Except there are denial of service laws that are being violated here.
Very poorly written denial of service laws. The network was running. Its ordinary users were not being denied service. The manager may have been denied access but everywhere in the world outside of San Francisco that's a very different thing than denial of service.
If this had been modded "Funny" instead of "Interesting". I would have let it pass. However, even if Turkey joins the EU, it will still be in Asia rather than Europe.
You are aware that part of Turkey is on the European continent, right?
This will just get sites like Flickr banned in places like China, Iran, or Australia; and nothing else will change
Exactly. Not sure why your post was modded "Funny" instead of "Insightful", which it is. Where I work, Flickr is already blocked so I was surprised to hear it's not blocked in China, et al.
It seems to me that Digg could track how many times a user buried (using the current system) or reported (using the upcoming system) a story.
Using the new system, Digg could have an editor actually check to see if the story was worthy of being reported and if it were not, any users who reported it could be put on some type of probation. If a user garnered too many probation points, their account could be suspended or removed.
Mob members truly dedicated to burying articles would create new accounts, but casual mobsters would be dissuaded using this system and the problem would be alleviated even if not entirely cured.
Sounds like a cousin to Verizon's cherry-picking of customers to whom they roll out FiOS here in the U.S. Because they charge in excess of $100/month for the service, they won't run it to any neighborhoods where the median income is lower than a certain level. Because I choose to live economically in a townhouse, Verizon won't run fiber down my street and I'm stuck with 1Mbit DSL that goes down once a day.
I think CorporalKlinger needs to learn the first rule of owning tech devices - don't leave them unattended in a car. If you can't observe basic security of your own devices then you kind of deserve to have it stolen.
That is very lazy thinking on your part. Apparently your mind has a need to have everything in the world be explained, be "for a reason", or be "just desserts." To you it's apparently not possible for a victim to be innocent and I'd like to suggest that you get therapy. Honestly--it indicates a fundamental inability to empathize which is not a condition you want to go through your whole life with. Best of luck.
THAT was the light sabre duel next to the volcano that we have been waiting for since 1977.
Still doesn't excuse the rest of the trilogy though...
Perhaps we should start calling this the Zardoz effect.
Having seen Zardoz and having the image of Sean Connery wearing a near-loincloth standing in the mouth of mountain-man permanently seared into my brain for life, I'm still not entirely clear how you would define your "Zardoz Effect". Is it to mean a film that is so monumentally bad it ensures no sequels? Or one that gets word-of-mouth via its badness? Surely not one that has one good scene at the end that made the previous 2 hours of viewing worth it, because Zardoz had no good scenes.
I live in China. I access the Internet unhindered.
Really? Then please look up "Tienanmen Square 1989" for me. I'll wait....
Are you still there? Oh, that's right--you won't even be able to read my post because that string and associated history pages are blocked in China.
Re:Plagiarism? or Ghost writing? Outsourcing?
on
Plagiarism Inc.
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
To claim someone else's work as your own, that you paid to commission, is not plagiarism... as the GP said, its Ghostwriting.
Does a company plagiarize your work by claiming ownership when you leave the company? No, that work was commissioned for them, and it is now their work. They are not the author, but they are the owner.
And just as the post to which you replied said, how do you know these el-cheapo papers are not being plagiarized by the ghostwriters from whom you're purchasing them? It seems very likely they are given the sleaziness of the owner, and considering the price so low and time-turnaround so short, it seems unlikely that that much research could or would actually be performed.
And if the cops ask you to delete photos, play along, because recovering the deleted photographs is trivial compared to what can happen when arguing with a cop.
Great practical advice. However, it's horrible civil disobedience advice. By complying with the officer's illegal demand, you're empowering him to make the same demand of other photographers who might not be as technically adept and who really will lose their photos. A bully appeased is a bully emboldened.
So you're saying they can afford them, and choose not to? Why? Because they love it when their customers can't use their shiny new phone to make calls? Surely, that can't be the answer!
Wow. You are so insightful! Of course you can say whatever the hell you want to if you don't care whether or not it's the truth. It's incredibly disingenuous to say that they've been "sitting on" or letting Lemmings "stagnate":
Actually, they have. I recently had to bittorrent a Lemmings hack to allow me to run Lemmings on Mac OS X. It's a RTE that executes the PC version in a WINE environment. OS X has been in existence for how long? A decade? If the lack of Lemmings on that platform is not "sitting on" their property, I'm not sure what is. And the iPhone has sold how many units with still no Lemmings? That is most certainly "sitting on" their property and letting it go moldy. So now Sony, instead of sending this guy a check for $100,000 to buy his creation (which they would make their money back on in one week of sales in the App Store), represses him with a C&D letter.
UTTER MORONS. Another reason I stopped buying anything Sony years ago and see no reason to start again.
Or deliberately ignoring your own engineers saying, "This is a bad idea. The wellhead will blow out."
If there were engineers who believed the wellhead would blow out because of the course they were taking, they should be held liable for the deaths of their coworkers, because it was their job to stop it, especially if management thought the job was safe.
Hold it. It was management who was pushing pushing pushing to get that well pumping ASAP, and management who told operators that 2 instead of 3 concrete plugs would be sufficient. It as also management who did not ensure both batteries in the BOP were functional/charged. For you to throw this all on engineers when there are numerous reports of management forcing an unsafely accelerated schedule is ludicrous and shows that you are less than impartial on the topic.
To be clear, blow outs happen.
To be clear: blow outs can be prevented if standard safety procedures are not bypassed.
That is where I take issue with the claims in the parent article. It assumes all humans are interested in being intelligent and learning from mistakes. That is far too optimistic a view. The article actually says 'Once we recognize that we do not err out of laziness, stupidity, or evil intent...' But people DO err out of those reasons (I equate greed with 'evil intent' when the person knows their actions has a significant likelihood to harm/kill others, which is exactly what happened in BP's case.) It would be a major mistake to assume nobody in the future will put greed ahead of safety and make a mistake via that incorrect choice. This repeating pattern is not a sign of intelligence.
don't even think of trying the pseudo-blackmail suggestions that have been modded up so far. You'll find yourself out of work before you know it.
His company has already pseudo-blackmailed him, by dumping more work on him under (unspoken) threat of losing his job if he doesn't do it. THEY fired the first shot. You're saying he should just roll over and take it? Is that what you do every time someone in life takes advantage of you? I hope not, though there's always a certain % of the populace who does....
You don't seem to understand how modern "capitalism" works. When your boss said "we don't have the budget," he meant exactly that. If you push for more money, or even just ask, if they're really antsy, you'll be filing for unemployment.
And a boss would never lie about not having more money in the budget....right?
[At 40 hours/week] I wasn't performing nearly as well (according to their "metrics") as my co-workers who were putting in 60+ hours a week - so when layoffs came I was chopped.
They managed to lose every account I managed (support accounts) a year after I was canned and that cost the company several million a year in revenue in contracts alone, but then I was having a hard time managing all that stuff anyhow + everything else they wanted to dump on me.
I'd lay odds you don't miss that job one bit. Further, I bet you feel better about yourself now than you did then. You certainly feel better than your 60+ hours/week ex-coworkers who are stressed out and have no personal lives. And knowing the wrong they did you cost them millions HAS to feel great.
That's what your job has evolved into, and that is the pay. Arm twisting will accomplish nothing for you except a quick trip to the street. They're broke. You've already said so. That's why they're laying off all the people you've replaced and have no budget for staff.
You try to go oil drilling with these guys and you won't get a thing except a fresh new bullseye on your back.
My advice? Talk them into a title change only. Emphasize you're not digging for a raise, but you'd like something to reflect your new duties. Get your new impressive title, then bust ass for the next 3 months to get settled in with your new title. Then get your ass to careerbuilder and craigslist and use your new fancy title to negotiate a better job. These guys are garden variety passive aggressives PHBs that will continue to dump on you until you break. Ditch them.
Not horrible advice but I'd advocate he back off his hours a bit. He's being paid for 40 hours and they're expecting 60-80. I don't care how you cut it, that's not fair. But further, it's also going to have notably adverse affects on his job performance as well as personal life. You want him to be seeking other jobs? When? That type of schedule completely precludes a job search. I think he needs to level with them that they're paying him for 40 hours, and he is willing to put in some OT but cannot maintain a 60+ hour workweek. As long as he is not asking for more $, they might accept that. If they don't, at least he took the moral high road.
I think every time I post a new position I get 100 candidates more qualified than your dumbass.
I'm going to take a stab in the dark and say either this is an exaggeration by 50-100x, or you really have no way to tell who's qualified for the position.
Pretty sure it's the latter. It's true that every advertised position these days garners thousands of resumes. But that's obviously not the whole story, for most of the candidates are not qualified. I work for a Fortune 10 company and we are having trouble filling some spots not because of lack of candidates but because people either are unqualified or do not show up for interviews (or, in some cases, don't show up for their first day of work.) It is really disturbing how many of the 9.7% of unemployed workers out there are unemployed because they don't know their ass from a hole in the ground--it implies to me that our unemployment rate is going to stay high for a while due to severe education deficiencies in the recent past. It's disheartening.
I think you misread Chevman's post. He didn't say he'd fire anyone who asked for a raise; he said he'd fire someone who used blackmail to get a raise. He didn't say anything about whether he would reward those people who do a good job.
I don't think you know what the word "blackmail" means.
Strongly agreed. "Blackmail" requires illegality. This is a completely legal contract negotiation. The employer broke the original agreement by adding responsibilities and the employee is now in a position of having the choice of whether to continue to honor his end of the contract or hold out for a new one. The latter is not "blackmail".
I'm sorry but he's right. He said it in a horribly tactless way, but to use a project launch as leverage is to show that you're manipulative and not a team player. These are people you have to continue to work with and they will never trust you again.
He didn't fire the first shot, his employer did. They used the economic downturn and his goodwill to dump huge quantities of additional responsibility on him without any compensation. All he is doing is returning fire and all power to him. Honestly, if they treat him like this now odds are he'll get laid off after project launch anyway, as they are treating him as disposable. So he might as well get his pay now 'cos he sure won't get it later.
It's always so fun when people only see employers' side of things. And then those same people cannot fathom why unions exist.
... I would say there is some wisdom is chosing apple for that purpose. If they instead opted for a Windows laptop it would be nearly impossible to standardize. Even if they said "everyone go buy a Dell model ABC123" you wouldn't get very good consistency, because inevitably some parents would try to substitute something else (and yet others would substitute by accident). On top of that you do have the problem with the Windows (in)security mentality that leads to crashing systems all over the place.
Further, "Dell Model ABC123" would stop being sold in only 2 months, leaving mid-semester-joining students unable to comply with the standard. Apple, in comparison, tends to maintain its models much longer.
Ignoring the issue of forcing parents to come off $900: Why go with Apple? A Linux-PC is free+hardware and a Windows platform is the most probable system these kids will wind up using at work. I don't think Hayes is being terribly objective here.
Because, whether you'll admit it or not, Linux is still not quite ready for the average non-tech user. Yes, Ubuntu is close but it still doesn't have Mac ease-of-use. As for Windows, I think viruses are the single biggest reason a school would opt against them.
All three choices have their pluses and minuses, and the school chose ease-of-use and virus-free at the expense of....er....expense. You may disagree with that choice but you can't objectively claim that there were no positives to the option.
To that end, I object to your objection about objectivity.
I assume you've never sent a kid to school. They constantly come home with lists of required purchases. Tossing a laptop onto the list is a larger scale, but no different in spirit than requiring: 5 spiral bound notebooks, 2 sewn binding composition books, a hand-held pencil sharpener, 10 number 2 pencils, etc...
True, but that's one of those things prospective parents should consider before discarding the condoms and doing the nasty to bring another being into this world. Kids ain't free, they're a serious financial undertaking. And the costs we're debating in this story are nothing compared to the costs of college. So perhaps we should all knock it off with regard to $900 if it will help the kid get to the point where his parents are forking out $50000 in tuition.
Part of being a savy computer user is developing enough skill with manuals and search engines to figure out how to solve $common_problem on $your_platform.
And what of those students who are going into liberal arts? Not everyone on the planet can or should live up to your standards of a "savvy computer user". Some just need something that works. There is a place for computer experts and a place for those who treat it like a utensil. One would hope that you as an educator would have a finger on the pulse of the needs of ALL your students, not just those in your field.
Slashdot Mirror
Except there are denial of service laws that are being violated here.
Very poorly written denial of service laws. The network was running. Its ordinary users were not being denied service. The manager may have been denied access but everywhere in the world outside of San Francisco that's a very different thing than denial of service.
If this had been modded "Funny" instead of "Interesting". I would have let it pass. However, even if Turkey joins the EU, it will still be in Asia rather than Europe.
You are aware that part of Turkey is on the European continent, right?
This will just get sites like Flickr banned in places like China, Iran, or Australia; and nothing else will change
Exactly. Not sure why your post was modded "Funny" instead of "Insightful", which it is. Where I work, Flickr is already blocked so I was surprised to hear it's not blocked in China, et al.
Using the new system, Digg could have an editor actually check to see if the story was worthy of being reported and if it were not, any users who reported it could be put on some type of probation. If a user garnered too many probation points, their account could be suspended or removed.
Mob members truly dedicated to burying articles would create new accounts, but casual mobsters would be dissuaded using this system and the problem would be alleviated even if not entirely cured.
Sounds like a cousin to Verizon's cherry-picking of customers to whom they roll out FiOS here in the U.S. Because they charge in excess of $100/month for the service, they won't run it to any neighborhoods where the median income is lower than a certain level. Because I choose to live economically in a townhouse, Verizon won't run fiber down my street and I'm stuck with 1Mbit DSL that goes down once a day.
I think CorporalKlinger needs to learn the first rule of owning tech devices - don't leave them unattended in a car. If you can't observe basic security of your own devices then you kind of deserve to have it stolen.
That is very lazy thinking on your part. Apparently your mind has a need to have everything in the world be explained, be "for a reason", or be "just desserts." To you it's apparently not possible for a victim to be innocent and I'd like to suggest that you get therapy. Honestly--it indicates a fundamental inability to empathize which is not a condition you want to go through your whole life with. Best of luck.
THAT was the light sabre duel next to the volcano that we have been waiting for since 1977.
Still doesn't excuse the rest of the trilogy though...
Perhaps we should start calling this the Zardoz effect.
Having seen Zardoz and having the image of Sean Connery wearing a near-loincloth standing in the mouth of mountain-man permanently seared into my brain for life, I'm still not entirely clear how you would define your "Zardoz Effect". Is it to mean a film that is so monumentally bad it ensures no sequels? Or one that gets word-of-mouth via its badness? Surely not one that has one good scene at the end that made the previous 2 hours of viewing worth it, because Zardoz had no good scenes.
I live in China. I access the Internet unhindered.
Really? Then please look up "Tienanmen Square 1989" for me. I'll wait....
Are you still there? Oh, that's right--you won't even be able to read my post because that string and associated history pages are blocked in China.
To claim someone else's work as your own, that you paid to commission, is not plagiarism... as the GP said, its Ghostwriting.
Does a company plagiarize your work by claiming ownership when you leave the company? No, that work was commissioned for them, and it is now their work. They are not the author, but they are the owner.
And just as the post to which you replied said, how do you know these el-cheapo papers are not being plagiarized by the ghostwriters from whom you're purchasing them? It seems very likely they are given the sleaziness of the owner, and considering the price so low and time-turnaround so short, it seems unlikely that that much research could or would actually be performed.
And if the cops ask you to delete photos, play along, because recovering the deleted photographs is trivial compared to what can happen when arguing with a cop.
Great practical advice. However, it's horrible civil disobedience advice. By complying with the officer's illegal demand, you're empowering him to make the same demand of other photographers who might not be as technically adept and who really will lose their photos. A bully appeased is a bully emboldened.
So you're saying they can afford them, and choose not to? Why? Because they love it when their customers can't use their shiny new phone to make calls? Surely, that can't be the answer!
Pride goeth before a fall.
Or, as the Greeks succinctly put it: "Hubris".
Which seems damn nice in light of the fact that they could begin by... suing.
So in your world a bully is "nice" by punching a guy in the arm instead of the nose?
Wow. You are so insightful! Of course you can say whatever the hell you want to if you don't care whether or not it's the truth. It's incredibly disingenuous to say that they've been "sitting on" or letting Lemmings "stagnate":
Actually, they have. I recently had to bittorrent a Lemmings hack to allow me to run Lemmings on Mac OS X. It's a RTE that executes the PC version in a WINE environment. OS X has been in existence for how long? A decade? If the lack of Lemmings on that platform is not "sitting on" their property, I'm not sure what is. And the iPhone has sold how many units with still no Lemmings? That is most certainly "sitting on" their property and letting it go moldy. So now Sony, instead of sending this guy a check for $100,000 to buy his creation (which they would make their money back on in one week of sales in the App Store), represses him with a C&D letter.
UTTER MORONS. Another reason I stopped buying anything Sony years ago and see no reason to start again.
Or deliberately ignoring your own engineers saying, "This is a bad idea. The wellhead will blow out."
If there were engineers who believed the wellhead would blow out because of the course they were taking, they should be held liable for the deaths of their coworkers, because it was their job to stop it, especially if management thought the job was safe.
Hold it. It was management who was pushing pushing pushing to get that well pumping ASAP, and management who told operators that 2 instead of 3 concrete plugs would be sufficient. It as also management who did not ensure both batteries in the BOP were functional/charged. For you to throw this all on engineers when there are numerous reports of management forcing an unsafely accelerated schedule is ludicrous and shows that you are less than impartial on the topic.
To be clear, blow outs happen.
To be clear: blow outs can be prevented if standard safety procedures are not bypassed.
That is where I take issue with the claims in the parent article. It assumes all humans are interested in being intelligent and learning from mistakes. That is far too optimistic a view. The article actually says 'Once we recognize that we do not err out of laziness, stupidity, or evil intent...' But people DO err out of those reasons (I equate greed with 'evil intent' when the person knows their actions has a significant likelihood to harm/kill others, which is exactly what happened in BP's case.) It would be a major mistake to assume nobody in the future will put greed ahead of safety and make a mistake via that incorrect choice. This repeating pattern is not a sign of intelligence.
don't even think of trying the pseudo-blackmail suggestions that have been modded up so far. You'll find yourself out of work before you know it.
His company has already pseudo-blackmailed him, by dumping more work on him under (unspoken) threat of losing his job if he doesn't do it. THEY fired the first shot. You're saying he should just roll over and take it? Is that what you do every time someone in life takes advantage of you? I hope not, though there's always a certain % of the populace who does....
You don't seem to understand how modern "capitalism" works. When your boss said "we don't have the budget," he meant exactly that. If you push for more money, or even just ask, if they're really antsy, you'll be filing for unemployment.
And a boss would never lie about not having more money in the budget....right?
[At 40 hours/week] I wasn't performing nearly as well (according to their "metrics") as my co-workers who were putting in 60+ hours a week - so when layoffs came I was chopped.
They managed to lose every account I managed (support accounts) a year after I was canned and that cost the company several million a year in revenue in contracts alone, but then I was having a hard time managing all that stuff anyhow + everything else they wanted to dump on me.
I'd lay odds you don't miss that job one bit. Further, I bet you feel better about yourself now than you did then. You certainly feel better than your 60+ hours/week ex-coworkers who are stressed out and have no personal lives. And knowing the wrong they did you cost them millions HAS to feel great.
That's what your job has evolved into, and that is the pay. Arm twisting will accomplish nothing for you except a quick trip to the street. They're broke. You've already said so. That's why they're laying off all the people you've replaced and have no budget for staff.
You try to go oil drilling with these guys and you won't get a thing except a fresh new bullseye on your back.
My advice? Talk them into a title change only. Emphasize you're not digging for a raise, but you'd like something to reflect your new duties. Get your new impressive title, then bust ass for the next 3 months to get settled in with your new title. Then get your ass to careerbuilder and craigslist and use your new fancy title to negotiate a better job. These guys are garden variety passive aggressives PHBs that will continue to dump on you until you break. Ditch them.
Not horrible advice but I'd advocate he back off his hours a bit. He's being paid for 40 hours and they're expecting 60-80. I don't care how you cut it, that's not fair. But further, it's also going to have notably adverse affects on his job performance as well as personal life. You want him to be seeking other jobs? When? That type of schedule completely precludes a job search. I think he needs to level with them that they're paying him for 40 hours, and he is willing to put in some OT but cannot maintain a 60+ hour workweek. As long as he is not asking for more $, they might accept that. If they don't, at least he took the moral high road.
You think you're irreplaceable?
I think every time I post a new position I get 100 candidates more qualified than your dumbass.
I'm going to take a stab in the dark and say either this is an exaggeration by 50-100x, or you really have no way to tell who's qualified for the position.
Pretty sure it's the latter. It's true that every advertised position these days garners thousands of resumes. But that's obviously not the whole story, for most of the candidates are not qualified. I work for a Fortune 10 company and we are having trouble filling some spots not because of lack of candidates but because people either are unqualified or do not show up for interviews (or, in some cases, don't show up for their first day of work.) It is really disturbing how many of the 9.7% of unemployed workers out there are unemployed because they don't know their ass from a hole in the ground--it implies to me that our unemployment rate is going to stay high for a while due to severe education deficiencies in the recent past. It's disheartening.
I think you misread Chevman's post. He didn't say he'd fire anyone who asked for a raise; he said he'd fire someone who used blackmail to get a raise. He didn't say anything about whether he would reward those people who do a good job.
I don't think you know what the word "blackmail" means.
Strongly agreed. "Blackmail" requires illegality. This is a completely legal contract negotiation. The employer broke the original agreement by adding responsibilities and the employee is now in a position of having the choice of whether to continue to honor his end of the contract or hold out for a new one. The latter is not "blackmail".
I'm sorry but he's right. He said it in a horribly tactless way, but to use a project launch as leverage is to show that you're manipulative and not a team player. These are people you have to continue to work with and they will never trust you again.
He didn't fire the first shot, his employer did. They used the economic downturn and his goodwill to dump huge quantities of additional responsibility on him without any compensation. All he is doing is returning fire and all power to him. Honestly, if they treat him like this now odds are he'll get laid off after project launch anyway, as they are treating him as disposable. So he might as well get his pay now 'cos he sure won't get it later.
It's always so fun when people only see employers' side of things. And then those same people cannot fathom why unions exist.
... I would say there is some wisdom is chosing apple for that purpose. If they instead opted for a Windows laptop it would be nearly impossible to standardize. Even if they said "everyone go buy a Dell model ABC123" you wouldn't get very good consistency, because inevitably some parents would try to substitute something else (and yet others would substitute by accident). On top of that you do have the problem with the Windows (in)security mentality that leads to crashing systems all over the place.
Further, "Dell Model ABC123" would stop being sold in only 2 months, leaving mid-semester-joining students unable to comply with the standard. Apple, in comparison, tends to maintain its models much longer.
Ignoring the issue of forcing parents to come off $900: Why go with Apple? A Linux-PC is free+hardware and a Windows platform is the most probable system these kids will wind up using at work. I don't think Hayes is being terribly objective here.
Because, whether you'll admit it or not, Linux is still not quite ready for the average non-tech user. Yes, Ubuntu is close but it still doesn't have Mac ease-of-use. As for Windows, I think viruses are the single biggest reason a school would opt against them.
All three choices have their pluses and minuses, and the school chose ease-of-use and virus-free at the expense of....er....expense. You may disagree with that choice but you can't objectively claim that there were no positives to the option.
To that end, I object to your objection about objectivity.
I assume you've never sent a kid to school. They constantly come home with lists of required purchases. Tossing a laptop onto the list is a larger scale, but no different in spirit than requiring: 5 spiral bound notebooks, 2 sewn binding composition books, a hand-held pencil sharpener, 10 number 2 pencils, etc...
True, but that's one of those things prospective parents should consider before discarding the condoms and doing the nasty to bring another being into this world. Kids ain't free, they're a serious financial undertaking. And the costs we're debating in this story are nothing compared to the costs of college. So perhaps we should all knock it off with regard to $900 if it will help the kid get to the point where his parents are forking out $50000 in tuition.
Part of being a savy computer user is developing enough skill with manuals and search engines to figure out how to solve $common_problem on $your_platform.
And what of those students who are going into liberal arts? Not everyone on the planet can or should live up to your standards of a "savvy computer user". Some just need something that works. There is a place for computer experts and a place for those who treat it like a utensil. One would hope that you as an educator would have a finger on the pulse of the needs of ALL your students, not just those in your field.