Re:Does it work properly/completely with Opera yet
on
Gmail Adds Features
·
· Score: 3, Informative
You're utterly wrong, because IE's implementation of the required request protocol is done USING ACTIVEX. So you do, in fact, need activex activated in order to use gmail if your browser is IDing as IE.
I'd be pretty sure these are NOT terminals with anything more than intranet access. Heh, I didn't even rtfa yet, but there's no way AT&T is going to port "knowledge workers" before they port the basic telemarketing types (I have worked operational/IT roles in similar large call centers and large processing centers).
I didn't say they would. At the same time, while the threats to switch are rolling, there'll be a certain percentage of real and a certain percentage of non-real threats. If the percentage of real threats is high, that's fantastic--we'll see some real reform in the market. However, if the percentage of real threats is not high, then Microsoft will just need to temporarily become a loss leader (technically I suppose it's impossible to loss-lead against linux, but it's effectively the same thing), and then before long things will be back to normal.
I wonder how many companies are now doing this so they can get price breaks or cheap long-term contracts from MS?
Re:Not outsourcing - from a business point of view
on
Inside Wal-Mart IT
·
· Score: 1
They're actually not talking about outsourcing to india or some other country here at all, necessarily. The discussion about outsourcing is distinguishing doing everything in-house as opposed to say, contracting out the construction and servicing of information technology systems out to an IBM or other major outsourcer. It would then be up to that outsourcer to decide whether or not to have Indians build the software, which would almost certainly NOT happen because WalMarts IT difficulties arise from scale, supply chain management, and the like (did you rtfa), rather than how to manage complex processes like banking transactions or "enabling knowledge workers."
"You may use this software only on Tuesdays or the third day of each month. If you should use this software any time but the allotted, we reserve the rights to sick our horde of rats (still in beta testing) on you and everyone you've ever known and loved."
When the VCR and the Betamax were invented in the early eighties, there were no "legitimate" uses for them--nobody sold products for them aside from blank tapes, the only use of which was to "steal" broadcast television.
It takes time, and technologies should not be vilified because they do not *yet* have a legitimate use. Legitimize the technology and you'll get something like the $20 billion dollar domestic home video market, the single most profitable chunk of the US film industry.
Er, did their cease and desist notice threaten suit?
Like the submission said, they can scrape and list the original content under fair use, but they are and should be worried about the legality of syndicating it to a third party.
The damn company doesn't even have any damn current filings with the SEC, but as of a 2001 filing their were 100MM shares outstanding. By the stock's peak in late 2003 at over 40 cents a share, there could have been sufficiently more than that and could certainly have been short interest around. Not *easy*, but it's actually a pretty actively traded pink sheet, if you didn't know.
What the fuck is with the investment banker digs? While many bankers are assholes, it's true (and it's true of any profession), bankers keep the economy liquid and make sure that everything is priced as fairly as possible. That means that if a company has the best technology or provides the best return for its investors, it will fetch the highest price. Pure meritocracy.
I know a guy who lives deliberately below the poverty line and avoids all income tax who doesn't buy value-added goods unless used (and therefore no sales tax). There are ways to avoid many taxes if you're willing to make significant compromises in your quality of life, potential achievement, etc.
You're absolutely correct, the microsoft tax is not, technically speaking a tax. But like taxation, the average person doesn't know how to avoid paying it and would be horrified if you suggested the appropriate steps to take in order to do so.
I didn't say it broke the laws of physics--please don't tag me as an idiot. I understand all of what you say, and my point remains--what it does is something relatively unexplored, and it is NOT the last; the effect will be duplicated and changed. You completely ignored my point and made it again in your own condescending phrasing.
Well, but "back in the day" there was insufficient enabling technology. People were allowed freedoms that reached pretty close to technological limits. These days, technological development has made everything exponentially cheaper, but the gov't is supporting the old way of doing things, rather than supporting the natural push of the competitive market to make companies lower their prices until people are willing to pay rather than steal.
What I mean is, back in the day stealing cost X and prices were X-1. Now, stealing costs X-10 and prices are still X-1. It has ALWAYS been the case that people would steal stuff if it was cheaper (in terms of risk, morals, etc) than buying, and the market was forced to compromise its desire for excess profits. Now there is no compromise.
That's rather short sighted, don't you think? This one particular substance happens to break our elementary perceptions of The Way Things Work in a very specific way. It's likely a really small step beyond that to move the temperature range up, down, wider, thinner, etc.
Well, you won't be able top rely on that for long--spam programs will almost certainly be cutting out anything following plus signs in e-mail addresses before long.
I'm with you on that one! Also, though, people tend to ignore the fact that, even if/where we still make hydrogen with fossil fuels, scrubbing is comparatively easy on a massive scale, but extraordinarily difficult in hundreds of millions of distributed units (i.e. cars). That is, emissions are far less damaging at power plants than in cars (though obviously a push for nuclear/alternative is still necessary!).
No it doesn't. Over-the-counter stocks are just that; they are unlisted on major exchanges such as the Nasdaq. Check the SEC's page for the roots of the misconception:
The US IS detaining other people who are threats to other countries because, by extension, that is perceived as a threat to the US
So what you're saying is that you agree with me?
We only spend our military resources where there's a percieved threat against us. We have never entered a country like rwanda just to save some ethnic minorities, we only do it where the threat is percieved as being destructive to our GDP.
Look, I'm not changing the wording. What I'm saying (which you obviously don't understand) is that the US doesn't detain people on suspicion on plotting against, say, China. No. We detain people on suspicion of plotting against the US.
You said "It's not as if the only people who have been detained were provably in the act of actually trying to kill US citizens on or off US territory." Again, provably? No. But suspected of? However faulty or poor US intelligence? Yes.
I'm not defending the US, here. It's insane of the Bush administration to ask for permission to, and it's insane of Congresspeople like Kerry to grant permission to detain people with no good reason but a general "feeling" or because an unreliable criminal "intelligence source" rolled to save his skin.
But you're completely ignoring the original poster's point, which was that the US doesn't detain people off our soil to protect other countries; we leave that up to them. We detain people (in some unfathomable effort) to protect ourselves.
Slashdot Mirror
You're utterly wrong, because IE's implementation of the required request protocol is done USING ACTIVEX. So you do, in fact, need activex activated in order to use gmail if your browser is IDing as IE.
I'd be pretty sure these are NOT terminals with anything more than intranet access. Heh, I didn't even rtfa yet, but there's no way AT&T is going to port "knowledge workers" before they port the basic telemarketing types (I have worked operational/IT roles in similar large call centers and large processing centers).
I didn't say they would. At the same time, while the threats to switch are rolling, there'll be a certain percentage of real and a certain percentage of non-real threats. If the percentage of real threats is high, that's fantastic--we'll see some real reform in the market. However, if the percentage of real threats is not high, then Microsoft will just need to temporarily become a loss leader (technically I suppose it's impossible to loss-lead against linux, but it's effectively the same thing), and then before long things will be back to normal.
I wonder how many companies are now doing this so they can get price breaks or cheap long-term contracts from MS?
They're actually not talking about outsourcing to india or some other country here at all, necessarily. The discussion about outsourcing is distinguishing doing everything in-house as opposed to say, contracting out the construction and servicing of information technology systems out to an IBM or other major outsourcer. It would then be up to that outsourcer to decide whether or not to have Indians build the software, which would almost certainly NOT happen because WalMarts IT difficulties arise from scale, supply chain management, and the like (did you rtfa), rather than how to manage complex processes like banking transactions or "enabling knowledge workers."
That's so deliciously evil of you!
Now if only they'd actually give you your money back if you didn't agree with the eula...
I think Badnarik said that just a few weeks ago on Slashdot, actually.
Nicely enough, I'm in MA where Kerry will win the electorate regardless of what I do, so I get to vote for the man who wants to fix the DMCA.
"You may use this software only on Tuesdays or the third day of each month. If you should use this software any time but the allotted, we reserve the rights to sick our horde of rats (still in beta testing) on you and everyone you've ever known and loved."
When the VCR and the Betamax were invented in the early eighties, there were no "legitimate" uses for them--nobody sold products for them aside from blank tapes, the only use of which was to "steal" broadcast television.
It takes time, and technologies should not be vilified because they do not *yet* have a legitimate use. Legitimize the technology and you'll get something like the $20 billion dollar domestic home video market, the single most profitable chunk of the US film industry.
Er, did their cease and desist notice threaten suit?
Like the submission said, they can scrape and list the original content under fair use, but they are and should be worried about the legality of syndicating it to a third party.
I'm sorry, how is that, then? Care to explain the logic underlying that conclusion?
The damn company doesn't even have any damn current filings with the SEC, but as of a 2001 filing their were 100MM shares outstanding. By the stock's peak in late 2003 at over 40 cents a share, there could have been sufficiently more than that and could certainly have been short interest around. Not *easy*, but it's actually a pretty actively traded pink sheet, if you didn't know.
What the fuck is with the investment banker digs? While many bankers are assholes, it's true (and it's true of any profession), bankers keep the economy liquid and make sure that everything is priced as fairly as possible. That means that if a company has the best technology or provides the best return for its investors, it will fetch the highest price. Pure meritocracy.
oh, er, I meant to post that to the other guy ;)
I know a guy who lives deliberately below the poverty line and avoids all income tax who doesn't buy value-added goods unless used (and therefore no sales tax). There are ways to avoid many taxes if you're willing to make significant compromises in your quality of life, potential achievement, etc.
You're absolutely correct, the microsoft tax is not, technically speaking a tax. But like taxation, the average person doesn't know how to avoid paying it and would be horrified if you suggested the appropriate steps to take in order to do so.
I didn't say it broke the laws of physics--please don't tag me as an idiot. I understand all of what you say, and my point remains--what it does is something relatively unexplored, and it is NOT the last; the effect will be duplicated and changed. You completely ignored my point and made it again in your own condescending phrasing.
Well, but "back in the day" there was insufficient enabling technology. People were allowed freedoms that reached pretty close to technological limits. These days, technological development has made everything exponentially cheaper, but the gov't is supporting the old way of doing things, rather than supporting the natural push of the competitive market to make companies lower their prices until people are willing to pay rather than steal.
What I mean is, back in the day stealing cost X and prices were X-1. Now, stealing costs X-10 and prices are still X-1. It has ALWAYS been the case that people would steal stuff if it was cheaper (in terms of risk, morals, etc) than buying, and the market was forced to compromise its desire for excess profits. Now there is no compromise.
That's rather short sighted, don't you think? This one particular substance happens to break our elementary perceptions of The Way Things Work in a very specific way. It's likely a really small step beyond that to move the temperature range up, down, wider, thinner, etc.
Well, you won't be able top rely on that for long--spam programs will almost certainly be cutting out anything following plus signs in e-mail addresses before long.
Damn! You beat me to the most obvious joke in the world by about five posts!
S
C
O
I'm with you on that one! Also, though, people tend to ignore the fact that, even if/where we still make hydrogen with fossil fuels, scrubbing is comparatively easy on a massive scale, but extraordinarily difficult in hundreds of millions of distributed units (i.e. cars). That is, emissions are far less damaging at power plants than in cars (though obviously a push for nuclear/alternative is still necessary!).
No it doesn't. Over-the-counter stocks are just that; they are unlisted on major exchanges such as the Nasdaq. Check the SEC's page for the roots of the misconception:
http://www.sec.gov/answers/otcbb.htm
The US IS detaining other people who are threats to other countries because, by extension, that is perceived as a threat to the US
So what you're saying is that you agree with me?
We only spend our military resources where there's a percieved threat against us. We have never entered a country like rwanda just to save some ethnic minorities, we only do it where the threat is percieved as being destructive to our GDP.
Fine, 'held on suspicion of.'
Look, I'm not changing the wording. What I'm saying (which you obviously don't understand) is that the US doesn't detain people on suspicion on plotting against, say, China. No. We detain people on suspicion of plotting against the US.
You said "It's not as if the only people who have been detained were provably in the act of actually trying to kill US citizens on or off US territory." Again, provably? No. But suspected of? However faulty or poor US intelligence? Yes.
I'm not defending the US, here. It's insane of the Bush administration to ask for permission to, and it's insane of Congresspeople like Kerry to grant permission to detain people with no good reason but a general "feeling" or because an unreliable criminal "intelligence source" rolled to save his skin.
But you're completely ignoring the original poster's point, which was that the US doesn't detain people off our soil to protect other countries; we leave that up to them. We detain people (in some unfathomable effort) to protect ourselves.
Don't coopt his point, next time.