Moderation seems to have gone to shit over the last couple of weeks. As much as I think the parent post is overly simplistic (and wrong) how on earth is he trolling?
Like complained about all the time wasted posting and reading posts on Slashdot? People get born, live a little and then die. There is no secret formula to define true success, though some people will equate it with exploration and some others will equate it with living a satisfied life. If people want to use time (likely relaxation time anyway) to play games then so be it.
When I go for a job I do extensive research about the company I am applying to. During the process I will get as much information on who they employ, and then try and get as much information on any who seem relevant. This isn't uncommon, in fact almost anyone would say not investigating a possible employer is a big mistake. So why is it that we are worried if the employer treats hiring in the same way?
The majority of people who are going to suffer by having people look for them online are people who don't attempt to maintain a separate internet persona and are also publicly doing things that deserve to get them in trouble. If I look up a candidate and find them on Slashdot (on the assumption it can be verified as them) and they regularly flame or troll then you can bet that would effect my hiring decision. At the same time if I found that they often gave good and tolerant answers it would also effect my decision, except this time in a positive manner.
If you post information in public then expect employers to see it. If your employer was using devious methods to get hold of something you thought was private then yes it's an issue.
Great choice of graphs Timothy, I was just about to start doing the same before I noticed your post and there is really no need to elaborate.
We haven't gotten to the end of the current financial problems yet, and the current drop is already the biggest blip in the Dow since 80 years ago so it's a big issue, but it can't be said to be without precedent.
I think there are still a lot of people out there who have one of those "real lives" with "real friends" that don't require them to post lots of useless crap about themselves
Would those people include a sub-class which spends time posting their view that Facebook is for people with no lives to 'geek news' sites like Slashdot? If so, surely you could have in 'real life' talked to 'real friends' about it.
Many people, myself included believe Facebook is a great tool for helping keep in touch with people between real life meetings which is more useful than ever due to peoples tendency to move further for work etc. Just because you don't see the value in Facebook I don't automatically assume it's because your one of the people who simply can't assimilate new tech into their lifestyle anymore, perhaps you can return the favour and not assume that a service can't be of value to anyone just because it isn't to you.
Dust seems to be the main issue, but couldn't a design based on moving parts being contained within the 'wheel' (like a hamster ball) or based on larger slow turning wheels work. Obviously these kind of designs would probably be a big hit for efficiency, but it's the friggin moon it's not like we are expecting perfection.
In Bush Jnr's 1st term government spending grew at the fastest rate in 30 years. Over the last 80 years government spending has grown faster under Republican Presidents than Democratic Presidents. Right wing parties like control just as much as the lefties they just exercise it differently by giving the money to private companies they choose rather than setting up public organisations.
Britain is pretty left wing 'socialist' in the scale of other countries.
That would depend upon your baseline, personally I will trust Political compass over your assessment (http://www.politicalcompass.org/). The main issue is what a party says, and what it actually does can vary so massively as to show no relation.
You then go on to say that it's the conservative upper classes (conservatives are right wing) and the BBC (left wing) who are keeping the country sane! It's not even self consistent!
The scary part is that both the BBC and the Lords (the wealthly conservatives?) although very different have been a check upon government in the UK, and both aren't democratic!
On that note, I'm reminded how Opera seems to be disliked here on Slashdot - despite being a decent IE alternative long before other alternatives such as Firefox existed - supposedly on the grounds of the browser not being Open Source, so I take it that Safari will be equally disliked here too, right?
Safari is made by Apple, that fact alone is enough for a very sizable portion of the Slashdot readership to ignore any reason to dislike it.
Opera IS a damn good browser, and it is a shame it doesn't get more credit. Personally I choose to use FF but it doesn't mean I can't appreciate good software when I see it regardless of licensing model.
As an aside, I can't help but think that bragging about the number of people jumping on a product Beta is strange. Surely the fact that Safari users moving from Version 3 to the Beta, says at least as much about how little they like the old version.
How many movies do you own that actually were cheaper than $2 per viewing?
Quite a few. Although this is mostly because I don't buy DVDs at release, so I don't intend to pretend this disproves your position. However when comparing renting and buying it is also worth considering that when you buy a DVD:
1/ You can lend it to someone else.
2/ You can sell it.
3/ If you rented a film and really liked it, if you then chose to buy it then you have paid both to rent and purchase it.
I bought Napoleon Dynamite because of the great reviews I'd read, I watched it and thought it was terrible. However as the DVD cost me £3 ($4.25) I can sell it and make back almost my entire expenditure.
Which cave-dweller modded parent post Redundant? He was simply explaining his position from an earlier post to someone who had missed his point. Besides which it is hardly redundant to express an opinion on DRM on rented material when talking about DRM on rented material.
PS the crap in the British media about the NHS is 90% newspaper-selling bullshit.
As someone who has visited 3 friends/relatives in UK hospitals over the last few months, and read the statistics behind a number of those new stories, I disagree. The UK health system is not fit for purpose, and some form of competition even if it is artificial from within the same tax funded organisation is desperately needed.
I don't mean the American system is better, simply that I know of no one who is happy with the UK health care who has used it recently.
Especially since they are doing more than just plain copies, they are producing products that are, arguably, "improved" models.
If they are as good as that, then surely they don't need to rip off Apple's branding to be a success?
The current implementation of Patents is harming innovation by legitimate businesses, that does not mean that companies should not be able to protect any form of new development for a limited period of time. Currently the nations with the loosest attitude to IP are the ones with the least to gain by cracking down on it, do you think that in 10 years time when there are a few Chinese owned firms actually pushing development the of new products forward the Chinese government won't be much keener to ensure IP rules are followed in other countries?
But what I'm trying to say is: who decides which game is more fun? A lot of the guys from category A would have ranked FF7 as the biggest pile of crap, while a lot of those from category B thought that Mario 64 was a simplistic kiddie game. And both were right... for their own subjective tastes.
Everything you said was absolutely right, and it's a real shame that people can be so pigeonholed into one definition of what types of game they like.
FF7 would still rank as the closest thing to my top choice in a game, but I still thought Mario 64 was fantastic, I loved Halo single player and Halo 2/3s multiplayer, the best game I have played in around a year was Fallout 3, Sim City 2000 has wasted an indecent amount of my life and one of the most played games on my 360 is Geometry Wars. There are good games in so many different genres, it seems like a real waste to ignore so many for no good reason.
Nice to see at least something coming out of that region of the world nowadays that has no relation to terrorists or nukes.
It is nice to see something that isn't negative about Iran getting into western news. Iran has a population around that of the United Kingdom so I have no doubt that numerous beneficial scientific discoveries are made there.
But does it really belong in the context of a gaming network? I mean, do I really need to know the sexual preferences of the people I'm griefing? You still die the same, so it doesn't change anything.
1/ The issue is more that MS haven't made it clear in the TOS that mentioning your sexuality is against the rules.
2/ Regardless of which, the same 'no need' arguement equally applies to all gamertags. If personal information isn't appropriate MS should just give people a number on signing up.
3/ No you don't need to know peoples sexual preferences, but why are you so worried about people putting it in their gamertag?
If they're going to mark you as leaving 'on bad terms', you may as well move the date up and quit now. It's not like they can do anything additional to screw you. Move on to your next (and presumably better) job and forget about the last one.
This was my initial thought, but ultimately any enjoyment you get from knowing you made life harder for your old company is likely to be short lived. However unlikely it is that this will come back to haunt you there just isn't a compelling reason to risk it.
I would however ensure you get a copy of anything and everything the company has said about you from past appraisals etc, and I would certainly suggest formally bringing this issue up with HR.
I'm NASA (not a sys admin) but I would equate passwords to keys as opposed to clever networking tricks being like schematics. I don't know the story but regardless of if you're fired for the wrong reasons if you're a reputable person then you'll maintain your civility and return what must be returned and never deal with the company again.
How exactly do you 'return' something that is in your memory?
I see myself as a reputable person, and disagree entirely with the idea that I must act in the best interests of an ex-employer regardless of whatever they have done in the past.
Passwords aren't physical property, treating someones knowledge (of any form) as though it remains company property after they leave is not the solution.
Passwords are different because:
a) they are small and trivial to communicate (unlike your examples), and
Firstly, the effort required to communicate the data isn't important. Either you work for the company or you don't, if you don't then you are free to choose to do what you wish. I could request that you put "N1AK is awesome" in your signature, is it a crime for you not to perform this trivial act? Would it be different if I used to employ you?
Secondly, there is plenty of things a Salesperson could tell his ex-employer very easily and quickly. How long would it take to say "Oh, I heard that our competitor is releasing a product which improves x by % but at a cost to y". That information could arguably be far more important to the long term success of the company than a single password, why should it be treated differently?
b) they are (for all practical purposes) essential for the running and maintenance of an important and expensive part of many companies
His boss should of ensured that the critical information wasn't lost with him. The company was at fault for not ensuring that the passwords would be available if something happened to Mr Childs, that is not his responsibility. Compliance with Sarbanes-Oxley is vital for businesses in America, if an accountant was fired before he had properly processed some information relevant to SO it could have far more damaging consequences than a typical admin password.
The point here is not whether Terry's actions were damaging to the company or not, regardless of how damaging they might be. He was obviously being as difficult as he could. The issue is whether someone can be punished for choosing not to do work for someone who no longer employs them?
I think a better analogy would be requiring a fired employee to hand over his keys to company property...
How this that a remotely good analogy? The keys are company property, if he doesn't return them he is committing theft. The copy of a password stored within his brain is NOT property, and is exactly the same as customer details or architectural details. If he no longer works for the company then he has no legal obligation to consult for them.
I absolutely agree with that definition of a peer. Exactly where would the line be drawn about whom your peers were? The last thing I want is legal system where you can dodge crimes because they are the sort of crimes 'a selective group of people similar to you' don't want to punish.
There is merit to the idea of having 'specialist' juries for certain forms of crime, for example accounting, but this still has a lot of downsides. The biggest of which is it makes loading the Jury to decide the desired way will become easier.
Sorry. I'm a lawyer and you're only partly right. Passwords may not be "property" but it can still be potentially harmful to withhold them.
If a salesman is fired, is he breaking the law if he refuses to work for free advising his old company about their customers (Who else do they buy from, What are their priorities, etc)? If a engineer leaves, does he have to produce detailed schematics for anything the company owns?
If the admin followed the rules he was employed under (assuming the company has a password policy) then I can't see why a password should be treated better than the job related knowledge required in most careers.
Someday you're are going to have an epiphany and realise that MS did not hold a gun to your head, march you into the store and make you buy the fucking console.
No one is claiming IE shouldn't be the only browser bundled because it's crap, they are using the same lame monopoly argument they always pull out and mod down people who disagree.
Try asking yourself one question: If IE was currently the best browser by your definition would that make it ok for Microsoft to bundle it? If the answer is no then your three questions don't matter.
To try and chime in before comments saying that there is no race issue, and the fact the Zombies are black is irrelevant. The newsweek journalist who made the comments makes extensive attempts to clarify that having black skinned zombies alone wouldn't be an issue.
There was stuff like even before the point in the trailer where the crowd turned into zombies. There sort of being, in sort of post-modern parlance, they're sort of "othered." They're hidden in shadows, you can barely see their eyes, and the perspective of the trailer is not even someone who's coming to help the people. It's like they're all dangerous; they all need to be killed.
I have not seen the trailer, but if the author is correct then this issue isn't as clear cut and it can't be dismissed as a black guy getting excessively defensive. I also wonder whether the reason the pre-zombie people are shown as dangerous is by intention, not due to racial prejudice but instead because it builds tension, or whether the developers thought showing the player character interacting with nice friendly local children and then soon after blowing their heads off wouldn't be taken well by players (sometimes it is nice to have clear good & evil although perhaps a game like RE5 would actually be better with more grey area to make players think?).
Overall I recommend that people who have skipped the race article link thinking it is a load of bollocks have a read, although the guys style annoys me and it is light on details there is more to it than you might think.
Slashdot Mirror
Moderation seems to have gone to shit over the last couple of weeks. As much as I think the parent post is overly simplistic (and wrong) how on earth is he trolling?
There is a -1 Redundant option for a reason...
Like complained about all the time wasted posting and reading posts on Slashdot? People get born, live a little and then die. There is no secret formula to define true success, though some people will equate it with exploration and some others will equate it with living a satisfied life. If people want to use time (likely relaxation time anyway) to play games then so be it.
When I go for a job I do extensive research about the company I am applying to. During the process I will get as much information on who they employ, and then try and get as much information on any who seem relevant. This isn't uncommon, in fact almost anyone would say not investigating a possible employer is a big mistake. So why is it that we are worried if the employer treats hiring in the same way?
The majority of people who are going to suffer by having people look for them online are people who don't attempt to maintain a separate internet persona and are also publicly doing things that deserve to get them in trouble. If I look up a candidate and find them on Slashdot (on the assumption it can be verified as them) and they regularly flame or troll then you can bet that would effect my hiring decision. At the same time if I found that they often gave good and tolerant answers it would also effect my decision, except this time in a positive manner.
If you post information in public then expect employers to see it. If your employer was using devious methods to get hold of something you thought was private then yes it's an issue.
Great choice of graphs Timothy, I was just about to start doing the same before I noticed your post and there is really no need to elaborate.
We haven't gotten to the end of the current financial problems yet, and the current drop is already the biggest blip in the Dow since 80 years ago so it's a big issue, but it can't be said to be without precedent.
Would those people include a sub-class which spends time posting their view that Facebook is for people with no lives to 'geek news' sites like Slashdot? If so, surely you could have in 'real life' talked to 'real friends' about it.
Many people, myself included believe Facebook is a great tool for helping keep in touch with people between real life meetings which is more useful than ever due to peoples tendency to move further for work etc. Just because you don't see the value in Facebook I don't automatically assume it's because your one of the people who simply can't assimilate new tech into their lifestyle anymore, perhaps you can return the favour and not assume that a service can't be of value to anyone just because it isn't to you.
Dust seems to be the main issue, but couldn't a design based on moving parts being contained within the 'wheel' (like a hamster ball) or based on larger slow turning wheels work. Obviously these kind of designs would probably be a big hit for efficiency, but it's the friggin moon it's not like we are expecting perfection.
Well the head it comes from isn't the one you show in public... for more details consult Google (preferably with image search off)
In Bush Jnr's 1st term government spending grew at the fastest rate in 30 years. Over the last 80 years government spending has grown faster under Republican Presidents than Democratic Presidents. Right wing parties like control just as much as the lefties they just exercise it differently by giving the money to private companies they choose rather than setting up public organisations.
That would depend upon your baseline, personally I will trust Political compass over your assessment (http://www.politicalcompass.org/). The main issue is what a party says, and what it actually does can vary so massively as to show no relation.
The scary part is that both the BBC and the Lords (the wealthly conservatives?) although very different have been a check upon government in the UK, and both aren't democratic!
Safari is made by Apple, that fact alone is enough for a very sizable portion of the Slashdot readership to ignore any reason to dislike it.
Opera IS a damn good browser, and it is a shame it doesn't get more credit. Personally I choose to use FF but it doesn't mean I can't appreciate good software when I see it regardless of licensing model.
As an aside, I can't help but think that bragging about the number of people jumping on a product Beta is strange. Surely the fact that Safari users moving from Version 3 to the Beta, says at least as much about how little they like the old version.
Quite a few. Although this is mostly because I don't buy DVDs at release, so I don't intend to pretend this disproves your position. However when comparing renting and buying it is also worth considering that when you buy a DVD:
1/ You can lend it to someone else.
2/ You can sell it.
3/ If you rented a film and really liked it, if you then chose to buy it then you have paid both to rent and purchase it.
I bought Napoleon Dynamite because of the great reviews I'd read, I watched it and thought it was terrible. However as the DVD cost me £3 ($4.25) I can sell it and make back almost my entire expenditure.
Which cave-dweller modded parent post Redundant? He was simply explaining his position from an earlier post to someone who had missed his point. Besides which it is hardly redundant to express an opinion on DRM on rented material when talking about DRM on rented material.
As someone who has visited 3 friends/relatives in UK hospitals over the last few months, and read the statistics behind a number of those new stories, I disagree. The UK health system is not fit for purpose, and some form of competition even if it is artificial from within the same tax funded organisation is desperately needed.
I don't mean the American system is better, simply that I know of no one who is happy with the UK health care who has used it recently.
If they are as good as that, then surely they don't need to rip off Apple's branding to be a success?
The current implementation of Patents is harming innovation by legitimate businesses, that does not mean that companies should not be able to protect any form of new development for a limited period of time. Currently the nations with the loosest attitude to IP are the ones with the least to gain by cracking down on it, do you think that in 10 years time when there are a few Chinese owned firms actually pushing development the of new products forward the Chinese government won't be much keener to ensure IP rules are followed in other countries?
Everything you said was absolutely right, and it's a real shame that people can be so pigeonholed into one definition of what types of game they like.
FF7 would still rank as the closest thing to my top choice in a game, but I still thought Mario 64 was fantastic, I loved Halo single player and Halo 2/3s multiplayer, the best game I have played in around a year was Fallout 3, Sim City 2000 has wasted an indecent amount of my life and one of the most played games on my 360 is Geometry Wars. There are good games in so many different genres, it seems like a real waste to ignore so many for no good reason.
It is nice to see something that isn't negative about Iran getting into western news. Iran has a population around that of the United Kingdom so I have no doubt that numerous beneficial scientific discoveries are made there.
1/ The issue is more that MS haven't made it clear in the TOS that mentioning your sexuality is against the rules.
2/ Regardless of which, the same 'no need' arguement equally applies to all gamertags. If personal information isn't appropriate MS should just give people a number on signing up.
3/ No you don't need to know peoples sexual preferences, but why are you so worried about people putting it in their gamertag?
This was my initial thought, but ultimately any enjoyment you get from knowing you made life harder for your old company is likely to be short lived. However unlikely it is that this will come back to haunt you there just isn't a compelling reason to risk it.
I would however ensure you get a copy of anything and everything the company has said about you from past appraisals etc, and I would certainly suggest formally bringing this issue up with HR.
How exactly do you 'return' something that is in your memory?
I see myself as a reputable person, and disagree entirely with the idea that I must act in the best interests of an ex-employer regardless of whatever they have done in the past.
Passwords aren't physical property, treating someones knowledge (of any form) as though it remains company property after they leave is not the solution.
Firstly, the effort required to communicate the data isn't important. Either you work for the company or you don't, if you don't then you are free to choose to do what you wish. I could request that you put "N1AK is awesome" in your signature, is it a crime for you not to perform this trivial act? Would it be different if I used to employ you?
Secondly, there is plenty of things a Salesperson could tell his ex-employer very easily and quickly. How long would it take to say "Oh, I heard that our competitor is releasing a product which improves x by % but at a cost to y". That information could arguably be far more important to the long term success of the company than a single password, why should it be treated differently?
His boss should of ensured that the critical information wasn't lost with him. The company was at fault for not ensuring that the passwords would be available if something happened to Mr Childs, that is not his responsibility. Compliance with Sarbanes-Oxley is vital for businesses in America, if an accountant was fired before he had properly processed some information relevant to SO it could have far more damaging consequences than a typical admin password.
The point here is not whether Terry's actions were damaging to the company or not, regardless of how damaging they might be. He was obviously being as difficult as he could. The issue is whether someone can be punished for choosing not to do work for someone who no longer employs them?
How this that a remotely good analogy? The keys are company property, if he doesn't return them he is committing theft. The copy of a password stored within his brain is NOT property, and is exactly the same as customer details or architectural details. If he no longer works for the company then he has no legal obligation to consult for them.
I absolutely agree with that definition of a peer. Exactly where would the line be drawn about whom your peers were? The last thing I want is legal system where you can dodge crimes because they are the sort of crimes 'a selective group of people similar to you' don't want to punish.
There is merit to the idea of having 'specialist' juries for certain forms of crime, for example accounting, but this still has a lot of downsides. The biggest of which is it makes loading the Jury to decide the desired way will become easier.
If a salesman is fired, is he breaking the law if he refuses to work for free advising his old company about their customers (Who else do they buy from, What are their priorities, etc)? If a engineer leaves, does he have to produce detailed schematics for anything the company owns?
If the admin followed the rules he was employed under (assuming the company has a password policy) then I can't see why a password should be treated better than the job related knowledge required in most careers.
Someday you're are going to have an epiphany and realise that MS did not hold a gun to your head, march you into the store and make you buy the fucking console.
No one is claiming IE shouldn't be the only browser bundled because it's crap, they are using the same lame monopoly argument they always pull out and mod down people who disagree.
Try asking yourself one question: If IE was currently the best browser by your definition would that make it ok for Microsoft to bundle it? If the answer is no then your three questions don't matter.
I have not seen the trailer, but if the author is correct then this issue isn't as clear cut and it can't be dismissed as a black guy getting excessively defensive. I also wonder whether the reason the pre-zombie people are shown as dangerous is by intention, not due to racial prejudice but instead because it builds tension, or whether the developers thought showing the player character interacting with nice friendly local children and then soon after blowing their heads off wouldn't be taken well by players (sometimes it is nice to have clear good & evil although perhaps a game like RE5 would actually be better with more grey area to make players think?).
Overall I recommend that people who have skipped the race article link thinking it is a load of bollocks have a read, although the guys style annoys me and it is light on details there is more to it than you might think.