Actually, M$ already does something similar to this. Assuming that you can't find the answer in their wonderful knowledge base, or just aren't willing to waste the time with it, you can call M$ tech support. And before they even ask you "How can we help you?", they ask, "What's your credit card number?" And last time I checked (and it has been a bit, so this may be a touch out of date.) each incident cost $100 to open. M$ isn't really hurting for money, they just want another steady stream of income. Afterall, techs like myself are doing our best to get that income in our own pockets. While I will agree that M$ is a money grubbing monster, they are actually a good thing for techs. If everything worked all the time, and was easy to use, I and many other techs would be out of a job quickly. I fix Winslow NT 4.0 problems day in and day out, and make a good paycheck doing it. Why? Beacuse M$ releases a buggy piece of junk software that needs constant attention. Not to mention my own company's software, which is great, if you can configure the damn thing right.
Kind of funny that M$ would call open source a threat to security; then, same day, we get the following article, from the AP:
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/ap/20010503/tc/micros oft_security_flaw_8.html
Basically M$ Winblows 2000 has a huge security hole. But you should feel safe, because they have issued a patch, and what does that patch do? We'll never know, because its closed source and we doen't get to see it. For all we know it could be 10,000 comment lines saying "Thank you for your money, now bend over" But they would never do anything that wasn't in the best interest of their customers, would they?
Ok, this is just an opinion. And I am certainly not a lawyer. But, it has often occured to me that the RIAA might just be an illegal trust. Afterall, the anti-trust laws were established to keep competeing compaines, in the same market, from banding together to fix prices and drive out competition. If the RIAA isn't for this purpose, what is it really for? The protection of the artists? I doubt it, more likely they would leave the artists out to dry if it would make them money. Is there someone out there that knows enough about the anti-trust laws to comment on this? I'd be happy to learn.
While the idea of organization is, as an idea, good, I don't think unionizing is really the answer.
First, I think that the tech sector as a whole is quickly working its way to becoming saturated with workers, especially after the dot-bomb. With many out of work people, and new, fresh from college, workers, keeping any form of solidarity will be tough when there are more people looking for jobs, and its getting easier for companies to find them.
Secondly, I'm not real hot on the idea of handing over a portion of my paycheck to a group and hoping that they can make intelligent decisions, worse yet having them call some sort of strike or action that will make it hard to make my rent, and only as a play for their own megalomaniacal purposes. (e.g. Union control over my pension vs. employer control, its just a power grab.)
Thirdly, like most unions this one would probably make it easy for lackluster techs/programmers/etc to get promotions based only on seniority, and as a way of getting them out of the way(after all, you can't fire a union worker, no matter how bad they are, but you can promote them and try to get someone who is more capable.)
While I agree that there are some injustices in the field, and I agree that programmers shouldn't be forced to give up their own work(assuming that they are not consuming company resources to make it), I don't see a Union as a good answer. But then, perhaps this would be a different kind of union, though I bet most unions claimed the same thing when they started out.
So what is the solution, I don't know. But I'm fairly certain that a union is not it.
It is possible to send a video signal this far, but it isn't cheap. A customer of the company I work for was interested in sending a video signal (not to mention keyboard and mouse input) something like 200-300 meters. They accomplished it by using a Versitile Communications Module(VCM) to connect the monitor to a fiber optic cable. Then it was just a matter of running the fiber to the user station and using another VCM to convert back to a normal VGA cable. Worked ok from what I understand. I imagine that this idea could be used to overcome the problem with long distance VGA display.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, M$ already does something similar to this. Assuming that you can't find the answer in their wonderful knowledge base, or just aren't willing to waste the time with it, you can call M$ tech support. And before they even ask you "How can we help you?", they ask, "What's your credit card number?" And last time I checked (and it has been a bit, so this may be a touch out of date.) each incident cost $100 to open. M$ isn't really hurting for money, they just want another steady stream of income. Afterall, techs like myself are doing our best to get that income in our own pockets. While I will agree that M$ is a money grubbing monster, they are actually a good thing for techs. If everything worked all the time, and was easy to use, I and many other techs would be out of a job quickly. I fix Winslow NT 4.0 problems day in and day out, and make a good paycheck doing it. Why? Beacuse M$ releases a buggy piece of junk software that needs constant attention. Not to mention my own company's software, which is great, if you can configure the damn thing right.
Kind of funny that M$ would call open source a threat to security; then, same day, we get the following article, from the AP: http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/ap/20010503/tc/micros oft_security_flaw_8.html
Basically M$ Winblows 2000 has a huge security hole. But you should feel safe, because they have issued a patch, and what does that patch do? We'll never know, because its closed source and we doen't get to see it. For all we know it could be 10,000 comment lines saying "Thank you for your money, now bend over" But they would never do anything that wasn't in the best interest of their customers, would they?
Ok, this is just an opinion. And I am certainly not a lawyer. But, it has often occured to me that the RIAA might just be an illegal trust. Afterall, the anti-trust laws were established to keep competeing compaines, in the same market, from banding together to fix prices and drive out competition. If the RIAA isn't for this purpose, what is it really for? The protection of the artists? I doubt it, more likely they would leave the artists out to dry if it would make them money. Is there someone out there that knows enough about the anti-trust laws to comment on this? I'd be happy to learn.
While the idea of organization is, as an idea, good, I don't think unionizing is really the answer. First, I think that the tech sector as a whole is quickly working its way to becoming saturated with workers, especially after the dot-bomb. With many out of work people, and new, fresh from college, workers, keeping any form of solidarity will be tough when there are more people looking for jobs, and its getting easier for companies to find them. Secondly, I'm not real hot on the idea of handing over a portion of my paycheck to a group and hoping that they can make intelligent decisions, worse yet having them call some sort of strike or action that will make it hard to make my rent, and only as a play for their own megalomaniacal purposes. (e.g. Union control over my pension vs. employer control, its just a power grab.) Thirdly, like most unions this one would probably make it easy for lackluster techs/programmers/etc to get promotions based only on seniority, and as a way of getting them out of the way(after all, you can't fire a union worker, no matter how bad they are, but you can promote them and try to get someone who is more capable.) While I agree that there are some injustices in the field, and I agree that programmers shouldn't be forced to give up their own work(assuming that they are not consuming company resources to make it), I don't see a Union as a good answer. But then, perhaps this would be a different kind of union, though I bet most unions claimed the same thing when they started out. So what is the solution, I don't know. But I'm fairly certain that a union is not it.
It is possible to send a video signal this far, but it isn't cheap. A customer of the company I work for was interested in sending a video signal (not to mention keyboard and mouse input) something like 200-300 meters. They accomplished it by using a Versitile Communications Module(VCM) to connect the monitor to a fiber optic cable. Then it was just a matter of running the fiber to the user station and using another VCM to convert back to a normal VGA cable. Worked ok from what I understand. I imagine that this idea could be used to overcome the problem with long distance VGA display.