Personally, I think that if you neglect to vote, it's endorsement through apathy. Basically, the status quo view of that action is that if there really was a problem, you would get out and do something about it. By staying at home, you are basically saying that you have no real issue with the way the government is run.
To counter your second point, what you suggest will only serve in the long run to concentrate power on a few individuals, who, by their very status as "voters," have a vested interest in preserving the status quo at all costs. While it is entirely possible that some candidate may inspire the disillusioned masses, it seems rather unlikely, given the seemingly large number of areas with poor turnout. Futhermore, since the power has been effictively concentrated in the hands of the status quo, such an attempt would most likely be stopped in its infancy (Howard Dean comes to mind here).
Inevitably, if you want to change the system, you really only have two options, vote or grab a gun and start a revolution. The US constitution allows for both, but clearly, voting is the much more sensible option.
Perhaps a better idea is to vote, but vote against the incumbent, regardless of how "evil" that individual is. There are many positive messages that such an action sends. First it sends the message that that person and their party does not represent you views. Secondly, a strong showing might convince some decent person that they might have a chance in the next election. Plus, it might help convince the parties that real issues matter more than the stupid and divisive emotional ones.
Granted, this solution is far from perfect, but it's a lot less worse than the rest. It might take numerous election cycles for the effects to work, if it works at all, but it seems to me that this approach will lead to a more positive change wiht longer lasting effects without the potentially nasty side-affects of not voting or taking up arms.
I have no idea why people keep modding this up. First off, most of the people who are starving in this world are doing so because they live under an oppressive regime that likes it that way. An army lives and dies on it's stomach, along with the fact that giving land to one's cronies helps keep one in power. This is most definetly the case in the Sudan and Zimbabwe.
It is almost never for the lack of natural resources. Japan has almost none, yet they seem to be eating fine. Thirty years ago, Zimbabwe used to be the bread basket of Africa. Now they starve. Therefore, if you want to help feed the hungry, you have to take out the dictators, and we all know how well that went the last couple times we tried to do that. Plus that costs a whole lot more than 2.6 billion.
On the other hand, very few of the gulf states have even tried to expand their economy beyond oil. Considering how unstable the region is now, imagine what it would be like when the money and world interest runs out. The world will eventually shift away from Mid-East oil, that is inevitable.
Considering that, trying to reinvent U.A.E. as a tourist destination is a brilliant move. First it ensures that there will be some positive world attention given to the country. Secondly, it provides a more robust economy. Both are ultimatly good things that will lead to more jobs, which should help starving people feed themselves:)
The romance of the ocean isn't dead. If anything, it's just starting. In someways it was a little unfair to put these two articles together, since the implication for Alvin was all wrong. It's not being decommissioned, they have just announced plans to replace it.
Woods hole, the makers of Alvin, are buliding a new a sub that can go about 5,000ft deeper, which means that crews can access 99% of the ocean floor as opposed to ~68% they have accessable with Alvin. They are also building a ROV that descend the full length of the Marinara trench. Alvin still works great, but is just too old and cramped, and doesn't compare to the modern research subs operating out of Europe and Japan, which puts American researchers at a disadvantage. In fact, the operators of Alvin have not decided whether or not to decomission it. They might still decide to continue to run it after 2008 in the "shallow" waters that it accesses today in conjunction with the new submarine.
Plus, it's going to be bigger and roomier, one of the researchers compared it to "buying a new cadillac when you have a chevy in the garage."
Sounds like more of a new dawn than the death of oceanography to me. Of course, the Slashdot headline was mis-leading, but that's why we love it;)
I think the US has the one of the highest number of lawyers per capita in the world. Somebody might want to double check this. So theoretically, you would be right.
However, lawyers seem to have this ability to create their own demand. For instance, if I didn't have access to a lawyer, if I were to sue you, you could probably just defend yourself. Number of laywer's needed: 0. However, if I have one, you will need one too, or you run the risk of losing regardless of how your solid your case is. Therefore, number of lawyers needed is 2. More lawyers -> more lawsuits -> more defendents -> more lawyers. See what I mean?
By far, the best solution would be to shoot the losing attorney, he probably wasn't that good anyway. Kinda like what they do when the deer population gets out of hand...;)
I think that there are more English speakers in India than Hindi speakers. The use of Hindi drops dramatically the farther south you go. Some of the local langauges like Gugarati are quite similar, but things like Tamil are completely different. That's why people from different parts of India use English to communicate.
I used to be the same. Up to about 18 months ago, I used enlightenment and eterm for everything. Probably the only graphical programs I used were XMMS, gaim, and Mozilla/Netscape.
Once Gnome-2.something came out, I decided to give it a try. Mostly for the first 6 months or so, the only difference was that I used the panels to launch applications. Then I started using a GTK-based IDE. Eventually I realized that I actually use a lot of the stuff that I get with Gnome. For instance, a graphical file browser is great for sorting out a bunch of files where the name has no relevance to the content and dealing with multimedia files. It's a real pain to sort images from a digital camera without a graphical file browser, for example.
Of course, I still keep my trusty terminal a hotkey away for the really important work. As a side note, I'm more likely to write scripts now than I was before, mostly because the kinds of things I don't use a GUI for are normally a little more complex. Plus, I'd never get rid of the terminal because I can't live without vim and Xvim is just not the same. However, I don't use the terminal anywhere near as much as I used to. I don't really think it's a bad thing.
Just another perspective from someone who used to be like you. ..
I dunno, neither I nor anybody I know ever really have a problem with customer service. AT&T and Voicestream (now T-Mobile) were always very responsive on the phone and were generally a pleasure to deal with. Even when cancelling the contracts.
With my current provider, Verizon, I think the most I've had to wait to talk to someone is like 45 seconds, and I've had nothing but good experiences there either. I'm actually very happy with them.
Maybe it ties into your last point, that some people just can't get around the fact that it's a mobile telephone and won't, under any circumstances, be as reliable as a land-line. I think the people who like their cellphones take it as a given that it will drop when you go to certian places. Those who can't deal with it, hate their cellphones.
Or maybe i'm just lucky and haven't been biten yet.
P.S. I think everybody hates sprint with a passion.
Perhaps the fact that Dropline Gnome has already switched to X.org as well, also played a role. Dropline is a highly optimized gnome desktop for slackware and it seems to be used by a large number of slackware users. I believe that there was another period where the two projects were slightly different in some library, and it caused problems for both.
one debit card used for gas and internet purchases
Gah! Debit cards are the devil! It's the bad part of credit cards with all the insecurities of cash.
Just think about it, when you use a credit card, you aren't spending your own money. Which means that when some internet company or restuarant or whatever double bills you, it's the banks money that got spent. The same goes when someone jacks your number. But on your debit card, that money is gone from your account, and you have much less recourse for getting that money back. Granted things are better now than a few years ago, with provisional credit and all, but it could steal lead to bounced checks and other nasties. With a credit card, pretty much all you have to do is call the issuing company, file a complaint and fax any relevant recpiepts. Much easier, and your bank account doesn't even get touched.
If you really have that hard of a time managing money, just write debit on some masking tape and stick it on your card. Then treat it like one. That way, you are protected from fraud and theft, but safe from finance charges, since you won't spend more than you have.
Did we read the same article? I thought it was all about how much money they lost. Plus a lot of it was on how bad outsourcing was.
They did very little in-house. Instead of creating custom software to handle thier complicated system, they bought "off-the-shelf" software that didn't meet their needs. They hired consultants who were clueless and a CIO who was primarily interested in negociated a good outsourcing contract to his former(!) firm. In the process, they pissed off the people that could have saved the system. The article even went as far as to call the CIO Carrada an "arrogant jerk."
If anything, it was a critique of outsourcing as the golden panacea of big business. Had they relied more on thier interal staff, those that knew the old system and how it worked the best, they might have avoided becoming irrelevant, as well as avoided losing all that money.
It's hard to create complex scores for a large number of musicians without something written down. If you are a composer, you can't count on everyone in the ensemble having the same experience that you do. Your creative style may work in a rock band with 2-4 members, but it's really hard when you have about 8.
Dave Brubeck can. I was at a talk he gave not too long ago when he joked that he was granted his diploma on the condition that he never play music professionally. He has since learned, since when one of my friends asked a question while getting an autograph, he wrote down a bit of a score to illustrate his point.
Yeah, seriously. On one hand, he complains that the only difference between this year's releases and last year's is the graphics quality and bemoans the lack of an increase in gameplay quality.
However, he completely ignores games like Madden, which are constantly improving the accuracy of their simulators. Every year, the players act and move like real players. The opposing team makes better decisions and doesn't run the clock out on itself. Using the increased processing power to have a better AI is exactly what this franchise has done and why it has always been so sucessful. And it's exactly what the author wanted to see in modern games.
I guess pointing this out wouldn't suficiently pander to his target-demographic of doomsday naysayers.
Or they feel a couple of extra bucks a month is worth it not deal with a couple of companies acting like the aforementioned Timmy (age 3-4).
Also seriously, why do you feel bad for anybody going to direcTV. I was seriously considering going that route before since DISH has been dragging it's feet on offering HTDV in my area. Plus, I found their video quality to be a lot better for regular TV's. With DISH I see all sorts of compression artifacts.
Dude, I'm pissed to. I've never posted this much to Slashdot before.
But this is all business, and right now, both sides are trying to waive a massive PR campgain. DISH claims it's fighting for the little guy, Viacom says it's just trying to get it's fair share.
Truth is, it's all a load of bull. All anyone is really trying to do is get every last penny and part of that is getting as many people as possible on your side of the bargaining table.
I wouldn't believe anything that any party says right now. In all actuality, both could be telling the truth. Maybe the contract only calls for an initial increase of $0.06 a year per channel, but with subsequent rate increases, and the addition of channels that Viacom wants to make Dish buy, at the end of the contract it very well could be an additional $16 a year.
I will get out as soon as possible
Yeah, I'm thinking that too. It's not that I don't see where Dish is coming from, it's that I don't like a company that I buy a service from explictly making me a pawn. Whatever is happening between Dish and Viacom is their business, and I could care less. If the prices get too high, I'll just stop buying TV.
The quick scan I did of Google News showed that EchoStar's current contract with Viacom expired December 31, 2003. DISH threatend to pull the service then, but a federal judge stepped in to prevent loss of service during the Superbowl, since Viacom's 16 affiliate CBS stations would also be affected and the superbowl would not be available in those homes.
DISH is using March Madness, which is the annual NCAA tournament (and heavily watch by the ideal demographic of 25-35 y/o males), as a means to pressure Viacom which probably explains the timing of this channel pull.
And how would you have anticipated & resolved this problem if you were the president of Dish?
Dunno, it's not my job. I'm not the president of anything, so really, I don't have to deal with it.
I am, however, a subscriber of Dish network, and am I am paying for a plan that advertises X channels a month. They just took 10 of them away for an insulting $1 a month. That's probably less than what they were paying for those channels in the first place.
It doesn't seem that any side is blameless in this.
Serious question, do your employees hate you? If not, are you sure?
I can tell that by the tone of your post that you run a small business. However, I want to point out that letting your employees do their own thing (on their own time) is in your best intrest.
The most important thing about being a small business is to keep everybody happy. It's really easy to retain employees in a down cycle, like the one we're in now, but what happens when (not if) the market picks up again? There will always be some bigger fish our there that can offer your current employees more "perks," better amenities, and more money. The only card you have to play is making sure that your people don't feel like leaving. Which means they need to feel happy and respected.
Letting people do their own thing out of the office is part of that equation. Of course you shouldn't allow employees to build a competing products using company time and resources, but letting them do their own thing on their own time is just common courtesy. Their happy because you respect them and their time, you're happy because you have employees on staff that are smart enough to do their own thing but still want to work for you. In the end, it's a win-win relationship. Otherwise, those people will jump ship for someone else who will let them do what they want.
If they are abusing your resources, fire them. If they aren't doing their job, fire them. Otherwise, you shouldn't care. You don't own your employees, they own themselves. Trust me, you don't want the ones that think otherwise.
Also, I would like to point out that since you take all the risk, you also take all the profit;)
Take this all with a grain of salt, I not a business owner, but my immediate family currently owns two, we're busy opening a third, and we're thinking about resurrecting our tech firm. So I know alot about how a business, especially the small ones, work.
Too many people have thier heads in their pants to think of the one true geek gift, the all-mighty LEGO set. I can't think of any geeks that don't love them.
Granted, nowardays the selection isn't that great, but for $100 you can get a reasonably complicated one.
And as an added bonus, the gift is somewhat romantic as you can spend some time that day putting it together before engaging in more traditional romantic endevours.
What's the possibilty of having a FreeBSD LiveCD? As far as I can tell, there is no technical restriction, since if I remember correctly, a lot of floppy-based routers use netBSD.
FreeBSD gets lots of praise from it's users, but my only real experience with it is that a couple of my friends tried it (about 3 years ago) and found it impossible to install. However, it seems like an it would be worth a try, but I don't really want to sacrifice my Linux partition. Plus, I'm not all that interested in going through another lengthy install process since I'm pretty happy with Slackware.
Of course, since supporters mostly seem to admire the ports system, there maybe little difference for the end-user between Linux and FreeBSD LiveCD's.
And please, no jokes about a "dead" operating system being distributed on a live CD.
As the IT guy for a small business (as in son of owner), I have to agree that having access to the source is practically useless. Frankly, I don't have the time or desire to fix someone else's software. But more importantly, I don't find the need. From what I've seen, OSS just works. Which isn't to say that it works perfectly, but when it fails, it fails in a predictable way that isn't very annoying.
More importantly, there is a hidden benefit to OSS, and that is most of the products we use (Mozilla, apache, Eclipse, postgreSQL) are completely cross-platform, which means that we can avoid vendor-lock in and actually have some choices in the software we use. As a very small company, this is the only real leverage we have. Plus the money saved on lincenses is pure profit.
So I finally get off my lazy ass, bring out my old P166-MMX, download postgres 7.3.4, compile it (on a 166!), install it, issue my first select statement, check slashdot for a break and find this!
Files are where they're supposed to be, and well commented. And when you've finally fixed what you've wantd, some crazy gui program doesn't wipe your change out.
The installation gets a lot of critism, but it's really not that difficult. It's pretty much as hard/easy as any other distro's, but with less graphical eye candy. Plus you only do installation once to twice a year, so it's not that big of a deal. If you can install debian, you can install slack. (I've never been able to get debian to install)
It also seems to run faster than any other distro. It's running on my P166MMX and it's surprisingly useable.
The bottom line is that slack is a linux distro without the junk. However, you do give up some stuff. There no graphical admin tools and the package managment sucks, but to me, the tradeoffs are worth it.
Yes, but these candidates will (if they win) also pick staff on other more important things, like stuff to deal wiht foriegn policy. If they make intelligent decisions about IT, then hopefully its a sign they make intelligent decisions about other things too.
Slashdot Mirror
Personally, I think that if you neglect to vote, it's endorsement through apathy. Basically, the status quo view of that action is that if there really was a problem, you would get out and do something about it. By staying at home, you are basically saying that you have no real issue with the way the government is run.
To counter your second point, what you suggest will only serve in the long run to concentrate power on a few individuals, who, by their very status as "voters," have a vested interest in preserving the status quo at all costs. While it is entirely possible that some candidate may inspire the disillusioned masses, it seems rather unlikely, given the seemingly large number of areas with poor turnout. Futhermore, since the power has been effictively concentrated in the hands of the status quo, such an attempt would most likely be stopped in its infancy (Howard Dean comes to mind here).
Inevitably, if you want to change the system, you really only have two options, vote or grab a gun and start a revolution. The US constitution allows for both, but clearly, voting is the much more sensible option.
Perhaps a better idea is to vote, but vote against the incumbent, regardless of how "evil" that individual is. There are many positive messages that such an action sends. First it sends the message that that person and their party does not represent you views. Secondly, a strong showing might convince some decent person that they might have a chance in the next election. Plus, it might help convince the parties that real issues matter more than the stupid and divisive emotional ones.
Granted, this solution is far from perfect, but it's a lot less worse than the rest. It might take numerous election cycles for the effects to work, if it works at all, but it seems to me that this approach will lead to a more positive change wiht longer lasting effects without the potentially nasty side-affects of not voting or taking up arms.
I have no idea why people keep modding this up. First off, most of the people who are starving in this world are doing so because they live under an oppressive regime that likes it that way. An army lives and dies on it's stomach, along with the fact that giving land to one's cronies helps keep one in power. This is most definetly the case in the Sudan and Zimbabwe.
It is almost never for the lack of natural resources. Japan has almost none, yet they seem to be eating fine. Thirty years ago, Zimbabwe used to be the bread basket of Africa. Now they starve. Therefore, if you want to help feed the hungry, you have to take out the dictators, and we all know how well that went the last couple times we tried to do that. Plus that costs a whole lot more than 2.6 billion.
On the other hand, very few of the gulf states have even tried to expand their economy beyond oil. Considering how unstable the region is now, imagine what it would be like when the money and world interest runs out. The world will eventually shift away from Mid-East oil, that is inevitable.
Considering that, trying to reinvent U.A.E. as a tourist destination is a brilliant move. First it ensures that there will be some positive world attention given to the country. Secondly, it provides a more robust economy. Both are ultimatly good things that will lead to more jobs, which should help starving people feed themselves :)
The romance of the ocean isn't dead. If anything, it's just starting. In someways it was a little unfair to put these two articles together, since the implication for Alvin was all wrong. It's not being decommissioned, they have just announced plans to replace it.
Woods hole, the makers of Alvin, are buliding a new a sub that can go about 5,000ft deeper, which means that crews can access 99% of the ocean floor as opposed to ~68% they have accessable with Alvin. They are also building a ROV that descend the full length of the Marinara trench. Alvin still works great, but is just too old and cramped, and doesn't compare to the modern research subs operating out of Europe and Japan, which puts American researchers at a disadvantage. In fact, the operators of Alvin have not decided whether or not to decomission it. They might still decide to continue to run it after 2008 in the "shallow" waters that it accesses today in conjunction with the new submarine.
Plus, it's going to be bigger and roomier, one of the researchers compared it to "buying a new cadillac when you have a chevy in the garage."
Sounds like more of a new dawn than the death of oceanography to me. Of course, the Slashdot headline was mis-leading, but that's why we love it ;)
You can find more information here
and here
I think the US has the one of the highest number of lawyers per capita in the world. Somebody might want to double check this. So theoretically, you would be right.
However, lawyers seem to have this ability to create their own demand. For instance, if I didn't have access to a lawyer, if I were to sue you, you could probably just defend yourself. Number of laywer's needed: 0. However, if I have one, you will need one too, or you run the risk of losing regardless of how your solid your case is. Therefore, number of lawyers needed is 2. More lawyers -> more lawsuits -> more defendents -> more lawyers. See what I mean?
By far, the best solution would be to shoot the losing attorney, he probably wasn't that good anyway. Kinda like what they do when the deer population gets out of hand... ;)
I think that there are more English speakers in India than Hindi speakers. The use of Hindi drops dramatically the farther south you go. Some of the local langauges like Gugarati are quite similar, but things like Tamil are completely different. That's why people from different parts of India use English to communicate.
As an Atlantan, I can only hope that Delta is finally getting tired of being known as the short form of "Don't Expect Luggage To Arrive"
I used to be the same. Up to about 18 months ago, I used enlightenment and eterm for everything. Probably the only graphical programs I used were XMMS, gaim, and Mozilla/Netscape.
Once Gnome-2.something came out, I decided to give it a try. Mostly for the first 6 months or so, the only difference was that I used the panels to launch applications. Then I started using a GTK-based IDE. Eventually I realized that I actually use a lot of the stuff that I get with Gnome. For instance, a graphical file browser is great for sorting out a bunch of files where the name has no relevance to the content and dealing with multimedia files. It's a real pain to sort images from a digital camera without a graphical file browser, for example.
Of course, I still keep my trusty terminal a hotkey away for the really important work. As a side note, I'm more likely to write scripts now than I was before, mostly because the kinds of things I don't use a GUI for are normally a little more complex. Plus, I'd never get rid of the terminal because I can't live without vim and Xvim is just not the same. However, I don't use the terminal anywhere near as much as I used to. I don't really think it's a bad thing.
Just another perspective from someone who used to be like you. . .
I dunno, neither I nor anybody I know ever really have a problem with customer service. AT&T and Voicestream (now T-Mobile) were always very responsive on the phone and were generally a pleasure to deal with. Even when cancelling the contracts.
With my current provider, Verizon, I think the most I've had to wait to talk to someone is like 45 seconds, and I've had nothing but good experiences there either. I'm actually very happy with them.
Maybe it ties into your last point, that some people just can't get around the fact that it's a mobile telephone and won't, under any circumstances, be as reliable as a land-line. I think the people who like their cellphones take it as a given that it will drop when you go to certian places. Those who can't deal with it, hate their cellphones.
Or maybe i'm just lucky and haven't been biten yet.
P.S. I think everybody hates sprint with a passion.
Perhaps the fact that Dropline Gnome has already switched to X.org as well, also played a role. Dropline is a highly optimized gnome desktop for slackware and it seems to be used by a large number of slackware users. I believe that there was another period where the two projects were slightly different in some library, and it caused problems for both.
Gah! Debit cards are the devil! It's the bad part of credit cards with all the insecurities of cash.
Just think about it, when you use a credit card, you aren't spending your own money. Which means that when some internet company or restuarant or whatever double bills you, it's the banks money that got spent. The same goes when someone jacks your number. But on your debit card, that money is gone from your account, and you have much less recourse for getting that money back. Granted things are better now than a few years ago, with provisional credit and all, but it could steal lead to bounced checks and other nasties. With a credit card, pretty much all you have to do is call the issuing company, file a complaint and fax any relevant recpiepts. Much easier, and your bank account doesn't even get touched.
If you really have that hard of a time managing money, just write debit on some masking tape and stick it on your card. Then treat it like one. That way, you are protected from fraud and theft, but safe from finance charges, since you won't spend more than you have.
Did we read the same article? I thought it was all about how much money they lost. Plus a lot of it was on how bad outsourcing was.
They did very little in-house. Instead of creating custom software to handle thier complicated system, they bought "off-the-shelf" software that didn't meet their needs. They hired consultants who were clueless and a CIO who was primarily interested in negociated a good outsourcing contract to his former(!) firm. In the process, they pissed off the people that could have saved the system. The article even went as far as to call the CIO Carrada an "arrogant jerk."
If anything, it was a critique of outsourcing as the golden panacea of big business. Had they relied more on thier interal staff, those that knew the old system and how it worked the best, they might have avoided becoming irrelevant, as well as avoided losing all that money.
It's hard to create complex scores for a large number of musicians without something written down. If you are a composer, you can't count on everyone in the ensemble having the same experience that you do. Your creative style may work in a rock band with 2-4 members, but it's really hard when you have about 8.
Dave Brubeck can. I was at a talk he gave not too long ago when he joked that he was granted his diploma on the condition that he never play music professionally. He has since learned, since when one of my friends asked a question while getting an autograph, he wrote down a bit of a score to illustrate his point.
Yeah, seriously. On one hand, he complains that the only difference between this year's releases and last year's is the graphics quality and bemoans the lack of an increase in gameplay quality.
However, he completely ignores games like Madden, which are constantly improving the accuracy of their simulators. Every year, the players act and move like real players. The opposing team makes better decisions and doesn't run the clock out on itself. Using the increased processing power to have a better AI is exactly what this franchise has done and why it has always been so sucessful. And it's exactly what the author wanted to see in modern games.
I guess pointing this out wouldn't suficiently pander to his target-demographic of doomsday naysayers.
Or they feel a couple of extra bucks a month is worth it not deal with a couple of companies acting like the aforementioned Timmy (age 3-4).
Also seriously, why do you feel bad for anybody going to direcTV. I was seriously considering going that route before since DISH has been dragging it's feet on offering HTDV in my area. Plus, I found their video quality to be a lot better for regular TV's. With DISH I see all sorts of compression artifacts.
Dude, I'm pissed to. I've never posted this much to Slashdot before.
But this is all business, and right now, both sides are trying to waive a massive PR campgain. DISH claims it's fighting for the little guy, Viacom says it's just trying to get it's fair share.
Truth is, it's all a load of bull. All anyone is really trying to do is get every last penny and part of that is getting as many people as possible on your side of the bargaining table.
I wouldn't believe anything that any party says right now. In all actuality, both could be telling the truth. Maybe the contract only calls for an initial increase of $0.06 a year per channel, but with subsequent rate increases, and the addition of channels that Viacom wants to make Dish buy, at the end of the contract it very well could be an additional $16 a year.
Yeah, I'm thinking that too. It's not that I don't see where Dish is coming from, it's that I don't like a company that I buy a service from explictly making me a pawn. Whatever is happening between Dish and Viacom is their business, and I could care less. If the prices get too high, I'll just stop buying TV.
The quick scan I did of Google News showed that EchoStar's current contract with Viacom expired December 31, 2003. DISH threatend to pull the service then, but a federal judge stepped in to prevent loss of service during the Superbowl, since Viacom's 16 affiliate CBS stations would also be affected and the superbowl would not be available in those homes.
DISH is using March Madness, which is the annual NCAA tournament (and heavily watch by the ideal demographic of 25-35 y/o males), as a means to pressure Viacom which probably explains the timing of this channel pull.
Dunno, it's not my job. I'm not the president of anything, so really, I don't have to deal with it.
I am, however, a subscriber of Dish network, and am I am paying for a plan that advertises X channels a month. They just took 10 of them away for an insulting $1 a month. That's probably less than what they were paying for those channels in the first place.
It doesn't seem that any side is blameless in this.
Serious question, do your employees hate you? If not, are you sure?
I can tell that by the tone of your post that you run a small business. However, I want to point out that letting your employees do their own thing (on their own time) is in your best intrest.
The most important thing about being a small business is to keep everybody happy. It's really easy to retain employees in a down cycle, like the one we're in now, but what happens when (not if) the market picks up again? There will always be some bigger fish our there that can offer your current employees more "perks," better amenities, and more money. The only card you have to play is making sure that your people don't feel like leaving. Which means they need to feel happy and respected.
Letting people do their own thing out of the office is part of that equation. Of course you shouldn't allow employees to build a competing products using company time and resources, but letting them do their own thing on their own time is just common courtesy. Their happy because you respect them and their time, you're happy because you have employees on staff that are smart enough to do their own thing but still want to work for you. In the end, it's a win-win relationship. Otherwise, those people will jump ship for someone else who will let them do what they want.
If they are abusing your resources, fire them. If they aren't doing their job, fire them. Otherwise, you shouldn't care. You don't own your employees, they own themselves. Trust me, you don't want the ones that think otherwise.
Also, I would like to point out that since you take all the risk, you also take all the profit ;)
Take this all with a grain of salt, I not a business owner, but my immediate family currently owns two, we're busy opening a third, and we're thinking about resurrecting our tech firm. So I know alot about how a business, especially the small ones, work.
Too many people have thier heads in their pants to think of the one true geek gift, the all-mighty LEGO set. I can't think of any geeks that don't love them.
Granted, nowardays the selection isn't that great, but for $100 you can get a reasonably complicated one.
And as an added bonus, the gift is somewhat romantic as you can spend some time that day putting it together before engaging in more traditional romantic endevours.
Since I haven't seen this mentioned yet...
What's the possibilty of having a FreeBSD LiveCD? As far as I can tell, there is no technical restriction, since if I remember correctly, a lot of floppy-based routers use netBSD.
FreeBSD gets lots of praise from it's users, but my only real experience with it is that a couple of my friends tried it (about 3 years ago) and found it impossible to install. However, it seems like an it would be worth a try, but I don't really want to sacrifice my Linux partition. Plus, I'm not all that interested in going through another lengthy install process since I'm pretty happy with Slackware.
Of course, since supporters mostly seem to admire the ports system, there maybe little difference for the end-user between Linux and FreeBSD LiveCD's.
And please, no jokes about a "dead" operating system being distributed on a live CD.
As the IT guy for a small business (as in son of owner), I have to agree that having access to the source is practically useless. Frankly, I don't have the time or desire to fix someone else's software. But more importantly, I don't find the need. From what I've seen, OSS just works. Which isn't to say that it works perfectly, but when it fails, it fails in a predictable way that isn't very annoying.
More importantly, there is a hidden benefit to OSS, and that is most of the products we use (Mozilla, apache, Eclipse, postgreSQL) are completely cross-platform, which means that we can avoid vendor-lock in and actually have some choices in the software we use. As a very small company, this is the only real leverage we have. Plus the money saved on lincenses is pure profit.
So I finally get off my lazy ass, bring out my old P166-MMX, download postgres 7.3.4, compile it (on a 166!), install it, issue my first select statement, check slashdot for a break and find this!
Grrr, maybe it's time to buy a faster DB server.
Files are where they're supposed to be, and well commented. And when you've finally fixed what you've wantd, some crazy gui program doesn't wipe your change out.
The installation gets a lot of critism, but it's really not that difficult. It's pretty much as hard/easy as any other distro's, but with less graphical eye candy. Plus you only do installation once to twice a year, so it's not that big of a deal. If you can install debian, you can install slack. (I've never been able to get debian to install)
It also seems to run faster than any other distro. It's running on my P166MMX and it's surprisingly useable.
The bottom line is that slack is a linux distro without the junk. However, you do give up some stuff. There no graphical admin tools and the package managment sucks, but to me, the tradeoffs are worth it.
Yes, but these candidates will (if they win) also pick staff on other more important things, like stuff to deal wiht foriegn policy. If they make intelligent decisions about IT, then hopefully its a sign they make intelligent decisions about other things too.