Yes, thank you. I would mod you up but I have already replied to this thread. There is a difference in willingness to pay between a lawnmower purchaser and a laptop purchaser.
Price Fixing is not at issue here. Price fixing is only when multiple manufacturers decide to raise a price simultaneously, which is illegal because it is bad for competition and the end consumer. Price fixing only works with commodities that are highly fungible http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fungible i.e. gasoline or LCD tvs. With laptop batteries, price fixing isn't necessary because you can't buy a Toshiba battery if you need one for a Dell. Laptop batteries aren't fungible.
Prices aren't based on cost. No prices from major corporations are based on cost. They're based on Willingness to Pay: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willingness_to_pay . This is a very basic economics/business concept.
I still don't understand why data isn't data. If I pay for data transfer on their net why does it matter if that comes from a laptop connected to the phone (an extra charge) or from an app running on the phone itself? Are the bits fatter?
No, but if you are tethering you are, on average, using a lot more of them than if you are just doing data tasks on the handset itself. "Unlimited Data" is a good thing, but in practice, the network administrators have to determine what the AVERAGE data use is per customer. Tethered customers, on average, use a lot more data.
Eh, being a Microsoft Certified Partner means next to nothing. Almost all the development firms I have worked for (from five employees to tens of thousands) are certified partners, it just means you get a discount on MSDN purchases and a nice little glass trophy. It doesn't mean Microsoft is controlling you. (They may be controlling Cenzic, but you can't say that just because they are a certified partner).
The point is, LIDAR is reliable, at least as much as RADAR is. This is just a legal snafu, they will throw out enough that there will be incredible pressure to figure out the legal problems, they will figure them out, and then LIDAR tickets will be enforced again. Never underestimate the power of a determined vendor that has been harmed or the importance of sunk costs in equipment for an agency with very limited funding. Nothing to see here, folks. Move along, please.
I agree with the parent. I mean, come on. AT&T has one of the largest data backbones in the WORLD. Their command & control center is cooler than Nasa's. They have three hundred thousand employees and do 120 BILLION in revenue yearly. This is BS stuff for a purely PR standpoint. They know exactly what data people want and exactly what their capacity is, trust me. They probably have a couple hundred employees whose full-time job is to manage bandwidth across their worldwide network. They also have very good PR people that know how to spin a story to appease the masses, and this guy is paid very well and does a very good job convincing 98% of subscribers that AT&T is doing their best, when their goal is not to do their best- it is to do the job good enough to maximize profits, which is a very different goal, but one they do very well.
No, that is not correct. These searches still need to have a warrant issued by a judge. The difference is that they don't need to show the warrant to you, they only need to show it to your ISP. This is a subtle difference but is very important. These searches are already possible with "Silent Warrants", i.e. for telephone wiretaps, where they do not need to tell you ahead of time. So there really isn't that much of a change of what is possible, just a clarification.
Ok, I admit watching Iron Man gives you some false impressions. But I am also well acquainted with folks who work every day on the tech side of the defense industry. To take modern weapons systems and try to even think of equating them with your little toy rocket is ignorant at best, and flamebait at worst. That's like saying it's easy to put a man on the moon because you have a scuba diving suit, and a spacesuit is the same thing with a fishtank over your head. Or a CS undergrad saying they can write an OS from scratch because they have played around with assembly a bit. What you think is exactly what many warlords think, and build their own little toy rockets that they have to point at an enemy, until they are wiped out by some of our niftier stuff without even seeing it coming. Give some respect where it is due, please./end rant/
Wait a minute, how do you "debunk" a myth or religious belief? The only way to "debunk" it is to wait until Dec 13th and then say, "See, the world didn't end afterall." Even that approach can run into problems with myths and religious beliefs "No, it DID happen, but it was a SPIRITUAL end to the world" etc. etc.
This approach is the same as a religious leader "Proving" a scientific theorem based on revelation. These are different structures for argument, folks, and they can't be interchanged that way.
My question is, why? I can understand stealing credit card information due to the financial side of things. Why would he pull a stunt like this? So he can get an extended prison sentence, and have no hope of being let out on parole? When you're in prison, do you want to piss off the prison staff? Do you know what happens when you do that? Idiot.
Re:"See anything seriously wrong with this story?"
on
Banking Via Twitter?
·
· Score: 1
I don't need Twitter for that -- I just call the bank and talk to a human.
You obviously don't do much banking. Or handle business accounts. Or do much company-reimbursed travel or entertainment. Or handle one of a hundred other things for which calling the bank every hour is not reasonable.
Now we see why the banking industry is so screwed; it's run by morons.
No, it's run by people that realize they make the most money off of people that do lots of banking, handle business accounts, do company-reimbursed travel, and other things for which contacting the bank IN PERSON every hour or so is not reasonable.
People that "call the bank", on the phone, are considered loss leaders for the bank, at least for most serious banks.
Yeah, I agree. Most banks already offer this over unencrypted email (including the big guys like American Express Business Accounts). It's just giving you your balance and some other information and allowing you to transfer within multiple accounts that you own. It isn't letting you perform a true wire transfer out of your account.
Relax, everybody.
Good marketing team
on
Robotic Mold
·
· Score: 2, Funny
"...number crunching power of super computers... It will be a fully controllable and programmable amorphous intelligent robot with an embedded massively parallel computer."
I don't think that means what you think it means...
These are long-term business forecasts for 10+ years down the line. They are thought experiments only, in my opinion. They are still valuable, and something to consider, but still very much a "projection" and not a "concrete plan with funding".
I agree with the parent. We shouldn't try to address the problem by creative judicial decisions. We need to work to get clear, easy to interpret laws passed that allow these things. As long as we continue to try to get the judicial to interpret laws the way we want them to, we're not going to make any headway.
This article contains a lot of FUD. If you're banking or anything important money-wise you're probably using SSL with a signed certificate, even if you're a Joe Sixpack. If I'm doing anything work related I'm on a VPN. You should never, ever, trust that your connection through the "internets" is secure anyway. Wireless access doesn't change anything about that.
This article is just trying to gain attention by using fear.
Really? You are allowing an infected machine to remain on the network with only a free firewall protecting the rest of your corporate network? Pulling a stunt like that would probably get me fired. It's not a matter of how technically sound the solution seems to be - it's a very high ongoing risk factor to the stability of the rest of the network.
Slashdot Mirror
You don't have kids, do you?
Cool.
Yes, thank you. I would mod you up but I have already replied to this thread. There is a difference in willingness to pay between a lawnmower purchaser and a laptop purchaser.
Price Fixing is not at issue here. Price fixing is only when multiple manufacturers decide to raise a price simultaneously, which is illegal because it is bad for competition and the end consumer. Price fixing only works with commodities that are highly fungible http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fungible i.e. gasoline or LCD tvs. With laptop batteries, price fixing isn't necessary because you can't buy a Toshiba battery if you need one for a Dell. Laptop batteries aren't fungible.
Come on, folks. We all need to learn some basic business concepts. This question, in a different form, comes up every few days. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willingness_to_pay http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demand_curve
Prices aren't based on cost. No prices from major corporations are based on cost. They're based on Willingness to Pay: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willingness_to_pay . This is a very basic economics/business concept.
Doesn't that still seem like quite a long time? Four months? I guess that includes the "Planning Cycle", whatever that means.
Let me know how it works out for you-
I still don't understand why data isn't data. If I pay for data transfer on their net why does it matter if that comes from a laptop connected to the phone (an extra charge) or from an app running on the phone itself? Are the bits fatter?
No, but if you are tethering you are, on average, using a lot more of them than if you are just doing data tasks on the handset itself. "Unlimited Data" is a good thing, but in practice, the network administrators have to determine what the AVERAGE data use is per customer. Tethered customers, on average, use a lot more data.
That's really nifty, and I'm sure it works ok and everything, but... how much does it cost?
Eh, being a Microsoft Certified Partner means next to nothing. Almost all the development firms I have worked for (from five employees to tens of thousands) are certified partners, it just means you get a discount on MSDN purchases and a nice little glass trophy. It doesn't mean Microsoft is controlling you. (They may be controlling Cenzic, but you can't say that just because they are a certified partner).
The point is, LIDAR is reliable, at least as much as RADAR is. This is just a legal snafu, they will throw out enough that there will be incredible pressure to figure out the legal problems, they will figure them out, and then LIDAR tickets will be enforced again. Never underestimate the power of a determined vendor that has been harmed or the importance of sunk costs in equipment for an agency with very limited funding. Nothing to see here, folks. Move along, please.
I agree with the parent. I mean, come on. AT&T has one of the largest data backbones in the WORLD. Their command & control center is cooler than Nasa's. They have three hundred thousand employees and do 120 BILLION in revenue yearly. This is BS stuff for a purely PR standpoint. They know exactly what data people want and exactly what their capacity is, trust me. They probably have a couple hundred employees whose full-time job is to manage bandwidth across their worldwide network. They also have very good PR people that know how to spin a story to appease the masses, and this guy is paid very well and does a very good job convincing 98% of subscribers that AT&T is doing their best, when their goal is not to do their best- it is to do the job good enough to maximize profits, which is a very different goal, but one they do very well.
No, that is not correct. These searches still need to have a warrant issued by a judge. The difference is that they don't need to show the warrant to you, they only need to show it to your ISP. This is a subtle difference but is very important. These searches are already possible with "Silent Warrants", i.e. for telephone wiretaps, where they do not need to tell you ahead of time. So there really isn't that much of a change of what is possible, just a clarification.
Ok, I admit watching Iron Man gives you some false impressions. But I am also well acquainted with folks who work every day on the tech side of the defense industry. To take modern weapons systems and try to even think of equating them with your little toy rocket is ignorant at best, and flamebait at worst. That's like saying it's easy to put a man on the moon because you have a scuba diving suit, and a spacesuit is the same thing with a fishtank over your head. Or a CS undergrad saying they can write an OS from scratch because they have played around with assembly a bit. What you think is exactly what many warlords think, and build their own little toy rockets that they have to point at an enemy, until they are wiped out by some of our niftier stuff without even seeing it coming. Give some respect where it is due, please. /end rant/
Wait a minute, how do you "debunk" a myth or religious belief? The only way to "debunk" it is to wait until Dec 13th and then say, "See, the world didn't end afterall." Even that approach can run into problems with myths and religious beliefs "No, it DID happen, but it was a SPIRITUAL end to the world" etc. etc. This approach is the same as a religious leader "Proving" a scientific theorem based on revelation. These are different structures for argument, folks, and they can't be interchanged that way.
has been transferred to another department - the Pit of Despair.
My question is, why? I can understand stealing credit card information due to the financial side of things. Why would he pull a stunt like this? So he can get an extended prison sentence, and have no hope of being let out on parole? When you're in prison, do you want to piss off the prison staff? Do you know what happens when you do that? Idiot.
I don't need Twitter for that -- I just call the bank and talk to a human.
You obviously don't do much banking. Or handle business accounts. Or do much company-reimbursed travel or entertainment. Or handle one of a hundred other things for which calling the bank every hour is not reasonable.
Now we see why the banking industry is so screwed; it's run by morons.
No, it's run by people that realize they make the most money off of people that do lots of banking, handle business accounts, do company-reimbursed travel, and other things for which contacting the bank IN PERSON every hour or so is not reasonable. People that "call the bank", on the phone, are considered loss leaders for the bank, at least for most serious banks.
Yeah, I agree. Most banks already offer this over unencrypted email (including the big guys like American Express Business Accounts). It's just giving you your balance and some other information and allowing you to transfer within multiple accounts that you own. It isn't letting you perform a true wire transfer out of your account. Relax, everybody.
"...number crunching power of super computers... It will be a fully controllable and programmable amorphous intelligent robot with an embedded massively parallel computer." I don't think that means what you think it means...
These are long-term business forecasts for 10+ years down the line. They are thought experiments only, in my opinion. They are still valuable, and something to consider, but still very much a "projection" and not a "concrete plan with funding".
I agree with the parent. We shouldn't try to address the problem by creative judicial decisions. We need to work to get clear, easy to interpret laws passed that allow these things. As long as we continue to try to get the judicial to interpret laws the way we want them to, we're not going to make any headway.
This article contains a lot of FUD. If you're banking or anything important money-wise you're probably using SSL with a signed certificate, even if you're a Joe Sixpack. If I'm doing anything work related I'm on a VPN. You should never, ever, trust that your connection through the "internets" is secure anyway. Wireless access doesn't change anything about that. This article is just trying to gain attention by using fear.
Really? You are allowing an infected machine to remain on the network with only a free firewall protecting the rest of your corporate network? Pulling a stunt like that would probably get me fired. It's not a matter of how technically sound the solution seems to be - it's a very high ongoing risk factor to the stability of the rest of the network.