You can get fired at the level that this position is (although in the current administration it seems to be difficult to be fired). I don't think it's really a technician position. And I'll restate my claim that this position can't possibly pay what a bank or large retail operation would pay. I call on CIO's in both government and commercial settings, and the discrepancy in pay is amazing.
I wonder how they plan to compete with commercial interests that are willing to pay top dollar for individuals suitable to the task. I can't imagine DHS would pay what a Bank of America or Walmart would .
I think because the advertising would be so precise and instantaneous that the number of ads would be greatly reduced. (As someone else mentioned on another post). When someone gives me an ad for something I'm actually interested in, I don't find it nearly as annoying as a broadcast ad that is only used by 1/2 of 1% of the viewers.
I'm certainly no expert on what qualifies as a thin client, but here's my input based on a client my company recently did work for. They moved approximately 7000 desktop pc's out of their stores' back offices (low class pc's, purchasable for approximately $500 each) and replaced them with a "thin client" machine running an embedded windows system. As it turns out, these machines cost just slightly more than the older desktops, contain slightly less powerful processors, and have a lower capactiy for RAM, although they were installed with more RAM than what the older PCs had by default. The theory was that since the thin client contained no HDD, the time to failure was cut from an average of 2 years per machine to 32 years per machine. Other than the lack of a hard drive, this was a PC in my mind.
I guess the only reason I point this out is that based on this definition of a thin client, the Lenovo blade workstation doesn't seem to qualify as one. But I'm sure there are plenty of companies out there that would consider the blade a thin client.
I see where you're coming from, it's certainly a distinction that changes the complexion of the discussion (although as you presciently guessed, it really doesn't change my mind:)
I didn't think your arguments were irrational, I just wanted to point out that pricing discrepancies aren't indicators of foul play. I will say that I am a little bit skeptical of companies that go to court with claims of anti-competitive behavior. I prefer companies that go about it the old-fashioned way (make a better product, focus on an under-served portion of the market, find a way to get to market with new ideas quicker, etc.) Kind of like when Ford used to dominate the US market for cars (admittedly not 90%) and Alfred Sloan decided to offer "mass customizations" and financing plans that permanently changed makeup of the automobile landscape. I realize that the Intel-AMD situation is comparable, but I do wish that in general companies would spend more time competing in the marketplace and less in the courtroom.
I guess for people who fly every week and like to pre-print their boarding passes, the printer is still the only option. It's also nice for online directions.
I guess that makes sense, but wouldn't you still need the country-based TLD if you were accessing a mobile website?
I would think that both country-specific localization and device specific content formatting could be handled through device preferences rather than by adding another level to the domain hierarchy.
They haven't come down any faster than the prices of all other computer components (not other processors, but RAM, hard disks, etc) have. If Intel wasn't anti-competitive, they would need to lower their prices to where AMD prices their processors (somewhat lower than Intel does) in order to compete.
I think there are plenty of industries where companies charge more for a competing version of a product. Dining (Outback vs. Morton's), software development (Accenture vs. Infosys), automobiles (BMW vs. Ford), you get the point.
I feel like a successful company can get blamed (and attacked) for any level of pricing they choose. If Intel charges more for their chips, they must be a monopoly. If Intel charges too little for their chips, they're charged with predatory pricing. If Intel charges the same as AMD, they are using illegal market collusion. I know you individually might not make these claims, but the past 50 years provides several examples of each of these types of claims.
If Intel should be persectuted as a monopolist then ostensibly you view them as a monopoly. How do you reconcile this with your claim that no monopolist will lower prices? It seems to me that Intel's prices have come way down steadily for the past 10 to 15 years. It seems contradictory to me that they should be punished for behavior that you claim leads to higher prices, when all evidence points to lower prices.
I think if you go further back than very recent history, you'll see a pattern emerge.
1798, Federalist president leads America into Quasi-war with France. Republicans opposed to the war, Federalists tend to strongly support it.
1812, Republican president leads America into War of 1812. Federalists opposed to the war, Republicans support it. Differences in opinion lead to Baltimore riots where many Federalist leaders are beaten to death.
1861, Republican president leads America into Civil War. Democrats generally favored conciliations with the south, Republicans favored war.
1914, Democratic president leads US into WWI. Isolationist Republicans were opposed to the war, while most Democrats supported it.
1941, Democratic president leads US into WWII. Republicans divided, but still many were opposed to the war.
Even in recent history, I think the pattern repeats itself. Clinton sends troops into Bosnia, the Republicans oppose it. Clinton escalates attacks against Iraq, Republicans oppose it. Bush II sends troops to Iraq, Democrats oppose it.
The support of a war, like so many other issues, tends to depend on the political affiliation from what I can see.
I don't know, I haven't found a study yet where a murderer, kidnappist, rapist ever committed another crime after receiving the death penalty. It may not prevent other criminals from doing criminal things, but it certainly restricts the capacity of the individual who killed in the first place.
That being said, I think the notion of a death penalty for hacking is ridiculous, and I hope the article was not meant to be a true battle cry for giving hackers the chair.
That's a little bit different than the way you initially worded it, wouldn't you agree? I still think it mixes up cause and effect a little bit, but I would mostly (95%) agree with what you've said in this post.
I'm not surprised that this was modded up as interesting, and I'm glad it wasn't marked informative.
The comment about holding it against a company for using so-called slave labor is fairly disingenuous. Killing a retarded person and stealing their kidneys is a case of a law that institutes the abrogation of someone's right. Allowing a family that has little prospect for work other than difficult and low-paying "child labor" to send their children to work is a very different matter. It may not seem like justice, but prior to industrialization, there is often little incentive for a company to create high paying jobs in a low-skilled nation. Look at the western powers prior to the advent of modern industry.
The second point is less dishonest and more just a victim of bad economic understanding. Companies are willing to pay a certain amount of money for a certain type of work. If a country were to outlaw child labor, it wouldn't suddenly raise the wages of the country. The more likely response would be the exact opposite since the company would likely have little incentive to product in that country it would probably move to another. I also noticed that you claimed the child could then get an education if they didn't have to work. What will pay for that education? Countries with strong public education systems paid for that system with money earned as a result of industry and commerce.
This may not dovetail with your notions of justice, but the reality is that a country needs some competitive advantage to attract capital and job creation. For some countries that are just beginning to develop, the only competitive advantage is a cheap labor supply.
I doubt this will be much better than the crappy pictures you can take with your "camera phone". My personal thought is that this is not terribly useful, since it effectively limits your ability to do other things. The nice thing about a mobile phone is that I can use it while I'm on the go (walking, driving, etc.) I don't know if I could effectively walk down the street while wearing these and watching a movie. So I don't personally see what would make this type of thing attractive; if I'm at home or a pub, there are generally MUCH better quality TVs available.
FUCK THE TERRORISTS
You do speak for me, but I have one problem with this statement. Terrorism is only a tactic. The real problem is Islamic extremism. And before I get flamed and yelled at and compared to Hitler, notice I said extremism, not Islam itself. This culture of death, hatred of the west, blaming Israel, the US, and Great Britain for all problems, the poor treatment of women, the lack of respect for individual rights, etc. has got to stop.
I sincerely hope the Islamic world has a new generation of leaders up to the task of extinguishing this virulent brand of hatred. The way things are going, it looks like nothing short of a war is going to result, and I'm not talking about war as in Afghanistan, Iraq, or Croatia, I mean more like Europe in the early 20th century.
Fair enough. I did some searching, and all I could find were two types of articles:
1) Hysterical radio operators claiming that everyone who asserts that the technology is non-interfering are idiots. I read a lot of claims that "as soon as we can prove that the networks interfere, believe that we will sue the operators and shut them down". I believe this claim, however I noticed that I found not one instance of an actual commercial network being sued. Given that there have been commercial deployments for the past two years now, I'm a little puzzled why this is, unless of course the HAM claims may be overblown. 2) I read articles by industry-types who make the opposite claim.
I don't know the right answer, but when you show me an actual lawsuit that demonstrates such interference is harming HAM radio operators, I'll believe you. Incidentally, from what I read, in Manassas they use a technology called "notching" that removes the frequencies used by short-wave radios. I'm no expert on the technology, but given the lack of actual cases (or apparent lack I should say), it seems like notching must be working.
Slashdot Mirror
You can get fired at the level that this position is (although in the current administration it seems to be difficult to be fired). I don't think it's really a technician position. And I'll restate my claim that this position can't possibly pay what a bank or large retail operation would pay. I call on CIO's in both government and commercial settings, and the discrepancy in pay is amazing.
I wish I had more mod points so I could give this post four thumbs down.
I wonder how they plan to compete with commercial interests that are willing to pay top dollar for individuals suitable to the task. I can't imagine DHS would pay what a Bank of America or Walmart would .
I think because the advertising would be so precise and instantaneous that the number of ads would be greatly reduced. (As someone else mentioned on another post). When someone gives me an ad for something I'm actually interested in, I don't find it nearly as annoying as a broadcast ad that is only used by 1/2 of 1% of the viewers.
I'm certainly no expert on what qualifies as a thin client, but here's my input based on a client my company recently did work for. They moved approximately 7000 desktop pc's out of their stores' back offices (low class pc's, purchasable for approximately $500 each) and replaced them with a "thin client" machine running an embedded windows system. As it turns out, these machines cost just slightly more than the older desktops, contain slightly less powerful processors, and have a lower capactiy for RAM, although they were installed with more RAM than what the older PCs had by default. The theory was that since the thin client contained no HDD, the time to failure was cut from an average of 2 years per machine to 32 years per machine. Other than the lack of a hard drive, this was a PC in my mind.
I guess the only reason I point this out is that based on this definition of a thin client, the Lenovo blade workstation doesn't seem to qualify as one. But I'm sure there are plenty of companies out there that would consider the blade a thin client.
I realize that the Intel-AMD situation is comparable I meant not comparable, sorry....
I see where you're coming from, it's certainly a distinction that changes the complexion of the discussion (although as you presciently guessed, it really doesn't change my mind :)
I didn't think your arguments were irrational, I just wanted to point out that pricing discrepancies aren't indicators of foul play. I will say that I am a little bit skeptical of companies that go to court with claims of anti-competitive behavior. I prefer companies that go about it the old-fashioned way (make a better product, focus on an under-served portion of the market, find a way to get to market with new ideas quicker, etc.) Kind of like when Ford used to dominate the US market for cars (admittedly not 90%) and Alfred Sloan decided to offer "mass customizations" and financing plans that permanently changed makeup of the automobile landscape. I realize that the Intel-AMD situation is comparable, but I do wish that in general companies would spend more time competing in the marketplace and less in the courtroom.
I guess for people who fly every week and like to pre-print their boarding passes, the printer is still the only option. It's also nice for online directions.
I guess that makes sense, but wouldn't you still need the country-based TLD if you were accessing a mobile website? I would think that both country-specific localization and device specific content formatting could be handled through device preferences rather than by adding another level to the domain hierarchy.
They haven't come down any faster than the prices of all other computer components (not other processors, but RAM, hard disks, etc) have. If Intel wasn't anti-competitive, they would need to lower their prices to where AMD prices their processors (somewhat lower than Intel does) in order to compete.
I think there are plenty of industries where companies charge more for a competing version of a product. Dining (Outback vs. Morton's), software development (Accenture vs. Infosys), automobiles (BMW vs. Ford), you get the point.
I feel like a successful company can get blamed (and attacked) for any level of pricing they choose. If Intel charges more for their chips, they must be a monopoly. If Intel charges too little for their chips, they're charged with predatory pricing. If Intel charges the same as AMD, they are using illegal market collusion. I know you individually might not make these claims, but the past 50 years provides several examples of each of these types of claims.
Why is this TLD based on the medium used to access it? In the past the TLD had more to do with the nature of the organization hosting the website.....
If Intel should be persectuted as a monopolist then ostensibly you view them as a monopoly. How do you reconcile this with your claim that no monopolist will lower prices? It seems to me that Intel's prices have come way down steadily for the past 10 to 15 years. It seems contradictory to me that they should be punished for behavior that you claim leads to higher prices, when all evidence points to lower prices.
I think if you go further back than very recent history, you'll see a pattern emerge.
1798, Federalist president leads America into Quasi-war with France. Republicans opposed to the war, Federalists tend to strongly support it.
1812, Republican president leads America into War of 1812. Federalists opposed to the war, Republicans support it. Differences in opinion lead to Baltimore riots where many Federalist leaders are beaten to death.
1861, Republican president leads America into Civil War. Democrats generally favored conciliations with the south, Republicans favored war.
1914, Democratic president leads US into WWI. Isolationist Republicans were opposed to the war, while most Democrats supported it.
1941, Democratic president leads US into WWII. Republicans divided, but still many were opposed to the war.
Even in recent history, I think the pattern repeats itself. Clinton sends troops into Bosnia, the Republicans oppose it. Clinton escalates attacks against Iraq, Republicans oppose it. Bush II sends troops to Iraq, Democrats oppose it.
The support of a war, like so many other issues, tends to depend on the political affiliation from what I can see.
Hey, as a developer, I'm all for this. Now I can blame the processor when people complain about responsiveness.
I don't know, I haven't found a study yet where a murderer, kidnappist, rapist ever committed another crime after receiving the death penalty. It may not prevent other criminals from doing criminal things, but it certainly restricts the capacity of the individual who killed in the first place.
That being said, I think the notion of a death penalty for hacking is ridiculous, and I hope the article was not meant to be a true battle cry for giving hackers the chair.
Yea, but he'd have been recompiling his kernel much more frequently...
That's a little bit different than the way you initially worded it, wouldn't you agree? I still think it mixes up cause and effect a little bit, but I would mostly (95%) agree with what you've said in this post.
I'm not surprised that this was modded up as interesting, and I'm glad it wasn't marked informative.
The comment about holding it against a company for using so-called slave labor is fairly disingenuous. Killing a retarded person and stealing their kidneys is a case of a law that institutes the abrogation of someone's right. Allowing a family that has little prospect for work other than difficult and low-paying "child labor" to send their children to work is a very different matter. It may not seem like justice, but prior to industrialization, there is often little incentive for a company to create high paying jobs in a low-skilled nation. Look at the western powers prior to the advent of modern industry.
The second point is less dishonest and more just a victim of bad economic understanding. Companies are willing to pay a certain amount of money for a certain type of work. If a country were to outlaw child labor, it wouldn't suddenly raise the wages of the country. The more likely response would be the exact opposite since the company would likely have little incentive to product in that country it would probably move to another. I also noticed that you claimed the child could then get an education if they didn't have to work. What will pay for that education? Countries with strong public education systems paid for that system with money earned as a result of industry and commerce.
This may not dovetail with your notions of justice, but the reality is that a country needs some competitive advantage to attract capital and job creation. For some countries that are just beginning to develop, the only competitive advantage is a cheap labor supply.
Great, now where am I going to go to find ads for my penis-enhancement products?
Are there really scientific studies that claim this? I *thought* the cell phone giving you cancer was more of a myth than a real study.
I doubt this will be much better than the crappy pictures you can take with your "camera phone". My personal thought is that this is not terribly useful, since it effectively limits your ability to do other things. The nice thing about a mobile phone is that I can use it while I'm on the go (walking, driving, etc.) I don't know if I could effectively walk down the street while wearing these and watching a movie. So I don't personally see what would make this type of thing attractive; if I'm at home or a pub, there are generally MUCH better quality TVs available.
FUCK THE TERRORISTS You do speak for me, but I have one problem with this statement. Terrorism is only a tactic. The real problem is Islamic extremism. And before I get flamed and yelled at and compared to Hitler, notice I said extremism, not Islam itself. This culture of death, hatred of the west, blaming Israel, the US, and Great Britain for all problems, the poor treatment of women, the lack of respect for individual rights, etc. has got to stop. I sincerely hope the Islamic world has a new generation of leaders up to the task of extinguishing this virulent brand of hatred. The way things are going, it looks like nothing short of a war is going to result, and I'm not talking about war as in Afghanistan, Iraq, or Croatia, I mean more like Europe in the early 20th century.
All of the noted interfernce demonstrations are "tests". I would be interested to see a "production" deployment where the same interference is noted.
Fair enough. I did some searching, and all I could find were two types of articles:
1) Hysterical radio operators claiming that everyone who asserts that the technology is non-interfering are idiots. I read a lot of claims that "as soon as we can prove that the networks interfere, believe that we will sue the operators and shut them down". I believe this claim, however I noticed that I found not one instance of an actual commercial network being sued. Given that there have been commercial deployments for the past two years now, I'm a little puzzled why this is, unless of course the HAM claims may be overblown.
2) I read articles by industry-types who make the opposite claim.
I don't know the right answer, but when you show me an actual lawsuit that demonstrates such interference is harming HAM radio operators, I'll believe you. Incidentally, from what I read, in Manassas they use a technology called "notching" that removes the frequencies used by short-wave radios. I'm no expert on the technology, but given the lack of actual cases (or apparent lack I should say), it seems like notching must be working.
wow, original. nobody else has made this connection yet.