Absolutely. In fact, I remember kids in my class getting in trouble quite often for using mechanical pencils to take scantrons. Seems dumb enough, but like many other people here have said - a lot of the facts were omitted for sensationalism. It could very well be that the school's criteria required IE.
Doubt it. If anything, I would guess this will be the case where they decide the term "Specific Written Consent" is synonymous with any EULA or application of your signature to a document.
Being an Opera user myself, I do have to admit MS is making the effort. They shouldn't have to do much more than give you the option in "Set Program Access and Defaults." The more I see articles and complaints like this, the more it sounds like these competing companies are expecting Microsoft to do their marketing for them.
And even if it was the House (big "if") that made the changes; it's not propoganda. If anything, most of the changes seem grammatical in nature. The changes to the context only made them seem more speculatory (which is exactly what they need to be when no citation is given).
Sorry, as much as I'd like to scream Foul Play on this one; I can't.
That's the one who is willing to "live with their problem" and use it as a "get out of jail free" card when the opportunity arises. Typically, they seek out the know-it-all or whizkid to help them get by, but the first time they miss a deadline; it's in your lap and it's a red flag issue.
And I'm sure comments like "Microsoft's new operating system had not boosted PC sales, due to concerns over its stability and overall maturity" isn't going to feed the FUD that caused the problem in the first place. If you can't stand by the operating system you choose to sell with your computers (or have made an agreement to sell with your computers), who else will?
The way Microsoft ended Vb6 with no easy upgrade path to.net both irritated developers here and stranded some of them in vb6 with no path to.net
So... Free live webcast classes (and also an archive for ones you missed) on msdn, free licenses for Visual Studio Express and also a VB6 Upgrade Wizard built into the IDE left you feeling "stranded?"
You're entitled to your opinion if you don't like.Net or whatever, but saying Microsoft didn't prepare you or offer you the tools needed to evolve with them is a blatent lie. I was a VB6 developer "back-in-the-day" and I couldn't imagine sitting back and ignoring everything that was happening (this wasn't a surprise to anyone). Everytime I hear a sour VB6er, I always wonder what kind of developer they actually are. 1) It was their first language and they've never had to evolve before 2) They actually are the stereotype lazy VB developer who is just too apathetic to move on or 3) They simply refused becase of misinformation and FUD they read in random articles/blogs written by people who regurgitated it from other articles/blogs in hopes to give their site tech cred (9/10 of the articles you see provide no technical information at all - but since it's MS bashing, people just assume).
Some developers might not like.Net, but Microsoft needed it. If you do some research, you can see exactly how much.Net has opened doors for Microsoft. Sure - every door has a group picketers infront, most of which just happened to be walking by and picked up a sign... But if you take a minute, walk by them and go inside; you're going to pick up on this very quickly and be exceptionally happy you did...
The tools and resources are still out there (all free).
I don't have a link to the article infront of me, but they are also opening up a 1200-1600~ acre shop in Council Bluffs, IA as well. There hasn't been any details given on the type of development being done there, but this new Google expanding is deffinitely getting interesting.
There are only two competitors in the web browser market: Internet Explorer and standards-compliant browsers. By that, do you mean Internet Explorer and CSS Standards compliant browsers? Just because Microsoft has chosen to stay with supporting the HTML 4.0 standards over the CSS3 standards in places they conflict (cousin inheritance comes to mind off the top of my head (bugzilla #915)) - doesn't mean they're not a standards compliant browser. They just follow a different set of standards that are also provided by the W3C.
And yes, Microsoft (IE) has added elements on top of the standards that were given by the W3C, but FF isn't innocent either (Last time I checked - CSS didn't include -moz-border-radius-topleft to round your corners).
Everytime I see a FA like this - it always bothers me how much mud starts getting slinged around and how many of this mud slinging still gets modded up. Get mad at the W3C if anyone - they're the one with conflicting standards. It's like having a futball team and a football team play a match and not telling either one of them whose rules they should play by. Internet Explorer is screaming "encrochment" while FireFox is disputing why IE is holding the ball.
I used the term "stolen goods" for the dramatic effect - but is not far from the truth. If I sell you something I don't own, am I not in essence selling you something that was stolen?
Every MMO's ToS and EULA in the simplest form states that everything in game is property of the parent company. Therefore, you are inevitably selling Blizzard/Sony/Etc.'s assets and knowingly purchase stolen goods. Many people here have asked whether or not you're violating the license/agreement, but that answer is obvious; "Yes, you are." Their policy is clear and there has been many cases of these companies retaking their property. Since no one can stop you from making an attempt to legitimize this market - my question is; "when they ask you to stop, what kind of a response from your company can we expect to see?"
The following are requirements to get your BoCF (Bachelors of Computer Familiatrity)
First Term: The Computer and You.
- You will learn the basics of which components contain any data. Certain peripherals are not useful when seeking evidence. After this course; you will be able to identify the CPU during searches and also learn which components commonly have fingerprints on them.
Second Term: Basic Computer Handling.
- You will learn the basics of how to "unplug" (don't be scared, the class comes with a glossary of this and other "techie-talk" you might encounter) different components. Also, proper lifting techniques to prevent damaging parts.
Third Term: Computer Showmanship
- This class will teach you proper showmanship for the local newspaper photos after your successful seizure. For instance, "which way to face the computer" for the camera. Advanced students will also be allowed to open the computer up and learn what parts to point at for an even more dramatic effect.
Fourth Term: Advanced Seizure Techniques
- In some cases, the computer may be "on" or possibly have a "screensaver" running. This class will teach you the advanced techniques for getting the computer ready to be unplugged, lifted and taken a picture with. Graduates of this class applying things learned throughout the course have had much success in being able to seize a computer (successfuly) for the local news channel.
But with the level of organization involved with "large-scale" terror attacks, isn't tapping public lines just more of a minor hassle for them than a trap? When we openly hand this over, IMO - we are 20x more inconvenienced and effected then the terrorists this is supposed to protect us from.
Maybe Sweden had the right idea. Listen in, get information and don't tell us you're doing it. In 10 or 20 years, our lives are going to be exponentially more public then they are now anyway. By the time the dust settles, the paperwork of what is being monitored and what is private is going to be very detailed (and very public). At that point, we built the minefield and flagged it for them.
A couple of the replies I've ready through have taken a very "it's not biological, so it's not sentient/concious/etc" attitude towards all this. Firstly, I'd like to ask "what defines something as concious/sentient?" Is it ability to react with an enviroment? An understanding of self? We can't even agree on what is true artificial intelligence let alone; what is considered artificial emotion (and to some, they're one in the same).
But just to entertain the idea: I would like for some of those people who are standing on the side of "they'll never be like us" to consider this...
Say we took a human; something we can all agree is both sentient and concious. At what point through modification (be it anything from something as simple as a hearing aids and eyeglasses to neurological implants and cybernetics) is the human no longer sentient or concious? Because the chassis started from a carbon as opposed to silicon, that makes it a true entity?
We are less then a decade (if we're not already in the entrance) of the nanotechnology and biological engineering revolution. Theoretically, our immunizations as a child could be a single syringe filled with nanomachines that act as white blood cells. Vaccinations would be obsolute because we wouldn't have to weaken the virus for them to fight it. As we slept, we could have modules on our night stands that connect to a hospotals servers and do a full "system" check on us. They could upload any information about possible virus strains and after a "course of action" was determined to fight it, you would get an email (or whatever notification) saying that there is an update avaliable and to visit your local hospital or clinic (for security reasons, the bedside module won't be able to make changes to your nanomachines). After walking through a metal detector that updates your nanomachines; you're out, on your way and immunized against all the diseases that could afflict you (or biological warfare outbreaks - which... when the technology first comes out would more then likely be the main motivator for everyone to upgrade. It got us using RFIDs, right? But that's another debate about a different topic).
Now apply that scenario to the question I posed earlier. Which is just one example of how we could be more inegrated into a system.
We are uncomfortable saying a machine could be sentient, but much more uncomfortable saying we could be less.
A couple of the replies I've ready through have taken a very "it's not biological, so it's not sentient/concious/etc" attitude towards all this. Firstly, I'd like to ask "what defines something as concious/sentient?" Is it ability to react with an enviroment? An understanding of self? We can't even agree on what is true artificial intelligence let alone; what is considered artificial emotion (and to some, they're one in the same).
But just to entertain the idea: I would like for some of those people who are standing on the side of "they'll never be like us" to consider this...
Say we took a human; something we can all agree is both sentient and concious. At what point through modification (be it anything from something as simple as a hearing aids and eyeglasses to neurological implants and cybernetics) is the human no longer sentient or concious? Because the chassis started from a carbon as opposed to silicon, that makes it a true entity?
We are less then a decade (if we're not already in the entrance) of the nanotechnology and biological engineering revolution. Theoretically, our immunizations as a child could be a single syringe filled with nanomachines that act as white blood cells. Vaccinations would be obsolute because we wouldn't have to weaken the virus for them to fight it. As we slept, we could have modules on our night stands that connect to a hospotals servers and do a full "system" check on us. They could upload any information about possible virus strains and after a "course of action" was determined to fight it, you would get an email (or whatever notification) saying that there is an update avaliable and to visit your local hospital or clinic (for security reasons, the bedside module won't be able to make changes to your nanomachines). After walking through a metal detector that updates your nanomachines; you're out, on your way and immunized against all the diseases that could afflict you (or biological warfare outbreaks - which... when the technology first comes out would more then likely be the main motivator for everyone to upgrade. It got us using RFIDs, right? But that's another debate about a different topic).
Now apply that scenario to the question I posed earlier. Which is just one example of how we could be more inegrated into a system.
We are uncomfortable saying a machine could be sentient, but much more uncomfortable saying we could be less.
Maybe they should reevaluate their "wait and see" stance? Perhaps while they wait, they can spend some time testing with the assessment tools provided (ahref=http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/windowsv ista/aa905078.aspx/rel=url2html-28637http://techne t.microsoft.com/en-us/windowsvista/aa905078.aspx/> )? Maybe set up a virtual environment with a couple of the different RCs to see how they work out (IE7 and Vista RC1 were both released 8/06)?
If there's one thing we need to give Microsoft credit for, it was preparing us and informing us about the changes. Most everything was public and everyone could plan in some way or another regardless of company size. It was never a secret that IE7 and Vista (along with the various technologies behind them) were meant to "revolutionize" their flagship products (not debating that it actually does).
Some people didn't. The DOT was one of them. Personally, since this is a government organization and therefore; publicly funded with tax dollars... I would like to see the paperwork - timeframes and tests - that Daniel and the people he's responsible for had done to come to this conclusion.
This day and age; it's simply too easy to substitute incompetence with scapegoats...
Slashdot Mirror
Absolutely. In fact, I remember kids in my class getting in trouble quite often for using mechanical pencils to take scantrons. Seems dumb enough, but like many other people here have said - a lot of the facts were omitted for sensationalism. It could very well be that the school's criteria required IE.
Doubt it. If anything, I would guess this will be the case where they decide the term "Specific Written Consent" is synonymous with any EULA or application of your signature to a document.
Being an Opera user myself, I do have to admit MS is making the effort. They shouldn't have to do much more than give you the option in "Set Program Access and Defaults." The more I see articles and complaints like this, the more it sounds like these competing companies are expecting Microsoft to do their marketing for them.
And even if it was the House (big "if") that made the changes; it's not propoganda. If anything, most of the changes seem grammatical in nature. The changes to the context only made them seem more speculatory (which is exactly what they need to be when no citation is given).
Sorry, as much as I'd like to scream Foul Play on this one; I can't.
The Rogue Complainer:
That's the one who is willing to "live with their problem" and use it as a "get out of jail free" card when the opportunity arises. Typically, they seek out the know-it-all or whizkid to help them get by, but the first time they miss a deadline; it's in your lap and it's a red flag issue.
can now be summarized as "mount, grep, w00t"
Hence why the Zune is only mildly successful in the US. ;)
That's because this is slashdot.
When Linux "slowly gains market penetration," it's always a success.
When Microsoft "slowly gains market penetration," it's always a failure.
Is the cup half full or half empty? It all depends on who makes the cup.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncanny_Valley Disagreed :)
Distribute a pirated copy of America's moon landing?
Problem solved.
The piracy of one is a tragedy. The piracy of millions is a discount.
And I'm sure comments like "Microsoft's new operating system had not boosted PC sales, due to concerns over its stability and overall maturity" isn't going to feed the FUD that caused the problem in the first place. If you can't stand by the operating system you choose to sell with your computers (or have made an agreement to sell with your computers), who else will?
How can we argue with that? It's a legitimate question, how can we? The unwavering passion was there, you just forgot to make any valid points.
So... Free live webcast classes (and also an archive for ones you missed) on msdn, free licenses for Visual Studio Express and also a VB6 Upgrade Wizard built into the IDE left you feeling "stranded?"
You're entitled to your opinion if you don't like .Net or whatever, but saying Microsoft didn't prepare you or offer you the tools needed to evolve with them is a blatent lie. I was a VB6 developer "back-in-the-day" and I couldn't imagine sitting back and ignoring everything that was happening (this wasn't a surprise to anyone). Everytime I hear a sour VB6er, I always wonder what kind of developer they actually are. 1) It was their first language and they've never had to evolve before 2) They actually are the stereotype lazy VB developer who is just too apathetic to move on or 3) They simply refused becase of misinformation and FUD they read in random articles/blogs written by people who regurgitated it from other articles/blogs in hopes to give their site tech cred (9/10 of the articles you see provide no technical information at all - but since it's MS bashing, people just assume).
Some developers might not like .Net, but Microsoft needed it. If you do some research, you can see exactly how much .Net has opened doors for Microsoft. Sure - every door has a group picketers infront, most of which just happened to be walking by and picked up a sign... But if you take a minute, walk by them and go inside; you're going to pick up on this very quickly and be exceptionally happy you did...
The tools and resources are still out there (all free).
It's essentially a beefed up task manager that allows you to suspend and kill specific threads and processes.
I don't have a link to the article infront of me, but they are also opening up a 1200-1600~ acre shop in Council Bluffs, IA as well. There hasn't been any details given on the type of development being done there, but this new Google expanding is deffinitely getting interesting.
And yes, Microsoft (IE) has added elements on top of the standards that were given by the W3C, but FF isn't innocent either (Last time I checked - CSS didn't include -moz-border-radius-topleft to round your corners).
Everytime I see a FA like this - it always bothers me how much mud starts getting slinged around and how many of this mud slinging still gets modded up. Get mad at the W3C if anyone - they're the one with conflicting standards. It's like having a futball team and a football team play a match and not telling either one of them whose rules they should play by. Internet Explorer is screaming "encrochment" while FireFox is disputing why IE is holding the ball.
I used the term "stolen goods" for the dramatic effect - but is not far from the truth. If I sell you something I don't own, am I not in essence selling you something that was stolen?
Every MMO's ToS and EULA in the simplest form states that everything in game is property of the parent company. Therefore, you are inevitably selling Blizzard/Sony/Etc.'s assets and knowingly purchase stolen goods. Many people here have asked whether or not you're violating the license/agreement, but that answer is obvious; "Yes, you are." Their policy is clear and there has been many cases of these companies retaking their property. Since no one can stop you from making an attempt to legitimize this market - my question is; "when they ask you to stop, what kind of a response from your company can we expect to see?"
The following are requirements to get your BoCF (Bachelors of Computer Familiatrity)
First Term: The Computer and You.
- You will learn the basics of which components contain any data. Certain peripherals are not useful when seeking evidence. After this course; you will be able to identify the CPU during searches and also learn which components commonly have fingerprints on them.
Second Term: Basic Computer Handling.
- You will learn the basics of how to "unplug" (don't be scared, the class comes with a glossary of this and other "techie-talk" you might encounter) different components. Also, proper lifting techniques to prevent damaging parts.
Third Term: Computer Showmanship
- This class will teach you proper showmanship for the local newspaper photos after your successful seizure. For instance, "which way to face the computer" for the camera. Advanced students will also be allowed to open the computer up and learn what parts to point at for an even more dramatic effect.
Fourth Term: Advanced Seizure Techniques
- In some cases, the computer may be "on" or possibly have a "screensaver" running. This class will teach you the advanced techniques for getting the computer ready to be unplugged, lifted and taken a picture with. Graduates of this class applying things learned throughout the course have had much success in being able to seize a computer (successfuly) for the local news channel.
But with the level of organization involved with "large-scale" terror attacks, isn't tapping public lines just more of a minor hassle for them than a trap? When we openly hand this over, IMO - we are 20x more inconvenienced and effected then the terrorists this is supposed to protect us from.
Maybe Sweden had the right idea. Listen in, get information and don't tell us you're doing it. In 10 or 20 years, our lives are going to be exponentially more public then they are now anyway. By the time the dust settles, the paperwork of what is being monitored and what is private is going to be very detailed (and very public). At that point, we built the minefield and flagged it for them.
Formatted.... Sorry. :(
A couple of the replies I've ready through have taken a very "it's not biological, so it's not sentient/concious/etc" attitude towards all this. Firstly, I'd like to ask "what defines something as concious/sentient?" Is it ability to react with an enviroment? An understanding of self? We can't even agree on what is true artificial intelligence let alone; what is considered artificial emotion (and to some, they're one in the same).
But just to entertain the idea: I would like for some of those people who are standing on the side of "they'll never be like us" to consider this...
Say we took a human; something we can all agree is both sentient and concious. At what point through modification (be it anything from something as simple as a hearing aids and eyeglasses to neurological implants and cybernetics) is the human no longer sentient or concious? Because the chassis started from a carbon as opposed to silicon, that makes it a true entity?
We are less then a decade (if we're not already in the entrance) of the nanotechnology and biological engineering revolution. Theoretically, our immunizations as a child could be a single syringe filled with nanomachines that act as white blood cells. Vaccinations would be obsolute because we wouldn't have to weaken the virus for them to fight it. As we slept, we could have modules on our night stands that connect to a hospotals servers and do a full "system" check on us. They could upload any information about possible virus strains and after a "course of action" was determined to fight it, you would get an email (or whatever notification) saying that there is an update avaliable and to visit your local hospital or clinic (for security reasons, the bedside module won't be able to make changes to your nanomachines). After walking through a metal detector that updates your nanomachines; you're out, on your way and immunized against all the diseases that could afflict you (or biological warfare outbreaks - which... when the technology first comes out would more then likely be the main motivator for everyone to upgrade. It got us using RFIDs, right? But that's another debate about a different topic).
Now apply that scenario to the question I posed earlier. Which is just one example of how we could be more inegrated into a system.
We are uncomfortable saying a machine could be sentient, but much more uncomfortable saying we could be less.
A couple of the replies I've ready through have taken a very "it's not biological, so it's not sentient/concious/etc" attitude towards all this. Firstly, I'd like to ask "what defines something as concious/sentient?" Is it ability to react with an enviroment? An understanding of self? We can't even agree on what is true artificial intelligence let alone; what is considered artificial emotion (and to some, they're one in the same). But just to entertain the idea: I would like for some of those people who are standing on the side of "they'll never be like us" to consider this... Say we took a human; something we can all agree is both sentient and concious. At what point through modification (be it anything from something as simple as a hearing aids and eyeglasses to neurological implants and cybernetics) is the human no longer sentient or concious? Because the chassis started from a carbon as opposed to silicon, that makes it a true entity? We are less then a decade (if we're not already in the entrance) of the nanotechnology and biological engineering revolution. Theoretically, our immunizations as a child could be a single syringe filled with nanomachines that act as white blood cells. Vaccinations would be obsolute because we wouldn't have to weaken the virus for them to fight it. As we slept, we could have modules on our night stands that connect to a hospotals servers and do a full "system" check on us. They could upload any information about possible virus strains and after a "course of action" was determined to fight it, you would get an email (or whatever notification) saying that there is an update avaliable and to visit your local hospital or clinic (for security reasons, the bedside module won't be able to make changes to your nanomachines). After walking through a metal detector that updates your nanomachines; you're out, on your way and immunized against all the diseases that could afflict you (or biological warfare outbreaks - which... when the technology first comes out would more then likely be the main motivator for everyone to upgrade. It got us using RFIDs, right? But that's another debate about a different topic). Now apply that scenario to the question I posed earlier. Which is just one example of how we could be more inegrated into a system. We are uncomfortable saying a machine could be sentient, but much more uncomfortable saying we could be less.
Maybe they should reevaluate their "wait and see" stance? Perhaps while they wait, they can spend some time testing with the assessment tools provided (ahref=http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/windowsv ista/aa905078.aspx/rel=url2html-28637http://techne t.microsoft.com/en-us/windowsvista/aa905078.aspx/> )? Maybe set up a virtual environment with a couple of the different RCs to see how they work out (IE7 and Vista RC1 were both released 8/06)?
If there's one thing we need to give Microsoft credit for, it was preparing us and informing us about the changes. Most everything was public and everyone could plan in some way or another regardless of company size. It was never a secret that IE7 and Vista (along with the various technologies behind them) were meant to "revolutionize" their flagship products (not debating that it actually does).
Some people didn't. The DOT was one of them. Personally, since this is a government organization and therefore; publicly funded with tax dollars... I would like to see the paperwork - timeframes and tests - that Daniel and the people he's responsible for had done to come to this conclusion.
This day and age; it's simply too easy to substitute incompetence with scapegoats...