Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Not sure (Score 1) 102

by danheskett (#47957269) Attached to: Is Alibaba Comparable To a US Company?

You bring up a great point about the rule of law. This is something that attracts investment, and it's something is close to undefinable. Not being governed in a logical way is business negative, but it's a gray line of when you go from a country ruled by law, and not.

The US has been sort of the gold-standard on this. Most large business disputes are handled in Federal court, which despite the reputation of the government, is well regarded as efficient in the international business world. It's the "rocket docket", meaning cases move. In some countries a business dispute could take 5+ years to get to trial, or resolution. In most Federal jurisdictions, with motions, filings, pre-trial conferences, it's between 12 and 24 months, with many on the lowside of that scale.

There is an untold economic benefit to this. Investors are unlikely to invest large capital outlayws without assurance that if something goes wrong they have an avenue of legitimate relief. Russia and China goes through spurts of foreign investment, but it comes and goes, largely because of this issue. When Putin starts jailing critical corporate executives and nationalizing large businesses it creates a tremendous amount of consternation within the investor class.

This IPO is interesting because it's a test case for how well China can provide a code of laws assurance to the worldwide investor. So far, so good. But the Chineese system has a similar habit of disenfranchising shareholders, and in this case, it could happen in the blink of an eye.

Comment: PDP11 (Score 1) 276

by danheskett (#47942197) Attached to: Slashdot Asks: What's In Your Home Datacenter?

I had a PDP11 in my basement, all full working, with loads of equipment to go with it. I had a fun time learning about the genesis of the industry and learning about the internals and workings of the machine.

Then I had a housefire. The machine and all of its components were completely ruined. I had a good laugh explaining it to the insurance adjuster. I think I got decent money for it because it was an antique, but it was limited because I didn't declare it separately on my policy.

Comment: Re:Great one more fail (Score 1) 596

by Loki_1929 (#47924143) Attached to: High School Student Builds Gun That Unlocks With Your Fingerprint

The US Constitution was an open declaration of treason against the Crown, which at the time controlled the most powerful military the world had ever seen. It was signed by farmers, lawyers, and doctors who had little in the way of protection against that army and little chance of surviving the fight. To say it was anything less than a suicide pact is absurd. The fact that few alive in this country today have their intestinal fortitude speaks volumes to why we're in decline. They had balls. Somewhere along the way, we lost them.

And if you don't think voting leads to people dying, you aren't paying attention.

Comment: Ridiculous (Score 0) 166

by backslashdot (#47898303) Attached to: Justice Sotomayor Warns Against Tech-Enabled "Orwellian" World

We don't have a right to block private citizens filming our property from the air. I don't see it in the constitution. I would like to be protected from police harassment and legal action taking place based on the interpretation of things supposedly filmed from above occurring on my property. Frankly although I normally respect Sotomayer, I feel she is misguided in this and is doing the bidding of the anti-drone lobby. Do you think government will give up its own right to fly drones? HAHAHA! This is to take away the ability to fly drones, and nothing else. I can understand MAYBE an ordinance against zooming in and prolonged observation of a specific property but the right to fly drones with cameras MUST be preserved. If you don't want to be viewed from above, build a roof. Are we to be banned from taking binoculars on aircraft as well?

Comment: Re:KIlling off the Microsoft Store Name Too (Score 1) 352

by danheskett (#47892325) Attached to: Microsoft Killing Off Windows Phone Brand Name In Favor of Just Windows

There are 3 criteria that will eliminate a huge subset of apps that devalue all app stores:

1. An app that simply wraps a mobile website is not an app, it's a short-cut. If the app has no function offline, it's really not an app.

2. Games that are free but have in-game purchases. All garbage.

3. Apps with similar names to highly rated apps, walk-through, and otherwise knockoff apps.

Another way to go about it is to require new apps to have a beta period, to open it up to users who opt-in to beta, and to only release to the public after a 30 or 60 day beta period or when enough users in the beta approve it for general release.

Anything, actually, is better than the screening which happens now, which is essentially none.

Comment: Re:KIlling off the Microsoft Store Name Too (Score 1) 352

by danheskett (#47892251) Attached to: Microsoft Killing Off Windows Phone Brand Name In Favor of Just Windows

So what if it's labor intensive? Make a person at Microsoft beta-test every app for a week. Once word gets out that the last flappy bird knock off isn't going to fly, developers will stop wasting thier time. Or make the first submission of an app by a developer happen by mail. Or whatever.

Not only would I happily use an app-store with no in-app crap purchases, no adverts, and no security problems with knock off apps, I would be happy to deploy that to the whole company.

If it means you only have 500 apps, that's fine. If it means you only have 250 apps, that's fine. As long as they are good.

Comment: Re:correction: 1 OS to FAIL them all (Score 1) 352

by danheskett (#47886835) Attached to: Microsoft Killing Off Windows Phone Brand Name In Favor of Just Windows

I also don't get it. It's fine to unify Windows (please unify Windows desktop SKUs please, Microsoft. We don't need 5 versions of Windows for the desktop. If you want a cut-price one, offer Windows and Windows Pro. Thanks), but that doesn't mean you have to take away what people like. Offer Metro as an alternate to classic windows, and be done with it.

Comment: Re:KIlling off the Microsoft Store Name Too (Score 5, Insightful) 352

by danheskett (#47886817) Attached to: Microsoft Killing Off Windows Phone Brand Name In Favor of Just Windows

Disagree. Microsoft just needs to focus on high-quality apps, or better yet, just paying top app makers to port to Windows phone. There is a strong market for a trusted, high-quality only, app store. You know, apps that don't have in app purchase, no ads, etc.

Microsoft users are used to paying for things. That's the selling point. Just build really good apps, get rid of the BS, the crap, and only accept solid, really solid, working apps.

The problem MS has with it's Windows app store is that it's the worst of all worlds - low-quality, knock-off apps with security problems, ads, phoning home, etc AND missing too many good high-quality apps that users come to expect.

Microsoft, if you are listening, don't work on getting Android to run, focus on having an app-store with only 100% quality apps. Even if it means only have 500 apps in your strore, just have only good stuff.

Comment: Re:It is Well Past Time (Score 2) 223

by danheskett (#47886665) Attached to: U.S. Threatened Massive Fine To Force Yahoo To Release Data

No, Yahoo did not really try. They did more than anyone else, but it's an existential threat. These companies won't exist if people keep feeling their data is insecure. It's already happening internationally, US-based companies are getting pummeled.

Yahoo is a public company, and did not want to have a $91 million loss in addition to their already failed everything else.
Yeah, if they' re going to end up out of business anyways, what's a little bit sooner. And, amazingly, standing up for your customers will probably lead to more customers, not fewer. But even if it really pissed of the customers they did have, so what. The Yahoo precedent was set, and everyone else fell into line. That's why they should have picked up the phone, paid the fine for disclosing the legal battle, and enlisted other parties to help.

And no one uses Yahoo, at least intentionally. How the shit do they fight back with a barely captive audience?
This is a stretch. I've heard of people who use Yahoo. Back a few years it seemed more common.

So Yahoo takes the burden, what happens to the rest of the companies? The competition? They learn not to oppose the government. Yahoo, from the article, was the first to comply. If they did not, and died as a company, would anything be different other than fewer @yahoo.com email addresses?
Yes, absolutely. We would have known contemporaneously that this was happening. Years later, what can be done? Very little. And, instead of being a joke, Yahoo would be a company with principles. It may have even worked out better for shareholders.

The worst that could happen is that the board opposes the CEO, and fires and replaces management. Which happened anyways.

"Our vision is to speed up time, eventually eliminating it." -- Alex Schure

Working...