"Suppose a stadium is holding an event; knowing how much traffic is making its way toward the arena might help the venue change its parking lot resources accordingly, he said."
Suppose you wanted to cut some carrots, but they were really thick. Wouldn't it be nice to keep a raised guillotine in your house for such occasions?
"This leads to all sorts of peculiarities like less experienced, new starters being paid more than old hands."
Which probably leads to the old hands leaving, disgruntled, which leads to wasting money hiring and training new people and losing the knowledge of the old ones. Maybe not such a great strategy after all?
No, this IM shows that deep down, Zuckerberg _does_ care about privacy, and that he thinks other people should too. He disparages people for giving up that privacy.
Um... what? If this exchange is genuine (the source is extremely vague), it shows that, yes, he probably values his own privacy, but not anyone else's. If he thought "other people should too," he would be campaigning to inform people about privacy concerns, not actively destroying their privacy for his own benefit.
If you're a burglar, you'll probably make fun of people for their weak home security. You don't want your house broken into, but you sure don't want everybody else getting smart. This hardly shows that you "care."
"Web sites should pay us to reach our customers" is the maybe the dumbest thing I've heard from ISPs. Hello? Your customers are paying you to reach web sites.
Forget double-dipping; this is about biting the hand that feeds you. Without those web sites, an ISP literally has nothing to offer. "We offer you a high-speed connection to"... to what, exactly?
That's right. Youtube. And all the other sites you claim are victimizing you by flooding your bandwidth. As if that weren't exactly why your bandwidth exists and can be sold.
I don't want government censorship, so I'm uneasy about regulation. But seriously, ISPs shouldn't be allowed to even try some of the garbage they want to do.
Or you could decide to be a hardware maker instead of a software maker. Don't customize Android, but use the free OS and spend more money making awesome, solid, fast hardware with great signal quality, etc.
Maybe it doesn't differentiate you much, but it wouldn't be a bad reputation to have, either. "Makes a really solid Android phone and doesn't muck with how the OS works."
Well, I dumbed Ubunto and went to Fedora, dumped Fedora for Gentoo, dumped Gentoo for Red Hat, and dumped Red Hat for Ubuntu.
I plan to keep this up at a rate of one OS change per month.
I took him to mean 'all the items are the same type.' As opposed to, say, having to assemble a sandwich from a random assortment of ingredients coming down the line.
Look, I don't lend my car to strangers, either. But your position is a bit sociopathic.
Just like what these people did. They gave over samples apparently with no written guaranty of how they would be used, and now they're stunned that they have been used for other things.
Yes, they were naive. But they were misled, too. Why are you blaming the victims? If somebody tells you they're doing something to help you, whether that's analyzing your DNA or installing an internet connection or doing your taxes or removing your gallbladder, then they violate your trust, that's wrong. Whether you should have been suspicious of them is a different question.
Universal mistrust doesn't scale. I can't get through a single day without trusting a bunch of strangers not to veer into my lane and kill me, trusting my landlord's employees not to go into my apartment with their maintenance keys and steal my stuff, and trusting my bank not to steal my money. These are calculated risks, but I can't be right all the time. I'd say that trusting researchers from a legit university to do what they said is a pretty reasonable thing to do. But these people got burned.
Yes, we all have to be careful, and try not to get suckered. But traditionally, we don't punish suckers. We punish deceit. I don't know how you can have a sane society otherwise. And I think you'll want more sympathy than you've shown here on that distant future day when you make a mistake and find that you're the sucker.
So if I say "may I borrow your car to go to the grocery store?" and we don't sign an agreement saying "and nowhere else," then it's OK for me to take a cross-country road trip? Your fault, eh?
Also, after that, you and your neighbors would continue to trust me, right?
(Slashdotters, take note: I used a car analogy.)
um, wasn't Catholicism the original christian religion from which all denominations of christianity derived?
As a Protestant, I'd say that early Christianity wasn't Catholic, and after it became so, some people protested and branched off. Which is why that event is called the Reformation - saying, "this church has strayed from its roots and must be reformed."
Hahaha! So true.
My *favorite* thing about Halo for PC was that there were places where you could bypass part of the board by doing something unexpected. There's a bridge in one place, for example, were you are supposed to fight your way across, into the mountain on the other side, and emerge in the valley underneath the bridge, then fight your way up another mountain at the end of the valley. OR you can steal a banshee, if you're fast enough, and fly straight to the other mountain. OR you can slide down to the valley and get slightly hurt, then grab a health pack.
Non-linear play is awesome. I'd love to see more of that, and less "you must get item X in order to do Y." More exceptions and clever workarounds, please!
I've got a Google Voice number which forwards calls to my actual phone(s) based on rules I set up. One rule is "do you want to see the caller ID as the actual caller's, or as your Google Voice number?"
This is useful, but only because of the limited nature of caller id - it can only display one number. If it had slots for things like "original caller # and name" and "name of routing service", I wouldn't need to make that choice.
Also, it's unique in that *I* am deciding what information *I* want to see. I don't see any reason why someone should be able to call me and disguise their identity from me.
Needless to say, I'm quite disgusted with the Apache foundation right now.
Fair enough. On the other hand, they told you what happened, admitted fault, and clearly explained how this might affect you and what to do about it.
How many organizations would do that? I'm actually impressed.
Dynamically binding, you realize the magic. Statically binding, you see only the hierarchy.