But does the 'viable' alternative come with 25GB mailboxes backed by an SLA? Didn't think so.
Google Apps Premier, one of the less expensive ($50/employee/yr. vs. $72/employee/year for Microsoft's offering) viable alternatives, does, in fact, come with 25GB mailboxes per user backed by a SLA with a three 9s uptime guarantee and 24/7 technical support.
Or, to put it a different way, the cheapest version of Microsoft's hosted apps system is 44% more than the price of Google Apps Premier (and #DIV/0% more than the cost of Google Apps Standard.)
If $6 / mo is *expensive*
Expensive is always in terms of the alternatives.
then I'm not sure how people manage payroll.
By not spending more than is warranted on other things.
The Mayans had a Long Count calendar which was based on how many days since the day they believe creation started.
Correct.
They believed that this age was the fourth world and the fifth would start at the end of the Long Count.
The first half is correct. The Maya did believe that this was the fourth -- and only successful -- creation, that followed three prior, failed attempts at creation.
The second half is less correct. First, the Long Count doesn't end (or at least not in the currently-expected lifetime of the universe and several orders of magnitude more; the abbreviated expression that was all that was needed to record current dates does 'run out', similar to the Y2K problem, but the Long Count has many higher positional cycles that were used in writing future dates, and occasionally used in writing current dates in ceremonial contexts.)
Second, there is no evidence that the Maya expected the current creation to end at any particular time; and there are concrete indications (in the form of predictions of events in the current creation that did require the use of higher-order cycles) that if they did expect the current creation to end, it wasn't at the point where Long Count dates counted from the beginning of the current creation would begin to need to use the higher-order cycles that weren't conventionally used to express current dates.
If by they you mean the Maya, then, no, they didn't predict the end of the world.
They had a calendar which has a cycle expire at a particular time. The assignment of the "end of the world" or similar apocalyptic significance to that cycle expiration is something that was done in the 20th Century by New Age writers.
But it's certainly not a CD drive. It's a crippled DVD drive.
It certainly is a CD drive as well as a crippled DVD drive; its conceivable that a "crippled" DVD drive might be crippled in such a way as to not be a CD drive, but normal DVD drives are CD drives and the one in the Wii is not crippled in a way that changes that.
Because no one has come up with a replacement technology that maintains PDF's strengths while having a compelling-enough set of advantages to get people to change.
But as the sun ages and gets bigger and hotter it might be a good idea to put up a sun shade while we can.
IIRC, the expected evolution of the Sun will result in it getting bigger and cooler, it will just seem hotter to anything left on Earth because the Earth will actually be inside it.
Of course, there's billions of years before that happens. Personally, I think moving off the Earth is a better strategy for dealing with that than building any kind of plausible "sunshade".
Would a corporation sacrifice profit to screw with Joss?
A corporation who decided Joss's show was potentially something that would be individually popular but which would not support their other programming well might screw with the show that way (which is a little different than the suggestion of just not liking Joss.) The only reason I say that is because its reasonably well established that the Babylon 5 spinoff Crusade got exactly this treatment by a network that didn't want it to succeed (because it was perceived as something that wouldn't support their other programming) and didn't want to cut it loose so that someone else would have it.
Perceived synergies drive network programming (probably a tiny bit less so now in the age of ubiquitous DVRs than when Firefly was on the air, but still its a pretty significant factor.) Networks don't really want a show that is going to be the one show lots of people watch on their network without tuning into any of the rest of their programming, they want shows where people that watch one show will also watch more of the shows on the network.
TFA states a lot of PR from the FCC, the TiVo, and the cable industry on the effects the new rule will have on consumers, but nowhere describes what about the CableCARD rules is actually being changed, and doesn't cite the order to enable people to check for themselves. So I checked the FCC website, the order is here.
Haven't had time to read it myself yet, but hopefully having it will enable people to read it and make comments on the actual content, rather than the fluff in TFA.
Web + TV, you say? Why, I could make billions if it was 1994
Yes, nothing that has ever been, in generally similar terms, tried once and failed has ever been commercialized successfully later after technology has advanced and details of the approach were changed.
For instance, Apple isn't currently doing a brisk business in selling tablet computers despite the weak success of previous attempts of other companies to do that.
No one cares about the current and planned IPTV offerings.
This isn't an IPTV offering. Its simply a Web + TV offering. It does incorporate access to existing Web video sources, but primarily the TV (content) part comes from whatever normal TV signal source you have.
Cable/satellite companies will never let them mature into anything worthwhile.
Which is probably why GoogleTV is designed primarily (for now) to bring existing Web content to your TV screen and enhance rather than replace traditional cable/satellite (or, AFAIK, broadcast) TV.
Sony.
Sony hasn't really been all that bad at selling TVs and other media products, so as much as some people may be upset about some things Sony has done in the past, I don't think that's a reason that the product will fail.
Even though Google recently announced its own Google TV, seems like their partnership with Sony is going to make it obsolete
Wrong.
What Google announced was the GoogleTV platform. In the Google announcement, they announced a series of hardware manufacturer partners that would be developing devices incorporating the platform on TVs, Blu-Ray players, and standalone settop boxes. Sony was one of those.
Now Sony has announced some of the specific initial products that it will be making that incorporate the GoogleTV platform.
Unfortunately though, at the moment it only has a handful of apps available but Sony said the OS will be updated in early 2011 to include the Android Market app with more options.
Which is exactly what Google said when they announced GoogleTV.
Why isn't it recognized as a calculator? It's surely not because it can't "calculate."
The point of approved calculators for standardized testing to eliminate devices that can do things beyond the kind of assistance the test allows for, particularly things that might facilitate cheating, or which produce noise which might be distracting. See the SAT rules, for instance.
This is an example of the standardized test manufacturers creating an artificial market for TI calculators.
Well, except that nothing restricts (either in principle or practice) the approved calculators to "TI Calculators".
It's more expensive and less versatile than an iPod touch
Well, except that the MSRP of this is less than that of the least expensive model of iPod touch, which makes the "more expensive" part hard to comprehend.
Unless there is a contagious factor, the only nationwide stats you will find on injuries (broken arms) is from insurance carriers.
This is perhaps technically true insofar as the US government is an "insurance carrier", but it is not meaningfully true in that while the US government does national collection of statistics within its "insurance" programs for their covered populations, it also does so more generally through the CDC's National Center for Health Statistics, which gathers injury statistics from a variety of sources (directly from hospitals who record this in discharge and emergency department records, and via public survey methods.
It might be easy to hand write the details off the screen for circumvention, but that is only going to net you a small data set. These systems are designend to stop people walking off with entire client databases and that type of thing.
Photocopying is, while more efficient than handwriting, orders of magnitude below the most efficient method of copying off entire client databases.
And, of course, having this feature on your photocopier adds no security at all unless you have physical security on the original documents sufficient to solve the problem without any technical features on photocopiers in the first place.
All it is is an expensive way to get the illusion of security.
I imagine the first terms to be added could be something like "Company Confidential, Do Not Copy" or "Sensitive Business Information".
If the originals themselves aren't closely controlled, this is easily evaded by simply removing the originals, copying them elsewhere, and returning them.
If the originals are tightly controlled, this is superfluous, because the control on the originals can simply be used to keep them in a location where there isn't a copy machine.
The kind of places that are trying to prevent certain documents from being copied probably already prohibit cell phones and cameras.
The kind of places that are trying to prevent certain documents from being copied and that already prohibit cell phones and cameras generally already have access controls on the documents that need special security and keep them in a secure location from which they aren't allowed to be removed (and with physical inspections to prevent that.) Simply not having a copier in that area deals with the problem, whereas keyword based security on copiers that stops copies while routing to a human administrator is a brain-dead solution that is going to produce waste because no conceivable setup is both going to work and avoid substantial false positives.
Further, if you don't control where the originals go, people that want to make copies are just going to take them out of the area under your control and then return them.
This is an expensive and unreliable technical solution to a problem for which there are existing superior and less expensive solutions. Still, they'll probably sell to lots of managers in places that don't currently exercise serious controls that haven't analyzed the issue and that can be sold on the idea that this will be a "magic bullet" that will enable them to have control.
Someone who is security conscious enough to use this service, is also probably bright enough to actually secure their smartphone with a PIN.
If they have a smartphone -- in which case, they can log into Facebook without a computer from the phone -- they probably have little need for this service. This service would seem to be most useful for people with dumb phones that use facebook from untrusted computers.
And I think it is a mistake to think that someone who uses one feature that is promoted as offering security is likely to be security-conscious and use layered security and defense in depth. They are just as likely, if not moreso, to be generally security-ignorant and to have picked up the presented technique and assume that they don't need other security around the same information.
This article is largely about Oracle offering IBM concessions regarding the management JCP process so that IBM would drop involvement with Harmony in favor of dedicating resources to OpenJDK and the Java Community Process.
that is Keynesian nonsense. Inflation is expansion of monetary supply.
The fact that the Austrian school has tried to redefine the term doesn't mean that that is what it means, outside of conversations exclusively between members of that group.
Inflation has a very well-established meaning (which, incidentally, predates Keynes) of being increases in the general price level.
The Keynesian shamans have perverted that notion and invented a new term for it, which you bought: 'monetary inflation' and they redefined what inflation always used to mean before Keynesian shamans destroyed the field of economics, they redefined inflation as price inflation.
The classical term for what is now called "monetary inflation" wasn't, as you suggest, plain "inflation" but "currency devaluation". Of course, that was the term for it when the dominant form of currency was representational commodity currency so that printing more currency meant increasing the ratio of circulating currency to reserves of the backing commodity. The term "currency devaluation" is less apt when there is no backing commodity, as is the case with fiat currency, and is less apt it describing expansions in the money supply other than expansions in the supply of actual currency, hence "monetary inflation" displaced it as the general term for expansion of the supply of money.
It is true that what is now known as just plain "inflation" was previously known as "price inflation", but it didn't replace a previous use of the term "inflation" by itself to mean something else in economics.
You insist that Austrian economics is discredited, which of-course is pure nonsense, Jim Rogers, Soros, Schiff and others who make pretty living investing based on Austrian school, have predicted the economic collapse during the Internet bubble, predicted the collapse of the housing bubble, predicted the inflation and the resulting rise of commodities and emerging markets while the Keynesians are generally lost in the woods
Soros rather explicitly is not a subscriber to the Austrian school, though certainly a few of his ideas are similar to or drawn from the same sources that the Austrian school draws from. And lots of people -- economist, investors, etc., from different schools of economics, including Keynesians like Paul Krugman, predicted each of those collapses. Really, investment bubbles are so common historically that its hard to imagine any theory of economics which could account for and comprehend them. That's not where different schools of economics differ.
Payments to other shareholders are almost considered equivalent to an expense. No other shareholder can effect any CHANGE.
In practical terms, insofar as that is true, it is often true below the majority threshold. A practical controlling interest often is less than a majority interest.
Depending on the BOD rules the other shareholders might not even be able to have their own director. 51% means total control.
It means effective control for most purposes, sure, but its not the same as ownership. Particularly, whether or not the other shareholders have the power to choose a member of the board, the board and management still have legally-enforceable duties to them. These do, in fact, substantially restrict the freedom of a majority shareholder to exercise control, which is why majority shareholders that want unrestricted control will sometimes go the next step and offer to buy out the other shareholders in order to get the unrestricted control offered by outright ownership.
Alternatively, you should never be driving the car at more than 70 mph as it is illegal to do so.
Even if you were referring to the maximum speed allowed on public roadways (which isn't the same as the maximum speed that it is legal to drive ever), several US states have 75-80mph maximum speed limits.
Slashdot Mirror
Google Apps Premier, one of the less expensive ($50/employee/yr. vs. $72/employee/year for Microsoft's offering) viable alternatives, does, in fact, come with 25GB mailboxes per user backed by a SLA with a three 9s uptime guarantee and 24/7 technical support.
Or, to put it a different way, the cheapest version of Microsoft's hosted apps system is 44% more than the price of Google Apps Premier (and #DIV/0% more than the cost of Google Apps Standard.)
Expensive is always in terms of the alternatives.
By not spending more than is warranted on other things.
Correct.
The first half is correct. The Maya did believe that this was the fourth -- and only successful -- creation, that followed three prior, failed attempts at creation.
The second half is less correct. First, the Long Count doesn't end (or at least not in the currently-expected lifetime of the universe and several orders of magnitude more; the abbreviated expression that was all that was needed to record current dates does 'run out', similar to the Y2K problem, but the Long Count has many higher positional cycles that were used in writing future dates, and occasionally used in writing current dates in ceremonial contexts.)
Second, there is no evidence that the Maya expected the current creation to end at any particular time; and there are concrete indications (in the form of predictions of events in the current creation that did require the use of higher-order cycles) that if they did expect the current creation to end, it wasn't at the point where Long Count dates counted from the beginning of the current creation would begin to need to use the higher-order cycles that weren't conventionally used to express current dates.
They predicted the end of the world,
If by they you mean the Maya, then, no, they didn't predict the end of the world.
They had a calendar which has a cycle expire at a particular time. The assignment of the "end of the world" or similar apocalyptic significance to that cycle expiration is something that was done in the 20th Century by New Age writers.
It certainly is a CD drive as well as a crippled DVD drive; its conceivable that a "crippled" DVD drive might be crippled in such a way as to not be a CD drive, but normal DVD drives are CD drives and the one in the Wii is not crippled in a way that changes that.
Because no one has come up with a replacement technology that maintains PDF's strengths while having a compelling-enough set of advantages to get people to change.
But as the sun ages and gets bigger and hotter it might be a good idea to put up a sun shade while we can.
IIRC, the expected evolution of the Sun will result in it getting bigger and cooler, it will just seem hotter to anything left on Earth because the Earth will actually be inside it.
Of course, there's billions of years before that happens. Personally, I think moving off the Earth is a better strategy for dealing with that than building any kind of plausible "sunshade".
A corporation who decided Joss's show was potentially something that would be individually popular but which would not support their other programming well might screw with the show that way (which is a little different than the suggestion of just not liking Joss.) The only reason I say that is because its reasonably well established that the Babylon 5 spinoff Crusade got exactly this treatment by a network that didn't want it to succeed (because it was perceived as something that wouldn't support their other programming) and didn't want to cut it loose so that someone else would have it.
Perceived synergies drive network programming (probably a tiny bit less so now in the age of ubiquitous DVRs than when Firefly was on the air, but still its a pretty significant factor.) Networks don't really want a show that is going to be the one show lots of people watch on their network without tuning into any of the rest of their programming, they want shows where people that watch one show will also watch more of the shows on the network.
TFA states a lot of PR from the FCC, the TiVo, and the cable industry on the effects the new rule will have on consumers, but nowhere describes what about the CableCARD rules is actually being changed, and doesn't cite the order to enable people to check for themselves. So I checked the FCC website, the order is here.
Haven't had time to read it myself yet, but hopefully having it will enable people to read it and make comments on the actual content, rather than the fluff in TFA.
Yes, nothing that has ever been, in generally similar terms, tried once and failed has ever been commercialized successfully later after technology has advanced and details of the approach were changed.
For instance, Apple isn't currently doing a brisk business in selling tablet computers despite the weak success of previous attempts of other companies to do that.
This isn't an IPTV offering. Its simply a Web + TV offering. It does incorporate access to existing Web video sources, but primarily the TV (content) part comes from whatever normal TV signal source you have.
Which is probably why GoogleTV is designed primarily (for now) to bring existing Web content to your TV screen and enhance rather than replace traditional cable/satellite (or, AFAIK, broadcast) TV.
Sony hasn't really been all that bad at selling TVs and other media products, so as much as some people may be upset about some things Sony has done in the past, I don't think that's a reason that the product will fail.
Wrong.
What Google announced was the GoogleTV platform. In the Google announcement, they announced a series of hardware manufacturer partners that would be developing devices incorporating the platform on TVs, Blu-Ray players, and standalone settop boxes. Sony was one of those.
Now Sony has announced some of the specific initial products that it will be making that incorporate the GoogleTV platform.
Which is exactly what Google said when they announced GoogleTV.
The point of approved calculators for standardized testing to eliminate devices that can do things beyond the kind of assistance the test allows for, particularly things that might facilitate cheating, or which produce noise which might be distracting. See the SAT rules, for instance.
Well, except that nothing restricts (either in principle or practice) the approved calculators to "TI Calculators".
Well, except that the MSRP of this is less than that of the least expensive model of iPod touch, which makes the "more expensive" part hard to comprehend.
Unless there is a contagious factor, the only nationwide stats you will find on injuries (broken arms) is from insurance carriers.
This is perhaps technically true insofar as the US government is an "insurance carrier", but it is not meaningfully true in that while the US government does national collection of statistics within its "insurance" programs for their covered populations, it also does so more generally through the CDC's National Center for Health Statistics, which gathers injury statistics from a variety of sources (directly from hospitals who record this in discharge and emergency department records, and via public survey methods.
Photocopying is, while more efficient than handwriting, orders of magnitude below the most efficient method of copying off entire client databases.
And, of course, having this feature on your photocopier adds no security at all unless you have physical security on the original documents sufficient to solve the problem without any technical features on photocopiers in the first place.
All it is is an expensive way to get the illusion of security.
If the originals themselves aren't closely controlled, this is easily evaded by simply removing the originals, copying them elsewhere, and returning them.
If the originals are tightly controlled, this is superfluous, because the control on the originals can simply be used to keep them in a location where there isn't a copy machine.
The kind of places that are trying to prevent certain documents from being copied and that already prohibit cell phones and cameras generally already have access controls on the documents that need special security and keep them in a secure location from which they aren't allowed to be removed (and with physical inspections to prevent that.) Simply not having a copier in that area deals with the problem, whereas keyword based security on copiers that stops copies while routing to a human administrator is a brain-dead solution that is going to produce waste because no conceivable setup is both going to work and avoid substantial false positives.
Further, if you don't control where the originals go, people that want to make copies are just going to take them out of the area under your control and then return them.
This is an expensive and unreliable technical solution to a problem for which there are existing superior and less expensive solutions. Still, they'll probably sell to lots of managers in places that don't currently exercise serious controls that haven't analyzed the issue and that can be sold on the idea that this will be a "magic bullet" that will enable them to have control.
If they have a smartphone -- in which case, they can log into Facebook without a computer from the phone -- they probably have little need for this service. This service would seem to be most useful for people with dumb phones that use facebook from untrusted computers.
And I think it is a mistake to think that someone who uses one feature that is promoted as offering security is likely to be security-conscious and use layered security and defense in depth. They are just as likely, if not moreso, to be generally security-ignorant and to have picked up the presented technique and assume that they don't need other security around the same information.
No, IBM did.
This article is largely about Oracle offering IBM concessions regarding the management JCP process so that IBM would drop involvement with Harmony in favor of dedicating resources to OpenJDK and the Java Community Process.
The fact that the Austrian school has tried to redefine the term doesn't mean that that is what it means, outside of conversations exclusively between members of that group.
Inflation has a very well-established meaning (which, incidentally, predates Keynes) of being increases in the general price level.
The classical term for what is now called "monetary inflation" wasn't, as you suggest, plain "inflation" but "currency devaluation". Of course, that was the term for it when the dominant form of currency was representational commodity currency so that printing more currency meant increasing the ratio of circulating currency to reserves of the backing commodity. The term "currency devaluation" is less apt when there is no backing commodity, as is the case with fiat currency, and is less apt it describing expansions in the money supply other than expansions in the supply of actual currency, hence "monetary inflation" displaced it as the general term for expansion of the supply of money.
It is true that what is now known as just plain "inflation" was previously known as "price inflation", but it didn't replace a previous use of the term "inflation" by itself to mean something else in economics.
Soros rather explicitly is not a subscriber to the Austrian school, though certainly a few of his ideas are similar to or drawn from the same sources that the Austrian school draws from. And lots of people -- economist, investors, etc., from different schools of economics, including Keynesians like Paul Krugman, predicted each of those collapses. Really, investment bubbles are so common historically that its hard to imagine any theory of economics which could account for and comprehend them. That's not where different schools of economics differ.
In practical terms, insofar as that is true, it is often true below the majority threshold. A practical controlling interest often is less than a majority interest.
It means effective control for most purposes, sure, but its not the same as ownership. Particularly, whether or not the other shareholders have the power to choose a member of the board, the board and management still have legally-enforceable duties to them. These do, in fact, substantially restrict the freedom of a majority shareholder to exercise control, which is why majority shareholders that want unrestricted control will sometimes go the next step and offer to buy out the other shareholders in order to get the unrestricted control offered by outright ownership.
If a 61% stake isn't ownership... I don't know what is!
Clearly, you don't know what ownership is.
A 61% stake makes you the "majority shareholder"
Ownership is undivided control.
The US government owns, e.g., the U.S. Navy.
Its the majority shareholder in GM.
The two situations are rather different.
You expect the US government to advertise without streatching the truth a little?
The Volt hype campaign started long before the government bailout and hasn't substantially changed in content.
So, unless the government conspiracy involves a time machine, I think you are misplacing the blame.
Even if you were referring to the maximum speed allowed on public roadways (which isn't the same as the maximum speed that it is legal to drive ever), several US states have 75-80mph maximum speed limits.