...companies like Comcast and AT&T will be excluded from this policy. Can't have the keepers of the internet fast lanes getting tetchy with their subjects.
So long, Rob, and thanks for all the time and energy you've spent creating this wonderful community. There are only a few sites on the web that I read religiously, and Slashdot will always hold a special place among the nearest and dearest. For me, Slashdot is a little like a common room in a dorm, or the living room where good friends can get together to discuss the topics that mean the most to them; a true geek salon of ideas and dreams. Its a rare thing you have created here, and you should be proud of your accomplishment. Thank you, thank you, thank you.
Best of luck to you and Kathleen and the boys, and I here's to hoping we'll never stop hearing from you on this thing we call the Internet.
So... If both Murdoch and the Church of Scientology sue Slashdot for publishing that comment, will they next sue each other for implying that they are like each other?
And the sheer mass of stupid collected in that one courtroom would be enough to create a black hole.
What would we do as a country if we have university graduates who think for themselves and don't automatically buy whatever the current Democratic Party line is?
We're just applying his own party's definitions of the word.
Personally, I don't think pictures of a naked woman not engaged in a sex act should be classified as porn. But. The GOP has decided that naked = sex, and that is bad for their version of America. These guys are sexually intimidated by statues, FFS.
21 comments, and half are along the lines of "I don't see what the problem is".
It's an inappropriate picture, being looked at on a taxpayer's purchased computer, through taxpayer provided Internet connectivity, by a taxpayer funded lawmaker, and the floor of the State Senate. Call me a prude, but I don't appreciate this asshole using my tax dollars to ogle naked chicks at my office; no more than the GOP appreciated the SEC doing the same. Nice set of double standards we've got working there.
Why wouldn't it be great for the first and second worlds too?... But, for the price of one of those, you can buy a bunch of 35 dollar ones.
Which is the reason why you haven't seen this in the first world. No acceptable profit margin.
I'm surprised the article didn't come with a statement from big Pharma warning that use of such devices in the first world may constitute an unnecessary risk to the "health and well being" of the nation. And we all know that manufacturing cheap, or even affordable medical stuff is a blatant attempt at socialism.
Done and done, but the trick is getting the users to think the same way. What will usually happen is that someone will launch IE6 to use the required site, and when finished, just keep on using IE. In their mind, there's little point opening two browsers to use the web, and they resent being asked to make distinctions between the two - they just don't want to think about it.
So if you want to kill IE6, that means dropping support for IE6, or if you have paying customers, charge them more if they're using IE6, and tell them that.
Unfortunately, not all the people using IE6 are customers trying to access shopping sites.
The non-profit I work receives a pile of grant money from several state and local governments, and because of this, we are required to submit grant activity data back to the sources. Guess which browser their reporting sites demand?
One of the state agencies actually has a couple of sites that we're required to use, and both are developed on the same floor in the same building by two guys who sit less than twelve feet apart. One guy's site will run run in IE8 and Firefox without problems, the other guy's will only run in IE6.
I know I'm going to get flamed for this, but if Israel really is our ally, then shouldn't they be trying to work with us in trying to deal with the Arab nations? It seems lately that they are more interested in throwing more gasoline on a very large fire, and handing us a garden hose to put it out. Allies have a responsibility to keep the peace as well.
The problem is that in the non-profit sector you have a long history of going with the lowest common denominator. Since I've been at this firm I've had to fight for things as simple as a "thou shalt not browse the porn" policies. Because they're so technologically "green" there's often not enough of a framework in place on which to build a good system, so there's a high tendency for "rip and replace". The system I've been nursing for the last ten years is such a system, and when I announced we were approaching critical mass, we brought in consultants to analyze what was in use and recommend options based on what the attorneys said they needed.
This is where the costs began to climb. The attorneys recommended systems that would require them to invest as little personal responsibility as possible (think: HAL 9000 level AI). Thanks to some rather unrealistic demands, and some outright paranoia, most all of the vendors came back with quotes in the 100K ballpark, and most of these dictated a complete top-to-bottom overhaul.
Nothing's been decided yet, so we're still mushing through the options looking for cheaper alternatives.
Surprisingly enough, this was actually fairly low on the totem pole of requirements. The assumption is that it'll be an administrator's job to create all the accounts and manage the passwords, so getting A into B's mail would be possible. Of course, that puts a lot of eggs into one basket, but that should give you an idea of how badly attorneys DO NOT want to be forced to think about the technology they use.
I've heard good things about Postini's solution, btw. Some of the firms that have gone over to GMail swear by it.
Slashdot Mirror
The air conditioner went out
Sure.Talking about politics in the workplace will stop about the same time business stops demanding it be the center of all political discourse.
...companies like Comcast and AT&T will be excluded from this policy. Can't have the keepers of the internet fast lanes getting tetchy with their subjects.
So long, Rob, and thanks for all the time and energy you've spent creating this wonderful community. There are only a few sites on the web that I read religiously, and Slashdot will always hold a special place among the nearest and dearest. For me, Slashdot is a little like a common room in a dorm, or the living room where good friends can get together to discuss the topics that mean the most to them; a true geek salon of ideas and dreams. Its a rare thing you have created here, and you should be proud of your accomplishment. Thank you, thank you, thank you.
Best of luck to you and Kathleen and the boys, and I here's to hoping we'll never stop hearing from you on this thing we call the Internet.
Current share prices via MSN:
Microsoft - $25.26
Google - $555.71
I don't get the feeling malware authors are going to be negatively affected in any way.
And the sheer mass of stupid collected in that one courtroom would be enough to create a black hole.
But Darwin approved . . .
There's Democrats in Arizona?
. . . with Flying Robotic Penguins
We're just applying his own party's definitions of the word.
Personally, I don't think pictures of a naked woman not engaged in a sex act should be classified as porn. But. The GOP has decided that naked = sex, and that is bad for their version of America. These guys are sexually intimidated by statues, FFS.
I agree, but tell that to John Ashcroft, Jesse Helms, most of the GOP, and Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, who now wants to modify the State Seal, because the Roman goddess Virtus has a bare breast.
21 comments, and half are along the lines of "I don't see what the problem is".
It's an inappropriate picture, being looked at on a taxpayer's purchased computer, through taxpayer provided Internet connectivity, by a taxpayer funded lawmaker, and the floor of the State Senate. Call me a prude, but I don't appreciate this asshole using my tax dollars to ogle naked chicks at my office; no more than the GOP appreciated the SEC doing the same. Nice set of double standards we've got working there.
Dude. He was also looking at video of a dog.
Which is the reason why you haven't seen this in the first world. No acceptable profit margin.
I'm surprised the article didn't come with a statement from big Pharma warning that use of such devices in the first world may constitute an unnecessary risk to the "health and well being" of the nation. And we all know that manufacturing cheap, or even affordable medical stuff is a blatant attempt at socialism.
Well, obviously. Somebody keeps "digging up" the 1984 ad.
;-)
Done and done, but the trick is getting the users to think the same way. What will usually happen is that someone will launch IE6 to use the required site, and when finished, just keep on using IE. In their mind, there's little point opening two browsers to use the web, and they resent being asked to make distinctions between the two - they just don't want to think about it.
Unfortunately, not all the people using IE6 are customers trying to access shopping sites.
The non-profit I work receives a pile of grant money from several state and local governments, and because of this, we are required to submit grant activity data back to the sources. Guess which browser their reporting sites demand?
One of the state agencies actually has a couple of sites that we're required to use, and both are developed on the same floor in the same building by two guys who sit less than twelve feet apart. One guy's site will run run in IE8 and Firefox without problems, the other guy's will only run in IE6.
I know I'm going to get flamed for this, but if Israel really is our ally, then shouldn't they be trying to work with us in trying to deal with the Arab nations? It seems lately that they are more interested in throwing more gasoline on a very large fire, and handing us a garden hose to put it out. Allies have a responsibility to keep the peace as well.
And no unions, and no insurance . . .
Not saying its a good thing, but a lot of companies would gladly take a robot over a human any day, just to avoid these two.
You wound me, dude. You wound me to the core.
That's for the tip on FastMail. Will definitely look into it.
Fully understand, and didn't take it as turfing.
The problem is that in the non-profit sector you have a long history of going with the lowest common denominator. Since I've been at this firm I've had to fight for things as simple as a "thou shalt not browse the porn" policies. Because they're so technologically "green" there's often not enough of a framework in place on which to build a good system, so there's a high tendency for "rip and replace". The system I've been nursing for the last ten years is such a system, and when I announced we were approaching critical mass, we brought in consultants to analyze what was in use and recommend options based on what the attorneys said they needed.
This is where the costs began to climb. The attorneys recommended systems that would require them to invest as little personal responsibility as possible (think: HAL 9000 level AI). Thanks to some rather unrealistic demands, and some outright paranoia, most all of the vendors came back with quotes in the 100K ballpark, and most of these dictated a complete top-to-bottom overhaul.
Nothing's been decided yet, so we're still mushing through the options looking for cheaper alternatives.
Surprisingly enough, this was actually fairly low on the totem pole of requirements. The assumption is that it'll be an administrator's job to create all the accounts and manage the passwords, so getting A into B's mail would be possible. Of course, that puts a lot of eggs into one basket, but that should give you an idea of how badly attorneys DO NOT want to be forced to think about the technology they use.
I've heard good things about Postini's solution, btw. Some of the firms that have gone over to GMail swear by it.
Surprises me as well, but the dollars can outweigh the sense when your entire budget is founded on someone else's goodwill.