Character assassination is very much a useless response. I would expect it from a politician, but think someone with "moral fibre" would tend to stand up for the rights of people they don't like, not help build the fire for an old fashioned witch burning. The arrogance of believing you know what JA thinks also does not put your post in a good light from a "moral fibre" perspective, it is more likely to be seen as a projection of your own thought processes than an accurate account of JA's thought processes.
Blunt != Angry, blunt is simply "no frills" honesty and is an admirable trait in these sort of situations Agree with keeping personal attacks such as "idiot" out of the conversation, and if you threaten to quit be prepared for the boss to accept your decision. Have some solid examples of his idiocy and an explanation of why they are a waste of money/time, let the boss work out if the idiot really is earning his keep or not. How the boss reacts to the blunt conversation will dictate your next move.
Most big cities have a surprisingly small circle of quality contactors, burning bridges is definitely a last resort. Make it clear you are not considering quitting on a whim and that you regret your inability to handle the "personality clash".
One thing strikes me about the story, it seems the submitter and idiot are on the same level of the corporate food chain and neither have the authority to say "this is what we are going to do". If this is the case then the boss is most likely the responsible party and may in fact want his advisers to passionately debate the pros and cons of different solutions. If the idiot is not acting in good faith then you need to be blunt about that too and this is where you really have to watch your adjectives.
The "expert" very likely actually is the closest thing to an SME on the current system, the boss already suspects there are better ways of doing whatever the idiot does, otherwise you would not have a gig. Consider the gig may not be about fixing technical problems, you may have been hired to train the "idiot" who's only saving grace seems to be the department/company has not gone belly up..
To be fair, the reason (credible) researchers go to great lengths to control all possible influences except the one under study is because of the binary nature of P.
Media companies have no problem "censoring" videos from geographical regions using the IP address and a look-up table. They put the time and effort into it because they believe they can make money out of it. Bing appears to do the opposite, ie: they don't put anything into it because they believe they won't get anything out of it. Both scenarios are "unintended consequences" of allowing the accountants to run the company. Intangible value that cannot be assessed in dollar terms is simply ignored because it's assumed it's more profitable to do so.
What will happen over the next few weeks/months is that bing marketers will asses the damage this revelation cost in dollar terms to their brand. If the marketing department want it changed then they will have to "pay" the technical department to make the change. Accountants do their sums and if the boffins want more to fix it than what the shills say it's worth, then it's unlikely to change.
"Origin of species" is what Darwin's claimed. "Origin of life" is what creationists heard. Many creationists simply don't understand the word "evolution" and get very confused and aggitated when others talk about (say) "the evolution of the cosmos". Evolution simply means "changes over time". What creationists are really disagreeing with is more often than not a half baked strawman from someone else who also has difficulty comprehending plain english.
Copyright is automatic, you don't need to state it explicitly for it to apply. That's why downloading movies from TPB is perfectly legal but redistribution without permission is not.
That's not the "news" part, in the same way an article about a plane crash is not "news" of gravity. Not everyone on the planet has listened to Sagan and his "we are star stuff" speech, some people still need to be taught (including first year astronomy students). A rehashing of "basic knowlege" helps these readers understand how the astronomers determined the age of the star in question, after all the stars age is the "news" part.
Their right not to not pay me overtime is counterbalanced by my right to refuse. "If an employer is being flexible with me and my hours, I'm going to be flexible too" is precicsely how unpaid overtime is supposed to work.
The whole anaolgy fails miserably. The "builder" is a small bussiness, the coder is an employee. The builder's employee who fucked up the wall does not pay for it out of his own money/time, for the same reason his wages don't double when company profit does. An employee is not a one man company, nor should it be, any employer who tells you otherwise is trying to screw you.
You are obviously too young to remember middle class parents going onto debt to buy their family a set of encyclopaedia. - By that standard a $50 donation to WP is excellent value for money.
Wikipedia is fundamentally broken without some sort of mechanism for expert review
As anyone who has every been near a university will tell you, an encyclopaedia is not a primary source, at best it is a pointer to them. Primary sources are not facts and science does not claim to be the truth, it only claims to strive for it. Technically "facts" do not even exist outside of an axiomatic system such as maths.
All this adds up to "life is messy", best to keep an open mind but not so open that your brains fall out.
"..the Wikipediocracy website, run by critics of Wikipedia management, has just published an article". - Tells you all you need to know. There have been dozens of alternate WP's started by people who could not have their own way on WP, conservipedia was probably the most famous and that was purely for it comedic value. They do this because the have no idea how to work with people who do not share the same opinions, the quality of their alternate sites reflects that problem.
The chance of a random westerner being killed in a terror attack is miniscule. The chances that you or I will meet the same fate as Swartz are even less. You and the Runaway1956 are both engaging in partisan hyperbole similar to that displayed by Schwartz prosecutors, it might feel good to vent at the injustice but the hypocrisy of your methods will almost certainly undermine the validity of your point.
The history of human progress during the 20th century clearly demonstrates that copyrighted journals do not impead the flow of scientific information to the public, quite the opposite in fact. For example there's a mountain of easily accesible and very credible information about AGW from just about every scientific institution you can care to name, but some people still quote Anthony Watts as a credible source on the subject.
Believe it or not, a lot of mechanics and carpenters are proud of their skills in the same way programmers are, they do indeed want the basics of nail hammering and tyre changing taught to all school children, and expend considerable effort toward that goal.
The English channel is said to have been cut by a single massive flood from an natural ice dam that burst toward the end of one of the "recent" ice ages. Humans were most likely living on the land bridge at the time. The loose rubble it left behind is why they had so much trouble finding a suitable path for the channel tunnel.
Slashdot Mirror
Character assassination is very much a useless response. I would expect it from a politician, but think someone with "moral fibre" would tend to stand up for the rights of people they don't like, not help build the fire for an old fashioned witch burning. The arrogance of believing you know what JA thinks also does not put your post in a good light from a "moral fibre" perspective, it is more likely to be seen as a projection of your own thought processes than an accurate account of JA's thought processes.
Blunt != Angry, blunt is simply "no frills" honesty and is an admirable trait in these sort of situations Agree with keeping personal attacks such as "idiot" out of the conversation, and if you threaten to quit be prepared for the boss to accept your decision. Have some solid examples of his idiocy and an explanation of why they are a waste of money/time, let the boss work out if the idiot really is earning his keep or not. How the boss reacts to the blunt conversation will dictate your next move.
Most big cities have a surprisingly small circle of quality contactors, burning bridges is definitely a last resort. Make it clear you are not considering quitting on a whim and that you regret your inability to handle the "personality clash".
One thing strikes me about the story, it seems the submitter and idiot are on the same level of the corporate food chain and neither have the authority to say "this is what we are going to do". If this is the case then the boss is most likely the responsible party and may in fact want his advisers to passionately debate the pros and cons of different solutions. If the idiot is not acting in good faith then you need to be blunt about that too and this is where you really have to watch your adjectives.
The "expert" very likely actually is the closest thing to an SME on the current system, the boss already suspects there are better ways of doing whatever the idiot does, otherwise you would not have a gig. Consider the gig may not be about fixing technical problems, you may have been hired to train the "idiot" who's only saving grace seems to be the department/company has not gone belly up..
To be fair, the reason (credible) researchers go to great lengths to control all possible influences except the one under study is because of the binary nature of P.
:), I offer an interesting article about stats, chaos, stock-markets, and fish in appreciation.
Other than that nit-pick - Nice post (and your sig makes more sense now
if your trying to solve soduku puzzles with statistical analysis, you're doing it wrong.
Media companies have no problem "censoring" videos from geographical regions using the IP address and a look-up table. They put the time and effort into it because they believe they can make money out of it. Bing appears to do the opposite, ie: they don't put anything into it because they believe they won't get anything out of it. Both scenarios are "unintended consequences" of allowing the accountants to run the company. Intangible value that cannot be assessed in dollar terms is simply ignored because it's assumed it's more profitable to do so.
What will happen over the next few weeks/months is that bing marketers will asses the damage this revelation cost in dollar terms to their brand. If the marketing department want it changed then they will have to "pay" the technical department to make the change. Accountants do their sums and if the boffins want more to fix it than what the shills say it's worth, then it's unlikely to change.
What governmental model does a corporation represent?
Not sure, but many bosses from many companies have assured me that it's "not a democracy".
"Origin of species" is what Darwin's claimed. "Origin of life" is what creationists heard. Many creationists simply don't understand the word "evolution" and get very confused and aggitated when others talk about (say) "the evolution of the cosmos". Evolution simply means "changes over time". What creationists are really disagreeing with is more often than not a half baked strawman from someone else who also has difficulty comprehending plain english.
You watch this video and then attempt to disprove one or more of the claims.
and no copyright on the documents
Copyright is automatic, you don't need to state it explicitly for it to apply. That's why downloading movies from TPB is perfectly legal but redistribution without permission is not.
No. Time is relative - when will pedants stop being confused by this?
That's not the "news" part, in the same way an article about a plane crash is not "news" of gravity. Not everyone on the planet has listened to Sagan and his "we are star stuff" speech, some people still need to be taught (including first year astronomy students). A rehashing of "basic knowlege" helps these readers understand how the astronomers determined the age of the star in question, after all the stars age is the "news" part.
Their right not to not pay me overtime is counterbalanced by my right to refuse. "If an employer is being flexible with me and my hours, I'm going to be flexible too" is precicsely how unpaid overtime is supposed to work.
The whole anaolgy fails miserably. The "builder" is a small bussiness, the coder is an employee. The builder's employee who fucked up the wall does not pay for it out of his own money/time, for the same reason his wages don't double when company profit does. An employee is not a one man company, nor should it be, any employer who tells you otherwise is trying to screw you.
You are obviously too young to remember middle class parents going onto debt to buy their family a set of encyclopaedia. - By that standard a $50 donation to WP is excellent value for money.
Wikipedia is fundamentally broken without some sort of mechanism for expert review
As anyone who has every been near a university will tell you, an encyclopaedia is not a primary source, at best it is a pointer to them. Primary sources are not facts and science does not claim to be the truth, it only claims to strive for it. Technically "facts" do not even exist outside of an axiomatic system such as maths.
All this adds up to "life is messy", best to keep an open mind but not so open that your brains fall out.
"..the Wikipediocracy website, run by critics of Wikipedia management, has just published an article". - Tells you all you need to know. There have been dozens of alternate WP's started by people who could not have their own way on WP, conservipedia was probably the most famous and that was purely for it comedic value. They do this because the have no idea how to work with people who do not share the same opinions, the quality of their alternate sites reflects that problem.
The chance of a random westerner being killed in a terror attack is miniscule. The chances that you or I will meet the same fate as Swartz are even less. You and the Runaway1956 are both engaging in partisan hyperbole similar to that displayed by Schwartz prosecutors, it might feel good to vent at the injustice but the hypocrisy of your methods will almost certainly undermine the validity of your point.
The history of human progress during the 20th century clearly demonstrates that copyrighted journals do not impead the flow of scientific information to the public, quite the opposite in fact. For example there's a mountain of easily accesible and very credible information about AGW from just about every scientific institution you can care to name, but some people still quote Anthony Watts as a credible source on the subject.
If you're unashamed of your past (harmless) behaviour it's harder for people to "use it against you".
Limited liability is about money, it does not mean you can swap jail time for bankruptcy.
the FCC can't do much to stop them directly
They can prohibit the importing and selling of their products in the US. That seems fairly direct to me.
Believe it or not, a lot of mechanics and carpenters are proud of their skills in the same way programmers are, they do indeed want the basics of nail hammering and tyre changing taught to all school children, and expend considerable effort toward that goal.
Get over yourself, you were not "born to code" any more than a king is "born to rule".
The English channel is said to have been cut by a single massive flood from an natural ice dam that burst toward the end of one of the "recent" ice ages. Humans were most likely living on the land bridge at the time. The loose rubble it left behind is why they had so much trouble finding a suitable path for the channel tunnel.
Seems silly to boycott the classic site, the boycott of the beta needs no organisation, it will happen organically.