Produce it, along with the specification and the invoice for the work, with irrelevant details redacted (like how much you were paid).
The fact that you have specific project documentation should be ample evidence that you are the original author. All that needs to be done for verification is to have the new client phone the old client and ask if they had indeed contracted with you for a piece of work. No other specifics.
You could have even phoned the old client from the new client's place of business and asked the old client to verify it right there, as long as you have good reason to expect the old client to tell the truth.
Meh. Technical literacy does not correlate with technical understanding. Lots of people know how to push buttons. Few understand what happens when the buttons are pushed or why they are pushing them in the first place.
Likewise, people who might otherwise seem smart on one subject aren't guaranteed to know squat about the other. Similarly, the issue of specialists versus generalists often has an effect on people's ability to understand things outside their narrow field of expertise.
So, it's not really all that surprising, especially given that the majority of the/. readerbase aren't even technical experts in the first place. Maybe that was true a decade ago, but it has long since changed.
There could be a million "maybes" which describe a highly-intelligent being's wants and desires, but this one is far more definite.
I don't know if it follows that highly intelligent beings are automatically driven by curiosity, but if not, I would call into serious question how they become highly intelligent in the first place.
Apparently, thinking and writing aren't your strong points. Try reading your own words a few times; maybe their ambiguity will sink in. Probably not, though.
Except that I didn't propose ANY particular scheme, hare-brained or otherwise. That wasn't the point of the argument. So go prop up your strawman and sodomize it somewhere else.
You are correct that reason and critical thinking are taking over and dominating the discussion now, and they should be. Go figure. Too bad you failed to participate in any meaningful capacity, but thanks for outing yourself as someone who isn't interested in such in the first place; it is most appreciated.:)
The "evidence" that exists is that it has been getting a bit warmer; few people disagree with that.
A lot more than a few people disagree with that, including a significant number of people who have the authority and responsibility to actually DO something about it.
The "debate" is about what that means.
No, we KNOW what it means; we have known for decades what it means to have global temperatures get "a bit warmer". Just like we have known for decades what it means to have global temperatures get "a bit colder". The only serious debate left is what we need to do about it. Not when, because the when is NOW, but what.
Is it going to continue to get warmer?
Yes. The science is VERY solid on this point.
Is there anything we can do about it?
Yes, of course. There are many things we can do about it, but realize that even if we did everything we could, right now, the warming trend will continue for some time due to the enormous inertia of the climate system. What we would be doing right now is reducing the future peak and extent of the warming that will occur for the next few hundred to few thousand years.
Simply put -- we need to STOP putting more excess CO2 in the atmosphere (I use the term "excess" as a pre-emptive anti-stupid-response for those who would counter with trollish strawmen like "ok, let's all stop breathing, then!"). It isn't going to happen in one day, but we need to make a sincere and concerted effort to make it happen as quickly as possible. We need to start looking towards CO2 sequestration technologies to remove the excess CO2 that we've already put into the atmosphere. We need to make plans for the changes that are going to happen anyway from all the past emissions excesses. Is it a big challenge? Yes, enormous; as enormous as the problem itself. Can we do it? I think we are capable; we have mobilized ourselves as a nation for other important tasks in our history.
Should we?
Should we wash our hands after handling fecal matter and before handling our food? Should we purify drinking water? Should we rotate crops? That's the kind of common-sense question that really doesn't need to be asked, does it?
What are the costs?
Indeed. What are the costs of NOT doing something about it, and now? Are they far greater than the costs of doing something about it? Well, see, there are some really smart people who have been working on this particular question -- insurance actuaries -- and we already know their answer. People who are experts in risk management are well aware that the costs of doing nothing on climate change are catastrophic, far more so than most practical abatement and mitigation plans combined, and they are already adjusting insurance plans and premiums to take it into account. I think we should take a cue from them as to what the costs are very likely to be and make decisions to do something NOW.
There are a lot of people who like to confuse the little bit of scientific fact we have with issues of extrapolation, prediction, and policy. That is not science, it is just dishonesty.
"Little bit of scientific fact" You're kidding, right? There are LIBRARIES full of scientific research on this subject. If that is to be considered "a little bit", perhaps we should start questioning the confusion related to the "little bit of scientific fact" we have with things like gravity, biology, chemistry, evolution, etc.
One of the main principles of science involves extrapolation and prediction. That's what the scientific method is all about. How do you think we got to the moon? We didn't have previous attempts by ancient civilizations to guide us, we extrapolated and predicted. We did so smartly and very carefully, but that's what we did.
When the weatherman predicts a big, dangerous storm heading your way, do you think it is a good policy to ignore it and do nothing to prepare for it until it is blowing your house down?
Until 1984, national telecommunications was a regulated utility, with the government controlling prices. A long distance call was $2.87 per minute. In 1984, it was deregulated and natural competition quickly brought the rate to $0.10 per minute - a 97% reduction.
Tight government regulation of internet service as a utility is a great idea, if you want to pay $12 / GB. I can understand how this might have been debatable in 1812, but in 2012 we've already tried both ways over and over again. Competition beats government fiat every time.
Gotta love revisionist historians...
The cost of long distance pre-1980s was due to the existence/enforcement of a monopoly, not due to regulation, but due to the incorrect assignment of the telephone network as a NATURAL monopoly, which it never was.
In 1982-4, the monopoly was broken over the collective knee of the People, and natural competitive market forces kicked in, just as they should have been allowed for the previous 70-odd years. Regulation wasn't done away with until the 1996 Telecommunications Act which, by that time, had seen the price decreases you allude to. SINCE 1996, very little has changed, except that the broken-up Baby Bells have now been re-merged into a few massive monopolistic players which are ripping off customers and taxpayers all over again.
Maybe you haven't noticed the existing competive system has brought us from 14 kbps to 14Mbps, a THOUSAND times as fast as a few years ago?
Dude, I don't know what planet you live on, but I have 3Mbps ADSL, which is the fastest I can get in this area without running my own damn lines (WHICH, btw, I am prevented from doing by local ordinances which, you guessed it, protect the fuckin' monopolies again). In 2000, I had 2Mbps cable. So, I've gotten a whopping 50% increase in speed in the last TWELVE years. Before that, I had 1.5Mbps ADSL for a few years. It's been over TWENTY YEARS since I had to depend on 14.4k dialup. "A few years" my arse.
The existing "competitive system" isn't about competition at all. It is about monopolism, fraud, and greed, which is pretty much the gory, but oh-so-real history of American Capitalism itself.
Regulation is a necessary evil, as is keeping a tight rein on monopolistic practices. Sadly, our government generally is bribed into ineffective regulation and to ignore the monopolism. Thus, we get screwed until the end of the next gyre in "history repeats itself" completes. In the meantime, we have ineffective and incompetent solutions, allowing other countries to gain huge technological advances over us.
The current situation has a long history in a multi-billion-dollar ripoff of the taxpayers and customers of these companies. Cringeley wrote an amazingly prescient article on the hows and whys we have what we have today (I believe it was even featured here a few years ago when it was published):
This all is nothing new, it was planned in the 90s, and we have pretty much the implementation of that plan today.
Does it piss you off? It pisses me off for sure. How do we go about fixing it?
1) Stop supporting the companies that screw us and found/support companies which do it right. 2) Get your friends/family/neighbors/community to vote out the bribed politicians that either enabled it, or turned a blind eye to it, and vote in politicians who are not bribed and will actually fix it. 3) Be willing to suffer for a while for a better future. The companies who perpetrate these scams set it up such that people will accept the suboptimal crap they are peddling because they won't take the inconvenience of being without said crap for a short enough time to send the message that the situation will change, or else.
But no, human nature (and American culture itself) dictates that nothing will change; the telcos have already won.
Hate to break it to you, but vBulletin gets hacked about as often as anything else out there. In the past 10 years, I've cleaned up about as many hacked vB forums for people as several of the other popular forum packages combined.
Sure, the primary issue is that people don't keep their software updated, but that is true no matter what software you use. I've setup and ran dozens of phpBB forums, and I have yet to have one hacked, but then I keep them (and the servers they run on) up-to-date.
OK, so he figured out a way to stuff a bunch of hard drives in a server rack; apparently more than anyone else has (yet) figured out how to do. Did he cut some corners? Does it have proper heat management? 4.6PB is pretty useless if it can't run for more than an hour before turning into a pile of molten slag.
He claims it was "a little design change" to get 4x the space.
I think my bullshit detector is going off here.. hold on a sec.
Efficiency does factor hugely into it, but not nearly as hugely as the basic physics behind it.
For example, one of the Boeing 747 models (not sure which one) is listed with a power consumption of 140MW. Total irradiance at the top of the Earth's atmosphere is 1366 W/sqm. So, even with perfect efficiency, the plane flying above the atmosphere, and the Sun being a little brighter than normal (so we can round the calculations for simplicity), it would take 100,000 sqm of our amazing solar panels to provide sufficient comparable power to the given airplane. The top-down silhouette of one of the 747 models is around 1000 sqm, so that means that the plane would have to be 100 times larger, surface-area-wise.
That's physics for ya... always shooting down awesome ideas.
It doesn't matter if they are in another country or not. YouTube is based in the US, so all you need is a default judgment from a US judge, mail the judgment to YouTube, and watch the video get taken down permanently.
If you are also wanting to be awarded damages, then that's a whole 'nother ball of wax. You *might* get an award, but good luck ever collecting it.
It sounds to me like you're not interested in damages, just getting rid of the offending videos would be enough. So, do it. It will cost a little bit, but that's the price of enforcing Copyright.
Welcome to the Wonderful World of Intellectual Property Law!
Given that comment, isn't it funny that the most popular vehicle of choice for many years was the minivan, more or less a slimmed-down version of a "heavy lifting" vehicle, and now, the SUV, which is basically a truck with an integrated camper shell.
This whole "end of the XXX era" crap is a typical has-been journalist's pathetic attempt to become a futurist because he thinks he has some kind of insight into an industry that he really doesn't have, all in a desperate attempt to remain relevant.
The truth of the matter is that it takes a LONG time for technologies to actually die out and be supplanted by something else. For example, the typewriter being almost totally obsoleted by the word processor+printer, then the general-purpose computing device running word processing software. The problem is that not all technologies get obsoleted at the same rate or the same way. Many simply get incremental upgrades over many years, but they still serve the same function(s) as their original version and, functionally they are mostly the same as they were at their beginning. Automobiles, for example.
Cringely makes the argument that the PC is going to be obsoleted similar to the way that the typewriter was, but I would argue that it will continue to be around for many years to come, albeit incrementally improved, just like automobiles. There are many reasons for this, and many of the counter-arguments harken back to the same doom-n-gloom prognostications for the death of the PC by others (Ellison and his NC, for one).
1) The user experience. Many tasks just simply cannot be done on a portable device. Either because the screens are too small, the devices are not powerful enough, or the input capabilities are too limited. 2) Social inertia. Many people are used to getting things done with a keyboard, mouse, and screen in front of them, and many of them are still young. While the youth may embrace the "newer" technologies faster, experience with the "older" technologies will still significantly affect their preferences. 3) Limited, unreliable, and/or financially prohibitive connectivity. One of my biggest issues with "moving to the cloud" is connectivity. Many people have limited connectivity, since, in many places, "broadband" speeds are atrociously slow. Also, what do you do when the internet is down, which happens fairly often for a significant number of people? The usual counter-argument is to go wireless, using some kind of cellular network connection, which comes with its own bag of problems. The first is coverage. Where I live and work, coverage is still spotty, even today. I get dropped calls and no signal even walking to different parts of my own house. It isn't limited to one carrier, either, as the problem is I live in a relatively rural area. The next problem is speed. Cellular data networks don't come close to even slow wired broadband, and cell nodes are often congested in urban areas. Lastly, there is the cost. Between the profiteering and monopolism inherent in the cellular carrier industry, wireless data plans are hideously expensive for what you get.
All of these issues taken together form the "perfect storm" to keep the much-ballyhooed "end-of-the-pc-era-beginning-of-the-cloud-mobile-device-era" from being a reality any time soon. Maybe in another 70 years, the PC will go the way of the typewriter, but I severely doubt it. My makeover of the Model T sitting in the garage sits in silent testimony to that potentiality.
Under what circumstances would I want to be able to remotely manage my/router/ setup? I honestly cannot think of ANY.
Why would I want to allow ANYTHING OUTSIDE OF MY NETWORK to be able to change my router settings, thus potentially compromising the security of my private network?
Why would I want to use a service which allows uninvolved third parties to track my internet usage without my explicit consent?
Why would I want to use a product which forces this bullshit "opt-out" style upon me?
Until your company can answer those questions to my satisfaction, you can tell your moron execs that I will not be purchasing --ANY-- Cisco products, and will be actively discouraging my customers from purchasing same.
Yeah, that makes sense -- conflate a legitimate product nuisance complaint with violence against objects and bad parenting. Escalate much?
I never said I wasn't going to register. I was still in the decision period determining if I was going to continue using the product. If it had not irritated the shit out of me, I most likely would have registered it, then would have gone on to buy a full version (like I have with AVG) for my business and recommended it to my customers.
Slashdot Mirror
Produce it, along with the specification and the invoice for the work, with irrelevant details redacted (like how much you were paid).
The fact that you have specific project documentation should be ample evidence that you are the original author. All that needs to be done for verification is to have the new client phone the old client and ask if they had indeed contracted with you for a piece of work. No other specifics.
You could have even phoned the old client from the new client's place of business and asked the old client to verify it right there, as long as you have good reason to expect the old client to tell the truth.
This.
Isn't there a pro-forma logical fallacy that amounts to an Argument of Adhesion?
Meh. Technical literacy does not correlate with technical understanding. Lots of people know how to push buttons. Few understand what happens when the buttons are pushed or why they are pushing them in the first place.
Likewise, people who might otherwise seem smart on one subject aren't guaranteed to know squat about the other. Similarly, the issue of specialists versus generalists often has an effect on people's ability to understand things outside their narrow field of expertise.
So, it's not really all that surprising, especially given that the majority of the /. readerbase aren't even technical experts in the first place. Maybe that was true a decade ago, but it has long since changed.
THIS is why I give my business to companies like NewEgg, and have and will NEVER buy a single damn thing from ones like Amazon.
Amazon settled because it is also a patent troll. Blood runs thicker than water, especially between patent trolls.
When the native Alaudans were asked "what does the name of your planet mean in your tongue?"
"Dirt", they replied.
There could be a million "maybes" which describe a highly-intelligent being's wants and desires, but this one is far more definite.
I don't know if it follows that highly intelligent beings are automatically driven by curiosity, but if not, I would call into serious question how they become highly intelligent in the first place.
Yeah, I wasn't so much defining a membership group as delineating the ones who do from the ones who talk.
Anyone who thinks that this represents or is backed by the core activists who are part of the collective is, well.. a fool parted with their money.
It would paint a massive bulls-eye target on anyone associated with it, pretty much saying "here I am, come get me!".
....the peasants crieth about a shortage of bread.
Quoth Her Royal Majesty "Let them eat cake!".
..was yesterday.
Just like Microsoft.. a day late and an API short. :P
Apparently, thinking and writing aren't your strong points. Try reading your own words a few times; maybe their ambiguity will sink in. Probably not, though.
Except that I didn't propose ANY particular scheme, hare-brained or otherwise. That wasn't the point of the argument. So go prop up your strawman and sodomize it somewhere else.
You are correct that reason and critical thinking are taking over and dominating the discussion now, and they should be. Go figure. Too bad you failed to participate in any meaningful capacity, but thanks for outing yourself as someone who isn't interested in such in the first place; it is most appreciated. :)
The "evidence" that exists is that it has been getting a bit warmer; few people disagree with that.
A lot more than a few people disagree with that, including a significant number of people who have the authority and responsibility to actually DO something about it.
The "debate" is about what that means.
No, we KNOW what it means; we have known for decades what it means to have global temperatures get "a bit warmer". Just like we have known for decades what it means to have global temperatures get "a bit colder". The only serious debate left is what we need to do about it. Not when, because the when is NOW, but what.
Is it going to continue to get warmer?
Yes. The science is VERY solid on this point.
Is there anything we can do about it?
Yes, of course. There are many things we can do about it, but realize that even if we did everything we could, right now, the warming trend will continue for some time due to the enormous inertia of the climate system. What we would be doing right now is reducing the future peak and extent of the warming that will occur for the next few hundred to few thousand years.
Simply put -- we need to STOP putting more excess CO2 in the atmosphere (I use the term "excess" as a pre-emptive anti-stupid-response for those who would counter with trollish strawmen like "ok, let's all stop breathing, then!"). It isn't going to happen in one day, but we need to make a sincere and concerted effort to make it happen as quickly as possible. We need to start looking towards CO2 sequestration technologies to remove the excess CO2 that we've already put into the atmosphere. We need to make plans for the changes that are going to happen anyway from all the past emissions excesses. Is it a big challenge? Yes, enormous; as enormous as the problem itself. Can we do it? I think we are capable; we have mobilized ourselves as a nation for other important tasks in our history.
Should we?
Should we wash our hands after handling fecal matter and before handling our food? Should we purify drinking water? Should we rotate crops? That's the kind of common-sense question that really doesn't need to be asked, does it?
What are the costs?
Indeed. What are the costs of NOT doing something about it, and now? Are they far greater than the costs of doing something about it? Well, see, there are some really smart people who have been working on this particular question -- insurance actuaries -- and we already know their answer. People who are experts in risk management are well aware that the costs of doing nothing on climate change are catastrophic, far more so than most practical abatement and mitigation plans combined, and they are already adjusting insurance plans and premiums to take it into account. I think we should take a cue from them as to what the costs are very likely to be and make decisions to do something NOW.
There are a lot of people who like to confuse the little bit of scientific fact we have with issues of extrapolation, prediction, and policy. That is not science, it is just dishonesty.
"Little bit of scientific fact" You're kidding, right? There are LIBRARIES full of scientific research on this subject. If that is to be considered "a little bit", perhaps we should start questioning the confusion related to the "little bit of scientific fact" we have with things like gravity, biology, chemistry, evolution, etc.
One of the main principles of science involves extrapolation and prediction. That's what the scientific method is all about. How do you think we got to the moon? We didn't have previous attempts by ancient civilizations to guide us, we extrapolated and predicted. We did so smartly and very carefully, but that's what we did.
When the weatherman predicts a big, dangerous storm heading your way, do you think it is a good policy to ignore it and do nothing to prepare for it until it is blowing your house down?
Do you really consider that *dishonest*? Really?
Until 1984, national telecommunications was a regulated utility, with the government controlling prices. A long distance call was $2.87 per minute. In 1984, it was deregulated and natural competition quickly brought the rate to $0.10 per minute - a 97% reduction.
Tight government regulation of internet service as a utility is a great idea, if you want to pay $12 / GB. I can understand how this might have been debatable in 1812, but in 2012 we've already tried both ways over and over again. Competition beats government fiat every time.
Gotta love revisionist historians...
The cost of long distance pre-1980s was due to the existence/enforcement of a monopoly, not due to regulation, but due to the incorrect assignment of the telephone network as a NATURAL monopoly, which it never was.
In 1982-4, the monopoly was broken over the collective knee of the People, and natural competitive market forces kicked in, just as they should have been allowed for the previous 70-odd years. Regulation wasn't done away with until the 1996 Telecommunications Act which, by that time, had seen the price decreases you allude to. SINCE 1996, very little has changed, except that the broken-up Baby Bells have now been re-merged into a few massive monopolistic players which are ripping off customers and taxpayers all over again.
Maybe you haven't noticed the existing competive system has brought us from 14 kbps to 14Mbps, a THOUSAND times as fast as a few years ago?
Dude, I don't know what planet you live on, but I have 3Mbps ADSL, which is the fastest I can get in this area without running my own damn lines (WHICH, btw, I am prevented from doing by local ordinances which, you guessed it, protect the fuckin' monopolies again). In 2000, I had 2Mbps cable. So, I've gotten a whopping 50% increase in speed in the last TWELVE years. Before that, I had 1.5Mbps ADSL for a few years. It's been over TWENTY YEARS since I had to depend on 14.4k dialup. "A few years" my arse.
The existing "competitive system" isn't about competition at all. It is about monopolism, fraud, and greed, which is pretty much the gory, but oh-so-real history of American Capitalism itself.
Regulation is a necessary evil, as is keeping a tight rein on monopolistic practices. Sadly, our government generally is bribed into ineffective regulation and to ignore the monopolism. Thus, we get screwed until the end of the next gyre in "history repeats itself" completes. In the meantime, we have ineffective and incompetent solutions, allowing other countries to gain huge technological advances over us.
The current situation has a long history in a multi-billion-dollar ripoff of the taxpayers and customers of these companies. Cringeley wrote an amazingly prescient article on the hows and whys we have what we have today (I believe it was even featured here a few years ago when it was published):
The $200 Billion Rip-Off: Our broadband future was stolen.
This all is nothing new, it was planned in the 90s, and we have pretty much the implementation of that plan today.
Does it piss you off? It pisses me off for sure. How do we go about fixing it?
1) Stop supporting the companies that screw us and found/support companies which do it right.
2) Get your friends/family/neighbors/community to vote out the bribed politicians that either enabled it, or turned a blind eye to it, and vote in politicians who are not bribed and will actually fix it.
3) Be willing to suffer for a while for a better future. The companies who perpetrate these scams set it up such that people will accept the suboptimal crap they are peddling because they won't take the inconvenience of being without said crap for a short enough time to send the message that the situation will change, or else.
But no, human nature (and American culture itself) dictates that nothing will change; the telcos have already won.
Hate to break it to you, but vBulletin gets hacked about as often as anything else out there. In the past 10 years, I've cleaned up about as many hacked vB forums for people as several of the other popular forum packages combined.
Sure, the primary issue is that people don't keep their software updated, but that is true no matter what software you use. I've setup and ran dozens of phpBB forums, and I have yet to have one hacked, but then I keep them (and the servers they run on) up-to-date.
OK, so he figured out a way to stuff a bunch of hard drives in a server rack; apparently more than anyone else has (yet) figured out how to do. Did he cut some corners? Does it have proper heat management? 4.6PB is pretty useless if it can't run for more than an hour before turning into a pile of molten slag.
He claims it was "a little design change" to get 4x the space.
I think my bullshit detector is going off here.. hold on a sec.
Efficiency does factor hugely into it, but not nearly as hugely as the basic physics behind it.
For example, one of the Boeing 747 models (not sure which one) is listed with a power consumption of 140MW. Total irradiance at the top of the Earth's atmosphere is 1366 W/sqm. So, even with perfect efficiency, the plane flying above the atmosphere, and the Sun being a little brighter than normal (so we can round the calculations for simplicity), it would take 100,000 sqm of our amazing solar panels to provide sufficient comparable power to the given airplane. The top-down silhouette of one of the 747 models is around 1000 sqm, so that means that the plane would have to be 100 times larger, surface-area-wise.
That's physics for ya... always shooting down awesome ideas.
It doesn't matter if they are in another country or not. YouTube is based in the US, so all you need is a default judgment from a US judge, mail the judgment to YouTube, and watch the video get taken down permanently.
If you are also wanting to be awarded damages, then that's a whole 'nother ball of wax. You *might* get an award, but good luck ever collecting it.
It sounds to me like you're not interested in damages, just getting rid of the offending videos would be enough. So, do it. It will cost a little bit, but that's the price of enforcing Copyright.
Welcome to the Wonderful World of Intellectual Property Law!
The name of the researcher "Gynvael Coldwind".
Too cool, in more ways than one. :D
Given that comment, isn't it funny that the most popular vehicle of choice for many years was the minivan, more or less a slimmed-down version of a "heavy lifting" vehicle, and now, the SUV, which is basically a truck with an integrated camper shell.
This whole "end of the XXX era" crap is a typical has-been journalist's pathetic attempt to become a futurist because he thinks he has some kind of insight into an industry that he really doesn't have, all in a desperate attempt to remain relevant.
The truth of the matter is that it takes a LONG time for technologies to actually die out and be supplanted by something else. For example, the typewriter being almost totally obsoleted by the word processor+printer, then the general-purpose computing device running word processing software. The problem is that not all technologies get obsoleted at the same rate or the same way. Many simply get incremental upgrades over many years, but they still serve the same function(s) as their original version and, functionally they are mostly the same as they were at their beginning. Automobiles, for example.
Cringely makes the argument that the PC is going to be obsoleted similar to the way that the typewriter was, but I would argue that it will continue to be around for many years to come, albeit incrementally improved, just like automobiles. There are many reasons for this, and many of the counter-arguments harken back to the same doom-n-gloom prognostications for the death of the PC by others (Ellison and his NC, for one).
1) The user experience. Many tasks just simply cannot be done on a portable device. Either because the screens are too small, the devices are not powerful enough, or the input capabilities are too limited.
2) Social inertia. Many people are used to getting things done with a keyboard, mouse, and screen in front of them, and many of them are still young. While the youth may embrace the "newer" technologies faster, experience with the "older" technologies will still significantly affect their preferences.
3) Limited, unreliable, and/or financially prohibitive connectivity. One of my biggest issues with "moving to the cloud" is connectivity. Many people have limited connectivity, since, in many places, "broadband" speeds are atrociously slow. Also, what do you do when the internet is down, which happens fairly often for a significant number of people? The usual counter-argument is to go wireless, using some kind of cellular network connection, which comes with its own bag of problems. The first is coverage. Where I live and work, coverage is still spotty, even today. I get dropped calls and no signal even walking to different parts of my own house. It isn't limited to one carrier, either, as the problem is I live in a relatively rural area. The next problem is speed. Cellular data networks don't come close to even slow wired broadband, and cell nodes are often congested in urban areas. Lastly, there is the cost. Between the profiteering and monopolism inherent in the cellular carrier industry, wireless data plans are hideously expensive for what you get.
All of these issues taken together form the "perfect storm" to keep the much-ballyhooed "end-of-the-pc-era-beginning-of-the-cloud-mobile-device-era" from being a reality any time soon. Maybe in another 70 years, the PC will go the way of the typewriter, but I severely doubt it. My makeover of the Model T sitting in the garage sits in silent testimony to that potentiality.
Under what circumstances would I want to be able to remotely manage my /router/ setup? I honestly cannot think of ANY.
Why would I want to allow ANYTHING OUTSIDE OF MY NETWORK to be able to change my router settings, thus potentially compromising the security of my private network?
Why would I want to use a service which allows uninvolved third parties to track my internet usage without my explicit consent?
Why would I want to use a product which forces this bullshit "opt-out" style upon me?
Until your company can answer those questions to my satisfaction, you can tell your moron execs that I will not be purchasing --ANY-- Cisco products, and will be actively discouraging my customers from purchasing same.
No, I demand products to behave, period. Stupid nagware belongs in the trash bin, free or not.
Yeah, that makes sense -- conflate a legitimate product nuisance complaint with violence against objects and bad parenting. Escalate much?
I never said I wasn't going to register. I was still in the decision period determining if I was going to continue using the product. If it had not irritated the shit out of me, I most likely would have registered it, then would have gone on to buy a full version (like I have with AVG) for my business and recommended it to my customers.
Fat chance now, eh?
Regards
Yes, and I probably would have, on MY time, not theirs. One notification would have been sufficient.
Unlike most of the "internet generation", I value my privacy, and don't just willy-nilly hand out my info without due consideration.
I shut it up, alright. MY way.