Companies have to think about cash-flow a lot more than individuals do. Regular small payments out are much easier on a budget than erratic large payments. Also, in general, it is better for a company to keep money in the bank and borrow against it than it is to spend it. If a company has $10,000 in the bank and needs to buy an $8,000 piece of equipment, they can borrow the 8k and then when they need to spend another $5,000 for another piece of equipment they can borrow an additional $5k all the while keeping their $10k in the bank. If they had spent the $8k up front they would only have $2k in the bank and might not be able to find a lender for the $5k. That Cash on Hand number is very important.
That being said, Software as a Service seems like a losing situation for a company. You lose control over proprietary data, you expose yourself to legal risks (imagine the service provider getting subpoenaed). If the software is business critical you put yourself at financial risk due to network outage or even forgotten passwords. If you are big enough to mitigate these risks with favorable contracts and redundant network connections you are probably big enough to just buy the software for the desktops. (With caveats, certain services like the search things that lawyers use probably make sense as a service, but not so much for office suites in high use situations.)
Actually, I think the 2000 election is the best argument for the Electoral College. Before 2000 I was of the opinion that the Electoral college was an anachronism from the days before instantaneous mass communication. However, in 2000 the Electoral college gave us a straightforward, constitutional transition of power, no matter what happened in any one state. The College meets on December 8th and if Florida's delegation doesn't show up, so be it, the college votes. BTW, this is why GWB won in 2000, not because of the courts stopping recounts, but because the president is elected by the Electoral College, and GWB was. Keep in mind also, the Electors can vote for anyone they want, while in many states this is illegal on the first vote, they would only be able to be punished after the fact. Once the College vote is certified that person is the president. Imagine in 2000 a small-scale defection on the part of some Electors due to the irregularities in Florida, even abstention on the first vote would be enough to throw the vote wide open.
Presidential elections are not National elections, they are State elections and it is up to the states to handle them. Imagine if the president was elected by popular vote. The vote difference in 2000 is well within the margin of error of the voting methods in many hundreds or thousands of districts. So you would have thousands of district recounts with thousands of court challenges. It would be nearly impossible to even get the challenges through court and the recounts completed before inauguration day.
Let us pause for a moment from discussing the "government versus people" debate, and (just for the sake of the argument) assume that we are living in an utopia where the government passes laws to protect citizens, not oppress them.
OK, so we ignore the potential for abuse. But that still leaves the question: how, exactly, is the law supposed to protect anyone? Ok, I'll play.
There are two uses for laws against the possession of tools.
One is to give the authorities the power to arrest criminals before they commit the major act. If you suspect that someone is an evil hacker you search their drive and find the hacker tools and charge them with possession of tools.
The second is to have a backup charge in case you can't get enough evidence for the major charge. Maybe you can't prove the evil hacker broke into the bank, but you can show he had the tools on his laptop.
So in the first case, the law protects by preventing the major crime, and in the second case by punishing the criminal even though the evidence was less than perfect.
If I have a license to use the software then doesn't that license extends to whatever media that software happens to be on?
Does that license go away if my disk gets broken?
If I purchased a license isn't the company responsible for making sure that I can excercise that license by providing replacement media?
Is it ok for my friend comes over and uses the software, he didn't buy a license. And the EULA most likely says that the license is non-transferable, so can I let my friend use my license? If I can let him use my license on my computer, why can't I let him use my license on his computer?
All of the digital copyright issues have this problem. Either I own the media (and by extension the bits pressed into it) and can make copies, reverse engineer it, or sell it on ebay; or I own a license, which means (or should mean) that they are required to provide me with the ability to use what I have paid to use.
The problem is that the companies are trying to have it in their favor both ways. It's a license, so you can't copy, sell, trade it; but it's a product so if it breaks its your own fault.
you'd think you have to pay royalties every time you mention how many home runs someone's hit this season
It has come to our attention that the term "home run" is a trademark of Major League Baseball. Please contact our administrative offices to purchase permission to use this term.
And then he waved the bright shiny object for slashdot - how would YOU do it - how would you prevent the smuggling of liquid explosives onto an airplane given that you don't necessarily know the chemical signature(s) of the explosives...or their constituents First of all, stop trying to work within the current system. Create a secure system from the ground up. For example, why do we scan carry ons bags in the same line that we scan people? The security line should be people walking through the detectors and having their ID and boarding pass checked.
1. Carry on bags and anything else that must be removed (coats, laptops, belts, whatever...) are taken at the check in desk, ran through whatever screening and returned to the passenger on the other side of the security checkpoint. (Say 30 min turnaround) Anyone with a carry on must arrive one hour early or the bag must be checked.
2. Find a way to determine that an item is what the label says. If it's a water bottle, check it for being water. If it's a shampoo bottle, check it for being shampoo. Only allow things through that can be confirmed to be what they say they are. How possible is this (especially for medicines and breastmilk/formula)?
3. Only allow a person through the checkpoint once, when they check in give them a boarding pass and a security pass. The security pass gets collected at the checkpoint.
4. Who are these people buying big bottles of water within sight of the checkpoint, by the sign that says no liquids in containers over 3oz, go through the checkpoint, then buy your drink.
5. Everyone and everything on the secure side of the checkpoint must go through the procedures, janitorial staff/supplies, pilots, everything, there should be no employee access that can get past the screening points.
6. Choose cleaning supplies that can't (easily) be turned into explosives.
7. Access doors such as janitorial closets should not be unlockable. Key only, no knob, if it's not latched for more than x minutes (1, 3, 5?) the alarm goes off.
8. Have enough screeners, both up front, and for baggage. There's no excuse for improper staffing, All of these flights have been scheduled for months.
9. Monitor effectiveness, both of the policies and the personnel, if it isn't working, fix it.
I'm sure there's problems with some of these, but it's better than what we have now.
JimFive
If you're going to be making your users validate anyway, why not just have them validate the comment/post instead of forcing a conversation upon them.
JimFive
So if someone defines a "desktop" as being a single machine that can cope with all the tasks a user requires I saw a lot of this misconception but I'm responding to this one.
The Desktop metaphor is not about the hardware, it is about the User Interface. The metaphor is that you have a work surface (the screen), documents are in a file cabinet (filesystem). You take a document out of the file cabinet, put it on your desk, work on it, and put it away. You may also have tools on your desk like a typewriter (word processor), calculator(spreadsheet), etc.
Of the implementations of the metaphor, Apple tried to stay the closest to purity, which is why Apple users tend to click on a document to open it, while windows users tend to open an application and then load a file.
Moving the application to the a network server, or an internet host even doesn't make the metaphor obsolete, especially since they are putting it on the desktop.
The desktop metaphor is broken because on a real desk you don't need to worry (too much) about the tools. Any pen will work with any type of document, whether its an accounting ledger, a memo, or a blueprint. That isn't true, and probably can't be true, on a computer.
A better metaphor for a desktop computer might be a workshop. You have your tools (applications) available, and you select the right tool to do a job. If you don't have the tool you have to go get it before you can use it. And if you have an 1/4" router and a 1/2" bit, too bad, doesn't work. (Though in computers the problem is that if your friend made the birdhouse with his craftsman drill, you can't paint it with a black-and-decker sprayer)
It seems to me that all of the issues (sex, crime, death, etc.), in addition to other unexpected occurances, will need to be dealt with by the crew only. The crew is like a small independent community, once they are in space they will be the final arbiters of morality. The worst case would be for two members of the crew to compete for control.
So, the "solution" to all of these issues is to set up an isolated situation on earth for the proposed crew to live in for a couple of years before the mission so that they have already worked out their relationships. The isolation has to be set up as close to the space environment as possible (same size environment, no early exits, etc) with no external judgments on their behavior (no external law or morality enforcement). Any behavioral difficulties need to be mediated and worked out solely by the crews themselves. After the time period is up a crew that has become a stable working unit is moved directly into a launching ship with no contact outside of the group (to maintain the existing dynamics).
There will need to be contact with mission control, but that contact should be purely on the logistics of the mission, not on the moral/ethical/legal aspects of the crews behavior.
JimFive
Apart from all of the feasibility arguments around here, the real problem with the sales tax subsidy is that they are paying for some fraction of this spaceport (25%?) and NOT OWNING IT!! That amount of investment from any private capital would command ownership and input, and assuming it was successful, RETURNS! The only returns being discussed are the theoretical increases in tax revenue due to tourist spending. Ridiculous, If I'm the county I want my share of the net distributed back to the population as stockholders.
It seems that there are actually two types of Amazon customers involved in this.
The first type are those that went to Amazon.com and bought a bunch of things, entered the coupon code and got charged some amount of money, but didn't get charged for the box set. These customers paid for their order in good faith and should be left alone.
The other type are those that went to the site, bought two-box sets, entered the coupon and got a $0.00 invoice. These customers, knowing there was a mistake, should be asked to pay for their order and legal proceedings should ensue.
However, stating: We are going to charge your credit card, does seem to cross the line.
JimFive
Slashdot Mirror
Taking a class isn't about collecting a media presentation.
--
JimFive
JimFive
Lighten up, it's a joke.
Owning is better, but not all debt is bad.
Companies have to think about cash-flow a lot more than individuals do. Regular small payments out are much easier on a budget than erratic large payments. Also, in general, it is better for a company to keep money in the bank and borrow against it than it is to spend it. If a company has $10,000 in the bank and needs to buy an $8,000 piece of equipment, they can borrow the 8k and then when they need to spend another $5,000 for another piece of equipment they can borrow an additional $5k all the while keeping their $10k in the bank. If they had spent the $8k up front they would only have $2k in the bank and might not be able to find a lender for the $5k. That Cash on Hand number is very important.
That being said, Software as a Service seems like a losing situation for a company. You lose control over proprietary data, you expose yourself to legal risks (imagine the service provider getting subpoenaed). If the software is business critical you put yourself at financial risk due to network outage or even forgotten passwords. If you are big enough to mitigate these risks with favorable contracts and redundant network connections you are probably big enough to just buy the software for the desktops. (With caveats, certain services like the search things that lawyers use probably make sense as a service, but not so much for office suites in high use situations.)
JimFive
Actually, I think the 2000 election is the best argument for the Electoral College. Before 2000 I was of the opinion that the Electoral college was an anachronism from the days before instantaneous mass communication. However, in 2000 the Electoral college gave us a straightforward, constitutional transition of power, no matter what happened in any one state. The College meets on December 8th and if Florida's delegation doesn't show up, so be it, the college votes. BTW, this is why GWB won in 2000, not because of the courts stopping recounts, but because the president is elected by the Electoral College, and GWB was. Keep in mind also, the Electors can vote for anyone they want, while in many states this is illegal on the first vote, they would only be able to be punished after the fact. Once the College vote is certified that person is the president. Imagine in 2000 a small-scale defection on the part of some Electors due to the irregularities in Florida, even abstention on the first vote would be enough to throw the vote wide open.
Presidential elections are not National elections, they are State elections and it is up to the states to handle them. Imagine if the president was elected by popular vote. The vote difference in 2000 is well within the margin of error of the voting methods in many hundreds or thousands of districts. So you would have thousands of district recounts with thousands of court challenges. It would be nearly impossible to even get the challenges through court and the recounts completed before inauguration day.
--
JimFive
Fallacy of Ambiguity!!!
When a mathematician calls a number irrational he means that it cannot be represented as a ratio of integers.
When someone calls an argument irrational they mean that it is not based on reason.
They look the same, but they are not the same word.
JimFive
There are two uses for laws against the possession of tools.
One is to give the authorities the power to arrest criminals before they commit the major act. If you suspect that someone is an evil hacker you search their drive and find the hacker tools and charge them with possession of tools.
The second is to have a backup charge in case you can't get enough evidence for the major charge. Maybe you can't prove the evil hacker broke into the bank, but you can show he had the tools on his laptop.
So in the first case, the law protects by preventing the major crime, and in the second case by punishing the criminal even though the evidence was less than perfect.
--
JimFive
If I have a license to use the software then doesn't that license extends to whatever media that software happens to be on?
Does that license go away if my disk gets broken?
If I purchased a license isn't the company responsible for making sure that I can excercise that license by providing replacement media?
Is it ok for my friend comes over and uses the software, he didn't buy a license. And the EULA most likely says that the license is non-transferable, so can I let my friend use my license? If I can let him use my license on my computer, why can't I let him use my license on his computer?
All of the digital copyright issues have this problem. Either I own the media (and by extension the bits pressed into it) and can make copies, reverse engineer it, or sell it on ebay; or I own a license, which means (or should mean) that they are required to provide me with the ability to use what I have paid to use.
The problem is that the companies are trying to have it in their favor both ways. It's a license, so you can't copy, sell, trade it; but it's a product so if it breaks its your own fault.
JimFive
It has come to our attention that the term "home run" is a trademark of Major League Baseball. Please contact our administrative offices to purchase permission to use this term.
Thank you,
MLB
If you're going to be making your users validate anyway, why not just have them validate the comment/post instead of forcing a conversation upon them. JimFive
The Desktop metaphor is not about the hardware, it is about the User Interface. The metaphor is that you have a work surface (the screen), documents are in a file cabinet (filesystem). You take a document out of the file cabinet, put it on your desk, work on it, and put it away. You may also have tools on your desk like a typewriter (word processor), calculator(spreadsheet), etc.
Of the implementations of the metaphor, Apple tried to stay the closest to purity, which is why Apple users tend to click on a document to open it, while windows users tend to open an application and then load a file.
Moving the application to the a network server, or an internet host even doesn't make the metaphor obsolete, especially since they are putting it on the desktop.
The desktop metaphor is broken because on a real desk you don't need to worry (too much) about the tools. Any pen will work with any type of document, whether its an accounting ledger, a memo, or a blueprint. That isn't true, and probably can't be true, on a computer.
A better metaphor for a desktop computer might be a workshop. You have your tools (applications) available, and you select the right tool to do a job. If you don't have the tool you have to go get it before you can use it. And if you have an 1/4" router and a 1/2" bit, too bad, doesn't work. (Though in computers the problem is that if your friend made the birdhouse with his craftsman drill, you can't paint it with a black-and-decker sprayer)
JimFive
It seems to me that all of the issues (sex, crime, death, etc.), in addition to other unexpected occurances, will need to be dealt with by the crew only. The crew is like a small independent community, once they are in space they will be the final arbiters of morality. The worst case would be for two members of the crew to compete for control.
So, the "solution" to all of these issues is to set up an isolated situation on earth for the proposed crew to live in for a couple of years before the mission so that they have already worked out their relationships. The isolation has to be set up as close to the space environment as possible (same size environment, no early exits, etc) with no external judgments on their behavior (no external law or morality enforcement). Any behavioral difficulties need to be mediated and worked out solely by the crews themselves. After the time period is up a crew that has become a stable working unit is moved directly into a launching ship with no contact outside of the group (to maintain the existing dynamics). There will need to be contact with mission control, but that contact should be purely on the logistics of the mission, not on the moral/ethical/legal aspects of the crews behavior. JimFive
Apart from all of the feasibility arguments around here, the real problem with the sales tax subsidy is that they are paying for some fraction of this spaceport (25%?) and NOT OWNING IT!! That amount of investment from any private capital would command ownership and input, and assuming it was successful, RETURNS! The only returns being discussed are the theoretical increases in tax revenue due to tourist spending. Ridiculous, If I'm the county I want my share of the net distributed back to the population as stockholders.
It seems that there are actually two types of Amazon customers involved in this. The first type are those that went to Amazon.com and bought a bunch of things, entered the coupon code and got charged some amount of money, but didn't get charged for the box set. These customers paid for their order in good faith and should be left alone. The other type are those that went to the site, bought two-box sets, entered the coupon and got a $0.00 invoice. These customers, knowing there was a mistake, should be asked to pay for their order and legal proceedings should ensue. However, stating: We are going to charge your credit card, does seem to cross the line. JimFive