Well, I'd say then that part of your job right now is to be that sales engineer. Tell the sales guys you want comission and see if they're still interested in using your time. The key to sales people is money. There is nothing (and I mean NOTHING) else that they are interested in. If they get a "free" resource they will use and abuse it. If they have to pay for it they will use it more wisely.
Most companies that sell highly technical products have "sales engineers" that go along with the sales guys and explain how things work while the sales guy jumps up and down in the corner about what a cool deal he's going to make. Y'all should look into it.
The solution to your second problem is to make it a "stand-up" meeting. Everyone has to stand (not just the person talking) while the status is given. Tends to keep those kind of meetings short and to the point.
Yes, this is a great idea. We can also use it to find out who wrote the ransom note for the kidnapped child. And, who is distributing those flyers agitating for legalized marijuana. Oh, and how about those people who wrote nasty things about the President. Yes, this is a fantastic idea. Let's make sure that we can find out who printed any document because, after all, innocent people do not have anything to hide.
It's one thing for Amnesty International to make the statement that MS is helping to violate human rights. However, citing MS as the violator of a UN Human Rights Code seems the height of hypocrisy. Is not China a member of the United Nations? Why is the Chinese government not being censured for failing to abide by a code which they must have approved (or abstained from voting on) as China is a permanent member of the Security Council and hence has veto power over all UN resolutions.
A truly dangerous trend is that large corporations are using their lobbying power to get their rules turned into laws.
When a corporation makes a draconian and/or stupid rule, there are usually pretty finite limits to the penalties they can impose. If a cable company wants to make a rule that NAT is not allowed on their network, the maximum penalty they can usually impose is the loss of service. Also, their draconian rule becomes a competitive disadvantage for them, especially as people become more educated. Corporate rules can also be changed easily if they realize the rectal-cranial inversion.
Making this rule into a law, however, expands the penalties drastically, removes the competitive disadvantage and leaves something lying around in the law books that is almost impossible to get rid of. This is a trend that really needs to be noticed and stopped.
It's not that they threw the decimal part away. They decided to make it "easier" by changing to a nice round mm figure (45.0). Presumably they redrilled all of the holes at the same time to the new, larger size.
In the late '70's if you had a hard drive going around with you, you would have had it on a not-so-small cart....with a not-so-small extension trailing behind.
Those things are fine when you're a teenager. When you're a small child, though, I don't think it's appropriate. There's a lot of noise of late about how American children are becoming a bunch of little lardasses. When I was a child, back in the 70's, you couldn't have kept a group of us standing still at a bus stop. We would have been running everywhere.
Have you ever wondered how they get DVD/CD images (we're not talking DivX w/ AC3)?
Ummm....they go buy a copy? CD's AND DVD's are trivial to copy and you don't need some special "master image" to make bootlegs. Don't forget that CSS is NOT a copy protection scheme - it's a content control scheme. The player knows how to decrypt the content, you don't need to decrypt to copy it.
Well, I don't know how Photoshop is detecting them but according to what other people have posted the algorithm seems to be fairly robust and does not require the bills to be held "tautly stretched out, perfectly parallel to the camera's image plane, under even lighting". The face of the top bill is completely visible and I suspect that if these had been US $20 bills the photo would have been rejected by Photoshop. I would also have had to file with the gov't about making such a large cash transaction.
DVD players that won't let you skip commercials? Computer systems that won't let you boot "non-trusted" OS's?
"What's next?" is always a legitimate question because at one point this was "what's next" and someone like you would have said "Oh, that's silly and why should it matter anyway - just ignore it." And then it happens and we have a little less freedom, but it really doesn't matter because the next logical step won't ever happen.
The price of freedom is eternal vigilance - Thomas Jefferson, another revolutionary nutcase
People like to scan the cover art and make "nice" copies for their friends. Not legal, not ethical, not fair use. Making a collage of cover art for your wall - fair use. How does Photoshop know which is which?
Yes, it does prevent many of them. Since you can't scan the bill, how do you ever get it to the point where you can change it to comply with the law?
Your other point, about not buying the product, is valid. However, if the information is not disclosed to you how can you make an informed decision?
You talk about a "group of people" telling a manufacturer that they cannot produce and sell a particular product. This is called advocacy. How does a manufacturer learn that it's products are not well received if no one is ever supposed to say anything? How will the market ever learn enough to avoid products that do bad things if no one brings the subject up? We have the right to say "this is bunk!" You have the right to ignore it and buy Photoshop if you like.
It's a tool that doesn't work right and that has arbitrary restrictions built into it that are not disclosed. What's next - looking for a little RIAA watermark in an image and refusing to work on those?
There's a typical argument trotted out of "there's no legitimate reason to do X therefore you shouldn't complain if you are prevented from doing X". Typically it just shows a lack of imagination for the person making the argument. There are many good reasons why I might want to work with an image of currency. My child might be writing a report for school about money. I might like to have pictures of money on my desktop. When my wife gave birth here in Japan we had to pay the hospital bill in cash. I have a picture of hundreds of 10,000 yen bills since I'll probably never have that much in cash in hand again. What's wrong with me taking that picture and using it?
We're starting to see more and more software that won't allow you to do "X" because someone thinks it's naughty. We stand at the beginning of a new age as products become "smarter". The political thinking and attitudes that we develop now about products that are "good guys" preventing us from committing crimes will be with us for some time. Would you like automobiles that do not allow you to speed? How about a hammer that refuses to break windows?
The phrase "Linux desktop" makes a lot of sense when you use it referring to running Linux ON people's desktop (the top of their desk) as opposed to in the server room.
Actually, no, I was being told by the processor architect in a small talk for the OS team that we just barely escaped by the skin of our teeth, sort of, and that they had not antcipated the huge amount of money that Intel was going to be able to throw at the x86 architecture.
All things being equal, RISC gives you more bang for your buck. The difference is that Intel has pushed CISC, or specifically the x86 architecture, as fast or faster than RISC by using more bucks. The amount of R&D dollars powered into x86 vs the amount poured into PowerPC or Alpha is overwhelming.
When I was at Apple our processor architect, Phil Koch, gave a talk in, I think, 1997, where he said that the PowerPC consortium had essentially optimized for power consumption and dollars spent on R&D. What was amazing at that time was that PowerPC was competitive with Intel given much lower power consumption and much lower investment of R&D dollars. However, noone really cared about lower power consumption so it didn't translate into any real advantage. Without the R&D dollar leverage given by RISC, however, the PowerPC would not have been able to compete at all. Pushing the 68K architecture to be competitive with Intel with the same R&D dollars as PowerPC would have been impossible
Only not quite as functional. The pathname entry is good, but it looks like it doesn't have the quick drill down. If you're going to copy, why not copy the good parts?
Re:very strange stuff in the article about Churchi
on
What You Can't Say
·
· Score: 1
Yes....especially in a country that had just come out of the long policy of "appeasement" of Hitler which resulted in Germany taking Czechoslovakia and Austria. Churchill in 1940 had just become prime minister and was presented with cleaning up the mess left behind by "Peace in Our Time" Chamberlain and was dealing with the very real threat of England being defeated and occupied by Nazi Germany. One might note that Churchill's warnings against Hitler and Nazi Germany had been squelched for years by calling him and his allies "warmongers".
Slashdot Mirror
It automatically mounted the file system when you inserted the disk. You could define the code that mounts disks as an "application"
But it's used to describe a windowing product. It's kind of like Ford taking out a trademark on "Car".
Well, I'd say then that part of your job right now is to be that sales engineer. Tell the sales guys you want comission and see if they're still interested in using your time. The key to sales people is money. There is nothing (and I mean NOTHING) else that they are interested in. If they get a "free" resource they will use and abuse it. If they have to pay for it they will use it more wisely.
Most companies that sell highly technical products have "sales engineers" that go along with the sales guys and explain how things work while the sales guy jumps up and down in the corner about what a cool deal he's going to make. Y'all should look into it.
The solution to your second problem is to make it a "stand-up" meeting. Everyone has to stand (not just the person talking) while the status is given. Tends to keep those kind of meetings short and to the point.
Yes, this is a great idea. We can also use it to find out who wrote the ransom note for the kidnapped child. And, who is distributing those flyers agitating for legalized marijuana. Oh, and how about those people who wrote nasty things about the President. Yes, this is a fantastic idea. Let's make sure that we can find out who printed any document because, after all, innocent people do not have anything to hide.
It's one thing for Amnesty International to make the statement that MS is helping to violate human rights. However, citing MS as the violator of a UN Human Rights Code seems the height of hypocrisy. Is not China a member of the United Nations? Why is the Chinese government not being censured for failing to abide by a code which they must have approved (or abstained from voting on) as China is a permanent member of the Security Council and hence has veto power over all UN resolutions.
In Soviet Russia, SCO is owned by ABIs!
A truly dangerous trend is that large corporations are using their lobbying power to get their rules turned into laws.
When a corporation makes a draconian and/or stupid rule, there are usually pretty finite limits to the penalties they can impose. If a cable company wants to make a rule that NAT is not allowed on their network, the maximum penalty they can usually impose is the loss of service. Also, their draconian rule becomes a competitive disadvantage for them, especially as people become more educated. Corporate rules can also be changed easily if they realize the rectal-cranial inversion.
Making this rule into a law, however, expands the penalties drastically, removes the competitive disadvantage and leaves something lying around in the law books that is almost impossible to get rid of. This is a trend that really needs to be noticed and stopped.
Why, obviously, Linux has lobbying!
It's not that they threw the decimal part away. They decided to make it "easier" by changing to a nice round mm figure (45.0). Presumably they redrilled all of the holes at the same time to the new, larger size.
Every planetary system gets one IPV6 address. Problem solved!
In the late '70's if you had a hard drive going around with you, you would have had it on a not-so-small cart....with a not-so-small extension trailing behind.
Those things are fine when you're a teenager. When you're a small child, though, I don't think it's appropriate. There's a lot of noise of late about how American children are becoming a bunch of little lardasses. When I was a child, back in the 70's, you couldn't have kept a group of us standing still at a bus stop. We would have been running everywhere.
Have you ever wondered how they get DVD/CD images (we're not talking DivX w/ AC3)?
Ummm....they go buy a copy? CD's AND DVD's are trivial to copy and you don't need some special "master image" to make bootlegs. Don't forget that CSS is NOT a copy protection scheme - it's a content control scheme. The player knows how to decrypt the content, you don't need to decrypt to copy it.
Well, I don't know how Photoshop is detecting them but according to what other people have posted the algorithm seems to be fairly robust and does not require the bills to be held "tautly stretched out, perfectly parallel to the camera's image plane, under even lighting". The face of the top bill is completely visible and I suspect that if these had been US $20 bills the photo would have been rejected by Photoshop. I would also have had to file with the gov't about making such a large cash transaction.
DVD players that won't let you skip commercials? Computer systems that won't let you boot "non-trusted" OS's?
"What's next?" is always a legitimate question because at one point this was "what's next" and someone like you would have said "Oh, that's silly and why should it matter anyway - just ignore it." And then it happens and we have a little less freedom, but it really doesn't matter because the next logical step won't ever happen.
The price of freedom is eternal vigilance - Thomas Jefferson, another revolutionary nutcase
People like to scan the cover art and make "nice" copies for their friends. Not legal, not ethical, not fair use. Making a collage of cover art for your wall - fair use. How does Photoshop know which is which?
Yes, it does prevent many of them. Since you can't scan the bill, how do you ever get it to the point where you can change it to comply with the law?
Your other point, about not buying the product, is valid. However, if the information is not disclosed to you how can you make an informed decision?
You talk about a "group of people" telling a manufacturer that they cannot produce and sell a particular product. This is called advocacy. How does a manufacturer learn that it's products are not well received if no one is ever supposed to say anything? How will the market ever learn enough to avoid products that do bad things if no one brings the subject up? We have the right to say "this is bunk!" You have the right to ignore it and buy Photoshop if you like.
It's a tool that doesn't work right and that has arbitrary restrictions built into it that are not disclosed. What's next - looking for a little RIAA watermark in an image and refusing to work on those?
There's a typical argument trotted out of "there's no legitimate reason to do X therefore you shouldn't complain if you are prevented from doing X". Typically it just shows a lack of imagination for the person making the argument. There are many good reasons why I might want to work with an image of currency. My child might be writing a report for school about money. I might like to have pictures of money on my desktop. When my wife gave birth here in Japan we had to pay the hospital bill in cash. I have a picture of hundreds of 10,000 yen bills since I'll probably never have that much in cash in hand again. What's wrong with me taking that picture and using it?
We're starting to see more and more software that won't allow you to do "X" because someone thinks it's naughty. We stand at the beginning of a new age as products become "smarter". The political thinking and attitudes that we develop now about products that are "good guys" preventing us from committing crimes will be with us for some time. Would you like automobiles that do not allow you to speed? How about a hammer that refuses to break windows?
The phrase "Linux desktop" makes a lot of sense when you use it referring to running Linux ON people's desktop (the top of their desk) as opposed to in the server room.
Actually, no, I was being told by the processor architect in a small talk for the OS team that we just barely escaped by the skin of our teeth, sort of, and that they had not antcipated the huge amount of money that Intel was going to be able to throw at the x86 architecture.
All things being equal, RISC gives you more bang for your buck. The difference is that Intel has pushed CISC, or specifically the x86 architecture, as fast or faster than RISC by using more bucks. The amount of R&D dollars powered into x86 vs the amount poured into PowerPC or Alpha is overwhelming.
When I was at Apple our processor architect, Phil Koch, gave a talk in, I think, 1997, where he said that the PowerPC consortium had essentially optimized for power consumption and dollars spent on R&D. What was amazing at that time was that PowerPC was competitive with Intel given much lower power consumption and much lower investment of R&D dollars. However, noone really cared about lower power consumption so it didn't translate into any real advantage. Without the R&D dollar leverage given by RISC, however, the PowerPC would not have been able to compete at all. Pushing the 68K architecture to be competitive with Intel with the same R&D dollars as PowerPC would have been impossible
That's pre 10.3 - the Panther one looks a lot like this. It has the list of "favorites" on the left.
Only not quite as functional. The pathname entry is good, but it looks like it doesn't have the quick drill down. If you're going to copy, why not copy the good parts?
Yes....especially in a country that had just come out of the long policy of "appeasement" of Hitler which resulted in Germany taking Czechoslovakia and Austria. Churchill in 1940 had just become prime minister and was presented with cleaning up the mess left behind by "Peace in Our Time" Chamberlain and was dealing with the very real threat of England being defeated and occupied by Nazi Germany. One might note that Churchill's warnings against Hitler and Nazi Germany had been squelched for years by calling him and his allies "warmongers".