> will produce code so bad they'll have to bring me in to fix it.
That's not necessarily a great position to be in - you'll be six months behind schedule the minute you set foot in the door, and you'll spend half your time in meetings explaining why it's taking so long to fix "that one thing that went wrong". And God forbid you ever suggest a ground-up rewrite.
> The fewer who want to code, the better for the negotiating power and leverage of coders and technologists going into the future.... which is exactly the point of the initiative. People who can code want too much money, and have outrageous demands like the right to go home and see their families from time to time. Remember you're dealing with people who, deep in their hearts, believe that there's a simple, cheap, instant on-demand solution to absolutely every single problem they can think of (after all, that's what they were taught at MBA school). If the programmers can't produce something RIGHT NOW for a marginal cost of $0.00, then the problem lies with the programmers themselves.
And with that, the debate shuts down... this is the problem with any decentralized networking solution. If it's possible to get rid of the (insert objectionable content here), it's possible to use the exact same mechanism to get rid of the (insert government-disapproved content here). This is why a decentralized internet will never happen.
Blocking IP addresses wholesale? Use a proxy server.
Hmm... that depends on finding one that's willing to route your requests, and I doubt that those are cheap. Of course, if I was an LEA, I'd set up a "low cost proxy server for requesting illegal content" and start logging requests right now.
Dude, you just made the cardinal mistake of dealing with bosses - you told him what you were doing! Just do it already. When you're done, show him what you did. He'll think it was cool.
Oh, for God's sake. Mention "censorship" and bring out the etymology nazis...
If what Amazon is doing - refusing to sell something because they object to it on a moral basis - what is it? What word defines that act? "Amazon Private-company-selling-whatever-legal-products-they-wish Expands" isn't a very snappy title, after all. Neither is "Amazon Doing-something-that-is-unworthy-of-discussion-because-amazon-is-not-the-government-and-their-actions-are-not-covered-by-the-first-amendment Expands". "Censorship" is the best word we've got to describe that act, so until we can agree on a better word, we'll continue using it. Now can you please stop jamming up the entire fscking comments section with 500 repeats of "They're a private company!" every time we talk try to bring corporate censorship to the attention of people who do care?
Sigh... for the millionth time, yes, it is censorship, it's just not government censorship and therefore not illegal censorship (in the US). It's still censorship. That's what the fucking word means, for Christ's sake.
Wait wait wait... are you trying to say that food, shelter, clothes & utilities stimulate the economy better than cars, houses and jets (or even drugs)? Either way somebody's paying somebody else to do something. Cars, houses, jets and even drugs are actually better economy stimulators because the profit margin is higher.
Well, I think that you're ugly, and I don't want to see your face. Put a bandana or a burqua over it or stay inside all the time or something. Have some respect for the rights of other people not to have to look at your face.
It sure would be nice if the author could figure out how to write something that anybody BESIDES a raving, rabid fanboy of either series could make any sense of. I haven't memorized either of those movies, I'm ashamed to say...
You mean, you were there, and you personally saw it happen? If not, then all you know is that an accusation was made... and the employer/school/etc. did whatever it took to cover it up. In other words, you're doing EXACTLY what he said the problem is, which explains why the employer/school/etc. has to do whatever it takes to cover it up - because you (and 75% of the rest of the world) immediately presume guilt.
The internet is being taken over by 19-year-old college kids who know everything because their feminist professors told them so. Keep fighting, and know we're behind you - I can't mod you up because I lost my right to mod points years ago... for downmodding feminist/liberal trolls!
"Putting the accuser on trial" is feminist double-speak for "suggesting, no matter how delicately, that it might have been consensual and that she might be lying." In other words, you're doing EXACTLY what elrous0 suggests is the fundamental problem here.
Slashdot Mirror
When are they going to start taking security seriously? When consumers are willing to pay more money for more secure devices. So, never.
> will produce code so bad they'll have to bring me in to fix it. That's not necessarily a great position to be in - you'll be six months behind schedule the minute you set foot in the door, and you'll spend half your time in meetings explaining why it's taking so long to fix "that one thing that went wrong". And God forbid you ever suggest a ground-up rewrite.
> The fewer who want to code, the better for the negotiating power and leverage of coders and technologists going into the future. ... which is exactly the point of the initiative. People who can code want too much money, and have outrageous demands like the right to go home and see their families from time to time. Remember you're dealing with people who, deep in their hearts, believe that there's a simple, cheap, instant on-demand solution to absolutely every single problem they can think of (after all, that's what they were taught at MBA school). If the programmers can't produce something RIGHT NOW for a marginal cost of $0.00, then the problem lies with the programmers themselves.
Call me an exceptionally dull weirdo all you like, as long as I'm a well-paid exceptionally dull weirdo.
Man, how bored do you have to be to start stepping through somebody else's bash history file? Yikes.
I for one, find it very comforting to know that my freedom depends on whether some arbitrary judge thinks that what I said was funny or not.
He saw it in a movie once. What more do you need?
And with that, the debate shuts down... this is the problem with any decentralized networking solution. If it's possible to get rid of the (insert objectionable content here), it's possible to use the exact same mechanism to get rid of the (insert government-disapproved content here). This is why a decentralized internet will never happen.
Hmm... that depends on finding one that's willing to route your requests, and I doubt that those are cheap. Of course, if I was an LEA, I'd set up a "low cost proxy server for requesting illegal content" and start logging requests right now.
Dude, you just made the cardinal mistake of dealing with bosses - you told him what you were doing! Just do it already. When you're done, show him what you did. He'll think it was cool.
Oh, for God's sake. Mention "censorship" and bring out the etymology nazis...
If what Amazon is doing - refusing to sell something because they object to it on a moral basis - what is it? What word defines that act? "Amazon Private-company-selling-whatever-legal-products-they-wish Expands" isn't a very snappy title, after all. Neither is "Amazon Doing-something-that-is-unworthy-of-discussion-because-amazon-is-not-the-government-and-their-actions-are-not-covered-by-the-first-amendment Expands". "Censorship" is the best word we've got to describe that act, so until we can agree on a better word, we'll continue using it. Now can you please stop jamming up the entire fscking comments section with 500 repeats of "They're a private company!" every time we talk try to bring corporate censorship to the attention of people who do care?
Sigh... for the millionth time, yes, it is censorship, it's just not government censorship and therefore not illegal censorship (in the US). It's still censorship. That's what the fucking word means, for Christ's sake.
I'm a little shocked at all the negativity. Have you people used X? If Ubuntu can drive a replacement, let them drive a replacement!
Proper Unix doesn't have any graphical display capabilities at all.
Now get off my lawn.
Wait wait wait... are you trying to say that food, shelter, clothes & utilities stimulate the economy better than cars, houses and jets (or even drugs)? Either way somebody's paying somebody else to do something. Cars, houses, jets and even drugs are actually better economy stimulators because the profit margin is higher.
Well, I think that you're ugly, and I don't want to see your face. Put a bandana or a burqua over it or stay inside all the time or something. Have some respect for the rights of other people not to have to look at your face.
Oh, my God... the irony of you insisting that he should be more tolerant is going to create a rip in the space-time continuum...
Which is particularly ironic since the only reason they're considered sexually charged in the first place is the obsession with keeping them hidden.
I'm disappointingly unsurprised that I'm only 10% of the way through the comments, and I've already seen this exchange:
Pojut: if you show a titty, you face a big fine
Anonymous Coward: you're in favour [sic] of porn during kid's prime time
If somebody makes a good point, indignantly insist that he said something else. American debate at its finest.
It sure would be nice if the author could figure out how to write something that anybody BESIDES a raving, rabid fanboy of either series could make any sense of. I haven't memorized either of those movies, I'm ashamed to say...
Yeah! Down with the "free market"! I'd like to see those fanatics name one good thing that has ever come from the so-called "free" market!
Yeah, let's keep up the fight for equality until no man can find employment!
You mean, you were there, and you personally saw it happen? If not, then all you know is that an accusation was made... and the employer/school/etc. did whatever it took to cover it up. In other words, you're doing EXACTLY what he said the problem is, which explains why the employer/school/etc. has to do whatever it takes to cover it up - because you (and 75% of the rest of the world) immediately presume guilt.
The internet is being taken over by 19-year-old college kids who know everything because their feminist professors told them so. Keep fighting, and know we're behind you - I can't mod you up because I lost my right to mod points years ago... for downmodding feminist/liberal trolls!
"Putting the accuser on trial" is feminist double-speak for "suggesting, no matter how delicately, that it might have been consensual and that she might be lying." In other words, you're doing EXACTLY what elrous0 suggests is the fundamental problem here.