"making gobs of money before anyone figures out you don't provide value (or you provide negative value)"
The revenue was from advertisers, so value is not measured by how useful and polished the app is, but by how many eyeballs catch a glimpse of it. Think of it like the swag given away trade-shows and conferences: most of that stuff is poorly designed and cheaply made, but it serves a useful purpose: advertising. No one bitches and moans when the pocket lint roller they got for free from a trade-show booth falls apart, because it was free and it may have even served it's purpose a handful of times before the poor design became an issue.
Appreciation is typically shown for things that people choose to do. I might appreciate the fact that my neighbor has never put sugar in my gas tank, but I don't explicitly thank him for it. I might appreciate that most other vehicles don't run the red light when I'm passing through an intersection, but I don't wave at them for it. I would, however, wave to someone who let me into traffic -- because he chose to do something that he wasn't obligated to do.
Offering a customer rewards program certainly does validate the act of shopping with my competitor. It says, "I know you don't have any obligation to shop in my store, so here's a little something for choosing to shop here anyway." The existence of such a program suggests a recognition of the customer's right to choose where they shop. When it comes to theft, the customer does have a (moral) obligation to refrain from it. Offering a reward for those who don't steal says, "I know you didn't have to pay, so here's a little something for choosing to pay anyway." It implicitly acknowledges the customer's right to choose whether to pay. The message sent by ethics ("don't steal") conflicts with the message sent by offer of reward ("it's your choice") and provides false justification for stealing. If smoking is prohibited in my restaurant, I would be a fool to put ashtrays on the tables. If I did, someone might be just a little more inclined to light up, with the ashtray providing some degree of validation of that action. The more tables that have ashtrays, the more likely it is someone will conclude that it is okay to smoke.
Restocking is a non-issue: make the vendors do it. Some grocery stores in my area require vendors of certain perishables (bread, milk, etc.) to stock their own products. Vendors maintain ownership of the goods until the point of sale, and the retailer doesn't pay for it until after it is sold. Added bonus for retailer: liability for shrinkage lies with the vendor as well.
We should reward people for being honest now? As if they did something they didn't have to do, went above and beyond what was expected of them? Rewarding people for being honest only validates the actions of those who stole. It suggests that dishonesty is the status quo, and that honesty is some self-sacrificing act of heroism.
My god people, are your supermarket lines really that long? Wouldn't it be easier to avoid the self-checkouts when you have something that requires clerk verification or searching through a list of produce? In my experience self-checkouts are a net loss: they might save a couple minutes here and there when I can go through without a hitch, but more often than not it just takes longer than waiting in line -- poorly calibrated touch screens, "please bag item" requirements, produce selection, age verification for all kinds of crap (ID required to buy carb cleaner!?! Anyone huffing that shit doesn't have brain cells worth saving anyway).
I think the problem lies in defining "frivolous lawsuit" or "abusing the court system" with some degree of formality. It's easy for us laymen to point to an existing or historical case and say that one is frivolous, but what standards for frivolousity should the court adhere to in making these decisions? Any such standard would have to be quite complex to account for the many caveats and nuances of arbitrary tort cases, further complicating the court system. And how would you feel if the suit you brought against someone who wronged you fell on the wrong side of an ill-defined frivolousity standard? Or your case ended up before a judge who identified with the defendant's position and indignantly ruled that your case was frivolous?
Tort reform shouldn't involve piling even more avenues for punishment and abuse on top of the mess we already have.
Because Google Maps needs less work. It's easier to get people to make small corrections to an already mature system than it is to get people to make fundamental contributions to something that doesn't meet their needs yet.
Well, yes, anyone can perform plumbing and painting and server administration equally well if only they take the time to learn it. Just because someone is not paid to do something from 9-5 every weekday doesn't mean they are incapable of reading the same textbooks, getting feedback from those experienced doing it, or actually performing the same work as the folks who are paid to do it. It might take me a whole day to clean my boiler without the experience of doing it hundreds of times, but I can read the same friendly manual as he did once upon a time.
Where would you look for expert medical advice? Legal advice? Plumbing? Would you ask an expert or a hobbyist?
I reckon it would depend on the problem, just like IT. In-grown toenail? Nope, no doctor. Speeding ticket? No lawyer. Plumbing? Call me cheap, but I don't hire plumbers, housekeepers, painters, chauffeurs or anyone else whose services are simply a convenience for the purchaser. God forbid we should do something for ourselves these days.
I am in IT, actually. I just don't agree with the IT-must-have-control mentality. The poster conveniently works in a hospital so I'll give you the HIPAA argument to an extent, but the mentality would have been debated here regardless of where the poster worked. I've seen (and been asked to enforce) "no rogue server" policies many times and in my experience they are usually just a case of not-invented-here syndrome. Your experience may well be different, and that's why I'm advocating policies that are demonstrably justifiable. "But it's not run by IT" is just not demonstrably justifiable.
Hilarious. This story has polarized Slashdot into the "I work in IT as a sysadmin and managing tech is my job" camp and the "I don't work in IT and need tech to do my job" camp. The sysadmins are actually taking offense that the non-IT folks won't immediately recognize their superior policies and procedures. The non-IT folks, for their part, seem used to this crap. Here's the deal, IT: we will respect your mad skillz only after you have demonstrated that that your hoops are justifiable and not unduly burdensome. Until then, you are just like the PHBs. No insult intended, but this is our job, and our butts on the line, not yours.
There, fixed that for you. At the risk of being modded "-1 Disagree" to oblivion.
Right. You give one life sentence, the prisoner serves less than life. You want to ensure s/he serves life, you give two or more sentences consecutively so there's no possibility of parole.
Same here. Sue for [your interpretation of] a reasonable amount, the company pays much less. To ensure the company pays the most society will tolerate, you sue for an obscene number.
Hate to tell ya, but once the dictionary adds a definition to a word, that definition is no longer incorrect.
Dictionary definitions reflect modern and changing language usage by the public. It's like a democratically elected office for words: members of the general public choose words based on misinformation, stubbornness, and the way their parents, friends and teachers choose their words. Dictionary editors are like the electoral college: they look at what the general public has chosen to use for words and definitions, then choose for themselves which of those make it into the dictionary. Not everyone will agree on the new word or definition, but in a few generations it will be history and no one will care. When was the last time you heard anyone bitch about Grover Cleavland being elected?
Horatio has awesome lines? Jesus, I want to smack that arrogant little prick so badly that I would beat the snot out of David Caruso just for acting the part.
forcing the victims or us the taxpayers to pay for his food, clothing, heating, cable and housing
No worries. With the Internal Revenue Service collecting back taxes on his illegally earned income, he is (well, his non-US-taxpaying-victims are) more than paying his way through prison. In the end, it's the US government that profits from his crimes -- some agency expects a $7.9 million fine as income, and the IRS wants $2.2 million in taxes. Sounds to me like the guy owes a debt to society, and the wrong society is trying to cash in on it.
How many tiers do we need to implement a video game from the early 60's? Hmm... makes me wonder about code inflation -- what the 2011 equivalent is to a single 1962 line of code.
It's just one more way we're behind the rest of the world
How is that "behind"? If I have slackers working for me, I don't want red tape standing in the way of my getting rid of them. This is especially true in small business, where margins are tight and you can't afford to pay people who don't produce.
...arrests. From the article: 'An international investigation into cyber-activists who attacked businesses hostile to WikiLeaks is likely to yield arrests of senior members of the group'
The senior members who were arrested were not members of anonymous, they were members of the group of cyber-activists. The./ poster used the term 'anonymous'; the term 'senior members' was quoted from TFA.
I took cancellation calls as a customer service rep for a few months. Most of the time I sympathized with the customers who wanted to cancel and clearly would not be swayed by the scripted "save" offers I was required to make. But when customers started cursing or being rude, I was only too happy to continue with my script and take my time with it. And after speaking with some especially rude customers, I accidentally checked the "free-for-three-months-then-begin-charging-again" response instead of "cancel". Oops.
Since when are handguns allowed in airports? I mean besides Law Enforcement and Air Marshals. I'm assuming your not so stupid as to argue against them carrying guns.
You must have an awful lot of faith in the vetting and training practices for law enforcement officers and air marshals. I'm sure there are non-stupid arguments to be made against armed police.
Slashdot Mirror
"making gobs of money before anyone figures out you don't provide value (or you provide negative value)"
The revenue was from advertisers, so value is not measured by how useful and polished the app is, but by how many eyeballs catch a glimpse of it. Think of it like the swag given away trade-shows and conferences: most of that stuff is poorly designed and cheaply made, but it serves a useful purpose: advertising. No one bitches and moans when the pocket lint roller they got for free from a trade-show booth falls apart, because it was free and it may have even served it's purpose a handful of times before the poor design became an issue.
Appreciation is typically shown for things that people choose to do. I might appreciate the fact that my neighbor has never put sugar in my gas tank, but I don't explicitly thank him for it. I might appreciate that most other vehicles don't run the red light when I'm passing through an intersection, but I don't wave at them for it. I would, however, wave to someone who let me into traffic -- because he chose to do something that he wasn't obligated to do.
Offering a customer rewards program certainly does validate the act of shopping with my competitor. It says, "I know you don't have any obligation to shop in my store, so here's a little something for choosing to shop here anyway." The existence of such a program suggests a recognition of the customer's right to choose where they shop. When it comes to theft, the customer does have a (moral) obligation to refrain from it. Offering a reward for those who don't steal says, "I know you didn't have to pay, so here's a little something for choosing to pay anyway." It implicitly acknowledges the customer's right to choose whether to pay. The message sent by ethics ("don't steal") conflicts with the message sent by offer of reward ("it's your choice") and provides false justification for stealing. If smoking is prohibited in my restaurant, I would be a fool to put ashtrays on the tables. If I did, someone might be just a little more inclined to light up, with the ashtray providing some degree of validation of that action. The more tables that have ashtrays, the more likely it is someone will conclude that it is okay to smoke.
Restocking is a non-issue: make the vendors do it. Some grocery stores in my area require vendors of certain perishables (bread, milk, etc.) to stock their own products. Vendors maintain ownership of the goods until the point of sale, and the retailer doesn't pay for it until after it is sold. Added bonus for retailer: liability for shrinkage lies with the vendor as well.
We should reward people for being honest now? As if they did something they didn't have to do, went above and beyond what was expected of them? Rewarding people for being honest only validates the actions of those who stole. It suggests that dishonesty is the status quo, and that honesty is some self-sacrificing act of heroism.
My god people, are your supermarket lines really that long? Wouldn't it be easier to avoid the self-checkouts when you have something that requires clerk verification or searching through a list of produce? In my experience self-checkouts are a net loss: they might save a couple minutes here and there when I can go through without a hitch, but more often than not it just takes longer than waiting in line -- poorly calibrated touch screens, "please bag item" requirements, produce selection, age verification for all kinds of crap (ID required to buy carb cleaner!?! Anyone huffing that shit doesn't have brain cells worth saving anyway).
I think the problem lies in defining "frivolous lawsuit" or "abusing the court system" with some degree of formality. It's easy for us laymen to point to an existing or historical case and say that one is frivolous, but what standards for frivolousity should the court adhere to in making these decisions? Any such standard would have to be quite complex to account for the many caveats and nuances of arbitrary tort cases, further complicating the court system. And how would you feel if the suit you brought against someone who wronged you fell on the wrong side of an ill-defined frivolousity standard? Or your case ended up before a judge who identified with the defendant's position and indignantly ruled that your case was frivolous?
Tort reform shouldn't involve piling even more avenues for punishment and abuse on top of the mess we already have.
What I'd like to see is the correlation between Mac users and Volkswagen drivers. I would be willing to be there's a lot of overlap.
Because Google Maps needs less work. It's easier to get people to make small corrections to an already mature system than it is to get people to make fundamental contributions to something that doesn't meet their needs yet.
Well, yes, anyone can perform plumbing and painting and server administration equally well if only they take the time to learn it. Just because someone is not paid to do something from 9-5 every weekday doesn't mean they are incapable of reading the same textbooks, getting feedback from those experienced doing it, or actually performing the same work as the folks who are paid to do it. It might take me a whole day to clean my boiler without the experience of doing it hundreds of times, but I can read the same friendly manual as he did once upon a time.
Where would you look for expert medical advice? Legal advice? Plumbing? Would you ask an expert or a hobbyist?
I reckon it would depend on the problem, just like IT. In-grown toenail? Nope, no doctor. Speeding ticket? No lawyer. Plumbing? Call me cheap, but I don't hire plumbers, housekeepers, painters, chauffeurs or anyone else whose services are simply a convenience for the purchaser. God forbid we should do something for ourselves these days.
I am in IT, actually. I just don't agree with the IT-must-have-control mentality. The poster conveniently works in a hospital so I'll give you the HIPAA argument to an extent, but the mentality would have been debated here regardless of where the poster worked. I've seen (and been asked to enforce) "no rogue server" policies many times and in my experience they are usually just a case of not-invented-here syndrome. Your experience may well be different, and that's why I'm advocating policies that are demonstrably justifiable. "But it's not run by IT" is just not demonstrably justifiable.
Hilarious. This story has polarized Slashdot into the "I work in IT as a sysadmin and managing tech is my job" camp and the "I don't work in IT and need tech to do my job" camp. The sysadmins are actually taking offense that the non-IT folks won't immediately recognize their superior policies and procedures. The non-IT folks, for their part, seem used to this crap. Here's the deal, IT: we will respect your mad skillz only after you have demonstrated that that your hoops are justifiable and not unduly burdensome. Until then, you are just like the PHBs. No insult intended, but this is our job, and our butts on the line, not yours.
There, fixed that for you. At the risk of being modded "-1 Disagree" to oblivion.
"I'm not doing your homework" == "I'm too lazy to support my arguments with evidence"
Right. You give one life sentence, the prisoner serves less than life. You want to ensure s/he serves life, you give two or more sentences consecutively so there's no possibility of parole.
Same here. Sue for [your interpretation of] a reasonable amount, the company pays much less. To ensure the company pays the most society will tolerate, you sue for an obscene number.
This is really no different than consecutive life sentences, or jail sentences that are clearly in excess of the prisoner's lifespan (e.g. 100 years).
Hate to tell ya, but once the dictionary adds a definition to a word, that definition is no longer incorrect.
Dictionary definitions reflect modern and changing language usage by the public. It's like a democratically elected office for words: members of the general public choose words based on misinformation, stubbornness, and the way their parents, friends and teachers choose their words. Dictionary editors are like the electoral college: they look at what the general public has chosen to use for words and definitions, then choose for themselves which of those make it into the dictionary. Not everyone will agree on the new word or definition, but in a few generations it will be history and no one will care. When was the last time you heard anyone bitch about Grover Cleavland being elected?
Great command of the English language! You've earned a gold star for the day. Maybe tomorrow you can educate us all in arithmetic.
Horatio has awesome lines? Jesus, I want to smack that arrogant little prick so badly that I would beat the snot out of David Caruso just for acting the part.
forcing the victims or us the taxpayers to pay for his food, clothing, heating, cable and housing
No worries. With the Internal Revenue Service collecting back taxes on his illegally earned income, he is (well, his non-US-taxpaying-victims are) more than paying his way through prison. In the end, it's the US government that profits from his crimes -- some agency expects a $7.9 million fine as income, and the IRS wants $2.2 million in taxes. Sounds to me like the guy owes a debt to society, and the wrong society is trying to cash in on it.
PDP-1 code > PDP-1 emulator code > Graphics interpreter code
How many tiers do we need to implement a video game from the early 60's? Hmm... makes me wonder about code inflation -- what the 2011 equivalent is to a single 1962 line of code.
It's just one more way we're behind the rest of the world
How is that "behind"? If I have slackers working for me, I don't want red tape standing in the way of my getting rid of them. This is especially true in small business, where margins are tight and you can't afford to pay people who don't produce.
...arrests. From the article: 'An international investigation into cyber-activists who attacked businesses hostile to WikiLeaks is likely to yield arrests of senior members of the group'
The senior members who were arrested were not members of anonymous, they were members of the group of cyber-activists. The ./ poster used the term 'anonymous'; the term 'senior members' was quoted from TFA.
You think that's pretty funny, don't you?
Not really, I just thought that karma needed a little help catching up to rude customers.
I took cancellation calls as a customer service rep for a few months. Most of the time I sympathized with the customers who wanted to cancel and clearly would not be swayed by the scripted "save" offers I was required to make. But when customers started cursing or being rude, I was only too happy to continue with my script and take my time with it. And after speaking with some especially rude customers, I accidentally checked the "free-for-three-months-then-begin-charging-again" response instead of "cancel". Oops.
Since when are handguns allowed in airports? I mean besides Law Enforcement and Air Marshals. I'm assuming your not so stupid as to argue against them carrying guns.
You must have an awful lot of faith in the vetting and training practices for law enforcement officers and air marshals. I'm sure there are non-stupid arguments to be made against armed police.