No, this affects BES users as well. I had Bing randomly show up on my work BB, and had been wondering how the hell it got there as I didn't install it.
Yeah, but if he's prepared to fire you for things you did not on the job, you're better off not working for him anyway. Better still, if he's stupid enough to come out and say it was about stuff that happened in your personal life, I wonder if you could sue the company and win. Normally I'm not one to sue at the drop of a hat, but the companies who are overstepping their bounds like this deserve to be punished hard.
They don't need to be able to appreciate the story themes of the game to be able to enjoy the puzzle aspect, though. If you have a kid who enjoys puzzle games, I'd say it's a great gift for them.
If the kids were raised halfway decently, they'll politely say "thank you", and contain their disappointment until later. Unless they're like 8 or 9, in which case they REALLY need to not be playing GTA.
And if they're old enough to know better and start throwing fits, parents always have the option to discipline them. I know if my kids did that, they'd get their games taken away (at least for a while), and be left to think about whether it was better to have the "uncool" game or no game at all.
I can't really blame you for doing that, the republican party is so highly skilled at doing the faux outrage act, its no surprise millions of people are suckered in by it.
It has nothing to do with party affiliation. Politicians in general do what you describe. Come on, don't sit and assign blame to only some of the guilty.
Nutrition is objective, agreed. But then there's taste, texture, smell, consistency, and lots of other factors. On what basis can one say that nutrition should outweigh all of these? And what tastes, smells, etc are "quality" in the eyes of one may not be "quality" in the eyes of another.
Tell me, then, what's a more objective means to measure quality? If you can come up with one, I salute you, because I maintain that it's impossible. As soon as you run into one person who disagrees with your metric, I fail to see how you can reconcile that without resorting to "your tastes are wrong" (subjective), "it just is that way" (arbitrary), or "most people agree that this is the way it is" (which is just using the popularity argument). Come up with an objective measurement of quality that doesn't fall into those traps, and I'll welcome it, but I simply don't believe it to be possible.
Just because McDonalds has served "Billions and Billions" of burgers doesn't mean their burgers are any good.
Actually, if anything means their burgers are any good, it's that. Quality is extremely subjective, and difficult (if not impossible) to measure. You may claim that A, B, and C make a burger good, but perhaps I only require B and C. What makes your standard objectively superior to mine? Nothing.
So because everyone's standards can, and do vary, and people consider things to be good that you or I may consider shit, it's basically impossible to define a standard for good. All we have, in the end, is popularity, which indicates that however disgusting something might be to you, a lot of other people find it good (or good enough)... which is, unfortunately, the most objective measurement we can really get.
I'm way off-topic, I know, but I had to get it out of my system, because so many people like to claim that popularity doesn't equal quality (which is true in the sense that people do still dislike popular things), but in fact, popularity is the closest thing to an objective measure of quality that we have.
All forms of security are flawed, if that's what you're getting at. The goal is not to make it impossible to break into your space (be it computer network, home, whatever), but to make it difficult enough that it's not worth the attacker's trouble. I fail to see why you're bashing things like wireless encryption or MAC filtering for not being perfect, when you ought to realize this simple truth.
I mean, let's look at your example of "your signal doesn't leave your property". If your attacker cares enough to crack your WPA, do you really think he isn't going to care enough to walk onto your property? Of course not. Either he's looking for low-hanging fruit, in which case he moves on to an open wireless network, or he's looking for you, specifically, in which case nothing is going to save you if he knows what he's doing (because failing everything else, there's always physical break-in and forcing you to give up your data).
Well, if the GPL wasn't a bullshit license which states that you're subject to the GPL if you even use GPL software in your project, this wouldn't be a problem.
Honestly, I have some issues with the LGPL, but they're a hell of a lot less because that aspect is gone. The "linking to my code counts as directly using my code" clause in the GPL is complete and utter bullshit.
There's a very big difference between "government forcibly taking data from me" and "voluntarily giving up data to Google in exchange for services".
Furthermore, I simply don't care and never have. You, along with others who raise concerns about privacy interests, miss that very basic possibility. Most people just don't give a damn.
Depends on what you buy. HP's business-class printers are still damn good. On the other hand, they also cost $1000, which is why they're able to continue making good printers in that price range.
I didn't say that a user should automagically be able to install to that directory, merely that, once there, an app should be free to write to its own subdirectory.
Bear in mind I'm shooting from the hip, so this probably has consequences I don't foresee, but: make all apps register themselves with the OS (technically, they don't have to do so now, a lot of apps will run great if you just copy the directory off a system where it was already installed). As part of this process, the OS will note where the app was installed. The app is then allowed to modify this directory (and all its subdirectories), and whatever else the OS deems is public enough to be modifiable by anyone and anything (such as user data directories for the current user). It wouldn't be all that difficult in principle to keep a list of matching apps and directories, and it wouldn't really be computationally expensive, either, as the OS already has to check to see if the user has permission to write to the directory.
I could go on, but the point here is you are clearly married to Microsoft and are senselessly defending it.
No he's not. At the end of the day, the fact remains that the biggest security hole is something Microsoft can do nothing about. People say shit about "make the user enter an admin password to install software", but ultimately that is just going to irritate most users, who don't want to practice good security. No matter how hard they try, Microsoft can't code their way out of this fundamental problem.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with an app putting files into its own directory in C:\Program Files (and it's complete bullshit that this trips UAC in Vista). The only problem would be writing to another app's directory.
I don't care if she likes the music, but I certainly wouldn't be interested in a woman petty enough to dump someone because they dislike her favorite musician.
If I see someone compared to a monkey, my first thought is that they are being called incompetent (kind of the opposite of "A monkey could do it!"). I would never have thought that it had anything to do with race if it weren't for people saying it was about race.
Someone please explain to me how this is in any way a "racial slur". As far as I can tell, it's a political statement, and people are pulling the race card because they don't want to see the first lady criticized.
The other comments all suggest that a monkey is somehow a racial slur, but I have never, ever heard it as a racial slur before today, so if it has been one in the past, it sure hasn't been very common. So yeah, someone please explain to me on what grounds people are calling this a racial slur, because it isn't and never has been as far as I've ever been aware.
Slashdot Mirror
Or just "psexec.exe @computerlist.txt [other arguments] ThingToRunOnRemoteMachines.bat", which accomplishes the same thing.
No, this affects BES users as well. I had Bing randomly show up on my work BB, and had been wondering how the hell it got there as I didn't install it.
Apple is the most evil, anti-competitive company in the industry. If the company went under today, it would only be a good thing for the world.
Yeah, but if he's prepared to fire you for things you did not on the job, you're better off not working for him anyway. Better still, if he's stupid enough to come out and say it was about stuff that happened in your personal life, I wonder if you could sue the company and win. Normally I'm not one to sue at the drop of a hat, but the companies who are overstepping their bounds like this deserve to be punished hard.
They don't need to be able to appreciate the story themes of the game to be able to enjoy the puzzle aspect, though. If you have a kid who enjoys puzzle games, I'd say it's a great gift for them.
If the kids were raised halfway decently, they'll politely say "thank you", and contain their disappointment until later. Unless they're like 8 or 9, in which case they REALLY need to not be playing GTA.
And if they're old enough to know better and start throwing fits, parents always have the option to discipline them. I know if my kids did that, they'd get their games taken away (at least for a while), and be left to think about whether it was better to have the "uncool" game or no game at all.
Thank you for the suggestion, it looks very interesting and I'll check it out.
I can't really blame you for doing that, the republican party is so highly skilled at doing the faux outrage act, its no surprise millions of people are suckered in by it.
It has nothing to do with party affiliation. Politicians in general do what you describe. Come on, don't sit and assign blame to only some of the guilty.
Nutrition is objective, agreed. But then there's taste, texture, smell, consistency, and lots of other factors. On what basis can one say that nutrition should outweigh all of these? And what tastes, smells, etc are "quality" in the eyes of one may not be "quality" in the eyes of another.
Tell me, then, what's a more objective means to measure quality? If you can come up with one, I salute you, because I maintain that it's impossible. As soon as you run into one person who disagrees with your metric, I fail to see how you can reconcile that without resorting to "your tastes are wrong" (subjective), "it just is that way" (arbitrary), or "most people agree that this is the way it is" (which is just using the popularity argument). Come up with an objective measurement of quality that doesn't fall into those traps, and I'll welcome it, but I simply don't believe it to be possible.
Just because McDonalds has served "Billions and Billions" of burgers doesn't mean their burgers are any good.
Actually, if anything means their burgers are any good, it's that. Quality is extremely subjective, and difficult (if not impossible) to measure. You may claim that A, B, and C make a burger good, but perhaps I only require B and C. What makes your standard objectively superior to mine? Nothing.
So because everyone's standards can, and do vary, and people consider things to be good that you or I may consider shit, it's basically impossible to define a standard for good. All we have, in the end, is popularity, which indicates that however disgusting something might be to you, a lot of other people find it good (or good enough)... which is, unfortunately, the most objective measurement we can really get.
I'm way off-topic, I know, but I had to get it out of my system, because so many people like to claim that popularity doesn't equal quality (which is true in the sense that people do still dislike popular things), but in fact, popularity is the closest thing to an objective measure of quality that we have.
...package delivery? Oh, God, PACKAGE DELIVERY!
a) because they have the power, not the employees.
b) because management tends to be short-sighted, and likes to look only at the balance sheet rather than long-term ramifications of what they do.
All forms of security are flawed, if that's what you're getting at. The goal is not to make it impossible to break into your space (be it computer network, home, whatever), but to make it difficult enough that it's not worth the attacker's trouble. I fail to see why you're bashing things like wireless encryption or MAC filtering for not being perfect, when you ought to realize this simple truth.
I mean, let's look at your example of "your signal doesn't leave your property". If your attacker cares enough to crack your WPA, do you really think he isn't going to care enough to walk onto your property? Of course not. Either he's looking for low-hanging fruit, in which case he moves on to an open wireless network, or he's looking for you, specifically, in which case nothing is going to save you if he knows what he's doing (because failing everything else, there's always physical break-in and forcing you to give up your data).
Well, if the GPL wasn't a bullshit license which states that you're subject to the GPL if you even use GPL software in your project, this wouldn't be a problem.
Honestly, I have some issues with the LGPL, but they're a hell of a lot less because that aspect is gone. The "linking to my code counts as directly using my code" clause in the GPL is complete and utter bullshit.
Yeah, man!
There's a very big difference between "government forcibly taking data from me" and "voluntarily giving up data to Google in exchange for services".
Furthermore, I simply don't care and never have. You, along with others who raise concerns about privacy interests, miss that very basic possibility. Most people just don't give a damn.
Depends on what you buy. HP's business-class printers are still damn good. On the other hand, they also cost $1000, which is why they're able to continue making good printers in that price range.
I didn't say that a user should automagically be able to install to that directory, merely that, once there, an app should be free to write to its own subdirectory.
Bear in mind I'm shooting from the hip, so this probably has consequences I don't foresee, but: make all apps register themselves with the OS (technically, they don't have to do so now, a lot of apps will run great if you just copy the directory off a system where it was already installed). As part of this process, the OS will note where the app was installed. The app is then allowed to modify this directory (and all its subdirectories), and whatever else the OS deems is public enough to be modifiable by anyone and anything (such as user data directories for the current user). It wouldn't be all that difficult in principle to keep a list of matching apps and directories, and it wouldn't really be computationally expensive, either, as the OS already has to check to see if the user has permission to write to the directory.
I could go on, but the point here is you are clearly married to Microsoft and are senselessly defending it.
No he's not. At the end of the day, the fact remains that the biggest security hole is something Microsoft can do nothing about. People say shit about "make the user enter an admin password to install software", but ultimately that is just going to irritate most users, who don't want to practice good security. No matter how hard they try, Microsoft can't code their way out of this fundamental problem.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with an app putting files into its own directory in C:\Program Files (and it's complete bullshit that this trips UAC in Vista). The only problem would be writing to another app's directory.
I don't care if she likes the music, but I certainly wouldn't be interested in a woman petty enough to dump someone because they dislike her favorite musician.
If I see someone compared to a monkey, my first thought is that they are being called incompetent (kind of the opposite of "A monkey could do it!"). I would never have thought that it had anything to do with race if it weren't for people saying it was about race.
Someone please explain to me how this is in any way a "racial slur". As far as I can tell, it's a political statement, and people are pulling the race card because they don't want to see the first lady criticized.
The other comments all suggest that a monkey is somehow a racial slur, but I have never, ever heard it as a racial slur before today, so if it has been one in the past, it sure hasn't been very common. So yeah, someone please explain to me on what grounds people are calling this a racial slur, because it isn't and never has been as far as I've ever been aware.