Well yes. That's another thing why I don't trust airline pricing.... How can it be cheaper to buy a round-trip ticket and waive the return trip than a buying a one-way ticket.....
Accidently posting earlier gave me the idea to check flights for my next holiday. 109€ for a transatlantic flight, plus 388€ fees and taxes. that's crazy. plain crazy.
I hate to be the one to break you the bad news, but if you're flying without staying at least a night, you're travelling at "business rates" anyway and overcharged that those few bucks for luggage won't matter.
I just checked FRA - LHR with LH. (what I would have to fly to meet our customer). Fly there in the morning and back in the evening: €388. Spend the night at a pub, fly back the following day: 199€. For that 180€ saved, you could check quite a bit of luggage...
1 small suitcase declared as hand luggage 1 Laptop case 1 Handbag 1 coat with everything heavy stuffed into it to avoid weight limits for checked and hand baggage 1 umbrella 2 duty free bags
or airlines are sometimes rather lenient with that fragile but bulky souvenir you bought..
Yes, but normal airlines still include 1pcs of baggage in the ticket price.
I wouldn't be surprised if RyanAir charged an additional fee on top of your ticket for using the airplane door to board the plane. Heck, they alraedy had extra fees for paying your bill!
The 95% of business that you had experience with must have been from some bottom of the barrel places, intelectually-wise.
Not neccessarily. A combination of small shop, grown infrastructure and a field of expertise not related to file management and word processing can do that trick too.
In the three companies I've worked for in the last 12 years (the last two counting > 10k employees),
it's only natural that it gets less of in issue in bigger companies. At some point you're crossing the line where buying and maintaining something expensive as sharepoint is worth its money and you tend to use specialized software for more and more tasks. There is nothing wrong with abusing excel as a database as long as e.g. your inventory consists of a few hunderd items. (assuming you're keeping some kind of document hygiene like making sure the guy responsible for updating it knows which one is the master copy and backups are kept) But you should know when to stop doing that and get some real enterprise tools for the tasks at hand. And at 10k employees, you're WAY past that point.
What you should be aware of at that size is a backlash-effect when people turn to Excel-macros again to bypass enterprise software, because setting up that urgent report would be a 3 weeks paperwork-heavy process instead of 3 hours of Excel magic.
(During my last 12 years, I worked in companys ranging from 50 to 250 employees. Usually owner managed and specialized enough to be global market leader in their field. I guess that's a difference between US and Europe.)
Did you ever see what people cram into the cabin just to avoid luggage fees? I'd love to see a fee for people travelling WITHOUT checked baggage and give an incentive to get all that baggage where it belongs - in the cargo area!
Word's version control is a lot more sophisticated. It can show you the document clean, or with strikeouts and inserts, or with annotations in the margins. You can accept and reject changes by pointing to them.
And it goes completly down the drain as soon as someone mails out the file or edits his local copy for whatever reason or simply insists on explicitly saving a new version with a different filename.
But the handful of people who don't fit in that category set the standards, and they need features like tracking changes, comments, and stylesheets.
The why on earth use Word? Have you ever seen someone actually use the Word Version tracking? 95% of business, version tracking for word files is to use "Save As" Document_new.doc, Document_newer.doc, or even Document_today.doc, cluttering a shared network drive. Documents get mailed around, either to people not able to access the office network share (or even to people who are), local copies are created by the dozen and so on.
I have to admit that MS office is really easy to use, but that often leads to the mess described above. There is nothing to prevent that but user education and discipline. We all know what happens when we have to rely on that.
The proper solution to those requirements would be LaTeX (or any other text based document source format, FormattingObjects, whatever) and SVN. Perhaps combined with a pdf-based archive to documeht incomming/outgoing stuff.
The Unix philosophy doesn't sell to non-technically-minded people, especially not when it conflicts with a superior workflow.
You can set up a superior workflow with *ix-tools, but you have to do it yourself, it's nothing that comes out of a box.
In a way, the choice of word processor is more or less irrelevant by comparison with the level of trust involved in putting my files in the hands of someone I don't personally know. If anything should happen to files on my own hard drives, I at least only have myself to blame for not having secured or backed them up. But there is always the risk that Google might be compromised, either from the outside or by some rogue sysadmin, and I don't want to even think about trying to claim any redress against Google if they fuck up.
Absolutely right. But a cloud provider has a team of pros exactly to avoid that. And I'd bet that for every file lost or compromised by a "cloud accident" there are 100 of files lost in a drive crash or "oops I didn't want to delete THAT folder" accident. (Or lost USB Stick or "reply all" or what else for the "compromised" variety)
So basically, you need to choose your solution based on your personal risk profile, like , is your company big enough to hire someone to take care of backups and storing them offsite? Is that guy reliable?
1) How can you make something "safe" that has the explicit purpose of being fatal 2) therefore a gun NOT firing when needed is seen as a DECLINE in safety.
Yes, the idea of multiple intelligences which cannot be captured or conveyed by a single numerical result has been brought up before. I just last year read a book called Frames of Mind by Howard Gardner which talks about the Theory of multiple intelligences.
In fact, I believe that Gardner came up with the idea of multple intelligences in 1983 when he published that book. Gardner broke down the "intelligences" into:
Which without a doubt are build as sums or averages of several tests used to measure even finer sub aspects of each of the named aspects. And what keeps me from creating an average score for all those aspects? I would get a Gardner-Quotient - a scientific sound number with no practical implications besides bragging rights. Exactly as the IQ.
And now take the GQ and leave out all those aspects that aren't commonly seen as part of "intelligence" (in that brainiac-kind sense): Musical, Bodily, or "psychological" stuff. This pretty much leaves you with exactly the fields IQ tests measure.
that shooter example is very good. that number would be a good way to track or assess your situation. the higher the better. so you could use it as a "score" after each level. Plot it in a chart, compare your chart against that of others...
But it is definitly no metric you can base any descisions on for your gameplay.
And that's the difference. No on claims IQ represents anything more than an overall score in a puzzle contest. It's the people who think that it is of any use who turned the iq-score into something mythical
That's because logic and geometric processing was considers part of the "intelligence" when the concept of an IQ has been formed. General knowledge has been left out deliberatly, as memorizing facts as a) culture dependant and b) isn't considered "real" intelligence.
Come on guys... IQ is arbitrary measurement and that's what it reflects - no more, but no less.
ok, thanks. But I doubt they really need that "handfull" (that's a quote) of people there for their ad business in Germany. Main operations in europe still are run from ireland and not a manned letterbox.
They basically only need to find a single feature that wouldn't work with pseudonyms and anything but real names isn't justified anymore.
Or they just block this one feature for people using pseudonyms.
Plus, since FB can hardly make sure that a name that I enter when creating an account is my real name, they can not really claim that their service wouldn't work with pseudonyms. I'm pretty sure that 10+% of the current accounts don't comply with the real name rule.
So this isn't about technical issues, this is only about Facebook changing their TOC (for German users, at least).
Basically, it's about explaining to the judge how essential that one feature is and THEN make a token change to the TOC. Just to allow the state privacy regulator (I forgot to mention that: Thilo Weichert is not even the federal privacy regulator. His field of work is limited to one of the norther german federal states.) to keep his face so no one will know that he never had a chance of getting facebook actually fined. (And no one is intrested in letting the public know how toothless privacy laws are)
There he started a series if posts, all under his 'un-american' enemies name, advocating for the legalisation of child porn and the abolition of age of consent laws. When I left the two were engaged in a blog comment shouting match, with Mr Asshole claiming that he now owned the rights to that name as he paid money for the domain and demanding the native american blog be closed down.
ok.. let's see....
Chances to get a court order ordering someone to stop using his real name: 0% Chances to get a court order ordering someone to stop a pseudonym. 80% after malicously registering it as a trademark. (and a guess of 20% od bloggers/users registering their nickname in any legally usefull way is REALLY optimistic)
There's no need for lame jokes with stupid made up names!
At least not as long as people like Karl Theodor Maria Nikolaus Johann Jacob Philipp Franz Joseph Sylvester Freiherr von und zu Guttenberg are quite real....
That won't happen. There is only a slim chance that this will ever become legally binding.
The power of german privacy regulators is basically limited to write threatening letters. usually you only hear from them when they threat google or facebook with some heavy fine every now and then. They are polite pretend to obey and make some token change in their TOS.
In this case there are several points that can be disputed by facebook:
Jurisdiction: Facebook is a US company with the european headquarters based in Ireland. No court ever finally ruled to what extend german laws can be applied here.
Feasability: The use of nicknames can only mandated if it is just and reasonable, so even the law here is not absolute. No one would require the use of pseudonyms from ebay or amazon. So facebook could always explain why real names are important to FB. They basically only need to find a single feature that wouldn't work with pseudonyms and anything but real names isn't justified anymore.
Credibility: If this would be anything else than a publicity stunt, Google+ would have received the same letter. They have an even more rigorous real name policy and even block obvious pseudonyms.
Facebook is going to let legal handle that and nothing of value was lost.
Letters from those privacy regulaters usually aren't worth the paper they're printed on.
If, and only if, there are any hearings about that, the first point will be, to what extend the irish franchise of a us company is subject to german law.
Slashdot Mirror
Well yes. That's another thing why I don't trust airline pricing.... How can it be cheaper to buy a round-trip ticket and waive the return trip than a buying a one-way ticket.....
Accidently posting earlier gave me the idea to check flights for my next holiday. 109€ for a transatlantic flight, plus 388€ fees and taxes. that's crazy. plain crazy.
Uhmm.. yes....
I hate to be the one to break you the bad news, but if you're flying without staying at least a night, you're travelling at "business rates" anyway and overcharged that those few bucks for luggage won't matter.
I just checked FRA - LHR with LH. (what I would have to fly to meet our customer). Fly there in the morning and back in the evening: €388. Spend the night at a pub, fly back the following day: 199€. For that 180€ saved, you could check quite a bit of luggage...
So that 1 piece became in the end:
1 small suitcase declared as hand luggage
1 Laptop case
1 Handbag
1 coat with everything heavy stuffed into it to avoid weight limits for checked and hand baggage
1 umbrella
2 duty free bags
or
airlines are sometimes rather lenient with that fragile but bulky souvenir you bought..
Yes, but normal airlines still include 1pcs of baggage in the ticket price.
I wouldn't be surprised if RyanAir charged an additional fee on top of your ticket for using the airplane door to board the plane. Heck, they alraedy had extra fees for paying your bill!
The 95% of business that you had experience with must have been from some bottom of the barrel places, intelectually-wise.
Not neccessarily. A combination of small shop, grown infrastructure and a field of expertise not related to file management and word processing can do that trick too.
In the three companies I've worked for in the last 12 years (the last two counting > 10k employees),
it's only natural that it gets less of in issue in bigger companies. At some point you're crossing the line where buying and maintaining something expensive as sharepoint is worth its money and you tend to use specialized software for more and more tasks. There is nothing wrong with abusing excel as a database as long as e.g. your inventory consists of a few hunderd items. (assuming you're keeping some kind of document hygiene like making sure the guy responsible for updating it knows which one is the master copy and backups are kept) But you should know when to stop doing that and get some real enterprise tools for the tasks at hand. And at 10k employees, you're WAY past that point.
What you should be aware of at that size is a backlash-effect when people turn to Excel-macros again to bypass enterprise software, because setting up that urgent report would be a 3 weeks paperwork-heavy process instead of 3 hours of Excel magic.
(During my last 12 years, I worked in companys ranging from 50 to 250 employees. Usually owner managed and specialized enough to be global market leader in their field. I guess that's a difference between US and Europe.)
Did you ever see what people cram into the cabin just to avoid luggage fees? I'd love to see a fee for people travelling WITHOUT checked baggage and give an incentive to get all that baggage where it belongs - in the cargo area!
That said, I don't see why anyone would use Google Docs. I guess for simple text files its ok
For that, it would have to support basic text editor features!
Word's version control is a lot more sophisticated. It can show you the document clean, or with strikeouts and inserts, or with annotations in the margins. You can accept and reject changes by pointing to them.
And it goes completly down the drain as soon as someone mails out the file or edits his local copy for whatever reason or simply insists on explicitly saving a new version with a different filename.
But the handful of people who don't fit in that category set the standards, and they need features like tracking changes, comments, and stylesheets.
The why on earth use Word? Have you ever seen someone actually use the Word Version tracking? 95% of business, version tracking for word files is to use "Save As" Document_new.doc, Document_newer.doc, or even Document_today.doc, cluttering a shared network drive. Documents get mailed around, either to people not able to access the office network share (or even to people who are), local copies are created by the dozen and so on.
I have to admit that MS office is really easy to use, but that often leads to the mess described above. There is nothing to prevent that but user education and discipline. We all know what happens when we have to rely on that.
The proper solution to those requirements would be LaTeX (or any other text based document source format, FormattingObjects, whatever) and SVN. Perhaps combined with a pdf-based archive to documeht incomming/outgoing stuff.
The Unix philosophy doesn't sell to non-technically-minded people, especially not when it conflicts with a superior workflow.
You can set up a superior workflow with *ix-tools, but you have to do it yourself, it's nothing that comes out of a box.
He already mixed it up with notepad.
In a way, the choice of word processor is more or less irrelevant by comparison with the level of trust involved in putting my files in the hands of someone I don't personally know. If anything should happen to files on my own hard drives, I at least only have myself to blame for not having secured or backed them up. But there is always the risk that Google might be compromised, either from the outside or by some rogue sysadmin, and I don't want to even think about trying to claim any redress against Google if they fuck up.
Absolutely right. But a cloud provider has a team of pros exactly to avoid that. And I'd bet that for every file lost or compromised by a "cloud accident" there are 100 of files lost in a drive crash or "oops I didn't want to delete THAT folder" accident. (Or lost USB Stick or "reply all" or what else for the "compromised" variety)
So basically, you need to choose your solution based on your personal risk profile, like , is your company big enough to hire someone to take care of backups and storing them offsite? Is that guy reliable?
If it would be true that
Guns work best when they are not fired
why does it matter if it fires or not?
A gun not firing when needed is an increase in murder and rape, not an increase in safety.
Yes, they work best when they don't have to be fired, but only because they're designed to be fatal when they actually are fired.
Two reasons:
1) How can you make something "safe" that has the explicit purpose of being fatal
2) therefore a gun NOT firing when needed is seen as a DECLINE in safety.
Yes, the idea of multiple intelligences which cannot be captured or conveyed by a single numerical result has been brought up before. I just last year read a book called Frames of Mind by Howard Gardner which talks about the Theory of multiple intelligences.
In fact, I believe that Gardner came up with the idea of multple intelligences in 1983 when he published that book. Gardner broke down the "intelligences" into:
Which without a doubt are build as sums or averages of several tests used to measure even finer sub aspects of each of the named aspects. And what keeps me from creating an average score for all those aspects? I would get a Gardner-Quotient - a scientific sound number with no practical implications besides bragging rights. Exactly as the IQ.
And now take the GQ and leave out all those aspects that aren't commonly seen as part of "intelligence" (in that brainiac-kind sense): Musical, Bodily, or "psychological" stuff. This pretty much leaves you with exactly the fields IQ tests measure.
that shooter example is very good. that number would be a good way to track or assess your situation. the higher the better. so you could use it as a "score" after each level. Plot it in a chart, compare your chart against that of others...
But it is definitly no metric you can base any descisions on for your gameplay.
And that's the difference. No on claims IQ represents anything more than an overall score in a puzzle contest. It's the people who think that it is of any use who turned the iq-score into something mythical
That's because logic and geometric processing was considers part of the "intelligence" when the concept of an IQ has been formed. General knowledge has been left out deliberatly, as memorizing facts as a) culture dependant and b) isn't considered "real" intelligence.
Come on guys... IQ is arbitrary measurement and that's what it reflects - no more, but no less.
But shouldn't they sue the people who actually PUBLISHED the picture?
ok, thanks. But I doubt they really need that "handfull" (that's a quote) of people there for their ad business in Germany. Main operations in europe still are run from ireland and not a manned letterbox.
They basically only need to find a single feature that wouldn't work with pseudonyms and anything but real names isn't justified anymore.
Or they just block this one feature for people using pseudonyms.
Plus, since FB can hardly make sure that a name that I enter when creating an account is my real name, they can not really claim that their service wouldn't work with pseudonyms. I'm pretty sure that 10+% of the current accounts don't comply with the real name rule.
So this isn't about technical issues, this is only about Facebook changing their TOC (for German users, at least).
Basically, it's about explaining to the judge how essential that one feature is and THEN make a token change to the TOC. Just to allow the state privacy regulator (I forgot to mention that: Thilo Weichert is not even the federal privacy regulator. His field of work is limited to one of the norther german federal states.) to keep his face so no one will know that he never had a chance of getting facebook actually fined. (And no one is intrested in letting the public know how toothless privacy laws are)
There he started a series if posts, all under his 'un-american' enemies name, advocating for the legalisation of child porn and the abolition of age of consent laws. When I left the two were engaged in a blog comment shouting match, with Mr Asshole claiming that he now owned the rights to that name as he paid money for the domain and demanding the native american blog be closed down.
ok.. let's see....
Chances to get a court order ordering someone to stop using his real name: 0%
Chances to get a court order ordering someone to stop a pseudonym. 80% after malicously registering it as a trademark. (and a guess of 20% od bloggers/users registering their nickname in any legally usefull way is REALLY optimistic)
Oh please, come on....
There's no need for lame jokes with stupid made up names!
At least not as long as people like Karl Theodor Maria Nikolaus Johann Jacob Philipp Franz Joseph Sylvester Freiherr von und zu Guttenberg are quite real....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl-Theodor_zu_Guttenberg
Oh come on....
Considering what little legal power Weichert and Schaar et.al. actually have, I doubt that someone would invest any money to bribe them.
That won't happen. There is only a slim chance that this will ever become legally binding.
The power of german privacy regulators is basically limited to write threatening letters. usually you only hear from them when they threat google or facebook with some heavy fine every now and then. They are polite pretend to obey and make some token change in their TOS.
In this case there are several points that can be disputed by facebook:
Jurisdiction: Facebook is a US company with the european headquarters based in Ireland. No court ever finally ruled to what extend german laws can be applied here.
Feasability: The use of nicknames can only mandated if it is just and reasonable, so even the law here is not absolute. No one would require the use of pseudonyms from ebay or amazon. So facebook could always explain why real names are important to FB. They basically only need to find a single feature that wouldn't work with pseudonyms and anything but real names isn't justified anymore.
Credibility: If this would be anything else than a publicity stunt, Google+ would have received the same letter. They have an even more rigorous real name policy and even block obvious pseudonyms.
Facebook is going to let legal handle that and nothing of value was lost.
That "german subsidiary" is based in Ireland. that's not a problem with the economic union.
Letters from those privacy regulaters usually aren't worth the paper they're printed on.
If, and only if, there are any hearings about that, the first point will be, to what extend the irish franchise of a us company is subject to german law.