Gravity only works one in one direction (which direction is left as an exercise for the reader). It is not surprising, and entirely predictable, that the building will fall down, and not sideways.
You first instinct might be to see it fall sideways, like a ladder does. But a ladder is a single object with good rigidity. Make that ladder 110 stories tall, however, and you're in a whole new ball game. And, in fact, make it dozens of ladders riveted to each other, and it's floppy as hell.
Don't think of it as a ladder, but as a sandcastle. Have a baseball hit the middle of the castle. A bit of the castle sprays out from the momentum, but most of the castle just falls straight down. If the top is heavy enough, the whole thing ends up in a pile.
I'm pretty surprised to see such a partisan version of history modded up so highly.
"The main similarity between 1992 and 2000 is the extent to which a viciously partisan press tipped the balance in favour of the right. Bush was consistently praised despite his obvious deficiencies while every opportunity was taken to attack Gore. So Bush got a bye for lying about driving while drunk while Gore was called a liar for mistakenly saying he visited Texas with the head of FEMA when it was the deputy head, he having visited 19 other states with the head one might think it an innocent mistake."
This isn't an accurate picture of what went on. Both candidates were bashed relentlessly by the press in the US's classic politics-of-destruction manner. If you try to detect right/left tilt in the media you find that 3 out of 4 networks are slightly left, and the 4th, Murdoch's Fox, is slightly right. I'm sure one could trot out a list of perceived media slights, but so can both sides. The media pleases no one.
For instance: If the press is as right-wing as you describe, why did it declare Gore the winner in Florida at 8PM EST? Polls were open in the Florida Panhandle for another hour; such an announcement could only lower turnout in the Florida Panhandle, the most right-wing portion of the state.
He also goes on to say "The ecconomy was in recession, the administration had lost control of the Senate due to crass political judgement, the California energy crisis caused by blatant market manipulation by Bush's texas cronies at Enron." A more rational person would point out that California's crisis was caused by horribly written market regulations. But, the author would rather tie the crisis to a bankrupt company and tie that company to Bush, all without logical support. It's just convenient for him to tie all of his pinatas into one and take a big whack. If Enron was the rapacious profiteer of the last year, why did it go bankrupt?
I would encourage moderators to highlight more even-handed versions of events. Extreme versions are welcome if they are so labelled. But partisan tripe masquerading as the truth is just awful.
Dunster
PS. I'm neither a Republican nor a Democrat - I'm one of those rare people registered with a third party.
The RIAA wields the power that it does because the government granted that power through insanely long copyright lengths and draconian protection of those copyrights (see DMCA). The solution to this is NOT a new law; we've already seen the damage that these laws can do. The answer is to go back and re-write the existing law, and to get it right this time!
I think your only accurate statement is that they "hire people that DO know what they are doing." After that, I think you get stuck in some pretty sweeping generalities based on whatever experience you have.
It has been my experience that CIOs serve as a valuable interpreter between techies and non-techies. Furthermore, they have the clout and respect to be the champion that technical people need on the business side of the organization.
I'm sorry you've had such a bad time with CIOs, but your brush is too broad.
You are quick off the starting line to point out that the RBL is a voluntary thing. We've heard that before, and it is even true.
But, this article is about the fact that MAPS uses a very broad brush to paint its spammers. In its zeal to stop spam, it is hurting people and organizations that have never done anything wrong. MAPS has been accused before of being arbitrary with its power, and this is some pretty compelling backup to those accusations.
Frankly, I wish that a more moderate group than MAPS had taken the lead in writing a blackhole list. I find their definition of spam to be to far-ranging. I find their tactics to be abominable. I find their superior-that-thou attitude to be offensive.
I hope that press like this will lead an alternative list-group to form, and more press will steer people to it.
MAPS can hide behind "free association" for a while. But if they continue with practices and policies like this, I suspect that they will find few willing to associate with them.
You talk about VC and IPOs as if it were about separating a fool from his money. The people with this money are not fools. They do it knowing full well what they are getting into.
The VC/IPO route is a way to get big, fast. The Internet is the Wild West. It's a land grab. Run out to the territory, stake it out, own it. If the land you grabbed has enough revenue in it, you make a killing. The richer the land you grab, the richer you get. You can argue that the land these companies have grabbed isn't worth as much as they think, and in many cases you are right. Some of these cases, however, are going to simply mint money. There is money to be made selling things on the web.
These people who invest their money look at a company's prospects first. They estimate the worth of the territory and the costs associated with growing the company. They make an educated decision to buy or sell. Thankfully, there is no law like the one you describe. Investors don't need you to protect them. They know how to make their own decisions.
These people are not trying to inflate the values of their companies and then jump out of the plane. They are trying to grow their company fast, to take more territory and discourage competitors. They don't leave when it is done; they grow it even bigger, just more slowly.
This lawsuit isn't about open relays, address-surfing, or other not-nice tactics. If you read the article, its about subscription methods.
If I say "yes, I want this newsletter," and then complain to RBL that I got the newsletter, RBL will blacklist the newsletter. That is just silly. According to the RBL, I have to say "yes" and then later "yes" again.
RBL really ought to change its definition. Double opt-in is too much of a pain in the ass. YesMail is because I said "YES!", not because they bought my address off some porn site.
The story isn't about Company A v. Company B. Its a story about how Company B failed, why it failed, and the personalities involved. That is fascinating stuff.
Rant all you want about how of-course-someone-has-to-win. But read the story for the interesting parts, not the parts that give you diarrhea of the keyboard.
Most of the posts I just read were hell-bent on making this absolutely secure. But this same lust for security makes it very difficult for the average user to logon and get the answer to the question they are looking for. A truly secure method may be crippling to the tool's purpose. At that point, why bother doing it?
What is it that you are trying to secure against? Raids by a marketer, collecting email addresses to sell his medicine to? Blackmail of a political career? Embarassment by friends and co-workers? A script-kiddie putting up a database of a few peoples' ailments? All of these things are unlikely to happen.
I say, take let the security back a notch. A good password, kept secret, is good enough. Reject the absolute worst passwords. But other than that, let the users choose their own security. ("Is this secure? Yes, if you follow these simple instructions; click here.")
This data does not have to be protected in a truly absolute sense. It just has to be protected to the point where a) the user is happy and b) the cost of getting the data outweighs the usefulness of the data.
You have drawn analogies between Lycos and phone companies that are quite inappropriate.
Lycos will tell you up front that they are NOT simply a conduit of information. They are a content provider. They deliberate and often shape what you see when you are at their site. When you go to Lycos to search for something, they deliberately steer you on the basis of what you are looking for. The ads you see are different, the services they offer change, all because of what you are looking for.
They have a search engine that runs largely without human intervention, but that is only part of what they do. They absolutely provide content. It definitely is not neutral.
Lycos is not in the business of coughing up a few links that you might or not click on. They want you to stay, to browse, to buy. That is a far cry from providing copper, fiber, and power.
It sounds like the code these developers are going to write is part of your company's core mission. If that is the case, then you really need these developers to be part of your company's core.
If the code is simply add-ons, doo-dads, and gee-gaws to what you actually do, then I back off. Frills and extentions can be done by contractors.
But if the code really matters, if you are judged by the application, then you need to have your developers' motivation aligned with the company's. That means making their financial success tied to the success of they company's. That means equity, not contract-by-month.
Building a good engineering team is not an easy thing. But it is absolutely necessary if you want to put out a good product.
I really disagree with the concept that "the good ones go into consulting." The good ones really care about what they do, and that means sticking around long enought to make it sure it works. Of course, you have to make it worth their while. Good people have "vision." They see their products almost as children, and care for them accordingly. Consultants see their products as rest stops on a highway. Nice for the moment, but nothing to invest any real time in.
Do you lose sleep at night worrying about work? I bet you do, and it is because you care about your job and how your company does. Good developers will be the same way. Contractors will worry for 3 months, and then just walk away.
The Lone Gunmen every week? I can't imagine anything worse - unless it was That 70's Show.
The Lone Gunmen are so one-dimensional. They have so little to work with by themselves. They work in their context. They are a foil to Fox and Dana, a geeky subtext to the interesting ideas.
While I agree that X wouldn't be X without them, that doesn't mean they can stand on their own.
Slashdot Mirror
We're talking about Mass, here. It's pronounced "retahded."
Gravity only works one in one direction (which direction is left as an exercise for the reader). It is not surprising, and entirely predictable, that the building will fall down, and not sideways.
You first instinct might be to see it fall sideways, like a ladder does. But a ladder is a single object with good rigidity. Make that ladder 110 stories tall, however, and you're in a whole new ball game. And, in fact, make it dozens of ladders riveted to each other, and it's floppy as hell.
Don't think of it as a ladder, but as a sandcastle. Have a baseball hit the middle of the castle. A bit of the castle sprays out from the momentum, but most of the castle just falls straight down. If the top is heavy enough, the whole thing ends up in a pile.
I'm pretty surprised to see such a partisan version of history modded up so highly.
"The main similarity between 1992 and 2000 is the extent to which a viciously partisan press tipped the balance in favour of the right. Bush was consistently praised despite his obvious deficiencies while every opportunity was taken to attack Gore. So Bush got a bye for lying about driving while drunk while Gore was called a liar for mistakenly saying he visited Texas with the head of FEMA when it was the deputy head, he having visited 19 other states with the head one might think it an innocent mistake."
This isn't an accurate picture of what went on. Both candidates were bashed relentlessly by the press in the US's classic politics-of-destruction manner. If you try to detect right/left tilt in the media you find that 3 out of 4 networks are slightly left, and the 4th, Murdoch's Fox, is slightly right. I'm sure one could trot out a list of perceived media slights, but so can both sides. The media pleases no one.
For instance: If the press is as right-wing as you describe, why did it declare Gore the winner in Florida at 8PM EST? Polls were open in the Florida Panhandle for another hour; such an announcement could only lower turnout in the Florida Panhandle, the most right-wing portion of the state.
He also goes on to say "The ecconomy was in recession, the administration had lost control of the Senate due to crass political judgement, the California energy crisis caused by blatant market manipulation by Bush's texas cronies at Enron." A more rational person would point out that California's crisis was caused by horribly written market regulations. But, the author would rather tie the crisis to a bankrupt company and tie that company to Bush, all without logical support. It's just convenient for him to tie all of his pinatas into one and take a big whack. If Enron was the rapacious profiteer of the last year, why did it go bankrupt?
I would encourage moderators to highlight more even-handed versions of events. Extreme versions are welcome if they are so labelled. But partisan tripe masquerading as the truth is just awful.
Dunster
PS. I'm neither a Republican nor a Democrat - I'm one of those rare people registered with a third party.
From my econ book:
1) Medium of Exchange: People are willing to accept it as payment for whatever they are selling.
2) Store of Value: You can use it to buy things now or in a future time period.
3) Unit of Account: It can be used to state the price of goods.
Yep, it's a real currency, within Everquest.
Dunster
56 Paladin
Brell Serillis
The RIAA wields the power that it does because the government granted that power through insanely long copyright lengths and draconian protection of those copyrights (see DMCA). The solution to this is NOT a new law; we've already seen the damage that these laws can do. The answer is to go back and re-write the existing law, and to get it right this time!
Speech recognition is dictation, which is what this article is about. Voice recognition is a security biometric.
Get the terminology right. Nuff sed.
3 years ago Card read and spoke at MIT. It might be interesting to compare this to what he said then.
http://www-tech.mit.edu/V117/N61/scifi.61n.html
I think your only accurate statement is that they "hire people that DO know what they are doing." After that, I think you get stuck in some pretty sweeping generalities based on whatever experience you have.
It has been my experience that CIOs serve as a valuable interpreter between techies and non-techies. Furthermore, they have the clout and respect to be the champion that technical people need on the business side of the organization.
I'm sorry you've had such a bad time with CIOs, but your brush is too broad.
You are quick off the starting line to point out that the RBL is a voluntary thing. We've heard that before, and it is even true.
But, this article is about the fact that MAPS uses a very broad brush to paint its spammers. In its zeal to stop spam, it is hurting people and organizations that have never done anything wrong. MAPS has been accused before of being arbitrary with its power, and this is some pretty compelling backup to those accusations.
Frankly, I wish that a more moderate group than MAPS had taken the lead in writing a blackhole list. I find their definition of spam to be to far-ranging. I find their tactics to be abominable. I find their superior-that-thou attitude to be offensive.
I hope that press like this will lead an alternative list-group to form, and more press will steer people to it.
MAPS can hide behind "free association" for a while. But if they continue with practices and policies like this, I suspect that they will find few willing to associate with them.
You talk about VC and IPOs as if it were about separating a fool from his money. The people with this money are not fools. They do it knowing full well what they are getting into.
The VC/IPO route is a way to get big, fast. The Internet is the Wild West. It's a land grab. Run out to the territory, stake it out, own it. If the land you grabbed has enough revenue in it, you make a killing. The richer the land you grab, the richer you get. You can argue that the land these companies have grabbed isn't worth as much as they think, and in many cases you are right. Some of these cases, however, are going to simply mint money. There is money to be made selling things on the web.
These people who invest their money look at a company's prospects first. They estimate the worth of the territory and the costs associated with growing the company. They make an educated decision to buy or sell. Thankfully, there is no law like the one you describe. Investors don't need you to protect them. They know how to make their own decisions.
These people are not trying to inflate the values of their companies and then jump out of the plane. They are trying to grow their company fast, to take more territory and discourage competitors. They don't leave when it is done; they grow it even bigger, just more slowly.
This lawsuit isn't about open relays, address-surfing, or other not-nice tactics. If you read the article, its about subscription methods.
If I say "yes, I want this newsletter," and then complain to RBL that I got the newsletter, RBL will blacklist the newsletter. That is just silly. According to the RBL, I have to say "yes" and then later "yes" again.
RBL really ought to change its definition. Double opt-in is too much of a pain in the ass. YesMail is because I said "YES!", not because they bought my address off some porn site.
The story isn't about Company A v. Company B. Its a story about how Company B failed, why it failed, and the personalities involved. That is fascinating stuff.
Rant all you want about how of-course-someone-has-to-win. But read the story for the interesting parts, not the parts that give you diarrhea of the keyboard.
Most of the posts I just read were hell-bent on making this absolutely secure. But this same lust for security makes it very difficult for the average user to logon and get the answer to the question they are looking for. A truly secure method may be crippling to the tool's purpose. At that point, why bother doing it?
What is it that you are trying to secure against? Raids by a marketer, collecting email addresses to sell his medicine to? Blackmail of a political career? Embarassment by friends and co-workers? A script-kiddie putting up a database of a few peoples' ailments? All of these things are unlikely to happen.
I say, take let the security back a notch. A good password, kept secret, is good enough. Reject the absolute worst passwords. But other than that, let the users choose their own security. ("Is this secure? Yes, if you follow these simple instructions; click here.")
This data does not have to be protected in a truly absolute sense. It just has to be protected to the point where a) the user is happy and b) the cost of getting the data outweighs the usefulness of the data.
But, was the Amazon outage related to the change over?
Amazon.com Outage
Details like that can make or break other sys admins' choices.
You have drawn analogies between Lycos and phone companies that are quite inappropriate.
Lycos will tell you up front that they are NOT simply a conduit of information. They are a content provider. They deliberate and often shape what you see when you are at their site. When you go to Lycos to search for something, they deliberately steer you on the basis of what you are looking for. The ads you see are different, the services they offer change, all because of what you are looking for.
They have a search engine that runs largely without human intervention, but that is only part of what they do. They absolutely provide content. It definitely is not neutral.
Lycos is not in the business of coughing up a few links that you might or not click on. They want you to stay, to browse, to buy. That is a far cry from providing copper, fiber, and power.
It sounds like the code these developers are going to write is part of your company's core mission. If that is the case, then you really need these developers to be part of your company's core.
If the code is simply add-ons, doo-dads, and gee-gaws to what you actually do, then I back off. Frills and extentions can be done by contractors.
But if the code really matters, if you are judged by the application, then you need to have your developers' motivation aligned with the company's. That means making their financial success tied to the success of they company's. That means equity, not contract-by-month.
Building a good engineering team is not an easy thing. But it is absolutely necessary if you want to put out a good product.
I really disagree with the concept that "the good ones go into consulting." The good ones really care about what they do, and that means sticking around long enought to make it sure it works. Of course, you have to make it worth their while. Good people have "vision." They see their products almost as children, and care for them accordingly. Consultants see their products as rest stops on a highway. Nice for the moment, but nothing to invest any real time in.
Do you lose sleep at night worrying about work? I bet you do, and it is because you care about your job and how your company does. Good developers will be the same way. Contractors will worry for 3 months, and then just walk away.
The Lone Gunmen every week? I can't imagine anything worse - unless it was That 70's Show.
The Lone Gunmen are so one-dimensional. They have so little to work with by themselves. They work in their context. They are a foil to Fox and Dana, a geeky subtext to the interesting ideas.
While I agree that X wouldn't be X without them, that doesn't mean they can stand on their own.
Flamebait. Have a nice day. Not.
Is this why I haven't gotten any headlines mailed to me either? I'm not smart enough to get to the site myself. I need to be prompted!
AOL is not and will not be in tune with the Linux community.
The name of AOL's game is to be the easiest to use at everything it does. Linux is not easy. Therefore Linux is below AOL's radar.
Common enemy is one thing, but their market is another. And the market is not us.