I think that is the very essense of the controversy. I am hired for my time. Some people are hired for results. I look around my office and.. there really are both kinds of people here. The results people are goofing off a lot more than me a lot of the time, but they're also the people who sometimes have to work late when I get to go home. We'd have to be having some kind of emergency for me to work late, and it's very rare. It's been many years since I put in a week with over 40 hours.
It really does depend. But there is one glaring, easy clue staring everyone in the face. I'm paid hourly. The results people are paid salary. Maybe that really is all it comes down to.
And you have to put this in the context of a large organization with businesses knocking on our door to have the ability to engage and communicate with their customers on WhatsApp the same way they were doing it on Messenger.
Thanks. I could listen to a competitor or a bitter ex talk shit about it. But instead I think I'll just let Facebook explain why it is so utterly valueless. Now I know that there's no hurry to ever try out this Whatsapp thing.
if you're passionate about a certain path -- in this case, letting businesses message people and charging for it
Yes, passionate about spamming. Riiight. But thanks again, since you also revealed that I should keep an eye out for the new spammer's jargon, "business messaging."
I remember when I first started encountering a lot of surface-mounted stuff (instead of socketed) back in the 1990s, where I couldn't just order a replacement because the soldering was beyond my skills (or at least motivation -- but really, I won't lie: it was lack of skill).
The lesson? Don't buy unmaintainable hardware.. unless it really is cheap enough that you think of it as disposable. Either that, or accept attrition as the cost of getting to have fun toys.
(Is it any wonder that I use a $225 phone, and resent that it is so damned expensive?)
I guess my point is this: the consumer really is in control, mostly. I don't think there should be any laws against making things hard to maintain. Because any person with common sense knows better than to buy it, unless they're so rich that burning money isn't something that offends them. It's up to you, the buyer.
"If someone offers you unmaintainable computing, just say no." -- Nancy Reagan
But let's not kid ourselves: a big part of the "right to repair" cause is that there are laws against us repairing things, mainly DMCA. The government is taking sides on this instead of leaving it to the market. And if the government is taking sides, then why not be on our side, instead of the current situation where the government is an adversary of the people? If we're going to have laws (and really, I think we shouldn't), then yes, it should be illegal for Apple (and everyone else; it's not like they're the only offender) to manufacture that way. Again, I mean that only within the context that people insist there be laws and government must take sides.
Take away all the laws that are involved here, and I'm totally cool with that, because I know for sure that as a consumer, I'll do fine. No sale except on my terms, and I can be a stubborn son of a bitch.
Just match the crimes to the types of videos to be moderated. Murderer? You get the murder videos. Rapist? You'll be watching rapes from now on. Animal torturer? Guess what videos you'll be handling!
Who do you use to categorize the videos, so that your murderer doesn't get traumatized by a rape video?
If your shopping list app goes away, it'll hurt, but realistically: for how many seconds? It's not like you can't get another shopping list app.
Every time I hear of a tech company layoff, I am just amazed at how enormous their staff is. That a shopping list app company even had 54 people to layoff is hard to believe. And that 54 people turns out to only be 15% is just stunning. It sounds like something that ought to have one single human being as the developer. (Ok, make it two developers, to cover for vacations.)
Listen, dude. If you don't retroactively increase past incentives for people to have promoted the progress of the useful arts and sciences, then they'll turn out to not have done it. Is that what you want? I was listening to The Doors just last night, and I don't want my files to suddenly disappear all because some entitled jackass doesn't feel like to have been supporting Jim Morrison's drug habit.
But music CDs? When the whole "music pirating" shitstorm started decades ago, the music industry was pushing for the fact that you are buying a license to listen to the music.
They pushed for it, but they didn't get it. CD licensing never ended up happening, despite the absurd proposals.
Physical media can still have DRM. What optical formats came after CDs? Oh, right: DVDs and BluRays, both DRMed. CDs are an anomaly in an optical disc world otherwise gone mad.
Physical-media-vs-files is orthogonal to the topic of DRM. A few old physical formats do happen to lack DRM, but others have it. And files can lack DRM too, as you'll see from bandcamp purchases.
It's simply not about files vs physical. It's about DRM vs normal.
We are going to find out some day, that Trump was the top mole in the greatest law enforcement sting in history! He faked sliminess, dishonesty and dementia until he was completely surrounded by criminals, such that there wasn't a single honest person who worked with him. Then, starting with Manafort, he ratted them all out. We're going to find out he was Mueller's informant all along.
In Stupid Watergate, Trump is Deep Throat! Instead of secretly meeting in a parking garage, his covert channel to reporters and Mueller was some nerdy internet thing that nobody normal understands, called "Twitter."
Trump was so committed to truth, justice and the American way, that he sacrificed his own son!
To a smaller extent on the left? Please. Have you ever listened to some of the more insane SJWs?
No, because they're obscure and I never hear from them.
I don't listen to the random racists who did their thing in Charlottesville, either, because they're also obscure too (usually, until they make the news by murdering people, and then you hear from them). For whatever reason, these "SJWs" remain almost mythical, never appearing in my real life. At work I am actually quite surrounded by people on the left (not just left-leaning, but quite dedicated leftists), and none of them even slightly resemble thees "SJWs", just like all the more conservative people I'm around outside of work, never sound anything like white supremacists.. or the president.
(My highest exposure to SJWs was one of the hilarious characters on SBC's "Who is America?" These people otherwise don't appear in my real life. I have to turn on TV and watch a fictional character (even if it is based on real people) to get a glimpse. Perhaps I need to get out more.)
Speaking of the president, I do listen to what he says, because unlike the obscure SJWs and Charlottesville while supremacists, he happens to be president. And it seems like all he ever says, is amazingly stupid or dishonest things. (Even Hillary Clinton, who I voted against along with voting against Trump, didn't say things even anywhere in the same ballpark of bullshit, and with such reliable frequency (i.e. every fucking day).) The only impression Trump ever makes is that he's a worthless piece of shit who is trying to harm America if only Congress would better support him, and this is distinct from the other people we're talking about, because they don't have much power and rarely a podium from which to speak. I can go all day and never run into a white supremacist or a "SJW" but the president is out there doing real-life things and saying stupid things to stupid people to try to help make them stupider.
If you can find one of these SJWs and elect them to a high office, maybe we can criticize them too, but until then, they're just obscure weirdos. And while it sounds quite unpleasant for one of these characters to have power, it really is hard to imagine that it would be any worse than the current embarrassment.
I would really like us to get rid of this president. He's a bad person, and a bad example for everyone. Perhaps your "SJW" characters are learning behaviors from him. You want that?
I'd say it's for the exact same reason we don't care about the Rotten Tomatoes score of movies. It doesn't take a lot of complexity to understand why people take aggregate numeric ratings with a grain of salt: you don't know that the other people who rated, care about the same things that you care about. Preferences are too diverse.
Let me tell you from personal experience there's nothing like being in an open carry state, having a minor disagreement with some one and having them draw attention to the fact that they are carrying a gun in that context.
Perhaps I don't understand, but even outside of a gun-free zone, isn't that assault? And if it wasn't assault, then how intimidated were you, really?
Seriously, I thought the entire intent assault-prohibition laws is to cover exactly the kind of problem that you're talking about. Perhaps we just don't enforce that law anymore?
What if i buy facebook and use all the tools they created and silence you?
Then you'll have been scammed, since Facebook doesn't have enough power to silence anyone. Whatever rumors of silencing tools you've heard, I guarantee it: not a single one works. Snake oil.
If people thought the way you do, they never would have begun the project in PHP in the first place. But they did.
It's like you said "Everyone who understands English, please leave the room," and a bunch of people walk out. A bunch of people remain, staring at you, confusion on their faces.
And what do you do? You begin a speech in English. Notice how the confused looks aren't going away?
It isn't illegal to pay someone to keep quiet. It happens every single day.
Right, but that's not what Cohen and Trump are in trouble for. It's illegal to run for office while also paying people to say, or not say, things about you.
Suppose I'm an unbearable asshole, a really obnoxious piece-of-shit guy, and everyone knows it. (Go look at my comment history, and I'm sure you'll find something to confirm this.) Every time I open my mouth, out comes another lie, or if it's not a lie, it's a true statement of what I'm actually thinking at that moment, which is even worse. On my wedding day, I banged the bridesmaids while my wife watched in disbelief, crying. Someone was carrying a baby in public and showed it to me, and I screamed "Holy fuck, what's that ugly horror?!" and I slapped the baby. I'm a creationist Scientologist who sells Amway. I have truck nuts, walk around in public talking on a bluetooth headset, I don't use my turn signals when I drive, and I have an autographed photo of Pol Pot on my desk, where he writes, "Had a great time with you in the fields, let's kill time again!"
But I want to be dogcatcher, an elected position.
Problem is, people hate me. I take a poll and it turns out that O.J. Simpson wants to be dogcatcher too, and he's a likeable guy and people laugh when they remember him in the Naked Gun movies. O.J. is going to fucking murder me on election day unless I do something.
That's ok. I can do something. I can run a TV ad where I hire a super-likable and highly respected actress, let's say Gwyneth Paltrow, to say she thinks I'm a cool guy and O.J. is a lameass. That's legal, as long as I report my campaign expense.
I can tell the mother of the baby that I slapped, "stop telling people the baby-slapping story and I'll give you a million dollars." That's legal too, as long as I report my campaign expense.
So, you're totally right, Train0987, these things are perfectly legal.
But let's say I don't report that I paid Paltrow. I don't want people to see that payment, because it makes her look like an ignorant whore. I want people to really think Gwyneth Paltrow respects me, because everyone respects her, her wisdom, and her judgment!
That wouldn't be a problem if I weren't running for dogcatcher. But it is a problem, because I am running for dogcatcher. It's illegal. So I have to disclose that payment unless I want to take a risk.
Similarly, I don't really want to disclose my payment to the slappee mommy, because I want people to think she's not talking about it anymore, because she no longer believes it. I don't want people to know she shut up because I paid her off.
That wouldn't be a problem if I weren't running for dogcatcher. I wouldn't have to disclose the payment. It would work! Uh oh, but I am running for dogcatcher.
So I have to disclose that payment, too.
No problem. All I have to do is forget! People make mistakes, after all. "I forgot that I paid Gwyneth Paltrow" has a certain ring to it, doesn't it?
Ok, so that's the plan! As long as nobody brings it up, everything is fine. My fraud will go undetected, a victimless crime like punching someone in the dark. And if someone does bring it up, I can just say "OMG, you're right! I paid Gwyn! Oh shit, I need to amend my campaign finance report!" That will suck, but it works. I'll get a slap-on-the-wrist fine. My slimy plan has probably helped you figure it out by now: I'm running for dogcatcher as a Democrat.
Similarly, I can say I forgot that I had paid the slappee mommy. Same plan. Just don't report anything until I'm called on it, and then slap my forehead, say "duuh, I forgot, because I'm just a Democrat" and amend the reporting. You can't prove the mens rea, so it's probably just another slap-on-the-wrist fine.
Unfortunately, when someone brings up my payment to the slappee mommy, I say "I don't kno
iOS is just a closed platform like the WiiU, Xbox, Playstation 4, or Nintendo Switch. Just like those other platforms Nobody is allowed to build applications for those platforms
And people have been bitching about that since 1985. It apparently wasn't illegal then so it's probably not illegal now, but people should still be looking for any ways that this kind of thing can be prosecuted. If Apple is a big enough company that people are finally starting to give a shit about this problem, what's the downside?
Alas, Apple is still probably too smalltime for anyone to care. *sigh*
Slashdot Mirror
That's a victory that you get to brag about, not a punishment. You beat the game and get to advance to the next whatever.
I think that is the very essense of the controversy. I am hired for my time. Some people are hired for results. I look around my office and .. there really are both kinds of people here. The results people are goofing off a lot more than me a lot of the time, but they're also the people who sometimes have to work late when I get to go home. We'd have to be having some kind of emergency for me to work late, and it's very rare. It's been many years since I put in a week with over 40 hours.
It really does depend. But there is one glaring, easy clue staring everyone in the face. I'm paid hourly. The results people are paid salary. Maybe that really is all it comes down to.
Because he's trying to be mean to the swatter, not merciful.
I should take a poll on Facebook to see if you're right.
Thanks. I could listen to a competitor or a bitter ex talk shit about it. But instead I think I'll just let Facebook explain why it is so utterly valueless. Now I know that there's no hurry to ever try out this Whatsapp thing.
Yes, passionate about spamming. Riiight. But thanks again, since you also revealed that I should keep an eye out for the new spammer's jargon, "business messaging."
I remember when I first started encountering a lot of surface-mounted stuff (instead of socketed) back in the 1990s, where I couldn't just order a replacement because the soldering was beyond my skills (or at least motivation -- but really, I won't lie: it was lack of skill).
The lesson? Don't buy unmaintainable hardware .. unless it really is cheap enough that you think of it as disposable. Either that, or accept attrition as the cost of getting to have fun toys.
(Is it any wonder that I use a $225 phone, and resent that it is so damned expensive?)
I guess my point is this: the consumer really is in control, mostly. I don't think there should be any laws against making things hard to maintain. Because any person with common sense knows better than to buy it, unless they're so rich that burning money isn't something that offends them. It's up to you, the buyer.
"If someone offers you unmaintainable computing, just say no." -- Nancy Reagan
But let's not kid ourselves: a big part of the "right to repair" cause is that there are laws against us repairing things, mainly DMCA. The government is taking sides on this instead of leaving it to the market. And if the government is taking sides, then why not be on our side, instead of the current situation where the government is an adversary of the people? If we're going to have laws (and really, I think we shouldn't), then yes, it should be illegal for Apple (and everyone else; it's not like they're the only offender) to manufacture that way. Again, I mean that only within the context that people insist there be laws and government must take sides.
Take away all the laws that are involved here, and I'm totally cool with that, because I know for sure that as a consumer, I'll do fine. No sale except on my terms, and I can be a stubborn son of a bitch.
What could be more generic than X?
Who do you use to categorize the videos, so that your murderer doesn't get traumatized by a rape video?
If your shopping list app goes away, it'll hurt, but realistically: for how many seconds? It's not like you can't get another shopping list app.
Every time I hear of a tech company layoff, I am just amazed at how enormous their staff is. That a shopping list app company even had 54 people to layoff is hard to believe. And that 54 people turns out to only be 15% is just stunning. It sounds like something that ought to have one single human being as the developer. (Ok, make it two developers, to cover for vacations.)
Is this really a quality of humans, or of everything that lives?
Listen, dude. If you don't retroactively increase past incentives for people to have promoted the progress of the useful arts and sciences, then they'll turn out to not have done it. Is that what you want? I was listening to The Doors just last night, and I don't want my files to suddenly disappear all because some entitled jackass doesn't feel like to have been supporting Jim Morrison's drug habit.
They pushed for it, but they didn't get it. CD licensing never ended up happening, despite the absurd proposals.
Physical media can still have DRM. What optical formats came after CDs? Oh, right: DVDs and BluRays, both DRMed. CDs are an anomaly in an optical disc world otherwise gone mad.
Physical-media-vs-files is orthogonal to the topic of DRM. A few old physical formats do happen to lack DRM, but others have it. And files can lack DRM too, as you'll see from bandcamp purchases.
It's simply not about files vs physical. It's about DRM vs normal.
That's how he got banned!
We are going to find out some day, that Trump was the top mole in the greatest law enforcement sting in history! He faked sliminess, dishonesty and dementia until he was completely surrounded by criminals, such that there wasn't a single honest person who worked with him. Then, starting with Manafort, he ratted them all out. We're going to find out he was Mueller's informant all along.
In Stupid Watergate, Trump is Deep Throat! Instead of secretly meeting in a parking garage, his covert channel to reporters and Mueller was some nerdy internet thing that nobody normal understands, called "Twitter."
Trump was so committed to truth, justice and the American way, that he sacrificed his own son!
Well, just in case buying one of those doesn't save the planet, be ready to buy a few more.
No, because they're obscure and I never hear from them.
I don't listen to the random racists who did their thing in Charlottesville, either, because they're also obscure too (usually, until they make the news by murdering people, and then you hear from them). For whatever reason, these "SJWs" remain almost mythical, never appearing in my real life. At work I am actually quite surrounded by people on the left (not just left-leaning, but quite dedicated leftists), and none of them even slightly resemble thees "SJWs", just like all the more conservative people I'm around outside of work, never sound anything like white supremacists .. or the president.
(My highest exposure to SJWs was one of the hilarious characters on SBC's "Who is America?" These people otherwise don't appear in my real life. I have to turn on TV and watch a fictional character (even if it is based on real people) to get a glimpse. Perhaps I need to get out more.)
Speaking of the president, I do listen to what he says, because unlike the obscure SJWs and Charlottesville while supremacists, he happens to be president. And it seems like all he ever says, is amazingly stupid or dishonest things. (Even Hillary Clinton, who I voted against along with voting against Trump, didn't say things even anywhere in the same ballpark of bullshit, and with such reliable frequency (i.e. every fucking day).) The only impression Trump ever makes is that he's a worthless piece of shit who is trying to harm America if only Congress would better support him, and this is distinct from the other people we're talking about, because they don't have much power and rarely a podium from which to speak. I can go all day and never run into a white supremacist or a "SJW" but the president is out there doing real-life things and saying stupid things to stupid people to try to help make them stupider.
If you can find one of these SJWs and elect them to a high office, maybe we can criticize them too, but until then, they're just obscure weirdos. And while it sounds quite unpleasant for one of these characters to have power, it really is hard to imagine that it would be any worse than the current embarrassment.
I would really like us to get rid of this president. He's a bad person, and a bad example for everyone. Perhaps your "SJW" characters are learning behaviors from him. You want that?
I'd say it's for the exact same reason we don't care about the Rotten Tomatoes score of movies. It doesn't take a lot of complexity to understand why people take aggregate numeric ratings with a grain of salt: you don't know that the other people who rated, care about the same things that you care about. Preferences are too diverse.
Perhaps I don't understand, but even outside of a gun-free zone, isn't that assault? And if it wasn't assault, then how intimidated were you, really?
Seriously, I thought the entire intent assault-prohibition laws is to cover exactly the kind of problem that you're talking about. Perhaps we just don't enforce that law anymore?
Then you'll have been scammed, since Facebook doesn't have enough power to silence anyone. Whatever rumors of silencing tools you've heard, I guarantee it: not a single one works. Snake oil.
If people thought the way you do, they never would have begun the project in PHP in the first place. But they did.
It's like you said "Everyone who understands English, please leave the room," and a bunch of people walk out. A bunch of people remain, staring at you, confusion on their faces.
And what do you do? You begin a speech in English. Notice how the confused looks aren't going away?
Right, but that's not what Cohen and Trump are in trouble for. It's illegal to run for office while also paying people to say, or not say, things about you.
Suppose I'm an unbearable asshole, a really obnoxious piece-of-shit guy, and everyone knows it. (Go look at my comment history, and I'm sure you'll find something to confirm this.) Every time I open my mouth, out comes another lie, or if it's not a lie, it's a true statement of what I'm actually thinking at that moment, which is even worse. On my wedding day, I banged the bridesmaids while my wife watched in disbelief, crying. Someone was carrying a baby in public and showed it to me, and I screamed "Holy fuck, what's that ugly horror?!" and I slapped the baby. I'm a creationist Scientologist who sells Amway. I have truck nuts, walk around in public talking on a bluetooth headset, I don't use my turn signals when I drive, and I have an autographed photo of Pol Pot on my desk, where he writes, "Had a great time with you in the fields, let's kill time again!"
But I want to be dogcatcher, an elected position.
Problem is, people hate me. I take a poll and it turns out that O.J. Simpson wants to be dogcatcher too, and he's a likeable guy and people laugh when they remember him in the Naked Gun movies. O.J. is going to fucking murder me on election day unless I do something.
That's ok. I can do something. I can run a TV ad where I hire a super-likable and highly respected actress, let's say Gwyneth Paltrow, to say she thinks I'm a cool guy and O.J. is a lameass. That's legal, as long as I report my campaign expense.
I can tell the mother of the baby that I slapped, "stop telling people the baby-slapping story and I'll give you a million dollars." That's legal too, as long as I report my campaign expense.
So, you're totally right, Train0987, these things are perfectly legal.
But let's say I don't report that I paid Paltrow. I don't want people to see that payment, because it makes her look like an ignorant whore. I want people to really think Gwyneth Paltrow respects me, because everyone respects her, her wisdom, and her judgment!
That wouldn't be a problem if I weren't running for dogcatcher. But it is a problem, because I am running for dogcatcher. It's illegal. So I have to disclose that payment unless I want to take a risk.
Similarly, I don't really want to disclose my payment to the slappee mommy, because I want people to think she's not talking about it anymore, because she no longer believes it. I don't want people to know she shut up because I paid her off.
That wouldn't be a problem if I weren't running for dogcatcher. I wouldn't have to disclose the payment. It would work! Uh oh, but I am running for dogcatcher.
So I have to disclose that payment, too.
No problem. All I have to do is forget! People make mistakes, after all. "I forgot that I paid Gwyneth Paltrow" has a certain ring to it, doesn't it?
Ok, so that's the plan! As long as nobody brings it up, everything is fine. My fraud will go undetected, a victimless crime like punching someone in the dark. And if someone does bring it up, I can just say "OMG, you're right! I paid Gwyn! Oh shit, I need to amend my campaign finance report!" That will suck, but it works. I'll get a slap-on-the-wrist fine. My slimy plan has probably helped you figure it out by now: I'm running for dogcatcher as a Democrat.
Similarly, I can say I forgot that I had paid the slappee mommy. Same plan. Just don't report anything until I'm called on it, and then slap my forehead, say "duuh, I forgot, because I'm just a Democrat" and amend the reporting. You can't prove the mens rea, so it's probably just another slap-on-the-wrist fine.
Unfortunately, when someone brings up my payment to the slappee mommy, I say "I don't kno
It's probably somewhere in here but I'll admit I didn't actually read it.
And people have been bitching about that since 1985. It apparently wasn't illegal then so it's probably not illegal now, but people should still be looking for any ways that this kind of thing can be prosecuted. If Apple is a big enough company that people are finally starting to give a shit about this problem, what's the downside?
Alas, Apple is still probably too smalltime for anyone to care. *sigh*
And Chevrolet has a monopoly on Cameros, Dodge has a monopoly on Challengers, and Ford has a monopoly on Mustangs. To the dungeon with them all!