you then expect an individual to conform to the results. (The headline, alas, does the latter -- the researcher would say this headline is bullshit just as much as you do.)