Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Global Alias = Win/Win (Score 1) 432

by jtpalinmajere (#32853156) Attached to: Blizzard Backs Down On Real Names For Forums
All they really need to do is implement a mandatory Alias with your Battle.net profile to be displayed in lieu of your real name. You still get recognized as the person that plays X and Y character in game A and B, just without using your real name. It doesn't really help with the whole accountability thing (neither do using real names) as determined trolls will always be lurking about.

I'd be even happier to see them implement controls for explicit authorization to share your real name, akin to one's email, phone, or address, to specific individuals/groups of friends, but simply using a global alias would suffice in the short term.

Comment: Re:Deficit reduction! (Score 2, Insightful) 510

by authority69 (#32498632) Attached to: RIAA Says LimeWire Owes $1.5 Trillion

If a company is "Too Big To Fail(TM)" they probably got to that point by exploiting existing regulation and/or politicians. I would rather see failing companies fail so the resources they have can be reallocated to more worthwhile uses. If you try to regulate away the natural consequences for stupid and risky behavior, you encourage more stupid and risky behavior, and it's necessary descendant, failure. "Failure" is not a bad word. Failure is life. Failure is necessary. Without some means of saying "this is bad", we will waste limited resources on endless streams of bad ideas.

And remember, your and my idea of "Good" and "Bad" may not be shared with the rest of the market in general. Put your ideas out there, let the market decide. If the market says bad, move on.

Comment: Re:Wise or not, what choice do they really have? (Score 1) 346

by authority69 (#30826700) Attached to: Why Firefox's Future Lies In Google's Hands

Then how am I supposed to make a rational decision about my line of work? All compensation for all positions for all companies should be freely available, so I know that if I sign on as a developer with shop A I'm getting a worse deal than if I signed on with shop B.

Companies advertise how much they want to pay for particular jobs all the time. Just go look at any job hunting website or newspaper. You can also reference industry surveys that may give you a suggestion as to the value of a particular skill set. But in the end, you earn what you earn, I earn what I earn, presumably based on merit.

If we have the same job and you do better than me, you should earn more than me. If I do better than you, I should earn more than you. If one company values your work more than another company and wants to pay you more, go work for that company. If no one is paying you what you want to earn, maybe your need to re-evaluate what your skills are worth. And if you can convince someone to pay you a million dollars to push some papers around on your desk while your surf the internet and do nothing, good for you. It's none of my business and I congratulate you on your accomplishment.

So what does your compensation have to do with mine or anyone else's? And what does that have to do with your career decisions? If you want to choose a job simply based on pay scale, that's fine, go ahead. But when you lose that job because you suck at it, please don't come whining to the rest of us. Perhaps instead you should choose a job that both fits your skills *and* pays something reasonable. And if you can't find such a job, tough luck. Improve your skills, get new skills, find a new job market, become an entrepreneur, whatever. Just because someone is good at checkers and wants to make $150k a year, doesn't mean such a job has to exist to satisfy them. And if someone does find a job paying $150k for playing checkers, great, let them. Why should anyone stop them? Someone apparently thinks that's worth $150k. The fact that anyone other than their employer may not agree amounts to jack squat.

Frankly, you just need to worry about yourself and how much you're getting paid. Worrying about how much other people get paid is a waste of time and leads to immature whining on the Internet.

All compensation for all positions for all companies should be freely available, so I know that if I sign on as a developer with shop A I'm getting a worse deal than if I signed on with shop B.

Quit being lazy. If you're not going to do the work to find the best jobs, why should you get the best jobs?

I should also be able to see exactly how many zeroes there are in every executive's paycheck, bonuses and stock options so I can make an informed decision about whether or not to invest in a given company.

You already can. Publicly traded companies publish such things publicly. Privately held companies have no obligation to do so, but money is a great motivator. If you want to see and they don't want to show you, don't give them your money. If such a private company really wants your investment, just ask, maybe they'll show you to get your money.

No real loss, except for the opportunity cost of all that extra money going into improving the CEO's bankroll instead of into improving the company.

And what's the opportunity cost of losing said CEO to your competitor?

Comment: Re: Reputation (Score 1) 3709

by authority69 (#25643927) Attached to: Barack Obama Wins US Presidency

We need to talk, discuss, and use diplomacy instead of force.

Not "instead of force", rather before force. When diplomacy fails, use force. Which has been the policy of the Bush Administration whether you are willing to accept it or not.
Force can never be taken off the table, as unpleasant as it is. If you can't back up your words with anything meaningful, your words are meaningless. Economic sanctions and other means of non-violent coercion only go so far with irrational people.

Comment: It's only yours if you never give it away... (Score 1) 110

by jtpalinmajere (#21928460) Attached to: Who Owns Your Social Data? You Do, Sort of
The concept of "owning" any kind of information once you've given it out is certifiably insane. You might be the creator, but bottom line is once you've given it away (i.e. storing it with something you have little to no control over) the best you can be to that little tidbit of data is a viewer, maintainer, or, if you're very lucky, administrator.

I think most people simply have a problem of mapping physical things (where there's a relatively easy means to establish ownership) to meta-physical things. If I give you one of my cookies, it's yours to do with as you please. The same holds true if I give you my name, address, phone, birthday, etc. You could make your own copies in your own places, or hand that information out, or even modify your versions of that information. It doesn't matter how many instances of that information exist in other people's hands, the only instance that I control is the one in my own hands.

Here's an example of what I'm talking about. I give some website credit card information about me that is stored in my user profile. A few weeks later I cancel that credit card and am issued a new one with a new number. Now last time I checked, credit card companies don't ask you, "Would you like to change all your user profiles everywhere to reflect the canceled status of your old number?" The profiles that have that old credit card number will still have that same old credit card number until you or someone else who has access to that profile goes in and modifies it. Consider this: Sites aren't required to allow you to modify that bit of information. They're not even obligated to allow you to see it again if they didn't want to. In essence, once you gave them that information, they owned that *instance* of information. That information may not have any worth attributed to it, but they do own it. Bottom line, being able to access (in any way) the information you've given to a 3rd party is strictly a privilege granted by that 3rd party should they be so inclined.

Obviously many places that have even an ounce of credibility to their name go through the process of defining terms and conditions of the data they collect and how it can be used. However, even with terms and conditions agreements, it boils down to the trust one can put into a recipient vs. the intrinsic value of the having information to be provided. So everyone out there saying that "their" information has just as many rights to privacy as "they" do should just check themselves into a loony bin for thinking they have any control over something they willingly gave away (regardless of price or even "agreements").

Most security buffs will tell you that if you really value your milk and cookies, then don't hand them out.

"Those who will be able to conquer software will be able to conquer the world." -- Tadahiro Sekimoto, president, NEC Corp.

Working...