If you pay someone by the hour, they will work as slowly as they can...
If you pay someone by project, they will cut corners to finish quicker.
If you pay someone by lines of code they will write bloated code.
The goal _should be_ to get people to work hard and do their best. They'll do this if you: encourage loyalty and long term relationships. provide a fun atmosphere. pay them a lot. set lofty and worthwhile goals. set appropriate technical challenges. allow for learning and mistakes.
Also, you define when the automation is "done". That means you can make your own job easier, then take your time learning other related things, experiment with optimizations, look into changing the requirements and experiment with how you might meet any new requirements. Once it's working, "done" just means you're bored with it and ready for the next project.
Wikipedia has found the opposite; people don't understand 'show codes' and want a formatting text area and toolbar. Maybe that would be different today if WP had been available on Windows 95.
There was a time when I would have seen this as simple politics: appease the wealthy donors and corporations, but in the end the politicians don't follow through, or if they do it's struck down in court. Both sides know the game, both sides get something out of it [1], and in the end it doesn't matter too much. No harm, no foul. It's just politics.
But this isn't just politics: corporations creating law by TOS? That's the definition of corporatism. In the future we should expect this precedent to be used by auto manufacturers, home builders, coffee baristas, etc...
[1] The benefits to wealthy donors and corporations are: control of the conversation (setting the boundaries of 'reasonable' discussion), some laws passed in their favor (even if it takes them a long time), their interests are always addressed first during uncertain times (like with new technology).
Even if we assume your reading of the law is correct, perjury still applies.
(vi) A statement that the information in the notification is accurate, and under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.
A DMCA submitter is not "authorized to act on behalf of" someone else's copyright, and therefore has issued a false statement "under penalty of perjury".
But it doesn't really matter because everyone involved in the system (eventually) loses their job if they fight the power and moneyed interests, and since they know that, they don't.
If Obama does something that you applaud, applaud him, conversely if he has a practice or stance you disagree with let him know.
You wouldn't you praise Hitler for his anti-net-neutrality stance because people can do things that remove all respect and honor, and can't be overlooked. Obama isn't Hitler, but clearly we differ on how important Telecom Immunity is. I think you should reconsider. A hundred years from now historians might say this was beginning of the end for civil liberties. Even if they don't, nobody will accept the political excuses given today. I don't think Obama or G.W.Bush deserve _any_ praise, because the government spying on all Americans is so fundamentally wrong it can't be ignored.
But whatever you do, Vote!
I vote for people I actually like, regardless of their chances of winning. I think others should do the same, but I don't argue the point much because I also think the game is fixed.
First, I agree with you on principle. Complicated technical issues fundamental to business and process shouldn't be done by the cheapest bidder. But more generally business managers have to make this sort of decision about everything, and some things should be done cheaply, because otherwise they'll overspend. How should managers make that call about any particular aspect of business? You see people advocate "quality" for everything all the time and argue that it's cheaper in the long run, which is prima facia false. There is also an endless stream of tech people deriding the folly of going cheap. My answer is trust: managers need to trust tech people to watch out for the bottom line.
If the colleges were better, if they really had it, you would need to
get the police at the gates to keep order in the inrushing multitude.
See in college how we thwart the natural love of learning by leaving
the natural method of teaching what each wishes to learn, and insisting
that you shall learn what you have no taste or capacity for. The
college, which should be a place of delightful labor, is made odious
and unhealthy, and the young men are tempted to frivolous amusements to
rally their jaded spirits. I would have the studies elective.
Scholarship is to be created not by compulsion, but by awakening a pure
interest in knowledge. The wise instructor accomplishes this by
opening to his pupils precisely the attractions the study has for
himself. The marking is a system for schools, not for the college; for
boys, not for men; and it is an ungracious work to put on a professor.
... you need to show your support (as in email to the White House)
All emails already go to the White House through NSA trunk taps at the major carriers. Obama supported Telecom Immunity before his election, and continues this reprehensible and illegal practice today.
(Sorry, was I supposed to shut-up about this because it's a new election cycle?)
The federal government didn't enact laws against alcohol, but that doesn't mean it couldn't. Said another way, just because the first federal law was a constitutional amendment, that doesn't mean it _had_ to be an amendment. Anyway, if you want to question the War on Drugs there's no need to tangle it up with states rights.
Alcohol was banned in many places prior to prohibition. The constitutional amendment was to ban it everywhere, and make it hard to undo. The War on Drugs should be questioned, but not like this.
Cheating is a systemic issue. Compare a different system; exceptions in Java:
Instead, the Java programming language specifies that an exception will be thrown when semantic constraints are violated and will cause a non-local transfer of control...
Explicit use of throw statements provides an alternative to the old-fashioned style of handling error conditions by returning funny values, such as the integer value -1 where a negative value would not normally be expected. Experience shows that too often such funny values are ignored or not checked for by callers, leading to programs that are not robust, exhibit undesirable behavior, or both....
This process continues until a handler is found that indicates that it handles that particular exception... thus every effort is made to avoid letting an exception go unhandled....
The exception mechanism of the Java platform is integrated with its synchronization model (17), so that locks are released as synchronized statements (14.19) and invocations of synchronized methods (8.4.3.6, 15.12) complete abruptly.
(From here, emphasis mine) The lessons here seem pretty clear. If colleges want to stop cheating, they should:
* Pass control to a non-TA/Prof. to address the cheating
* Force clear, semantic allegations. This is a one-way communication, not a discussion
* Dedicated staff to address cheating
* Integrated with the fundamentals. For colleges this would be graduation and degree granting. (alternatively: enforcement centered on the student (the thread) not the course)
I dislike dealing with Java exceptions as much as anyone (try/catch everywhere.) Considering what it would take to really handle cheating, it seems clear why colleges are structured to suppress any allegations. It's just easier, and after all, they don't have to catch every exception.
So if you want the referrer as a webmaster, run a secure site
Many Google search result links go through redirection. They use JavaScript so the browser still shows the URL if you hover over the link. Here's what's included on an SSL search result link:
This way they can record your selection when you click a link. Redirecting isn't necessary to record your selection (they could use AJAX) and they don't seem to redirect all the time. So if you click a link that's redirected to another Google page, your browser won't send a referer [sic] with the search terms any more. I think they'll have to redirect ALL search links to implement this.
The rule should be: Disclosure Guarantees Immunity
This would lead to some abuse, but it would also lead to disclosure, which is the only way we're going to develop a secure internet. A federal agency could take the reports to keep both sides honest. Immunity could be granted only for what's reported so if people leave something out to hide their malfeasance it wouldn't be covered under immunity. Reports could even be done anonymously if there's an intervening agency.
Actually it wasn't. If you watch the DVD interview extras, the show was in development well before Thacher and they didn't try to turn it into a contemporary commentary. In my mind that makes it all the better, because it really does apply to the power structure in general, not just one party or politician.
I'm guessing the main haters are sysadmins, who see threats to their importance and way of working.... Everything should be built on virtual machines from scripts.
The sysadmins like virtual machines; they make life easier. What they don't like is developers telling them how to do their job. Internal software doesn't come with instructions, it comes with a coworker making demands about server resources, DNS/firewall/network configuration, licensing and backup requirements, etc... Not all those developer requests will be reasonable or correct; devs make mistakes too.
First the game consoles are locked down, then the phones, then the tablets and not they are ready to lock down the PCs too.
Corporations want to "sell" without giving up control, and the law hasn't stopped them because it's new technology. It's more profitable because they can literally control the market. This isn't allowed with old technology; auto manufacturers don't get to control what brand of gasoline you use, or require that repairs be done with their own parts. The sale of a car marks a clear separation between who has control. It happens with all new technology: Oracle wants to promote Java as ope" and give it away (rather then sell it,) but they also want it under their control. Regulating corporate control isn't anything new, it just takes time.
How long did it take open source (Linux) to make headway? It never would have happened if this was in place.
It's true that Linux could not have made headway if Secure UEFI was present at the start of PC era, but if it had been, we would also have established legislation securing the rights of the consumer by now. The only real question is how long it'll take, in practical terms, to get legal protection from companies controlling hardware post-sale. Since desktops and laptops aren't new, like smart phones or tablets, we'll get fast action to stop any monopoly grab by Microsoft. Corporate control of game consoles/smart phones/tablets will eventually be regulated, with the laws defining the "established market."
If they use android (for the apps) and build enterprise management they could hang on for a bit. Enterprises would be able to issue Android phones and still retain control for legal issues, etc... Quality would be an issue but they could leverage their existing clients. If they fail at that, they could then go to Apple/Google/MS and beg them to integrate their products with a RIM enterprise management system - for a tiny margin.
The hour is later than you think, and RIM probably doesn't have any winning strategy here.
But when should we short them? That's what I want to know.
If you go to the contact page and click "Copyright/DMCA" you'll see these requirements:
Copyright/DMCA takedown requests are only processed if the following requirements are met:
Identify yourself as an owner of the copyrighted work or exclusive rights that you believe were infringed, or a person acting on behalf of such owner
Provide us with your name, your address and your telephone number. We reserve the right to check the information supplied. We also reserve the right to pass this information on to the customer being reported should he or she request us to do so
State that you have "a good faith belief that use of the aforementioned material is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agents, or the law"
State that the information in the notice is accurate, under penalty of perjury
Explain which copyright protected work is in question
Supply the exact and complete link to all files in question
Replacing the CEO with a committee would be better: pay 20 people a million each and they would never screw-up this bad; cost less; be more responsive to the board/customers/employees; have to have reasons, plans and even data to get consensus. Paralysis and compromise works for government, so why not multinationals?
Slashdot Mirror
Qwikster was announced Sept. 19, compare the timelines: http://www.google.com//finance?chdnp=0&chdd=1&chds=1&chdv=1&chvs=maximized&chdeh=0&chfdeh=0&chdet=1323291600000&chddm=159898&chls=IntervalBasedLine&q=NASDAQ:NFLX&ntsp=0
If you pay someone by the hour, they will work as slowly as they can... If you pay someone by project, they will cut corners to finish quicker. If you pay someone by lines of code they will write bloated code.
The goal _should be_ to get people to work hard and do their best. They'll do this if you: encourage loyalty and long term relationships. provide a fun atmosphere. pay them a lot. set lofty and worthwhile goals. set appropriate technical challenges. allow for learning and mistakes.
None of that sounds like outsourcing.
Also, "it's all shared bandwidth, and oversubscribed" is misleading -- metered billing doesn't fix peek usage.
Also, you define when the automation is "done". That means you can make your own job easier, then take your time learning other related things, experiment with optimizations, look into changing the requirements and experiment with how you might meet any new requirements. Once it's working, "done" just means you're bored with it and ready for the next project.
Wikipedia has found the opposite; people don't understand 'show codes' and want a formatting text area and toolbar. Maybe that would be different today if WP had been available on Windows 95.
There was a time when I would have seen this as simple politics: appease the wealthy donors and corporations, but in the end the politicians don't follow through, or if they do it's struck down in court. Both sides know the game, both sides get something out of it [1], and in the end it doesn't matter too much. No harm, no foul. It's just politics.
But this isn't just politics: corporations creating law by TOS? That's the definition of corporatism. In the future we should expect this precedent to be used by auto manufacturers, home builders, coffee baristas, etc...
[1] The benefits to wealthy donors and corporations are: control of the conversation (setting the boundaries of 'reasonable' discussion), some laws passed in their favor (even if it takes them a long time), their interests are always addressed first during uncertain times (like with new technology).
(vi) A statement that the information in the notification is accurate, and under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.
A DMCA submitter is not "authorized to act on behalf of" someone else's copyright, and therefore has issued a false statement "under penalty of perjury".
But it doesn't really matter because everyone involved in the system (eventually) loses their job if they fight the power and moneyed interests, and since they know that, they don't.
If Obama does something that you applaud, applaud him, conversely if he has a practice or stance you disagree with let him know.
You wouldn't you praise Hitler for his anti-net-neutrality stance because people can do things that remove all respect and honor, and can't be overlooked. Obama isn't Hitler, but clearly we differ on how important Telecom Immunity is. I think you should reconsider. A hundred years from now historians might say this was beginning of the end for civil liberties. Even if they don't, nobody will accept the political excuses given today. I don't think Obama or G.W.Bush deserve _any_ praise, because the government spying on all Americans is so fundamentally wrong it can't be ignored.
But whatever you do, Vote!
I vote for people I actually like, regardless of their chances of winning. I think others should do the same, but I don't argue the point much because I also think the game is fixed.
First, I agree with you on principle. Complicated technical issues fundamental to business and process shouldn't be done by the cheapest bidder. But more generally business managers have to make this sort of decision about everything, and some things should be done cheaply, because otherwise they'll overspend. How should managers make that call about any particular aspect of business? You see people advocate "quality" for everything all the time and argue that it's cheaper in the long run, which is prima facia false. There is also an endless stream of tech people deriding the folly of going cheap. My answer is trust: managers need to trust tech people to watch out for the bottom line.
-- Ralph Waldo Emerson
... you need to show your support (as in email to the White House)
All emails already go to the White House through NSA trunk taps at the major carriers. Obama supported Telecom Immunity before his election, and continues this reprehensible and illegal practice today.
(Sorry, was I supposed to shut-up about this because it's a new election cycle?)
The federal government didn't enact laws against alcohol, but that doesn't mean it couldn't. Said another way, just because the first federal law was a constitutional amendment, that doesn't mean it _had_ to be an amendment. Anyway, if you want to question the War on Drugs there's no need to tangle it up with states rights.
Alcohol was banned in many places prior to prohibition. The constitutional amendment was to ban it everywhere, and make it hard to undo. The War on Drugs should be questioned, but not like this.
Instead, the Java programming language specifies that an exception will be thrown when semantic constraints are violated and will cause a non-local transfer of control ...
Explicit use of throw statements provides an alternative to the old-fashioned style of handling error conditions by returning funny values, such as the integer value -1 where a negative value would not normally be expected. Experience shows that too often such funny values are ignored or not checked for by callers, leading to programs that are not robust, exhibit undesirable behavior, or both. ...
This process continues until a handler is found that indicates that it handles that particular exception ... thus every effort is made to avoid letting an exception go unhandled. ...
The exception mechanism of the Java platform is integrated with its synchronization model (17), so that locks are released as synchronized statements (14.19) and invocations of synchronized methods (8.4.3.6, 15.12) complete abruptly.
(From here, emphasis mine) The lessons here seem pretty clear. If colleges want to stop cheating, they should:
I dislike dealing with Java exceptions as much as anyone (try/catch everywhere.) Considering what it would take to really handle cheating, it seems clear why colleges are structured to suppress any allegations. It's just easier, and after all, they don't have to catch every exception.
"Business is full of slow learners." .. but you solution is ($110 * 1.0 = 110) while their solution is ( ($35 * 1.0 = 35) + ($110 * 0.3 = 33) = 68 )
HTTPS to HTTP - Not passed
So if you want the referrer as a webmaster, run a secure site
Many Google search result links go through redirection. They use JavaScript so the browser still shows the URL if you hover over the link. Here's what's included on an SSL search result link:
onmousedown="return rwt(this,'','','','1','AFQjCAHIe9S3k-PkE4lzgXFEjII7Gc_PVg','','0CEM0FjAA')"
This way they can record your selection when you click a link. Redirecting isn't necessary to record your selection (they could use AJAX) and they don't seem to redirect all the time. So if you click a link that's redirected to another Google page, your browser won't send a referer [sic] with the search terms any more. I think they'll have to redirect ALL search links to implement this.
The rule should be: Disclosure Guarantees Immunity
This would lead to some abuse, but it would also lead to disclosure, which is the only way we're going to develop a secure internet. A federal agency could take the reports to keep both sides honest. Immunity could be granted only for what's reported so if people leave something out to hide their malfeasance it wouldn't be covered under immunity. Reports could even be done anonymously if there's an intervening agency.
The share price crashed more than 50% before Qwikster; it was a response to the drop not the cause. Slashdot called it right when they announced it: http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2434922&cid=37439742
Facebook is "primarily a market research tool." --me
Imagine if the phone companies or post office were allowed to listen/record/data mine all the conversations they had access to.
Actually it wasn't. If you watch the DVD interview extras, the show was in development well before Thacher and they didn't try to turn it into a contemporary commentary. In my mind that makes it all the better, because it really does apply to the power structure in general, not just one party or politician.
I'm guessing the main haters are sysadmins, who see threats to their importance and way of working. ... Everything should be built on virtual machines from scripts.
The sysadmins like virtual machines; they make life easier. What they don't like is developers telling them how to do their job. Internal software doesn't come with instructions, it comes with a coworker making demands about server resources, DNS/firewall/network configuration, licensing and backup requirements, etc... Not all those developer requests will be reasonable or correct; devs make mistakes too.
First the game consoles are locked down, then the phones, then the tablets and not they are ready to lock down the PCs too.
Corporations want to "sell" without giving up control, and the law hasn't stopped them because it's new technology. It's more profitable because they can literally control the market. This isn't allowed with old technology; auto manufacturers don't get to control what brand of gasoline you use, or require that repairs be done with their own parts. The sale of a car marks a clear separation between who has control. It happens with all new technology: Oracle wants to promote Java as ope" and give it away (rather then sell it,) but they also want it under their control. Regulating corporate control isn't anything new, it just takes time.
How long did it take open source (Linux) to make headway? It never would have happened if this was in place.
It's true that Linux could not have made headway if Secure UEFI was present at the start of PC era, but if it had been, we would also have established legislation securing the rights of the consumer by now. The only real question is how long it'll take, in practical terms, to get legal protection from companies controlling hardware post-sale. Since desktops and laptops aren't new, like smart phones or tablets, we'll get fast action to stop any monopoly grab by Microsoft. Corporate control of game consoles/smart phones/tablets will eventually be regulated, with the laws defining the "established market."
If they use android (for the apps) and build enterprise management they could hang on for a bit. Enterprises would be able to issue Android phones and still retain control for legal issues, etc... Quality would be an issue but they could leverage their existing clients. If they fail at that, they could then go to Apple/Google/MS and beg them to integrate their products with a RIM enterprise management system - for a tiny margin.
The hour is later than you think, and RIM probably doesn't have any winning strategy here.
But when should we short them? That's what I want to know.
Copyright/DMCA takedown requests are only processed if the following requirements are met:
Replacing the CEO with a committee would be better: pay 20 people a million each and they would never screw-up this bad; cost less; be more responsive to the board/customers/employees; have to have reasons, plans and even data to get consensus. Paralysis and compromise works for government, so why not multinationals?