There are many legitimate business that cell used laptops and cellphones online. I used to work for one. The first thing we would do when we got a computer was to format the hard drive, seems prefectly reasonable to me. In the year I worked for that company we probaly sold over a thousand used computers on eBay and I would be horrorified to find out if any of them were stolen. I would also be pissed if I got arrested for it.
The question is where you were getting them, and what you actually did to ensure that they were legitimately owned by the people selling them to you. If you value your reputation and want no trouble with the law, you should probably make an effort to not resell stolen goods.
As you should know if you're in the business, you can quite often tell if the person trying to sell it stole it. Does it come with all the accessories, or at least the bulk of them? Do they have any of the manuals? Do they actually know anything about the computer? Can they tell you what programs they used with it? Can they log on to it successfully? None of these is a guarantee, but by spending a few minutes you can eliminate most of the thieves, and probably deter the rest.
You should be able to tell within a couple of minutes whether someone is selling a stolen computer over 90% of the time. To follow your analogy, this guy basically bought a car from someone who didn't have the title, registration, or keys, and was happy to take 25% of the car's value to be rid of it. Yeah, if the buyer goes for that, they should definitely suspect the car is stolen.
It's illegal to buy a laptop from someone if it turns out that laptop was stolen, even if you didn't know that when you bought it? Is it also illegal for me to think that's excessive?
Well, currently he's the only person linked to said laptop in a definitive manner. And for what it's worth - though impossible to prove - if you believe him when he says he didn't know it was stolen, I've got a rather large bridge to sell you in a lovely area of New York.
This guy's making money by selling laptops and cell phones online. He's a fence.
If this controller is a big hit it won't be too hard for Sony and MS to add one to their systems. Nintendo then loses what might be their main selling point. So in the end, it's still all about the games.
Yes and no. First, it's a matter of patents - how much of that device will Nintendo be able to patent? That determines how different Sony and MS will have to make similar devices, which prevent them from including some of the features. Second, it's a matter of how well implemented their versions are - a cheap knock off won't work. Third, it depends how many game manufacturers Sony/MS can get to use the device - Nintendo will have an easier time of that, as they exert tighter control over their game library. Fourth, it will depend how much longer it takes Sony/MS to do it, and whether Nintendo can build enough of a lead to win with the device.
I'd say Sony/MS can't wait until the device is a really big hit to try to do something about it.
Sure, so long as you have no need of credit. Ever.
Also, it seems, some utilities. My officemate today had a situation where the f'ing gas company required it. So you can also live without heat.
It sucks, but it's the way it is. The best you can do is reduce how often you use it. My PPO lets you request they use a dummy number, but the beauty is it's the same format as a real SSN, so when the doctor asks for your social, you give 'em the fake.
You can joke, but Miami were a group of native Americans indigenous to the midwest, including Ohio. A river in the area is also named after the tribe, and has been for hundreds of years.
The city in Florida sprung up at the end of the 1800s, and adopted the name because they thought it meant something vaguely pleasant regarding water.
So if anybody's ignorant, it's actually the clowns in Florida.
'That confidence,' says the article,'leads workers to do risky, even stupid, things at work, such as opening questionable e-mail messages or clicking on unknown Web site links.' Employee education and training doesn't help, either: '[S]ome workers slough off responsibility for even knowing about threats. Workers in larger companies don't worry about being educated. Big company employees just don't see security as their responsibility.'"
Well, at the end of the day, it's not. It's your responsibility as the IT person. Giving users privileges to do thise stupid things is the problem. Don't do it.
Workers shouldn't be expected to be security experts any more than the IT person should know how to do everyone else's job.
You know that YaST works from the console as well, right? Oh, you didn't
Well, no, I avoided YAST when I had the misfortune to have responsibility for a SuSE machine. Seems to be to be a layer of abstraction between you and the config files used by the applications themselves.
Oh, you really are giving slackware a try? Good job, most people aren't willing to try something without a graphical install. It has its charms though, namely that you learn not to rely on web-based and other graphical configuration tools (Yeah, I'm looking at you SuSE! Stick your YAST up your A...!).
I'm glad my fellow Slackware-ians have been helping you out. Lemme know if you ever find that C:\.
So why did you decide on Slackware, as opposed to the myriad other options?
Slackware is a bit more mature and less prone to change. You also have a lot of people who use Slackware because they know it inside and out.
Basically, if people haven't stopped using Slackware yet, they're not likely to.
Re:Best Best Practice: Don't Bloat Perl
on
Perl Best Practices
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I guarantee you, it would take you longer to master brainfuck than any other language around. Learning the instructions isn't the problem - doing what you want in the most efficient means is. That's kind of like mistaking an online dictionary for a native speaker of a language.
In other words, if all you know is the syntax, you don't know the language.
Re:Best Best Practice: Don't Bloat Perl
on
Perl Best Practices
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Perl is getting to the point where you need a 2-semester college course on the subject before you can fully understand all aspects of the language
That a joke? I don't think there's any language that can be fully understood after a 2-semester course.
Giving one's opinion typically doesn't constitute libel. Naturally, what is written needs to be framed to appropriately reflect that. There is a large different between opinions, such as:
"I was very dissatisfied with the work of Dr. X - the results of my treatment were not in line with what I was led to expect"
In other words, Dr. Lee isn't really being hired as an HR manager. Tom Burt was being ironic. He was making a funny. His was a wry comment on the ruling that Dr. Lee can't use his expertise when working at Google -- in other words, all he can do is hire them, but not talk to them. Tom Burt was using humor and analogies to point out that if Dr. Lee were to comply with the ruling (which, as somebody pointed out, is unenforcable) then he'd effectively be working as a mere HR manager. Amazingly, even Microsoft employees can sometimes engage in wit and humor.
I can't believe you just had to explain that. Evidently lead paint is still being used in some areas served by slashdot.
Yep. 50 years ago, the computers we have now would have been inconceivable. But 50 years ago, the computers we had 30 years ago were also inconceivable.
Before I get in the line-by-line, my basic response comes down to "show me some evidence," otherwise all your responses are unsubstantiated in any way, would drastically change Apple's business, and are unlikely.
All arguments that ignore what Apple actually is doing in favor of what they should do are irrelevant until they hire you as CEO.
********************
So you're now arguing that if they sell the Macintosh business to Dell/etc, they'd keep the Mac name? Why would they do that?
They probably won't. That's kind of the point. They won't sell the name, and they probably won't sell the line without the name. Recall that my assertion is that the sale won't happen at all.
Moving back to Apple: Yes, brand association does end as soon as you sell the business that's associated with that brand.
Really? Do you plan on carrying out those lobotomies to 300 million consumers in the US plus more worldwide? Most computer manufacturers make crap computers. Apple doesn't want to be associated with crap computers. As such, Apple will not give up control to the trademark that has been synonymous with them for 20 years. QED. Hell, remember when Jobs came back in 96 and killed all the clone agreements? He hates that crap. He won't do it.
There is no reason on earth why Apple would want to keep the Apple name if ditch the Macintosh line.
It's worth many millions of dollars, that's why. They've developed strong brand loyalty, recognition, etc. I swear, if they ever drop the Apple name I will kiss your ass. It will never happen. Point to anything other than conjecture that suggests otherwise.
Apple Corps would sue them into the ground, and quite legitimately. It's a liability. And we're talking about four, five, years hence from now.
Them selling Mac or not has nothing whatsoever to do with their liability with regard to the music label. They've made a deal before with Apple Records, they can and will do it again. That is simply not worth canning their name and image.
Also, despite your assertion, you've not addressed why the hell a PC maker would want to screw with Macs which, as you state, have such a low market share. They integrate into Dell's core business badly.
Irrelevent. They may want iPod users to try the Mac, but they'd be fools not to try to continue to build up the Mac business if there's interest in it.
Actually, that's the only relevant thing here, because it's what Apple is actually doing, and plans to do. I'm pretty sure they know their business better than you do. Everything you've said is conjecture based on absolutely nothing. Apple has said they are actively trying to migrate Windows users to the Mac. You might remember their switch campaign, for example. I think I'll trust Apple over your assertions.
However, the fact is that the Mac line simply isn't going anywhere. Marketshare is not significantly increasing and there's an increasing focus on the low end, lowering profits.
First, the marketshare doesn't need to significantly increase, they need a stable source of income which you ignore. Despite its success, its iTunes line is less than 5 years old.
Banking their entire future on a single product that has NO customer lock-in is a poor idea. With Mac, they have basically guaranteed income of $2000 every 4 years from damn near every Mac owner on the planet, as well as continuous smaller purchases. That is a very good source of stable income to use as a cash cow to support risky ventures like Apple does. Getting rid of that stable income would be incredibly stupid right now.
I ignore the integration issue because it's an irrelevence. Apple doesn't control Windows. Apple never will. What? You think Apple needs OS X as a result? How does OS X help? OS X is on 5% of their customer's PCs.
I'm pretty sure Apple isn't dropping out of the computer business entirely. Again, if you have a single shred of evidence to
They do if it's not their name. I didn't say they'll license the name, I said they'll sell it.
Brand association doesn't end as soon as you sell something. There is no way they will ever trust anyone else to their core image. Mac is a big part of that. If there were any chance of seeing a payoff, I'd lay serious cash on them never selling the rights to the Mac name.
iTunes is a brand, not a product. There's iTunes.app, the iTunes Music Store, and iTunes for Phones. In any case, iTunes is the most obvious name, not necessarily the name they'll pick, but I have a hard time believing they will not use it. Five years is a long time to build the iTunes brand up to be as recognizable as "Apple", and that's exactly what they're doing with the ROKR phone and music store.
OK, they'll never change their name to that of a suite of products either. If they were going to do that they'd be called "Macintosh" by now since that's all they sold for 15 years.
And changing the name to "iTunes" is still a bad idea since the clear direction for them is to get into more gadgets that aren't musical. There is absolutely no reason for them to change the name, and they won't.
You also don't address the fact that abandoning one of the world's most recognizable brands/logos would be retarded.
When you believe someone else can make more profits on it than you could ever do, and therefore are able to raise more money by selling it than you would by owning it.
There's no indication at all that this is feasible, and you ignore the other side of the coin - namely, why the hell would a PC builder want to buy Mac?
The only connection is one of "Wow, this iPod's high quality, I see Apple makes computers too, maybe I should try one!" If they were leveraging one to sell the other, they're doing so incompetantly.
Even according to Apple, that is the Mac mini's complete reason for existance. Getting Windows iPod users to try the Mac from that exact rationale.
In any case, "Stevie" isn't as fickle as you might think. "Stevie" had a Thinkpad for a very long time after he rejoined Apple. "Stevie" is a shrewd businessman, he's not going to prop up a platform unless it's in Apple's best interests.
I'm Glad he owned a thinkpad, I guarantee he also owned a mac. And he's more stubborn than shrewd.
Its marketshare isn't increasing, either. So we're seeing reduced profit margins, and no serious increase in marketshare. Does this strike you as a good long-term profit strategy? It would strike me as a good reason to package the Mac as an aquisition target.
Their clear goal is to increase Mac share. The Mac business is also a very dependable cash cow with lots of long term customers. It is a good thing to leverage when starting up a new business like iPod. There's no good reason to get rid of your mist dependable income stream.
You also ignore the integration issue, in that there's no way they sell Mac without selling OS X, and they're not getting out of the computer business alltogether.
Also, since this is a Neal Armstrong sized leap, do you have absolutely anything to support this? Because it's thin on evidence and rationale even by Macrumors standards.
My guess? Apple intends to sell off the Mac, probably with the Apple brandname too.
No way. They don't trust anyone with their image/name, there's no way they pull an IBM here. They *might* contract out all manufacturing and some of the crap work, but Stevie's a control freak so they're not selling it.
Apple itself will then rename itself to iTunes.
They're not changing the name either, and not to that of a product, for two reasons. One, the Apple name is incredibly recognizable. Two, they're not going to hardwire themselves to a product, as that would be stupid.
The Macintosh, in some ways, is dying. It's still a profitable niche, and will be for a long time to come, but it has to beat an 800lb Gorilla, and it's questionable it'll ever be able to do so.
So since it's rather profitable, why sell it off? Everything they've done with the Mac mini etc. suggests they're trying to leverage their iPod windows userbase to try the Mac. Remember, Stevie still loves the Mac, and that's all that matters. Its marketshare isn't dropping anymore, and their long term plan seems to be to sacrifice some of their famous margins to boost share.
As far as Mac goes, they won't kill it, and they won't sell it, but they might contract out more of the work.
Slashdot Mirror
The question is where you were getting them, and what you actually did to ensure that they were legitimately owned by the people selling them to you. If you value your reputation and want no trouble with the law, you should probably make an effort to not resell stolen goods.
As you should know if you're in the business, you can quite often tell if the person trying to sell it stole it. Does it come with all the accessories, or at least the bulk of them? Do they have any of the manuals? Do they actually know anything about the computer? Can they tell you what programs they used with it? Can they log on to it successfully? None of these is a guarantee, but by spending a few minutes you can eliminate most of the thieves, and probably deter the rest.
You should be able to tell within a couple of minutes whether someone is selling a stolen computer over 90% of the time. To follow your analogy, this guy basically bought a car from someone who didn't have the title, registration, or keys, and was happy to take 25% of the car's value to be rid of it. Yeah, if the buyer goes for that, they should definitely suspect the car is stolen.
Well, currently he's the only person linked to said laptop in a definitive manner. And for what it's worth - though impossible to prove - if you believe him when he says he didn't know it was stolen, I've got a rather large bridge to sell you in a lovely area of New York.
This guy's making money by selling laptops and cell phones online. He's a fence.
Yes and no. First, it's a matter of patents - how much of that device will Nintendo be able to patent? That determines how different Sony and MS will have to make similar devices, which prevent them from including some of the features. Second, it's a matter of how well implemented their versions are - a cheap knock off won't work. Third, it depends how many game manufacturers Sony/MS can get to use the device - Nintendo will have an easier time of that, as they exert tighter control over their game library. Fourth, it will depend how much longer it takes Sony/MS to do it, and whether Nintendo can build enough of a lead to win with the device.
I'd say Sony/MS can't wait until the device is a really big hit to try to do something about it.
Unless you're my officemate, you seem to be incorrect. They would not connect him without a SSN, and he asked about myriad ways of avoiding that.
Preferred Provider Organization. It's a type of health care insurance, and is usually a bit better than an HMO.
Also, it seems, some utilities. My officemate today had a situation where the f'ing gas company required it. So you can also live without heat.
It sucks, but it's the way it is. The best you can do is reduce how often you use it. My PPO lets you request they use a dummy number, but the beauty is it's the same format as a real SSN, so when the doctor asks for your social, you give 'em the fake.
The city in Florida sprung up at the end of the 1800s, and adopted the name because they thought it meant something vaguely pleasant regarding water.
So if anybody's ignorant, it's actually the clowns in Florida.
Well, at the end of the day, it's not. It's your responsibility as the IT person. Giving users privileges to do thise stupid things is the problem. Don't do it.
Workers shouldn't be expected to be security experts any more than the IT person should know how to do everyone else's job.
Well, no, I avoided YAST when I had the misfortune to have responsibility for a SuSE machine. Seems to be to be a layer of abstraction between you and the config files used by the applications themselves.
As does firefox.
I'm glad my fellow Slackware-ians have been helping you out. Lemme know if you ever find that C:\.
So why did you decide on Slackware, as opposed to the myriad other options?
That's hilarious. Good luck with that. I hear CYGWIN works well.
Basically, if people haven't stopped using Slackware yet, they're not likely to.
In other words, if all you know is the syntax, you don't know the language.
That a joke? I don't think there's any language that can be fully understood after a 2-semester course.
is very different from
I can't believe you just had to explain that. Evidently lead paint is still being used in some areas served by slashdot.
Yep. 50 years ago, the computers we have now would have been inconceivable. But 50 years ago, the computers we had 30 years ago were also inconceivable.
Yeah. The problem is when they decide you need more "fire insurance."
I don't even think acid explains that.
Nah, crack. Had it been LSD, the color scheme would have been much better.
Before I get in the line-by-line, my basic response comes down to "show me some evidence," otherwise all your responses are unsubstantiated in any way, would drastically change Apple's business, and are unlikely.
All arguments that ignore what Apple actually is doing in favor of what they should do are irrelevant until they hire you as CEO.
********************
So you're now arguing that if they sell the Macintosh business to Dell/etc, they'd keep the Mac name? Why would they do that?
They probably won't. That's kind of the point. They won't sell the name, and they probably won't sell the line without the name. Recall that my assertion is that the sale won't happen at all.
Moving back to Apple: Yes, brand association does end as soon as you sell the business that's associated with that brand.
Really? Do you plan on carrying out those lobotomies to 300 million consumers in the US plus more worldwide? Most computer manufacturers make crap computers. Apple doesn't want to be associated with crap computers. As such, Apple will not give up control to the trademark that has been synonymous with them for 20 years. QED. Hell, remember when Jobs came back in 96 and killed all the clone agreements? He hates that crap. He won't do it.
There is no reason on earth why Apple would want to keep the Apple name if ditch the Macintosh line.
It's worth many millions of dollars, that's why. They've developed strong brand loyalty, recognition, etc. I swear, if they ever drop the Apple name I will kiss your ass. It will never happen. Point to anything other than conjecture that suggests otherwise.
Apple Corps would sue them into the ground, and quite legitimately. It's a liability. And we're talking about four, five, years hence from now.
Them selling Mac or not has nothing whatsoever to do with their liability with regard to the music label. They've made a deal before with Apple Records, they can and will do it again. That is simply not worth canning their name and image.
Also, despite your assertion, you've not addressed why the hell a PC maker would want to screw with Macs which, as you state, have such a low market share. They integrate into Dell's core business badly.
Irrelevent. They may want iPod users to try the Mac, but they'd be fools not to try to continue to build up the Mac business if there's interest in it.
Actually, that's the only relevant thing here, because it's what Apple is actually doing, and plans to do. I'm pretty sure they know their business better than you do. Everything you've said is conjecture based on absolutely nothing. Apple has said they are actively trying to migrate Windows users to the Mac. You might remember their switch campaign, for example. I think I'll trust Apple over your assertions.
However, the fact is that the Mac line simply isn't going anywhere. Marketshare is not significantly increasing and there's an increasing focus on the low end, lowering profits.
First, the marketshare doesn't need to significantly increase, they need a stable source of income which you ignore. Despite its success, its iTunes line is less than 5 years old.
Banking their entire future on a single product that has NO customer lock-in is a poor idea. With Mac, they have basically guaranteed income of $2000 every 4 years from damn near every Mac owner on the planet, as well as continuous smaller purchases. That is a very good source of stable income to use as a cash cow to support risky ventures like Apple does. Getting rid of that stable income would be incredibly stupid right now.
I ignore the integration issue because it's an irrelevence. Apple doesn't control Windows. Apple never will. What? You think Apple needs OS X as a result? How does OS X help? OS X is on 5% of their customer's PCs.
I'm pretty sure Apple isn't dropping out of the computer business entirely. Again, if you have a single shred of evidence to
Brand association doesn't end as soon as you sell something. There is no way they will ever trust anyone else to their core image. Mac is a big part of that. If there were any chance of seeing a payoff, I'd lay serious cash on them never selling the rights to the Mac name.
iTunes is a brand, not a product. There's iTunes.app, the iTunes Music Store, and iTunes for Phones. In any case, iTunes is the most obvious name, not necessarily the name they'll pick, but I have a hard time believing they will not use it. Five years is a long time to build the iTunes brand up to be as recognizable as "Apple", and that's exactly what they're doing with the ROKR phone and music store.
OK, they'll never change their name to that of a suite of products either. If they were going to do that they'd be called "Macintosh" by now since that's all they sold for 15 years.
And changing the name to "iTunes" is still a bad idea since the clear direction for them is to get into more gadgets that aren't musical. There is absolutely no reason for them to change the name, and they won't.
You also don't address the fact that abandoning one of the world's most recognizable brands/logos would be retarded.
When you believe someone else can make more profits on it than you could ever do, and therefore are able to raise more money by selling it than you would by owning it.
There's no indication at all that this is feasible, and you ignore the other side of the coin - namely, why the hell would a PC builder want to buy Mac?
The only connection is one of "Wow, this iPod's high quality, I see Apple makes computers too, maybe I should try one!" If they were leveraging one to sell the other, they're doing so incompetantly.
Even according to Apple, that is the Mac mini's complete reason for existance. Getting Windows iPod users to try the Mac from that exact rationale.
In any case, "Stevie" isn't as fickle as you might think. "Stevie" had a Thinkpad for a very long time after he rejoined Apple. "Stevie" is a shrewd businessman, he's not going to prop up a platform unless it's in Apple's best interests.
I'm Glad he owned a thinkpad, I guarantee he also owned a mac. And he's more stubborn than shrewd.
Its marketshare isn't increasing, either. So we're seeing reduced profit margins, and no serious increase in marketshare. Does this strike you as a good long-term profit strategy? It would strike me as a good reason to package the Mac as an aquisition target.
Their clear goal is to increase Mac share. The Mac business is also a very dependable cash cow with lots of long term customers. It is a good thing to leverage when starting up a new business like iPod. There's no good reason to get rid of your mist dependable income stream.
You also ignore the integration issue, in that there's no way they sell Mac without selling OS X, and they're not getting out of the computer business alltogether.
Also, since this is a Neal Armstrong sized leap, do you have absolutely anything to support this? Because it's thin on evidence and rationale even by Macrumors standards.
I love it. Apple involves themselves with a total clunker and people are trying to spin this as genius.
People, even Apple screws up on occasion. They better come out with a good phone within 6 months, or this is an unmitigated failure.
No way. They don't trust anyone with their image/name, there's no way they pull an IBM here. They *might* contract out all manufacturing and some of the crap work, but Stevie's a control freak so they're not selling it.
Apple itself will then rename itself to iTunes.
They're not changing the name either, and not to that of a product, for two reasons. One, the Apple name is incredibly recognizable. Two, they're not going to hardwire themselves to a product, as that would be stupid.
The Macintosh, in some ways, is dying. It's still a profitable niche, and will be for a long time to come, but it has to beat an 800lb Gorilla, and it's questionable it'll ever be able to do so.
So since it's rather profitable, why sell it off? Everything they've done with the Mac mini etc. suggests they're trying to leverage their iPod windows userbase to try the Mac. Remember, Stevie still loves the Mac, and that's all that matters. Its marketshare isn't dropping anymore, and their long term plan seems to be to sacrifice some of their famous margins to boost share.
As far as Mac goes, they won't kill it, and they won't sell it, but they might contract out more of the work.