Seems the moderators are asleep today. For those following along at home, the quote
Let's not call them anything, let's just ignore them.
is from a similarly underrated (but apropos and very funny) Monty Python skit.
In that case, you'd be better off with the Microsoft model. Providing, of course, you follow the time-honed tradition of postponing things until the release of the first service pack. Will it still fit on a USB stick, I wonder.
Snarky comments aside, it would be interesting to see whether other manufacturers adopt anything similar for their products. If they don't, well, I don't have to get annoyed until 2:00 a.m some time this November.
Dear Lord. What pedantry?
Words have meaning. The expression "small and mid-sized business" as you intend to mean it are NOT the "small and medium sized business" as defined by the SBA. The SBA gets to set the definition not me, you, or anyone else, except perhaps for the purpose casual discussion between two people who a priori agree on the meanings of the words they use.
I'll help you out here. The point you're trying to make is that the type of businesses without dedicated IT personnel (ranging in size from SOHO up to possibly the lower end of small businesses), will get by with fewer IT personnel. No argument there.
The point the article was making, however similar, concerned itself with business typically much larger than what you're thinking of. Those business are referred to "small businesses" by the SBA, economists, and interested third-parties. And they do not include SOHO operations.
Small & mid-size. You know, the types of businesses that don't have dedicated IT departments, or who have
...
If you're using "no dedicated IT department" as a criteria for defining what constitutes a "small business", then I'm afraid your definition is next to useless.
You can check out this link to help you better understand things.
For those following along at home: the term "small business" has a more defined meaning that what's used colloquially, especially when used (disingenuously) by politicians, pundits and, on occasion, unemployed plumbers, attemping to stoke populist rage.
Hell, telex of the 1940s was still five times faster then your claim of half a second.
Too lazy too look it up, but I'd wager that telex in the 1970s was probably faster. More importantly, business of all sorts relied on telex communications well into 1980s which, coincidentally, is the same time frame of this discussion.
CU L8R
Not because it signifies the rise of the machines or anything (well, maybe, but that's not what I'm on about now), but because what it might do to your reading habits. If you only read things you agree with, you never get to see the other side of the coin, you don't get to argue for or against, you just live in your own comfy little pink safe world.
I certainly don't fall into the category of reading only those things with which I agree. I'd even go so far as to say I typically don't read things I enjoy (unless you extend the meaning of "enjoy" to include something that's new, difficult or otherwise challenging).
Nor do I subscribe to the "popularity model". Hardly a day goes by when I don't scratch my head to ask one of two questions, "Are people really interested in this rubbish?" and "If so, why are they bothering with this particular article or news story?"
That said, I do, as an example, keep news.google.com open in my browser. Not because I rely on (even partially) for my "source" of news, but because I can keep abreast of what does interest others (a small, but occasionally informative reward). Serendipitous discoveries are best found elsewhere.
So, given the choice between the Popularity model and the What I Like model, I'll opt for the latter. Fortunately, none of us is forced into making such a choice because we have the additional option of deferring to folks smarter and more educated than ourselves.
So instead of debating the pros and cons of the two extremes, I'd suggest the more important question is where the hell are all the good editors?
Standardized exams are awful measures of intelligence or ability.
I see that written a lot.
What I don't see written about are the problems associated with poor, rural or otherwise backwater high schools graduating students at the top of their class who are not only unprepared for college, but also less educated than their counterparts at "better" schools in a different part of the state of country.
That, incidentally, is what's behind the push for standardised testing.
Say what you want about tests and test-taking abilities, an under-prepared and/or under-educated student graduating with high grades is an indication of failure. Just as importantly, it's a disservice to the student.
If you don't "teach to the exam", what exactly are you teaching to? And if making it up as you go along is the way to go, what is it you're going to measure? How much fun and creativity happened during classtime?
When I was a kid, your commercial for the Commodore VIC-20 convinced me that I had to have one (because Captain Kirk was advertising it!). I used it to learn some programming (both BASIC and assembler) and it was the early foundation for what I do today.
Well, when I was a kid, our entirely family sat around the TV and regularly watched his Loblaw's commercials.
Sigh.
Ok, I'm not impressed either.
As for Chinese website design, I think it's partly linguistic. Chinese can fit a whole sales pitch on two square inches. So their websites look like lots of little boxes, all crammed together. It's a weird aesthetic.
Not sure whether the Ling's Cars website is representative of the weird aesthetic you refer to, but it's a hoot nevertheless.
A must see for aspiring web designers everywhere.
They serve the Laughing God. There is a definite, divine purpose. You just don't understand it.
God, huh? Let me try
Lulzsec, peace be upon them.
Hmm. Doesn't work, does it? I'll come in again.
Let us praise God. O Lord...
O Lord...
Gosh, we're all really impressed down here, I can tell You.
Forgive us, O Lord, for this, our dreadful toadying, and...
And barefaced flattery.
But You are so strong and, well, just so super.
Fantastic.
Amen.
A bit better, but still doesn't work.
Sorry, mate. If there's greater principle at work here, or a something that's worshipped, I'd suggest it's narcissism. But then, that's a pathology, isn't it? Or more charitably, a character defect common to those not out of adolescence.
I'm a software developer and a friend, who is develops hardware solutions, and I teamed up with a small sewing company, which we are also friends with, to discuss wearable electronics. We spent an entire day pouring over documents, examples, internet content, blogs, existing products etc. to come up with marketable ideas such as complete products, hobby components, kits anything and anything else except we just couldn't come up with anything.
You were trying too hard.
Want wearable? This is wearable. An artistic, eco-conscious statement that transcends old-skool geekery yet subtle enough to appeal to the common man.
No idea as to whether any of the buttons work.
Couldn't you just google "David Hasselhoff" and see what sites turn up?
You're basically correct, but to be fair, reporting (or "under-reporting") is often a complex topic. That said, the operative term is Discouraged Worker.
Recently discussed on Bruce Schneier's blog ("Identifying Tor Users Through Insecure Applications"):
http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2011/03/identifying_tor.html
Of course, you can dual-boot Linux on it or run it in VMWare. But you knew that, right?
There was a Perl/Macbook related post to the freebsd-questions mailing list a few months back from someone trying to deal with package management problems for a client. After much wailing and gnashing of teeth, a solution was found and rejoicing was heard.
The solution? Installing FreeBSD in VMWare and calling it a day.
The poster was Randal Schwartz.
BLISS is ignorance.
