"focused on the use of consumer tech products in a business environment"

do we really need more of this? and will they be performing in-depth analysis of how much lost time & productivity comes with misappropriating consumer tech in a workplace?

We actually had similar - likely more extensive - screening entering the Shanghai Expo each day. I've never seen a security scene like that before - it was massive, and impenetrable. If the TSA worked like that I'd feel safer, for sure. ;)

The not-exactly-exhaustive check at the jetway was bizarre and pointless. Where are you going to purchase a lighter from in the airport?

I was screened in Shanghai, then screened two more times in Seoul. Shanghai also has a gleaming, state-of-the-art airport with proper screening procedures and secured areas (including hand wandings for nearly every passenger.) Nothing is going to get through.

So the US is saying, basically, "we don't trust anyone to properly screen their passengers" when domestic US flights don't seem to approach this maniacal level of "security."

It's an insult to perfectly secure modern foreign airports that the US requires these ridiculous redundant security checks. Just last week I flew from Shanghai (China) to Seoul (Korea) and then to Seattle. When we got to Seoul we disembarked the plane in a secure area, went to the transfer area (still secure) and had to go through screening all over again. This seems silly; any transfer from any flight inside of the US doesn't require this step as long as you are still in a secured area. Does this mean the TSA doesn't think Korea can secure their airport? That seems like an insult.

But to make matters worse, there was a *separate* security check after we got our ticket checked but before we entered the Jetway to the plane to Seattle. But it wasn't so much a security check as it was a line of checkers making people open bags (where they dug around a bit, but not a lot) and each checker asked if we had any lighters. When asked about the two extra levels of security checks, the answer was always "US Flight."

a) Why is there a security check in a secured area?
b) What is the point of the *second* security check before you get on the plane that doesn't really accomplish anything anyways?

I don't get it; it's insulting to other countries and costs way too much money. And I'm convinced we are paying for it with US tax dollars.

  A single proper security check is be sufficient. Then, you're either in a secured area or you aren't. Maybe there are a handful of airports in the world that can't guarantee security of their "secured area," but the shiny modern airport in Seoul (Incheon) is not one of them (especially considering it also serves as a military airport!)

Just because you have some old equipment doesn't mean it's in your best interest to reuse it. Dump it and get a real GPS.

was there a second crash?

"Efficient" languages are too complex. "Simple" languages are too inefficient.

Normally I'd write this off as "duh" but this is Rob Pike.

Oh wait, he's pushing something new that somehow manages to be easy and efficient? OK...

Do you not have accountants and attorneys though?

My point is that it doesn't really matter whether the forms are free or not - you need experienced people who know what to do with it; otherwise you can get yourself into some sticky situations pretty easily.

Just like IT.

I've had my business for about nine years - and we do lots and lots of IT management & consulting.

Regardless of how small your business is you need to hire a competent accountant. Free forms are no substitute for education and experience in this field, and you can seriously screw yourself over (legally *or* financially) if you don't know what you're doing. I use the services of a contracted attorney, a contracted general business accountant, a contracted bookkeeper and a contracted federal tax accountant. And I've only got three people on our full time payroll.

Relying solely on free forms is similar to saying, "This free Linux CD will handle all of my company's data processing, storage, management, security & protection needs by itself. We won't need any IT staff at all!"

BrandNew details companies going through logo redesigns or branding shifts. Lately, it would seem (subjectively) that many companies, specifically from the retail & financial sectors, seem to think rebranding will fix their problems with market share or profitability. I would seem to think it had more to do with the economy in general, but clearly coming up with a snazzy new logo or branding message will magically increase profits just as easily.

(BrandNew is a great blog because even very large companies with unlimited resources often get it *very wrong*)

[snore.]

Most companies we work with want Office 2007, period, despite the learning curve. Can you substantiate your claim that "companies are looking for OpenOffice because they don't like the UI on Office 2007?" While it sounds good I am not so sure it's true.

But my beef was with the article--there's nothing solid there.

Hi -I'm going to critique the article itself:

It's flimsy, light, and 'trendy' - not exactly the result of hard-core study. Not too many concrete reasons are given as to why online collaboration tools are *better* or fill specific business needs compared to word.

Despite its warts, Word *works* and people generally know how to use it. It's tested, it's a known entity, businesses know how much it costs, etc. They're not ready to experiment yet.

Obviously online services have a totally different set of pros & cons, but this article doesn't really seem to address those.

Even if online suites were clearly better suited to business than locally installed software, *this* article does not make a suitable case for switching.

My concern is C-level execs who see this kind of stuff and make sweeping decisions for their company based on a trendy 'puff' piece like this.

I would advise them to go ask Gartner or someone who actually knows how to research this stuff. :)