Why would I want to give all my very personal information to a potential advertiser?
Tell me... What "personal information" of yours do you really think is not already for sale by people you have given it to or people who bought it from people you have given it to?
I have to agree with the parent. I am state-side at the moment, but I think filtering policy is mostly targeted at porn, and some ecommerce, primarily stock trading sites. Most of the facilities I've seen use commercial applications, so what is filtered and what is not can be hit and miss. I think that the story is bullshit.
From what I can tell here (a Military facility in the US), Internet filtering is hit and miss and often changes back and forth without notice depending on filtering software upgrades and back-ups. I don't think our IT people spacifically filter out any political sites, I've been able to access stuff all over the spectrum. I think because the military used a commercial product that comes with pre-configured profiles, what is filtered and what is not is very hit and miss. Several of my associates who are "down range" tell me that no real organized filtering takes place except for porn and certain ecommerce such as eBay and stock market. On recreational systems, generally, only porn is filtered out.
The Dragon capsule is the centerpiece of the proposal SpaceX submitted March 3 under NASA's Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) demonstration program.
An appropriate acronym, COTS, already used for "Commercial, Off The Shelf"...
Maybe they work somewhere they are required to save all their email (You may not yet be high enough on the corporate ladder to understand why...
In cases where email is required to be saved for legal reasons, this almost always done at the mail server administrative end, not the end user end. It is done by archiving back-ups of the entire system.
One of the reasons that big mailbox limits should be discouraged is that big limits generally encourage people to use their mailboxes to archive important information there, which is inappropriate, and often leads to losing important stuff.
All true, but I think the theater experience is a big issue as well.
"Back in the day" (before may Slashdetters where old enough to go to movies) theaters actually had screens that where significantly bigger than a big screen TV, hence the phrase "Big Screen Blockbuster" was often associated with a movie such as Lawrence of Arabia or something.
But this isn't the case anymore with mega-plexes squeezing more and more smaller screens into the same space. Snacks have always been premium priced (a "rip-off") at theaters, so I don't think that comes into the equation that much, but over the years the theater experience has gone from a special night out to a lot less fun than just waiting and renting the DVD.
A lot of people blame poor quality films, but they have always been around, just turn on the TV and surf the cable channels late at night.
For me at least, the quality of the theater experience keeps me out of the theater, not the movies themselves.
That's silly and just not the reality. Microsoft can program just fine, it's just that they choose not to program for compatibility with non-Microsoft standards.
First of all, the real issues here have nothing at all to do with "consumers" as most people define the term, this fight is about big money being spent at the Enterprise Computing level. Microsoft is not self sufficient in the world of Enterprise Computing. Of course they want to keep a tight hold on document formats. But in the end, they will cave because they need corporate alliences with many of these companies, at the Enterprise Computing level.
...they claim Intel is a monopoly abusing its monopoly power...
How on Earth can Intel be a monoipoly? There are plenty of AMD machines out there being built by major manufacturers. I choose not to buy them as do many people, because I prefer Intel. But they are there. Clearly, Intel is not a monopoly.
There is no relationship between this study and Katrina. The disaster people work in a different office, down the hall. Would you like me to transfer you? Hold on....
The problem is that Skype tried to blow smoke up our arses, and obviously we don't like that, and get suspicious, and think that something illegal is going on.
In this case, I would say "get a life." Honestly, getting hot and bothered because "Skype tried to blow smoke up our arses" sounds like childish foot stamping. Show your displeasure with Skype by not using their product, spend your valuble time (it is, right?) doing something productive rather than reactive. By the way, all this frothing and arm waiving will accomplish nothing at all, it's wasted energy. Move on to some other VoIP app in the secure knowledge that due to their greed, Skype will soon be dead. Or part of some spyware package...
Personally, I think it shows how incredibly stupid this move was on Intel's part. They're in the middle of an ongoing antitrust suit with AMD and this just gives AMD more ammo to use against them without giving any kind of real gain.
Ammo against them for what? That they made a business agreement with Skype? Not every distasteful business agreement is illegal.
evidence is growing that great service is essential for long-term customer retention
And, for most consumer driven business, long-term customer retention is not even part of the equation. Many companies exist solely to make a quick profit, and have their assets consumed by some other company with similar goals. There's no point in cultivating long term customers for a disposable product line.
Skype is a commercial product, it's not some revolutionary life-saving tonic that will free the masses of their bourgeois chains. There can be no surprise other than from ignorance that such a commercial product would employ questionable marketing. This is really a non-issue. Certainly Skype is free to make whatever design choices it wants that it feels are in the interests of it commercial goals. Skype does not hold a monopoly on VoIP, and if they want to put limitations on their product that alienates part of their potential customers, well, they are free to do so. Non-issue. Move on.
Because the huge cash bribe they received (from Zilog or say Motorola) to do so is not permitted. Duh.
There is no bribe here, it's a business agreement. Happens AL THE TIME in business. One business says to the other, "If you make your product exclusive to my product, I'll pay you some money". This is n ot called a "bribe". Get your facts straight.
Of course, I'm ignorant. But how come a law suit? Companies make marketing arrangements all the time. What law says Skype has to work with AMD at all? Why should Skype have to write software to work on AMD? No reason at all other than the desire not to alienate a set of users. Skype doesn't have a monopoly on VoIP, if they want to limit their software to Z80s or PowerPC chips, why shouldn't they be allowed to? Market pressures will determine if self-imposed limitations prove workable for Skype, not the politics of Intel hate, and geeks frothing at the mouth...
Slashdot Mirror
In addition to what the parent said, I have just, from my government computer, on a military installation, accessed all of those sites.
Tell me... What "personal information" of yours do you really think is not already for sale by people you have given it to or people who bought it from people you have given it to?
You're looking for something that isn't there to support you political agenda.
I have to agree with the parent. I am state-side at the moment, but I think filtering policy is mostly targeted at porn, and some ecommerce, primarily stock trading sites. Most of the facilities I've seen use commercial applications, so what is filtered and what is not can be hit and miss. I think that the story is bullshit.
From what I can tell here (a Military facility in the US), Internet filtering is hit and miss and often changes back and forth without notice depending on filtering software upgrades and back-ups. I don't think our IT people spacifically filter out any political sites, I've been able to access stuff all over the spectrum. I think because the military used a commercial product that comes with pre-configured profiles, what is filtered and what is not is very hit and miss. Several of my associates who are "down range" tell me that no real organized filtering takes place except for porn and certain ecommerce such as eBay and stock market. On recreational systems, generally, only porn is filtered out.
Isn't "jet fuel" a formulation of kerosene? Just askin'
The Dragon capsule is the centerpiece of the proposal SpaceX submitted March 3 under NASA's Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) demonstration program.
An appropriate acronym, COTS, already used for "Commercial, Off The Shelf"...
In cases where email is required to be saved for legal reasons, this almost always done at the mail server administrative end, not the end user end. It is done by archiving back-ups of the entire system.
Gmail accounts are totally inappropriate for business use or even near business use.
One of the reasons that big mailbox limits should be discouraged is that big limits generally encourage people to use their mailboxes to archive important information there, which is inappropriate, and often leads to losing important stuff.
All true, but I think the theater experience is a big issue as well. "Back in the day" (before may Slashdetters where old enough to go to movies) theaters actually had screens that where significantly bigger than a big screen TV, hence the phrase "Big Screen Blockbuster" was often associated with a movie such as Lawrence of Arabia or something. But this isn't the case anymore with mega-plexes squeezing more and more smaller screens into the same space. Snacks have always been premium priced (a "rip-off") at theaters, so I don't think that comes into the equation that much, but over the years the theater experience has gone from a special night out to a lot less fun than just waiting and renting the DVD. A lot of people blame poor quality films, but they have always been around, just turn on the TV and surf the cable channels late at night. For me at least, the quality of the theater experience keeps me out of the theater, not the movies themselves.
Ah yes, and every other software house produces top quality shit, and all OSS is the peak of perfection! Really!
That's silly and just not the reality. Microsoft can program just fine, it's just that they choose not to program for compatibility with non-Microsoft standards.
First of all, the real issues here have nothing at all to do with "consumers" as most people define the term, this fight is about big money being spent at the Enterprise Computing level. Microsoft is not self sufficient in the world of Enterprise Computing. Of course they want to keep a tight hold on document formats. But in the end, they will cave because they need corporate alliences with many of these companies, at the Enterprise Computing level.
When the baby is passed over the scanner there is no readout like in ther cartoon...
How on Earth can Intel be a monoipoly? There are plenty of AMD machines out there being built by major manufacturers. I choose not to buy them as do many people, because I prefer Intel. But they are there. Clearly, Intel is not a monopoly.
...they claim Intel is a monopoly abusing its monopoly power...not a monopoly.
It's not fraud. Get your facts and definitions correct. Talking like a lawyer does not make you a lawyer.
There is no relationship between this study and Katrina. The disaster people work in a different office, down the hall. Would you like me to transfer you? Hold on....
In this case, I would say "get a life." Honestly, getting hot and bothered because "Skype tried to blow smoke up our arses" sounds like childish foot stamping. Show your displeasure with Skype by not using their product, spend your valuble time (it is, right?) doing something productive rather than reactive. By the way, all this frothing and arm waiving will accomplish nothing at all, it's wasted energy. Move on to some other VoIP app in the secure knowledge that due to their greed, Skype will soon be dead. Or part of some spyware package...
Ammo against them for what? That they made a business agreement with Skype? Not every distasteful business agreement is illegal.
evidence is growing that great service is essential for long-term customer retention
And, for most consumer driven business, long-term customer retention is not even part of the equation. Many companies exist solely to make a quick profit, and have their assets consumed by some other company with similar goals. There's no point in cultivating long term customers for a disposable product line.
Skype is a commercial product, it's not some revolutionary life-saving tonic that will free the masses of their bourgeois chains. There can be no surprise other than from ignorance that such a commercial product would employ questionable marketing. This is really a non-issue. Certainly Skype is free to make whatever design choices it wants that it feels are in the interests of it commercial goals. Skype does not hold a monopoly on VoIP, and if they want to put limitations on their product that alienates part of their potential customers, well, they are free to do so. Non-issue. Move on.
There is no bribe here, it's a business agreement. Happens AL THE TIME in business. One business says to the other, "If you make your product exclusive to my product, I'll pay you some money". This is n ot called a "bribe". Get your facts straight.
Of course, I'm ignorant. But how come a law suit? Companies make marketing arrangements all the time. What law says Skype has to work with AMD at all? Why should Skype have to write software to work on AMD? No reason at all other than the desire not to alienate a set of users. Skype doesn't have a monopoly on VoIP, if they want to limit their software to Z80s or PowerPC chips, why shouldn't they be allowed to? Market pressures will determine if self-imposed limitations prove workable for Skype, not the politics of Intel hate, and geeks frothing at the mouth...