I was advising my clients of this in 2003 (Wikipedia article referencing the current Register article), when I was servicing Dell systems under warranty.
And I was advising them of the futility of changing suppliers. Everyone was hit by this, except perhaps IBM and Gateway, and I'm fairly certain they just escaped the magnitude of many other manufacturers' problems, including ASUS, MSI, Gigabyte, even Tyan. Every seller was hit, HP, Compaq (separate companies at the time), Acer, you name it. Some got in front of it quickly, but Dell was one that stood out for shipping repaired motherboards that had bad and good caps on them. The guys in the shop had never really experienced capacitor failure, so they were a little lost when I first diagnosed it, and I was a little lost when I saw how many were failing. It wasn't a bad batch, it was an entirely bad manufacturing process.
I wonder how many other devices back then had this crap in them.
ps - If I had access to the business records that would document our findings back then, I'd offer them gratis to the plaintiffs. These and the many others that must exist would leave Dell with no place to hide. Unfortunately, this will really only benefit the lawyers, but it should at least make Dell change. Fat chance, but we can dream?
1. If event ticket sales are intended to sell tickets to those who actually intend to attend the event, then resales are contrary to the intent of the initial sale.
2. If event ticket sales are intended to provide the maximum revenue (or as close to it as can be in an uncertain market) to the initial seller, then resales should be conducted by the original seller, or the original seller should benefit by sharing a portion of the proceeds of resales.
3. If resales exist only to enrich scalpers (arbitrageurs by a more elegant word), then these scalpers add no value to the original seller.
4. When event tickets are available in a finite quanitity, there will most likely be more demand than supply.
5. In view of limited supply, there will always be some who want to attend the event, but will be unable to obtain tickets.
6. Online ticket sales are impossible to control to prevent arbitrage.
My point is that it is patently unfair to those of us who want to attend an event, but are unable to purchase tickets when the sales are only online, due to the maipulation of the market by automated arbitraguers. And these arbitrageurs (scalpers) add no value to the event organizers, promoters, performers, or exhibitors, but only increase costs for purchasers. In effect, they take what should have been additional revenue from the original seller, who either chose to accept a lower price or misjudged the market. Unfair? Actually, my complaint is that it's nearly impossible to buy a ticket to a concert unless you camp on the seller and hope you aren't just a moment off. Or got behind the bots who owned the site.
So, how to fix this?
Maybe put the purchaser's name on tickets, and require identification. Among other things, well, actually, counterfeit tickets are sometimes a problem also, who knows. But, bottom line is whether or not this a problem.
So is this a problem that needs to be solved? I say yes.
Another much better solution - auction off tickets. Yes, this will make tickets cost a LOT more, but it seems that there are people ready to pay more than the face value, so try driving out the scalpers by upping the price to what the market WILL bear, essentially pricing them out of the market. And then of course the buyers will be paying the scalper price right up front. Or will they?
Problem is, this doesn't really solve my problem. I won't be paying scalper prices for bad seats, and so I'm out again.
Actually, the problem is simply one of supply and demand. So I'll always just be hoping I got in line early enough to buy tickets. Alas, I may never get a ticket to a concert, just my dumb luck. Unless I buy scalped tickets early when they are a little cheaper (unlikely) or get lucky.
No fixing this. Screw it. Let the scalpers hose us. I bet some of them conspire with promoters and the 'legitimate' sellers anyways. Ticketmaster in particular is happy to screw us any way they can. All the rest ditto.
This is the sort of idea that gets the Libertarians and other radical right-wing types all up in arms, screaming about socialism, government power grabs, and the need to throw the whole bunch out and put in toll roads and pay-as-you-go government.
They're still wackadoodles, and still marginalized, but this is their bread and butter.
A stupid idea, unless, of course, you are willing to cede to the federal government both responsibility and authority to run the country directly. Not just govern, but operate.
Me? I'm opposed to it on these grounds:
1. The apparent assumption is that private industry can't be trusted to do this. As a rebuttal, consider that private industry has more to lose on their own than if DHS takes over. Beyond that, is DHS demonstrably better at security than private industry has been, at least in these scnearios?
2. Despite the obvious security concerns, and the potential harm to our nation, how did government get appointed to the position of protecting us from ourselves? Is this a Constitutional exercise of power? I propose it is UNConstitutional on its face.
3. Regulation, perhaps, is a better path. The Clean Air and Clean Water acts offer some experience with the government dictating how things should be done. Yes, we are better off. Does the same apply to industrial network security? Well, maybe not.
Let's get on the phones and kill this, so we don't have to wait for another election cycle to convince the retards in Washington that we are not at all amused. Ok?
"had improperly — perhaps illegally — saved [35,000] images [low resolution] of the scans of public servants and private citizens."
Ok, how many times were we told they did not save the images? Sorry, boardingarea.com, voa.com, Tim Bennett, Bruce Schneier, and others, but either you were a willing conspirator in lulling us into accepting this, or you were also lied to. Choose your side now, ok?
And we can stop believing DHS now, can't we? Lying weasels, all of them, even so many of the front-line worker weasels. Soon, airflight security will be so onerous that we will stop choosing to fly. Then the airlines will ask for relief. And there will be none.
The Apple client for GroupWise works. Yes, it did as of this summer. Lately, Apple hasn't been busy crippling it, so I suspect it's still ok. Works for 10.4 and 10.5.
The Windows clients include a native client and an Outlook plug-in. This was slick in Outlook 2007.
Would you prefer the GroupWise Web Access Client?
GroupWise server runs on NetWare, SUSE 10 or above (I think), Windows Server '03 and '08. The Mobile Server might be fun to look at.
Yes, GroupWise works. Drew does this and it works.
But I know you will resist, and ohers will dismiss this option as ludicrous and obsolete, if not dangerous and a true threat to national security, your and their sanity, and of course it's Novell, which has to be bad, if not just plain old.
But hey, it does work. You'll have other things to look at, but it's there.
I rarely bother with results beyond the first 20 or so. IF I have to dig deeper, either I munged the search terms, or I'm digging for a specific item I couldn't build a specific search for. Either way, I'm wondering how what percentage of search returns in the first, say, 30, were malware.
And I wonder about the definition of 'malware'. But let's trust that.
How about a small effort, along the way, to clean up the fake links? If I search for a term that even tangentially matches a product, I get search results that invariably include Bizrate and other so-called shopping or pricing sites. And sure enough, Bizrate in particular has an actual product listing about 20% of the time for me. The rest of the time, it did the SEO thing to make it look like it had a listing, when all I get is a 'we don't have any right now, but how about these?' or 'come back later'. Argh. Abuse. Perhaps fraud. I hate them so much I ignore them even if they DO have the product.
Google doesn't care, though. They get paid anyways.
"Apparently, the migration to Intel processors removed some of the value of clustering Xserves"
What, Intel processors obviate the need or usefulness of clustering? They are so insanely awsome that clustering is obsolete? Huh?
I would love to hear more about this little tidbit. Sounds like someone is writing garbage.
OTOH, I had three clients that were using XServes at one time. One loved them, best thing evar, but they were a Mac house and it was homogenous. The second had them to support the cranky art department, and was always being challenged with more bizarre and impossible adminstrative tasks until he ceded control to the crankypants, who promptly hosed them up to the point of an OS rebuild. The net result was very plain-vanilla servers with none of the gee-whiz features they claimed they 'needed'. The Xserves were fine, the users were just useless. The third had them to support the Macbooks they had, and considered them a necessary evil. this was a Novell environment way back when, and the XServes matched the NetWare servers for uptime and availability. Ultimately the Novell servers gave way to Windows servers, and those never got along with the Xserves. As is so often the case, they blamed the Novell environment for this, despite the servers being migrated, shut down, and crushed. So far as I know, they still have their XServes.
What will replace them where they are actually useful?
Well, if the phone gets wiped, the authorities will have to work that out for themselves. Unless the sender would be so kind as to provide them with the originals they sent. That should work out well.
BTW, if any service, such as the carrier(s) involved, keep copies long enough to complete the transmission, are they also guilty of posession?
But more on point, I have had a job pretty much uninterrupted for 41 years. When I was 16, I bought my own clothes, paid for extras like radios, albums, concert tickets, and lunch at school. When I turned 18, I paid a share of the family food costs and rent. Two months later, when I graduated from high school, I enlisted in the U.S. miitary. My mom was matter-of-fact about it - I could contribute, so I would. But I still was subject to her approvals for clothing, etc. I was still her responsibility until I became the military's responsibility. The military was somewhat more accomodating.
If I had children, they would be my responsibility. By your logic, if they bought a gun with their earned money and shot up someone, am I off the hook? Especially if I knew they had the gun, and especially if I knew they had shot someone.
Even more on point, after the discussion about sex, sexting, and such, I probably would need to have a discussion about the hypersensitive legal environment towards child porn and the potential for legal problems, maybe even in the future.
And in case you aren't clear on my opinions, I'm not inclined to give children many legal rights. Yes, they have the right to be cared for, and should expect to be loved and cherished, and prepared for life. But they do not ahve a right to a cell phone, or to exchange anything thye wish with others no matter the age or relationship, and they do not, IMHO, have the right to commit crimes for which their parents may be held jointly responsible.
Nice try though. I'm just old-fashioned. And I chose not to have children. Call me lazy and scared too.
I used to check theaters back in the 80s, for an outfit that had contracts to verify audience numbers, etc. I had the rare privilege of checking the only room in North America that showed the opening night of Empire Strikes Back and did not sell out according to the sales they reported to the studio. This is fraud. Today, the ticketing systems are too regimented to be cheated on, and checkers are very very rare indeed.
I did not ever see recording equipment, but I did count those who jumped from one room to another, and those who entered after leaving another show. Rules were rules. It was fun, and I got to hang out and even learned to run projectors.
This leaves me with no patience for exhibitors that don't set or check focus, can't get the screen framed right, and hack up their tape with the worst splices possible. I think sometimes the workers compete to see who can insert subliminal messages to kill your children in the splices. Or is it just dragging it across your Alapca sweater? Retards. Try using something other than super glue as a cleaner, eh?
Good for you, telling the publisher how to adapt their app a little. If the app popped up and told you that it was installed, and what it did, by whom, and that uninstalling it would signal the original installer that it was indeed being removed, then hey, kids can uninstall it and face their parents later. Ok.
I don't have kids. If I did, I would give them some rules about computer and phone usage:
- Everything on a computer you use at home or portably is available to me. I will ask you to translate the really obscure stuff. I won't need a translator for the really foul and indecent stuff. We'll talk about it.
- Your phone likewise. I won't listen in on conversations unless I happen to be within earshot. I won't be overreacting to what seems to be natural kid stuff. Sexting and nudies we need to talk about. You will surrender your phone to me if I ask for it, even if you 'pay' for it.
- You will not try to get around this by having a phone or computer you don't want me to know about. Doing so is proof you are up to no good. Talk to your mother if you don't like this. If you are using someone else's computer or phone, and I catch you, well, your mother will not let you be with the lender. Nice try. We'll let you out of this after you've gotten over it.
These are the rules between me and my wife. She can see all my email etc, and she reads my stupid postings also. She has all my passwords. I have all of hers I know of. I can live with that. And I know a few parents that have similar rules. Some talk to their kids, some don't. All seem to be getting along with the rules.
The reality is that your kids are your responsibility.
Is it possible that at least a few of those who think the ISS is a waste are, right now, wishing that money was put into a mission to 'somewhere else'?
Do you think learning how the toilets actually work on the ISS would be useful to this mission to 'somewhere else'. Like, somewhere the Shuttle can't deliver spares?
Yes, the ISS is expensive. Going 'somewhere else' will dwarf this expense.
But if he had interfaced a Mag Card, THAT would have been impressive. And very different.
Mag Cards used a transmit block to code keystrokes to the processor. Selectric mechanism printed, and yes they used magentic cards (about 3"x8") to store data. The whole thing was not much different in size than a Xerox 860, except that the Mag card had a typewriter in place of the monitor & keyboard.
And of course, the Selectric takes a bit more maintenance, maybe. Those SCM typewriters had their problems, and the cartridges must be getting hard to find.
Gee, maybe I can score an IBM Electonic 60 and wire up that transmit block. Yeah, what a POJ that was. Better off making a Typetronic work. At least there you only need two inputs to do everything.
Seeing that we have the very samme complaints in the U.S., where most of the complainers are in areas where there is at least cable and DSL service competing, I'm not sure you can lay it soley at the foot of monopoly.
In some areas, cable operators cap usage at 60GB and do not bill overages - they either cut your service, or cripple it to dialup speeds. And almost always they do not even advertise this, and deny it publicly while enforcing it.
My provider, Cox, does actually state the limits, from 30GB 50 400GB combined down/up per month, depending on your service plan.
The problem of iTunes is of great significance to me. No, actually, it isn't by itself, since I don't use iTunes, but it does expose the real purpose of these caps.
If you want to stream a movie a week from Netflix, some sources claim a movie is typically 3.6GB. So 20 or so movies, and you hit the Rogers limit, while my Cox limit would allow at least 60 I think. I don't have time to watch two a day.
The reality is, the cable cos. see Internet streaming as competition, directly with Netflix, almost with iTunes. They have no incentive to allow me to ditch video service and get my shows from Hulu, etc. And they wish they could give you a music service, but instead they know they got you by the short & curlies (aka your teenage daughter) when they have an iPod or iPhone, as that is a captive market - captive to Internet access to do ANYTHING with their favorite toy.
So welcome to the age where Internet service pricing rises to the level the market will bear. The government will not influence that much I suspect, though they could perhaps slow the increase artificially.
If, however, you subscribe to the Tragedy of the Commons, then let the government get in and preserve low-cost Internet as a common carrier service. You can expect service commensurate with the price you pay, and in the U.S. this is discounted by the mediocre effort a government service would deliver.
We can't easily win this. Internet is becoming our TV, radio, telephone. It's worth a lot if we make it so useful.
I think 60GB/month comes out to about 1.3MB/min, 24x7.
Sure. Leaving your computer on with a browser open day and night will get you 1.3MB every minute all day all month. I wonder if my iGoogle home page would do that. Maybe CNN. Maybe not Yahoo.
More BS. If they set their cap at 600GB, some of you (many I suspect) would still be claiming this is achievable by your average nitwit user. Just accept the fact that there is a limit that will satisfy 99% of all users, and the remaining 1% will be faced with paying more for their excess.
Ok, so you didn't do ASP. What did you do before Java? Did you work with data-intensive sites, such as customer-service or dispatching sites, or inventory control?
ASP doesn't require IE6, but back when it was IE6 or Safari or Mozilla, using anything else besides IE6 meant a lot more work, and some stuff did not in fact work.
So it wasn't that long ago that an ASP developer pretty much wrote to IE6.
But seriously, there's a whole corporate world out there that did focus on ASP, and they needed it to just work. To add browser troubles on top of the rest of the Microsoft crap was just not worth the trouble.
It's not as if a lot of otherwise pretty smart people and some HUGE sites didn't also have problems moving to IE7-compatible code.
Back then, ASP was a good choice if you wanted a robust development platform. today, we have many choices. Not all of those survive browser updates unscathed, but many do.
And, it's good business to not spend money on what *might* be, and wait until it *is*. You forget, how IE works is not evident until it is released.
Actually this all fits under the heading "it worked, it still works, give me a reason to change". Running IE6 in a VM works, and is actually an interesting answer to a lot of problems. I run IE6 and IE8 in VMs, along with Safari, Opera, and Firefox, for testing. It is a blessing to start over with a few clicks instead of figuring out what went wrong with the browser. I'm only interested in the web app, and the direct impact on the browser. All else is not my concern.
I don't see Western Europe as a threat any time soon, and Eastern Europe, despite their very limited nuclear arsenal(s), a vestige of the Soviet Union, are also not anything to fear for a while.
The Middle East has several players that are developing nuclear capabilities, and at some point one or more will probably develop nuclear weapons. of course Israel is assumed to have them already.
- IE6 was optimized for ASP (or was it ASP optimized for IE6, so confusing).
- Many businesses used ASP for Web-based apps.
- So many businesses were dependent on the IE6-ASP integration.
- And many businesses wanted reliable Web services, so a browser that worked well with ASP was very desireable.
This is all pretty well-known to anyone developing back then, as recently as 2006 actually, and is not news. That so many business users are still developing to IE6 is unfortunate, but given the cost of adapting to multiple browsers (and the futility of doing so) it isn't really so surprising. Add in the uncertainty that the *next* version of IE won't be compatible with sites written to accomodate previous versions, and this is an impossible situation no one really bothers to talk about so much, unless you're a designer or programmer. Or an escalation tech. Or a manager with a finite budget for your web services.
Rather than explain the situation as "developers thought they could get away with developing web applications that would work only on IE 6", perhaps you should explain it as "developers thought they could get away with developing web applications that would WORK".
So blame the developers for doing what worked, given the alternative which didn't exist at the time.
So let me get this straight, and undo the damage my teachers have done...
"It wasn't until Japan attacked the U.S. that WWII became global by an stretch."
"Similarly, it wasn't until Germany tried to get Mexico to attack the United States that WWI became in any meaningful sense global."
WWI and WWII were regional conflicts until the protaganists made them global.
That clears things up a lot.
So WWI was regional until France and England, no, wait, Germany tried to spread it to us that it became 'globalized' and we had an excuse to get involved. France being overrun and various European nations being eliminated wasn't of sufficient import to justify our involvement. Neither was Germany's intention to dominate the continent. And certainly we threatened Germany by our involvement on Britain's side, though of course we need not have concerned ourselves with the prospect of the European continent being subsumed into a German empire.
And WWI Was just a regional conflict until England, no, France, no, wait, Russia, no actually Japan attacked US territory and got us involved. All that unpleasantness of Germany bombing England was just not important enough for us to get into it. Of course, Hitler's plans for world domination didn't really threaten us, though Japan might have been concerned, which would explain their attacks on Germany. Certainly, the U.S. could have sat this one out as two different nations plotted world domination, since we weren't really at risk except for Hawaii, and that being so far away that it shouldn't have given us much of a fright.
For those of you not reading carefully, that was sarcasm.
Slashdot Mirror
I was advising my clients of this in 2003 (Wikipedia article referencing the current Register article), when I was servicing Dell systems under warranty.
And I was advising them of the futility of changing suppliers. Everyone was hit by this, except perhaps IBM and Gateway, and I'm fairly certain they just escaped the magnitude of many other manufacturers' problems, including ASUS, MSI, Gigabyte, even Tyan. Every seller was hit, HP, Compaq (separate companies at the time), Acer, you name it. Some got in front of it quickly, but Dell was one that stood out for shipping repaired motherboards that had bad and good caps on them. The guys in the shop had never really experienced capacitor failure, so they were a little lost when I first diagnosed it, and I was a little lost when I saw how many were failing. It wasn't a bad batch, it was an entirely bad manufacturing process.
I wonder how many other devices back then had this crap in them.
ps - If I had access to the business records that would document our findings back then, I'd offer them gratis to the plaintiffs. These and the many others that must exist would leave Dell with no place to hide. Unfortunately, this will really only benefit the lawyers, but it should at least make Dell change. Fat chance, but we can dream?
1. If event ticket sales are intended to sell tickets to those who actually intend to attend the event, then resales are contrary to the intent of the initial sale.
2. If event ticket sales are intended to provide the maximum revenue (or as close to it as can be in an uncertain market) to the initial seller, then resales should be conducted by the original seller, or the original seller should benefit by sharing a portion of the proceeds of resales.
3. If resales exist only to enrich scalpers (arbitrageurs by a more elegant word), then these scalpers add no value to the original seller.
4. When event tickets are available in a finite quanitity, there will most likely be more demand than supply.
5. In view of limited supply, there will always be some who want to attend the event, but will be unable to obtain tickets.
6. Online ticket sales are impossible to control to prevent arbitrage.
My point is that it is patently unfair to those of us who want to attend an event, but are unable to purchase tickets when the sales are only online, due to the maipulation of the market by automated arbitraguers. And these arbitrageurs (scalpers) add no value to the event organizers, promoters, performers, or exhibitors, but only increase costs for purchasers. In effect, they take what should have been additional revenue from the original seller, who either chose to accept a lower price or misjudged the market. Unfair? Actually, my complaint is that it's nearly impossible to buy a ticket to a concert unless you camp on the seller and hope you aren't just a moment off. Or got behind the bots who owned the site.
So, how to fix this?
Maybe put the purchaser's name on tickets, and require identification. Among other things, well, actually, counterfeit tickets are sometimes a problem also, who knows. But, bottom line is whether or not this a problem.
So is this a problem that needs to be solved? I say yes.
Another much better solution - auction off tickets. Yes, this will make tickets cost a LOT more, but it seems that there are people ready to pay more than the face value, so try driving out the scalpers by upping the price to what the market WILL bear, essentially pricing them out of the market. And then of course the buyers will be paying the scalper price right up front. Or will they?
Problem is, this doesn't really solve my problem. I won't be paying scalper prices for bad seats, and so I'm out again.
Actually, the problem is simply one of supply and demand. So I'll always just be hoping I got in line early enough to buy tickets. Alas, I may never get a ticket to a concert, just my dumb luck. Unless I buy scalped tickets early when they are a little cheaper (unlikely) or get lucky.
No fixing this. Screw it. Let the scalpers hose us. I bet some of them conspire with promoters and the 'legitimate' sellers anyways. Ticketmaster in particular is happy to screw us any way they can. All the rest ditto.
So there's no solution. Damn.
When will it run Android?
This is the sort of idea that gets the Libertarians and other radical right-wing types all up in arms, screaming about socialism, government power grabs, and the need to throw the whole bunch out and put in toll roads and pay-as-you-go government.
They're still wackadoodles, and still marginalized, but this is their bread and butter.
A stupid idea, unless, of course, you are willing to cede to the federal government both responsibility and authority to run the country directly. Not just govern, but operate.
Me? I'm opposed to it on these grounds:
1. The apparent assumption is that private industry can't be trusted to do this. As a rebuttal, consider that private industry has more to lose on their own than if DHS takes over. Beyond that, is DHS demonstrably better at security than private industry has been, at least in these scnearios?
2. Despite the obvious security concerns, and the potential harm to our nation, how did government get appointed to the position of protecting us from ourselves? Is this a Constitutional exercise of power? I propose it is UNConstitutional on its face.
3. Regulation, perhaps, is a better path. The Clean Air and Clean Water acts offer some experience with the government dictating how things should be done. Yes, we are better off. Does the same apply to industrial network security? Well, maybe not.
Let's get on the phones and kill this, so we don't have to wait for another election cycle to convince the retards in Washington that we are not at all amused. Ok?
"had improperly — perhaps illegally — saved [35,000] images [low resolution] of the scans of public servants and private citizens."
Ok, how many times were we told they did not save the images? Sorry, boardingarea.com, voa.com, Tim Bennett, Bruce Schneier, and others, but either you were a willing conspirator in lulling us into accepting this, or you were also lied to. Choose your side now, ok?
And we can stop believing DHS now, can't we? Lying weasels, all of them, even so many of the front-line worker weasels. Soon, airflight security will be so onerous that we will stop choosing to fly. Then the airlines will ask for relief. And there will be none.
You can do this in GroupWise. Seriously.
The Apple client for GroupWise works. Yes, it did as of this summer. Lately, Apple hasn't been busy crippling it, so I suspect it's still ok. Works for 10.4 and 10.5.
The Windows clients include a native client and an Outlook plug-in. This was slick in Outlook 2007.
Would you prefer the GroupWise Web Access Client?
GroupWise server runs on NetWare, SUSE 10 or above (I think), Windows Server '03 and '08. The Mobile Server might be fun to look at.
Yes, GroupWise works. Drew does this and it works.
But I know you will resist, and ohers will dismiss this option as ludicrous and obsolete, if not dangerous and a true threat to national security, your and their sanity, and of course it's Novell, which has to be bad, if not just plain old.
But hey, it does work. You'll have other things to look at, but it's there.
Now let the flames begin.
Really?
I rarely bother with results beyond the first 20 or so. IF I have to dig deeper, either I munged the search terms, or I'm digging for a specific item I couldn't build a specific search for. Either way, I'm wondering how what percentage of search returns in the first, say, 30, were malware.
And I wonder about the definition of 'malware'. But let's trust that.
How about a small effort, along the way, to clean up the fake links? If I search for a term that even tangentially matches a product, I get search results that invariably include Bizrate and other so-called shopping or pricing sites. And sure enough, Bizrate in particular has an actual product listing about 20% of the time for me. The rest of the time, it did the SEO thing to make it look like it had a listing, when all I get is a 'we don't have any right now, but how about these?' or 'come back later'. Argh. Abuse. Perhaps fraud. I hate them so much I ignore them even if they DO have the product.
Google doesn't care, though. They get paid anyways.
Feh.
"Apparently, the migration to Intel processors removed some of the value of clustering Xserves"
What, Intel processors obviate the need or usefulness of clustering? They are so insanely awsome that clustering is obsolete? Huh?
I would love to hear more about this little tidbit. Sounds like someone is writing garbage.
OTOH, I had three clients that were using XServes at one time. One loved them, best thing evar, but they were a Mac house and it was homogenous. The second had them to support the cranky art department, and was always being challenged with more bizarre and impossible adminstrative tasks until he ceded control to the crankypants, who promptly hosed them up to the point of an OS rebuild. The net result was very plain-vanilla servers with none of the gee-whiz features they claimed they 'needed'. The Xserves were fine, the users were just useless. The third had them to support the Macbooks they had, and considered them a necessary evil. this was a Novell environment way back when, and the XServes matched the NetWare servers for uptime and availability. Ultimately the Novell servers gave way to Windows servers, and those never got along with the Xserves. As is so often the case, they blamed the Novell environment for this, despite the servers being migrated, shut down, and crushed. So far as I know, they still have their XServes.
What will replace them where they are actually useful?
Well, if the phone gets wiped, the authorities will have to work that out for themselves. Unless the sender would be so kind as to provide them with the originals they sent. That should work out well.
BTW, if any service, such as the carrier(s) involved, keep copies long enough to complete the transmission, are they also guilty of posession?
But more on point, I have had a job pretty much uninterrupted for 41 years. When I was 16, I bought my own clothes, paid for extras like radios, albums, concert tickets, and lunch at school. When I turned 18, I paid a share of the family food costs and rent. Two months later, when I graduated from high school, I enlisted in the U.S. miitary. My mom was matter-of-fact about it - I could contribute, so I would. But I still was subject to her approvals for clothing, etc. I was still her responsibility until I became the military's responsibility. The military was somewhat more accomodating.
If I had children, they would be my responsibility. By your logic, if they bought a gun with their earned money and shot up someone, am I off the hook? Especially if I knew they had the gun, and especially if I knew they had shot someone.
Even more on point, after the discussion about sex, sexting, and such, I probably would need to have a discussion about the hypersensitive legal environment towards child porn and the potential for legal problems, maybe even in the future.
And in case you aren't clear on my opinions, I'm not inclined to give children many legal rights. Yes, they have the right to be cared for, and should expect to be loved and cherished, and prepared for life. But they do not ahve a right to a cell phone, or to exchange anything thye wish with others no matter the age or relationship, and they do not, IMHO, have the right to commit crimes for which their parents may be held jointly responsible.
Nice try though. I'm just old-fashioned. And I chose not to have children. Call me lazy and scared too.
I used to check theaters back in the 80s, for an outfit that had contracts to verify audience numbers, etc. I had the rare privilege of checking the only room in North America that showed the opening night of Empire Strikes Back and did not sell out according to the sales they reported to the studio. This is fraud. Today, the ticketing systems are too regimented to be cheated on, and checkers are very very rare indeed.
I did not ever see recording equipment, but I did count those who jumped from one room to another, and those who entered after leaving another show. Rules were rules. It was fun, and I got to hang out and even learned to run projectors.
This leaves me with no patience for exhibitors that don't set or check focus, can't get the screen framed right, and hack up their tape with the worst splices possible. I think sometimes the workers compete to see who can insert subliminal messages to kill your children in the splices. Or is it just dragging it across your Alapca sweater? Retards. Try using something other than super glue as a cleaner, eh?
You're just asking for it. Really.
And no, not Michigan. L.A.
Good for you, telling the publisher how to adapt their app a little. If the app popped up and told you that it was installed, and what it did, by whom, and that uninstalling it would signal the original installer that it was indeed being removed, then hey, kids can uninstall it and face their parents later. Ok.
I don't have kids. If I did, I would give them some rules about computer and phone usage:
- Everything on a computer you use at home or portably is available to me. I will ask you to translate the really obscure stuff. I won't need a translator for the really foul and indecent stuff. We'll talk about it.
- Your phone likewise. I won't listen in on conversations unless I happen to be within earshot. I won't be overreacting to what seems to be natural kid stuff. Sexting and nudies we need to talk about. You will surrender your phone to me if I ask for it, even if you 'pay' for it.
- You will not try to get around this by having a phone or computer you don't want me to know about. Doing so is proof you are up to no good. Talk to your mother if you don't like this. If you are using someone else's computer or phone, and I catch you, well, your mother will not let you be with the lender. Nice try. We'll let you out of this after you've gotten over it.
These are the rules between me and my wife. She can see all my email etc, and she reads my stupid postings also. She has all my passwords. I have all of hers I know of. I can live with that. And I know a few parents that have similar rules. Some talk to their kids, some don't. All seem to be getting along with the rules.
The reality is that your kids are your responsibility.
And I'm not a Democrat.
And I voted already.
Hey butthead. I'm in FAVOR of the ISS.
Really.
I'm well acquainted with sea trials. They're not just for big boats.
Is it possible that at least a few of those who think the ISS is a waste are, right now, wishing that money was put into a mission to 'somewhere else'?
Do you think learning how the toilets actually work on the ISS would be useful to this mission to 'somewhere else'. Like, somewhere the Shuttle can't deliver spares?
Yes, the ISS is expensive. Going 'somewhere else' will dwarf this expense.
Next question.
If he brought me a few stock certificates for his Internet business that went public, I might not feel so bad.
More likely, if he tutored me in in Astrophysics for $2.50/week, I'm pretty sure I would not mind IF I passed the course. And if I needed it.
Yes, investing in the ISS is not so obvious a payback as the Chevy Volt. Or is it?
But if he had interfaced a Mag Card, THAT would have been impressive. And very different.
Mag Cards used a transmit block to code keystrokes to the processor. Selectric mechanism printed, and yes they used magentic cards (about 3"x8") to store data. The whole thing was not much different in size than a Xerox 860, except that the Mag card had a typewriter in place of the monitor & keyboard.
And of course, the Selectric takes a bit more maintenance, maybe. Those SCM typewriters had their problems, and the cartridges must be getting hard to find.
Gee, maybe I can score an IBM Electonic 60 and wire up that transmit block. Yeah, what a POJ that was. Better off making a Typetronic work. At least there you only need two inputs to do everything.
Seeing that we have the very samme complaints in the U.S., where most of the complainers are in areas where there is at least cable and DSL service competing, I'm not sure you can lay it soley at the foot of monopoly.
In some areas, cable operators cap usage at 60GB and do not bill overages - they either cut your service, or cripple it to dialup speeds. And almost always they do not even advertise this, and deny it publicly while enforcing it.
My provider, Cox, does actually state the limits, from 30GB 50 400GB combined down/up per month, depending on your service plan.
The problem of iTunes is of great significance to me. No, actually, it isn't by itself, since I don't use iTunes, but it does expose the real purpose of these caps.
If you want to stream a movie a week from Netflix, some sources claim a movie is typically 3.6GB. So 20 or so movies, and you hit the Rogers limit, while my Cox limit would allow at least 60 I think. I don't have time to watch two a day.
The reality is, the cable cos. see Internet streaming as competition, directly with Netflix, almost with iTunes. They have no incentive to allow me to ditch video service and get my shows from Hulu, etc. And they wish they could give you a music service, but instead they know they got you by the short & curlies (aka your teenage daughter) when they have an iPod or iPhone, as that is a captive market - captive to Internet access to do ANYTHING with their favorite toy.
So welcome to the age where Internet service pricing rises to the level the market will bear. The government will not influence that much I suspect, though they could perhaps slow the increase artificially.
If, however, you subscribe to the Tragedy of the Commons, then let the government get in and preserve low-cost Internet as a common carrier service. You can expect service commensurate with the price you pay, and in the U.S. this is discounted by the mediocre effort a government service would deliver.
We can't easily win this. Internet is becoming our TV, radio, telephone. It's worth a lot if we make it so useful.
I think 60GB/month comes out to about 1.3MB/min, 24x7.
Sure. Leaving your computer on with a browser open day and night will get you 1.3MB every minute all day all month. I wonder if my iGoogle home page would do that. Maybe CNN. Maybe not Yahoo.
More BS. If they set their cap at 600GB, some of you (many I suspect) would still be claiming this is achievable by your average nitwit user. Just accept the fact that there is a limit that will satisfy 99% of all users, and the remaining 1% will be faced with paying more for their excess.
Ok, so you didn't do ASP. What did you do before Java? Did you work with data-intensive sites, such as customer-service or dispatching sites, or inventory control?
ASP doesn't require IE6, but back when it was IE6 or Safari or Mozilla, using anything else besides IE6 meant a lot more work, and some stuff did not in fact work.
So it wasn't that long ago that an ASP developer pretty much wrote to IE6.
But seriously, there's a whole corporate world out there that did focus on ASP, and they needed it to just work. To add browser troubles on top of the rest of the Microsoft crap was just not worth the trouble.
It's not as if a lot of otherwise pretty smart people and some HUGE sites didn't also have problems moving to IE7-compatible code.
Back then, ASP was a good choice if you wanted a robust development platform. today, we have many choices. Not all of those survive browser updates unscathed, but many do.
Again, at the time, it was prudent.
And, it's good business to not spend money on what *might* be, and wait until it *is*. You forget, how IE works is not evident until it is released.
Actually this all fits under the heading "it worked, it still works, give me a reason to change". Running IE6 in a VM works, and is actually an interesting answer to a lot of problems. I run IE6 and IE8 in VMs, along with Safari, Opera, and Firefox, for testing. It is a blessing to start over with a few clicks instead of figuring out what went wrong with the browser. I'm only interested in the web app, and the direct impact on the browser. All else is not my concern.
I don't see Western Europe as a threat any time soon, and Eastern Europe, despite their very limited nuclear arsenal(s), a vestige of the Soviet Union, are also not anything to fear for a while.
The Middle East has several players that are developing nuclear capabilities, and at some point one or more will probably develop nuclear weapons. of course Israel is assumed to have them already.
Until we go broke, China is not a nuclear threat.
Back then, the real problem was that:
- IE6 was optimized for ASP (or was it ASP optimized for IE6, so confusing).
- Many businesses used ASP for Web-based apps.
- So many businesses were dependent on the IE6-ASP integration.
- And many businesses wanted reliable Web services, so a browser that worked well with ASP was very desireable.
This is all pretty well-known to anyone developing back then, as recently as 2006 actually, and is not news. That so many business users are still developing to IE6 is unfortunate, but given the cost of adapting to multiple browsers (and the futility of doing so) it isn't really so surprising. Add in the uncertainty that the *next* version of IE won't be compatible with sites written to accomodate previous versions, and this is an impossible situation no one really bothers to talk about so much, unless you're a designer or programmer. Or an escalation tech. Or a manager with a finite budget for your web services.
Rather than explain the situation as "developers thought they could get away with developing web applications that would work only on IE 6", perhaps you should explain it as "developers thought they could get away with developing web applications that would WORK".
So blame the developers for doing what worked, given the alternative which didn't exist at the time.
So let me get this straight, and undo the damage my teachers have done...
"It wasn't until Japan attacked the U.S. that WWII became global by an stretch."
"Similarly, it wasn't until Germany tried to get Mexico to attack the United States that WWI became in any meaningful sense global."
WWI and WWII were regional conflicts until the protaganists made them global.
That clears things up a lot.
So WWI was regional until France and England, no, wait, Germany tried to spread it to us that it became 'globalized' and we had an excuse to get involved. France being overrun and various European nations being eliminated wasn't of sufficient import to justify our involvement. Neither was Germany's intention to dominate the continent. And certainly we threatened Germany by our involvement on Britain's side, though of course we need not have concerned ourselves with the prospect of the European continent being subsumed into a German empire.
And WWI Was just a regional conflict until England, no, France, no, wait, Russia, no actually Japan attacked US territory and got us involved. All that unpleasantness of Germany bombing England was just not important enough for us to get into it. Of course, Hitler's plans for world domination didn't really threaten us, though Japan might have been concerned, which would explain their attacks on Germany. Certainly, the U.S. could have sat this one out as two different nations plotted world domination, since we weren't really at risk except for Hawaii, and that being so far away that it shouldn't have given us much of a fright.
For those of you not reading carefully, that was sarcasm.
Really. Just for context, when were you born?