I don't really expect voters to be "experts" on the topics they're voting for. And at least in my own case, I often feel I'm vastly under-informed on what I'm about to vote on. (In reality, some of the people I'm asked to vote for haven't made any effort to publicize their views at all. This tends to happen with judges or folks in charge of treasuries or school-related positions pretty often. You'll often find someone standing near the polling place handing out a list of recommendations of who to vote for, for these things -- but that just tells you who wants to give the most money to the school or organization who made the flier.)

Regardless, I usually feel relatively informed on at least a few of the issues up for vote that I'm most interested in. Therefore, I go to cast votes on those issues, and I may just skip over the ones I have no real opinion on.

The problem I have is with apathetic voters who vote simply due to peer pressure. You can say all you want about them cancelling each other out (thanks to equal numbers voting for both sides of an issue) -- but I feel that every vote counted acts as evidence an individual supports the candidate the vote was cast for. When all of the candidates are lackluster or even guilty of previous corruption - I'd rather see them get very few votes on either side, then large numbers from all the disinterested and uninformed who just "pick one" at the polls.

I absolutely agree!

This is the single biggest issue I have with all of the ad campaigns trying to convince people to get out and vote. The result is, you get a bunch of uninformed people who really don't care enough to cast an educated vote - but they go so they can get the free "I voted!" sticker, feel good about themselves and fit in with what's perceived as "right" or "cool" (a la MTV's "Rock the Vote" advertising, years ago).

If all of the options available to vote for are so unappealing, many people can't even bring themselves to cast a vote one way or another? That says something too. Those are the elections that SHOULD be showing really low voter turnout.

Well, the Cadillac ELR got the styling thing down, arguably (by recycling the award winning "edgy" styling of their CTS Coupe). Yet it, too, is doing horrible in sales numbers. (I believe only 1,200 or so sold for all of 2014!?)

Look at the insane price though and it's no wonder... I hear they're discounting them by about $20,000 to try to get them off dealer lots now, and people STILL think it's too high. I mean, the bottom line is -- if you have the money for a "high end electric" car, you want Tesla, not Cadillac wrapping their modern idea of a luxury car around some Chevy Volt technology.

Yeah, ANYTHING is possible given enough talent, dedication and funding.

In reality though, even these multi-year, multi-phase implementations tend to go way over budget and fail to yield everything promised.

I've seen it happen, first-hand, when a company I worked for decided to implement a new ERP system and phase out a number of other applications and processes. They DID shell out the money to get the analysis done properly, but the problem really came in with ability for the new software to perform as intended. Bugs were found during the roll-out, but the team doing the implementation had too many layers internally to get those bugs corrected in a reasonable and timely manner. (EG. They'd have guys flown out and paid by the hour to give employee training on the new software and how to do something with it. During that process, they might run into a glitch -- but as trainers, they weren't really capable of fixing it or even having a direct contact with someone who could. They'd just gloss it over and move on, promising to "make a note of it".) If they even remembered to pass the note along about the bug, chances are it went to some team responsible for collecting the reports from other people on staff with the company. So now the bug was perhaps poorly or incompletely documented in some kind of bug tracking database. When will the actual developers get to addressing that bug? Hard to say. As likely as anything, they might claim it wasn't reproducible with their environment, or ask for more information. But since our people didn't have access to the database directly, we'd never be able to directly reply with that additional info or help finding the bug.

There were times my boss fixed problems in their system himself, because he knew more than the average person about the back end database it used. When that happened, I remember him telling their people about the fix and it was pretty much ignored, as in "Well, that's great then! Our team should eventually figure it out too and roll it into a version upgrade...."

For millions of dollars spent, I don't think you should have to work late nights finding your own fixes for their defective code ... but that's how it went down.

I was just talking to some people yesterday about the popular trend in offices to build open floor-plans in lieu of the traditional cubicles and dividers.
Even Google embraced the open floor-plan concept, yet I can't find much evidence from people working in such an environment that they find it an improvement?

Basically, people are remodeling in this style because it's viewed as more trendy and insightful. Never mind the fact that the old way was probably done for good reasons and to solve real problems. (Open floor-plan offices have serious problems with noises, distractions and a lack of appropriate places to go make a phone call with a client or vendor. They remove the privacy of the individual worker, causing everyone around to see every little thing you do. Duck out for a smoke break or to use the rest-room? Everyone immediately sees how long you're not occupying your seat and can make judgements on your behavior.

Same thing with this argument of using remote, "work from home" employees vs. making people come in to a central office. There are, IMO, many good reasons to expect your employees to be physically present in a central workplace each day. (Companies like Yahoo, who tried letting people work from home, decided to ban the practice when it turned out to be a failure for them.) Truthfully, I love having the ability to work from home in my own job - but I do computer support and systems administration work. Realistically, I usually wind up coming in to the office and only working from home about one day each week. In my situation, I'm (thankfully) given permission to make judgement calls about when it's most sensible for me to come in, vs. stay home. If I expect it will be a day of nothing but phone calls, helping users via remote access to their machine, and working with cloud based services we use? Then sure, I can do it from home. Many other times though, I'm expecting a package to arrive with a part to replace for somebody, or I'm just able to provide people a better level of service if I can look at an issue hands-on with them. (Remote control software is all but useless if you're trying to figure out why they're having monitor issues, for example. It may look fine on YOUR remote session screen even if their display is going bad.)

I know a number of our creative workers putting together marketing proposals and the like do better work when they're in a group together, in-person. We've given them plenty of tools to collaborate remotely, and sometimes they do. But there are still lots of limitations with the technology, including internet bandwidth issues for some people, meaning their video keeps breaking up or their audio gets choppy on a conference call. And ultimately, you can't celebrate with co-workers for a job well done by remotely taking them out for dinner or a few drinks, either.

I've become more and more convinced that the best solution is a mix of allowing SOME work from home or remote, and SOME expectation of coming in, in person. You won't be able to keep "best in breed" software development going with a scattered workforce who only collaborates video video chat, IM, email or phone calls.

I was just going to leave this whole thing alone, but I've got to comment on this one.

There's nothing that great about adding MicroSD card slots to cellphones. Sure, "Everyone else does it (but Apple)." -- but that doesn't make it a good solution.
Whenever I've used Android devices, it's always added an extra layer of complexity, determining if an app or some data is stored on the internal or external storage. And while perhaps they've addressed it now, I also recall a lot of hassles with certain programs requiring things be stored using the internal storage only - as they didn't know how to work with the MicroSD storage.

I think most cellphones just did it that way to make the devices cheaper to build. "You want more storage space? Whatever.... buy a card for that...."

I'm not going to try to debate that Apple overcharges for the storage you get in a given iOS device. (Heck, I agree... they gouge for it. But with Apple products, you almost always pay a premium. Either way, it just means whatever you buy from them has that much better resale value down the road too.)

I just find that with a phone, I want the information in it to be "one" with the device itself. If I store address book entries, for example, it may as well just be in the phone's own internal storage, because it would really inconvenience me if it was on a removable card and I swapped the wrong card in the phone that didn't have that data on it. Never mind the propensity for some of these SD flash cards to go bad without warning and lose everything on them.

So no, I have no issue with the way Apple chose to do things with the iPhones and no card slots. They *do* have a USB cable to facilitate data xfer to/from other devices, so you're not completely unable to communicate with other hardware. It sounds to me like some people just tried to get off cheap, buying the minimum storage version of the phones available and bigger, more feature filled versions of iOS don't leave a lot of space for your apps on the "entry level" model. Nothing worthy of a lawsuit.

No.... our company does advertising/marketing related work, so there's no HIPPA or other compliance regulation to worry about with the content that goes to DropBox.

In our case, we have a highly mobile workforce already, including a lot of freelance workers (some of whom are freelance status, yet essentially work with us on every project to the point where they're a "permalancer" ... and in at least one case, one of these people even employes a freelance worker underneath them). We needed a way for these people to collaborate on projects and easily share folders with specific people, but not necessarily everyone else.

Sure, you could store all of this on a traditional file server and let people access it via VPN, but that would generally require someone with administrator rights and the ability to adjust the permissions appropriately, as content was added. DropBox for Business makes it easy for people to shoot out email invites to download content and control who can access it themselves.

I already commented on SysAid's own page, but my feeling is this:

Consumerization of I.T. is generally a win-win for employers and employees, as long as it's done properly.

It's always a good thing when you can hire somebody who is used to using a particular service, technology or product, and they're able to use essentially the same thing as an employee. It's one less thing requiring training and adding complexity to doing the job.

I think BYOD (bring your own device) with cellphones and tablets was the initial driver of this discussion? But increasingly, we're seeing cloud services as another similar area. Plenty of people are familiar with DropBox for example, and often have a free DropBox personal account. With our corporate DropBox account, though, we're able to let people manage both their personal and their new corporate-issued one simultaneously, using one login. If they leave the company, we can instruct the software to auto delete the corporate data on their device(s) while reverting back to working as a free personal DropBox again, preserving their personal data.

By contrast, another cloud based product we use and like is CrashPlan for backups. Unfortunately, CrashPlan creates "islands" for personal accounts, standard business accounts, and enterprise-class accounts. If you upgrade a user from one "tier" to another, their backup history can't be migrated over. They're stuck doing a full, new backup from scratch under the new service class. That's a real issue for us, as we move to the enterprise version of the service. (What if someone's laptop drive crashes out in the field, after we upgrade their CrashPlan version and before it got a chance to back up everything successfully?) This could impact people who'd been using personal CrashPlan accounts and work for a company that decides to bring all of them under the fold of a business class backup account, too.

So in the next 5 years? I see I.T. departments needing to give more consideration to selection of business tools that play well with shared personal/business use.

I don't see why authors should feel threatened by Amazon's subscription model for books? In the case of books and other publications, our government has been funding repositories for the physical printed works so anyone can read as many of them as they like at NO additional cost -- and this has been the case for many, many years.

As a general rule, I think people who actually buy their own copies of books only do so with a very select group of them they consider so good, they might want to read them over and over, or hang onto them to share with friends or family. These are the titles people will be likely to purchase the e-book versions of, if they're fond of reading via a Kindle, iPad or other electronic device - vs. counting on some $9.95/month recurring subscription to retain access to them. (With these subscription models, you have no control over what titles get removed from the collection over time and substituted with others.)

In that sense, nothing much changes here except lesser known authors stand an improved chance of getting read, if they're lumped into a "read all you like for a flat monthly fee" package.

Actually, I've had a Facebook account for years and I use it regularly.

Of course I'm well aware that they sift through all of my information and try to resell it. But IMO, it's a pretty well understood trade, and one that I don't have a big problem with. The fact remains, Facebook will only have the information that I willingly provide by way of posting it up there or filling out fields on the site. And meanwhile, they're enabling ME to obtain information on all of my friends and other online connections too.

I don't share or say anything on FB that I'm not already comfortable sharing with other people, so it's not like huge secrets are being revealed. Things I do get out of Facebook include using local buy/sell/trade type groups that people have set up (no fees to post listings or fees owed to the site operator upon successful sales) and special interest groups, such as one for one of the cars I own.

I've also been able to keep in touch with a number of old friends who I probably wouldn't keep up with otherwise, after moving. (And let's face it... that's primarily because there's nothing critical or earth-shattering to be gained by keeping up with these people's daily lives when you don't even live in the same city as them anymore. But when it's free and as easy as checking in on FB, it makes for a mildly enjoyable way to kill some time while better preserving those old friendships. You never know when you're going to visit a place you used to live, and it's nice not to do so without having to wonder if those people you "used to know" still live at the same address, etc.)

If Facebook does nothing for you, great. Don't use it! But I see so much bashing of the site that I think is unwarranted. Did FB ever so much as beg for donations from you to keep it operational, or limit how much time you could spend using it each month or day? Nope! And yet, you're even free to create new groups (even closed, private ones) without owing a dime. IMO, there's a lot of value to be wrung out of using the site -- despite knowing they're trying to cull value out of the content you put out there.

One theory is that Sony is doing a real life twist on that movie's plot. They make a movie they realize is going to be a big money loser, so to rescue it -- they fabricate a scenario where its offensive nature causes a situation where it causes a security risk for everyone. Film has to be pulled from the theaters to protect the people, and they get paid by insurance for the resulting losses from the "hack attempt".

This is totally unacceptable, IMO. I don't care if it's the MPAA suggesting it or the FBI or InterPol, or ??

There should be plenty of ways to deal with hosted content on someone's server without resorting to breaking core functionality of Internet services like DNS!

You could make hundreds of analogies (most of which would probably not be all that great), but to use the ever-popular automobile analogies for a minute? This is a little bit like trying to stop illegal sale of goods by a business by tearing out all of the street signs around them (in an effort to prevent people from finding the store)!

That's arguably true... I think your point has a lot of merit.
I don't think it's the whole story though.

Uber is "trendy", without a doubt. But people still only use it because they have a real need to get from point A to B. I think people like to do that at the lowest possible cost, as long as we're talking "apples to apples" types of transportation. (You might well pay more to ride in a car than take a cheaper bus that gets you to the same place, but that's because of all of the disadvantages of using a bus instead of a car.)

So no... I don't know that everything else like Uber was "destined to lose". I think competitors that couldn't differentiate from Uber in any meaningful way were destined to lose though. (That's why Lyft is struggling.)

A service like Uber that has an equivalent app and costs 50% less though? That has room to compete, potentially.

(But whatever.... for SOME reason, Slashdot readers decided I was "off topic" and got modded down for adding my own thoughts about the topic.)

I know someone, above, said "Hey idiot... it's about the lack of drivers!" I'm not going to even attempt to speak to that, because I don't know enough details to know if Sidecar's business model would attract "enough drivers" or not?

Off-hand though, I do know I've taken shuttle buses before where the driver only accepted cash and charged around $8 to drive me to an airport from a hotel, and he didn't have more than 1 or 2 other passengers when I got on the bus. So that tells me that yes, some people will gladly drive you around for lower rates than are charged by a typical taxi service or Uber.

I think one of the big obstacles to a Sidecar type business might simply be the fact that you're expected to essentially "make an offer" for what you'll pay. If you advertised a fixed rate that was clearly almost 50% lower than the competition -- it would probably do a booming business (provided it was advertised sufficiently, etc.).

I know where I used to live, several restaurants experimented with a "pay whatever you like" program for food, and truthfully? A large percentage of people who'd otherwise eat there avoided it while they did that. I think that's because, by and large, Americans are adverse to haggling/negotiating on prices. Sure, we have a culture that expects it'll happen on BIG purchases like a car or a house -- but for the "every day" stuff, not so much. (Even with cars, people are flocking to the "no haggle/no pressure" pricing models.) Even with something as simple as hiring a babysitter for a couple hours, people are always hesitant when the sitter says, "Just pay me whatever you think it's worth." Will you offer too little and offend the person, or cause them to prefer not to work with you in the future? Will you pay more than most people, essentially ripping yourself off?

Now add the fact that with a need for a ride someplace, you're probably in a compromised position. This isn't like going out to dinner where ultimately, you can just take it or leave it. You probably have a real NEED to get someplace by a certain time deadline. The last thing you want is to be late, simply because you didn't offer enough money vs. the next guy for a ride and got ignored.

See the article, below, for more evidence of the problem:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...