They intend to 'shoot first and ask questions later.'
This is helpful for potential malware/virus/etc sites - take it down NOW and address afterwards. As long as the ones taking the deactivation move witness it themselves, it's doable.
The problem comes with reports. Let's say you get 100 reports of a domain being a nasty one in a 5-minute period of time. You just *wham-bam* take that domain down without looking at it and you could have just been the worst link in a staged act chain.
I'm not trying to be an ass, but I'm posting what I witness daily: Everyone wants to save money, including big companies. If VeriSign were to have this ability (along with other TLD registrars), then they will likely want to automate everything they can. See paragraph 2 above.
You don't have to have "the best security and tracking team on the planet" to notice that someone's trying tens of thousands of usernames and passwords and failing.
I didn't say that they ARE the best team. I said "PR stunt" which is targeted at the unknowing, not the most knowledgeable receiver.
And it doesn't exactly scream competence when it turns out that user details your company failed to protect are now being actively used by fraudsters. It just compounds the original failure.
I also mentioned the possibility that these users don't exist. "PR STUNT" - italicized and capped. I don't know how to make what I said more clear.
If you're one of the users of a company that releases that kind of information, and you aren't one of the "affected" people, it increases your feeling of safety and security. Simple logic, simple stunt. While they're at it, they may as well have people out on the 'net putting forth information that maintains the feelings of gravity and reality toward this situation that supposedly occurred (again, making others feel they "[weren't] the ones affected"). In fact, there was an anonymous comment in reply to mine where an anonymous commenter posted the notification they got from Sony. If it weren't an anonymous commenter, it would bear some weight. Anonymous = could be as false as the earth being the center of the universe.
I'm not saying that this IS what happened; I'm saying that it's odd that they are so publicly releasing information about it when, in fact, companies try to keep it as quiet as possible. And I'll balance your counterargument in advance - they also didn't say "we are dedicated to making people aware of the situation, and are striving to be more open than [competitors]."
If you're going to really play the game, play it through at the beginning to avoid losing customers' positive feelings.
Welcome to my world growing up. Actually, I'm still there, but it's a lot easier to laugh INSIDE instead of outward at others now.
I feel your kids' pain. It doesn't really get better until you are free and have the ability to laugh at others and/or find people you can communicate with. Hopefully ones that can understand one freaking thing you are saying. >:(
Could it be that the firm is simply applying spin, describing the attack as a 'highly sophisticated Advanced Persistent Threat' to protect its image?
Let me make a quick change. That is a question, so let's make it a statement. Also, let's change a few words and.... *Cartman voice* There we go: "The firm is simply applying spin, describing the attack as a 'highly sophisticated Advanced Persistent Threat' to protect an image... An image that their services are worth money."
/snark
I'm not saying that they aren't, I'm just sayin', man... I'm just sayin'.
...What does a 4 year engineering degree help a construction guy in running a back loader, construction crane, or other construction equipment? When the theory on how it should work and how it works on the work site are not the same....
Fully agreed. This is one of my major concerns, actually. The other end of the issue is the lack of understanding affecting other parts of the schemata.
I have seen and heard the below many times, and THIS IS NOT A JOKE.
e.g. (and Boss below is an IT manager with a degree)
Boss: We need to make some quick changes on the web site so we can get a new customer on board in less than a week. Developer: I'll need about three days to get an answer for you. Consider it done. Boss: We don't have time for that. I need an answer from you two right away. Like, now. That's why I called this meeting. Systems Engineer: Okay, well, um, systems can handle that load, no problem. The code, on the other hand..... Developer: Wow.. Umm... We can't make those changes in a week's time. That is going to require a LOT, and I mean a LOT of rewriting. Boss: All you have to do is add a dashboard. Why is that so hard? Developer: I have to change the entire set of code that affects the login process. Then, in order to get the data that I need for population of the session-based dashboard conten....... Boss: GAHH, blah blah blah... I don't understand what the issue is. You're speaking Greek alien talk. WHAT IS THE PROBLEM??? Systems Engineer: If I may.... Thank you. What [Developer] is saying is that when this system was designed, it was not designed in a way to allow fast code changes. It was rushed, so there are now problems with...... Boss: It was NOT rushed, and I am highly disappointed in you for giving up on a solution so quickly. If [Developer] can't do it and YOU can't learn how to help him fix this, I'll have to find someone who can. Developer: I didn't write half of this code, and the parts that I didn't are unintelligible. [System Engineer] even looked at the code with me a couple of times and was disgusted by the methodologies they instituted to......... Boss: BLAH BLAH BLAH you're not helping again. You're just complaining..... Developer: I'm trying to tell you that bringing in outside help doesn't make this easier, it was bad code and it's going to take more than a week to interpret what was written AND make changes. It's just NOT THAT EASY. System Engineer: Fully agreed. You can't have this in a week. Just because you believe it should be that easy doesn't make it that easy. It will be a minimum of, what do you say [Developer], three weeks MINIMUM, and that's without any debugging or quality assurance, effectively making more slime on top of slime that already exists? Developer: Three weeks is conservative. Boss: Slime has NOTHING TO DO WITH COMPUTERS or how code works. Why are you comparing the two? We're talking about a web change for our biggest customer! Developer: *head on table* System Engineer: *gouging own eyeball out with pen*
Buy cheap crap, you'll have to throw it out and buy a replacement faster. Buy expensive stuff and you'll more likely have a better end product, but the nervousness level increases in the buyer's mind. They don't want that expensive thing that they spend money on to fail.
My opinion (and yes, it's OPINION) is with self-image of buyers. This goes for the corporations being discussed as well as individual people. Very few people are willing to commit to a risky situation unless they can a.) blame failure on someone else easily or b.) use every success point to their advantage, thereby making any failures look completely negligible. Of course there is a c.) have both 'a' and 'b' simultaneously. That's what everyone wants.
Self-image is lowered if one believes they are only getting something they can blame someone else for, as well as buying something that they have to rely on success points for (there are magic Human artifacts called 'guilt' and 'fear').
What we have now is a situation where people can come up with the best thing they can by having cheap stuff written quickly by someone else, spending time massaging it in-house, and coming up with an end product that they say "WE made this", while at the same time having an entity to blame if something fails.
The above statement is key. It's the fastest, easiest, cheapest route to a high self-image combined with lowered responsibility over failure.
The VP at SAIC is saying that if the government demands that the software they purchase actually meets some minimum standard of quality then everyone will throw up their hands and quit. Which he feels will cause more software to be handed off to overseas developers who will do even a worse job than has already been done.
This smells very much like GM & Ford complaining that new fuel standards will be a technical impossibility to reach just moments before one of their competitors roll out models to the showroom floor that make the grade.
So if I'm reading this correctly, the logic at the bottom layer of SAIC's complaint is, translated from what the VP said, "We don't have the resources to do this. It's unfair that you're demanding a provider that does have these services. I call UNFAIR!"
We always complain about a customer (or gov't) mandating requirements that we can't provide, yet another company can. We call it favoritism, but the gov't didn't change the requirements in order to HELP those companies; the requirements are changed because they are the REQUIREMENTS. If there is only one or two providers of service/software/hardware/food/etc that can provide it, then they win the "contract" or, in this case, future success.
What actually needs to happen is that people.... have no idea what they mean, how they work and how they can and should be used in daily life.
Another part of science is not focusing on something and taking it out of context.
His reference was the 'cult of the statistic', not statistics plain and simple.
Translation: If you think, you can use statistics where applicable. He's referencing non-thinkers that use statistics to show that they know something when they have no clue what 'that thing' really is.... IMHO.
You are confusing evidence that contradicts your position with bullshit.
If 99,999 other people have one experience (note: that's just 99,999 anecdotes, but whatever, you're argument has bigger holes) then that one outlier is STILL relevant. The massive weight of the evidence rests with the 99,999 anecdotes, but they don't make the 1 counter-example cease to exist merely because the cult of statistics says we can't reference individual experience anymore. It's loony and it has no basis in reality to believe that what 1 individual experiences becomes irrelevant as a point of evidence simply because it doesn't conform to expectations.
-GiH
I think you just pointed out where science came from.
Subject has nothing to do with the summary OR the article. The actual article is talking about busting people who are counterfeiting and selling hardcopy, NOT people who are file-sharing.
And as typical, your utter bullshit got a +3. Good job, "mods".
It's called opinion. Some people have it and when others agree, sometimes it's "modded up". That's sort of what the purpose of the mod system is.
If we were supposed to only post fact, there's no point in a "comment" system.
Sure, just like Apple's spying tech, they just patented it so the bad guys wouldn't be able to use it, see? ^_^
Concerned: "FaceBook, we are concerned that our web presence is being tracked on more than just your site. We are concerned that we cannot opt out of this tracking. What do you have to say about this?"
FB: "No we don't do that sort of thing. It's immoral and insecure. It's one of the major things that everyone would be concerned about, so trust us, we are NOT doing something like that."
Concerned: "Oh, okay. We'll trust you. Thanks for the comforting statements. There may still be public statements about it though, just to keep peoples' eyes on you."
FB Internal: Wow, that's actually a good idea. It might work. Hey, techs, could we do this if we wanted to?
FB Tech: Yep. Sure can. It's actually not that hard. Can you encourage other sites to include <this code>?
FB Internal: Sure. No problem there. We'll make sites feel they are getting a MAJOR benefit from it.
FB Tech: Okay, we can have that done in a very short time, actually. Solid as a rock.
FB Internal: Hey legal team, can we do this or would it be breaking the law?
FB Legal: There's no precedent on this specific method. Since we want more money, you need to bring more money in to pay us so... sure.. yeah. It's safe. Do it! Whose idea was this, anyway?
FB Internal: Well, some concerned group wrote us about it and we denied having anything to do with it.
FB Legal: So they didn't mention that it was an idea or concept that they designed and were going to use?
FB Internal: No.. Actually, they implied that it's something they wish would never happen.
FB Legal: Hmm.. A lot could be made from this, plus if FB is going to be a competitor against other major corporations, especially Google, we need to ensure that we are the only ones doing it. It needs to be fresh. Actually, since it came up as a concern with a lot of profitability attached, I can't believe that other companies aren't doing this already. We need to do some research to make sure we're not missing something here... Give us a week or less. We'll get back to you.
---------- a few days pass ----------
FB Legal: Nope, no one else is using this method. We can't find any examples of patent filings that mention anything EXACTLY like this, so if we were really detailed in the filing... you know, make sure we cross all T's, etc... Plus, *FIRST TA FILE, BITCHEZ!*
FB Internal: Patent. Hmm... I like the sound of that. It's the hip thing that's encouraged nowadays, anyhow. Plus it would give us fuel for lawsuits if we go south in the future. Nobody would you know, KNOW, if we like, filed a patent. It's not announced publicly or anything.... so.... Wow. I like the idea those concerned people brought to our attention. Hey Legal, start the patent process NOOOOWWWWW!
This would require the employing world to stop looking at exam scores as the primary metric for eligibility when hiring.
I'm open to ideas for alternatives, though.
:)
That would mean that the company hiring would have to employ HR people with enough knowledge and "out of the box thinking" to determine which people are the best hires; this is pre and peri-interview.
If management were to make the decisions of "best hire", the manager referenced here would have to have the same skills.
Oh, wait... some companies *DO* have that. The problem is money and emotional security of the decision-maker, unfortunately. I'm rambling so I'll quit.
Looks like it was simply an attempt to figure out the answer to the ultimate question:
"For which reason do people set their accounts up in the first place; for DVD rentals or for streaming?"
They know that you can choose to do both, but it would be beneficial to see which driver really motivates people to sign up with them. That would help them deal with the losses they have experienced by promoting the thing that people want the most. That isn't such a bad thing.
The end result is that they realize and ACCEPT, unlike many other companies, that, "We're screwed if we do and screwed if we don't."
I respect them for that, as well.
Now, they need to innovate. Provide something that is unique and wanted / in high demand.
The end killer is that I started with Hulu. I'm happy with what Hulu provides. When Netflix has something that I want to see, that Hulu does NOT have, I would like to be able to pay for single-views. In other words, I don't want to establish an account just to see something I wanted to see. I want to pay to see it, then not have to worry about cancelling my account at the end.
Institute that, Netflix, and I'll buy stuff from you. That is, of course, if you have it available in the first place. That's another key: good selection.
Oh, no, you didn't come off as rude. I get pissed when I'm dumb.:)
The overall you explained is perfectly understandable. Apparently, not everything is common knowledge, either.
Having said that, the concern sticks not with the overall release of heat, it's the speed of release. In addition, there's more that factors in, such as storage (environmental - metals, acid, plastic), and cost.
Actually, factor all of it together and it comes down to cost for the average person. Make the prices reasonable and most would buy in.
Energy isn't free, and I'm still stuck at the "what am I missing" stage. There HAS to be a downside. If the only downside is cost, then case closed.
So burning coal to generate electricity with steam moving a turbine, transmitting over lines, and being used at the destination generates some heat but also gets transferred to motors, light (yes, even TVs), and other heat generating units (a lot of them).... At the same time, solar energy is reaching the surface and heating the ground and longwave radiation is heating the atmosphere on the way back up...
Or, we have solar panels that capture solar energy and emit some from the surface of the photovoltaic cell back into the atmosphere, and convert the rest into electricity which undergoes the above processes from end-of-line transfer on down.... Less heat is being emitted from the power plants now, however.
Please explain how the simple law of conservation of energy doesn't apply to sunlight, thereby breaking the theory of relativity...? I need to learn this, apparently.
I'm pretty sure it's self-serving statistical numbers. No company releases information unless they have something to gain from it. Dice wants visitors, I believe. Ad revenue is prime, uh huh, uh huh.
You know what the sickest part is? In TFA, the "Shortage" link points to "marketing.dice.com/...."
But the taxpayer's investment is never paid back. Subsidies are not a solution, it's a broken window fallacy that replacing powerplants with solar panels makes things better.
You're right. I should opt to first-off, use which type of energy I wish to. To encourage me to use something that is "better", they first have to prove that it IS, in fact, better. Secondly, they need to show me that the end down-sides of it are lower than the current ones. Third, they need to make it affordable. In other words, I use my process called "CPA": Choice, Proof of concept, Affordability.
I'm lacking a few things in P and A to switch. The cost to switch my place over to solar is over $30,000. I don't have more than 10% of that which I am able to spend right now. If I could do it for 3 grand, it's a done deal.... as long as there isn't more long-term consequence (financially and environmentally) from solar.
I'm pretty sure the planetary effects from soaking up all of the power we need from solar panels would be something on the order of the sea level rise that would occur from me pissing into the ocean.
Hehe you're right.
I hate to play double-logic, but Mr. Anonymous commenter also had two other points on solar:
2. More manufacturing (conversion) of *OTHER* resources must occur; there will be more plastic/glass/other covering material, Silicon, other conductive metals, wire and its insulation, etc. 3. What are we going to do with the waste products where the Si / absorption material has effectively become unusable along with wear and tear?
That could be an issue. Or not. Food for thought, though.
Metro was just announced and the demand hasn't caught on, plus.NET is used for a lot more than home-end UI applications.
This post is akin to me hearing that a new form of candy has been developed and almost immediately asking, "The sale of chocolate is going up. There's a new kind of candy out there that needs much development and people are still eating chocolate... and more of it! What is going on?"
The article mentions nothing about Metro anyway. WTF?
Slashdot Mirror
3. 'Prior fart' used to nullify 2.
Ewwwww, who prior farted?
Believe it or not, it was an intentional statement :)
And no, I didn't fart prior. Don't look at me! Stop it!!
They intend to 'shoot first and ask questions later.'
This is helpful for potential malware/virus/etc sites - take it down NOW and address afterwards. As long as the ones taking the deactivation move witness it themselves, it's doable.
The problem comes with reports. Let's say you get 100 reports of a domain being a nasty one in a 5-minute period of time. You just *wham-bam* take that domain down without looking at it and you could have just been the worst link in a staged act chain.
I'm not trying to be an ass, but I'm posting what I witness daily: Everyone wants to save money, including big companies. If VeriSign were to have this ability (along with other TLD registrars), then they will likely want to automate everything they can. See paragraph 2 above.
You don't have to have "the best security and tracking team on the planet" to notice that someone's trying tens of thousands of usernames and passwords and failing.
I didn't say that they ARE the best team. I said "PR stunt" which is targeted at the unknowing, not the most knowledgeable receiver.
And it doesn't exactly scream competence when it turns out that user details your company failed to protect are now being actively used by fraudsters. It just compounds the original failure.
I also mentioned the possibility that these users don't exist. "PR STUNT" - italicized and capped. I don't know how to make what I said more clear.
If you're one of the users of a company that releases that kind of information, and you aren't one of the "affected" people, it increases your feeling of safety and security. Simple logic, simple stunt. While they're at it, they may as well have people out on the 'net putting forth information that maintains the feelings of gravity and reality toward this situation that supposedly occurred (again, making others feel they "[weren't] the ones affected"). In fact, there was an anonymous comment in reply to mine where an anonymous commenter posted the notification they got from Sony. If it weren't an anonymous commenter, it would bear some weight. Anonymous = could be as false as the earth being the center of the universe.
I'm not saying that this IS what happened; I'm saying that it's odd that they are so publicly releasing information about it when, in fact, companies try to keep it as quiet as possible. And I'll balance your counterargument in advance - they also didn't say "we are dedicated to making people aware of the situation, and are striving to be more open than [competitors]."
If you're going to really play the game, play it through at the beginning to avoid losing customers' positive feelings.
Too bad that was anonymous.
...an amendment to a different bill which would have had the effect of repealing parts of the DEA.
1. Law is put into effect.
2. New law is put into effect.
3. 'Prior fart' used to nullify 2.
Nice, people.
...It could be another PR stunt to make it look like they have the best security and tracking team on the planet.
I'd like to hear from one of the 93,000 people whose accounts were suspended. I'd like to know that these are actual accounts with real people.
Welcome to my world growing up. Actually, I'm still there, but it's a lot easier to laugh INSIDE instead of outward at others now.
I feel your kids' pain. It doesn't really get better until you are free and have the ability to laugh at others and/or find people you can communicate with. Hopefully ones that can understand one freaking thing you are saying. >:(
Could it be that the firm is simply applying spin, describing the attack as a 'highly sophisticated Advanced Persistent Threat' to protect its image?
Let me make a quick change. That is a question, so let's make it a statement. Also, let's change a few words and.... *Cartman voice* There we go:
"The firm is simply applying spin, describing the attack as a 'highly sophisticated Advanced Persistent Threat' to protect an image... An image that their services are worth money."
/snark
I'm not saying that they aren't, I'm just sayin', man... I'm just sayin'.
...What does a 4 year engineering degree help a construction guy in running a back loader, construction crane, or other construction equipment? When the theory on how it should work and how it works on the work site are not the same....
Fully agreed. This is one of my major concerns, actually. The other end of the issue is the lack of understanding affecting other parts of the schemata.
I have seen and heard the below many times, and THIS IS NOT A JOKE.
e.g. (and Boss below is an IT manager with a degree)
Boss: We need to make some quick changes on the web site so we can get a new customer on board in less than a week.
Developer: I'll need about three days to get an answer for you. Consider it done.
Boss: We don't have time for that. I need an answer from you two right away. Like, now. That's why I called this meeting.
Systems Engineer: Okay, well, um, systems can handle that load, no problem. The code, on the other hand.....
Developer: Wow.. Umm... We can't make those changes in a week's time. That is going to require a LOT, and I mean a LOT of rewriting.
Boss: All you have to do is add a dashboard. Why is that so hard?
Developer: I have to change the entire set of code that affects the login process. Then, in order to get the data that I need for population of the session-based dashboard conten.......
Boss: GAHH, blah blah blah... I don't understand what the issue is. You're speaking Greek alien talk. WHAT IS THE PROBLEM???
Systems Engineer: If I may.... Thank you. What [Developer] is saying is that when this system was designed, it was not designed in a way to allow fast code changes. It was rushed, so there are now problems with......
Boss: It was NOT rushed, and I am highly disappointed in you for giving up on a solution so quickly. If [Developer] can't do it and YOU can't learn how to help him fix this, I'll have to find someone who can.
Developer: I didn't write half of this code, and the parts that I didn't are unintelligible. [System Engineer] even looked at the code with me a couple of times and was disgusted by the methodologies they instituted to.........
Boss: BLAH BLAH BLAH you're not helping again. You're just complaining.....
Developer: I'm trying to tell you that bringing in outside help doesn't make this easier, it was bad code and it's going to take more than a week to interpret what was written AND make changes. It's just NOT THAT EASY.
System Engineer: Fully agreed. You can't have this in a week. Just because you believe it should be that easy doesn't make it that easy. It will be a minimum of, what do you say [Developer], three weeks MINIMUM, and that's without any debugging or quality assurance, effectively making more slime on top of slime that already exists?
Developer: Three weeks is conservative.
Boss: Slime has NOTHING TO DO WITH COMPUTERS or how code works. Why are you comparing the two? We're talking about a web change for our biggest customer!
Developer: *head on table*
System Engineer: *gouging own eyeball out with pen*
Exactly.
Buy cheap crap, you'll have to throw it out and buy a replacement faster. Buy expensive stuff and you'll more likely have a better end product, but the nervousness level increases in the buyer's mind. They don't want that expensive thing that they spend money on to fail.
My opinion (and yes, it's OPINION) is with self-image of buyers. This goes for the corporations being discussed as well as individual people. Very few people are willing to commit to a risky situation unless they can a.) blame failure on someone else easily or b.) use every success point to their advantage, thereby making any failures look completely negligible. Of course there is a c.) have both 'a' and 'b' simultaneously. That's what everyone wants.
Self-image is lowered if one believes they are only getting something they can blame someone else for, as well as buying something that they have to rely on success points for (there are magic Human artifacts called 'guilt' and 'fear').
What we have now is a situation where people can come up with the best thing they can by having cheap stuff written quickly by someone else, spending time massaging it in-house, and coming up with an end product that they say "WE made this", while at the same time having an entity to blame if something fails.
The above statement is key. It's the fastest, easiest, cheapest route to a high self-image combined with lowered responsibility over failure.
The VP at SAIC is saying that if the government demands that the software they purchase actually meets some minimum standard of quality then everyone will throw up their hands and quit. Which he feels will cause more software to be handed off to overseas developers who will do even a worse job than has already been done.
This smells very much like GM & Ford complaining that new fuel standards will be a technical impossibility to reach just moments before one of their competitors roll out models to the showroom floor that make the grade.
So if I'm reading this correctly, the logic at the bottom layer of SAIC's complaint is, translated from what the VP said, "We don't have the resources to do this. It's unfair that you're demanding a provider that does have these services. I call UNFAIR!"
We always complain about a customer (or gov't) mandating requirements that we can't provide, yet another company can. We call it favoritism, but the gov't didn't change the requirements in order to HELP those companies; the requirements are changed because they are the REQUIREMENTS. If there is only one or two providers of service/software/hardware/food/etc that can provide it, then they win the "contract" or, in this case, future success.
What actually needs to happen is that people.... have no idea what they mean, how they work and how they can and should be used in daily life.
Another part of science is not focusing on something and taking it out of context.
His reference was the 'cult of the statistic', not statistics plain and simple.
Translation: If you think, you can use statistics where applicable. He's referencing non-thinkers that use statistics to show that they know something when they have no clue what 'that thing' really is.... IMHO.
You are confusing evidence that contradicts your position with bullshit.
If 99,999 other people have one experience (note: that's just 99,999 anecdotes, but whatever, you're argument has bigger holes) then that one outlier is STILL relevant. The massive weight of the evidence rests with the 99,999 anecdotes, but they don't make the 1 counter-example cease to exist merely because the cult of statistics says we can't reference individual experience anymore. It's loony and it has no basis in reality to believe that what 1 individual experiences becomes irrelevant as a point of evidence simply because it doesn't conform to expectations.
-GiH
I think you just pointed out where science came from.
The cult of the statistic is dumb. It needs to go away.
Is saying "Amen" to GodInHell inappropriate? /snark
Well, screw it. AMEN.
subject says it all
Subject has nothing to do with the summary OR the article. The actual article is talking about busting people who are counterfeiting and selling hardcopy, NOT people who are file-sharing.
And as typical, your utter bullshit got a +3. Good job, "mods".
It's called opinion. Some people have it and when others agree, sometimes it's "modded up". That's sort of what the purpose of the mod system is.
If we were supposed to only post fact, there's no point in a "comment" system.
The programme had been used in 2009, he said.
Sure, just like Apple's spying tech, they just patented it so the bad guys wouldn't be able to use it, see? ^_^
Concerned: "FaceBook, we are concerned that our web presence is being tracked on more than just your site. We are concerned that we cannot opt out of this tracking. What do you have to say about this?"
FB: "No we don't do that sort of thing. It's immoral and insecure. It's one of the major things that everyone would be concerned about, so trust us, we are NOT doing something like that."
Concerned: "Oh, okay. We'll trust you. Thanks for the comforting statements. There may still be public statements about it though, just to keep peoples' eyes on you."
FB Internal: Wow, that's actually a good idea. It might work. Hey, techs, could we do this if we wanted to?
FB Tech: Yep. Sure can. It's actually not that hard. Can you encourage other sites to include <this code>?
FB Internal: Sure. No problem there. We'll make sites feel they are getting a MAJOR benefit from it.
FB Tech: Okay, we can have that done in a very short time, actually. Solid as a rock.
FB Internal: Hey legal team, can we do this or would it be breaking the law?
FB Legal: There's no precedent on this specific method. Since we want more money, you need to bring more money in to pay us so... sure.. yeah. It's safe. Do it! Whose idea was this, anyway?
FB Internal: Well, some concerned group wrote us about it and we denied having anything to do with it.
FB Legal: So they didn't mention that it was an idea or concept that they designed and were going to use?
FB Internal: No.. Actually, they implied that it's something they wish would never happen.
FB Legal: Hmm.. A lot could be made from this, plus if FB is going to be a competitor against other major corporations, especially Google, we need to ensure that we are the only ones doing it. It needs to be fresh. Actually, since it came up as a concern with a lot of profitability attached, I can't believe that other companies aren't doing this already. We need to do some research to make sure we're not missing something here... Give us a week or less. We'll get back to you.
---------- a few days pass ----------
FB Legal: Nope, no one else is using this method. We can't find any examples of patent filings that mention anything EXACTLY like this, so if we were really detailed in the filing... you know, make sure we cross all T's, etc... Plus, *FIRST TA FILE, BITCHEZ!*
FB Internal: Patent. Hmm... I like the sound of that. It's the hip thing that's encouraged nowadays, anyhow. Plus it would give us fuel for lawsuits if we go south in the future. Nobody would you know, KNOW, if we like, filed a patent. It's not announced publicly or anything.... so.... Wow. I like the idea those concerned people brought to our attention. Hey Legal, start the patent process NOOOOWWWWW!
This would require the employing world to stop looking at exam scores as the primary metric for eligibility when hiring.
I'm open to ideas for alternatives, though.
:)
That would mean that the company hiring would have to employ HR people with enough knowledge and "out of the box thinking" to determine which people are the best hires; this is pre and peri-interview.
If management were to make the decisions of "best hire", the manager referenced here would have to have the same skills.
Oh, wait... some companies *DO* have that. The problem is money and emotional security of the decision-maker, unfortunately. I'm rambling so I'll quit.
Looks like it was simply an attempt to figure out the answer to the ultimate question:
"For which reason do people set their accounts up in the first place; for DVD rentals or for streaming?"
They know that you can choose to do both, but it would be beneficial to see which driver really motivates people to sign up with them. That would help them deal with the losses they have experienced by promoting the thing that people want the most. That isn't such a bad thing.
The end result is that they realize and ACCEPT, unlike many other companies, that, "We're screwed if we do and screwed if we don't."
I respect them for that, as well.
Now, they need to innovate. Provide something that is unique and wanted / in high demand.
The end killer is that I started with Hulu. I'm happy with what Hulu provides. When Netflix has something that I want to see, that Hulu does NOT have, I would like to be able to pay for single-views. In other words, I don't want to establish an account just to see something I wanted to see. I want to pay to see it, then not have to worry about cancelling my account at the end.
Institute that, Netflix, and I'll buy stuff from you. That is, of course, if you have it available in the first place. That's another key: good selection.
Oh, no, you didn't come off as rude. I get pissed when I'm dumb. :)
The overall you explained is perfectly understandable. Apparently, not everything is common knowledge, either.
Having said that, the concern sticks not with the overall release of heat, it's the speed of release. In addition, there's more that factors in, such as storage (environmental - metals, acid, plastic), and cost.
Actually, factor all of it together and it comes down to cost for the average person. Make the prices reasonable and most would buy in.
Energy isn't free, and I'm still stuck at the "what am I missing" stage. There HAS to be a downside. If the only downside is cost, then case closed.
Interesting.
So burning coal to generate electricity with steam moving a turbine, transmitting over lines, and being used at the destination generates some heat but also gets transferred to motors, light (yes, even TVs), and other heat generating units (a lot of them).... At the same time, solar energy is reaching the surface and heating the ground and longwave radiation is heating the atmosphere on the way back up...
Or, we have solar panels that capture solar energy and emit some from the surface of the photovoltaic cell back into the atmosphere, and convert the rest into electricity which undergoes the above processes from end-of-line transfer on down.... Less heat is being emitted from the power plants now, however.
Please explain how the simple law of conservation of energy doesn't apply to sunlight, thereby breaking the theory of relativity...? I need to learn this, apparently.
I'm pretty sure it's self-serving statistical numbers. No company releases information unless they have something to gain from it. Dice wants visitors, I believe. Ad revenue is prime, uh huh, uh huh.
You know what the sickest part is? In TFA, the "Shortage" link points to "marketing.dice.com/...."
I rest my case, your honor :)
But the taxpayer's investment is never paid back. Subsidies are not a solution, it's a broken window fallacy that replacing powerplants with solar panels makes things better.
You're right. I should opt to first-off, use which type of energy I wish to. To encourage me to use something that is "better", they first have to prove that it IS, in fact, better. Secondly, they need to show me that the end down-sides of it are lower than the current ones. Third, they need to make it affordable. In other words, I use my process called "CPA": Choice, Proof of concept, Affordability.
I'm lacking a few things in P and A to switch. The cost to switch my place over to solar is over $30,000. I don't have more than 10% of that which I am able to spend right now. If I could do it for 3 grand, it's a done deal.... as long as there isn't more long-term consequence (financially and environmentally) from solar.
I'm pretty sure the planetary effects from soaking up all of the power we need from solar panels would be something on the order of the sea level rise that would occur from me pissing into the ocean.
Hehe you're right.
I hate to play double-logic, but Mr. Anonymous commenter also had two other points on solar:
2. More manufacturing (conversion) of *OTHER* resources must occur; there will be more plastic/glass/other covering material, Silicon, other conductive metals, wire and its insulation, etc.
3. What are we going to do with the waste products where the Si / absorption material has effectively become unusable along with wear and tear?
That could be an issue. Or not. Food for thought, though.
Metro was just announced and the demand hasn't caught on, plus .NET is used for a lot more than home-end UI applications.
This post is akin to me hearing that a new form of candy has been developed and almost immediately asking, "The sale of chocolate is going up. There's a new kind of candy out there that needs much development and people are still eating chocolate... and more of it! What is going on?"
The article mentions nothing about Metro anyway. WTF?
*head-desk*