Is it me or does it bother anyone else that an institution like the White House doesn't have a dedicated IT staff?
I would like to think that there would be a staff to handle this kind of thing independent of the administration. Having a team who knows the ins and outs from administration to administration would cut down on transition time as well as maintain a set of standards. This also would certainly be a big boost in keeping things on the honest side.
Why pay these employees if they can function in getting their products to market without them? Why is it that a company has to be in the red before people understand why lay offs should happen?
Most indicators at this point show that the PC market is in a decline much like most other markets during this current economic crisis. Paying the same number of employees to put out less product is a terrible business move.
It's also short sighted to bash them for this move.
Let's be honest about the situation here. With one major electronics retailer going down and layoffs in droves from other industries it's pretty clear to see that MS is taking a wise point of view to realize that PC sales are going to be somewhere between stagnant and declining.
Windows sales are largely driven by PC sales. If PC sales are in a slump it's going to directly relate to Microsoft sales. This shouldn't be a hard concept. Otherwise you'd need to provide me with numbers that show that PC sales are either increasing or steady. If you could do that you would be able to show that there is a market swing from Windows based systems of 8% in the last year. Those kinds of numbers simply don't exist anyplace.
Just about anything to be honest. We've really let ourselves go in many ways while letting big brother take care of business regardless if it's economics or civil liberties. Show us someplace that we haven't let the things slip in an area where we, as citizens, had a say and now we find our choices are legislated if we have a choice at all.
And plenty of people came out and said this was the first election they voted in because they felt that this was the first time it mattered. This is a known fact.
And states can't over ride federal but they do set the charges for the violation of marijuana possession. This is within their jurisdiction. That's why I mentioned decriminalization.
And if you think that it was just the last eight years that got us to this point in history than you have no idea how bad things can get.
Our current sitution is the build up from decades worth of neglect, folks. And in most likeliness a lot of the Americans reading this post played some part in it. It sounds ugly because it is ugly. But it's still true.
You'd be better to work on this on the state level. I'm betting you that legalization by the feds won't happen until the vast majority of the states go to decriminalization.
I agree and find it odd that the media has gone on and on about it while invoking MLK at the same time. Personally I think MLK would be disappointed that minority voters only felt compelled to stand up and have their votes counted because the candidate was of a minority race. I think King's real dream was that people didn't let the race aspect hold them back from being a participant in the system. Just like I'm sure he'd frown on the idea that people used the excuse of finally having a minority in the White House be a reason they suddenly feel they could do anything. People who really get his message should have felt this way all along.
I just don't see this as the milestone the media claims it is and I'd like to think if Dr. King was alive today he'd agree with me on this.
Mr. Obama, can you send me a Sig Saur? While I love my H&K and Beretta just fine I'd like to plink around with something new. Nothing less than 10mm either, sir, or I might have to consider you a lightweight.
What if there was better parenting and education but this kind of thing still continues? Defiance of a parent is far from abnormal now of days. What do you suggest in that case? And who says that wasn't the case here?
Let's face facts. Kids do break the rules their parents set out for them. Maybe the punishment for this kind of thing is harsh but it certain that the problem itself can't be winked at. To act like letting this kind of thing go (which seems to be what you're suggesting by saying "Arresting them will not stop the behavior") is a sure way to let it get worse.
I don't see why bands that make millions of dollars whine each year about people downloading their songs
Ok, here's where I'm starting to have a problem. How is it that Slashdotters rave on that artists tied to RIAA labels make between 5 and 10 cents on an album sale yet, here we are again, talking about artists who supposedly make millions. These two things can not logically exist except for such a small slice of artists, most of which no longer produce. At 10 cents a pop I could probably count the number of artists who could actually break the million dollar barrier without getting into the double digits.
I agree that the money they make should come from tours, and merch that they sell
Actually, I disagree and I hope nothing in my post makes it seem otherwise. If you're listening to a song the artist deserves some kickback. This idea that they should roll over like a dog to make cash is nonsense. Should an author come over your house and read you his book to make money? Should a painter have to paint your portrait to make money from his art?
Now, I'm not saying that every single note an artist makes should be sold to the highest bidder for 50 years after the artist is dead. But to think that an artist should fork out the money and time to record, release and hope to make some money touring is absurd. Under no circumstances is it Ok in my mind to pass around the wares of an artist thinking that they make enough money on tour. If a buck a song is outrageous to you than don't but it. If it's really not worth a dollar a song than the artist will take the hint and lower the price as much as possible.
I know if I were an artist and I couldn't sell my product I wouldn't bother touring. How can I afford to spend more on touring costs when I can't even break even in the cheap world of home recording?
And what about the artist who's music doesn't lend itself to touring. Some great musicians simply can't reproduce their sound on stage. It would be like they getting on stage and playing their CD. It doesn't mean that they don't have talent, it means that they create in a different way, a way that is allowing more artists to come to the table with offerings. It's worth supporting. Trust me.
I'll be sure to go tell this to the likes of Ian MacKaye, Jeff Nelson and Greg Ginn that they have no hope of mass reproduction because the RIAA controls it.
Oh, wait...
The fact is that affordable recording technology has been there for years. No one is stopping anyone from getting studio time or using a home studio. Hell, we can go back the whole way to Buddy Holly and Loretta Lynn if you want to discuss people who did their own self promotion back in their early years. Dischord and SST are prime examples of people with ambition and little money being able to get their works mass produced and out to their fan base.
No, these kinds of excuses simply don't wash with me. There are far too many success stories out there for me to buy into the idea that cheap home recording and the rumored ability to finally (finally!) get your stuff stamped is the reason for the failures of the recording industry as a whole. Sure, it's cheaper and easier so more tunes get pushed to more people but to act like the RIAA had the market on music publication and sales cornered simply isn't true and any serious music collector (and I'm not talking about a bunch of files on a hard drive) knows that the indy market has been alive and well for decades and they offer high quality wares just like anyone else.
The only time the RIAA has gotten away with "ripping bands off" is when the bands were unwilling to do for themselves. The means have been open to anyone who wanted to play the game, some just took the easy way out and it's fostered a whole generation of cry babies like Trent Reznor who thumbs his nose at his old label after they worked to make him rich and promote him to the point where he had his own market, crying that they took advantage of him. By the time Trend, er, I mean Trent got around to doing his music the trail had already been blazed by early industrial artists who did it on their own terms without a need for the RIAA.
As long as you had some ambition and a bit of talent there has always been a way to capitalize on it. The RIAA hasn't stopped anyone.
Thanks for a very interesting post but I must say that according to some of the early research that I've done on this that Windows XP will do it if it's initiated by a remote client. Am I misinterpreting this?
So any device that produces forensic data for the state of Florida is going to be open to this kind of thing? Does this mean in the future it would be best for the state to prequalify these items? This could be a black mark that will keep some of the top forensic equipment producers from dealing with Florida in the near future.
Not that they sell shoddy goods but who would want to have to do this? They'll essentially be forced to prove their products worth without any compensation. I don't know how cut throat the business is but this could eat into profits in a bad way if this becomes a national trend.
Maybe this is a new business that can be put in place, a developer's shop of precertification of forensics equipment. You could probably name your price to show up at trials to certify the data's integrity as an expert witness.
Do the people on the street buying Apple really know who Jobs is? Is he the cool factor for Apple?
I think once we get outside the little geek and nerd demograph of Slashdot you'll find that a majority of Apple's cashflow has less to do with Jobs and more to do with that little logo. Hell, if it was up to Slashdot "cool" they would bring back Woz!
The problem with this statement is that both the current administration and the upcoming administration don't seem to mind that it's not constitutional. Facts have an odd way of falling through the cracks in a bureaucracy.
Oddly enough the ability for them to communicate with each other has probably already been put in place. There's a million errors a human pilot, even on the ground, could make that the automated part could right without having to "think twice".
There's just some things you can't trust a human to do in any given circumstance. That's reason enough to have the planes.
Slashdot Mirror
They don't already have e-mail addresses?
Is it me or does it bother anyone else that an institution like the White House doesn't have a dedicated IT staff?
I would like to think that there would be a staff to handle this kind of thing independent of the administration. Having a team who knows the ins and outs from administration to administration would cut down on transition time as well as maintain a set of standards. This also would certainly be a big boost in keeping things on the honest side.
Why pay these employees if they can function in getting their products to market without them? Why is it that a company has to be in the red before people understand why lay offs should happen?
Most indicators at this point show that the PC market is in a decline much like most other markets during this current economic crisis. Paying the same number of employees to put out less product is a terrible business move.
It's also short sighted to bash them for this move.
Let's be honest about the situation here. With one major electronics retailer going down and layoffs in droves from other industries it's pretty clear to see that MS is taking a wise point of view to realize that PC sales are going to be somewhere between stagnant and declining.
Windows sales are largely driven by PC sales. If PC sales are in a slump it's going to directly relate to Microsoft sales. This shouldn't be a hard concept. Otherwise you'd need to provide me with numbers that show that PC sales are either increasing or steady. If you could do that you would be able to show that there is a market swing from Windows based systems of 8% in the last year. Those kinds of numbers simply don't exist anyplace.
*eom*
Just about anything to be honest. We've really let ourselves go in many ways while letting big brother take care of business regardless if it's economics or civil liberties. Show us someplace that we haven't let the things slip in an area where we, as citizens, had a say and now we find our choices are legislated if we have a choice at all.
I never claimed to speak for King. Learn to read!
And plenty of people came out and said this was the first election they voted in because they felt that this was the first time it mattered. This is a known fact.
Uh, the drug war isn't in the top 100 issues?
And states can't over ride federal but they do set the charges for the violation of marijuana possession. This is within their jurisdiction. That's why I mentioned decriminalization.
And if you think that it was just the last eight years that got us to this point in history than you have no idea how bad things can get.
Our current sitution is the build up from decades worth of neglect, folks. And in most likeliness a lot of the Americans reading this post played some part in it. It sounds ugly because it is ugly. But it's still true.
He possesses an enormous amount of charisma and motivates people and fills them with hope
So did Hitler.
Being a great public speaker doesn't make someone automagically a great person.
You'd be better to work on this on the state level. I'm betting you that legalization by the feds won't happen until the vast majority of the states go to decriminalization.
I agree and find it odd that the media has gone on and on about it while invoking MLK at the same time. Personally I think MLK would be disappointed that minority voters only felt compelled to stand up and have their votes counted because the candidate was of a minority race. I think King's real dream was that people didn't let the race aspect hold them back from being a participant in the system. Just like I'm sure he'd frown on the idea that people used the excuse of finally having a minority in the White House be a reason they suddenly feel they could do anything. People who really get his message should have felt this way all along.
I just don't see this as the milestone the media claims it is and I'd like to think if Dr. King was alive today he'd agree with me on this.
Really?
Mr. Obama, can you send me a Sig Saur? While I love my H&K and Beretta just fine I'd like to plink around with something new. Nothing less than 10mm either, sir, or I might have to consider you a lightweight.
What if there was better parenting and education but this kind of thing still continues? Defiance of a parent is far from abnormal now of days. What do you suggest in that case? And who says that wasn't the case here?
Let's face facts. Kids do break the rules their parents set out for them. Maybe the punishment for this kind of thing is harsh but it certain that the problem itself can't be winked at. To act like letting this kind of thing go (which seems to be what you're suggesting by saying "Arresting them will not stop the behavior") is a sure way to let it get worse.
They know by the wobble of the star it orbits.
I don't see why bands that make millions of dollars whine each year about people downloading their songs
Ok, here's where I'm starting to have a problem. How is it that Slashdotters rave on that artists tied to RIAA labels make between 5 and 10 cents on an album sale yet, here we are again, talking about artists who supposedly make millions. These two things can not logically exist except for such a small slice of artists, most of which no longer produce. At 10 cents a pop I could probably count the number of artists who could actually break the million dollar barrier without getting into the double digits.
I agree that the money they make should come from tours, and merch that they sell
Actually, I disagree and I hope nothing in my post makes it seem otherwise. If you're listening to a song the artist deserves some kickback. This idea that they should roll over like a dog to make cash is nonsense. Should an author come over your house and read you his book to make money? Should a painter have to paint your portrait to make money from his art?
Now, I'm not saying that every single note an artist makes should be sold to the highest bidder for 50 years after the artist is dead. But to think that an artist should fork out the money and time to record, release and hope to make some money touring is absurd. Under no circumstances is it Ok in my mind to pass around the wares of an artist thinking that they make enough money on tour. If a buck a song is outrageous to you than don't but it. If it's really not worth a dollar a song than the artist will take the hint and lower the price as much as possible.
I know if I were an artist and I couldn't sell my product I wouldn't bother touring. How can I afford to spend more on touring costs when I can't even break even in the cheap world of home recording?
And what about the artist who's music doesn't lend itself to touring. Some great musicians simply can't reproduce their sound on stage. It would be like they getting on stage and playing their CD. It doesn't mean that they don't have talent, it means that they create in a different way, a way that is allowing more artists to come to the table with offerings. It's worth supporting. Trust me.
I'll be sure to go tell this to the likes of Ian MacKaye, Jeff Nelson and Greg Ginn that they have no hope of mass reproduction because the RIAA controls it.
Oh, wait...
The fact is that affordable recording technology has been there for years. No one is stopping anyone from getting studio time or using a home studio. Hell, we can go back the whole way to Buddy Holly and Loretta Lynn if you want to discuss people who did their own self promotion back in their early years. Dischord and SST are prime examples of people with ambition and little money being able to get their works mass produced and out to their fan base.
No, these kinds of excuses simply don't wash with me. There are far too many success stories out there for me to buy into the idea that cheap home recording and the rumored ability to finally (finally!) get your stuff stamped is the reason for the failures of the recording industry as a whole. Sure, it's cheaper and easier so more tunes get pushed to more people but to act like the RIAA had the market on music publication and sales cornered simply isn't true and any serious music collector (and I'm not talking about a bunch of files on a hard drive) knows that the indy market has been alive and well for decades and they offer high quality wares just like anyone else.
The only time the RIAA has gotten away with "ripping bands off" is when the bands were unwilling to do for themselves. The means have been open to anyone who wanted to play the game, some just took the easy way out and it's fostered a whole generation of cry babies like Trent Reznor who thumbs his nose at his old label after they worked to make him rich and promote him to the point where he had his own market, crying that they took advantage of him. By the time Trend, er, I mean Trent got around to doing his music the trail had already been blazed by early industrial artists who did it on their own terms without a need for the RIAA.
As long as you had some ambition and a bit of talent there has always been a way to capitalize on it. The RIAA hasn't stopped anyone.
Thanks for a very interesting post but I must say that according to some of the early research that I've done on this that Windows XP will do it if it's initiated by a remote client. Am I misinterpreting this?
So any device that produces forensic data for the state of Florida is going to be open to this kind of thing? Does this mean in the future it would be best for the state to prequalify these items? This could be a black mark that will keep some of the top forensic equipment producers from dealing with Florida in the near future.
Not that they sell shoddy goods but who would want to have to do this? They'll essentially be forced to prove their products worth without any compensation. I don't know how cut throat the business is but this could eat into profits in a bad way if this becomes a national trend.
Maybe this is a new business that can be put in place, a developer's shop of precertification of forensics equipment. You could probably name your price to show up at trials to certify the data's integrity as an expert witness.
Do the people on the street buying Apple really know who Jobs is? Is he the cool factor for Apple?
I think once we get outside the little geek and nerd demograph of Slashdot you'll find that a majority of Apple's cashflow has less to do with Jobs and more to do with that little logo. Hell, if it was up to Slashdot "cool" they would bring back Woz!
The problem with this statement is that both the current administration and the upcoming administration don't seem to mind that it's not constitutional. Facts have an odd way of falling through the cracks in a bureaucracy.
Beware, that could be seen as a threat to national security.
It's a good exercise in a co-ordination of this level.
Oddly enough the ability for them to communicate with each other has probably already been put in place. There's a million errors a human pilot, even on the ground, could make that the automated part could right without having to "think twice".
There's just some things you can't trust a human to do in any given circumstance. That's reason enough to have the planes.
to find moonlight grahm?
But I guess 88 years isn't too bad.