From the article: "First introduced to testing at Compaq and IBM, Woods gained enough experience that he was hired two years ago when Red Hat needed someone to develop test automation tools." Testing at Compaq? Compaq tests things!?
Well, yeah. AAMOF, I used to work with Will there; we were both in the XC Cluster group. I can't speak for every group, but XC was very conscientious about testing.
Is it really that hard for a would-be mugger or a homeless person to get their hands on a grocery store discount card? Doesn't sound like a very good deterrent to me.
I don't think it is. There was one time, several years ago, that I stopped off on my way home at an isolated ATM near where I worked (IIRC, it was a stand-alone ATM belonging to my bank). As I was pulling up, I noticed a couple of young guys sitting around and chatting in the enclosure. Initially, I didn't think anything of it; but as I walked toward the door, I saw them look in my direction and stand up. Alarm bells went off in my head and I turned around, got back in my car, and drove to a branch of the bank that was open; I notified the personnel of the situation at the ATM, before taking out the money I'd planned on. I don't know how they got in, but I have a feeling I would have been a mugging victim if I'd ignored my suspicions and continued on with my errand. In any event, the card reader obviously didn't keep them out.
Where are you going to get the people to go on the panel? How are you going to prevent them from being influenced?
Maybe we could just pick people at random, from the populace. Maybe we should call them a "jury".
I was thinking more in terms of a judiciary panel, or perhaps one appointed by the governor or state legislature. I concede there are problems; defining "frivolous" is a lot like defining pornography, recalling Potter Stewart's "I know it when I see it" remark. But a straight "loser pays" rule would indeed screw people who might actually have a legitimate case, but can't afford to bear the burden if they lose because the defendants has better lawyers, or the jury doesn't like their looks, etc. Even legitimate cases are not necessarily slam-dunks.
Of course you have to consider the flip side. If the loser must pay, the little guy may not bring a legitimate complaint to court for fear of going bankrupt with the court costs if he loses...
That is an excellent point, and the reason I personally have trouble with the "loser pays" idea. I like the idea of discouraging frivolous suits, but not at the expense of discouraging legitimate ones; negligence and malfeasance should be punished. What I'd like to do is set up a panel to review cases that are dismissed, and award costs to the winner if the panel finds that the suit was indeed frivolous. But maybe I'm just dreaming.
When does someone stop being human, once we can replace their body with a machine? Is it just the brain? What of AI then? What of the soul?
Coincidentally, I just finished Ray Kurzweil's book, The Age of Spiritual Machines, which considers the possibility of people's brains being enhanced, and eventually replaced, by cyber-prosthetics. One might argue that once the organic brain is gone, the soul (if it exists) is gone, or has moved on, as well. OTOH, we lose a lot of individual cells over the course of our lifetimes, and perhaps the brain we end up with isn't physically the one we started with anyway, so what's the difference if it's gradually replaced by artificial components? Interesting food for thought. Beats me if I have any answers, though.:)
-Mike
P.S. -- I used to work for Kurzweil Computer Products (eventually sold to Xerox), something like 25 years ago (I was the night-shift operator for the Kurzweil Data Entry Machine, which I believe was the first OCR data entry system that could scan ordinary printed text). I've always thought that Ray's an interesting and thought-provoking guy.
This is offtopic, but what's with modding posts "overrated" when they have no other moderations?
It's a method for bastard moderators to mod down posts they disagree with (i.e., abuse the system), and be immune from meta-moderation. I've been hearing noises about this being remedied soon, but I don't know when it's actually supposed to happen.
Do not concern yourself with trivialities like "tomorrow" or "TCO" or "long-term survivability." By the time any of that comes around, you'll have jumped (or been pushed) to another company that you can squeeze the same way. If you just so happen to still be around tomorrow, blame it on the office staff for using too many paperclips, and stop subsudizing employees' soft drinks.
Once you understand that business leaders are not running businesses for the long term, or even the medium term, it's very easy to understand the (il)logic of their actions. The company exists to be soaked by execs until it dies.
(Here, let me post my own reply: "Bitter much?")
Having survived the Compaq takeover of DEC, followed by the HP takeover of Compaq, and then been laid off last October.... Yeah, I'll join the "Bitter much?" club. Sigh....
Uh, how can the very first post be redundant? Anyway...
Some idiot moderator probably started reading the posts with the most recent instead of the oldest. Or maybe he/she thought that because someone mentioned The Simpsons in another thread, any further references were redundant.
I found it mildly amusing. I think +1 (where it is as I write this; looks like it's suffered a bit of down-modding since you posted) is about right. +4 is too much, I agree.
The parent's point is, if you have a debit card that cannot be used as a credit card, the thief needs the PIN to get anywhere with it. If you have the VISA logo on your debit card, that means it can be used as if it were a credit card, and all the thief has to do is forge your signature or use it somewhere that the signature isn't even checked (it infuriates me that many clerks at retail stores don't bother to check it - I try to say something, but it feels like ordering the tide to stay out).
Your point is valid as well; I just think you missed the parent's.
If you want a gmail account, it's trivial to find someone to invite you in. I got one that way months ago (someone on a message board I frequent was offering invitations), and within days, I had 50 invitations to distribute. I like FastMail better, though, so I never use my gmail account; I got it just to see what the fuss was about, and stopped using it after a little tire-kicking.
He's absolutely right, and his post is not "Flamebait"! Mod points are not intended to be used to express disagreement. The grandparent made some good points, and I can even go along with the "insightful" moderation; but the remark, "I have no mod points, so I must respond" was uncalled for. If that's what he thinks they're for, it would be better if he didn't participate in moderating.
1. Any spammer is going to read a reply to their message, unless the message redirects them to another website for more information. If not, why spam in the first place?
No. You know how I know this? Because my subdomain is currently being spoofed by spammers. I'm getting dozens of "failure notices" daily at addresses like qrcywk@myusername.myemailprovider.com, along with a few complaints from people who think they can convince me (or intimidate me) to stop sending them the spam. The real sender is buried deep in the headers, but because the "from" field contains my subdomain, I'm getting the backwash, not the spammers. The way they get their responses and sell their crap is by getting people to click on the links in the message, not via replies.
This seems rather like they are trying to split legal hairs slot in activity whereever they can in existing law... Strange not to pass a new law, considering the same people control all branches of government...
It's easier to slip something under the radar under the guise of "existing law". If they pass a new law, the Democrats have a better chance of using it as ammunition in the next elections.
is anyone noticing how quickly my comment got modded troll? It is in reference to the tagging of the article, is a response to a comment saying dvorak is an idiot where I simply point out that the tagging system agrees. If anything it should be informative (if not at least interesting).
Maybe that is why they are all getting tagged troll,/. is just troll-happy.
Yeah, I've noticed; I found myself spending a few of my most recent mod points just to mod some of those back up. I've also been doing some Meta-Moderating, and marking a few "Troll" mods as "Unfair". I think some people are going around marking posts "Troll" just because they disagree with them and think that's the most effective way to strike out at the posters.
Insightful ???
At best, stupid.
Heard of encryption ? Heard of private networks ? USB keys with gigs on them?
No pathetic law can stop this evolution.
Usage is also a source of law !
How does your post relate to the parent? That there are ways to violate this law with little risk or that the law is bad and/or unenforceable is utterly irrelevant to his point, which is that the penalties prescribed are way out of line with the seriousness of the "crime" (unless, of course, one buys into the ludicrous "IP theft = terrorism" assertion).
I can use FastMail anywhere I can fire up a web browser, too. But it also allows me to use an IMAP client (or a POP client, but only for paid subscribers) as well. There may be some advantages to GMail, but after trying it out a few months ago, I decided to stick with FastMail and use Thunderbird to read it.
If you'd like to check it out, go here (disclosure: this is a referral link; if someone opens a paid account, or a guest account that is later upgraded, I get a small credit toward my own account -- if you don't like me enough to do that [sniffle], you can just browse to www.fastmail.fm, too).
I'd like to personally address the Intuit complaint of 15M returns filed, but only a third paid for. Last year, I bought a copy of TurboTax and installed it on ONE computer. I filed a joint return for myself and my wife, plus individual returns for my teenage son and daughter. Let me see, now, that's 1 copy paid for, 3 returns filed -- exactly the ratio they're complaining about!
Did I do something illegal? Was I supposed to purchase a brand new copy of TT for my son and my daughter, too? Not according to their own terms of service!
How many of these "unpaid for" returns that Intuit is counting might be from people in similar situations?
I bought TT this year a few weeks ago, before hearing about their product activation. Fortunately, I hadn't installed it before I did hear about it. I marched straight back to BestBuy, handed them my unopened TT Deluxe box, and got a TaxCut box instead. Plus $10.
Nice move, Intuit! You've just handed a customer straight over to your competition. Probably for good.
Slashdot Mirror
Poor little "s" was heard sobbing because it was left out unlikified. Zonk, don't you think of the children?
Unlikified?!? Excuse me, but what exactly are you thinking about the children???
-Mike
From the article: "First introduced to testing at Compaq and IBM, Woods gained enough experience that he was hired two years ago when Red Hat needed someone to develop test automation tools." Testing at Compaq? Compaq tests things!?
Well, yeah. AAMOF, I used to work with Will there; we were both in the XC Cluster group. I can't speak for every group, but XC was very conscientious about testing.
-Mike
Is it really that hard for a would-be mugger or a homeless person to get their hands on a grocery store discount card? Doesn't sound like a very good deterrent to me.
I don't think it is. There was one time, several years ago, that I stopped off on my way home at an isolated ATM near where I worked (IIRC, it was a stand-alone ATM belonging to my bank). As I was pulling up, I noticed a couple of young guys sitting around and chatting in the enclosure. Initially, I didn't think anything of it; but as I walked toward the door, I saw them look in my direction and stand up. Alarm bells went off in my head and I turned around, got back in my car, and drove to a branch of the bank that was open; I notified the personnel of the situation at the ATM, before taking out the money I'd planned on. I don't know how they got in, but I have a feeling I would have been a mugging victim if I'd ignored my suspicions and continued on with my errand. In any event, the card reader obviously didn't keep them out.
-Mike
Where are you going to get the people to go on the panel? How are you going to prevent them from being influenced? Maybe we could just pick people at random, from the populace. Maybe we should call them a "jury".
I was thinking more in terms of a judiciary panel, or perhaps one appointed by the governor or state legislature. I concede there are problems; defining "frivolous" is a lot like defining pornography, recalling Potter Stewart's "I know it when I see it" remark. But a straight "loser pays" rule would indeed screw people who might actually have a legitimate case, but can't afford to bear the burden if they lose because the defendants has better lawyers, or the jury doesn't like their looks, etc. Even legitimate cases are not necessarily slam-dunks.
-Mike
Incorrect != Flamebait.
HTH.
Of course you have to consider the flip side. If the loser must pay, the little guy may not bring a legitimate complaint to court for fear of going bankrupt with the court costs if he loses...
That is an excellent point, and the reason I personally have trouble with the "loser pays" idea. I like the idea of discouraging frivolous suits, but not at the expense of discouraging legitimate ones; negligence and malfeasance should be punished. What I'd like to do is set up a panel to review cases that are dismissed, and award costs to the winner if the panel finds that the suit was indeed frivolous. But maybe I'm just dreaming.
-Mike
Coincidentally, I just finished Ray Kurzweil's book, The Age of Spiritual Machines, which considers the possibility of people's brains being enhanced, and eventually replaced, by cyber-prosthetics. One might argue that once the organic brain is gone, the soul (if it exists) is gone, or has moved on, as well. OTOH, we lose a lot of individual cells over the course of our lifetimes, and perhaps the brain we end up with isn't physically the one we started with anyway, so what's the difference if it's gradually replaced by artificial components? Interesting food for thought. Beats me if I have any answers, though.
-Mike
P.S. -- I used to work for Kurzweil Computer Products (eventually sold to Xerox), something like 25 years ago (I was the night-shift operator for the Kurzweil Data Entry Machine, which I believe was the first OCR data entry system that could scan ordinary printed text). I've always thought that Ray's an interesting and thought-provoking guy.
It's a method for bastard moderators to mod down posts they disagree with (i.e., abuse the system), and be immune from meta-moderation. I've been hearing noises about this being remedied soon, but I don't know when it's actually supposed to happen.
-Mike
Heh.... I thought this comic summed it up nicely: http://www.evil-comic.com/d/20060324.html
Having survived the Compaq takeover of DEC, followed by the HP takeover of Compaq, and then been laid off last October.... Yeah, I'll join the "Bitter much?" club. Sigh....
-Mike
Some idiot moderator probably started reading the posts with the most recent instead of the oldest. Or maybe he/she thought that because someone mentioned The Simpsons in another thread, any further references were redundant.
-Mike
-Mike
Your point is valid as well; I just think you missed the parent's.
-Mike
-Mike
-Mike
2) It was the first post. How can it possibly be "redundant"?
Ridiculous. I wish I had a mod point right now.
-Mike
No. You know how I know this? Because my subdomain is currently being spoofed by spammers. I'm getting dozens of "failure notices" daily at addresses like qrcywk@myusername.myemailprovider.com, along with a few complaints from people who think they can convince me (or intimidate me) to stop sending them the spam. The real sender is buried deep in the headers, but because the "from" field contains my subdomain, I'm getting the backwash, not the spammers. The way they get their responses and sell their crap is by getting people to click on the links in the message, not via replies.
-Mike
-Mike
Whoa, who peed in your Cheerios this morning?!
-Mike
-Mike
I can use FastMail anywhere I can fire up a web browser, too. But it also allows me to use an IMAP client (or a POP client, but only for paid subscribers) as well. There may be some advantages to GMail, but after trying it out a few months ago, I decided to stick with FastMail and use Thunderbird to read it. If you'd like to check it out, go here (disclosure: this is a referral link; if someone opens a paid account, or a guest account that is later upgraded, I get a small credit toward my own account -- if you don't like me enough to do that [sniffle], you can just browse to www.fastmail.fm, too).
-Mike
Can we start building the asylum yet? Or did Wonko already patent that one? -Mike
I'd like to personally address the Intuit complaint of 15M returns filed, but only a third paid for. Last year, I bought a copy of TurboTax and installed it on ONE computer. I filed a joint return for myself and my wife, plus individual returns for my teenage son and daughter. Let me see, now, that's 1 copy paid for, 3 returns filed -- exactly the ratio they're complaining about!
Did I do something illegal? Was I supposed to purchase a brand new copy of TT for my son and my daughter, too? Not according to their own terms of service!
How many of these "unpaid for" returns that Intuit is counting might be from people in similar situations?
I bought TT this year a few weeks ago, before hearing about their product activation. Fortunately, I hadn't installed it before I did hear about it. I marched straight back to BestBuy, handed them my unopened TT Deluxe box, and got a TaxCut box instead. Plus $10.
Nice move, Intuit! You've just handed a customer straight over to your competition. Probably for good.