It sure as hell HAS touched Intel's target market.
It forced Intel to actually try and compete. Thus giving us some cool Intel (and AMD) CPU's. I think Intel pretty much ditched Itanium for this reason.
Yeah - the momitsu was really nice, I thought about getting that, but I had read some posts to some of the AV forums that it didn't really upconvert in all cases - but there's a Samsung (that I got) that upconverts to Component, and supposedly has really good audio too. Unfortunately, I'm not all that discriminating on the audio side (my ears just aren't sensitive enough). But I've been pretty happy with the component out of the Samsung, considering it was pretty cheap.
Still have the old husk of my Apex 600 AD; the mechanism gave out.
Hm. I wonder who I talk to about getting unaccountable taxpayer funding for MY black project?
Especially now that all these fiscally-responsible Republicans are in charge, now I *know* that I can really provide some real value to the American people.
Jesus jiminy cricket on a rocket-powered pogo stick!
Why aren't these SCO assholes and their coconspirators behind bars already?
This is ridiculous! - Since this SCO thing started, Martha Stewart traded stocks, got indicted, lied to investigators, got tried, found guilty, sentanced, finished her sentence, and returned to public life, and they can't even get this worthless SCO thing through depositions so they can decide it needs to be tossed out of court?
And they wonder why people think the court system is broken in this country.
Yes, the failure to plan for adequate capacity and delivery schedule for LOX, coupled with a couple of unfortunate equipment failures; these kinds of problems happen when you've got an accountant making engineering decisions - trying to cut costs, and finding out that when you do that, and unexpected things happen (and with such complex systems, unexpected things DO happen), and you get things like collapsed fuel tanks, and then you have to take everything apart, and keep your crew on that island for many more months, and pay them, and continue paying the range rent, etc, wait for the next opportunity in the range's schedule to make your launch. . .
And this is no different than hitches experienced regularly by other companies. Except for the fact that on a vehicle of this size and capability, the other companies were learning these hard lessons 40 years ago, and now they're learning the equivalent lessons for vehicles like the Delta IV. And they've folded the costs of these accidents and setbacks into their overall launch costs. SpaceX has not. And that's probably a big part of the reason why SpaceX's solutions look cheaper on paper. I'm saying that Falcon 9 is a pipe dream. SpaceX won't be done shaking out the bugs in Falcon 1 for something like 10 years, before they can even begin playing around with scaling it up to Falcon 9 (vapormissile).
Again, like I said in my other post, I think it's great that Musk has invested in engine design. None of the "big boys" seem to be doing that anymore. It seems to have paid off, if their efficiency and power claims are true - and if the reusability claims actually work out (if the booster survives recovery). In the end, SpaceX may deliver a less costly launch solution, but I doubt it will be anywhere near their starry-eyed predictions.
The "X" on the end of the name really bodes ill for my feeling that this is a bastard child of some 1990's dotcom pump-and-dump scammer. I really hope not, because for one, it would be very disheartenting to see our space industry scammed by the same kind of people that brought us AOL, WorldCom, Enron, (and the other denizens of fuckedcompany.com of decades past) etc. - but also, because as a civilization, humanity really desperately needs a much cheaper solution to get stuff into space.
Don't get me wrong, I think he's done amazing things with the development of his engines (assuming they actually perform in real-life like they do on paper). The increases in power and efficiency - if real, will be a great advancement. The scalability just hasn't been proven yet.
John Kerry was the single catalyzing action behind the investigation that took down the international drug and terror money laundering scheme known as BCCI.
Bush has done nothing other than a few token gestures to try to halt the illegal flow of drug money and political finance to terror groups, much of it through Bush's arab business partners.
I agree that the Kerry campaign did a terrible job focussing on what should have been his good selling points. I also feel that the rightwing news outlets (Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, etc) made a MUCH bigger deal out of Kerry's honorable military service than did Kerry himself, thus cementing the meme in the public's mind that Kerry was running on his war record, and that alone (absolutely false).
But set Viet Nam aside for a minute, and look at Kerry's BCCI record from the late 1980's. In this way, Senator Kerry IS a genuine War Hero. He technically STARTED the War on Terror, and fired the opening shot against the Terrorists, hitting them in their pocketbook. Only, there was so much resisitance, from Republicans, and people in his own party, that the effort stopped right there, and didn't continue until after 9/11/01.
This is the angle the Kerry campaign should have taken. A pox on Bob Shrum for being such a moron, and ignoring this very important accomplishment of Kerry's, and a perfect reason why Kerry was a far superior candidate for stopping international terror and addressing national security - to the idiot who wants to sell our domestic Port operations to an outfit that is closely aligned to the Taliban and Al Qaeda, and even patched up bin Laden in their hospitals.
I'd love to see a new Federalist party form. One based on supporting a free market like the Libertarians, but without their abhorrence of everything military
You're talking about the Reform Party, which was hijacked by Pat Buchanan and racist wingnuts in 2000.
The fact is, Free Market fundamentalism, on it's own, can't win with the American People. Because the result will not lead to a better life for most workers. And because the deck is already stacked so that the wealthy and well connected benefit more. The only way the Free Market Fundamentalism proposition sells is when it's bundled with populist religious wingnuttery, with fascist/corporatist authoritarian streak. (and the end result is "lip service" to Free Market ideas, that end up being nothing more than thinly-veiled Corporate Welfare).
This is why the Republican Party has opted for the politics of hate and divisiveness, and sided with the religious wingnuts. They need them to ram through their agenda of power whoring.
The Democrats are a different, utterly bankrupt lost cause story.
I think most Americans would prefer a Free Market system with just a touch of socialism, a wink (but no more) to their Christian cultural roots, and enough of a Military to feel secure, but no real need to parade around the world waving their penises in other nations' faces. We've seen where too-much socialism turns off middle-America. We've seen where too-much religious wingnuttery turns off middle-America. And we've seen where too much security emphasis turns off middle-America. The Republican party seems to be calibrating back down to that level, but the corporatist power-mongers are too drunk to let go yet, and they're not through looting the treasury. (ie. they'll be done when China takes away our credit-card).
Work is harder now because employers expect us to be working faster because they are cheap bastards as are consumers.
Back in the bubble era - I made a lot of money. My bosses weren't cheap bastards, and therefore, as a consumer, I was not a cheap bastard. I lived much better than I do now. I donated a lot more money to charity than I do now. And I paid much more for functionally equivalent things than I do now.
Consumers are cheap bastards BECAUSE their bosses became cheap bastards.
And it's the simple economic lesson that all "trickle-down" adherents forget: The economy is 2/3 driven by consumer spending. If you pay workers less, then they consume less. Lay off your workers, and you sandbag your own consumers.
the perfect telecommute spot, a 40+ sloop with a KVH autotracking satellite dish providing broadband capability, chilled vodka and a loving wife sunning on deck....Ah...At least I can dream.
Even better!
a 40+ sloop with radio jammer, twin.60 machinegun, perhaps a rocket launcher, and a way to quickly conceal such equipment from pesky coast-guard inspections. And tons more people like you. High-seas piracy! ah- - - at least I can dream. . .
So far, their track record isn't too impressive. I think with the whole Kwajalin fiasco, he's starting to learn some of the hard lessons that the big boys learned back in the 1940's and 1950's, and why it really is so expensive to do this stuff.
His answer? Sue the big boys. Because his personal libertarian ideology won't allow him to wrap his brain around the fact that you can't safely and reliably put satellites into orbit with just a bunch of guys in their garage and a dream.
The French have learned, the Japanese, Chinese, Brazillians, every other spacefaring nation has learned - the hard way, that the pioneers learned these lessons, the hard way - and these are the facts of life. It's not the fat, inefficient, piggy industry everyone seems to believe it is.
I have no doubt that he will eventually succeed with Falcon 1. But I think when SpaceX starts to scale up to Falcon 5 and Falcon 9, they're going to learn that in practice, there's a difference between theory in practice.
Smarter business processes that prevent the kind of abuses that we've all pretty much agreed are the real source of the problem mentioned in this article.
But U.S. workers have to some extent let them get away with it. Once some people went on call 24x7 with their pagers, then cell phones, then Blackberries, it put a lot of pressure on the rest of us to do so. In spite of the fact that no one's really doing their job very well, no one's pushing back and saying, "Enough!" And, of course, the vast majority of CEOs and upper-level managers are either too stupid to recognize what's happening or they just don't care as long as they get their fat bonus.
you see - the cause of this problem, what you're saying - is that the company is rewarding CEO's inappropriately, and failing to reward employees appropriately - a Business Process problem.
Also - we've got all this cool technology to pipe messages into us, pagers, cellphones, mail, etc. and ALL of them are designed like stovepipes, there's no unifying architecture, so there's no way to manage or queue all of them together. Email has it's own queueing, and telephones sort of (via Voice Mail), but you can't queue all of your incoming traffic and prioritize it. THAT'S the problem - we just haven't solved this technical problem yet. And when we do, we'll still have the problem of the jackasses waiting in line outside your cube (which is really a symptom of our Business Process engineering technology being crappy).
I really do believe that someday, we'll resolve this technological imbalance. I think we have all the pieces of the puzzle except one: There is no incentive yet for any company to develop such technology - because of regulation and monopoly issues. And once we adjust regulations to allow a company to do so; it will probably be a monopoly that's too horrible to contemplate.
Maybe a legal regulatory environment could be constructed to allow competitors to play in this space, but it would really take a vision that's orders of magnitude beyond our current political-economic structure to make it happen, because right now, it's all driven by greasing palms, and with that methodology, there's a sense of entitlement, and the drive toward regulated monopoly.
That's the problem to which I do not know the answer.
I knew this guy, Vito, who used to make the rounds of all the local shopkeepers, and take money in exchange for assurances that thugs wouldn't come in and bust up the place. . .
And then, there was this Viking king I remember reading about, who used to go around to all the French villages, and they'd pay him gold, and then miraculously, they didn't get attacked.
And then there was this President, who claimed that if we tried to use diplomacy, instead of military force, that would be tantamount to "appeasement". Then he sold a military dictator who shelters terrorists and participates in nuclear proliferation, a bunch of f-16s. And he invaded a politically expedient country, instead of the one where the terrorists came from, because he didn't want to inconvenience his business partners. Then he sold a bunch of major US ports to a company run by a regime that supports terrorism. Then he squandered national secrets as a means to politically smear opponents. Then he tried to tell us to take him seriously on security issues.
You're basically claiming that FDR willfully allowed the Japanese to succeed in bombing Pearl Harbor to galvanize the US into entering the war. Frankly, that seems quite plausible, if cynical in viewpoint.
I don't know if, from a strategic viewpoint, if risking losing those assets at Pearl Harbor, was such a good idea. The fact is that the US did recover, and was able to win that war, after losing those assets (the ships, planes, and men) at Pearl Harbor.
But it was an awfully big gamble - just to make a political play to convince Americans that Japan was a real threat. In my opinion, any reasonable commander (or commander-in-chief) would take that risk as unacceptable. Risk civillian losses (like 9/11)? that's plausible. Risk military assets? Not plausible. Not for politics.
Of course, in this day and age of FauxNews, all we would need is if the Japanese leader was a socialist, or just had a big mouth, and we'd be all over him like White on Rice.
What this probably means is that there will be intermediate decoders you'll have to buy that plug into your HDDVD device on one end, and your Colorstream-in on the TV, that will give your TV the desired resolution, and also play nice by the HD DVD player's "rules".
So those of us with such early HD-ready TV's will be nicked for an additional device that will cost just slightly less than buying a new "no, really, we mean it this time, this TV really IS HD-ready!" TV.
About the ONLY thing you seem to be able to get from Radio Shack (that you can't get anywhere else, and I mean ANYWHRE) - are those little PRAM batteries for the motherboard on Macintoshes.
Everything else they have, I can pretty much find elsewhere. Usually for less money, and without having to report a false set of personal information (name address, etc.).
I reckon that this whole resume dust-up might be a way for the board to flush him out without taking the heat for the bad quarter they had.
Veritas had a CFO for something like 5-10 years, who had lied about his degrees on his resume - he had performed his job admirably, was a well-known and respected member of the financial community, but when it came down to it, the ability to do his job was based in large part on his credibility, which went down the toilet the day an anonymous tipster telephoned the board with the truth about his college background.
I'm not saying that they knew all along, or that anybody else actually knew the truth - but it sure proved to be a very convenient diversion of attention when the SEC came calling about their smarmy deal with AOL to trade software for advertisement, which was used in part, to cover up a bad quarter. The CFO, Ken Lonchar, had nothing to do with that particular deal, but he sure got blamed for it. The real crime was that the people who engineered that deal didn't get fired. (They made quite certain in their filing for the class-action lawsuit by shareholders, that Ken Lonchar was named as a separate defendant).
I suspect we haven't heard the whole story on this Radio Shack deal. And I suspect we never will, because they've got a convenient scapegoat.
Had we not intervened against Japan (trade sanctions prior to being attacked at Pearl Harbor) - then all of southeast asia, perhaps 500 million people who today are muslims, would be shinto/buddhist subjects of imperial Japan. Not just China, but Korea, Indonesia, India, Pakistan, Mongolia, Thailand, Oceana, etc. No shit.
Slashdot Mirror
It sure as hell HAS touched Intel's target market.
It forced Intel to actually try and compete. Thus giving us some cool Intel (and AMD) CPU's. I think Intel pretty much ditched Itanium for this reason.
Yeah - the momitsu was really nice, I thought about getting that, but I had read some posts to some of the AV forums that it didn't really upconvert in all cases - but there's a Samsung (that I got) that upconverts to Component, and supposedly has really good audio too. Unfortunately, I'm not all that discriminating on the audio side (my ears just aren't sensitive enough). But I've been pretty happy with the component out of the Samsung, considering it was pretty cheap.
Still have the old husk of my Apex 600 AD; the mechanism gave out.
Hm. I wonder who I talk to about getting unaccountable taxpayer funding for MY black project?
Especially now that all these fiscally-responsible Republicans are in charge, now I *know* that I can really provide some real value to the American people.
Jesus jiminy cricket on a rocket-powered pogo stick!
Why aren't these SCO assholes and their coconspirators behind bars already?
This is ridiculous! - Since this SCO thing started, Martha Stewart traded stocks, got indicted, lied to investigators, got tried, found guilty, sentanced, finished her sentence, and returned to public life, and they can't even get this worthless SCO thing through depositions so they can decide it needs to be tossed out of court?
And they wonder why people think the court system is broken in this country.
Yes, the failure to plan for adequate capacity and delivery schedule for LOX, coupled with a couple of unfortunate equipment failures; these kinds of problems happen when you've got an accountant making engineering decisions - trying to cut costs, and finding out that when you do that, and unexpected things happen (and with such complex systems, unexpected things DO happen), and you get things like collapsed fuel tanks, and then you have to take everything apart, and keep your crew on that island for many more months, and pay them, and continue paying the range rent, etc, wait for the next opportunity in the range's schedule to make your launch. . .
And this is no different than hitches experienced regularly by other companies. Except for the fact that on a vehicle of this size and capability, the other companies were learning these hard lessons 40 years ago, and now they're learning the equivalent lessons for vehicles like the Delta IV. And they've folded the costs of these accidents and setbacks into their overall launch costs. SpaceX has not. And that's probably a big part of the reason why SpaceX's solutions look cheaper on paper. I'm saying that Falcon 9 is a pipe dream. SpaceX won't be done shaking out the bugs in Falcon 1 for something like 10 years, before they can even begin playing around with scaling it up to Falcon 9 (vapormissile).
Again, like I said in my other post, I think it's great that Musk has invested in engine design. None of the "big boys" seem to be doing that anymore. It seems to have paid off, if their efficiency and power claims are true - and if the reusability claims actually work out (if the booster survives recovery). In the end, SpaceX may deliver a less costly launch solution, but I doubt it will be anywhere near their starry-eyed predictions.
The "X" on the end of the name really bodes ill for my feeling that this is a bastard child of some 1990's dotcom pump-and-dump scammer. I really hope not, because for one, it would be very disheartenting to see our space industry scammed by the same kind of people that brought us AOL, WorldCom, Enron, (and the other denizens of fuckedcompany.com of decades past) etc. - but also, because as a civilization, humanity really desperately needs a much cheaper solution to get stuff into space.
Don't get me wrong, I think he's done amazing things with the development of his engines (assuming they actually perform in real-life like they do on paper). The increases in power and efficiency - if real, will be a great advancement. The scalability just hasn't been proven yet.
Unaware of the 4th Amendment
John Kerry was the single catalyzing action behind the investigation that took down the international drug and terror money laundering scheme known as BCCI.
Bush has done nothing other than a few token gestures to try to halt the illegal flow of drug money and political finance to terror groups, much of it through Bush's arab business partners.
I agree that the Kerry campaign did a terrible job focussing on what should have been his good selling points. I also feel that the rightwing news outlets (Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, etc) made a MUCH bigger deal out of Kerry's honorable military service than did Kerry himself, thus cementing the meme in the public's mind that Kerry was running on his war record, and that alone (absolutely false).
But set Viet Nam aside for a minute, and look at Kerry's BCCI record from the late 1980's. In this way, Senator Kerry IS a genuine War Hero. He technically STARTED the War on Terror, and fired the opening shot against the Terrorists, hitting them in their pocketbook. Only, there was so much resisitance, from Republicans, and people in his own party, that the effort stopped right there, and didn't continue until after 9/11/01.
This is the angle the Kerry campaign should have taken. A pox on Bob Shrum for being such a moron, and ignoring this very important accomplishment of Kerry's, and a perfect reason why Kerry was a far superior candidate for stopping international terror and addressing national security - to the idiot who wants to sell our domestic Port operations to an outfit that is closely aligned to the Taliban and Al Qaeda, and even patched up bin Laden in their hospitals.
I'd love to see a new Federalist party form. One based on supporting a free market like the Libertarians, but without their abhorrence of everything military
You're talking about the Reform Party, which was hijacked by Pat Buchanan and racist wingnuts in 2000.
The fact is, Free Market fundamentalism, on it's own, can't win with the American People. Because the result will not lead to a better life for most workers. And because the deck is already stacked so that the wealthy and well connected benefit more. The only way the Free Market Fundamentalism proposition sells is when it's bundled with populist religious wingnuttery, with fascist/corporatist authoritarian streak. (and the end result is "lip service" to Free Market ideas, that end up being nothing more than thinly-veiled Corporate Welfare).
This is why the Republican Party has opted for the politics of hate and divisiveness, and sided with the religious wingnuts. They need them to ram through their agenda of power whoring.
The Democrats are a different, utterly bankrupt lost cause story.
I think most Americans would prefer a Free Market system with just a touch of socialism, a wink (but no more) to their Christian cultural roots, and enough of a Military to feel secure, but no real need to parade around the world waving their penises in other nations' faces. We've seen where too-much socialism turns off middle-America. We've seen where too-much religious wingnuttery turns off middle-America. And we've seen where too much security emphasis turns off middle-America. The Republican party seems to be calibrating back down to that level, but the corporatist power-mongers are too drunk to let go yet, and they're not through looting the treasury. (ie. they'll be done when China takes away our credit-card).
Work is harder now because employers expect us to be working faster because they are cheap bastards as are consumers.
Back in the bubble era - I made a lot of money. My bosses weren't cheap bastards, and therefore, as a consumer, I was not a cheap bastard. I lived much better than I do now. I donated a lot more money to charity than I do now. And I paid much more for functionally equivalent things than I do now.
Consumers are cheap bastards BECAUSE their bosses became cheap bastards.
And it's the simple economic lesson that all "trickle-down" adherents forget:
The economy is 2/3 driven by consumer spending. If you pay workers less, then they consume less. Lay off your workers, and you sandbag your own consumers.
the perfect telecommute spot, a 40+ sloop with a KVH autotracking satellite dish providing broadband capability, chilled vodka and a loving wife sunning on deck....Ah...At least I can dream.
.60 machinegun, perhaps a rocket launcher, and a way to quickly conceal such equipment from pesky coast-guard inspections. And tons more people like you.
Even better!
a 40+ sloop with radio jammer, twin
High-seas piracy! ah- - - at least I can dream. . .
So far, their track record isn't too impressive. I think with the whole Kwajalin fiasco, he's starting to learn some of the hard lessons that the big boys learned back in the 1940's and 1950's, and why it really is so expensive to do this stuff.
His answer? Sue the big boys. Because his personal libertarian ideology won't allow him to wrap his brain around the fact that you can't safely and reliably put satellites into orbit with just a bunch of guys in their garage and a dream.
The French have learned, the Japanese, Chinese, Brazillians, every other spacefaring nation has learned - the hard way, that the pioneers learned these lessons, the hard way - and these are the facts of life. It's not the fat, inefficient, piggy industry everyone seems to believe it is.
I have no doubt that he will eventually succeed with Falcon 1. But I think when SpaceX starts to scale up to Falcon 5 and Falcon 9, they're going to learn that in practice, there's a difference between theory in practice.
I don't know what the answer to that problem is,
Smarter business processes that prevent the kind of abuses that we've all pretty much agreed are the real source of the problem mentioned in this article.
But U.S. workers have to some extent let them get away with it. Once some people went on call 24x7 with their pagers, then cell phones, then Blackberries, it put a lot of pressure on the rest of us to do so. In spite of the fact that no one's really doing their job very well, no one's pushing back and saying, "Enough!" And, of course, the vast majority of CEOs and upper-level managers are either too stupid to recognize what's happening or they just don't care as long as they get their fat bonus.
you see - the cause of this problem, what you're saying - is that the company is rewarding CEO's inappropriately, and failing to reward employees appropriately - a Business Process problem.
Also - we've got all this cool technology to pipe messages into us, pagers, cellphones, mail, etc. and ALL of them are designed like stovepipes, there's no unifying architecture, so there's no way to manage or queue all of them together. Email has it's own queueing, and telephones sort of (via Voice Mail), but you can't queue all of your incoming traffic and prioritize it. THAT'S the problem - we just haven't solved this technical problem yet. And when we do, we'll still have the problem of the jackasses waiting in line outside your cube (which is really a symptom of our Business Process engineering technology being crappy).
I really do believe that someday, we'll resolve this technological imbalance. I think we have all the pieces of the puzzle except one:
There is no incentive yet for any company to develop such technology - because of regulation and monopoly issues.
And once we adjust regulations to allow a company to do so; it will probably be a monopoly that's too horrible to contemplate.
Maybe a legal regulatory environment could be constructed to allow competitors to play in this space, but it would really take a vision that's orders of magnitude beyond our current political-economic structure to make it happen, because right now, it's all driven by greasing palms, and with that methodology, there's a sense of entitlement, and the drive toward regulated monopoly.
That's the problem to which I do not know the answer.
I knew this guy, Vito, who used to make the rounds of all the local shopkeepers, and take money in exchange for assurances that thugs wouldn't come in and bust up the place. . .
And then, there was this Viking king I remember reading about, who used to go around to all the French villages, and they'd pay him gold, and then miraculously, they didn't get attacked.
And then there was this President, who claimed that if we tried to use diplomacy, instead of military force, that would be tantamount to "appeasement". Then he sold a military dictator who shelters terrorists and participates in nuclear proliferation, a bunch of f-16s. And he invaded a politically expedient country, instead of the one where the terrorists came from, because he didn't want to inconvenience his business partners. Then he sold a bunch of major US ports to a company run by a regime that supports terrorism. Then he squandered national secrets as a means to politically smear opponents. Then he tried to tell us to take him seriously on security issues.
You're basically claiming that FDR willfully allowed the Japanese to succeed in bombing Pearl Harbor to galvanize the US into entering the war. Frankly, that seems quite plausible, if cynical in viewpoint.
I don't know if, from a strategic viewpoint, if risking losing those assets at Pearl Harbor, was such a good idea. The fact is that the US did recover, and was able to win that war, after losing those assets (the ships, planes, and men) at Pearl Harbor.
But it was an awfully big gamble - just to make a political play to convince Americans that Japan was a real threat. In my opinion, any reasonable commander (or commander-in-chief) would take that risk as unacceptable. Risk civillian losses (like 9/11)? that's plausible. Risk military assets? Not plausible. Not for politics.
Of course, in this day and age of FauxNews, all we would need is if the Japanese leader was a socialist, or just had a big mouth, and we'd be all over him like White on Rice.
What this probably means is that there will be intermediate decoders you'll have to buy that plug into your HDDVD device on one end, and your Colorstream-in on the TV, that will give your TV the desired resolution, and also play nice by the HD DVD player's "rules".
So those of us with such early HD-ready TV's will be nicked for an additional device that will cost just slightly less than buying a new "no, really, we mean it this time, this TV really IS HD-ready!" TV.
. . . but wouldn't it be great if our buddy RICO made an appearance as a result?
About the ONLY thing you seem to be able to get from Radio Shack (that you can't get anywhere else, and I mean ANYWHRE) - are those little PRAM batteries for the motherboard on Macintoshes.
Everything else they have, I can pretty much find elsewhere. Usually for less money, and without having to report a false set of personal information (name address, etc.).
I reckon that this whole resume dust-up might be a way for the board to flush him out without taking the heat for the bad quarter they had.
Veritas had a CFO for something like 5-10 years, who had lied about his degrees on his resume - he had performed his job admirably, was a well-known and respected member of the financial community, but when it came down to it, the ability to do his job was based in large part on his credibility, which went down the toilet the day an anonymous tipster telephoned the board with the truth about his college background.
I'm not saying that they knew all along, or that anybody else actually knew the truth - but it sure proved to be a very convenient diversion of attention when the SEC came calling about their smarmy deal with AOL to trade software for advertisement, which was used in part, to cover up a bad quarter. The CFO, Ken Lonchar, had nothing to do with that particular deal, but he sure got blamed for it. The real crime was that the people who engineered that deal didn't get fired. (They made quite certain in their filing for the class-action lawsuit by shareholders, that Ken Lonchar was named as a separate defendant).
I suspect we haven't heard the whole story on this Radio Shack deal. And I suspect we never will, because they've got a convenient scapegoat.
mildly interesting.
With what algorithm was that string generated?
Ah, but who are the TRUE conservatives?
The People's Judean Front?
Or the Judean People's Front?
That doesn't even scratch the surface.
Had we not intervened against Japan (trade sanctions prior to being attacked at Pearl Harbor) - then all of southeast asia, perhaps 500 million people who today are muslims, would be shinto/buddhist subjects of imperial Japan. Not just China, but Korea, Indonesia, India, Pakistan, Mongolia, Thailand, Oceana, etc. No shit.
yeah, use emoticons.
I thought you went to war with the propaganda machine you have, not the propaganda machine you'd like to have. . .
We here on Slashdot know what "no support" means.
No wait-on-hold-time for an answer that's utterly useless?