Lets face it... employee dumping has become a nice comfortable strategy for the executive branch to continue the smoke and mirrors of post-bubble profitability.
Employee dumping allows people like HP Carla to take moderate profits and stretch them into huge gains in the "bottom line" because 50,000 pay checks were cut from the company's books.
Not because she or people like her did anything special, but the same people who were intoxicated by the hype promises of the bubble have still not recovered enough of their common sense to realize its the same scam only on the other side of the ledger!
It's got a way to go before it challenges either the raw power or the ease of use of the Microsoft suite.
That may be true but I suggest that about 85% of MS Office users use less then 20% of the suites "powerful" features.
So introducing a feature lean product that focuses on the fundamental features that users actually use on a dialy basis is what I think project like Open Office are or should be striving for.
Great... huge personal storage capabilities for every little tidbit of family history.
Now, what if the OS you're doing all this work on is built on a database structure that requires or could require some type of licensing fee or royality.
Yes, they are your memories but they've been encoded by someone elses "licensed" technologies.
I recently started receiving a much larger volume of spam then usual from Yahoo! so I fired off another email to abuse@yahoo.com with the appropriate information or so I thought.
Yahoo! promptly replied to me inquiry and said that they had reviewed the email in question and that someone had forged the email header so it looked like it came from Yahoo! and there was nothing they could do... but then later on in the same email Yahoo! that stated they track down people who abuse Yahoo! email including forgeries... so why not this one...
So what is a poor spam wallowing fool to do!
I think eliminating FREE email could go along way in curbing this problem. IMHO
Yet another post about flaws and vulerabilities in yet another Microsoft product or almost product and it got me a thinkin' that there seems to be a slight undercurrent of familiarity to this scenerio.
I think possibily Microsoft has found a way to use it's own flawed products to convince politicians and the like that a hard-wired security system is inevitable.
And if MS is going to control this technology then they will most certainly use it to not only dominate existing and new markets but they will also use it to hide their own flaws and vunerabilities.
Any security technology that is likely to have the impact such as MS's Trust-Worthless Computing could have should be a public and open source technology or standard not another monopolistic revenue source...
Microsoft Will Pound This Monster... Good!
on
Prince of Pop-ups
·
· Score: 1
In the MSNBC story Shuster states a line from his patent application that clear indicates his is infringing on Microsofts intellectual property... Internet Explorer and more importantly how consumers expect that product to function.
I think MS will ultimately squeeze/squash this little porn pimple...
The patent is explicit, describing computer code that can "interact with the browser to modify or control one or more of the browser functions, such that the user is directed to a predesignated site or page, instead of accessing the site or page typically associated with the selected browser function."
Madonna has been madly seeding the trading networks with her own bogus file that looks like a song but is actually her swearing and berating her fans which should do wonders for her most recent CD.
If trading these songs is illegal. Then planting MP3 and trojan bombs on personal PC isn't exactly by the book either! Hasn't the RIAA been doing that too.
I think the business model has to be changed by music and movie industry alike. Consumers will not continue to shell out $25 for a CD will 1 maybe 2 good songs no more then $30 for a DVD movie that has already made gazillions at the theatres.
If these two industries would get their collective heads out of their asses they'd see the HUGE potential these networks and other emerging technologies have to add to their profits.
Calling your customers thieves and slapping them with law suits won't win them any new customers, grammies or oscars for that matter!:-)
If Apple takes the $6 billion plunge it could be the second greatest mistake in business history. That is for right here and now.
Lets face it... Apple's products OS, hardware/software are becoming increasingly less and less relevant in a market dominated by INTEL, Microsoft.
Apple and more importantly Steven Jobs must get over the fact that Apple lost the race to the mainstream and while they may be the BETA machines of the PC industry the consumer has chosen the INTEL/MS VHS PC and that is that. But it doesn't mean that Apple cannot compete let alone thrive in a market such as we have today.
But they will only thrive by sticking to their most core business and music is NOT one of them.
I truly hope that Steven Jobs hasn't mistake the success of the iPOD for some sort of HUGE emerging market...it has the potential and I repeat potential to evolve into a HUGE market but the consumer and more importantly the music industry has not jumped on the bandwagon (sorry) yet and it is doubtful that Univeral has enough market elbow grease to somehow expedite this change.
Apple's takeover plans sound frightenly similar to the` gamble that AOL/Time Warner took and lost with Vivendi's originial vision of that thing Jean called "digital convergence".
Apple should first release an Apple/Unix OS that runs on current INTEL chipsets. Really offer Apple innovation to the mass market instead of the chic sub-culture that exists as an Apple market today. Test the market with what it knows not what it supposes...about the music industry and move even so gently into waters that have clearly sunk other, much larger corporate ships!
Music may sell iPODs but MS and others have already proven music, video and the like do not sell a whole lot more computers.
Just remember... you read it here first... From the mind, mouth and finger tips of M@
The difference between the two with play the most significant role in the global economy in the next ten years.
Microsoft is well on its way to ensuring that no one ever purchases their software again and will continue to pressure for legislation that erodes consumers rights of fair use to ensure an annual revenue stream
Read NO LOGO and you'll get a good idea were some of the big guns of consumerism are heading. Everything is a monthly payment... sure makes that global food and water credit easier to establish!
I have no problem with the ISP having to bite the cost of bandwidth especially when it comes to things like Slammer, etc.
I COMPLETELY disagree with the concept of public space and the user takes their risks. It doesn't cost me $70.00 (CDN) to walk in the park and I assume the risks of that action. I PAY $70 (CDN) for a certain level of bandwidth and service quality with very little risks.
Why should I pay for bandwidth that my network did not request. FOR EXAMPLE: on average I am billed for 300MB of traffic that my network or users never request. This calculation was done by reviewing OVERNIGHT usage logs (1AM - 7AM) which indicated approx. 9MB daily of unrequested traffic. This is traffic that is hitting my modem but not passing through my router so I can be sure its not being requested by my network.
While this unrequested traffic my seem small by many standards it is still unrequested traffic that is impacting my monthly bandwidth usage limit of 7GB or 12GB. I know some may think, hell its only 300MB but my point is I'm being limited by the total amount of traffic I can send and receive and if I do not request this traffic why should I pay for it.
That's like suggesting someone pay to watch the advertising on my TV because its in the same pipe as my television signal. Bullshit!
ISPs big and small need to grow up and start providing real service to their customers and STOP throwing their hands up, saying we only provide access! BULLSHIT! You provide access to a commodity and there is the VERY BIG difference. Ask AT&T!
Web advertising as presented today is just plain STUPID. Imagine if televsion tried the same techniques as web advertisers:
- Change the TV channel... wait the cable provider wants you to watch this 30 sec. ad before we send you on your way.
- Get to your new channel... wait, the broadcasting National Network would like you to watch this 30 sec. spot then we'll send you on your way.
then finally... the regional television station would like to watch this 30 sec. spot before FINALLY sending you to the station you selected over 2 minutes ago. STUPID.
Remember you haven't seen ANY content yet!!!
As many have said, the web isn't a boob tube, it is a "self-directed" interactive experience. Once advertisers start mucking with a users ability to self-direct the journey, most will find another mode of travel or a new path to get there.
Just how many advertisers really think pissing off your customers gets them in the mood to recieve some sloppy advertising message. DOH!
I'm so sick of the over designed one minute info-mercials that some sites feel compelled to slap their visitors in the face with.
Putting Flash on the frontend of a web site would be like getting your new car delivered by tow truck and having to return to the dealer to get the keys. Think about it!
Slashdot Mirror
Lets face it... employee dumping has become a nice comfortable strategy for the executive branch to continue the smoke and mirrors of post-bubble profitability.
Employee dumping allows people like HP Carla to take moderate profits and stretch them into huge gains in the "bottom line" because 50,000 pay checks were cut from the company's books.
Not because she or people like her did anything special, but the same people who were intoxicated by the hype promises of the bubble have still not recovered enough of their common sense to realize its the same scam only on the other side of the ledger!
It's got a way to go before it challenges either the raw power or the ease of use of the Microsoft suite.
That may be true but I suggest that about 85% of MS Office users use less then 20% of the suites "powerful" features.
So introducing a feature lean product that focuses on the fundamental features that users actually use on a dialy basis is what I think project like Open Office are or should be striving for.
Great... huge personal storage capabilities for every little tidbit of family history.
Now, what if the OS you're doing all this work on is built on a database structure that requires or could require some type of licensing fee or royality.
Yes, they are your memories but they've been encoded by someone elses "licensed" technologies.
Future Shivers
I recently started receiving a much larger volume of spam then usual from Yahoo! so I fired off another email to abuse@yahoo.com with the appropriate information or so I thought.
Yahoo! promptly replied to me inquiry and said that they had reviewed the email in question and that someone had forged the email header so it looked like it came from Yahoo! and there was nothing they could do... but then later on in the same email Yahoo! that stated they track down people who abuse Yahoo! email including forgeries... so why not this one...
So what is a poor spam wallowing fool to do!
I think eliminating FREE email could go along way in curbing this problem. IMHO
Yet another post about flaws and vulerabilities in yet another Microsoft product or almost product and it got me a thinkin' that there seems to be a slight undercurrent of familiarity to this scenerio.
I think possibily Microsoft has found a way to use it's own flawed products to convince politicians and the like that a hard-wired security system is inevitable.
And if MS is going to control this technology then they will most certainly use it to not only dominate existing and new markets but they will also use it to hide their own flaws and vunerabilities.
Any security technology that is likely to have the impact such as MS's Trust-Worthless Computing could have should be a public and open source technology or standard not another monopolistic revenue source...
In the MSNBC story Shuster states a line from his patent application that clear indicates his is infringing on Microsofts intellectual property... Internet Explorer and more importantly how consumers expect that product to function.
I think MS will ultimately squeeze/squash this little porn pimple...
The patent is explicit, describing computer code that can "interact with the browser to modify or control one or more of the browser functions, such that the user is directed to a predesignated site or page, instead of accessing the site or page typically associated with the selected browser function."
Madonna has been madly seeding the trading networks with her own bogus file that looks like a song but is actually her swearing and berating her fans which should do wonders for her most recent CD.
:-)
If trading these songs is illegal. Then planting MP3 and trojan bombs on personal PC isn't exactly by the book either! Hasn't the RIAA been doing that too.
I think the business model has to be changed by music and movie industry alike. Consumers will not continue to shell out $25 for a CD will 1 maybe 2 good songs no more then $30 for a DVD movie that has already made gazillions at the theatres.
If these two industries would get their collective heads out of their asses they'd see the HUGE potential these networks and other emerging technologies have to add to their profits.
Calling your customers thieves and slapping them with law suits won't win them any new customers, grammies or oscars for that matter!
And that's where M@'S @!
If Apple takes the $6 billion plunge it could be the second greatest mistake in business history. That is for right here and now.
Lets face it... Apple's products OS, hardware/software are becoming increasingly less and less relevant in a market dominated by INTEL, Microsoft.
Apple and more importantly Steven Jobs must get over the fact that Apple lost the race to the mainstream and while they may be the BETA machines of the PC industry the consumer has chosen the INTEL/MS VHS PC and that is that. But it doesn't mean that Apple cannot compete let alone thrive in a market such as we have today.
But they will only thrive by sticking to their most core business and music is NOT one of them.
I truly hope that Steven Jobs hasn't mistake the success of the iPOD for some sort of HUGE emerging market...it has the potential and I repeat potential to evolve into a HUGE market but the consumer and more importantly the music industry has not jumped on the bandwagon (sorry) yet and it is doubtful that Univeral has enough market elbow grease to somehow expedite this change.
Apple's takeover plans sound frightenly similar to the` gamble that AOL/Time Warner took and lost with Vivendi's originial vision of that thing Jean called "digital convergence".
Apple should first release an Apple/Unix OS that runs on current INTEL chipsets. Really offer Apple innovation to the mass market instead of the chic sub-culture that exists as an Apple market today. Test the market with what it knows not what it supposes...about the music industry and move even so gently into waters that have clearly sunk other, much larger corporate ships!
Music may sell iPODs but MS and others have already proven music, video and the like do not sell a whole lot more computers.
Just remember... you read it here first...
From the mind, mouth and finger tips of M@
The difference between the two with play the most significant role in the global economy in the next ten years.
Microsoft is well on its way to ensuring that no one ever purchases their software again and will continue to pressure for legislation that erodes consumers rights of fair use to ensure an annual revenue stream
Read NO LOGO and you'll get a good idea were some of the big guns of consumerism are heading. Everything is a monthly payment... sure makes that global food and water credit easier to establish!
Peace, Love and Power to the People... dudes!
Come on think about just how fuckin' stupid this patent application is...
...Patent Pending...
trying to patent a bidding process is like Kleenex trying to patent nose blowing.
Fuck these guys are getting to fucking stupid to be on the planet! PERIOD!
I have no problem with the ISP having to bite the cost of bandwidth especially when it comes to things like Slammer, etc.
I COMPLETELY disagree with the concept of public space and the user takes their risks. It doesn't cost me $70.00 (CDN) to walk in the park and I assume the risks of that action. I PAY $70 (CDN) for a certain level of bandwidth and service quality with very little risks.
Why should I pay for bandwidth that my network did not request. FOR EXAMPLE: on average I am billed for 300MB of traffic that my network or users never request. This calculation was done by reviewing OVERNIGHT usage logs (1AM - 7AM) which indicated approx. 9MB daily of unrequested traffic. This is traffic that is hitting my modem but not passing through my router so I can be sure its not being requested by my network.
While this unrequested traffic my seem small by many standards it is still unrequested traffic that is impacting my monthly bandwidth usage limit of 7GB or 12GB. I know some may think, hell its only 300MB but my point is I'm being limited by the total amount of traffic I can send and receive and if I do not request this traffic why should I pay for it.
That's like suggesting someone pay to watch the advertising on my TV because its in the same pipe as my television signal. Bullshit!
ISPs big and small need to grow up and start providing real service to their customers and STOP throwing their hands up, saying we only provide access! BULLSHIT! You provide access to a commodity and there is the VERY BIG difference. Ask AT&T!
And thats where M@'s at!
Come on. Someone need to trip on over to Scott's office and give him a good slap up side the head.
Java on the XBox. Please!!!
I remember when Sun was quick to jump all over MS or anybody else for that matter whenever they would release "white" trash like this.
On what planet does Sun think Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo, whoever are going to buy into one disk many machines.
Not in our live times I bet.
Java on the XBox... that's also too stupid for comment. Java on the XBox... geezz...
Web advertising as presented today is just plain STUPID. Imagine if televsion tried the same techniques as web advertisers:
- Change the TV channel... wait the cable provider wants you to watch this 30 sec. ad before we send you on your way.
- Get to your new channel... wait, the broadcasting National Network would like you to watch this 30 sec. spot then we'll send you on your way.
then finally... the regional television station would like to watch this 30 sec. spot before FINALLY sending you to the station you selected over 2 minutes ago. STUPID.
Remember you haven't seen ANY content yet!!!
As many have said, the web isn't a boob tube, it is a "self-directed" interactive experience. Once advertisers start mucking with a users ability to self-direct the journey, most will find another mode of travel or a new path to get there.
Just how many advertisers really think pissing off your customers gets them in the mood to recieve some sloppy advertising message. DOH!
I agree!
I'm so sick of the over designed one minute info-mercials that some sites feel compelled to slap their visitors in the face with.
Putting Flash on the frontend of a web site would be like getting your new car delivered by tow truck and having to return to the dealer to get the keys. Think about it!
WebZombie