Or you can pay for it and have it both ways. This is available in quite a few countries where cloned SIMs is a legitimate use case.
Depends on your locality. Around here it is not uncommon for companies to have one number, but several phones - or even people. So you can have the same number on your desktop phone, mobile phone and car phone without having to move sims around or do cumbersome bluetooth magic.
there is an issue of legality and access to a brick and mortar game.
Not all card players live in countries where it is perfectly legal to or feasible to play with people, which is why some players seek out other people through (note the use of through here) mouse and keyboard.
Some players are also better at playing when hiding behind a computer than in real life (tells, patience, etc.)... your point isn't really valid. A lot of people do both, still doesn't change anything about the fact that good players will in the long run beat the pack.
Then do a cost vs. benefit analysis on having to replace the drives constantly compared to the extra benefits (extra customers served, etc.).
If it is acceptable to replace drives constantly, make sure you stagger the use of them so that when the first pair fails the second pair (or what ever configuration you have) has 50% lifespan left.
And so the circle repeats...
Of course it might be cheaper to throw more disks at your array, or create a slave to share the load of the original system. Depends on what your service is worth in terms of money.
It's all down to right tool for the right job, as always.
Re1: Just picking your nits here, but a beta should really be feature complete. It would be setting your self up for the epic fail if you introduce new features AFTER the beta-cycle.
Betas are usually the first release outside your closed development environment and at this stage you should have sorted your shit out and focus on fixing bugs and critical errors that usually don't show up until you release your software to the "monkeys" (so to speak).
I'd rather have the scale suggest to me (and me confirming or choosing something else) the type of fruit/veg rather than telling me.
As I can quite clearly envision the scenario where scale is wrong (tangerine, kumquat, etc.) and I have to track down some scarce-in-supply worker to actually override the scale (or just accept that it is wrong and deal with what ever that means in price).
It is much more suited for computerised decision support than computerised recognition. It would probably be right in the majority of cases (the easy ones) and when it comes to the difficult ones, the customer usually knows what (s)he is buying anyway...
Not being able to access PirateBay isn't really critical. People can get their less-than-legal software and porn elsewhere, it's the principle that's important.
For what it's worth, I'm somewhat doubtful to whether or not most of the piratebay users really give a crap about free speech, net neutrality and so on, as long as they can download stuff for free...
No it is not, but on the other hand you have shown one instance where the expert would be better at designing the solution rather than proving that the expert is the/only/ one that can design solutions.
There is just as much interface design that goes into the commandline. There are choices to be made there and there are good and bad cli-applications as well as gui-applications.
The same problems apply here that they do for GUI applications, often even more so (I suggest you check out Nielsens rules for good ux-design)
This is just the wrong attitude that the rest of the discussion is about. I'm working with ux on a professional basis and if there is one thing I've learnt is that CS people are usually the last to see the problems. Often they become to locked into the mindset of "it's like that for a reason" even though the reason might not be sound at all.
In UX more eyes are really better. All research has shown that this is so (look at some of the more revered ux papers like Nielsens focusgroup studies and so on).
Back to your chemist analogy (which isn't really appropriate btw) a user might offer both problems, and solutions. A simple suggestion like a different scent, thinner solution so it would get into corners (ie. adding more water) are problems and solutions baked into one.
A professional will usually be better at finding the solutions, but the end user is ultimately the one that finds the most complex problems.
Depends on design paradigm. If all projects employed a strict separation of UI and business logic (for instance MVC, et al) it would be "simple" to redesign the UI without having to deal with all the nitty gritty details of the code of the application.
Sort of similar to why there is a thriving environment for designing "skins" and "themes" for certain applications where the UI has sufficiently been separated from the logic and allowing non-coders to play around with the appearance without understanding the rest of the application.
This is however expensive and doesn't really offer anything until your userbase is bigger than yourself...
No they are not. They are however usually connected to a network (since pictures/data are transferred via ipv4). If the hospital chooses to secure it's network it's fine, if not well can't really blame the maker of the device.
I guess most people would be scared if they knew how much hospital equipment is running on windows. However looking at the number of incidents, there aren't really that much reason to be afraid of windows. The real culprit is the software designers (and hospital staff).
Software errors in medical devices has killed people since before Microsoft made it's first OS.
Having a platform more programmers are familiar with might not be such a bad idea...
Re:You need to clarify your question
on
Ethics In IT
·
· Score: 1
You should read a book called "pathological pursuit of power" which deals with just these things. However a fine in dollars and cents is exactly a fine to the shareholders as it takes away from the potential profit. However if actually producing a car that doesn't burst into flames is more expensive than the fine (and often the cost of the negative publicity) it is in the interest of the shareholders to chose the flaming car, because the corporation is a legal entity (or person if you like) and the corporation takes the fall not the individual shareholder.
This is often regarded as the perverse state of the corporation to day. Where care for human life and other tangible things are not in a part of business unless it is more expensive to not care.
which would make sense if he used it for something which
a) was critical (in the sense that a crash would kill/destroy/whatnot) b) couldn't be done on, gee let's say, MacOS c) oh doesn't crash on MS unless you do weird stuff to it
It's the same as arguing that your secretary would be better of on the latest ubuntu release over XP/Office. In a perfect world yep, but given that won't use any of the added security and stability isn't a big problem when just running one application (unless the application is the problem itself, which wouldn't improve on a different platform).
You didn't specify what type of media and which Adobe application we are talking about. And yes it does matter in the sense that alot of "media" can be converted by FOSS and one or two of the Adobe applications does run on Linux (according to various websites).
Sounds rather overkill and expensive to use Adobe's creative suite to just convert stuff...
The point of this post, is not to troll you or your employer, but to point to the fact that not everything improves just by a change of platform.
which also means that the car is less in contact with the road giving you less friction and control, at a higher speed. Sounds like a great combination.
On the other hand, most of the year-versioned software gets released in a different year from what it's named after, which kinda makes it like a version number afterall, it's only got a few more digits.
Or you could get a thinclient (e.g. Compaq Evo Txx) that doesn't have any moving parts at all (ie. no harddrive that fails, no fans that make noise, etc.), nobody wants to steal it, it takes less than 10 minutes to get working on your network with your company setup.
This also means no floppy, cd, etc. which reduces the possibilities for industrial espionage as it's harder to move data "unseen", not to mention it makes it easier to keep a homogenous client environment as upgrades and end of lifes are pretty predictable and so forth.
Large initial investment, is pretty Econ101 to realise that putting of a major investment by minor investment over long time when in the end you will be forced to action (sooner or later TR-equipment will be ebay-ware) is not a sound financial policy...
In all fairness if the users are on the level that they manage to create havoc with the desktop, their skills probably wouldn't extend to adding two and two and figure out that the "open"-dialog is pretty much the same as explorer, etc.
This isn't securing, it's simplifying. If your secretary only needs Word, why give her a full desktop so she can get stuck on a ton of stuff instead of just giving her exactly what she needs.
Your little Java thoughtexperiment however completly breaks with the whole idea behind thin clients and centralised servers. The whole point is releaving the client of everything so you can use dirt cheap commodity stuff on the client and put all your eggs in the server basket.
Slashdot Mirror
This story seems to disregard the fact that zinio is available for ipad and iphone...
Or you can pay for it and have it both ways. This is available in quite a few countries where cloned SIMs is a legitimate use case.
Depends on your locality. Around here it is not uncommon for companies to have one number, but several phones - or even people. So you can have the same number on your desktop phone, mobile phone and car phone without having to move sims around or do cumbersome bluetooth magic.
there is an issue of legality and access to a brick and mortar game.
Not all card players live in countries where it is perfectly legal to or feasible to play with people, which is why some players seek out other people through (note the use of through here) mouse and keyboard.
Some players are also better at playing when hiding behind a computer than in real life (tells, patience, etc.)... your point isn't really valid. A lot of people do both, still doesn't change anything about the fact that good players will in the long run beat the pack.
Then do a cost vs. benefit analysis on having to replace the drives constantly compared to the extra benefits (extra customers served, etc.).
If it is acceptable to replace drives constantly, make sure you stagger the use of them so that when the first pair fails the second pair (or what ever configuration you have) has 50% lifespan left.
And so the circle repeats...
Of course it might be cheaper to throw more disks at your array, or create a slave to share the load of the original system. Depends on what your service is worth in terms of money.
It's all down to right tool for the right job, as always.
Re1: Just picking your nits here, but a beta should really be feature complete. It would be setting your self up for the epic fail if you introduce new features AFTER the beta-cycle.
Betas are usually the first release outside your closed development environment and at this stage you should have sorted your shit out and focus on fixing bugs and critical errors that usually don't show up until you release your software to the "monkeys" (so to speak).
rather than smart computer.
I'd rather have the scale suggest to me (and me confirming or choosing something else) the type of fruit/veg rather than telling me.
As I can quite clearly envision the scenario where scale is wrong (tangerine, kumquat, etc.) and I have to track down some scarce-in-supply worker to actually override the scale (or just accept that it is wrong and deal with what ever that means in price).
It is much more suited for computerised decision support than computerised recognition. It would probably be right in the majority of cases (the easy ones) and when it comes to the difficult ones, the customer usually knows what (s)he is buying anyway...
Less knowledgeable, or pragmatic?
Not being able to access PirateBay isn't really critical. People can get their less-than-legal software and porn elsewhere, it's the principle that's important.
For what it's worth, I'm somewhat doubtful to whether or not most of the piratebay users really give a crap about free speech, net neutrality and so on, as long as they can download stuff for free...
No it is not, but on the other hand you have shown one instance where the expert would be better at designing the solution rather than proving that the expert is the /only/ one that can design solutions.
The latter is elitist, the former is not.
There is just as much interface design that goes into the commandline. There are choices to be made there and there are good and bad cli-applications as well as gui-applications.
The same problems apply here that they do for GUI applications, often even more so (I suggest you check out Nielsens rules for good ux-design)
This is just the wrong attitude that the rest of the discussion is about. I'm working with ux on a professional basis and if there is one thing I've learnt is that CS people are usually the last to see the problems. Often they become to locked into the mindset of "it's like that for a reason" even though the reason might not be sound at all.
In UX more eyes are really better. All research has shown that this is so (look at some of the more revered ux papers like Nielsens focusgroup studies and so on).
Back to your chemist analogy (which isn't really appropriate btw) a user might offer both problems, and solutions. A simple suggestion like a different scent, thinner solution so it would get into corners (ie. adding more water) are problems and solutions baked into one.
A professional will usually be better at finding the solutions, but the end user is ultimately the one that finds the most complex problems.
a more appropriate saying is "the right tool for the job". For some jobs, a command line will never be appropriate and vice versa.
Depends on design paradigm. If all projects employed a strict separation of UI and business logic (for instance MVC, et al) it would be "simple" to redesign the UI without having to deal with all the nitty gritty details of the code of the application.
Sort of similar to why there is a thriving environment for designing "skins" and "themes" for certain applications where the UI has sufficiently been separated from the logic and allowing non-coders to play around with the appearance without understanding the rest of the application.
This is however expensive and doesn't really offer anything until your userbase is bigger than yourself...
Sounds like a poor man's implementation of IPsec to me...
oh wait, without the standardisation of course.
Possibly for the same reason that an MRI-machine (costing usually in the millions of dollars) can't display it's own datasets either.
Right tool for the job.
No they are not. They are however usually connected to a network (since pictures/data are transferred via ipv4). If the hospital chooses to secure it's network it's fine, if not well can't really blame the maker of the device.
I guess most people would be scared if they knew how much hospital equipment is running on windows. However looking at the number of incidents, there aren't really that much reason to be afraid of windows. The real culprit is the software designers (and hospital staff).
Software errors in medical devices has killed people since before Microsoft made it's first OS.
Having a platform more programmers are familiar with might not be such a bad idea...
You should read a book called "pathological pursuit of power" which deals with just these things. However a fine in dollars and cents is exactly a fine to the shareholders as it takes away from the potential profit. However if actually producing a car that doesn't burst into flames is more expensive than the fine (and often the cost of the negative publicity) it is in the interest of the shareholders to chose the flaming car, because the corporation is a legal entity (or person if you like) and the corporation takes the fall not the individual shareholder.
This is often regarded as the perverse state of the corporation to day. Where care for human life and other tangible things are not in a part of business unless it is more expensive to not care.
which would make sense if he used it for something which
a) was critical (in the sense that a crash would kill/destroy/whatnot)
b) couldn't be done on, gee let's say, MacOS
c) oh doesn't crash on MS unless you do weird stuff to it
It's the same as arguing that your secretary would be better of on the latest ubuntu release over XP/Office. In a perfect world yep, but given that won't use any of the added security and stability isn't a big problem when just running one application (unless the application is the problem itself, which wouldn't improve on a different platform).
You didn't specify what type of media and which Adobe application we are talking about. And yes it does matter in the sense that alot of "media" can be converted by FOSS and one or two of the Adobe applications does run on Linux (according to various websites).
Sounds rather overkill and expensive to use Adobe's creative suite to just convert stuff...
The point of this post, is not to troll you or your employer, but to point to the fact that not everything improves just by a change of platform.
If you didn't get the tongue-in-cheek here, consider yourself trolled. :-)
which also means that the car is less in contact with the road giving you less friction and control, at a higher speed. Sounds like a great combination.
which in many ways sums up his whole blog. A lot of ideas, many of them poorly written.
On the other hand, most of the year-versioned software gets released in a different year from what it's named after, which kinda makes it like a version number afterall, it's only got a few more digits.
Or you could get a thinclient (e.g. Compaq Evo Txx) that doesn't have any moving parts at all (ie. no harddrive that fails, no fans that make noise, etc.), nobody wants to steal it, it takes less than 10 minutes to get working on your network with your company setup.
This also means no floppy, cd, etc. which reduces the possibilities for industrial espionage as it's harder to move data "unseen", not to mention it makes it easier to keep a homogenous client environment as upgrades and end of lifes are pretty predictable and so forth.
Large initial investment, is pretty Econ101 to realise that putting of a major investment by minor investment over long time when in the end you will be forced to action (sooner or later TR-equipment will be ebay-ware) is not a sound financial policy...
In all fairness if the users are on the level that they manage to create havoc with the desktop, their skills probably wouldn't extend to adding two and two and figure out that the "open"-dialog is pretty much the same as explorer, etc.
This isn't securing, it's simplifying. If your secretary only needs Word, why give her a full desktop so she can get stuck on a ton of stuff instead of just giving her exactly what she needs.
Your little Java thoughtexperiment however completly breaks with the whole idea behind thin clients and centralised servers. The whole point is releaving the client of everything so you can use dirt cheap commodity stuff on the client and put all your eggs in the server basket.
Why observe over 3 years, if the whole society exists electronically; defining time and the speed of everything is up to it's creators?
I guess it's a nice way to make sure your grants and in turn workplace exists for another three years, too...