The About.com article you link to refrences 2006 as though that was the future, and is giving a five year average profit. (Couldn't find an actual date for when the article was first published.)
Depending on where you live, ATT may in fact be the only choice you have for service.
I have tried several times not to be an ATT customer - only to find the company I chose to replace ATT bought by ATT, currently they are the only land-line phone provider where I live. If you need a land line for any reason (I know this is getting rare, but there are certain things that do require a wired phone line), ATT might be your only option.
I would just like to state for the record, that IMHO SQL is a beautiful thing. Its ease of interoperability (both between languages and backends) has saved my butt on numerous occasions (not to mention the ease with which you can go from very simple to very complex depending on the need of your application)...
...and you can get rid of it and replace it with OOP when you pry it from my cold dead hands.
I don't know that the bugs are all "ironed out". My wife just bought a brand new laptop that came with Vista SP1 installed (only copy of Vista running in house). It regularly corrupts network files simply by opening them. If an OS can't get the file system to work right, it is not worth having on a computer.
That said, we are hoping Windows 7 will at least get the basics right, and are planning on moving the laptop to it when we feel it is adequately stable.
The statement "You're not allowed to give up performance for other users in the network" is dependent on your task-at-hand and your network infrastructure. There are several instances where it is perfectly reasonable to push other network traffic aside or where there is no other traffic (such as the sat-feed that another user mentions in another reply).
The main reason people began wrapping UDP into highly custom/specialized versions of TCP is that TCP (while great for the Internet at large) is largely based on assumptions that may not hold true in all use cases. The RTT of the protocol may unnecessarily add latency to the data throughput for long distance trips, and TCP's aggressive "congestion avoidance" algorithm is based on the smaller bandwidths of older technology - potentially significantly slowing the data, even for single dropped packets.
UDP is actually a great basis for accelerated file transfer. Several file transfer utilities / protocols have been built around it. I deal with really large files, but I have been using Aspera on several projects with great success. Worth a look.
I don't really care about how a database looks. I care about how a database functions. Tessitura is well thought-out as far as making the product useful to the non-profit. RE seems to go out of its way to make the non-profit do more work / buy more modules. (Have you ever tried to invite a couple to an event? There is no easy way to add a spouse after adding the main contact. Simple little thing, but it means a lot of time from someone who more than likely doesn't have any, as non-profit staff tends to wear many hats.) Again, personal opinion based on personal experience.
ARG! NO! FileMaker is the Bain of my existence... I am constantly trying to get people off of FileMaker and it keeps popping back up like a bad weed. Run away!
(Sorry - it might be better in its latest version, but all my experience has been corrupt data that is hard to make useful to other systems.)
There is also Raiser's Edge - but their product (in my opinion) feels like it was put together by a programmer (i.e. - written to bad specs by someone whose job isn't fundraising), not by a user - and thus has lots of quirks that make it not as useful as it should be... http://www.blackbaud.com/products/fundraising/raisersedge.aspx
Ever since "Joe the Plumber" everyone keeps making comments like this, and I don't understand the reasoning. Could you expand on the logic in this?
My issues: 1.) You work for a small business about to cross the $250k income threshold. If taxed more above that threshold your pay would be cut... Why? It is only the portion above $250k that would be taxed at the higher rate (that's how tax brackets work); while this would shrink the margin on new profits, it would not affect the gross income for the firm from which salaries are paid.
2.) Income Tax for businesses is on the NET not the GROSS - and salaries fall squarely in the "cost" side of doing business. Thus if you get a pay increase of $5k, the reportable income of the business just fell by $5k. i.e. - If my business makes $251k and I decide to hire a new employee at a cost of (salary + benefits) $50k, my business now only has a reportable income of $201k. The only way this wouldn't work (for a small business who files on the owner's tax return) is if the owner raised his own salary, or hired his wife. How is a tax on income over the $250k line a deterrent to hiring? I would think that it encourages further investment in the company either through expansion, raises, or new hires, as such actions would keep the "effective tax rate" for the company lower.
I have seen purchasing decisions based on version... but usually it has less to do with what the version number is, and more to do with how long the version has been on the market. If a version 1.0 was just launched, unless there was a large business case for taking the risk of buying it, the company I work for would wait until 1.1 (or until 1.0 had been on market long enough to prove itself stable). Same goes for upgrades, a new release of a product is not moved to unless there is a large business case for the move (or the version has been on the market long enough).
What's long enough? Depends on the vendor and their release cycle.
1.) Bugs - (i.e. those little "brand" icons that pop up in the corners of content). They usually fade in at a certain point, remain for a few seconds and fade out. This can be edited directly into the content, but again, the network brand would much prefer the ability to do this dynamically, as the content retains a greater value if it remains "non-bugged" in its native state (i.e. it is directly rebrandable without the need for an edit session, or a re-transcode).
2.) Lower Thirds - (i.e. the bar that pops up at the bottom of broadcast content that usually contains a promo for something else on the network). Again, dynamic content is preferable to static. Having the ability to change a lower third promo text ("Watch blahdeblahblah tonight at 8:00!", "Watch blahdeblahblah Sunday at 8:00!", "Watch disanddat Premiering tonight!", "Sponsored by Big Business, 'Give them your money'"), without an edit session, and without a re-transcode is of enormous value.
3.) Cleaner Cuts / Overlays - By inserting ads/promos/etc. into the playlist in a dynamic environment (rather than a static one) you have more control over the esthetic of the pre/post roll. i.e. - You have more options (creatively) on how one segment of content stops and another one starts. (Note: I'm not up to date on the current state of the video tag, does it have attributes to define wipes/fades/overlays?)
4.) Browser vs. Plug-in - This one is going to get people angry, but I think it is true to some respect. By inserting the code into the browser, the control of the content is passed to the browser, and thus the user. This allows for browser plugins to skip the dynamic elements (advertising / promos / bugs / watermarks), and plugins to accomplish this would be in existence in short order. While it is feasible to do the same thing in flash (load one flash script within another that alters the functionality of the first), it would be much more difficult to do consistently - given the fluid nature of the scripting driving the flash player. Whether we like it or not, advertising is how broadcast content is monetized, broadcasters don't want to give up their source of income.
There are other reasons the majority of video websites are using Flash. A big one is scriptability, especially for these "long-form non-linear video clips" (i.e.: Broadcast content that has been repurposed for the web). With the scriptability of Flash, it is possible for the broadcast network to feed segment timings to the distribution point (in this case YouTube), and have the video player automatically pause to insert commercials where the breaks originally were in Broadcast. This allows for dynamic advertising and promos to be inserted into web content without the effort of re-transcoding every asset being distributed over the web.
A flat video file won't provide that kind of functionality, and will be less attractive to the network brand that owns the content.
I completely agree that a "poor family" is higher risk and should be treated as such. However, the problem that forced the CRA was not that underwriting guidelines were being based on income (which is entirely reasonable); the problem was that underwriting was being based on location. So that family on "the wrong side of the tracks" can work hard, save money, but still can not move to the "right side of the tracks" without the undo-burden of additional interest points on the loan. Likewise, urban renewal projects that pass underwriting guidelines based on ROI projections etc., and attempt to make "the wrong side of the tracks" more palatable and productive were being turned down or charged uncalled for rate points based on the location of the development.
The CRA was put in place to make sure the same underwriting guidelines apply to the guy in a McMansion making $X a year with $Y assets on hand, and the guy in the neighborhood he grew up in (that might now be on the seedy side) making $X a year with $Y assets on hand.
I knew that people might not understand where we stand economically, but to look at the long chain of events that caused this mess and think that there should be more deregulation is really impressively blind.
This was not caused by regulation "forcing the banks to take on risky loans" (While I understand your qualms with the CRA. The regulation it imposes was necessary due to "geographic profiling" that certain banks were using to deny credit or impose loan-shark rates to certain demographic groups [read racial discrimination]. The CRA in fact contains language stating that all loans issued should be consistent with safe and sound banking operations, negating your argument.)
The current credit market failure was caused by unscrupulous loan officers / mortgage brokers who were only looking to receive their quick percentage on the loan, and had no concern with the subsequent risk. The loan officers would do what it took to get the loan through an underwriting process (including lying or omitting key facts - both to the underwriter, and to the loan applicant), and once "approved", immediately turn around and sell the loan to a large bank / mortgage lender.
The large bank / mortgage lender would then run a group of these (poorly documented) loans through a rating process to determine their relative worth, and package groups of like-rated loans into securities; once again immediately selling them to investment banks / firms / managers.
We are now three steps removed from the holder of the loan, with the person who actually cares about the risk (the investor) receiving information on risk from parties who are financially motivated to make the loan look as good as possible. Given that these packaged mortgage loans stood for real houses (physical assets), the investment banks / firms / managers used these "assets" to increase their "book value", thus increasing the amount of debt they were able to obtain in the form of credit or margin (at this point we are backing one kind of debt with another).
The problem started when the housing market collapsed, and the value of the house was indeterminate. The investment groups had used the full value of the house (or underlying mortgage) when inserting the security into their "asset" column and taking out debt. But the value of that house (and thus the security) was now an unknown, with the market setting a value anywhere from 70%-0% (the 0% is really unreasonable, but considering the bundled securities were now unable to sell at any price on the open market, their value short term was, in fact, $0).
Again the problem was that these backed additional loans. If your debt/asset ratio reaches certain set limits, your credit is revoked or you are held to a margin-call. The cascade started when the assets were marked down (even to the 70% number), throwing off the debt/asset ratio, initiating a margin call. The securities could not be valued, and thus could not be sold to pay off the margin calls, so any asset (including good assets) had to be sold at fire sale prices to make sure the debt was paid off. If the debt couldn't be paid off, Boom, no more investment bank / firm / etc.
How does this impact you if you are not an investment firm? The credit market tightened when the housing market slide began its downturn, as the value of mortgage backed assets could not be determined. As these unknown values continued to slide in the market, and as more and more of these types of securities were discovered on more and more businesses' investment books, credit continued to tighten as no one knew who was affected. When margin call ratios were not being met, and banks could not cover their debt, the credit market completely halted; not only does no one know if a company is holding these "toxic" assets, but they do not know if your company will exist next week to pay back the loan.
While there are several companies that operate with cash-on-hand,
How can this be modded insightful? Hasn't the last eight years demonstrated anything? Hasn't the collapse of Wall Street, the ballooning of our government to an enormous size, the trillions in national debt racked up, the stomping on the bill of rights / constitution / Geneva conventions, etc. etc. etc. proven anything?
... its so sad.. no one pays attention to anything but the spin from their particular party.
Slashdot Mirror
Your information is old... The USPS has been losing billions over the last three years, and the loss is only projected to grow:
http://www.usps.com/financials/_pdf/annual_report_2009.pdf
The About.com article you link to refrences 2006 as though that was the future, and is giving a five year average profit. (Couldn't find an actual date for when the article was first published.)
I had an Apple II+, and I loved it. It's where I cut my teeth as a programmer.
lp0 on fire.
Heads.
Pratchett fan? Gotta love the Hogfather.
+++ Divide By Cucumber Error. Please Reinstall Universe And Reboot +++
Depending on where you live, ATT may in fact be the only choice you have for service.
I have tried several times not to be an ATT customer - only to find the company I chose to replace ATT bought by ATT, currently they are the only land-line phone provider where I live. If you need a land line for any reason (I know this is getting rare, but there are certain things that do require a wired phone line), ATT might be your only option.
I would just like to state for the record, that IMHO SQL is a beautiful thing. Its ease of interoperability (both between languages and backends) has saved my butt on numerous occasions (not to mention the ease with which you can go from very simple to very complex depending on the need of your application) ...
...and you can get rid of it and replace it with OOP when you pry it from my cold dead hands.
I don't know that the bugs are all "ironed out". My wife just bought a brand new laptop that came with Vista SP1 installed (only copy of Vista running in house). It regularly corrupts network files simply by opening them. If an OS can't get the file system to work right, it is not worth having on a computer.
That said, we are hoping Windows 7 will at least get the basics right, and are planning on moving the laptop to it when we feel it is adequately stable.
The statement "You're not allowed to give up performance for other users in the network" is dependent on your task-at-hand and your network infrastructure. There are several instances where it is perfectly reasonable to push other network traffic aside or where there is no other traffic (such as the sat-feed that another user mentions in another reply).
The main reason people began wrapping UDP into highly custom/specialized versions of TCP is that TCP (while great for the Internet at large) is largely based on assumptions that may not hold true in all use cases. The RTT of the protocol may unnecessarily add latency to the data throughput for long distance trips, and TCP's aggressive "congestion avoidance" algorithm is based on the smaller bandwidths of older technology - potentially significantly slowing the data, even for single dropped packets.
UDP is actually a great basis for accelerated file transfer. Several file transfer utilities / protocols have been built around it. I deal with really large files, but I have been using Aspera on several projects with great success. Worth a look.
http://www.asperasoft.com/
I don't really care about how a database looks. I care about how a database functions. Tessitura is well thought-out as far as making the product useful to the non-profit. RE seems to go out of its way to make the non-profit do more work / buy more modules. (Have you ever tried to invite a couple to an event? There is no easy way to add a spouse after adding the main contact. Simple little thing, but it means a lot of time from someone who more than likely doesn't have any, as non-profit staff tends to wear many hats.) Again, personal opinion based on personal experience.
I agree with this... Techsoup is a great IT resource for non-profits.
ARG! NO! FileMaker is the Bain of my existence... I am constantly trying to get people off of FileMaker and it keeps popping back up like a bad weed. Run away!
(Sorry - it might be better in its latest version, but all my experience has been corrupt data that is hard to make useful to other systems.)
I am not sure how big your budget is, but I've heard nothing but good things about Tessitura:
http://www.tessituranetwork.com/Products.aspx
There is also Raiser's Edge - but their product (in my opinion) feels like it was put together by a programmer (i.e. - written to bad specs by someone whose job isn't fundraising), not by a user - and thus has lots of quirks that make it not as useful as it should be...
http://www.blackbaud.com/products/fundraising/raisersedge.aspx
or the line printer is out of paper. who knows how often they buy new hardware?
PC LOAD LETTER? WTF!
Keyword: "line printer"
The almighty admin's error message: "lp0: Printer on Fire."
Ever since "Joe the Plumber" everyone keeps making comments like this, and I don't understand the reasoning. Could you expand on the logic in this?
My issues:
1.) You work for a small business about to cross the $250k income threshold. If taxed more above that threshold your pay would be cut... Why? It is only the portion above $250k that would be taxed at the higher rate (that's how tax brackets work); while this would shrink the margin on new profits, it would not affect the gross income for the firm from which salaries are paid.
2.) Income Tax for businesses is on the NET not the GROSS - and salaries fall squarely in the "cost" side of doing business. Thus if you get a pay increase of $5k, the reportable income of the business just fell by $5k. i.e. - If my business makes $251k and I decide to hire a new employee at a cost of (salary + benefits) $50k, my business now only has a reportable income of $201k. The only way this wouldn't work (for a small business who files on the owner's tax return) is if the owner raised his own salary, or hired his wife. How is a tax on income over the $250k line a deterrent to hiring? I would think that it encourages further investment in the company either through expansion, raises, or new hires, as such actions would keep the "effective tax rate" for the company lower.
What am I missing?
I have seen purchasing decisions based on version... but usually it has less to do with what the version number is, and more to do with how long the version has been on the market. If a version 1.0 was just launched, unless there was a large business case for taking the risk of buying it, the company I work for would wait until 1.1 (or until 1.0 had been on market long enough to prove itself stable). Same goes for upgrades, a new release of a product is not moved to unless there is a large business case for the move (or the version has been on the market long enough).
What's long enough? Depends on the vendor and their release cycle.
Four reasons -
1.) Bugs - (i.e. those little "brand" icons that pop up in the corners of content). They usually fade in at a certain point, remain for a few seconds and fade out. This can be edited directly into the content, but again, the network brand would much prefer the ability to do this dynamically, as the content retains a greater value if it remains "non-bugged" in its native state (i.e. it is directly rebrandable without the need for an edit session, or a re-transcode).
2.) Lower Thirds - (i.e. the bar that pops up at the bottom of broadcast content that usually contains a promo for something else on the network). Again, dynamic content is preferable to static. Having the ability to change a lower third promo text ("Watch blahdeblahblah tonight at 8:00!", "Watch blahdeblahblah Sunday at 8:00!", "Watch disanddat Premiering tonight!", "Sponsored by Big Business, 'Give them your money'"), without an edit session, and without a re-transcode is of enormous value.
3.) Cleaner Cuts / Overlays - By inserting ads/promos/etc. into the playlist in a dynamic environment (rather than a static one) you have more control over the esthetic of the pre/post roll. i.e. - You have more options (creatively) on how one segment of content stops and another one starts. (Note: I'm not up to date on the current state of the video tag, does it have attributes to define wipes/fades/overlays?)
4.) Browser vs. Plug-in - This one is going to get people angry, but I think it is true to some respect. By inserting the code into the browser, the control of the content is passed to the browser, and thus the user. This allows for browser plugins to skip the dynamic elements (advertising / promos / bugs / watermarks), and plugins to accomplish this would be in existence in short order. While it is feasible to do the same thing in flash (load one flash script within another that alters the functionality of the first), it would be much more difficult to do consistently - given the fluid nature of the scripting driving the flash player. Whether we like it or not, advertising is how broadcast content is monetized, broadcasters don't want to give up their source of income.
Those are my thoughts. I welcome opinions.
There are other reasons the majority of video websites are using Flash. A big one is scriptability, especially for these "long-form non-linear video clips" (i.e.: Broadcast content that has been repurposed for the web). With the scriptability of Flash, it is possible for the broadcast network to feed segment timings to the distribution point (in this case YouTube), and have the video player automatically pause to insert commercials where the breaks originally were in Broadcast. This allows for dynamic advertising and promos to be inserted into web content without the effort of re-transcoding every asset being distributed over the web.
A flat video file won't provide that kind of functionality, and will be less attractive to the network brand that owns the content.
That said... Now I can watch chefs cook a recipe while I cook a recipe: http://www.youtube.com/user/foodnetworktv?ob=4
Supersweet.
Take this technology and add the technology found here: http://grail.cs.washington.edu/projects/videoenhancement/videoEnhancement.htm ... and you instantly have "beautiful" actors!... ... and a recursive loop that eventually turns everyone into two actors (one female definition of "beauty" and one male).
That was my response... kind of... ... I looked at the pictures before I looked at TFA, and thought "alright, but which is which?".
I completely agree that a "poor family" is higher risk and should be treated as such. However, the problem that forced the CRA was not that underwriting guidelines were being based on income (which is entirely reasonable); the problem was that underwriting was being based on location. So that family on "the wrong side of the tracks" can work hard, save money, but still can not move to the "right side of the tracks" without the undo-burden of additional interest points on the loan. Likewise, urban renewal projects that pass underwriting guidelines based on ROI projections etc., and attempt to make "the wrong side of the tracks" more palatable and productive were being turned down or charged uncalled for rate points based on the location of the development.
The CRA was put in place to make sure the same underwriting guidelines apply to the guy in a McMansion making $X a year with $Y assets on hand, and the guy in the neighborhood he grew up in (that might now be on the seedy side) making $X a year with $Y assets on hand.
Wow...
I knew that people might not understand where we stand economically, but to look at the long chain of events that caused this mess and think that there should be more deregulation is really impressively blind.
This was not caused by regulation "forcing the banks to take on risky loans" (While I understand your qualms with the CRA. The regulation it imposes was necessary due to "geographic profiling" that certain banks were using to deny credit or impose loan-shark rates to certain demographic groups [read racial discrimination]. The CRA in fact contains language stating that all loans issued should be consistent with safe and sound banking operations, negating your argument.)
The current credit market failure was caused by unscrupulous loan officers / mortgage brokers who were only looking to receive their quick percentage on the loan, and had no concern with the subsequent risk. The loan officers would do what it took to get the loan through an underwriting process (including lying or omitting key facts - both to the underwriter, and to the loan applicant), and once "approved", immediately turn around and sell the loan to a large bank / mortgage lender.
The large bank / mortgage lender would then run a group of these (poorly documented) loans through a rating process to determine their relative worth, and package groups of like-rated loans into securities; once again immediately selling them to investment banks / firms / managers.
We are now three steps removed from the holder of the loan, with the person who actually cares about the risk (the investor) receiving information on risk from parties who are financially motivated to make the loan look as good as possible. Given that these packaged mortgage loans stood for real houses (physical assets), the investment banks / firms / managers used these "assets" to increase their "book value", thus increasing the amount of debt they were able to obtain in the form of credit or margin (at this point we are backing one kind of debt with another).
The problem started when the housing market collapsed, and the value of the house was indeterminate. The investment groups had used the full value of the house (or underlying mortgage) when inserting the security into their "asset" column and taking out debt. But the value of that house (and thus the security) was now an unknown, with the market setting a value anywhere from 70%-0% (the 0% is really unreasonable, but considering the bundled securities were now unable to sell at any price on the open market, their value short term was, in fact, $0).
Again the problem was that these backed additional loans. If your debt/asset ratio reaches certain set limits, your credit is revoked or you are held to a margin-call. The cascade started when the assets were marked down (even to the 70% number), throwing off the debt/asset ratio, initiating a margin call. The securities could not be valued, and thus could not be sold to pay off the margin calls, so any asset (including good assets) had to be sold at fire sale prices to make sure the debt was paid off. If the debt couldn't be paid off, Boom, no more investment bank / firm / etc.
How does this impact you if you are not an investment firm? The credit market tightened when the housing market slide began its downturn, as the value of mortgage backed assets could not be determined. As these unknown values continued to slide in the market, and as more and more of these types of securities were discovered on more and more businesses' investment books, credit continued to tighten as no one knew who was affected. When margin call ratios were not being met, and banks could not cover their debt, the credit market completely halted; not only does no one know if a company is holding these "toxic" assets, but they do not know if your company will exist next week to pay back the loan.
While there are several companies that operate with cash-on-hand,
How can this be modded insightful? Hasn't the last eight years demonstrated anything? Hasn't the collapse of Wall Street, the ballooning of our government to an enormous size, the trillions in national debt racked up, the stomping on the bill of rights / constitution / Geneva conventions, etc. etc. etc. proven anything?
... its so sad .. no one pays attention to anything but the spin from their particular party.
Ah HA!
So that's the reason for all this "Global Warming". Intel was using the atmosphere as a heat sink. Should have known.