I guess I wasn't clear enough on this. They don't regulate prices between *similar* businesses. Just that if the same business has locations in the city center and the airport, those prices must be the same.
That and the airports usually require that the airport location not charge more than their locations in the city center. So somebody like McDonald's has to charge the same price. The newsstands typically *only* have airport locations so there is no baseline comparison.
They also, due to the infrastructure costs, demanded long contracts from the airlines. But competition won't necessarily lower prices. If somebody new comes along and agrees to charge the airlines less, that doesn't mean that consumers will see lower prices. Just changes how the profits are sliced up. For as long as you are on the plane, the internet provider has a monopoly and will set monopoly prices.
Xrdp uses Xvnc or X11rdp to manage the X session. At least according to the link you posted. The reason RDP works well is that it sends Windows meta-files with information on how to render rather than the raster images. If you were to try to send an X session it would probably be raster images encapsulated in RDP but wouldn't have the performance benefits. What ever happened to things like NoMachine NX client that were supposed to do the same thing for X-based UIs?
They only have to do this is if they are putting it on overhead screens for everyone. The trend is to let you watch on your own personal tablets so they can show less-redacted versions. They obviously can't stream multiple movies live via their CDMA system so they do have large caches on-board.
The (flamebait) summary implies that the airline WiFi is geared toward a person who wants to be wanted in this way. I'm pointing out that the product isn't geared toward this type of person at all. Maybe this isn't what either of us wants, but some people do want this and may perceive it as a need. However, the current offering isn't tailored to this. I'm not qualified to weigh in on whether being constantly available is a good thing. But I'm quite comfortable saying that current offerings seem to be geared towards teens with their parents payment cards.
I have driven vehicles without power steering. I haven't (to my knowledge) driven one without power brakes. Power steering doesn't really add much at all. In fact it seems like a waste to me. If you are rolling more than about 2mph, manual steering works just fine. You still get a mechanical advantage (the steering wheel turns a further distance than the wheels pivot). It's neigh impossible to turn the wheel at a dead stop. People who learned to drive before power steering will instinctively plan their trajectories so that they can get rolling before turning the wheel.
I'm not sure that I'm trying to do either one. The world is changing due to ubiquitous smart phones. I'm sure it's neither all good nor all bad. I don't feel like online relationships are real relationships. But people younger than me seem to have a much different attitude, so maybe I'm missing something. Or maybe they are.
Not just higher education. There are a lot of complex problem domains out there and simple buzzword-answers don't model the situation well enough to be useful. That being said, there is a strong human desire for simple solutions. Hence you can always find somebody in management who will believe the sales pitch. It's always somebody in management not necessarily because they are mentally inferior but because they aren't dealing directly enough with the underlying problems and, therefore, aren't constantly reminded of the complexity in the same way as those engaging in active contribution.
Fair enough, but they didn't "pick" it in any normal sense of the word. I mean sure you could argue for a "staff pick" where everybody picked their least favorite. I think we both agree, though, that the current labeling of "staff pick" is deceptive.
I think even a "puny IT issued laptop" could play The Sims locally. Probably not allowed to be installed, though, so you have to VNC to your home machine if you want to play on the flight! Probably better just to install the version for iOS or Android, though!
I see your point. But I don't think your scenario is really what one thinks of when it comes to a "business traveler." When I think of business travelers needing to stay connected, I envision a major client calling in upset about something and they better get a reassuring email quickly or all hell will break loose.
WiFi today could meet your needs, though, with a little planning. There are a lot of good mobility solutions out there that let you synchronize documents locally (and support things like remote wipe should a device be lost or stolen). Also VNC is terribly inefficient with the netowork.
The Windows RDP client is really wonderful in that it uses almost no bandwidth (2400 baud model is more than enough.) If accessing Linux machines, I think that NoMachine is the best choice. VNC sends giant raster images continuously and will never be satisfied regardless of how much bandwidth you have.
That's probably a good long-term solution. In the short-term, the networks aren't managed well at all. There is a request that you avoid things like streaming full-length movies but no enforcement. Same for VoIP calls and the like (which work surprisingly well even on the limited bandwidth). Give low priority to things like app downloads, be more aggressive about not allowing voice calls.
Southwest offers a discount "messaging only" access plan on flights. I'm not sure exactly what is included or how they determine what traffic to let through. If they dedicated a portion of bandwidth for the things that business users care about (email), it would be a higher value offering. Right now that traffic gets mixed in with people wanting to do things like Youtube and Skype on the plane. I pointed this out in another post, but I don't know of any employers who reimburse WiFi on the plane.
However, it's also not expensive. If you fly once every few months, maybe you think $8-$10 is expensive for this amazing technology. There are monthly plans available, though, that seem pretty reasonable.
I don't think that would be a problem at all for business users. In fact there is actually plenty of bandwidth on the plane for us. All we want is to be able to send and receive *text* email reliably. The issue with WiFi on planes is that people want to do things like stream Youtube and this eats up all of the bandwidth. Really what is needed is a traffic prioritization solution.
I think, however, that the summary is wrong in terms of caring about cost. I don't think that too many employers actually pay for the WiFi on planes. I don't think I've ever purchased it. I mostly use it on Southwest where it is free. (For A-List Preferred flyers)
Or you know, they could get permission from the neighbor! That would seem to be a much more reasonable solution. I'm not sure whether this proposed policy is good or bad. But requiring permission to do something isn't the same as prohibiting it. Usually permission for stuff like this is trivial to get.
The problem with "staff picks," in general is that they aren't picked by the staff anymore. In the old days of indie music and book stores, the staff was typically comprised (at least partially) of people who were enthusiastic about the product being sold and the staff pick meant that a self-proclaimed expert really liked something. You could often trust these recommendations in the sense that the staff genuinely liked the things that they picked. Now it's a label used to trigger that nostalgia but the picks are now done by profit-maximizing algorithms and the staff has nothing to do with it.
What doesn't make sense here is that, if an item is stolen, tracking it shouldn't require permission of the person who stole it or a court order; the rightful owner should be able to authorize it. In fact with all of the "find my phone" features out there, I'm not even sure why the expensive devices are needed. If my phone was stolen and police wanted to use the "find my phone" feature to retrieve it, I would hate to hate to see that evidence thrown out. Of course, it also should be easy to get the warrant. There is something here more than meets the eye and the article isn't enlightening.
I'm not familiar enough with the Supreme court case with regard to Laches to make a very nuanced legal argument. (IANAL, et cetera). However, I'm not surprised as it seems very similar to "bait cars" that police departments use to catch car thieves. In many large organizations people arrive at 09:00 and leave at 5:00pm or so. Car thieves would know that they could come to the parking lot around 10:30, steal a car, and nobody would be the wiser until the end of the work day. So police departments would put commonly-stolen vehicles in the lot with GPS trackers. When the car got stolen, it was easy to catch the thieves. Defense attorneys tried to make the Laches argument and failed for the same reason they probably would here. The person set out to steal a car. The fact that they go the bait car didn't change the fact that they, well, stole a car. Sure the car was *intended* to be stolen (for purposes of catching thieves) but that line of reasoning was absurd. If I set out to engage in retail piracy and it turns out that the copyright owners happen to have mixed some of their bait in with the goods I'm casing, doesn't change the fact that I set out to commit the crime and just happened to get bait instead of the real thing. Now if they actively *encouraged* the piracy, that might be different. That would be entrapment by the police and may invoke Laches in civil cases. But the fact that you got caught in a sting while committing a crime doesn't make you any less guilty.
Most airlines can't increase capacity when demand goes up. They don't have a fleet of planes sitting around. The higher prices mean that the most economically valuable travel occurs. The alternative would be a first-come first-serve situation. You don't need more than Economics 101 to see why this is a problem. Not raising fares during peak seasons would be the equivalent of an artificial price ceiling and all of it's known, negative consequences. There *are* airlines that *do* increase capacity based on demand. I think that Allegiant is the classic example. They buy old planes for cheap so that they can have extra capacity.
I hate the airlines because they have awful service. They don't actually guarantee to get you to your destination by any specific time. They charge certain fees due to having monopolies (Fees to change your ticket to an earlier flight when there is an empty seat, come on, really). They don't plan ahead about anything except money and so they do things like leave people stuck on the tarmac for hours and threaten to call the police if you complain about it. (Yes, I've witnessed that first hand)
I don't hate "unbundling" (the idea of charging for checked bags, carryon, et cetera) but they implement it in the most unfriendly way. Include your bags and food in the ticket and give you a refund for *not* using them and many people would love it.
But charging more at high demand times to keep supply / demand in balance, I don't see how you can criticize a for-profit entity for doing that. And the alternative would be worse.
The title and tone of your message imply that this "technology" is a bad thing (and that's my instant reaction as well). However, I don't like working with cheaters and I do like going home on time, to the outcomes you posted seem like *good* ones. There are weeks where I work long hours and times where I don't have a full 40 hours worth of work to do. I always assume that it comes out in the wash. But I don't *hide* when I work short. If I quit early to take my kid somewhere, I actually put it on my work calendar so my boss and colleagues can see it. I'm not promoting this kind of big brother, but getting rid of cheaters sure does seem appealing.
Slashdot Mirror
http://philamarketplace.com/in...
I guess I wasn't clear enough on this. They don't regulate prices between *similar* businesses. Just that if the same business has locations in the city center and the airport, those prices must be the same.
That and the airports usually require that the airport location not charge more than their locations in the city center. So somebody like McDonald's has to charge the same price. The newsstands typically *only* have airport locations so there is no baseline comparison.
They also, due to the infrastructure costs, demanded long contracts from the airlines. But competition won't necessarily lower prices. If somebody new comes along and agrees to charge the airlines less, that doesn't mean that consumers will see lower prices. Just changes how the profits are sliced up. For as long as you are on the plane, the internet provider has a monopoly and will set monopoly prices.
Xrdp uses Xvnc or X11rdp to manage the X session. At least according to the link you posted. The reason RDP works well is that it sends Windows meta-files with information on how to render rather than the raster images. If you were to try to send an X session it would probably be raster images encapsulated in RDP but wouldn't have the performance benefits. What ever happened to things like NoMachine NX client that were supposed to do the same thing for X-based UIs?
They only have to do this is if they are putting it on overhead screens for everyone. The trend is to let you watch on your own personal tablets so they can show less-redacted versions. They obviously can't stream multiple movies live via their CDMA system so they do have large caches on-board.
The (flamebait) summary implies that the airline WiFi is geared toward a person who wants to be wanted in this way. I'm pointing out that the product isn't geared toward this type of person at all. Maybe this isn't what either of us wants, but some people do want this and may perceive it as a need. However, the current offering isn't tailored to this. I'm not qualified to weigh in on whether being constantly available is a good thing. But I'm quite comfortable saying that current offerings seem to be geared towards teens with their parents payment cards.
I have driven vehicles without power steering. I haven't (to my knowledge) driven one without power brakes. Power steering doesn't really add much at all. In fact it seems like a waste to me. If you are rolling more than about 2mph, manual steering works just fine. You still get a mechanical advantage (the steering wheel turns a further distance than the wheels pivot). It's neigh impossible to turn the wheel at a dead stop. People who learned to drive before power steering will instinctively plan their trajectories so that they can get rolling before turning the wheel.
People *do* complain very loudly, though, when somebody makes a movie based on the Bible!
I'm not sure that I'm trying to do either one. The world is changing due to ubiquitous smart phones. I'm sure it's neither all good nor all bad. I don't feel like online relationships are real relationships. But people younger than me seem to have a much different attitude, so maybe I'm missing something. Or maybe they are.
I'm sure people are just looking up relevant scripture during the engaging sermon.
Teenagers are having less sex these days and this is postulated to be the reason.
Not just higher education. There are a lot of complex problem domains out there and simple buzzword-answers don't model the situation well enough to be useful. That being said, there is a strong human desire for simple solutions. Hence you can always find somebody in management who will believe the sales pitch. It's always somebody in management not necessarily because they are mentally inferior but because they aren't dealing directly enough with the underlying problems and, therefore, aren't constantly reminded of the complexity in the same way as those engaging in active contribution.
Fair enough, but they didn't "pick" it in any normal sense of the word. I mean sure you could argue for a "staff pick" where everybody picked their least favorite. I think we both agree, though, that the current labeling of "staff pick" is deceptive.
I think even a "puny IT issued laptop" could play The Sims locally. Probably not allowed to be installed, though, so you have to VNC to your home machine if you want to play on the flight! Probably better just to install the version for iOS or Android, though!
I see your point. But I don't think your scenario is really what one thinks of when it comes to a "business traveler." When I think of business travelers needing to stay connected, I envision a major client calling in upset about something and they better get a reassuring email quickly or all hell will break loose. WiFi today could meet your needs, though, with a little planning. There are a lot of good mobility solutions out there that let you synchronize documents locally (and support things like remote wipe should a device be lost or stolen). Also VNC is terribly inefficient with the netowork. The Windows RDP client is really wonderful in that it uses almost no bandwidth (2400 baud model is more than enough.) If accessing Linux machines, I think that NoMachine is the best choice. VNC sends giant raster images continuously and will never be satisfied regardless of how much bandwidth you have.
That's probably a good long-term solution. In the short-term, the networks aren't managed well at all. There is a request that you avoid things like streaming full-length movies but no enforcement. Same for VoIP calls and the like (which work surprisingly well even on the limited bandwidth). Give low priority to things like app downloads, be more aggressive about not allowing voice calls.
Southwest offers a discount "messaging only" access plan on flights. I'm not sure exactly what is included or how they determine what traffic to let through. If they dedicated a portion of bandwidth for the things that business users care about (email), it would be a higher value offering. Right now that traffic gets mixed in with people wanting to do things like Youtube and Skype on the plane. I pointed this out in another post, but I don't know of any employers who reimburse WiFi on the plane. However, it's also not expensive. If you fly once every few months, maybe you think $8-$10 is expensive for this amazing technology. There are monthly plans available, though, that seem pretty reasonable.
I don't think that would be a problem at all for business users. In fact there is actually plenty of bandwidth on the plane for us. All we want is to be able to send and receive *text* email reliably. The issue with WiFi on planes is that people want to do things like stream Youtube and this eats up all of the bandwidth. Really what is needed is a traffic prioritization solution. I think, however, that the summary is wrong in terms of caring about cost. I don't think that too many employers actually pay for the WiFi on planes. I don't think I've ever purchased it. I mostly use it on Southwest where it is free. (For A-List Preferred flyers)
Or you know, they could get permission from the neighbor! That would seem to be a much more reasonable solution. I'm not sure whether this proposed policy is good or bad. But requiring permission to do something isn't the same as prohibiting it. Usually permission for stuff like this is trivial to get.
The problem with "staff picks," in general is that they aren't picked by the staff anymore. In the old days of indie music and book stores, the staff was typically comprised (at least partially) of people who were enthusiastic about the product being sold and the staff pick meant that a self-proclaimed expert really liked something. You could often trust these recommendations in the sense that the staff genuinely liked the things that they picked. Now it's a label used to trigger that nostalgia but the picks are now done by profit-maximizing algorithms and the staff has nothing to do with it.
What doesn't make sense here is that, if an item is stolen, tracking it shouldn't require permission of the person who stole it or a court order; the rightful owner should be able to authorize it. In fact with all of the "find my phone" features out there, I'm not even sure why the expensive devices are needed. If my phone was stolen and police wanted to use the "find my phone" feature to retrieve it, I would hate to hate to see that evidence thrown out. Of course, it also should be easy to get the warrant. There is something here more than meets the eye and the article isn't enlightening.
I'm not familiar enough with the Supreme court case with regard to Laches to make a very nuanced legal argument. (IANAL, et cetera). However, I'm not surprised as it seems very similar to "bait cars" that police departments use to catch car thieves. In many large organizations people arrive at 09:00 and leave at 5:00pm or so. Car thieves would know that they could come to the parking lot around 10:30, steal a car, and nobody would be the wiser until the end of the work day. So police departments would put commonly-stolen vehicles in the lot with GPS trackers. When the car got stolen, it was easy to catch the thieves. Defense attorneys tried to make the Laches argument and failed for the same reason they probably would here. The person set out to steal a car. The fact that they go the bait car didn't change the fact that they, well, stole a car. Sure the car was *intended* to be stolen (for purposes of catching thieves) but that line of reasoning was absurd. If I set out to engage in retail piracy and it turns out that the copyright owners happen to have mixed some of their bait in with the goods I'm casing, doesn't change the fact that I set out to commit the crime and just happened to get bait instead of the real thing. Now if they actively *encouraged* the piracy, that might be different. That would be entrapment by the police and may invoke Laches in civil cases. But the fact that you got caught in a sting while committing a crime doesn't make you any less guilty.
Most airlines can't increase capacity when demand goes up. They don't have a fleet of planes sitting around. The higher prices mean that the most economically valuable travel occurs. The alternative would be a first-come first-serve situation. You don't need more than Economics 101 to see why this is a problem. Not raising fares during peak seasons would be the equivalent of an artificial price ceiling and all of it's known, negative consequences. There *are* airlines that *do* increase capacity based on demand. I think that Allegiant is the classic example. They buy old planes for cheap so that they can have extra capacity. I hate the airlines because they have awful service. They don't actually guarantee to get you to your destination by any specific time. They charge certain fees due to having monopolies (Fees to change your ticket to an earlier flight when there is an empty seat, come on, really). They don't plan ahead about anything except money and so they do things like leave people stuck on the tarmac for hours and threaten to call the police if you complain about it. (Yes, I've witnessed that first hand) I don't hate "unbundling" (the idea of charging for checked bags, carryon, et cetera) but they implement it in the most unfriendly way. Include your bags and food in the ticket and give you a refund for *not* using them and many people would love it. But charging more at high demand times to keep supply / demand in balance, I don't see how you can criticize a for-profit entity for doing that. And the alternative would be worse.
The title and tone of your message imply that this "technology" is a bad thing (and that's my instant reaction as well). However, I don't like working with cheaters and I do like going home on time, to the outcomes you posted seem like *good* ones. There are weeks where I work long hours and times where I don't have a full 40 hours worth of work to do. I always assume that it comes out in the wash. But I don't *hide* when I work short. If I quit early to take my kid somewhere, I actually put it on my work calendar so my boss and colleagues can see it. I'm not promoting this kind of big brother, but getting rid of cheaters sure does seem appealing.