Access to a market is never unfettered. For better or worse, we trade some governmental control of access to the market for various benefits (quality control, protection for domestic competition, etc.), so market regulators are thus granted the right to set conditions for market entry.
In this case, we demand that participants not trade with our enemies. ZTE violated that rule. We imposed a limited regime of punishments--a corporate fine and a request that the responsible corporate officers be punished--that the company had to agree to if it wanted to continue to trade in this market. ZTE essentially lied: it's employees weren't punished after all. By violating the terms of its punishment, it effectively opted out of the market.
I'm no economic nationalist, but my concern is that this might push China to create domestic competitors to Qualcomm and the other key US-based parts suppliers, making matters worse for US companies in the long run and likely negatively impacting the US economy. On the other hand, more competition should drive quality up and prices down, which is good for me as a consumer. So I'm conflicted.
The theory is that government, as the agent of the governed, promotes ideals the governed wish to see established. There may be a tension between some of those ideals, such as free speech and the expression of views the majority of the governed may find odious. Corporations may be forced to put up with things they find objectionable, such as paying for employee health care plans that offer contraceptive services. In this case GoDaddy can say they're booting The Daily Stormer because their speech is odious, but they're really doing it for economic reasons.
(And that's OK! Economic pressure is a legitimate means of driving change. In this case the form of the victory is enough, even if its substance can be questioned.)
But a corporation's scope for censoring speech is limited by the norms society imposes, whether de jure or de facto. If it were so inclined GoDaddy might have a hard time booting a site promoting marriage equality because that's a norm a majority of the governed want to promote.
What I'm saying is that GoDaddy is right because you and I both agree with the result (so it pleases us), but it might also be right to allow the site to remain because these idiots have a right to their hateful opinions (so it satisfies our societal norm regarding free speech).
Adding chrome to a design is only more effort in the sense that you have to spend a lot of time adding that chrome. Otherwise, minimalism is at least just as hard because your intent and functionality can't hide behind the pretty blinking lights.
I actually listened to the whole thing (and that's a few minutes of my life I wish to have back) and he seems to be focused on scripting languages -- PERL, Javascript, PHP, etc. I'll save you a few minutes: he wants us all to focus our dev efforts on only those language features that are common across his in-scope languages. Further, once you've written something in your favorite scripting language, you should port that "gift" to the other in-scope languages to give your "gift" the widest possible distribution.
In short, Acmeism consists of a quintupling of your workload by asking you to port everything you write multiple times. The whole language evangelism thing apparently bugs him and he's opting out.
I think they don't have a replacement yet, but will replace him eventually. Per TFA, Ballmer isn't the guy the board wants in front of gamers. It's standard operating procedure in cases such as these that the direct reports to a defenestrated department head report to *his* boss until a new department head is found. This also suggests to me that Mattrick was pushed (or jumped before he could be pushed) because of the massive black eye Microsoft suffered. As much as we all enjoy the chair jokes at his expense, I don't expect Ballmer to have direct responsibility for the gaming division for long.
Was I the only one who saw this right above the Spolsky-likes-group-lunch article and wondered why the Shuttle's afternoon meal had been delayed? Sick kid kept me up last night...
Assuming your last comment wasn't a rhetorical question, you already know the answer to this: Because the perceived value-add of selling an encrypted drive allows them to charge more than simply bundling TrueCrypt with a bog-standard USB drive. The public justification would be that their software is easier to use (and, if they're feeling particularly full of themselves, more secure).
...because it promises more than it delivers. The title implies there's a universally perfect way to cut a pizza so everyone gets an equal share. Well, duh. What TFM tells you is how to figure out if everyone is getting an equal share.
I'll save you some time: Ensure you make an even number of cuts >= 4.
I moved from a technical a more administrative role because it was the natural progression in the career path I've chosen. So one consideration for you is if you have a future in mind that requires a steady upward progression through the organizational hierarchy. Another consideration is how management would view a declination of additional responsibility. I've had some managers who were perfectly OK with having someone stop at a chosen point; others (in the same company) want only--or primarily--upwardly mobile people working for them.
Is the increased responsibility and availability sufficiently compensated? Will you be comfortable managing those who were until recently your peers? Other considerations aside--from a purely avocational perspective--which would you rather do: your current job or the one being offered?
I saw the WSJ article on this. The only thing it solves is the problem of storing large media files on low-capacity hardware. In all other respects, it's an industry solution in search of a consumer problem. Given a comprehensive set of easily-followed instructions on how to convert and load media files on different platforms (PCs, phones, etc.), this "solution" solves nothing for me. If I'm sufficiently technically savvy to convert a movie so it will play on my iPod, why do I need this?
They've already tried to purchase Disney once before, as I recall. I think there's no question of anti-trust on this; we're talking a straightforward attempt at vertical integration within an industry. Comcast can even argue that Time Warner and Viacom have already set precedents for the acceptability of such a merger and that, in fact, Comcast needs to do such a deal to remain competitive.
You do NOT want a direct democracy. Think about it: Do you really want the hoi polloi, the Great Unwashed voting on things like teaching creationism in the public schools? The point of having a representative democracy is that you have a layer of protection against the tyranny of the majority.
If they had just come to us in the beginning we could have gotten something working setup from the start, rather than having to worry about going back and recreating it and importing data.
Sometimes users don't know what they need until they've had a chance to play with what they think they want. Sometimes users don't know the full set of requirements at the outset.
It would either put paid to the security software vendors who may claim more than they can deliver or it will serve as a caution to overly-ambitious columnists. Can't-miss proposition in terms of its entertainment value.
If this is a recapitulation of Anselm's argument, it's a poor one. The ontological argument has been refuted: just because we can imagine a greater being doesn't mean that this being exists because (1) we may not agree that existence is better than non-existence (e.g., given their attributes, unicorns would be greater if they existed--but they manifestly do not) and (2) being is not a predicate.
Even a vacuum is filled with virtual particles, full of energy. Some scientists think the universe may simply be such a reaction that got out of control. In any event, the existence of the universe is contingent, not necessary.
Logic is an odd concept to attach to faith.
The quality of a thought should be judged independently of its originator. We accept discoveries by scientists of faith because they have been found valid, regardless of their personal beliefs--even if these are incompatible with their scientific findings.
If there is something (indicating that nothing is not everything) then there must be something which knows everything.
Lost me there. Just because there is something (the universe, I presume you mean) doesn't necessarily mean that there must be something which knows it completely. Try again.
Re:How Can This Matter to the Trial?
on
SCO Vs. Groklaw
·
· Score: 1
Because the point isn't to prove that PJ is really an IBM facade (although Darl would pay a kingly sum for that kind of revelation).
The real reason is to stifle a well-known, articulate voice that regularly shines through the fog of SCO's FUD. With their stock price perilously close to $1--below which it will be delisted--any adverse news or further negative publicity could push them over the edge.
Darl likely doesn't give a rat's ass who PJ is, as long as he can shut her up, if only for a while.
Jacobsen made the mistake of representing himself. The lawyer who represents himself has a fool for a client. Did he ask the EFF for help?
Our legal system isn't about justice, it's about advocacy. The lawyer, as an officer of the court, isn't there to ensure justice is served--he's there to advise the client and advocate on his behalf. The premise is that justice will out if each side fights as fiercely as possible for its position.
It's probably not an accident that Adam Smith's notion of the "invisible hand" guiding markets was developed in the context of a common law society.
Today's WSJ noted that Microsoft backdated its monthly stock option issues from 1992 to 1999 to coincide with its stock's monthly lows. While not strictly illegal, depending on how it was accounted for, the practice was quietly discontinued in 1999 and it's stinky in the current regulatory climate. This should come as no more of a shock than Jeff Skilling's abrupt retirement from Enron. Not saying the two are even remotely related in substance or gravity, but such departures usually happen for a reason that isn't good. Also, given the company's current malaise, it might be a good idea for the current leadership to step aside and let some fresh faces take a crack at running the company.
Slashdot Mirror
Access to a market is never unfettered. For better or worse, we trade some governmental control of access to the market for various benefits (quality control, protection for domestic competition, etc.), so market regulators are thus granted the right to set conditions for market entry.
In this case, we demand that participants not trade with our enemies. ZTE violated that rule. We imposed a limited regime of punishments--a corporate fine and a request that the responsible corporate officers be punished--that the company had to agree to if it wanted to continue to trade in this market. ZTE essentially lied: it's employees weren't punished after all. By violating the terms of its punishment, it effectively opted out of the market.
I'm no economic nationalist, but my concern is that this might push China to create domestic competitors to Qualcomm and the other key US-based parts suppliers, making matters worse for US companies in the long run and likely negatively impacting the US economy. On the other hand, more competition should drive quality up and prices down, which is good for me as a consumer. So I'm conflicted.
Well, yes and no.
The theory is that government, as the agent of the governed, promotes ideals the governed wish to see established. There may be a tension between some of those ideals, such as free speech and the expression of views the majority of the governed may find odious. Corporations may be forced to put up with things they find objectionable, such as paying for employee health care plans that offer contraceptive services. In this case GoDaddy can say they're booting The Daily Stormer because their speech is odious, but they're really doing it for economic reasons.
(And that's OK! Economic pressure is a legitimate means of driving change. In this case the form of the victory is enough, even if its substance can be questioned.)
But a corporation's scope for censoring speech is limited by the norms society imposes, whether de jure or de facto. If it were so inclined GoDaddy might have a hard time booting a site promoting marriage equality because that's a norm a majority of the governed want to promote.
What I'm saying is that GoDaddy is right because you and I both agree with the result (so it pleases us), but it might also be right to allow the site to remain because these idiots have a right to their hateful opinions (so it satisfies our societal norm regarding free speech).
Adding chrome to a design is only more effort in the sense that you have to spend a lot of time adding that chrome. Otherwise, minimalism is at least just as hard because your intent and functionality can't hide behind the pretty blinking lights.
How does Fallingwater reflect a decline in society when compared to Versailles?
Please, please tell me this is a subtly satirical commentary on the current state of popular technology writing. I'm begging you.
I actually listened to the whole thing (and that's a few minutes of my life I wish to have back) and he seems to be focused on scripting languages -- PERL, Javascript, PHP, etc. I'll save you a few minutes: he wants us all to focus our dev efforts on only those language features that are common across his in-scope languages. Further, once you've written something in your favorite scripting language, you should port that "gift" to the other in-scope languages to give your "gift" the widest possible distribution.
In short, Acmeism consists of a quintupling of your workload by asking you to port everything you write multiple times. The whole language evangelism thing apparently bugs him and he's opting out.
I think they don't have a replacement yet, but will replace him eventually. Per TFA, Ballmer isn't the guy the board wants in front of gamers. It's standard operating procedure in cases such as these that the direct reports to a defenestrated department head report to *his* boss until a new department head is found. This also suggests to me that Mattrick was pushed (or jumped before he could be pushed) because of the massive black eye Microsoft suffered. As much as we all enjoy the chair jokes at his expense, I don't expect Ballmer to have direct responsibility for the gaming division for long.
Was I the only one who saw this right above the Spolsky-likes-group-lunch article and wondered why the Shuttle's afternoon meal had been delayed? Sick kid kept me up last night...
Assuming your last comment wasn't a rhetorical question, you already know the answer to this: Because the perceived value-add of selling an encrypted drive allows them to charge more than simply bundling TrueCrypt with a bog-standard USB drive. The public justification would be that their software is easier to use (and, if they're feeling particularly full of themselves, more secure).
...because it promises more than it delivers. The title implies there's a universally perfect way to cut a pizza so everyone gets an equal share. Well, duh. What TFM tells you is how to figure out if everyone is getting an equal share.
I'll save you some time: Ensure you make an even number of cuts >= 4.
I moved from a technical a more administrative role because it was the natural progression in the career path I've chosen. So one consideration for you is if you have a future in mind that requires a steady upward progression through the organizational hierarchy. Another consideration is how management would view a declination of additional responsibility. I've had some managers who were perfectly OK with having someone stop at a chosen point; others (in the same company) want only--or primarily--upwardly mobile people working for them.
Is the increased responsibility and availability sufficiently compensated? Will you be comfortable managing those who were until recently your peers? Other considerations aside--from a purely avocational perspective--which would you rather do: your current job or the one being offered?
Who mod parent a troll?! Have you no sense of humor, sir?
I saw the WSJ article on this. The only thing it solves is the problem of storing large media files on low-capacity hardware. In all other respects, it's an industry solution in search of a consumer problem. Given a comprehensive set of easily-followed instructions on how to convert and load media files on different platforms (PCs, phones, etc.), this "solution" solves nothing for me. If I'm sufficiently technically savvy to convert a movie so it will play on my iPod, why do I need this?
They've already tried to purchase Disney once before, as I recall. I think there's no question of anti-trust on this; we're talking a straightforward attempt at vertical integration within an industry. Comcast can even argue that Time Warner and Viacom have already set precedents for the acceptability of such a merger and that, in fact, Comcast needs to do such a deal to remain competitive.
You do NOT want a direct democracy. Think about it: Do you really want the hoi polloi, the Great Unwashed voting on things like teaching creationism in the public schools? The point of having a representative democracy is that you have a layer of protection against the tyranny of the majority.
If they had just come to us in the beginning we could have gotten something working setup from the start, rather than having to worry about going back and recreating it and importing data.
Sometimes users don't know what they need until they've had a chance to play with what they think they want. Sometimes users don't know the full set of requirements at the outset.
Or English isn't his/her native language.
It would either put paid to the security software vendors who may claim more than they can deliver or it will serve as a caution to overly-ambitious columnists. Can't-miss proposition in terms of its entertainment value.
If this is a recapitulation of Anselm's argument, it's a poor one. The ontological argument has been refuted: just because we can imagine a greater being doesn't mean that this being exists because (1) we may not agree that existence is better than non-existence (e.g., given their attributes, unicorns would be greater if they existed--but they manifestly do not) and (2) being is not a predicate.
Even a vacuum is filled with virtual particles, full of energy. Some scientists think the universe may simply be such a reaction that got out of control. In any event, the existence of the universe is contingent, not necessary.
Logic is an odd concept to attach to faith.
The quality of a thought should be judged independently of its originator. We accept discoveries by scientists of faith because they have been found valid, regardless of their personal beliefs--even if these are incompatible with their scientific findings.
Define plausible, given that the concept of God is entirely implausible, while evolution is a fact.
Lost me there. Just because there is something (the universe, I presume you mean) doesn't necessarily mean that there must be something which knows it completely. Try again.
Because the point isn't to prove that PJ is really an IBM facade (although Darl would pay a kingly sum for that kind of revelation).
The real reason is to stifle a well-known, articulate voice that regularly shines through the fog of SCO's FUD. With their stock price perilously close to $1--below which it will be delisted--any adverse news or further negative publicity could push them over the edge.
Darl likely doesn't give a rat's ass who PJ is, as long as he can shut her up, if only for a while.
A technicality is not justice at all. Fuck you KAM. And fuck you you goddamned lawyers who work for money not for what is just and true.
What on earth are you talking about? Whose justice? What standards of justice should you apply?
Jacobsen made the mistake of representing himself. The lawyer who represents himself has a fool for a client. Did he ask the EFF for help?
Our legal system isn't about justice, it's about advocacy. The lawyer, as an officer of the court, isn't there to ensure justice is served--he's there to advise the client and advocate on his behalf. The premise is that justice will out if each side fights as fiercely as possible for its position.
It's probably not an accident that Adam Smith's notion of the "invisible hand" guiding markets was developed in the context of a common law society.
You poor bastards still measure in inches?!
Today's WSJ noted that Microsoft backdated its monthly stock option issues from 1992 to 1999 to coincide with its stock's monthly lows. While not strictly illegal, depending on how it was accounted for, the practice was quietly discontinued in 1999 and it's stinky in the current regulatory climate. This should come as no more of a shock than Jeff Skilling's abrupt retirement from Enron. Not saying the two are even remotely related in substance or gravity, but such departures usually happen for a reason that isn't good. Also, given the company's current malaise, it might be a good idea for the current leadership to step aside and let some fresh faces take a crack at running the company.