You know what they say: "The plural of Anecdote is not Data".
Wouldn't that be "the plural of anecdote are not data"?
(I see you capitalised it, are you be referring to this Data)
No, it and of itself won't be meaningful. That's the crowdsource bit.
None of us are as dumb as all of us.
Trying to crowd source weather prediction will only result in wildly inaccurate predictions. Many smartphone users work in a climate controlled office... travel there in a climate controlled car from their climate controlled home. So the 5-10 minutes they spend outside wont provide enough data especially if it doesn't have accurate location and elevation data.
So actual meteorologists will continue to be more reliable than this crowdsoruced application.
Well put. As long as we insist that the most viable metrics are economic, things won't improve. Quality can be shaved, paychecks can be squeezed, headcounts can be reduced, pollution can be diluted, teachers can be dissed... all introduce hidden costs.
The only great teachers I had that stuck with their crappy paychecks were second incomes into households (a working spouse), retired military (so they also had a pension), and a couple of magnificent lunatics that knew they were getting screwed but cared too much about teaching to step away. Kudos to every one of them, but like that bad 'Karma' remark by Microsoft CEO Nadella, they deserve better.
Just FYI, the rule against illegal cartoons exists in the USA too. The Supreme Court struck down attempts to use CP laws in this way as being obvious nonsense, so Congress just went ahead and amended the law to make it explicitly illegal as opposed to implicitly illegal.
I do not believe this is true. I was aware of the SCOTUS decision but I've not even heard of this statute. Can you provide a reference?
No, I don't think so. According to Wikipedia, UK child porn laws only ban indecent images of children under 18, where "image" can apparently be a drawing, as well as a photo.
It should probably be pointed out that this is the primary difference between UK and US in this regard.
Some years back -- maybe 6 or 8 years ago, I guessing, I don't really remember -- they U.S. Supreme Court ruled that for something to be "child pornography" it had to be recordings of real children (i.e., picture or video) and it had to be real pornography.
Now, IANAL either, but I believe States can regulate something like that as "obscene" material, but not child pornography. And they would risk the state law getting overturned by SCOTUS again.
McDonald's did it's motion efficiency studies decades and decades ago, and hasn't kept up the work.
You can say the same thing about Microsoft. If they were still doing human-interface-efficiency work, they wouldn't have tried to make a "flat" interface. (Or for that matter, copied by so many others.) "Flat" is nothing more than a fad, and a destructive one; it throws away valuable feedback cues.
Anyway, the main point I wanted to make is that Haseltine is wrong about at least one thing. Not in principle, but in practice:
So the total amount of labor is always going to be the same, for a fixed number of ice bags.
This isn't a "wrong" statement, it's just irrelevant. What you have to consider, when you move the lines faster, is not the total amount of labor, but the amount of labor per time.
If the line moves 4 times faster, for 1/4 the time, then you need 4 times the laborers... for 1/4 the time. You don't get to multiply people the same way you can speed.
Google isn't modifying their search results.
Yes, they are. According to OP, they'll be putting what THEY deem to be "legitimate" sites at the top. And asking for pay to be listed as "legitimate".
If that isn't "modifying search results" for money, I don't know what is.
Google just found a new way to be evil.
Hmmm, a spaceship full of horny Chinese women. (jumping up and down in the back row) Oh! Pick me pick me...
The problem is that right behind you will be a second, larger spaceship full of Chinese mothers judging you and Chinese fathers disproving of you.
Yeah, my first thought was "one queue for tokens and another location for pickup using the single-queue-to-multiple-registers". This blog post was more along the lines of, "durr, me like ice, get now" than an actual "algorithm."
There should be two lines. One line for people who can queue like the British and one line for everyone else.
Snipers will pick out anyone who queues in to the British line and cant queue like the British.
One supermarket chain around Albany, NY tried implementing the single line system about a year ago. It only lasted a few months before they reverted.
At least at the grocery store, people disliked feeling corralled like cattle more than they dislike waiting slightly longer in a less efficient line. Might have been the way it was implemented, honestly. It had a rather frenetic feel to it, with the line “leader” guiding people to one of the actual registers with quite a bit of urgency and insistence. I’d guess there was probably some misguided, management-imposed, career-limiting metric system associated with the process such that the employee ultimately paid the price if customers dawdled and brought the throughput numbers down. That translated to a rather jarring mood to the whole thing.
Some stores have implemented this in several stores in Australia, one line served by a dozen checkouts and it actually is faster. The biggest issue is that they have more room to line the area with impulse items (not an issue for me as I can ignore impulse items, but I understand the point).
Airport check-in does it as well for the same reason. When you're processing 2-500 people which can take 5 to 15 minutes a piece (Oh dear god, she's fumbling through her 16 suitcases for her passport) having a longer line serviced by multiple people is faster and more efficient. However the lines tend to need a little bit of management, but it stops people from jumping from line to line and eliminates confusion. My only issue is with slow pokes... but I just overtake them when they take too long picking up their bags and moving forward.
However this isn't the right approach for a drinks line (who lines up for ice?), it's the opposite of a checkout or airport check in where the transaction is expected to take several minutes. With a drinks line you want people to get in and out as fast as possible, the best way to do this is to have multiple satellite stations rather than one main station to distribute the load but this is difficult and expensive.
So, I see this as rationalization.
The fact is, you took a leadership position, and later turned your coat for reasons that perhaps made sense to you. But they don't really make sense to anyone else. So, yes, everyone who supported you then is going to feel burned.
You also made yourself a paid voice that was often hostile to Free Software, all the way back to the SCO issue. Anyone could have told you that was bound to be a losing side and you would be forever tarred with their brush.
So nobody is going to believe you had any reason but cash, whatever rationalization you cook up after the fact. So, the bottom line is that you joined a list of people who we're never going to be able to trust or put the slightest amount of credibility in.
And ultimately it was for nothing. I've consistently tried to take the high road and it's led to a pretty good income, I would hazard a guess better than yours, not just being able to feel good about myself.
If you want to put yourself on the map, publish your own map.
