Read again. It was a subpoena. They compared it to a "politely worded request" because jurisdiction made its enforceability questionable, not because it wasn't a real subpoena.
On July 26, 2004, the Wikipedia article for Let's Roll claimed that Todd Beamer's last words to a telephone operator were "Roll it" instead of "Let's roll." Later revisions cited the 9/11 Commission Report as a source. The report, however, does not actually transcribe any part of Beamer's phone conversation, and does not identify who said "Roll it" during the passengers' invasion of the cockpit (which presumably happened after Beamer's phone call ended). I attempted to correct it on October 27, 2005. It was immediately reverted. I reverted again with a detailed explanation and didn't bother to pursue it any further. The spurious detail was reverted back into the article and remained a part of subsequent revisions until at least January 24, 2007, still falsely citing the commission report as a source.
Please Note:The legitimate hacked website was contacted and informed about its participation in the Zeus bot activity and accordingly has stopped serving the malicious variant.
Sure, they can work around the legal definition of payola. It doesn't change the fact that some people will find it just as vile as you find advertising. And as someone else mentioned, it's questionable whether record labels would be willing to pay for the service, or if it would generate sufficient revenue for Pandora.
You suggest that Pandora devise a more creative source of revenue as if it's a completely trivial thing to do. If it were that easy, content providers would never resort to advertising at all. They don't do it to be evil. Some advertising is unscrupulous, but there's nothing meretricious about the concept of advertising itself.
Incidentally, your Kanye West example is known in the radio industry as payola. It's a reviled practice. Pandora is against it. You might want to share one of your other hundreds of examples if you really want advertising to disappear.
I can give you the answer right here an now. All people are always 100% accurate in determining what is funny. This is by definition, as funny is an opinion. The humor part does not in any way apply to social skills. Their test is no more valid that if they had asked 8 house painters, via email, what are the best colors.
People are not always so accurate in determining what other people will think is funny. That's where the social part comes into play. A house painter might think black is the best color, but if he said that most people want their bathrooms to be painted black, a survey could prove him wrong.
Please note that I'm not really trying to defend the humor test. It's definitely imperfect. I'm not sure of how else to measure a social skill, but at the very least, their check sample (the professional comedians) seems too small to consider conclusive. The same argument, however, does not apply to the logic and grammar tests. I wouldn't disregard them simply because you disagree with the first one.
Dunning and Kruger concede that humor is open to interpretation. They included it because they wanted to apply the theory to social skills as well as intellectual ones. The other parts involve logic and grammar, which are far less subjective. You've serendipitously overestimated your ability to criticize the study due to your lack of knowledge about it.
One might now be tempted to attack Rails for using PHP. Keep in mind that rubyonrails.org is a simple and "dumb" website with only some static content (except the blog). For that kind of small stuff, PHP is best.
The question is how liable YouTube can be held for its content. If YouTube itself is the infringer, Viacom doesn't need to chase down individual users.
But the truth is that companies like Google don't need patents and are generally hurt by them, but SCO lives on them. So... Does this world need more good-for-nothing legal terrorists or companies that actually do something?
How do patents generally hurt Google? They even have a few of their own. A USPTO search shows they're the assignee on dozens of patents and applications.
It would help if he got out of the university and actually got involved in the real world of programming.
But in the real world, guys like him don't get quoted in newspapers for announcing the death of a science, or for spouting vague, impractical conjecture about the number nullity. They get yelled at for jamming the printer.
It's better to write clear, legible code that saves a human minutes of reading, than complex code that might save a computer a few milliseconds of processing time per year, because human time costs more than machine time.
Also the clear code will result in fewer misinterpretations, which will mean fewer bugs (especially when the original author is not the one doing maintenance years later), further reducing costs in dollars, man hours, and frustration.
You raise a good point, but one thing to remember is that programmers are often competing with other programmers' machine time, not other companies' human time. If one company develops an application that can process a given set of data in an hour that takes another company's application a day, the first company has an advantage.
Yep. And you must also accept a salary of around $5,900 a year, assuming you're relocating to India. You said you would be willing to work cheaper, but I doubt you'll want a job at that salary.
Although that's the average IT employee's salary, the price that outsourcing clients pay is undoubtedly higher. The real question is, what's the cost of outsourcing projects overseas versus the cost of paying employees or contractors who telecommute?
Slashdot Mirror
Read again. It was a subpoena. They compared it to a "politely worded request" because jurisdiction made its enforceability questionable, not because it wasn't a real subpoena.
On July 26, 2004, the Wikipedia article for Let's Roll claimed that Todd Beamer's last words to a telephone operator were "Roll it" instead of "Let's roll." Later revisions cited the 9/11 Commission Report as a source. The report, however, does not actually transcribe any part of Beamer's phone conversation, and does not identify who said "Roll it" during the passengers' invasion of the cockpit (which presumably happened after Beamer's phone call ended). I attempted to correct it on October 27, 2005. It was immediately reverted. I reverted again with a detailed explanation and didn't bother to pursue it any further. The spurious detail was reverted back into the article and remained a part of subsequent revisions until at least January 24, 2007, still falsely citing the commission report as a source.
According to the second article, it has been fixed.
Sure, they can work around the legal definition of payola. It doesn't change the fact that some people will find it just as vile as you find advertising. And as someone else mentioned, it's questionable whether record labels would be willing to pay for the service, or if it would generate sufficient revenue for Pandora.
What are your other solutions?
You suggest that Pandora devise a more creative source of revenue as if it's a completely trivial thing to do. If it were that easy, content providers would never resort to advertising at all. They don't do it to be evil. Some advertising is unscrupulous, but there's nothing meretricious about the concept of advertising itself.
Incidentally, your Kanye West example is known in the radio industry as payola. It's a reviled practice. Pandora is against it. You might want to share one of your other hundreds of examples if you really want advertising to disappear.
People are not always so accurate in determining what other people will think is funny. That's where the social part comes into play. A house painter might think black is the best color, but if he said that most people want their bathrooms to be painted black, a survey could prove him wrong.
Please note that I'm not really trying to defend the humor test. It's definitely imperfect. I'm not sure of how else to measure a social skill, but at the very least, their check sample (the professional comedians) seems too small to consider conclusive. The same argument, however, does not apply to the logic and grammar tests. I wouldn't disregard them simply because you disagree with the first one.
Dunning and Kruger concede that humor is open to interpretation. They included it because they wanted to apply the theory to social skills as well as intellectual ones. The other parts involve logic and grammar, which are far less subjective. You've serendipitously overestimated your ability to criticize the study due to your lack of knowledge about it.
It has to do with the reason for choosing PHP. The reason you gave doesn't seem to jibe with the hype surrounding Ruby on Rails.
In that case, was the infamous screencast where David slams out a Ruby on Rails weblog in 15 minutes inaccurate, pointless, or both?
Does hubris count as stupidity?
The question is how liable YouTube can be held for its content. If YouTube itself is the infringer, Viacom doesn't need to chase down individual users.
How do patents generally hurt Google? They even have a few of their own. A USPTO search shows they're the assignee on dozens of patents and applications.
It would help if he got out of the university and actually got involved in the real world of programming.
But in the real world, guys like him don't get quoted in newspapers for announcing the death of a science, or for spouting vague, impractical conjecture about the number nullity. They get yelled at for jamming the printer.
It's better to write clear, legible code that saves a human minutes of reading, than complex code that might save a computer a few milliseconds of processing time per year, because human time costs more than machine time. Also the clear code will result in fewer misinterpretations, which will mean fewer bugs (especially when the original author is not the one doing maintenance years later), further reducing costs in dollars, man hours, and frustration.
You raise a good point, but one thing to remember is that programmers are often competing with other programmers' machine time, not other companies' human time. If one company develops an application that can process a given set of data in an hour that takes another company's application a day, the first company has an advantage.
"Paycheck" is included in The Philip K. Dick Reader, which also contains "The Minority Report," "Second Variety" (the inspiration for the movie Screamers), and "We Can Remember It for You Wholesale" (the inspiration for the movie Total Recall). "Paycheck" was one of my favorite stories in the collection, and I look forward to the movie for that reason, if no other. When I first read it, I even remember thinking that it would translate well to film. Farfetched? Sure, but that's half the fun of PK Dick's stories. It's entertaining and, like most of his best stories, keeps you wondering what the hell is going on right to the end. If you haven't read it yet, I highly recommend it.
Yep. And you must also accept a salary of around $5,900 a year, assuming you're relocating to India. You said you would be willing to work cheaper, but I doubt you'll want a job at that salary. Although that's the average IT employee's salary, the price that outsourcing clients pay is undoubtedly higher. The real question is, what's the cost of outsourcing projects overseas versus the cost of paying employees or contractors who telecommute?