Slashdot: Is your name Bill? Bill Shatner: Yes. Slashdot: Bill Shatner? Bill Shatner: Yes. Slashdot: Of Star Trek Fame? Bill Shatner: Yes. Slashdot: Thanks for talking with us today, Bill. Bill Shatner: No problem. Click.
Of course it doesn't... that's the power of Marketing! That's why every whitepaper I recieve says that a I should get an ROI return of 663% in 3 years, but wait there's more: if you order now you get free, abosutely free, while supplies last, a neat-o coffee mug! We're not gonna sell this for 299, NO!, 290, NO!, 200 NO!, not even 150, NO!, 100, NO!; that's right for a limited time we will offer this to you, our special customers, at a world-class price of: 3 easy payments of $150! Hurry up and order, you don't wanna miss out!
"I'm just counterprogramming because TiVo thinks I'm gay."
That really is quite funny. I think we've hit on a new tech-term: counterprogramming - noun - to use the front-end of a software program to perform operations with which the backend program should have been able to do in the first place.
In talking with a Disaster Recovery, quote EXPERT unquote, he said a little fact that quite surprised me: 62% of all technology disasters are premeditated by disgruntled employees, honest administrative mistakes, or lack of change control procedures. We build our moats around the castle, but we never think to install smoke alarms in the kitchen!?!?
If I don't post again before Thanksgiving, Happy Turkey day ya'll.
I'm starting to think real hard about Spam. Inspired, much to my chagrin, by the recent articles concerning AOLs CD spamming campaign. I firmly believe when we wipe ourselves from this rock, and our ruined civilization is discovered, that alien archeologists will assume that an AOL CD is a religious artifact. But I keep thinking about this article, trying to determine why am I really angry. Partly, I'm upset because this person is making alot of money while I'm at work. Partly it's jealousy. I'm conflicted, that hell yes, if you can make 200K+ a year spamming then count me in; and yet, I've been on the net for a while now, before it got really popular, and I also have some of that old code of ethics with me.
But at least I have to hand it to this person, at least he's got some morals, or so he says. And at least Spam is environmentally friendly -- it doesn't affect the groundwater or the air I breathe.
And that's a big point. It reminds me that yes, it's upsetting, but at least it's not a lingering mess, environmentally. It's not a SuperFund site.
I'm reminded of Air-Mail delivery in this country. Airplanes were paid by the pound for mail, so more often than not, they would stuff the US mail bags with rocks to make more money. That's the essence of the point: we realize that there is money to be made in bulk. Pay by the pound, all-you-can-eat, spam-o-rama, and hope that just one sucker is out there.
The other point this article brings to light for me is the fact that, for the most part, we humans are actually brighter than I thought. The spam rate is horrendous. Something like 2 in a big-freaking-number. So Spam is casting a very wide net to catch a few sardines. I think that is quite a boost to our combined egos. We aren't as dumb as we behave in traffic.
I know many will make the point that it's clogging routers, servers, and generally a waste of time, but it's a grey area whether that's hard or soft dollars. What's the cost of one more email?
But we can change this. Why can't email be like instant messaging where only those on my buddy list can email me. The Spammer would have to guess my email address and some complicated guid to send me email.
So for me, at least until they change the SMTP/POP RFC to allow for end-user authentication, I'm okay with spam... and frankly that scares me.
I don't think the question revolves around whether open-source or closed-source is better or worse. Honestly, they both have their pros and cons. As for this issue, ActiveX Controls were a good way (way back when) to get a rich feature set onto a web-browser. But eventually it was realized you needed some security around this, so they started to digitally sign them, now it seems this might have a hiccup in this logic as well. So what's the real answer? How do I get a rich feature set to the web without running anything local (the most secure way)? When you really start to understand the challenge you understand how difficult the problem is. Think about it: people who don't download ActiveX controls also are the same people who download MODs to their favorite games and those dlls don't have to play in a small sandbox! I think people are accustomed to lots of snazzle with their web pages and we, as technical folks, should find a way to do that securely. Good luck.
Isn't another roadblock that Apple, IBM, and Microsoft all offer significant educational discounts? I'm not sure if this is still the case. Maybe someone else can enlighten us on that. Also, isn't another roadblock that principals, administrators, and educators are really clueless about technology and that open-source really seems foreign a concept; ie, the adoption factor is inversely proporational to the fear-factor (tm)?
We feel that when we are putting public information out in the open, then it should not be through a proprietary software
I find this quote quite fascinating. India is a nation-state where the top 5% of the population own all the wealth; essentially they have a monopoly on the other lower castes. All the public infrastructure is publicly owned (trains, electricity). Given all this I find it hard to believe that India has been affronted in some way by avoiding a monopoly. What I do believe is that Inida is a country where most are poor and the barriers to technology are extremely high. With Linux, or any free computer technology, that gate is lowered somewhat; though you still have to buy the hardware.
What Linux really needs, I believe, to be the real market winner is to take on Microsoft on equal terms and win-out. Not some back-door, third-world country win, but a real win in the Fortune 500 cubicles of corporate America. But it's a start, and as Gandhi said, "A journey of a thousand miles, starts with just one step."
"How do you like your shackles?" "Oh, they are quite a nice fit!" "Excellent, we made them with Linux."
I will post a comment here when I'm done reading the main abstract and supplementaries. I'm also hoping to earn a PhD by proxy. Anyone got a text to speech adapter, it might be nice to hear this in my sleep. Seriously, this d00d got skillz.
A few things I've always wanted to know:
on
Ask William Shatner
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
Some Film and TV roles seem to transend themselves and take on a life of their own. Michael Landon is Charles Ingalls from Little House on the Prarie, Yule Brenner is the King of Siam, George Scott is Patton, and you are, of course, Captain James T. Kirk. I know you lampooned the trekkies on SNL, telling them to "Get a Life", but how much does the Star Trek genre affect your life and career. Even now, is it difficult to land roles without someone imagining you as Captain Kirk? Can you remember a time before you heard the word "Romulan" or do you envision a future where you can forget it? Also, can you give a sense of how annoying it is to be given Star Trek references while trying to run your everyday errands?
I'm sure everyone will attempt to account their various grips about the vagaries of cell-phone customer service. But is this problem really just in the NE or is it elsewhere. I'm thinking along the lines of lot's of buildings, terrain, lack of relay stations. In Texas, we are flat as a fritter, so a 40 foot tower covers a major city. Our cities are very spreadout, so traffic is spread out over the infrastructure.
---- This is off-topic ---- I still crack up everytime I see that commerical, "I thought she said 'Get a Monkey with a cold.". The little monkey has his pajamas on, and a thermometer in his mouth, and then he takes a kleenex when offered. Oh, that cracks me up.
It's fairly obtuse how an economist defines productivity -- versus the purely technical definition. If 1/2 the chicken can produce double their output, each chicken is more productive. However, the downside, of course, is that the chicken dies in six months. Run your car at 85 all the time, you cut it's life span in half. From a technical perspective -- and I argue this with my boss all the time -- we are actually LESS productive. Mostly, due in part, to the fact each person is no longer working vertically -- but horizontally. A knower of all things -- master of none.
Honestly, I don't think the article is as straightforward as it seems. We must ask, why even ask that of Microsoft? I believe the answer is politics. Somehow, there is a struggle going on over there, dealing with which road to take technically. I think Microsoft is probably over there pitching and wooing as hard as it can, but Taiwan laid down the guantlet: open up or your out.
I would also assume that Microsoft has its supporters in governemnt, and this official is simply trying to keep the argument on it's technical merits so as not to upset any politicos. It's framed in such a way, that it's essentially a state-security issue: if Microsoft doesn't open the code, then we are more open to [Chinese] hacking and snooping. Who can argue they're not in favor of a more secure state. Actually, very, very smart on this official's part. Played this way, it appears as though it's Microsoft's problem and not about any particular government official.
There are probably many other culture differences that we cannot even begin to understand.
The leaky abstraction is actually a good thing. We understand that as we layer programming code, inherently, the lower-layers are never going to be perfect. Hence, why we "bubble-up" error-handling.
I don't want abstraction to be universal constant. If problems occur in the abstraction, I want to be able to diagnose that. Just because the abstraction "leaks", that's a good thing. Sometimes a client-server app breaks because the network layer breaks, but we can make modifications, adjustments to fix the problem. If we couldn't, and this "leak" were permanent, we would throw up our hands and quit.
The author somehow is attempting to suggest that this imperfect-abstraction is hurting..something. But where is there perfect abstraction? I have yet to see one: the sky abstracts the universe from my environment, yet I still can get a sunburn.
Even God himself, tried to abstract human beings from evil, and that "leaked" as well.
So we shouldn't define this as "leaky" abstraction, but rather as "flexible" abstraction.
Re:Open Source Pioneers? Or $$$ Saving?
on
Film Gimp
·
· Score: 2
By the way, I thought we hate the movie industry here, and now we laud them for use of open-source?
The author wrote this in a sarcastic tone, and yet, in essence it means that the movie industry will write all the world's media encryption with Linux/OS.
"How do you like your shackles?" "Ah, yes, well they do fit nicely don't they?" "Yes, I would say they do, we made them with Linux."
I'm starting to think real hard about Spam. Inspired, much to my chagrin, by the recent articles concerning AOLs CD spamming campaign. I firmly believe when we wipe ourselves from this rock, and our ruined civilization is discovered, that alien archeologists will assume that an AOL CD is a religious artifact. But I keep thinking about this article, trying to determine why am I really angry. Partly, I'm upset because this person is making alot of money while I'm at work. Partly it's jealousy. I'm conflicted, that hell yes, if you can make 200K a year spamming then count me in; and yet, I've been on the net for a while now, before it got really popular, and I also have some of that old code of ethics with me.
But at least I have to hand it to this person, at least she's got some morals, or so she says. And at least Spam is environmentally friendly -- it doesn't affect the groundwater.
And that's a big point. It reminds me that yes, it's upsetting, but at least it's not a lingering mess, environmentally. It's not a SuperFund site.
I'm reminded of mail Air delivery in this country. Airplanes were paid by the pound for mail, so more often than not, they would stuff the US mail bags with rocks to make more money. That's the essence of the point: we realize that there is money to be made in bulk. Pay by the pound, all-you-can-eat, spam-o-rama, and hope that just one sucker is out there.
The other point this article brings to light for me is the fact that, for the most part, we humans are actually brighter than I thought. The spam rate is horrendous. Something like 2 in 10,000. So Spam is casting a very wide net to catch a few sardines. I think that is quite a boost to our combined egos. We aren't as dumb as we behave in traffic.
Finally, in the big picture we burn down trees, combine radical chemical compounds, plaster, market, deluge, impunge the great marketing beast that is America (god bless her) to strain the huddle masses yearning to not have to look at another AOL cd.
So for me, at least until they change the SMTP/POP RFC to allow for end-user authentication, I'm okay with spam, and frankly that scare me.
Re:Open Source Pioneers? Or $$$ Saving?
on
Film Gimp
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
You are absolutely correct. Their product is movies, and so, they want computer power to be a commodity product, not something they have to pay a high-gross margin on (thus making more in the long-run).
If you look around there shop I bet you would find a) low-cost, low-power workstations clustered together b) distributed computing c) generic hardware d) open-source software where possible e) in-house custom software.
Look at it this way: most people get paid daily (whether they know it or not), but some people choose to drive to work in a Lexus, while others, a Maxima. Does the Maxima driver do it for a love of Maxima's, or because it puts more money in his pocket at the end of the day?
Just because it's Monday and your car won't start doesn't mean that somehow the day of the week is related to your car not starting.
By the way, I thought we hate the movie industry here, and now we laud them for use of open-source?
Thank goodness in Texas we have Lemon laws, meaning you can get 3 times the amount you paid if it can be determined you paid for a defected product!
Biometric security
on
Secure PDAs
·
· Score: 5, Informative
We currently run biometric clocks for our timecard authorization, but in deploying this technology there is nothing terribly secure about it. For instance, a quick google will show you all the methods of defeating the fingerprint scan, and once a thief has this device, it's not much trouble to "dust" the last fingerprint, and create a good scan with illustrator. So remember, gotta wipe the sensor everytime!
If the cable companies start losing money on the pay-per-channel, they'll simply rebundle the premium channels (the ones that most people are willing to pay for per channel) and bundle those into basic service making you pay more in the end. Rule #1: In the end, the customer always loses.
As long as I can keep Women's Entertainment (WE) I'm fine.
The real problem, unfortunately, is the shop's sunk costs. In large MS corporations, what's the cost of deploying one more intranet system? Basically zero. That's because at some point you start getting economies of scale. Unfortunately, this person was doing the analysis based on having to take on all the costs at the beginning, whereas let's say the entire government was open-source and they had a team that could write code/support/develop, etc. Then this project wouldn't require support and the expense goes way down because to add one more system would basically be zero. So I agree, his conclusions are probably correct in this case. But this should be seen as a big win for open-source; before you weren't even in the analysis!
A couple of things seem rather odd to me, 1) Why do you need a voicemail to track callers (I do not profess to understand the underlying workings of cell-phone infrastructure). 2) They installed new software that cause the problem, but it really only showed up on the invoicing system? So did the install a new invoicing system? Sounds like they don't have their hacking all that together over there....but just my gut instinct. Maybe someone could shed some greater light on the subject...
Intel can afford to sell chips less expensively than it normally would in order to gain a foothold in a given market--and it has proven its willingness to engage in price wars.
This is the crux of the article, predatory pricing: airline seats, xboxs, OSs, etc. Sell the low-margin product at a loss to sell 5 high-grossing products for an AVERAGE price greater than your competitor. Even if the tablet PCs are a hit, they'll get squeezed when Intel wants that market share. So one foot in the grave at this point...
I assume this would create an enormous EMF in the vicinity so that I would get an even bigger headache at work. How would this affect pacemakers, crt montiors, security cameras, magnetic doors, et. al? Don't point that death ray at me!
Slashdot Mirror
Slashdot: Is your name Bill?
Bill Shatner: Yes.
Slashdot: Bill Shatner?
Bill Shatner: Yes.
Slashdot: Of Star Trek Fame?
Bill Shatner: Yes.
Slashdot: Thanks for talking with us today, Bill.
Bill Shatner: No problem.
Click.
The article doesn't explain how this might work.
... that's the power of Marketing! That's why every whitepaper I recieve says that a I should get an ROI return of 663% in 3 years, but wait there's more: if you order now you get free, abosutely free, while supplies last, a neat-o coffee mug! We're not gonna sell this for 299, NO!, 290, NO!, 200 NO!, not even 150, NO!, 100, NO!; that's right for a limited time we will offer this to you, our special customers, at a world-class price of: 3 easy payments of $150! Hurry up and order, you don't wanna miss out!
Of course it doesn't
"I'm just counterprogramming because TiVo thinks I'm gay."
That really is quite funny. I think we've hit on a new tech-term: counterprogramming - noun - to use the front-end of a software program to perform operations with which the backend program should have been able to do in the first place.
In talking with a Disaster Recovery, quote EXPERT unquote, he said a little fact that quite surprised me: 62% of all technology disasters are premeditated by disgruntled employees, honest administrative mistakes, or lack of change control procedures. We build our moats around the castle, but we never think to install smoke alarms in the kitchen!?!?
If I don't post again before Thanksgiving, Happy Turkey day ya'll.
I'm starting to think real hard about Spam. Inspired, much to my chagrin, by the recent articles concerning AOLs CD spamming campaign. I firmly believe when we wipe ourselves from this rock, and our ruined civilization is discovered, that alien archeologists will assume that an AOL CD is a religious artifact. But I keep thinking about this article, trying to determine why am I really angry. Partly, I'm upset because this person is making alot of money while I'm at work. Partly it's jealousy. I'm conflicted, that hell yes, if you can make 200K+ a year spamming then count me in; and yet, I've been on the net for a while now, before it got really popular, and I also have some of that old code of ethics with me.
... and frankly that scares me.
But at least I have to hand it to this person, at least he's got some morals, or so he says. And at least Spam is environmentally friendly -- it doesn't affect the groundwater or the air I breathe.
And that's a big point. It reminds me that yes, it's upsetting, but at least it's not a lingering mess, environmentally. It's not a SuperFund site.
I'm reminded of Air-Mail delivery in this country. Airplanes were paid by the pound for mail, so more often than not, they would stuff the US mail bags with rocks to make more money. That's the essence of the point: we realize that there is money to be made in bulk. Pay by the pound, all-you-can-eat, spam-o-rama, and hope that just one sucker is out there.
The other point this article brings to light for me is the fact that, for the most part, we humans are actually brighter than I thought. The spam rate is horrendous. Something like 2 in a big-freaking-number. So Spam is casting a very wide net to catch a few sardines. I think that is quite a boost to our combined egos. We aren't as dumb as we behave in traffic.
I know many will make the point that it's clogging routers, servers, and generally a waste of time, but it's a grey area whether that's hard or soft dollars. What's the cost of one more email?
But we can change this. Why can't email be like instant messaging where only those on my buddy list can email me. The Spammer would have to guess my email address and some complicated guid to send me email.
So for me, at least until they change the SMTP/POP RFC to allow for end-user authentication, I'm okay with spam
I don't think the question revolves around whether open-source or closed-source is better or worse. Honestly, they both have their pros and cons. As for this issue, ActiveX Controls were a good way (way back when) to get a rich feature set onto a web-browser. But eventually it was realized you needed some security around this, so they started to digitally sign them, now it seems this might have a hiccup in this logic as well. So what's the real answer? How do I get a rich feature set to the web without running anything local (the most secure way)? When you really start to understand the challenge you understand how difficult the problem is. Think about it: people who don't download ActiveX controls also are the same people who download MODs to their favorite games and those dlls don't have to play in a small sandbox! I think people are accustomed to lots of snazzle with their web pages and we, as technical folks, should find a way to do that securely. Good luck.
Isn't another roadblock that Apple, IBM, and Microsoft all offer significant educational discounts? I'm not sure if this is still the case. Maybe someone else can enlighten us on that. Also, isn't another roadblock that principals, administrators, and educators are really clueless about technology and that open-source really seems foreign a concept; ie, the adoption factor is inversely proporational to the fear-factor (tm)?
We feel that when we are putting public information out in the open, then it should not be through a proprietary software
I find this quote quite fascinating. India is a nation-state where the top 5% of the population own all the wealth; essentially they have a monopoly on the other lower castes. All the public infrastructure is publicly owned (trains, electricity). Given all this I find it hard to believe that India has been affronted in some way by avoiding a monopoly. What I do believe is that Inida is a country where most are poor and the barriers to technology are extremely high. With Linux, or any free computer technology, that gate is lowered somewhat; though you still have to buy the hardware.
What Linux really needs, I believe, to be the real market winner is to take on Microsoft on equal terms and win-out. Not some back-door, third-world country win, but a real win in the Fortune 500 cubicles of corporate America. But it's a start, and as Gandhi said, "A journey of a thousand miles, starts with just one step."
"How do you like your shackles?"
"Oh, they are quite a nice fit!"
"Excellent, we made them with Linux."
I will post a comment here when I'm done reading the main abstract and supplementaries. I'm also hoping to earn a PhD by proxy. Anyone got a text to speech adapter, it might be nice to hear this in my sleep. Seriously, this d00d got skillz.
Some Film and TV roles seem to transend themselves and take on a life of their own. Michael Landon is Charles Ingalls from Little House on the Prarie, Yule Brenner is the King of Siam, George Scott is Patton, and you are, of course, Captain James T. Kirk. I know you lampooned the trekkies on SNL, telling them to "Get a Life", but how much does the Star Trek genre affect your life and career. Even now, is it difficult to land roles without someone imagining you as Captain Kirk? Can you remember a time before you heard the word "Romulan" or do you envision a future where you can forget it? Also, can you give a sense of how annoying it is to be given Star Trek references while trying to run your everyday errands?
I'm sure everyone will attempt to account their various grips about the vagaries of cell-phone customer service. But is this problem really just in the NE or is it elsewhere. I'm thinking along the lines of lot's of buildings, terrain, lack of relay stations. In Texas, we are flat as a fritter, so a 40 foot tower covers a major city. Our cities are very spreadout, so traffic is spread out over the infrastructure.
---- This is off-topic ----
I still crack up everytime I see that commerical, "I thought she said 'Get a Monkey with a cold.". The little monkey has his pajamas on, and a thermometer in his mouth, and then he takes a kleenex when offered. Oh, that cracks me up.
It's fairly obtuse how an economist defines productivity -- versus the purely technical definition. If 1/2 the chicken can produce double their output, each chicken is more productive. However, the downside, of course, is that the chicken dies in six months. Run your car at 85 all the time, you cut it's life span in half. From a technical perspective -- and I argue this with my boss all the time -- we are actually LESS productive. Mostly, due in part, to the fact each person is no longer working vertically -- but horizontally. A knower of all things -- master of none.
But you all may disagree...
Oh my goodness...I fell for this AT WORK!!!
Honestly, I don't think the article is as straightforward as it seems. We must ask, why even ask that of Microsoft? I believe the answer is politics. Somehow, there is a struggle going on over there, dealing with which road to take technically. I think Microsoft is probably over there pitching and wooing as hard as it can, but Taiwan laid down the guantlet: open up or your out.
I would also assume that Microsoft has its supporters in governemnt, and this official is simply trying to keep the argument on it's technical merits so as not to upset any politicos. It's framed in such a way, that it's essentially a state-security issue: if Microsoft doesn't open the code, then we are more open to [Chinese] hacking and snooping. Who can argue they're not in favor of a more secure state. Actually, very, very smart on this official's part. Played this way, it appears as though it's Microsoft's problem and not about any particular government official.
There are probably many other culture differences that we cannot even begin to understand.
The leaky abstraction is actually a good thing. We understand that as we layer programming code, inherently, the lower-layers are never going to be perfect. Hence, why we "bubble-up" error-handling.
I don't want abstraction to be universal constant. If problems occur in the abstraction, I want to be able to diagnose that. Just because the abstraction "leaks", that's a good thing. Sometimes a client-server app breaks because the network layer breaks, but we can make modifications, adjustments to fix the problem. If we couldn't, and this "leak" were permanent, we would throw up our hands and quit.
The author somehow is attempting to suggest that this imperfect-abstraction is hurting..something. But where is there perfect abstraction? I have yet to see one: the sky abstracts the universe from my environment, yet I still can get a sunburn.
Even God himself, tried to abstract human beings from evil, and that "leaked" as well.
So we shouldn't define this as "leaky" abstraction, but rather as "flexible" abstraction.
By the way, I thought we hate the movie industry here, and now we laud them for use of open-source?
The author wrote this in a sarcastic tone, and yet, in essence it means that the movie industry will write all the world's media encryption with Linux/OS.
"How do you like your shackles?"
"Ah, yes, well they do fit nicely don't they?"
"Yes, I would say they do, we made them with Linux."
I'm starting to think real hard about Spam. Inspired, much to my chagrin, by the recent articles concerning AOLs CD spamming campaign. I firmly believe when we wipe ourselves from this rock, and our ruined civilization is discovered, that alien archeologists will assume that an AOL CD is a religious artifact. But I keep thinking about this article, trying to determine why am I really angry. Partly, I'm upset because this person is making alot of money while I'm at work. Partly it's jealousy. I'm conflicted, that hell yes, if you can make 200K a year spamming then count me in; and yet, I've been on the net for a while now, before it got really popular, and I also have some of that old code of ethics with me.
But at least I have to hand it to this person, at least she's got some morals, or so she says. And at least Spam is environmentally friendly -- it doesn't affect the groundwater.
And that's a big point. It reminds me that yes, it's upsetting, but at least it's not a lingering mess, environmentally. It's not a SuperFund site.
I'm reminded of mail Air delivery in this country. Airplanes were paid by the pound for mail, so more often than not, they would stuff the US mail bags with rocks to make more money. That's the essence of the point: we realize that there is money to be made in bulk. Pay by the pound, all-you-can-eat, spam-o-rama, and hope that just one sucker is out there.
The other point this article brings to light for me is the fact that, for the most part, we humans are actually brighter than I thought. The spam rate is horrendous. Something like 2 in 10,000. So Spam is casting a very wide net to catch a few sardines. I think that is quite a boost to our combined egos. We aren't as dumb as we behave in traffic.
Finally, in the big picture we burn down trees, combine radical chemical compounds, plaster, market, deluge, impunge the great marketing beast that is America (god bless her) to strain the huddle masses yearning to not have to look at another AOL cd.
So for me, at least until they change the SMTP/POP RFC to allow for end-user authentication, I'm okay with spam, and frankly that scare me.
You are absolutely correct. Their product is movies, and so, they want computer power to be a commodity product, not something they have to pay a high-gross margin on (thus making more in the long-run).
If you look around there shop I bet you would find a) low-cost, low-power workstations clustered together b) distributed computing c) generic hardware d) open-source software where possible e) in-house custom software.
Look at it this way: most people get paid daily (whether they know it or not), but some people choose to drive to work in a Lexus, while others, a Maxima. Does the Maxima driver do it for a love of Maxima's, or because it puts more money in his pocket at the end of the day?
Just because it's Monday and your car won't start doesn't mean that somehow the day of the week is related to your car not starting.
By the way, I thought we hate the movie industry here, and now we laud them for use of open-source?
I'm out.
Thank goodness in Texas we have Lemon laws, meaning you can get 3 times the amount you paid if it can be determined you paid for a defected product!
We currently run biometric clocks for our timecard authorization, but in deploying this technology there is nothing terribly secure about it. For instance, a quick google will show you all the methods of defeating the fingerprint scan, and once a thief has this device, it's not much trouble to "dust" the last fingerprint, and create a good scan with illustrator. So remember, gotta wipe the sensor everytime!
If the cable companies start losing money on the pay-per-channel, they'll simply rebundle the premium channels (the ones that most people are willing to pay for per channel) and bundle those into basic service making you pay more in the end. Rule #1: In the end, the customer always loses.
As long as I can keep Women's Entertainment (WE) I'm fine.
The real problem, unfortunately, is the shop's sunk costs. In large MS corporations, what's the cost of deploying one more intranet system? Basically zero. That's because at some point you start getting economies of scale. Unfortunately, this person was doing the analysis based on having to take on all the costs at the beginning, whereas let's say the entire government was open-source and they had a team that could write code/support/develop, etc. Then this project wouldn't require support and the expense goes way down because to add one more system would basically be zero. So I agree, his conclusions are probably correct in this case. But this should be seen as a big win for open-source; before you weren't even in the analysis!
A couple of things seem rather odd to me, 1) Why do you need a voicemail to track callers (I do not profess to understand the underlying workings of cell-phone infrastructure). 2) They installed new software that cause the problem, but it really only showed up on the invoicing system? So did the install a new invoicing system? Sounds like they don't have their hacking all that together over there....but just my gut instinct. Maybe someone could shed some greater light on the subject...
Intel can afford to sell chips less expensively than it normally would in order to gain a foothold in a given market--and it has proven its willingness to engage in price wars.
...
This is the crux of the article, predatory pricing: airline seats, xboxs, OSs, etc. Sell the low-margin product at a loss to sell 5 high-grossing products for an AVERAGE price greater than your competitor. Even if the tablet PCs are a hit, they'll get squeezed when Intel wants that market share. So one foot in the grave at this point
I assume this would create an enormous EMF in the vicinity so that I would get an even bigger headache at work. How would this affect pacemakers, crt montiors, security cameras, magnetic doors, et. al? Don't point that death ray at me!