Im sorry, but I dont agree. Upon reading the headline and summary, it occurred to me: the RIAA chief could have penned the most eloquent, well written, and well reasoned response, and he could have made several insightful points; and yet it wouldnt matter because headlines like this one and the attitude on slashdot would mean the thread was focused on how many puppies the RIAA killed last month.
Maybe. But we'll likely never know for sure, because the RIAA chief will never do such a thing.
I mean, it flat-out states how "most/. readers" will respond.
To skirt Godwin, it doesn't take a genius to predict how most members of the Anti-Defamation League will react to a manifesto from Aryan Nation. Same goes with slashdot and Cary Sherman.
I'm enjoying all the people up in arms about the bills which would allow the GOV to have a hand in protecting critical private networks. Everyone is all like BOOO gonna mess it up, gonna take over twitter, gonna nurrrrr. Seriously, you think the corporations HAVE ANY INTEREST WHATSOEVER in protecting their shit!?
Yes. And they're more competent at it than the Department of Homeland Security would be.
A few trains collide, the moment they find it was hackers, NOT LIABLE.
That's actually not necessarily true; there can be a duty to provide adequate security; e.g. if your car is stolen from the shop because they left the keys outside on an unguarded pegboard, they're liable.
I always get a bit antsy when people bandy the word 'evil' about whenever the federal government imposes some new (and admittedly intrusive) regulations in the name of state security and public safety.
The fact is Honeywell has been making computer controlled systems like this for decades. Just because some little knockoff came along years later and packaged up a cheap version for consumers does not mean they have the right to infringe on legitimate proprietary designs.
If they've been making them for decades (and indeed they have), the patents are expired.
(and not based on new data either) The old warmist line was that the Little Ice Age didn't happen. Now they're admitting it happened, but claim that the connection with the Maunder Minimum was mere coincidence. I imagine the next step is to say that it's related to solar output, but nothing else is...
Trying to find the "one true cause" is harmfully simplistic thinking.
Not when there is one. Trying to muddy up the issue so you can either finger anyone you want, or disperse the blame in an "if everyone is responsible, no one is" sort of way is harmful.
But a better understanding of this situation may be that the combination of social networks governments is problematic.
Or, well, not. Nothing Twitter did, aside from exactly what it is used for, was involved. There was no sinister destruction of privacy by Twitter itself. There was no public re-sharing of private information through the operation of Twitter. All that happened is the would-be tourists said something publicly, the TSA found out about it, and acted like the bunch of morons that they are. Had they published a letter to the editor to a newspaper which the TSA agents read and used to exclude them, would you blame newspapers or letters columns?
There are cases where the operation of social networks could be a problem. For example, someone publishes a picture of a protest in *insert oppressive country here*, someone else tags your face in it (publicly but inadvertently so, or privately but the provider leaks the data), and you end up dead or in prison. But that simply wasn't the case here.
A large number of the "big" problems (hunger, poverty, homelessness, addiction, oppressive dictators, bad laws, etc) are social in nature. Technology will not help solve them.
Oh, I don't know; men like Browning and Kalishnikov have built technology which helps solve some of those issues. (naturally causing a few of their own)
Right to free speech is enshrined in the Indian constitution. The test it must pass is does your free speech cause harm to other people? And, that depends on social conditions. In India, people riot when their gods are portrayed in a way the worshipers do not like. I am not an Indian government apologist, but what do you expect the government to do in such a situation?
Shoot the rioters. If there's a "heckler's veto" there's no free speech; free speech cannot apply to only unobjectionable speech.
Let's just think about what a simple post on a social network can do with ones life. People have been murdered over a post on social networks by goverments. People have been held in custody (hi USA) over posting a qoute from family guy...
Those aren't problems with social networks; those are problems with governments. I doubt the British tourists cared if the world saw their tweets: in fact, they explicitly tweeted them publicly, so it doesn't matter that twitter was "in the middle". The problem was that the TSA reacted to them badly. Similarly, people being arrested over innocent public posts on social networks aren't (typically) being betrayed by the networks themselves; they're deliberately posting publicly.
Online engineering courses aren't going to mean squat. But if you have a degree from an accredited university, it will count in the minds of employers no matter how you obtained it.
AAVE and Spanglish are mutually incomprehensible with each other and with standard American English. Whether you call them dialects or merely incorrect forms of standard American English, they're not a good choice for communication in most large American companies. If you can't speak a language/dialect closer to standard American English, that's a minus.
(Note that AAVE is usually considered a dialect, but Spanglish is not)
Even if Canada was intercepting every text message sent (not unlikely), they wouldn't admit it for this. He's a sales manager, he sent this message to several colleagues. One of them probably figured they could get ahead by turning him in.
I doubt it was simply a text message and more likely a chain of events that ended with the text message. Maybe this is a case of mistaken identity but I can bet someone with that name must have been on some sort of watch list for doing questionable activities or associating with questionable people. I doubt we will ever know the full story.
If I have to hire someone else to do 2/3rds of an engineer's job, that engineer is only going to pull down $60k a year. Which is precisely the point of this entire article. The problem is, someone who can just write code walks into an interview thinking they deserve $120k a year, when someone else is going to have to micromanage them.
You're not asking for someone to do an engineer's job. You're asking for someone to do two different kinds of engineers' jobs and a project manager's job. Such a person is worth well over $120k a year (at least in expensive areas like Silly Valley and NYC).
Its brutal trying to hire people with competence in anything high tech. (And competence, in a software world, means understanding how to write code, how to diagnose problems, how to *write* clearly, how to communicate well to an audience of varied skills and personalities, how to handle ones self in front of a customer, how to put a project plan together, how to properly estimate tasks, how to balance competing priorities, etc...)
How about trying to hire a software developer instead of a combined software developer/project manager/sales engineer? Anyone with all those skills is either 1) Working as an independent consultant (and not getting lowballed on the rates) 2) Commanding a very high salary in a senior position (and probably not writing much code) 3) Running their own company
This country is crawling with highly skilled engineers. I *never* had a problem finding anyone in the last ten years, ever. Of course, I was willing to pay them what they were worth, and I was also able to properly evaluate them prior to hiring them. No HR department, and anyone that tried to suggest "saving money" on engineering costs got kicked in the shins.
The hard part is separating the wheat from the chaff. There's plenty of highly skilled engineers. There's also at least 100x that number of incompetents claiming to be highly skilled engineers, and on paper indistinguishable from them. If you've figured out how to efficiently separate those incompetents from the good engineers, I congratulate you. Most companies seem to hire an HR department with a process which separates the candidate set into a wheat-enriched set and a wheat-deficient set... then they discard the former and interview the latter.
Because shipping, cheap 3rd world labor and international communications didn't exist in the 50's? What kept corporations from leaving the U.S. in droves then, along with the rich when levied with a 91% marginal tax rate?
Fewer places to go. Europe and Asia had just been devastated by WWII, Australia was a total backwater, South America was a set of banana republics (essentially owned by the US rich, in many cases), and Africa was (and remains) Africa.
My financial manager keeps saying, "stay diversified." Shouldn't we as a country and perhaps even individuals, too?
As a country we can stay diversified; it's a very big country. As individuals we have rather limited capacity. A lot of companies seem to want people with not only wide knowledge of many areas, but deep knowledge of all those areas. Which is bad enough but maybe doable. Then they want all that knowledge to be current; now you're into "not possible" territory. Then they want that person to have 3-5 or 5-8 years of experience, total, and to pay accordingly... now you're into "totally fucking ridiculous" territory.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe. But we'll likely never know for sure, because the RIAA chief will never do such a thing.
To skirt Godwin, it doesn't take a genius to predict how most members of the Anti-Defamation League will react to a manifesto from Aryan Nation. Same goes with slashdot and Cary Sherman.
It's nonsense; digital form long predates GIF. There was porn ASCII art.
Yes. And they're more competent at it than the Department of Homeland Security would be.
That's actually not necessarily true; there can be a duty to provide adequate security; e.g. if your car is stolen from the shop because they left the keys outside on an unguarded pegboard, they're liable.
Hits a little too close to home, does it?
If they've been making them for decades (and indeed they have), the patents are expired.
Wait seriously, that's a current claim? Honeywell's own plain old round thermostat, introduced in 1953, anticipates it.
(and not based on new data either)
The old warmist line was that the Little Ice Age didn't happen. Now they're admitting it happened, but claim that the connection with the Maunder Minimum was mere coincidence. I imagine the next step is to say that it's related to solar output, but nothing else is...
GET OUT! GET OUT NOW! THERE'S SOMEONE IN THE HOUSE!
(no, I don't have any inside information, I just assume that if you're in Newark and have a computer, someone's coming to steal it.)
Not when there is one. Trying to muddy up the issue so you can either finger anyone you want, or disperse the blame in an "if everyone is responsible, no one is" sort of way is harmful.
Or, well, not. Nothing Twitter did, aside from exactly what it is used for, was involved. There was no sinister destruction of privacy by Twitter itself. There was no public re-sharing of private information through the operation of Twitter. All that happened is the would-be tourists said something publicly, the TSA found out about it, and acted like the bunch of morons that they are. Had they published a letter to the editor to a newspaper which the TSA agents read and used to exclude them, would you blame newspapers or letters columns?
There are cases where the operation of social networks could be a problem. For example, someone publishes a picture of a protest in *insert oppressive country here*, someone else tags your face in it (publicly but inadvertently so, or privately but the provider leaks the data), and you end up dead or in prison. But that simply wasn't the case here.
Oh, I don't know; men like Browning and Kalishnikov have built technology which helps solve some of those issues. (naturally causing a few of their own)
The banks probably cut Zuck&Co in on the deal, so they wouldn't.
Shoot the rioters. If there's a "heckler's veto" there's no free speech; free speech cannot apply to only unobjectionable speech.
Those aren't problems with social networks; those are problems with governments. I doubt the British tourists cared if the world saw their tweets: in fact, they explicitly tweeted them publicly, so it doesn't matter that twitter was "in the middle". The problem was that the TSA reacted to them badly. Similarly, people being arrested over innocent public posts on social networks aren't (typically) being betrayed by the networks themselves; they're deliberately posting publicly.
PRINT "ATDV12024561414" should do the trick
Online engineering courses aren't going to mean squat. But if you have a degree from an accredited university, it will count in the minds of employers no matter how you obtained it.
AAVE and Spanglish are mutually incomprehensible with each other and with standard American English. Whether you call them dialects or merely incorrect forms of standard American English, they're not a good choice for communication in most large American companies. If you can't speak a language/dialect closer to standard American English, that's a minus.
(Note that AAVE is usually considered a dialect, but Spanglish is not)
I think that must have been done by a non-native English speaker. It's just a mistaken idiom; the correct "core value" is "Cleaning Out the Customer".
Even if Canada was intercepting every text message sent (not unlikely), they wouldn't admit it for this. He's a sales manager, he sent this message to several colleagues. One of them probably figured they could get ahead by turning him in.
Another fucking just-worlder.
You're not asking for someone to do an engineer's job. You're asking for someone to do two different kinds of engineers' jobs and a project manager's job. Such a person is worth well over $120k a year (at least in expensive areas like Silly Valley and NYC).
How about trying to hire a software developer instead of a combined software developer/project manager/sales engineer? Anyone with all those skills is either
1) Working as an independent consultant (and not getting lowballed on the rates)
2) Commanding a very high salary in a senior position (and probably not writing much code)
3) Running their own company
The hard part is separating the wheat from the chaff. There's plenty of highly skilled engineers. There's also at least 100x that number of incompetents claiming to be highly skilled engineers, and on paper indistinguishable from them. If you've figured out how to efficiently separate those incompetents from the good engineers, I congratulate you. Most companies seem to hire an HR department with a process which separates the candidate set into a wheat-enriched set and a wheat-deficient set... then they discard the former and interview the latter.
Fewer places to go. Europe and Asia had just been devastated by WWII, Australia was a total backwater, South America was a set of banana republics (essentially owned by the US rich, in many cases), and Africa was (and remains) Africa.
As a country we can stay diversified; it's a very big country. As individuals we have rather limited capacity. A lot of companies seem to want people with not only wide knowledge of many areas, but deep knowledge of all those areas. Which is bad enough but maybe doable. Then they want all that knowledge to be current; now you're into "not possible" territory. Then they want that person to have 3-5 or 5-8 years of experience, total, and to pay accordingly... now you're into "totally fucking ridiculous" territory.