...companies are looking for a profit, not to make you there best friend. As long as they can keep the profits coming, they could care less what you think of them.
If profits are all they care about, then losing customers would show up on their collective "radar" screens pretty darn fast. So, they really DO care what you think of them if it means you could be switching to another provider...
Oh, and P.S. - Of course they could care less - you can ALWAYS care less - the correct way to make that point would be to say "they COULDN'T care less". That's saying something...:)
I thought that the NX command was being put in to make sure that code could only be executed in certain memory spaces, not to make sure that only certain code could be executed.
And it requires specific processors and chipsets that support the command.
My understanding was that it's more for protection of the stability of the OS, not protection of copyrights of software...
Well they have to generate revenue somehow - better they advertise by making it into a "how to", rather than blatently advertising for Toyota or whoever using pop-ups or another equally annoying ad method, right?
I'd agree that the subject could be a little more general - then they could cash in on advertising dollars from every company that makes these types of things...
And I have to say, advertising in this manner works sometimes too - I'm not one to buy crap I don't need based on an ad, but I REALLY want one of
these after reading the "HowStuffWorks" specs on it...:)
I agree. Additionally, one of the greatest things that this can accomplish is that maybe, just maybe, the people who install software like this unknowingly (or knowingly), will start to be more critical of such software and therefore the people that write it will be forced to make sure it conforms to what is accepted as best practice.
"the days of typing lkwdlgkhlhkgwq.com and GETTING Sitefinder was much worse!..."
Nevermind SiteFinder - I think the next time I visit lkwdlgkhlhkgwq.com I want the computer to just give me several loud beeps, because I just fell asleep and hit my head on the keyboard again...:)
No, I'm the kind of person that hauls it away in my economy car (NOT my big SUV of course):)
But seriously, there are lots of things that aren't natural in the woods that provide lots of benefits by being there. Trash cans are beneficial because there's a LOT of people that are too lazy to haul out their own garbage (I'd go so far as to guess that they're probably in the majority). If it wasn't for the trash cans, Rangers wouldn't monitoring the forest, they'd be picking up trash.
People in general aren't usually good for wildlife. And wildlife isn't generally too fond of people either. Balancing these two dilemnas and allowing wildlife to coexist with people peacefully is what national parks are all about.
You are probably right about a lot of technical solutions that are thrown at problems that won't necessarily benefit from them, but I have to disagree with you on this one.
First, people are dumb. YOU (and hopefully most of the/. audience) might know that it's a good idea to sign in with a Ranger before a hike, but those 16 year olds that are just trying to find a place to get drunk with no adults around don't give a rat's ass. That kind of behaviour breaks any kind of "sign-in" or "opt-in" system right there.
Second, one the benefits to doing this digitally is that people don't have to "opt-in" to be tracked. I'm betting that the anti-nature arsonist isn't going to sign in with the Ranger before he lights the forest on fire...
BTW - like I posted before, I would be against any kind of system, no matter how well intentioned, that tracked specific info and not just the aggregate info. A system like the original poster proposed wouldn't have to uniquely identify anyone in order to be beneficial to park Rangers.
So destroying public property is your thing, huh? Remind me to never invite you to any of the woods in my state. Some of those man-made things can actually be very beneficial to nature, as well as the people who use it (trash cans are man made, but I'm not complaining about them).
Anyway, I'm one that advocates privacy in everything, but how private do you expect to be while hiking in a public forest? A system like this could have the following characteristics/features: - Able to be small (so people like you wouldn't even see the sensors and therefore wouldn't have the overwhelming urge to destroy them) - The sensors don't have to pick up uniquely identifiable info in order to be effective. Rangers could determine which trails are the most popular, for instance, and then plan for any kind of maintenance that needs to be done on those trails accordingly. - If a trail was closed for danger reasons, Rangers would know if someone had passed the "Do not enter" signs and avert a possibly bad situation before it happened. - We would have much better ideas as to where forest fires might have been started, and where people might be that are in danger because of it. - Being able to retrace the steps of lost people would also be an obvious benefit. You wouldn't have to know WHO disappeared, just that someone did, and that someone passed by point X at X o'clock. It would give search parties a much better place to start than "well he disappeared somewhere over there..."
The system wouldn't have to uniquely identify anyone, it would just have to identify traffic. The info would still be really valuable to those that are in charge of keeping our forests beautiful and safe.
Re:He CAN-SPAM... the law says so!
on
Spammer Sues SpamCop
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
IANAL, but I always thought that law centers on proof. Take a case where the OptInRealBig people are suing someone else for defamation of character. The burden of proof would then be on OptInRealBig to prove that EVERYONE on their spam list in fact opted-in at one point. That in itself would be really hard to prove, considering (among other things) the sheer number of people they'd have to provide proof for. But, consider this: what if someone ELSE opted in using that person's email address? Doesn't OptInRealBig have to prove that the PERSON opted in, and not just the email address?
One of my previous employers had a disgruntled employee that signed him up for a bunch of porno magazine subscriptions in hopes that he'd have to pay for them. Since the publishers of these mags couldn't prove that it was in fact my employer that signed himself up, they had no claim to make when they wanted to charge him hundreds of dollars for the subscriptions, hence they couldn't sue him for a red CENT.
I agree with the parent poster. Not only do companies have to worry about the technical aspects of transition from 200mm to 300mm, it requires retooling of the entire production line. Some companies stuck with 200mm because of the high cost of transition and some aren't even making DRAM anymore. When market prices for DRAM fall and therefore it's not profitable to be making them anymore, some chip makers move on to manufacturing custom products that have a much higher return on investment.
Less manufacturers = less supply = higher prices...
Naw, it proves you can show up for class for four years...which actually means something to employers because it proves you are at least somewhat dependable...
It's hard to quote an average starting salary for anyone, because salaries vary so greatly across regions.
A salary is based on several factors: 1) The value of the position to the company (you can't really judge this one, but it matters to your potential employer - keep in mind that not all jobs are "required" for a company to survive and that if an employer decides they can't hire a qualified individual for the money they have allocated, then they might ditch the idea altogether.) 2) The funds in the company that are available for the headcount. 3) Your experience in the field of work. 4) Your education level. 5) The value of the position in the local market. (e.g. what it cost them to employ the person prior to you, or what it will cost them to hire the next person, or what it will cost them to outsource your job to another country)
Those are in no particular order, but I would think that the most important from your potential employer's perspective is the amount of money they have available for the position.
Your value to a potential employer doesn't necessarily pay off right away if you have no experience, since they will have to train you on how their specific environment works. People with real-life experience in a specific environment can command greater salaries because the cost their employer less overall because they require less training and are usually ready to "hit the ground running".
My advice to you is to consider the whole package, not just the salary when you are scoping out a job. Does the employer offer good benefits? Can they offer you a signing bonus in leiu of a higher salary (it usually comes out of a different budget than the one the salary is paid from)? Is the workplace conducive to you learning a lot so you can become more marketable to your next employer? Will it be a high-stress job? Are the hours flexible? Is it close to your residence?
While the salary is the most important part of an employment package, there's a lot more to a good job that just it's salary.
Next time you're eating out, ask your waiter what kind of dental plan, medical plan, or 401k matching plan he has and how much it costs...
P.S. - I've been a waiter before and most employers don't offer benefits unless you're full time (40+ hours a week), which is rare in a foodservice environment.
"I do not, when I get in the field, want to work with people who are this incompetent."
Sorry to burst your bubble, but a lot of the problems my company has with trusting its IT Department stem from the fact that a lot of people have gone through here who wouldn't know what code was if it slapped them in the face. The entire industry has been flooded with people who just have "paper-knowledge" but really only studied to pass the tests. Then they get jobs, screw things up, and the knowledgeable people are the ones who usually have to stay late to fix everything they touched...
This type of thing isn't necessarily specific to the IT Industry, but because of the.COM boom, it sure became one of the more popular industries for unqualified people to get into because of the promise of big money.
Now that the economy is focing CIOs to make effiiency the #1 priority, things like outsourcing certain tasks (especially programming ones) makes a whole lot more sense because you pay for the result, not the time it takes to get there.
More and more people are beginning to recognize that a truly knowledgeable computer engineer isn't necessarily "Bobby" from down the street that knows how to install that game on your computer because he actually read the manual...:)
That has to be a good thing, right?
Slashdot Mirror
...companies are looking for a profit, not to make you there best friend. As long as they can keep the profits coming, they could care less what you think of them.
If profits are all they care about, then losing customers would show up on their collective "radar" screens pretty darn fast. So, they really DO care what you think of them if it means you could be switching to another provider...
Oh, and P.S. - Of course they could care less - you can ALWAYS care less - the correct way to make that point would be to say "they COULDN'T care less". That's saying something...:)
I thought that the NX command was being put in to make sure that code could only be executed in certain memory spaces, not to make sure that only certain code could be executed.
And it requires specific processors and chipsets that support the command.
My understanding was that it's more for protection of the stability of the OS, not protection of copyrights of software...
If the FCC lets it dictate their policy, then whenever that happens...
Until then, Radio content is still regulated by the FCC - an equally biased organization nonetheless...
Well they have to generate revenue somehow - better they advertise by making it into a "how to", rather than blatently advertising for Toyota or whoever using pop-ups or another equally annoying ad method, right? I'd agree that the subject could be a little more general - then they could cash in on advertising dollars from every company that makes these types of things... And I have to say, advertising in this manner works sometimes too - I'm not one to buy crap I don't need based on an ad, but I REALLY want one of these after reading the "HowStuffWorks" specs on it...:)
Now I have to pick up after Pebbles and Bam-Bam in New Zealand?!? WILMA!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I agree. Additionally, one of the greatest things that this can accomplish is that maybe, just maybe, the people who install software like this unknowingly (or knowingly), will start to be more critical of such software and therefore the people that write it will be forced to make sure it conforms to what is accepted as best practice.
"the days of typing lkwdlgkhlhkgwq.com and GETTING Sitefinder was much worse!..."
Nevermind SiteFinder - I think the next time I visit lkwdlgkhlhkgwq.com I want the computer to just give me several loud beeps, because I just fell asleep and hit my head on the keyboard again...:)
No, I'm the kind of person that hauls it away in my economy car (NOT my big SUV of course) :)
But seriously, there are lots of things that aren't natural in the woods that provide lots of benefits by being there. Trash cans are beneficial because there's a LOT of people that are too lazy to haul out their own garbage (I'd go so far as to guess that they're probably in the majority). If it wasn't for the trash cans, Rangers wouldn't monitoring the forest, they'd be picking up trash.
People in general aren't usually good for wildlife. And wildlife isn't generally too fond of people either. Balancing these two dilemnas and allowing wildlife to coexist with people peacefully is what national parks are all about.
You are probably right about a lot of technical solutions that are thrown at problems that won't necessarily benefit from them, but I have to disagree with you on this one.
/. audience) might know that it's a good idea to sign in with a Ranger before a hike, but those 16 year olds that are just trying to find a place to get drunk with no adults around don't give a rat's ass. That kind of behaviour breaks any kind of "sign-in" or "opt-in" system right there.
First, people are dumb. YOU (and hopefully most of the
Second, one the benefits to doing this digitally is that people don't have to "opt-in" to be tracked. I'm betting that the anti-nature arsonist isn't going to sign in with the Ranger before he lights the forest on fire...
BTW - like I posted before, I would be against any kind of system, no matter how well intentioned, that tracked specific info and not just the aggregate info. A system like the original poster proposed wouldn't have to uniquely identify anyone in order to be beneficial to park Rangers.
So destroying public property is your thing, huh? Remind me to never invite you to any of the woods in my state. Some of those man-made things can actually be very beneficial to nature, as well as the people who use it (trash cans are man made, but I'm not complaining about them).
Anyway, I'm one that advocates privacy in everything, but how private do you expect to be while hiking in a public forest? A system like this could have the following characteristics/features:
- Able to be small (so people like you wouldn't even see the sensors and therefore wouldn't have the overwhelming urge to destroy them)
- The sensors don't have to pick up uniquely identifiable info in order to be effective. Rangers could determine which trails are the most popular, for instance, and then plan for any kind of maintenance that needs to be done on those trails accordingly.
- If a trail was closed for danger reasons, Rangers would know if someone had passed the "Do not enter" signs and avert a possibly bad situation before it happened.
- We would have much better ideas as to where forest fires might have been started, and where people might be that are in danger because of it.
- Being able to retrace the steps of lost people would also be an obvious benefit. You wouldn't have to know WHO disappeared, just that someone did, and that someone passed by point X at X o'clock. It would give search parties a much better place to start than "well he disappeared somewhere over there..."
The system wouldn't have to uniquely identify anyone, it would just have to identify traffic. The info would still be really valuable to those that are in charge of keeping our forests beautiful and safe.
IANAL, but I always thought that law centers on proof.
Take a case where the OptInRealBig people are suing someone else for defamation of character. The burden of proof would then be on OptInRealBig to prove that EVERYONE on their spam list in fact opted-in at one point. That in itself would be really hard to prove, considering (among other things) the sheer number of people they'd have to provide proof for. But, consider this: what if someone ELSE opted in using that person's email address? Doesn't OptInRealBig have to prove that the PERSON opted in, and not just the email address?
One of my previous employers had a disgruntled employee that signed him up for a bunch of porno magazine subscriptions in hopes that he'd have to pay for them. Since the publishers of these mags couldn't prove that it was in fact my employer that signed himself up, they had no claim to make when they wanted to charge him hundreds of dollars for the subscriptions, hence they couldn't sue him for a red CENT.
I agree with the parent poster. Not only do companies have to worry about the technical aspects of transition from 200mm to 300mm, it requires retooling of the entire production line. Some companies stuck with 200mm because of the high cost of transition and some aren't even making DRAM anymore. When market prices for DRAM fall and therefore it's not profitable to be making them anymore, some chip makers move on to manufacturing custom products that have a much higher return on investment.
Less manufacturers = less supply = higher prices...
"...It proves you can learn,"
Naw, it proves you can show up for class for four years...which actually means something to employers because it proves you are at least somewhat dependable...
It's hard to quote an average starting salary for anyone, because salaries vary so greatly across regions.
A salary is based on several factors:
1) The value of the position to the company (you can't really judge this one, but it matters to your potential employer - keep in mind that not all jobs are "required" for a company to survive and that if an employer decides they can't hire a qualified individual for the money they have allocated, then they might ditch the idea altogether.)
2) The funds in the company that are available for the headcount.
3) Your experience in the field of work.
4) Your education level.
5) The value of the position in the local market. (e.g. what it cost them to employ the person prior to you, or what it will cost them to hire the next person, or what it will cost them to outsource your job to another country)
Those are in no particular order, but I would think that the most important from your potential employer's perspective is the amount of money they have available for the position.
Your value to a potential employer doesn't necessarily pay off right away if you have no experience, since they will have to train you on how their specific environment works. People with real-life experience in a specific environment can command greater salaries because the cost their employer less overall because they require less training and are usually ready to "hit the ground running".
My advice to you is to consider the whole package, not just the salary when you are scoping out a job. Does the employer offer good benefits? Can they offer you a signing bonus in leiu of a higher salary (it usually comes out of a different budget than the one the salary is paid from)? Is the workplace conducive to you learning a lot so you can become more marketable to your next employer? Will it be a high-stress job? Are the hours flexible? Is it close to your residence?
While the salary is the most important part of an employment package, there's a lot more to a good job that just it's salary.
Next time you're eating out, ask your waiter what kind of dental plan, medical plan, or 401k matching plan he has and how much it costs...
P.S. - I've been a waiter before and most employers don't offer benefits unless you're full time (40+ hours a week), which is rare in a foodservice environment.
"I do not, when I get in the field, want to work with people who are this incompetent." Sorry to burst your bubble, but a lot of the problems my company has with trusting its IT Department stem from the fact that a lot of people have gone through here who wouldn't know what code was if it slapped them in the face. The entire industry has been flooded with people who just have "paper-knowledge" but really only studied to pass the tests. Then they get jobs, screw things up, and the knowledgeable people are the ones who usually have to stay late to fix everything they touched... This type of thing isn't necessarily specific to the IT Industry, but because of the .COM boom, it sure became one of the more popular industries for unqualified people to get into because of the promise of big money.
Now that the economy is focing CIOs to make effiiency the #1 priority, things like outsourcing certain tasks (especially programming ones) makes a whole lot more sense because you pay for the result, not the time it takes to get there.
More and more people are beginning to recognize that a truly knowledgeable computer engineer isn't necessarily "Bobby" from down the street that knows how to install that game on your computer because he actually read the manual...:)
That has to be a good thing, right?