Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?

Comment Probably bullshit (Score 2) 325

I don't feel like reading the whole thing, but I have a strong suspicion that the thing is bullshit. I'll admit I don't really know, but I wouldn't trust what I was told about this unless I saw it for myself over an extended period of time, but I've worked with/in/for a lot of different companies and groups, nonprofits and businesses, and I've seen a few try various schemes to do away with "managers" and "hierarchy". At least in my experience so far, it doesn't work.

You might think that the problem is that the system breaks down and becomes chaotic, that without guidance, workers will allocate resources badly. But that's not quite the problem that I've seen. The problem is more that some kind of hierarchy always forms. In the end, someone takes the role of "the boss" and people still do what the boss says. The boss may be making speeches about how he's not "the boss", but he's your friend. He says he'll listen to you, he'll take your input and criticisms seriously, and you shouldn't feel like this is a hierarchy. He may spend quite a long time talking about the benefits of not having a "boss" or a "hierarchy", and how it continues to work out so well for your company, but when push comes to shove, he'll make a unilateral decision and expect you to go along with it. And he'll also have some people that he likes more than others-- whether for personal or professional reasons-- and those people will be able to tell other people what to do, too. They'll be the de facto middle-management.

So it really becomes an issue of terminology rather than organization. There's no "hierarchy", but some people are more important and influential than others. There are not "managers", but you'll find yourself answering to one or more of those "more influential" people. The change in terminology creates a lot of feel-goodery for the management team, but in the best cases, it's just a hierarchy by other names. Unfortunately, the informality of the hierarchy tends to lead towards cronyism rather than egalitarianism.

Comment Re:wrong premise? (Score 1) 281

I don't think it's quite that. It's more like, "adding manpower to a project will not necessarily speed it up." The famous example is "9 women can't make a baby in 1 month."

Adding manpower may help a project get done faster. It may make it take longer. It may make no real difference. It depends. It seems like what's being discussed here is that someone thinks they have disproved the concept, when really they just found one specialized situation where "it depends".

Comment Re:Rule #1 (Score 2) 281

Getting equity in a project that doesn't get off the ground will sill end up with you working for nothing. It's not really "working my ass off for others' benefit", but "working my ass off for no one's benefit". I'm not sure that's much better.

It's a gamble either way, but sometimes I'd rather get a salary than equity.

Comment Re:The movie was good because the book was short. (Score 2) 240

I liked the movie a lot, and I was surprised about how almost everything in the book made it into the movie.

Sort of. They still skipped out a lot of the description of what he's doing and why, which I thought was some of the best parts of the books. For example, there wasn't much description of how he calculated how much water he needed, why he was mixing poop in with the soil, or what he was modifying in the rover. I can understand why they did it-- it would be potentially boring and confusing to an audience who didn't understand the science. Still, I felt like there could have been a little more of him describing what's going on in his journals.

Comment Re:Break The NDA (Score 1) 366

The key here is that Apple shouldn't have the power to arbitrarily disappear an app (which may constitute speech)

First amendment protections only extend to protections against the government-- not actions by private entities. Your "freedom of speech" does not include any requirement on me to provide you with a platform to make that speech.

Consider, next time it may well be a negative review that gets someone's apps yanked. Or an allegation of wrongdoing.

Yes, actually, there are various kinds of wrongdoing that can get your app pulled. Violating the terms of the agreement you have with Apple is just one of many things, including if your app includes pornography or hate speech, or any number of other things. Ultimately, you're talking about a store that Apple is running, and they have the freedom to pull products from their shelves. Could you imagine the alternative in a brick-and-mortar situation? You own a store, and you just have to stock your shelves with anyone who wants to sell their products at your stores, regardless of whether you find their product objectionable, dangerous, or misleading, and regardless of whether those vendors honor their agreements with you?

Comment Re:Break The NDA (Score 1) 366

If Apple really believes they have been materially harmed by the disclosure, they should (and would have) sued iFixit and would have already requested an injunction requiring iFixit to withdraw it's app from Apple and Google.

So you want Apple to sue iFixit in order to get them to submit an application back to Apple to have Apple remove the app from Apple's own store. As a response for violating Apple's developer's program, which already includes terms that Apple can pull apps from the store for violating the agreement.

And let's not make any mistake here-- iFixit agreed to an NDA and then broke it-- not just the letter of it, but the spirit of it. Regardless of what you think the penalty should be, it's unambiguous that iFixit was in the wrong here.

What else would you suggest I call it when one group declares itself to be judge, jury, and executioner (so to speak)?

When the "execution" is the enforcement of a pre-existing legal agreement, I'm not sure I'd call it anything. Maybe "standard business practices"? Like if I rented an apartment from you and then I never paid any rent and you responded with eviction proceedings, as specified by the lease and the requirements of the jurisdiction, what would you call that? Perhaps, "an appropriate and predictable response"? Or "exactly the outcome you would expect"?

Comment Re:Break The NDA (Score 1) 366

If they would like to give it a try, they could seek a court order to take down the iFixit app on the basis of an NDA violation.

So you want them to go to court against themselves to get themselves to stop selling something in their own store.

But them doing it on their own vs based on a court order is the difference between due process and vigilante justice.

Really? Are you really going to go with "vigilante justice"?

Comment Re:Break The NDA (Score 1) 366

Ok, so abstractly you agree that there are circumstances where Apple should remove content, where neither users are being harmed or the Apps are engaging in criminal activity. They're allowed to take down material that is involved in some kind of civil legal dispute. Like if someone is violating licensing terms. Or maybe contractual terms. Or... maybe violating an NDA?

Comment Re:Break The NDA (Score 1) 366

So by that argument, any terms that Apple has for placing apps in their app store (other than those barring criminal or user-harming behavior) are inherently unethical. I think that's debatable, especially depending on your definitions of "criminal behavior" or "user-harming behavior". For example, iFixit broke their legal agreement with Apple: is that "criminal" behavior? You could say that, no, it's not, because it's a civil dispute and not technically "criminal". On the other hand, copyright, trademark, and patent disputes are generally civil disputes, so can Apple remove content where the intellectual property ownership is in dispute?

Comment Re:It's all clouds (Score 1) 94

To be honest, securing email is not that hard, unless you want to "manually" set up a structure to check messages for weird stuff.

It's not that complicated, but it's complicated enough that I've seen plenty of people mess it up. And no, it's not just "checking messages for weird stuff". If you think that's all that's involved, then you don't know enough to run a mail server.

Do you know what SSL certificates are, or how to set one up? Do you know how to set up your firewall to allow only the appropriate ports to the Exchange server, and which ports need to be allowed? Do you understand the security implications of allowing incoming traffic to your network? Do you need to set up multiple Exchange servers with different roles, and do you know what the security implications of that would be? Do you know what MX servers are, and how to set it up so that you don't lose incoming email during a server outage? Do you know how to do a proper backup/restore of your Exchange environment, and how to secure those backups both from breach and loss? Do you know if your email system currently has any unpatched vulnerabilities? Do you have a way of mitigating those vulnerabilities? Do you have a good regimen for installing updates and patches, including testing to prevent unforeseen downtime?

Security isn't just about protecting yourself from malicious email.

You can "outsource" an email hygiene service, to handle the inbound of your email, clean it, and deliver it to your own server

Whoa there. I thought we just established that you're unwilling to trust an outside vendor with your email, and now you're planning on routing all of your email through an outside vendor? If I were paranoid enough about my email to refuse to use a hosted provider, I don't think I'd be willing to use a hosted spam filtering service.

Comment Re:We'll see what Microsoft has planned (Score 1) 94

One thing about Microsoft these days is their relentless push to stop you using their software on-premises, or at least out of their control.

I don't think Microsoft is driving that trend. People want it. Microsoft has actually been slow to respond, because I think they'd actually prefer that you keep running their servers onsite. My sense is that their push toward "the cloud" is actually an attempt to prevent other cloud providers from drinking their milkshake, and in fact they've been too slow to react.

"Of course power tools and alcohol don't mix. Everyone knows power tools aren't soluble in alcohol..." -- Crazy Nigel