Um, what? There is no guarantee that a Linux-based system will bring any sort of "openness" to anything. NEWS FLASH: Corps don't like Linux because it's open. Corps like Linux because it's free (AS IN BEER). It would be trivial to produce a Linux-based phone with a JVM that runs closed-source Java apps that you buy at $10 a pop, or even closed-source C/C++ apps written with a commercially licensed copy of Qtopia or the like...
It depends on which corps you are talking about, or else they'd all have Linux running their businesses and on the desktop. Teleco's are going to especially dislike the idea of any platform that is as 'free' or as configurable as Linux.
Have a look at a Motorola A835 on 3. The unit comes with a very basic set of items. The concept of this phone is that the teleco operates a portal, the handset can not run unsigned (read free) apps and any non-essential apps are loaded apps up in the JVM via the Network. The carrier charges the customer for data downloads, a licence fee for the app (nothing is free) and charges developers to have their apps signed.
The whole move behind smart phones and camera phones is to create new ways of using network bandwith and therefore billing the customer. Since the cost of the infrastructure was originally justified using revenue from voice calls only, data services are considered cream and represent hugely profitable services. The cost to the telco of sending an SMS, for example, is, I beleive, close to zero.
So, to close this rant, Linux on handsets may occur, but it will not be a open and configurable version. (Do not think that Linux must be Free As In Beer - Nokia already have Linux running at the telcos, while it meets the requirements of the GPL, I'd be surprised if it was given to them gratis). There is no value for the teleco to provide a platform that can use free apps that may or maynot use their network. This is why the P900 is difficult to get on a plan in someplaces. My bet is that they'll try locking clients in like 3 are doing with the A835.
I'd like you to support your argument that Eastern European culture has Confucianism (or here) as its foundation. I don't think that The Ottoman or Byzantine or any of the other Empires that ruled this area were typically Confuscian.
Nonsense. You need to read some first year economics. Just to help you, try the sections on Comparative and Absolute Advantages.
Also, read the section on Protectionism. Why, because the next logical step in your statement is to propose subsidies to American developers and restrict imports from overseas (through quotas, traiffs and embargoes), read up on them. You'll learn that protectionism increases the cost of living while preventing a short term increase in unemployment or a financial loss to some of the less efficient producers.
If anything is "economic treason", surely increasing the cost of living so that more people live under the poverty line (ie don't earn enough to live in the most basic of conditions) is.
Before you argue, read up on the topic. Also don't forget that unemployed people must get retrained or get left behind. We've been through this all before (check out the automobile industry prior to Ford's Mass Production). How many farriers are around today? Do they meet demand?
Western cultures are moving into more service based industries. This includes research and development all the way down to tourism. Why? Because we are good at it, can often provide excellent quality at a low cost. Don't be close minded and freak out because some code monkey jobs were lost to overseas, learn extra skills (project management, a language other than english, teaching etc) so that you can enter industries that your economy excels at. We are still designing, specifying and developing new products, we just get them made OS.
Don't forget that when you work with your girl or boy friend, you loose the huge benefit of seperating work life and home life. I've done this before, and I found that I felt like I was always at work. While we worked well together, it seemed like their was no escape from the pressures of work. It contributed to us breaking up.
Whether you employ a family member or a girl/boyfriend, it can also create a stress management dilemma. On one hand, you are both really stressed about a problem and you'll have a huge argument - I guarantee it. If you can leave a disagreement about a business decision at work, you're a better man than me.
On the other, one will be more worried than the other and this will cause resentment and thoughts that "I'm putting so much more into this than they are". It's probably not true because we all deal with things differently, but try and fight those thoughts.
Finally, the reasons that you'd chose to work with/employ are different to the reasons that you choose a girlfriend/boyfriend or even a friend. You'll have to be very objective and decide if you would employ them if you didn't already know them. This is not the option to use to try and save money.
Hope it helps. Don't be afraid not to do it, you may hurt someones feelings for a day or two, but at least you'll still have your relationship. Remember to work to live, not the other way around.
Think of proprietary software as a normal home with wooden or brick walls, roof, shades on the windows and locked doors.
Think of Open Source Software as a glass house where everything is transparent and anyone can look inside to see what's going on.
I'm not sure how valid your analogy is. A better analogy, IMHO, would be based on the availability of the plans for a house. The plans are either publically available or not.
For the sake of this argument, it is unimportant that anyone can know how the house is used. I'd rather know that the house, for example, was built using certain building techniques and materials rather than watching people eat dinner.
What is physics defying is how fast that server went down when slashdotted. After 5 minutes at 11:30 it was DDoSed to death. Yay slashdot readers! -Chris Maybe it means that/. readers are finally reading the article before they post?
Of course, he might be risking getting fired for saying it.
Personally, I'd rather be unemployed than be paid by someone with the ethics to deliberately release software like this.
Sounds like the Death Star Dialog in Clerks:
...
BLUE-COLLAR MAN
(paying for coffee)
I'm alive because I knew there were risks involved taking on that particular client. My friend wasn't so lucky. (pauses to reflect)
You know, any contractor willing to work on that Death Star knew the risks. If they were killed, it was their own fault. A roofer listens to this... (taps his heart) not his wallet.
From Awesomefilm.com
Simple strategy for MS:
1) kill all browsers on the most popular computing platform. Result, IE sole available browser (oh, wait, they already did this).
2) make IE automatically point google.* URL requests to msn-search.
I don't think this would happen. Google would have a very good case for an inappropriate use of a trademark. Microsoft, surely wouldn't fall for one of theirowntricks?
Not to question your personal sense of duty and obligation, but I see this as unlikely. Even if you earned enough to help every starving homeless person that you saw every day, would you still help if:
a. you only had another $100 to last for the next few months?
b. you only had another $100 to last for the next few months AND there was a good chance that by giving it you could not ensure the safety of yourself or of those close to you?
c. you only had another $100 to last for the next few months AND there was a good chance that by giving it you could not ensure the safety of yourself or of those close to you AND the mere process of getting the $10 to the homeless person is so risky that it might cost lives?
$10 to a single homeless guy is nice. The homeless guy/expecting/ $10 from you, a stranger, is beligerent. The homeless guy expecting $10 from you while knowing that it might cost others their lives is irresponsbile beyond comprehension.
The plane to take him out leaves today, so was probably already at or already on it's wau to McMurdo when he crash landed.
Also, it seems that he may have submitted a false or inaccurate flight plan. Assuming that this is correct, then the people at McMurdo were not expecting him.
That return flight home has to carry somethings in doesn't it. 104 gallons of fuel extra maybe? Paid for by Jon?
Why they just didn't sell him the fuel and add a service charge for the inconvenience?
As an experienced adventurer he should have been better prepared. It's not the first time he has attempted such a thing. Would the bases have refused him fuel if they knew he was coming? Should he have sent emergency fuel over before he went? Would/should he have gone if they refused to help prior to him taking off?
Secondly, the aircraft may well be bringing him fuel. I am only aware that the bases have not agreed to give/sell him any of their reserves. If the fuel reserves are getting low, then they have every right to ensure the safety of their people.
This is an extreme environment - you can't just drop into your next door neighbour and borrow stuff. The normal rules do not apply.
I don't think that 100 gallons of fuel is an insignificant amount in a place where shipments are probably only made every 3-6 months.
I would much prefer to ensure the that fuel was used to help the researchers and their support teams in an emergency rather than some adventurer's poorly planned and whimisical flight of fancy.
Please don't think I undervalue the benefits of exploration and adventure, but what this guy has done is like climbing Everest and not packing a spare tent or two. He's just assumed that the others will bail him out. That's wrong.
If the 1996 Everest Disaster and the 1998 Sydney To Hobart Yacht Race proved nothing else, they demonstrated that Heros die when they go to help others. Being a so-called adventurer and forcing others into risking their lives to help you is completely irresponsible.
I think that offering him food, shelter and a return trip home is extremely generous. Expecting to get fuel that is part of someone else's contingency against disater is nothing short of foolishness.
Are they allowed to claim an item is on sale without actually changing the price or do they just reduce the price by 1 cent or something?
Yes, they are. There is no obligation to alter the price in anyway. The retailer is merely advising the consumer that they fully intend to have a particular product available for sale.
Two common methods of false advertsing are when:
- a product is advertised and the retailer deliberately does not have stock available with the sole intention of selling the next model up. (Bait and switch).
- the seller raises the price of an item prior to a sale event and then dropping the price especially for the sale so that an artificial saving is created.
These things are very difficult to prove, so just make sure that you do your homework before you buy (Caveat Emptor). Also remember that if it seems too good to be true, it probably is.
This is true. Having worked in retail for many years, I often got very frustrated when people felt that we had to offer a lower price on any product that was advertised.
The advertiser is merely advising the consumer that a particular product is available for purchase.
Obviously, if they have a lower price than the competition, then they are going to tell the world + dog. They want your sale. But keep in mind that price is not the only or the best way of differentiating yourself from your competition.
Look at the guy who made fools of the DoHS by waltzing through airport security and hiding box cutters on several airplanes... where they remained for five months, despite "daily" inspections, and were only finally found because someone finally read his e-mail a month after he sent it.
I still can't see the acronym 'DoHS' without think of the Dukes of Hazzard...
In the early 90's I worked for a company that specialised in computers for schools. Once I recieved a 5.25 inch disc (DFS) with a 'with compliements' slip stapled through the media, but it still worked (had to make sure the puncture wasn't tall enough to hit the head). AND in the same week, I also got a photo-copy of another disc. Not the disc in it's jacket, just the media. We took 'take the disc out of it's sleeve' out of our vocab after that.
But, we extensively used water to hose down BBC model B keyboards after scrubbing them with a toothbrush and detergent. I'd do batches of 20 or 30 at a time. We'd leave them dry for two or three hours in the sun. If a keyswitch failed, I'd just solder a new one in. They were the days!
If "bright ideas triumph by their own merit", Pig Hogger, where's my Jet Pack? Why don't we all have flying cars? What about fridges that automatically order food after I've taken it out? Aren't these bright ideas? Have they triumphed?
Besides, fool, who wears a suit on a Mammoth hunt, anyway?
Slashdot Mirror
It taught me that I was certainly no game developer...
but no way is there you can encrypt my voice conversation.
;)
What's so special about your voice? Why can't it be encrypted?
It depends on which corps you are talking about, or else they'd all have Linux running their businesses and on the desktop. Teleco's are going to especially dislike the idea of any platform that is as 'free' or as configurable as Linux.
Have a look at a Motorola A835 on 3. The unit comes with a very basic set of items. The concept of this phone is that the teleco operates a portal, the handset can not run unsigned (read free) apps and any non-essential apps are loaded apps up in the JVM via the Network. The carrier charges the customer for data downloads, a licence fee for the app (nothing is free) and charges developers to have their apps signed.
The whole move behind smart phones and camera phones is to create new ways of using network bandwith and therefore billing the customer. Since the cost of the infrastructure was originally justified using revenue from voice calls only, data services are considered cream and represent hugely profitable services. The cost to the telco of sending an SMS, for example, is, I beleive, close to zero.
So, to close this rant, Linux on handsets may occur, but it will not be a open and configurable version. (Do not think that Linux must be Free As In Beer - Nokia already have Linux running at the telcos, while it meets the requirements of the GPL, I'd be surprised if it was given to them gratis). There is no value for the teleco to provide a platform that can use free apps that may or maynot use their network. This is why the P900 is difficult to get on a plan in someplaces. My bet is that they'll try locking clients in like 3 are doing with the A835.
Almost one in five information technology workers has lost a job or knows someone who lost a job after training a foreign worker
That's like saying Almost one in five information technology workers know Kevin Bacon. It's a ridiculous and illogical statement.
i agree with this post...
I'd like you to support your argument that Eastern European culture has Confucianism (or here) as its foundation. I don't think that The Ottoman or Byzantine or any of the other Empires that ruled this area were typically Confuscian.
Nonsense. You need to read some first year economics. Just to help you, try the sections on Comparative and Absolute Advantages.
Also, read the section on Protectionism. Why, because the next logical step in your statement is to propose subsidies to American developers and restrict imports from overseas (through quotas, traiffs and embargoes), read up on them. You'll learn that protectionism increases the cost of living while preventing a short term increase in unemployment or a financial loss to some of the less efficient producers.
If anything is "economic treason", surely increasing the cost of living so that more people live under the poverty line (ie don't earn enough to live in the most basic of conditions) is.
Before you argue, read up on the topic. Also don't forget that unemployed people must get retrained or get left behind. We've been through this all before (check out the automobile industry prior to Ford's Mass Production). How many farriers are around today? Do they meet demand?
Western cultures are moving into more service based industries. This includes research and development all the way down to tourism. Why? Because we are good at it, can often provide excellent quality at a low cost. Don't be close minded and freak out because some code monkey jobs were lost to overseas, learn extra skills (project management, a language other than english, teaching etc) so that you can enter industries that your economy excels at. We are still designing, specifying and developing new products, we just get them made OS.
Don't forget that when you work with your girl or boy friend, you loose the huge benefit of seperating work life and home life. I've done this before, and I found that I felt like I was always at work. While we worked well together, it seemed like their was no escape from the pressures of work. It contributed to us breaking up.
Whether you employ a family member or a girl/boyfriend, it can also create a stress management dilemma. On one hand, you are both really stressed about a problem and you'll have a huge argument - I guarantee it. If you can leave a disagreement about a business decision at work, you're a better man than me.
On the other, one will be more worried than the other and this will cause resentment and thoughts that "I'm putting so much more into this than they are". It's probably not true because we all deal with things differently, but try and fight those thoughts.
Finally, the reasons that you'd chose to work with/employ are different to the reasons that you choose a girlfriend/boyfriend or even a friend. You'll have to be very objective and decide if you would employ them if you didn't already know them. This is not the option to use to try and save money.
Hope it helps. Don't be afraid not to do it, you may hurt someones feelings for a day or two, but at least you'll still have your relationship. Remember to work to live, not the other way around.
I don't understand why more people don't use ZZT to create games. It works very well on all x86 processors.
Think of proprietary software as a normal home with wooden or brick walls, roof, shades on the windows and locked doors.
Think of Open Source Software as a glass house where everything is transparent and anyone can look inside to see what's going on.
I'm not sure how valid your analogy is. A better analogy, IMHO, would be based on the availability of the plans for a house. The plans are either publically available or not.
For the sake of this argument, it is unimportant that anyone can know how the house is used. I'd rather know that the house, for example, was built using certain building techniques and materials rather than watching people eat dinner.
What is physics defying is how fast that server went down when slashdotted. After 5 minutes at 11:30 it was DDoSed to death. Yay slashdot readers! -Chris /. readers are finally reading the article before they post?
Maybe it means that
That's bullshit.
He can always say no.
Of course, he might be risking getting fired for saying it.
Personally, I'd rather be unemployed than be paid by someone with the ethics to deliberately release software like this.
Sounds like the Death Star Dialog in Clerks:
...
BLUE-COLLAR MAN
(paying for coffee)
I'm alive because I knew there were risks involved taking on that particular client. My friend wasn't so lucky. (pauses to reflect) You know, any contractor willing to work on that Death Star knew the risks. If they were killed, it was their own fault. A roofer listens to this... (taps his heart) not his wallet.
From Awesomefilm.com
Simple strategy for MS:
1) kill all browsers on the most popular computing platform. Result, IE sole available browser (oh, wait, they already did this).
2) make IE automatically point google.* URL requests to msn-search.
I don't think this would happen. Google would have a very good case for an inappropriate use of a trademark. Microsoft, surely wouldn't fall for one of their own tricks?
Not to question your personal sense of duty and obligation, but I see this as unlikely. Even if you earned enough to help every starving homeless person that you saw every day, would you still help if:
/expecting/ $10 from you, a stranger, is beligerent. The homeless guy expecting $10 from you while knowing that it might cost others their lives is irresponsbile beyond comprehension.
a. you only had another $100 to last for the next few months?
b. you only had another $100 to last for the next few months AND there was a good chance that by giving it you could not ensure the safety of yourself or of those close to you?
c. you only had another $100 to last for the next few months AND there was a good chance that by giving it you could not ensure the safety of yourself or of those close to you AND the mere process of getting the $10 to the homeless person is so risky that it might cost lives?
$10 to a single homeless guy is nice. The homeless guy
The plane to take him out leaves today, so was probably already at or already on it's wau to McMurdo when he crash landed. Also, it seems that he may have submitted a false or inaccurate flight plan. Assuming that this is correct, then the people at McMurdo were not expecting him.
That return flight home has to carry somethings in doesn't it. 104 gallons of fuel extra maybe? Paid for by Jon?
Why they just didn't sell him the fuel and add a service charge for the inconvenience?
As an experienced adventurer he should have been better prepared. It's not the first time he has attempted such a thing. Would the bases have refused him fuel if they knew he was coming? Should he have sent emergency fuel over before he went? Would/should he have gone if they refused to help prior to him taking off?
Secondly, the aircraft may well be bringing him fuel. I am only aware that the bases have not agreed to give/sell him any of their reserves. If the fuel reserves are getting low, then they have every right to ensure the safety of their people.
This is an extreme environment - you can't just drop into your next door neighbour and borrow stuff. The normal rules do not apply.
I don't think that 100 gallons of fuel is an insignificant amount in a place where shipments are probably only made every 3-6 months.
I would much prefer to ensure the that fuel was used to help the researchers and their support teams in an emergency rather than some adventurer's poorly planned and whimisical flight of fancy.
Please don't think I undervalue the benefits of exploration and adventure, but what this guy has done is like climbing Everest and not packing a spare tent or two. He's just assumed that the others will bail him out. That's wrong.
If the 1996 Everest Disaster and the 1998 Sydney To Hobart Yacht Race proved nothing else, they demonstrated that Heros die when they go to help others. Being a so-called adventurer and forcing others into risking their lives to help you is completely irresponsible.
I think that offering him food, shelter and a return trip home is extremely generous. Expecting to get fuel that is part of someone else's contingency against disater is nothing short of foolishness.
Are they allowed to claim an item is on sale without actually changing the price or do they just reduce the price by 1 cent or something?
Yes, they are. There is no obligation to alter the price in anyway. The retailer is merely advising the consumer that they fully intend to have a particular product available for sale.
Two common methods of false advertsing are when:
- a product is advertised and the retailer deliberately does not have stock available with the sole intention of selling the next model up. (Bait and switch).
- the seller raises the price of an item prior to a sale event and then dropping the price especially for the sale so that an artificial saving is created.
These things are very difficult to prove, so just make sure that you do your homework before you buy (Caveat Emptor). Also remember that if it seems too good to be true, it probably is.
This is true. Having worked in retail for many years, I often got very frustrated when people felt that we had to offer a lower price on any product that was advertised.
The advertiser is merely advising the consumer that a particular product is available for purchase.
Obviously, if they have a lower price than the competition, then they are going to tell the world + dog. They want your sale. But keep in mind that price is not the only or the best way of differentiating yourself from your competition.
I still can't see the acronym 'DoHS' without think of the Dukes of Hazzard...
But, we extensively used water to hose down BBC model B keyboards after scrubbing them with a toothbrush and detergent. I'd do batches of 20 or 30 at a time. We'd leave them dry for two or three hours in the sun. If a keyswitch failed, I'd just solder a new one in. They were the days!
who said anything about hacking? Er, good point. Please replace hacking with computer crimes. Maybe I should have put hacking in quotes.
Still not sure how increasing jail time will deter hacking...
No, Buttered Side Over Done.
If "bright ideas triumph by their own merit", Pig Hogger, where's my Jet Pack? Why don't we all have flying cars? What about fridges that automatically order food after I've taken it out? Aren't these bright ideas? Have they triumphed?
Besides, fool, who wears a suit on a Mammoth hunt, anyway?