Not for your average user, mind you, it blows for John Personal-Computing Hornblower, but it's great for large companies. Large companies have to invest a lot of time and energy when migrating to new software. Say that some company with 10,000 employees wants to buy Office WHATEVER and install it on all 10,000 computers. Now they have a headache of dropping a huge chunk of change for all those liscenses and installing it on everyone's machine. If User A uses it 100 times and User B uses it once, the company had to invest the same amount of money for both liscenses.
With this newer model, though, you are charged for what you use (kind of, I think it will be more like this in the future, perhaps a couple cents to create a Word document (with the tools for doing so being free)?) Also, when you want to upgrade to the next version, it will all be over the Internet, with the binaries for Word sitting at Office.net... you don't have to do anything... when a new version comes out, the IT manager can say, "Yes, we'll pay $x for the ten new features, or we'll pay $y for these three new features, or whatnot."
Also, the turn around time for MS on releasing new software and fixing bugs will be much better. Screw the time constraints of getting a new CD out and all that... if the Word team makes a small change that's neat, upload it to Office.net immediately and it starts getting used immediately...
Is paying for software on a per-use basis a good thing? For some, yes.
I don't want tools that let me take work home with me after hours, I want tools that will let me keep my work here and make my own hours
Agreed... telecommunication == good. Workers asking for perks that could be used by the company to expect after hours work from home == bad. I just found it funny that people wanted these perks that could, potentially, lead to more off-the-clock work. Personally, if I couldn't have a bonus as a perk, I'd choose to get perks at the workplace (free soda, lounge rooms, etc.).
I'd rather have a perk of a bonus that would cover the expenses for the toys you just listed. If the company knows they are giving me tools that I can use at home to do work, they may insist on it... "Here's your cell phone, and since we have the number, we'll feel free to call anytime we need something done."
These people must be workaholics (or those surveys were answered by the higher-ups). The last thing I would ask me employer for are tools so that he can expect me to work every waking hour. Home PCs, home Internet connections, and mobile communication devices seem like a way for companies to say, "Your work day does not end when you go home. You have the tools you need, and we can chat via cell phone."
Have you read the FTC's complaint against WebTV? http://www.ftc.gov/os/2000/10/webtvcomplaint.htm.. . basically boils down to, "WebTV says the box-top set is great and replaces the need for a computer to get on-line, but WebTV doesn't tell you can't use WebTV to download files or open common email attachments." Oy. It's a lengthy complaint probably costing us several hundred dollars of tax money.
Ah, yes, and we should censor things we don't like. The problem with both of these, Ralph, is that who is the "we" that gets to decide what is taxed heavier, or what is censored? Should porn be taxed heavily? After all, many believes it degrades man's view of women. Should we impose a hefty Internet usage tax? After all, we all know that whole Columbine thing was due, in large part, to the Internet. Personally, I'd like to put a tax on people like you, Ralph, people who think it is their business to restrict the freedoms of others.
I can only speak on what I know, and while anecdotal cases may be weak, they work for me. I (and you, likely), base your actions on past experiences.
I don't condone either activity, but, from my experiences, if I had to choose the lesser of two evils, I would choose the alcohol over pot. I know upstanding, well-to-do citizens who smoke it up, so I'm not making any absolute statements that pot == degenerate/drug dealer.
Again, it comes down to a simple question between two evils, I think. It's like saying, "I would rather have my kid get arrested for vandalizing a property than for burgalary." Granted, I'd rather have him to neither, but if he was going to do such, I'd rather have him commit the act that was a weaker punishment. True or false, if someone underage gets busted with pot on their possession, they will get a steeper penalty than if they have alcohol? Not saying it is right or wrong, mind you, just saying I'd rather have my kid face as few legal problems as possible.
writing ASP's and backend code in VB - I have to say I was new to web scripting languages at that point and ASP was a bit of a revelation - it was like, 'yes! Now I can write my web sites in BASIC'... Then after graduating I took a job at a web design firm- they were using JSPs - I took one look and realised it was basically ASPs, but with Java
You can write ASP in PerlScript, JScript, Python, VBScript, etc. And ASP+, Microsoft's next "version" of ASP, will support, among other languages, C#, which is just alias java c#
Microsoft's next "evolution" of ASP is really cool and will blow ASP (and JSP/PHP/CF) out of the water, IMHO. Of course I may be a bit biased... but... uh... well, just read up on ASP+, it is pretty cool.:-)
If he's drinking, where's he getting his alcohol? Are they buying it from, etcetera, yadda.
Same scenario, I'm afraid. The kid is breaking the law, be it alcohol or pot
Granted, if the kid is buying pot or alcohol, he is breaking the law... of course the punishment he will receive are not equivalent. Would you rather be busted for underage drinking or possession of pot? What would you rather have your kid be busted for. Furthermore, who would you rather have your kids spending time with - those who have found a way to illegally buy alcohol, or those who know/associate/are a drug dealer?
if he's hanging around potheads, he's chosen to hang around with people who have chosen a "soft" drug. They know pot isn't going to fuck 'em up.
If he's hanging around drinkers, he's chosen to hange around with "hard" drug people. They know alcohol is going to fuck 'em up if they drink too much
If he hangs around kids who smoke pot, where are they getting the pot? Are they buying it from another classmate? Are the selling it themselves? Do you want your kid hanging around drug dealers? If nothing else, your kid will only be removed by one or two friends from a drug dealer. Now, let's play the correlation game again... the percentage of drug sellers who have tried a harder drug is greater than the percentage of the normal population. True, I'd wager.
Furthermore, so rarely do kids not drink. Are you telling me that you never had any alcohol before you were 21? So, he can either hang around kids who just drink, or kids who smoke pot and drink. (That was what the "just" I used earlier implied.)
Well, I think that pretty much ALL crack and heroin users have had coffee at least once. Does that mean that coffee is a stepping stone
I would say yes if you could show that the percentage of heroin users that drink coffee is significantly higher than the percentage of non-heroin users who drink coffee.
I see AOL as a content vehicle. They provide content to subscribers, that's what you're paying for (the Net access thing you can get for free). So.... isn't this a bit like complaining about a magazine's content?
For example, I subscribe to Newsweek. If I don't like the content they are packing in their magazine, I will cancel my subscription. Now, I know you will all say, "What about the dummy users who don't have the tech skills to get online with an ISP?" Well, ISPs will have to make their services easier to use, or, if AOL becomes to annyoing for the average users, other AOL-like services will arise that will offer similar service but without the cramming content down your throat.
The beautiful thing about capitalism is that companies can try different things. If those things are not successful (i.e. the customers don't like them), the customers can stop spending their money with the company, and said company will either change their methods or loose money. Anyway, I wonder what percentage of/. users are AOL subscribers... anyone care to admit to it?:-) Assuming there are so few AOL subscribers here, what's the big fuss!?
Think about it. What's a gateway to what? Why are some drugs "bad" and some drugs "good"?
I guess it's not necessarily the drug itself that is bad, it's the fact that it's illegal. True or false: you are more likely to commit an illegal act if you've already committed one. I'd say true, and I'd wager that the stats would back it up... I have no numbers to back this up, but I assume the majority of people in prison had broken the law sometime prior to their arrest. Well, maybe that's not a great example.
Anyway, I see it like this... if my teenage kid hangs around a peer group that smokes pot, my kid is more likely to try a harder drug than if he just hangs around with a peer group that drinks alcohol. Again, I don't have any hard numbers to back this up, but I would bet that if you polled those who had done harder drugs, the percentage of that population who had done pot would be higher than the general public. Do you agree with that or not? Assuming that is true, there is a definite postivie correlation between pot usage and heavy drug usage.... is there a cause and effect? I dunno, but there is truly a correlation.
When the DARE officer came to talk to us, I was in fifth grade (10 years old). While I agree with your points, that not all drugs are evil voodoo drugs that must be avoided religiously, I do not know if kids that young can make a discernable difference between the two. Should we be giving kids a long list of what "OK" drugs are what "bad" drugs are? Kids, it's OK to try pot, but don't try crack. I dunno... I kind of liken it to telling young kids, "Hey, it's ok to have pre-marital oral sex, but not actual penetration." Once someone has gone as far as oral sex, vaginal sex ain't too far away.
Likewise, I would assume the percentage of crack or heroin users that have used pot as well is higher than the percentage of non-crack and non-heroin users. Now, I'm not saying pot unquestionably leads to harder drugs, but I don't think you want to give the youth the impression that some drugs (which might be used as stepping-stones to harder drugs) are ok.
Well, simply put, it is robbery. If you find nothing wrong with stealing from another, then you will find nothing wrong with socialism. If, however, you don't enjoy having people rob you of your wealth, of the things you've earned yourself, then you will find socialism to be evil.
Most geek friends I have are the weirdest people in the world
Me too, but usually they are socially awkward, bumbling, have poor hygene, and would not be the kinds of people who'd you'd want to see naked.
I dunno, I guess I saw that pick of two tan, skinny, good lookin' folks fucking on a desk, and I thought to myself, "The geeks I know aren't in good shape and tanned!"
If weird=geek generically, than this site makes a hell of a lot of sense
By that definition those bondage, S&M, watersport, etc. sites are all geek-oriented then? (A bit of subjectivity there, me decrying those acts are weird. Oh well.)
OK, so how are they going to charge this out exactly? From the CNN article: "AT&T Corp. is considering a plan to charge Internet retailers a commission each time a customer buys something through the telecom's broadband network..." So is this only for those Web sites that use AT&T's internet services or for customers who visit the sites via AT&T's services? If it is the former, how can they determine the total sales for the site (unless it is a publically traded company, they can be tight-lipped about their income sources, no?). If it's the latter, who will monitor what customer's are coming from where and what they will do?
Furthermore, the CNN article goes on to read: "AT&T would also collect a fee from retailers each time a customer accesses their site through its network." What!?!? Think about this for a moment, I see a new opportunity for poor college kids. Rather than do something like AllAdvantage or any of those other pay to surf, do a pay to not surf. Say to these companies who would get hit by a charge from AT&T on a per visit basis, "I won't visit your site for 10 cents a day, otherwise I will visit your site several times, racking up charges for you."
In any case, I can't see this working, everyone will switch ISPs, AT&T stockholders will complain, etc.
<brief_rant> See, folks, capitalism works just fine, we don't need to gov't stepping in and makig mandate after mandate... If businesses are doing something funny, let the consumers make them change their plans by voting with their dollars. </brief_rant>
Slashdot Mirror
With this newer model, though, you are charged for what you use (kind of, I think it will be more like this in the future, perhaps a couple cents to create a Word document (with the tools for doing so being free)?) Also, when you want to upgrade to the next version, it will all be over the Internet, with the binaries for Word sitting at Office.net... you don't have to do anything... when a new version comes out, the IT manager can say, "Yes, we'll pay $x for the ten new features, or we'll pay $y for these three new features, or whatnot."
Also, the turn around time for MS on releasing new software and fixing bugs will be much better. Screw the time constraints of getting a new CD out and all that... if the Word team makes a small change that's neat, upload it to Office.net immediately and it starts getting used immediately...
Is paying for software on a per-use basis a good thing? For some, yes.
Agreed... telecommunication == good. Workers asking for perks that could be used by the company to expect after hours work from home == bad. I just found it funny that people wanted these perks that could, potentially, lead to more off-the-clock work. Personally, if I couldn't have a bonus as a perk, I'd choose to get perks at the workplace (free soda, lounge rooms, etc.).
I'd rather have a perk of a bonus that would cover the expenses for the toys you just listed. If the company knows they are giving me tools that I can use at home to do work, they may insist on it... "Here's your cell phone, and since we have the number, we'll feel free to call anytime we need something done."
These people must be workaholics (or those surveys were answered by the higher-ups). The last thing I would ask me employer for are tools so that he can expect me to work every waking hour. Home PCs, home Internet connections, and mobile communication devices seem like a way for companies to say, "Your work day does not end when you go home. You have the tools you need, and we can chat via cell phone."
Have you read the FTC's complaint against WebTV? http://www.ftc.gov/os/2000/10/webtvcomplaint.htm.. . basically boils down to, "WebTV says the box-top set is great and replaces the need for a computer to get on-line, but WebTV doesn't tell you can't use WebTV to download files or open common email attachments." Oy. It's a lengthy complaint probably costing us several hundred dollars of tax money.
Ah, yes, and we should censor things we don't like. The problem with both of these, Ralph, is that who is the "we" that gets to decide what is taxed heavier, or what is censored? Should porn be taxed heavily? After all, many believes it degrades man's view of women. Should we impose a hefty Internet usage tax? After all, we all know that whole Columbine thing was due, in large part, to the Internet. Personally, I'd like to put a tax on people like you, Ralph, people who think it is their business to restrict the freedoms of others.
I can only speak on what I know, and while anecdotal cases may be weak, they work for me. I (and you, likely), base your actions on past experiences.
I don't condone either activity, but, from my experiences, if I had to choose the lesser of two evils, I would choose the alcohol over pot. I know upstanding, well-to-do citizens who smoke it up, so I'm not making any absolute statements that pot == degenerate/drug dealer.
Again, it comes down to a simple question between two evils, I think. It's like saying, "I would rather have my kid get arrested for vandalizing a property than for burgalary." Granted, I'd rather have him to neither, but if he was going to do such, I'd rather have him commit the act that was a weaker punishment. True or false, if someone underage gets busted with pot on their possession, they will get a steeper penalty than if they have alcohol? Not saying it is right or wrong, mind you, just saying I'd rather have my kid face as few legal problems as possible.
Fortunately VB7 will support try/catch/finally blocks.
You can write ASP in PerlScript, JScript, Python, VBScript, etc. And ASP+, Microsoft's next "version" of ASP, will support, among other languages, C#, which is just alias java c#
Microsoft's next "evolution" of ASP is really cool and will blow ASP (and JSP/PHP/CF) out of the water, IMHO. Of course I may be a bit biased... but... uh... well, just read up on ASP+, it is pretty cool. :-)
No more channel surfing when commercials come on!
Cybersquatter: FourGuysFromRolla.com
Annoying, yes, but I take it as a bit of a compliment... one of those things that if you have to worry about it, you know you're doing decent traffic.
Granted, if the kid is buying pot or alcohol, he is breaking the law... of course the punishment he will receive are not equivalent. Would you rather be busted for underage drinking or possession of pot? What would you rather have your kid be busted for. Furthermore, who would you rather have your kids spending time with - those who have found a way to illegally buy alcohol, or those who know/associate/are a drug dealer?
If he hangs around kids who smoke pot, where are they getting the pot? Are they buying it from another classmate? Are the selling it themselves? Do you want your kid hanging around drug dealers? If nothing else, your kid will only be removed by one or two friends from a drug dealer. Now, let's play the correlation game again... the percentage of drug sellers who have tried a harder drug is greater than the percentage of the normal population. True, I'd wager.
Furthermore, so rarely do kids not drink. Are you telling me that you never had any alcohol before you were 21? So, he can either hang around kids who just drink, or kids who smoke pot and drink. (That was what the "just" I used earlier implied.)
I would say yes if you could show that the percentage of heroin users that drink coffee is significantly higher than the percentage of non-heroin users who drink coffee.
For example, I subscribe to Newsweek. If I don't like the content they are packing in their magazine, I will cancel my subscription. Now, I know you will all say, "What about the dummy users who don't have the tech skills to get online with an ISP?" Well, ISPs will have to make their services easier to use, or, if AOL becomes to annyoing for the average users, other AOL-like services will arise that will offer similar service but without the cramming content down your throat.
The beautiful thing about capitalism is that companies can try different things. If those things are not successful (i.e. the customers don't like them), the customers can stop spending their money with the company, and said company will either change their methods or loose money. Anyway, I wonder what percentage of /. users are AOL subscribers... anyone care to admit to it? :-) Assuming there are so few AOL subscribers here, what's the big fuss!?
I guess it's not necessarily the drug itself that is bad, it's the fact that it's illegal. True or false: you are more likely to commit an illegal act if you've already committed one. I'd say true, and I'd wager that the stats would back it up... I have no numbers to back this up, but I assume the majority of people in prison had broken the law sometime prior to their arrest. Well, maybe that's not a great example.
Anyway, I see it like this... if my teenage kid hangs around a peer group that smokes pot, my kid is more likely to try a harder drug than if he just hangs around with a peer group that drinks alcohol. Again, I don't have any hard numbers to back this up, but I would bet that if you polled those who had done harder drugs, the percentage of that population who had done pot would be higher than the general public. Do you agree with that or not? Assuming that is true, there is a definite postivie correlation between pot usage and heavy drug usage.... is there a cause and effect? I dunno, but there is truly a correlation.
Likewise, I would assume the percentage of crack or heroin users that have used pot as well is higher than the percentage of non-crack and non-heroin users. Now, I'm not saying pot unquestionably leads to harder drugs, but I don't think you want to give the youth the impression that some drugs (which might be used as stepping-stones to harder drugs) are ok.
See: http://www.sqlmag.com/Articles/Index.cfm?ArticleI
(Granted, it's gonna be a bit biased coming from SQLMag.com, but hey... whatcha donna go?)
Well, simply put, it is robbery. If you find nothing wrong with stealing from another, then you will find nothing wrong with socialism. If, however, you don't enjoy having people rob you of your wealth, of the things you've earned yourself, then you will find socialism to be evil.
I am interested what sites these guys visit (if any). I'd suspect CNN.com, CNNfn.com, and politics.CNN.com
Very little... too busy running the country/Texas/for prez.
What is your favorite internet porn site?
Prono degrades women, bad bad bad
How many mp3's have you downloaded from napster
What's an mp3?
Me too, but usually they are socially awkward, bumbling, have poor hygene, and would not be the kinds of people who'd you'd want to see naked.
I dunno, I guess I saw that pick of two tan, skinny, good lookin' folks fucking on a desk, and I thought to myself, "The geeks I know aren't in good shape and tanned!"
If weird=geek generically, than this site makes a hell of a lot of sense
By that definition those bondage, S&M, watersport, etc. sites are all geek-oriented then? (A bit of subjectivity there, me decrying those acts are weird. Oh well.)
Furthermore, the CNN article goes on to read: "AT&T would also collect a fee from retailers each time a customer accesses their site through its network." What!?!? Think about this for a moment, I see a new opportunity for poor college kids. Rather than do something like AllAdvantage or any of those other pay to surf, do a pay to not surf. Say to these companies who would get hit by a charge from AT&T on a per visit basis, "I won't visit your site for 10 cents a day, otherwise I will visit your site several times, racking up charges for you."
In any case, I can't see this working, everyone will switch ISPs, AT&T stockholders will complain, etc.
<brief_rant>
See, folks, capitalism works just fine, we don't need to gov't stepping in and makig mandate after mandate... If businesses are doing something funny, let the consumers make them change their plans by voting with their dollars.
</brief_rant>