because of something the said by the commissoner: "We alleged they have violated Connecticut law," the department's commissioner, James T. Fleming, said. "There is no legal ability for them to charge a penalty when there has been no damage."
I think he's refering to the ability of one party to collect a civil penalty (ie like in a lawsuit) from another in the case of material injury. Damages, then, would mean some deprivation or loss of property. Speeding is a criminal offense, not a civil offense. It's therefore up to the state to pursue criminal matters and ACME has no legal basis to act as a police entity.
Could ACME take the information and forward it to the appropriate law enforcement officials for futher action? Probably. If a crime is being committed, police do accept notification by private individuals. Will ACME actually do this? I don't think so. When the word gets out that they're turning people over to the police for speeding, I think they'll lose business.
Of course, A law COULD be passed requiring companies to notify law enforcement officials. There is a precident for this in the banking industry (All cash transactions in excess of $1000 are to be reported.) for drug enforcement purposes. That would make it a whole different ballgame.
Let's not forget that a person who has commited a crime and is wanted for it, has a very SHORT expectation of privacy for the forseeable future.
I for one, don't think the government actually cares what it's law-abiding citizens are doing. It would seem to me that pursuit of actual crimes (murder, robbery, etc) is enough to keep them busy.
Go to ANY town or city court and just look at the number of people that pass through there. Most of the time, the courts are overwhelmed - and that's only dealing with the sheer number of traffic offenders.
Police have enough to do with having to watch those who can't or won't take care of themselves.
"You see an absence of concrete proof and automatically write it off as some crackpot idea that is impossible. I see a proof-of-concept experiment that demoinstrates the feasibility of an idea and think, "Hey, it's possible.""
But with that same reasoning you can also postulate that the ancient Egyptians also crossed the Atlantic since they were capable of building large boats. They certainly had the materials, the tools and the manpower to do it. You CAN demonstrate using materials in the region and establish a proof of concept. BUT THAT DOESN'T PROVE they went to the Americas. With hindsight, almost anything can be worked out. Lack of proof means just that. LACK OF PROOF. That's the scientific method.
You're using the proof of one concept to demonstrate proof of another. It may be possible to demonstrate the building a kite-powered lifting scaffold - and THAT may prove it was possible, but it doesn't mean the Egyptians actually did it. Historical proof is lacking.
The absence of proof doesn't make an idea automatically crackpot. It's the continued pushing of that idea in spite of an absence of proof that makes it crackpot.
"These are not the Egyptians of Cleopatra. They are the ancient ancestors of Cleopatra."
Actually, Cleopatra was a 7th generation incestual descendant of Ptolomy, a general of Alexander the Great's. She (probably) wasn't related to any of the people she ruled.
"With the kite tethered in this manner, you don't need to control where the kite goes so long as it keeps going up or in a direction away from the tower. "
Wrong. You ALWAYS have to control where the kite goes. Too little power and you do no work. Too MUCH, and the kite carries away the rock. You can anchor the scaffold, but that doesn't stop the kite from lifting too much.
The advantage of using any tool lies in the ability of it to project a controlled amount of force along a certain direction. The wind is unstable at best; you can't control it and you can't predict it. That means it's force waxes and wanes. It also changes direction. This scafford not only holds the rock, it also holds the kite. The kite places a certain amount of force in a certain place on the scaffold as it lifts the rock. If that force changes, you stand a chance of demolishing your scaffold. All of this uncertainty makes it unworkable.
Human & animal muscle power combined with levers, pulleys, etc. is much easier to manage and predict.
Besides, just WHERE is it in the culture? If they actually used kites, where is the literature describing them? To the ancients, it would have seemed like the power of the gods (the wind) was helping them to raise their buildings. This theme would have been repeated in their literature and described by foreigners (ie Greek historians). There would have been wind and kite festivals (like in China). Little children of today would still be flying kites, like their ancestors. But none of this exists. There is NO ancient cultural tradition of kite flying in egypt - at least that I'm aware of. Show me EVIDENCE of such a tradition and I might believe it.
"The business, which is based in California, plans to break even before the end of the year, while analysts forecast annual revenues of about $50m by 2002.
Google has built its revenues from advertising and also from licensing its proprietary search technology to other websites and portals."
Have they brought in anywhere near $50MM dollars to date? I'd like to see the profits from their business. So they bring in money through advertising and licensing? Hmmm. Unless they are doing 'round the clock R&D, I can't see how the licensing revenues can really expect to grow spectacularly, particularly if someone decides to reverse-engineer their search engine technology. Relying on a small number of products that they can only marginally improve over time doesn't make long-term business sense.
Advertising is nice, but in hard times, that's the FIRST thing a business cuts - as demonstrated during this last business cycle. It's not a good source of constant revenue.
The article mentions a previous experiment that used nylon material to build the kite with. Since nylon wasn't created until the 20TH century, the ancients could NEVER have used it. This means that they had to use things like hemp, linen and wood to build kites. These materials are heavier and presumably there are limits to the flying structure you can builkd with them. Unless you contruct a kite with the materials the ancients used, you'll never know your kite's REAL capabilities.
Has anyone here EVER SEEN to how gliders and dirigibles fly??? They are subject to WHATEVER the wind wants to do. Dirigible ground crews used to get killed when updrafts blew the crafts into the air, taking those who did not let go into time for a little ride. Those who lost their grip before the craft could land ended up as street pizza. It's NOT just about lifting a huge stone, you have to CONTROL it. Without control, you have a BIG accident waiting to happen. Apparently the Cal-Tech team didn't try to stack one stone on top of another.
WHY is it so hard to believe that ancient Egyptians used their brains and muscle to build these things. The modern human brain evolved tens of thousands of years ago, so the same model that build the pyramids also builds or has built moon rockets, jet planes, skyscrapers, ocean liners and computers. The only thing that differs is the amount of information and tools available.
People today are just as intelligent as the people of thousands of years ago. Space aliens, magic and high-tech kites didn't create civilizations, humans did. And WE are their descendants.
"The Aussies exterminated half of their continents mammals, and made a dang good inroad on the abo's, too"
I suppose the English came over 30,000 years ago and introduced wild dogs to get a head start on the colonization that was to come later, right? There were LOTS of other species in Australia, New Zealand and Tazmania that went extinct en masse just as people migrated to these places from SE Asia.
Hunting species to extinction is a HUMAN-WIDE activity and not just limited to those with the pale, pink skins!! SHEESH!
I think they're pretty much wedded to the DVD format for the long haul. Asking people to now throw away their players, is just going to make them more skittish about adopting the next generation of technology.
I can see the zoning thing going away just because it'll soon become irrelevant in the face of pirate distribution (ie a would-be pirate in NY buys a legal copy, burns an image in his own DVD burner with the European zone, then distributes it). New technologies make the old business models as well as the old technologies obsolete.
I can see them adopting the "sell cheaper, sell more" mentality in the future.
EULA or not, they have no right to dictate how I conduct myself professionally. I am not employed by them, nor do I contract to them. Therefore, they have to right to control my actions. For all I care, they can include a provision to a violator to jump off a cliff. That doesn't make it binding.
This particular EULA only allows for the distribution of internal, non-production applications or external applications on approved hosts.
Then there is the provision against using open source. I'm not sure I understand the mechanism, but is MS telling a person what they can and cannot deploy on their own property? I can understand if they don't want a beta product to be used as a production tool (and this seems to be a EULA for a beta product). But I don't think MS CAN tell a person what they can and can't use in conjunction with the software.
That's like the manufacturers of Tupperware saying you can't use plastic wrap to seal their containers. Personally, I think this provision has lots of bark and no bite. Screw them.
"A person who's seen shared source is probably very contaminated and is going to have a hard time working on other projects."
So now open source programmers are "contaminated?" I guess that means that they won't be employed by Microsoft and shouldn't be employed elsewhere. I smell a witchhunt brewing. Bad form, Mr. Gates. If you can't attack the movement, you'll persecute the followers? Sickening....
... when I was employed by a State University. It was an interesting place. On one hand you have job security and benefits.
On the other hand, since EVERYONE is considered equal, EVERYONE gets the same 3% (or less) annual pay raise. Luckily, I worked for a manager who fought for double digit pay raises for me, since I possessed a valuable skill set and was willing to work hard. I've seen people who in management positions, who were promoted simply because all the talented people had moved to better jobs. During one six month period during the time I was employed, almost the entire LAN systems staff quit.
I've seen people get shuffled off to meaningless jobs because they do the absolute minimum to stay employed. Firing someone for incompetence almost takes an act of God.
In the end, I realized if I wanted to something more than a 35 hour a week job with limited professional prospects - don't get me wrong, the pay and benefits taken together were a decent package - I needed to find a place where people are valued for what they contribute, not for longevity of service.
Now I know this shift entails taking on a lot of risk and uncertainty, but this is the way I want it. With greater risk and uncertainty, the rewards can be had. I shouldn't have to have a set lifestyle forced down my throat, which is what a union would do to me. In my opinion, life is by definition uncertain. There are pitfalls and hazards everywhere. It's up to us to navigate our way through it.
"One of the persistent myths about the Net has been that because it costs so little to publish online, and the technology makes it so simple, diversity can flourish in cyberspace no matter how big "Big" media gets. As we're learning, that isn't so."
Actually it IS so. Where else can Jon Katz go to regularly shower us with his tie-dyed colored world view?
Seriously, no matter how little something costs, it must be able to turn an economic profit. Web hosting isn't free. There are electric, equipment and personnel bills to pay. There are people on the net publishing their own opinions on a wide variety of issues, from medicine to religion to engineering to art. The one thing they ALL have in common is that they don't publish in a journalistic format. The websites that last the longest seem to be the ones that don't polish their writing for the "masses."
Because the "big media" model doesn't seem to fit here, it doesn't mean the end of the net as an information source. What it does mean is that people will have to sort through raw and unpolished sources - with the help of a search engine, of course, look at ALL the points of view, then make an INFORMED, INTELLIGENT decision. There is a LOT of garbage out there as well as a few gems.
There may be no room for large public magazines, but there is room for small private publishers. Isn't that what we want the net to be?
Several years ago, I aquired my technical background in the US Navy. After my enlistment, I got my degree in accounting. During this time, the best jobs I could get while going to school were programming and other computer-related jobs (hey, beats working at the mall!) I applied my accounting knowledge in designing various small systems that did accounting work. After graduation, I didn't want to pursue a career in accounting. Long hours, low pay (initially), boring co-workers, and a few other things made the career less attractive to me.
I applied to a graduate business program and got my MBA two years later in finance and MIS. I spent the next 5 years working for different IS firms programming, administering networks and managing projects. Today, I am employed by a fortune 100 company.
The value I provide to the firm I work for lies in the fact that I can bridge the gap between technical and business people. I am NOT the greatest technical talent here, nor do I think business 24/7. There are TONS of technical people that care not a hoot for business and there are TONS of business people who understand NOTHING about technology.
My MBA got me my present position. It wasn't a magic key that got me in the door. I like to think of it as a tool or resource I aquired along the way that enabled me to open the door once I paid my dues by working in the trenches.
Organizations like technical people that are able to see the big picture. For myself, I like seeing and working with the bigger picture. I would like to go into upper management someday. If you don't care to go into management, a business background will help you to understand how to communicate with management. If you can communicate your value to them in THEIR language, it helps you immensely. Likewise, it helps you understand what's going on around you. Does the company have a solid business plan, or doesn't it? What do all those accounting and finance terms and numbers mean? It's a good way to watch your back.
Of course, you don't have to use an MBA as an insurance policy in your professional life. In your personal life, you can use it to evaluate investment opportunities and build your savings more efficiently.
For me, an MBA has been a valuable resource and a good tool.
Aside from all the "Big Brother" bashing, has anyone thought of the time it will take for the browser to lookup all of those references and render them onto the user's page? IE does some weird things already and the last thing I need is it doing dozens of searches and content reformats ON MY TIME.
Maybe it does it in the background (does anyone actually know how it works?), but I'd rather have my processor working for ME than for someone else seeking to spam up my desktop. What's next, a mandatory Active Desktop with a rectangle devoted to banners? Where does it end?
Computers, generally, are made of plastic, fiberglass and metal, which can be reclaimed and used over and over.
Paper, on the other hand, can only be recycled so often. Each time paper is recycled, it's fiber length shortens, decreasing it's end quality. Eventually, that same paper is no longer usable and must be disposed of.
Given the number of different materials in a computer, it's probably harder(relatively) to separate them than it is for paper products. The upside is that you can use computer scrap over and over again.
... causes the humming. A system designed to pick up RF radiation and turn it into sound is going to do just that. Your stereo SHOULD be filtering out that garbage, but it isn't.
Conclusion? You either purchased an inexpensive, poor quality stereo or you have an expensive, high quality stereo that is solely in need of repair or replacement.
All I see here is one side of the story. Maybe the university WAS right in taking down the web site. Were slanderous comments posted? Who knows? Was this person abusing bandwidth? Did he refuse to comply with the university's rules?
This is a VERY one-sided article and therefore it is difficult to draw ANY conclusions. As far as I know, the US Constitution does NOT protect against all speech. That deemed slanderous or intentionally harmful (ie yelling "FIRE" in a crowded place) is not protected. However, if you were hosting a politically or religiously critical web site, then you have every right to state your opinions.
You said that all backups were destroyed. Well, don't YOU keep any backups for yourself? Just what was being kept, anyway?
Whining won't get you sympathy. You must show valid proof that you were persecuted. For all I know, you're a Nazi Skinhead.
Standard Oil, US Steel, AT&T, General Motors... All of these companies ran a monopoly or totally controlled the markets they competed in. All were put down, no matter how powerful they became.
The same WILL happen to MS, just give it time. This isn't to say that we should all sit back and ignore it. We should all keep up pressure - write our senators, congresspeople, business leaders, media personalities. Let's keep an active discussion going with real statistics and real intellect. No one is going to seriously listen to a 1/2 baked reactionary drivel. We need a sensible, coherent alternative for MS. Complaining that they're evil just because they make a lot of money won't get us listened to by anyone. We have to build our own coalitions, just as MS is doing now.
And about the "cancer" statement made recently - this is just the tip of the iceberg in the propaganda war that is starting to unfold. Statements like that made in the mainstream will be listened to by the mainstream. A few small lies here and there will snowball into an avalanche of disinformation. The Soviets and the Nazis knew this. Microsoft doesn't need to sell technology to win; they need only sell the message.
Slashdot Mirror
Decentralization would lead to higher fixed costs, which would make solar power more expensive to deploy and maintain overall.
because of something the said by the commissoner: "We alleged they have violated Connecticut law," the department's commissioner, James T. Fleming, said. "There is no legal ability for them to charge a penalty when there has been no damage."
I think he's refering to the ability of one party to collect a civil penalty (ie like in a lawsuit) from another in the case of material injury. Damages, then, would mean some deprivation or loss of property. Speeding is a criminal offense, not a civil offense. It's therefore up to the state to pursue criminal matters and ACME has no legal basis to act as a police entity.
Could ACME take the information and forward it to the appropriate law enforcement officials for futher action? Probably. If a crime is being committed, police do accept notification by private individuals. Will ACME actually do this? I don't think so. When the word gets out that they're turning people over to the police for speeding, I think they'll lose business.
Of course, A law COULD be passed requiring companies to notify law enforcement officials. There is a precident for this in the banking industry (All cash transactions in excess of $1000 are to be reported.) for drug enforcement purposes. That would make it a whole different ballgame.
"Anyways, what are they gonna do when they find out the thing is a stupid, mindless psycopath? Lock it up? Gas chamber? "
Nope! They're gonna call it SID 1.0 and release him as THE KILLER APP!!!!!!!
Let's not forget that a person who has commited a crime and is wanted for it, has a very SHORT expectation of privacy for the forseeable future.
I for one, don't think the government actually cares what it's law-abiding citizens are doing. It would seem to me that pursuit of actual crimes (murder, robbery, etc) is enough to keep them busy.
Go to ANY town or city court and just look at the number of people that pass through there. Most of the time, the courts are overwhelmed - and that's only dealing with the sheer number of traffic offenders.
Police have enough to do with having to watch those who can't or won't take care of themselves.
Actually, that would be a test - of free speech. Let them swarm on me for protesting. I could use the money a lawsuit would bring in...
"You see an absence of concrete proof and automatically write it off as some crackpot idea that is impossible. I see a proof-of-concept experiment that demoinstrates the feasibility of an idea and think, "Hey, it's possible.""
But with that same reasoning you can also postulate that the ancient Egyptians also crossed the Atlantic since they were capable of building large boats. They certainly had the materials, the tools and the manpower to do it. You CAN demonstrate using materials in the region and establish a proof of concept. BUT THAT DOESN'T PROVE they went to the Americas. With hindsight, almost anything can be worked out. Lack of proof means just that. LACK OF PROOF. That's the scientific method.
You're using the proof of one concept to demonstrate proof of another. It may be possible to demonstrate the building a kite-powered lifting scaffold - and THAT may prove it was possible, but it doesn't mean the Egyptians actually did it. Historical proof is lacking.
The absence of proof doesn't make an idea automatically crackpot. It's the continued pushing of that idea in spite of an absence of proof that makes it crackpot.
"These are not the Egyptians of Cleopatra. They are the ancient ancestors of Cleopatra."
Actually, Cleopatra was a 7th generation incestual descendant of Ptolomy, a general of Alexander the Great's. She (probably) wasn't related to any of the people she ruled.
"With the kite tethered in this manner, you don't need to control where the kite goes so long as it keeps going up or in a direction away from the tower. "
Wrong. You ALWAYS have to control where the kite goes. Too little power and you do no work. Too MUCH, and the kite carries away the rock. You can anchor the scaffold, but that doesn't stop the kite from lifting too much.
The advantage of using any tool lies in the ability of it to project a controlled amount of force along a certain direction. The wind is unstable at best; you can't control it and you can't predict it. That means it's force waxes and wanes. It also changes direction. This scafford not only holds the rock, it also holds the kite. The kite places a certain amount of force in a certain place on the scaffold as it lifts the rock. If that force changes, you stand a chance of demolishing your scaffold. All of this uncertainty makes it unworkable.
Human & animal muscle power combined with levers, pulleys, etc. is much easier to manage and predict.
Besides, just WHERE is it in the culture? If they actually used kites, where is the literature describing them? To the ancients, it would have seemed like the power of the gods (the wind) was helping them to raise their buildings. This theme would have been repeated in their literature and described by foreigners (ie Greek historians). There would have been wind and kite festivals (like in China). Little children of today would still be flying kites, like their ancestors. But none of this exists. There is NO ancient cultural tradition of kite flying in egypt - at least that I'm aware of. Show me EVIDENCE of such a tradition and I might believe it.
"The business, which is based in California, plans to break even before the end of the year, while analysts forecast annual revenues of about $50m by 2002.
Google has built its revenues from advertising and also from licensing its proprietary search technology to other websites and portals."
Have they brought in anywhere near $50MM dollars to date? I'd like to see the profits from their business. So they bring in money through advertising and licensing? Hmmm. Unless they are doing 'round the clock R&D, I can't see how the licensing revenues can really expect to grow spectacularly, particularly if someone decides to reverse-engineer their search engine technology. Relying on a small number of products that they can only marginally improve over time doesn't make long-term business sense.
Advertising is nice, but in hard times, that's the FIRST thing a business cuts - as demonstrated during this last business cycle. It's not a good source of constant revenue.
The article mentions a previous experiment that used nylon material to build the kite with. Since nylon wasn't created until the 20TH century, the ancients could NEVER have used it. This means that they had to use things like hemp, linen and wood to build kites. These materials are heavier and presumably there are limits to the flying structure you can builkd with them. Unless you contruct a kite with the materials the ancients used, you'll never know your kite's REAL capabilities.
Has anyone here EVER SEEN to how gliders and dirigibles fly??? They are subject to WHATEVER the wind wants to do. Dirigible ground crews used to get killed when updrafts blew the crafts into the air, taking those who did not let go into time for a little ride. Those who lost their grip before the craft could land ended up as street pizza. It's NOT just about lifting a huge stone, you have to CONTROL it. Without control, you have a BIG accident waiting to happen. Apparently the Cal-Tech team didn't try to stack one stone on top of another.
WHY is it so hard to believe that ancient Egyptians used their brains and muscle to build these things. The modern human brain evolved tens of thousands of years ago, so the same model that build the pyramids also builds or has built moon rockets, jet planes, skyscrapers, ocean liners and computers. The only thing that differs is the amount of information and tools available.
People today are just as intelligent as the people of thousands of years ago. Space aliens, magic and high-tech kites didn't create civilizations, humans did. And WE are their descendants.
... Especially for couch potatos...
"The Aussies exterminated half of their continents mammals, and made a dang good inroad on the abo's, too"
I suppose the English came over 30,000 years ago and introduced wild dogs to get a head start on the colonization that was to come later, right? There were LOTS of other species in Australia, New Zealand and Tazmania that went extinct en masse just as people migrated to these places from SE Asia.
Hunting species to extinction is a HUMAN-WIDE activity and not just limited to those with the pale, pink skins!! SHEESH!
.. because it grows wild in the places it's native to.
I think they're pretty much wedded to the DVD format for the long haul. Asking people to now throw away their players, is just going to make them more skittish about adopting the next generation of technology.
I can see the zoning thing going away just because it'll soon become irrelevant in the face of pirate distribution (ie a would-be pirate in NY buys a legal copy, burns an image in his own DVD burner with the European zone, then distributes it). New technologies make the old business models as well as the old technologies obsolete.
I can see them adopting the "sell cheaper, sell more" mentality in the future.
EULA or not, they have no right to dictate how I conduct myself professionally. I am not employed by them, nor do I contract to them. Therefore, they have to right to control my actions. For all I care, they can include a provision to a violator to jump off a cliff. That doesn't make it binding.
This particular EULA only allows for the distribution of internal, non-production applications or external applications on approved hosts.
Then there is the provision against using open source. I'm not sure I understand the mechanism, but is MS telling a person what they can and cannot deploy on their own property? I can understand if they don't want a beta product to be used as a production tool (and this seems to be a EULA for a beta product). But I don't think MS CAN tell a person what they can and can't use in conjunction with the software.
That's like the manufacturers of Tupperware saying you can't use plastic wrap to seal their containers. Personally, I think this provision has lots of bark and no bite. Screw them.
A quote from Mr. Gates:
"A person who's seen shared source is probably very contaminated and is going to have a hard time working on other projects."
So now open source programmers are "contaminated?" I guess that means that they won't be employed by Microsoft and shouldn't be employed elsewhere. I smell a witchhunt brewing. Bad form, Mr. Gates. If you can't attack the movement, you'll persecute the followers? Sickening....
... when I was employed by a State University. It was an interesting place. On one hand you have job security and benefits.
On the other hand, since EVERYONE is considered equal, EVERYONE gets the same 3% (or less) annual pay raise. Luckily, I worked for a manager who fought for double digit pay raises for me, since I possessed a valuable skill set and was willing to work hard. I've seen people who in management positions, who were promoted simply because all the talented people had moved to better jobs. During one six month period during the time I was employed, almost the entire LAN systems staff quit.
I've seen people get shuffled off to meaningless jobs because they do the absolute minimum to stay employed. Firing someone for incompetence almost takes an act of God.
In the end, I realized if I wanted to something more than a 35 hour a week job with limited professional prospects - don't get me wrong, the pay and benefits taken together were a decent package - I needed to find a place where people are valued for what they contribute, not for longevity of service.
Now I know this shift entails taking on a lot of risk and uncertainty, but this is the way I want it. With greater risk and uncertainty, the rewards can be had. I shouldn't have to have a set lifestyle forced down my throat, which is what a union would do to me. In my opinion, life is by definition uncertain. There are pitfalls and hazards everywhere. It's up to us to navigate our way through it.
... were initially won by arguing the privacy issue.
"One of the persistent myths about the Net has been that because it costs so little to publish online, and the technology makes it so simple, diversity can flourish in cyberspace no matter how big "Big" media gets. As we're learning, that isn't so." Actually it IS so. Where else can Jon Katz go to regularly shower us with his tie-dyed colored world view? Seriously, no matter how little something costs, it must be able to turn an economic profit. Web hosting isn't free. There are electric, equipment and personnel bills to pay. There are people on the net publishing their own opinions on a wide variety of issues, from medicine to religion to engineering to art. The one thing they ALL have in common is that they don't publish in a journalistic format. The websites that last the longest seem to be the ones that don't polish their writing for the "masses." Because the "big media" model doesn't seem to fit here, it doesn't mean the end of the net as an information source. What it does mean is that people will have to sort through raw and unpolished sources - with the help of a search engine, of course, look at ALL the points of view, then make an INFORMED, INTELLIGENT decision. There is a LOT of garbage out there as well as a few gems. There may be no room for large public magazines, but there is room for small private publishers. Isn't that what we want the net to be?
Several years ago, I aquired my technical background in the US Navy. After my enlistment, I got my degree in accounting. During this time, the best jobs I could get while going to school were programming and other computer-related jobs (hey, beats working at the mall!) I applied my accounting knowledge in designing various small systems that did accounting work. After graduation, I didn't want to pursue a career in accounting. Long hours, low pay (initially), boring co-workers, and a few other things made the career less attractive to me.
I applied to a graduate business program and got my MBA two years later in finance and MIS. I spent the next 5 years working for different IS firms programming, administering networks and managing projects. Today, I am employed by a fortune 100 company.
The value I provide to the firm I work for lies in the fact that I can bridge the gap between technical and business people. I am NOT the greatest technical talent here, nor do I think business 24/7. There are TONS of technical people that care not a hoot for business and there are TONS of business people who understand NOTHING about technology.
My MBA got me my present position. It wasn't a magic key that got me in the door. I like to think of it as a tool or resource I aquired along the way that enabled me to open the door once I paid my dues by working in the trenches.
Organizations like technical people that are able to see the big picture. For myself, I like seeing and working with the bigger picture. I would like to go into upper management someday. If you don't care to go into management, a business background will help you to understand how to communicate with management. If you can communicate your value to them in THEIR language, it helps you immensely. Likewise, it helps you understand what's going on around you. Does the company have a solid business plan, or doesn't it? What do all those accounting and finance terms and numbers mean? It's a good way to watch your back.
Of course, you don't have to use an MBA as an insurance policy in your professional life. In your personal life, you can use it to evaluate investment opportunities and build your savings more efficiently.
For me, an MBA has been a valuable resource and a good tool.
Aside from all the "Big Brother" bashing, has anyone thought of the time it will take for the browser to lookup all of those references and render them onto the user's page? IE does some weird things already and the last thing I need is it doing dozens of searches and content reformats ON MY TIME.
Maybe it does it in the background (does anyone actually know how it works?), but I'd rather have my processor working for ME than for someone else seeking to spam up my desktop. What's next, a mandatory Active Desktop with a rectangle devoted to banners? Where does it end?
Computers, generally, are made of plastic, fiberglass and metal, which can be reclaimed and used over and over.
Paper, on the other hand, can only be recycled so often. Each time paper is recycled, it's fiber length shortens, decreasing it's end quality. Eventually, that same paper is no longer usable and must be disposed of.
Given the number of different materials in a computer, it's probably harder(relatively) to separate them than it is for paper products. The upside is that you can use computer scrap over and over again.
... causes the humming. A system designed to pick up RF radiation and turn it into sound is going to do just that. Your stereo SHOULD be filtering out that garbage, but it isn't.
Conclusion? You either purchased an inexpensive, poor quality stereo or you have an expensive, high quality stereo that is solely in need of repair or replacement.
All I see here is one side of the story. Maybe the university WAS right in taking down the web site. Were slanderous comments posted? Who knows? Was this person abusing bandwidth? Did he refuse to comply with the university's rules?
This is a VERY one-sided article and therefore it is difficult to draw ANY conclusions. As far as I know, the US Constitution does NOT protect against all speech. That deemed slanderous or intentionally harmful (ie yelling "FIRE" in a crowded place) is not protected. However, if you were hosting a politically or religiously critical web site, then you have every right to state your opinions.
You said that all backups were destroyed. Well, don't YOU keep any backups for yourself? Just what was being kept, anyway?
Whining won't get you sympathy. You must show valid proof that you were persecuted. For all I know, you're a Nazi Skinhead.
Standard Oil, US Steel, AT&T, General Motors... All of these companies ran a monopoly or totally controlled the markets they competed in. All were put down, no matter how powerful they became.
The same WILL happen to MS, just give it time. This isn't to say that we should all sit back and ignore it. We should all keep up pressure - write our senators, congresspeople, business leaders, media personalities. Let's keep an active discussion going with real statistics and real intellect. No one is going to seriously listen to a 1/2 baked reactionary drivel. We need a sensible, coherent alternative for MS. Complaining that they're evil just because they make a lot of money won't get us listened to by anyone. We have to build our own coalitions, just as MS is doing now.
And about the "cancer" statement made recently - this is just the tip of the iceberg in the propaganda war that is starting to unfold. Statements like that made in the mainstream will be listened to by the mainstream. A few small lies here and there will snowball into an avalanche of disinformation. The Soviets and the Nazis knew this. Microsoft doesn't need to sell technology to win; they need only sell the message.