I seem to have taken something different from the article than most. Yes, the author spends most of the time pointing out "the cost" of renewable energies but the last three paragraphs seem to sum up her take on it: consumption (i.e. demand) need to lower for it to be sustainable. She concedes that renewable are "often less damaging to the climate and create fewer toxic wastes than conventional energy sources" but merely points out that our demand (especially in light of ever increasing population) must decrease for it to have any meaning. Even using renewable energy technologies we need to cut how much we use for it to be sustainable. I believe that is the point she was making.
My solution is to host my own funambol (contacts only), IMAP (email) and caldav (calendar). It hasn't taken too long to get everything working and it works reliably with over the network sync between my local clients (email/contacts/calendar) and my android device. All in all it just works. If you really do not want to share your information with cloud providers (as I won't since I use it for business and will not allow them to harvest my clients contact info) this is a good solution. I suspect you can use exchange or zimbra to accomplish the same thing if you prefer.
I use an android phone and as someone here has pointed out it does need to be configured with a google email account to activate you can set it have sync with that account off. I've verified that no contacts, calendar, etc show up on that gmail account.
This seems like the whole spatial browsing thing all over again. "It's good for them so the users will come around." Only problem is they didn't. At least with that there was an easy way to disable it. How long did it take for Gnome devs to finally admit it was wrong (and disable it as the default)?
It also did not include actualizing the social security debt or some of the other debts / trickery that was used to create the supposed surplus. It's explained here:
I am not saying that Ron Paul's plan will work in fact I believe if you look at the original post I specifically stated that to get it passed you'd need to toss out most of the democrats AND republicans. All I was saying is he was the only one to put up a rough plan WITH CITED NUMBERS to show exactly how he intends to get there.
I think you will notice the significant increase in DEFICIT under his term. All those bailout and stimulus plans cost lots of money and may just be extending the recession instead of getting us out of it. In contrast say Donald Tusk (Prime Minister of Poland) was praised for his handling of the economic crisis which was basically leave things alone and let the markets sort it out (as is the premise of capitalism in general). BTW, Poland was the only EU country to avoid recession in 2009. Odd, isn't it?
Call me a Ron Paul shill if you like but I ask you once again, point me to a link that shows Obama's plan in anywhere close to the detail of Paul's (one with numbers). If he's as prepared a candidate as you say he is that should be an easy task. I'm not singling out Obama here I'd be happy if you can point me to a plan nearly as detailed for ANY other candidate. I'd really like to think there's more than one out there that isn't just flapping their gums but has a real plan in place and eagerly await a response that can show me a link to one.
Wow, that took what 1 hour of thought to come up with? Is that really what you consider a "plan" like his? Where are the numbers to go along with it and what are the sources? Let me put it to you this way, if you were investing in a business and someone came in to pitch their ideas to you. One proposal was Ron Paul's with projected numbers (with citations for the sources), a clear statement of intent and specifics on what were to be done and the other was a single sheet of paper that said "Get more people working with his jobs bill, raise taxes slightly on the wealthy, reduce spending on wars and cut oil subsidies" you'd really go with the later? Would you still do it after you found out that person had already led things for 3 years and managed to do none of those things in that time?
The fact that these one line bits of verbiage are what people consider a plan shows clearly how we got into this mess. Talk is talk, if there's no REAL plan WITH ROUGH NUMBERS then they either haven't done their homework and/or are just guessing that it will have those results.
Above is the link to his website directly. Some notable tidbits that the article (along with some slashdot commenters) seemed to miss:
"Cuts of this scale will also be accomplished by a Paul Presidency abolishing the Transportation Security Administration and returning responsibility for security to private property owners, abolishing corporate subsidies, stopping foreign aid, ending foreign wars, and returning most other spending to 2006 levels."
So as part of this plan he will get rid of:
-Entire TSA
-Corporate (including Oil) subsidies
-End the wars (likely the largest single current expenditure/drain on the economy)
-End foreign aid (which I suspect will keep the U.S. out of more wars and significantly reduce the terror threat to the U.S.)
-15% of military spending (on top of complete ending of war spending)
-Keeps Social Security and Veteran care in place but allows young people to opt out of social security (basically, ending the Ponzi scheme and recognising the debt owed from it).
I will agree that some things he wishes to cut are not things I would choose to get rid of BUT can anyone point out a single other candidate that has a plan in plain, simple terms like his to actually do something? I sure haven't seen anything like this from other candidates. Then again I feel they are all talk. Real problem solvers would have at least a moderately detailed plan up on their website with rough numbers on how to accomplish things. If anyone finds such from other candidates please post in reply. I'd be very interested in seeing other plans even at as high level as this one is.
The plan is extreme but note that even with everything he is removing and reducing it only ends the DEFICIT (i.e. we stop borrowing more) by year three. Most people seem to not realise or accept how much pain the U.S. will have to endure to climb out from the mountain of debt without defaulting. Much like those that make $40,000 and have $40,000 in credit card debt it's a long suffering process. Much more borrowing at the current rate and defaulting on debt is almost an assured result (hence the lowering of the U.S. credit rating). I should point out European nations, most local governments, etc are all in the same situation. Borrowing to get luxuries you can't afford is endemic in the western mentality currently.
I suspect this will also reduce the corruption considerably since there will be many fewer lucrative grants to bribe senators and congressmen to get. That is, if it passes at all. You'll likely need to toss the bulk of republicans AND democrats out to get anything like this through since it will dismantle many of the incentives for funnelling money to them.
Couldn't agree more but for now it looks like you still can get the Gnome 2.x from the repos. You just need to install the packages (at least according to the ars review). Will test this soon
Evolution vs Thunderbird: Don't almost all gnome distros ship with Evolution as the default client? My experience is that thunderbird is installed by users that want the differences between it and Evolution (or they just use webmail instead). How is this different from Thunderbird vs Outlook Express?
LibreOffice vs OpenOffice: What distro is not shipping LibreOffice default? I think the verdict is in on this and Open Office is pretty much dead or did I miss something?
Gnome 3 vs Unity vs KDE vs Others: This is actually the one example that IMO is relevant to the point they were making. They seem to see this as fragmentation. Considering the past 10 years of the Linux Desktop it could also be seen as establishing the "major desktops". Even though Ubuntu has a lot of market share the verdict on Unity and Gnome3 seems to be far from decided. In their quest to get "the average user" they may well find they alienated the power user, you know the one who often installs a distro for people.
I don't claim to know what the future will bring but I don't think fragmentation is what is holding back commercial applications from becoming available on the Linux desktop. That might more be a combination of poor corporate understanding of how to operate in the Linux ecosystem, smaller user base, fear of openness, competing free apps (some of which are very good already). I suspect these more than fragmentation are what is holding commercial interests back. Then again I've thought Linux was ready for the desktop 5 years ago and the many users I've deployed it to seem to agree.
This is of course assuming both parties are indeed negotiating in good faith and that the changes are meant to be easily understood and both sides input respected. I think there is some clear evidence that this is often not the case.
Most companies discovered a while back that using web apps and standards (IMAP, non-ie specific HTML and CSS, etc) pays off in the long run. Adding mobile devices to this environment really only requires adjustments to the existing infrastructure (a new CSS for the mobile form factor, security policy updates and tool addition, etc) the largest changes likely being in the realm of security. The new smaller form factor and portability takes the old risk of loosing the data access device and all it's locally stored information, including cached data, and increases it. Additionally, many of the new devices lack some of the protection mechanisms of a full blown laptop (encrypted filesystems, logins, VPN clients, etc) increasing the overall security risk. And finally, the need to ensure important data is backed up and recoverable is still in effect. Companies wanting to bring consumer devices into the enterprise need to adjust the security policies to match the new risks and ensure that the new devices comply with the security policies.
The article seems to be written by something of an Apple fanboy that seems to feel the Ipad and Iphone bring epic new functionality to the enterprise. I have a hard time seeing these new gains. From my perspective they have improved the interface enough to make it much more comfortable for users to access enterprise data on smaller devices. That doesn't drastically change what IT depts. have been doing for years, it merely means they need to update their policies and craft solutions to ensure the new devices are in compliance. Not much different than when notebooks, sub-notebooks or blackberries were implemented IMO.
I see a much larger issue being the mixing of employee provided devices with company provided devices. Lately, as companies struggle to contain their costs more, this is more and more common. Managing security, delimiting what each party owns (who owns the phone number) in this mixed ownership environment is an ongoing challenge for today's enterprises, one they've been struggling with for sometime and one which few companies truly understand the real cost of.
Agreed, there is too little detail on the group polled but this statement and the large gap between satisfied IOS and Android users may hint that the pool was Apple biased to start. Another one of those paid but "independent" surveys. In the end the sales numbers will tell the story but I bet stories like this help those figures a bit.
This is exactly what I've done. I just simply refuse to give them the right to degrade me like this. Luckily I haven't had the need to go overseas since this stupidity started but when I do I will investigate if flying out of Canada is better and go from there if it is or find some other rational way. Maybe it's just me but I'm simply not scared of terrorism. I will, however, fight against the steady loss of human dignity when dealing with almost any government organization. If they won't give me the basic respect due any person then they I simply won't deal with them.
Yep but with the download caps and overall low bandwidth of links from Bell and Rogers good luck getting decent quality and use from it. IMO, streaming is stillborn in Canada due to the duopoly of your 2 major ISPs (even worse than in the US). Both Rogers and Bell also have a firmer deathgrip on TV than the operators here so it makes streaming LOOK more attractive. I'll be curious to see what you think once you have it. As for streaming over 3G, enjoy your mobile bill (Canada has some of the highest mobile data costs in the world). I lived in the GTA for a bit and while I loved living there I was surprised at how relaxed people were when getting totally raped by government granted corporate monopolies (Roger, Bell, 407 etr). Then again the Canadian economy is in better shape than the US so maybe folks up there are not feeling the bite so bad.
Another thing I'd like to see before discussing such a task is to have anyone point out ONE SINGLE law that has been created in the last 30 years that is as brief, clear and understandable by the common person as the constitution. Even with the strange wording from 200 years ago it is more clear than any recent legislation I've seen. Maybe it's the lack of special interest clauses or graft or maybe it's because it wasn't written predominantly by lawyers.
I see more than a few problems with this article not the least being the base assumption that cloud computing will continue to grow at the pace it has so far. Cloud computing has the following major issues that still need to be addressed:
1. Reliability - Cloud services still can not match well managed in-house IT for dependability IMO
2. SLAs - Anyone that has actually negotiated and enforced SLAs knows what a joke they are. Unless you get the entire month's service cost for free when they provider misses the mark (and no-one does this) the penalties are so insignificant as to make even having an SLA pointless. By the time the outage hits the level where you will feel the actual discount your entire business could be gone completely (i.e. you've been down a week solid).
3. Security - The more you trust unknown providers with unknown security implementations and share hardware with unknown entities the less control you will have over security issue. As more and more breaches occur untrustworthy organisations will be punished by their customers for their lax security.
4. Data Lock In - reliance on many SaaS providers will sooner or later lead to you being able to not always get your data in the form you wish. It's the cloud version of Quickbooks, great while you are happy but just try to migrate all that data to something else. Note: this is not true of all SaaS providers but is of some, sooner or later without set standards on what to look for one of the lock in providers will be chosen.
The other main problems with the articles are:
1. Assumes hardware swap or VM reimage will fix most problems - Not sure where they got this idea but someone still needs to configure the software services for your specific tasks. A general VM is not the same as the customized config you use for your implementation, cloud or not.
2. Assumes SaaS works on an enterprise scale - My experience is that for most things it simply does not. SaaS offers very good value for the SMB market but for most enterprises it has major issues that stop it from competing effectively with in-house applications. The largest one IMO being integration with other in-house systems and data sharing. Almost all SaaS offerings fall short in these areas and can not compete with a well run internal IT dept over even the mid-term. Sure there are short term gains in getting something quick into use but move down the timeline a few years and you find you rapidly end up with a spiderwork of hacks trying to tie systems together, systems you have very limited control over. In the end it pushes more responsibility to the "glue systems" changing your IT to a very reactionary structure. Good luck should one of your SaaS providers go out of business or change their API drastically.
I am not saying there is no place in the enterprise for cloud computing, there quite obviously is. What I am saying is it is one more tool a well run enterprise IT dept. should use but use cautiously. It's a much more ready fit for the SMB market that normally does not have the resources to integrate it's systems and is used to running with a slew of unconnected data. Enterprises need not only the ability to access their data but a measure of flexibility in how it is structured and accessed. Time will tell what the true cost but I do envision a similar situation to outsourcing of helpdesks, we may see many apps sent to the cloud return to in-house systems after they do not meet the needs of the enterprise.
Then there is always the other option: screw renting DVDs overall and get them off bittorrent or some other P2P method. I'm not endorsing this I'm merely pointing out that the net routes around broken systems (such as content monopolies) and we may see increases in P2P movie sharing to match increases in DVD and streaming prices. I'm just glad I don't watch much TV in the first place, the content producers seem almost as scummy as the cable companies.
Yep, never been involved in any SAP implementations but I've seen several. Not one was completed anywhere near the deadline or original budget. Additionally, none of the companies got what they thought they were going to from it (always decreased deliverables). Mind you this is a relatively small implementation pool (5 companies) but zero successes is not a good sign.
Point 1:
From a strictly logical view (not a legal view since law often veers from direct logic) it does indeed NOT make clear that states may tax imports or exports, rather, it specifically says they may not levy these taxes without congressional consent. The clause is strictly a limiting clause. Considering article 1, section 9, clause 5 congress is not authorized to give consent to any export taxes (although it may give consent to import taxes with respect to that clause). These rules do not logically conflict if congress never gives authorization for states to levy export taxes, if they do there is direct conflict between the clauses.
Points 2 and 3:
Neither of these rulings change the logical interpretation of what is written. As I stated in comment #36626936 I am talking in straight logical terms here not legal interpretations. Legal wrangling and politics often find it beneficial to depart from logic or redefine terms to suit their desires. Additionally, legal definitions are often not what you would expect them to be and usually the older the term is the more obtuse the definition due to political forces that have a vested interest in new interpretations of them. The Dooley ruling seems to be a clear example of this (note: I have not read it). Should it state what it appears your summary says it does (to define export as exported to a foreign country, whatever the legal definition of "Foreign Country" is) this would completely remove ANY constitutional limitation against states imposing interstate commerce taxes (with or without congressional approval since Article 1, section 10, clause 2 requires congressional approval only to taxing of exports and imports which this clearly no longer is). This would mean that one of the largest failures of the articles of confederation facing the writers of the Constitution, the state tarrif wars, was completely unaddressed in the final version. An alternate explanation would be that later generations in a desire to be able to tax the populace more "adjusted" the definition to remove the restriction. This has been done many times the most notable being "the general welfare" in Article 1, section 8, clause 1 which has been used as justification for the Federal Government expanding it's authorized duties 100 fold.
On your suggestion I just did. Whereas it is in an article that is talking generally about Congress I see nothing that states these ruies apply only to the federal government. In fact, all 3 clauses in the next section (section 10) are specifically limiting the states in particular. Additionally, the other clauses in section 9 apply directly to states and the federal government. In particular, neither states nor the fed can pass ex-post facto laws or suspend habeas corpus. Can you point out the text in particular that states that these sections or clauses apply only to the Federal Government? A lack of that would indicate it applies generally (federal, state, local, etc).
I think you should read my post again, you seem to be bringing a preconceived idea of what the clause says. The clause does not mention an export tax it clearly states NO TAX should be levied on items exported from another state (export tax, use tax, any tax would violate what it says). If you just read what is written and don't try to guess at what you think the meaning should be I think you'll find NO tax passes muster. And yes, according to the wording this does mean there should be no tax on potatoes from idaho sold in a CA supermarket.
Please note I'm not arguing whether it SHOULD be this way I'm saying this is HOW IT IS WRITTEN. They are not the same thing.
Ah, I love the legal speak and their "interesting" twists of logic. Whereas I do see the difference between a sales tax and a use tax it still does not hold up to straight application of logic. For the use tax case the question is rather simple:
Q: Has the item been exported from another state?
A: Yes
Q: Has ANY duty or a tax been laid upon it?
A: Yes
Therefore through strait logic it is a violation of the constitution. I took math and logic in school and don't need a lawyer to tell me how they work that's what I have a brain of my own for.
I suspect they wrote things this simple to stop lawyers from trying to twist and pervert the intent. Whereas the issue may not have been resolved by the Supreme Court it has been resolved IMO by straight logic. And yes, I interpret this as NO TAX OR DUTY whatsoever can be leveied on goods from another state. That's what it says and it's pretty simple even though states don't want it to be. If they don't like it change it with an amendment, that is how the process is supposed to work.
That was the point I was trying to make there. Nobody can get a foothold with everyone voting Republican and Democrat. Basically, if you're happy with the current political situation vote for a Republican OR a Democrat. If you want real change vote for anyone else. Who knows maybe the populace of the country will wake up before unemployment hits 20%. Then again they'll probably just change the way unemployment is calculated again so it never will hit 20%.
Slashdot Mirror
Didn't the guy who made Dune start a religion too? Maybe they could have a holy war for galactic domination
I seem to have taken something different from the article than most. Yes, the author spends most of the time pointing out "the cost" of renewable energies but the last three paragraphs seem to sum up her take on it: consumption (i.e. demand) need to lower for it to be sustainable. She concedes that renewable are "often less damaging to the climate and create fewer toxic wastes than conventional energy sources" but merely points out that our demand (especially in light of ever increasing population) must decrease for it to have any meaning. Even using renewable energy technologies we need to cut how much we use for it to be sustainable. I believe that is the point she was making.
My solution is to host my own funambol (contacts only), IMAP (email) and caldav (calendar). It hasn't taken too long to get everything working and it works reliably with over the network sync between my local clients (email/contacts/calendar) and my android device. All in all it just works. If you really do not want to share your information with cloud providers (as I won't since I use it for business and will not allow them to harvest my clients contact info) this is a good solution. I suspect you can use exchange or zimbra to accomplish the same thing if you prefer.
I use an android phone and as someone here has pointed out it does need to be configured with a google email account to activate you can set it have sync with that account off. I've verified that no contacts, calendar, etc show up on that gmail account.
This seems like the whole spatial browsing thing all over again. "It's good for them so the users will come around." Only problem is they didn't. At least with that there was an easy way to disable it. How long did it take for Gnome devs to finally admit it was wrong (and disable it as the default)?
It also did not include actualizing the social security debt or some of the other debts / trickery that was used to create the supposed surplus. It's explained here:
http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16
You can verify it here (U.S. Treasury site):
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/NPGateway
Enter 09/30/1997 through 10/01/2001 for range and look at 9/30 for each year.
I am not saying that Ron Paul's plan will work in fact I believe if you look at the original post I specifically stated that to get it passed you'd need to toss out most of the democrats AND republicans. All I was saying is he was the only one to put up a rough plan WITH CITED NUMBERS to show exactly how he intends to get there.
As to giving Obama credit for what he's accomplished please look at this:
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/federal_deficit_chart.html
I think you will notice the significant increase in DEFICIT under his term. All those bailout and stimulus plans cost lots of money and may just be extending the recession instead of getting us out of it. In contrast say Donald Tusk (Prime Minister of Poland) was praised for his handling of the economic crisis which was basically leave things alone and let the markets sort it out (as is the premise of capitalism in general). BTW, Poland was the only EU country to avoid recession in 2009. Odd, isn't it?
Call me a Ron Paul shill if you like but I ask you once again, point me to a link that shows Obama's plan in anywhere close to the detail of Paul's (one with numbers). If he's as prepared a candidate as you say he is that should be an easy task. I'm not singling out Obama here I'd be happy if you can point me to a plan nearly as detailed for ANY other candidate. I'd really like to think there's more than one out there that isn't just flapping their gums but has a real plan in place and eagerly await a response that can show me a link to one.
Wow, that took what 1 hour of thought to come up with? Is that really what you consider a "plan" like his? Where are the numbers to go along with it and what are the sources? Let me put it to you this way, if you were investing in a business and someone came in to pitch their ideas to you. One proposal was Ron Paul's with projected numbers (with citations for the sources), a clear statement of intent and specifics on what were to be done and the other was a single sheet of paper that said "Get more people working with his jobs bill, raise taxes slightly on the wealthy, reduce spending on wars and cut oil subsidies" you'd really go with the later? Would you still do it after you found out that person had already led things for 3 years and managed to do none of those things in that time?
The fact that these one line bits of verbiage are what people consider a plan shows clearly how we got into this mess. Talk is talk, if there's no REAL plan WITH ROUGH NUMBERS then they either haven't done their homework and/or are just guessing that it will have those results.
http://www.ronpaul2012.com/2011/10/17/ron-paul-announces-ambitious-%E2%80%98plan-to-restore-america%E2%80%99/
Above is the link to his website directly. Some notable tidbits that the article (along with some slashdot commenters) seemed to miss:
"Cuts of this scale will also be accomplished by a Paul Presidency abolishing the Transportation Security Administration and returning responsibility for security to private property owners, abolishing corporate subsidies, stopping foreign aid, ending foreign wars, and returning most other spending to 2006 levels."
Full plan is here: http://ronpaul2012.us2.list-manage.com/track/click?u=5fe6ba5e2c7e9376850ed45ac&id=bfc0992023&e=8c0ac983f9
So as part of this plan he will get rid of:
-Entire TSA
-Corporate (including Oil) subsidies
-End the wars (likely the largest single current expenditure/drain on the economy)
-End foreign aid (which I suspect will keep the U.S. out of more wars and significantly reduce the terror threat to the U.S.)
-15% of military spending (on top of complete ending of war spending)
-Keeps Social Security and Veteran care in place but allows young people to opt out of social security (basically, ending the Ponzi scheme and recognising the debt owed from it).
I will agree that some things he wishes to cut are not things I would choose to get rid of BUT can anyone point out a single other candidate that has a plan in plain, simple terms like his to actually do something? I sure haven't seen anything like this from other candidates. Then again I feel they are all talk. Real problem solvers would have at least a moderately detailed plan up on their website with rough numbers on how to accomplish things. If anyone finds such from other candidates please post in reply. I'd be very interested in seeing other plans even at as high level as this one is.
The plan is extreme but note that even with everything he is removing and reducing it only ends the DEFICIT (i.e. we stop borrowing more) by year three. Most people seem to not realise or accept how much pain the U.S. will have to endure to climb out from the mountain of debt without defaulting. Much like those that make $40,000 and have $40,000 in credit card debt it's a long suffering process. Much more borrowing at the current rate and defaulting on debt is almost an assured result (hence the lowering of the U.S. credit rating). I should point out European nations, most local governments, etc are all in the same situation. Borrowing to get luxuries you can't afford is endemic in the western mentality currently.
I suspect this will also reduce the corruption considerably since there will be many fewer lucrative grants to bribe senators and congressmen to get. That is, if it passes at all. You'll likely need to toss the bulk of republicans AND democrats out to get anything like this through since it will dismantle many of the incentives for funnelling money to them.
Couldn't agree more but for now it looks like you still can get the Gnome 2.x from the repos. You just need to install the packages (at least according to the ars review). Will test this soon
I was questioning some of the comparisons too.
Evolution vs Thunderbird: Don't almost all gnome distros ship with Evolution as the default client? My experience is that thunderbird is installed by users that want the differences between it and Evolution (or they just use webmail instead). How is this different from Thunderbird vs Outlook Express?
LibreOffice vs OpenOffice: What distro is not shipping LibreOffice default? I think the verdict is in on this and Open Office is pretty much dead or did I miss something?
Gnome 3 vs Unity vs KDE vs Others: This is actually the one example that IMO is relevant to the point they were making. They seem to see this as fragmentation. Considering the past 10 years of the Linux Desktop it could also be seen as establishing the "major desktops". Even though Ubuntu has a lot of market share the verdict on Unity and Gnome3 seems to be far from decided. In their quest to get "the average user" they may well find they alienated the power user, you know the one who often installs a distro for people.
I don't claim to know what the future will bring but I don't think fragmentation is what is holding back commercial applications from becoming available on the Linux desktop. That might more be a combination of poor corporate understanding of how to operate in the Linux ecosystem, smaller user base, fear of openness, competing free apps (some of which are very good already). I suspect these more than fragmentation are what is holding commercial interests back. Then again I've thought Linux was ready for the desktop 5 years ago and the many users I've deployed it to seem to agree.
This is of course assuming both parties are indeed negotiating in good faith and that the changes are meant to be easily understood and both sides input respected. I think there is some clear evidence that this is often not the case.
Most companies discovered a while back that using web apps and standards (IMAP, non-ie specific HTML and CSS, etc) pays off in the long run. Adding mobile devices to this environment really only requires adjustments to the existing infrastructure (a new CSS for the mobile form factor, security policy updates and tool addition, etc) the largest changes likely being in the realm of security. The new smaller form factor and portability takes the old risk of loosing the data access device and all it's locally stored information, including cached data, and increases it. Additionally, many of the new devices lack some of the protection mechanisms of a full blown laptop (encrypted filesystems, logins, VPN clients, etc) increasing the overall security risk. And finally, the need to ensure important data is backed up and recoverable is still in effect. Companies wanting to bring consumer devices into the enterprise need to adjust the security policies to match the new risks and ensure that the new devices comply with the security policies.
The article seems to be written by something of an Apple fanboy that seems to feel the Ipad and Iphone bring epic new functionality to the enterprise. I have a hard time seeing these new gains. From my perspective they have improved the interface enough to make it much more comfortable for users to access enterprise data on smaller devices. That doesn't drastically change what IT depts. have been doing for years, it merely means they need to update their policies and craft solutions to ensure the new devices are in compliance. Not much different than when notebooks, sub-notebooks or blackberries were implemented IMO.
I see a much larger issue being the mixing of employee provided devices with company provided devices. Lately, as companies struggle to contain their costs more, this is more and more common. Managing security, delimiting what each party owns (who owns the phone number) in this mixed ownership environment is an ongoing challenge for today's enterprises, one they've been struggling with for sometime and one which few companies truly understand the real cost of.
Agreed, there is too little detail on the group polled but this statement and the large gap between satisfied IOS and Android users may hint that the pool was Apple biased to start. Another one of those paid but "independent" surveys. In the end the sales numbers will tell the story but I bet stories like this help those figures a bit.
This is exactly what I've done. I just simply refuse to give them the right to degrade me like this. Luckily I haven't had the need to go overseas since this stupidity started but when I do I will investigate if flying out of Canada is better and go from there if it is or find some other rational way. Maybe it's just me but I'm simply not scared of terrorism. I will, however, fight against the steady loss of human dignity when dealing with almost any government organization. If they won't give me the basic respect due any person then they I simply won't deal with them.
Yep but with the download caps and overall low bandwidth of links from Bell and Rogers good luck getting decent quality and use from it. IMO, streaming is stillborn in Canada due to the duopoly of your 2 major ISPs (even worse than in the US). Both Rogers and Bell also have a firmer deathgrip on TV than the operators here so it makes streaming LOOK more attractive. I'll be curious to see what you think once you have it. As for streaming over 3G, enjoy your mobile bill (Canada has some of the highest mobile data costs in the world). I lived in the GTA for a bit and while I loved living there I was surprised at how relaxed people were when getting totally raped by government granted corporate monopolies (Roger, Bell, 407 etr). Then again the Canadian economy is in better shape than the US so maybe folks up there are not feeling the bite so bad.
Considering such a small portion of the people trust congress I suggest we not have them make any changes at this point.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/141512/congress-ranks-last-confidence-institutions.aspx
Another thing I'd like to see before discussing such a task is to have anyone point out ONE SINGLE law that has been created in the last 30 years that is as brief, clear and understandable by the common person as the constitution. Even with the strange wording from 200 years ago it is more clear than any recent legislation I've seen. Maybe it's the lack of special interest clauses or graft or maybe it's because it wasn't written predominantly by lawyers.
I see more than a few problems with this article not the least being the base assumption that cloud computing will continue to grow at the pace it has so far. Cloud computing has the following major issues that still need to be addressed:
1. Reliability - Cloud services still can not match well managed in-house IT for dependability IMO
2. SLAs - Anyone that has actually negotiated and enforced SLAs knows what a joke they are. Unless you get the entire month's service cost for free when they provider misses the mark (and no-one does this) the penalties are so insignificant as to make even having an SLA pointless. By the time the outage hits the level where you will feel the actual discount your entire business could be gone completely (i.e. you've been down a week solid).
3. Security - The more you trust unknown providers with unknown security implementations and share hardware with unknown entities the less control you will have over security issue. As more and more breaches occur untrustworthy organisations will be punished by their customers for their lax security.
4. Data Lock In - reliance on many SaaS providers will sooner or later lead to you being able to not always get your data in the form you wish. It's the cloud version of Quickbooks, great while you are happy but just try to migrate all that data to something else. Note: this is not true of all SaaS providers but is of some, sooner or later without set standards on what to look for one of the lock in providers will be chosen.
The other main problems with the articles are:
1. Assumes hardware swap or VM reimage will fix most problems - Not sure where they got this idea but someone still needs to configure the software services for your specific tasks. A general VM is not the same as the customized config you use for your implementation, cloud or not.
2. Assumes SaaS works on an enterprise scale - My experience is that for most things it simply does not. SaaS offers very good value for the SMB market but for most enterprises it has major issues that stop it from competing effectively with in-house applications. The largest one IMO being integration with other in-house systems and data sharing. Almost all SaaS offerings fall short in these areas and can not compete with a well run internal IT dept over even the mid-term. Sure there are short term gains in getting something quick into use but move down the timeline a few years and you find you rapidly end up with a spiderwork of hacks trying to tie systems together, systems you have very limited control over. In the end it pushes more responsibility to the "glue systems" changing your IT to a very reactionary structure. Good luck should one of your SaaS providers go out of business or change their API drastically.
I am not saying there is no place in the enterprise for cloud computing, there quite obviously is. What I am saying is it is one more tool a well run enterprise IT dept. should use but use cautiously. It's a much more ready fit for the SMB market that normally does not have the resources to integrate it's systems and is used to running with a slew of unconnected data. Enterprises need not only the ability to access their data but a measure of flexibility in how it is structured and accessed. Time will tell what the true cost but I do envision a similar situation to outsourcing of helpdesks, we may see many apps sent to the cloud return to in-house systems after they do not meet the needs of the enterprise.
Then there is always the other option: screw renting DVDs overall and get them off bittorrent or some other P2P method. I'm not endorsing this I'm merely pointing out that the net routes around broken systems (such as content monopolies) and we may see increases in P2P movie sharing to match increases in DVD and streaming prices. I'm just glad I don't watch much TV in the first place, the content producers seem almost as scummy as the cable companies.
Yep, never been involved in any SAP implementations but I've seen several. Not one was completed anywhere near the deadline or original budget. Additionally, none of the companies got what they thought they were going to from it (always decreased deliverables). Mind you this is a relatively small implementation pool (5 companies) but zero successes is not a good sign.
Point 1:
From a strictly logical view (not a legal view since law often veers from direct logic) it does indeed NOT make clear that states may tax imports or exports, rather, it specifically says they may not levy these taxes without congressional consent. The clause is strictly a limiting clause. Considering article 1, section 9, clause 5 congress is not authorized to give consent to any export taxes (although it may give consent to import taxes with respect to that clause). These rules do not logically conflict if congress never gives authorization for states to levy export taxes, if they do there is direct conflict between the clauses.
Points 2 and 3:
Neither of these rulings change the logical interpretation of what is written. As I stated in comment #36626936 I am talking in straight logical terms here not legal interpretations. Legal wrangling and politics often find it beneficial to depart from logic or redefine terms to suit their desires. Additionally, legal definitions are often not what you would expect them to be and usually the older the term is the more obtuse the definition due to political forces that have a vested interest in new interpretations of them. The Dooley ruling seems to be a clear example of this (note: I have not read it). Should it state what it appears your summary says it does (to define export as exported to a foreign country, whatever the legal definition of "Foreign Country" is) this would completely remove ANY constitutional limitation against states imposing interstate commerce taxes (with or without congressional approval since Article 1, section 10, clause 2 requires congressional approval only to taxing of exports and imports which this clearly no longer is). This would mean that one of the largest failures of the articles of confederation facing the writers of the Constitution, the state tarrif wars, was completely unaddressed in the final version. An alternate explanation would be that later generations in a desire to be able to tax the populace more "adjusted" the definition to remove the restriction. This has been done many times the most notable being "the general welfare" in Article 1, section 8, clause 1 which has been used as justification for the Federal Government expanding it's authorized duties 100 fold.
On your suggestion I just did. Whereas it is in an article that is talking generally about Congress I see nothing that states these ruies apply only to the federal government. In fact, all 3 clauses in the next section (section 10) are specifically limiting the states in particular. Additionally, the other clauses in section 9 apply directly to states and the federal government. In particular, neither states nor the fed can pass ex-post facto laws or suspend habeas corpus. Can you point out the text in particular that states that these sections or clauses apply only to the Federal Government? A lack of that would indicate it applies generally (federal, state, local, etc).
I think you should read my post again, you seem to be bringing a preconceived idea of what the clause says. The clause does not mention an export tax it clearly states NO TAX should be levied on items exported from another state (export tax, use tax, any tax would violate what it says). If you just read what is written and don't try to guess at what you think the meaning should be I think you'll find NO tax passes muster. And yes, according to the wording this does mean there should be no tax on potatoes from idaho sold in a CA supermarket.
Please note I'm not arguing whether it SHOULD be this way I'm saying this is HOW IT IS WRITTEN. They are not the same thing.
Ah, I love the legal speak and their "interesting" twists of logic. Whereas I do see the difference between a sales tax and a use tax it still does not hold up to straight application of logic. For the use tax case the question is rather simple:
Q: Has the item been exported from another state?
A: Yes
Q: Has ANY duty or a tax been laid upon it?
A: Yes
Therefore through strait logic it is a violation of the constitution. I took math and logic in school and don't need a lawyer to tell me how they work that's what I have a brain of my own for.
I suspect they wrote things this simple to stop lawyers from trying to twist and pervert the intent. Whereas the issue may not have been resolved by the Supreme Court it has been resolved IMO by straight logic. And yes, I interpret this as NO TAX OR DUTY whatsoever can be leveied on goods from another state. That's what it says and it's pretty simple even though states don't want it to be. If they don't like it change it with an amendment, that is how the process is supposed to work.
Doesn't that directly conflict with article 1, section 9, clause 5 of the constitution?
The clause rather simply and clearly states:
No tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state.
That was the point I was trying to make there. Nobody can get a foothold with everyone voting Republican and Democrat. Basically, if you're happy with the current political situation vote for a Republican OR a Democrat. If you want real change vote for anyone else. Who knows maybe the populace of the country will wake up before unemployment hits 20%. Then again they'll probably just change the way unemployment is calculated again so it never will hit 20%.