More accurately, it is limited to the books every library that is in their inter-library loan system has chosen to stock. It's not everything - but it is a bigger universe of books than suggested here.
Communism is not fascism or vice versa. Put both together and you have an oxymoron.
Nor is the U.S. a democracy, it is a republic. People just use words nowadays without knowing what they even mean. Buy a dictionary or do a web search already.
Definitely high on FUD. It would be good to hear a more measured analysis of why the choice was made. For example, I have read a few articles on Cendant's use of Linux to replace Unix for it Galileo reservation system. It is a truly huge project that basically came down to cost and the need to update an old system.
I can see circumstances where IIS might be a better solution for a particular situation - staff skills, legacy infrastructure or even because of the name recognition. But, this reads like something you would expect from a fanboy not a CIO making reasoned choices.
If you want to be technical, you could check out the 2004 annual report. Of the net revenue of $1.87 billion, $1.07 billion is cost of goods sold. So, you have gross profit around 43%. You then have to figure in operating expenses, taxes and so forth - which brings the figure down to about $134 million.
I'm sure there are minor differences in the margins between wholesale, retail at Hilfiger stores and selling Hilger through the web. But, I don't think they are enough to think that the $100 million of net revenue that were are assuming come from web sales would have a more significant impact on the bottom line of Hilfiger than there other channels. It seems unlikely at any rate.
I was not disputing your comment, just providing more detail. I also do not happen to think that - using your figure of 5% - that nearly $100 million is chump change. If you were a CIO in a company like Hilfiger that is built on branding, you would have to account for the branding as well as technical elements of your solution. To not do so would mean putting your job on the line, and most people do not do that unless there is a compeling reason to do so.
Clearly, Linux wasn't compeling - whether that was because it wasn't offered with lobster or not I do not know. However, I do think we should use Occum and assume the more simple answer. It did not fit his needs and he lacks the imagination to think of other circumstances where it might.
It's fairly simple. Privacy is a question about what should exist. Freedom of information is about accessibility of the information that we agree should exist. As in much of life, it is how you cut the concepts.
At my current job, I do not socialize with my co-workers. Why? The main issue is time.
I have more work to accomplish in a given time frame than one person should be reasonably be expected to do, and in order to get it done and not spend more time at work than is necessary, I need to be efficient in getting my work done. I simply do not have time to waste. While I will spend some time talking with people for the sake of establishing relationships and trust, I wish people will just make a judgment about me from the work I do - which is really all that is relevant.
For me, I'd rather have a few close relationships that are deep that have many than are less so. The people I have chosen to have these relationships with (and vice versa) do not happen to work where I do, and I do not have the room for any more without compromising the quality that I demand from my relationships.
So, maybe look it from this perspective. I'm sure you are a great guy - but I don't need to know your children's names, the breed of dog you have or whatever else to work with you. How about just give me the benefit of the doubt, assume I am a busy person and work with me to get the job done - without demanding that I spend time getting to know the "real you". Honestly, I've just got too many other things to do. If you'll do that for me, I promise I'll do the same.
Also, work isn't family. You can change your job anytime you want. Family is a commitment. It changes glacially, and it is a lifelong presence. Commitment makes all the difference, and I'd rather spend time building on the bedrock of commitment than the sifting sands of the work world.
This isn't to say that you cannot find good friends at work - some of the people that I have close relationships I met at work. However, there are times in your life when you simply do not wish to socialize and your plate is full. You should respect that and not take it personally; it has nothing to do with you.
I think it would depend on the scenario. If you were on a SEAL team working to sink an enemy ship in a harbor, then you would be right on. However, if you are in an environment like NORAD, it might make sense to use it. Or maybe not - WOULD YOU LIKE TO PLAY A GAME? =)
...it's nice to have an asynchronous medium like email for things that don't need a response *right this instant*...
So few things fall in the right this instant category - surgeon working on coding patient [check], pilot dodging missiles [check],...
I cannot think of one case where a right this instant response requires sending an IM. But then, I may be one of those old people they are talking about. IM is mostly just a time-waster.
I've read them. When someone asks me, "Who is John Galt?" I say he is some elitest asshole who thinks that most people are incompetent and does not understand that it isn't enough to just have a good idea. Good ideas are a commodity. They are a given. If you cannot figure out how to tap into how to turn your good ideas into something that can be done in society, you failed.
Society is the enemy of Rand's characters. Everything would have worked out great, my idea was brilliant - until they came along. It's the philosophy of failures, whiners, people that make excuses for themselves and the young without much experience.
Until you understand that most things in life - including railways and housing - are a cooperative enterprise and you need find a way to work with people and develop a collective vision, you are going to be fail - just like Rand's characters. Your intentions or the purity of your ideas are irrelevent. It's the outcomes that matter. Accept responsibility for outcomes and Rand starts looking downright foolish.
Doesn't change the fact that if you were to evaluate both formats based on technical merit - you would go with Betamax. Further, everything has advantages and disadvantages. By this logic, you wouldn't be able to have a technical process to evaluate anything. For example, your CRT monitor might make a better door jam but a technical evaluation would not look at that because that is not what a monitor was designed to do. Technical evaluation is based on how well something does what it is supposed to do. It is not an evaluation of what might sell or be more attactive to people buying the product - which was my point.
Of course, a sound technical decision process will always lead to a sound business development.
You almost had me there. Unfortunately, technically sound decisions do not always make for sound business development. VHS and Betamax proved that point. Social factors matter and can sink anything you do - irrespective of its technical merits.
There are applications that use SSL/TLS protocols as well as a full-strength general purpose crypto - Citrix for example.
The bottom line is that applications like these give physicians greater oversight over patients and positively impacts patient care. It is a good thing.
You know, the funny thing about V is for Vendetta is that you really cannot talk about him being a terrorist and a psycho without talking about the government prison camp he was held in, the experiments performed on him, the character of the people and goverment that is the object of his venegence and his ultimate objective - removal of the tyranny that in its most extreme form transformed him from the man he was into the character of the story.
Ultimately, it is a redemptive tale and an exploration of how sometimes things get so fractured that they have to be torn down before they can be made whole again. He is all the precursors of the popular uprising transformed into the singular for the convenience of the author.
My girlfriend is a doctor. She isn't big on computers either, but she loves the fact that systems like these enables her to look at images, keep tabs on patients and review patient information from home. It probably doesn't hurt that I solve the tech support problems for her...
I don't however think that the best solution is to "unplug" so to speak, because I've had the reverse to, deeply entranced in something complex for hours on end, only to find out that it was useless work because I was emailed twenty minutes into the task and notified we'd be taking a different task, that is similiarily annoying.
If something is open to that kind of change, I generally just sit on it. Until a task is certain, it doesn't need to be done.
If I worked in open cubes, I'd wear two sets of hearing protection like you would at a firing range. It let's people know that you find their conversation disturbing and makes it less likely people will just stop by to chat because they would actually have to touch you to get your attention - which most people would feel strange about in the US.
The primary problem with public education is that it is not designed to educate its citizens or encourage free-thinking - it is designed to socialize people and provide basic functional skills.
If you look at it from within this framework, public education does exactly as it is intended to do. Pointing out that it does not educate people well is besides the point - like stating that cars don't make good boats.
If you really wanted to educate people, you would look at places that train people to do specific functions (culinary schools, astronaut training, conservatories, special forces, etc.), research environments (Los Alamos, Bell Labs, etc.), pedagological approaches used for particular exceptional individuals (John Stuart Mill) or institutions (Army's After Action Review) and compare them to general environments that encourage critical thinking (graduate courses in a meaningful program with an interdisciplinary focus).
You would likely find commonalities such as: high standard for entry into the program, specialization (either in subject or methodology), small class size, hands on learning, exceptional teaching staff and support, adequete resources and so forth would be standard and then you would get more variability out from there.
However, all of this is a moot point if you are primarily interested in socialization. Independent, critical thinking on a mass scale is undesirable unless you build in ways for individuals to temper thinking with the ability to communicate well, ability to take criticism of ideas and even personal criticism, the ability to empathize with others, etc. Most people simple aren't to this kind of challenge.
So, it is easier just to socialize and let us all move along - those that can get educated despite their education can do so. Everyone else can point to their degrees and pat themselves on the back.
It might have been even more simple than that. Some geek probably wrote a function that uses historical and real-time sales volumes for that type of product to figure out a number of price points where you reach maximum profit given the costs for the DVD, price and demand volume over time. They then scale the price based on release day to a certain calculated end-point - and the sales bin is the error level of the function.
I remember reading a story - I believe it appeared in the Plain Reader - that talked about the Amish approach to technology:
A bus load of tourists were visiting Amish country. At some point in their journey, someone on the tour asked an Amish elder what it means to be Amish.
The elder started explaining about Jesus Christ - but before he got too far, he was stopped. "We know all about that, but what does it mean to be Amish?" He stopped, and thought for a moment.
He then asked everyone on the tour, "How many of you have television sets?" Every hand went up. Then, "How many of you believe that television has a negative impact on your relationships with your family, your community and with God?" Most hands went up. He then asked, "Believing that television has a negative impact on your relationships, how many of you would give up television?" No hands went up.
How many people need to die who are not terrorists because BOTH WESTERN SOCIETY and ISLAMIC FUNDAMENTALISTS DO NOT CARE to learn to interact with others in ways that are non-violent and cooperative?
The problem is we have a negative reenforcing loop. Some people in Western society take your position - which is essentially let's kill people. Once people die, people in Islamic society see how friends and neighbors die as a result of Western actions - and ask themselves:
How many people need to die before we all recognize that THEY DON'T CARE. Just be glad it was only bombs [without depleted uranium in them that will keep killing us for centuries, this time].
The end result is more and more dead people and more authoritarian governments. The ability to drive authoritarianism is really why this loop exists in the first place. Government leaders in both societies - whether they are Western or Islamic - want more authoritatian governments. For them, dead people are just an unfortunate by-product that allows them to achieve their goal.
The solution is to stop being violent yourself first, try to engage people in dialogue to figure out what drives them to kill people, and take the appropriate steps to lessen these issues. This approach promotes understanding and results in far fewer dead people.
Unfortunately, the result of this approach would be a more informed public, less control and a more equitable distribution of resources - which is not what Western leaders want.
However, it will happen at some point - once the corpses pile high enough that people stop rushing to the violent approach since it doesn't seem to be solving the problem.
The only problem with your comment is that it assumes the republican form of government in the U.S. works as advertised - members of Congress make decisions based on the interests of their consitutients. I think the fact that we have the current copyright system is a good counter-example to that argument. Citizen's didn't clamor for Bono's revisions, the entertainment industry did.
To put this in perspective, Dow Jones had more than $1.6 billion in sales. Reuters had $5.5 billion. LexisNexis had $2.4 billion.
Google had $3.1 billion. Most of the companies that dominate the content space are the same size or bigger than Google and any acquisition on that scale would probably pave the way for another AOL/Time Warner like debacle.
Slashdot Mirror
More accurately, it is limited to the books every library that is in their inter-library loan system has chosen to stock. It's not everything - but it is a bigger universe of books than suggested here.
Communism is not fascism or vice versa. Put both together and you have an oxymoron. Nor is the U.S. a democracy, it is a republic. People just use words nowadays without knowing what they even mean. Buy a dictionary or do a web search already.
Definitely high on FUD. It would be good to hear a more measured analysis of why the choice was made. For example, I have read a few articles on Cendant's use of Linux to replace Unix for it Galileo reservation system. It is a truly huge project that basically came down to cost and the need to update an old system.
I can see circumstances where IIS might be a better solution for a particular situation - staff skills, legacy infrastructure or even because of the name recognition. But, this reads like something you would expect from a fanboy not a CIO making reasoned choices.
If you want to be technical, you could check out the 2004 annual report. Of the net revenue of $1.87 billion, $1.07 billion is cost of goods sold. So, you have gross profit around 43%. You then have to figure in operating expenses, taxes and so forth - which brings the figure down to about $134 million.
I'm sure there are minor differences in the margins between wholesale, retail at Hilfiger stores and selling Hilger through the web. But, I don't think they are enough to think that the $100 million of net revenue that were are assuming come from web sales would have a more significant impact on the bottom line of Hilfiger than there other channels. It seems unlikely at any rate.
(Why do I sound like an accountant?)I was not disputing your comment, just providing more detail. I also do not happen to think that - using your figure of 5% - that nearly $100 million is chump change. If you were a CIO in a company like Hilfiger that is built on branding, you would have to account for the branding as well as technical elements of your solution. To not do so would mean putting your job on the line, and most people do not do that unless there is a compeling reason to do so.
Clearly, Linux wasn't compeling - whether that was because it wasn't offered with lobster or not I do not know. However, I do think we should use Occum and assume the more simple answer. It did not fit his needs and he lacks the imagination to think of other circumstances where it might.
Tommy Hilfiger Corporation
2004 Sales
$ mil. % of total
Wholesale 1,387.5 74
Retail 425.7 23
Licensing 62.5 3
Total 1,875.7 100
Given that they have a few dozen retail stores, I'd bet a sizable chunk of that $425.7 million is through their web site.
It's fairly simple. Privacy is a question about what should exist. Freedom of information is about accessibility of the information that we agree should exist. As in much of life, it is how you cut the concepts.
At my current job, I do not socialize with my co-workers. Why? The main issue is time.
I have more work to accomplish in a given time frame than one person should be reasonably be expected to do, and in order to get it done and not spend more time at work than is necessary, I need to be efficient in getting my work done. I simply do not have time to waste. While I will spend some time talking with people for the sake of establishing relationships and trust, I wish people will just make a judgment about me from the work I do - which is really all that is relevant.
For me, I'd rather have a few close relationships that are deep that have many than are less so. The people I have chosen to have these relationships with (and vice versa) do not happen to work where I do, and I do not have the room for any more without compromising the quality that I demand from my relationships.
So, maybe look it from this perspective. I'm sure you are a great guy - but I don't need to know your children's names, the breed of dog you have or whatever else to work with you. How about just give me the benefit of the doubt, assume I am a busy person and work with me to get the job done - without demanding that I spend time getting to know the "real you". Honestly, I've just got too many other things to do. If you'll do that for me, I promise I'll do the same.
Also, work isn't family. You can change your job anytime you want. Family is a commitment. It changes glacially, and it is a lifelong presence. Commitment makes all the difference, and I'd rather spend time building on the bedrock of commitment than the sifting sands of the work world.
This isn't to say that you cannot find good friends at work - some of the people that I have close relationships I met at work. However, there are times in your life when you simply do not wish to socialize and your plate is full. You should respect that and not take it personally; it has nothing to do with you.
I think it would depend on the scenario. If you were on a SEAL team working to sink an enemy ship in a harbor, then you would be right on. However, if you are in an environment like NORAD, it might make sense to use it. Or maybe not - WOULD YOU LIKE TO PLAY A GAME? =)
...it's nice to have an asynchronous medium like email for things that don't need a response *right this instant*...
So few things fall in the right this instant category - surgeon working on coding patient [check], pilot dodging missiles [check], ...
I cannot think of one case where a right this instant response requires sending an IM. But then, I may be one of those old people they are talking about. IM is mostly just a time-waster.
I've read them. When someone asks me, "Who is John Galt?" I say he is some elitest asshole who thinks that most people are incompetent and does not understand that it isn't enough to just have a good idea. Good ideas are a commodity. They are a given. If you cannot figure out how to tap into how to turn your good ideas into something that can be done in society, you failed.
Society is the enemy of Rand's characters. Everything would have worked out great, my idea was brilliant - until they came along. It's the philosophy of failures, whiners, people that make excuses for themselves and the young without much experience.
Until you understand that most things in life - including railways and housing - are a cooperative enterprise and you need find a way to work with people and develop a collective vision, you are going to be fail - just like Rand's characters. Your intentions or the purity of your ideas are irrelevent. It's the outcomes that matter. Accept responsibility for outcomes and Rand starts looking downright foolish.
Doesn't change the fact that if you were to evaluate both formats based on technical merit - you would go with Betamax. Further, everything has advantages and disadvantages. By this logic, you wouldn't be able to have a technical process to evaluate anything. For example, your CRT monitor might make a better door jam but a technical evaluation would not look at that because that is not what a monitor was designed to do. Technical evaluation is based on how well something does what it is supposed to do. It is not an evaluation of what might sell or be more attactive to people buying the product - which was my point.
You almost had me there. Unfortunately, technically sound decisions do not always make for sound business development. VHS and Betamax proved that point. Social factors matter and can sink anything you do - irrespective of its technical merits.
There are applications that use SSL/TLS protocols as well as a full-strength general purpose crypto - Citrix for example.
The bottom line is that applications like these give physicians greater oversight over patients and positively impacts patient care. It is a good thing.
Human females are more sensitive to odor. You might want to do a sniff check too...
You know, the funny thing about V is for Vendetta is that you really cannot talk about him being a terrorist and a psycho without talking about the government prison camp he was held in, the experiments performed on him, the character of the people and goverment that is the object of his venegence and his ultimate objective - removal of the tyranny that in its most extreme form transformed him from the man he was into the character of the story.
Ultimately, it is a redemptive tale and an exploration of how sometimes things get so fractured that they have to be torn down before they can be made whole again. He is all the precursors of the popular uprising transformed into the singular for the convenience of the author.
My girlfriend is a doctor. She isn't big on computers either, but she loves the fact that systems like these enables her to look at images, keep tabs on patients and review patient information from home. It probably doesn't hurt that I solve the tech support problems for her...
If something is open to that kind of change, I generally just sit on it. Until a task is certain, it doesn't need to be done.
If I worked in open cubes, I'd wear two sets of hearing protection like you would at a firing range. It let's people know that you find their conversation disturbing and makes it less likely people will just stop by to chat because they would actually have to touch you to get your attention - which most people would feel strange about in the US.
The primary problem with public education is that it is not designed to educate its citizens or encourage free-thinking - it is designed to socialize people and provide basic functional skills.
If you look at it from within this framework, public education does exactly as it is intended to do. Pointing out that it does not educate people well is besides the point - like stating that cars don't make good boats.
If you really wanted to educate people, you would look at places that train people to do specific functions (culinary schools, astronaut training, conservatories, special forces, etc.), research environments (Los Alamos, Bell Labs, etc.), pedagological approaches used for particular exceptional individuals (John Stuart Mill) or institutions (Army's After Action Review) and compare them to general environments that encourage critical thinking (graduate courses in a meaningful program with an interdisciplinary focus).
You would likely find commonalities such as: high standard for entry into the program, specialization (either in subject or methodology), small class size, hands on learning, exceptional teaching staff and support, adequete resources and so forth would be standard and then you would get more variability out from there.
However, all of this is a moot point if you are primarily interested in socialization. Independent, critical thinking on a mass scale is undesirable unless you build in ways for individuals to temper thinking with the ability to communicate well, ability to take criticism of ideas and even personal criticism, the ability to empathize with others, etc. Most people simple aren't to this kind of challenge.
So, it is easier just to socialize and let us all move along - those that can get educated despite their education can do so. Everyone else can point to their degrees and pat themselves on the back.
It might have been even more simple than that. Some geek probably wrote a function that uses historical and real-time sales volumes for that type of product to figure out a number of price points where you reach maximum profit given the costs for the DVD, price and demand volume over time. They then scale the price based on release day to a certain calculated end-point - and the sales bin is the error level of the function.
Ever try this with your boss? Let me know how it works out for you...
I remember reading a story - I believe it appeared in the Plain Reader - that talked about the Amish approach to technology:
How many people need to die who are not terrorists because BOTH WESTERN SOCIETY and ISLAMIC FUNDAMENTALISTS DO NOT CARE to learn to interact with others in ways that are non-violent and cooperative?
The problem is we have a negative reenforcing loop. Some people in Western society take your position - which is essentially let's kill people. Once people die, people in Islamic society see how friends and neighbors die as a result of Western actions - and ask themselves:
The end result is more and more dead people and more authoritarian governments. The ability to drive authoritarianism is really why this loop exists in the first place. Government leaders in both societies - whether they are Western or Islamic - want more authoritatian governments. For them, dead people are just an unfortunate by-product that allows them to achieve their goal.
The solution is to stop being violent yourself first, try to engage people in dialogue to figure out what drives them to kill people, and take the appropriate steps to lessen these issues. This approach promotes understanding and results in far fewer dead people.
Unfortunately, the result of this approach would be a more informed public, less control and a more equitable distribution of resources - which is not what Western leaders want.
However, it will happen at some point - once the corpses pile high enough that people stop rushing to the violent approach since it doesn't seem to be solving the problem.
The only problem with your comment is that it assumes the republican form of government in the U.S. works as advertised - members of Congress make decisions based on the interests of their consitutients. I think the fact that we have the current copyright system is a good counter-example to that argument. Citizen's didn't clamor for Bono's revisions, the entertainment industry did.
To put this in perspective, Dow Jones had more than $1.6 billion in sales. Reuters had $5.5 billion. LexisNexis had $2.4 billion.
Google had $3.1 billion. Most of the companies that dominate the content space are the same size or bigger than Google and any acquisition on that scale would probably pave the way for another AOL/Time Warner like debacle.