Is the same reason that car enthusiasts (and probably most regular drivers) don't want a computer taking over panic braking.
While industrial software tends to be more reliable (especially the stuff that is used to run, say, a space shuttle), we are used to things crashing in consumer electrf^ds$#j1
I used to like the idea of an external door too but it has one major problem:
There is an opportunity for the pilot to be mentally (not physically) coerced into opening the door by, for instanding, killing passengers started with the women and children first. The soft wall has other problems but it does have some merit.
I've always thought this would be a pretty close to ideal solution and just assumed that a lot of people would have thought of this; so far, I haven't seen it mentioned.
Why not have a protection flag that will limit the maximum sound quality of a recording. Before you object, think about this for a minute:
You would have all the benfits of being able to search and preview music in Napster, Audio Galaxy, Kazaa, etc. and we could have access to some great new services for searching and finding music we like. Frankly, the thing I miss most from these services is not all the free songs but FINDING NEW SONGS that I like. But honestly, we can't protest that the RIAA wants to protect their interests and I wouldn't want it all to be free. The artists would then stop production.
But with reduced quality music, we can hear and preview music much like we do with radio. Nobody ever makes copies off the radio because FM just isn't good enough. For that matter, a second generation tape with a song I like would always make it into my CD collection.
Think about this. If the RIAA approved such a thing, it could be a serious win for everybody. Wouldn't we love to get all our music for free at top quality? Of course. But somebody has to pay and this is a good, if not great, trade off.
IBM, just go ahead and buy SCO, GPL everything they own, and let's put this silliness behind us.
This seems to me like a bad precedent. I'd hate to see more companies come out of the woodwork and claim IP rights over part of Linux in the hope that IBM or Microsoft would buy them out. Frankly, I don't know what the solution is but I wouldn't be surprised to see a lot more of this.
Before, Linux was essentially protected by the fact that there wasn't anybody with money to sue. Now that IBM is in the game and Microsoft might buy your IP just to thwart Linux, things get more challenging in the IP side of things.
The reason why Microsoft is doing this instead of buying SCO out is this:
Microsoft wants Linux to lose completely and this means that Linux users must not be able to take the moral high ground. By licensing the SCO code, Microsoft takes the moral high ground by licensing IP.
If Microsoft instead buys SCO then sues any company that supports Linux, it has directly taken an action that is so aggressive that it may be construed as a reaction in fear and is morally very damaging. This would cause many companies to start hating Microsoft.
One thing to think about too is that if Microsoft wanted to, I'm sure Linux is infringing on about a thousand Microsoft patents. Of course, that said, Microsoft itself is probably infringing on about a thousand IBM patents. Ultimately, another aspect that holds Microsoft back from suing directly is the Nuclear arms argument. Anybody starts shooting and it's over for everybody. But there ain't no harm in funding that third country to shoot a few missiles over.
I completely agree with this statement and would like to take it even a step further.
Spam is raising their mail related IT expenses "more" (perhaps much more) than 1/3 because dealing with spam is more difficult than dealing with regular email that the recipient wants. For example, processing a single complaint from a spam is something you would never have to do with a desire email.
The graphic only has to be loaded once. This means:
When calculating page load times for images, you count it only once
A graphic is a good way to provide part of a page layout that remains the same... perhaps even more efficient than text if it is identical all the time
For example:
[img src="g.gif"]
is tighter than:
[font size=4 face=tahoma]Google[/font]tm
Since Google changes the color of every letter in Google, it would be even tigheter than that.
News Restricted to Canada on Yahoo!
on
Strike on Iraq
·
· Score: 1
Interesting usage of technology to restrict access to information. Just tried to access the news on the war on Yahoo! and I could not access these stories. Very surprising since Yahoo! typically doesn't have access or bandwidth problems. Plus, I can access sports stories just fine.
However, if I try to access the war stories through a U.S. Proxy (amegaproxy.com) I can call up the stories just fine.
I can't mod this since I posted but here here. I always here of employees who are frustrated about their situation until I explain to them that the power is actually in their hands. If you are worth more than you are being remunerated for (in money, motivation, fun, sense of team, etc.) then you have the power to quit.
This is AT LEAST as powerful as the the power to fire.
I disagree with this statement on its general view towards the value of CEOs. Firstly, I am NOT a 6-figure salaried CEO but I fully expect to be.
Just as an example, you probably know the difference in values employees can make. I would rather have 1 GREAT programmer (for example) than 10 average ones. As a programmer also, I've been offered in the area of half a million dollars for a few months work and this would be considered GOOD VALUE because it would take the hiring company an equivalent 6-9 months with several programmers to do a most likely inferior job.
In the same, way, I've made decisions as CEO that have moved my company towards the black that nobody in the company could see. Some of these decisions were radical and met with lots of raised eyebrows (including completely changing the direction of the company in key areas) but have moved us towards success.
I expect this to be a $100 million company in the next few years and it is very likely these decisions made this possible. Now, I'm not trying to tout my own horn on what I think I did for this company. I think everybody played a part too. But I ask you this, if I wasn't here, the company may very well have gone bankrupt. Now, how much is THAT worth? I'm not saying all CEOs are worth this (clearly some are not), but your question is "What did the CEO do that is so special that it creates his/her expectation of 6-figure salaries?" In some cases, you may never know. That doesn't mean that they aren't worth it. This is why investors are willing to pay for great CEOs.
I own an Internet company that is just about to make profit but I have been taking NO WAGE for the last 2 years. I'm completely content on doing this as the upside on this project is huge at which time I will expect to be remunerated well. This would be my second Internet success.
In the meantime, we are probably going to hit our second sales goal and I'm going to give $1000 IKEA shopping sprees to all my employees when we do. I've already given out 27" televisions earlier this year. I conversely hope my employees respect the sacrifices I've made.
Actually, a bobblehead IS good value to the employee. You don't need a substitute pointy-haired manager doll to beat up on. You get the ACTUAL IMAGE of your CEO. I can't see how this could be anything other than a well deserved stress reliever.
I kind of hope I don't get modded down for this as I am totally serious: This is one of those posts where I didn't know whether to mod it "Insightful" or "Funny." Perhaps we need the new mod: "Lost"
Everyone should take not that this article probably refers to sales in "dollars" and not sales in actual "units." This is why we barely see or know anybody who has a flat panel display.
The question about "why would they spend $8 million dollars" is a rhetorical one. The answer is, they wouldn't.
And in response to "why should you or anyone else care about it" is that we'd have a whole lot less good movies, books, music, etc. to copy in the first place.
I think the difference in the arguments lies in "what" is being argued about. One is arguing that, given that ***everything would be created anyways***, free copying gives a great value to the end user (albeit not the producer but who cares anyway [not my opinion by the way]). The other argument, and the one that I think is relevant here is that ***everything would not be created anyways***.
I know that this has been said, and argued, before but I believe the importance is that the "free for all" and "limited copying" groups are actually arguing two different things.
It's an interesting experiment and I started paying attention when they mentioned that there was a placebo (it's amazing how many of these so-called experiments don't).
The fact that it works on sleep in itself is interesting but I wonder how these might apply to, say happines, or intense concentration or dare I say horniness. Just play back the brainwave of your choosing and you put yourself into the optimal state for whatever it is you want to be doing.
Me and my girlfriend (at the time) won a trip on WestJet airways to fly anywhere in Western Canada so we decided to go to Edmonton. We thought we'd do some shopping.
Anyways, we are walking around West Edmonton Mall and as far as I know, I do not know a SINGLE PERSON living in Edmonton. Anyways, we stop somewhere in the mall and decide we need to get at least one picture of us in Edmonton taken by somebody else. So I find the nearest guy walking in the mall and ask him to take my picture.
As I'm asking him, I have absolutely no clue (even though if I was paying the least bit of attention I would have) that this is my partner from the one business I had started at school to sell my study notes. I didn't know he lived in Edmonton (obviously since I didn't know anyone who lived there) but I eerily asked the only person I probably knew living in Edmonton to take my picture without even having known it was him before I asked him.
Anyways, I thought this was an opportune moment to notice that, yes, indeed, coincidences do happen.
Slashdot Mirror
Is the same reason that car enthusiasts (and probably most regular drivers) don't want a computer taking over panic braking.
While industrial software tends to be more reliable (especially the stuff that is used to run, say, a space shuttle), we are used to things crashing in consumer electrf^ds$#j1
I used to like the idea of an external door too but it has one major problem:
There is an opportunity for the pilot to be mentally (not physically) coerced into opening the door by, for instanding, killing passengers started with the women and children first. The soft wall has other problems but it does have some merit.
I've always thought this would be a pretty close to ideal solution and just assumed that a lot of people would have thought of this; so far, I haven't seen it mentioned.
Why not have a protection flag that will limit the maximum sound quality of a recording. Before you object, think about this for a minute:
You would have all the benfits of being able to search and preview music in Napster, Audio Galaxy, Kazaa, etc. and we could have access to some great new services for searching and finding music we like. Frankly, the thing I miss most from these services is not all the free songs but FINDING NEW SONGS that I like. But honestly, we can't protest that the RIAA wants to protect their interests and I wouldn't want it all to be free. The artists would then stop production.
But with reduced quality music, we can hear and preview music much like we do with radio. Nobody ever makes copies off the radio because FM just isn't good enough. For that matter, a second generation tape with a song I like would always make it into my CD collection.
Think about this. If the RIAA approved such a thing, it could be a serious win for everybody. Wouldn't we love to get all our music for free at top quality? Of course. But somebody has to pay and this is a good, if not great, trade off.
IBM, just go ahead and buy SCO, GPL everything they own, and let's put this silliness behind us.
This seems to me like a bad precedent. I'd hate to see more companies come out of the woodwork and claim IP rights over part of Linux in the hope that IBM or Microsoft would buy them out. Frankly, I don't know what the solution is but I wouldn't be surprised to see a lot more of this.
Before, Linux was essentially protected by the fact that there wasn't anybody with money to sue. Now that IBM is in the game and Microsoft might buy your IP just to thwart Linux, things get more challenging in the IP side of things.
The reason why Microsoft is doing this instead of buying SCO out is this:
Microsoft wants Linux to lose completely and this means that Linux users must not be able to take the moral high ground. By licensing the SCO code, Microsoft takes the moral high ground by licensing IP.
If Microsoft instead buys SCO then sues any company that supports Linux, it has directly taken an action that is so aggressive that it may be construed as a reaction in fear and is morally very damaging. This would cause many companies to start hating Microsoft.
One thing to think about too is that if Microsoft wanted to, I'm sure Linux is infringing on about a thousand Microsoft patents. Of course, that said, Microsoft itself is probably infringing on about a thousand IBM patents. Ultimately, another aspect that holds Microsoft back from suing directly is the Nuclear arms argument. Anybody starts shooting and it's over for everybody. But there ain't no harm in funding that third country to shoot a few missiles over.
I completely agree with this statement and would like to take it even a step further.
Spam is raising their mail related IT expenses "more" (perhaps much more) than 1/3 because dealing with spam is more difficult than dealing with regular email that the recipient wants. For example, processing a single complaint from a spam is something you would never have to do with a desire email.
For example:
[img src="g.gif"]
is tighter than:
[font size=4 face=tahoma]Google[/font]tm
Since Google changes the color of every letter in Google, it would be even tigheter than that.
Interesting usage of technology to restrict access to information. Just tried to access the news on the war on Yahoo! and I could not access these stories. Very surprising since Yahoo! typically doesn't have access or bandwidth problems. Plus, I can access sports stories just fine.
However, if I try to access the war stories through a U.S. Proxy (amegaproxy.com) I can call up the stories just fine.
I can't mod this since I posted but here here. I always here of employees who are frustrated about their situation until I explain to them that the power is actually in their hands. If you are worth more than you are being remunerated for (in money, motivation, fun, sense of team, etc.) then you have the power to quit.
This is AT LEAST as powerful as the the power to fire.
I disagree with this statement on its general view towards the value of CEOs. Firstly, I am NOT a 6-figure salaried CEO but I fully expect to be.
Just as an example, you probably know the difference in values employees can make. I would rather have 1 GREAT programmer (for example) than 10 average ones. As a programmer also, I've been offered in the area of half a million dollars for a few months work and this would be considered GOOD VALUE because it would take the hiring company an equivalent 6-9 months with several programmers to do a most likely inferior job.
In the same, way, I've made decisions as CEO that have moved my company towards the black that nobody in the company could see. Some of these decisions were radical and met with lots of raised eyebrows (including completely changing the direction of the company in key areas) but have moved us towards success.
I expect this to be a $100 million company in the next few years and it is very likely these decisions made this possible. Now, I'm not trying to tout my own horn on what I think I did for this company. I think everybody played a part too. But I ask you this, if I wasn't here, the company may very well have gone bankrupt. Now, how much is THAT worth? I'm not saying all CEOs are worth this (clearly some are not), but your question is "What did the CEO do that is so special that it creates his/her expectation of 6-figure salaries?" In some cases, you may never know. That doesn't mean that they aren't worth it. This is why investors are willing to pay for great CEOs.
I agree.
I own an Internet company that is just about to make profit but I have been taking NO WAGE for the last 2 years. I'm completely content on doing this as the upside on this project is huge at which time I will expect to be remunerated well. This would be my second Internet success.
In the meantime, we are probably going to hit our second sales goal and I'm going to give $1000 IKEA shopping sprees to all my employees when we do. I've already given out 27" televisions earlier this year. I conversely hope my employees respect the sacrifices I've made.
Actually, a bobblehead IS good value to the employee. You don't need a substitute pointy-haired manager doll to beat up on. You get the ACTUAL IMAGE of your CEO. I can't see how this could be anything other than a well deserved stress reliever.
I kind of hope I don't get modded down for this as I am totally serious: This is one of those posts where I didn't know whether to mod it "Insightful" or "Funny." Perhaps we need the new mod: "Lost"
Everyone should take not that this article probably refers to sales in "dollars" and not sales in actual "units." This is why we barely see or know anybody who has a flat panel display.
Sunny
The question about "why would they spend $8 million dollars" is a rhetorical one. The answer is, they wouldn't.
And in response to "why should you or anyone else care about it" is that we'd have a whole lot less good movies, books, music, etc. to copy in the first place.
I think the difference in the arguments lies in "what" is being argued about. One is arguing that, given that ***everything would be created anyways***, free copying gives a great value to the end user (albeit not the producer but who cares anyway [not my opinion by the way]). The other argument, and the one that I think is relevant here is that ***everything would not be created anyways***.
I know that this has been said, and argued, before but I believe the importance is that the "free for all" and "limited copying" groups are actually arguing two different things.
Sunny
It's an interesting experiment and I started paying attention when they mentioned that there was a placebo (it's amazing how many of these so-called experiments don't).
The fact that it works on sleep in itself is interesting but I wonder how these might apply to, say happines, or intense concentration or dare I say horniness. Just play back the brainwave of your choosing and you put yourself into the optimal state for whatever it is you want to be doing.
Me and my girlfriend (at the time) won a trip on WestJet airways to fly anywhere in Western Canada so we decided to go to Edmonton. We thought we'd do some shopping.
Anyways, we are walking around West Edmonton Mall and as far as I know, I do not know a SINGLE PERSON living in Edmonton. Anyways, we stop somewhere in the mall and decide we need to get at least one picture of us in Edmonton taken by somebody else. So I find the nearest guy walking in the mall and ask him to take my picture.
As I'm asking him, I have absolutely no clue (even though if I was paying the least bit of attention I would have) that this is my partner from the one business I had started at school to sell my study notes. I didn't know he lived in Edmonton (obviously since I didn't know anyone who lived there) but I eerily asked the only person I probably knew living in Edmonton to take my picture without even having known it was him before I asked him.
Anyways, I thought this was an opportune moment to notice that, yes, indeed, coincidences do happen.