|
|
This move isn't going to get me to use G+ any more, either, Google.
Are you sure about that?.
I suppose the moral of this story is it doesn't really matter if you use G+ or not; Google, through some sneaky machinations, still are doing everything they can to artificially inflate the number of "users".
I'd like to see a page about me that says, "Here's the information you've provided, and here's the information we're inferring from what we know about you."
Go to your account settings and choose to download your expanded archive. (You can also download an abbreviated version.) If you just click on "settings" it's at the bottom of the "General" settings, which is the default page - nice and easy to find.
Be aware it takes quite some time to collect all the info for the expanded archive - they tell you to continue browsing and they'll email you when it's done. Have fun seeing your account history. I'm quite sure it won't show what they're inferring, but then neither will Google's data access.
28 gun deaths per day is a steep price for our society's inability to distinguish between anecdotes and statistics.
28 gun deaths per day is a cheap price for our society's continued freedom from government tyranny. That's what the second amendment is about. Not self defense, not hunting, not skeet shooting. Protection from tyranny. It's a recognized right for the people to possess the means to revolt should they choose.
This is possibly one of the saddest comments I have ever read in my 14, 15, whatever it's been, years on Slashdot.
Forget the politics. Forget the anger. Forget the "rah-rah-rah" of the NRA or second amendment. For purposes of this, I don't even care about the second amendment.
28 gun deaths per day is a cheap price for... whatever comes next is meaningless.
I think you have lost a sense of proportion. I think you have been horribly desensitized, or perhaps you just make these comments ad hoc without actually having the maturity and strength to think what your words actually mean in the real, physical world. Please, just think about 28 people in your office being killed today.
And another 28 tomorrow.
Look at the people walking by you. This isn't abstract, these are real lives that you dismiss in such a cavalier manner.
Ten thousand people by the time we reach New Year's day 2014.
Twenty thousand people in the next two years.
More than a hundred thousand people in the next decade.
And one of the most depressing parts is you're an Anonymous Coward and probably won't even see this comment, and most likely won't think of these real lives that you so cheaply throw away for even a second.
If you believe so strongly that this is worth it and the second amendment means what you say it means, sign up for the national guard and put yourself at the lethal end of someone else's gun.
May God protect you that none of the ten thousand people who will be murdered in 2013 is someone you know.
No kidding. I started off with the "standout items" list.
Number 1 - gigantic tablet. Nothing standout or breakthrough, just quite large version of existing stuff, vague assertions that "it might be sort of useful in the enterprise?". They couldn't even think why it might be useful.
Number 2 - LG has lots of cool television enhancements on the way such as improved interfaces and voice command response. But they didn't show that. Just a rather big screen that's too expensive for anyone to buy.
Number 3 - a little hovering thing. Nothing new, nothing improved, except it's got extended battery life.
I gave up at this point.
I have to agree with this. My company is not very big - less than 1000 FTEs - but we have a ton of PhD staff. There are six other companies in the U.S. who do what we do and every one of them also has a bunch of doctorates. If you came to us with a PhD, it'd be a definite bonus, rather than making us nervous.
Why the difference? No, we're not a software company like those mentioned by robbo, but we are nonetheless highly technical (in the EE field, as it happens) and value people with expertise in technical fields. EE primarily, but also computer science and math, as well as other disciplines.
I'd be looking at companies that have a technical discipline as their core business in some form.
This move seems totally contrary to Google's corporate ethos thus far
I have to beg to differ; it may go against what they've said (and I've been exercising my sarcasm rights over the whole "don't be evil" thing for years, and catching much grief for it here on Slashdot), but their actions have been putting the lie to that mantra for a long time. It's just getting more obvious and harder for their fans to defend.
I didn't see this (There's no avoiding Google+) reported on Slashdot, but I may have missed it. (Or maybe nobody thought it was particularly interesting.) Wall Street Journal talks about how Google+ has been a non-starter so far, so now Google are wielding their might and forcing people to sign up for Google+ accounts as they use other Google services. Create a GMail, YouTube, Zagat review, etc., account - automatically get a public by default Google+ page.
I've posted several times on Slashdot about how and why I use Yahoo Mail, Yahoo search, MapQuest or Bing maps, etc. Part of it is convenience and preference - I like Yahoo Mail and have had the same account for, oh, 15 years or so now - but another major part of it is because I don't trust Google. And I'm increasingly glad that I have almost ceased using Google for the last two or three years.
I assume, then, that you have no interest or passion in your life that revolves around anything someone else may see as pointless or a time waster. Most hobbies or leisure activities are not that interesting to a vast majority of the public, and they wouldn't understand your frustration if something you enjoyed disappeared with little warning.
World of Warcraft? I've never played it, so I don't care if it goes away. But other people surely would, and I don't begrudge them their enjoyment. Or any other MMORPG, for that matter.
I like model trains, Dostoevsky and Tolstoy, windsurfing, and lots of other things. Most of those interests are not that valuable in the grand scheme of things. So what? They're hobbies.
Or, as girlintraining puts it, you're a heartless bastard.
Linus may rule by the cult of personality
I do not think you've been paying attention otherwise you'd see how ridiculous that statement is. How many of us could even recognise him on sight? We've got more chance with a B grade actor.
I do not think you understand what it means to rule by the cult of personality. In the geek world, everyone knows who Linus is. He is revered, held up as an icon, almost worshipped. People ask, "what would Linus do?" His personal story (where he grew up, where he lives, his career moves) is known in detail by thousands of geeks. Just because you don't know what he looks like does not preclude a cult of personality. How many people actually know what Charles Manson looks like? Or L. Ron Hubbard?
It's not considered acceptable in the wider world; most people barely know who he is and certainly don't know about these childish tantrums.
Slashdotters seem to be falling over themselves to make excuses for him. Imagine if this report was of Steve Ballmer shouting and yelling at a Windows developer.
There are many posts on this thread stating this is how you get quality software. No, it isn't; it's how you alienate volunteers. The way you get quality software is by being a grown-up:
That's the culture: the on-board shuttle group produces grown-up software, and the way they do it is by being grown-ups. It may not be sexy, it may not be a coding ego-trip -- but it is the future of software. When you're ready to take the next step -- when you have to write perfect software instead of software that's just good enough -- then it's time to grow up.
This is how the software that controls the space shuttle gets done. Linus may rule by the cult of personality, but it's not a particularly good way to ensure provably correct software in a situation where it simply MUST work.
What's going on here is the kind of nuts-and-bolts work that defines the drive for group perfection -- a drive that is aggressively intolerant of ego-driven hotshots. In the shuttle group's culture, there are no superstar programmers. The whole approach to developing software is intentionally designed not to rely on any particular person.
I'm not familiar with that trip, but it has to be some kind of an edge condition. Out of interest I looked it up on Amtrak's site and it's two trains. (Does Amtrak even operate in Canada?)
Nevertheless, for the trips I take, Amtrak is much faster and far more enjoyable. I take the train when I'm going from Philadelphia to New York, Washington DC, or occasionally Boston.
* By the time I've fought with traffic around NYC, or made the detour, or fought with traffic around DC, the train has already arrived.
* Oh, hey, I'm on the train - I don't have to fight with traffic. That's a win in my book.
* And I'm not driving. I can do work on my laptop, read a book, or snooze.
I like trains. Amtrak is more expensive than the local services, but I get a guaranteed seat instead of having to stand the whole way.
If it's "stealing" why isn't anyone charged with theft? They're charged with copyright infringement. Doesn't that tell you that it's copying not stealing?
Who on earth cares? The point is it's illegal and wrong. Does it matter what you call it, or do mere definitions and semantics make something better or worse?
"You just stole money from me! You're a thief!"
"Why, no, I merely changed some digital indicators to increase an arbitrary number called a 'balance' in my electronic bank records and effect a corresponding decrease on the same data cell in your electronic bank records."
"Oh, well, that's all right then. Now I feel ever so much happier."
I hope your faux moral superiority comforts you at night when your children are sentenced to served time in a debtor's prison.
You're talking about people who choose not to take/steal things based on principle, even when it's trivially easy and "everyone's doing it". You are, moreover, taking the side of those who claim it's their right to do the opposite and acquire music, movies, and software, even when it's illegal, because of some theorized "digital rights", or because of a vague claim of "information wants to be free", or because "it benefits everyone in the end".
And you have the audacity to sneer at your opponents for "faux moral superiority" (while posting as an anonymous coward). How pathetic.
You can keep calling it "stealing" if you wish, but that talking point has been debunked to death.
Perhaps in your mind. I'll grant that it's been debated to death, and - surprise! - those who like to take stuff for free to which they are not entitled will proclaim loudly that it's NOT STEALING.
At most, you can claim a victory of semantics. Of intent? Nowhere close.
I'll let others do the usual list of reasons why pirating is better for all mankind
Excepting those who don't get paid for their hard efforts.
and just point out that the digital rights referred to may be the access to resources on the internet (TPB)
Access all the resources you like, so long as it's not focused, even if "only" partially, on something illegal.
being allowed to host a proxy (as they had doe)
Nothing wrong there, host all the proxies you like, so long as it's not focused on something illegal.
or redirect (as some others do).
Redirect to your heart's content, so long as you're not focusing on something illegal. Wait, am I repeating myself?
It's not about digital rights. All the so-called "rights" you list are not at risk.
And despite the raving spewing forth, doing illegal stuff is also not at risk.
If you're really serious about digital rights and so forth, learn some marketing and put forth a proposal as to how business models should evolve. Back it up with numbers and hard data (not just "if only everyone did this, then such-and-such would work" or "me and my friends would support this, go on, give it a try"). The cop-out I see all the time on Slashdot is "business models need to evolve". So suggest this magical evolutionary path, then. If you can come up with a realistic and feasible roadmap, you'll make a lot of money. Otherwise you're just taking stuff because you can and because you're too damn cheap to pay.
Everything else is sophistry, and the reality is that no matter how much business models evolve they will most likely be a losing proposition regardless because people like being able to get stuff for free with low risk of getting caught breaking the law.
"Digital rights"? Please...what about the right to produce something, choose a business model that says "I want to be paid for this artifact up front, not when or if you feel like it", and bear the consequences of people rejecting your chosen business model by NOT BUYING YOUR PRODUCT and doing without it rather than just taking it?
When in panic, fear and doubt, Drink in barrels, eat, and shout.