"because they don't bother with such insignificant details as licensing"
Maybe, maybe not. In my recollection, though, the first to start offering combination DVD/VCR units where the smaller players. They may have skipped licensing to keep costs down, they may not have. I would expect not, though, as they could have been kept from market if they had. The guys putting a hard drive in a recording unit look to be the smaller players ( panasonic comes to mind ), not small enough to skip licensing, I would expect.
And none of this reflects on the idea of what master is being served, wall street or the end buyer. Which explains ( perhaps ) the iPod success, namely, a correct focus on what people want, rather than on what the company can produce.
"My own experience is that the cheaper the electronics, the more off-brand, the more useful it is."
Sure. Because the small/offbrand/ etc company has to worry about getting you to buy the product, and they do that by making it useful to you. The larger company does not have to worry so much about this, their main worry is in A: their bonuses, B: the investors/wall street, and so, work to extract the last penny from the buyer, without worrying about providing commensurate value.
"It's not rewarding them, it's giving them incentive to not just run away from the mess"
I know. But they are responsible for the mess. When I as a programmer make a poor design decision, I do something to make it up to my customer. Your points are well made and well taken, think of my comments as normative, not prescriptive.
I am going to sack my bosses Wednesday ( I will let them enjoy Christmas first, isn't that nice of me? ) If that doesn't help, I will sack those above them, until I come to the top. From there, will follow Monty Python's advice.
But now, a more serious answer; why not expect accountability and responsibility from those in charge? The one's I keep hearing are worth the huge salaries and bonuses they "earn".
That sidesteps the responsibility those executives had to run the business profitably. The question is why those most responsible for the failure of the business are not only keeping their jobs but being rewarded for doing so. Maybe management is not incompetent in this case, but they are responsible, and while in this responsible mode, they are accepting monies that could be used to improve/run the business into their pockets. I have a hard time seeing that as anything except a selfish act in which they don't care about the business.
Think of how much *more* money they could save if they fired all the Executives, the ones who make the decisions that are obviously quite poor! It runs to millions!
"If you are licensed, it is an indication that as far as anyone knows, you haven't behaved unethically or illegally in the past. "
So, could the issue of MediaSentry performing an investigation of this sort where they were not licensed to do so have any effect on their licensing elsewhere?
Maybe because this way the power company doesnt have to give any discount? Heck, they will probably charge the recipient of the power and the car owner for this "service".
"Hey, the third quarter numbers are going to come in a bit off". "We could cook the books a bit" "Na, Enron did that, we have cooked them as much as we can". "Well, er ah, humm. Well, boss, you know that um, stuff we got"? "No, er ah, yeah, stuff"... . "Well, been meaning to tell you" "we are 'missing' some...". "Yeah? How many doll How many pounds?"
Seriously, Enron, Worldcom, Tyco and a slew of other companies pushing and crossing "the line" when the numbers are not what Wall Street wants... That and German and French engineering companies helping build bunkers in the middle east.
I agree that we should go nuclear, and we should attempt to extract the maximal energy from it, but lets not be careless with the results.
For all of me, I would say make capitalism work on this. Rewards for finding problems with the plant. Rewards for credible evidence of people trying to smuggle anything out. Rewards for pointing out security issues. Rewards for any other things I have overlooked that are important.
Environmentalists? Let them be inspectors ( after training and background checks ) ( and only for the ones that are not rabidly anti-nuclear ).
And build them as far from population as possible, and dont let developers develop next to them after.
Honest question. All I have seen so far tells me that she was considered an operative. You maintain she was not, and I think I saw on another of your posts that there was something about no assignments in 5 years.
Slashdot Mirror
So, these are lenses made by Arisians?
Perhaps not, but with that line of reasoning,
couldn't you say is it not communism's fault that
people didn't work harder and make more of things?
Perhaps you can slashdot the domain grabber?
"because they don't bother with such insignificant details as licensing"
Maybe, maybe not.
In my recollection, though, the first to start offering combination DVD/VCR
units where the smaller players. They may have skipped licensing to keep
costs down, they may not have. I would expect not, though, as they could
have been kept from market if they had. The guys putting a hard drive
in a recording unit look to be the smaller players ( panasonic comes to mind ),
not small enough to skip licensing, I would expect.
And none of this reflects on the idea of what master is being served, wall street
or the end buyer. Which explains ( perhaps ) the iPod success, namely, a
correct focus on what people want, rather than on what the company can
produce.
"My own experience is that the cheaper the electronics, the more off-brand, the more useful it is."
Sure. Because the small/offbrand/ etc company has to worry about getting you to buy
the product, and they do that by making it useful to you. The larger company does
not have to worry so much about this, their main worry is in
A: their bonuses,
B: the investors/wall street,
and so, work to extract the last penny from the buyer, without worrying about providing commensurate value.
All it is doing is washing away the rain.
Leave it be.
"If there wasn't Vista," it would be necessary for Microsoft to invent it.
"It's not rewarding them, it's giving them incentive to not just run away from the mess"
I know. But they are responsible for the mess. When I as a programmer
make a poor design decision, I do something to make it up to my customer.
Your points are well made and well taken, think of my comments as
normative, not prescriptive.
I am going to sack my bosses Wednesday ( I will let them
enjoy Christmas first, isn't that nice of me? )
If that doesn't help, I will sack those above them,
until I come to the top. From there, will follow
Monty Python's advice.
But now, a more serious answer; why not expect accountability
and responsibility from those in charge? The one's I keep
hearing are worth the huge salaries and bonuses they "earn".
That sidesteps the responsibility those executives had to run the
business profitably. The question is why those most responsible
for the failure of the business are not only keeping their jobs
but being rewarded for doing so. Maybe management is not
incompetent in this case, but they are responsible, and while
in this responsible mode, they are accepting monies that could be
used to improve/run the business into their pockets. I have a
hard time seeing that as anything except a selfish act in which
they don't care about the business.
Think of how much *more* money they could save if they fired
all the Executives, the ones who make the decisions that are
obviously quite poor! It runs to millions!
You insensitive clod, I *am* an air conditioner.
And I didn't get turned on!
"If you are licensed, it is an indication that as far as anyone knows, you haven't behaved unethically or illegally in the past. "
So, could the issue of MediaSentry performing an investigation of this sort
where they were not licensed to do so have any effect on their licensing
elsewhere?
"Mach 3 right now is with a rocket-assisted takeoff."
The XB-70 was capable of Mach 3 flight back in the mid 60's.
The SR-71 was capable of more than Mach 3.
Maybe because this way the power company doesnt have to give any discount?
Heck, they will probably charge the recipient of the power and the
car owner for this "service".
Classified. Sorry. Try back in about 50.
But it is not due to a lack of trying.
It's win/win/win. Your two wins, plus the additional win
for the defense contractor selling the items, in that they
can miss at a higher sortie rate.
Hopefully they picked the "good package" and not the "big gun".
If you haven't already, watch "Fail Safe".
Pardon me while I use my zippo to light my zigarrette.
There, fixed that for you.
Blasphemy!
I mean, how will the wealthy ensure that their kids are at the top of the pile
if the poor could get the same education?
Surely you can see it...
"Hey, the third quarter numbers are going to come in a bit off".
"We could cook the books a bit"
"Na, Enron did that, we have cooked them as much as we can".
"Well, er ah, humm. Well, boss, you know that um, stuff we got"?
"No, er ah, yeah, stuff"... .
"Well, been meaning to tell you" "we are 'missing' some...".
"Yeah? How many doll How many pounds?"
Seriously, Enron, Worldcom, Tyco and a slew of other companies
pushing and crossing "the line" when the numbers are not what
Wall Street wants... That and German and French engineering
companies helping build bunkers in the middle east.
I agree that we should go nuclear, and we should attempt to extract
the maximal energy from it, but lets not be careless with the
results.
For all of me, I would say make capitalism work on this.
Rewards for finding problems with the plant.
Rewards for credible evidence of people trying to smuggle anything out.
Rewards for pointing out security issues.
Rewards for any other things I have overlooked that are important.
Environmentalists? Let them be inspectors ( after training and
background checks ) ( and only for the ones that are not
rabidly anti-nuclear ).
And build them as far from population as possible, and dont let
developers develop next to them after.
Fair enough.
Honest question. All I have seen so far tells me that
she was considered an operative. You maintain she was
not, and I think I saw on another of your posts that
there was something about no assignments in 5 years.
How could I confirm this for myself?
Don't answer this, except to yourself....
If a Democrat had outed a CIA "operative" who was similarly
placed as Plame, would you be arguing the same on his/her/its
behalf?