I have a great example of how reality gets in the way of fantasy.
The Watchmen comic series. Love this series! I agree it's the greatest comic series of all time. However, When Nite Owl sits down at a computer, and begins to basically "guess" passwords until he's able to get in and crack the plot and find out what's going on, I thought simply that even the greatest comic book series of all time had to use one of the worst plot devices of all time.
My major problem with this is that the computer belonged to the "most intelligent man in the world." Even in 1986, intelligent computer users are supposed to know that you don't pick a password that's easily guessable.
I've had arguments to this day with noncomputer users who say I'm being overly picky, despite arguments proving my point time after time. Fantasy is just not as entertaining as it could be when you know too much about reality.
The worm has turned hasn't it? Microsoft commits monopolistic practices strong arming companies into killing competition and continue to look for new ways to leverage their monopoly (albeit more subtly so they stay off the radar) and they are merely incompetant? And yet Apple creates a device people actually want and they are evil incarnate?
Say what you will about Apple, but trying to say Apple is more evil than Microsoft is like saying getting hit by a Cadillac Escalade at 60 MPH is some how worse than getting hit by a Ford Explorer at 60 MPH. If you grandmother doesn't like the iPhone, she has a choice of switching to an Android. Viola, problem solved. If your mom doesn't like Windows, what is her choice? Linux? hahahahahhahaah you Linux n00b. Oh and we can't switch to mac OS because you just declared them evil incarnate... ooooooooooo... even if they only have 5% of the desktop/laptop OS market.
Please. These are businesses making money. When you have a choice in products, move away from what you don't like and get over it. They are businesses out to get your money and are trying to attract as many people as possible. In this case you have a choice.
And if you really want porn on your iPhone, go to a website. These apps are no great loss realistically, 99.99% of them were scams anyway and they are already starting to put back some of the ones that shouldn't have been taken down, like Daisy Mae.
#1 it's not about computers with Microsoft it's OS... that is... you can buy any PC you want... as long as it has windows. Windows is the monopoly not the PC, you do NOT have a choice. #2 Monopoly rules apply to those who have dominant market share. You ignored my market share points.
Yes, Apple is playing hardball, I didn't say they weren't. I also didn't say they weren't wrong for restricting app makers. However to say MS is not playing hardball is entirely ignorant. MS played hardball by underselling Netscape (at the time netscape chose to sell their software and IE chose to be given away free), forcing AOL and netscape off of the Windows desktop, using their monopoly power to force PC makers to do what they want or pay higher licensing fees (talk to IBM about that) and in general being anti-competitive.
The difference is Market share and choice. You can chose another phone platform. In all your examples you just explained you "chose" window every time. That's because you have no choice but to buy windows in order to remain compatible with everyone else. There you go. Windows still has a 90% marketshare.
But since you are avoiding the marketshare discussion, it appears that you are in fact an MS schill.
Microsoft had and still has 90%+ marketshare in operating systems Apple has about 21% in the cell phone market right now.
In choice of operating systems, you have Windows, OS X, or Linux. OS X and Linux have Windows emulators available for those windows programs you can't just live without. You tell me if they are relevant enough to not consider Windows a monopoly?
If you need a computer that runs windows software, and you can't spend hours upon hours of configuration or you can't spend $1000 on the cheapest iMac or Macbook along with a license to windows, you have to buy a windows machine.
If you don't like the iPhone, buy a Symbian or an Andriod.
The difference is how the market works. In the Windows world, you have no choice, so they should be regulated. In the phone market, Apple does not have a monopoly so you can go somewhere else.
I'm not saying Apple is holy, or out of the wrong, the difference is that if you don't like Apple's product you can leave! That's how the market is supposed to work.
Come back and replay that tired ignorant argument when you take monopolies 101.
What if he hit the brake outside of the work zone, as he was supposed to, and then when he released the brake, the car suddenly sped up to the original speed limit, or higher, and hit the car in front of him before the driver had a chance to react?
I'm not saying this is probable, I'm simply offering a counter argument. A case could be made now. Accident lawyers are salivating...
Sometimes corporations do the right thing in their own interest. I think is far more subtler than a business throwing up their hands and giving up, this is a business basically saying "we've always been at war with eastasia. Eurasia is our ally."
First, Verizon is getting it's butt kicked by Comcast and other cable providers for internet service. An article by Consumer reports this month says that Verizon has the superior service and value, but Comcast continues to hold onto the subscribers, particularly since FIOS is not available everywhere and cable just has the mindshare. Anything Verizon can do to make sure Comcast doesn't have a huge lever against them, particularly since they are buying NBC, will be huge.
Second, Verizon is starting to realize that Android has a shot at being a big deal, and not only does that require Google's cooperation, it also requires Android itself. Nexus One and Droid aren't the iPhone ikiller, but Android itself is becoming a challenger, because it's available across multiple platforms and services. Verizon sees this long term, and the secret to being competitive at the moment is getting people to go with the hardware and sell contracts.
Third, AT+T is getting tremendous flak for statements about limiting network usage and blaming iPhone users. Frankly, I think all providers would love to limit phones, but the problem with that is that people like Google don't want limitations. Leave it to Google to give Verizon some religion on the subject, and show them the more you can do with a device, the more people will want it. Anything that makes Verizon look good over AT+T, especially if AT+T self destructs a bit, is obviously great for Verizon.
See my problem with "don't buy it" in the cell phone market is that there aren't enough alternatives. Okay so I need a cell phone to do my job, and keep in touch with my family. Exactly what do I do? Buy one of those crappy PAYGO cell phones that break in 6 months, and has no features? How do I check my email and keep my calendar with one of those? We need OSes in the market like WebOS, the iPhone and Android, but in order to take advantage of them, yes the cell phone companies aren't competing to get my dollar, they are colluding to drive prices up while not improving their service at the same rate.
Every cell phone company is trying to pull bullshit because they all learned that a) the best way to make money is to try to either force people into a contract or try to trick them and b) the American government as it stands now simply is unwilling and incapable of properly regulating and policing them. We can't even get proper banking or health reform ion this country, cell phone reform on pricing is significantly further down the list. Telling me not to buy it when there are no choices for me is not a choice, it's basically telling me to find a job and a lifestyle that doesn't require a cell phone.
If so, I refuse to fly unless I'm flying in a plane full of nothing but attractive young female swimsuit models who become nymphomaniacs when they see a slightly rotund computer nerd.
There, fixed it for you.
Nasty flashback when he's knighted
on
Sir Patrick Stewart
·
· Score: 5, Funny
Patrick will approach the queen during the ceremony, then suddenly have a fit as he sees the spotlights around him and scream "THERE ARE FOUR LIGHTS!!"
Because they have these small plastic boxes attached to their ears and they have no idea how any of it really works, they just know they can upload stupid pictures of their friends drinking too much to this thing called the interwebs.
1) Code an uber-efficient program to save a manufacturing company millions and increase output. 2) Get laid off by a stupid manager because he craved power over the status quo. 3) Shop around to competitors explaining that you could do something similar for them in 6 months, especially those who have a similar legacy system. 4) BIG TIME PROFIT!
Sure you'd have to code from the ground up but hey it's a paycheck and I'm sure you could do it again. That's how capitalism is supposed to work. Eventually there's a good chance one of those companies will snap you up and realize what a gem you are. I agree that situation sucked but that's not about capitalism, just some schmucks afraid of change.
... you're addressing the wrong thing. Human beings are able to procreate early, but their actually mental maturity isn't reached until sometime between the ages of 18 and 21, when the brain finally matures. The brain takes longest to develop. The concept is that humans need to be guided responsibly through most of this process. Left to their own devices, we basically end up with lord of the flies or beavis and butthead or something even worse.
This is not a pro "save the children, shield them from nudity and 'evil' things" comment, but rather simply a devil's advocate comment. I think the problem is that a lot of these kids were guided wrong, pushed to believe that a nude body is a dirty and evil thing and that looking at it will make you go to hell. To me, that's just irresponsible guidance but once you ingrain that in a human brain, it most likely stays that way for the rest of it's life. It's the mental maturity that's key here and any situation.
I'm sure the legal profession would hate the very idea of this, but these days judges seemed vastly disconnected from society.
I'm not so sure I agree with that. There are plenty of pompous judges, but there are plenty of more realistic ones. I have to admit I've been in front of traffic court judges for speeding tickets and not a one has acted like a jerk to me. They all spoke with that "dude you broke the law, can you slow down please?" tone which was entirely deserved. I also hear of judges who are working very hard with lawyers and homeowners to modify or even vacate bad mortgages so people can keep their homes. That sounds very down to earth to me. I only once had to deal with a pompous lawyer, and that was in tenant landlord court, but the decision he came down to was reasonable and fair, he was just very busy in a large city court and he doesn't have time to waste with all on his docket. And finally I was called into jury duty once and while I wasn't selected for the final jury the judge was calm, polite, and measured in every one of his instructions and didn't act like he ruled over all of us. Of course, my experience is only anecdotal, but then again your experience seems even more anecdotal, or is based on decisions on extreme cases you hear at the national level. Whether or not those individual judges are pompous and disconnected could be debated, but I'm not sure they are representative of all judges.
Every time I hear a judge screech "*My* court" or make a dumb ass decision Are you a lawyer, court reporter, or bailiff? How many times have you heard a judge truly yell this? How many decisions have you sat in on that you considered dumbass? I'm trying to gauge your experience here because as a common person myself, the only time I've heard a judge yell those words is in a movie or TV show. As for dumbass decisions, I can only say I've heard of a number of decisions at the national level, even at the supreme court, I strongly disagree with, but only because either the law wasn't clear and the case was incredibly difficult, or the case was politically motivated.
it's apparent they've forgotten they're nothing more than pubic servants Pardon me while I chuckle:P. Please spell and grammar check while you rant.
albeit overpaid and wearing silly black capes and/or pompous wigs. From your previous posts list, I can only guess you are from Australia, because you seem to know something about events there. If I'm wrong I'm sorry, but if you are, it would help to qualify your comments. You would seem to be suffering from a disease my fellow american slashdotters commonly have which is "my-country-is-the-only-one-that-matter-itis". You couldn't possible be American since American judges don't wear wigs.
This is theater only the very rich can afford to participate in. I agree but that's not the judge's fault, at least not in the US anyway, and I'm not sure how that would be the Judge's fault in any system that was borrowed from the British either. This is a topic for a completely different conversation.
The whole legal system needs to be tossed out on it's ass and reinvented from scratch. In the US, aside from the money issue, I think the legal system is absolutely fantastic. It's built on law, order, procedure, and logic. It tries to guarentee everyone their day in court and tries it's best to come to the most reasonable conclusion in every trial, with as many checks and balances as possible. It's not perfect, and if you think any system never imprisons innocents or lets the guilty go free you are naive. It's also silly to blame judges for the laws they have to protect. The Law itself is made by politicians, it's for the judge to enforce that law, so if you are convicted for an unjust law, the lawmakers screwed you, not the judges. The US system not perfect, however, and could think of a few ways to improve it, but it does work. Sorry I can't speak for the Australian system but I hear it's relatively stable down under these days.
I'm someone who suffers from a problem described in a comment further down, in that my name is rather unique and it used to be incredibly easy to find me on the net. You can still find me with a simple search, and I'm hoping the old information that used to be there is incredibly hard to find in cache from years ago. In any case, the only thing you can find so far of me is whois information of my website. It's a quick jump from there to my website, which is highly "opinionated" to say the least, and has no bearing on my work.
My question is, what should I do about my site's whois? It has my full name and address on it. At the same time, if something goes wrong with my domain I don't want to lose it because my name isn't on it properly.
Sorry this is probably an old question which might be OT but I didn't think of it until I saw this post and, well, maybe someone else can benefit from it as well.
Micro$oft suxx0rs! Close source is evil! Linux is better because it's open! Microsoft will die because it's closed! *RAAAAWWWRRRRRRRviolentflaminggeekrage*
Economics has already won here. It's call the law of supply and demand. Customers demand unlimited data packages, so AT+T has supplied it. There's a reason why no one does those metered fees any more... because consumers don't want them! This isn't economics, it's greed. I'm worried that it will come to pass not because of economics, but because the companies will find a way to make customers accept it. However, I'm hoping that they realize that this will kill the smartphone market because no one wants to buy a smartphone and put up with that kind of plan.
It was just posted in another article that we download 34 GB of information a day last year. A DAY! LAST YEAR!!! AT+T wants to figure out how to capitalize on that because they want to artificially increase their profits. They whine and moan about people are making their network slow, but the only one making their network slow is AT+T, by not upgrading it. AT+T financially is doing just fine and making a profit, now it's up to them to provide me with a service. The problem with this and other US carriers is not that they are too regulated, it's that they aren't regulated enough into providing a decent level of service. They are also motivated by greedy investors to maximize their profits, often at the expense of better service because they make more money by trying to screw us than by trying serve us.
Someone goes to all the effort to make a perfectly reasonable Back to the Future joke and you have to kill it with your infernal logic. Great Scott, how dare you! This is so heavy.
What's funny right now is that I constantly hear from reviews, friends, and fellow iPhone users how much they think AT&T sucks and want to move to Verizon. Personally I think this is all BS, and would love some more european and canadian cell phone companies to invade the US and finally give us some real competition in this country, or at least have the FCC standup and hold our carriers more accountable and stop the mergers.
ALL the US carriers suck in general! People may think Verizon's coverage is the best, compared to AT&T, but notice how they are competing on coverage, and not dropped calls, network speed, features (you can't check email at the same time you are on a call with Verizon... anywhere, with any phone), etc. Also notice how all the services cost around $80 or so for the minimum smartphone contract. Notice how they all have sneaky overblown hidden fees. Notice how the per txt fee and monthly charge for Txtx keeps going up and up and up. Notice how their customer service is slightly below or slightly above average. Notice how they all lock you into specific phones. Notice how they all lock you into two year contracts unless you are willing to buy one of their cheapo phones for a pay as you go contract. Notice how all the cheapo phones break if you sneeze the wrong way.
Verizon is one level of shit, and AT&T is another level of shit. And we americans are forced to deal with these levels of shit, and we go around saying one is so much greater than the other.
Okay, first, kdawson, you are an idiot. Posting something to an article stating that this politician has made "unpopular statements" either means you are trying to show your support for Congressman King, your resentment of him and subsequent setup for bashing, or you are simply and opaquely trying to stir up a hornet's nest for inflamatory comments, and therefore hits. I personally think it's the third option as it's been this way for a while around slashdot. In terms of reporting, there is a way to make light of his prior comments but that's not the way to do it in a journalistically responsible way. Others may say these comments are irrelevant, but in terms of neutral reporting, while you might think they are incendiary, a responsible journalist does have a duty to show a pattern of political behavior, and in this case it could simply be creating targets to stir up controversy and get media time, and therefore dollars. By pointing out the unpopular comments it's detracting from the wikileaks article. Way to go, you get the skippy the pinhead award for the day kdawson.
Second, I personally think this congressman king, from the videos, is also an idiot with a severe case of foot in mouth disease. It's interesting that people show support for the Michael Jackson video but completely blow by the "too many mosques" video. Obviously the guy has some issues. The guy was trying to show his "tough on terrorism" stance and opened his mouth and out came some anti-moslem bile which his personal aid tried to step on since he knew his congressman had just fucked up. But then he shovels it out nice and deep in the MJ video. I agree with the idea that MJ coverage when he died was overblown, but in saying so, the guy called MJ a low life and a pedophile. Lets get one thing straight, as much as I might have my suspicions, that has never been proven. This was political commentary by a public official, not satire, so Letterman making a joke on late night is completely different than this. The guy is trying to say "hey, lets shine the light on policeman and firefighters and not MJ." I can get behind it, but it's how he says it, by viciously attacking Michael is just stupid and low. In fact if Jackson was alive, I think there's a chance it might be slander (IANAL).
I know nothing else about this guy, so he's no Ted Stevens or John Ensign, but he's not a particularly bright politician if you ask me, unless of course his racist and insulting comments are the type of comments that get him elected in his district. I just know he needs to take a few sensitivity courses so he can stop chewing on his size 11s when trying to make what otherwise might be a reasonable point.
You call bullshit, but this survey is about how desperate and scared people are.
1. Risk - In the industry I work in, even before the Recession, theft of data has always been a huge issue. No, theft of data is no big deal at your local 7-11, but at businesses with regular customers, it could be a simple matter for a salesrep to snatch it's customer roll and sneak off, start their own company, and take these customers with them. the survey talked to 600 people in Canary Wharf London and Wall Street New York. That happens there all the time too. Risk is not the same across all industries, and we aren't talking about the coke formula, we are talking about orders, customers, item lists, stuff more basic than a super secret soft drink formula.
2. Canary Wharf, Wall Street... nuff said about ethics there. In general, I disagree in that, particularly in the states, that a majority of people are that loyal to their employer. I'm loyal to my employer because they pay me well, and because if I did come up with an idea to steal data, I'd completely botch it since I'm horrible at intrigue, deceit, lying, and anything else you'd need to pull off illicit behavior. However, I hold no huge ideal that I should be loyal to them just because it's the right thing to do. They haven't exactly been 100% loyal to me. And if there is even a sniff that I might be laid off, I'm not thinking of my company, I'm thinking about me and where my next mortgage payment is coming from. Layoffs are still rampant in the US, and layoffs do NOT garner loyalty. My company has had layoffs.
3. nothing to steal - your answer thinks of only one industry, software. I work in software and software is protected by patents and copyright in the states, so it's hard to steal because lawyers catch you and sue you. However, as I've stated, in my industry, our customers worry about data security all the time. Customer roles, item lists, pricing, all these things give you a competitive advantage if you can find out what they are. Pricing in business to business transactions is all over the place, it's not one price for all like in retail. Find out what you are selling to which customers for what prices, then find a way to beat those prices and quietly steal those customers away... and you have a disaster. You could start investigating who is stealing them, but by the time you find out you've lost a lot of business and it's not economically beneficial to try to sue the guy for damages in general. You might get something back but you don't want to do that at all, because lawyer fees are a pain and the return on investment isn't like it is at large software or soft drink companies. You can't patent a price list.
4. Employers are liable as well - see legal liability under #3. Also, a lot of these salesreps just go off and found their own companies and take their customers with them, so the company and person taking the liability are one and the same, meaning no more additional liability than before, and the same amount of risk. What's even worse is that if you lay a salesrep off, you can't steal his brain. If he just remembers this information in his head, it's not illegal. You just have to hope to provide better value or try to scare them with a noncompete clause, which these days can be broken easily.
The US is at 10% unemployment, and businesses to this day do whatever they can to maintain large executive bonuses while staying in the black, and while Wall Street continues to suck the money from them. Money is trickling up, not down, and people feel cheated out of jobs and homes. If they feel cheated, you damn well better believe the employees will cheat back if they think they can get away with it. The employers who did not do everything they could possibly think of to be loyal to their employees will be the first against the wall when the revolution comes.
Slashdot Mirror
I have a great example of how reality gets in the way of fantasy.
The Watchmen comic series. Love this series! I agree it's the greatest comic series of all time. However, When Nite Owl sits down at a computer, and begins to basically "guess" passwords until he's able to get in and crack the plot and find out what's going on, I thought simply that even the greatest comic book series of all time had to use one of the worst plot devices of all time.
My major problem with this is that the computer belonged to the "most intelligent man in the world." Even in 1986, intelligent computer users are supposed to know that you don't pick a password that's easily guessable.
I've had arguments to this day with noncomputer users who say I'm being overly picky, despite arguments proving my point time after time. Fantasy is just not as entertaining as it could be when you know too much about reality.
The worm has turned hasn't it? Microsoft commits monopolistic practices strong arming companies into killing competition and continue to look for new ways to leverage their monopoly (albeit more subtly so they stay off the radar) and they are merely incompetant? And yet Apple creates a device people actually want and they are evil incarnate?
Say what you will about Apple, but trying to say Apple is more evil than Microsoft is like saying getting hit by a Cadillac Escalade at 60 MPH is some how worse than getting hit by a Ford Explorer at 60 MPH. If you grandmother doesn't like the iPhone, she has a choice of switching to an Android. Viola, problem solved. If your mom doesn't like Windows, what is her choice? Linux? hahahahahhahaah you Linux n00b. Oh and we can't switch to mac OS because you just declared them evil incarnate... ooooooooooo... even if they only have 5% of the desktop/laptop OS market.
Please. These are businesses making money. When you have a choice in products, move away from what you don't like and get over it. They are businesses out to get your money and are trying to attract as many people as possible. In this case you have a choice.
And if you really want porn on your iPhone, go to a website. These apps are no great loss realistically, 99.99% of them were scams anyway and they are already starting to put back some of the ones that shouldn't have been taken down, like Daisy Mae.
Xfinity = how many times smarter you are than the average customer service rep
Let's keep this rolling!
#1 it's not about computers with Microsoft it's OS... that is... you can buy any PC you want... as long as it has windows. Windows is the monopoly not the PC, you do NOT have a choice.
#2 Monopoly rules apply to those who have dominant market share. You ignored my market share points.
Yes, Apple is playing hardball, I didn't say they weren't. I also didn't say they weren't wrong for restricting app makers. However to say MS is not playing hardball is entirely ignorant. MS played hardball by underselling Netscape (at the time netscape chose to sell their software and IE chose to be given away free), forcing AOL and netscape off of the Windows desktop, using their monopoly power to force PC makers to do what they want or pay higher licensing fees (talk to IBM about that) and in general being anti-competitive.
The difference is Market share and choice. You can chose another phone platform. In all your examples you just explained you "chose" window every time. That's because you have no choice but to buy windows in order to remain compatible with everyone else. There you go. Windows still has a 90% marketshare.
But since you are avoiding the marketshare discussion, it appears that you are in fact an MS schill.
Microsoft had and still has 90%+ marketshare in operating systems
Apple has about 21% in the cell phone market right now.
In choice of operating systems, you have Windows, OS X, or Linux. OS X and Linux have Windows emulators available for those windows programs you can't just live without. You tell me if they are relevant enough to not consider Windows a monopoly?
If you need a computer that runs windows software, and you can't spend hours upon hours of configuration or you can't spend $1000 on the cheapest iMac or Macbook along with a license to windows, you have to buy a windows machine.
If you don't like the iPhone, buy a Symbian or an Andriod.
The difference is how the market works. In the Windows world, you have no choice, so they should be regulated. In the phone market, Apple does not have a monopoly so you can go somewhere else.
I'm not saying Apple is holy, or out of the wrong, the difference is that if you don't like Apple's product you can leave! That's how the market is supposed to work.
Come back and replay that tired ignorant argument when you take monopolies 101.
What if he hit the brake outside of the work zone, as he was supposed to, and then when he released the brake, the car suddenly sped up to the original speed limit, or higher, and hit the car in front of him before the driver had a chance to react?
I'm not saying this is probable, I'm simply offering a counter argument. A case could be made now. Accident lawyers are salivating...
Personally, I feel the only real solution is to mandate self-driving cars
They are called trains, if you call the person driving for you part of the train.
Sometimes corporations do the right thing in their own interest. I think is far more subtler than a business throwing up their hands and giving up, this is a business basically saying "we've always been at war with eastasia. Eurasia is our ally."
First, Verizon is getting it's butt kicked by Comcast and other cable providers for internet service. An article by Consumer reports this month says that Verizon has the superior service and value, but Comcast continues to hold onto the subscribers, particularly since FIOS is not available everywhere and cable just has the mindshare. Anything Verizon can do to make sure Comcast doesn't have a huge lever against them, particularly since they are buying NBC, will be huge.
Second, Verizon is starting to realize that Android has a shot at being a big deal, and not only does that require Google's cooperation, it also requires Android itself. Nexus One and Droid aren't the iPhone ikiller, but Android itself is becoming a challenger, because it's available across multiple platforms and services. Verizon sees this long term, and the secret to being competitive at the moment is getting people to go with the hardware and sell contracts.
Third, AT+T is getting tremendous flak for statements about limiting network usage and blaming iPhone users. Frankly, I think all providers would love to limit phones, but the problem with that is that people like Google don't want limitations. Leave it to Google to give Verizon some religion on the subject, and show them the more you can do with a device, the more people will want it. Anything that makes Verizon look good over AT+T, especially if AT+T self destructs a bit, is obviously great for Verizon.
See my problem with "don't buy it" in the cell phone market is that there aren't enough alternatives. Okay so I need a cell phone to do my job, and keep in touch with my family. Exactly what do I do? Buy one of those crappy PAYGO cell phones that break in 6 months, and has no features? How do I check my email and keep my calendar with one of those? We need OSes in the market like WebOS, the iPhone and Android, but in order to take advantage of them, yes the cell phone companies aren't competing to get my dollar, they are colluding to drive prices up while not improving their service at the same rate.
Every cell phone company is trying to pull bullshit because they all learned that a) the best way to make money is to try to either force people into a contract or try to trick them and b) the American government as it stands now simply is unwilling and incapable of properly regulating and policing them. We can't even get proper banking or health reform ion this country, cell phone reform on pricing is significantly further down the list. Telling me not to buy it when there are no choices for me is not a choice, it's basically telling me to find a job and a lifestyle that doesn't require a cell phone.
If so, I refuse to fly unless I'm flying in a plane full of nothing but attractive young female swimsuit models who become nymphomaniacs when they see a slightly rotund computer nerd.
There, fixed it for you.
Patrick will approach the queen during the ceremony, then suddenly have a fit as he sees the spotlights around him and scream "THERE ARE FOUR LIGHTS!!"
Because they have these small plastic boxes attached to their ears and they have no idea how any of it really works, they just know they can upload stupid pictures of their friends drinking too much to this thing called the interwebs.
1) Code an uber-efficient program to save a manufacturing company millions and increase output.
2) Get laid off by a stupid manager because he craved power over the status quo.
3) Shop around to competitors explaining that you could do something similar for them in 6 months, especially those who have a similar legacy system.
4) BIG TIME PROFIT!
Sure you'd have to code from the ground up but hey it's a paycheck and I'm sure you could do it again. That's how capitalism is supposed to work. Eventually there's a good chance one of those companies will snap you up and realize what a gem you are. I agree that situation sucked but that's not about capitalism, just some schmucks afraid of change.
... you're addressing the wrong thing. Human beings are able to procreate early, but their actually mental maturity isn't reached until sometime between the ages of 18 and 21, when the brain finally matures. The brain takes longest to develop. The concept is that humans need to be guided responsibly through most of this process. Left to their own devices, we basically end up with lord of the flies or beavis and butthead or something even worse.
This is not a pro "save the children, shield them from nudity and 'evil' things" comment, but rather simply a devil's advocate comment. I think the problem is that a lot of these kids were guided wrong, pushed to believe that a nude body is a dirty and evil thing and that looking at it will make you go to hell. To me, that's just irresponsible guidance but once you ingrain that in a human brain, it most likely stays that way for the rest of it's life. It's the mental maturity that's key here and any situation.
I'm sure the legal profession would hate the very idea of this, but these days judges seemed vastly disconnected from society.
I'm not so sure I agree with that. There are plenty of pompous judges, but there are plenty of more realistic ones. I have to admit I've been in front of traffic court judges for speeding tickets and not a one has acted like a jerk to me. They all spoke with that "dude you broke the law, can you slow down please?" tone which was entirely deserved. I also hear of judges who are working very hard with lawyers and homeowners to modify or even vacate bad mortgages so people can keep their homes. That sounds very down to earth to me. I only once had to deal with a pompous lawyer, and that was in tenant landlord court, but the decision he came down to was reasonable and fair, he was just very busy in a large city court and he doesn't have time to waste with all on his docket. And finally I was called into jury duty once and while I wasn't selected for the final jury the judge was calm, polite, and measured in every one of his instructions and didn't act like he ruled over all of us. Of course, my experience is only anecdotal, but then again your experience seems even more anecdotal, or is based on decisions on extreme cases you hear at the national level. Whether or not those individual judges are pompous and disconnected could be debated, but I'm not sure they are representative of all judges.
Every time I hear a judge screech "*My* court" or make a dumb ass decision
Are you a lawyer, court reporter, or bailiff? How many times have you heard a judge truly yell this? How many decisions have you sat in on that you considered dumbass? I'm trying to gauge your experience here because as a common person myself, the only time I've heard a judge yell those words is in a movie or TV show. As for dumbass decisions, I can only say I've heard of a number of decisions at the national level, even at the supreme court, I strongly disagree with, but only because either the law wasn't clear and the case was incredibly difficult, or the case was politically motivated.
it's apparent they've forgotten they're nothing more than pubic servants :P. Please spell and grammar check while you rant.
Pardon me while I chuckle
albeit overpaid and wearing silly black capes and/or pompous wigs.
From your previous posts list, I can only guess you are from Australia, because you seem to know something about events there. If I'm wrong I'm sorry, but if you are, it would help to qualify your comments. You would seem to be suffering from a disease my fellow american slashdotters commonly have which is "my-country-is-the-only-one-that-matter-itis". You couldn't possible be American since American judges don't wear wigs.
This is theater only the very rich can afford to participate in.
I agree but that's not the judge's fault, at least not in the US anyway, and I'm not sure how that would be the Judge's fault in any system that was borrowed from the British either. This is a topic for a completely different conversation.
The whole legal system needs to be tossed out on it's ass and reinvented from scratch.
In the US, aside from the money issue, I think the legal system is absolutely fantastic. It's built on law, order, procedure, and logic. It tries to guarentee everyone their day in court and tries it's best to come to the most reasonable conclusion in every trial, with as many checks and balances as possible. It's not perfect, and if you think any system never imprisons innocents or lets the guilty go free you are naive. It's also silly to blame judges for the laws they have to protect. The Law itself is made by politicians, it's for the judge to enforce that law, so if you are convicted for an unjust law, the lawmakers screwed you, not the judges. The US system not perfect, however, and could think of a few ways to improve it, but it does work. Sorry I can't speak for the Australian system but I hear it's relatively stable down under these days.
I'm someone who suffers from a problem described in a comment further down, in that my name is rather unique and it used to be incredibly easy to find me on the net. You can still find me with a simple search, and I'm hoping the old information that used to be there is incredibly hard to find in cache from years ago. In any case, the only thing you can find so far of me is whois information of my website. It's a quick jump from there to my website, which is highly "opinionated" to say the least, and has no bearing on my work.
My question is, what should I do about my site's whois? It has my full name and address on it. At the same time, if something goes wrong with my domain I don't want to lose it because my name isn't on it properly.
Sorry this is probably an old question which might be OT but I didn't think of it until I saw this post and, well, maybe someone else can benefit from it as well.
Micro$oft suxx0rs! Close source is evil! Linux is better because it's open! Microsoft will die because it's closed! *RAAAAWWWRRRRRRRviolentflaminggeekrage*
Wait... Microsoft just open sourced code?
**head a'splodes**
Economics has already won here. It's call the law of supply and demand. Customers demand unlimited data packages, so AT+T has supplied it. There's a reason why no one does those metered fees any more... because consumers don't want them! This isn't economics, it's greed. I'm worried that it will come to pass not because of economics, but because the companies will find a way to make customers accept it. However, I'm hoping that they realize that this will kill the smartphone market because no one wants to buy a smartphone and put up with that kind of plan.
It was just posted in another article that we download 34 GB of information a day last year. A DAY! LAST YEAR!!! AT+T wants to figure out how to capitalize on that because they want to artificially increase their profits. They whine and moan about people are making their network slow, but the only one making their network slow is AT+T, by not upgrading it. AT+T financially is doing just fine and making a profit, now it's up to them to provide me with a service. The problem with this and other US carriers is not that they are too regulated, it's that they aren't regulated enough into providing a decent level of service. They are also motivated by greedy investors to maximize their profits, often at the expense of better service because they make more money by trying to screw us than by trying serve us.
Someone goes to all the effort to make a perfectly reasonable Back to the Future joke and you have to kill it with your infernal logic. Great Scott, how dare you! This is so heavy.
What's funny right now is that I constantly hear from reviews, friends, and fellow iPhone users how much they think AT&T sucks and want to move to Verizon. Personally I think this is all BS, and would love some more european and canadian cell phone companies to invade the US and finally give us some real competition in this country, or at least have the FCC standup and hold our carriers more accountable and stop the mergers.
ALL the US carriers suck in general! People may think Verizon's coverage is the best, compared to AT&T, but notice how they are competing on coverage, and not dropped calls, network speed, features (you can't check email at the same time you are on a call with Verizon... anywhere, with any phone), etc. Also notice how all the services cost around $80 or so for the minimum smartphone contract. Notice how they all have sneaky overblown hidden fees. Notice how the per txt fee and monthly charge for Txtx keeps going up and up and up. Notice how their customer service is slightly below or slightly above average. Notice how they all lock you into specific phones. Notice how they all lock you into two year contracts unless you are willing to buy one of their cheapo phones for a pay as you go contract. Notice how all the cheapo phones break if you sneeze the wrong way.
Verizon is one level of shit, and AT&T is another level of shit. And we americans are forced to deal with these levels of shit, and we go around saying one is so much greater than the other.
Knowing this site, you obviously must mean bile.
+1000000000 Super uber king kamehameha funny
Okay, first, kdawson, you are an idiot. Posting something to an article stating that this politician has made "unpopular statements" either means you are trying to show your support for Congressman King, your resentment of him and subsequent setup for bashing, or you are simply and opaquely trying to stir up a hornet's nest for inflamatory comments, and therefore hits. I personally think it's the third option as it's been this way for a while around slashdot. In terms of reporting, there is a way to make light of his prior comments but that's not the way to do it in a journalistically responsible way. Others may say these comments are irrelevant, but in terms of neutral reporting, while you might think they are incendiary, a responsible journalist does have a duty to show a pattern of political behavior, and in this case it could simply be creating targets to stir up controversy and get media time, and therefore dollars. By pointing out the unpopular comments it's detracting from the wikileaks article. Way to go, you get the skippy the pinhead award for the day kdawson.
Second, I personally think this congressman king, from the videos, is also an idiot with a severe case of foot in mouth disease. It's interesting that people show support for the Michael Jackson video but completely blow by the "too many mosques" video. Obviously the guy has some issues. The guy was trying to show his "tough on terrorism" stance and opened his mouth and out came some anti-moslem bile which his personal aid tried to step on since he knew his congressman had just fucked up. But then he shovels it out nice and deep in the MJ video. I agree with the idea that MJ coverage when he died was overblown, but in saying so, the guy called MJ a low life and a pedophile. Lets get one thing straight, as much as I might have my suspicions, that has never been proven. This was political commentary by a public official, not satire, so Letterman making a joke on late night is completely different than this. The guy is trying to say "hey, lets shine the light on policeman and firefighters and not MJ." I can get behind it, but it's how he says it, by viciously attacking Michael is just stupid and low. In fact if Jackson was alive, I think there's a chance it might be slander (IANAL).
I know nothing else about this guy, so he's no Ted Stevens or John Ensign, but he's not a particularly bright politician if you ask me, unless of course his racist and insulting comments are the type of comments that get him elected in his district. I just know he needs to take a few sensitivity courses so he can stop chewing on his size 11s when trying to make what otherwise might be a reasonable point.
You call bullshit, but this survey is about how desperate and scared people are.
1. Risk - In the industry I work in, even before the Recession, theft of data has always been a huge issue. No, theft of data is no big deal at your local 7-11, but at businesses with regular customers, it could be a simple matter for a salesrep to snatch it's customer roll and sneak off, start their own company, and take these customers with them. the survey talked to 600 people in Canary Wharf London and Wall Street New York. That happens there all the time too. Risk is not the same across all industries, and we aren't talking about the coke formula, we are talking about orders, customers, item lists, stuff more basic than a super secret soft drink formula.
2. Canary Wharf, Wall Street... nuff said about ethics there. In general, I disagree in that, particularly in the states, that a majority of people are that loyal to their employer. I'm loyal to my employer because they pay me well, and because if I did come up with an idea to steal data, I'd completely botch it since I'm horrible at intrigue, deceit, lying, and anything else you'd need to pull off illicit behavior. However, I hold no huge ideal that I should be loyal to them just because it's the right thing to do. They haven't exactly been 100% loyal to me. And if there is even a sniff that I might be laid off, I'm not thinking of my company, I'm thinking about me and where my next mortgage payment is coming from. Layoffs are still rampant in the US, and layoffs do NOT garner loyalty. My company has had layoffs.
3. nothing to steal - your answer thinks of only one industry, software. I work in software and software is protected by patents and copyright in the states, so it's hard to steal because lawyers catch you and sue you. However, as I've stated, in my industry, our customers worry about data security all the time. Customer roles, item lists, pricing, all these things give you a competitive advantage if you can find out what they are. Pricing in business to business transactions is all over the place, it's not one price for all like in retail. Find out what you are selling to which customers for what prices, then find a way to beat those prices and quietly steal those customers away... and you have a disaster. You could start investigating who is stealing them, but by the time you find out you've lost a lot of business and it's not economically beneficial to try to sue the guy for damages in general. You might get something back but you don't want to do that at all, because lawyer fees are a pain and the return on investment isn't like it is at large software or soft drink companies. You can't patent a price list.
4. Employers are liable as well - see legal liability under #3. Also, a lot of these salesreps just go off and found their own companies and take their customers with them, so the company and person taking the liability are one and the same, meaning no more additional liability than before, and the same amount of risk. What's even worse is that if you lay a salesrep off, you can't steal his brain. If he just remembers this information in his head, it's not illegal. You just have to hope to provide better value or try to scare them with a noncompete clause, which these days can be broken easily.
The US is at 10% unemployment, and businesses to this day do whatever they can to maintain large executive bonuses while staying in the black, and while Wall Street continues to suck the money from them. Money is trickling up, not down, and people feel cheated out of jobs and homes. If they feel cheated, you damn well better believe the employees will cheat back if they think they can get away with it. The employers who did not do everything they could possibly think of to be loyal to their employees will be the first against the wall when the revolution comes.
But what happens when you need to heat up your giant bag of popcorn?