Strange. I've had a lovely career in IT and as I get older my hours per week is dropping nearly as fast as my salary is rising.
C-level decision making impacts everybody, including those in unions. Self determination means I can choose the extent of that impact on my for myself, no other cunt fucking me over because of idiotic things like seniority based progression or reducing salaries to avoid job losses.
It's the cunts with audible email warnings or that stand right behind me having a private conversation at public speaking volumes that cause problems, and they're cunts in any office.
Open plan lets me see more, engage more socially, hear more about my colleagues and their work without actually having to try and talk to them. It's bloody useful.
Or maybe, just maybe, I understand that Facebook inherently control a vast element of global discourse, and through censorship can drive the direction of that discourse far more effectively than almost any government.
Perhaps, just possibly, censorship is more serious with Facebook than anything else ever in history.
But you wouldn't understand that because you think it's an ad hominem attack to correctly call you a fuckwit.
You can call it what you want, but by calling it "censorship" you remove any negative connotations to the word.
Quite the opposite. I use the word because its negative connotations are explicitly appropriate for Facebook's actions.
They have every right to not let you post on their servers
I have every right to correctly identify their censorship as censorship.
crying "censorship!" only dilutes the significant use of the word when it needs to mean something
Crying "fire" when things are burning only dilutes the significant use of the word when it needs to mean something. Crying "murder" when the Saudis kill a journalist only dilutes the significant use of the word when it needs to mean something. Crying "idiot" when describing you only dilutes the significant use of the word when it needs to mean something.
I understand that you want to create outrage at an action that Facebook is taking
You understand very little. I don't even use Facebook.
relying on the word "censorship"
I'm relying on the word "censorship" to help succinctly and pithily describes acts of, well, censorship. Language, it's fucking amazing.
Your best available sources are themselves copies of copies, revised to suit the politics of the day and carefully curated to manipulate the target audience.
In other words, fiction.
Congratulations, you're using beautifully translated fiction as a basis for your life. You fucking idiot.
If you choose to ignore the historical record of Christianity and Judaism and the contemporary testimonies of what God has done in the past and is now doing for His people today
The highly contradictory inconsistent and frequently plagiarised records and testimonies that don't hold up to scrutiny? Good fucking luck basing any reliance on those.
It's ok, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is a benevolent being and just as credible as your Abrahamic invention.
the open source community doesn't want to make Linux adoption easy
You appear to be terribly misinformed and/or malicious.
The open source community is broad and multifaceted but very definitely includes people that want to make Linux adoption easy.
It's well over a decade since installing Linux was anything other than a doddle, and it's also used every month on their own personal computing device by around 2 billion people.
. Facebook not allowing you to post your comment on their servers is not censorship
If Facebook don't allow you to post "man, the queues are insane today, I've had to go back to work and I'll try again later" then they're censoring you.
Whether you like that use of the term or not is entirely fucking irrelevant. Would you prefer that we censor your idiocy by forcing Slashdot to delete your lies? Me, I'd rather allow others to read and counter them.
No. I say this because I know that subsistence survival has few exit points.
Education on the other hand will transform the society.
So prioritise giving children the basic care and standard of living needed to benefit from an education, give them that education and watch your entire country's poverty start to diminish.
Amazon's role in this adds value right through the chain though.
The shepherd in New Zealand doesn't know me and isn't going to be able to sell me his wool.
The child in Bangladesh operating the machinery in the factory lacks the international contacts needed to sell the products she creates.
The transport overheads of a single sock (or even a pair of socks) would cost more than the dollar I pay for it.
Amazon enable all of this to happen in bulk, offering economies of scale, adding sufficient value to every participant involved that they can all benefit and profit.
An entire farm's worth of wool makes a container full of socks, the shipping of which has merely marginal cost per sock, and Amazon allows me to search and choose from among the multiple sock options available.
Sure, they make a profit. But I get a sock for a dollar.
You are a member of a community. You access a resource created by that community. You benefit from the community's contribution. The community just shared knowledge with itself.
Just write a bot that never reads the TOS and doesn't agree to comply with it.
Instead it can use a defined protocol to request responses from a server, and the server can choose whether to provide those responses. Maybe something like HTTP, that seems quite good at this sort of thing.
We already talked about this with the Linux Kernel Code of Conduct change.
Except that a key element in the Linux Kernel discussion was that the licence was the very thing preventing people from withdrawing their contributions.
Similarly Wikipedia contributions are inherently copyright to the contributor, who licences their work under GFDL and CC-BY SA.
No, Wikipedia can not change those licences. They can choose to cease sharing that content, but they can't legally just stick their own shiny new licence on it.
Just because you don't like it does not mean you have any control or rights over your past contributions.
Except.. yes, yes he does. He retains copyright and all the commercial and artistic legal rights that grants.
Slashdot Mirror
People like Kent Beck or Martin Fowler you mean? Industry leaders that gained those roles by continually learning, programming and thinking?
Thank fuck they weren't forced into hands-off roles.
Strange. I've had a lovely career in IT and as I get older my hours per week is dropping nearly as fast as my salary is rising.
C-level decision making impacts everybody, including those in unions. Self determination means I can choose the extent of that impact on my for myself, no other cunt fucking me over because of idiotic things like seniority based progression or reducing salaries to avoid job losses.
Fuck that.
I have Aspergers and prefer open plan offices.
It's the cunts with audible email warnings or that stand right behind me having a private conversation at public speaking volumes that cause problems, and they're cunts in any office.
Open plan lets me see more, engage more socially, hear more about my colleagues and their work without actually having to try and talk to them. It's bloody useful.
While I agree with your approach it's sadly illegal to throw large bricks at idiot colleagues.
Or maybe, just maybe, I understand that Facebook inherently control a vast element of global discourse, and through censorship can drive the direction of that discourse far more effectively than almost any government.
Perhaps, just possibly, censorship is more serious with Facebook than anything else ever in history.
But you wouldn't understand that because you think it's an ad hominem attack to correctly call you a fuckwit.
You can call it what you want, but by calling it "censorship" you remove any negative connotations to the word.
Quite the opposite. I use the word because its negative connotations are explicitly appropriate for Facebook's actions.
They have every right to not let you post on their servers
I have every right to correctly identify their censorship as censorship.
crying "censorship!" only dilutes the significant use of the word when it needs to mean something
Crying "fire" when things are burning only dilutes the significant use of the word when it needs to mean something.
Crying "murder" when the Saudis kill a journalist only dilutes the significant use of the word when it needs to mean something.
Crying "idiot" when describing you only dilutes the significant use of the word when it needs to mean something.
I understand that you want to create outrage at an action that Facebook is taking
You understand very little. I don't even use Facebook.
relying on the word "censorship"
I'm relying on the word "censorship" to help succinctly and pithily describes acts of, well, censorship. Language, it's fucking amazing.
Your best available sources are themselves copies of copies, revised to suit the politics of the day and carefully curated to manipulate the target audience.
In other words, fiction.
Congratulations, you're using beautifully translated fiction as a basis for your life. You fucking idiot.
If you choose to ignore the historical record of Christianity and Judaism and the contemporary testimonies of what God has done in the past and is now doing for His people today
The highly contradictory inconsistent and frequently plagiarised records and testimonies that don't hold up to scrutiny? Good fucking luck basing any reliance on those.
It's ok, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is a benevolent being and just as credible as your Abrahamic invention.
the open source community doesn't want to make Linux adoption easy
You appear to be terribly misinformed and/or malicious.
The open source community is broad and multifaceted but very definitely includes people that want to make Linux adoption easy.
It's well over a decade since installing Linux was anything other than a doddle, and it's also used every month on their own personal computing device by around 2 billion people.
. Facebook not allowing you to post your comment on their servers is not censorship
If Facebook don't allow you to post "man, the queues are insane today, I've had to go back to work and I'll try again later" then they're censoring you.
Whether you like that use of the term or not is entirely fucking irrelevant. Would you prefer that we censor your idiocy by forcing Slashdot to delete your lies? Me, I'd rather allow others to read and counter them.
Surely she has a clear and simple defamation case that'll garner her a healthy chunk of that Youtuber's income?
Given the British only entered the war to protect the sovereignty of Belgium from an unwarranted German attack I think you're talking nonsense.
No. I say this because I know that subsistence survival has few exit points.
Education on the other hand will transform the society.
So prioritise giving children the basic care and standard of living needed to benefit from an education, give them that education and watch your entire country's poverty start to diminish.
QWERTY isn't unique to US English. E.g. British keyboards are QWERTY too but have a different layout to US ones.
To be fair, it's mainly the programmers that spot the differences.
If only there were other ways to treat 8 year olds.
Lets see, how do other countries do it? Education? Welfare to assure they're not hungry? Assured housing?
Why not offer those same opportunities and benefits instead of making them work in a shitty abusive factory.
Amazon's role in this adds value right through the chain though.
The shepherd in New Zealand doesn't know me and isn't going to be able to sell me his wool.
The child in Bangladesh operating the machinery in the factory lacks the international contacts needed to sell the products she creates.
The transport overheads of a single sock (or even a pair of socks) would cost more than the dollar I pay for it.
Amazon enable all of this to happen in bulk, offering economies of scale, adding sufficient value to every participant involved that they can all benefit and profit.
An entire farm's worth of wool makes a container full of socks, the shipping of which has merely marginal cost per sock, and Amazon allows me to search and choose from among the multiple sock options available.
Sure, they make a profit. But I get a sock for a dollar.
They're in a difficult and stressful business, with low pay and high risks for the bulk of the people working in it.
You are a member of a community. You access a resource created by that community. You benefit from the community's contribution. The community just shared knowledge with itself.
Aspie fucktard logic still beats your idiocy.
Alexa, a web browser. The some/many ratio is consistent whichever tool people use to access the information.
You do realise that you can do your own research, right?
E.g. some other resources that discussed the topic:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/q...
https://www.wired.com/2014/04/...
https://brendaneich.com/2014/0...
But there wasn't an argument to lose, merely an insight into a potential factor behind Mozilla's reduction in relevance.
Twitter may or may not have programmes. Salesforce very clearly see theirs as an act of virtue for which they demand praise.
I find that disappointing.
Just write a bot that never reads the TOS and doesn't agree to comply with it.
Instead it can use a defined protocol to request responses from a server, and the server can choose whether to provide those responses. Maybe something like HTTP, that seems quite good at this sort of thing.
Alexa grants people access to shared knowlege. That knowledge was shared by people.
So really Alexa is merely granting people access to their own knowledge.
Unless you can demonstrate that users of Alexa and contributors to Wikipedia are very separate communities, people are granting gifts to themselves.
We already talked about this with the Linux Kernel Code of Conduct change.
Except that a key element in the Linux Kernel discussion was that the licence was the very thing preventing people from withdrawing their contributions.
Similarly Wikipedia contributions are inherently copyright to the contributor, who licences their work under GFDL and CC-BY SA.
No, Wikipedia can not change those licences. They can choose to cease sharing that content, but they can't legally just stick their own shiny new licence on it.
Just because you don't like it does not mean you have any control or rights over your past contributions.
Except.. yes, yes he does. He retains copyright and all the commercial and artistic legal rights that grants.
That is now my favourite quote of the year.