I was not working, but my friends were
on
Apocalypse Not
·
· Score: 1
They too saved some company ass, completing a new production system in record time.
The old system was seriously outdated (16 bit freaking MS-DOS) but until this Y2K hype, it was not possible to fund a project for a new system.
The irony is: now the managers complain, cause the new system a) "does not work like the old one" b) does not come with all features in their "wish-list", only with the functions ordered. c) actually requires some training.
they actively seek to avoid learning or trying to learn, because, in all honesty, it's considered fashionable by many to be clueless about computers
Or worse: ignorance is power. There sometimes is an attitude of "If I'm good enough at my *real* work, I don't need to know about computers". Sometimes this can be justified (I'm good at what I do and you are good at what you do). All too often, though, it is a manifestation of an "I'm a hot shot, cause I can get someone else to do the dirty work" attitude.
But now we're closer to Dilbertland than user friendly.
that's why they pay some poor people to write a manual in really simplified English and 6 other languages. Most of the manuals written since the 1980s actually make sense
Well, maybe in english, but have a look at the translations and you'll understand why some people call tech support. (Sometimes the english manual is simply translated japanese too)
I personally could not figure out how to set the channels on my VCR by reading the manual in swedish (my mother tongue). After turning to the enlish section, though, it was no problem. Now everybody can't read another language, especially not a tecnical document.
I suspect half of those "poor people" are actually called babelfish:)
The problem is that what's "age-inappropriate" isn't a simple decision. The US is very prissy about nudity. Europe isn't. Things which are totally accepted in Europe (Such as nude beaches, or nudity on television) are not accepted in the US.
And of cource it's the other way around with violence, so you can't simply go with american standards either.
Here's the deal: The DVD guys wants to make a picture of the DeCSS guys. A picture of outlaws that is. What is a more classic accessoir for an outlaw than a gun?
Connect DVD control with gun control, and you'll connect DeCSS with outlaws, or... with another word: Pirates!
Now to continue your topic drift...
I'm sure that you did not buy the gun with criminal intent. Every time you pull the trigger, though, You face the risk that the result may be considered criminal. If your bullet hits another person, or an animal, or some other persons property, it might be considered self defence, legal hunting or simply an accident. It also might be considered a criminal act. The ruling is not yours (or mine) to make
So for you, or anybody else, "beeing a criminal" that depends on your actons, not who you are (as any libertarian would agree.)
I'm not for too much government control, but when a bit of help from big brother *increases* my freedom (against the attacks from those bigger than me, like for example the DVD team) it's quite alright.
After all, you can vote on the government but not on a mugger.
If you're such 'wizards' why does all software suck fucking ass then you moron?
All software sucks? No way. Most mass market commercial software sucks big time, but that is a very small part of "all software".
Take a piece of software and use it for what it was intendet for, with hard and software that is stable and you'll see very little suckiness.
OTOH If you buy a "one program, all purpose" shrink-wrapped software solution, use it for something the authors never thought of on a highly customized PC how do you expect it to work?
It's techies' arrogance that makes everything computer related suck, period.
No. Arrogant techies are part of the problem, clueless managers are too.
The problem is, has been, and probably will remain, that computers are used for everything. A F1 car is a piece of near-perfect tecnology. Still it would be worthless on an off-road track. Computer users expect their programs to be designed for both F1, Off-road and city streets. That simply won't work.
... but for the newbies.
I've worked with numerous managers and project managers. The greatest blessing a developer can get is the support of a *good* manager. Good, experienced managers don't need methologies any more than a good programmer needs flow charts.
A lousy manager, OTOH is a danger to any project as well as your own sanity.
The best way to work with an inexperienced manager is to follow some methology . Most of them merely states the obvious, and serves as a check list.
Sure it is a pain in the behind to use precious time for paperwork, instead of "real" work. But believe me. The pain that comes from a manager who *should* have used a methology, but played by ear instead is worse.
And if it goes really bad. The best way to show your CEO that the reason the project went sour was your clueless manager, not you is to be able to refer to some buzzword-filled methology, not "1 4M 1337 H4x0r, M4n463M3N7 5uX"
A quick browsing of the article gave nothing about wether it mattered where the acual files were located. What the court *did* say was that lilnking is not a copyright violation, BUT you will probably have to pay a fee to the artist. Just like (in swedish law that is) you have to pay for playing a song on the radio or at a party where you charge people for entrance.
Now this is an intresting distinction. The kid didn't violate the record companies rights, but perhaps the artist's. Lets see what the RC:s has to say about that!
Personally I find this fair. Linking to music should be considered equal to broadcasting it. Nobody asks where a radio station gets their CD's, but they are expected to cough up some amount for playing the music. Not every station does, but the major ones finds it worth the cash to stay friens with the musicians.
On a side note. One major swedish TV-channel refused to pay those bills a coupla years ago. (They broadcasted from the UK and claimed that swedish law did not apply) IIRC they gave up in face of the badwill.
Yeah I know that the linked article was really about wearables, but since germ-fighting clothes were mentioned I think this post is on topic.
Germ fighting clothes (toys etc) is bad because: A) Some bacteria is actually good for you. You dont want them killed. B) Give a child a sterile environment and the first flu that gets through will kill it C) If you knock out 99.99% of the bacteria with a substance, those that survive and multiply will be those with recistancy to that substance.
DONT BUY ANTIBACTERIAL STUFF!!!
Then again if by jacket could identify and destroy that special kind of germ called Spammer... moahahahaa!
Yup. Back in the days when it was mail and newsgroups (1990) I usually used a Mac. Of cource it was via telnet, and of cource I sometimes used a VT100 instead.
Actually most of my netting was on macs until -95 or so. Sure, those Suns at the lab were faster (and came with a command line), but I found the macs nicer for a lot of tasks and when i wanted the power of unix - enter telnet!
*sigh* The sysops did a marvellous job with mac clients on a unix network.
You are right, of course. I forgot that they operate in lawyer-space.
"Oh what a nice little web site you've got there. Wouldn't it be a shame, if something,... happened,... to it? Maybe you should pay us, just for,... protection you know?"
copying a search algorithm is a bit difficult if the algorithm isn't published
So I can't see Google's algoritm and Google's lawyers can't see mine. Where does a patent help? Patents are protecting published and licensed techniques. If its secret, then a patent is useless. (see Coca Cola)
Google might be justified in seeking that patent, but it won't help them, cause by the time they get it through it will be yesterdays techique.
I do not necessarily agree with the views stated by the "I" below
Let's say I'm responsible for a corporate computer system. I have a network, some servers, a web server and 'bout a hundred users with varying comuter knowledge. I do not necessarily want the best system there is. "Good enough" will do. I do not necessarily want a cheap system. I want a Fair Price. I don't want fuzz. I want the job done. I want to be able to take holidays without taking support calls.
Now I have the choise between MS, OSS and a mix. For my servers and LAN it does not really matter. I will have to fix many things myself, so I will use a system I am comfortable with. (and believe it or not, there actually *are* some good NT admins out there) Liability is not a great issue, since it is *my* skill against all bugs, hardware faults and h4x0rs. Sure, my company might like the ability to sue MS, but they are more likely to fire me if anything goes horribly wrong.
For my web services: again no big deal. Being a company, I can afford to pay MS-licenses. I will probably pay some server hotel to babysit my web server anyway, and they will probably charge as much for a linux/apache as for a NT/IIS. I will probably just stick to whatever environment was used first. I want the hotel to guarantee my uptime, regardless of server platform.
Then comes the tricky part: My own users. Most of them will not be very computer savy. They will know how to use word and excel. They think it's nice to have mail and a web browser at work. If all of them gets a mail attachments that says "Open me!", at least one will. I could put linux on their desktops, configure it nicely and (probably) get less security trouble. However: Our clients will send.doc and.xls files. (and expect us to do the same). The users will complain when they have to learn this "new hard system". And when something goes wrong, they will *not* look for the answer on the net, they will call *me*. And when my boss (or a dozen angry users) sais "There is a bug, We can't work" Guess which of these answers will sound better: a) I know. I allready asked a coupla questions on the net, and I'm sure some answer will come up. b) I know. I have all the source and if you just give me a day or two (or three) I'm sure I'll fix it. c) I know. I allready contracted an expert, He is working on it right now.
Now for my point. When you work for a company you *want* someone to be responsible for the products you buy. If you can't *name* that someone, its *YOU*. "Bugs like these tend to be solved by someone" won't cut it. Wether or not that responsability is worked out in a court or in a contract is not the point. If someone doesn't guarantee a product, the "I" above will never get it except for personal use.
Beep! First problem. Politicians will tax the buyer in some nations/states and the seller in others.
Now the companies are much more mobile than the customers (=us). So the companies will find a low(zero) tax country.
If I understood the original article right NC wanted to tax its own habitants, not its companies. Now if you want to tax the web, that is probably the only way. A little cooperation from the banks or "e-payment" will do it. "So Mr J Random Person. You paid $3000 with your Visa this year. Prove that those money was spent on non-taxed stuff or cough up!"
If internet commerce must be taxed, it should probably use the tax system that is used for mail order, since the business mechanisms are similar
Well, Yes and No. If I buy a book or CD online, than it is like mail order. If I download a program or an mp3 (and pay for it) its something different. If I pay an american company to host a server on the bahamas its something different again.
Point being (like already posted) that local laws regulating the net is for physical transactions. Taxing services on the net is just plain stupid.
Theoretically, there should be no difference if I buy something by mail order or online. If it's OK to tax me for the former, it should be OK to tax me for the latter. (and I said *if*)
Like it or not, the net has gone business. Taxes are a part of the meat space business. It is hardly fair against meat space stores if they have to pay taxae, that their online competitors have not.
That said it is not so easy to tax the net (fortunately). I am a swedish citizen. Suppose that while I am in France, I step into an internet cafe (owned by an Israeli) and buy a Chinese product from a australian company, registred in the.com domain, that has its servers in Japan. Which law applies?
Of cource I choose to follow the law most beneficial to me. (That is I say nothing, hoping to slip between the systems).
Of cource, local and national goverments will try to impose taxes. They will fail horribly as long as the net is not own by any country (including the US thank you).
Is this a problem? Yes of course, but it is a problem that "we" can take advantage of. Enjoy your freedom while it lasts.
A right thing done by a Big Bad Company (tm) is still a right thing.
What do you think is behind Sun's "vision of Java" ? Companies want to make money. Some of them have products that I benefit from, some have products that I might see as a threat. Open source is good for me. Monopolies are not. That goes independently of who issues the open source product and who has the monopoly.
The point here is *not* repeat *not* that you could become "Guilty of suspicious behavior" (if you read the article). Who said that it would be illegal to act suspicious? The illegal act is to steal a car. If the cameras spot me and the cops show up, they have *absolutely no case* against me unless I do something illegal. Period.
What this system does is exactly the same as a human security guard would do: Look around and see if anything needs more attention. The actions triggered by any "abnormal" action are still ruled by the same laws. Carrying a crowbar in a parking lot is perfectly legal. Using it to break into a car is not. In the first case an officer might ask me what I'm up to, but he could never arrest me for it. In the second case he could.
Now I'm as concerned about freedom as any of you, but please: Fight the real dangers, not gadgets and tools.
The real question is not "Can a computer watch the surveillance photos" but "Why are there surveillance in the first place"
"How does the law find determine that someone is a suspect" is a valid question, but "What can they do when they suspect but cant prove" is far more important.
Yeah, it is not the "look for unusual behaviour" routine that is a problem. It is having a surveillance camera there in the first place.
I cant think of any situation where this system would bother me where I would not allready be bothered by the cameras
IMHO there is fair use for surveillance cameras in places like parking lots, subway stations etc. as long as: a) Those areas are clearly labeled "TV monitored area" b) All footage not used for evidence is destroyed (not featured on cable TV)
Any other surveillance cameras should be illegal. (and, yes that goes for the webcam looking out of your window too)
If used this way, this system will only serve to filter out "normal" people, thus making it *less* likely that I show up on tape. (if the system consider me normal, that is)
Yes, two-way communication is far more important than one-way broadcast. A disturbing development is that more and more ISP's favour download times to upload. That is "Sit quietly and watch. Dont bother to interact"
The fight for bandwith will continue and I fear that "we" will lose when the Big Corporations step in for real. You dont think that fast connections will come for free, do you? It will be deals like "really fast downloads from CBS, some interactibility from you" sort of a http-remote control.
Slashdot Mirror
The old system was seriously outdated (16 bit freaking MS-DOS) but until this Y2K hype, it was not possible to fund a project for a new system.
The irony is: now the managers complain, cause the new system
a) "does not work like the old one"
b) does not come with all features in their "wish-list", only with the functions ordered.
c) actually requires some training.
*sigh* sometimes you just can't win.
Or worse: ignorance is power.
There sometimes is an attitude of "If I'm good enough at my *real* work, I don't need to know about computers". Sometimes this can be justified (I'm good at what I do and you are good at what you do). All too often, though, it is a manifestation of an "I'm a hot shot, cause I can get someone else to do the dirty work" attitude.
But now we're closer to Dilbertland than user friendly.
Well, maybe in english, but have a look at the translations and you'll understand why some people call tech support. (Sometimes the english manual is simply translated japanese too)
I personally could not figure out how to set the channels on my VCR by reading the manual in swedish (my mother tongue). After turning to the enlish section, though, it was no problem. Now everybody can't read another language, especially not a tecnical document.
I suspect half of those "poor people" are actually called babelfish :)
I sure would list the pill as the most influential invention of the twentieth century, but a gadget it is not. (Too useful)
And of cource it's the other way around with violence, so you can't simply go with american standards either.
The DVD guys wants to make a picture of the DeCSS guys. A picture of outlaws that is. What is a more classic accessoir for an outlaw than a gun?
Connect DVD control with gun control, and you'll connect DeCSS with outlaws, or... with another word: Pirates!
Now to continue your topic drift...
I'm sure that you did not buy the gun with criminal intent. Every time you pull the trigger, though, You face the risk that the result may be considered criminal. If your bullet hits another person, or an animal, or some other persons property, it might be considered self defence, legal hunting or simply an accident. It also might be considered a criminal act. The ruling is not yours (or mine) to make
So for you, or anybody else, "beeing a criminal" that depends on your actons, not who you are (as any libertarian would agree.)
I'm not for too much government control, but when a bit of help from big brother *increases* my freedom (against the attacks from those bigger than me, like for example the DVD team) it's quite alright.
After all, you can vote on the government but not on a mugger.
All software sucks? No way. Most mass market commercial software sucks big time, but that is a very small part of "all software".
Take a piece of software and use it for what it was intendet for, with hard and software that is stable and you'll see very little suckiness.
OTOH If you buy a "one program, all purpose" shrink-wrapped software solution, use it for something the authors never thought of on a highly customized PC how do you expect it to work?
It's techies' arrogance that makes everything computer related suck, period.
No. Arrogant techies are part of the problem, clueless managers are too.
The problem is, has been, and probably will remain, that computers are used for everything. A F1 car is a piece of near-perfect tecnology. Still it would be worthless on an off-road track. Computer users expect their programs to be designed for both F1, Off-road and city streets. That simply won't work.
I've worked with numerous managers and project managers. The greatest blessing a developer can get is the support of a *good* manager. Good, experienced managers don't need methologies any more than a good programmer needs flow charts.
A lousy manager, OTOH is a danger to any project as well as your own sanity.
The best way to work with an inexperienced manager is to follow some methology . Most of them merely states the obvious, and serves as a check list.
Sure it is a pain in the behind to use precious time for paperwork, instead of "real" work. But believe me. The pain that comes from a manager who *should* have used a methology, but played by ear instead is worse.
And if it goes really bad. The best way to show your CEO that the reason the project went sour was your clueless manager, not you is to be able to refer to some buzzword-filled methology, not "1 4M 1337 H4x0r, M4n463M3N7 5uX"
Now this is an intresting distinction. The kid didn't violate the record companies rights, but perhaps the artist's. Lets see what the RC:s has to say about that!
Personally I find this fair. Linking to music should be considered equal to broadcasting it. Nobody asks where a radio station gets their CD's, but they are expected to cough up some amount for playing the music. Not every station does, but the major ones finds it worth the cash to stay friens with the musicians.
On a side note. One major swedish TV-channel refused to pay those bills a coupla years ago. (They broadcasted from the UK and claimed that swedish law did not apply) IIRC they gave up in face of the badwill.
An empty message body *could* be considered quite insightful in this discussion ;-)
Yeah I know that the linked article was really about wearables, but since germ-fighting clothes were mentioned I think this post is on topic.
Germ fighting clothes (toys etc) is bad because:
A) Some bacteria is actually good for you. You dont want them killed.
B) Give a child a sterile environment and the first flu that gets through will kill it
C) If you knock out 99.99% of the bacteria with a substance, those that survive and multiply will be those with recistancy to that substance.
DONT BUY ANTIBACTERIAL STUFF!!!
Then again if by jacket could identify and destroy that special kind of germ called Spammer... moahahahaa!
Actually most of my netting was on macs until -95 or so. Sure, those Suns at the lab were faster (and came with a command line), but I found the macs nicer for a lot of tasks and when i wanted the power of unix - enter telnet!
*sigh* The sysops did a marvellous job with mac clients on a unix network.
You are right, of course. I forgot that they operate in lawyer-space.
"Oh what a nice little web site you've got there. Wouldn't it be a shame, if something,... happened,... to it? Maybe you should pay us, just for,... protection you know?"
So I can't see Google's algoritm and Google's lawyers can't see mine. Where does a patent help? Patents are protecting published and licensed techniques. If its secret, then a patent is useless. (see Coca Cola)
Google might be justified in seeking that patent, but it won't help them, cause by the time they get it through it will be yesterdays techique.
I do not necessarily agree with the views stated by the "I" below
Let's say I'm responsible for a corporate computer system. I have a network, some servers, a web server and 'bout a hundred users with varying comuter knowledge. I do not necessarily want the best system there is. "Good enough" will do. I do not necessarily want a cheap system. I want a Fair Price. I don't want fuzz. I want the job done. I want to be able to take holidays without taking support calls.
Now I have the choise between MS, OSS and a mix.
For my servers and LAN it does not really matter. I will have to fix many things myself, so I will use a system I am comfortable with. (and believe it or not, there actually *are* some good NT admins out there) Liability is not a great issue, since it is *my* skill against all bugs, hardware faults and h4x0rs. Sure, my company might like the ability to sue MS, but they are more likely to fire me if anything goes horribly wrong.
For my web services: again no big deal. Being a company, I can afford to pay MS-licenses. I will probably pay some server hotel to babysit my web server anyway, and they will probably charge as much for a linux/apache as for a NT/IIS. I will probably just stick to whatever environment was used first. I want the hotel to guarantee my uptime, regardless of server platform.
Then comes the tricky part: My own users. .doc and .xls files. (and expect us to do the same). The users will complain when they have to learn this "new hard system". And when something goes wrong, they will *not* look for the answer on the net, they will call *me*. And when my boss (or a dozen angry users) sais "There is a bug, We can't work" Guess which of these answers will sound better:
Most of them will not be very computer savy. They will know how to use word and excel. They think it's nice to have mail and a web browser at work. If all of them gets a mail attachments that says "Open me!", at least one will.
I could put linux on their desktops, configure it nicely and (probably) get less security trouble. However: Our clients will send
a) I know. I allready asked a coupla questions on the net, and I'm sure some answer will come up.
b) I know. I have all the source and if you just give me a day or two (or three) I'm sure I'll fix it.
c) I know. I allready contracted an expert, He is working on it right now.
Now for my point. When you work for a company you *want* someone to be responsible for the products you buy. If you can't *name* that someone, its *YOU*. "Bugs like these tend to be solved by someone" won't cut it.
Wether or not that responsability is worked out in a court or in a contract is not the point. If someone doesn't guarantee a product, the "I" above will never get it except for personal use.
Beep! First problem. Politicians will tax the buyer in some nations/states and the seller in others.
Now the companies are much more mobile than the customers (=us). So the companies will find a low(zero) tax country.
If I understood the original article right NC wanted to tax its own habitants, not its companies. Now if you want to tax the web, that is probably the only way. A little cooperation from the banks or "e-payment" will do it.
"So Mr J Random Person. You paid $3000 with your Visa this year. Prove that those money was spent on non-taxed stuff or cough up!"
Nah, They said "We hope to have you back before the new millenium" Not "You must be back before the Y2K bug strikes discovery.
Well, Yes and No. If I buy a book or CD online, than it is like mail order. If I download a program or an mp3 (and pay for it) its something different. If I pay an american company to host a server on the bahamas its something different again.
Point being (like already posted) that local laws regulating the net is for physical transactions. Taxing services on the net is just plain stupid.
Like it or not, the net has gone business. Taxes are a part of the meat space business. It is hardly fair against meat space stores if they have to pay taxae, that their online competitors have not.
That said it is not so easy to tax the net (fortunately). I am a swedish citizen. Suppose that while I am in France, I step into an internet cafe (owned by an Israeli) and buy a Chinese product from a australian company, registred in the .com domain, that has its servers in Japan. Which law applies?
Of cource I choose to follow the law most beneficial to me. (That is I say nothing, hoping to slip between the systems).
Of cource, local and national goverments will try to impose taxes. They will fail horribly as long as the net is not own by any country (including the US thank you).
Is this a problem? Yes of course, but it is a problem that "we" can take advantage of. Enjoy your freedom while it lasts.
What do you think is behind Sun's "vision of Java" ? Companies want to make money. Some of them have products that I benefit from, some have products that I might see as a threat. Open source is good for me. Monopolies are not. That goes independently of who issues the open source product and who has the monopoly.
Even if Amazons patent would hold up in a US court, that means absolutely nothing outside the US.
That is why this patent strategy wont work. If US courts block the net-business, it will move elsewhere. Just like the anti-$cientology pages etc.
What this system does is exactly the same as a human security guard would do: Look around and see if anything needs more attention. The actions triggered by any "abnormal" action are still ruled by the same laws. Carrying a crowbar in a parking lot is perfectly legal. Using it to break into a car is not. In the first case an officer might ask me what I'm up to, but he could never arrest me for it. In the second case he could.
Now I'm as concerned about freedom as any of you, but please: Fight the real dangers, not gadgets and tools.
The real question is not "Can a computer watch the surveillance photos" but "Why are there surveillance in the first place"
"How does the law find determine that someone is a suspect" is a valid question, but "What can they do when they suspect but cant prove" is far more important.
I cant think of any situation where this system would bother me where I would not allready be bothered by the cameras
IMHO there is fair use for surveillance cameras in places like parking lots, subway stations etc. as long as:
a) Those areas are clearly labeled "TV monitored area"
b) All footage not used for evidence is destroyed (not featured on cable TV)
Any other surveillance cameras should be illegal. (and, yes that goes for the webcam looking out of your window too)
If used this way, this system will only serve to filter out "normal" people, thus making it *less* likely that I show up on tape. (if the system consider me normal, that is)
The fight for bandwith will continue and I fear that "we" will lose when the Big Corporations step in for real. You dont think that fast connections will come for free, do you? It will be deals like "really fast downloads from CBS, some interactibility from you" sort of a http-remote control.
BTW the RIAA seems closer to the empire than to Chewbacka. (or perhaps rahter the trade federation)
Oops sorry geek overload