I used to believe the mantra that it was our job to lock down and restrict people but it's nonsense and an 'old school' attitude.
preach it brother!
also, if your company's data and whatever is so sensitive (banks, gov't, military, etc.), then put your "sensitive" stuff on a separate network and only allow locked down machines to access it (virtual machine, thin client, etc.) via encrypted connections.
then give your users unrestricted machines that they can use for whatever they need to.
So it was a lost day for me rebuilding his PC and for him because he had to sit and twiddle his thumbs all day.
then you suck. you should have a stock image (ghost, drive image xml, etc.) or a slip streamed install disk (drivers, office, applications, etc.) to save time on rebuilds.
it shouldn't take you more than an hour to rebuild a box, including the restoration of data and settings. you use roaming profiles or folder redirection for user profiles, right?
half of the system security game is disaster recovery. you should be able to recover from the worst catastrophe in a short amount of time. if you don't know how to do that then do your company a favor and quit.
like demonoid, mininova has been shut down before. like demonoid, they came back. if they get shut down they will either come back or they won't, but it won't make a lick of difference.
There is little proof available that the trashing and destruction of the music and movie industries will be better for everyone. In reality, the few that it may help (amateur musicians and film makers) doesn't make up for the tremendous losses on the other side.
make up for losses? those industries made billions in the past and now the market has changed. there is nothing to make up for; the game is over. it's time for your generation to pick up your toys and go home because the next game is starting and the new players are taking the field.
the days of investing millions in a single project in order to earn more millions is over. that well went dry and now it's time to find another one.
The other part is that there is little "innovation" in the current wave of free, rather destruction, duplication, and removal of the monies that would have helped to fuel innovation.
go cry to someone else. the big studio/label days are over. figure out how to profit from today's market based on today's realities, or go out of business. 1997 is over and it isn't coming back and no amount of crying will change that.
the future is in drastically smaller investments in drastically larger numbers of infinitely diverse media projects. that's the innovation: cheaper and faster production, cheaper and faster distribution, and tons of collaboration.
if your movie only costs a million to make, then you only have to do 2 million in box office sales and merchandise to see a 100% return. i know the thought of only clocking a million dollars on a film seems like a small amount, but a 100% return is nothing to sneeze at. if you can repeat that process a couple of thousand times, you have your billions in profits that people like you are so hung up on.
take your costs down to 10k per project, and suddenly the potential for profit is even greater.
It seems like a lose-lose.
I don't think this theory works very well when the disruptive force is widespread thieving and misappropriation of works.
cry some more. you are looking at big labels and studios like they are all the media and money in the world. there is a whole lot more to industry and creativity than big corporations and file sharing.
with myopic automatons like you in their employ, it's no wonder your corporate overlords are going broke.
You basically want the music business (and the movie business) to put their product out there in the clear where anyone can take it for free
didn't you get the memo?
it's already out there, in the clear, where anyone can get it for free, right now. if people are going to get it for free anyway, they might as well be getting it from you instead of someone else.
True, however companies that invest 10% of their gross into research and development have shown time and again that they can weather market fluctuations much better than companies that invest say 1-2%.
irrelevant. companies that do not invest in research at all have more money to pay quarterly dividends. since the 80's you run a business just like you a football game: one quarter at a time. this is why CEO's change companies after two years: they either have a few good quarters and can leave for better paying positions, or they have a few bad quarters and get replaced.
sure, they teach you all about growth and value in business management classes, but the practical reality is that you have to produce profits at to the detriment of everything else.
Running a company based on the past is like driving a car solely by looking thru a rear-view mirror. A crash is inevitable.
also irrelevant. if a company is big enough, or has enough politicians invested in it, it will get bailed out if it crashes. if the company is too small for a bailout, then no one cares. there is no reason to look past the current quarter and deliver those quarter point increases.
And that may be where obligations are not met, and management needs to be held accountable.
wow, the irrelevance trifecta.
corporate managers will not be held accountable for anything and you know it.
the stockholders won't take any bold moves against management for fear that word leaks out and the stock price falls.
the media won't publish anything because of all the brokerage and bluechip advertising that they will lose.
so no, there is no reason to innovate thanks to help from the government, and there are no repercussions for failure because the shareholders and the business media are both complicit.
Americans are adverse to hard majors such as engineering and science. And by that I mean our schools do a very poor job preparing Americans to do well in such courses.
and by that i mean white people suck at math.
i am by no means a strong math type, but there is a palpable anxiety over math among a lot of americans. when you start talking about math to anyone without a background in science or education you are likely to get a strong negative reaction.
I suppose, but that does seem to approach the paranoia where suddenly every stranger is a pedophile or a serial killer.
don't you watch the news? there is a gay serial killing pedophile crack addict gangbanging terrorist hiding in the bushes right outside your house right now waiting patiently to rape, murder, and force you into gay marriage and abortion, all in the name of allah.
then I guess you turn your music off when you have visits, and never invite people to watch your DVDs with you... or even let anyone use your computer! You probably don't even share that stuff with your family!
you're damn right he does!
all this sharing talk sounds like socialism, which i think we can all agree is unamerican. i thank baby jesus every day that there are still good people like @recycledbottle out there protecting our way of life.
i don't think anyone should just get something for free, not even my kids. i charge those little bastards rent and sell them food and clothing for a small profit. i could charge more, but they're children, and i don't do anything without thinking of the children first.
i also charge them for all of those "life lessons" i teach them. i worked hard to gain all of that experience and i am not going to just give my intellectual property away for free just because you happen to be the fruit of my loins.
Couldn't it be argued that because of the very history of the internet and it's founding that the FCC does have such a mandate?
this is america hippie and in the good ol' US of A we believe in profits above all else. big. corporate. profits.
so no, comcast doesn't have to support your commie notion of "competition" or your gay liberal first amendment rights and they sure as hell don't have to do what the FCC says just because they were built on government money.
son, these are corporate profits we are talking about here. corporate profits are the kind of stuff this great nation of ours was built on and that our forefathers fought for and died to protect.
all that hippie nonsense will affect comcast's god given right to profit handsomely by stomping out their competition and using their monopoly status to offer less and less while charging more and more.
so get a haircut, get a job, and stop all this commie BS about the FCC. once you have some profits of your own you'll understand how important it is to protect them. the end always justifies the means when it comes to protecting those sweet delicious profits.
Consider how hard a time the gov't had fighting prohibition. And that was a scarce good.
also, consider the incentive for the gov't: legalized alchohol is tax revenue. bootleg liquor was making people cash by the truckload, so legalizing alcohol meant a tax windfall for the government.
almost all piracy is non-commercial, so there is little revenue to be taxed, and since people expect stuff on the internet to be free, there probably won't be much revenue either way.
the government proper won't really benefit from fighting piracy, however, the individual politicians that make up the government probably get more lobby money for passing laws to fight piracy, so i would imagine that there won't be much change made in IP law until the content industries run out of money to buy legislation.
More than anything else, the case against prohibition applies to and dominates this argument; the sheer impracticality of fighting against this activity.
i couldn't have said it better myself. file sharing costs users nothing, yet there are very real costs associated with trying to combat file sharing.
i have said it before, this is a war of attrition and one side is fighting with infinite resources, and the other is fighting with finite (and dwindling!) resources.
On the post: Time For IT Guys To Unshackle Corporate Computers
Re: I'm an IT Pro
preach it brother!
also, if your company's data and whatever is so sensitive (banks, gov't, military, etc.), then put your "sensitive" stuff on a separate network and only allow locked down machines to access it (virtual machine, thin client, etc.) via encrypted connections.
then give your users unrestricted machines that they can use for whatever they need to.
On the post: Time For IT Guys To Unshackle Corporate Computers
Re:
then you suck. you should have a stock image (ghost, drive image xml, etc.) or a slip streamed install disk (drivers, office, applications, etc.) to save time on rebuilds.
it shouldn't take you more than an hour to rebuild a box, including the restoration of data and settings. you use roaming profiles or folder redirection for user profiles, right?
half of the system security game is disaster recovery. you should be able to recover from the worst catastrophe in a short amount of time. if you don't know how to do that then do your company a favor and quit.
On the post: Fewer Foreigners Coming To US Grad Schools: This Is A Problem
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Second, you switch from a generalization of "whites" to a generalization of "americans", leading people to believe you view "americans" == "white".
white people are too sensitive. that's probably why they can't handle math.
On the post: Mininova Told To Remove Infringing Material
meh
On the post: Mininova Told To Remove Infringing Material
Re:
google has a lot of money so no one will ever tell google what to do.
On the post: Is Assisting With Assisting With Assisting With Potential Copyright Infringement Illegal?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Irony
On the post: Reminder From The Innovator's Dilemma: Markets Change Whether You Like It Or Not
Re:
make up for losses? those industries made billions in the past and now the market has changed. there is nothing to make up for; the game is over. it's time for your generation to pick up your toys and go home because the next game is starting and the new players are taking the field.
the days of investing millions in a single project in order to earn more millions is over. that well went dry and now it's time to find another one.
The other part is that there is little "innovation" in the current wave of free, rather destruction, duplication, and removal of the monies that would have helped to fuel innovation.
go cry to someone else. the big studio/label days are over. figure out how to profit from today's market based on today's realities, or go out of business. 1997 is over and it isn't coming back and no amount of crying will change that.
the future is in drastically smaller investments in drastically larger numbers of infinitely diverse media projects. that's the innovation: cheaper and faster production, cheaper and faster distribution, and tons of collaboration.
if your movie only costs a million to make, then you only have to do 2 million in box office sales and merchandise to see a 100% return. i know the thought of only clocking a million dollars on a film seems like a small amount, but a 100% return is nothing to sneeze at. if you can repeat that process a couple of thousand times, you have your billions in profits that people like you are so hung up on.
take your costs down to 10k per project, and suddenly the potential for profit is even greater.
It seems like a lose-lose.
I don't think this theory works very well when the disruptive force is widespread thieving and misappropriation of works.
cry some more. you are looking at big labels and studios like they are all the media and money in the world. there is a whole lot more to industry and creativity than big corporations and file sharing.
with myopic automatons like you in their employ, it's no wonder your corporate overlords are going broke.
On the post: Reminder From The Innovator's Dilemma: Markets Change Whether You Like It Or Not
Re: Re: Re: Kodak Moment
didn't you get the memo?
it's already out there, in the clear, where anyone can get it for free, right now. if people are going to get it for free anyway, they might as well be getting it from you instead of someone else.
On the post: Give Away Free Food, Increase Revenue 300% -- And Also Build A Stronger Community
Re: But ..
piratebay money in offshore accounts.
On the post: Reminder From The Innovator's Dilemma: Markets Change Whether You Like It Or Not
Re: Re:
irrelevant. companies that do not invest in research at all have more money to pay quarterly dividends. since the 80's you run a business just like you a football game: one quarter at a time. this is why CEO's change companies after two years: they either have a few good quarters and can leave for better paying positions, or they have a few bad quarters and get replaced.
sure, they teach you all about growth and value in business management classes, but the practical reality is that you have to produce profits at to the detriment of everything else.
Running a company based on the past is like driving a car solely by looking thru a rear-view mirror. A crash is inevitable.
also irrelevant. if a company is big enough, or has enough politicians invested in it, it will get bailed out if it crashes. if the company is too small for a bailout, then no one cares. there is no reason to look past the current quarter and deliver those quarter point increases.
And that may be where obligations are not met, and management needs to be held accountable.
wow, the irrelevance trifecta.
corporate managers will not be held accountable for anything and you know it.
the stockholders won't take any bold moves against management for fear that word leaks out and the stock price falls.
the media won't publish anything because of all the brokerage and bluechip advertising that they will lose.
so no, there is no reason to innovate thanks to help from the government, and there are no repercussions for failure because the shareholders and the business media are both complicit.
On the post: Fewer Foreigners Coming To US Grad Schools: This Is A Problem
Re: Re:
and by that i mean white people suck at math.
i am by no means a strong math type, but there is a palpable anxiety over math among a lot of americans. when you start talking about math to anyone without a background in science or education you are likely to get a strong negative reaction.
On the post: Tech Columnist Calls Model 'A Hero' For Exposing Anonymous Blogger
Re: Re: Name calling.
i am offended and i am going to sue everyone.
On the post: Since When Is Sharing So Bad?
Re: Re: Case law not yet established
don't you watch the news? there is a gay serial killing pedophile crack addict gangbanging terrorist hiding in the bushes right outside your house right now waiting patiently to rape, murder, and force you into gay marriage and abortion, all in the name of allah.
On the post: Since When Is Sharing So Bad?
Re: Re: Shortsighted
you're damn right he does!
all this sharing talk sounds like socialism, which i think we can all agree is unamerican. i thank baby jesus every day that there are still good people like @recycledbottle out there protecting our way of life.
i don't think anyone should just get something for free, not even my kids. i charge those little bastards rent and sell them food and clothing for a small profit. i could charge more, but they're children, and i don't do anything without thinking of the children first.
i also charge them for all of those "life lessons" i teach them. i worked hard to gain all of that experience and i am not going to just give my intellectual property away for free just because you happen to be the fruit of my loins.
On the post: Will Comcast's Own Words Kill Its Lawsuit Against The FCC?
Re: Re: Re: Is it really a private network though?
there are two basic rules in the telco and cable co industry:
1) rates always go up
2) rates never permanently go down
On the post: Pointless Babble Is In The Eye Of The Beholder
Re: The babble on twitter is quite useful! For criminals...
Do people realize that tweets could be very valuable for criminals???
i agree, twitter supports terrorism. we need to pass a law that makes it and all social networking illegal, for the children.
On the post: Since When Is Sharing So Bad?
Re: Re:
"sure, just be careful please, i am responsible for what happens on this connection." is also a good response.
On the post: Since When Is Sharing So Bad?
Re: Re: Shortsighted
the shills always take it back to movies, music and software, regardless of the actual content of the post.
On the post: Will Comcast's Own Words Kill Its Lawsuit Against The FCC?
Re: Is it really a private network though?
this is america hippie and in the good ol' US of A we believe in profits above all else. big. corporate. profits.
so no, comcast doesn't have to support your commie notion of "competition" or your gay liberal first amendment rights and they sure as hell don't have to do what the FCC says just because they were built on government money.
son, these are corporate profits we are talking about here. corporate profits are the kind of stuff this great nation of ours was built on and that our forefathers fought for and died to protect.
all that hippie nonsense will affect comcast's god given right to profit handsomely by stomping out their competition and using their monopoly status to offer less and less while charging more and more.
so get a haircut, get a job, and stop all this commie BS about the FCC. once you have some profits of your own you'll understand how important it is to protect them. the end always justifies the means when it comes to protecting those sweet delicious profits.
On the post: Myth Debunking: Fans Just Want Everything For Free
Re: Re: they already lost
also, consider the incentive for the gov't: legalized alchohol is tax revenue. bootleg liquor was making people cash by the truckload, so legalizing alcohol meant a tax windfall for the government.
almost all piracy is non-commercial, so there is little revenue to be taxed, and since people expect stuff on the internet to be free, there probably won't be much revenue either way.
the government proper won't really benefit from fighting piracy, however, the individual politicians that make up the government probably get more lobby money for passing laws to fight piracy, so i would imagine that there won't be much change made in IP law until the content industries run out of money to buy legislation.
More than anything else, the case against prohibition applies to and dominates this argument; the sheer impracticality of fighting against this activity.
i couldn't have said it better myself. file sharing costs users nothing, yet there are very real costs associated with trying to combat file sharing.
i have said it before, this is a war of attrition and one side is fighting with infinite resources, and the other is fighting with finite (and dwindling!) resources.
Next >>