Well - there's nothing wrong with them trying to sell people stuff. Just because we won't buy it doesn't make it wrong. It just makes it a failed attempt.
One problem is that this failed attempt will inevitably be blamed on piracy. Watch.
SLR's have one strong advantage over your typical PHD (push here, dummy) camera......speed. The biggest complaint I hear from most people is that when something is happening, it takes too long for their camera to turn-on / focus / take the picture....but for certain shots, it's almost impossible to get them with a small camera.
Yeah, like trying to get pictures of my kids. I absolutely hate my camera, my first digital. Probably a 3 second delay while it figures out the focusing, and another half second after I push the shutter all the way. Oh, and probably about 5 seconds until I can take another shot. Considering that one of the main markets for these cameras is people taking kidpics, you'd think the shutter wouldn't be that sluggish.
"...a milestone for the English-language Wikipedia:"..."Initial reports stated that the two millionth article written was El Hormiguero, which covers a Spanish TV comedy show."
Whoop-de-shit. When I lived on the west coast, I had a job interview on the east coast where I was picked up at my hotel at 7AM after arriving on a flight that arrived at midnight. This interview was 4AM my time, and I think I got up at something like 2:30 my time. Hell, what researcher hasn't attended a conference on the east coast that started at 8AM (run by sadists, no doubt).
They can suck it up. If it's really that big a deal, and they want to be nice and refreshed, spend a couple of days getting adjusted to Eastern time.
People deal with this every day. Sure, I'd probably ask for a later slot, but I wouldn't spend time worrying about it.
I just heard some great news on the radio - Jack Thompson, 57, was found dead in his Florida home this morning. There weren't any more details, but authorities think he was shot by a deranged, miserable wretch who wasn't allowed to play video games as a child. I'm sure everyone in the Slashdot community will be happy to see the fucker burn in hell - even if you didn't enjoy his constant trolling of the legal system, there's no denying his contributions to popular culture by making GTA amazingly popular. Truly an American icon.
Yet because it's not open source (it's been "free as in beer" for quite some time now, but even that's news to some people here) it's practically awarded pariah status by many Firefox zealots who typically use nothing more than ignorance and FUD to put it down.
Well then I'm proud of those "FUD" spreading "zealots" who clearly care more about software being open-source than free of cost. That's not ignorance, that's a choice. Whether that choice happens to line up with your own beliefs of how the world should operate is irrelevant.
And you know, you seem pretty agitated about the whole thing, considering that the thesis of your argument is that the *Firefox* users are zealots. Glass houses and all, you know.
In the eyes of this humble observer, it's a far better browser than any other, but regardless of our personal preferences, isn't it time that people gave it due respect? Or is good software engineering only to be appreciated if it comes from the open source community?
People are free to use what they want. It's just a browser - if it weren't for the F/OSS aspects of Firefox, and the fact that it's a tool to break Microsoft's hegemony on the browser market, Firefox wouldn't be news either. Since Opera is neither, it's not particularly newsworthy to a site like slashdot.
So in general, I think you've missed the mark - it's not that so many people have antipathy towards Opera, it's that they don't care. And in general, if you don't like the focus of this site, there are many others out there.
There aren't even consequences if a warm body gets fired. Reputation means practically nothing to the next employer.
I'm saying being a general fuckup is how you get in that job in the first place. That said, I've not seen many situations where doing a really good job at your job, whatever it is, won't get you noticed by someone. Someone who might help get you a better job eventually.
Your comments suggest you've never been forced to scrape the bottom of the wage barrel before or have any awareness at all of how an HR office complies with laws or how a low-wage worker is hired.
I know enough to know that if you're waiting for HR to do something for you, you'll be waiting a very long time indeed.
Also, it's been a while but I've done shit work before - sure, it's no treat, but the point is that your coworkers tend to be about as responsible as the moron who tossed the rebates. If you show up to work sober and on time, you stand out from the crowd.
And I still maintain that effectively throwing away people's money makes this guy a class 1 asshole.
Fair use is not actually a defined right. It is, instead, an"affirmative defense" against a charge of copyright violation. That's a difference, however subtle.
That was a really good post. I will say, from a non-lawyer point of view, I'd say the distinction doesn't make much difference because of the established court decisions. Gray area abounds, but if they try to bust me for simply making a personal backup copy or something, I've got a wealth of precedent and such to rely on. So it's not codified, but it's the next best thing.
Just as with the Scots and Welsh, insulting the French is also a right reserved for the English; only once you've fought a hundred years war with a country (which was actually closer to 120 years) can you truly claim to have the right to insult it's inhabitance, no one likes the alternative.
Nope, after 1945 we have full rights to trash the Frogs. Oh, and you're murdering your Queen's English, by the way.
Err. You seem to be mixing the Scotish and the Welsh, it's the Welsh that are well known for their sheep, and poking fun at them for it is a pastime strictly reserved for us English. The reason, as you so aptly demonstrated, is because you guys can't get it right.
My info comes from a Brit. You're telling me that if I go to Scotland I won't find some guy wearing a sheep for a sweater? I'm thoroughly disappointed.
Hell, you can't even insult the french properly (c.f. "freedom fries" debacle).
Most commonly we just call them cowards, and I invite you to challenge the veracity of *that*.
It's rather like having a reporter covering Congressional sessions who doesn't understand any of the rules of the house, or what Constitutional powers and limits it has.
Well there's an interesting tangent! But wait, it could get worse! We could also have congressmen who don't understand any of the bills they're voting on, or serving on committees without having any knowledge of the field they represent.
What really begs the question is, where the hell does that money go, if not to the author of the article?
Depends. Maintaining an editing, peer review, production and publication system does cost money, print or online. Aside from that, there's a distinction between journals put out by non-profit organizations (like the American Chemical Society) and for-profit publishers (like Elsevier).
The societies often use journal publication as a moneymaker to support other efforts, which are often philanthropic. ACS, for instance, does a lot to support chemistry education K-12 and other efforts as well. I believe many of them also give discounts to academic institutions. On the other hand, the for-profit publishers are in the business of making money, and charge what the market will bear. For that reason, many researchers prefer to use society-based publishers.
As a paid-up lifetime member of SFWA, you can be sure that I will be asking for an explanation of this action (and clarification/confirmation as to whether this is being done in the name of the SFWA or whether Andrew Burt is simply acting as an individual).
How does your organization work? Does it do this for its members as a service, protecting your copyrights? Do members grant permission for this? If not, they don't have the right to issue DMCA takedowns for copyrights they don't own. Did you have to sign some small print somewhere?
"Even a dead cat dropped off a roof will bounce a little" The stock will bounce up a little bit with the announcement and the investors will have a chance to mitigate their losses slightly. Yawn./sbin/shutdown -h now
Problem with that is that you know these clowns will surface again, buy some formerly well reputed company with a shaky claim against some cash-rich company, and try the same basic shakedown.
The move is clearly against the BSD license. (Also, combining GPLv2ed code and BSDed code is subtly against the GPL, as the requirement to reproduce the license - as shown and violated here - is an extra requirement compared to the GPL, violating the "no additional restrictions" clause of the GPL.)
If so, seems like one that should be removed. I think an exception would be fair for other infinitely redistributable licenses, or a 'restriction' that consists solely of a copyright notice that in no other way infringes the GPL.
Always listen to them and hear what they're telling you.
Absolutely. Always remember that employees are people, not just resources to be used and shuffled.
I think a good way to tell that a manager has outlived his/her usefulness is when they start treating employees as interchangeable parts and think technical issues with which they aren't familiar must be trivial. That's when it's time for pasture.
Doesn't a US citizen have to follow US laws while abroad?
Generally not, I think - certainly the US wouldn't have jurisdiction for most such issues. They couldn't bust you for smoking weed in Amsterdam, etc. Even then, I can't a link to the case which specifies exactly what law is being allegedly broken, other than some ambiguous 'international standard' stuff. This seems like it boils down to "we don't like you, and we want attention, so we're suing you".
If so, shouldn't a US corporation be held to the same standard?
Slashdot Mirror
Seriously, people. OF COURSE that works! Man in the middle, anyone? Where's the big deal?
I don't think the guy was billing it as some major technical achievement. The news is the sensitivity of the traffic.
Well - there's nothing wrong with them trying to sell people stuff. Just because we won't buy it doesn't make it wrong. It just makes it a failed attempt.
One problem is that this failed attempt will inevitably be blamed on piracy. Watch.
SLR's have one strong advantage over your typical PHD (push here, dummy) camera......speed. The biggest complaint I hear from most people is that when something is happening, it takes too long for their camera to turn-on / focus / take the picture....but for certain shots, it's almost impossible to get them with a small camera.
Yeah, like trying to get pictures of my kids. I absolutely hate my camera, my first digital. Probably a 3 second delay while it figures out the focusing, and another half second after I push the shutter all the way. Oh, and probably about 5 seconds until I can take another shot. Considering that one of the main markets for these cameras is people taking kidpics, you'd think the shutter wouldn't be that sluggish.
This is why things should actually be OFF when you turn them off. What if it interferes with hospital equipment like other cells, even if it's off?
I'd say hospital equipment shouldn't malfunction when presented with interference on a widely used spectrum, but that's just me.
Wow, that's ironical.
Whoop-de-shit. When I lived on the west coast, I had a job interview on the east coast where I was picked up at my hotel at 7AM after arriving on a flight that arrived at midnight. This interview was 4AM my time, and I think I got up at something like 2:30 my time. Hell, what researcher hasn't attended a conference on the east coast that started at 8AM (run by sadists, no doubt).
They can suck it up. If it's really that big a deal, and they want to be nice and refreshed, spend a couple of days getting adjusted to Eastern time.
People deal with this every day. Sure, I'd probably ask for a later slot, but I wouldn't spend time worrying about it.
jack thompson: greatest troll who ever lived
I just heard some great news on the radio - Jack Thompson, 57, was found dead in his Florida home this morning. There weren't any more details, but authorities think he was shot by a deranged, miserable wretch who wasn't allowed to play video games as a child. I'm sure everyone in the Slashdot community will be happy to see the fucker burn in hell - even if you didn't enjoy his constant trolling of the legal system, there's no denying his contributions to popular culture by making GTA amazingly popular. Truly an American icon.
Here's my list: OpenOffice, e-Sword, Firefox, Google Desktop, TightVNC, Thunderbird, Picasa, AVG Anti-Virus, GIMP, IrfanView, VLC Media Player, FileZilla, 7zip
Not bloated? Christ, that list makes Rosie Odonnell look anorexic!
Yet because it's not open source (it's been "free as in beer" for quite some time now, but even that's news to some people here) it's practically awarded pariah status by many Firefox zealots who typically use nothing more than ignorance and FUD to put it down.
Well then I'm proud of those "FUD" spreading "zealots" who clearly care more about software being open-source than free of cost. That's not ignorance, that's a choice. Whether that choice happens to line up with your own beliefs of how the world should operate is irrelevant.
And you know, you seem pretty agitated about the whole thing, considering that the thesis of your argument is that the *Firefox* users are zealots. Glass houses and all, you know.
In the eyes of this humble observer, it's a far better browser than any other, but regardless of our personal preferences, isn't it time that people gave it due respect? Or is good software engineering only to be appreciated if it comes from the open source community?
People are free to use what they want. It's just a browser - if it weren't for the F/OSS aspects of Firefox, and the fact that it's a tool to break Microsoft's hegemony on the browser market, Firefox wouldn't be news either. Since Opera is neither, it's not particularly newsworthy to a site like slashdot.
So in general, I think you've missed the mark - it's not that so many people have antipathy towards Opera, it's that they don't care. And in general, if you don't like the focus of this site, there are many others out there.
There aren't even consequences if a warm body gets fired. Reputation means practically nothing to the next employer.
I'm saying being a general fuckup is how you get in that job in the first place. That said, I've not seen many situations where doing a really good job at your job, whatever it is, won't get you noticed by someone. Someone who might help get you a better job eventually.
Your comments suggest you've never been forced to scrape the bottom of the wage barrel before or have any awareness at all of how an HR office complies with laws or how a low-wage worker is hired.
I know enough to know that if you're waiting for HR to do something for you, you'll be waiting a very long time indeed.
Also, it's been a while but I've done shit work before - sure, it's no treat, but the point is that your coworkers tend to be about as responsible as the moron who tossed the rebates. If you show up to work sober and on time, you stand out from the crowd.
And I still maintain that effectively throwing away people's money makes this guy a class 1 asshole.
Fair use is not actually a defined right. It is, instead, an"affirmative defense" against a charge of copyright violation. That's a difference, however subtle.
That was a really good post. I will say, from a non-lawyer point of view, I'd say the distinction doesn't make much difference because of the established court decisions. Gray area abounds, but if they try to bust me for simply making a personal backup copy or something, I've got a wealth of precedent and such to rely on. So it's not codified, but it's the next best thing.
Bottom of the barrel wage earners working an admittedly unglamorous job tosses a few out.
And as we all know, the best way to get a better job is to royally fuck up at your current one. I'm sorry, throwing out rebates in indefensible.
Just as with the Scots and Welsh, insulting the French is also a right reserved for the English; only once you've fought a hundred years war with a country (which was actually closer to 120 years) can you truly claim to have the right to insult it's inhabitance, no one likes the alternative.
Nope, after 1945 we have full rights to trash the Frogs. Oh, and you're murdering your Queen's English, by the way.
Err. You seem to be mixing the Scotish and the Welsh, it's the Welsh that are well known for their sheep, and poking fun at them for it is a pastime strictly reserved for us English. The reason, as you so aptly demonstrated, is because you guys can't get it right.
My info comes from a Brit. You're telling me that if I go to Scotland I won't find some guy wearing a sheep for a sweater? I'm thoroughly disappointed.
Hell, you can't even insult the french properly (c.f. "freedom fries" debacle).
Most commonly we just call them cowards, and I invite you to challenge the veracity of *that*.
Typical Merkin.
Merkin? Isn't that what you guys wear under your skirts?
In Scotland, DNA is only kept on record if you are convicted.
It's easier for the Scots though, because if they want to collect it from you again they can get it from the sheep in your backyard.
It's rather like having a reporter covering Congressional sessions who doesn't understand any of the rules of the house, or what Constitutional powers and limits it has.
Well there's an interesting tangent! But wait, it could get worse! We could also have congressmen who don't understand any of the bills they're voting on, or serving on committees without having any knowledge of the field they represent.
I'm glad that'll never happen.
What really begs the question is, where the hell does that money go, if not to the author of the article?
Depends. Maintaining an editing, peer review, production and publication system does cost money, print or online. Aside from that, there's a distinction between journals put out by non-profit organizations (like the American Chemical Society) and for-profit publishers (like Elsevier).
The societies often use journal publication as a moneymaker to support other efforts, which are often philanthropic. ACS, for instance, does a lot to support chemistry education K-12 and other efforts as well. I believe many of them also give discounts to academic institutions. On the other hand, the for-profit publishers are in the business of making money, and charge what the market will bear. For that reason, many researchers prefer to use society-based publishers.
As a paid-up lifetime member of SFWA, you can be sure that I will be asking for an explanation of this action (and clarification/confirmation as to whether this is being done in the name of the SFWA or whether Andrew Burt is simply acting as an individual).
How does your organization work? Does it do this for its members as a service, protecting your copyrights? Do members grant permission for this? If not, they don't have the right to issue DMCA takedowns for copyrights they don't own. Did you have to sign some small print somewhere?
"Even a dead cat dropped off a roof will bounce a little" The stock will bounce up a little bit with the announcement and the investors will have a chance to mitigate their losses slightly. Yawn. /sbin/shutdown -h now
Problem with that is that you know these clowns will surface again, buy some formerly well reputed company with a shaky claim against some cash-rich company, and try the same basic shakedown.
So it's more like: /sbin/shutdown -r now
Yes, let the word "blogoshphere" become a roadkill on the information superhighway, for the synergetic well-being of all netizens!
That is soooooooooo Web 1.0.
After six years of development, you would think Vista would at least work as well as XP
After 10 years of development, you'd think XP would work at least as well as 2K.
The move is clearly against the BSD license. (Also, combining GPLv2ed code and BSDed code is subtly against the GPL, as the requirement to reproduce the license - as shown and violated here - is an extra requirement compared to the GPL, violating the "no additional restrictions" clause of the GPL.)
If so, seems like one that should be removed. I think an exception would be fair for other infinitely redistributable licenses, or a 'restriction' that consists solely of a copyright notice that in no other way infringes the GPL.
Always listen to them and hear what they're telling you.
Absolutely. Always remember that employees are people, not just resources to be used and shuffled.
I think a good way to tell that a manager has outlived his/her usefulness is when they start treating employees as interchangeable parts and think technical issues with which they aren't familiar must be trivial. That's when it's time for pasture.
Doesn't a US citizen have to follow US laws while abroad?
Generally not, I think - certainly the US wouldn't have jurisdiction for most such issues. They couldn't bust you for smoking weed in Amsterdam, etc. Even then, I can't a link to the case which specifies exactly what law is being allegedly broken, other than some ambiguous 'international standard' stuff. This seems like it boils down to "we don't like you, and we want attention, so we're suing you".
If so, shouldn't a US corporation be held to the same standard?
Yes, but see above.