Don't think that Apple can't compete just because they're spending as much time on legal maneuvers as they do on R&D. They're still the market leader in tablets, they're near the top in smart phones, and they're only going to branch out further into the new areas of consumer electronics. They may act like dicks a lot of the time but that doesn't mean being a dick and being competitive are mutually exclusive.
The last innovation they made in phones was the iPhone 3G. the 3GS, the 4, and the 4S have all been progressive updates of their existing invention, and as technology advances we're getting closer and closer to the point where the last generation is "good enough" and people stop upgrading. And I'd be reluctant to say that the 3G was actually innovative, since the appstore (which showed up with the 3G, and is the only real addition over the original iPhone) is something that had been done already in WinMo and Palm devices years earlier. There's a similar situation with tablets... they haven't actually brought anything new to the table since the iPad itself, and even that was simply copying/updating ideas that have been shown in media and other devices. In some ways, the iPad 3 is actually a downgrade over the iPad 2, because the battery doesn't last as long, and long battery life is the main selling feature of these devices.
Apple, as a company, hasn't actually come up with anything new in years, and the only thing on the horizon is a tremendously bad idea (integrating an Apple TV into an actual TV is *bad* because of the purchase cycle on TV's... it'll tank once the initial adoption phase is over, because people won't feel like replacing their TV a year later when the "updated version" hits the shelves). At least Samsung, LG, and Motorola are trying to innovate with their products... Samsung with devices like the Galaxy Note, LG with the developments they've been making in LCD and OLED technology, and Motorola with devices like the Atrix. Whether they'll ultimately succeed in the market is another question, but all 3 companies have brought new ideas to the table much more recently than Apple.
Whatever they're spending on R&D, it clearly isn't enough, because they're being out-innovated by a wide margin. When you can't innovate, legislate, I guess.
Satire... I have a Galaxy Ace, and have no trouble telling it from my boss's iPhone. There are some cursory similarities, but the reality is that there's really only so many ways that a large-screen small handheld device can be put together and still have something that's functional. The only truly functional alternatives while keeping the same basic use are a clamshell and a slider, and both make for a heavier and larger device. In this day and age, people seem to want smaller, thinner, lighter devices, and so the bar is winning out as the most popular design.
Compare how the software actually functions on the devices, and tell me that Samsung copied the iPhone. While doing so, please ignore that the software actually comes from Google, and that Android was actually in development since 2003 (and that Google acquired them in 2005), while iOS was first announced in 2007. You'll have more credibility if we just sweep that little tidbit under the rug.
Potable water is the most critical resource on the planet. The wars of the future will not be fought over access to oil or nuclear fuel, they'll be fought over water shortages.
Anything that makes water easier to obtain will save lives in the long run, even if it's being used chiefly by the military today.
Functional, yes, but I *really* don't like the idea of my mail users having SSH access to the system. IMAP and a decent Webmail client will give them a more intuitive UI without requiring you to open up SSH to users who have no business using it. SSH should be default deny, with a whitelist of allowed users, and that whitelist should be kept to a minimum.
In North America, we have the MedicAlert system... bracelet or necklace that you can wear, it has a recognizable logo and on the other side a file number is engraved. Medical professionals need to call in and give the file number in order to get the information.
I prefer it, because it's actually engraved, so less likely to disappear. Correct me if I'm wrong, but engraving a QR code into metal would be a pain in the butt, and even if you could do it accurately enough, a cell phone camera wouldn't be good enough to read it....
But as long as you're not a small business, or you'll only ever what one, then it's probably cheaper to go in-house. If you are a government or large business it's nearly always cheaper to in-house, but then you can't play silly accounting games like you can for per month service charges.
It depends on which tools you're actually using, and where they are. Most of the tools I use on a daily basis at work are online. All I really need to do my job is a net-connected workstation with a decent browser and a connection to the company intranet (either by VPN or actually plugged in to the company network). I do have MS Office on my office workstation, but all of the functions I'm actually using with it exist in the web-based version of Office.... it's nice to have the desktop version of Outlook installed/running because of the way it integrates with my voicemail and desktop alerts, but I'm not tied to it. In fact, the only tool I use on a daily basis that actually needs to be installed is Remedy, which is a painful piece of shit to work with, but could probably be coaxed to run under Wine.... my understanding is that they're already working on a web-based interface to the databases I access through Remedy, though, because they have realized that it's probably not a good idea to continue trying to support a 15-year old 16-bit database application.:(
When you have an office set up like that, especially one that's spread across multiple locations with tens of thousands of workstations to support (most of which only need access to the network and a working browser), it really doesn't make sense to have an in-house IT staff at all locations, especially if the business you're working in doesn't involve computer support. Set the system policy up so that users can't fuck anything up, and aside from hardware attrition, workstation software support is pretty much a thing of the past. The result is that we need a *much* smaller IT department, which largely consists of hardware support people and tool owners, at which point it makes most sense to outsource it.
Ultimately, it depends on what you're doing.... there will always be industries where it makes sense to have in-house IT, because there are tools which need to be installed. There will also always be industries where the desktop itself is largely unimportant, and where it's economical to outsource IT.
Everything you said is exactly what a person who was raised to believe that working was an option would say.
Did you read what I said? I think I made it quite clear in the first paragraph that working isn't an option. What I said is that working yourself into an early grave is optional. Working at all isn't. Given a choice between living comfortably and working a reasonable schedule, and being filthy rich while working 80hr/week, I would prefer to have a lower paycheque and actually have decent hours.
My great grandmother was a suffragette (even went to jail a couple of times for it). My grandmother was a codebreaker working at Bletchley Park. My mother was a bra-burning womens' lib activist. I've been raised to appreciate quality of life, but I've been raised with just as strong an emphasis on independence. You seem to think, incorrectly, that I can just find some guy to support me if I need it, but it's utter BS. I wouldn't let somebody support me like that, and would leave anybody who tried to force me into that situation. I'm in a committed relationship with somebody, and it's an equal partnership (actually, I'm making more money than my partner, and am the "supporting" one in your little world). You need to understand that just because I'm willing to accept a slightly smaller pay than I *could* get in exchange for better hours and less job stress does not mean that my backup plan is to find some sucker to bail me out. My backup plan if I lose my income is to find another job.
And no, I wouldn't even have to change jobs to make more money. If I stopped telling my boss to fuck off every time he asked me to work overtime, I could probably be making an extra $10-15,000/year just on that basis alone. It doesn't seem to be affecting my prospects, though, as I still got the biggest raise in the department this year (almost 3x the inflation rate), and they're still asking me to take on special projects.
Irrelevant of gender, you will get a lower percentage of people that have been told they don't have to work, working hard and taking less than desirable jobs. The fact that women as a group tend to gravitate towards jobs that pay less and require less sacrifice is not surprising. They are not underrepresented in these jobs because of their gender. It is because their gender is under represented in the group that is raised to believe that no one is going to pay their way through life.
You're wrong on that point. I'm a woman who was raised to believe in a strong work ethic, always go to work, and sometimes you need to take a job you don't want in order to make ends meet. And I have had some shitty jobs in the past that I did not enjoy at all, but I took them because I needed to put food on the table and pay rent. I have never, in my life, claimed employment insurance or any of the other entitlements that we have in this country, despite being eligible for it, because I believe in fending for myself.
However, there comes a point where you reach certain minimums that let you make ends meet. Once you are able to live comfortably, you don't need more money, more wealth that you can't use. It becomes a quality of life tradeoff... do you want that extra $20,000/year if it means that you will be working 80 hour weeks with weird on-call hours, or are you willing to take a slightly smaller paycheque if it means that you can work a 40-hour week Monday-Friday, and have your weekends and holidays off? I took the latter, and it's not because I was raised to think I didn't have to work for myself, it's because I was raised to believe that quality of life is more important than bank balance. I live comfortably and have growing savings that will have me retiring by about 55 or 60, but I do it by not wasting money on things when I can have as much fun for free. I'm probably healthier for it, too, because instead of going to the movies, I'd rather go roller-blading by the canal for a couple of hours, things like that. But in balance, I think I will have a much better life out of it, because I have the time to enjoy myself, and I have a job I can leave at the office.
There is a cultural problem, but I believe the cultural problem is the emphasis that gets placed on materialism. There's a *lot* of pressure to succeed in life, and success is measured by the size of your bank balance, and by the type of car in your driveway. You must be able to out-bling your neighbours, you see.
Child soldiers, too. He was 15 when they arrested him, and his detention at Gitmo (and continued detention in Canada) is a clear violation of the Geneva Conventions for the treatment of child soldiers.
Plenty of militaries (including the US) operate very old aircraft. The "newest" B52 is nearly 50 years old.
To be fair, the B-52 fleet has been upgraded repeatedly over its lifetime. New avionics, upgraded engines for better range and carrying capacity, better onboard radar... pretty much only the airframe is original, and even that I think they've done some upgrades to the skin in order to give it better survivability and "stealth" (in so far as it's possible to stealth something that size).
That being said, I'd be surprised if the Iranian-built attack helicopters aren't also sporting some new technology that didn't exist in the 1960's when the original design came out.
If people were willing to pay more for goods we wouldn't have destroyed our domestic manufacturing industry in the first place.
Yes you would have, because the people making the decisions about where to manufacture things are motivated by the margins. Manufacturing was still profitable in the US when it started moving overseas, and it is still profitable today in some niche markets. It's just not profitable enough. Why would you want to net $5 profit per unit when you could net $50 by paying the worker half as much?
Screw the workers in Asia... even if everything was assembled by people making $50/hr on flex time, got to set their own schedules, and never had to work more than 8 hours a day with 4 paid breaks per day, you still wouldn't be able to buy electronics with a completely clean conscience because of the conflict minerals like Coltan that go into the production of every piece of high technology on the planet.
Depends on where you work. Where i work, we take security seriously. You cant even walk in the door with another person. Your photo is verified against your face as you enter. We also have metal detectors on the doors, and the guards have real guns to stop you with, not just a radio to call for help.
Sometimes depends on the location, too... Same company, my last office was on the 6th floor at a building that houses a shopping facility on the ground floor. After-hours access required a swipe in an elevator and a swipe with a security guard at the front door, but during normal business hours the elevators weren't locked (even though they only went up to the "secure" office facilities upstairs), and people routinely held the door open for others without checking their passes. At the office I'm at now, there's a guard at the front door 24/7 who checks your pass every time, there's nothing but a lunch room on the ground floor and the guard has to unlock the elevators so you can get to your office, and you have to swipe through a security checkpoint on your actual floor, too. (annoying actually, because the bathrooms are on the other side of the checkpoint). Security also makes regular walkarounds on every floor (in fact, the guy just walked past my desk as I'm typing this).
What you say about network accounts surprises me, though... they do a routine audit here, too, and disable accounts, but they're pretty gung-ho about yanking peoples' network accesses... usually your network login and tool accesses will be disabled before they tell you that you've been let go (I know a few people who found out they'd been fired because security was waiting at their desk with a box when they got in), and except in some exceedingly rare circumstances, you will be escorted out the door by security within minutes of giving notice, when you leave for another job.
If your scripts are set up correctly, though, you can have it store a timestamped snapshot rather than a single directory repository... when the files disappear, just go back to the last snapshot date where they're still there.
Backups are things that aren't connected to your system –they protect you against rm -rf/*, viruses, attackers and all kind of other things. What you're referring to is redundancy, not backup.
Correct. And while it's absolutely deplorable that these folks were able to lose everything like that, I doubt that most people designing websites really think about the nitty gritty. They *should* have had rsync running on a schedule to an external server at a minimum, but unfortunately most people don't think of things like that until after they get burned by it. $87,000 is a margin of error in most banking circles, but it's still an expensive lesson to learn for the little guy.
Canada also has reasonable tort laws and malicious prosecution rules that would have prevented this case from ever getting before a judge in the first place.
It was certainly negligence, and the people in question have every right to go after the insurance company of the driver for lost wages, hardship, etc. The insurance company can, in turn, go after the driver to recoup their losses, as you are correct that this is criminal negligence and the driver was not obeying the rules of the road. The driver's girlfriend, however, has no responsibility in this... he's the one who was responding to her texts while driving. At least, in Canada that's how it would play out. I'm relieved to hear that the US still has some sane judges on the bench.
Um. No. My phone works just fine. I also disconnected the line which should have terminated the call immediate, but the scammer was still talking when I reconnected the line. (I figure they were using some override built into the POTS.)
Such a feature doesn't exist in DMS-100 (unless an engineer is doing a dialtone plunge, but that's not a DMS feature, that's an actual set or test head connected to the line keeping it open). More likely, you have a marginal short on your line, and when you "hung up", the short was low enough at the time to trick the DMS into thinking that there was still a phone of the hook, so it didn't close the line. Depending on the amount of T-R leak that's happening, you may never notice it when you're using the phone, but it could still be enough to trick the DMS into thinking your phone's off the hook.
Of course, in a situation like that, chances are you'd have no dial tone at all, because the DMS would self-disconnect from the line to avoid being damaged, and they wouldn't have been able to ring your line at all, as it would sound busy (or forward to voicemail if you have that line option) with the DMS in PLO state. I suppose if it's a swinging short it could work the way you're describing, but the chances are slim enough that it's equally possible you're just making it up. I'd have to see a 12-point metallic test to know for sure what the problem is with your line, but assuming you're telling the truth, my money's on a swinging tip-ring short.
I guess, maybe, if you're on FTTH and the ONT is bugged out (or you have a problem with your inside wiring), it could behave like that, too. Usually with FTTH I don't see anywhere near the kind of weird shit that I see on copperline, though.
The other possibility is as folks have suggested, 3-way calling. If you hang up and pick up shortly afterwards, it's the same effect as pressing the "flash" or "link" button on your phone, and the DMS will put the first call on hold to allow you to dial a 2nd number. If it triggered when you hung up, it would suggest a defective phone.
Obligatory disclaimer: I do work for the local phone company, and one of my many job functions has been troubleshooting/diagnosing this kind of weird behaviour in order to determine if a field tech visit is needed. I have seen the problem you're describing before, but usually it's followed by a loss of dialtone within an hour after the fact.
Why should metered rates raise total cost or profits?
Because the $2.50/GB that some carriers charge for going over the included bandwidth represents a 10,000% markup on the actual cost. And that's being generous on the actual cost, which I still think is a factor of 10 less than that.
If the metered rate is something reasonable, then I agree, it's reasonable. Charge a base access fee which gives me the best band rate I can get on my line, and charge per usage. Though this does eliminate any incentive they have to *upgrade* the lines... "you can get 500kbit service, what more do you want?"... the problem is that I don't trust the carriers to set the price anywhere near a reasonable rate. If you're *lucky*, the overage charge on your cell phone will be as low as $10/GB, and I see no reason to believe that the story would be any different after 10 years of metered usage.
Uh.. $100 a month? You can get decent DSL in my town for $21.99 a month.
Yes, the service itself costs that. Now factor in the mandatory bundling with TV and/or Telephone, or the cost structures that make it significantly more expensive to have without either, and couple it with the carriers who won't sell you a dry loop for the DSL, which is still quite common in some markets, and getting Internet access becomes a much more costly proposition.
The $100/mo is factoring in the cost of the bundled TV which you may not necessarily already have or want... it's about what I pay monthly for my DSL line (12mbit, 300GB usage, unmetered over night) when I factor in the cost of the home phone service which I don't actually need. I could get a VOIP line for much less, or use my cell phone, which costs about the same as the home phone, has more features (don't pay for 3wc, call display, call waiting, voicemail, or long distance), is unlimited evenings/weekends minutes after 5pm (and I work 8:30-4:30 anyway), and is more convenient.
The reason that countries in Europe have declared Internet access to be a human right is because of the disparity in pretty much every walk of life between people who have access to the Internet, and people who don't. It has become a major deciding factor in school performance, which itself is a major deciding factor in future success in life. And of course, because people who are living on minimum wage can't really afford a $100/mo layout for Internet access, let alone the cost of the computer itself, it becomes a deciding factor for their children, too. $7.25/hr times 37.5h/week = a little under $1100/mo before taxes, and from that you need to pay rent, food, and utilities, not to mention stuff like clothes and incidentals... $100/mo for Internet is a very significant part of their budget.
Internet pricing and access absolutely needs to become a major public policy issue. It's nothing for most of the people reading this, but I'd lay odds that most of the people reading this are not trying to make ends meet on minimum wage. It's an entirely different kettle of fish when $100/mo means you don't eat for a week versus when it means you make one fewer trip to a restaurant each month and are still saving for retirement.
first, I don't think that the US founding fathers had anything remotely like the Internet in mind when they wrote that amendment, and second, even if they did, or even if it can be argued to apply, nobody is telling you that you can't speak on the Internet, they're just telling you that if you want access to this utility, you need to pay your share. it's not really any different than your right to speak in a public space, since you're already paying your share for that through your taxes.
we can argue about whether it's right to be charging for that kind of access until we're blue in the face, but the situation you're proposing is essentially the same as suing a nightclub for violating your first amendment rights because they wouldn't let you in after you refused to pay the cover.
10 cents a minute would likely cost me... $900 a month. Not to bad, eh? Just go back to reading books and watching the tube for entertainment, and downloading e-mail once a day. Hey, this might even save the post office...
They're not talking about per-minute billing, they're talking about per-gigabyte billing. Your cell phone is connected 24/7 as well, but they bill you for the amount of data you actually send through the network, rather than the speed tier you're on. All cell phones are on essentially the same speed tier, which is "whatever the maximum your phone will support at the moment".
It's a ridiculous assumption though, because once the capacity's there, it costs about the same regardless of whether you use it or not.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't think that Apple can't compete just because they're spending as much time on legal maneuvers as they do on R&D. They're still the market leader in tablets, they're near the top in smart phones, and they're only going to branch out further into the new areas of consumer electronics. They may act like dicks a lot of the time but that doesn't mean being a dick and being competitive are mutually exclusive.
The last innovation they made in phones was the iPhone 3G. the 3GS, the 4, and the 4S have all been progressive updates of their existing invention, and as technology advances we're getting closer and closer to the point where the last generation is "good enough" and people stop upgrading. And I'd be reluctant to say that the 3G was actually innovative, since the appstore (which showed up with the 3G, and is the only real addition over the original iPhone) is something that had been done already in WinMo and Palm devices years earlier. There's a similar situation with tablets... they haven't actually brought anything new to the table since the iPad itself, and even that was simply copying/updating ideas that have been shown in media and other devices. In some ways, the iPad 3 is actually a downgrade over the iPad 2, because the battery doesn't last as long, and long battery life is the main selling feature of these devices.
Apple, as a company, hasn't actually come up with anything new in years, and the only thing on the horizon is a tremendously bad idea (integrating an Apple TV into an actual TV is *bad* because of the purchase cycle on TV's... it'll tank once the initial adoption phase is over, because people won't feel like replacing their TV a year later when the "updated version" hits the shelves). At least Samsung, LG, and Motorola are trying to innovate with their products... Samsung with devices like the Galaxy Note, LG with the developments they've been making in LCD and OLED technology, and Motorola with devices like the Atrix. Whether they'll ultimately succeed in the market is another question, but all 3 companies have brought new ideas to the table much more recently than Apple.
Whatever they're spending on R&D, it clearly isn't enough, because they're being out-innovated by a wide margin. When you can't innovate, legislate, I guess.
Satire... I have a Galaxy Ace, and have no trouble telling it from my boss's iPhone. There are some cursory similarities, but the reality is that there's really only so many ways that a large-screen small handheld device can be put together and still have something that's functional. The only truly functional alternatives while keeping the same basic use are a clamshell and a slider, and both make for a heavier and larger device. In this day and age, people seem to want smaller, thinner, lighter devices, and so the bar is winning out as the most popular design.
Compare how the software actually functions on the devices, and tell me that Samsung copied the iPhone. While doing so, please ignore that the software actually comes from Google, and that Android was actually in development since 2003 (and that Google acquired them in 2005), while iOS was first announced in 2007. You'll have more credibility if we just sweep that little tidbit under the rug.
Potable water is the most critical resource on the planet. The wars of the future will not be fought over access to oil or nuclear fuel, they'll be fought over water shortages.
Anything that makes water easier to obtain will save lives in the long run, even if it's being used chiefly by the military today.
Yuri Gagarin? He was the helmsman on Star Trek, right?
Joking aside, ssh and pine(*) work really well.
Functional, yes, but I *really* don't like the idea of my mail users having SSH access to the system. IMAP and a decent Webmail client will give them a more intuitive UI without requiring you to open up SSH to users who have no business using it. SSH should be default deny, with a whitelist of allowed users, and that whitelist should be kept to a minimum.
In North America, we have the MedicAlert system... bracelet or necklace that you can wear, it has a recognizable logo and on the other side a file number is engraved. Medical professionals need to call in and give the file number in order to get the information.
I prefer it, because it's actually engraved, so less likely to disappear. Correct me if I'm wrong, but engraving a QR code into metal would be a pain in the butt, and even if you could do it accurately enough, a cell phone camera wouldn't be good enough to read it....
But as long as you're not a small business, or you'll only ever what one, then it's probably cheaper to go in-house. If you are a government or large business it's nearly always cheaper to in-house, but then you can't play silly accounting games like you can for per month service charges.
It depends on which tools you're actually using, and where they are. Most of the tools I use on a daily basis at work are online. All I really need to do my job is a net-connected workstation with a decent browser and a connection to the company intranet (either by VPN or actually plugged in to the company network). I do have MS Office on my office workstation, but all of the functions I'm actually using with it exist in the web-based version of Office.... it's nice to have the desktop version of Outlook installed/running because of the way it integrates with my voicemail and desktop alerts, but I'm not tied to it. In fact, the only tool I use on a daily basis that actually needs to be installed is Remedy, which is a painful piece of shit to work with, but could probably be coaxed to run under Wine.... my understanding is that they're already working on a web-based interface to the databases I access through Remedy, though, because they have realized that it's probably not a good idea to continue trying to support a 15-year old 16-bit database application. :(
When you have an office set up like that, especially one that's spread across multiple locations with tens of thousands of workstations to support (most of which only need access to the network and a working browser), it really doesn't make sense to have an in-house IT staff at all locations, especially if the business you're working in doesn't involve computer support. Set the system policy up so that users can't fuck anything up, and aside from hardware attrition, workstation software support is pretty much a thing of the past. The result is that we need a *much* smaller IT department, which largely consists of hardware support people and tool owners, at which point it makes most sense to outsource it.
Ultimately, it depends on what you're doing.... there will always be industries where it makes sense to have in-house IT, because there are tools which need to be installed. There will also always be industries where the desktop itself is largely unimportant, and where it's economical to outsource IT.
Everything you said is exactly what a person who was raised to believe that working was an option would say.
Did you read what I said? I think I made it quite clear in the first paragraph that working isn't an option. What I said is that working yourself into an early grave is optional. Working at all isn't. Given a choice between living comfortably and working a reasonable schedule, and being filthy rich while working 80hr/week, I would prefer to have a lower paycheque and actually have decent hours.
My great grandmother was a suffragette (even went to jail a couple of times for it). My grandmother was a codebreaker working at Bletchley Park. My mother was a bra-burning womens' lib activist. I've been raised to appreciate quality of life, but I've been raised with just as strong an emphasis on independence. You seem to think, incorrectly, that I can just find some guy to support me if I need it, but it's utter BS. I wouldn't let somebody support me like that, and would leave anybody who tried to force me into that situation. I'm in a committed relationship with somebody, and it's an equal partnership (actually, I'm making more money than my partner, and am the "supporting" one in your little world). You need to understand that just because I'm willing to accept a slightly smaller pay than I *could* get in exchange for better hours and less job stress does not mean that my backup plan is to find some sucker to bail me out. My backup plan if I lose my income is to find another job.
And no, I wouldn't even have to change jobs to make more money. If I stopped telling my boss to fuck off every time he asked me to work overtime, I could probably be making an extra $10-15,000/year just on that basis alone. It doesn't seem to be affecting my prospects, though, as I still got the biggest raise in the department this year (almost 3x the inflation rate), and they're still asking me to take on special projects.
Irrelevant of gender, you will get a lower percentage of people that have been told they don't have to work, working hard and taking less than desirable jobs. The fact that women as a group tend to gravitate towards jobs that pay less and require less sacrifice is not surprising. They are not underrepresented in these jobs because of their gender. It is because their gender is under represented in the group that is raised to believe that no one is going to pay their way through life.
You're wrong on that point. I'm a woman who was raised to believe in a strong work ethic, always go to work, and sometimes you need to take a job you don't want in order to make ends meet. And I have had some shitty jobs in the past that I did not enjoy at all, but I took them because I needed to put food on the table and pay rent. I have never, in my life, claimed employment insurance or any of the other entitlements that we have in this country, despite being eligible for it, because I believe in fending for myself.
However, there comes a point where you reach certain minimums that let you make ends meet. Once you are able to live comfortably, you don't need more money, more wealth that you can't use. It becomes a quality of life tradeoff... do you want that extra $20,000/year if it means that you will be working 80 hour weeks with weird on-call hours, or are you willing to take a slightly smaller paycheque if it means that you can work a 40-hour week Monday-Friday, and have your weekends and holidays off? I took the latter, and it's not because I was raised to think I didn't have to work for myself, it's because I was raised to believe that quality of life is more important than bank balance. I live comfortably and have growing savings that will have me retiring by about 55 or 60, but I do it by not wasting money on things when I can have as much fun for free. I'm probably healthier for it, too, because instead of going to the movies, I'd rather go roller-blading by the canal for a couple of hours, things like that. But in balance, I think I will have a much better life out of it, because I have the time to enjoy myself, and I have a job I can leave at the office.
There is a cultural problem, but I believe the cultural problem is the emphasis that gets placed on materialism. There's a *lot* of pressure to succeed in life, and success is measured by the size of your bank balance, and by the type of car in your driveway. You must be able to out-bling your neighbours, you see.
Child soldiers, too. He was 15 when they arrested him, and his detention at Gitmo (and continued detention in Canada) is a clear violation of the Geneva Conventions for the treatment of child soldiers.
What, you don't want to work for Adams, Albertson, Alfredson, and Winston Inc?
Plenty of militaries (including the US) operate very old aircraft. The "newest" B52 is nearly 50 years old.
To be fair, the B-52 fleet has been upgraded repeatedly over its lifetime. New avionics, upgraded engines for better range and carrying capacity, better onboard radar... pretty much only the airframe is original, and even that I think they've done some upgrades to the skin in order to give it better survivability and "stealth" (in so far as it's possible to stealth something that size).
That being said, I'd be surprised if the Iranian-built attack helicopters aren't also sporting some new technology that didn't exist in the 1960's when the original design came out.
If people were willing to pay more for goods we wouldn't have destroyed our domestic manufacturing industry in the first place.
Yes you would have, because the people making the decisions about where to manufacture things are motivated by the margins. Manufacturing was still profitable in the US when it started moving overseas, and it is still profitable today in some niche markets. It's just not profitable enough. Why would you want to net $5 profit per unit when you could net $50 by paying the worker half as much?
Screw the workers in Asia... even if everything was assembled by people making $50/hr on flex time, got to set their own schedules, and never had to work more than 8 hours a day with 4 paid breaks per day, you still wouldn't be able to buy electronics with a completely clean conscience because of the conflict minerals like Coltan that go into the production of every piece of high technology on the planet.
Depends on where you work. Where i work, we take security seriously. You cant even walk in the door with another person. Your photo is verified against your face as you enter. We also have metal detectors on the doors, and the guards have real guns to stop you with, not just a radio to call for help.
Sometimes depends on the location, too... Same company, my last office was on the 6th floor at a building that houses a shopping facility on the ground floor. After-hours access required a swipe in an elevator and a swipe with a security guard at the front door, but during normal business hours the elevators weren't locked (even though they only went up to the "secure" office facilities upstairs), and people routinely held the door open for others without checking their passes. At the office I'm at now, there's a guard at the front door 24/7 who checks your pass every time, there's nothing but a lunch room on the ground floor and the guard has to unlock the elevators so you can get to your office, and you have to swipe through a security checkpoint on your actual floor, too. (annoying actually, because the bathrooms are on the other side of the checkpoint). Security also makes regular walkarounds on every floor (in fact, the guy just walked past my desk as I'm typing this).
What you say about network accounts surprises me, though... they do a routine audit here, too, and disable accounts, but they're pretty gung-ho about yanking peoples' network accesses... usually your network login and tool accesses will be disabled before they tell you that you've been let go (I know a few people who found out they'd been fired because security was waiting at their desk with a box when they got in), and except in some exceedingly rare circumstances, you will be escorted out the door by security within minutes of giving notice, when you leave for another job.
Thus the words "at a minimum".
If your scripts are set up correctly, though, you can have it store a timestamped snapshot rather than a single directory repository... when the files disappear, just go back to the last snapshot date where they're still there.
Backups are things that aren't connected to your system –they protect you against rm -rf /*, viruses, attackers and all kind of other things. What you're referring to is redundancy, not backup.
Correct. And while it's absolutely deplorable that these folks were able to lose everything like that, I doubt that most people designing websites really think about the nitty gritty. They *should* have had rsync running on a schedule to an external server at a minimum, but unfortunately most people don't think of things like that until after they get burned by it. $87,000 is a margin of error in most banking circles, but it's still an expensive lesson to learn for the little guy.
Canada also has reasonable tort laws and malicious prosecution rules that would have prevented this case from ever getting before a judge in the first place.
It was certainly negligence, and the people in question have every right to go after the insurance company of the driver for lost wages, hardship, etc. The insurance company can, in turn, go after the driver to recoup their losses, as you are correct that this is criminal negligence and the driver was not obeying the rules of the road. The driver's girlfriend, however, has no responsibility in this... he's the one who was responding to her texts while driving. At least, in Canada that's how it would play out. I'm relieved to hear that the US still has some sane judges on the bench.
No, it was directed at the AC who believes that being expected to actually pay for access to the Internet is a violation of first amendment rights....
Um. No. My phone works just fine. I also disconnected the line which should have terminated the call immediate, but the scammer was still talking when I reconnected the line. (I figure they were using some override built into the POTS.)
Such a feature doesn't exist in DMS-100 (unless an engineer is doing a dialtone plunge, but that's not a DMS feature, that's an actual set or test head connected to the line keeping it open). More likely, you have a marginal short on your line, and when you "hung up", the short was low enough at the time to trick the DMS into thinking that there was still a phone of the hook, so it didn't close the line. Depending on the amount of T-R leak that's happening, you may never notice it when you're using the phone, but it could still be enough to trick the DMS into thinking your phone's off the hook.
Of course, in a situation like that, chances are you'd have no dial tone at all, because the DMS would self-disconnect from the line to avoid being damaged, and they wouldn't have been able to ring your line at all, as it would sound busy (or forward to voicemail if you have that line option) with the DMS in PLO state. I suppose if it's a swinging short it could work the way you're describing, but the chances are slim enough that it's equally possible you're just making it up. I'd have to see a 12-point metallic test to know for sure what the problem is with your line, but assuming you're telling the truth, my money's on a swinging tip-ring short.
I guess, maybe, if you're on FTTH and the ONT is bugged out (or you have a problem with your inside wiring), it could behave like that, too. Usually with FTTH I don't see anywhere near the kind of weird shit that I see on copperline, though.
The other possibility is as folks have suggested, 3-way calling. If you hang up and pick up shortly afterwards, it's the same effect as pressing the "flash" or "link" button on your phone, and the DMS will put the first call on hold to allow you to dial a 2nd number. If it triggered when you hung up, it would suggest a defective phone.
Obligatory disclaimer: I do work for the local phone company, and one of my many job functions has been troubleshooting/diagnosing this kind of weird behaviour in order to determine if a field tech visit is needed. I have seen the problem you're describing before, but usually it's followed by a loss of dialtone within an hour after the fact.
Why should metered rates raise total cost or profits?
Because the $2.50/GB that some carriers charge for going over the included bandwidth represents a 10,000% markup on the actual cost. And that's being generous on the actual cost, which I still think is a factor of 10 less than that.
If the metered rate is something reasonable, then I agree, it's reasonable. Charge a base access fee which gives me the best band rate I can get on my line, and charge per usage. Though this does eliminate any incentive they have to *upgrade* the lines... "you can get 500kbit service, what more do you want?"... the problem is that I don't trust the carriers to set the price anywhere near a reasonable rate. If you're *lucky*, the overage charge on your cell phone will be as low as $10/GB, and I see no reason to believe that the story would be any different after 10 years of metered usage.
Uh.. $100 a month? You can get decent DSL in my town for $21.99 a month.
Yes, the service itself costs that. Now factor in the mandatory bundling with TV and/or Telephone, or the cost structures that make it significantly more expensive to have without either, and couple it with the carriers who won't sell you a dry loop for the DSL, which is still quite common in some markets, and getting Internet access becomes a much more costly proposition.
The $100/mo is factoring in the cost of the bundled TV which you may not necessarily already have or want... it's about what I pay monthly for my DSL line (12mbit, 300GB usage, unmetered over night) when I factor in the cost of the home phone service which I don't actually need. I could get a VOIP line for much less, or use my cell phone, which costs about the same as the home phone, has more features (don't pay for 3wc, call display, call waiting, voicemail, or long distance), is unlimited evenings/weekends minutes after 5pm (and I work 8:30-4:30 anyway), and is more convenient.
The reason that countries in Europe have declared Internet access to be a human right is because of the disparity in pretty much every walk of life between people who have access to the Internet, and people who don't. It has become a major deciding factor in school performance, which itself is a major deciding factor in future success in life. And of course, because people who are living on minimum wage can't really afford a $100/mo layout for Internet access, let alone the cost of the computer itself, it becomes a deciding factor for their children, too. $7.25/hr times 37.5h/week = a little under $1100/mo before taxes, and from that you need to pay rent, food, and utilities, not to mention stuff like clothes and incidentals... $100/mo for Internet is a very significant part of their budget.
Internet pricing and access absolutely needs to become a major public policy issue. It's nothing for most of the people reading this, but I'd lay odds that most of the people reading this are not trying to make ends meet on minimum wage. It's an entirely different kettle of fish when $100/mo means you don't eat for a week versus when it means you make one fewer trip to a restaurant each month and are still saving for retirement.
first, I don't think that the US founding fathers had anything remotely like the Internet in mind when they wrote that amendment, and second, even if they did, or even if it can be argued to apply, nobody is telling you that you can't speak on the Internet, they're just telling you that if you want access to this utility, you need to pay your share. it's not really any different than your right to speak in a public space, since you're already paying your share for that through your taxes.
we can argue about whether it's right to be charging for that kind of access until we're blue in the face, but the situation you're proposing is essentially the same as suing a nightclub for violating your first amendment rights because they wouldn't let you in after you refused to pay the cover.
10 cents a minute would likely cost me... $900 a month. Not to bad, eh? Just go back to reading books and watching the tube for entertainment, and downloading e-mail once a day. Hey, this might even save the post office...
They're not talking about per-minute billing, they're talking about per-gigabyte billing. Your cell phone is connected 24/7 as well, but they bill you for the amount of data you actually send through the network, rather than the speed tier you're on. All cell phones are on essentially the same speed tier, which is "whatever the maximum your phone will support at the moment".
It's a ridiculous assumption though, because once the capacity's there, it costs about the same regardless of whether you use it or not.