I'll bite on this one because I'm actually a Project Manager for Northrop Grumman Information Services. My views are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views of my company, yadda, yadda, blah, blah.
First, you need to know (or remember) that huge corporations (be they defense contractor, Oracle, Microsoft, Google, whomever) are often a conglomeration of previously small companies. The company I've worked for has changed names four times as it was bought up repeatedly (twice in a three-month span one year) and is only most recently called "Northrop Grumman" but, for the most part, I still work with and for the same small group of people I hired on with nearly a decade ago. Yes, corporations add capabilities when they see opportunity. Who wouldn't?
Second, depending upon the work you do, adding all of the additional infrastructure required to meet the various regulatory requirements of a government contract is non-trivial - security clearances alone, if required, can be a nightmare. The company never says "Hey, I want to add more costs to my bottom-line and reduce my profits". Those bureaucratic requirements are driven by the government, not the contractor.
Third, often times the contracts awarded by the government require or strongly encourage the Bigs (like Northrop Grumman, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, etc.) to hire "Smalls" - smaller, perhaps more specialized corporations, that would not otherwise be able to get involved in these contracts. "Disadvantaged" small businesses, those run by minorities or other protected classes, are also highly sought after by the Bigs in order to meet various participatory quotas, etc. This type of thing allows the Big to address the regulatory and management issues while funneling funds to Smalls who might do much of the work. You learn after awhile, at least at Northrop Grumman, that you are an integrator first and a developer second - if you can reuse something someone else has built that is *much* better than building it yourself (you know, that whole "reuse" idea that we've all been chasing after for the past 50 years).
All of that aside, a huge amount of costs are associated with government bureaucracy. The profit margins on my contract, for example, are *limited* to 8.5%. No matter how much I spend, I'm only going to earn 8.5% - that profit margin is ridiculously tiny when you consider what a firm operating at commercial rates is going to make profits wise. "Oh...so you'll just drag it out so you make more money." Ha! Sure. The project drags out...but I can tell you from 15 years working with the US Government, it drags on and on not because I really want to keep working on the same stinkin' thing (redoing it over and over) for my own giggles and grins but because the US Government is a huge bureaucracy and it takes forever for them to make a decision on anything. Need clarification on a feature request? Well...first we have to work that through the Government Program Management Office (PMO) who oversees your project, then they need to potentially track down user-representatives, convene a meeting, possibly do a usability test and/or request a conference, get multiple disparate agencies who are going to use your tool to agree to put aside their differences and unique business processes, etc., etc., etc.
Meanwhile, the team is being held to an unrealistic schedule set for political reasons. To minimize risk of schedule slippage, you make a decision and press on accepting the fact that you may have to rework the feature you just developed. The government entities that are closest to you are just as frustrated as you are...and they know they can't let your team go onto other projects because then they lose the people who understand the project and its history - who have the requirements and design knowledge to meet the needs of the customer so they keep giving you money to keep your team together. You do your best to catch up on the copious amounts of documentation the government requires (for my 450K SLOC system
I completely get where you are coming from but (c) data necessary to identify the date, time and duration of a communication: should at least prove the "My browser speed-up plugin visited those sites, not me.". That still leaves the "an uknown hacker broke-in and used my account" argument out there, however.:)
Moonlight is not the answer to the Netflix streaming video problem. I've got Moonlight 1.0.1 installed (been looking for a way to stream video to my linux box from Netflix) and here is what you get from Netflix when you try to stream a movie:
Watching instantly on your computer
Our apologies — streaming is not supported for your operating system.
Note that your current Internet browser is fully compatible with adding titles to the Instant Queue for later watching on compatible devices.
Complete System Requirements
To watch instantly, you'll need a computer that meets the following minimum requirements:
* Windows
o Windows XP with Service Pack 2, or Vista
o Internet Explorer 6.0 or higher; or Firefox 2 or higher
o 1.2 GHz processor
o 512 MB RAM
* Mac
o An Intel-based Mac with OS 10.4.8 or later
o Safari 3 or higher; or Firefox 2 or higher
o 1 GB RAM
I agree. It would be great if they could focus on the "It's electric" pitch. Unfortunately, the very next complaint would be: "there's no where for me to plug-in" or "it takes too long to charge the battery...what's the point, I can only ever charge it when I'm at home."
Its got to be about building interest in electric/hybrids instead. The way to do that is tell someone you are going to save them money at the pump because you are going to get them 100MPG.
Right now, I spend about $120 a month on gas -- and that's really me just going back and forth to my job. I've got about a 13 gallon tank and I get about 20 mpg. If I was able to get 1300 miles out of 1 tank of gasoline my gasoline fuel bill for one month would be 20% less than what I pay for a single week now.
Even if you add $50.00 to that cost, I would *still* come out ahead every month. My carbon foot-print might remain about the same but I would be consolidating that footprint with others at the electric company (waiting for the day when the tech at the electric company could be swapped out for something cleaner).
Unfortunately, I would not *yet* come out completely ahead financially because the cost of purchasing an electric car is still too high. However, if the cost of the car was reduced because more people were purchasing them *and* battery technology was such that they could be charged within +/- 20% of what it takes a person to fill their car today *and* their was enough infrastructure to support going cross-country, they'd be very viable.
You've got to start somewhere. Increasing awareness and showing people that they can reduce their gasoline fuel bill is one way to heighten interest in the idea of owning an electric car. Interest inspires demand which will hopefully inspire companies to invest in better battery technology, etc. When the technology is there, fueling stations become feasible.
I think the thing to get excited about here is that this solution...along with any electric car in general...is a step towards reducing and eliminating fossil fuels. Consider it a step towards consolidating our use of fossil fuels into specific distribution points on the electric grid. Say that it encourages the replacement of gasoline fueling stations with electric fueling stations. Say that it inspires advances in quick-charging battery cells for electric cars.
What do we have then? We've still got fossil fuels being burned at key points on the electric grid *and* the emissions from those locations is very significant. But we've also gained better battery technology and fewer gas stations and (here's the big one) we are poised to replace those electrical nodes with cleaner alternatives.
Part of the struggle moving from one technology to the next involves infrastructure replacement and consolidation of old resources. The Algaeus is just a tree in the overall forest. See the forest and then the Algaeus becomes pretty cool -- because it means we are trying *something* to move away from fossil fuels in our primary mode of transportation (at least in the US).
Probably because Apple got to where they are fairly (by building a superior product) and Microsoft got to where it is/was by questionable business practices and backroom deals with OEMs.
And for those who will scream at me about mercury in vaccines, why don't you compare a single or rare exposure to a tiny amount of mercury... to how much mercury you must feed to your children via fish... and corn syrup.
Okay...lets.
I don't have a source for the quote below but I believe it stands on its own; it brings another point of view to the issue: it isn't a matter of how much mercury is in corn syrup, a can of tuna, a single vaccine dose. It is a matter of dosage relative to weight: vaccines are dosed for *everyone* not 2 day old infants with a weight perhaps 3-5% of what their adult weight would be. This quote captures the essence of the issue with regards to vaccines and mercury content and provides an apt illustration for why it is a good thing that the stuff was removed from vaccines (other than the flu vaccine -- still in there):
"This myth [that the mercury received in a vaccine is no greater than in a can of tuna] has received a lot of publicity because it offers an analogy anyone can understand and makes the mercury-autism connection appear trivial.
The analogy can be improved by comparing a 200-pound male adult consuming tuna with the infant who receives a single vaccine on their first day of birth (since day-old infants don't eat tuna). On the first day of birth an infant receives the Hep B vaccine with about 25 micrograms of ethlymercury â" this does approximate the 30 micrograms of methlymercury in an average can of tuna. Since the average infant weighs about 7 pounds, the weight equivalent number of cans of tuna for an adult would be 28 cans.
If you take those 28 cans of tuna and distill it down to mercury content, you would have 840 micrograms of mercury. Keep in mind that the stomach successfully absorbs and excretes about 90% of any mercury ingested through food, leaving only about 10% of the mercury for the bloodstream. Since the mercury in vaccines is injected directly into the bloodstream where 100% of it can be absorbed by the organs, you'd need an additional 252 cans of tuna to get the equivalent amount of mercury into the bloodstream for a total of 280 cans of tuna and 8,400 micrograms of methlymercury.
So, receiving the Hep B vaccine on the first day of birth is the equivalent of a 200-pound adult male consuming 280 cans of tuna in a single day. One final adjustment: the adult male in the analogy needs to have no capacity to excrete mercury. As Boyd Haley, Ph.D. notes, "it is very well known that infants do not produce significant levels of bile or have adult renal capacity for several months after birth. Bilary transport is the major biochemical route by which mercury is removed from the body, and infants cannot do this very well."
So, a 200-pound male who consumes 280 cans of tuna in a single day and has their ability to excrete mercury severely diminished is the same as a day-old infant receiving the Hep B vaccine. That's a fair analogy. Tuna anyone?"
And, for the record, this is still being debated even if the Courts believe there is no link:
As I said, mercury is still used in the flu vaccine and even after thimerosal was removed from the vaccines it remained in the supply-chain for a number of years while stocks of vaccines were used up. It is also used during the manufacture of the vaccine and then removed at the end -- meaning it is *still* in there though in much lower amounts.
What is *really* funny to me is that most people spouting the value of vaccines have done very little research into the issue themselves; "vaccines" are a sacred cow that you are not supposed to challenge or speak out against. Most people have *never* read a
Any Blu-Ray disc I try and which doesn't play on component will go back as "defective" or "unfit for sale."
Good luck with that. Don't be surprised if the retailer sends you an apology and a new copy of the disc.
Be prepared for a lot of calls to regional customer service centers and having to wade past a couple of lower tiers of "customer service" on each call in order to get someone to give you your money back or a store credit (more likely). Each lower tier will claim that they cannot refund your money because of the piracy issues.
I only state this because I've actually had to go through this whole fiasco with DVDs which were legitimately defective. Bought one...defective. Returned it, took another from the same bin in exchange. Turned out defective. Returned to store, exchanged for another...same bin...defective. Pissed off, I went to a *different* store, bought the *same* title and had no problems. The first store likely got a bad batch; I had to fight with Store #1, locally and regionally, for a few hours to get them to refund my blasted money. When I first asked for refund, I was willing to a) prove the disc was defective by playing it on any DVD player in their store (if it worked, I told them I was willing to keep it and chalk it up to a defective player on my end) and b) take a store credit because I shopped there frequently. By the end of the ordeal, I wanted cash in my hand. What a hassle.
7 is heavenly perfection, and July is the 7th month.
4 is earthly perfection, and it's the 4th day....
the significance of it wouldn't be the religious properties of the day, but the secular one.
{Clap! Clap!}
Nice. I see your point and I think it is valid (cf. the reactions of some Muslims to Hurricane "Private" Katrina and the reactions of some Christians to earthquakes in India and Pakistan). However, the original poster insinuated that there was a connection between the date - numerologically speaking - and any event that went bad on that day. The original parent post does not come across as even remotely interested in any connection between God and America; OP was snubbing his nose in disdain at Christians and Muslims because they are an easy target; he did not attempt, even humourously, to support why either Christians or Muslims would believe what he claimed and, instead, blasted a stereotype.
If God chose to punish America or any other place, the day would not matter; if you insinuate that the day does matter, you need to offer a bit more. If you are poking your fingers derisively at some other group, be they Christian, Muslim, Gays, Minorities, etc., even in jest, reconsider posting.
I'm done; I feel like I'm defending groups that, in many ways, I vehemently disagree with. However,
However, someone who believes that god plans/controls/whatevers everything, is a lot more likely to believe that it's a message, than someone who is more enlightened.
Enlightened, huh?
I'm not defending every belief of every religion out there but...the word "enlightened" is a word so full of superiority and dripping with disdain that I am surprised you would even choose to use it in a discussion like this. It is a word completely devoid of meaning in any debate that borders on philosophical because it can as easily be bandied about by either side. It is dismissive.
The Muslim, the Hindu, the Buddhist, the Christain can as easily dismiss an opinion on the same grounds: that you could never understand because you have not been "enlightened". You have not been blessed abundantly with understanding; you have not had your Eureka moment; etc. etc.
You might value science, observation and measurement, what it can offer - I see the allure and concur - but science is always in flux; we modify or tweak our facts over time as we learn more about the world around us. In other words, science does not yet have all the answers - and may never have all of the answers.
Some of those answers may not be knowable because we may have already dismissed some avenues of investigation...because they defy measurement and observation according to our current methodologies.
there are religious types both Christian and Muslim" doesn't mean "every single Christian and Muslim."
Guilty. My fault.
If anyone is biased, it's you for not realizing that the vast majority of the world's moral/prophetic bullshit comes from these two religions.
Irrelevant. From whence "the vast majority of the world's moral/prophetic bullshit comes from" has no bearing on whether or not I am biased and no bearing on whether or not my statements regarding snubbing Christians and Muslims for their beliefs were correct or otherwise. What if I am biased, does it change what I said? What if I am not biased? Any change? None.
I never asserted "bias" on the part of the OP - I insinuated prejudice and stated bigotry. Personally, I believe we are all biased - invariably, we cannot help but see the world through eyes with lenses formed from varying experiences - and that that bias is *impossible* to completely overcome. That is where prudence and thoughtful reckoning must factor in.
I've always felt that the shuttle crew (the astronauts that are about to go up in the thing) should have at least 50% say in go/no-go decisions based on findings like this.
I've heard this somewhere else, so weigh it accordingly (perhaps someone can verify or deny): the shuttle crews today do not have the engineering backgrounds of the crews of the past i.e. they are not really qualified to say whether the shuttle is safe to fly or not and NASA cannot scrap a launch just because the crew feels uneasy for no substantiated reason.
In principle, I agree with you; however, if the crew is not really qualified, can we really give them the ability to stop the launch?
...if anything goes wrong there are religious types both Christian and Muslim that will see it as a sign validating whatever their view of the world is.
What?!?
Where in the heck are you getting that idea from? Bigotry? Bias? What the heck are you talking about? If you are trying to say that Christians or Muslims might claim it was punishment from God, for whatever weird reason you or they could come up with, then why link it to July 4th? If you are claiming July 4th holds some sort of numerological significance in either Christian or Muslim ideology, state your claim and back it up with at least a good conspiracy theory. If you are talking out of your @$$, as seems most likely, calm down and stop hating on people who think differently than you (isn't that what you want Christians and Muslims to do).
Not every Christian is a Pat-Robertson-Is-My-Prophet-Fundamentalist nor is every Muslim a radical terrorist; if you want to speak about a specific cult, point your bigoted finger at them specifically and not at the Christian and Muslim population in general.
Bill has always put himself above such petty things as rules he expects others to obey.
Okay. I'm not a fan of Bill Gates the-Microsoft-Chief-Architect, but COME ON! Bill most likely had nothing to do with writing this policy; this type of policy is so standard as to render it boilerplate for any business. I would not be surprised if those who seek to specialize in HR policy get a little handbook filled with legal boilerplate and a tutorial on "How to Thwart the Efforts of IT Applicants" upon graduation from business college.
If there is any point to this policy it is merely to serve as a warning and to force a level of discretion upon the participants that may otherwise not exist.
Bill and Melinda could care less who you date or marry; they care only about one thing: do your actions impact the 'company' in an adverse manner. If/When your dating relationship turns sour and you are dumped, can you handle seeing that person everyday in the office? If you are the dumper, probably, but if you are the one dumped? Be prepared to move on; if your attitude is "Screw that! *THEY* should move on!" or if you feel you would be unable to move on (for any reason) - well, maybe you should reconsider because you probably are not ready to get romantically involved with someone from your office.
[my story]
I served in the US Air Force for far too long; during that time there were strict rules forbidding romances between members of the officer corp and members of the enlisted corp. She was an officer and I was enlisted; we conducted ourselves with a high level of discretion, worked in different areas of the base and did not call attention to ourselves...as did numerous other couples in the same situation as we. It was about professionalism and self-control. Period. [/my story]
First, let me say that I agree that congress is a bigger concern than Microsoft but...
This is not good news. This is a PR stunt and only a PR stunt. This allows Microsoft to say "See...we tried to play nice but they wouldn't play with us. It's their fault not ours; we wanted interoperability but they wouldn't have it." Bullshit. It is almost certain that the type of "interoperability" they desire will only come in terms of closed-source, for-profit products and encumbered IP. I have no problem with this, mind you, but do not delude yourself about this truce: anything they offer that is truly open will likely be end-of-life and irrelevant shortly thereafter.
What does a "truce" with Microsoft look like exactly? Do you think MS is going to open up their proprietary protocols and data formats to the OSS community? How would that work, exactly? What exactly does OSS gain from a truce with Microsoft given that we can assume that they will not be any more likely to open their formats and tools than they are now?
Don't get me wrong: it is perfectly within Microsoft's rights to keep their IP closed and to charge access for it but do not deceive yourself about them wanting to suddenly play nice. What happens if/when some of that proprietary stuff leaks into OSS? Could that be what they are hoping for? Hoping OSS developers, lured under the guise of a truce, think they have rights to use information that they do not - poisoning the well, perhaps?
What about evangelism? Under this supposed truce, are we supposed to stop pointing out the weaknesses in Microsoft's products and methodologies in return for the same? Why would we do that? Who wins in that situation? Certainly not OSS which relies heavily upon word-of-mouth and grass roots efforts to spread; Microsoft wins because potentially fewer people are made aware of other choices that may exist both for operating systems and tools.
I realize this could be taken as an anti-Microsoft rant but what it really is is a "Don't trust Microsoft" rant. These guys are convicted monopolists who have a reputation for stabbing their partners in the back and putting them out of business. Why would/should we trust them when they say they want to make nice?
Many of us gamers have been leveling up sinc MUDs, then Diablo, then EQ, then WoW and then any other game that uses the same system... Sure its fun, but after 20 games with the same formula it gets old.
And yet you continue to pay for the same old crap, thereby eradicating the motivation for game developers to try something "risky" to warrant your attention. Why should game companies try something risky that *might* make them rich when they can try something tried and true that will make them profitable? Sure, every now and then you'll find a company willing to risk it all - but how often does that happen and for how long?
...a book that you can read three times is better, but a book that works on many many levels....
My original comment was not clear enough; my impression was that the fellow, of whom I spoke, did not find depth in the book until he had read it three or four times. It is like he made it his mission to find something worthwhile in the book...because it had garnered so much attention from the geek crowd; eventually he discovered what he was looking for (or convinced himself that it was there). I guess I just wasn't willing to work that hard for it.
I'm all for reading books for fun and I am not in the habit of comparing one book to another in terms of literary value - my personal opinions tend to skew strongly away from the Literati as a clique. I just found Snow Crash to be filled with cutout characters whose roles mapped strongly to their names ("Hero Protagonist"? Come on! It's a great play-on-words but its a stupid character name). Snow Crash was written by an author who understood the geek crowd: he knew that we liked to play with language and he knew that a 15-year old, skater, anti-authoritarian, femme fatale with a penchant for sex combined with a pseudo-Asian, katana wielding loner and a brutish antagonist was a good combination to attract the RPG crowd. He understood that we were ready for something post-Cyberpunk, where everything was glitz and flash, and that we wanted something with a bit more darkness and grit. Snow Crash read, to me, like a tabletop RPG gaming session transcript and had about as much depth as one.
Yes, there were some - sorta - new ideas in the book but nothing particularly earth-shattering. Perhaps I read the book too "late"; perhaps the ideas when first presented were revolutionary but as a professional software developer who was keeping abreast of changes in emerging network technologies (including the web), I just didn't find the book all that insightful. I'll also admit that I had a hard time getting past the 2D characters and average writing.
The fact that Neal Stephenson went on to have a great writing career does not obviate the fact that his first book *may* not have been everything it was hyped to be. The Baroque Cycle and Cryptonomicon also got rave reviews; the man has talent and dedication - I just never understood the fascination with Snow Crash.
I have never understood why this book garners so much acclaim from the geek crowd.
I did hear one guy talk about reading it three or four times and discovering "depth" in it. Come on! You should not
have to read a book 3-4 times before you discover depth in it. It just wasn't that good.
I can't believe I'm allowing myself to be dragged into this but...
I'm ready to defend myself in court.
Good luck with that...your tail will be handed to you. No matter how you try to portray it, the point will remain that you downloaded and viewed content distributed through (presently) illegal channels.
Look. I agree with you in principle; my family thinks its funny how upset I get over those anti-piracy commercials. My five-year-old can recognize those as "the commercials Daddy don't like". But your "jab" at "The Man" or whatever it is you *think* you are doing to the *AAs out there only fuels their propaganda. Try before you buy does not apply.
You've got plenty of options to exercise your rights that are perfectly legal:
Don't watch the movie. Period.
Read reviews: check independent review sites and check with friends *before* you see the movie. This may require you to skip the first few weeks that the movie is open. Having principles is tough, man.:)
See the movie at the "cheap seats" i.e. go to a second run theater (usually costs less than a rental). Now you've probably had to wait a month or two.
Rent the movie
When you circumvent the legal distribution channel (whether you agree with it or not), what you tell the *AA is: "I *really* value your product, enough so that I will do whatever it takes to get it and I'm also willing to contribute to your propaganda regarding piracy and illegal downloads by actually being a participant in your (already) inflated statistics!". What you are not telling them is: "Your product sucks, your business model sucks, your distribution channels suck and your attitude to wards your own customers sucks. Until you change your act, I'm not willing to give you any more of my money."
Which do you think will be more effective:
Committing what is presently defined as a criminal offense (and not likely to change if you live in the US).
Hitting them in the pocket book by denying them first-run revenues
Here's a hint: This isn't "civil disobedience" - its theft of service (or something of the sort - spare me the "theft only applies to physical property, yadda, yadda, yadda arguments - the point is that you've not paid for something for which you are obligated (presently) to play; there is no one feeling sorry for you who is willing to do anything about it.
You want to be effective: convince your friends and family to stop going to the first-run theaters; convince your friends and family to not download DRM'ed DVD images (should be an easy sell); if you can, convince your friends and family to not purchase DVDs.
If you value the content enough to view it (and you are giving up 120 minutes, on average, of your time to view it) you should pay the $3-4. Its not your content and the owner of that content has a right to earn money from it. Your *only* rights are to choose not to view the content or purchase the product upon which the content is found.
That's okay. I understand: you probably haven't heard it before...in any of its myriad variations over the last 5 years.
Yeah...that Soviet Russia joke: you just never see the punchline coming, do ya? Never get tired of it.
Hey! Have you guys seen the one that goes...oh how was it again: something about "welcoming our [fill in the blank] overlords.". Yeah. That one is funny as hell! If you think this Soviet Russia stuff is funny - man! you'll be rolling on that one.
Yeah.
Oh! Then there's that one that goes "Step 1. [fill in the blank] Step 2. ??? Step 3. Profit!" *That* is one funny joke! Never get tired of that.
Where do people get these jokes? Every punchline so original...so...so...unexpected.
Hey, Mods - you know, I just gave you, like, TWO new jokes you've probably never seen before. Will you mod me +1, Funny too?
You use the resources you have: some people have time, some people have money.
If your time is more valuable to you then your money, you will use your money to minimize the time you have to spend in game. It is an utterly ridiculous waste to time to spend hours and hours grinding away in a videogame when you do not have to.
Its called "grinding" for a reason; and its not because it is fun (in this case:)).
Boy, you got that right! Sure is great that when *you* started playing these games you sprang forth from the head of a god, complete with knowledge *and* |\/|@d sk!llz.
Arrogance like this is what keeps online games identified with the flaccid prick in the minds of many. Congratulations.
No game can survive indefinitely without new blood; better to help the noobs than to kill your favorite game because your attitude sent them looking for some other game. Some day, it will even happen to WoW.
This was nearly the same thought that occurred to me when I read the OP. There is very little that I find alluring, at all, about online gaming primarily *because* of the people who play online games. I realize that I am generalizing, to some extent, but to say that online gaming is a level playing field where all participants have the same chance of victory is just wishful thinking. Cheats, cheats, cheats and sore losers who drop connection before end-game.
Slashdot Mirror
I'll bite on this one because I'm actually a Project Manager for Northrop Grumman Information Services. My views are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views of my company, yadda, yadda, blah, blah.
First, you need to know (or remember) that huge corporations (be they defense contractor, Oracle, Microsoft, Google, whomever) are often a conglomeration of previously small companies. The company I've worked for has changed names four times as it was bought up repeatedly (twice in a three-month span one year) and is only most recently called "Northrop Grumman" but, for the most part, I still work with and for the same small group of people I hired on with nearly a decade ago. Yes, corporations add capabilities when they see opportunity. Who wouldn't?
Second, depending upon the work you do, adding all of the additional infrastructure required to meet the various regulatory requirements of a government contract is non-trivial - security clearances alone, if required, can be a nightmare. The company never says "Hey, I want to add more costs to my bottom-line and reduce my profits". Those bureaucratic requirements are driven by the government, not the contractor.
Third, often times the contracts awarded by the government require or strongly encourage the Bigs (like Northrop Grumman, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, etc.) to hire "Smalls" - smaller, perhaps more specialized corporations, that would not otherwise be able to get involved in these contracts. "Disadvantaged" small businesses, those run by minorities or other protected classes, are also highly sought after by the Bigs in order to meet various participatory quotas, etc. This type of thing allows the Big to address the regulatory and management issues while funneling funds to Smalls who might do much of the work. You learn after awhile, at least at Northrop Grumman, that you are an integrator first and a developer second - if you can reuse something someone else has built that is *much* better than building it yourself (you know, that whole "reuse" idea that we've all been chasing after for the past 50 years).
All of that aside, a huge amount of costs are associated with government bureaucracy. The profit margins on my contract, for example, are *limited* to 8.5%. No matter how much I spend, I'm only going to earn 8.5% - that profit margin is ridiculously tiny when you consider what a firm operating at commercial rates is going to make profits wise. "Oh...so you'll just drag it out so you make more money." Ha! Sure. The project drags out...but I can tell you from 15 years working with the US Government, it drags on and on not because I really want to keep working on the same stinkin' thing (redoing it over and over) for my own giggles and grins but because the US Government is a huge bureaucracy and it takes forever for them to make a decision on anything. Need clarification on a feature request? Well...first we have to work that through the Government Program Management Office (PMO) who oversees your project, then they need to potentially track down user-representatives, convene a meeting, possibly do a usability test and/or request a conference, get multiple disparate agencies who are going to use your tool to agree to put aside their differences and unique business processes, etc., etc., etc.
Meanwhile, the team is being held to an unrealistic schedule set for political reasons. To minimize risk of schedule slippage, you make a decision and press on accepting the fact that you may have to rework the feature you just developed. The government entities that are closest to you are just as frustrated as you are...and they know they can't let your team go onto other projects because then they lose the people who understand the project and its history - who have the requirements and design knowledge to meet the needs of the customer so they keep giving you money to keep your team together. You do your best to catch up on the copious amounts of documentation the government requires (for my 450K SLOC system
I completely get where you are coming from but (c) data necessary to identify the date, time and duration of a communication: should at least prove the "My browser speed-up plugin visited those sites, not me.". That still leaves the "an uknown hacker broke-in and used my account" argument out there, however. :)
I agree. It would be great if they could focus on the "It's electric" pitch. Unfortunately, the very next complaint would be: "there's no where for me to plug-in" or "it takes too long to charge the battery...what's the point, I can only ever charge it when I'm at home."
Its got to be about building interest in electric/hybrids instead. The way to do that is tell someone you are going to save them money at the pump because you are going to get them 100MPG.
Right now, I spend about $120 a month on gas -- and that's really me just going back and forth to my job. I've got about a 13 gallon tank and I get about 20 mpg. If I was able to get 1300 miles out of 1 tank of gasoline my gasoline fuel bill for one month would be 20% less than what I pay for a single week now.
Even if you add $50.00 to that cost, I would *still* come out ahead every month. My carbon foot-print might remain about the same but I would be consolidating that footprint with others at the electric company (waiting for the day when the tech at the electric company could be swapped out for something cleaner).
Unfortunately, I would not *yet* come out completely ahead financially because the cost of purchasing an electric car is still too high. However, if the cost of the car was reduced because more people were purchasing them *and* battery technology was such that they could be charged within +/- 20% of what it takes a person to fill their car today *and* their was enough infrastructure to support going cross-country, they'd be very viable.
You've got to start somewhere. Increasing awareness and showing people that they can reduce their gasoline fuel bill is one way to heighten interest in the idea of owning an electric car. Interest inspires demand which will hopefully inspire companies to invest in better battery technology, etc. When the technology is there, fueling stations become feasible.
Its a start.
I think the thing to get excited about here is that this solution...along with any electric car in general...is a step towards reducing and eliminating fossil fuels. Consider it a step towards consolidating our use of fossil fuels into specific distribution points on the electric grid. Say that it encourages the replacement of gasoline fueling stations with electric fueling stations. Say that it inspires advances in quick-charging battery cells for electric cars.
What do we have then? We've still got fossil fuels being burned at key points on the electric grid *and* the emissions from those locations is very significant. But we've also gained better battery technology and fewer gas stations and (here's the big one) we are poised to replace those electrical nodes with cleaner alternatives.
Part of the struggle moving from one technology to the next involves infrastructure replacement and consolidation of old resources. The Algaeus is just a tree in the overall forest. See the forest and then the Algaeus becomes pretty cool -- because it means we are trying *something* to move away from fossil fuels in our primary mode of transportation (at least in the US).
Probably because Apple got to where they are fairly (by building a superior product) and Microsoft got to where it is/was by questionable business practices and backroom deals with OEMs.
Okay...lets.
I don't have a source for the quote below but I believe it stands on its own; it brings another point of view to the issue: it isn't a matter of how much mercury is in corn syrup, a can of tuna, a single vaccine dose. It is a matter of dosage relative to weight: vaccines are dosed for *everyone* not 2 day old infants with a weight perhaps 3-5% of what their adult weight would be. This quote captures the essence of the issue with regards to vaccines and mercury content and provides an apt illustration for why it is a good thing that the stuff was removed from vaccines (other than the flu vaccine -- still in there):
And, for the record, this is still being debated even if the Courts believe there is no link:
http://www.usautism.org/USAAA_Newsletter/An_Epidemiological_Analysis_of_the_Autism_as_Mercury_Poisoning_Hypothesis1.pdf
Autism is certainly a complex disorder.
As I said, mercury is still used in the flu vaccine and even after thimerosal was removed from the vaccines it remained in the supply-chain for a number of years while stocks of vaccines were used up. It is also used during the manufacture of the vaccine and then removed at the end -- meaning it is *still* in there though in much lower amounts.
What is *really* funny to me is that most people spouting the value of vaccines have done very little research into the issue themselves; "vaccines" are a sacred cow that you are not supposed to challenge or speak out against. Most people have *never* read a
Any Blu-Ray disc I try and which doesn't play on component will go back as "defective" or "unfit for sale."
Good luck with that. Don't be surprised if the retailer sends you an apology and a new copy of the disc.
Be prepared for a lot of calls to regional customer service centers and having to wade past a couple of lower tiers of "customer service" on each call in order to get someone to give you your money back or a store credit (more likely). Each lower tier will claim that they cannot refund your money because of the piracy issues.
I only state this because I've actually had to go through this whole fiasco with DVDs which were legitimately defective. Bought one...defective. Returned it, took another from the same bin in exchange. Turned out defective. Returned to store, exchanged for another...same bin...defective. Pissed off, I went to a *different* store, bought the *same* title and had no problems. The first store likely got a bad batch; I had to fight with Store #1, locally and regionally, for a few hours to get them to refund my blasted money. When I first asked for refund, I was willing to a) prove the disc was defective by playing it on any DVD player in their store (if it worked, I told them I was willing to keep it and chalk it up to a defective player on my end) and b) take a store credit because I shopped there frequently. By the end of the ordeal, I wanted cash in my hand. What a hassle.
So...choose not to play the new games. You already imply that you realize it is not a 'need' (its a 'want'). Choose not to play. It can be done.
4 is earthly perfection, and it's the 4th day.
the significance of it wouldn't be the religious properties of the day, but the secular one.
{Clap! Clap!}
Nice. I see your point and I think it is valid (cf. the reactions of some Muslims to Hurricane "Private" Katrina and the reactions of some Christians to earthquakes in India and Pakistan). However, the original poster insinuated that there was a connection between the date - numerologically speaking - and any event that went bad on that day. The original parent post does not come across as even remotely interested in any connection between God and America; OP was snubbing his nose in disdain at Christians and Muslims because they are an easy target; he did not attempt, even humourously, to support why either Christians or Muslims would believe what he claimed and, instead, blasted a stereotype.
If God chose to punish America or any other place, the day would not matter; if you insinuate that the day does matter, you need to offer a bit more. If you are poking your fingers derisively at some other group, be they Christian, Muslim, Gays, Minorities, etc., even in jest, reconsider posting.
I'm done; I feel like I'm defending groups that, in many ways, I vehemently disagree with. However,
Enlightened, huh?
I'm not defending every belief of every religion out there but...the word "enlightened" is a word so full of superiority and dripping with disdain that I am surprised you would even choose to use it in a discussion like this. It is a word completely devoid of meaning in any debate that borders on philosophical because it can as easily be bandied about by either side. It is dismissive.
The Muslim, the Hindu, the Buddhist, the Christain can as easily dismiss an opinion on the same grounds: that you could never understand because you have not been "enlightened". You have not been blessed abundantly with understanding; you have not had your Eureka moment; etc. etc.
You might value science, observation and measurement, what it can offer - I see the allure and concur - but science is always in flux; we modify or tweak our facts over time as we learn more about the world around us. In other words, science does not yet have all the answers - and may never have all of the answers.
Some of those answers may not be knowable because we may have already dismissed some avenues of investigation...because they defy measurement and observation according to our current methodologies.
Guilty. My fault.
If anyone is biased, it's you for not realizing that the vast majority of the world's moral/prophetic bullshit comes from these two religions.
Irrelevant. From whence "the vast majority of the world's moral/prophetic bullshit comes from" has no bearing on whether or not I am biased and no bearing on whether or not my statements regarding snubbing Christians and Muslims for their beliefs were correct or otherwise. What if I am biased, does it change what I said? What if I am not biased? Any change? None.
I never asserted "bias" on the part of the OP - I insinuated prejudice and stated bigotry. Personally, I believe we are all biased - invariably, we cannot help but see the world through eyes with lenses formed from varying experiences - and that that bias is *impossible* to completely overcome. That is where prudence and thoughtful reckoning must factor in.
I've heard this somewhere else, so weigh it accordingly (perhaps someone can verify or deny): the shuttle crews today do not have the engineering backgrounds of the crews of the past i.e. they are not really qualified to say whether the shuttle is safe to fly or not and NASA cannot scrap a launch just because the crew feels uneasy for no substantiated reason.
In principle, I agree with you; however, if the crew is not really qualified, can we really give them the ability to stop the launch?
What?!?
Where in the heck are you getting that idea from? Bigotry? Bias? What the heck are you talking about? If you are trying to say that Christians or Muslims might claim it was punishment from God, for whatever weird reason you or they could come up with, then why link it to July 4th? If you are claiming July 4th holds some sort of numerological significance in either Christian or Muslim ideology, state your claim and back it up with at least a good conspiracy theory. If you are talking out of your @$$, as seems most likely, calm down and stop hating on people who think differently than you (isn't that what you want Christians and Muslims to do).
Not every Christian is a Pat-Robertson-Is-My-Prophet-Fundamentalist nor is every Muslim a radical terrorist; if you want to speak about a specific cult, point your bigoted finger at them specifically and not at the Christian and Muslim population in general.
Okay. I'm not a fan of Bill Gates the-Microsoft-Chief-Architect, but COME ON! Bill most likely had nothing to do with writing this policy; this type of policy is so standard as to render it boilerplate for any business. I would not be surprised if those who seek to specialize in HR policy get a little handbook filled with legal boilerplate and a tutorial on "How to Thwart the Efforts of IT Applicants" upon graduation from business college.
If there is any point to this policy it is merely to serve as a warning and to force a level of discretion upon the participants that may otherwise not exist.
Bill and Melinda could care less who you date or marry; they care only about one thing: do your actions impact the 'company' in an adverse manner. If/When your dating relationship turns sour and you are dumped, can you handle seeing that person everyday in the office? If you are the dumper, probably, but if you are the one dumped? Be prepared to move on; if your attitude is "Screw that! *THEY* should move on!" or if you feel you would be unable to move on (for any reason) - well, maybe you should reconsider because you probably are not ready to get romantically involved with someone from your office.
[my story] I served in the US Air Force for far too long; during that time there were strict rules forbidding romances between members of the officer corp and members of the enlisted corp. She was an officer and I was enlisted; we conducted ourselves with a high level of discretion, worked in different areas of the base and did not call attention to ourselves...as did numerous other couples in the same situation as we. It was about professionalism and self-control. Period. [/my story]
This is not good news. This is a PR stunt and only a PR stunt. This allows Microsoft to say "See...we tried to play nice but they wouldn't play with us. It's their fault not ours; we wanted interoperability but they wouldn't have it." Bullshit. It is almost certain that the type of "interoperability" they desire will only come in terms of closed-source, for-profit products and encumbered IP. I have no problem with this, mind you, but do not delude yourself about this truce: anything they offer that is truly open will likely be end-of-life and irrelevant shortly thereafter.
What does a "truce" with Microsoft look like exactly? Do you think MS is going to open up their proprietary protocols and data formats to the OSS community? How would that work, exactly? What exactly does OSS gain from a truce with Microsoft given that we can assume that they will not be any more likely to open their formats and tools than they are now?
Don't get me wrong: it is perfectly within Microsoft's rights to keep their IP closed and to charge access for it but do not deceive yourself about them wanting to suddenly play nice. What happens if/when some of that proprietary stuff leaks into OSS? Could that be what they are hoping for? Hoping OSS developers, lured under the guise of a truce, think they have rights to use information that they do not - poisoning the well, perhaps?
What about evangelism? Under this supposed truce, are we supposed to stop pointing out the weaknesses in Microsoft's products and methodologies in return for the same? Why would we do that? Who wins in that situation? Certainly not OSS which relies heavily upon word-of-mouth and grass roots efforts to spread; Microsoft wins because potentially fewer people are made aware of other choices that may exist both for operating systems and tools.
I realize this could be taken as an anti-Microsoft rant but what it really is is a "Don't trust Microsoft" rant. These guys are convicted monopolists who have a reputation for stabbing their partners in the back and putting them out of business. Why would/should we trust them when they say they want to make nice?
And yet you continue to pay for the same old crap, thereby eradicating the motivation for game developers to try something "risky" to warrant your attention. Why should game companies try something risky that *might* make them rich when they can try something tried and true that will make them profitable? Sure, every now and then you'll find a company willing to risk it all - but how often does that happen and for how long?
Stop playing MMOs; Vote with your wallet.
Palladium Fantasy - the FRPG that made Dragons respectable enemies again!
My original comment was not clear enough; my impression was that the fellow, of whom I spoke, did not find depth in the book until he had read it three or four times. It is like he made it his mission to find something worthwhile in the book...because it had garnered so much attention from the geek crowd; eventually he discovered what he was looking for (or convinced himself that it was there). I guess I just wasn't willing to work that hard for it.
I'm all for reading books for fun and I am not in the habit of comparing one book to another in terms of literary value - my personal opinions tend to skew strongly away from the Literati as a clique. I just found Snow Crash to be filled with cutout characters whose roles mapped strongly to their names ("Hero Protagonist"? Come on! It's a great play-on-words but its a stupid character name). Snow Crash was written by an author who understood the geek crowd: he knew that we liked to play with language and he knew that a 15-year old, skater, anti-authoritarian, femme fatale with a penchant for sex combined with a pseudo-Asian, katana wielding loner and a brutish antagonist was a good combination to attract the RPG crowd. He understood that we were ready for something post-Cyberpunk, where everything was glitz and flash, and that we wanted something with a bit more darkness and grit. Snow Crash read, to me, like a tabletop RPG gaming session transcript and had about as much depth as one.
Yes, there were some - sorta - new ideas in the book but nothing particularly earth-shattering. Perhaps I read the book too "late"; perhaps the ideas when first presented were revolutionary but as a professional software developer who was keeping abreast of changes in emerging network technologies (including the web), I just didn't find the book all that insightful. I'll also admit that I had a hard time getting past the 2D characters and average writing.
The fact that Neal Stephenson went on to have a great writing career does not obviate the fact that his first book *may* not have been everything it was hyped to be. The Baroque Cycle and Cryptonomicon also got rave reviews; the man has talent and dedication - I just never understood the fascination with Snow Crash.
I did hear one guy talk about reading it three or four times and discovering "depth" in it. Come on! You should not have to read a book 3-4 times before you discover depth in it. It just wasn't that good.
I'm ready to defend myself in court.
Good luck with that...your tail will be handed to you. No matter how you try to portray it, the point will remain that you downloaded and viewed content distributed through (presently) illegal channels.
Look. I agree with you in principle; my family thinks its funny how upset I get over those anti-piracy commercials. My five-year-old can recognize those as "the commercials Daddy don't like". But your "jab" at "The Man" or whatever it is you *think* you are doing to the *AAs out there only fuels their propaganda. Try before you buy does not apply.
You've got plenty of options to exercise your rights that are perfectly legal:
When you circumvent the legal distribution channel (whether you agree with it or not), what you tell the *AA is: "I *really* value your product, enough so that I will do whatever it takes to get it and I'm also willing to contribute to your propaganda regarding piracy and illegal downloads by actually being a participant in your (already) inflated statistics!". What you are not telling them is: "Your product sucks, your business model sucks, your distribution channels suck and your attitude to wards your own customers sucks. Until you change your act, I'm not willing to give you any more of my money."
Which do you think will be more effective:
Here's a hint: This isn't "civil disobedience" - its theft of service (or something of the sort - spare me the "theft only applies to physical property, yadda, yadda, yadda arguments - the point is that you've not paid for something for which you are obligated (presently) to play; there is no one feeling sorry for you who is willing to do anything about it.
You want to be effective: convince your friends and family to stop going to the first-run theaters; convince your friends and family to not download DRM'ed DVD images (should be an easy sell); if you can, convince your friends and family to not purchase DVDs.
If you value the content enough to view it (and you are giving up 120 minutes, on average, of your time to view it) you should pay the $3-4. Its not your content and the owner of that content has a right to earn money from it. Your *only* rights are to choose not to view the content or purchase the product upon which the content is found.
That's okay. I understand: you probably haven't heard it before...in any of its myriad variations over the last 5 years.
Yeah...that Soviet Russia joke: you just never see the punchline coming, do ya? Never get tired of it.
Hey! Have you guys seen the one that goes...oh how was it again: something about "welcoming our [fill in the blank] overlords.". Yeah. That one is funny as hell! If you think this Soviet Russia stuff is funny - man! you'll be rolling on that one.
Yeah.
Oh! Then there's that one that goes "Step 1. [fill in the blank] Step 2. ??? Step 3. Profit!" *That* is one funny joke! Never get tired of that.
Where do people get these jokes? Every punchline so original...so...so...unexpected.
Hey, Mods - you know, I just gave you, like, TWO new jokes you've probably never seen before. Will you mod me +1, Funny too?
You use the resources you have: some people have time, some people have money.
If your time is more valuable to you then your money, you will use your money to minimize the time you have to spend in game. It is an utterly ridiculous waste to time to spend hours and hours grinding away in a videogame when you do not have to.
Its called "grinding" for a reason; and its not because it is fun (in this case :)).
Boy, you got that right! Sure is great that when *you* started playing these games you sprang forth from the head of a god, complete with knowledge *and* |\/|@d sk!llz.
Arrogance like this is what keeps online games identified with the flaccid prick in the minds of many. Congratulations.
No game can survive indefinitely without new blood; better to help the noobs than to kill your favorite game because your attitude sent them looking for some other game. Some day, it will even happen to WoW.
This was nearly the same thought that occurred to me when I read the OP. There is very little that I find alluring, at all, about online gaming primarily *because* of the people who play online games. I realize that I am generalizing, to some extent, but to say that online gaming is a level playing field where all participants have the same chance of victory is just wishful thinking. Cheats, cheats, cheats and sore losers who drop connection before end-game.