It is not about giving people the same amount. That is communism. It ios about giving people a fair part.
Say there are 3 people working in a company. 2 earn 3.000 and one earns 7.000. The cost of the company is 13.000 That happens when automation takes over (assuming no cost for automation) One person is fired and that is the person who earns 3.000. There are two options.
The easy one is to now divide the 3.000 and one now gets 4.500 and the other gets 8.500. Sounds fair, but now player 3 gets nothing. Imagine that the highest earner is the CEO and the other is a married couplke. They went from an income of 6.000 to 4.500, while the CEO gets an increase,
The other posibility is to reduce working hours while not reducing income. So instead of working 40 hours each, or a total of 120 hour, they work 1/3 less or 80 hours total or 27 hours. More personal time while keeping the same amount of money for all. That would be a much better way.
Obviously this is an extremely simplified explanation. And even the first one is idiealistic as what will happen is that one gets fired, one keeps the same income and must be happy he is not the one getting fired and the third one takes all the profit it generates. So one has now 0, one has 3.0000 and one has now 10.000. So the couple went from an income of 6.000 to an income of 3.000. That could mean (as the numbers are not related to real monies) going from middle class to poverty, while the other person goes from upper class to very rich.
So it is greed and stupidity. Now what? People still buy it. People still want it. It will no go away and they do not care that you do not want to buy it.
They are aware that they can not sell to 100% of the people They do not want to, Way too expensive. So they are content to sell to the 95% of the people who do buy it and ignore the 5% who do not want to.
This will be seen by others who will do the same and they will start doing it for other devices. Because it is cheaper and they get an extra dollar and there is no protest in great numbers.
"You hold the device wrong" Remember that one? In the end it all means that your opinion does not matter as long as there are enough to make money.
Isn't that sad that privacy will only be avaialble to a lucky few? If you they "Then they must educate themsleves" it would sounds like "why don't you stop being poor".
Luckily if you are only one of the few who does this, they will be able to get enough data about you from elsewhere. You visit friends, you are in places that have a device that listens in, you sit in a taxi or uber that has listening devices.
Yes, you will be able to avoid all this. You will not be able to have a normal life like the rest, but that is just the price you pay for privacy, right? Something that should be free and is so obvious, it was not even mentioned in the constitution or anywhere else.
FYI: privacy is the basis of all other rights. Without it, all the others become useless.
Respect? Because he is dead? If he wanted respect, he should have earned it. This site is not about personal loss. This site is about stuff that matters, that means discussing the death of the public figure, not the person itself.
All I know is that he wants to be cremated. Can we PLEASE discuss what we want to do with his body and if cremation is something we want or not.
I've used it to rip my legally purchased copies of DVDs and Blurays to my media server. I'm not doing anything wrong by using the content I bought and paid for how I wish.
qnd then
I'm sure they'd likely disagree, but they can piss of
Depending on what the disc is and where you live this might or might not be legal, regardless of the fact if it will be moral or not.
e.g. in Belgium this would probably be illegal, but the court will not waste time on it and it then becomes illegal, but not punishable, like a law that says that it is illegal to ride a pig on sunday, or whatever silly laws are still in existence.
I am still using illegal torrents that might or might not have been using AnyDVD. They movie industry, I'm sure they'd likely disagree, but they can piss off.
OK. regardless of the distance, let us look at just the 4 countries and 5 languages.
Crossing countries in Europe is like crossing stateliness, so no stopping anywhere. As she relied solely on the GPS, she did not notice all the changes in signs and the city names.
Fuelling up can be done by card and the machine will propose the language of the user. As she comes fro; Brussels, it is very likely she can speak at least two (Dutch and French) and from where she lives, it might be French, which will be more available than Dutch.
I often do not notice if things are in English, German or Dutch.
Same in Belgium. Signing is done with your eID card. Worried about having an eID card (Card with chip) and what they might hide? Download the source code en do whatever you want with it. http://eid.belgium.be/en/devel...
It works under Linux and it is a shame that not more of this is used for websites. You could easily order something and not only will your adress be filled out, the website will be sure it is correct and age is verified.
It can also be used as a legal signature for contracts, unlike e.g. email or fax.
Reminds me of the letter I saw several years ago from the department of Justice in Belgium to the national RIA, SABAM. They said basically: Do start any lawsuits as long as people are not making money from it. They will be handled with the lowest priority. If they are making money from them, we are happy to help.
This preventedcases against grandma doing some down and uploading. They also tried to ask for info about ISP customers, but the standard answer would be 'FOAD, not allowed to give you any information."So prividers started sending things like 'Well, they told us you were downloading something illigal. We do not know what legal or illegal is. If it is ilegal, we point to our AUP, if it is legal, please ignore this. This is just information.'
So the went after the providers themselves.
The letter was written in a way that it was clear NOT to bring in any 'person X is uploading via Torrent' bullshit as long as they did not make money from it. If they would have done that, I am sure it would not have ended well. I can imagine them saying 'this is a stern warning' to the accused and then going after SABAM for occupying the courts with stoopid lawsuits.
The internet was not built to be an advertising medium, yet here we are, the majority of what you see online is advertising.
You know why? Because people like you keep saying that it is ok to show ads. The discussion should not be how ads can be shown, it should about showing ads at all.
It feels as if you are defending the Maffia by saying they should not kill a person, instead they should just hit him a couple of times. Sure, already a step in the right direction, but not far enough. What you actualy want is no Mafia at all.
I do not want to watch their ads. I understand why they exist, just like I know why the Mafia exists. Does not mean I want it.
People are taking the piss out of you everyday. They butt into your life, take a cheap shot at you and then disappear. They leer at you from tall buildings and make you feel small. They make flippant comments from buses that imply youâ(TM)re not sexy enough and that all the fun is happening somewhere else. They are on TV making your girlfriend feel inadequate. They have access to the most sophisticated technology the world has ever seen and they bully you with it. They are The Advertisers and they are laughing at you. You, however, are forbidden to touch them. Trademarks, intellectual property rights and copyright law mean advertisers can say what they like wherever they like with total impunity. Fuck that. Any advert in a public space that gives you no choice whether you see it or not is yours. Itâ(TM)s yours to take, re-arrange and re-use. You can do whatever you like with it. Asking for permission is like asking to keep a rock someone just threw at your head. You owe the companies nothing. Less than nothing, you especially donâ(TM)t owe them any courtesy. They owe you. They have re-arranged the world to put themselves in front of you. They never asked for your permission, donâ(TM)t even start asking for theirs. â" Banksy
No. No ads. That is my goal. I do not like them in banners. I do not like them as text. I do not like them as a logo. I do not like ads. My (unrealistic) ideal and goal is to have zero ads. There is no need for me to explain what I would tollerate as the target is 0 ads.
Having no Javascript; and just static images and links would be a step in the right direction. I would still want less ads. And this is not limited to the Internet. It is also valid for TV; for newspapers, for billboards, for my underwear.
Or to say it with the words of Banksy:
People are taking the piss out of you everyday. They butt into your life, take a cheap shot at you and then disappear. They leer at you from tall buildings and make you feel small. They make flippant comments from buses that imply youâ(TM)re not sexy enough and that all the fun is happening somewhere else. They are on TV making your girlfriend feel inadequate. They have access to the most sophisticated technology the world has ever seen and they bully you with it. They are The Advertisers and they are laughing at you. You, however, are forbidden to touch them. Trademarks, intellectual property rights and copyright law mean advertisers can say what they like wherever they like with total impunity. Fuck that. Any advert in a public space that gives you no choice whether you see it or not is yours. Itâ(TM)s yours to take, re-arrange and re-use. You can do whatever you like with it. Asking for permission is like asking to keep a rock someone just threw at your head. You owe the companies nothing. Less than nothing, you especially donâ(TM)t owe them any courtesy. They owe you. They have re-arranged the world to put themselves in front of you. They never asked for your permission, donâ(TM)t even start asking for theirs. â" Banksy
To me there is a slight difference in porn that is legal and childporn that is not legal.
If I overhear on a company phone someone booking a weekend trip for him and his wife is also slightely different then hearing them ordering a hitman to kill his wife.
Nice dragging childporn into it. It is basically: If nothing illegal is done, let it go. If something illegal is done, take the appropriate action, depending on what that illegal action is.
This has NOTHING to do with IT, computers or Internet. The folder could be a printout in his briefcase that falls out in the elevator. Hustler? No problem. 7 year old lolita's? Problem.
To me what you could report is personal usage on a company PC, but that should be regardless of the amount of nipples. If you see a folder of his wedding, you must do the same.
1 person company. He owns the computer. Why do YOU not click on 'No' when it is asked to open all the tabs.
Or do I need to browse in private mode, even though I am single, own the computer. Just so you do not see my porn? Yep and sometimes I look at very strange porn. So?
Why would I do that? Is it something I must feel ashamed about that I need to hide it in case somebody sees it? I am not. I do it and every man does it unless they are liars or sick.
I am still all for whitelisting. together with PCs that have complete Internet access on a separate network. That way enforcing strict rules is easy as people have access to their personal mailbox if they need it.
At one company we had 100% unfiltered access and a very liberal management team who did not care, as long as you did your job. Looking at porn was no different than reading a paper newspaper. Do whatever you want as long as work is not impacted.
One persons history of sites went a bit viral as it was ONLY porn during his personal time. No, not fired, because he was allowed to do so, but still funny. Best comments was from the girls (who were the ones sending the most rauchy jokes and images)
Do you think management are the only ones who are dumbasses? People are dumbasses. All of them, including me.
I have known of company secrets because the IT people where dumbasses. If I type a command I should NOT get a list of all the passwords the people use. In plain text. When I do not work in IT. I have seen extreme high level secrets due to failing IT people. At one time I had access to ALL areas including those that I should not have had access to. Reaction from IT when I told them? "If you have access, somebody thinks you must have it, so you got it." How is that for being a dumbass.
So please get of your high horse, you are nothing special. I have had stupid managers who were capable of nothing and responding to EVERY question with "Please ask houghi" and protected by N+2. ObviouslyN+1 was fired when N+2 had to leave. I have had managers who were great at what they were doing, yet did not had my knowledge, because that is why they had me. I have had people working for me. Some smart, some stupid. As a whole, some people are smart and some people are stupid.
I have know about afairs on several levels and all I was interested in was if it would affect the job. If not, I had as much interest in it as in whomever is on the frontpage of the tabloid. Unless they were friends, I would treat them as proffesional as always and who they have sex with is none of my business, regardless of their function.
I even had one manager who felt he needed to explain that the rumours of his afair with another manager were not true. I told him I do not care if it true or not. And to this day I do not know if there was some truth in it or not and I do not care.
I often am the person people feek the need to tell secrets to. They think it is because I can keep a secret. The real reason is that I do not care. I do not even exclude myself of being stupid and a dumbass. I have done some stupid things. Some where I was lucky not to get fired for.
So please when you say managers are dumb, please do not exlude the rest of the people.
Drove all over Europe and I found the Italians and the French very calm drivers. Pretty defensive drivers even. German drivers drive much more offensive.
If I build a telescope on my private land, you have no right to interfere with that
Not sure if that is true where you live. Where I live you would need a building permit. There can be several reasons why it would be denied. Depending on where you live, it could be because it does not fit in. That means it does not look enough like the rest of the buildings.Or the neigbours do not like the design. Another reason can be that you are not allowed to build there, even though other buildings are already present. This because it is destines to be farming land or whatever. Just because you own something does not mean you can do as you wish. There are even places where you MUST build within X time. This can change from village to village, let alone country to country, so it might or light not be the case here.
I also do not understand the panic here at/. about this.
This is not a political decision. It is also not a "remove al the lines" policy. Different roads will be a affected differently. Some might even get more lines.
It does not mean that lines are unsafe or dangerous. It means that in some cases not having lines will slow down traffic. There might be lights and what not already there.
For those that say "but they will not see in the dark or with rain" there is a simple solution: adapt to the speed you can travel, so slow down. That is the whole purpose.
It wall also not be possible to now say for each and every country: all lines must be removed.
Similar studies on safety are done all over the place. In Belgium they reckon that removing the majority of the traffic lights would increase safety.
This does not mean they will remove all of them. IF they decide to go that road, they will look at it case by case.
Slashdot Mirror
It is not about giving people the same amount. That is communism. It ios about giving people a fair part.
Say there are 3 people working in a company. 2 earn 3.000 and one earns 7.000. The cost of the company is 13.000 That happens when automation takes over (assuming no cost for automation)
One person is fired and that is the person who earns 3.000. There are two options.
The easy one is to now divide the 3.000 and one now gets 4.500 and the other gets 8.500. Sounds fair, but now player 3 gets nothing. Imagine that the highest earner is the CEO and the other is a married couplke. They went from an income of 6.000 to 4.500, while the CEO gets an increase,
The other posibility is to reduce working hours while not reducing income. So instead of working 40 hours each, or a total of 120 hour, they work 1/3 less or 80 hours total or 27 hours. More personal time while keeping the same amount of money for all. That would be a much better way.
Obviously this is an extremely simplified explanation. And even the first one is idiealistic as what will happen is that one gets fired, one keeps the same income and must be happy he is not the one getting fired and the third one takes all the profit it generates. So one has now 0, one has 3.0000 and one has now 10.000.
So the couple went from an income of 6.000 to an income of 3.000. That could mean (as the numbers are not related to real monies) going from middle class to poverty, while the other person goes from upper class to very rich.
And about the small percentage of the filthy rich, look at https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
And again: this is not about giving everybody the same amount.
So it is greed and stupidity. Now what? People still buy it. People still want it. It will no go away and they do not care that you do not want to buy it.
They are aware that they can not sell to 100% of the people They do not want to, Way too expensive. So they are content to sell to the 95% of the people who do buy it and ignore the 5% who do not want to.
This will be seen by others who will do the same and they will start doing it for other devices. Because it is cheaper and they get an extra dollar and there is no protest in great numbers.
"You hold the device wrong" Remember that one? In the end it all means that your opinion does not matter as long as there are enough to make money.
Isn't that sad that privacy will only be avaialble to a lucky few? If you they "Then they must educate themsleves" it would sounds like "why don't you stop being poor".
Luckily if you are only one of the few who does this, they will be able to get enough data about you from elsewhere. You visit friends, you are in places that have a device that listens in, you sit in a taxi or uber that has listening devices.
Yes, you will be able to avoid all this. You will not be able to have a normal life like the rest, but that is just the price you pay for privacy, right? Something that should be free and is so obvious, it was not even mentioned in the constitution or anywhere else.
FYI: privacy is the basis of all other rights. Without it, all the others become useless.
Respect? Because he is dead? If he wanted respect, he should have earned it. This site is not about personal loss. This site is about stuff that matters, that means discussing the death of the public figure, not the person itself.
All I know is that he wants to be cremated. Can we PLEASE discuss what we want to do with his body and if cremation is something we want or not.
qnd then
Depending on what the disc is and where you live this might or might not be legal, regardless of the fact if it will be moral or not.
e.g. in Belgium this would probably be illegal, but the court will not waste time on it and it then becomes illegal, but not punishable, like a law that says that it is illegal to ride a pig on sunday, or whatever silly laws are still in existence.
I am still using illegal torrents that might or might not have been using AnyDVD. They movie industry, I'm sure they'd likely disagree, but they can piss off.
OK. regardless of the distance, let us look at just the 4 countries and 5 languages.
Crossing countries in Europe is like crossing stateliness, so no stopping anywhere. As she relied solely on the GPS, she did not notice all the changes in signs and the city names.
Fuelling up can be done by card and the machine will propose the language of the user. As she comes fro; Brussels, it is very likely she can speak at least two (Dutch and French) and from where she lives, it might be French, which will be more available than Dutch.
I often do not notice if things are in English, German or Dutch.
So yes, that part is likely.
Who expects privacy and security when they use Internet ?
Fixed that for you.
Same in Belgium. Signing is done with your eID card. Worried about having an eID card (Card with chip) and what they might hide? Download the source code en do whatever you want with it. http://eid.belgium.be/en/devel...
It works under Linux and it is a shame that not more of this is used for websites. You could easily order something and not only will your adress be filled out, the website will be sure it is correct and age is verified.
It can also be used as a legal signature for contracts, unlike e.g. email or fax.
Reminds me of the letter I saw several years ago from the department of Justice in Belgium to the national RIA, SABAM. They said basically:
Do start any lawsuits as long as people are not making money from it. They will be handled with the lowest priority. If they are making money from them, we are happy to help.
This preventedcases against grandma doing some down and uploading. They also tried to ask for info about ISP customers, but the standard answer would be 'FOAD, not allowed to give you any information."So prividers started sending things like 'Well, they told us you were downloading something illigal. We do not know what legal or illegal is. If it is ilegal, we point to our AUP, if it is legal, please ignore this. This is just information.'
So the went after the providers themselves.
The letter was written in a way that it was clear NOT to bring in any 'person X is uploading via Torrent' bullshit as long as they did not make money from it. If they would have done that, I am sure it would not have ended well. I can imagine them saying 'this is a stern warning' to the accused and then going after SABAM for occupying the courts with stoopid lawsuits.
You know why? Because people like you keep saying that it is ok to show ads. The discussion should not be how ads can be shown, it should about showing ads at all.
It feels as if you are defending the Maffia by saying they should not kill a person, instead they should just hit him a couple of times. Sure, already a step in the right direction, but not far enough. What you actualy want is no Mafia at all.
I do not want to watch their ads. I understand why they exist, just like I know why the Mafia exists. Does not mean I want it.
People are taking the piss out of you everyday. They butt into your life, take a cheap shot at you and then disappear. They leer at you from tall buildings and make you feel small. They make flippant comments from buses that imply youâ(TM)re not sexy enough and that all the fun is happening somewhere else. They are on TV making your girlfriend feel inadequate. They have access to the most sophisticated technology the world has ever seen and they bully you with it. They are The Advertisers and they are laughing at you.
You, however, are forbidden to touch them. Trademarks, intellectual property rights and copyright law mean advertisers can say what they like wherever they like with total impunity.
Fuck that. Any advert in a public space that gives you no choice whether you see it or not is yours. Itâ(TM)s yours to take, re-arrange and re-use. You can do whatever you like with it. Asking for permission is like asking to keep a rock someone just threw at your head.
You owe the companies nothing. Less than nothing, you especially donâ(TM)t owe them any courtesy. They owe you. They have re-arranged the world to put themselves in front of you. They never asked for your permission, donâ(TM)t even start asking for theirs.
â" Banksy
No. No ads. That is my goal. I do not like them in banners. I do not like them as text. I do not like them as a logo. I do not like ads. My (unrealistic) ideal and goal is to have zero ads. There is no need for me to explain what I would tollerate as the target is 0 ads.
Having no Javascript; and just static images and links would be a step in the right direction. I would still want less ads. And this is not limited to the Internet. It is also valid for TV; for newspapers, for billboards, for my underwear.
Or to say it with the words of Banksy:
People are taking the piss out of you everyday. They butt into your life, take a cheap shot at you and then disappear. They leer at you from tall buildings and make you feel small. They make flippant comments from buses that imply youâ(TM)re not sexy enough and that all the fun is happening somewhere else.
They are on TV making your girlfriend feel inadequate. They have access to the most sophisticated technology the world has ever seen and they bully you with it. They are The Advertisers and they are laughing at you.
You, however, are forbidden to touch them. Trademarks, intellectual property rights and copyright law mean advertisers can say what they like wherever they like with total impunity.
Fuck that. Any advert in a public space that gives you no choice whether you see it or not is yours. Itâ(TM)s yours to take, re-arrange and re-use. You can do whatever you like with it. Asking for permission is like asking to keep a rock someone just threw at your head.
You owe the companies nothing. Less than nothing, you especially donâ(TM)t owe them any courtesy. They owe you. They have re-arranged the world to put themselves in front of you. They never asked for your permission, donâ(TM)t even start asking for theirs.
â" Banksy
If their businessmodel is not sustainable, yes
It is not my probem anyway.
I play mainly in God mode. People call it cheating. I am not cheating I am winning.
Depending on the country and/or upbringing, being open about his feelings towards men might not be possible.
If anything, I feel sorry for him not being able to be who he was, but had to lie to his company, his wife, his kids and perhaps even himself.
To me there is a slight difference in porn that is legal and childporn that is not legal.
If I overhear on a company phone someone booking a weekend trip for him and his wife is also slightely different then hearing them ordering a hitman to kill his wife.
Nice dragging childporn into it. It is basically: If nothing illegal is done, let it go. If something illegal is done, take the appropriate action, depending on what that illegal action is.
This has NOTHING to do with IT, computers or Internet. The folder could be a printout in his briefcase that falls out in the elevator. Hustler? No problem. 7 year old lolita's? Problem.
To me what you could report is personal usage on a company PC, but that should be regardless of the amount of nipples. If you see a folder of his wedding, you must do the same.
1 person company. He owns the computer. Why do YOU not click on 'No' when it is asked to open all the tabs.
Or do I need to browse in private mode, even though I am single, own the computer. Just so you do not see my porn? Yep and sometimes I look at very strange porn. So?
Why would I do that? Is it something I must feel ashamed about that I need to hide it in case somebody sees it? I am not. I do it and every man does it unless they are liars or sick.
I am still all for whitelisting. together with PCs that have complete Internet access on a separate network. That way enforcing strict rules is easy as people have access to their personal mailbox if they need it.
At one company we had 100% unfiltered access and a very liberal management team who did not care, as long as you did your job. Looking at porn was no different than reading a paper newspaper. Do whatever you want as long as work is not impacted.
One persons history of sites went a bit viral as it was ONLY porn during his personal time. No, not fired, because he was allowed to do so, but still funny. Best comments was from the girls (who were the ones sending the most rauchy jokes and images)
Fun times.
Do you think management are the only ones who are dumbasses? People are dumbasses. All of them, including me.
I have known of company secrets because the IT people where dumbasses. If I type a command I should NOT get a list of all the passwords the people use. In plain text. When I do not work in IT.
I have seen extreme high level secrets due to failing IT people. At one time I had access to ALL areas including those that I should not have had access to. Reaction from IT when I told them? "If you have access, somebody thinks you must have it, so you got it." How is that for being a dumbass.
So please get of your high horse, you are nothing special. I have had stupid managers who were capable of nothing and responding to EVERY question with "Please ask houghi" and protected by N+2. ObviouslyN+1 was fired when N+2 had to leave.
I have had managers who were great at what they were doing, yet did not had my knowledge, because that is why they had me. I have had people working for me. Some smart, some stupid. As a whole, some people are smart and some people are stupid.
I have know about afairs on several levels and all I was interested in was if it would affect the job. If not, I had as much interest in it as in whomever is on the frontpage of the tabloid. Unless they were friends, I would treat them as proffesional as always and who they have sex with is none of my business, regardless of their function.
I even had one manager who felt he needed to explain that the rumours of his afair with another manager were not true. I told him I do not care if it true or not. And to this day I do not know if there was some truth in it or not and I do not care.
I often am the person people feek the need to tell secrets to. They think it is because I can keep a secret. The real reason is that I do not care. I do not even exclude myself of being stupid and a dumbass. I have done some stupid things. Some where I was lucky not to get fired for.
So please when you say managers are dumb, please do not exlude the rest of the people.
Drove all over Europe and I found the Italians and the French very calm drivers. Pretty defensive drivers even. German drivers drive much more offensive.
If your car is not road worthy, they are not allowed on the road here. Never seen any real issue here in Europe.
One does not exclude the other. Obviously if the idea is not safety, but money, this would be better.
Not sure if that is true where you live. Where I live you would need a building permit. There can be several reasons why it would be denied. Depending on where you live, it could be because it does not fit in. That means it does not look enough like the rest of the buildings.Or the neigbours do not like the design.
Another reason can be that you are not allowed to build there, even though other buildings are already present. This because it is destines to be farming land or whatever. Just because you own something does not mean you can do as you wish.
There are even places where you MUST build within X time. This can change from village to village, let alone country to country, so it might or light not be the case here.
There is some merit in it. I heard the word 'f*ck' once and said it to my PC screen and now I want to rape. Oh wait, I fucking don't!
I also do not understand the panic here at /. about this.
This is not a political decision. It is also not a "remove al the lines" policy. Different roads will be a affected differently. Some might even get more lines.
It does not mean that lines are unsafe or dangerous. It means that in some cases not having lines will slow down traffic. There might be lights and what not already there.
For those that say "but they will not see in the dark or with rain" there is a simple solution: adapt to the speed you can travel, so slow down. That is the whole purpose.
It wall also not be possible to now say for each and every country: all lines must be removed.
Similar studies on safety are done all over the place. In Belgium they reckon that removing the majority of the traffic lights would increase safety.
This does not mean they will remove all of them. IF they decide to go that road, they will look at it case by case.