true today's SP networks aren't capable of handling tomorrow's traffic, but as we all know in the tech world, no one stands still. SP's are in the beginning phases of major network overhauls to handle tomorrow's traffic - http://newsroom.cisco.com/dlls/tln/exec_team/domin guez/perspectives.html
"...MS do a wonderful job in the world of business, but they haven't got a clue when it comes to consumers..."
Huh? They own the home PC market, XBOX 360 is very successful, MSN IM is #1 in users (almost all consumers), etc.. I could go on and on, but as we all know, MS v1 products always bomb, but they eventually catch up after the 2nd or 3rd try.
You can't force two peoples (in this case mainly divided along religious borders) to work together if they don't want to, and haven't in known history. This is simply an enormous mistake in thinking.
It just goes to show that most modern day IT departments aren't keeping up with the demands of business. They're so focused on keeping the lights on and maintaining that staus quo instead of innovation, that the users are going outside of corporate IT to get thier job done. Sales reps and even high end Wall St bankers are going to starbucks to work with a client, as they usually can't get on the corporate network, or it's a hassle to do. They're now forwarding email to Gmail so they can have a decent storage. They're now using public sharing sites to exchange large files.
The big question is not should that revenue generating user be fired, but how do we transform our internal IT departments to meet the demands of today's business.
Exactly, but a carrier fleet would be. The US has a "swarm strategy" where if they see China preparing for war/war games, we will swarm the area with battle groups.
Not sure how much longer this strategy is going to work as the balance of power *is* shifting, but it's decades away from doing that - and only if US and Taiwan just keep the staus quo (which we won't do).
"On July 19, the Pentagon released its annual report to the U.S. Congress on "The Military Power of the People's Republic of China," which it was required to do according to the provisions of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2000...The report is clear that, until the end of the present decade, Beijing will not be able to defeat militarily even "a moderate-size adversary" and will not be able to project its sea power beyond coastal defense."
"President Clinton, sent two aircraft carrier battle groups to the region, sailing them into the Taiwan Strait. The PRC, unable to track the ships' movements, and probably unwilling to escalate the conflict, quickly backed down..."
"...China today relies on missiles and fighter aircraft to threaten Taiwan. These weapons don't provide China a capability to bring Taiwan to its knees..."
actually we are protecting them you fucking jackass. It took just one carrier to stop china in thier tracks in 1996 and not much has changed since then. We sell them subs and missles to keep them from being invaded and have a defense pack, else they'd be like Tibet today.
ahh, suppressing political dissent. Always an admirable quality. In truth, China is a nation of Haves and Have Not's and is one of the most politically unstable countries in the developed world, their military is still decades behind most countries and they're not bogged down in faraway lands because their military can't get there. They can't even invade Taiwan.
I agree that it's a great collective body of knowledge and love the "human network" that comes together to create it. But the fact that one person has the same "power" as everyone else to create content is a double edged sword and limits its usefulness.
I guess the point is that you were smart enough to see through the vandalism when it was as obvious as "...Chewie is a real live person who is my god and saviour..." but what if it said Chewie was a Knookie or a Wooky (instead of what he really is, a Wookie), you may not be able to pick it up. And the more advanced or obscure the knowledge, the more room for deception. Take for example this paragraph on Black Holes that I copied from Wikipedia (I modified it) but most wouldn't know that it was incorrect, and they would take it for truth.
"...according to general relativity, a gravitating object will collapse into a black hole if its radius is smaller than a characteristic distance, known as the Schwarzkopf radius. (Indeed, Rothschild's theorem in general relativity shows that in the case of a perfect fluid model of a compact object, the true higher limit is somewhat smaller than the Schwarzkopf radius.) Above this radius, space and time is so strongly curved that any light ray absorbed in this zone, regardless of the force in which it is absorbed..."
Disclaimer, I use Wikipedia a lot, but sometimes have to doublecheck it for accuracy.
But for others, IT is business and living. In fact it's a large industry that fuels GDP, productivity and growth, and will raise living standards for the next century - in both developed and underdeveloped countries. Why complain or begrudge someone if they can make a living off what you do for a hobby? I know plenty of people who do photography, travel or woodworking for a hobby, but they don't have a radical opinion against others who try to sell their photos, write travel articles or crafts for money.
research.microsoft.com for internal innovations. I watched "RingCam" become RoundeTable, a commercially viable, innovative video conferencing. I am a competitor and will crush them in this arena, but we don't complain and then copy what they do 5 years later.
As for a lesson in how the world works, most innovations in big companies are acquired. It's cheaper to watch 10 startups and follow what the market wants, realize which approach will work then buy them, as opposed to gambling/putting a stake in the ground and hope yours wins. Sometimes the latter is the correct approach, but that's the exception, not the rule. So why complain that Microsoft buys companies? Why not instead get a good idea, start your own company and get bought? Or do you just want to copy what others are doing and give it away for free?
I tried the demo at home just now. I used my TV as the 'office chatter' I wanted to block and then ran Chatter Blocker. I then browsed the web to try and read an article. I played with different volumes and I felt that the sounds were just as distracting as the TV and didn't make a difference. I just substituted one noise with another.
As soon as he joined, the Sirius subscriber numbers skyrocked while XM has slowed way down. He must have had something to do with that. Given this rate, Sirius should surpass XM in less than 2 years.
Less than half of my extensions worked, but even worse was that my theme didn't work. That made me go back to 1.5. And none of the spell check features in the forms worked either. Loved the "tab remember" feature where you can close the browser and it will remember all the pages you had open in the previous session.
I was at this forum, and MS said that it will operate other OS'. They're also going to include the Hypervisor free in all copies of Longhorn. This certainly is better than Novell's first crack at it - their Linux version could only run thier OS.
What part of Cisco's switch is crap? And which switch? Quantify that statement with some solid facts please.
Cisco routers don't have any Intel processors in them. Some of their network modules that run LINUX do, but their not the router. Open one up and look. In fact they never have and never were x86-based. They were Sun boxes way back when created in Stanford's labs, but that was before Bush Sr. was president. Regular PC's may or may not be able to forward packets as well as a Cisco router, I'm sure you could tweak one to do that, but can they also do QoS, Security (NAC, FW, IPS, etc) application acceleration, WAN BW reduction, act as a branch office IP PBX, offer wireless service, replace branch File and Print servers - all in the same box and running at wire speed?
Given that the network has moved from a bunch of "tubes" that pass packets efficiently to one that is a L7 aware, intelligent fabric that brokers messages and resources between hosts, secures the data, and incorporates services into the fabric (such as message routing, translation and security) to enable the foundation for an SOA enterprise, who cares about plain vanilla packet forwarding anymore? If I wanted to do that, I'd buy Huawei for a fraction of the cost or get one for free from my Telco. But that's not the state of the networking world anymore, not what customers want and replicating 10 year old technology on open source is just useless for 80% of the market.
First, let's separate sense and respond from distribution. I was defending WalMart's sense and respond/demand prediction IT systems as better than most web retailers (who just set up a static catalog online, combine it with an online shopping basket and "outsource" the "supply chain" and distribution to a UPS or USPS. Note: this comparison excludes the Amazon's and other world class web retailers - although they are probably just as good as WalMart in that area in some respects) when it comes to understanding what sells and what to stock next season.
The WalMart distribution channel and supply chain is clearly different (and lacking) when compared to a digital distribution system (it's like comparing Blockbuster to Pay-Per-View and is apples to oranges in my book) and I thought I wrote how the web shops have better advantages in those areas.
If I didn't make the distinction clear enough, I'm sorry and need to articulate my thoughts better.
I admit that I pushed your buttons on purpose but it's entirely different than attacking someone.
In the end I think you had a valid point you were trying to make (online distribution of digital products vs B&M physical product distribution) and what I was originally trying to state - that WalMart actively participates in the supply chain and adds value on both the supply and demand side - and is not just a warehouse in which to sell products.
I'm not a fan of WalMart and think they've done more harm than good in our economy and country, bully suppliers and their employees, entice manufactures to sell though them by offering a vast market of consumers, then force same manufacturer to cut costs until selling though WalMart is no longer profitable and they need to move to China to stay competitive or go out of business (ask Rubbermaid and others), and a myriad of other tough business practices that hurt the US's overall economy (even though a majority of consumers love a bargain and can't resist WalMart, hence the nasty predicament we're in). I don't shop at WalMart and wouldn't be caught dead in one of their stores due to the fact that there are none in Manhattan, and even if there were, am in a different class of consumer that doesn't care about bargains in the first place). But I do admire their some of their business practices and models as I do other retailers like Zara, Virgin Mega Stores and Apple. I was merely defending the fact that they have some good business practices around understanding the American consumer's needs and fulfilling them.
Keep attacking, it shows you can't articulate and hold an argument on the subject at hand.
There were no errors on my part and you didn't point anything out. You just brought out new issues that were irrelevant and not pertaining to the subject and intent of my original post! When I point this out, you presume to tell me what my original intent was, that I'm off topic, an idiot and wrong?!? Same with my signature - I create a signature with one intent, tell you the intent and you presume to tell me I'm wrong?!? You had one idea about what the RFC was, were shown that it wasn't what you thought, and you continue to hold onto your preconceived notion like a starving man to his first meal in a week. Let go of it dude; your idea about RFC 1149 being a derogatory remark is just wrong. But I'll tell you what genius, if you can prove and show me a sentence where someone used RFC 1149 as a negative comment in the way you describe, I'll stand corrected. I point out a technology to show you that retailers can see what consumers look at and can help line bust, and you tell me it can't!?! I know the owner of the company, know the use cases of the solution, have toured stores that use it in real life and seen the results and have recommended it to clients. Yet I'm wrong?!? You bring out obtuse and cryptic remarks about AOL and assume people are going to stoop down to your level to understand the meaning, and when someone doesn't, you think they're an idiot.
It's ridiculous and I've never met anyone like you before. How can I argue with someone like you and why would I want to? You're the type that knows it all and would tell me what I dreamed about last night if you had the chance. Furthermore these are all irrelevant topics from the original post, hence why I decided to end this conversation. Your type of character is beneath me and a waste of my time to argue with.
Slashdot Mirror
true today's SP networks aren't capable of handling tomorrow's traffic, but as we all know in the tech world, no one stands still. SP's are in the beginning phases of major network overhauls to handle tomorrow's traffic - http://newsroom.cisco.com/dlls/tln/exec_team/domin guez/perspectives.html
"...MS do a wonderful job in the world of business, but they haven't got a clue when it comes to consumers..."
Huh? They own the home PC market, XBOX 360 is very successful, MSN IM is #1 in users (almost all consumers), etc.. I could go on and on, but as we all know, MS v1 products always bomb, but they eventually catch up after the 2nd or 3rd try.
it's a hoax - http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/01/28/google-tv-an- elaborate-prank/
You can't force two peoples (in this case mainly divided along religious borders) to work together if they don't want to, and haven't in known history. This is simply an enormous mistake in thinking.
Explain Bosnia then. It worked there.
It just goes to show that most modern day IT departments aren't keeping up with the demands of business. They're so focused on keeping the lights on and maintaining that staus quo instead of innovation, that the users are going outside of corporate IT to get thier job done. Sales reps and even high end Wall St bankers are going to starbucks to work with a client, as they usually can't get on the corporate network, or it's a hassle to do. They're now forwarding email to Gmail so they can have a decent storage. They're now using public sharing sites to exchange large files.
The big question is not should that revenue generating user be fired, but how do we transform our internal IT departments to meet the demands of today's business.
My mistake. Agreed 100%
Exactly, but a carrier fleet would be. The US has a "swarm strategy" where if they see China preparing for war/war games, we will swarm the area with battle groups.
Not sure how much longer this strategy is going to work as the balance of power *is* shifting, but it's decades away from doing that - and only if US and Taiwan just keep the staus quo (which we won't do).
Spelled "pact" wrong above.
- Power-Remains-in-Taiwan's-Favor.htm
T aiwan#Balance_of_power
r ing/ross.htm
e ntid=6671
o rt_id=333&language_id=1
Here's data backing up my claims in case you try and make another trolling, uninformed, jackassed comment.
http://taiwansecurity.org/News/IHT-The-Balance-of
"On July 19, the Pentagon released its annual report to the U.S. Congress on "The Military Power of the People's Republic of China," which it was required to do according to the provisions of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2000...The report is clear that, until the end of the present decade, Beijing will not be able to defeat militarily even "a moderate-size adversary" and will not be able to project its sea power beyond coastal defense."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_status_of_
"President Clinton, sent two aircraft carrier battle groups to the region, sailing them into the Taiwan Strait. The PRC, unable to track the ships' movements, and probably unwilling to escalate the conflict, quickly backed down..."
http://web.mit.edu/ssp/seminars/wed_archives_04sp
"...China today relies on missiles and fighter aircraft to threaten Taiwan. These weapons don't provide China a capability to bring Taiwan to its knees..."
http://www.international.ucla.edu/article.asp?par
http://www.pinr.com/report.php?ac=view_report&rep
actually we are protecting them you fucking jackass. It took just one carrier to stop china in thier tracks in 1996 and not much has changed since then. We sell them subs and missles to keep them from being invaded and have a defense pack, else they'd be like Tibet today.
ahh, suppressing political dissent. Always an admirable quality. In truth, China is a nation of Haves and Have Not's and is one of the most politically unstable countries in the developed world, their military is still decades behind most countries and they're not bogged down in faraway lands because their military can't get there. They can't even invade Taiwan.
How effective will it be? It's only a 700 mile fence along a 2000 mile border :/
r ation.ap/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/10/26/bush.immig
I agree that it's a great collective body of knowledge and love the "human network" that comes together to create it. But the fact that one person has the same "power" as everyone else to create content is a double edged sword and limits its usefulness.
I guess the point is that you were smart enough to see through the vandalism when it was as obvious as "...Chewie is a real live person who is my god and saviour..." but what if it said Chewie was a Knookie or a Wooky (instead of what he really is, a Wookie), you may not be able to pick it up. And the more advanced or obscure the knowledge, the more room for deception. Take for example this paragraph on Black Holes that I copied from Wikipedia (I modified it) but most wouldn't know that it was incorrect, and they would take it for truth.
"...according to general relativity, a gravitating object will collapse into a black hole if its radius is smaller than a characteristic distance, known as the Schwarzkopf radius. (Indeed, Rothschild's theorem in general relativity shows that in the case of a perfect fluid model of a compact object, the true higher limit is somewhat smaller than the Schwarzkopf radius.) Above this radius, space and time is so strongly curved that any light ray absorbed in this zone, regardless of the force in which it is absorbed..."
Disclaimer, I use Wikipedia a lot, but sometimes have to doublecheck it for accuracy.
But for others, IT is business and living. In fact it's a large industry that fuels GDP, productivity and growth, and will raise living standards for the next century - in both developed and underdeveloped countries. Why complain or begrudge someone if they can make a living off what you do for a hobby? I know plenty of people who do photography, travel or woodworking for a hobby, but they don't have a radical opinion against others who try to sell their photos, write travel articles or crafts for money.
research.microsoft.com for internal innovations. I watched "RingCam" become RoundeTable, a commercially viable, innovative video conferencing. I am a competitor and will crush them in this arena, but we don't complain and then copy what they do 5 years later.
As for a lesson in how the world works, most innovations in big companies are acquired. It's cheaper to watch 10 startups and follow what the market wants, realize which approach will work then buy them, as opposed to gambling/putting a stake in the ground and hope yours wins. Sometimes the latter is the correct approach, but that's the exception, not the rule. So why complain that Microsoft buys companies? Why not instead get a good idea, start your own company and get bought? Or do you just want to copy what others are doing and give it away for free?
I tried the demo at home just now. I used my TV as the 'office chatter' I wanted to block and then ran Chatter Blocker. I then browsed the web to try and read an article. I played with different volumes and I felt that the sounds were just as distracting as the TV and didn't make a difference. I just substituted one noise with another.
As soon as he joined, the Sirius subscriber numbers skyrocked while XM has slowed way down. He must have had something to do with that. Given this rate, Sirius should surpass XM in less than 2 years.
Nowadays it is impossible to be the next Stern with the FCC's overzealous regulations and right-wing overlords.
Ba Ba Booey to you all.
Actually the co-founders "only" get to split $500mm.
Less than half of my extensions worked, but even worse was that my theme didn't work. That made me go back to 1.5. And none of the spell check features in the forms worked either. Loved the "tab remember" feature where you can close the browser and it will remember all the pages you had open in the previous session.
http://newsroom.cisco.com/dlls/2004/prod_070104.ht ml
I was at this forum, and MS said that it will operate other OS'. They're also going to include the Hypervisor free in all copies of Longhorn. This certainly is better than Novell's first crack at it - their Linux version could only run thier OS.
...be the counter to a laser beam blinding a satelites? Just put it in front of the lens and bounce the beam away before it disrupts the view.
What part of Cisco's switch is crap? And which switch? Quantify that statement with some solid facts please.
Cisco routers don't have any Intel processors in them. Some of their network modules that run LINUX do, but their not the router. Open one up and look. In fact they never have and never were x86-based. They were Sun boxes way back when created in Stanford's labs, but that was before Bush Sr. was president. Regular PC's may or may not be able to forward packets as well as a Cisco router, I'm sure you could tweak one to do that, but can they also do QoS, Security (NAC, FW, IPS, etc) application acceleration, WAN BW reduction, act as a branch office IP PBX, offer wireless service, replace branch File and Print servers - all in the same box and running at wire speed?
Given that the network has moved from a bunch of "tubes" that pass packets efficiently to one that is a L7 aware, intelligent fabric that brokers messages and resources between hosts, secures the data, and incorporates services into the fabric (such as message routing, translation and security) to enable the foundation for an SOA enterprise, who cares about plain vanilla packet forwarding anymore? If I wanted to do that, I'd buy Huawei for a fraction of the cost or get one for free from my Telco. But that's not the state of the networking world anymore, not what customers want and replicating 10 year old technology on open source is just useless for 80% of the market.
First, let's separate sense and respond from distribution. I was defending WalMart's sense and respond/demand prediction IT systems as better than most web retailers (who just set up a static catalog online, combine it with an online shopping basket and "outsource" the "supply chain" and distribution to a UPS or USPS. Note: this comparison excludes the Amazon's and other world class web retailers - although they are probably just as good as WalMart in that area in some respects) when it comes to understanding what sells and what to stock next season.
The WalMart distribution channel and supply chain is clearly different (and lacking) when compared to a digital distribution system (it's like comparing Blockbuster to Pay-Per-View and is apples to oranges in my book) and I thought I wrote how the web shops have better advantages in those areas.
If I didn't make the distinction clear enough, I'm sorry and need to articulate my thoughts better.
I admit that I pushed your buttons on purpose but it's entirely different than attacking someone.
In the end I think you had a valid point you were trying to make (online distribution of digital products vs B&M physical product distribution) and what I was originally trying to state - that WalMart actively participates in the supply chain and adds value on both the supply and demand side - and is not just a warehouse in which to sell products.
I'm not a fan of WalMart and think they've done more harm than good in our economy and country, bully suppliers and their employees, entice manufactures to sell though them by offering a vast market of consumers, then force same manufacturer to cut costs until selling though WalMart is no longer profitable and they need to move to China to stay competitive or go out of business (ask Rubbermaid and others), and a myriad of other tough business practices that hurt the US's overall economy (even though a majority of consumers love a bargain and can't resist WalMart, hence the nasty predicament we're in). I don't shop at WalMart and wouldn't be caught dead in one of their stores due to the fact that there are none in Manhattan, and even if there were, am in a different class of consumer that doesn't care about bargains in the first place). But I do admire their some of their business practices and models as I do other retailers like Zara, Virgin Mega Stores and Apple. I was merely defending the fact that they have some good business practices around understanding the American consumer's needs and fulfilling them.
Keep attacking, it shows you can't articulate and hold an argument on the subject at hand.
There were no errors on my part and you didn't point anything out. You just brought out new issues that were irrelevant and not pertaining to the subject and intent of my original post! When I point this out, you presume to tell me what my original intent was, that I'm off topic, an idiot and wrong?!? Same with my signature - I create a signature with one intent, tell you the intent and you presume to tell me I'm wrong?!? You had one idea about what the RFC was, were shown that it wasn't what you thought, and you continue to hold onto your preconceived notion like a starving man to his first meal in a week. Let go of it dude; your idea about RFC 1149 being a derogatory remark is just wrong. But I'll tell you what genius, if you can prove and show me a sentence where someone used RFC 1149 as a negative comment in the way you describe, I'll stand corrected. I point out a technology to show you that retailers can see what consumers look at and can help line bust, and you tell me it can't!?! I know the owner of the company, know the use cases of the solution, have toured stores that use it in real life and seen the results and have recommended it to clients. Yet I'm wrong?!? You bring out obtuse and cryptic remarks about AOL and assume people are going to stoop down to your level to understand the meaning, and when someone doesn't, you think they're an idiot.
It's ridiculous and I've never met anyone like you before. How can I argue with someone like you and why would I want to? You're the type that knows it all and would tell me what I dreamed about last night if you had the chance. Furthermore these are all irrelevant topics from the original post, hence why I decided to end this conversation. Your type of character is beneath me and a waste of my time to argue with.
Flame away as that's all you can do.