Well, I know that if I go to the "IT" section of most job sites I see everything from "senior software engineer" to "windows support monkey", so he's mostly right.
Well, the "job sites" are trying to advertise the largest market. So those positions will be listed under several different sections of the site - depending on how much the employer was willing to pay to list the site. So you can't go by that at all.
For that matter acting like all admins are dumb janitors and all programmer from genius engineers is pretty typical fresh from college arrogance.
True to a degree. However, more and more, those "admins" have a degree called "Information Systems" and haven't a clue about programming. All they know is how to run software to do a certain task - e.g. run Windows+IIS for websites, add the FTP module to IIS for an FTP server, etc. They're not taught how to think outside the box when things go wrong, so the first thing they do is call Microsoft Tech Support (or rather, the Microsoft Partner their company is contracting) when a problem arises that they can't resolve though the interfaces they know. God forbid they have to use UNIX/Linux/Mac, though some of them are capable of it.
Is a programmer who is writing the internal controls to a car in the IT industry or the car industry?
Both, but he probably thinks of one as more important that the other. Does his skill transfer to working on the internal controls for a train, or designing the engine? Compare with IBM's company chauffeur.
Incorrect. He's in the Car Industry, not the IT Industry. Over the last 15 years, while I have done various programming and IT related jobs, I have worked in numerous different industries. I'd quantify my work as programming or IT in each case, but in all of them I am only in the industry of the company I am working for. If I worked for GeekSquad (which I have not) then I would say I was in the IT industry. However, working for a Railway Diagnostics company (as I presently am) even though I write software on a daily basis, I am not in the IT industry - I am in the Railway/Transportation Industry.
Debian has one of the best package managers (RPM is crap), and the installation is absolutely easy to do.
I'd keep away from Ubuntu for servers, namely because they're more end-user focused. However, if you have some hardware that needs none-FLOSS supported stuff, then Ubuntu may be the way to go as they do put more proprietary stuff in to resolve that - but that shouldn't be an issue with a true server as most support Linux out-of-the-box to start with.
...by confirming them. Microsoft's customers, the OEMs, will be free to decide who imports keys and how. That's what everybody has been worrying about, isn't it?
Exactly. Microsoft does not see the average Windows user as their customer. Rather, they see the OEMs and Big Corporations that purchase Volume Licenses as their customer. In other words (from Microsoft)...Sorry, even though you paid $400 for that Windows license at BestBuy/etc, you're not a customer. Only the OEM who paid $30 for that same license (and bought 5 million of them) is.
You guys do realize that everything you do on the internet is unlawful in one fashion or another, somewhere. It's like a police officer following you while you drive. At some point during the trip, regardless of who you are, you're going to do something that is an offense the officer can stop you for. The internet is no different.
(Emphasis added above) The problem is one of jurisdiction. The FCC rules only apply within the US jurisdiction. So it does not matter what any country/state outside of that jurisdiction says; only US law applies. Therefore the somewhere noted above is limited to within in US jurisdiction, and more importantly (i) where the person lives, (ii) what they presently are (in case of mobile), and (iii) the overlapping (federal, state, local) jurisdictions for the previous two.
So the matter of jurisdiction is really only an issue for those moving about via mobile Internet connections as they will move between various local and state jurisdictions.
I think his point was that there are restraints, constraints and obligations that still apply after bankruptcy or other changes of ownership, so why can't data usage be the same?
The court might treat it the same, but the Bankruptcy court does not have to carry those restraints, constraints, or obligations forward aside from what is in the law to do so. That is, if the Privacy Policy goes above and beyond the law, then anything "above and beyond the law" does not need to be adhered to. Unfortunately we are in a era when most Privacy Policies are "above and beyond the law" as the law is so far behind in that area. (Again, IANAL.)
Actually, in certain industrial operations they reverse the "hover board" to make it lift heavy materials effortlessly. They magnetize portions of the ground to lift pallet-like areas. It's really interesting. Before I knew about that, I first thought about it in school when using a magnetic vice for a grinder: if you can clamp a piece of metal to a powered magnetic surface, why not reverse the polarity and lift it instead? Pretty sweet! Now we just need a skate park using that!
Congrats for describing Maglev - used in trains (metros) and others areas where friction matters.
In fact, frictionless bearings use the same properties.
Very true. To us, it makes sense. However, what is needed in order for this to not be something that ends up bounced in the courts for years is a clear law -- client data on a company that goes bankrupt? The physical machine's drives get zeroed (if the drives support cryptographic erasures), or physically destroyed, and a third party certifies that this has been done to the bankruptcy court.
Ideally, we need a data protection act, where unless there is explicit reason for data to remain on a machine (intrusion attempt, motion of discovery), it has to be destroyed within a reasonable time frame (30 days for Web logs, 12 months for back purchases, etc.) This way, the damage from a bankruptcy would be limited.
The problem is, there are no limits regarding privacy policies for the bankruptcy courts right now. They're just another informal, single-sided contract - one that the court can break.
But again, As I pointed out later in my post, BOTH companies have EXPLICIT statements in their on-line privacy policy stating well in advance that personal information of customers were an asset that WOULD BE INCLUDED in any sale.
Again, that has little to do with the issue at hand. While IANAL the Bankruptcy court can completely ignore what they say they will do in those agreements per a sale. Most all of them state that the conditions will carry through, while the Bankruptcy court can completely ignore that if it so desires.
So no need to break the allegedly single sided contract.
Unless you as an individual (i) sign a copy, (ii) return the signed copy to them, and (iii) receive a copy of what you signed with a signature of one of their representatives (either before or after you signed) then it is a single-sided contract as they are defining the terms of which you have no say in the matter. That is a legal definition. There is no "allegation" going on.
IANAL, but that is only there so they can update it via the website without specifically telling you what the changes are or that changes occurred.
That's what they want you to think, and they may have even meant it at the time. IANAL either, but since the clause does not specify the nature or extent of changes they make, it seems to me they can change it completely, even reversing the entire spirit of the thing, and all they have to do is "post" (read, bury) a notice on their Web site somewhere.
True. All they have to do is update the publicly posted agreement. However, that wouldn't protect them from a Class Action lawsuit - while Bankruptcy court would. (IANAL)
I disagree, that information IS and asset and creditors in order of seniority should have an absolute right to extract as much value in a bankruptcy up to what they lent as possible. This is a pretty fundamental concept of credit and private property which are more basic to our society that even the notion of privacy. That is why what the Obama administration did with Chrysler was such an atrocity.
I'm not stating anything here per what I think about whether the information is an asset. All I am saying is that there should be limits to what can be done with information collected under a Privacy Policy when the entity that did the collecting goes through Bankruptcy. The bankruptcy court should not have a completely free hand in what can be done with it, as is (AFAIK since IANAL) the current case.
This is an asset they wanted, that was attached to a promise (contract) - basically a liability attached to the asset. Bankruptcy is often used to restructure debt, but this obligation/liability is an intrinsic part of the asset. Better that data be destroyed than transferred apart from the promises of privacy that made the collection of it possible int he first place. If the separation of the data from the privacy policy is allowed, I can see it quickly getting abused.
IANAL, but there are several kinds of Bankruptcy. Most popular is Chapter 7, which results in Solvency, and Chapter 11/13 (11 for companies, 13 for individuals) which simply allow restructuring of the debt under court supervision. The court can break a lot of contracts in place even under Chapter 11/13; however, they tend not to so long as the contract does not prevent the company/individual from exiting Bankruptcy, which is the ultimate goal of Chapter 11/13 Bankruptcies. However, under Chapter 7 there is no exit from Bankruptcy, just shut down - in which case, all assets are taken, and all contracts can be terminated, and the court can do nearly anything within its jurisdiction to do (e.g. it can't change zoning or building codes on land or structures).
hysical property, like land and houses are often accompanied with "contracts" such as covenants, easements, etc.
Yet even when these assets get sold thru bankruptcy you can't then claim that the easement or covenant is no longer in force.
These are public contracts that bind all future owners.
WHile (again) IANAL, I think there is a big difference there. For example, easements are a matter of law - the land in the easement doesn't technically belong to the land holder even though they assume responsibility for the land (it belongs to whomever has the easement rights). Also, in a land property you also have zoning and building codes - things that are outside the jurisdication of the bankruptcy court, things they have no control or influence over - so there are limits to what a bankruptcy court can do in those cases. So even in your example it very much depends on the type of contract involved and where the requirement comes from.
The problem is, there are no limits regarding privacy policies for the bankruptcy courts right now. They're just another informal, single-sided contract - one that the court can break.
This exact issue is also affects cloud computing as a whole.
Take a cloud provider goes out of business. Another entity buys up all their servers, and now has free and complete access to the former clients' data. All data can be sold to the highest bidder (even if it is in a hostile country), or just slap it on a 20TB BitTorrent off of thepiratebay? Easily done, and there is not one thing legally that can be done about it.
Until the bankruptcy code addresses this with a stipulation that all data is either erased (with certificates of destruction of data or physical media), one needs to assume any and all "privacy policies" are "we will give any info to any and all we please."
While (again) IANAL, that is probably a little farther fetched as the Bankruptcy court would probably recognize the contract in place and not recognize that data as belonging to the company. Not to say it couldn't happen, but it'd be a lot harder to have happen than the Privacy issue as there is an actual service contract involved. (Not so with the Privacy Policy.)
The final clause in all privacy policies are words to the effect, "this policy is subject to change at any time, with or without notice to you." Now we have an example of what that means.
I have always regarded that a license to defraud the consumer, as they can initially offer privacy terms that are acceptable, then collect your data, then revoke the privacy protections without giving you a chance to change or delete your data.
IANAL, but that is only there so they can update it via the website without specifically telling you what the changes are or that changes occurred. One reason for that is because it can be hard to track someone down when the only information may have changed - e.g. they moved or they got a different phone number, or a different e-mail address and (for any or all) they forgot to tell you about any of the changes. How then would you go about notifying them?
The issue here is that Bankruptcy courts have pretty much a free hand in manipulating agreements, canceling contracts, etc. So as far as the Bankruptcy court is concerned, the Privacy Policy doesn't exist.
I think part of this is legal - B&N doesn't want to find itself ensnared by legal complications resulting from deficiencies in Borders' data collection or handling practices.
While IANAL, From my limited understanding of Bankruptcy law, the courts can basically dissolve nearly any contract in place. So as far as the Bankruptcy court is concerned the Private Policy doesn't exist, and they can sell the information off regardless of what the Private Policy said. The Privacy Policy only protects against what Borders itself can do with the data in the course of their own business, but once you get to Bankruptcy court then all bets are off. That is the problem with Privacy Policies.
Now, if another company simply bought Borders then the Privacy Policy would still be in effect. The issue only comes into play when a company goes through Bankruptcy. Privacy Policies might even survive restructuring under Chapter 11 Bankruptcy; but it won't likely survive Chapter 7 Bankruptcy.
That said, I think this is one area that Congress should address and fix - so the Bankruptcy courts are not so free to break the Privacy Policies, however restrictive the company may have made them.
The majority of mobo vendors have a line of mobos with uefi. It proves that they can do it and have the experience but the fact its so closed the neckbeards wont get behind it and they dont sell.
Interesting as AMD64 and its cousins EMT64 and INTEL64 are very popular at the moment - pretty much all new processors - and they use EFI/UEFI. Most programmers may still only use the legacy BIOS interfaces, but the fact is most mobos are probably shipping with EFI/UEFI already.
The only reason UEFI is overdue is not because they are slow in development. It's simply the fact that UEFI isn't an open standard. If UEFI was made an open standard every new computer in a month would all have UEFI.
Interestingly, many manufacturers are already using UEFI for quite a while. I believe most AMD64 based systems use it, even though the interface is still that of the legacy BIOS's as far as the user is concerned.
Sure, there are limits. But those limits are measured in microseconds.
The only real, unavoidable boot delay is hardware initialization time. That is, it can take all of two seconds for the PCI bus to settle its clocks and voltages. After that, hardware detection can be performed (let's be generous and say 0.1s per endpoint) and a boot menu can be presented.
My current system (AMD Phenom something) takes 25 seconds from power-on to boot menu, and then another 6 seconds to desktop. Frankly, anything above 10 seconds for the complete boot is outrageous.
Hard drives may take far more than 2 seconds to settle in. There are reasons why BIOS's and Linux, and others have options for 30 second delays on hard drive initializations. And those delays are very common when you start adding in SCSI and RAID controllers.
As a product manager for two enterprise-focused products which are managed via Web-UI, this is a huge pain in the ass for me. I have always pushed for Firefox to be the primary browser, along with the current version of IE. When I could state a major version number, like FF3 or FF4, as supported, all was good. I could get buy-in from Engineering, QA, and Support. Now that FF major versions are changing every month, we are inevitably out of date by the time a new version is released.
It's just as problematic in the Linux world where distributions take time to test and patch before releasing to users. Gentoo has a 30 day stability requirement. I still haven't seen even FF4 be marked stable in Gentoo (seems they've actually skipped it going straight to FF6). It's the same issue with Thunderbird.
Why it is just 22 per month? Welcome to the world of contracted out office equipment. They probably dont *own* the printers but lease them. Those leases probably are dependent on the number of users using them. 22 per month is probably way high. But that is how they crunch the numbers...
Plus we are not talking your cheapo home printer. Talking heavy duty ones that cost 1-3k plus, EACH, plus any accessories (double sided printing, non standard print sizes, etc), and carts to print on them.
Sounds more like someone wanting to justify getting an iPad but 'hey if I can somehow get work to get me one'... Sounds more like a cheap guy who wants one but just doesnt want to pay for it himself.
You forgot one other aspect - they are likely laser printers, and there are probably a lot of color laser printers in the mix. All-in-all, they are renting the printer itself, plus filling it with cartridges and paper. And don't forget how much paper gov't uses - a lot.
So they may break even on the rentals (because they'll probably rent the iPads too, just like they probably do for their laptops and desktops), but save on the ink/toner cartridges and paper.
Increased costs to businesses. Yes, most of ObamaCare has not taken affect, but the costs have still gone up because of it.
Thus there is lower hiring and even layoffs as a result. This will only get worse as more of it takes affect.
What are you talking about with respect to the NLRB going after Boeing?
NLRB is investigating Boeing over Boeing's decision to open a 787 manufacturing facility in South Carolina (where Labor Unions cannot force their way into the work place) instead of Everett, Washington (where they can). Thus at minimum making companies rethink expansion plans, especially when they are already a union workshop, even when (as with Boeing) they can legally do so.
A simple Google Search for "Boeing nlrb" will show you the various topics and results. Now, I don't agree with the House passing a law stifling the investigation; but neither do I agree that the investigation is anything more than the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers union using the Obama Administration to do their bidding, and Obama doing so to gain support of the unions. (Of course it doesn't help that the Obama appointed leader of the NLRB is an ex-Union head either.)
So you have the Obama Administration (which includes the NLRB) making the economic waters very murky for existing businesses in its policies - which hinders economic growth.
What you haven't taken into account was that Bush's $5T didn't include the costs of the wars in the middle east, whereas Obama put them back on the books. That accounts for the difference on its own.
That $5 Trillion actually would include the costs of Iraq and Afghanistan campaigns. Even if it didn't, the spending by Obama is still at the same magnitude of differences.
But then, by what measure do you compare? You can't compare based on passed Budgets as Obama and the Democrats have yet to pass a Congressional Budget since ObamaCare was enacted, instead relying on Continuing Resolutions to keep the government running. Ultimately Obama in his ~2 years has probably spent far more than $8 Trillion. IOW, there is a considerable order-of-magnitude difference in spending since Obama took office, and the lack of a passing Congressional Budgets also puts many (such as DoD contractors, government agencies, etc.) into the fog when it comes to planning as they have no means to determine their actual budget - thereby no means to determine that yes they can actually hire someone for the entire year.
??? represents the continuation of Afghanistan and Iraq, plus Libya, and the Global Financial Crisis that you may have heard of...
I also thought it funny that 4 of your five points to Bush are about destruction, yet you follow it up by saying that Bush has more to show.
And don't forget how much ObamaCare has impacted the Global FInancial Crisis, or fog around the various economic decisions by the Obama Administration, or the NLRB going after Boeing, or....
And of course you overlook the basic fact that $5 Trillion spent over eight years (average of $625 Billion per year) vs $4 Trillion spent over roughly two years (average of $2 Trillion per year).
Only on ARM!.... How many desktops/laptops are you going to replace with ARM based machines?
Do you complain that you can't run full OSX apps on an Ipad/Iphone?... This is a NEW edition of Windows - Metro will be cross compatible.
The moment that ARM becomes bigger, I am sure we will see more compatibility,.NET apps will most likely receive a update that makes them run (when not using pinvoke), and give it time, we will probably see x86 emulators.
Yeah, just wait for the CEO (or other managers) to come in with his Win8 ARM Tablet, and try to do some of his daily tasks, only to find that he can't get the application to work, at which point he calls up tech support and simply says "It's Windows 8."
Slashdot Mirror
Well, I know that if I go to the "IT" section of most job sites I see everything from "senior software engineer" to "windows support monkey", so he's mostly right.
Well, the "job sites" are trying to advertise the largest market. So those positions will be listed under several different sections of the site - depending on how much the employer was willing to pay to list the site. So you can't go by that at all.
For that matter acting like all admins are dumb janitors and all programmer from genius engineers is pretty typical fresh from college arrogance.
True to a degree. However, more and more, those "admins" have a degree called "Information Systems" and haven't a clue about programming. All they know is how to run software to do a certain task - e.g. run Windows+IIS for websites, add the FTP module to IIS for an FTP server, etc. They're not taught how to think outside the box when things go wrong, so the first thing they do is call Microsoft Tech Support (or rather, the Microsoft Partner their company is contracting) when a problem arises that they can't resolve though the interfaces they know. God forbid they have to use UNIX/Linux/Mac, though some of them are capable of it.
Is a programmer who is writing the internal controls to a car in the IT industry or the car industry?
Both, but he probably thinks of one as more important that the other. Does his skill transfer to working on the internal controls for a train, or designing the engine? Compare with IBM's company chauffeur.
Incorrect. He's in the Car Industry, not the IT Industry. Over the last 15 years, while I have done various programming and IT related jobs, I have worked in numerous different industries. I'd quantify my work as programming or IT in each case, but in all of them I am only in the industry of the company I am working for. If I worked for GeekSquad (which I have not) then I would say I was in the IT industry. However, working for a Railway Diagnostics company (as I presently am) even though I write software on a daily basis, I am not in the IT industry - I am in the Railway/Transportation Industry.
I'll third.
Debian has one of the best package managers (RPM is crap), and the installation is absolutely easy to do.
I'd keep away from Ubuntu for servers, namely because they're more end-user focused. However, if you have some hardware that needs none-FLOSS supported stuff, then Ubuntu may be the way to go as they do put more proprietary stuff in to resolve that - but that shouldn't be an issue with a true server as most support Linux out-of-the-box to start with.
...by confirming them. Microsoft's customers, the OEMs, will be free to decide who imports keys and how. That's what everybody has been worrying about, isn't it?
Exactly. Microsoft does not see the average Windows user as their customer. Rather, they see the OEMs and Big Corporations that purchase Volume Licenses as their customer. In other words (from Microsoft)...Sorry, even though you paid $400 for that Windows license at BestBuy/etc, you're not a customer. Only the OEM who paid $30 for that same license (and bought 5 million of them) is.
(Emphasis added above) The problem is one of jurisdiction. The FCC rules only apply within the US jurisdiction. So it does not matter what any country/state outside of that jurisdiction says; only US law applies. Therefore the somewhere noted above is limited to within in US jurisdiction, and more importantly (i) where the person lives, (ii) what they presently are (in case of mobile), and (iii) the overlapping (federal, state, local) jurisdictions for the previous two.
So the matter of jurisdiction is really only an issue for those moving about via mobile Internet connections as they will move between various local and state jurisdictions.
I think his point was that there are restraints, constraints and obligations that still apply after bankruptcy or other changes of ownership, so why can't data usage be the same?
The court might treat it the same, but the Bankruptcy court does not have to carry those restraints, constraints, or obligations forward aside from what is in the law to do so. That is, if the Privacy Policy goes above and beyond the law, then anything "above and beyond the law" does not need to be adhered to. Unfortunately we are in a era when most Privacy Policies are "above and beyond the law" as the law is so far behind in that area. (Again, IANAL.)
Actually, in certain industrial operations they reverse the "hover board" to make it lift heavy materials effortlessly. They magnetize portions of the ground to lift pallet-like areas. It's really interesting. Before I knew about that, I first thought about it in school when using a magnetic vice for a grinder: if you can clamp a piece of metal to a powered magnetic surface, why not reverse the polarity and lift it instead? Pretty sweet! Now we just need a skate park using that!
Congrats for describing Maglev - used in trains (metros) and others areas where friction matters.
In fact, frictionless bearings use the same properties.
Very true. To us, it makes sense. However, what is needed in order for this to not be something that ends up bounced in the courts for years is a clear law -- client data on a company that goes bankrupt? The physical machine's drives get zeroed (if the drives support cryptographic erasures), or physically destroyed, and a third party certifies that this has been done to the bankruptcy court.
Ideally, we need a data protection act, where unless there is explicit reason for data to remain on a machine (intrusion attempt, motion of discovery), it has to be destroyed within a reasonable time frame (30 days for Web logs, 12 months for back purchases, etc.) This way, the damage from a bankruptcy would be limited.
Agreed.
The problem is, there are no limits regarding privacy policies for the bankruptcy courts right now. They're just another informal, single-sided contract - one that the court can break.
But again, As I pointed out later in my post, BOTH companies have EXPLICIT statements in their on-line privacy policy stating well in advance that personal information of customers were an asset that WOULD BE INCLUDED in any sale.
Again, that has little to do with the issue at hand. While IANAL the Bankruptcy court can completely ignore what they say they will do in those agreements per a sale. Most all of them state that the conditions will carry through, while the Bankruptcy court can completely ignore that if it so desires.
So no need to break the allegedly single sided contract.
Unless you as an individual (i) sign a copy, (ii) return the signed copy to them, and (iii) receive a copy of what you signed with a signature of one of their representatives (either before or after you signed) then it is a single-sided contract as they are defining the terms of which you have no say in the matter. That is a legal definition. There is no "allegation" going on.
That's what they want you to think, and they may have even meant it at the time. IANAL either, but since the clause does not specify the nature or extent of changes they make, it seems to me they can change it completely, even reversing the entire spirit of the thing, and all they have to do is "post" (read, bury) a notice on their Web site somewhere.
True. All they have to do is update the publicly posted agreement. However, that wouldn't protect them from a Class Action lawsuit - while Bankruptcy court would. (IANAL)
I'm not stating anything here per what I think about whether the information is an asset. All I am saying is that there should be limits to what can be done with information collected under a Privacy Policy when the entity that did the collecting goes through Bankruptcy. The bankruptcy court should not have a completely free hand in what can be done with it, as is (AFAIK since IANAL) the current case.
This is an asset they wanted, that was attached to a promise (contract) - basically a liability attached to the asset. Bankruptcy is often used to restructure debt, but this obligation/liability is an intrinsic part of the asset. Better that data be destroyed than transferred apart from the promises of privacy that made the collection of it possible int he first place. If the separation of the data from the privacy policy is allowed, I can see it quickly getting abused.
IANAL, but there are several kinds of Bankruptcy. Most popular is Chapter 7, which results in Solvency, and Chapter 11/13 (11 for companies, 13 for individuals) which simply allow restructuring of the debt under court supervision. The court can break a lot of contracts in place even under Chapter 11/13; however, they tend not to so long as the contract does not prevent the company/individual from exiting Bankruptcy, which is the ultimate goal of Chapter 11/13 Bankruptcies. However, under Chapter 7 there is no exit from Bankruptcy, just shut down - in which case, all assets are taken, and all contracts can be terminated, and the court can do nearly anything within its jurisdiction to do (e.g. it can't change zoning or building codes on land or structures).
WHile (again) IANAL, I think there is a big difference there. For example, easements are a matter of law - the land in the easement doesn't technically belong to the land holder even though they assume responsibility for the land (it belongs to whomever has the easement rights). Also, in a land property you also have zoning and building codes - things that are outside the jurisdication of the bankruptcy court, things they have no control or influence over - so there are limits to what a bankruptcy court can do in those cases. So even in your example it very much depends on the type of contract involved and where the requirement comes from.
The problem is, there are no limits regarding privacy policies for the bankruptcy courts right now. They're just another informal, single-sided contract - one that the court can break.
This exact issue is also affects cloud computing as a whole.
Take a cloud provider goes out of business. Another entity buys up all their servers, and now has free and complete access to the former clients' data. All data can be sold to the highest bidder (even if it is in a hostile country), or just slap it on a 20TB BitTorrent off of thepiratebay? Easily done, and there is not one thing legally that can be done about it.
Until the bankruptcy code addresses this with a stipulation that all data is either erased (with certificates of destruction of data or physical media), one needs to assume any and all "privacy policies" are "we will give any info to any and all we please."
While (again) IANAL, that is probably a little farther fetched as the Bankruptcy court would probably recognize the contract in place and not recognize that data as belonging to the company. Not to say it couldn't happen, but it'd be a lot harder to have happen than the Privacy issue as there is an actual service contract involved. (Not so with the Privacy Policy.)
The final clause in all privacy policies are words to the effect, "this policy is subject to change at any time, with or without notice to you." Now we have an example of what that means.
I have always regarded that a license to defraud the consumer, as they can initially offer privacy terms that are acceptable, then collect your data, then revoke the privacy protections without giving you a chance to change or delete your data.
IANAL, but that is only there so they can update it via the website without specifically telling you what the changes are or that changes occurred. One reason for that is because it can be hard to track someone down when the only information may have changed - e.g. they moved or they got a different phone number, or a different e-mail address and (for any or all) they forgot to tell you about any of the changes. How then would you go about notifying them?
The issue here is that Bankruptcy courts have pretty much a free hand in manipulating agreements, canceling contracts, etc. So as far as the Bankruptcy court is concerned, the Privacy Policy doesn't exist.
While IANAL, From my limited understanding of Bankruptcy law, the courts can basically dissolve nearly any contract in place. So as far as the Bankruptcy court is concerned the Private Policy doesn't exist, and they can sell the information off regardless of what the Private Policy said. The Privacy Policy only protects against what Borders itself can do with the data in the course of their own business, but once you get to Bankruptcy court then all bets are off. That is the problem with Privacy Policies.
Now, if another company simply bought Borders then the Privacy Policy would still be in effect. The issue only comes into play when a company goes through Bankruptcy. Privacy Policies might even survive restructuring under Chapter 11 Bankruptcy; but it won't likely survive Chapter 7 Bankruptcy.
That said, I think this is one area that Congress should address and fix - so the Bankruptcy courts are not so free to break the Privacy Policies, however restrictive the company may have made them.
The majority of mobo vendors have a line of mobos with uefi. It proves that they can do it and have the experience but the fact its so closed the neckbeards wont get behind it and they dont sell.
Interesting as AMD64 and its cousins EMT64 and INTEL64 are very popular at the moment - pretty much all new processors - and they use EFI/UEFI. Most programmers may still only use the legacy BIOS interfaces, but the fact is most mobos are probably shipping with EFI/UEFI already.
The only reason UEFI is overdue is not because they are slow in development. It's simply the fact that UEFI isn't an open standard. If UEFI was made an open standard every new computer in a month would all have UEFI.
Interestingly, many manufacturers are already using UEFI for quite a while. I believe most AMD64 based systems use it, even though the interface is still that of the legacy BIOS's as far as the user is concerned.
Sure, there are limits. But those limits are measured in microseconds.
The only real, unavoidable boot delay is hardware initialization time. That is, it can take all of two seconds for the PCI bus to settle its clocks and voltages. After that, hardware detection can be performed (let's be generous and say 0.1s per endpoint) and a boot menu can be presented.
My current system (AMD Phenom something) takes 25 seconds from power-on to boot menu, and then another 6 seconds to desktop. Frankly, anything above 10 seconds for the complete boot is outrageous.
Hard drives may take far more than 2 seconds to settle in. There are reasons why BIOS's and Linux, and others have options for 30 second delays on hard drive initializations. And those delays are very common when you start adding in SCSI and RAID controllers.
It's just as problematic in the Linux world where distributions take time to test and patch before releasing to users. Gentoo has a 30 day stability requirement. I still haven't seen even FF4 be marked stable in Gentoo (seems they've actually skipped it going straight to FF6). It's the same issue with Thunderbird.
Why it is just 22 per month? Welcome to the world of contracted out office equipment. They probably dont *own* the printers but lease them. Those leases probably are dependent on the number of users using them. 22 per month is probably way high. But that is how they crunch the numbers...
Plus we are not talking your cheapo home printer. Talking heavy duty ones that cost 1-3k plus, EACH, plus any accessories (double sided printing, non standard print sizes, etc), and carts to print on them.
Sounds more like someone wanting to justify getting an iPad but 'hey if I can somehow get work to get me one'... Sounds more like a cheap guy who wants one but just doesnt want to pay for it himself.
You forgot one other aspect - they are likely laser printers, and there are probably a lot of color laser printers in the mix. All-in-all, they are renting the printer itself, plus filling it with cartridges and paper. And don't forget how much paper gov't uses - a lot.
So they may break even on the rentals (because they'll probably rent the iPads too, just like they probably do for their laptops and desktops), but save on the ink/toner cartridges and paper.
ObamaCare impacted the financial crisis? How?
Increased costs to businesses. Yes, most of ObamaCare has not taken affect, but the costs have still gone up because of it. Thus there is lower hiring and even layoffs as a result. This will only get worse as more of it takes affect.
What are you talking about with respect to the NLRB going after Boeing?
NLRB is investigating Boeing over Boeing's decision to open a 787 manufacturing facility in South Carolina (where Labor Unions cannot force their way into the work place) instead of Everett, Washington (where they can). Thus at minimum making companies rethink expansion plans, especially when they are already a union workshop, even when (as with Boeing) they can legally do so.
A simple Google Search for "Boeing nlrb" will show you the various topics and results. Now, I don't agree with the House passing a law stifling the investigation; but neither do I agree that the investigation is anything more than the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers union using the Obama Administration to do their bidding, and Obama doing so to gain support of the unions. (Of course it doesn't help that the Obama appointed leader of the NLRB is an ex-Union head either.)
So you have the Obama Administration (which includes the NLRB) making the economic waters very murky for existing businesses in its policies - which hinders economic growth.
What you haven't taken into account was that Bush's $5T didn't include the costs of the wars in the middle east, whereas Obama put them back on the books. That accounts for the difference on its own.
That $5 Trillion actually would include the costs of Iraq and Afghanistan campaigns. Even if it didn't, the spending by Obama is still at the same magnitude of differences.
But then, by what measure do you compare? You can't compare based on passed Budgets as Obama and the Democrats have yet to pass a Congressional Budget since ObamaCare was enacted, instead relying on Continuing Resolutions to keep the government running. Ultimately Obama in his ~2 years has probably spent far more than $8 Trillion. IOW, there is a considerable order-of-magnitude difference in spending since Obama took office, and the lack of a passing Congressional Budgets also puts many (such as DoD contractors, government agencies, etc.) into the fog when it comes to planning as they have no means to determine their actual budget - thereby no means to determine that yes they can actually hire someone for the entire year.
??? represents the continuation of Afghanistan and Iraq, plus Libya, and the Global Financial Crisis that you may have heard of...
I also thought it funny that 4 of your five points to Bush are about destruction, yet you follow it up by saying that Bush has more to show.
And don't forget how much ObamaCare has impacted the Global FInancial Crisis, or fog around the various economic decisions by the Obama Administration, or the NLRB going after Boeing, or....
And of course you overlook the basic fact that $5 Trillion spent over eight years (average of $625 Billion per year) vs $4 Trillion spent over roughly two years (average of $2 Trillion per year).
Only on ARM! .... How many desktops/laptops are you going to replace with ARM based machines?
Do you complain that you can't run full OSX apps on an Ipad/Iphone? ... This is a NEW edition of Windows - Metro will be cross compatible.
The moment that ARM becomes bigger, I am sure we will see more compatibility, .NET apps will most likely receive a update that makes them run (when not using pinvoke), and give it time, we will probably see x86 emulators.
Yeah, just wait for the CEO (or other managers) to come in with his Win8 ARM Tablet, and try to do some of his daily tasks, only to find that he can't get the application to work, at which point he calls up tech support and simply says "It's Windows 8."
HTTPS goes over port 443, not 80.
By default. Not necessarily. You can set the webserver to use HTTPS over Port 80 or whatever other port you like.