Before you even think of going to college you need to go to elementary, my dear Watson.
I was just wondering: aside from more general laws against inciting to actual violence, what are the repercussions against lawyers for taking intentional actions to incite unlawful behavior, especially for the purpose of business?
Surely practitioners of the law have an ethical obligation, if not a legal one, to NOT incite unlawful behavior. Whether inciting others to do something unlawful so that they can represent them, or inciting an unlawful act against themselves (such as assault, vandalism or restriction of freedoms,) the point is the same.
It seems like this ought to be grounds for disbarment, at the very least. I don't know how much disbarment would affect them since they could represent themselves regardless of their actual licensed status, but any step towards shutting their twisted business model down would be a good thing as I see it.
I second this, very much. "Community, not commodity" is a wonderfully concise way of looking at it.
Many of us are tired of being gone over with a fine-toothed comb any time we venture online or in public. We submit when we feel we have to, for the purposes of maintaining contact with distant family members, or accessing information that is required for our jobs, or when we are forced to use goverment-"secured" means of travel.
The reason we come HERE, rather than going to some other site, is to get away from all the PII-tracking, big corporation, big brother insanity that is going on out there. We don't WANT integration to Facebook. We don't want to tweet our comments. We don't want job offers that are "relevent" to the things we say or look at, whether here or elsewhere on the internet. We don't want to sign in with our real names. We just want to come here and be left in peace to discuss things with each other, as we always have.
Granted, Slashdot is noisy, ridiculous, and slow sometimes. But this is how we've made it. We know each other and we recognize outsiders. We have our own memes and we have our own values. We don't want changes. Just keep the site up and leave us be, and we'll stay. Try to take over and remake the place, and we'll likely be forced to leave.
It was hard enough seeing Rob leave, but I understand his decision and totally support him in it. After 13+ years of being here, I decided that I would keep on here as long as I could to keep the community alive. I don't want to say goodbye, but at such time as there's no community left, there will be no more reason for me to stay.
TSA: What Color is your Shirt
Man 1: Blue...no, Yellow!
TSA: (Flips a switch)
Man 1: AAAaaaggghhhh!!!.... (flies off bridge)
I'm very happy for you, Rob, and wish you the very best in your future endeavors. Try not to give in to the siren call of wanting to work on another "small project." Enjoy your family time! That's stuff that matters!
P.S. It's been great seeing all the old farts chiming in here. It's like an old-timey convention. I wish they could have put the original UI back for slashdot for this story.
yesterday we read about Akamai, apparently origin of 15-30% of the web traffic. Google's service seems to be similar to Akamai's offering, but free of cost.
Tomorrow Akamai, the day after tomorrow the world?
My thoughts exactly. Akamai will be pretty threatened by this, but I'm not sure what they can do about it other than offer superior service.
I wonder if Google will try to buy them out, though -- Akamai has lost about half of its stock value over the past three quarters for some reason.
Such a move would definitely cause alarm, though. I personally would not feel comfortable concentrating so much of the internet in one company. Single points of failure are bad.
ISS doesn't deserve a romantic end.
Oh, but it will have one, provided the tyrannosaurs are ready by then.
While I have no wish to demean their efforts, this approach still seems somewhat brutal to me. I'm no neurologist, but isn't this still a rather macro-level view of things, with the cutting process still causing damage to the fine structures they want to study?
It seems likely to me that future scientists will look back at this in not too long with stifled laugher and perhaps a little shock at the approach.
I learnt English on the internet and programming. Now I'm programming at a bank.
I read that and my inner monologue immediately thought, "Now I'm on a horse."
Yeah, they've only focused on the "fun stuff." Or rather, it sounds more like their purpose was "Facebook's so annoying to use. Let's make one that works like we want!" without really caring about the backend stuff. Maybe they assume that the "open source community" will do all the backend stuff for them -- even though they're the ones getting paid?
Or possibly, that they are smart enough to recognize that having "something" to show possible investors (and more importantly, current investors) is worth a great deal more than a framework that can't be demonstrated.
Don't get me wrong -- I really, *really* hope that the security model gets implemented well in Diaspora, and they don't get destracted by "ooh, shiny!" syndrome. But expecting them to go to folks who have given them money -- people who likely know even less about security than these college students -- and say, "This mystery code will work, it's really better, we just can't demonstrate it," is unreasonable.
Prototype first, then refine. Bugs happen, just fix them and move on. It looks like they're on their way to me. If you (or others) think you can fix these bugs or fundamental flaws in their security model, talk to them. You might just find yourself a job at a potentially big startup.
I'd have modded you up, had you not posted AC. That was a perfectly applicable reference! For those not familiar, here is a quick explanation:
A peltier gets cold on one side and hot on the other. Where are you going to put the hot side, since you're trying to put the thing in the middle of a block of silicon?
Easy -- just put two peltiers together, hot sides facing each other. Problem solved!
That's one small museum dedicated entirely to bad art that relatively few people know about. It in no way reflects the cultural attitude towards art preservation.
Yes, you're absolutely right. But I thought it was important to note the effort to document the "bad" art, however small.
Negative examples are powerful, whether they be in art, history, programming, or any other branch of human endeavor or record keeping. If we "forget it and remember the stuff worth remembering", then we are doomed to repeat it.
But we don't put terrible paintings in museums (modern art notwithstanding) to "gives context to the goodness". We forget it and remember the stuff worth remembering.
Actually, we do.
And it does indeed "give context to the goodness." By seeing negative examples, we can better appreciate what it is about "good" art that we enjoy. Plus, it gives one the chance to wince, laugh and point at an art exhibit, without feeling like you're breaking social rules. It's quite refreshing, and the art truly is terrible.*
* Not as terrible as Boxbot though. (Inside joke for fans of Gunnerkrigg Court)