You simply don't know enough about the situation to make that judgement, I've only got a few years project experience and one thing that never ceases to amaze me is how hard it is to envision a project without being involved in it. You may be able to play buzzword bingo with the best of them and stick software lifecycle and project management terminology throughout your post, you may in fact be the creme de la creme in both these fields, but you still know less than a percent of what needs to be known about this job to understand it.
What can also be argued is that people get the government they deserve. Regardless of the widely held view of technology professionals a large proportion of the population of Europe & Australia support the idea of government controlled censorship on the internet. Why did an American President get away with warrantless wire-tapping, when an extra-marital affair by a different President has badly scarred his reputation? Because many if not most Americans either don't see the risk in giving their government totalitarian powers or support the idea.
the infrastructure is essentially beyond the control of individual governments.
It really isn't. Control of the internet is an easy thing for governments to exert, far easier than print or vocal communication. They already have access to all the data you send (via your ISP) if they want it, meaning you are relying on encryption. How hard is it for them to profile the owners of homes using high grade encryption and find likely political dissidents, then using laws they brought in to "catch high-tech paedophiles" physically seize computers and compel the owner to provide a password, which they have ruled is not protected by the 4th amendment and failure to do so is a crime?
Because although it's controversial it's also a valid point. It gets pretty pathetic watching some of the circle jerks that go on while people justify piracy on Slashdot.
A public network is always the right answer.... With your hugely sarcastic post you also didn't address why
He addressed it as well as your outright assertion without any arguement to back it up. BT was a public company, the reason it was privatised was exactly because it wasn't perceived to be very good. The price of broadband in the UK has decreased hugely over the last couple of years, not least because of the competitive market. I won't make the case that private industry is better because it minimises waste often found in public companies, or that public owned is better because they don't have the motivation to profit gouge like private companies, either can work, especially when placed in a competitive environment.
I'm just saying, unless they tell you they're daltonians, you'd be hard-pressed to know.
And severe epilepsy isn't detectable unless someone is having an attack. I suppose that isn't a disability? Not being allowed to drive is just 'inconvenient'.
Colour blindness [i]is[/i] a disability as it can limit the sufferers ability to do things. The fact that things can easily be designed not to affect them helps, but someone who is red/green colour blind (and no doubt other types) will still come across things including games that they are unable to use because of colour choice. Disabilities vary in severity, and saying something is a disability isn't inferring that people with it are inferior, it merely acknowledges that some people have varying limitations and reminds us to incorporate that in our decisions.
I just wish people could see, is that, what George W Bush did was remarkable, in that, he started a war and got away with it, really, through sheer intimidation. If the USA had no nukes and a 50B military budget, we'd have half the world at war with us for moving on Iraq and the casualties would be in the hundreds of thousands, not thousands. Guaranteed.
First you say it might take balls because the UN might retaliate with Nukes, then you say it takes balls because the UN might kick you out (which I don't think they can actually do without the US having a veto) and then you say that actually it was never dangerous anyway because no one dare stand against your military. Your whole argument has lacked a coherent basis.
Even if America wasn't a military super-power no one was going to declare war on it because of Iraq 'guaranteed'. Western countries simply don't start wars against major countries over something like that (Iraq simply wasn't enough). America may well of faced economic sanctions if it was smaller international player but that's about as far as it would go.
According to the article, if you visit ESPN using a 'non-subscribing' ISP, you're greeted with a message explaining why access is restricted for you.
Net neutrality is ISPs not prioritising traffic based on companies paying them, thus THIS ISN'T A FUCKING NET NEUTRALITY ISSUE. I don't know whether people intentionally misuse the term for sensationalist reasons, or because they want to funnel the indignation the term causes onto something else but either way this isn't helpful.
I'm not crazy on the idea of ISPs buying content on users behalf, but that doesn't make it a net neutrality issue.
And how does your brother currently use a Xbox 360 controller? The current control interface for computer games is poor for people without two 'standard' hands. It'd be much easier to modify a piece of software to accept alternative gestures than produce alternative input devices (if not easier then more likely due to decreased cost).
At the moment people with many disabilities will have major problems using console controllers, using movement/gesture recognition would make supporting them easier, not harder.
Given that your willing to write off the population of an entire country on your limited anecdotal evidence, I have to wonder whether the people outsourcing the role knew they'd get incompetents, but at least the new incompetents would be cheaper.
And you're to be our moral compass on this issue? I think not.
If something does no harm to others then I really don't see why people feel they have a duty to restrict it. I can respect the view that some things have sufficiently severe side effects, but I sure as hell expect those side effects to be proved.
Go to any AA or Narcotics Anonymous or women's shelter and see how many of them were sexually abused as children.
Firstly, anecdotal evidence isn't worth shit and the stats don't back this up. Secondly, unless you have extensive experience in those environments, what the fuck gives you the right to use those people as your straw man?
For the same reason that the people who watch golf, FAM etc are subsidising whatever you watch? Oh, you think that if you only paid for the content you watch, everyone watching everything else would continue to also pay for your shows to. Think a little harder about this one.
What they should do is go all way down this route.
Ok then, lets go completely down that route... Which fan would you like on your CPU sir? Any preference on which brand of screws we use for the HHDs madam? Or is software somehow magically different to hardware?
That would scary the hell out of mycrimesoft.
Congratulations, you managed to surprise me. I thought the people still using "M$" were about as sad as it comes.
How about bringing their pay down in line with the pay of others (engineers and scientists) that do analysis of a similar level of difficulty?
How about you put your money where your mouth is an only invest in funds with managers paid only on that basis? Personally, I am going to continue to invest where I expect the best returns, regardless of fund manager wages.
I don't understand why you think I should need your permission to increase the size of the font displayed in my browser when I view a web page from your server.
Given the nature of HTML, I think comparing text size modification with ad-blocking is little more than a straw man. Content providers really aren't going to care about how their content is displayed, with the exception of presentation that removes elements they believe to be important (advertising, internal site links and product promotion perhaps).
Another thing to consider is that as ad-blocking becomes more widely used it encourages people to present their content in a way that can't be ad-filtered. This means more flash websites, more adverts place over movie content, physical apps rather than web apps (spotify comes to mind) etc which has the downside of limiting our ability to control the presentation of the content in ways the company wouldn't of minded anyway.
The big news everyone seems to be missing is that everyone and their mom will be able to block ads with very little knowledge.
They already can, and more easily if they are using Firefox by installing ad-block plus. I would of thought they could think of better examples than this to show how it can do 'useful' things.
What I find really annoying is the summaries assertion that this is somehow 'web democracy'. Removing adverts and altering how other peoples work is used without their permission is about as similar to democracy as the concept of being able to punch someone in the face for saying something you don't like.
The internet has the capability to be an incredible paradigm change for us all, but it is unlikely that it will be allowed to become this due to regulation that will invariably be placed upon it by our governments and corporations. What is especially sad is that those regulations are being created to stop people doing unimportant but selfish things like ad-blocking and pirating (this is said as someone who doesn't ad-block but does pirate, so please don't think I'm holding myself above my contempt!).
The analogy would be more like a restaurant having Pepsi and Coca Cola available, and having marketing blurb that makes implicit references against Coca Cola. Coca Cola would probably have something to say about that.
It is a terrible analogy not least because in the case of major chains like McDonalds etc, Coca-cola and other drinks manufacturers pay the chains to retail their drinks. If McDonalds were to take any action perceived as negative towards the Coca-cola brand they would either face termination of the contract or a major decrease in the amount Coca-cola would pay them in future.
What are Xandros going to do about Asus saying Windows is better? They aren't paying Asus to use their OS and, it's GPL anyway, so they can't stop Asus using it.
Really, the media and everyone here is getting their panties all in a twist and coming up with fantastical hypothetical situation when the most likely scenario is nothing bad will come from this as it rarely does.
Because with information of sufficient importance the very fact we don't have an exhaustive audit trail would be worrying (someone may of gotten access). The fact that we don't even know where it is? That, is scary. Not only is the risk that this data still exists, meaning that either careers will be ruined or national security will be endangered. But additionally it is a further reminder of how incompetent government can be with obviously important data.
Although you may find the strength of feeling some people have regarding this breech to be unfounded, I expect I am not alone in finding your opinion that nothing bad will happen because "it rarely does" incredibly naive.
I think this idea of groups forming to fund works could be a real benefit to various forms of entertainment/art. However, if my experiences are remotely normal then people will be discouraged from joining groups and funding works by the knowledge that those who don't will get it for free (much as is done with media atm via piracy).
I don't see how much the Artists get from the "0.085p for each track streamed".
I bet it's extremely low.
Given that this is for songwriters not performers I'd bet they'll get nothing at all. However, if this charge didn't exist Artists and Songwriters would be getting nothing anyway, so what exactly is your point?
Finally a sensible way to play a 3000 pt Imperial Guard list!
I keep threatening to use models knocked over by dice to decide casualties, but as I now regularly have to roll around 150 it'd be a little over-powered (yes really a single unit shooting once can lead to 150 to-hit rolls...)
That's it exactly. Did Michelangelo lock the doors to the Sistine Chapel and stand outside charging $20 a head (sorry, no cameras or sketchpads allowed) to come in and see his masterpiece? No.
That would be the piece of artwork that Michelangelo was effectively forced to paint by the Pope Julius II. I'm not sure using an example of religious organisations requiring work from their followers is a great way to show how bad the current situation is.
Are you completely incapable of considering the notion that you might be wrong? A good half-dozen people have responded with very clear arguments explaining why legalisation isn't going to cause you any more problems than you already have. You seem to be holding onto this bizarre notion that drug legalisation means the complete abolition of all laws relating to drugs.
Although it seems pretty obvious that you'll just ignore these as well, I've got time to burn trying:
1/ If people can buy drugs from a legal source their will be less dealers (less risk of dodgy doses, less risk of crime etc).
2/ If less money is being spent on catching and incarcerating people for possession etc this leaves more for rehab, catching illegal dealers etc.
3/ Legalisation of sale does not mean it would be legal to use in public.
4/ It would be easier for addicts to seak help without the stigma of an illegal habit.
There are downsides to legalisation, and I don't know if they would be bad enough to justify keeping drugs illegal. However, if you have a problem based on those, then make your case with them, currently all you are doing is repetitively claiming that drug legalisation will cause a mob of crackheads to congregate at your frontdoor.
Seriously, I wonder if there was some kind of dare between the submitter and his friends to see who could make a story out of an annual report.
I'd like to see more people take the time to produce accessible stories based on the information in major companies annual reports. There is a lot of information in them, and given the various requirements placed upon companies by law, and the requirement that they are published regularly they can provide a lot of very informative data.
Did you realise how retarded your arguement was before after you decided to post as an AC? I'd love to see a logical arguement on this matter, and I really don't care whether it proves WoW players play other MMOs or not (I honestly haven't a clue whether they do) but it's safe to say you won't be providing it given the two logical epic failures you managed here.
That's one thing I really like about living in the US.
And that is one of the reasons I really like not living in the same country and you. Regardless of how it is written into law giving people carte blanche on their own property is folly. If you have any provisions in the law (requiring the person to have a better reason that the person being on their property) then people will be encouraged to use lethal force and may accidentally fall foul of them (such as shooting cops), if you have no provisions then their is nothing to stop people intentionally abusing the law (make a false 911 call, wait till cop enters private ground and kill them).
Slashdot Mirror
You simply don't know enough about the situation to make that judgement, I've only got a few years project experience and one thing that never ceases to amaze me is how hard it is to envision a project without being involved in it. You may be able to play buzzword bingo with the best of them and stick software lifecycle and project management terminology throughout your post, you may in fact be the creme de la creme in both these fields, but you still know less than a percent of what needs to be known about this job to understand it.
It really isn't. Control of the internet is an easy thing for governments to exert, far easier than print or vocal communication. They already have access to all the data you send (via your ISP) if they want it, meaning you are relying on encryption. How hard is it for them to profile the owners of homes using high grade encryption and find likely political dissidents, then using laws they brought in to "catch high-tech paedophiles" physically seize computers and compel the owner to provide a password, which they have ruled is not protected by the 4th amendment and failure to do so is a crime?
Because although it's controversial it's also a valid point. It gets pretty pathetic watching some of the circle jerks that go on while people justify piracy on Slashdot.
He addressed it as well as your outright assertion without any arguement to back it up. BT was a public company, the reason it was privatised was exactly because it wasn't perceived to be very good. The price of broadband in the UK has decreased hugely over the last couple of years, not least because of the competitive market. I won't make the case that private industry is better because it minimises waste often found in public companies, or that public owned is better because they don't have the motivation to profit gouge like private companies, either can work, especially when placed in a competitive environment.
And severe epilepsy isn't detectable unless someone is having an attack. I suppose that isn't a disability? Not being allowed to drive is just 'inconvenient'.
Colour blindness [i]is[/i] a disability as it can limit the sufferers ability to do things. The fact that things can easily be designed not to affect them helps, but someone who is red/green colour blind (and no doubt other types) will still come across things including games that they are unable to use because of colour choice. Disabilities vary in severity, and saying something is a disability isn't inferring that people with it are inferior, it merely acknowledges that some people have varying limitations and reminds us to incorporate that in our decisions.
First you say it might take balls because the UN might retaliate with Nukes, then you say it takes balls because the UN might kick you out (which I don't think they can actually do without the US having a veto) and then you say that actually it was never dangerous anyway because no one dare stand against your military. Your whole argument has lacked a coherent basis.
Even if America wasn't a military super-power no one was going to declare war on it because of Iraq 'guaranteed'. Western countries simply don't start wars against major countries over something like that (Iraq simply wasn't enough). America may well of faced economic sanctions if it was smaller international player but that's about as far as it would go.
Net neutrality is ISPs not prioritising traffic based on companies paying them, thus THIS ISN'T A FUCKING NET NEUTRALITY ISSUE. I don't know whether people intentionally misuse the term for sensationalist reasons, or because they want to funnel the indignation the term causes onto something else but either way this isn't helpful.
I'm not crazy on the idea of ISPs buying content on users behalf, but that doesn't make it a net neutrality issue.
And how does your brother currently use a Xbox 360 controller? The current control interface for computer games is poor for people without two 'standard' hands. It'd be much easier to modify a piece of software to accept alternative gestures than produce alternative input devices (if not easier then more likely due to decreased cost).
At the moment people with many disabilities will have major problems using console controllers, using movement/gesture recognition would make supporting them easier, not harder.
Given that your willing to write off the population of an entire country on your limited anecdotal evidence, I have to wonder whether the people outsourcing the role knew they'd get incompetents, but at least the new incompetents would be cheaper.
And you're to be our moral compass on this issue? I think not.
If something does no harm to others then I really don't see why people feel they have a duty to restrict it. I can respect the view that some things have sufficiently severe side effects, but I sure as hell expect those side effects to be proved.
Firstly, anecdotal evidence isn't worth shit and the stats don't back this up. Secondly, unless you have extensive experience in those environments, what the fuck gives you the right to use those people as your straw man?
For the same reason that the people who watch golf, FAM etc are subsidising whatever you watch? Oh, you think that if you only paid for the content you watch, everyone watching everything else would continue to also pay for your shows to. Think a little harder about this one.
Ok then, lets go completely down that route... Which fan would you like on your CPU sir? Any preference on which brand of screws we use for the HHDs madam? Or is software somehow magically different to hardware?
Congratulations, you managed to surprise me. I thought the people still using "M$" were about as sad as it comes.
How about you put your money where your mouth is an only invest in funds with managers paid only on that basis? Personally, I am going to continue to invest where I expect the best returns, regardless of fund manager wages.
Given the nature of HTML, I think comparing text size modification with ad-blocking is little more than a straw man. Content providers really aren't going to care about how their content is displayed, with the exception of presentation that removes elements they believe to be important (advertising, internal site links and product promotion perhaps).
Another thing to consider is that as ad-blocking becomes more widely used it encourages people to present their content in a way that can't be ad-filtered. This means more flash websites, more adverts place over movie content, physical apps rather than web apps (spotify comes to mind) etc which has the downside of limiting our ability to control the presentation of the content in ways the company wouldn't of minded anyway.
They already can, and more easily if they are using Firefox by installing ad-block plus. I would of thought they could think of better examples than this to show how it can do 'useful' things.
What I find really annoying is the summaries assertion that this is somehow 'web democracy'. Removing adverts and altering how other peoples work is used without their permission is about as similar to democracy as the concept of being able to punch someone in the face for saying something you don't like.
The internet has the capability to be an incredible paradigm change for us all, but it is unlikely that it will be allowed to become this due to regulation that will invariably be placed upon it by our governments and corporations. What is especially sad is that those regulations are being created to stop people doing unimportant but selfish things like ad-blocking and pirating (this is said as someone who doesn't ad-block but does pirate, so please don't think I'm holding myself above my contempt!).
It is a terrible analogy not least because in the case of major chains like McDonalds etc, Coca-cola and other drinks manufacturers pay the chains to retail their drinks. If McDonalds were to take any action perceived as negative towards the Coca-cola brand they would either face termination of the contract or a major decrease in the amount Coca-cola would pay them in future.
What are Xandros going to do about Asus saying Windows is better? They aren't paying Asus to use their OS and, it's GPL anyway, so they can't stop Asus using it.
Because with information of sufficient importance the very fact we don't have an exhaustive audit trail would be worrying (someone may of gotten access). The fact that we don't even know where it is? That, is scary. Not only is the risk that this data still exists, meaning that either careers will be ruined or national security will be endangered. But additionally it is a further reminder of how incompetent government can be with obviously important data.
Although you may find the strength of feeling some people have regarding this breech to be unfounded, I expect I am not alone in finding your opinion that nothing bad will happen because "it rarely does" incredibly naive.
I think this idea of groups forming to fund works could be a real benefit to various forms of entertainment/art. However, if my experiences are remotely normal then people will be discouraged from joining groups and funding works by the knowledge that those who don't will get it for free (much as is done with media atm via piracy).
Given that this is for songwriters not performers I'd bet they'll get nothing at all. However, if this charge didn't exist Artists and Songwriters would be getting nothing anyway, so what exactly is your point?
I keep threatening to use models knocked over by dice to decide casualties, but as I now regularly have to roll around 150 it'd be a little over-powered (yes really a single unit shooting once can lead to 150 to-hit rolls...)
That would be the piece of artwork that Michelangelo was effectively forced to paint by the Pope Julius II. I'm not sure using an example of religious organisations requiring work from their followers is a great way to show how bad the current situation is.
Are you completely incapable of considering the notion that you might be wrong? A good half-dozen people have responded with very clear arguments explaining why legalisation isn't going to cause you any more problems than you already have. You seem to be holding onto this bizarre notion that drug legalisation means the complete abolition of all laws relating to drugs.
Although it seems pretty obvious that you'll just ignore these as well, I've got time to burn trying:
1/ If people can buy drugs from a legal source their will be less dealers (less risk of dodgy doses, less risk of crime etc).
2/ If less money is being spent on catching and incarcerating people for possession etc this leaves more for rehab, catching illegal dealers etc.
3/ Legalisation of sale does not mean it would be legal to use in public.
4/ It would be easier for addicts to seak help without the stigma of an illegal habit.
There are downsides to legalisation, and I don't know if they would be bad enough to justify keeping drugs illegal. However, if you have a problem based on those, then make your case with them, currently all you are doing is repetitively claiming that drug legalisation will cause a mob of crackheads to congregate at your frontdoor.
I'd like to see more people take the time to produce accessible stories based on the information in major companies annual reports. There is a lot of information in them, and given the various requirements placed upon companies by law, and the requirement that they are published regularly they can provide a lot of very informative data.
Did you realise how retarded your arguement was before after you decided to post as an AC? I'd love to see a logical arguement on this matter, and I really don't care whether it proves WoW players play other MMOs or not (I honestly haven't a clue whether they do) but it's safe to say you won't be providing it given the two logical epic failures you managed here.
And that is one of the reasons I really like not living in the same country and you. Regardless of how it is written into law giving people carte blanche on their own property is folly. If you have any provisions in the law (requiring the person to have a better reason that the person being on their property) then people will be encouraged to use lethal force and may accidentally fall foul of them (such as shooting cops), if you have no provisions then their is nothing to stop people intentionally abusing the law (make a false 911 call, wait till cop enters private ground and kill them).