... even achieving transparency between departments is difficult. When I used to work there you should have seen what we went through to get code from other teams. In spite of the fact that the company rewards cross-group collaboration (which was the main reason we were doing it).
Exactly - don't poison your enemy, spy on his colon!
We would still need a ragtag band of misfits and renegades and a chainsmoking Russian refueling station attendant.
Exactly. In other news, 4 out of 5 IT people admit they'd like to be time-traveling superheroes and save the universe.
In 30 years as a software dev I don't think I've known more than a couple computer geeks who might have the guts to steal data, let alone the personality to locate a buyer, negotiate a price and actually follow through on the deal. Sure we've all seen Office Space and talked trash about what we'd like to do to a company, but at the moment of truth, no way. And managers tend to be even more gutless -- something tells me the survey results were heavily skewed by false bravado.
Apart from the joy of eccentricity I don't see any real advantage in only one copy of the game existing, as opposed to multiple copies each residing on its own USB stick. You'd have the same effect of a world passing from person to person, maintaining all the modifications made by previous players. Each copy would be unique. More people would get to participate.
You are in a maze of twisty passages, all alike.
Bing uses Hadoop? Wow, that's kind of funny. Reminds me of when Hotmail ran on Apache, which it still might be doing for all I know.
Any law is automatically an incentive for people not to admit breaking it. That's no rationale against making laws. The reason for any business regulation is that there's a tendency for business owners not to be altruistic unless there are tangible consequence hanging over their heads.
I sure hope you're not lumping local TV news into the category of "professional journalism." Local news is like a high school version of "real" news -- for example, the ubiquitous "Live Report!" in which a reporter goes out to a location where nothing is happening at the moment, and narrates a tape about something that happened earlier in the day. What a joke.
Pick almost any free-time activity people used to do before the Internet, and I'll bet they're doing less of it today, because free time is a finite resource. New alternatives always compete with older ones.
I agree, and I don't see how Microsoft can "kill"
"We may be slow but we're not stupid," is an interesting remark, considering that public stupidity is the major weapon in the battle of Greedy Bastards vs. Everybody Else. The small number of people who can't stand to live in the world unless they own it have been actively cultivating mass stupidity for years. Their arsenal includes kneejerk emotional responses, supersitious fear of science and academia, leadership cultism, and other ignorance-based aspects of human psychology. It's like a giant football team with a handful of quarterbacks standing safely behind millions of big dumb linemen who are willing to charge out and get their knees broken for the cause.
If we're going to save ourselves from disaster we had better start using the public's stupidity for the public good. Stop offering up facts and reason and switch to trite, mindless slogans and overblown imagery. People will respond much more to a scary picture of a boogeyman than to a reasonable explanation that there is no boogeyman. Instead of trying to explain climate change, draw a cartoon of a family and their dog huddled on the roof of a floating house. The American public has been conditioned to believe fear and stupidity, so I say give them fear and stupidity.
"But that makes you just as bad." No it doesn't. Using other people's stupidity to save them from disaster is much better than using it to screw them over.
The article mentions a 1994 law that removed works from the public domain, but doesn't name the law. I've been searching online but can find nothing about a copyright law change in the U.S. in 1994. How is this not a well-known thing? I would like to read about it and what was the rationale behind it. Retroactively removing material from the public domain, as was done en masse in the Bono Act, strikes me as the most sinister type of copyright legislation.