Barack Obama is the cleanest candidate running, even cleaner than Ron Paul (who is, admittedly, very very clean) when it comes to taking money from PACs and special interests. Observe:
Wow, a hundred comments in and nobody seems to have posted from the employer side of the table. I'll do that.
It's quite simple. Put your online nickname--if the Google results are flattering. If they're not, then don't. It's really no different from anything else you'd include on your resume. Left a good job on friendly terms? Put that. Perp-walked out of a job in handcuffs? Leave that out. There's not much nuance here: If someone else shares your nickname, and that guy's a dick, you probably shouldn't put your nickname, lest you be put in the position of having to explain his posts. If you use your nickname in porn discussion forums online, leave it out.
On the other hand, maybe your nick links people to logs of great technical discussions you've participated in, on IRC. Or it links to yourself being helpful on a technical mailing list in your field of specialty, or even just yourself showing interest in your field of specialty. For pete's sake, of course you want your employer to see that. As someone who reads resumes and does interviews, that's extremely valuable information to me. I would check it on Google, and I would be interested in what I found there, and if it was positive, I would be strongly leaning toward you before I even picked up a phone to set up the interview.
--
p.s. god I love having a unique name. Thanks to my name and many years of contributions to some high-profile open source stuff, you literally have to go 15 pages deep into Google's results for my name, before you find even a single entry that's not legitimately about me. If I ever have to find another job, I can guarantee you I'll be telling people to Google me.;-)
I agree with most everything else you say, but come on:
Bear in mind, refactoring my cause you to notice bugs that you can't fix because it would break an interface. Now your code has to be badly structured to support this bad business logic. This can be enough to render the effort useless.
When is noticing bugs ever a bad thing? It's true you might have to continue to support a bad interface for a while, but a correct refactoring can allow you to document and isolate the bad interface, deprecate it, and eventually remove it. Your code ends up more testable, and callers of the new interface are more correct.
Yes, but isn't that the *point*? Your organization isn't going to focus on a product that isn't bringing in any money. Therefore, your organization is--either explicitly or implicitly--going to focus on products and features of products, that do. Maybe Google isn't "calling the shots" i.e. dictating what you do, but money equals power.
Yeah, I know. And the state is going to fight it. It's going to fight us tooth and nail, for decades, and it's going to seem hopeless for most of that time, that we are not going to have privacy and our rulers will continue to operate the way they do now.
In the end, though, the story will read the same as the story of the losing battles of the RIAA against everyone in the world. Copying information is free, and everyone wants to do it, so they do.
Collecting information is nearly free, and getting freer. Video cameras will become ubiquitous; personal recording devices will be the norm, and all of those personal data feeds will be fed to the internet, whether intentionally or not, and stay there, in the permanent and public brain, for all time, so if nobody notices that meeting of Joe Politician with Jane Hooker on hookercams.com today, they'll notice it in a month, or a year.
And one day, they'll stop fighting. And then we'll have a completely open society... not because we wanted it, but because information fucking wants to be free, and it's more powerful than we are.
a) His friends aren't violating his privacy. I don't have to get the permission of my friends to talk about them; neither do I need their permission to post pictures of them. b) His friends may not be the person with the camera anyway. It could be a complete stranger. You don't need someone's permission to take a picture of them, nor to publish one.
I hate to break it to all you folks, but the privacy battle is over, and privacy is on its way out, no matter what we do. The Internet did, in fact, change everything.
But it's not necessarily a bad thing. The more powerful you are, the more your public mistakes mean. Us rank and filers might occasionally lose a job, but ultimately the loss of privacy will mean that the President of the US can finally be held accountable for his actions, along with every other elected official, corporate officer, police officer, military officer, and so on. Loss of privacy means a gain in accountability. It means people have to start acting responsibly, finally.
Holy crap, do you seriously not understand why a person would want to say goodbye to their parent before they passed away? I feel sorry for yours.
I don't care what people a hundred years ago expected. People a thousand years ago had no electricity and no plumbing, but I'll bet you'd be pretty pissed if someone intentionally blocked your sewer pipes up.
Google certainly has a history of keeping things simple. But cheap? Please point to the consumer devices Google has offered for sale at a low price. The only physical device I can think of with Google's logo on it is their yellow search appliance (do they still sell them?) and it sure as hell wasn't cheap.
How can you tell the difference between "refusing" to add the option and simply having higher priorities? As a director of a development team, I can tell you, it can be awfully hard to do everything everyone could ever want. And everyone thinks you're snubbing them because their feature didn't make it to the top of the list...
Not saying Google hasn't refused, but if so, I would like to see some kind of communication from Google saying "No, we won't add this feature."
> If a single person agrees with the OCR in this case, we can mark the word as "read" with no further human confirmation
Wow, that seems like a major mistake if you're actually doing that. It's quite possible for a human to make a mistake on a word, for exactly the same reason the OCR makes a mistake. In fact, the most likely error for a human to make is the same one the OCR made. Which means you will be accepting as 'read' many errors simply because the human agreed.
Viking 1 lasted 2245 sols and lost contact with Earth when a bad command was sent which instructed Viking to point its antenna in a different direction (sort of like typing "shutdown -h now" on the command line of a remote server, there's no recovery short of a house-call).
Sounds like a good mission for one of the rovers. Go bump the bastard in the right direction.
Although I agree with you on balance (clearly virtual gambling is real gambling, and clearly virtual sex is not real sex), I think there are some tricky issues surrounding virtual prostitution to be considered, some of them the same issues that led society to criminalize it in the first place (whether correctly or incorrectly).
- Is it immoral? I am certainly no fan of morality-based law, but the question will come up. - Are virtual sex workers opening themselves up to be victimized in the real world, e.g. by encouraging RL contact with their clients? - Are virtual sex workers underage? The emotional attachments of virtual sex are certain to be even more confusing than those in the real world, if somewhat less palpable, and I don't see any reason why "age of consent" should not apply there. There is some realism threshhold beyond which virtual sex without consent could be emotionally traumatizing. - Does the criminal element get involved? Second Life involves real money, so you have to watch out for real theft, real fraud and real confidence games.
I'm not saying all (or any) of these actually apply to Second Life's specific case, but all of them have to be considered before you dismiss virtual prostitution as harmless. (And just like real life, then you have to decide whether criminalizing it actually makes the problem worse.)
Users care about presentation. Looks are everything.
I disagree. Or rather, I think that describes only some users. There are plenty of users who are care about content. (Wikipedia and free software are examples of the resultant projects.) So even if many (or most) users don't care about the semantic web, as long as some dedicated group does care, then it will expand and everyone (including users who don't care about the underlying implementation details) will benefit.
There's a larger point here--the person who takes advantage of the ability to easily yank your data off the web is always someone trying to find a new, better (or more audience-focused) way to present it. Maybe it's just a new stylesheet around your ugly table, or maybe it's a whole new end-user application building on your data feed. This increases the value of your data, but to address gp's point directly, this improves the presentation!
I agree, this rush to drugs to treat suicidal cells is just going to create a generation of drug-dependent artificially happy zombie cells,
Sounds like a joke, actually isn't. Cancer, which I think can very accurately be described as a collection of zombie cells, often deactivates the agents of apoptosis in order to function.
You've got me on one of those three.. I can send calendar invites from my work account (which is forward to Gmail) but for some reason they don't seem to work for outlook users. The reverse direction does work, and I add items to my calendar that originated in outlook, all the time.
I get reminders by SMS or, if I have calendar open, browser alert. (But usually it's SMS.)
Serious question.. what do you use the desktop client for that you can't do online?
One argument I always hear when I ask that question is "So I can use it when I'm not online." But let's be serious, you're probably online almost all of the time when you have a computer handy. And now I have an additional argument.. my Google Calendar is probably more accessible than an offline laptop simply because it can SMS me alerts, and I can SMS events back to it.
I just don't see any reason to do the calendaring thing outside of a web browser, and I wonder why someone would.
I was the first one to download Sunbird 0.0.1alpha and try it out, and even use its integration with iCal resources. But it was crashy, and the features it had were flaky. I'm sure they've improved matters since then.
But I'm not gonna use it now, because I've found Google Calendar. SMS support alone is worth the switch. It also has contacts integration so I can invite people to meetings from my contact list, and it has an upsell story: You can run Google Apps for Domains and get the PIM/Groupware features people rely on from Exchange, but managed and cheaper.
Slashdot Mirror
BtaF sounds off hilariously on this issue.
Barack Obama is the cleanest candidate running, even cleaner than Ron Paul (who is, admittedly, very very clean) when it comes to taking money from PACs and special interests. Observe:
Obama:
http://opensecrets.org/pres08/summary.asp?ID=N00009638&Cycle=2008
Paul:
http://opensecrets.org/pres08/summary.asp?ID=N00005906&Cycle=2008
I don't think you need to worry about the *AA.
Wow, a hundred comments in and nobody seems to have posted from the employer side of the table. I'll do that.
;-)
It's quite simple. Put your online nickname--if the Google results are flattering. If they're not, then don't. It's really no different from anything else you'd include on your resume. Left a good job on friendly terms? Put that. Perp-walked out of a job in handcuffs? Leave that out. There's not much nuance here: If someone else shares your nickname, and that guy's a dick, you probably shouldn't put your nickname, lest you be put in the position of having to explain his posts. If you use your nickname in porn discussion forums online, leave it out.
On the other hand, maybe your nick links people to logs of great technical discussions you've participated in, on IRC. Or it links to yourself being helpful on a technical mailing list in your field of specialty, or even just yourself showing interest in your field of specialty. For pete's sake, of course you want your employer to see that. As someone who reads resumes and does interviews, that's extremely valuable information to me. I would check it on Google, and I would be interested in what I found there, and if it was positive, I would be strongly leaning toward you before I even picked up a phone to set up the interview.
--
p.s. god I love having a unique name. Thanks to my name and many years of contributions to some high-profile open source stuff, you literally have to go 15 pages deep into Google's results for my name, before you find even a single entry that's not legitimately about me. If I ever have to find another job, I can guarantee you I'll be telling people to Google me.
When is noticing bugs ever a bad thing? It's true you might have to continue to support a bad interface for a while, but a correct refactoring can allow you to document and isolate the bad interface, deprecate it, and eventually remove it. Your code ends up more testable, and callers of the new interface are more correct.
Two Rich cops sue each other: They each spend $1,000,000. Loser pays full amount.
Man, if you find two cops who can afford a mil each to duke it out, they're BOTH guilty of something.
Yes, but isn't that the *point*? Your organization isn't going to focus on a product that isn't bringing in any money. Therefore, your organization is--either explicitly or implicitly--going to focus on products and features of products, that do. Maybe Google isn't "calling the shots" i.e. dictating what you do, but money equals power.
Yeah, I know. And the state is going to fight it. It's going to fight us tooth and nail, for decades, and it's going to seem hopeless for most of that time, that we are not going to have privacy and our rulers will continue to operate the way they do now.
In the end, though, the story will read the same as the story of the losing battles of the RIAA against everyone in the world. Copying information is free, and everyone wants to do it, so they do.
Collecting information is nearly free, and getting freer. Video cameras will become ubiquitous; personal recording devices will be the norm, and all of those personal data feeds will be fed to the internet, whether intentionally or not, and stay there, in the permanent and public brain, for all time, so if nobody notices that meeting of Joe Politician with Jane Hooker on hookercams.com today, they'll notice it in a month, or a year.
And one day, they'll stop fighting. And then we'll have a completely open society... not because we wanted it, but because information fucking wants to be free, and it's more powerful than we are.
Many eyes make corruption shallow.
But
a) His friends aren't violating his privacy. I don't have to get the permission of my friends to talk about them; neither do I need their permission to post pictures of them.
b) His friends may not be the person with the camera anyway. It could be a complete stranger. You don't need someone's permission to take a picture of them, nor to publish one.
I hate to break it to all you folks, but the privacy battle is over, and privacy is on its way out, no matter what we do. The Internet did, in fact, change everything.
But it's not necessarily a bad thing. The more powerful you are, the more your public mistakes mean. Us rank and filers might occasionally lose a job, but ultimately the loss of privacy will mean that the President of the US can finally be held accountable for his actions, along with every other elected official, corporate officer, police officer, military officer, and so on. Loss of privacy means a gain in accountability. It means people have to start acting responsibly, finally.
Would your presence have prevented his death?
Holy crap, do you seriously not understand why a person would want to say goodbye to their parent before they passed away? I feel sorry for yours.
I don't care what people a hundred years ago expected. People a thousand years ago had no electricity and no plumbing, but I'll bet you'd be pretty pissed if someone intentionally blocked your sewer pipes up.
Remarkable, sir. This may be the closest thing to a defense of Bush that I've ever agreed with.
This is how it works, a simple reference chart.
http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2007/05/11
It would last forever, just like these rovers. As far as we know.
But Google keeps things simple and cheap
Google certainly has a history of keeping things simple. But cheap? Please point to the consumer devices Google has offered for sale at a low price. The only physical device I can think of with Google's logo on it is their yellow search appliance (do they still sell them?) and it sure as hell wasn't cheap.
[citation needed]
How can you tell the difference between "refusing" to add the option and simply having higher priorities? As a director of a development team, I can tell you, it can be awfully hard to do everything everyone could ever want. And everyone thinks you're snubbing them because their feature didn't make it to the top of the list...
Not saying Google hasn't refused, but if so, I would like to see some kind of communication from Google saying "No, we won't add this feature."
> If a single person agrees with the OCR in this case, we can mark the word as "read" with no further human confirmation
Wow, that seems like a major mistake if you're actually doing that. It's quite possible for a human to make a mistake on a word, for exactly the same reason the OCR makes a mistake. In fact, the most likely error for a human to make is the same one the OCR made. Which means you will be accepting as 'read' many errors simply because the human agreed.
Wow, even direct brain scans will be tough? I was about to go build a direct brain scanner in my back shed, but now it sounds like too much work.
Viking 1 lasted 2245 sols and lost contact with Earth when a bad command was sent which instructed Viking to point its antenna in a different direction (sort of like typing "shutdown -h now" on the command line of a remote server, there's no recovery short of a house-call).
Sounds like a good mission for one of the rovers. Go bump the bastard in the right direction.
Although I agree with you on balance (clearly virtual gambling is real gambling, and clearly virtual sex is not real sex), I think there are some tricky issues surrounding virtual prostitution to be considered, some of them the same issues that led society to criminalize it in the first place (whether correctly or incorrectly).
- Is it immoral? I am certainly no fan of morality-based law, but the question will come up.
- Are virtual sex workers opening themselves up to be victimized in the real world, e.g. by encouraging RL contact with their clients?
- Are virtual sex workers underage? The emotional attachments of virtual sex are certain to be even more confusing than those in the real world, if somewhat less palpable, and I don't see any reason why "age of consent" should not apply there. There is some realism threshhold beyond which virtual sex without consent could be emotionally traumatizing.
- Does the criminal element get involved? Second Life involves real money, so you have to watch out for real theft, real fraud and real confidence games.
I'm not saying all (or any) of these actually apply to Second Life's specific case, but all of them have to be considered before you dismiss virtual prostitution as harmless. (And just like real life, then you have to decide whether criminalizing it actually makes the problem worse.)
Now we finally know who's behind the campaign of deliberate misinformation that's being fed through FOX news.
Damn conservative hacker kids.
There's a larger point here--the person who takes advantage of the ability to easily yank your data off the web is always someone trying to find a new, better (or more audience-focused) way to present it. Maybe it's just a new stylesheet around your ugly table, or maybe it's a whole new end-user application building on your data feed. This increases the value of your data, but to address gp's point directly, this improves the presentation!
I agree, this rush to drugs to treat suicidal cells is just going to create a generation of drug-dependent artificially happy zombie cells,
Sounds like a joke, actually isn't. Cancer, which I think can very accurately be described as a collection of zombie cells, often deactivates the agents of apoptosis in order to function.
You've got me on one of those three.. I can send calendar invites from my work account (which is forward to Gmail) but for some reason they don't seem to work for outlook users. The reverse direction does work, and I add items to my calendar that originated in outlook, all the time.
I get reminders by SMS or, if I have calendar open, browser alert. (But usually it's SMS.)
This is one I could actually use, though. Find out who the prick is that took my chair out of my office using Google.
Serious question.. what do you use the desktop client for that you can't do online?
One argument I always hear when I ask that question is "So I can use it when I'm not online." But let's be serious, you're probably online almost all of the time when you have a computer handy. And now I have an additional argument.. my Google Calendar is probably more accessible than an offline laptop simply because it can SMS me alerts, and I can SMS events back to it.
I just don't see any reason to do the calendaring thing outside of a web browser, and I wonder why someone would.
I was the first one to download Sunbird 0.0.1alpha and try it out, and even use its integration with iCal resources. But it was crashy, and the features it had were flaky. I'm sure they've improved matters since then.
But I'm not gonna use it now, because I've found Google Calendar. SMS support alone is worth the switch. It also has contacts integration so I can invite people to meetings from my contact list, and it has an upsell story: You can run Google Apps for Domains and get the PIM/Groupware features people rely on from Exchange, but managed and cheaper.