"When Quicken, Quick Books and Simply Accounting work, then there will be real in-roads to business."
I would suggest the Sage products are more vital to businesses. It's not obvious from the link you supplied, but Simply Accounting is already owned by Sage.
I work for a Union. You work for the union, or you are just a union member?
They happily negotiated less than 3% for cost of living increase for the last contract. Unfortunately that was nearly erased by them raising the union dues 2.5%. Your union dues went up by 2.5% of your gross salary? Really?
The trouble with automated systems is that they assume ideal conditions. Anyone who's experienced at driving on ice and in deep snow will tell you how much fun it is to have your ABS take over and spin you around a couple times (or crawl up the side of the plowed-snow bank along the road), when left to your own devices you'd have geared down (yes, auto trannies CAN do that), likely not used the brakes at all, and slowed *safely*. WTF? That makes no sense at all. ABS is an Antilock Braking System, not Automatic. It modulates the brakes when it detects wheel lock, it doesn't apply them under any conditions.
If you don't touch the brakes at all, the ABS does nothing. Much less "take over and spin you around a couple times".
(a) For most drivers the company pays, and a lot of the rest are based in east Europe, and would not pay anyway.
About 3 years ago I was fined for talking on a cell phone while driving in France. (Ignorance of the law is no excuse, yeah yeah.) Anyway, I'm a Canadian driving a German rental car, and was given the choice of either paying the fine in cash on the spot or having the car impounded.
So how does an east European trucker get away with not paying?
Furthermore, can we really expect a business of this size to have the receipt from when the owner purchased a copy of Photoshop five years ago for his laptop when he was the only employee? I don't know where you're from, but here in Canada, the Canada Revenue Agency most certainly does expect you to have a receipt to back up every single business expense, and to keep those for a period of at least seven years. (Well, six years from the end of the tax year in which the expense was incurred.)
"One cent for every dollar of the purchase prize", in my book, is a 1% VAT. Am I right? Because a 1% tax on nearly every item sold is not "just one cent", it's a considerable new tax burden. Not exactly. The federal government already collects a 6% VAT (GST), and the City of Toronto is asking the feds to hand over 1/6 of it to them directly.
...the company could be compelled to turn our information over to the eff-bee-eye or the en-essay or one of those other alphabet agencies they've got down there, and it's illegal for them to tell us (their customer) when this takes place. I used to work for a Global 50 company. We had a project underway to consolidate all of the Exchange mailboxes in North America into a single data centre in the US, but wound up pulling out of the project and building a smaller Canadian data centre instead for exactly this reason.
I know you can do this here in Ontario Canada with Cogeco Cable (owned by Rogers Communications). Rogers owns less than 20% of Cogeco, according to the CRTC. http://www.crtc.gc.ca/ownership/eng/index.htm
DASD - Now there's a term I haven't heard in a long time. I guess that it's relegated to history along with ABEND and EBCDIC. Oh trust me, there are still enough Netware servers out there to ensure that ABEND won't be going away anytime soon.
I think it's absurd that we can't build an informational network or communications infrastructure without having it jammed pack full of ads and scam-artists, but apparently that's the world we live in.
You are coming to a sad realization. Cancel or Allow?
Contractors, who are paid by the hour, simply don't complain about unproductive work conditions provided at their environment by their customers. They'll happily take the extra time required to do their job with the tools at hand; it's the capitalist way, after all.
Now that's quite a broad generalization.
I'm an IT contractor, and I make it a point to draw my customer's attention to inefficiencies in my work environment. Why? Because it's in my best interests to maximize my productivity.
First of all, I truly enjoy my work, and working efficiently increases my personal satisfaction with the job at hand. It also allows me to proceed to the next interesting challenge that much sooner.
More importantly though, the more productive I am, the happier my customer is. In a business where my personal reputation is what gets me the next contract and supports my hourly rate, a happy customer becomes an asset I can take directly to the bank.
Why should we suck it up? Wally World wants our dollars yet they aren't willing to take the few extra minutes to test their offering on any other browser. This seems odd considering that Firefox users are probably more likely to be early adopters of a service like this. We think different... or something.
Walmart's business model is to offer the lowest prices on any given commodity. They do so by squeezing the absolute last drop out of the cost (to them) of that commodity. In this particular case, not supporting non-IE browsers is one way that they have chosen to keep their costs down.
The implied contract you accept when you choose to shop at Walmart is that you will pay their low price in exchange for putting up with whatever tradeoffs they made to lower that price. As you quite eloquently said, if you don't want to accept using IE, you can choose not to shop at Walmart. I personally think that's a good idea.
"Suck it up" was directed at those who are willing to jump through the necessary hoops to give Walmart their money, but then want to whine about having to do so. You can't have it both ways. You don't want to shop at Walmart because they don't support your browser? Fine, don't. You had to use IE to buy a movie at Walmart? Suck it up, princess, you made a choice and it's not like IE wasn't already installed on your PC.
Because, generally speaking, users don't like hassle. Sure, they could close down Firefox and load up IE every time they visit,
I realize you're likely taking some poetic license here, but let's be reasonable. I'll assume you've already installed the IEView extension in Firefox. (I'll wait...) Now, right click on a bookmark, and select "open in new tab". Then, right click on the same bookmark and click "View this page in IE". Was one really any harder than the other? Why would anyone "close down Firefox" to load up IE?
I have to do this for one of my credit card sites now. As it turns out, the necessary incentive *is* there for me (they have the best cashback program available for my spending patterns), so I choose to accept the minimal hassle.
I do agree with your main point. I just don't think that the market segment interested in purchasing from Walmart *only if* the site was usable outside of IE is large enough that their potential revenue would exceed even the incremental cost of maintaining a browser agnostic site. Largely because Walmart is selling a Windows only product, but also because a large portion of the demographic that would refuse* to use IE tends to be the same group who are very vocal about not buying from the big evil Walmart in the first place.
*I mean actually refuse, not just posture about it.
FTA: "The video that you download requires Digital Rights Management 10 (DRM 10) software"
So, the video only works in Windows (Media Player 10+, presumably). I think it's safe to assume that if you have WMP10, you also have IE, so if making the site IE-only prevents* people from accessing it who can't use the product anyway, what's the big deal?
*Yeah, yeah. "I don't WANNA use IE on my Windows box. IE sucks." It's not like you have to UNinstall Firefox to do so, so suck it up, princess.
As always, it's people that cause these systems to fail.
Prox cards from HID (one of the biggest manufacturers of prox security equipment) are sold with a two-fold identifier: 4-digit site ID, and 6-digit card number. Yes, these are both printed on the card. Yes, HID keeps track of which company owns which site ID, so they can sell further stock in the future with the same site number...and also so they don't sell the same site number to someone else in the same region.
In the city where I live, there are about 20 places using HID prox systems, and they all use the same security company. This company buys cards from a wholesaler, not directly from HID. Yes, you guessed it - every company in town has the same site code, and the numbers do overlap.
This only came to light after somebody "broke in" using a valid card, and the guy who's number it matched (a 20 year employee who simply wasn't dumb enough to do something like that) was almost arrested for it.
Slashdot Mirror
Apple good
Linux great
Fire bad Tree pretty
Is this definitely just coming with SP3, or has it been around for longer?
Yes, and yes. SP3 was released in September."News" for nerds, indeed.
We have been trolled. :)
If you don't touch the brakes at all, the ABS does nothing. Much less "take over and spin you around a couple times".
As for the arseholes who suggest fines:
(a) For most drivers the company pays, and a lot of the rest are based in east Europe, and would not pay anyway.
About 3 years ago I was fined for talking on a cell phone while driving in France. (Ignorance of the law is no excuse, yeah yeah.) Anyway, I'm a Canadian driving a German rental car, and was given the choice of either paying the fine in cash on the spot or having the car impounded.
So how does an east European trucker get away with not paying?
...the company could be compelled to turn our information over to the eff-bee-eye or the en-essay or one of those other alphabet agencies they've got down there, and it's illegal for them to tell us (their customer) when this takes place.I used to work for a Global 50 company. We had a project underway to consolidate all of the Exchange mailboxes in North America into a single data centre in the US, but wound up pulling out of the project and building a smaller Canadian data centre instead for exactly this reason.
I ditched their cable for satellite years ago, but I still have them as my ISP. All things considered, they're one of the better ones I've dealt with.
Rogers owns less than 20% of Cogeco, according to the CRTC. http://www.crtc.gc.ca/ownership/eng/index.htm
This goes to show that the Canadian people are overtaxed
How so? We still have a huge national debt, which the surplus is being (at least partially) directed towards reducing.
I'm not saying we're NOT overtaxed, but the simple fact that we've had a decade of budget surpluses doesn't prove anything one way or the other.You are coming to a sad realization. Cancel or Allow?
Maybe. I think the language is ambiguous. Your interpretation parses like this:
(8.4) No person shall respond to (a contact that is made using the Internet for the purpose of facilitating a designated offence involving a child.)
But you can also parse it like so:
(8.4) No person shall respond (to a contact that is made using the Internet) (for the purpose of facilitating a designated offence involving a child.)
In other words, is the intent to facilitate a designated offence attached to the person making the initial contact or to the person responding?
Now that's quite a broad generalization.
I'm an IT contractor, and I make it a point to draw my customer's attention to inefficiencies in my work environment. Why? Because it's in my best interests to maximize my productivity.
First of all, I truly enjoy my work, and working efficiently increases my personal satisfaction with the job at hand. It also allows me to proceed to the next interesting challenge that much sooner.
More importantly though, the more productive I am, the happier my customer is. In a business where my personal reputation is what gets me the next contract and supports my hourly rate, a happy customer becomes an asset I can take directly to the bank.
So, are you suggesting that the reason I don't care to play video games is that I'm an intelligent perfectionist? Interesting theory...
Fixed that for ya. :)
Like I said elsewhere in this thread, those low low Walmart prices come at a cost. In this case, it's an IE only website.
Walmart's business model is to offer the lowest prices on any given commodity. They do so by squeezing the absolute last drop out of the cost (to them) of that commodity. In this particular case, not supporting non-IE browsers is one way that they have chosen to keep their costs down.
The implied contract you accept when you choose to shop at Walmart is that you will pay their low price in exchange for putting up with whatever tradeoffs they made to lower that price. As you quite eloquently said, if you don't want to accept using IE, you can choose not to shop at Walmart. I personally think that's a good idea.
"Suck it up" was directed at those who are willing to jump through the necessary hoops to give Walmart their money, but then want to whine about having to do so. You can't have it both ways. You don't want to shop at Walmart because they don't support your browser? Fine, don't. You had to use IE to buy a movie at Walmart? Suck it up, princess, you made a choice and it's not like IE wasn't already installed on your PC.
That clearer?
I realize you're likely taking some poetic license here, but let's be reasonable. I'll assume you've already installed the IEView extension in Firefox. (I'll wait...) Now, right click on a bookmark, and select "open in new tab". Then, right click on the same bookmark and click "View this page in IE". Was one really any harder than the other? Why would anyone "close down Firefox" to load up IE?
I have to do this for one of my credit card sites now. As it turns out, the necessary incentive *is* there for me (they have the best cashback program available for my spending patterns), so I choose to accept the minimal hassle.
I do agree with your main point. I just don't think that the market segment interested in purchasing from Walmart *only if* the site was usable outside of IE is large enough that their potential revenue would exceed even the incremental cost of maintaining a browser agnostic site. Largely because Walmart is selling a Windows only product, but also because a large portion of the demographic that would refuse* to use IE tends to be the same group who are very vocal about not buying from the big evil Walmart in the first place.
*I mean actually refuse, not just posture about it.
FTA: "The video that you download requires Digital Rights Management 10 (DRM 10) software"
So, the video only works in Windows (Media Player 10+, presumably). I think it's safe to assume that if you have WMP10, you also have IE, so if making the site IE-only prevents* people from accessing it who can't use the product anyway, what's the big deal?
*Yeah, yeah. "I don't WANNA use IE on my Windows box. IE sucks." It's not like you have to UNinstall Firefox to do so, so suck it up, princess.
Were Star Trek writers involved somehow?
In the city where I live, there are about 20 places using HID prox systems, and they all use the same security company. This company buys cards from a wholesaler, not directly from HID. Yes, you guessed it - every company in town has the same site code, and the numbers do overlap.
This only came to light after somebody "broke in" using a valid card, and the guy who's number it matched (a 20 year employee who simply wasn't dumb enough to do something like that) was almost arrested for it.