None of the comments here have mentioned the possibility that the fitness test is not there as an end in itself. I would suspect that the primary purpose of checking that candidates for desk jobs are in shape is to ensure that they are in control of their lives and have the right attitude. Being fit and healthy is a very good indicator that you will turn up to work on time, don't go out on the piss too often, get a consistent and reasonable amount of sleep and so on. All of these things are desirable characteristics for a federal employee. And the bottom line is that if you want to be a federal agent, and you can't pass the test then unless you hit the gym and get in shape, you obviously don't want to be a federal agent badly enough.
i need something that says "hey, you know, im important, and i carry a gun, and you're criminal scum that needs to get down on the ground..."
um. "Yardie Mo-Fo on da scene, so yo' better gimme some repect. bitch"? Fortunately the majority of police in this country don't carry guns, and those that do simply say "POLICE!". And that's the way it should be.
Christ almighty! Do you people not ever take care to know what you are talking about? PwC Consulting is a *subsiduary* of PwC the Global Financial Services company. They do not do fucking accounting. Likewise Accenture is now nothing to do with Andersen, and CapGemini Ernst and Young has bugger all to do with Ernst and Young.
To answer your question, probably about the same since the unit that's being sold has sweet FA to do with accounting.
I assume that's a troll, right? All of the Big Financial services companies (except Andersen) operate as a federation of national companies. They all also started up consulting divisions a while back. As big IT projects became more and more common during the '90s the consulting divisions realised that they were making significantly more profit per partner than the other divisions and were itching to split from their original parent. This is why Accenture split from Andersen, EY consulting was sold to CapGemini and so on.
PwC consulting has absolutely nothing to do with PwC Financial services in the operational sense. Secondly, Linux Consulting accounts for an absolutely tiny fraction of GS revenues.
For more of this kind of thing, I recomend a book called The Chicken from Minsk. It has some pretty tough questions, and they are posed in such a way that they often make you giggle.
10 means 10 for everyone (except for geeks that see at as 2 in binary or 8 in octal, or 16 in hex;)
I don't know about you, but for me ten is 1010 in binary, 12 in octal and 10 in hex. I think that you are perhaps slightly missing the point of using different bases.
The current settlement plan between Microsoft and the US Department of Justice, fails to stop the "Monopoly Tending" [sic] of Microsoft. In actually[sic], it helps strengthen Microsoft's Monopoly[sic - capitalisation] to the point of helping Microsoft try to destroy the only competitor to they [sic] reign of power -- LINUX.
The agreement's greatest flaw is the definition of a class of companies that Microsoft "needs" to talk to [sic] ISVs and OEMs and the like. I am [sic] and have been [sic] both types of "companies" [sic]. I build my own machines - like a DELL or Gateway. I write code and create Integrated Systems [sic] akin to a [sic] Symantec or a [sic] CSA. But I am also a single person, to[sic] small for Microsoft to talk to, to [sic] small to afford the cost [sic] to go their meetings about their technology. I have for years be [sic] forced to buy Operating Systems [sic] at full retail prices, though I build me [sic] own machines.
I was blocked for years of [sic] getting Windows 95 OSR2 -- an OEM only version of the OS containing the newest hardware interfaces. By allowing this agreement to contain clauses that "anoint" companies that Microsoft must "talk" to [sic] you have caused Microsoft [sic] greater monopoly power by being the "glue" in a cartel of large companies all protecting they [sic] own pocketbooks.
A case in point is IBM. Microsoft was at one time offering [sic] PowerPC Windows NT System. PowerPC is used in IBM's Midrange Machines [sic - capitalisation] and Apples [sic] Macintoch. Microsoft pulled the support of that processor. Which [sic] give [sic] Intel more years to keep pricing inflated [sic] on its processors - both the x86 line and the Alpha that Intel was building for DEC. Compaq Computers now own DEC. Instance [sic] Microsoft strengthen two of its best business partners and itself while trying to hurt IBM.
With NDA [sic] and limited information that Microsoft is required to release. [sic] LINUX will be hurt by not having access to information for compatibility. LINUX is a competing operating system that Microsoft can not [sic] buy or sue into non-existence. Companies, like RedHat, make money is [sic] selling services or easy to install copies of the OS, without having to pay a licensing fee. But LINUX licensee [sic] places a burden on a developer that code made available via under it [sic] licensee [sic] is free of other licensing restricting and the full source is available at no extra charge. In this way the next developer can improve the code and again pass it on. [sic]Allows for thousands of people to give a little of themselves for the greater good.
Signing a [sic] NDA or paying for trips to meetings, [sic] places a unfair burden in [sic] small "guys" [sic] like myself to compete, or share what I have learned. Even to share code, since licensing restrictions may get in the way. Instances [sic], I am "un-clean" to work on open source projects. I may use some else [sic]IP by accident.
In the end, the agreement should be blocked and [sic] better settlement be reached. IF [sic] the agreement is kept, then change it so the following happens:
1) All API's [sic]are published, documented, and examples made available 6 months prior to first general release containing the API's [sic]. Release of API's [sic] is made by any method of Microsoft's choice as long it is also placed on [sic] microsoft.com website, [sic]easily found (example: Search: "API WinXP") and [sic] limited to HTML version 3 display standards. Further [sic] not having to register with [sic] or agree to a [sic]NDA with Microsoft or any other company to gain access to this information. Further to state... an API is not Intellectual Property[sic], but ways to "talk" to a program that is[sic]. 2) A Beta version is released and in the hands of all whom [sic] asks [sic] for it, no later than 3 months prior the general release or an [sic] product. Any changes to that Beta must [sic] in the hands of all who received the original shipping, to [sic] later than 2 weeks after the change [sic] were made or 2 weeks prior to general release, which ever [sic] is earlier. An exception is a [sic]emergency release because a [sic] virus [sic]exploit.
3) Remove any clause that defines who Microsoft has to talk to. Instead place "Any person who wishes [sic] know". Change 1, insures [sic] that if I wish to create a product that interacts with a Microsoft product, that I have full and complete information. AND [sic] will not be blocked or restricted by Microsoft. Change 2, [sic] Allows [sic] me to make compatibility tests and modification to my code prior to Microsoft releasing their product. This way my customers are protected from changes that may break code they are running. Change 3,[sic] Allows [sic]anyone who wishes to go a technology meeting will [sic] be allowed [sic] IT IS NOT LONGER A "PRIVATE CLUB".
If in way I can help, please let me know.
Jack Beglinger
8900 Keeler Ave
Skokie, IL
847-677-2427
If the parent's author really said that... then he's a fool. Now go and read about Anderson
Re:Structured Computer Organization and compilers
on
General IT Books?
·
· Score: 2
Good recomendation. I found Tanenbaum significantly better than Patterson and Hennessey. Either way I agree that it's important to have a from the ground up understanding of how computers work.
Re:The First $20 Million is Always the Hardest
on
General IT Books?
·
· Score: 1
Seriously, do NOT bother with the book mentioned by the parent. I bought it on a 3 for 2 offer or similar and regretted it. Seriously lame assed attempt to make an exciting read that tied in with the dot com boom era in which it was written.
The University of Cambridge have a system called the public workstation facility. This is comprised of machines in many departments and colleges which can authenticate against a single database, and which provide homespace and so on. I understand that some of these machines are now dual boot between NT/win2k and a home grown linux. More infomation is here.
Microsoft make a LOT of money from selling software. In the future they will make a lot of money from renting software. They are also a public corporation, and so are legally beholden to their shareholders. Their shareholders want them to maximise their profits.
Consequently there is absolutely no reason for MS to open their products unless they are forced to by the courts.
ummm, no... take any basic enonomics course and you'll learn that monopolies operate in such a way that any raise in price is detrimental to their profits.
actually you won't. so next time don't be so quick to do the patronising "take a basic course in..." shit.
Just to clear this up, a monopolist *in the standard model* would lose out by raising prices if they were operating at the equilibrium price or above. If they were operating below, then it would be an improvement. You cannot assume that a company will be operting at the equilibrium position all the time because the market is pretty dynamic - the demand curve facing the monopolist is affected by external factors. Also bear in mind that the standard model has very little to do with how the real world actually works.
Slashdot Mirror
Matt Jones
None of the comments here have mentioned the possibility that the fitness test is not there as an end in itself. I would suspect that the primary purpose of checking that candidates for desk jobs are in shape is to ensure that they are in control of their lives and have the right attitude. Being fit and healthy is a very good indicator that you will turn up to work on time, don't go out on the piss too often, get a consistent and reasonable amount of sleep and so on. All of these things are desirable characteristics for a federal employee. And the bottom line is that if you want to be a federal agent, and you can't pass the test then unless you hit the gym and get in shape, you obviously don't want to be a federal agent badly enough.
um. "Yardie Mo-Fo on da scene, so yo' better gimme some repect. bitch"? Fortunately the majority of police in this country don't carry guns, and those that do simply say "POLICE!". And that's the way it should be.
thanks.
Isn't Telstra a publicly quoted company? Do the Australian government have a majority stake then?
To answer your question, probably about the same since the unit that's being sold has sweet FA to do with accounting.
Please don't confule PwC with PwC consulting. PwC is the much larger Financial services parent.
PwC consulting has absolutely nothing to do with PwC Financial services in the operational sense. Secondly, Linux Consulting accounts for an absolutely tiny fraction of GS revenues.
For more of this kind of thing, I recomend a book called The Chicken from Minsk. It has some pretty tough questions, and they are posed in such a way that they often make you giggle.
This was up a few days ago on the excellent memepool.com. Go take a look - you might like it.
I suppose we should take into account more foreign opinion on our money considering it's the most relied-upon cash in the world.
Did you just ignore the first paragraph?
10 means 10 for everyone (except for geeks that see at as 2 in binary or 8 in octal, or 16 in hex ;)
I don't know about you, but for me ten is 1010 in binary, 12 in octal and 10 in hex. I think that you are perhaps slightly missing the point of using different bases.
The current settlement plan between Microsoft and the US Department of Justice, fails to stop the "Monopoly Tending" [sic] of Microsoft. In actually[sic], it helps strengthen Microsoft's Monopoly[sic - capitalisation] to the point of helping Microsoft try to
destroy the only competitor to they [sic] reign of power -- LINUX.
The agreement's greatest flaw is the definition of a class of companies that Microsoft "needs" to talk to [sic] ISVs and OEMs and the like.
I am [sic] and have been [sic] both types of "companies" [sic]. I build my own machines - like a DELL or Gateway. I write code and create Integrated Systems [sic] akin to a [sic] Symantec or a [sic] CSA. But I am also a single person, to[sic] small for Microsoft to talk to, to [sic] small to afford the cost [sic] to go their meetings about their technology. I have for years be [sic] forced to buy Operating Systems [sic] at full retail
prices, though I build me [sic] own machines.
I was blocked for years of [sic] getting
Windows 95 OSR2 -- an OEM only version of the OS containing the newest hardware interfaces.
By allowing this agreement to contain clauses that "anoint" companies that Microsoft must "talk" to [sic] you have caused Microsoft [sic] greater monopoly power
by being the "glue" in a cartel of large companies all protecting they [sic] own
pocketbooks.
A case in point is IBM. Microsoft was at one time offering [sic] PowerPC Windows NT System. PowerPC is used in IBM's Midrange Machines [sic - capitalisation] and
Apples [sic] Macintoch. Microsoft pulled the support of that processor. Which [sic]
give [sic] Intel more years to keep pricing inflated [sic] on its processors - both the x86
line and the Alpha that Intel was building for DEC. Compaq Computers now own DEC. Instance [sic] Microsoft strengthen two of its best business partners and itself while trying to hurt IBM.
With NDA [sic] and limited information that Microsoft is required to release. [sic] LINUX will be hurt by not having access to information for compatibility. LINUX is a competing operating system that Microsoft can not [sic] buy or sue into non-existence. Companies, like RedHat, make money is [sic] selling services or easy to install copies of the OS, without having to pay a licensing fee. But LINUX licensee [sic] places a burden on a developer that
code made available via under it [sic] licensee [sic] is free of other licensing restricting and the full source is available at no extra
charge. In this way the next developer can improve the code and again pass it on. [sic]Allows for thousands of people to give a little of themselves for the greater good.
Signing a [sic] NDA or paying for trips to meetings, [sic] places a unfair burden in [sic] small "guys" [sic] like myself to compete, or share what I have learned. Even to share code, since licensing restrictions may get in the
way. Instances [sic], I am "un-clean" to work on open source projects. I may use some else [sic]IP by accident.
In the end, the agreement should be blocked and [sic] better settlement be reached. IF [sic] the agreement is kept, then change it so the following happens:
1) All API's [sic]are published, documented, and examples made available 6 months prior to first general release containing the API's [sic]. Release of API's [sic] is made by any method of Microsoft's choice as long it is also placed on [sic] microsoft.com website, [sic]easily found (example: Search: "API WinXP") and [sic]
limited to HTML version 3 display standards. Further [sic] not having to register
with [sic] or agree to a [sic]NDA with Microsoft or any other company to gain access
to this information. Further to state... an API is not Intellectual Property[sic], but ways to "talk" to a
program that is[sic].
2) A Beta version is released and in the hands of all whom [sic] asks [sic] for it, no
later than 3 months prior the general release or an [sic] product. Any changes to
that Beta must [sic] in the hands of all who received the original shipping, to [sic] later
than 2 weeks after the change [sic] were made or 2 weeks prior to general release, which ever [sic] is earlier. An exception is a [sic]emergency release because a [sic] virus [sic]exploit.
3) Remove any clause that defines who Microsoft has to talk to. Instead place "Any person who wishes [sic] know".
Change 1, insures [sic] that if I wish to create a product that interacts with a Microsoft product, that I have full and complete information. AND [sic] will not be blocked or restricted by Microsoft. Change 2, [sic] Allows [sic] me to make compatibility tests and modification to my code prior to Microsoft releasing their product. This way my customers are protected from changes that may break code they are running. Change 3,[sic] Allows [sic]anyone who wishes to go a
technology meeting will [sic] be allowed [sic] IT IS NOT LONGER A "PRIVATE CLUB".
If in way I can help, please let me know.
Jack Beglinger
8900 Keeler Ave
Skokie, IL
847-677-2427
If the parent's author really said that... then he's a fool. Now go and read about Anderson
Good recomendation. I found Tanenbaum significantly better than Patterson and Hennessey. Either way I agree that it's important to have a from the ground up understanding of how computers work.
Seriously, do NOT bother with the book mentioned by the parent. I bought it on a 3 for 2 offer or similar and regretted it. Seriously lame assed attempt to make an exciting read that tied in with the dot com boom era in which it was written.
So I click on the link and get a screen which says "loading navigation". I hit the back button. 'nuff said.
Why would you want to prevent closed source from implementing this? I'd prefer that any and every OS improved its security is the tech is there.
Throw in a bit of CPS and you don't even need an extra box. This is the direction location aware mobile apps are really going.
br
The University of Cambridge have a system called the public workstation facility. This is comprised of machines in many departments and colleges which can authenticate against a single database, and which provide homespace and so on. I understand that some of these machines are now dual boot between NT/win2k and a home grown linux. More infomation is here.
Except they already have a unique selling point: they're the only ones that make Wor, Excel etc. Why should they expose themselves to competition?
Consequently there is absolutely no reason for MS to open their products unless they are forced to by the courts.
ummm, no ... take any basic enonomics course and you'll learn that monopolies operate in such a way that any raise in price is detrimental to their profits.
actually you won't. so next time don't be so quick to do the patronising "take a basic course in..." shit.
Just to clear this up, a monopolist *in the standard model* would lose out by raising prices if they were operating at the equilibrium price or above. If they were operating below, then it would be an improvement. You cannot assume that a company will be operting at the equilibrium position all the time because the market is pretty dynamic - the demand curve facing the monopolist is affected by external factors. Also bear in mind that the standard model has very little to do with how the real world actually works.
It's important to note that you can't "save" bandwidth for later (unlike water or electricity),
perhaps you'd like to explain to me how you would store a TeraWatt-hour for later useage in a nominally efficient way.