Then if the third-party service goes down, they should charge a flat rate for shipping or offer it free. Otherwise they deserve to lose customers for not planning for this type of issue.
Re:That's what you get... for not using FedEx
on
USPS Server Meltdown
·
· Score: 1
To be fair, what sort of "backup" calculation would you have done here, short of reverse-engineering the USPS algorithm for calculating shipping rates?
A store can charge whatever they want for shipping. So if they know how much it costs on average to ship their products, they can simply charge everyone that flat rate. Or if they sell something simple, they can charge one simple rate per quantity. Or they could cache the last rates they charged and reuse those. Or they could offer everyone free shipping and eat it as the cost of doing business with the USPS.
Re:Crashing Web store applications?
on
USPS Server Meltdown
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Most e-commerce sites, including the ones I've built, have a multi-step process to place an order. If the step for shipping (or tax, etc.) failed, then the system would re-load the page with any appropriate messages and option changes. So, for example, if the third-party payment processing service didn't respond before a timeout the user would be asked to call customer service to complete their order. The sales rep could see the order in its incomplete state and finish it over the phone.
Crashing Web store applications?
on
USPS Server Meltdown
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Only a really terrible developer would hit a web services API and not code for it to fail. No one should expect a third party service to be up 100%. The apps should fail gracefully. Anyone finding their e-commerce software handling this situation poorly should find another package.
If a store offers only the USPS delivery method and the web service is down, the user could be directed to call the sales number to place their order. If the store offers other deliver methods the store front could instruct the user that USPS isn't currently available and they must choose another method.
Support from IBM. Costly, but effective, for many large corporations. Plus, for corporations which already pay IBM big bucks, it probably lowers support costs to use their desktop.
To me, the most interesting part of this short article is this:
Revenue from Microsoft's Client division, which derives mostly from Vista... edged up just 2% year over year... despite the fact that the overall PC market grew 10% to 12% during the same period.
Well said. The feedback system, though, does exist in a few forms today. The press, for example, when they're doing their job, keep a watch on the government and report whatever they can find. The abusers of information can be removed from office with enough public interest. As another example, corporations can lose customers if they lose their trust.
Privacy, as we have experienced in the last hundred years, is on its way out anyway.
It was only recently on its way in. For most of history people lived in small communities where everyone knew each others' business. Privacy only seemed to become a major concern when technology let us share information across large distances and with many more people.
I'm not commenting on whether that's a good or bad thing.
Democracy relies on people having access to as much information as possible so they can make wise decisions.
I think you're confusing democracy with capitalism. Capitalism requires the public to have as much information as possible about products and organizations. Democracy requires the government to have only as much information about its citizens as are necessary. As others are pointing out, privacy is necessary to avoid tyranny.
But MS isn't exactly doomed if people that haven't been buying their stuff continue to not buy their stuff.
Actually they might be. MS has always counted on Windows sales, which are mostly from new computer sales (OEM) and corporate licensing. Corporate licensing is stagnating somewhat with Vista uptake being slow and market saturation in the US. If China isn't Microsoft's next big growth market, they have few other places to look for large sales increases. And people are getting tired of the periodic costly upgrades when they see little benefit, so upgrade sales will likely slow down over time.
Microsoft's relying on China for their sales numbers to remain high into the future.
The custom web framework my company uses helps program with the MVC pattern, but doesn't enforce it. Some developers are very consistent with separating the model, templating, and control structure. Some developers (not always the less experienced ones) often intermingle functionality and don't realize they're no longer within the MVC design. So our framework is nice that it's flexible, but it also will let you hang yourself. Most other frameworks, at least for PHP and Python, seem to be the same way.
That makes sense. My main issue is with the infrastructure ownership. If the cable company, for example, merely owned the cable and had to lease it out fairly we'd have a much healthier marketplace for services.
Angel investment refers to a rich individual providing capital for a start-up. They expect a direct financial return on their investment. Large companies, by definition, are not angel investors.
IBM, Apple, Google, and others that have employees work on open source do get a return on their investment, just indirectly. Apple, for example, includes the open source projects they work on with their server products. They make money on server sales, which obviously increase by having better software on them. IBM contributes to the Linux kernel because it benefits them to have linux run well on the hardware they sell.
So there are large financial returns for some companies to have employees work on open source. These aren't cash contributions to a startup.
We've already seen de-regulation which hasn't brought about much competition. Breaking up a cable company will not create competition because they would each control a different area, just like when AT&T was broken up.
I would usually prefer smaller companies competing instead of regulated monopolies, but it just doesn't work well in this case.
The water, electricity, and gas coming into my home are pretty cheap. Having regulated monopolies instead of the current unregulated monopolies should reduce prices.
And the new bureaucracy would mostly replace the existing corporate bureaucracy.
It should be made a public utility, not free. Just like electricity, gas, and water, let private utility companies run it but regulate the pricing and service quality.
Of course then our issues would be with the regulations, and not with the current monopolies. But I'd rather see it regulated and price controlled than the current situation.
Linux/F/OSS is mostly supported by angel investors and Sun Microsystems
This is just completely wrong. Most open source projects have no outside investors at all, but are either maintained on a developer's free or salaried time. IBM, Apple, and Google, for example, have hundreds of employees who contribute to open source projects on company time.
I don't know why you would think so many projects would be backed by angel investors when those projects would return nothing financially on their investment.
Or submit the articles to DocForge where original research is allowed. It's focused completely on programming and computer science topics. It hasn't grown large enough yet to breed overzealous editors, either.
Slashdot Mirror
Then if the third-party service goes down, they should charge a flat rate for shipping or offer it free. Otherwise they deserve to lose customers for not planning for this type of issue.
To be fair, what sort of "backup" calculation would you have done here, short of reverse-engineering the USPS algorithm for calculating shipping rates?
A store can charge whatever they want for shipping. So if they know how much it costs on average to ship their products, they can simply charge everyone that flat rate. Or if they sell something simple, they can charge one simple rate per quantity. Or they could cache the last rates they charged and reuse those. Or they could offer everyone free shipping and eat it as the cost of doing business with the USPS.
Most e-commerce sites, including the ones I've built, have a multi-step process to place an order. If the step for shipping (or tax, etc.) failed, then the system would re-load the page with any appropriate messages and option changes. So, for example, if the third-party payment processing service didn't respond before a timeout the user would be asked to call customer service to complete their order. The sales rep could see the order in its incomplete state and finish it over the phone.
Only a really terrible developer would hit a web services API and not code for it to fail. No one should expect a third party service to be up 100%. The apps should fail gracefully. Anyone finding their e-commerce software handling this situation poorly should find another package.
If a store offers only the USPS delivery method and the web service is down, the user could be directed to call the sales number to place their order. If the store offers other deliver methods the store front could instruct the user that USPS isn't currently available and they must choose another method.
No, they invented the Mighty Mouse so we'd have another nipple to play with all day long.
Aw, and it doesn't look a day over 30.
Except it lost its ball. Pretty sad to lose a ball while you're in your prime.
clobber them full stop .
From now on I'm going to end every sentence with "full stop" just to be annoying full stop.
Sounds funny when you use it verbally, too full stop.
Yes... yes you are.
You may want to seek help. :)
Support from IBM. Costly, but effective, for many large corporations. Plus, for corporations which already pay IBM big bucks, it probably lowers support costs to use their desktop.
To me, the most interesting part of this short article is this:
Revenue from Microsoft's Client division, which derives mostly from Vista... edged up just 2% year over year... despite the fact that the overall PC market grew 10% to 12% during the same period.
Well said. The feedback system, though, does exist in a few forms today. The press, for example, when they're doing their job, keep a watch on the government and report whatever they can find. The abusers of information can be removed from office with enough public interest. As another example, corporations can lose customers if they lose their trust.
Privacy, as we have experienced in the last hundred years, is on its way out anyway.
It was only recently on its way in. For most of history people lived in small communities where everyone knew each others' business. Privacy only seemed to become a major concern when technology let us share information across large distances and with many more people.
I'm not commenting on whether that's a good or bad thing.
Democracy relies on people having access to as much information as possible so they can make wise decisions.
I think you're confusing democracy with capitalism. Capitalism requires the public to have as much information as possible about products and organizations. Democracy requires the government to have only as much information about its citizens as are necessary. As others are pointing out, privacy is necessary to avoid tyranny.
But MS isn't exactly doomed if people that haven't been buying their stuff continue to not buy their stuff.
Actually they might be. MS has always counted on Windows sales, which are mostly from new computer sales (OEM) and corporate licensing. Corporate licensing is stagnating somewhat with Vista uptake being slow and market saturation in the US. If China isn't Microsoft's next big growth market, they have few other places to look for large sales increases. And people are getting tired of the periodic costly upgrades when they see little benefit, so upgrade sales will likely slow down over time.
Microsoft's relying on China for their sales numbers to remain high into the future.
No, I'm not assuming MVC is always the right way to go. I could have phrased my comment differently to make that more clear.
My point is that some developers think they're using the MVC design pattern because their framework fosters it, when in reality they aren't.
The custom web framework my company uses helps program with the MVC pattern, but doesn't enforce it. Some developers are very consistent with separating the model, templating, and control structure. Some developers (not always the less experienced ones) often intermingle functionality and don't realize they're no longer within the MVC design. So our framework is nice that it's flexible, but it also will let you hang yourself. Most other frameworks, at least for PHP and Python, seem to be the same way.
Good thing they're spending $300 million more on marketing, then! Maybe that Mojave thing we keep hearing about will turn things around for them.
Yeah, I can't avoid the sarcasm either.
That makes sense. My main issue is with the infrastructure ownership. If the cable company, for example, merely owned the cable and had to lease it out fairly we'd have a much healthier marketplace for services.
You're combining my two separate comments.
Angel investment refers to a rich individual providing capital for a start-up. They expect a direct financial return on their investment. Large companies, by definition, are not angel investors.
IBM, Apple, Google, and others that have employees work on open source do get a return on their investment, just indirectly. Apple, for example, includes the open source projects they work on with their server products. They make money on server sales, which obviously increase by having better software on them. IBM contributes to the Linux kernel because it benefits them to have linux run well on the hardware they sell.
So there are large financial returns for some companies to have employees work on open source. These aren't cash contributions to a startup.
We've already seen de-regulation which hasn't brought about much competition. Breaking up a cable company will not create competition because they would each control a different area, just like when AT&T was broken up.
I would usually prefer smaller companies competing instead of regulated monopolies, but it just doesn't work well in this case.
The water, electricity, and gas coming into my home are pretty cheap. Having regulated monopolies instead of the current unregulated monopolies should reduce prices.
And the new bureaucracy would mostly replace the existing corporate bureaucracy.
It should be made a public utility, not free. Just like electricity, gas, and water, let private utility companies run it but regulate the pricing and service quality.
Of course then our issues would be with the regulations, and not with the current monopolies. But I'd rather see it regulated and price controlled than the current situation.
Linux/F/OSS is mostly supported by angel investors and Sun Microsystems
This is just completely wrong. Most open source projects have no outside investors at all, but are either maintained on a developer's free or salaried time. IBM, Apple, and Google, for example, have hundreds of employees who contribute to open source projects on company time.
I don't know why you would think so many projects would be backed by angel investors when those projects would return nothing financially on their investment.
Sounds like your problem isn't so much the software, but the staff and lack of policies.
Or submit the articles to DocForge where original research is allowed. It's focused completely on programming and computer science topics. It hasn't grown large enough yet to breed overzealous editors, either.