No need to get personal, Bob; it adds no force to your argument.
The last cell's value is completely unrelated to the preceding calculation. That is an error.
To fill a spreadsheet with fancy calculations and then, at the end, simply stick in the desired answer, is to create phoney data that is all the more pernicious for pretending to be supported by the previous calculations.
Thank you for your concern about my business, but I am quite profitable in part because of high scepticism about unsupported calculations. Remember the silly estimates about Y2K disasters... another real problem that was grossly exaggerated? This article uses similar tactics.
What I like about this is its appeal to non-technical staff, especially clueless decisionmakers who feel secure in their data because someone sold them a backup system ("Don't worry, it's fully automatic!")
Yes, the video is an advertizement for a firm selling a product, but who else would be motivated to create something that is both educational and funny enough to let issues be discussed in a non-threatening way?
No-one, especially PHBs, wants to admit that all the money they spent on a backup system can easily be brought to naught, so you have to ease them into the concept. This might help.
>... $165,000 times 9 times 500. That amounts to just shy of three quarters of a billion dollars. And is that anywhere near realistic? No. It is probably safe to say that corporate America, for example, loses in excess of $10bn annually...
A scientist is just a gamete's way of producing more gametes.
So these microbes are effectively co-operating with the scientists' gametes, or at worst parasitizing them, by tricking the intermediate form (scientist) into helping the microbes reproduce.
Undecagonal-faced prism cases are just another chapter of the quest to show your individuality by purchasing a mass-produced product. This can be done better...
I used to program for Coleco, the company that made the Cabbage Patch Kids mass-market edition.The main appeal of CPK was that every kid could have something individualized that was the same thing as everyone else!
Instead of messing around with funny-faced PC cases, someone should market cases gauranteed to be unique, if only by the pattern of the eye decal or imprinted freckles. Surely this would prove that the buyer is a real hoopy frood who knows where his towel is!
Assuming that you are asking for information, and not just for effect, the answer is: Safari and Firefox. Again, I don't want to make this an attack on IE's vendor, but the fact is, keeping up with security updates, constantly having to run popup killers and all that other stuff, just got to costing me so much time that it was cheaper (using the old formula "Time = Money") to just buy a new PC every year and park the old one in the basement. This impelled me to jump to a competitor, thereby saving lots of Time=Money. Where I absolutely *must* use one of the old Win machines in the basement, Firefox has been o.k. for my capitalist-piggie, money-grubbing purposes; of course YMMV.
>I think that Microsoft can build a competitive browser
No doubt, but can they build a competitive browser within their comprehensive business model? If so, great!
The article and the developer's blog to which it links (by "the lead program manager for the web platform in IE") talk a lot about CSS and PNGs and very, very little about security. They therefore talk very, very little about the biggest reasons people give for dumping IE: Security problems that cost time & money.
If in fact IE7 will fix these problems, then would it not be prudent for the leadpromanblog to mention it prominently?
Not trying to flame M$ but... most of the reason I junked IE was security issues. Once I made the jump, the other improvements like graphics-handling were nice, but not critical.
Would putting better graphics on the Titanic's deckchairs have kept anyone on board?
... builds other Lego Robots, subject to radio'd requests.
Then we can just ship it to Mars with a big pile of Legos. The Mars Lego Builder would build a Mars Explorer according to blueprints fromt Earth, and send it off to look around. When an unexpected event trashes the Lego Explorer, the Mars Lego Builder constructs another Explorer that allows for the event. Repeat until done.
>the same ethical standards as medical (or psychological) researchers
I agree about the ethics point, although I think this is a different matter than data validity. I understand that researchers in the more classical fields of human research, such as medicine, have serious difficulties getting valid data when the act of ethical disclosure compromises the validity... but to their credit they almost always recognize and acknowledge the problem.
Let us hope this is the case with computer usage trackers, but my guess is that the ethic in that field is "data buyer beware!"
... whether people who voluntarily install their program understand that they are agreeing never to shop or bank online with decent security ever again?
It's one thing to warn someone "If you install our software, we'll monitor your net behavior".
It's entirely another thing to say "If you install our software, you'll be relying on us never to collect your credit card number, bank password, or the birthdate/mother's name information we'd need to empty your bank account... and you're relying on us never to be hacked."
To the extent that something forthrightly discloses what it does and offers the choice to opt-in (...and to opt-out later easily if one changes one's mind...), the validity of the data is compromised.
There's nothing *wrong* with giving people the choice of providing information in exchange for an incentive (... I participate in surveys & studies all the time...) but it is not unlikely that as a result, the sample becomes non-representative (except of itself.)
How likely is it that the genders differ in their willingnes to risk giving away personal information, such as keystrokes that may disclose physical address? I would not trust gender statistics for web usage at all, except for indicating the gender of people who don't worry much about strangers learning their meatspace location.
It may be that some data about semi-anonymous servces such as the web is impossible to get. As Johnny Cash sings, "I don't like it, but I guess things happen that way!"
This 'Shell' concept is like the Swiss Army Knife: in theory, it can do everything; in reality, it doesn't work well enough at any single task to replace cheaper, specialized instruments. The last time you cut a steak or used a toothpick, did you reach for your Swiss Army knife, or for your steak knife and your toothpick?
My cellphone does things my desktop couldn't do 10 years ago, and it's cheap enough that when it breaks, I don't bother repairing it; I just donate it to a charity. Laptops are getting that way fast; and my data can be carried around easily on USB-compatible memory devices. So why would I want a "shell" unless it was as cheap as a cellphone?
That's a good question and the answer is slightly complex. For some couples there is a marriage penalty, for some couples there is a marriage bonus (that no-one ever complains about).
Because the USA has (in theory) a "progressive" tax structure, in which (in theory) people who earn more $$ pay a greater % of their income in taxes, you will always have a problem when marriage allows you to combine income for tax purposes. Because if one spouse earns $zero and the other $MUCH, the result is that suddenly the combination pays a lot less taxes when filing "married".>
OTOH, if both spouses earn about the same about of $$$, and then combine their income filing "married" they can bump themselves into a higher bracket... that's the conventional version of the "marriage penalty".
So the issue stands: gay couples as well as straight can cut their taxes by filing "married" when one earns significantly less than the other.... except that in the USA gays can't file "married" and therefore pay more. That's part of the "Gay Tax".>
There are other aspects to the "Gay Tax"... basically services that married couples recieve for free but gay couples have to pay for. Is it really necessary at this late date to enumerate them?
What legitimate interest is it for the state to say that a woman and another woman or a man and a man cannot marry?
Money, d'uh!
If a gay couple cannot file taxes as "married" when it is to their advantage to do so, they pay more in taxes.
Likewise, if a gay couple cannot rely upon intestacy provisions to handle property distribution when one dies, they have to hire a lawyer to draft a will. Those lawyers pay income tax of the fees gays have to pay to get the same inheritance rights we straights get automatically with the marriage licenses.
There are dozens of ways in which a simple marriage license provides financial advantages, over simply living together. The state has an interest in imposing a "gay tax" as it has for decades, in order to help stimulate the economy and reduce the deficit!
Let's just be glad the state doesn't tax heterosexuality too!
I feel the same way everytime I see a Hummer H2 rocket by at 80 mph. Some many of us pour our lives down the drain on foolish wastes; in about 50 years they'll wonder why they worked so hard to end up with so little.
But that's their free choice. At least virtual reality doesn't pollute much.
Slashdot Mirror
... would have been for Jobs to have a ghost-writer crank out "Why Wiley's Book Is Stupid" and sell it next to the book he hates.
And then if you linked your code/comment pairs to business requirements and to test plans ... it would all be far too easy!
Why is pointing out a glaring typo offtopic?
Not ragging on a typo; just inquiring whether "the new corporate overloads" refers to
"Too much work demanded of too little infrastructure"
or
"Too much output, not enough diaper"
Was your immediate reaction to fire up google and msn and compare them?
Mine too! Then I realized "Dang It! What a clever marketing scheme!"
What can I do (by negligence or by design) to get my business /.d too???
No need to get personal, Bob; it adds no force to your argument.
The last cell's value is completely unrelated to the preceding calculation. That is an error.
To fill a spreadsheet with fancy calculations and then, at the end, simply stick in the desired answer, is to create phoney data that is all the more pernicious for pretending to be supported by the previous calculations.
Thank you for your concern about my business, but I am quite profitable in part because of high scepticism about unsupported calculations. Remember the silly estimates about Y2K disasters ... another real problem that was grossly exaggerated? This article uses similar tactics.
What I like about this is its appeal to non-technical staff, especially clueless decisionmakers who feel secure in their data because someone sold them a backup system ("Don't worry, it's fully automatic!")
Yes, the video is an advertizement for a firm selling a product, but who else would be motivated to create something that is both educational and funny enough to let issues be discussed in a non-threatening way?
No-one, especially PHBs, wants to admit that all the money they spent on a backup system can easily be brought to naught, so you have to ease them into the concept. This might help.
>... $165,000 times 9 times 500. That amounts to just shy of three quarters of a billion dollars. And is that anywhere near realistic? No. It is probably safe to say that corporate America, for example, loses in excess of $10bn annually ...
Can You Spot The Spreadsheet Error?
Cell B1 = $165,000
Cell B2 = 9
Cell B3 = 500
Cell B4 = B1*B2*B3
Cell B5 = $10 BILLION
Well, to be fair, "Dr. Who" is a work of fiction. This is to be distinguished from .. oh, wait, I see your point ...
A scientist is just a gamete's way of producing more gametes.
So these microbes are effectively co-operating with the scientists' gametes, or at worst parasitizing them, by tricking the intermediate form (scientist) into helping the microbes reproduce.
Undecagonal-faced prism cases are just another chapter of the quest to show your individuality by purchasing a mass-produced product. This can be done better ...
I used to program for Coleco, the company that made the Cabbage Patch Kids mass-market edition.The main appeal of CPK was that every kid could have something individualized that was the same thing as everyone else!
Instead of messing around with funny-faced PC cases, someone should market cases gauranteed to be unique, if only by the pattern of the eye decal or imprinted freckles. Surely this would prove that the buyer is a real hoopy frood who knows where his towel is!
>What did you switch to?
Assuming that you are asking for information, and not just for effect, the answer is: Safari and Firefox. Again, I don't want to make this an attack on IE's vendor, but the fact is, keeping up with security updates, constantly having to run popup killers and all that other stuff, just got to costing me so much time that it was cheaper (using the old formula "Time = Money") to just buy a new PC every year and park the old one in the basement. This impelled me to jump to a competitor, thereby saving lots of Time=Money. Where I absolutely *must* use one of the old Win machines in the basement, Firefox has been o.k. for my capitalist-piggie, money-grubbing purposes; of course YMMV.
>I think that Microsoft can build a competitive browser
No doubt, but can they build a competitive browser within their comprehensive business model? If so, great!
>please don't assume
Please don't assume that assumptions were made.
The article and the developer's blog to which it links (by "the lead program manager for the web platform in IE") talk a lot about CSS and PNGs and very, very little about security. They therefore talk very, very little about the biggest reasons people give for dumping IE: Security problems that cost time & money.
If in fact IE7 will fix these problems, then would it not be prudent for the leadpromanblog to mention it prominently?
Not trying to flame M$ but ... most of the reason I junked IE was security issues. Once I made the jump, the other improvements like graphics-handling were nice, but not critical.
Would putting better graphics on the Titanic's deckchairs have kept anyone on board?
... builds other Lego Robots, subject to radio'd requests.
Then we can just ship it to Mars with a big pile of Legos. The Mars Lego Builder would build a Mars Explorer according to blueprints fromt Earth, and send it off to look around. When an unexpected event trashes the Lego Explorer, the Mars Lego Builder constructs another Explorer that allows for the event. Repeat until done.
Are you writing a Star Wars prequel or something?
"Star Wars: The Revenge Of The South" is actually the second sequel to "Star Wars: The Nixon Menace".
>the same ethical standards as medical (or psychological) researchers
I agree about the ethics point, although I think this is a different matter than data validity. I understand that researchers in the more classical fields of human research, such as medicine, have serious difficulties getting valid data when the act of ethical disclosure compromises the validity ... but to their credit they almost always recognize and acknowledge the problem.
Let us hope this is the case with computer usage trackers, but my guess is that the ethic in that field is "data buyer beware!"
... whether people who voluntarily install their program understand that they are agreeing never to shop or bank online with decent security ever again?
It's one thing to warn someone "If you install our software, we'll monitor your net behavior".
It's entirely another thing to say "If you install our software, you'll be relying on us never to collect your credit card number, bank password, or the birthdate/mother's name information we'd need to empty your bank account ... and you're relying on us never to be hacked."
To the extent that something forthrightly discloses what it does and offers the choice to opt-in (...and to opt-out later easily if one changes one's mind ...), the validity of the data is compromised.
There's nothing *wrong* with giving people the choice of providing information in exchange for an incentive (... I participate in surveys & studies all the time ...) but it is not unlikely that as a result, the sample becomes non-representative (except of itself.)
How likely is it that the genders differ in their willingnes to risk giving away personal information, such as keystrokes that may disclose physical address? I would not trust gender statistics for web usage at all, except for indicating the gender of people who don't worry much about strangers learning their meatspace location.
It may be that some data about semi-anonymous servces such as the web is impossible to get. As Johnny Cash sings, "I don't like it, but I guess things happen that way!"
The next logical step is simply to privatize the Senate, and ban competing government organizations.
After all, private lobbyists ALREADY write legislation, conduct research and collect money.
What do we need a government-run Senate for?
This 'Shell' concept is like the Swiss Army Knife: in theory, it can do everything; in reality, it doesn't work well enough at any single task to replace cheaper, specialized instruments. The last time you cut a steak or used a toothpick, did you reach for your Swiss Army knife, or for your steak knife and your toothpick?
My cellphone does things my desktop couldn't do 10 years ago, and it's cheap enough that when it breaks, I don't bother repairing it; I just donate it to a charity. Laptops are getting that way fast; and my data can be carried around easily on USB-compatible memory devices. So why would I want a "shell" unless it was as cheap as a cellphone?
Isn't there a marriage penalty?
That's a good question and the answer is slightly complex. For some couples there is a marriage penalty, for some couples there is a marriage bonus (that no-one ever complains about).
Because the USA has (in theory) a "progressive" tax structure, in which (in theory) people who earn more $$ pay a greater % of their income in taxes, you will always have a problem when marriage allows you to combine income for tax purposes. Because if one spouse earns $zero and the other $MUCH, the result is that suddenly the combination pays a lot less taxes when filing "married".>
OTOH, if both spouses earn about the same about of $$$, and then combine their income filing "married" they can bump themselves into a higher bracket... that's the conventional version of the "marriage penalty".
So the issue stands: gay couples as well as straight can cut their taxes by filing "married" when one earns significantly less than the other .... except that in the USA gays can't file "married" and therefore pay more. That's part of the "Gay Tax".>
There are other aspects to the "Gay Tax" ... basically services that married couples recieve for free but gay couples have to pay for. Is it really necessary at this late date to enumerate them?
What legitimate interest is it for the state to say that a woman and another woman or a man and a man cannot marry?
Money, d'uh!
If a gay couple cannot file taxes as "married" when it is to their advantage to do so, they pay more in taxes.
Likewise, if a gay couple cannot rely upon intestacy provisions to handle property distribution when one dies, they have to hire a lawyer to draft a will. Those lawyers pay income tax of the fees gays have to pay to get the same inheritance rights we straights get automatically with the marriage licenses.
There are dozens of ways in which a simple marriage license provides financial advantages, over simply living together. The state has an interest in imposing a "gay tax" as it has for decades, in order to help stimulate the economy and reduce the deficit!
Let's just be glad the state doesn't tax heterosexuality too!
Waves vs. Particles
I feel the same way everytime I see a Hummer H2 rocket by at 80 mph. Some many of us pour our lives down the drain on foolish wastes; in about 50 years they'll wonder why they worked so hard to end up with so little.
But that's their free choice. At least virtual reality doesn't pollute much.