A lot of people I know are using their personal smartphones for work, including me. Check on a server, bring up an app. Check out the WiFi, bring up another app. I have tons of apps on my personal phone that have saved countless hours diagnosing issues
Fact is, an awful lot of employers should be kissing our asses for using our own personal devices to be more productive at work.
And how do you pronounce it yourself?
It's pronounced "meem". That's the only way I've ever heard it pronounced, and even by Dawkins himself.
"'We're able to view just everything that they do,' Bill Diggins, U.S. chief for the Verizon Wireless marketing initiative, told an industry conference earlier this year.
All I have to say is that guy better have a huge jock strap. The size of his balls must be staggering to make a comment like that.
Windows is not intended to be used in life-critical situations such as medical hardware or nuclear reactor control.
I totally agree. However, this, to me, is the main question: Why in the FUCK would these devices be connected in ANY way, shape, or form, to the INTERNET in the first place??!?!? That's just asking for it, no way around it. It's stupid, careless, and shouldn't be allowed under any circumstance (barring VPN via a WIRE and ONLY when absolutely necessary). We're dealing with people's health and lives here, and this is a totally preventable situation.
I can understand the issue with USB drives, but there need to be policies in place that prevent the use of them unless absolutely required.
Delivered at exactly the wrong time, this can induce an arrhythmia.
No kidding. That asystole arrhythmia is a real bitch.
Admittedly I tend to only read the tech related news sites but they all picked up on the same thing.... Windows 8 on a desktop just doesn't make any sense.
Yes, it was definitely taken out of context. He was only referring to using the Metro interface with a mouse, and I totally agree with him. It is really, REALLY bad trying to deal with Metro when you can't use a touchscreen.
He's just bitching because the people who pay 90% of the taxes get a few breaks here and there.
Actually, he was using it as a metaphor, but that's beside the point.
Apparently, if you're part of the small percentage of the population who actually keep the country running, you shouldn't get any special treatment. That's his idea of "fairness".
And this is the real issue of all of this...the word "fairness". What exactly does it mean to be fair? The fact of the matter is that while there are indeed many lazy people out there, the real point is that people are NOT equal. This is caused by a variety of reasons, but I think we can agree that a few people were born with certain abilities that are more "valuable" in the market. But, that does not mean they are harder workers or even necessarily deserve to be paid more. They are lucky to be able to use their innate qualities and intellect for monetary gain that the average person is unable to do (yes...unable is the correct word). As far as I'm concerned, the mentally handicapped man who works in our packing department works just as hard (if not harder) than our company president. Is it fair that he makes barely over minimum wage while the president has a huge house and five cars? No, it's not fair, but it's reality, and this is exactly why people who are able to earn higher incomes should help to pay for the welfare of those less fortunate, both legally and ethically.
Like I said, lazy people do take advantage of the system. But, having nothing to help the poor is morally wrong. Any system will have its flaws and we should try to mitigate them. But in this case, the flaws do not outweigh the necessity of welfare...not by a long shot.
This is why companies need to fight piracy. If not, they will lose the ability to sell any product.
I'd argue this. Competition is what scares these companies to death (and primarily for them, potential competition). Piracy might be one piece of the problem for them, but as far as I see it, they have a much larger issue: value. People will pay for something if its value is greater than or equal to the price. Think of Blu-Ray. To many, the value of having a copy of a movie was not the $25-$35+ the movie companies were charging for them at first. But, as is usually the case, the price came down over time, and now people are buying them for $15-20, or maybe $25 for a new release. Also, players are selling much better. It's true that those did come down in price as well, and it's hard to determine if the price of players dropping caused the price of the media to drop, or vice versa. However, I have talked to a lot of people about this, and from what I have been told, and I do agree, is that people couldn't justify paying an extra $10-20 per movie just to have the hi-def. In other words, they would have bought the player if the discs cost about the same as DVDs. So, basically, prices went down, sales went up, and value stayed the same.
Software, however has a completely different problem, even though it still stems directly from value. 10-15 years ago, if you wanted to do high end photo editing, Photoshop was the only real game in town. As time progressed, so did technology, and programmers were able to write photo editors with much more ease, and distribution of software matured. No longer did someone with a large program have to pay a company to do CD stamping, box design, etc. Now we even have quite good OSS to do many of the same things (GIMP, obviously). So, now the value of any particular piece of software is declining due to competition, not to piracy. Professional photographers, I promise you, will still shell-out for a legitimately licensed copy of Photoshop. If they don't need something quite like that but still want support, maybe they buy Paint Shop Pro or the like. GIMP is for those who want the freebie (don't get me wrong--if it was a closed product, it would sell at a decent price, assuming it is as well known as it is now).
So, I guess I just see it as simple economics, and piracy is nothing more than a barely discernible blip on the radar. What has changed the game is competition, but some companies just want to whine about pirates who cost them practically nothing in lost sales (maybe increase sales in a try-before-you-buy way). They are trying to scare the competition out of the marketplace in order to keep the value of their products high, because once you have multiple options for doing the same kind of thing, the value of all programs in the group begins to fall off a cliff do to competition. Seems pretty simple to me. Play the piracy card, scare away new entrants to the market, keep the value of your stuff high, and you have it made.
this, this, this and this!
If you leave your AP unsecured like a dumbass you get EVERYTHING you deserve.
This isn't about open APs...this is about SSID broadcast traffic only. You can have a rather secure wireless network and still have it broadcasting its name.
Real Programs don't use shared text. Otherwise, how can they use functions for scratch space after they are finished calling them?