What the hell does that mean? Professional social networking?
Prostitutes? Drug dealers?
Yes, if your 'massage therapist' or your 'herb specialist' check their email often, they would be included too.
Basically, it's anyone with work experience that has regular email access.
I guess you could use your friendster account or your facebook account to network professionally, but most people (I believe) prefer to keep their personal lives separate from their professional ones (even if the separation is only one short url away).
In other words, you could leave comments about the product quality and the customer service you've enjoyed from your local herbal specialist. And his boss could leave comments about his employee's strong work ethics and his dedication to the product.
...Apple's team simply borrowing ideas from other people without contributing anything back.
That's a gross over-generalization. I know this was omitted during the tv drama series (what was the show called "Pirates of Silicon Valley"?) but there was an agreement between Xerox Parc, Apple, and the others, and Apple did fulfill the part that was required of them.
I believe the orange book (the third one) has a copy of that agreement -- available in pdf format.
No, according to google it's more like 6 426.5 U.S. dollars. Thought I'm sure getting incarcerated in a Chinese prison for 2 years would be more than enough of a deterrent for most Americans.
It wouldn't surprise me if Babylon 5 did actually lose money.
This is actually a good point, not that Babylon 5 lost money -- but that you better be able to back up your allegations with hard facts -- not just some information you've glimpsed from an article or two. I don't mean to disparage the parent, but if you go after someone who's getting paid to spread FUD about his organization, you better be well prepared in your arguments, because the guy who's getting paid full time to do this will be able to spit out figures and arguments whether those arguments are accurate or not.
Forgetting to log out happens all the time. In College, anyone who forgot to log out from our unix student lab would find the next day that they had sent obscene emails and love poems to a few select faculty members.
Look, if you think that Speed is realistic, that isn't the movie's fault.
It's not movies like "Speed" and "Die Hard" that are the problem. It's shows like "Numbers" and "CSI" that are. It's when shows take on an air of scientific authority, and pretend to be teaching you something, that people are the most likely to believe their conclusions and make actual decisions of real consequences based on those conclusions.
Let's take "Numbers" for instance when they had an episode where a nuclear waste container got stolen. They had the father of the mathematician turn to the camera, and explain very authoritatively the concept of "the walking ghost" story and how the thiefs would succumb to the symptoms of radiation poisoning very quickly. And eventually, that's how the show proceeded, the sickness of the thiefs was a plot twist, and the threat of dropping that container to the ground, to break it open, became another climax still.
And of course, those two consequences were completely wrong. You don't get radiation poisoning from driving those shielded containers around. And you certainly can not break those containers open by dropping them on a parking lot from a couple of feet up (when they've been tested to survive full head-on train collisions, and drops from much much higher places).
But if you were to have seen that show, and entered into a policy debate, or possibly just voted for some politician who would need to make some policy decisions regarding nuclear power or nuclear waste management, then your misinformed opinion (and possibly even my own misinformed opinion) on the matter would have been what would have ruled the day.
Who exactly pays for these surveys? $50,000 is not exactly chump change. Of course, I guess we could ask them to look at their analysis, but their client "receives the ACSI data on a proprietary basis" -- so I guess that means fat chance for the rest of us. And also, for those who haven't gone to their web site, it's "The American Customer Satisfaction Index (TM)" and NOT "The University of Michigan's Consumer Index" as the original poster (the corporate shill) tried to imply.
Programming something new to some people is like playing a video game.
Speaking of which, http://www.pyweek.org/ is coming up this first week of September.
It's time to dust off that python book (or borrow one from someone) and do whatever you have to do to get some days off that week.
If a body degenerates into obesity we should naturally assume it is not working properly, not that the person has weak character.
Why? Shouldn't our goal be to reverse that obesity? If someone is obese, we should formulate as many assumptions as we can, so that we can eliminate them as quickly as possible. And if this means that some obese people/children would have to go through a fat camp in order to eliminate the lack of a proper diet and exercise as a possible root cause of their problem, then so be it -- let's keep the eye on the prize. We do want healthy children and adults. Right?
"There are apparently some ancient (ie regarding POTS calls) laws about what has to be reported to the customer. AT&T is just obeying the law. If you think it's a stupid law (hint: for datacomms, it is), then sign up for e-billing and save a forest or two... "
I don't think so, at least not in my State (which happens to be California). I have two unlimited data/cell phone accounts (one for work and one for personal use) from two different companies, and I don't get any of that nonsense (and by the way, I didn't sign up for e-billing either -- although I'm sure I could get that information online if I wanted to).
In any case, if I really needed to get that detailed information, I wouldn't even need to download it. My phone has a logging mechanism for keeping track of my call/data connections information, it has one gig of memory -- so it's not like it's going to make much of dent on it.
And exactly how would they verify by email address that you were at the demonstration? Oh yeah, you registered an email address at anarchist.org before you went....
It would just be like any other event that's covered by the media, you'd just send in your email a week in advance scripting your quotes just like if they were being delivered during the demonstration. If the demonstration really did occur the way you described, Google could safely assume that you kept your word, behaved as you originally choreographed, or at least got close enough in your predictions to sound like a believable participant.
And let's say you procrastinated, and for some weird reason didn't submit your email on time. I'm not saying this would happen, but let's just assume that it does for a moment.
All would not be lost, you could still write your email address on a large card board sign, take off all your clothes, and rush the riot police a la braveheart. This way even if the other participant's cell phone cameras don't get a good shot of you getting a serious beating, your attack would still be entered in the public record, your cardboard sign would be entered as evidence of a deadly weapon, and it wouldn't take the entire CSI of Miami -- nor anything as complicated as a soiled blue dress -- to positively authenticate your participation in that event.
Encouraging Americans to be healthy is great. I don't really have a problem with charging those who smoke more, for instance. But high blood pressure? Come on, that's hereditary. Once you start discriminating against people for their genetic makeup, you're on a slope that is not just slippery, but frictionless.
What's hereditary? Genetics is only one factor of many that could affect blood pressure. Besides, the company has said they will not penalize employees who bring in notes from their Doctors saying that they've made a good faith attempt at correcting their blood pressure, following their plan, and it didn't budge.
I think this is a good thing. The "genetics" factor is not the sole cause of blood pressure, and you have no business playing that card -- if you didn't even attempt to eliminate any of the other possibilities.
My other question is how do you guarantee who the other person is voting for.
It's called trust. Have you ever heard of that concept? And it's not like you're trading votes with a person who's holding diametrically-opposed views to your own. Chances are, if you were swapping votes in the last election, it was because you didn't want Bush elected first and foremost. And as long as you're trading votes with someone who has the same primary goal as your own, then I don't see what the problem is.
Let's be practical. Trust is what makes this country go around, not Courts. If you don't trust the person I've trusted with my vote, then that's *your* problem -- not mine. Anyway, good luck with preventing people from communicating with each other several months before the elections, I wander what draconian measures you would put in place to prevent us from doing that.
Its an article on his blog. His resume is available there as well, and not hard to find. Frank is exceptionally well qualified to write this article.
No, Frank may be an uber sysop, but he's certainly not an uber programmer. He praises the generalist programmer and alludes to the Mythical Month book, but if you look at his blog and the technical articles (code samples) he wrote, Frank is only a language expert and a very specialized programmer. He may know how to use mod_perl on apache, and may even have contributed a patch or two, and apparently he knows how send email with Perl (yes, the guy is a god I tell you), but his blog is entirely devoid of any higher level programming concepts.
And I'm not asking for much here, an article on testing (any kind of testing) would have been nice. His views on OO programming would also have been good. Version control is good, and I'm glad he praises/uses it, but since he seems to think this is the best thing that happened to him since sliced bread -- I sincerely hope he has something else up his sleeve. Not everything can be done with Perl, although technically it can -- it just would be a really-really bad idea.
"If it weren't for the PeeCee clone market made possible by the Phoenix BIOS and the competition in the processor market keeping Intel on their toes, the low cost high performance Linux system as we know it wouldn't exist. "
And don't forget to thank the industrial military-complex and their shrewd practice of "second sourcing". By refusing to buy from Intel unless they shared their trade secrets with AMD, they ensured that no one (including them) could be held hostage by the whims, mistakes, and self-interest of just one supreme supplier.
And in a way, "open source" can also be thought in that way. Open source code doesn't just open the code, it opens up the marketplace (and it keeps it open) should a customer ever desire to have more than just one source to buy from -- at least -- that's the way I sell the concept to some.
In other words open source that REQUIRES closed source to use is not open source at all. In the mid-1980s to early 1990s, the GNU operating environment ran as a layer on top of proprietary UNIX operating systems; it needed those UNIX systems to work. (Now, it commonly runs on top of Linux, a free kernel.) But even nowadays, in order to start Linux, you need a bootloader such as GNU GRUB. But how do you start GRUB? Doesn't a bootloader require proprietary software, namely the BIOS? I think the original poster was talking about the intentional-explicit Licensing requirement that the software can only be run on the "Microsoft Operating System", not the implied TECHNICAL limitation that the software can only be run on the platform it has already been ported to.
One is a technical limitation. And one is a legal limitation. There is a difference.
Same outcome you would say, you end up with a limitation either way. But I highly doubt that the GNU libraries would have garnered much support and been ported to any other UNIX flavors if their license had explicitly stated that you were only allowed to run that software on "brand Y's UNIX" -- and no one else's. In fact, if Microsoft is making that explicit statement in their license, it means they're explicitly worried about people porting that code to another platform -- not owned by Microsoft.
Make no mistake, this license was not written for you. It was written for Microsoft. It's probably a good license to suggest minor bug-fixes, or to allow you to study their code for academia. But it would be a mistake to develop any major project for yourself (or your company) using that license.
...as the public never had the ability to create commercial grade copies of content (before the advent of the PC).
The fight over copyright actually started when they tried outlawing the photocopy machine. Or some would say it really started when people started translating/printing the bible with the advent of the Gutenberg press (it wasn't called copyright at the time, nor was it called piracy, but people did get burned at the stakes for it -- so one must assume the church must really have felt violated and deprived by those illegal copies floating around).
"I don't really think that AT&T and Qwest are going to leak my packets to spammers. Ooo, MSN might though..."
Tell me, why Microsoft and not AT&T? Besides, wouldn't a company harvesting emails through their server forge their headers to pretend they belong to QWest or AT&T? And please don't get me started on QWest, QWest does not even have the redundant internet backbone it claims to have, so when QWest goes down, and it does go down -- you can be sure your packets get re-routed everywhere. And it's not like I'm playing devil's advocate here. Take a look at what AT&T did just one month after an employee testified in front of Congress that AT&T was sharing its data center with the NSA. Take a look at the vague new wording of their privacy policy.
"On June 21, 2006, the San Francisco Chronicle reported that AT&T had rewritten rules on their privacy policy. The policy, to take effect June 23, 2006, says that "AT&T -- not customers -- owns customers' confidential info and can use it 'to protect its legitimate business interests, safeguard others, or respond to legal process.'"
What the hell is that supposed to mean? "protecting its legitimate business interests"?
Does this mean that:
a) They're cooperating with the NSA.
b) That they're selling your information to Affiliates?
or c) All of the above.
"How many webmails you know that don't use password? "
Half a dozen may be. Mailinator, my trash mail, bucket mail, dodgit, pookmail, and spambob.
And don't worry about their domain names either, many of them have multiple domain names that their users donated to them.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, if your 'massage therapist' or your 'herb specialist' check their email often, they would be included too.
Basically, it's anyone with work experience that has regular email access. I guess you could use your friendster account or your facebook account to network professionally, but most people (I believe) prefer to keep their personal lives separate from their professional ones (even if the separation is only one short url away).
In other words, you could leave comments about the product quality and the customer service you've enjoyed from your local herbal specialist. And his boss could leave comments about his employee's strong work ethics and his dedication to the product.
Oops. It's the green book. My mistake. I must be color-blind.
It sounds like netflix would work for you (thought I'm not sure if you'd be willing to wait for that content to show up on netflix).
It wouldn't surprise me if Babylon 5 did actually lose money.
This is actually a good point, not that Babylon 5 lost money -- but that you better be able to back up your allegations with hard facts -- not just some information you've glimpsed from an article or two. I don't mean to disparage the parent, but if you go after someone who's getting paid to spread FUD about his organization, you better be well prepared in your arguments, because the guy who's getting paid full time to do this will be able to spit out figures and arguments whether those arguments are accurate or not.
Forgetting to log out happens all the time. In College, anyone who forgot to log out from our unix student lab would find the next day that they had sent obscene emails and love poems to a few select faculty members.
Let's take "Numbers" for instance when they had an episode where a nuclear waste container got stolen. They had the father of the mathematician turn to the camera, and explain very authoritatively the concept of "the walking ghost" story and how the thiefs would succumb to the symptoms of radiation poisoning very quickly. And eventually, that's how the show proceeded, the sickness of the thiefs was a plot twist, and the threat of dropping that container to the ground, to break it open, became another climax still.
And of course, those two consequences were completely wrong. You don't get radiation poisoning from driving those shielded containers around. And you certainly can not break those containers open by dropping them on a parking lot from a couple of feet up (when they've been tested to survive full head-on train collisions, and drops from much much higher places).
But if you were to have seen that show, and entered into a policy debate, or possibly just voted for some politician who would need to make some policy decisions regarding nuclear power or nuclear waste management, then your misinformed opinion (and possibly even my own misinformed opinion) on the matter would have been what would have ruled the day.
Who exactly pays for these surveys? $50,000 is not exactly chump change. Of course, I guess we could ask them to look at their analysis, but their client "receives the ACSI data on a proprietary basis" -- so I guess that means fat chance for the rest of us. And also, for those who haven't gone to their web site, it's "The American Customer Satisfaction Index (TM)" and NOT "The University of Michigan's Consumer Index" as the original poster (the corporate shill) tried to imply.
"There are apparently some ancient (ie regarding POTS calls) laws about what has to be reported to the customer. AT&T is just obeying the law. If you think it's a stupid law (hint: for datacomms, it is), then sign up for e-billing and save a forest or two... "
I don't think so, at least not in my State (which happens to be California). I have two unlimited data/cell phone accounts (one for work and one for personal use) from two different companies, and I don't get any of that nonsense (and by the way, I didn't sign up for e-billing either -- although I'm sure I could get that information online if I wanted to).
In any case, if I really needed to get that detailed information, I wouldn't even need to download it. My phone has a logging mechanism for keeping track of my call/data connections information, it has one gig of memory -- so it's not like it's going to make much of dent on it.
It would just be like any other event that's covered by the media, you'd just send in your email a week in advance scripting your quotes just like if they were being delivered during the demonstration. If the demonstration really did occur the way you described, Google could safely assume that you kept your word, behaved as you originally choreographed, or at least got close enough in your predictions to sound like a believable participant.
And let's say you procrastinated, and for some weird reason didn't submit your email on time. I'm not saying this would happen, but let's just assume that it does for a moment.
All would not be lost, you could still write your email address on a large card board sign, take off all your clothes, and rush the riot police a la braveheart. This way even if the other participant's cell phone cameras don't get a good shot of you getting a serious beating, your attack would still be entered in the public record, your cardboard sign would be entered as evidence of a deadly weapon, and it wouldn't take the entire CSI of Miami -- nor anything as complicated as a soiled blue dress -- to positively authenticate your participation in that event.
I think this is a good thing. The "genetics" factor is not the sole cause of blood pressure, and you have no business playing that card -- if you didn't even attempt to eliminate any of the other possibilities.
Let's be practical. Trust is what makes this country go around, not Courts. If you don't trust the person I've trusted with my vote, then that's *your* problem -- not mine. Anyway, good luck with preventing people from communicating with each other several months before the elections, I wander what draconian measures you would put in place to prevent us from doing that.
And I'm not asking for much here, an article on testing (any kind of testing) would have been nice. His views on OO programming would also have been good. Version control is good, and I'm glad he praises/uses it, but since he seems to think this is the best thing that happened to him since sliced bread -- I sincerely hope he has something else up his sleeve. Not everything can be done with Perl, although technically it can -- it just would be a really-really bad idea.
"If it weren't for the PeeCee clone market made possible by the Phoenix BIOS and the competition in the processor market keeping Intel on their toes, the low cost high performance Linux system as we know it wouldn't exist. "
And don't forget to thank the industrial military-complex and their shrewd practice of "second sourcing". By refusing to buy from Intel unless they shared their trade secrets with AMD, they ensured that no one (including them) could be held hostage by the whims, mistakes, and self-interest of just one supreme supplier.
And in a way, "open source" can also be thought in that way. Open source code doesn't just open the code, it opens up the marketplace (and it keeps it open) should a customer ever desire to have more than just one source to buy from -- at least -- that's the way I sell the concept to some.
One is a technical limitation. And one is a legal limitation. There is a difference.
Same outcome you would say, you end up with a limitation either way. But I highly doubt that the GNU libraries would have garnered much support and been ported to any other UNIX flavors if their license had explicitly stated that you were only allowed to run that software on "brand Y's UNIX" -- and no one else's. In fact, if Microsoft is making that explicit statement in their license, it means they're explicitly worried about people porting that code to another platform -- not owned by Microsoft.
Make no mistake, this license was not written for you. It was written for Microsoft. It's probably a good license to suggest minor bug-fixes, or to allow you to study their code for academia. But it would be a mistake to develop any major project for yourself (or your company) using that license.
i.e. if they don't like you or your looks or your politics, all of your assets under U.S. control are frozen.
Well the Department of Treasury is indeed going after Michael Moore for violating the embargo with Cuba while he was making his movie Sicko.
...as the public never had the ability to create commercial grade copies of content (before the advent of the PC).
The fight over copyright actually started when they tried outlawing the photocopy machine. Or some would say it really started when people started translating/printing the bible with the advent of the Gutenberg press (it wasn't called copyright at the time, nor was it called piracy, but people did get burned at the stakes for it -- so one must assume the church must really have felt violated and deprived by those illegal copies floating around).
"I don't really think that AT&T and Qwest are going to leak my packets to spammers. Ooo, MSN might though..."
Tell me, why Microsoft and not AT&T? Besides, wouldn't a company harvesting emails through their server forge their headers to pretend they belong to QWest or AT&T? And please don't get me started on QWest, QWest does not even have the redundant internet backbone it claims to have, so when QWest goes down, and it does go down -- you can be sure your packets get re-routed everywhere. And it's not like I'm playing devil's advocate here. Take a look at what AT&T did just one month after an employee testified in front of Congress that AT&T was sharing its data center with the NSA. Take a look at the vague new wording of their privacy policy.
"On June 21, 2006, the San Francisco Chronicle reported that AT&T had rewritten rules on their privacy policy. The policy, to take effect June 23, 2006, says that "AT&T -- not customers -- owns customers' confidential info and can use it 'to protect its legitimate business interests, safeguard others, or respond to legal process.'"
What the hell is that supposed to mean? "protecting its legitimate business interests"?
Does this mean that:
a) They're cooperating with the NSA.
b) That they're selling your information to Affiliates?
or c) All of the above.
"How many webmails you know that don't use password? "
Half a dozen may be. Mailinator, my trash mail, bucket mail, dodgit, pookmail, and spambob. And don't worry about their domain names either, many of them have multiple domain names that their users donated to them.