Of course it's a non sequitur. It's all a part of the "If you don't support my harebrained scheme, you're with the terrorists" line of thinking, which has become way too common lately. You'd think people would wise up and see right through this, but I guess there are a lot of slow learners out there.
While I don't disagree with what you're saying, I do think that any company whose revenue model depends on preventing their material from being "stolen" by disabling a person's web browser might as well go ahead and fold up now. CDs have always been copy-able, but CD publishers still manage to sell them. Same with books. If someone's only business model is to put some crap on a website, charge a bunch of money for access, and hope to sit back and watch the cash roll in, I think they will be in for a rude wakeup call. Legal issues aside, it's a matter of what people are willing to pay for, and the sale of crippled content does not exactly have a track record of success.
I'd say Google is aware of this, but they are hoping that other people and organizations, namely the ones that will be paying money for this service, are unaware. This way, they get people to use the service without fear that their material can be lifted. In any case, it will be interested to see how it all plays out once it becomes known that people can disable these browser hacks.
It is interesting how all of the environmentally friendly cars like the Honda Prius are ugly as hell and might as well have "dorkmobile" written all over them, as if the company doesn't want them to sell.
The reason for the hidden taxes is, of course, to hide the true total. If people had to write a check at the end of the year for their total tax bill, there would be a revolution. The groups who love big government (Republicans and Democrats) designed the current system very wisely from their point of view.
The FCC may WANT to be able to censor satellite and cable channels, but they won't be able to. Since those mediums operate in a closed circuit (must pay and/or have a special receiver to use it), the public airwaves issue does not apply. This is the only reason the FCC was ever allowed to have the power to set decency standards for broadcast radio and TV. If they tried to censor broadcasts that are sent over privately owned equipment, free speech issues would definitely be a concern and rightly so. That would be no different than the government telling comedy clubs what type of material was inappropriate for comedians to use.
The only reason cable channels such as Comedy Central censor some parts of their broadcast is because advertisers and the general public demand it. Proctor and Gamble won't sponsor a show that has full frontal nudity during prime time due to public opinion, so such a show doesn't go on commercial TV.
Oh noes, now I might get to actually listen to music on the way to work; teh horrors! On second thought, they'll probably just stick to lame, sanitized morning shows for soccer moms that have names like "Eric and Kathy" which is an actual show in Chicago. I can't imagine why anyone would listen to that crap.
A method of searching the database and presenting a list for the end user based upon the end user's selections.
Thanks for the idea, I'll be off to the patent office now! Anyone using one of these FAQ things will owe me royalties based on percentage of sales. Wow, this post has about 3 ideas phrased in the form of a patent application.
For a number of years, this ruling was used to justify federal regulation of just about anything. In more recent times, however, courts have somewhat limited this authority. The gun free schools act was overturned in 1995 when the supreme court ruled that the government had overstepped it's authority regarding interstate commerce regulation. Although courts have traditionally sided with the federal government in issues of regulatory authority, there have been exceptions, so it's hard to say what will happen in this case.
This may be a tongue-in-cheek comment, but I'm seriously surprised at how little this actually happens. I would think that if someone who was a little unbalanced in the head got sued by some shyster, said shyster would end up on the bottom of a river with a pair of cement shoes.
The Do Not Call list is basically a No Trespassing sign. There's not much difference. People have specifically told companies they don't want sales calls. How can you argue that someone has the right to make these calls? As a side note, if telemarketers had not made numerous attempts to circumvent the operation of Caller ID, Telezapper, and other call avoidance techniques, the do not call list would probably not have been necessary. Only because the industry was so determined to call people that had made it clear they did not wish to be called were people demanding that the list be created. Nobody's rights are being violated here; peoples' rights are being preserved.
Time to Dump IE?
Internet Explorer is a hacker's dream. Can you (and should you) drop it right now?
October 2004 by Don Jones
Internet Explorer is the Swiss Cheese of software--it's full of holes. Holes in software are never good, but when the browser is so integrated with the OS as to be as one--you've got problems. Add to that the sheer ubiquity of the Microsoft browser, and it's no wonder IE has become the hackers' No. 1 playground.
Now we're beset by increasingly common--and dangerous--security vulnerabilities. We knew IE was integrated with Windows, but we didn't have any idea how integrated it was. Even Microsoft doesn't seem to have a firm grasp on IE's internals, judging from the weeks it took to deliver an actual fix for the recent Download.Ject Trojan.
-- advertisement --
Not to say an integrated browser is all bad. To a developer, an integrated browser is cool because it gives you a built-in HTML rendering engine. You can then write apps that use HTML, knowing that the OS can render that HTML for you. IE can begin to take over the regular Windows Explorer shell and, in fact, has become so tightly integrated with Windows Explorer that it's a bit difficult to see where the shell ends and the browser begins.
The downside is a real downer. With a regular Web browser, a security vulnerability might let someone crash the browser. With an integrated Web browser they can crash the whole operating system. The tight ties to Windows means that the slightest IE security issue becomes an OS-wide panic. It's not just IE, either: Windows Media Player, Outlook Express, and even DirectX, are all, in my opinion, overly integrated and give hackers too much access to core PC functions.
But corporate users don't spend a lot of time playing with DirectX-based games, listening to Windows Media Player, or checking e-mail with Outlook Express. They do spend a lot of time in IE, and the more they surf the more they're vulnerable to its eccentricities. That's why more than a few corporations, not to mention individual users, are looking at alternatives--any alternative--to the built-in browser.
Browsing the Alternatives
Despite dire predictions from Netscape (now a unit of America Online, which, weirdly, continues to bundle IE with its software), the market for non-Microsoft browsers didn't go away. It sure as heck got small, though, with Microsoft now commanding around 95 percent of the market, according to some sources. But the times, they are a-changin'. San Diego Web metrics company WebSideStory recently reported IE losing 1 percent of that market, the first time IE has stumbled. IE is now down to 94 percent. Who's gaining? Mozilla.
The open-source code base of the Netscape browser, Mozilla offers a couple of browsers. Mozilla 1.7 is its base product (1.8 is in beta as of this writing); Firefox (currently at 0.9) is the next-generation browser. Both are available from www.mozilla.org. Netscape also offers 7.1 of its venerable browser based on Mozilla code. It's available from www.netscape.com, but you'd better hurry: It'll be the last Netscape-branded browser AOL produces.
Figure 1. Firefox's tabbed browser beats the heck out of Alt+Tabbing between a clutter of browser windows. (Click image to view larger version.)
There's also the well-known Opera Web browser, currently at version 7.53, available from www.opera.com. All of the Mozilla products, including Netscape's browser, are completely free. Opera offers a free, advertising-supported browser as well as a $40 version sans ads. And those are just the Windows browsers (see online extras for more on browsers for other OSes). While these are the major contenders, others exist: Search Download.com for "Web browser" and you'll get 356 results, many of which are small-footprint, self-contained Web browsers. Be aware that some of these simply throw a new cosmetic face on Windows' built-in IE objects, meaning you're still using IE. Others are completely self-contained and count as true alternatives.
Pros and Cons of Straying From the Pack
Forgetting security for a moment,
And then people like me will have to listen to your baby cry... Please, please get a sitter! It will make life easier for everyone involved, especially you!
Are you serious about this? If so, these people live in some sort of altered reality. Apparently they believe their own BS about people desiring telemarketing calls. Now that their cluelessness has fully blown up in their faces, you would think they would finally take the hint and find a more reputable business to get into, like selling crack to willing customers.
Why didn't you just make up a number? I appreciate the idea of standing for your principals or whatever, but sometimes it's really not worth it. Also, if you need to use a fake name, try Craven Moorehead. Funny as hell, but nobody ever catches it if you say it right.
I don't think anyone chooses to leave their kids with a babysitter that is known to be terrible, but the problem is finding out who is trustworthy. The only way to do this is to try them out and see how they do, or to take someone else's word for it.
It has been proven many times: The American people don't mind violence, even extreme violence, but the moment you do something sexual, the American public will call for your head on a pike. Same concept here, really.
I'd be willing to bet the real reason they wanted him gone was something even deeper than that, such as accidentally pissing off the wrong person. The days off from work simply pissed the person off even further (how many rational people would get mad at someone for that?) and prompted them to look for a reason to get rid of him. It's unfortunate how many organizations operate like this. I have seen this type of thing at many companies.
Re:Not outsourcing - from a business point of view
on
Inside Wal-Mart IT
·
· Score: 1
Bottom line is, the decision on what to outsource is a complicated one and there are many factors that must be considered. The bad outsourcing deals that cost lots of money and ruin companies are the ones that some executive made because he was tempted by that cheap overseas labor. Or he believed the vendor who assured him that costs would be lower without providing any evidence to back it up. Much like any business decision, if it is hasty and short sighted, it will most likely hurt the company in the long run.
Too bad more companies don't have the guts to say no to Wal-Mart. Seriously, it isn't always worth kissing ass just to get the business. If there's no way that business will be profitable in the long term, let it go. But that's hard to do once a company has built an extra manufacturing plant just to supply the Wal-Mart contract and would have substantial costs to cover if they backed out.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course it's a non sequitur. It's all a part of the "If you don't support my harebrained scheme, you're with the terrorists" line of thinking, which has become way too common lately. You'd think people would wise up and see right through this, but I guess there are a lot of slow learners out there.
While I don't disagree with what you're saying, I do think that any company whose revenue model depends on preventing their material from being "stolen" by disabling a person's web browser might as well go ahead and fold up now. CDs have always been copy-able, but CD publishers still manage to sell them. Same with books. If someone's only business model is to put some crap on a website, charge a bunch of money for access, and hope to sit back and watch the cash roll in, I think they will be in for a rude wakeup call. Legal issues aside, it's a matter of what people are willing to pay for, and the sale of crippled content does not exactly have a track record of success.
I'd say Google is aware of this, but they are hoping that other people and organizations, namely the ones that will be paying money for this service, are unaware. This way, they get people to use the service without fear that their material can be lifted. In any case, it will be interested to see how it all plays out once it becomes known that people can disable these browser hacks.
It is interesting how all of the environmentally friendly cars like the Honda Prius are ugly as hell and might as well have "dorkmobile" written all over them, as if the company doesn't want them to sell.
The reason for the hidden taxes is, of course, to hide the true total. If people had to write a check at the end of the year for their total tax bill, there would be a revolution. The groups who love big government (Republicans and Democrats) designed the current system very wisely from their point of view.
The FCC may WANT to be able to censor satellite and cable channels, but they won't be able to. Since those mediums operate in a closed circuit (must pay and/or have a special receiver to use it), the public airwaves issue does not apply. This is the only reason the FCC was ever allowed to have the power to set decency standards for broadcast radio and TV. If they tried to censor broadcasts that are sent over privately owned equipment, free speech issues would definitely be a concern and rightly so. That would be no different than the government telling comedy clubs what type of material was inappropriate for comedians to use.
The only reason cable channels such as Comedy Central censor some parts of their broadcast is because advertisers and the general public demand it. Proctor and Gamble won't sponsor a show that has full frontal nudity during prime time due to public opinion, so such a show doesn't go on commercial TV.
Oh noes, now I might get to actually listen to music on the way to work; teh horrors! On second thought, they'll probably just stick to lame, sanitized morning shows for soccer moms that have names like "Eric and Kathy" which is an actual show in Chicago. I can't imagine why anyone would listen to that crap.
A method of searching the database and presenting a list for the end user based upon the end user's selections.
Thanks for the idea, I'll be off to the patent office now! Anyone using one of these FAQ things will owe me royalties based on percentage of sales. Wow, this post has about 3 ideas phrased in the form of a patent application.
For a number of years, this ruling was used to justify federal regulation of just about anything. In more recent times, however, courts have somewhat limited this authority. The gun free schools act was overturned in 1995 when the supreme court ruled that the government had overstepped it's authority regarding interstate commerce regulation. Although courts have traditionally sided with the federal government in issues of regulatory authority, there have been exceptions, so it's hard to say what will happen in this case.
Goatse links would suddenly become a lot scarier on Slashdot TV.
There was a kid in my 3rd grade class named Jack who definitely got made fun of. It didn't help that his last name was Goff.
This may be a tongue-in-cheek comment, but I'm seriously surprised at how little this actually happens. I would think that if someone who was a little unbalanced in the head got sued by some shyster, said shyster would end up on the bottom of a river with a pair of cement shoes.
The Do Not Call list is basically a No Trespassing sign. There's not much difference. People have specifically told companies they don't want sales calls. How can you argue that someone has the right to make these calls? As a side note, if telemarketers had not made numerous attempts to circumvent the operation of Caller ID, Telezapper, and other call avoidance techniques, the do not call list would probably not have been necessary. Only because the industry was so determined to call people that had made it clear they did not wish to be called were people demanding that the list be created. Nobody's rights are being violated here; peoples' rights are being preserved.
Time to Dump IE? Internet Explorer is a hacker's dream. Can you (and should you) drop it right now? October 2004 by Don Jones Internet Explorer is the Swiss Cheese of software--it's full of holes. Holes in software are never good, but when the browser is so integrated with the OS as to be as one--you've got problems. Add to that the sheer ubiquity of the Microsoft browser, and it's no wonder IE has become the hackers' No. 1 playground. Now we're beset by increasingly common--and dangerous--security vulnerabilities. We knew IE was integrated with Windows, but we didn't have any idea how integrated it was. Even Microsoft doesn't seem to have a firm grasp on IE's internals, judging from the weeks it took to deliver an actual fix for the recent Download.Ject Trojan. -- advertisement -- Not to say an integrated browser is all bad. To a developer, an integrated browser is cool because it gives you a built-in HTML rendering engine. You can then write apps that use HTML, knowing that the OS can render that HTML for you. IE can begin to take over the regular Windows Explorer shell and, in fact, has become so tightly integrated with Windows Explorer that it's a bit difficult to see where the shell ends and the browser begins. The downside is a real downer. With a regular Web browser, a security vulnerability might let someone crash the browser. With an integrated Web browser they can crash the whole operating system. The tight ties to Windows means that the slightest IE security issue becomes an OS-wide panic. It's not just IE, either: Windows Media Player, Outlook Express, and even DirectX, are all, in my opinion, overly integrated and give hackers too much access to core PC functions. But corporate users don't spend a lot of time playing with DirectX-based games, listening to Windows Media Player, or checking e-mail with Outlook Express. They do spend a lot of time in IE, and the more they surf the more they're vulnerable to its eccentricities. That's why more than a few corporations, not to mention individual users, are looking at alternatives--any alternative--to the built-in browser. Browsing the Alternatives Despite dire predictions from Netscape (now a unit of America Online, which, weirdly, continues to bundle IE with its software), the market for non-Microsoft browsers didn't go away. It sure as heck got small, though, with Microsoft now commanding around 95 percent of the market, according to some sources. But the times, they are a-changin'. San Diego Web metrics company WebSideStory recently reported IE losing 1 percent of that market, the first time IE has stumbled. IE is now down to 94 percent. Who's gaining? Mozilla. The open-source code base of the Netscape browser, Mozilla offers a couple of browsers. Mozilla 1.7 is its base product (1.8 is in beta as of this writing); Firefox (currently at 0.9) is the next-generation browser. Both are available from www.mozilla.org. Netscape also offers 7.1 of its venerable browser based on Mozilla code. It's available from www.netscape.com, but you'd better hurry: It'll be the last Netscape-branded browser AOL produces. Figure 1. Firefox's tabbed browser beats the heck out of Alt+Tabbing between a clutter of browser windows. (Click image to view larger version.) There's also the well-known Opera Web browser, currently at version 7.53, available from www.opera.com. All of the Mozilla products, including Netscape's browser, are completely free. Opera offers a free, advertising-supported browser as well as a $40 version sans ads. And those are just the Windows browsers (see online extras for more on browsers for other OSes). While these are the major contenders, others exist: Search Download.com for "Web browser" and you'll get 356 results, many of which are small-footprint, self-contained Web browsers. Be aware that some of these simply throw a new cosmetic face on Windows' built-in IE objects, meaning you're still using IE. Others are completely self-contained and count as true alternatives. Pros and Cons of Straying From the Pack Forgetting security for a moment,
And then people like me will have to listen to your baby cry... Please, please get a sitter! It will make life easier for everyone involved, especially you!
Are you serious about this? If so, these people live in some sort of altered reality. Apparently they believe their own BS about people desiring telemarketing calls. Now that their cluelessness has fully blown up in their faces, you would think they would finally take the hint and find a more reputable business to get into, like selling crack to willing customers.
Why didn't you just make up a number? I appreciate the idea of standing for your principals or whatever, but sometimes it's really not worth it. Also, if you need to use a fake name, try Craven Moorehead. Funny as hell, but nobody ever catches it if you say it right.
The list has worked pretty well for me. I have had maybe 3 illegal sales calls since the list went into effect, all of which I reported.
I don't think anyone chooses to leave their kids with a babysitter that is known to be terrible, but the problem is finding out who is trustworthy. The only way to do this is to try them out and see how they do, or to take someone else's word for it.
"Come on now, let's not allow a few facts to get in the way of a perfectly good Bush Bashing."
- Signed, the idiots who modded the parent comment down.
It has been proven many times: The American people don't mind violence, even extreme violence, but the moment you do something sexual, the American public will call for your head on a pike. Same concept here, really.
I'd be willing to bet the real reason they wanted him gone was something even deeper than that, such as accidentally pissing off the wrong person. The days off from work simply pissed the person off even further (how many rational people would get mad at someone for that?) and prompted them to look for a reason to get rid of him. It's unfortunate how many organizations operate like this. I have seen this type of thing at many companies.
Bottom line is, the decision on what to outsource is a complicated one and there are many factors that must be considered. The bad outsourcing deals that cost lots of money and ruin companies are the ones that some executive made because he was tempted by that cheap overseas labor. Or he believed the vendor who assured him that costs would be lower without providing any evidence to back it up. Much like any business decision, if it is hasty and short sighted, it will most likely hurt the company in the long run.
Don't forget "leveraging synergy" and "world-class", whatever the hell that means.
Too bad more companies don't have the guts to say no to Wal-Mart. Seriously, it isn't always worth kissing ass just to get the business. If there's no way that business will be profitable in the long term, let it go. But that's hard to do once a company has built an extra manufacturing plant just to supply the Wal-Mart contract and would have substantial costs to cover if they backed out.