Did you see where it only took 4 months? I haven't seen an SAP **upgrade** that went that fast, much less a deployment.
Of course, the reason for that isn't the (complete) ineptitude of people at SAP, or the superstar statusing of the engineers at Tesla.
Its easy to build a one-off solution that works for what a company needs on day one, do it quickly and be successful. Its vastly harder to build a one-off solution that still works for what the company needs done ten years down the line. And damn near impossible to build a one-off solution that just magically has equivalent success and value to other companies just by open sourcing it.
SAP upgrades can easily take that long, but SAP can easily run organizations an order of magnitude bigger, and two orders of magnitude more complicated than Tesla.
IMO, the key thing people should get from this is the importance of making sure you buy what you actually need. If Tesla could replace their SAP system in four months with 25 engineers, odds are pretty high they had overpurchased when they went with SAP to begin with.
Good luck proving whether it was him or his co-driver actually behind the wheel at any given time.
To average 100mph with one person never breaking the speed limit, the average speed for the half the trip the guilty driver was driving would need to be around their top speed.
No, highway speed limits, at least federal interstates, have speed limits for the purpose of generating revenue.
Reckless driving is a criminal offense, not something you're fined for. Speeding fines are there to provide some disincentive to doing stupid things prior to going to jail for it.
Clear cut case of speeding and the guy even collected his own evidence.
You can't (generally speaking) be arrested for speeding.
You can be arrested for reckless driving, though... and generally you can be even if you aren't caught in the act, like any other misdemeanor or felony.
No, because they are wasting my time. If they cared about swapping contact details their are a myriad of ways that are convenient and not showy.
Their job is generally to distort the truth and make purchasing based on feelings and shininess instead of facts and useful features.
Business cards aren't about swapping contact details -- they're about a tactile way to associate a name with the person, so you can keep track of people in the meeting and not look like a douche when you forget who is who.
Professionals will take the card, look at it, repeat the name back while making eye contact. That is a very powerful way to ensure you remember that persons name.
I'm still bad at names -- I'll lay them casually on the table in front of me in the order that people are sitting, so I can glance at them and reinforce name-to-faces during the meeting.
It's always baited around that a corporation has to do what the shareholders say and that this ensures much less corruption than in government.
Seems more like the corporation is a dictatorship.
No its not -- that's you just misunderstanding how a corporation works. The shareholders select the board. The board controls the leadership. The leadership controls the company. That's how all companies work, and should work. (And, probably not coincidentally, exactly how the US government was intended to work.)
Why? Shareholders (like voters in the US) don't have enough knowledge and experience to have their opinions really matter. You use your single vote to select people who you feel represent you best -- in a company, or the government. Then you let them do what you hired them to do. If you don't like it, you don't vote for them again.
The use of stock options means that Larry only gets paid if the company is doing well; or rather more specifically if the company's shares are doing well, which is all the shareholders are going to care about in the first place.
If the stock loses 99% of its value, his compensation would still be more than most people make in their life. How that translates into not getting paid at all for you is a mystery to me.
So? He is contributing more to the economy than most people will do in their life. That's how it works. If you don't like him making that much more than you, the real solution is to figure out how you can provide value to the economy, not cry foul when other people do.
Although the shareholders have the right to sell their shares, but obviously they don't want to do that.
Absolutely. Ellison's pay is the board of directors responsibility and call to make, not the shareholders. They can vote for the board members they want to represent them, and vote with their wallet if they don't like it. That's how the market works.
The irony is, of course, that the people complaining about it *wouldn't* sell their shares over it, because they're making too much money on it.
For every stock that he gets, the value of stockholder stocks is diluted - they own a lesser % of the company. Why shouldn't they complain about that?
If stock options were 'free' for the stockholders, then why doesn't every worker get a few million dollar's worth of them?
Which doesn't matter if he continues to grow the company's value. If you dilute stock 10% and the price goes down 10% as a result, that's bad. If you dilute a stock 10% and the value goes up 10%, there's no problem.
The stranger thing is them being options, not shares vesting over time. That *may* be the source of the concern... the stock price doesn't, generally, take into account the share dilution represented by outstanding options, so there's some risk, I suppose, that a large purchase of shares would dilute the company in one quick transaction... but given the numbers of shares we're talking about, I'd think it'd get lost in the noise of normal fluctuations.
I'm guessing most of the votes came from people who don't really understand economics, or just wanted to jump on the CEO pay bandwagon.
My guess is that MS stopped allowing it easy access HOPING people would move over to outlook.com (as he did, because he was "getting scroogled" cause we ALL know MS has NEVER used target advertising. etc etc
This is the 21st century. You don't need to guess about MS and Google may have respectively done relative to using ActiveSync... you could look it up.
I assume you're "guessing" because the answer you want it to be is 180 degrees off the actual answer. Amirite?!
Just a dozen? At the height of one of my email accounts receiving spam, it was upwards of 500 messages a day. I finally just disabled that account, thought maybe if I left it disabled so everything bounces for a few months, they'd stop. Wrong, even today if I enable that account, it gets hammered.
My other accounts still receive substantial amounts of spam (more then a dozen a day, I think you're getting off pretty lightly!) But, I rarely ever see it. Thankfully popfile is really effective, no matter what they try.
I get about 2k a day on my gmail account -- but what the GP may mean (and I've noticed, too) is that a LOT more are getting through to the inbox. I used to rarely get any, and in the last few months it probably averages about 40/day. Something has definitely change with their SPAM handling -- either its regressed, or it hasn't kept up with the spammers. (I suspect the former, because I can mark a given e-mail sender as SPAM a hundred times and Google doesn't take the hint...)
No, it isn't. Beijing doesn't control anything that goes on in Taiwan, much as they'd like to. Yeah, they used to make hostile noises in the past whenever Taiwan spoke of formally declaring independence, but it ultimately didn't amount to much. But Taiwan controls everything of its own, including its foreign & defense policies - not something that can be said about the province of any country
Very few younger people wear watches these days, because mobile phones serve as a reasonable replacement. As a result, the sudden interest in wearable tech seems slightly odd. It's almost as if Apple's R&D team prototyped a watch just to see what it would be like, and someone leaked the news in a frantic frenzy, ignoring the fact that it is - by and large - a dumb idea that Apple might very easily shelve (along with the silly notion of an Apple-branded TV set).
Its more than just this generation... I could easily have kids in this generation (hopefully I don't), and I haven't work a watch anywhere other than while scuba diving in... probably 25 years? Lots of people way back to us GenX geezers went from watch to pager, to various forms of cell phones, to smart phones. Flip phones with a visible clock on the outside was a big deal in the mid to late 90's. (Pre-SMS, so the clock was really the only thing you'd look at the screen for...)
How do you tell time? By pulling the phone out of your pocket, pressing the screen button on the phone, looking at the time and then putting the phone back in your pocket.
I wrote an app that taps it out in morse code in my pocket if I give my hips just the right shake.
(Not really, and no one better go writing one and trying to take credit for my idea!)
Because they were rubbish. Back in the 90s you'd have to pay $100,000 for something that was worse than the $300 Oculus Rift devkit.
(plus another million for a computer powerful enough to drive it)
Your second point has more validity than the first. Computing power was the real issue. Reasonable (if heavy) HMDs weren't even $10k, much less $100k. Its been a long time, but I think most of the ones I used in the mid 90's were in the $2k-$3k range.
But even more than that, the market for that kind of device is vastly different now. In the 90's, you didn't have anything close to the kind of market for real forward looking devices like that. It was a time when AOL ruled the space for what little of the general population was doing things on computers, and anything VR related wasn't just nerd but a real fringe of nerd, likely in academia.
Other than pretending you know the music "jive", you have no idea if he does. He didn't list his requirements, his experience, the sort of hardware he's willing to invest in. The GP's answer, as much as OSX blows chow for most stuff, is probably the right one for the VAST majority of people asking that sort of question.
Being university educated doesn't necessarily mean you aren't gullible and stupid.
Thankfully, or I would've never gotten laid in school.
Re:Why is iPad so much better than iPhone?
on
Apple Announces iPad Air
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Not to bash the iPhone, but how is it that Apple seems to be so much ahead of the pack when it comes to the iPad but the iPhone seems to be just another high-end smartphone? I mean the new full-size iPad seems so much better especially in size and weight than anything else out there, while the 5s is just a nice spec bump.
Ahead of the pack in technology or sales?
None of their devices are close to the head of the pack from a technology standpoint. They can hype things up well, and they sell well, but across the boards they're middle-of-the-road hardware with typically one or two "oh, but we've got this!" upgrades that can be heavily marketed for the brief interlude before Samsung or another company makes a call on its actual value and adds it.
And, frankly, its just fine that Apple works that way.
There's two reasons to potentially not trust Bruce Schneier -- he's in cahoots with the NSA (and by "cahoots" I mean involved in a conspiracy to somehow impact you) or he's biased against the NSA, in which case his opinions are equally untrustworthy.
It doesn't matter why someone's opinion isn't neutral -- its just as invalid to blindly trust it if that opinion matches yours or not. In fact, its probably worse to blindly trust it if it happens to match yours because you already have a bias.
"The US National Security Agency (NSA) has been intercepting FREEDOM telephone calls 'on a massive scale,' according to a report published in Le Monde.
Slashdot Mirror
Did you see where it only took 4 months? I haven't seen an SAP **upgrade** that went that fast, much less a deployment.
Of course, the reason for that isn't the (complete) ineptitude of people at SAP, or the superstar statusing of the engineers at Tesla.
Its easy to build a one-off solution that works for what a company needs on day one, do it quickly and be successful. Its vastly harder to build a one-off solution that still works for what the company needs done ten years down the line. And damn near impossible to build a one-off solution that just magically has equivalent success and value to other companies just by open sourcing it.
SAP upgrades can easily take that long, but SAP can easily run organizations an order of magnitude bigger, and two orders of magnitude more complicated than Tesla.
IMO, the key thing people should get from this is the importance of making sure you buy what you actually need. If Tesla could replace their SAP system in four months with 25 engineers, odds are pretty high they had overpurchased when they went with SAP to begin with.
Don't be a doofus. Is the 19" one portable?
It could be. Just tell everyone its your MagnumPi.
Good luck proving whether it was him or his co-driver actually behind the wheel at any given time.
To average 100mph with one person never breaking the speed limit, the average speed for the half the trip the guilty driver was driving would need to be around their top speed.
No, highway speed limits, at least federal interstates, have speed limits for the purpose of generating revenue.
Reckless driving is a criminal offense, not something you're fined for. Speeding fines are there to provide some disincentive to doing stupid things prior to going to jail for it.
Clear cut case of speeding and the guy even collected his own evidence.
You can't (generally speaking) be arrested for speeding.
You can be arrested for reckless driving, though... and generally you can be even if you aren't caught in the act, like any other misdemeanor or felony.
So, yeah, posting about it online is stupid.
No, because they are wasting my time. If they cared about swapping contact details their are a myriad of ways that are convenient and not showy.
Their job is generally to distort the truth and make purchasing based on feelings and shininess instead of facts and useful features.
Business cards aren't about swapping contact details -- they're about a tactile way to associate a name with the person, so you can keep track of people in the meeting and not look like a douche when you forget who is who.
Professionals will take the card, look at it, repeat the name back while making eye contact. That is a very powerful way to ensure you remember that persons name.
I'm still bad at names -- I'll lay them casually on the table in front of me in the order that people are sitting, so I can glance at them and reinforce name-to-faces during the meeting.
I mean, it certainly helps in making the list when layoff time comes around ...
It's always baited around that a corporation has to do what the shareholders say and that this ensures much less corruption than in government.
Seems more like the corporation is a dictatorship.
No its not -- that's you just misunderstanding how a corporation works. The shareholders select the board. The board controls the leadership. The leadership controls the company. That's how all companies work, and should work. (And, probably not coincidentally, exactly how the US government was intended to work.)
Why? Shareholders (like voters in the US) don't have enough knowledge and experience to have their opinions really matter. You use your single vote to select people who you feel represent you best -- in a company, or the government. Then you let them do what you hired them to do. If you don't like it, you don't vote for them again.
The use of stock options means that Larry only gets paid if the company is doing well; or rather more specifically if the company's shares are doing well, which is all the shareholders are going to care about in the first place.
If the stock loses 99% of its value, his compensation would still be more than most people make in their life. How that translates into not getting paid at all for you is a mystery to me.
So? He is contributing more to the economy than most people will do in their life. That's how it works. If you don't like him making that much more than you, the real solution is to figure out how you can provide value to the economy, not cry foul when other people do.
Although the shareholders have the right to sell their shares, but obviously they don't want to do that.
Absolutely. Ellison's pay is the board of directors responsibility and call to make, not the shareholders. They can vote for the board members they want to represent them, and vote with their wallet if they don't like it. That's how the market works.
The irony is, of course, that the people complaining about it *wouldn't* sell their shares over it, because they're making too much money on it.
For every stock that he gets, the value of stockholder stocks is diluted - they own a lesser % of the company. Why shouldn't they complain about that?
If stock options were 'free' for the stockholders, then why doesn't every worker get a few million dollar's worth of them?
Which doesn't matter if he continues to grow the company's value. If you dilute stock 10% and the price goes down 10% as a result, that's bad. If you dilute a stock 10% and the value goes up 10%, there's no problem.
The stranger thing is them being options, not shares vesting over time. That *may* be the source of the concern ... the stock price doesn't, generally, take into account the share dilution represented by outstanding options, so there's some risk, I suppose, that a large purchase of shares would dilute the company in one quick transaction... but given the numbers of shares we're talking about, I'd think it'd get lost in the noise of normal fluctuations.
I'm guessing most of the votes came from people who don't really understand economics, or just wanted to jump on the CEO pay bandwagon.
My guess is that MS stopped allowing it easy access HOPING people would move over to outlook.com (as he did, because he was "getting scroogled" cause we ALL know MS has NEVER used target advertising. etc etc
This is the 21st century. You don't need to guess about MS and Google may have respectively done relative to using ActiveSync ... you could look it up.
I assume you're "guessing" because the answer you want it to be is 180 degrees off the actual answer. Amirite?!
Just a dozen? At the height of one of my email accounts receiving spam, it was upwards of 500 messages a day. I finally just disabled that account, thought maybe if I left it disabled so everything bounces for a few months, they'd stop. Wrong, even today if I enable that account, it gets hammered.
My other accounts still receive substantial amounts of spam (more then a dozen a day, I think you're getting off pretty lightly!) But, I rarely ever see it. Thankfully popfile is really effective, no matter what they try.
I get about 2k a day on my gmail account -- but what the GP may mean (and I've noticed, too) is that a LOT more are getting through to the inbox. I used to rarely get any, and in the last few months it probably averages about 40/day. Something has definitely change with their SPAM handling -- either its regressed, or it hasn't kept up with the spammers. (I suspect the former, because I can mark a given e-mail sender as SPAM a hundred times and Google doesn't take the hint...)
Modded down in like ten minutes?
PSA: Don't make jokes about Norway until its the middle of the night there. Sheesh.
No, it isn't. Beijing doesn't control anything that goes on in Taiwan, much as they'd like to. Yeah, they used to make hostile noises in the past whenever Taiwan spoke of formally declaring independence, but it ultimately didn't amount to much. But Taiwan controls everything of its own, including its foreign & defense policies - not something that can be said about the province of any country
Clearly you've never been to Texas.
It's common to lable these sorts of places as "governed by X, claimed by Y", "disputed" or something similar. Not difficult at all.
Or, even easier, just mark it as Norway or something.
Very few younger people wear watches these days, because mobile phones serve as a reasonable replacement. As a result, the sudden interest in wearable tech seems slightly odd. It's almost as if Apple's R&D team prototyped a watch just to see what it would be like, and someone leaked the news in a frantic frenzy, ignoring the fact that it is - by and large - a dumb idea that Apple might very easily shelve (along with the silly notion of an Apple-branded TV set).
Its more than just this generation ... I could easily have kids in this generation (hopefully I don't), and I haven't work a watch anywhere other than while scuba diving in ... probably 25 years? Lots of people way back to us GenX geezers went from watch to pager, to various forms of cell phones, to smart phones. Flip phones with a visible clock on the outside was a big deal in the mid to late 90's. (Pre-SMS, so the clock was really the only thing you'd look at the screen for...)
How do you tell time? By pulling the phone out of your pocket, pressing the screen button on the phone, looking at the time and then putting the phone back in your pocket.
I wrote an app that taps it out in morse code in my pocket if I give my hips just the right shake.
(Not really, and no one better go writing one and trying to take credit for my idea!)
Because they were rubbish. Back in the 90s you'd have to pay $100,000 for something that was worse than the $300 Oculus Rift devkit.
(plus another million for a computer powerful enough to drive it)
Your second point has more validity than the first. Computing power was the real issue. Reasonable (if heavy) HMDs weren't even $10k, much less $100k. Its been a long time, but I think most of the ones I used in the mid 90's were in the $2k-$3k range.
But even more than that, the market for that kind of device is vastly different now. In the 90's, you didn't have anything close to the kind of market for real forward looking devices like that. It was a time when AOL ruled the space for what little of the general population was doing things on computers, and anything VR related wasn't just nerd but a real fringe of nerd, likely in academia.
He needs a DAW, not a toy.
Other than pretending you know the music "jive", you have no idea if he does. He didn't list his requirements, his experience, the sort of hardware he's willing to invest in. The GP's answer, as much as OSX blows chow for most stuff, is probably the right one for the VAST majority of people asking that sort of question.
Being university educated doesn't necessarily mean you aren't gullible and stupid.
Thankfully, or I would've never gotten laid in school.
Not to bash the iPhone, but how is it that Apple seems to be so much ahead of the pack when it comes to the iPad but the iPhone seems to be just another high-end smartphone? I mean the new full-size iPad seems so much better especially in size and weight than anything else out there, while the 5s is just a nice spec bump.
Ahead of the pack in technology or sales?
None of their devices are close to the head of the pack from a technology standpoint. They can hype things up well, and they sell well, but across the boards they're middle-of-the-road hardware with typically one or two "oh, but we've got this!" upgrades that can be heavily marketed for the brief interlude before Samsung or another company makes a call on its actual value and adds it.
And, frankly, its just fine that Apple works that way.
There's two reasons to potentially not trust Bruce Schneier -- he's in cahoots with the NSA (and by "cahoots" I mean involved in a conspiracy to somehow impact you) or he's biased against the NSA, in which case his opinions are equally untrustworthy.
It doesn't matter why someone's opinion isn't neutral -- its just as invalid to blindly trust it if that opinion matches yours or not. In fact, its probably worse to blindly trust it if it happens to match yours because you already have a bias.
if you can even scream, it's not space.
As far as I'm concerned, if Sandra Bullock isn't there in panties, its no longer space.
"The US National Security Agency (NSA) has been intercepting FREEDOM telephone calls 'on a massive scale,' according to a report published in Le Monde.