..so I don't see why they can't be just as effective against them.
I sent out an email a while ago to my family explaining why MS XP was bad news. I got several email replies from them thanking me, saying they'll think twice before bothering to upgrade. Then my brother emailed me and asked me to resend it so that he could forward the information on to some of his friends.
Do I think that my efforts alone will have any effect? No, of course not. But if a bunch of people get another bunch of people thinking about the issues that they can relate to on a level they understand, i.e. you may not have access to your computer applications and information you have stored on your computer if you use MS XP, and point to reputable sources that explain the issue, people will think twice. I believe that most people will act conservatively and not want to change what already works for them.
A court order may carry more weight when issued but they are also slowly determined and implemented and more often that not, too late to have any real effect. Grass-roots word-of-mouth can have a profound effect very quickly. Not saying it will or that it will have an effect overnight, just that it has the ability to do so.
Corporations can hire lawyers to keep the government or courts tied up until a product is released and then once it gains market share, the government or court order is too late; however, if consumers won't buy the product, there is nothing the corporation can do.
I agree. I have already told all my family and friends to carefully consider the consequences of upgrading to XP and have sent them links to the tech articles that explain why.
I even bought my dad Neal Stephenson's In the beginning was the command line... so that he could better understand the open source vs proprietary debate.
I think if people are informed as to what they are getting into by people they know, they will not fall prey to MS's marketing machine and want to upgrade or purchase XP.
Ah, but it's Slashdot. If you're not ranting against the evils of Microsoft, you're all on their side.
While I understand your point generally, and agree with it on occasion, I think it does not apply in this case.
Yes, Microsoft has more money than all 19 states put together. The only leverage the states have against Microsoft's prodigious financial resources is forcing Microsoft to fight 19 legal battles in 19 different states and courts of law simultaneously. The Court of Appeals did deliver a unanimous decision against Microsoft supporting the monopoly charge which gave the courts a comfortable legal position to hold. So New Mexico pulling out weakens that leverage by breaking down the solidarity. Without several states pushing Microsoft, there is no leverage.
Furthermore, New Mexico Attorney General Patricia Madrid also stated, according to the article, "...the decision to have New Mexico settle its case with Microsoft will help open the way for the remaining parties to pursue realistic settlement terms," which is rather suspect since its clearly pushing for the other states to drop the lawsuit and settle which is only in Microsoft's interest. New Mexico has nothing to gain by the other states dropping their lawsuits - afterall, they've got their settlement so why should they care one way or another. Unless perhaps part of their settlement deal with Microsoft was to encourage other states to settle as well?
Not saying that's the case but the potential is there.
...of moderation was to mod down sophomoric embarrassments like you who add nothing of interest or value to the greater discussion.
As I stated, I misread 97 to be 970 and apologized for my error. I know perfectly well how much is in a billion and the waste of government agencies. NASA is one of the only agencies I had hoped was more careful with their spending since it consists of mainly scientists and academics, and not politicians.
And now we all know you're really an asshole, not like there was any doubt to begin with. Bugger off.
What I took from the context after having read the entire article was that money was spent on the construction of the module itself before the design was proven to be viable.
Regardless, the whole situation doesn't help NASA's already existing difficulties in securing funding.
Regardless of my error, it's still not an insignificant amount of money to be wasted on an unusable design.
And a big *ppbbffttt* to the moderators who don't have more constructive uses for their points than to mark me down. You make what is obviously a mistake and you get slammed. Geesh.
NASA's inspector general office reported late last month that the space agency spent $97 million and 19 months on a propulsion module for the space station before determining the design was unacceptable. The project was canceled in March.
I understand budget overruns of a few million. It's to be expected when researching and developing new and untested technology but wasting almost $1 billion on an unusuable design??? No wonder NASA has problems getting funding. If they're track record is to be so nonchalant about that much money, especially when we are on the brink of a recession, (the federal reserve has already cut interest rates 6 times this year alone and is considering a 7th cut and expected earnings are falling short in almost every industry for the second quarter), I'd just as soon see it go to other agencies and programs down here on earth.
I know I am just naive to have believed that NASA scientists are more precise and accountable with funding than the rest of the federal government. I am very disillusioned.
To expand on your eloquent and poignant post, the real issue here is these spinelss congressmen are essentially establishing a first amendment preference for the corporate world over the individual.
In order to protect a company's first amendment rights, they can only be held guilty for spamming once an individual specifies that they don't want it, as opposed to emphasizing an individual's first amendment right not to have someone else's speech imposed upon them.
Obviously, since this favors the corporate world and they pay the politicians to do their bidding, this is the logic that will prevail as it does with telemarketing.
I stand corrected. My extremely conservative, Catholic parents, however, weren't offended and allowed me to watch them so that's my frame of reference.
Thank you so much for the information. I've already seen all the movies you have listed. Brazil is one of my favorites. I was thinking in terms of within the past decade up until today.
It says a lot more about geek culture than about the quality of Monty Python's work that they've persisted as long as they have.
Except that some of us started watching Monty Python's Flying Circus and various movies before we were ever geeks. Monty Python is unique in that they make fun of conservative cultural values and religion in such a way that they don't piss anyone off. Why? Because they're funny. Because there is something about the social properness that is conveyed by the British accent accompanied with insanity and nonsense that evokes humor. Canadian comedians like Kids in the Hall have the same quality about them as well; however, it is a quality, I think, that most American comedians have not and may never master and a timeless one that can appeal to anyone of any generation, in my opinion. Monty Python Live at the Hollywood Bowl, for example, is brilliantly funny.
John Cleese has made a few movies. Terry Gilliam has directed a few. Michael Palin I believe has landed some TV sitcom roles. What about Graham Chapman, Eric Idle and Terry Jones? Where did they go? They all are so whacked and talented which is desperately needed given the mindless mediocre drivel that is put out by the major studios.
Sad part is, some of us tried to use good judgement and still got burned. During the big dot-com boom, I avoided many job offers figuring as you that it wasn't stable enough, not trusting anything told to me. Then a very, very close friend of mine who had tried to hire me a couple of years prior, (for a sucessful company they had already sold for a few million), was starting a new business and offered me a job. I was still a bit wary but went to check it out and did parttime contract work for a couple of weekends helping setup the network, research and write documentation while deciding whether it was what I wanted. My friend showed me the business plan and there was a real product and real investors and a real facility being built. There were sales people already making sales. One of the investors had ties in the Phillipines so the plan was to grow into the Pacific Rim. It looked good. I asked friends and family for advice and they thought I should go for it. Someone I respected told me to consider that it's easier to live with known regrets then unknown regrets.
During one of my parttime contract weekends the current CTO disappeared, just left. Took a company phone, laptop, keys. No word. My friend was left holding the bag and turned to me to fill in. I still wasn't sure about the job but this was a very close friend, someone I trusted and they needed me. I couldn't let them down just on principle. I reworked everything the former CTO had done, (much of the network had been setup rather sloppily so I had to redo it), and kept everything on track. Still, I was uneasy so I agreed to come on board fulltime for 6 months, to get the company started, but that was it. I might stay longer after that but could not guarantee it. This way, I could feel satisfied with myself that I wasn't leaving my friend in a bind while at the same time not living with the regret that I had let a good opportunity pass me by.
After relocating myself to the area and working fulltime for a couple of weeks, I still hadn't been signed on as a fulltime employee. I was living off of my own savings for a bit of time. I was just going to rent a car but went ahead and bought a new car at my friend's urging as they wanted to wrap the company logo on it promising that the company would buy the car from me once I left. I finally received a pay check so I felt more secure about the situation and continued to trust my friend and take them at their word, especially after they agreed to sit down with me the next day to get everything settled and in writing as I had been requesting since day one.
By the end of the month, there was very little in writing, my friend always had meetings or was too busy to meet, and a new business plan was being written. The entire mission and product goals of the company were being changed, including my job description. I was suddenly "promoted" to CTO which meant "do everything tecnical to make it all happen, whatever it happens to be." Of course, I'm not qualified to be a CTO and barely qualified to be an IT Director which is what I was doing on contract, still not a fulltime employee.
I was pulled into VC meetings to answer technical questions about a new business plan with which I wasn't familiar which made me uncomfortable. My staff was anxious. I started to hear rumors about why the former CTO had left, how my friend had been changing the direction of the company at will in order to get VC money and was fixated on making $20 million dollars. When I questioned my friend about anything, I was accused of being naive and/or disloyal followed by how comforted they were that I was there to help them, how they couldn't do it without me.
I then realized that my friend had no idea as to what they were doing. They seemed to have a junkie addiction, only concerned with money and making lots of it and would tell anyone anything if it would help them get it. I resigned from my contract and told my friend that it wasn't going to work out. The company and job had not turned out be what it had been presented to me as and I didn't like being baited and switched. My friend felt bad and we agreed on a compensation package for all the time and money I had spent to accommodate the company. We split on good terms. That happened last summer 2000.
Currently, "my friend" is no longer my friend. Promise after promise that was made to me was broken time and time again. I still have not been paid all that was owed to me and am only now getting out of the debt I incurred from helping my former friend. In spite of it, I am still doing okay. My former friend's company is, of course, not going to make it. Many people have left or been layed off and my former friend is being sued. I am relieved that I got out when I did and don't want to have anything to do with my former friend ever again.
I don't regret taking a gamble by working for a dot-com. I should have paid closer attention to the inconsistencies but the biggest error in judgment I made was trusting a close friend who took advantage of my faith in them. I will never make that mistake in business again. I've learned my lesson.
I understand what you're saying. I call it exceptional because it enables me to fix a problem in a timely manner myself as opposed to other software I have used where there are inadequate online resources whatsoever and you're at the mercy of waiting for tech support to respond to your email.
I completely agree. TechNet *used* to be extremely easy to use but since it's moved to the web, it's completely declined. MSDN, however, continues to be an exceptional resource. I have found many solutions to ASP/ADO/COM/SQL Server problems very quickly through MSDN online. I'm not thrilled to have to work with MS products but as long as my job requires it, it's a relief that MSDN is available. It's totally saved me from insanity when I've run into completely nonsensical bugs.
The short answer is "no." Earlier computer designs that tried to mimic human thinking weren't very good at it. No formula exists for intuition. So Deep Blue's designers have gone "back to the future." Deep Blue relies more on computational power and a simpler search and evaluation function.
...
"There is no psychology at work" in Deep Blue, says IBM research scientist Murray Campbell. Nor does Deep Blue "learn" its opponent as it plays. Instead, it operates much like a turbocharged "expert system," drawing on vast resources of stored information (For example, a database of opening games played by grandmasters over the last 100 years) and then calculating the most appropriate response to an opponent's move. Deep Blue is stunningly effective at solving chess problems, but it is less "intelligent" than the stupidest person. It doesn't think, it reacts. And that's where Garry Kasparov sees his advantage. Speaking of an earlier IBM chess computer, which he defeated in 1989, Kasparov said, "Chess gives us a chance to compare brute force with our abilities."
When I read about Yahoo! selling porn, the first thing I thought, was wow, what a smart business decision Yahoo! made. The online porn industry has and will remain to be the most successful e-commerce industry that exists on the internet. Yahoo! deciding to discreetly sell legal porn shows that they are serious about maintaining the financial health of the company. If I had stock in them, I would be relieved. Of course, my relief wouldn't last long because by giving up selling legal porn, alot more of their staff are going to be handed pink slips and the company is going to struggle.
Selling porn can be both a legal and very profitable business regardless of how anyone feels about it, myself included. I think porn is boring and contrived so I don't look at it or buy it but I don't see why my lack of interest in or distaste for porn should have any influence on a company's business decisions.
I really hate Steven Segal movies so does that mean Yahoo! shouldn't sell them either?
I have worked with both of them and they are both resource hogs. They work fine if your traffic is somewhat limited but neither scale very well from my experience.
And I would definitely consider upgrading the database to something more robust than MySQL.
No, they would most likely not be liable. In most states in the US, anyone who calls 911 or performs any other lifesaving measure during an emergency that does not permit them the ability to obtain the express consent of the person they are trying to help is usually covered by what's called the good samaritan clause.
Science and art are very closely related but for some reason, American culture tends to disassociate math and science from artistic creativity. I have always thought of artists as scientists given the amount of study, analysis and thought they put into creating their art be it painting, sculpture or music.
I am a (mainly classical pianist) music geek before I am a computer geek. Music is very math oriented. The greatest composers and performers, classical or jazz, knew their theory inside and out. That's why they could create such amazing music. Then there's the fact that musical instruments were one of the first examples of applied physics, (the piano is particularly cool when studied from a physics perspective in my opinion), but I digress.
Many thanks to both alienmole and anonymous for their insight. I'm going to give it some more thought but my gut instinct tells me I should study math.
I don't mean to downplay possible intelligence, speed, intuitiveness, adaptiveness, etc. of self-made programmers, but you just cannot replace a university degree computer science with work experience.
I take no disrespect to your statement and I am a self-made programmer. I have a question for you, though, if you don't mind me picking your brain for a moment.
I did take some computer programming and math, (I took some advanced calculus and logic but had already placed out of regular calc and linear algebra), in college but did not major in either because both depts were very unfriendly towards women and I was paying waaay too much money to deal with such animosity in my major. I concentrated on political science and music instead, music theory satisfying my appetite for math.
I picked up computer work during and following college and it came quite easily to me. While contracting back in 1995, I took it upon myself to complete a Programming Concepts and Algorithms class. I've also taken other classes from Oracle, Informix and other companies to administer or develop for their products but I don't consider those to really count.
I constantly feel like I'm lacking in my skills and want to go back to school. I've even talked to some schools who would allow me into a masters of computer science provided I take a few undergraduate cs courses in assembly language, algorithms and pass a calculus test given my 6+ years work experience (I know it's nothing compared to many many people but hey, it's a start).
My problem is that first of all, I'd have to go back parttime as I do not see it as in my best interests to leave the field completely, particularly because I'm lacking in a formal degree. Secondly, would it be worth it? Should I just go back for another undergraduate degree? Some schools do offer a 2-year undergrad CS degree for professionals who already have a non-CS degree. Or should I go back for Math instead? I really do love math so I'm tempted but would the CS degree be better?
Slashdot Mirror
I sent out an email a while ago to my family explaining why MS XP was bad news. I got several email replies from them thanking me, saying they'll think twice before bothering to upgrade. Then my brother emailed me and asked me to resend it so that he could forward the information on to some of his friends.
Do I think that my efforts alone will have any effect? No, of course not. But if a bunch of people get another bunch of people thinking about the issues that they can relate to on a level they understand, i.e. you may not have access to your computer applications and information you have stored on your computer if you use MS XP, and point to reputable sources that explain the issue, people will think twice. I believe that most people will act conservatively and not want to change what already works for them.
A court order may carry more weight when issued but they are also slowly determined and implemented and more often that not, too late to have any real effect. Grass-roots word-of-mouth can have a profound effect very quickly. Not saying it will or that it will have an effect overnight, just that it has the ability to do so.
Corporations can hire lawyers to keep the government or courts tied up until a product is released and then once it gains market share, the government or court order is too late; however, if consumers won't buy the product, there is nothing the corporation can do.
- tokengeekgrrl
I even bought my dad Neal Stephenson's In the beginning was the command line... so that he could better understand the open source vs proprietary debate.
I think if people are informed as to what they are getting into by people they know, they will not fall prey to MS's marketing machine and want to upgrade or purchase XP.
- tokengeekgrrl
While I understand your point generally, and agree with it on occasion, I think it does not apply in this case.
Yes, Microsoft has more money than all 19 states put together. The only leverage the states have against Microsoft's prodigious financial resources is forcing Microsoft to fight 19 legal battles in 19 different states and courts of law simultaneously. The Court of Appeals did deliver a unanimous decision against Microsoft supporting the monopoly charge which gave the courts a comfortable legal position to hold. So New Mexico pulling out weakens that leverage by breaking down the solidarity. Without several states pushing Microsoft, there is no leverage.
Furthermore, New Mexico Attorney General Patricia Madrid also stated, according to the article, "...the decision to have New Mexico settle its case with Microsoft will help open the way for the remaining parties to pursue realistic settlement terms," which is rather suspect since its clearly pushing for the other states to drop the lawsuit and settle which is only in Microsoft's interest. New Mexico has nothing to gain by the other states dropping their lawsuits - afterall, they've got their settlement so why should they care one way or another. Unless perhaps part of their settlement deal with Microsoft was to encourage other states to settle as well?
Not saying that's the case but the potential is there.
- tokengeekgrrl
As I stated, I misread 97 to be 970 and apologized for my error. I know perfectly well how much is in a billion and the waste of government agencies. NASA is one of the only agencies I had hoped was more careful with their spending since it consists of mainly scientists and academics, and not politicians.
And now we all know you're really an asshole, not like there was any doubt to begin with. Bugger off.
- tokengeekgrrl
Regardless, the whole situation doesn't help NASA's already existing difficulties in securing funding.
- tokengeekgrrl
And a big *ppbbffttt* to the moderators who don't have more constructive uses for their points than to mark me down. You make what is obviously a mistake and you get slammed. Geesh.
tokengeekgrrl
I understand budget overruns of a few million. It's to be expected when researching and developing new and untested technology but wasting almost $1 billion on an unusuable design??? No wonder NASA has problems getting funding. If they're track record is to be so nonchalant about that much money, especially when we are on the brink of a recession, (the federal reserve has already cut interest rates 6 times this year alone and is considering a 7th cut and expected earnings are falling short in almost every industry for the second quarter), I'd just as soon see it go to other agencies and programs down here on earth.
I know I am just naive to have believed that NASA scientists are more precise and accountable with funding than the rest of the federal government. I am very disillusioned.
tokengeekgrrl
In order to protect a company's first amendment rights, they can only be held guilty for spamming once an individual specifies that they don't want it, as opposed to emphasizing an individual's first amendment right not to have someone else's speech imposed upon them.
Obviously, since this favors the corporate world and they pay the politicians to do their bidding, this is the logic that will prevail as it does with telemarketing.
- tokengeekgrrl
I can't pick just one story from fray so I'm going to say the entire Criminal section as a packge.
- tokengeekgrrl
Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting
http://www.fair.org
- tokengeekgrrl
- tokengeekgrrl
Regards,
tokengeekgrrl
Hence, why I'm asking. Thanks for the information.
- tokengeekgrrl
Except that some of us started watching Monty Python's Flying Circus and various movies before we were ever geeks. Monty Python is unique in that they make fun of conservative cultural values and religion in such a way that they don't piss anyone off. Why? Because they're funny. Because there is something about the social properness that is conveyed by the British accent accompanied with insanity and nonsense that evokes humor. Canadian comedians like Kids in the Hall have the same quality about them as well; however, it is a quality, I think, that most American comedians have not and may never master and a timeless one that can appeal to anyone of any generation, in my opinion. Monty Python Live at the Hollywood Bowl, for example, is brilliantly funny.
- tokengeekgrrl
- tokengeekgrrl
During one of my parttime contract weekends the current CTO disappeared, just left. Took a company phone, laptop, keys. No word. My friend was left holding the bag and turned to me to fill in. I still wasn't sure about the job but this was a very close friend, someone I trusted and they needed me. I couldn't let them down just on principle. I reworked everything the former CTO had done, (much of the network had been setup rather sloppily so I had to redo it), and kept everything on track. Still, I was uneasy so I agreed to come on board fulltime for 6 months, to get the company started, but that was it. I might stay longer after that but could not guarantee it. This way, I could feel satisfied with myself that I wasn't leaving my friend in a bind while at the same time not living with the regret that I had let a good opportunity pass me by.
After relocating myself to the area and working fulltime for a couple of weeks, I still hadn't been signed on as a fulltime employee. I was living off of my own savings for a bit of time. I was just going to rent a car but went ahead and bought a new car at my friend's urging as they wanted to wrap the company logo on it promising that the company would buy the car from me once I left. I finally received a pay check so I felt more secure about the situation and continued to trust my friend and take them at their word, especially after they agreed to sit down with me the next day to get everything settled and in writing as I had been requesting since day one.
By the end of the month, there was very little in writing, my friend always had meetings or was too busy to meet, and a new business plan was being written. The entire mission and product goals of the company were being changed, including my job description. I was suddenly "promoted" to CTO which meant "do everything tecnical to make it all happen, whatever it happens to be." Of course, I'm not qualified to be a CTO and barely qualified to be an IT Director which is what I was doing on contract, still not a fulltime employee.
I was pulled into VC meetings to answer technical questions about a new business plan with which I wasn't familiar which made me uncomfortable. My staff was anxious. I started to hear rumors about why the former CTO had left, how my friend had been changing the direction of the company at will in order to get VC money and was fixated on making $20 million dollars. When I questioned my friend about anything, I was accused of being naive and/or disloyal followed by how comforted they were that I was there to help them, how they couldn't do it without me.
I then realized that my friend had no idea as to what they were doing. They seemed to have a junkie addiction, only concerned with money and making lots of it and would tell anyone anything if it would help them get it. I resigned from my contract and told my friend that it wasn't going to work out. The company and job had not turned out be what it had been presented to me as and I didn't like being baited and switched. My friend felt bad and we agreed on a compensation package for all the time and money I had spent to accommodate the company. We split on good terms. That happened last summer 2000.
Currently, "my friend" is no longer my friend. Promise after promise that was made to me was broken time and time again. I still have not been paid all that was owed to me and am only now getting out of the debt I incurred from helping my former friend. In spite of it, I am still doing okay. My former friend's company is, of course, not going to make it. Many people have left or been layed off and my former friend is being sued. I am relieved that I got out when I did and don't want to have anything to do with my former friend ever again.
I don't regret taking a gamble by working for a dot-com. I should have paid closer attention to the inconsistencies but the biggest error in judgment I made was trusting a close friend who took advantage of my faith in them. I will never make that mistake in business again. I've learned my lesson.
- tokengeekgrrl
And the MSDN data-pod modules are rather neato.
tokengeekgrrl
- tokengeekgrrl
Now I really want to get back into playing chess. There goes another 10 hours a week minimum.
- tokengeekgrrl
Selling porn can be both a legal and very profitable business regardless of how anyone feels about it, myself included. I think porn is boring and contrived so I don't look at it or buy it but I don't see why my lack of interest in or distaste for porn should have any influence on a company's business decisions.
I really hate Steven Segal movies so does that mean Yahoo! shouldn't sell them either?
- tokengeekgrrl
And I would definitely consider upgrading the database to something more robust than MySQL.
- tokengeekgrrl
- tokengeekgrrl
I am a (mainly classical pianist) music geek before I am a computer geek. Music is very math oriented. The greatest composers and performers, classical or jazz, knew their theory inside and out. That's why they could create such amazing music. Then there's the fact that musical instruments were one of the first examples of applied physics, (the piano is particularly cool when studied from a physics perspective in my opinion), but I digress.
- tokengeekgrrl
- tokengeekgrrl
I take no disrespect to your statement and I am a self-made programmer. I have a question for you, though, if you don't mind me picking your brain for a moment.
I did take some computer programming and math, (I took some advanced calculus and logic but had already placed out of regular calc and linear algebra), in college but did not major in either because both depts were very unfriendly towards women and I was paying waaay too much money to deal with such animosity in my major. I concentrated on political science and music instead, music theory satisfying my appetite for math.
I picked up computer work during and following college and it came quite easily to me. While contracting back in 1995, I took it upon myself to complete a Programming Concepts and Algorithms class. I've also taken other classes from Oracle, Informix and other companies to administer or develop for their products but I don't consider those to really count.
I constantly feel like I'm lacking in my skills and want to go back to school. I've even talked to some schools who would allow me into a masters of computer science provided I take a few undergraduate cs courses in assembly language, algorithms and pass a calculus test given my 6+ years work experience (I know it's nothing compared to many many people but hey, it's a start).
My problem is that first of all, I'd have to go back parttime as I do not see it as in my best interests to leave the field completely, particularly because I'm lacking in a formal degree. Secondly, would it be worth it? Should I just go back for another undergraduate degree? Some schools do offer a 2-year undergrad CS degree for professionals who already have a non-CS degree. Or should I go back for Math instead? I really do love math so I'm tempted but would the CS degree be better?
Thanking you in advance for your consideration.
- tokengeekgrrl