One thought I had, is that this would be a way to make a virus replicate. What if instead of random crap, it put some kernel driver in windows that checked to see if you were writing an "unattend.xml" file and dumped itself on that drive if so ?
This isn't a million miles from how viruses used to replicate back in the days of DOS, though they would have been a TSR rather than a kernel driver. Though it amounts to much the same thing.
Single track on iTunes: 79p - £1.49. Quality: AAC lossy DRM: iTunes DRM Album art: Maybe. Sleeve notes: None.
More than a couple of tracks from the same album and it rapidly becomes better value to buy the entire CD. Now, iTunes does allow you to buy the album at a cheaper per-track price, but most of the albums I've looked at the price is slightly dearer than buying the physical CD from Amazon - and the CD will be lossless, no DRM, with album art and notes.
I suppose there's the convenience factor, and you're not obliged to buy an album for just one song....
I don't live in the UK but I have a lot of friends there so allow me some literary license please?
"This just in. VAT to go up 1.5% over the next 18 months! The Parliament expects the added pressures from the tax to result in lower emissions, added revenue, and they expect the decision to result in a higher approval rating with the Greenies. More on this and other top stories when BBC News returns in a minute."
You're miles out for a number of reasons:
1. I've never heard "This just in" in anything UK-based. "Recent reports" or "We're receiving reports of...", possibly. 2. "Returns in a minute"? It's the BBC, they don't have adverts. 3. The government wouldn't do anything as obvious as raise VAT. They've spent the last 10 years increasing taxes in ways which aren't immediately obvious and by and large have become fairly good at it.
I'm betting they would define unlimited as it supports all protocols and allows access to all sites, as apposed to accessing the internet via an iPhone, which doesn't (appently - according to various sources, dont have one myself) allow _ALL_ websites to work?
I don't know about T-Mobile but I do know that I support a bunch of people who travel all over the world and basically, as soon as you leave the comfort of your own broadband connection, all bets regarding what works are off.
I've seen hotels and mobile telcos blocking ports, using VPN "helpers" which don't help at all, blocking VPN use outright - even if the service they're providing is aimed squarely at businesses - all sorts of silly things. I'm just waiting for the day that the hotel's "internet" connection is "port 80 with an invisible proxy so you can't even run other protocols over the port".
In short, you may wish all of this were irrelevant but a sound business decision must include consideration of alternate sourcing, employee productivity and cost-cutting possibilities.
Granted, however a sound business decision in this case is no mean feat.
I'll assume for the sake of argument that I'm considering this from the point of view of a business that doesn't have any form of groupware solution.
On the one hand you've got Exchange. Expensive, but very difficult to match, feature-wise.
On the other hand, you've got Zafara, Zimbra, Citadel, OpenGroupware et al. All of them perfectly competent products in their own way, and for the most part quite a bit cheaper. But it's value to the business relative to cost that's important, not necessarily raw cost.
At this current moment in time, Exchange still has a few major things in its favour:
It's "the one everyone else uses". Therefore it's easy enough to find staff who know it, both from an admin and a usage perspective.
It's well supported by other tools you might want to buy such as CRM.
It's rather less likely that Microsoft are going to go out of business than (insert name of other groupware provider here).
Replying to myself here, but one thing I really don't understand:
IMAP already supports a variant on push email. IDLE allows a client to keep a client running and receive notification when an email is received. Yet virtually no popular smartphone supports this. Not Windows Mobile, not BES, not the iPhone (unless you're connecting to "selected" IMAP accounts).
It's completely barking mad - a perfectly good standard to solve the problem already exists and no bugger supports it.
Regarding management and wiping of smart phones, I have to assume you're talking about blackberrys. That's the job of a BES server. The BES server only talks to Exchange or Zimbra with the mobile connector to talk email, calanders etc., everything else regarding security/wiping/provisioning of the blackberry is handled by the BES server itself.
Zimbra doen't even talk about managing smart phones, only that it supports certain models for email.
Nope.
Basically, Microsoft have (oh what a surprise) discovered that push email seems to be rather popular so with a compatible phone and Exchange 2007 (or 2003 with a patch) you can get it without BES. Rather confusingly, they've called this feature ActiveSync, same as the client software you install on your PC to work with the phone.
Exchange allows you to remotely wipe the smartphone that you are accessing your account with. AFAIK, Zimbra doesn't support this feature. I can't find any mention of it in the forums of the module that Zafara are using to provide it, so I don't imagine their product supports it either.
What the business needs in this context is an IT manager. Someone who understands the technical stuff sufficiently to be able to have an intelligent conversation with the techs and who can act as a conduit between them and senior management to break it down into cost/benefit.
If the OP doesn't have an IT manager yet the company is large enough to need one, the business is screwed. If he is the IT manager, then he's obviously not being taken very seriously.
And maybe they can finally have something that doesn't try to break protocol standards,
Irrelevant if you're happy with the tool and don't give a damn about interoperability with other mail clients as long as all your staff can work and communicate with the outside world.
introduce a non-interchangeable mail archival format,
Irrelevant, a huge number of businesses are quite prepared to accept tying themselves to one vendor for a vital business function. If they weren't, there would have been none of this MS OOXML rubbish because it would never have come up in the first place.
artificially create a need to have ten times as many server licenses as necessary...
The fact that Exchange forces AD on you which really means you might as well have an AD domain which means more servers for redundancy because you're so fantastically fucked if you don't have them is an issue, but the smaller businesses will often start off with SBS (everything in one relatively cheap box) and work their way up from there. Larger businesses have, as often as not, already got such an infrastructure so there isn't a drastic cost difference.
There are plenty, but most seem to miss the point of Exchange in some fashion.
Point the First: Everything that you're likely to plug into Exchange must also work with whatever alternative or it isn't an Exchange alternative. That means things like Blackberries, other vendors' smartphones, seamless (yes seamless, not "install this plugin which sort-of works") Outlook integration, remote management of smartphones (including wiping them). Zimbra's pretty close here, but falls down on remote smartphone management and seamless Outlook integration.
Point the Second (Scalix falls down here): Exchange is only a small proportion of the overall licensing costs. You've also got Active Directory (which implies a Windows Server infrastructure) and CALs for AD. There's not a lot of point in having AD without having your workstations on an AD domain, so you've got to factor in all the necessary licenses for this as well. If you demand I supply my own AD infrastructure and you price your product at [price for Exchange - 10%], I might as well just pay the extra 10% and eliminate the risk of being passed between vendors in a game of telephone tennis in the event of support issues.
Point the Third: Whether you like it or not, the PHBs who like Exchange are often rather stuck in the Exchange way of thinking. I don't care how much better you think your solution is, if your argument is "it's cheaper but it's only better if you're prepared to accept a totally new way of thinking about groupware" then it's not better because the PHBs in question probably aren't. Citadel's a good example of this.
Ok, but just for clarification, there's no claim here that the characters "Mac" and "PC" came from that show, but just the actors who played those characters in one country also played other characters on a show from that country?
No, they just ha(d|ve) a sketch show and the Mac/PC stuff was never part of it.
Very British humour, and IIRC there wasn't a laugh track, so I can't see it airing in the US.
The response to the latest opengl release has been, to put it mildly, underwhelming. A number of opengl developers in the blogs I have read have declared intentions of moving over to directx. This is the way for opengl developers to get a bigger share of the open source developer mindshare and development effort to make up for the egg they laid earlier this year.
Would that be mindshare among the people developing open source 3D games? (Both of them)?
Or the people developing open source desktop apps that depend on 3D? (who are either already fairly committed to OpenGL anyway or weren't even remotely interested in open source, regardless of 3D API)
Not even worth your time to discuss it..hahahahaha. OK, you're right, every company in the world uses network-drive-only setups, and bans their users from any writing to either linux scratch drives or C:\ (usually the location of MY DOCUMENTS). That's completely accurate...dws.
Which can be trivially redirected to a network drive through Group Policy.
Hell, it can be trivially redirected to a network drive using a Windows NT 4 domain policy.
Unless you're a very small company indeed, this is the only sensible thing to do unless you plan to backup every PC individually.
Drive is 3-5x more expensive than $1 a gigabyte...raid level 5 means 2+ drives, we're to $6-10 already, then you say the majority of the cost wouldn't be in the media...
RAID 5 means 3+ drives, and means that you lose 1 drive worth of capacity.
You probably wouldn't use RAID 5 with drives that size because rebuilding the array would take too long. And I don't think you can get 1TB SAS drives yet.
From working at a large university, three fortune 500 companies, and now the small business I work for, I don't think it's even suggestible that most user data is backed up in an out-sourced tape data center. That's an absurd suggestion. The vast majority of data never makes it off either a local hard drive or a temporary, lightly backed up network "drive".
I'm sorry, but that is so far at odds with all my experience that it's not even worth my time to discuss it.
On top of what you said - $5 a gigabyte? What is this 1998? Even if you get WD's highest quality consumer hard drives they're about $1 a gigabyte, plus if you buy them in bulk they're probably considerably cheaper. You can use 2 or 3 of them for data redundancy, and it's still significantly cheaper. I question where they got that number.
As soon as you say that I can be reasonably sure that you've never factored in storage costs for anything fancier than a desktop PC.
SAS disks are typically 3-5 times more expensive per drive. Factor in RAID (level 5 if you want capacity, 10 if you want performance, 6 if you want a compromise of both) and can potentially double the cost per gigabyte. But you can't get 15,000 RPM SATA disks and you can't bond SATA channels together for performance.
Secondly, seeing as the subject is archiving they're probably talking about tape rather than hard disks. Tapes have the big advantage that you can handle them a lot more roughly, transport them more easily than disks and they can be archived for longer because they don't suffer from sticktion.
Thirdly, I don't think the cost of media is the biggest factor by a long way. They've probably also factored in cost of a contract with Iron Mountain, cost of robotic tape library, licensing costs for TSM (or similar) and a proportion of the wages involved in paying someone to swap the tapes out and hand them over to Iron Mountain every day.
Seriously, how do these people live with themselves, knowing what they are doing.
Because the majority of politicians do not live in the real world.
They live in a world where their continued employment depends largely upon the media - and the media loves a good sob story.
"ANPR system which ${POLITICIAN} voted against could have saved my child!!!111oneoneone"
They live in a world where they don't have to worry about abuse of the process. Right now it isn't anywhere near as common as/. would have you believe, and nobody would choose toabuse a law just because it suited them, would they now?
The very concept of "if you don't want the law to be abused, don't write it in a fashion that leaves it wide open to abuse" appears to be totally wasted and I can think of only two reasons - either they are lying and they do intend the law to be abused (in which case they are systematically corrupt and should be hounded out of office) or they honestly don't believe that laws are likely to be abused (in which case they are systematically incompetent and should be hounded out of office).
Your words, not those of Prof. Reiss, I take it. And a common theme among the disciples of Dawkins. But that is not essentially what faith means, and I don't see how someone who says so can even have begun to engage with religious thought in any significant way.
I did say I was paraphrasing;)
Faith: Mental acceptance of and confidence in a claim as truth without proof supporting the claim.
How exactly is that radically different from "taking someone's word for it"?
You may interpret "faith in God" to imply that one believes in the bible and strives to follow the ideas expressed in it, but I'm talking about the word "faith", not "what having faith in a particular religious belief further implies".
So, kids in the UK are doing so well in physics and biology, and they've got so much excess class time that they should bring up a topic that has absolutely no basis in science? I'm sure the members of the Royal Society are horrified by the lack of comity shown to Mr. Reiss, but he sounds like a bit of a tool to me.
Are you a troll or do you honestly have no idea of what the original gist of Mr. Reiss' remarks were before they were misquoted?
I'll spell it out for you nice and slowly, paraphrasing to make it easier to understand:
"If a pupil says to their science teacher "Evolution is wrong because it's not in the bible", the science teacher should not say "You're wrong. End of discussion. Next subject...". Instead, the science teacher should explain that the whole point of science is to try and explain things on the basis of available evidence rather than just taking someones' word for it (which is essentially what "faith" means) as the final answer to any questions one might have - and if new evidence which breaks your explanation comes to light, you accept that your explanation was wrong and try and alter it (or even completely rewrite it) to fit the newly discovered evidence."
You know that. I know that. Can you suggest a reason why the US and UK intelligence services didn't know exactly what the effect would be as well? The only question is *why* they wanted that result, in Northern Ireland, Eurasia, Algeria, Vietnam...
I wish I knew.
Jeffrey Archer's prison diary provides insight (albeit at a slight tangent) insofar as it paints a picture of a man who knew nothing about crime and punishment that hadn't been filtered through several layers of advisors suddenly finding himself on the wrong end of the system. If all the other politicians are in a similar boat (and it's fair to assume they are), then it's not stupidity. Rather, it's a level of naivety which is simply breathtaking to anyone who lives in the real world. Most senior politicians are so far removed from the real world that they can't even remember it.
Here's what I don't get: Napster started as a free app to download pirated music. Now after many changes, it's being sold for millions of dollars. What are they exactly bringing to the table? Just the subscribers?
Seems that way.
Interesting maths that has the subscribers valued at around $40 million each.
And it is so hard for your references to know if you're really any good or not because unless you're in a large technical group a lot of them wouldn't really know what it is that you actually do, or how to tell if you do it well.
Most companies won't provide a reference other than "Person X worked for us from (date) to (date)." It's just too easy to say something which could be misconstrued as being negative and used to sue the company which issued the reference.
Slashdot Mirror
One thought I had, is that this would be a way to make a virus replicate. What if instead of random crap, it put some kernel driver in windows that checked to see if you were writing an "unattend.xml" file and dumped itself on that drive if so ?
This isn't a million miles from how viruses used to replicate back in the days of DOS, though they would have been a TSR rather than a kernel driver. Though it amounts to much the same thing.
Though that might be because I'm a cheap bastard.
Single track on iTunes: 79p - £1.49.
Quality: AAC lossy
DRM: iTunes DRM
Album art: Maybe.
Sleeve notes: None.
More than a couple of tracks from the same album and it rapidly becomes better value to buy the entire CD. Now, iTunes does allow you to buy the album at a cheaper per-track price, but most of the albums I've looked at the price is slightly dearer than buying the physical CD from Amazon - and the CD will be lossless, no DRM, with album art and notes.
I suppose there's the convenience factor, and you're not obliged to buy an album for just one song....
I don't live in the UK but I have a lot of friends there so allow me some literary license please?
"This just in. VAT to go up 1.5% over the next 18 months! The Parliament expects the added pressures from the tax to result in lower emissions, added revenue, and they expect the decision to result in a higher approval rating with the Greenies. More on this and other top stories when BBC News returns in a minute."
You're miles out for a number of reasons:
1. I've never heard "This just in" in anything UK-based. "Recent reports" or "We're receiving reports of...", possibly.
2. "Returns in a minute"? It's the BBC, they don't have adverts.
3. The government wouldn't do anything as obvious as raise VAT. They've spent the last 10 years increasing taxes in ways which aren't immediately obvious and by and large have become fairly good at it.
I'm betting they would define unlimited as it supports all protocols and allows access to all sites, as apposed to accessing the internet via an iPhone, which doesn't (appently - according to various sources, dont have one myself) allow _ALL_ websites to work?
I don't know about T-Mobile but I do know that I support a bunch of people who travel all over the world and basically, as soon as you leave the comfort of your own broadband connection, all bets regarding what works are off.
I've seen hotels and mobile telcos blocking ports, using VPN "helpers" which don't help at all, blocking VPN use outright - even if the service they're providing is aimed squarely at businesses - all sorts of silly things. I'm just waiting for the day that the hotel's "internet" connection is "port 80 with an invisible proxy so you can't even run other protocols over the port".
In short, you may wish all of this were irrelevant but a sound business decision must include consideration of alternate sourcing, employee productivity and cost-cutting possibilities.
Granted, however a sound business decision in this case is no mean feat.
I'll assume for the sake of argument that I'm considering this from the point of view of a business that doesn't have any form of groupware solution.
On the one hand you've got Exchange. Expensive, but very difficult to match, feature-wise.
On the other hand, you've got Zafara, Zimbra, Citadel, OpenGroupware et al. All of them perfectly competent products in their own way, and for the most part quite a bit cheaper. But it's value to the business relative to cost that's important, not necessarily raw cost.
At this current moment in time, Exchange still has a few major things in its favour:
Replying to myself here, but one thing I really don't understand:
IMAP already supports a variant on push email. IDLE allows a client to keep a client running and receive notification when an email is received. Yet virtually no popular smartphone supports this. Not Windows Mobile, not BES, not the iPhone (unless you're connecting to "selected" IMAP accounts).
It's completely barking mad - a perfectly good standard to solve the problem already exists and no bugger supports it.
Regarding management and wiping of smart phones, I have to assume you're talking about blackberrys. That's the job of a BES server. The BES server only talks to Exchange or Zimbra with the mobile connector to talk email, calanders etc., everything else regarding security/wiping/provisioning of the blackberry is handled by the BES server itself.
Zimbra doen't even talk about managing smart phones, only that it supports certain models for email.
Nope.
Basically, Microsoft have (oh what a surprise) discovered that push email seems to be rather popular so with a compatible phone and Exchange 2007 (or 2003 with a patch) you can get it without BES. Rather confusingly, they've called this feature ActiveSync, same as the client software you install on your PC to work with the phone.
Exchange allows you to remotely wipe the smartphone that you are accessing your account with. AFAIK, Zimbra doesn't support this feature. I can't find any mention of it in the forums of the module that Zafara are using to provide it, so I don't imagine their product supports it either.
What the business needs in this context is an IT manager. Someone who understands the technical stuff sufficiently to be able to have an intelligent conversation with the techs and who can act as a conduit between them and senior management to break it down into cost/benefit.
If the OP doesn't have an IT manager yet the company is large enough to need one, the business is screwed. If he is the IT manager, then he's obviously not being taken very seriously.
And maybe they can finally have something that doesn't try to break protocol standards,
Irrelevant if you're happy with the tool and don't give a damn about interoperability with other mail clients as long as all your staff can work and communicate with the outside world.
introduce a non-interchangeable mail archival format,
Irrelevant, a huge number of businesses are quite prepared to accept tying themselves to one vendor for a vital business function. If they weren't, there would have been none of this MS OOXML rubbish because it would never have come up in the first place.
artificially create a need to have ten times as many server licenses as necessary...
The fact that Exchange forces AD on you which really means you might as well have an AD domain which means more servers for redundancy because you're so fantastically fucked if you don't have them is an issue, but the smaller businesses will often start off with SBS (everything in one relatively cheap box) and work their way up from there. Larger businesses have, as often as not, already got such an infrastructure so there isn't a drastic cost difference.
There are plenty, but most seem to miss the point of Exchange in some fashion.
Point the First: Everything that you're likely to plug into Exchange must also work with whatever alternative or it isn't an Exchange alternative. That means things like Blackberries, other vendors' smartphones, seamless (yes seamless, not "install this plugin which sort-of works") Outlook integration, remote management of smartphones (including wiping them). Zimbra's pretty close here, but falls down on remote smartphone management and seamless Outlook integration.
Point the Second (Scalix falls down here): Exchange is only a small proportion of the overall licensing costs. You've also got Active Directory (which implies a Windows Server infrastructure) and CALs for AD. There's not a lot of point in having AD without having your workstations on an AD domain, so you've got to factor in all the necessary licenses for this as well. If you demand I supply my own AD infrastructure and you price your product at [price for Exchange - 10%], I might as well just pay the extra 10% and eliminate the risk of being passed between vendors in a game of telephone tennis in the event of support issues.
Point the Third: Whether you like it or not, the PHBs who like Exchange are often rather stuck in the Exchange way of thinking. I don't care how much better you think your solution is, if your argument is "it's cheaper but it's only better if you're prepared to accept a totally new way of thinking about groupware" then it's not better because the PHBs in question probably aren't. Citadel's a good example of this.
Ok, but just for clarification, there's no claim here that the characters "Mac" and "PC" came from that show, but just the actors who played those characters in one country also played other characters on a show from that country?
No, they just ha(d|ve) a sketch show and the Mac/PC stuff was never part of it.
Very British humour, and IIRC there wasn't a laugh track, so I can't see it airing in the US.
The response to the latest opengl release has been, to put it mildly, underwhelming. A number of opengl developers in the blogs I have read have declared intentions of moving over to directx. This is the way for opengl developers to get a bigger share of the open source developer mindshare and development effort to make up for the egg they laid earlier this year.
Would that be mindshare among the people developing open source 3D games? (Both of them)?
Or the people developing open source desktop apps that depend on 3D? (who are either already fairly committed to OpenGL anyway or weren't even remotely interested in open source, regardless of 3D API)
Not even worth your time to discuss it..hahahahaha. OK, you're right, every company in the world uses network-drive-only setups, and bans their users from any writing to either linux scratch drives or C:\ (usually the location of MY DOCUMENTS). That's completely accurate...dws.
Which can be trivially redirected to a network drive through Group Policy.
Hell, it can be trivially redirected to a network drive using a Windows NT 4 domain policy.
Unless you're a very small company indeed, this is the only sensible thing to do unless you plan to backup every PC individually.
Drive is 3-5x more expensive than $1 a gigabyte...raid level 5 means 2+ drives, we're to $6-10 already, then you say the majority of the cost wouldn't be in the media...
RAID 5 means 3+ drives, and means that you lose 1 drive worth of capacity.
You probably wouldn't use RAID 5 with drives that size because rebuilding the array would take too long. And I don't think you can get 1TB SAS drives yet.
From working at a large university, three fortune 500 companies, and now the small business I work for, I don't think it's even suggestible that most user data is backed up in an out-sourced tape data center. That's an absurd suggestion. The vast majority of data never makes it off either a local hard drive or a temporary, lightly backed up network "drive".
I'm sorry, but that is so far at odds with all my experience that it's not even worth my time to discuss it.
"Local hard drive"??!
One thing they may not have, however, is time.
On top of what you said - $5 a gigabyte? What is this 1998? Even if you get WD's highest quality consumer hard drives they're about $1 a gigabyte, plus if you buy them in bulk they're probably considerably cheaper. You can use 2 or 3 of them for data redundancy, and it's still significantly cheaper. I question where they got that number.
As soon as you say that I can be reasonably sure that you've never factored in storage costs for anything fancier than a desktop PC.
SAS disks are typically 3-5 times more expensive per drive. Factor in RAID (level 5 if you want capacity, 10 if you want performance, 6 if you want a compromise of both) and can potentially double the cost per gigabyte. But you can't get 15,000 RPM SATA disks and you can't bond SATA channels together for performance.
Secondly, seeing as the subject is archiving they're probably talking about tape rather than hard disks. Tapes have the big advantage that you can handle them a lot more roughly, transport them more easily than disks and they can be archived for longer because they don't suffer from sticktion.
Thirdly, I don't think the cost of media is the biggest factor by a long way. They've probably also factored in cost of a contract with Iron Mountain, cost of robotic tape library, licensing costs for TSM (or similar) and a proportion of the wages involved in paying someone to swap the tapes out and hand them over to Iron Mountain every day.
If it was supposed to compete with Apple's Mac vs. PC ads, which many people apparently find comical and true,
Emphasis mine.
I think that says enough.
Fair point.
For the right amount of money, scruples are an optional extra. Perhaps "I was just paying the mortgage" will become the new Nuremberg defense.
Seriously, how do these people live with themselves, knowing what they are doing.
Because the majority of politicians do not live in the real world.
They live in a world where their continued employment depends largely upon the media - and the media loves a good sob story.
"ANPR system which ${POLITICIAN} voted against could have saved my child!!!111oneoneone"
They live in a world where they don't have to worry about abuse of the process. Right now it isn't anywhere near as common as /. would have you believe, and nobody would choose to abuse a law just because it suited them, would they now?
The very concept of "if you don't want the law to be abused, don't write it in a fashion that leaves it wide open to abuse" appears to be totally wasted and I can think of only two reasons - either they are lying and they do intend the law to be abused (in which case they are systematically corrupt and should be hounded out of office) or they honestly don't believe that laws are likely to be abused (in which case they are systematically incompetent and should be hounded out of office).
Your words, not those of Prof. Reiss, I take it. And a common theme among the disciples of Dawkins. But that is not essentially what faith means, and I don't see how someone who says so can even have begun to engage with religious thought in any significant way.
I did say I was paraphrasing ;)
Faith: Mental acceptance of and confidence in a claim as truth without proof supporting the claim.
How exactly is that radically different from "taking someone's word for it"?
You may interpret "faith in God" to imply that one believes in the bible and strives to follow the ideas expressed in it, but I'm talking about the word "faith", not "what having faith in a particular religious belief further implies".
It wouldn't be the first time something like that's happened.
(though to be fair that was a repair rather than a new PC)
So, kids in the UK are doing so well in physics and biology, and they've got so much excess class time that they should bring up a topic that has absolutely no basis in science? I'm sure the members of the Royal Society are horrified by the lack of comity shown to Mr. Reiss, but he sounds like a bit of a tool to me.
Are you a troll or do you honestly have no idea of what the original gist of Mr. Reiss' remarks were before they were misquoted?
I'll spell it out for you nice and slowly, paraphrasing to make it easier to understand:
"If a pupil says to their science teacher "Evolution is wrong because it's not in the bible", the science teacher should not say "You're wrong. End of discussion. Next subject...". Instead, the science teacher should explain that the whole point of science is to try and explain things on the basis of available evidence rather than just taking someones' word for it (which is essentially what "faith" means) as the final answer to any questions one might have - and if new evidence which breaks your explanation comes to light, you accept that your explanation was wrong and try and alter it (or even completely rewrite it) to fit the newly discovered evidence."
You know that. I know that. Can you suggest a reason why the US and UK intelligence services didn't know exactly what the effect would be as well? The only question is *why* they wanted that result, in Northern Ireland, Eurasia, Algeria, Vietnam...
I wish I knew.
Jeffrey Archer's prison diary provides insight (albeit at a slight tangent) insofar as it paints a picture of a man who knew nothing about crime and punishment that hadn't been filtered through several layers of advisors suddenly finding himself on the wrong end of the system. If all the other politicians are in a similar boat (and it's fair to assume they are), then it's not stupidity. Rather, it's a level of naivety which is simply breathtaking to anyone who lives in the real world. Most senior politicians are so far removed from the real world that they can't even remember it.
Here's what I don't get: Napster started as a free app to download pirated music. Now after many changes, it's being sold for millions of dollars. What are they exactly bringing to the table? Just the subscribers?
Seems that way.
Interesting maths that has the subscribers valued at around $40 million each.
And it is so hard for your references to know if you're really any good or not because unless you're in a large technical group a lot of them wouldn't really know what it is that you actually do, or how to tell if you do it well.
Most companies won't provide a reference other than "Person X worked for us from (date) to (date)." It's just too easy to say something which could be misconstrued as being negative and used to sue the company which issued the reference.