It's still common for people to purchase software, with the ability to use it indefinitely. Sure, it might not be supported, or updated forever, but I don't believe that would stop it working... Most things are relatively stable by the time that happens anyway.
Number of people forced to reverse engineer the binaries of an accounting system would be very small, especially at the SME end of business. Number of people having to re-enter every transaction due to incorrect setup, backup, etc etc would be much greater. Regardless of the system chosen.
That said - I totally agree with your last sentence. Always have an exit plan.
My comment was not so much about the ability to access later - more about being able to watch it when not at home. The time-shifting provision is probably a combination of a technical delay to record, transcode and then stream, along with potentially a nice legal out.
Totally agree that it's the internet streaming $ but isn't the trade off the free to air rights are now worth more?
What is often overlooked in the media coverage of this issue - i haven't read the article but i assume it's no better - especially by the sporting bodies (AFL/NRL) and others is that the feed that Optus were providing this service on was a Free To Air broadcast. This creates the following situation:
Firstly, the sports bodies (AFL in particular) have sold the TV rights for a large sum of money separately to the "internet" rights. Telstra have the sole right to transmit over the internet, and are obviously pissed off about their competition. However the Free to Air networks should be jumping at the chance to get their feed to more people - after all, the more people watching increases the value of their advertising, and in theory would increase the value of the rights they have paid.
Secondly, with the focus on protecting the value of the internet rights alone they are missing two other opportunities - namely the chance to get non-Telstra subscribers to have access, and secondly the chance to get more people overall to watch the sport. More eyes is more advertising, more merchandise and more members - and possibly more gambling revenue too.
Finally, I have an objection to people complaining about what happens to a FTA broadcast once it's put into the air... I don't believe people should be able to make multiple copies and sell the works, but it's already being broadcast... the method for an individual recording and viewing should not matter.
These events, while they can be expensive are worthwhile for all the reasons above. However, submitting a paper is quite a few steps away from paying for flights, accommodation etc.
If you think you meet the brief outlined in the call for papers - my advice is to submit one. Especially if you have work that is already done and can be easily adapted. You need to be accepted. Possibly edited, then approved etc etc before you actually worry about getting there. Only once your work gets you that far should you worry. If it looks positive, see what your professor can help with. If you are asked to present at a conference, I would suggest you do everything you can to get there (often your conference attendance is free for presenters), so take advantage of the opportunity to show what you know and how good you are.
Of course, if your paper is not accepted then you don't normally need to attend, and you're only out of pocket your time, so what's the worry?
And it's not just the technology that is interesting here - the preparation and attention to detail is amazing. Things like on site medical centres with operating rooms, ability to get medical assistance to any incident anywhere on a 6km track within 30 seconds and in Monaco - a team of divers in case the barriers fail and a car ends up in the ocean.
Yes. Data is analysed live, and decisions made from it. Probably not all 20+GB of data, but a significant portion is used. Things like aero settings, tyre pressures suspension, engine conditions. One example of the reactivity was when one of the teams (Mercedes I think) thought they saw a problem and had the pit crew ready and waiting while they analysed the rest of the data before deciding it was ok. Drivers will often be given feedback on tyre performance based on tyre temps and pressures.
What impresses me almost as much as the technology is the level of awareness the driver has at the same time - how well they feel the things that are going on around them. That and how they can see anything out of those cockpits.
Many companies fail. Sometimes, they are able to restructure, change their business, consolidate or relocate and start again. Shit happens sometimes. As long as they've acted in good faith along the way....
However, I can't imagine any company would get away with not paying staff for months. I couldn't afford to work for free, and even if I could... well, I still don't think I would. I'm not saying that staff are responsible... but I can't help but think they were either stupid or brainwashed.
Sorry in advance for what will be perceived as pro-microsoft, but here goes:
Support for OTS software, or hardware, or anything standard for that matter is very different to support for customised or specialised tools. Microsoft will not likely care that you have found a bug affecting your mission critical documents. However, I've yet to see a bug in off the shelf software that does affect mission critical documents. Not saying it'll never happen, but lets face it, most bugs are security, GUI, or minor. Wait a little before jumping to the new version, or better still wait till need has outgrown the functionality. I've seen companies running office 97 till just last year. Because it worked.
End of life ain't that bad. Most Microsoft tools have 10yrs +, and it's not like they suddenly stop working. Just accept that there won't be any support, patches or whatever. But hey, when was the last time you patched Word for one of those mission critical bugs? If you haven't found them in the 10 years, chances are it'll keep working. (ok, if Microsoft had their way, they would... but that's another issue). Custom software will lock you in more than vendors will. Maybe a generalisation, but for now, you don't like Word, change to Open Office. Yes, there's a cost, just like there is a cost for changing from Word 2003 to 2007. But when talking about enterprise systems or niche tools, it's a lot worse - you can end up changing software, vendors and business processes. All of that costs money.
I dare say that you need a lot less support buying off the shelf from a locked in vendor than going open source (you know, cause it's cool, suits your religion or seems cheaper up front).
What annoys me more is when companies don't like the off the shelf stuff and pay to hack it and redesign it - creating the worst of both worlds.
I'm amazed at the defensive attitude in most replies. Given the audience, maybe I shouldn't be, but it does seem the majority here are very defensive of their 'down time'. I accept that it is necessary. I do it myself. Read the news, make private calls, go on job interviews... or whatever. But I got the feeling that it's far above the normal in this environment. Regardless of whether this is normal or not, the best way to deal with it is probably to worry about your own output. If it's a good place to work, they'll notice you. If they don't appreciate it or notice, maybe it's really not a great place to start a career.
At my company, there is a strong relationship focus. We can "waste" a lot of time talking about stuff that is only moderately related to work, but it's all valuable.
At my company, discussing things like "what if our biggest competitor designed a flying car, what would we do", or "if we were to build a new datacentre what colour makes it go faster" is work. Gossiping, farmville/pet society/etc, long lunches, is not work, and should only be a minor part of the day. Valid down time yes, but dont' tell me it's work.
I've heard of the 5pm rule, where after 5 you stop work and just talk to people. And yes, there is still the talk of football or the stockmarket, oil prices water shortages, or whatever. My role is not specifically technical, but part of it is process and systems design, testing and improvement. Most days I would probably only contribute 4 of real output. 2 hours of thinking about solutions, 2 hours of dealing with day to day shit that comes up, and 1-2 hours of relationship building.
Oh, and the excuse that code is crap and deadlines are missed because the deadlines are a problem.... I'll buy that only after you stop bitching about your boss long enough to do some work.
It seems that nearly every reply is against this idea. I'm not really sure why. It seems that the business rules are "business casual", and either it is too broad and people interpret how they want, or the manager might just be genuinely trying to build a feeling of team. Yep, good managers do exist.
I manage a small customer service team in a large (500+) business. We rarely see external customers face to face. But recently, they asked for one small thing.... yep... a uniform. To be accurate, it was business clothes, shirts, vests etc with the company logo, but they were all matching. Sure it's optional, and they don't wear it all the time, but that one small thing did make them feel more like a team and they took pride in wearing the company's logo.
Interestingly, there is one other team that has the closest thing to the uniform - the IT team. Typically they wear business attire, but often it includes an embroidered shirt proclaiming that they are in the IT team. We all know who they are and what they do, but that doesn't stop them.
Maybe the difference is that these examples are optional. But even if it was compulsory it might not be all that bad.
Generally... A higher court can overrule, and courts at the same or lower level must follow the prior decision (precedent). The facts of the case must be similar. If there are enough differences in the situation, then the court can make a different decision. This is how you can have different precedents that are referred to in the summary.
Without details, I would assume that there were two possible precedents that fit this particular case, in which case the older precedent applies.
Oh, and for the record, I dropped out of law school...
Does Google pay for the SMS's that it sends? I can't imagine the telco's sending them for free.
I'm assuming Google was willing to fund this while they trialled and developed the service, but when the volume went up so did the costs. There would have been little (if any) incremental revenue Google raised from this extra volume - so why should they keep providing the service?
At least from within Gmail they have a chance to display ads.
I don't think they charged for a service that Google provided. They were charging for a piece of software to access the service. It's not like they were taking a fee per SMS.
Slashdot Mirror
I see you've played knifey-spoony before...
That, and if you don't teach people about them they won't know which icon to click to save their work.
It's still common for people to purchase software, with the ability to use it indefinitely. Sure, it might not be supported, or updated forever, but I don't believe that would stop it working... Most things are relatively stable by the time that happens anyway.
Number of people forced to reverse engineer the binaries of an accounting system would be very small, especially at the SME end of business.
Number of people having to re-enter every transaction due to incorrect setup, backup, etc etc would be much greater. Regardless of the system chosen.
That said - I totally agree with your last sentence. Always have an exit plan.
Save
And
Pray!
As anyone who had to turn in a paper with a page limit also knows... that and the spacing between characters, words and lines all helps!
My comment was not so much about the ability to access later - more about being able to watch it when not at home. The time-shifting provision is probably a combination of a technical delay to record, transcode and then stream, along with potentially a nice legal out.
Totally agree that it's the internet streaming $ but isn't the trade off the free to air rights are now worth more?
What is often overlooked in the media coverage of this issue - i haven't read the article but i assume it's no better - especially by the sporting bodies (AFL/NRL) and others is that the feed that Optus were providing this service on was a Free To Air broadcast. This creates the following situation:
Firstly, the sports bodies (AFL in particular) have sold the TV rights for a large sum of money separately to the "internet" rights. Telstra have the sole right to transmit over the internet, and are obviously pissed off about their competition. However the Free to Air networks should be jumping at the chance to get their feed to more people - after all, the more people watching increases the value of their advertising, and in theory would increase the value of the rights they have paid.
Secondly, with the focus on protecting the value of the internet rights alone they are missing two other opportunities - namely the chance to get non-Telstra subscribers to have access, and secondly the chance to get more people overall to watch the sport. More eyes is more advertising, more merchandise and more members - and possibly more gambling revenue too.
Finally, I have an objection to people complaining about what happens to a FTA broadcast once it's put into the air... I don't believe people should be able to make multiple copies and sell the works, but it's already being broadcast... the method for an individual recording and viewing should not matter.
I planned on getting rich by now. It didn't happen, I guess something changed.
I think you'll find there are lots of examples of companies planning to do something and then changing their mind. Not sure any of it is newsworthy...
I think it was a hierarchy of open-ness, not evil-ness.
The Nike "Swoosh" is a TRADEMARK. A REGISTERED TRADEMARK. Yes, it's minimalist but that's not quite the point.
are you crazy?
Also... i assumed you asked her what happens to her stuff if the server is reset to factory settings?
Should you go, or should you submit a paper?
These events, while they can be expensive are worthwhile for all the reasons above. However, submitting a paper is quite a few steps away from paying for flights, accommodation etc.
If you think you meet the brief outlined in the call for papers - my advice is to submit one. Especially if you have work that is already done and can be easily adapted. You need to be accepted. Possibly edited, then approved etc etc before you actually worry about getting there. Only once your work gets you that far should you worry. If it looks positive, see what your professor can help with. If you are asked to present at a conference, I would suggest you do everything you can to get there (often your conference attendance is free for presenters), so take advantage of the opportunity to show what you know and how good you are.
Of course, if your paper is not accepted then you don't normally need to attend, and you're only out of pocket your time, so what's the worry?
But there wasn't. According to this article, there was one worthwhile competitor. and it was shit.
http://tech.slashdot.org/story/11/02/24/1648259/Retro-Browser-War-IE6-Vs-Netscape-In-2011
I never hear about out of work SAP developers.
Don't they already have like a dozen modules for doing experiments that they hardly use?
Seems like IIS and ISS have more in common than you'd think.
And it's not just the technology that is interesting here - the preparation and attention to detail is amazing. Things like on site medical centres with operating rooms, ability to get medical assistance to any incident anywhere on a 6km track within 30 seconds and in Monaco - a team of divers in case the barriers fail and a car ends up in the ocean.
Yes. Data is analysed live, and decisions made from it. Probably not all 20+GB of data, but a significant portion is used. Things like aero settings, tyre pressures suspension, engine conditions. One example of the reactivity was when one of the teams (Mercedes I think) thought they saw a problem and had the pit crew ready and waiting while they analysed the rest of the data before deciding it was ok. Drivers will often be given feedback on tyre performance based on tyre temps and pressures.
What impresses me almost as much as the technology is the level of awareness the driver has at the same time - how well they feel the things that are going on around them. That and how they can see anything out of those cockpits.
Many companies fail. Sometimes, they are able to restructure, change their business, consolidate or relocate and start again. Shit happens sometimes. As long as they've acted in good faith along the way....
However, I can't imagine any company would get away with not paying staff for months. I couldn't afford to work for free, and even if I could... well, I still don't think I would. I'm not saying that staff are responsible... but I can't help but think they were either stupid or brainwashed.
Sorry in advance for what will be perceived as pro-microsoft, but here goes:
Support for OTS software, or hardware, or anything standard for that matter is very different to support for customised or specialised tools. Microsoft will not likely care that you have found a bug affecting your mission critical documents. However, I've yet to see a bug in off the shelf software that does affect mission critical documents. Not saying it'll never happen, but lets face it, most bugs are security, GUI, or minor. Wait a little before jumping to the new version, or better still wait till need has outgrown the functionality. I've seen companies running office 97 till just last year. Because it worked.
End of life ain't that bad. Most Microsoft tools have 10yrs +, and it's not like they suddenly stop working. Just accept that there won't be any support, patches or whatever. But hey, when was the last time you patched Word for one of those mission critical bugs? If you haven't found them in the 10 years, chances are it'll keep working. (ok, if Microsoft had their way, they would... but that's another issue). Custom software will lock you in more than vendors will. Maybe a generalisation, but for now, you don't like Word, change to Open Office. Yes, there's a cost, just like there is a cost for changing from Word 2003 to 2007. But when talking about enterprise systems or niche tools, it's a lot worse - you can end up changing software, vendors and business processes. All of that costs money.
I dare say that you need a lot less support buying off the shelf from a locked in vendor than going open source (you know, cause it's cool, suits your religion or seems cheaper up front).
What annoys me more is when companies don't like the off the shelf stuff and pay to hack it and redesign it - creating the worst of both worlds.
I'm amazed at the defensive attitude in most replies. Given the audience, maybe I shouldn't be, but it does seem the majority here are very defensive of their 'down time'. I accept that it is necessary. I do it myself. Read the news, make private calls, go on job interviews... or whatever. But I got the feeling that it's far above the normal in this environment. Regardless of whether this is normal or not, the best way to deal with it is probably to worry about your own output. If it's a good place to work, they'll notice you. If they don't appreciate it or notice, maybe it's really not a great place to start a career.
At my company, there is a strong relationship focus. We can "waste" a lot of time talking about stuff that is only moderately related to work, but it's all valuable.
At my company, discussing things like "what if our biggest competitor designed a flying car, what would we do", or "if we were to build a new datacentre what colour makes it go faster" is work. Gossiping, farmville/pet society/etc, long lunches, is not work, and should only be a minor part of the day. Valid down time yes, but dont' tell me it's work.
I've heard of the 5pm rule, where after 5 you stop work and just talk to people. And yes, there is still the talk of football or the stockmarket, oil prices water shortages, or whatever. My role is not specifically technical, but part of it is process and systems design, testing and improvement. Most days I would probably only contribute 4 of real output. 2 hours of thinking about solutions, 2 hours of dealing with day to day shit that comes up, and 1-2 hours of relationship building.
Oh, and the excuse that code is crap and deadlines are missed because the deadlines are a problem.... I'll buy that only after you stop bitching about your boss long enough to do some work.
It seems that nearly every reply is against this idea. I'm not really sure why. It seems that the business rules are "business casual", and either it is too broad and people interpret how they want, or the manager might just be genuinely trying to build a feeling of team. Yep, good managers do exist.
I manage a small customer service team in a large (500+) business. We rarely see external customers face to face. But recently, they asked for one small thing.... yep... a uniform. To be accurate, it was business clothes, shirts, vests etc with the company logo, but they were all matching. Sure it's optional, and they don't wear it all the time, but that one small thing did make them feel more like a team and they took pride in wearing the company's logo.
Interestingly, there is one other team that has the closest thing to the uniform - the IT team. Typically they wear business attire, but often it includes an embroidered shirt proclaiming that they are in the IT team. We all know who they are and what they do, but that doesn't stop them.
Maybe the difference is that these examples are optional. But even if it was compulsory it might not be all that bad.
up.
Generally... A higher court can overrule, and courts at the same or lower level must follow the prior decision (precedent). The facts of the case must be similar. If there are enough differences in the situation, then the court can make a different decision. This is how you can have different precedents that are referred to in the summary.
Without details, I would assume that there were two possible precedents that fit this particular case, in which case the older precedent applies.
Oh, and for the record, I dropped out of law school...
Does Google pay for the SMS's that it sends? I can't imagine the telco's sending them for free.
I'm assuming Google was willing to fund this while they trialled and developed the service, but when the volume went up so did the costs. There would have been little (if any) incremental revenue Google raised from this extra volume - so why should they keep providing the service?
At least from within Gmail they have a chance to display ads.
I don't think they charged for a service that Google provided. They were charging for a piece of software to access the service. It's not like they were taking a fee per SMS.