It really depends on what's your definition of "friendly". For example, I see BibTeX as the friendliest bibliography system there is, mainly due to the fact that when you use it you don't even need to be aware you are using it. You just pick your bibliography file and simply reference what you wish to reference. What's unfriendly about the following command?
\cite{some_book}
Managing a BibTeX bibliography is also quite simple and straight-forward. A user only needs to open a text file with a text editor and add an entry to a book. What's unfriendly about the following entry?
@Book{some_book,
AUTHOR = {The author's name},
TITLE = {the title of the book},
PUBLISHER = {The publisher's name},
YEAR = {some year},
isbn = {a ISBN reference}, }
If we compare using BibTeX with the god-awful way Microsoft Word handles bibliographies we lose any reason to claim that word processors are somehow better at its job than LaTeX. So, why do some people keep parrotting that word processors such as Microsoft Word are somehow better at producing documents than LaTeX? This sort of claim simply goes against reality.
The last time I used Microsoft Word 2007 to input equations was a couple of months ago, and although it is able to represent simple equations, like the ones involving index notation, fractions and other basic notation elements, the only way it was possible to enumerate them was if the user relied on a couple of obscure nasty hacks which fail to be even adequate.
And even then, equations in Microsoft Word 2007 are still represented in a crude and unpretty way when compared to the much simpler and straight-forward TeX way of doing things.
I don't see why normal people wouldn't be able to write a LaTeX document. Setting up a new document may be tricky for a absolute newbie, but that's nothing that can't be taken care by a template with a half dozen lines, and learned in a couple of minutes. From there, basically the only thing a user needs to know is to use commands such as \chapter, \section, \subsection and the like, and know how to write. How is that hard?
I would like to know where do you find any word processor, such as Microsoft Word or even Libre Office Writer, to be superior to LaTeX in any aspect. It obviously isn't on the support for math notation, and it isn't on reference management, on colaborative work, on revision control, or on system requirements. It is also not in productivity, both by "advanced" users and specially in newbies.
The only aspect where I see that word processors may appear to be superior is in table formatting and in managing figures. Yet, that apparent superiority doesn't go beyond the discovery that pictures can be dragged and dropped to a document. Once the user is forced to format those objects then all hell breaks loose.
So, exactly where do you see word processors as being always superior to writing LaTeX documents through a text editor?
A fellow slashdotter directed my attention to this post. This sort of persecution made by these people has started a couple of weeks ago, when I read this post and this post and this post outing the bonch and overly critical guy accounts as accounts used to astroturf slashdot by posting the same marketing drivel, copied almost verbatim from the same PR script.
Then, after stumbling on a post where the bonch account was being used to post messages trying to discredit the astroturfing going on in slashdot here, I've posted this message in reply to bonch, outing that account as being one of a set of shill accounts employed to astroturf discussions here on slashdot.
Due to this, I started to receive personal attacks from anonymous posts. I've posted this message, and a couple of followups such as this reply.
As further retaliation, I had all the posts listed in my comments section suddenly modded as -1 troll, and a wave of messages posted anonymously with conspiracy theories and attacking me personally, such as this one, started to be posted in multiple discussions. This particular version has been repeatedly posted, often in the same discussion and as the first post, as can be seen here
So, thank the people behind accounts such as bonch, Overly Critical Guy, TechGuys and others for this spam and astroturfing campaign. It appears that their astroturfing operation isn't working smoothly anymore, as bonch complains here. So, to stave off some of the flak they have been receiving, they now waste their time with online stalking, personal attacks and creating absurd conspiracies regarding people who posted messages outing them as corporate shills. They quite often throw accusations like this through anonymous posts. For example, after MrHanky pointed bonch as a shill, the overly critical guy and SharkLaser accounts start attacking the user who outed bonch, and start to throw the shill and conspiracy accusations with the followups to this thread. In this post the Overly Critical Guy account is used to post the exact same accusations, but as they precede the post where I out these shill accounts, they only mention users such as Galestar, NicknameOne and flurp.
So, keep up with your conspiracies to try to save your ass. And while you keep blabbering how posts outing the people behind shill accounts, such as bonch, overly critical guy, sharklaser, jo_ham, and others, are posted by conspiracy theory loons, maybe you can spend a minute arguing why those affected by these shill outings actually take the time to compile and publish all this personal information on a single user who happened to post a message reiterating their outing.
If you copy media you didn't purchase AND you make a profit off of it, you're a thief.
No, you are a copyright infringer. Stealing is based on the subtraction of property, and you don't subtract anything by copying something.
To put it in perspective, some people took video cameras to cinemas to record movies, and then sell the video recording of the movie for some change. Others took photografs of every page in a book, and sold copies of their photos. Do you believe that recording something with your video camera or taking photographs corresponds to stealing? Of course not.
So, don't be an idiot. Copyright infringement is copyright infringement. It isn't stealing, no matter how you try to distort it.
You are helplessly wrong sir, but for what it's worth:
Whitney Houston's music got a price inflation because the projected desirability skyrocketed upon news of her death. (classic capitalism)
Before you feel entitled to accuse someone of being wrong, let alone "helplessly wrong", you should make sure you don't make yourself look likea fool by pulling a Rotsky. The matter of fact is that a sale price only increases if and only if some person decides to increase it. An increase in demand does not cause, as you tried to put it, "price inflation". The only case that you can make for that is if you assert that the supply and demand model is actually infalible, which notoriously is not, and that this price increase is tied to some form of scarcity, which obviously is not when talking about media sales, including the so called digital sales.
Also since you tried to give me one, here is your psych evaluation:
"You would be ashamed for profiting through murder." Ok, no arguments to that. Nobody suggested Sony murdered Whitney Houston. Are you projecting your psychopathic tendencies on me?
"You think that I should be ashamed because I identify a commonly occurring non productive social behavior"
Don't put words in my mouth. If you are unable to refute or even face what has been said then you cannot simply lie and commit libel to try to put yourself in a position which is less hypocritical and sociopathic.
IF you are going to fight, don't use terms like: " disney copyright" "0.000001% of the profites showing up in the checkbook"
you sound like a loon, and won't be taken seriously. You can say it shouldn't matter, and you would be correct.But it DOES matter. And changing that is a different fight.
Johann Lau does not "sound like a loon", nor is he wrong. USA's Copyright Term Extension Act is known as Mickey Mouse Protection Act,for being notoriously pushed by Disney, whose main purpose was to avoid Disney's earlier work to go into public domain. And if you are trying to claim that Johann Lau is a loon for stating that fact then, before that, you must accuse Lawrence Lessig of being also a loon, and a bigger loon as wel, as he publicly made that very same assertion regarding Disney's copyright.
So, you are either a Sony shill, trying to astroturf some damage control here on slashdot, or you are incredibly out of touch with reality, factually wrong on multiple accounts and simply an idiot.
Somehow making my point there, Sony might well be a tumor of humanity but still this practice is nothing anyone should be ashamed of.
I would be deeply ashamed if the idea of profiting from someone's death was ever suggested to me, particularly from a scenario where my profiting did not contribute any added value to society. It's not as if Sony is a mortuary, or even if the price increase was entirely handed to Whitney Houston's family.
And shame on you, too, for suggesting that, somehow, those who eventually purchase Whitney Houston's work now are doing something equally bad or even worse than profiting from a death. I suspect you are either a Sony shill or a sociopath, to be able to make such astoundingly crass comments.
The summary is far from partisan it is written from someone who wants mars exploration and does not want the funding for it cut. That some other project got funding does not matter if it is not something you value.
It's one thing to criticize how a specific project is being funded. It's an entirely different thing to claim that reducing the funding of a specific project "points to a political lack of valuing science in America." One someone accuses the administration responsible for this specific spending cut of being responsible for "a political lack of valuing science", while ignoring historical funding increases in other areas, then we are way beyond criticizing a specific project and well into dishonest partisan bickering.
Didn't we just read a story yesterday that indicated some fairly substantial increases in overall research funding? It seems to me that this indicates a preference for certain research programs over others, not "a political lack of valuing science in America."
My thoughts exactly. This post sounds too much like partisan drivel intended to smear Obama. I mean, it may be a shame to cut spending on a specific space exploration program. Yet, to go from some spending cuts to it also points to a political lack of valuing science in America, even after Obama asked for increasing public investment on research, is a bit too much to swallow.
True, but public opinion isn't changed by the fact that 0.2% of the vote went to Generic Third Party #17. Not even a little bit.
Are you voting in function of what the public opinion is, or are you actually depositing your vote on what you personally believe is the best candidate?
You don't get any prize in voting on the winning candidate. Voting for a public election isn't a groupon deal. You vote on the candidate you believe is the best candidate for office, and then election officials count your vote. If your candidate doesn't win then tough luck, at least that candidate got your vote and you actually did your job as a citizen.
Now, if you go against your own opinion and you vote not on the candidate you believe is the best option but on some other candidate due to some idiotic reason, such as "although I hate him at least I believe he has a chance of wining", then you failed your job as a citizen of a democratic state and you contributed to the sad state of affairs.
So, please think a bit about how you vote and why you vote.
So you can vote in the other (potentially worse) corporate candidate? Or do you plan to vote for a third party with little chance of winning?
Are you aware of what happens if you, or anyone, refuses to vote for "the third party with little chance of winning"? I'll tell you what happens: the third party candidate has little chance of winning.
In other news, Bose, Monster Cable, Bang & Olufsen and other brands announce a entirely new line of room acoustics kits for the audiophile. The kits will be sold for tens of thousands of euros, and are specially engineered for those who wants to hear those bitstreams as if the mp3s were coming directly from the sound studio.
I don't understand where do you see the "anti-US" sentiment in the article. It is US-centric, as it refers to a country's rejection of a US offer and then proceeds to call to question the US investment in expensive military projects such as the F-35, and also how US foreign politics has been handled and its influence on military supply contracts.
Yet, as you stated, the same country which rejected a US offering also rejected a half dosen or so offerings from other non-US suppliers, some of which for the same reasons.
So, it isn't an article designed to lambast the US. In fact, it barely mentions it. It is an article summary that is heavily US-centric and, as a consequence, lets this national narcisism ignore everything around them and in the process completely miss the point. But that isn't anti-US, is it?
It must also be accounted the fact that French military strategy, and also the entire french military, was invested in the Maginot line, which relied heavily on the belief that Germany would never invade Luxembourg or Belgium.
So, if a country invests practically everything in a single point of defense which is then side-stepped then naturally it will be sitting prey. To a lesser extent, that's what Germany got when it relied heavily on the so called atlantic wall to contain the allies.
Moral of the story: fixed, static defenses don't work.
Exactly. Most people in the U.S., thankfully, have no idea what it is to live in subsistence farming. The poverty those people are born in would terrify those of us born in developed nations.
I fail to see how living in poverty implies that sub-human work conditions, which are so appalling that they even force workers to suicide in droves, becomes somehow acceptable and even desireable.
And by the way, how many subsistence farmers do you know that committed suicide due to farming?
It's people like you who, during the industrial revolution, made it socially acceptable to have small children work themselves to death in a multitude of industrial jobs, including coal mining. And I bet you actually believe your defense of sub-human working conditions actually helps people and makes you a better person.
Yes, they may be recognized as juristic personalities. Yet, that doesn't take away the fact that decisions made in the name of corporations and orders given to employees of any corporation are made by individuals, real flesh-and-blood people. If people like you and me keep anthropomorphising corporations and, in the process, exclude any responsibility from the people who actually engage in psychopathic behaviour from their own free will under the guise of a corporate logo, then this sort of crap will keep being spewed without any consequence to it.
So, it isn't a rant about nothing. It is a call to hold sociopaths accountable for their own sociopathic actions, and corporate personhood is not, nor it can ever be considered a cop-out for this sort of crap.
And that's why there are vast swathes of laws that basically act as a substitute for ethics. Because companies have none.
Please don't refer to companies as if they were people. Actions taken in the name of those companies violate ethical principles because those in charge, which are the people who ultimately make decisions on how their subordinates act and subsequentially give orders, don't have ethics. Subbordinates act because someone in the organization makes a decision and orders them to enact them. In this case, Zynga employees are working on copying other titles because people like Mark Pincus, according to the report, ordered the company's employees to "[j]ust copy what they do and do it until you get their numbers." This problem isn't caused by the the legal registration of an organization, but by specific people within that organization.
If we perpetuate this misconception that companies are to blame but not a single company employee has any responsibility on this problem then, in practice, we are giving these sociopaths a free pass on their sociopathic behaviour, and by doing this we are validating their anti-social contribution to society.
I cannot imagine how this can ever be used in a useful manner, instead of being simply an irrelevant gimmick. Does anyone know why this stuff found its way into the standard?
The U+1f4af character is a bit harder to explain than little horses, because it relies on a 4-octet code character to express something which can be easily expressed by using 3 1-octed characters.
Slashdot Mirror
It really depends on what's your definition of "friendly". For example, I see BibTeX as the friendliest bibliography system there is, mainly due to the fact that when you use it you don't even need to be aware you are using it. You just pick your bibliography file and simply reference what you wish to reference. What's unfriendly about the following command?
\cite{some_book}
Managing a BibTeX bibliography is also quite simple and straight-forward. A user only needs to open a text file with a text editor and add an entry to a book. What's unfriendly about the following entry?
@Book{some_book,
AUTHOR = {The author's name},
TITLE = {the title of the book},
PUBLISHER = {The publisher's name},
YEAR = {some year},
isbn = {a ISBN reference},
}
If we compare using BibTeX with the god-awful way Microsoft Word handles bibliographies we lose any reason to claim that word processors are somehow better at its job than LaTeX. So, why do some people keep parrotting that word processors such as Microsoft Word are somehow better at producing documents than LaTeX? This sort of claim simply goes against reality.
The last time I used Microsoft Word 2007 to input equations was a couple of months ago, and although it is able to represent simple equations, like the ones involving index notation, fractions and other basic notation elements, the only way it was possible to enumerate them was if the user relied on a couple of obscure nasty hacks which fail to be even adequate.
And even then, equations in Microsoft Word 2007 are still represented in a crude and unpretty way when compared to the much simpler and straight-forward TeX way of doing things.
I don't see why normal people wouldn't be able to write a LaTeX document. Setting up a new document may be tricky for a absolute newbie, but that's nothing that can't be taken care by a template with a half dozen lines, and learned in a couple of minutes. From there, basically the only thing a user needs to know is to use commands such as \chapter, \section, \subsection and the like, and know how to write. How is that hard?
I would like to know where do you find any word processor, such as Microsoft Word or even Libre Office Writer, to be superior to LaTeX in any aspect. It obviously isn't on the support for math notation, and it isn't on reference management, on colaborative work, on revision control, or on system requirements. It is also not in productivity, both by "advanced" users and specially in newbies.
The only aspect where I see that word processors may appear to be superior is in table formatting and in managing figures. Yet, that apparent superiority doesn't go beyond the discovery that pictures can be dragged and dropped to a document. Once the user is forced to format those objects then all hell breaks loose.
So, exactly where do you see word processors as being always superior to writing LaTeX documents through a text editor?
A fellow slashdotter directed my attention to this post. This sort of persecution made by these people has started a couple of weeks ago, when I read this post and this post and this post outing the bonch and overly critical guy accounts as accounts used to astroturf slashdot by posting the same marketing drivel, copied almost verbatim from the same PR script.
Then, after stumbling on a post where the bonch account was being used to post messages trying to discredit the astroturfing going on in slashdot here, I've posted this message in reply to bonch, outing that account as being one of a set of shill accounts employed to astroturf discussions here on slashdot.
Due to this, I started to receive personal attacks from anonymous posts. I've posted this message, and a couple of followups such as this reply.
As further retaliation, I had all the posts listed in my comments section suddenly modded as -1 troll, and a wave of messages posted anonymously with conspiracy theories and attacking me personally, such as this one, started to be posted in multiple discussions. This particular version has been repeatedly posted, often in the same discussion and as the first post, as can be seen here
So, thank the people behind accounts such as bonch, Overly Critical Guy, TechGuys and others for this spam and astroturfing campaign. It appears that their astroturfing operation isn't working smoothly anymore, as bonch complains here. So, to stave off some of the flak they have been receiving, they now waste their time with online stalking, personal attacks and creating absurd conspiracies regarding people who posted messages outing them as corporate shills. They quite often throw accusations like this through anonymous posts. For example, after MrHanky pointed bonch as a shill, the overly critical guy and SharkLaser accounts start attacking the user who outed bonch, and start to throw the shill and conspiracy accusations with the followups to this thread. In this post the Overly Critical Guy account is used to post the exact same accusations, but as they precede the post where I out these shill accounts, they only mention users such as Galestar, NicknameOne and flurp.
So, keep up with your conspiracies to try to save your ass. And while you keep blabbering how posts outing the people behind shill accounts, such as bonch, overly critical guy, sharklaser, jo_ham, and others, are posted by conspiracy theory loons, maybe you can spend a minute arguing why those affected by these shill outings actually take the time to compile and publish all this personal information on a single user who happened to post a message reiterating their outing.
No, you are a copyright infringer. Stealing is based on the subtraction of property, and you don't subtract anything by copying something.
To put it in perspective, some people took video cameras to cinemas to record movies, and then sell the video recording of the movie for some change. Others took photografs of every page in a book, and sold copies of their photos. Do you believe that recording something with your video camera or taking photographs corresponds to stealing? Of course not.
So, don't be an idiot. Copyright infringement is copyright infringement. It isn't stealing, no matter how you try to distort it.
You are helplessly wrong sir, but for what it's worth:
Whitney Houston's music got a price inflation because the projected desirability skyrocketed upon news of her death. (classic capitalism)
Before you feel entitled to accuse someone of being wrong, let alone "helplessly wrong", you should make sure you don't make yourself look likea fool by pulling a Rotsky. The matter of fact is that a sale price only increases if and only if some person decides to increase it. An increase in demand does not cause, as you tried to put it, "price inflation". The only case that you can make for that is if you assert that the supply and demand model is actually infalible, which notoriously is not, and that this price increase is tied to some form of scarcity, which obviously is not when talking about media sales, including the so called digital sales.
Also since you tried to give me one, here is your psych evaluation:
"You would be ashamed for profiting through murder."
Ok, no arguments to that. Nobody suggested Sony murdered Whitney Houston. Are you projecting your psychopathic tendencies on me?
"You think that I should be ashamed because I identify a commonly occurring non productive social behavior"
Don't put words in my mouth. If you are unable to refute or even face what has been said then you cannot simply lie and commit libel to try to put yourself in a position which is less hypocritical and sociopathic.
IF you are going to fight, don't use terms like:
" disney copyright"
"0.000001% of the profites showing up in the checkbook"
you sound like a loon, and won't be taken seriously. You can say it shouldn't matter, and you would be correct.But it DOES matter. And changing that is a different fight.
Johann Lau does not "sound like a loon", nor is he wrong. USA's Copyright Term Extension Act is known as Mickey Mouse Protection Act,for being notoriously pushed by Disney, whose main purpose was to avoid Disney's earlier work to go into public domain. And if you are trying to claim that Johann Lau is a loon for stating that fact then, before that, you must accuse Lawrence Lessig of being also a loon, and a bigger loon as wel, as he publicly made that very same assertion regarding Disney's copyright.
And regarding the percentage of profits that actually go to the artist, music industry insiders such as Steve Albini already already explained quite well how the music industry actually works.
So, you are either a Sony shill, trying to astroturf some damage control here on slashdot, or you are incredibly out of touch with reality, factually wrong on multiple accounts and simply an idiot.
I would be deeply ashamed if the idea of profiting from someone's death was ever suggested to me, particularly from a scenario where my profiting did not contribute any added value to society. It's not as if Sony is a mortuary, or even if the price increase was entirely handed to Whitney Houston's family.
And shame on you, too, for suggesting that, somehow, those who eventually purchase Whitney Houston's work now are doing something equally bad or even worse than profiting from a death. I suspect you are either a Sony shill or a sociopath, to be able to make such astoundingly crass comments.
The summary is far from partisan it is written from someone who wants mars exploration and does not want the funding for it cut. That some other project got funding does not matter if it is not something you value.
It's one thing to criticize how a specific project is being funded. It's an entirely different thing to claim that reducing the funding of a specific project "points to a political lack of valuing science in America." One someone accuses the administration responsible for this specific spending cut of being responsible for "a political lack of valuing science", while ignoring historical funding increases in other areas, then we are way beyond criticizing a specific project and well into dishonest partisan bickering.
My thoughts exactly. This post sounds too much like partisan drivel intended to smear Obama. I mean, it may be a shame to cut spending on a specific space exploration program. Yet, to go from some spending cuts to it also points to a political lack of valuing science in America, even after Obama asked for increasing public investment on research, is a bit too much to swallow.
True, but public opinion isn't changed by the fact that 0.2% of the vote went to Generic Third Party #17. Not even a little bit.
Are you voting in function of what the public opinion is, or are you actually depositing your vote on what you personally believe is the best candidate?
You don't get any prize in voting on the winning candidate. Voting for a public election isn't a groupon deal. You vote on the candidate you believe is the best candidate for office, and then election officials count your vote. If your candidate doesn't win then tough luck, at least that candidate got your vote and you actually did your job as a citizen.
Now, if you go against your own opinion and you vote not on the candidate you believe is the best option but on some other candidate due to some idiotic reason, such as "although I hate him at least I believe he has a chance of wining", then you failed your job as a citizen of a democratic state and you contributed to the sad state of affairs.
So, please think a bit about how you vote and why you vote.
So you can vote in the other (potentially worse) corporate candidate? Or do you plan to vote for a third party with little chance of winning?
Are you aware of what happens if you, or anyone, refuses to vote for "the third party with little chance of winning"? I'll tell you what happens: the third party candidate has little chance of winning.
Think about it.
Are you really trying to state that your definition of "arcane or complex" is "something that my grandma can't do"?
Right, because there's absolutely nothing arcane or overly complex about having to open a terminal window,
What? Running a program is "arcane or complex"?
read a bunch of man pages
Reading is "arcane or complex"?
And no one needs to read man pages to learn how to use programs. This isn't 1994 anymore.
, and then issue two commands with various flags
those commands are "arcane or complex"?
just to mount a disk image.
You aren't exagerating or anything like that, are you?
In other news, Bose, Monster Cable, Bang & Olufsen and other brands announce a entirely new line of room acoustics kits for the audiophile. The kits will be sold for tens of thousands of euros, and are specially engineered for those who wants to hear those bitstreams as if the mp3s were coming directly from the sound studio.
I don't understand where do you see the "anti-US" sentiment in the article. It is US-centric, as it refers to a country's rejection of a US offer and then proceeds to call to question the US investment in expensive military projects such as the F-35, and also how US foreign politics has been handled and its influence on military supply contracts.
Yet, as you stated, the same country which rejected a US offering also rejected a half dosen or so offerings from other non-US suppliers, some of which for the same reasons.
So, it isn't an article designed to lambast the US. In fact, it barely mentions it. It is an article summary that is heavily US-centric and, as a consequence, lets this national narcisism ignore everything around them and in the process completely miss the point. But that isn't anti-US, is it?
It must also be accounted the fact that French military strategy, and also the entire french military, was invested in the Maginot line, which relied heavily on the belief that Germany would never invade Luxembourg or Belgium.
So, if a country invests practically everything in a single point of defense which is then side-stepped then naturally it will be sitting prey. To a lesser extent, that's what Germany got when it relied heavily on the so called atlantic wall to contain the allies.
Moral of the story: fixed, static defenses don't work.
Exactly. Most people in the U.S., thankfully, have no idea what it is to live in subsistence farming. The poverty those people are born in would terrify those of us born in developed nations.
I fail to see how living in poverty implies that sub-human work conditions, which are so appalling that they even force workers to suicide in droves, becomes somehow acceptable and even desireable.
And by the way, how many subsistence farmers do you know that committed suicide due to farming?
It's people like you who, during the industrial revolution, made it socially acceptable to have small children work themselves to death in a multitude of industrial jobs, including coal mining. And I bet you actually believe your defense of sub-human working conditions actually helps people and makes you a better person.
Yes, they may be recognized as juristic personalities. Yet, that doesn't take away the fact that decisions made in the name of corporations and orders given to employees of any corporation are made by individuals, real flesh-and-blood people. If people like you and me keep anthropomorphising corporations and, in the process, exclude any responsibility from the people who actually engage in psychopathic behaviour from their own free will under the guise of a corporate logo, then this sort of crap will keep being spewed without any consequence to it.
So, it isn't a rant about nothing. It is a call to hold sociopaths accountable for their own sociopathic actions, and corporate personhood is not, nor it can ever be considered a cop-out for this sort of crap.
And that's why there are vast swathes of laws that basically act as a substitute for ethics. Because companies have none.
Please don't refer to companies as if they were people. Actions taken in the name of those companies violate ethical principles because those in charge, which are the people who ultimately make decisions on how their subordinates act and subsequentially give orders, don't have ethics. Subbordinates act because someone in the organization makes a decision and orders them to enact them. In this case, Zynga employees are working on copying other titles because people like Mark Pincus, according to the report, ordered the company's employees to "[j]ust copy what they do and do it until you get their numbers." This problem isn't caused by the the legal registration of an organization, but by specific people within that organization.
If we perpetuate this misconception that companies are to blame but not a single company employee has any responsibility on this problem then, in practice, we are giving these sociopaths a free pass on their sociopathic behaviour, and by doing this we are validating their anti-social contribution to society.
Yes, it is. I don't question that character. The others, on the other hand, are a bit silly though.
It can say "supreme wizard", if you'd like. Yet, the print on your pay stub doesn't make you one, does it?
Here, a punch card glyph. Not quite what I expected but still...
http://www.fileformat.info/info/unicode/char/5361/index.htm
There is also a card index glyph do?
http://www.fileformat.info/info/unicode/char/1f4c7/index.htm
There might not be a punchcard glyph, but there is a minidisk one:
http://www.fileformat.info/info/unicode/char/1f4bd/index.htm
and an optical disk one:
http://www.fileformat.info/info/unicode/char/1f4bf/index.htm
and a DVD one:
http://www.fileformat.info/info/unicode/char/1f4c0/index.htm
I cannot imagine how this can ever be used in a useful manner, instead of being simply an irrelevant gimmick. Does anyone know why this stuff found its way into the standard?
The U+1f4af character is a bit harder to explain than little horses, because it relies on a 4-octet code character to express something which can be easily expressed by using 3 1-octed characters.