because it has only been recently that humanity has started releasing millions of tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere. Millions of tonnes that took millions of years to sequester, all being released in a very short period of time.
> We are happy to oblige, but the problem is many of these guests have high risk computing habits and have more than once infested one of our computers with malware,
Really? It's not that they started typing something into your browser and the browser history showed off all the sick and twisted porn you watch?:P
But like, no one had to pay for these services. There was no contractual obligation in play. What responsibility does Google have to spend time and money on infrastructure on products that are used by the minority of people?
if it's all about money, then why isn't the oil industry trying to monopolize on green energy as well?
Oil is finite. We all know this, and (At least in the west), there is increasing awareness amongst the population over their environmental footprints (whether that's out of a sense of selflessness or simple economics as the cost of gas goes up is irrelevant).
So it seems like a smart business decision to actively research and control the future, since future will be oil-free, and companies like Shell, wouldn't be doing their shareholders any good if they didn't try to monopolize non-oil non-natural gas energy resources.
"He also had an interesting comment about Ubuntu's target userbase: "I simply have zero interest in the crowd who wants to be different. Leet. 'Linux is supposed to be hard so it's exclusive' is just the dumbest thing that a smart person could say."
I'm cool with that, as long as it's not used as an excuse to block me from doing what I want to do. Don't take the Apple approach to dumbing tech down please.
> Therefore, my personal conclusion is that someone designing a conference policy would be do better to read the Ada Initiative's well-argued opinion, and should not follow your rather poorly, emotionally-argued opinion. It's ultimately up to the conference organizers to decide what policies they wish to have, though.
Your conclusion is illogicall. If the subject matter at hand is risky subject matter for someone, then that someone should not attend, rather than shutting the subject down altogether.
Someone who has PTSD from a war who is at risk of "triggers", should not attend a talk about "Advanced Programming Techniques for Automated Targeting Systems", just as someone who as PTSD from a rape who is at risk of "triggers", should not attend a talk about the pros and cons of sex and drugs.
> If I own a business, I am going to maximize my profits, and if that means opening a plant in china, or XX instead of YY, well thats not my fault, thats the market. If you dont like the rules, or the way things are running in your country, change the rules to make it more competitive, if that dont work change the rules to keep workers, or products from ZZ from entering your country.
That is greed. You don't NEED to maximize profits, you need enough revenue to pay all bills, invest to grow, and have some incentive. This idea that you NEED TO MAXIMIZE PROFITS, so much more that it's worth being inhumane, is pathetic to say the least.
Slashdot Mirror
long term sustainability is not profitable.
because it has only been recently that humanity has started releasing millions of tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere. Millions of tonnes that took millions of years to sequester, all being released in a very short period of time.
citation needed
> We are happy to oblige, but the problem is many of these guests have high risk computing habits and have more than once infested one of our computers with malware,
Really? It's not that they started typing something into your browser and the browser history showed off all the sick and twisted porn you watch? :P
Yeah, I miss things like Code Search.
Well that's the only thing I used really.
But like, no one had to pay for these services. There was no contractual obligation in play. What responsibility does Google have to spend time and money on infrastructure on products that are used by the minority of people?
so does FreeBSD but it's so not worth the effort.
> Blaming capitolism for crime is like blaming highways for road deaths.
well, when the highway collapses from lack of investment because it wasn't profitable, then yes, you can blame the highway for the road deaths
if it's all about money, then why isn't the oil industry trying to monopolize on green energy as well?
Oil is finite. We all know this, and (At least in the west), there is increasing awareness amongst the population over their environmental footprints (whether that's out of a sense of selflessness or simple economics as the cost of gas goes up is irrelevant).
So it seems like a smart business decision to actively research and control the future, since future will be oil-free, and companies like Shell, wouldn't be doing their shareholders any good if they didn't try to monopolize non-oil non-natural gas energy resources.
"He also had an interesting comment about Ubuntu's target userbase: "I simply have zero interest in the crowd who wants to be different. Leet. 'Linux is supposed to be hard so it's exclusive' is just the dumbest thing that a smart person could say."
I'm cool with that, as long as it's not used as an excuse to block me from doing what I want to do. Don't take the Apple approach to dumbing tech down please.
I disagree. It accurately describes an entire class of software whose sole goals in life is to make managing huge volumes of data easier.
Unlike the word "cloud" however, which describes absolutely nothing at all.
The human body is a machine in its own right, so hacking it seems very applicable for a hacker conference.
> Therefore, my personal conclusion is that someone designing a conference policy would be do better to read the Ada Initiative's well-argued opinion, and should not follow your rather poorly, emotionally-argued opinion. It's ultimately up to the conference organizers to decide what policies they wish to have, though.
Your conclusion is illogicall. If the subject matter at hand is risky subject matter for someone, then that someone should not attend, rather than shutting the subject down altogether.
Someone who has PTSD from a war who is at risk of "triggers", should not attend a talk about "Advanced Programming Techniques for Automated Targeting Systems", just as someone who as PTSD from a rape who is at risk of "triggers", should not attend a talk about the pros and cons of sex and drugs.
> If I own a business, I am going to maximize my profits, and if that means opening a plant in china, or XX instead of YY, well thats not my fault, thats the market. If you dont like the rules, or the way things are running in your country, change the rules to make it more competitive, if that dont work change the rules to keep workers, or products from ZZ from entering your country.
That is greed. You don't NEED to maximize profits, you need enough revenue to pay all bills, invest to grow, and have some incentive. This idea that you NEED TO MAXIMIZE PROFITS, so much more that it's worth being inhumane, is pathetic to say the least.
why is this modded +5 insightful in response to a +0 flamebait?
If someone makes a claim, then the burden of proof is on them, not on the person listening to the claims.
If video games affected kids, then they would all be running around a dark room eating pills and listening to electronic music.
Unfortunately though, that happened. It was called the rave scene.
Canadians
Cube was a good movie.
This is the only logical way for a Canadian consumer to buy American. Any other way only leads to extortion in "brokerage fees".
they are afraid of heights dude
neither do I, but seeing the locks would be something I'd be interested in
I can't believe how any freedom-loving country can permit retroactive anything.
How can anyone plan anything when the threat of a retroactive change takes place?
You would think that if all politicians cared about was their own greed, they'd be far better off than they are now no?
there, in the UK, where distance is still measured in that archaic unit, the "mile".
Get with it UK, it's called KILOMETERS.
-- your snooty offspring, Canada
They will probably offer a great service, so long as your usage of that service can be monitored.
But, on the bright side, Google doesn't seem too interested in the minority of users who are smart enough to get around it...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_copying_levy#Canada
If I bought a spindle of DVDs, I should not be able to be sued.