Who the hell are you to say they cant? The majority? No, we all jaywalk. So where is this authority coming from? No-where! How about all the people who actually want to drive instead of playing "dodge the stupid jaywalker." You want to jaywalk, sure thing as long as certain conditions are met. These would include such things as drivers having total immunity, criminal and civil, if they hit someone crossing in a non-designated place. Likewise the jaywalker (or his estate) would be required to pay any and all costs that result including cost to the driver who hit them (such as lost time) and estimated costs to society from the resulting traffic jam.
They're probably a government mandated monopoly in many places which isn't a horrible system per say. The problem is that the government is doing jack shit to uphold it's end of the bargain which is to keep comcast in check. A company given an artificial monopoly will abuse it, directly or indirectly, and if you give a company a monopoly then you better also take the effort to keep them in check.
I have heard, for example, that roadrunner in NYC needs to provide satisfactory service to customers due to it being a government created monopoly. Sure they won't mention this but I have heard of at least one person making enough noise (ie: contacting every politician within 50 miles, among other things) to have roadrunner cave in (well first they begged him to switch to dsl then they caved in).
It should be 6 bits per sub-pixel although pixel is probably an accurate way of saying it as well. If you know the context it does make somewhat more sense than saying each pixel can only show 18 bits instead of 24. LCDs have three pixels/sub-pixels next to each other for red, blue and green. 6 bits for each one means that each trio can produce 2^18 colors. At 8 bits they can produce 2^24 colors.
Well I got an internship despite applying quite a bit later a couple years ago but I was already doing my MS at the time.
That said, simply apply to various places. Likely many still have openings for various reasons including back luck with previous candidates or hiring un-freezes.
If there is a job fair, job listing or any other event with corporate people at it go there. Likewise ask any professors you know well if they have heard of an opening somewhere. In other words instead of applying to HR you may be better off applying to a person in the company directly. Sure your name may go into the same pile in the end but they'll likely look at it more if it comes via some VP in charge of $3 billion than directly from you.
Yes but you still have to rely on people besides the editors to help select the works you wish to read, they alone don't do that and in reality are very far from doing that. Why does the idea that those same people who help you select reading material now won't be able to if there is more of it out there seem to impossible to you?
I really wonder why people make so many assumptions about posts. I mean is the world that black and white to you, is it impossible to question something unless you rabidly hate it, must everyone hold the party line unwaveringly? I simply said that there is an ethical dilemma thus a trade off involved. I didn't say which side I support, I didn't say which way the tradeoff goes in my opinion but simply that there is one involved.
I simply think that anytime you lose any privacy such a tradeoff exists and should be considered. It's not about the government now in a country covered with rights and freedom. It's the government in the future, when it finally collapses into a power hungry corrupt mess, or in an existing country that makes feudal Europe look freedom filled.
I think you misunderstand. A traditional publisher only accepts those books that meet certain standards of writing quality. This includes, but is not limited to proper spelling, grammar, syntax and appropriate use of the language. It also, probably, includes minimizing the use of the passive voice and advancing the story by showing what happens instead of telling the reader. POD companies, OTOH, accept whatever the writer wants put into print except, in most cases, hate literature. A traditional publisher will work with the writer to correct any flaws in the manuscript and in some cases require scenes to be rewritten, while a POD company simply takes camera ready copy and puts it out. I'm not saying that there aren't good books to be found in the POD lineups -- Piers Anthony has put his entire backlist out via Xlibris -- but the average quality is poor by comparison to that put out by companies who pick and choose their product. You point being? If someone wants to put out a quality book with a POD they simply need to pay someone to do the editing for them. The same is already done with regular self-publishing I believe so it's not exactly uncommon. Likewise vanity presses don't even do much more than dump the book onto the market.
The grandparents point was that the selection part isn't necessary and the number of quality works isn't going to be smaller, possibly. The difference is in who gets you decide what works are quality and what are not.
As far as your not needing a publisher to decide what's good and what's not, last year's National November Novel Writing Contest had 15,335 winners. I doubt that as many as 1% were readable, let alone worth publishing. Would you like to wade through that huge pile of dross looking for the few nuggets of gold? I certainly wouldn't, and I was one of them. No, I'll let literary agents and editors do that for me, TYVM! You mean you actually like every single book published by a major publishing company and read every single one? Or do you have some third party help you select the ones to read instead? I mean I find most of the stuff published to be crap, for my tastes that is, so it'd be sort of idiotic for me to read all of it. Actually I'd be surprised if I'd enjoy even 1% of the books published by any major publisher.
Why should I trust a couple of random people who don't share my tastes? This isn't the 1800s, we can communicate now in an organized and global scale. We have machines to combine information from millions of people to tell you what you'd like based on what they liked. I don't need to wade through all the stuff, I can instead let the hundreds of thousand of other people do it for me. I may take a look at a couple of them for the hell of it but if enough people do so as well then it adds up. I don't even need to find the quality ones now, I can simply let the good ones filter through till they reach me. It's not like most of the stuff I read right now was published after my birth much less this year so it doesn't much matter to me.
Then the biology textbook which the doctors of tomorrow will buy today can be selected by word of mouth recommendation? Isn't that pretty much how they're selected already? I'm sure a lot more get published than actually get used regularly and someone tells doctors which are the "good books," likely colleagues or professors.
Or will the reviewers go though all the crap that's out there and figure out which is the best? Oh, wait, that's what publishers do now. So what exactly do we lose in this? Instead of having a small set of reviewers and never seeing the unpublished works we now get even more reviewers (professional and casual) and a wider amount of published works. Welcome to the internet where everyone is a potential reviewer.
Also I find most stuff published to be crap or barely readable even in the areas I enjoy. I already rely on casual reviewers outside those publishing houses and find the results much better.
Or, if you must, please explain why the book of the month club arranging for 300 copy offset-press runs (resulting in a cheaper, higher quality product for their customers, esp. in hardback) is a bad thing compared to crappy one-off POD books of the same title? This has little to do with the argument, unless the person doing the printing is also editing and telling them what to print. The discussion is about traditional publishers which is independent to many extents from traditional printers. Self-publishing uses traditional printers but lacks any of the editing or reviewing that is present in a traditional publishing company.
The number of copies has little to do with what method you use, self-publishing or pod, except that you pre-select the method based on expected sales. You can sell thousands of copies using pod but it just wouldn't be as profitable in the long run if you knew you'd sell that many beforehand.
That assumes you find all the laws of those countries to be ethical. Someone who is, for example, fighting against oppression in their own country may disagree without on that issue.
I care about the content of a book not the fluff attached to it myself. I regularly read 40 year old barely held together books, horrendously mangled OCRed ebooks (for when I can't get the used version of an out of print book), web only work and so on. I really only care about paperback books because they're easier for me to read. Hard cover books simply take up more space and are more difficult to carry about.
In terms of the quality of the content, I don't care much about some single entity saying it's good and it doesn't matter to me if 99.999% of the stuff is junk. I care about that tiny sliver that appeals to me and wouldn't have been normally published (or is now out of print).
Welcome to the glory of the internet. I can get recommendations, summaries, reviews, free chapters and so on with a single click. I can even have a computer program suggest to me what I'd like based on my past behavior.
Yes those evil evil corporations, how dare they do what people want. God forbid people think for themselves and get blamed for bad decisions. It's always someone else's fault, not their own or their own greed.
American manufacturers have shipped jobs and technology overseas. Which greedy people promptly buy in droves because it's not cheaper without even as much as glancing at where or who made it.
The car companies made giant cars knowing full well that they wasted energy and contributed to global warming. Which greedy people promptly buy in droves despite other choices existing as well in the market.
Now we have a whole economic sector in crisis due to making loans that people couldn't pay and it is spilling into the rest of the economy. Which were loans that greedy people took out because they wanted to buy more expensive things.
Why? Because someone could make a buck off it somehow regardless of what it meant for the long-term health of this country, its citizens, and our economy. Even the world. Corporations are there to make money, if people don't like some behavior then they need to speak out and not buy from those companies. If people don't buy things if a company does X then it is no logner profitable to do X so companies stop.
This whole world has basically gone to shit. All we get are news story after news story about how this person or that corporation did something for pure greed.
Gotta get mine -- especially if it makes me a billionaire -- regardless of what it does to anyone else, the environment, or even their own country. Yes because children were never put into coal mines in the past, forests weren't so smog covered as to cause insects to change from white to black for camouflage, humans weren't made slaves and didn't die in droves while shoved into overcrowded ships, whole empires didn't exists solely from their conquest of other nations, wars weren't started for the profits of an empire and so on.
We are greedy, almost every single one of us is and that's because we are human. Evolution itself dictates we be greedy, it is greed personified. The fit are to survive and reproduce while the less fit are to be trampled upon by nature. You only win at evolution at the cost of someone else because in the end you all want the same piece of pie and only some of you get it. Well your genes win which may involve your early and very painful death if it keeps your relatives alive but that's a separate issue.
I get 2Gbps up/down in my apartment in Finland, and it's included as a part of my rent; which is next to nothing, since it's a student apartment. Meh, I got 100mbit in my dorm and on-campus housing in the US. They didn't upgrade to 1gbit simply because there was no real point, no point in rewiring a whole campus every 5 years so that students can download movies a tiny bit faster. Then again there was very little monitoring or control over what you did with your bandwidth unless some external group complained specifically.
On top of that, free post-secondary education for all! Okay, you can get nearly free college education in the US by going to a community college.
on the upside, a well educated populous Which has little to do with the free post-secondary education system, the US due to various social issues has trouble getting students to finish high school despite absurdly low standards.
As for the "well educated" part, that depends on how it's implemented. Poland for example has free post-secondary education but I've heard a number of complaints about how inanely idiotic the government system is in terms of admissions.
Taking your model to its logical conclusion, let's say I'm the CEO of HIJ, and I layoff my entire software development team and sit back and just use the OSS that DEF, et al, develops. So DEF, et al, invests time and money to create OSS software that I use for free. You brag about having "better" software than XYZ at lower cost, but I have the same software you do but at ZERO cost. Go right ahead, your lack of a software team will mean the OSS solution is badly fitted to your specific business needs and that the turnaround time for any improvements/bugs is very long. If there are no outside contributions then DEF has no reason to release any further improvements it makes either. That will leave you using an outdated piece of software without realizing that your competitor has long since moved on.
Also it's not zero cost, you already paid for whatever solution your software devs were working on before. Now you had to once again pay to migrate to the OSS solution and now you have an install that is inferior to your competitors (since you fired you software dev soon after).
Then, more and more companies observe what I'm doing and follow my example, and soon almost no company is investing in software at all, as we all rely on DEF, et al, to provide our software for us. Where does this follow from? If they rely on DEF then that mean they had no previous investment in an in-house solution to this problem or their solution was abysmally bad. In which case they're gambling on DEF releasing their solution before said competitor goes out of business. However since DEF is far above average in this area as a result of their competitors' lack on investment it has no reason to OSS their solution in that area.
You're basically assuming that the CEO of DEF is an utter idiot who can't think for themselves and can only follow a single pre-set plan. I on the other hand am assuming the CEO is intelligent enough to act according to the situation at hand and modify plans accordingly.
I on the other hand am CEO of company DEF and my software in this are is average. I on the other hand was able to pay 50% as much as the companies with "superior" products did. I likely also noticed that the costs to improve the software to be superior would actually lose me money in the long term. So I open source it. In time some competitors use it and it becomes the superior solution in the area as a result. Those competitors may have already developed their own solutions and now also had to pay the migration costs.
So now company XYZ is in a bind as it's previously superior solution is now inferior to everyoen else. It has paid more for this solution than any other company and it now has to pay even more migration costs. My company on the other hand has managed to fill in the gap in this area while spending 3/4 as much money in the process.
In the process I invested the money that I saved into parts of the company that did have large competitive advantages. At the same time I retain main control over the superior software and as a result still have a slight advantage as a result in that area.
One company pays for initial development. That money is gone and spent. They're not getting it back, ever, but every competitor will get that initial development for free. Oh for the love of christ, this is all about software that everyone already has developed thus everyone already paid a cost for it. The only real question now is future costs of this software for the companies involved compared to what they get back as a result. New competitors are a different issue but that's a somewhat separate point.
No matter how much community help is provided, that company that gives away code ALWAYS spends more than competitors who get their hands on the code, and it wipes out any competitive advantage that caused the company to pay to develop the software in the first place. No it doesn't. Your competitors are now forced to pay if they use your software: -Migration costs -Training costs -Continual costs due to lack of the same in-depth knowledge -Costs to modify software to fit their specific needs
It's quite possible that you will save more money than your competitors in the future. Competitors that don't switch will be even worse of, especially if their software was better beforehand and thus likely cost them more to develop. This can be a massive advantage if there are large competitors which simply can't migrate due to how entrenched their software is while also having more money to throw at it than you can alone.
It's always a lose-lose situation for a company to open source their software. Pretty much nothing in life is ever certain. Anyone who says otherwise, for a complex issue, is an utter idiot and too blind to realize their stupidity and ignorance. Even the most irrational and insane of strategies is the best one in certain situations. Sometimes the irrational and insane one on the surface is the best one in most situations.
Where's the advantage to the company that does the initial software development? It doesn't lower their development cost one cent, Sure it does, others will submit patches and updates which allows you to have fewer developers on the project. If they don't then any in-house fixes they have will cause them patch hell whenever a new version comes out.
but it greatly lowers the development costs of their competition. Why? The competitors already spent the same, more or less, development cost for whatever solution they currently use. Switching to the new open source one will cause them to have to spend effort changing systems, retraining staff and learning the new product. Now new competitors won't have to spend as much as a result however even then their knowledge of the software (and ability to update/fix bugs) will be inferior to yours.
And I'm sorry, but every piece of software is a point of competition. If one company can save money by using something as simple as a better email client, that's a competitive advantage over other companies that don't use the better email client. Yet it's not about a better mail client, it's about a mail client period. Your competitor has one as well and likely neither one is great. Open sourcing it lets you transfer that development effort to products that are bigger competitive advantages.
Let's say you have two investment options and one has a return of 100% while another has a return of 5%. Unfortunately you need to have $1 in the 5% one to be able to invest at all. Your competitor only has that 5% and a 20% return investment option open to them. So you have them help you pay for that required $1 in the 5% option. Sure they may only pay a quarter of that but that doesn't matter since that's $0.25 that you can now invest in that 100% investment option. In the end they make an extra $0.15 while you make an extra $0.25.
Perhaps he has an interest in some area of research which MIT excels at - for example, someone interested in autonomous vehicles may consider going to Stanford or CMU because if you want to play with $100,000 experimental LIDARs you need to go somewhere that already has them. Your chance of doing that as an undergrad is essentially zero, if I remember there was exactly one undergrad on the Stanford team.
Big-name universities may also be better funded from government, research and alumni. More money means better academics (attracted by money to perform their research) and better equipment. Yet again that is more for graduate work especially in something like CS where you're better off going for internships instead of research as an undergrad (unless you plan to go for academia).
Or at least, MIT has seven noble laureates in the current faculty - I can believe that would translate into highly knowledgeable instructors. Knowledgeable does not equal being a good instructor and an undergrad will almost never be in a situation where their extra knowledge matters. That said knowledgeable instructors aren't a bad thing if they know how to convey that knowledge but that usually only matters for higher level classes I think.
In summary, though many undergraduate courses are probably very similar between universities, differences between universities exist and prospective students may want to consider these to differentiate between universities. The classes aren't the same, the good school's classes will be at a higher level usually. This applies to probably every single class at every single level, undergrad to grad. It's the difference between a smart person being interested and sleeping through the class then failing out of sheer boredom. Better schools may also be more flexible in how the handle students and how much control students have over their own education (but not always the stanford EE department is apparently run by bureaucrats due to it's massive size).
1. It only works if taken within 24 hours of getting a cold (good luck pulling that one off). 2. On average (well median) it only reduces the length of symptoms by 1 day for woman and half a day for man. 3. It doesn't work for non-whites, possibly the same size was too small for those groups. 4. Causes side effects for woman on oral contraceptives. 5. It either doesn't work on smokers or makes their colds worse.
So no it doesn't do what you say, please stop taking biased mass media reports written by idiots as if they were the word of god.
None of your "solutions" preserve the functionality that the current proposal has. One requires not only user input but the need to send this second password to the user, in some cases not a trivial possibility. The second requires a special database setup and won't work in the majority of cases. Sure other methods can also be included but those are new features and the plain text one will still be left there.
Even so, he's found a number of new flaws, including a security vulnerability: OOXML stores passwords in database connection strings in plain text. And how will the format magically produce the plain text password again when the database asks for it... oh wait it can't unless it's easily recoverable in plain text form. It's also not like the "encryption" mechanism would be documented and it's not like someone would have to read that very documentation to know even where the password is stored... oh wait.
Anyone who claims that it's more secure to obscure the password in a well known and trivially reversible way instead of simply storing it in plain text is not someone I trust to analyze security.
What part of real life is fun then? Talking to people is like blogging/forums so by your own logic that's boring. Shopping in real life ditto. Real life games likewise are repetitive and more physically straining so they're even less fun.
Oh wait you meant to say that because something is fun for you it must be fun for others and vice versa. Right, sorry for not being a carbon copy of your egoistic self-centered ass.
I prefer to not freeze in winter, cook in the summer, get drenched when it rains, be unable to buy anything bigger than a shoebox and spend 2 hours going 20 miles (3 if I took public transportation as well).
Slashdot Mirror
They're probably a government mandated monopoly in many places which isn't a horrible system per say. The problem is that the government is doing jack shit to uphold it's end of the bargain which is to keep comcast in check. A company given an artificial monopoly will abuse it, directly or indirectly, and if you give a company a monopoly then you better also take the effort to keep them in check.
I have heard, for example, that roadrunner in NYC needs to provide satisfactory service to customers due to it being a government created monopoly. Sure they won't mention this but I have heard of at least one person making enough noise (ie: contacting every politician within 50 miles, among other things) to have roadrunner cave in (well first they begged him to switch to dsl then they caved in).
I wrote "0.016 < 2%", stupid pos system decided to get rid of the "<".
It should be 6 bits per sub-pixel although pixel is probably an accurate way of saying it as well. If you know the context it does make somewhat more sense than saying each pixel can only show 18 bits instead of 24. LCDs have three pixels/sub-pixels next to each other for red, blue and green. 6 bits for each one means that each trio can produce 2^18 colors. At 8 bits they can produce 2^24 colors.
(2^18)/(2^24) = 0.016 2%
Well I got an internship despite applying quite a bit later a couple years ago but I was already doing my MS at the time.
That said, simply apply to various places. Likely many still have openings for various reasons including back luck with previous candidates or hiring un-freezes.
If there is a job fair, job listing or any other event with corporate people at it go there. Likewise ask any professors you know well if they have heard of an opening somewhere. In other words instead of applying to HR you may be better off applying to a person in the company directly. Sure your name may go into the same pile in the end but they'll likely look at it more if it comes via some VP in charge of $3 billion than directly from you.
Yes but you still have to rely on people besides the editors to help select the works you wish to read, they alone don't do that and in reality are very far from doing that. Why does the idea that those same people who help you select reading material now won't be able to if there is more of it out there seem to impossible to you?
I really wonder why people make so many assumptions about posts. I mean is the world that black and white to you, is it impossible to question something unless you rabidly hate it, must everyone hold the party line unwaveringly? I simply said that there is an ethical dilemma thus a trade off involved. I didn't say which side I support, I didn't say which way the tradeoff goes in my opinion but simply that there is one involved.
I simply think that anytime you lose any privacy such a tradeoff exists and should be considered. It's not about the government now in a country covered with rights and freedom. It's the government in the future, when it finally collapses into a power hungry corrupt mess, or in an existing country that makes feudal Europe look freedom filled.
The grandparents point was that the selection part isn't necessary and the number of quality works isn't going to be smaller, possibly. The difference is in who gets you decide what works are quality and what are not. As far as your not needing a publisher to decide what's good and what's not, last year's National November Novel Writing Contest had 15,335 winners. I doubt that as many as 1% were readable, let alone worth publishing. Would you like to wade through that huge pile of dross looking for the few nuggets of gold? I certainly wouldn't, and I was one of them. No, I'll let literary agents and editors do that for me, TYVM! You mean you actually like every single book published by a major publishing company and read every single one? Or do you have some third party help you select the ones to read instead? I mean I find most of the stuff published to be crap, for my tastes that is, so it'd be sort of idiotic for me to read all of it. Actually I'd be surprised if I'd enjoy even 1% of the books published by any major publisher.
Why should I trust a couple of random people who don't share my tastes? This isn't the 1800s, we can communicate now in an organized and global scale. We have machines to combine information from millions of people to tell you what you'd like based on what they liked. I don't need to wade through all the stuff, I can instead let the hundreds of thousand of other people do it for me. I may take a look at a couple of them for the hell of it but if enough people do so as well then it adds up. I don't even need to find the quality ones now, I can simply let the good ones filter through till they reach me. It's not like most of the stuff I read right now was published after my birth much less this year so it doesn't much matter to me.
Also I find most stuff published to be crap or barely readable even in the areas I enjoy. I already rely on casual reviewers outside those publishing houses and find the results much better. Or, if you must, please explain why the book of the month club arranging for 300 copy offset-press runs (resulting in a cheaper, higher quality product for their customers, esp. in hardback) is a bad thing compared to crappy one-off POD books of the same title? This has little to do with the argument, unless the person doing the printing is also editing and telling them what to print. The discussion is about traditional publishers which is independent to many extents from traditional printers. Self-publishing uses traditional printers but lacks any of the editing or reviewing that is present in a traditional publishing company.
The number of copies has little to do with what method you use, self-publishing or pod, except that you pre-select the method based on expected sales. You can sell thousands of copies using pod but it just wouldn't be as profitable in the long run if you knew you'd sell that many beforehand.
That assumes you find all the laws of those countries to be ethical. Someone who is, for example, fighting against oppression in their own country may disagree without on that issue.
Legality and ethics are not equivalent.
I care about the content of a book not the fluff attached to it myself. I regularly read 40 year old barely held together books, horrendously mangled OCRed ebooks (for when I can't get the used version of an out of print book), web only work and so on. I really only care about paperback books because they're easier for me to read. Hard cover books simply take up more space and are more difficult to carry about.
In terms of the quality of the content, I don't care much about some single entity saying it's good and it doesn't matter to me if 99.999% of the stuff is junk. I care about that tiny sliver that appeals to me and wouldn't have been normally published (or is now out of print).
Welcome to the glory of the internet. I can get recommendations, summaries, reviews, free chapters and so on with a single click. I can even have a computer program suggest to me what I'd like based on my past behavior.
Or they could have their own POD option with which you can legally acquire a copy of the ebook in print form.
Gotta get mine -- especially if it makes me a billionaire -- regardless of what it does to anyone else, the environment, or even their own country. Yes because children were never put into coal mines in the past, forests weren't so smog covered as to cause insects to change from white to black for camouflage, humans weren't made slaves and didn't die in droves while shoved into overcrowded ships, whole empires didn't exists solely from their conquest of other nations, wars weren't started for the profits of an empire and so on.
We are greedy, almost every single one of us is and that's because we are human. Evolution itself dictates we be greedy, it is greed personified. The fit are to survive and reproduce while the less fit are to be trampled upon by nature. You only win at evolution at the cost of someone else because in the end you all want the same piece of pie and only some of you get it. Well your genes win which may involve your early and very painful death if it keeps your relatives alive but that's a separate issue.
As for the "well educated" part, that depends on how it's implemented. Poland for example has free post-secondary education but I've heard a number of complaints about how inanely idiotic the government system is in terms of admissions.
Also it's not zero cost, you already paid for whatever solution your software devs were working on before. Now you had to once again pay to migrate to the OSS solution and now you have an install that is inferior to your competitors (since you fired you software dev soon after). Then, more and more companies observe what I'm doing and follow my example, and soon almost no company is investing in software at all, as we all rely on DEF, et al, to provide our software for us. Where does this follow from? If they rely on DEF then that mean they had no previous investment in an in-house solution to this problem or their solution was abysmally bad. In which case they're gambling on DEF releasing their solution before said competitor goes out of business. However since DEF is far above average in this area as a result of their competitors' lack on investment it has no reason to OSS their solution in that area.
You're basically assuming that the CEO of DEF is an utter idiot who can't think for themselves and can only follow a single pre-set plan. I on the other hand am assuming the CEO is intelligent enough to act according to the situation at hand and modify plans accordingly.
I on the other hand am CEO of company DEF and my software in this are is average. I on the other hand was able to pay 50% as much as the companies with "superior" products did. I likely also noticed that the costs to improve the software to be superior would actually lose me money in the long term. So I open source it. In time some competitors use it and it becomes the superior solution in the area as a result. Those competitors may have already developed their own solutions and now also had to pay the migration costs.
So now company XYZ is in a bind as it's previously superior solution is now inferior to everyoen else. It has paid more for this solution than any other company and it now has to pay even more migration costs. My company on the other hand has managed to fill in the gap in this area while spending 3/4 as much money in the process.
In the process I invested the money that I saved into parts of the company that did have large competitive advantages. At the same time I retain main control over the superior software and as a result still have a slight advantage as a result in that area.
-Migration costs
-Training costs
-Continual costs due to lack of the same in-depth knowledge
-Costs to modify software to fit their specific needs
It's quite possible that you will save more money than your competitors in the future. Competitors that don't switch will be even worse of, especially if their software was better beforehand and thus likely cost them more to develop. This can be a massive advantage if there are large competitors which simply can't migrate due to how entrenched their software is while also having more money to throw at it than you can alone. It's always a lose-lose situation for a company to open source their software. Pretty much nothing in life is ever certain. Anyone who says otherwise, for a complex issue, is an utter idiot and too blind to realize their stupidity and ignorance. Even the most irrational and insane of strategies is the best one in certain situations. Sometimes the irrational and insane one on the surface is the best one in most situations.
Let's say you have two investment options and one has a return of 100% while another has a return of 5%. Unfortunately you need to have $1 in the 5% one to be able to invest at all. Your competitor only has that 5% and a 20% return investment option open to them. So you have them help you pay for that required $1 in the 5% option. Sure they may only pay a quarter of that but that doesn't matter since that's $0.25 that you can now invest in that 100% investment option. In the end they make an extra $0.15 while you make an extra $0.25.
1. It only works if taken within 24 hours of getting a cold (good luck pulling that one off).
2. On average (well median) it only reduces the length of symptoms by 1 day for woman and half a day for man.
3. It doesn't work for non-whites, possibly the same size was too small for those groups.
4. Causes side effects for woman on oral contraceptives.
5. It either doesn't work on smokers or makes their colds worse.
So no it doesn't do what you say, please stop taking biased mass media reports written by idiots as if they were the word of god.
None of your "solutions" preserve the functionality that the current proposal has. One requires not only user input but the need to send this second password to the user, in some cases not a trivial possibility. The second requires a special database setup and won't work in the majority of cases. Sure other methods can also be included but those are new features and the plain text one will still be left there.
Anyone who claims that it's more secure to obscure the password in a well known and trivially reversible way instead of simply storing it in plain text is not someone I trust to analyze security.
What part of real life is fun then? Talking to people is like blogging/forums so by your own logic that's boring. Shopping in real life ditto. Real life games likewise are repetitive and more physically straining so they're even less fun.
Oh wait you meant to say that because something is fun for you it must be fun for others and vice versa. Right, sorry for not being a carbon copy of your egoistic self-centered ass.
I prefer to not freeze in winter, cook in the summer, get drenched when it rains, be unable to buy anything bigger than a shoebox and spend 2 hours going 20 miles (3 if I took public transportation as well).