For example when asked by Chris Mathew's on election night for specifics regarding her comment earlier in the chat, that the GOP needs to create jobs, reduce spending, cut taxes, her answer was to repeat herself. Reduce spending, create jobs, cut taxes. When asked again, directly, in plain English "What would you cut to reduce spending?" (paraphrased) she repeated the mantra, reduce spending, create jobs, cut taxes.
Not that the Dems are better. I personally loath both parties.
The reason that she can't answer those questions is that the answers are highly speculative, potentially long winded and most likely the result of further research.
For example, it is reasonable for a sales manager to tell his prospective client that his team can deliver a project, but would need to cut features if a shortened delivery date is to be met. The above press question is equivalent to the client immediately putting the sales manager on the spot by asking what features he would cut.
To be able to answer the question, both he and his team would need to research the detailed technical impact of that request and additionally work with the client's 'people' to come up with a sensible result.
In the same way, asking "What would you cut to reduce spending?" to a political candidate is pointless. 'Reducing spending' is a reasonable goal on its own, and answering the question would require a team to research the effects/solutions. Ideally, if she is elected, she can form that team and search for a solution to achieve her goal of 'cutting spending, cutting taxes and creating jobs'.
Now we all know that this is not an easy problem, and I assume that she's not already an elected official. If she's already in office, then a better question would have been: "What have you done so far to achieve this goal?"
(BTW, I have no idea who these political figures are as I don't live in the USA.)
It is true that most modern computer based RS232 ports only put out +/-10V or so (and some only +/- 6V). However, the chips used are all still designed to accept +/-30V input levels.
The implication that +/-15V input levels would damage a modern motherboard is incorrect.
I'm willing to bet that thousands of voices inside Microsoft cried out "Bingo!" in unison and then fell suddenly silent. Painfully awaiting the announcement of who would become the next Buzzword Bingo champion.
You aren't really listening. iOS is designed fro the ground up to be a touch-based OS. It sits on top of a specialized OSX platform. Android is similar, but is made by Google and sits on top of Linux.
Windows Phone 7 is also designed from ground up to be a touch-based OS (unlike WinMo, which was more pen-oriented). So? What does branding have to do with it all?
From the name I also assumed it was the usual Microsoft sub-par rehash of their desktop OS.
This is why branding is important.
If it was called something like Microsoft Touch 7, then this misconception would not happen. But, someone in Microsoft clearly insisted on trying to capitalise on the Windows brand. This is why IMO they "just don't get it".
Also, market share != installed base. Note that if the average Mac user changes their machine every 3 years, while the average PC user only bothers upgrading every 6, that will double the market share of Macs relative to their installed base.
What happens to all the old machines? Calculator heaven?
Most of the people in the 'richest' and 'most powerful' country in the world don't seem to respect intellectual property either.
I can understand Trademark protections - and the Chinese government actually does respect those for the most part. However, with the majority of patents being ridiculously broad 'land grabs' and copyright growing from reasonable (ie. respectable) term lengths to effectively indefinite, I see no reason to lump all three of these things together and pretend they are problems of equal footing.
If anything, the problem is with the current western implementation of Patent and Copyright law.
I have a 3GS and 4.0/4.0.1/4.0.2 had quite a few points where the system would lag and pause and many things were slow. But, since the 4.1 update, everything is fast again. The keyboard response is just as good as with the 3.x series, and everything seems to load quickly (actually most apps are much more responsive especially when switching in and out commonly used ones).
I can't comment on the text message thing as I probably don't have as many messages on my phone as you do, so maybe there was a speed regression in that area. But, all things considered, the 4.1 update is what I recommend to friends with 3GS and 3G phones, and so far they've all been more than happy with it performancewise - including friends with the older 3G model.
In the case I spoke of above, we arranged a number of meetings with our boss to discuss the problem (and everyone was extremely polite). After a few months with nothing changed, we arranged a face to face meeting with his boss (who had to fly in from another country as our branch was a R&D facility set up to gain various tax benefits). Things didn't go so well there either, since it was obvious that guy was the same as our boss - so we tried to go above him to get something done, but that proved impossible (or way too hard/risky).
Everything we did was polite and to-the-point. That is, we didn't bag out any of these guys, we simply indicated that it was hard to achieve results in this environment - and even politely suggested options (ie. the correct way to do things) that didn't involve firing anyone. It sort of worked for a week or two at a time, but would devolve back into the old mess. Talking to these guys was time consuming, high latency, and unnecessary pain that normal people usually prefer to avoid.
Our team (and not the manager) were constantly being blamed for 'lack of results', and after a year and half with this new manager we had basically given up. The week before the first guy resigned, he had another face to face with the bosses to discuss the 'problems'. But they basically said that he was the problem for wanting things to be done differently and going against 'superior directions'.
You can read my post above for what happened next. After we left, R&D completely stopped and this guy was kept around (and years later still is) with a couple of gopher style employees. The guy was clearly politically connected enough to be 'unfireable'.
This kind of reminds me when an employee resigned and in their letter of resignation gave their reason (basically pointing out how corrupt, dishonest and incompetent our manager was). Of course, the next layer up just ignored it as "that person no longer works here, and therefore their observations will not be considered". After hearing about what was written, we all thought that it would be certainty that the manager was going to be replaced. Long story short, they just blamed the guy that left.
Needless to say, two months later the entire engineering team (all five of us) resigned in the same way. All five letters were put on this guys desk within the space of 30 seconds. The look on his face was priceless. This was years ago, and that guy is still working there.
It's not the bottom ranks that's the problem in larger corporations. As the crowd thins towards the top and the roles are primarily managerial, the temptation to promote those you like becomes more prevalent.
Down the bottom, the people are still relatively new and actual performance and capabilities are easier to gauge. Promotion generally comes in the form of more challenging roles, possibly with the opportunity to assist and supervise less skilled hires. Again, due to the shear numbers of transients at the bottom layers, skill is safer to reward than random short lived friendships.
Remember also that you're already on the hook for murder. Your defence is dependant on all the circumstances around what was happening. If you pumped some lead into some guy and you're only excuse is that he was messing with your car, you can pretty much guarantee that, even in Texas, you'll be spending time behind bars.
These laws are not there to enable the 6-shoot'n cowboy yeehaw mentality.
Scalping is a common term used to described a particular type of buy/sell situation. Feel free to read numerous other posts above as to why it differs. Pay attention to how artificial scarcity is created by the act of scalping, thus further driving up the price.
In pure economic terms, Apple could just raise the price on the iPhone until the supply catches up to the demand. But, Apple doesn't want to be a bastard, nor does it want to let someone else bastardise the process.
Also, you were lucky to get your concert tickets after the show started. Generally, events that attract scalpers, also attract sell-out crowds, and people that turn up at the gate are more than likely to go home disappointed if they aren't prepared to pay through the nose.
Yeah, but when I pay a bunch of people to go into all the local shops and buy up their entire stock, you won't be buying any at all. Not for yourself, and not as gifts for your family.
When this happens, people get even more pissed off and the blame will fall to Apple, not my team of scalpers that are reselling them at double the price.
So, if this somehow also benefits Apple's bottom line, then great. But, in the mean time, it has a definite benefit to the people that are just after buying a phone.
Not quite. They may be cheating at every hand at the table across from you. But, at your table, the rules are still being enforced - by you. And unfortunately, those rules are benefitting the other player(s) more than they benefit you.
It wouldn't matter, because 'their' IP and 'your' IP are protected by the same system. So by not respecting 'their' IP, you also cease to respect your own.
BTW, I see nothing wrong with this, and IMO, getting rid of this mess of IP law would go far to 'promoting the useful arts'.
Interestingly, I believe this points out the fallacy of IP protection being a driving force to innovation. It appears that the people most in the position of inventing new products are those that are already in a similar or related industry. Since most innovation is incremental, we see a dozen companies come out with similar products even though most of the engineers doing the development would have never even seen their competitors patents.
Yes, I will admit that occasionally you see an invention that is clearly worthy of a patent. But, far too many are just small incremental changes that have already been thought of by numerous other engineers in that industry. The lawyers, of course, jump in and start a patent 'land grab' to justify their salaries. And the patent office doesn't seem to care that most of those ideas are obvious to other skilled engineers. So we end up with the mess we have today.
Now, China comes along and starts taking out patents with equally trivial incremental advancements. But, since they also make up the majority of the prime manufacturing industry, they are better placed to know what changes can be made. In the end, the US will be locked out of the manufacturing industries that they helped create in the first place. And, China's own internal regulations and legislation will have nothing to do with it.
In the end, the US will either be forced to considerably raise the bar on what is patentable, or risk completely losing any technological manufacturing industries it has. And without a local manufacturing industry, there won't be any engineers 'close enough to the action' to draft up any useful patents to take the industry back. (Think of all the ridiculous 'inventions' that come out of people that have no clue how things work, versus the real innovation that comes out of people that are already skilled, experienced and working directly in their fields of expertise.)
Back in the day, most IP portfolios were locally held and helped build and sustain the wealth of locally owned industries that also had state of the art technological know-how. This is fantastic in a closed system, and especially when export dollars can be generated as a side effect to this progress. However, if a majority of the ownership goes external (ie. foreign), then the legal protections no longer foster local wealth and will most likely work to stifle it.
Remember, China is just a third party taking US IP law and turning it to it's advantage. In that way IMO, the faster the US drops it's patent system, the less long term damage will be done. If the patents continue on this trend, US IP law will effectively be protecting the foreign incumbents to the detriment of local industry.
You can still do all of that with IPv6, including using NAT. The only real security benefit of NAT versus a simple firewall is that it effectively hides the number of machines that exist behind the router.
You could allocate a trillion addresses to each and every single grain of sand on the surface of the planet and still not come anywhere near exhausting the IPv6 address space.
Every couple of months I send out an email to my provider asking when they're going to support IPv6. If enough people did that, it would give the IT department more ammunition to play with when pitching their next equipment purchases to their bosses.
It works like this: if you've done nothing wrong, you've got nothing to fear, and if you're innocent then it shouldn't matter that all your base are belong to us.
Or something like that anyway - I'm still too scared to come out of hiding from under my rock.
Slashdot Mirror
For example when asked by Chris Mathew's on election night for specifics regarding her comment earlier in the chat, that the GOP needs to create jobs, reduce spending, cut taxes, her answer was to repeat herself. Reduce spending, create jobs, cut taxes. When asked again, directly, in plain English "What would you cut to reduce spending?" (paraphrased) she repeated the mantra, reduce spending, create jobs, cut taxes.
Not that the Dems are better. I personally loath both parties.
The reason that she can't answer those questions is that the answers are highly speculative, potentially long winded and most likely the result of further research.
For example, it is reasonable for a sales manager to tell his prospective client that his team can deliver a project, but would need to cut features if a shortened delivery date is to be met. The above press question is equivalent to the client immediately putting the sales manager on the spot by asking what features he would cut.
To be able to answer the question, both he and his team would need to research the detailed technical impact of that request and additionally work with the client's 'people' to come up with a sensible result.
In the same way, asking "What would you cut to reduce spending?" to a political candidate is pointless. 'Reducing spending' is a reasonable goal on its own, and answering the question would require a team to research the effects/solutions. Ideally, if she is elected, she can form that team and search for a solution to achieve her goal of 'cutting spending, cutting taxes and creating jobs'.
Now we all know that this is not an easy problem, and I assume that she's not already an elected official. If she's already in office, then a better question would have been: "What have you done so far to achieve this goal?"
(BTW, I have no idea who these political figures are as I don't live in the USA.)
That's good to know. I want to keep my options open should I ever decide to sue a mega corporation.
Do you then proceed to tell them that you're "all out of gum"?
That's probably a safer option to go with than, "I'll rip off your head and shit down your neck."
It is true that most modern computer based RS232 ports only put out +/-10V or so (and some only +/- 6V). However, the chips used are all still designed to accept +/-30V input levels.
The implication that +/-15V input levels would damage a modern motherboard is incorrect.
I'm willing to bet that thousands of voices inside Microsoft cried out "Bingo!" in unison and then fell suddenly silent. Painfully awaiting the announcement of who would become the next Buzzword Bingo champion.
You aren't really listening. iOS is designed fro the ground up to be a touch-based OS. It sits on top of a specialized OSX platform. Android is similar, but is made by Google and sits on top of Linux.
Windows Phone 7 is also designed from ground up to be a touch-based OS (unlike WinMo, which was more pen-oriented). So? What does branding have to do with it all?
From the name I also assumed it was the usual Microsoft sub-par rehash of their desktop OS.
This is why branding is important.
If it was called something like Microsoft Touch 7, then this misconception would not happen. But, someone in Microsoft clearly insisted on trying to capitalise on the Windows brand. This is why IMO they "just don't get it".
Also, market share != installed base. Note that if the average Mac user changes their machine every 3 years, while the average PC user only bothers upgrading every 6, that will double the market share of Macs relative to their installed base.
What happens to all the old machines? Calculator heaven?
Most of the people in the 'richest' and 'most powerful' country in the world don't seem to respect intellectual property either.
I can understand Trademark protections - and the Chinese government actually does respect those for the most part. However, with the majority of patents being ridiculously broad 'land grabs' and copyright growing from reasonable (ie. respectable) term lengths to effectively indefinite, I see no reason to lump all three of these things together and pretend they are problems of equal footing.
If anything, the problem is with the current western implementation of Patent and Copyright law.
Are you sure?
I have a 3GS and 4.0/4.0.1/4.0.2 had quite a few points where the system would lag and pause and many things were slow. But, since the 4.1 update, everything is fast again. The keyboard response is just as good as with the 3.x series, and everything seems to load quickly (actually most apps are much more responsive especially when switching in and out commonly used ones).
I can't comment on the text message thing as I probably don't have as many messages on my phone as you do, so maybe there was a speed regression in that area. But, all things considered, the 4.1 update is what I recommend to friends with 3GS and 3G phones, and so far they've all been more than happy with it performancewise - including friends with the older 3G model.
In the case I spoke of above, we arranged a number of meetings with our boss to discuss the problem (and everyone was extremely polite). After a few months with nothing changed, we arranged a face to face meeting with his boss (who had to fly in from another country as our branch was a R&D facility set up to gain various tax benefits). Things didn't go so well there either, since it was obvious that guy was the same as our boss - so we tried to go above him to get something done, but that proved impossible (or way too hard/risky).
Everything we did was polite and to-the-point. That is, we didn't bag out any of these guys, we simply indicated that it was hard to achieve results in this environment - and even politely suggested options (ie. the correct way to do things) that didn't involve firing anyone. It sort of worked for a week or two at a time, but would devolve back into the old mess. Talking to these guys was time consuming, high latency, and unnecessary pain that normal people usually prefer to avoid.
Our team (and not the manager) were constantly being blamed for 'lack of results', and after a year and half with this new manager we had basically given up. The week before the first guy resigned, he had another face to face with the bosses to discuss the 'problems'. But they basically said that he was the problem for wanting things to be done differently and going against 'superior directions'.
You can read my post above for what happened next. After we left, R&D completely stopped and this guy was kept around (and years later still is) with a couple of gopher style employees. The guy was clearly politically connected enough to be 'unfireable'.
This kind of reminds me when an employee resigned and in their letter of resignation gave their reason (basically pointing out how corrupt, dishonest and incompetent our manager was). Of course, the next layer up just ignored it as "that person no longer works here, and therefore their observations will not be considered". After hearing about what was written, we all thought that it would be certainty that the manager was going to be replaced. Long story short, they just blamed the guy that left.
Needless to say, two months later the entire engineering team (all five of us) resigned in the same way. All five letters were put on this guys desk within the space of 30 seconds. The look on his face was priceless. This was years ago, and that guy is still working there.
It's not the bottom ranks that's the problem in larger corporations. As the crowd thins towards the top and the roles are primarily managerial, the temptation to promote those you like becomes more prevalent.
Down the bottom, the people are still relatively new and actual performance and capabilities are easier to gauge. Promotion generally comes in the form of more challenging roles, possibly with the opportunity to assist and supervise less skilled hires. Again, due to the shear numbers of transients at the bottom layers, skill is safer to reward than random short lived friendships.
Remember also that you're already on the hook for murder. Your defence is dependant on all the circumstances around what was happening. If you pumped some lead into some guy and you're only excuse is that he was messing with your car, you can pretty much guarantee that, even in Texas, you'll be spending time behind bars.
These laws are not there to enable the 6-shoot'n cowboy yeehaw mentality.
Scalping is a common term used to described a particular type of buy/sell situation. Feel free to read numerous other posts above as to why it differs. Pay attention to how artificial scarcity is created by the act of scalping, thus further driving up the price.
In pure economic terms, Apple could just raise the price on the iPhone until the supply catches up to the demand. But, Apple doesn't want to be a bastard, nor does it want to let someone else bastardise the process.
Also, you were lucky to get your concert tickets after the show started. Generally, events that attract scalpers, also attract sell-out crowds, and people that turn up at the gate are more than likely to go home disappointed if they aren't prepared to pay through the nose.
Yeah, but when I pay a bunch of people to go into all the local shops and buy up their entire stock, you won't be buying any at all. Not for yourself, and not as gifts for your family.
When this happens, people get even more pissed off and the blame will fall to Apple, not my team of scalpers that are reselling them at double the price.
So, if this somehow also benefits Apple's bottom line, then great. But, in the mean time, it has a definite benefit to the people that are just after buying a phone.
There is no 'benefit of the doubt' required.
Funnily, if you look at the demographic of Apple users, I'd suggest they'd be the most likely to be in a position like that.
Not quite. They may be cheating at every hand at the table across from you. But, at your table, the rules are still being enforced - by you. And unfortunately, those rules are benefitting the other player(s) more than they benefit you.
It wouldn't matter, because 'their' IP and 'your' IP are protected by the same system. So by not respecting 'their' IP, you also cease to respect your own.
BTW, I see nothing wrong with this, and IMO, getting rid of this mess of IP law would go far to 'promoting the useful arts'.
Interestingly, I believe this points out the fallacy of IP protection being a driving force to innovation. It appears that the people most in the position of inventing new products are those that are already in a similar or related industry. Since most innovation is incremental, we see a dozen companies come out with similar products even though most of the engineers doing the development would have never even seen their competitors patents.
Yes, I will admit that occasionally you see an invention that is clearly worthy of a patent. But, far too many are just small incremental changes that have already been thought of by numerous other engineers in that industry. The lawyers, of course, jump in and start a patent 'land grab' to justify their salaries. And the patent office doesn't seem to care that most of those ideas are obvious to other skilled engineers. So we end up with the mess we have today.
Now, China comes along and starts taking out patents with equally trivial incremental advancements. But, since they also make up the majority of the prime manufacturing industry, they are better placed to know what changes can be made. In the end, the US will be locked out of the manufacturing industries that they helped create in the first place. And, China's own internal regulations and legislation will have nothing to do with it.
In the end, the US will either be forced to considerably raise the bar on what is patentable, or risk completely losing any technological manufacturing industries it has. And without a local manufacturing industry, there won't be any engineers 'close enough to the action' to draft up any useful patents to take the industry back. (Think of all the ridiculous 'inventions' that come out of people that have no clue how things work, versus the real innovation that comes out of people that are already skilled, experienced and working directly in their fields of expertise.)
Back in the day, most IP portfolios were locally held and helped build and sustain the wealth of locally owned industries that also had state of the art technological know-how. This is fantastic in a closed system, and especially when export dollars can be generated as a side effect to this progress. However, if a majority of the ownership goes external (ie. foreign), then the legal protections no longer foster local wealth and will most likely work to stifle it.
Remember, China is just a third party taking US IP law and turning it to it's advantage. In that way IMO, the faster the US drops it's patent system, the less long term damage will be done. If the patents continue on this trend, US IP law will effectively be protecting the foreign incumbents to the detriment of local industry.
And I too die a little whenever I see Jar used twice in the same sentence. I die a lot when George Lucas does it.
You can still do all of that with IPv6, including using NAT. The only real security benefit of NAT versus a simple firewall is that it effectively hides the number of machines that exist behind the router.
You could allocate a trillion addresses to each and every single grain of sand on the surface of the planet and still not come anywhere near exhausting the IPv6 address space.
Every couple of months I send out an email to my provider asking when they're going to support IPv6. If enough people did that, it would give the IT department more ammunition to play with when pitching their next equipment purchases to their bosses.
It works like this: if you've done nothing wrong, you've got nothing to fear, and if you're innocent then it shouldn't matter that all your base are belong to us.
Or something like that anyway - I'm still too scared to come out of hiding from under my rock.
Where did they go? Sweden?