I think I can cure her of her sexual arousal problem. I seem to have some sort of dampening (sorry bad pun) field around me that immediately makes women unaroused, disinterested sexually, and increases their willingness to "become just friends". I call it my "Friend Zone", and it is where I live.:)
Never buy any Sony product ever again. I was sort of leaning that way anyway due to the other snafus they have been involved with.
I mean for me it just seems like s simple decision. Don't trust them, then don't buy them. They have a history of doing underhanded things in the name of profit protectionism at the cost to their clients. Why bother anymore? Besides, I am pretty sure Sony's time has come and gone anyway, the glory days are over and there are plenty of better choices out there.
So given that the ultimate speed of anything is light, that is 40 light years distance. If they are communicating in light and not radio waves, and if it doesn't get scrambled between here and there. I mean my WiFi only goes 100m before signal loss!
I mean on a universal scale what is 40 light years really? The area of the head of a pin, located in New York, as observed from the moon? Scale of time is all wrong.
I don't think many people really grasp how big "space" is or the magnitude of distances involved. I also don't think people understand the time frames involved in moving something from point a to point b, be that light, radio, or physical objects.
I have little doubt that life does exist (other than our own), and in fact I think it is not only possible, but highly probable, and will even go so far to say that I don't think intelligence is all that uncommon either.
I do believe in life cycles however, and until shown otherwise the potential upper limit of what technology can do VS basic physics. Combine all that with HUGH distances, and LONG periods of time.
I mean until we get to the level of technology that is essentially what would seem to us as "magic" the challenges are too insurmountable to overcome.
If you look at science fiction, it abounds with war, trade, communication, etc... however all of them cheat on the scale of things, even when making up "magic" technologies including FTL travel.
The much maligned L. Ron. Hubbard even wrote a nice "what if" book all about it. Battlefield Earth's main premise wasn't Earth, the struggle, Scientology, or any such nonsense. It was an examination of what would happen if a race actually did manage to invent something that enabled instantaneous travel, because without it, all those things like trade, war, communication, anything really between cultures is pretty much impossible.
The Forever War is another good example, that with time dilation due to approaching the speed of light, it makes all those activities irrelevant. So much time would elapse that it would make such endeavors pointless, unless of course everyone involved is immortal or something like that. Again magic technology.
I guess what I am trying to say is that while I think there is plenty of life out there, even intelligent life out there, there is little if any chance of us to become aware of it. Even if by some miracle we just happened to be in the exact right place, right time, right part of the cosmos, and somehow were able to identify some alien signals, and we also somehow able to interpret them, it would mostly be academic, other than to finally know that someone else is out there. Actual interaction would be impossible.
Not to mention our collective definition of what we consider alive or what is consciousnesses might be in need of revision. Also time scale may also play a big part here, as potential alien life span may be magnitudes more or less than we currently perceive. (though the type of life we are looking for, i.e. a lot like us for example, probably isn't all that different) Perhaps we are not so special, just an occurrence that happens every so often here and there that comes and goes, and really on a galactic scale makes very little impact. I mean people can barely (and many cannot) concive of "geologic" time, let alone anything many magnitudes longer than that.
If the website is in Canada, both physically (I am assuming), and corporately (Newspaper, ISP, etc physically reside in Canada)....
I don't see this any different than if someone made death threats to someone in the USA from a phone in Canada. Just because you are in Canada, doesn't mean you can do that without repercussion. Otherwise I bet this would be a real growth market!:)
That said I heard on the news that it really has nothing to do with hate crimes at all and is actually a lot more simpler than that.
Some people accused some Halifax firefighters of being racist. The firefighters in question asked the court to get the names so that they could defend themselves legally. It is the classic question of which rights trump which. Is the right to defend yourself legally greater than that of someone Else's privacy? Considering they posted on a public site, likely not.
This reminds me of the breathalyzer case down in Florida. A class action appeal was done from drunk drivers that wished to see the code that convicted them from the breathalyzer. The company (knowing full well that its code is shit) claimed that information is a trade secret. The court rules that the defendants right to defend themselves in court was a HIGHER oder right than that of trade secrets and ordered the release of the code. The company still refused, and is being fined on a continual basis until that code is released. It is still in the courts I believe. However until then, in Flordia, the breathalyzers now cannot be used as evidence in a case, or at least if it is, it is easily refuted by the defense.
Ya well IANAL of course, you would have to ask one or look it up. I assume however there is recourse other than for a judge to throw up his hands in the air and go "Oh Well!"
I wouldn't doubt that is the practice. There are an ever increasing amount of things that people are found guilty of every year where they are guilty until proven innocent for the sake of expediency.
I find that more unsettling myself.
That and the use of the legal system for legalized extortion. It is so expensive to defend yourself that in many cases (perhaps most cases) innocent people are declaring themselves guilty as it is simply cheaper to do so. Something is terribly wrong with that.
I CAN also murder you. It is a possibility. However upon doing so I should be prepared for the repercussions. Such as jail time.
There is ALWAYS choice. You may not like it, which in this case is the whole point. It is a deterrent. Which I am pretty sure is the case with most laws.
Law are in place to moderate the actions of people to what is deemed "acceptable" behavior, as determined by judges, assigned by a chosen government who is elected. It is pretty simple: if saying certain things is not deemed "acceptable" behavior, then a law is created to deter those few individuals who wish to do so.
I don't understand how someone can think they can say whatever the hell they want, without fear of what they said coming back to bite them in the ass. Be that a punch in the face (who would then have to face the music for punching someone in the face), or legal issues.
People should exercise some thought about what they say before they say it.
That said, the counter argument to that is:
"Sticks and stones can break my bones, but names can never hurt me..."
A) Canada has a thing called "Hate Crimes" where if you spread ideas that condone or incite hate against a particular people or race you can get into trouble. Regardless if you believe in the the law or not, it is currently in effect, thus the Judge is well within his rights to court order the name of those individuals. I didn't read the comments on the website, but I can imagine what they are like.
B) The Coast is a newspaper that exists in Halifax, Canada. Very much under the jurisdiction of Canada. Google also does business in Canada, thus also subject to the laws therein.
C) The fact that the posters are not Canadian citizens is immaterial. You break the law in Canada be it fraud or in this case Hate Crimes you are still subject to the repercussions. The question is can they be tried. Considering Canada and the USA have a long standing extradition treaty, Canada would certainly be within its rights to demand that those US citizens be extradited to Canada for trial. The US of course would likely be within its rights to refuse, at which time they would likely be tried in absentia and convicted, and a outstanding warrent issued for their arrest should they ever enter Canada. Essentially banning them from ever entering the country. If they ever land in a plane in Canada, they would likely be arrested and thrown in jail. Considering what was probably said in the comments, it is questionable if the US would make this a treaty issue.
Lately due to the crazy lady from the USA (Ann Coulter) the validity of Canada's hate crimes laws have come under question. I think people should be clear, we do have free speech in Canada, it is just tempered (as it is in the USA as well people tend to forget, just not as much). So you can say and believe pretty much anything you damn please, however if what you say is deemed so reprehensible a Judge may be called in to determine if it meets the criteria set out in the hate crime laws. These criteria as I am aware of them are pretty steep, you really have to go out there to go across the line so to speak.
It is a slippery slope I will give you that, however I also believe that someone has to be accountable for their actions, and that includes what they say in public. You can say whatever you like, however be prepared for the repercussions.
99% of the time comments like these would A) never make it to posted, or B) be removed by the website, however given that this is a news paper they may have felt obligated to share the posts as part of free speech. Which calls into question how much responsibility does the news paper have in this matter? It could be that they did not meet their obligations and that partial fault falls to them.
Wow this was a pretty long post for discussing comments I didn't even read!
and Canada I am sorry to say. We actually had a vote about proportional representation a couple of years ago and it was defeated.
The problem I think is entrenched politics. Basically we have two big parties up here, the Liberals and the Conservatives. Proportional representation would basically reduce the amount of power each of those have, so people that vote for them, and the parties themselves have a big stake is seeing that defeated. The USA is the same. Always reminds me of that Simpson's Halloween special with the aliens... "Go ahead and throw your vote away!" Typical political garbage.
Without proportional representation, they will languish as the Greens do without a seat in the house (the only reason the Greens have one now, is that a member changed sides after the fact, which by the way is a bit dishonest in of itself).
Personally I don't see a need for a Pirate Party, as the NDP pretty much have the same views on Copyright (Opposing both Liberals and Conservatives). Also the name is pretty silly and will prevent most from taking them seriously. For these special interest parties to actually accomplish anything they will need PR first I think.
They can use whatever numbers they like because the only numbers the politicians are interested in is how much they get paid by the media corporations.
Considering there is likely a direct correlation between how much money the media corporations make, and how much money they are willing to use to bribe politicians, I am pretty sure you are stuck forever in a positive feedback loop.
Have fun with that. Also stop trying to drag those of us north of the border down with you!
IT here is retarded. My passwords have to change every month, have to have like 12 long, include both numbers and letters, also must include a special chara, as well as have both upper case and lowercase. Stupidest. Policy. Ever. When it first came out I told everyone involved that this is a very bad idea. No one listened to me. Bring on the sticky notes.
Anyway I am just waiting to the day I finally forget my password, or have to call IT to look it up. Should be good for a laugh. (Note mine doesn't exactly say that, and I don't swear, but its the same idea).
The one concession they did make, was when it first came out it would do a text comparison to the previous passwords, and if any part of it repeated, it would not allow it. I assume they got too many complaints and ditched that part, but it is still ridiculous.
Made all the more so as you can walk by any desk and see a USB HD backing up the whole computer with no encryption, and no passwords at all. I also used to have multiple passwords like this for various systems, all changing, it was crazy. They have also since unified some of the authorizing structure so I can share some passwords between some systems. Anyway there is some mad IT manager at the helm (or no one perhaps) it seems... They seem to just make arbitrary decisions without looking at possible consequences. Though I am sure many corporations are like this also...
Ya right. This is EA we are talking about. They would start with a gateway drug like booze or weed, and then come out with like Prescriptions drugs, Speed, Meth, etc... By the time they get to Crack house they would have ruined the franchise...
I was about to say, now there is a game I would love to play...
Then I thought about it some more and realized it would be mostly composed of fat white guys throwing money and occasional lawyers at each other stomping across the workplace like Godzilla crushing the dreams (and bodies) of the little workers...
and it made me sad. Perhaps if there was a finishing move it would make me happy.
I have no problem of releasing names of convicted criminals. Releasing the name of people accused I sometimes see as wrong (depends on the day). For certain things, they could be totally be proven innocent, yet carry the stigma the rest of their lives and have have their lives ruined without doing anything wrong. That is just wrong. Also people make judgments before the actual judgments come out, furthering this concern. In addition this can bias the legal proceedings, given enough political or public outcry as a judge/jury may feel more compelled to convict on less evidence than they might otherwise. Also the media and the public has a really short attention span. Many times a big deal will be made about a trial and not its eventual outcome (which could take years sometimes). Any example up here in Canada was there was a Native leader that years ago was accused of hate crimes, and had his Order of Canada (given to him for his work as Chief) taken away because of it. Anyway I heard a couple of weeks ago in the media that he had died, and I didn't find out until then that he had won his case and was innocent of his accused crime. No idea if he was re-awarded the Order of Canada, somehow I think likely not.
I remember doing this fondly behind my DM screen. The great thing about imagination is that the guy making up the story/rules also has imagination, so when your "friends"/players try and break your game, you just break them... painfully.
I went for a fairly high level IT job interview about half a year ago or so. It seemed like a perfect position to me. A lot more money, doing many of the things that I do now, however with a bit more latitude, responsibility, and authority which is something I had been craving for some time. Anyway I did my due diligence on the group I would be working for, what they were all about, what sort of things they were looking for, what they do, their data and system needs, I even brushed up on some technology that I knew they would be interested in that I hadn't had all that much experience in (SQL Server, as most the stuff I do is in Oracle). Anyway long story short I actually prepared much more than I usually would have as I was actually really interested in the position itself (not just the money, which was a big bonus). Aside form the technical aspect there was also a large IM component.
The only thing that had me a bit worried was that I literally hadn't done an interview in like 10 years, so I would be rusty. When I got my current position I was doing interviews all the time, so you get kind of good at it, or at least comfortable.
Anyway I am being interviewed and you know what the first question was?
"What is a Database?"
Seriously. I haven't answered that question in a definition type form since like CS101, like 15 years ago! I must have stared blankly at them for a 3 count.
Anyway I stammered out a response that was more or less adequate, but it threw the rest of my interview off. I was expecting to be asked technical questions on this sort of thing, how to solve problems, design questions, technology opinions and comparisons, etc.. not answer basic academic questions. If it was an entry level job maybe, but not for job this elevated!
I was also a bit unsure as to when to call it off, as my definitions started getting really long and involved. I mean I have taken a ton of different database courses in school, and read textbooks in the thousands of pages. I mean I started off with the components, of organized data, related tables, keys, etc... then I would remember stuff about well technically not all databases are relational, just the modern ones we usually use, etc... I also remembered halfway through the interview that I called it "cells" not "elements" which was probably technically incorrect. In all it totally made me second guess and go blank on a lot of other things, because I couldn't stop thinking about that stupid question and what I may or may not have forgot to say about it. I was pretty confidant when I went in about knowing my stuff, as I had been physically doing a job like it for 10 years or so. Best way I can describe is that one silly question threw me for a loop, from which I barely recovered.
In the end I didn't get it (lets say I wasn't surprised). They had hundreds of applications from across the country, and only interviewed 8, and I was told that any of the 8 were qualified to do the job, just that someone scored higher than me. As soon as they said that all I could think of was that stupid "What is a database?" question... Oh well. I guess it never hurts to brush up on the basics before any interview I suppose!:)
If asked about how I would go about doing something, I would explain in enough detail that they would know that I know what I am talking about, but not enough so they can just tell someone else to do it.
Some do and will go to far. Usually in the written part or practical part, however I don't feel obligated to solve their problems until they hire me. The interview is just so they get an idea of who would be best to hire to solve their problems.
Typically your getting evaluated by managers anyway who won't have a clue, and perhaps one in-house expert, so going into too much detail isn't always critical.
If they want me to solve some trivial coding assignment to prove I actually know they stuff on my resume, I have no problem with that. If they give me an example of a problem they are currently having with their system, and give me real data structures to work with, I will tell them HOW I will do it, but I am not about to do unpaid work.
What I don't get is why is has to be some sort of blanket static number.
To me that seems stupid. Different things require different copyright. This is because of two reasons, one is that different things require different amounts of time to make adequate amounts of money, which to my mind is the whole point of copyright. The second is different things may or may not be even relevant after a given time frame.
Some examples. Does a software company really need copyright on software that was written 30 years ago? Likely it isn't even relevant any more. Music and Writing might still be relevant, but, I would say if they need 30 years of copyright to make a living off previous works, I would guess they should pick a new field of work.
Also who is to say that rights have to be an all or nothing affair. I don't see why there cannot be a sliding scale or tiers in which the creator goes from having all the rights to the work, to progressively less rights until it is not protected at all.
Anyway this sort of thing seems to be dominated by lobbyists and corrupt politicians, rather than by reasoning and common sense. Considering the potential consequences of these decisions one would thing careful consideration would be required, and not pandering to corporate greed. I think recent financial developments support this conclusion. Oh and don't even get me started on Patents.
As a side note I love how the premise of the article is that having such long protection stifles innovation and creativity, where the EXACT same argument is used for the other side, in that without such long copyrights, you would lose the same thing. Reminds me of sesame street: "One of these things is not like the other!":)
And talk about unsporting, its not like we can run away fast or anything... They should be targeting thin clients (pun?), at least then they might have a bit of a chase.
Slashdot Mirror
I think I can cure her of her sexual arousal problem. I seem to have some sort of dampening (sorry bad pun) field around me that immediately makes women unaroused, disinterested sexually, and increases their willingness to "become just friends". I call it my "Friend Zone", and it is where I live. :)
Never buy any Sony product ever again. I was sort of leaning that way anyway due to the other snafus they have been involved with.
I mean for me it just seems like s simple decision. Don't trust them, then don't buy them. They have a history of doing underhanded things in the name of profit protectionism at the cost to their clients. Why bother anymore? Besides, I am pretty sure Sony's time has come and gone anyway, the glory days are over and there are plenty of better choices out there.
and ally yourself with a "Trade Federation".... then use hordes of mechanical robots to fight a "Clone War".
You might not win, but some asshole may make a few shitty movies about it anyway...
40 years.
So given that the ultimate speed of anything is light, that is 40 light years distance. If they are communicating in light and not radio waves, and if it doesn't get scrambled between here and there. I mean my WiFi only goes 100m before signal loss!
I mean on a universal scale what is 40 light years really? The area of the head of a pin, located in New York, as observed from the moon? Scale of time is all wrong.
There is lots of it.
I don't think many people really grasp how big "space" is or the magnitude of distances involved. I also don't think people understand the time frames involved in moving something from point a to point b, be that light, radio, or physical objects.
I have little doubt that life does exist (other than our own), and in fact I think it is not only possible, but highly probable, and will even go so far to say that I don't think intelligence is all that uncommon either.
I do believe in life cycles however, and until shown otherwise the potential upper limit of what technology can do VS basic physics. Combine all that with HUGH distances, and LONG periods of time.
I mean until we get to the level of technology that is essentially what would seem to us as "magic" the challenges are too insurmountable to overcome.
If you look at science fiction, it abounds with war, trade, communication, etc... however all of them cheat on the scale of things, even when making up "magic" technologies including FTL travel.
The much maligned L. Ron. Hubbard even wrote a nice "what if" book all about it. Battlefield Earth's main premise wasn't Earth, the struggle, Scientology, or any such nonsense. It was an examination of what would happen if a race actually did manage to invent something that enabled instantaneous travel, because without it, all those things like trade, war, communication, anything really between cultures is pretty much impossible.
The Forever War is another good example, that with time dilation due to approaching the speed of light, it makes all those activities irrelevant. So much time would elapse that it would make such endeavors pointless, unless of course everyone involved is immortal or something like that. Again magic technology.
I guess what I am trying to say is that while I think there is plenty of life out there, even intelligent life out there, there is little if any chance of us to become aware of it. Even if by some miracle we just happened to be in the exact right place, right time, right part of the cosmos, and somehow were able to identify some alien signals, and we also somehow able to interpret them, it would mostly be academic, other than to finally know that someone else is out there. Actual interaction would be impossible.
Not to mention our collective definition of what we consider alive or what is consciousnesses might be in need of revision. Also time scale may also play a big part here, as potential alien life span may be magnitudes more or less than we currently perceive. (though the type of life we are looking for, i.e. a lot like us for example, probably isn't all that different) Perhaps we are not so special, just an occurrence that happens every so often here and there that comes and goes, and really on a galactic scale makes very little impact. I mean people can barely (and many cannot) concive of "geologic" time, let alone anything many magnitudes longer than that.
If the website is in Canada, both physically (I am assuming), and corporately (Newspaper, ISP, etc physically reside in Canada)....
I don't see this any different than if someone made death threats to someone in the USA from a phone in Canada. Just because you are in Canada, doesn't mean you can do that without repercussion. Otherwise I bet this would be a real growth market! :)
That said I heard on the news that it really has nothing to do with hate crimes at all and is actually a lot more simpler than that.
Some people accused some Halifax firefighters of being racist. The firefighters in question asked the court to get the names so that they could defend themselves legally. It is the classic question of which rights trump which. Is the right to defend yourself legally greater than that of someone Else's privacy? Considering they posted on a public site, likely not.
This reminds me of the breathalyzer case down in Florida. A class action appeal was done from drunk drivers that wished to see the code that convicted them from the breathalyzer. The company (knowing full well that its code is shit) claimed that information is a trade secret. The court rules that the defendants right to defend themselves in court was a HIGHER oder right than that of trade secrets and ordered the release of the code. The company still refused, and is being fined on a continual basis until that code is released. It is still in the courts I believe. However until then, in Flordia, the breathalyzers now cannot be used as evidence in a case, or at least if it is, it is easily refuted by the defense.
Ya well IANAL of course, you would have to ask one or look it up. I assume however there is recourse other than for a judge to throw up his hands in the air and go "Oh Well!"
I wouldn't doubt that is the practice. There are an ever increasing amount of things that people are found guilty of every year where they are guilty until proven innocent for the sake of expediency.
I find that more unsettling myself.
That and the use of the legal system for legalized extortion. It is so expensive to defend yourself that in many cases (perhaps most cases) innocent people are declaring themselves guilty as it is simply cheaper to do so. Something is terribly wrong with that.
I CAN also murder you. It is a possibility. However upon doing so I should be prepared for the repercussions. Such as jail time.
There is ALWAYS choice. You may not like it, which in this case is the whole point. It is a deterrent. Which I am pretty sure is the case with most laws.
Law are in place to moderate the actions of people to what is deemed "acceptable" behavior, as determined by judges, assigned by a chosen government who is elected. It is pretty simple: if saying certain things is not deemed "acceptable" behavior, then a law is created to deter those few individuals who wish to do so.
I don't understand how someone can think they can say whatever the hell they want, without fear of what they said coming back to bite them in the ass. Be that a punch in the face (who would then have to face the music for punching someone in the face), or legal issues.
People should exercise some thought about what they say before they say it.
That said, the counter argument to that is:
"Sticks and stones can break my bones, but names can never hurt me..."
A) Canada has a thing called "Hate Crimes" where if you spread ideas that condone or incite hate against a particular people or race you can get into trouble. Regardless if you believe in the the law or not, it is currently in effect, thus the Judge is well within his rights to court order the name of those individuals. I didn't read the comments on the website, but I can imagine what they are like.
B) The Coast is a newspaper that exists in Halifax, Canada. Very much under the jurisdiction of Canada. Google also does business in Canada, thus also subject to the laws therein.
C) The fact that the posters are not Canadian citizens is immaterial. You break the law in Canada be it fraud or in this case Hate Crimes you are still subject to the repercussions. The question is can they be tried. Considering Canada and the USA have a long standing extradition treaty, Canada would certainly be within its rights to demand that those US citizens be extradited to Canada for trial. The US of course would likely be within its rights to refuse, at which time they would likely be tried in absentia and convicted, and a outstanding warrent issued for their arrest should they ever enter Canada. Essentially banning them from ever entering the country. If they ever land in a plane in Canada, they would likely be arrested and thrown in jail. Considering what was probably said in the comments, it is questionable if the US would make this a treaty issue.
Lately due to the crazy lady from the USA (Ann Coulter) the validity of Canada's hate crimes laws have come under question. I think people should be clear, we do have free speech in Canada, it is just tempered (as it is in the USA as well people tend to forget, just not as much). So you can say and believe pretty much anything you damn please, however if what you say is deemed so reprehensible a Judge may be called in to determine if it meets the criteria set out in the hate crime laws. These criteria as I am aware of them are pretty steep, you really have to go out there to go across the line so to speak.
It is a slippery slope I will give you that, however I also believe that someone has to be accountable for their actions, and that includes what they say in public. You can say whatever you like, however be prepared for the repercussions.
99% of the time comments like these would A) never make it to posted, or B) be removed by the website, however given that this is a news paper they may have felt obligated to share the posts as part of free speech. Which calls into question how much responsibility does the news paper have in this matter? It could be that they did not meet their obligations and that partial fault falls to them.
Wow this was a pretty long post for discussing comments I didn't even read!
That's just what the Pirate overlords WANT you to think...
Yarrr, were be me tinfoil hat?
Wild Rose anyone?
and Canada I am sorry to say. We actually had a vote about proportional representation a couple of years ago and it was defeated.
The problem I think is entrenched politics. Basically we have two big parties up here, the Liberals and the Conservatives. Proportional representation would basically reduce the amount of power each of those have, so people that vote for them, and the parties themselves have a big stake is seeing that defeated. The USA is the same. Always reminds me of that Simpson's Halloween special with the aliens... "Go ahead and throw your vote away!" Typical political garbage.
Without proportional representation, they will languish as the Greens do without a seat in the house (the only reason the Greens have one now, is that a member changed sides after the fact, which by the way is a bit dishonest in of itself).
Personally I don't see a need for a Pirate Party, as the NDP pretty much have the same views on Copyright (Opposing both Liberals and Conservatives). Also the name is pretty silly and will prevent most from taking them seriously. For these special interest parties to actually accomplish anything they will need PR first I think.
They can use whatever numbers they like because the only numbers the politicians are interested in is how much they get paid by the media corporations.
Considering there is likely a direct correlation between how much money the media corporations make, and how much money they are willing to use to bribe politicians, I am pretty sure you are stuck forever in a positive feedback loop.
Have fun with that. Also stop trying to drag those of us north of the border down with you!
:)
LOL
I am actually on "FuckTheSecurityGuys#67"
IT here is retarded. My passwords have to change every month, have to have like 12 long, include both numbers and letters, also must include a special chara, as well as have both upper case and lowercase. Stupidest. Policy. Ever. When it first came out I told everyone involved that this is a very bad idea. No one listened to me. Bring on the sticky notes.
Anyway I am just waiting to the day I finally forget my password, or have to call IT to look it up. Should be good for a laugh. (Note mine doesn't exactly say that, and I don't swear, but its the same idea).
The one concession they did make, was when it first came out it would do a text comparison to the previous passwords, and if any part of it repeated, it would not allow it. I assume they got too many complaints and ditched that part, but it is still ridiculous.
Made all the more so as you can walk by any desk and see a USB HD backing up the whole computer with no encryption, and no passwords at all. I also used to have multiple passwords like this for various systems, all changing, it was crazy. They have also since unified some of the authorizing structure so I can share some passwords between some systems. Anyway there is some mad IT manager at the helm (or no one perhaps) it seems... They seem to just make arbitrary decisions without looking at possible consequences. Though I am sure many corporations are like this also...
Ya right. This is EA we are talking about. They would start with a gateway drug like booze or weed, and then come out with like Prescriptions drugs, Speed, Meth, etc... By the time they get to Crack house they would have ruined the franchise...
I was about to say, now there is a game I would love to play...
Then I thought about it some more and realized it would be mostly composed of fat white guys throwing money and occasional lawyers at each other stomping across the workplace like Godzilla crushing the dreams (and bodies) of the little workers...
and it made me sad. Perhaps if there was a finishing move it would make me happy.
So what your saying is that EA is too big to fail?
I didn't realize 3 people could constitute a "demographic"...
I have no problem of releasing names of convicted criminals. Releasing the name of people accused I sometimes see as wrong (depends on the day). For certain things, they could be totally be proven innocent, yet carry the stigma the rest of their lives and have have their lives ruined without doing anything wrong. That is just wrong. Also people make judgments before the actual judgments come out, furthering this concern. In addition this can bias the legal proceedings, given enough political or public outcry as a judge/jury may feel more compelled to convict on less evidence than they might otherwise. Also the media and the public has a really short attention span. Many times a big deal will be made about a trial and not its eventual outcome (which could take years sometimes). Any example up here in Canada was there was a Native leader that years ago was accused of hate crimes, and had his Order of Canada (given to him for his work as Chief) taken away because of it. Anyway I heard a couple of weeks ago in the media that he had died, and I didn't find out until then that he had won his case and was innocent of his accused crime. No idea if he was re-awarded the Order of Canada, somehow I think likely not.
http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2010/3/29/
I remember doing this fondly behind my DM screen. The great thing about imagination is that the guy making up the story/rules also has imagination, so when your "friends"/players try and break your game, you just break them... painfully.
I went for a fairly high level IT job interview about half a year ago or so. It seemed like a perfect position to me. A lot more money, doing many of the things that I do now, however with a bit more latitude, responsibility, and authority which is something I had been craving for some time. Anyway I did my due diligence on the group I would be working for, what they were all about, what sort of things they were looking for, what they do, their data and system needs, I even brushed up on some technology that I knew they would be interested in that I hadn't had all that much experience in (SQL Server, as most the stuff I do is in Oracle). Anyway long story short I actually prepared much more than I usually would have as I was actually really interested in the position itself (not just the money, which was a big bonus). Aside form the technical aspect there was also a large IM component.
The only thing that had me a bit worried was that I literally hadn't done an interview in like 10 years, so I would be rusty. When I got my current position I was doing interviews all the time, so you get kind of good at it, or at least comfortable.
Anyway I am being interviewed and you know what the first question was?
"What is a Database?"
Seriously.
I haven't answered that question in a definition type form since like CS101, like 15 years ago! I must have stared blankly at them for a 3 count.
Anyway I stammered out a response that was more or less adequate, but it threw the rest of my interview off. I was expecting to be asked technical questions on this sort of thing, how to solve problems, design questions, technology opinions and comparisons, etc.. not answer basic academic questions. If it was an entry level job maybe, but not for job this elevated!
I was also a bit unsure as to when to call it off, as my definitions started getting really long and involved. I mean I have taken a ton of different database courses in school, and read textbooks in the thousands of pages. I mean I started off with the components, of organized data, related tables, keys, etc... then I would remember stuff about well technically not all databases are relational, just the modern ones we usually use, etc... I also remembered halfway through the interview that I called it "cells" not "elements" which was probably technically incorrect. In all it totally made me second guess and go blank on a lot of other things, because I couldn't stop thinking about that stupid question and what I may or may not have forgot to say about it. I was pretty confidant when I went in about knowing my stuff, as I had been physically doing a job like it for 10 years or so. Best way I can describe is that one silly question threw me for a loop, from which I barely recovered.
In the end I didn't get it (lets say I wasn't surprised). They had hundreds of applications from across the country, and only interviewed 8, and I was told that any of the 8 were qualified to do the job, just that someone scored higher than me. As soon as they said that all I could think of was that stupid "What is a database?" question... Oh well. I guess it never hurts to brush up on the basics before any interview I suppose! :)
http://www.dilbert.com/2010-04-02/
If asked about how I would go about doing something, I would explain in enough detail that they would know that I know what I am talking about, but not enough so they can just tell someone else to do it.
Some do and will go to far. Usually in the written part or practical part, however I don't feel obligated to solve their problems until they hire me. The interview is just so they get an idea of who would be best to hire to solve their problems.
Typically your getting evaluated by managers anyway who won't have a clue, and perhaps one in-house expert, so going into too much detail isn't always critical.
If they want me to solve some trivial coding assignment to prove I actually know they stuff on my resume, I have no problem with that. If they give me an example of a problem they are currently having with their system, and give me real data structures to work with, I will tell them HOW I will do it, but I am not about to do unpaid work.
What I don't get is why is has to be some sort of blanket static number.
To me that seems stupid. Different things require different copyright. This is because of two reasons, one is that different things require different amounts of time to make adequate amounts of money, which to my mind is the whole point of copyright. The second is different things may or may not be even relevant after a given time frame.
Some examples. Does a software company really need copyright on software that was written 30 years ago? Likely it isn't even relevant any more. Music and Writing might still be relevant, but, I would say if they need 30 years of copyright to make a living off previous works, I would guess they should pick a new field of work.
Also who is to say that rights have to be an all or nothing affair. I don't see why there cannot be a sliding scale or tiers in which the creator goes from having all the rights to the work, to progressively less rights until it is not protected at all.
Anyway this sort of thing seems to be dominated by lobbyists and corrupt politicians, rather than by reasoning and common sense. Considering the potential consequences of these decisions one would thing careful consideration would be required, and not pandering to corporate greed. I think recent financial developments support this conclusion. Oh and don't even get me started on Patents.
As a side note I love how the premise of the article is that having such long protection stifles innovation and creativity, where the EXACT same argument is used for the other side, in that without such long copyrights, you would lose the same thing. Reminds me of sesame street: "One of these things is not like the other!" :)
I have a glandular problem and big bones...
And talk about unsporting, its not like we can run away fast or anything... They should be targeting thin clients (pun?), at least then they might have a bit of a chase.
Considering your Sig, I will take that with a big grain of salt.