I dunno. How many successful people drink alcohol? The answer? Nearly all of them. So, then, why would these successful people want to escape into mind alteration? Try again.
Could just write the whole number out. "The company brought in over $19,000,000,000 in revenue last quarter, but reported a net loss of $126,000,000. Sure, it looks a bit weird at first, but it does have the bonus effect of giving people a sense of scale.
My slashdot password does not need to be high entropy. I can probably use the same password for a soylentnews account. While it's true that if one gets compromised, they both do, guess what? I don't care. Nope. Not one bit. Facebook's different, email's different, my bank is different. What do I care if my pointless accounts get compromised? If you're using these types of accounts on computers you don't control, it makes sense to have easy to remember passwords and keep the high-entropy passwords for the actually important stuff.
First, Copyright infringement is a civil matter and should remain a civil matter. Second, IP address and times are a terrible way to identify a person. With VPNs, proxies, dynamic IP addresses and carrier grade NAT, IP address is about the least reliable way to figure out who is doing something. The evidence we use for theft and breaking and entering is much more solid than the evidence given for Copyright infringement.
500 customers from 1.3 million is pretty much a rounding error. You can't tell me that they are such a drain on the system that the power company can't pay the maintenance costs.
They do, but in most western countries, there's this idea that anybody can make it rich, if they're good enough. If it gets to the point where the rich kids are inherently smarter/better than the poor kids, no amount of work will be able to lift a person up. They'll be stuck where they're born and that's it.
True, but we're already pretty far with personal drones. They don't need to have a gun on them to be dangerous. If the personal drone thing takes off, the government won't need to operate spy drones, the public will do it for them.
Everybody having a drone is a horrible idea, kind of like giving everyone a gun is a bad idea. I expect owning a drone will be a "fundamental right" in the U.S. within 10 years.
I dunno. Sure, you could use it as a weapon if your house got broken into and then type up the police statement on it, but I've got an old LG flip phone that could survive the Model M beating.
Exactly. Take a tub of standard bricks (yes, they still sell those) and dump in 2-3 random licensed sets, the kind with the so-called "specialized" pieces. This is what I would call a pretty good set.
If you work in retail or banking, you do. That was the case at my last job. Why is it recording gas station attendants who have the authority to do absolutely nothing is ok, but recording police officers who have the authority to shoot somebody if need be isn't?
Wow, you sure read a hell of a lot into my comment that wasn't there. All I was saying was, from a legal perspective, he'd have a hard time against Mozilla since most of the hostility wasn't internal. Mozilla can't control the public (if they could, that would be a huge problem). Perhaps he could get reparations from OK Cupid, but a fight against Mozilla would be far more trouble than it would be worth for him.
It would be hard to argue that Mozilla created hostile working conditions. You could say they "knowingly permitted" those conditions, but since it was the public that created those conditions, it would be a hard sell in court.
I wouldn't be so sure about the false advertising angle. Best is an opinion, that's why advertisers love it. If Pepsi says it's the "best cola around", but you think that Coke is obviously the best, Pepsi wouldn't be on the hook for false advertising. In the same way, they may not be the best for your purposes, but if I wanted to see what the web is like for a Chinese national, Baidu would be the best choice.
I'm not saying you don't have the right to boycott or that the developers don't have the right to ask he step down. Personally, I hope he does step down, but he absolutely has the right not to. How well Mozilla survives if he doesn't is another discussion altogether.
Yes, he does. And you have the right not to work for or use any of the products of that company. As long as he isn't actually discriminating against anybody, no laws are being broken. I may not agree with the position, but it's not my business as long as he doesn't discriminate.
Slashdot Mirror
I dunno. How many successful people drink alcohol? The answer? Nearly all of them. So, then, why would these successful people want to escape into mind alteration? Try again.
Could just write the whole number out. "The company brought in over $19,000,000,000 in revenue last quarter, but reported a net loss of $126,000,000. Sure, it looks a bit weird at first, but it does have the bonus effect of giving people a sense of scale.
You do know Microsoft was doing public betas at least as early as Windows 98, right?
That's the point. When they know certain conditions, they can predict, with some level of accuracy, what evolutions will take place.
My slashdot password does not need to be high entropy. I can probably use the same password for a soylentnews account. While it's true that if one gets compromised, they both do, guess what? I don't care. Nope. Not one bit. Facebook's different, email's different, my bank is different. What do I care if my pointless accounts get compromised? If you're using these types of accounts on computers you don't control, it makes sense to have easy to remember passwords and keep the high-entropy passwords for the actually important stuff.
You don't generally go to jail for 2nd one and murdering people in the 2nd one is called "an accident".
Actually, you do. If you kill someone because you were driving recklessly, that's called "involuntary manslaughter" and you do go to jail for it.
OCZ?
First, Copyright infringement is a civil matter and should remain a civil matter. Second, IP address and times are a terrible way to identify a person. With VPNs, proxies, dynamic IP addresses and carrier grade NAT, IP address is about the least reliable way to figure out who is doing something. The evidence we use for theft and breaking and entering is much more solid than the evidence given for Copyright infringement.
Well, it would.
500 customers from 1.3 million is pretty much a rounding error. You can't tell me that they are such a drain on the system that the power company can't pay the maintenance costs.
They do, but in most western countries, there's this idea that anybody can make it rich, if they're good enough. If it gets to the point where the rich kids are inherently smarter/better than the poor kids, no amount of work will be able to lift a person up. They'll be stuck where they're born and that's it.
True, but we're already pretty far with personal drones. They don't need to have a gun on them to be dangerous. If the personal drone thing takes off, the government won't need to operate spy drones, the public will do it for them.
Everybody having a drone is a horrible idea, kind of like giving everyone a gun is a bad idea. I expect owning a drone will be a "fundamental right" in the U.S. within 10 years.
I dunno. Sure, you could use it as a weapon if your house got broken into and then type up the police statement on it, but I've got an old LG flip phone that could survive the Model M beating.
Exactly. Take a tub of standard bricks (yes, they still sell those) and dump in 2-3 random licensed sets, the kind with the so-called "specialized" pieces. This is what I would call a pretty good set.
"We cannot confirm or deny the existence of an organization allegedly named the NSA."
If you work in retail or banking, you do. That was the case at my last job. Why is it recording gas station attendants who have the authority to do absolutely nothing is ok, but recording police officers who have the authority to shoot somebody if need be isn't?
Wow, you sure read a hell of a lot into my comment that wasn't there. All I was saying was, from a legal perspective, he'd have a hard time against Mozilla since most of the hostility wasn't internal. Mozilla can't control the public (if they could, that would be a huge problem). Perhaps he could get reparations from OK Cupid, but a fight against Mozilla would be far more trouble than it would be worth for him.
It would be hard to argue that Mozilla created hostile working conditions. You could say they "knowingly permitted" those conditions, but since it was the public that created those conditions, it would be a hard sell in court.
That's not exactly right. Nobody corrected you that quickly.
I wouldn't be so sure about the false advertising angle. Best is an opinion, that's why advertisers love it. If Pepsi says it's the "best cola around", but you think that Coke is obviously the best, Pepsi wouldn't be on the hook for false advertising. In the same way, they may not be the best for your purposes, but if I wanted to see what the web is like for a Chinese national, Baidu would be the best choice.
Hmmm. The moral argument is one I hadn't thought of. That makes a lot of sense. Thank you.
I'm not saying you don't have the right to boycott or that the developers don't have the right to ask he step down. Personally, I hope he does step down, but he absolutely has the right not to. How well Mozilla survives if he doesn't is another discussion altogether.
Yes, he does. And you have the right not to work for or use any of the products of that company. As long as he isn't actually discriminating against anybody, no laws are being broken. I may not agree with the position, but it's not my business as long as he doesn't discriminate.
Woah there sparky. We all know Javascript is bad, but comparing it to the blink tag? That's just offensive.