Hosting is still a third party solution, which brings you back to the privacy aspects. It's not so much the number of mailboxes as it is the storage needs for retention and retrieval. Attorneys operate on the assumption that NOTHING can ever be deleted. EVER. Factor in server costs, line fees, mail server hardware, storage hardware, administrative add-ons like DLP boxes, search appliances, and compliance software and you climb the cost charts pretty quick.
If there's one area GMail or any other cloud provider should not be used, it's law firms.
Oh, you'd be surprised how many have already made the switch. My firm's a non-profit, so the costs alone, or lack thereof in GMail's case, are a huge incentive to make a switch. Couple licensing fees with sharp increases in demand for management of issues like retention policies that can vary with statutes of limitations, data loss, time-based archiving, and legal compliance and its easy to understand why a lot of firms are just giving up as the headaches just don't seem worth the effort.
Personally, I'm leery of the, but it's hard to go your boss with a proposed budget of close to $100,000 for an internally managed system versus $0 (and some geek's time) to drop the problem on someone else.
I was just thinking the same thing. Our law firm is considering GMail as a possible alternative to Outlook/Exchange, and this is one question I know we overlooked. Most of our debate centered around a) loss of control over the data (Federal Discovery Rules), and b) privacy.
The guys at Adobe heard about oscilloscopes with hidden games on them, and Word's flight simulator, so they incorporated "features" so they could make an easter egg of their own. They never got around to that easter egg, so now lots of people are kindly lending them a hand at it.
I honestly don't know whether to mod this +1 Funny or +1 Insightful.
The city of Gainesville, Georgia has a local ordinance that says it is illegal to eat fried chicken with anything other than your fingers. Apparently it was adopted in 1961 as a joke back in the day when Gainesville was considered the chicken capital of the southeast, and the main restaurant in town wanted to show off its cooking. Apparently, they still enforce this now and then.;-)
You're right, it's not me. It is however, a reflection of our societal values.
If we are willing to trade our children's identities for a handful of dollars or a faster internet connection (!), what's to stop us from going even further, say, handing the kids over for labor? Hell, it'll save Google loads of money, lower their tax burdens. and we could probably write the runts off. Joy and prosperity all around!
Except for the kids that have to grow up realizing that mommy and daddy cared more about money than their own flesh and blood.
Ourselves or the fucking corporations? Have we sunk so low that we're offering our CHILDREN up to the gods of corporate benevolence?
And how much do you want to bet that along with the offer of surrendering his offspring's identity, there's an additional offer of either a hefty tax break, or even a free pass?
I would like to support sites by viewing their ads but if it leaves you more open to viruses even on high-profile sites then it is not worth the risk.
Very good point, especially in light of Ars Technica's recent plea to users to stop blocking ads.
I, too, would be than more willing to disable the protective measures I've got in place, but as long as these sites rely on third party advertisers that are more concerned with eyeball collection than system security, we have a stalemate. If sites want me to see their ads, they have the burden of making sure the ads are safe (less annoying, would also be good). If I lower my guard out of "friendship" for a site, only to get a drive by download as a reward, I'm going to take it as a major breech of trust.
"People are very ready to abdicate responsibility and have it shovelled on to someone else's shoulders," he said. "You saw that with Obama most spectacularly, but whenever there's going to be someone who's just going to fix it for you, it's a very attractive story. It's in every mythological structure."
How many stories of Nigerian scams have we seen in the press over the years? Just because a lawyer fell for one, the scams have suddenly become "sophisticated"?
Methinks the victim has a higher opinion of his intelligence than reality has demonstrated.
The document... makes clear that US agents are already logging on surreptitiously to exchange messages with suspects, identify a target's friends or relatives and browse private information such as postings, personal photographs, and video clips.
Is this private data that they've "hacked" into (a la Zuckerberg), or is this a case of the feds reading whatever they found posted on the dude's wall or open Twitter page?
What isn't in Microsoft's press release and what I'm sure Google is actually doing is making it easier to get your Information out of Office. Whittle away, bit by bit.
One can only hope this works, but what's to stop Microsoft from simply changing the file formats yet again to perpetuate their customer lock-in?
Advertisers Are Not Honest
on
Window Pain
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
The advertiser network has to be honest
Advertisements are, by their very nature, not the least bit inclined to honesty.
Even if you could get users to agree to devote more eyeball time to, or simply abide, the more intrusive ads, you're still subjecting them to a flood of stuff they a) didn't ask for, or b) didn't want to see.
Remember, it was an advertiser that dreamed up the offensive popups; it was an advertiser that came up with the idea of spam; it was an advertiser that thought robo-dialers were a good thing. In fact, I can't think of any recent advertising advance that hasn't been intrusive, or invasive in some form or another.
Advertisers need to get off the high horse of "the world can't exist without us" and re-evaluate their entire approach to customer relations. Advertisers do not have a right to exist simply because they can create sales. If an advertiser chooses a business model using approaches that are hostile to a consumer's life experience, they should expect nothing more than a welcome to the world of Darwinian economics. Advertisers need to stop bitching about "why the customers won't do things our way..." and make a god-damned effort to communicate instead of dictate.
Microsoft needs to start testing against all known (and future) viruses and other malware. It just makes sense.
WHile I'm not sure how they would go about testing against future viruses, short of bringing Johnny Carson's Carnak out of retirement, you would think that at the very least they could add a rootkit scanner to the front of the update. That way the update could fail gracefully with a note explaining why it couldn't proceed, along with a list of steps necessary to get the system clean, and helpful telephone numbers to the three major credit bureaus . . .
If you are gay, and a jew, and you voted for Obama.... it's only a matter of time before the Christians who take Leviticus seriously find out where you live.
And when they do, be sure to point out someofthe other parts of the Bible that might be worth read.
A Christian is only a Christian if he is following the teachings of Christ. People data mining the bible for justifications for subjugation, exploitation, hate, persecution, and potential murder are not Christians. They are anti-Christ.
I can see why developers would want to shuffle off IE6, and I fully agree that it should disappear immediately, but here's a twist:
At my office, we do some monthly grant reporting to the state via two web sites that the state developed in house. One of these sites requires IE6; it's barely functional on anything else, especially IE7/8. Just to keep things interesting, the second site, written by a separate developer (sitting less than twenty feet from the developer of the first site) will only work with IE7/8, and Firefox with IE Tab enabled. It's totally non-functional on IE6.
Since we're a grant recipient, we can't just demand that the developers recode for our needs, but it's getting more than a little old being told we have to lower our security thresholds just so some under-skilled government git can keep his employement.
Slashdot Mirror
Hosting is still a third party solution, which brings you back to the privacy aspects. It's not so much the number of mailboxes as it is the storage needs for retention and retrieval. Attorneys operate on the assumption that NOTHING can ever be deleted. EVER. Factor in server costs, line fees, mail server hardware, storage hardware, administrative add-ons like DLP boxes, search appliances, and compliance software and you climb the cost charts pretty quick.
Oh, you'd be surprised how many have already made the switch. My firm's a non-profit, so the costs alone, or lack thereof in GMail's case, are a huge incentive to make a switch. Couple licensing fees with sharp increases in demand for management of issues like retention policies that can vary with statutes of limitations, data loss, time-based archiving, and legal compliance and its easy to understand why a lot of firms are just giving up as the headaches just don't seem worth the effort.
Personally, I'm leery of the, but it's hard to go your boss with a proposed budget of close to $100,000 for an internally managed system versus $0 (and some geek's time) to drop the problem on someone else.
I was just thinking the same thing. Our law firm is considering GMail as a possible alternative to Outlook/Exchange, and this is one question I know we overlooked. Most of our debate centered around a) loss of control over the data (Federal Discovery Rules), and b) privacy.
I honestly don't know whether to mod this +1 Funny or +1 Insightful.
The city of Gainesville, Georgia has a local ordinance that says it is illegal to eat fried chicken with anything other than your fingers. Apparently it was adopted in 1961 as a joke back in the day when Gainesville was considered the chicken capital of the southeast, and the main restaurant in town wanted to show off its cooking. Apparently, they still enforce this now and then. ;-)
You're right, it's not me. It is however, a reflection of our societal values.
If we are willing to trade our children's identities for a handful of dollars or a faster internet connection (!), what's to stop us from going even further, say, handing the kids over for labor? Hell, it'll save Google loads of money, lower their tax burdens. and we could probably write the runts off. Joy and prosperity all around!
Except for the kids that have to grow up realizing that mommy and daddy cared more about money than their own flesh and blood.
As opposed to what, "Semitic Softie"?
Ourselves or the fucking corporations? Have we sunk so low that we're offering our CHILDREN up to the gods of corporate benevolence?
And how much do you want to bet that along with the offer of surrendering his offspring's identity, there's an additional offer of either a hefty tax break, or even a free pass?
Heh heh. That's what I get for not proof reading. I blame the Lederhosen of Lethargy.
Very good point, especially in light of Ars Technica's recent plea to users to stop blocking ads.
I, too, would be than more willing to disable the protective measures I've got in place, but as long as these sites rely on third party advertisers that are more concerned with eyeball collection than system security, we have a stalemate. If sites want me to see their ads, they have the burden of making sure the ads are safe (less annoying, would also be good). If I lower my guard out of "friendship" for a site, only to get a drive by download as a reward, I'm going to take it as a major breech of trust.
"People are very ready to abdicate responsibility and have it shovelled on to someone else's shoulders," he said. "You saw that with Obama most spectacularly, but whenever there's going to be someone who's just going to fix it for you, it's a very attractive story. It's in every mythological structure."
Goes to "jimicus". Well done!
Now waiting for an animated GIF . . .
How many stories of Nigerian scams have we seen in the press over the years? Just because a lawyer fell for one, the scams have suddenly become "sophisticated"?
Methinks the victim has a higher opinion of his intelligence than reality has demonstrated.
Actually, yes.
Re-purposed and not cleaned beforehand? I thought it was SOP to wipe the drives of any re-purposed machine . . .
Is this private data that they've "hacked" into (a la Zuckerberg), or is this a case of the feds reading whatever they found posted on the dude's wall or open Twitter page?
Based on what I've seen, just about everybody, and this in spite of articles like this one.
Isn't MySpace still owned by Rupert Murdoch?
Just sayin' . . .
One can only hope this works, but what's to stop Microsoft from simply changing the file formats yet again to perpetuate their customer lock-in?
Advertisements are, by their very nature, not the least bit inclined to honesty.
Even if you could get users to agree to devote more eyeball time to, or simply abide, the more intrusive ads, you're still subjecting them to a flood of stuff they a) didn't ask for, or b) didn't want to see.
Remember, it was an advertiser that dreamed up the offensive popups; it was an advertiser that came up with the idea of spam; it was an advertiser that thought robo-dialers were a good thing. In fact, I can't think of any recent advertising advance that hasn't been intrusive, or invasive in some form or another.
Advertisers need to get off the high horse of "the world can't exist without us" and re-evaluate their entire approach to customer relations. Advertisers do not have a right to exist simply because they can create sales. If an advertiser chooses a business model using approaches that are hostile to a consumer's life experience, they should expect nothing more than a welcome to the world of Darwinian economics. Advertisers need to stop bitching about "why the customers won't do things our way..." and make a god-damned effort to communicate instead of dictate.
Apple probably figures the fundamentalists will take care of BSD, what with their mascot being a daemon and all . . .
If nudity was involved, this goes beyond mere possession of child porn - this is production and distribution of child porn.
WHile I'm not sure how they would go about testing against future viruses, short of bringing Johnny Carson's Carnak out of retirement, you would think that at the very least they could add a rootkit scanner to the front of the update. That way the update could fail gracefully with a note explaining why it couldn't proceed, along with a list of steps necessary to get the system clean, and helpful telephone numbers to the three major credit bureaus . . .
And when they do, be sure to point out some of the other parts of the Bible that might be worth read.
A Christian is only a Christian if he is following the teachings of Christ. People data mining the bible for justifications for subjugation, exploitation, hate, persecution, and potential murder are not Christians. They are anti-Christ.
I can see why developers would want to shuffle off IE6, and I fully agree that it should disappear immediately, but here's a twist:
At my office, we do some monthly grant reporting to the state via two web sites that the state developed in house. One of these sites requires IE6; it's barely functional on anything else, especially IE7/8. Just to keep things interesting, the second site, written by a separate developer (sitting less than twenty feet from the developer of the first site) will only work with IE7/8, and Firefox with IE Tab enabled. It's totally non-functional on IE6.
Since we're a grant recipient, we can't just demand that the developers recode for our needs, but it's getting more than a little old being told we have to lower our security thresholds just so some under-skilled government git can keep his employement.