I meant pays MORE. Yes, *anyone* will take more pay for what they are doing, so the only reason for one to work hard is because one expected better pay from working harder.
The crap about identity, esteem, virtue, etc the article talked about are pure BS kool-aid from management and HR.
If there is another job offer that pays better than your current job but doesn't require you to work as hard, all other factors being equal, would you take it?
The article might have a point if most people would say "no" to this question. The real answer is probably too boring to make news -- most people work so hard because they want/need the money.
The hyperbole about the "virtue" of working so hard are just kool-aid from management and HR so they won't appear the villain.
Since we only have ten fingers and the auto erase doesn't activate until after 10 failed attempts, the only thing needed to get into a Touch ID phone is a court order.
Spoken like someone who had never used Touch ID on an iPhone. Why am I not surprised?
Did you notice that most people's fingers are larger than the iPhone home button? When you register a finger for Touch ID, since your finger is bigger than the button, you have to choose where to put your finger during registration. Say, if you registered using the part closer to the tip of your finger, Touch ID would fail to recognize your finger if you used the side or base part of your finger.
The criminal could easily make the Touch ID fail to recognize the registered finger(s) by putting his finger on differently than when he registered, and can cause 10 failed attempts easily.
In practice it's always been: Beep! What the fuck is that? Earthquake!
Well, at least that would help you know right away it *is* an earthquake, and not your building collapsing or you got dizzy, and allows you to react correctly.
There is no reason that Netflix can't sell their services in other markets
Except the part where Netflix didn't want to pay for global distribution rights (and do the necessary localization such as subtitles, for every regions they sell to) from the studios?
If Netflix bought and paid for only US distribution rights, and then take subscriptions around the world and stream the movie worldwide, then the studios would have a hard time finding distributors in, say, Asia. Who are willing to invest in the effort to do the localization and when a portion of the market had already seen the movie directly from US Netflix?
Why else would the studios bother to pressure Netflix, which is basically their reseller?
If, instead, we are talking about Nike shoes, and the US distributor take direct orders from, say, Japan, then that distributor would be getting pressure from Nike pretty soon to stop. Same thing.
I can state with absolute certainty that the average Google engineer would be a star virtually anywhere else in the industry.
So, Google manages to get a whole bunch of star programmers together and churn out... absolute shit?
Look at the product offerings from Google since Gmail and Google Maps, how many of those people actually want to use? Google Wave? Google+?
This just proves GP's point. Even if Google's process actually get them a whole team of geniuses (however you define the term), then they churn out stuffs that only similar geniuses would like to use.
Developers who don't develop programs *for* the users (i.e. able to see what works from users' standpoint) is worth less than one who could, even if they are a "star" however you define that.
Just in case they damage other people's property, the following things will also be required to have insurance and little license plates: RC aircraft/cars, baseballs, tennis balls, frisbees, nerf darts, shuttlecocks, boomerangs, bullets, your child's bike, and your child.
If, one day, these weight >2kg and can be *flown* and controlled over 100ft away, it would make sense to require insurance and license plates. As of now, the source of these things can be located pretty easily, and they (except bullets, unless it was thrown and not shot from a gun) did weight much and thus didn't cause much damage (compared to a drone).
Say, if you child's bike can fly and can drop and break someone's roof 100ft away from your and your child, you bet it would require a license.
The problem with this model is that Americans know that if the company is selling it cheaper elsewhere they're still definitely making a profit there, and price discrimination based on geography is bullshit.
The problem is the other way round. Often the movie selection of Netflix in many countries (e.g. Asia) are much more limited than in the US (like lagging by years rather than months), so people in those countries use VPN to stream from US Netflix, despite possibly paying more than a local Netflix subscription (many countries in Asia do have a sizable middle class willing to pay for good content).
This arrangement is actually *more profitable* for Netflix, since they only pay once for US-only licensing for the content, and then get US price from worldwide customers! But the content providers loses out in licensing for other countries, and encourages Netflix to keep the movie collections in other countries limited (both cheaper licensing and encourage people to VPN to US instead of use the local Netflix).
If you take a former playmate's advice on vaccinations, maybe the herd could do without you.
Well, HPV is sexually transmitted, so the vaccine makes sex safer, thus encouraging people to have sex. So her expertise may be relevant. But, seriously, some people actually oppose this vaccine because they think it encourages teenagers to be more promiscuous.
Are those same people who oppose using seat-belts and air-bags because it makes you less likely to die from a car crash, and thought it would encourages drivers to crash more? Same with using helmets on motorcycles?
Perhaps those same people would oppose to the use of any protective gears in general because it makes you less likely to be hurt and thus encourage more reckless behavior?
There were plenty of these jukeboxes storage systems with CD-R in use even before 2000, and I am sure tapes with automatic tape-loader were in use for even longer before then.
So Panasonic now just re-discovered the jukebox? And that is supposed to be news? What's next? They found that they can also make duplicate disks to send one to offsite storage?
At least here in the USA, Disney pays Congress to move that date farther into the future whenever the Mouse starts nearing his expiration date... with the side effect that no other copyrighted works ever expire either, regardless of what their copyrights' theoretical expiration dates are at any given time.
Yes, the easiest way to explain to anyone about copyrights expiring into public domain, is to tell them the copyright of anything written after Mickey Mouse would never expire. Anything before that, you may need to check.
if your car has to choose between a maneuver that kills you and one that kills other people, which one should it be programmed to do?
How about you tell us what should a HUMAN driver choose in a similar situation first, before you ask what should a computer do?
These kind of stupid questions are well, stupid. And they come up often simply because there is no real valid worry about autonomous cars. Humans make lots of mistakes and having a computer drive would remove a whole range of avoidable accidents. Worrying about a few boundary cases is as stupid as all the "what if my car is burning and I need to get out quickly?!" objections to wearing seat belts. It is unfounded fear that is not based on facts.
If the datacenter was "not too noisy after all" then nobody would have complained/protested.
For some people any perceptible change in noise it too much noise.
Worse, for some people with hidden agenda, even imperceptible noise is too much noise.
It wouldn't be hard for budding politician to make an issue out of nothing and come out "for the neighborhood" as a knight in shining armor driving away a "noisy datacenter", and then appearing for the next election nearby. These things happen all the time where ever there are local elections.
Power transfer may be possible, but the amount of losses means it will never be practical unless you have HUGE amounts of power to waste.
Waste itself is not the biggest problem, if you are rich enough, waste becomes unimportant.
*Unintended absorption* will be the killer. Whatever means you use to send energy, "wasting" 90% means 90% of the energy would be absorbed by *something else*.
Probably something that is near the phone you want to charge, such as your body. Tinfoil hat should be provided to all customers.
You know what? Guys insult each other. It's how we communicate, it's how we bond.
NO. I am a man and I do NOT insult other men to "bond". I act professionally (i.e. talk calmly and without any insults) when I deal with people, especially in a work environment. The only possible time I might use insults is when dealing with childish adults who don't know how to behave like an adult, even then, I cannot recall the last time that happened.
I might talk trash and throw harmless insults to my friends, *after* we became friends. I don't talk trash and insult people to make them my friends.
YOU and those you "bond" with might use insults to do that, but please don't generalize your unprofessional behavior to other men.
"You are assuming the corporation you work for is a rational actor. They are not. They are products of paperwork and exist as golems to extract maximum *short term* profits at any cost."
There, corrected for you. Corporations, not being rational, as you said, usually act childish: they'll take one today even if it obviously mean lose ten tomorrow (yes, that's an hyperbole: change "today" with this quarter or next and "tomorrow" with in two years).
If the chances of being there "tomorrow" is small enough, giving up ten tomorrow to take one today is the *most rational* choice.
After seeing the umpteenth coworker being "let go" for not reaping in enough short term profit, you need to be *irrational* to still think long term for the company.
The blame starts all the way from the stock holders demanding short term profit.
Nothing has been killed. Enough with the hyperbole.
I guess you would have noticed by now. After a new iPhone release in Sept every year, there would be a slew of these hyperbole troll pieces in the media to try to lure more readers by riding the iPhone bandwagon, and/. is no different.
iPhone 6S comes with features — like the ability to shoot ultra-HD video — that are going to fill up a 16GB phone in the blink of an eye
The author obviously never bought an iPhone himself.
When you try to buy an iPhone from Apple's website, just next to the options for memory size, it has a helpful link saying "How much storage is right for you?", and if you click it, this passage pops up (emphasis mine):
iPhone 6s and iPhone 6s Plus come in three storage sizes: 16GB, 64GB, and 128GB. The term “GB“ stands for gigabytes. The more gigabytes you have, the more content you can store on your iPhone, such as apps, games, photos, HD videos, music, and movies. For example, if you have a large music or photo library or lots of apps, it’s a good idea to consider an iPhone with a larger storage capacity. If you rarely download apps or you don’t take many photos or videos, an iPhone with a smaller capacity may be better for you. When deciding which size to choose, be sure to consider how your storage needs may change over time.
So the author is basically saying, the 16GB model which Apple also told you is only good if you don't take many videos, will easily be filled up if you, duh, take many videos! No shit, Sherlock!
As usual, every time year when Apple releases the new iPhone model, there are these troll pieces coming out trying bait readers. Happens every year.
Slashdot Mirror
I meant pays MORE. Yes, *anyone* will take more pay for what they are doing, so the only reason for one to work hard is because one expected better pay from working harder.
The crap about identity, esteem, virtue, etc the article talked about are pure BS kool-aid from management and HR.
If there is another job offer that pays better than your current job but doesn't require you to work as hard, all other factors being equal, would you take it?
The article might have a point if most people would say "no" to this question. The real answer is probably too boring to make news -- most people work so hard because they want/need the money.
The hyperbole about the "virtue" of working so hard are just kool-aid from management and HR so they won't appear the villain.
Significant figures is probably too deep a concept to be taught to journalist majors.
Ditto for the fact that using yards for meters would be better for approximate conversions.
So, if you find your important file encrypted by ransomware, how difficult is it to just restore it from a Time Machine backup?
After all, once it was encrypted, you can use it anymore, so it is simple to just get the version before the last update time.
punishes [...] good advertisers
Good, then nobody is harmed. There are no "good" advertisers in the world.
Since we only have ten fingers and the auto erase doesn't activate until after 10 failed attempts, the only thing needed to get into a Touch ID phone is a court order.
Spoken like someone who had never used Touch ID on an iPhone. Why am I not surprised?
Did you notice that most people's fingers are larger than the iPhone home button? When you register a finger for Touch ID, since your finger is bigger than the button, you have to choose where to put your finger during registration. Say, if you registered using the part closer to the tip of your finger, Touch ID would fail to recognize your finger if you used the side or base part of your finger.
The criminal could easily make the Touch ID fail to recognize the registered finger(s) by putting his finger on differently than when he registered, and can cause 10 failed attempts easily.
In practice it's always been: Beep! What the fuck is that? Earthquake!
Well, at least that would help you know right away it *is* an earthquake, and not your building collapsing or you got dizzy, and allows you to react correctly.
There is no reason that Netflix can't sell their services in other markets
Except the part where Netflix didn't want to pay for global distribution rights (and do the necessary localization such as subtitles, for every regions they sell to) from the studios?
If Netflix bought and paid for only US distribution rights, and then take subscriptions around the world and stream the movie worldwide, then the studios would have a hard time finding distributors in, say, Asia. Who are willing to invest in the effort to do the localization and when a portion of the market had already seen the movie directly from US Netflix?
Why else would the studios bother to pressure Netflix, which is basically their reseller?
If, instead, we are talking about Nike shoes, and the US distributor take direct orders from, say, Japan, then that distributor would be getting pressure from Nike pretty soon to stop. Same thing.
I can state with absolute certainty that the average Google engineer would be a star virtually anywhere else in the industry.
So, Google manages to get a whole bunch of star programmers together and churn out... absolute shit?
Look at the product offerings from Google since Gmail and Google Maps, how many of those people actually want to use? Google Wave? Google+?
This just proves GP's point. Even if Google's process actually get them a whole team of geniuses (however you define the term), then they churn out stuffs that only similar geniuses would like to use.
Developers who don't develop programs *for* the users (i.e. able to see what works from users' standpoint) is worth less than one who could, even if they are a "star" however you define that.
Just in case they damage other people's property, the following things will also be required to have insurance and little license plates: RC aircraft/cars, baseballs, tennis balls, frisbees, nerf darts, shuttlecocks, boomerangs, bullets, your child's bike, and your child.
If, one day, these weight >2kg and can be *flown* and controlled over 100ft away, it would make sense to require insurance and license plates. As of now, the source of these things can be located pretty easily, and they (except bullets, unless it was thrown and not shot from a gun) did weight much and thus didn't cause much damage (compared to a drone).
Say, if you child's bike can fly and can drop and break someone's roof 100ft away from your and your child, you bet it would require a license.
Actually, this is more like shooting the *train driver* for carrying the messenger on his train.
The messenger would be the ones who sent the tweet.
The problem with this model is that Americans know that if the company is selling it cheaper elsewhere they're still definitely making a profit there, and price discrimination based on geography is bullshit.
The problem is the other way round. Often the movie selection of Netflix in many countries (e.g. Asia) are much more limited than in the US (like lagging by years rather than months), so people in those countries use VPN to stream from US Netflix, despite possibly paying more than a local Netflix subscription (many countries in Asia do have a sizable middle class willing to pay for good content).
This arrangement is actually *more profitable* for Netflix, since they only pay once for US-only licensing for the content, and then get US price from worldwide customers! But the content providers loses out in licensing for other countries, and encourages Netflix to keep the movie collections in other countries limited (both cheaper licensing and encourage people to VPN to US instead of use the local Netflix).
If you take a former playmate's advice on vaccinations, maybe the herd could do without you.
Well, HPV is sexually transmitted, so the vaccine makes sex safer, thus encouraging people to have sex. So her expertise may be relevant. But, seriously, some people actually oppose this vaccine because they think it encourages teenagers to be more promiscuous.
Are those same people who oppose using seat-belts and air-bags because it makes you less likely to die from a car crash, and thought it would encourages drivers to crash more? Same with using helmets on motorcycles?
Perhaps those same people would oppose to the use of any protective gears in general because it makes you less likely to be hurt and thus encourage more reckless behavior?
There were plenty of these jukeboxes storage systems with CD-R in use even before 2000, and I am sure tapes with automatic tape-loader were in use for even longer before then.
So Panasonic now just re-discovered the jukebox? And that is supposed to be news? What's next? They found that they can also make duplicate disks to send one to offsite storage?
At least here in the USA, Disney pays Congress to move that date farther into the future whenever the Mouse starts nearing his expiration date... with the side effect that no other copyrighted works ever expire either, regardless of what their copyrights' theoretical expiration dates are at any given time.
Yes, the easiest way to explain to anyone about copyrights expiring into public domain, is to tell them the copyright of anything written after Mickey Mouse would never expire. Anything before that, you may need to check.
if your car has to choose between a maneuver that kills you and one that kills other people, which one should it be programmed to do?
How about you tell us what should a HUMAN driver choose in a similar situation first, before you ask what should a computer do?
These kind of stupid questions are well, stupid. And they come up often simply because there is no real valid worry about autonomous cars. Humans make lots of mistakes and having a computer drive would remove a whole range of avoidable accidents. Worrying about a few boundary cases is as stupid as all the "what if my car is burning and I need to get out quickly?!" objections to wearing seat belts. It is unfounded fear that is not based on facts.
Let's start with the app's most obvious problem: its questionable legality.
Is that a problem? Seems like a secret winning recipe for Uber (for a while, at least).
If the datacenter was "not too noisy after all" then nobody would have complained/protested.
For some people any perceptible change in noise it too much noise.
Worse, for some people with hidden agenda, even imperceptible noise is too much noise.
It wouldn't be hard for budding politician to make an issue out of nothing and come out "for the neighborhood" as a knight in shining armor driving away a "noisy datacenter", and then appearing for the next election nearby. These things happen all the time where ever there are local elections.
Power transfer may be possible, but the amount of losses means it will never be practical unless you have HUGE amounts of power to waste.
Waste itself is not the biggest problem, if you are rich enough, waste becomes unimportant.
*Unintended absorption* will be the killer. Whatever means you use to send energy, "wasting" 90% means 90% of the energy would be absorbed by *something else*.
Probably something that is near the phone you want to charge, such as your body. Tinfoil hat should be provided to all customers.
Google denies that they collect that information, but they do say that users can opt-in to sharing data.
"Opt-in"? Just like how users can "opt-in" to Google+?
No, thanks.
You know what? Guys insult each other. It's how we communicate, it's how we bond.
NO. I am a man and I do NOT insult other men to "bond". I act professionally (i.e. talk calmly and without any insults) when I deal with people, especially in a work environment. The only possible time I might use insults is when dealing with childish adults who don't know how to behave like an adult, even then, I cannot recall the last time that happened.
I might talk trash and throw harmless insults to my friends, *after* we became friends. I don't talk trash and insult people to make them my friends.
YOU and those you "bond" with might use insults to do that, but please don't generalize your unprofessional behavior to other men.
No, it should be Psycho-Pass https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
They are measuring (poorly) people's Crime Coefficient to focus on the potential criminals.
"You are assuming the corporation you work for is a rational actor. They are not. They are products of paperwork and exist as golems to extract maximum *short term* profits at any cost."
There, corrected for you. Corporations, not being rational, as you said, usually act childish: they'll take one today even if it obviously mean lose ten tomorrow (yes, that's an hyperbole: change "today" with this quarter or next and "tomorrow" with in two years).
If the chances of being there "tomorrow" is small enough, giving up ten tomorrow to take one today is the *most rational* choice.
After seeing the umpteenth coworker being "let go" for not reaping in enough short term profit, you need to be *irrational* to still think long term for the company.
The blame starts all the way from the stock holders demanding short term profit.
Nothing has been killed. Enough with the hyperbole.
I guess you would have noticed by now. After a new iPhone release in Sept every year, there would be a slew of these hyperbole troll pieces in the media to try to lure more readers by riding the iPhone bandwagon, and /. is no different.
And we have been lured in just as expected.
iPhone 6S comes with features — like the ability to shoot ultra-HD video — that are going to fill up a 16GB phone in the blink of an eye
The author obviously never bought an iPhone himself.
When you try to buy an iPhone from Apple's website, just next to the options for memory size, it has a helpful link saying "How much storage is right for you?", and if you click it, this passage pops up (emphasis mine):
iPhone 6s and iPhone 6s Plus come in three storage sizes: 16GB, 64GB, and 128GB. The term “GB“ stands for gigabytes. The more gigabytes you have, the more content you can store on your iPhone, such as apps, games, photos, HD videos, music, and movies. For example, if you have a large music or photo library or lots of apps, it’s a good idea to consider an iPhone with a larger storage capacity. If you rarely download apps or you don’t take many photos or videos, an iPhone with a smaller capacity may be better for you. When deciding which size to choose, be sure to consider how your storage needs may change over time.
So the author is basically saying, the 16GB model which Apple also told you is only good if you don't take many videos, will easily be filled up if you, duh, take many videos! No shit, Sherlock!
As usual, every time year when Apple releases the new iPhone model, there are these troll pieces coming out trying bait readers. Happens every year.