I believe you may be confusing the word "compassion" with "deference" or otherwise equating it with passivity. It has been my experience that engaged compassion is far more useful that the exaggerated facade of confidence that many people present so as to seem "strong".

From a different perspective, compassion offers the mind something to chew on in confrontational and challenging situations that isn't offered by simply meeting a challenge with resistance or avoiding a confrontation. Compassion allows the person to understand the ROOT of the issue(s), and therefore can make a better informed decision about how (or if) to respond to the situation.

So, to build on your suggestion, let's assume that his daughter does indeed continue in the "geeky arts and sciences" and let's assume that she does face all of the challenges and opposition she's going to get from her mostly male classmates/peers. She could adopt the "cast iron bitch" attitude or just power her way through, ignoring it as best she can, and she'll probably make it through just fine. On the other hand, if she looks at these situations with compassion, she gets to fully understand it. She can realize why each of those peers treats her that way, and come to understand that it's likely born out of jealousy, or fear, or lack of understanding, or any other number of things that could explain why these people are treating her poorly. The significance of this, of course, is now that she fully understands how and why these things are happening, she can a) fully drop any personal apprehension she might have about things she might be doing to create it and b) be better informed and able to look for these behavior patterns in the future. With each encounter, she can further refine her understanding of her environment and her dealings with her fellow humans, and she can therefore refine how she responds to each.

Compassion does not mean "turning the other cheek", and incidentally, your "religious" quote about the "meek inheriting the earth" is christian, not universally religious......a lot of us think that's a bunch of crap (me included).

Agreed. And don't forget to include the Facility Infrastructure (UPS, Transfer Switches, Switchgear, etc). To that point, I wonder how their generators function with no oxygen. Kinda hard to ignite diesel with no oxygen, just sayin'.

Consider this investment. In the grand scheme of things, this isn't an insurmountable sum:

http://www.varidesk.com/index.php/varidesk-pro

No, they're not owned by airlines, but thanks for playing.

Hi McGruber.

Nope. Not even close. The airlines don't even remotely have the expertise. Of course they have their own IT department and CTO, what big company doesn't. When you get into the nitty gritty of the infrastructure that's in place in these places, you quickly realize that these places aren't going anywhere, and no, an airline trying to save money isn't going to lay out billions (yes, with a B) to try to buy a company and then operate it not only to their own agenda, but for the thousands of other clients of said company.I mean, you could make the same argument about any of the enterprise clients of companies like these.

I know it seems like I'm being obtuse and maybe even arrogant about this. I understand that. I thought the same thing when I started working in this business about 15 years ago. I couldn't believe that these types of companies existed, and couldn't believe the inefficiency. It seemed inevitable that someone, somewhere would buy the company and operate it for their own agenda. The only thing that happens is that these ITO behemoths sometimes buy each other, or merge. Although, when that happens, it's just the same thing with a different name on the paycheck.

Trust me, once you get inside on of these companies, and understand the infrastructure that's in place to operate these facilities, you quickly realize it's not as simple as it seems on paper.

Yep, I have to say I agree.

I was with EDS prior to, and then through the HP takeover. I lasted a couple of years once HP had the wheel, and my experience was pretty much the same as yours. Lots of inefficiency, layer upon layer upon layer of "management" and "leaders", none of whom knew anything about the others. It was a poorly run, rudderless organization and at first, I was amazed that it was even functioning.

But, as you astutely point out, so much of the enterprise business simply can't be moved for legal reasons, or the cost to move the stuff is so immense, it would take many years of active, focused effort (and billions and billions of dollars) to move it. In my Data Center, we had a lot of the major airlines as clients as well as some of the financial and regulatory clients, so I know exactly what you mean.

By the way, for what it's worth, when I left HP, I went to work for another ITO provider. Another major, Fortune 100 corporation that you would definitely know (I just would prefer not to name them here). I can tell you that it's actually the same here, if not worse. No one knows which way is up, I can't believe the ship hasn't sunk, but there is so much money on the line and so many clients hanging on for dear life that we're golden. I do hope that companies like mine and like the HP's and IBM's of the world figure out that the current course of action isn't maintainable. You can't keep running your ITO organizations so poorly and expect to be able to stay competitive. True, today there are only a handful of enterprise grade ITO companies that can truly provide the service for gigantic corporations, and it does take a surprising amount of money to operate a company like this. But, it's only a matter or time before someone with some money decides to put together a REAL ITO company that is actually run well, and when that happens, goodnight HP, IBM, and others. I don't think it'll happen soon, because the market is still so dependent on legacy providers, but it's inevitable, I believe.

I agree with you. It's amazing how many people are running with the story that it was North Korea. Utter stupidity.

An excellent breakdown of the "breach".

FBI saying that North Korea was not involved

Well by that raionale, would you consider the KKK to be Christian? After all, they espouse that their beliefs are based on biblical theology.

Hang on a second. You're telling me that your Building Automation System or SCADA system is written in COBOL? I've been working in Critical Facilities Management for about 14 years, and I haven't come across that yet, and I find it fascinating. Would you be kind enough to share which system(s) you're using? I'd be interested to learn, as some of my facilities are definitely older, and while I am not aware of any of the code bases being written in COBOL, it is something I'd love to find out more about.

Now, with that said, even the bigger, more well-known BAS's are generally still proprietary (Siemens, Honeywell, Liebert, Eaton, etc), so there is usually still a dependence on a dedicated team or vendor to update and maintain the systems, so I don't know that your system being written in COBOL (and thus needing dedicated people to maintain it) actually puts you at any sort of disadvantage when you think about it. Plus, there are some very serious banking and insurance actuary applications that are running on COBOL code form the 70's that's still going strong, so it's not absolutely crazy that it might be in place in your facility because it just "works".

Also, where are you located? Cost of living in various US cities has a significant effect on base salaries.

Agreed. I think if there is ANY chance of being able to communicate, it's a moral requirement to ask. And, while the poster states that so far, it is difficult for her to blink so far, perhaps that is something that will develop. Here is an excellent suggestion from a brilliant man who is also "locked in" but absolutely refuses to let it stop him.

Jason Becker Eye System

Ha! Well if we implement this system, I believe Motorhead will be the supreme champions. I saw them live back in 1989 and I swear I believe my ears are still ringing.

Yeah, um, NO. In this example, ASCAP is not taking royalties on songs that are not with registered members. They are also not denying funds to those who are. The fees that this particular artist is referring to are quite common, and it is one of the ways that various venues chooses to pay for the fees that they owe for allowing songs to be performed publicly at their venue. A different way to do it would be to simply generate an invoice for each artist who performs a song where a royalty is due and give it to that artist on the night of the performance, but that's not practical, so a lot of places will simply calculate a blanket fee and charge it as one of their terms and conditions in their contract. Notice, this is not ASCAP, this is each individual venue. This is not ASCAP's contract, nor is it their terms.

Also, the artist in the article is being very misleading. The claim is that money is collected from some, but given to others. That's not what's happening. The fact is, if you're a less well known artist, it doesn't seem unreasonable to me that you may have to fill out a form to get your check if your song(s) were performed live somewhere. I don't think it's crazy that ASCAP, or BMI, or any of those bodies doesn't want to get into trying to track every single live performance of every single live song at every single venue, and scour their database in real time to find when/where a song in their catalog has been performed. This person writing the article is basically saying "WAAAHHH!! I wish I made as much money as A-list artists and had people to take care of all this annoying paperwork for me."


So, strike two, champ. You still don't understand how it works, and you remain clearly in the wrong.

Citation please.

I have never heard of ASCAP collecting royalties for non-members, with no written agreement in place documenting the commercial availability of their work, nor have I heard of ASCAP denying anyone any shares collected on their behalf.

As a composer and a musician, I totally, 100% agree with you. This really isn't a big deal. It's a non-exclusive agreement. If you don't like the terms, sign with someone else, or start your own thing. No one's being backed into any corners here. Plus, there's also the aspect of considering that even though it is alleged that YouTube is going to pay less than other services, the amount of traffic on YouTube compared to other sites could quite possibly generate significantly more "sales" to an artist, so really it becomes a question of price vs volume (sales volume, not sonic volume).