If the press is forced to name names, then in the future people will be discouraged from going forward
EXACTLY! That is the point. This will discourage people from going forward with trade secrets. That is a Good Thing. It will have no effect on people coming forward with scandals, corruption, etcetera. The freedom of the press is supposed to protect those kind of sources from being exposed, ensuring that they will be able to come forward. It is not, however, meant to protect people who are breaking the law, such as those who leak trade secrets.
The leaking of trade secrets is not in the public interest. You know, that thing the press is supposed to serve?
I agree. Just think - Martin Luther King's "I Have a Dream" speech, Pericles' funeral oration to fallen Greek warriors in the Peloponnesian War, and JFK's "We Choose To Go To The Moon" speech - all consigned to the dustbin of history by one arbitrary pronouncement on the part of one self-important pundit. Way to go, dude.
Does that sentence mean that we should disregard all speeches spoken before, say, June 14 2004? What is PC Magazine's cutoff date here?
Don't be ridiculous. He's talking about a speech given by a head honcho at a tech company several years ago. The tech industry, as we all know, changes very rapidly. Saying that such a speech might not be relevent any longer has absolutely nothing to do with whether actual important historical speeches are still relevant (which they may or may not be).
And besides, it was CowboyNeal who said that, not Dvorak (your "self-important pundit").
This whole thing reminds me a lot of They Might Be Giants. They're a band who was for a few years on a major label, but has gotten out from under them and managed to get the rights to distribute their music directly from their website. The website is totally artist-owned and the money goes right to them. I don't know if this is still true, but for some time They Might Be Giants were the most widely legally downloaded band on the internet.
And on top of all that, they've even won a grammy (for the Malcolm in the Middle theme).
The Reaper? What has he got to do with it? Death is not the same as non-existence. Lawyers get people killed all the time. Getting them to no longer exist at all is quite a feat.
I didn't say anything about selling or even publishing those pictures. In this case, the city is charging people to simply take a picture. What is done with such pictures is apparently irrelevant to the city of Chicago.
So you're saying that they tried sans-serif fonts and found serifs to be better through detailed analysis? Or could it be, perhaps, that they used serif fonts arbitrarily and never saw a particular reason to change?
I don't hold books quite at arms length, but my optometrist tells me that's why I wear glasses.;)
I do agree with you to some extent. Sometimes, though, designers decide to sacrifice some functionality to gain some aesthetic value. Everything is a trade-off.
I touch type too, but I also make errors when I do so. With a passphrase (obviously), any errors are unacceptable. If I can't see what I'm typing on screen as I type it, I won't be able to go back and fix the errors, so I'll probably end up deleting everything and restarting a long passphrase like that a lot.
While I think that to a certain extent you have a point, I also think it's pretty silly for you to imagine you know what every other person thinks.
I'm sure there are in fact a number of people out there who are to some extent racist and hide their true feelings because those feelings aren't popular. There is likely a whole spectrum of racist attitudes from very minor to very extreme. Nevertheless, that doesn't mean that there aren't ANY people who truly aren't racist.
That's indeed a good point but I don't see why you're participating in this discussion if you're not even willing to accept the most basic premise - that the story is actually real in its most basic form!
The story says he left Google, probably fired. It's possible he left of his own accord (though admittedly unlikely).
Do we know he signed a contract? And do we have any indication that if he did, it didn't have an "at will" clause that said he could be fired or quit for any or no reason at all? Obviously certain reasons are illegal (as you mentioned), but that's why the "no reason at all" is in there.
it would be hypocritical of Google to both say that they are a place where people are free to blog whatever they want, and also say this is only true so long as you don't work for them.
I imagine this is something like the reasoning used by the editor who made the comment, but it still doesn't make a lot of sense. Google's not saying anything like "blogger is the place where you can write whatever you want." Google is providing a service through blogger that allows one to do so, sure, and they're not censoring people or anything so far as I know. However, it's not like if an employee for, say, Microsoft were to blog things that MS didn't like on Blogger that Google is going to stand up and protect his "right to blog."
What I'm saying is that Blogger is there to be used, but that doesn't mean Google has an obligation to allow their employees to say whatever they want on there. One can certainly argue that they have that obligation for other reasons, but not because they own Blogger.
You don't think that picture is anything but a joke do you? Or more specifically, the implication of that dotted line. I wear pants like that all the time, and while I am of course very well endowed (;]), what you're seeing in that picture is merely a normal fold in the pants.
Slashdot Mirror
You can't just arbitrarily decide beforehand what information may or may not be useful to the public in future.
Perhaps, but you certainly can when you're litigating about it.
If the press is forced to name names, then in the future people will be discouraged from going forward
EXACTLY! That is the point. This will discourage people from going forward with trade secrets. That is a Good Thing. It will have no effect on people coming forward with scandals, corruption, etcetera. The freedom of the press is supposed to protect those kind of sources from being exposed, ensuring that they will be able to come forward. It is not, however, meant to protect people who are breaking the law, such as those who leak trade secrets.
The leaking of trade secrets is not in the public interest. You know, that thing the press is supposed to serve?
I agree. It seems like everything I read by this guy, I end up thinking, "what a douche."
I agree. Just think - Martin Luther King's "I Have a Dream" speech, Pericles' funeral oration to fallen Greek warriors in the Peloponnesian War, and JFK's "We Choose To Go To The Moon" speech - all consigned to the dustbin of history by one arbitrary pronouncement on the part of one self-important pundit. Way to go, dude.
Does that sentence mean that we should disregard all speeches spoken before, say, June 14 2004? What is PC Magazine's cutoff date here?
Don't be ridiculous. He's talking about a speech given by a head honcho at a tech company several years ago. The tech industry, as we all know, changes very rapidly. Saying that such a speech might not be relevent any longer has absolutely nothing to do with whether actual important historical speeches are still relevant (which they may or may not be).
And besides, it was CowboyNeal who said that, not Dvorak (your "self-important pundit").
This whole thing reminds me a lot of They Might Be Giants. They're a band who was for a few years on a major label, but has gotten out from under them and managed to get the rights to distribute their music directly from their website. The website is totally artist-owned and the money goes right to them. I don't know if this is still true, but for some time They Might Be Giants were the most widely legally downloaded band on the internet.
And on top of all that, they've even won a grammy (for the Malcolm in the Middle theme).
The Reaper? What has he got to do with it? Death is not the same as non-existence. Lawyers get people killed all the time. Getting them to no longer exist at all is quite a feat.
I didn't say anything about selling or even publishing those pictures. In this case, the city is charging people to simply take a picture. What is done with such pictures is apparently irrelevant to the city of Chicago.
So you're saying that they tried sans-serif fonts and found serifs to be better through detailed analysis? Or could it be, perhaps, that they used serif fonts arbitrarily and never saw a particular reason to change?
I don't hold books quite at arms length, but my optometrist tells me that's why I wear glasses. ;)
I do agree with you to some extent. Sometimes, though, designers decide to sacrifice some functionality to gain some aesthetic value. Everything is a trade-off.
I touch type too, but I also make errors when I do so. With a passphrase (obviously), any errors are unacceptable. If I can't see what I'm typing on screen as I type it, I won't be able to go back and fix the errors, so I'll probably end up deleting everything and restarting a long passphrase like that a lot.
While I think that to a certain extent you have a point, I also think it's pretty silly for you to imagine you know what every other person thinks.
I'm sure there are in fact a number of people out there who are to some extent racist and hide their true feelings because those feelings aren't popular. There is likely a whole spectrum of racist attitudes from very minor to very extreme. Nevertheless, that doesn't mean that there aren't ANY people who truly aren't racist.
Actually, the money for the FF NYT ad (not "add") came together pretty easily as I recall.
I think you probably need to get some glasses.
I've always liked Lucida Console.
No, I don't understand the obsession with using sans-serif fonts on web pages.
It's called aesthetics.
Yes, but they certainly can't prohibit me from taking pictures of my cd.
Though Georgia's nice enough (and seems awful trendy), I have to agree that Verdana is nice.
It's called "dork chic" and it's a big hit with the ladies. Well, the chat room ladies. Okay, it's a big hit with my mom.
There's a difference, but the two are not mutally exclusive.
That's indeed a good point but I don't see why you're participating in this discussion if you're not even willing to accept the most basic premise - that the story is actually real in its most basic form!
The story says he left Google, probably fired. It's possible he left of his own accord (though admittedly unlikely).
Whatever happened, it's a sad day when you can't speak openly about both the good and bad at your chosen place of work without getting silenced.
He didn't get silenced, he got fired (possibly). Now he's free to say whatever he wants and unless it is NDA stuff, Google can't do a thing.
Do we know he signed a contract? And do we have any indication that if he did, it didn't have an "at will" clause that said he could be fired or quit for any or no reason at all? Obviously certain reasons are illegal (as you mentioned), but that's why the "no reason at all" is in there.
Also, we don't know for sure that he was fired.
Whoa, good troll!
it would be hypocritical of Google to both say that they are a place where people are free to blog whatever they want, and also say this is only true so long as you don't work for them.
I imagine this is something like the reasoning used by the editor who made the comment, but it still doesn't make a lot of sense. Google's not saying anything like "blogger is the place where you can write whatever you want." Google is providing a service through blogger that allows one to do so, sure, and they're not censoring people or anything so far as I know. However, it's not like if an employee for, say, Microsoft were to blog things that MS didn't like on Blogger that Google is going to stand up and protect his "right to blog."
What I'm saying is that Blogger is there to be used, but that doesn't mean Google has an obligation to allow their employees to say whatever they want on there. One can certainly argue that they have that obligation for other reasons, but not because they own Blogger.
You don't think that picture is anything but a joke do you? Or more specifically, the implication of that dotted line. I wear pants like that all the time, and while I am of course very well endowed (;]), what you're seeing in that picture is merely a normal fold in the pants.