There's holding your nose to deal with flawed companies with questionable policies... and then there's battered-spouse syndrome. At this point, anyone who expects a square deal from Sony falls into the latter category.
Indefinitely in this case means without a definite end date. Sony hasn't announced a date to bring it back online, therefore it is shut down indefinitely.
They are probably referring to the fact that Sony have not said anything about how long before the service is restored. The title is misleading without the context of the article, maybe the title on this website should be changed to something less misleading.
One of the strongest memories I have regarding IBM is from the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. I visited it on a school trip to Washington years ago, I took with me quite a few very strong memories, and one, was of a machine used by the Germans to help produce the Jewish Registry. It was sat behind some glass, with the easy to recognise IBM logo stamped proudly in the corner.
As I say it was a fair few years ago and I was quite young, but it made me start to realise that business has basically no morals. It's probably shaped the way I view business today. Not super dramatically, don't get me wrong, but this video reminded me of that.
You can Google for IBMs involvement with the holocaust, it's quite interesting.
What's amazing is that it was not just IBM - the germans got oil from Standard Oil, their tanks were made by Opal (a GM subsidiary), and in many other ways the German war effort was financed and enabled by "Allied" conglomerates.
Makes one wonder about the ways we are helping our enemies today...
And not only are companies amoral: they force all other companies to become amoral as well. In the end, a lack of morals always allows one to be more competitive.
What I like best about small companies in new markets and startups is that they still have room for positive moral behaviour.
Am I an idiot for not have a clue what this actually does after both watching the video and reading the FAQ?
As far as I can tell it's hyper-local news app tailored to specific protests. People send them messages and they send updates out? Which I guess is useful?
It's a tool to aggregate location/safety statuses submitted by many people in the same protest.
I'm interested in how the site verifies reports. The purpose of this app is very similar to Ushahidi, which has some basic vetting tools for editors/organizers.
In the tutorial, it just says something like "sukey will check your report and broadcast it" -- how will this look if thousands of people submit reports at once?
>how will this look if thousands of people submit reports at once?
This app will be used during specific events, not all the time. If there's a protest with many thousands of people involved, and this app becomes well used enough to attract thousands of reports at once, it is not unreasonable to imagine a good few hundred trusted, trained volunteers to crosscheck reports.
If you have thousands of reporters, you will be able to get hundreds of volunteer moderators. These are student activists remember :)
I hang up on telemarketers with no qualms of being impolite. I don't read content behind paywalls (and don't complain about them - it is readily apparent that I'm not in their target demographic).
I treat people that know me courteously and they like me.
Telemarketers are a whole different story: You never asked them to contact you. : )
Websites are a whole different story. You decided to visit them. Once you are on their site, they decide the rules. (As long as they are not doing anything illegally.)
Also note that I sometimes choose to block ads even if it
Wait, what? Where was I unpolite? More to the point: if anything is rude, it's tricking users into looking at ads instead of the content they were promised when they clicked on a link.
By trying to decide what is accepted behaviour for web site owners to do on their own web sites. (Apologies if I misunderstood your point.)
> More to the point: if anything is rude, it's tricking users into looking at ads instead of the content they were promised when they clicked on a link.
Do you also complain about advertising at shopping centers, bus stations, airports etc?
> By trying to decide what is accepted behaviour for web site owners to do on their own web sites.
The point of Adblock is not to control what web site owners do on their own web sites, but only to control how I experience that content. As I wrote in my OP, "Adblock is one damn easy way to improve your own user experience. [emphasis added]"
Web site owners are welcome to try and get their visitors to look at ads. Their visitors are welcome, in turn, to take measures to block those ads.
> Do you also complain about advertising at shopping centers, bus stations, airports etc?
Yes, as a matter of fact - rather, I don't complain about it but I do try to avoid going to those places for just that reason. However, whereas it's hard to block out billboards in external locations where one is physically present (unless one is willing to accept a Steve Mann-level of technological mediation), it's quite easy to block ads on web pages that are served freely into my own browser, which is installed on my own computer.
You can continue that legacy with the open source 3D printing movement that's growing, and potentially continue building things that are way cooler than most web sites.
Maybe when something comes along to replace "save"?
With the steadily increasing amount of software that auto-saves without you noticing, maybe soon we just wont need to "save" anything. It'll just happen.
