So, call me an ignorant foreigner (I'm Canadian), but why are US military forces doing the job of a domestic police force in a middle-eastern country?
I swear to god I'm not trolling - but for the life of me, I don't understand why you're shipping guys halfway around the world to do someone else's job.
This 'argue by analogy' approach does nothing but generate a bunch of amended analogies, equally meaningless.
Nobody is hanging out with crack dealers here - what does this have to do with the topic at hand, people?
The minimal client in TFA connected to a swarm, which is not illegal, does not compromise *anyone's* IP, and yet generated subpoena-bot notices. This says to me that the bot writers aren't taking sufficient care or interest to build a bot which does what they claim it does. This in spite of the fact that they're already way more than halfway down the road to a bot that does do what it should to support the claim(s) that they make.
Ergo, they are full of shit. Nothing more, nothing less.
I think the article is poorly written, and as such leads to confusion rather than clarification. Looking over the comments seems to support this interpretation - they're all over the map.
At the same time, it does capture the essence of community concern over this deal, and raised some interesting (at least to me) questions.
"The community of people wants to do anything they can to interfere with this deal and all deals like it.
Well, don't speak for me on this. I still don't understand what is going on enough to say that the deal should be interfered with. That being said, I'm concerned by the lack of clarification and speaking to concerns on the part of Novell, so I understand where the suspicion is coming from; along the lines of 'if they're not looking to clarify, then what are they hiding?'.
They have every reason to be deeply concerned that this is the beginning of a significant patent aggression by Microsoft," Eben Moglen, the Foundation's general counsel, said on Friday.
And when I start thinking about possible outcomes of the agreement, this is what makes me paranoid. Why was Microsoft motivated to make this deal? So that Microsoft could deliver SUSE subscription licenses to Walmart? I don't think so.
As I understand it, the deal indemnifies Novell against patent violation accusations from Micrsoft. As such, all future Novell contributions to GPL's software must be viewed with a jaundiced eye, since it appears that Novell need not worry about patent violation action against their contribution, while any other developer who derives from the new Novell code has no such luxury.
Okay, so how does all this lead to "Critics called on the board to punish Novell by banning it from distributing new versions of Linux software, said Moglen."? Note IANAL - please comment if I am wrong here. I think that the term 'banning' is a bit of a misnomer here, isn't it? The FSF has the right to enforce the GPL as it sees fit, and as such any move to stop Novell from distributing GPL'd code would require court action on the FSF's part looking for an injunction against Novell distributing GPL'd code, wouldn't it? If the answer to this question is substantively 'yes', then the FSF would not be so much 'banning' Novell from doing anything as enforcing the GPL.
TFA also muddies the waters by slipping in the GPLv3 without explicitly saying so; at least that's how I am interpreting it: "If the foundation decides to take action, the ban would apply to new versions of Linux covered under a licensing agreement due to take effect in March.
The inference here is that the GPLv2 is not being violated by the Novell/Microsoft agreement. As several posters have noted, it appears that the GPLv2 is being violated (e.g. section 7). so either the community doesn't have all the information, or we don't know how to interpret/apply the GPL. I either case, it shows that we really need a cogent source of information and summary regarding this deal. I've watched Eben Moglen's ogg (jeez folks, can't you get your hands on a better microphone, this is barely listenable!) video http://gplv3.fsf.org/static/FSF_Eben_Moglen_Appeal.ogg and in it Eben intimates that the GPLv3 is required in order to fight the Microsoft/Novell deal. Again, The inference here is that the GPLv2 is not being violated by the Novell/Microsoft agreement. There is really no other readily accessible info regarding this deal that I can find on fsf.org; there appears to be some activity in the discussion forums, but these require registration for access (there's a bit of irony for ya!). So I don't have access to the deal itself, and I really don't seem to have access to a thoughtful interpretation of the deal. If anyone knows where to find some well thought out material on the deal, please post.
If the GPLv3 really is required to fight the possible evil implications of the dea
Besides helium-3 mining and lunar hotels, do you have any good ideas for a moon base startup?
This is possibly the most small-minded query ever seen on a/. submission summary:
[assume best Jeff Spicoli persona] Like, Mr. Hand, do you have any good ideas for a moon base startup? [giggles nervously]
Opinions on the submission summary aside, the big question for me is: To what extent will Americans (I'm not) expect this venture to be self-funding? A research component (pursuit of pure knowledge stuff) in NASA's budget will, I expect, only get you part-way.
If helium-3 is present to the extent indicated by the lunar soil samples brought back by Apollo 11 and subsequent missions, then the economics of a lunar mining operations might even work - if we can find something to do with a big swack of helium-3, other than filling kid's birthday balloons. Maybe there's someone out there who is an authority on this: to what extent does using helium-3 as fuel for fusion reduce the by-product/radioactive waste produced by nuclear reactors? Is helium-3 at reasonable cost a Big Win for the nuclear industry?
The time is certainly ripe for getting serious about getting out of the fossil-fuel business (not from an economic perspective, where Exxon's $40 Billion USD profit last year looks Pretty Good, but from a How Long Can This Go On? perspective).
I'm reading this the day after the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued their report, which says things don't look good, to say the least:
Six month rotations are mentioned. I'm not an out-doors guy, but I'll tell you that the prospect of spending 175+ straight days in-doors isn't too appealing to me. Maybe this is why Huxley envisaged Happy Drugs; this would be the ultimate test of our ability to medicate ourselves to contentment in the face of adversity in our environment. I'm wondering what the rotation cycles are for remote assignments on Earth, e.g. Antarctic and Arctic exploration stations? While functionally the Antarctic Winter and the Lunar environment have the same effect - no going outside except in serious gear, or you die - I think that there is a psychological oppression that goes along with being on the moon. Comments?
I think that six month rotations would take quite a while to build up to.
Well, straight news headlines are one thing, I suppose. However, sportswriters are damned near defined by the puns that they do linguistic flips and twists to get into their headlines and stories.
I will confess that while I groan and turn my nose up like everyone else, I secretly admire headlines like 'Bull riders in chute-out tonight at the Corel' (from when Ottawa's Scotiabank Place - blech - was called the Corel Centre). It takes Glengarry Glen Ross-sized brass balls to put your name beside that teaser.
So, while I do appreciate the desirability of headlines that actually have something to do with the story, it would be a shame to see all headlines homogenized in a quest to improve SE rankings and thus eyeballs for advertising.
The Guardian is a perfect example of how a little guy can look real big on-line; while it is the second smallest national print newspaper in the U.K., it gets more than 7.5 million views per month, more than a quarter of those views going to readers in the U.S.
Emily Bell - Editor in Chief of the Guardian Unlimited, which is what the on-line version is called - attributes the bulk of the Guardian's on-line success to the high volume of blog and Google links to Guardian articles, a result, she says, of *not* requiring registration to read the Guardian on-line.
Just ask yourself, what profit motives does Microsoft have in making this work?
I'll second that emotion.
This initiative is at odds with Microsoft's decision to use Open XML for the Office suite. If they really think folks are going to be stuck with Open XML-format Office documents that they need converted into ODF (say, for distribution reasons) what is it that stops them from saving the documents as ODF directly out of the Office app?
I think Microsoft is feeling a little shaky on this issue. They've had great success historically using their own document formats - in particular, the lack of backwards compatibility between Word formats, which should have served to infuriate their user base when it realized they were being forced to upgrade just so they could open up Word docs sent to them by folks using a newer version of Word. Instead, this lack of compatibility brought Office upgrades *forward* into the next quarter. What a great scam, Steve! Thanks, Bill.
As other readers have noted, though, there are enough indicators out there (the on-going Mass. debacle, for one) that it seems MS is afraid of being left holding the incompatibility bag, so they're hedging their bets by supporting the creation of these translator modules.
All this just serves to leave them looking indecisive, IMHO. If they really give a shite about their users being able to share files, they'd jump on board ODF.
Are there functional advantages in Open XML compared to ODF?
I think your response will be driven by two broad factors: what that person uses their computer for, and what it is that drives you to use Linux.
I don't mean to be pedantic here, but we often forget to ask the fundamental question when confronted by new users of some technology: what is it you're trying to achieve or trying to get done with that technology?
Maybe the guy in the store just uses his desktop as a surfing machine; a bit of mail, a bit of news and information, a bit of porn (although I suspect he'll leave that part out while in the bookstore with a stranger). It's equally possible that he uses it to do work-related stuff. In the latter case, he may already where he should stay, e.g. if the company sales-channel app is Win-only. If it's a surfing machine connecting to an ISP, then you might be able to make a case for change.
But why should the guy switch - it's working fine for him right now with Windows, right? Well, this is where the second part comes into play; why do *you* use Linux?
I think there is an evangelical element to every Linux user's decision to use Linux. Maybe it's a David and Goliath thing, the little guy from Finland taking on the marketing and software predatory behemoth that is Microsoft. Maybe it's about the GPL, and agreeing that information should be free. It can be about making a personal decision to run your desktop piracy-free (I can honestly say that *every* Windows user I know runs some pirated software on their installation, even if Grandma doesn't know that it is pirated). Or maybe it's about making sure that there is a choice out there for people.
I think it is hard to get Joe User to change from whatever it is that came with their machine. As long as it is Windows, you're hard-pressed to make them be bothered to change (it's just work, and they end up doing all the same things they were doing previously). If Linux is to be Joe's desktop O/S, then it'll have to come pre-packaged on Joe's computer (and Joe needs to see a difference in price as a result), *or* Joe has to find that evangelical slant that inspires him to do something different.
So, either you can get Joe thinking about the evangelical elements, or you just smile, nod politely and move on.
Certainly it is unfair to laden Vista with all the bugs/exploits associated with previous versions of Windows. However, it does speak to track record - I don't think making the change to Predominately Good Code from Holy Shit Handles! code is like hitting an On/Off switch.
Some folks might argue that that's why it took Vista so long to complete (and yes, I know that it really isn't complete, they just scaled back the feature set); being careful and considered takes time.
You might also argue that Vista, as a bottom-up re-write, is divorced from what we've seen previously, and that it shouldn't be painted with the 85/98/2k/xp bug brush. But this arguement cuts both ways - as a new codebase, we may be starting from the ground with a whole new bug/exploit set. But I don't have any visibility into the extent to which the 'brand new codebase' schtick is true, anyway.
At the end of the day, I'll believe that Vista is a different experience from a bug/exploit perspective when I see it - Bill's word just isn't worth shit on this topic.
I have mixed feelings too, but in the end I actually find Mr. Jandreau's comments refreshingly straightforward. It saves his folks and Whitney from wasting any more of their time. Let's rewrite his comments:
'This request is not being worked on. There are no further points of escalation. You think our terms of service aren't clear, but we've looked at them again, and they are, and furthermore, you're in violation of them. We are not playing an angle here to satisfy a hidden agenda; your mail is gone. End of story.'
Could he be a little more diplomatic? I suppose so. Is he abusive or lying? No, absolutely not.
Are the Mail Terms of Service clear? I think so, but don't take my word for it - they're at:
In particular, the section on Account Inactivity is Real Clear:
[--------- Begin Excerpt---------]
8. Account Inactivity. Lycos reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to delete any materials (including emails) stored in connection with an unpaid Lycos Mail account if the user's account has been inactive for thirty (30) days.
[--------- End Excerpt---------]
In this case, "an unpaid Lycos Mail account" refers to their basic, free service.
Before you register for a Lycos Mail account, you must read and agree to these Terms of Use and the Lycos Mail Terms of Service, including any future amendments.
[--------- Begin Excerpt---------]
Lycos offers subscription and unpaid versions of its electronic mail services. For users of the unpaid mail services, Lycos reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to limit the amount of storage space available per user or to delete materials stored for an excessive period while the user's account has been inactive. Specifically, Lycos reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to delete any materials (including emails) stored in connection with an unpaid Lycos Mail account or Angelfire Mail account if the user's account has been inactive for thirty (30) days.
[--------- End Excerpt---------]
The user is presented with both of these links as part of the sign-up process. I just signed up for an account (set the 30 day event timer *now*, 'cause I'm sure not putty any mail up there that I give a kentucky about:) ), and I saw the terms of service.
Admittedly, no-one reads the ToS - so let this be a lesson, when you're signing up for free shit, READ THE TERMS OF SERVICE. Read the Policy Privacy too - this is probably even more important in the long run. Incidentally, the Lycos Privacy Policy seemed pretty well written to me.
So, yeah, tough break Whitney - it is a drag to lose mail. But want Things to Go Your Way, that means reading stuff when you're agreeing to it, and learning and lesson and moving on when you get burned by your own actions.
I agree - I actually find Mr. Jandreau's comments refreshingly straightforward. It saves his folks and Whitney from wasting any more of their time. Let's rewrite his comments:
This request is not being worked on. There are no further points of escalation. You think our terms of service aren't clear, but we've looked at them again, and they are, and furthermore, you're in violation of them. We are not playing an angle here to satisfy a hidden agenda; your mail is gone. End of story.
Could he be a little more diplomatic. I suppose so. Is he abusive or lying? No, absolutely not.
Are the Mail Terms of Service clear? I think so, but don't take my word for it - they're at:
In particular, the section on Account Inactivity is Real Clear:
--------- [Begin Excerpt---------] 8. Account Inactivity. Lycos reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to delete any materials (including emails) stored in connection with an unpaid Lycos Mail account if the user's account has been inactive for thirty (30) days. --------- [End Excerpt---------]
In this case, "and unpaid Lycos Mail account" refers to their basic, free service. There
Before you register for a Lycos Mail account, you must read and agree to these Terms of Use and the Lycos Mail Terms of Service, including any future amendments.
--------- [Begin Excerpt---------] Lycos offers subscription and unpaid versions of its electronic mail services. For users of the unpaid mail services, Lycos reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to limit the amount of storage space available per user or to delete materials stored for an excessive period while the user's account has been inactive. Specifically, Lycos reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to delete any materials (including emails) stored in connection with an unpaid Lycos Mail account or Angelfire Mail account if the user's account has been inactive for thirty (30) days. --------- [End Excerpt---------]
The user is presented with both of these links as part of the sign-up process. I just signed up for an account (set the 30 day event timer *now*, 'cause I'm sure not putty any mail up there that I give a kentucky about:) ), and I saw the terms of service.
Admittedly, no-one reads the ToS - so let this be a lesson, when you're signing up for free shit, READ THE TERMS OF SERVICE. Read the Policy Privacy too - this is probably even more important in the long run. Incidentally, the Lycos Privacy Policy seemed pretty well written to me.
So, yeah, tough break Whitney - it is a drag to lose mail. But want Things to Go Your Way, that means reading stuff when you're agreeing to it, and learning and lesson and moving on when you get burned by your own actions.
I agree - I actually find Mr. Jandreau's comments refreshingly straightforward. It saves his folks and Whitney from wasting any more of their time. Let's rewrite his comments:
This request is not being worked on. There are no further points of escalation. You think our terms of service aren't clear, but we've looked at them again, and they are, and furthermore, you're in violation of them. We are not playing an angle here to satisfy a hidden agenda; your mail is gone. End of story.
Could he be a little more diplomatic. I suppose so. Is he abusive or lying? No, absolutely not.
Are the Mail Terms of Service clear? I think so, but don't take my word for it - they're at:
In particular, the section on Account Inactivity is Real Clear:
--------- [Begin Excerpt---------] 8. Account Inactivity. Lycos reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to delete any materials (including emails) stored in connection with an unpaid Lycos Mail account if the user's account has been inactive for thirty (30) days. --------- [End Excerpt---------]
In this case, "and unpaid Lycos Mail account" refers to their basic, free service. There
Before you register for a Lycos Mail account, you must read and agree to these Terms of Use and the Lycos Mail Terms of Service, including any future amendments.
--------- [Begin Excerpt---------] Lycos offers subscription and unpaid versions of its electronic mail services. For users of the unpaid mail services, Lycos reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to limit the amount of storage space available per user or to delete materials stored for an excessive period while the user's account has been inactive. Specifically, Lycos reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to delete any materials (including emails) stored in connection with an unpaid Lycos Mail account or Angelfire Mail account if the user's account has been inactive for thirty (30) days. --------- [End Excerpt---------]
The user is presented with both of these links as part of the sign-up process. I just signed up for an account (set the 30 day event timer *now*, 'cause I'm sure not putty any mail up there that I give a kentucky about:) ), and I saw the terms of service.
Admittedly, no-one reads the ToS - so let this be a lesson, when you're signing up for free shit, READ THE TERMS OF SERVICE. Read the Policy Privacy too - this is probably even more important in the long run. Incidentally, the Lycos Privacy Policy seemed pretty well written to me.
So, yeah, tough break Whitney - it is a drag to lose mail. But want Things to Go Your Way, that means reading stuff when you're agreeing to it, and learning and lesson and moving on when you get burned by your own actions.
I dunno - the org post spoke to pixelating of nuclear facilities, and across the river from Windsor sits the Enrico Fermi Nuclear Power Plant, which is presented in all its glory...
>FTFA:"The abusive boss has been well documented in movies"
>Well documented in the... movies?!...
Thank you. I think you have hit upon the Essence of the Idiocy of the submitter and a number of the associated posts.
The title could have just as easily been 'Most Bosses Don't Lie'.
I'm an IT manager. I like to think I'm not a PHB. Most of my reports, either direct or elsewhere in my reporting structure, like me, but some don't. I can honestly say that I never bullshit them.
The majority of people who report up into my office are smart, reasonably hard-working people who like to come to work and take pride in the results. A few are lying shitheads who lie to both me and their co-workers.
So what does any of this say about a particular individual? Nothing. It's just a bullshit headline that a bunch of people can glom onto and serve up a stack of ad hominem stories that they then generalise to all bosses, or all employees.
Want to get along with your boss or your employees? Communicate. Show up when you say you will. Do what you say you're going to do for them. When there is a problem, let them know as soon as you're aware of it. Give them honest feedback about how you think something should be done.
Specific to bosses: Give credit where due. Recognise and note it when folks go above and beyond. If you've got an issue with how someone is working (or not working), bring it forward quickly with specific examples, and specific comments about how to improve. Don't tell tales out of class. Recognition is public; feedback is private.
If you're working for a boss who is an asshole, start looking for ways to get out of there. By the time people are in their 30's or 40's, you're not likely to change their psychological make-up or emotional (im)maturity. The asshole *will* get theirs in time, but there will be a lot of collateral damage in the meanwhile. While you're there, limit their ability to screw you; don't load their gun (by showing up late or missing deadlines), document your interactions with e-mail that affirms expectations or deadlines set 'in the hallway'. If you're getting mixed messages, or they are switching priorities on you, follow-up with a message that confirms what your new priority is and makes it clear what the impact of the change is ('now that I'm working on Project A full-time for the next week, Project B and Project C tasks (enumerate them here) will move to these new dates...', etc.).
And if you're a boss, remember that one of the hallmarks of leadership is grace under pressure.
Slashdot Mirror
So, call me an ignorant foreigner (I'm Canadian), but why are US military forces doing the job of a domestic police force in a middle-eastern country?
I swear to god I'm not trolling - but for the life of me, I don't understand why you're shipping guys halfway around the world to do someone else's job.
Nobody is hanging out with crack dealers here - what does this have to do with the topic at hand, people?
The minimal client in TFA connected to a swarm, which is not illegal, does not compromise *anyone's* IP, and yet generated subpoena-bot notices. This says to me that the bot writers aren't taking sufficient care or interest to build a bot which does what they claim it does. This in spite of the fact that they're already way more than halfway down the road to a bot that does do what it should to support the claim(s) that they make.
Ergo, they are full of shit. Nothing more, nothing less.
I think the article is poorly written, and as such leads to confusion rather than clarification. Looking over the comments seems to support this interpretation - they're all over the map. At the same time, it does capture the essence of community concern over this deal, and raised some interesting (at least to me) questions.
.ogg and in it Eben intimates that the GPLv3 is required in order to fight the Microsoft/Novell deal. Again, The inference here is that the GPLv2 is not being violated by the Novell/Microsoft agreement. There is really no other readily accessible info regarding this deal that I can find on fsf.org; there appears to be some activity in the discussion forums, but these require registration for access (there's a bit of irony for ya!). So I don't have access to the deal itself, and I really don't seem to have access to a thoughtful interpretation of the deal. If anyone knows where to find some well thought out material on the deal, please post.
"The community of people wants to do anything they can to interfere with this deal and all deals like it.
Well, don't speak for me on this. I still don't understand what is going on enough to say that the deal should be interfered with. That being said, I'm concerned by the lack of clarification and speaking to concerns on the part of Novell, so I understand where the suspicion is coming from; along the lines of 'if they're not looking to clarify, then what are they hiding?'.
They have every reason to be deeply concerned that this is the beginning of a significant patent aggression by Microsoft," Eben Moglen, the Foundation's general counsel, said on Friday.
And when I start thinking about possible outcomes of the agreement, this is what makes me paranoid. Why was Microsoft motivated to make this deal? So that Microsoft could deliver SUSE subscription licenses to Walmart? I don't think so.
As I understand it, the deal indemnifies Novell against patent violation accusations from Micrsoft. As such, all future Novell contributions to GPL's software must be viewed with a jaundiced eye, since it appears that Novell need not worry about patent violation action against their contribution, while any other developer who derives from the new Novell code has no such luxury.
Okay, so how does all this lead to "Critics called on the board to punish Novell by banning it from distributing new versions of Linux software, said Moglen."? Note IANAL - please comment if I am wrong here. I think that the term 'banning' is a bit of a misnomer here, isn't it? The FSF has the right to enforce the GPL as it sees fit, and as such any move to stop Novell from distributing GPL'd code would require court action on the FSF's part looking for an injunction against Novell distributing GPL'd code, wouldn't it? If the answer to this question is substantively 'yes', then the FSF would not be so much 'banning' Novell from doing anything as enforcing the GPL.
TFA also muddies the waters by slipping in the GPLv3 without explicitly saying so; at least that's how I am interpreting it: "If the foundation decides to take action, the ban would apply to new versions of Linux covered under a licensing agreement due to take effect in March.
The inference here is that the GPLv2 is not being violated by the Novell/Microsoft agreement. As several posters have noted, it appears that the GPLv2 is being violated (e.g. section 7). so either the community doesn't have all the information, or we don't know how to interpret/apply the GPL. I either case, it shows that we really need a cogent source of information and summary regarding this deal. I've watched Eben Moglen's ogg (jeez folks, can't you get your hands on a better microphone, this is barely listenable!) video http://gplv3.fsf.org/static/FSF_Eben_Moglen_Appeal
If the GPLv3 really is required to fight the possible evil implications of the dea
Besides helium-3 mining and lunar hotels, do you have any good ideas for a moon base startup?
/. submission summary:
2 -climatechange_x.htm?POE=NEWISVA
This is possibly the most small-minded query ever seen on a
[assume best Jeff Spicoli persona] Like, Mr. Hand, do you have any good ideas for a moon base startup? [giggles nervously]
Opinions on the submission summary aside, the big question for me is: To what extent will Americans (I'm not) expect this venture to be self-funding? A research component (pursuit of pure knowledge stuff) in NASA's budget will, I expect, only get you part-way.
If helium-3 is present to the extent indicated by the lunar soil samples brought back by Apollo 11 and subsequent missions, then the economics of a lunar mining operations might even work - if we can find something to do with a big swack of helium-3, other than filling kid's birthday balloons. Maybe there's someone out there who is an authority on this: to what extent does using helium-3 as fuel for fusion reduce the by-product/radioactive waste produced by nuclear reactors? Is helium-3 at reasonable cost a Big Win for the nuclear industry?
The time is certainly ripe for getting serious about getting out of the fossil-fuel business (not from an economic perspective, where Exxon's $40 Billion USD profit last year looks Pretty Good, but from a How Long Can This Go On? perspective).
I'm reading this the day after the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued their report, which says things don't look good, to say the least:
http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/2007-02-0
So the economic appeal may be there.
Six month rotations are mentioned. I'm not an out-doors guy, but I'll tell you that the prospect of spending 175+ straight days in-doors isn't too appealing to me. Maybe this is why Huxley envisaged Happy Drugs; this would be the ultimate test of our ability to medicate ourselves to contentment in the face of adversity in our environment. I'm wondering what the rotation cycles are for remote assignments on Earth, e.g. Antarctic and Arctic exploration stations? While functionally the Antarctic Winter and the Lunar environment have the same effect - no going outside except in serious gear, or you die - I think that there is a psychological oppression that goes along with being on the moon. Comments?
I think that six month rotations would take quite a while to build up to.
Well, straight news headlines are one thing, I suppose. However, sportswriters are damned near defined by the puns that they do linguistic flips and twists to get into their headlines and stories.
I will confess that while I groan and turn my nose up like everyone else, I secretly admire headlines like 'Bull riders in chute-out tonight at the Corel' (from when Ottawa's Scotiabank Place - blech - was called the Corel Centre). It takes Glengarry Glen Ross-sized brass balls to put your name beside that teaser.
So, while I do appreciate the desirability of headlines that actually have something to do with the story, it would be a shame to see all headlines homogenized in a quest to improve SE rankings and thus eyeballs for advertising.
The Guardian is a perfect example of how a little guy can look real big on-line; while it is the second smallest national print newspaper in the U.K., it gets more than 7.5 million views per month, more than a quarter of those views going to readers in the U.S.
http://www.ojr.org/ojr/business/1063229872.php
Emily Bell - Editor in Chief of the Guardian Unlimited, which is what the on-line version is called - attributes the bulk of the Guardian's on-line success to the high volume of blog and Google links to Guardian articles, a result, she says, of *not* requiring registration to read the Guardian on-line.
Did anyone else first read this title as " Dell's Intel Bios Caused By Under the Table Crash?
I thought maybe it was a hypervisor problem.
[/humour]
Just ask yourself, what profit motives does Microsoft have in making this work?
I'll second that emotion.
This initiative is at odds with Microsoft's decision to use Open XML for the Office suite. If they really think folks are going to be stuck with Open XML-format Office documents that they need converted into ODF (say, for distribution reasons) what is it that stops them from saving the documents as ODF directly out of the Office app?
I think Microsoft is feeling a little shaky on this issue. They've had great success historically using their own document formats - in particular, the lack of backwards compatibility between Word formats, which should have served to infuriate their user base when it realized they were being forced to upgrade just so they could open up Word docs sent to them by folks using a newer version of Word. Instead, this lack of compatibility brought Office upgrades *forward* into the next quarter. What a great scam, Steve! Thanks, Bill.
As other readers have noted, though, there are enough indicators out there (the on-going Mass. debacle, for one) that it seems MS is afraid of being left holding the incompatibility bag, so they're hedging their bets by supporting the creation of these translator modules.
All this just serves to leave them looking indecisive, IMHO. If they really give a shite about their users being able to share files, they'd jump on board ODF.
Are there functional advantages in Open XML compared to ODF?
I think your response will be driven by two broad factors: what that person uses their computer for, and what it is that drives you to use Linux.
I don't mean to be pedantic here, but we often forget to ask the fundamental question when confronted by new users of some technology: what is it you're trying to achieve or trying to get done with that technology?
Maybe the guy in the store just uses his desktop as a surfing machine; a bit of mail, a bit of news and information, a bit of porn (although I suspect he'll leave that part out while in the bookstore with a stranger). It's equally possible that he uses it to do work-related stuff. In the latter case, he may already where he should stay, e.g. if the company sales-channel app is Win-only. If it's a surfing machine connecting to an ISP, then you might be able to make a case for change.
But why should the guy switch - it's working fine for him right now with Windows, right? Well, this is where the second part comes into play; why do *you* use Linux?
I think there is an evangelical element to every Linux user's decision to use Linux. Maybe it's a David and Goliath thing, the little guy from Finland taking on the marketing and software predatory behemoth that is Microsoft. Maybe it's about the GPL, and agreeing that information should be free. It can be about making a personal decision to run your desktop piracy-free (I can honestly say that *every* Windows user I know runs some pirated software on their installation, even if Grandma doesn't know that it is pirated). Or maybe it's about making sure that there is a choice out there for people.
I think it is hard to get Joe User to change from whatever it is that came with their machine. As long as it is Windows, you're hard-pressed to make them be bothered to change (it's just work, and they end up doing all the same things they were doing previously). If Linux is to be Joe's desktop O/S, then it'll have to come pre-packaged on Joe's computer (and Joe needs to see a difference in price as a result), *or* Joe has to find that evangelical slant that inspires him to do something different.
So, either you can get Joe thinking about the evangelical elements, or you just smile, nod politely and move on.
I'd rather clean sewers than write malicious code for a living
/humour
No job at Microsoft in your future then?
Hell, Vista has an installed base smaller than BeOS right now and it has more exploits already.
s p
Care you cite some examples?
Well, I guess we're going to be hearing about 'em Real Soon Now:
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2073611,00.a
Certainly it is unfair to laden Vista with all the bugs/exploits associated with previous versions of Windows. However, it does speak to track record - I don't think making the change to Predominately Good Code from Holy Shit Handles! code is like hitting an On/Off switch.
Some folks might argue that that's why it took Vista so long to complete (and yes, I know that it really isn't complete, they just scaled back the feature set); being careful and considered takes time.
You might also argue that Vista, as a bottom-up re-write, is divorced from what we've seen previously, and that it shouldn't be painted with the 85/98/2k/xp bug brush. But this arguement cuts both ways - as a new codebase, we may be starting from the ground with a whole new bug/exploit set. But I don't have any visibility into the extent to which the 'brand new codebase' schtick is true, anyway.
At the end of the day, I'll believe that Vista is a different experience from a bug/exploit perspective when I see it - Bill's word just isn't worth shit on this topic.
I have mixed feelings too, but in the end I actually find Mr. Jandreau's comments refreshingly straightforward. It saves his folks and Whitney from wasting any more of their time. Let's rewrite his comments:
:) ), and I saw the terms of service.
'This request is not being worked on. There are no further points of escalation. You think our terms of service aren't clear, but we've looked at them again, and they are, and furthermore, you're in violation of them. We are not playing an angle here to satisfy a hidden agenda; your mail is gone. End of story.'
Could he be a little more diplomatic? I suppose so. Is he abusive or lying? No, absolutely not.
Are the Mail Terms of Service clear? I think so, but don't take my word for it - they're at:
http://info.lycos.com/legal/mail_terms.html
In particular, the section on Account Inactivity is Real Clear:
[--------- Begin Excerpt---------]
8. Account Inactivity. Lycos reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to delete any materials (including emails) stored in connection with an unpaid Lycos Mail account if the user's account has been inactive for thirty (30) days.
[--------- End Excerpt---------]
In this case, "an unpaid Lycos Mail account" refers to their basic, free service.
Additionally, the General Terms of Service (found at http://info.lycos.com/legal/legal.html ) say:
Before you register for a Lycos Mail account, you must read and agree to these Terms of Use and the Lycos Mail Terms of Service, including any future amendments.
[--------- Begin Excerpt---------]
Lycos offers subscription and unpaid versions of its electronic mail services. For users of the unpaid mail services, Lycos reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to limit the amount of storage space available per user or to delete materials stored for an excessive period while the user's account has been inactive. Specifically, Lycos reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to delete any materials (including emails) stored in connection with an unpaid Lycos Mail account or Angelfire Mail account if the user's account has been inactive for thirty (30) days.
[--------- End Excerpt---------]
The user is presented with both of these links as part of the sign-up process. I just signed up for an account (set the 30 day event timer *now*, 'cause I'm sure not putty any mail up there that I give a kentucky about
Admittedly, no-one reads the ToS - so let this be a lesson, when you're signing up for free shit, READ THE TERMS OF SERVICE. Read the Policy Privacy too - this is probably even more important in the long run. Incidentally, the Lycos Privacy Policy seemed pretty well written to me.
So, yeah, tough break Whitney - it is a drag to lose mail. But want Things to Go Your Way, that means reading stuff when you're agreeing to it, and learning and lesson and moving on when you get burned by your own actions.
I agree - I actually find Mr. Jandreau's comments refreshingly straightforward. It saves his folks and Whitney from wasting any more of their time. Let's rewrite his comments:
:) ), and I saw the terms of service.
This request is not being worked on. There are no further points of escalation. You think our terms of service aren't clear, but we've looked at them again, and they are, and furthermore, you're in violation of them. We are not playing an angle here to satisfy a hidden agenda; your mail is gone. End of story.
Could he be a little more diplomatic. I suppose so. Is he abusive or lying? No, absolutely not.
Are the Mail Terms of Service clear? I think so, but don't take my word for it - they're at:
http://info.lycos.com/legal/mail_terms.html
In particular, the section on Account Inactivity is Real Clear:
--------- [Begin Excerpt---------]
8. Account Inactivity. Lycos reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to delete any materials (including emails) stored in connection with an unpaid Lycos Mail account if the user's account has been inactive for thirty (30) days.
--------- [End Excerpt---------]
In this case, "and unpaid Lycos Mail account" refers to their basic, free service. There
Additionally, the General Terms of Service (found at http://info.lycos.com/legal/legal.html ) say:
Before you register for a Lycos Mail account, you must read and agree to these Terms of Use and the Lycos Mail Terms of Service, including any future amendments.
--------- [Begin Excerpt---------]
Lycos offers subscription and unpaid versions of its electronic mail services. For users of the unpaid mail services, Lycos reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to limit the amount of storage space available per user or to delete materials stored for an excessive period while the user's account has been inactive. Specifically, Lycos reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to delete any materials (including emails) stored in connection with an unpaid Lycos Mail account or Angelfire Mail account if the user's account has been inactive for thirty (30) days.
--------- [End Excerpt---------]
The user is presented with both of these links as part of the sign-up process. I just signed up for an account (set the 30 day event timer *now*, 'cause I'm sure not putty any mail up there that I give a kentucky about
Admittedly, no-one reads the ToS - so let this be a lesson, when you're signing up for free shit, READ THE TERMS OF SERVICE. Read the Policy Privacy too - this is probably even more important in the long run. Incidentally, the Lycos Privacy Policy seemed pretty well written to me.
So, yeah, tough break Whitney - it is a drag to lose mail. But want Things to Go Your Way, that means reading stuff when you're agreeing to it, and learning and lesson and moving on when you get burned by your own actions.
I agree - I actually find Mr. Jandreau's comments refreshingly straightforward. It saves his folks and Whitney from wasting any more of their time. Let's rewrite his comments:
:) ), and I saw the terms of service.
This request is not being worked on. There are no further points of escalation. You think our terms of service aren't clear, but we've looked at them again, and they are, and furthermore, you're in violation of them. We are not playing an angle here to satisfy a hidden agenda; your mail is gone. End of story.
Could he be a little more diplomatic. I suppose so. Is he abusive or lying? No, absolutely not.
Are the Mail Terms of Service clear? I think so, but don't take my word for it - they're at:
http://info.lycos.com/legal/mail_terms.html
In particular, the section on Account Inactivity is Real Clear:
--------- [Begin Excerpt---------]
8. Account Inactivity. Lycos reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to delete any materials (including emails) stored in connection with an unpaid Lycos Mail account if the user's account has been inactive for thirty (30) days.
--------- [End Excerpt---------]
In this case, "and unpaid Lycos Mail account" refers to their basic, free service. There
Additionally, the General Terms of Service (found at http://info.lycos.com/legal/legal.html ) say:
Before you register for a Lycos Mail account, you must read and agree to these Terms of Use and the Lycos Mail Terms of Service, including any future amendments.
--------- [Begin Excerpt---------]
Lycos offers subscription and unpaid versions of its electronic mail services. For users of the unpaid mail services, Lycos reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to limit the amount of storage space available per user or to delete materials stored for an excessive period while the user's account has been inactive. Specifically, Lycos reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to delete any materials (including emails) stored in connection with an unpaid Lycos Mail account or Angelfire Mail account if the user's account has been inactive for thirty (30) days.
--------- [End Excerpt---------]
The user is presented with both of these links as part of the sign-up process. I just signed up for an account (set the 30 day event timer *now*, 'cause I'm sure not putty any mail up there that I give a kentucky about
Admittedly, no-one reads the ToS - so let this be a lesson, when you're signing up for free shit, READ THE TERMS OF SERVICE. Read the Policy Privacy too - this is probably even more important in the long run. Incidentally, the Lycos Privacy Policy seemed pretty well written to me.
So, yeah, tough break Whitney - it is a drag to lose mail. But want Things to Go Your Way, that means reading stuff when you're agreeing to it, and learning and lesson and moving on when you get burned by your own actions.
I dunno - the org post spoke to pixelating of nuclear facilities, and across the river from Windsor sits the Enrico Fermi Nuclear Power Plant, which is presented in all its glory ...
t ario&ie=UTF8&z=16&ll=41.965585,-83.259223&spn=0.00 7243,0.021458&t=k&om=1
http://www.google.ca/maps?f=q&hl=en&q=Windsor,+On
>FTFA:"The abusive boss has been well documented in movies"
... movies?! ...
...', etc.).
>Well documented in the
Thank you. I think you have hit upon the Essence of the Idiocy of the submitter and a number of the associated posts.
The title could have just as easily been 'Most Bosses Don't Lie'.
I'm an IT manager. I like to think I'm not a PHB. Most of my reports, either direct or elsewhere in my reporting structure, like me, but some don't. I can honestly say that I never bullshit them.
The majority of people who report up into my office are smart, reasonably hard-working people who like to come to work and take pride in the results. A few are lying shitheads who lie to both me and their co-workers.
So what does any of this say about a particular individual? Nothing. It's just a bullshit headline that a bunch of people can glom onto and serve up a stack of ad hominem stories that they then generalise to all bosses, or all employees.
Want to get along with your boss or your employees? Communicate. Show up when you say you will. Do what you say you're going to do for them. When there is a problem, let them know as soon as you're aware of it. Give them honest feedback about how you think something should be done.
Specific to bosses: Give credit where due. Recognise and note it when folks go above and beyond. If you've got an issue with how someone is working (or not working), bring it forward quickly with specific examples, and specific comments about how to improve. Don't tell tales out of class. Recognition is public; feedback is private.
If you're working for a boss who is an asshole, start looking for ways to get out of there. By the time people are in their 30's or 40's, you're not likely to change their psychological make-up or emotional (im)maturity. The asshole *will* get theirs in time, but there will be a lot of collateral damage in the meanwhile. While you're there, limit their ability to screw you; don't load their gun (by showing up late or missing deadlines), document your interactions with e-mail that affirms expectations or deadlines set 'in the hallway'. If you're getting mixed messages, or they are switching priorities on you, follow-up with a message that confirms what your new priority is and makes it clear what the impact of the change is ('now that I'm working on Project A full-time for the next week, Project B and Project C tasks (enumerate them here) will move to these new dates
And if you're a boss, remember that one of the hallmarks of leadership is grace under pressure.