First, like others have pointed out, forget stock options or other perks. Don't plan your economic future around them - they are a lottery ticket, nothing more. Your salary is where it's at.
Second, you were an employee. You were hired to do a job - with, by your own words a fair salary - and you did that job. You should have no expectation beyond that; you certainly have no moral right to anything more.
Really, if you want a part of a company's future, become an investor - put your money on the line and accept the risk that comes along with the possible rewards.
Yeah, seriously. Who is going to use this? If you want to see the stars, just get out. If you want to see many stars, just go for a drive to a nice quiet place outdoors, it is really relaxing.
I live in central Osaka. If I had a car (and most people here do not, with bikes and public transportation so convenient), it would be well over an hours drive eastwards to get out far enough to at least not be surrounded by street lights and pachinko-parlour neon.
What's the moral issue with sex robots? It would be just another sex toy. Has there ever been a technology some inventive human has not adapted for self-gratification?
I'd venture that it would in fact not even be all that good as a sex toy; it would be limited to being human-like, with human-like capabilities, unlike the classical simple, cheap, but far more versatile toys sold today.
It's not a monopoly issue, but a question if iTunes breaks various consumer protection and retail laws in Norway.
If a company wants to do business in a country, it must follow the laws of said country or not do business there, that is the simple issue. Saying "but it's legal where we come from" is not a defence. To put it this way, would you want to allow (say) Chinese cars to be sold in the US without the safety features US law requires, simply because they aren't required in their country of origin?
THis is a systematic error that corresponds well to the difference in coordinate systems. Its not bad positioning issues, but a simple lack of forethought when adding data. It's akin to not make sure your text doxuments use the same encoding before adding them to a data base.
The global projection is WGS 84, which (like all projections) aproximate the earth with an ellipsoid. That means it will be correct in some areas and off in other. So almost all territories have local projections defined that are a lot more accurate locally (but is of course wildly off far away). Japan uses TOKYO somethingorother, which, again like other local projections, is based on WGS 84.
Tokyo is fairly close to the center of the country, and is the capital, so I would not be surprised if the point deemed coincident to the WGS84 projection is in, or close to, Tokyo. Osaka is a lot farther away, so the differences are greater.
It's the street, not the photo map, that is off. Yes, why pick on a minor detail like getting to the wrong block in a city. It's a great map otherwise.
Great car. I mean OK, the engine doeasn't actually run, but why pick on details like that?
Google Maps is a sad joke, outside of the US at least. The problem is completely inaccurate map data. Here's an example, a link to a spot in Osaka, Japan. A visually distinct intersection, in fact. Click between "Satellite" and "Map", and notice how the intersection - and all other map data - shifts about 20 meters or so.
The issue is that they bought mapping data (the same government data all the other Japanese map services use) and just plonked it in, without correcting for the fact that Japan (like almost every other territory) uses its own, locally corrected projection, and the data needs to be adjusted for this if it is to fit with the satellite data (or the WGS84 projection used for Google maps in general). I bug reported this over a year ago - I'm sure many people did - and the only thing that seems to have happened is that the hybrid view is now disabled.
A map service that will send you to the wrong block in a congested city because of an elementary omission like this is not exactly a feather in any organizational cap.
Re:more proof the RIAA/MPAA are insane
on
Death By DMCA
·
· Score: 1
However, I'd like to ask a simple question. If the networks can no longer count on people watching at least some ads, how are they to pay for content? The day most people have "auto-commercial-skip" is the day advertisers stop paying to be a part of the program. At that point, the networks would have to charge the consumers directly. Are you interested in paying even more for cable TV then?
If (1) the networks need people to watch the ads to sell ad space to pay for content; and (2) people no longer watch ads, whether it be because of Tivo-like devices or just because of better measurement of normal behaviour; then (3) the networks are working under a dysfunctional business model.
So the networks need to find a business model that allows them to pull in enough ad money to cover the cost of creating an audience to sell (ie. create programming that people want to watch). If the ad rates drop, the networks need to figure out how to make the cost of an audience lower (more cheap reality programming; focusing more on only the most desireable demographics), make the audience underwrite part of the cost like the cable networks already do, or scale back wholesale.
And yes, it may very well mean that some forms of TV programming is no longer viable at all; nobody is prepared to underwrite the cost anymore. For instance, I can easily imagine news disappearing altogether from TV, with newspapers providing both the in-depth analysis (that there is never room for on TV) and the breaking news online, as it happens, with moving pictures for subscribers.
Bottom line is, ther is nothing certain about the US network TV system surviving. As a matter of fact, few other markets seem to have ever developed a similar system in the first place, which should tell you something about its robustness.
"socialists" (which National Socialists never where in any case; it's a right-wing, not left-wing delusion) are not antireligious per se. And yes, the German nazis were ostensibly christian, complete with christian slogans ("Gott Mitt Uns", for example). Again, I'm not saying they're representative of christianity - anymore than they are representative os science. Just because a rabid pack of the criminally insane say that they are christian, or building a scientific society, doesn't mean that they speak for anybody but themselves.
On top of that, they don't even address the question as to whether science ought to operate without any constraints of religion or morality. This is what the Nazis believed. Eugenics is demonstrably correct. You can, indeed, "improve" human beings the same way you can livestock.
The question is, ought that to be allowed?
You are doing a classic mistake - confluencing religion with morality, and making the assumption that without religion there are no morals. Of course there is. There is no difference between deeply religious people and atheists in things like crime rate, spousal cheating, drug use, charitable donations and so on.
No, science should not - and does not - operate without the constraints of morality. It should - and in most advanced societies does - operate without the constraints of religion. Again, these are orthogonal concepts. Until you seprate the two you will remain trying to debate non-existent issues.
But bring up the Nazi eugenics experiments--and bear in mind the eugenics is scientifically established--and they just mumble and walk away.
Um, Nazi Germany was a self-avowed christian society; atheists were harassed and killed right along with other "undesirables". Does that make christianity bad?
The real problem is when a company's name is somewhat generic (e.g. "Tom's Computer Repair Service"). Google for that and you'll be lucky to find the result you want in the first page or two.
And how does a com address help? is it tomscomputerrepairservice.com? or repairservice.com? computerrepair.com? Perhaps tomsrepair.com, tomscomputerrepair.com, tomcomputer.com or tomsrepariservice.com - or tomwillrepairit.com, tomisdaman.com, havetomwillrepair.com or someothertomgotallofthoseadressesalreadysoihadtose ttleforthisone.com.
For most companies a com address really is like a glass lobby - it's expected to be there but it's overly expensive and in practice not particularily useful.
Do you really think people accustomed to taking things for free and financing their business with porn ads should handle distribution of your tax money?
What's wrong with porn ads if they're legal? Either something is legal, and thus ok for society as a whole (as opposed to any particular slice of society), or it's not ok for society as a whole, in which case it should be made illegal.
To put it another way: don't you want the people in charge to do the utmost not to waste your money unnecessarily? An ad-supported government should have fiscal conservatives everywhere salivating in anticipation.
And salivating further, no doubt if the administration gained further income by auctioning image, video or live access to a yearly interdepartmental gay/straight orgy. Anything to reduce the cost of government, right?
Note that their program would invalidate Creative Commons and the GPL as well. I am Swedish, I worry a lot about the IP land grab going on, but no way will I vote for those people come september.
It benefits us all of more performance can be extracted from such chips, just because they're so widely used.
The reaction is not against the performance but the disingenious presentation. A cursory reading makes it seem as if the performance gain was somehow tied to it being a microkernel, or that the virtualization step somehow magically speeded things up. It wasn't - their kernel is using some platform specific optimizations that Linux doesn't, that's all.
what he was saying is that no other free software project actually has a meetup where they code in a setting that is, frankly, what closed source companies use 100% of the time.
He's saying that, and he's wrong. Is there any major OSS project - GNOME, KDE, Linux, Apache... - that doesn't do this?
Exact the opposite for me. Most industrialized country domains are at least as trustworthy to me as the open top-level domains - if I go to a.co.jp address, for instance I know it's at least a real, registered company, with a real business address in the country. An.se domain is going to be registered by someone in Sweden, someone known and identified by NIC-SE, the domain authority. The.eu (and I suppose.us) are similarily minimally vetted.
By contrast, whatever scumbag wherever on the net can register a com domain with no checks and no oversight. An otherwise unknown company with only a com domain is a bit suspect - why are they hiding behind such a generic domain?
For a small business, that's a serious chunk of money - too serious. You will end up in a "bidding war" with yourself as they try to suck as much cash out of you as possible. It really is overrated to have a.com adress in any case; if you like the name, look for name.us, name.org, name.net, name.whatever. A lot of countries have restrictions on their top-level domains (you need a business address in the country or similar), but there's a whole set of top-level country domains that are offered to any comers for their mnemonic value, like.tv if your business is related to broadcasting, for instance, or.nu, always popular in Scandinavia.
my question is, how did the funding for that animation get approved?
Note how the story is about a Seagate product, but the link everyone is posting is for Hitachi. I don't know how it got approved, but whoever pushed for it deserves a raise.
Slashdot Mirror
First, like others have pointed out, forget stock options or other perks. Don't plan your economic future around them - they are a lottery ticket, nothing more. Your salary is where it's at.
Second, you were an employee. You were hired to do a job - with, by your own words a fair salary - and you did that job. You should have no expectation beyond that; you certainly have no moral right to anything more.
Really, if you want a part of a company's future, become an investor - put your money on the line and accept the risk that comes along with the possible rewards.
Yeah, seriously. Who is going to use this? If you want to see the stars, just get out. If you want to see many stars, just go for a drive to a nice quiet place outdoors, it is really relaxing.
I live in central Osaka. If I had a car (and most people here do not, with bikes and public transportation so convenient), it would be well over an hours drive eastwards to get out far enough to at least not be surrounded by street lights and pachinko-parlour neon.
If the sex robot could pass the Turing Test, at least within the boundaries of its design I would argue that it should be treated as human.
And (disregarding the questionable use of the Turing test as a determinant), what, exactly, is wrong with having sex with a human then?
What's the moral issue with sex robots? It would be just another sex toy. Has there ever been a technology some inventive human has not adapted for self-gratification?
I'd venture that it would in fact not even be all that good as a sex toy; it would be limited to being human-like, with human-like capabilities, unlike the classical simple, cheap, but far more versatile toys sold today.
It's not a monopoly issue, but a question if iTunes breaks various consumer protection and retail laws in Norway.
If a company wants to do business in a country, it must follow the laws of said country or not do business there, that is the simple issue. Saying "but it's legal where we come from" is not a defence. To put it this way, would you want to allow (say) Chinese cars to be sold in the US without the safety features US law requires, simply because they aren't required in their country of origin?
try thinking of them as spreading the fun over a longer period of time.
Yes! Just like Gigli spread out all fifteen seconds of entertainment over two hours.
THis is a systematic error that corresponds well to the difference in coordinate systems. Its not bad positioning issues, but a simple lack of forethought when adding data. It's akin to not make sure your text doxuments use the same encoding before adding them to a data base.
The global projection is WGS 84, which (like all projections) aproximate the earth with an ellipsoid. That means it will be correct in some areas and off in other. So almost all territories have local projections defined that are a lot more accurate locally (but is of course wildly off far away). Japan uses TOKYO somethingorother, which, again like other local projections, is based on WGS 84.
Tokyo is fairly close to the center of the country, and is the capital, so I would not be surprised if the point deemed coincident to the WGS84 projection is in, or close to, Tokyo. Osaka is a lot farther away, so the differences are greater.
It's the street, not the photo map, that is off. Yes, why pick on a minor detail like getting to the wrong block in a city. It's a great map otherwise.
Great car. I mean OK, the engine doeasn't actually run, but why pick on details like that?
Gmail and Google Maps are great,...
Google Maps is a sad joke, outside of the US at least. The problem is completely inaccurate map data. Here's an example, a link to a spot in Osaka, Japan. A visually distinct intersection, in fact. Click between "Satellite" and "Map", and notice how the intersection - and all other map data - shifts about 20 meters or so.
The issue is that they bought mapping data (the same government data all the other Japanese map services use) and just plonked it in, without correcting for the fact that Japan (like almost every other territory) uses its own, locally corrected projection, and the data needs to be adjusted for this if it is to fit with the satellite data (or the WGS84 projection used for Google maps in general). I bug reported this over a year ago - I'm sure many people did - and the only thing that seems to have happened is that the hybrid view is now disabled.
A map service that will send you to the wrong block in a congested city because of an elementary omission like this is not exactly a feather in any organizational cap.
However, I'd like to ask a simple question. If the networks can no longer count on people watching at least some ads, how are they to pay for content? The day most people have "auto-commercial-skip" is the day advertisers stop paying to be a part of the program. At that point, the networks would have to charge the consumers directly. Are you interested in paying even more for cable TV then?
If (1) the networks need people to watch the ads to sell ad space to pay for content; and (2) people no longer watch ads, whether it be because of Tivo-like devices or just because of better measurement of normal behaviour; then (3) the networks are working under a dysfunctional business model.
So the networks need to find a business model that allows them to pull in enough ad money to cover the cost of creating an audience to sell (ie. create programming that people want to watch). If the ad rates drop, the networks need to figure out how to make the cost of an audience lower (more cheap reality programming; focusing more on only the most desireable demographics), make the audience underwrite part of the cost like the cable networks already do, or scale back wholesale.
And yes, it may very well mean that some forms of TV programming is no longer viable at all; nobody is prepared to underwrite the cost anymore. For instance, I can easily imagine news disappearing altogether from TV, with newspapers providing both the in-depth analysis (that there is never room for on TV) and the breaking news online, as it happens, with moving pictures for subscribers.
Bottom line is, ther is nothing certain about the US network TV system surviving. As a matter of fact, few other markets seem to have ever developed a similar system in the first place, which should tell you something about its robustness.
"socialists" (which National Socialists never where in any case; it's a right-wing, not left-wing delusion) are not antireligious per se. And yes, the German nazis were ostensibly christian, complete with christian slogans ("Gott Mitt Uns", for example). Again, I'm not saying they're representative of christianity - anymore than they are representative os science. Just because a rabid pack of the criminally insane say that they are christian, or building a scientific society, doesn't mean that they speak for anybody but themselves.
On top of that, they don't even address the question as to whether science ought to operate without any constraints of religion or morality. This is what the Nazis believed. Eugenics is demonstrably correct. You can, indeed, "improve" human beings the same way you can livestock.
The question is, ought that to be allowed?
You are doing a classic mistake - confluencing religion with morality, and making the assumption that without religion there are no morals. Of course there is. There is no difference between deeply religious people and atheists in things like crime rate, spousal cheating, drug use, charitable donations and so on.
No, science should not - and does not - operate without the constraints of morality. It should - and in most advanced societies does - operate without the constraints of religion. Again, these are orthogonal concepts. Until you seprate the two you will remain trying to debate non-existent issues.
But bring up the Nazi eugenics experiments--and bear in mind the eugenics is scientifically established--and they just mumble and walk away.
Um, Nazi Germany was a self-avowed christian society; atheists were harassed and killed right along with other "undesirables". Does that make christianity bad?
Just think of the possibilities of having a webserver in your pocket!
... uh, no. Aaand not that. Hmmmm....
Ok, hmmm, let me think
*chirp* *chirp* *chirp*
OK, you got me - what are those possiblities?
The girlfriend shoots trap better than she hits the mark ...
OK, that seriously makes no sense whatsoever. Is there an intended meaning embedded in that sentence or is it just words strung together for effect?
The real problem is when a company's name is somewhat generic (e.g. "Tom's Computer Repair Service"). Google for that and you'll be lucky to find the result you want in the first page or two.
e ttleforthisone.com.
And how does a com address help? is it tomscomputerrepairservice.com? or repairservice.com? computerrepair.com? Perhaps tomsrepair.com, tomscomputerrepair.com, tomcomputer.com or tomsrepariservice.com - or tomwillrepairit.com, tomisdaman.com, havetomwillrepair.com or someothertomgotallofthoseadressesalreadysoihadtos
For most companies a com address really is like a glass lobby - it's expected to be there but it's overly expensive and in practice not particularily useful.
And what would be the point? They wouldn't be able to sell more than one copy anyway.
They can sell as many closed copies as they want. Nobody gets the source to it. WIth the abolishment of copyright it's no longer prohibited, remember.
Note that Creative Commons and the GPL would not be neccessary if their program was successful :-)
Yes, it would, more than ever. Without any protection, anyone could take GPL code, bake it into their own and refuse to share any alterations.
Removing all copyright would constitute a massive shift in power towards the largest holders.
Do you really think people accustomed to taking things for free and financing their business with porn ads should handle distribution of your tax money?
What's wrong with porn ads if they're legal? Either something is legal, and thus ok for society as a whole (as opposed to any particular slice of society), or it's not ok for society as a whole, in which case it should be made illegal.
To put it another way: don't you want the people in charge to do the utmost not to waste your money unnecessarily? An ad-supported government should have fiscal conservatives everywhere salivating in anticipation.
And salivating further, no doubt if the administration gained further income by auctioning image, video or live access to a yearly interdepartmental gay/straight orgy. Anything to reduce the cost of government, right?
Note that their program would invalidate Creative Commons and the GPL as well. I am Swedish, I worry a lot about the IP land grab going on, but no way will I vote for those people come september.
It benefits us all of more performance can be extracted from such chips, just because they're so widely used.
The reaction is not against the performance but the disingenious presentation. A cursory reading makes it seem as if the performance gain was somehow tied to it being a microkernel, or that the virtualization step somehow magically speeded things up. It wasn't - their kernel is using some platform specific optimizations that Linux doesn't, that's all.
what he was saying is that no other free software project actually has a meetup where they code in a setting that is, frankly, what closed source companies use 100% of the time.
... - that doesn't do this?
He's saying that, and he's wrong. Is there any major OSS project - GNOME, KDE, Linux, Apache
Exact the opposite for me. Most industrialized country domains are at least as trustworthy to me as the open top-level domains - if I go to a .co.jp address, for instance I know it's at least a real, registered company, with a real business address in the country. An .se domain is going to be registered by someone in Sweden, someone known and identified by NIC-SE, the domain authority. The .eu (and I suppose .us) are similarily minimally vetted.
By contrast, whatever scumbag wherever on the net can register a com domain with no checks and no oversight. An otherwise unknown company with only a com domain is a bit suspect - why are they hiding behind such a generic domain?
For a small business, that's a serious chunk of money - too serious. You will end up in a "bidding war" with yourself as they try to suck as much cash out of you as possible. It really is overrated to have a .com adress in any case; if you like the name, look for name.us, name.org, name.net, name.whatever. A lot of countries have restrictions on their top-level domains (you need a business address in the country or similar), but there's a whole set of top-level country domains that are offered to any comers for their mnemonic value, like .tv if your business is related to broadcasting, for instance, or .nu, always popular in Scandinavia.
my question is, how did the funding for that animation get approved?
Note how the story is about a Seagate product, but the link everyone is posting is for Hitachi. I don't know how it got approved, but whoever pushed for it deserves a raise.