What about the other -9.8%?;) It's like Florida in 2000 all over again.
Sorry, I know that was mean.
The point was interesting - to my mind, although I don't agree with their policies, Flynt shares Arnie's strength in that I believe they probably can't be bought too easily.
I never thought I'd come to this, but in the US system right now the prime factor is whether they're corrupt or not: not what they actually believe. Sad really. Defending the campaign funding which makes all this open corruption possible is truely unsustainable now.
Trying to divide "real" citizens and illegal immigrants the way you're doing doesn't accurately cover anything.
Yes, one happened to be born one side of the US border into a life of relative prosperity. The other is living the American dream by moving to a place where they can make a simple living for themselves and their family.
If you want California to keep running, there needs to be a healthy work-force - and I really don't care about the nationality of that workforce. They're all people.
The one lawsuit which may well be useful (Never, I hear from the back...) is IBM's defence of the GPL.
I'm no legal expert and don't claim to be, but in the anglo-driven computer world, I think that having a prior case of the GPL standing up in court will be of great use.
Now we just need to see SCO lose, and ideally very quickly. In the meantime it's fun watching all the companies using Linux get together to gang up and bitch slap them.
I look forward to following the future careers of the SCO executives who surely will find themselves utterly unemployable by *anyone* after this? I know I wouldn't touch any of them with a barge pole.
"He began to have relationship difficulties at work because he used e-mail, at one point, to communicate everything to his employees, be it good or bad."
This quote from the article makes me wonder whether we're reading too much into it. This is someone who replaced face to face communication with his employees. That's not a problem with technology: that's him being irrespsonsible.
I think (hope) that we all know there's a time and place for technology. Things like employee appraisals and agreeing big pieces of work should really be done face to face.
The question that we thought was being answered was whether having more technological gadgets would create problems for people in themselves?
I'm in the camp who believe that technology actually improves relationships when used appropriately, rather than damages him.
Friends overseas? It's a shame they're not here, but I can use ICQ to keep in touch with them.
Feel like a drink? I can call around my friends to see who's around.
Really want the obnoxious sex-mad guy to come? Just snap a photo/video of the cute girl next to you and he'll be along in a jiffy.
People can do more, in less time, with more people.
Everyone wins. Especially the communications companies.
I always find it difficult to jump in the rink with other techies complaining about the naivity of users.
If users suddenly started understanding the technology, 1/2 of the people on slashdot would be out of a job - and not just the clueless ones.
People calling tech support lines have bought a product which is meant to do something. The fact that they can't work it out even when everything is working is the fault of a bad UI - not the users.
When things are broken - tech support get paid to fix problems because people either can't do it or don't have the permissions to do it. For those working in tech support - stop whining as long as these people are providing your pay cheque.
And yes, I'll just in with the obligatory "I used to work in front-end and network support". Users seemed to appreciate the fact I wasn't judging them for going snowboarding and clubbing instead of sitting at home learning how to use our products.
I managed to get a few copies of Jamie's latest book in a Word Doc sent to my work account - none to my personal accounts which I get about 50 times as much email to.
Firstly, it seems that particular "book" primarily propagated itself through company email addresses - most of the old email addresses left on the email were from investment banks, consultancies or PR agencies.
Talking to people about it, I was surprised how completely oblivious all these highly paid executives were to the concept of copyright and IP law. Firstly, there was no moral conundrum of "should I take it" and secondly there was never really any thought about whether it was copyright infringement or not.
This is worrying for groups like the RIAA who want people to be as afraid of copyright infringement as they are of saying to their friends that they'd like to murder the President of the US.
It's also positive from the point of view of people who would like to see a better definition of "fair use" and impose a slightly greater burden on the IP owner to actually retain the copyright to the products (for example that the product has to be available to purchase for them to stop the product from going into the public domain).
Actually, it's not all about money - at least not as simple as a home worker in the US v an office worker in India.
A highly trained team in India will have numerous advantages over non-colocated team in the US because of the very nature of telecommuting as a way of getting work done. I work in a global position in our company, and my relationship with groups in the US and Asia is nowhere near as established as that with my European colleagues - especially those in the same city and even more so with those in the same building.
Secondly - there's the question of why outsource instead of keeping non-core staff on the payroll even where there's a neglible perceived cost benefit: strategic management.
Modern companies are horribly complicated things to run, and if you're trying to look at things clearly it's much easier and more efficient to view your core units in detail and imagine things like 1st line customer relationship management centres as black boxes where a service is supplied by a third client - you can focus and worry on your groups which form the core of your value.
So it's about being cheap, but also effective and simplying the running of the company.
Laptops in lectures can indeed be handy: I started using them with friends on my IT & Management course at York in the UK a couple years ago.
Being an internationally minded bunch, it wasn't rare for one or more of us to be out of the country, but still wanting to catch up on work.
For important lectures, we took audio recordings (MP3ed later, of course) and added them to doodled comments in Notepad or the person's preferred note-taker (I think seeing this in thebrain.com's software might be good).
Turning up hung-over with just a 2 kilo laptop under my arm gave me text editing and writing, audio recording, a massive library of all the relevent information and more.
Two things that might have been somewhat useful would have been vidcam/photographing blackboards (I'm not convinced it would be too useful) and interactive communication during lectures, as covered in this topic.
The Council of Europe is all about cultural and social rights, and it's pretty good at it.
The Council of Europe passes guidelines for the states and facilitates co-operation between different group.
What the Council of Europe doesn't do is legislate. Yes, I agree that in this case the well-meaning beaurocrats at the CoE have got it completely wrong, but this does not mean that it will become law in any country or region.
That's what the EU is for, and whilst the Council of Ministers (consisting of the Heads of State or Government) can be pretty authoritarian at times (still insisting they meet in secret!), the European Parliament is normally pretty good at defending people's rights, rather than attacking them, as most member states governments are so keen on doing (think Echelon).
Slashdot Mirror
Davis at 49.9%, Flynt at 30%, Arnie at 29.9%.
;) It's like Florida in 2000 all over again.
What about the other -9.8%?
Sorry, I know that was mean.
The point was interesting - to my mind, although I don't agree with their policies, Flynt shares Arnie's strength in that I believe they probably can't be bought too easily.
I never thought I'd come to this, but in the US system right now the prime factor is whether they're corrupt or not: not what they actually believe. Sad really. Defending the campaign funding which makes all this open corruption possible is truely unsustainable now.
Trying to divide "real" citizens and illegal immigrants the way you're doing doesn't accurately cover anything.
Yes, one happened to be born one side of the US border into a life of relative prosperity. The other is living the American dream by moving to a place where they can make a simple living for themselves and their family.
If you want California to keep running, there needs to be a healthy work-force - and I really don't care about the nationality of that workforce. They're all people.
The one lawsuit which may well be useful (Never, I hear from the back...) is IBM's defence of the GPL.
I'm no legal expert and don't claim to be, but in the anglo-driven computer world, I think that having a prior case of the GPL standing up in court will be of great use.
Now we just need to see SCO lose, and ideally very quickly. In the meantime it's fun watching all the companies using Linux get together to gang up and bitch slap them.
I look forward to following the future careers of the SCO executives who surely will find themselves utterly unemployable by *anyone* after this? I know I wouldn't touch any of them with a barge pole.
"He began to have relationship difficulties at work because he used e-mail, at one point, to communicate everything to his employees, be it good or bad."
This quote from the article makes me wonder whether we're reading too much into it. This is someone who replaced face to face communication with his employees. That's not a problem with technology: that's him being irrespsonsible.
I think (hope) that we all know there's a time and place for technology. Things like employee appraisals and agreeing big pieces of work should really be done face to face.
The question that we thought was being answered was whether having more technological gadgets would create problems for people in themselves?
I'm in the camp who believe that technology actually improves relationships when used appropriately, rather than damages him.
Friends overseas? It's a shame they're not here, but I can use ICQ to keep in touch with them.
Feel like a drink? I can call around my friends to see who's around.
Really want the obnoxious sex-mad guy to come? Just snap a photo/video of the cute girl next to you and he'll be along in a jiffy.
People can do more, in less time, with more people.
Everyone wins. Especially the communications companies.
I always find it difficult to jump in the rink with other techies complaining about the naivity of users.
If users suddenly started understanding the technology, 1/2 of the people on slashdot would be out of a job - and not just the clueless ones.
People calling tech support lines have bought a product which is meant to do something. The fact that they can't work it out even when everything is working is the fault of a bad UI - not the users.
When things are broken - tech support get paid to fix problems because people either can't do it or don't have the permissions to do it. For those working in tech support - stop whining as long as these people are providing your pay cheque.
And yes, I'll just in with the obligatory "I used to work in front-end and network support". Users seemed to appreciate the fact I wasn't judging them for going snowboarding and clubbing instead of sitting at home learning how to use our products.
.. his computer would be a Sony Vaio or a Mac.
Remember, this is from a guy who drives BMWs instead of TVRs...
I managed to get a few copies of Jamie's latest book in a Word Doc sent to my work account - none to my personal accounts which I get about 50 times as much email to.
Firstly, it seems that particular "book" primarily propagated itself through company email addresses - most of the old email addresses left on the email were from investment banks, consultancies or PR agencies.
Talking to people about it, I was surprised how completely oblivious all these highly paid executives were to the concept of copyright and IP law. Firstly, there was no moral conundrum of "should I take it" and secondly there was never really any thought about whether it was copyright infringement or not.
This is worrying for groups like the RIAA who want people to be as afraid of copyright infringement as they are of saying to their friends that they'd like to murder the President of the US.
It's also positive from the point of view of people who would like to see a better definition of "fair use" and impose a slightly greater burden on the IP owner to actually retain the copyright to the products (for example that the product has to be available to purchase for them to stop the product from going into the public domain).
Actually, it's not all about money - at least not as simple as a home worker in the US v an office worker in India.
A highly trained team in India will have numerous advantages over non-colocated team in the US because of the very nature of telecommuting as a way of getting work done. I work in a global position in our company, and my relationship with groups in the US and Asia is nowhere near as established as that with my European colleagues - especially those in the same city and even more so with those in the same building.
Secondly - there's the question of why outsource instead of keeping non-core staff on the payroll even where there's a neglible perceived cost benefit: strategic management.
Modern companies are horribly complicated things to run, and if you're trying to look at things clearly it's much easier and more efficient to view your core units in detail and imagine things like 1st line customer relationship management centres as black boxes where a service is supplied by a third client - you can focus and worry on your groups which form the core of your value.
So it's about being cheap, but also effective and simplying the running of the company.
Laptops in lectures can indeed be handy: I started using them with friends on my IT & Management course at York in the UK a couple years ago.
Being an internationally minded bunch, it wasn't rare for one or more of us to be out of the country, but still wanting to catch up on work.
For important lectures, we took audio recordings (MP3ed later, of course) and added them to doodled comments in Notepad or the person's preferred note-taker (I think seeing this in thebrain.com's software might be good).
Turning up hung-over with just a 2 kilo laptop under my arm gave me text editing and writing, audio recording, a massive library of all the relevent information and more.
Two things that might have been somewhat useful would have been vidcam/photographing blackboards (I'm not convinced it would be too useful) and interactive communication during lectures, as covered in this topic.
I wouldn't worry about this too much.
The Council of Europe is all about cultural and social rights, and it's pretty good at it.
The Council of Europe passes guidelines for the states and facilitates co-operation between different group.
What the Council of Europe doesn't do is legislate. Yes, I agree that in this case the well-meaning beaurocrats at the CoE have got it completely wrong, but this does not mean that it will become law in any country or region.
That's what the EU is for, and whilst the Council of Ministers (consisting of the Heads of State or Government) can be pretty authoritarian at times (still insisting they meet in secret!), the European Parliament is normally pretty good at defending people's rights, rather than attacking them, as most member states governments are so keen on doing (think Echelon).
Not only am I going to try for first post, I'm also going to try and point out that us Europeans have had this for years...
If only global companies would look outside of national markets for best practice, consumers would have a much better life.