Ask your psychiatrist if turning off your brain and going back to watching televised propaganda/distraction in a trance-like hypnotized state is right for you!
Refunding the money isn't enough. The fine has to be the at least the maximum conceivable profit from one instance of the crime, divided by the probability of any instance of the crime being discovered. Anything less is not a deterrent, but merely regulatory complicity: The selling of a license to steal.
When I buy a quart of milk, the jug contains a quart of milk. If I try to pour out this quart of milk all at once, it does not slow to a trickle after the first half-pint and then announce that I've reached my daily pouring limit because the dairy doesn't have the cows, feed, and trucks required to actually produce the whole quart it sold me. Not if everyone who bought milk wants to drink it at the same time.
Whatever law covers that situation with my quart of milk not being a whole quart, can also quite well handle the situation where I buy 1.5Mb/second bandwidth, and then the second doesn't actually contain all 1.5Mbits, because the company doesn't actually have the infrastructure it's selling access to. ISPs already throttle, that's why they have different speed tiers for us to buy, same as milk is offered by the pint, quart, half-gallon, or gallon.
What we're really talking about here, is that the ISPs are lying about how much milk is in the jug. If our 1.5Mb pipes have to drop to 384K when everyone downloads at the same time, then we have 384K pipes, and they should be labeled and priced as such. Throttling based on content is just a way to legitimize weights-and-measures fraud.
Here's a video of us exchanging vows in the eyes of the LORD, OF THE RINGS being exchanged... what? We're being summoned?
Matrix Revolutions
Welcome to the website of MATH 362, Advanced Algebra. Click here to see a video of various operations on a MATRIX: REVOLUTIONS, transformations, normalisation... what? We're being summoned?
there is no automated patch system for dummies (aka MacosX software update) that really easily informs and patches with 1-click.
Adding to what the other posters already mentioned, Mandrake has had this for years with Mandrake Update. It's analagous to Microsoft's Add/Remove Software applet in Control Panel (except with Windows Update rolled in, and much more robust). It passed the "mom and dad" test; they instantly recognized the format and had no problems.
I'd still rather mom and dad bought a Mac, but as far as usability for dummies goes, Mandrake passed Microsoft some time ago IMO.
In the Apple Computer forum on the net's premier techie BBS, probably not. I like Apple computers and OSX, and I know I'll get modded down into oblivion for saying anything critical of Apple Computer here in the Steve Jobs Reality Distortion Field forum, but c'mon.
In the context of music publishing, yes, if someone says, "They're on Apple" I think "Apple Records." And so do lots of other people, especially those who are, oh, about Steve Jobs's age. Let's not pretend he's innocent in all this - he was coattailing off the Beatles for cheap publicity from the beginning.
Apple [Computer] isn't making money by the association with Apple Records or the Beatles.
Au contraire. They counted on it in the early days.
Those of us old enough to remember can recall that Steve Jobs obviously knew damn well what he was doing when he chose the Apple Computer name and logo - he even admitted at the time that it was derivative of the Beatles' label. Apple Records was still active (and still are), pressing not Just Beatles, but also Lennon's stuff, and Badfinger, and a few other then-current acts. Jobs intentionally created the trademark collision, intending to reach the settlement (computers, no music) that he did, in order to get the Apple Computer name in the papers, Barnum-style. It worked, and wasn't a bother until computers started getting sound.
I think the contract was an asshat thing to do.
The contract was an inevitable end-result of Jobs's naming strategy. It was his endgame. The asshat thing to do was rip off someone else's trademark (Apple) in the first place, creating this perpetual problem for himself. And especially, doing it with the 800-lb gorilla that is The Beatles. Given the history, Apple Records is quite justified in smacking Jobs any time he comes anywhere near the music biz.
Maybe Jobs thought Apple Records would eventually slow-fade to groove noise, sound the dog whistle, lift their needle and go back in the jacket, leaving Apple Computer free and clear with the name. Jobs's big screw-up was that his name crash prevents Apple Records from ever dying; they have a perpetual lawsuit against him, and he ends up having to pay to keep them alive so they can sue him again another day. Apple Records is not going to fold, and they're not going to let Apple Computer off the hook in perpetuity for precisely this reason.
Anyway, what does Apple Records do? Among other things, it produced LPs and now produces CDs - in other words, it takes recorded music and makes it available to listeners, in a format that will play on their household music reproduction equipment. What does Apple Computer do with iTunes? They take recorded music, and make it available to listeners, in a format that will play on their household music reproduction equipment. Uh-oh...
Even without the contractual agreement that resulted from Jobs's name-collision publicity stunt back in the '70s, this parity in purpose would put iTunes in a very bad spot on its own. Nice name you got there, Jobs. Too bad it's already in use in the chosen market space.
The Beatles catalog is the Holy Grail of downloadable music services. Right now, no one has them. The bidding war for the exclusive right to distribute THE FREAKING BEATLES is going to be intense, and if you think Apple Records is going to roll over and let Apple Computer buy them out, think again. All Apple Records has to do is sit back and tell the bidders, "You Know My Name (look up the number)" and watch the millions add up. They're not just going to sell out easy. They'll probably end up with the iPod profits, leaving Apple Computer with exactly zero for all their hard work on iPod + iTunes (since Jobs admits that iTunes is break-even - Apple Computer sells the razors, the RIAA sells the blades, and we all know how that goes).
The moral of the story is, when starting a business, choose a name that isn't already in play. Steve danced, now he's going to have to pay the band.
Step 1: Make patent examiners personally responsible for approving bogus patents. If found to have done so, fire them without bennies.
Step 2: Starve patent office for funding, so examiners don't have the time and resources for real due diligence on every patent application.
Step 3: Employee benefits have been eliminated!
Sounds like a Republican wet dream to me.
BTW, do you propose a statute of limitations to protect the employee also, or can a bogus patent be held and not used against the employee until, say, two weeks before retirement, or if he is in an accident and needs to file a major medical claim? Just wondering.
The FArticle does, in fact, address this, though not directly - it puts forth a theory that all letters in a word are absorbed simultaneously, and the brain re-orders them. This is given as theory #3, admittedly a ways down.
This gets me thinking, though, about the importance of context. If you drew the letters PLEORBM in a Scrabble game, it might take a while to see the word staring at you. But in the context of a (mangled) sentence: "you can sitll raed tish wouthit a pleorbm," it much more easily jumps out. Interesting.
I've only been hit once since Windows came out (at least that I know of). And that was just adware - I got suckered by a fake close-box once when I was tired.
But I take issue with:
Patch it when called for, keep your anti virus software up to date [....], get a decent router with [....] built in firewall/NAT and don't click on every pop up you see
Patching, check. As for the other two, as I learned the hard way, it's really hard to tell a fake close box on a popup sometimes.
Besides, I consider the need to be running resource-consuming programs in the background (AV software) just to prevent the OS from doing something it oughtn't do in the first place to be an issue. I consider the need to purchase another operating system (the firewall router) and keep it upstream from the first operating system to be an issue.
If you are running AV software or an external firewall, then you have had issues, personally or professionally. Come to think of it, pop-up and adware blocker programs are also issues. The mass of spam in your inbox (or choking up your mail server pipe and CPU cycles) coming from compromised Windows boxes is an issue too. Installed Moz or Opera of Firefox to replace IE due to all the problems? Being unable to use the product you purchased (IE) and having to install a replacement counts as a big honkin' issue in my book.
That said, I agree wholeheartedly that Linux is not a magic bullet, even though it does benefit from the UNIX security model. If some numbskull wrote a web browser for Linux that automatically downloaded scripts, marked them executable, and ran them as root without telling you, that too would be an issue just as bad as any in Windows. If Linux on the desktop ever takes root, I figure it's just a matter of time before someone writes such a thing. Any clueless end-user who gets conned into entering the root password once (all home users would have it, right?) could easily install a nasty Linux trojan that caches said password and it's lights-out.
The same can be said for OSX or any system, the root passward to which is known to a gullible person. So yeah, the MS-bashing here gets kinda ridiculous.
OTOH, leave it to MS to report the status of the AV and firewall from a stored text string, rather than doing a real check. That's just brain dead, and it's typical Microsoft - it gives the surface appearance of doing what it's supposed to do, at least well enough to get through a trade show demo, but look a little deeper and it's really quite lacking. In this instance, it may actually be worse than not reporting at all as it can lull a user into a false sense of security and deter them from checking the real status of the AV and firewall manually.
I'm not saying this as some Linux fan (though I do use Slackware and love it), I'm saying it as someone who has been using MS software since DOS 1.0 and noticed this tendency of theirs to release mock-ups as software long ago.
I just hope that if I get modded up, it's because someone found something truly interesting, informative, or insightful in this post, and not just because I said something bad about MS. Or that I don't get modded down just because I said Linux can't turn water into wine. I'm definitely with the parent poster on that one. It's a credibility killer for Slashdot when that happens, though I wouldn't make my OS choice based on Slashdot mods one way or the other... that would be kinda pathetic I think.
Where is it written that American corporations have an obligation to hire American workers?
Nowhere, Miss Anonymous Coward troll.
Where is it written that I have to send my kids off to die in some remote part of the world to protect their business interests way over there? Oh, wait... Where is it written that we couldn't possibly make corporations pay taxes, because that would cost American jobs? Oh, wait...
The deal used to be, we let corporations (and their investors) make a nice profit, we keep their taxes down, and we protect them militarily and politically. In exchange, they provide employment for us, allowing us access to food, shelter, and medical care. If they're not going to do the latter, why should we continue to do the former?
It's a bit tangential, but I Just have to rant a little here. Nothing personal to the parent poster, m-kay?
the mainstream media is even going "Another Internet Explorer vulverability has been found".
What mainstream media would that be? All I ever hear is something like "A new COMPUTER VIRUS is making the rounds [Right Here in the Bay Area!(tm)], and YOU could be AT RISK just by going ON-LINE! EXPERTS say that keeping your ANTI-VIRUS software up to date and running the latest UPDATES is the best way to STAY SAFE." That's about it, no mention of IE, or Windows, rarely any acknowledgement that Mac users are safe or even exist at all, never mind Linux and BSD.
It stands in stark contrast to other product defect reporting, which usually gives manufacturer, model, dates shipped and to which stores, sometimes even serial number ranges. Imagine if, say, the bad batch of Firestone tires that shipped with some Ford SUVs a while back had been reported like Windows defects are...
"A new CAR DEFECT has been discovered [Right Here in the Bay Area!(tm)] and YOU could be AT RISK just by going on the ROAD! EXPERTS say that keeping your car well MAINTAINED and having it CHECKED by a MECHANIC is the best way to STAY SAFE."
Yeah, I don't suppose people would be really clear on the picture in that case either, or rushing off to dealerships for a fix... My point being, non-geek people aren't being told the information they'd need to know to understand this stuff; they aren't seeing that it's IE or Windows problems every week, just another "computer virus" story.
I'll break with tradition and assume you're looking for a solution that doesn't involve a four-figure purchase from a sole-source vendor.;)
I used to have that problem. If you're running under KDE, make sure that ARTS is running in real-time mode. IIRC, this is done by doing a chmod 4755 $KDEDIR/bin/artswrapper to set the suid bit on the sound server process. That fixed my system up. For some reason I can't fathom, most distros don't install it this way - at least Madrake 9.1 and Slack 10 didn't.
If that's not it, or you're not using KDE/ARTS, I can't give specific solutions, but usually this sort of thing (sound server not running realtime) is the culprit.
Hope this helps, or at least leads to something else that does.
unprincipled and subjective condemnation of change on the net.
Huh? There's nothing subjective about the fact that looking up a non-existent domain name is supposed to return an Unknown Host error. I can think of plenty of applications that might rely on such a result code, spam-filtering being but one obvious example. Specs are specs.
ICANN didn't say that the specs are written permanently in stone - only that if one wants to change a spec, there are procedures that must be followed: public proposal, followed by peer review and discussion of the consequences being the big points. If the change is approved, then reasonable lead time needs to be given following final adoption of the new spec, so sysadmins have time to review their systems and update any affected code in preparation for the change.
Verisign did none of the above. They unilaterally and capriciously changed an important result code worldwide, with practically no notice given, and gave it no review whatsoever - not even internally. How else to explain doing it with email, which could easily have blown their own mail server off the net from the sheer volume of forged-header spam bouncing off non-existent recipient addresses? No tech ever really thought this one through (or if they did, they were ignored by BizDev/Marketing, which seems to me most likely).
Maybe ICANN is unprincipled, maybe not. But Verisign is unprincipled. Just because Peter's a jerk doesn't mean Paul's a saint. They might both be jerks. It's not a zero-sum game.
Lots of people have problems with ICANN, but that's a separate issue, unrelated to the fact that Verisign has proven itself unworthy of its station. Given that this lawsuit even exists, it proves that they (Verisign) haven't learned anything from all this, and shouldn't be allowed anywhere near top-level DNS servers.
the only large shifts I've seen has been from one Windows version to another.
*nods* But I feel the change coming too. If Longhorn is really going require the purchase of a new (cripple-chipped) computer, while simultaneously breaking backward-compatibility with all existing software, it gives the competitors a hell of an opening.
And really, I don't know anyone who's planning to move to Longhorn. I run Slack for all real work, and just keep the old Windows partition around for SimCity 4 [and if I ever need the disk space, buh-bye Windows.] My geeky friends and acquaintances already revolve on a BSD/Slack/Gentoo axis. The regular end-user types are completely and thoroughly disgusted with the experience they've had with MS, and are planning to move to Macs or give up on computers entirely. The number of people I know who are planning to shell out for a new computer and massive software repurchase, just so they can't play their MP3s any more, is exactly zero.
If Windows is really so bad as many people claim, why does it have so many users?
Well, suppose the situation were reversed, with Linux being the entrenched monopoly product, and Windows the upstart. What would the situation be then?
* All consumer computers would come pre-installed with Linux.
* If you wanted Windows pre-installed, you could forget about it from the usual vendors - even offering to sell you a copy of Windows along with the new computer for you to install yourself would expose the vendor to retribution, as Linus would triple the cost of Linux for that vendor, pricing them out of the market.
* If you spent a lot of time researching, you might be able to find a specialty vendor who would put Windows on for you instead, but you'd still have to pay for the Linux you're not going to be using.
* Most Windows users would have to install the OS themselves - in the process, learning the arcana of drive letters, config.sys and autoexec.bat files, and worst of all, how to use GUI tools for the install. Much moaning and whining on/. about how Windows won't really be ready for the desktop until it has a modern CLI installation ensues. Where's my familiar, easy-to-use fstab and inittab files? And file-level permissions? And whattaya mean I can't mount anything into arbitrary filesystem directories, yeesh!
* Having done the above, Windows users would find that they are unable to use many important (to them) websites and applications, which were coded to use Linux-only extentions.
* Back on Slashdot, someone would ask, If Linux is really so bad as many people claim, why does it have so many users?
Didn't mean to flame you with that last one. It's just that really, the reason why Windows is so ubiquitous just might have something to do with the fact that computer buyers are forced to purchase Windows whether they want it or not, and unlike any other alternatives, it comes pre-installed. Maybe that's it?
As for the Apple case, aside from that rather awful mid-90s period that gave us System 7/8 and the PowerPC debacle, Macs have always been slicker than a greased pig. If they ever decide to try a price point that's within what the market will bear, they might just take over. Macs running OSX are my #1 recommendation to new users. Too bad I can't get many of them to go for it, given the gaping price differential between x86 and Mac systems. Apple's front-loaded price structure has been holding them back since the early days of the Mac, when they could (and should) have mopped the floor with Gates's DOS offering.
What I'm seeing now is that even the least tech-savvy newbies I encounter know that they don't want to get stuck in the Windows trjan/spyware/popup/virus-hell, but rather than shell out the big bux for an Apple, they just decide not to get a computer after all.
So there you go, I think people don't switch to Linux because it's a PITA to install unless you know what you're doing (or have some interest in climbing a steep, if rewarding, learning curve, though Mandrake in particular has been making great strides in this department). And they don't switch to Macs because they're too damn expensive. [This is not my assessment, as I recommend Macs and consider them a better value from a TCO perspective. But it's what I hear from potential Apple users when I make that recommendation. Anyone in Cupertino hearing me on this?]
Most recently, Windows NT was released again as Windows Server 2003. Before that it was released again as Windows XP and before that by the loveable name of W2K.
The parent post isn't +1 Funny, it's +1 Informative.
Oh, and as for the dates, Windows NT 4.0 was released (at least to corporate customers) in early 1996; most of the packaged original-release NT4 CDs I've seen have been dated May or June of 1996. Windows NT 3.x systems go back to at least 1994 in actual commercial use.
I don't think that would accomplish much, even if it were done impeccably. Windows users are so used to just clicking past superfluous pop-ups ("Are you sure you want to quit?" "This is a program file, are you sure you want to delete it?") that they'd never read it, much less mentally process it.
At best, end-users skim error messages looking for words they know, and skip over everything else. In the parent's example, I know way to many people who would read the "It will log you in with the account User: www.microsoft.com" and think, "Yes, microsoft.com, that's what I wanted. Go away stupid pop up. *clicks OK*" and we're off to the races.
I'm laughing so hard I can't type. Hang on... OK. This MS article is so wrong I don't even know where to begin... How about here:
The most effective step that you can take to help protect yourself from malicious hyperlinks is not to click them. Rather, type the URL of your intended destination in the address bar yourself.
Is MS going to issue a patch to disable hyperlinks then? If you can't click hyperlinks, doesn't IE cease to meet the definition of a browser? Look at the bright side, finally Netscape has closure.
Now, from the "but it's so easy to use" department:
Make sure that the Web site uses Secure Sockets Layer/Transport Layer Security (SSL/TLS) and check the name of the server before you type any sensitive information. [....] By checking the name on the digital certificate user for SSL/TLS, you can verify the name of the server that provides the page that you are viewing. [...] double-click the lock icon, and then check the name that appears next to Issued to. If the Web site does not use SSL/TLS, do not send any personal or sensitive information to the site. If the name that appears next to Issued to is different from the name of the site that you thought provides the page that you are viewing, close the browser to leave the site.
Huh? Does anyone expect Joe Luser to understand that? Checking the certificate against the stated URL and the IP address supplied by a DNS lookup of that URL seems rather straightforward. Someday, someone ought to invent a machine to do things like that. We could call it a computer. A computer might also be able to display the actual site name an nothing else, rather than allowing it to be spoofed in any way, eliminating the need for such manual babysitting.
From the "but it's so easy to use" department, take two:
In the Address bar, type the following command, and then press ENTER:
javascript:alert("Actual URL address: " + location.protocol + "//" + location.hostname + "/");
I see. We just proved this week that a huge segment of the Windows user base still hasn't learned about attachments. But grandma, who wants to look at the pictures of her grandchildren, is expected to be a Java programmer. There must be some incredible acid floating around Redmond. A complete break from reality, this is.
Unfortunatly McAffee requires registration/drm product activation to use it. [snip] I wonder if Norton or I should now say Symantec is any better in regards to this.
Nope. Just installed Norton on my dad's machine. Registration required, phone home to activate. Oh, and as of Norton 2003, it now installs a background process called "SYMLCSVC" that takes up a good chunk 'o RAM and serves no purpose other than some unspecified DRM scheme. The uninstaller won't remove it, or even stop it from running, either. You must edit the registry and delete the files manually to get rid of it.
What a bunch of crap, an anti-virus that's also a trojan in its own right. I sure don't miss the Windows world.
User so inclined can apt-get install "unsupported" kde and fire away with it.
Thanks - from the way the article and response were worded, it had given me the impression that the user couldn't install via the underlying Debian package system. If I misunderstood, then I'm happy to have been wrong!
Ignoring KDE in favor of GNOME would be like only including VI and not Emacs (or Emacs and not VI), and forcing all users to use one.
This is a mistake if they don't include both.
I concur. And something in Bruce's response got me. From Bruce Perens's response:
the Red Hat "Bluecurve" project has created a theme that makes the two GUIs look identical. Applications from KDE and GNOME run reasonably well together today. Users don't care what GUI toolkit their application was built with. But all of the efforts to unify these two desktops do not change the fact that there are two entirely different desktop software development kits. [....] Maintaining expertise in both of two GUI development kits is an expensive proposition.
I see what Bruce is getting at, but if the apps run fine under both KDE and GNOME, and look the same thanks to BlueCurve, and the users don't care whether the apps are built in Qt or GTK, then why not just pick one (GTK, fine), default to GNOME on the standard install, but keep access to the KDE packages there, even unsupported, so the user can run KDE if so inclined?
Of course, the UserLinux team is free to include (or not) whatever it wishes. It just seems a curious decision, and unless I'm misunderstanding him, Bruce has debunked his own justification.
Slashdot doesn't dare mention the damage to the music industry.
Maybe that's because the "music industry" hasn't proven that piracy is really what's damaging it?
Hell, they haven't even proven they're "damaged." All they show is that "sales" aren't meeting "projections." I can think of a few obvious legit reasons why that might happen:
Their "projections" are over-optimistic, culled from thin air to look good on a PowerPoint slide in some strategy meeting. In reality, the economy is swirling the bowl, and their customers (generally young, and therefore highly economically vulnerable) just can't be shelling out for price-fixed $18.99 CDs right now.
Or how about, everybody's replaced their "classic rock" vinyl with CDs by now, and the industry just doesn't have anything "in the pipe" to appeal to that crowd - they might sell a few Norah Jones CDs to old Fleetwood Mac fans or something, but for the most part, they've not provided anything to keep their "classic rock" customers buying new CDs, they haven't even tried to cultivate that segment. Result: That percentage of their market is lost to them.
Here's another idea: "The industry" is hopelessly out-of-touch with its market. It's no secret they've been trying to cater to an uncontroversial lowest-common-denominator for years, but does such a strict LCD even exist? Is the "Balkanization" of the music market into genres (Country, Rock/Pop, Jazz, Rap, etc.) even a natural thing, or an industry-sponsored artificiality that's costing them potential cross-over audiences? I like heavy metal andcountry/western, do I even exist in their market research studies? Probably not, as I understand it, a consumer who likes more than one "genre" is beyond their comprehension.
And by the by:
I used to disagree with the RIAA's tactics, but when I think about this situation, I really do have to wonder.
I still disagree with their tactics, and in my case, they've managed to do the same thing the BSA has: after the BSA started their sweeps, I switched to Linux and OSS and haven't looked back - I don't want anything of theirs in my house that *could* create a potential search, period. Ditto the RIAA, I don't buy "industry" CDs now, or download non-indie MP3s. Nice tactic they got there.
But what I really wonder about, is this: When an American loses his job to outsourcing, he gets no sympathy - not even recognition that the way the US is set up, he just lost his health insurance, retirement security, may still have student loans to pay, and lives in a society that has been intentionally contrived to make the $600/mo average tithe to car ownership mandatory to remain viable! No, he gets a lecture on "free market forces," "change," and "reality," and is accused of wanting "protectionism."
When an American corporation turns profits that aren't as high as its own "projections," thanks to a "change" in "free market forces," rather than being told to face "reality," they instead get deputized as their own private extra-judicial, extra-constitutional police force to pursue "protectionism" of their own obsolete market. And then people like the parent poster express sympathy, too.
Corporate Managers Confounded by Nanotechnology's Defeat of Drug Testing
The effect of nano-detox on corporate America has prompted uncertainty in HR departments across the USA.
"I'm confused by it," said Project Manager Mark Greene. "It used to be, I knew what was expected of me. Promote guys who dress like me, hire women I consider f--kable. If anyone fails random urinalysis, fire them."
Now, I don't know what to do," he continued. "If the drug tests don't work, how am I supposed to know whether my employees are doing their jobs adequately? I might have to... what's the word, it starts with T, the, that... THINK. That's it. I'd have to think of a way to keep track of what my employees are doing at work. That's not the job of a manager as I understand it, and they sure didn't teach us to think in Business School. I was hired because I look good in a suit."
Some business analysts have suggested that the impact to the corporate bottom line could be huge.
"Let's face it," said Joanna Goldstein, of the market analysis firm Goldstein & Meyers, "This could add a lot to the cost of middle and upper level management."
"It already costs almost $10 million a year to put someone in that management chair," she continued. "If that person has to also be able to track ongoing corporate projects under his control, plus think of a way to determine which employees are performing other than by what they like to do on the week-end, it could add a lot to the cost of executive talent."
"Without that litmus test, management will have to pay attention, be realistic, and exercise some critical thought. Good luck finding an MBA with those skills, and expect it to be expensive if you do."
Ed Warren, a senior manager at computer maker HardenSoft, adopted another idea during a recent three-martini meeting with senior execs: ban use of the nanotech devices by employees entirely.
"You can tell where the arterial shunt was inserted for a few days afterward; we might just start looking for that telltale bruise," he said, between lines of cocaine. "Maybe a few employees with legitimate health problems will fall through the cracks, but that's a small price to pay for me to avoid having to pay attention to what goes on in this office, or, God forbid, what's that word that starts with T? Think?"
"Of course, management is exempt," he said with a smile, wiping the powder from his nose. "I'm off to get nano-detoxed tomorrow, but right now I have to go fire anyone who smoked a joint within the last month. I always enjoy a little bump to help me feel powerful before I do that."
Slashdot Mirror
Ask your psychiatrist if turning off your brain and going back to watching televised propaganda/distraction in a trance-like hypnotized state is right for you!
Refunding the money isn't enough. The fine has to be the at least the maximum conceivable profit from one instance of the crime, divided by the probability of any instance of the crime being discovered. Anything less is not a deterrent, but merely regulatory complicity: The selling of a license to steal.
When I buy a quart of milk, the jug contains a quart of milk. If I try to pour out this quart of milk all at once, it does not slow to a trickle after the first half-pint and then announce that I've reached my daily pouring limit because the dairy doesn't have the cows, feed, and trucks required to actually produce the whole quart it sold me. Not if everyone who bought milk wants to drink it at the same time.
Whatever law covers that situation with my quart of milk not being a whole quart, can also quite well handle the situation where I buy 1.5Mb/second bandwidth, and then the second doesn't actually contain all 1.5Mbits, because the company doesn't actually have the infrastructure it's selling access to. ISPs already throttle, that's why they have different speed tiers for us to buy, same as milk is offered by the pint, quart, half-gallon, or gallon.
What we're really talking about here, is that the ISPs are lying about how much milk is in the jug. If our 1.5Mb pipes have to drop to 384K when everyone downloads at the same time, then we have 384K pipes, and they should be labeled and priced as such. Throttling based on content is just a way to legitimize weights-and-measures fraud.
Lord of the Rings
Here's a video of us exchanging vows in the eyes of the LORD, OF THE RINGS being exchanged... what? We're being summoned?
Matrix Revolutions
Welcome to the website of MATH 362, Advanced Algebra. Click here to see a video of various operations on a MATRIX: REVOLUTIONS, transformations, normalisation... what? We're being summoned?
there is no automated patch system for dummies (aka MacosX software update) that really easily informs and patches with 1-click.
Adding to what the other posters already mentioned, Mandrake has had this for years with Mandrake Update. It's analagous to Microsoft's Add/Remove Software applet in Control Panel (except with Windows Update rolled in, and much more robust). It passed the "mom and dad" test; they instantly recognized the format and had no problems.
I'd still rather mom and dad bought a Mac, but as far as usability for dummies goes, Mandrake passed Microsoft some time ago IMO.
As if when I think "Apple," I think "Beatles."
In the Apple Computer forum on the net's premier techie BBS, probably not. I like Apple computers and OSX, and I know I'll get modded down into oblivion for saying anything critical of Apple Computer here in the Steve Jobs Reality Distortion Field forum, but c'mon.
In the context of music publishing, yes, if someone says, "They're on Apple" I think "Apple Records." And so do lots of other people, especially those who are, oh, about Steve Jobs's age. Let's not pretend he's innocent in all this - he was coattailing off the Beatles for cheap publicity from the beginning.
Apple [Computer] isn't making money by the association with Apple Records or the Beatles.
Au contraire. They counted on it in the early days.
Those of us old enough to remember can recall that Steve Jobs obviously knew damn well what he was doing when he chose the Apple Computer name and logo - he even admitted at the time that it was derivative of the Beatles' label. Apple Records was still active (and still are), pressing not Just Beatles, but also Lennon's stuff, and Badfinger, and a few other then-current acts. Jobs intentionally created the trademark collision, intending to reach the settlement (computers, no music) that he did, in order to get the Apple Computer name in the papers, Barnum-style. It worked, and wasn't a bother until computers started getting sound.
I think the contract was an asshat thing to do.
The contract was an inevitable end-result of Jobs's naming strategy. It was his endgame. The asshat thing to do was rip off someone else's trademark (Apple) in the first place, creating this perpetual problem for himself. And especially, doing it with the 800-lb gorilla that is The Beatles. Given the history, Apple Records is quite justified in smacking Jobs any time he comes anywhere near the music biz.
Maybe Jobs thought Apple Records would eventually slow-fade to groove noise, sound the dog whistle, lift their needle and go back in the jacket, leaving Apple Computer free and clear with the name. Jobs's big screw-up was that his name crash prevents Apple Records from ever dying; they have a perpetual lawsuit against him, and he ends up having to pay to keep them alive so they can sue him again another day. Apple Records is not going to fold, and they're not going to let Apple Computer off the hook in perpetuity for precisely this reason.
Anyway, what does Apple Records do? Among other things, it produced LPs and now produces CDs - in other words, it takes recorded music and makes it available to listeners, in a format that will play on their household music reproduction equipment. What does Apple Computer do with iTunes? They take recorded music, and make it available to listeners, in a format that will play on their household music reproduction equipment. Uh-oh...
Even without the contractual agreement that resulted from Jobs's name-collision publicity stunt back in the '70s, this parity in purpose would put iTunes in a very bad spot on its own. Nice name you got there, Jobs. Too bad it's already in use in the chosen market space.
The Beatles catalog is the Holy Grail of downloadable music services. Right now, no one has them. The bidding war for the exclusive right to distribute THE FREAKING BEATLES is going to be intense, and if you think Apple Records is going to roll over and let Apple Computer buy them out, think again. All Apple Records has to do is sit back and tell the bidders, "You Know My Name (look up the number)" and watch the millions add up. They're not just going to sell out easy. They'll probably end up with the iPod profits, leaving Apple Computer with exactly zero for all their hard work on iPod + iTunes (since Jobs admits that iTunes is break-even - Apple Computer sells the razors, the RIAA sells the blades, and we all know how that goes).
The moral of the story is, when starting a business, choose a name that isn't already in play. Steve danced, now he's going to have to pay the band.
Step 1: Make patent examiners personally responsible for approving bogus patents. If found to have done so, fire them without bennies.
Step 2: Starve patent office for funding, so examiners don't have the time and resources for real due diligence on every patent application.
Step 3: Employee benefits have been eliminated!
Sounds like a Republican wet dream to me.
BTW, do you propose a statute of limitations to protect the employee also, or can a bogus patent be held and not used against the employee until, say, two weeks before retirement, or if he is in an accident and needs to file a major medical claim? Just wondering.
The FArticle does, in fact, address this, though not directly - it puts forth a theory that all letters in a word are absorbed simultaneously, and the brain re-orders them. This is given as theory #3, admittedly a ways down.
This gets me thinking, though, about the importance of context. If you drew the letters PLEORBM in a Scrabble game, it might take a while to see the word staring at you. But in the context of a (mangled) sentence: "you can sitll raed tish wouthit a pleorbm," it much more easily jumps out. Interesting.
For some reason Florida still manages to shock me.
Um, yeah. With judges like this, anything's possible:
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/yahoo/orl-asec mjudge26a082604aug26,0,2266263.story?coll=orl-news aol-headlines
Still working on the Y1K problem down there, apparently...
I've only been hit once since Windows came out (at least that I know of). And that was just adware - I got suckered by a fake close-box once when I was tired.
But I take issue with:
Patch it when called for, keep your anti virus software up to date [....], get a decent router with [....] built in firewall/NAT and don't click on every pop up you see
Patching, check. As for the other two, as I learned the hard way, it's really hard to tell a fake close box on a popup sometimes.
Besides, I consider the need to be running resource-consuming programs in the background (AV software) just to prevent the OS from doing something it oughtn't do in the first place to be an issue. I consider the need to purchase another operating system (the firewall router) and keep it upstream from the first operating system to be an issue.
If you are running AV software or an external firewall, then you have had issues, personally or professionally. Come to think of it, pop-up and adware blocker programs are also issues. The mass of spam in your inbox (or choking up your mail server pipe and CPU cycles) coming from compromised Windows boxes is an issue too. Installed Moz or Opera of Firefox to replace IE due to all the problems? Being unable to use the product you purchased (IE) and having to install a replacement counts as a big honkin' issue in my book.
That said, I agree wholeheartedly that Linux is not a magic bullet, even though it does benefit from the UNIX security model. If some numbskull wrote a web browser for Linux that automatically downloaded scripts, marked them executable, and ran them as root without telling you, that too would be an issue just as bad as any in Windows. If Linux on the desktop ever takes root, I figure it's just a matter of time before someone writes such a thing. Any clueless end-user who gets conned into entering the root password once (all home users would have it, right?) could easily install a nasty Linux trojan that caches said password and it's lights-out.
The same can be said for OSX or any system, the root passward to which is known to a gullible person. So yeah, the MS-bashing here gets kinda ridiculous.
OTOH, leave it to MS to report the status of the AV and firewall from a stored text string, rather than doing a real check. That's just brain dead, and it's typical Microsoft - it gives the surface appearance of doing what it's supposed to do, at least well enough to get through a trade show demo, but look a little deeper and it's really quite lacking. In this instance, it may actually be worse than not reporting at all as it can lull a user into a false sense of security and deter them from checking the real status of the AV and firewall manually.
I'm not saying this as some Linux fan (though I do use Slackware and love it), I'm saying it as someone who has been using MS software since DOS 1.0 and noticed this tendency of theirs to release mock-ups as software long ago.
I just hope that if I get modded up, it's because someone found something truly interesting, informative, or insightful in this post, and not just because I said something bad about MS. Or that I don't get modded down just because I said Linux can't turn water into wine. I'm definitely with the parent poster on that one. It's a credibility killer for Slashdot when that happens, though I wouldn't make my OS choice based on Slashdot mods one way or the other... that would be kinda pathetic I think.
Where is it written that American corporations have an obligation to hire American workers?
Nowhere, Miss Anonymous Coward troll.
Where is it written that I have to send my kids off to die in some remote part of the world to protect their business interests way over there? Oh, wait... Where is it written that we couldn't possibly make corporations pay taxes, because that would cost American jobs? Oh, wait...
The deal used to be, we let corporations (and their investors) make a nice profit, we keep their taxes down, and we protect them militarily and politically. In exchange, they provide employment for us, allowing us access to food, shelter, and medical care. If they're not going to do the latter, why should we continue to do the former?
It's a bit tangential, but I Just have to rant a little here. Nothing personal to the parent poster, m-kay?
the mainstream media is even going "Another Internet Explorer vulverability has been found".
What mainstream media would that be? All I ever hear is something like "A new COMPUTER VIRUS is making the rounds [Right Here in the Bay Area!(tm)], and YOU could be AT RISK just by going ON-LINE! EXPERTS say that keeping your ANTI-VIRUS software up to date and running the latest UPDATES is the best way to STAY SAFE." That's about it, no mention of IE, or Windows, rarely any acknowledgement that Mac users are safe or even exist at all, never mind Linux and BSD.
It stands in stark contrast to other product defect reporting, which usually gives manufacturer, model, dates shipped and to which stores, sometimes even serial number ranges. Imagine if, say, the bad batch of Firestone tires that shipped with some Ford SUVs a while back had been reported like Windows defects are...
"A new CAR DEFECT has been discovered [Right Here in the Bay Area!(tm)] and YOU could be AT RISK just by going on the ROAD! EXPERTS say that keeping your car well MAINTAINED and having it CHECKED by a MECHANIC is the best way to STAY SAFE."
Yeah, I don't suppose people would be really clear on the picture in that case either, or rushing off to dealerships for a fix... My point being, non-geek people aren't being told the information they'd need to know to understand this stuff; they aren't seeing that it's IE or Windows problems every week, just another "computer virus" story.
Rant mode off.
I'll break with tradition and assume you're looking for a solution that doesn't involve a four-figure purchase from a sole-source vendor.;) I used to have that problem. If you're running under KDE, make sure that ARTS is running in real-time mode. IIRC, this is done by doing a chmod 4755 $KDEDIR/bin/artswrapper to set the suid bit on the sound server process. That fixed my system up. For some reason I can't fathom, most distros don't install it this way - at least Madrake 9.1 and Slack 10 didn't. If that's not it, or you're not using KDE/ARTS, I can't give specific solutions, but usually this sort of thing (sound server not running realtime) is the culprit. Hope this helps, or at least leads to something else that does.
unprincipled and subjective condemnation of change on the net.
Huh? There's nothing subjective about the fact that looking up a non-existent domain name is supposed to return an Unknown Host error. I can think of plenty of applications that might rely on such a result code, spam-filtering being but one obvious example. Specs are specs.
ICANN didn't say that the specs are written permanently in stone - only that if one wants to change a spec, there are procedures that must be followed: public proposal, followed by peer review and discussion of the consequences being the big points. If the change is approved, then reasonable lead time needs to be given following final adoption of the new spec, so sysadmins have time to review their systems and update any affected code in preparation for the change.
Verisign did none of the above. They unilaterally and capriciously changed an important result code worldwide, with practically no notice given, and gave it no review whatsoever - not even internally. How else to explain doing it with email, which could easily have blown their own mail server off the net from the sheer volume of forged-header spam bouncing off non-existent recipient addresses? No tech ever really thought this one through (or if they did, they were ignored by BizDev/Marketing, which seems to me most likely).
Maybe ICANN is unprincipled, maybe not. But Verisign is unprincipled. Just because Peter's a jerk doesn't mean Paul's a saint. They might both be jerks. It's not a zero-sum game.
Lots of people have problems with ICANN, but that's a separate issue, unrelated to the fact that Verisign has proven itself unworthy of its station. Given that this lawsuit even exists, it proves that they (Verisign) haven't learned anything from all this, and shouldn't be allowed anywhere near top-level DNS servers.
the only large shifts I've seen has been from one Windows version to another.
*nods* But I feel the change coming too. If Longhorn is really going require the purchase of a new (cripple-chipped) computer, while simultaneously breaking backward-compatibility with all existing software, it gives the competitors a hell of an opening.
And really, I don't know anyone who's planning to move to Longhorn. I run Slack for all real work, and just keep the old Windows partition around for SimCity 4 [and if I ever need the disk space, buh-bye Windows.] My geeky friends and acquaintances already revolve on a BSD/Slack/Gentoo axis. The regular end-user types are completely and thoroughly disgusted with the experience they've had with MS, and are planning to move to Macs or give up on computers entirely. The number of people I know who are planning to shell out for a new computer and massive software repurchase, just so they can't play their MP3s any more, is exactly zero.
Opportunity knocks...
If Windows is really so bad as many people claim, why does it have so many users?
Well, suppose the situation were reversed, with Linux being the entrenched monopoly product, and Windows the upstart. What would the situation be then?
* All consumer computers would come pre-installed with Linux.
* If you wanted Windows pre-installed, you could forget about it from the usual vendors - even offering to sell you a copy of Windows along with the new computer for you to install yourself would expose the vendor to retribution, as Linus would triple the cost of Linux for that vendor, pricing them out of the market.
* If you spent a lot of time researching, you might be able to find a specialty vendor who would put Windows on for you instead, but you'd still have to pay for the Linux you're not going to be using.
* Most Windows users would have to install the OS themselves - in the process, learning the arcana of drive letters, config.sys and autoexec.bat files, and worst of all, how to use GUI tools for the install. Much moaning and whining on /. about how Windows won't really be ready for the desktop until it has a modern CLI installation ensues. Where's my familiar, easy-to-use fstab and inittab files? And file-level permissions? And whattaya mean I can't mount anything into arbitrary filesystem directories, yeesh!
* Having done the above, Windows users would find that they are unable to use many important (to them) websites and applications, which were coded to use Linux-only extentions.
* Back on Slashdot, someone would ask, If Linux is really so bad as many people claim, why does it have so many users?
Didn't mean to flame you with that last one. It's just that really, the reason why Windows is so ubiquitous just might have something to do with the fact that computer buyers are forced to purchase Windows whether they want it or not, and unlike any other alternatives, it comes pre-installed. Maybe that's it?
As for the Apple case, aside from that rather awful mid-90s period that gave us System 7/8 and the PowerPC debacle, Macs have always been slicker than a greased pig. If they ever decide to try a price point that's within what the market will bear, they might just take over. Macs running OSX are my #1 recommendation to new users. Too bad I can't get many of them to go for it, given the gaping price differential between x86 and Mac systems. Apple's front-loaded price structure has been holding them back since the early days of the Mac, when they could (and should) have mopped the floor with Gates's DOS offering.
What I'm seeing now is that even the least tech-savvy newbies I encounter know that they don't want to get stuck in the Windows trjan/spyware/popup/virus-hell, but rather than shell out the big bux for an Apple, they just decide not to get a computer after all.
So there you go, I think people don't switch to Linux because it's a PITA to install unless you know what you're doing (or have some interest in climbing a steep, if rewarding, learning curve, though Mandrake in particular has been making great strides in this department). And they don't switch to Macs because they're too damn expensive. [This is not my assessment, as I recommend Macs and consider them a better value from a TCO perspective. But it's what I hear from potential Apple users when I make that recommendation. Anyone in Cupertino hearing me on this?]
Most recently, Windows NT was released again as Windows Server 2003. Before that it was released again as Windows XP and before that by the loveable name of W2K.
The parent post isn't +1 Funny, it's +1 Informative.
Oh, and as for the dates, Windows NT 4.0 was released (at least to corporate customers) in early 1996; most of the packaged original-release NT4 CDs I've seen have been dated May or June of 1996. Windows NT 3.x systems go back to at least 1994 in actual commercial use.
Still, why hasn't anyone put up a little warning
I don't think that would accomplish much, even if it were done impeccably. Windows users are so used to just clicking past superfluous pop-ups ("Are you sure you want to quit?" "This is a program file, are you sure you want to delete it?") that they'd never read it, much less mentally process it.
At best, end-users skim error messages looking for words they know, and skip over everything else. In the parent's example, I know way to many people who would read the "It will log you in with the account User: www.microsoft.com" and think, "Yes, microsoft.com, that's what I wanted. Go away stupid pop up. *clicks OK*" and we're off to the races.
I'm laughing so hard I can't type. Hang on... OK. This MS article is so wrong I don't even know where to begin... How about here:
The most effective step that you can take to help protect yourself from malicious hyperlinks is not to click them. Rather, type the URL of your intended destination in the address bar yourself.
Is MS going to issue a patch to disable hyperlinks then? If you can't click hyperlinks, doesn't IE cease to meet the definition of a browser? Look at the bright side, finally Netscape has closure.
Now, from the "but it's so easy to use" department:
Make sure that the Web site uses Secure Sockets Layer/Transport Layer Security (SSL/TLS) and check the name of the server before you type any sensitive information. [....] By checking the name on the digital certificate user for SSL/TLS, you can verify the name of the server that provides the page that you are viewing. [...] double-click the lock icon, and then check the name that appears next to Issued to. If the Web site does not use SSL/TLS, do not send any personal or sensitive information to the site. If the name that appears next to Issued to is different from the name of the site that you thought provides the page that you are viewing, close the browser to leave the site.
Huh? Does anyone expect Joe Luser to understand that? Checking the certificate against the stated URL and the IP address supplied by a DNS lookup of that URL seems rather straightforward. Someday, someone ought to invent a machine to do things like that. We could call it a computer. A computer might also be able to display the actual site name an nothing else, rather than allowing it to be spoofed in any way, eliminating the need for such manual babysitting.
From the "but it's so easy to use" department, take two:
In the Address bar, type the following command, and then press ENTER:
javascript:alert("Actual URL address: " + location.protocol + "//" + location.hostname + "/");
I see. We just proved this week that a huge segment of the Windows user base still hasn't learned about attachments. But grandma, who wants to look at the pictures of her grandchildren, is expected to be a Java programmer. There must be some incredible acid floating around Redmond. A complete break from reality, this is.
Unfortunatly McAffee requires registration/drm product activation to use it. [snip] I wonder if Norton or I should now say Symantec is any better in regards to this.
Nope. Just installed Norton on my dad's machine. Registration required, phone home to activate. Oh, and as of Norton 2003, it now installs a background process called "SYMLCSVC" that takes up a good chunk 'o RAM and serves no purpose other than some unspecified DRM scheme. The uninstaller won't remove it, or even stop it from running, either. You must edit the registry and delete the files manually to get rid of it.
What a bunch of crap, an anti-virus that's also a trojan in its own right. I sure don't miss the Windows world.
isn't it highly illegal to have a police radio scanner in a moving vehicle?
This is San Francisco we're talking about. Antenna, scanner, no problem. Just don't let SFPD see you on the sidewalk with a bag of fajitas!
User so inclined can apt-get install "unsupported" kde and fire away with it.
Thanks - from the way the article and response were worded, it had given me the impression that the user couldn't install via the underlying Debian package system. If I misunderstood, then I'm happy to have been wrong!
Ignoring KDE in favor of GNOME would be like only including VI and not Emacs (or Emacs and not VI), and forcing all users to use one. This is a mistake if they don't include both.
I concur. And something in Bruce's response got me.
From Bruce Perens's response:
the Red Hat "Bluecurve" project has created a theme that makes the two GUIs look identical. Applications from KDE and GNOME run reasonably well together today. Users don't care what GUI toolkit their application was built with. But all of the efforts to unify these two desktops do not change the fact that there are two entirely different desktop software development kits. [....] Maintaining expertise in both of two GUI development kits is an expensive proposition.
I see what Bruce is getting at, but if the apps run fine under both KDE and GNOME, and look the same thanks to BlueCurve, and the users don't care whether the apps are built in Qt or GTK, then why not just pick one (GTK, fine), default to GNOME on the standard install, but keep access to the KDE packages there, even unsupported, so the user can run KDE if so inclined?
Of course, the UserLinux team is free to include (or not) whatever it wishes. It just seems a curious decision, and unless I'm misunderstanding him, Bruce has debunked his own justification.
Slashdot doesn't dare mention the damage to the music industry.
Maybe that's because the "music industry" hasn't proven that piracy is really what's damaging it?
Hell, they haven't even proven they're "damaged." All they show is that "sales" aren't meeting "projections." I can think of a few obvious legit reasons why that might happen:
Their "projections" are over-optimistic, culled from thin air to look good on a PowerPoint slide in some strategy meeting. In reality, the economy is swirling the bowl, and their customers (generally young, and therefore highly economically vulnerable) just can't be shelling out for price-fixed $18.99 CDs right now.
Or how about, everybody's replaced their "classic rock" vinyl with CDs by now, and the industry just doesn't have anything "in the pipe" to appeal to that crowd - they might sell a few Norah Jones CDs to old Fleetwood Mac fans or something, but for the most part, they've not provided anything to keep their "classic rock" customers buying new CDs, they haven't even tried to cultivate that segment. Result: That percentage of their market is lost to them.
Here's another idea: "The industry" is hopelessly out-of-touch with its market. It's no secret they've been trying to cater to an uncontroversial lowest-common-denominator for years, but does such a strict LCD even exist? Is the "Balkanization" of the music market into genres (Country, Rock/Pop, Jazz, Rap, etc.) even a natural thing, or an industry-sponsored artificiality that's costing them potential cross-over audiences? I like heavy metal andcountry/western, do I even exist in their market research studies? Probably not, as I understand it, a consumer who likes more than one "genre" is beyond their comprehension.
And by the by:
I used to disagree with the RIAA's tactics, but when I think about this situation, I really do have to wonder.
I still disagree with their tactics, and in my case, they've managed to do the same thing the BSA has: after the BSA started their sweeps, I switched to Linux and OSS and haven't looked back - I don't want anything of theirs in my house that *could* create a potential search, period. Ditto the RIAA, I don't buy "industry" CDs now, or download non-indie MP3s. Nice tactic they got there.
But what I really wonder about, is this: When an American loses his job to outsourcing, he gets no sympathy - not even recognition that the way the US is set up, he just lost his health insurance, retirement security, may still have student loans to pay, and lives in a society that has been intentionally contrived to make the $600/mo average tithe to car ownership mandatory to remain viable! No, he gets a lecture on "free market forces," "change," and "reality," and is accused of wanting "protectionism."
When an American corporation turns profits that aren't as high as its own "projections," thanks to a "change" in "free market forces," rather than being told to face "reality," they instead get deputized as their own private extra-judicial, extra-constitutional police force to pursue "protectionism" of their own obsolete market. And then people like the parent poster express sympathy, too.
I really, really wonder about that.
December 10, 2013
part II in a series
Corporate Managers Confounded by Nanotechnology's Defeat of Drug Testing
The effect of nano-detox on corporate America has prompted uncertainty in HR departments across the USA.
"I'm confused by it," said Project Manager Mark Greene. "It used to be, I knew what was expected of me. Promote guys who dress like me, hire women I consider f--kable. If anyone fails random urinalysis, fire them."
Now, I don't know what to do," he continued. "If the drug tests don't work, how am I supposed to know whether my employees are doing their jobs adequately? I might have to... what's the word, it starts with T, the, that... THINK. That's it. I'd have to think of a way to keep track of what my employees are doing at work. That's not the job of a manager as I understand it, and they sure didn't teach us to think in Business School. I was hired because I look good in a suit."
Some business analysts have suggested that the impact to the corporate bottom line could be huge.
"Let's face it," said Joanna Goldstein, of the market analysis firm Goldstein & Meyers, "This could add a lot to the cost of middle and upper level management."
"It already costs almost $10 million a year to put someone in that management chair," she continued. "If that person has to also be able to track ongoing corporate projects under his control, plus think of a way to determine which employees are performing other than by what they like to do on the week-end, it could add a lot to the cost of executive talent."
"Without that litmus test, management will have to pay attention, be realistic, and exercise some critical thought. Good luck finding an MBA with those skills, and expect it to be expensive if you do."
Ed Warren, a senior manager at computer maker HardenSoft, adopted another idea during a recent three-martini meeting with senior execs: ban use of the nanotech devices by employees entirely.
"You can tell where the arterial shunt was inserted for a few days afterward; we might just start looking for that telltale bruise," he said, between lines of cocaine. "Maybe a few employees with legitimate health problems will fall through the cracks, but that's a small price to pay for me to avoid having to pay attention to what goes on in this office, or, God forbid, what's that word that starts with T? Think?"
"Of course, management is exempt," he said with a smile, wiping the powder from his nose. "I'm off to get nano-detoxed tomorrow, but right now I have to go fire anyone who smoked a joint within the last month. I always enjoy a little bump to help me feel powerful before I do that."