Well, surrendering a master password to persons unknown on a conference call isn't what I'd call responsible.
Nice try. While there were people on a conference call in the room, that's not the whole story. An excerpt from this article clearly states:
That afternoon Childs "unwittingly" found himself in a surprise meeting in the city's Hall of Justice, where he maintained network facilities. At the meeting were his boss, DTIC Chief Operations Officer Richard Robinson, San Francisco Police Department CIO Greg Yee and human resources representative Vitus Leung. On the phone were engineers, listening in to confirm whether the passwords he gave were correct.
I think his boss and the COO were quite qualified to meet the "need to know" requirement.
HOW IS THIS INFORMATIVE?? There are no links in your post that point us to the contract that supposedly directly Mr. Childs to reveal the passwords ONLY to the mayor. Furthermore, your posts seem to link to a couple of rather obscure blogs, which in turn link to all of the other InfoWorld and other articles that we've all been discussing.
It's not like he had an obligation to ever divulge passwords
[disclaimer] I'll admit, I'm picking on you because yours if the first post I found relating this point (many others seem to hold this same idea).
Why is it that everyone seems to think that Mr. Childs had no obligation to provide these passwords to anyone? According to this timeline, he had not been fired when the demand for passwords was made, rather he was employed, asked for the passwords, and he refused which resulted in his suspension. Some others have gone on to claim that the terms of Mr. Childs' contract stated that he was only required to provide the passwords to the mayor. I have yet to find a copy of Mr. Childs' contract stating this fact, and it seems fairly incredulous that this would be the case (I am not claiming this as fact, merely pointing out that other assertions to this end have thus far failed to point to any documentation).
I fail to see how this man didn't create this whole situation for himself. His egocentric and territorial nature clearly affected his ability to perform his job in the sense that he had deluded himself into a position of ownership in which he believed that he could determine who he answered to. If someone can point us to credible proof that there was specific, written language which allowed Mr. Childs to withhold this information from his superiors (save the mayor), perhaps this would clear up some controversy. Perhaps I fail at 'googling', but I've not been able to come up with it yet.
banned from ever working on public infrastructure ever again
I somehow think that he's done this to himself. Who would employ this jerk to administer their network knowing that his obviously enormous ego has a tendency to take over his brain.
See what you think of PcLinux. It's built on Debian, so it's not too "fringey". Here are some screenshots. It compares nicely to the Windows XP User Interface, but not so closely as to be confused with Windows. The descriptions of programs are fairly easy for newbies to understand, and even the front end for synaptic should make it pretty simple for them to add on programs if they want to.
i could put it on youtube, and get money from advertising clicks......what doesn't extend to everyone else, nor to me, is that i have ANY say in how my movie is distributed once its out there on the internet
i don't understand why you are not seeing this point, or why you are confusing this point with some other point of argument that i am not defending/ advocating
perhaps its too subtle a point?
I'm confused because it seems as if you're contradicting yourself. On one hand, you want to be able to have the right to make some money off of posting your film on YouTube by putting some ads on the page. Fair enough. On the other hand, you seem to bristle at the suggesting that this Pete Waterman wants the same thing since a song he co-wrote became an internet fad and everyone in the world seemed to be posting links to Youtube videos of the song.
Believe me, dude, I'm not trying to pick a fight here, and I'm not trying to be pedantic either, I genuinely don't see the difference in the 2 points you seem to be making.
i could put it on youtube, and get money from advertising clicks. or charge the odd bird who wants it on dvd $10. or i rent a theatre, take out advertising, and sell tickets. in other words, i make my money in theatres, or i make it via ancillary revenue streams.
So it seems that you're OK with YOU making money off of your movie via advertising click, dvd reproduction or what have you, however this doesn't extend to everyone else.
Got it. Makes perfect sense. I'll get to work on adapting to your way of thinking.
Look, the guy was an asshole plain and simple in his choice of words. I just get sick of everyone frothing at the mouth every time some artist (like you and me, dude) wants to be able to make some money for something they've done. I'm not advocating this monopolistic type scenario that you're trying to pin on me, I'm simply saying that while this particular case is a little unsavory in parts, it has some implications that could very easily apply to you and me.
I don't think you're out of line for wanting to have the choice to make some money off of your flick, regardless of how you choose to do it. I also don't have any problem if you choose to offer it for free (i.e. Creative Commons or something to that effect). I also don't think I'm out of order for wanting the choice to do the same with my work. I often offer my work for free in other people's productions, but it's my discretion. If, on the other hand, I feel that someone using my work should compensate and credit me for it, that too should be my choice, I made it.
Now, if we're done fighting with each other, do you need some music for your horror film? I have a few tracks that I could offer you, in exchange for credit of course.
and if you believe otherwise, you very much are a good definition of what is wrong with this world, in terms of a stunning display of greed backed up with force, overwhelming the common goodquote>and if you believe otherwise, you very much are a good definition of what is wrong with this world, in terms of a stunning display of greed backed up with force, overwhelming the common good
I see. So I'm assuming that you plan on releasing YOUR PRODUCTION for everyone's free use, right?? And you wouldn't mind at all if anyone feels like using your movie however they see fit, right?? And you wouldn't feel the least bit sleighted if your movie was used all over the place, millions of times, yet you saw only $11, right??
Criminals will still just sit out in front of your house and wait for the cars the leave.
Parent is spot on. Any way you cut it, if someone really wants to get into your house, they're going to get in. It's a balance of how difficult are you going to make it for someone else to know you're away and how hard it is to get into your house versus how badly that person wants to get into your house.
Or did they mean 500,000 average-length songs? When did 'an iTune' mean anything?
Indeed. They should have used specific examples like:
Here Comes the Sun Black Hole Sun Good Day Sunshine House of the Risin' Sun Walking on the Sun Blister in the Sun You Are the Sunshine of My Life Sunshower Don't Let the Sun Go Down On Me Sunless Saturday California Sun Walking on Sunshine
Hmmm, it seems my American upbringing has influenced my ability to recognize an acceptable form of the word percent. I offer the following from TFA to vindicate myself:
"If a student has problems with articles, prepositions, verb tenses, that's a problem."
This should read "If a student has problems with articles, prepositions, or verb tenses,then that's a problem.
"Punctuation errors are huge, and apostrophe errors. Students seem to have absolutely no idea what an apostrophe is for. None. Absolutely none."
This should read "Punctuation errors, particularly those regarding the proper use of apostrophes, are a huge problem"
"I get their essays and I go 'You obviously don't know what a sentence fragment is
This should read "I get their essays and I think, 'You obviously don't know what a sentence fragment is'."
"It would say to me... 'well, this person doesn't think very clearly, and they're not very good at analyzing complex subjects, and they're not very good at expressing themselves, or at worse, they can't spell, they can't punctuate,' " he says.
This run on sentence has many inappropriately used commas.
"You can go back and read Plato and see Socrates talking about the allegations that this generation isn't as not as good as previous ones," he notes.
"Thirty per cent of students who are admitted are not able to pass at a minimum level," says Ann Barrett, managing director of the English language proficiency exam at Waterloo University.
Who the hell modded this insightful?? You sir, are a selfish, reckless ass. What you're claiming (with your anecdotal ranting) is essentially that it's better to gamble on your ability to provide for your family and keep your "pride" than it is to put up with various inconveniences associated with work. You are exaggerating various parts of what it's like to work in the corporate world (for the most part) and de-emphasizing parts of your experience (or assuming that your experience is going to automatically apply to everyone else).
News flash, moron, jobs are very often hard to find. They're particularly hard to find in this economy, and harder still if you have an employment record that's filled with lots of "difficult to work with", "has trouble taking direction", "doesn't work well with others", and other such comments.
Your pompous assertion that people should "put their families first" by not putting up with any crap at work reads like it was written by the resentful 16 year old working at a Dairy Queen because his/her parents made them get a job. To actually suggest that your willingness to put up with any unpleasantness on your job outweighs your concern for whether your daughter has to eat bread and water is truly mystifying. To further expound that "if it means a choice between giving up my mortgage and making me/my daughter unhappy..." reveals pretty clearly that your views are quite distorted. I have a feeling that your daughter/family (if indeed they actually exist) might experience a little unhappiness being evicted from their home....just a hunch.
Humans have sexual urges, it is not realistic to expect them to be celibate..... you will have abuse in a significant percentage of cases.
Not neccesarily. Don't get me wrong here, I'm not defending anyone's abuse of children (priest or otherwise), however the implication that celibacy automatically creates an environment where the chances of sexual abuse are higher is distorted.
I can't think of a single indie act that's raked in megabucks.
They're out there. They may be in "niche" markets, but they're out there. I don't know how you define it but $14.5 million per year qualifies as "megabucks" to me.
I have never heard or seen a Buddhist organization proselytize
Neither have I. I merely stated something that should be understood, but often isn't for many people. You'd be surprised how often people then to lump Buddhism/Buddhists in with all other religions or "isms", and by extension tend to think that the same types of strings are attached.
Speaking of NGOs, here is a reputable charity that accepts PayPal or Google Checkout for donations (I found most of the others like Red Cross and Doctors without Borders only took credit cards). For anyone interested in donating, but would prefer to do so via PayPal or Google:
While primarily a Buddhist organization, their charity "arm" is secular, and not subject to some of the proselytizing that can go along with other "religious" charities.
the rep doesn't look the least bit concerned until it actually snaps.
That's because the "rep" in the video is the CEO of the company. What I'd like to see is the rant that was edited out (you can tell pretty easily that there's an edit at 1:09). I'm betting you saw the CEO's face turn a few shades of red and that a few employees were packing up their desks.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, surrendering a master password to persons unknown on a conference call isn't what I'd call responsible.
Nice try. While there were people on a conference call in the room, that's not the whole story. An excerpt from this article clearly states:
I think his boss and the COO were quite qualified to meet the "need to know" requirement.
HOW IS THIS INFORMATIVE?? There are no links in your post that point us to the contract that supposedly directly Mr. Childs to reveal the passwords ONLY to the mayor. Furthermore, your posts seem to link to a couple of rather obscure blogs, which in turn link to all of the other InfoWorld and other articles that we've all been discussing.
Next please.
It's not like he had an obligation to ever divulge passwords
[disclaimer] I'll admit, I'm picking on you because yours if the first post I found relating this point (many others seem to hold this same idea).
Why is it that everyone seems to think that Mr. Childs had no obligation to provide these passwords to anyone? According to this timeline, he had not been fired when the demand for passwords was made, rather he was employed, asked for the passwords, and he refused which resulted in his suspension. Some others have gone on to claim that the terms of Mr. Childs' contract stated that he was only required to provide the passwords to the mayor. I have yet to find a copy of Mr. Childs' contract stating this fact, and it seems fairly incredulous that this would be the case (I am not claiming this as fact, merely pointing out that other assertions to this end have thus far failed to point to any documentation).
I fail to see how this man didn't create this whole situation for himself. His egocentric and territorial nature clearly affected his ability to perform his job in the sense that he had deluded himself into a position of ownership in which he believed that he could determine who he answered to. If someone can point us to credible proof that there was specific, written language which allowed Mr. Childs to withhold this information from his superiors (save the mayor), perhaps this would clear up some controversy. Perhaps I fail at 'googling', but I've not been able to come up with it yet.
banned from ever working on public infrastructure ever again
I somehow think that he's done this to himself. Who would employ this jerk to administer their network knowing that his obviously enormous ego has a tendency to take over his brain.
Sounds familiar.
Enough said.
See what you think of PcLinux. It's built on Debian, so it's not too "fringey". Here are some screenshots. It compares nicely to the Windows XP User Interface, but not so closely as to be confused with Windows. The descriptions of programs are fairly easy for newbies to understand, and even the front end for synaptic should make it pretty simple for them to add on programs if they want to.
I think we've seen the future of Tool's live shows.
i could put it on youtube, and get money from advertising clicks......what doesn't extend to everyone else, nor to me, is that i have ANY say in how my movie is distributed once its out there on the internet i don't understand why you are not seeing this point, or why you are confusing this point with some other point of argument that i am not defending/ advocating perhaps its too subtle a point?
I'm confused because it seems as if you're contradicting yourself. On one hand, you want to be able to have the right to make some money off of posting your film on YouTube by putting some ads on the page. Fair enough. On the other hand, you seem to bristle at the suggesting that this Pete Waterman wants the same thing since a song he co-wrote became an internet fad and everyone in the world seemed to be posting links to Youtube videos of the song.
Believe me, dude, I'm not trying to pick a fight here, and I'm not trying to be pedantic either, I genuinely don't see the difference in the 2 points you seem to be making.
i could put it on youtube, and get money from advertising clicks. or charge the odd bird who wants it on dvd $10. or i rent a theatre, take out advertising, and sell tickets. in other words, i make my money in theatres, or i make it via ancillary revenue streams.
So it seems that you're OK with YOU making money off of your movie via advertising click, dvd reproduction or what have you, however this doesn't extend to everyone else.
Got it. Makes perfect sense. I'll get to work on adapting to your way of thinking.
Look, the guy was an asshole plain and simple in his choice of words. I just get sick of everyone frothing at the mouth every time some artist (like you and me, dude) wants to be able to make some money for something they've done. I'm not advocating this monopolistic type scenario that you're trying to pin on me, I'm simply saying that while this particular case is a little unsavory in parts, it has some implications that could very easily apply to you and me.
I don't think you're out of line for wanting to have the choice to make some money off of your flick, regardless of how you choose to do it. I also don't have any problem if you choose to offer it for free (i.e. Creative Commons or something to that effect). I also don't think I'm out of order for wanting the choice to do the same with my work. I often offer my work for free in other people's productions, but it's my discretion. If, on the other hand, I feel that someone using my work should compensate and credit me for it, that too should be my choice, I made it.
Now, if we're done fighting with each other, do you need some music for your horror film? I have a few tracks that I could offer you, in exchange for credit of course.
;-)
and if you believe otherwise, you very much are a good definition of what is wrong with this world, in terms of a stunning display of greed backed up with force, overwhelming the common goodquote>and if you believe otherwise, you very much are a good definition of what is wrong with this world, in terms of a stunning display of greed backed up with force, overwhelming the common good
I see. So I'm assuming that you plan on releasing YOUR PRODUCTION for everyone's free use, right?? And you wouldn't mind at all if anyone feels like using your movie however they see fit, right?? And you wouldn't feel the least bit sleighted if your movie was used all over the place, millions of times, yet you saw only $11, right??
Or maybe some Aesop might be in order here.
Criminals will still just sit out in front of your house and wait for the cars the leave.
Parent is spot on. Any way you cut it, if someone really wants to get into your house, they're going to get in. It's a balance of how difficult are you going to make it for someone else to know you're away and how hard it is to get into your house versus how badly that person wants to get into your house.
Or did they mean 500,000 average-length songs? When did 'an iTune' mean anything?
Indeed. They should have used specific examples like:
Here Comes the Sun
Black Hole Sun
Good Day Sunshine
House of the Risin' Sun
Walking on the Sun
Blister in the Sun
You Are the Sunshine of My Life
Sunshower
Don't Let the Sun Go Down On Me
Sunless Saturday
California Sun
Walking on Sunshine
You know, something like that.
I'll worry about that after you've explained why canibalism and necrophilia should be illegal.
(I'm serious - why should they be illegal?)
All right, Dr. Lecter, that's enough out of you.
Inventory: no tea
Dang it!
"If a student has problems with articles, prepositions, verb tenses, that's a problem."
This should read "If a student has problems with articles, prepositions, or verb tenses,then that's a problem.
"Punctuation errors are huge, and apostrophe errors. Students seem to have absolutely no idea what an apostrophe is for. None. Absolutely none."
This should read "Punctuation errors, particularly those regarding the proper use of apostrophes, are a huge problem"
"I get their essays and I go 'You obviously don't know what a sentence fragment is
This should read "I get their essays and I think, 'You obviously don't know what a sentence fragment is'."
"It would say to me ... 'well, this person doesn't think very clearly, and they're not very good at analyzing complex subjects, and they're not very good at expressing themselves, or at worse, they can't spell, they can't punctuate,' " he says.
This run on sentence has many inappropriately used commas.
"You can go back and read Plato and see Socrates talking about the allegations that this generation isn't as not as good as previous ones," he notes.
"Isn't as not as good"?
AHHHH!!!! It's percent not per cent!!
Who the hell modded this insightful?? You sir, are a selfish, reckless ass. What you're claiming (with your anecdotal ranting) is essentially that it's better to gamble on your ability to provide for your family and keep your "pride" than it is to put up with various inconveniences associated with work. You are exaggerating various parts of what it's like to work in the corporate world (for the most part) and de-emphasizing parts of your experience (or assuming that your experience is going to automatically apply to everyone else).
News flash, moron, jobs are very often hard to find. They're particularly hard to find in this economy, and harder still if you have an employment record that's filled with lots of "difficult to work with", "has trouble taking direction", "doesn't work well with others", and other such comments.
Your pompous assertion that people should "put their families first" by not putting up with any crap at work reads like it was written by the resentful 16 year old working at a Dairy Queen because his/her parents made them get a job. To actually suggest that your willingness to put up with any unpleasantness on your job outweighs your concern for whether your daughter has to eat bread and water is truly mystifying. To further expound that "if it means a choice between giving up my mortgage and making me/my daughter unhappy..." reveals pretty clearly that your views are quite distorted. I have a feeling that your daughter/family (if indeed they actually exist) might experience a little unhappiness being evicted from their home....just a hunch.
Humans have sexual urges, it is not realistic to expect them to be celibate..... you will have abuse in a significant percentage of cases.
Not neccesarily. Don't get me wrong here, I'm not defending anyone's abuse of children (priest or otherwise), however the implication that celibacy automatically creates an environment where the chances of sexual abuse are higher is distorted.
I can't think of a single indie act that's raked in megabucks.
They're out there. Any way you cut it, $14.5 million per year qualifies as "megabucks" to me.
I can't think of a single indie act that's raked in megabucks.
They're out there. They may be in "niche" markets, but they're out there. I don't know how you define it but $14.5 million per year qualifies as "megabucks" to me.
I have never heard or seen a Buddhist organization proselytize
Neither have I. I merely stated something that should be understood, but often isn't for many people. You'd be surprised how often people then to lump Buddhism/Buddhists in with all other religions or "isms", and by extension tend to think that the same types of strings are attached.
Speaking of NGOs, here is a reputable charity that accepts PayPal or Google Checkout for donations (I found most of the others like Red Cross and Doctors without Borders only took credit cards). For anyone interested in donating, but would prefer to do so via PayPal or Google:
http://www.us.tzuchi.org/usa/home.nsf/other/k12063
While primarily a Buddhist organization, their charity "arm" is secular, and not subject to some of the proselytizing that can go along with other "religious" charities.
it's supposed to stand for "WINdows Emulator"
Whooosh!!
the rep doesn't look the least bit concerned until it actually snaps.
That's because the "rep" in the video is the CEO of the company. What I'd like to see is the rant that was edited out (you can tell pretty easily that there's an edit at 1:09). I'm betting you saw the CEO's face turn a few shades of red and that a few employees were packing up their desks.