I believe it's good for society. Allowing people who can't afford something to be influenced and give back to society.
If that was really your issue then you wouldn't be suggesting piracy as a solution. If someone can't afford a few dollars a month for Netflix/Spotify etc or to buy a couple of CDs/DVDs then how exactly are they affording the PC/Internet etc to pirate. You'd be better off giving them more money to spend.
About the only Pirates I have any respect for are the ones that are willing admit they do it because they like getting things for free.
I'm really sick and tired of this "blame the victim" mentality. The voting public has been under-educated, manipulated, and deceived by those who are either in or wanting power. Most voters don't even realize that it's happening, or, if they do, they feel powerless to change it (thanks, again, to those in/wanting power).
I don't care how much effort you put into trying to absolve the public but being ignorant, ill-educated and gullible is not a defence for the things we've ignored or allowed to happen in our democracies. If a voter still doesn't realise that Iraq never had WMD by now (and that's not rare in the US at least) that there fault. They choose not to go after news and piss their life away watching American Idol. We've got the governments we deserve.
How exactly do you hold the government to account for acting against the interests of the public if the public isn't even interested in knowing? Short of creating some kind of unelected 'public interest tzar' who could do something about it (which is hardly democracy...)
You've just bought a $60 game. You complete it and want to get another but only have $20. The 2nd hand market allows you to sell the first game for say $40 and then buy another new game for $60 (another $60 going to a game developer).
The 2nd hand car market doesn't harm automotive manufacturers. They know that only a proportion of the market is going to buy cars new. They accept this, market new cars to that segment and re-buy/sell used cars through their dealerships. The revenue made by selling games 2nd hand is often re-invested in buying new games. The money spent on buying used games may or may not have been spent on buying new games.
No and that isn't what he said. Any organisation with tens of thousands of employees will at some point have one do something that is evil/wrong/unethical etc. The difference betweena good and a bad organisation is how they react, whether they consider it when hiring, how diligent they are in checking and how they reward and promote employees.
I'm afraid I'd have to disagree with you. At least in my opinion, the reason you want to take off is not really any of their business.
It is if you want to have a good relationship with them. If you went to your boss and said you wanted time off next Monday because you're taking your disabled mother to see her terminally ill sister who is expected to pass away imminently" how would it seem to you if they said they didn't care about the reason, you need to give two weeks notice so you can't do it? I think most people accept that all reasons for vacation are not equal and would like their employer to consider their needs; it's only reasonable to do the same.
It's never happened to me so far but I know it would be a career TKO if someone who worked for me wasn't willing to reschedule leave if something critical came up and it turned out that he was doing something unimportant that could easily be re-arranged. If they aren't willing to help the company, and those who work there, when they are in need then they don't deserve the same in return and there not the kind of person I would want influencing the business.
I think that's a false and rather nihilistic statement. Not everyone makes a contribution to society on the level of presidents, nobel winning scientists etc that's certainly true; many, if not most, jobs are still important. I know that I played a part in making food more affordable and did so while improving working conditions for thousands of my colleagues. Is that a contribution to society that I'd like on my tombstone? No. It is however a start and I hope I can have a bigger positive impact on the world in the future (something that starting with the viewpoint that work is unimportant doesn't encourage).
However, he can't "get rolled by his boss" because his boss never asked him to perform this task.
He really could be. If a 3rd party vendor had this software and approached the business the business would never consider trying to force the vendor to 'give it' to them, they wouldn't offer the vendor a vague 'possible' payment worth considerably less than the software etc. Once he tells his superior that he has created the software a lot of negative things could happen to him that couldn't happen to an outside party.
I'm a firm believer in going beyond your job spec to help your career so this isn't generally something I would recommend doing. Additionally although development happened outside of work etc the concept, test data, specification etc are all derived from his workplace; in short, he wouldn't have been able to program the application without working for them. This will muddy the legal grounds should anything go wrong.
It's a classic example of the prisoner's dilemma. Even though it would be a net win for the industry to stop this nonsense, it is too attractive to each individual firms to try and use the current patent and legal system to gain an advantage to avoid it.
But then someone found me and friended me, and I foolishly accepted, probably because that person was someone I didn't despise. Then more showed up...and more...and more. Then I was getting friend requests from people who I really didn't like too much.
Oh the inhumanity of it all! I used to have a group for people I decided to allow requests from but didn't want seeing everything I do. Now I use the acquaintances and don't share posts with them instead. Facebook is a tool and has plenty of flexibility. If you really don't get enough benefit out of it to justify the time then don't bother.
I always try and attend social events like reunions if I can. Facebook has, if anything, made it easier. I don't go to find out where 30 virtual strangers work, I go to socialise and maintain a loose relationship. Knowing something about what they do, family etc makes it easier to start a conversation.
Yes. Human pilots can fuck up as easily as anyone else.
But in an emergency, I'd rather have a human pilot making the decisions and being in control.
The same human pilots who, when in an emergency are told by their computer to either go up or down to avoid another plane (with the computer confirming the other plane will do the opposite) have on multiple occasions ignored the computer and caused entirely avoidable crashes? Personally, I'd rather have whichever is most likely to complete the journey with me alive, so far I have seen very little evidence and far too much nonsense from people defending the need for fleshbags to fly planes.
Wow. I don't doubt it's true but I never expected that the system would be so completely different in the US than the UK. What's a little daunting is that often the US leads the way on these kind of matters and the UK follows along.
I've always found matters like this cause an internal conflict. On the one hand I don't like companies looking into private information like this. On the other hand a loan is ultimately a gamble by the company. They estimate the risks involved in offering the money and either turn it down or offer terms that they believe will on average make them money. Assuming a competitive market, if things like checking personal networks allow them to more accurately measure risk then it will improve the accuracy of the system.
An example of this is UK car insurance. Young drivers often have to pay $3000+ for a years insurance now, which is prohibitively expensive. Some providers will offer better rates for drivers who are willing to install a device that tracks travel and times and limits when they can use the car. I'm really uncomfortable with the fact that people are having to subject themselves to this kind of surveillance, however if the other option is they can't drive at all then is it definitely a bad thing...
These are all good points and ones that Google does need to address. I'm a satisfied android user and that doesn't mean I can't accept there are some shortcomings.
I bought one Android app (a task list) and got stuffed for it being offered in a foreign currency. I'd done a non-trivial amount of research and Google provided as good no real guidance. Result: I don't even look at paid apps on the store as I can't be arsed working out if that's sorted or not.
It doesn't help that finding great free apps on Android is really easy either: Mougg (cloud music), evernote, Kindle, Astrid (tasks), Dropbox, Skype etc; even customer launchers like LauncherPro. That's not to say that iOS doesn't, just that after having been burnt trying to pay for apps I've realised that I don't need to pay for them anyway.
I'm also very dubious about this response. It certainly seems like a self-destructive response by the Labour party effectively saying "We're storing your personal information and we'll prosecute anyone who tries to warn you."
That said I think the press need some limitation on how they act. Very few people would defend the choice of a newspaper to hack into peoples voicemails as acceptable (even if hacking is just entering the default code) and that's what has been going on in the UK.
I'm inclined towards a system that allows the press flexibility to break certain laws with a requirement to notify someone in advance. This is especially important as bloggers etc continue to further blur the definition of journalist. Obviously who that someone in, and how to avoid that stopping the investigation of governmental or police matters would need to be considered.
How about you stop trying to decide what should happen to other peoples data for them. I'm perfectly happy with Facebook keeping everything I delete by default. I would however appreciate the ability to actually delete something if I ever wanted to (which thus far hasn't happened). I would also like it if they were up front about what they're doing. It is misleading to call it deletion, which most people understand to mean it will cease to exist at some point, and then keep it indefinitely.
That's a pretty stupid line to draw. If the guy had set up a blog and never, ever, told anyone the address, listed it on search sits etc the site would effectively be invisible and no one would ever know about it to care. There is no point in setting up a website unless you are going to, in some way, bring traffic to it.
A webserver isn't fundamentally different from handing out leaflets about them on the street. It is the kind of narrow minded thinking that allows the government to clone your phone by pretending that is somehow ok when laws specifically stop them from copying paper documents.
Some people are abusive cunts. If you allow rights to automatically, and without exception, justify abusive behaviour there are people who will intentionally ruin the lives of others. This is why we have harassment laws. It has been accepted that some rights can be restricted in specific circumstances. If the court couldn't order this kind of restraining order then they'd end up putting him in prison, which might just happen to restrict his rights further.
If some people are so hostile to advertising that they use AdBlock, why not leave them alone?
Because a) you can't effectively determine who, really, won't follow advertising links b) you can't ask people because everyone will say they won't c) the advertising pays for the service you offer; someone who doesn't follow the ads or bring other users who follow ads is a cost.
I built a website template that's been used for a couple of speciality websites that is intentionally unusable with ABP running. It wouldn't work for a big site as they'd keep resolving it, but works fine for this. Why? Because that's how the sites are funded. If you don't want to see ads you're free to try and find content somewhere that wants you.
This is not quite true. In blackjack, there are times when you have p>0.5. That's the point of counting cards.
Actually, it was as he specifically said he was talking about 'any real casino'. Blackjack as played in casinos is effectively impossible to game due to all the counter-measures in place now. If you gamble in a casino you are either part of an elaborate and complex attempt to cheat the house or like 99.99% of people playing chance is the only way you're coming away with a win.
It's only the retarded journalists trying to make an upsetting story of something that absolutely isn't one just to drive traffic to their sorry excuses for news sites.
Sadly you could level nearly the exact same comment at Slashdot for including this bollocks. Seriously, why the fuck can't Slashdot try and provide news rather than helping flamebait and misinform. The number of people who are likely to see this, think that the Red Cross has gone batshit crazy and never realise that Slashdot is, by fronting for the article, bullshitting them.
A large proportion of the UK population, including its readers, will know that it is referred to by a number of derogatory word plays. If you're not from the UK it would make more sense to leave it to people from the UK to verify or confirm this. If you are, then welcome out from underneath that rock!
I think the intention is that I could leave my house. Walk to the local 'tram' stop, be transferred onto a train from there and then back onto a tram when it reaches my destination city which then drops me off at the tram stop nearest my destination. Would be a great experience, although retrofitting it into current cities would be 'interesting'...
Actually, in a sense the old days with sites that were small and had decent moderation was a social network where you trusted the other members. We will see a massive move towards linking things like ratings to individuals in the next few years. In a social web system the effort to produce effective market swings by astroturfing is vastly increased and can always be amalgamated with the results of typical rating systems to provide a better result.
If that's how stupidly you react over someone mentioning a fact, without even expressing an opinion, then I've got chills about the fact you've got children.
And people like you just shouldn't open their mouths. Sadly shouldn't isn't doesn't so you can and do. Try reading his post properly and you'll realise that he's talking about the mandatory service that already exists in South Korea.
In the west we simply assume that the kids who do that will one day make an excellent addition to the staff at McDonalds
Nice strawman you've got there. Most people who object to these kinds of government intervention dislike them exactly because they don't want people making judgements about other's actions and intervening. I think a parent who allows there kids to stay up to the early hours on school days is probably making a mistake, it doesn't mean I want the government to try and control it. As to your own bizarre double standards as to what it is ok to avoid school for, has it completely escaped your notice that it probably wouldn't be shared by government regulators and would be controlled just like gaming if they had an easy way to do so?
Slashdot Mirror
If that was really your issue then you wouldn't be suggesting piracy as a solution. If someone can't afford a few dollars a month for Netflix/Spotify etc or to buy a couple of CDs/DVDs then how exactly are they affording the PC/Internet etc to pirate. You'd be better off giving them more money to spend.
About the only Pirates I have any respect for are the ones that are willing admit they do it because they like getting things for free.
I don't care how much effort you put into trying to absolve the public but being ignorant, ill-educated and gullible is not a defence for the things we've ignored or allowed to happen in our democracies. If a voter still doesn't realise that Iraq never had WMD by now (and that's not rare in the US at least) that there fault. They choose not to go after news and piss their life away watching American Idol. We've got the governments we deserve.
How exactly do you hold the government to account for acting against the interests of the public if the public isn't even interested in knowing? Short of creating some kind of unelected 'public interest tzar' who could do something about it (which is hardly democracy...)
You've just bought a $60 game. You complete it and want to get another but only have $20. The 2nd hand market allows you to sell the first game for say $40 and then buy another new game for $60 (another $60 going to a game developer).
The 2nd hand car market doesn't harm automotive manufacturers. They know that only a proportion of the market is going to buy cars new. They accept this, market new cars to that segment and re-buy/sell used cars through their dealerships. The revenue made by selling games 2nd hand is often re-invested in buying new games. The money spent on buying used games may or may not have been spent on buying new games.
No and that isn't what he said. Any organisation with tens of thousands of employees will at some point have one do something that is evil/wrong/unethical etc. The difference betweena good and a bad organisation is how they react, whether they consider it when hiring, how diligent they are in checking and how they reward and promote employees.
It is if you want to have a good relationship with them. If you went to your boss and said you wanted time off next Monday because you're taking your disabled mother to see her terminally ill sister who is expected to pass away imminently" how would it seem to you if they said they didn't care about the reason, you need to give two weeks notice so you can't do it? I think most people accept that all reasons for vacation are not equal and would like their employer to consider their needs; it's only reasonable to do the same.
It's never happened to me so far but I know it would be a career TKO if someone who worked for me wasn't willing to reschedule leave if something critical came up and it turned out that he was doing something unimportant that could easily be re-arranged. If they aren't willing to help the company, and those who work there, when they are in need then they don't deserve the same in return and there not the kind of person I would want influencing the business.
I think that's a false and rather nihilistic statement. Not everyone makes a contribution to society on the level of presidents, nobel winning scientists etc that's certainly true; many, if not most, jobs are still important. I know that I played a part in making food more affordable and did so while improving working conditions for thousands of my colleagues. Is that a contribution to society that I'd like on my tombstone? No. It is however a start and I hope I can have a bigger positive impact on the world in the future (something that starting with the viewpoint that work is unimportant doesn't encourage).
I've found that only idiots think they know what the 'right' way to live is.
He really could be. If a 3rd party vendor had this software and approached the business the business would never consider trying to force the vendor to 'give it' to them, they wouldn't offer the vendor a vague 'possible' payment worth considerably less than the software etc. Once he tells his superior that he has created the software a lot of negative things could happen to him that couldn't happen to an outside party.
I'm a firm believer in going beyond your job spec to help your career so this isn't generally something I would recommend doing. Additionally although development happened outside of work etc the concept, test data, specification etc are all derived from his workplace; in short, he wouldn't have been able to program the application without working for them. This will muddy the legal grounds should anything go wrong.
It's a classic example of the prisoner's dilemma. Even though it would be a net win for the industry to stop this nonsense, it is too attractive to each individual firms to try and use the current patent and legal system to gain an advantage to avoid it.
Oh the inhumanity of it all! I used to have a group for people I decided to allow requests from but didn't want seeing everything I do. Now I use the acquaintances and don't share posts with them instead. Facebook is a tool and has plenty of flexibility. If you really don't get enough benefit out of it to justify the time then don't bother.
I always try and attend social events like reunions if I can. Facebook has, if anything, made it easier. I don't go to find out where 30 virtual strangers work, I go to socialise and maintain a loose relationship. Knowing something about what they do, family etc makes it easier to start a conversation.
The same human pilots who, when in an emergency are told by their computer to either go up or down to avoid another plane (with the computer confirming the other plane will do the opposite) have on multiple occasions ignored the computer and caused entirely avoidable crashes? Personally, I'd rather have whichever is most likely to complete the journey with me alive, so far I have seen very little evidence and far too much nonsense from people defending the need for fleshbags to fly planes.
Wow. I don't doubt it's true but I never expected that the system would be so completely different in the US than the UK. What's a little daunting is that often the US leads the way on these kind of matters and the UK follows along.
I've always found matters like this cause an internal conflict. On the one hand I don't like companies looking into private information like this. On the other hand a loan is ultimately a gamble by the company. They estimate the risks involved in offering the money and either turn it down or offer terms that they believe will on average make them money. Assuming a competitive market, if things like checking personal networks allow them to more accurately measure risk then it will improve the accuracy of the system.
An example of this is UK car insurance. Young drivers often have to pay $3000+ for a years insurance now, which is prohibitively expensive. Some providers will offer better rates for drivers who are willing to install a device that tracks travel and times and limits when they can use the car. I'm really uncomfortable with the fact that people are having to subject themselves to this kind of surveillance, however if the other option is they can't drive at all then is it definitely a bad thing...
These are all good points and ones that Google does need to address. I'm a satisfied android user and that doesn't mean I can't accept there are some shortcomings.
I bought one Android app (a task list) and got stuffed for it being offered in a foreign currency. I'd done a non-trivial amount of research and Google provided as good no real guidance. Result: I don't even look at paid apps on the store as I can't be arsed working out if that's sorted or not.
It doesn't help that finding great free apps on Android is really easy either: Mougg (cloud music), evernote, Kindle, Astrid (tasks), Dropbox, Skype etc; even customer launchers like LauncherPro. That's not to say that iOS doesn't, just that after having been burnt trying to pay for apps I've realised that I don't need to pay for them anyway.
I'm also very dubious about this response. It certainly seems like a self-destructive response by the Labour party effectively saying "We're storing your personal information and we'll prosecute anyone who tries to warn you."
That said I think the press need some limitation on how they act. Very few people would defend the choice of a newspaper to hack into peoples voicemails as acceptable (even if hacking is just entering the default code) and that's what has been going on in the UK.
I'm inclined towards a system that allows the press flexibility to break certain laws with a requirement to notify someone in advance. This is especially important as bloggers etc continue to further blur the definition of journalist. Obviously who that someone in, and how to avoid that stopping the investigation of governmental or police matters would need to be considered.
How about you stop trying to decide what should happen to other peoples data for them. I'm perfectly happy with Facebook keeping everything I delete by default. I would however appreciate the ability to actually delete something if I ever wanted to (which thus far hasn't happened). I would also like it if they were up front about what they're doing. It is misleading to call it deletion, which most people understand to mean it will cease to exist at some point, and then keep it indefinitely.
That's a pretty stupid line to draw. If the guy had set up a blog and never, ever, told anyone the address, listed it on search sits etc the site would effectively be invisible and no one would ever know about it to care. There is no point in setting up a website unless you are going to, in some way, bring traffic to it.
A webserver isn't fundamentally different from handing out leaflets about them on the street. It is the kind of narrow minded thinking that allows the government to clone your phone by pretending that is somehow ok when laws specifically stop them from copying paper documents.
Some people are abusive cunts. If you allow rights to automatically, and without exception, justify abusive behaviour there are people who will intentionally ruin the lives of others. This is why we have harassment laws. It has been accepted that some rights can be restricted in specific circumstances. If the court couldn't order this kind of restraining order then they'd end up putting him in prison, which might just happen to restrict his rights further.
Because a) you can't effectively determine who, really, won't follow advertising links b) you can't ask people because everyone will say they won't c) the advertising pays for the service you offer; someone who doesn't follow the ads or bring other users who follow ads is a cost.
I built a website template that's been used for a couple of speciality websites that is intentionally unusable with ABP running. It wouldn't work for a big site as they'd keep resolving it, but works fine for this. Why? Because that's how the sites are funded. If you don't want to see ads you're free to try and find content somewhere that wants you.
Actually, it was as he specifically said he was talking about 'any real casino'. Blackjack as played in casinos is effectively impossible to game due to all the counter-measures in place now. If you gamble in a casino you are either part of an elaborate and complex attempt to cheat the house or like 99.99% of people playing chance is the only way you're coming away with a win.
Sadly you could level nearly the exact same comment at Slashdot for including this bollocks. Seriously, why the fuck can't Slashdot try and provide news rather than helping flamebait and misinform. The number of people who are likely to see this, think that the Red Cross has gone batshit crazy and never realise that Slashdot is, by fronting for the article, bullshitting them.
A large proportion of the UK population, including its readers, will know that it is referred to by a number of derogatory word plays. If you're not from the UK it would make more sense to leave it to people from the UK to verify or confirm this. If you are, then welcome out from underneath that rock!
I think the intention is that I could leave my house. Walk to the local 'tram' stop, be transferred onto a train from there and then back onto a tram when it reaches my destination city which then drops me off at the tram stop nearest my destination. Would be a great experience, although retrofitting it into current cities would be 'interesting'...
Actually, in a sense the old days with sites that were small and had decent moderation was a social network where you trusted the other members. We will see a massive move towards linking things like ratings to individuals in the next few years. In a social web system the effort to produce effective market swings by astroturfing is vastly increased and can always be amalgamated with the results of typical rating systems to provide a better result.
If that's how stupidly you react over someone mentioning a fact, without even expressing an opinion, then I've got chills about the fact you've got children.
And people like you just shouldn't open their mouths. Sadly shouldn't isn't doesn't so you can and do. Try reading his post properly and you'll realise that he's talking about the mandatory service that already exists in South Korea.
Nice strawman you've got there. Most people who object to these kinds of government intervention dislike them exactly because they don't want people making judgements about other's actions and intervening. I think a parent who allows there kids to stay up to the early hours on school days is probably making a mistake, it doesn't mean I want the government to try and control it. As to your own bizarre double standards as to what it is ok to avoid school for, has it completely escaped your notice that it probably wouldn't be shared by government regulators and would be controlled just like gaming if they had an easy way to do so?