I serviced HP servers for years and always thought them to be pretty good. I especially think that the proliant servers provide a lot of bang for the buck. But sometimes I think that their image suffers from association with some of their less than stellar workstation offerings.
Does anyone out there think that this will work? Personally, I think that the only thing that has kept AOL from folding is the sheer size of their original user base. But they are dropping off like flies due to broadband.
I would be very surprised if they could pull this off.
The example in the "nutshell
example" seems like a good enough idea, but I'm curious, what's to ensure that the results stay good as the connections increase? In this example, it very quickly gets to a
friend-of-a-friend-of-a-friend status. It seems that for each hop you take
away from the most trusted people in your social network, good advice gets
exponentially harder to find.
For example, if you asked your brother--who just had his
bathroom redone--for a recommendation on a good plumber, you might expect some
good advice. But how much credence are you going to give the advice of
your brother's co-worker's nephew's best friend?
I love IBM ThinkPads. If cost were no object, a ThinkPad would be my first choice for a notebook. Now having said that, I just can't find that much use for these Tablet PCs. My handwriting is atrocious, so I'd rather type. If I need to draw a picture or diagram I'll use a piece of paper and scan it in later.
I use Linux and there's some fairly major distros that I don't know that much about. The article seems fairly free from hype and bias. That's the kind of thing I really appreciate.
As the complexity and number of features that are added to information systems increase, the opportunities for compromises grows--probably exponentially. We will see a real change in the security policies only after one of the companies has an enormous financial loss.
I know that it's due to the iPod, but lately I've been fielding a lot of questions from customers (even business customers) and other non-tech folks about Macs. Most are considering, for the first time, buying one. It's kind of a hunch but I think that they're moving beyond their usual market demographics.
I don't have one, but it will probably be the next computer I buy.
This isn't so surprising to me. Many of my customers are willing ot pay us to fix computers that are under warranty just so that they won't have to deal with tech support.
You almost wonder if the major manufacturers want to make sure that it isn't too easy or people will access the services too often.
My phone company has a service that allows you to have three different phone numbers ring when someone calls. Whoever picks up the phone first has the call. I could seriously use this at work, but, of course, they won't offer it to businesses since they think (perhaps rightfully so) that the business could get by with fewer lines. I think that these Ericsson and BT phones would be useful.
The inherent DIY-ness of the 'Makers of MAKE' reminds me of my in-laws. With them (in-laws), they have a genetic predisposition which makes them have to do every task themselves, no matter how ridiculously hard and non-cost-efficient.
When he sliced open his leg, my brother-in-law was totally incensed because Walgreen's didn't sell a home suture kit (you think that I'm kidding, but I'm not). I was really scared when my wife decided that she need Lasik eye surgery and began looking at lasers on ebay and googling 'home eye surgery how to.'
That's the problem with books like this. The tech world moves way faster than the time it takes to write, edit and publish a book. Now that I don't have somebody else to pay for my books, I find it much harder to justify the expense.
When you pay these clowns, all you're doing is proving to their apprentices that they've chosen the right career. It's exactly like giving terrorists or kidnappers what they want, and with exactly the same results.
I certainly understand your point, and fortunately that's a decision I've never had to make. I just wonder, as in the case of this gambling site, if it's worth it to lose everything just to stand on principle. I don't disagree with you or your point, so I guess it's just a rhetorical question.
But, come to think about it, acting ethically does puts you at a competitive disadvantage a lot of the time.
I just wonder how aften these strikeback or countermeasures backfire. I remember reading a story awhile back where a gambling site repulsed a DDos attack. The really interesting thing was that it cost the company way more to fight the attack than it would have cost to pay off the extortionist.
While I understand the desire to stick it to these creeps, from a purely cost/benefit analysis point-of-view, it doesn't seem to me to make a lot of sense
Slashdot Mirror
Is it just me or does this sound like it would be a really cool job--especially if you like sleuthing.
I serviced HP servers for years and always thought them to be pretty good. I especially think that the proliant servers provide a lot of bang for the buck. But sometimes I think that their image suffers from association with some of their less than stellar workstation offerings.
Does anyone out there think that this will work? Personally, I think that the only thing that has kept AOL from folding is the sheer size of their original user base. But they are dropping off like flies due to broadband.
I would be very surprised if they could pull this off.
The example in the "nutshell example" seems like a good enough idea, but I'm curious, what's to ensure that the results stay good as the connections increase? In this example, it very quickly gets to a friend-of-a-friend-of-a-friend status. It seems that for each hop you take away from the most trusted people in your social network, good advice gets exponentially harder to find.
For example, if you asked your brother--who just had his bathroom redone--for a recommendation on a good plumber, you might expect some good advice. But how much credence are you going to give the advice of your brother's co-worker's nephew's best friend?
how often this happens and the companies that rip off the OSS cover their tracks better.
Maybe I'll have to give it another try. The last time I used handwriting recognition was with my Pocket PC 2002, which didn't hardly work at all.
I love IBM ThinkPads. If cost were no object, a ThinkPad would be my first choice for a notebook. Now having said that, I just can't find that much use for these Tablet PCs. My handwriting is atrocious, so I'd rather type. If I need to draw a picture or diagram I'll use a piece of paper and scan it in later.
I use Linux and there's some fairly major distros that I don't know that much about. The article seems fairly free from hype and bias. That's the kind of thing I really appreciate.
The screenshots look pretty good--and they're not even /.ed yet!
As the complexity and number of features that are added to information systems increase, the opportunities for compromises grows--probably exponentially. We will see a real change in the security policies only after one of the companies has an enormous financial loss.
I wonder if it would be possible to edit my 3D representation to make me look better.
Well, it would be a lot easier to WiFi a comet or asteroid than a whole planet. Where do I sign up?
I know that it's due to the iPod, but lately I've been fielding a lot of questions from customers (even business customers) and other non-tech folks about Macs. Most are considering, for the first time, buying one. It's kind of a hunch but I think that they're moving beyond their usual market demographics.
I don't have one, but it will probably be the next computer I buy.
If we like books other than sci-fi or tech books, does that mean that we're going to have our geek licenses revoked?
Sometimes when I talk to other technologically-oriented people, I feel like I'm the only one that likes regular literature. Am I the only one?
>sobs uncontrollably
Free as in beer no doubt.
This isn't so surprising to me. Many of my customers are willing ot pay us to fix computers that are under warranty just so that they won't have to deal with tech support.
You almost wonder if the major manufacturers want to make sure that it isn't too easy or people will access the services too often.
I like the idea but it would been better to use 802.11 instead of bluetooth for a little more range around the house....
Hmmm...you *would* think that, wouldn't you? I'm always surprised that so many things use bluetooth when it offers so little range. Odd.
My phone company has a service that allows you to have three different phone numbers ring when someone calls. Whoever picks up the phone first has the call. I could seriously use this at work, but, of course, they won't offer it to businesses since they think (perhaps rightfully so) that the business could get by with fewer lines. I think that these Ericsson and BT phones would be useful.
Just like Longhorn--long on promises, short on actual features.
The inherent DIY-ness of the 'Makers of MAKE' reminds me of my in-laws. With them (in-laws), they have a genetic predisposition which makes them have to do every task themselves, no matter how ridiculously hard and non-cost-efficient.
When he sliced open his leg, my brother-in-law was totally incensed because Walgreen's didn't sell a home suture kit (you think that I'm kidding, but I'm not). I was really scared when my wife decided that she need Lasik eye surgery and began looking at lasers on ebay and googling 'home eye surgery how to.'
That's the problem with books like this. The tech world moves way faster than the time it takes to write, edit and publish a book. Now that I don't have somebody else to pay for my books, I find it much harder to justify the expense.
When you pay these clowns, all you're doing is proving to their apprentices that they've chosen the right career. It's exactly like giving terrorists or kidnappers what they want, and with exactly the same results.
I certainly understand your point, and fortunately that's a decision I've never had to make. I just wonder, as in the case of this gambling site, if it's worth it to lose everything just to stand on principle. I don't disagree with you or your point, so I guess it's just a rhetorical question.
But, come to think about it, acting ethically does puts you at a competitive disadvantage a lot of the time.
I just wonder how aften these strikeback or countermeasures backfire. I remember reading a story awhile back where a gambling site repulsed a DDos attack. The really interesting thing was that it cost the company way more to fight the attack than it would have cost to pay off the extortionist.
While I understand the desire to stick it to these creeps, from a purely cost/benefit analysis point-of-view, it doesn't seem to me to make a lot of sense
So,it looks like this whole action by th EU adds up to about, hmmm, let's see, NOTHING.
What? No avacados? What's the point of good to space if you can't have an avacado while you're there.