Cable Television's (or 'Paid Television') primary selling point was the fact you could watch a sitcom/movie or whatever without any advertisements. After all, that's why you paid for the service and ABC, CBS, NBC were free and paid for via advertisements.
Today, I refuse to buy a Television, because even with paying for the service, "Basic Cable" even, you are bombarded with advertisements and I'm left wondering... "why am I paying a monthly bill for this for?".
So, I invest in DVD players and other media. Much much better. I can put a DVD in my computer, and jump straight to what I paid for, no hassles, no interruption. If, I had to watch advertisements on the DVD, I would likely get annoyed enough to ponder the possibilities of alternatives; and that's with advertisements before or after the main feature.
If I have to be interrupted during the main feature, we have a huge problem then.
So, advertisements before the feature film, game... OK, that's barely tolerable, but tolerable noless. If I'm playing a PS2/PS3 or whatever game, and during game play I'm interrupted with a advertisement? That is bullshit, through and through and regardless of the quality of the game, it's going right through the window... window pane and all. The interruption to load the next map/scene is tolerable, but it should never be tolerable for the loading screen to be an advertisement, because once they get granted that modest mistake, then the precedent will be laid to say that consumers enjoy the occasional advertisement. (While the load screens currently are a matter of technical limitations 'speeds of DVD/DISC reads and all', they will magically remain long after those limitations will be gone if we allow any advertisements at all.)
If the game is for free, off the shelf... sure, load it up with advertisements. But, if I pay one measily dime for it, it had better not have a single advertisement. At all, period, 'nuff said, good-bye, shut up, go away, up your's, to hell with you, fuck off.
I read the original article and it seems the meat of it's argument is that if A can be held responsible, then B should be too. Supporting the argument with a question of difference between A and B.
The difference is this. Profit.
Open Source doesn't stand to profit off of it's efforts. Never mind Red Hat, SuSE et al. My contributions are done with 100% generosity with no intention, expectation or hope of return of any kind other than the concept of personal acheivement or contibution to a greater good. The later is tricky, because Adam Smith in his published works imply that within Capitalism, that a person, regardless if he feels so, usually contributes to a greater good (society) far more than he realizes underneath a capitalistic society, with every ounze of incentive being from currency (or a pay check).
I argue that while a pay check might motivate some to get out of bed and "work", it's certainly not the only thing that might equally motivate someone. Because, "work" is only "work" if you are getting paid for it, otherwise, it's a "hobby"; and contrary to popular belief including the line from Office Space, yes there are people who do enjoy being janitors. Admittedly, likely not enough however, one does what one can and all that is needed is a desire to contribute and with enough those of lesser ability would feel proud to contribute anyway they can. "Tech Support", "Testing" are all Janitorial services within IT... and obviously, there are plenty that enjoy it.
It's odd, while we're talking about incentive and what motivates a man. A paycheck really is one of the weakest forces of all the Classical motives for extreme human effort; compare the motivation of vengance, retribution, survival, integrity, patriotism/nationalism (a broader sense of family bonding and sense of self, belonging and representation). Even Machievelli pointed out that the first to run from the battlefield will be the "mercenaries", and so true that infact is.
The major difference between Proprietary Software and Open Source Software, is the goal and intentions of each. Intention is a viable concept for precedence; no matter what the case might be. For example, Apple Corporation and the Beatles for example on how "intention" can turn the tides of otherwise blatant infringments (The Beatles did have a valid claim... if only considering the surface.)
The main goal of Proprietary Software, Personal Gain, usually in the form of capital, market dominance, or any perceived benefit that clearly identifies a positive benefit within a Capitalist ideology.
The main goal of Open Source Software, more or less, Communal Gain.
All other things, in my belief, are by products to propel an effort towards the main goal. Communal Gain can not be achieved if you leave anyone out, so, to ensure that everyone may benefit, there is less demand of return or, any quid pro quos, conditions, restrictions are such that, the end result is within reasonable reach of Everyone. To amplify an extreme for clearly showing "reasonable reach", it's simply best to make the product "free"; for which, there exists no retort as for it's availability. For Capitalism, you'll have everything geared towards protecting the flow of capital, make as many streams of capitals available as possible. As a result, patents, copyrights, controlled distribution channels, controlled substances (like certain chemicals etc. required for making anything really useful) making physical ability to reproduce much more difficult... all of this is in place to ensure that only certain people will ever be in a position to "provide" or "offer" a product to the consumer.
Because Patents and all are more geared towards protecting a Companies benefit, I have argued in past posts, that enforcement of legislation and consequences should only apply to Companies in violation of their own measures. The "guy in a garage" doesn't have the breadth and depth to really threaten Sony Entertainment's production line... so, he should be exempt
But an author may not know grammar. (There are a lot of successful books where grammar isn't always correct.)
I disagree. Writers, poets and the like, these people are the end authority of their respective language. By nature of their expertise and life long devotion, virtual infallibility follows and any one assertion or proposal can only be challenged by those of equal authority. Mark Twain can introduce a new word, an altercation of traditional grammar rules, as for you... you best reference a dictionary and writers guide by an appropriate standard.
You gonna say Beethoven or Hendrix didn't understand music just because you think you understand music theory as taught from a book? Are you saying that Geothe and Tolstoy never had the latitude to make necessary changes that would permit them in their quest of acute articulation?
One could suggest that Poetry is nothing more than Theoretical Linguistics; as Poets are allowed to break any rule and convention of any language in order to relay their emotive messages with maximum expression and accuracy. Poets are even permitted to use words based off of connotation, and in some cases, outright ignoring standard definitions... all well within context, we feel the proper meaning when they use the proper word. AKA "Word Choice", being legit and all... just like in any other fields, R&D present valuable and useful tools for everyday use.
I argue that accomplished/published Writers are aware of the rules you're forced to abide by. Furthermore, they are probably aware of their the fact they might be able to break a few.
Is such differentiated pay the right way to attract science graduates who can make much more in industry, or is it simply going to breed discontent among teachers?
I most certainly believe so. In the general workforce, this is generally the case. Those with degrees in English, who sit typing manuals all day generally don't get paid as well as engineers do. So, the schools would have to compete with the differing pay scales accordingly.
In general, I do believe teachers are vastly underpaid. However, a Math teacher should be paid more than an English teacher, unless of course, said English teacher happens to have published material, printed books et al.
Sometime in the early 90s, many of the west coast fleet had adopted a WindowsNT based system dubbed "IT21" (Information Technology, 21st Century). If I recall correctly, SPAWAR (a US Navy owned Corporation), was a considerable driving force behind deployment. Most of the use for this IT21 system was for console/end-user use. And not necessarily used for firecontrol, navigation, tactical displays et al. Thank god, but this system was plagued from the get go. Sadly, many of those who go to work for SPAWAR aren't really bright as too many are old retired Navy Chiefs and Officers riding it out in a nice, secure job.
Side Note: What SPAWAR should be doing, is to aggressively recruit military personal on their way out of the armed forces. All military forces go through a lot of debriefing for those deciding to not re-enlist or continue their commission. A lengthy "education" effort, that gives us more than two weeks of "What benefits you get from the VA", "Your rights as a Veteran", "Montgomery GI Bill and how to use it"... et al. But, they don't... I never saw a SPAWAR rep asking any of us if we would like to apply--(since we are technically active military, initiate a "agency" transfer request from one to another.)
Back on topic. The entire network was a mess. And the fact it was Windows didn't make it any cleaner. BDCs, PDCs... crashing right and left, half the time entire decks (which is a big deal on an aircraft carrier) were offline. But, one very disturbing thing is...
A (once upon a time) friend and I compromised the entire Windows based network. Because I had (and still maintain) a clearance, oh boy, it was an issue that had me pretty nervous. Nevermind the details of this. Let us simply acknowledge that the US Navy doesn't have a sense of humor!
The entire infrastructure for the IT21 system was infested with numerous security issues. Not exactly the problems of those designing the network because most of the problems were due to Microsoft Software and recommended or required services to accomodate the design requirements.
Is it still as bad? Unless the Navy has flipped upside-down, delcare the aft end of a ship the front... IT21 system is likely still being used. Admiral... whoever at the time also pushed the issue in an effort to update the technology used by the sailors in the Fleet. (While the Navy always had impressive R&D, and neat technology buried deep within implementation. Most of the sailors were still using 486s on the desktops, which makes the Navy seem "out-dated" regardless if they actually were. Let's face it, a sailor to do his job still doesn't need much more than a 486 for most of them. In any case, as with a General, an Admiral makes a demand a billion other hopeful high-ranking personell will use their power to "suck him off in hopes of getting recommended to 'Flag'". Things get done, whether for the best or the worst.
There wasn't many computers on our Carrier we didn't have full access to. From the unix servers down in the RM (Radio Man) space, to the skippers personal IT21 desktop in his room.
BTW, we got off scotch free. And the speed in which we compromised the network could cause nose-bleeds. The network was so bad, that half the time (for the only reason we compromised the network), we ended up having to play "Admin" and fixing things (including making things more secure.) so we could do what we wanted.
I hate to break this to you all, but Postgres is a competitor to Microsoft SQL Server like DOS is a competitor to Linux. Seriously, people who can get by with Postgres wouldn't buy SQL server anyway - it's not even in the same league. This is like how VMWare gives away VMWare server, the capabilities of their real products that they charge for are so far above and beyond that it's no problem for them.
Quite nice, and breathe taking. However, MSSQL isn't far above and beyond Postgres. Especially if you consider the stability of the operating system running either database.
I think this is maybe small glimpse of a large strategic model to gain some kind of control over Open Source software. And then abolish it.
I was a member of Band of Brothers. Now, being ex-Military, I saw many things that attribute to the Alliances militaristic strengths. From superior and thorough logistics, to the common psychology binding all the members together. They don't need CCP developers to succeed and I argue that regardless of CCP Developer involvment within the game, BoB would still be where they are. The effect of CCP's Developers abusing their positions in favor of BoB (and no other group, what are the odds?) only presented negligable results for the Alliance.
I think that CCP has handled the situation well. And I don't look down on CCP for the allegations of those that fell. Only 1% of the ideas expressed by the Fallen are remotely close to the truth, and this is why history is always written by the Victor.
I imagine every game developer or engineer for every game probably went online and exploited something just for the kicks of it. The difference is, there's a lot of jealously about BoB's success in EVE, sheer inability to understand the personality and discipline of the conqueror, they are a target because they are the King of the Hill. Also, the numbers involved are smaller, and the scope of the playing field is much more confined. Point is, I garuntee World of Warcraft developers grotesquely abuse their positions. I bet John Carmack probably raged havoc on many of Quake III/Doom III servers, impossible to be beat. And if we took the loudest drum beaters in EVE-ONLINE, so eager to point the finger and believe the most horrible stories they can imagine, and told them they could work at CCP... I garuntee they would be more than happy and part of the reason why is they know they could give themselves an advantage far and beyond fair play mechanics.
BTW, I do develop software, I just don't work for CCP. Sadly. Because if I did, hell yes I'd spot myself a T2 BPO sure as hell.
I quote: "You gotta know that a guy who helps you steal... even if you take care of him real well... he's gonna steal a little extra for himself." -- Casino, Joe Pesci
Generally the companies that do well are not trying to maximize profit, but generally are trying to help customers the most. That is, in the end, what leads to money - simply trying to lower expenses is not a long term path to wealth creation, and only works for so long - it cannot be sustained.
The more foolish fool is one who believes as you do - that all companies have simplistic goals, that are not at all influenced by human behaviour.
The Janitor might have these human emotions you speak of. The Secretary and every day grunts do too. The software engineers under management might have personal "opinions", which might be inline to the generalized warm and fuzzies of everyday people.
While upper management is technically "human", they are socio-paths and there is no possible way of becoming "successful" in a capitalist society if you are anything but. In fact, it takes very little effort to be made into an insensitive socio-path which Jeffrey Dalmer might no doubt be proud of. For instance...
Do you know why the cost of living in Southern California is so expensive? It doesn't have to do with "supply and demand", the fact people might desire to live in Southern California. That's really just a by-product or stage on which the socio-paths are able to exploit. The reason living is so high, are because there are no proper property ownership laws in place in Southern California. Most of the residential land in Southern California is owned by non-residents, and this will make the most caring person on the East Coast the biggest insensitive socio-path on the face of this planet. Simply, "out of sight, out of mind."
Now, extrapolate this into business. There are laws forcing a company to comply with "shareholder interests". Those shareholders only desire is to see the stock value rise and dividends increase. They don't see the people and faces. All they see is numbers, printed on the cheapest paper from a run down pulp mill with "Wall Street Journal" stamped on the front. That's all you see. And if you have a money market account, you are playing the game of ruining peoples lives. Regardless of your intentions, this contradicts the intentions or motivations of any single individual of a company.
So you see, it doesn't matter how "human" a worker is for Company A. Company A, and in turn the worker, must do this and that in order to keep that pick incrementing throughout the year. The assembly line fellow, a nice fellow he might be and even contributing some of his hard earned money to some foundation, is still doing what he is told. He's so low on the totem pole, he can't see the big picture. Fit this item into slot A... over and over again. He doesn't notice that the previous item was higher quality, nor does he care because he's so laid back and it's just a job. He's even happy that because the company found a way of cutting expenses and throws a party for the workers... it's a "good company to work for". All the while, that low quality part fails in the field and someone dies all because of a better number on said crap paper printed once a day.
Do you really care how much someone has to pay rent on the other side of the country you live in? Do you really care if someone else, you don't know, just lost their job? No, you don't. You do what your boss says, even if you strongly object just to keep your job. He says, "We need to deploy this software within a week! Do whatever you can to make this feature remotely functional...."... so you give him a crap hack. Even playing the good guy, you jot it down, and mean to return to it to improve it. But Capitalism steps in, what you gave your boss "works",.... so no need to fix it. And you aren't permitted to spend time and money on a project that isn't going to directly better the software product (as in, new features.) If you work in a large enough company, you know you can't do very much of anything on your own without making it internally public and with documentation. Someone, will tell you t
In one of my previous posts, I have already talked about this.
Companies have no other interest or goal other than to make money. Fundamentals people, fundamentals! If you think, for one second that an idea from any company not resulting in immediate profit is correct, you are a fool. They cut corners, discriminate based off of accredited and formal education rather than will and raw expertise and experience, they implement managment schemes that do more harm than good for the sake of book keeping for VCs and shareholder confidence. They have to make every judgment off of a cost analysis report. And what few people understand is, if it's cheaper to continue in the same path, they will even if people are dieing (car manufacturers) or getting screwed (Microsoft software unreliability).
I can't believe this debate is taken seriously! The Companies want this precedent, because it's cheaper to ignore most exploits than to actually have to hire someone that can do something to better the software. Companies want this because it adds another variable (in their favor) to the cost analysis of fixing a problem... it gives them choice. And as we all know, from Companies' own assertions, that choice is bad and force is the only thing applicable. Companies don't give you much of a choice, why should you give them any? Open Source doesn't get a choice, why should their competitors (proprietary software). If Capitalism is the so-called "best", then it should be able to compete in the exact same fashion and prevail as other systems. So don't do this double standard crap of "Oh, if it's a company software, do 'X' if it's not, then do 'Y'; only because of a benevolent precedence suggesting you should give a Company a break while it's OK to lay hard and firm on some other ideology."
If a Company releases software that is buggy. The very instance you find an exploit, it should be released to the public with all that you have researched including example exploits. If the Open Source community can fix it quickly, then surely Microsoft or Adobe can too with their all-mighty Capitalist ideals and absolutely-necessary 'management'....
There is no precedence here. It is not a debate. You paid for the software, and if you don't get what you paid for (and some), then you should have absolutely NO qualms of sticking it back to the person who pawned it off to you. If they are so great, then let them prove it. But they aren't, and that's why they are coming up with all these little social tricks trying to get people to make an exception to further propogate the illusion that proprietary software is "good" the "best money can buy" or what ever.
You paid for the software. It's yours. You got screwed. Let people know! If you got screwed at the used-car lot, you'd let your friends know the details... you'd even feel socially obligated to do so. Software is NO different. You are socially obligated to blow the whistle for every little thing you find, and blow it till you're blue in the face; you paid for it, and you didn't get what you expected. It is NOT illegal to blow the whistle on crappy products you end up paying for. In fact, for some products it's a federal offense to pawn off crap to the consumer (think Lemon Laws in the United States). If you really want to get technical, then there already is legal precedent set in this regard because it's illegal to sell a car that is reasonably too problematic in the United States. Maybe we should make it illegal for software Companies to release crappy and overly buggy software too!
If you find an exploit. As soon as you can write up a concise report, sample code et al. and hit the "Send" button. DO IT!
One thing I noticed, during bootcamp was that my sense of smell became incredibly accute. While, I'll award the reader with the fact that I was a prior smoker to bootcamp, I will say that non-smokers DEFINATELY noticed the difference as well.
While it's not likely we as a society will retort back to nature in a sense, I will say, the body naturally cleans itself and the only reason a "bum" stinks as bad as he does is in relation to all the non-natural environment surrounding him. Not only that, but we are so used to the man made scents, that natural scents tend to stand out even more.
For example... while some city women will think a man from the country is being a sexist pig who treats women like objects... the fact is, men CAN smell women and from a considerable distance away.
OK. Let me stress this, becuase this is when it hit me like a brick during boot camp. It was almost a "holy shit do I have a Marvel Comic superhero nose?", no I don't and you don't either. But, when at a club, a female can be practically touching you and you might smell her perfume. In the work place, a female sitting in the next cubicle might not make her presence known until she makes sufficient noise to catch your attention....
After five weeks into boot camp, a female division walked past the barracks we were at, and walked up stairs. I would accurately judge the distance to about 50 feet away, and every single guy in the barracks literally smelled the girls. We didn't have to hear them. We didn't have to see them. We could smell them and knew they were there. The scents were distinguishable too, not just a generic feminine hormone release into the air. If two girls were in the next room, the guys three rooms down could smell two different scents.
When I was a kid, females weren't allowed to go hunting, irregardless of what time of month or whatever they washed their bodies with. Until boot camp, I always thought it was a wives tale that women gave off that much odor... but I swear to you. Yes, if I am able to smell a female just as well as see her from 50 feet away... then a deer or buck with much better noses can certainly smell a human female from 100 yards away. A man could probably smell the presence of a female much further than 50 feet away, it's just that's the distance I know for a fact and even at 50 feet, the scent was unbelievably strong. How far away before it becomes a hint? The girl might as well have showered in perfume and stood two inches behind me.
Nowadays, away from the lack of everyday luxuries and eminties, inhalation of cigarette smoke, car exhaust, overwhelming stench of plastics and asphalt... no, I couldn't tell you if a girl with no perfume is sitting five feet over in the next cubicle. It's somewhat sad. But, you are capable of doing it. Most people who go on long hunting trips in the wilderness know what I'm talking about. Without all this crap we deal with, this man made crap, nature gave us some pretty interesting abilities that have been long taken for granted or the use is nolonger really needed.
The scent of the girls is what blew me away the most. So vivid, so strong so unexpected. But, I also realized that a lot of other things that might have been overlooked or not processed certainly was while in boot camp. Such as the bed of flowers outside the barracks... yeah, you can smell those things. In modern day life, much of those scents are still hitting our nose, but if they remain being processed it's either at a subconscious level or outright ignored altogether. Anyway, it doesn't surprise me that a group of college students was able to smell a trail of chocolate in the lawn. Doesn't surprise me one bit.
OK. I went to American schools. Growing up, I was, in so many ways, encouraged, forced or "educated" into think those Soviet bastards were communist scum bent on nuking the good'ol USA.
Cold War ends. I become seriously involved with a Russian model, her mother and father was given a free ride to the US on some kind of genius grant. Speaking to her father, everything Americans were taught about the Soviet Union was mirrored in Soviet schools about America. Down to the common bed-time anxiety of wondering if tonight you'll have to use your bomb-shelter (which lots of Soviets also had in fear of an American preemptive strike.) And so, while neither country ever really had that many nuclear weapons, what the corporations/state did have was massive public opinion inline for support to develop more and more on claims that "they" had ten or twenty more nuclear weapons. Arms race... come time to use the arms, we find we only have two and so do they. The irony of it all.
Point is, American education is no less bias/brainwashing/false/misleading than China's. This might be a big bite to chew for many of us, but it's true. Let's take for instance...
What do you know of World War II? It might come to a surprise to many of us... but unless you have to have a nurse help you defecate, odds are you don't know anymore than what was TOLD TO YOU. Faith of compliance, and from lack of critical, cold and cruel analysis presents no options for the guy next to you. Germans were the bad guys... do I know that for fact? No. I strongly assume so, because as far back as I remember, that's what I was told; and if I differ from public opinion, then I'll be an idiot.
The force of ignorance is so strong and compelling, that it's no wonder that those who veer successfully from the flow stand out so much and always have a aura about them that would permit one to predict they would "change the world". For the better, for the worst... depends on their opposing force and if they win or lose. If you win, patriot, revolutionary, resistance... all beautiful titles to hold to be sure. During your efforts, your a terrorist or criminal... if you lose, those titles stick. Doesn't matter your cause, doesn't matter your agenda. Powerful people, are just that, powerful and they aren't going to give up their crown, right or wrong, just because you're walking down the hall.
The English analysis points out where Chinese wikipedia is "wrong". It's points ONLY assume it's wrong, basing their assumptions on the fact their wording is not as harsh/critical/favorable to the way WE want China to look. Who is right? Americans? Chinese? Most logical tendancy I have... if I want a German opinion, I'll talk to a German. Why would America have any more accurate information on China than China itself? (But this is where people will try to claim they have controlled information sources... as if the information in America isn't equally controlled. At least Chinese leadership have the dignity to admit their concern for the information given to the public. Americans are left to realize that anything printed and sold in Barnes and Nobels is pre-approved and must conform the a social agenda and anything that won't will either be black-listed, banned or edited to hell and back by publish-house editors.) Any fool that thinks Fox News isn't controlled..... bottom line, China knows China better than America does. Don't kid yourself.
Suppose my daughter is in a car accident. Needs help, tries to use her cell phone. Just because some capitalist socio-path wants to make a dollar disabling cell phones, she dies because she happens to be a victim.
Then, I'll sue the high-holy pants off this company, and go to jail after killing him in the court room and anyone else there on his behalf.
For any device, meant to be controlled and travelled... inherently some way to navigate the device is in every way obvious. So, why are steering wheels patented?
It gets even worse, because somethings aren't "obvious" yet they remain inherent of the essence. Example: So a steering wheel for a car is obvious... but is a power steering device? Yes it is, for any person that has drivin a car without power steering, it certainly is.
Back a long time ago, there was much more sense and rationale. Another example, Henry Ford's claim to fame is not the car, but his development and application of an assembly line and in lesser known circles... a pioneer in the dawn of a viable credit system (Model-T, even from an assembly line was still too expensive for most people. Henry Ford was one of the first to develop and provide what we now know as "credit" so everyday people can have one).
I think most people have a hard time identifying what might be a legit claim on development. Sometimes, the claim would be far too broad. For example, not much of the details of space exploration is remarkable or what I might consider a legit patent. From the design of the shuttle, to the booster flaps... if you were a rocket scientist or astro-physicist all of it would make sense. However, what is remarkable is with all that together the ability itself to travel into space. You can't really pinpoint a cause or a crucial component for "space travel", and ONLY "space travel" in any and all the technology integrated to accomplish that task. Even to this day. Rockets were around for thousands of years before we took a human into space... so "rockets" obviously have alternative purposes and not soley for space travel.
But, here's the bottom line.
If someone found the cure to cancer, that knowledge and application is NOT their own property. Such property belongs to Man, as with any other detail or specific peace of knowledge. It's hard for people to understand what I'm getting at here, partly becuase they don't want to face the reality of it in fear that it would invalidate financial incentive, claims or some granted "Right" to legally extort money from someone else. Aspirin is aspirin, for example, but there is Bayer who will sue the crap out of you if you don't pay them for making and distributing it. Is that right? Such a basic biological compound, well known, and some twenty year old schmuck has the audacity to think it's HIS? Riiight. Noone owns their so-called "inventions", the moment you spawn an idea, in the end a thousand years from now, you're name won't be remembered but maybe the idea will be. That's becuase you never owned the idea, it's not yours, it belongs to everyone around you. Even now, while there are people that were alive before during and after landing on the moon, some history books broadly refer to it as "Man entered the space age". A thousand years from now, most "historians" won't even know "Neil Armstrong" to associate him to Space Flight, and if they did, it's probably they won't even pronounce it correctly. And they certainly wouldn't have a clue about much deeper detail than that; such as an Engineers name who came up with the one idea that made it all work. Today... how many names do you know that had anything to do with developing the technology for space flight? Zilch... don't bother looking it up, this is the reality of the situation, this is the point. But then again, go ahead and try to look it up. There were thousands of people that worked on it, you might find just a handful of names.
Point is, whether it's you, or some other guy... noone gives a shit as long as it comes to be. And, most things are destined to materialize from the efforst of Man... becuase THAT is WHY we are HERE!
As for the individual who finds the cure to cancer, he doesn't need to pull a patent on it. He would be very well taken care of, voluntarily by many people if for no other reason than to say "thanks", from across the world. So much, that there would be no roo
So basically what you're saying is that police have all the same accountability and legal responsibility as drug dealers? I would hate to run into the police in a dark alley on whatever planet you live on...
You know, originally I was going to reply with the fact that a police officer is a man with a freaking gun. But, yeah, he isn't as accountable as the drug dealer either! Let's assume so for a second.
Some beligerent police officer waves his peace in your face. Moron, do what he says! Because here's another thing fools seem not able to understand. The legalities are NOT within your influence or power, nor his. They are to be debated in a court system, not on the street. Most people do not understand the written law anyways, and half the time what they think is the law is actually incorrect. So if a police officer is telling you to do something wrong, do it and then make a video about that show people what you had to do. I garuntee the UCLA video wouldn't have been so dramatic and no one would have given a shit had the kid left when told the first time by police. But, he was a moron, so he got tasered. Fact here, he was in the wrong... and a few stupid people think that 'two wrongs don't make a right' crap, well, there ARE consequences for your actions. And you pop off at the lip with someone holding a weapon, don't be surprised when he USES that weapon on you. And forget your philosophies of free speech, until they deploy ROBOTS as a police force realize that the HUMAN holding the badge has emotions and such themselves.
Cops come in and tell you to stand up, else there will be consequences... if the idiot decided to resist then he deserves to be tasered. In his own country, he would have been shot. Maybe the cops should have just shot him and make him feel at home... but then again, if police were allowed to do their job, then he wouldn't have felt he could mouth off like a little immature kid.
The fool deserved to be tasered. The fact he was given an option by the police, to stand or get shocked, he wanted to be given some juice so I don't know what the shock factor is all about (sorry for the pun).
This is typical of "police brutality" claims. Some moron stands up to show people how he was shot and beatin by police and what we actually see is some thug mouthing off to a man with authority AND a firearm. Seriously people, if you're so stupid to mouth off to a man with a gun, you should be shot dead, shocked till you piss your pants, bulgened till your mentally retarded. You wouldn't pop off to the drug dealer with a gun... oh, becuase he will shoot you for doing so! Yeah... mouth off to the cop, becuase you can, makes you feel big inspite the fact he's able kill you all the same.
They had to tell that jack-ass more than once to stand up. I think they did an excellent job. They should have broke the guys ribs and legs and dragged him out as if he were a rag doll.
Again, I can't speak for Japanese law, but in the USA it is clear that it is the owner of the performance venue, not the artist, who has to pay this fee.
This is true, and the reason for the dumbest laws of them all. As a guitarist, a musician can not go into an establishment and start playing. By law even. Becuase regardless of what your playing, public domain, copyrighted, or personal compositions/arrangments et al. the owner of the establishment is legally liable. This is why you always see street performers, out in the cold, rather than in a cozy coffee shop sipping a coffee inbetween measures.
While there are places where one can randomly play, the numbers just aren't sufficient. Very very few coffee shops permit a random musician to play at their whim while on site. Also, music stores obviously have to pay some sort of license or have legal ability for the fact that most musicians won't purchase an instrument without playing it first. Then we run into the disconcerting fact of a general music shop on a busy day... regardless of how good everyone is, none of them are in rhythm or harmony with the next making the entire experience rather discordant. So even if there are ways around it, and while some places do permit such acts, they aren't spread out enough where it's pleasant for patrons and musicians to just casually sit down and pluck a few strings whenever they get the itching too.
What is interesting, is sometimes it's not so easy to determine if you can play your instrument in public. Some vast and open parks are actually private property... and here we go again. If a sizeable congregation forms due to your playing... cops might construe it (regardless of technicalities) as a concert or formal performance and you have to have this license, that permission... all kinds of crap. You get penalized, if you are actually good but aren't serving to fatten some super affluent socio-path (i.e. Major Record Labels). Society generally penalizings where you can play if you aren't good... and if you are merely "tolerable" then and only then are you OK.
There used to be a very good singer that would perform on the street corner down town San Diego near Horton Plaza years ago. The only real problem, was that he was of "professional" calibur... people actually enjoyed listening to him. And, as a musican, I must concede to the mans skills. Becuase he was very good, becuase he did make plenty of money on the street corner (and lots of it), becuase people would clap, and stand for a moment to catch the next verse... he was arrested for illegal performance or somethign of that nature and I never saw him since. Meanwhile, lots of medocre musicians up and down the same street are left unbothered.
I don't agree with the stage setting and pre-approved actors. I don't feel like I'm given much of a choice really, and I don't feel that it's going to matter who is voted in, because by virtue of being on the ballot to begin with... the candidates all conform or are inline with those who are already in power already.
I feel that options should be plenty and rich in differences, anything less isn't really a viable option.
It's reported that in the Soviet Union, they "voted" but only had one check box on their ballots. In America, we have a couple of check boxes, but only one ideology to chose from. The only difference between the two systems is how apparent it is to the voter that his vote is completely useless.
For all the respect to those in history that might have strained so hard for a democratic system, what's a bigger shame than me preferring not to vote is that the system has been so corrupted that I don't trust or care for the system. It's not me who has tarnished the vote, but those in power that those who died put so much faith in with keeping the system fruitful.
I hope this isn't modded as flame bait, becuase I'm really being honest here in my argument. So, I'll get down to it.
First, American education enforces plagiarism. That's right! How so? Well, take for instance the fact that almost every test in any mundane American education facility almost always encourages the student to regurgitate a canned answer from a designated source of information. It gets even worse when you enter the University level, and is unbelievably worse yet, if you enter any top tier Univeristy (where the professors themselves demand you buy *their* book).
Even if such a class exists, as "Critical Thinking", there's really nothing truely critical about it. Factor into the above facts with another fact that American and European societies are bent on "Political Correctness". This only serves to deter true critical thinking, becuase any deterance or compelling factor to NOT speak you mind, regardless of how vulgar it is, is taking away from the full spectrum of perceptive analysis. Even acadamia is infected with this little bit, that's why you never see any books dedicated to the good things about Hitler, the bad things about Ghandi, even though any person in their right mind shall admit, even if in private, that Yin and Yang did not ellude either of the two. There's a formula for the above. If X is a positive admission, Y is a negative admission and Z is the general image you are trying to paint the person in (where Z is a magnitude of either X or Y), any X/Y granted that is not a magnitude of Z, then the opposite SHALL be grotesquely over exaggerated as to make the other negligable. That's why, not one single historian or author is willing to point out the obvious and say (for example) Hitler was a genius and leave it at that. They have to stress to childish levels of zeal that he was insane or cruel or anything to belittle the positive claim. The same exact thing is also for other icons that aren't under a negative light... Dr. Martin Luther King, Ghandi etc. It's VERY difficult, and in Europe outright illegal, to have any real partial analysis of these icons; infact, there's a man in Germany on trail becuase he does question a lot of the fabricated claims about Hitler. Winston Churchill wasn't no angel, yet how many texts are there that focus on only the bad without trying to backpeddle and counter the negative claims to preserve his image? None.
Work environments... when you're asked to document, you always have to pull stuff verbatim from sources your boss might respect. In English 101, we have to write papers with references for each and every claim. While this is an entirely different debate, on the laziness of ignorant people above you to prefer you have references rather than understand your statments to agree or disagree, this does present encouragement for the ease of the situation to simply copy and idea once you establish that someone important said it. How many ways are you going to "put in your own words" an idea of someone so much smarter or wiser than yourself? It suffices to accept the adage as profound wisdom and preserve it in all it's glory. (That's a well made remark!)
Also, not to mention, a fact does not have a poetic license! Meaning that, there are only so many ways to be sweet and direct in explaining what the Pythagorean Theorem is. Anything more is just bluff and fluff. As for a self perceived description of Ghandi, that would vary greatly from one to the other becuase no claim would be reflective of Truth and Fact, however for any real facts... "Ghandi was born on October 2, 1869"... how many other ways are you going to say that? We can use synonyms, pick up a thesaurus... we can hire someone to practically translate it to Latin and toss it translation to the reader... or, perhaps we can just go all around the world for that simple statement and then copyright a paragraph and a half all for just stating the date he was born. "Ghandi was born on October 2, 1869", must be plagiarism! If you say it outloud, you're in c
Revival or restoration... I think that a fully restored 1967 Hemi Barracuda is a very nice car!
Anyways, I was more expecting that the focus of controversy here would be evidence or other implications indicative of Nature's myriad ways to encourage evolution.
"We Heard You, you wanted it easier and more secure." Security is too broad and general, more closely associated to Microsoft as a whole than any one product you have. And, I dare Microsoft to give evidence ANYONE wanted IE to be "easier". What about the real cries from Webmasters and Webdesigners screaming about the lack of compliance to standards, lack of support for CSS? They have been screaming at Microsoft to conform to standards since the early 90s and still... Internet Explorer is off doing it's own thing.
I'm not an Eagle Scout; more by choice than anything. Years ago, I took a honest interest in scouting, but was very disappointed in the whole scheme. While some might assert that scouting isn't supposed to be a focus on survival skills, why else for all the survivalist training such as cooking without stove, camping with minimal supplies, hunting etc.? OK, so there are much better clubs to join that can better teach you how to eat dirt, weeds and to build a sheltor out of leaves and bark... but I was still rather annoyed at how little the Boy Scouts prepared a young adult for if they did get lost in the woods and had to get by a few days.
Looking back on those days, I realize that the Boy Scouts is heavily capitalist, despite any hopes a young scout might have for actually learning something for outdoor life. I remember the joy of seeing the Boy Scout emblem on my new portable stove, knife, compas etc. It never really dawned on me till after the fact, the Boy Scouts were actually far more mainstream than what people might expect. For a real life comparison, they are like the Air Force with air conditioned, reinforced tents in "war" rather than the Marines left to cover up with whatever they might, their jackets, a rock... anything but no air conditioner. I also came to realize everything in the Scouts was geared towards making me think like a malible consumer. A consumer which even if he isn't "sold" by advertisement, will still buy whatever is in the advertisement. A consumer who thinks that name brand is everything (does it have the Boy Scout Emblem!?). The dangers in this, is also an intiment involvment with the authorities behind the hype, and I assert no organization, no company should be above either the People or the Government. It is often in Capitalist Nations that people tend to bag on the government and forgive the Company without considering the fact that all their horrors were becuase of the Company rather than the Government; America doesn't go to war becuase of public support, but becuase of entire industry wide consensus (A lot of private/public companies making money off of our campaign in the Gulf and that money is not going to expand Middle Class. This is fact.).
Yeah, I learned how to pitch a tent, tie a few knots, and clean a wound. But, honestly, I could have figured that out along the way anyways... the depth of how much they teach in the Boy Scouts I believe is a hidden agenda as well. "You're too stupid to do much else, and trust Big Business and it's ability to make sure you won't ever have to decide which flower or weed you can eat. If you do end up in the woods, your car broke down and left you stranded becuase of Government regulations. In the meantime buy this handy Boy Scout Portable Stove, Boy Scout Portable Water Purification Kit and Boy Scout Compas to help tide you over till Big Business will rescue you."
The Boy Scouts is really a political/economic condition course for a particular ideology. The fact is, most capitalists embracing nations have Youth Programs all, in some way, dubbed as "scouts". Communists, tend to go for "pioneers". They all expose simple survival aspects which more give an impression of the phenomenal attraction to "Tips'n'Tricks", while underneath the stage tricks and simple wood carving classes... there's a political, philosophical, economic lesson vehemently pushed and ingrained in the childs mind.
Sure you get a letter from the President for making Eagle Scout. Those that are trying to push their message are often proud of their efforts; yes, it's worth something to put on your resume, there are benefits adding to real life incentive to encourage parents to toss their children into these programs.
Bottom line. I didn't learn all that much while in the Boy Scouts. If you went against the grain you were punished for it. For example, most of the kids in my district ran around with State Fair, Stainless Steal, Rambo "Survival Knives"... it seemed the ONLY non-Boy Scout peace of gear authorized for use du
Slacks, a tie, and a collared cotten shirt are comfortable.
And I'm not lying.
Maybe you should try a looser cut for your pants & a wider collar on your shirts (less starch if that's a problem). If coffee on your tie is a problem, unbutton your shirt 3 or 5 buttons down, stick your tie into the resulting hole and rebutton the gap. Oh, and Scotchgard everything.
Your problem is more along the lines of "conformity bothers me & I hate my boss" than "ties are uncomfortable". Your post pretty much spells that stuff out.
Sorry, just calling it like I see it.
No need to apologize. There is some resentment. Yeah, forcing me to conform to an image bothers me. Image... for the most part, an image is nothing more than an illusion and the only garunteed lie. If I happen to dress like you, so be it. But I do resent being told to dress a particular way, for no other reason than to "fit the image". I'm ex-Military, told to wear camoflauge has some rationality to it as far as I'm concerned. But not slacks and a tie for the sake of everyone else forced to wear the same thing to perceive you as a "professional". Along with this goes the subconscience distractions and distaste that taps into the motivation responsible for voluntary overtime that so many bosses long for.
Do I hate my boss? No. I have a good boss, all of them. But I realize their hands are tied as well, they are forced to conform too. I do hate the system which compells or governs these trends. Particularly, whoever decided that being bland, dull and boring was a sure characteristic of "professionalism". Nevermind all the childish bantering in corporate so-called meetings... I'm actually appaulled that most would have to consider me a "professional". Only ignorance of what "professionalism" entails drives the illusion of prestige and mystery.
Sometimes, I wish that I could get paid enough as a ditch digger. Becuase I surely would, and return home and give the IT industry a 1000% more than it ever could have gotten as a paid developer. But, maybe I'm burned out with the office politics. Maybe I'm just not cut out for life in big-business. Of all the possibilities or causes for my precedents, the results that I see are undenyable.
As an ex-MySpace drone, I only joined becuase I wanted to see how far I could customize the HTML for my own account. I did very well, then looked at all the friends list and figured... "Who the hell are these people?"
No doubt, all sorts of personalities exist on MySpace. I can deal and respect many of the objectionable ones, but I think a couple of crimes are universal. Child (a real child not 'underage' teenager, a *child*) molestation, and ratting on another person. Even those incarcerated tend to target such people found guilty of these crimes. A lot can be said here, if even those the greater society outcasts chose to outcast such people.
I work for a large defense contractor (think Raytheon, Boeing etc.). Most of what I do, I can practically do from anywhere be it the office, home or a coffee shop. Well, the coffee shop would be problematic, I do handle classified and controlled information so passerbys might not feel comfortable thinking any moment Secret Service will jump in and erase their memories.
OK. So, aside from having to handle sensitive information or hardware. My more mundane activities can very well be handled at home or where ever I may connect to the internet.
For some reason, this is the way most corporate work places operate. Joe walks in, plays like he's a well brainwashed representative of society and socializes with co-workers while smoking, drinking coffee etc. Then he walks over and turns on his computer, and checks his email where for another hour to three hours he's pretty much doing the same thing for distant co-workers or on-site co-workers also playing with their emails. Then, he does some actual work, maybe an hour, may four at most. We are at 6 hours now. Then he spends another two hours away from "production" interests, to handle things that will sadly have more an impact for upcoming review. He asserts his politics and opinions on the new name tags to be issued. He sends out a memo essentially complaining about the coffee maker being a mess everyday. He sends his opinions down to maintenance becuase he thinks the power outlets need to be verified or checked.
This is a "busy" work day.
An average day... he might do one hour of "production" work, and BS for the rest of the day. For managers that joke about this "horror" to themselves... Managers are even worse than the workers. Managers typically do nothing of their inherent model suggests, this isn't being said jokingly either. Mangers really do nothing, even when they think they are doing something.
It's the feel that something is getting done. It's why we have meetings and all the sort. The last time a Meeting ever amounted to something, was when this one nobody held a meeting in the back of a German beer pub, later to wreck havoc across Europe. Ironically, even that meeting resulted in disastor and mayhem.
Just like Meetings make us feel like something is getting done... the same feeling is derived with actually seeing other people gather. Really, reporting to work, for most people who use a Computer, is a huge big-picture meeting! We get up, endure the assanine daily routines of office politics and becuase of this, that's work.
Personally, my best work comes within the first hour of waking up, and the wee hours of the night when I'm fully relaxed and able to focus becuase there is no distractions. I can listen to music, without fear of someone taking offense. I can chose to go sit outside and ponder something without fear of someone thinking I'm not doing anything. I can take as many breaks as I want, I can lounge in the comfort and safety of my own home. I enjoy the food at my own home. I enjoy the 50 dollar couch I have over the 150 dollar chair at work. I can wear something comfortable at home (Any man who says slacks, a tie, and a collared cotten shirt is "comfortable" is either very ignorant or out right lieing to your face. Even if it might be physically tolerable, it's still mentally uncomfortable to have to dress that way and worry about spilling coffee on it.). Sweats pants and a t-shirt, now you can't get more comfortable than that. I want to be at home anyways!
And if there's any better real life example of how much more people are willing to work when at home, we only need to ponder the speed, effectiveness, quality of OSS software development over proprietary counterparts 'minus exceptions of proprietary protocols etc.'). At home, I'm much more willing to work much more, becuase a great deal of it won't even be considered "work".
But, try to tell your boss that! That's the tricky part. He'd rather pay you for less product, just to see you once a day abide by ru
Slashdot Mirror
A long time ago, in a galaxy far far away....
Cable Television's (or 'Paid Television') primary selling point was the fact you could watch a sitcom/movie or whatever without any advertisements. After all, that's why you paid for the service and ABC, CBS, NBC were free and paid for via advertisements.
Today, I refuse to buy a Television, because even with paying for the service, "Basic Cable" even, you are bombarded with advertisements and I'm left wondering... "why am I paying a monthly bill for this for?".
So, I invest in DVD players and other media. Much much better. I can put a DVD in my computer, and jump straight to what I paid for, no hassles, no interruption. If, I had to watch advertisements on the DVD, I would likely get annoyed enough to ponder the possibilities of alternatives; and that's with advertisements before or after the main feature.
If I have to be interrupted during the main feature, we have a huge problem then.
So, advertisements before the feature film, game... OK, that's barely tolerable, but tolerable noless. If I'm playing a PS2/PS3 or whatever game, and during game play I'm interrupted with a advertisement? That is bullshit, through and through and regardless of the quality of the game, it's going right through the window... window pane and all. The interruption to load the next map/scene is tolerable, but it should never be tolerable for the loading screen to be an advertisement, because once they get granted that modest mistake, then the precedent will be laid to say that consumers enjoy the occasional advertisement. (While the load screens currently are a matter of technical limitations 'speeds of DVD/DISC reads and all', they will magically remain long after those limitations will be gone if we allow any advertisements at all.)
If the game is for free, off the shelf... sure, load it up with advertisements. But, if I pay one measily dime for it, it had better not have a single advertisement. At all, period, 'nuff said, good-bye, shut up, go away, up your's, to hell with you, fuck off.
I read the original article and it seems the meat of it's argument is that if A can be held responsible, then B should be too. Supporting the argument with a question of difference between A and B.
The difference is this. Profit.
Open Source doesn't stand to profit off of it's efforts. Never mind Red Hat, SuSE et al. My contributions are done with 100% generosity with no intention, expectation or hope of return of any kind other than the concept of personal acheivement or contibution to a greater good. The later is tricky, because Adam Smith in his published works imply that within Capitalism, that a person, regardless if he feels so, usually contributes to a greater good (society) far more than he realizes underneath a capitalistic society, with every ounze of incentive being from currency (or a pay check).
I argue that while a pay check might motivate some to get out of bed and "work", it's certainly not the only thing that might equally motivate someone. Because, "work" is only "work" if you are getting paid for it, otherwise, it's a "hobby"; and contrary to popular belief including the line from Office Space, yes there are people who do enjoy being janitors. Admittedly, likely not enough however, one does what one can and all that is needed is a desire to contribute and with enough those of lesser ability would feel proud to contribute anyway they can. "Tech Support", "Testing" are all Janitorial services within IT... and obviously, there are plenty that enjoy it.
It's odd, while we're talking about incentive and what motivates a man. A paycheck really is one of the weakest forces of all the Classical motives for extreme human effort; compare the motivation of vengance, retribution, survival, integrity, patriotism/nationalism (a broader sense of family bonding and sense of self, belonging and representation). Even Machievelli pointed out that the first to run from the battlefield will be the "mercenaries", and so true that infact is.
The major difference between Proprietary Software and Open Source Software, is the goal and intentions of each. Intention is a viable concept for precedence; no matter what the case might be. For example, Apple Corporation and the Beatles for example on how "intention" can turn the tides of otherwise blatant infringments (The Beatles did have a valid claim... if only considering the surface.)
The main goal of Proprietary Software, Personal Gain, usually in the form of capital, market dominance, or any perceived benefit that clearly identifies a positive benefit within a Capitalist ideology.
The main goal of Open Source Software, more or less, Communal Gain.
All other things, in my belief, are by products to propel an effort towards the main goal. Communal Gain can not be achieved if you leave anyone out, so, to ensure that everyone may benefit, there is less demand of return or, any quid pro quos, conditions, restrictions are such that, the end result is within reasonable reach of Everyone. To amplify an extreme for clearly showing "reasonable reach", it's simply best to make the product "free"; for which, there exists no retort as for it's availability. For Capitalism, you'll have everything geared towards protecting the flow of capital, make as many streams of capitals available as possible. As a result, patents, copyrights, controlled distribution channels, controlled substances (like certain chemicals etc. required for making anything really useful) making physical ability to reproduce much more difficult... all of this is in place to ensure that only certain people will ever be in a position to "provide" or "offer" a product to the consumer.
Because Patents and all are more geared towards protecting a Companies benefit, I have argued in past posts, that enforcement of legislation and consequences should only apply to Companies in violation of their own measures. The "guy in a garage" doesn't have the breadth and depth to really threaten Sony Entertainment's production line... so, he should be exempt
But an author may not know grammar. (There are a lot of successful books where grammar isn't always correct.)
I disagree. Writers, poets and the like, these people are the end authority of their respective language. By nature of their expertise and life long devotion, virtual infallibility follows and any one assertion or proposal can only be challenged by those of equal authority. Mark Twain can introduce a new word, an altercation of traditional grammar rules, as for you... you best reference a dictionary and writers guide by an appropriate standard.
You gonna say Beethoven or Hendrix didn't understand music just because you think you understand music theory as taught from a book? Are you saying that Geothe and Tolstoy never had the latitude to make necessary changes that would permit them in their quest of acute articulation?
One could suggest that Poetry is nothing more than Theoretical Linguistics; as Poets are allowed to break any rule and convention of any language in order to relay their emotive messages with maximum expression and accuracy. Poets are even permitted to use words based off of connotation, and in some cases, outright ignoring standard definitions... all well within context, we feel the proper meaning when they use the proper word. AKA "Word Choice", being legit and all... just like in any other fields, R&D present valuable and useful tools for everyday use.
I argue that accomplished/published Writers are aware of the rules you're forced to abide by. Furthermore, they are probably aware of their the fact they might be able to break a few.
Is such differentiated pay the right way to attract science graduates who can make much more in industry, or is it simply going to breed discontent among teachers?
I most certainly believe so. In the general workforce, this is generally the case. Those with degrees in English, who sit typing manuals all day generally don't get paid as well as engineers do. So, the schools would have to compete with the differing pay scales accordingly.
In general, I do believe teachers are vastly underpaid. However, a Math teacher should be paid more than an English teacher, unless of course, said English teacher happens to have published material, printed books et al.
Sometime in the early 90s, many of the west coast fleet had adopted a WindowsNT based system dubbed "IT21" (Information Technology, 21st Century). If I recall correctly, SPAWAR (a US Navy owned Corporation), was a considerable driving force behind deployment. Most of the use for this IT21 system was for console/end-user use. And not necessarily used for firecontrol, navigation, tactical displays et al. Thank god, but this system was plagued from the get go. Sadly, many of those who go to work for SPAWAR aren't really bright as too many are old retired Navy Chiefs and Officers riding it out in a nice, secure job.
Side Note: What SPAWAR should be doing, is to aggressively recruit military personal on their way out of the armed forces. All military forces go through a lot of debriefing for those deciding to not re-enlist or continue their commission. A lengthy "education" effort, that gives us more than two weeks of "What benefits you get from the VA", "Your rights as a Veteran", "Montgomery GI Bill and how to use it"... et al. But, they don't... I never saw a SPAWAR rep asking any of us if we would like to apply--(since we are technically active military, initiate a "agency" transfer request from one to another.)
Back on topic. The entire network was a mess. And the fact it was Windows didn't make it any cleaner. BDCs, PDCs... crashing right and left, half the time entire decks (which is a big deal on an aircraft carrier) were offline. But, one very disturbing thing is...
A (once upon a time) friend and I compromised the entire Windows based network. Because I had (and still maintain) a clearance, oh boy, it was an issue that had me pretty nervous. Nevermind the details of this. Let us simply acknowledge that the US Navy doesn't have a sense of humor!
The entire infrastructure for the IT21 system was infested with numerous security issues. Not exactly the problems of those designing the network because most of the problems were due to Microsoft Software and recommended or required services to accomodate the design requirements.
Is it still as bad? Unless the Navy has flipped upside-down, delcare the aft end of a ship the front... IT21 system is likely still being used. Admiral... whoever at the time also pushed the issue in an effort to update the technology used by the sailors in the Fleet. (While the Navy always had impressive R&D, and neat technology buried deep within implementation. Most of the sailors were still using 486s on the desktops, which makes the Navy seem "out-dated" regardless if they actually were. Let's face it, a sailor to do his job still doesn't need much more than a 486 for most of them. In any case, as with a General, an Admiral makes a demand a billion other hopeful high-ranking personell will use their power to "suck him off in hopes of getting recommended to 'Flag'". Things get done, whether for the best or the worst.
There wasn't many computers on our Carrier we didn't have full access to. From the unix servers down in the RM (Radio Man) space, to the skippers personal IT21 desktop in his room.
BTW, we got off scotch free. And the speed in which we compromised the network could cause nose-bleeds. The network was so bad, that half the time (for the only reason we compromised the network), we ended up having to play "Admin" and fixing things (including making things more secure.) so we could do what we wanted.
I hate to break this to you all, but Postgres is a competitor to Microsoft SQL Server like DOS is a competitor to Linux. Seriously, people who can get by with Postgres wouldn't buy SQL server anyway - it's not even in the same league. This is like how VMWare gives away VMWare server, the capabilities of their real products that they charge for are so far above and beyond that it's no problem for them.
Quite nice, and breathe taking. However, MSSQL isn't far above and beyond Postgres. Especially if you consider the stability of the operating system running either database.
I think this is maybe small glimpse of a large strategic model to gain some kind of control over Open Source software. And then abolish it.
I was a member of Band of Brothers. Now, being ex-Military, I saw many things that attribute to the Alliances militaristic strengths. From superior and thorough logistics, to the common psychology binding all the members together. They don't need CCP developers to succeed and I argue that regardless of CCP Developer involvment within the game, BoB would still be where they are. The effect of CCP's Developers abusing their positions in favor of BoB (and no other group, what are the odds?) only presented negligable results for the Alliance.
I think that CCP has handled the situation well. And I don't look down on CCP for the allegations of those that fell. Only 1% of the ideas expressed by the Fallen are remotely close to the truth, and this is why history is always written by the Victor.
I imagine every game developer or engineer for every game probably went online and exploited something just for the kicks of it. The difference is, there's a lot of jealously about BoB's success in EVE, sheer inability to understand the personality and discipline of the conqueror, they are a target because they are the King of the Hill. Also, the numbers involved are smaller, and the scope of the playing field is much more confined. Point is, I garuntee World of Warcraft developers grotesquely abuse their positions. I bet John Carmack probably raged havoc on many of Quake III/Doom III servers, impossible to be beat. And if we took the loudest drum beaters in EVE-ONLINE, so eager to point the finger and believe the most horrible stories they can imagine, and told them they could work at CCP... I garuntee they would be more than happy and part of the reason why is they know they could give themselves an advantage far and beyond fair play mechanics.
BTW, I do develop software, I just don't work for CCP. Sadly. Because if I did, hell yes I'd spot myself a T2 BPO sure as hell.
I quote:
"You gotta know that a guy who helps you steal... even if you take care of him real well... he's gonna steal a little extra for himself." -- Casino, Joe Pesci
Not all "useful" or "effective" explosives are nitrogen based.
Generally the companies that do well are not trying to maximize profit, but generally are trying to help customers the most. That is, in the end, what leads to money - simply trying to lower expenses is not a long term path to wealth creation, and only works for so long - it cannot be sustained.
The more foolish fool is one who believes as you do - that all companies have simplistic goals, that are not at all influenced by human behaviour.
The Janitor might have these human emotions you speak of. The Secretary and every day grunts do too. The software engineers under management might have personal "opinions", which might be inline to the generalized warm and fuzzies of everyday people.
While upper management is technically "human", they are socio-paths and there is no possible way of becoming "successful" in a capitalist society if you are anything but. In fact, it takes very little effort to be made into an insensitive socio-path which Jeffrey Dalmer might no doubt be proud of. For instance...
Do you know why the cost of living in Southern California is so expensive? It doesn't have to do with "supply and demand", the fact people might desire to live in Southern California. That's really just a by-product or stage on which the socio-paths are able to exploit. The reason living is so high, are because there are no proper property ownership laws in place in Southern California. Most of the residential land in Southern California is owned by non-residents, and this will make the most caring person on the East Coast the biggest insensitive socio-path on the face of this planet. Simply, "out of sight, out of mind."
Now, extrapolate this into business. There are laws forcing a company to comply with "shareholder interests". Those shareholders only desire is to see the stock value rise and dividends increase. They don't see the people and faces. All they see is numbers, printed on the cheapest paper from a run down pulp mill with "Wall Street Journal" stamped on the front. That's all you see. And if you have a money market account, you are playing the game of ruining peoples lives. Regardless of your intentions, this contradicts the intentions or motivations of any single individual of a company.
So you see, it doesn't matter how "human" a worker is for Company A. Company A, and in turn the worker, must do this and that in order to keep that pick incrementing throughout the year. The assembly line fellow, a nice fellow he might be and even contributing some of his hard earned money to some foundation, is still doing what he is told. He's so low on the totem pole, he can't see the big picture. Fit this item into slot A... over and over again. He doesn't notice that the previous item was higher quality, nor does he care because he's so laid back and it's just a job. He's even happy that because the company found a way of cutting expenses and throws a party for the workers... it's a "good company to work for". All the while, that low quality part fails in the field and someone dies all because of a better number on said crap paper printed once a day.
Do you really care how much someone has to pay rent on the other side of the country you live in? Do you really care if someone else, you don't know, just lost their job? No, you don't. You do what your boss says, even if you strongly object just to keep your job. He says, "We need to deploy this software within a week! Do whatever you can to make this feature remotely functional...."... so you give him a crap hack. Even playing the good guy, you jot it down, and mean to return to it to improve it. But Capitalism steps in, what you gave your boss "works",.... so no need to fix it. And you aren't permitted to spend time and money on a project that isn't going to directly better the software product (as in, new features.) If you work in a large enough company, you know you can't do very much of anything on your own without making it internally public and with documentation. Someone, will tell you t
In one of my previous posts, I have already talked about this.
Companies have no other interest or goal other than to make money. Fundamentals people, fundamentals! If you think, for one second that an idea from any company not resulting in immediate profit is correct, you are a fool. They cut corners, discriminate based off of accredited and formal education rather than will and raw expertise and experience, they implement managment schemes that do more harm than good for the sake of book keeping for VCs and shareholder confidence. They have to make every judgment off of a cost analysis report. And what few people understand is, if it's cheaper to continue in the same path, they will even if people are dieing (car manufacturers) or getting screwed (Microsoft software unreliability).
I can't believe this debate is taken seriously! The Companies want this precedent, because it's cheaper to ignore most exploits than to actually have to hire someone that can do something to better the software. Companies want this because it adds another variable (in their favor) to the cost analysis of fixing a problem... it gives them choice. And as we all know, from Companies' own assertions, that choice is bad and force is the only thing applicable. Companies don't give you much of a choice, why should you give them any? Open Source doesn't get a choice, why should their competitors (proprietary software). If Capitalism is the so-called "best", then it should be able to compete in the exact same fashion and prevail as other systems. So don't do this double standard crap of "Oh, if it's a company software, do 'X' if it's not, then do 'Y'; only because of a benevolent precedence suggesting you should give a Company a break while it's OK to lay hard and firm on some other ideology."
If a Company releases software that is buggy. The very instance you find an exploit, it should be released to the public with all that you have researched including example exploits. If the Open Source community can fix it quickly, then surely Microsoft or Adobe can too with their all-mighty Capitalist ideals and absolutely-necessary 'management'....
There is no precedence here. It is not a debate. You paid for the software, and if you don't get what you paid for (and some), then you should have absolutely NO qualms of sticking it back to the person who pawned it off to you. If they are so great, then let them prove it. But they aren't, and that's why they are coming up with all these little social tricks trying to get people to make an exception to further propogate the illusion that proprietary software is "good" the "best money can buy" or what ever.
You paid for the software. It's yours. You got screwed. Let people know! If you got screwed at the used-car lot, you'd let your friends know the details... you'd even feel socially obligated to do so. Software is NO different. You are socially obligated to blow the whistle for every little thing you find, and blow it till you're blue in the face; you paid for it, and you didn't get what you expected. It is NOT illegal to blow the whistle on crappy products you end up paying for. In fact, for some products it's a federal offense to pawn off crap to the consumer (think Lemon Laws in the United States). If you really want to get technical, then there already is legal precedent set in this regard because it's illegal to sell a car that is reasonably too problematic in the United States. Maybe we should make it illegal for software Companies to release crappy and overly buggy software too!
If you find an exploit. As soon as you can write up a concise report, sample code et al. and hit the "Send" button. DO IT!
One thing I noticed, during bootcamp was that my sense of smell became incredibly accute. While, I'll award the reader with the fact that I was a prior smoker to bootcamp, I will say that non-smokers DEFINATELY noticed the difference as well.
While it's not likely we as a society will retort back to nature in a sense, I will say, the body naturally cleans itself and the only reason a "bum" stinks as bad as he does is in relation to all the non-natural environment surrounding him. Not only that, but we are so used to the man made scents, that natural scents tend to stand out even more.
For example... while some city women will think a man from the country is being a sexist pig who treats women like objects... the fact is, men CAN smell women and from a considerable distance away.
OK. Let me stress this, becuase this is when it hit me like a brick during boot camp. It was almost a "holy shit do I have a Marvel Comic superhero nose?", no I don't and you don't either. But, when at a club, a female can be practically touching you and you might smell her perfume. In the work place, a female sitting in the next cubicle might not make her presence known until she makes sufficient noise to catch your attention....
After five weeks into boot camp, a female division walked past the barracks we were at, and walked up stairs. I would accurately judge the distance to about 50 feet away, and every single guy in the barracks literally smelled the girls. We didn't have to hear them. We didn't have to see them. We could smell them and knew they were there. The scents were distinguishable too, not just a generic feminine hormone release into the air. If two girls were in the next room, the guys three rooms down could smell two different scents.
When I was a kid, females weren't allowed to go hunting, irregardless of what time of month or whatever they washed their bodies with. Until boot camp, I always thought it was a wives tale that women gave off that much odor... but I swear to you. Yes, if I am able to smell a female just as well as see her from 50 feet away... then a deer or buck with much better noses can certainly smell a human female from 100 yards away. A man could probably smell the presence of a female much further than 50 feet away, it's just that's the distance I know for a fact and even at 50 feet, the scent was unbelievably strong. How far away before it becomes a hint? The girl might as well have showered in perfume and stood two inches behind me.
Nowadays, away from the lack of everyday luxuries and eminties, inhalation of cigarette smoke, car exhaust, overwhelming stench of plastics and asphalt... no, I couldn't tell you if a girl with no perfume is sitting five feet over in the next cubicle. It's somewhat sad. But, you are capable of doing it. Most people who go on long hunting trips in the wilderness know what I'm talking about. Without all this crap we deal with, this man made crap, nature gave us some pretty interesting abilities that have been long taken for granted or the use is nolonger really needed.
The scent of the girls is what blew me away the most. So vivid, so strong so unexpected. But, I also realized that a lot of other things that might have been overlooked or not processed certainly was while in boot camp. Such as the bed of flowers outside the barracks... yeah, you can smell those things. In modern day life, much of those scents are still hitting our nose, but if they remain being processed it's either at a subconscious level or outright ignored altogether. Anyway, it doesn't surprise me that a group of college students was able to smell a trail of chocolate in the lawn. Doesn't surprise me one bit.
OK. I went to American schools. Growing up, I was, in so many ways, encouraged, forced or "educated" into think those Soviet bastards were communist scum bent on nuking the good'ol USA.
Cold War ends. I become seriously involved with a Russian model, her mother and father was given a free ride to the US on some kind of genius grant. Speaking to her father, everything Americans were taught about the Soviet Union was mirrored in Soviet schools about America. Down to the common bed-time anxiety of wondering if tonight you'll have to use your bomb-shelter (which lots of Soviets also had in fear of an American preemptive strike.) And so, while neither country ever really had that many nuclear weapons, what the corporations/state did have was massive public opinion inline for support to develop more and more on claims that "they" had ten or twenty more nuclear weapons. Arms race... come time to use the arms, we find we only have two and so do they. The irony of it all.
Point is, American education is no less bias/brainwashing/false/misleading than China's. This might be a big bite to chew for many of us, but it's true. Let's take for instance...
What do you know of World War II? It might come to a surprise to many of us... but unless you have to have a nurse help you defecate, odds are you don't know anymore than what was TOLD TO YOU. Faith of compliance, and from lack of critical, cold and cruel analysis presents no options for the guy next to you. Germans were the bad guys... do I know that for fact? No. I strongly assume so, because as far back as I remember, that's what I was told; and if I differ from public opinion, then I'll be an idiot.
The force of ignorance is so strong and compelling, that it's no wonder that those who veer successfully from the flow stand out so much and always have a aura about them that would permit one to predict they would "change the world". For the better, for the worst... depends on their opposing force and if they win or lose. If you win, patriot, revolutionary, resistance... all beautiful titles to hold to be sure. During your efforts, your a terrorist or criminal... if you lose, those titles stick. Doesn't matter your cause, doesn't matter your agenda. Powerful people, are just that, powerful and they aren't going to give up their crown, right or wrong, just because you're walking down the hall.
The English analysis points out where Chinese wikipedia is "wrong". It's points ONLY assume it's wrong, basing their assumptions on the fact their wording is not as harsh/critical/favorable to the way WE want China to look. Who is right? Americans? Chinese? Most logical tendancy I have... if I want a German opinion, I'll talk to a German. Why would America have any more accurate information on China than China itself? (But this is where people will try to claim they have controlled information sources... as if the information in America isn't equally controlled. At least Chinese leadership have the dignity to admit their concern for the information given to the public. Americans are left to realize that anything printed and sold in Barnes and Nobels is pre-approved and must conform the a social agenda and anything that won't will either be black-listed, banned or edited to hell and back by publish-house editors.) Any fool that thinks Fox News isn't controlled..... bottom line, China knows China better than America does. Don't kid yourself.
Suppose my daughter is in a car accident. Needs help, tries to use her cell phone. Just because some capitalist socio-path wants to make a dollar disabling cell phones, she dies because she happens to be a victim.
Then, I'll sue the high-holy pants off this company, and go to jail after killing him in the court room and anyone else there on his behalf.
For any device, meant to be controlled and travelled... inherently some way to navigate the device is in every way obvious. So, why are steering wheels patented?
It gets even worse, because somethings aren't "obvious" yet they remain inherent of the essence. Example: So a steering wheel for a car is obvious... but is a power steering device? Yes it is, for any person that has drivin a car without power steering, it certainly is.
Back a long time ago, there was much more sense and rationale. Another example, Henry Ford's claim to fame is not the car, but his development and application of an assembly line and in lesser known circles... a pioneer in the dawn of a viable credit system (Model-T, even from an assembly line was still too expensive for most people. Henry Ford was one of the first to develop and provide what we now know as "credit" so everyday people can have one).
I think most people have a hard time identifying what might be a legit claim on development. Sometimes, the claim would be far too broad. For example, not much of the details of space exploration is remarkable or what I might consider a legit patent. From the design of the shuttle, to the booster flaps... if you were a rocket scientist or astro-physicist all of it would make sense. However, what is remarkable is with all that together the ability itself to travel into space. You can't really pinpoint a cause or a crucial component for "space travel", and ONLY "space travel" in any and all the technology integrated to accomplish that task. Even to this day. Rockets were around for thousands of years before we took a human into space... so "rockets" obviously have alternative purposes and not soley for space travel.
But, here's the bottom line.
If someone found the cure to cancer, that knowledge and application is NOT their own property. Such property belongs to Man, as with any other detail or specific peace of knowledge. It's hard for people to understand what I'm getting at here, partly becuase they don't want to face the reality of it in fear that it would invalidate financial incentive, claims or some granted "Right" to legally extort money from someone else. Aspirin is aspirin, for example, but there is Bayer who will sue the crap out of you if you don't pay them for making and distributing it. Is that right? Such a basic biological compound, well known, and some twenty year old schmuck has the audacity to think it's HIS? Riiight. Noone owns their so-called "inventions", the moment you spawn an idea, in the end a thousand years from now, you're name won't be remembered but maybe the idea will be. That's becuase you never owned the idea, it's not yours, it belongs to everyone around you. Even now, while there are people that were alive before during and after landing on the moon, some history books broadly refer to it as "Man entered the space age". A thousand years from now, most "historians" won't even know "Neil Armstrong" to associate him to Space Flight, and if they did, it's probably they won't even pronounce it correctly. And they certainly wouldn't have a clue about much deeper detail than that; such as an Engineers name who came up with the one idea that made it all work. Today... how many names do you know that had anything to do with developing the technology for space flight? Zilch... don't bother looking it up, this is the reality of the situation, this is the point. But then again, go ahead and try to look it up. There were thousands of people that worked on it, you might find just a handful of names.
Point is, whether it's you, or some other guy... noone gives a shit as long as it comes to be. And, most things are destined to materialize from the efforst of Man... becuase THAT is WHY we are HERE!
As for the individual who finds the cure to cancer, he doesn't need to pull a patent on it. He would be very well taken care of, voluntarily by many people if for no other reason than to say "thanks", from across the world. So much, that there would be no roo
So basically what you're saying is that police have all the same accountability and legal responsibility as drug dealers? I would hate to run into the police in a dark alley on whatever planet you live on...
You know, originally I was going to reply with the fact that a police officer is a man with a freaking gun. But, yeah, he isn't as accountable as the drug dealer either! Let's assume so for a second.
Some beligerent police officer waves his peace in your face. Moron, do what he says! Because here's another thing fools seem not able to understand. The legalities are NOT within your influence or power, nor his. They are to be debated in a court system, not on the street. Most people do not understand the written law anyways, and half the time what they think is the law is actually incorrect. So if a police officer is telling you to do something wrong, do it and then make a video about that show people what you had to do. I garuntee the UCLA video wouldn't have been so dramatic and no one would have given a shit had the kid left when told the first time by police. But, he was a moron, so he got tasered. Fact here, he was in the wrong... and a few stupid people think that 'two wrongs don't make a right' crap, well, there ARE consequences for your actions. And you pop off at the lip with someone holding a weapon, don't be surprised when he USES that weapon on you. And forget your philosophies of free speech, until they deploy ROBOTS as a police force realize that the HUMAN holding the badge has emotions and such themselves.
Cops come in and tell you to stand up, else there will be consequences... if the idiot decided to resist then he deserves to be tasered. In his own country, he would have been shot. Maybe the cops should have just shot him and make him feel at home... but then again, if police were allowed to do their job, then he wouldn't have felt he could mouth off like a little immature kid.
The fool deserved to be tasered. The fact he was given an option by the police, to stand or get shocked, he wanted to be given some juice so I don't know what the shock factor is all about (sorry for the pun).
This is typical of "police brutality" claims. Some moron stands up to show people how he was shot and beatin by police and what we actually see is some thug mouthing off to a man with authority AND a firearm. Seriously people, if you're so stupid to mouth off to a man with a gun, you should be shot dead, shocked till you piss your pants, bulgened till your mentally retarded. You wouldn't pop off to the drug dealer with a gun... oh, becuase he will shoot you for doing so! Yeah... mouth off to the cop, becuase you can, makes you feel big inspite the fact he's able kill you all the same.
They had to tell that jack-ass more than once to stand up. I think they did an excellent job. They should have broke the guys ribs and legs and dragged him out as if he were a rag doll.
Again, I can't speak for Japanese law, but in the USA it is clear that it is the owner of the performance venue, not the artist, who has to pay this fee.
This is true, and the reason for the dumbest laws of them all. As a guitarist, a musician can not go into an establishment and start playing. By law even. Becuase regardless of what your playing, public domain, copyrighted, or personal compositions/arrangments et al. the owner of the establishment is legally liable. This is why you always see street performers, out in the cold, rather than in a cozy coffee shop sipping a coffee inbetween measures.
While there are places where one can randomly play, the numbers just aren't sufficient. Very very few coffee shops permit a random musician to play at their whim while on site. Also, music stores obviously have to pay some sort of license or have legal ability for the fact that most musicians won't purchase an instrument without playing it first. Then we run into the disconcerting fact of a general music shop on a busy day... regardless of how good everyone is, none of them are in rhythm or harmony with the next making the entire experience rather discordant. So even if there are ways around it, and while some places do permit such acts, they aren't spread out enough where it's pleasant for patrons and musicians to just casually sit down and pluck a few strings whenever they get the itching too.
What is interesting, is sometimes it's not so easy to determine if you can play your instrument in public. Some vast and open parks are actually private property... and here we go again. If a sizeable congregation forms due to your playing... cops might construe it (regardless of technicalities) as a concert or formal performance and you have to have this license, that permission... all kinds of crap. You get penalized, if you are actually good but aren't serving to fatten some super affluent socio-path (i.e. Major Record Labels). Society generally penalizings where you can play if you aren't good... and if you are merely "tolerable" then and only then are you OK.
There used to be a very good singer that would perform on the street corner down town San Diego near Horton Plaza years ago. The only real problem, was that he was of "professional" calibur... people actually enjoyed listening to him. And, as a musican, I must concede to the mans skills. Becuase he was very good, becuase he did make plenty of money on the street corner (and lots of it), becuase people would clap, and stand for a moment to catch the next verse... he was arrested for illegal performance or somethign of that nature and I never saw him since. Meanwhile, lots of medocre musicians up and down the same street are left unbothered.
I don't agree with the stage setting and pre-approved actors. I don't feel like I'm given much of a choice really, and I don't feel that it's going to matter who is voted in, because by virtue of being on the ballot to begin with... the candidates all conform or are inline with those who are already in power already.
I feel that options should be plenty and rich in differences, anything less isn't really a viable option.
It's reported that in the Soviet Union, they "voted" but only had one check box on their ballots. In America, we have a couple of check boxes, but only one ideology to chose from. The only difference between the two systems is how apparent it is to the voter that his vote is completely useless.
For all the respect to those in history that might have strained so hard for a democratic system, what's a bigger shame than me preferring not to vote is that the system has been so corrupted that I don't trust or care for the system. It's not me who has tarnished the vote, but those in power that those who died put so much faith in with keeping the system fruitful.
I hope this isn't modded as flame bait, becuase I'm really being honest here in my argument. So, I'll get down to it.
First, American education enforces plagiarism. That's right! How so? Well, take for instance the fact that almost every test in any mundane American education facility almost always encourages the student to regurgitate a canned answer from a designated source of information. It gets even worse when you enter the University level, and is unbelievably worse yet, if you enter any top tier Univeristy (where the professors themselves demand you buy *their* book).
Even if such a class exists, as "Critical Thinking", there's really nothing truely critical about it. Factor into the above facts with another fact that American and European societies are bent on "Political Correctness". This only serves to deter true critical thinking, becuase any deterance or compelling factor to NOT speak you mind, regardless of how vulgar it is, is taking away from the full spectrum of perceptive analysis. Even acadamia is infected with this little bit, that's why you never see any books dedicated to the good things about Hitler, the bad things about Ghandi, even though any person in their right mind shall admit, even if in private, that Yin and Yang did not ellude either of the two. There's a formula for the above. If X is a positive admission, Y is a negative admission and Z is the general image you are trying to paint the person in (where Z is a magnitude of either X or Y), any X/Y granted that is not a magnitude of Z, then the opposite SHALL be grotesquely over exaggerated as to make the other negligable. That's why, not one single historian or author is willing to point out the obvious and say (for example) Hitler was a genius and leave it at that. They have to stress to childish levels of zeal that he was insane or cruel or anything to belittle the positive claim. The same exact thing is also for other icons that aren't under a negative light... Dr. Martin Luther King, Ghandi etc. It's VERY difficult, and in Europe outright illegal, to have any real partial analysis of these icons; infact, there's a man in Germany on trail becuase he does question a lot of the fabricated claims about Hitler. Winston Churchill wasn't no angel, yet how many texts are there that focus on only the bad without trying to backpeddle and counter the negative claims to preserve his image? None.
Work environments... when you're asked to document, you always have to pull stuff verbatim from sources your boss might respect. In English 101, we have to write papers with references for each and every claim. While this is an entirely different debate, on the laziness of ignorant people above you to prefer you have references rather than understand your statments to agree or disagree, this does present encouragement for the ease of the situation to simply copy and idea once you establish that someone important said it. How many ways are you going to "put in your own words" an idea of someone so much smarter or wiser than yourself? It suffices to accept the adage as profound wisdom and preserve it in all it's glory. (That's a well made remark!)
Also, not to mention, a fact does not have a poetic license! Meaning that, there are only so many ways to be sweet and direct in explaining what the Pythagorean Theorem is. Anything more is just bluff and fluff. As for a self perceived description of Ghandi, that would vary greatly from one to the other becuase no claim would be reflective of Truth and Fact, however for any real facts... "Ghandi was born on October 2, 1869"... how many other ways are you going to say that? We can use synonyms, pick up a thesaurus... we can hire someone to practically translate it to Latin and toss it translation to the reader... or, perhaps we can just go all around the world for that simple statement and then copyright a paragraph and a half all for just stating the date he was born. "Ghandi was born on October 2, 1869", must be plagiarism! If you say it outloud, you're in c
Revival or restoration... I think that a fully restored 1967 Hemi Barracuda is a very nice car!
Anyways, I was more expecting that the focus of controversy here would be evidence or other implications indicative of Nature's myriad ways to encourage evolution.
"We Heard You, you wanted it easier and more secure." Security is too broad and general, more closely associated to Microsoft as a whole than any one product you have. And, I dare Microsoft to give evidence ANYONE wanted IE to be "easier". What about the real cries from Webmasters and Webdesigners screaming about the lack of compliance to standards, lack of support for CSS? They have been screaming at Microsoft to conform to standards since the early 90s and still... Internet Explorer is off doing it's own thing.
I'm not an Eagle Scout; more by choice than anything. Years ago, I took a honest interest in scouting, but was very disappointed in the whole scheme. While some might assert that scouting isn't supposed to be a focus on survival skills, why else for all the survivalist training such as cooking without stove, camping with minimal supplies, hunting etc.? OK, so there are much better clubs to join that can better teach you how to eat dirt, weeds and to build a sheltor out of leaves and bark... but I was still rather annoyed at how little the Boy Scouts prepared a young adult for if they did get lost in the woods and had to get by a few days.
Looking back on those days, I realize that the Boy Scouts is heavily capitalist, despite any hopes a young scout might have for actually learning something for outdoor life. I remember the joy of seeing the Boy Scout emblem on my new portable stove, knife, compas etc. It never really dawned on me till after the fact, the Boy Scouts were actually far more mainstream than what people might expect. For a real life comparison, they are like the Air Force with air conditioned, reinforced tents in "war" rather than the Marines left to cover up with whatever they might, their jackets, a rock... anything but no air conditioner. I also came to realize everything in the Scouts was geared towards making me think like a malible consumer. A consumer which even if he isn't "sold" by advertisement, will still buy whatever is in the advertisement. A consumer who thinks that name brand is everything (does it have the Boy Scout Emblem!?). The dangers in this, is also an intiment involvment with the authorities behind the hype, and I assert no organization, no company should be above either the People or the Government. It is often in Capitalist Nations that people tend to bag on the government and forgive the Company without considering the fact that all their horrors were becuase of the Company rather than the Government; America doesn't go to war becuase of public support, but becuase of entire industry wide consensus (A lot of private/public companies making money off of our campaign in the Gulf and that money is not going to expand Middle Class. This is fact.).
Yeah, I learned how to pitch a tent, tie a few knots, and clean a wound. But, honestly, I could have figured that out along the way anyways... the depth of how much they teach in the Boy Scouts I believe is a hidden agenda as well. "You're too stupid to do much else, and trust Big Business and it's ability to make sure you won't ever have to decide which flower or weed you can eat. If you do end up in the woods, your car broke down and left you stranded becuase of Government regulations. In the meantime buy this handy Boy Scout Portable Stove, Boy Scout Portable Water Purification Kit and Boy Scout Compas to help tide you over till Big Business will rescue you."
The Boy Scouts is really a political/economic condition course for a particular ideology. The fact is, most capitalists embracing nations have Youth Programs all, in some way, dubbed as "scouts". Communists, tend to go for "pioneers". They all expose simple survival aspects which more give an impression of the phenomenal attraction to "Tips'n'Tricks", while underneath the stage tricks and simple wood carving classes... there's a political, philosophical, economic lesson vehemently pushed and ingrained in the childs mind.
Sure you get a letter from the President for making Eagle Scout. Those that are trying to push their message are often proud of their efforts; yes, it's worth something to put on your resume, there are benefits adding to real life incentive to encourage parents to toss their children into these programs.
Bottom line. I didn't learn all that much while in the Boy Scouts. If you went against the grain you were punished for it. For example, most of the kids in my district ran around with State Fair, Stainless Steal, Rambo "Survival Knives"... it seemed the ONLY non-Boy Scout peace of gear authorized for use du
No need to apologize. There is some resentment. Yeah, forcing me to conform to an image bothers me. Image... for the most part, an image is nothing more than an illusion and the only garunteed lie. If I happen to dress like you, so be it. But I do resent being told to dress a particular way, for no other reason than to "fit the image". I'm ex-Military, told to wear camoflauge has some rationality to it as far as I'm concerned. But not slacks and a tie for the sake of everyone else forced to wear the same thing to perceive you as a "professional". Along with this goes the subconscience distractions and distaste that taps into the motivation responsible for voluntary overtime that so many bosses long for.
Do I hate my boss? No. I have a good boss, all of them. But I realize their hands are tied as well, they are forced to conform too. I do hate the system which compells or governs these trends. Particularly, whoever decided that being bland, dull and boring was a sure characteristic of "professionalism". Nevermind all the childish bantering in corporate so-called meetings... I'm actually appaulled that most would have to consider me a "professional". Only ignorance of what "professionalism" entails drives the illusion of prestige and mystery.
Sometimes, I wish that I could get paid enough as a ditch digger. Becuase I surely would, and return home and give the IT industry a 1000% more than it ever could have gotten as a paid developer. But, maybe I'm burned out with the office politics. Maybe I'm just not cut out for life in big-business. Of all the possibilities or causes for my precedents, the results that I see are undenyable.
As an ex-MySpace drone, I only joined becuase I wanted to see how far I could customize the HTML for my own account. I did very well, then looked at all the friends list and figured... "Who the hell are these people?"
No doubt, all sorts of personalities exist on MySpace. I can deal and respect many of the objectionable ones, but I think a couple of crimes are universal. Child (a real child not 'underage' teenager, a *child*) molestation, and ratting on another person. Even those incarcerated tend to target such people found guilty of these crimes. A lot can be said here, if even those the greater society outcasts chose to outcast such people.
I work for a large defense contractor (think Raytheon, Boeing etc.). Most of what I do, I can practically do from anywhere be it the office, home or a coffee shop. Well, the coffee shop would be problematic, I do handle classified and controlled information so passerbys might not feel comfortable thinking any moment Secret Service will jump in and erase their memories.
OK. So, aside from having to handle sensitive information or hardware. My more mundane activities can very well be handled at home or where ever I may connect to the internet.
For some reason, this is the way most corporate work places operate. Joe walks in, plays like he's a well brainwashed representative of society and socializes with co-workers while smoking, drinking coffee etc. Then he walks over and turns on his computer, and checks his email where for another hour to three hours he's pretty much doing the same thing for distant co-workers or on-site co-workers also playing with their emails. Then, he does some actual work, maybe an hour, may four at most. We are at 6 hours now. Then he spends another two hours away from "production" interests, to handle things that will sadly have more an impact for upcoming review. He asserts his politics and opinions on the new name tags to be issued. He sends out a memo essentially complaining about the coffee maker being a mess everyday. He sends his opinions down to maintenance becuase he thinks the power outlets need to be verified or checked.
This is a "busy" work day.
An average day... he might do one hour of "production" work, and BS for the rest of the day. For managers that joke about this "horror" to themselves... Managers are even worse than the workers. Managers typically do nothing of their inherent model suggests, this isn't being said jokingly either. Mangers really do nothing, even when they think they are doing something.
It's the feel that something is getting done. It's why we have meetings and all the sort. The last time a Meeting ever amounted to something, was when this one nobody held a meeting in the back of a German beer pub, later to wreck havoc across Europe. Ironically, even that meeting resulted in disastor and mayhem.
Just like Meetings make us feel like something is getting done... the same feeling is derived with actually seeing other people gather. Really, reporting to work, for most people who use a Computer, is a huge big-picture meeting! We get up, endure the assanine daily routines of office politics and becuase of this, that's work.
Personally, my best work comes within the first hour of waking up, and the wee hours of the night when I'm fully relaxed and able to focus becuase there is no distractions. I can listen to music, without fear of someone taking offense. I can chose to go sit outside and ponder something without fear of someone thinking I'm not doing anything. I can take as many breaks as I want, I can lounge in the comfort and safety of my own home. I enjoy the food at my own home. I enjoy the 50 dollar couch I have over the 150 dollar chair at work. I can wear something comfortable at home (Any man who says slacks, a tie, and a collared cotten shirt is "comfortable" is either very ignorant or out right lieing to your face. Even if it might be physically tolerable, it's still mentally uncomfortable to have to dress that way and worry about spilling coffee on it.). Sweats pants and a t-shirt, now you can't get more comfortable than that. I want to be at home anyways!
And if there's any better real life example of how much more people are willing to work when at home, we only need to ponder the speed, effectiveness, quality of OSS software development over proprietary counterparts 'minus exceptions of proprietary protocols etc.'). At home, I'm much more willing to work much more, becuase a great deal of it won't even be considered "work".
But, try to tell your boss that! That's the tricky part. He'd rather pay you for less product, just to see you once a day abide by ru