> Already Japan is an avid consumer of location-based services and thanks to a 2007 law all Japanese phones must come with GPS to help with "law enforcement".
I'd say that mobile phones might play the role of a kind of personal Big Brother.
Anyone have details on that law ? It must make all the other countries salivate, I guess...
I said "So, if you ask about the dress code, no problem."
Then I added "But, if you spend 3 minutes ranting [...]"
Note the use of the word "if".
That is called a conditional, not "making shit up".
You see, either A or B. A conditional. And I added that "if", because, in the parent post, you ranted about "being forced to waste significant unpaid time each day [wearing a tie]".
The more I read your answers to that thread, the more it looks like you have a serious communication/understanding issues. I hope for you it doesn't show too much in interviews.
I rejected candidates for asking stupid questions. While dress code isn't a stupid question, I never had potential hire ask about it, because I always addressed that when talking about the workplace.
Nevertheless, I've rejected people because they asked 3 questions about the work council, which, in the country I live, is the source of quite a few perks (you'll get discounted vacation, free theater tickets, etc, if you work in a big company that have a nice and powerful work council).
But, in an interview, when given the chance to ask questions, if you ask more about what the company can do to you than what you expect to have to do for the company, it raises a red flag.
So, if you ask about the dress code, no problem.
But, if you spend 3 minutes ranting that you will never put a tie, I will suspect that you're inflexibility is going to be an issue in the workplace. Also, I know that I will never be able to send you to a customer site. I will also infer that you probably disregard authority and management.
Unless your technical credential and experience are valuable enough to me that I can take the risk of adding a diva to the team, I will probably avoid hiring you.
I can understand your point of view, though. You probably think that you don't want to work for someone dumb enough to reject a qualified applicant for such a fuzzy reason as ranting about the dress code.
And apps are space-bloated now. Menu bars, tool bars, status bar, ribbons, shadows, etc, etc.
I don't think it is really "optimisation", as if you look at a typical windows file explorer screenshot, you'll find the same information (like the selected file name) present in several locations at the same time. I think it is just bloat and bad design.
I used to work with a 512x342 b&w mac screen, and, while being small, it was really usable. I can only dream at the amount of information that could be presented on the screen I am typing on (a 30inches), if UI didn't follow the bloated path they did.
I also use a netbook with 9" screen, and it is clearly much less usable than a 25 year old macintosh.
> I don't think there's any reason to assume that they were "doing" anything at all except developing a search engine which turns out not to be as good as Google, overall.
You're joking, aren't you ?
On the query "Why does windows sucks", they don't return any windows result, but return osx and linux results, and you give them the benefits of doubt ?
You must clearly be joking. It is obvious that they excluded or added negative weight to all pages that contained negative windows information.
> Which indicates to me that the author of TFA doesn't know how modern search engines work
A-fucking-mazing. Please explain us how they could get the results pointed in the article. Please. I like to laugh.
> For Microsoft to advertise their competition, it's financial suicide, and liable to directly hurt them, sparking a possible stockholder's revolt.
Bullshit. If you query google for "advertiser network", you'll find other stuff than only google's. By your reasoning, it would be financial suicide for Microsoft to let user download firefox using IE.
All that is bullshit. They are just greedy, and believe that the short term gain of redirecting users to biased results is better than capturing a higher market share with unbiased results.
Both would be viable strategies. Not "suicide", as you say. They are just focused on the short term, that's all.
Some argue that inflation is a form of taxation. When inflation occurs value is wiped off and the society emits more money. It is the same effect if no inflation occurred, and money was just transferred to the state.
> In a nutshell what I remember is someone is going to get screwed over.
And that someone, my friend, is really a somemany...
No, I don't like what you have to say. You are very keen of associating copyright violation with theft, all while pretending to show "both sides of the arguments".
Btw, your ride argument is still flawed. You took a seat that someone else may have wanted. You used some place. You prevented someone to see on his left. You made some noise. You emitted body odors. Maybe, if you weren't here, the young couple next to you would have had a short sexual contact during the ride. Even if you were alone, you prevented the guy in charge of the ride to shut it down and take a coffee.
And you were physically there. You were on some private property where the owner ask a certain amount of money for certain thing.
This is totally different from a copy performed in the privacy of your home, at the total ignorance of the so-called victim.
> Suppose I'm someone who thinks copyright violation is theft - and you're someone who doesn't... We argue all day, and finally you convince me that you're right....So what? All we've really worked out is a small matter of terminology.
It is not a small matter of terminology.
Let's say that someone, not knowledgeable on the subject, as me what a copyright violation is, and I will explain to him that it is when a COPY of a creative work not in the public domain is done WITHOUT THE PERMISSON of the copyright holder. That is a simplistic explanation, but it'll get the job done, and open the door to additional discussion.
Now, this guy asks you, and let's consider that you support the view that a copyright violation is a form of theft. You'll reply that a violation occurs when someone STEAL the work of an author. Even if it is only an analogy, you have framed the discourse for that guy that copyright violations are bad and should be severely punished.
If you know the Marketing concept of *positioning* (mainly for products, but also for general ideas, as introduced by the classic marketing book "Positioning" by Ries and Trout) People (including you and me) are *not* receptive to new ideas. It is *extremely* difficult to *create* a new concept in someone's mind. The most efficient (and maybe the sole) way to add an idea is to *piggyback* onto another, and make your place from there.
"Copyright Violation is the Digital Theft". Bam. The seed is planted, the target knows what copyright violation is. It is related to theft. In a digital world. Simple. Easy.
Also mass-media makes extremely difficult to pass complex ideas to audience. That is why such a soundbite will be repeated ad-nauseum, and there is no way to get a proper discourse anymore.
So, in your example, if I can finally convince you that I'm right, that copyright violation is not theft, we didn't just worked out a little matter of terminology. Even if we still don't know what it is, having you thinking of copyright violation in term of a COPY WITHOUT PERMISSION instead of a DIGITAL THEFT is extremely valuable. And not having you propagation the DIGITAL THEFT meme to other is an additional bonus. And, maybe even, having you depositioning copyright violation in the mind of the people that associated it with THEFT is icing on the cake.
On the legal side of your post, your legal system is not mine, so the chances that are taking place where you live are not the one that are taking part where I live. Furthermore, you live under a common law system, and I live under a civil law system.
A very interesting link, thanks. You seem pretty knowledgeable about the issue.
I was talking about that guy, because, in the article linked in the post I was replying to, they said:
"Equally disturbing is the story of the man who single-handedly made tough-love wilderness therapy a high-revenue proposition: a military veteran named Steve Cartisano, who many contend is motivated more by greed than compassion. Significantly, the three most recent deaths at wilderness-therapy camps occurred in programs run by Cartisano or former Cartisano employees. And despite years of controversy, criminal charges, and civil suits, Cartisano himself is still in business."
I could admit that some morons killing children out of stupidity, because they make cheap course, etc, etc, but it seems (always referring to the article 2 post before), that he was the one that started the business of making the parent pays 20K to send their kid in group with next to no food 63 days with some untrained guy paid minimum wage. So, basically, it looks that he was the first that puts child life in danger in order to maximize profits. For that, he should be shot.
On the religious side, you may be right also. It is just that the organizations I looked at where very religious (at least they founders were), used a lot of religious imagery, and I don't think non-religious people would buy into that. Also, when I looked at some of the victims bios, I found stuff like "third child of a family of eight", etc, etc.
> Frankly, I don't believe regulation will ever be enough because no matter what, these groups will always be one step ahead. A while back I interviewed an ex-employee of a Utah program who told me they actually had drills to prepare for unexpected arrival of inspectors.
At the first violation, 5 years of prison for the guy in charge of the organization, plus revocation of the license, and interdiction of working in that sector for all those involved. You seem, I think that society should also apply the "tough love" principle with those guys...
> The closest analogue to CV "theft" is "theft of services" - for instance finding a way to ride the rides at an amusement park without paying for them
No. In a theft of services, the one providing the service still had to provide it. If you find a way to the rides to an amusement park, you are actually using the service. They will need to clean up after you. You deteriorate the rides a bit. You also degrade the service of others, as they may have to wait a bit longer to use the ride, etc, etc.
I disagree that a copyright violation, that occurs in the privacy of someone home, have any connection to theft.
> Calling copyright violation "theft" imposes a judgement that it should be considered criminal: but not calling it theft doesn't imply that it shouldn't be considered a crime.
Your position is not neutral. You agree that sticking "theft" to copyright violation is manipulation, and then, magically, you said that NOT sticking it would be manipulation too, so we should stick "theft". That kind of negative reasoning doesn't make sense:
What is your position on not calling copyright violation "rape" ? After all, the perpetrator is taking pleasure from someone else by force ?
Let's call it "rape". Not calling it "rape" would be manipulation, sure ? And arguing about it would be hair-splitting, wouldn't it ?
Yes they are. I hate Microsoft with a passion (and boycott them too), but, at least, they never openly threaten their customer base. They just want to extract as much money as they can, killing the competition, using scare tactics and intimidation, but they have no other agenda than selling you the maximum amount of shitty product.
I'd say Microsof is Lawful Evil (not in the sense that the respect the law, but in the sense that you can predict their evilness). Sony is Cahotic Evil. They can suddenly fuck you over anything, just because they want to control the way you live.
Nintendo is not really Evil anymore. They are just arrogant assholes that want your money to allow you to play with their rules.
I stopped buying anything related to SONY since their CEO, a few years ago, announced that he would prevent his customers to copy music by intervening at the server level, at the ISP, and even in your own computer (I don't remember the exact quote, but it was long ago, even before the rootkit fiasco).
Anyway, I thought "good for you, but you will never have any money from me to implement your plan".
I'd be the parent of one of the dead kids, I'd lodge a bullet into that asshole's head, whatever the cost would be.
(flame) Of course, customers of those camps are religious families, so they mostly sit there, whining about the loss, but still thanking god for His Impenetrable Ways. Morons. Ooops. Sorry. (/flame)
Fascinating. I almost gave a tll;dr, but I read it all. Must be bored.
There is a circular logic, thought: so that society don't play temporal tricks with money to guarantee employment of the members that took the education path, the members themselves have to get in debt to have a chance (not garanteed) at employment.
It doesn't make a lot of difference whether the society is in debt or if its members are in debt, as society debt is paid by increased taxation, and is, at the end, debt of of its members...
Oh yes, yes, yes. I don't have mod point today, but you need a +6
Both employers and educational system expect the newcomer to burned to cost of becoming a productive member of the society, so the deck is heavily stacked.
Well, why should the shy programmer be promoted to its level of incompetence ?
Being promoted mean becoming a manager, A manager is responsible for the visibility of his team. If he just shut up, and get the job done without ever telling anybody, then, he is a bad manager. Say what you do, do what you said, say what you've done.
I *hope*, for the sake of the rest of the team, that the shy programmer don't get promoted. Because being shy is just what you don't want from a manager...
100 IQ is *defined* as the average IQ (IQ of the population is a Gaussian curve, with the average at 100, *by definition*). How can average IQ of College grads be around 95 ? Where did people with a high IQ went ?
Slashdot Mirror
This is an exert from the article:
> Already Japan is an avid consumer of location-based services and thanks to a 2007 law all Japanese phones must come with GPS to help with "law enforcement".
I'd say that mobile phones might play the role of a kind of personal Big Brother.
Anyone have details on that law ? It must make all the other countries salivate, I guess...
You are reading challenged, aren't you ?
I said "So, if you ask about the dress code, no problem."
Then I added "But, if you spend 3 minutes ranting [...]"
Note the use of the word "if".
That is called a conditional, not "making shit up".
You see, either A or B. A conditional. And I added that "if", because, in the parent post, you ranted about "being forced to waste significant unpaid time each day [wearing a tie]".
The more I read your answers to that thread, the more it looks like you have a serious communication/understanding issues. I hope for you it doesn't show too much in interviews.
I rejected candidates for asking stupid questions. While dress code isn't a stupid question, I never had potential hire ask about it, because I always addressed that when talking about the workplace.
Nevertheless, I've rejected people because they asked 3 questions about the work council, which, in the country I live, is the source of quite a few perks (you'll get discounted vacation, free theater tickets, etc, if you work in a big company that have a nice and powerful work council).
But, in an interview, when given the chance to ask questions, if you ask more about what the company can do to you than what you expect to have to do for the company, it raises a red flag.
So, if you ask about the dress code, no problem.
But, if you spend 3 minutes ranting that you will never put a tie, I will suspect that you're inflexibility is going to be an issue in the workplace. Also, I know that I will never be able to send you to a customer site. I will also infer that you probably disregard authority and management.
Unless your technical credential and experience are valuable enough to me that I can take the risk of adding a diva to the team, I will probably avoid hiring you.
I can understand your point of view, though. You probably think that you don't want to work for someone dumb enough to reject a qualified applicant for such a fuzzy reason as ranting about the dress code.
And apps are space-bloated now. Menu bars, tool bars, status bar, ribbons, shadows, etc, etc.
I don't think it is really "optimisation", as if you look at a typical windows file explorer screenshot, you'll find the same information (like the selected file name) present in several locations at the same time. I think it is just bloat and bad design.
I used to work with a 512x342 b&w mac screen, and, while being small, it was really usable. I can only dream at the amount of information that could be presented on the screen I am typing on (a 30inches), if UI didn't follow the bloated path they did.
I also use a netbook with 9" screen, and it is clearly much less usable than a 25 year old macintosh.
> I don't think there's any reason to assume that they were "doing" anything at all except developing a search engine which turns out not to be as good as Google, overall.
You're joking, aren't you ?
On the query "Why does windows sucks", they don't return any windows result, but return osx and linux results, and you give them the benefits of doubt ?
You must clearly be joking. It is obvious that they excluded or added negative weight to all pages that contained negative windows information.
> Which indicates to me that the author of TFA doesn't know how modern search engines work
A-fucking-mazing. Please explain us how they could get the results pointed in the article. Please. I like to laugh.
What fucking fact ? This is link #8 in the page. Not link #1.
Microsoft apologists, you're the scum of the world...
> For Microsoft to advertise their competition, it's financial suicide, and liable to directly hurt them, sparking a possible stockholder's revolt.
Bullshit. If you query google for "advertiser network", you'll find other stuff than only google's. By your reasoning, it would be financial suicide for Microsoft to let user download firefox using IE.
All that is bullshit. They are just greedy, and believe that the short term gain of redirecting users to biased results is better than capturing a higher market share with unbiased results.
Both would be viable strategies. Not "suicide", as you say. They are just focused on the short term, that's all.
Very interesting story & metaphor, thanks.
Some argue that inflation is a form of taxation. When inflation occurs value is wiped off and the society emits more money. It is the same effect if no inflation occurred, and money was just transferred to the state.
> In a nutshell what I remember is someone is going to get screwed over.
And that someone, my friend, is really a somemany...
No, I don't like what you have to say. You are very keen of associating copyright violation with theft, all while pretending to show "both sides of the arguments".
Btw, your ride argument is still flawed. You took a seat that someone else may have wanted. You used some place. You prevented someone to see on his left. You made some noise. You emitted body odors. Maybe, if you weren't here, the young couple next to you would have had a short sexual contact during the ride. Even if you were alone, you prevented the guy in charge of the ride to shut it down and take a coffee.
And you were physically there. You were on some private property where the owner ask a certain amount of money for certain thing.
This is totally different from a copy performed in the privacy of your home, at the total ignorance of the so-called victim.
> Suppose I'm someone who thinks copyright violation is theft - and you're someone who doesn't... We argue all day, and finally you convince me that you're right. ...So what? All we've really worked out is a small matter of terminology.
It is not a small matter of terminology.
Let's say that someone, not knowledgeable on the subject, as me what a copyright violation is, and I will explain to him that it is when a COPY of a creative work not in the public domain is done WITHOUT THE PERMISSON of the copyright holder. That is a simplistic explanation, but it'll get the job done, and open the door to additional discussion.
Now, this guy asks you, and let's consider that you support the view that a copyright violation is a form of theft. You'll reply that a violation occurs when someone STEAL the work of an author. Even if it is only an analogy, you have framed the discourse for that guy that copyright violations are bad and should be severely punished.
If you know the Marketing concept of *positioning* (mainly for products, but also for general ideas, as introduced by the classic marketing book "Positioning" by Ries and Trout) People (including you and me) are *not* receptive to new ideas. It is *extremely* difficult to *create* a new concept in someone's mind. The most efficient (and maybe the sole) way to add an idea is to *piggyback* onto another, and make your place from there.
"Copyright Violation is the Digital Theft". Bam. The seed is planted, the target knows what copyright violation is. It is related to theft. In a digital world. Simple. Easy.
Also mass-media makes extremely difficult to pass complex ideas to audience. That is why such a soundbite will be repeated ad-nauseum, and there is no way to get a proper discourse anymore.
So, in your example, if I can finally convince you that I'm right, that copyright violation is not theft, we didn't just worked out a little matter of terminology. Even if we still don't know what it is, having you thinking of copyright violation in term of a COPY WITHOUT PERMISSION instead of a DIGITAL THEFT is extremely valuable. And not having you propagation the DIGITAL THEFT meme to other is an additional bonus. And, maybe even, having you depositioning copyright violation in the mind of the people that associated it with THEFT is icing on the cake.
On the legal side of your post, your legal system is not mine, so the chances that are taking place where you live are not the one that are taking part where I live. Furthermore, you live under a common law system, and I live under a civil law system.
A very interesting link, thanks. You seem pretty knowledgeable about the issue.
I was talking about that guy, because, in the article linked in the post I was replying to, they said:
"Equally disturbing is the story of the man who single-handedly made tough-love wilderness therapy a high-revenue proposition: a military veteran named Steve Cartisano, who many contend is motivated more by greed than compassion. Significantly, the three most recent deaths at wilderness-therapy camps occurred in programs run by Cartisano or former Cartisano employees. And despite years of controversy, criminal charges, and civil suits, Cartisano himself is still in business."
I could admit that some morons killing children out of stupidity, because they make cheap course, etc, etc, but it seems (always referring to the article 2 post before), that he was the one that started the business of making the parent pays 20K to send their kid in group with next to no food 63 days with some untrained guy paid minimum wage. So, basically, it looks that he was the first that puts child life in danger in order to maximize profits. For that, he should be shot.
On the religious side, you may be right also. It is just that the organizations I looked at where very religious (at least they founders were), used a lot of religious imagery, and I don't think non-religious people would buy into that. Also, when I looked at some of the victims bios, I found stuff like "third child of a family of eight", etc, etc.
> Frankly, I don't believe regulation will ever be enough because no matter what, these groups will always be one step ahead. A while back I interviewed an ex-employee of a Utah program who told me they actually had drills to prepare for unexpected arrival of inspectors.
At the first violation, 5 years of prison for the guy in charge of the organization, plus revocation of the license, and interdiction of working in that sector for all those involved. You seem, I think that society should also apply the "tough love" principle with those guys...
There is nothing neutral in your presentation.
> The closest analogue to CV "theft" is "theft of services" - for instance finding a way to ride the rides at an amusement park without paying for them
No. In a theft of services, the one providing the service still had to provide it. If you find a way to the rides to an amusement park, you are actually using the service. They will need to clean up after you. You deteriorate the rides a bit. You also degrade the service of others, as they may have to wait a bit longer to use the ride, etc, etc.
I disagree that a copyright violation, that occurs in the privacy of someone home, have any connection to theft.
> Calling copyright violation "theft" imposes a judgement that it should be considered criminal: but not calling it theft doesn't imply that it shouldn't be considered a crime.
Your position is not neutral. You agree that sticking "theft" to copyright violation is manipulation, and then, magically, you said that NOT sticking it would be manipulation too, so we should stick "theft". That kind of negative reasoning doesn't make sense:
What is your position on not calling copyright violation "rape" ? After all, the perpetrator is taking pleasure from someone else by force ?
Let's call it "rape". Not calling it "rape" would be manipulation, sure ? And arguing about it would be hair-splitting, wouldn't it ?
I really thought it was an Onion article...
So, my sarcasm wasn't obvious (the guerrilla marketing bit, the fact that I had to "*google* bing" and the totally irrelevant link from answer.com).
Anyway, thanks for taking the time to answer me. Have a nice day!
What does "a couple Bings later" means ?
Are you getting paid by some guerrilla marketing firm to plant that expression in your post ?
Thanks gods, I googled "bing", and the answer page gave me a direct link to its definition in the header:
http://www.answers.com/bing
(Now, I still have to try to understand what you meant)
Yes they are. I hate Microsoft with a passion (and boycott them too), but, at least, they never openly threaten their customer base. They just want to extract as much money as they can, killing the competition, using scare tactics and intimidation, but they have no other agenda than selling you the maximum amount of shitty product.
I'd say Microsof is Lawful Evil (not in the sense that the respect the law, but in the sense that you can predict their evilness). Sony is Cahotic Evil. They can suddenly fuck you over anything, just because they want to control the way you live.
Nintendo is not really Evil anymore. They are just arrogant assholes that want your money to allow you to play with their rules.
I stopped buying anything related to SONY since their CEO, a few years ago, announced that he would prevent his customers to copy music by intervening at the server level, at the ISP, and even in your own computer (I don't remember the exact quote, but it was long ago, even before the rootkit fiasco).
Anyway, I thought "good for you, but you will never have any money from me to implement your plan".
What is amazing, is that the guy that started all this continues, and that nobody really care.
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/08/09/us/boot-camps-proponent-becomes-focus-of-critics.html?pagewanted=all
I'd be the parent of one of the dead kids, I'd lodge a bullet into that asshole's head, whatever the cost would be.
(flame)
Of course, customers of those camps are religious families, so they mostly sit there, whining about the loss, but still thanking god for His Impenetrable Ways. Morons. Ooops. Sorry.
(/flame)
No, he talked about "nice even binary number", which 00000000 00000001 isn't...
IMO, you've been trolled into answering.
Of course CV is not stealing, it have never been, it will never be.
It has some similarities, and also some difference, hence it cannot be the same. That is obvious. The GP is just trolling for a reply.
Looks like there is a global market for that, then.
What about some sort of web-based seminar against internet addiction ?
Fascinating. I almost gave a tll;dr, but I read it all. Must be bored.
There is a circular logic, thought: so that society don't play temporal tricks with money to guarantee employment of the members that took the education path, the members themselves have to get in debt to have a chance (not garanteed) at employment.
It doesn't make a lot of difference whether the society is in debt or if its members are in debt, as society debt is paid by increased taxation, and is, at the end, debt of of its members...
Oh yes, yes, yes. I don't have mod point today, but you need a +6
Both employers and educational system expect the newcomer to burned to cost of becoming a productive member of the society, so the deck is heavily stacked.
The only answer is debt.
I find this disgusting.
Well, why should the shy programmer be promoted to its level of incompetence ?
Being promoted mean becoming a manager, A manager is responsible for the visibility of his team. If he just shut up, and get the job done without ever telling anybody, then, he is a bad manager. Say what you do, do what you said, say what you've done.
I *hope*, for the sake of the rest of the team, that the shy programmer don't get promoted. Because being shy is just what you don't want from a manager...
Ehhh. Seriously interested by an answer, here.
100 IQ is *defined* as the average IQ (IQ of the population is a Gaussian curve, with the average at 100, *by definition*). How can average IQ of College grads be around 95 ? Where did people with a high IQ went ?