No, it blocks far (and a good amount of near) IR. A bolometer (thermal imager) will typically see a thermal pane of glass as a "cold" mirror, and it's a 'pane' in the ass (you can't take a look through a window to look for victims or assess conditions when a structure is burning... all you see is yourself.)
So, who knows... maybe this stuff might allow a TIC to have a peek inside if the room isn't involved, which would be a plus from a firefighting perspective. Now, if we could only do something about those morons who are selling lexan-backed sheetrock, kevlar window screens, and "engineered" wood...
For emails, ours is "relevent life". Upon becoming irrlevent, it gets whacked.
If someone later orders you to produce email, you'll probably not have it. If you can show that you didn't delete it as a result of the order, or in an effort to destroy evidence, you cannot be prosecuted for not having it. A retention policy is key to this, because it eliminates any arbitration regarding when (or why) something was whacked.
My favorite was being stuck in a burning commercial warehouse. We were positioned with a two-and-a-half to protect a rather large fire-load (huge pile of pallets and several tons of lumber), while the fire rocked on the opposite side of the structure. We had a trench cut in the roof about 40 meters farther in, with the wood behind us. Our job was to wait, and make sure the fire didn't cross that trench cut... and also tell the attack crew to run like hell if it got behind them.
So, we drag our line to where we need to be, mostly blind. We've got a thermal imager with us, so we can see what's going on, but most of the time is spent staring at... nothing, just smoke wafting in our faces, along with faint glow from the imager display.
After about 10 minutes of this I'm bored out of my skull, and I realized I'd stuffed my IPaq in my shirt pocket before putting on my gear. The ambient smoke only allowed you to see about 4 feet, but the temperature was tolerable... so I whipped it out, and... detected an open wifi, lmao. So, slashdot is hard enough to read on an IPaq, but throw in wearing full gear with an SCBA in a medium smoke condition, it was probably one of the stranger places I've read slashdot. Had fun, though, I managed to get AIM up and send off a few lines to the wife.
And no, trying to read it with a thermal imager doesn't work:)
> Sure, but why do you need to? The cop is just checking to make sure you are not in the process of committing a crime.
That is *exactly* the point. There is no cause to warrant such a check... your premise begs (demands) that a crime is being comitted by default, and the cop then determines that one isn't.
On the other hand, just having a cam that monitors a region is no different than having a cop walking that area. However, there are strict rules regarding what the cop can and cannot do - for example, requesting your identity, stalking / surveiling, etc. He can do these things, but he can be detected and can accountable for it, good or bad.
An array of cameras with a decent software system, however, won't be detected... and cannot be held accountable. To assume the comission of a crime without probable cause *is* a crime in this country - and a large scale surveilance system is exactly a half-step away from this.
If they demand broadband, then they pay for it. However, they reserve the right to demand that it only be used for their purposes. Same for cell phones, etc - if they want it, they pay. However if they pay, they can (and probably should) dictate how it's used....which is pretty much what we do here. For general users, I provide them with a machine, and we pay for the cablemodem. The caveat is that the machine will be used *exactly* for work, and nothing else. They're free to connect a personal machine to that cablemodem, but the stuff I provide had better not ever touch anything other than here.
At home, I pay for the cablemodem since it's a legacy anyway. I do have, however, a machine that is dedicated for work - simply because I've told my employer that I will *not* pollute my personal property with their required software, nor will I compromise my machines' usability with their software's requirements... unless they wish to take responsibility / liability for the impact of their software on my machines - if their crap bones it, they pay. Obviously, they got me a dedicated box for the task.
So, fair's fair. If they want you to be accountable for providing equipment, then you have complete authority over how it gets used. Likewise, if they want authority over how it's used, then they are accountable for providing it.
Sounds like your CIO wants the authority, while sticking you with the accountability. Use that exact expression when you discuss this topic, and you'll discover that your CIO must change his verbiage one way or the other, very quickly.
Clearly, Microsoft and SCO have both stated that closed, proprietary code *cannot* be stolen unless the stolen code ends up being GPLed. They've pretty much demanded that theft of closed, proprietary code for the purposes of being included into other closed, proprietary code *cannot*, *does not*, and *will not* happen.
So, bull@*#. No code could have been stolen. To suggest otherwise... why, it'd be chaos! Proprietary vendors stealing code?! It cannot be! Think of the implications! It cannot be!!
(Smile while you read this, it isn't an attack. It's fun.)
You might call it snobbish. I might call it being cynical. When all is said and done, I'll either be proven right... or pleasantly suprised.
But it isn't snobbery - and it isn't about the topic that precedes such a closing. It's a meta-statement warning that some people are expected to ignore what's said in that topic and will insist that they know better. Such a closing is simply an admission that you expect to be disappointed about being correct about someone's self serving stupidity, yet again, and that the merits of your arguments will be overridden by someone else's fear of looking bad. There's snobbery afoot, for sure - but it isn't the writer, it's the dumb putz who intentially discards what's been said.
Anyone who was forced to live through the bullshit buzzword bingo of the 90s will know *exactly* what I'm talking about... "Channels!" "PUSH Technology!!" "Three Dimensional Database!" "Client Server!" "SEEEEEQUEEELLL!!!" All of these things will answer *everyone's* problems. Yeah, whatever you say, lady... you're still a moron, and have no clue what you're talking about.
"Caveat Emptor" is not necessarily a closing meant for the reader... it's more often an expression of frustration. Proven right... or pleasantly surprised. Snobbery? Or experienced.
No, the usage is more akin to "write software such that users are mezmerized by it"... primariy based on emotive response. Create a user buy-in based on (largely) anecdotle "wow", to distract from any compromises that were made.
q.v. users who really think XP is "faster" than 2k, 2k is "faster" than NT, or ME is "faster" than 98, or 98 is "faster" than 95. They all must be faster, though... it says so on the box, and the colors are prettier.
Once the user buy-in has been made, any suggestion that the product is in fact slower will be met with rabid denial, since the emotive buy-in is now threatened. It's quite similar to the classic story of the exec who's PC is "too slow and crashes constantly" - and nothing can be done to satisfy him. Eventually, some wise tech gives him a new, clean keyboard - and the exec perceives his PC to suddenly be twice as fast with no more crashes. Regardless of these stories being true or myth... they demonstrate the concept of Enrapture, and that is what #13 means.
I've received several top-tier MS products (including BackOffice Server 4.5) with setups that included such obscure syntax errors as "**REMEMBER TO FINISH THE SQL INSTALL SCRIPT***". Or, floppies using a new "DMF" (no fat) format... bundled with a setup.exe and lzexp on disk 1 that couldn't read them.
Granted, these scripts aren't compiled... but clearly, they weren't even tried.
This has nothing to do with free speech. It has everything to do with curtilage. Namely, I have it. WhenU doesn't.
I don't give a damn if they pop a box explaining what they do, nor do I care if they don't. The fact is this - the end user has no authority over my box. It's mine, and the end user has no right to consent to anything. Permission to sit at a keyboard does not imply some magical "proxy" relationship.
Actually, ClearChannel *wants* Stern off the radio. CC only had him in 6 markets... and competed against him in the others. Actually, they competed against him in those markets also - they have sister stations (with competing morning shows) in all of them.
Obviously in those markets, their morning drive takes a bath going up against him. Where I live, Stern fluctuates between a 38 to a 45 share, and peaked in one book at a 53 share... imagine driving to work, and *every-other car on the road* is listening to him (every-other as in "even-odd"). Half. Freakin HALF. This leaves the other 12 stations in my area competing for scraps - 12 stations competing for 48%. Right off the bat, their numbers are starting at half. Stern cornered a 53% share. 2nd place came in with a 7.3 share (prior to Stern, they averaged 15-17). 3rd came in with a 6.2. 4th... rofl... 3.1. The rest were all 1s and 2s, and most dropped their morning shows and simply play music. Doomed.
Six stations is all CC had him on, and he kind of slaughters their morning drives in all markets where he competes against them. Business decision - if he's in your market, none of your stations will make any money in Morning Drive, the most important day-part in Radio. Even if you have him on one of your stations - your others in that market are still screwed. What do you do?
It kind of explains why CC won't buy out his contract - depending on how it works, one possibility is that upon termination, the exclusivity goes away - any other station in those six markets would be free to pick him up. They'd be right back at square one, where none of their morning day-parts would make money. They'd need to delay the "ending" of that contract for as long as possible. It also explains why their lobby "donations" have gone up a bit as of late.
So, Stern isn't gone - what we're seeing is yet another almost-monopoly trying to maintain itself. If there's big money behind getting Stern thrown off the air, it's from ClearChannel...
Good point - but I have to take exception to it, because the implication that the FCC enforces the allocations is false.
My cohort scored some spectrum in the midwest, and set up a wireless ISP in a mid-sized community. All was fine for a couple months... then he started to suffer outages. Quite literally, a ten mile swath would just fall off the planet over here one day, over there the next.
Four days later, some "Tony" shows up and offers to consult, and "fix" the outages. My cohort sent him packing, but the guy walked out the door laughing.
The next day, the outages were back... and the cause was obvious. Cohort finds the center of the outage, and drives there. And lo and behold, there's a van! No driver, but full of equipment, doors locked with the engine running. Cohort writes down the vin and license plate, calls the FCC on the cell phone, and boy... they're rabid about it. Then he told them the name of the consultant, and they instantly shifted to "we'll get back to you."
He called some counterparts in other areas for suggestions. The "consultant" had visited all of them as well, and they all paid him about 60k / yr EACH for his "consulting". Like my cohort, they'd all called the FCC when he'd first showed up, and like with my cohort, the FCC did nothing, because this "consultant" is a cousin of some mob boss in NY.
The outages eventually stopped after about half a year, but the damage was done. The business folded.
So, the FCC has great utility in that they allocate spectrum. OTOH, they are absolutely *useless* because they absolutely refuse to enforce it... and they cannot be held accountable for their lack of dilligence.
Having authority with no accountability = abuse. They need to go.
Stop saying "In much the same way that OpenOffice imitates Microsoft Office". Tell the truth, instead -
"In much the same way that Excel imitates Visicalc, and in much the same way that Word imitates WordPerfect, WordStar, Magic Window, and AppleWriter, and in much the same way that InternetExploder imitates Netscape (and every other browser that was written prior to IE's writing, like the one that was built into AOL), and in much the same way that IIS tries to imitate Apache, and in much the same way that MSN Msgr imitates ICQ (and the original AOL chatrooms before that, and IRC before that), and in much the same way that MSExchange imitates a real mail server, and in much the same way that MS DNS service imitates BIND, and in much the same way that MSPaint imitates DRHalo (and 50 million other bitmap editors), and in much the same way that the MS Mouse drivers imitate the original Mouse Systems mouse driver from days long past, and in much the same way that DOS (and still Windows to this day, can you say "Hello PSP!" Never mind the command prompt) imitates CP/M, and in much the same way that Win32 imitates a real multitasking kernel..."
Always demonstrate a point with examples that leave no room to maneuver. If the toad (Brown) wants to equate "derived via concept" with theft, then let him... then simply provide examples that make his sponsors look even more horrid afterward, in a way which cannot be refuted when his own argument is applied.:)
And bonus points will be awarded if you can find a way to do it (unlike me) that involves decent grammar.
Re:Maps and accessories baby...
on
Open Maps?
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
That'd only give you positional accuracy, which is almost useless. What's needed is attribution for a given segment - what's the address block of the left side? The right? Are the addresses uniformly distributed? Any "even" numbered houses on the "odd" side of the street or vice-versa?
Then there's the type of street, directionality, names and aliases, speed limits, on-street parking, sidewalks left and right, bike-routes left and right, congestion levels (by time of day), max axle weight capability, max height clearance, lane counts (left and right), and other attribution (car-pools only, etc) that'd be relevent.
Positional accuracy of the segments is pretty much worthless by itself. Cool to look at in real time, but only useful in real time... which is stupid ("Look, ma! The map say's we're right HERE! And look, we ARE!")
Good attribution with crap positional accuracy is 1000000 times more useful than perfect position without such attributes, because it enables you to use the map BEFORE you go somewhere.
Bzzztt... old serials were exactly that, installments. The typical SF rag of that era started with the first page of the year's first issue as page 1... and the last page of the year's final issue as 392389 or however many pages were published in that year.
Yep, they should have phrased that better, and used the latest "fix all" hype for self-justification, since no nay-sayer would be able to argue against it -
"...drop its remaining Unix business, offshore its current management, "
> Police said Kaneko was arrested because Winny > allowed a 41-year-old man from Takasaki and 19-year-old > from Matsuyama to illegally download pirated > games and movies from the Internet,
>> That's an entirely different issue - bundling and lack of customization.
No, it is the exact same issue. "Dragging" the bottom end along demands such bundling.
Yes, most people want everything *available* for their machine. However, most people do *not* want everything *installed* on it. There is a large difference. People want the availability because they do not know what these things are. They want them out of nerd-prowess, ego, and ignorance. The proof is in the pudding - one need only ask them what they *want* their machine to do. Then consider, after 3 or 4 years, *what they actually did* with that machine. You'll discover that the bulk of the *want*, even though it was available, was never implemented, never attempted, and never missed. In short, yes... they said they wanted it. And when all was said and done, they lied.
As far as pride - I've no idea what you're talking about... and it appears that you don't either. I do have voice recognition telephony. I do have automatic, predictive "issue management". I don't have, however, integration with hundreds of other offices. What I do have is integration with 2362 other offices, via dynamically determined channels based on time of day, day of week, and context... an average of 4 channels per office. And yes, dipshit, I developed and implemented a "wireless connectivity" solution with field people over half a decade ago, long before you'd ever heard of it.
You seem to think that all of these things should be implemented on every box in my shop, instead of only where they are relevent.
So, you're wrong - it is not an entirely different issue, it is the exact same one. Upgrades that produce no change in service are just plain stupid. Upgrades that produce new features that must be managed, when those features are not appropriate are unneeded. Combine the two, and you end up with a stupid, unneeded upgrade... which is the bulk of what's out there today, for the common user (not just me).
Does it make business sense for me to be ignored? Sure, on its face... but the average PC is like a microwave oven or a toaster, or a television. If a new, beneficial method of using it, or purpose for using it comes along... you upgrade. Until that happens, though, selling me exactly the same functionality I already have is stupid, and is the general case of most upgrades. Over the long term, however, the market will become jaded against such snakeoil. (Q.v. the cute stories of the exec who's computer is too slow... and the tech "fixes" the problem by giving him a new keyboard. The moral of these stories is that the *perception* of *need* was pure bullshit. Your assertions, however, treat this perception as real.)
Slashdot Mirror
No, it blocks far (and a good amount of near) IR. A bolometer (thermal imager) will typically see a thermal pane of glass as a "cold" mirror, and it's a 'pane' in the ass (you can't take a look through a window to look for victims or assess conditions when a structure is burning... all you see is yourself.)
So, who knows... maybe this stuff might allow a TIC to have a peek inside if the room isn't involved, which would be a plus from a firefighting perspective. Now, if we could only do something about those morons who are selling lexan-backed sheetrock, kevlar window screens, and "engineered" wood...
...and follow it.
For emails, ours is "relevent life". Upon becoming irrlevent, it gets whacked.
If someone later orders you to produce email, you'll probably not have it. If you can show that you didn't delete it as a result of the order, or in an effort to destroy evidence, you cannot be prosecuted for not having it. A retention policy is key to this, because it eliminates any arbitration regarding when (or why) something was whacked.
My favorite was being stuck in a burning commercial warehouse. We were positioned with a two-and-a-half to protect a rather large fire-load (huge pile of pallets and several tons of lumber), while the fire rocked on the opposite side of the structure. We had a trench cut in the roof about 40 meters farther in, with the wood behind us. Our job was to wait, and make sure the fire didn't cross that trench cut... and also tell the attack crew to run like hell if it got behind them.
:)
So, we drag our line to where we need to be, mostly blind. We've got a thermal imager with us, so we can see what's going on, but most of the time is spent staring at... nothing, just smoke wafting in our faces, along with faint glow from the imager display.
After about 10 minutes of this I'm bored out of my skull, and I realized I'd stuffed my IPaq in my shirt pocket before putting on my gear. The ambient smoke only allowed you to see about 4 feet, but the temperature was tolerable... so I whipped it out, and... detected an open wifi, lmao. So, slashdot is hard enough to read on an IPaq, but throw in wearing full gear with an SCBA in a medium smoke condition, it was probably one of the stranger places I've read slashdot. Had fun, though, I managed to get AIM up and send off a few lines to the wife.
And no, trying to read it with a thermal imager doesn't work
It's serious... I've got a PDP-8 in my basement that makes a *great* coffee table...
> Sure, but why do you need to? The cop is just checking to make sure you are not in the process of committing a crime.
That is *exactly* the point. There is no cause to warrant such a check... your premise begs (demands) that a crime is being comitted by default, and the cop then determines that one isn't.
On the other hand, just having a cam that monitors a region is no different than having a cop walking that area. However, there are strict rules regarding what the cop can and cannot do - for example, requesting your identity, stalking / surveiling, etc. He can do these things, but he can be detected and can accountable for it, good or bad.
An array of cameras with a decent software system, however, won't be detected... and cannot be held accountable. To assume the comission of a crime without probable cause *is* a crime in this country - and a large scale surveilance system is exactly a half-step away from this.
If they demand broadband, then they pay for it. However, they reserve the right to demand that it only be used for their purposes. Same for cell phones, etc - if they want it, they pay. However if they pay, they can (and probably should) dictate how it's used. ...which is pretty much what we do here.
For general users, I provide them with a machine, and we pay for the cablemodem. The caveat is that the machine will be used *exactly* for work, and nothing else. They're free to connect a personal machine to that cablemodem, but the stuff I provide had better not ever touch anything other than here.
At home, I pay for the cablemodem since it's a legacy anyway. I do have, however, a machine that is dedicated for work - simply because I've told my employer that I will *not* pollute my personal property with their required software, nor will I compromise my machines' usability with their software's requirements... unless they wish to take responsibility / liability for the impact of their software on my machines - if their crap bones it, they pay. Obviously, they got me a dedicated box for the task.
So, fair's fair. If they want you to be accountable for providing equipment, then you have complete authority over how it gets used. Likewise, if they want authority over how it's used, then they are accountable for providing it.
Sounds like your CIO wants the authority, while sticking you with the accountability. Use that exact expression when you discuss this topic, and you'll discover that your CIO must change his verbiage one way or the other, very quickly.
No, they use ANI. ANI is a service that's been around since dirt was invented, and "caller ID" and "private numbers" have nothing to do with it.
Clearly, Microsoft and SCO have both stated that closed, proprietary code *cannot* be stolen unless the stolen code ends up being GPLed. They've pretty much demanded that theft of closed, proprietary code for the purposes of being included into other closed, proprietary code *cannot*, *does not*, and *will not* happen.
So, bull@*#. No code could have been stolen. To suggest otherwise... why, it'd be chaos! Proprietary vendors stealing code?! It cannot be! Think of the implications! It cannot be!!
(Smile while you read this, it isn't an attack. It's fun.)
You might call it snobbish. I might call it being cynical. When all is said and done, I'll either be proven right... or pleasantly suprised.
But it isn't snobbery - and it isn't about the topic that precedes such a closing. It's a meta-statement warning that some people are expected to ignore what's said in that topic and will insist that they know better. Such a closing is simply an admission that you expect to be disappointed about being correct about someone's self serving stupidity, yet again, and that the merits of your arguments will be overridden by someone else's fear of looking bad. There's snobbery afoot, for sure - but it isn't the writer, it's the dumb putz who intentially discards what's been said.
Anyone who was forced to live through the bullshit buzzword bingo of the 90s will know *exactly* what I'm talking about... "Channels!" "PUSH Technology!!" "Three Dimensional Database!" "Client Server!" "SEEEEEQUEEELLL!!!" All of these things will answer *everyone's* problems. Yeah, whatever you say, lady... you're still a moron, and have no clue what you're talking about.
"Caveat Emptor" is not necessarily a closing meant for the reader... it's more often an expression of frustration. Proven right... or pleasantly surprised. Snobbery? Or experienced.
Hmmm... what if we made an XML database based on EMail? Then, we could create a whole new schema paradigm using IPSec!
Wow, suddenly my scalp begins to tingle. I think I'll call a meeting...
No, the usage is more akin to "write software such that users are mezmerized by it"... primariy based on emotive response. Create a user buy-in based on (largely) anecdotle "wow", to distract from any compromises that were made.
q.v. users who really think XP is "faster" than 2k, 2k is "faster" than NT, or ME is "faster" than 98, or 98 is "faster" than 95. They all must be faster, though... it says so on the box, and the colors are prettier.
Once the user buy-in has been made, any suggestion that the product is in fact slower will be met with rabid denial, since the emotive buy-in is now threatened. It's quite similar to the classic story of the exec who's PC is "too slow and crashes constantly" - and nothing can be done to satisfy him. Eventually, some wise tech gives him a new, clean keyboard - and the exec perceives his PC to suddenly be twice as fast with no more crashes. Regardless of these stories being true or myth... they demonstrate the concept of Enrapture, and that is what #13 means.
I've received several top-tier MS products (including BackOffice Server 4.5) with setups that included such obscure syntax errors as "**REMEMBER TO FINISH THE SQL INSTALL SCRIPT***". Or, floppies using a new "DMF" (no fat) format... bundled with a setup.exe and lzexp on disk 1 that couldn't read them.
Granted, these scripts aren't compiled... but clearly, they weren't even tried.
So no - "If it compiles, it ships" is NOT true.
... is terminated where my nose begins.
This has nothing to do with free speech. It has everything to do with curtilage. Namely, I have it. WhenU doesn't.
I don't give a damn if they pop a box explaining what they do, nor do I care if they don't. The fact is this - the end user has no authority over my box. It's mine, and the end user has no right to consent to anything. Permission to sit at a keyboard does not imply some magical "proxy" relationship.
Period.
Slightly OT, but...
Actually, ClearChannel *wants* Stern off the radio. CC only had him in 6 markets... and competed against him in the others. Actually, they competed against him in those markets also - they have sister stations (with competing morning shows) in all of them.
Obviously in those markets, their morning drive takes a bath going up against him. Where I live, Stern fluctuates between a 38 to a 45 share, and peaked in one book at a 53 share... imagine driving to work, and *every-other car on the road* is listening to him (every-other as in "even-odd"). Half. Freakin HALF. This leaves the other 12 stations in my area competing for scraps - 12 stations competing for 48%. Right off the bat, their numbers are starting at half. Stern cornered a 53% share. 2nd place came in with a 7.3 share (prior to Stern, they averaged 15-17). 3rd came in with a 6.2. 4th... rofl... 3.1. The rest were all 1s and 2s, and most dropped their morning shows and simply play music. Doomed.
Six stations is all CC had him on, and he kind of slaughters their morning drives in all markets where he competes against them. Business decision - if he's in your market, none of your stations will make any money in Morning Drive, the most important day-part in Radio. Even if you have him on one of your stations - your others in that market are still screwed. What do you do?
It kind of explains why CC won't buy out his contract - depending on how it works, one possibility is that upon termination, the exclusivity goes away - any other station in those six markets would be free to pick him up. They'd be right back at square one, where none of their morning day-parts would make money. They'd need to delay the "ending" of that contract for as long as possible. It also explains why their lobby "donations" have gone up a bit as of late.
So, Stern isn't gone - what we're seeing is yet another almost-monopoly trying to maintain itself. If there's big money behind getting Stern thrown off the air, it's from ClearChannel...
It's funny because if there's ever a fire, you won't need to bother calling the fire department... just a bulldozer.
What you claim would be true if the band was 2.4.
It wasn't, you arrogant ass.
Good point - but I have to take exception to it, because the implication that the FCC enforces the allocations is false.
My cohort scored some spectrum in the midwest, and set up a wireless ISP in a mid-sized community. All was fine for a couple months... then he started to suffer outages. Quite literally, a ten mile swath would just fall off the planet over here one day, over there the next.
Four days later, some "Tony" shows up and offers to consult, and "fix" the outages. My cohort sent him packing, but the guy walked out the door laughing.
The next day, the outages were back... and the cause was obvious. Cohort finds the center of the outage, and drives there. And lo and behold, there's a van! No driver, but full of equipment, doors locked with the engine running. Cohort writes down the vin and license plate, calls the FCC on the cell phone, and boy... they're rabid about it. Then he told them the name of the consultant, and they instantly shifted to "we'll get back to you."
He called some counterparts in other areas for suggestions. The "consultant" had visited all of them as well, and they all paid him about 60k / yr EACH for his "consulting". Like my cohort, they'd all called the FCC when he'd first showed up, and like with my cohort, the FCC did nothing, because this "consultant" is a cousin of some mob boss in NY.
The outages eventually stopped after about half a year, but the damage was done. The business folded.
So, the FCC has great utility in that they allocate spectrum. OTOH, they are absolutely *useless* because they absolutely refuse to enforce it... and they cannot be held accountable for their lack of dilligence.
Having authority with no accountability = abuse. They need to go.
A word of advice -
:)
Stop saying "In much the same way that OpenOffice imitates Microsoft Office". Tell the truth, instead -
"In much the same way that Excel imitates Visicalc, and in much the same way that Word imitates WordPerfect, WordStar, Magic Window, and AppleWriter, and in much the same way that InternetExploder imitates Netscape (and every other browser that was written prior to IE's writing, like the one that was built into AOL), and in much the same way that IIS tries to imitate Apache, and in much the same way that MSN Msgr imitates ICQ (and the original AOL chatrooms before that, and IRC before that), and in much the same way that MSExchange imitates a real mail server, and in much the same way that MS DNS service imitates BIND, and in much the same way that MSPaint imitates DRHalo (and 50 million other bitmap editors), and in much the same way that the MS Mouse drivers imitate the original Mouse Systems mouse driver from days long past, and in much the same way that DOS (and still Windows to this day, can you say "Hello PSP!" Never mind the command prompt) imitates CP/M, and in much the same way that Win32 imitates a real multitasking kernel..."
Always demonstrate a point with examples that leave no room to maneuver. If the toad (Brown) wants to equate "derived via concept" with theft, then let him... then simply provide examples that make his sponsors look even more horrid afterward, in a way which cannot be refuted when his own argument is applied.
And bonus points will be awarded if you can find a way to do it (unlike me) that involves decent grammar.
That'd only give you positional accuracy, which is almost useless. What's needed is attribution for a given segment - what's the address block of the left side? The right? Are the addresses uniformly distributed? Any "even" numbered houses on the "odd" side of the street or vice-versa?
Then there's the type of street, directionality, names and aliases, speed limits, on-street parking, sidewalks left and right, bike-routes left and right, congestion levels (by time of day), max axle weight capability, max height clearance, lane counts (left and right), and other attribution (car-pools only, etc) that'd be relevent.
Positional accuracy of the segments is pretty much worthless by itself. Cool to look at in real time, but only useful in real time... which is stupid ("Look, ma! The map say's we're right HERE! And look, we ARE!")
Good attribution with crap positional accuracy is 1000000 times more useful than perfect position without such attributes, because it enables you to use the map BEFORE you go somewhere.
Bzzztt... old serials were exactly that, installments. The typical SF rag of that era started with the first page of the year's first issue as page 1... and the last page of the year's final issue as 392389 or however many pages were published in that year.
Windows is a special 3rd type of kernel, called a "three ring clusterfuck".
Oh, you could tell very easily - the guy you speak to at Verizon would be a LOT less abusive than the normal trolls you typically get.
Yep, they should have phrased that better, and used the latest "fix all" hype for self-justification, since no nay-sayer would be able to argue against it -
"...drop its remaining Unix business, offshore its current management, "
> Police said Kaneko was arrested because Winny
> allowed a 41-year-old man from Takasaki and 19-year-old
> from Matsuyama to illegally download pirated
> games and movies from the Internet,
So... arrest IE, Mozilla, Netscape, Opera, WSFTP creators...
>> That's an entirely different issue - bundling and lack of customization.
No, it is the exact same issue. "Dragging" the bottom end along demands such bundling.
Yes, most people want everything *available* for their machine. However, most people do *not* want everything *installed* on it. There is a large difference. People want the availability because they do not know what these things are. They want them out of nerd-prowess, ego, and ignorance. The proof is in the pudding - one need only ask them what they *want* their machine to do. Then consider, after 3 or 4 years, *what they actually did* with that machine. You'll discover that the bulk of the *want*, even though it was available, was never implemented, never attempted, and never missed. In short, yes... they said they wanted it. And when all was said and done, they lied.
As far as pride - I've no idea what you're talking about... and it appears that you don't either. I do have voice recognition telephony. I do have automatic, predictive "issue management". I don't have, however, integration with hundreds of other offices. What I do have is integration with 2362 other offices, via dynamically determined channels based on time of day, day of week, and context... an average of 4 channels per office. And yes, dipshit, I developed and implemented a "wireless connectivity" solution with field people over half a decade ago, long before you'd ever heard of it.
You seem to think that all of these things should be implemented on every box in my shop, instead of only where they are relevent.
So, you're wrong - it is not an entirely different issue, it is the exact same one. Upgrades that produce no change in service are just plain stupid. Upgrades that produce new features that must be managed, when those features are not appropriate are unneeded. Combine the two, and you end up with a stupid, unneeded upgrade... which is the bulk of what's out there today, for the common user (not just me).
Does it make business sense for me to be ignored? Sure, on its face... but the average PC is like a microwave oven or a toaster, or a television. If a new, beneficial method of using it, or purpose for using it comes along... you upgrade. Until that happens, though, selling me exactly the same functionality I already have is stupid, and is the general case of most upgrades. Over the long term, however, the market will become jaded against such snakeoil. (Q.v. the cute stories of the exec who's computer is too slow... and the tech "fixes" the problem by giving him a new keyboard. The moral of these stories is that the *perception* of *need* was pure bullshit. Your assertions, however, treat this perception as real.)