Compliance to the law is relative, in that the boundary of legality is defined by precedence, particularly in civil matters. In fact, trials serve dual purpose. One is subjectively analyzing the facts of the case, to determine the events which led to the crime or grievance. The second is judging the compliance of an individual's actions in regards to the law. Most particulars of a case are defined beforehand, within a grand jury, evidential criteria, &c.
That line is even funnier if you read the original script. The grumpy scientist he encounters at the interview, Dr. Dodd, originally replied differently:
CHRIS:...Nice to meet you Dr. Dodd. Isn't the Telcom raining debris all over Europe?
DODD (smiling, but angry): That was a launch problem, not a design problem...
It also set Sherry Nugil up with a genius fetish, which provides more context for when she attempts to sleep with Mitch, etc:
SHERRY (O.C): (between kisses) Talk smart to me.
CHRIS (O.C.): What?
ANGLE ON CHRIS AND SHERRY
They are lying in the middle of the dish. Passion mounts, fingers cope with belts and buttons, clothing falls away; my god, these people are having sex.
SHERRY: Please I need it. What was your favorite course?
CHRIS: I guess right now I'd have to say Fluid Mechanics.
SHERRY: Oooooooooh...
CHRIS (responding to something interesting Sherry just did with her hips): And Gym.
SHERRY: Please.
CHRIS: Sorry.
SHERRY: What's your research with Artherton?
CHRIS: Ultra-high power laser as an energy force for fusion. Tremendous boon to all mankind. And womankind, too.
SHERRY: Fusion, more fusion.
CHRIS: It's the process for obtaining enormous amounts of energy from forms of hydrogen, like Deuterium and Tritium.
SHERRY: Oh, my God, more.
CHRIS: Extracting the fuels is no problem.
SHERRY: Hmmmm.
CHRIS: Getting them to combine and release the energy is the problem.
SHERRY: Oohh, yes
CHRIS: It takes temperatures of 100 million degrees Celsius.
SHERRY: Oh, God.
CHRIS: So, I'm...
SHERRY: Yes.
CHRIS:...building...
SHERRY: Yes.
CHRIS:...a laser...
SHERRY: Oh, yes.
CHRIS:...that pulses...
SHERRY: Hmmmmmmmm.
CHRIS:...very hot...
SHERRY: Ohhh...
CHRIS:...and causes...
SHERRY: Yes.
CHRIS:...Fusion...
SHERRY: Ahhhhhhhhhhh.
I'm on the cusp of graduating from Drexel U, and I agree, for the most part, with your post. However, I've had MS-bashing happen with only two instructors: Jason Kim (whose comments were by and large tongue-in-cheek), and Gaylord Holder (the CS Department's Sys Admin). Who else has participated in such activities?
The preference for open-source tools stems, I believe, from two places:
The hardcore programmer crowd -- the ones always hanging out in the CS lab, running their own *nix boxes, etc.
The MCS Society -- this tends to be run by the more hardcore CS students, which influences the greenhorn members heavily.
I've found the hardcore crowd biases open-source tools, because the tools provide greater flexibility than MS's offerings. Furthermore, they are the type who love tech for its own sake. The nature of OSS encourages them to explore how their computers work, and experiment with ideas far easier than MS's closed offerings.
The hardcore programming types also tend to have more seniority than the greenhorns, which affords them the social stature necessary to run and win elections at the MCS Society. They also tend to be familiar with the history of the MCS Society. Several years ago, MCS had a heavily-biased Microsoft agenda. The president of the organization expressed mild dunderheaded tendencies. He lined up several "Microsoft Tech Talks", and used his stature (and the generally disorganized state of MCS at the time) to "scoop up" the best times to run the talks. Furthermore, Microsoft's sponsorship included marketing products & giveaways. About 3/4 of the talks had an attendance that filled a lecture hall in Disque.
These events quickly became the largest events run by the MCS Society. Unfortunately, little cross-promotion of other talks occurred (I feel this was largely unintentional). Even so, the other officers saw a MS agenda pursued rather doggedly for quite some time. His ham-handed way of running the club resulted in a general discontent among the leaders (there was a monumental power struggle after they adopted their new constitution). Later generations of officers seemed to take a more egalitarian approach, but the memories of these events influenced their approach to later dealings and talks with MS. (Much like the bias Slashdot expresses).
There are, of course, other influences. Gaylord's knowledge of windows appears extensive, but he finds certain integration methods a pain in the butt. Last I heard, he was attempting to build a deployment platform off of VMWare, to share a customized windows image across the lab computers. The CS Department has a tight budget, so they can't deploy a ton of servers to manage AD/etc--and Gaylord doesn't want to replicate login information between NIS/LDAP and AD. Combine that with many professors' reliance on the current infrastructure and the need to accommodate the MCS and hardcore types, and there's quite a barrier to migration.
Moles and trolls, moles and trolls, work, work, work, work, work. We never see the light of day. We plan this thing for weeks and all they want to do is study. I'm disgusted. I'm sorry but it's not like me, I'm depressed. There was what, no one at the mutant hamster races, we only had one entry into the Madame Curie look-alike contest and he was disqualified later. Why do I bother?
Interpretation: I'm not even sure how to apply this to a novel. Suggestions?
Imagine a book so information dense that even E. Tufte couldn't read it without getting a nosebleed. A group of readers wishing to understand such an accumulation of language could hire a team of analysts to analyze and explain it. (Or, alternatively, the author could travel the country teaching the principles of the book at lectures or conferences).
It may not work perfectly for novels, but I'd imagine something similar could be established for compelling settings--think Star Trek conventions.
I wanted to, some 3 or so years ago, when I switched nicks. Why? I'd established a reasonable reputation with my previous account, and didn't want anyone to abuse the rep*.
--
* Plus, I like to keep my online aliases "clean", by deleting the ones I no longer use. I don't mind leaving the information up, so long as the account is inaccessible.
In my experience, that's pretty standard for social networking sites.
Re:This is actually untrue
on
Ethics In IT
·
· Score: 1
The bottom line--i.e. where it covers your ass--is only one place where it counts. Businesses may also apply ethics at "the top line"--i.e. where it can help the most. Think of it as competing on quality.
Re:ethics require education
on
Ethics In IT
·
· Score: 1
Alas, most people don't understand the logic behind security. I recommend making an account maintenance checklist. After the log-in activities are complete, activate the password switching box.
Re:You need to clarify your question
on
Ethics In IT
·
· Score: 1
That depends upon the circumstances of the company. While many companies, particularly publicly traded ones, no company is under no obligation to maximize profit, unless:
Such action is demanded by a majority of its shareholders, or
It otherwise enters an agreement enumerating such demands.
When I sat on a jury, I wasn't impressed by the mentality of my fellow jurors. Most of them wanted the trial over and done with, so they could get back to their lives/jobs/whatever. It doesn't help that the case was monumentally stupid. The defendant was a well-intentioned idiot, and the plaintiff was a poor middle-aged woman with a greasy, ambulance chaser of an attorney. On occasion, I wish that I wasn't as critical as I am. As we discussed the case, I flipped between issues, making me appear more whimsical than thoughtful. Next time, I think I'll make a run at leading the group, so I can set an appropriate atmosphere for deliberation.
The main concern with venture capital isn't losing capital, it's losing control. VCs invest large sums of money into a company, they appreciate large returns on that money. The agreements an entrepreneur enters are usually rather draconian. The preferred stock VC's request include limitations such as veto-power on board decisions, "first dibs" on liquidation funds, multiple seats on the board, etc. VC's also hold a "predatory" mindset; often, they wholly replace your executive staff within the first year of acquisition. Their influence can impose "corporate" values on your company, to the detriment of the environment an entrepreneur previously established. For some businesses, VC is the only way to finance a fledgeling business.
If you're business doesn't need this kind of capital, there are many other options available to you. Loans, angel investors, hedge funds (almost VC for the east coast), family investment, and "winging it". Often, these methods require about the same amount of as attracting VC. The upside: more control. The downside: less capital.
There are no animated avatars in eve--the closest thing you get to an avator is the little portrait that pops up when you click on someone's space ship)
Actually, your in-game avatar is your ship, and most ships are fairly complicated. Several have moving parts integrated into their graphic (particularly barges and a few shuttle), and most of them include blipping lights, etc. In combat, each gun swivels around as it fires at it's target. There's also a great deal of module-related animation, including explosions from missiles, bombs (the ones that radiate damage from your ship), gunfire, etc.
(Also, the stars in the background twinkle, which is cool.)
Take, for instance, a 1-on-1 fight in a belt. Spinning 'roids, drones, both ships, and weapons fire from the lot gets pretty busy. That said, it's definitely not as graphically complex as WoW, and I'd have kept playing if it were more than an interactive screensaver.;)
They 'evolved' to require that they all work in twos, or they were virtually helpless; this is superior to the ability to work either in a team or alone?
Obviously, the Bynars evolved from pair programmers. *ducks*
Unless the computer is particularly devious and tricks us into firing it into outer space for protection. Mobility could be provided by wheels, hovercraft, floaties and a motor, or something even kookier.
We shouldn't hope to call the US a democracy--it's a democratic republic.
On the other hand, our founding fathers didn't trust the uneducated masses, either. We have a largely unelected judiciary...
Judges were considered Officers of the Union by the Constitutional Convention, and were thus appointed like "diplomats". However, our founding fathers wanted to guarantee these officers functioned independently of the other two branches, and thus wrote the station into the Constitution*. The power of judicial review doesn't explicitly exist in the Constitution; it was established several years afterwards in a political coup.**
...even the Senate was not originally elected. The popularly elected House then was only given a term of 2 years vs 6 in the Senate!
The Senate was an institution of state sovereignty, not popular sovereignty. Even so, Senators were indirectly elected by the state legislatures.
-- * In fact, the Judiciary Branch was seen as such an impotent institution that it had three Chief Justices in its first 12 years. (Compare with Marshall's stint of 34 years).
** PBS published a great documentary about the SCOTUS, which I highly recommend.
...serve advertising (which is basically the only currently known way to "monetize" otherwise free Internet services.)
Client-side IM services achieved "commodity" status some time ago; monetizing them shouldn't be on the agenda, for the most part. However, server technologies & protocol extensions haven't reached that stage. IMHO any company focusing on client lock-in is shooting their own foot.
A more reasonable alternative is to monetize server development. Find a niche or market segment that would benefit from specialized servers and charge for the development, deployment, and maintenance of protocol extensions.
"Public" messaging systems don't need to be monetized, merely capitalized--if the public provides you with a service (say, product testing), hosting the chat service is still worthwhile.
This is the way it has to be on a technical discussion board. If somebody is talking bullshit it will be quickly found as this board is filled with technical experts.
In an age of SEO, domain squatters, and conspiracy kooks it can be difficult to construct a search that successfully separates the wheat from the chaff. Luckily, the architects of the Internet provided us with hyperlinks capable of pointing directly to the source. This has the added bonus of leading the technically competent to analyze the article behind the link--increasing the fact finding and chaff filtering capability of the community as a whole.
The reports that were touted by Cheney et al. came from military intelligence. They were thoroughly torn apart by intelligence analysts at the CIA, then thoroughly ignored by those in power. Our spies, to be sure, had nothing to do with those reports.
It's speculated that Verizon did that to divert consumer attention from the 700 MHz auction. Presumably, they'd like the ability to close "their spectrum" if opening it becomes disadvantageous.
This entire line of comments is one long bitch session about the perceived injustice of the tagging system. Does that qualify as being OffTopic? Absolutely. Does that mean your points are invalid? No, of course not. Just that they don't belong here in this particular discussion
Unfortunately, Slashdot doesn't seem to feature a place to complain and bemoan the new "features". If the administrators create one, I bet we'll see such comments die down in article discussions.
Have you ever been pressured when someone looks over your shoulder? If not, you may be surprised that many people are. Most people are sensitive when questioned about their means and methods. Many see it as a performance analysis, and will adopt a more formal approach, to the detriment of any process analysis.
So, observers should earn employee trust before executing the project. Not only does this foster a general candor (those that trust you tend to be more frank or cavalier with their attitude), but it can leave them feeling better about the process overall. This turns out great for the project at large, because the relationship can be used as a vehicle to
adjust business processes--changing their methods becomes a constructive goal, rather than an attack;
attract managerial buy-in--when employees speak positively about the project, it benefits politics; and
develop a rapport for IT services--doing well helps show that IT is allocating its resources wisely.
You'll still need apache+PHP, but I've found PmWiki an acceptable "flat-file" solution. If you want it to work standalone, you'll need a tid bit of technical knowhow to deploy it.
As far as an evaluation goes: the markup is a bit funky (but not troublesome), deployment is cake (but you need to edit a config file), and mods exist for "neat" functionality (syntax highlighting, additional styles). That said, it seems a bit sluggish at times, and the documentation targets the "beta" version.
It's difficult because you don't want to spook your employees. Handling process documentation with grace can mean a world of difference for company loyalty & morale.
Slashdot Mirror
Compliance to the law is relative, in that the boundary of legality is defined by precedence, particularly in civil matters. In fact, trials serve dual purpose. One is subjectively analyzing the facts of the case, to determine the events which led to the crime or grievance. The second is judging the compliance of an individual's actions in regards to the law. Most particulars of a case are defined beforehand, within a grand jury, evidential criteria, &c.
That line is even funnier if you read the original script. The grumpy scientist he encounters at the interview, Dr. Dodd, originally replied differently:
It also set Sherry Nugil up with a genius fetish, which provides more context for when she attempts to sleep with Mitch, etc:
I'm on the cusp of graduating from Drexel U, and I agree, for the most part, with your post. However, I've had MS-bashing happen with only two instructors: Jason Kim (whose comments were by and large tongue-in-cheek), and Gaylord Holder (the CS Department's Sys Admin). Who else has participated in such activities?
The preference for open-source tools stems, I believe, from two places:
I've found the hardcore crowd biases open-source tools, because the tools provide greater flexibility than MS's offerings. Furthermore, they are the type who love tech for its own sake. The nature of OSS encourages them to explore how their computers work, and experiment with ideas far easier than MS's closed offerings.
The hardcore programming types also tend to have more seniority than the greenhorns, which affords them the social stature necessary to run and win elections at the MCS Society. They also tend to be familiar with the history of the MCS Society. Several years ago, MCS had a heavily-biased Microsoft agenda. The president of the organization expressed mild dunderheaded tendencies. He lined up several "Microsoft Tech Talks", and used his stature (and the generally disorganized state of MCS at the time) to "scoop up" the best times to run the talks. Furthermore, Microsoft's sponsorship included marketing products & giveaways. About 3/4 of the talks had an attendance that filled a lecture hall in Disque.
These events quickly became the largest events run by the MCS Society. Unfortunately, little cross-promotion of other talks occurred (I feel this was largely unintentional). Even so, the other officers saw a MS agenda pursued rather doggedly for quite some time. His ham-handed way of running the club resulted in a general discontent among the leaders (there was a monumental power struggle after they adopted their new constitution). Later generations of officers seemed to take a more egalitarian approach, but the memories of these events influenced their approach to later dealings and talks with MS. (Much like the bias Slashdot expresses).
There are, of course, other influences. Gaylord's knowledge of windows appears extensive, but he finds certain integration methods a pain in the butt. Last I heard, he was attempting to build a deployment platform off of VMWare, to share a customized windows image across the lab computers. The CS Department has a tight budget, so they can't deploy a ton of servers to manage AD/etc--and Gaylord doesn't want to replicate login information between NIS/LDAP and AD. Combine that with many professors' reliance on the current infrastructure and the need to accommodate the MCS and hardcore types, and there's quite a barrier to migration.
With dialogue like this:
How could you not want to see it?
Imagine a book so information dense that even E. Tufte couldn't read it without getting a nosebleed. A group of readers wishing to understand such an accumulation of language could hire a team of analysts to analyze and explain it. (Or, alternatively, the author could travel the country teaching the principles of the book at lectures or conferences).
It may not work perfectly for novels, but I'd imagine something similar could be established for compelling settings--think Star Trek conventions.
I wanted to, some 3 or so years ago, when I switched nicks. Why? I'd established a reasonable reputation with my previous account, and didn't want anyone to abuse the rep*.
--
* Plus, I like to keep my online aliases "clean", by deleting the ones I no longer use. I don't mind leaving the information up, so long as the account is inaccessible.
In my experience, that's pretty standard for social networking sites.
The bottom line--i.e. where it covers your ass--is only one place where it counts. Businesses may also apply ethics at "the top line"--i.e. where it can help the most. Think of it as competing on quality.
Alas, most people don't understand the logic behind security. I recommend making an account maintenance checklist. After the log-in activities are complete, activate the password switching box.
When I sat on a jury, I wasn't impressed by the mentality of my fellow jurors. Most of them wanted the trial over and done with, so they could get back to their lives/jobs/whatever. It doesn't help that the case was monumentally stupid. The defendant was a well-intentioned idiot, and the plaintiff was a poor middle-aged woman with a greasy, ambulance chaser of an attorney. On occasion, I wish that I wasn't as critical as I am. As we discussed the case, I flipped between issues, making me appear more whimsical than thoughtful. Next time, I think I'll make a run at leading the group, so I can set an appropriate atmosphere for deliberation.
The main concern with venture capital isn't losing capital, it's losing control. VCs invest large sums of money into a company, they appreciate large returns on that money. The agreements an entrepreneur enters are usually rather draconian. The preferred stock VC's request include limitations such as veto-power on board decisions, "first dibs" on liquidation funds, multiple seats on the board, etc. VC's also hold a "predatory" mindset; often, they wholly replace your executive staff within the first year of acquisition. Their influence can impose "corporate" values on your company, to the detriment of the environment an entrepreneur previously established. For some businesses, VC is the only way to finance a fledgeling business.
If you're business doesn't need this kind of capital, there are many other options available to you. Loans, angel investors, hedge funds (almost VC for the east coast), family investment, and "winging it". Often, these methods require about the same amount of as attracting VC. The upside: more control. The downside: less capital.
Actually, your in-game avatar is your ship, and most ships are fairly complicated. Several have moving parts integrated into their graphic (particularly barges and a few shuttle), and most of them include blipping lights, etc. In combat, each gun swivels around as it fires at it's target. There's also a great deal of module-related animation, including explosions from missiles, bombs (the ones that radiate damage from your ship), gunfire, etc.
(Also, the stars in the background twinkle, which is cool.)
Take, for instance, a 1-on-1 fight in a belt. Spinning 'roids, drones, both ships, and weapons fire from the lot gets pretty busy. That said, it's definitely not as graphically complex as WoW, and I'd have kept playing if it were more than an interactive screensaver. ;)
Obviously, the Bynars evolved from pair programmers. *ducks*
Unless the computer is particularly devious and tricks us into firing it into outer space for protection. Mobility could be provided by wheels, hovercraft, floaties and a motor, or something even kookier.
We shouldn't hope to call the US a democracy--it's a democratic republic.
Judges were considered Officers of the Union by the Constitutional Convention, and were thus appointed like "diplomats". However, our founding fathers wanted to guarantee these officers functioned independently of the other two branches, and thus wrote the station into the Constitution*. The power of judicial review doesn't explicitly exist in the Constitution; it was established several years afterwards in a political coup.**
The Senate was an institution of state sovereignty, not popular sovereignty. Even so, Senators were indirectly elected by the state legislatures.
--
* In fact, the Judiciary Branch was seen as such an impotent institution that it had three Chief Justices in its first 12 years. (Compare with Marshall's stint of 34 years).
** PBS published a great documentary about the SCOTUS, which I highly recommend.
Client-side IM services achieved "commodity" status some time ago; monetizing them shouldn't be on the agenda, for the most part. However, server technologies & protocol extensions haven't reached that stage. IMHO any company focusing on client lock-in is shooting their own foot.
A more reasonable alternative is to monetize server development. Find a niche or market segment that would benefit from specialized servers and charge for the development, deployment, and maintenance of protocol extensions.
"Public" messaging systems don't need to be monetized, merely capitalized--if the public provides you with a service (say, product testing), hosting the chat service is still worthwhile.
In an age of SEO, domain squatters, and conspiracy kooks it can be difficult to construct a search that successfully separates the wheat from the chaff. Luckily, the architects of the Internet provided us with hyperlinks capable of pointing directly to the source. This has the added bonus of leading the technically competent to analyze the article behind the link--increasing the fact finding and chaff filtering capability of the community as a whole.
Or, to make a long story short, stuff it.
The reports that were touted by Cheney et al. came from military intelligence. They were thoroughly torn apart by intelligence analysts at the CIA, then thoroughly ignored by those in power. Our spies, to be sure, had nothing to do with those reports.
It's speculated that Verizon did that to divert consumer attention from the 700 MHz auction. Presumably, they'd like the ability to close "their spectrum" if opening it becomes disadvantageous.
Unfortunately, Slashdot doesn't seem to feature a place to complain and bemoan the new "features". If the administrators create one, I bet we'll see such comments die down in article discussions.
So, observers should earn employee trust before executing the project. Not only does this foster a general candor (those that trust you tend to be more frank or cavalier with their attitude), but it can leave them feeling better about the process overall. This turns out great for the project at large, because the relationship can be used as a vehicle to
Another way to look at it is presentation counts.
You'll still need apache+PHP, but I've found PmWiki an acceptable "flat-file" solution. If you want it to work standalone, you'll need a tid bit of technical knowhow to deploy it.
As far as an evaluation goes: the markup is a bit funky (but not troublesome), deployment is cake (but you need to edit a config file), and mods exist for "neat" functionality (syntax highlighting, additional styles). That said, it seems a bit sluggish at times, and the documentation targets the "beta" version.
Hope this helps!
It's difficult because you don't want to spook your employees. Handling process documentation with grace can mean a world of difference for company loyalty & morale.