I don't know why anyone thinks this is news. Music rights have affected TV archive releases for years, because the industry agreements let TV shows do more on initial transmission than on re-broadcast (same way it's fine to cover someone else's songs live, but you'd have to pay to release a recording of the live show with the covers included). Everyone involved knows the rules and had a stake in negotiating them. I don't think anyone in TV is really pushing for any changes.
Things get marked 'notabug' and 'wontfix' in all sorts of bug trackers, all the time, by all sorts of developers. It's quite a leap from there to 'doesn't have any interest in feedback from the community'.
And so was Iain M. Banks, who had a minor character in Consider Phlebas who'd got gene-modified to do this (he had both halves of his brain awake for 8 hours, then left half for 8 hours, then right half for 8 hours). Wonder if he'd heard about this dolphin thing at the time (others say this isn't really news...)
it's a web app, which at least makes it different. You can run it from anything with a compliant browser. (Though I think one of the five thousand things Microsoft calls 'Outlook' is one of those, too.) And it appears to have a rather neat implementation of what GMail calls 'labels' and what everyone else back in 1999 called 'virtual folders', which it calls 'stacks'. Aside from that, it appears a bit too early to tell.
The now-fairly-ancient SSDs in my laptop, which are Samsungs from around 2009, seem to be dying slowly; every so often I'll get some ATA errors reported in the logs and the drive will either be remounted RO or simply become entirely inaccessible, resulting in everything you try to run that's not currently completely cached failing to work with an I/O error or a segfault. After a reboot, it usually comes back up working okay, but I'm sure at some point it won't.
So...really, pretty much exactly like a typical spinning disk failure, in this case. So far anyhow. I've seen the same 'periodic failures, followed by a day where it just won't work any more' pattern with spinning disks before.
"The free market requires that consumers must here about this, because the free market relies on an informed consumer."
That's rather a telling statement, because it's the fundamental weakness of a free market when it comes to food: How does it ensure one?
The government requiring food producers to label their food is not a 'free market' policy. If you need this, it is an implicit acknowledgement that free market economic theory cannot produce the desired outcome on its own. Someone in this thread is arguing that a free market in food would result in independent food analysis institutes springing up and consumers basing their choices on the information provided by those, all without government intervention, which at least is intellectually coherent. It only has the minor drawback that it isn't true: we had something much closer to a 'free market' for food in western Europe for decades or centuries, and this did not happen. The only thing that actually resulted in the provision of useful and reliable information on food contents to consumers was government legislation.
A market where the government requires the producers to do certain things is not a free market and does not accord with free market economic theory. If you argue that your 'free market' plan will work so long as the government tells producers to put ingredients on the label, you are not arguing for a free market. If you want to argue for a free market you need to come up with a plan where market forces alone will result in the provision of accurate information and safe food to the consumer, as is broadly accomplished by the very non-free markets for food in all developed countries today.
"You don't really think that Pepsi listed either cocaine or pepsin when it had it in it do you?"
I don't believe that there were requirements for comprehensive ingredient labelling at that time. So no, it probably didn't. But if it did today, it would be required to.
How do you know that there still isn't cocaine in CocaCola?"
Because it would be all kinds of illegal if it did, and it would never have gone on this long without some disgruntled Coca Cola insider blowing the whistle. (It would also probably be trivial for an independent outside authority to verify, and I'd be amazed if some newspaper or something hasn't had chemical analyses of Coke and Pepsi done at some point just on the offchance they'd find something scandalous.)
As other posters have noted, we don't have to just argue theoretically about this. We have a perfect research case, known as 'history'.
And as so often with libertarian theories, it shows quite comprehensively that stuff _just doesn't work out that way in practice_. Again as others have pointed out, all the legislation in North America and Europe to do with food safety and food labelling has been the result of quite specific problems. It was not the case, in practice, that when food safety checks and accurate ingredient labelling were not mandated by government, trusted private companies sprang up to do those jobs. They did not. It just didn't happen. Free market forces had decades to do the job and _they didn't_. You can argue that they inevitably must until you're blue in the face, but the plain historical record contradicts you. These Things Did Not Happen.
Because Slashdot is forever banging on about how ICANN is great and the UN is threatening to take over the internet and should be stopped at all costs. About the fourteenth hilariously inaccurate article along these lines was posted earlier today.
Because lots of blacklists of various types frown on domains that use those services, as they're often used by spammers and fraudsters. Hope you're not hosting a site or sending mail from that domain with the expectation that everyone will be able to see / receive it without trouble.
"This is the original study which made people believe that saturated fat was bad [wikipedia.org]. Ever since the 1950s people have been told that fat makes you fat and gives you heart disease and all that. When really all the low fat junk we have now has sugar or artificial sweeteners added, and people eating that stuff get fat a lot quicker than if they just ate normal full-fat foods and avoided the sugary junk."
The point you just made is not the point you think you made. You didn't demonstrate that saturated fat isn't bad. You suggested that 'sugar or artificial sweeteners' are worse than saturated fat. Even if we assume this is true, the lesson to take away isn't 'saturated fat was unfairly demonized' but 'don't eat gimmicky 'no-fat' products to avoid saturated fats, eat things that are naturally low in saturated fats and other bad stuff'. It's not a lesson that's very easy to follow, since fats and sugars are so goddamn tasty. But that's the lesson.
Exactly this. I moved countries, I didn't try and ship my computer. It's just a box with some computer parts in it. They sell boxes and computer parts everywhere. Get rid of it on Craigslist or local equivalent, buy a new one (or a similar second-hand one, from Craigslist or local equivalent...) wherever you're moving to. There's really not a lot of point trying to ship anything big and heavy from country to country unless it's not easily replaced.
The site gets paid, sure. On the advertiser's assumption that _some_ of those people view the ad. These days many ads are actually paid on a click-through basis, but even if we ignore that, the rate for pay-per-view ads is usually set after some sampling to determine the typical click-through rate for X number of views.
So let's say adblock is outlawed, and all the people who hate ads are forced to see them. We can reasonably conclude that such people will have a much lower click-through rate than those who don't bother blocking ads. Therefore, stopping the use of adblock (etc) would *lower* the rate sites were paid by advertisers per view, after they did new samples and found the click-through rate per 1,000 views (or whatever the precise metric is) had dropped.
I'd bet it'd wind up being pretty close to a zero-sum game.
Indeed. Handily proven by "To keep Facebooking moving fast, Mark Zuckerberg apparently instituted a program called Boot Camp in which engineers spend six-weeks learning every bit of Facebook's code.""
a) that's a terrible idea, and b) the fact that it's even possible (if it is, sounds like business magazine bs to me) speaks volumes. I only work for Red Hat, we're pretty cool but we're hardly the biggest fish out there, and you can imagine the chaos if we tried that...I'm sure others can apply it to their companies with similar results.
"You can't have a monopoly or a monopolistic cartel without government intervention."
Whether that's true or false, it doesn't matter, because all mature internet markets have plenty of government intervention. Cell service markets are all cartels because of wireless spectrum regulation: you can't just open up shop as a cellphone provider and start competing with Verizon/Telus/Vodafone/whoever, you have to buy spectrum from the government first. (I think the US has a narrow band of 'open spectrum' but it's not practical to try and run a national carrier in there). There is similarly onerous government regulation on acting as a fixed-line ISP in most markets.
ISPs, fixed or mobile, resemble utilities so much both in how they operate and in how they're regulated that its absurd to argue that right now they're a free market and government regulation would just ruin them. they're already extremely heavily regulated industries. they are not free markets at all. unless you advocate freeing them of most regulation, you just can't apply free market theories to the market for internet provision in most countries, to do so is absurd.
Look, it's simple. A good engineer is a professional. They don't need you to give them stuff. With the amount of money you ought to be paying a good engineer they can buy all the damn cake and massages they might need. Every engineer I know, without exception, most wants to have a useful job to do, and the latitude to do it properly. The single biggest de-motivator for an engineer is to know the work they're doing isn't valued and they're getting squeezed by management. If they have a job to do which is actually productive, and the company respects their expertise in doing that job, and they're paid reasonably well, then they're happy. Simple as that. There is nothing more to it.
Re:While we're talking about sexism in Science
on
Sexism In Science
·
· Score: 1, Insightful
You think perhaps that's a consequence of people observing the problem of sexism and attempting to do something about it? Yeesh.
Right, I was kinda sad to see Slashdot just regurgitated the massively simplified mainstream media take on this story.
What actually seems to have happened is that people signed an 'online petition', by providing their email addresses. What the petition code actually *did* with that information was auto-generate emails to the minister's office, from the addresses that 'signers' provided.
A lot of people and a lot of media outlets still don't really understand that there is precisely zero validation of the From: field on emails, but that doesn't mean Slashdot has to dive down to the same standards.
I am no Conservative supporter, and I'm gay, but there is zero story here. The people who are complaining effectively signed their names to a mail to the minister, which makes it perfectly appropriate for the minister to then send them a mail about a related topic later. The fact that they didn't know they were doing this is unfortunate, but it's hardly the minister's fault.
"But the actual act of applying that patch? That's not "arbitrarty code" I'd hope, but a (small?) patching program that authorize to sudo something for that purpose, and provide my password each time. And, again, many eyes there on that patcher."
"It gets worse. Even in countries where turn-by-turn and/or Flyover are available, the iPhone 3GS, iPhone 4, and the 4th generation iPod touch won’t support them. These devices are owned by tens of millions of users who may update over-the-air when prompted, only to find they’ve lost features and haven’t even gained any of the marquee Maps features in return."
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know why anyone thinks this is news. Music rights have affected TV archive releases for years, because the industry agreements let TV shows do more on initial transmission than on re-broadcast (same way it's fine to cover someone else's songs live, but you'd have to pay to release a recording of the live show with the covers included). Everyone involved knows the rules and had a stake in negotiating them. I don't think anyone in TV is really pushing for any changes.
Things get marked 'notabug' and 'wontfix' in all sorts of bug trackers, all the time, by all sorts of developers. It's quite a leap from there to 'doesn't have any interest in feedback from the community'.
And so was Iain M. Banks, who had a minor character in Consider Phlebas who'd got gene-modified to do this (he had both halves of his brain awake for 8 hours, then left half for 8 hours, then right half for 8 hours). Wonder if he'd heard about this dolphin thing at the time (others say this isn't really news...)
It's a good thing the Alto design team religiously checks deep into 0-ranked Slashdot discussion threads for feature requests.
it's a web app, which at least makes it different. You can run it from anything with a compliant browser. (Though I think one of the five thousand things Microsoft calls 'Outlook' is one of those, too.) And it appears to have a rather neat implementation of what GMail calls 'labels' and what everyone else back in 1999 called 'virtual folders', which it calls 'stacks'. Aside from that, it appears a bit too early to tell.
"If it takes 500,000 chinese workers to make the phone"
It doesn't. Foxconn makes all sorts of other stuff too. They don't have half a million people doing nothing but crank out iPhones.
On 2), I believe I read that Crucial released a firmware fix for that.
The now-fairly-ancient SSDs in my laptop, which are Samsungs from around 2009, seem to be dying slowly; every so often I'll get some ATA errors reported in the logs and the drive will either be remounted RO or simply become entirely inaccessible, resulting in everything you try to run that's not currently completely cached failing to work with an I/O error or a segfault. After a reboot, it usually comes back up working okay, but I'm sure at some point it won't.
So...really, pretty much exactly like a typical spinning disk failure, in this case. So far anyhow. I've seen the same 'periodic failures, followed by a day where it just won't work any more' pattern with spinning disks before.
"The free market requires that consumers must here about this, because the free market relies on an informed consumer."
That's rather a telling statement, because it's the fundamental weakness of a free market when it comes to food: How does it ensure one?
The government requiring food producers to label their food is not a 'free market' policy. If you need this, it is an implicit acknowledgement that free market economic theory cannot produce the desired outcome on its own. Someone in this thread is arguing that a free market in food would result in independent food analysis institutes springing up and consumers basing their choices on the information provided by those, all without government intervention, which at least is intellectually coherent. It only has the minor drawback that it isn't true: we had something much closer to a 'free market' for food in western Europe for decades or centuries, and this did not happen. The only thing that actually resulted in the provision of useful and reliable information on food contents to consumers was government legislation.
A market where the government requires the producers to do certain things is not a free market and does not accord with free market economic theory. If you argue that your 'free market' plan will work so long as the government tells producers to put ingredients on the label, you are not arguing for a free market. If you want to argue for a free market you need to come up with a plan where market forces alone will result in the provision of accurate information and safe food to the consumer, as is broadly accomplished by the very non-free markets for food in all developed countries today.
"You don't really think that Pepsi listed either cocaine or pepsin when it had it in it do you?"
I don't believe that there were requirements for comprehensive ingredient labelling at that time. So no, it probably didn't. But if it did today, it would be required to.
How do you know that there still isn't cocaine in CocaCola?"
Because it would be all kinds of illegal if it did, and it would never have gone on this long without some disgruntled Coca Cola insider blowing the whistle. (It would also probably be trivial for an independent outside authority to verify, and I'd be amazed if some newspaper or something hasn't had chemical analyses of Coke and Pepsi done at some point just on the offchance they'd find something scandalous.)
As other posters have noted, we don't have to just argue theoretically about this. We have a perfect research case, known as 'history'.
And as so often with libertarian theories, it shows quite comprehensively that stuff _just doesn't work out that way in practice_. Again as others have pointed out, all the legislation in North America and Europe to do with food safety and food labelling has been the result of quite specific problems. It was not the case, in practice, that when food safety checks and accurate ingredient labelling were not mandated by government, trusted private companies sprang up to do those jobs. They did not. It just didn't happen. Free market forces had decades to do the job and _they didn't_. You can argue that they inevitably must until you're blue in the face, but the plain historical record contradicts you. These Things Did Not Happen.
Because Slashdot is forever banging on about how ICANN is great and the UN is threatening to take over the internet and should be stopped at all costs. About the fourteenth hilariously inaccurate article along these lines was posted earlier today.
"Why show anything when you don't have to?"
Because lots of blacklists of various types frown on domains that use those services, as they're often used by spammers and fraudsters. Hope you're not hosting a site or sending mail from that domain with the expectation that everyone will be able to see / receive it without trouble.
"This is the original study which made people believe that saturated fat was bad [wikipedia.org]. Ever since the 1950s people have been told that fat makes you fat and gives you heart disease and all that. When really all the low fat junk we have now has sugar or artificial sweeteners added, and people eating that stuff get fat a lot quicker than if they just ate normal full-fat foods and avoided the sugary junk."
The point you just made is not the point you think you made. You didn't demonstrate that saturated fat isn't bad. You suggested that 'sugar or artificial sweeteners' are worse than saturated fat. Even if we assume this is true, the lesson to take away isn't 'saturated fat was unfairly demonized' but 'don't eat gimmicky 'no-fat' products to avoid saturated fats, eat things that are naturally low in saturated fats and other bad stuff'. It's not a lesson that's very easy to follow, since fats and sugars are so goddamn tasty. But that's the lesson.
Exactly this. I moved countries, I didn't try and ship my computer. It's just a box with some computer parts in it. They sell boxes and computer parts everywhere. Get rid of it on Craigslist or local equivalent, buy a new one (or a similar second-hand one, from Craigslist or local equivalent...) wherever you're moving to. There's really not a lot of point trying to ship anything big and heavy from country to country unless it's not easily replaced.
The site gets paid, sure. On the advertiser's assumption that _some_ of those people view the ad. These days many ads are actually paid on a click-through basis, but even if we ignore that, the rate for pay-per-view ads is usually set after some sampling to determine the typical click-through rate for X number of views.
So let's say adblock is outlawed, and all the people who hate ads are forced to see them. We can reasonably conclude that such people will have a much lower click-through rate than those who don't bother blocking ads. Therefore, stopping the use of adblock (etc) would *lower* the rate sites were paid by advertisers per view, after they did new samples and found the click-through rate per 1,000 views (or whatever the precise metric is) had dropped.
I'd bet it'd wind up being pretty close to a zero-sum game.
Indeed. Handily proven by "To keep Facebooking moving fast, Mark Zuckerberg apparently instituted a program called Boot Camp in which engineers spend six-weeks learning every bit of Facebook's code.""
a) that's a terrible idea, and b) the fact that it's even possible (if it is, sounds like business magazine bs to me) speaks volumes. I only work for Red Hat, we're pretty cool but we're hardly the biggest fish out there, and you can imagine the chaos if we tried that...I'm sure others can apply it to their companies with similar results.
"You can't have a monopoly or a monopolistic cartel without government intervention."
Whether that's true or false, it doesn't matter, because all mature internet markets have plenty of government intervention. Cell service markets are all cartels because of wireless spectrum regulation: you can't just open up shop as a cellphone provider and start competing with Verizon/Telus/Vodafone/whoever, you have to buy spectrum from the government first. (I think the US has a narrow band of 'open spectrum' but it's not practical to try and run a national carrier in there). There is similarly onerous government regulation on acting as a fixed-line ISP in most markets.
ISPs, fixed or mobile, resemble utilities so much both in how they operate and in how they're regulated that its absurd to argue that right now they're a free market and government regulation would just ruin them. they're already extremely heavily regulated industries. they are not free markets at all. unless you advocate freeing them of most regulation, you just can't apply free market theories to the market for internet provision in most countries, to do so is absurd.
"The purple flare in the image provided is considered normal behavior for iPhone 5's camera."
You're shooting it wrong?
"cake day"
No.
"bonuses for exams and profit share"
Okay.
"corporate massage day"
Christ, no.
Look, it's simple. A good engineer is a professional. They don't need you to give them stuff. With the amount of money you ought to be paying a good engineer they can buy all the damn cake and massages they might need. Every engineer I know, without exception, most wants to have a useful job to do, and the latitude to do it properly. The single biggest de-motivator for an engineer is to know the work they're doing isn't valued and they're getting squeezed by management. If they have a job to do which is actually productive, and the company respects their expertise in doing that job, and they're paid reasonably well, then they're happy. Simple as that. There is nothing more to it.
You think perhaps that's a consequence of people observing the problem of sexism and attempting to do something about it? Yeesh.
There's a difference between 'the government' and 'a member of parliament'.
Right, I was kinda sad to see Slashdot just regurgitated the massively simplified mainstream media take on this story.
What actually seems to have happened is that people signed an 'online petition', by providing their email addresses. What the petition code actually *did* with that information was auto-generate emails to the minister's office, from the addresses that 'signers' provided.
A lot of people and a lot of media outlets still don't really understand that there is precisely zero validation of the From: field on emails, but that doesn't mean Slashdot has to dive down to the same standards.
I am no Conservative supporter, and I'm gay, but there is zero story here. The people who are complaining effectively signed their names to a mail to the minister, which makes it perfectly appropriate for the minister to then send them a mail about a related topic later. The fact that they didn't know they were doing this is unfortunate, but it's hardly the minister's fault.
"But the actual act of applying that patch? That's not "arbitrarty code" I'd hope, but a (small?) patching program that authorize to sudo something for that purpose, and provide my password each time. And, again, many eyes there on that patcher."
That's...uh...not how patches work. At all.
"It gets worse. Even in countries where turn-by-turn and/or Flyover are available, the iPhone 3GS, iPhone 4, and the 4th generation iPod touch won’t support them. These devices are owned by tens of millions of users who may update over-the-air when prompted, only to find they’ve lost features and haven’t even gained any of the marquee Maps features in return."