The thing is, when a company reaches a certain size they likely have a enough computer infrastructure to have an IT department anyway, even if they aren't an IT company. With your example of Ford, they have offices for managers, sales etc. All of those people likely have desktop computers, so they likely have dedicated desktop support. Additionally they probably have some kind of centralized authentication like active directory, which means they'll need a server and some sort of sys admin/IT infrastructure already. They likely wouldn't be adding an IT division in order to host their own email, they'd be adding an email server/management to the load of the existing IT department, which is obviously not as big an upfront overhead cost, making it more attractive.
Exactly. This is no different than anything else. Companies reach a certain point and hosted X becomes less viable than doing their own solution depending on the pricing model and service level provided. Email, website, call center, payment processing...
'A significant number of consumers are using smartphones running a version of the Android operating system with known, exploitable security vulnerabilities for which fixes have been published by Google, but have not been distributed to consumers'
Highlighted the important part from TFS. Google's released patches. Carriers are refusing to give them to their customers. There's nothing Google can do about that. Hence why the ACLU is lobbying the FTC to force the carriers into action.
What, you think the big telecoms are more benevolent? With the big telecoms they honestly don't care how good their service is most of the time. They'll bill you either way, and your other option(s) are either non-existent or more of the same with a different name.
If Google's model is making me the product, at least they have an investment in keeping their service up. I can't view their ads if I'm offline. Plus competition is going to drive relative costs down and service up. If they can monetize the fact that I did a search trying to figure out what this, "Harlem Shake" thing is on April 3rd, they're welcome to. Anything important I do is encrypted.
Ummm.... it doesn't work that way. Once a game is good to go with offline mode it stays that way unless there's an update. I live in the country on a rural wireless internet connection, so it drops like panties at a Keith Urban concert and I've never had any issues with getting locked out of a game unless it was in the middle of updating and couldn't finish.
Actually, I use Steam without an Internet connection all the time. The one time it pissed me off WAS because of forgetting to make sure I had it in offline mode before leaving for a cottage trip. Now I don't forget. It takes 10 seconds. The alternatives are buying the game on disk, which means I either have to wait for it to be shipped to me or go buy it at the store, both of which are a lot more inconvenient that having to remember to click a button, or using a different service, all of which are WAY more obtrusive. Have you tried dealing with Origin? That bag of crap makes me want to kick puppies.
If that's enough for you to avoid the platform altogether that's your choice, but I don't find offline mode that obtrusive at all. And as I said in the other part of my post, I find that inconvenience is more than offset by the benefits of Steam.
Yeah, but my guess is they're thinking the "game on a disk" thing is on the way out (probably not wrong), and are looking for DRM outside of that model.
Yeah, the key word is absurd though. I don't have a problem with unobtrusive DRM. I've only ever had Steam piss me off once, which honestly I feel is a fair trade off for the great deals and convenience it offers.
Always online DRM? Absurd. DRM that ties a game to a specific machine so if your console dies and you replace it, it's a pain in the ass to play the game you bought? Absurd. Online DRM that mostly stays out of my way and offers an offline mode, and in turn offers me a convenient store with great deals? Not absurd.
Of course no DRM is preferable, but I can't fault companies trying to protect their investment AS LONG as it doesn't overly convenience me as a legitimate customer.
Except the problem for MS isn't parents who will say, "No." It's parents who will say, "No. We're getting a PS4 instead because it has 99% of the same games and doesn't have absurd DRM requirements."
When I saw the summary title I read it as, "You don't own your own games." I thought, "Great, THIS story again," before I noticed I read it wrong. Completely off topic, but I thought it was funny.
But in an ad-hoc mesh network made up of mobile phones, movement and changes are a constant factor, making the burden of maintaining reliable routing information difficult enough to a inspire a new routing project, called the Better-Approach-To-Mobile-Adhoc-Network (BATMAN).
Yeah, someone else seemed to think I was on this guy's side too. I'm not. I suppose I should have worded it, "I hope for this guy's sake that he's good..." or something. I'm fully supportive of something like this earning you a trip to PMITA prison.
I'm not opposed to the fact that the kid gloves are off if you got that impression from the "I hope this guy's good..." part. Just pointing out that if people are getting 10 years of hard time for nude pics, hacking email accounts involving two presidents is not going to go well for him if he's caught.
The kid gloves are off. They're handing out actual jail time for people hacking phones/email for nude pics of Scarlett Johansson. If they find him/her, this dude's going to end up in gitmo over some addresses and phone numbers.
How many amazon inventors does it take to screw in a light bulb? No one knows, but it takes 5 to figure out how to automatically send you a new one every 6 months.
Anywhere you get news is going to have an agenda or be hypocritical to some extent (some obviously more than others). It's human nature. Take that into account when evaluating the information they give and look at sources from other perspectives as well before making informed decisions. If you wanted to disregarded news because the source was jaded in some way, you'd have to cut yourself off from media altogether.
most devices are stuck on Gingerbread with no apparent upgrade path from vendors.
Highlighting the part that I find most relevant. The problem isn't Android per se, it's vendors that lock you out of getting the most recent (security) updates to the OS. The play store has services that will keep even Gingerbread patched against known vulnerabilities (see comment 42829985). If your vendor blocks you from using that... time to pick a new vendor.
Ah, that makes sense. No experience outside of IA architecture, but I assumed there was a difference when you added in (what I now know I should be calling) emulation. Didn't realize it was that much of a resource overhead. Thanks.
Slashdot Mirror
https://www.google.ca/search?q=cockroach+recipes&aq=f&oq=cockroach+recipes&aqs=chrome.0.57j0l3.7062j0&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
One of the top page result is recipes for cockroach pesticides. The rest are... not. Enjoy.
Rectum? Damn near killed them.
The thing is, when a company reaches a certain size they likely have a enough computer infrastructure to have an IT department anyway, even if they aren't an IT company. With your example of Ford, they have offices for managers, sales etc. All of those people likely have desktop computers, so they likely have dedicated desktop support. Additionally they probably have some kind of centralized authentication like active directory, which means they'll need a server and some sort of sys admin/IT infrastructure already. They likely wouldn't be adding an IT division in order to host their own email, they'd be adding an email server/management to the load of the existing IT department, which is obviously not as big an upfront overhead cost, making it more attractive.
Exactly. This is no different than anything else. Companies reach a certain point and hosted X becomes less viable than doing their own solution depending on the pricing model and service level provided. Email, website, call center, payment processing...
'A significant number of consumers are using smartphones running a version of the Android operating system with known, exploitable security vulnerabilities for which fixes have been published by Google, but have not been distributed to consumers'
Highlighted the important part from TFS. Google's released patches. Carriers are refusing to give them to their customers. There's nothing Google can do about that. Hence why the ACLU is lobbying the FTC to force the carriers into action.
Within the Windows community, people are just opting to stay with Windows 7 rather than go to Windows 8. Same thing happened with XP/Vista...
And 98/ME...
It's becoming SOP to just skip every second iteration.
What, you think the big telecoms are more benevolent? With the big telecoms they honestly don't care how good their service is most of the time. They'll bill you either way, and your other option(s) are either non-existent or more of the same with a different name.
If Google's model is making me the product, at least they have an investment in keeping their service up. I can't view their ads if I'm offline. Plus competition is going to drive relative costs down and service up. If they can monetize the fact that I did a search trying to figure out what this, "Harlem Shake" thing is on April 3rd, they're welcome to. Anything important I do is encrypted.
Ummm.... it doesn't work that way. Once a game is good to go with offline mode it stays that way unless there's an update. I live in the country on a rural wireless internet connection, so it drops like panties at a Keith Urban concert and I've never had any issues with getting locked out of a game unless it was in the middle of updating and couldn't finish.
Any war with them with missiles would be concluded before you heard about it on Slashdot.
Maybe, but I bet someone would point out they saw it on reddit the day before.
Actually, I use Steam without an Internet connection all the time. The one time it pissed me off WAS because of forgetting to make sure I had it in offline mode before leaving for a cottage trip. Now I don't forget. It takes 10 seconds. The alternatives are buying the game on disk, which means I either have to wait for it to be shipped to me or go buy it at the store, both of which are a lot more inconvenient that having to remember to click a button, or using a different service, all of which are WAY more obtrusive. Have you tried dealing with Origin? That bag of crap makes me want to kick puppies.
If that's enough for you to avoid the platform altogether that's your choice, but I don't find offline mode that obtrusive at all. And as I said in the other part of my post, I find that inconvenience is more than offset by the benefits of Steam.
Yeah, but my guess is they're thinking the "game on a disk" thing is on the way out (probably not wrong), and are looking for DRM outside of that model.
Preview fail. Inconvenience me as a customer.
Yeah, the key word is absurd though. I don't have a problem with unobtrusive DRM. I've only ever had Steam piss me off once, which honestly I feel is a fair trade off for the great deals and convenience it offers.
Always online DRM? Absurd.
DRM that ties a game to a specific machine so if your console dies and you replace it, it's a pain in the ass to play the game you bought? Absurd.
Online DRM that mostly stays out of my way and offers an offline mode, and in turn offers me a convenient store with great deals? Not absurd.
Of course no DRM is preferable, but I can't fault companies trying to protect their investment AS LONG as it doesn't overly convenience me as a legitimate customer.
Except the problem for MS isn't parents who will say, "No." It's parents who will say, "No. We're getting a PS4 instead because it has 99% of the same games and doesn't have absurd DRM requirements."
Will it blend? Since 1959.
When I saw the summary title I read it as, "You don't own your own games." I thought, "Great, THIS story again," before I noticed I read it wrong. Completely off topic, but I thought it was funny.
But in an ad-hoc mesh network made up of mobile phones, movement and changes are a constant factor, making the burden of maintaining reliable routing information difficult enough to a inspire a new routing project, called the Better-Approach-To-Mobile-Adhoc-Network (BATMAN).
The GODDAMN BATMAN!
Yeah, someone else seemed to think I was on this guy's side too. I'm not. I suppose I should have worded it, "I hope for this guy's sake that he's good..." or something. I'm fully supportive of something like this earning you a trip to PMITA prison.
I'm not opposed to the fact that the kid gloves are off if you got that impression from the "I hope this guy's good..." part. Just pointing out that if people are getting 10 years of hard time for nude pics, hacking email accounts involving two presidents is not going to go well for him if he's caught.
The kid gloves are off. They're handing out actual jail time for people hacking phones/email for nude pics of Scarlett Johansson. If they find him/her, this dude's going to end up in gitmo over some addresses and phone numbers.
How many amazon inventors does it take to screw in a light bulb? No one knows, but it takes 5 to figure out how to automatically send you a new one every 6 months.
Anywhere you get news is going to have an agenda or be hypocritical to some extent (some obviously more than others). It's human nature. Take that into account when evaluating the information they give and look at sources from other perspectives as well before making informed decisions. If you wanted to disregarded news because the source was jaded in some way, you'd have to cut yourself off from media altogether.
most devices are stuck on Gingerbread with no apparent upgrade path from vendors.
Highlighting the part that I find most relevant. The problem isn't Android per se, it's vendors that lock you out of getting the most recent (security) updates to the OS. The play store has services that will keep even Gingerbread patched against known vulnerabilities (see comment 42829985). If your vendor blocks you from using that... time to pick a new vendor.
Hi! I'm a server!
http://xkcd.com/869/
Ah, that makes sense. No experience outside of IA architecture, but I assumed there was a difference when you added in (what I now know I should be calling) emulation. Didn't realize it was that much of a resource overhead. Thanks.