and the maintenance and leasing of said equipment (often contracted).
Maintenance is trivial... Swapping paper, toner, and fuser is a minimum-wage-slave job. Anything more is handled by sending it back to the manufacturer (under warranty)...
And leasing? Well, if your company is going to be stupid with it's money, what makes you thing things will be any different with tablets? They'll probably be leased as well...
Suddenly that tablet/eBook has been paid off very quickly.
No. Even with ALL the overhead, you might pay off a single tablet after months and months of not printing. Now, when the company has hundreds, if not thousands of people...
Your anecdote is all fine and well, but I specifically explained where paperless just doesn't work right now... If everyone who needs to see a document is going to be at their desk, it's vastly easier to go paperless. If they are not, some form of portable reader is required.
But there are other benefits from going paperless, one being time. time saved from printing things. Time saved moving bits of paper around the office. Time saved looking for that bit of paper that was supposed to be on somebodies desk but isn't.
While true, that's all quite insignificant. Printers are VERY FAST, and fully compatible, so you get a minimum wage idiot to replace toner, and/or swap out bad printers with spares, and send it back to the manufacturer.
I've actually yet to meet anyone whose ever done a successful restore of any significant amount of data from tape, beyond test restores of some files, without running into problems that prevented the restore from succeeding properly.
I have no idea what you're talking about... Restoring files from tapes is a day-in, day-out thing at any decent sized company, and I've restored innumerable entire systems from tapes.
Whoever was responsible for these horrendous tapes you're using to condem the entire technology, was clearly a horrendous idiot. It's trivial to verify a tape was written correctly, and only an idiot doesn't do that after writing each one...
At ~1 cent per page, how many reams of paper would it take to pay off a single tablet/eBook reader for a single person? Answer: "Too many"
Tablets, so far, have been far too geared for the high end... Luxury devices. Meanwhile, the essentially free "Personal Organizers" that were flying off the shelves close to 10 years ago now, had everything needed, just in too small dimensions...
In short, once someone sells a 7" display, with decent pen-input, basic wireless, and a stupid-simple UI, for perhaps $25, then you'll see the last stronghold of paper fall away.
Until then, it will continue to be a trade-off... Is e-mailing this report okay, or will it need to be referenced in the next meeting, or by someone as they're walking around? Often, it's cost more to take the time to figure that out, than the cost of continuing to print it...
5 Reasons Tech Reporter Suck, and You Shouldn't Listen to Them:
1. If they had any skill or talent, they'd be making big bucks advising a company that actually designs and sells products. 2. They're wrong almost constantly. 3. They're rewarded for provocative stories that bring in readers, no matter how factually flawed they are. 4. There's hundreds of them, and no two that agree on anything, so who do you believe? 5. Random chance, and the utterly unpredictable dominate the market more than reasoning, so even if they were geniuses, they'd still just be guessing.
SawStop is expensive - when it is triggered, you get to replace the triggered components AND the saw blade.
I'd like to see some statistics on SawStop being falsely triggered (wet/green wood) versus not.
Also, how about the same sensing technology that just applies a brake, rather than destroying the blade and block? It would do slightly more damage, but it would be a scratch/gash rather than a missing finger... Is their patent the only possible way to detect flesh nearing/touching a saw blade?
Yes, the lawsuit is stupid, yes he shouldn't have prevailed, but it is sad when companies try to deny reality, and write-off all progress for contrived reasons... Certainly, better safety could be provided.
So we're throwing away all the code that has matured and spend a decade being looked at, and starting over with new buggy code that will be riddled with security vulnerabilities.
If you can't write a new program, practically free of buggy code, you certainly don't have the wherewithall to fix bugs in existing code...
Sendmail certainly came through it's rewrite vastly better than it was before. Other DNS programs, like MaraDNS, have come on the scene, and remain exploit-free for several years now.
the "Evil" of knowingly leveraging copyright infringers to gain momentum and market share.
While it may be illegal, and possibly unethical, your own conceit that content providers were probably helped, and basically no-one was hurt, firmly suggests this behavior was anything but EVIL. It might not even be unethical...
As for Moonsecure, the project seems inactive, moonsecure.com returns a good old 403 right now, and nobody seems to have bothered to upload the source tarball since like 2 years (see the SourceForge project at sf.net/projects/moonav). How is this free software under the GNU GPL?
The last file release was ~6 months ago. Not the most active project on the planet, but has been going along just fine in the recent past... There have been periods longer than 1 year between releases in the past. Don't write the project off just yet.
Besides that, since it uses the ClamAV definitions, the backend software doesn't really need to be in active development. It either works, or it doesn't, and will continue to do so, indefinitely.
OTOH, if anyone is interested in contributing, or even forking, by all means, do.
You doesn't need to have a great performance to scan only changed files.
Yes, yes you do. In fact even more than a full scan, which can be scheduled for some time when nobody is around waiting for it.
People complain about existing antivirus programs dragging-down their system's performance. Game makers recomend shutting-off antivirus programs for the same reasons. Using MORE memory, and 4 damn times as much CPU time isn't going to make anyone a fan of Clam.
Now, if you have a quad-core, high-end system that's otherwise idle most of the time, and you don't do any high-performance, I/O intensive tasks, you might just not notice... but even then, most people probably would notice the difference.
http://www.clamwin.com/ Although it is missing an on access scan, I am not sure if that is a plus of a minus
I could live without an on-access scan (tell your download manager to scan downloaded files), but Clamwin is completely unusable, IMHO, because it uses up much more system memory, and takes 4X as long to scan compared to the more common Free AVs.
If you want real, free antivirus, go with MoonSecure (v2.x), which is GPL, does on-access scanning, and uses the ClamAV database. It does (momentarily) use up a lot of memory, and slow down the system, but only when first starting up, or updating definitions. Other than that, it's no more of a dog than any other free AV. Free for commercial purposes, likely to have definitions available forever, etc.
No, they can't, in fact. It would no longer be RAND. Not to mention it would render all exisiting chips and device worthless, which would cost them dearly. It's a ridiculous attempt to justify a nonsensical stance.
Patent licenses for codecs in the US is something of an issue, but there are numerous options there, even if not ideal, and everyone outside the US should not be penalized...
Carefully read the TITLE of article... Staring at you from the browser toolbar right now. Take note that it DOESN'T say Google's Bandwidth Bill May be Zero. "Google" isn't in there at all.
No. I'm not the idiot who suggested we should be allowed to do whatever the hell we want "In a free country" no matter what affect it has on everyone else...
I'll go for the reasonable regulations we all have to live by, rather than the pretend world where we can all do whatever the hell we want, and it doesn't affect anyone else...
Compatibilty of patent-unencumbered formats with a venue like Wikipedia would be exactly that kind of non-technical factor
Precisely why the H.264 licensors opted to make H.264 gratis for non-paywalled web content, and again decided to extend that several years into the future... It would cost Wikipedia nothing to use H.264 into the foreseeable future.
Not to mention that WP is such a dog on resources, they probably wouldn't notice that H.264 license fee, even if they did have to pay it in the distant future... After all, the whole pricing scheme is generally aimed at companies who can justify paying $100 for a codec only if it's going to save them at least $1,000 in bandwidth, and WP uses plenty of bandwidth, and Theora only makes that worse...
Recall that Windows did not become the de facto standard OS by being better
Sure it did. Backwards compatibility made it better. Running on cheap PC hardware made it better. Having a larger installed base made it better.
Just because it was inferior in ways that matter to you, rather than the ways that matter to everyone else, doesn't mean it wasn't technically better in several way.
Well put. In fact I've had the reverse issue with every bit of 2D CGI that came after Jurassic Park... The BACKGROUND is in focus just as much as the foreground, and with that, there's little to discern where the foreground object ends, and the background object begins. It's like watching a world that's been squished between two panes of glass... And it only gets worse when the CGI is for special effects, so you keep going back and forth between flat, and depth...
Slashdot Mirror
Not at all... Laser-printer costs are as low as 0.004 cents/page. http://www.pcandl.com/kyocera/fs_2020D_3920_4020.htm
Maintenance is trivial... Swapping paper, toner, and fuser is a minimum-wage-slave job. Anything more is handled by sending it back to the manufacturer (under warranty)...
And leasing? Well, if your company is going to be stupid with it's money, what makes you thing things will be any different with tablets? They'll probably be leased as well...
No. Even with ALL the overhead, you might pay off a single tablet after months and months of not printing. Now, when the company has hundreds, if not thousands of people...
"I watch Oprah! When did she go on the inter-tubes?"
Toner is.
Your anecdote is all fine and well, but I specifically explained where paperless just doesn't work right now... If everyone who needs to see a document is going to be at their desk, it's vastly easier to go paperless. If they are not, some form of portable reader is required.
While true, that's all quite insignificant. Printers are VERY FAST, and fully compatible, so you get a minimum wage idiot to replace toner, and/or swap out bad printers with spares, and send it back to the manufacturer.
I have no idea what you're talking about... Restoring files from tapes is a day-in, day-out thing at any decent sized company, and I've restored innumerable entire systems from tapes.
Whoever was responsible for these horrendous tapes you're using to condem the entire technology, was clearly a horrendous idiot. It's trivial to verify a tape was written correctly, and only an idiot doesn't do that after writing each one...
Paper is incredibly cheap...
At ~1 cent per page, how many reams of paper would it take to pay off a single tablet/eBook reader for a single person?
Answer: "Too many"
Tablets, so far, have been far too geared for the high end... Luxury devices. Meanwhile, the essentially free "Personal Organizers" that were flying off the shelves close to 10 years ago now, had everything needed, just in too small dimensions...
In short, once someone sells a 7" display, with decent pen-input, basic wireless, and a stupid-simple UI, for perhaps $25, then you'll see the last stronghold of paper fall away.
Until then, it will continue to be a trade-off... Is e-mailing this report okay, or will it need to be referenced in the next meeting, or by someone as they're walking around? Often, it's cost more to take the time to figure that out, than the cost of continuing to print it...
5 Reasons Tech Reporter Suck, and You Shouldn't Listen to Them:
1. If they had any skill or talent, they'd be making big bucks advising a company that actually designs and sells products.
2. They're wrong almost constantly.
3. They're rewarded for provocative stories that bring in readers, no matter how factually flawed they are.
4. There's hundreds of them, and no two that agree on anything, so who do you believe?
5. Random chance, and the utterly unpredictable dominate the market more than reasoning, so even if they were geniuses, they'd still just be guessing.
His ISP is SPININTERNET in Sydney...
I'd like to see some statistics on SawStop being falsely triggered (wet/green wood) versus not.
Also, how about the same sensing technology that just applies a brake, rather than destroying the blade and block? It would do slightly more damage, but it would be a scratch/gash rather than a missing finger... Is their patent the only possible way to detect flesh nearing/touching a saw blade?
Yes, the lawsuit is stupid, yes he shouldn't have prevailed, but it is sad when companies try to deny reality, and write-off all progress for contrived reasons... Certainly, better safety could be provided.
If you can't write a new program, practically free of buggy code, you certainly don't have the wherewithall to fix bugs in existing code...
Sendmail certainly came through it's rewrite vastly better than it was before. Other DNS programs, like MaraDNS, have come on the scene, and remain exploit-free for several years now.
While it may be illegal, and possibly unethical, your own conceit that content providers were probably helped, and basically no-one was hurt, firmly suggests this behavior was anything but EVIL. It might not even be unethical...
The last file release was ~6 months ago. Not the most active project on the planet, but has been going along just fine in the recent past... There have been periods longer than 1 year between releases in the past. Don't write the project off just yet.
Besides that, since it uses the ClamAV definitions, the backend software doesn't really need to be in active development. It either works, or it doesn't, and will continue to do so, indefinitely.
OTOH, if anyone is interested in contributing, or even forking, by all means, do.
Yes, yes you do. In fact even more than a full scan, which can be scheduled for some time when nobody is around waiting for it.
People complain about existing antivirus programs dragging-down their system's performance. Game makers recomend shutting-off antivirus programs for the same reasons. Using MORE memory, and 4 damn times as much CPU time isn't going to make anyone a fan of Clam.
Now, if you have a quad-core, high-end system that's otherwise idle most of the time, and you don't do any high-performance, I/O intensive tasks, you might just not notice... but even then, most people probably would notice the difference.
Yes, yes they are.
In what way does tacking-on on-access scanning, somehow negate the horrendous performance of ClamWin?
I'm glad you mentioned it, however, as it's one of the few options for Windows 9x users still out there.
Yes, poor little Google doesn't have the money to defend itself against the big, bad, Viacom.
For Viacom to win, Google will have to do something horribly, horribly wrong in the court.
Clam makes no attempt to detect "Spyware". You might as well complain that Avast didn't fix your network configuration problem for you...
I could live without an on-access scan (tell your download manager to scan downloaded files), but Clamwin is completely unusable, IMHO, because it uses up much more system memory, and takes 4X as long to scan compared to the more common Free AVs.
If you want real, free antivirus, go with MoonSecure (v2.x), which is GPL, does on-access scanning, and uses the ClamAV database. It does (momentarily) use up a lot of memory, and slow down the system, but only when first starting up, or updating definitions. Other than that, it's no more of a dog than any other free AV. Free for commercial purposes, likely to have definitions available forever, etc.
No, they can't, in fact. It would no longer be RAND. Not to mention it would render all exisiting chips and device worthless, which would cost them dearly. It's a ridiculous attempt to justify a nonsensical stance.
Patent licenses for codecs in the US is something of an issue, but there are numerous options there, even if not ideal, and everyone outside the US should not be penalized...
Carefully read the TITLE of article... Staring at you from the browser toolbar right now. Take note that it DOESN'T say Google's Bandwidth Bill May be Zero. "Google" isn't in there at all.
But you might just see YouTube in there...
No. I'm not the idiot who suggested we should be allowed to do whatever the hell we want "In a free country" no matter what affect it has on everyone else...
I'll go for the reasonable regulations we all have to live by, rather than the pretend world where we can all do whatever the hell we want, and it doesn't affect anyone else...
Precisely why the H.264 licensors opted to make H.264 gratis for non-paywalled web content, and again decided to extend that several years into the future... It would cost Wikipedia nothing to use H.264 into the foreseeable future.
Not to mention that WP is such a dog on resources, they probably wouldn't notice that H.264 license fee, even if they did have to pay it in the distant future... After all, the whole pricing scheme is generally aimed at companies who can justify paying $100 for a codec only if it's going to save them at least $1,000 in bandwidth, and WP uses plenty of bandwidth, and Theora only makes that worse...
Sure it did. Backwards compatibility made it better. Running on cheap PC hardware made it better. Having a larger installed base made it better.
Just because it was inferior in ways that matter to you, rather than the ways that matter to everyone else, doesn't mean it wasn't technically better in several way.
Well put. In fact I've had the reverse issue with every bit of 2D CGI that came after Jurassic Park... The BACKGROUND is in focus just as much as the foreground, and with that, there's little to discern where the foreground object ends, and the background object begins. It's like watching a world that's been squished between two panes of glass... And it only gets worse when the CGI is for special effects, so you keep going back and forth between flat, and depth...
If you'd stop polluting my air and water, I'd be happy to...