Especially regarding the slashdot 'color', which is so horribly ugly and painful, I dont think there is anybody besides yourself that would want to keep it.
When I see that color of green, I think 'Slashdot'. Ugly though it may be, it has become one of Slashdot's trademarks. Brand recognition is difficult to cultivate, but Slashdot has done it using ugly green. This is not something that should be thrown away lightly. The new design should incorporate it in some recognizable fashion so as not to lose it.
Web designers and contractors work with requirements like this on a daily basis. I've known very few professions or tasks that allow total creative license and still succeed. Even though you might think it's restrictive, I guarantee that there will be quite a few solid designs that incorporate it tastefully in the upcoming submissions.
RFID chip implants don't have to be mandatory. All you have to do is make it a rule that you can't fly, or cross the border, or get a drivers license without one.
Are you implying that Americans will just sit back and let that happen in the first place? I don't know a single person that would stand for the government pulling that one over on us.
Now I do think it's plausible that businesses will start requiring RFID chips to be implanted. The added security precaution will seem very enticing to corporate types. Just start imagining only chipped IT employees being allowed in server rooms, or only "Top Secret" chipped people being allowed into Sandia National Labratories, and you'll start to see the benefits.
The government may toy with the idea, but in the end it will be businesses leading this crusade. Kudos to my home state for being proactive about this.
The majority of Slashdotters do NOT hate China or its people. But we do hate the Chinese Government and its continued suppression of it's people. The fact that you are equating the both the government and its people as one is part of the problem.
China is slowly becoming the new hegemonic power in the world, and while the US Government is a despicable sellout to corporate interests, at least it believes in relative freedom and democracy (if you discount the whole Patriot Act thing). But as China becomes a larger world power, its overwhelming ideals of government suppression, censorship and "big brother" mentality will be foisted upon the countries it interacts with.
What Slashdotters see in China is the potential future in store for all of us, and we don't like it one bit. So while the majority of Chinese may not believe in overwhelming censorship, Chinese Government does (and actively pursues) this type of culture, and we will continue to attack it in speech and writing until it stops.
"I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend, to the death, your right to say it." -- Voltaire
The executive branch is supposed to enforce the laws created by the legislature, and upheld by the courts. However, there's no clause in the Constitution that says what "We The People" are supposed to do when the President ignores the laws, and Congress replies with "enh." I'd have to say that the founders probably weren't expecting their descendents to vote the sources of the problem back into office, but then again we're stupid like that.
The Internet, he says, will level the playing field for China's enormous rural underclass; once the country's small villages are connected, he says, students thousands of miles from Shanghai or Beijing will be able to access online course materials from M.I.T. or Harvard and fully educate themselves.
He then added, "And then Yahoo will promptly turn over the names of the offending individuals for sentencing."
It isn't Yahoo's job to change the political climate in China, no more than it is Googles. Change in China will occur once the people demand it and other nations (not companies) apply pressure and lend support.
The problem is that Yahoo's behavior sets a dangerous precident for the expected behavior of other US companies operating in China. One of the greatest powers of the internet is the ability to bring people together, and in this case it is being used to further isolate the people who seek this type of social change.
Yahoo's behavior in China is indicative of current and future behavior in the US. We already have confirmed reports that they've handed over private information at least once before to the US gov't. Why should we be so naive to think they aren't doing the same thing in the US? Why stop there? Yahoo could be redirecting all e-mails through CIA sniffing computers. After all, the Patriot Act gave the administration the power to make these kinds of requests and hide the fact with an accompanying federal gag order. (It would explain why Yahoo's mail servers take forever to connect, if they connect.) But that's just the Patriot Act paranoia in me speaking out.
Conspiracy theories aside, Google is at least doing "something". A company (or person) that believes in nothing, will not stand up against anything or anyone, whether it is China or the United States.
Once they are involved, what's to stop them from forcing design decisions upon the standards which make it easier for them to control and watch us?
I think you're confusing government bureaucrats with politicians. Having worked for a government IT bureau, I can say that open documents would be welcomed and would have made our lives a hell of a lot easier. My team was charged with managing the 13 step process of bill creation and adoption for the legislature, which included no less than 6 legacy programming languages. The users and developers involved would have jumped at the chance of open document standards, since it removes the inherent half-life of proprietary formats.
The problem is that the head of the bureau is chosen by a politician. While I can say from experience that our head was actively guided by his appointed party as to what software we were allowed to use, I can not comment on other bureau's machinations. So while the bureau grunts would have loved open document standards, the politicians who have the proprietary donors would probably stifle it.
Yes, most of its sales used to come from the hardware, but last year, subscription payments for the TiVo service brought in almost twice as many sales dollars as the hardware ($167 million to $72 million). And TiVo is quite happy giving up hardware sales, as they sell their boxes at a loss--it cost $84 million to produce the hardware that was sold.
I've said it before:
Tivo's greatest asset is its brand and unique UI, not its DVR. Tivo should give up its DVR sales and instead license its brand and UI to other DVR makers. This would give Tivo a more predictable income and allow the company to expand into other areas. The reason Tivo is a buyout target is because any CEO with half a brain has thought of this and sees the company as piggy bank just waiting to be cracked open.
If Tivo isn't willing to follow the lucrative business model sitting in front of them, a bigger company will gladly come along and "guide them" in the right direction.
You mean if quality and reliability continue to improve that [your] appeal will continue to grow???
That implies that all unappealing people produce low quality products and are highly unreliable. However, since I produce high quality products and am reliable, I must therefore be appealing.
While it is interesting . . . but if you have ever tried dual booting with Windows the first couple of times you always find out that Windows will boot and the other operating system is screwed up.
Man you're not kidding. When I was in college I tried setting up my computer with dual boot Windows/Linux. On the maiden boot up, my computer made a 'pfft' sound, followed by a 'fwoomp' as a huge burst of white smoke lept out of my computer with the added smell of burnt electronics.
That's right. Windows had convinced my computer to commit suicide rather than boot with Linux. (Although I'm very impressed with their black ops department now.)
I thought they would have aimed at corporations and businesses first as I assumed there would me more fiscal reward to be hard there.
Ahh, but corporations are better at hiding their money overseas (and have more legal loopholes to do so) than a regular plebian. The IRS is basically going for the easy wins. Why target a single corporation, when you can pick off 1000+ individuals? Since it's a less complex evasion scheme, it's that much easier to prove and prosecute.
It's kind of the same logic as why bankrobbers have the highest prosecution success rate, but why corporate crimes go relatively unpunished. Most individuals have very little clout and/or money to defend themselves, while corporations are basically big sacks of money with teeth.
I think any competent lawyer would be able to force the IRS to narrow their request to users who exhibit "suspicious behavior" as defined by some defensible argument. (Although IANAL and then again Paypal could pull a Yahoo and just cave in.)
If this is the level, maybe I should be producing something - and nobody wants to see that.
On the contrary, I'm actually looking forward to, "Slashdot: Escaping the Basement." It's a fictional drama about a slashdotter who finally leaves his parent's basement only to find that the world is run by good looking stupid people, that "logic" is a mythical word only spoken in dark circles, and that he's constantly being reminded that he smells "a bit ripe".
I can't wait to see the climax where the Slashdotter shares his sage wisdom with the world, is made ruler of the World Hegemon, receives a lightsaber, and then the supermodel "girl next door" tears off her clothes and attacks him in a whirl of passion. It should be frickin' awesome!
I don't care how valuable NPR is or thinks it is -- as long as they are funded through coercion (taxation), then I will treat them as an organization which is funded through coercion. That is, I will never so much as consider helping them, no matter how much they need it.
Well, if you follow that logic I'm assuming you avoid driving cars, flying in airplanes and taking public transportation. The automotive and airline industries has been receiving government subsidies for years, not to mention the handouts the Bush administration has been giving to oil companies these past few years. I'd say you could walk or bike, but there's bound to be some plastic in your shoes and somewhere on the bike. (And plastic comes from oil.)
If you really wanted to live a life free from government money, I'm sure there's a patch in the Antarctic we could drop your naked self to scratch a "clean" bit of living on.
Might you want to think things through before you try killing off Big Bird, Mr. Rogers, and one of the few remaining independent media sources in the country? Not everything the government spends money on is a bad thing, and if you want to change how things work you can either vote or run for office yourself.
Actually its one of those companies that came out of the dot com boom, but somehow didnt die. It started with great technology and no viable business plan.
Tivo has one thing that all it's competitors can't buy: brand recognition.
I think of one thing when I think of Tivo. It's not the PVR itself, but the amazing UI that's running on it. If Tivo is looking to start turning a profit (especially with all the competition brewing up) it should stop selling actual boxes, and just start licensing the Tivo UI.
Tivo needs a recurring source of reliable income so it can have a better long term big picture. Let someone else worry about the hardware, license the software to manufacturers for big $$$ each year, and focus on what they can do to improve their product and its offerings.
It's the name that sells, not the box that's attached to it.
Actually, the company I work for requires it. It's very intrusive and time consuming to either walk over to someone's office, or call the person up right then and there. The person could be in a meeting or busy, and your walking over or calling can be very disruptive.
IM is just a faster form of e-mail, and (just like e-mail) it requires discipline not to fritter away the company's time "talking" on it all day. But there have been quite a few instances where my COO or a trainer shoots off an IM during a presentation with a question. IM is useful in that it is quick and discrete.
I think it's less of the "first misstep", than the latest in a series of missteps by Google.
Google has good intentions, but I think it's mistaken in believing it can keep launching service after service after service and be the leader in each. I'm really wishing Google would pull back and focus on a few key business plans, instead of half completing 1000 of them. Google's lack of focus is going to cost them pretty soon when smaller companies start focusing on the business plans that Google is getting lax on.
The government does get things right from time to time, and this is one of them.
Right now, a disgruntled employee of a banking, credit or other corporation that has possession of your social security number, can sell your info on the street and the company has no liability or mandate forcing them to tell you of the breach once they become aware of it (which they will when 1000+ customers suddenly transfer all their money to an account in Poland). The onus is currently on the customer to notice the problem, report it, and then argue and plead for them to fix it (with the customer thinking this is an isolated incident when it is not). With this law, the customer will no longer have to argue the case, as the company will be forced to reveal the breach and make it right.
If you want to gripe about paying too many taxes, write your senator that you're sick of paying for $500 hammers and $10000 toilet seats. But this law is a keeper and about 30 years late in coming.
I was going to say that you shouldn't be so pessimistic and melodramatic about it all, but then I remembered that I was on Slashdot. *ducks*
Seriously though. As an American citizen, I'm actually kind of happy that our military is toying with defending against and initiating these types of attacks first. Rather than a memo from the president that reads:
Dear Internet Gods,
I've been trying to "Google" for "Terrorist Nations" for 3 days now and all I ever see is this page called "404". Please investigate.
I'm more interested in how poorly the age demographic question was designed in the survey. From the article, it makes it sound like they had a question like:
What is your age? (Choose One)
- 8 or under
- 9 to 19
- 20 to 29
etc.
It's a fairly rediculous to assume that you can draw any age related statistical conclusions from the sample using this question. But then again, I've seen some pretty poorly designed surveys. (I should know, I make survey software for a living, and my wife is a market researcher.)
Now, if the age demographic question was a fill in the blank, where the user directly typed in the response, this study would have some more weight to it. As it is, I find that situation unlikely.
I'm sorry, but I see this type of solution only as a way to prolong the problem. Logistically, it makes very little sense to have a manager over in the U.S. manage IT workers over in India. The only reason to do so is if there are few people with IT management skills in India (which is currently true).
However, India is full of intelligent IT people, and in 5 years there will be enough IT people with experience to start being managers themselves. When that point comes the U.S. will start to outsource IT management positions overseas for two major reasons: 1) Reduced Salaries for comparable work. 2) Logistical and communication benefits. (A manager works best when working directly with the people he or she is managing.)
The reason the process is sort of start-stopping right now is because of communication limitations and cross-cultural difficulties. As more and more people from India and China gain more IT experience, more and more managers will appear in these countries. In response, the mean U.S. salary for IT managers will steadily drop over the coming years.
Flooding the job market with skilled English-speaking IT workers will behave the same as any other market that gets flooded. The mean price (salary) will drop considerably until the demand once again exceeds the supply. As more cheap labor becomes available, more companies will find ways to exploit this resource. And as more and more companies use up the resource, the price (salary) will again go up. (But I figure it's probably going to be a while before that happens.)
Will you survive in the IT industry by becoming a manager? Yes, but don't be surprised if managers start getting outsourced as well in a few years and your salary starts to slip. The only people I see maintaining their salaries intact are those individuals who have hard-to-find knowledge and experience. Specialized knowledge is, by definition, hard to come by, so the corresponding salaries will be impacted less. (But seeing how this is the internet age, good luck trying to find and keep that specialized knowledge to yourself.)
Basically, to end this rant, it could be bad (very bad) for IT workers over the next few years, but it'll turn around eventually.
MercExchange has also announced a similar lawsuit against Walmart. When asked about the new lawsuit on fixed price items, CEO Thomas Woolston was paraphrased to say:
It just seemed like a natural extension. I mean, seriously, I can just walk into Walmart, take something off the shelf, and purchase it immediately. The clerk doesn't even ask me if that's really what I want to buy first! That was so totally my idea. Big companies like Walmart need to learn that you just cant pwn the little guy like that and get away with it."
Slashdot Mirror
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information
Web designers and contractors work with requirements like this on a daily basis. I've known very few professions or tasks that allow total creative license and still succeed. Even though you might think it's restrictive, I guarantee that there will be quite a few solid designs that incorporate it tastefully in the upcoming submissions.
Now I do think it's plausible that businesses will start requiring RFID chips to be implanted. The added security precaution will seem very enticing to corporate types. Just start imagining only chipped IT employees being allowed in server rooms, or only "Top Secret" chipped people being allowed into Sandia National Labratories, and you'll start to see the benefits.
The government may toy with the idea, but in the end it will be businesses leading this crusade. Kudos to my home state for being proactive about this.
The majority of Slashdotters do NOT hate China or its people. But we do hate the Chinese Government and its continued suppression of it's people. The fact that you are equating the both the government and its people as one is part of the problem.
China is slowly becoming the new hegemonic power in the world, and while the US Government is a despicable sellout to corporate interests, at least it believes in relative freedom and democracy (if you discount the whole Patriot Act thing). But as China becomes a larger world power, its overwhelming ideals of government suppression, censorship and "big brother" mentality will be foisted upon the countries it interacts with.
What Slashdotters see in China is the potential future in store for all of us, and we don't like it one bit. So while the majority of Chinese may not believe in overwhelming censorship, Chinese Government does (and actively pursues) this type of culture, and we will continue to attack it in speech and writing until it stops.
"I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend, to the death, your right to say it." -- Voltaire
The executive branch is supposed to enforce the laws created by the legislature, and upheld by the courts. However, there's no clause in the Constitution that says what "We The People" are supposed to do when the President ignores the laws, and Congress replies with "enh." I'd have to say that the founders probably weren't expecting their descendents to vote the sources of the problem back into office, but then again we're stupid like that.
The problem is that Yahoo's behavior sets a dangerous precident for the expected behavior of other US companies operating in China. One of the greatest powers of the internet is the ability to bring people together, and in this case it is being used to further isolate the people who seek this type of social change.
Yahoo's behavior in China is indicative of current and future behavior in the US. We already have confirmed reports that they've handed over private information at least once before to the US gov't. Why should we be so naive to think they aren't doing the same thing in the US? Why stop there? Yahoo could be redirecting all e-mails through CIA sniffing computers. After all, the Patriot Act gave the administration the power to make these kinds of requests and hide the fact with an accompanying federal gag order. (It would explain why Yahoo's mail servers take forever to connect, if they connect.) But that's just the Patriot Act paranoia in me speaking out.
Conspiracy theories aside, Google is at least doing "something". A company (or person) that believes in nothing, will not stand up against anything or anyone, whether it is China or the United States.
The problem is that the head of the bureau is chosen by a politician. While I can say from experience that our head was actively guided by his appointed party as to what software we were allowed to use, I can not comment on other bureau's machinations. So while the bureau grunts would have loved open document standards, the politicians who have the proprietary donors would probably stifle it.
Tivo's greatest asset is its brand and unique UI, not its DVR. Tivo should give up its DVR sales and instead license its brand and UI to other DVR makers. This would give Tivo a more predictable income and allow the company to expand into other areas. The reason Tivo is a buyout target is because any CEO with half a brain has thought of this and sees the company as piggy bank just waiting to be cracked open.
If Tivo isn't willing to follow the lucrative business model sitting in front of them, a bigger company will gladly come along and "guide them" in the right direction.
Awesome! I AM a hunk!
That's right. Windows had convinced my computer to commit suicide rather than boot with Linux. (Although I'm very impressed with their black ops department now.)
It's kind of the same logic as why bankrobbers have the highest prosecution success rate, but why corporate crimes go relatively unpunished. Most individuals have very little clout and/or money to defend themselves, while corporations are basically big sacks of money with teeth.
I think any competent lawyer would be able to force the IRS to narrow their request to users who exhibit "suspicious behavior" as defined by some defensible argument. (Although IANAL and then again Paypal could pull a Yahoo and just cave in.)
Oh, you said 'virtualization'...
I can't wait to see the climax where the Slashdotter shares his sage wisdom with the world, is made ruler of the World Hegemon, receives a lightsaber, and then the supermodel "girl next door" tears off her clothes and attacks him in a whirl of passion. It should be frickin' awesome!
If you really wanted to live a life free from government money, I'm sure there's a patch in the Antarctic we could drop your naked self to scratch a "clean" bit of living on.
Might you want to think things through before you try killing off Big Bird, Mr. Rogers, and one of the few remaining independent media sources in the country? Not everything the government spends money on is a bad thing, and if you want to change how things work you can either vote or run for office yourself.
I think of one thing when I think of Tivo. It's not the PVR itself, but the amazing UI that's running on it. If Tivo is looking to start turning a profit (especially with all the competition brewing up) it should stop selling actual boxes, and just start licensing the Tivo UI.
Tivo needs a recurring source of reliable income so it can have a better long term big picture. Let someone else worry about the hardware, license the software to manufacturers for big $$$ each year, and focus on what they can do to improve their product and its offerings.
It's the name that sells, not the box that's attached to it.
IM is just a faster form of e-mail, and (just like e-mail) it requires discipline not to fritter away the company's time "talking" on it all day. But there have been quite a few instances where my COO or a trainer shoots off an IM during a presentation with a question. IM is useful in that it is quick and discrete.
I think it's less of the "first misstep", than the latest in a series of missteps by Google.
Google has good intentions, but I think it's mistaken in believing it can keep launching service after service after service and be the leader in each. I'm really wishing Google would pull back and focus on a few key business plans, instead of half completing 1000 of them. Google's lack of focus is going to cost them pretty soon when smaller companies start focusing on the business plans that Google is getting lax on.
The government does get things right from time to time, and this is one of them.
Right now, a disgruntled employee of a banking, credit or other corporation that has possession of your social security number, can sell your info on the street and the company has no liability or mandate forcing them to tell you of the breach once they become aware of it (which they will when 1000+ customers suddenly transfer all their money to an account in Poland). The onus is currently on the customer to notice the problem, report it, and then argue and plead for them to fix it (with the customer thinking this is an isolated incident when it is not). With this law, the customer will no longer have to argue the case, as the company will be forced to reveal the breach and make it right.
If you want to gripe about paying too many taxes, write your senator that you're sick of paying for $500 hammers and $10000 toilet seats. But this law is a keeper and about 30 years late in coming.
Seriously though. As an American citizen, I'm actually kind of happy that our military is toying with defending against and initiating these types of attacks first. Rather than a memo from the president that reads:
I'm more interested in how poorly the age demographic question was designed in the survey. From the article, it makes it sound like they had a question like:
What is your age? (Choose One)
- 8 or under
- 9 to 19
- 20 to 29
etc.
It's a fairly rediculous to assume that you can draw any age related statistical conclusions from the sample using this question. But then again, I've seen some pretty poorly designed surveys. (I should know, I make survey software for a living, and my wife is a market researcher.)
Now, if the age demographic question was a fill in the blank, where the user directly typed in the response, this study would have some more weight to it. As it is, I find that situation unlikely.
I'm sorry, but I see this type of solution only as a way to prolong the problem. Logistically, it makes very little sense to have a manager over in the U.S. manage IT workers over in India. The only reason to do so is if there are few people with IT management skills in India (which is currently true).
However, India is full of intelligent IT people, and in 5 years there will be enough IT people with experience to start being managers themselves. When that point comes the U.S. will start to outsource IT management positions overseas for two major reasons: 1) Reduced Salaries for comparable work. 2) Logistical and communication benefits. (A manager works best when working directly with the people he or she is managing.)
The reason the process is sort of start-stopping right now is because of communication limitations and cross-cultural difficulties. As more and more people from India and China gain more IT experience, more and more managers will appear in these countries. In response, the mean U.S. salary for IT managers will steadily drop over the coming years.
Flooding the job market with skilled English-speaking IT workers will behave the same as any other market that gets flooded. The mean price (salary) will drop considerably until the demand once again exceeds the supply. As more cheap labor becomes available, more companies will find ways to exploit this resource. And as more and more companies use up the resource, the price (salary) will again go up. (But I figure it's probably going to be a while before that happens.)
Will you survive in the IT industry by becoming a manager? Yes, but don't be surprised if managers start getting outsourced as well in a few years and your salary starts to slip. The only people I see maintaining their salaries intact are those individuals who have hard-to-find knowledge and experience. Specialized knowledge is, by definition, hard to come by, so the corresponding salaries will be impacted less. (But seeing how this is the internet age, good luck trying to find and keep that specialized knowledge to yourself.)
Basically, to end this rant, it could be bad (very bad) for IT workers over the next few years, but it'll turn around eventually.
The title of the article is "Getting on Top of Spam Down Under," and I haven't even seen one v1@grA joke yet.