Since Michael paid his money, he has the right to comment on the service. And since the customer is always right, his voice should be heard.
People have been complaining about the pre-movie advertising since the early 1980's (I remember watching The Star Chamber at a theater in Columbus, OH and being shocked that their was a 30 second commercial running beforehand).
If it has been at least 20 years and theaters are still showing commercials, the complaints aren't working. You want to have an impact on the number of commercials you see before a movie? Stop attending the movie at a theater. Wait six months and buy the DVD, instead. Admittedly, you still may have some adverts on the DVD, but it's better than sitting at a theater. And, you can always do some mods to avoid the adverts on a DVD.
Do you pay a monthly bill to your satellite/cable TV provider? Do they make you watch commercials? In short, you've been paying for the priviledge of advertising for a long time.
Of course, the 100-minute movie was filled with dozens of product placements (actor A holding a can of "Pepsi" while actress B says "I have to check my AOL account").
Michael, quite your whining. You chose to go to the movie. No one forced you to do this.
I only found out about Coral Cache from previous Slashdot articles where the submitters used a link to the Coral cache. For this particular article, I originally clicked on the links, only to have the corporate firewall bounce it. I took a closer look at the link and I recognized the Coral cache extension from those previous slashdot articles. I removed the Coral extension and was able to read the article (don't tell anyone that I actually read the article--they'll block my slashdot access).
My main suggestion to future submitters would be that they provide links to BOTH the Coral cache and the original site, since many slashdotters (myself included) are behind corporate firewalls and they may not know to remove the ":nyud.net:8090".
FYI--Those links that were provided were Coral Cache's of the original links. I imagine that the submitter used the Coral Cache in order to prevent the original web sites from being slashdotted into oblivion.
My point stands though, that you have to go out of your way to see the article, but with Rolands submissions, I only rarely actually go to his blog, but read most of the articles he finds. I've never been forced through his blog just to get at the article.
Maybe so, my main gripe with Roland comes from Copyright issues. As the AC put in his post, Roland has a habit of copying and pasting his entire article. On one hand, he usually does give credit to where he lifted his text. On the other hand, giving credit does NOT necessarily cover the copyright issues.
Many sites require written permission before someone can use the text of their web sites for commercial purposes. And, Roland's blog is most definitely commercial.
Yeah, he does provide at least on link to the originating site. But, the legality of the text on his blog is questionable, at best.
Does anyone have advice here as to makes or models in the $200 or less price range?
I just posted something on this a short time ago, so I apologize for duplicating my own post.
I am using my November Issue of Consumer Reports to purchase what they rate as a Best Buy. Basically, for under $200, you are limited to 3MP cameras. And, the one Consumer Reports rates very highly is the Canon A75. I've seen it for anywhere from $179 to $199. I think they rated it third best of all 3MP cameras, but they recommend it because the photos are of a good quality and the overall price is much cheaper than the most of the other highly rated 3MP camras. If I remember correctly, they rated about 20 or so 3 Megapixel cameras.
If you can find the Canon A60, it is also rated as a "Best Buy". It costs around $140. But, it doesn't have the features of the A75 and Consumer Reports says the A60 photos aren't as good as the A75.
If you do alot of work on your photos with Photoshop (cropping, etc.), you may want to move to higher MP's. Otherwise, 3MP should be just fine.
Finally, he adds a minimal amount of original content between the copied-and-pasted text in an effort to make the journal entry coherent and appear to add value to the original articles.
Oh, please, you give Roland WAY too much credit. He doesn't add any original content. He just copies and pastes.
and in none of them have the support staff been laid off.
Really? Then what's the point of the merger?
Note that by "support staff", I am not referring to software developers/engineers. Those positions will probably be retained, since Oracle will need their expertise to provide technical support to existing PeopleSoft customers. By Support Staff, I am referring to Administrative Assistants, Salespeople, Help Desk (Level 1) and maybe even some middle managers (as another poster pointed out).
PeopleSoft probably uses it's own software to run it's HR, Payroll, Benefits, Purchasing and Accounting functions. Until Oracle can migrate those functions into it's software, Oracle may have to keep some of those Peoplesoft personnel. Once they migrate all of those functions to Oracle applications, they can start pink-slipping the people in those departments (HR, accounting and purchasing).
You are. Oracle doesn't just make database software. Peoplesoft, SAP and Oracle make applications that run the back-office of many corporations (HR, Payroll, Accouting, Purchasing, etc.) This merger between Oracle and PeopleSoft impacts that applications. There are PeopleSoft applications that run on DB2, Oracle, Sybase and SQL Server. My guess is that at some point, Oracle will probably try to migrate all of the DB2, Sybase and SQL server customers to Oracle databases.
we've had problems in the past finding good GSC analysts for tech cases
You found a good GSC analyst? Wow, can I get their e-mail address? I haven't found a good one yet.
If they cut a large portion of the development staff how long will it take Oracle to get their developers up to speed on the mess of PeopleCode, App Engine code and COBOL that makes PeopleSoft run?
Not to make you feel worse, but from what I have heard, Oracle Applications do not have a great reputation. Rumor has it that they are even buggier than PeopleSoft's applications.
I doubt Larry Ellison will lay off the development staff. If anything, he will probably offer all of PeopleSoft developers pay raises. He will need those developers in order to continue to support the existing applications. Salespeople and support staff, on the other hand, are probably due for layoffs.
What will happen to the existing employees? Will Oracle retain them or not?
This is just a guess on my part, but my gut feeling is that if you are a developer or software engineer working for PeopleSoft, you will be retained. If you are a PeopleSoft salesperson or a help desk employee, you better start looking for work.
Again, I am just guessing, since I am not an employee of either Oracle or PeopleSoft. I am basing my guess on what usually happens when IT companies merge. The developers and engineers are retained, the support personnel are laid off.
I checked Oracle's web site. It appears that existing PeopleSoft customers have some good news out of this. After having invested millions of dollars on PeopleSoft, they won't have to immediately migrate to another ERP system:
We intend to enhance PeopleSoft 8 and develop a PeopleSoft 9 and enhance a JD Edwards 5 and develop a JD Edwards 6. We intend to immediately extend and improve support for existing JD Edwards and PeopleSoft customers worldwide.
Of course, whether or not PeopleSoft version 9 is an improvement over PeopleSoft version 8 depends on how much you love your existing ERP system. Of course, I don't see anything on whether or not the new PeopleSoft version 9 will run on DB2 or SQL Server.
Another group of people is obviously conspiring to take over. I wonder if this is all related to the "Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy"? Or was that the "Conspiracy of the Liberal Elite"?
Slashdot Mirror
Go ahead and file a lawsuit. Let me know how it goes.
People have been complaining about the pre-movie advertising since the early 1980's (I remember watching The Star Chamber at a theater in Columbus, OH and being shocked that their was a 30 second commercial running beforehand).
If it has been at least 20 years and theaters are still showing commercials, the complaints aren't working. You want to have an impact on the number of commercials you see before a movie? Stop attending the movie at a theater. Wait six months and buy the DVD, instead. Admittedly, you still may have some adverts on the DVD, but it's better than sitting at a theater. And, you can always do some mods to avoid the adverts on a DVD.
Do you pay a monthly bill to your satellite/cable TV provider? Do they make you watch commercials? In short, you've been paying for the priviledge of advertising for a long time.
Nothing to see here, move along...
Of course, the 100-minute movie was filled with dozens of product placements (actor A holding a can of "Pepsi" while actress B says "I have to check my AOL account").
Michael, quite your whining. You chose to go to the movie. No one forced you to do this.
I only found out about Coral Cache from previous Slashdot articles where the submitters used a link to the Coral cache. For this particular article, I originally clicked on the links, only to have the corporate firewall bounce it. I took a closer look at the link and I recognized the Coral cache extension from those previous slashdot articles. I removed the Coral extension and was able to read the article (don't tell anyone that I actually read the article--they'll block my slashdot access).
My main suggestion to future submitters would be that they provide links to BOTH the Coral cache and the original site, since many slashdotters (myself included) are behind corporate firewalls and they may not know to remove the ":nyud.net:8090".
Just remove the 'nyud.net:8090' out of the link. You'll be able to connect to the site directly. And here is why the 'nyud.net:8090' has been added.
FYI--Those links that were provided were Coral Cache's of the original links. I imagine that the submitter used the Coral Cache in order to prevent the original web sites from being slashdotted into oblivion.
Maybe so, my main gripe with Roland comes from Copyright issues. As the AC put in his post, Roland has a habit of copying and pasting his entire article. On one hand, he usually does give credit to where he lifted his text. On the other hand, giving credit does NOT necessarily cover the copyright issues.
Many sites require written permission before someone can use the text of their web sites for commercial purposes. And, Roland's blog is most definitely commercial.
Yeah, he does provide at least on link to the originating site. But, the legality of the text on his blog is questionable, at best.
FYI -- Here are a couple of ways to avoid the NYT log-in:
http://nytimes.blogspace.com/genlink
http://www.bugmenot.com/
I just posted something on this a short time ago, so I apologize for duplicating my own post.
I am using my November Issue of Consumer Reports to purchase what they rate as a Best Buy. Basically, for under $200, you are limited to 3MP cameras. And, the one Consumer Reports rates very highly is the Canon A75. I've seen it for anywhere from $179 to $199. I think they rated it third best of all 3MP cameras, but they recommend it because the photos are of a good quality and the overall price is much cheaper than the most of the other highly rated 3MP camras. If I remember correctly, they rated about 20 or so 3 Megapixel cameras.
If you can find the Canon A60, it is also rated as a "Best Buy". It costs around $140. But, it doesn't have the features of the A75 and Consumer Reports says the A60 photos aren't as good as the A75.
If you do alot of work on your photos with Photoshop (cropping, etc.), you may want to move to higher MP's. Otherwise, 3MP should be just fine.
Consumer Reports rates the Canon A75 very highly on it's 3MP list. I think it rates it second or third out of all 3MP camera's they tested.
Oh, please, you give Roland WAY too much credit. He doesn't add any original content. He just copies and pastes.
Really? Then what's the point of the merger?
Note that by "support staff", I am not referring to software developers/engineers. Those positions will probably be retained, since Oracle will need their expertise to provide technical support to existing PeopleSoft customers. By Support Staff, I am referring to Administrative Assistants, Salespeople, Help Desk (Level 1) and maybe even some middle managers (as another poster pointed out).
PeopleSoft probably uses it's own software to run it's HR, Payroll, Benefits, Purchasing and Accounting functions. Until Oracle can migrate those functions into it's software, Oracle may have to keep some of those Peoplesoft personnel. Once they migrate all of those functions to Oracle applications, they can start pink-slipping the people in those departments (HR, accounting and purchasing).
You are. Oracle doesn't just make database software. Peoplesoft, SAP and Oracle make applications that run the back-office of many corporations (HR, Payroll, Accouting, Purchasing, etc.) This merger between Oracle and PeopleSoft impacts that applications. There are PeopleSoft applications that run on DB2, Oracle, Sybase and SQL Server. My guess is that at some point, Oracle will probably try to migrate all of the DB2, Sybase and SQL server customers to Oracle databases.
Uh, moderators, why am I being moderated as "flamebait"? I was commenting on MY OWN COMMENT! I replied to myself.
You found a good GSC analyst? Wow, can I get their e-mail address? I haven't found a good one yet.
If they cut a large portion of the development staff how long will it take Oracle to get their developers up to speed on the mess of PeopleCode, App Engine code and COBOL that makes PeopleSoft run?Not to make you feel worse, but from what I have heard, Oracle Applications do not have a great reputation. Rumor has it that they are even buggier than PeopleSoft's applications.
I doubt Larry Ellison will lay off the development staff. If anything, he will probably offer all of PeopleSoft developers pay raises. He will need those developers in order to continue to support the existing applications. Salespeople and support staff, on the other hand, are probably due for layoffs.
This is just a guess on my part, but my gut feeling is that if you are a developer or software engineer working for PeopleSoft, you will be retained. If you are a PeopleSoft salesperson or a help desk employee, you better start looking for work.
Again, I am just guessing, since I am not an employee of either Oracle or PeopleSoft. I am basing my guess on what usually happens when IT companies merge. The developers and engineers are retained, the support personnel are laid off.
SAP is the major competition in the ERP market. If I remember correctly, SAP has a larger customer base than Oracle and PeopleSoft combined.
Of course, I kept typing of course. Dumb ass, of course.
I checked Oracle's web site. It appears that existing PeopleSoft customers have some good news out of this. After having invested millions of dollars on PeopleSoft, they won't have to immediately migrate to another ERP system:
We intend to enhance PeopleSoft 8 and develop a PeopleSoft 9 and enhance a JD Edwards 5 and develop a JD Edwards 6. We intend to immediately extend and improve support for existing JD Edwards and PeopleSoft customers worldwide.Of course, whether or not PeopleSoft version 9 is an improvement over PeopleSoft version 8 depends on how much you love your existing ERP system. Of course, I don't see anything on whether or not the new PeopleSoft version 9 will run on DB2 or SQL Server.
...And his web site is still up and running! Wait until slashdotters turn their attention to his web server...
Mister Scott, you have all of 15 seconds to bring those warp engines back.....on.....line!
I guess I should have looked up, then I would have seen the point. I guess that means it's now time for my mid-afternoon coffee break.
...And this was posted by an Anonymous Coward. Am I the only person to see the irony here?
Another group of people is obviously conspiring to take over. I wonder if this is all related to the "Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy"? Or was that the "Conspiracy of the Liberal Elite"?