You forget the old story that Major failed to become a bus conductor back in the 1960s because "he had problems with arithmetic". While he lacked charisma, at least he wasn't a "bastard" like Howard.
Sure people can have many backgrounds, and a fresh-faced enthuastic, perhaps naive one approach is fantastic. It would be a disaster if everyone had this approach, but here we have someone clearly enthusiastic (check out his site), clearly intersted, and very establishment ('Harvard Expert' gets a lot of cred r.e. 'professional journalism'). So what if he's just starting out (cut your teeth somewhere, would you prefer it if he kept his mouth shut and had no feedback about his approach until graduation?!).
31337 h4x0r5 may write anti-spyware programs, reverse engineer viruses and edit the Windows Registry (!) - something extremely valuable in treating the symptom, but that's always reactionary to something that's happened. This guy is going after the cause - he had a story posted a couple of days ago about who invests in Spyware companies (valuable in 'outing' the 'villans'), he is looking at the legal agreements and increasing awareness to how they subtly change (for example, he browses through and highlights points from Gator/Whatever its called now, in their 63 page EULA (who removed a print option), he is beginning to look at the incentives these companies are subject to.
So thanks for your first ever post, but how about getting off your self appointed high horse and realising that to tackle a problem it takes all sorts, and Ben is spearheading the legal and academic approach to the Spyware problem, a problem which 31337 h4x0r5 writing anti-spyware tools or even Microsoft cannot solve alone (given ilknowledgable users, etc).
Yes, as I said in my other post, his site has some interesting stuff. Perhaps I was too harsh with a knee-jerk reaction against the seemingly endless tirade of self-opinionated mediocrism in 'blogland'. My hostility should fire against 'Orange Crate' rather than Ben himself.
If you wade around the site, it has the odd interesting point r.e. legal agreements in spyware EULAs and who invests in spyware companies (clickable link), topics recently posted to slashdot. The content on the site is hardly partisan, while this fits in with the mindset of the lawyer, I'm curious how it aligns itself with a PhD student (given research should be as unbiased as possible).
Pseudo 'blog' article which offers little other than reshashing old ground.
1. 'Orange Crate': Another site run on Slashcode/Scoop/Whatever. Look at all the article comments it attracts and groundbreaking insight on its pages.
2. 'An Interview with Ben Edelman': So I post something in a blog/personal website, post it to a 2-bit unread news site desperate for anything original it can get, with the entire aim of reposting that on a widely read site merely to generate traffic, not for the quality of the article.
3. 'Ben Edelman': So he's a law student, fine, but you're pushing it with 'PhD Candidate' - remember this means someone who has applied and been accepted to a PhD course, but that's it - so be means of credibility this scores 0.
And I did RTFA, and while not bad, I fail to see what it added other than another person beating their chest under the supposition they have unique invaluable insight when the items discussed have been mentioned 100s of times in Slashdotters comments before. "Ben is noted for his work in studying issues of privacy, spyware, internet content filtering and the global supporters of those actions...", no, Ben is noted for his self delusion.
You joke, but these fish are part of the human food chain. There are little/no rules on deep sea fishing in international waters. Commonly trawlers drag their nets across the deepest depths of the ocean catching these type of fish - apparantly plentiful. The fish then get processed into feed for Salmon farming, or even into condiments and flavourings for everyday food.
.
THis is a worrying phenomenon for environmentalists - because we know so little about deep sea fish we have no idea if we're making species extinct or disrupting the natural ocean food chain.
Let's not get too defensive. Would you prefer pop-sci, or no-sci, because (sadly or not, its a fact bar a major societal change in priorities) that's what the choice is.
BTW agree with the other poster, the expression most certainly is "on the cards" in the UK, which is where the BBC is based.
The original poster said "they have feet on the ground and don't squander your donation". Well, if they are primarily preaching religion, they are squandering on and every one of their/your donations.
The article and post were talking about companies' expensing, not employeed. Please RTFA, RTFA and RTFA, in order to comment appropiately. I tried being polite, but it failed, so otherwise FOAD.
ALso, the BBC is not the only television channel. Other television channels are controlled far more obviously, explicitly, and effectively by coporate advertising.
With the extistence of the BBC, implit or explicit pressures can be argued about until the cows come home, but at least both sides to the arguemnt exist. That is the purpose of the BBC.
That is the tax treatment to the individual in the UK, which while important in the cash vs. options decision, is irrelevant r.e. the article, which is about how companies have to account for options on their income statements and balance sheet.
Yeah, nothing like giving money to people whose primary objective is spreading religion. I prefer to give my money to organisations that spread food, water and shelter and don't spend valuable time corrupting and destroying cultures.
Assist those in acute need, and let them make their own decisions and help them help themselves in working out of chronic troubles.
How can PCs be #3 when they are the requirement for #1 (if #1 is indeed teh intarweb) - perhaps a hierarchy could be ordered - perhaps assessed on their own merits, anyway, I Agree With The Parent? Is this reflex journalism another excuse to fill the time and earn some $$$?
Or is this another excuse for hypnotic television:
#1 Rule of profitable television - do not offend the advertised
#2 Rule of profitable television - do not challenge the viewer
#3 Rule of profitable television - pander to the viewer's preconceptions, opinions and biases
#4 Rule of profitable television - make the viewer have a self assured, warm-inside feeling (see #2)
#5 Rule of profitable television - make the viewer feel they have been challenged and have additional insight, even though they do now
'Top 25 innovations', 'Top 100 80s music shows', 'Evening News', etc, fit so so so easily into this convention. It troubles me.
Slashdot Mirror
...I thought you may appreciate this as being along those lines.
I had thought Major was old money all the way.
You forget the old story that Major failed to become a bus conductor back in the 1960s because "he had problems with arithmetic". While he lacked charisma, at least he wasn't a "bastard" like Howard.
Sure people can have many backgrounds, and a fresh-faced enthuastic, perhaps naive one approach is fantastic. It would be a disaster if everyone had this approach, but here we have someone clearly enthusiastic (check out his site), clearly intersted, and very establishment ('Harvard Expert' gets a lot of cred r.e. 'professional journalism'). So what if he's just starting out (cut your teeth somewhere, would you prefer it if he kept his mouth shut and had no feedback about his approach until graduation?!).
31337 h4x0r5 may write anti-spyware programs, reverse engineer viruses and edit the Windows Registry (!) - something extremely valuable in treating the symptom, but that's always reactionary to something that's happened. This guy is going after the cause - he had a story posted a couple of days ago about who invests in Spyware companies (valuable in 'outing' the 'villans'), he is looking at the legal agreements and increasing awareness to how they subtly change (for example, he browses through and highlights points from Gator/Whatever its called now, in their 63 page EULA (who removed a print option), he is beginning to look at the incentives these companies are subject to.
So thanks for your first ever post, but how about getting off your self appointed high horse and realising that to tackle a problem it takes all sorts, and Ben is spearheading the legal and academic approach to the Spyware problem, a problem which 31337 h4x0r5 writing anti-spyware tools or even Microsoft cannot solve alone (given ilknowledgable users, etc).
Yes, as I said in my other post, his site has some interesting stuff. Perhaps I was too harsh with a knee-jerk reaction against the seemingly endless tirade of self-opinionated mediocrism in 'blogland'. My hostility should fire against 'Orange Crate' rather than Ben himself.
If you wade around the site, it has the odd interesting point r.e. legal agreements in spyware EULAs and who invests in spyware companies (clickable link), topics recently posted to slashdot. The content on the site is hardly partisan, while this fits in with the mindset of the lawyer, I'm curious how it aligns itself with a PhD student (given research should be as unbiased as possible).
Pseudo 'blog' article which offers little other than reshashing old ground.
1. 'Orange Crate': Another site run on Slashcode/Scoop/Whatever. Look at all the article comments it attracts and groundbreaking insight on its pages.
2. 'An Interview with Ben Edelman': So I post something in a blog/personal website, post it to a 2-bit unread news site desperate for anything original it can get, with the entire aim of reposting that on a widely read site merely to generate traffic, not for the quality of the article.
3. 'Ben Edelman': So he's a law student, fine, but you're pushing it with 'PhD Candidate' - remember this means someone who has applied and been accepted to a PhD course, but that's it - so be means of credibility this scores 0.
And I did RTFA, and while not bad, I fail to see what it added other than another person beating their chest under the supposition they have unique invaluable insight when the items discussed have been mentioned 100s of times in Slashdotters comments before. "Ben is noted for his work in studying issues of privacy, spyware, internet content filtering and the global supporters of those actions...", no, Ben is noted for his self delusion.
You joke, but these fish are part of the human food chain. There are little/no rules on deep sea fishing in international waters. Commonly trawlers drag their nets across the deepest depths of the ocean catching these type of fish - apparantly plentiful. The fish then get processed into feed for Salmon farming, or even into condiments and flavourings for everyday food.
. THis is a worrying phenomenon for environmentalists - because we know so little about deep sea fish we have no idea if we're making species extinct or disrupting the natural ocean food chain.
Did you miss your dosage of valium today, or just too much coffee? ;)
The 'program' is in the transcript - load it up in a speech program and listen to it while doing something else if its too long to read.
Let's not get too defensive. Would you prefer pop-sci, or no-sci, because (sadly or not, its a fact bar a major societal change in priorities) that's what the choice is.
BTW agree with the other poster, the expression most certainly is "on the cards" in the UK, which is where the BBC is based.
...the RIAA are the Ferengi
The original poster said "they have feet on the ground and don't squander your donation". Well, if they are primarily preaching religion, they are squandering on and every one of their/your donations.
You fail to grasp the point:
The article and post were talking about companies' expensing, not employeed. Please RTFA, RTFA and RTFA, in order to comment appropiately. I tried being polite, but it failed, so otherwise FOAD.
ALso, the BBC is not the only television channel. Other television channels are controlled far more obviously, explicitly, and effectively by coporate advertising.
With the extistence of the BBC, implit or explicit pressures can be argued about until the cows come home, but at least both sides to the arguemnt exist. That is the purpose of the BBC.
Doesn't the C in BBC stand for CBBC?
That is the tax treatment to the individual in the UK, which while important in the cash vs. options decision, is irrelevant r.e. the article, which is about how companies have to account for options on their income statements and balance sheet.
Why Politics? This is not a political issue.
Steam.
Yeah, nothing like giving money to people whose primary objective is spreading religion. I prefer to give my money to organisations that spread food, water and shelter and don't spend valuable time corrupting and destroying cultures.
Assist those in acute need, and let them make their own decisions and help them help themselves in working out of chronic troubles.
Who wants windows in 64 bits? I'd prefer my window in one bit, thank you very much.
Its not a flame that "the submitter can't spell ha ha ha", its a criticism of building flamebait into the article summary.
Why does that make a labour shortage???
How can PCs be #3 when they are the requirement for #1 (if #1 is indeed teh intarweb) - perhaps a hierarchy could be ordered - perhaps assessed on their own merits, anyway, I Agree With The Parent? Is this reflex journalism another excuse to fill the time and earn some $$$?
Or is this another excuse for hypnotic television:
#1 Rule of profitable television - do not offend the advertised
#2 Rule of profitable television - do not challenge the viewer
#3 Rule of profitable television - pander to the viewer's preconceptions, opinions and biases
#4 Rule of profitable television - make the viewer have a self assured, warm-inside feeling (see #2)
#5 Rule of profitable television - make the viewer feel they have been challenged and have additional insight, even though they do now
'Top 25 innovations', 'Top 100 80s music shows', 'Evening News', etc, fit so so so easily into this convention. It troubles me.
Of 2005, so far.
Robots have been used in car factories for decades already - providing long term bebefits as you say.
Plus since when has Japan had a labour shortage???
Indeed. So how can there be a land-grab where land is already owned?