I'm not sure whether this applies to other web browsers, but Safari at least has the ability to be locked down via parental controls.
However, I'm kind of looking forward to the day when the parental controls fail on some site, and an angry parent sues Apple for the content being displayed. If they have an anti-porn policy and parental controls in place to be "family friendly" (who under 18 can enter into a cell phone contract in the first place again?), then they have responsibility if "anything dirty" gets through.
Everyone else which supports SIM-based (read: GSM band) Pay As You Go is a reseller of one of these:
T-Mobile AT&T
If you are talking about a CSIM rather than a SIM (you have Verizon with no "SIM", so I assume you are talking one of the standard WWAN cards in the device, which means they won't take a CSIM anyway), then there's:
You should be aware that manufacturers that do not support the SIM circuitry in their devices often have a SIM slot, just like the devices that support it. The non-support will potentially include lacking a GSM antenna, or even a SIM holder. So you stick the SIM in, and it just rattles around until it shorts something out.
This typically happens because it's a lot cheaper to keep one SKU for the plastics for devices than it is to roll out two sets of plastics, without knowing which model will sell better. The manufacturers usually (but not always, if the slot location is in a place like under the battery, etc.) put a piece of tape over the slot, so if you had to pry tape off because you thought you could buy the cheaper model, pull off the tape, and stick in a SIM, you are likely sadly mistaken.
PPS:
Even if all the parts are there electrically, if you bought the cheaper unit thinking to pull a fast one, typically the firmware for the cellular module is licensed and won't be distributed to the unit, even after update, since that would add cost (which is why the unlicensed units are cheaper in the first place).
"Kid Afrika came cruising into Dog Solitude on the last day in November, his vintage Dodge chauffeured by a white girl named Cherry Chesterfield. Slick Henry and Little Bird were breaking down the buzzsaw that formed the Judge's left hand when Kid's Dodge came into view, its patched apron bag throwing up brown fantails of the rusty water that pooled on the Solitude's uneven plain of compacted steel."
I believe he's using "dashboard" in the Google sense of the word: a computer display, usually in a public area, which is periodically updated with information, such as server status, uptime, software project status, build status, testing status, release engineering information, etc.. They are frequently used in boiler-room situations to remind people of slipping deadlines, source tree instability, testing failures, and so on.
The way these things are fabricated results in a sufficien number of pixel failures in a 30" display as to make it uneconomical.
They are typically fabricated in large sheets, then the sheets are tested for dead pixels, and then the standard display sizes are cut out from between the dead pixels, and the individual units are retested. The smallest display sizes are used for things like watches and digital thermometers, etc..
The fabrication process has barely improved enough that they can (as of very recently) offer 9.74" displays in quantity sufficient to make them worth manufacturing.
Unless you can personally improve the process/methods to significantly improve yields for larger areas of the sheets, then what you are asking for will remain uneconomical, probably for several decades, as process improvements in LCD, LED, and OLED continue to outstrip E-Ink, and therefore their power consumption costs drop toward that of E-Ink. Currently, the only practical value for E-Ink is power consumption for infrequently updated displays which tend to be power sensitive only because they run off batteries.
So the short answer is you haven't personally invented the fabrication processes yet.
First off the GP ignored another fee: you have to own a Windows Phone
Second, if a platform has no traction, you will often offer it on a loss leader basis. A loss leader is where you offer something for free or otherwise below your cost to produce it, in order to get future sales, either of add-ons, or of the product itself.
For example, Microsoft could have offered to refund all those costs for the first 10,000 apps published; likely it would have to be closer to 100,000, in order for them to get to iPhone App Store scale, but that could have been the offer.
Another way to go about it would be to pick the top 100 Apps (adjusted for same developer) in the iPhone App Store, waive the developer account fee, and send them the necessary hardware with the necessary software already installed for "$1 and other valuable considerations", with the proviso that they not use the hardware except for developing Windows Phone Apps, and a contract penalty to cover their costs, and an audit caluse as one of their considerations.
They could also waive the developer account fee on a yearly basis, based on you selling at least that much in value to Microsoft of your App(s).
Right now, they are trying to court the people who have said "I would develop for iPhone/iPad/IPod Touch, but Apple won't let me use open source software as part of my App" -- which is a lot of people, but many are politically motivated in their statements, and would not be goo App developers.
So yeah, this is a likely misfire by Microsoft, but it got you talking about them, didn't it? And it got the Windows Phone in the press (as news), which they could basically only get there by buying advertising otherwise.
It's not a buzzword, and hasn't been for about 12 years now. Search on the major job sites for jobs requiring UML knowledge.
Monster.com has none; Google has no openings with that keyword, Apple has no openings with that keyword.
Don't get me wrong, you can find job listings for them, but a straight up Google search will assume you are talking about University of Massachusetts Lowell. To find people who care about UML, you will likely have to look at specific company sites for companies which are known to use it: IBM Global Services, HP (the division formerly known as EDS, before HP ate them), or a Larry Ellison "blue sky" startup which is never intended to produce product, they are expected to lose money so Larry can write down his taxable income.
It can teach you some valuable lessons about thinking, at a high level, about how software systems can communicate internally, and stepwise programming, but if you expect to be hired, then sat down at a desk with a copy of Rational Rose and told to design software systems with it, it better be at one of those big 3 companies.
Its not really debateable that if you allow historically lower-paid individuals to enter a higher-salaried job market, the average salary will fall. One would expect it to reach a middle ground somewhere.
But Im not understanding why we should prevent that scenario, so that we might make more money and they less, simply by merit of where everyone happened to be born.
I think it's more to do with where the businesses are started and run. Information Technology businesses tend to start and thrive in the US due to the regulatory environment. The US has a better environment for these businesses to be started and run than other countries, and so they are started and run in the US.
Regulations in this sense include enforcing all laws without favoritism, and government offices being responsive and egalitarian, again without favoritism.
In terms of difficulty of starting any kind of business, it's easier in the US than in almost any other place in the world, save 3. The US ranks #4 in the world out of 185 countries, and, for example, India is down at #133; that means that India is in the bottom 30% of countries A lot of this has to do with graft and corruption in business processes there -- which is why Russia, a fairly modern country with demonstrable software talent, is down at #112. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ease_of_doing_business_index
The jobs are in the US because the businesses are in the US.
I think it is therefore less where you are born, than locations where people are willing to keep their government under control, rather than allowing their government to control them.
One of the arguments against granting H1B visas for economic reasons, rather than true lack of locally qualified workers is the general feeling that the economic refugees from poor business climates should perhaps be home making their local business climate better.
If you look at the businesses that have succeeded using FOSS every. single. one. has used one of the "blessed three" business models, selling support, selling hardware, holding out a tin cup.
I think you are missing the "Open source the tactical portions of the product, since they are not your bread and butter, and sell the strategic portions of your code under a different license" model.
This would technically be the Mac OS X model, although I think most open source people don't care about Mac OS X, even though there are serious security and other kernel improvements in the BSD parts of the kernel, and significant improvements in libc and other portions of user space that they actually do release. For example, even without the GUI, it's the first independently developed system which has achieve full UNIX conformance.
Similarly, there are other products, such as TiVO, which have a Linux kernel with proprietary modules for filesystem and so on, and even RedHat has some proprietary components.
It's just no covered by the mental health systems in most place, predominantly due to mandatory treatment being outlawed as a violation of civil rights.
When you hold someone involuntarily, it's limited to a 72 hour hold, and it take an extreme act by the person for that yo last beyond 72 hours - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5150_(Involuntary_psychiatric_hold) . The typical reaction is treat-and-turf (get them back on their medication in the 72 hour window, then throw them out), or worst case, extended to a 5250: a 14 day hold, with the same results, or a T-Con (Temporary Conservatorship or 5270, which is a 30 day hold), also with the same results. If that doesn't work out for the worst cases, a so-caled permanent conservatorship can be initiate, so called because it constitutes a 1 year hold. Most psychiatric treatment personnel won't ever go that far for fear of a lawsuit.
This originated with a cost reduction measure under Ronald Reagan, then governor of California, signed in 1967 and phasing into full effect in 1972: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lanterman–Petris–Short_Act.This successful cost reduction measure was adopted by other states, modeled on the California law, and quickly gained adoption in most Blue states, particularly where there was a high homeless population of mentally ill persons self-medicating with alcohol, marijuana, and other substances, rather than getting real treatment.
In any case, it typically means no treatment for psychiatric disorders.
My mother was a psychiatric social worker in a red state (Weber County Mental Health in Ogden, Utah). It took them a long time to adopt these measures, and they continued to treat patients (they were euphemistically referred to as clients), but they finally did so in the late 1980's and phasing in through the early 1990's. The reason they adopted them was also cost cutting, but it was mostly driven by Colorado convincing their mentally ill persons to accept a one way bus ticket to Utah - which was Colorado addressed the problem.
Ironically, you could call Weber County Mental health, and report a person who was off their medication -- those on Lithium for Schizophrenia frequently decompensated on their medications when diet drinks came out, since Aspartame bonds to N-Dopamine receptors making the treatment less effective, and mentally ill persons frequently have accompanying body image issues which drives them to diet drinks -- and their case worker would show up and talk them in.
I tried this same things with Santa Clara County Mental Health in the last couple of years, and they were totally uninterested in a man outside a subway who was arguing with his voices. No dice. My options, according to the social worker, was to call the cops on the guy -- the last thing someone in that state needs -- and run them through police system to get him a 5150 to get his medication. Santa Clara County absolutely does not care about their mentally ill the way Weber County does.
Although Obama's Affordable Care Act gives better access to treatment options for mentally ill persons: http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2012/06/29/what-the-affordable-care-act-means-to-mental-health/ in actual practice, it's probably not going to matter if these people do not choose to avail themselves of treatment, and without reform of the laws governing mental illness treatment practices, it's most likely to remain a 72 hour hold, stabilization, and throwing them out after they have been on their medication long enough to ave their symptoms temporarily alleviated.
The end result is that it will likely not address the issue, and certainly without forced medication, it won't stop criminal gun violence or suicides, since as soon as they feel better, they're going off their medication again.
Tho elaborate: It's a small boost on Intel architecture systems to avoid the hoops, but somewhat more substantial on ARM systems, where avoiding the hoops requires using a particularly poor part of the hardware implementation, which amplifies the costs.
When you get all the patent holders for the patents they are violating to execute license agreements and hold harmless agreements. You think it's only software where patents are stifling things? Everyone in the industry kind of willfully looks the other way, as long as the other guy also willfully looks away, and as long as there's no source code for anyone to drag anyone else into court over.
Realize also that the interfaces used on the bottom end to interface the software for the hardware disclose substantial information about the hardware as well. Imagine the following question in the press: "if you say you support 'B' in hardware, but are actually doing 'Q' and 'R' in hardware when you are asked to accomplish 'B', isn't the claim that you have 'hardware accelerated B' only technically true in order to have that marketing checkbox checked?". There are similar uncomfortable questions.
Apart from those, the interfaces to the hardware can disclose additional hardware patent violations, which would normally be covered by the "willfully looks away" already in progress.
if you actually did come up with something clever, but which wasn't patentable for whatever reason, your competitor could just copy it, and then you would have lost your market advantage.
Finally, most hardware codec decoding, e.g. for H.264, is partially looped in software s that the license can be tied to the software instead of the hardware, and therefore be optional, and not add to the unit cost as a hardware royalty item to Sorenson (and others). By this fiction, they become an optional software royalty item where the company using the hardware in their design can choose wheter or not to use the capability, and thereby be required to pay the royalty. If it became easy to use the hardware capabilities from Open Source software, then this fiction disappears. You can argue that standards should all be royalty free or not be standards until you are blue in the face, but you are looking at approximately 100,000,000,000 DVDs total in the world, all expecting H.264 to decode them, and that requires a royalty payment.
No, these drivers are never going to be fully Open Source at the same time they give access to all the hardware capabilities.
Colonize space? Why? 3/4 of our planet is ocean, how about colonize that first? Deserts? Hint: it will be much cheaper and possible with today's technology without major sacrifices. So... where are the underwater cities, etc? No takers?
Because governments are too close?
For example, when the Republic of Minerva attempted to create an independent micronation by colonizing an area of the ocean, the US paid Tonga to claim it for the Kingdom of Tonga so the millionaires who were trying to found it couldn't get out from under existing national sovereignties.
For a lot of people willing to fly away to the far reaches of space, the limiting factor has always been the cost of getting out of the gravity well in the first place. The DC-X (Delta Clipper) would have remedied this, but it was killed off McDonnell Douglas as part of them being eaten by Boeing, in favor of the National Aerospace plane, which never materialized, and would have needed runways and to boost additional equipment to do landings out there, where there are no runways for the plane to use (an intentional limitation of the plane).
I can understand governments being wary of cheap access to space (e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_bombardment#Project_Thor should probably not be put in practical reach of well to do Facebook emloyees, and more than you'd want them to have tactical nuclear weapons at their disposal).
That it would cost a whole hell of a lot for a cat's paw to fly up and try to claim the territory out from under them is a major advantage of basing something like this in space, and therefore a major draw to colonization efforts there.
There are also people even crazier than that who believe that it's mankind's Manifest Detiny to expand to fill the solar system, and from there the nearby stars, then on to the galaxy, and then on to the rest of the universe: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manifest_destiny .
Either way, it means either getting rid of the small minds in the way, or working around them. Local end runs, like Minerva, have failed, and if you are just going to be an extension of an existing nation, and are in the top 1% of wealth there anyway, you can be a hell of a lot more comfortable under their thumb without going anywhere than you can be doing subsistence fish-farming on a floating city in the middle of the Pacific being a damn sight less comfortablr, and then finding yourself *still* under their thumb anyway.
Colonies are built by political refugees, economic refugees, indentured servants, disinherited heirs, bastard progeny, and, in general, people looking for a better life than the one they have now. For everyone in the middle class and higher, that's basically unavailable here on Earth, "better" being a relative term, and with orbital costs being artificially inflated, anyone below that level of wealth can't hope to go anywhere, except local regional border crossings, in the hope of a better life.
So you get a bunch of nerds, in the middle class and higher, where do you think they will be pointing their colony ships, Antarctica? It might work, but you are more likely to get booted off by whoever "protects" that section of Antarctica from someone doing that under the Antarctic Treaty http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctic_Treaty which was designed to prevent something like that ever happening.
The biggest performance bottleneck for graphics on ARM systems has not been the GPU; I've used Mali-400 systems (like this one is supposed to be), and I've used the nVidia system. Graphics performance sucked on both.
Part of this has to do with the fact that the graphics architecture in standard Linux penalizes you for not GPL'ing your drivers, but the Android graphics stack gets around this by duplicating some kernel interfaces with slightly non-GPL'ed versions - yet the performance is still terrible.
The blame rests squarely on the memory copy speeds, which comes down to the memory controller. Apple has completely addressed this in their ARM chips (but are not sharing), and Samsung has partially addressed this in their ARM chips (and are also not sharing). Has VIA addressed the memory controller bandwidth issues in the WonderMedia, or does "WonderMedia" actually mean "I wonder when they will get media support in their ARM chips"?
The end fact is that it was he himself who ended his life.
Look, my impression is that Aaron Swartz was a kind, thoughtful, intelligent, socially conscious person, subject to bouts of depression, His death is a great loss. It'd be great to have someone other than Aaron to blame. If it were not the prosecution, by his nature, other dire circumstances could have lead to the same tragedy.
As the originators of the situational pressure, the prosecution had an obligation, were they aware of his state of mind, to prevent Aaron from acting as he did under the situational pressure. There had to be some awareness of his mental state in order for them to effectively pressure him, but perhaps not of the depression (or perhaps otherwise). But they had no obligation to not pressure him, and in fact, had a duty and obligation to the public to the contrary, to pressure him as much as possible within the bounds of their office and of the law.
When someone dies, we like to look around for someone other than the person who died in order to assign blame. That's just human natures, and it's why we have safety warnings on things where the safety warnings exist not to actually protect anyone, but merely to deflect blame should someone act irresponsibly.
In large, people are responsible for their own mental state, and must be held accountable for their actions conducted while in that mental state. In rare cases, their actions may be compelled by their mental state, and, where possible, steps taken to prevent them from harming themselves or others. But it's not always possible, and in those cases of impossibility, tragedy lives. Aaron Swartz's death was one such.
Today, America's enemies aren't nations - they're more often underground organizations of people (including American citizens) who disregard American laws.
Excuse me... since when has Congress or Enron or Academi or the FBI been an "underground organization"?
I agree that for large sites language is not necessarily important. For most large media sites performance is mostly dependent on how well the caching structure is set up. You only hit the servers as often as you need to update the cache. The traffic is served from a combination of varnish/squid and some CDN (akami). If you are serving customized information (billing,user accounts,product catalog) then you may start to talk about load and language performance.
Any ad-serving has to be done "Cache-Control: no-cache" or "Cache-Control: max-age: 10" (or similar small number of seconds), or you simply aren't going to be able to sell ad views. The GMail main pages, the FaceBook main pages, and basically anything where the revenue model is ad-driven (e.g. all newspapers online, etc.) don't cache their front page.
What they do serve out of cache is the CSS, page templates, and a small amount of static content unrelated to their primary reason for living, which is the dynamic content.
In addition, session content is typically not cached, which means that any content dependent upon cookies, hidden fields to get around people turning off cookies, flash super-cookies, and so on, are also not caches, unless you are running an L3/L4/L7 cache, and have session communication between your cache and the back end server on a per request basis. This does not happen a lot, since it ties a site to a particular cache vendor, such as RedBack, Cisco, F5, etc., and each of these vendors is unwilling to have a standard cross-vendor means of doing this because they specifically want the site to experience vendor lock-in, rather than commoditizing themselves.
The session content is the content which is generated and regenerated each time. You can amortize this by having longer session TTL's, but for something like a news site, it's generally easier to re-gen the session from the cookie than it is to keep content alive, and keeping cached content alive. Generally these sites are high connection volume, low refresh rate (assuming people actually *read* your static content), so what gets refreshed are the frame contents for the ads, not the per session information.
This leads to a "work-to do-engine model", where the server handling the session from one request to the next moves around (typically, this is done by using the load balancer in "one-armed" mode so that HTTPS sessions can be maintained, but the response can be fielded by any back end server in the pool). So the Connection: header and HTTP 1.1 persistent connections aren't enough to hang your session data cache on.
So all this boils down to back end server performance being an issue.
At which point, you have two choices: use a compiled language, or use an interpreted byte code language like Java or C#.
The compiled language gives you the best performance, so that means as you scale, you need to throw less hardware at the problem of having enough back end servers (or if using a cloud provider like Amazon, you end up paying them less for virtual servers).
The byte-code interpreted languages are generally easier to manage development on with relatively unskilled labor compared to the compiled languages (the languages are designed to try to preclude as much foot-shooting as possible), and have rather rapid turnaround compared to compiled languages, should you need to make changes. The trade off is that you are going to be throwing proportionally more hardware at the problem in order to scale up. At some point, it's going to start getting really costly, and you are going to be transcoding your byte code and/or rewriting your code to get it into native code instead of bytecode (FaceBook went through this transition by writing a compiler for PHP, in which they originally wrote the site, and it was an expensive, technically meticulous process, which mean that they had to hire top people to do it).
As to picking Java vs. C#, if you aren't expecting to need to scale, and expect to remain a relatively smal
If this is higher contrast for accessibility issues, while there are OS contrast settings, they will generally not correct for bad accessibility design in web sites themselves. This is a web site design issue.
If a government site, or a site for a government contractor, has accessibility issues, you can force them to fix them via the ADA (American's with Disabilities Act). If it's some other site, and your OS accessibility settings won't handle it, then you need to contact the site maintainers and explain the problem.
This is intended to be informational, and I'm happy to be corrected in outline or points by prosecutors out there...
The best current practice for prosecutors is to file all possible charges that can be filed for a single crime, and then hope one or more sticks when the case is presented to a jury.
It should be one crime, one charge, but that's not required by law, so they interpret this type as shotgunning as within their requirement t prosecute to the full extent of the law. Don't like it? Change the law. Your congress-critter won't change the law? Change congress-critters -- this you CAN do.
The prosecutorial carrot: When they know that they are being a dick, they typically offer a deal, which always requires a guilty plea, but which may only involve a fine and/or a suspended sentence + parole. The actual resulting penalty can be negotiated down, but the plea is always non-negotiable.
The prosecutorial stick: We will prosecute you on all charges, and ask for the penalties to be applied consecutively. You should be out about the time Moller Air Cars are in widespread use, i.e. past the end of your life.
The only question the prosecutor owes us an answer to at this point is whether or not they were aware of the depression, and declined to enforce a suicide watch. If so, that is criminal negligence, malfeasance of office, involuntary manslaughter, and -- well, whatever litany of charges the prosecutor that charges them thinks can be made to stick, for the one crime of not setting a suicide watch on a known suicide risk.
It's a game of chicken, and if neither side blinks, then it goes to trial, and a judge informs and instructs the jury on matters of law, and the jury gets to decide.
When it goes to the jury, then
that's
where the justice system can, via the jury, decide if the statutory to be applied to a person they have found to be guilty of one or more of the charges is unreasonable. If they do, then they can vote to find the defendant not guilty, regardless of technical guilt, in order to prevent the enforcement of the statutory penalties, over which the judge has very little control, beyond imposing them and then either subtracting out time served, to nullify them, or suspending the sentence. At which point there may be judicially or statutorily imposed parole on the suspended sentence, which the judge can waive in the first case, or which the judge can also suspend, in the second case.
Either way, there are plenty of options apart from taking the deal: (1) run - worked for Assange, (2) off the prosecutor - a bit extreme, but less so than offing yourself, (3) go to trial and win, (4) attempt to negotiate the deal lower, then attempt to obtain a sentence of time served or a suspended sentence, (6) go to trial and lose, but file an immediate appeal, requesting suspension of the sentence pending the outcome of the appeal, (7) attempt to delay the trial until the prosecutor can be thrown out by an election/recall election thanks to political activists on Slashdot and elsewhere, (...)...
The point is, he was by no means at the end of his rope, and it had to be the depression or other mental health issues attributable to Swartz himself, since this was not a forced check leading to a checkmate, and the game was by no means over.
People who can do outsourcing that well are very rare.
How "well" is that? He pushed a "critical infrastructure" job offshore without a full ISO security audit, putting his employer in the position where they risk losing their ISO certification and get sued into non-existance. The reason his offshoring was cheap and profitable was because he made a very, very bad job of it. He has lost his job, and the only reason he hasn't been sued into bankruptcy is the fact that his employer is sh*t-scared of anyone knowing it was them.
I see this word "critical infrastructure" applied to many things to which it does not apply. Let's break this down:
o The article said that the employer was a "critical infrastructure company", not that the employee was engaged in that as part of his duties o They did not indicate whether the token allowed access to areas of the internal network where sensitive information resided o They did not define "critical infrastructure"; it could refer to GE nuclear plants, or a condom factory. Declaration is fact. o They did not indicate if an employment agreement was violated o They did not indicate if a non-disclosure agreement was violated
So so far, we have a security blogger bemoaning the risk associated with someone out-sourcing their own job, at a profit. Yeah, this is a theoretical risk, if this were done by someone in such a way that it gave access to information protected via "security through obscurity", or if it effectively allowed an agent into an area that matter, neither of which is evident here, since they were unwilling to name names. So they've identified a potential attack vector, publicized it, and gotten slashdot hits on their blog over it.
The lack of ISO certification, by which it is implied ISO 9000 certification, is a process certification suite, and technically could be handled back at the office by the outsourcing employee. It doesn't matter where the code came from.
Either way, you'd think a "critical infrastructure" company would region-limit the RSA token access via its firewalls on a per-employee basis, and require that they request additional regional access for vacations, business trips, and so on, if they expected to be working outside the allowed region(s) already known to the firewall.
PS: The only company that issues or uses the "DBIR" acronym, according to Google, is Verizon, so we can probably safely call it a "dubiously critical infrastructure company", and we can agree from their open job listings that it attempts to implement ISO 9000 practices in portions of its business, with no disclosure as to how effectively this occurs. The token working from China in the first place is on them, as this is part of their corporate skill set.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not sure whether this applies to other web browsers, but Safari at least has the ability to be locked down via parental controls.
However, I'm kind of looking forward to the day when the parental controls fail on some site, and an angry parent sues Apple for the content being displayed. If they have an anti-porn policy and parental controls in place to be "family friendly" (who under 18 can enter into a cell phone contract in the first place again?), then they have responsibility if "anything dirty" gets through.
It helps when they lobby, sorry bribe, the law makers to do exactly what they're told
In no way were any law makers bribed here!
They bribed an appointed official instead.
Everyone else which supports SIM-based (read: GSM band) Pay As You Go is a reseller of one of these:
T-Mobile
AT&T
If you are talking about a CSIM rather than a SIM (you have Verizon with no "SIM", so I assume you are talking one of the standard WWAN cards in the device, which means they won't take a CSIM anyway), then there's:
Sprint
Verizon
TracFone
While there are a couple other CDMA carriers, they force you to take data plans. See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_wireless_communications_service_providers
PS:
You should be aware that manufacturers that do not support the SIM circuitry in their devices often have a SIM slot, just like the devices that support it. The non-support will potentially include lacking a GSM antenna, or even a SIM holder. So you stick the SIM in, and it just rattles around until it shorts something out.
This typically happens because it's a lot cheaper to keep one SKU for the plastics for devices than it is to roll out two sets of plastics, without knowing which model will sell better. The manufacturers usually (but not always, if the slot location is in a place like under the battery, etc.) put a piece of tape over the slot, so if you had to pry tape off because you thought you could buy the cheaper model, pull off the tape, and stick in a SIM, you are likely sadly mistaken.
PPS:
Even if all the parts are there electrically, if you bought the cheaper unit thinking to pull a fast one, typically the firmware for the cellular module is licensed and won't be distributed to the unit, even after update, since that would add cost (which is why the unlicensed units are cheaper in the first place).
I think you are looking for chapter 2:
"Kid Afrika came cruising into Dog Solitude on the last day in November, his vintage Dodge chauffeured by a white girl named Cherry Chesterfield.
Slick Henry and Little Bird were breaking down the buzzsaw that formed the Judge's left hand when Kid's Dodge came into view, its patched apron bag throwing up brown fantails of the rusty water that pooled on the Solitude's uneven plain of compacted steel."
I believe he's using "dashboard" in the Google sense of the word: a computer display, usually in a public area, which is periodically updated with information, such as server status, uptime, software project status, build status, testing status, release engineering information, etc.. They are frequently used in boiler-room situations to remind people of slipping deadlines, source tree instability, testing failures, and so on.
The fabrication costs for 30" are too high.
The way these things are fabricated results in a sufficien number of pixel failures in a 30" display as to make it uneconomical.
They are typically fabricated in large sheets, then the sheets are tested for dead pixels, and then the standard display sizes are cut out from between the dead pixels, and the individual units are retested. The smallest display sizes are used for things like watches and digital thermometers, etc..
The fabrication process has barely improved enough that they can (as of very recently) offer 9.74" displays in quantity sufficient to make them worth manufacturing.
Unless you can personally improve the process/methods to significantly improve yields for larger areas of the sheets, then what you are asking for will remain uneconomical, probably for several decades, as process improvements in LCD, LED, and OLED continue to outstrip E-Ink, and therefore their power consumption costs drop toward that of E-Ink. Currently, the only practical value for E-Ink is power consumption for infrequently updated displays which tend to be power sensitive only because they run off batteries.
So the short answer is you haven't personally invented the fabrication processes yet.
First off the GP ignored another fee: you have to own a Windows Phone
Second, if a platform has no traction, you will often offer it on a loss leader basis. A loss leader is where you offer something for free or otherwise below your cost to produce it, in order to get future sales, either of add-ons, or of the product itself.
For example, Microsoft could have offered to refund all those costs for the first 10,000 apps published; likely it would have to be closer to 100,000, in order for them to get to iPhone App Store scale, but that could have been the offer.
Another way to go about it would be to pick the top 100 Apps (adjusted for same developer) in the iPhone App Store, waive the developer account fee, and send them the necessary hardware with the necessary software already installed for "$1 and other valuable considerations", with the proviso that they not use the hardware except for developing Windows Phone Apps, and a contract penalty to cover their costs, and an audit caluse as one of their considerations.
They could also waive the developer account fee on a yearly basis, based on you selling at least that much in value to Microsoft of your App(s).
Right now, they are trying to court the people who have said "I would develop for iPhone/iPad/IPod Touch, but Apple won't let me use open source software as part of my App" -- which is a lot of people, but many are politically motivated in their statements, and would not be goo App developers.
So yeah, this is a likely misfire by Microsoft, but it got you talking about them, didn't it? And it got the Windows Phone in the press (as news), which they could basically only get there by buying advertising otherwise.
If you truly cared about the use of hashtags, you would do your best to ensure that all of your slashdot postings were more than 140 characters/
It's not a buzzword, and hasn't been for about 12 years now. Search on the major job sites for jobs requiring UML knowledge.
Monster.com has none; Google has no openings with that keyword, Apple has no openings with that keyword.
Don't get me wrong, you can find job listings for them, but a straight up Google search will assume you are talking about University of Massachusetts Lowell. To find people who care about UML, you will likely have to look at specific company sites for companies which are known to use it: IBM Global Services, HP (the division formerly known as EDS, before HP ate them), or a Larry Ellison "blue sky" startup which is never intended to produce product, they are expected to lose money so Larry can write down his taxable income.
It can teach you some valuable lessons about thinking, at a high level, about how software systems can communicate internally, and stepwise programming, but if you expect to be hired, then sat down at a desk with a copy of Rational Rose and told to design software systems with it, it better be at one of those big 3 companies.
Its not really debateable that if you allow historically lower-paid individuals to enter a higher-salaried job market, the average salary will fall. One would expect it to reach a middle ground somewhere.
But Im not understanding why we should prevent that scenario, so that we might make more money and they less, simply by merit of where everyone happened to be born.
I think it's more to do with where the businesses are started and run. Information Technology businesses tend to start and thrive in the US due to the regulatory environment. The US has a better environment for these businesses to be started and run than other countries, and so they are started and run in the US.
Regulations in this sense include enforcing all laws without favoritism, and government offices being responsive and egalitarian, again without favoritism.
In terms of difficulty of starting any kind of business, it's easier in the US than in almost any other place in the world, save 3. The US ranks #4 in the world out of 185 countries, and, for example, India is down at #133; that means that India is in the bottom 30% of countries A lot of this has to do with graft and corruption in business processes there -- which is why Russia, a fairly modern country with demonstrable software talent, is down at #112. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ease_of_doing_business_index
The jobs are in the US because the businesses are in the US.
I think it is therefore less where you are born, than locations where people are willing to keep their government under control, rather than allowing their government to control them.
One of the arguments against granting H1B visas for economic reasons, rather than true lack of locally qualified workers is the general feeling that the economic refugees from poor business climates should perhaps be home making their local business climate better.
Buy a gaming console instea of playing then on your PC.
If you look at the businesses that have succeeded using FOSS every. single. one. has used one of the "blessed three" business models, selling support, selling hardware, holding out a tin cup.
I think you are missing the "Open source the tactical portions of the product, since they are not your bread and butter, and sell the strategic portions of your code under a different license" model.
This would technically be the Mac OS X model, although I think most open source people don't care about Mac OS X, even though there are serious security and other kernel improvements in the BSD parts of the kernel, and significant improvements in libc and other portions of user space that they actually do release. For example, even without the GUI, it's the first independently developed system which has achieve full UNIX conformance.
Similarly, there are other products, such as TiVO, which have a Linux kernel with proprietary modules for filesystem and so on, and even RedHat has some proprietary components.
It's just no covered by the mental health systems in most place, predominantly due to mandatory treatment being outlawed as a violation of civil rights.
When you hold someone involuntarily, it's limited to a 72 hour hold, and it take an extreme act by the person for that yo last beyond 72 hours - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5150_(Involuntary_psychiatric_hold) . The typical reaction is treat-and-turf (get them back on their medication in the 72 hour window, then throw them out), or worst case, extended to a 5250: a 14 day hold, with the same results, or a T-Con (Temporary Conservatorship or 5270, which is a 30 day hold), also with the same results. If that doesn't work out for the worst cases, a so-caled permanent conservatorship can be initiate, so called because it constitutes a 1 year hold. Most psychiatric treatment personnel won't ever go that far for fear of a lawsuit.
This originated with a cost reduction measure under Ronald Reagan, then governor of California, signed in 1967 and phasing into full effect in 1972: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lanterman–Petris–Short_Act .This successful cost reduction measure was adopted by other states, modeled on the California law, and quickly gained adoption in most Blue states, particularly where there was a high homeless population of mentally ill persons self-medicating with alcohol, marijuana, and other substances, rather than getting real treatment.
In any case, it typically means no treatment for psychiatric disorders.
My mother was a psychiatric social worker in a red state (Weber County Mental Health in Ogden, Utah). It took them a long time to adopt these measures, and they continued to treat patients (they were euphemistically referred to as clients), but they finally did so in the late 1980's and phasing in through the early 1990's. The reason they adopted them was also cost cutting, but it was mostly driven by Colorado convincing their mentally ill persons to accept a one way bus ticket to Utah - which was Colorado addressed the problem.
Ironically, you could call Weber County Mental health, and report a person who was off their medication -- those on Lithium for Schizophrenia frequently decompensated on their medications when diet drinks came out, since Aspartame bonds to N-Dopamine receptors making the treatment less effective, and mentally ill persons frequently have accompanying body image issues which drives them to diet drinks -- and their case worker would show up and talk them in.
I tried this same things with Santa Clara County Mental Health in the last couple of years, and they were totally uninterested in a man outside a subway who was arguing with his voices. No dice. My options, according to the social worker, was to call the cops on the guy -- the last thing someone in that state needs -- and run them through police system to get him a 5150 to get his medication. Santa Clara County absolutely does not care about their mentally ill the way Weber County does.
Although Obama's Affordable Care Act gives better access to treatment options for mentally ill persons: http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2012/06/29/what-the-affordable-care-act-means-to-mental-health/ in actual practice, it's probably not going to matter if these people do not choose to avail themselves of treatment, and without reform of the laws governing mental illness treatment practices, it's most likely to remain a 72 hour hold, stabilization, and throwing them out after they have been on their medication long enough to ave their symptoms temporarily alleviated.
The end result is that it will likely not address the issue, and certainly without forced medication, it won't stop criminal gun violence or suicides, since as soon as they feel better, they're going off their medication again.
or use a light bulb? Edison was evil as well.
Indeed, but he had nothing to do with the invention of fluorescent bulbs or LEDS. No incandescents in this house.
Any more "challenges"?
Actually, he did. U.S. Patent 865,367 Thomas Edison's Fluorescent Lamp
You can see the patent here: http://americanhistory.si.edu/lighting/history/patents/ed_flu.htm
The argument still holds for non-BluRay DVDs: MPLA - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MPEG_Licensing_Authority - counts as "others" from which patent licenses must be obtained to enable the software loop-out.
This.
Tho elaborate: It's a small boost on Intel architecture systems to avoid the hoops, but somewhat more substantial on ARM systems, where avoiding the hoops requires using a particularly poor part of the hardware implementation, which amplifies the costs.
When you get all the patent holders for the patents they are violating to execute license agreements and hold harmless agreements. You think it's only software where patents are stifling things? Everyone in the industry kind of willfully looks the other way, as long as the other guy also willfully looks away, and as long as there's no source code for anyone to drag anyone else into court over.
Realize also that the interfaces used on the bottom end to interface the software for the hardware disclose substantial information about the hardware as well. Imagine the following question in the press: "if you say you support 'B' in hardware, but are actually doing 'Q' and 'R' in hardware when you are asked to accomplish 'B', isn't the claim that you have 'hardware accelerated B' only technically true in order to have that marketing checkbox checked?". There are similar uncomfortable questions.
Apart from those, the interfaces to the hardware can disclose additional hardware patent violations, which would normally be covered by the "willfully looks away" already in progress.
if you actually did come up with something clever, but which wasn't patentable for whatever reason, your competitor could just copy it, and then you would have lost your market advantage.
Finally, most hardware codec decoding, e.g. for H.264, is partially looped in software s that the license can be tied to the software instead of the hardware, and therefore be optional, and not add to the unit cost as a hardware royalty item to Sorenson (and others). By this fiction, they become an optional software royalty item where the company using the hardware in their design can choose wheter or not to use the capability, and thereby be required to pay the royalty. If it became easy to use the hardware capabilities from Open Source software, then this fiction disappears. You can argue that standards should all be royalty free or not be standards until you are blue in the face, but you are looking at approximately 100,000,000,000 DVDs total in the world, all expecting H.264 to decode them, and that requires a royalty payment.
No, these drivers are never going to be fully Open Source at the same time they give access to all the hardware capabilities.
Colonize space? Why? 3/4 of our planet is ocean, how about colonize that first? Deserts? Hint: it will be much cheaper and possible with today's technology without major sacrifices. So... where are the underwater cities, etc? No takers?
Because governments are too close?
For example, when the Republic of Minerva attempted to create an independent micronation by colonizing an area of the ocean, the US paid Tonga to claim it for the Kingdom of Tonga so the millionaires who were trying to found it couldn't get out from under existing national sovereignties.
For a lot of people willing to fly away to the far reaches of space, the limiting factor has always been the cost of getting out of the gravity well in the first place. The DC-X (Delta Clipper) would have remedied this, but it was killed off McDonnell Douglas as part of them being eaten by Boeing, in favor of the National Aerospace plane, which never materialized, and would have needed runways and to boost additional equipment to do landings out there, where there are no runways for the plane to use (an intentional limitation of the plane).
I can understand governments being wary of cheap access to space (e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_bombardment#Project_Thor should probably not be put in practical reach of well to do Facebook emloyees, and more than you'd want them to have tactical nuclear weapons at their disposal).
That it would cost a whole hell of a lot for a cat's paw to fly up and try to claim the territory out from under them is a major advantage of basing something like this in space, and therefore a major draw to colonization efforts there.
There are also people even crazier than that who believe that it's mankind's Manifest Detiny to expand to fill the solar system, and from there the nearby stars, then on to the galaxy, and then on to the rest of the universe: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manifest_destiny .
Either way, it means either getting rid of the small minds in the way, or working around them. Local end runs, like Minerva, have failed, and if you are just going to be an extension of an existing nation, and are in the top 1% of wealth there anyway, you can be a hell of a lot more comfortable under their thumb without going anywhere than you can be doing subsistence fish-farming on a floating city in the middle of the Pacific being a damn sight less comfortablr, and then finding yourself *still* under their thumb anyway.
Colonies are built by political refugees, economic refugees, indentured servants, disinherited heirs, bastard progeny, and, in general, people looking for a better life than the one they have now. For everyone in the middle class and higher, that's basically unavailable here on Earth, "better" being a relative term, and with orbital costs being artificially inflated, anyone below that level of wealth can't hope to go anywhere, except local regional border crossings, in the hope of a better life.
So you get a bunch of nerds, in the middle class and higher, where do you think they will be pointing their colony ships, Antarctica? It might work, but you are more likely to get booted off by whoever "protects" that section of Antarctica from someone doing that under the Antarctic Treaty http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctic_Treaty which was designed to prevent something like that ever happening.
The closest you're going to get on-planet is taking over an existing state, and Charles Taylor pretty much nailed the door shut on that in 1960: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Taylor_(Liberia)
Have they fixed the memory controller yet?
The biggest performance bottleneck for graphics on ARM systems has not been the GPU; I've used Mali-400 systems (like this one is supposed to be), and I've used the nVidia system. Graphics performance sucked on both.
Part of this has to do with the fact that the graphics architecture in standard Linux penalizes you for not GPL'ing your drivers, but the Android graphics stack gets around this by duplicating some kernel interfaces with slightly non-GPL'ed versions - yet the performance is still terrible.
The blame rests squarely on the memory copy speeds, which comes down to the memory controller. Apple has completely addressed this in their ARM chips (but are not sharing), and Samsung has partially addressed this in their ARM chips (and are also not sharing). Has VIA addressed the memory controller bandwidth issues in the WonderMedia, or does "WonderMedia" actually mean "I wonder when they will get media support in their ARM chips"?
The end fact is that it was he himself who ended his life.
Look, my impression is that Aaron Swartz was a kind, thoughtful, intelligent, socially conscious person, subject to bouts of depression, His death is a great loss. It'd be great to have someone other than Aaron to blame. If it were not the prosecution, by his nature, other dire circumstances could have lead to the same tragedy.
As the originators of the situational pressure, the prosecution had an obligation, were they aware of his state of mind, to prevent Aaron from acting as he did under the situational pressure. There had to be some awareness of his mental state in order for them to effectively pressure him, but perhaps not of the depression (or perhaps otherwise). But they had no obligation to not pressure him, and in fact, had a duty and obligation to the public to the contrary, to pressure him as much as possible within the bounds of their office and of the law.
When someone dies, we like to look around for someone other than the person who died in order to assign blame. That's just human natures, and it's why we have safety warnings on things where the safety warnings exist not to actually protect anyone, but merely to deflect blame should someone act irresponsibly.
In large, people are responsible for their own mental state, and must be held accountable for their actions conducted while in that mental state. In rare cases, their actions may be compelled by their mental state, and, where possible, steps taken to prevent them from harming themselves or others. But it's not always possible, and in those cases of impossibility, tragedy lives. Aaron Swartz's death was one such.
In any case, I'm personally sorry for your loss.
Today, America's enemies aren't nations - they're more often underground organizations of people (including American citizens) who disregard American laws.
Excuse me... since when has Congress or Enron or Academi or the FBI been an "underground organization"?
I agree that for large sites language is not necessarily important. For most large media sites performance is mostly dependent on how well the caching structure is set up. You only hit the servers as often as you need to update the cache. The traffic is served from a combination of varnish/squid and some CDN (akami). If you are serving customized information (billing,user accounts,product catalog) then you may start to talk about load and language performance.
Any ad-serving has to be done "Cache-Control: no-cache" or "Cache-Control: max-age: 10" (or similar small number of seconds), or you simply aren't going to be able to sell ad views. The GMail main pages, the FaceBook main pages, and basically anything where the revenue model is ad-driven (e.g. all newspapers online, etc.) don't cache their front page.
What they do serve out of cache is the CSS, page templates, and a small amount of static content unrelated to their primary reason for living, which is the dynamic content.
In addition, session content is typically not cached, which means that any content dependent upon cookies, hidden fields to get around people turning off cookies, flash super-cookies, and so on, are also not caches, unless you are running an L3/L4/L7 cache, and have session communication between your cache and the back end server on a per request basis. This does not happen a lot, since it ties a site to a particular cache vendor, such as RedBack, Cisco, F5, etc., and each of these vendors is unwilling to have a standard cross-vendor means of doing this because they specifically want the site to experience vendor lock-in, rather than commoditizing themselves.
The session content is the content which is generated and regenerated each time. You can amortize this by having longer session TTL's, but for something like a news site, it's generally easier to re-gen the session from the cookie than it is to keep content alive, and keeping cached content alive. Generally these sites are high connection volume, low refresh rate (assuming people actually *read* your static content), so what gets refreshed are the frame contents for the ads, not the per session information.
This leads to a "work-to do-engine model", where the server handling the session from one request to the next moves around (typically, this is done by using the load balancer in "one-armed" mode so that HTTPS sessions can be maintained, but the response can be fielded by any back end server in the pool). So the Connection: header and HTTP 1.1 persistent connections aren't enough to hang your session data cache on.
So all this boils down to back end server performance being an issue.
At which point, you have two choices: use a compiled language, or use an interpreted byte code language like Java or C#.
The compiled language gives you the best performance, so that means as you scale, you need to throw less hardware at the problem of having enough back end servers (or if using a cloud provider like Amazon, you end up paying them less for virtual servers).
The byte-code interpreted languages are generally easier to manage development on with relatively unskilled labor compared to the compiled languages (the languages are designed to try to preclude as much foot-shooting as possible), and have rather rapid turnaround compared to compiled languages, should you need to make changes. The trade off is that you are going to be throwing proportionally more hardware at the problem in order to scale up. At some point, it's going to start getting really costly, and you are going to be transcoding your byte code and/or rewriting your code to get it into native code instead of bytecode (FaceBook went through this transition by writing a compiler for PHP, in which they originally wrote the site, and it was an expensive, technically meticulous process, which mean that they had to hire top people to do it).
As to picking Java vs. C#, if you aren't expecting to need to scale, and expect to remain a relatively smal
If this is higher contrast for accessibility issues, while there are OS contrast settings, they will generally not correct for bad accessibility design in web sites themselves. This is a web site design issue.
If a government site, or a site for a government contractor, has accessibility issues, you can force them to fix them via the ADA (American's with Disabilities Act). If it's some other site, and your OS accessibility settings won't handle it, then you need to contact the site maintainers and explain the problem.
This is intended to be informational, and I'm happy to be corrected in outline or points by prosecutors out there...
The best current practice for prosecutors is to file all possible charges that can be filed for a single crime, and then hope one or more sticks when the case is presented to a jury.
It should be one crime, one charge, but that's not required by law, so they interpret this type as shotgunning as within their requirement t prosecute to the full extent of the law. Don't like it? Change the law. Your congress-critter won't change the law? Change congress-critters -- this you CAN do.
The prosecutorial carrot: When they know that they are being a dick, they typically offer a deal, which always requires a guilty plea, but which may only involve a fine and/or a suspended sentence + parole. The actual resulting penalty can be negotiated down, but the plea is always non-negotiable.
The prosecutorial stick: We will prosecute you on all charges, and ask for the penalties to be applied consecutively. You should be out about the time Moller Air Cars are in widespread use, i.e. past the end of your life.
The only question the prosecutor owes us an answer to at this point is whether or not they were aware of the depression, and declined to enforce a suicide watch. If so, that is criminal negligence, malfeasance of office, involuntary manslaughter, and -- well, whatever litany of charges the prosecutor that charges them thinks can be made to stick, for the one crime of not setting a suicide watch on a known suicide risk.
It's a game of chicken, and if neither side blinks, then it goes to trial, and a judge informs and instructs the jury on matters of law, and the jury gets to decide.
When it goes to the jury, then
where the justice system can, via the jury, decide if the statutory to be applied to a person they have found to be guilty of one or more of the charges is unreasonable. If they do, then they can vote to find the defendant not guilty, regardless of technical guilt, in order to prevent the enforcement of the statutory penalties, over which the judge has very little control, beyond imposing them and then either subtracting out time served, to nullify them, or suspending the sentence. At which point there may be judicially or statutorily imposed parole on the suspended sentence, which the judge can waive in the first case, or which the judge can also suspend, in the second case.
Either way, there are plenty of options apart from taking the deal: (1) run - worked for Assange, (2) off the prosecutor - a bit extreme, but less so than offing yourself, (3) go to trial and win, (4) attempt to negotiate the deal lower, then attempt to obtain a sentence of time served or a suspended sentence, (6) go to trial and lose, but file an immediate appeal, requesting suspension of the sentence pending the outcome of the appeal, (7) attempt to delay the trial until the prosecutor can be thrown out by an election/recall election thanks to political activists on Slashdot and elsewhere, (...) ...
The point is, he was by no means at the end of his rope, and it had to be the depression or other mental health issues attributable to Swartz himself, since this was not a forced check leading to a checkmate, and the game was by no means over.
People who can do outsourcing that well are very rare.
How "well" is that? He pushed a "critical infrastructure" job offshore without a full ISO security audit, putting his employer in the position where they risk losing their ISO certification and get sued into non-existance. The reason his offshoring was cheap and profitable was because he made a very, very bad job of it. He has lost his job, and the only reason he hasn't been sued into bankruptcy is the fact that his employer is sh*t-scared of anyone knowing it was them.
I see this word "critical infrastructure" applied to many things to which it does not apply. Let's break this down:
o The article said that the employer was a "critical infrastructure company", not that the employee was engaged in that as part of his duties
o They did not indicate whether the token allowed access to areas of the internal network where sensitive information resided
o They did not define "critical infrastructure"; it could refer to GE nuclear plants, or a condom factory. Declaration is fact.
o They did not indicate if an employment agreement was violated
o They did not indicate if a non-disclosure agreement was violated
So so far, we have a security blogger bemoaning the risk associated with someone out-sourcing their own job, at a profit. Yeah, this is a theoretical risk, if this were done by someone in such a way that it gave access to information protected via "security through obscurity", or if it effectively allowed an agent into an area that matter, neither of which is evident here, since they were unwilling to name names. So they've identified a potential attack vector, publicized it, and gotten slashdot hits on their blog over it.
The lack of ISO certification, by which it is implied ISO 9000 certification, is a process certification suite, and technically could be handled back at the office by the outsourcing employee. It doesn't matter where the code came from.
Either way, you'd think a "critical infrastructure" company would region-limit the RSA token access via its firewalls on a per-employee basis, and require that they request additional regional access for vacations, business trips, and so on, if they expected to be working outside the allowed region(s) already known to the firewall.
PS: The only company that issues or uses the "DBIR" acronym, according to Google, is Verizon, so we can probably safely call it a "dubiously critical infrastructure company", and we can agree from their open job listings that it attempts to implement ISO 9000 practices in portions of its business, with no disclosure as to how effectively this occurs. The token working from China in the first place is on them, as this is part of their corporate skill set.