I think you'd be better off, if you were successful, to simply commercialize it. $50,000? That's like the first year's support contract on the software you'll sell them for $300,000 per seat. And since it's "enterprise" software, it doesn't even have to actually work particularly well. That's why you sell the support contracts.
Instead I work 9 hours a day, commute for 2 hours, and get home so dog tired all I want to do is lay on the couch and cry at the monotonous life which is killing me from the inside.
Speaking as someone who commutes *five* hours a day, along with the rest of that stuff, I get where you're coming from.
That said, I've done a little bit of mission work in Haiti, and every time I start to feel sorry for myself, I remind myself that I have met countless people there who would *love* to have my problem.
Right now it is. Last week, it wasn't. Next week, who knows. We already get stopped for border searches nowhere near the border, and the supreme court continues to abrogate its responsibility to uphold our rights. This is a classic textbook example of the slippery slope.
No, please stop parroting what the department of motor vehicles drones on about. Driving is *NOT* a "privilege". It is a *right*, as it obviously should be because my tax money is used to create and maintain the roads. *HOWEVER*, just like most other rights, they can be taken from me for just cause.
While I agree with most of what you say; I think it's a mistake to bash the protestors for getting a coffee at Starbucks
I've given up on replying (too many replies to try to keep up with, and everyone is just reading what they want to think I wrote, not what I did write). But I did want to point out that the Starbucks quote wasn't bashing the protesters, it was literally me saying that I love my starbucks.:)
I argue that it's the PEOPLE who are irreparably broken, and voting is functioning just fine. We get exactly what we vote for; no one gets installed into office who wasn't voted in, and no one stays in office who has been voted out.
That said, let's allow for the premise that I'm some idiot who doesn't understand the issues. What, then is the goal of these sorts of protests? Outside of voting, the only other way to really change government is a violent overthrow. That won't work in this case; if people won't vote in their own self-interests, they sure as hell won't FIGHT in their own self-interests.
To me, the only way to fix this mess is changing the way people vote. It's a damn difficult proposition; that's why we're in the mess we're in! If it were easy to change, it would already have been done.
You *might* be able to convince me in some way that the awareness the protesters raise will change how we spend and invest our money, thus reducing corporate America's influence on politics. But I think you'll have a far more difficult time convincing people to vote differently than change their cushy lifestyles. (I loves me my Starbucks...)
So what, then? What, aside from pushing people to voting or violent overthrow, is the point? I ask this truly seeking enlightenment, because you seem to see something that I don't.
with such a low uid you should know better.
Eh, a low uid doesn't in any way convey intelligence or experience; it just means that I needed to sign up in order to customize my slashboxes.
The *why* wasn't my point. I was rejecting the implication that the only way to fix this is to camp out in a park. ("If you are lower or middle class and ever have any hope of enjoying life when you are of retiring age, you better join them.") My point is that they only way to fix this (at least, within our current legal framework) is to fix the vote. Protests *might* help with that, but saying that not joining in the protest means you have no hope of enjoying life at retirement age is nonsense.
If you are lower or middle class and ever have any hope of enjoying life when you are of retiring age, you better join them.
Why exactly is that? Sitting around in a park won't change anything. In the US, we have a perfectly functional system for overthrowing the government on a periodic basis: voting. You want *actual* change, then actively work to vote out the current regime. That generally means doing your part to convince at least your family and friends of your position. Few if any will be convinced to change their vote just because some people are camped out near Wall Street, and the politicians will ignore you unless you actually threaten their ability to be re-elected (see original point).
Less liability? If you worked for me, and you acted as you describe, I'd fire you. It would be a very short conversation, and it would go like this. BOSS: You called the FBI? Before you called me or HR or legal?
Sweet. So then Legal would come down and have a very short conversation with you, and it would go like this: LEGAL: You fired him? Before talking to HR or legal? In a way that is clearly retribution for performing a legally mandated duty to report a crime? etc. etc.
Now for me, I trust my current management enough to immediately notify them as a courtesy, then notify law enforcement. (Well, in my case, I have a Federal Inspector General's office just down the hall; same difference). But one way or another, it's going to get reported, and quickly, regardless of my management's response.
If you read the language of most of those laws, YOU the person finding it are legally liable for reporting, and usually "immediately". Not your boss, YOU. Not when you get around to having a couple of meetings about it, "immediately". It isn't worth screwing with those sorts of laws -- the worst your boss can do is fire you; the judicial system can do far, far worse. (And you can probably clean up pretty well on a wrongful termination claim if they do fire you, so that isn't so bad anyhow.)
How so? Facebook started with a very significant paradigm over MySpace. MySpace allowed people a great deal of flexibility over how they laid out their pages, embedded codes, all kinds of things.
Which, in turn, made MySpace look very cluttered and busy. Facebook of that era was clean and minimalistic; these days Facebook is becoming more and more cluttered in appearance (especially after the recent update fiasco and the horrendous ticker).
Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but if you compromise the phone, don't you also compromise the app? This is like some of the "solutions" I've seen from people that want to use their home computers to connect to sensitive enterprise resources (e.g., VPN). "Oh, why don't we distribute organization-approved VM images to the people to run on their home desktops?"
I mean, if you can't trust the host, you sure as heck can't trust the guest. And the encryption is just a feel good red herring that doesn't really solve that problem.
I was thinking exactly that. I guess if you see the cop coming and reach into your pocket quickly for your phone it might work. What could possibly go wrong?
While I don't necessarily disagree with you, I wanted to make certain that you were aware of that fact. (And as you may have noticed, I'm not bothering to really engage you in an argument because I recognize it would be pointless. I've learned, sadly, that most arguments on slashdot are pointless...)
If the second amendment grants the right to own a pistol, what about a shutgun? Combat shotgun? Land mines? Loaded bomber plane? Heavy artillary? Missiles? How about a few nuclear weapons?
I personally believe that the 2nd amendment *does* allow me to have nuclear weapons. I also believe that to be insane. However, the answer to that insanity is not to ignore the law, but to modify the amendment to reflect present-day reality.
You must be looking at a different list than I am, because #2 on the link I posted the US right now is "LMFAO - Sexy and I Know". I presumed Adele because it was #2 in Canada (You only said they were signed in the US). "Lights" doesn't even show up in that list.
In the 1980s we called them Blood of Apartheid because they were literally the last major bank in the USA to stop making excuses for their investment in openly apartheid-supporting corporations.
It might interest you to know that Bank of America 2011 != Bank of America 1980. They were bought out by NationsBank in 1998, who took their name (much like Cingular buying AT&T and changing their name to AT&T).
(Assuming it's not the US top 10 (which would be "LMFAO - Sexy and I Know " *shudder*), it would be "Adele - Someone Like You". I'm listening to it on YouTube right now, and it's definitely a departure from normal "pop", and not really my cup of tea.) A little bit more googling tells me that XL Recordings is a British independent label.
Of course, this says nothing of the veracity of "I know a Canadian artist", but I see no reason to doubt that.
At this point, it seems like anyone that still has an account with BofA must be a moron.
I've been with them since NationsBank. Back in, err... 199x or so, they were the ONLY bank that was offering web banking that actually supported Netscape 4 on Linux. All of the other banks were kicking people out who weren't using IE, or at least Netscape on Windows.
They've always done a good job of being platform independent in their web banking, and that gained a HUGE amount of loyalty to them from me.
While they've done their fair share of stupid things (like charging you for not using pre-printed deposit slips for a little while there), these days they don't give me much trouble. Personally, I have free checking, and I don't use a debit card.
So, you may think me a moron if you wish, but I'm perfectly happy where I am. (N.B. I do have two credit union accounts also).
Slashdot Mirror
I think you'd be better off, if you were successful, to simply commercialize it. $50,000? That's like the first year's support contract on the software you'll sell them for $300,000 per seat. And since it's "enterprise" software, it doesn't even have to actually work particularly well. That's why you sell the support contracts.
"This is not a drill" sounds great in movies and TV, but you do *not* want to hear it in real life. Ever.
You haven't met my dentist.
Instead I work 9 hours a day, commute for 2 hours, and get home so dog tired all I want to do is lay on the couch and cry at the monotonous life which is killing me from the inside.
Speaking as someone who commutes *five* hours a day, along with the rest of that stuff, I get where you're coming from.
That said, I've done a little bit of mission work in Haiti, and every time I start to feel sorry for myself, I remind myself that I have met countless people there who would *love* to have my problem.
This is at weigh stations.
Right now it is. Last week, it wasn't. Next week, who knows. We already get stopped for border searches nowhere near the border, and the supreme court continues to abrogate its responsibility to uphold our rights. This is a classic textbook example of the slippery slope.
No, please stop parroting what the department of motor vehicles drones on about. Driving is *NOT* a "privilege". It is a *right*, as it obviously should be because my tax money is used to create and maintain the roads. *HOWEVER*, just like most other rights, they can be taken from me for just cause.
and maybe down-mod grandparent, too, as overrated
Please don't. It was a valid question, without which we wouldn't have gotten this interesting reply.
There is, IMHO, way too much downmodding going on at /.
Not that unreasonable to believe, there's like 5000 of them out there still. I myself saw one on Sunday.
While I agree with most of what you say; I think it's a mistake to bash the protestors for getting a coffee at Starbucks
I've given up on replying (too many replies to try to keep up with, and everyone is just reading what they want to think I wrote, not what I did write). But I did want to point out that the Starbucks quote wasn't bashing the protesters, it was literally me saying that I love my starbucks. :)
voting is broken.
I argue that it's the PEOPLE who are irreparably broken, and voting is functioning just fine. We get exactly what we vote for; no one gets installed into office who wasn't voted in, and no one stays in office who has been voted out.
That said, let's allow for the premise that I'm some idiot who doesn't understand the issues. What, then is the goal of these sorts of protests? Outside of voting, the only other way to really change government is a violent overthrow. That won't work in this case; if people won't vote in their own self-interests, they sure as hell won't FIGHT in their own self-interests.
To me, the only way to fix this mess is changing the way people vote. It's a damn difficult proposition; that's why we're in the mess we're in! If it were easy to change, it would already have been done.
You *might* be able to convince me in some way that the awareness the protesters raise will change how we spend and invest our money, thus reducing corporate America's influence on politics. But I think you'll have a far more difficult time convincing people to vote differently than change their cushy lifestyles. (I loves me my Starbucks...)
So what, then? What, aside from pushing people to voting or violent overthrow, is the point? I ask this truly seeking enlightenment, because you seem to see something that I don't.
with such a low uid you should know better.
Eh, a low uid doesn't in any way convey intelligence or experience; it just means that I needed to sign up in order to customize my slashboxes.
The *why* wasn't my point. I was rejecting the implication that the only way to fix this is to camp out in a park. ("If you are lower or middle class and ever have any hope of enjoying life when you are of retiring age, you better join them.") My point is that they only way to fix this (at least, within our current legal framework) is to fix the vote. Protests *might* help with that, but saying that not joining in the protest means you have no hope of enjoying life at retirement age is nonsense.
If you are lower or middle class and ever have any hope of enjoying life when you are of retiring age, you better join them.
Why exactly is that? Sitting around in a park won't change anything. In the US, we have a perfectly functional system for overthrowing the government on a periodic basis: voting. You want *actual* change, then actively work to vote out the current regime. That generally means doing your part to convince at least your family and friends of your position. Few if any will be convinced to change their vote just because some people are camped out near Wall Street, and the politicians will ignore you unless you actually threaten their ability to be re-elected (see original point).
Less liability? If you worked for me, and you acted as you describe, I'd fire you. It would be a very short conversation, and it would go like this. BOSS: You called the FBI? Before you called me or HR or legal?
Sweet. So then Legal would come down and have a very short conversation with you, and it would go like this: LEGAL: You fired him? Before talking to HR or legal? In a way that is clearly retribution for performing a legally mandated duty to report a crime? etc. etc.
Now for me, I trust my current management enough to immediately notify them as a courtesy, then notify law enforcement. (Well, in my case, I have a Federal Inspector General's office just down the hall; same difference). But one way or another, it's going to get reported, and quickly, regardless of my management's response.
Take a gander at this page: http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?tabid=13460
If you read the language of most of those laws, YOU the person finding it are legally liable for reporting, and usually "immediately". Not your boss, YOU. Not when you get around to having a couple of meetings about it, "immediately". It isn't worth screwing with those sorts of laws -- the worst your boss can do is fire you; the judicial system can do far, far worse. (And you can probably clean up pretty well on a wrongful termination claim if they do fire you, so that isn't so bad anyhow.)
How so? Facebook started with a very significant paradigm over MySpace. MySpace allowed people a great deal of flexibility over how they laid out their pages, embedded codes, all kinds of things.
Which, in turn, made MySpace look very cluttered and busy. Facebook of that era was clean and minimalistic; these days Facebook is becoming more and more cluttered in appearance (especially after the recent update fiasco and the horrendous ticker).
Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but if you compromise the phone, don't you also compromise the app? This is like some of the "solutions" I've seen from people that want to use their home computers to connect to sensitive enterprise resources (e.g., VPN). "Oh, why don't we distribute organization-approved VM images to the people to run on their home desktops?"
I mean, if you can't trust the host, you sure as heck can't trust the guest. And the encryption is just a feel good red herring that doesn't really solve that problem.
I was thinking exactly that. I guess if you see the cop coming and reach into your pocket quickly for your phone it might work. What could possibly go wrong?
While I don't necessarily disagree with you, I wanted to make certain that you were aware of that fact. (And as you may have noticed, I'm not bothering to really engage you in an argument because I recognize it would be pointless. I've learned, sadly, that most arguments on slashdot are pointless...)
If the second amendment grants the right to own a pistol, what about a shutgun? Combat shotgun? Land mines? Loaded bomber plane? Heavy artillary? Missiles? How about a few nuclear weapons?
I personally believe that the 2nd amendment *does* allow me to have nuclear weapons. I also believe that to be insane. However, the answer to that insanity is not to ignore the law, but to modify the amendment to reflect present-day reality.
our government is in violation of every single amendment in it.
Come on now, there's no need for such an overstatement. I, for one, have not been demanded to quarter soldiers in my home.
Oh, I see the problem. I'm looking at top songs, you're talking top albums.
That was my mistake, as your original post clearly said top album. Yes, there it is as #2 on the US top albums.
You must be looking at a different list than I am, because #2 on the link I posted the US right now is "LMFAO - Sexy and I Know". I presumed Adele because it was #2 in Canada (You only said they were signed in the US). "Lights" doesn't even show up in that list.
Regardless, your point was made, and I agree. :)
In the 1980s we called them Blood of Apartheid because they were literally the last major bank in the USA to stop making excuses for their investment in openly apartheid-supporting corporations.
It might interest you to know that Bank of America 2011 != Bank of America 1980. They were bought out by NationsBank in 1998, who took their name (much like Cingular buying AT&T and changing their name to AT&T).
It's easy enough to look up, check: http://www.apple.com/euro/itunes/charts/top10popsongs.html
(Assuming it's not the US top 10 (which would be "LMFAO - Sexy and I Know " *shudder*), it would be "Adele - Someone Like You". I'm listening to it on YouTube right now, and it's definitely a departure from normal "pop", and not really my cup of tea.) A little bit more googling tells me that XL Recordings is a British independent label.
Of course, this says nothing of the veracity of "I know a Canadian artist", but I see no reason to doubt that.
At this point, it seems like anyone that still has an account with BofA must be a moron.
I've been with them since NationsBank. Back in, err... 199x or so, they were the ONLY bank that was offering web banking that actually supported Netscape 4 on Linux. All of the other banks were kicking people out who weren't using IE, or at least Netscape on Windows.
They've always done a good job of being platform independent in their web banking, and that gained a HUGE amount of loyalty to them from me.
While they've done their fair share of stupid things (like charging you for not using pre-printed deposit slips for a little while there), these days they don't give me much trouble. Personally, I have free checking, and I don't use a debit card.
So, you may think me a moron if you wish, but I'm perfectly happy where I am. (N.B. I do have two credit union accounts also).
Aside from what others said, windows are often demanded by building code for emergency egress purposes.
It will happen if and when Microsoft can manage to swipe the App Store concept. The end goal is in sight, although we might not like the side effects.