Don't present a corporate restructuring (including layoffs) like a kick starter campaign.
You sure we shouldn't be suggesting that companies use Kickstarter in order to avoid layoffs?
We've seen some pretty insane shut-up-and-take-my-money ventures, like the one where man is hungry and needs 10 bucks to make potato salad. What does Kickstarter net him for potato salad? $55,000.
...to change the definition of "own".
If you the consumer currently control your screen today, then tomorrow you won't own the screen.
They will, and they'll advertise what they damn well please.
And you will accept this behavior with a smile on your face because you paid only $99 instead of $999 for that screen.
Curious if you had written that last part some years ago, and if you still feel you're going down that road today.
Thanks for sharing that. Interesting and scary.
And for the skeptics here, rewind 75 years ago to all of your beloved sports fields. They were once covered with players that did NOT enhance themselves.
It's not so impossible to see that same mentality take over the workplace. And sadly for the same damn reason. To "win".
If there are few to no negative side effects, what does it matter if people lean on these drugs to work?
When the Adderal-ehanced cubemate of yours gets promoted and becomes your supervisor, you might care. That's the problem with this kind of bullshit becoming valued into the workplace.
I've not used them myself, but I don't care if others do.
When that Adderal-enhanced worker who's been up awake 27 hours straight working on that huge project finally tries to drive home and falls asleep behind the wheel, killing 3 people in a head-on collision...well, you know where I'm going with this...
So now even my television set has an expected lifetime of less then 3 years?
Yes. Along with your car that came with all those fancy in-dash electronic systems standard that are now obsolete.
Along with your DVD and Blu-Ray players. They're all so "smart" these days too.
Never rely on google anymore.
Yes, because they're the only vendor in the game...Riiiight.
Good luck narrowing down the manufacturer to blame when IoT takes over. You think obsolescence is bad now..
So offer people with older devices a version without those features.
Do you recall the last time you saw a "dumb" DVD or Blu-Ray player for sale that did not have "those" features?
Yeah, me neither. Seems they outlawed them.
TVs aren't far behind either, and soon neither will cars. What was a $20,000 base model that had these things called "options" has now become the $30,000 "base" model with all this in-dash/online crap standard.
After all, shouldn't everyone need to upgrade their new car/TV/appliance as often as your smartphone due to obsolescence?
Vendors think so.
The majority of our customers have no idea how routers work, let alone that they can update its firmware. When we explain that a router is a mini-computer that offers a high level of control to them, some of their eyes glaze over as they think a port is what you plug a cable into. When told that firmware can be updated using DD-WRT or the latest OEM version to patch vulnerabilities, only a few understand how to do this, even when we explain it to them. We do offer to perform the work for them, but most don't care unless their router is acting wonky. Unless D-Link sends letters, not an email that would likely be perceived as spam, to registered owners with simple instructions on how to update firmware. very few of their routers will be patched in the real world.
Yes, this is absolutely true.
But, more importantly, consumers SHOULDN'T HAVE TO patch the firmware in their routers. No software is perfect, but this is just getting ridiculous. It's not just D-Link, even though they may be among the worst of the worst, there is now a complete disregard, industry wide, for even the most basic standards of quality.
And yet one quality standard of mine is the old mantra that if it is not broken, don't fix it, which runs in direct conflict against the idea of vendors pushing automated updates, especially to devices that can and will destroy the LAN and WAN connections.
I'm wondering where this conversation would be if TFA was titled "D-Link new automated update service pushes out patch, bricks 100,000 routers at once."
Basic standards of quality would be assuming the vendor is more than willing to support that 2-year old router you "just bought" by keeping people on staff to monitor it for hardware or software vulnerabilities...you know, instead of saying Fuck you Very Much by simply telling you to go buy more of their product by getting a newer (supported) version.
For the average $99 consumer router, which support path do YOU think vendors are more likely to take? Or more to the point, how much are you willing to spend on a new (well-supported) router/firewall? $300? Is $400 too much to ask for the device that protects ALL of your other computing devices? Oddly enough, almost every single consumer thinks so. Even the ones standing in line to pre-order a $500 smartwatch.
By definition, a special forces team is doing something that cannot be done any other way. So of course they have access to whatever they need... otherwise people die.
Civilian employees (and this is not outside contractors), in contrast, are basically tied to the same government hiring processes as the IRS or the Fish and Game department.
And as long as they treat an elite hacker the same as a fucking fish and game warden, they'll end up with the same lack of talent they have today. And they'll be here again next year, trying to recruit, just as they were a decade ago at Black Hat.
Ironically, they don't consider a good hacker as a tool that can get things done that cannot be done any other way...
because they're plentiful and you can age camping grounds etc with them.
You mean the old copy of Hustler laying there wasn't good enough to date the "ancient" site?
Give me a break, it's not hard to date American campgrounds. The whole damn country is less than 250 years old. You guys act like we're carbon dating shit here.
"Cardon maintains that recruiting and retaining talent in the field is often challenging, given internal employment constraints surrounding compensation and slow hiring processes."
Ah, internal employment constraints?
This is the same organization that will deploy a SEAL team with a suitcase of cash if the mission calls for it, and treat it like any other expendable item, and yet they can't seem to pull enough cash together to keep up with civilian pay rates.
Talk about your bullshit excuses out of the payroll department...I can't even count how many billions were "lost" in accounting. Ironically, neither can the US GAO.
"Such motes are likely to play a key role in the much-ballyhooed Internet of Things..."
Yes, yes of course. I'm sure they are.
"Private IoT reporting for duty, Sir!"
"Hello Private! I would ask why you are here, but apparently the rest of us don't really have a fucking clue either..."
Funny how we're already labeling their role as key when we don't even really know what the mission of IoT is anyway, other than driving capitalism through PT Barnum marketing ideology.
There are at least 6 players by my calculations who wound up tied for the top score at this event and therefore split the top prize fund money, approximately $5,000 USD apiece. That is not an easy living if one is trying to survive on chess alone. This probably explains why some cheating at chess is so blatant, because one has to finish at the very top to get any money at all let alone turn a profit. Otherwise a rational cheater would do it sparingly and possibly versus lower level opponents.
If the monetary award is so small, one would have to question why someone would spend the time to learn the game and spend countless hours in tournaments in order to cheat their way to a pathetic prize.
I don't know what to call for here; more integrity or less stupidity.
I guess getting hired by a bunch of lonely nerdy guys so they can ogle her all day is a good thing...
From a McJob to CxO, it kills me you assume this kind of shit can't or won't happen anywhere and everywhere.
Your post indicates you don't understand the meaning of the word "profit." I chose that term carefully, and note that it anticipates your "25 cents to cover the cost of the blank media." Perhaps you should spend a few minutes on Wikipedia and then come back with something less superficial?
When every agency responsible for controlling piracy has clearly and blatantly stated that "profit" is not a factor in determining theft of IP, I find it funny that you want to now call it out here. I'm sorry. Would a price tag of $5 make you feel better or worse about being wrong?
A guy giving away DVDs of the latest movie screener is going to get the same amount of legal attention as the guy selling them, as was the case here. The only thing I question is whether or not the "guy" was employed by HBO to pull this stunt, and I say that only because of their apparent willingness to allow this show to be pirated.
either condone piracy, or embrace it. One or the other.
Um, did you mean condemn? Or perhaps you meant "one then the other"... I'm sure it was just a confusing typo.
Whoops, yes, I did, thank you for that clarification.
UNIX is hot. It's more than hot. It's steaming. It's quicksilver lightning with a laserbeam kicker. -- Michael Jay Tucker
