Then they were bad managers. Obviously engineers benefit from having a certain amount of business sense. But they shouldn't be responsible for customer relations on top of everything else. The point of delagation (when used correctly), and of separation of duties, is to make sure that people are doing what they are best at, and focused on that. If you're a good engineer, and are good with people and have good business sense, then you deserve a management position and the pay that goes with it. But if you're just a good engineer, then you can be just that, and take the pay scale that goes with that. If you're just a good manager, then you should not be managing an engineering time. You should be managing some other team that does something in which you are skilled, or you should be farther up the management chain.
And to clarify, I never said that the engineer should have no contact with customers. But in a sufficiently-sized company, there's no reason his contact with the customers shouldn't be well-defined and restricted. The guy who's going to spend 8 hours a day on project work shouldn't also have to worry about writing up presentations, deciding what to charge the customer, budgeting time, assigning duties, and all that jazz. If you do that, you'll most of the time get one guy who does crappy engineering and crappy managing, regardless of his actual abilities in each respect.
I'll sum up my viewpoint.... An engineer who is good at management should be offered a strictly management position. If he doesn't want to leave his engineering position, then he can continue to be an engineer. But if he wants to be a manager, he shouldn't be doing the engineering anymore. It's about focus as much as it is about skills and talents. Engineering experince is very valuable in certain management positions. IMHO, if you never did the job yourself, you should not be directly managing people who do that job.
But how many parents will actually pay attention to that information and use it to make an informed decision about what to buy for their kids? The information is already available, to a certain extent. But many parents just hand the kid some cash and let them buy whatever they want.
It goes beyond the moral argument of what it's "right" to consume for entertainment, and what is "wrong". We're never all going to agree on that. But that's not the only issue. The problem is, there have been no conclusive studies that researchers can look at and agree on one way or another, whether video games cause problems, or exacerbate existing ones, or have no psychological effect at all. My personal hypothesis is that it's a case-by-case basis.
This is why so many groups are pushing for enforcement, rather than just education. They see the lack of parental involvement, and the resulting effects on some kids of being exposed to certain content, as a threat to society in general. I totally understand that position, though I don't completely agree with it. It assumes a threat from everyone, in a situation where the threat is neither particularly common, nor dire.
So we're left with the old security vs. freedom argument again. There are good points on both sides. Some people who use guns, or take certain drugs, or drink alcohol, or what-have-you, do so safely and responsibly, for reasonable purposes. They should be free to do so. But others don't, and cause big trouble not just for themselves but innocent bystanders as well. So it's not always about "what's right for your family", because your family isn't always the only one affected when a person in an unstable condition finally goes over the edge.
We need to decide as a society which is worse: 1) Dealing with restrictions on the front end to keep out the people for whom access results in danger to themselves and others. 2) Dealing with cleaning up the mess when some irresponsible or malintentioned individual gets unrestricted access and starts abusing the priviledge.
In the past, we've decided on either side, depending on the issue. Personally, I think that our best bet is to go the informatin/education route, but to have the ability to try the parents of the kids that go crazy, to see if the parent was negligent in allowing the kid to consume content that may exacerbate an already unstable condition.
IMHO, there are a lot of parenting practices that are viewed as "okay" that are, aside from being "right" or "wrong", just plain irresponsible. If you don't want to take responsibility for what your kids are doing, then you shouldn't have kids. It's kind of a package deal. I'm not saying a parent is responsible for everything a kid does. But a parent has a responsibility of a certain "due diligence" (which must naturally decrease with age) not only to protect the kid from others, but to protect the kid from himself, and to protect others from the kid.
I'd really like to start storing my media (CDs and DVDs) on something like this. But there seems to be a dearth of consumer-oriented reviews of network storage devices/systems.
If anyone takes the time to look at this roundup, I'm considering the Thecus they reviewed. But if it's as loud as they say, I'd really rather have something with similar features (particularly SATA, RAID-5 capability, lots of memory), but quieter.
So if anyone has any suggestions, I'd be happy to hear them!
Ever heard of eye strain or Computer Vision Syndrom?
Yes, but the page you linked to presents a very oversimplified explanation of what it is, very likely designed as a marketing tool to convince anyone and everyone who uses a computer (who doesn't, nowadays?) that they need to run out and buy these things right away.
The pixel/focusing problem isn't the only thing that causes eye strain. There's also the fact that CRTs and LCDs are light-emitting, which most other surfaces we tend to focus on for more than an instant are not. This electronic paper will be reflective, like normal paper. There are also the fluctuations in the light and picture that happen with each refresh of a CRT or LCD screen. This e-ink stuff needs no refreshing because it requires no energy to remain static, only to change. Most computer displays are either too close or too far away from the reader's eyes, with little chance for adjustment compared to, say, reading a piece of paper (electronic or otherwise) that's in your hand. Finally, there is the fact that many people who use a computer have to look away from and back to the screen very often, which requires repeated neck and head motion to switch from the vertical display to differently oriented surface and back.
There's also the thing about people not blinking when they are looking at a computer. I don't understand this one, myself. Near as I can tell, I don't blink any less at the computer than I do while reading a book. And I have no idea why it would be the case that some people do.
Anyway, I don't see electronic paper replacing computer displays anytime soon, and if they did, it certainly wouldn't make anything worse. The only issue that would carry over from CRTs and LCDs is the pixel/focusing issue, which is just one factor among many. In addition, it would be better for power consumption. And maybe weight, since LCD screens tend to be quite space efficient, but still a bit heavy.
Personally, I would love to see e-paper integrated into an all-purpose reading device. I envision a small, thin rigid volume to house the electronics, such as a small battery, a microcontroller, a bit of memory, maybe a micro-SD card... This piece could be attached directly onto the roughly "standard letter" sized sheet of electronic paper. Or it could be attached by a small cord so that it doesn't compromise the display's felxibility in any way.
The whole thing would fit neatly and flexibly between the pages of a notebook (a real, paper notebook), or in a folder, or a briefcase, or a laptop bag.
You have a point, of course. But these are not the engineer's responsibilities. These are the manager's responsibilities. If this particular engineer is bucking for a management position, he might do well one day, considering he knows how to provide good customer service.
But he'll have to quit the insubordination before anyone considers promoting him to managment. And I think that's the real "moral of the story", as they say. In the end, you have to do what the company asks, or you'll find yourself looking for a different company. If you're okay with that, then fine. But "change from within" doesn't work when it starts at the bottom of the chain (except maybe if you're whistleblowing). Generally, you have to get to a position where you have the authority to change the rules (whether that be in management, or simply as a time-tested, respected engineer) before your changes will have a lasting effect. Otherwise you're just labelled a troublemaker.
That's the way the world works. Don't like it? Start your own company and make your own rules. If they work you'll be successful. Then you can write a book all about it, rake in the royalties, become well-known in the industry, and maybe even get paid to speak on the subject.
Any part of security or law enforcement can be abused. IMHO that is not, in itself, enough to justify ruling it out. Among other things, we must weigh the degree of damage that can be done by the abuse, and the ease by which it could be abused.
It really is a question of where you draw the line. The problem is, no one can ever agree where the line should be drawn. Maybe we crossed it already. If so, how long ago? A year? A decade? Two decades? Half a century? It depends on who you ask.
Some would say the line was crossed (in the U.S. anyway) when the CIA was formed, or the FBI, or even when Constitution was written. It depends on whether the speaker is an anarchist, or an authoritarian, or somewhere in between. With such a wide distribution of philosophies, how can we come to a satisfying agreement? This is a perpetual battle, because someone will always feel the status quo is either unjust or insufficient.
I now work 50-80+ hours a week, free time isn't exacltly what it was in college. So only one next gen console will make it into my house.
Yes, I know this is off-topic. I just thought it was odd... My situation is exactly the opposite. When I was in college I dedicated 50-80 hours each week to school, between classes, projects, and other homework. Plus about 20 hours of paid-internship work each week. And outside school, I was usually worrying about some aspect of school.
Now that I'm working at my first "real" job, I put in 40-50 hours per week. And when I'm at home, I make it a point not to think about work at all. So not only do I have way more free time, but I enjoy it more too.
If you walk around all day spouting racist hate speech, then you should be shunned, labeled, and ridiculed.
Not every scenario is so extreme, or so cut and dried. And furthermore, what's "right" and what's "wrong" varies depending on who you ask. (This is pertinent, so I don't think I'm invoking Godwin's law....) In Nazi Germany, the majority thought that it was perfectly okay to oppress the Jews. Racism was "the norm", as you put it. Does that mean that the Jews deserved to be oppressed, or that those who spoke against it deserved to be jailed?
Furthermore, is it "enough", morally, just to leave the group where something is going on that you really disagree with? This view is embodied by Ursula LeGuin's essay "The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas". But is it enough? If you are in a position where you could do something, even if all you can do is express an opinion where others have held their tongues... Is it enough to walk away from something you view as a travesty, knowing that it will continue in your absence, without doing anything at all, just so you can say that you had no part in it?
Allergologist - A medical researcher studying in the field of allergies.... not to be confused with...
Allergist - A physician practicing in the field of allergies.
"Allergologist" is a much less commonly appearing word. It is seems to be fairly specific to medical discussion/writing (and so may even be considered "jargon"). It will not likely appear in any but the most exhaustive of dictionaries.
Please forgive me using the term "public censorship". I realize that it has a built in emotional appeal, by connotation, that is somewhat intended to stifle certain arguments. I would like to avoid it, but at the moment I can't think of another term for this phenomenon.
"Public censorship" isn't okay just because it's the public that does it. It causes it's own share of problems. It can lead to prejudice, which can be just harmful to society even when not supported by legislation. It's an indirect opression that is much harder to counteract, because any opposition is seen through the same filter as that which is being censored. It's still a "tyranny of the majority", no matter how you cut it.
Which is worse... To fear expressing your opinion because you may be fined or put in jail for it? Or to fear expressing your opinion because you may be labeled, shunned, ridiculed, etc.?
The societal effect of "public censorship" is stronger, harder to fight, and therefore more dangerous, IMHO, than the societal effect of legislative/governmental censorship. If you want an example, look at the battle going on right now between the "liberals hate America" and "conservatives hate freedom" camps. Both are attempts to get their patrons not to listen to anything the opposition says. Is the unending continuation of this futile battle going to lead to a better America?
No, I'm going to have to side with Jon Stewart on this one. It can only make things worse. It fosters animosity and divisiveness, and it stifles coooperation and compromise. And no matter who wins, a huge portion of society feels like they're under the thumb of a hated enemy.
Movies are photorealistic... Have the movie studios stopped selling their products based on flashy effects and beautiful actors/actresses?
Alas, the outlook continues to look bleak. We can never return to the days when good games were easy to find. Back then, it was tough enough just to find games. If you knew where to find the games at all, you knew where the good ones would be. But now the industry is relatively "mature", which means that the regular rules of the distribution of "quality" among the "bulk" apply.
We'll just have to hone our quality-sniffing skills. The rest of the masses can waste their money on the crap if they want. I'm pretty confident nowadays in my ability to spot a quality movie or game among the dross, so I think I'll be alright.
a simple age restriction does nothing to prevent children under the ages required to smoke, drink or view porn
Please note that my comments are given in the context of the U.S. I can't speak for other nations.
Granted you have a point with the porn part, now that the internet is here. Controlling that access is the parents' responsibility, first and foremost. But you can't compare the restrictions on physical goods to the restrictions on website or webservice access.
There are plenty of underage kids who would drink or smoke a lot more than they do, if it wasn't for the fact that in order to get their hands on cigs and booze they need to have special access to it. Either through an older friend or sibling, "loose" parents, or a clerk willing to turn a blind eye. And if they don't have one of those, they're out of luck unless they're willing to resort to theft. And most kids are not willing to do that.
I drank in high school, a total of about 5 times. I guarantee you that if I could have walked into a store and purchased alcohol for myself, I would have drank much much more.
But with all that said, I agree with you that on-line restrictions are ridiculous, at this point. They are too difficult or troublesome to enforce, both for the company and the user. The only marginally reliable type of enforcement I can think of is to require a valid credit card number. But it's not like kids never see their parents' credit cards.
I think the worst thing about this scenario is something that another poster brought up: plausible denyability for the pedophile. Now they can say that, given the restrictions on the service, they fully believed that the person they were chatting with was an adult, just role-playing or something.
Thank you, I appreciate it. And thanks for your well-reasoned reply.
Sidewinder isn't a separate company, it's a brand owned by Microsoft itself.
Ah, I remember now, though it didn't register before, that Sidewinder was an MS brand. I guess my explanation of it's failure doesn't make much sense then... Well, there's got to be a reason it failed. I think it might be related to the fact that it came out when I was avidly following game news on a daily basis, and yet I never heard about it....
Info I found by a little quick googling suggests that it was intended mainly for use with simulator-style games, which are, AFAIK, a relatively small segment of the gaming market (and one I'm not particularly interested in). And within that market, it had to compete with all the excellent joystick and steering-wheel options that were already available, including ones from MS. So I'm not totally surprised it failed there. I don't think it could have been any more useful than a good joystick for the sim games. And I'm definitely not surprised MS abandoned it after that failure. My guess is that they were hoping for a small-scale success before taking the risk of pushing it into a larger market. They just chose the wrong initial market.
I'm not surprised that MS would put something new out there and then not take full advantage of or support it if it stumbled. They're not exactly an agile corporation prone to taking big risks unless they are well-measured and prepared for it. I also wouldn't say the XBox was something "new". It was a new market for them, yes. And it was new in the sense that it hadn't previously existed. But as far as functionality, it wasn't terribly different from the PS2 or GC except maybe in sheer power. It always seemed to me to be a situation where they saw other people were already making money and thought "hey, we can do that too and get a slice of the pie", not as a real act of innovation. I'd even venture to say that the XBox wasn't much of a risk at all, depending on how confident they were that they could replicate the features and power of the competing consoles. Myself, I'm not at all surprised that they are slated to turn a profit with the 360. The only barrier was the market-entry barrier, which they are singularly qualified to overcome in nearly any software-related market.
I hope the OP forgives me for jumping in here, but I think you may have misconstrued what he is excited about. It seems to me he's excited about the possibility of the Revolution controller being good for the industry, not that he is flatly assuming it will be. We all know a hammer to the groin is not going to be fun, because most of us have had a similar experience at some point in the past. But we don't know that this controller isn't going to be fun, because the technology to do this right hasn't been around before.
Like it or not, if nothing changes, nothing will get better. So any change at all is exciting, to me, because it presents at least the possibility of improving things. I, and it seems the OP as well, will still reserve judgement until we see it. But I will also reserve dismissal. It seems the real difference is one of mindset: you are cynical about the new controller, while I am hopeful. (Note "hopeful", not "confident" or "faithful".)
Also, the Saitek/Sidewinder comparison is completely invalid. Saitek/Sidewinder were completely dependent on other companies, the game publishers, to make games that took advantage of their new features. Without publisher support, the controllers died on the vine, their potential sweetness never even tested. Nintendo is in an entirely different position: They make games as well as controllers. So, even if 3rd party developers refuse to touch the thing with a 10-foot pole, Nintendo can still reveal the potential in their controllers by designing their own games for it. And you can bet if those do well that the publishers will jump on the bandwagon faster than you can say "ka-ching".
Unlike with the Saitek/Sidewinder offerings, there's no chance this is going to fade away without even being tested. At the end of the day, we will know definitively whether this is a good innovation or a bad one. And either it will be in all of the following generation's consoles (or even in adpaters later in the coming generation) or in none of them.
IMHO, I don't think it's prudent either to dismiss it or to pin hopes and dreams on it until we see the games. Nintendo has had it's share of both successful and unsuccessful innovations. For every concept that flopped, like the Virtual Boy and N64DD, there's been a concept that hit the bullseye, like the D-Pad and the DS.
You're correct, of course. I guess I didn't mean that digital radio is "perfect", but rather that the signal degradation is "controlled". Whereas in analog radio, it is not.
Well yeah, if you're using dynamic SQL. If the select query is in a dynamic SQL block, or if the getnumber function runs a dynamic SQL block with arg2 as a bound parameter, then you might have a problem. But if you're not using dynamic SQL then the injection attack you specified is not possible, AFAIK.
Dynamic SQL should be avoided when possible for a number of reasons, including the possibility of SQL injection. It's certainly a useful and appropriate tool sometimes. But it is a specialized tool that should be used only when necessary.
its the same possible scenario that allows the copyright to be breached with terrestrial radio
It's not the same, because there's no way to transmit a "perfect" copy of audio content across AM/FM radio band without applying non-standard forms of compression or band-multiplexing. Every satellite radio company gets to choose the bandwidth given to each "station", and the protocols and codecs used by the reception hardware. And then they get to charge for access to this. Furthermore, the AM/FM radio band is free to access, and requires no proprietary hardware. AM/FM radio stations get no profit directly from playing particular content. Rather their profit comes from the spaces between the content: advertisements.
That distinction between digital and analog seems to have been made by the RIAA/MPAA
I thought it was the FCC (or Supreme Court maybe? some branch of the government, at any rate, not the RIAA) that made this distinction, as an effective "excuse" to allow radio broadcasts to fall under public or fair use, which prevents the copyright holders from obtaining licensing fees for the broadcast.
It's actually kind of "unfair" to the RIAA that this interpretation made it into practice, because that's not how it works in the visual art and video world, AFAIK. Though I could be wrong on that point.
Because the digital signals go through the air as analog, they are subject to interference, which causes dropouts. Yes, satellite signals drop out all the time in a moving car.
But the "digital" method by which the bits are encoded onto the analog signal, and the managing overhead of data packets, make digital signals very resistant to distortion. Both physically, and logically.
Forgive me if I delve into detail that you yourself are already familiar with. I'm sure there are many here who are not...
For the physical side, the reason for the resilience is very simple. Rather than an arbitrary EM potential level (or frequency) translating to an exact audio level, a tolerance-range of EM levels (or frequencies) corresponds to either a 1, or 0. But only if it endures for a certain period of time, which also has tolerance ranges built in. And as long as the signal is within tolerances, the receiver can constantly reorient itself to the signal. So there is no such thing as gradual shifting in the signal without the receiver keeping up. So, in analaog radio, when you have an amplitude drop or attenuation, you get incorrect frequencies or amplitudes right out of the speakers, or right to your recording media. With digital, however, all that can happen is to change a 0 into a 1, or vice versa, and it takes a much bigger and longer distortion to cause that. But even beyond that, if a bit flips, this is very often detectable because of extra header info sent along with the signal.
Either a data packet makes the transmission without error, with detectable and correctable error, with detectable destructive errors, with undetectable destructive errors, or not at all. It is very rare to have undetectable destructive errors that have significant effects on the output at the receiving end. The more common detectably destroyed packets can just be thrown out, never put on the wire to the speaker or recording device. So the end result of a distorted packet is almost 100% of the time the same as a completely lost packet: i.e. dropped information. A service drop is simply a human-detectable duration of these situations.
So, with a digital broadcast you can be pretty confident then when you have received data that's deemed okay to put on the wire, that information was received intact. This is very different from what analog radio allows, where the actual information content being received decays in quality as the signal itself decays. Here, every little distortion makes it right to the speakers or recording device, as received. Which is why a cheap analog radio, or a cheap analog TV, will play static on stations where nothing is broadcast, whereas with even a digital receiver it's trivial to tell that there's no signal, and play nothing.
If I send highly compressed music to you in digital form, yes, you can make a perfect digital copy of highly compressed music.
But this is not the necessary scenario. It's up to the braodcasters if they want to do it that way. There is a distinctly possible scenario that allows the copyright to be breached. If the broadcaster chooses to transmit data that is minimally compressed (preserving the copyright), and a listener happens to have a nice long period of reliable reception, they can get a copy of the content which for most intents and purposes is identical to the original, without paying for the copy/distribution. Which is where the breach can happen. I'm not saying there's stations out there doing this. My guess is that most are not afraid to compress their audio more than we'd like, just so they can get more signals through the air in a smaller bandwidth. But the potentiality exists. And this is why I say I think the RIAA has a reason to worry, but not necessarily a reason to litigate. That would need to be decided on a case-by-case basis, depending on the lossyness the broadcasters are employing/allowing.
This of course says nothing about the quality of the actual content that was broadcasted. Significantly compressed audio can lose a lot of information, and quality... but I addressed that in response to someone else's comments on "losslessness".
I'm not talking about ADC/DAC here. Obviously there's information loss in the recording process (ADC), there's information loss during any compression that might happen, and there's information loss during playback (DAC). But for all intents and purposes, the copyrighted content is the output of the original digital recording process. And if the compression of that output is deemed sufficiently "preservative", then the output of that is still covered by copyright. And burning to digital media involves no final DAC. So with digital transmission, there is the distinct possibility of copyrighted content being "copied" or "distributed" in a format that is very largely uncompromised.
Whether stations are actually doing it or not is another story. And that's where I said the RIAA may be out of line in this action, but do have reason to be worried about the future.
It's not the actual sound quality that's at issue. It's the fact that whatever the satellite broadcasts will make it intact to the receiver, in pretty much perfect digital form.
Analog radio is inherently imperfect because the information is not discrete. A loss of amplitude, or an attenuation, means a change in the content of the signal, and there's no checking mechanism to know that something changed. So what get's played (or recorded) is not exactly what was broadcast.
With digital it takes a change greater than a specific size in order to change the actual information content of the signal. And when that happens there are mechanisms to detect and correct this. So the information that is played (or recorded) is essentially exactly the same as what was broadcast. Certainly with compression, the recording can be rendered into a state that is comparable to what is received via FM radio, but it doesn't have to be. For all intents and purposes, satellite radio is capable of sending out lossless audio data, if they so desired, whereas with FM radio there's not a whole lot that can be done toward that end. The RIAA is thus "protecting" themselves against the potentiality of this kind of distribution.
Furthermore, satellite radio cannot be considered a "public service", as someone else claimed, because you have to pay to hear it. And so it doesn't fall under the same rules as AM/FM radio.
But I'm not siding with the RIAA here, because I'm sure they are asking for something much more than what they really deserve. However, I think they do have a right to request a certain amount of compensation for the satellite stations out there that really are streaming content of a reasonable fidelity. Because in those cases, they are creating a copy of the copyrighted content which is, in practice, "very close" to the original source, in aural effect if not in ones and zeroes. And copying is the exclusive right of the copyright holder; they have the right to allow or disallow. (Hence the term "copyright".)
Interesting that when asked about defaming a religion, the guy defamed a religion.
I fail to see how he defamed Islam. Unless you think it's wrong for people to feel upset or offended that someone disrespected their religion, which would mean that saying Islamists would feel the same way is an insult. Though I guarantee you, Islamists would feel that way. In fact, I'd be willing to bet that this kind of imagery relating to Islam would be illegal in many Islamic nations.
Mr. Sciortino was making reference to the fact that Christianity is the "abused stepchild" of religions these days. It's perfectly acceptable (and usuaully applauded) to tease, parody, insult, and flat-out denigrate Christianity and Christians. But try that with any other religion/philosophy, and it's called a "hate crime".
The guy was just pointing out the double-standard.
Did you actually read the series, or just the first book???
While the (strained) comparisons between Ender and Hitler might be quasi-justifiable within the strict context of book 1, the other three Ender books go a long way in further establishing Ender's (adult) character, and in differentiating him from a genocidal sociopath like Hitler.
As much as I disagree with many of Card's religious and political views, I can't shake the feeling that the Ender/Hitler comparison is propaganda put together by people who are deeply offended and/or threatened by his religio-political stance.
And whether they are justified in that feeling or not, it reeks of an attempt at indirect social censorship. (Censorhip being, ironically, something to which the same people supposedly stand diametrically opposed.) Don't want people to hear what someone has to say? Slap a stigma on his writing, making it scary for anyone to identify with anything he says. And what better stigma than Hitler?
Bleh. Words cannot express how much I hate politics. It works exactly opposite to the scientific ideal. Decisions are not made by debating over the advantages put forth by each party of their chosen approach. Rather, they are made by debating over who has done the best job of demonizing their opponent.
Nintendo hasn't said anything about them working on actual Revolution games
It seems to me that in order for them to not work for Revolution games, Nintendo would have had to design the system and expend extra effort with that particular goal in mind. (Such as actively disabling the ports when a non-Gamecube disc is detected in the drive.) This seems to me so completely self-defeating that it's inconceivable as a possibility.
If the ports are there, any software made for the system should be able to access them if they so desire.
there were plenty of stories on old-school games. Elite came with a little novella.
And herein lies, IMHO, the mistake in your response. It's not an issue of games "with" stories. It's an issue of stories "in" games. Yeah, who's going to read and appreciate a novella that comes with a game? Not many people. But, what if a good portion of that information (probably not all of it, because that would likely over-burden the game), where presented in the game, in a way that still allowed the game to flow naturally. This could involve very basic storytelling techniques such as bits of expository backstory, and deeper character development. Again, in the game. This is what people are asking for, which is a little bit different from what you expressed.
Slashdot Mirror
Then they were bad managers. Obviously engineers benefit from having a certain amount of business sense. But they shouldn't be responsible for customer relations on top of everything else. The point of delagation (when used correctly), and of separation of duties, is to make sure that people are doing what they are best at, and focused on that. If you're a good engineer, and are good with people and have good business sense, then you deserve a management position and the pay that goes with it. But if you're just a good engineer, then you can be just that, and take the pay scale that goes with that. If you're just a good manager, then you should not be managing an engineering time. You should be managing some other team that does something in which you are skilled, or you should be farther up the management chain.
And to clarify, I never said that the engineer should have no contact with customers. But in a sufficiently-sized company, there's no reason his contact with the customers shouldn't be well-defined and restricted. The guy who's going to spend 8 hours a day on project work shouldn't also have to worry about writing up presentations, deciding what to charge the customer, budgeting time, assigning duties, and all that jazz. If you do that, you'll most of the time get one guy who does crappy engineering and crappy managing, regardless of his actual abilities in each respect.
I'll sum up my viewpoint.... An engineer who is good at management should be offered a strictly management position. If he doesn't want to leave his engineering position, then he can continue to be an engineer. But if he wants to be a manager, he shouldn't be doing the engineering anymore. It's about focus as much as it is about skills and talents. Engineering experince is very valuable in certain management positions. IMHO, if you never did the job yourself, you should not be directly managing people who do that job.
But how many parents will actually pay attention to that information and use it to make an informed decision about what to buy for their kids? The information is already available, to a certain extent. But many parents just hand the kid some cash and let them buy whatever they want.
It goes beyond the moral argument of what it's "right" to consume for entertainment, and what is "wrong". We're never all going to agree on that. But that's not the only issue. The problem is, there have been no conclusive studies that researchers can look at and agree on one way or another, whether video games cause problems, or exacerbate existing ones, or have no psychological effect at all. My personal hypothesis is that it's a case-by-case basis.
This is why so many groups are pushing for enforcement, rather than just education. They see the lack of parental involvement, and the resulting effects on some kids of being exposed to certain content, as a threat to society in general. I totally understand that position, though I don't completely agree with it. It assumes a threat from everyone, in a situation where the threat is neither particularly common, nor dire.
So we're left with the old security vs. freedom argument again. There are good points on both sides. Some people who use guns, or take certain drugs, or drink alcohol, or what-have-you, do so safely and responsibly, for reasonable purposes. They should be free to do so. But others don't, and cause big trouble not just for themselves but innocent bystanders as well. So it's not always about "what's right for your family", because your family isn't always the only one affected when a person in an unstable condition finally goes over the edge.
We need to decide as a society which is worse:
1) Dealing with restrictions on the front end to keep out the people for whom access results in danger to themselves and others.
2) Dealing with cleaning up the mess when some irresponsible or malintentioned individual gets unrestricted access and starts abusing the priviledge.
In the past, we've decided on either side, depending on the issue. Personally, I think that our best bet is to go the informatin/education route, but to have the ability to try the parents of the kids that go crazy, to see if the parent was negligent in allowing the kid to consume content that may exacerbate an already unstable condition.
IMHO, there are a lot of parenting practices that are viewed as "okay" that are, aside from being "right" or "wrong", just plain irresponsible. If you don't want to take responsibility for what your kids are doing, then you shouldn't have kids. It's kind of a package deal. I'm not saying a parent is responsible for everything a kid does. But a parent has a responsibility of a certain "due diligence" (which must naturally decrease with age) not only to protect the kid from others, but to protect the kid from himself, and to protect others from the kid.
I'd really like to start storing my media (CDs and DVDs) on something like this. But there seems to be a dearth of consumer-oriented reviews of network storage devices/systems.
If anyone takes the time to look at this roundup, I'm considering the Thecus they reviewed. But if it's as loud as they say, I'd really rather have something with similar features (particularly SATA, RAID-5 capability, lots of memory), but quieter. So if anyone has any suggestions, I'd be happy to hear them!
Yes, but the page you linked to presents a very oversimplified explanation of what it is, very likely designed as a marketing tool to convince anyone and everyone who uses a computer (who doesn't, nowadays?) that they need to run out and buy these things right away.
The pixel/focusing problem isn't the only thing that causes eye strain. There's also the fact that CRTs and LCDs are light-emitting, which most other surfaces we tend to focus on for more than an instant are not. This electronic paper will be reflective, like normal paper. There are also the fluctuations in the light and picture that happen with each refresh of a CRT or LCD screen. This e-ink stuff needs no refreshing because it requires no energy to remain static, only to change. Most computer displays are either too close or too far away from the reader's eyes, with little chance for adjustment compared to, say, reading a piece of paper (electronic or otherwise) that's in your hand. Finally, there is the fact that many people who use a computer have to look away from and back to the screen very often, which requires repeated neck and head motion to switch from the vertical display to differently oriented surface and back.
There's also the thing about people not blinking when they are looking at a computer. I don't understand this one, myself. Near as I can tell, I don't blink any less at the computer than I do while reading a book. And I have no idea why it would be the case that some people do.
Anyway, I don't see electronic paper replacing computer displays anytime soon, and if they did, it certainly wouldn't make anything worse. The only issue that would carry over from CRTs and LCDs is the pixel/focusing issue, which is just one factor among many. In addition, it would be better for power consumption. And maybe weight, since LCD screens tend to be quite space efficient, but still a bit heavy.
Personally, I would love to see e-paper integrated into an all-purpose reading device. I envision a small, thin rigid volume to house the electronics, such as a small battery, a microcontroller, a bit of memory, maybe a micro-SD card... This piece could be attached directly onto the roughly "standard letter" sized sheet of electronic paper. Or it could be attached by a small cord so that it doesn't compromise the display's felxibility in any way.
The whole thing would fit neatly and flexibly between the pages of a notebook (a real, paper notebook), or in a folder, or a briefcase, or a laptop bag.
You have a point, of course. But these are not the engineer's responsibilities. These are the manager's responsibilities. If this particular engineer is bucking for a management position, he might do well one day, considering he knows how to provide good customer service.
But he'll have to quit the insubordination before anyone considers promoting him to managment. And I think that's the real "moral of the story", as they say. In the end, you have to do what the company asks, or you'll find yourself looking for a different company. If you're okay with that, then fine. But "change from within" doesn't work when it starts at the bottom of the chain (except maybe if you're whistleblowing). Generally, you have to get to a position where you have the authority to change the rules (whether that be in management, or simply as a time-tested, respected engineer) before your changes will have a lasting effect. Otherwise you're just labelled a troublemaker.
That's the way the world works. Don't like it? Start your own company and make your own rules. If they work you'll be successful. Then you can write a book all about it, rake in the royalties, become well-known in the industry, and maybe even get paid to speak on the subject.
Any part of security or law enforcement can be abused. IMHO that is not, in itself, enough to justify ruling it out. Among other things, we must weigh the degree of damage that can be done by the abuse, and the ease by which it could be abused.
It really is a question of where you draw the line. The problem is, no one can ever agree where the line should be drawn. Maybe we crossed it already. If so, how long ago? A year? A decade? Two decades? Half a century? It depends on who you ask.
Some would say the line was crossed (in the U.S. anyway) when the CIA was formed, or the FBI, or even when Constitution was written. It depends on whether the speaker is an anarchist, or an authoritarian, or somewhere in between. With such a wide distribution of philosophies, how can we come to a satisfying agreement? This is a perpetual battle, because someone will always feel the status quo is either unjust or insufficient.
Maybe I'm just stating the obvious, though.
Yes, I know this is off-topic. I just thought it was odd... My situation is exactly the opposite. When I was in college I dedicated 50-80 hours each week to school, between classes, projects, and other homework. Plus about 20 hours of paid-internship work each week. And outside school, I was usually worrying about some aspect of school.
Now that I'm working at my first "real" job, I put in 40-50 hours per week. And when I'm at home, I make it a point not to think about work at all. So not only do I have way more free time, but I enjoy it more too.
Not every scenario is so extreme, or so cut and dried. And furthermore, what's "right" and what's "wrong" varies depending on who you ask. (This is pertinent, so I don't think I'm invoking Godwin's law....) In Nazi Germany, the majority thought that it was perfectly okay to oppress the Jews. Racism was "the norm", as you put it. Does that mean that the Jews deserved to be oppressed, or that those who spoke against it deserved to be jailed?
Furthermore, is it "enough", morally, just to leave the group where something is going on that you really disagree with? This view is embodied by Ursula LeGuin's essay "The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas". But is it enough? If you are in a position where you could do something, even if all you can do is express an opinion where others have held their tongues... Is it enough to walk away from something you view as a travesty, knowing that it will continue in your absence, without doing anything at all, just so you can say that you had no part in it?
Allergologist - A medical researcher studying in the field of allergies. ... not to be confused with...
Allergist - A physician practicing in the field of allergies.
"Allergologist" is a much less commonly appearing word. It is seems to be fairly specific to medical discussion/writing (and so may even be considered "jargon"). It will not likely appear in any but the most exhaustive of dictionaries.
Please forgive me using the term "public censorship". I realize that it has a built in emotional appeal, by connotation, that is somewhat intended to stifle certain arguments. I would like to avoid it, but at the moment I can't think of another term for this phenomenon.
"Public censorship" isn't okay just because it's the public that does it. It causes it's own share of problems. It can lead to prejudice, which can be just harmful to society even when not supported by legislation. It's an indirect opression that is much harder to counteract, because any opposition is seen through the same filter as that which is being censored. It's still a "tyranny of the majority", no matter how you cut it.
Which is worse... To fear expressing your opinion because you may be fined or put in jail for it? Or to fear expressing your opinion because you may be labeled, shunned, ridiculed, etc.?
The societal effect of "public censorship" is stronger, harder to fight, and therefore more dangerous, IMHO, than the societal effect of legislative/governmental censorship. If you want an example, look at the battle going on right now between the "liberals hate America" and "conservatives hate freedom" camps. Both are attempts to get their patrons not to listen to anything the opposition says. Is the unending continuation of this futile battle going to lead to a better America?
No, I'm going to have to side with Jon Stewart on this one. It can only make things worse. It fosters animosity and divisiveness, and it stifles coooperation and compromise. And no matter who wins, a huge portion of society feels like they're under the thumb of a hated enemy.
Alas, the outlook continues to look bleak. We can never return to the days when good games were easy to find. Back then, it was tough enough just to find games. If you knew where to find the games at all, you knew where the good ones would be. But now the industry is relatively "mature", which means that the regular rules of the distribution of "quality" among the "bulk" apply.
We'll just have to hone our quality-sniffing skills. The rest of the masses can waste their money on the crap if they want. I'm pretty confident nowadays in my ability to spot a quality movie or game among the dross, so I think I'll be alright.
a simple age restriction does nothing to prevent children under the ages required to smoke, drink or view porn
Please note that my comments are given in the context of the U.S. I can't speak for other nations.
Granted you have a point with the porn part, now that the internet is here. Controlling that access is the parents' responsibility, first and foremost. But you can't compare the restrictions on physical goods to the restrictions on website or webservice access.
There are plenty of underage kids who would drink or smoke a lot more than they do, if it wasn't for the fact that in order to get their hands on cigs and booze they need to have special access to it. Either through an older friend or sibling, "loose" parents, or a clerk willing to turn a blind eye. And if they don't have one of those, they're out of luck unless they're willing to resort to theft. And most kids are not willing to do that.
I drank in high school, a total of about 5 times. I guarantee you that if I could have walked into a store and purchased alcohol for myself, I would have drank much much more.
But with all that said, I agree with you that on-line restrictions are ridiculous, at this point. They are too difficult or troublesome to enforce, both for the company and the user. The only marginally reliable type of enforcement I can think of is to require a valid credit card number. But it's not like kids never see their parents' credit cards.
I think the worst thing about this scenario is something that another poster brought up: plausible denyability for the pedophile. Now they can say that, given the restrictions on the service, they fully believed that the person they were chatting with was an adult, just role-playing or something.
Thank you, I appreciate it. And thanks for your well-reasoned reply.
Sidewinder isn't a separate company, it's a brand owned by Microsoft itself.
Ah, I remember now, though it didn't register before, that Sidewinder was an MS brand. I guess my explanation of it's failure doesn't make much sense then... Well, there's got to be a reason it failed. I think it might be related to the fact that it came out when I was avidly following game news on a daily basis, and yet I never heard about it....
Info I found by a little quick googling suggests that it was intended mainly for use with simulator-style games, which are, AFAIK, a relatively small segment of the gaming market (and one I'm not particularly interested in). And within that market, it had to compete with all the excellent joystick and steering-wheel options that were already available, including ones from MS. So I'm not totally surprised it failed there. I don't think it could have been any more useful than a good joystick for the sim games. And I'm definitely not surprised MS abandoned it after that failure. My guess is that they were hoping for a small-scale success before taking the risk of pushing it into a larger market. They just chose the wrong initial market.
I'm not surprised that MS would put something new out there and then not take full advantage of or support it if it stumbled. They're not exactly an agile corporation prone to taking big risks unless they are well-measured and prepared for it. I also wouldn't say the XBox was something "new". It was a new market for them, yes. And it was new in the sense that it hadn't previously existed. But as far as functionality, it wasn't terribly different from the PS2 or GC except maybe in sheer power. It always seemed to me to be a situation where they saw other people were already making money and thought "hey, we can do that too and get a slice of the pie", not as a real act of innovation. I'd even venture to say that the XBox wasn't much of a risk at all, depending on how confident they were that they could replicate the features and power of the competing consoles. Myself, I'm not at all surprised that they are slated to turn a profit with the 360. The only barrier was the market-entry barrier, which they are singularly qualified to overcome in nearly any software-related market.
I hope the OP forgives me for jumping in here, but I think you may have misconstrued what he is excited about. It seems to me he's excited about the possibility of the Revolution controller being good for the industry, not that he is flatly assuming it will be. We all know a hammer to the groin is not going to be fun, because most of us have had a similar experience at some point in the past. But we don't know that this controller isn't going to be fun, because the technology to do this right hasn't been around before.
Like it or not, if nothing changes, nothing will get better. So any change at all is exciting, to me, because it presents at least the possibility of improving things. I, and it seems the OP as well, will still reserve judgement until we see it. But I will also reserve dismissal. It seems the real difference is one of mindset: you are cynical about the new controller, while I am hopeful. (Note "hopeful", not "confident" or "faithful".)
Also, the Saitek/Sidewinder comparison is completely invalid. Saitek/Sidewinder were completely dependent on other companies, the game publishers, to make games that took advantage of their new features. Without publisher support, the controllers died on the vine, their potential sweetness never even tested. Nintendo is in an entirely different position: They make games as well as controllers. So, even if 3rd party developers refuse to touch the thing with a 10-foot pole, Nintendo can still reveal the potential in their controllers by designing their own games for it. And you can bet if those do well that the publishers will jump on the bandwagon faster than you can say "ka-ching".
Unlike with the Saitek/Sidewinder offerings, there's no chance this is going to fade away without even being tested. At the end of the day, we will know definitively whether this is a good innovation or a bad one. And either it will be in all of the following generation's consoles (or even in adpaters later in the coming generation) or in none of them.
IMHO, I don't think it's prudent either to dismiss it or to pin hopes and dreams on it until we see the games. Nintendo has had it's share of both successful and unsuccessful innovations. For every concept that flopped, like the Virtual Boy and N64DD, there's been a concept that hit the bullseye, like the D-Pad and the DS.
You're correct, of course. I guess I didn't mean that digital radio is "perfect", but rather that the signal degradation is "controlled". Whereas in analog radio, it is not.
So you run
"select * getnumber(arg1,arg2);"
Is this vulnerable to injection attacks?
Well yeah, if you're using dynamic SQL. If the select query is in a dynamic SQL block, or if the getnumber function runs a dynamic SQL block with arg2 as a bound parameter, then you might have a problem. But if you're not using dynamic SQL then the injection attack you specified is not possible, AFAIK.
Dynamic SQL should be avoided when possible for a number of reasons, including the possibility of SQL injection. It's certainly a useful and appropriate tool sometimes. But it is a specialized tool that should be used only when necessary.
It's not the same, because there's no way to transmit a "perfect" copy of audio content across AM/FM radio band without applying non-standard forms of compression or band-multiplexing. Every satellite radio company gets to choose the bandwidth given to each "station", and the protocols and codecs used by the reception hardware. And then they get to charge for access to this. Furthermore, the AM/FM radio band is free to access, and requires no proprietary hardware. AM/FM radio stations get no profit directly from playing particular content. Rather their profit comes from the spaces between the content: advertisements.
That distinction between digital and analog seems to have been made by the RIAA/MPAA
I thought it was the FCC (or Supreme Court maybe? some branch of the government, at any rate, not the RIAA) that made this distinction, as an effective "excuse" to allow radio broadcasts to fall under public or fair use, which prevents the copyright holders from obtaining licensing fees for the broadcast.
It's actually kind of "unfair" to the RIAA that this interpretation made it into practice, because that's not how it works in the visual art and video world, AFAIK. Though I could be wrong on that point.
But the "digital" method by which the bits are encoded onto the analog signal, and the managing overhead of data packets, make digital signals very resistant to distortion. Both physically, and logically.
Forgive me if I delve into detail that you yourself are already familiar with. I'm sure there are many here who are not...
For the physical side, the reason for the resilience is very simple. Rather than an arbitrary EM potential level (or frequency) translating to an exact audio level, a tolerance-range of EM levels (or frequencies) corresponds to either a 1, or 0. But only if it endures for a certain period of time, which also has tolerance ranges built in. And as long as the signal is within tolerances, the receiver can constantly reorient itself to the signal. So there is no such thing as gradual shifting in the signal without the receiver keeping up. So, in analaog radio, when you have an amplitude drop or attenuation, you get incorrect frequencies or amplitudes right out of the speakers, or right to your recording media. With digital, however, all that can happen is to change a 0 into a 1, or vice versa, and it takes a much bigger and longer distortion to cause that. But even beyond that, if a bit flips, this is very often detectable because of extra header info sent along with the signal.
Either a data packet makes the transmission without error, with detectable and correctable error, with detectable destructive errors, with undetectable destructive errors, or not at all. It is very rare to have undetectable destructive errors that have significant effects on the output at the receiving end. The more common detectably destroyed packets can just be thrown out, never put on the wire to the speaker or recording device. So the end result of a distorted packet is almost 100% of the time the same as a completely lost packet: i.e. dropped information. A service drop is simply a human-detectable duration of these situations.
So, with a digital broadcast you can be pretty confident then when you have received data that's deemed okay to put on the wire, that information was received intact. This is very different from what analog radio allows, where the actual information content being received decays in quality as the signal itself decays. Here, every little distortion makes it right to the speakers or recording device, as received. Which is why a cheap analog radio, or a cheap analog TV, will play static on stations where nothing is broadcast, whereas with even a digital receiver it's trivial to tell that there's no signal, and play nothing.
If I send highly compressed music to you in digital form, yes, you can make a perfect digital copy of highly compressed music.
But this is not the necessary scenario. It's up to the braodcasters if they want to do it that way. There is a distinctly possible scenario that allows the copyright to be breached. If the broadcaster chooses to transmit data that is minimally compressed (preserving the copyright), and a listener happens to have a nice long period of reliable reception, they can get a copy of the content which for most intents and purposes is identical to the original, without paying for the copy/distribution. Which is where the breach can happen. I'm not saying there's stations out there doing this. My guess is that most are not afraid to compress their audio more than we'd like, just so they can get more signals through the air in a smaller bandwidth. But the potentiality exists. And this is why I say I think the RIAA has a reason to worry, but not necessarily a reason to litigate. That would need to be decided on a case-by-case basis, depending on the lossyness the broadcasters are employing/allowing.
This of course says nothing about the quality of the actual content that was broadcasted. Significantly compressed audio can lose a lot of information, and quality... but I addressed that in response to someone else's comments on "losslessness".
I'm not talking about ADC/DAC here. Obviously there's information loss in the recording process (ADC), there's information loss during any compression that might happen, and there's information loss during playback (DAC). But for all intents and purposes, the copyrighted content is the output of the original digital recording process. And if the compression of that output is deemed sufficiently "preservative", then the output of that is still covered by copyright. And burning to digital media involves no final DAC. So with digital transmission, there is the distinct possibility of copyrighted content being "copied" or "distributed" in a format that is very largely uncompromised. Whether stations are actually doing it or not is another story. And that's where I said the RIAA may be out of line in this action, but do have reason to be worried about the future.
At the point where you quoted me I had referred only to "analog radio", not AM or FM specifically. You can find music on AM too.
It's not the actual sound quality that's at issue. It's the fact that whatever the satellite broadcasts will make it intact to the receiver, in pretty much perfect digital form.
Analog radio is inherently imperfect because the information is not discrete. A loss of amplitude, or an attenuation, means a change in the content of the signal, and there's no checking mechanism to know that something changed. So what get's played (or recorded) is not exactly what was broadcast.
With digital it takes a change greater than a specific size in order to change the actual information content of the signal. And when that happens there are mechanisms to detect and correct this. So the information that is played (or recorded) is essentially exactly the same as what was broadcast. Certainly with compression, the recording can be rendered into a state that is comparable to what is received via FM radio, but it doesn't have to be. For all intents and purposes, satellite radio is capable of sending out lossless audio data, if they so desired, whereas with FM radio there's not a whole lot that can be done toward that end. The RIAA is thus "protecting" themselves against the potentiality of this kind of distribution.
Furthermore, satellite radio cannot be considered a "public service", as someone else claimed, because you have to pay to hear it. And so it doesn't fall under the same rules as AM/FM radio.
But I'm not siding with the RIAA here, because I'm sure they are asking for something much more than what they really deserve. However, I think they do have a right to request a certain amount of compensation for the satellite stations out there that really are streaming content of a reasonable fidelity. Because in those cases, they are creating a copy of the copyrighted content which is, in practice, "very close" to the original source, in aural effect if not in ones and zeroes. And copying is the exclusive right of the copyright holder; they have the right to allow or disallow. (Hence the term "copyright".)
I fail to see how he defamed Islam. Unless you think it's wrong for people to feel upset or offended that someone disrespected their religion, which would mean that saying Islamists would feel the same way is an insult. Though I guarantee you, Islamists would feel that way. In fact, I'd be willing to bet that this kind of imagery relating to Islam would be illegal in many Islamic nations.
Mr. Sciortino was making reference to the fact that Christianity is the "abused stepchild" of religions these days. It's perfectly acceptable (and usuaully applauded) to tease, parody, insult, and flat-out denigrate Christianity and Christians. But try that with any other religion/philosophy, and it's called a "hate crime".
The guy was just pointing out the double-standard.
Did you actually read the series, or just the first book???
While the (strained) comparisons between Ender and Hitler might be quasi-justifiable within the strict context of book 1, the other three Ender books go a long way in further establishing Ender's (adult) character, and in differentiating him from a genocidal sociopath like Hitler.
As much as I disagree with many of Card's religious and political views, I can't shake the feeling that the Ender/Hitler comparison is propaganda put together by people who are deeply offended and/or threatened by his religio-political stance.
And whether they are justified in that feeling or not, it reeks of an attempt at indirect social censorship. (Censorhip being, ironically, something to which the same people supposedly stand diametrically opposed.) Don't want people to hear what someone has to say? Slap a stigma on his writing, making it scary for anyone to identify with anything he says. And what better stigma than Hitler?
Bleh. Words cannot express how much I hate politics. It works exactly opposite to the scientific ideal. Decisions are not made by debating over the advantages put forth by each party of their chosen approach. Rather, they are made by debating over who has done the best job of demonizing their opponent.
It seems to me that in order for them to not work for Revolution games, Nintendo would have had to design the system and expend extra effort with that particular goal in mind. (Such as actively disabling the ports when a non-Gamecube disc is detected in the drive.) This seems to me so completely self-defeating that it's inconceivable as a possibility.
If the ports are there, any software made for the system should be able to access them if they so desire.
there were plenty of stories on old-school games. Elite came with a little novella.
And herein lies, IMHO, the mistake in your response. It's not an issue of games "with" stories. It's an issue of stories "in" games. Yeah, who's going to read and appreciate a novella that comes with a game? Not many people. But, what if a good portion of that information (probably not all of it, because that would likely over-burden the game), where presented in the game, in a way that still allowed the game to flow naturally. This could involve very basic storytelling techniques such as bits of expository backstory, and deeper character development. Again, in the game. This is what people are asking for, which is a little bit different from what you expressed.