Age discrimination in high tech?
So IBM is basically doing what every high tech company out there does when either hiring or deciding who to let go? <sarc>gosh, I'm so surprised.</sarc>
1173 posts • joined 13 Dec 2008
Canada and our governments have been America's bitch for decades. Hell, we even helped them overthrow the last Haitian government that dared try to implement some form of worker rights legislation to protect them from the American corporations operating there. So no surprise that our government is, yet again, bending over and doing whatever the US wants.
The one thing I learned from my most pedantic, most arsehole, most annoying, most fucking terrifying profs was "READ TO THE END OF THE INSTRUCTIONS. DAMNIT!". There is a reason those fucking goatfucking twats write exams that start "read to the end" and end with "only do question 1, which is "write your name"". That's exactly to avoid situations like this. Those profs were attempting to impart a lifetime of knowledge in an all too short timeframe. As Stargate taught us, the young do not always do at they are told. Learn from this.
Article is a textbook example of how to write with a particular bias in mind. In a very obvious way, since us geeks can sometimes stumble on more subtle arguments I guess? It's the type of thing I'd expect to see in the Daily Mail UK, not the Register, at least not in a news section rather than the opinion section.
I guess it's horrible that in the USA a government regulator actually consider treating everyone equally. Pirate radios have the nasty habit of stepping all over stations who actually paid for their little section of the spectrum. Doesn't matter what their message might be. And it's so unnecessary when they can just broadcast online and anyone interested can pick it up without all the problems.
The difference is also that Multics was secure, and given the clients we worked with that security was a main feature baked into both the hardware and the operating system. Whereas today security is an afterthought that is loosely tacked on, if they even bothered.
But yes, the whole cloud computing model does somewhat resemble the whole central mainframe concept. Not just Multics, but CDC and IBM and others had similar models, although I admit to a bias towards Multics having gotten it more correct. But computing has always gone through these waves of "distributed computing", then "centralized computing", then back again.
So people bought a device that can (a) record their conversations and (b) call out and play that conversation for others and they're surprised that it does exactly that?
All code has bugs, especially since we live in a world where quality of code plays a distant second to quantity and adding new, untested features. Untested in any real sense, I'm sure they gave it a regression test or two. Maybe. Sometimes. If you're lucky. One of several reasons I quit the whole industry.
Definitely won't find me with one of those devices in my home. Sure, they can probably be convenient. Not just for the owner, unfortunately, but also for the advertising company that sold it, anyone that company has "deals" with, and of course for any script kiddie out there who relishes the fact that "security" in these devices is either tacked on as an afterthought, or even non-existent.
Correction: MS cornered the market by using quasi-illegal (actually, completely illegal in some places) business practices, from their "embrace, extend, extinguish" campaign to outright putting code in their OS to make rivals for their other products fail. Right from before there even WAS a "Microsoft" Gates and company cheated, lied, stole, acted like gangsters, and got away with it. Which is why they're dominant. They didn't do by being "better". They did by being "meaner".
I knew they were going to increase the limit before Walt Disney's plagiarized works became part of the public domain! That's what the USA *does*.
Then it forces, through various threats of economic retaliation, the various international organizations to do it first, so they can claim they're just "following international standards".
Lying all the way to the bank, and fuck the rest of the world. America, the pirate country, helping the London Company of Stationers cancel the effects of the Statute of Anne.
EBay is just another example of an unregulated business that makes up the rules it wants as it goes along. From stripping all funds from "linked" bank accounts, to this type of bullshit, anyone using EBay is just asking to be fucked with a rusty chainsaw by one of the most unethical companies around. Sure, it can be profitable - until they take a dislike to you for ANY reason, and then it's bend over and kiss your money goodbye.
Just remember, a truck that's just gone over a cliff is also "strong and stable". Maybe not very aerodynamic, or likely to survive the sudden stop at the end, but it's definitely "strong and stable"...
That said, meh, it's only a website. It's not like the Tory faithful understand what those are anyway. Telegrams and pigeons, isn't it?
Papers whose researchers used public money for the research should not be hidden behind the paywalls of corporations that feed, like parasitical slugs, on their work. Some might call it piracy. I call it "about fucking time".
Private researchers can do what they want. But if the research was paid for, even partially, by the public, said public should be allowed to read the results without paying a disproportionate tax to a parasite. A very wealthy parasite.
Well colour me blue and tickle me a wallaby, Waterfox works with all the extensions I need! I'd tried Pale Moon but it didn't work well on my system. Hadn't even heard of Waterfox and hadn't thought to look. Have a beer on me (and if you're ever on the west coast of Canada, I'll make it a real one... although letting me know might be problematic...)
The second that Mozilla decides to fuck over any of the extensions I use (specifically, Ghostery, Privacy Badger, uBlock Origin, and above all NoScript) is the second that I have zero more use for Firefox. Those extensions are the ONLY reason I use Firefox (now ESR version). If they force me to have to put up with an unusable web full of shivering and flashing images or text or popups or other crap that can and does trigger migraines and nausea, that some bozo in marketing thought was a good idea, then Firefox, Mozilla, and the rest can go jump in the manure pit. The ability to block that shit is the only reason I still use Firefox.
No idea what I'll use, I might just have to just stop using the web. Which will probably do wonders for my productivity, assuming I can get around the lack of access to information sources I need.
"so are all of them wrong?"
Quantity doesn't mean they're right. Anyone who complains that an online service is down (in this case I presume it means they can't read archived emails) means they're using the wrong tool and should have been using an "offline" email reader in the first place. So every single one of those people who complained is wrong, yes. Those who didn't complain (or didn't notice) were probably using the right tool for what THEY need. In which case no, those people were not wrong.
Email, however, is a special case since it is by definition "online" - as in you can't GET email if you're not "online" (pedantic exceptions left as an exercise to the pedants...). So sending/receiving emails wasn't covered by my statement, as I note in the disclaimer "and that software has a local, offline, equivalent,". Trying to read previously received emails? I stand by my statement. I don't care if the service is "free" - there's ALWAYS a cost involved.
Any time someone tells me that they want to put some software "online" because it's "better", and that software has a local, offline, equivalent, I tell them to go fuck themselves and find an alternative that isn't so idiotic.
Because if I can't access tools that I use every day, I want it to be MY fault and something I can fix, not the fault of any of dozens of possible culprits who will all shout that it wasn't their fault while my business can't do any work.
Meanwhile, in more sane countries (ie: Canada) use of genetic testing for discrimination has just become illegal. A result the insurance companies are attempting to call "unconstitutional", of course, but hey, they lost this time. For once. No thanks to the leadership of the current party in power, mind you, who was willing to let the country bend over and take it up the arse. But thanks to the backbenchers, those people without power, who almost all voted against their own party because sometimes sanity wins.
Then again, the US "healthcare" system is terminally broken. Their next revolution can't come too soon, I'm tired of their sick and twisted shit getting exported to other countries, or at least trying to be.
If they're aircraft, then where the fuck are the pilot licenses of the drone operators, and why aren't they filing flight plans like every other fucking AIRCRAFT pilot has to do?
If they aren't aircraft, then they're pests, and should be allowed to be shot down whenever and where-ever they trespass.
Needs a good anti-drone system. Bird-trapping system, net thrower, something "legal". If nothing else, he can pay for the system by selling used drones. "Slightly bruised".
1) amazing how a group so focussed on "law and order" is so willing to bash and denigrate the very laws they claim to support. Total and utter hypocrisy.
2) if they wanted to protect the USA, perhaps they should have banned travellers from countries whose citizens have actually attacked the USA in the last couple of decades. Namely Saudi Arabia. More hypocrisy from the right wing Trumpites.
The really scary thing is they're considering sending Sarah Palin as ambassador to Canada. Can we build a wall around the embassy? Please?
I think you mean: Oculus wouldn't be where it is today if they hadn't ripped off 9500+ people for over $2 million with the promise of an open VR platform, only to turn around and give a glorious "fuck you" to everyone who chipped in on kickstarter.
Amazon donated plenty. $1 million is a paltry "fine", not even a slap on the wrist, more of a "we know you did wrong, naughty naughty, but we're not going to make it hurt. The "Competition Bureau" in Canada is more concerned with making sure corporations make as much profit as possible rather than anything resembling consumer protection.
"If you saw how sausage was made ... You would never eat it."
Yeah, I never understood that. My suspicions are triggered when I CAN'T see how the sausage is made. I want to see what went into my damn sausage. I want to know the person making it knew what they were doing. I want to know where the ingredients came from. I want to know that those ingredients weren't mixed with some dead cat found on the road. If I can't see how the sausage is being made then I'm not sure I want it. Which is why I prefer to make my own, but I'll also get some from people I trust.
Now, are we talking meat sausage, or software sausage?
OK, who still thinks that anonymity isn't required any more because hey, if you're done nothing wrong you have nothing to hide? Or do those people consider publicly voicing disapproval to be "doing something wrong that merits being penalized"?
Far as I'm concerned any corporation or government official that lobbies for an end to online anonymity is little more than a jackbooted corporatist or police state enthusiast, who just wants an easier way to crush any and all dissent. And the punters who support that view are just pinheaded idiots without a clue.
Uber's ENTIRE business model is based on ignoring the rules until they can browbeat local legislators into changing the rules. If some local jurisdiction says "your self-driving cars are unsafe", obviously that jurisdiction is just getting in the way of revolutionary change and new paradigms in transport. It's Uber's whole schtick, right from the beginning. Instead of working within the rules they'd rather run them over. Just like cyclists, pedestrians, and anyone else who gets in the way of the "new paradigm in transport".
Does the low price include the Chinese spyware? http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/11/15/android_phoning_home_to_china/
Also curious as to why the article makes zero mention of such issues in Chinese-sourced android phones, if for no other reason than to say "we checked, and it's not there". Who do you REALLY work for, Orlowski?
Odd. When I was first introduced to science, and in the many years I worked in various fields, if an idea was proposed but hadn't been tested yet it was called a "hypothesis". Only AFTER it had been tested, and the tests repeated and verified, would it be called a "theory".
Based on this article, they haven't tested this hypothesis yet. Why does the article keep calling it a "theory"? In science, and presumably science articles, "theory" means "scientific theory" which in turn means "a tested and verified hypothesis".
Looking at the abstract (sadly, I've lost access to many research databases since changing careers. Fucking paywalls on publicly funded research, but that's another rant.) they don't seem to claim it's a "theory". They just claim to have developed a predictive model that might now be tested.
So either the scientists themselves are misusing the terminology in various interviews the author has seen and copied, and they're just repeating that. Or perhaps the author of this article is a scientific ignoramus with zero respect for proper terminology. Or perhaps the rules have changed since I learned this, and the anti-science frauds have won when they claim certain scientific theories are "only theories" and therefore equivalent to their completely non-scientific "theory"?
Which is it?
Ah yes, telling a director that no, they can't do whatever they want then blame I.T. if something breaks.
Good fucking luck. I've yet to meet ANY "director" who understands that they have to follow the same rules as everyone else. The only real choices, in a real world, are "suck it up" or "quit". Because the "director" will never, never learn. They don't have to, they're the "director". They're never wrong, and they're never at fault.
(replace "director" with everything from "senior management position of your choice" to "owner")
Looking a little bit deeper, it seems Jamison worked on Sprints lobbyist team, which makes him "a former lobbyist", regardless of how you might want to spin that particular datum. All the copy I've seen for Eisenach says he's "worked for Verizon and others", which seems accurate. He's been paid, and paid well, to support the interests of his clients. Both might not be the legal definition of lobbyist, but it certainly meets the general definition of "getting paid to win favour from politicians". Calling them lobbyists seems fair and balanced.
Abso-fucking-lutely YES it was that bad. Yet another international agreement that allows corporations to override local rules set by democratically elected legislators. There are too many of those already, TPP was one of the worst of them.
I hope it dies in a fire. Along with every single fucking traitor to their country who pushed for it, regardless of which country they're from. Because that's what they were, traitors, selling out their countries, their communities, their neighbours, all for the illusion of money.
Don't get me started on what I REALLY think of it and the people who were pushing it.
Because of course there's no such thing as inter-office mail or even couriers when an entire country tells you that no, your business won't be allowed to operate in that country unless you follow the rules. I wonder which jobsworth at the "wrong office" decided that no, they could just ignore it because hey, it was sent to the "wrong office".
What a bunch of fucking tossers. LinkedIn, that is. Russia will probably be better off without them.
The REAL "trifecta" is that in a few months, Trump and the Republicans who put him in power will control the Executive, Legislative, AND *Judicial* levels of their government. Once they get around to nominating and confirming the most regressive judges possible to their Supreme Court. So it's not just the Presidency and Congress (Senate and House). It's a REAL trifecta.
In other words, there will be very few limits to the crazy that Trump's crowd will be able to inflict, because Trump's crowd will be in control of every level of government.
A very, very scary thought.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019