Social networks and other online services that claim they have a real name policy should enforce it!
It makes sense for commercial or professional services to have and enforce such a policy (ebay, linkedin). It makes sense for others, NOT to have one (slashdot, dating sites)
But noone needs networks that allow only plausible sounding pseudonyms!
The needle on the "moral compass" usually shows in two opposite directions. (At least for the subjects that are worth discussing at all)
Like in the example here:
Of course you don't want gouvernment snoop in your facebook account, mails and phone calls.
But also Of course you want terrorists and other criminals convicted and jailed.
And you know the arguments for both sides, and you know that none of them (or very few of them...) are wrong. So it's reduced to a matter of which end of the moral compass needle seems to be longer and not which direction it is pointing to.
The books credit Voskhod 2 for the first EVA, one year earlier. What did that one lack to make it "completly successful"?
The fact that Leonov was nearly killed when he couldn't get back into the spacecraft?
But he wasn't. Usually that would make it a success. The whole Apollo 13 crew nearly died, but they made it and are now considered heroes.
I would consider me "nearly killed" the moment tons of explosives are detonated a few feet below my chair to propell me into a vacuum... This whole stuff is so dangerous , survival alone is success.
...you may as well add Apollo12 to the "Fail" list. That one didn't go smooth either, they had to choose another landing site in the last second.
A12 landed less than 600 feet from the original target, well within walking distance of the Surveyor probe that was a primary mission objective. A11 overshot their original target by several MILES, and had to do extensive maneuvering to find a suitable landing point among all the boulders and craters.
We're not talking about the success of astro/cosmonauts, of about the space programs as a whole.
And I don't think "first man in space" didn't mean a thing. "first sattelite in orbit" neither. After all, the sputnik crisis what fueled the american space program.
Getting a man on the moon was the only "first" the US ever scored in the space race.
What about:
First spacecraft capable of changing its own orbit (Gemini) First rendezvous in space (Gemini 6/7) First Docking (Gemini 8)
As I said, milestones here are pretty much arbitrary. But do you think Joe Average understood what "changing its own orbit" even means? After all, this is rocket science!
First completely successful EVA (Gemini 12) First manned flight outside earth gravity (Apollo 8)
The books credit Voskhod 2 for the first EVA, one year earlier. What did that one lack to make it "completly successful"? If you count tat one as "failed" only because they had unforseen problems to overcome, you may as well add Apollo12 to the "Fail" list. That one didn't go smooth either, they had to choose another landing site in the last second.
And what was so special about the moon to create that brand value? As compared to:
first man made object in orbit first animal in orbit first man in space first woman in space first
and I'm going to copy&paste the rest from wikipedia as I'm too lazy to type:
The first man-made object to escape Earth's gravity and pass near the Moon was Luna 1; the first man-made object to impact the lunar surface was Luna 2, and the first photographs of the normally occluded far side of the Moon were made by Luna 3, all in 1959. The first spacecraft to perform a successful lunar soft landing was Luna 9 and the first unmanned vehicle to orbit the Moon was Luna 10, both in 1966.[43] Rock and soil samples were brought back to Earth by three Luna sample return missions.
Getting a man on the moon was the only "first" the US ever scored in the space race. (What's even wors as mpst milestone swere pretty much arbitrary)
Yes, I'm sure hiring those programmers will be a lot less expensive than buying proprietary software. We can just pay them in pizza and beer, right?
Often enough.
I had a few jobs during university that got paid in hardware. Both sides saved money that way. And I'm sure for many small stuff, you can hire some local CS student for little more than pizza and beer. (if quick & dirty is enough. It's documentation, support and other paperwork that drives cost up)
I've seen more than one situation where a major vendor wrote, tested, and released a patch update specifically for my company. Last I checked, when you stumble across a previously unknown bug which is crippling your live production environment, you can't get most open source contributers to wake up at 3:30AM to troubleshoot it.
I wouldn't even get up at 8AM if I wasn't get paid for it.
So where's your problem?
With both open and closed source you can contract with a vendor that hires people that might have to get up and fix stuff. But if the vendor doesn't consider you important enough to actually call them, you're screwed.
With open source, you have the additional possibility to hire those guys yourself, if your problem is important enough to you.
Yes, faster. Bug resolution in OSS will never be slower than fixing them for yourself. That may be slow, but compared to closed source, where there is no guarantee that a bug will be fixed at all, it's definitly faster.
Years ago political enemies (or fellow party members - who knows the difference anymore) started that rumour. Those rumours were quickly dispeled, but her book will be out in a few days.
And where's the problem with that? At least in some other european country, setting up your own business is a matter of 30min. Forming a charity or other registered organisation (what might be more suited here) takes 7 people agreeing and signing a common charter, electing a president, vice president and treasurer and as soon as you register that at the local court, you even have your tax exepmtions for non-profit organisations.
And I doubt it's much more that a mere formality in finland, too.
Of course the US has less suicides! Due to the liberal gun posession laws much more people get killed in drunk gunfights before they can drink themselves to death!
And you'd be happy in a country where "Oh sorry, i didn't know that this is forbidden" can be used as a excuse for abny kind of crime?
I agree with you that there should be things considered forbidden and things you obviously should be free to do without permission, but it's obvious that the notion of what is what is not commonly shared amongt everyone. That's why we need laws.
The dutch have years of experience with hydroponic farmhouses and it works well enough for them to sell vegetables all over Europe. The downside is that some of them TASTE more like water than like the fruit they're supposed to be, but that most likely is due to selection on how they look in the grocery store. (You've usually already bought them when you get to the taste)
I think it's more along the lines of: Hey, remember the weather data feed we subscribed to so we could show the weather on iGoogle? I don't think we need to pay for that subscription anymore after we've shut dow iGoogle.
Slashdot Mirror
Social networks and other online services that claim they have a real name policy should enforce it!
It makes sense for commercial or professional services to have and enforce such a policy (ebay, linkedin). It makes sense for others, NOT to have one (slashdot, dating sites)
But noone needs networks that allow only plausible sounding pseudonyms!
The needle on the "moral compass" usually shows in two opposite directions. (At least for the subjects that are worth discussing at all)
Like in the example here:
Of course you don't want gouvernment snoop in your facebook account, mails and phone calls.
But also Of course you want terrorists and other criminals convicted and jailed.
And you know the arguments for both sides, and you know that none of them (or very few of them...) are wrong. So it's reduced to a matter of which end of the moral compass needle seems to be longer and not which direction it is pointing to.
oblig:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0098546/quotes?qt=qt0322104
They probably found that out with those experiments. SIXTY YEARS AGO!
The books credit Voskhod 2 for the first EVA, one year earlier. What did that one lack to make it "completly successful"?
The fact that Leonov was nearly killed when he couldn't get back into the spacecraft?
But he wasn't. Usually that would make it a success. The whole Apollo 13 crew nearly died, but they made it and are now considered heroes.
I would consider me "nearly killed" the moment tons of explosives are detonated a few feet below my chair to propell me into a vacuum... This whole stuff is so dangerous , survival alone is success.
A12 landed less than 600 feet from the original target, well within walking distance of the Surveyor probe that was a primary mission objective. A11 overshot their original target by several MILES, and had to do extensive maneuvering to find a suitable landing point among all the boulders and craters.
My bad. I had A11 in mind.
We're not talking about the success of astro/cosmonauts, of about the space programs as a whole.
And I don't think "first man in space" didn't mean a thing. "first sattelite in orbit" neither. After all, the sputnik crisis what fueled the american space program.
Getting a man on the moon was the only "first" the US ever scored in the space race.
What about:
First spacecraft capable of changing its own orbit (Gemini)
First rendezvous in space (Gemini 6/7)
First Docking (Gemini 8)
As I said, milestones here are pretty much arbitrary. But do you think Joe Average understood what "changing its own orbit" even means? After all, this is rocket science!
First completely successful EVA (Gemini 12)
First manned flight outside earth gravity (Apollo 8)
The books credit Voskhod 2 for the first EVA, one year earlier. What did that one lack to make it "completly successful"? If you count tat one as "failed" only because they had unforseen problems to overcome, you may as well add Apollo12 to the "Fail" list. That one didn't go smooth either, they had to choose another landing site in the last second.
And what was so special about the moon to create that brand value? As compared to:
first man made object in orbit
first animal in orbit
first man in space
first woman in space first
and I'm going to copy&paste the rest from wikipedia as I'm too lazy to type:
The first man-made object to escape Earth's gravity and pass near the Moon was Luna 1; the first man-made object to impact the lunar surface was Luna 2, and the first photographs of the normally occluded far side of the Moon were made by Luna 3, all in 1959. The first spacecraft to perform a successful lunar soft landing was Luna 9 and the first unmanned vehicle to orbit the Moon was Luna 10, both in 1966.[43] Rock and soil samples were brought back to Earth by three Luna sample return missions.
Getting a man on the moon was the only "first" the US ever scored in the space race. (What's even wors as mpst milestone swere pretty much arbitrary)
Yes, I'm sure hiring those programmers will be a lot less expensive than buying proprietary software. We can just pay them in pizza and beer, right?
Often enough.
I had a few jobs during university that got paid in hardware. Both sides saved money that way. And I'm sure for many small stuff, you can hire some local CS student for little more than pizza and beer. (if quick & dirty is enough. It's documentation, support and other paperwork that drives cost up)
I've seen more than one situation where a major vendor wrote, tested, and released a patch update specifically for my company. Last I checked, when you stumble across a previously unknown bug which is crippling your live production environment, you can't get most open source contributers to wake up at 3:30AM to troubleshoot it.
I wouldn't even get up at 8AM if I wasn't get paid for it.
So where's your problem?
With both open and closed source you can contract with a vendor that hires people that might have to get up and fix stuff. But if the vendor doesn't consider you important enough to actually call them, you're screwed.
With open source, you have the additional possibility to hire those guys yourself, if your problem is important enough to you.
Yes, faster. Bug resolution in OSS will never be slower than fixing them for yourself. That may be slow, but compared to closed source, where there is no guarantee that a bug will be fixed at all, it's definitly faster.
Do you really think they could afford THAT postage??
They remove SITES or specific results, but they never stop you from typing searches.
But she learned her lessons well....
Hint: Those rumours were started the night before the presidential election (years back...) and now Bettina Wulff wrote a book.......
Coincidence? Maybe.....
Not exactly...
Years ago political enemies (or fellow party members - who knows the difference anymore) started that rumour. Those rumours were quickly dispeled, but her book will be out in a few days.
Over some silly woman is trying to censor the internet?
Sorry, that spot is still taken by Ursula von der Leyen
He'd have to form a business or organization.
And where's the problem with that? At least in some other european country, setting up your own business is a matter of 30min. Forming a charity or other registered organisation (what might be more suited here) takes 7 people agreeing and signing a common charter, electing a president, vice president and treasurer and as soon as you register that at the local court, you even have your tax exepmtions for non-profit organisations.
And I doubt it's much more that a mere formality in finland, too.
Of course the US has less suicides! Due to the liberal gun posession laws much more people get killed in drunk gunfights before they can drink themselves to death!
And you'd be happy in a country where "Oh sorry, i didn't know that this is forbidden" can be used as a excuse for abny kind of crime?
I agree with you that there should be things considered forbidden and things you obviously should be free to do without permission, but it's obvious that the notion of what is what is not commonly shared amongt everyone. That's why we need laws.
They're still fighting about exactly WHICH extremism department gets the right to raid your house...
SYou should check the sewers below your house. You might here the faint noise of the raid teams battling as in the movie we all know...
That pretty much describes it.
Never would have described MS as tank before, but you're basically right..
Because pr0n usually is about *fantasies*?
The dutch have years of experience with hydroponic farmhouses and it works well enough for them to sell vegetables all over Europe. The downside is that some of them TASTE more like water than like the fruit they're supposed to be, but that most likely is due to selection on how they look in the grocery store. (You've usually already bought them when you get to the taste)
IIRC the gadget markup for Google+ hangout apps is identical to the iGoogle gadgets markup. (Only includes other APIs)
I think it's more along the lines of: Hey, remember the weather data feed we subscribed to so we could show the weather on iGoogle? I don't think we need to pay for that subscription anymore after we've shut dow iGoogle.