"Therefore, the security benefits of doing this are absolutely minimal. Anyone who is actually trying to extract the password will learn about the transformation, and any reversible transformation is not a significant improvement."
By this logic, I should never lock my door to my house, as a determined thief can always force entry No benefit at all in preventing the casual or opportunistic thief from getting in and plundering at will.
This may be news, but there are very, very few shops that are all Macintosh. I consult for one business that has a Mac on every desk, and they still have Windows servers in the back room and co-located.
As such, almost all shops are "mixed", and the majority are primarily Windows. You go where the money is, you know?
(And how about giving people the benefit of the doubt every once in a while? Stop assuming everyone else is a liar, and we'll stop assuming you're a just a jerk.)
"I find it irritating that all of their emails contain an ad for iphone and whatever carrier they happen to use."
Well, have you ever stopped to consider that the "ad" might actually be useful? When an associate sees that in my email (or I in theirs) it can be assumed that we're out and about, not at our desk, and as such there's a reason why the email might be shorter or terser than normal.
"And 3.1 was not a new OS. It was 3 with the network fixed."
It was a new, major release at the time. (I was there.) Or we could take it the other way, I supposed. Windows 3.0 was released in 1990. 3.1 in 1992.
Two years to "fix" the network issues?
"Apple continually pushes everyone to go get the latest and greatest every time a new iteration of a product comes out. "
Definitely with OS updates. Apple wants as many people as possible to be using the newest OS, with the newest feature set. This lets developers target the latest release, and in the process give its users better applications that use the latest technologies.
'Of course, Microsoft does everything possible to get people --and business-- to upgrade Windows and Office. Blackberry and HTC and Samsung want you to buy the latest and greatest droid phones. Dell and HP want...
Well, ignore Dell and HP. Mostly they go with the latest processor bump and change the trim on their plastic cases. They fail to give their customers a significant reason to buy or upgrade.
They made a pretty server that was a dream to open and service. Unfortunately, not many businesses need a server that runs OS X. Sales were lackluster at best.
Rumor has it that the next Mac Pro will be available in a 3U rack mount version.
"Here's a hint for anyone wanting to run a book store: it helps if you stock a wide range of books..."
Paradoxically, this is what killed them. Border's didn't just sell books. They sold magazines. They sold CDs. They sold DVDs. In essence, they had a huge business model based on selling things other than books that people have simply stopped buying
Or I can go online to Amazon, see every book ever published on the subject, read reviews to find the best one, and then buy it new for a small fraction of what it might have cost at Borders, and have it delivered next day for free (Prime).
Assumption. My take on a store that would try to sell a large inventory of new and used books would be increased costs due to store size and staffing, while reduced income because many people would first try to buy all of their bestsellers and other books used.
Regardless, the internet killed Borders, not ebooks. Electronic book sales were simply the final straw in the camel's back.
Border's didn't just sell books. They sold magazines. They sold CDs. They sold DVDs.
In essence, they had a huge business model based on selling things that people have simply stopped buying. My take on it is that they should have seen the writing on the wall sooner. Dropped media, and focused on books.
You say that Amazon should pay for the maintenance of the roads, airports, ports and railways they use to deliver their product to consumers?
They do. The local FedEx and UPS delivery services which actually deliver the goods do in fact pay local payroll taxes, taxes on property and warehousing and hubs, and pay airport and transit fees. They also pay local gasoline taxes, delivery vehicle excise taxes, and so on.
In short, all of the services and taxes that Amazon "uses" and for which Amazon should pay... are ALREADY BEING PAID.
Amazon pays FedEx and UPS to deliver their products. FedEx and UPS pay the state. Done.
That business doesn't pay income tax and property tax? It's employees don't pay income tax?
As do the local FedEx and UPS delivery services, they do in fact pay local payroll taxes, taxes on property and warehousing and hubs, and pay airport and transit fees. They also pay local gasoline taxes, delivery vehicle excise taxes, and so on.
The "warehouse" and the delivery services already pay to support their presence.
Do they? Food, medicine, and various other necessities are usually exempt from sales tax. And if you're very poor, then your purchases are often subsidized by welfare and food stamps and the like.
"There is no "fuzzy". The California associate is a salesperson promoting a product on Amazon by providing a link to that item and promoting that item."
Is the "salesperson" a paid employee (legal definition) of Amazon? No. Is his apartment or home owned by Amazon? No. Does he get a W2 from Amazon? No. Does he have a contract with Amazon? Yes.
On whose site is the listing for that item located? Amazon. Who takes the order? Amazon. Who fulfills and ships the order? Amazon.
"This is no different than the Associate using Amazon as the wholesaler who ships directly to the Associate's customer."
Sorry, but it is different. In the case of a wholesaler who drop-ships, I would take the order and process the payment, and then pass the order along to the them. They drop-ship the order and bill me. Conceptually, physically, and legally, they are two different processes.
If "Main Street" in your state is at such a severe competitive disadvantage, how about LOWERING your state sales tax??? Or even dropping it?
As an example, Colorado sales tax revenue is about 15% of the budget. They could easily drop it for everything but, say, restaurants and other "service" industries, major appliances and automobiles. Thus you pay sales tax on things that require a physical presence, or on items too large to ship practically.
You then slightly increase taxes elsewhere to compensate.
Bingo. Most goods sold on "Main Street" are no longer at a competitive disadvantage due to sales tax. Of course, the states won't do this, because the problem isn't that "Main Street" is at a competitive disadvantage.
It's because what California really wants is access to yet another revenue stream, paid for by the consumer with his "after tax" dollars.
The article states, "The government estimates that the legislation will bring in more than $1 billion a year in revenue." Translated, this means that the taxpayers in California will have an additional $1 billion a year taken directly from their pockets.
Further, the billion dollars saved by the California taxpayer doesn't just disappear. In many cases it's used to purchase local goods, services, food, gas, entertainment, and more. Things that do benefit the local economy and upon which California does get its "piece of the action".
People also say that Amazon should pay for the maintenance of the roads, airports, ports and railways they use to deliver their product to consumers.
They do. The local FedEx and UPS delivery services do in fact pay local payroll taxes, taxes on property and warehousing and hubs, and pay airport and transit fees. They also pay local gasoline taxes, delivery vehicle excise taxes, and so on.
In short, all of the services and taxes that Amazon "uses" and for which Amazon should pay... are ALREADY BEING PAID.
Amazon pays FedEx and UPS to deliver their products. FedEx and UPS pay the state. Done.
So why, again, does Amazon need to pay twice?
I won't discuss how Amazon benefits California's citizens with cheaper goods, or how a single UPS truck delivering 50 goods on an optimized route is better than 50 gas-hogging SUVs clogging the roads running to 50 different stores, or about how those local Amazonian businesses do pay local taxes.
I'll simply say that this should be fought.
It's just another way for government to dip into your pocket. Again.
Doesn't sound like it. He said, "Now if you're able to be extremely aware of other drivers and always prepare for the worst case scenarios." While you said, "I call, txt, eat, drink(not alcohol) and play with my computer/stereo in the car while speeding." One doesn't follow the other. A distraction is a distraction. If you're speeding and playing with your computer, you're not noticing that the idiot in right-hand lane just glanced into his side mirror and is preparing to jump into your lane.
Defensive driving is defensive driving. It's giving the road and your conditions your full attention. If you're splitting your attention, you're splitting your attention. Period. Now, maybe your "trained" reflexes are so damn good that you don't that extra half-second of warning.
Again, for your sake, for the sake of your passengers and parents and family, and for the sake of everyone else around you at that moment.
I really hope so. And if not, I really hope it was worth it.
Sorry, but you're no professional. Because "professional" drivers do everything possible to reduce and mitigate risk. They push the boundaries, yes, but they also know that accidents can happen to ANYONE. At any time.
Why INCREASE your risk? One split second of distraction at the wrong time, and you've gone from professional driver to a hot dog who's who's screaming in pain and severely testing the limits of their Nomex flame-retardent suit.
I hope you never have to regret those words. I hope when you're speeding down the road that you always see the little girl running into the street after her ball.
And for both our sakes, I hope to hell she's not mine.
"The pie isn't growing, it's just being sectioned differently."
RIght. Because driving down the road texting with one hand and my eyes continually off the road is exactly the same as driving down the road listening to the radio and occasionally changing the station.
Some actions are riskier than others, hence the size of the "pie" is variable. In fact, the study itself notes that cell phone use INCREASES your overall risk.
"Far and away the most common root cause of accidents works out to failure to yield right-of-way."
Had to take a friend to traffic court about a year ago, and "far and away" the most common citation was for "failure to assure a safe distance, resulting in an accident".
In other words, the driver wasn't paying attention, and rear-ended the preceding vehicle.
Though in several cases, the car that was rear-ended was the one at fault. The light changed, the idiot texting her BFF didn't notice, and the car coming up from behind assumed that the stopped car would in fact eventually proceed through the now green light. It didn't.
"... people that can't seem to realize they are driving a 2-ton kinetic energy weapon."
With you on that one. I have no problem with some distracted teenage idiot texting someone and running into a tree. Darwinism in action and all that. I do, however, have a problem with some distracted teenage idiot texting someone and running into ME!
"... and who commit suicide by jumping off these factories?"
Can we get off this? The Foxconn suicide rate at their factories is half that of the average rate in most of China, and about 6x LESS than the rate in a city of equivalent size here in the US.
"The thing was a bomb when it came out, and why it took off after several years of being one of the worst MP3 players on the market still baffles anyone capable of coherent thought."
Stupid much? The original iPod combined the new microdrive and the clickwheel interface into a small portable large-capacity long-lasting music player. This at a time when people like Creative where slapping full-sized NOTEBOOK drives onto batteries that would last for a couple of hours, and calling the resulting brick "portable".
Is this CmdrTaco? Still smarting over "No wireless. Less space than a nomad. Lame."?
"So far the only thing [sic] that puts Apple ahead is their willingness to gamble on technologies by using that huge cash stockpile and that they are usually first to do so. Nothing prevents their competitors from doing the exact same thing."
Other than the fact that they don't.
"... they just failed to make a product many consumers would buy."
Bingo.
There's an old line about how, if it's so easy, anyone could do it. Given that, you'd think that all the failures would indicate to some people that, just perhaps, it's not just that easy at all....
Slashdot Mirror
"Therefore, the security benefits of doing this are absolutely minimal. Anyone who is actually trying to extract the password will learn about the transformation, and any reversible transformation is not a significant improvement."
By this logic, I should never lock my door to my house, as a determined thief can always force entry No benefit at all in preventing the casual or opportunistic thief from getting in and plundering at will.
This may be news, but there are very, very few shops that are all Macintosh. I consult for one business that has a Mac on every desk, and they still have Windows servers in the back room and co-located.
As such, almost all shops are "mixed", and the majority are primarily Windows. You go where the money is, you know?
(And how about giving people the benefit of the doubt every once in a while? Stop assuming everyone else is a liar, and we'll stop assuming you're a just a jerk.)
"I find it irritating that all of their emails contain an ad for iphone and whatever carrier they happen to use."
Well, have you ever stopped to consider that the "ad" might actually be useful? When an associate sees that in my email (or I in theirs) it can be assumed that we're out and about, not at our desk, and as such there's a reason why the email might be shorter or terser than normal.
(And FWIW: Settings > Mail > Signature)
"And 3.1 was not a new OS. It was 3 with the network fixed."
It was a new, major release at the time. (I was there.) Or we could take it the other way, I supposed. Windows 3.0 was released in 1990. 3.1 in 1992.
Two years to "fix" the network issues?
"Apple continually pushes everyone to go get the latest and greatest every time a new iteration of a product comes out. "
Definitely with OS updates. Apple wants as many people as possible to be using the newest OS, with the newest feature set. This lets developers target the latest release, and in the process give its users better applications that use the latest technologies.
'Of course, Microsoft does everything possible to get people --and business-- to upgrade Windows and Office. Blackberry and HTC and Samsung want you to buy the latest and greatest droid phones. Dell and HP want...
Well, ignore Dell and HP. Mostly they go with the latest processor bump and change the trim on their plastic cases. They fail to give their customers a significant reason to buy or upgrade.
They made a pretty server that was a dream to open and service. Unfortunately, not many businesses need a server that runs OS X. Sales were lackluster at best.
Rumor has it that the next Mac Pro will be available in a 3U rack mount version.
"Here's a hint for anyone wanting to run a book store: it helps if you stock a wide range of books..."
Paradoxically, this is what killed them. Border's didn't just sell books. They sold magazines. They sold CDs. They sold DVDs. In essence, they had a huge business model based on selling things other than books that people have simply stopped buying
Or I can go online to Amazon, see every book ever published on the subject, read reviews to find the best one, and then buy it new for a small fraction of what it might have cost at Borders, and have it delivered next day for free (Prime).
"Selling used books is a viable alternative."
Assumption. My take on a store that would try to sell a large inventory of new and used books would be increased costs due to store size and staffing, while reduced income because many people would first try to buy all of their bestsellers and other books used.
Regardless, the internet killed Borders, not ebooks. Electronic book sales were simply the final straw in the camel's back.
Border's didn't just sell books. They sold magazines. They sold CDs. They sold DVDs.
In essence, they had a huge business model based on selling things that people have simply stopped buying. My take on it is that they should have seen the writing on the wall sooner. Dropped media, and focused on books.
So... what in the heck does the fact that you tried to sell something online via Amazon have to do with Borders and B&M stores?
Especially since all you did was attempt to buy someone else's product wholesale, and then resell it through yet another retailer.
Besides. Did you ever try to get Borders or B&N or some other major chain to even CONSIDER selling your products? Good luck with that.
" If he spends $300 to paint his roof white, but he could have invested that $300 in a fund that earns 5% interest..."
He could have, but odds are he just bought more pizza, beer, and video games.
You say that Amazon should pay for the maintenance of the roads, airports, ports and railways they use to deliver their product to consumers?
They do. The local FedEx and UPS delivery services which actually deliver the goods do in fact pay local payroll taxes, taxes on property and warehousing and hubs, and pay airport and transit fees. They also pay local gasoline taxes, delivery vehicle excise taxes, and so on.
In short, all of the services and taxes that Amazon "uses" and for which Amazon should pay... are ALREADY BEING PAID.
Amazon pays FedEx and UPS to deliver their products. FedEx and UPS pay the state. Done.
So why, again, does Amazon need to pay twice?
That business doesn't pay income tax and property tax? It's employees don't pay income tax?
As do the local FedEx and UPS delivery services, they do in fact pay local payroll taxes, taxes on property and warehousing and hubs, and pay airport and transit fees. They also pay local gasoline taxes, delivery vehicle excise taxes, and so on.
The "warehouse" and the delivery services already pay to support their presence.
Do they? Food, medicine, and various other necessities are usually exempt from sales tax. And if you're very poor, then your purchases are often subsidized by welfare and food stamps and the like.
"There is no "fuzzy". The California associate is a salesperson promoting a product on Amazon by providing a link to that item and promoting that item."
Is the "salesperson" a paid employee (legal definition) of Amazon? No. Is his apartment or home owned by Amazon? No. Does he get a W2 from Amazon? No. Does he have a contract with Amazon? Yes.
On whose site is the listing for that item located? Amazon. Who takes the order? Amazon. Who fulfills and ships the order? Amazon.
"This is no different than the Associate using Amazon as the wholesaler who ships directly to the Associate's customer."
Sorry, but it is different. In the case of a wholesaler who drop-ships, I would take the order and process the payment, and then pass the order along to the them. They drop-ship the order and bill me. Conceptually, physically, and legally, they are two different processes.
Does that location sell anything to the public, or is it simply an office? Look up the legal definitions of presence and "nexus".
If "Main Street" in your state is at such a severe competitive disadvantage, how about LOWERING your state sales tax??? Or even dropping it?
As an example, Colorado sales tax revenue is about 15% of the budget. They could easily drop it for everything but, say, restaurants and other "service" industries, major appliances and automobiles. Thus you pay sales tax on things that require a physical presence, or on items too large to ship practically.
You then slightly increase taxes elsewhere to compensate.
Bingo. Most goods sold on "Main Street" are no longer at a competitive disadvantage due to sales tax. Of course, the states won't do this, because the problem isn't that "Main Street" is at a competitive disadvantage.
It's because what California really wants is access to yet another revenue stream, paid for by the consumer with his "after tax" dollars.
The article states, "The government estimates that the legislation will bring in more than $1 billion a year in revenue." Translated, this means that the taxpayers in California will have an additional $1 billion a year taken directly from their pockets.
Further, the billion dollars saved by the California taxpayer doesn't just disappear. In many cases it's used to purchase local goods, services, food, gas, entertainment, and more. Things that do benefit the local economy and upon which California does get its "piece of the action".
People also say that Amazon should pay for the maintenance of the roads, airports, ports and railways they use to deliver their product to consumers.
They do. The local FedEx and UPS delivery services do in fact pay local payroll taxes, taxes on property and warehousing and hubs, and pay airport and transit fees. They also pay local gasoline taxes, delivery vehicle excise taxes, and so on.
In short, all of the services and taxes that Amazon "uses" and for which Amazon should pay... are ALREADY BEING PAID.
Amazon pays FedEx and UPS to deliver their products. FedEx and UPS pay the state. Done.
So why, again, does Amazon need to pay twice?
I won't discuss how Amazon benefits California's citizens with cheaper goods, or how a single UPS truck delivering 50 goods on an optimized route is better than 50 gas-hogging SUVs clogging the roads running to 50 different stores, or about how those local Amazonian businesses do pay local taxes.
I'll simply say that this should be fought.
It's just another way for government to dip into your pocket. Again.
"I agree with everything you say."
Doesn't sound like it. He said, "Now if you're able to be extremely aware of other drivers and always prepare for the worst case scenarios." While you said, "I call, txt, eat, drink(not alcohol) and play with my computer/stereo in the car while speeding." One doesn't follow the other. A distraction is a distraction. If you're speeding and playing with your computer, you're not noticing that the idiot in right-hand lane just glanced into his side mirror and is preparing to jump into your lane.
Defensive driving is defensive driving. It's giving the road and your conditions your full attention. If you're splitting your attention, you're splitting your attention. Period. Now, maybe your "trained" reflexes are so damn good that you don't that extra half-second of warning.
Again, for your sake, for the sake of your passengers and parents and family, and for the sake of everyone else around you at that moment.
I really hope so. And if not, I really hope it was worth it.
"Try professional driver."
Sorry, but you're no professional. Because "professional" drivers do everything possible to reduce and mitigate risk. They push the boundaries, yes, but they also know that accidents can happen to ANYONE. At any time.
Why INCREASE your risk? One split second of distraction at the wrong time, and you've gone from professional driver to a hot dog who's who's screaming in pain and severely testing the limits of their Nomex flame-retardent suit.
I hope you never have to regret those words. I hope when you're speeding down the road that you always see the little girl running into the street after her ball.
And for both our sakes, I hope to hell she's not mine.
"The pie isn't growing, it's just being sectioned differently."
RIght. Because driving down the road texting with one hand and my eyes continually off the road is exactly the same as driving down the road listening to the radio and occasionally changing the station.
Some actions are riskier than others, hence the size of the "pie" is variable. In fact, the study itself notes that cell phone use INCREASES your overall risk.
"But rather a third car..."
He said, "Nearly 100% of crashes are the result of somebody doing something they shouldn't be doing." Which applies to the 3rd car as well.
Idiot in car A, talking on a cell, drifts over the line. Car B brakes to avoid being hit by A, and is instead rear-ended by car C.
Car A and C are both at fault, even though the accident was caused by A. (A = distracted driving, C = maintain a safe distance.)
Statistically, BMW drivers are the most aggressive.
"Far and away the most common root cause of accidents works out to failure to yield right-of-way."
Had to take a friend to traffic court about a year ago, and "far and away" the most common citation was for "failure to assure a safe distance, resulting in an accident".
In other words, the driver wasn't paying attention, and rear-ended the preceding vehicle.
Though in several cases, the car that was rear-ended was the one at fault. The light changed, the idiot texting her BFF didn't notice, and the car coming up from behind assumed that the stopped car would in fact eventually proceed through the now green light. It didn't.
"... people that can't seem to realize they are driving a 2-ton kinetic energy weapon."
With you on that one. I have no problem with some distracted teenage idiot texting someone and running into a tree. Darwinism in action and all that. I do, however, have a problem with some distracted teenage idiot texting someone and running into ME!
"... and who commit suicide by jumping off these factories?"
Can we get off this? The Foxconn suicide rate at their factories is half that of the average rate in most of China, and about 6x LESS than the rate in a city of equivalent size here in the US.
"The thing was a bomb when it came out, and why it took off after several years of being one of the worst MP3 players on the market still baffles anyone capable of coherent thought."
Stupid much? The original iPod combined the new microdrive and the clickwheel interface into a small portable large-capacity long-lasting music player. This at a time when people like Creative where slapping full-sized NOTEBOOK drives onto batteries that would last for a couple of hours, and calling the resulting brick "portable".
Is this CmdrTaco? Still smarting over "No wireless. Less space than a nomad. Lame."?
"So far the only thing [sic] that puts Apple ahead is their willingness to gamble on technologies by using that huge cash stockpile and that they are usually first to do so. Nothing prevents their competitors from doing the exact same thing."
Other than the fact that they don't.
"... they just failed to make a product many consumers would buy."
Bingo.
There's an old line about how, if it's so easy, anyone could do it. Given that, you'd think that all the failures would indicate to some people that, just perhaps, it's not just that easy at all....