If you're downloading music at work, it probably is stealing...
...of company time. And given that my taxes are paying these people's salaries (that is, you and I are "the company"), I'd really rather them not. Granted, I do wish that they would convey correct information, and I don't expect government workers to go zombie-like through the day without taking a break now and then, but still, I am glad that rampant goofing off in this particular manner is discouraged.
First, let me say that I do like Apple. I have a MacBook Pro (which I'm typing this post from right now), I have an iPhone and love it, but I don't consider myself a "fanboy."
Having said that, Apple's statement is full of shit. Here's the story in a nutshell, straight from Apple itself:
There is a provision in Apple's agreement with AT&T that obligates Apple not to include functionality in any Apple phone that enables a customer to use AT&T's cellular network service to originate or terminate a VoIP session without obtaining AT&T's permission.
How Apple can say with a straight face that AT&T is not a factor in their rejection-by-indefinite-"studying" of Google's VoIP app, and how anyone could actually believe it, is beyond me.
Apple is trying to Clinton its way out of getting in trouble by stating things that, while technically true according to literal interpretation, grossly misrepresent the state of *ahem* affairs. Did AT&T call up Apple and say, "Please kill the Google Voice app"? Probably not. They were proactive when they first constructed the contract so that they wouldn't have to.
It says right there in Apple's statement that they agreed not to allow VoIP apps on AT&T's network. Google Voice is a VoIP app. Apple knows that if they allow it through, AT&T will sue them. They don't need a consultation for that. AT&T, in true "screw everyone" fashion, put Apple in the position so that if just such a thing as this happens (as it was bound to happen), it will be Apple that will take the black eye for it, not AT&T.
Not that Apple is totally innocent, mind you. They foolishly got into bed with AT&T, and now, they are waking up the next morning and hopefully realizing what a nasty-ass bitch she really is. In order to get the iPhone on the market, they sold out their end users. If Apple has a brain cell among the people in charge of the company, and I really do think they do, then hopefully this whole mess makes it painfully obvious that it is not in Apple's long-term best interest to maintain an exclusive contract with AT&T, and that the sooner they can get out of it and sell iPhones that work with other providers, the better. It is the only way that they will be able to grow their marketshare.
Do you trust your accountant to not embezzle from you? Do you trust the rest of your staff to not slack off every time you turn your back?
Here's the thing. If I own a company, I trust my accountant not to embezzle from me and the rest of my staff not to slack off every time I turn my back because I sign their paycheck. I'm paying them good money to act in my company's best interest. Does it work 100% of the time? Obviously, no, because sometimes accountants do embezzle from companies.
However, if I outsource such functions, suddenly, I'm trusting someone who is ethically and financially beholden to someone else with the keys to my kingdom. Ideally, my company's interest and my outsource partner's interest are aligned, and everyone is happy. Many times, this is the case. However, if there ever is a conflict in interest, it is altogether reasonable to expect the employee to not act in your interest, but the person's who signs his paycheck. That's what I would expect from my own employees, and it's what I expect of outsourced employees.
Here's a concrete example. My company has already outsourced all of its first-level and second-level support to a help desk service provider. It worked well enough that now, it is considering outsourcing all of our third-level server support (i.e. the guys with the root passwords to all of the systems) and possibly even our architecture and engineering teams. Personally, I think that this is asking for trouble.
Why? Because with us on my company's payroll, it is in our employer's best interest to have the environment in peak working order. We respond to issues as quickly as possible, and we do extra work to make sure everything is in tip-top shape. If we get outsourced, however, suddenly the equation changes. Now, it is is our employer's (the outsource company's) best interest to have the environment working only just well enough to not lose the contract. If we have all problems solved within, say, 50% of our contractual service level agreement, that's a pretty good clue that our staff can be cut by 50% and still meet our service level agreements. It's in our best interest to solve every problem right at the last second. If the company we're working at doesn't like it, well, they'll have to negotiate faster service level agreements, and of course, that's something my employer can charge a lot of extra money for.
Extra work to make sure everything is working great? Hah! If anything, we should be working to make sure everything isn't working so great, but again, just barely come under our contractual agreement. The worse the company we're supporting is hurting (while we're still meeting our legal obligations), the more they'll have to spend on additional services and support.
Laughably, our server environment is a mixed-vendor environment, and the company they're probably going to outsource to is one of the two main hardware vendors we use. Of course, they're negotiating supporting both hardware platforms. Now let's say that the service level agreement to have a down server is four hours. If it's hardware vendor A's server (and I'm working for hardware vendor A as a contractor), I'll jump right on it. If it's hardware vendor B's server, even if it's just a minor little configuration tweak, I'm going to wait until three hours and fifty-nine minutes to get it back up and running. Six months later, when the higher-ups are talking to each other, hardware vendor A (who I'm working for) goes in and tells my former employer how much better vendor A's servers are to support than vendor B's, and how my former employer needs to dump vendor B's server and use vendor A as their exclusive hardware provider, even though in reality, it's entirely possible that vendor B clearly has the better hardware.
I could go on, but hopefully I've made my point. I honestly think our management either hasn't thought of these types of issues, or they just don't care, and they're hoping to
Actually, laws get struck down all the time because they conflict with earlier, higher-ranking laws. Anyone who isn't a moron and actually watches the news knows this.
(Now that we've called each other names, our points have equal weight again.)
The courts however, have acted in the obviously correct manner.
As I understand it, no, it's not so obvious. It seems to me that what we have are two laws that are coming into direct conflict with each other. One says that you can do something, and one says you can't. The issue at hand, the thing that these court cases are supposed to be settling, is which one has priority.
Unfortunately, it sounds to me like the courts are siding with the MPAA, that protection of content is more important than fair use. It's a shame, really. I'm not sure that the judge understands that this is about more than just Real trying to sell a product, it's about upholding fair use laws that protect the "little guy" from an oppressive industry.
Once fair use laws are precedented out of existence, what's next? Will copyright law (which, let's not kid ourselves, is what the DMCA is just a front for) override our right to make a parody of something? Our right to tell our buddies who won the football game last night? How long until the industry decides that the whole pesky free speech and freedom of expression things are encroaching upon their profits and must be overturned as well?
There was a really good story not too long about about a theory of why dreams evolved. Basically, it says that it's practice for real-life situations. I know, sometimes they're crazy, how is dreaming that you've managed to go to school in just your underwear practice for real life? Although you may never actually go to school in your underwear, you do experience the same sensations in real life--embarrassment, fear, love (and lust), terror, and so on--that you experience in these crazy dreams. They prepare you for the real life stuff that happens to you.
I have downloaded the Xcode development environment, and lately I've been working on a cool idea for an iPhone app. The more stories I read like this, though, the more I'm wondering whether or not I want to bother.
I've already been jerked around by Apple in regards to this. I have a coworker who, when he found out that I can develop software, agreed to pay for my enrollment in the dev program in exchange for helping him out with some coding. So he bought an enrollment package for me, we filled out the info, and the next day, I got an e-mail from Apple saying that because my application and payment information didn't match up, I had to provide them a notarized copy or a government-issued photograph to prove I am who I claim that I am. I sent them back an e-mail saying that I didn't feel comfortable providing them my personal information, that nowhere in the terms I agreed to did it say that such documentation was required, and that if they want to send me a letter or call my phone to verify my information, I'd welcome the opportunity to do so. They have yet to reply back, so tomorrow, I'm probably going to ask for my coworker's money back and just register myself under my own company's name instead.
So developer-to-developer, I can't help but wonder, is it worth it? Sure, there are stories around of people making a million bucks off of $0.99 apps, but the kind of stuff I have in mind is niche-oriented, and I don't plan to be a millionaire; it's more of a hobby than anything else.
I have an iPhone and I love it, but I don't like the thought that I can't install stuff that I might want because Apple says so. I really don't like being jerked around as a developer and told what other people can and can't run of mine that I write, especially when there's no danger of causing the system to crash or anything like that.
I can't help but wonder if Apple keeps jerking developers around like this if eventually they'll give up and move on to another platform. Apple is customer-focused, and that's great, really, it is. But at what point will they realize that they need developers on board too, just as much or more than we need Apple?
By the way, "rude drivers" != drivers who don't obey the law. The law usually doesn't take into account abnormal driving conditions, such as in heavy rush-hour traffic or when there's an accident. As a simple example, the minimum speed on an interstate might be 40 MPH. If someone is driving slower due to heavy rain, they're not being rude, they're being safe. Likewise, someone who is driving 55 MPH in heavy traffic volume during rush hour might be technically following the law, but being extremely dangerous.
I've had a few instances where I would be, for example, in a left turn lane and an emergency vehicle would come up behind me. They had no way to get through the intersection with me and other cars lined up waiting for a light to change. I would make sure that cars coming from the other directions were stopped and run the light to get out of the way. Does that make me "rude"? Does it make a difference that during and/or after running the light, I would pull somewhere to allow the emergency vehicle to safely get past me? I don't think so.
But yeah, in general, stupid people only thinking, "How can I get there quicker" cause a lot more traffic grief than they solve. One thing the study probably neglects is that around 90% of traffic problems (yes, I made that number up based on observation; that would probably make a good study) are caused by these people having accidents and doing stupid stuff like blocking intersections and such.
Of course rude drivers ease congestion. When they kill someone because of their stupidity, not only will that person not drive again, but they'll probably lose their license, so they won't either!
I also moved between second and third grade. The school where I moved from taught cursive in the third grade, the school where I moved to taught it in second. I remember that summer as kind of miserable, having to do homework all summer long to relearn the frickin' alphabet.
Personally, I'd be perfectly content if cursive writing simply went away forever. Keep a record of what it looks like for historical information, and let it die. From third through sixth grade, I was constantly berated by my teachers for my bad handwriting, most likely because I didn't learn cursive like everyone else did and I hated it so badly. In sixth grade, I told my teacher that I wrote so badly because I hate cursive writing. He looked at me like I was crazy and finally said, "Then don't! I don't care what you write in, as long as I can understand it."
The only problem I had after that was when I got to be a junior in high school, and my teacher failed me on the first essay I wrote because it wasn't in cursive. What an idiot. Every essay I wrote for her after that took me twice as long as the other kids, because I had to sit there thinking, "Shit, how do you make a cursive F?" That was the one and only class, though. In everything else, I write normal letters, and I'm actually quite neat at it.
I don't understand the comments from people who say that cursive writing is faster or that your hand tires out less. Sounds like a bunch of BS to me. While printing requires that you pick up your pencil more, cursive requires more strokes and longer periods of pressure on the page. I can write plenty fast enough, thank you, and neatly, without tiring, too.
I honestly think it's idiotic that in the English language, we have four glyphs for each letter that kids are forced to memorize, upper- and lower-case variations for both print and cursive writing. 104 symbols to represent 26 letters. As if we don't force our kids to jump through enough hoops without really learning anything. As for me, I won't be forcing any kids to learn cursive.
I'm not sure who provides their CSA, but ours only checks for antivirus, antivirus updates, windows updates, and common P2P programs (usually limewire).
So? I don't care if it makes your dorm room smell like a fresh spring breeze. If I don't want it, then you have no right to demand that I have it. If you were a private company, then maybe I can understand, it's your network, you have the right to set the rules. Even if you're a private university, though, I most certainly do not understand, because again, MY tuition and fees pay for that network, and Internet access is pretty much required to complete just about any degree these days. Deny it, and you might as well tell a student that he can't have any textbooks.
Not to mention that it sounds like you've fallen into the same trap that the RIAA/MPAA has fallen into. "Because some people use Limewire for illegal purposes, since you have it installed, you must be using it for illegal purposes." Sorry bub, but the whole "guilty until proven innocent" thing doesn't fly very well with me.
If you have some reasonable suspicion based on tangible evidence that my machine is spewing out malware or otherwise violating policies designed to protect the university or its network, then by all means, shut off it's connection, show me what you've got, and we'll deal with it like adults. I wouldn't want my machine, if infected, to convey malware any more than you do. If you want to make such a "Client Security Agent" available for me to use, then thanks, I'll consider it.
But again, it is my machine, and it is my money that is paying for that Internet connection. Accessing it is not a privilege that the university has graciously given to me for free, it is a paid-for service, and you'd better have a damn good reason for taking my money and then denying it to me. "You might get infected or break copyright law" is not a valid excuse.
Dude, I don't know what to say, that's insane. The only suggestion I have is to either not use the Internet on your personal computer or find another university to go to. sigh... Looks like along with all the other stuff that determines what school a kid goes to, we're going to have to add "how screwed up is your Internet access policy?" to the list.
Stupid question, what if your machine is a Mac or Linux box? This "Client Security Agent" seems to be a Windows-only beast. Whatever it is, it would be a cold day in hell before I let a university that I'm paying money to dictate that I have to have their software on my machine to use the Internet access that my tuition and fees are paying for!
Looks to me like a clear-cut case of some overzealous IT goob forgotting who is paying whose salary. I'm not saying that you're the Chairman of the Board, but you most certainly should expect to have the right to have full access to this academic resource without this kind of burden.
As a practical matter, you could just call up their IT department and tell them that you have a Linux box, even if you have Windows, and that your machine doesn't run their "Client Security Agent." Whatever they tell you to do to get on the network, just do that on your Windows machine and be done with it. If they tell you that it can't be done, seriously. Go somewhere else. If this university is that stupid, you shouldn't particularly want a diploma from there anyway.
If you do call them up and ask about Macs and Linux machines, let us know what they say.
At my current job, we're not allowed to install IE 7 or 8, and don't have the administrator rights to do it.
Ditto. I did, however, install Firefox and use it as my default browser. Some corporate apps don't work (non-standard javascript, mainly), which is why I still have to open some stuff in IE. All of my stuff works in both, some of other people's stuff works in both, and whenever I'm goofing off reading Slashdot and such, I use Firefox.
There is one guy that I work with, though, that insists on "coding to the corporate standard," which in his head means proprietary IE6. He refuses to do things even to the standards that IE6 recognizes that are cross-browser compatible. ("Why do you use that getElementById stuff? It's so much more typing!...") It's like he likes for things to deliberately break in non-IE6 browsers. There's a project underway now to upgrade everyone to Windows 7, and AFAIK, part of that project will be FINALLY ditching IE6. I guess he'll have to go back and recode all of his stuff. Me, I plan on laughing at him when he's working on code that's years old that he should have written right to begin with.
Meanwhile, I have converted so many people at work to Firefox with AdBlock Plus, it's funny. I show them something as simple as CNN on the "corporate standard" browser, then the same page in Firefox. Look ma, no annoyances! Invariably, that's followed by, "Wow, how do I get that? I'm going to use it at home!" I've even converted a few over to using as the default browser on their work machines, which technically, we're not supposed to be doing. Sometimes, they ask me why a corporate application doesn't work. I tell them, "Guess who wrote that one..."
The first time I encountered Linux, it was installed on a computer that ran a stadium message board. It was at a part-time job I worked at night.
The first time I used it "seriously" was when I was working with SunOS to mass convert CAD drawings to AutoCAD. I wanted to see if I could use the utilities that we had on SunOS on a free operating system on Intel machines to avoid having to buy more Sun workstations. It worked pretty well!
See, now I'm not even sure if you're really this dumb or you're just trolling.
I'm leaning towards both. We've got someone who doesn't understand basic economics or security compromises petulantly digging in when they're clearly wrong. You'd do well to stop replying to the troll before the "conversation" devolves into them sticking their fingers in their ears and singing "la la la la laaa..."
Anyone who doesn't grasp how gold farming is bad for a game is either profiting in a gold farming company or an imbecile.
Well, you need to explain that to all those fucking brilliant people who use services like tinyurl.com, then, since they obviously have a need for short URLs in the first place. Like I told the other poster, if such a standard comes about and you don't want to use it, then don't use it. There's no need to be a dick about it.
...why should I have to change my URL just because of twitter?
No one is going to make you do anything. This is completely optional. If you want to provide short URLs to your site, it's a way for you to do so without going through a third-party service like tinyurl. If you want to continue using long URLs, there's absolutely nothing stopping you from doing so.
Is there some particular reason why you don't want people to have a standardized way of providing short URLs if it doesn't affect you at all?
You, sir, are an idiot. Or a troll, but really, I'm leaning strongly towards idiot.
It's just that stupid "don't fuck with people in power" attitude that has plagued this country for years. If everyone had your idiotic attitude, the ghost of Richard Nixon would still be President after everyone completely ignored Watergate, allowed him to toss out the Constitution, and declare himself leader ever after. It's idiots like you who elected George W. (as in, "What do you mean the law applies to me too?") Bush, who then—you guessed it—tossed out the Constitution and conducted a reign of scaremongering with the threat that if you spoke out against him (or just had a Muslim-sounding name, you were a terrorist who could be packed up and shipped to Egypt, Syria, or some other godforsaken part of the world and tortured or killed. Hell, with that attitude, we'd still be a fucking British colony, you moron.
If the guy did something illegal, then let them prove it. As it is, though, all indications so far that the police are guilty as sin of gross abuse of power, and if so, every damn one of them who were involved in this should be heavily fined, jailed, and never allowed to work for law enforcement again.
If you RTFA (reported by the Arizona Republic, you idiot, not just "some bloggers"), you'll see that a former homicide detective who is speaking out about crime lab mismanagement was also targeted. Of course, I guess that just falls under the "he should have just shut up and let the police do any damn thing they want" umbrella that is your philosophy on people who have the legal right to kill you.
I'm not even going to try to explain how law enforcement must necessarily be held to a higher standard of not retaliating when people do things that aren't illegal no matter how much they don't like it. I'm afraid it might explode your tiny little brain that can't comprehend that things like accountability and the right to free speech is a little more complicated than poking a bear with a pointy stick. Maybe we'll get lucky and some policeman who you pissed off will throw you in a cage with a hungry bear just because he can, then maybe you'll realize how stupid and facetious your analogy really is.
Have you looked at unemployment numbers lately? Having a guaranteed steady job for over 3 months, making $8.33 per hour even while you're sleeping... Not so bad.
She should simply stop. Get a buttload of dirt cheap CDs in the bargain basement bin for $0.99 each, or better yet, get a lot more stuff off a site such as Magnatune or an Internet radio station, and let the PRS rot in hell in total irrelevance. I think they've completely lost the concept that they need this woman, in actually having an avid listener, a hell of a lot more than she needs them.
To paraphrase what someone once told me, in four years (more or less), you're going to be 35 anyway. There's not a damn thing you can do about that, except die. if you don't go to school and get your bachelor's degree, then will it be any easier for you if you're an "old man" without a CS degree?
If you don't have a degree at all, then jump through the hoops and get one. My personal experience is that my salary almost doubled literally the day after I got my CS degree. If you do have one but not in computer science, then I'd suggest that you might be better off pursuing certifications relevant to the field you're working in.
If you're not currently in a computer-related field and you're asking if you should get the degree and go into it in an entry-level position, that's your call. You'll probably need that degree to break in, even at 35. If it's worth starting over from scratch, go for it.
Fortunately, I got hired by the company I'm currently at when I was 27. Unfortunately, they're going through the RFP process to outsource all of our jobs. If I'm lucky, I'll be spared. If I'm not, I'll be working as a contracter doing the same job I'm doing now. If I'm really shit outta luck, I'll be a 37-year-old in the job market in the worst economy I've ever known. It won't be easy, but at least I do have my CS degree to help me stand out from, with all due respect, people like you who don't. I don't mean to be cruel, but if it means the difference between whether or not I'm eating cat food, I'll use every advantage I can to beat you out in the aforementioned job market, including the fact that I have a CS degree.
So knowing only what you've asked in your question, my advice is that yes, it is worthwhile having the piece of paper.
He nearly ruined the original CoH before he left...
Prove it.
If you look at the actual numbers, you'll see that City of Heroes had its highest subscriber numbers while Jack was in charge. In fact, the thing that he's criticized most for, Enhancement Diversification, is widely regarded now as a necessary step for the game's gameplay systems to evolve as they have, and the game actually gained subscribers—that's right, gained subscribers—when it was released.
Jack-bashing is very popular with City of Heroes fans, but the truth of the matter is that City of Heroes was his baby and that the game's best years financially so far have been under his reign.
I don't mean to take away from Matt Miller's competence, because he's doing a fine job, and City of Heroes continues to be a great game. I also don't mean to imply that Jack was perfect, because I disagreed with him on one or two fundamental points. But this whole "Jack was destroying the company" line is so tired and really, it's always been nothing but a bunch of nonproductive BS propagated by fanboy forumites who don't know what they're talking about.
As for the whole "he didn't listen to the subscribers" crap, if developers listened to everything the subscribers whined about, we'd undoubtedly have a "make me level 50" button by now, complete with purple IOs, infinite influence, the ability to take all powersets on a single character, and a power that recharges instantly that immediately defeats all enemies. PvP matches would be won based on who could hit the button first. There's a reason that developers don't jump through hoops to do everything players ask for, why all games, even City of Heroes as it exists today, are the visions of their developers (duh...). If everyone got what everyone wanted, it would effectively destroy any game.
The funny thing is that I see plenty of posts on the City of Heroes forums making the same tired old claims that you're making about Jack about the current developers. Waaah.
The more they occupy their time with frivolous stuff like this, the less time they have to plan their next rape of our rights and pocketbooks.
Methinks you underestimate their ability to multitask in such endeavors. They have been wasting time on frivolous stuff just as long as they have been raping our rights and pocketbooks. (Even with pi-related matters for that matter, for over a century!)
Slashdot Mirror
If you're downloading music at work, it probably is stealing...
...of company time. And given that my taxes are paying these people's salaries (that is, you and I are "the company"), I'd really rather them not. Granted, I do wish that they would convey correct information, and I don't expect government workers to go zombie-like through the day without taking a break now and then, but still, I am glad that rampant goofing off in this particular manner is discouraged.
First, let me say that I do like Apple. I have a MacBook Pro (which I'm typing this post from right now), I have an iPhone and love it, but I don't consider myself a "fanboy."
Having said that, Apple's statement is full of shit. Here's the story in a nutshell, straight from Apple itself:
How Apple can say with a straight face that AT&T is not a factor in their rejection-by-indefinite-"studying" of Google's VoIP app, and how anyone could actually believe it, is beyond me.
Apple is trying to Clinton its way out of getting in trouble by stating things that, while technically true according to literal interpretation, grossly misrepresent the state of *ahem* affairs. Did AT&T call up Apple and say, "Please kill the Google Voice app"? Probably not. They were proactive when they first constructed the contract so that they wouldn't have to.
It says right there in Apple's statement that they agreed not to allow VoIP apps on AT&T's network. Google Voice is a VoIP app. Apple knows that if they allow it through, AT&T will sue them. They don't need a consultation for that. AT&T, in true "screw everyone" fashion, put Apple in the position so that if just such a thing as this happens (as it was bound to happen), it will be Apple that will take the black eye for it, not AT&T.
Not that Apple is totally innocent, mind you. They foolishly got into bed with AT&T, and now, they are waking up the next morning and hopefully realizing what a nasty-ass bitch she really is. In order to get the iPhone on the market, they sold out their end users. If Apple has a brain cell among the people in charge of the company, and I really do think they do, then hopefully this whole mess makes it painfully obvious that it is not in Apple's long-term best interest to maintain an exclusive contract with AT&T, and that the sooner they can get out of it and sell iPhones that work with other providers, the better. It is the only way that they will be able to grow their marketshare.
Here's the thing. If I own a company, I trust my accountant not to embezzle from me and the rest of my staff not to slack off every time I turn my back because I sign their paycheck. I'm paying them good money to act in my company's best interest. Does it work 100% of the time? Obviously, no, because sometimes accountants do embezzle from companies.
However, if I outsource such functions, suddenly, I'm trusting someone who is ethically and financially beholden to someone else with the keys to my kingdom. Ideally, my company's interest and my outsource partner's interest are aligned, and everyone is happy. Many times, this is the case. However, if there ever is a conflict in interest, it is altogether reasonable to expect the employee to not act in your interest, but the person's who signs his paycheck. That's what I would expect from my own employees, and it's what I expect of outsourced employees.
Here's a concrete example. My company has already outsourced all of its first-level and second-level support to a help desk service provider. It worked well enough that now, it is considering outsourcing all of our third-level server support (i.e. the guys with the root passwords to all of the systems) and possibly even our architecture and engineering teams. Personally, I think that this is asking for trouble.
Why? Because with us on my company's payroll, it is in our employer's best interest to have the environment in peak working order. We respond to issues as quickly as possible, and we do extra work to make sure everything is in tip-top shape. If we get outsourced, however, suddenly the equation changes. Now, it is is our employer's (the outsource company's) best interest to have the environment working only just well enough to not lose the contract. If we have all problems solved within, say, 50% of our contractual service level agreement, that's a pretty good clue that our staff can be cut by 50% and still meet our service level agreements. It's in our best interest to solve every problem right at the last second. If the company we're working at doesn't like it, well, they'll have to negotiate faster service level agreements, and of course, that's something my employer can charge a lot of extra money for.
Extra work to make sure everything is working great? Hah! If anything, we should be working to make sure everything isn't working so great, but again, just barely come under our contractual agreement. The worse the company we're supporting is hurting (while we're still meeting our legal obligations), the more they'll have to spend on additional services and support.
Laughably, our server environment is a mixed-vendor environment, and the company they're probably going to outsource to is one of the two main hardware vendors we use. Of course, they're negotiating supporting both hardware platforms. Now let's say that the service level agreement to have a down server is four hours. If it's hardware vendor A's server (and I'm working for hardware vendor A as a contractor), I'll jump right on it. If it's hardware vendor B's server, even if it's just a minor little configuration tweak, I'm going to wait until three hours and fifty-nine minutes to get it back up and running. Six months later, when the higher-ups are talking to each other, hardware vendor A (who I'm working for) goes in and tells my former employer how much better vendor A's servers are to support than vendor B's, and how my former employer needs to dump vendor B's server and use vendor A as their exclusive hardware provider, even though in reality, it's entirely possible that vendor B clearly has the better hardware.
I could go on, but hopefully I've made my point. I honestly think our management either hasn't thought of these types of issues, or they just don't care, and they're hoping to
Actually, laws get struck down all the time because they conflict with earlier, higher-ranking laws. Anyone who isn't a moron and actually watches the news knows this.
(Now that we've called each other names, our points have equal weight again.)
As I understand it, no, it's not so obvious. It seems to me that what we have are two laws that are coming into direct conflict with each other. One says that you can do something, and one says you can't. The issue at hand, the thing that these court cases are supposed to be settling, is which one has priority.
Unfortunately, it sounds to me like the courts are siding with the MPAA, that protection of content is more important than fair use. It's a shame, really. I'm not sure that the judge understands that this is about more than just Real trying to sell a product, it's about upholding fair use laws that protect the "little guy" from an oppressive industry.
Once fair use laws are precedented out of existence, what's next? Will copyright law (which, let's not kid ourselves, is what the DMCA is just a front for) override our right to make a parody of something? Our right to tell our buddies who won the football game last night? How long until the industry decides that the whole pesky free speech and freedom of expression things are encroaching upon their profits and must be overturned as well?
There was a really good story not too long about about a theory of why dreams evolved. Basically, it says that it's practice for real-life situations. I know, sometimes they're crazy, how is dreaming that you've managed to go to school in just your underwear practice for real life? Although you may never actually go to school in your underwear, you do experience the same sensations in real life--embarrassment, fear, love (and lust), terror, and so on--that you experience in these crazy dreams. They prepare you for the real life stuff that happens to you.
Sounds pretty reasonable to me.
I have downloaded the Xcode development environment, and lately I've been working on a cool idea for an iPhone app. The more stories I read like this, though, the more I'm wondering whether or not I want to bother.
I've already been jerked around by Apple in regards to this. I have a coworker who, when he found out that I can develop software, agreed to pay for my enrollment in the dev program in exchange for helping him out with some coding. So he bought an enrollment package for me, we filled out the info, and the next day, I got an e-mail from Apple saying that because my application and payment information didn't match up, I had to provide them a notarized copy or a government-issued photograph to prove I am who I claim that I am. I sent them back an e-mail saying that I didn't feel comfortable providing them my personal information, that nowhere in the terms I agreed to did it say that such documentation was required, and that if they want to send me a letter or call my phone to verify my information, I'd welcome the opportunity to do so. They have yet to reply back, so tomorrow, I'm probably going to ask for my coworker's money back and just register myself under my own company's name instead.
So developer-to-developer, I can't help but wonder, is it worth it? Sure, there are stories around of people making a million bucks off of $0.99 apps, but the kind of stuff I have in mind is niche-oriented, and I don't plan to be a millionaire; it's more of a hobby than anything else.
I have an iPhone and I love it, but I don't like the thought that I can't install stuff that I might want because Apple says so. I really don't like being jerked around as a developer and told what other people can and can't run of mine that I write, especially when there's no danger of causing the system to crash or anything like that.
I can't help but wonder if Apple keeps jerking developers around like this if eventually they'll give up and move on to another platform. Apple is customer-focused, and that's great, really, it is. But at what point will they realize that they need developers on board too, just as much or more than we need Apple?
By the way, "rude drivers" != drivers who don't obey the law. The law usually doesn't take into account abnormal driving conditions, such as in heavy rush-hour traffic or when there's an accident. As a simple example, the minimum speed on an interstate might be 40 MPH. If someone is driving slower due to heavy rain, they're not being rude, they're being safe. Likewise, someone who is driving 55 MPH in heavy traffic volume during rush hour might be technically following the law, but being extremely dangerous.
I've had a few instances where I would be, for example, in a left turn lane and an emergency vehicle would come up behind me. They had no way to get through the intersection with me and other cars lined up waiting for a light to change. I would make sure that cars coming from the other directions were stopped and run the light to get out of the way. Does that make me "rude"? Does it make a difference that during and/or after running the light, I would pull somewhere to allow the emergency vehicle to safely get past me? I don't think so.
But yeah, in general, stupid people only thinking, "How can I get there quicker" cause a lot more traffic grief than they solve. One thing the study probably neglects is that around 90% of traffic problems (yes, I made that number up based on observation; that would probably make a good study) are caused by these people having accidents and doing stupid stuff like blocking intersections and such.
Of course rude drivers ease congestion. When they kill someone because of their stupidity, not only will that person not drive again, but they'll probably lose their license, so they won't either!
I also moved between second and third grade. The school where I moved from taught cursive in the third grade, the school where I moved to taught it in second. I remember that summer as kind of miserable, having to do homework all summer long to relearn the frickin' alphabet.
Personally, I'd be perfectly content if cursive writing simply went away forever. Keep a record of what it looks like for historical information, and let it die. From third through sixth grade, I was constantly berated by my teachers for my bad handwriting, most likely because I didn't learn cursive like everyone else did and I hated it so badly. In sixth grade, I told my teacher that I wrote so badly because I hate cursive writing. He looked at me like I was crazy and finally said, "Then don't! I don't care what you write in, as long as I can understand it."
The only problem I had after that was when I got to be a junior in high school, and my teacher failed me on the first essay I wrote because it wasn't in cursive. What an idiot. Every essay I wrote for her after that took me twice as long as the other kids, because I had to sit there thinking, "Shit, how do you make a cursive F?" That was the one and only class, though. In everything else, I write normal letters, and I'm actually quite neat at it.
I don't understand the comments from people who say that cursive writing is faster or that your hand tires out less. Sounds like a bunch of BS to me. While printing requires that you pick up your pencil more, cursive requires more strokes and longer periods of pressure on the page. I can write plenty fast enough, thank you, and neatly, without tiring, too.
I honestly think it's idiotic that in the English language, we have four glyphs for each letter that kids are forced to memorize, upper- and lower-case variations for both print and cursive writing. 104 symbols to represent 26 letters. As if we don't force our kids to jump through enough hoops without really learning anything. As for me, I won't be forcing any kids to learn cursive.
So? I don't care if it makes your dorm room smell like a fresh spring breeze. If I don't want it, then you have no right to demand that I have it. If you were a private company, then maybe I can understand, it's your network, you have the right to set the rules. Even if you're a private university, though, I most certainly do not understand, because again, MY tuition and fees pay for that network, and Internet access is pretty much required to complete just about any degree these days. Deny it, and you might as well tell a student that he can't have any textbooks.
Not to mention that it sounds like you've fallen into the same trap that the RIAA/MPAA has fallen into. "Because some people use Limewire for illegal purposes, since you have it installed, you must be using it for illegal purposes." Sorry bub, but the whole "guilty until proven innocent" thing doesn't fly very well with me.
If you have some reasonable suspicion based on tangible evidence that my machine is spewing out malware or otherwise violating policies designed to protect the university or its network, then by all means, shut off it's connection, show me what you've got, and we'll deal with it like adults. I wouldn't want my machine, if infected, to convey malware any more than you do. If you want to make such a "Client Security Agent" available for me to use, then thanks, I'll consider it.
But again, it is my machine, and it is my money that is paying for that Internet connection. Accessing it is not a privilege that the university has graciously given to me for free, it is a paid-for service, and you'd better have a damn good reason for taking my money and then denying it to me. "You might get infected or break copyright law" is not a valid excuse.
Dude, I don't know what to say, that's insane. The only suggestion I have is to either not use the Internet on your personal computer or find another university to go to. sigh... Looks like along with all the other stuff that determines what school a kid goes to, we're going to have to add "how screwed up is your Internet access policy?" to the list.
Stupid question, what if your machine is a Mac or Linux box? This "Client Security Agent" seems to be a Windows-only beast. Whatever it is, it would be a cold day in hell before I let a university that I'm paying money to dictate that I have to have their software on my machine to use the Internet access that my tuition and fees are paying for!
Looks to me like a clear-cut case of some overzealous IT goob forgotting who is paying whose salary. I'm not saying that you're the Chairman of the Board, but you most certainly should expect to have the right to have full access to this academic resource without this kind of burden.
As a practical matter, you could just call up their IT department and tell them that you have a Linux box, even if you have Windows, and that your machine doesn't run their "Client Security Agent." Whatever they tell you to do to get on the network, just do that on your Windows machine and be done with it. If they tell you that it can't be done, seriously. Go somewhere else. If this university is that stupid, you shouldn't particularly want a diploma from there anyway.
If you do call them up and ask about Macs and Linux machines, let us know what they say.
Ditto. I did, however, install Firefox and use it as my default browser. Some corporate apps don't work (non-standard javascript, mainly), which is why I still have to open some stuff in IE. All of my stuff works in both, some of other people's stuff works in both, and whenever I'm goofing off reading Slashdot and such, I use Firefox.
There is one guy that I work with, though, that insists on "coding to the corporate standard," which in his head means proprietary IE6. He refuses to do things even to the standards that IE6 recognizes that are cross-browser compatible. ("Why do you use that getElementById stuff? It's so much more typing!...") It's like he likes for things to deliberately break in non-IE6 browsers. There's a project underway now to upgrade everyone to Windows 7, and AFAIK, part of that project will be FINALLY ditching IE6. I guess he'll have to go back and recode all of his stuff. Me, I plan on laughing at him when he's working on code that's years old that he should have written right to begin with.
Meanwhile, I have converted so many people at work to Firefox with AdBlock Plus, it's funny. I show them something as simple as CNN on the "corporate standard" browser, then the same page in Firefox. Look ma, no annoyances! Invariably, that's followed by, "Wow, how do I get that? I'm going to use it at home!" I've even converted a few over to using as the default browser on their work machines, which technically, we're not supposed to be doing. Sometimes, they ask me why a corporate application doesn't work. I tell them, "Guess who wrote that one..."
Of dangerous chemicals, animal manure, or human hair, people are squeamish about the human hair?
The first time I encountered Linux, it was installed on a computer that ran a stadium message board. It was at a part-time job I worked at night.
The first time I used it "seriously" was when I was working with SunOS to mass convert CAD drawings to AutoCAD. I wanted to see if I could use the utilities that we had on SunOS on a free operating system on Intel machines to avoid having to buy more Sun workstations. It worked pretty well!
I'm leaning towards both. We've got someone who doesn't understand basic economics or security compromises petulantly digging in when they're clearly wrong. You'd do well to stop replying to the troll before the "conversation" devolves into them sticking their fingers in their ears and singing "la la la la laaa..."
Anyone who doesn't grasp how gold farming is bad for a game is either profiting in a gold farming company or an imbecile.
Well, you need to explain that to all those fucking brilliant people who use services like tinyurl.com, then, since they obviously have a need for short URLs in the first place. Like I told the other poster, if such a standard comes about and you don't want to use it, then don't use it. There's no need to be a dick about it.
It's a "reverse" 301/302 redirect. It's not telling the short URL where to find your long URL, it's telling your long URL where to find the short URL.
In other words, services like Twitter will see:
<link rev="canonical" href="http://mydomain.org/short" />
And it will actually post a link to http: //mydomain.org/short instead of your long domain name in its text.
No one is going to make you do anything. This is completely optional. If you want to provide short URLs to your site, it's a way for you to do so without going through a third-party service like tinyurl. If you want to continue using long URLs, there's absolutely nothing stopping you from doing so.
Is there some particular reason why you don't want people to have a standardized way of providing short URLs if it doesn't affect you at all?
You, sir, are an idiot. Or a troll, but really, I'm leaning strongly towards idiot.
It's just that stupid "don't fuck with people in power" attitude that has plagued this country for years. If everyone had your idiotic attitude, the ghost of Richard Nixon would still be President after everyone completely ignored Watergate, allowed him to toss out the Constitution, and declare himself leader ever after. It's idiots like you who elected George W. (as in, "What do you mean the law applies to me too?") Bush, who then—you guessed it—tossed out the Constitution and conducted a reign of scaremongering with the threat that if you spoke out against him (or just had a Muslim-sounding name, you were a terrorist who could be packed up and shipped to Egypt, Syria, or some other godforsaken part of the world and tortured or killed. Hell, with that attitude, we'd still be a fucking British colony, you moron.
If the guy did something illegal, then let them prove it. As it is, though, all indications so far that the police are guilty as sin of gross abuse of power, and if so, every damn one of them who were involved in this should be heavily fined, jailed, and never allowed to work for law enforcement again.
If you RTFA (reported by the Arizona Republic, you idiot, not just "some bloggers"), you'll see that a former homicide detective who is speaking out about crime lab mismanagement was also targeted. Of course, I guess that just falls under the "he should have just shut up and let the police do any damn thing they want" umbrella that is your philosophy on people who have the legal right to kill you.
I'm not even going to try to explain how law enforcement must necessarily be held to a higher standard of not retaliating when people do things that aren't illegal no matter how much they don't like it. I'm afraid it might explode your tiny little brain that can't comprehend that things like accountability and the right to free speech is a little more complicated than poking a bear with a pointy stick. Maybe we'll get lucky and some policeman who you pissed off will throw you in a cage with a hungry bear just because he can, then maybe you'll realize how stupid and facetious your analogy really is.
Have you looked at unemployment numbers lately? Having a guaranteed steady job for over 3 months, making $8.33 per hour even while you're sleeping... Not so bad.
She should simply stop. Get a buttload of dirt cheap CDs in the bargain basement bin for $0.99 each, or better yet, get a lot more stuff off a site such as Magnatune or an Internet radio station, and let the PRS rot in hell in total irrelevance. I think they've completely lost the concept that they need this woman, in actually having an avid listener, a hell of a lot more than she needs them.
To paraphrase what someone once told me, in four years (more or less), you're going to be 35 anyway. There's not a damn thing you can do about that, except die. if you don't go to school and get your bachelor's degree, then will it be any easier for you if you're an "old man" without a CS degree?
If you don't have a degree at all, then jump through the hoops and get one. My personal experience is that my salary almost doubled literally the day after I got my CS degree. If you do have one but not in computer science, then I'd suggest that you might be better off pursuing certifications relevant to the field you're working in.
If you're not currently in a computer-related field and you're asking if you should get the degree and go into it in an entry-level position, that's your call. You'll probably need that degree to break in, even at 35. If it's worth starting over from scratch, go for it.
Fortunately, I got hired by the company I'm currently at when I was 27. Unfortunately, they're going through the RFP process to outsource all of our jobs. If I'm lucky, I'll be spared. If I'm not, I'll be working as a contracter doing the same job I'm doing now. If I'm really shit outta luck, I'll be a 37-year-old in the job market in the worst economy I've ever known. It won't be easy, but at least I do have my CS degree to help me stand out from, with all due respect, people like you who don't. I don't mean to be cruel, but if it means the difference between whether or not I'm eating cat food, I'll use every advantage I can to beat you out in the aforementioned job market, including the fact that I have a CS degree.
So knowing only what you've asked in your question, my advice is that yes, it is worthwhile having the piece of paper.
Prove it.
If you look at the actual numbers , you'll see that City of Heroes had its highest subscriber numbers while Jack was in charge. In fact, the thing that he's criticized most for, Enhancement Diversification, is widely regarded now as a necessary step for the game's gameplay systems to evolve as they have, and the game actually gained subscribers—that's right, gained subscribers—when it was released.
Jack-bashing is very popular with City of Heroes fans, but the truth of the matter is that City of Heroes was his baby and that the game's best years financially so far have been under his reign.
I don't mean to take away from Matt Miller's competence, because he's doing a fine job, and City of Heroes continues to be a great game. I also don't mean to imply that Jack was perfect, because I disagreed with him on one or two fundamental points. But this whole "Jack was destroying the company" line is so tired and really, it's always been nothing but a bunch of nonproductive BS propagated by fanboy forumites who don't know what they're talking about.
As for the whole "he didn't listen to the subscribers" crap, if developers listened to everything the subscribers whined about, we'd undoubtedly have a "make me level 50" button by now, complete with purple IOs, infinite influence, the ability to take all powersets on a single character, and a power that recharges instantly that immediately defeats all enemies. PvP matches would be won based on who could hit the button first. There's a reason that developers don't jump through hoops to do everything players ask for, why all games, even City of Heroes as it exists today, are the visions of their developers (duh...). If everyone got what everyone wanted, it would effectively destroy any game.
The funny thing is that I see plenty of posts on the City of Heroes forums making the same tired old claims that you're making about Jack about the current developers. Waaah.
Methinks you underestimate their ability to multitask in such endeavors. They have been wasting time on frivolous stuff just as long as they have been raping our rights and pocketbooks. (Even with pi-related matters for that matter, for over a century!)