Nah... the vast quantities of cameras required to fully equip every American household for automated surveillance will drive the price down. Unless, of course, the government mandates that only certain models of cameras (made by certain Congressmen's favorite Chinese manufacturers) can be used, in which case the price will skyrocket.
I understand your reasoning, and I agree with it so far as it goes. I further understand that Best Buy (or any other major retailer) doesn't handle the rebates themselves, which is why I used the term "fulfillment organization". However, as a consumer that doesn't matter to me. From my perspective, all I know is that I've bought products with the promise of significant discounts that never materialized in many cases. Had I known that up front, I'd have spent the money elsewhere and probably gotten a better deal. I have followed the rules, sent in my original copies, and still got screwed. I have called as well, and sometimes that works, sometimes it doesn't: like you said, about half have a "just pay if they call" philosophy. Of course, that still leaves the other fifty percent that don't, and if you happen to call one of those it's "have a nice day and don't bother calling again." All in all, rebates have some serious issues from the consumer's point of view. Given all the advantages to the manufacturer that you've mentioned, the fact that major retail operations are curtailing or eliminating their use of rebates tells me that all is not rosy in rebateland.
No, I think I got his point... that bad female managers are the expected result of the management selection process currently in effect. He's probably right about that. My point is that that is not okay and blaming a manager's poor performance on society as a whole is wrong, and accepting that performance as a cost of having female management is also wrong. I quite deliberately did not single out all female managers as being defective, just that the ones that are should be treated just like their male counterparts and given the boot.
It is obvious that not many Slashdotter's have ever taken an advanced business class.
Nope. But I know all the rebates that I've sent in and never received. And frankly, I don't give a damn about the reasons rebates exist, I really don't. All I know is that they have been, by and large, very poorly managed from my perspective. If the vendor of a particular product wants to use the rebate as a financial incentive for retailers to stock his products, that's fine. Just make damn sure that those rebates that are sent in are processed efficiently, otherwise I'm that much less likely to buy that manufacturer's products in the future.
Well, I live in the U.S. and I agree, anything can happen. What you're talking about is social engineering and it does happen on a regular basis. But the discussion was about remotely duping individuals into voluntarily relinquishing their personal info. What you say is true, people do scam banks directly, and there is very little you, as a bank customer, can do to protect yourself in that regard. On the other hand, there is a difference between some unknown entity initiating contact via phone or email and requesting personal information, versus you contacting a known entity (i.e., your bank or credit-card issuer) and providing such information in order to verify your identity. A major qualitative difference, actually. And that was my original point: if someone you don't know asks for such information, just don't give it to them. This isn't rocket science! Small children are taught not to trust total strangers! I shake my head in wonder that people don't intuitively see the similarity between a phishing expedition, and some person walking up to them on the street and asking could he have your social security number, oh, and by the way what's your bank account number and PIN. Amazing, really.
He didn't say he was scammed, just that he called the number to see what was going on because he was curious. At least, that's how I read it.
Besides, paranoia is not required, 24/7 or otherwise. It's very simple... if someone or something contacts you asking for private information... DON'T GIVE IT. PERIOD! Legitimate organizations just simply don't DO things like this, so any contact you receive that claims to be from such an organization is almost certainly fraudulent. I've had banks and credit cards phone me once or twice about fraudulent transactions on my account, but never in an email and I've never had one of them ask for my account number and password. Ever. And, if they did, I'd cancel that account in a heartbeat. Face it, phishers depend upon people panicking and doing something stupid in the heat of the moment, where if they thought about what they were doing for ten seconds they'd realize, gee, I don't know where this is coming from... best contact my bank directly and see if they know anything about it.
All this means is that there are known, effective ways to run a company and make a reasonable profit, and do so for an indefinite period. Those ways have been known for a long, long time. The real problem came in when, for a variety of reasons ranging from malfeasance to overreaching investors, unreasonable profits became the goal of corporate existence. Everything can ultimately be traced back to that... as always, follow the money. Once you sacrifice the long-term wellbeing of your company and its workers for short-term financial gain, you have no right to complain when you go the way of the Dodo bird. I guess what astounds me is that the people who ran these companies into the ground, the Carly Fiorinas, the Ken Lays, the Bernie Ebbers'... all of them were rich beyond dreams of avarice. Yet, they still couldn't resist the temptation to make more money no matter what the cost to the companies they were paid (and paid handsomely!) to protect and develop. The only conclusion I can draw from these debacles is that, while a corporation must profit by its activities in order to grow and repay its investors, focusing on money to the exclusion of all else is destructive. Stupidly obvious, I know... but not so obvious to the folks that were paid hundreds of millions to manage these corporations. Nor is it obvious to Wall Street, which to this day can't seem tell a crook from a CEO.
... but they have a populace who actually believe in big government.
For now. Life under the United States Federal Government hasn't yet become onerous enough that we're willing to make the effort to deflect said government from its current path. The problem is this: once the full negative effects of that government begin to be felt by enough of us that "civil liberties" ceases to be an abstract concept and takes on the actinic glare of hard reality... what, exactly, will we be able to do about it?
I suppose it could be some kind of CYA rule, where after one student has his skull cracked wide open by some sociopathic fellow student-thug they can claim, "see? If they'd just followed the rules this wouldn't have happened" as if the rules ever meant anything to a bully.
It's that kind of reasoning that creates the monsters the GP was talking about. We need to stop excusing the bad behavior of individuals because "society did it to them" or "they had a tough life." I had a tough life, had to work damned hard these past twenty-five years to get where I am today, and I have zero desire to injure anyone just to make myself feel good. Period! I have better things to do. So far as I'm concerned, anyone that does enjoy the suffering of the people in their charge is mentally ill and should look elsewhere for employment. Look, there are reasonable standards that must be upheld in the workplace before it degenerates into a miserable experience for all. If the person in control is not capable of maintaining those standards, they should be removed from their position. I don't care what Carly Fiorina thinks, a horribly demoralized staff is not good for the company, and an organization that tolerates abusive management deserves whatever ills befall it.
Women wanted into the workforce, they got into it, and now we should give them a free psycho-bitch pass as they rise in the corporate hierarchy? Baloney. If you're a bad manager, you're a bad manager and you should either clean up your act or expect to get your ass fired regardless of sex because your actions are damaging the company and costing it money. So what if you had to work extra hard to get where you are! If you're a woman trying to function in the male-dominated corporate environment you should expect, from day one, that it's going to cost you. It point-blank does not give you the right to abuse people! Sorry, that one doesn't fly and I don't care if you're a man or a woman, straight or homosexual, God-fearin' or atheist... either you know how to manage people or you don't. Even sociopaths can manage others well, if they want the organization as a whole to succeed, and at some basic level understand that the people under them are what will make that happen.
That's as may be... but they've hung themselves with their ingenuity: the fact that rebate programs are becoming such a PR problem that they are being discontinued should tell you that. Part of the problem is that the retailers themselves rarely seem to have an in-house division or group that handles fulfillment... that's often contracted out. And the companies that take those contracts aren't of equal caliber: some may be good but the ones with which I've had experience seem to be crooks. And your own operation may be honest but if you contract part of it to a crook your customers will eventually perceive you to be a crook as well. Your mileage may have varied, of course, but personally I steer clear of "rebates".
I disagree with you about playing the float. Customers are drawn in with the promise of a lower (eventual) price, and in the meantime the retailer gets to hang on to a chunk of their money. Even if the customer does eventually get his rebate (no guarantee of that) the retailer may have held on to it for a month or more. That adds up to real money. Maybe that wasn't the reason that rebates were invented, I'll grant you that, but it is most certainly part of their appeal to resellers.
Those stupid service agreements they push on you when you go to check out are another example of retailers trying to hang on to their customers' money. Why would I want a "service contract" on, say, a $50 cordless phone? Funny... I thought the purchase price already included a manufacturer's warranty to handle premature failure. Service agreements are mostly a waste of time, but so many customers are suckered into this nonsense that it has become a significant part of profitability for these people. Now, when I bought a big-screen TV a few years ago I did buy a maintenance agreement for it... but the set is a massive affair that would be difficult to bring back for repairs, and the agreement was for on-site maintenance or replacement. But on a typical consumer-grade item at Best Buy? No thanks.
so those of us who always thought that the rebates were a scam (or were too lazy to mail in the card) finally get some savings.
Rebates are a scam, and any savings you've convinced yourself that you're getting are illusory at best. Rather than apply "discounts" at the register, why don't they just lower their prices. Of course, by doing it this way you simply feel like you're important because you got a "special discount."
Please. All rebates are is a way to play the float for a while with the customers' money, and if it so happens that the customer forgets to mail in the form, so much the better. Not that mailing in the stupid form necessarily means any thing: rebates are one of the reasons why I stopped shopping Best Buy (the other is because they habitually reshrinkwrap returned goods and sell them as new.) The last time I bought something at Best Buy I sent in the rebate form, along with the original proof-of-purchase because the instructions said that photocopies were not acceptable. I then received a letter politely refusing to send me a rebate, because I hadn't sent the original proof-of-purchase. Best Buy isn't the only outfit that's scammed me on rebates, which is why I simply don't buy anything with a rebate. Literally, unless it's a big-ticket item it is just not worth the time to fill out the damn form, cut out the Proof-of-Purchase, and then mail them to some "fullfillment organization" that will probably just keep the money anyway.
That remains to be seen. I see HP in the same way as I see a lot of large companies that were beheaded when their founders died off or retired... they run for a while on inertia and then crumble into dust. Or they try to "reinvent" themselves but that rarely works either. No, I think another poster was right, that HP lost "The Way" a long time ago and that Carly Fiorina was more symptomatic than causative, but you're right that if she were any good, someone else would have picked her up by now. Hey, maybe corporate America is wising up: when a FAILED CEO is fired... don't hire her. Not that women have ever been a part of the "good old boy" CEO network anyway.
Are there any lawyers in the audience that can comment on whether a school can legally strip a student of the right to defend him or herself from physical violence? So far as I'm concerned, if I'm attacked I will use whatever means at my disposal to remove the threat. Period. I think any other creature on this planet would do the same. Even an amoeba will fight back.
Personally, I'd rather be suspended (or expelled) than suffer serious injury: some bullies don't know when to quit. Matter of fact, I used to get the shit kicked out of me quite regularly in grade school, until my ex-Marine uncle taught me some self-defense. Oh sure, I still got the shit kicked out of me but at least I had the satisfaction of causing some damage, and it took more of them. Now, given a choice, I'll avoid a fight on principle. However, sometimes I wasn't given the option, and in those cases I fought back: on principle.
If nothing else, I managed to restore my self-respect, and if you don't think that's important you probably don't have any. Self-respect is especially important to someone that is being bullied. The whole point of being a bully is to build up your own self-respect at the expense of someone else's, a kind of mental vampirism. The psychological damage caused by bullying is significant and long-lasting, and school administrators that deal with bullying by futher victimizing the recipients need to learn what food stamps are all about.
Telling a child that he can't defend himself from a bully is insane, pacifist bullshit more suited to a hippie commune than a school where, I have to say... KIDS FIGHT. They do, because there's always those few that are violence-prone, and unless the school is prepared to completely excise those bad apples from the student body they have no good reason to punish any other student for fighting back. Generally speaking, schools won't get rid of the complete assholes because they, of course, have "rights". You would think that the kids they beat up would have the "right" to a terror-free school day, but apparently that's not a priority.
This is obviously just for the convenience of the administration who would rather not deal with the subtleties of why someone was beaten to a bloody pulp. That's unfortunate, because it is an awareness of just those details that can prevent further violence. So, let's take a kid that's already having a hard time, tell him "when you're attacked, don't even think about throwing a punch", and then when he's lying on the ground bruised and miserable we'll suspend his ass for fighting. That's one sensitive administration you have there: what I would take away from that would be "no, we're not on your side, we don't understand right from wrong, really we're on the side of the bullies that are terrorizing you so don't even think of turning to us for help."
That is probably not the message they think they're sending, but actions speak louder than words.
Technology limits are one thing, but the ones we have have taken us to about where we need to be for the time being. As you say, for the desktop market the need for speed really isn't there any longer. So Intel is (much like Microsoft, which is running into its own hard limits) casting about for other markets to enter, such as the embedded-systems space, wireless technology and anything else that might be profitable in the near term. The question really isn't about processor speed, but more about whether Intel can re-invent itself in some fashion that leaves it a significant fraction of its traditional profitability. That remains to be seen.
I don't think the privacy laws currently enacted are necessarily bad, or being used in bad faith, but simply that they are vague enough that in many cases both parties might legitimitely believe that they are acting within the law.
If they're that vague, are so easily abused, then they are by definition bad. Why is it that the courts keep striking down so-called "privacy laws" like COPA and others? It's because the legislative branch won't get specific enough, and wants to give law enforcement the broad powers that only a vaguely-worded, easily-misinterpretable law can give. What we need are not more specific privacy laws for minors, which will be applied in just as heavy-handed and inappropriate a fashion, but school administrators that fundamentally respect students and truly have those students best interests at heart. Oh, I'm sure the current crop of administrators (at least the ones that we read about here on Slashdot) believe they are doing the best thing for the students. That doesn't mean that they are, and they're paid to know the difference.
Acting within the spirit of the law, acting within the letter of the law, and just doing the right thing by other people are not the same thing, at all. In fact, law is simply a way to force a modicum of ethical behavior upon people that would otherwise just do whatever the hell they want to others. Law sets boundaries, and penalties for crossing those boundaries. Unfortunately, as is being demonstrated daily on the five o'clock news, you can make all the law you want but if people don't basically respect the law and each other, the law quickly becomes irrelevant. Just ask Ken Lay. Oops, sorry, he croaked, didn't he. In any event, these administrative types need to stop throwing their weight around, get some good legal advice, and talk to parents and students. The really bad seeds aren't going to pay much attention to these kinds of rulings anyway (other than to clear out their call logs periodically) and the good kids are going to be feeling hurt and resentful, because in their minds they are being mistreated. And they're right, because this pervasive attitude of "we can do anything we want so long as it's for the children" has apparently infected the school system. Watch for the parents that object to this to be publicly slapped with some offensive label, or accused of being friendly to drug dealers and terrorists.
Oh, I know... but the fact is that the guy stored the only copy of an important document on a server maintained by someone else, in this case, SBC. SBC disposed of his important document. By placing his trust in the reliability of SBC's equipment and personnel, he got burned. And Network Computing is, by definition, all about trusting some entity other than yourself to store and retrieve your data and process it for you. That's fine, if that's your thing. Me, I'm not so trusting.
If there was ever an argument against Network Computing this is it. The last thing I want is for my important data to a. be stored on some server of unknown pedigree with an unknown level of protection from data theft and b. subject to the whims of said server's support staff, who in the case of SBC seem to be of a known level of incompetence.
Forget it. It stays on my hard drive and I'll damn well back it up myself.
Ignorance is bliss. But keep in mind that Congress rules on tons and tons of things of significant importance to everyone, they do it on a daily basis, and they are just as un- or misinformed about those issues as well. I'm not sure what to do about that, but it does explain a lot.
No big deal, plenty more scientists where they came from. I'd be more concerned about them creating a great big black hole, and us never being heard from again.
What is this? It makes him sound like he's some kind of a victim in all of this, that he can't help helping himself to other people's money because he has a psychological dependence upon our dough. So, what, what should sympathize with this person while he's transferring our money out of the country? Political correctness will be the death of us all.
I'm sorry, but he's a goddamn criminal, that's what he is. Call him whatever you want but he's still a felon. To paraphrase Shakespeare, "A pile of Bantha poo-doo by any other name would smell as bad."
Slashdot Mirror
Believe me, after that pepperoni pizza I had for dinner last night a cavity search would be an astoundingly bad idea.
Nah ... the vast quantities of cameras required to fully equip every American household for automated surveillance will drive the price down. Unless, of course, the government mandates that only certain models of cameras (made by certain Congressmen's favorite Chinese manufacturers) can be used, in which case the price will skyrocket.
I understand your reasoning, and I agree with it so far as it goes. I further understand that Best Buy (or any other major retailer) doesn't handle the rebates themselves, which is why I used the term "fulfillment organization". However, as a consumer that doesn't matter to me. From my perspective, all I know is that I've bought products with the promise of significant discounts that never materialized in many cases. Had I known that up front, I'd have spent the money elsewhere and probably gotten a better deal. I have followed the rules, sent in my original copies, and still got screwed. I have called as well, and sometimes that works, sometimes it doesn't: like you said, about half have a "just pay if they call" philosophy. Of course, that still leaves the other fifty percent that don't, and if you happen to call one of those it's "have a nice day and don't bother calling again." All in all, rebates have some serious issues from the consumer's point of view. Given all the advantages to the manufacturer that you've mentioned, the fact that major retail operations are curtailing or eliminating their use of rebates tells me that all is not rosy in rebateland.
No, I think I got his point ... that bad female managers are the expected result of the management selection process currently in effect. He's probably right about that. My point is that that is not okay and blaming a manager's poor performance on society as a whole is wrong, and accepting that performance as a cost of having female management is also wrong. I quite deliberately did not single out all female managers as being defective, just that the ones that are should be treated just like their male counterparts and given the boot.
It is obvious that not many Slashdotter's have ever taken an advanced business class.
Nope. But I know all the rebates that I've sent in and never received. And frankly, I don't give a damn about the reasons rebates exist, I really don't. All I know is that they have been, by and large, very poorly managed from my perspective. If the vendor of a particular product wants to use the rebate as a financial incentive for retailers to stock his products, that's fine. Just make damn sure that those rebates that are sent in are processed efficiently, otherwise I'm that much less likely to buy that manufacturer's products in the future.
Well, I live in the U.S. and I agree, anything can happen. What you're talking about is social engineering and it does happen on a regular basis. But the discussion was about remotely duping individuals into voluntarily relinquishing their personal info. What you say is true, people do scam banks directly, and there is very little you, as a bank customer, can do to protect yourself in that regard. On the other hand, there is a difference between some unknown entity initiating contact via phone or email and requesting personal information, versus you contacting a known entity (i.e., your bank or credit-card issuer) and providing such information in order to verify your identity. A major qualitative difference, actually. And that was my original point: if someone you don't know asks for such information, just don't give it to them. This isn't rocket science! Small children are taught not to trust total strangers! I shake my head in wonder that people don't intuitively see the similarity between a phishing expedition, and some person walking up to them on the street and asking could he have your social security number, oh, and by the way what's your bank account number and PIN. Amazing, really.
He didn't say he was scammed, just that he called the number to see what was going on because he was curious. At least, that's how I read it.
... if someone or something contacts you asking for private information ... DON'T GIVE IT. PERIOD! Legitimate organizations just simply don't DO things like this, so any contact you receive that claims to be from such an organization is almost certainly fraudulent. I've had banks and credit cards phone me once or twice about fraudulent transactions on my account, but never in an email and I've never had one of them ask for my account number and password. Ever. And, if they did, I'd cancel that account in a heartbeat. Face it, phishers depend upon people panicking and doing something stupid in the heat of the moment, where if they thought about what they were doing for ten seconds they'd realize, gee, I don't know where this is coming from ... best contact my bank directly and see if they know anything about it.
Besides, paranoia is not required, 24/7 or otherwise. It's very simple
All this means is that there are known, effective ways to run a company and make a reasonable profit, and do so for an indefinite period. Those ways have been known for a long, long time. The real problem came in when, for a variety of reasons ranging from malfeasance to overreaching investors, unreasonable profits became the goal of corporate existence. Everything can ultimately be traced back to that ... as always, follow the money. Once you sacrifice the long-term wellbeing of your company and its workers for short-term financial gain, you have no right to complain when you go the way of the Dodo bird. I guess what astounds me is that the people who ran these companies into the ground, the Carly Fiorinas, the Ken Lays, the Bernie Ebbers' ... all of them were rich beyond dreams of avarice. Yet, they still couldn't resist the temptation to make more money no matter what the cost to the companies they were paid (and paid handsomely!) to protect and develop. The only conclusion I can draw from these debacles is that, while a corporation must profit by its activities in order to grow and repay its investors, focusing on money to the exclusion of all else is destructive. Stupidly obvious, I know ... but not so obvious to the folks that were paid hundreds of millions to manage these corporations. Nor is it obvious to Wall Street, which to this day can't seem tell a crook from a CEO.
... but they have a populace who actually believe in big government.
... what, exactly, will we be able to do about it?
For now. Life under the United States Federal Government hasn't yet become onerous enough that we're willing to make the effort to deflect said government from its current path. The problem is this: once the full negative effects of that government begin to be felt by enough of us that "civil liberties" ceases to be an abstract concept and takes on the actinic glare of hard reality
I suppose it could be some kind of CYA rule, where after one student has his skull cracked wide open by some sociopathic fellow student-thug they can claim, "see? If they'd just followed the rules this wouldn't have happened" as if the rules ever meant anything to a bully.
It's that kind of reasoning that creates the monsters the GP was talking about. We need to stop excusing the bad behavior of individuals because "society did it to them" or "they had a tough life." I had a tough life, had to work damned hard these past twenty-five years to get where I am today, and I have zero desire to injure anyone just to make myself feel good. Period! I have better things to do. So far as I'm concerned, anyone that does enjoy the suffering of the people in their charge is mentally ill and should look elsewhere for employment. Look, there are reasonable standards that must be upheld in the workplace before it degenerates into a miserable experience for all. If the person in control is not capable of maintaining those standards, they should be removed from their position. I don't care what Carly Fiorina thinks, a horribly demoralized staff is not good for the company, and an organization that tolerates abusive management deserves whatever ills befall it.
... either you know how to manage people or you don't. Even sociopaths can manage others well, if they want the organization as a whole to succeed, and at some basic level understand that the people under them are what will make that happen.
Women wanted into the workforce, they got into it, and now we should give them a free psycho-bitch pass as they rise in the corporate hierarchy? Baloney. If you're a bad manager, you're a bad manager and you should either clean up your act or expect to get your ass fired regardless of sex because your actions are damaging the company and costing it money. So what if you had to work extra hard to get where you are! If you're a woman trying to function in the male-dominated corporate environment you should expect, from day one, that it's going to cost you. It point-blank does not give you the right to abuse people! Sorry, that one doesn't fly and I don't care if you're a man or a woman, straight or homosexual, God-fearin' or atheist
That's as may be ... but they've hung themselves with their ingenuity: the fact that rebate programs are becoming such a PR problem that they are being discontinued should tell you that. Part of the problem is that the retailers themselves rarely seem to have an in-house division or group that handles fulfillment ... that's often contracted out. And the companies that take those contracts aren't of equal caliber: some may be good but the ones with which I've had experience seem to be crooks. And your own operation may be honest but if you contract part of it to a crook your customers will eventually perceive you to be a crook as well. Your mileage may have varied, of course, but personally I steer clear of "rebates".
... I thought the purchase price already included a manufacturer's warranty to handle premature failure. Service agreements are mostly a waste of time, but so many customers are suckered into this nonsense that it has become a significant part of profitability for these people. Now, when I bought a big-screen TV a few years ago I did buy a maintenance agreement for it ... but the set is a massive affair that would be difficult to bring back for repairs, and the agreement was for on-site maintenance or replacement. But on a typical consumer-grade item at Best Buy? No thanks.
I disagree with you about playing the float. Customers are drawn in with the promise of a lower (eventual) price, and in the meantime the retailer gets to hang on to a chunk of their money. Even if the customer does eventually get his rebate (no guarantee of that) the retailer may have held on to it for a month or more. That adds up to real money. Maybe that wasn't the reason that rebates were invented, I'll grant you that, but it is most certainly part of their appeal to resellers.
Those stupid service agreements they push on you when you go to check out are another example of retailers trying to hang on to their customers' money. Why would I want a "service contract" on, say, a $50 cordless phone? Funny
Well then, if it's really a $200 purchase I'm sure that he can write off the full value of that purchase on his income tax return this year.
so those of us who always thought that the rebates were a scam (or were too lazy to mail in the card) finally get some savings.
Rebates are a scam, and any savings you've convinced yourself that you're getting are illusory at best. Rather than apply "discounts" at the register, why don't they just lower their prices. Of course, by doing it this way you simply feel like you're important because you got a "special discount."
Please. All rebates are is a way to play the float for a while with the customers' money, and if it so happens that the customer forgets to mail in the form, so much the better. Not that mailing in the stupid form necessarily means any thing: rebates are one of the reasons why I stopped shopping Best Buy (the other is because they habitually reshrinkwrap returned goods and sell them as new.) The last time I bought something at Best Buy I sent in the rebate form, along with the original proof-of-purchase because the instructions said that photocopies were not acceptable. I then received a letter politely refusing to send me a rebate, because I hadn't sent the original proof-of-purchase. Best Buy isn't the only outfit that's scammed me on rebates, which is why I simply don't buy anything with a rebate. Literally, unless it's a big-ticket item it is just not worth the time to fill out the damn form, cut out the Proof-of-Purchase, and then mail them to some "fullfillment organization" that will probably just keep the money anyway.
HP survived Carly
... they run for a while on inertia and then crumble into dust. Or they try to "reinvent" themselves but that rarely works either. No, I think another poster was right, that HP lost "The Way" a long time ago and that Carly Fiorina was more symptomatic than causative, but you're right that if she were any good, someone else would have picked her up by now. Hey, maybe corporate America is wising up: when a FAILED CEO is fired ... don't hire her. Not that women have ever been a part of the "good old boy" CEO network anyway.
That remains to be seen. I see HP in the same way as I see a lot of large companies that were beheaded when their founders died off or retired
Are there any lawyers in the audience that can comment on whether a school can legally strip a student of the right to defend him or herself from physical violence? So far as I'm concerned, if I'm attacked I will use whatever means at my disposal to remove the threat. Period. I think any other creature on this planet would do the same. Even an amoeba will fight back.
... KIDS FIGHT. They do, because there's always those few that are violence-prone, and unless the school is prepared to completely excise those bad apples from the student body they have no good reason to punish any other student for fighting back. Generally speaking, schools won't get rid of the complete assholes because they, of course, have "rights". You would think that the kids they beat up would have the "right" to a terror-free school day, but apparently that's not a priority.
Personally, I'd rather be suspended (or expelled) than suffer serious injury: some bullies don't know when to quit. Matter of fact, I used to get the shit kicked out of me quite regularly in grade school, until my ex-Marine uncle taught me some self-defense. Oh sure, I still got the shit kicked out of me but at least I had the satisfaction of causing some damage, and it took more of them. Now, given a choice, I'll avoid a fight on principle. However, sometimes I wasn't given the option, and in those cases I fought back: on principle.
If nothing else, I managed to restore my self-respect, and if you don't think that's important you probably don't have any. Self-respect is especially important to someone that is being bullied. The whole point of being a bully is to build up your own self-respect at the expense of someone else's, a kind of mental vampirism. The psychological damage caused by bullying is significant and long-lasting, and school administrators that deal with bullying by futher victimizing the recipients need to learn what food stamps are all about.
Telling a child that he can't defend himself from a bully is insane, pacifist bullshit more suited to a hippie commune than a school where, I have to say
This is obviously just for the convenience of the administration who would rather not deal with the subtleties of why someone was beaten to a bloody pulp. That's unfortunate, because it is an awareness of just those details that can prevent further violence. So, let's take a kid that's already having a hard time, tell him "when you're attacked, don't even think about throwing a punch", and then when he's lying on the ground bruised and miserable we'll suspend his ass for fighting. That's one sensitive administration you have there: what I would take away from that would be "no, we're not on your side, we don't understand right from wrong, really we're on the side of the bullies that are terrorizing you so don't even think of turning to us for help."
That is probably not the message they think they're sending, but actions speak louder than words.
Technology limits are one thing, but the ones we have have taken us to about where we need to be for the time being. As you say, for the desktop market the need for speed really isn't there any longer. So Intel is (much like Microsoft, which is running into its own hard limits) casting about for other markets to enter, such as the embedded-systems space, wireless technology and anything else that might be profitable in the near term. The question really isn't about processor speed, but more about whether Intel can re-invent itself in some fashion that leaves it a significant fraction of its traditional profitability. That remains to be seen.
I don't think the privacy laws currently enacted are necessarily bad, or being used in bad faith, but simply that they are vague enough that in many cases both parties might legitimitely believe that they are acting within the law.
If they're that vague, are so easily abused, then they are by definition bad. Why is it that the courts keep striking down so-called "privacy laws" like COPA and others? It's because the legislative branch won't get specific enough, and wants to give law enforcement the broad powers that only a vaguely-worded, easily-misinterpretable law can give. What we need are not more specific privacy laws for minors, which will be applied in just as heavy-handed and inappropriate a fashion, but school administrators that fundamentally respect students and truly have those students best interests at heart. Oh, I'm sure the current crop of administrators (at least the ones that we read about here on Slashdot) believe they are doing the best thing for the students. That doesn't mean that they are, and they're paid to know the difference.
Acting within the spirit of the law, acting within the letter of the law, and just doing the right thing by other people are not the same thing, at all. In fact, law is simply a way to force a modicum of ethical behavior upon people that would otherwise just do whatever the hell they want to others. Law sets boundaries, and penalties for crossing those boundaries. Unfortunately, as is being demonstrated daily on the five o'clock news, you can make all the law you want but if people don't basically respect the law and each other, the law quickly becomes irrelevant. Just ask Ken Lay. Oops, sorry, he croaked, didn't he. In any event, these administrative types need to stop throwing their weight around, get some good legal advice, and talk to parents and students. The really bad seeds aren't going to pay much attention to these kinds of rulings anyway (other than to clear out their call logs periodically) and the good kids are going to be feeling hurt and resentful, because in their minds they are being mistreated. And they're right, because this pervasive attitude of "we can do anything we want so long as it's for the children" has apparently infected the school system. Watch for the parents that object to this to be publicly slapped with some offensive label, or accused of being friendly to drug dealers and terrorists.
Oh, I know ... but the fact is that the guy stored the only copy of an important document on a server maintained by someone else, in this case, SBC. SBC disposed of his important document. By placing his trust in the reliability of SBC's equipment and personnel, he got burned. And Network Computing is, by definition, all about trusting some entity other than yourself to store and retrieve your data and process it for you. That's fine, if that's your thing. Me, I'm not so trusting.
If there was ever an argument against Network Computing this is it. The last thing I want is for my important data to a. be stored on some server of unknown pedigree with an unknown level of protection from data theft and b. subject to the whims of said server's support staff, who in the case of SBC seem to be of a known level of incompetence.
Forget it. It stays on my hard drive and I'll damn well back it up myself.
Ignorance is bliss. But keep in mind that Congress rules on tons and tons of things of significant importance to everyone, they do it on a daily basis, and they are just as un- or misinformed about those issues as well. I'm not sure what to do about that, but it does explain a lot.
All in all, this is about as much news (or accurate) as most of the stuff on the Inquirer.
Or Slashdot, for that matter.
No big deal, plenty more scientists where they came from. I'd be more concerned about them creating a great big black hole, and us never being heard from again.
it was done with rats and other animals decades ago. Still ... chickens. It is pretty funny.
Identity Theft Addict
What is this? It makes him sound like he's some kind of a victim in all of this, that he can't help helping himself to other people's money because he has a psychological dependence upon our dough. So, what, what should sympathize with this person while he's transferring our money out of the country? Political correctness will be the death of us all.
I'm sorry, but he's a goddamn criminal, that's what he is. Call him whatever you want but he's still a felon. To paraphrase Shakespeare, "A pile of Bantha poo-doo by any other name would smell as bad."