I suspect that they've reached maturity in their market, and are buying their innovation rather than developing it in house. I'm starting to wonder if Benioff and the Board have decided to run Salesforce as a cash cow. They invest little-to-nothing in internal R&D, purchase all the start-ups that are going in a direction that the market seems to favor, and keep workforce to an efficient minimum. It would make sense, especially if they've reached the limits of easy growth and now new revenue/customers are hard to come by.
They borrowed a hell of a lot of money, are trying to keep within their debt covenants, and need to make good on the compensation packages. Growth has been great for them, but my guess is that they've reached the limits of easy explosive growth and have now matured their market segment. While non-GAAP is all fine and good, GAAP is what the Street and investors look at. So if they're projecting to lose -$0.44 a share, then yeah, they're going to have to downsize in order to reduce expenses to the point where they eliminate that loss going forward.
What if wide-spread mass adoption of anonymity actually leads to undermining Society's value of free speech? If no one's willing to stand up and be recognized for what they say, then why would we require freedom of speech for recognized individuals? Seems inefficient if everyone wants the privilege but none of the responsibility.
Do you remember the OKC Bombing photo with the burnt baby in the arms of the policeman, being handed to the firefighter? That baby died, and the mother of the baby went to court to ban that photo from ever being used in the public records. She said that she didn't care how powerful that photo was; to her it was a horrible reminder of a period of her life that she needed to forget and move on from. And she won that battle. Even though that photo alone conveyed the horror and the evil of terrorism, it has been shut away from the public because one woman's grief couldn't bear it.
I agree, but grief has a way of obliterating rationality. My point should be that we shouldn't just blithely assume such videos should be in place and all those who oppose are misguided, idiots, or evil.
Try telling that to the slain kid's parents, who have to face the reality of their child's death forever recorded and replayed over and over again. This is ass-covering due to liability concerns; this is also having to face grief-stricken parents who can't stand the thought of the gruesome death of their child being reduced to a training film for strangers and endlessly replayed.
The Sioux were also an empire before and after the White Man came. The Lakota, Dakota, and Nakota controlled/split a slice of land the size of Western Europe up until the 1800's. It's amazing that the Crow, Blackfeet, and others were even able to withstand them. As it is, we're lucky the Sioux nations didn't truly organize until late in the game in the 1800s when we whites had the technological advantage.
Ya know, if you ever felt like writing some humor, you could come up with a couple of scenarios on anti-grav testing. I think you could probably come up with some hilarious yet believable testing scenarios that don't involve messy death.
"The truth is consciousness is probably not anything "real" it is just the emerging process from all part of our brain neuron communicating to each other. Destroy the neuron, you destroy or change personality in various way."
As for your talk about universe consciousness... Pffft. You can give drug to somebody, and they may dream of universal consciousness, gods, or pink elephant with carnivore teeth, but that aren't making any of thios real. Show me evidence for universal "cosnciousness" or such and I will start looking at it. Until then it is all bad trip on acid.
What you said isn't "Truth", in an objective way. It's your personal subjective truth that you map out onto reality in the hopes that it is True. What I'd like to ask you is: why do you need to believe that conscious is nothing more than a side effect of an emergent neural network? What about materialistic reductionism is so important to you that you must advocate for it being the Truth?
It'd just take an obvious fly-by of an alien species looking at the Earth. Assuming of course, that there is intelligent space-faring life out there that has an interest in us, the ability to visit, and the nonchalance to get noticed by us.
yeah... say that to your children and your spouse when you're facing an empty refrigerator and pantry, or a whole lot of heating and utility bills. You're essentially telling your loved ones that an ideal is more important than their safety and well-being. Understand that saying and following through on noble ideas, and standing up for your beliefs bears a high cost. Not just to you, but to your loved ones because they have to share the same burden through no fault of their own. That's a _hard_ thing to do, friend. It's the primary reason why so few people actually do stand up for their ideals-the thought of having to go home to their families and tell them that eating and keeping a roof over their heads just got a lot harder is frightening. Especially considering that many spouses won't stick around long for that.
if there was a serious suggestion to stop making our children into our society's sacred cows? We passed the Patriot Act because we couldn't stomach the thought of terrorists killing our children. We passed insanely restrictive sex offender laws because of the thought that a stranger might attack our children sexually. We tried to pass gun control in the wake of Newton. Every step we take down the slippery slope is in the name of improving security for our children.
At this point, I'm contemplating saying that I'd be willing to pay the price of seeing 32 1st graders wiped out every day by gunfire and pressure bombs going off once a day in crowded urban areas in exchange for being able to retain my privacy from the eyes of the government, and being able to determine how and with what means I will defend myself.
Release it like what the researchers are doing. That way, everyone who's interested gets a good look at it and come up with the appropriate patches. Now, the black hats who are going to exploit it are going to develop new iterations--but they're already going to do so, no matter if this exploit gets released. They will come up with their own spin on the vulnerability, which is a new iteration. And then they're going to share it--yeah, there's a few lone wolves, but someone's going to want bragging rights. Hiding the exploit at this point, or going to the automotive companies first (and hoping that someone there realizes the potential and doesn't just try to hide it), just delays an effective roll-out of patches, and puts countermeasures dangerously behind the initial attempts at exploits.
As for the peers reference: someone's going to brag or otherwise let it be known that they've got a workable exploit available for use/sale, and that's if they decide they don't want to test it to begin with. Who are they going to test it on? Themselves? Nahhhh--the kind of person who'd write up an exploit like this to use it for fun and/or profit is the kind of person who's going to find someone else to use it on. Black hats have family too, and if that family member is driving a car that's vulnerable, then that family member is a potential target. I'd say this is the kind of vulnerability that everyone would have an interest in knowing who's got it, and possibly doing something about it, because the possibility of collateral damage is just too damn high.
The mere fact that this has been announced has already started the wrong people working on it. At this point, releasing at Def-Con is the right thing to do, because not only will that patch get fixed, but others will come to similar conclusions and keep an eye out for peers who are going to exploit this. Black hats have family too.
Plus if you did succeed in doing this then you'd have a rapidly amassing army of psychopaths, exiled from mainstream society, with nothing to lose. That's a REALLY bad thing.
What happens when that bad person is your own son/daughter? Or brother/sister? I can see making the decision for aunts/uncles/cousins/etc, but I've read some harrowing blog entries about families with a sociopathic child and the terror those people endure. They love their child, they know they're raising a monster, and they're caught between love and necessity. It's a horrible place to be, and most of them err on giving their child the benefit of the doubt. Because otherwise, they'd have to condemn their child to a living hell... and very few people have the stomach for it.
Culture--Apple as an institution remembers the bad old days of the 80s and somewhere there's a policy or a mindset in Cupertino that says being really liquid is a good thing, and so is having a large rainy day account. Engineering--takes a lot of cash to do R&D, retain top-level talent, and pay for all the materials and manufacturing processes, even on existing concepts. Defense--if anyone wanted to buy Apple (and there are those who theoretically could), they also have to "buy" all the cash that Apple's sitting on, and that's a hefty chunk of change.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, either you were driving exceptionally fast, or the other guy was. Regardless, I'm happy you're here to vouch for them.
I suspect that they've reached maturity in their market, and are buying their innovation rather than developing it in house. I'm starting to wonder if Benioff and the Board have decided to run Salesforce as a cash cow. They invest little-to-nothing in internal R&D, purchase all the start-ups that are going in a direction that the market seems to favor, and keep workforce to an efficient minimum. It would make sense, especially if they've reached the limits of easy growth and now new revenue/customers are hard to come by.
They borrowed a hell of a lot of money, are trying to keep within their debt covenants, and need to make good on the compensation packages. Growth has been great for them, but my guess is that they've reached the limits of easy explosive growth and have now matured their market segment. While non-GAAP is all fine and good, GAAP is what the Street and investors look at. So if they're projecting to lose -$0.44 a share, then yeah, they're going to have to downsize in order to reduce expenses to the point where they eliminate that loss going forward.
Aaaaaaaaand Godwin barrels in on a unicycle, juggling cats!
Might as well just kill off everyone on the planet then, because no system will ever be perfect due to human interaction.
Dan. You?
What if wide-spread mass adoption of anonymity actually leads to undermining Society's value of free speech? If no one's willing to stand up and be recognized for what they say, then why would we require freedom of speech for recognized individuals? Seems inefficient if everyone wants the privilege but none of the responsibility.
Do you remember the OKC Bombing photo with the burnt baby in the arms of the policeman, being handed to the firefighter? That baby died, and the mother of the baby went to court to ban that photo from ever being used in the public records. She said that she didn't care how powerful that photo was; to her it was a horrible reminder of a period of her life that she needed to forget and move on from. And she won that battle. Even though that photo alone conveyed the horror and the evil of terrorism, it has been shut away from the public because one woman's grief couldn't bear it.
I agree, but grief has a way of obliterating rationality. My point should be that we shouldn't just blithely assume such videos should be in place and all those who oppose are misguided, idiots, or evil.
Mod up please. Parent has a point.
Try telling that to the slain kid's parents, who have to face the reality of their child's death forever recorded and replayed over and over again. This is ass-covering due to liability concerns; this is also having to face grief-stricken parents who can't stand the thought of the gruesome death of their child being reduced to a training film for strangers and endlessly replayed.
Yeah, so? Aren't you doing the same, AC? Show me an "objective" truth, and I will show you an ostensibly subjective facet of a much larger truth.
The Sioux were also an empire before and after the White Man came. The Lakota, Dakota, and Nakota controlled/split a slice of land the size of Western Europe up until the 1800's. It's amazing that the Crow, Blackfeet, and others were even able to withstand them. As it is, we're lucky the Sioux nations didn't truly organize until late in the game in the 1800s when we whites had the technological advantage.
Ya know, if you ever felt like writing some humor, you could come up with a couple of scenarios on anti-grav testing. I think you could probably come up with some hilarious yet believable testing scenarios that don't involve messy death.
"The truth is consciousness is probably not anything "real" it is just the emerging process from all part of our brain neuron communicating to each other. Destroy the neuron, you destroy or change personality in various way." As for your talk about universe consciousness ... Pffft. You can give drug to somebody, and they may dream of universal consciousness, gods, or pink elephant with carnivore teeth, but that aren't making any of thios real. Show me evidence for universal "cosnciousness" or such and I will start looking at it. Until then it is all bad trip on acid.
What you said isn't "Truth", in an objective way. It's your personal subjective truth that you map out onto reality in the hopes that it is True. What I'd like to ask you is: why do you need to believe that conscious is nothing more than a side effect of an emergent neural network? What about materialistic reductionism is so important to you that you must advocate for it being the Truth?
It'd just take an obvious fly-by of an alien species looking at the Earth. Assuming of course, that there is intelligent space-faring life out there that has an interest in us, the ability to visit, and the nonchalance to get noticed by us.
yeah... say that to your children and your spouse when you're facing an empty refrigerator and pantry, or a whole lot of heating and utility bills. You're essentially telling your loved ones that an ideal is more important than their safety and well-being. Understand that saying and following through on noble ideas, and standing up for your beliefs bears a high cost. Not just to you, but to your loved ones because they have to share the same burden through no fault of their own. That's a _hard_ thing to do, friend. It's the primary reason why so few people actually do stand up for their ideals-the thought of having to go home to their families and tell them that eating and keeping a roof over their heads just got a lot harder is frightening. Especially considering that many spouses won't stick around long for that.
It's all done for the sake of the children.
Mod this up. Encryption will continue to be a 'grey' area legally for the sake of the children. Fuck the children.
if there was a serious suggestion to stop making our children into our society's sacred cows? We passed the Patriot Act because we couldn't stomach the thought of terrorists killing our children. We passed insanely restrictive sex offender laws because of the thought that a stranger might attack our children sexually. We tried to pass gun control in the wake of Newton. Every step we take down the slippery slope is in the name of improving security for our children.
At this point, I'm contemplating saying that I'd be willing to pay the price of seeing 32 1st graders wiped out every day by gunfire and pressure bombs going off once a day in crowded urban areas in exchange for being able to retain my privacy from the eyes of the government, and being able to determine how and with what means I will defend myself.
Release it like what the researchers are doing. That way, everyone who's interested gets a good look at it and come up with the appropriate patches. Now, the black hats who are going to exploit it are going to develop new iterations--but they're already going to do so, no matter if this exploit gets released. They will come up with their own spin on the vulnerability, which is a new iteration. And then they're going to share it--yeah, there's a few lone wolves, but someone's going to want bragging rights. Hiding the exploit at this point, or going to the automotive companies first (and hoping that someone there realizes the potential and doesn't just try to hide it), just delays an effective roll-out of patches, and puts countermeasures dangerously behind the initial attempts at exploits.
As for the peers reference: someone's going to brag or otherwise let it be known that they've got a workable exploit available for use/sale, and that's if they decide they don't want to test it to begin with. Who are they going to test it on? Themselves? Nahhhh--the kind of person who'd write up an exploit like this to use it for fun and/or profit is the kind of person who's going to find someone else to use it on. Black hats have family too, and if that family member is driving a car that's vulnerable, then that family member is a potential target. I'd say this is the kind of vulnerability that everyone would have an interest in knowing who's got it, and possibly doing something about it, because the possibility of collateral damage is just too damn high.
The mere fact that this has been announced has already started the wrong people working on it. At this point, releasing at Def-Con is the right thing to do, because not only will that patch get fixed, but others will come to similar conclusions and keep an eye out for peers who are going to exploit this. Black hats have family too.
Plus if you did succeed in doing this then you'd have a rapidly amassing army of psychopaths, exiled from mainstream society, with nothing to lose. That's a REALLY bad thing.
What happens when that bad person is your own son/daughter? Or brother/sister? I can see making the decision for aunts/uncles/cousins/etc, but I've read some harrowing blog entries about families with a sociopathic child and the terror those people endure. They love their child, they know they're raising a monster, and they're caught between love and necessity. It's a horrible place to be, and most of them err on giving their child the benefit of the doubt. Because otherwise, they'd have to condemn their child to a living hell... and very few people have the stomach for it.
Culture--Apple as an institution remembers the bad old days of the 80s and somewhere there's a policy or a mindset in Cupertino that says being really liquid is a good thing, and so is having a large rainy day account. Engineering--takes a lot of cash to do R&D, retain top-level talent, and pay for all the materials and manufacturing processes, even on existing concepts. Defense--if anyone wanted to buy Apple (and there are those who theoretically could), they also have to "buy" all the cash that Apple's sitting on, and that's a hefty chunk of change.