A search engine isn't some magic machine that developers plug wishes and rainbows in and tell it not to be naughty (especially in the age of ever-changing legally defined naughtyness).
A search engine simply leads to data, for that to work it has to store some part of it. The reality is that a search engine is completely ignorant of morals, laws and copyright.
The thing is, they've (Virgin at least) figured out that they're getting money if you do that, rather than that other copyrightey-violatey thing that so many people do already.
And you never know, maybe you end up (somehow) enjoying the service enough to keep coming back from time to time.
Re:But what of using robots on civilians
on
Wired for War
·
· Score: 1
Likely it would just be called attrition if it was unintentional.
Meeting time length really isn't the problem, usually meetings are a useless waste of time because they either don't need to exist in the first place or get pulled in new directions that serve no purpose.
1. Define objectives This gives attendees something to prep and sets expectations.
2. Be the Shepherd You must pipe up, directly and unceremoniously, when a meeting is becoming off track, record new meetings that must occur "offline" even if they aren't your own.
3. Meeting must create a product The product could be a document, further communication, knowledge transfer, anything. If a meeting doesn't produce anything then it is a waste of time. Hopefully you defined the product when you set your objectives.
I think it's a good idea to keep minutes, but often this just doesn't happen, however if you keep your objectives handy while running the meeting you can check them off. If someone hijacks your meeting, or new information must be shared, document these new interactions. If new points take over the purpose of your meeting you have to run it again later (if needed). Get people used to the idea that taking a planned meeting off course results in more meetings (something people will consciously avoid creating).
The important thing is to encourage the share of information but ensure that the venue for that share is in a defined format people begin to know what to expect and see value and if they don't do they need to be involved at all is a question you will have to ask yourself.
These guidelines work fairly well for my team and generally get people talking before and after meetings which usually: a). Keeps the meeting itself on track b). Gets people talking to each other!
I've seen how this unfolds in software, I don't know about toys, but it usually goes somethnig like:
10 Boss to Client: It will cost X and will make date Y! 20 Boss to IT managers: We need it by Y! 30 Developers work overtime 40 Boss to IT managers: Keep costs down, we need to have it meet X by Y 50 IT managers' head explodes from paradox overload 60 "Rush job" turns into Poo, UAT date slips 70 Spit and bailing twine fail in UAT 80 Deadline Y whooshes by.. 90 PANIC MODE LOOP GOTO 10
A tight team of bright progressive individuals has always brought out the best in my work.
Crappy co-workers, moronic "hands in" managers, noise and meetings that don't produce anything are utter poison. Obviously interruptions of any kind are deadly to productivity, but sometimes that's part of the job and is usually profitable.
I guess what I'm saying is my productivity is directly related to who and not where.
Speaking as someone who is visually impaired and not totally blind, a device like Kindle is not only usable but also much nicer than some of the other book reader options available, having seen the interface I can easily see myself using such a feature as an option.
But back to the point at hand!
I see where his argument comes from, but this goes well beyond the era of audio books when the real consumers were people like me (or people who didn't like actually reading I suppose). We're in a new era where an e-book could be purchased and run through a desktop text to speech program. Where does that fall legally, has that even come up before? Is the primary concern that there is a loss of revenue to the author or is it the loss of revenue to the audio book publishing industry?
Technology has evolved in such a way that a single creative source can have multiple delivery points to the intended consumer, to me (and others it seems) legal fighting over those delivery streams seems counter productive to the original artists' goal and almost completely focused on keeping (perhaps?) deprecated methods of content delivery alive.
Either that or I'm in the mid-afternoon slump and parts of my brain are shutting down...
Actually I think this might be part of the plan. Right now one of the things that might make Windows less desireable is that it is a bit of a security risk and (apparently) not as hard to crack. So the big flashy prize is something that people want because it's supposedly more secure or otherwise better (or at least sells itself that way) and it's going to get a bit more attention. So maybe more people discover security issues for the desired prize during contests like this which vendors can ultimately fix (making it an even better product).
In fact, seeing more concentrated efforts to crack the Mac might be an indication of what's to come. After all if the desired prize is relative to the desires of the upcoming consumer market for the next few years getting to know the soft spots will be valuable for at least some parties.
Either all that or I've hit that state of delirium after the caffeine has worn off...
I have this one folder in GMail called spam... I don't go there much, the grammar is nonsensical and the products are out-competed by the text-based advertising.
I'll hazard a guess that there are a lot more.NET developers out there than Qt.
But it's a good point. I think a lot of money could be made on the back of Ubuntu if doing nothing else than filling gaps or perfecting apps that are already monopolized in the Windows world.
Slashdot Mirror
A search engine isn't some magic machine that developers plug wishes and rainbows in and tell it not to be naughty (especially in the age of ever-changing legally defined naughtyness).
A search engine simply leads to data, for that to work it has to store some part of it. The reality is that a search engine is completely ignorant of morals, laws and copyright.
Data is collected. Data is stored. Data is Data.
How about just "Sell XP Licenses" or is that too easy?
That must be some good Scotch if it can be used as a gasoline additive...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1,2,4-trimethylbenzene
I love the smell of near-vacuum in the morning
The thing is, they've (Virgin at least) figured out that they're getting money if you do that, rather than that other copyrightey-violatey thing that so many people do already.
And you never know, maybe you end up (somehow) enjoying the service enough to keep coming back from time to time.
Likely it would just be called attrition if it was unintentional.
I believe the Czar was highly anti-Communist. Hence the shooting.
Meeting time length really isn't the problem, usually meetings are a useless waste of time because they either don't need to exist in the first place or get pulled in new directions that serve no purpose.
1. Define objectives
This gives attendees something to prep and sets expectations.
2. Be the Shepherd
You must pipe up, directly and unceremoniously, when a meeting is becoming off track, record new meetings that must occur "offline" even if they aren't your own.
3. Meeting must create a product
The product could be a document, further communication, knowledge transfer, anything. If a meeting doesn't produce anything then it is a waste of time. Hopefully you defined the product when you set your objectives.
I think it's a good idea to keep minutes, but often this just doesn't happen, however if you keep your objectives handy while running the meeting you can check them off. If someone hijacks your meeting, or new information must be shared, document these new interactions. If new points take over the purpose of your meeting you have to run it again later (if needed). Get people used to the idea that taking a planned meeting off course results in more meetings (something people will consciously avoid creating).
The important thing is to encourage the share of information but ensure that the venue for that share is in a defined format people begin to know what to expect and see value and if they don't do they need to be involved at all is a question you will have to ask yourself.
These guidelines work fairly well for my team and generally get people talking before and after meetings which usually:
a). Keeps the meeting itself on track
b). Gets people talking to each other!
Let's call it "H1N1" flu. You know, like, what it is actually called BY SCIENCE!
I've seen how this unfolds in software, I don't know about toys, but it usually goes somethnig like:
10 Boss to Client: It will cost X and will make date Y!
20 Boss to IT managers: We need it by Y!
30 Developers work overtime
40 Boss to IT managers: Keep costs down, we need to have it meet X by Y
50 IT managers' head explodes from paradox overload
60 "Rush job" turns into Poo, UAT date slips
70 Spit and bailing twine fail in UAT
80 Deadline Y whooshes by..
90 PANIC MODE LOOP GOTO 10
You are dead on there!
A tight team of bright progressive individuals has always brought out the best in my work.
Crappy co-workers, moronic "hands in" managers, noise and meetings that don't produce anything are utter poison. Obviously interruptions of any kind are deadly to productivity, but sometimes that's part of the job and is usually profitable.
I guess what I'm saying is my productivity is directly related to who and not where.
So Ford won't entice the reviewers for a positive review in any way, other than by giving them a free car...
There's an old robot saying that applies here:
DOES NOT COMPUTE
But, but! That would break with the internet hate machine school of journalism!
If the EFF didn't hate, we wouldn't care! Honest!
Speaking as someone who is visually impaired and not totally blind, a device like Kindle is not only usable but also much nicer than some of the other book reader options available, having seen the interface I can easily see myself using such a feature as an option.
But back to the point at hand!
I see where his argument comes from, but this goes well beyond the era of audio books when the real consumers were people like me (or people who didn't like actually reading I suppose). We're in a new era where an e-book could be purchased and run through a desktop text to speech program. Where does that fall legally, has that even come up before? Is the primary concern that there is a loss of revenue to the author or is it the loss of revenue to the audio book publishing industry?
Technology has evolved in such a way that a single creative source can have multiple delivery points to the intended consumer, to me (and others it seems) legal fighting over those delivery streams seems counter productive to the original artists' goal and almost completely focused on keeping (perhaps?) deprecated methods of content delivery alive.
Either that or I'm in the mid-afternoon slump and parts of my brain are shutting down...
Actually I think this might be part of the plan. Right now one of the things that might make Windows less desireable is that it is a bit of a security risk and (apparently) not as hard to crack. So the big flashy prize is something that people want because it's supposedly more secure or otherwise better (or at least sells itself that way) and it's going to get a bit more attention. So maybe more people discover security issues for the desired prize during contests like this which vendors can ultimately fix (making it an even better product).
In fact, seeing more concentrated efforts to crack the Mac might be an indication of what's to come. After all if the desired prize is relative to the desires of the upcoming consumer market for the next few years getting to know the soft spots will be valuable for at least some parties.
Either all that or I've hit that state of delirium after the caffeine has worn off...
What's that?
I have this one folder in GMail called spam... I don't go there much, the grammar is nonsensical and the products are out-competed by the text-based advertising.
Well, with a big enough claim, questions start getting asked. Big questions.
Is it true? Prove it!
Is it false? Prove it!
Either way learning happens, and that's a good thing right?
I'll hazard a guess that there are a lot more .NET developers out there than Qt.
But it's a good point. I think a lot of money could be made on the back of Ubuntu if doing nothing else than filling gaps or perfecting apps that are already monopolized in the Windows world.
I can just see the late night commercial for MIT...
You could learn:
Architecture
Engineering
VCR Repair
Computer Science
Sciences
Management
All from the comfort of your own home!
If you place your order now, we'll send you a tote bag at absolutely no additional charge!
Operators are standing by...
Y'know I've heard that a lot, but it seems to me that it is more likely that the bulk of the junk will be redundant antennas.
I was thinking auto-dialler running around the clock to everyone on campus, heck, why not call the whole town?
Online auctions suck in general.
8/9 years ago it wasn't bad, if there was a good deal you could get it without the aid of sniping software or other crappy tactics.
If I buy on eBay it's almost always from a store or at least "Buy It Now" because I'm sick of losing auctions to a script.
Man, those cats are fast as lightning.
In fact, it is a little bit frightening...
I'm sure most people don't care (or know) and the ones who do will just grab a "DRM-freed version".
I like to think that DRM is the cause of and not the solution to Piracy :)