The irony is that, while “cutting the cord” of cable television, we subscribe to service that uses the very same cable, except in a way for which it was not designed (unicast vs. broadcast) and is ill-suited. We thus end up obtaining even worse quality of service for about the same price, from the exact same people, who are preparing to screw us even further by changing the rules of service back to... those of cable television. Checkmate. Happy future, everyone.
It’s not what you think. They got rid of Program Manager and File Manager. Now, what they call “classic shell” is something with some kind of Start button.
Because our providers are Verizon/AT&T/Sprint/T-Mobile/Comcast/etc., so we get either bankrupt, out of network, datacapped or hypnotised by slow speeds before we can feel any addictive effects.
...I can't agree with the many reactionary Slashdot commenters...
...there should be a simple and transparent way to completely and verifiably disable it,...
I think it’s a bit more than that. The feature may be useful, but the outrage is legitimate. Consumers, most of whom arguably have no need for such feature, fortuitously found out about its existence and that it is enabled in their computers. They had not been told about it, so they had no way to even try to use it. Other people (government, corporate, hackers) knew about it, so the malicious among those were in the position of abusing it (by exploiting its features and its security flaws). No wonder consumers are in arms over this. They are not over-reacting.
So, no, a way to disable it is not enough. This kind of feature requires full disclosure (before you buy), documentation (so that you can actually use the feature if you want) and, at least on systems sold to consumers who are unlikely to use it, it should be entirely disabled by default. Institutional customers who buy computers in quantity can (and indeed do) request the configuration that they want (including, for example, activation of Intel’s anti-theft protection).
Someone should tell Pai that nobody cares about his opinion about what’s sent over the wires. We just want him to ensure that it gets carried in a way that benefits the public.
Indeed, comparing ISPs to Google (unless you are one of the few people with Google as ISP) or Facebook is disingenuous at best.
Google and Facebook and information service providers. ISPs like Comcast, AT&T, Verizon, etc., are common telecommunications carriers. Amalgamating both is wrong, though it is exactly what Pai and his masters want to do.
Consider those excerpts from the article:
- The reclassification of ISPs as common carriers “forced ISPs into an 80-year-old framework designed for the telephone monopolies of a much different era.” That’s hollow speak. First, the telecommunications act is old, so what? Should we dismiss the constitution also, on the grounds that it’s old? More to the point, the telecommunications act of 1934 (which was revised a couple times, by the way, but the author forgets to mention that) is remarkably broad, readable and relevant today. It defines a common carrier as someone that broadly sells the service of transporting communications or energy by wire or radio; and an information service provider as someone that publishes or processes (storage, transformation, exploitation, etc.) information, including those publishing information via telecommunications, but expressly excluding the operation of the transport infrastructure (i.e., network). Common carriers are expected to meet certain obligations and forbidden to engage in certain practices, for example to “make any unjust or unreasonable discrimination in charges, practices, classifications, regulations, facilities, or services (...) or to make or give any undue or unreasonable preference or advantage to any particular person”. What’s so “1934” in that?
- ”Consider what happened to the Daily Stormer, the neo-Nazi publication, after Charlottesville. One by one, hosting companies refused to permit its content on their servers.” Bloomberg’s journalist is, once again, confusing hosting with the ability to publish. Refusing to host content is entirely different from refusing to transmit communications. Nothing stopped those guys from setting up their own server and publish their rotten stuff on their own. That’s the beauty of the Internet. Actually, all they needed is a neutral ISP, and that was a given, thanks to the current law. Of course, the typical residential ISP somehow gets away prohibiting its customers from running a server (how can this be compatible with the telecommunications act, I have to wonder). But, even so, all they need to do is purchase a business account.
So, is the author that ignorant? Or is she trying to knowingly deceive readers? Given the length of the article and the time she must have spent on it, I find it hard to give her the benefit the doubt.
A few things bother me in the recommendations (not to say that they are not sensible, just that the need for them annoys me):
- Policy of email deletion, etc. I know I’m naïve (and perhaps unreasonable), but I feel that political campaigns should have nothing to hide. It would be more sensible (I feel) to train people to be fair, courteous, clear, unambiguous, etc., rather than training them to keep their dirty laundry secure or promptly eliminated. Even when they mention “the theft of donor data”, I feel queasy: certainly, they don’t want credit card information to be stolen, but why would they keep that in the first place? On the other hand, I am not convinced that donor identities and amounts paid ought to remain secret, especially those above a rather small amount.
- Having a damage-control policy. Same issue. A political campaign should have such a crystal-clear (and truthful) message, inside-out, that no “damaging revelations” should be possible/credible.
- Only trusting the cloud (i.e., only the pros can secure data, don’t try this at home): I imagine that this is a stark symptom of how unnecessarily difficult it is to properly set up (and maintain) server software. It really shouldn’t be, and fixing that problem should be a priority much higher than improving voice-controlled personal assistants or cloud-connected thermostats. Personal computing and the Internet were not intended to be a return to 1970s mainframes and I.T. rooms. I feel that the democratisation of information processing (free exchange, publishing, etc.) requires the ability to locally store, process and serve the data. Of course, having Google staff contribute to the paper may have had something to do with the recommendations...
Besides, those recommendations hardly seem to be specific to political campaigns. They would probably apply just as well to any business (at least, small- to medium-size) or organisation. In that case, weren’t there good cybersecurity guidelines available already?
It’s not just the gross distortion. It’s also the choice of topic. Even if Trump had, in fact, blundered, focussing a news article on that entirely unimportant instant of the visit is quite revealing about the state of the press in this country.
Not that it’s the first time, of course. I will never forget the 1992 press conference in Japan, shortly after Bush (H.W.) fell sick during dinner. It was eerie to watch American and Japanese journalists taking turns, asking questions:
10 Japanese journalist to the Japanese prime minister, about international relations, defense, trade, etc.;
20 American journalist to Bush: about vomiting at dinner, how did that feel exactly?
30 GOTO 10
The American press focussed entirely on the dinner incident and on a few purely domestic issues (as if it was a press conference on home turf); I don’t remember it asking a single question related to Japan or the visit. It was humiliating to watch how low the American press had fallen (especially there, next to Japanese journalists asking intelligent and relevant questions). But the American press has decided that entertaining people is the most important (and lucrative) thing to do, so that’s all we get. To regain its usefulness and relevance, the press needs not only to be truthful but also to serve the public (rather than advertisers) by giving proper treatment to serious topics (including international topics that may be unfamiliar to people here). And reporting on anecdotes, no matter how poignant or striking, does not qualify as proper treatment.
A common carrier operates a communications network for hire to carry customers data essentially unchanged. An information service is a commercial publisher that supplies data through a communications network (typically, using a common carrier), or otherwise processes and store customers data. ISPs are common carriers while web site or cloud storage operators are information services.
Reclassifying ISPs as information services is in blatant contradiction with those definitions (written in the telecommunications act) and enables ISPs to tamper with customers data as they see fit because, all of a sudden, they are treated as providers of data that’s merely consumed by passive customers. It’s a complete affront to the public, not only as a base money grab but also as an encroachment on our freedom to communicate. For example, most ISPs have their terms of service that prohibit home users from operating a server. Imagine a telephone companies saying “you can only use your phone line to make (but not receive) calls”! I don’t need my ISP to tell me what to do with the (virtual) line I’m leasing, anymore that I need the electric company to tell me how I may and may not use the electric energy that I’m buying.
The first video that you mentioned is interesting for slow-motion visual detail, but viewers might like to know that it was apparently slowed by a factor of 10, compared to the original which can be seen here on YouTube. Total flight duration: about 20 seconds. The real thing looks quite a bit less NASA-esque than the slow-motion version!
It’s also pretty obvious that he was not actually in that “manned flight”. Look at the crumpled results (expected from the shredded parachute!) in the still photographs from the second video, where you can also see him standing casually around, wearing T-shirt and shorts (rather than some protective gear), identical to what he was wearing just before the flight (beginning of video).
I’m hoping that he’ll be heating his water tank by burning American coal, though. What this country needs to regain its leadership in space is coal-fired steam rockets.
He believes what he believes, including that the Earth is flat. (...) Down the road, he’s intending to build a rocket that takes him to space, so he can snap a picture and see with his own eyes.
As for checking whether the Earth is flat, someone’s got to tell him that he doesn’t need to build a more powerful rocket. All he needs to do is drill a hole deep enough to go through the pancake and jump. After he falls far enough from the bottom of the planet, he just needs to look up and he should be able to see the plane of Earth in space. But, who knows, perhaps he will be able to use his steam rocket to drill the hole.
Oh and, Californians, rejoice! The article also says:
Following his jump, he said he’s going to announce his plans to leap into the race for governor of California.
You are right. What concerns me is the dependence on advertising revenue, not the desire to announce the availability of a product, which is quite legitimate.
I would gamble that prohibiting (or severely curbing) paid advertisement would give rise to (or, rather, greatly strengthen) other forms of communications, such as unpaid/uncompensated reviews. Those are not immune to abuse, of course, but they can probably be reasonably well regulated in an enforceable manner. This would change the way we find products: instead of having products constantly shoved into our faces at the most inopportune moment and in the most shocking manner, we would seek out information about the latest products in a category that interests us, when it interests us, in the manner that we choose. And, yes, we (the readers/consumers) would have to pay for that information!
That is not a new scheme, of course: already, many products are too inexpensive or have too small a market size (or market share) to warrant any substantial marketing campaign, and must therefore rely either on word of mouth or reviews/announcements in the specialised press. One could hope that quite a bit of the money that goes into advertising would instead go into that kind of press (except that the money would come directly from readers rather than from announcers), which would help put manufacturers (large and small) on a (somewhat) more equal footing and could, in fact, foster competition, promote innovation and boost the economy.
Well, that’s just speculation, of course but, well, one can dream...:-)
“Ladies and gentlemen, I have news for you: the robots are not taking over the world. Humans are still in charge,” said India's disarmament ambassador.
Soon after, flummoxed by the attitude of skeptics, the ambassador angrily threw a bus error exception and proceeded to reboot on the convention floor.
“The way ad revenue works with clickbait is not fulfilling the goal of helping humanity...” (Berners-Lee)
Advertisement in general is a scourge, because it corrupts the fundamental relationship in commerce between the purchaser of goods (the original client) and the provider.
I would be entirely in favour of outlawing ad-supported anything: mass media, mass transit, schools, highway cleanup, politics, sports, you name it. Ads are everywhere, polluting space and minds and surreptitiously transferring any control formerly held by consumers to that of corporations buying advertisement space. Such prohibition would obviously force society to create new solutions to finance certain projects and also to enable customers to pay suppliers (including anonymously and in small amounts, as it used to be routinely possible using cash), but I have no doubt that it could be done if we wanted. It would also help make people aware of the real cost of things (well, to a degree, given the way commerce works nowadays) and learn to value them (and think about their own priorities instead of jumping to grab in mid-air whatever “free” bone is thrown at them). And it would likely decrease the cost of other things by deflating reliance on massive marketing campaigns.
In other words, it would (I believe) radically change society and help restore some sanity and fairness.
If they actually ask me... , I will of course tell them the truth.
Good luck with that. When they realise that you’ve been intentionally posting lies about yourself, I doubt they will take the time to listen and favourably reflect about your motives (especially when it’s about “weeding out the stupid and gullible” among them).
On the other hand, I think that your experience illustrates the dangers of this type of low quality data mining, when widespread. If Internet postings contain flattering lies about you, when those recruiters eventually talk to you, they will find out (from you or otherwise) and likely write you off for good. If Internet postings contain defamatory lies about you, those recruiters won’t ever talk to you and instead will write you off for good. Either way, you lose.
In a way, recruiters relying on this type of large-scale automated data mining are acting as sloppy high-school students mindlessly copying answers from random web sites. With the difference that high-school students are only harming themselves.
One big advantage is that, often, the agreements to run open-source software are much more relaxed than those behind proprietary code, and come without licensing fees. The license to run a copy of Adobe Photoshop for a year is $348; the similar open-source GNU Image Manipulation Program is free.
I feel that, for a large corporation or institution, licensing cost should probably be the least concern. Functionality is not free. What counts is transparency (you can inspect the software), control (you can modify the software), relaxed legal constraints (no need to waste resources counting billable seats or hours), and benefiting the community (enhancements you make or sponsor are usable by all). All of which will likely contribute to lowering costs in the long run.
So I am hoping two things. First, that this is not a mere effort to save money in the short term, which would likely fail; and that they will instead recognise the need to support existing open-source software projects by contributing to them (with money, code or both). Second, that this will inspire them to publish as open source the more useful software components that they might develop internally (in line with the federal source code policy of 2016).
The author also wrote:
Loading slides in PowerPoint is as much a part of daily military life as loading rounds
This is rather off-topic, but it makes me sad that “loading slides” is used (by the article’s author, not the DOJ themselves!) as a shining example for the need of computers at the DOJ (or anywhere else, really). I don’t recall many corporate meetings (even briefings) where slides were used appropriately (i.e., to show something that the speaker could not adequately convey with words) and didn’t actually detract from the presentation. Yet, presenters now feel the imperious need to waste hours preparing useless slideshows. Often, that comes from some inane corporate standard that might go as far as dictating the layout. We seem to care much more about displaying a professional look than about producing useful content or communicating it effectively. Of course, that’s not to say that a briefing could not possibly benefit from illustrations (pictures, charts, etc.). But, frankly, displaying (or disseminating) those does not require specialised presentation software!
Maybe in the case of ignorant-seeming CEOs they should discount that testimony as self-serving or willfully-obtuse.
It could even be beneficial if they take the “willfully obtuse” or “incompetent and uncaring to the bone” aspect of the testimony into account when they draw up legislation. Members of the committee could be led to observe, for example, that even in the face of the most abject and repeated failure, corporate managers keep demonstrating an extreme lack of concern about the need to protect consumers data and interests (illustrated either by their lack of tangible knowledge of any corrective actions, or by their weaseling out of pointed questions); and to conclude that it plainly demonstrates the need for strict regulatory oversight.
First, I’ll disagree with the mob: I thought that this article was interesting! On the other hand, I was surprised by the original article disregarding any connection of DST with the concept of money savings:
“Remember the name by thinking that you are saving light (...) You’re unlikely to conflate the concept with money or bank accounts that way, probably because no one says “light is money.””
I’d never thought of DST as meaning that we are saving daylight, because we’re obviously not putting daylight in a safe deposit box, nor are we conserving daylight (producing or using less): we’re merely rescheduling it. On the other hand, one of the reasons for adopting DST (particularly, after the oil crisis of the 1970s) was to use less energy. Thus, it was hoped that DST would provide tangible savings (supplies and money). For that reason, “daylight-savings time” made sense to me: clocks were adjusted to achieve savings by way of the time-shifted daylight.
Seeing how weeds are apparently adapting, in this case, I would rather compare the use of genetic engineering (targeting selective pesticide resistance) to the abuse of antibiotics. It may provide the intended results in the short term, but long-term systematic (and excessive) use seems to result in the much accelerated apparition of stronger pests, creating risks that may be very substantial and yet have generally not been assessed beforehand.
In other words, it’s not about science versus popular belief, it’s about serious risk assessment versus quick money grab.
Slashdot Mirror
The irony is that, while “cutting the cord” of cable television, we subscribe to service that uses the very same cable, except in a way for which it was not designed (unicast vs. broadcast) and is ill-suited. We thus end up obtaining even worse quality of service for about the same price, from the exact same people, who are preparing to screw us even further by changing the rules of service back to... those of cable television. Checkmate. Happy future, everyone.
...the classic shell...
...after I upgrade to Windows XP.
It’s not what you think. They got rid of Program Manager and File Manager. Now, what they call “classic shell” is something with some kind of Start button.
Because our providers are Verizon/AT&T/Sprint/T-Mobile/Comcast/etc., so we get either bankrupt, out of network, datacapped or hypnotised by slow speeds before we can feel any addictive effects.
...I can't agree with the many reactionary Slashdot commenters...
...there should be a simple and transparent way to completely and verifiably disable it, ...
I think it’s a bit more than that. The feature may be useful, but the outrage is legitimate. Consumers, most of whom arguably have no need for such feature, fortuitously found out about its existence and that it is enabled in their computers. They had not been told about it, so they had no way to even try to use it. Other people (government, corporate, hackers) knew about it, so the malicious among those were in the position of abusing it (by exploiting its features and its security flaws). No wonder consumers are in arms over this. They are not over-reacting.
So, no, a way to disable it is not enough. This kind of feature requires full disclosure (before you buy), documentation (so that you can actually use the feature if you want) and, at least on systems sold to consumers who are unlikely to use it, it should be entirely disabled by default. Institutional customers who buy computers in quantity can (and indeed do) request the configuration that they want (including, for example, activation of Intel’s anti-theft protection).
No, sightings of Bigfoot are sightings of extremely unkempt hikers or, occasionally, particularly facetious park rangers.
Someone should tell Pai that nobody cares about his opinion about what’s sent over the wires. We just want him to ensure that it gets carried in a way that benefits the public.
Indeed, comparing ISPs to Google (unless you are one of the few people with Google as ISP) or Facebook is disingenuous at best.
Google and Facebook and information service providers. ISPs like Comcast, AT&T, Verizon, etc., are common telecommunications carriers. Amalgamating both is wrong, though it is exactly what Pai and his masters want to do.
Consider those excerpts from the article:
- The reclassification of ISPs as common carriers “forced ISPs into an 80-year-old framework designed for the telephone monopolies of a much different era.”
That’s hollow speak. First, the telecommunications act is old, so what? Should we dismiss the constitution also, on the grounds that it’s old? More to the point, the telecommunications act of 1934 (which was revised a couple times, by the way, but the author forgets to mention that) is remarkably broad, readable and relevant today. It defines a common carrier as someone that broadly sells the service of transporting communications or energy by wire or radio; and an information service provider as someone that publishes or processes (storage, transformation, exploitation, etc.) information, including those publishing information via telecommunications, but expressly excluding the operation of the transport infrastructure (i.e., network). Common carriers are expected to meet certain obligations and forbidden to engage in certain practices, for example to “make any unjust or unreasonable discrimination in charges, practices, classifications, regulations, facilities, or services (...) or to make or give any undue or unreasonable preference or advantage to any particular person”. What’s so “1934” in that?
- ”Consider what happened to the Daily Stormer, the neo-Nazi publication, after Charlottesville. One by one, hosting companies refused to permit its content on their servers.”
Bloomberg’s journalist is, once again, confusing hosting with the ability to publish. Refusing to host content is entirely different from refusing to transmit communications. Nothing stopped those guys from setting up their own server and publish their rotten stuff on their own. That’s the beauty of the Internet. Actually, all they needed is a neutral ISP, and that was a given, thanks to the current law. Of course, the typical residential ISP somehow gets away prohibiting its customers from running a server (how can this be compatible with the telecommunications act, I have to wonder). But, even so, all they need to do is purchase a business account.
So, is the author that ignorant? Or is she trying to knowingly deceive readers? Given the length of the article and the time she must have spent on it, I find it hard to give her the benefit the doubt.
A few things bother me in the recommendations (not to say that they are not sensible, just that the need for them annoys me):
- Policy of email deletion, etc. I know I’m naïve (and perhaps unreasonable), but I feel that political campaigns should have nothing to hide. It would be more sensible (I feel) to train people to be fair, courteous, clear, unambiguous, etc., rather than training them to keep their dirty laundry secure or promptly eliminated. Even when they mention “the theft of donor data”, I feel queasy: certainly, they don’t want credit card information to be stolen, but why would they keep that in the first place? On the other hand, I am not convinced that donor identities and amounts paid ought to remain secret, especially those above a rather small amount.
- Having a damage-control policy. Same issue. A political campaign should have such a crystal-clear (and truthful) message, inside-out, that no “damaging revelations” should be possible/credible.
- Only trusting the cloud (i.e., only the pros can secure data, don’t try this at home): I imagine that this is a stark symptom of how unnecessarily difficult it is to properly set up (and maintain) server software. It really shouldn’t be, and fixing that problem should be a priority much higher than improving voice-controlled personal assistants or cloud-connected thermostats. Personal computing and the Internet were not intended to be a return to 1970s mainframes and I.T. rooms. I feel that the democratisation of information processing (free exchange, publishing, etc.) requires the ability to locally store, process and serve the data. Of course, having Google staff contribute to the paper may have had something to do with the recommendations...
Besides, those recommendations hardly seem to be specific to political campaigns. They would probably apply just as well to any business (at least, small- to medium-size) or organisation. In that case, weren’t there good cybersecurity guidelines available already?
It’s not just the gross distortion. It’s also the choice of topic. Even if Trump had, in fact, blundered, focussing a news article on that entirely unimportant instant of the visit is quite revealing about the state of the press in this country.
Not that it’s the first time, of course. I will never forget the 1992 press conference in Japan, shortly after Bush (H.W.) fell sick during dinner. It was eerie to watch American and Japanese journalists taking turns, asking questions:
10 Japanese journalist to the Japanese prime minister, about international relations, defense, trade, etc.;
20 American journalist to Bush: about vomiting at dinner, how did that feel exactly?
30 GOTO 10
The American press focussed entirely on the dinner incident and on a few purely domestic issues (as if it was a press conference on home turf); I don’t remember it asking a single question related to Japan or the visit. It was humiliating to watch how low the American press had fallen (especially there, next to Japanese journalists asking intelligent and relevant questions). But the American press has decided that entertaining people is the most important (and lucrative) thing to do, so that’s all we get. To regain its usefulness and relevance, the press needs not only to be truthful but also to serve the public (rather than advertisers) by giving proper treatment to serious topics (including international topics that may be unfamiliar to people here). And reporting on anecdotes, no matter how poignant or striking, does not qualify as proper treatment.
A common carrier operates a communications network for hire to carry customers data essentially unchanged. An information service is a commercial publisher that supplies data through a communications network (typically, using a common carrier), or otherwise processes and store customers data. ISPs are common carriers while web site or cloud storage operators are information services.
Reclassifying ISPs as information services is in blatant contradiction with those definitions (written in the telecommunications act) and enables ISPs to tamper with customers data as they see fit because, all of a sudden, they are treated as providers of data that’s merely consumed by passive customers. It’s a complete affront to the public, not only as a base money grab but also as an encroachment on our freedom to communicate. For example, most ISPs have their terms of service that prohibit home users from operating a server. Imagine a telephone companies saying “you can only use your phone line to make (but not receive) calls”! I don’t need my ISP to tell me what to do with the (virtual) line I’m leasing, anymore that I need the electric company to tell me how I may and may not use the electric energy that I’m buying.
How is VAT less regressive than income tax?
The first video that you mentioned is interesting for slow-motion visual detail, but viewers might like to know that it was apparently slowed by a factor of 10, compared to the original which can be seen here on YouTube. Total flight duration: about 20 seconds. The real thing looks quite a bit less NASA-esque than the slow-motion version!
It’s also pretty obvious that he was not actually in that “manned flight”. Look at the crumpled results (expected from the shredded parachute!) in the still photographs from the second video, where you can also see him standing casually around, wearing T-shirt and shorts (rather than some protective gear), identical to what he was wearing just before the flight (beginning of video).
years building a steam-powered rocket
I’m hoping that he’ll be heating his water tank by burning American coal, though. What this country needs to regain its leadership in space is coal-fired steam rockets.
He believes what he believes, including that the Earth is flat. (...) Down the road, he’s intending to build a rocket that takes him to space, so he can snap a picture and see with his own eyes.
As for checking whether the Earth is flat, someone’s got to tell him that he doesn’t need to build a more powerful rocket. All he needs to do is drill a hole deep enough to go through the pancake and jump. After he falls far enough from the bottom of the planet, he just needs to look up and he should be able to see the plane of Earth in space. But, who knows, perhaps he will be able to use his steam rocket to drill the hole.
Oh and, Californians, rejoice! The article also says:
Following his jump, he said he’s going to announce his plans to leap into the race for governor of California.
You are right. What concerns me is the dependence on advertising revenue, not the desire to announce the availability of a product, which is quite legitimate.
I would gamble that prohibiting (or severely curbing) paid advertisement would give rise to (or, rather, greatly strengthen) other forms of communications, such as unpaid/uncompensated reviews. Those are not immune to abuse, of course, but they can probably be reasonably well regulated in an enforceable manner. This would change the way we find products: instead of having products constantly shoved into our faces at the most inopportune moment and in the most shocking manner, we would seek out information about the latest products in a category that interests us, when it interests us, in the manner that we choose. And, yes, we (the readers/consumers) would have to pay for that information!
That is not a new scheme, of course: already, many products are too inexpensive or have too small a market size (or market share) to warrant any substantial marketing campaign, and must therefore rely either on word of mouth or reviews/announcements in the specialised press. One could hope that quite a bit of the money that goes into advertising would instead go into that kind of press (except that the money would come directly from readers rather than from announcers), which would help put manufacturers (large and small) on a (somewhat) more equal footing and could, in fact, foster competition, promote innovation and boost the economy.
Well, that’s just speculation, of course but, well, one can dream... :-)
“Ladies and gentlemen, I have news for you: the robots are not taking over the world. Humans are still in charge,” said India's disarmament ambassador.
Soon after, flummoxed by the attitude of skeptics, the ambassador angrily threw a bus error exception and proceeded to reboot on the convention floor.
“The way ad revenue works with clickbait is not fulfilling the goal of helping humanity...” (Berners-Lee)
Advertisement in general is a scourge, because it corrupts the fundamental relationship in commerce between the purchaser of goods (the original client) and the provider.
I would be entirely in favour of outlawing ad-supported anything: mass media, mass transit, schools, highway cleanup, politics, sports, you name it. Ads are everywhere, polluting space and minds and surreptitiously transferring any control formerly held by consumers to that of corporations buying advertisement space. Such prohibition would obviously force society to create new solutions to finance certain projects and also to enable customers to pay suppliers (including anonymously and in small amounts, as it used to be routinely possible using cash), but I have no doubt that it could be done if we wanted. It would also help make people aware of the real cost of things (well, to a degree, given the way commerce works nowadays) and learn to value them (and think about their own priorities instead of jumping to grab in mid-air whatever “free” bone is thrown at them). And it would likely decrease the cost of other things by deflating reliance on massive marketing campaigns.
In other words, it would (I believe) radically change society and help restore some sanity and fairness.
If they actually ask me... , I will of course tell them the truth.
Good luck with that. When they realise that you’ve been intentionally posting lies about yourself, I doubt they will take the time to listen and favourably reflect about your motives (especially when it’s about “weeding out the stupid and gullible” among them).
On the other hand, I think that your experience illustrates the dangers of this type of low quality data mining, when widespread. If Internet postings contain flattering lies about you, when those recruiters eventually talk to you, they will find out (from you or otherwise) and likely write you off for good. If Internet postings contain defamatory lies about you, those recruiters won’t ever talk to you and instead will write you off for good. Either way, you lose.
In a way, recruiters relying on this type of large-scale automated data mining are acting as sloppy high-school students mindlessly copying answers from random web sites. With the difference that high-school students are only harming themselves.
And so he finally decided to plead insanity at trial, I wager?
The author of the article wrote:
One big advantage is that, often, the agreements to run open-source software are much more relaxed than those behind proprietary code, and come without licensing fees. The license to run a copy of Adobe Photoshop for a year is $348; the similar open-source GNU Image Manipulation Program is free.
I feel that, for a large corporation or institution, licensing cost should probably be the least concern. Functionality is not free. What counts is transparency (you can inspect the software), control (you can modify the software), relaxed legal constraints (no need to waste resources counting billable seats or hours), and benefiting the community (enhancements you make or sponsor are usable by all). All of which will likely contribute to lowering costs in the long run.
So I am hoping two things. First, that this is not a mere effort to save money in the short term, which would likely fail; and that they will instead recognise the need to support existing open-source software projects by contributing to them (with money, code or both). Second, that this will inspire them to publish as open source the more useful software components that they might develop internally (in line with the federal source code policy of 2016).
The author also wrote:
Loading slides in PowerPoint is as much a part of daily military life as loading rounds
This is rather off-topic, but it makes me sad that “loading slides” is used (by the article’s author, not the DOJ themselves!) as a shining example for the need of computers at the DOJ (or anywhere else, really). I don’t recall many corporate meetings (even briefings) where slides were used appropriately (i.e., to show something that the speaker could not adequately convey with words) and didn’t actually detract from the presentation. Yet, presenters now feel the imperious need to waste hours preparing useless slideshows. Often, that comes from some inane corporate standard that might go as far as dictating the layout. We seem to care much more about displaying a professional look than about producing useful content or communicating it effectively. Of course, that’s not to say that a briefing could not possibly benefit from illustrations (pictures, charts, etc.). But, frankly, displaying (or disseminating) those does not require specialised presentation software!
I can't imagine what they are using that requires Windows, let alone 800 programs
Well this tells me quite a bit about the reality in Munich:
the plan was never fully realised -- mail servers, for instance, eventually wound up migrating to Microsoft Exchange
If they are not even able to implement robust mail without Windows, well...
Maybe in the case of ignorant-seeming CEOs they should discount that testimony as self-serving or willfully-obtuse.
It could even be beneficial if they take the “willfully obtuse” or “incompetent and uncaring to the bone” aspect of the testimony into account when they draw up legislation. Members of the committee could be led to observe, for example, that even in the face of the most abject and repeated failure, corporate managers keep demonstrating an extreme lack of concern about the need to protect consumers data and interests (illustrated either by their lack of tangible knowledge of any corrective actions, or by their weaseling out of pointed questions); and to conclude that it plainly demonstrates the need for strict regulatory oversight.
That’s disappointing, I thought that they had already upgraded to ROT-26.
First, I’ll disagree with the mob: I thought that this article was interesting!
On the other hand, I was surprised by the original article disregarding any connection of DST with the concept of money savings:
“Remember the name by thinking that you are saving light (...) You’re unlikely to conflate the concept with money or bank accounts that way, probably because no one says “light is money.””
I’d never thought of DST as meaning that we are saving daylight, because we’re obviously not putting daylight in a safe deposit box, nor are we conserving daylight (producing or using less): we’re merely rescheduling it. On the other hand, one of the reasons for adopting DST (particularly, after the oil crisis of the 1970s) was to use less energy. Thus, it was hoped that DST would provide tangible savings (supplies and money). For that reason, “daylight-savings time” made sense to me: clocks were adjusted to achieve savings by way of the time-shifted daylight.
Nonetheless, I stand corrected!
“Nice” (i.e. commercial) websites have become immensely complex in design. (...) Because they are poorly designed in their workings.
Well, unfortunately, doesn’t this apply to all software in general (not just websites) nowadays?
</off_topic_rant>
Seeing how weeds are apparently adapting, in this case, I would rather compare the use of genetic engineering (targeting selective pesticide resistance) to the abuse of antibiotics. It may provide the intended results in the short term, but long-term systematic (and excessive) use seems to result in the much accelerated apparition of stronger pests, creating risks that may be very substantial and yet have generally not been assessed beforehand.
In other words, it’s not about science versus popular belief, it’s about serious risk assessment versus quick money grab.