employee bonuses, or other incentives for saving money, may go a long way toward quieting the inevitable bitching when change is made.
That sounds good in theory but I fail to see how it is applicable to this issue. Since I am the one saving money by making the suggestion and (eventually) implementing it, shouldn't I get the bonus? I don't see that helping matters any for most of campus!
IT is centralized here so individual users are mostly dependant on us. If we followed the letter of our policies and procedures, a move away from inkjets would mean IT would confiscate all inkjets and connect users to the nearest color laser printer. Do we give stop-yer-bitchin' bonuses to those who were lucky enough to have an inkjet in the first place? I just don't see how such incentives match this situation.
Further, given the budgetary situation of our university, it is highly likely that there will be no raises again this year, making any across the board "bonuses" almost completely out of the question.
If your office is using inkjets, and you have more than 2 employees, then your IT or management are being extremely stupid.
I am the IT Director for a small private university and I hate inkjets because of the enormous cost. However, I've been unable to get management's support to eliminate them because they don't want to deal with the convenience arguments from faculty and staff (mostly faculty). The employees have gotten used to having a printer on their desk and there is no way to replace inkjets with color laser on a one-to-one basis. I did the calculations last year and we would more than cover our investiment in the first year if we dropped inkjets for workgroup color lasers.
Laser printing is the absolute cheapest with the Xerox color laser printers being the cheapest per page with their solid toner printers.
Actually, we found that Kyocera offered the best price/performance numbers. We started out wanting the Xerox Phasers and hating the local Kyocera salesguy (he's just a pain in the ass) but in the end decided on Kyocera. Unfortunately, I could not get Cabinet support for the plan so no laser printers were purchased.
I did save over $10,000 in ink this year by simply not buying a single new inkjet all year. Any that died were replaced by connecting the user to an existing laser printer. There is more than one way to skin a cat:)
Requiring all phone companies in the state of Utah to listen into/filter everybody's telephone call to make sure someone doesn't speak an "obscene" word?
Actually, that's a horrible analogy. If you want to stick with the telephone example, it would be closer to say that telephone companies are required to provide the option to block 900 numbers (which most do). Of course, this analogy isn't perfect either, unless all porn could be defined and shoved into the.xxx TLD.
So, this particular case could have failed for any number of reasons. It probably does not involve any spectacular question of law -- the lower courts are well-equipped to decide the issue.
I don't disagree with the gist of your post, but the fact that this case was a test of the limits of the DMCA means that the SCOTUS likely would have gotten involved had they disagreed with the Appeals Court.
So it is not so much a stinging defeat for this company, as it is a final forclosure of legal options in a matter that was already practically resolved.
Which is how it was presented. The fact that the SCOTUS refused to accept the case means that the previous court ruling against Lexmark will stand as a rare victory for those who oppose the overreach of the DMCA.
As the submitter, I'm curious where you see conflict. I'm not above making mistakes, and I've certainly had the editors mangle my submissions, but I don't see anything wrong with this one.
If you knew the law well, you'd know about the Tesco v Levi case, where Levi pulled exactly the same crap to stop us from buying 501s at real-world prices and won.
Actually, it was only a partial victory, as the court ruled that Tesco can continue importing from other EU countries without Levi's permission. Levi was able to stop imports from the US, something Tesco had stopped doing in 1998 anyway. However, I do agree that it appears this could be used to stop large-quantity PSP imports from non-EU countries.
Do you think Intel will give Apple first shot at the hot new chips? Or Dell? When there are supply problems, is Intel going to be more worried about annoying Dell or Apple?
Given the ego that is Steve, do you really think he would have gone to Intel without some real promises of Intel butt kissing? It would seem logical that Intel would not want to piss off Dell just to make Apple happy, but Dell has been flirting with AMD for years. What if Intel already knows Dell is finally going to leave the Intel-only world and so doesn't care to give Apple first dibs?
Really? Last I checked, AMD was running circles around Intel in the 64-bit arena.
I would say he's more interested in the smaller, cooler chips that could end up in stuff like laptops and Minis. Intel clearly has the lead in this direction.
Does Steve know something I don't know
I'll guarantee you that Steve knows plenty more than you about Intel's future, and this isn't a knock at you.
BTW, nice sig. O Brother is one of my all time favorites.
After an unexplained profile implosion on Windows 2000 several years ago, I stopped putting anything important in the default location (a broken profile rendered the directory structure under "c:\documents and settings\\" inaccessible). I now create a folder right off the root and put a shortcut to it on my desktop in the "My Documents" folder.
Personalized Menus are a support nightmare, but lets not stop there. If you want to talk about an even worse default setting that has caused unbelievable trouble, what about hiding file extensions? This option was largely responsible for the success of email viruses that came as attachments named "big_boobs.jpg.exe". Despite little value to this setting and massive downside, Microsoft refused to change it for years.
The only justifications for using ad-block that I found where [sic] stupid and childish "they started it first" type of excuses.
How about, I want to see the actual content instead of advertisements that obliterate the page layout and slow down my browsing.
The cold hard facts are that if everyone will block commercials for free content, there will be no free content.
And the reality is that everyone never will block commercials. Furthermore, I pay for my cable television yet still get as many ads as the broadcast television that's free.
I don't object to blocking intrusive ads, but ad-block means total annihilation of all kinds of advertisements.
I guess you've never used Adblock or cared to learn anything about it. Upon installation, nothing is blocked. You can enter your own rulesets or right-click on objects and choose to block that particular item. I currently block content from approximately 20 domains and have a much nicer browsing experience. As I've said elsewhere in this thread, I make no attempt to block text ads or small unobtrusive ones. It's only the big, in-your-face, blinking, flashing, bouncing around the screen type ads that I'm after.
And someone, believe it or not, has to pay for that content that you consume.
I realize that someone must create/assemble the content and provide the bandwidth for me to view it. It is the problem of the content provider to balance cost with return. If the content isn't easily accessible, I'll find it elsewhere or do without.
Using ad block is like spitting back at the hand that feed you.
So is going to the bathroom during a television commercial, or changing the radio station during an advertisement, or throwing away the insert cards in your magazine, or blah blah blah. Supplementing revenue with advertising is a business decision predicated upon enough patrons finding the ads useful and acting upon them. Your side lost this argument last month. Let it go.
I've been using Evolution on Ubuntu at work recently and I really do like it. However, I've found a few problems.
It seems to work fine as long as I'm continually using it, but if I leave it alone for a while (say, at night) Evolution seems to forget what to do. It stops keeping my folders up-to-date and I have to switch to a different folder then back to my Inbox to get an accurate view.
I have not figured out how to access my public folders. I can see them but I can't do anything with them.
I don't understand why they didn't implement the "check names" button. It is in OWA and Entourage, so it shouldn't be complicated to add.
For the record, I didn't even realize that the author of the NewsForge article is also an editor here. I read NewsForge regularly and I really liked this piece.
Not nicer for everybody... hopefully this will change soon, but currently ads give me 100% of my income (they're on a site with tones of free and original information... don't I deserve to get something out of it?). Ad blocking is not a very neat idea.
This argument has been made a million times on/. and no one ever wins:) For me, it is as simple as a few things. 1) I don't click on ads unless by accident. 2) If your ads are small and benign, I don't block them anyway. 3) If your revenue depends on something that a significant portion of your clientele go out of their way to avoid, perhaps you need to re-evaluate your business model. Thousands upon thousands of others have done the same already.
Remember Microsoft products are used by tons of other companies, many of which happen to have or sell ad space -- if IE added adblock, I imagine it would create quite a stir.
They don't have to add Adblock - they only need a programming interface like Firefox's extensions so that Adblock can be ported to it.
Slashdot Mirror
That sounds good in theory but I fail to see how it is applicable to this issue. Since I am the one saving money by making the suggestion and (eventually) implementing it, shouldn't I get the bonus? I don't see that helping matters any for most of campus!
IT is centralized here so individual users are mostly dependant on us. If we followed the letter of our policies and procedures, a move away from inkjets would mean IT would confiscate all inkjets and connect users to the nearest color laser printer. Do we give stop-yer-bitchin' bonuses to those who were lucky enough to have an inkjet in the first place? I just don't see how such incentives match this situation.
Further, given the budgetary situation of our university, it is highly likely that there will be no raises again this year, making any across the board "bonuses" almost completely out of the question.
I am the IT Director for a small private university and I hate inkjets because of the enormous cost. However, I've been unable to get management's support to eliminate them because they don't want to deal with the convenience arguments from faculty and staff (mostly faculty). The employees have gotten used to having a printer on their desk and there is no way to replace inkjets with color laser on a one-to-one basis. I did the calculations last year and we would more than cover our investiment in the first year if we dropped inkjets for workgroup color lasers.
Laser printing is the absolute cheapest with the Xerox color laser printers being the cheapest per page with their solid toner printers.
Actually, we found that Kyocera offered the best price/performance numbers. We started out wanting the Xerox Phasers and hating the local Kyocera salesguy (he's just a pain in the ass) but in the end decided on Kyocera. Unfortunately, I could not get Cabinet support for the plan so no laser printers were purchased.
I did save over $10,000 in ink this year by simply not buying a single new inkjet all year. Any that died were replaced by connecting the user to an existing laser printer. There is more than one way to skin a cat :)
RTFA, or at least the other posts.
Actually, that's a horrible analogy. If you want to stick with the telephone example, it would be closer to say that telephone companies are required to provide the option to block 900 numbers (which most do). Of course, this analogy isn't perfect either, unless all porn could be defined and shoved into the .xxx TLD.
+1 Funny
Ah shucks! A big ugly troll and me with no mod points...
Clearly you've never worked with a linux admin :)
I don't disagree with the gist of your post, but the fact that this case was a test of the limits of the DMCA means that the SCOTUS likely would have gotten involved had they disagreed with the Appeals Court.
So it is not so much a stinging defeat for this company, as it is a final forclosure of legal options in a matter that was already practically resolved.
Which is how it was presented. The fact that the SCOTUS refused to accept the case means that the previous court ruling against Lexmark will stand as a rare victory for those who oppose the overreach of the DMCA.
This is not legal in the US, thanks to the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.
As the submitter, I'm curious where you see conflict. I'm not above making mistakes, and I've certainly had the editors mangle my submissions, but I don't see anything wrong with this one.
Actually, it was only a partial victory, as the court ruled that Tesco can continue importing from other EU countries without Levi's permission. Levi was able to stop imports from the US, something Tesco had stopped doing in 1998 anyway. However, I do agree that it appears this could be used to stop large-quantity PSP imports from non-EU countries.
Given the ego that is Steve, do you really think he would have gone to Intel without some real promises of Intel butt kissing? It would seem logical that Intel would not want to piss off Dell just to make Apple happy, but Dell has been flirting with AMD for years. What if Intel already knows Dell is finally going to leave the Intel-only world and so doesn't care to give Apple first dibs?
I would say he's more interested in the smaller, cooler chips that could end up in stuff like laptops and Minis. Intel clearly has the lead in this direction.
Does Steve know something I don't know
I'll guarantee you that Steve knows plenty more than you about Intel's future, and this isn't a knock at you.
BTW, nice sig. O Brother is one of my all time favorites.
Apple supposedly licensed software from Transitive that would let them run existing binaries on x86.
So Apple has its own TLD? Where was /. on that one?
After an unexplained profile implosion on Windows 2000 several years ago, I stopped putting anything important in the default location (a broken profile rendered the directory structure under "c:\documents and settings\\" inaccessible). I now create a folder right off the root and put a shortcut to it on my desktop in the "My Documents" folder.
And 46 metric tons of malware.
Why are there already hundreds of useful Firefox extensions and no known malware, almost the inverse of IE's toolbar situation?
Personalized Menus are a support nightmare, but lets not stop there. If you want to talk about an even worse default setting that has caused unbelievable trouble, what about hiding file extensions? This option was largely responsible for the success of email viruses that came as attachments named "big_boobs.jpg.exe". Despite little value to this setting and massive downside, Microsoft refused to change it for years.
How about, I want to see the actual content instead of advertisements that obliterate the page layout and slow down my browsing.
The cold hard facts are that if everyone will block commercials for free content, there will be no free content.
And the reality is that everyone never will block commercials. Furthermore, I pay for my cable television yet still get as many ads as the broadcast television that's free.
I don't object to blocking intrusive ads, but ad-block means total annihilation of all kinds of advertisements.
I guess you've never used Adblock or cared to learn anything about it. Upon installation, nothing is blocked. You can enter your own rulesets or right-click on objects and choose to block that particular item. I currently block content from approximately 20 domains and have a much nicer browsing experience. As I've said elsewhere in this thread, I make no attempt to block text ads or small unobtrusive ones. It's only the big, in-your-face, blinking, flashing, bouncing around the screen type ads that I'm after.
And someone, believe it or not, has to pay for that content that you consume.
I realize that someone must create/assemble the content and provide the bandwidth for me to view it. It is the problem of the content provider to balance cost with return. If the content isn't easily accessible, I'll find it elsewhere or do without.
So is going to the bathroom during a television commercial, or changing the radio station during an advertisement, or throwing away the insert cards in your magazine, or blah blah blah. Supplementing revenue with advertising is a business decision predicated upon enough patrons finding the ads useful and acting upon them. Your side lost this argument last month. Let it go.
It seems to work fine as long as I'm continually using it, but if I leave it alone for a while (say, at night) Evolution seems to forget what to do. It stops keeping my folders up-to-date and I have to switch to a different folder then back to my Inbox to get an accurate view.
I have not figured out how to access my public folders. I can see them but I can't do anything with them.
I don't understand why they didn't implement the "check names" button. It is in OWA and Entourage, so it shouldn't be complicated to add.
My bad, on both accounts. Thanks for the correction.
For the record, I didn't even realize that the author of the NewsForge article is also an editor here. I read NewsForge regularly and I really liked this piece.
This argument has been made a million times on /. and no one ever wins :) For me, it is as simple as a few things. 1) I don't click on ads unless by accident. 2) If your ads are small and benign, I don't block them anyway. 3) If your revenue depends on something that a significant portion of your clientele go out of their way to avoid, perhaps you need to re-evaluate your business model. Thousands upon thousands of others have done the same already.
They don't have to add Adblock - they only need a programming interface like Firefox's extensions so that Adblock can be ported to it.