On a serious note, he's right about what's going on inside MSFT. That's been happening a long time. I actually think they would have been farther ahead letting the government break them up. They act like a company that's not all that excited about what they do anymore.
Sometimes I watch Hulu because it's convenient, if they were charging I'd drop them like a hot rock. Tivo is your friend.
Thinking they're going to come out with a charge model isn't as funny as Rupert Murdoch's threats to monetize his web properties, but it's vastly overestimating their importance in the content market.
If you're a Boeing exec staying at a French hotel, at least the French used to have a reputation for state sponsored industrial spying. Or if you work for Lockheed and are visiting Israel. Industrial spying can be a problem anywhere these days. You may not think your data is that important, but competitors might it interesting.
I'm wondering why, if what's on your computer is that important, you wouldn't keep your laptop with you?
If you're on vacation one would hope you left the super-sekret encrypted stash at home. If you're on business, you'd want to assume spying was a possibility and guard your laptop.
If I'm carrying a laptop overseas, it's probably going to be for email, pictures and video. Once I get home and off-load the data, I'm going to fdisk and rebuild anyway.
Preaching politics on the company dime is right up there with promoting religion during office hours. It's your employer abusing their captive audience. If you don't go along, you could be seen as not being a team player. You're getting paid to do a job, not be a political pawn. It worked so well for the health insurance companies, having their employees out acting like dickwads at public meetings. Be sure and remind them to change their employer branded clothing to look more like a real grassroots uprising.
And it was wrong. I remember when the internet went private. I didn't hear AT&T or any of the others complaining about all that new infrastructure and business they inherited. Now that the system needs major upgrades no one wants to pony up. Instead they want to find ways to tax traffic, make money without making any additional investment. The Wall Street model. Net neutrality rules threaten that grand plan. They might not be able to cover those multi-million dollar salaries and bonuses. Oh, noes!
Tell you what, if those circuits are that unprofitable, sell them and get out of the infrastructure business. No one owes AT&T a living. If it's too tough out there, get into banking. Corporate whiners are the worst.
that their signature remained secret, however no one should have to put up with an organized intimidation process which is the new method of choice.
This wasn't a ballot, I'm not sure where the expectation of privacy comes from. You could argue that trying to create a separate but equal set of rules for a minority population is also organized intimidation. It just depends on which side of the intimidation you're on.
As it pertains gays, there do seem to be a lot of people determined to see they never get any kind of legal recognition. The people and businesses supporting those legal efforts want some kind of cover, so they don't really have to take a public stand. But if Boeing was trying to fund some kind of anti-union ballot initiative, wouldn't you want to know? Doesn't the public voting on an initiative deserve to know who's behind it? How is this really any different?
If you take out "gay" and substitute any other minority population, this looks a whole lot different. "...anti-Hispanic rights groups created and got R-71 on the 2009 election ballot." Or "... anti-Jewish rights groups created and got R-71 on the 2009 election ballot." In that light it starts looking pretty damn ugly.
Overall, I think we're all farther ahead with transparency in the process. If that ballot effort is taking a shot at a minority population, then you can expect them not to like it.
The government has bailed out homeowners. It's bailed out big businesses. Why can't it also help students?'
To me this is a tragedy. Young people starting off almost $100K in the hole. I had student loans, so did my wife. Together they didn't add up to $40K and she went to grad school.
On a higher level this kills entrepreneurial opportunities at the time in life you have the most desire, creativity and energy to launch a new business. Many of you are stuck in low-paying, dead end jobs because of student loans...one of the reasons some companies like to hire right out of college. Student loans and health insurance. Wouldn't it be better to turn all that creativity loose developing new businesses and jobs? But how can you saddled with all that debt and no health care coverage?
We have to do something, not just for people in college now but those recently graduating into 9.5% unemployment. Whatever that is, it has to include cost controls on education. The cost of education is running way ahead of inflation and textbook companies are worse than the mafia (at least the mob runs prostitutes). This is crazy.
But what to do about it? If the government tried some kind of forgiveness program, Republicans would scream about budget deficits. Student loans are also a giant bank pork program and you can see what kind clout they have in Washington. So, it's got to be paid for somehow, deficit neutral, combined with cost controls on education and everyone on both sides of the political pork barrel have to STFU long enough to get it done.
the reverse brain drain already evident and growing in the US as Indian, Chinese, and European students and workers in the US plan to return home, or already have.
Between Homeland Security and treating H1-B's like slave labor, who can blame them? They can go home and enjoy a better lifestyle than they have here and not get treated like a potential terrorist.
Funny is how many of the teabirthers walking around thinking this is the best place in the world to live and everyone wants to come here.
That's the truth Dell and Microsoft want to get out there, but for enterprise customers the transition is going to be expensive and painful. You'd think a company with Microsoft's resources would have created a paved road for transitioning from XP to Windows 7. That's where all the big sales will come from. But that transition is a rocky road, a rocky toll road.
People buying a new PC won't really care what's on it, as long as it isn't Vista. But enterprise customers...there are going to be a lot of new gray hairs at the c level.
They have caught a couple people but investigated dozens of innocent people. And the AP reporter picture came back as a possible terrorism suspect. You want to end up in an FBI report associated with a terrorist? Even if they clear you out later?
Hopefully they figure out the mistake before you end up where ever they'll be sending terror suspects after GTMO closes.
Using already disturbed lands would help avoid conflicts between renewable energy developers and environmental groups concerned about impacts to wildlife habitat.
I used to work in toxics cleanup and I think that's a brilliant idea. A lot of hazardous materials are more risk to dig up than just leave alone. That would put the land to some practical use and restore value to the surrounding communities, many of which were blighted by the proximity to the contamination (whether justified by actual exposure risk or not). And, oh by the way, turn that otherwise unusable ground into jobs and non-polluting energy.
So whatever led to the consideration of these sites, it's a winner. The fact no one will seriously be able to challenge the site selection on environmental grounds will simply speed getting the shovels into the ground.
This is a great idea. Whoever thought it up should get a prize.
It would around here, in a lot of places. One of the developers I used to work with interviewed at a company that had a banner that read "God Supervises This Office" in the lobby.
Outside southern red states including, ironically, one or two with a healthy gaming industry, it would probably be an advantage. It means you can work in high security areas around a lot of money, don't have any felonies in your background and can work in an environment that's not particularly tolerant of mistakes.
Personally, if a right wing, dogmatic, Bible-thumping company owner didn't want to hire me I'd consider that a badge of honor.
...eventually an "investigation" into her "business" -- during which time her unemployment benefits were stopped entirely.
They cut her off until she had a hearing. That's the way it is here, too. Any income will trigger the cut off, then you have to fight to get them back. And, just like in her case, they'll do absolutely everything they can to dick people around.
Some of our volunteer firefighters have the same problem. At the end of the year the department gives them a gas money check. If they report that as income, the state cuts off their benefits. If they don't report it, the state accuses them of trying to hide income. For some people those benefits are the only thing keeping them from starving. The entire system is the functional equivalent of the current health care system. So I'm certain if anyone dared stand up to try and get a better safety net for the unemployed, the teabirthers would be out screaming about government take overs.
Others are getting much more than $238 through web ads. Should they be running for unemployment benefits too?
Don't be such a dumbass. All they had to do was deduct $238 from one of her checks, but there's no option to do that with unemployment. The second you report any income, regardless of the source, you're employed. So if you take a contract job and get let go a month later, not only does unemployment stop paying you but then they'll turn around and claim you haven't been on the new job long enough to collect benefits. Too bad, buddy. You can't even collect the balance of benefits you were due.
So there's is absolutely zero incentive for people on unemployment to take what work they can find. If they would encourage people to take part-time and temporary jobs, deducting what they make from their benefit check so they don't lose money working, but restoring their benefits if those jobs fall through, then more people would be out working.
But the system we have today punishes people trying to do the right thing. Don't defend a broken system. They could use unemployment to encourage people go out and start a business, instead they discriminate against people wanting to work but unable to find a permanent job that lasts longer than 3 months.
You must get your news from Fox. The documents he presented in that story were likely not original but everyone familiar with the contents verified that they were essentially correct and that the facts of the story were essentially correct. It was not "un-vetted fake news". If they would have aired the story without the documents, then you would have needed to find another excuse to attack the source.
Rather spoke after interviewing the secretary to Bush's former squadron commander, who told him that the memos attributed to her late boss are fake -- but that they reflect the commander's belief that Bush was receiving preferential treatment to escape some of his Guard commitments.
And...
"I know that I didn't type them," Knox said of the Killian memos. "However, the information in there is correct," she said, adding that Killian and the other officers would "snicker about what [Bush] was getting away with."
And I think history has aptly demonstrated Bush was the arrogant, incompetent fraud his National Guard service predicted. But, hey, don't let the truth, even in hindsight, dent your neo-conservative, never-admit-a-mistake brain shield. You probably think Bush was a great guy who could have done a terrific job if it just wasn't for the Democrats in Congress.
Fox News is every bit the news organization as the National Inquirer or Star Magazine, except better financed and infinitely more dangerous.
Slashdot Mirror
I'll have my Windows 7 shaken, not stirred.
On a serious note, he's right about what's going on inside MSFT. That's been happening a long time. I actually think they would have been farther ahead letting the government break them up. They act like a company that's not all that excited about what they do anymore.
Sometimes I watch Hulu because it's convenient, if they were charging I'd drop them like a hot rock. Tivo is your friend.
Thinking they're going to come out with a charge model isn't as funny as Rupert Murdoch's threats to monetize his web properties, but it's vastly overestimating their importance in the content market.
What hotels is this guy staying at anyway?
If you're a Boeing exec staying at a French hotel, at least the French used to have a reputation for state sponsored industrial spying. Or if you work for Lockheed and are visiting Israel. Industrial spying can be a problem anywhere these days. You may not think your data is that important, but competitors might it interesting.
I'm wondering why, if what's on your computer is that important, you wouldn't keep your laptop with you?
If you're on vacation one would hope you left the super-sekret encrypted stash at home. If you're on business, you'd want to assume spying was a possibility and guard your laptop.
If I'm carrying a laptop overseas, it's probably going to be for email, pictures and video. Once I get home and off-load the data, I'm going to fdisk and rebuild anyway.
McCain called the proposed net neutrality rules a "government takeover" of the Internet.
Somebody wake up grandpa.
Greetings, I was referring to you by my dearest friend, my name Bendo Haoraabn and I am writing you in great confidence from Nigerian prison...
I'm confused... what do they need webcams for in this project?
Live porn. Hey, you have to fill that broadcast schedule with something.
If I'm reading the chart correctly, it appears that Vista rivals Windows 7 in all benchmarks and even beats it in a couple.
Ru-roh, Shaggy. That's not good. I thought Windows 7 was supposed to be the Vista Apology version?
This is your old brain, this is your old brain on internet searches. Any questions, grandpa?
What's the big deal?
Preaching politics on the company dime is right up there with promoting religion during office hours. It's your employer abusing their captive audience. If you don't go along, you could be seen as not being a team player. You're getting paid to do a job, not be a political pawn. It worked so well for the health insurance companies, having their employees out acting like dickwads at public meetings. Be sure and remind them to change their employer branded clothing to look more like a real grassroots uprising.
And it was wrong. I remember when the internet went private. I didn't hear AT&T or any of the others complaining about all that new infrastructure and business they inherited. Now that the system needs major upgrades no one wants to pony up. Instead they want to find ways to tax traffic, make money without making any additional investment. The Wall Street model. Net neutrality rules threaten that grand plan. They might not be able to cover those multi-million dollar salaries and bonuses. Oh, noes!
Tell you what, if those circuits are that unprofitable, sell them and get out of the infrastructure business. No one owes AT&T a living. If it's too tough out there, get into banking. Corporate whiners are the worst.
that their signature remained secret, however no one should have to put up with an organized intimidation process which is the new method of choice.
This wasn't a ballot, I'm not sure where the expectation of privacy comes from. You could argue that trying to create a separate but equal set of rules for a minority population is also organized intimidation. It just depends on which side of the intimidation you're on.
As it pertains gays, there do seem to be a lot of people determined to see they never get any kind of legal recognition. The people and businesses supporting those legal efforts want some kind of cover, so they don't really have to take a public stand. But if Boeing was trying to fund some kind of anti-union ballot initiative, wouldn't you want to know? Doesn't the public voting on an initiative deserve to know who's behind it? How is this really any different?
If you take out "gay" and substitute any other minority population, this looks a whole lot different. "...anti-Hispanic rights groups created and got R-71 on the 2009 election ballot." Or "... anti-Jewish rights groups created and got R-71 on the 2009 election ballot." In that light it starts looking pretty damn ugly.
Overall, I think we're all farther ahead with transparency in the process. If that ballot effort is taking a shot at a minority population, then you can expect them not to like it.
It's a nice IDEA, but in practice, it just gets in the way.
O-M-G it's Clippy for web servers. It looks like you're trying to post that document on a secure intranet....
RUUUUUN!!!!
The government has bailed out homeowners. It's bailed out big businesses. Why can't it also help students?'
To me this is a tragedy. Young people starting off almost $100K in the hole. I had student loans, so did my wife. Together they didn't add up to $40K and she went to grad school.
On a higher level this kills entrepreneurial opportunities at the time in life you have the most desire, creativity and energy to launch a new business. Many of you are stuck in low-paying, dead end jobs because of student loans...one of the reasons some companies like to hire right out of college. Student loans and health insurance. Wouldn't it be better to turn all that creativity loose developing new businesses and jobs? But how can you saddled with all that debt and no health care coverage?
We have to do something, not just for people in college now but those recently graduating into 9.5% unemployment. Whatever that is, it has to include cost controls on education. The cost of education is running way ahead of inflation and textbook companies are worse than the mafia (at least the mob runs prostitutes). This is crazy.
But what to do about it? If the government tried some kind of forgiveness program, Republicans would scream about budget deficits. Student loans are also a giant bank pork program and you can see what kind clout they have in Washington. So, it's got to be paid for somehow, deficit neutral, combined with cost controls on education and everyone on both sides of the political pork barrel have to STFU long enough to get it done.
the reverse brain drain already evident and growing in the US as Indian, Chinese, and European students and workers in the US plan to return home, or already have.
Between Homeland Security and treating H1-B's like slave labor, who can blame them? They can go home and enjoy a better lifestyle than they have here and not get treated like a potential terrorist.
Funny is how many of the teabirthers walking around thinking this is the best place in the world to live and everyone wants to come here.
Not anymore.
A group of 18 Republican US senators have also sent a letter to Genachowski raising concerns about net neutrality regulations.
That pretty much guarantees it's good for the public.
NOTE: These are benefits when upgrading from XP.
That's the truth Dell and Microsoft want to get out there, but for enterprise customers the transition is going to be expensive and painful. You'd think a company with Microsoft's resources would have created a paved road for transitioning from XP to Windows 7. That's where all the big sales will come from. But that transition is a rocky road, a rocky toll road.
People buying a new PC won't really care what's on it, as long as it isn't Vista. But enterprise customers...there are going to be a lot of new gray hairs at the c level.
And it will stay that way , Mr Balmer, as long as you don't release it.
Good one. That was the same story we heard when XP came out. Yeah, yeah, Windows 7 is all over that now.
For about six months.
They have caught a couple people but investigated dozens of innocent people. And the AP reporter picture came back as a possible terrorism suspect. You want to end up in an FBI report associated with a terrorist? Even if they clear you out later?
Hopefully they figure out the mistake before you end up where ever they'll be sending terror suspects after GTMO closes.
Using already disturbed lands would help avoid conflicts between renewable energy developers and environmental groups concerned about impacts to wildlife habitat.
I used to work in toxics cleanup and I think that's a brilliant idea. A lot of hazardous materials are more risk to dig up than just leave alone. That would put the land to some practical use and restore value to the surrounding communities, many of which were blighted by the proximity to the contamination (whether justified by actual exposure risk or not). And, oh by the way, turn that otherwise unusable ground into jobs and non-polluting energy.
So whatever led to the consideration of these sites, it's a winner. The fact no one will seriously be able to challenge the site selection on environmental grounds will simply speed getting the shovels into the ground.
This is a great idea. Whoever thought it up should get a prize.
We can't get a virus or trojans or....hey, where did my data go?
Why would it be a black mark?
It would around here, in a lot of places. One of the developers I used to work with interviewed at a company that had a banner that read "God Supervises This Office" in the lobby.
Outside southern red states including, ironically, one or two with a healthy gaming industry, it would probably be an advantage. It means you can work in high security areas around a lot of money, don't have any felonies in your background and can work in an environment that's not particularly tolerant of mistakes.
Personally, if a right wing, dogmatic, Bible-thumping company owner didn't want to hire me I'd consider that a badge of honor.
Not exactly what the article says.
They cut her off until she had a hearing. That's the way it is here, too. Any income will trigger the cut off, then you have to fight to get them back. And, just like in her case, they'll do absolutely everything they can to dick people around.
Some of our volunteer firefighters have the same problem. At the end of the year the department gives them a gas money check. If they report that as income, the state cuts off their benefits. If they don't report it, the state accuses them of trying to hide income. For some people those benefits are the only thing keeping them from starving. The entire system is the functional equivalent of the current health care system. So I'm certain if anyone dared stand up to try and get a better safety net for the unemployed, the teabirthers would be out screaming about government take overs.
Others are getting much more than $238 through web ads. Should they be running for unemployment benefits too?
Don't be such a dumbass. All they had to do was deduct $238 from one of her checks, but there's no option to do that with unemployment. The second you report any income, regardless of the source, you're employed. So if you take a contract job and get let go a month later, not only does unemployment stop paying you but then they'll turn around and claim you haven't been on the new job long enough to collect benefits. Too bad, buddy. You can't even collect the balance of benefits you were due.
So there's is absolutely zero incentive for people on unemployment to take what work they can find. If they would encourage people to take part-time and temporary jobs, deducting what they make from their benefit check so they don't lose money working, but restoring their benefits if those jobs fall through, then more people would be out working.
But the system we have today punishes people trying to do the right thing. Don't defend a broken system. They could use unemployment to encourage people go out and start a business, instead they discriminate against people wanting to work but unable to find a permanent job that lasts longer than 3 months.
I feel a Denis Leary rant coming on.
http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/wireStory?id=8809282
reporting un-vetted fake news
You must get your news from Fox. The documents he presented in that story were likely not original but everyone familiar with the contents verified that they were essentially correct and that the facts of the story were essentially correct. It was not "un-vetted fake news". If they would have aired the story without the documents, then you would have needed to find another excuse to attack the source.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A24633-2004Sep15.html
Rather spoke after interviewing the secretary to Bush's former squadron commander, who told him that the memos attributed to her late boss are fake -- but that they reflect the commander's belief that Bush was receiving preferential treatment to escape some of his Guard commitments.
And...
"I know that I didn't type them," Knox said of the Killian memos. "However, the information in there is correct," she said, adding that Killian and the other officers would "snicker about what [Bush] was getting away with."
And I think history has aptly demonstrated Bush was the arrogant, incompetent fraud his National Guard service predicted. But, hey, don't let the truth, even in hindsight, dent your neo-conservative, never-admit-a-mistake brain shield. You probably think Bush was a great guy who could have done a terrific job if it just wasn't for the Democrats in Congress.
Fox News is every bit the news organization as the National Inquirer or Star Magazine, except better financed and infinitely more dangerous.