First, quite a few of the first tier IT megaliths have chat support these days, especially for their enterprise level vertical software. Key example: IBM's Maximo product.

Second, integrated chat support is the wave of the future for vertical applications. You cannot imagine how much of a time saver it is for a user having a problem to click the chat button inside the app and drag the problem record to the app window. The support analyst gets information from the record itself that many users might find difficult to put into words (e.g. the primary key for the record). Moreover, it is possible to build the software so that the IT analyst sees the same application screen over chat as the user does.

Third, at the enterprise level, if it isn't in the ticket, it didn't happen. The more you pay for support, the greater the odds that they'll request that *ALL* interaction goes through the ticketing system. These days, calling the client directly doesn't look professional, it looks disorganized except for a handful of exceptional cases such as a VP old enough that he prefers personal attention.

When I bought an iPad a couple of summers ago, I found it pretty intuitive from the get-go. There isn't much about the iPad interface that doesn't seem natural. In fact, I miss some of the things (like gestures) when using a workstation.

You're just trolling now. If you can't understand the difference between a gene and a chromosome, I can't help you. Moreover, if you don't know how to look at the literature, there isn't anything more that I can say.

(a) You're conflating a gene (sry) with a chromosome (Y). As Wiki puts it, `` Females typically have two X chromosomes. XX males have two X chromosomes, with one of them containing genetic material from the Y chromosome, making them phenotypically male; they are genetically female but otherwise appear to be male.'' In other words, _they do not have a Y chromosome_.

(b) Even if this were not the case, you'd still be wrong. Those gene sequences _influence_ the sex of a fetus in combination with several other factors.It is not the case that all males have sry. See N. Abusheikha1, A. Lass and P. Brinsden, XX males without SRY gene and with infertility: Case report in Human Reproduction (2001) 16 (4): 717-718.

It works both ways. Should men with double X syndrome (about 1 in 25,000 males) be allowed to compete in competitions for women? If not, then it seems to be a double standard to disqualify women with a Y chromosome.

Myself, it seems to me to be better to change the classification system. Instead of using the imprecise male/female dichotomy use other metrics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XX_male_syndrome

About 1 in 25,000 men have no Y chromosome.

If the goal is to get the other person to listen and reflect upon the criticism, then saying it "straight forward, no sugar, no BS" is counter-productive in the vast majority of cases.

Table tennis? Target shooting?

I think it fair to say that men would dominate most sports but there are some where either female attributes are advantageous or there is no inherent advantage to having the typical attributes of one sex or the other.

While somewhat rare, there are XX men, XY women, and XXY persons of both sex. Genetics is but one factor out of many that sets the stage for the hormonal environment during fetal development that is thought to determine sex. The hormonal level of the mother is another big factor.

Unless you're arguing that suppression needs to be backed by coercive force in order to be counted as suppression, that the Catholic Church no longer is capable of wielding coercive force is neither here nor there. But the term `suppression' is frequently (and correctly) used in situations where there is no force at hand, for example by the dictates of an authority even when no force is present or by a party (Google, for instance) agreeing to hide certain terms.

The censors of the Catholic Church do not _suppress_ books, they simply put them on a list of books that Catholics can decide not to read.

... a censor is a person who is tasked with reviewing material in order to decide "officially" whether or not it is appropriate. /. moderators fill _precisely_ that purpose. The whole point of having moderators is to mark up the most worthy comments and mark down the most unworthy.

Studios keep raising their streaming prices _because_ Netflix is in the DVD business. Disc rentals are kryptonite to the big studios. What they want is to earn money per view. They earn a small, one-time fee when Netflix buys a physical disc. That one disc is then eventually viewed by hundreds if not thousands of viewers over the life of the disc. They'd much rather earn a nominal fee each time a show is viewed. This is one reason Netflix wanted to divest itself of its DVD business, to facilitate negotiations with the content studios.

The other problem they have with Netflix is that it's independent of the physical distribution arms owned by the studios. Time Warner, for example, wants people chained to Time Warner cable. They have an incentive not to license their content to a service which can be used by cable companies that compete with Time Warner.

And buying them all over again when an HD disc format finally takes off.

You've got several layers of business here: (1) the studio, (2) the production company that funds the studio (the studio might be independent and the production company purchases content from the studio or the studio might be in-house for the production company), (3) the first level of distribution (think "network" like NBC or Comedy Central), (4) the physical distributors (cable companies, satellite companies, streaming companies, wholesalers, retailers, etc.).

It is increasingly the case that all four of these are owned by a single company. For example, TimeWarner owns the studios that make much of the content for the CW network, they fund those studios, they own CW, and they own Time Warner cable and some CW stations that brings the content to your door. And, herein, lies the problem. If you decide to stream a CW show, it does increase the profit at the third level (or at the second level depending on how the contract works) but at the fourth level they are losing revenue _and_ incurring greater costs.

For TimeWarner to "realize there is a ton of money to be made" they have to figure out a way that they make more money _across the board_ and that is a harder problem than first appears. I'm not saying that it can't be done, mind you. But it isn't as simple as saying that _x number of people will pay to stream title y and therefore they will make metric truckloads of money_. For example, say they start streaming all the CW original shows and charging for it. They now have an additional income stream. But this disinclines terrestrial stations from airing that same content so the CW network may lose affiliates that decide other content is more profitable because they won't have to compete with streaming. It also disinclines cable and satellite providers from paying Time Warner to broadcast CW stations. So here are two places where Time Warner as a whole is losing revenue from the decision to stream CW content. Moreover, they lose ratings because they lose marketshare so CW looks less like the young and hip network that it is supposed to look like. And Time Warner cable now has to build out additional capacity because streaming video is taking off.

If this problem could be solved, most content providers would move to streaming in a heartbeat. Why? Because streaming enables what they really want: charging per viewing per device. They really do not like DVD sales at all because they allow for rentals. Their ideal paradigm is that each viewer pay a nominal fee every time that a show is watched. Right now, cable (and satellite) offers the best way to do that with the encrypted digital signals that most cable companies are moving to. Streaming will eventually catch up with the delivery mechanisms of digital cable. Once it does, that will probably be disruptive.