I worked in an office that had fundamentally flawed ventilation systems. Specifically, there was no humidification system, so during winter the air would become so dry that it was literally dryer than a desert--so dry that the indoor air quality failed to meet OSHA standards.
People had eye problems, sinus problems, headaches, all kinds of illness as a result.
I found this out because I got a cheap humidistat and measured the indoor air quality myself.
I don't get it and I still don't get it. Why isn't it a "We Fully Comply With the Blizzard Terms of Service" guild instead of a GLBT guild?
The people creating the guild particularly cared about a specific aspect of the terms of service that was widely disobeyed. Specifically, they cared about hate speech and other discrimination against GLBT people.
So they named the guild in such a way as would make it clear that it was that aspect of the terms of service that they would be expecting people to obey. Yes, they could have named it "Obey clauses 4 thru 6 of rule 7 of terms of service as they were on October 1st 2005 Guild" (or whatever), but "GLBT friendly" was shorter and clearer.
Similarly, people might set up "No cheating" or "No farmers" guilds.
To you and middle America, maybe. Personally, I'd rather socialize with him than with someone who works for Microsoft or Halliburton. Now there are some jobs I see as having social stigma.
Seems to me The Reg has drawn exactly the opposite conclusions the judge's decision supports.
The judge ruled that the name in the header did not constitute the name required for a binding contract, because it was put their automatically as a matter of course.
I think that similarly, a crappy e-mail signature disclaimer would be ruled completely invalid and not contractually binding, precisely because it is placed there as a matter of course, even when completely inappropriate.
Wow. I'd love to see you try and get the sales people on my team to read your predicate calculus user requirements. Talk about living in different worlds...
US citizens and residents who have money in foreign accounts are legally required to report it. If they make profits overseas, they are legally required to pay tax on those profits. Simple fact.
Are you suggesting that the IRS should simply trust everyone to follow the law, and not attempt to get documentary evidence? Documentary evidence is now a "fishing expedition", eh?
News Corporation (parent of FOX News etc) had been paying under 7% tax a year worldwide, on profits in the billions of dollars. In 2004 they moved their headquarters to the US, specifically boasting that they would pay zero tax as a result. Do I need to spell out for you why the owners of FOX News get to pay zero taxes under the current administration?
I don't honestly see what making SPARC or PowerPC "open" is going to achieve at this point.
SPARC and PowerPC are pretty clearly niche and/or legacy architectures now. IBM has ceded the mainstream desktop to x86, and SPARC lost that battle a long time ago. The only question most people care about now is whether their x86 system is 32 or 64 bit, Intel or VIA or AMD.
Right now, most open source software tends to be tested and hacked on to at least make it run on PowerPC, for the benefit of Mac users. As the PowerPC Mac users switch to x86, who's going to care about PowerPC compatibility? I remember what it was like running Linux on PowerPC before OS X, and it wasn't pleasant--lots of stuff x86 Linux users took for granted didn't work, or you were stuck with old versions, because nobody had bothered to port, test or debug it.
SPARC and PowerPC will continue in the high-end server niche, but I think that niche is increasingly going to be squeezed by x86 too. Why deal with the possible risk of having your enterprise application break on PowerPC Linux, or being stuck with old versions of software, when you could run it on a big x86 Linux system and run the same binary 90%+ of the app's users are relying on every day? Sometimes there's safety in numbers.
PowerPC has the embedded space, of course, and maybe that'll be enough to sustain it as a target for general purpose code. I guess video game toolkits and related libraries will continue to be ported to PowerPC, at least.
But to go back to "openness"--in the embedded and video games space, who cares if the design is "open" or not? All the PowerPC video game consoles are locked down proprietary systems, as are various other embedded PowerPC systems like TiVo and car computers. And in the high end server space, I don't know that anyone cares there either--System i and System z seem to do OK without having open standard CPUs.
[Opinions mine, definitely not IBM's, obviously... and I may be completely wrong, perhaps openness is important in those niches?]
Indeed. If their aim is really to cut down phishing, they don't actually need to invent a new protocol or charge money; they should just get on with implementing the standards we already have, S/MIME.
If Apple Mail can do it seamlessly, why can't AOL?
...Novell has real products to offer, while IBM is surviving primarily on services now.
You ought to take a look at IBM's actual annual reports. IBM Software Group has a large portfolio of software products, and pulls in billions of dollars of sales every year. (And yes, it's profitable.) Less than IGS, but not exactly peanuts.
I am a UNIX sysadmin. I can work from home, part-time? Give me a break, I can do neither.
That's a rather startling admission. I view one of the major strengths of Unix as being its reliability and network accessibility.
I wouldn't want to be a Windows sysadmin and try to work from home, but I run a bunch of Unix boxes and I haven't seen any of them in 6 months. I have SSH, why would I need to drive to the office every day?
What you need to be able to do is to balance conflicting goals. "Getting the work done" is only one of them. Here are a few others:
- Retaining good working relationships with other teams, for when you need their assistance on other projects. (Example: Not pissing off the useless IT department and then having to ask for their help setting up an external server.)
- Meeting corporate mandated standards. (Example: Meeting accessibility requirements, even if you happen to know that nobody currently using the application uses a screen reader.)
- Moving in the same strategic directions as the rest of the company. (Example: Not building applications with.NET if the company is focused on J2EE.)
- Eating the right dog food. (Example: Not using Oracle-specific but extremely handy SQL extensions if you work for IBM.)
- Reporting results. (Example: It's a pain in the ass to summarize what you did each week/quarter, but management need to know, and you need them to know.)
- Ensuring supportability. (Example: I don't care if Eiffel or OCaml are the greatest and most productive languages in the world; enterprise business applications need to be written in languages that you have a chance of finding programmers proficient in.)
- Evangelism. It's not good enough to get the job done; you need to get the word out that you're getting the job done. A big company is a microcosm of the business world--you have many of the same problems, such as getting funding, getting awareness, getting buy-in, attracting users.
The above concerns aren't IBM-specific; pretty much any company that hits a few hundred employees will have them. But yes, lots of people who are narrowly focused on technology will see them as "sucking up" of one kind or another.
MS-DOS was licensed from SCS, who weren't acquired. Microsoft's streaming media technology was partly licensed from Vivo and Real, who weren't acquired, partly stolen from Apple, and partly written in house. They bought a ton of 3D technologies from SGI, who weren't acquired. Their speech recognition technology was licensed from L&H, who weren't acquired. They licensed B2B technologies from VerticalNet, Radiant Systems and others--again, didn't acquire them.
Sure, they've purchased plenty of software companies to get well-defined software applications. However, Sony doesn't fit that model. If they bought Sony they'd be purchasing a company with no real desktop software products, and a large number of diverse technologies. So I still think a 'strategic investment' in return for technology licensing of the stuff they actually wanted would be the approach they would take.
Thanks for the stats, you illustrate my point exactly.
Microsoft typically invests in companies, in return for licenses to use their technology. They don't typically buy entire companies, certainly not ones the size of Sony that have a diverse product line.
Slashdot Mirror
Speaking as a Mac user, it's been possible for years, and predicted for years. Call me when there's some evidence that it's actually happening.
Give us a link to the model on the Dell site, so we can verify the info.
I worked in an office that had fundamentally flawed ventilation systems. Specifically, there was no humidification system, so during winter the air would become so dry that it was literally dryer than a desert--so dry that the indoor air quality failed to meet OSHA standards.
People had eye problems, sinus problems, headaches, all kinds of illness as a result.
I found this out because I got a cheap humidistat and measured the indoor air quality myself.
The people creating the guild particularly cared about a specific aspect of the terms of service that was widely disobeyed. Specifically, they cared about hate speech and other discrimination against GLBT people.
So they named the guild in such a way as would make it clear that it was that aspect of the terms of service that they would be expecting people to obey. Yes, they could have named it "Obey clauses 4 thru 6 of rule 7 of terms of service as they were on October 1st 2005 Guild" (or whatever), but "GLBT friendly" was shorter and clearer.
Similarly, people might set up "No cheating" or "No farmers" guilds.
What a nice chap. Quagmire indeed.
To you and middle America, maybe. Personally, I'd rather socialize with him than with someone who works for Microsoft or Halliburton. Now there are some jobs I see as having social stigma.
Seems to me The Reg has drawn exactly the opposite conclusions the judge's decision supports.
The judge ruled that the name in the header did not constitute the name required for a binding contract, because it was put their automatically as a matter of course.
I think that similarly, a crappy e-mail signature disclaimer would be ruled completely invalid and not contractually binding, precisely because it is placed there as a matter of course, even when completely inappropriate.
Wow. I'd love to see you try and get the sales people on my team to read your predicate calculus user requirements. Talk about living in different worlds...
US citizens and residents who have money in foreign accounts are legally required to report it. If they make profits overseas, they are legally required to pay tax on those profits. Simple fact.
Are you suggesting that the IRS should simply trust everyone to follow the law, and not attempt to get documentary evidence? Documentary evidence is now a "fishing expedition", eh?
News Corporation (parent of FOX News etc) had been paying under 7% tax a year worldwide, on profits in the billions of dollars. In 2004 they moved their headquarters to the US, specifically boasting that they would pay zero tax as a result. Do I need to spell out for you why the owners of FOX News get to pay zero taxes under the current administration?
Wow, that looks crap. I kept hearing all this hype about it, and thought it was going to be really slick... Hadn't seen a screenshot, though.
Can you give an example of a chip design that has succeeded in the embedded space because of its openness?
I don't honestly see what making SPARC or PowerPC "open" is going to achieve at this point.
SPARC and PowerPC are pretty clearly niche and/or legacy architectures now. IBM has ceded the mainstream desktop to x86, and SPARC lost that battle a long time ago. The only question most people care about now is whether their x86 system is 32 or 64 bit, Intel or VIA or AMD.
Right now, most open source software tends to be tested and hacked on to at least make it run on PowerPC, for the benefit of Mac users. As the PowerPC Mac users switch to x86, who's going to care about PowerPC compatibility? I remember what it was like running Linux on PowerPC before OS X, and it wasn't pleasant--lots of stuff x86 Linux users took for granted didn't work, or you were stuck with old versions, because nobody had bothered to port, test or debug it.
SPARC and PowerPC will continue in the high-end server niche, but I think that niche is increasingly going to be squeezed by x86 too. Why deal with the possible risk of having your enterprise application break on PowerPC Linux, or being stuck with old versions of software, when you could run it on a big x86 Linux system and run the same binary 90%+ of the app's users are relying on every day? Sometimes there's safety in numbers.
PowerPC has the embedded space, of course, and maybe that'll be enough to sustain it as a target for general purpose code. I guess video game toolkits and related libraries will continue to be ported to PowerPC, at least.
But to go back to "openness"--in the embedded and video games space, who cares if the design is "open" or not? All the PowerPC video game consoles are locked down proprietary systems, as are various other embedded PowerPC systems like TiVo and car computers. And in the high end server space, I don't know that anyone cares there either--System i and System z seem to do OK without having open standard CPUs.
[Opinions mine, definitely not IBM's, obviously... and I may be completely wrong, perhaps openness is important in those niches?]
Best AC political comment ever.
My high quality digicam is the size of a packet of cigarettes, so why not carry it everywhere?
Indeed. If their aim is really to cut down phishing, they don't actually need to invent a new protocol or charge money; they should just get on with implementing the standards we already have, S/MIME.
If Apple Mail can do it seamlessly, why can't AOL?
You ought to take a look at IBM's actual annual reports. IBM Software Group has a large portfolio of software products, and pulls in billions of dollars of sales every year. (And yes, it's profitable.) Less than IGS, but not exactly peanuts.
That's a rather startling admission. I view one of the major strengths of Unix as being its reliability and network accessibility.
I wouldn't want to be a Windows sysadmin and try to work from home, but I run a bunch of Unix boxes and I haven't seen any of them in 6 months. I have SSH, why would I need to drive to the office every day?
What you need to be able to do is to balance conflicting goals. "Getting the work done" is only one of them. Here are a few others:
.NET if the company is focused on J2EE.)
- Retaining good working relationships with other teams, for when you need their assistance on other projects. (Example: Not pissing off the useless IT department and then having to ask for their help setting up an external server.)
- Meeting corporate mandated standards. (Example: Meeting accessibility requirements, even if you happen to know that nobody currently using the application uses a screen reader.)
- Moving in the same strategic directions as the rest of the company. (Example: Not building applications with
- Eating the right dog food. (Example: Not using Oracle-specific but extremely handy SQL extensions if you work for IBM.)
- Reporting results. (Example: It's a pain in the ass to summarize what you did each week/quarter, but management need to know, and you need them to know.)
- Ensuring supportability. (Example: I don't care if Eiffel or OCaml are the greatest and most productive languages in the world; enterprise business applications need to be written in languages that you have a chance of finding programmers proficient in.)
- Evangelism. It's not good enough to get the job done; you need to get the word out that you're getting the job done. A big company is a microcosm of the business world--you have many of the same problems, such as getting funding, getting awareness, getting buy-in, attracting users.
The above concerns aren't IBM-specific; pretty much any company that hits a few hundred employees will have them. But yes, lots of people who are narrowly focused on technology will see them as "sucking up" of one kind or another.
[Disclaimer: My opinions, not IBM Austin's.]
I want a tablet Mac.
I'm sitting here with this 800MHz G3 iBook, and I'm damn tired of waiting.
Screw the farkers, I refer you to my response to a previous Slashdot Uranus story.
2 6/190223
http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/09/
You'd probably appreciate the mockery of the radio show "The Sunday Format". Just FYI.
for Sandra Bullock to do tasteful nude scenes, so newspapers can use the headline STARK BULLOCK NAKED.
I tend to use witty headlines when possible on my own web site, and it doesn't half make the search results look strange.
MS-DOS was licensed from SCS, who weren't acquired. Microsoft's streaming media technology was partly licensed from Vivo and Real, who weren't acquired, partly stolen from Apple, and partly written in house. They bought a ton of 3D technologies from SGI, who weren't acquired. Their speech recognition technology was licensed from L&H, who weren't acquired. They licensed B2B technologies from VerticalNet, Radiant Systems and others--again, didn't acquire them.
Sure, they've purchased plenty of software companies to get well-defined software applications. However, Sony doesn't fit that model. If they bought Sony they'd be purchasing a company with no real desktop software products, and a large number of diverse technologies. So I still think a 'strategic investment' in return for technology licensing of the stuff they actually wanted would be the approach they would take.
Thanks for the stats, you illustrate my point exactly.
Microsoft typically invests in companies, in return for licenses to use their technology. They don't typically buy entire companies, certainly not ones the size of Sony that have a diverse product line.