Re: Another Dept.?
IT's got enough headaches on their hands without adding facilities to the list.
7611 posts • joined 10 Jun 2009
Purchasing too - often the people who buy the equipment now will save 10% on physical kit, even though it costs them more in labour than that saving - because they're bonused on saving purchases and don't even talk to the site engineers.
That's a problem that's not specific to BMS. A friend of mine works for the Navy. About a year ago he sat on a committee that was reviewing plans for installing something on a sub. The build guys chose an easy to install solution for the device. Well, easy for them because they were working up from the frame. Once it was in place there was something placed over it. So if something went wrong with the part, they'd spend $100K removing the second device before they could get to the first. Oh, and yeah, the navy was expecting that first device was going to need maintenance about once every 3 years. Since my friend worked on the maintenance side of the house they raised serious objections and thankfully got an alternate installation specified. It cost an extra $100K on the build side, but you made that back first maintenance on the boat with a 30 year life expectancy.
When I read your title, I thought you meant the data which is still a PITA on just about any phone. The problem with that of course is none of the manufacturers give a rat's ass about that, only the users.
And yes, I DON'T update my Google contacts with people's phone numbers because of privacy concerns, which means I DO need to put all those damn numbers back in whenever I change phones.
Microsoft has an image problem. They were branded a monopolist back in the 90s after which they've behaved in such a way as to deserve the branding. It doesn't matter how much they spend on developing apps for something new. People have stuck with Windows on desktops because that's pretty much been all that's out there, (No Apple doesn't count because Apple behave even more as monopolists than MS. They just don't have the market share to run afoul of the US or EU legal eagles.) but there's no way in HELL they're going to extend that monopoly beyond the desktop-server environment.
Incidentally, they're behaving the same way with respect to Google. They accepted them for the search and free mail market, but they flopped when they tried to move into Social Media via Google+. Their only somewhat successful move there has been buying an existing social media venue in the form of YouTube.
If the compelling reason for iOS and Android is the well developed applications market, and the Ubuntu phone is a full Ubuntu OS, that problem has already been solved with the application set available to Ubuntu. The only reason iOS and Android need the market shops is because they DIDN'T have that to start with.
Unless of course the Penguinistas out there are telling such absolutely huge whoppers even $Hrillary would be embarrassed to tell them. While some of them are a bit fanatical, lying isn't one of those things I regard as one of their typical faults.
And his point makes yours irrelevant: in the broader market the people running desktops aren't as security aware as the people running critical infrastructure on *nix servers.
At this point there are three things protecting *nix systems:
1) Being somewhat more difficult to install and maintain* than Windows or Apple systems they've been maintained for people who care more about security than similar people running those systems.
2) A smaller market share which makes it less attractive to attack it.
3) A high degree of fragmentation in that smaller market share which again makes it less attractive to attack because even if you can infect Ubuntu it's 50/50 for say Red Hat.
*Remember MS had difficulty convincing users to click a button once a month, so they've switched to a default setting that enables it automatically.
on the chance that no one will pay for it?
Why indeed? Yet across the globe tens of thousands of companies do that every year. Most fail but some succeed. In this case, maybe because the company thinks enough people want out of the walled garden. I do recall this problem back when AOL was big enough to swallow Time-Warner instead of the other way around. Back in those days, 70%+ of internet users couldn't navigate the internet without putting a keyword into AOL and it taking them to a bastardized copy of the actual site. But slowly raw internet service providers popped up. These days AOL is usually the punchline to a bad joke. But once upon a time they looked bigger than Microsoft.
As I recall, when India first gained its independence, one of the first things they tried to do was throw out English as the official language because it smacked too much of colonialism. Then they discovered the only way the various regions could talk to one another was in English. So they kept it. I mean, you might like the Germans manage to construct High Indie out of the various dialects (more numerous than they were in Germany) but you'd then have a language nobody knew and everybody would have to learn. Much easier to just stick with English, (Even if it is a bitch to learn since we've imported from damn near every other language on the planet without regularizing things. And that's BEFORE you get to the differences between British and 'Merkin English.)
But the numbers in those ads look cooked.
According to the US Census Bureau in 2014 the upper limit on the third bracket was $68,212 which would put the first guy well outside top 11%. Can't tell so much for the second guy. End of the second bracket was $41,186.
In the US it can get a bit murky, but that depends entirely on both parties negotiating the terms of the contract. 'Take it or leave it' style "contracts require that a "reasonable person" would agree to the terms if openly negotiated. I don't think this one passes that test. Then again, we are talking about lawyers, so the "reasonable person" standard seems to be a bit of an oxymoron.
Only if you aren't a Verizon subscriber in the US. Not sure about elsewhere, but in my corner of the world your Verizon email comes form Yahoo!. Verizon doesn't provide it on their own. So at the very least Verizon needs their email service.
Yeah, Yeah. You and I know it would probably be cheaper to just build a new one out from the ground up (not to mention the improvements in service you'd get), but that isn't in the DNA for one of these big corporations.
It's already common. Like diamonds the only thing that kept prices high was the cartel. For diamonds it was de Beers, for oil it was OPEC. Fracking broke the stranglehold OPEC had on oil. Saudi Arabia can try as hard as they want to put the genie back in the bottle but it won't work. There will of course be a lot of collateral damage before it ends. First up Russia which even now is scrambling to fill huge gaps in it's government budget.
Even if it were a rant, I don't think we could fault you for it.
In fact, after reading this article and making my first post, I'm going to seriously think about picking up an account I own again. I had one back in the days of dial up because it came with the dial up service. Maybe it's time for me to start breaking the Google chains.
entertain "strategic alternative" offers, possibly the sale of the core business
This is one of those nonsense statements that always amazes me. How the hell do you make money for your shareholders by selling off the core business?
Yet we're expected to believe the brightest minds in the company came up with this idea.
Actually I have. Scanning in a set aside PC was deprecated as unworkable about 8 years ago.
These days the exploit kits are too available and too complex. Even using five different products to scan in such a detached system doesn't ensure there isn't anything left in the machine that will reinfect it. In the time you run those 3 or 5 or 7 scans, you can image a new system. Moving data is at your own risk.
The other thing to remember is that while they are now a security company, that's NOT how they started. It started as one guy who was automating some fixes he routinely applied for friends and family.
Yeah, they should have had time to clean it up into professional code. But given how much professional code is crap that needs cleaned up the same way....
Governments are proxies for the people. So it's really one group of powerful people leeching from another. But it's easier to blame it all on government than admit the fault is in ourselves.
As for me, economically I like the total sales tax model. But for purposes of keeping the progrards in check, I'm willing to forgo that in preference for a flat tax on ALL income with no tax on corporate profits. I might be willing to set a rate of collections exclusion such that if you are collecting taxes you are at least covering the cost of collecting them from that person. (In other words, if from start to finish it costs *25 to collect the taxes, if the government doesn't collect *25 you don't pay.)
*=your local currency sign
Here we get to the only point the freetards are actually correct about. Given all of the current special deals, it is possible to keep the money floating in International Space so that it never gets taxed. Apple in particular have been VERY good at that. Which isn't to say other multi-nationals have been slackers.
Now, that means the money isn't directly available to the shareholders either. In order to make it available to them, you'd have to bring it into the country and pay the tax on it. So far this has been okay with the shareholders because the stock value has appreciated based on the money held in international suspension.
This strikes me as a reasonably fair situation. So long as the freetards demand too much money from the actual producers, they don't get it. As soon as they set reasonable rates, the money will come home.
Simples. If there is an applicable import tax, that gets payed at the point of import. Otherwise, the guy in the UK who sells it collects the tax and pays it.
Yes that does mean you'll have to work through distributors and resellers. That's what they are there for. If you want to cut them out, you have to foot the bill for following the law.
Those 30 day "free" advances are being paid for by the blokes who are making minimum payments and are periodically late with their payments by a day or two.
Now if you're the sort who thing the poor and the stupid should make life easier for you, you won't have a problem with that. But don't go blaming the greedy banks for stealing from the poor for your benefit.
It's a problem of quanta. It costs some amount of money to process any request, say $25. No matter how small the transaction you HAVE to recover the $25, even if its $100 for only a week. Yes, that leads to absurd percentage rates. That's why if you need $100 for a week you're best borrowing it from a mate, or better yet, just not buying whatever it was you THOUGHT you needed.
Full disclosure: my roomie routinely makes $1000 payday type loans to a friend at no interest.
I've never seen a festival system where the credit cards worked as quickly or robustly as cash. The first obstacle is frequently the connection itself. In a brick and mortar store this will be a fast wired connection that has probably been configured for months. Festival vendors usually wind up on wireless. Even if it isn't wireless, having just been set up there are likely to be connection issues. And that's before you get to potential power issues and training the temp staff to handle cards. In the US, you also get time for the signature.
No it's not. The key element of verifying the transactions is that the cash matches the receipts not that the double count matches. Cashless transactions still have the receipts, and should still retain enough of the account number to uniquely identify the missing transactions.
Where cashless loses businesses money is when the card holder claims the charge is bogus and the vendor no longer has the record to prove otherwise, or it simply isn't worth the cost to challenge it.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019