Saying that checked baggage is an optional service is akin to a restaurant charging fork fee atop $40 for an entree. Ticket prices have gone up since the introduction of these fees, and the TSA's security theater make it very difficult to carry on baggage. Airlines have employed an unsustainable economic model for decades, and they are buried under a mountain of debt and high fuel prices. Bottom line is that I want to pay for a ticket and not be knocked up for 25-50% more when I get to the airport. It also be nice if they stopped their price fixing, and actually engaged in some price and service competition. Instead, airlines seem to look at each other to determine how little they have to deliver for high a price.
Google wouldn't be possible without the American taxpayer and a number of enterprising engineers from around the world. We paid for the research upon which the Internet was built, and the initial implementation through DARPA. Given that he intends to turn Microsoft in an "Internet" company, I suggest he say a big "thank you" to us as well.
(for those who are not in skif environments where there is no Internet access)
This is one of my pet peeves- it's S.C.I.F the acronym for Secure Compartmentalized Information Facility, not skif. I've had to deal with Colonels and Generals who still spell it skif in formal documents... it gets annoying. And, if properly isolated and approved by the site's security officer, you can have NIPR/Internet access in a SCIF.
I apologize about the SNAFU. Thankfully, I have not had to work in such an environment, and am only speaking on hearsay regarding the Internet access. Again, I apologize for speaking outside my direct experience with regards to SCIFs.
Pulling your credit report is the least invasive action they can do without consulting the courts. You mean most invasive without consulting the courts. The least invasive would be to do nothing.
Actually, no, for cleared individuals, it is the least invasive. Bear in mind that if you have a clearance, you, your friends, and family have already been interviewed by the FBI, your bank, credit, and criminal records have been scruntized, and, in some cases, you have been through one or more polygraph tests. Once you obtained the clearance, all of your actions on the job will be monitored -- phone calls, Internet browsing (for those who are not in skif environments where there is no Internet access), comings and goings (including walking through a metal detector and submitting any other possessions to be x-rayed upon entry to the facility).
I don't think you fully grasp the seriousiness and security that surrounds cleared individuals and facilities. As an example, simply driving up to the gates of the CIA or NSA without an appointment or clearance to enter will net you detention for many hours of interogation and possible arrest.
I want to preface my comments by saying I am card carrying member of the ACLU, a Jeffersonian libritarian, and am no fan of this administration and its tactics. Furthermore, my comments are based on the fact that every example cited in the various press outlets has been a cleared individual (Aldrige Aimes and the Army chaplain at Gitmo). My comments do not to apply any cases that involve non-cleared citizens.
Really? As I read the ABC article, it said nothing about citizens who hold any clearance. It merely references people who show up in investigations.
I'm not saying you're wrong, because I don't know which is correct, but I see nothing to indicate that all of the people being examined like this are government personnel who have clearances. If it was purely ongoing verification of people with clearances, fine. But, if it spills over into "hmmm, he spoke to a brown man on the corner, let's pull up his records", it's a bad thing. And, one which I believe would be completely illegal
I'm just not 100% sure that the articles seem to indicate it's limited to ongoing verification of people who hold security clearance. I interpret it to be "whoever becomes a 'person of interest'".
Cheers
As I said in my preface, all of the specific examples in the articles I have seen were/are cleared individuals. Furthermore, the process described sounds identical to the initial stages an investigation to revoke a clearance. Finally, the article consistently uses the term counter-intelligence which generally means finding spies amongst the spooks. Hence, the reasoning for my comment.
I want to preface my comments by saying I am card carrying member of the ACLU, a Jeffersonian libritarian, and am no fan of this administration and its tactics. Furthermore, my comments are based on the fact that every example cited in the various press outlets has been a cleared individual (Aldrige Aimes and the Army chaplain at Gitmo). My comments do not to apply any cases that involve non-cleared citizens.
People involved in these investigations have clearances. As such, they have voluntarily signed away portions of their civil liberties related to wire tapping and regular background checks for counter intelligence purposes. If you have a clearance from US government, you have elected to restrict your civil liberties and rights to serve the country. Pulling your credit report is the least invasive action they can do without consulting the courts. At worst, they can revoke your clearance through an administrative procedure which has the net effect of a criminal conviction on your record.
As an aside, most US government clearances are issued through the DoD agency known as DISCO. Some agencies (e.g. Treasury, State, and Energy) have their clearance agencies, but most others use DISCO (e.g. Homeland Security, CIA, NSA). Since most clearances are administered by DoD, it then makes since that DoD would be the source of the most investigations into cleared people. All DISCO investigations are performed by the FBI.
While it may seem swarmy, everyone involved has elected to be placed under higher government scrutiny. Furthermore, as someone who has previously held a clearance, I can attest to the fact that you are advised at numerous points in the process that you are subject to a higher level of scrutiny. These are the types of procedures that are the first steps in identifying the Richard Hanseens and Aldridge Aimes in a world that legally operates under a stricter set of rules with potentially grave consequences for violation. Most importantly, no one forced these people into that world, they volunteered for it with full knowledge of the constraints.
Umm... companies realized a long time ago that they need to tie the founders of companies up post-acquisition. This type of deal include "velvet handcuffs" that defer a significant portion of the its value for a number of years. Typically, it a 2-3 year term. I would be willing to bet that they received 20-30% of the purchase price today, and will get the remainder in drip and drabs for the next 2-3 years. At the end of the term, they then probably get the last 20-30%. So, the burnout in 6 months plan wouldn't be a very good idea.
.. from the cold, hard world. If you want to keep something private, keep it to yourself. The moment that you entrust private information that is not protected under the law to a 3rd party is the moment when you should expect it to see the light of day at some point. I am not speaking from a legal perspective, but from a practical perspective. You have friends with blogs? Facebook accounts? Mouths? How long until they open their big mouthes -- they certainly some mightly loud megaphones.
Patriot Act or not, marked private or not -- saying something on Facebook, MySpace, or their ilk is akin to a billboard in the middle of the town square. Kids today think that they can post ellicit, embarressing, or immature activities on the Internet, mark the information as private, and, magically, no one they don't want to know will ever find out. Learn some discretion, and keep matters to yourself.
In short, quite your whining and develop some common sense.
If Slacking Weren't Part of the American Dream ...
on
On Point On Slacking
·
· Score: 1
I take it from the article that he informed the media about his departure from Microsoft. Who cares if one mid-level guy, regardless of his contributions to an open source project, leaves a large company like Microsoft? Informing the media of his resignation says two things about him -- unprofessional and arrogant. Professionals don't publically decry former employer on the way out -- regardless of their disdain. Further, to assume that anyone would care that he is no longer a microserf goes beyond the the pale of self-importance and arrogance.
... he didn't pay for his pipes -- the American taxpayers did. It's amazing the selective memory of the Ma Bells on this topic. Those pipes were largely bought and paid for with tax dollars to build infrastructure necessary to drive the US economy. So, Buster, those are MY (and roughly 300 other US taxpayers) pipes, and I want them open and free to continue doing what we intended them to when we paid billions of dollars for them -- provide a robust infrastructure as a foundation to the US economy. Vonage and Google are simply doing what we intended to do when we paid you to lay the line.
Sit down, shut up, and do what we paid you to do, Jackass. Damn, government workers are so hard to fire.
1. Cloudscape/Derby - This product makes the most sense from a technology and licensing perspective, but the fact that it was an IBM product (even though Cloudscape was originally a separate entity before being acquired) taints the software in such a way as to make Sun look bad if they used it.
Derby is intended to be an embedded database, not a database server. Yes, they have a server mode, but can't hold a candle to MySQL, let alone, PostgreSQL.
3. McKoi SQL - An excellent choice for a Java database, but lacks brand recognition. The feature levels and scalability of the database are still considerable questions. The GPL license also allows Sun less freedom to modify the database in comparison to the BSD license used by PostgreSQL.
Since when can't you modify the source of a product with a BSD-based license? A BSD-based license is, in fact, far more liberal than the GPL because you can take the code, modify it, and close the source of the result. A perfect example is the Windows NT/XP TCP/IP stack -- stolen straight from BSD, and last I checked, Windows is not open source. In contrast to the GPL, where you have distribute any modifications you make and open-source any parts of your products that link to it. Hence, the description of the license as viral.
Speaking from experience, PostgreSQL is a grat product. Stable, reliable, and reasonably fast for medium to large scale, multi-user, distributed environments. The products listed above are all embedded databases intended for single user, micro environments. You are, in short, comparing apples to oranges.
Unfortunately, the hope I derived from the article referenced in my original post has been horribly dashed. The FCC has ruled, and it didn't go our way. Basically, the Baby Bells won't be required to share with anyone -- including CLECs.
I don't understand how the cable and telephone intrastructures can be so easily equated. Comast, Cox, et. al. invested their own money to construct their infrastructures. Telcos were were heavily subsidized to build the telephone infrastructure that delivers DSL. As with all investments, public or private, they come with strings attached. In this case, the Baby Bells need to be told, "You happily took, and in some cases still take, tax dollars to build your infrastructure. Now, as repayment, you have to open it up all takers." If a corporation failed to steal from its investors, the executives would be thrown in jail. Why should companies that take tax payer investment be held to a lesser standard?
As a Speakeasy customer who relies on their static to get work done, I was greatly alarmed by this article on Ars when it was posted yesterday. So, I did a little digging, and found this article. From it, I learned that the FCC is now only considering dropping the requirements that carriers must resell their finished DSL services, not the actual CLECs that rent the lines and have phsyical equipment in COs such as Covad. The following quote from the article illisutrates their evolving position:
The commissioners have been behind closed doors trying to work out an agreement that both Republicans and Democrats can support, the source said. At least one of the Democrats--either Michael J. Copps or Jonathan S. Adelstein--are likely to agree with the change in the rules if certain conditions are met, the source said.
Specifically, Democrats are looking for a transitional period where ISPs would still be guaranteed access to wholesale DSL service. They also want the FCC order to expressly state that deregulating DSL would only apply to Internet service providers (ISP) access and would not impact access to local loops from competitive local exchange carriers (CLEC).
The current rules allow ISPs, such as EarthLink, to buy finished DSL services at wholesale prices. The ISPs then sell customers Internet services, such as Web access, spam filtering and specialized content on their portals using the DSL service from the phone companies. By contrast, CLECs such as Covad, only lease the copper infrastructure from the phone companies. These carriers provide the infrastructure equipment to create the DSL service.
Since Speakeasy resells Covad services (or at least they do in my case), Speakeasy isn't going anywhere. Granted, no agreement has been met yet, but it appears that a block of the FCC Commissioners is looking out for us. It is a bit disturbing to FCC mucking with these rules in anyway. It is clear that they don't understand the degree of reliance folks have on these services for their livelihoods.
and I refuse to read this crap from Microsoft. They can make claims about their accomplishments when they have accomplished something. Tiger is here, and it makes an important evolutionary advance in desktop search. All Microsoft has done is publish a spec sheet for Longhorn.
As has been pointed out numerous times before, Apple will probably have 10.5 out the door about the same time Longhorn is scheduled to ship. Who knows how Apple engineers will refine and enhance the search capabilities in OS X by that time.
To Microsoft, sit and down shut up until you actually deliver!
Episode II and III should be rated R. The stroylines from IV, V, and VI eluded to Vader do some really nasty stuff that all seemed R rated. The fact these two movies are not rated R goes a long way to demonstrating just how weak the prequels have been and the opportunity that was missed.
Actually, no SonicMQ, is written in C++ and Java. If you are willing to pay them, they will sell you CAA which contains the platform integration stuff as well. Their bread and butter is JMS, but they also support C and C++ bindings.
For desktop users and departmental servers, integration into the kernel is just bloat. For financial institutions that use MQSeries to move real-time market and trade data, these things have to be tightly integrated down to the system level to gain the real-time guarentees and throughput required in those environments. MQSeries can be directly wired into S/390 or AIX at the system to level to provide the quality of service required (think a commodities broker for a major hedge fund initiating a trade with the wrong price and you get the idea). Without this capability, Linux and its brethern will have a hard time pentrating the core of the financial industry. It's also why Sonic and IBM can demand the amazing prices they get get for SonicMQ and MQSeries. For Redhat and Suse, it gives them a cost-effective answer to high dollar question. They can charge these banks 20% of the total cost of MQSeries for 24/7/365 support and make a killing.
... because it has been proclaimed by the sage asshats at Gartner. Really, these guys have a problem predicting that the sun will rise in the East. Glad they are stepping out on this limb a good six months after the phenomenon started.
Really, how stupid can you be? Planning a competing venture on your company's systems (and their time)? Meet corporate darwinism. If you're too stupid to figure that one out, then maybe you shouldn't be managing other people's money.
I often go into the Apple Store at Tyson's here in DC. I oogle the 30" flat panel and dual 2.5 PowerMac. I have the means to buy it, if I could justify it. Alas, a Mac can't run a number of very important applications necessary for my work as a Software Architect (e.g. Rational Enterprise Studio). Therefore, my big computer dollars must be directed towards a PC. I notice on my visits that others are oogling the same way I am, but have the same frown -- too much money for a secondary machine. Lump those folks in with the hip younger crowd who really want the fanciness but can't afford it. Put a $500 machine in front of us and we will snatch it up. The luscious user interface and smooth integration with digital cameras and my iPod. Yummy. They are gonna sell like hot cakes even at $799.
One might say this analysis is flawed due to the eMac, but let's face facts the eMac is ugly. It lacks the sexiness of the PowerMac or iMac. It is built for school children and lacks the sophistication that we all want as adults. A sleek, cost-effective Mac will sell very well. Furthermore, if they offer a few well targeted upgrades, they will lure folks like me to turn the little $500 computer into a $1200 souped up mini-workstation.
I couldn't agree more with the sentiments of the parent comment. To put an even finer point on it, you can be shot in the head by a black gun or silver gun on November 2. Either way, you're gonna shot in the head.
I don't know all of the of the Net/OpenBSD split, but in my view. As far I am concerned in 2004, it is ancient history. I use OpenBSD for my routers and DNS at the house, and have not had a lick of trouble with it. It just works, and it does its thing on extremely modest hardware (P/133, P/166, and P/200 boxen). In my view, there are not enough accolades available for PF.
Furthermore, with his all of his unsteadiness and unpredictability, Theo manages to heard the cats every six months for a solid, production quality release. No OS, commercial or open source, has been as consistently reliable for me in terms of operation, quality, or schedule. Let's not get into the patch responsiveness of the OpenBSD team.
If Theo is the loon this trolling article claims, we need a few more loons like'em. He leads a team that produces a great product. Cheers Theo -- keep up the great work.
Slashdot Mirror
Saying that checked baggage is an optional service is akin to a restaurant charging fork fee atop $40 for an entree. Ticket prices have gone up since the introduction of these fees, and the TSA's security theater make it very difficult to carry on baggage. Airlines have employed an unsustainable economic model for decades, and they are buried under a mountain of debt and high fuel prices. Bottom line is that I want to pay for a ticket and not be knocked up for 25-50% more when I get to the airport. It also be nice if they stopped their price fixing, and actually engaged in some price and service competition. Instead, airlines seem to look at each other to determine how little they have to deliver for high a price.
Google wouldn't be possible without the American taxpayer and a number of enterprising engineers from around the world. We paid for the research upon which the Internet was built, and the initial implementation through DARPA. Given that he intends to turn Microsoft in an "Internet" company, I suggest he say a big "thank you" to us as well.
I apologize about the SNAFU. Thankfully, I have not had to work in such an environment, and am only speaking on hearsay regarding the Internet access. Again, I apologize for speaking outside my direct experience with regards to SCIFs.
You mean most invasive without consulting the courts. The least invasive would be to do nothing.
Actually, no, for cleared individuals, it is the least invasive. Bear in mind that if you have a clearance, you, your friends, and family have already been interviewed by the FBI, your bank, credit, and criminal records have been scruntized, and, in some cases, you have been through one or more polygraph tests. Once you obtained the clearance, all of your actions on the job will be monitored -- phone calls, Internet browsing (for those who are not in skif environments where there is no Internet access), comings and goings (including walking through a metal detector and submitting any other possessions to be x-rayed upon entry to the facility).
I don't think you fully grasp the seriousiness and security that surrounds cleared individuals and facilities. As an example, simply driving up to the gates of the CIA or NSA without an appointment or clearance to enter will net you detention for many hours of interogation and possible arrest.
Really? As I read the ABC article, it said nothing about citizens who hold any clearance. It merely references people who show up in investigations.
I'm not saying you're wrong, because I don't know which is correct, but I see nothing to indicate that all of the people being examined like this are government personnel who have clearances. If it was purely ongoing verification of people with clearances, fine. But, if it spills over into "hmmm, he spoke to a brown man on the corner, let's pull up his records", it's a bad thing. And, one which I believe would be completely illegal
I'm just not 100% sure that the articles seem to indicate it's limited to ongoing verification of people who hold security clearance. I interpret it to be "whoever becomes a 'person of interest'".
Cheers
As I said in my preface, all of the specific examples in the articles I have seen were/are cleared individuals. Furthermore, the process described sounds identical to the initial stages an investigation to revoke a clearance. Finally, the article consistently uses the term counter-intelligence which generally means finding spies amongst the spooks. Hence, the reasoning for my comment.
I want to preface my comments by saying I am card carrying member of the ACLU, a Jeffersonian libritarian, and am no fan of this administration and its tactics. Furthermore, my comments are based on the fact that every example cited in the various press outlets has been a cleared individual (Aldrige Aimes and the Army chaplain at Gitmo). My comments do not to apply any cases that involve non-cleared citizens.
People involved in these investigations have clearances. As such, they have voluntarily signed away portions of their civil liberties related to wire tapping and regular background checks for counter intelligence purposes. If you have a clearance from US government, you have elected to restrict your civil liberties and rights to serve the country. Pulling your credit report is the least invasive action they can do without consulting the courts. At worst, they can revoke your clearance through an administrative procedure which has the net effect of a criminal conviction on your record.
As an aside, most US government clearances are issued through the DoD agency known as DISCO. Some agencies (e.g. Treasury, State, and Energy) have their clearance agencies, but most others use DISCO (e.g. Homeland Security, CIA, NSA). Since most clearances are administered by DoD, it then makes since that DoD would be the source of the most investigations into cleared people. All DISCO investigations are performed by the FBI.
While it may seem swarmy, everyone involved has elected to be placed under higher government scrutiny. Furthermore, as someone who has previously held a clearance, I can attest to the fact that you are advised at numerous points in the process that you are subject to a higher level of scrutiny. These are the types of procedures that are the first steps in identifying the Richard Hanseens and Aldridge Aimes in a world that legally operates under a stricter set of rules with potentially grave consequences for violation. Most importantly, no one forced these people into that world, they volunteered for it with full knowledge of the constraints.
Umm ... companies realized a long time ago that they need to tie the founders of companies up post-acquisition. This type of deal include "velvet handcuffs" that defer a significant portion of the its value for a number of years. Typically, it a 2-3 year term. I would be willing to bet that they received 20-30% of the purchase price today, and will get the remainder in drip and drabs for the next 2-3 years. At the end of the term, they then probably get the last 20-30%. So, the burnout in 6 months plan wouldn't be a very good idea.
(Warning karma killing rant coming ... damn whipper snappers.)
Patriot Act or not, marked private or not -- saying something on Facebook, MySpace, or their ilk is akin to a billboard in the middle of the town square. Kids today think that they can post ellicit, embarressing, or immature activities on the Internet, mark the information as private, and, magically, no one they don't want to know will ever find out. Learn some discretion, and keep matters to yourself.
In short, quite your whining and develop some common sense.
... then Powerball would be bankrupt.
I take it from the article that he informed the media about his departure from Microsoft. Who cares if one mid-level guy, regardless of his contributions to an open source project, leaves a large company like Microsoft? Informing the media of his resignation says two things about him -- unprofessional and arrogant. Professionals don't publically decry former employer on the way out -- regardless of their disdain. Further, to assume that anyone would care that he is no longer a microserf goes beyond the the pale of self-importance and arrogance.
Thank you Slashdot for feeding this bad behavior.
... he didn't pay for his pipes -- the American taxpayers did. It's amazing the selective memory of the Ma Bells on this topic. Those pipes were largely bought and paid for with tax dollars to build infrastructure necessary to drive the US economy. So, Buster, those are MY (and roughly 300 other US taxpayers) pipes, and I want them open and free to continue doing what we intended them to when we paid billions of dollars for them -- provide a robust infrastructure as a foundation to the US economy. Vonage and Google are simply doing what we intended to do when we paid you to lay the line.
Sit down, shut up, and do what we paid you to do, Jackass. Damn, government workers are so hard to fire.
My bad. Misread. I apologize for firing that particular criticism without reading more carefully.
-MeauxToo1. Cloudscape/Derby - This product makes the most sense from a technology and licensing perspective, but the fact that it was an IBM product (even though Cloudscape was originally a separate entity before being acquired) taints the software in such a way as to make Sun look bad if they used it.
Derby is intended to be an embedded database, not a database server. Yes, they have a server mode, but can't hold a candle to MySQL, let alone, PostgreSQL.
3. McKoi SQL - An excellent choice for a Java database, but lacks brand recognition. The feature levels and scalability of the database are still considerable questions. The GPL license also allows Sun less freedom to modify the database in comparison to the BSD license used by PostgreSQL.
Since when can't you modify the source of a product with a BSD-based license? A BSD-based license is, in fact, far more liberal than the GPL because you can take the code, modify it, and close the source of the result. A perfect example is the Windows NT/XP TCP/IP stack -- stolen straight from BSD, and last I checked, Windows is not open source. In contrast to the GPL, where you have distribute any modifications you make and open-source any parts of your products that link to it. Hence, the description of the license as viral.
Speaking from experience, PostgreSQL is a grat product. Stable, reliable, and reasonably fast for medium to large scale, multi-user, distributed environments. The products listed above are all embedded databases intended for single user, micro environments. You are, in short, comparing apples to oranges.
Unfortunately, the hope I derived from the article referenced in my original post has been horribly dashed. The FCC has ruled, and it didn't go our way. Basically, the Baby Bells won't be required to share with anyone -- including CLECs.
I don't understand how the cable and telephone intrastructures can be so easily equated. Comast, Cox, et. al. invested their own money to construct their infrastructures. Telcos were were heavily subsidized to build the telephone infrastructure that delivers DSL. As with all investments, public or private, they come with strings attached. In this case, the Baby Bells need to be told, "You happily took, and in some cases still take, tax dollars to build your infrastructure. Now, as repayment, you have to open it up all takers." If a corporation failed to steal from its investors, the executives would be thrown in jail. Why should companies that take tax payer investment be held to a lesser standard?
As a Speakeasy customer who relies on their static to get work done, I was greatly alarmed by this article on Ars when it was posted yesterday. So, I did a little digging, and found this article. From it, I learned that the FCC is now only considering dropping the requirements that carriers must resell their finished DSL services, not the actual CLECs that rent the lines and have phsyical equipment in COs such as Covad. The following quote from the article illisutrates their evolving position:
Since Speakeasy resells Covad services (or at least they do in my case), Speakeasy isn't going anywhere. Granted, no agreement has been met yet, but it appears that a block of the FCC Commissioners is looking out for us. It is a bit disturbing to FCC mucking with these rules in anyway. It is clear that they don't understand the degree of reliance folks have on these services for their livelihoods.
and I refuse to read this crap from Microsoft. They can make claims about their accomplishments when they have accomplished something. Tiger is here, and it makes an important evolutionary advance in desktop search. All Microsoft has done is publish a spec sheet for Longhorn.
As has been pointed out numerous times before, Apple will probably have 10.5 out the door about the same time Longhorn is scheduled to ship. Who knows how Apple engineers will refine and enhance the search capabilities in OS X by that time.
To Microsoft, sit and down shut up until you actually deliver!
So .. does he does his dime in pound-me-in-the-ass or conjugal visit prison? Oh I hope it's pound-in-the-ass prison ....
Episode II and III should be rated R. The stroylines from IV, V, and VI eluded to Vader do some really nasty stuff that all seemed R rated. The fact these two movies are not rated R goes a long way to demonstrating just how weak the prequels have been and the opportunity that was missed.
Actually, no SonicMQ, is written in C++ and Java. If you are willing to pay them, they will sell you CAA which contains the platform integration stuff as well. Their bread and butter is JMS, but they also support C and C++ bindings.
For desktop users and departmental servers, integration into the kernel is just bloat. For financial institutions that use MQSeries to move real-time market and trade data, these things have to be tightly integrated down to the system level to gain the real-time guarentees and throughput required in those environments. MQSeries can be directly wired into S/390 or AIX at the system to level to provide the quality of service required (think a commodities broker for a major hedge fund initiating a trade with the wrong price and you get the idea). Without this capability, Linux and its brethern will have a hard time pentrating the core of the financial industry. It's also why Sonic and IBM can demand the amazing prices they get get for SonicMQ and MQSeries. For Redhat and Suse, it gives them a cost-effective answer to high dollar question. They can charge these banks 20% of the total cost of MQSeries for 24/7/365 support and make a killing.
... because it has been proclaimed by the sage asshats at Gartner. Really, these guys have a problem predicting that the sun will rise in the East. Glad they are stepping out on this limb a good six months after the phenomenon started.
Don't talk about Fight Club.
Really, how stupid can you be? Planning a competing venture on your company's systems (and their time)? Meet corporate darwinism. If you're too stupid to figure that one out, then maybe you shouldn't be managing other people's money.
I often go into the Apple Store at Tyson's here in DC. I oogle the 30" flat panel and dual 2.5 PowerMac. I have the means to buy it, if I could justify it. Alas, a Mac can't run a number of very important applications necessary for my work as a Software Architect (e.g. Rational Enterprise Studio). Therefore, my big computer dollars must be directed towards a PC. I notice on my visits that others are oogling the same way I am, but have the same frown -- too much money for a secondary machine. Lump those folks in with the hip younger crowd who really want the fanciness but can't afford it. Put a $500 machine in front of us and we will snatch it up. The luscious user interface and smooth integration with digital cameras and my iPod. Yummy. They are gonna sell like hot cakes even at $799.
One might say this analysis is flawed due to the eMac, but let's face facts the eMac is ugly. It lacks the sexiness of the PowerMac or iMac. It is built for school children and lacks the sophistication that we all want as adults. A sleek, cost-effective Mac will sell very well. Furthermore, if they offer a few well targeted upgrades, they will lure folks like me to turn the little $500 computer into a $1200 souped up mini-workstation.
Where can I place my pre-order?
I couldn't agree more with the sentiments of the parent comment. To put an even finer point on it, you can be shot in the head by a black gun or silver gun on November 2. Either way, you're gonna shot in the head.
Please mod parent up.
I don't know all of the of the Net/OpenBSD split, but in my view. As far I am concerned in 2004, it is ancient history. I use OpenBSD for my routers and DNS at the house, and have not had a lick of trouble with it. It just works, and it does its thing on extremely modest hardware (P/133, P/166, and P/200 boxen). In my view, there are not enough accolades available for PF.
Furthermore, with his all of his unsteadiness and unpredictability, Theo manages to heard the cats every six months for a solid, production quality release. No OS, commercial or open source, has been as consistently reliable for me in terms of operation, quality, or schedule. Let's not get into the patch responsiveness of the OpenBSD team.
If Theo is the loon this trolling article claims, we need a few more loons like'em. He leads a team that produces a great product. Cheers Theo -- keep up the great work.