You know what is a far more dangerous job than being a police officer? Being a pizza delivery guy. I'm not being tricky and counting accidental deaths either. That is for homicide. For some reason you never hear about people in the food services industry beating the shit out of innocent civilians.
I think you're making claims that aren't supported by the data you linked to. Your data indicates:
There were 144 law enforcement worker occupational fatalities in 2008. This represents 3% of all fatalities as measured by occupation. There were 65 food prep and serving occupational fatalities in 2008. This represents 1% of all fatalities as measured by occupation.
But these numbers alone don't really tell the story. We have no idea how many were employed in each category. When measuring whether one job is more dangerous than another, we only really care about deaths per capita, which isn't presented in this data.
The only data that appears to support your claim is that in the 4th column labeled "homicides." But the real label is "homicides (percent of total for occupation)." It indicates:
33% of law enforcement fatalities are homicides. This is approximately 48 law enforcement homicides in a single year. 54% of food prep and serving fatalities are homicides. This is approximately 35 food prep and serving homicides in a single year.
It's true that the percentage is higher for those in food service, but that only means that for those that actually DO die, chances are about 1 in 2 it will be a homicide if you're making pizza, or 1 in 3 if you're driving a squad car. Again, that data doesn't give any indication how many total people there are employed in each occupation. There's just no way to use this data to back up the claim that it's more dangerous to be a pizza delivery driver than it is a cop.
if they provide a pre-paid return envelope i have the satisfaction of putting everything they sent me in that envelope, along w/ a few rusty washers (to add weight), and maybe a sunday paper glossy ad or two (more weight, and thickness) and sending it back to them on their dime.
Don't bother. Business reply envelopes that are clearly not used for their intended purposes are discarded by the Post Office as waste. So now all you've done is annoy your local letter carrier and increase the burden on the postal service. And guess what happens to postage rates when you incur extra work for the postal service without any extra payment?
By the way, does your post mean that we are agreed on my point about IE?
In my experience, IE crashes are almost always the fault of non-IE code, and an overwhelming majority of that is due to Flash. Try running in no-addon mode sometime and you may be surprised just how stable the browser itself is.
You might also be interested in this post from the IE team, which highlights where the most common crashes initiate (for IE8 on Win7 beta, anyway). Their analysis indicates well over half of IE crashes are actually due to 3rd-party components.
I know M$ isn't that popular here, but skydrive.live.com gives you 25 GB storage for free. And I really doubt MS is going anywhere in the next couple decades. Plus, I'm sure that the 25 GB limit will be increased in the not so distant future.
This may be perhaps the worst idea in the whole thread. Skydrive is designed for lightweight storage and sharing of documents and pictures, not long-term archival and backup of user data. Some of the reasons why:
It's free. By not paying Microsoft, you've established no business relationship with them. This means they have little to no business incentive to reliably keep your data for long periods of time.
No API. The only way to upload files is via the browser. There is no file system integration or other API available, which means there are no tools which can assist you to backup or restore your data in an automated fashion.
Max file size. Skydrive only accepts files up to 50 MB, which means you'll have to do your own splitting + joining for large files.
Content limits. Microsoft lists 18 types of data you may not store on the service, which includes "anything that mischaracterizes content you post or upload" (could be interpreted as no encryption) and anything that "contains the same or similar content to other content you have already posted" (no document revisions).
Undisclosed limits. The Skydrive help says "Microsoft may limit the number of files that each user can upload to SkyDrive each month."
25 GB seems alluring, and the price is right, but don't let that blind you to the other limitations of the service that make it unsuitable for backup purposes.
That is why I am so thankful that I still have ten XP licenses from a MSDN subscription I bought back in 2003. The first thing I do when I get a new computer or laptop for personal use is reload it with XP.
Wow, way to violate the license agreement. MSDN isn't a free-for-all way to get bulk licenses for personal use. The software is licensed solely for software development and test purposes. More info at the MSDN Subscription FAQ.
+1 vote for JungleDisk. I use it on my Windows and *nix machines and couldn't be happier. I really like the idea of paying for the software once (use on as many machines as you like, with free upgrades forever) and paying Amazon for storage "at cost." So many other internet services rely on oversubscribing limited resources, with heavy users eventually getting ejected in favor of more profitable clientele. With Amazon, I know I'm getting exactly what I pay for and they're not going to disappear with my data anytime soon.
All of the major cell phone companies give you a free text message and/or wireless web page that tells you as best as they can how many minutes/bytes you've used this billing cycle and such. Why Comcast can't do the same for their bandwidth limit is beyond me.
Then you haven't thought very hard about it from Comcast's point of view. It makes perfect business sense. Developing a customer-ready bandwidth usage meter has very real fixed and recurring costs to Comcast, costs which have no potential to increase profits now or in the future. If customers are going to switch to or from Comcast, it will be because of the cap, not because of the availability of a usage meter.
Additionally, an easily-viewable bandwidth meter would in all probability only encourage customers to get much closer to the limit than they would otherwise. It's fear-based policy. The more of their customers that decide "I'd better not download this movie/album/ISO/whatever, I might hit my bandwidth cap", the better. Comcast wants customers to stay in the dark regarding usage and be as conservative as possible in their internet activities, while still pretending to offer the full 250 GB.
like the fixed interface of the right click on the task bar for just one example? Fixed. unchanging. complies with Microsoft standards. any applcation, right click the icon and the bottom option on the menu is "Close" ANY application. . Standards. everyone abides.
Everyone except...Microsoft that is..
Right click the icon for say Active Directory or Computer Managment. or other MS apps
What is the bottom selection here?
"Help topics".
You seem to be confusing the word "standard" with "default". There is no standard that says the bottom option of the window menu must be Close. It just so happens that the default window menu for resizable windows contains the Restore, Move, Size, Minimize, Maximize, and Close items. In fact, since Microsoft has not committed to this particular set of defaults via documentation, it's just an implementation detail and may be changed at will for any past, current, or future version of Windows.
It's true that most applications have no need to modify this default set of options (suggesting it is a good default), but the documentation explicitly allows ANY application (written by Microsoft or not) to modify the set of items in the Window menu:
"The GetSystemMenu function allows the application to access the window menu (also known as the system menu or the control menu) for copying and modifying."
That API and functionality go back over a decade to Windows 95. If you want to argue about standards support, at least pick an example demonstrative of your point.
Therefore, Microsoft customers are forced to keep paying licence fees to Microsoft just to keep the ability to access their old saved documents.
I don't understand how not releasing a format somehow forces customers to continually pay license fees. The Office license terms specify a perpetual license, ie, you can run it forever without paying a cent more. Why not just keep using the version of Office you ostensibly used to create the documents in the first place?
Barring that, the viewers are always available to download without cost.
Don't expect to have time to do anything if the feds bust down your door and want your boxes. Plus, now your machine doesn't even have to be turned off for someone to remove it to a forensic lab: introducing HotPlug.
WGA should at least give the option to back up its state of that its activated to a certain machine, similar to how one in XP can back up the wpa.bak and wpa.dbl files. Then, in case the machine has to be reinstalled again, Windows can prompt for a copy of these files, and not have to ask for a CD key on future installs.
Just use phone activation. The installation ID calculated by Windows is the same even across formats, which means the phone confirmation ID is reusable. Just activate by phone once and you are free to reuse the confirmation ID every time you reinstall after that, no further verification by Microsoft required. Note that this applies only to Vista and is different from XP, where the installation ID included a random salt and was unique to each installation.
Another possibility, but this is a can of worms, is using a TPM chip to store a certificate. Once the machine is activated to use a certain edition and OS, a certificate is stored in the TPM, similar to how Apple stores a certificate for MacOS. Then, on subsequent installs, the OS just checks to see if its licensed via the TPM for that feature set, and goes on its merry way, never requiring activation again.
This is basically how it works today for preinstalled copies of Windows from large OEM's (Dell, HP, etc.). The computer manufacturer puts a specific string in the BIOS which is verified by Windows. If an OEM copy of Windows is used, activation is bypassed and no need for communication with Microsoft is ever required. It's only available from large OEM's because Microsoft must trust the OEM to correctly account for each computer sold and pay the appropriate license fee. This technology is referred to as SLP, or System Locked Preinstallation, and dates back to Windows XP.
If you don't like the ads a particular ad-server gives you, make sure they're unwelcome on your network, regardless of the site hosting the ads. I make sure fastclick.net (and about 150 other unsavory domains) resolve only to 0.0.0.0 at my DNS server. If you don't run your own DNS, OpenDNS allows you to block specific domains as well.
If you hate cellphone voicemail systems, might I recommend Callwave. They have a free service that REPLACES your cell carrier's voicemail service. This nets you the following benefits:
- Voicemail or missed call notifications can be delivered to you via text message to your phone, email, or are available on the Callwave website
- Voicemail can be retrieved via email (link or attachment, at your option), accessing the website directly, or by dialing the service directly
- Missed calls and voicemails will identify the caller by name if available (my cell service only transmits the caller ID number to my phone, so this is quite useful)
- They even have a Vista gadget that can show you your last few calls/messages right on your desktop. Very handy.
Downsides I've discovered so far:
- If you have a voicemail notification icon on your phone, it won't work anymore. This is tied to your carrier's voicemail system.
- Recording quality isn't that great. It's acceptable for voice messages though.
- They don't have a transcription service that will email you the text of your voicemail. Now that would be cool.
I don't know why more people don't know about this service. I've been using it for several months and am very pleased. I love the fact that I no longer have to waste minutes of my life every week navigating voicemail menu systems, and I'm no longer subject to my carrier's voicemail retention policy. This is the way voicemail was meant to be.
Microwaves: I wish someone had the sense to build one with just a big knob to set the time, a small knob to set the power level (clicking to an off position if you just want to use the timer), and a big start/stop button.
You just described my microwave, which improves on your design by making the door the start/stop button. Basically if the timer is on and the door is closed, the microwave is operating. Very handy when you interrupt cooking to stir or check the contents - simply shutting the door resumes cooking. Pic here (sorry for the quality, it's a cameraphone): http://s87598121.onlinehome.us/images/pic-0003.jpg
It's an unfounded pet peeve. All the dictionaries I consulted list at least one definition of verbal that means "spoken". I think it's quite clear from the context this is the intended meaning here.
Merriam - Webster: "spoken rather than written" Dictionary.com: "expressed in spoken words; oral rather than written" Encarta: "oral as opposed to written: relating to or consisting of spoken words, as opposed to written words"
My point is that Microsoft's design for LUA prompts is sound. You suggested that they missed the point by not remembering the answer. I counter that your proposal would open a security hole, which is precisely the reason Microsoft did NOT implement it. There are some clueful people working at Microsoft, and tons more who provide beta feedback. To claim that Microsoft somehow "missed" the idea represents a gross misunderstanding of the security benefit that the LUA prompts provide. The prompts are there to confirm this particular action is desired, not authorize this particular application forever.
And the best part IMHO, and the part that Microsoft missed, is that it A) can save your answer and automatically apply it in the future - and matches a program hash to make sure it's the same program
So what you're saying is that Microsoft cluelessly didn't include a "remember my answer" checkbox because they just didn't think the scenario through? Bash them if you must for predatory business practices, but the current design is the only way to ensure users approve of potentially system-damaging operations.
Imagine, if you will, a program that formats disks (or partitions disks, or kills processes, or modifies the registry, or whatever). When a user executes the program to format his floppy disk, Windows will prompt for permission (as it should). The user expects the prompt because he initiated the program and will be responsible for the actions he takes with it. Because he wants to save time next time, he also checks the theoretical "remember my answer" checkbox. After formatting his floppy, he goes along his merry way.
A week later, he downloads and runs slideshow.exe which is harboring malware. This code, running entirely in the user context and with no admin consent, can now call format.exe and format the system drive. No admin prompt, and yet the system was destroyed.
The point is that when the user allows execution of a program, he is not claiming the program is safe from now until kingdom come. He is asserting that he launched the program and that he desires this administrative action to occur. Just because the user launched and approved a particular application once does not mean this application is safe to execute anytime. This is why a "remember my answer" checkbox doesn't exist.
All these damn 0% pre-approved credit card applications I get every day (probably 2-3) is not only spam, but a huge waist.
Try http://www.optoutprescreen.com/. It's a federally-mandated service that the big 4 credit reporting agencies use to remove members from their marketing lists. From the site:
Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), the Consumer Credit Reporting Companies are permitted to include your name on lists used by creditors or insurers to make firm offers of credit or insurance that are not initiated by you ("Firm Offers"). The FCRA also provides you the right to "Opt-Out", which prevents Consumer Credit Reporting Companies from providing your credit file information for Firm Offers.
They allow you to opt out for 5 years (online) or permanently (requires written confirmation). If you're concerned about the legitimacy of a site requesting so much personal information (as you should be!), you can visit the FTC's site for more information and confirmation that they're legit.
One of my local Wells Fargo branches asked for my thumbprint in order to get my balance, after depositing my check. This was despite showing them my ID. They didn't want to see that. When I asked why, and refused to provide a print, I was told to go talk to the manager. She explained it was a policy to speed up identification, etc.
The customer service agent didn't implement the policy, she doesn't know why she has to collect the thumb print any more than you do. You assumed the thumb print was to provide confirmation of your identity in order to *authorize* the transaction. This is not the case, and also why they don't really care that they've never collected a thumb print before. The purpose of the thumb print is to provide *evidence* after the fact in case there is a fraudulent transaction.
Suppose you are head of Wells Fargo's security department. The CEO has mandated that you implement "greater security" and the CFO demands that you do so on a minimal budget. Which of the following do you choose?
1) Implement a new program requiring millions of customers to come into a physical banking location and establish their authorized thumb print, regardless of their account age, banking history, account balance, or fraud risk. Maintain a secure, reliable, online database of all these thumb prints. Make the database accessible to several thousand banking locations. Implement a near-100% accurate thumb print recognition algorithm. Ensure that all the components in this system can operate at near-instantaneous speed so transactions can be authorized in a timely manner. Cost to bank: several hundred million dollars Cost to users: hassle for thumb print at each transaction
2) Implement a new program that requires thumb prints to be taken for each transaction. Thumb prints may be collected on paper, stored at the local banking location, archived only occasionally, and are only ever referenced if a transaction has been flagged as fraudulent. If such a thing does happen, surveillance tapes and the thumb print may be supplied to law enforcement for further action. Cost to bank: in the tens of millions of dollars Cost to users: hassle for thumb print at each transaction
Both methods produce essentially the same amount of security, particularly for dumb criminals who may not know that the bank is relying on method 2 and not method 1. I honestly can't say I would have chosen differently either.
Unless I am reading the Technet site wrong, the subscription gives you access to the latest software for evaluation purposes. It's not like the MSDN subscription where you get to have a production install.
You've got the Technet site right (eval use only), but possibly misunderstanding the MSDN terms. Please reference the full MSDN license.
The MSDN End User License Agreement (EULA) allows each person with an MSDN license to use all of the software that is included in the subscription for development, test, and demonstration purposes only.
The FAQ also addresses production use, which is specifically prohibited, unless you subscribe to MSDN Premium, in which case you can use one copy of Office pretty much however you like.
May I use MSDN Subscriptions software to install software for day-to-day (production) use? No, but with one exception. [...] One exception is that the MSDN Premium subscription comes with one license to Desktop Applications (typically on blue discs) such as Microsoft Office Professional 2003, Visio Standard 2003, and Project Standard 2003 for business use directly related to the design, development, test, and/or demonstration of software projects. [...] In addition, one copy of Office Professional 2003 can be used for general business use, unrelated to development and testing.
Some people blatanly abuse MSDN licenses by buying a subscription and then using the software however they please. Others understand that the software is intended for dev/test work, but don't realize that right is exclusive of all other use: you're not allowed to use that software for any personal use at all, even in combination with other dev/test activities.
Office is just cluttered. Too many things most people don't use. [...] A simple setting in options for "Basic", "Intermediate", and "Advanced" layout would allow people that want basic use (my Mother) to find what they want quickly, but I change a setting and get the Advanced user interface when I use her PC, then I can put it back just the way she's used to.
This is possibly the worst solution I could imagine to the problem of complex software that is intended for normal users. Can you point to any examples of general-use software (open or closed source) that have successfully implemented a basic/intermediate/advanced toggle switch for its main interface? This idea gets brought up frequently by those with technical experience but who don't design software interfaces for a living (or in their free time, as the case may be). It's an awful idea that only serves to promote the notion that the more complex functionality of the software should be locked away from all but the lords of technology, unavailable to the unwashed masses who are just too unskilled to touch the powerful resources of truly great software.
The reason this idea is bad is that it's impossible to define the subset of software functionality that will never be used by the users you brand as basic or intermediate. While everyone needs the core functionality (for a word processor, things like open, save, copy, paste, print), a large number of basic users need to regularly use functionality you might logically put in the intermediate bucket (headers and footers, tables of contents, tab stops, tables), and a not insignificant number of basic and intermediate users occasionally need the most complex features (mail merge, document comparisons, tracking, and versioning).
By removing these features from the software interface when in intermediate or advanced mode, you're not solving the problem at all. You're postponing and worsening it. As soon as Grandma Mae wants to send out her Christmas letters, or Nephew Ted wants to type out his term paper, you have to preface all your instructions with "turn on advanced mode" at which point they're presented with the mind-boggling array of features that is ostensibly causing the problem in the first place. All of the sudden, the software is unfamiliar again; it's like a whole new program. One can get to insert picture or number pages all right, but where the heck did copy and paste go? And you're back to square one, having accomplished nothing but turned a single software program into three.
If complex software is to be used by inexperienced users, we as software designers must first accept the fact that the users are neither dim-witted nor incapable of understanding complexity. They are simply not intimately familiar with its every nook and cranny. The duty of the software designer is to make complex functionality usable. Be smart about context: only display options that are relevant to the situation. Choose smart defaults and explicitly highlight common configurations. Help shouldn't be an afterthought or even solely contained in an external help file; the software be clear what will be the result of a particular choice. Account for bumbling or exploring users and mistakes: make every action reversible. Error messages should be descriptive and actionable, suggesting probable resolutions.
We have so far to go in software design. Let's not simply route around hard problems, dismissing common users with a switch. Our goal should be to make software accessible to everyone. This is often a very difficult task to design and implement effectively. Accept that this difficulty in software development will always exist, but will pay off many times over in the form of productive and satisfied users. But don't simply turn away common everyday users, they by definition greatly outnumber the skilled technicians, and they deserve the absolute best experience software can deliver.
Slashdot Mirror
You know what is a far more dangerous job than being a police officer? Being a pizza delivery guy.
I'm not being tricky and counting accidental deaths either. That is for homicide. For some reason you never hear about people in the food services industry beating the shit out of innocent civilians.
I think you're making claims that aren't supported by the data you linked to. Your data indicates:
There were 144 law enforcement worker occupational fatalities in 2008. This represents 3% of all fatalities as measured by occupation.
There were 65 food prep and serving occupational fatalities in 2008. This represents 1% of all fatalities as measured by occupation.
But these numbers alone don't really tell the story. We have no idea how many were employed in each category. When measuring whether one job is more dangerous than another, we only really care about deaths per capita, which isn't presented in this data.
The only data that appears to support your claim is that in the 4th column labeled "homicides." But the real label is "homicides (percent of total for occupation)." It indicates:
33% of law enforcement fatalities are homicides. This is approximately 48 law enforcement homicides in a single year.
54% of food prep and serving fatalities are homicides. This is approximately 35 food prep and serving homicides in a single year.
It's true that the percentage is higher for those in food service, but that only means that for those that actually DO die, chances are about 1 in 2 it will be a homicide if you're making pizza, or 1 in 3 if you're driving a squad car. Again, that data doesn't give any indication how many total people there are employed in each occupation. There's just no way to use this data to back up the claim that it's more dangerous to be a pizza delivery driver than it is a cop.
if they provide a pre-paid return envelope i have the satisfaction of putting everything they sent me in that envelope, along w/ a few rusty washers (to add weight), and maybe a sunday paper glossy ad or two (more weight, and thickness) and sending it back to them on their dime.
Don't bother. Business reply envelopes that are clearly not used for their intended purposes are discarded by the Post Office as waste. So now all you've done is annoy your local letter carrier and increase the burden on the postal service. And guess what happens to postage rates when you incur extra work for the postal service without any extra payment?
By the way, does your post mean that we are agreed on my point about IE?
In my experience, IE crashes are almost always the fault of non-IE code, and an overwhelming majority of that is due to Flash. Try running in no-addon mode sometime and you may be surprised just how stable the browser itself is.
You might also be interested in this post from the IE team, which highlights where the most common crashes initiate (for IE8 on Win7 beta, anyway). Their analysis indicates well over half of IE crashes are actually due to 3rd-party components.
I know M$ isn't that popular here, but skydrive.live.com gives you 25 GB storage for free. And I really doubt MS is going anywhere in the next couple decades. Plus, I'm sure that the 25 GB limit will be increased in the not so distant future.
This may be perhaps the worst idea in the whole thread. Skydrive is designed for lightweight storage and sharing of documents and pictures, not long-term archival and backup of user data. Some of the reasons why:
25 GB seems alluring, and the price is right, but don't let that blind you to the other limitations of the service that make it unsuitable for backup purposes.
That is why I am so thankful that I still have ten XP licenses from a MSDN subscription I bought back in 2003. The first thing I do when I get a new computer or laptop for personal use is reload it with XP.
Wow, way to violate the license agreement. MSDN isn't a free-for-all way to get bulk licenses for personal use. The software is licensed solely for software development and test purposes. More info at the MSDN Subscription FAQ.
+1 vote for JungleDisk. I use it on my Windows and *nix machines and couldn't be happier. I really like the idea of paying for the software once (use on as many machines as you like, with free upgrades forever) and paying Amazon for storage "at cost." So many other internet services rely on oversubscribing limited resources, with heavy users eventually getting ejected in favor of more profitable clientele. With Amazon, I know I'm getting exactly what I pay for and they're not going to disappear with my data anytime soon.
All of the major cell phone companies give you a free text message and/or wireless web page that tells you as best as they can how many minutes/bytes you've used this billing cycle and such. Why Comcast can't do the same for their bandwidth limit is beyond me.
Then you haven't thought very hard about it from Comcast's point of view. It makes perfect business sense. Developing a customer-ready bandwidth usage meter has very real fixed and recurring costs to Comcast, costs which have no potential to increase profits now or in the future. If customers are going to switch to or from Comcast, it will be because of the cap, not because of the availability of a usage meter.
Additionally, an easily-viewable bandwidth meter would in all probability only encourage customers to get much closer to the limit than they would otherwise. It's fear-based policy. The more of their customers that decide "I'd better not download this movie/album/ISO/whatever, I might hit my bandwidth cap", the better. Comcast wants customers to stay in the dark regarding usage and be as conservative as possible in their internet activities, while still pretending to offer the full 250 GB.
Having an MS Photo Editor that automagically syncs with "MS Flickr Live!" would be a great boon.
Windows Live Photo Gallery Updated, supports Flickr. Dated 18 Oct 2007.
like the fixed interface of the right click on the task bar for just one example? Fixed. unchanging. complies with Microsoft standards. any applcation, right click the icon and the bottom option on the menu is "Close" ANY application. . Standards. everyone abides.
Everyone except...Microsoft that is..
Right click the icon for say Active Directory or Computer Managment. or other MS apps
What is the bottom selection here?
"Help topics".
You seem to be confusing the word "standard" with "default". There is no standard that says the bottom option of the window menu must be Close. It just so happens that the default window menu for resizable windows contains the Restore, Move, Size, Minimize, Maximize, and Close items. In fact, since Microsoft has not committed to this particular set of defaults via documentation, it's just an implementation detail and may be changed at will for any past, current, or future version of Windows.
It's true that most applications have no need to modify this default set of options (suggesting it is a good default), but the documentation explicitly allows ANY application (written by Microsoft or not) to modify the set of items in the Window menu:
"The GetSystemMenu function allows the application to access the window menu (also known as the system menu or the control menu) for copying and modifying."
That API and functionality go back over a decade to Windows 95. If you want to argue about standards support, at least pick an example demonstrative of your point.
You can't get a perfect drop-in replacement for MS Office precisely because Microsoft are withholding details of file formats and protocols.
Not anymore.
Therefore, Microsoft customers are forced to keep paying licence fees to Microsoft just to keep the ability to access their old saved documents.
I don't understand how not releasing a format somehow forces customers to continually pay license fees. The Office license terms specify a perpetual license, ie, you can run it forever without paying a cent more. Why not just keep using the version of Office you ostensibly used to create the documents in the first place?
Barring that, the viewers are always available to download without cost.
my area (Boston) has had restaurants that for YEARS and possibly DECADES had separate smoking and non-smoking sections.
Having a smoking section in a restaurant is like having a peeing section in the pool.
Don't expect to have time to do anything if the feds bust down your door and want your boxes. Plus, now your machine doesn't even have to be turned off for someone to remove it to a forensic lab: introducing HotPlug.
WGA should at least give the option to back up its state of that its activated to a certain machine, similar to how one in XP can back up the wpa.bak and wpa.dbl files. Then, in case the machine has to be reinstalled again, Windows can prompt for a copy of these files, and not have to ask for a CD key on future installs.
Just use phone activation. The installation ID calculated by Windows is the same even across formats, which means the phone confirmation ID is reusable. Just activate by phone once and you are free to reuse the confirmation ID every time you reinstall after that, no further verification by Microsoft required. Note that this applies only to Vista and is different from XP, where the installation ID included a random salt and was unique to each installation.
Another possibility, but this is a can of worms, is using a TPM chip to store a certificate. Once the machine is activated to use a certain edition and OS, a certificate is stored in the TPM, similar to how Apple stores a certificate for MacOS. Then, on subsequent installs, the OS just checks to see if its licensed via the TPM for that feature set, and goes on its merry way, never requiring activation again.
This is basically how it works today for preinstalled copies of Windows from large OEM's (Dell, HP, etc.). The computer manufacturer puts a specific string in the BIOS which is verified by Windows. If an OEM copy of Windows is used, activation is bypassed and no need for communication with Microsoft is ever required. It's only available from large OEM's because Microsoft must trust the OEM to correctly account for each computer sold and pay the appropriate license fee. This technology is referred to as SLP, or System Locked Preinstallation, and dates back to Windows XP.
If you don't like the ads a particular ad-server gives you, make sure they're unwelcome on your network, regardless of the site hosting the ads. I make sure fastclick.net (and about 150 other unsavory domains) resolve only to 0.0.0.0 at my DNS server. If you don't run your own DNS, OpenDNS allows you to block specific domains as well.
If you're receiving voicemail it's even worse.
If you hate cellphone voicemail systems, might I recommend Callwave. They have a free service that REPLACES your cell carrier's voicemail service. This nets you the following benefits:
- Voicemail or missed call notifications can be delivered to you via text message to your phone, email, or are available on the Callwave website
- Voicemail can be retrieved via email (link or attachment, at your option), accessing the website directly, or by dialing the service directly
- Missed calls and voicemails will identify the caller by name if available (my cell service only transmits the caller ID number to my phone, so this is quite useful)
- They even have a Vista gadget that can show you your last few calls/messages right on your desktop. Very handy.
Downsides I've discovered so far:
- If you have a voicemail notification icon on your phone, it won't work anymore. This is tied to your carrier's voicemail system.
- Recording quality isn't that great. It's acceptable for voice messages though.
- They don't have a transcription service that will email you the text of your voicemail. Now that would be cool.
I don't know why more people don't know about this service. I've been using it for several months and am very pleased. I love the fact that I no longer have to waste minutes of my life every week navigating voicemail menu systems, and I'm no longer subject to my carrier's voicemail retention policy. This is the way voicemail was meant to be.
Microwaves: I wish someone had the sense to build one with just a big knob to set the time, a small knob to set the power level (clicking to an off position if you just want to use the timer), and a big start/stop button.
g
You just described my microwave, which improves on your design by making the door the start/stop button. Basically if the timer is on and the door is closed, the microwave is operating. Very handy when you interrupt cooking to stir or check the contents - simply shutting the door resumes cooking. Pic here (sorry for the quality, it's a cameraphone): http://s87598121.onlinehome.us/images/pic-0003.jp
It's an unfounded pet peeve. All the dictionaries I consulted list at least one definition of verbal that means "spoken". I think it's quite clear from the context this is the intended meaning here.
Merriam - Webster: "spoken rather than written"
Dictionary.com: "expressed in spoken words; oral rather than written"
Encarta: "oral as opposed to written: relating to or consisting of spoken words, as opposed to written words"
My point is that Microsoft's design for LUA prompts is sound. You suggested that they missed the point by not remembering the answer. I counter that your proposal would open a security hole, which is precisely the reason Microsoft did NOT implement it. There are some clueful people working at Microsoft, and tons more who provide beta feedback. To claim that Microsoft somehow "missed" the idea represents a gross misunderstanding of the security benefit that the LUA prompts provide. The prompts are there to confirm this particular action is desired, not authorize this particular application forever.
And the best part IMHO, and the part that Microsoft missed, is that it A) can save your answer and automatically apply it in the future - and matches a program hash to make sure it's the same program
So what you're saying is that Microsoft cluelessly didn't include a "remember my answer" checkbox because they just didn't think the scenario through? Bash them if you must for predatory business practices, but the current design is the only way to ensure users approve of potentially system-damaging operations.
Imagine, if you will, a program that formats disks (or partitions disks, or kills processes, or modifies the registry, or whatever). When a user executes the program to format his floppy disk, Windows will prompt for permission (as it should). The user expects the prompt because he initiated the program and will be responsible for the actions he takes with it. Because he wants to save time next time, he also checks the theoretical "remember my answer" checkbox. After formatting his floppy, he goes along his merry way.
A week later, he downloads and runs slideshow.exe which is harboring malware. This code, running entirely in the user context and with no admin consent, can now call format.exe and format the system drive. No admin prompt, and yet the system was destroyed.
The point is that when the user allows execution of a program, he is not claiming the program is safe from now until kingdom come. He is asserting that he launched the program and that he desires this administrative action to occur. Just because the user launched and approved a particular application once does not mean this application is safe to execute anytime. This is why a "remember my answer" checkbox doesn't exist.
Try http://www.optoutprescreen.com/. It's a federally-mandated service that the big 4 credit reporting agencies use to remove members from their marketing lists. From the site: They allow you to opt out for 5 years (online) or permanently (requires written confirmation). If you're concerned about the legitimacy of a site requesting so much personal information (as you should be!), you can visit the FTC's site for more information and confirmation that they're legit.
One of my local Wells Fargo branches asked for my thumbprint in order to get my balance, after depositing my check. This was despite showing them my ID. They didn't want to see that. When I asked why, and refused to provide a print, I was told to go talk to the manager.
She explained it was a policy to speed up identification, etc.
The customer service agent didn't implement the policy, she doesn't know why she has to collect the thumb print any more than you do. You assumed the thumb print was to provide confirmation of your identity in order to *authorize* the transaction. This is not the case, and also why they don't really care that they've never collected a thumb print before. The purpose of the thumb print is to provide *evidence* after the fact in case there is a fraudulent transaction.
Suppose you are head of Wells Fargo's security department. The CEO has mandated that you implement "greater security" and the CFO demands that you do so on a minimal budget. Which of the following do you choose?
1) Implement a new program requiring millions of customers to come into a physical banking location and establish their authorized thumb print, regardless of their account age, banking history, account balance, or fraud risk. Maintain a secure, reliable, online database of all these thumb prints. Make the database accessible to several thousand banking locations. Implement a near-100% accurate thumb print recognition algorithm. Ensure that all the components in this system can operate at near-instantaneous speed so transactions can be authorized in a timely manner.
Cost to bank: several hundred million dollars
Cost to users: hassle for thumb print at each transaction
2) Implement a new program that requires thumb prints to be taken for each transaction. Thumb prints may be collected on paper, stored at the local banking location, archived only occasionally, and are only ever referenced if a transaction has been flagged as fraudulent. If such a thing does happen, surveillance tapes and the thumb print may be supplied to law enforcement for further action.
Cost to bank: in the tens of millions of dollars
Cost to users: hassle for thumb print at each transaction
Both methods produce essentially the same amount of security, particularly for dumb criminals who may not know that the bank is relying on method 2 and not method 1. I honestly can't say I would have chosen differently either.
You've got the Technet site right (eval use only), but possibly misunderstanding the MSDN terms. Please reference the full MSDN license.
Some snippets from the MSDN license FAQ: The FAQ also addresses production use, which is specifically prohibited, unless you subscribe to MSDN Premium, in which case you can use one copy of Office pretty much however you like.Some people blatanly abuse MSDN licenses by buying a subscription and then using the software however they please. Others understand that the software is intended for dev/test work, but don't realize that right is exclusive of all other use: you're not allowed to use that software for any personal use at all, even in combination with other dev/test activities.
This is basically the same news item originally covered in the September 2006 issue of FastCompany Magazine and reported to Slashdot in late August.
Office is just cluttered. Too many things most people don't use. [...] A simple setting in options for "Basic", "Intermediate", and "Advanced" layout would allow people that want basic use (my Mother) to find what they want quickly, but I change a setting and get the Advanced user interface when I use her PC, then I can put it back just the way she's used to.
This is possibly the worst solution I could imagine to the problem of complex software that is intended for normal users. Can you point to any examples of general-use software (open or closed source) that have successfully implemented a basic/intermediate/advanced toggle switch for its main interface? This idea gets brought up frequently by those with technical experience but who don't design software interfaces for a living (or in their free time, as the case may be). It's an awful idea that only serves to promote the notion that the more complex functionality of the software should be locked away from all but the lords of technology, unavailable to the unwashed masses who are just too unskilled to touch the powerful resources of truly great software.
The reason this idea is bad is that it's impossible to define the subset of software functionality that will never be used by the users you brand as basic or intermediate. While everyone needs the core functionality (for a word processor, things like open, save, copy, paste, print), a large number of basic users need to regularly use functionality you might logically put in the intermediate bucket (headers and footers, tables of contents, tab stops, tables), and a not insignificant number of basic and intermediate users occasionally need the most complex features (mail merge, document comparisons, tracking, and versioning).
By removing these features from the software interface when in intermediate or advanced mode, you're not solving the problem at all. You're postponing and worsening it. As soon as Grandma Mae wants to send out her Christmas letters, or Nephew Ted wants to type out his term paper, you have to preface all your instructions with "turn on advanced mode" at which point they're presented with the mind-boggling array of features that is ostensibly causing the problem in the first place. All of the sudden, the software is unfamiliar again; it's like a whole new program. One can get to insert picture or number pages all right, but where the heck did copy and paste go? And you're back to square one, having accomplished nothing but turned a single software program into three.
If complex software is to be used by inexperienced users, we as software designers must first accept the fact that the users are neither dim-witted nor incapable of understanding complexity. They are simply not intimately familiar with its every nook and cranny. The duty of the software designer is to make complex functionality usable. Be smart about context: only display options that are relevant to the situation. Choose smart defaults and explicitly highlight common configurations. Help shouldn't be an afterthought or even solely contained in an external help file; the software be clear what will be the result of a particular choice. Account for bumbling or exploring users and mistakes: make every action reversible. Error messages should be descriptive and actionable, suggesting probable resolutions.
We have so far to go in software design. Let's not simply route around hard problems, dismissing common users with a switch. Our goal should be to make software accessible to everyone. This is often a very difficult task to design and implement effectively. Accept that this difficulty in software development will always exist, but will pay off many times over in the form of productive and satisfied users. But don't simply turn away common everyday users, they by definition greatly outnumber the skilled technicians, and they deserve the absolute best experience software can deliver.
it will be cheaper than the prepay at $0.02 cents a minute I was paying previously
I take it you work for Verizon?