Then we should burn up the bill of rights, throw out all our environmental regulations and go "full capitalist". We will demolish China, who while strong, could not withstand us (at this moment). We will have kings at the top of the smogheap that rule the world, and those kings may let us work their lands.
Or, we accept that there is a price to our freedom, a price to having nice things, and protect those things to the exclusion of those outside of us. If we have a real need for workers, we let their very best in and we give them green cards, and we do everything we can to encourage them to stay.
Especially surreal when my wife learned to shoot same weapons in PRC at 12 years of age as part of the school curriculum, when around here we'd probably try to bring someone up on charges for doing that. Sometimes the gun control side sounds like the "abstinence only" education argument. Both seem to think lack of knowledge and superficial fixes will solve unrelated problems (i.e. sociopaths running amok).
I guess I don't consider something you post on facebook with inappropriate privacy settings, or broadcast out loud in a bar, or write in a newspaper, or have written in the sky to be private. I don't think the government is doing anything wrong by looking there. But if you have the appropriate privacy settings and/or the reasonable expectation of privacy, the government should be forbidden from it and not given any special privileges.
Let's spell it all out. I'm sure this isn't comprehensive: - I want personal issues related to my family (medical, mental, social, sexual, etc.) hidden. No one needs to know that, frequently even I do not, but families overshare and it should be safe to do so. - I want my finances secret. The government already knows how much I make, my employer and investment banks already helpfully report this and withhold taxes. But that does not mean it should be casually available to anyone who wants to go look. It is not anyone else's business, and worse, can be used to hurt me or my family. - I want my choices to be secret. I am protected by the Bill of Rights against self-incrimination, I would not voluntarily admit to any crime I committed if I knew they were watching nor am I obligated to do so. I should not be in a position to accidentally "confess" particularly to a crime no one is investigating. I may not have known what I did was a crime, and in fact no one may have been hurt, therefore there is no reason for the police to be involved. The government, however, has financial motive to collect fines. If say, I bought alcohol from on a Sunday morning in Texas, this is illegal. No one is hurt, but if the government were to spy, the purchaser would lose his liquor license and I'd be fined making the government money. In fact more people are hurt by the crime disclosure than by keeping it on the DL, but it's hardly 'dishonest'. - I want my private activities secret. Not all things I do are for everyone to know: I may be looking for a new job, I may have a mistress or five, I may be in the closet but the winter coats are a rockin', I may be working on the Next Big Thing and trying to get a business going but in a position where someone could snipe my idea and get a leg up on me (particularly if that someone were wealthier than I am, and not having to go seek funding), etc. There are tons of honest or quasi-honest reasons to want privacy. - I may be communicating privileged information to a client, patient or customer with the expectation or perhaps written guarantee of secrecy and have a significant contractual liability should that information get out. It should not be victim to the government (or private corps) prurient interests. - I may be in a position where I am about to acquire, legally, something incredibly valuable but until I have possession and/or have dispositioned it securely be vulnerable to dishonest people. Ex. Let's say I won the lottery, until such time as I can get the ticket notarized, successfully placed in the appropriate hands, there is a huge financial incentive for a thug to mug me of that ticket. I cannot do this without communication: i may need to make several parties aware of my position and arrange for security. A bad agent spying on me, who makes a normal wage at his poice force job would really like to get that ticket and already has the right combination of weapons, authority and disposition to steal it. - I may simply not want to be gossiped about, and have the elements of truth of that gossip come around and haunt me later. The less people know, the less interesting the gossip and the sooner it all ends.
I wasn't sure. So I clicked on "terminal" and typed "gcc" and it worked. To be fair, "gcc" seems to invoke this "clang" thing not gcc, but it compiles code and Hello, World! shows up. I tried python too, that also seems to work, if you're in to white spaces.
Not sure what this guy is talking about really. Even MS gives out free dev tools these days, and that is in spite of Bill Gates' famous objection to giving such tools out for free.
I don't think it's fair to call those people stupid, they have reasons. Personally I agree with you, I want a 17" luggable with a fully performant CPU that is just selectively gimped when I'm running on battery. I find 17" can comfortably used on domestic flights with a bit of cramping, but otherwise works great for where I am 99% of the time.
The majority of people i see on an airplane have their little 13" things they need to run for 5 hour flights, then 2 hour meetings and 5 hour flights home, and are just powerpointing. It seems like they have legitimate wants, and different lifestyles than I do.
The problem is not them, the problem is the push for one size fits all. It is more profitable, but it is not good for customers. So just don't buy that shit.
You have to own your career.....no one else will do it for you.
Say that stronger. You have to own your own career. Anyone who wants to do it for you should not be trusted. Your manager will happily guide you to what the company needs, to what he needs, but not necessarily what is best or most lucrative for you. I've had several employers "guide" young college kids down the path of engineering management and schedule keeping, and in 5 years these people were unhireable and "stuck" at their employer, until such time as the ax man cometh. Never let this happen to you. If you care about technology, stay as obsessively technical as possible. If you want to be in technology management, be even MORE technical, but go to meetings and learn to powerpoint.
The management where schedules are kept and technology isn't important: this you want to avoid. While it may seem like there are infinite openings, that's largely because of a revolving door as the sediment is flushed from the system. The pay is bad, the future is bad, and your career is that self-same sediment. Do not be fooled by all the letters you can put after your name, they are not valued by most anyone.
You could go the other way: this removes absolutely all doubt that X is an idiot. If you can be seen goofing off and surfing the internet all day, and still get more work done than X, he's clearly a tool.
Or, those affected throw their sabot into the gears when treated in a way they perceive is incorrect, and either no one gets anything, or a compromise is reached.
We talk a lot about who is or is not owed anything according to various ideologies, while disrespecting opposing ideologies. But in the end we're animals. When put in a corner we will bite. That's why severance exists in the first place, it absolutely is undeserved bribery, but it keeps the lawyers off you.
The worst problem is when schools started demanding photo ID for SATS to "stop" this confusion, only to not realize that quite a few asian people have identical names too, particularly after they have been anglicized. How many Tommy Chen's have I known in my life? Well over a hundred. The only difference was SSN, which of course, isn't on most ID.
No, no, no. You misunderstand the word stakeholder. The public ARE stakeholders. We have several places in which the stake my be placed and held. The rich will hold the stake prior to insertion, you understand.
And a significant portion of the population is now an ex-prisoner or ex-felon. "In 2008, about one in 33 working-age adults was an ex-prisoner, and about one in 15 working-age adults was an ex-felon. Among working-age men in that same year, about one in 17 was an ex-prisoner and one in eight was an ex-felon." http://www.cepr.net/press-cent... [cepr.net]
I would expect that, but that's not how it's going down. We should all boycott things like TPP, if we're not allowed to know what is in them, then chances are we won't like it and should be saying no.
"I personally don't care about your well being because you fucked up and I'm scared of you" mentality would be like saying, "Why should I pay taxes for public schools if I don't have kids?"
No, I'm happy to pay my taxes to put them in jail and pay for their life in jail. Once they get out my debt to them ends, I would rather they lived somewhere else. A better analogy is I'll pay for your kids to go to school, but once they graduate they're on their own.
And a significant portion of the population is now an ex-prisoner or ex-felon. "In 2008, about one in 33 working-age adults was an ex-prisoner, and about one in 15 working-age adults was an ex-felon. Among working-age men in that same year, about one in 17 was an ex-prisoner and one in eight was an ex-felon." http://www.cepr.net/press-cent... [cepr.net]
If your point is that perhaps we have too many laws, that some of our laws penalize people for dubious crimes, I agree. I would like to see some of those laws (i.e. marijuana) removed. That said, it's still the law in most places and if you can't or won't follow the law, you clearly don't have good impulse control and I find it hard to trust you. It's not hard to not smoke pot, it's easier still to not deal pot. Just don't do it, problem solved. Feel free to campaign to get the laws changed so you can, I've got your back. Until then don't get all whiney about how unfair it is that you get branded a criminal for breaking the law, that's the definition of the word.
This sounds like the logic behind dismantling advanced/remedial classes. Let's throw everyone together and the good students can "uplift" the bad. So the good students get hurt and perform less well..
I guess you're right, I definitely feel once you fall off the wagon it's on you to get back on. Once you cross certain lines I'm personally not sure I care about your well being and simply want to minimize the chance you can hurt me again. I will grant you many people fall because they are in bad situations, were raised into crime and often don't even realize what they're doing is a crime. But that doesn't excuse anything, particularly repeat offenses.
Or he's trying to hear you reason it out and doesn't care about the answer. As far as I'm concerned there are a variety of good answers to this one that all rely on one assumption or another, some answers are more righter than others. He's going to be the guy to tell you the right answer he wants anyway.
I think earth is an oblate spheroid, so it must be the geographic north pole, which would have the property of being "a triangle" and putting you back where you started. But what hurts my head is when we use terms like north/south/west we're referring to magnetic north (usually), and I'm not sure as you make the traversal he describes you actually end up back where you started. Also i'm not sure how to rule out the south pole (geographic) you could do this same exercise.
It can't be magnetic, the earth is somewhat and unequally distended around the magnetic poles such that you don't end up exactly at the starting point by taking the indicated path, you will end up every so slightly off.
Being fired is extreme, but in at least two companies I worked for, there was a strong "you broke it, you bought it" mentality to this sort of thing. If you found a security issue, you were expected to move across the corporation until it got fixed. Derailing your actual job, your personal life, and just about any hope of happiness until it got fixed. Of course you don't report it.
The issue frequently is that IT is seen as the cost center to reduce most, so getting someone in IT to a) acknowledge it is an issue not user error/invalid use case requires champion effort, b) the IT guys that exist are marginally competent, the good ones are too expensive to work here full time, c) frequently users are told how dumb they are, so they aren't even sure if they've found an issue or "I must be doing something wrong", d) how did you find it in the first place? Were you doing something you shouldn't? HMMM?
Messages on the phone uses SMS, which works even on dumb phones. On the Mac messages can link to your favorite message client, which also works on anything. Facetime I will concede.
Still, Skype is owned by Microsoft, and his example is literally using Microsoft on Microsoft to talk to a Microsoft product somewhere else. It's a dumb statement. And while Apple is definitely the most exclusive, I do use Gmail & Hangouts on my iPhone to talk to my wife on Android, and that works just fine and is what I use rather than Messages most of the time because we're too cheap to pay for SMS. So even the meta point is a bit contrived. Most people have ported their apps to the iPhone and the ecosystem works fine, the only one who has not is the one with financial incentive not to (because they sell hardware).
But most of that future growth and earnings potential is going to come from some other company on the market. If you make a smartphone, you are taking money from other smartphone companies, as well as to some degree companies that make computers. Once you get successful enough, you may also be in a position to reduce margins to the companies who provide components for your smartphone, so you're taking their money too.
A little bit of money comes from "new" sources, the larger you are the more that may be available, but generally your profit comes at someone elses loss. Part of why Wall St. tolerates only a small amount of competition and we always end up with 2 or 3 real competitors.
I will not risk the safety and security of my systems by allowing them to display potentially (frequently) harmful ads.
Let's tally the bad things some ads, do:
- Play audio without permission - Play video without permission - Provide intentionally misleading guidance about what a click will do (i.e. "DOWNLOAD HERE!") - Pop-ups - Pop-overs - Obscure material - Render improperly/force remaining web page to render improperly - Look really, really ugly - Frequently provides a strong incentive for copy-cat content, 0 content websites, click-bait, plagiarized content websites to exist, and to be profitable
Let's then look at the upside: - Provide income stream to site owner
I've got an obvious solution: - Learn from Wall St. Journal. Paywall your content, groom it to ensure it is top quality and worth payment. Have a secure order form that is not compromised and willing to spill your CC details to everyone, ask for no more personal information than is strictly required to authorize a purchase.
Of course most of us aren't going to deal with the paywall, but if you are a site owner, and you want guaranteed revenue from your site, then that is your only option. Otherwise the arms race will continue. As far as I'm concerned the internet was far more useful before people tried to monetize it. There was 90% less content, to be sure, but the content that exists came from people who had something useful to say.
Slashdot Mirror
Then we should burn up the bill of rights, throw out all our environmental regulations and go "full capitalist". We will demolish China, who while strong, could not withstand us (at this moment). We will have kings at the top of the smogheap that rule the world, and those kings may let us work their lands.
Or, we accept that there is a price to our freedom, a price to having nice things, and protect those things to the exclusion of those outside of us. If we have a real need for workers, we let their very best in and we give them green cards, and we do everything we can to encourage them to stay.
Especially surreal when my wife learned to shoot same weapons in PRC at 12 years of age as part of the school curriculum, when around here we'd probably try to bring someone up on charges for doing that. Sometimes the gun control side sounds like the "abstinence only" education argument. Both seem to think lack of knowledge and superficial fixes will solve unrelated problems (i.e. sociopaths running amok).
I guess I don't consider something you post on facebook with inappropriate privacy settings, or broadcast out loud in a bar, or write in a newspaper, or have written in the sky to be private. I don't think the government is doing anything wrong by looking there. But if you have the appropriate privacy settings and/or the reasonable expectation of privacy, the government should be forbidden from it and not given any special privileges.
Let's spell it all out. I'm sure this isn't comprehensive:
- I want personal issues related to my family (medical, mental, social, sexual, etc.) hidden. No one needs to know that, frequently even I do not, but families overshare and it should be safe to do so.
- I want my finances secret. The government already knows how much I make, my employer and investment banks already helpfully report this and withhold taxes. But that does not mean it should be casually available to anyone who wants to go look. It is not anyone else's business, and worse, can be used to hurt me or my family.
- I want my choices to be secret. I am protected by the Bill of Rights against self-incrimination, I would not voluntarily admit to any crime I committed if I knew they were watching nor am I obligated to do so. I should not be in a position to accidentally "confess" particularly to a crime no one is investigating. I may not have known what I did was a crime, and in fact no one may have been hurt, therefore there is no reason for the police to be involved. The government, however, has financial motive to collect fines. If say, I bought alcohol from on a Sunday morning in Texas, this is illegal. No one is hurt, but if the government were to spy, the purchaser would lose his liquor license and I'd be fined making the government money. In fact more people are hurt by the crime disclosure than by keeping it on the DL, but it's hardly 'dishonest'.
- I want my private activities secret. Not all things I do are for everyone to know: I may be looking for a new job, I may have a mistress or five, I may be in the closet but the winter coats are a rockin', I may be working on the Next Big Thing and trying to get a business going but in a position where someone could snipe my idea and get a leg up on me (particularly if that someone were wealthier than I am, and not having to go seek funding), etc. There are tons of honest or quasi-honest reasons to want privacy.
- I may be communicating privileged information to a client, patient or customer with the expectation or perhaps written guarantee of secrecy and have a significant contractual liability should that information get out. It should not be victim to the government (or private corps) prurient interests.
- I may be in a position where I am about to acquire, legally, something incredibly valuable but until I have possession and/or have dispositioned it securely be vulnerable to dishonest people. Ex. Let's say I won the lottery, until such time as I can get the ticket notarized, successfully placed in the appropriate hands, there is a huge financial incentive for a thug to mug me of that ticket. I cannot do this without communication: i may need to make several parties aware of my position and arrange for security. A bad agent spying on me, who makes a normal wage at his poice force job would really like to get that ticket and already has the right combination of weapons, authority and disposition to steal it.
- I may simply not want to be gossiped about, and have the elements of truth of that gossip come around and haunt me later. The less people know, the less interesting the gossip and the sooner it all ends.
I wasn't sure. So I clicked on "terminal" and typed "gcc" and it worked. To be fair, "gcc" seems to invoke this "clang" thing not gcc, but it compiles code and Hello, World! shows up. I tried python too, that also seems to work, if you're in to white spaces.
Not sure what this guy is talking about really. Even MS gives out free dev tools these days, and that is in spite of Bill Gates' famous objection to giving such tools out for free.
I don't think it's fair to call those people stupid, they have reasons. Personally I agree with you, I want a 17" luggable with a fully performant CPU that is just selectively gimped when I'm running on battery. I find 17" can comfortably used on domestic flights with a bit of cramping, but otherwise works great for where I am 99% of the time.
The majority of people i see on an airplane have their little 13" things they need to run for 5 hour flights, then 2 hour meetings and 5 hour flights home, and are just powerpointing. It seems like they have legitimate wants, and different lifestyles than I do.
The problem is not them, the problem is the push for one size fits all. It is more profitable, but it is not good for customers. So just don't buy that shit.
It's ok, they should. If someone offers you a machine with only 1 and you need more than 1, don't buy it, that'll learn em.
You have to own your career.....no one else will do it for you.
Say that stronger. You have to own your own career. Anyone who wants to do it for you should not be trusted. Your manager will happily guide you to what the company needs, to what he needs, but not necessarily what is best or most lucrative for you. I've had several employers "guide" young college kids down the path of engineering management and schedule keeping, and in 5 years these people were unhireable and "stuck" at their employer, until such time as the ax man cometh. Never let this happen to you. If you care about technology, stay as obsessively technical as possible. If you want to be in technology management, be even MORE technical, but go to meetings and learn to powerpoint.
The management where schedules are kept and technology isn't important: this you want to avoid. While it may seem like there are infinite openings, that's largely because of a revolving door as the sediment is flushed from the system. The pay is bad, the future is bad, and your career is that self-same sediment. Do not be fooled by all the letters you can put after your name, they are not valued by most anyone.
You could go the other way: this removes absolutely all doubt that X is an idiot. If you can be seen goofing off and surfing the internet all day, and still get more work done than X, he's clearly a tool.
Or, those affected throw their sabot into the gears when treated in a way they perceive is incorrect, and either no one gets anything, or a compromise is reached.
We talk a lot about who is or is not owed anything according to various ideologies, while disrespecting opposing ideologies. But in the end we're animals. When put in a corner we will bite. That's why severance exists in the first place, it absolutely is undeserved bribery, but it keeps the lawyers off you.
The worst problem is when schools started demanding photo ID for SATS to "stop" this confusion, only to not realize that quite a few asian people have identical names too, particularly after they have been anglicized. How many Tommy Chen's have I known in my life? Well over a hundred. The only difference was SSN, which of course, isn't on most ID.
No, no, no. You misunderstand the word stakeholder. The public ARE stakeholders. We have several places in which the stake my be placed and held. The rich will hold the stake prior to insertion, you understand.
And a significant portion of the population is now an ex-prisoner or ex-felon. "In 2008, about one in 33 working-age adults was an ex-prisoner, and about one in 15 working-age adults was an ex-felon. Among working-age men in that same year, about one in 17 was an ex-prisoner and one in eight was an ex-felon." http://www.cepr.net/press-cent... [cepr.net]
I would expect that, but that's not how it's going down. We should all boycott things like TPP, if we're not allowed to know what is in them, then chances are we won't like it and should be saying no.
"I personally don't care about your well being because you fucked up and I'm scared of you" mentality would be like saying, "Why should I pay taxes for public schools if I don't have kids?"
No, I'm happy to pay my taxes to put them in jail and pay for their life in jail. Once they get out my debt to them ends, I would rather they lived somewhere else. A better analogy is I'll pay for your kids to go to school, but once they graduate they're on their own.
And a significant portion of the population is now an ex-prisoner or ex-felon. "In 2008, about one in 33 working-age adults was an ex-prisoner, and about one in 15 working-age adults was an ex-felon. Among working-age men in that same year, about one in 17 was an ex-prisoner and one in eight was an ex-felon." http://www.cepr.net/press-cent... [cepr.net]
If your point is that perhaps we have too many laws, that some of our laws penalize people for dubious crimes, I agree. I would like to see some of those laws (i.e. marijuana) removed. That said, it's still the law in most places and if you can't or won't follow the law, you clearly don't have good impulse control and I find it hard to trust you. It's not hard to not smoke pot, it's easier still to not deal pot. Just don't do it, problem solved. Feel free to campaign to get the laws changed so you can, I've got your back. Until then don't get all whiney about how unfair it is that you get branded a criminal for breaking the law, that's the definition of the word.
100% of inmates who are guilty of a crime
This sounds like the logic behind dismantling advanced/remedial classes. Let's throw everyone together and the good students can "uplift" the bad. So the good students get hurt and perform less well..
I guess you're right, I definitely feel once you fall off the wagon it's on you to get back on. Once you cross certain lines I'm personally not sure I care about your well being and simply want to minimize the chance you can hurt me again. I will grant you many people fall because they are in bad situations, were raised into crime and often don't even realize what they're doing is a crime. But that doesn't excuse anything, particularly repeat offenses.
Or he's trying to hear you reason it out and doesn't care about the answer. As far as I'm concerned there are a variety of good answers to this one that all rely on one assumption or another, some answers are more righter than others. He's going to be the guy to tell you the right answer he wants anyway.
I think earth is an oblate spheroid, so it must be the geographic north pole, which would have the property of being "a triangle" and putting you back where you started. But what hurts my head is when we use terms like north/south/west we're referring to magnetic north (usually), and I'm not sure as you make the traversal he describes you actually end up back where you started. Also i'm not sure how to rule out the south pole (geographic) you could do this same exercise.
It can't be magnetic, the earth is somewhat and unequally distended around the magnetic poles such that you don't end up exactly at the starting point by taking the indicated path, you will end up every so slightly off.
There are two north poles, and he specifically mentioned earth.
Being fired is extreme, but in at least two companies I worked for, there was a strong "you broke it, you bought it" mentality to this sort of thing. If you found a security issue, you were expected to move across the corporation until it got fixed. Derailing your actual job, your personal life, and just about any hope of happiness until it got fixed. Of course you don't report it.
The issue frequently is that IT is seen as the cost center to reduce most, so getting someone in IT to a) acknowledge it is an issue not user error/invalid use case requires champion effort, b) the IT guys that exist are marginally competent, the good ones are too expensive to work here full time, c) frequently users are told how dumb they are, so they aren't even sure if they've found an issue or "I must be doing something wrong", d) how did you find it in the first place? Were you doing something you shouldn't? HMMM?
Messages on the phone uses SMS, which works even on dumb phones. On the Mac messages can link to your favorite message client, which also works on anything. Facetime I will concede.
Still, Skype is owned by Microsoft, and his example is literally using Microsoft on Microsoft to talk to a Microsoft product somewhere else. It's a dumb statement. And while Apple is definitely the most exclusive, I do use Gmail & Hangouts on my iPhone to talk to my wife on Android, and that works just fine and is what I use rather than Messages most of the time because we're too cheap to pay for SMS. So even the meta point is a bit contrived. Most people have ported their apps to the iPhone and the ecosystem works fine, the only one who has not is the one with financial incentive not to (because they sell hardware).
Not to mention people hold on to televisions for 10+ years. That's not a good business for anyone in the silicon/systems space to be in.
You realize you just said "You can microsoft on your microsoft with anyone who has microsoft" in defense to Apple apple-ing only with Apple
, but future growth and earnings potential
But most of that future growth and earnings potential is going to come from some other company on the market. If you make a smartphone, you are taking money from other smartphone companies, as well as to some degree companies that make computers. Once you get successful enough, you may also be in a position to reduce margins to the companies who provide components for your smartphone, so you're taking their money too.
A little bit of money comes from "new" sources, the larger you are the more that may be available, but generally your profit comes at someone elses loss. Part of why Wall St. tolerates only a small amount of competition and we always end up with 2 or 3 real competitors.
I will not risk the safety and security of my systems by allowing them to display potentially (frequently) harmful ads.
Let's tally the bad things some ads, do:
- Play audio without permission
- Play video without permission
- Provide intentionally misleading guidance about what a click will do (i.e. "DOWNLOAD HERE!")
- Pop-ups
- Pop-overs
- Obscure material
- Render improperly/force remaining web page to render improperly
- Look really, really ugly
- Frequently provides a strong incentive for copy-cat content, 0 content websites, click-bait, plagiarized content websites to exist, and to be profitable
Let's then look at the upside:
- Provide income stream to site owner
I've got an obvious solution:
- Learn from Wall St. Journal. Paywall your content, groom it to ensure it is top quality and worth payment. Have a secure order form that is not compromised and willing to spill your CC details to everyone, ask for no more personal information than is strictly required to authorize a purchase.
Of course most of us aren't going to deal with the paywall, but if you are a site owner, and you want guaranteed revenue from your site, then that is your only option. Otherwise the arms race will continue. As far as I'm concerned the internet was far more useful before people tried to monetize it. There was 90% less content, to be sure, but the content that exists came from people who had something useful to say.