Why not just drop into the ocean, retrieve and reuse? Idiots.
I was born in the 70's, but even I know about the rockets from the 60's which had a capsule that dropped into the ocean, was retreived, and reused. Now where do you think the satellite that brings you your cable TV stations would fit in that little capsule? On the lap of one of the astronauts? They can just hold it out the window when they get there and then drop back down.
The current shuttle is a multi-purpose, partly re-usable vehicle. Disgustingly expensive, but invented in the 70's. Let's see your plans for a better, more efficient, and less costly model using 1975 technology.
And what is their failed/success mission ratio? How many have failed in the last 15 years? How many have succeeded? How many missions were executed? How many missions are done for sending corporate satelites into space compared to purely scientific expeditions?
How about getting more informed before building an opinion? The probe smashed into Mars because of the different measurement units between the US and european space agencies. It was a collaborative effort and the group responsible for checking calculations missed converting measurement units in one of their formulas.
Almost every mission of the last 15 years has been successful. You apparently only pay attention to the sparse few that fail.
Also, that "rediculous little robot" was sent partly to scan the surface for the soft spot that your ass would be landing on if you were fortunate enough to ever go to Mars. Let's skip the rediculous photography and just drop you there and see where your head cracks open.
Agreed, we are innocent of a crime until proven guilty. But a CRA holds us guilty of debt until proven innocent. "they do not judge they merely report" This is incorrect. They use computer analysis to generate ratings, i.e. judgements. I used to develop software for a major credit card company, so I'm a little familiar with it. Banks may have their own analysis process for credit data from CRAs, but CRAs license use of their systems to get ratings. This helps the little creditors compete with the big ones. So they do pass judgement, and most companies rely on the final say of a CRA, not just for the details, but also for that precious rating.
"the numbers stay the same no matter how many times you add up the votes!"
Are you kidding? I'm all for technology... but when it comes to voting, I want hard proof of my vote, not a magnetic or optical bit. Format the hard drive, and my vote is lost forever. No proof left behind.
"treat it as a critical systems project" Life support and chemo are critical at the time administered, but if later on you break the life support system after it's used, the patient is already off of it and lives. Critical systems don't need to show evidence of their work, but voting systems sure do.
Very practical, but basic principle would lead me to think that none of this should be necessary in the first place. The law keeps us innocent of crimes until proven guilty. CRAs keep us guilty until proven innocent (see my story which I posted earlier). Lack of morals in the CRA business are the fundamental problem. And that won't change 'till they get a major butt whipping.
I would tend to agree, but I cringe at every sight of the word lawsuit. My fingers feel dirty just typing it. It's a drastically overused response to problems. In this case, I guess I could have tried to file charges since what the CRA did was illegal. I hate the feeling of a lawsuit being the best solution to a problem. I guess I just wish it would never have to come to that.
It's very sad that credit agencies exist to shed light on those who don't take responsibility, and yet don't always take responsibility themselves.
something else should be added here. General lack of distrust and strict rules promotes bad behavior when overdone. If everyone around me tells me I can't be trusted, then why should I bother trying to always be honest? Might as well act the way I'm expected to.
I completely agree with your point of not spending money you don't have. Creditors are free to give money to those they wish, but the customer needs to be wise. I think the assumption that the common person can not be trusted is promoting the fraud which in turn promotes the feelings of distruct; it's an endless cycle.
This is true, and I have my own story to prove it:
About 2 years ago I applied to rent an apartment. They ran a credit check, and said my credit wasn't "perfect" and therefore I could not move in. It was the only apartment available in the area and I HAD to move immediately. The leasing office wouldn't give me a copy of the report, but told me about it. I got a copy from the agency, Equifax.
Stated at the top: Birthdate - xx/xx/1975
One credit item stated: Creditor: Macy's Amount: $xxx.xx Date issued: xx/xx/1968
Apparently I was issued a credit card before I was born, and since I used to work for MasterCard, I know that this was before credit cards were even invented! I called Equifax, they wouldn't remove it even though it's impossible. After a dozen phone calls to Macy's, someone there sent a letter to Equifax and they removed it.
Point being: the CRA was able to publisize my "bad" credit when the supposed credit problem isn't even feasable! Infuriated doesn't express how I felt. This one had nothing to do with technology; only lack of compassion, lack of caring, and hunger for money.
They won't be watching the commercials... That's a very good point. Basic economics shows that if companies lose the ability to make shows payed for by commercials, they'll simply find another route.
I remember when cable was something relatively new. I couldn't, and still don't, understand how they can show commercials for something you pay for. I simply refuse to have cable. If we skip all commercials, and advertisers no longer pay the TV companies, then the shows will just cost us more money to watch; simple as that. And advertisers will probably then come up with better, even more annoying ways of getting our attention.
Oracle on Solaris is great, but even that can take an eternity to load on a monster system. The daemon must have had so much to look into when it first launched. The warehouse was 3 terabytes last time I saw it.
I used one of those E10K for an Oracle data warehouse at MasterCard. It's a big fat sucker with tons of ram. Some moron accidentally tripped over the power wire and it took 2 hours to bring it back up one day. I can't tell you how fast Oracle ran on that puppy, but I was impressed. I was only able to write one PL/SQL script that "overworked" the server.
Quite true. In this instance it's not the technology that's not working. A well developed web site can easily technically replace a BBS. The big difference is that BBSes were never open to the general public. You needed at least the unpublished phone number, and in many instances needed to know a member to join. So I don't think the technology is as much of the problem of bring back those BBS feelings (that is if enough people really want them back) compared to their implementation and membership. Since only the local community "smart kids" would be on any BBS, it naturally fostered a small, closer-knit community. In general, the internet doesn't, but I don't feel that's due at all to technology.
Why should an author only be paid once when two people gain the ideas or learn the stories? Simple. Because charging money based on brain obsorbtion is rediculous. The invention of the video tape was originally thought to render the movie theater obsolete. Well more people go to movies now than ever before... why? Because of the medium. I can't bring bring friends into a movie theater without paying for them, but I can invite them to my home to watch it on tape (or now DVD). If you notice it's illegal for me to buy a movie and charge others to watch it, only theaters are permitted based on copyrights, but I have every right to by a DVD and then sell it to a friend. I remember the movie, but I don't owe anyone anything. I paid for it.
Don't forget that when we first pay for a new book, we're already paying for the author's content. His one copy of content is sold. After that, I own that copy of his content, which he/she willingly sold to me. I can then do whatever I like with it.
Let's not remove the rights that capitalism gives us. Once you start charging for brain input it'll turn into "1984".
Bringing back the neighborhood BBS is not the goal. I remember being on BBSes in NYC every day after school. It was a simple online community. While those feelings may not exist with any web site, going technologically backwards is no solution. Every feature I have ever seen on any BBS already exists easily on the web. One key difference is that each BBS community was relatively small and local. It's like moving from the suburbs to mid-town Manhattan. Out in the burbs people meet on the street and say hello. In mid-town you don't meet anyone unless introduced by someone you know. A good virtual community needs small, friendly neighborhoods like BBSes once were, but not BBSes themselves.
With a CS degree and some years of experience, I have to add my opinion. Generally a CS grad is looked at as more of a technical, hardcore developer. If you're in it for the programming and general software development, stick with CS. Learning the very lowest foundation of how computers work, which is what CS is all about, will help you adopt any future concepts and languages much easier. CIS, with more foundation in business and less technical, may prepare you for programming when you graduate, but what you learn is at a higher level.
Basically, if you want to stay very technical, I highly recommend CS. Not only will it help when first looking for a job, but what's learned will help you stay technical. If you're more into being a DBA, managing technical teams, networking, technical writing, or something like that, then CIS would suffice.
by Microsoft . . . There are lots of corporate and individual Outlook users out there. Adding any digits or changing any format will require a new release of Outlook. All of the past versions have been basically the same anyway, and what more could you pack into an e-mail client?
So it's just a plot from Microsoft to force us to buy a new version of Outlook 2006.
One limit with Exchange that my company reached was a ceiling for the number of contacts that it can manage. We have custom contact management software, and for various reasons we wanted the contact list available directly through Exchange. I don't know exactly what the limit is, but it couldn't store our 150,000+ contacts.
As for features, I'd really like to see good project management capabilities. Right now, I can't even find the feature I want in any project management software (please post any especially good ones if anyone knows of any). Employee calendars and project management should be easily tied together, and for obvious reasons. For example, if my department has a meeting about a specific project, I want it tied into any project mgmt reports. Ghantt charts (however that's spelled) just don't cut it for me. I should easily be able to see if my co-workers are busy, and if mgmt allows, let everyone see what projects everyone else is working on and on what schedule. With Outlook you have to arrange a meeting, then it compares to their calendars, but sometimes I'd like to just see everyone on my calendar, and I'm sure mgmt would love that. And of course other obvious features are speed and expandability. VBA in Outlook/Exchange stinks. The object model is bulky and very slow. I want to be able to drastically customize the calendar (for myself or anyone else I choose), maybe adding features myself.
I know nothing of P4 performance comparisons, but I'm certain this chip release will not flop. Some people, who don't put enough thought into things, start to druel when they see "1.5 gHz". Most will just assume it's vastly superior to prior models and will buy it. Many corporate IT departments consistantly buy the very latest without doing any research. If some employees need new workstations, they just order the latest thing out there from their regular vendor. Then there's the consumer who just purchases what sounds like a great new toy.
Those who comparison shop may see the lack of benefits and not purchase it, but I'm sure plenty of others will.
Companies and the military are run as dictatorships for a simple reason. They need clear, quick, and decisive guidance. A leader of a company can either let the marketing people run the company's image, or the marketing department can follow and grow the CEO's desired image. Being democratic, I would imagine that would leave the marketing department on their own, making them present ideas and then voting upon them. I suppose their "elected leaders" would have to ensure that technology remains the main goal while money takes second place. I wish all companies would operate in a way that put their services/products ahead of the money.
I disagree. If you run a web server from your own computer, it gets connected through the telco and telco/ISP servers and routers, but you are still in control of the domain. When you purchase services from the telco and ISP, even to "rent" server space to host a site, the person who registers the domain is still the "owner". He/she may not own the actual wiring or even the computer the domain runs off of, but the registrant is still responsible for that domain name. The intent is still to remain public.
The telco, ISP, and other services we buy are just that - services which get a person what they want: their own domain, which is public. I think we're just looking at the exact same thing from different points of view.
Why should the information not be public? The internet is not a private franchise, but a public network. Sure, you have to pay a company in order to get wired into it, but from there it's public. If you want to register a domain name, you're basically asking for a public seat on the network. If you want the contact information you provide to be kept private, then use another set of valid contact info where you can be reached, or don't register the domain name at all. It's just that simple.
You obviously aren't from New York City. A large part of the fleet of garbage trucks run on natural gas. The 2 landfills are in Staten Island, and they are the largest landfills in the continent. One of them is the highest point above sea level on the east coast. The landfills produce enough methane gas to supply every public school in the city with gas for science labs. Manufacturing consumption is cut by re-using old parts, and by charities not having to buy new computers when they can get re-used ones for free.
Slashdot Mirror
Why not just drop into the ocean, retrieve and reuse? Idiots.
I was born in the 70's, but even I know about the rockets from the 60's which had a capsule that dropped into the ocean, was retreived, and reused. Now where do you think the satellite that brings you your cable TV stations would fit in that little capsule? On the lap of one of the astronauts? They can just hold it out the window when they get there and then drop back down.
The current shuttle is a multi-purpose, partly re-usable vehicle. Disgustingly expensive, but invented in the 70's. Let's see your plans for a better, more efficient, and less costly model using 1975 technology.
And what is their failed/success mission ratio? How many have failed in the last 15 years? How many have succeeded? How many missions were executed? How many missions are done for sending corporate satelites into space compared to purely scientific expeditions?
How about getting more informed before building an opinion? The probe smashed into Mars because of the different measurement units between the US and european space agencies. It was a collaborative effort and the group responsible for checking calculations missed converting measurement units in one of their formulas.
Almost every mission of the last 15 years has been successful. You apparently only pay attention to the sparse few that fail.
Also, that "rediculous little robot" was sent partly to scan the surface for the soft spot that your ass would be landing on if you were fortunate enough to ever go to Mars. Let's skip the rediculous photography and just drop you there and see where your head cracks open.
Agreed, we are innocent of a crime until proven guilty. But a CRA holds us guilty of debt until proven innocent. "they do not judge they merely report" This is incorrect. They use computer analysis to generate ratings, i.e. judgements. I used to develop software for a major credit card company, so I'm a little familiar with it. Banks may have their own analysis process for credit data from CRAs, but CRAs license use of their systems to get ratings. This helps the little creditors compete with the big ones. So they do pass judgement, and most companies rely on the final say of a CRA, not just for the details, but also for that precious rating.
"the numbers stay the same no matter how many times you add up the votes!"
Are you kidding? I'm all for technology... but when it comes to voting, I want hard proof of my vote, not a magnetic or optical bit. Format the hard drive, and my vote is lost forever. No proof left behind.
"treat it as a critical systems project" Life support and chemo are critical at the time administered, but if later on you break the life support system after it's used, the patient is already off of it and lives. Critical systems don't need to show evidence of their work, but voting systems sure do.
Very practical, but basic principle would lead me to think that none of this should be necessary in the first place. The law keeps us innocent of crimes until proven guilty. CRAs keep us guilty until proven innocent (see my story which I posted earlier). Lack of morals in the CRA business are the fundamental problem. And that won't change 'till they get a major butt whipping.
I would tend to agree, but I cringe at every sight of the word lawsuit. My fingers feel dirty just typing it. It's a drastically overused response to problems. In this case, I guess I could have tried to file charges since what the CRA did was illegal. I hate the feeling of a lawsuit being the best solution to a problem. I guess I just wish it would never have to come to that.
It's very sad that credit agencies exist to shed light on those who don't take responsibility, and yet don't always take responsibility themselves.
something else should be added here. General lack of distrust and strict rules promotes bad behavior when overdone. If everyone around me tells me I can't be trusted, then why should I bother trying to always be honest? Might as well act the way I'm expected to.
I completely agree with your point of not spending money you don't have. Creditors are free to give money to those they wish, but the customer needs to be wise. I think the assumption that the common person can not be trusted is promoting the fraud which in turn promotes the feelings of distruct; it's an endless cycle.
This is true, and I have my own story to prove it:
About 2 years ago I applied to rent an apartment. They ran a credit check, and said my credit wasn't "perfect" and therefore I could not move in. It was the only apartment available in the area and I HAD to move immediately. The leasing office wouldn't give me a copy of the report, but told me about it. I got a copy from the agency, Equifax.
Stated at the top: Birthdate - xx/xx/1975
One credit item stated:
Creditor: Macy's
Amount: $xxx.xx
Date issued: xx/xx/1968
Apparently I was issued a credit card before I was born, and since I used to work for MasterCard, I know that this was before credit cards were even invented! I called Equifax, they wouldn't remove it even though it's impossible. After a dozen phone calls to Macy's, someone there sent a letter to Equifax and they removed it.
Point being: the CRA was able to publisize my "bad" credit when the supposed credit problem isn't even feasable! Infuriated doesn't express how I felt. This one had nothing to do with technology; only lack of compassion, lack of caring, and hunger for money.
To visualize the communications between boss and worker, just envision a giant void.
They won't be watching the commercials... That's a very good point. Basic economics shows that if companies lose the ability to make shows payed for by commercials, they'll simply find another route.
I remember when cable was something relatively new. I couldn't, and still don't, understand how they can show commercials for something you pay for. I simply refuse to have cable. If we skip all commercials, and advertisers no longer pay the TV companies, then the shows will just cost us more money to watch; simple as that. And advertisers will probably then come up with better, even more annoying ways of getting our attention.
Oracle on Solaris is great, but even that can take an eternity to load on a monster system. The daemon must have had so much to look into when it first launched. The warehouse was 3 terabytes last time I saw it.
I used one of those E10K for an Oracle data warehouse at MasterCard. It's a big fat sucker with tons of ram. Some moron accidentally tripped over the power wire and it took 2 hours to bring it back up one day. I can't tell you how fast Oracle ran on that puppy, but I was impressed. I was only able to write one PL/SQL script that "overworked" the server.
Quite true. In this instance it's not the technology that's not working. A well developed web site can easily technically replace a BBS. The big difference is that BBSes were never open to the general public. You needed at least the unpublished phone number, and in many instances needed to know a member to join. So I don't think the technology is as much of the problem of bring back those BBS feelings (that is if enough people really want them back) compared to their implementation and membership. Since only the local community "smart kids" would be on any BBS, it naturally fostered a small, closer-knit community. In general, the internet doesn't, but I don't feel that's due at all to technology.
Simple. Because charging money based on brain obsorbtion is rediculous. The invention of the video tape was originally thought to render the movie theater obsolete. Well more people go to movies now than ever before... why? Because of the medium.
I can't bring bring friends into a movie theater without paying for them, but I can invite them to my home to watch it on tape (or now DVD). If you notice it's illegal for me to buy a movie and charge others to watch it, only theaters are permitted based on copyrights, but I have every right to by a DVD and then sell it to a friend. I remember the movie, but I don't owe anyone anything. I paid for it.
Don't forget that when we first pay for a new book, we're already paying for the author's content. His one copy of content is sold. After that, I own that copy of his content, which he/she willingly sold to me. I can then do whatever I like with it.
Let's not remove the rights that capitalism gives us. Once you start charging for brain input it'll turn into "1984".
Bringing back the neighborhood BBS is not the goal. I remember being on BBSes in NYC every day after school. It was a simple online community. While those feelings may not exist with any web site, going technologically backwards is no solution. Every feature I have ever seen on any BBS already exists easily on the web. One key difference is that each BBS community was relatively small and local. It's like moving from the suburbs to mid-town Manhattan. Out in the burbs people meet on the street and say hello. In mid-town you don't meet anyone unless introduced by someone you know. A good virtual community needs small, friendly neighborhoods like BBSes once were, but not BBSes themselves.
Basically, if you want to stay very technical, I highly recommend CS. Not only will it help when first looking for a job, but what's learned will help you stay technical. If you're more into being a DBA, managing technical teams, networking, technical writing, or something like that, then CIS would suffice.
So it's just a plot from Microsoft to force us to buy a new version of Outlook 2006.
As for features, I'd really like to see good project management capabilities. Right now, I can't even find the feature I want in any project management software (please post any especially good ones if anyone knows of any). Employee calendars and project management should be easily tied together, and for obvious reasons. For example, if my department has a meeting about a specific project, I want it tied into any project mgmt reports. Ghantt charts (however that's spelled) just don't cut it for me. I should easily be able to see if my co-workers are busy, and if mgmt allows, let everyone see what projects everyone else is working on and on what schedule. With Outlook you have to arrange a meeting, then it compares to their calendars, but sometimes I'd like to just see everyone on my calendar, and I'm sure mgmt would love that. And of course other obvious features are speed and expandability. VBA in Outlook/Exchange stinks. The object model is bulky and very slow. I want to be able to drastically customize the calendar (for myself or anyone else I choose), maybe adding features myself.
Those who comparison shop may see the lack of benefits and not purchase it, but I'm sure plenty of others will.
Companies and the military are run as dictatorships for a simple reason. They need clear, quick, and decisive guidance. A leader of a company can either let the marketing people run the company's image, or the marketing department can follow and grow the CEO's desired image. Being democratic, I would imagine that would leave the marketing department on their own, making them present ideas and then voting upon them. I suppose their "elected leaders" would have to ensure that technology remains the main goal while money takes second place. I wish all companies would operate in a way that put their services/products ahead of the money.
The telco, ISP, and other services we buy are just that - services which get a person what they want: their own domain, which is public. I think we're just looking at the exact same thing from different points of view.
Why should the information not be public? The internet is not a private franchise, but a public network. Sure, you have to pay a company in order to get wired into it, but from there it's public. If you want to register a domain name, you're basically asking for a public seat on the network. If you want the contact information you provide to be kept private, then use another set of valid contact info where you can be reached, or don't register the domain name at all. It's just that simple.
a crash and burn . . .
Any ideas when something like that will be easily available? It could have unlimited uses in the chip arena. Where can we get more info?
You obviously aren't from New York City. A large part of the fleet of garbage trucks run on natural gas. The 2 landfills are in Staten Island, and they are the largest landfills in the continent. One of them is the highest point above sea level on the east coast. The landfills produce enough methane gas to supply every public school in the city with gas for science labs. Manufacturing consumption is cut by re-using old parts, and by charities not having to buy new computers when they can get re-used ones for free.