This is just another shoddy example of "journalism" from an IT rag whose job it is to produce buzzword-laden tripe that can be used to get advertisements in front of tech weenies.
Bing! Go to the head of the class - this is really rather well stated. The phrase 'buzzword-laden tripe' is a particular jewel, and I hope you won't mind if I use the ever-lasting shit out of it.
The biggest reason that corporate IT departments aren't particularly respected by the rest of the company is this blame the user culture that seems to pervade it.
Oh, come on, man; I could just as easily say that 'The biggest reason that corporate IT users aren't particularly respected by the IT function of the company is the cluelessness of the user culture that seems to pervade it'.
Both comments have some truth to them, but are gross generalisations.
I can honestly say, that as a user, most of the software that I've used for cell phones or combined PDA's/cell phones is not particularly well thought through WRT backup/restore and migration of data to a new device. The exceptions have been:
- the ability to use an SD card plus palm backup s/w on my combined palm/cell phone to run a scheduled nightly, which creates a backup for easy and fast restoration. Still doesn't *necessarily* address the need to port my addressbook to a new device when this one dies, depending on the device I'm migrating to.
- my BlackBerry auto syncs in near real time both my mail and my contacts. Changes are sync'd bi-directionally. Got a new Blackberry? Wipe the old one (enter the password 10 times incorrectly and it's cleaned), and point the new one at your account on the enterprise server - voila! In TFA, this is what the vice president of mobile computing at Gartner Inc says we all should be headed to anyway. I say he's dead on.
I can also honestly say that, this time as an IT guy trying to get users to use USB-connected desktop sync'ing s/w for backups and restorations, that using the crappy residential-user focused software to perform these functions in the enterprise is a dead-end proposition for all parties involved. And companies balk at buying an enterprise version of such s/w ('they get the s/w they need with the device, don't they?') and users won't buy an enterprise version license ('why can't I use the s/w that came with the device?'). It's a poor show all around.
Haven't had to think about it for even a minute since we bought a BB Enterprise server and restricted support to BB's, gaining the inherent bi-directional sync. Of course this is a proprietary h/w and s/w solution, which chaps my ass as a user, but you have to draw the line somewhere in the enterprise.
Now that's good fer a god-honest knee-slappin' guffaw!
Thanks - I needed that.
Just so I don't get karma-slapped upside the OT head... I've always thought of Nielson as a mechanism for pricing ads; like all representations of average behaviour, it doesn't say shinola about a particular individual's viewing habits. So, as long as the advertisers think they're getting value out of the metric, that's fine. But I've never talked to anyone who used a Nielson rating as a TV viewing guide.
Similarly, I've never talked to anyone who uses Nielson/NetRatings as a measure of the usefulness of quality/level of interest/etc. of a web site. And NetRatings doesn't even have the mindshare of Nielson the TV dudes. Anyway - in the context of a mechanism for ad pricing, google is the web equivalent of a TV ad about TV ads, which doesn't make any sense for a NetRatings rating. For that matter, what's the NetRatings measure of http://www.nielsen-netratings.com/ ?
Methinks that this announcement of a change in metric is just an attempt to get some profile on NetRatings' existence, and the notion of affecting google.com's measure for ads is plain absurd, because google *is* the advertiser. Drawing an equivalency between an indexing and search discovery mechanism like google and a less meta-focused content site is just boneheaded.
. If it's not a digital copy, it's not a quality copy, and thus not in a position to compete with the real thing. Do you want to pirate an mpeg of some guy taping his television screen, or do you want to bittorrent the actual dvd contents? In the absense of the availablity of the dvd on bittorrent, would you be more inclined to buy the material?
A programme I attended at a Canadian east coast university had high international enrollment. One of the guys was from Chechnya. We had a pretty good instructional technology setup in one of the lecture spaces, so we could snag a movie off the Internet and take a break at two in the morning to watch said movie while scarfing popcorn and pop.
We had End of Days* up on the screen one early morning when the Chechnyan Dude comes in and exclaims that 'this is like going to the theatre back home!'. The movie was, of course, a handheld cam-cord copy.He said this was par for the course everywhere east of Romania, at the time (obviously my sample is a little small here, but let's just say that he had no reason to be b/s'ing us on the matter).
So while I do understand and appreciate your point, if quality rips become scarce enough, entire countries will start watching hand held copies. So, the question is, were copies legally available (i.e for lease/purchase/rental, etc.) and if so, why did theatres go for the pirate version over the quality version?
* This just goes to show that there are entirely different lengths to which people will go when quality is in short supply.
You advertise the fringe channels on the other channels you own that have an audience..Clear Channel does that on a lot of local radio stations.
Yeah, and that's worked so well to preserve diversity in radio.
Okay, I know it's a smarmy comment, but I just don't get why so many people are afraid of financing shit that lays outside the mainstream - it's where interesting and substantial evolution occurs. Okay, you may not watch those channels now, but sooner or later something interesting will occur there that *drives* change in the mainstream.
Think of it as placing a little cultural bet on weird odds - it doesn't cost much, but they'll be a big pay-off somewhere along the line.
Well, fair comment. I find your post much more informative than TFA. I suppose I knew there was more to it even as I read the article, but the article really did undersell the process, and as such I couldn't help but make a smartass comment. I think it was the presentation of the 'sometimes suggesting the hiring of a lawyer' - it just seem glib.
Which is why the old concept of the "debtor's prison" needs to be revived.
I don't know if you're serious or not - but IAC, there's a difference between people who fraudulently obtain stuff and can't pay a civil penalty, and people who can't pay their debts.
Fix the punishment model for the intentional con by all means, but bring back debtor's prison for people who are missing car loan payments? That's a harsh move.
Plus, about half of the Western World would instantly be Newgate-bound if they brought back debtor's prisons. Which may be your point in the first place, I suppose.
I dunno - reading Dickens - whose father went to debtor's prison when he was twelve (the father, not Chuck) scarred be for life on this one, I guess.
UGH! WHY DOES THE SIGNATURE THING MAKE PEOPLE FEEL SAFER!?!?
Right on. For a darkly humourous exploration of this theme, check out John Hargrave's 'How crazy would I have to make my signature before someone would actually notice?' prank at:
1. Send a polite letter to a site you're looking to expunge info from, telling them who the company is and what they do, and what their specific requests is.
2. Get less polite, including "contacting a site's Internet service provider to complain about the site".
3. When there is no response, ReputationDefender will "sometimes suggests that clients hire a lawyer. Emphasis mine to ensure I'm conveying the sheer drama of such a bold move.
4. No ??? - go direct to Profit!!!.
I always feel like an idiot when I read these sorts of articles - there's a lucrative living to be made out of the utterly self-evident. Perhaps I need to learn to *never* underestimate the desire of people to have other folks perform simple and obvious tasks for them for exorbitant fees.
They dye the farm diesel so that troopers can tell what type it is.
I'm not from the States, so I'm genuinely curious; are the troopers empowered to check any vehicle on the road for dyed fuel, at any time?
Farm fuel in Canada (both gasoline and diesel) certainly used to be dyed for similar identification purposes, at least when I was a kid growing up on an Ontario farm 30+ years ago. I never heard of roadside checks for off-farm use of fuel, and have no idea what sort of cause would be used in determining the legality of such a check. If troopers can check anyone without specific reason to check a particular vehicle, it sure sounds like a 'fishing expedition' which could be used to stop any vehicle at any time, which sounds like an *awfully* broad legal mechanism to get a vehicle pulled over, at any time, without justification.
Once you're pulled over, of course, any subsequent observations of suspicious circumstance can lead anywhere. Is this for real?
Having written this, a quick google shows that in Ontario
Provincial Fuel Tax Inspectors are authorized to examine the fuel used in licensed motor vehicles, and to stop and detain vehicles for this purpose. Any person who refuses to allow an inspection may be fined up to $1,000 for each refusal. Well shit, what do I know? Note: It might be cheaper to refuse the inspection - the penalty can be as high as 13 x the avoided tax.
This would seem to imply that this is an inspection not performed by police, but by Ministry officials (link to the google cache page, as the original is 404'ing now):
Good Post. Last year Novell's market cap was $2.24 Billion. Yeah, with a 'B'.
There's no doubt that Novell has been hosed in markets in which they used to be King of the Hill. For the last 10+ years they've transitioned to a King of Stealth/Doughbrained Marketing position, but in spite of this they've still got a chunk of business, and manage to put out the odd cool product.
All this in spite of regular/. declarations of Imminent Death and sometimes even obits.
The upside of the Microsoft/Novell deal is that we got to see that Jeremy Allison is more principled and has more stones than anybody I've seen in a long time.
Even easier: just go to Spamgourmet.com and set up an account there (takes about 15 seconds, seriously), and then you can use all the addresses you want of the form [someword].youremail@spamgourmet.com.
Sounds cool. Gmail gives you a similar mechanism; myaddress@gmail.com can be amended to any form of myaddress+somesignupstring@gmail.com.
The downside is that I've run into numerous forms that evaluate the '+' character as invalid in form checking on entered e-mail addresses. My read of RFC [2]822 is that the '+' char is explictly included as atext, so these forms are either written by boneheads or by pricks who don't want to be tracked back to. Either way, it's a Bad Sign of Things to Come from whatever you're signing up for.
This doesn't appear to be a problem for Spamgourmet.com. Cool. Thanks for the tip.
In previous threads on/. regarding CCTV coverage of public space(s) in Britain, there have been observational comments (here's one http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=229567&cid=186 18653) about street level nuisance behaviour - broken windows, drunks hassling people, etc. I don't live in Britain, so I have no experience of my own to comment on WRT this topic.
However, in my world of values, proceeding through one's normal daily activities without an expectation of surveillance is one of the hallmarks of a free society. Removing or impinging upon this characteristic is a direct step in the direction of what I call a police state.
The output of this surveillance will inevitably be used for purposes beyond the original stated intent. People will keep coming back to that well until they get what they want in some relative circumstance. You may shut them down once, twice or one hundred times, but they will prevail.
If indeed a culture of hooliganism (or whatever you want to call it) is growing in the U.K., then the reasons behind this trend need to be examined and addressed.
I know this sounds idealistic and not particularly practical to those who are living the problem, but this is Big Shit that will define your culture in the mid- to long-term. So if this burns karma on me, so be it.
BTW, I'm a Canadian social democrat, not a/. libertarian. Believing in collective social values does not map onto embracing a culture and government that enages in daily surveillance of Joe and Joan Citizen.
On a pessimistic day, it seems to me that we've already lost the war for privacy on a global level. But fuck it, I'm not giving up on fighting against cameras in my town's downtown core. Our local downtown business association has been lobbying to install just such a system for three or four years now, offering to pay the upfront capital cost if the municipality takes on the maintenance and upkeep. Every time it comes up, I write to and phone my city council representative, and write the downtown biz association telling them I fall right in their target demographic and have too much disposable income for my own good, and that their membership will never see another penny of my money if they push this initiative. The chickenshits have *never* responded.
It's 2007, and you're only just now figuring out that the internet isn't journalism?
Glad to have you back from your coma.
It's a good line, and I can laugh along with it - and there's more truth to it than I'd probably like, since after all the Internet is Shit
But it looks to me like you too differentiate between what's to be found in blogs and what's to be found elsewhere, so I don't think I'm *that* far off base.
I'm not an OS X guy, so I don't follow or know my Mac-related sites. Anyway I follow the link, and I'm reading along, and in the second Greenpeace-related paragraph I encounter:
encouraging user donations to Greenpeace to somehow solve that issue.
My BullshitDetectorReadingOpinion(submission) returns a mild buzz. Next line:
After attempting to take credit for Apple's announcements (referring to the G.P. rep)
sends me off on a bit of surfing of roughlydrafted.com, and googling of same said, which leads me to the conclusion that roughlydrafted.com is Daniel Eran's pulpit. Some of the 'articles' are fine and interesting, but that's not my point.
A few weeks back someone defined the difference between digg and/. as that the former is a blog aggregator+comments and the latter is a news aggregator+comments.This captures the difference for me, and makes me wonder about the submission a bit.
Workstation patches roll in enterprises of any size via WSUS or similar. As far as testing of workstations patches go, that's Microsoft's job. You hold the w/s patches for a few days on your WSUS server, wait to see if there are any issues, and if not, let them roll. If we had to test w/s patches on a per patch basis, we wouldn't be able to run the enterprise. If we were patching w/s's outside of a WSUSish service, w/s's wouldn't get patched.
So, WSUS manages the roll-out of patches to workstations, and you can roll 'em one by one, or in bulk, whichever is your druthers.
The server side is obviously a different kettle of fish. We're not an MS shop in terms of our primary directory (although we sync our directory to an AD instance) or file and print services, so rolling to our MS application servers is a not-so-onerous exercise.
All I see is a link to the school district's web site and a six line commentary, followed by a question. What article are people arguing over? There's even a posting that says the article is moronic... and there's not enough detail in the commentary to start a good argument.
Did an article link get edited out or does the emperor have no clothes here?
Alternatively, I'm a moron... yeah, yeah, I know. Fire away.
#1. Nobody really gives a rat's ass about your diary no matter how much you try to wrap it in puffed up laws and supposed ethics.
Okay, so this is over the top and I admit it. But has anyone else had their fill of blogs regurgitating other blogs, droning on about their day or wrapping interesting articles in a layer of nonsense that the reader is expected to care about on the way to the *actual* content (c.f. www.digg.com)?
I cruise through ars technica a couple of times a week - there are usually a couple articles there of interest. A link search for arstechnica.com on blogsearch.google.com yields 50,000+ hits. Are there really 50,000+ bloggers with something interesting to add to these articles? If you want to actually discuss the article content, wouldn't you just click the discuss button on arstechnica.com?
Slashdot Mirror
Bing! Go to the head of the class - this is really rather well stated. The phrase 'buzzword-laden tripe' is a particular jewel, and I hope you won't mind if I use the ever-lasting shit out of it.
Oh, come on, man; I could just as easily say that 'The biggest reason that corporate IT users aren't particularly respected by the IT function of the company is the cluelessness of the user culture that seems to pervade it'.
Both comments have some truth to them, but are gross generalisations.
I can honestly say, that as a user, most of the software that I've used for cell phones or combined PDA's/cell phones is not particularly well thought through WRT backup/restore and migration of data to a new device. The exceptions have been:
- the ability to use an SD card plus palm backup s/w on my combined palm/cell phone to run a scheduled nightly, which creates a backup for easy and fast restoration. Still doesn't *necessarily* address the need to port my addressbook to a new device when this one dies, depending on the device I'm migrating to.
- my BlackBerry auto syncs in near real time both my mail and my contacts. Changes are sync'd bi-directionally. Got a new Blackberry? Wipe the old one (enter the password 10 times incorrectly and it's cleaned), and point the new one at your account on the enterprise server - voila! In TFA, this is what the vice president of mobile computing at Gartner Inc says we all should be headed to anyway. I say he's dead on.
I can also honestly say that, this time as an IT guy trying to get users to use USB-connected desktop sync'ing s/w for backups and restorations, that using the crappy residential-user focused software to perform these functions in the enterprise is a dead-end proposition for all parties involved. And companies balk at buying an enterprise version of such s/w ('they get the s/w they need with the device, don't they?') and users won't buy an enterprise version license ('why can't I use the s/w that came with the device?'). It's a poor show all around.
Haven't had to think about it for even a minute since we bought a BB Enterprise server and restricted support to BB's, gaining the inherent bi-directional sync. Of course this is a proprietary h/w and s/w solution, which chaps my ass as a user, but you have to draw the line somewhere in the enterprise.
Cold Press - First Cold Press, baby. Everything else on the label is just spin.
That is to say necessarily, but not sufficiently so.
Now that's good fer a god-honest knee-slappin' guffaw!
Thanks - I needed that.
Just so I don't get karma-slapped upside the OT head ... I've always thought of Nielson as a mechanism for pricing ads; like all representations of average behaviour, it doesn't say shinola about a particular individual's viewing habits. So, as long as the advertisers think they're getting value out of the metric, that's fine. But I've never talked to anyone who used a Nielson rating as a TV viewing guide.
Similarly, I've never talked to anyone who uses Nielson/NetRatings as a measure of the usefulness of quality/level of interest/etc. of a web site. And NetRatings doesn't even have the mindshare of Nielson the TV dudes. Anyway - in the context of a mechanism for ad pricing, google is the web equivalent of a TV ad about TV ads, which doesn't make any sense for a NetRatings rating. For that matter, what's the NetRatings measure of http://www.nielsen-netratings.com/ ?
Methinks that this announcement of a change in metric is just an attempt to get some profile on NetRatings' existence, and the notion of affecting google.com's measure for ads is plain absurd, because google *is* the advertiser. Drawing an equivalency between an indexing and search discovery mechanism like google and a less meta-focused content site is just boneheaded.
A bit of a lame submission IMHO.
It's not registation required, it's *subscription* required - $79 annually or monthly payments $9.95.
Man, 59 comments and counting - I'm just so impressed that so many /. readers are paid up subscribers to the WSJ.
What a way to ensure that no-one reads TFA - it's the declaration of a new epoch atA programme I attended at a Canadian east coast university had high international enrollment. One of the guys was from Chechnya. We had a pretty good instructional technology setup in one of the lecture spaces, so we could snag a movie off the Internet and take a break at two in the morning to watch said movie while scarfing popcorn and pop.
We had End of Days* up on the screen one early morning when the Chechnyan Dude comes in and exclaims that 'this is like going to the theatre back home!'. The movie was, of course, a handheld cam-cord copy.He said this was par for the course everywhere east of Romania, at the time (obviously my sample is a little small here, but let's just say that he had no reason to be b/s'ing us on the matter).
So while I do understand and appreciate your point, if quality rips become scarce enough, entire countries will start watching hand held copies. So, the question is, were copies legally available (i.e for lease/purchase/rental, etc.) and if so, why did theatres go for the pirate version over the quality version?
* This just goes to show that there are entirely different lengths to which people will go when quality is in short supply.
Er, you know that's why they're called the *secret* police, right?
Yeah, and that's worked so well to preserve diversity in radio.
Okay, I know it's a smarmy comment, but I just don't get why so many people are afraid of financing shit that lays outside the mainstream - it's where interesting and substantial evolution occurs. Okay, you may not watch those channels now, but sooner or later something interesting will occur there that *drives* change in the mainstream.
Think of it as placing a little cultural bet on weird odds - it doesn't cost much, but they'll be a big pay-off somewhere along the line.
Well, fair comment. I find your post much more informative than TFA. I suppose I knew there was more to it even as I read the article, but the article really did undersell the process, and as such I couldn't help but make a smartass comment. I think it was the presentation of the 'sometimes suggesting the hiring of a lawyer' - it just seem glib.
Your point is fair and understood.
I don't know if you're serious or not - but IAC, there's a difference between people who fraudulently obtain stuff and can't pay a civil penalty, and people who can't pay their debts.
Fix the punishment model for the intentional con by all means, but bring back debtor's prison for people who are missing car loan payments? That's a harsh move.
Plus, about half of the Western World would instantly be Newgate-bound if they brought back debtor's prisons. Which may be your point in the first place, I suppose.
I dunno - reading Dickens - whose father went to debtor's prison when he was twelve (the father, not Chuck) scarred be for life on this one, I guess.
Right on. For a darkly humourous exploration of this theme, check out John Hargrave's 'How crazy would I have to make my signature before someone would actually notice?' prank at:
http://www.zug.com/pranks/credit/
The answer? Pretty freakin' crazy, and still no-one notices anyway.
From TFA, ReputationDefender works like this:
1. Send a polite letter to a site you're looking to expunge info from, telling them who the company is and what they do, and what their specific requests is.
2. Get less polite, including "contacting a site's Internet service provider to complain about the site".
3. When there is no response, ReputationDefender will "sometimes suggests that clients hire a lawyer. Emphasis mine to ensure I'm conveying the sheer drama of such a bold move.
4. No ??? - go direct to Profit!!!.
I always feel like an idiot when I read these sorts of articles - there's a lucrative living to be made out of the utterly self-evident. Perhaps I need to learn to *never* underestimate the desire of people to have other folks perform simple and obvious tasks for them for exorbitant fees.
I'm not from the States, so I'm genuinely curious; are the troopers empowered to check any vehicle on the road for dyed fuel, at any time?
Farm fuel in Canada (both gasoline and diesel) certainly used to be dyed for similar identification purposes, at least when I was a kid growing up on an Ontario farm 30+ years ago. I never heard of roadside checks for off-farm use of fuel, and have no idea what sort of cause would be used in determining the legality of such a check. If troopers can check anyone without specific reason to check a particular vehicle, it sure sounds like a 'fishing expedition' which could be used to stop any vehicle at any time, which sounds like an *awfully* broad legal mechanism to get a vehicle pulled over, at any time, without justification.
Once you're pulled over, of course, any subsequent observations of suspicious circumstance can lead anywhere. Is this for real?
Having written this, a quick google shows that in Ontario
Provincial Fuel Tax Inspectors are authorized to examine the fuel used in licensed motor vehicles, and to stop and detain vehicles for this purpose. Any person who refuses to allow an inspection may be fined up to $1,000 for each refusal.Well shit, what do I know? Note: It might be cheaper to refuse the inspection - the penalty can be as high as 13 x the avoided tax.
This would seem to imply that this is an inspection not performed by police, but by Ministry officials (link to the google cache page, as the original is 404'ing now):
http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:2Wmxgj-3AEAJ:Good Post. Last year Novell's market cap was $2.24 Billion. Yeah, with a 'B'.
There's no doubt that Novell has been hosed in markets in which they used to be King of the Hill. For the last 10+ years they've transitioned to a King of Stealth/Doughbrained Marketing position, but in spite of this they've still got a chunk of business, and manage to put out the odd cool product.
All this in spite of regular /. declarations of Imminent Death and sometimes even obits.
The upside of the Microsoft/Novell deal is that we got to see that Jeremy Allison is more principled and has more stones than anybody I've seen in a long time.
Melfi: Maybe AJ knew the rope was too long and his suicide attempt was just a cry for help.
Tony: Or maybe he's just a fuckin' idiot ... which historically *has* been the case.
Even if you know you're screwed either way, sometimes it's still nice just to be right.
Sounds cool. Gmail gives you a similar mechanism; myaddress@gmail.com can be amended to any form of myaddress+somesignupstring@gmail.com.
The downside is that I've run into numerous forms that evaluate the '+' character as invalid in form checking on entered e-mail addresses. My read of RFC [2]822 is that the '+' char is explictly included as atext, so these forms are either written by boneheads or by pricks who don't want to be tracked back to. Either way, it's a Bad Sign of Things to Come from whatever you're signing up for.
This doesn't appear to be a problem for Spamgourmet.com. Cool. Thanks for the tip.
In previous threads on /. regarding CCTV coverage of public space(s) in Britain, there have been observational comments (here's one http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=229567&cid=186 18653) about street level nuisance behaviour - broken windows, drunks hassling people, etc. I don't live in Britain, so I have no experience of my own to comment on WRT this topic.
However, in my world of values, proceeding through one's normal daily activities without an expectation of surveillance is one of the hallmarks of a free society. Removing or impinging upon this characteristic is a direct step in the direction of what I call a police state.
The output of this surveillance will inevitably be used for purposes beyond the original stated intent. People will keep coming back to that well until they get what they want in some relative circumstance. You may shut them down once, twice or one hundred times, but they will prevail.
If indeed a culture of hooliganism (or whatever you want to call it) is growing in the U.K., then the reasons behind this trend need to be examined and addressed.
I know this sounds idealistic and not particularly practical to those who are living the problem, but this is Big Shit that will define your culture in the mid- to long-term. So if this burns karma on me, so be it.
BTW, I'm a Canadian social democrat, not a /. libertarian. Believing in collective social values does not map onto embracing a culture and government that enages in daily surveillance of Joe and Joan Citizen.
On a pessimistic day, it seems to me that we've already lost the war for privacy on a global level. But fuck it, I'm not giving up on fighting against cameras in my town's downtown core. Our local downtown business association has been lobbying to install just such a system for three or four years now, offering to pay the upfront capital cost if the municipality takes on the maintenance and upkeep. Every time it comes up, I write to and phone my city council representative, and write the downtown biz association telling them I fall right in their target demographic and have too much disposable income for my own good, and that their membership will never see another penny of my money if they push this initiative. The chickenshits have *never* responded.
Glad to have you back from your coma.
It's a good line, and I can laugh along with it - and there's more truth to it than I'd probably like, since after all the Internet is Shit
But it looks to me like you too differentiate between what's to be found in blogs and what's to be found elsewhere, so I don't think I'm *that* far off base.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=224280&cid=18I'm not an OS X guy, so I don't follow or know my Mac-related sites. Anyway I follow the link, and I'm reading along, and in the second Greenpeace-related paragraph I encounter:
encouraging user donations to Greenpeace to somehow solve that issue.My BullshitDetectorReadingOpinion(submission) returns a mild buzz. Next line:
After attempting to take credit for Apple's announcements (referring to the G.P. rep)sends me off on a bit of surfing of roughlydrafted.com, and googling of same said, which leads me to the conclusion that roughlydrafted.com is Daniel Eran's pulpit. Some of the 'articles' are fine and interesting, but that's not my point.
A few weeks back someone defined the difference between digg and /. as that the former is a blog aggregator+comments and the latter is a news aggregator+comments.This captures the difference for me, and makes me wonder about the submission a bit.
I suppose this is why we have arguments on /. as to whether bloggers are journalists http://politics.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/04/ 07/0428225.
I do admit that Mr. Eran is pretty up-front with his bias, so you know where he stands while you're reading him.
Workstation patches roll in enterprises of any size via WSUS or similar. As far as testing of workstations patches go, that's Microsoft's job. You hold the w/s patches for a few days on your WSUS server, wait to see if there are any issues, and if not, let them roll. If we had to test w/s patches on a per patch basis, we wouldn't be able to run the enterprise. If we were patching w/s's outside of a WSUSish service, w/s's wouldn't get patched.
So, WSUS manages the roll-out of patches to workstations, and you can roll 'em one by one, or in bulk, whichever is your druthers.
The server side is obviously a different kettle of fish. We're not an MS shop in terms of our primary directory (although we sync our directory to an AD instance) or file and print services, so rolling to our MS application servers is a not-so-onerous exercise.
Hey, thanks for the lead on this extension. Coolest ff extension I've seen in a while.
And the demo has the goofiest muzak I've heard in about the same amount of time - +1 Cheesy.
All I see is a link to the school district's web site and a six line commentary, followed by a question. What article are people arguing over? There's even a posting that says the article is moronic ... and there's not enough detail in the commentary to start a good argument.
Did an article link get edited out or does the emperor have no clothes here?
Alternatively, I'm a moron ... yeah, yeah, I know. Fire away.
#1. Nobody really gives a rat's ass about your diary no matter how much you try to wrap it in puffed up laws and supposed ethics.
Okay, so this is over the top and I admit it. But has anyone else had their fill of blogs regurgitating other blogs, droning on about their day or wrapping interesting articles in a layer of nonsense that the reader is expected to care about on the way to the *actual* content (c.f. www.digg.com)?
I cruise through ars technica a couple of times a week - there are usually a couple articles there of interest. A link search for arstechnica.com on blogsearch.google.com yields 50,000+ hits. Are there really 50,000+ bloggers with something interesting to add to these articles? If you want to actually discuss the article content, wouldn't you just click the discuss button on arstechnica.com?
Hey can we mod the summary as -1 Troll?