Assuming New Orleans is rebuilt I think its open to debate if it will still be poor after its done.
I'd like to present the flip side. This of course uses cliche's like 'rich' and 'poor' as generic entities.
New Orleans has a _VERY_ large poor population. New Orleans has a small rich population, however the split between the two is very large. When word of Katrina came, a large part of the rich fled town in their SUVs or equivalent and went to surrounding areas. These people will collect the insurance money for their destroyed homes and valueables. They won't wait months if not years to have their town back.
So now the rich have settled down in various other areas spread around the US. They've relized that they're vulnerable and have a weak point, as well as a city that will never be the same. Would you want to live in New Orleans in the upcoming years?
The poor however couldn't leave because they have no cars. They couldn't leave because they have no insurance on their homes and what few valuables. They either couldn't leave (due to lack of means) or wouldn't leave (due to lack of confidence). Hence the poor get MUCH poorer, as these are the people who once all they had was the contents of a small apartment, and now have nothing- nothing at all.
So the poor are poor. The rich are long gone and not sitting around to rebuild the city. You end up with only the poor. And given that, how can you attract new rich people to the city? Who would want to go?
It was once an area of culture- from the Acadians coming down from Nova Scotia... But now that culture is gone or severely degraded. The culture is why tourists came. So no tourists means even less money into the economy.
This could be a good opportunity to replace an antiquated system of copper wires with brand-new technology.
Well it is a good situation to update the infrastructure (although being one of the poorer areas of the US, I'd doubt they'd go too far due to a lack of major corporate backing). On that note, why would they avoid good old copper or other great technologies? The potential of copper (10-gigabit is the latest 'consumer' technology) is faster, more reliable, and more secure than any WiFi they can throw at it.
C'mon- WiFi is fun and all to save you running wires to your basement, or giving you e-mail while you check your coffee, but lets be realistic. It's a security issue. It's a reliability issue (interference, signal issues in certain areas, 'jamming'). And the spectrum only has so much room in it. Just run a few wires and call it a day.
Microsoft only assumes liability up to the purchase price of the software, or you can't use it legally.
If I rememeber correctly they don't assume any at all. All 'AT YOUR OWN RISK', "NO WARRANTIES, EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED"
-M
Re:Inflammatory summary
on
Microsoft Sues EU
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
The only danger I could imagine is that opening them will expose a megaplex of holes in the protocols and we'll see a rush of exploits that make the worst Microsoft security issue in its history seem like a minor incident. Then it will harm Microsoft because it will cost them billions in sales as people migrate to non-Microsoft server software to escape the invasion of worms and other exploits poking through those holes.
The only thing needing to be opened is the protocol specs, and not the code itself behind it. I'd highly doubt that there are really that many holes in the protocol itself, as it's fairly basic I imagine (some sort of unique ID that needs to be valid on both systems, various info, and a data packet- maybe some encoding methods).
I know M$ has a really bad history, but lets give them some credit to putting more than 10 minutes of thought into something as crucial to their software as the file&print sharing protocol.
This means that people who were using older GPL'd software are free from obligations of the upcoming license. This obviously doesn't solve the problem because you can always use older GPLed software and modify it yourself to keep it up to date. The whole idea of free software is that it gives people the freedom to do what they want with it. The new license will be saying something like: "Hey, you can have this candy as long as you don't take any from those guys"
In a way yes, but in another more acurate way- no. You are thinking Free in monetary ways, and not in terms of freedom. Yes freedom to do what you want with it is important, but .
What do I mean? If I take your GPL'd software package, modify it to include DRM, that removes the rights of the end users of the product from having unencumbered software (not to mention few DRM schemes will actually be free from patents and governing bodies).
While the ability to use GPL'd code is a freedom for the developer, the developer takes away the freedom of use and distribution of its output (data files) from the end users.
And here I was all exciting about the Turing Programming Language being used in testing. Slashdot and it's deceptive bait-and-switch:)
For those of you curious ones: http://www.holtsoft.com/turing/ One of the greatest languages you'll find at the basic level, with advanced graphic capabilities, and a really well-thought-out syntax. It's an impressive, powerful language (as far as powerful for DOS and it's graphics modes, pointer interface, etc can be). Not to mention ability to convert to EXE and a fast interpreter.
Well here's the thing. How is XML any better than any other format besides wasting a ton of bits and having basic parsing included.
How is it different than having an escape bit with a code following it to enable or disable bold. Is text better than #254btext#255b ? Not in the slightest.
XML is nothing without a schema supported by an application, and M$ can make a format with XML as a part of it all they want, but it's still a format that has some random binary OLE object in it that nobody can open. It's still a format that has encryption (optional) on it. It's still a format that M$ just adds and removes support for select codes all they want.
So how are my two examples different? One of them lets you say it's XML... but you still need an interface and to follow M$'s programming practices in order to apply this to your own editor.
XML makes transfering data between two interfaces which are programmed to read the schema rather easy, as you don't have to write the parser. Fine. But that assumes both programs can read/write the data that it parses out... which is where all the work is. Parsing is easy. Applying the data is another story.
Simple- So PayPal closes this 'suspicious' account. PayPal then confiscates the money saying it was invalid. But people would get annoyed if this happens... very annoyed. So PayPal (in all it's light-shining glory) makes a convinient donation of $20,000... no wait- $20,000+5% to the victims.
Now the donation is credited to PayPal- looks good in the paper, etc etc.
Yes- you do a pre-auth, then fill in the top and sign. They put it in. You check your receipts at the end of the month.
Now when you challenge it, they request the signed Visa slip from the merchant and from you and compare them. It's the merchant's responsibility to correctly enter the amount and charge it properly. If it just so happens that the merchant entered something other than the actual amount on the slip, the money gets revoked and returned to you.
The only person they hurt is themselves when they do a slip request. And if a waiter/waitress does it, they risk their jobs (the merchant wastes a lot of time on these)
See aren't you glad I took that complicated string and enclosed it in XML? Fantastic work! Now all you need to do is fine the encryption string for it to reveal the secret password.
The point is, XML is only useful in complicated schemas to the program that wrote it. Sure you _COULD_ program something to recognize Word's XML, but you're going through recognizing every tag for bold, tables, paragraph marks and so on. That's not really open because it's in XMl. It's open because they publish a clear and easy to use schema for us to implement into other programs.
XML has become the new buzzword but to Microsoft it's nothing more than an ability to stick proprietary data between some XML open/close tags.
Seriously here- 35 years? If they said 5, I'd maybe pay some attention to this article, but 35?
Guess what? 35 years ago it was 1970. Personal computers didn't exist. Your TV became colour in 54, which is only 15 years before. Cars guzzled gas like it was water. It was the 50th aniversary of the latex condom.
A lot will change by 2040. See the article about cars that drive themselves from yesterday. What are the odds we'll sit at a desk tapping away at keys 35 years from now? What are the odds that software won't be bundled with the OS like it is with Linux?
Hrm- Since when are data formats bad? Sure we've come a long way from every product having its own proprietary.dat file specific to its needs, with some programs using XML and the *shudders* registry for its data. Sure we've come a long way to bring in (and then phase out) standard-format.ini files for everything from major settings to the last opened files... But seriously?
Why should Opera and FireFox store their data in the Microsoft format? What gain is there in the slightest? And why would a criminal actually keep history anyway? Maybe Microsoft should be using the Firefox format rather than it's proprietary.dat files which Windows (for whatever reason) treats as a special folder and doesn't let you copy or move the file itself.
Yes many people are promoting open formats, but maybe that means M$ needs to move... or maybe meet in the middle.
It's a very open easy to read format... Why can't the technical forensic people read these files with a basic arsenol of tools?
This comes at the same time of "Creative MP3 Players Ship With Virus".
To be honest, it's fine if you have a USB key for a radio to bring some MP3s in- make it specific to load MP3s onto the radio...
BUT I _don't_ want the ECU linked to any user-modifyable device. Especially a device that can be put into any computer and have anything done to the data files. What about the ease of reprogramming these devices. Wasn't the whole point of codes on the keys to keep the car even somewhat secure from ease of keymakers and lock-pickers? Imagine just setting codes.
Again No user-modifyable part should be linked to the ECU
I am happy to note these days it is a relative non-event.
You're thinking like a geek. $10 bucks says most people's mothers who use MSN already (like those that use Yahoo, ICQ, AOL, etc) will use the service that pops up and says "Would you like to make a voice call to 'Your son in Italy' for only $10/mo". Probably saying to themselves: "A monkey is asking for my credit card number... That seems fair."
This is the world we live in. We talk about marketing being just FUD, but it's really not. People buy whatever people sell. I've seen funny stuff on infomercials that people obviously buy (a vacuum that sucks up your hair and cuts it with a blade inside the vacuum attachment- this was in the 'cut your hair at home' stage of the late 80's).
People will buy what seems reasonable and what you tell them to buy. Ask any marketing student. 99% of the market is uneducated as to what Skype is. Vonage has only made such headway through significant marketing, which M$ could outdo anyday... and who wouldn't switch to a M$ product that already runs their office, home, and play communications needs?
M$ integrates an ad and the feature into MSN Messenger, and they'll instantly have a LOT of people. No having to download additional software, no setup, no confusing additional software that may or may not hurt your computer... just works.
But when you have a formal standard, you have something to measure against. Every aspect of the data center design is not only standardized, but the how's, why's and therefore's are spelled out.
But not all datacenters are equal for a reason. I've seen maybe 20-30 datacenters in the past few years for various clients and they all have different features, different offerings, and different goals.
I'll list a few of the big differences I've seen in my experiences:
Some want to be in the downtown core, close to many businesses, but charging a premium for the space. Others claim that being in the outskirts of the city provide security in the event of any problems (mainly hyped due to 'terrorist attacks').
Some feel the need for N+2 generators, others more. Some feel that a fallback to city power if their PDUs ever fail is good, and others feel there should be a whole other protected power distribution system (at an extremely high cost for something rarely used).
Some like cooling each rack from the top, others blow it up every other isle and suck air down on the opposite. Some cool the whole room, claiming lots and lots of cooling units around the outside does the trick.
Some like the datacenter two stories underground. Others claim that they're a first target for flooding and other problems stereotypically associated with a basement. Others say that the datacenter on the 10th floor of a tower is inaccessable and subject to other security feats of the building.
Some like dedicated buildings, others like quietly slotting themselves in office towers.
A few I went to were monitored from 3000+km's away, and others had 24/7 onsite staff. Some had technical electronic keys, and others a simple mailbox key. Some had biometrics, others just a key.
One I went to even had outter walls capable of withstanding most missiles. Others had windows with only paper over them for security reasons.
Some let you roam freely by a security personelle and simply log equipment, others weigh you on the way out to make sure that you didn't take anything you didn't show up with without signing it out.
The point is each of these serves a very different purpose. If you are going to have lots of untrusted people working on equipment, it's important to make sure nobody takes anything. Each one has its advantage and disadvantage, and I don't think any one of them is 'right'- it's just trying to find a solution to problems that experience has provided.
Is there a right answer with anything? Who is to say that any answer is right or wrong? They're just different solutions to the problem. If power stays up, systems are secure, systems get cooled, and the network is available, who is to say the solution is wrong?
. The ignorance of these people on such topics is astounding, and I find many approaches I have tried seem to yield no results...
Bingo. One of my managers said it very well at my former employment: nobody ever got fired for choosing IBM- and he's 100% right. I know a few companies spending millions to have services offered by Dell, IBM, Microsoft, etc who could get their services for thousands from clone computer makers, and Linux- but who would they?
Choose IBM and loose a few million, and you 'missed the market'. Choose open source and loose a few million and 'your solution wasn't up to par'. Choose open source and succeed and you make millions...
Is it worth the risk for the second situation? Most managers who want to leave with a hefty bonus and a good referral woulds say no.
PS: Agree 100% with almost everything he said. Smart man.
Sounds like the big 2.4 memory management VM change that messed so much stuff up, made at around this point in the 2.4 release cycle (I think.10?).
Why aren't these major changes made when 2.6 is launched rather than changing things that may already be used in people's systems?
Keep some compatibility and have more releases more often that aren't minor. I don't see how VM chnagesin 2.4 and this change in 2.6 are minor and considered acceptable by its users.
The cost of the RFID, in comparison to printing a box which is already done is (relatively) high (yes a penny may not be much but relative to just printing the box anyway, it's a lot). As well, it places the burden on the producer to purchase and attach these RFIDs.
I think the world has built up a healthy skepticism about anything coming from Microsoft, so another $10m FUD marketing is gonna go down the drain.
Ummm- no. Go into most big corporations or small businesses (at least in North America) and find that most people 'know' Windows is the biggest, strongest, and best thing they need. They 'know' it works, 'know' it does what they want, 'know' it's compatible with their software, hardware, customers, and supply chain.
Most people don't see Microsoft's marketing as FUD anymore than they see Coke and Pepsi's marketing as FUD.
We are the Slashdot crew who whine about big corp squishing the little guy who just so happens to use Linux. Don't think for a second your views represent management and a large majority of IT people out there. I run into at least three a day who go on about how Windows and dot-NET are the only things they would ever dream of using.
So what I ask- There are millions of private networks out there. Banks and credit agencies own unmeasurable amounts of copper and fibre throughout each and every city you could imagine. Tons of private companies link branch offices all around the globe and datacenters. Country's governments are linking to other governments and other organizations to ensure a reliable transport. The phone company owns tons of fibre and copper. Major Internet providers (MCI, Verison, etc) own large percentages of the global Internet.
Keep in mind, ATMs (1.5-155Mbit) are very common amoungst all organizations. Over longer distances and in larger volumes (or with growth strategies in mind), fibre is popular as well.
Google is buying circuts, possibly to build some sort of network. Okay? So what? This is all speculation. Maybe they want to make a reliable link for their own content and databases? Maybe they're doing content distribution? Maybe they want to set up some more links to certain areas and join the likes of MCI, Verizon, etc at the top of the Internet for options that other ISPs could route through.
Or maybe they are trying to start their own unconnected network... Who knows! But there is NOTHING even remotely unusual about a company buying up private circiuts for its own use. Most big corps have many of them linking offices, dataceters, and various parts of the world.
Now Adobe can make a reader in Flash (using new Flash APIs) similar to how Macromedia did Flashpaper... which is surprisingly decent if you don't need to get the data OUT of Flash.
Notice _ALL_ of Micro$oft's studies include switching costs of going from Windows. It includes training time longer than say a Windows upgrade. It includes training time where there wouldn't be for M$ products.
Who doesn't know that? Yes if you want to bring new things into your organization, you're bound to have a switching costs. You have to look long-term and see whether the switching costs get compensated for, which I believe they do- in terms of lesser hardware needed to do the simplest task, fewer admins due to more automation, and lower software costs.
'The system monitors the number of external connections being made and if a higher network activity is detected, the computer is disconnected to prevent the infection of further machines on the network.'
I see it now...
*open Azureus or other BitTorrent client* *50+ connections very quickly* *Intel has used hardware to protect you from yourself. Have great day*
Slashdot Mirror
I'd like to present the flip side. This of course uses cliche's like 'rich' and 'poor' as generic entities.
New Orleans has a _VERY_ large poor population. New Orleans has a small rich population, however the split between the two is very large. When word of Katrina came, a large part of the rich fled town in their SUVs or equivalent and went to surrounding areas. These people will collect the insurance money for their destroyed homes and valueables. They won't wait months if not years to have their town back.
So now the rich have settled down in various other areas spread around the US. They've relized that they're vulnerable and have a weak point, as well as a city that will never be the same. Would you want to live in New Orleans in the upcoming years?
The poor however couldn't leave because they have no cars. They couldn't leave because they have no insurance on their homes and what few valuables. They either couldn't leave (due to lack of means) or wouldn't leave (due to lack of confidence). Hence the poor get MUCH poorer, as these are the people who once all they had was the contents of a small apartment, and now have nothing- nothing at all.
So the poor are poor. The rich are long gone and not sitting around to rebuild the city. You end up with only the poor. And given that, how can you attract new rich people to the city? Who would want to go?
It was once an area of culture- from the Acadians coming down from Nova Scotia... But now that culture is gone or severely degraded. The culture is why tourists came. So no tourists means even less money into the economy.
-M
My 2010 when Vista is released, DDR3 I'm sure will be commonplace
-M
Well it is a good situation to update the infrastructure (although being one of the poorer areas of the US, I'd doubt they'd go too far due to a lack of major corporate backing). On that note, why would they avoid good old copper or other great technologies? The potential of copper (10-gigabit is the latest 'consumer' technology) is faster, more reliable, and more secure than any WiFi they can throw at it.
C'mon- WiFi is fun and all to save you running wires to your basement, or giving you e-mail while you check your coffee, but lets be realistic. It's a security issue. It's a reliability issue (interference, signal issues in certain areas, 'jamming'). And the spectrum only has so much room in it. Just run a few wires and call it a day.
-M
If I rememeber correctly they don't assume any at all. All 'AT YOUR OWN RISK', "NO WARRANTIES, EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED"
-M
The only thing needing to be opened is the protocol specs, and not the code itself behind it. I'd highly doubt that there are really that many holes in the protocol itself, as it's fairly basic I imagine (some sort of unique ID that needs to be valid on both systems, various info, and a data packet- maybe some encoding methods).
I know M$ has a really bad history, but lets give them some credit to putting more than 10 minutes of thought into something as crucial to their software as the file&print sharing protocol.
-M
In a way yes, but in another more acurate way- no. You are thinking Free in monetary ways, and not in terms of freedom. Yes freedom to do what you want with it is important, but .
What do I mean? If I take your GPL'd software package, modify it to include DRM, that removes the rights of the end users of the product from having unencumbered software (not to mention few DRM schemes will actually be free from patents and governing bodies).
While the ability to use GPL'd code is a freedom for the developer, the developer takes away the freedom of use and distribution of its output (data files) from the end users.
-M
And here I was all exciting about the Turing Programming Language being used in testing. Slashdot and it's deceptive bait-and-switch :)
For those of you curious ones:
http://www.holtsoft.com/turing/
One of the greatest languages you'll find at the basic level, with advanced graphic capabilities, and a really well-thought-out syntax. It's an impressive, powerful language (as far as powerful for DOS and it's graphics modes, pointer interface, etc can be). Not to mention ability to convert to EXE and a fast interpreter.
-M
Well here's the thing. How is XML any better than any other format besides wasting a ton of bits and having basic parsing included.
How is it different than having an escape bit with a code following it to enable or disable bold. Is text better than #254btext#255b ? Not in the slightest.
XML is nothing without a schema supported by an application, and M$ can make a format with XML as a part of it all they want, but it's still a format that has some random binary OLE object in it that nobody can open. It's still a format that has encryption (optional) on it. It's still a format that M$ just adds and removes support for select codes all they want.
So how are my two examples different? One of them lets you say it's XML... but you still need an interface and to follow M$'s programming practices in order to apply this to your own editor.
XML makes transfering data between two interfaces which are programmed to read the schema rather easy, as you don't have to write the parser. Fine. But that assumes both programs can read/write the data that it parses out... which is where all the work is. Parsing is easy. Applying the data is another story.
-M
Simple- So PayPal closes this 'suspicious' account. PayPal then confiscates the money saying it was invalid. But people would get annoyed if this happens... very annoyed. So PayPal (in all it's light-shining glory) makes a convinient donation of $20,000... no wait- $20,000+5% to the victims.
Now the donation is credited to PayPal- looks good in the paper, etc etc.
See- yay PR!
-M
Yes- you do a pre-auth, then fill in the top and sign. They put it in. You check your receipts at the end of the month.
Now when you challenge it, they request the signed Visa slip from the merchant and from you and compare them. It's the merchant's responsibility to correctly enter the amount and charge it properly. If it just so happens that the merchant entered something other than the actual amount on the slip, the money gets revoked and returned to you.
The only person they hurt is themselves when they do a slip request. And if a waiter/waitress does it, they risk their jobs (the merchant wastes a lot of time on these)
-M
See aren't you glad I took that complicated string and enclosed it in XML? Fantastic work! Now all you need to do is fine the encryption string for it to reveal the secret password.
The point is, XML is only useful in complicated schemas to the program that wrote it. Sure you _COULD_ program something to recognize Word's XML, but you're going through recognizing every tag for bold, tables, paragraph marks and so on. That's not really open because it's in XMl. It's open because they publish a clear and easy to use schema for us to implement into other programs.
XML has become the new buzzword but to Microsoft it's nothing more than an ability to stick proprietary data between some XML open/close tags.
-M
Seriously here- 35 years? If they said 5, I'd maybe pay some attention to this article, but 35?
Guess what? 35 years ago it was 1970. Personal computers didn't exist. Your TV became colour in 54, which is only 15 years before. Cars guzzled gas like it was water. It was the 50th aniversary of the latex condom.
A lot will change by 2040. See the article about cars that drive themselves from yesterday. What are the odds we'll sit at a desk tapping away at keys 35 years from now? What are the odds that software won't be bundled with the OS like it is with Linux?
-M
Hrm- Since when are data formats bad? Sure we've come a long way from every product having its own proprietary .dat file specific to its needs, with some programs using XML and the *shudders* registry for its data. Sure we've come a long way to bring in (and then phase out) standard-format .ini files for everything from major settings to the last opened files... But seriously?
.dat files which Windows (for whatever reason) treats as a special folder and doesn't let you copy or move the file itself.
Why should Opera and FireFox store their data in the Microsoft format? What gain is there in the slightest? And why would a criminal actually keep history anyway? Maybe Microsoft should be using the Firefox format rather than it's proprietary
Yes many people are promoting open formats, but maybe that means M$ needs to move... or maybe meet in the middle.
It's a very open easy to read format... Why can't the technical forensic people read these files with a basic arsenol of tools?
-M
This comes at the same time of "Creative MP3 Players Ship With Virus".
To be honest, it's fine if you have a USB key for a radio to bring some MP3s in- make it specific to load MP3s onto the radio...
BUT I _don't_ want the ECU linked to any user-modifyable device. Especially a device that can be put into any computer and have anything done to the data files. What about the ease of reprogramming these devices. Wasn't the whole point of codes on the keys to keep the car even somewhat secure from ease of keymakers and lock-pickers? Imagine just setting codes.
Again No user-modifyable part should be linked to the ECU
You're thinking like a geek. $10 bucks says most people's mothers who use MSN already (like those that use Yahoo, ICQ, AOL, etc) will use the service that pops up and says "Would you like to make a voice call to 'Your son in Italy' for only $10/mo". Probably saying to themselves: "A monkey is asking for my credit card number... That seems fair."
This is the world we live in. We talk about marketing being just FUD, but it's really not. People buy whatever people sell. I've seen funny stuff on infomercials that people obviously buy (a vacuum that sucks up your hair and cuts it with a blade inside the vacuum attachment- this was in the 'cut your hair at home' stage of the late 80's).
People will buy what seems reasonable and what you tell them to buy. Ask any marketing student. 99% of the market is uneducated as to what Skype is. Vonage has only made such headway through significant marketing, which M$ could outdo anyday... and who wouldn't switch to a M$ product that already runs their office, home, and play communications needs?
M$ integrates an ad and the feature into MSN Messenger, and they'll instantly have a LOT of people. No having to download additional software, no setup, no confusing additional software that may or may not hurt your computer... just works.
-M
But not all datacenters are equal for a reason. I've seen maybe 20-30 datacenters in the past few years for various clients and they all have different features, different offerings, and different goals.
I'll list a few of the big differences I've seen in my experiences:
Some want to be in the downtown core, close to many businesses, but charging a premium for the space. Others claim that being in the outskirts of the city provide security in the event of any problems (mainly hyped due to 'terrorist attacks').
Some feel the need for N+2 generators, others more. Some feel that a fallback to city power if their PDUs ever fail is good, and others feel there should be a whole other protected power distribution system (at an extremely high cost for something rarely used).
Some like cooling each rack from the top, others blow it up every other isle and suck air down on the opposite. Some cool the whole room, claiming lots and lots of cooling units around the outside does the trick.
Some like the datacenter two stories underground. Others claim that they're a first target for flooding and other problems stereotypically associated with a basement. Others say that the datacenter on the 10th floor of a tower is inaccessable and subject to other security feats of the building.
Some like dedicated buildings, others like quietly slotting themselves in office towers.
A few I went to were monitored from 3000+km's away, and others had 24/7 onsite staff. Some had technical electronic keys, and others a simple mailbox key. Some had biometrics, others just a key.
One I went to even had outter walls capable of withstanding most missiles. Others had windows with only paper over them for security reasons.
Some let you roam freely by a security personelle and simply log equipment, others weigh you on the way out to make sure that you didn't take anything you didn't show up with without signing it out.
The point is each of these serves a very different purpose. If you are going to have lots of untrusted people working on equipment, it's important to make sure nobody takes anything. Each one has its advantage and disadvantage, and I don't think any one of them is 'right'- it's just trying to find a solution to problems that experience has provided.
Is there a right answer with anything? Who is to say that any answer is right or wrong? They're just different solutions to the problem. If power stays up, systems are secure, systems get cooled, and the network is available, who is to say the solution is wrong?
-M
Bingo. One of my managers said it very well at my former employment: nobody ever got fired for choosing IBM- and he's 100% right. I know a few companies spending millions to have services offered by Dell, IBM, Microsoft, etc who could get their services for thousands from clone computer makers, and Linux- but who would they?
Choose IBM and loose a few million, and you 'missed the market'. Choose open source and loose a few million and 'your solution wasn't up to par'. Choose open source and succeed and you make millions...
Is it worth the risk for the second situation? Most managers who want to leave with a hefty bonus and a good referral woulds say no.
PS: Agree 100% with almost everything he said. Smart man.
-M
Has nobody seen the hilucination in max payne... man that was trippy.
-M
Sounds like the big 2.4 memory management VM change that messed so much stuff up, made at around this point in the 2.4 release cycle (I think .10?).
Why aren't these major changes made when 2.6 is launched rather than changing things that may already be used in people's systems?
Keep some compatibility and have more releases more often that aren't minor. I don't see how VM chnagesin 2.4 and this change in 2.6 are minor and considered acceptable by its users.
-M
The cost of the RFID, in comparison to printing a box which is already done is (relatively) high (yes a penny may not be much but relative to just printing the box anyway, it's a lot). As well, it places the burden on the producer to purchase and attach these RFIDs.
-M
Ummm- no. Go into most big corporations or small businesses (at least in North America) and find that most people 'know' Windows is the biggest, strongest, and best thing they need. They 'know' it works, 'know' it does what they want, 'know' it's compatible with their software, hardware, customers, and supply chain.
Most people don't see Microsoft's marketing as FUD anymore than they see Coke and Pepsi's marketing as FUD.
We are the Slashdot crew who whine about big corp squishing the little guy who just so happens to use Linux. Don't think for a second your views represent management and a large majority of IT people out there. I run into at least three a day who go on about how Windows and dot-NET are the only things they would ever dream of using.
-M
So what I ask- There are millions of private networks out there. Banks and credit agencies own unmeasurable amounts of copper and fibre throughout each and every city you could imagine. Tons of private companies link branch offices all around the globe and datacenters. Country's governments are linking to other governments and other organizations to ensure a reliable transport. The phone company owns tons of fibre and copper. Major Internet providers (MCI, Verison, etc) own large percentages of the global Internet.
Keep in mind, ATMs (1.5-155Mbit) are very common amoungst all organizations. Over longer distances and in larger volumes (or with growth strategies in mind), fibre is popular as well.
Google is buying circuts, possibly to build some sort of network. Okay? So what? This is all speculation. Maybe they want to make a reliable link for their own content and databases? Maybe they're doing content distribution? Maybe they want to set up some more links to certain areas and join the likes of MCI, Verizon, etc at the top of the Internet for options that other ISPs could route through.
Or maybe they are trying to start their own unconnected network... Who knows! But there is NOTHING even remotely unusual about a company buying up private circiuts for its own use. Most big corps have many of them linking offices, dataceters, and various parts of the world.
NEXT
-M
Now Adobe can make a reader in Flash (using new Flash APIs) similar to how Macromedia did Flashpaper... which is surprisingly decent if you don't need to get the data OUT of Flash.
-M
Notice _ALL_ of Micro$oft's studies include switching costs of going from Windows. It includes training time longer than say a Windows upgrade. It includes training time where there wouldn't be for M$ products.
Who doesn't know that? Yes if you want to bring new things into your organization, you're bound to have a switching costs. You have to look long-term and see whether the switching costs get compensated for, which I believe they do- in terms of lesser hardware needed to do the simplest task, fewer admins due to more automation, and lower software costs.
-M
I see it now...
*open Azureus or other BitTorrent client*
*50+ connections very quickly*
*Intel has used hardware to protect you from yourself. Have great day*
-M