... some blind kids did. John Draper (Captain Crunch) shared this design with Woz. Woz made boxes to sell to students to get money for building computers.....
I will plead "laziness inspired by explanation to management" on this one.
I have so much fun just explaining adding fractions together to my management, that I have gotten lazy and not included the other components of the case.
This issue of MTBF comes up when I am trying to justify how many spare units to keep in stock.
I will agree that for the average user, MTBF does not mean a whole lot. No single drive is going to last 100+ years!
There are some of us that run server farms of 20,000 drives or more. When you calculate the MTBF across the farm, and then compare how many drives you fail in a week, the numbers are pretty close.
This factors in for how many techs I am going to need to keep up with drive replacements.
So saying that MTBF has absolutely nothing to do with reality is in itself, a myth.
If you look at it statistically, you have better MTBF on a single drive, than you do on two...
for example, 1 drive = 500,000 hrs mtbf
1/500,000 + 1/500,000 = 2/500,000 or 1/250,000
so two drives give your a MTBF or 250,000 hrs for your drive subsystem.
Also given, MTBF is more useful for calculating the amount of failures that you will see over a large population of drives as opposed to your single machine experience.
Using things such as RAID does not put a dent in your drive MTBF, but it does make a huge difference in your data preservation!
You are correct in that US companies are already outsourcing, and they are already responsible and need to be held liable under the rules they are already subject to.
The problem is that we think that they should be held liable, and we think that they are already responsible.
For a proof of this theory, try getting inaccurate data removed from your credit report. Darn near impossible without a lawyer getting involved. The reporting companies. If they were liable for mis information, I would imagine that data would be a heck of a lot easier to get corrected, due to a certainty of loss in court.
Why does this need to be negotiated into international treaties? Simple, and it is not about extending the jurisdiction of US laws.
If a company is going to be permitted to outsource your personal information to a country, then I as a consumer want to be sure that the country my data is in has some notion of criminal inforcement for theft and fraud related to my personal information. We have similar policies in place for defense department work today.
Personally, I would like to see a law that states that I own my personal information, and I alone get to dictate how it is distributed and used. I think that this is a basic human right.
There is a remedy for handling this in the future for US citizens. We need to push our legislators to enforce it, which is obviously hard to do.
US Corporations are legally (criminally and civily) liable for the accuracy and protection of data that they collect on US Citizens.
This then needs to be negotiated into international treaties.
This would make a given company think twice about what information it really needs to be collecting, and how it will be protected. If the company wishes to outsource work, fine, that needs to be disclosed, and the company still remains liable for the protection of that data.
There need to be laws, and the laws must have teeth. This is a "service" that companies are carrying out "in the public trush." They need to be penalized for violations.
I, as a Tivo consumer, am willing to make a deal here.
First, I pay the monthly fee, and I truely find value in the Tivo as a device. Enough so that I am willing to make a compromise to keep them in business. I understand these FF ads were key to Tivo getting the Comcast deal.
I have not seen the ads, but from what I understand, the main issue with them is that it is hard to see when to stop fast forwarding.
Tivo has a technology solution for this, but they need to release it.
If I had an accurate commercial skip feature, such that if I hit a button, it would skip the commercials and accurately drop me to the end of the ads, then I would be more than willing to put up with ads for the two or three second interim.
The movie theaters are responding to the consumer closing their wallet. They are gaining new revenue sources such as advertising to make up for it.
I have to admit, due to high ticket prices, the only time I go and see a movie these days is if I think the movie will take advantage of the large screen format. Otherwise, I wait for it to hit Blockbuster. This may be more of a function of the crap that Hollywood is putting out, but this is how I deal with it as a consumer.
As for Tivo. I find that if Tivo selling two second spots is going to keep them in business so that I can get the functionality from a Tivo that I really need, then I am all for it. Since getting a Tivo (and cranking the drive space up to 320 GB) I no longer worry about what is on TV, and when it is on. I catch what I want on Saturday mornings, and let the rest of the content hit the bit bucket.
They ask for a virus, but their description is calling for a worm.
According to Symantec: www.symantec.com/avcenter/reference/worm.vs.virus. pdf
a virus is defined as a program that spreads from file to file on a computer. A worm is designed to spread with minimal human intervention, if at all.
Seeing that many PC viruses and worms spread due to the stupid user opening an attachment, I find that there requirement for not opening attachments makes the test a little unrealistic at best.
but then again, if they did open attachments, this would be a pretty quick $25K to collect.
I think that there may be something to the idea that reliance on calculators kills math skills. I don't think that this applies to the/. set as much as it does to the lower end of the wage scale....
Think about this next time you are in a retail establishment, when was the last time someone counted out change for you? Was that person under 50?
I worked in a grocery store when I was in high school, back in the late 80's. I remember the panic that ensued when the cash register system went down and we had to use adding machines. The largest issue that we had was the lack of folks who could 1) use an adding machine and 2) could count out change without the computer telling them how much to give.
This makes complete sense, to them, and I am not trying to preach about conspiracy theorys.
The labels depend on big acts and big hits to make up for losses from new ventures.
With digital distribution, a large act such as Metallica, Pearl Jam, etc. could go into the studio in the morning, cut a track, and release it to the public for sale in a matter of hours. With their fan bases, they could make some serious money in a matter of hours at $0.99 a song.
No holding on to the track in wait of a complete CD, and no help from the Label.
Yes, the Label helped them have a large fan base, but it is no longer needed. The Label is now irrelevant.
I think that the Labels are dumb enough, and arrogant enough, that they honestly believe that they can stuff this digital genie back into the bottle. Raising the prices would kill digital distribution, and they know it.
Is this the last gasp of the dying Labels trying to delay their fate?
The Record labels are scared to death of iTunes, and they would kill it if they could.
The Labels depend on their pool of successful artists and big hits to make their money.
The technology is readily available for someone like a Madonna or Metallica to go jump in the studio, cut a single, and put it out for sale in a matter of hours. These groups have loyal followings that would eagerly purchase these newly cut singles for $0.99 USD by the hundreds of thousands or the millions.
No Label is required in this transaction. It scares them to death. As an "organism" that is in jeoprody of perishing, they are fighting back.
The only thing that has me wondering is why we are not seeing the major artists do this now!
I am all for putting the people responsible for thsi action in jail, however, I NEVER ENTRUSTED THEM WITH MY DATA!
I never authorized them to keep it in the first place.
I realize that they are a storing house for "public" information that comprises "private" transactions between myself and various entities that I do business with.
This is messed up, I am contacting my elected officials and asking them what they are doing to protect me from this.
... however, due to chipset limitations in the series 2 540x models (the newer, silver ones)... you will have a hard time transfering faster than 300KB. Slow as all get out for an 800+MB file.
The "older" 240 series 2's transfer at least twice as fast.
They may advertise their services on the TV, but there is a disclaimer refering to the service agreement in fine print.
I understand that there is a notion of "it is what it is" in regards to contract law... i.e. a man could sign a contract declaring that he was a woman, but the contract would be voice because he is not.
Your theatre example does not hold up. There is usually an escape clause in the even that the show is cut short or canceled.
Read through your broadband access contract. I reread the one from Comcast tonight. As a consumer level service user, Comcast basically does not guarantee squat! There is no bandwidth guarantee, and the "agreement" is full of excuses for them to limit your service.
Is there any legal remedy in the United States for this?
From what I understand, credit agencies cannot be held legally liable for false information in your credit report.
Also, there is no legal requirement for these agencies to keep your data about you secure. They do it for PR reasons, but that is about it.
The EU has some laws protecting consumers from this crap. I understand that the FTC is doing some work in this regard, but nothing yet.
Anyone have more details on this?
If we could hold these agencies criminally liable for these events, I would expect that 1) credit reports would be a lot more accurate and 2) companies like this would not exist due to the liability of having this type of information being too huge.
When you agree to subscribe to broadband service, you are not getting "Internet Access", you are getting whatever the broadband service contract says that you are getting. If it is not spelled out in the contract, it is not guaranteed. Simple as that. Looking at my service agreement from Comcast, they pretty much don't gurantee any level of service.
Does anyone have information on better contracts for "business level" services?
I see a lot of arguments stating that you can get your music on line from places other than iTunes MS, and you can purchase players other than the iPod.
You can make the same arguement about operating systems and Microsoft.
What is making Apple a target here is that they have the largest share of this market. Obviously, they do not have the commanding share of the market as Intel or Microsoft may have. I would expect this situation to get worse for Apple in the even that their market share does approach that of Intel or Microsoft.
I know this does not please a lot of the Open Office fans out there, and this is not an attempt at starting a flame war.
I use Microsoft Office at work on the PC, and I know that many others do as well. Having Microsoft Office available for the Mac was the single most important reason that I chose a Mac as a viable computer for home use.
If Apple puts Microsoft in a position where they are competing, Microsoft may well do what they did in the Safari situation and stop developing the product.
No matter how much better an Apple office suite may be, I would see that as being detrimental to the market growth that is inspired by having a document compatible office suite at home.
If Joe Six-pack uses Office at work, he will easily understand that having Office for the Mac as a compatible solution.
Any other solution at home would bring up compatibility questions by default.
In many of the data centers that I visit, people are working on the floor with the sole purpose of doing mundane tasks such as rebooting computers and reloading operating systems.
This can be automated. Items such as remote management hardware are only getting cheaper. Technologies such as IPMI will replace the need to even have secondary remote management networks.
As technology improves and gets less expensive, less people will be required to do these mundane tasks.
This makes complete sense that there will be a reduction in these types of jobs because of this. Hopefully, the affected folks are smart enough to learn new skills and move on.
In your previous post "see, the problem with your system is that it's only good for the top 5% of excellent people. and if the other 95% - you know, the sub-human slackers who aren't as excellent as you - aren't looked out for in the system, all kinds of bad things happen."
That is the content that I referred to when I made my comment that if you want to slack, you need a union to protect you.
I do disagree with you when you suggest the union is looking out for you. I believe that Unions convey that idea, and maybe some Union bosses have this intention. When companies depended on local labor sources, Unions had some negotiating power because they represented the local labor force. In todays global economy, companies can (and have) picked up shop and moved it elsewhere. This rendered the unions and the local labor force effectively powerless. If you need examples, take a look at the Auto, steel, and textile industries. Unions drove wages to the point that companies found it more economical to export raw matierials, manufacture them over seas, and then pay duties to sell them back to the US market.
What power do unions really have then? I don't see any.
So, the union can still ask its members to boycott these companies for closing their local factories. Last time I checked, the boycotts against Wallmart are not causing Wallmart any grief.
My experience with unions has been bad. I have no problem admitting that. I also know that the global economy is creating downward pressure on wages. I don't know what the answer to this problem is, but I don't see unions creating a viable option either.
As far as a union protecting me from a bad boss goes; I have found it just as effective to leave the group or company. No good comes from a bad boss, and it takes to long too let someone else remedy that situation.
I will start with my union experience. In high school, I was a checker in a grocery store. I joined the union. I paid full dues, but I received no benefits from the union because I did not work enough hours (no medical, eye care, strike pay, etc). I could not get more hours, because I did not have enough seniority. I worked hard. As a reward, the night managers would let me do more interesting work on the computer system, or stock groceries. (at least it was a change of scenery). That stopped when someone from the stocker's union complained. I was up for a merit promotion. Got the promotion only to have it revoked due to union complaints about lack of seniority. (I actually have documentation from the union to prove this)
My union experience, basically it protects people who don't like to work from people who do. I have no time for them. They are powerless. Look at the US manufacturing sector for proof.
Now, I am in the computer industry. I thrive well in the merit system. If I don't like the situation, I leave. This forumula has worked well for me for the last 14 years. I never completed college, and I am paid extrememly well.
Moral to the story: if you are good at what you do, you don't need a union.
If you want to be in this industry, it is going to require life long learning and a lot of work if you want to protect your job. A union will not help you.
Slashdot Mirror
... some blind kids did. John Draper (Captain Crunch) shared this design with Woz. Woz made boxes to sell to students to get money for building computers.....
the "innovation" started waaaaaay back.
Most of the guys who wrote Magellan got back together and released a new desktop search package called X1. http://www.x1.com
It is quite good, and worth looking at, especially if you were a Magellan fan.
Your point is valid and correct.
I will plead "laziness inspired by explanation to management" on this one.
I have so much fun just explaining adding fractions together to my management, that I have gotten lazy and not included the other components of the case.
This issue of MTBF comes up when I am trying to justify how many spare units to keep in stock.
You are not entirely correct here.
I will agree that for the average user, MTBF does not mean a whole lot. No single drive is going to last 100+ years!
There are some of us that run server farms of 20,000 drives or more. When you calculate the MTBF across the farm, and then compare how many drives you fail in a week, the numbers are pretty close.
This factors in for how many techs I am going to need to keep up with drive replacements.
So saying that MTBF has absolutely nothing to do with reality is in itself, a myth.
If you look at it statistically, you have better MTBF on a single drive, than you do on two...
for example, 1 drive = 500,000 hrs mtbf
1/500,000 + 1/500,000 = 2/500,000 or 1/250,000
so two drives give your a MTBF or 250,000 hrs for your drive subsystem.
Also given, MTBF is more useful for calculating the amount of failures that you will see over a large population of drives as opposed to your single machine experience.
Using things such as RAID does not put a dent in your drive MTBF, but it does make a huge difference in your data preservation!
You are correct in that US companies are already outsourcing, and they are already responsible and need to be held liable under the rules they are already subject to.
The problem is that we think that they should be held liable, and we think that they are already responsible.
For a proof of this theory, try getting inaccurate data removed from your credit report. Darn near impossible without a lawyer getting involved. The reporting companies. If they were liable for mis information, I would imagine that data would be a heck of a lot easier to get corrected, due to a certainty of loss in court.
Why does this need to be negotiated into international treaties? Simple, and it is not about extending the jurisdiction of US laws.
If a company is going to be permitted to outsource your personal information to a country, then I as a consumer want to be sure that the country my data is in has some notion of criminal inforcement for theft and fraud related to my personal information. We have similar policies in place for defense department work today.
Personally, I would like to see a law that states that I own my personal information, and I alone get to dictate how it is distributed and used. I think that this is a basic human right.
There is a remedy for handling this in the future for US citizens. We need to push our legislators to enforce it, which is obviously hard to do.
US Corporations are legally (criminally and civily) liable for the accuracy and protection of data that they collect on US Citizens.
This then needs to be negotiated into international treaties.
This would make a given company think twice about what information it really needs to be collecting, and how it will be protected. If the company wishes to outsource work, fine, that needs to be disclosed, and the company still remains liable for the protection of that data.
There need to be laws, and the laws must have teeth. This is a "service" that companies are carrying out "in the public trush." They need to be penalized for violations.
I have already done that. It is a 30 second skip, not a "sense when the commercials start, and sense when they stop" skip.
I want an intelligent option. Hit one button, skip all the commercials.
Better yet, give me a flag on a menu that says "skip commercials during playback".
Ideally, let me skip them on record...
I, as a Tivo consumer, am willing to make a deal here.
First, I pay the monthly fee, and I truely find value in the Tivo as a device. Enough so that I am willing to make a compromise to keep them in business. I understand these FF ads were key to Tivo getting the Comcast deal.
I have not seen the ads, but from what I understand, the main issue with them is that it is hard to see when to stop fast forwarding.
Tivo has a technology solution for this, but they need to release it.
If I had an accurate commercial skip feature, such that if I hit a button, it would skip the commercials and accurately drop me to the end of the ads, then I would be more than willing to put up with ads for the two or three second interim.
Tivo, does that sound like a deal to you?
The movie theaters are responding to the consumer closing their wallet. They are gaining new revenue sources such as advertising to make up for it.
I have to admit, due to high ticket prices, the only time I go and see a movie these days is if I think the movie will take advantage of the large screen format. Otherwise, I wait for it to hit Blockbuster. This may be more of a function of the crap that Hollywood is putting out, but this is how I deal with it as a consumer.
As for Tivo. I find that if Tivo selling two second spots is going to keep them in business so that I can get the functionality from a Tivo that I really need, then I am all for it. Since getting a Tivo (and cranking the drive space up to 320 GB) I no longer worry about what is on TV, and when it is on. I catch what I want on Saturday mornings, and let the rest of the content hit the bit bucket.
They ask for a virus, but their description is calling for a worm.
. pdf
According to Symantec: www.symantec.com/avcenter/reference/worm.vs.virus
a virus is defined as a program that spreads from file to file on a computer. A worm is designed to spread with minimal human intervention, if at all.
Seeing that many PC viruses and worms spread due to the stupid user opening an attachment, I find that there requirement for not opening attachments makes the test a little unrealistic at best.
but then again, if they did open attachments, this would be a pretty quick $25K to collect.
I think that there may be something to the idea that reliance on calculators kills math skills. I don't think that this applies to the /. set as much as it does to the lower end of the wage scale....
Think about this next time you are in a retail establishment, when was the last time someone counted out change for you? Was that person under 50?
I worked in a grocery store when I was in high school, back in the late 80's. I remember the panic that ensued when the cash register system went down and we had to use adding machines. The largest issue that we had was the lack of folks who could 1) use an adding machine and 2) could count out change without the computer telling them how much to give.
I think that there is something to this.
This makes complete sense, to them, and I am not trying to preach about conspiracy theorys.
The labels depend on big acts and big hits to make up for losses from new ventures.
With digital distribution, a large act such as Metallica, Pearl Jam, etc. could go into the studio in the morning, cut a track, and release it to the public for sale in a matter of hours. With their fan bases, they could make some serious money in a matter of hours at $0.99 a song.
No holding on to the track in wait of a complete CD, and no help from the Label.
Yes, the Label helped them have a large fan base, but it is no longer needed. The Label is now irrelevant.
I think that the Labels are dumb enough, and arrogant enough, that they honestly believe that they can stuff this digital genie back into the bottle. Raising the prices would kill digital distribution, and they know it.
Is this the last gasp of the dying Labels trying to delay their fate?
The Record labels are scared to death of iTunes, and they would kill it if they could.
The Labels depend on their pool of successful artists and big hits to make their money.
The technology is readily available for someone like a Madonna or Metallica to go jump in the studio, cut a single, and put it out for sale in a matter of hours. These groups have loyal followings that would eagerly purchase these newly cut singles for $0.99 USD by the hundreds of thousands or the millions.
No Label is required in this transaction. It scares them to death. As an "organism" that is in jeoprody of perishing, they are fighting back.
The only thing that has me wondering is why we are not seeing the major artists do this now!
I am all for putting the people responsible for thsi action in jail, however, I NEVER ENTRUSTED THEM WITH MY DATA!
I never authorized them to keep it in the first place.
I realize that they are a storing house for "public" information that comprises "private" transactions between myself and various entities that I do business with.
This is messed up, I am contacting my elected officials and asking them what they are doing to protect me from this.
... however, due to chipset limitations in the series 2 540x models (the newer, silver ones)... you will have a hard time transfering faster than 300KB. Slow as all get out for an 800+MB file.
The "older" 240 series 2's transfer at least twice as fast.
They may advertise their services on the TV, but there is a disclaimer refering to the service agreement in fine print.
I understand that there is a notion of "it is what it is" in regards to contract law... i.e. a man could sign a contract declaring that he was a woman, but the contract would be voice because he is not.
Your theatre example does not hold up. There is usually an escape clause in the even that the show is cut short or canceled.
Read through your broadband access contract. I reread the one from Comcast tonight. As a consumer level service user, Comcast basically does not guarantee squat! There is no bandwidth guarantee, and the "agreement" is full of excuses for them to limit your service.
Is there any legal remedy in the United States for this?
From what I understand, credit agencies cannot be held legally liable for false information in your credit report.
Also, there is no legal requirement for these agencies to keep your data about you secure. They do it for PR reasons, but that is about it.
The EU has some laws protecting consumers from this crap. I understand that the FTC is doing some work in this regard, but nothing yet.
Anyone have more details on this?
If we could hold these agencies criminally liable for these events, I would expect that 1) credit reports would be a lot more accurate and 2) companies like this would not exist due to the liability of having this type of information being too huge.
IANAL
When you agree to subscribe to broadband service, you are not getting "Internet Access", you are getting whatever the broadband service contract says that you are getting. If it is not spelled out in the contract, it is not guaranteed. Simple as that. Looking at my service agreement from Comcast, they pretty much don't gurantee any level of service.
Does anyone have information on better contracts for "business level" services?
I see a lot of arguments stating that you can get your music on line from places other than iTunes MS, and you can purchase players other than the iPod.
You can make the same arguement about operating systems and Microsoft.
What is making Apple a target here is that they have the largest share of this market. Obviously, they do not have the commanding share of the market as Intel or Microsoft may have. I would expect this situation to get worse for Apple in the even that their market share does approach that of Intel or Microsoft.
I know this does not please a lot of the Open Office fans out there, and this is not an attempt at starting a flame war.
I use Microsoft Office at work on the PC, and I know that many others do as well. Having Microsoft Office available for the Mac was the single most important reason that I chose a Mac as a viable computer for home use.
If Apple puts Microsoft in a position where they are competing, Microsoft may well do what they did in the Safari situation and stop developing the product.
No matter how much better an Apple office suite may be, I would see that as being detrimental to the market growth that is inspired by having a document compatible office suite at home.
If Joe Six-pack uses Office at work, he will easily understand that having Office for the Mac as a compatible solution.
Any other solution at home would bring up compatibility questions by default.
In many of the data centers that I visit, people are working on the floor with the sole purpose of doing mundane tasks such as rebooting computers and reloading operating systems.
This can be automated. Items such as remote management hardware are only getting cheaper. Technologies such as IPMI will replace the need to even have secondary remote management networks.
As technology improves and gets less expensive, less people will be required to do these mundane tasks.
This makes complete sense that there will be a reduction in these types of jobs because of this. Hopefully, the affected folks are smart enough to learn new skills and move on.
In your previous post
"see, the problem with your system is that it's only good for the top 5% of excellent people. and if the other 95% - you know, the sub-human slackers who aren't as excellent as you - aren't looked out for in the system, all kinds of bad things happen."
That is the content that I referred to when I made my comment that if you want to slack, you need a union to protect you.
I do disagree with you when you suggest the union is looking out for you. I believe that Unions convey that idea, and maybe some Union bosses have this intention. When companies depended on local labor sources, Unions had some negotiating power because they represented the local labor force. In todays global economy, companies can (and have) picked up shop and moved it elsewhere. This rendered the unions and the local labor force effectively powerless. If you need examples, take a look at the Auto, steel, and textile industries. Unions drove wages to the point that companies found it more economical to export raw matierials, manufacture them over seas, and then pay duties to sell them back to the US market.
What power do unions really have then? I don't see any.
So, the union can still ask its members to boycott these companies for closing their local factories. Last time I checked, the boycotts against Wallmart are not causing Wallmart any grief.
My experience with unions has been bad. I have no problem admitting that. I also know that the global economy is creating downward pressure on wages. I don't know what the answer to this problem is, but I don't see unions creating a viable option either.
As far as a union protecting me from a bad boss goes; I have found it just as effective to leave the group or company. No good comes from a bad boss, and it takes to long too let someone else remedy that situation.
You miss the point entirely.
In any situation, you have two options. 1) complain about being victimized or 2) do something about it.
You are responsible for your success. Your company is not looking you for you, neither is your boss, and certainly not the union.
The earlier you come to grips with this, the better you are off.
If you want to slack, then just get familiar with being a victim. No one promised you something for nothing.
I will start with my union experience.
In high school, I was a checker in a grocery store. I joined the union. I paid full dues, but I received no benefits from the union because I did not work enough hours (no medical, eye care, strike pay, etc). I could not get more hours, because I did not have enough seniority.
I worked hard. As a reward, the night managers would let me do more interesting work on the computer system, or stock groceries. (at least it was a change of scenery). That stopped when someone from the stocker's union complained.
I was up for a merit promotion. Got the promotion only to have it revoked due to union complaints about lack of seniority. (I actually have documentation from the union to prove this)
My union experience, basically it protects people who don't like to work from people who do. I have no time for them. They are powerless. Look at the US manufacturing sector for proof.
Now, I am in the computer industry. I thrive well in the merit system. If I don't like the situation, I leave. This forumula has worked well for me for the last 14 years. I never completed college, and I am paid extrememly well.
Moral to the story: if you are good at what you do, you don't need a union.
If you want to be in this industry, it is going to require life long learning and a lot of work if you want to protect your job. A union will not help you.