You want a technical solution that shields the pilots/airborne vehicle from lasers? That would be technically impossible.
Impossible? Almost all of the cases in question have involved handheld 532nm green lasers from a substantial distance, so all you really need to do is mix up a coating to apply to the windows that contains the same dye that laser safety goggles use. The filtering wouldn't have to be particularly strong to effectively eliminate the green light, resulting in a slight orangeish tint to the aircraft windows. Alternately, instead of coating the windows you could make filters from plastic sheets that attach to the windows at night using Velcro or some other means. It's not a difficult problem to solve.
On the contrary, they showed up every morning and kicked ass and produced great product BECAUSE THEY COULD KICK ASS AND PRODUCE GREAT PRODUCT, because they company was a space where they could do that.
So why isn't the imaginary company in question already giving all of their workers that environment to begin with?
Autonomy, mastery, and purpose should always be part of a productive IT working environment, not used an incentive. Using that as a reward to recognize exceptional effort instead of making it an integral part of the workplace for *everyone* indicates a failure on management's part. If a manager comes to me and tells me that instead of raising my pay to recognize exceptional effort, they're going to give me a working environment that they should have been giving me and my co-workers all along, I'm not going to be impressed in the least. It's like giving a fast-food employee a longer spatula as a reward for his effort so he can flip two burgers at once instead of just one, when they could have increased productivity all along by giving everyone the bigger spatulas.
They make the point that after one's basic needs are met financial incentives and perks are no longer motivating. Instead people are motivated by Autonomy, Mastery, and Purpose.
For me and almost all the IT folks I know, money talks and all the other crap walks. Often, when people don't appear to be motivated by money, it's simply because it's not enough money for the effort being asked. Personal experience - many years ago I was told that I would get a $10K bonus for completing a particular project within six months. This sounds good on the surface until you understand that meeting this deadline would have required an additional 20 hours per week, every week of those six months. Giving up that much more of my life simply was not worth the incentive that was being offered. Had they offered $30K instead, it likely would have been a different story and the company would have recognized hundreds of thousands of dollars in income at least a full quarter earlier than they eventually did. If you "work to live" instead of "living to work", then you realize that "autonomy, mastery, and purpose" is great to have in the workplace, but it doesn't pay for your kids' schooling or that nice European vacation your wife has wanted for years.
Assuming a 40 hour workweek, a 3% "above and beyond" incentive *should* mean they only expect an additional hour and 12 minutes out of you every week. In my experience, a comparable pay increase often comes with the expectation that you're going to be putting in another 10-15 hours per week, and then these fools wonder why no one wants to take them up on such a "great deal".
Hard enough such that you misunderstood Amazon's position. They're not saying he doesn't have the right to republish the content, but rather that he doesn't have an *exclusive* right. They're not wanting dozens of copies of the same content, i.e., the same Wikipedia article in ebook form, even though it's perfectly legal for someone to do that and Amazon knows it. They're also not wanting stale, out of date content in regards to technical/reference works. The general objective is to reduce customer complaints and improve the overall experience of their store, and my point was that they have no problem with offering dozens of copies of identical PD content, so they're still going to run into the same issues.
And in these cases, in civil court, murder carried a 33000 times greater liability than copyright infringement.
In this particular case it did, but this was a fluke - the defendant was a rich celebrity with deep pockets and the potential for substantial future earnings. If it had been Jammie Thomas instead of OJ, I'm quite sure the damages awarded would have been much, much less.
Yes, we all hate the **AA, but remember that nobody held up these artists at gunpoint and forced them to sign
No, but the government *did* hold the rest of the country at gunpoint and continues to steal (as in "taking from us and making unavailable for our use") what rightfully should have gone into the public domain with the stroke of a pen. That's *my* problem with the way things are.
Of course, you failed to mention that they are available for $0.00.
They're available for free, and they're also available as non-free ebooks on Amazon as well, from dozens of "authors". That's part of the problem - Amazon is enforcing a double standard, and says that they're attempting to "clean up" the marketplace as regards these kinds of tech ebooks, but they're apparently content to let the PD crowd run wild, and it's just as possible to pay money for a crappy version of a PD work as it is to pay money for a crappy collection of Wikipedia tech articles in their store.
Amazon (rightly) doesn't want to let you sell books that you can get for free on the same device.
Yet they allow sales of works in the public domain such as Frankenstein, Alice in Wonderland, etc., which are freely available in electronic form on the Internet as well. Granted, those titles won't become dated like a technical reference would, but it's still a bit inconsistent on Amazon's part.
Not only does it continue the same, but the company usually looks at whatever fine they received as an additional cost of doing business, and then just passes it along to the customer. Therefore, the *customer* is who actually pays for the company's transgressions.
I don't think you actually read that EULA. That agreement applies to the use of their Internet sites, not their shrinkwrapped products, and specifically refers you to the EULAs included with said products for the terms of use that apply to them. Additionally, the linked EULA only applies to the United Kingdom.
take that straight to your state's Department of Labor, and let them know you'll be doing that.
BFD. At least in the U.S., there are plenty of states that have no appreciable labor laws that provide for any substantial fines for this kind of action (I'm looking at you in particular, Florida), and more or less force you to pursue your former employer in civil court at your own expense.
As the submitter, I can answer that question. The original page for the book looked to be a WordPress blog, and those often don't deal with Slashdot-level traffic very well. Mashable is a fairly large, well-known site that already handles a fair bit of traffic, and a direct link to the original webpage for the book is in fact included in the Mashable article for those that would be interested in pursuing the story further. It doesn't help anyone if an article doesn't have a working URL, so using the Mashable link had everything to do with making sure the given URL was working and the article was actually available for people to read.
On the other hand, I have code listings printed back in 2002 on a low-end LaserJet 1200 using an HP cartridge that were stuck together pretty badly when I went through them a couple of years ago. Different printer/toner/paper combinations can yield different results.
In a very abstract sense that's true, but in more concrete terms it refers to a VM-based system where the individual VMs can be quickly migrated at will among physical machines. The downtime involved when migrating usually is not any more than just a second or two owing to the hosts having shared storage that backs the VMs in question, and can be done without interrupting anything - even current network connections are maintained, so you could be interacting with an open SSH session on your VM and never know that it had been migrated. One could also implement it using a load balancer and multiple physical machines behind it as well, but those machines would have to be synchronized in real-time in order to gain the same functionality unless it was something relatively stateless like a web server.
The GP seemed to be indicating that simply having a box out on the Internet was functionally equivalent to a cloud, when it's not. I have a colo'd box in a data center that provides my email, my web presence, backups, and a few other things for me, and a separate server on the other side of the country that maintains backups for *that* box, but I wouldn't ever consider what I have as "a cloud", whereas it seemed to me that the GP would (mistakenly).
This is exactly the situation the "the cloud" buzzword was created for: people who are scared of the phrase "file server".
No, they're two completely separate concepts, but you're right in that it seems to be acceptable for people to talk "the cloud" about it without understanding what it actually refers to.
Hardware redundancy is the big one. Your server runs as an abstracted VM in a management framework (XenServer, VMWare, etc.) that allows it to be instantly migrated to another machine with no interruptions/downtime if there are problems with the physical hardware it's running on. If you'd been running a real server instead of a cloud-based VM, you'd be down until that server could be fixed.
Maybe this will help - let's say you have a truck that's making deliveries to 20 people. We'll make things really simple and say that the store is 5 miles away from each customer, and the destinations are a mile apart from each other. So, after having made all the deliveries and returned to the store, the truck will have traveled 29 miles (5 miles from the store to the first customer, 19 miles going between customers, and 5 miles back to the store). If each person made a special trip to the store to pick up their stuff instead, that's an aggregate total of 200 miles driven (5 miles to the store, 5 miles back, times 20). Let's further assume that each customer's car gets 40 mpg, and the truck gets 10 mpg. That works out to 5 gallons of fuel used by the customers, but only 2.9 gallons used by the truck. That's a fuel savings of almost 40%, plus 19 more vehicles that weren't on the road clogging things up.
Slashdot Mirror
You want a technical solution that shields the pilots/airborne vehicle from lasers? That would be technically impossible.
Impossible? Almost all of the cases in question have involved handheld 532nm green lasers from a substantial distance, so all you really need to do is mix up a coating to apply to the windows that contains the same dye that laser safety goggles use. The filtering wouldn't have to be particularly strong to effectively eliminate the green light, resulting in a slight orangeish tint to the aircraft windows. Alternately, instead of coating the windows you could make filters from plastic sheets that attach to the windows at night using Velcro or some other means. It's not a difficult problem to solve.
5 people makes a majority opinion that decides the law, however. I'm sure that's what the parent poster was getting at.
On the contrary, they showed up every morning and kicked ass and produced great product BECAUSE THEY COULD KICK ASS AND PRODUCE GREAT PRODUCT, because they company was a space where they could do that.
So why isn't the imaginary company in question already giving all of their workers that environment to begin with?
Autonomy, mastery, and purpose should always be part of a productive IT working environment, not used an incentive. Using that as a reward to recognize exceptional effort instead of making it an integral part of the workplace for *everyone* indicates a failure on management's part. If a manager comes to me and tells me that instead of raising my pay to recognize exceptional effort, they're going to give me a working environment that they should have been giving me and my co-workers all along, I'm not going to be impressed in the least. It's like giving a fast-food employee a longer spatula as a reward for his effort so he can flip two burgers at once instead of just one, when they could have increased productivity all along by giving everyone the bigger spatulas.
They make the point that after one's basic needs are met financial incentives and perks are no longer motivating. Instead people are motivated by Autonomy, Mastery, and Purpose.
For me and almost all the IT folks I know, money talks and all the other crap walks. Often, when people don't appear to be motivated by money, it's simply because it's not enough money for the effort being asked. Personal experience - many years ago I was told that I would get a $10K bonus for completing a particular project within six months. This sounds good on the surface until you understand that meeting this deadline would have required an additional 20 hours per week, every week of those six months. Giving up that much more of my life simply was not worth the incentive that was being offered. Had they offered $30K instead, it likely would have been a different story and the company would have recognized hundreds of thousands of dollars in income at least a full quarter earlier than they eventually did. If you "work to live" instead of "living to work", then you realize that "autonomy, mastery, and purpose" is great to have in the workplace, but it doesn't pay for your kids' schooling or that nice European vacation your wife has wanted for years.
Assuming a 40 hour workweek, a 3% "above and beyond" incentive *should* mean they only expect an additional hour and 12 minutes out of you every week. In my experience, a comparable pay increase often comes with the expectation that you're going to be putting in another 10-15 hours per week, and then these fools wonder why no one wants to take them up on such a "great deal".
How hard is that to understand?
Hard enough such that you misunderstood Amazon's position. They're not saying he doesn't have the right to republish the content, but rather that he doesn't have an *exclusive* right. They're not wanting dozens of copies of the same content, i.e., the same Wikipedia article in ebook form, even though it's perfectly legal for someone to do that and Amazon knows it. They're also not wanting stale, out of date content in regards to technical/reference works. The general objective is to reduce customer complaints and improve the overall experience of their store, and my point was that they have no problem with offering dozens of copies of identical PD content, so they're still going to run into the same issues.
And in these cases, in civil court, murder carried a 33000 times greater liability than copyright infringement.
In this particular case it did, but this was a fluke - the defendant was a rich celebrity with deep pockets and the potential for substantial future earnings. If it had been Jammie Thomas instead of OJ, I'm quite sure the damages awarded would have been much, much less.
Yes, we all hate the **AA, but remember that nobody held up these artists at gunpoint and forced them to sign
No, but the government *did* hold the rest of the country at gunpoint and continues to steal (as in "taking from us and making unavailable for our use") what rightfully should have gone into the public domain with the stroke of a pen. That's *my* problem with the way things are.
Of course, you failed to mention that they are available for $0.00.
They're available for free, and they're also available as non-free ebooks on Amazon as well, from dozens of "authors". That's part of the problem - Amazon is enforcing a double standard, and says that they're attempting to "clean up" the marketplace as regards these kinds of tech ebooks, but they're apparently content to let the PD crowd run wild, and it's just as possible to pay money for a crappy version of a PD work as it is to pay money for a crappy collection of Wikipedia tech articles in their store.
Amazon (rightly) doesn't want to let you sell books that you can get for free on the same device.
Yet they allow sales of works in the public domain such as Frankenstein, Alice in Wonderland, etc., which are freely available in electronic form on the Internet as well. Granted, those titles won't become dated like a technical reference would, but it's still a bit inconsistent on Amazon's part.
I used to be the documentation lead for the Sun Fire X4600
Want. I could only afford a lowly X2100, which is still running 10 or so VMs quite comfortably even now, almost four years later.
Speed of sound is 330 m/s. That's a kilometer in a third of a second.
That's a kilometer in three seconds.
And that makes them more expensive than their competition
It does? Always?
Not only does it continue the same, but the company usually looks at whatever fine they received as an additional cost of doing business, and then just passes it along to the customer. Therefore, the *customer* is who actually pays for the company's transgressions.
I don't think you actually read that EULA. That agreement applies to the use of their Internet sites, not their shrinkwrapped products, and specifically refers you to the EULAs included with said products for the terms of use that apply to them. Additionally, the linked EULA only applies to the United Kingdom.
take that straight to your state's Department of Labor, and let them know you'll be doing that.
BFD. At least in the U.S., there are plenty of states that have no appreciable labor laws that provide for any substantial fines for this kind of action (I'm looking at you in particular, Florida), and more or less force you to pursue your former employer in civil court at your own expense.
As the submitter, I can answer that question. The original page for the book looked to be a WordPress blog, and those often don't deal with Slashdot-level traffic very well. Mashable is a fairly large, well-known site that already handles a fair bit of traffic, and a direct link to the original webpage for the book is in fact included in the Mashable article for those that would be interested in pursuing the story further. It doesn't help anyone if an article doesn't have a working URL, so using the Mashable link had everything to do with making sure the given URL was working and the article was actually available for people to read.
On the other hand, I have code listings printed back in 2002 on a low-end LaserJet 1200 using an HP cartridge that were stuck together pretty badly when I went through them a couple of years ago. Different printer/toner/paper combinations can yield different results.
Office Libre (And Open Office as well) does everything that M$ office does except crashing!
The bug tracker for the product begs to differ. There are bugs in there that are more than a decade old.
In a very abstract sense that's true, but in more concrete terms it refers to a VM-based system where the individual VMs can be quickly migrated at will among physical machines. The downtime involved when migrating usually is not any more than just a second or two owing to the hosts having shared storage that backs the VMs in question, and can be done without interrupting anything - even current network connections are maintained, so you could be interacting with an open SSH session on your VM and never know that it had been migrated. One could also implement it using a load balancer and multiple physical machines behind it as well, but those machines would have to be synchronized in real-time in order to gain the same functionality unless it was something relatively stateless like a web server.
The GP seemed to be indicating that simply having a box out on the Internet was functionally equivalent to a cloud, when it's not. I have a colo'd box in a data center that provides my email, my web presence, backups, and a few other things for me, and a separate server on the other side of the country that maintains backups for *that* box, but I wouldn't ever consider what I have as "a cloud", whereas it seemed to me that the GP would (mistakenly).
VMS had it quite a bit earlier than that, and it's not the same thing.
This is exactly the situation the "the cloud" buzzword was created for: people who are scared of the phrase "file server".
No, they're two completely separate concepts, but you're right in that it seems to be acceptable for people to talk "the cloud" about it without understanding what it actually refers to.
Hardware redundancy is the big one. Your server runs as an abstracted VM in a management framework (XenServer, VMWare, etc.) that allows it to be instantly migrated to another machine with no interruptions/downtime if there are problems with the physical hardware it's running on. If you'd been running a real server instead of a cloud-based VM, you'd be down until that server could be fixed.
And forget cables - even Walmart rips you off on those.
I don't even look at Amazon for cables anymore. Monoprice usually has quality cables for less.
Maybe this will help - let's say you have a truck that's making deliveries to 20 people. We'll make things really simple and say that the store is 5 miles away from each customer, and the destinations are a mile apart from each other. So, after having made all the deliveries and returned to the store, the truck will have traveled 29 miles (5 miles from the store to the first customer, 19 miles going between customers, and 5 miles back to the store). If each person made a special trip to the store to pick up their stuff instead, that's an aggregate total of 200 miles driven (5 miles to the store, 5 miles back, times 20). Let's further assume that each customer's car gets 40 mpg, and the truck gets 10 mpg. That works out to 5 gallons of fuel used by the customers, but only 2.9 gallons used by the truck. That's a fuel savings of almost 40%, plus 19 more vehicles that weren't on the road clogging things up.