No, corporate America wastes money like this all the time. You just don't hear about it, because corporate America isn't as transparent or accountable as even the US Federal government. And because the Federal government propaganda about itself can't compare to Corporate America's.
You might have noticed that corporate America got bailed out by the Federal government, and far from the first time. Because corporate America totally blew their business, relying on secrecy and propaganda to get so far wrong before running out of rope.
This app might be far too expensive, but it's not useless. You corporate anarchists ("libertarians") refuse to acknowledge how much many people's lives benefit from things that don't do you specifically any good - but the same is true about benefits to you that others don't need.
And along the same lines you judge the entire government, which is literally millions of times bigger than this project, by its highly visible mistakes. Yet $200K mistakes that are indeed truly worthless are made all day, every day by private businesses. But since you (mostly delusionally) aspire to someday owning your own multimillion dollar corporation, you ignore their tendency to waste with impunity - invisibly.
You should care that your government' s productivity is the same as what you could get from the private company. You should care that the people telling you that government productivity is worse than private business' are lying, depending on private business secrecy and low standards to con you. Because those people are destroying the government that is the only thing protecting you from the private businesses that manufacture these lies.
Conversely, governments are about as frequently that good. They have a lot of pressure from the media and professional snipers to improve, and a lot less ways to hide than private companies have.
I've worked for and with many dozens of private companies and governments, of all scales, for over 20 years. The only real difference between government and private projects is that the government projects usually have much more reliable specifications and much less ad hoc changes. Businesses usually change anything at any time, and try to ignore any consequences.
You do realize that people other than you need to do something when your code finally works, or something different when it still doesn't work - right?
Sure, it probably doesn't take more than one person to stay on top of your work to keep what follows coordinated. But if you can't even answer one of them, you're not doing it right. Even if doing it right means telling the manager who gave you the task to specify and/or design it better, so it can be estimated by you, or by someone else better at the planning part of development.
The work doesn't revolve around you. You're just a means to the end of getting the code to the other people who consume it.
I taught myself CS better than Stanford teaches, and I expect many others can do so, too.
What I can't do myself is teach myself history as well as it's taught by Harvard to the people who go out and run the world. When does that go online? And not some faked version for the masses - the same version that Harvard grads learned and were graded on.
Whatever happened to using a phased array to either/both direct a beam to a point, or to detect the point from which an omnidirectional transmission was received? Shouldn't these little grids be cheap and common by now? Then we wouldn't have to register every frequency to a licensed operator, but instead any signal would be a unique station based on where it came from and/or where it was sent.
The age of mobile phones and satellites has made astounding improvements in transmitting and receiving RF energy. Why is the spectrum so limited? Why can't we squeeze thousands of times more sub bands inside any signaling band? Why shouldn't a 1MHz wide band hold as many channels now as an entire GHz used to hold when we weren't as good at this?
Of course you don't see the point. You're an autard. People with empathy don't need explained to them that saying mean things to people mourning someone who died about the dead person is wrong. If you don't care, then don't post insults.
Tell you what - you link to something actually backing up the claims you're obviously holding as a preconceived conclusion, to entice me to actually wade through yet another batch of office chatter among some scientists. Why would I take the word of someone telegraphing that you deny climate change, despite actual scientists practically all agreeing it's real? You people would have me wasting every hour of every day chasing some boogeyman that exists only in your minds.
Give me some evidence that there's some there there. Or shut up already.
There is a real argument that realtime police communications requires secrecy to protect police and their operations while they do the majority of their work that is indeed properly protecting the public.
But there is also a real argument that hiding those communications also hides lots of the minority of their work that at best doesn't protect the public, some of which severely harms the public.
These arguments don't conflict when the realtime parameter is removed. Both legitimate cop business and legitimate public protection are served if all these comms are published after some short delay. Like the following day, or perhaps even just a few hours later.
Publishing them also removes the advantage that some people have who can spend on equipment to monitor the comms. Instead any interested member of the public can check them. All of them, compared to audited logs of the activity on the cops comms equipment. The publication order has to have teeth, prosecuting people for obstructing justice when they're hiding cop comms they find inconvenient to reveal.
If I could sort Netflix streamers by ratings (or by anything other than Netflix's lame categories), it wouldn't bother me that 99% of the streamers are crap. And if I could weight other people's ratings by raters who rate similarly to how I rate, then I might better find crap that I'd like anyway.
Netflix clearly wants to get out of the DVD business and into the more profitable streaming-only business. Netflix could have just raised its streaming+DVD prices a little for a little while, say +$2 for 6 months. Then started charging a little more for DVD deliveries, while offering a rebate to streaming-only customers. After a few months of that structure, they'd have a distinct streaming-only customer group. Then they could have raised prices on streaming or DVD independently. Voila! Two distinct, differently priced products, each profitable, with DVD delivery able to be wound down while making the streaming-only product look better.
Instead they did it in a way that told their customers that they had to take whatever Netflix shoved at them. "Where ya gonna go?" Well, many went, and the brand is damaged even for those who stayed.
It's not too late for Netflix to do the underlying biz transformation right. But the marketing and corporate execs who backed the debacle should take a big hit. The marketing people should probably go, unless the corp execs want to give them a second chance on something like what I described. But probably they should go. There's never any reason to keep a marketer unless they're really a star (which is extremely rare) - there are plenty of non-stars who can take a crack at the next marketing bungle.
I want to ride the wave of Netflix serving content at a loss for my own profit. Is there an example (preferably Eclipse) Google TV project demonstrating an app that accesses the Netflix catalog and streaming content?
I'd put Android on the printers. Java is the most cross-platform execution environment, and the Android OS is built on that principle. It especially matches the Android that runs most mobile phones (and other mobile devices) from which most individual printing will be done over the next years.
Android is rising as WebOS has fallen. Why would you pick a loser instead of the clear winner that's technically better for you? Oh, right: HP.
But you're not friends with lots of other CEOs. That, my friend, is the primary - and often only - qualification to be CEO. Otherwise how would they keep all the benefits for themselves, and push the fallout from their bad execution down to everyone else?
Seems to me that a small, performant JVM embedded OS would be perfect for the highly diverse, low powered devices that are HP printers. Even the Java feature of network-mobile objects, that execute the same code in different ways to exploit the different local HW, seems better for printers than for most other kinds of devices. Android is an OS that HP wouldn't have to pay (much) to produce or maintain, so HP could focus on HW instead of the SW dev that it's never been good at. Why would it want anything but Android?
Only to maintain total control of the SW. But what benefit is that to HP, compared to the benefits of using Android instead?
If AT&T gets T-Mobile, then the more monopolistic combined company will be a bigger target for attacks, which harm more people at once when successful.
Carrier diversity is yet another reason not to let AT&T continue to recover its total monopoly status.
So your argument that you're not crazy is an article from a notoriously lying tabloid that you yourself say is full of misleading graphs. You're arguing that the person with whom you disagree is distorting and quoting out of context.
OK, you're not crazy. You're just a liar. A terrible liar.
the USA and the EU don't contribute the overwhelming majority of CO2 to the atmosphere.
That's because no one country contributes the overwhelming majority. Just over 55% is produced by China + US + EU; the bare minority is produced by everyone else. US + EU = about 1/3 of the global total. Most of China's emissions are outsourced pollution for production consumed by US + EU.
List of countries by carbon dioxide emissions Rank Country Annual CO2 emissions[8][9] (in thousands of metric tonnes) Percentage of global total
World 29,888,121 100% 1 China[10] 7,031,916 23.33% 2 United States 5,461,014 18.11% - European Union (27) 4,177,817.86[11] 14.04%
You really shouldn't post when what you're saying is a lie. The worst kind of lie: a meaningless statement used to contradict the truth.
Slashdot Mirror
No, corporate America wastes money like this all the time. You just don't hear about it, because corporate America isn't as transparent or accountable as even the US Federal government. And because the Federal government propaganda about itself can't compare to Corporate America's.
You might have noticed that corporate America got bailed out by the Federal government, and far from the first time. Because corporate America totally blew their business, relying on secrecy and propaganda to get so far wrong before running out of rope.
This app might be far too expensive, but it's not useless. You corporate anarchists ("libertarians") refuse to acknowledge how much many people's lives benefit from things that don't do you specifically any good - but the same is true about benefits to you that others don't need.
And along the same lines you judge the entire government, which is literally millions of times bigger than this project, by its highly visible mistakes. Yet $200K mistakes that are indeed truly worthless are made all day, every day by private businesses. But since you (mostly delusionally) aspire to someday owning your own multimillion dollar corporation, you ignore their tendency to waste with impunity - invisibly.
You should care that your government' s productivity is the same as what you could get from the private company. You should care that the people telling you that government productivity is worse than private business' are lying, depending on private business secrecy and low standards to con you. Because those people are destroying the government that is the only thing protecting you from the private businesses that manufacture these lies.
Almost no companies are that good.
Conversely, governments are about as frequently that good. They have a lot of pressure from the media and professional snipers to improve, and a lot less ways to hide than private companies have.
I've worked for and with many dozens of private companies and governments, of all scales, for over 20 years. The only real difference between government and private projects is that the government projects usually have much more reliable specifications and much less ad hoc changes. Businesses usually change anything at any time, and try to ignore any consequences.
You do realize that people other than you need to do something when your code finally works, or something different when it still doesn't work - right?
Sure, it probably doesn't take more than one person to stay on top of your work to keep what follows coordinated. But if you can't even answer one of them, you're not doing it right. Even if doing it right means telling the manager who gave you the task to specify and/or design it better, so it can be estimated by you, or by someone else better at the planning part of development.
The work doesn't revolve around you. You're just a means to the end of getting the code to the other people who consume it.
I'd like to see an OS where all logging is records in a database. With encryption and access control, and replication to remote instances.
I taught myself CS better than Stanford teaches, and I expect many others can do so, too.
What I can't do myself is teach myself history as well as it's taught by Harvard to the people who go out and run the world. When does that go online? And not some faked version for the masses - the same version that Harvard grads learned and were graded on.
Whatever happened to using a phased array to either/both direct a beam to a point, or to detect the point from which an omnidirectional transmission was received? Shouldn't these little grids be cheap and common by now? Then we wouldn't have to register every frequency to a licensed operator, but instead any signal would be a unique station based on where it came from and/or where it was sent.
The age of mobile phones and satellites has made astounding improvements in transmitting and receiving RF energy. Why is the spectrum so limited? Why can't we squeeze thousands of times more sub bands inside any signaling band? Why shouldn't a 1MHz wide band hold as many channels now as an entire GHz used to hold when we weren't as good at this?
So what's the problem with publishing the comms the following day?
Of course you don't see the point. You're an autard. People with empathy don't need explained to them that saying mean things to people mourning someone who died about the dead person is wrong. If you don't care, then don't post insults.
So you don't care. Why shit on the memories of the people who do? You're an autard.
Tell you what - you link to something actually backing up the claims you're obviously holding as a preconceived conclusion, to entice me to actually wade through yet another batch of office chatter among some scientists. Why would I take the word of someone telegraphing that you deny climate change, despite actual scientists practically all agreeing it's real? You people would have me wasting every hour of every day chasing some boogeyman that exists only in your minds.
Give me some evidence that there's some there there. Or shut up already.
Did you not even read the title of this story, "Police Encrypt Radios To Tune Out Public"?
What good are the recordings of encrypted comms? I'm obviously talking about publishing the unencrypted content.
There is a real argument that realtime police communications requires secrecy to protect police and their operations while they do the majority of their work that is indeed properly protecting the public.
But there is also a real argument that hiding those communications also hides lots of the minority of their work that at best doesn't protect the public, some of which severely harms the public.
These arguments don't conflict when the realtime parameter is removed. Both legitimate cop business and legitimate public protection are served if all these comms are published after some short delay. Like the following day, or perhaps even just a few hours later.
Publishing them also removes the advantage that some people have who can spend on equipment to monitor the comms. Instead any interested member of the public can check them. All of them, compared to audited logs of the activity on the cops comms equipment. The publication order has to have teeth, prosecuting people for obstructing justice when they're hiding cop comms they find inconvenient to reveal.
If I could sort Netflix streamers by ratings (or by anything other than Netflix's lame categories), it wouldn't bother me that 99% of the streamers are crap. And if I could weight other people's ratings by raters who rate similarly to how I rate, then I might better find crap that I'd like anyway.
Netflix clearly wants to get out of the DVD business and into the more profitable streaming-only business. Netflix could have just raised its streaming+DVD prices a little for a little while, say +$2 for 6 months. Then started charging a little more for DVD deliveries, while offering a rebate to streaming-only customers. After a few months of that structure, they'd have a distinct streaming-only customer group. Then they could have raised prices on streaming or DVD independently. Voila! Two distinct, differently priced products, each profitable, with DVD delivery able to be wound down while making the streaming-only product look better.
Instead they did it in a way that told their customers that they had to take whatever Netflix shoved at them. "Where ya gonna go?" Well, many went, and the brand is damaged even for those who stayed.
It's not too late for Netflix to do the underlying biz transformation right. But the marketing and corporate execs who backed the debacle should take a big hit. The marketing people should probably go, unless the corp execs want to give them a second chance on something like what I described. But probably they should go. There's never any reason to keep a marketer unless they're really a star (which is extremely rare) - there are plenty of non-stars who can take a crack at the next marketing bungle.
I want to ride the wave of Netflix serving content at a loss for my own profit. Is there an example (preferably Eclipse) Google TV project demonstrating an app that accesses the Netflix catalog and streaming content?
Men's "balls" look more like eggs than they look like balls. Don't you have any to check?
I'd put Android on the printers. Java is the most cross-platform execution environment, and the Android OS is built on that principle. It especially matches the Android that runs most mobile phones (and other mobile devices) from which most individual printing will be done over the next years.
Android is rising as WebOS has fallen. Why would you pick a loser instead of the clear winner that's technically better for you? Oh, right: HP.
But you're not friends with lots of other CEOs. That, my friend, is the primary - and often only - qualification to be CEO. Otherwise how would they keep all the benefits for themselves, and push the fallout from their bad execution down to everyone else?
Class. Great taste, less filling.
Seems to me that a small, performant JVM embedded OS would be perfect for the highly diverse, low powered devices that are HP printers. Even the Java feature of network-mobile objects, that execute the same code in different ways to exploit the different local HW, seems better for printers than for most other kinds of devices. Android is an OS that HP wouldn't have to pay (much) to produce or maintain, so HP could focus on HW instead of the SW dev that it's never been good at. Why would it want anything but Android?
Only to maintain total control of the SW. But what benefit is that to HP, compared to the benefits of using Android instead?
If AT&T gets T-Mobile, then the more monopolistic combined company will be a bigger target for attacks, which harm more people at once when successful.
Carrier diversity is yet another reason not to let AT&T continue to recover its total monopoly status.
We do, the ones who still live, honor her memory, and have to read insults while eulogizing her from worthless lumps of meat like you. Dick.
So your argument that you're not crazy is an article from a notoriously lying tabloid that you yourself say is full of misleading graphs. You're arguing that the person with whom you disagree is distorting and quoting out of context.
OK, you're not crazy. You're just a liar. A terrible liar.
That's because no one country contributes the overwhelming majority. Just over 55% is produced by China + US + EU; the bare minority is produced by everyone else. US + EU = about 1/3 of the global total. Most of China's emissions are outsourced pollution for production consumed by US + EU.
You really shouldn't post when what you're saying is a lie. The worst kind of lie: a meaningless statement used to contradict the truth.